Agenda and minutes

The election of a Chair/Deputy Chair 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:

The following achievements were highlighted:

(a)    Quality Checkers – Adult Social Care

The Mayor congratulated all Quality Checkers within the Adult Social Care service, whom she informed the Council had been nominated for a 2013 Municipal Journal Award under the Innovation in Social Care Category.  The Quality Checkers were volunteer service users and carers who, since August 2012, had visited 57 different adult care services in order to provide feedback on service provision.  The visits were unannounced and had included in house day and residential services, private care homes as well as accredited equipment retailers. Feedback had been provided across four areas of care: Compassion; Choice & Control and where appropriate Food & Activities.  Those involved were thanked for their dedication and enthusiasm which had helped build the programme that had been nominated for the Award.

(b)    National Gold Award PE and School Sport

The Mayor congratulated the following schools who she was delighted to announce had attained the National Gold Award for PE and School Sport –; West Lea; Enfield Grammar; Brettenham, St James, Forty Hall, Hazelwood, St Monica’s and Eversley.  She invited the representatives who had been able to attend the meeting from Enfield Grammar, Brettenham, St Monica’s and Eversley Schools to come forward and receive their awards.  The schools were warmly congratulated by the Council for their achievement.

The award was open to all schools, with it possible to achieve the category of bronze, silver and gold.  The borough also had a number of schools which had attained silver and bronze status and were working towards gold.

The Mayor also took the opportunity to highlight the increasing number of schools now entering a myriad of sporting events including borough competitions in rugby, football, netball, hockey, basketball, gymnastics and tennis.  In addition the borough had been represented by 6 primary schools at the London School Games finals by schools who had won the borough sporting competitions and had been selected to play against the top teams from other London Boroughs.

The 2013 schools dance festival, held at Millfield Theatre, had also seen representatives from 65 schools participating.  This highlighted the PE Teams aim to try and find a sport for everyone, reflecting the diverse range of sport and other physical activities promoted.  The Torch Relay Park events last summer, had also included sports like fencing, dodgeball, cheerleading and golf for young people to try.  The Mayor was pleased to announce that the 9 Park events would be taking place again this year and would be called “Inspire Enfield”.

With the permission of the Mayor, Councillor Orhan took the opportunity to thank and congratulate all the schools for their efforts in achieving the gold kitemark award.  The borough was very proud of this achievement as the only one in north London to have schools that had attained the gold standard.

(c)    Equality Framework for Local Government Excellence Award

The Mayor was delighted to announce that Enfield had been successfully accredited at the Excellent level of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

To approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the Council meeting held on Wednesday 27 February 2013.

AGREED that the minutes of the Council meeting held on Wednesday 27 February 2013 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Yusef Cicek, Marcus East, Eric Jukes, Simon Maynard & Ann Zinkin.

An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Chris Deacon.

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

John Austin (Assistant Director Corporate Governance) reminded members of the requirements within the new Member Code of Conduct, relating to the declaration of interests.  The code had introduced a new category of disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) which in effect had replaced the previous category of prejudicial interests.

Members were advised that:

·              these interests extended not only to themselves but also to those of their spouse, partner, civil partner, family members or persons with whom they had a close association or personal relationship, and where they were aware that they had an interest.

·              when considering registering or disclosing any interests, they would still need to consider whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard the interest as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice their judgement of the public interest and if so the interest should be declared.

·              If they considered they had a DPI or prejudicial interest in any matter being considered at the meeting they would need to declare that interest and must leave the meeting until the conclusion of the matter under discussion.  They would not be permitted to discuss or vote on the matter in question and would also need to ensure that the Monitoring Officer was notified of the interest (if not already declared), unless a dispensation had been granted.

The following interests were declared at the meeting:

Agenda Item 9 – Review and Adoption of a Statutory Pay Policy Statement

Disclosable Pecuniary Interests were declared by the following members in the respect of the above item as they were closely related to individuals employed as members of staff by the Council, to which the policy would apply – Councillors Joanne Laban & Dinos Lemonides.

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 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.

To receive a report from the Director of Regeneration, Leisure and Culture seeking approval of the Proposed Submission Development Management Document and the subsequent consultation and submission, together with the necessary supporting documents to the Secretary of State for independent examination.                         (Report No.179)

(Key decision – reference number 3612)

Members are asked to note:

·              The report is also due to be considered by Cabinet on Wednesday 20 March 2013.  The decision made by Cabinet will be reported to Council.

·              A copy of the Proposed Submission Development Document will be available (for reference purposes) in the Members Library, Group Offices and also with this agenda via the Democracy page on the Council’s website.  If required, additional copies will be available by contacting James Kinsella (Governance Team Manager).

Councillor Goddard moved and Councillor Bond seconded the report from the Director of Regeneration, Leisure & Culture (No.179) seeking approval of the Proposed Submission Development Management Documents (DMD) and subsequent consultation and submission, together with the necessary supporting documents to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

NOTED

1.      The report and Proposed Submission DMD had been approved by the Local Plan Cabinet Sub Committee (18 March 2013) and Cabinet (20 March 2013) for recommendation on to Council.  This had been subject to a schedule of minor changes to the Development Management Document a copy of which had been emailed to members in advance of the meeting and tabled with the amendment sheet.

2.      The next steps in the consultation and approval process for the Proposed Submission DMD, following consideration by Council, which would require its publication for a six week consultation period before being submitted to the Government for independent examination.

3.      Although subject to potential objection by the Greater London Authority, reference to affordable rents had been retained within the section on Affordable Housing in the Proposed Submission DMD.

4.      The support from the Opposition Group towards the recommendations within the report and recognition that the comments they had submitted in relation to parking levels within developments had been incorporated within the Proposed Submission DMD.

AGREED

(1)    To approve the proposed submission version of the DMD and Policies Map (including the schedule of minor changes referred to at the meeting) for a statutory 6 week publication and subsequent submission to the Secretary of State.

(2)    The Cabinet member for Business & Regeneration be authorised to approve the publication of the Sustainability Appraisal and Equality Impact Assessment of the proposed submission DMD.

(3)    The Director of Regeneration, Leisure & Culture, in consultation with the Cabinet member for Business & Regeneration, agree appropriate changes to the proposed submission version of the DMD and undertake any further consultation required in the run up to and during the public examination process into the document, in response to representations received, requests from the Planning Inspector and any emerging evidence, guidance or legal advice.  Changes of a substantive nature may be considered by the Local Plan Cabinet Sub Committee.

To receive the report of the Chief Executive presenting the Council’s Statutory Pay Policy Statement for consideration and approval.            (Report No.171A)

Members are asked to note that the draft Pay Policy Statement was subject to review and recommendation onto Council, at the Remuneration Sub Committee on 19 March 2013.

Councillor Simon moved and Councillor Brett seconded the report of the Chief Executive (No.171A) presenting the Council’s Statutory Pay Policy Statement for consideration and approval.

NOTED

1.            The Draft Pay Policy Statement had been subject to review and recommendation on to Council for approval, by the Remuneration Sub Committee on 19 March 2013.

2.            The report had been withdrawn from the agenda at the last meeting to allow consideration to be given to additional supplementary guidance from the Department of Communities & Local Government (DCLG) relating to the approval of salary and severance packages of £100k or above.

3.            The supplementary guidance had been considered by the Remuneration Sub Committee (19 March 2013) who had:

a.            been satisfied, on the basis of the detail provided in section 3.4 of the report, that the existing mechanisms relating to senior appointments provided an appropriate level of accountability in relation to the approval of any salary level of £100k or above.  The mechanisms already in place to address the requirements within the supplementary guidance had been included  within section 3.9.1 of the Pay Policy Statement;

b.            recommended that the supplementary guidance in relation to severance payments should not be incorporated into the Pay Policy Statement, at this stage, given:

·              the lack of clarity on what constituted a severance payment and whether non-discretionary elements would need to be included;

·              at what level its application would be appropriate;

·              concerns regarding compliance with data protection and Article 8 Human Rights considerations;

Further advice was being sought on these issues and in the interim, in order to address the supplementary guidance, it had been recommended that the Assistant Director Human Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance & Property and relevant Cabinet Member(s) and Director(s) would make decisions on a case by case basis to decide whether severance payments in excess of £100k should be referred to Council.

4.      The concerns raised by the Opposition Group in relation to the approach outlined in 3. above towards addressing the supplementary guidance.  It was felt the Council needed to be fully transparent in relation to the level of senior officer pay and severance packages.

As a result of the concerns raised Councillor Neville moved and Councillor Rye seconded an amendment to the recommendation within the report so that adoption of the Pay Policy Statement would be subject to the Council resolving with immediate effect (in accordance with DCLG Guidance) that all proposed appointments at a salary in excess of £100,000 and all proposed severance arrangements in excess of £100,000 go to full council for approval.  The amendment was subsequently withdrawn, after a period of further debate, on the basis that:

·              details of all senior officer posts attracting a salary of £100k or above were already published within the Council’s accounts; and

·              further advice was still being sought from DCLG and London Councils on the extent of what needed to be included in the definition of severance payments within the guidance.  Once clarified, the Leader of the Council advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

To receive a report from the Director of Health, Housing & Adult Social Care seeking approval to the establishment of a Health and Wellbeing Board and the specific proposals for Enfield.         (Report No.200)

Councillor McGowan moved and Councillor Orhan seconded the report of the Director of Health, Housing & Adult Social Care (No.200) seeking approval to the establishment of the Health & Wellbeing Board in Enfield.

NOTED

1.      The requirement on all unitary councils contained within the Health & Social Care Act 2012, to establish a Health & Wellbeing Board by 1 April 2013.

2.      The partnership status of the Boards which were being set up with the aim of bringing greater democratic accountability and legitimacy to the NHS and promoting better integration across health and social care in the interests of patients and the public.

3.      The proposals for the Health & Wellbeing Board in Enfield had been designed to reflect the practice and experience gained from operation of the pilot arrangements by Enfield’s Shadow Board, which had been in existence since December 2011.

4.      The key initiatives developed across Enfield as a result of partnership working mechanisms in relation to health and social care including programmes relating to blood testing and to tackle child obesity, which the Health & Wellbeing Board had been designed to continue building upon.

5.      The concerns raised by the Opposition Group at the lack of any Opposition Member within the proposed membership of the Board, as a means of encouraging cross party engagement, support and also, where relevant, greater accountability in relation to the work of the Board.  Whilst noting that the requirements for political proportionality contained within the Local Government Housing Act 1989 had been disapplied in relation to Health & Wellbeing Boards, it was pointed out that this, at the same time, had enabled individual Councils to decide their own approach towards councillor representation on the Board.

As a result of these concerns Councillor Headley moved and Councillor Chamberlain seconded the following amendment to recommendation 2.2 in the report:

"To agree the membership of the Board as proposed in para 3.4.2 of the report, subject to the Opposition Lead Member for Adult Social Services being included as a additional member”

Following a debate, the amendment was put to the vote with the following result:

For: 22

Against: 33

Absentions: 0

The amendment was not therefore approved.  Members then moved on to consider the original and substantive recommendations within the report, which were put to the vote and approved with the following result:

For: 33

Against: 22

Abstentions: 0

In reaching this decision members noted the requirements, highlighted as a result of the Francis Public Inquiry into operation of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust to ensure that a suitable separation was provided in the relationship between health scrutiny and the Executive, which it was felt needed to be reflected in relation to membership of the Board.  As a way forward it was suggested that the concerns and possible solution (involving opposition health scrutiny members not being allowed to serve on the Board) highlighted by the Opposition Group be raised for further consideration with the Members & Democratic Services Group.

AGREED

(1)    To approve the Terms of Reference for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160.

11.1    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.

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

The list of forty one questions and their written responses are attached to the agenda.

1.1    Urgent Questions

None received.

1.2    Questions by Councillors

NOTED

1.      The forty one questions on the Council’s agenda which had received a written reply from the relevant Cabinet Member or Scrutiny/Committee Chair.

2.      The following supplementary questions received for the questions indicated below:

Question 2 (proposals to dispose of Council owned golf courses) from Councillor Levy to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance & Property.

“At the last Council meeting Councillor Zetter referred to the potential of selling off Council owned golf courses.  Can the Cabinet Member confirm if Councillor Zetter has identified which courses he was referring to?”

Reply from Councillor Stafford:

“Unfortunately Councillor Zetter has not shared his thoughts with me on which courses he feels are surplus to requirement.  Perhaps these proposals will be developed in more detail as part of his Groups Manifesto for next years local elections”

Question 3 (New Homes Bonus and s.106 levy) from Councillor Lavender to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance & Property

“The written response to this question made reference to assumptions being included with the 2013/14 budget relating to the New Homes Bonus.  What were the assumptions made and which sites do they relate to?”

Reply from Councillor Stafford:

“These assumptions were detailed within the budget setting report.  T is also important to remember in relation to the allegations made about s.106 shortfall that s.106 contributions are treated as earmarked expenditure and will not have any impact on the medium term financial strategy.  A written response would be provided in relation to the sites for the New Homes Bonus.”

Question 4 (funding for rape crisis work) from Councillor Ibrahim to Councillor Hamilton, Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing & Public Health

Whilst grateful for the assurance received from the Mayors Office for Policing & Crime (MOPAC) that they will not be reducing their funding contribution towards the rape crisis centres can the Cabinet Member advise what she feels caused MOPAC to decide not to reduce their investment in these centres.

Reply from Councillor Hamilton:

“There is no doubt that the recent motion agreed by Council and subsequent lobbying by representatives from both Groups on the Council did influence MOPACs decision.  However it was important to note the need for lobbying to continue in relation to the Community Safety Fund, which at the same time had seen a 59% reduction over recent years.”

Question 6 (youth achievement foundation) from Councillor Cranfield to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Children & Young People

Can I congratulate the Cabinet Member on the implementation of the scheme and ask for further details on the prospects for young people on the programme.

Reply from Councillor Orhan:

“The RAISE – Youth Achievement in Enfield is a full time programme which incorporates:

·              a BTEC centralised learning programme

·              core learning in functional English and functional Maths

·              community and work internship placements

·              college placement

The unique programme supports learners from the moment they leave home, providing holistic support to enable the student to best manage the external pressures that can hinder their achievements.  In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

The Mayor advised, at this stage of the meeting, that the time available to complete the agenda had now elapsed so Council Procedure Rule 8 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, as the time available for the meeting had elapsed.

The remaining items of business were then considered without debate.

12.1    In the name of Councillor Goddard

“This Council believes that the recent report, No Stone Unturned - In pursuit of Growth - by the Right Honourable Lord Heseltine, provides a possible framework for sustainable growth not only in the UK but in Enfield and our region and sub region.

This Council endorses the general principle within the report that Local Government (Local and Regional) has the capability to generate growth.

Whilst there may be issues regarding some of the 89 recommendations which may be open to debate, Council calls upon the Government, the Mayor of London and the London LEP to begin substantial discussions with London Councils and the sub regions of London regarding the announced implementation of the report.”

12.2In the name of Councillor Hamilton

“We ask this Council to note the One Billion Rising Campaign, and the call to end violence against women and girls; and we call on Enfield Council to support the call to introduce statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, include a zero tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships.

We call on this Council to invite a speaker from the national campaign to address the Council meeting in November to mark White Ribbon Day, in recognition that Enfield Council was the first London Authority to be awarded white ribbon status for its work on raising awareness and tackling violence against women and girls.”

12.3    In the name of Councillor Rye

“Enfield Council congratulates the Chancellor of the Exchequer The Rt Hon George Osborne on his recent Budget – as the Conservative led Government reduces the huge deficit left by the last Labour Government, this will help promote growth and benefit Enfield residents.”

12.4    In the name of Councillor Neville

“The Council is concerned to retain and improve the appearance of the borough’s street scene and instructs the Environment Cabinet Member to ensure that repairs to footways are carried out on a like for like basis i.e. replacing broken pavings with paving/blocks unless a change to tarmac is favoured by the majority of residents of a road in a consultation exercise.”

12.5         In the name of Councillor Levy

“Contrary to popular belief, the number of licensed betting shops currently operating in Enfield is approximately the same as it was in 2007.

But even were there to have been the kind of proliferation locally that is perceived to be the case, local authorities such as Enfield Borough Council are almost powerless to exert effective controls of the spread of such premises under current legislation and guidance. In the case of the Gambling Act 2005, councils are explicitly prevented from even considering cumulative impact as a policy option.

In a political climate where the concept of localism is given primacy, and where local government is continually being told to assume more responsibilities and keep its house in order, it is a major anomaly that national law places unworkable constraints on councils and other authorities in addressing the concerns of a wide  ...  view the full agenda text for item 163.

The following motions listed on the agenda, lapsed due to lack of time:

1.1    In the name of Councillor Goddard

“This Council believes that the recent report, No Stone Unturned - In pursuit of Growth - by the Right Honourable Lord Heseltine, provides a possible framework for sustainable growth not only in the UK but in Enfield and our region and sub region.

This Council endorses the general principle within the report that Local Government (Local and Regional) has the capability to generate growth.

Whilst there may be issues regarding some of the 89 recommendations which may be open to debate, Council calls upon the Government, the Mayor of London and the London LEP to begin substantial discussions with London Councils and the sub regions of London regarding the announced implementation of the report.”

1.2       In the name of Councillor Hamilton

“We ask this Council to note the One Billion Rising Campaign, and the call to end violence against women and girls; and we call on Enfield Council to support the call to introduce statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, include a zero tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships.

We call on this Council to invite a speaker from the national campaign to address the Council meeting in November to mark White Ribbon Day, in recognition that Enfield Council was the first London Authority to be awarded white ribbon status for its work on raising awareness and tackling violence against women and girls.”

1.3    In the name of Councillor Rye

“Enfield Council congratulates the Chancellor of the Exchequer The Rt Hon George Osborne on his recent Budget – as the Conservative led Government reduces the huge deficit left by the last Labour Government, this will help promote growth and benefit Enfield residents.”

1.4    In the name of Councillor Neville

“The Council is concerned to retain and improve the appearance of the borough’s street scene and instructs the Environment Cabinet Member to ensure that repairs to footways are carried out on a like for like basis i.e. replacing broken pavings with paving/blocks unless a change to tarmac is favoured by the majority of residents of a road in a consultation exercise.”

1.5       In the name of Councillor Levy

“Contrary to popular belief, the number of licensed betting shops currently operating in Enfield is approximately the same as it was in 2007.

But even were there to have been the kind of proliferation locally that is perceived to be the case, local authorities such as Enfield Borough Council are almost powerless to exert effective controls of the spread of such premises under current legislation and guidance. In the case of the Gambling Act 2005, councils are explicitly prevented from even considering cumulative impact as a policy option.

In a political climate where the concept of localism is given primacy, and where local government is continually being told to assume more responsibilities and keep its house in order, it is a major anomaly that national law places unworkable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 163.

Council is asked to note the details provided of decisions taken under the Council’s urgency procedure relating to the waiving of call-in and, where necessary, the requirements in relation to notice of key decisions.  These decisions have been made in accordance with the urgency procedures set out in para 17.3 of Chapter 4.2 (scrutiny) and para 16 of Chapter 4.6 (Access to Information) of the Council’s Constitution.

NOTED the details of the following decision taken under the Council’s urgency procedure relating to the waiver of call-in.  The decision had been made in accordance with the urgency procedures set out in Paragraph 17.3 of Chapter 4.2 (Scrutiny) of the Council’s Constitution.

1.      Primary Expansion Programme – Extension of early project orders

To confirm any changes to committee memberships:

No changes to committee memberships were identified for consideration at the meeting.

To confirm any changes to outside body membership.

No changes to outside body membership were identified for consideration at the meeting.

None received.

None received.  

To note that the next meeting of the Council will be held on Wednesday 8 May 2013 at 7.00 p.m. at the Civic Centre.  This will be the Annual Council Meeting & Mayor Making Ceremony.

NOTED that the next meeting of the Council would be held at 7.00pm on Wednesday 8 May 2013 at the Civic Centre.  This would be the Annual Council meeting.