Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Victoria Silver to her first meeting as a member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and expressed thanks to Councillor Bill Phillips for his contribution to scrutiny.  He also welcomed the Borough Commander, the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety, the Divisional Director of Community and Culture and other officers.

The Chairman indicated that with the Committee’s agreement, the agenda would be re-arranged in order that item 10, Update on Recommendations from Delivering a Strengthened Voluntary and Community Sector, be considered first.  The items Community Safety Plan and Safer Harrow Annual Strategic Assessment would then be considered together.

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:-

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 8 - Community Safety Plan 

Councillor Sue Anderson declared personal interests in that she was a neighbourhood champion and was employed by NHS Harrow.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Kam Chana declared a personal interest in that he was a neighbourhood champion.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Susan Hall declared personal interests in that she had previously been the relevant Portfolio Holder and a member of Cabinet and was also a neighbourhood champion.  She also declared that was a member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon unless there was discussion on specific schemes and her interest became prejudicial, in which case she would leave the room.

Councillor Phillip O’Dell, who was not a member of the Committee, declared a personal interest in that he was a neighbourhood champion. He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Paul Osborn declared a personal interest in that he had previously been a member of Cabinet and was also a neighbourhood champion.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon unless there was discussion on specific schemes and his interest became prejudicial, in which case he would leave the room.

Councillor Sachin Shah declared a personal interest in that he was a neighbourhood champion.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Stephen Wright declared a personal interest in that he was a neighbourhood champion.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 10 – Update on recommendations from Delivering a Strengthened Voluntary and Community Sector

Councillor Ann Gate declared a personal interest in that her husband was a trustee of Harrow Association of Voluntary Service, Citizen Advice Bureau and Harrow in Europe.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2011 and of the Special meeting held on 12 May 2011 be taken as read and signed as correct records.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 27 April 2011 and of the special meeting held on 12 May 2011 be taken as read and signed as correct records, subject to a correction to Minute 137 of the ordinary meeting in that as Councillor Ann Gate had submitted apologies to the meeting, she had therefore not taken part in the vote.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were received at the meeting under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions had been received.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 16 (Part 4B) of the Constitution.

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received at the meeting under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 16.

(if any).

RESOLVED:  To note that no references had been received.

Report of the Divisional Director of Community and Culture

The Divisional Director of Community and Culture introduced the report which provided an update on actions taken against the recommendations of the scrutiny review ‘Delivering a Strengthened Voluntary Sector’.  She drew Members’ attention to appendix 1 to the report and the priority areas of activity going forward which had also been discussed at the Grants Advisory Panel the previous evening.

The Divisional Director of Community and Culture reported that work with the voluntary sector representatives was being undertaken to determine a replacement for the services previously provided by Harrow Association of Voluntary Service.  Work was also being done to finalise the Compact funding code.  An officer advised that the code had been drafted with the needs of the voluntary sector in mind and was not expected to be finalised until October 2011.

Members expressed concern that the report was not as up to date as it should be in terms of training on the Compact and compliance with the existing grants criteria and process and that it was also not clear whether or not the Compact was a legal document.  Members challenged the report in terms of whether it reflected the concerns expressed at the previous meeting.  An officer advised that the actions had been updated and the Strategic Partnership had ownership of the Compact. When the Compact was written it did not have a legal status but a previous Court ruling had taken it into consideration.  The officer undertook to feed the Member’s comments back to the relevant officers.

In terms of a strategic Third Sector Investment Plan for 2012/13 onwards, a Member questioned whether other Councils or partners had been consulted to share benchmarking.  An officer confirmed that best practice from other Councils on Third Sector finance had been taken on board and that there had been discussions with the voluntary sector.

In response to a Member’s question on governance arrangements, the Divisional Director of Community and Culture advised that the Council as a whole was considering this issue.  This had also been raised by the Grants Advisory Panel the previous evening.

A Member suggested that as there was to be a fundamental change from the grants process to commissioning, this matter should be included on the scrutiny work programme.  This would ensure that the Committee were kept informed of progress.

RESOLVED:  To

(1)               note the updates and further actions against recommendations as described in Appendix 1 to the report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment;

(2)               receive a further report in the autumn on the delivery of the Third Sector Strategy and updated action plan.

Report of the Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance.

In accordance with the Local Government Act (Access to Information) Act 1985, the Community Safety Plan had been admitted late to the agenda in order that it could be considered as near to the beginning of the period to which it applied as possible.

An officer introduced the report, which brought together the plans of the Council, the Police and the Probation Service as well as a range of other agencies to address crime and anti-social issues identified in the Strategic Assessment which appeared elsewhere on the agenda.  He advised that its purpose was not to develop policy but to report what the various services were committed to doing.  The Plan would shortly be abolished as it was not an essential policy development tool but it was likely that there would be an update in 2012 and then no further Plan.

The Borough Commander tabled a presentation on the Restructure of the Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) and advised that the Leader of the Council, Leader of the Opposition and Cabinet had been briefed on the current position.  During the course of his presentation he reported that:

·                     SNTs would maintain their existing structure, with an ability to temporarily move resources across ward boundaries in response to specific safer neighbourhood problem solving demand.  This flexibility would mean that resources could be moved to busier wards.  As the wards of, for example, Greenhill and Wealdstone had more issues, it would be helpful to move staff on a 1-2 week attachment from, say  Pinner South ward, should the need arise.

·                     The current numbers of two Police Constables (PCs) and three Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) would remain unchanged in each ward.

·                     Five Sergeants would be removed and some teams would be required to share a sergeant.  He would need to place resources in accordance with demand.  Across the Metropolitan Police Service, 150 sergeants would be removed.

·                     A sergeant would lead the Problem Solving and Anti Social Behaviour teams.

·                     The Harrow Community Board would oversee the actions of the Anti Social Behaviour response team and assist in the development of priorities for the SNT Tasking Team.  The Board would comprise representatives and a deputy from each of the SNT clusters.

·                     SNTs should embody problem solving.

·                     Harrow was the only borough in London with a Community Board.

Following the presentation, Members made a number of comments and asked questions as follows:

·                     A Member challenged the proposals in that he felt it was a move away from SNTs.  Every person in the borough had a basic right to minimum policing and he did not agree that staff should be moved across wards.  The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) website stated that there were 386 police officers in Harrow and the Member suggested that 85% of the Borough Commander’s staff could be moved into a problem area should the need arise.  These views were not supported by some of the other Members of the Committee who felt that flexibility was the key.  The Borough  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

Report of the Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance.

In accordance with the Local Government Act (Access to Information) Act 1985, the Safer Harrow Annual Strategic Assessment 2011/12, had been admitted late to the agenda due to its links with the Community Safety Plan which appeared elsewhere on the agenda.

The Committee received a report which set out the Strategic Assessment. The Strategic Assessment analysed crime data to identify the most prevalent crime and anti-social behaviour issues in Harrow and was considered by the Committee in conjunction with the Community Safety Plan.

A Member stated that the report did not set out the actions being taken to reduce fly tipping.  An officer reported that there was a specialist team within Community Safety who investigated fly tipping, tried to identify the perpetrators and undertook enforcement action.  In terms of wider prevention, the team was working with the Joint Intelligence and Joint Analysis Units. Clear up work and effective enforcement sustained improvements made.

Following the discussion on the Community Safety Plan and the reported need for flexibility in terms of moving SNT staff across ward boundaries, a Member drew attention to the figures in relation to thefts from motor vehicles and residential burglaries where Pinner South appeared in the top six.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

(See also Minute 151)

Report of the Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance

The Chairman of the Challenge Panel tabled a presentation on the Standing Scrutiny Review of the Better Deal for Residents Programme.  He outlined the approach to the Review, the objectives, the summary of the Group’s findings and the implications of failing to implement the recommendations.

The Committee welcomed the report and congratulated the Challenge Panel on their excellent piece of work.  A Member did, however, express concern that it had been necessary for Members to do this work as the issues raised should have been addressed as a matter of course as they would be in a business.  It was hoped that senior managers would take the recommendations on board.  The Chairman of the Panel reported that the resident participants had been surprised that the report had been necessary and had been instrumental in strengthening the recommendations and were keen to progress the project.

Another Member echoed the views previously stated and added that a weakness was that Better Deal for Residents (BDfR) had been set up in the run up to an election.  Whilst accepting its remit needed to be change, he expressed concern that the BTP Panel had been abolished.  He indicated that an increase in Member oversight of the project was required.

A Member questioned whether communication in relation to improving the corporate culture for customer satisfaction and resident involvement could be addressed.  The Chairman of the Challenge Panel advised that he had spoken to the manager of Access Harrow with a view to improving the board displays on the ground floor of the Civic Centre by including customer feedback.  An officer added that residents had indicated that the Council should talk to them as they may know a solution to an issue better than officers.  Any further review could consider how residents’ opinions were being addressed.

Further to the question in relation to communication, a Member stated that the communication on BDfR had not been good.  He expressed concern that there had not been a new communication plan since May 2010 and no meetings of the Communications Review Group.  Another Member advised that there was a new Communications Plan and referred the Member to the Assistant Chief Executive.

The Interim Director of Finance reported that the Corporate Strategy Board had recently received a paper on project management recommending that project management should be across the local authority.  It had, however, been agreed that one size did not fit all.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the report from the Standing Scrutiny Review of the Better Deal for Residents Programme be agreed;

(2)               the report be referred  to Cabinet in July for consideration.