Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Georgiou, Taylor, Goddard and Charalambous.

In Councillor Taylor and Georgiou’s absence the meeting was chaired by Councillor Stafford. 

Members of the Cabinet are invited to identify any personal or prejudicial interests relevant to items on the agenda. Please refer to the guidance note attached to the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest. 

The Chairman will consider the admission of any late reports (listed on the agenda but circulated late) which have not been circulated in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Amendment Regulations 2002.

Note: The above requirements state that agendas and reports should be circulated at least 5 clear working days in advance of meetings.

NOTED that the reports listed on the agenda had been circulated in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Amendment Regulations 2002. These requirements state that agendas and reports should be circulated at least 5 clear days in advance of meetings.

To receive a deputation regarding the proposed extension of the Enfield Town Controlled Parking Zone.

In particular, the deputation will represent residents of Uvedale Road, Walsingham Road, Park Crescent, Whitethorn Gardens and Amwell Close.

(7.05 – 7.25pm)

Councillor Stafford welcomed the deputation members to the meeting. 

The topic of the deputation was the proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) for Uvedale Road, Walsingham Road, Whitethorn Gardens, Park Crescent and Amwell Close.  It was sponsored by Councillor Glynis Vince. 

Steve Rowe presented the deputation to Cabinet and spoke on behalf of the deputees, a summary of which follows:

• Although they had been pleased that 38 roads had been removed from the scheme, the deputees’ main concern was the way that the consultation and the proposals had been handled by the Council.

• He felt that the response to the Council’s consultation exercise had been poor.  When he and neighbouring residents had visited door to door and explained the impact of the proposals, 80% of the residents in the five roads had signed the petition against them. 

• The Council had not made clear the full impact of the proposals to residents: it had only indicated that the signing might be unsightly.  He thought that the consultation papers should have been more transparent and should have included information such as the price of the parking permits, the reduction in the number of parking spaces in the roads affected, that visitor permits would be required for both morning and afternoon sessions.

• Because of the limited amount of information in the documents, he felt that the analysis was flawed and the judgements arising from the consultation weak.   He saw no link between the conclusions and the preferred option.  The report identified possible problems in outer zone roads on one day only and yet an all day all week solution was proposed.  This was the least popular option. 

• In the consultation papers, no information was available on the reasons behind the parking congestion or other possible strategies for addressing the problem.

• In response to freedom of information requests, council officers had asserted that no policy recommendations or position papers have been written to interpret the consultation findings, and that no officer reports or emails exist.  He felt that there should be many reports and if not, proper scrutiny of the proposals had not been carried out.

• In conclusion he felt that the consultation process was flawed, weak data obtained, specious conclusions made, too few options considered and the consultation options put forward were not those supported by residents.  He finally suggested that the real purpose of the CPZ was to raise revenue for the Council. 

Councillor Bond, Cabinet Member for Environment, responded

• The deputation had raised valid points which would be taken into consideration.

• The consultation process had been undertaken on the understanding that if residents were not in favour of CPZs, then they would not be imposed.

• Proposals had been developed following on from the outcomes of the 2009 Parking Review carried out by the previous administration.

• He felt that the Council had listened to what had been said and would be coming back with full recommendations for decision on the wider CPZ proposals for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To confirm that there are no items which require referral to the Council following consideration by the Cabinet.

There were no items referred to Council

A report from the Director of Environment is attached. This will seek approval to award the Highways and Engineering Works Contract to the recommended contractor following the selection and evaluation process (Key decision – reference number 3352)

(Report No.63)

(7.25 – 7.40pm)

Gary Barnes, Assistant Director Highways and Transportation, introduced the report of the Director of Environment (No: 63) seeking approval to award the Highways and Engineering Works Contract to the recommended contractor following the selection and evaluation process.

NOTED

1.         That report number 63 is also referred to in minute 16 below. 

2.         The tender evaluation process had produced a clear outcome.  Accepting the successful tender will be advantageous to the Council and is the cheapest option. 

Alternative Options Considered

Contract periods of 5 and 7 years, with potential extensions of 5 and 3 years respectively, were considered however these could have restricted Enfield’s ability to join one of the pan-London contracts which are currently being developed and programmed to commence in 2013.

Another option considered was to extend the existing contract beyond its current period however this would be a breach of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 ("PCR 2006") and would clearly leave the Council open to a challenge by aggrieved contractors.

Other options considered and investigated were the potential opportunities within the sub-region, regional and national areas, which found no immediate opportunity but did re-confirm the Transport for London Pan-London arrangements. 

DECISION:  The Cabinet agreed to approve contractor A, on the basis that it has provided the most economically advantageous tender. 

Reasons

To ensure that the Council has the ability to fulfill its obligations under the Highways Act, in maintaining the borough’s highway infrastructure by appointing a contractor from a tendering process, enabling continuity when the existing contract ends in November 2011. The contract also provides a delivery mechanism for a range of other Council projects and programmes without the need for further procurement exercises.

The recommended contractor has been assessed to provide the most economically advantageous tender to deliver a range of highway maintenance and engineering projects.

The contract duration of 4 years, with a break clause after 3, provides the potential to join the pan-London arrangements, should they be assessed to provide greater value for money.

(Key Decision Reference Number 3352)

No items have been received for consideration at this meeting.

There were no issues arising from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or the other scrutiny panels.  

Attached for information is a provisional list of items scheduled for future Cabinet meetings.

NOTED

1.                  The provisional list of items scheduled for future Cabinet Meetings.

2.                  Consideration of item 6 on Ordnance Road Development Brief has been deferred from 14 September to the 12 October 2011 meeting to allow for further discussion between Councillors Oykener, McGowan and Goddard on the detail of the proposal and with the NHS on funding arrangements. 

Members are asked to consider any forthcoming key decisions for inclusion on the Council’s Forward Plan.

Note: the next Forward Plan is due to be published on 16 September 2011, this will cover the period from 1 October 2011 to 31 January 2012.

NOTED that the next Forward Plan is due to be published on 16 September 2011 and that this will cover the period from 1 October 2011 to 31 January 2012. 

To receive, for information, the minutes from the following meetings of the Enfield Residents Priority Fund Cabinet Sub-Committee held on:

(a)    Thursday 7 July 2011

(b)    Tuesday 9 August 2011

Cabinet is asked to consider the recommendation from the Sub Committee made on the 9 August 2011 relating to the appointment of an additional member on the Sub Committee, in order to provide greater flexibility in case of members being unable to attend future meetings.

RECEIVED the minutes of the meetings of the Enfield Residents Priority Fund Cabinet Sub Committee meetings held on Thursday 7 July 2011 and Tuesday 9 August 2011.

NOTED the recommendation from the Sub Committee made on 9 August 2011 relating to the appointment of an additional member of the sub committee in order to provide greater flexibility in case of members being unable to attend future meetings. 

DECISION:  The Cabinet agreed that Councillor Bambos Charalambous would be the fourth member of the Enfield Residents Priority Fund Sub Committee.  

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting of the Cabinet held on 13 July 2011.

AGREED that the minutes of the previous meeting of the Cabinet held on 13 July 2011 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record. 

To receive a briefing paper summarising the items discussed at the Enfield Strategic Partnership Board meeting held on 5 July 2011.

NOTED the briefing paper summarising the items discussed at the Enfield Strategic Partnership Board meeting held on 5 July 2011. 

The next meeting of the Cabinet is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 14 September 2011 at 8.15pm at the Civic Centre.

NOTED that the next scheduled meeting of the Cabinet was due to take place on Wednesday 14 September 2011.  (Councillor Orhan extended her apologies for absence at this meeting. 

To consider passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 excluding the press and public from the meeting for the items of business listed on part 2 of the agenda on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in those paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).

(Members are asked to refer to the part 2 agenda)

RESOLVED in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for the items of business listed on part 2 of the agenda on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of confidential information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).

A report from the Director of Environment is attached. This should be read in conjunction with Report No.63, agenda part one refers.

(Report No.64)

(7.50 –  8.00pm)

(This document contains exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as amended).

(Key decision – reference number 3352)

Councillor Bond (Cabinet Member for Environment) introduced the report of the Director of Environment (No: 64) seeking approval to award the Highways and Engineering Works Contract to the recommended contractor following the selection and evaluation process. 

NOTED

1.                  That Report No 63 also referred, as detailed in Minute 6 above. 

2.                  Tenderer A had produced the cheapest tender with a potential saving of around 25% for programmed project works delivery costs.  Reactive work would be more expensive, but added together reactive and programmed works were still less than the other tenders. 

3.                  Evaluation took account of existing service delivery programmes for services including areas such as gully cleansing and winter maintenance.

4.                  Contractor A (as detailed in the report) offered best financial value, as well as scoring high overall with a score of 99 out of 100. 

5.                  The quality of work of the existing contractor was highly praised and Enfield had developed a very good relationship with the company.  It was expected that a similar relationship would be developed with the new company. 

6.                  As the specification remains the same it was anticipated that the quality of workmanship would be maintained.  Work would continue to be monitored by council officers. 

7.                  Enfield demands a higher standard than neighbouring authorities, including a one hour response time which should ensure that quality is kept up to current standards.

8.                  Some concern was expressed about salt stocks for winter maintenance, but members were assured that arrangements would be made to maintain these.

9.                  Budgetary pressures would be managed as currently, depending on need. 

Alternative Options Considered:  As detailed in Report No:  63, Minute No:  6 refers. 

DECISION:  The Cabinet agreed

1.         To approve Contractor A (as detailed in the report) on the basis that it has provided the most economically advantageous tender.

2.         That the identified shortfall in revenue funding be addressed through the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan. 

Reason:  As detailed in Report No:  63 Minute No 6 above refers