Here's a summary of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held by Barnet Council on Thursday 12 June 2025.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee convened to discuss a range of topics, including waste management, financial performance, and community services. Key decisions included endorsing recommendations for Cabinet consideration regarding the North London Waste Authority's Joint Waste Strategy and requesting a plan from the Cabinet to improve recycling rates, particularly in flats. The committee also reviewed the council's financial outturn, considered updates on Barnet Homes repairs, and discussed the Open Door Homes acquisitions programme.

North London Waste Authority (NLWA) – Joint Waste Strategy

The committee scrutinised the NLWA's Joint Waste Strategy, a 15-year plan focusing on waste prevention, reuse, and increased recycling. Councillor Alan Schneiderman, Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change, introduced the strategy, and Martin Kapstick, Managing Director of the NLWA, presented the strategy.

Key discussion points included:

• Recycling Targets: Councillor Lemon raised concerns about Barnet's ability to meet the 50% recycling target by 2030. Councillor Schneiderman acknowledged the challenge and highlighted the reintroduction of food waste collections as a key step.
• Reusable Nappy Scheme: Councillor Lemon also enquired about the Reusable Nappy Fund and how to promote it further.
• Recycling in High-Density Areas: Councillor Daus questioned how the strategy addresses recycling challenges in flats and overcrowded homes. Mr Miller explained targeted efforts, including working with private landlord groups and reviewing waste management policies.
• Handling of Unaccepted Recycling: Councillor Farriott asked about the disposal of recycling that doesn't meet standards. Mr Kapstick explained that the NLWA has a higher contamination threshold than many authorities, meaning less material is rejected for incineration.
• Food Waste Hypocrisy: Councillor Cornelius raised concerns about food waste being incinerated, which Councillor Schneiderman confirmed would not be the case with the new anaerobic digestion¹ facility.
• Cost Implications: Councillor Cornelius also asked about the costs of the strategy, to which Mr Miller responded that government funding and extended producer responsibility would help offset the costs, and that food waste disposal is cheaper than general waste incineration.
• Strategies from Other Boroughs: Councillor Baker asked about strategies used by other boroughs with high recycling rates. Mr Miller confirmed that they were learning from other boroughs, such as Auckland Forest.
• Recycling Accessibility: Councillor Narenthira asked about making recycling more accessible in public places. Mr Miller responded that the focus should be on high-quality curbside recycling, but that additional options like community gift services and household waste recycling centres are available.
• Collection from Flats: Councillor Peter Zinkin, Leader of the Conservative Group, criticised the strategy's lack of concrete plans for improving recycling in flats, which he argued is essential for reaching the 50% target.
• Food Waste Recycling: Councillor Zinkin also questioned whether anaerobic digestion is actually cheaper than incineration, given the fixed costs of the incinerator. Mr Kapstick responded that anaerobic digestion has lower infrastructure and staffing costs.
• Communication: Councillor Kath McGuirk emphasised the importance of clear communication and education to encourage recycling.
• Participation Rate: Councillor Cohen asked what participation rate was needed to achieve a 4% increase in recycling from food waste. Mr Miller said he would provide the figure to the committee.

The committee agreed to recommend that Cabinet look at the implications of the waste strategy and bring back to overview and scrutiny their plan to get from 30 to 50 percent, especially those items that are in addition to the food waste strategy that's already coming back to overview and scrutiny.

Our Plan for Barnet – Delivery and Outcomes Framework, End of Year (EOY) Report for 2024-25

Councillor Ross Houston, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes and Regeneration, presented the report, which provides an overview of the council's performance against its objectives.

Key points from the discussion:

• Poverty Reduction: Councillor Daus asked for specific data on the impact of poverty reduction initiatives. Stephen River said that some data was in appendix B, but more specific information would need to be requested from the service.
• Council Tax Enforcement: Councillor Daus also raised concerns about robust council tax enforcement impacting vulnerable residents. Anissa, Executive Director of Finance, responded that they had investigated and found few upheld complaints against enforcement agents, but welcomed anecdotal data.
• Financial Situation: Councillor Zinkin criticised the report's limited coverage of the council's financial challenges, calling it unbalanced and misleading. Councillor Houston responded that the financial position is covered in detail in other reports.
• Financial Responsibility KPI: Councillor Zinkin also criticised the KPI for financial responsibility, which focuses on council tax collection rather than council expenditure.
• Dementia Friendly Borough: Councillor Farrier asked for examples of how organisations are improving life for people with dementia. Councillor Houston said that there were many examples, and that the volunteer sector was very important.
• Skip Weekend Service: Councillor Lemon asked for feedback on the skip weekend service. Councillor Schneiderman responded that it had been very positive.

The committee agreed to recommend that Cabinet look at the finance section of the report before it is put at Cabinet, and that next year's report has more emphasis on the finance internally of the council not just our ability to collect council facts.

Barnet Homes Repairs Service and Resident Communications

Councillor Houston introduced this report, highlighting the importance of the resident board and the action plan to improve repairs and communications.

Key discussion points:

• Caretaking: Councillor McGuirk raised concerns about caretaking not happening every three weeks as scheduled. The officer responded that they want residents to report non-performance and that they are robust about tackling non-performance.
• Emergency vs Non-Emergency Repairs: Councillor McGuirk also raised the issue of emergency vs non-emergency repairs. The officer responded that the emergency team has improved emergency completion times, but non-emergency repairs still need improvement.
• Domestic Abuse Training: Councillor McGuirk praised the training of contractors in identifying domestic abuse.
• Granular Metrics: Councillor Baker suggested having more granular metrics on the type and impact of repairs. The officer responded that they can take that approach and that they do have all that data.
• Tenant Satisfaction: Councillor Houston noted the high number of compliments received, indicating positive engagement from the workforce.
• Success Stories: Councillor Zinkin suggested editing the report to better highlight success stories.

The committee requested that the cabinet report coming forward in July has further details that are positive and reflective of the actions taken, and there was also a request for updated figures on non-emergency repairs and some figures around directly employed employees.

Open Door Homes Acquisitions Program Update

Councillor Houston presented the report, which addresses the continuation of the program and the need to streamline the approval process.

Key discussion points:

• Draft Letter: Councillor Narafira supported the draft letter to cut red tape.
• Turnaround Repair Time: Councillor Narafira also asked about turnaround repair time after refurbishing acquired homes. The officer responded that a new contractor has started this week and they expect turnaround times to improve.
• Draft Letter: Councillor Zinkin criticised the draft letter to the minister, calling it sycophantic and exceedingly obscure.
• Other Boroughs: Councillor Baker asked if other boroughs could be involved in writing letters of support. Councillor Houston responded that they would look into it.
• Programme Gap: The chair asked what had been learned from the programme gap. The officer responded that they are now looking at things a year before, not four to five months.
• Value for Money: Councillor Zinkin wondered whether perhaps at some stage we could think about putting something into our work program which reflects a review of the sort of value for money aspect.

The committee agreed with the recommendations in the report, and that the next draft of the letter might be useful for the next draft to be forwarded to Councillor Whysall and Councillor Zinkin.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Infrastructure Re-investment Agreement: Edgware Town Centre Growth Area Regeneration Scheme

Councillor Houston presented this report, clarifying that it is separate from the planning process.

Key discussion points:

• Communication with Residents: Councillor Zinkin raised concerns about communication with residents who are opposed to the development.
• Infrastructure Delivery: Councillor Houston responded that this guarantees infrastructure delivery in Edgware.
• Viability: Councillor Zinkin argued that the council is effectively refunding £42 million to the developer to make the scheme viable.
• Public Engagement: The officer responded that the planning process will include a full viability appraisal and community input.

The committee agreed to ask that Cabinet consider how this is communicated to the residents of Edgware.

Youth Justice Plan

Councillors Conway and Cody-Webb presented the Youth Justice Plan, highlighting its focus on preventing youth offending and supporting young people.

Key discussion points:

• Statistics: Councillor Farrier noted that some statistics in the report were outdated. The officer responded that the statistics are based on the 2022 census.
• Detached Youth Workers: Councillor Farrier also asked if the detached youth workers were still being funded. The officer responded that they have secured an extension of the engaged program until 2026.
• Changes Between Years: Councillor Zinkin asked what the changes were between this year and last year. The officer responded that the changes were priority two, which is keeping children and young people at the centre, and the over-representation of black and other diverse backgrounds within the children's system.
• Committee Placement: Councillor McGurk asked why this report was at this committee and not the children's overview and scrutiny committee. Councillor Houston responded that it is a constitutional requirement that it comes to a scrutiny committee, and that it is cross-cutting across portfolios.

The committee agreed to accept the report as it is, and possibly have an appendix that highlights differences.

Chief Finance Officer Report - Financial Outturn 2024/25 and 2025/26 Budget Management

Councillor Radford presented the report, highlighting the overspend and efforts to arrest it.

Key discussion points:

• NHS Debt: Councillor Cornelius raised concerns about the NHS as a large debtor. Councillor Radford responded that it is a priority to chase down those debts.
• Capital Programme Shortfall: Councillor Cornelius also asked about the shortfall in the capital programme. Councillor Radford responded that they have to live within their means.
• Further Education Institutions: Councillor Cornelius asked about the financial position of Middlesex and Hallam. Councillor Radford responded that they are a counterparty risk that needs to be kept an eye on.
• Cost Reduction: The chair asked how they are taking the improvement forward to continue that work. Councillor Radford responded that they are doing work on what savings might persist into following years.
• Cost Reduction: Councillor Zinkin asked what measures are being looked at to satisfy that the programs of cost reduction that we need are actually on track. Councillor Radford responded that they are trying to open the books a bit and let a bit of fresh air in.

The committee was happy to note the report and pass on their thanks to the officers.

Street Scene Business Continuity Fixed Term Lease Arrangement at North London Business Park

Councillor Schneiderman briefly introduced the item, explaining that it is to agree a five-year lease for some of the street scene services to be based at North London Business Park.

Key discussion points:

• Concrete Batching Plant: Councillor Zinkin said that it's extremely important to make the strongest possible objection to the concrete batching class which is proposed to go on the one of the sites because we need it as a waste site.
• Plan B: Councillor Zinkin also said that in the event that that fails, we need a plan B.

Due to the discussion of exempt information, the meeting then moved into private session.