Agenda and minutes

Neighbourhood Working

A briefing note on budget spending for Neighbourhood Working was circulated to Members for information.

Willesden Junction Station Councillor Call for Action Request

Andrew Davies (Policy and Performance Officer, Policy and Regeneration) advised that the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham had responded with interest in working with the Council to consider measures to improve the environment around Willesden Junction Station and further discussions with them on this matter would take place after the Local Elections in May.

Genny Renard (Head of Community Safety Partnership Unit, Policy and Regeneration) began by updating Members on ‘Operation Diamond’, a scheme offering community support to offenders who had served less than two years in prison.  Brent was one of the five London boroughs chosen to run the project and involved offenders receiving support from the police, probation staff and Council officers.  Genny Renard advised that there had been a notable reduction in offending since the scheme had started six months ago and Members would receive a further update at a meeting of the Committee in the summer of 2010.  Genny Renard then advised of another scheme involving working with six high level offenders to see the impact their crimes have had on their victims.  The exercise was designed to build confidence for both the victim and the offender and is concluded by a certificate awarding ceremony.  Members noted that the Council had made a bid for Government funding to continue this scheme for a further two years with the existing group and an additional group of six offenders.

Turning to Section 60 authorisations, Genny Renard advised that Section 60 is a search power provided by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that allows senior police officers to authorise constables to stop and search people in a specific area, either because a serious public order problem is expected to arise in the area or because of concerns of offensive weapons or dangerous instruments carrying.  Members heard that complaints in respect of how this power is used had gone down by 48 per cent this year and this could be attributed to improvements in the way the police approached and spoke to the public.  The police would seek to speak to community leaders prior to issuing a Section 60 authorisation and Superintendent Simon Corkhill would provide key community representatives with a short explanation as to why the authorisation was given.  Members heard that 96 authorisations had been issued in the last 12 months in Brent, much lower than Newham, Southwark and Hackney boroughs, which like Brent were trident boroughs, but higher than the non-trident neighbouring boroughs of Ealing, Camden and Harrow.  A total of 4,431 people had been stopped through Section 60 during 2009 in Brent, of which 130 resulted in arrests and 63 of these resulted in cannabis warnings, with no further police action taking place with the remainder.  Some 4,355 of those stopped were male, with 2,210 of Afro-Caribbean appearance, 1,925 aged between 18 and 25 years and 1,607 between the ages of 10 to 17 years.

Members noted the information in the report in respect of the Brent Community Payback scheme.

During discussion, Councillor Mistry, in noting that a significant number of those stopped under Section 60 authorisations were of Afro-Caribbean appearance, asked if such figures were widely publicised in view of the implications this may have.  She also commented on the success of the Community Payback scheme in Queensbury ward.  Councillor John commented that some newly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Stephen Moore (Deputy Head of Service, Environmental Health) introduced the report, stating that gating had initially been introduced as an experimental response to reduce the need for the Council to intervene with rubbish that had been dumped on publically accessible, but privately owned, land.  Funding was first introduced for gating in April 2003, however the success of gating schemes had resulted in demand outstripping the funding available.  Environmental Health now supported the gating programme by undertaking additional gating work funded by Neighbourhood Working.  Members heard that gating was one of a number of measures used to improve an area and make it less accessible for anti-social behaviour, such as rubbish tipping, graffiti and dog fouling.  Other measures included installing barriers, fencing off areas, resurfacing roads or passages and ‘makeovers’ which could involve planting flowers in gated alleyways.

Stephen Moore commented that prioritisation of gating schemes was dependent upon the practicalities of gating, the likelihood of it being effective, value for money and the incidences of environmental crime and anti-social behaviour at the location.  Moreover, residents’ willingness to effectively manage the land after gates had been installed was of high importance.  Stephen Moore stated that the criteria had been broadened from environmental crime to include other forms of anti-social behaviour in the last year and could include relevant crimes such as burglary where access had been gained from the alleyways.

Stephen Moore then described the process once a gating scheme had been identified as the appropriate solution.  A public meeting would be held where local residents, ward councillors and officers would be invited to discuss proposals and for the scheme to progress.  A Residents’ Gating Committee needed to be formed and a scheme required the support of 95 per cent of residents in the area for a formal agreement to be drawn up and signed by the Residents’ Gating Committee and Environmental Health.  Upon installation of the gates, a clean-up day is organised where residents are supported in clearing rubbish and overgrown bushes and brambles and may involve partners from the Community Payback scheme.  Members noted that Streetcare, the local Safer Neighbourhood Scheme, the Neighbourhood Working Team and external partners such as British Waterways may also be involved in gating schemes and provided a good example of effective partnership working.  Stephen Moore advised that a residents’ survey was undertaken three months after the scheme had been introduced and Members noted that the overall approximately 88 per cent of residents felt that gating schemes had been effective in reducing environmental crime and anti-social behaviour.

During discussion, Councillor Mistry sought clarification with regard to funding and commented that gating schemes could sometimes result in displacing crime and anti-social behaviour to a different location.  Councillor Clues in noting that approximately 180 alleyways had been gated against a total of 1,400 in Brent, acknowledged the scale of the task and he enquired whether all alleyways would be assessed for gating needs.  Councillor John commented that alley gating was popular with residents in her ward  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Michael Read (Assistant Director, Policy and Regulation – Environment and Culture) drew Members’ attention to a paper circulated at the meeting that summarised progress on recommendations made by the Town Centre Regeneration Task Group. 

During discussion, Councillor Mistry sought clarification of the definition of ‘town centre’ and stated that food stalls on the pavements of Wembley High Road were undesirable.  Councillor John cited significant improvements to Kingsbury Town Centre as an example of a regeneration scheme being effective.

The Chair enquired whether there was an existing Town Centre Strategy and if so if it was still relevant, as the development of a new strategy appeared to be reliant on funding for an external consultant.  She sought details concerning the timescale for developing a protocol to agreeing priorities and responding to environmental issues raised by town centre managers.  The Chair also asked if there were plans to review the possibility of introducing dual use properties in town centres.  With regard to community safety officers, she asked when they would commence environmental monitoring, especially as funding of the street warden service had ceased.

In reply to the issues raised, Michael Read advised that there was not a specific Town Centre Strategy, but an opportunistic approach was taken to development and where there was a possibility of funding being obtained.  A Development Management Document had been produced to consider ways of town centre regeneration.  Members noted that there was a Town Centre Manager appointed for Wembley Town, however because of the present economic circumstances all non-essential spending for town centre regeneration in Brent had ceased.  Michael Read advised that flexible use of an under-used site was considered, however any approach needed to be mindful not to jeopardise future uses once the economy came out of recession.  Members heard that landlords were sometimes reluctant to relinquish properties or land.  Michael Read added that he would write to Members to update them on when community support officers would be introduced.  The Committee heard that the Local Development Framework set out a hierarchy of town centres, although there was not a comprehensive list of all town centres in Brent.  With regard to food stalls on pavements, Michael Read advised that these were permitted if the stallholder owned the piece of land used and if they had the necessary food hygiene certificate.  However, food stalls would be subject to enforcement action if they did not meet either of these conditions and Michael Read asked that councillors draw attention to any locations where this was perceived to be a problem.

Members had before them the final report from the Transitions Services Task Group and discussed the recommendations in the report.  Councillor Mistry commented that the recommendations made by the task group were sound and complemented other Council strategies.  The Chair stated that although the Council offered a number of services in this area, it was not always clear how these could be accessed.  She felt that young people with disabilities required more attention and suggested this issue be considered in future.

Cathy Tyson (Assistant Director, Policy – Policy and Regeneration) advised that the recommendation with regard to mediation had been removed as it was felt that it was more appropriate that each case be looked at individually. 

RESOLVED:-

(i)         that the final report on the Transitions Service Task Group be noted: and

(ii)        that the recommendations of the Transitions Service Task Group be endorsed and passed to the Executive for approval.

Members discussed future topics that could be considered for the 2010/11 Work Programme.  Members agreed to the Chair’s suggestion that Monitoring of Assessments of Learning Disabilities Day Care Service Users, Young People with Disabilities and Use of Agency Staff be added to the 2010/11 Work Programme.

The Chair thanked Members and officers for their contributions throughout 2010/11.

RESOLVED:-

(i)         that the Work Programme be noted; and

(ii)        that Monitoring of Assessments of Learning Disabilities Day Care Service Users, Young People with Disabilities and Use of Agency Staff be added to the 2010/11 Work Programme.

Stag Lane Clinic

Councillor Mistry raised the issue of the proposed move of the Stag Lane Clinic to portacabins for a period of between two to five years.  She felt the length of time in portacabins would be excessive and unacceptable to both patients and medical staff and she suggested that the current site building could undergo structural repairs at an affordable cost.  Councillor Mistry also expressed concern that there was presently no long term solution proposed for the future of the Stag Lane Clinic.  She requested that this issue be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at the earliest opportunity.

Andrew Davies (Policy and Regeneration Officer) advised that this issue had already been discussed in some depth by the Health Select Committee who would continue to monitor the situation.  He advised that the issue could be raised under Matters Arising at the next Health Select Committee meeting on 24 March 2010 and also discussed at subsequent meetings in 2010/11.  The Chair concurred with Andrew Davies’ comments and requested that the Health Select Committee continue to consider this issue.