Agenda and minutes

The Mayor’s Chaplain, Rabbi Daniel Epstein gave the blessing.

The Mayor began by wishing everyone good evening and welcoming them to Council meeting for November. 

He continued saying that he hoped everyone was keeping well at this difficult time when the pandemic was still affecting so many of lives. He sent his best wishes to all the residents and staff involved in dealing with the pandemic and thanked all those who were working so tirelessly to help in any way that they could, until the virus could be defeated.

The Mayor had been endeavouring to attend as many events as possible. He had been honoured to attend the Lord Mayors’ Association’s Civic Service at Westminster Abbey on the 18 October 2020.  Where it had been nice to see so many other Mayors, albeit with social distancing restrictions.

The Mayor had sent videos of good wishes to events he had been unable to attend personally, including the Jack Petchey Foundation, Spacehive Project, Enfield School High Achievers, MacMillan Cancer Support and many others.  Once the government restrictions were lifted, he hoped that he would be able to meet many more people over the coming months

The Mayor said that his Mayoral charity was progressing well.  He had received designs from many school children who had seemed to be delighted to be involved in the launch of his t-shirt campaign.

As Christmas was fast approaching, he concluded by wishing everyone a peaceful and happy Christmas and prayed that the New Year would bring hope and tranquillity and we would be able to put 2020 behind us.  He wished everyone all health and kindness.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 30 September 2020 as a correct record. 

The minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 September 2020 were received and agreed as a correct record with the following amendment to item 6 para 4 bullet point 3: 

To replace the sentence “Responses by phone had been excellent” with “The phone call service for isolated residents was excellent”.

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Akpinar, Brett, Hayward and Milne. 

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

Councillor Taylor and Councillor Leaver declared disclosable pecuniary interests in item 7 (Treasury Management Mid Year Report) as they were directors of Energetik.  

To receive a report from the Executive Director Place setting out a Council response to the Government’s Planning White Paper – Planning for the Future. 

Councillor Caliskan moved and Councillor Savva seconded the report of the Executive Director Place on the Council’s response to the Government’s White Paper – Planning for the Future. 

NOTED

1.            Councillor Caliskan in proposing this report highlighted the following: 

·         The report set out the Council’s response to the Government consultation on major changes to the planning system.

·         The administration was supportive of some of the proposals in the consultation, including those which would streamline local planning processes, putting maps at the heart of local plans and increasing the role of good design.  But they were also very concerned about the government proposals and felt that they also should be of great concern to Enfield residents. Councillor Caliskan invited all councillors to add their voices and to ask the Government to urgently rethink the proposals. 

·         Although acknowledging that there was a need for more houses in Enfield, Councillor Caliskan thought that the Government was wrong to put all the blame for restricting development on the planning system.  This view was too simplistic. 

·         More clarity was needed on the mechanisms for distributing housing targets and a need to reflect specific local circumstances.  A large part of Enfield was made up of the green belt and strategic industrial land. 

·         On top of this the administration were very concerned that the proposals were a threat to local democratic decision making as they would effectively give national government control over local decision making. 

·         Concerns had been raised by many people and the proposals had been publicly criticised on all sides.  Local residents had strong view on planning matters which they had a right to have heard.  The views of residents’ matter. 

·         There was no mention of town centre regeneration.  Town centres were important areas for development and are often areas with quality heritage and great potential for growth. Residents want to be able to meaningfully influence the future of their town centres.

·         The uncertainty bought in by the white paper would hamper growth.

2.            The comments of the majority group including: 

·      Concern that although there were some positives most of the proposals in the consultation were negative and damaging to local democracy.

·      The planning system was not an obstacle to development.

·      Carbon neutral economic growth was important to quality of life.  There was no mention of the climate emergency.  The proposals could be damaging to environmental and ecological standards.  It was a missed opportunity to embed sustainability in the planning system. 

·      The proposals would do little to address the growing need for temporary accommodation, as there was no new funding to deliver new homes. 

·      Concern reflected in comments made at a recent Environment Forum about the threat to the green belt and the need to protect the natural and historic built environment

·      That this would be a developers’ charter and would take decision making away from local councils and affect the amount of fees the local authority could charge to pay for planning services. 

·      The proposals would result in the loss of office space and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To receive the report from the Executive Director Resources on the Treasury Management Mid Year Position.               Key Decision Reference:  KD: 5214

Council is asked to consider and note the 2020/21 Mid-Year Treasury Management position and approve the additional policy for 2020/21 Enfield Treasury Management Strategy Statement. 

This report is due to be considered by Cabinet on 11 November and recommended to Council for approval. 

Councillor Maguire moved and Councillor Caliskan seconded the report of the Executive Director Resources on the Treasury Management Mid-Year position. 

NOTED:

1.            Councillor Maguire in proposing the report highlighted the following: 

·         This was the half year report to the end of September 2020.

·         It had been considered by Cabinet on 11 November 2020.

·         The Council was being asked to approve an additional capital policy for the 2020/21 Enfield Treasury Management Strategy Statement. This policy concerned the working capital policy including where and when to make loans to third parties. 

·         All treasury management activity had been within approved limits and following prudential indicators. 

·         The audited borrowing Capital Financing Requirement Forecast for the 31 March 2020 was £1,072m.  This has been revised for the 31 March 2021 from £1,238m to £1,288m due to the pandemic and general capital expenditure slippage. 

·         There had been a reduction of £61.6m in borrowing outstanding and net borrowing with a revised forecast of £1,058. £200m less than the original budget.  The Council has spent less, due to work slowing down and there have been no new loans. 

·         The Council had approximately £1 billion worth of long term borrowing varying slightly between April and September. 

·         The amount of gross interest paid was forecast to be £27.3m for this financial year. 

·         Outstanding loans were set out in Table 5 to the report.  Where possible loans have been refinanced on better terms. 

·         The Council had 95 loans spread over a 50 year period. 

·         Table 3 set out the borrowing position.  Table 4 set out the Capital Financing Requirement.  Table 5set out the cost of borrowing.  Table 6 profiles maturing loans.  Table 7 contains Treasury Investments.

2.            Comments of the majority opposition group: 

·         Concern about the high levels of borrowing which will have to be repaid by future generations. 

·         Concern that Enfield was on track to become the Croydon of North London.

·         Disappointment that the Meridian Water had been so slow to get going.  It should have been generating more income by this stage. 

·         Disappointment that Energetik, the Council company, had not yet made a profit and that its directors were being paid too much. 

·         A forecast of over £1 billion debt was too high and the £27m cost of servicing the debt repayments would have to be taken from the revenue budget which would leave less money for other services. 

·         Money spent on Housing Gateway had not resulted in the building of new houses.  The Council now had one of the highest levels of temporary housing in London. 

·         Concern about the deficit in the dedicated schools grant. 

3.            Comments of the minority opposition group:

·         The Coronavirus pandemic had been a mixed blessing as it had saved the Council money in some areas.

4.            Comments of the majority group: 

·         The spending on the capital programme was being closely monitored. The report showed clear evidence of sound financial management. 

·         The Council was supporting the local economy and was investing including in new housing, new lighting as well as Meridian Water.

·         Borrowing this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive a report from the Executive Director Resources on Revenue Monitoring Quarter 2.                          Key Decision Reference:  KD: 5200

Council is asked to approve a recommendation on fees and charges.

This report is due to be considered by Cabinet on 11 November 2020 and recommended onto Council for approval.  The Cabinet decision will be reported at the meeting. 

Councillor Stewart moved and Councillor Caliskan seconded a motion to extend the time allowed for reports for a further 15 minutes. 

This was agreed without a vote. 

Councillor Maguire moved and Councillor Caliskan seconded the report of the Executive Director Resources setting out the Council’s revenue budget monitoring position to the end of September 2020 (Second Quarter).

NOTED

1.            Councillor Maguire highlighted the following in moving the report: 

·         The report set out the position on projected income and expenditure, both as it was with the Covid situation and also what the situation would have been without the pandemic. 

·         Without Covid, the Council would have had a 0.345m underspend.

·         The impact of Covid had been estimated at £64.6m.  This included forecasted expenditure, loss of income and impact on the savings programme, but not the impact of the second lock down. 

·         Even with the additional money provided by Government, this would still leave a £30.9m gap. 

·         This would put pressure on the Council Tax and although the Government was allowing the Council to run a short term deficit this would be detrimental to financing in future years. 

·         The Council has had to carry out a mid year review of fees and charges which the Council is asked to approve to help bridge the gap. 

·         On top of this, the dedicated schools grant was forecasting an outturn deficit of £2.661m which added to last year’s deficit would reach £7.142m by the end of this year. 

·         The Housing revenue account was also forecasting a £0.7m overspend which is a result of the pandemic. 

·         Table 1 sets out the General Fund Quarter 2 Projected Departmental Outturn Variances 2020/21, Table 2 the Summary of Covid 19 Impact by Department.  Further detail was in the appendices to the report. 

·         Without the pandemic, the Council would have had only a very small overspend.    

·         The savings proposals agreed in July 2020 were on track to deliver.

·         Reserves would continue to be monitored. 

2.            The comments of the majority opposition: 

·         To acknowledge that the Government had given unprecedented support through the furlough scheme, to local businesses and to the Council to support the costs of the pandemic.  This included funding for the homeless, to help vulnerable families. 

·         Concern about the late completion of the accounts and that the Council had failed to repair the finances in the good years, spending too much on consultants and solicitors. 

·         Concern about the increases to fees and charges, including for funerals and burials which was felt to be inappropriate at this time. 

·         To acknowledge that the report was out of date, as since it was written, the Government had given a total of more than £40m to the Council. 

·         The furlough scheme had underpinned the jobs of thousands of Enfield residents.

·         Concern about the £100,000 spent on premises for the Community Hub when the Council owned other buildings which could have been used. 

·         Confirmation was needed that the Council can balance the budget. 

3.            The comments of the majority group: 

·           Welcome and support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Councillor Claire Stewart moved and Councillor Caliskan seconded a proposal under paragraph 4.2 of the Council procedure rules to change the order of items on the agenda so that Motion 9 under Item 12 motions should be taken as the next item of business.  This would be followed by Motions 10,4,6 and 7. 

This was agreed after a vote with the following result:

For: 41

Against: 17

Abstentions: 4

The minutes reflect the order of the meeting. 

Motion 1 in the name of Councillor Joanne Laban

The Council supports the provision of meat options at its events and to exclude them is discriminatory against meat eaters. This chamber agrees that all Enfield Council events where catering is provided should include meat, vegetarian and vegan options to show its commitment to inclusivity.

Motion 2 in the name of Councillor Edward Smith

This Council agrees to review its recently published Climate Change Action Plan which set a target for the Council achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 because it is flawed and was not subject to adequate consultation for such an important and far reaching project. 

Motion 3 in the name of Councillor Aramaz

No Return to Austerity Post-Pandemic

Enfield Council recognises that the COVID-19 Pandemic has disrupted the economy significantly.  Lockdown measures have meant that the UK economy had shrunk over 20% by the end of August 2020 in comparison to the previous three months.

This will inevitably mean that certain reforms must be made to the economy in order to avoid exacerbating the economic crisis. 

Since 2010, austerity measures were introduced and quantitative easing was used to stimulate the economy unsuccessfully.  By 2016, up to £445 billion was created and given to the financial markets whereby a minuscule 8% of the wealth trickled down to the real economy, toppling the trickle-down economics argument. In June 2020, this figure now stood at a total of £745billion.

Realistically, quantitative easing should be used not to aid the financial markets but to aid the real economy by investing into building homes, developing infrastructure and creating jobs.

Currently, Enfield Council finds itself at breaking point because of austerity measures introduced by the government.  Since 2010, the council has lost more than 60% of its budget in real terms and cannot suffice anymore. 

Therefore, Enfield Council demands that the government does not reintroduce austerity measures post-pandemic and instead embraces the opportunity to change society for the better by investing in the real economy.

Motion 4 in the name of Councillor Aramaz

Acknowledgement and Acceptance of Alevi and Kurdish People

The Council recognises that there are a huge number of Alevi and Kurdish people in the borough. It is acknowledged by the British Alevi Federation that the London Borough of Enfield has the highest amount of Alevis and Kurdish people living in one area in the United Kingdom.

Enfield public bodies do not currently have enough information about Alevis. More data would help inform the approach of the education, health, local government and general support towards the Alevi community. Lack of inclusion in the census indicates an underestimation and insufficient recognition of the Alevi community as well as inadequate resources directed towards them.

Enfield Council supports the campaign by the British Alevi Federation to include Alevism in the census. Data about minority groups is vital because underreporting could allow discrimination to go unnoticed.

Therefore, in order to not disenfranchise those that identify themselves as Alevi or Kurdish, Enfield Council will ask officers to  ...  view the full agenda text for item 10.

Councillor Jewell proposed and Councillor Achilleas Georgiou seconded the following motion: 

The important campaign led by the Premier League footballer, Marcus Rashford, has shone a light on the importance offree school meals to many of our children, particularly during the pandemic when so many families have had their householdincome drop.

Enfield Council condemns the government’s decision not to fund Free School Meals during the October half term this year. If the government can find £7000 a day for consultants for the failed track and trace system, it can fund to help the most vulnerable families in our communities with free school meals during the school holidays.

During the October half term, Enfield Council has been in contact with more than 2,500 families on the free school meal lists, offering support to ensure no child went hungry.

This Council believes that when schools are closed, such as during school holidays, or if children are not able to attend school because of Covid-19, that those children who are entitled to free school meals should have access to food.

Enfield Council believes that no child should ever go hungry whilst at school or during the holidays and we call on the government to quickly resolve to funding FSMs.

During the debate Councillor Stewart moved and Councillor Barnes seconded a motion to proceed to the next item of business.

This was agreed with the following result:

For:  45

Against:  17

Abstentions:  0

After the debate the motion was agreed with a vote with the following result:

For:  45

Against:  17

Abstentions: 0

Councillor Savva moved and Councillor Rye seconded the following motion: 

Enfield condemns in the strongest possible way the unlawful killing and continued unfair treatment of Black lives. Racism has no place in Enfield or elsewhere in this Country and the World.

Those found to exercise or practice racism, if found guilty, should be punished with jail and or fines.

After the debate the motion was agreed unanimously. 

Councillor Stewart moved and Councillor Caliskan seconded a motion to extend the time allowed for motions by 35 minutes. 

Councillor Aramaz moved and Councillor Ergin Erbil seconded the following motion: 

The Council recognises that there are a huge number of Alevi and Kurdish people in the borough. It is acknowledged by the British Alevi Federation that the London Borough of Enfield has the highest amount of Alevis and Kurdish people living in one area in the United Kingdom.

Enfield public bodies do not currently have enough information about Alevis. More data would help inform the approach of the education, health, local government and general support towards the Alevi community. Lack of inclusion in the census indicates an underestimation and insufficient recognition of the Alevi community as well as inadequate resources directed towards them.

Enfield Council supports the campaign by the British Alevi Federation to include Alevism in the census. Data about minority groups is vital because underreporting could allow discrimination to go unnoticed.

Therefore, in order to not disenfranchise those that identify  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Mayor advised, at this stage of the meeting, that the time available to complete the agenda had now elapsed so Council Procedure Rule 9 would apply.

NOTED that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8 (page 4-8 – Part 4), the remaining items of business on the Council agenda were considered without debate.

To receive the Annual Report of the Audit and Risk Management Committee 2019/20. 

This report was agreed by the General Purposes Committee on Thursday 15 October and referred on to Council for approval. 

RECEIVED the Annual Report of the Audit and Risk Management Committee for 2019/20.

NOTED this report had been agreed by the General Purposes Committee on 15 October 2020 and recommended on to Council. 

AGREED to note the report.

Councillor Laban indicated that, if there had been a vote, the Majority Opposition would have voted against. 

To receive the Annual Report of the Councillor Conduct Committee 2019/21.

RECEIVED the Annual Report of the Councillor Conduct Committee 2019/20.

AGREED to note the report.

Councillor Laban indicated that, if there had been a vote, the Majority Opposition group would have voted against. 

12.1    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. 

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

The list of questions and their written responses will be published on Tuesday 17 November 2020. 

1.            Urgent Questions

There were no urgent questions.

2.            Questions by Councillors

NOTED

1.            The forty four questions on the Council agenda and the written responses provided by the relevant Cabinet Members.

To confirm changes to Committee memberships agreed since the last meeting.

Any changes received once the agenda has been published with be tabled on the Council update sheet at the meeting. 

There were no changes to committee memberships.   

To confirm any changes to the nominations on outside bodies agreed since the last meeting. 

Any changes notified after the agenda has been published will be reported to Council on the update sheet tabled at the meeting. 

There were no changes to the nominations to outside bodies. 

To note the date agreed for the next Council meeting:

·         Thursday 28 January 2021 at 7pm. 

NOTED that the next ordinary Council meeting will take place on Thursday 28 January 2020 at 7pm.