Agenda and minutes

The Mayor apologised for the late start of the meeting, which had been delayed to 7:10pm.  This had been due to the late arrival of the Mayor’s Chaplain who had been held up in traffic.

The election of a Chairman/Deputy Chairman of the meeting was not required. 

The Mayor’s Chaplain to give a blessing.

Father Emmanuel – Parish Priest of St Edmonds Church, Edmonton, gave the blessing. 

The Mayor made the following announcements: 

·              She thanked Father Emmanuel for offering the prayers.

·              She reminded members about the sad death of past Mayor Patrick Cunneen, who died just before Christmas, after a long illness; she thanked the Deputy Mayor Councillor Kate Anolue and other members for attending his funeral on Monday 9 January 2012.

Councillors Doug Taylor and Mike Rye paid tribute to Patrick Cunneen.  The whole Council stood and observed a minute’s silence in his memory. 

Further announcements followed:

• The Mayor and the Deputy had attended numerous engagements in the borough, including many Christmas Lunches, a number of concerts and recitals, showing the abundance of talent in the borough. 

• The Mayor had enjoyed attending the New Years Day Parade, a spectacular occasion where it was wonderful to see so many people lining the streets, cheering and clapping the groups performing in the parade. 

• She thanked the Platinum Dance Group, based at Millfield Theatre for representing Enfield.  They had come ninth in the London Boroughs competition this year, as a result the Mayor’s Charity appeal will receive £1500. 

• She informed members that the Mayor’s Charity Spring Ball would be held on Saturday 24 March 2012, at Forty Hall Banqueting Suite. Tickets would be £45 each, to include a drinks reception on arrival, 3 course meal and a half bottle of wine per person.   She hoped that as many as possible would support the evening.

The Mayor announced that the Council had recently received the following awards.

1.         London Safeguarding Children Award 2011

The Mayor said that she was pleased to say that on 5December 2011 Enfield Parent Engagement Panel (PEP) won the very first London Safeguarding Children Award 2011 for emerging practice.

Anne Stoker, Enfield Parent Commissioner, was joined at the award ceremony by a number of the Enfield Parent Champions; every-one was delighted when the announcement was made. There was press interest and photographs were taken of the parents receiving the award. There were 4 projects short listed with 3 being highly commended however Enfield was the winner and the judges were extremely complimentary.

Parent Engagement Panels cut across all boundaries serving the whole Borough engaging across and within communities, promoting community cohesion. The PEPs aim to keep children, young people and communities safe and strong by increasing parental involvement.

From within the Parent Engagement Panels parent champions are coming forward. These are parents willing to go that extra mile to source and support their communities by improving access and engagement to services and provisions, particularly for those who are isolated or whom do not normally engage with others outside of their communities.

It is fantastic to hear such an important initiative getting such well deserved external recognition. 

Anne Stoker and members of the Parent Engagement Panel were presented with the award.

2.         Sword of Honour

The Sword of Honour is a prestigious award recognising the 'best of the best' in health and safety management. It was only achievable if an organisation achieves a 'Five Star'  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

To approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the Council meeting held on 9 November 2011.

AGREED that the minutes of the Council meeting held on 9 November 2011 be confirmed and signed as a correct record

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chris Bond, Eric Jukes, Chris Murphy, Anne-Marie Pearce and Rohini Simbodyal, Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Marcus East.

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

The following interests were declared in agenda item 7 - Opposition Business: Portas Review on the Future of our High Streets:

·              Councillor Tashin Ibrahim declared a personal interest as he was an employee of Enfield Retail Business Association Ltd.

·              Councillor Christopher Cole declared a personal interest as an associate of the owner of a local business in a town centre within Enfield.

The Assistant Director Corporate Governance advised members that they would need to consider declaring a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of agenda item 10 - Concessionary Travel Policy if they or any member of their immediate family or close associate had applied for or was in receipt of a blue badge/disabled persons Freedom Pass or Taxicard.  As a result of the advice provided the following interests were declared:

·              Councillor Yusuf Cicek declared a personal and prejudicial interest as a close relative held a disabled persons Freedom Pass;

·              Councillor Achilleas Georgiou declared a personal and prejudicial interest as a close relative held a disabled persons Freedom Pass;

·              Councillor Dino Lemonides declared a personal and prejudicial interest as a close relative held a disabled persons Freedom Pass;

Each member withdrew from the meeting during the consideration of this item and did not vote.

Councillor Tom Waterhouse declared a personal interest in item 14.1 (Motion in the name of Councillor Lavender) as he was employed by Nick de Bois MP, as a Senior Parliamentary Assistant.

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.

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.

To receive the final report (No.181A) and recommendations from the Commission set up by Council in September 2011 to examine the August 2011 disturbances in Enfield.

Council is asked to note that this item is due to be considered by Cabinet on 18 January 2012 and an update on any decision made as a result will be provided for the Council meeting.

Councillor Hamilton (Chair of the Council Commission) moved and Councillor Rye seconded the final report setting out the findings and recommendations from the Council Commission set up to investigate the causes of the August Disturbances in Enfield during August 2011 (Report No.181A).

NOTED

1.      Councillor Hamilton in moving the report highlighted: 

a.      The Commission had been established by Council in September to investigate the reasons behind the disturbances in Enfield and put forward recommendations to prevent them happening again.  The timeframe had been very short to enable the recommendations to feed in to the review being carried out by the National Riots, Communities and Victims Panel.

b.      The Commission had held 12 meetings, including two in public, carried out visits to areas affected and spoken to many of the individuals involved including the Borough Commander, Chief Executive and other community leaders.

c.      The Commission had found no one single cause for the riots.  There were many underlying issues with those involved from all ages and ethnicities.

d.      Whilst there were no easy solutions, there was a need to tackle the underlying issues, build young peoples self esteem and resilience, address increasing marginalisation and improve early intervention.

e.      The Commission would continue to review the offender survey results, and to monitor the implementation of the recommendations, a visit to Pentonville Prison was also planned.  The Council would seek to take advantage of external funding to implement the recommendations.

f.       The final report and recommendations would be submitted to the National Riots, Communities and Victims Panel to feed into their final review.

2.      Councillor Rye in seconding the report highlighted:

a.      The need to recognise that only a small minority of young people had been involved in the disturbances.  A multiplicity of factors had been involved.  Although the recommendations on their own could not prevent future disturbances, they would contribute to prevention.

b.      The Police had done the best job that they could in the circumstances and with the initial resources available but, it was felt, could have been more proactive in their initial response.  Analysis should be undertaken on addressing the factors influencing young people who were known to the Education Welfare Service and who had been excluded.

c.      In addition there was a need to recognise the poor relationship between some young people and the police and to consider how representative the police were of their communities.

3.      The thanks extended by the Commission Chair to all members of the Commission & Alison Trew (Head of Corporate Policy and Performance) and the other Commission Support Officers for their support in arranging and turning around the evidence and Commission meetings so quickly.  These thanks were reiterated by all members of the Commission with its work felt to represent an excellent example of cross party working.

4.      The concerns highlighted in relation to the impact of the criminal justice system and sentencing policy, which the Opposition Group felt had not been fully reflected as an issue within the Commission’s report.  In response the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

To receive a joint report from the Director of Environment & Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.162) setting out the background to the North London Waste Authority (NLWA), the current statutory default levy arrangements and the proposed changes pending repeal of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978.

The recommendations set out in the report were endorsed and recommended for approval to Council, at the Cabinet meeting held on 14 December 2011. (Key Decision – Reference No.3414)

Councillor Stafford (as Cabinet Member for Finance and Property) moved and Councillor Sitkin seconded the report of the Director of Environment and Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.162) setting out the background to the North London Waste Authority (NLWA), the current statutory default levy arrangements and the proposed changes to pending repeal of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity Act) 1978. 

NOTED

1.            The recommendations set out in the report had been endorsed by Cabinet on 14 December 2011.

2.            The concerns raised by the Opposition Group at what were felt to be the insufficient level of safeguards currently in place relating to the proposed transfer of the Household Waste & Recycling Centre at Barrowell Green. 

3.      The final decision on transfer of the Household Waste & Recycling Centre was still to be made, pending further information regarding the proposed service provision and cost apportionment.  The Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance & Property highlighted the assurances that would need to be obtained from North London Waste Authority (NLWA) prior to any transfer being agreed, as detailed in section 3.20 of the report, which it was felt did provide a sufficient level of comfort.

4.      The proposals to amend the levy, as detailed within section 3 of the report, would lead to a more proportional apportionment of costs.

In view of the concerns raised during the debate relating to the safeguards currently in place for the proposed transfer of the Household Waste and Recycling Centre, Councillor Neville moved and Councillor Lavender seconded a motion that the report be referred back to Cabinet for further consideration.  The motion for reference back was put to the vote with the following result:

For: 22

Against: 29

Abstentions: 0

The motion for reference back was not approved and Council then moved on to consider the substantive recommendations, as set out in the report:

AGREED

(1)    To approve the following resolution set out below, in order to vary the NLWA levy in respect of Household Waste and Recycling Centres only from the 2012/13 financial year.

“The London Borough of Enfield agrees that the revisions to the Joint Waste Disposal Authorities (Levies) (England) Regulations 2006 as set out at Appendix 1 should apply to the apportionment of the North London Waste Authority levy with effect from 1st April 2012 until such time as a further resolution is agreed unanimously by this Council and the six other constituent councils of the North London Waste Authority and such further resolution becomes effective, or further statutory provisions take effect and supersede the Appendix.”

(2)    To transfer a leasehold interest in the Household Waste and Recycling Centre at Barrowell Green to the NLWA on 1^st April 2012 following the repeal of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 from April 2012.  This would be subject to securing assurances from the NLWA as set out in paragraph 3.20 of the report delegated to the Director Environment and Cabinet Member for Environment and (as amended by Cabinet on 14 December  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

To receive a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services (No.160A) seeking approval to the Concessionary Travel Policy.

The recommendations set out in the report were endorsed and recommended for approval to Council, at the Cabinet meeting held on 14 December 2011.  (Key Decision – Reference 3397)

Please note the Policy document referred to in the report has already been circulated to all members as part of the Cabinet agenda for the meeting on 14 December 2011.  The cover report considered by Cabinet has been included on this agenda with a copy of the full Policy document placed, for reference, in the Members Library and Group Offices.  If required, additional copies can also be obtained by contacting James Kinsella (Governance Team Manager).

Councillor Taylor (as Leader of the Council) moved and Councillor Levy seconded the report from the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.160A) seeking approval for the Concessionary Travel Policy.

NOTED

1.            The recommendations set out in the report had been endorsed by Cabinet on 14 December 2011.

2.            The policy bought together existing policies and procedures, into a consistent and clear framework, in line with current legislation and guidance.

AGREED to approve the Concessionary Travel Policy, and to implement it with immediate effect.

Councillors Cicek, Georgiou & Lemonides all declared personal and prejudicial interests in respect of this item as they had close relatives who held a disabled persons Freedom Pass (Min.96 above refers).  They left the meeting for consideration of the above item and took no part in the decision.

To receive a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services (No.179A) seeking approval to the adoption of a new Corporate Procurement Strategy 2011-2015.

Council is asked to note that this item is due to be considered by Cabinet on 18 January 2012 and an update on any decision made as a result will be provided for the Council meeting.  (Key Decision – Reference 3402)

Please note the Strategy document referred to in the report has already been circulated to all members as part of the Cabinet agenda for the meeting on 18 January 2012.  The cover report accompanying the Strategy has been included on this agenda with a copy of the full Strategy document placed, for reference, in the Members Library and Group Offices.  If required, additional copies can also be obtained by contacting James Kinsella (Governance Team Manager).

Councillor Stafford (as Cabinet Member for Finance & Property) moved and Councillor Goddard (as Cabinet Member for Business and Regeneration) seconded the report from the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.179A) seeking approval to the adoption of a new Corporate Procurement Strategy.

NOTED

1.            The recommendations set out in the report had been endorsed by Cabinet on 14 December 2011.

2.            The Strategy had been designed to provide a clear policy direction on effective and sustainable procurement across the Council and enable the Authority to be in a good position to influence partners and the supply chain when procuring goods, services and works.  The Strategy was felt to represent best practice and showed the Council leading by example in promoting good social, economic and environmentally sustainable procurement.

3.            In response to concerns highlighted by the Opposition Group an assurance was provided that work would continue to engage with small and medium local businesses and the Third Sector with implementation of the policy in order to enable them to compete effectively. 

AGREED the Corporate Procurement Strategy and Sustainable Procurement Policy 2011-2015.

To receive a report from the Director of Environment (No.188) setting out and updating the delegated authority arrangements within the Environment Department, recommended as a consequence of changes in structures, posts and legislation. It also recommends that the Council adopts legislation to exercise powers to tackle unlawful vehicle crossovers.

The report was withdrawn at the meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list of thirty five questions received and their responses are attached to the agenda.

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

None received.

2.      Questions by Councillors

NOTED

1.      The thirty five questions, on the Council’s agenda, which received a written reply by the relevant Cabinet Member.

2.      In relation to Question 1:

a.      The amended answer that had been circulated to all members in advance of the meeting.  John Austin (Assistant Director Corporate Governance) advised members that the response was in the name of Councillor Savva and not Councillor Simon.  The amended response is set out below:

Councillor Savva’s Response

“Thank you to Cllr Lavender for pointing out an administrative error. While the details were indeed omitted, I can assure him that the items he refers to were heavily scrutinised. If he cared to ask any of his members or any member sitting on the Older People & Vulnerable Adults or Health & Well Being Scrutiny Panes he would have been informed that they did address all the issues he refers to. I would like to thank all the members from both sides who sit on these Panels and all officers and co- optees for their hard work and input.

The background to this report is that all Local Social Services Authorities were notified of the funding to be transferred by the Dept of Health through the NHS to Councils, for spend on social care activities that also benefit Health. This formed part of the 2010 government spending review commitments.  The confirmed allocation is for 2011/12 & 2012/13, but  with no guarantee that it will continue. The money has been treated as non recurrent and the department has sought to spread benefits from it into future years rather than restrict it to two. 

Enfield is expected to agree areas of spend with the Local NHS. The Health Cabinet Sub-Committee agreed the broad areas of expenditure in April 2011.  In addition areas of funding have in their own right already been the subject of decision at Cabinet and in the case of the Stroke Strategy at full Council. This report deals the allocation of the funding transfer as a whole. This decision has been on the forward plan for some time.

Both the Older People & Vulnerable Adults and the Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Panels want to see improved outcomes for our residents.  The development of new services and improved pathways of care which reflect best practice have been outlined in the joint commissioning priorities across health and social care.  These have been considered and welcomed by Scrutiny Panel members.

Draft strategies (and their implementation where applicable) covering many areas of the spending plan within the Key Decision have been scrutinised by the Panels and their working groups. These include primary care development; end of life care; re-ablement and intermediate care; stroke services; dementia services; personalisation of care (including brokerage, community equipment and adaptations); safeguarding; and telecare/assistive technology.”

3.      Councillor Lavender reported that he had received an apology from Councillor Simon and officers, in response to a complaint made about the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

14.1    In the name of Councillor Lavender

"This council congratulates the Government on its plans to include 16 and 17 year olds in legislation for mandatory custodial sentences for people who use a knife to threaten or endanger a person. This council further notes the crucial role played in securing this change in the law by Enfield North MP Nick de Bois who led the campaign in Parliament, the Enfield Independent newspaper that promoted the petition signed by hundreds of residents calling for 16 and 17 year olds to be included in the legislation, anti-knife crime groups such as STOP, TAGS, Anti-knife UK and the Enfield-based Nelson-Williams Foundation, and the borough's two other MPs David Burrowes and Andy Love."

14.2         In the name of Councillor Rye

“This council welcomes the Mayor of London Boris Johnson's decision not to increase the GLA precept through each year he has been the Mayor.

This Council also welcomes the money from the Conservative-led government which is on offer to local authorities who choose not to increase council tax for the second year running.  The council notes that not increasing taxation, benefits the largest number of people possible during this present recession.”

14.3         In the name of Councillor Hamilton

“The Council notes with concern the cuts in the Metropolitan Police and is particularly concerned about the impact on Enfield Safer Neighbourhoods teams.”

In view of the limited time available for the remainder of the meeting it was agreed unanimously by Council that the three motions listed on the agenda as items 14.1, 14.2 & 14.3 be withdrawn.

To confirm any changes to committee memberships.

AGREED

(1)    the following changes to committee memberships

a.      Crime, Safety and Stronger Communities Scrutiny Panel – Councillor Maynard to replace Councillor East

b.      Green Belt Forum – Councillor Bond to fill the vacancy.

To confirm any changes to nominations to outside bodies.

None received.

None received.

None received.  

In accordance with the decision made by Council in November 2011, members are asked to note that the next meeting of the Council will be held on Wednesday 29 February 2012 at 7.00 p.m. at the Civic Centre. 

NOTED that in accordance with the decision made by Council in November 2011, the next meeting of the Council would be held on 29 February 2012 at 7.00pm at the Civic Centre.