Issue - items at meetings - OPPOSITION BUSINESS

Issue - meetings

OPPOSITION BUSINESS

Meeting: 24/06/2015 - Council (Item 33)

33 Opposition Business - The current aesthetics in the borough, wheeled bins and bulk waste collection pdf icon PDF 810 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Laban introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

 

1.         Keeping the boroughs streets clean was a statutory responsibility for the Council and was important not only in terms of resident’s health and wellbeing but also in terms of the quality of the environment and how the Council was judged as a local authority.

 

2.      The need to recognise the impact of environmental issues on the borough “brand” and how any deterioration in the service, particularly in relation to waste collection and street cleansing would affect perceptions amongst residents, customers and potential investors about the Council’s ability to deliver its core service and manage large scale projects and functions.

 

3.      The need to ensure that the boroughs streets were kept clean and free from fly tipping in order to reinforce the fact that Enfield remained a good place to live, work, visit and do business.

 

4.      Concerns had been identified about the current standard of street cleansing along with levels of fly tipping across the borough, supported by images provided within the Opposition Business paper.  Fly tipping rates had been rising year on year since 2012 with the Council also failing to meet its own residual waste target level, according to the most recent Quarterly Performance monitoring report.

 

5.      Whilst it was anticipated that the Majority Group would highlight reductions in Government funding in response to their paper the Opposition Group felt the impact of the following policies introduced by the current Administration also needed to be highlighted:

·                Increase in fees for the bulky waste collection service;

·                Change in operating procedures at the Barrowell Green Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC);

·                Introduction of a charge for providing large wheeled bins

 

6.      In addition the Opposition Group felt that the current arrangements for reporting incidents of fly tipping were over complicated and not customer friendly, with the recently established social media campaign #cleanupenfield given as an example of how the process could be made more customer friendly and streamlined.

 

As a result of these issues the Opposition Group had identified the following actions, recommended within their Business Paper as a means to achieve the improvements felt necessary to Enfield’s street scene:

 

(a)     make it easier for the public to report fly tipping via social media, website, phone and email;

 

(b)     take a strategic approach to areas where fly tipping was happening on a recurring basis;

 

(c)     install cameras where fly tipping was prevalent;

 

(d)     ensure greater integration between Environment and the Council Housing fly tip crews;

 

(e)     introduce a fly tipping amnesty day where people could leave bulky waste out for collection free of charge;

 

(f)      review fees and charges for bulky waste collection to make it more affordable to use the service;

 

(g)     issue a clear communication message to fly tippers that enforcement action would be taken

 

(h)     establish a community engagement campaign on the right way to dispose of rubbish.

 

Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment, responded on behalf of the Majority Group  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33


Meeting: 25/03/2015 - Council (Item 168)

168 Opposition Business - The cost of Temporary Accommodation and what can be done about it pdf icon PDF 104 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Smith introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

 

1.         The opportunity was being taken to raise housing as an area for debate in view of the spiralling cost of Temporary Accommodation and action being taken to address this issue both in terms of managing supply and reducing the overall level of demand.

 

2.      The complexity of the issues to be addressed were recognised, with the paper looking to highlight the work also being undertaken by officers and members involved in the review currently being undertaken by the Temporary Accommodation Scrutiny Work Stream who had been looking at what could be done to resolve the issues around the rising level of need for temporary accommodation in Enfield.

 

3.      The cost of providing temporary accommodation for households accepted as homeless was now the single largest cost pressure facing the Council over the next financial year, with the cost pressure identified for 2015/16 identified as £7.7m.

 

4.      Whilst the obvious solution would be to provide more affordable homes the measures in place to increase housing supply were expensive and would also take time to deliver.  The Opposition Group were also not supportive of the approach being taken under the Housing Gateway initiative given the impact on the local housing market.  The paper had not, however, focussed on these measures as the need to build more housing was accepted between political parties at both a local and national level.  In addition the paper had not focussed on the impact of “Right to Buy” as an issue, given this was current Government policy that the Council had little, if any influence over.  Another major issue highlighted related to population increase and migration, although again it was accepted this was something beyond the immediate control of the Council.

 

5.      The Opposition Group had identified a number of more locally focussed measures which they felt would assist in addressing the current position and managing the overall cost of temporary accommodation.  These related to the following areas (as detailed within the Opposition Business Paper):

 

a.      acting to reduce the number of households accepted as homeless by tightening the burden of proof in relation to the criteria laid down in government guidelines;

 

b.      providing greater financial and more targeted incentives to private landlords; and

 

c.       increasing the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation being placed in accommodation outside of the Borough.  This would need to be based on a targeted approach which recognised the associated legal issues but it was felt could be achieved with the necessary political will by the Majority Group.  It was pointed out that more homeless households were placed in Enfield by other Councils than any other London Borough last year, with the exception of Lewisham and Croydon.

 

Whilst recognising that the issue was complex with no simple solutions and was not something for which the Council was entirely responsible, Councillor Smith concluded by highlighting the need for difficult decisions to have to be made and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168


Meeting: 28/01/2015 - Council (Item 118)

118 Opposition Business - Management of the Council's Finances pdf icon PDF 119 KB

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

 

The Constitution Procedure Rules relating to Opposition Business are attached for information.  Members are asked to note that these procedure rules are subject to amendment, following review by Members & Democratic Services Group with the changes to be submitted for approval under Agenda Item 8.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Neville introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Conservative Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

 

1.         Concerns were raised in relation to:

 

a.      the increase in Council borrowing under the Labour Administration since 2010 and associated increase in the capital financing requirement in order to repay the debt and debt interest.

 

b.      what was felt to be the unsustainable nature of the increase in borrowing identified.

 

c.       the impact of the increased borrowing in terms of the additional pressure created on the Council’s revenue budget as a result of debt repayments increasing and need, as a result, to generate further savings at a time of continuing austerity.

 

d.      what was felt to have been the lack of financial planning and progress made in identifying and achieving the required level of savings under the Labour Administration, which it was felt had now resulted in the need for various small scale savings having to be sought that were having a significant impact on local residents.  Examples given included proposals such as not locking park gates at night and reducing road gritting, whilst at the same time looking to license private sector landlords and prioritising spend on discretionary housing services rather than on other vulnerable sections of the community such as the elderly and disabled.

 

e.      the failure of the Labour Administration to make the significant and difficult financial decisions required to place the Council on a sound financial footing and reliance on the Leaner Programme, now referred to as Enfield 2017, introduced by the previous Conservative Administration as the main strategy for delivering the ongoing level of savings required, given what was felt to have been the lack of alternative options and progress to date.

 

2.      The need to recognise that the increase in borrowing had been in addition to the earmarked reserves left by the previous Conservative Administration in 2010 and knowledge at the time that the incoming Administration would be faced with challenging financial circumstances.

 

Given the concerns raised, the Opposition Group were recommending as an outcome of the debate that the Council’s Audit Committee be given (as an appropriate cross party committee) responsibility for reviewing the Council’s accounting policies and all ongoing expenditure and borrowing proposals in order to ensure a sustainable approach.

 

Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting:

 

1.         The level of financial uncertainty nationally and impact this was having locally, given the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised in 2010 to balance the books, but had not yet achieved this with the country still in austerity and the level of Government borrowing still increasing.

 

2.         The action being taken by the Labour Administration to manage the Council’s finances.  The Council was not bankrupt, its External Auditors were satisfied and had cleared the accounts and public satisfaction ratings were good.

 

3.         Whilst the Council had borrowed money to finance significant capital projects, these had been designed to benefit the borough.  He also reminded members of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118


Meeting: 16/07/2014 - Council (Item 29)

29 OPPOSITION BUSINESS - Tackling abuse in the Private Rented Sector pdf icon PDF 204 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Mayor opened this item by referring Members to the legal advice that had been issued in relation to legal proceedings issued against the Council in relation to the Cabinet decision on the Assisted and Selective Licensing Scheme for Private Sector Landlords, which was the subject to Opposition Business. 

 

He then invited the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement in relation to discussions that had taken place in advance of the meeting with the Assistant Director Legal Services.  Whilst not being in agreement with the legal advice provided in relation to the matter now being subjudice, the Leader of the Opposition confirmed that he had agreed to the debate being adjourned on the basis that the Majority Group had agreed:

 

·                to the debate being rescheduled as Opposition Business, once the legal proceedings against the Council had been concluded; and

 

·                that the adjournment would not result in any negative impact in the total number of Opposition Business debates during the Municipal Year;

 

On this basis, Councillor Neville formally moved and Councillor Laban seconded adjournment of the Opposition Business debate to a future meeting, to be undertaken once the current legal proceedings had been concluded.  This was agreed without any further debate.

 

AGREED to adjourn consideration of the item pending completion of legal proceedings involving the Council relating to this item.


Meeting: 02/04/2014 - Council (Item 141)

141 OPPOSITION BUSINESS - GLA & Mayoral funding: Mini Holland proposals pdf icon PDF 139 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Laban introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Conservative Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

 

1.         The need to recognise and thank the Mayor of London for the level of investment provided for projects within the borough over the last four year period.  This had included funds to refurbish the Hertford Road Business Centre and investment in the Council’s market gardening initiative along with a range of other projects detailed within the Opposition Business Paper.  Investment had also been pledged for the new Meridian Water Railway Station as well as third rail track.

 

2.         In addition to the investment outlined in 1. Enfield had also been successful in bidding for funding as part of the Mayor of London’s Mini Holland programme, with £30m allocated for investment in cycling and street scene improvements.  The bid had been developed with cross party support and its success was regarded as an excellent achievement for the borough in times of austerity.

 

3.         The Opposition Group recognised the benefits of the Mini Holland funding in terms of:

 

·                generating investment for Enfield’s businesses;

 

·                acting as a catalyst to increase and provide safer ways of cycling; and

 

·                 improving infrastructure and street scene;

 

Concerns were, however, identified in relation to:

 

a.         The need to ensure that the opportunity represented by this funding was not wasted and that the scheme was designed to benefit, and had the full support of, the borough’s residents and businesses.

 

b.         The Council’s ability to deliver such a large scale regeneration scheme, given perceptions about its previous track record in consulting upon and delivering these type of large scale projects.

 

c.         The level of apprehension already being expressed by some local businesses, residents and other stakeholders about consultation on and development of the detailed proposals and how this would impact on them.  The need to work and communicate with residents and local businesses was therefore seen as key in order to ensure that the project was a success.

 

As an outcome of the debate the Opposition were looking to recognise and thank the Mayor of London for the level of investment provided in Enfield and to ensure that the necessary consultation and governance arrangements were put in place (as promised within the bid submission). It was felt this was necessary in order to gain the support of residents and the local business community and to ensure that any issues raised were properly considered and, where necessary, acted upon.

 

Councillor Goddard, Cabinet Member for Business & Regeneration, responded on behalf of the Majority Group, highlighting:

 

1.         The constructive nature of the issue raised under Opposition Business, but need to also recognise the amount of time and effort that had gone into developing the bid proposals which had been the main reason for its successful outcome.

 

2.         Whilst appreciating the cross party support for the bid, it was felt that the Council could demonstrate a strong record of consultation, for example, on development of the South West Enfield Area Action Plan which had recently been approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141


Meeting: 29/01/2014 - Council (Item 101)

101 Opposition Business - Long Term initiatives for the Borough pdf icon PDF 6 KB

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

 

The Constitution Procedure Rules relating to Opposition Business are attached for information.  Members are asked to note that these procedure rules are subject to amendment, following review by Members & Democratic Services Group with the changes to be submitted for approval under Agenda Item 8.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Lavender introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Conservative Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

 

1.         Concerns were identified in relation to the following aspects of the Council’s 2014/15 budget consultation process:

 

a.         The lack of forward financial planning and focus beyond 2014/15, given the announcement in the Chancellors Autumn Statement relating to local government spending and the provision of longer term indicative statements.  It was felt these provided a greater level of financial certainty than reflected in the budget consultation documents.

 

b.         The failure to outline, in detail, clear plans to deliver a balanced budget and need to include within the budget setting report and Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) sufficient details in relation to 2015/16 and beyond on:

 

·                the level of income, expenditure and future risks;

 

·                the necessary reserves and provisions to enable the Council to be satisfied that the 2014/15 budget established a sustainable platform for the provision of services in future years.

 

c.         The need to ensure that sufficient provision was identified to fund all schemes within the Capital Programme, in order to:

·                eliminate any double counting or funding gap in the programme;

·                avoid schemes being added (such as Palmers Green Library) towards the end of the current Administrations term of office without the necessary funding source having been confirmed, planned for and included within the MTFP; and

·                ensure delivery of the programme in a planned way without schemes being delayed or not progressed.

 

2.         Whilst the negative impact of the Government’s damping mechanism was recognised, it was felt that the increased level of Government funding being provided through specific funding streams and grants in relation, for example, to education and the New Homes Bonus also needed to be acknowledged.

 

3.         The need to acknowledge and outline detailed plans to address the £66m gap identified as a result of the longer term indicative financial statements in relation to the planning and delivery of Enfield’s MTFP over the next 4 years.  A quick review of the consultation being undertaken in other boroughs had identified how this was being undertaken with proposals linked to a focus on service delivery and priorities.

 

As a result the Opposition Group were looking for more detail and transparency within the Council’s budget consultation process and MTFP in relation to the plans for addressing the budget gap identified and prudent delivery of a balanced budget.

 

Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting:

 

1.         The need to recognise the unprecedented level of cuts in local government funding implemented by the coalition Government, which the current Administration had been required to manage.

 

2.         The view expressed within the Opposition Business paper that there was now more financial certainty within local government was challenged, with specific uncertainties highlighted in relation to:

 

·                the ongoing impact of the current economic downturn, particularly on the more vulnerable members of the local community and in the removal of significant spending power within the local economy as well as on business rate yield  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101


Meeting: 27/11/2013 - Council (Item 76)

76 OPPOSITION BUSINESS - Enfield: The environment in which we all live pdf icon PDF 111 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Laban introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Conservative Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

 

1.         The need identified by the Opposition Group for the current Administration to recognise the need for action to be taken in order to preserve those aspects of the Borough most valued by residents, in terms of the day-to-day living environment, and which would make Enfield a place in which they wanted to stay and live.

 

2.         Areas of concern identified included:

 

a.         The need to support local businesses, particularly in town centres and those areas affected by the disturbances in 2011, utilising all available sources of funding;

 

b.         The proposed use of funding being made available by the Mayor for London to support local business on the Market Garden initiative within Enfield, as opposed to further investment in town and local retail centres;

 

c.         The time taken to redevelop small vacant housing sites across the borough;

 

d.         The impact of traffic calming schemes across the borough, which it was felt had failed to understand the local environment and been undertaken in an uncoordinated way.  It was felt these schemes, combined with a range of anti-car measures, had led to increased traffic congestion across the borough with a detrimental impact on local residents;

 

e.         The appearance of the physical street scene across the borough, which had seen paving slabs replaced in many areas by tarmac and unsatisfactory communication with residents in terms of them being able to report incidents during the recent bad weather;

 

f.          Planning enforcement activity, with measures needed to challenge the erosion of conservation areas and Green Belt as well as quality of developments and adherence to the planning process.

 

Whilst supportive of the Enfield 20:20 concept the Opposition Group felt there needed to be more focus on the issues highlighted in order to safeguard the living environment within the borough.

 

Councillor Goddard, Cabinet member for Business & Regeneration, responded on behalf of the Majority Group, highlighting:

 

1.         What was felt to be a lack of clear focus within the Opposition Business Paper, given the range of issues highlighted and need to develop more evidence based solutions.

 

2.         The need to recognise the following national, regional as well as local policy context in terms of the issues raised and impact in terms of key drivers on the local environment:

 

a.         at local level the Council had continued with the Core Strategy almost entirely as adopted by the Opposition Group under the previous Administration, which included a range of housing and other soci-economic and development objectives.

 

b.         at regional level the Council was required to take account of the Mayor for London’s strategies and policy objectives as set out within the London Plan in relation to areas such as housing, planning development and the Green Belt

 

c.         nationally the Council was having to manage the impact of the Government’s programme of welfare reforms.

 

3.         In terms of support for local business and town centres the Market Garden initiative had been funded through the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76


Meeting: 17/07/2013 - Council (Item 28)

28 OPPOSITION BUSINESS - Planning Performance pdf icon PDF 120 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Laban introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Conservative Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

 

(a)       The Opposition Group were concerned at the current performance of the Council’s planning function in relation to:

 

·                the determination of major planning applications and possibility that this may lead to the Planning Authority being placed in “special measures” by the Department of Communities & Local Government.

 

·                the impact of being placed in “special measures” in terms of providing developers with the option of submitting major planning applications directly to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) rather than the local Planning Authority for determination.

 

·                the adequacy of planning consultation & advice on specific applications.

 

·                the current level of planning contributions being required and potential deterrent in terms of encouraging development activity.

 

(b)       Wider concerns were also raised in relation to what were felt to be shortcomings in the strategic planning of the Authority.

 

(c)       The need for the relevant Cabinet members to take responsibility for the concerns highlighted in relation to planning performance, in order to ensure that Enfield’s attractiveness as a “place to do business” in wider regeneration terms was not adversely affected.

 

As a result of the concerns expressed the Opposition Group were seeking the commissioning of an independent peer review to examine all aspects of planning performance and benchmark this against other authorities, in order to identify the scope for any improvement.

 

Councillor Goddard, Cabinet member for Business & Regeneration, responded on behalf of the Majority Group, highlighting:

 

(a)       what was felt to be the lack of clear focus within the Opposition Business Paper, given the range of issues highlighted.

 

(b)       The need to recognise that the Council was operating (in strategic planning policy terms) under its Local Plan & Development Management Document and was now in the process of developing three Area Action Plans, involving substantial and wide spread public consultation.  Major developments were subject to planning briefs and had also been considered in accordance with the required planning processes.

 

(c)       In terms of planning contributions, the Authority was in the process of consulting on its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) policy, with the level of contributions sought being consistent with other local authorities.

 

The concerns raised in relation to planning policy and the wider impact in terms of Enfield being seen as “open for business” were therefore refuted with examples provided of Enfield having been commended for its clarity of vision and the number of applications for major developments being submitted.  In addition the Council had recently launched a Planning Charter, to which a number of major developers had signed up, which it was felt again demonstrated the confidence in Enfield being an attractive borough in regeneration and development terms.

 

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows:

 

(a)       The wider strategic and business planning concerns identified by the Opposition Group in relation to:

 

·                the future use and development of the Southgate Town Hall site;

 

·                the development and delivery of new school places under the Primary Expansion Programme;

 

·                the procurement of services for vulnerable clients  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28


Meeting: 27/03/2013 - Council (Item 157)

157 Opposition Business - Lack of Corporate Governance at Enfield Council pdf icon PDF 58 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Lavender introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Conservative Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

 

·              The Opposition Group were concerned at what they felt to be a lack of corporate governance recently demonstrated in a number of areas.

 

·              The key focus of the concerns raised had been highlighted in the case study detailed in Appendix A of the Opposition Business Paper relating to the appointment of Cornerstone, which covered a number of specific issues including:

 

(i)      the way in which the attempts to address the shortfall in Primary School Places within the borough had been managed;

 

(ii)     the basis of the decision to dispose of the Council’s Carterhatch depot and acquire the Morson Road site;

 

(iii)    the due diligence undertaken and background to the contractual arrangements relating to the appointment of Cornerstone and way in which the constitutional requirements under the Council’s decision making procedures had been complied with in terms of publication of relevant decisions;

 

(iv)    the provision of information at the call-in meeting relating to the appointment of Cornerstone regarding the payment of invoices, which the Opposition felt had been misleading;

 

(v)     the way in which the decision making process in relation to the statutory consultation provision for the school, expansion programme had been complied with;

 

·              Reference was made to the report produced by Grant Thornton setting out the results of their Local Government Governance Review 2013: “Improving council governance – A slow burner”, and the consequences that a lack of good governance would have on service provision.  In addition to the issues raised in relation to the case study the Opposition highlighted concerns around:

 

(i)      the value currently being added through the scrutiny function as a result of the adversarial way in which it was felt Overview & Scrutiny Committee had dealt with issues being raised under call-in;

 

(ii)     the way in which it was felt the Administration had managed recent Council meetings in an effort  to avoid discussion, scrutiny or the questioning of major decisions;

 

(iii)    the publication of decisions and their implementation without the proper governance or decision making processes having been exhausted or complied with;

 

(iv)    the whipping of Majority Group members on Planning Committee

 

As a result of the concerns expressed the Opposition Group made a number of recommendations including the need for an urgent review and benchmarking of the Council’s corporate governance arrangements against the review undertaken by Grant Thornton and employment of a rigid first line of defence model of corporate governance.  It was also felt that the Council should receive an apology from the Leader of the Council for the lapses it was felt had occurred in the Council’s corporate governance arrangements, highlighted as a result of the Opposition Business Paper.

 

Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council, responded on behalf of the Majority Group, highlighting:

 

·              what was felt to be the limited scope and focus of the introduction provided by the Leader of the Opposition compared with the wider range of issues outlined within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157


Meeting: 30/01/2013 - Council (Item 111)

111 Opposition Business - Financial planning and performance and the 2015 fiscal cliff pdf icon PDF 121 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Lavender introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Conservative Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

 

·              The need to recognise the ongoing impact of previous government expenditure, borrowing and taxation policies on the need for current public sector austerity measures.  The Chancellors Autumn Statement had outlined that further public sector budget reductions would continue until at least 2018 for which local government could be expected to bear a significant amount.  Following the announcement of the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement for 2013-14 and 2014-15 the Local Government Association had estimated that non schools revenue funding would decrease by an additional 4.8%, with limited opportunities to address the gap available through increase in Council Tax as a result of the referendum limits that had been confirmed.

 

·              The need to recognise the limited scope available to manage these ongoing funding reductions and retain services as a result of the continued maximisation of efficiencies and need to proactively plan for the budget reductions required.

 

·              The prudent approach adopted by the previous Conservative Administration towards management of the Council’s budget, which had seen the LEANER programme introduced and the build up of reserves and balances to protect services from unexpected pressures.

 

·              As a result of the concerns expressed the Opposition Group felt there was a need for tough decisions to be made in order to protect the long term financial health of the authority and avoid the risk of setting an unbalanced budget.  This would include the need to stop spending unnecessary money and look at new ways of reducing the increasing demand on services.

 

The Opposition Group felt there was a need to ensure that public awareness was raised around the scale of difficult decisions that needed to be made in order to protect the medium and long term financial position of the Council and that these were recognised and addressed by the current Administration.

 

Councillor Taylor, Cabinet, Leader of the Council, responded on behalf of the Majority Group, highlighting:

 

·              what was felt to be the fatalistic nature, wide scope and limited level of detail and substance in the Opposition Business Paper.

 

·              The need to recognise the impact of the current coalition Government’s economic policy in relation to the limited level of growth being experienced and pace of spending reductions in the public sector.

 

·              The ongoing impact of the reductions in local government funding had been recognised by the National Audit Office and also by the Leaders of 30 Conservative controlled local authorities who had written to the Secretary of State highlighting the consequences of the continued reductions in expenditure.  In addition there was a need to recognise the unfair impact of the current damping mechanism in relation to the funding formula allocation on Enfield.

 

·              The current Administrations commitment to maintain a sensible year by year fiscal policy, recognising the difficulty in predicting the future level of Government funding that would be available.

 

·              The impact of the increasing level of demand on local authority services had been recognised and the Administration had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111


Meeting: 07/11/2012 - Council (Item 92)

92 OPPOSITION BUSINESS - Children's Services pdf icon PDF 135 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Prior to consideration of this item, John Austin (Assistant Director Corporate Governance) read out a statement in relation to conduct of the debate.  Members were advised that the Opposition Business Paper had included reference to a compliance issue relating to sensitive personal data. This matter was the subject of potential legal proceedings and had also been referred to the Police & Information Commissioner for investigation.  Given the ongoing investigations, it was felt that any debate on the issue would be premature at this stage.  There was also a need to avoid prejudicing the outcome of these investigations and any subsequent legal proceedings and as a result the Opposition Group was asked to consider withdrawing and not referring to this element of Opposition Business during the debate.

 

Councillor Rye (responding as lead member on the Opposition Business) advised that as he had not had an opportunity to consider the statement and consult with the Leader of the Opposition in advance of the meeting the Opposition would not be prepared to withdraw the item.  On the basis of the advice provided they would, however, refrain from referring to it in the debate.  This approach was supported by Councillor Lavender (Leader of the Opposition Group).

 

Councillor Rye proceeded to introduce the issues paper, prepared by the Conservative Group.

 

·              The purpose of the Opposition Business was to highlight a number of areas on which it was recommended that a full report should be prepared for consideration by Overview and Scrutiny Committee and then full Council setting out what actions were being taken to address concerns highlighted around the following issues:  examination results, lack of nursery, primary and secondary school places and proposals to address the shortfall; compliance issues in relation to sensitive personal data; lack of support to aspiring organisations that wished to create free schools and the performance of the school letting service.

 

·              The Opposition Group were keen to congratulate schools and pupils for the exam results that they had achieved, whilst recognising the challenge facing many schools at Key Stage 1 and 2, with some schools having a pupil turnover of over 50%.  Despite this, however, it was felt that children at the primary level were generally achieving well with a high proportion achieving Level 5 or above at Key Stage 2 in English and Maths and achieving 2 levels of progress.

 

·              At secondary level performance was much more of a concern.  Even taking account of the recent Ofqual decision on GCSE English grades, which it was recognised had had an unfair impact on English results, the achievement levels at Key Stages 3, 4 and 5 were felt to be disappointing.  At Key Stage 4 only 6 of the 18 secondary schools and academies in Enfield (33.3%) had achieved a percentage of pupils gaining 5 A*-C grades, including English and Maths that met, or was above the Fisher, Family Trust (FFT) D estimate.  5 of the 18 schools (27.8%) had met or exceeded the FFT D estimate for making 3 levels of progress  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92


Meeting: 04/07/2012 - Council (Item 34)

34 OPPOSITION BUSINESS - Helping Enfield's High Street Shops & Businesses pdf icon PDF 18 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Neville introduced the issues paper prepared by the Conservative Group, seeking a review of the imposition of Sunday parking charges and consideration of the introduction of a free 20 minute on-street parking period at all times.

 

In introducing the paper he highlighted the case for carrying out measures which would help to address the economic downturn currently being experienced across many town centres, including those in Enfield.  The key issues raised included:

 

·              The need to recognise High Streets and retail shopping generally as a very important contributor to the local economy.

 

·              The correlation between free unlimited parking in shopping centres and the volume of retail spend, as supported in separate research undertaken for the Labour Government in 2009 and more recently by the Portas Review

 

·              The impact which the imposition of Sunday parking charges had had in terms of discouraging people from shopping in Enfield Town and in encouraging those who did come to stay for less time and therefore spend less money.  The impact on churchgoers in Enfield Town was also highlight as an issue of concern.

 

·              The impact of the availability of parking provision to attract retailers to new developments and alternative choice now available to shoppers in terms of the increase in the number of large out of town stores with free parking and growth in internet shopping.

 

·              The need to consider the recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper within the context of the extended downturn in the national economy and need for the Council to assist retail in looking to promote economic success across the borough.

 

·              Whilst shopping centres outside of Enfield Town were not affected by Sunday parking charges, the impact of the increase in parking charges was also highlighted.  As a means of assisting smaller businesses in local shopping centres to attract passing trade, the recommendation was also made that consideration be given to introducing a short period of free on-street parking where controls currently existed.

 

In order to demonstrate the level of local concern on the issues highlighted Councillor Neville then submitted a petition, which he advised contained over 7500 signatures from local residents, shoppers, retailers and churchgoers.

 

Councillor Neville then introduced the following representatives from local businesses in Enfield Town, who had been invited to address the Council under Opposition Business, in order to highlight their views on the issues raised:

 

(a)    Erdal Mehmet: Chairman of Enfield Business Association – who highlighted the support amongst local traders in Enfield Town that he had recently surveyed towards the following proposals:

·              The reduction in parking charges for those staying for less than 4 hours on Mon - Sat;

·              An increase in parking charges for shoppers staying for more than 4 hours on Mon - Sat;

·              The removal of Sunday parking charges in Enfield Town; and

·              The introduction of Pay on Exit within car parks

A further petition was presented containing signatures from local retailers and their customers.

 

(b)    Patricia Blair: Chairman of Palace Gardens Traders Association – who highlighted, as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34


Meeting: 25/01/2012 - Council (Item 97)

97 OPPOSITION BUSINESS - PORTAS REVIEW ON THE FUTURE OF OUR HIGH STREETS pdf icon PDF 15 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Neville introduced the issues paper prepared by the Conservative Group, based on the Portas Review into the future of our High Streets.

 

In introducing the paper he highlighted the case for carrying out measures which would help improve High Streets in Enfield.  The key issues raised included:

 

·              The need to recognise High Streets and retail shopping generally as a very important contributor to the local economy.

 

·              Whilst High Streets had been in decline for many years, both local and national governments of all political make up had not done enough to reverse this.  The major factors influencing the decline included the increase in the number of large out of town stores with free parking, and the continual, exponential growth in internet shopping.  

 

·              The Government had commissioned Mary Portas, in the context of the current economic down turn, to come up with recommendations for improvement.  The Conservative Group were now calling on the Council to consider what could be done in Enfield, in response to the main findings and recommendations from the review.

 

·              Enfield suffered from the close proximity of large out of town shops along the A10 as well as the nearness to major shopping centres such as Brookfield Farm, Brent Cross and the recently opened Westfield Centre development at Stratford.  It was difficult to compete with these large centres with combined leisure interests. 

 

·              The Conservative Group felt that the average 46% increase in parking charges and imposition of Sunday charges in Enfield would not help in addressing these issues.  These measures discouraged people from shopping in their local high street, encouraged those that did come to stay for less time and therefore spend less money.

 

·              As a result of the Opposition Business, the Conservative Group were requesting that more detailed consideration be given to those recommendations in the Portas Review which were under local authority control.  This included particular action to consider immediately reversing the decision to impose Sunday parking charges in Enfield Town; to introduce a period of fifteen minutes free parking (as a measure which had worked well in neighbouring Waltham Forest & Borehamwood); and to instruct the Housing Growth and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel to consider the findings and recommendations from the Portas Review in more detail, with a report to be provided for Cabinet & Council by July 2012.

 

Councillor Goddard, Cabinet Member for Business and Regeneration, responded on behalf of the Majority Group, highlighting that:

 

·              The Majority Group shared the concerns of the opposition at the decline of the High Street, particularly in the light of the current Global Crisis, but felt that no single strand or issue (including the provision of free parking) would resolve the problem on its own.

 

·              In Enfield, several of the recommendations from the Portas Review had already been implemented, including the creation of Town Centre Managers and ongoing support for the Enfield Business Retail Association (EBRA), who continued to play a significant role.  Two key issues needing to be addressed remained the quality of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97


Meeting: 09/11/2011 - Council (Item 78)

78 OPPOSITION BUSINESS - SUPPORTING THE FORMATION OF FREE SCHOOLS IN ENFIELD pdf icon PDF 16 KB

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

 

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Kaye introduced the issues paper prepared by the Conservative Group, encouraging the Council to more proactively embrace Government policy relating to the creation of Academies and Free Schools in the borough.

 

In introducing the paper he highlighted the case for making Free Schools & Academies a central element in urban regeneration.  He also felt they could:

·              Provide increased educational opportunities for disadvantaged children;

·              Offer good quality and diverse educational choices for children as demonstrated by the outstanding success of Cuckoo Hall School in Edmonton and associated new Woodpecker and Kingfisher Free Schools;

·              Greatly improve standards in low performing schools, as demonstrated by the Mossborn Academy in Hackney. 

 

The Opposition Group felt there was a need for the Council to actively encourage the creation of Academies or Free Schools in the borough as it did in attracting new businesses to the borough, with the following benefits highlighted:

·              Nationally 24 free schools, with 10,000 pupils, had been set up over the past year.  Such schools would drive up educational standards to enable children to achieve higher grades in GCSEs and equip them to compete in the global market;

·              The ability to offer parents more choice in the education of their children, as well as helping to alleviate pressure on school places.

 

It was also felt that the Council had missed an opportunity in not making available the old Southgate Town Hall site for Academy or Free School use.

 

Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, responded on behalf of the majority group.  She advised that Government cuts in funding, children and educational services being particularly vulnerable, had placed huge pressure on the Council in protecting high quality local services.  In light of continuing uncertainty about future revenue funding the Administration therefore believed it was essential that all schools were fairly funded through a local funding formula.   The requirement for Local Authorities to transfer stewardship of land to Academies or Free Schools was also a matter of concern.

 

She also highlighted how the Administration had invested in and achieved highly rated educational and children’s services, by developing a family of schools with professional staff delivering quality services.  This quality of education was delivered irrespective of postcode and in response to local demand.  It was felt that Academies and Free Schools could potentially destabilise this success and fragment education provision.  Planning for the future needed to be flexible based on the creativity and drive of local teachers and parents in the established family of schools.

 

Labour, both nationally and locally, was relentlessly focused on ensuring educational quality to equip children with the skills needed to enable them to reach their full potential and compete in a global market.

 

Following a lengthy debate, Councillor Kaye summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group, requesting that the Administration create the appropriate environment where new and experienced groups would be encouraged to establish new schools within the borough.

 

In response to the debate and recommendations made within the Opposition Business paper, Councillor Georgiou highlighted that:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78


Meeting: 06/07/2011 - Council (Item 36)

36 OPPOSITION BUSINESS - School Places & Education Provision pdf icon PDF 19 KB

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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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