Agenda and minutes

This was not required. 

The Mayor’s Chaplain to give a blessing.

The Mayor’s Chaplain, Father Andrew read a prayer. 

The Mayor made the following announcements: 

• She thanked Father Andrew for offering the prayers.

• At Capel Manor she had hosted the Mayor’s Day, also attending the fiftieth anniversary celebrations for both the Enfield Talking Newspaper and the Ruth Winston Centre.

• She had welcomed members of the royal family to the borough, presented awards, visited schools, community groups and recently joined the community in a march to raise awareness against knife and gun crime.

• Following a visit by the Mayor, Durants School had won £60,000 in the ITV Peoples’ Jubilee Millions show. This money will be used to build a sensory garden at the school which would enhance the quality of life of autistic children and their families. 

• Recently the Deputy Mayor Kate Anolue attended the London Company Programme Innovation Awards: Latymer School won 2 awards for their innovative solution to the problem of tangled earphones.

• The Mayor’s Charity Fun Run will take place on 11September 2011. She asked that if members were taking part or knew someone else who was, that they were supported with sponsorship for the mayor’s charity appeal or other worthy causes.

• On the 15 September there will be a Fund Raising dinner at the Karpasianea Restaurant. Tickets cost £35.  All are invited to dine with the Mayor.  Rhoda Aldridge or George Savva were selling tickets.

• On Sunday 2 October the Mayor will attend a Harvest Festival & Civic Service at St Matthews Church, South Street at 10am.  Invitations would be issued in September and the Mayor hoped that people would join her.

• The Mayor asked members to stand for one minutes silence in memory of Molly Stanbridge, a former Freeman of the Borough who had died recently.  During her life Molly belonged to a number of organisations, both political and non political which expressed her views on the importance of social justice and the rights of individuals, particularly those who were disadvantaged.   She would be fondly remembered by all who knew her.  The Council then rose to observe the minutes silence.

• The Mayor reminded members that, as the public gallery was closed, the meeting was being streamed live for the public, via a video link in the conference room.  John Austin (Assistant Director Corporate Governance) made a brief statement to explain the reason for the closure of the public gallery, which had been agreed pending structural works to renew the safety barriers at the front of the gallery.  The closure had been based on advice received from the police and Council’s Facilities Management and Health & Safety teams.

To approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the Council meeting held on 4 May 2011.

AGREED that the minutes of the Council meeting held on 4 May 2011 be confirmed and signed as a correct record

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Anne Marie Pearce, Rohini Simbodyal & Chris Murphy.  Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Bambous Charalambous, Yusef Cicek, Christopher Cole, Chris Deacon, Martin Prescott and Ann Zinkin.

Members of the Council 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.

Councillor Ayfer Orhan declared a personal interest in Item 7 – Opposition Business: School Places & Education Provision as an employee of the Young Peoples Learning Agency.

Councillor Joanne Laban declared a personal interest in the following items:

(a)         Item 7 – Opposition Business: School Places & Education Provision as her brother (Mathew Laban) was chair of governors at the Woodpecker Free School.

(b)    Item 13 - Councillors Questions (No.27 relating to the chair of Enfield Homes) as her brother (Mathew Laban) was referred to within the response.

Councillor Brett moved and Councillor Lamprecht seconded a proposal to change the order of business on the agenda under paragraph 2.2 (page 4-5) of the Council’s Procedure Rules to enable the meeting to take item 14.2 as the next item of business.

This was agreed by the Council.

Before this item was considered, the Assistant Director Corporate Governance provided the following advice relating to the involvement of members of the London Borough of Enfield’s Planning Committee in the debate.  Any planning application relating to the Pinkham Way site would be a matter for the London Borough of Haringey’s Planning Committee to determine.  Whilst the London Borough of Enfield’s Planning Committee would be invited to submit views on the application, as part of the usual planning process, it was not felt this would create any issues relating to predetermination and therefore preclude its members from participating in the debate on the motion.

Councillor Lavender moved and Councillor Neville seconded the following motion:

“Enfield Council resolves to

(i)           object to the identification of Pinkham Way as a suitable site for waste recycling, treatment and related uses in the North London Waste Plan’ and

(ii)     call upon Haringey Council to apply rigorously the sequential test advocated in the North London Waste Plan in order to reject any planning application for waste uses on the Pinkham Way site.”

During the debate Councillor Goddard moved and Councillor Bond seconded the following amendment:

“1.     Enfield Council recognises:

1.1    The Mayor’s London Plan waste targets for self sufficiency and the Mayors emerging draft replacement London Plan's aspirations for regional self sufficiency for waste management.

1.2    That a decision was taken in 2009 to include Pinkham Way in the NLWP.

1.3    That Councillor Neville, then Enfield Council’s Cabinet member for Environment and the Street Scene chaired the NLWP.

1.4    That a decision was taken by the NLWA to buy Pinkham Way from Barnet Council in 2009.

1.5    That in 2009, when the decision was taken to buy Pinkham Way from Barnet Council, Councillor Lavender, then Deputy Leader of Enfield Council and Vice-chair of NLWA, and Councillor Hurer, then a Cabinet member of Enfield Council, represented Enfield Council on the NLWA.

1.6    That in May 2010, there was a change of administration in Enfield, from Conservative to Labour, and its nominations to the NLWP and the NLWA changed.

2.      This Council further recognises that Enfield and its residents have borne the responsibility of managing more than their share of waste arising from the seven authorities that make up the NLWA. Therefore, this Council believes that there should be no increase in the management of waste at the Edmonton Eco-Park or elsewhere in the London borough of Enfield.

3.      Therefore, this Council calls upon the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition to write to the Leader of Barnet Council that Barnet Council should withdraw its proposal to park its refuse vehicles at Pinkham Way.

4.      This Council believes that the outline planning application to Haringey Council for Pinkham Way should not be determined before the outcome of the Examination In Public of the NLWP.

5.      That the Leader of the Council should write to the Leader of Haringey Council with the full text  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

An issues paper prepared by the Conservative Group is attached for the consideration of Council.

The Constitution Procedure Rules relating to Opposition Business are attached for information.

Councillor Kaye introduced the issues paper prepared by the Conservative Group, highlighting that in his view schools were failing the current generation of pupils, who were leaving education lacking the skills and work ethic employers required.  Whilst recognising that Enfield had seven Academies, the Opposition Business Paper was looking for the Council to more proactively embrace Government policy relating to the creation of academy and free schools.

Whilst also appreciating the pressure to address the demand for pupil places, concerns were highlighted at the decision to locate a new partnership school within vacant retail premises on Fore Street, Edmonton.  These concerns related to design of the building, the potential impact on the sibling link and as it was not felt to be the best environment for education.  In addition concerns were also highlighted in relation to the decision to expand Worcesters School, which had not been identified as a proposal within the revised Pupil Places Strategy agreed by Cabinet in November 2010.  The Opposition Group felt there was a need to examine more practical alternatives and increase the level of consultation regarding the development of additional school places.

Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, responded on behalf of the majority group.  Welcoming the debate on this issue she advised that the one of the Administration’s highest priorities was to ensure a place was available in a good school for every child in the borough.  The revised primary school places strategy was being implemented with a secondary school strategy due out in autumn 2011.  Whilst the number of school places had been increased, the current government had limited the funding available.  At the same time demand for places was increasing, with an external assessment of projected demand highlighting the need to adopt a more flexible approach to the way these places were planned and provided.  Further demand was also likely to be generated as a result of the Government’s proposed changes to Housing Benefit regulations and social welfare reforms.  Despite significant reductions to the education budget by Central Government it had still been possible to provide additional high quality pupil places using innovative solutions (such as the vacant retail premises on Fore Street) situated close to children’s homes.  Despite being subject to call-in, it was important to note that this decision was subsequently confirmed by Overview & Scrutiny Committee with members supporting the overall strategy.

The tension between the need to create additional pupil places and management of other related issues such as design, traffic and parking had been fully recognised along with the need to look for innovative solutions to address these concerns and ensure full consultation.

The cross party scrutiny review of the primary pupil places strategy undertaken by members of the Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel was also very much welcomed and it was hoped that work on implementation of the strategy would continue, supported by both groups on the Council.

Following a debate, Councillor Kaye summed up on behalf of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Councillor Brett then moved and Councillor Waterhouse seconded a proposal to change the order of business on the agenda under paragraph 2.2 (page 4-5) of the council’s procedure rules to enable the meeting to take Item 11 as the next item of business..

This was agreed by the Council.

To receive the eighth annual report of the London Borough of Enfield’s Standards Committee for 2010/11.  The report sets out the key issues dealt with by the committee during the past year and looks ahead to its priorities for 2011/12.

The report was agreed at the Standards Committee meeting held on 21 April 2011.

Lawrence Greenberg Independent member and Chair of the Standards Committee, moved and Councillor Simon seconded the eighth annual report of the London Borough of Enfield’s Standards Committee 2010/11.

In moving the report Lawrence Greenberg highlighted:

1.      the varied work of the Committee and number of changes to the standards framework being considered, focussed around the Localism Bill currently going through Parliament.  Once agreed, the Committee would need to consider how these changes were implemented.

2.      the work undertaken by the independent members in attending various meetings of the Council in order to raise the profile of the Committee.

3.      that whilst it was possible to resolve most complaints informally, involving the Monitoring Officer and Party Groups, there had been one formal complaint dealt with during 2010/11 and another two to date during 2011/12.  It was hoped that the support of both Groups in resolving these issues informally would continue over the next and future years.

4.      his thanks to all members and officers involved in supporting the Committee for their contributions over the year.

Councillor Simon thanked the Independent members of the Standards Committee for their effort and work over the last year.

AGREED to endorse the 2010/11 Annual Report from the Standards Committee.

Councillor Taylor then moved and Councillor Georgiou seconded a proposal to change the order of business on the agenda under paragraph 2.2 (page 4-5) of the council’s procedure rules to enable the meeting to take Item 13.1 as the next item of business.

This was agreed by the Council.

NOTED that the following urgent question had been received and accepted by the Mayor in accordance with the criteria set out in the constitution.

From Councillor Uzoanya to Councillor Oykener, Cabinet Member for Housing.

“Given the leaked document (Observer newspaper 3 July 2011) from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) which clearly states that up to as many as 40,000 families are threatened with homelessness as a result of the government’s welfare reforms, can Councillor Oykener please explain the potential impact these reforms will have on Enfield.

Can Councillor Oykener also indicate whether he would be willing to write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DWP) to inform him of the impact his reforms are already having on the borough and to advise him of the best course of action to mitigate the further difficulties that will undoubtedly arise if the policy is not immediately halted.”

The following response was provided from Councillor Oykener, Cabinet Member for Housing:

“The leaked letter highlights the same real concerns that both myself and this Administration have previously raised in other responses to consultation on housing changes this year.  I am also pleased to see that the Minister agrees with me in revealing the truth about the Government’s welfare reform.

I have recently attended the Housing Conference, where I heard Grant Shapps, as the Housing Minister, speak.  He maintained that all was well with the proposed reform, but behind the scenes it would appear this is not the case – the letter says it all.

The letter says that 20,000 families will be made homeless as a result of Housing Benefit changes and the movement of families out from central London.  The Opposition have claimed I have been scaremongering on this, but in addition the letter highlights that 23,000 families will not be housed because Housing Associations cannot afford to build family sized homes.

By my calculation that is over 40,000 families whose lives will be ruined.  Instead of saving money the coalition Government’s own estimates say this will cost more.

I expect the impact of the changes in Enfield to be as follows:

(a)         Paragraph 3 of the letter highlights the impact of the changes in relation to additional costs on Councils through increased homelessness and use of temporary accommodation as well as the assessment of additional Housing Benefit/ Local Housing Allowance claims.  The impact on Enfield’s services includes:

·              an increase in households moving out of inner London to outer London boroughs where rents are cheaper.  This will place additional burdens on school places, social and welfare services;

·              more rent arrears, debt and acute poverty and then more homelessness;

·              an increase in levels of overcrowding leading to a detrimental impact on children’s educational attainment and life chances;

(b)    Enfield, along with other London Councils receives a Homelessness Grant from Government to tackle and prevent homelessness.  Last year Enfield received extra government grant to fund homelessness prevention services  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

To receive a report (No.235) from the Director of Health, Housing & Adult Social Care seeking approval to the Enfield Joint Dementia Strategy 2011 – 2016.

The recommendations set out in the report were endorsed at the Cabinet meeting held on 27 April 2011. (Key Decision – Reference No.3260)

Please note the Annexes referred to in the report containing the full strategy have already been circulated to all members as part of the Cabinet agenda from the 27 April 2011.  As agreed by Cabinet, a copy of the Executive Summary from the Strategy has been attached to the above report for consideration by Council.  A copy of the full strategy has been placed, for reference, in the Members Library and, if required, additional copies can also be obtained by contacting James Kinsella (Governance Secretariat).

Councillor McGowan moved and Councillor Brett seconded the report (No.235) of the Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care seeking approval to the Enfield Joint Dementia Strategy 2011-2016.

NOTED

1.      The thanks to officers from both NHS Enfield and the Council for their work in preparing the joint strategy.

2.      The aim of the strategy, setting out how Enfield would develop and deliver health and social care services to better meet the needs of people with dementia and their careers over the next 5 years (2011-2016).  The strategy outlined 11 key strategic objectives that had been developed following consultation with local stakeholders.  The objectives were aligned to the National Dementia Strategy.

3.      The projected increase for demand in dementia services in Enfield as a result of a predicted 44% increase in those with late onset dementia by 2030.

4.      The concerns highlighted during the debate in relation to the additional expenditure identified as required jointly across the NHS and Council.

5.      An implementation plan, including indicative resource implications, had been developed for delivery of the strategy with many of the commissioning intentions identified as cost neutral, to be delivered through either:

a.      reprioritised activity;

b.      more efficient use of existing resources;

c       developing partnerships with primary care services and funding provided

6.      Where implementation of the strategy required additional resources, these would need to be addressed through the Council’s annual budget setting process.

7.      The recommendations set out in the report had been endorsed by Cabinet on 27 April 2011.

AGREED

(1)    To note the contents of the report.

(2)    To approve the Enfield Joint Dementia Strategy 2011-16

NOTED in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8 (page 4-7 – Part 4), the Mayor advised the Council that the time available for the meeting had now elapsed and the remaining items of business would be dealt with in accordance with the expedited procedure.

The remaining items of business were then considered without debate.

To receive a report (No.236) from the Director of Health, Housing & Adult Social Care seeking approval to the Enfield Joint Intermediate Care & Re-ablement Strategy 2011 – 2014.

The recommendations set out in the report were endorsed at the Cabinet meeting held on 27 April 2011.  (Key Decision – Reference No.3259)

Please note the Annexes referred to in the report containing the full strategy have already been circulated to all members as part of the Cabinet agenda from the 27 April 2011.  As agreed by Cabinet, a copy of the Executive Summary from the Strategy has been attached to the above report for consideration by Council.  A copy of the full strategy has been placed, for reference, in the Members Library and, if required, additional copies can also be obtained by contacting James Kinsella (Governance Secretariat).

RECEIVED the report (No.236) from the Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care, seeking approval to the Enfield Joint Intermediate Care and Re-ablement Strategy 2011-14).

NOTED the recommendations set out in the report had been endorsed by Cabinet on 27 April 2011:

AGREED

(1)    To note the contents of the report

(2)    To approve the Enfield Joint Intermediate Care and Re-ablement Strategy 2011-12.

To receive the Scrutiny Annual Report (Report No.26) detailing the work undertaken by the Council’s scrutiny function over the 2010/11 municipal year.

The report was agreed at the Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 28 April 2011.

RECEIVED the report (No.26) from the Head of Scrutiny & Outreach presenting the Scrutiny Annual Report, which detailed the work undertaken by the Council’s Scrutiny function over the 2010/11 municipal year.

NOTED the Annual Report had been agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 28 April 2011.

AGREED

(1)    To endorse the Scrutiny Annual Report for 2010/11, for publication.

(2)       To note the areas identified as future challenges for the scrutiny function, within the Annual Report.

Audit Committee on 7 June 2011 agreed to the establishment of a Remuneration Sub Committee as a Sub Committee of the Audit Committee with the following Terms of Reference:

The Sub-Committee will be responsible for making recommendations to the Cabinet, and Council if appropriate,on strategic pay and remuneration issues relating to staff in posts graded Assistant Director, Director and Chief Executive, plus other salary scales with similar levels of remuneration e.g. some Soulbury scales.

The remit of the Sub-Committee will include consideration of all elements of the Council’s senior management remuneration package, including

(a)    levels of consolidated/fixed salaries;

(b)    elements of variable non consolidated salary payments;

(c)     any additional pay or non pay benefits that could be considered as part of the total remuneration package;

(d)    processes for determining the pay progression of staff;

(e)    termination payments packages;

(f)      parameters and process for appointing senior interim or agency staff

The remit of the Sub-Committee will not extend to consideration of the level of remuneration of individual members of staff (within the context of the agreed policy) as these will be covered by individual contracts of employment.

The Sub-Committee will meet as and when required to:

(a)    determine whether there was any requirement for a formal review on the relevant pay and remuneration markets;

(b)    where necessary, commission relevant research data analysis;

(c)     review any corporate remuneration issues arising out of the Council’s pay progression policies and practices;

(d)    consider any proposals made by Central Government in respect of the pay and remuneration of senior managers.

As a result, Council is asked to agree the following addition to the Terms of Reference for the Audit Committee relating to the establishment of the Sub Committee:

Other issues:

To oversee, through the Remuneration Sub Committee, strategic pay and remuneration issues relating to senior management.

RECEIVED an amendment to the terms of reference for the Audit Committee setting out proposals for establishing a Remuneration Sub Committee with the following terms of reference:

NOTED

1.      The Sub-Committee would be responsible for making recommendations to the Cabinet, and Council if appropriate,on strategic pay and remuneration issues relating to staff in posts graded Assistant Director, Director and Chief Executive, plus other salary scales with similar levels of remuneration e.g. some Soulbury scales.

2.      The remit of the Sub-Committee would include consideration of all elements of the Council’s senior management remuneration package, including:

a.      levels of consolidated/fixed salaries;

b.      elements of variable non consolidated salary payments;

c.      any additional pay or non pay benefits that could be considered as part of the total remuneration package;

d.      processes for determining the pay progression of staff;

e.      termination payments packages;

f.       parameters and process for appointing senior interim or agency staff

3.      The remit would not extend to consideration of the level of remuneration of individual members of staff (within the context of the agreed policy) as these would be covered by individual contracts of employment.

4.      The Sub-Committee would meet as and when required to:

a.      determine whether there was any requirement for a formal review on the relevant pay and remuneration markets;

b.      where necessary, commission relevant research data analysis;

c.      review any corporate remuneration issues arising out of the Council’s pay progression policies and practices;

d.      consider any proposals made by Central Government in respect of the pay and remuneration of senior managers.

AGREED the following amendment to the Terms of Reference for the Audit Committee relating to the establishment of a Remuneration Sub Committee:

The addition under the Terms of Reference covering “Other issues” of the following - To oversee, through the Remuneration Sub Committee, strategic pay and remuneration issues relating to senior management.

13.1    Urgent Questions (Part 4 - Paragraph 9.2.(b) of Constitution – Page 4-9)

With the permission of the Mayor, questions on urgent issues may be tabled with the proviso of a subsequent written response if the issue requires research or is considered by the Mayor to be minor.

Please note that the Mayor will decide whether a question is urgent or not.

The definition of an urgent question is “An issue which could not reasonably have been foreseen or anticipated prior to the deadline for the submission of questions and which needs to be considered before the next meeting of the Council.”

Submission of urgent questions to Council requires the Member when submitting the question to specify why the issue could not have been reasonably foreseen prior to the deadline and why it has to be considered before the next meeting.  A supplementary question is not permitted.

13.2    Councillors’ Questions (Part 4 – Paragraph 9.2(a) of Constitution – Page 4 - 8)

The thirty seven questions and responses are attached to the agenda.

NOTED the thirty seven questions on the Council’s agenda which had received a written reply from the relevant Cabinet Member or Scrutiny Panel Chair.

14.1    In the name of Councillor Taylor

“Council notes the flip flopping of the Secretary of State on bin collections and the u turns on selling off forests and health service reforms.  Given the instability of the coalition, internal splits on virtually every policy, the lack of robust Government policy thinking, a summer of public discontent and the legal challenges to Government, can the Council be confident about National direction?

Council instructs the Cabinet Policy Sub Committee to not only look at the impact of new Government policy but also the likelihood of Government to be able to implement any of it”

14.2    In the name of Councillor Lavender

“Enfield Council resolves to:

(i)                 object to the identification of Pinkham Way as a suitable site for waste recycling, treatment and related uses in the North London Waste Plan, and

(ii)               call upon Haringey Council to apply rigorously the sequential test advocated in the NLWP in order to reject any planning application for waste uses on the Pinkham Way site.”

14.3    In the name of Councillor Headley

“The Enfield Conservative Group deplores the decision of the Enfield Labour run Council not to support option 3.34 of the Draft National Policy on Waste Water, which if implemented would have resulted in the removal of the Deephams Sewage Treatment works from the Montagu Road area of Edmonton and which blights the lives of residents in the east of Edmonton.”

The motions set out below lapsed due to lack of time:

1.      In the name of Councillor Taylor

“Council notes the flip flopping of the Secretary of State on bin collections and the u turns on selling off forests and health service reforms.  Given the instability of the coalition, internal splits on virtually every policy, the lack of robust Government policy thinking, a summer of public discontent and the legal challenges to Government, can the Council be confident about National direction?

Council instructs the Cabinet Policy Sub Committee to not only look at the impact of new Government policy but also the likelihood of Government to be able to implement any of it”

2.      In the name of Councillor Headley

“The Enfield Conservative Group deplores the decision of the Enfield Labour run Council not to support option 3.34 of the Draft National Policy on Waste Water, which if implemented would have resulted in the removal of the Deephams Sewage Treatment works from the Montagu Road area of Edmonton and which blights the lives of residents in the east of Edmonton.”

To confirm any changes to committee memberships.

AGREED the following changes to committee memberships

(1)    Crime, Safety and Strong Communities Scrutiny Panel - Councillor Bakir to replace Councillor Ibrahim.

(2)    Standards Committee - Councillor Cranfield to replace Councillor Brett.

16.1To confirm any changes to nominations to outside bodies.

16.2Appointment of Council representatives to Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee for North Central London Sector

To confirm the appointment of the Chair (Councillor Cazimoglu) & Vice-Chair (Councillor Pearce) of the Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel as the Council’s two representatives on the Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee (JHOSC)  for 2011/12.  The JHOSC was set up in 2010/11 to engage with the NHS on a sector wide basis regarding the North Central London Service and Organisation Review and comprises of five boroughs.

The terms of reference for the JHOSC have been agreed by each of the constituent Councils and are attached for information.

The nomination of Councillors Cazimoglu and Pearce were endorsed and recommended to Council by the Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 25 May 2011.

AGREED the following changes to representation on outside bodies:

(1)    Newlon Housing Association - Councillor Bakir to fill vacancy.

(2)    Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel for the North Central London sector - Councillors Cazimoglu and Pearce to be appointed as the Council’s representatives, as recommended by the Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel on 25 May 2011.

None received.

None received.  

The next meeting of the Council will be held on Wednesday 21 September 2011 at 7.00 p.m. at the Civic Centre.

NOTED that the next meeting of the Council would be held on 21 September 2011 at 7.00pm at the Civic Centre.