Agenda and minutes

Councillor Doug Taylor (Leader of the Council) advised those present that the proceedings were being filmed for the purpose of broadcasting them into Room 6 which was being used as an overflow facility for members of the public should there be insufficient seating within the Conference Room to accommodate those wishing to attend the meeting.

There were no apologies for absence.

Members of the Cabinet are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non pecuniary interests relevant to items on the agenda.

Asmat Hussain (Assistant Director of Legal and Governance and Monitoring Officer) stated that a dispensation had been granted to all Cabinet Members in respect of Report No.174 – Approval of Cycle Enfield Proposal for the A105 (Minute No.9 below refers) to enable them to participate in and vote on this item. The dispensation had been granted as the majority of Cabinet Members had a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matter which would therefore “impede the transaction of the business” if a dispensation was not granted by the Council’s Monitoring Officer.

The Chairman will consider the admission of any 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 and Meetings) (England) Regulations 2012.

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 and Meetings) (England) Regulations 2012, with the exception of the reports listed below. These requirements state that agendas and reports should be circulated at least 5 clear days in advance of meetings.

Report Nos. 176 and 179 – Neighbourhood Regeneration Programme (Minute Nos. 11 and 20 below refer)

Report Nos. 177 and 180 – IT Delivery (Minute Nos. 12 and 21 below refer)

AGREED, that the above reports be considered at this meeting.

To note that no requests for deputations have been received for presentation to this Cabinet meeting.

NOTED, that no requests for deputations had been received for presentation to this Cabinet meeting.

Members were advised that Mr Peter Gibbs, Chair of FERAA, had asked to make a statement to the Cabinet as part of their consideration of Report No.174 – Approval of Cycle Enfield Proposals for the A105 (Minute No.9 below refers).

To agree that the following reports be referred to full Council:

1.     Report Nos.171 and 178 – Budget 2016-17 and Medium Term Financial Plan 2016/17 to 2019/20 (General  Fund)

2.     Report No.172 – Housing Revenue Account (HRA) 30-Year Business Plan, Budget 2016/17, Rent Setting and Service Charges, Temporary Accommodation Rents

3.     Report Nos.176 and 179 – Neighbourhood Regeneration Programme

AGREED, that the following reports be referred to full Council:

1.               Report Nos. 171 and 178 – Budget 2016-17 and Medium Term Financial Plan 2016/17 to 2019/20 (General Fund)

2.               Report No.172 – Housing Revenue Account (HRA) 30-Year Business Plan, Budget 2016/17, Rent Setting and Service Charges, Temporary Accommodation Rents

NOTED, that Report Nos.176 and 179 – Neighbourhood Regeneration Programme no longer required referral to full Council as the budget implications were dealt with in Report No. 171 detailed in 1 above.

A report from the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services is attached. This sets out a number of recommendations for approval by full Council. (Report No.178, agenda part two also refers) (Key decision – reference number 4175)

(Report No.171)

(8.20 – 8.30pm)

Councillor Doug Taylor (Leader of the Council) informed Members that the Council budget had been drawn up on the basis of the provisional Local Government settlement, as set out in full in the report. Enfield had not benefitted from any transitional funding elements. Pressures were particularly being experienced by Outer London Boroughs. Cabinet this evening was being asked to consider the budget being presented and make recommendations to full Council for the final budget approval. Members were asked to note that the proposed overall increase over the 2015/16 Council Tax was 1.78%, as detailed in the report.

Councillor Andrew Stafford (Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency) introduced the detail of the report of the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.171).

NOTED

1.               That Report No.178 also referred as detailed in Minute No.19 below.

2.               That the proposals within the report would enable the Council to balance the 2016/17 budget. Members were asked to note the level of savings required and the further central government funding reductions that were expected over the next 3 years.

3.               The budget consultation that had taken place as set out in detail in section 4 of the report. The feedback from all of the consultation processes had been presented to the Budget Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 1 February 2016, the minutes of which were tabled for Members’ consideration this evening as part of their consideration of the budget proposals; and would form part of the report to full Council. It was noted that the majority of consultation responses received had indicated that a rise in council tax would be preferable to further cuts in services. It was felt that further cuts in council services could not be sustained. Councillor Stafford outlined the proposed increase in the level of Council Tax as set out in detail in the report.

4.               The report included full detail on the budget considerations and proposals including treasury management, risk analysis and the capital programme. The Council’s capital programme continued to be significant and would benefit the regeneration and economy of the Borough.

5.               The recommendations in the report were drawn to Members’ attention. In particular Members were asked to note recommendation 2.12 of the report regarding the Government’s 4 year funding offer and that a further report would be presented to Members once sufficient details to make a recommendation were made available by the Government.

6.               That recommendation 2.13 of the report sought approval to delegate authority to the Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency and the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services to agree any necessary changes in preparation of the budget 2016/17 and Medium Term Financial Plan report to Council on 24 February 2016.

7.               Councillor Ayfer Orhan highlighted the work which had been undertaken by the Council and London Councils as a whole in raising the issue of, and concerns over, cuts to schools’ budgets.

8.               The significant population growth in Enfield and Outer London as a whole, which was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

A report from the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services and Director of Regeneration and Environment is attached. This will set out a number of recommendations in relation to the Housing Revenue Account for approval by full Council.  (Key decision – reference number 4174)

(Report No.172)

(8.30 – 8.35pm)

Councillor Ahmet Oykener (Cabinet Member for Housing and Housing Regeneration) introduced the report of the Director of Regeneration and Environment and Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.172).

NOTED

1.               That this was the annual report for consideration of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget and rent setting, and temporary accommodation rents. The report commented on the HRA 30-year business plan; the HRA budget 2016/17 and 5 year capital programme; rent setting 2016/17 for HRA properties and temporary accommodation properties; and, proposed service charges 2016/17.

2.               With regard to the HRA 30-year business plan, this had previously been updated and considered by the Cabinet in November 2015. Significant work had been carried out to rebalance the plan following the Government’s July budget and subsequent Welfare Reform and Work Bill which required the Council to reduce rents by 1% per annum for 4 years from 2016/17. This meant a shortfall of £2.2m in 2016/17 and £325m over 30 years. Due to the significant work that had been undertaken previously, only minor amendments had now been made, as set out in section 4 and Appendix 1 of the report.

3.               With regard to the HRA budget 2016/17, due to the work that had been undertaken in 2015/16 to find £1.5m ongoing savings (detailed in paragraph 5.1 of the report), the 2016/17 budget had relatively few variations. The main ones were set out in section 5.2 and Appendix B of the report.

4.               That the HRA 5 year capital programme was set out in section 7 of the report and totalled £237.7m.

5.               Members were advised that the majority of rents would go down by 1% as required by the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. An amendment to the recommendations was tabled, as reflected in recommendation 1 (e) below, which related to sheltered accommodation rents which had arisen as a result of the Government making Supported Accommodation an exception to the requirement for rents to reduce for 1 year only. The proposal to increase Sheltered Accommodation rents by CPI plus 1% meant that they would go up by 0.9% or approximately 90p per week. This would give the HRA an additional £78k in 2016/17 and the impact on 30 years would be an additional £3.3m. This was a late amendment as the Welfare Reform and Work Bill was still progressing through the House of Lords and changes were still being made before it became an Act. Subject to Cabinet approval, the report presented to full Council would be updated to take account of this amendment.

6.               That Temporary Accommodation rents would remain as per last year.

7.               The proposed HRA service charges for 2016/17 were set out in section 10 of the report. These were based on full cost recovery. Two new charges were proposed for external CCTV charges (82p per week) and communal cleaning charge (59p per week). The service charges had been discussed with the Customer Voice and Housing Board.

8.               That this year’s budget had been made more complex  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

A report from the Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care is attached. This outlines the proposed changes to the way in which Enfield council assesses for and provides transport services within Adult Social Care. (Key decision – reference number 4086)

(Report No.173)

(8.35 – 8.40pm)

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu (Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care) introduced the report of the Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care (No.173).

NOTED

1.               That the proposals had been subject to a 13 week consultation process and subsequent further 5 weeks of engagement and discussion. The consultation had been extensive with 22 engagement events and feedback from over 500 people, including service users, their families, representatives and the service providers. Councillor Cazimoglu took this opportunity to thank all those who had been involved.

2.               The Council was doing its best to mitigate the effects of any changes in service provision. The Council would continue to assess those people who requested support as it was statutorily obliged to do. It was the Council’s intention to ensure that a range of appropriate, flexible and cost effective transport options were available to the people who needed them. This would mean that the Council would look at the transport options that were currently on offer and establish whether they were appropriate, flexible and provided value for money. 

3.               Councillor Cazimoglu outlined the detailed discussions and considerations that had taken place which the Council had listened to and amended its draft transport policy accordingly. The Council would not now consider the use of mobility benefits to fund eligible needs for transport support. The policy would provide a clear framework for delivering personalised transport for people who needed it most. The report made the case for a review of the council’s current transport offer in order to deliver the kind of services that were flexible and efficient and which delivered the quality, choice and control which the council would want for those very vulnerable people in need.

4.               In summary Councillor Cazimoglu outlined what the Adult Social Care Transport Policy would deliver:

·       Good information/advice and support to ensure vulnerable people access transport which was appropriate and safe for them.

·       A transport offer with clear costs that is efficient and contributed to the savings that the Council was required to deliver.

·       More choice, control and flexibility in good quality transport options.

·       Making the best use of all available resources in the community.

Alternative Options Considered: NOTED the alternative options which had been considered as set out in section 5 of the report and summarised below:

1.               Do nothing – this had not been considered to be a financially viable option (section 5 of the report referred).

2.               Alternative savings options suggested during the consultation – the draft Transport Policy for Adult Social Care was clear about the scale of the financial funding gap facing the Council by 2020 as part of the context within which the new draft policy had been drafted and consulted upon. There was a very strongly held view, widely shared within those consulted, that the draft Transport Policy targeted vulnerable disabled groups unfairly and that alternative savings options should be explored. There had been a number of potential savings proposals communicated back to Council officers during the consultation period. Recurrent themes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

A report from the Director of Regeneration and Environment is attached. This seeks approval to undertake detailed design, statutory consultation and implementation for segregated cycling facilities and public realm improvements along the A105 between Enfield Town and Palmers Green. Note: Appendix E to the report will be circulated “to follow”. (Key decision – reference number 4111)

(Report No.174)

(8.40 – 8.45pm)

Councillor Doug Taylor (Leader of the Council) invited Mr Peter Gibbs (Chair of FERAA) to present his statement to the Cabinet.

Mr Gibbs raised a number of points in relation to the proposals presented in the report which included the view that safer cycling and an increase in cycling in the Borough was supported by all. However, concerns were expressed over the detailed proposals, the consultation process and the benefits claimed from the scheme. He highlighted the extent of the difference between the original bid in 2013 and the proposals now being considered. He expressed the need for effective consultation with all parties involved. It was felt that the proposed scheme did not have the support of the majority of residents. Particular issues were highlighted with regard to the impact on air quality and economic issues, and the needs of vulnerable groups in the borough and the potential impact on them.

Mr Gibbs highlighted the change in the Mayor of London later in the year and the impact that this could have on going forward. He highlighted the possibility of a judicial review being sought.

In conclusion, Councillor Taylor thanked Mr Gibbs for his contribution and invited a spokesperson from those present at the meeting, in support of the proposals, to make a statement to the Cabinet.

Clare Rogers, representing nearly 300 Facebook supporters of the scheme, took this opportunity to inform Members that the supporters were excited and proud of the proposals being put forward. The scheme would benefit a large number of cyclists and provide benefits to the next generation in the provision of safe cycling routes to school and tackling childhood obesity. Air pollution in the Borough was recognised as an important issue that needed to be addressed. Support was expressed for the consultation which had taken place.

Councillor Daniel Anderson (Cabinet Member for Environment) introduced the report of the Director of Regeneration and Environment (No.174) seeking approval to undertake detailed design and statutory consultation for segregated cycling facilities and public realm improvements along the A105 between Enfield Town and Palmers Green A105.

NOTED

1.               Councillor Anderson acknowledged the considerable and healthy debate which had taken place to date on the scheme proposals. He recognised the differences of opinion which had been expressed and the challenges which had been made. All comments had been taken into account in considering the way forward.

2.               Members were reminded that in March 2013 the Mayor of London had published his Vision for Cycling with the overarching aim to double the number of people cycling by 2023. One of the key elements had been the Mini-Holland programme with all outer London boroughs having the opportunity to bid for funding. Enfield’s bid had been successful. It had had cross-party support and included within the bid had been the provision of segregated cycle facilities along the A105 and enhancements to both Palmers Green and Winchmore Hill town centres. This is what the current proposals set out to deliver. It was noted that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

A report from the Director of Regeneration and Environment is attached. This seeks endorsement of the draft Meridian Water Regeneration Framework and Action Plan (Key decision – reference number 4252)

(Report No.175)

(8.45 – 8.50pm)

Councillor Alan Sitkin (Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Business Development) introduced the report of the Director of Regeneration and Environment (No.175) seeking endorsement of the draft Meridian Water Regeneration Framework and Action Plan.

NOTED

1.               The content of the draft framework and action plan as set out and, the intended benefits and support for all communities in the vicinity of Meridian Water.

2.               Final versions of each of the documents would be developed in partnership with the chosen Developer Partner, once appointment had been confirmed.

Alternative Options Considered: The Council had learnt the lessons of what had worked elsewhere on schemes of this scale. Therefore the development of a Framework was considered to be an essential part of the wider Meridian Water project. The alternative options to not develop a Framework would not have given the Council the necessary strategic guidance, nor ownership, of what it wants to achieve as part of the scheme. Having successfully procured Methods Advisory, no further options for delivery had been considered. The methodology used had been developed and refined over time in partnership between the Council and its consultant support team.

DECISION: The Cabinet agreed

1.               To endorse the draft Meridian Water Regeneration Framework.

2.               To endorse the draft Meridian Water Regeneration Framework Action Plan.

3.               In relation to 1 above, to delegate authority to the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Business Development, in conjunction with relevant officers, for the approval of the final Framework and Action Plan.

Reason: To provide the necessary political support to what the Council was trying to achieve at Meridian Water. Whilst final versions of both the Framework and Action Plan would be developed with the chosen Developer partner later in 2016, endorsement now would support negotiations with the chosen Developer Partner.

(Key decision – reference number 4252)

A report from the Director of Regeneration and Environment will be circulated as soon as possible. This seeks approval to an increase to the neighbourhood regeneration capital programme. (Report No.179, agenda part two also refers) (Key decision – reference number 4229)

(Report No.176)

(8.50 – 8.55pm)

TO FOLLOW

Councillor Ahmet Oykener (Cabinet Member for Housing and Housing Regeneration) and Councillor Alan Sitkin (Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Business Development) introduced the report of the Director of Regeneration and Environment (No.176) seeking an increase in the Neighbourhood Regeneration capital programme to fund the next stages of a number of regeneration initiatives.

NOTED

1.               That Report No.179 also referred as detailed in Minute No.20 below.

2.               That the report explained what the increase to the Neighbourhood Regeneration Capital programme would be used to fund. It explained the progress that had been made to take forward regeneration projects in the Borough.

3.               The report supported a key manifesto commitment of the delivery of 10,000 new homes.

4.               Members expressed their appreciation of the work which had been undertaken by officers in taking these proposals forward.

Alternative Options Considered: As included within the main body of the report.

DECISION: The Cabinet

1.               Noted the request to increase the Neighbourhood Regeneration Capital Programme (approval was sought within Report No.171 – Budget report 2016-17 and Medium Term Financial Plan 2016/17 to 2019/20 (General Fund) (Minute No.6 below refers)) which would enable the development of the next stages of Meridian Water, Ponders End, Edmonton, New Southgate and Enfield Town.

2.               Noted the progress made to date to acquire land at Meridian Water and the Council’s intention and clear preference to acquire all developable land at Meridian Water by voluntary negotiation, based on the principle of a return on investment to the Council.

3.               Noted that a part 2 report (No.179 – Minute No.20 below refers) which explained that a Meridian Water financial model had been developed to demonstrate how a return on the Council’s investment could be achieved.

4.               Agreed to delegate authority to the Cabinet Members for Finance and Efficiency and, for Economic Regeneration and Business Development, in consultation with the Director of Regeneration and Environment and the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services to finalise the acquisition of the land (described in detail in Report No. 179, part 2 report) in accordance with the agreed Heads of Terms attached to Report No.179, containing exempt information.

5.               Noted the progress made on the wider regeneration programme, including Ponders End, Edmonton, New Southgate and Enfield Town.

6.               Noted that the part 2 report (No.179, Minute No.20 below) set out the financial implications for delivery of these programmes for 2016/17 and beyond.

7.               Noted that before further commitment of expenditure on these programmes full financial models would be produced to inform investment/acquisition decisions.

8.               Agreed to approve the capitalisation of the Neighbourhood Regeneration team, and resources against the capital programme.

9.               Agreed to approve in principle the Edmonton Heartland Housing Zone 2 bid included in the part 2 report (No.179, Minute No.20 below).

10.           Noted that updated information on the governance of all regeneration projects will be subject to a further report.

Reason: To provide an update on progress of the wider neighbourhood regeneration delivery programme, and to identify the financial resources required for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

A report from the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services will be circulated as soon as possible. (Report No.180, agenda part two also refers)(Key decision – reference number 4263/U195)

(Report No.177)

(8.55 – 9.00pm)

TO FOLLOW

Councillor Doug Taylor (Leader of the Council) introduced the report of the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.177) setting out proposals for future IT delivery.

NOTED, that Report Nos.180 and 180A also referred as detailed in Minute No.21 below.

Alternative Options Considered: NOTED the following alternative options considered as set out in section 4 of the report:

1.               To cease the model of SIAM based delivery for IT. This would not be best practice. The retention of a mixed model of provision, which utilised a blend of in house and external resources, was clearly beneficial. The development of key relationships with major partners such of Microsoft was clearly beneficial to the Council.

2.               To wait before registering an IT company to commercialise Enfield 2017 developed code and integration. Registering the company did not force the council to accept any commercial opportunities, but it did allow it to position itself so that it could take advantage of an opportunity should one arise in line with previous Cabinet requests. It would also allow the council to create the most mutually beneficial and supportive models of partnership where Enfield 2017 relies on code or products that were not owned by the council and would simplify licensing and development arrangements. The inclusion of a development and service desk capability would ensure that the council, and any future customers, benefit from an economy of scale and minimise duplication of effort.

DECISION: The Cabinet agreed to approve

1.               The retention of a mixed model of IT delivery with a range of providers for its IT service, based on the principles of the nationally recognised SIAM model.

2.               The registration of a company, wholly owned by Enfield Council, to further develop, support and commercialise the Enfield 2017 offer. Further details regarding the exact make up and governance model for the company would be brought to a future Cabinet, along with a full business case. This would be undertaken prior to the commencement of trading activity by the company.

Reason: To ensure the council maximises the security and availability of its core IT systems, whilst maximising value for money. To ensure that the council retains access to a skilled and knowledgeable IT service that was able to respond quickly, and appropriately, to the rapidly changing IT landscape. To ensure that the council was able to respond to any opportunity to commercially benefit from the Enfield 2017 programme as previously identified by Cabinet.

(Key decision – reference number U195/4263)

To note that there are no items to be considered at this meeting.

NOTED, that no issues had been submitted for consideration at this meeting.

Councillor Derek Levy (Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee) informed Members of the outcome of a recent meeting of the Committee which had considered three called-in decisions.

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

NOTED, the provisional list of items scheduled for future Cabinet meetings.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting of the Cabinet held on 20 January 2016.

AGREED, that the minutes of the previous meeting of the Cabinet held on 20 January 2016 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

To note that there are no written updates to be received at this meeting.

NOTED, that there were no written updates to be received at this meeting.

To note that the next meeting of the Cabinet is scheduled to take place on Tuesday 15 March 2016 at 8.15pm.

NOTED, that the next meeting of the Cabinet was scheduled to take place on Tuesday 15 March 2016 at 8.15pm.

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 two agenda)

RESOLVED, in accordance with Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for the items listed on part 2 of the agenda on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of 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 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 Finance, Resources and Customer Services is attached. This should be read in conjunction with Report No.171, agenda part one refers. (Key decision – reference number 4175)

(Report No.178)

(9.10 – 9.15pm)

(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).

Councillor Andrew Stafford (Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency) introduced the report of the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.178).

NOTED

1.               That Report No.171 also referred as detailed in Minute No.6 above.

2.               That the report provided the commercially sensitive information relating to specific fees and charges as outlined in the report.

Alternative Options Considered: As detailed in Report No.171, Minute No.6 above referred.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Pest Control, Commercial Waste, Schedule 2 waste, Planning pre-application service, golf special offers and annual season ticket, Events, Passenger Transport Services, Fleet Services and Schools Health and Safety fees and charges for Environmental Services be agreed as set out in section 3.1 and appendix 1 of the report.

Reason: As detailed in Report No.171, Minute No.6 above referred.

(Key decision – reference number 4175)

A report from the Director of Regeneration and Environment will be circulated as soon as possible. This should be read in conjunction with Report No.176, agenda part one refers. (Key decision – reference number 4229)

(Report No.179)

(9.15 – 9.20pm)

TO FOLLOW

(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)

Councillor Ahmet Oykener (Cabinet Member for Housing and Housing Regeneration) and Councillor Alan Sitkin (Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Business Development) introduced the report of the Director of Regeneration and Environment (No. 179).

NOTED

1.               That Report No.176 also referred as detailed in Minute No.11 above.

2.               That the report set out the basis of the financial model developed for Meridian Water and, the wider neighbourhood regeneration capital programme to fund the next stages of a number of regeneration initiatives.

3.               Members acknowledged the positive work that had been undertaken to date and the assurances provided.

4.               That approval was being sought for a bid to the GLA for Housing Zone 2 status to be given to the Edmonton Heartlands, as detailed in the report.

5.               The on-going discussions with regard to the requested increase in the provision of the number of trains per hour.

Alternative Options Considered: As included in the main body of the report.

DECISION: The Cabinet

1.               Noted the inclusion within the capital programme for the sum stated in paragraph 5.2 of the report, to acquire surplus land owned by IKEA in accordance with the Heads of Terms detailed in appendix 1 of the report, and agreed to delegate authority to the Cabinet Member for Housing and Housing Regeneration and Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency, in consultation with the Director of Regeneration and Environment and the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services to complete the acquisition of IKEA land.

2.               Agreed to approve the capitalisation of the neighbourhood regeneration team against the capital programme.

3.               Noted the request to increase the Neighbourhood Regeneration Capital Programme (approval was sought in Report No.171 – Budget Report 2016-17 and Medium Term Financial Plan 2016/17 to 2019/20 (General Fund), as detailed in Minute No.6 above) which would enable the development of the next stages of Meridian Water, Ponders End, Edmonton, New Southgate and Enfield Town.

4.               Agreed to approve the Edmonton Heartland Housing Zone bid included at appendix 2 of the report.

Reason: A revised neighbourhood regeneration capital programme would enable the continuation of wider programmes of delivery in the Council’s priority regeneration areas, as set out in Report No.176, Minute No.11 above refers. Members also noted the reasons set out in paragraphs 13.2 and 13.3 of the report.

(Key decision – reference number 4229)

A report from the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services will be circulated as soon as possible. This should be read in conjunction with Report No.177, agenda part one refers. Further information will be provided at the meeting under restricted circulation. (Key decision – reference number 4263/U195)

(Report No.180)

(9.20 – 9.25pm)

TO FOLLOW

(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)

Asmat Hussain (Assistant Director of Legal and Governance) advised Members that the reports under consideration were commercially sensitive and were the subject of a confidentiality agreement. Members were advised of the restrictions that applied to them and the grounds on which they would need to declare an interest.

Councillor Doug Taylor (Leader of the Council) introduced the report of the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.180).

NOTED

1.               That Report No.177 also referred as detailed in Minute No.12 above.

2.               That a super part 2 report (No.180A) containing restricted exempt information was circulated at the meeting and collected in again following consideration by the Cabinet.

3.               James Rolfe (Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services) outlined in detail to Members the reasons for the proposals as set out in the reports and the impact for future IT delivery at the council. Members noted in particular the financial and HR implications.

4.               That, Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification on aspects of the proposals as detailed in the reports which were responded to by officers present.

5.               The proposed contract terms as detailed and the due diligence which had been undertaken.

Alternative Options Considered: As detailed in Report No.177, Minute No.12 above refers, and in the restricted super part 2 report considered at the meeting.

DECISION: The Cabinet agreed the recommendations in full as set out in the following paragraphs of section 2 of Report Nos. 180 and 180A: paragraphs 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8.

Reason: As detailed in Report No.177, Minute No.12 above refers, and in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of Report Nos.180 and 180A.

(Key decision – U195/KD 4263)