Agenda and minutes

Father Jeffrey from Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St George Enfield gave the blessing. 

The Mayor thanked Father Jeffrey for offering the blessing at the start of the meeting.

As this was his final ordinary Council meeting, he then provided a review of his year in office, highlighting the following for particular attention:

·                He had enjoyed every minute of his duties as Mayor.  Whilst the schedule was sometime punishing it had also been rewarding.

·                A real memory would be meeting so many people in the borough, particularly those working in the voluntary sector who provided so many services to the Council.  Without them he felt the borough would not be an exciting place to live and work.

·                During his office as Mayor he had visited many schools and met many children and teachers.  The Mayors debating competition for children at both primary and secondary level had been extremely enjoyable and had demonstrated some exceptionally brilliant debating skills.

·                He had also met all five branches of scouts and cadets in the borough, with the young people benefiting immensely from their training.  These talented young people had taught him to fly, albeit on a computer, and had also benefited from experience gained in other training including camping, swimming and sports, which combined well with their academic achievements in aviation science.

·                He had visited a large number of elderly people’s organisations, with the elderly, he felt, contributing a great deal to the wellbeing of society.  A lot of the elderly were really appreciative of his visits to their homes and rapport established with them.

·                During his mayorship two significant events had taken place.  The signing of the Armed Forces Covenant and on her Majesty’s advice, flying the Commonwealth Flag outside the Civic Centre.

·                He had attended about 400 engagements during the year, although he felt it was not the number of appointments that mattered but the quality of people met that was important.

·                As a Council, the Mayor advised he would like to see further development of the contribution from voluntary & community groups and individuals who had done so much good work for the people of Enfield.

·                He also extended his thanks and gratitude to his fellow councillors and the Labour Group for nominating him as Mayor.  It had been a real privilege to serve as the first citizen of the borough.  As an ambassador of the borough, he had also tried his best to promote its profile locally, nationally and internationally.  During his time as a Mayor, particularly while presiding over council meetings, he had tried to be as fair and impartial as possible but recognised he may, at times, have incurred the displeasure of some councillors and for this he apologised.  Particular reference was made to the previous meeting with specific apologies offered to Councillors Oykener and Neville.  The Mayor believed that honesty blossomed in magnanimity and as a result hoped that his fellow councillors had not been offended during his chairmanship of council meetings.

·                He offered particular thanks to officers in the Mayoral team with specific reference to Rhoda, Melanie, Norman and Andy.  Advice  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

To approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the Council meeting held on Wednesday 26 February 2014.

AGREED that the minutes of the Council meeting held on Wednesday 26 February 2013 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alan Barker, Chris Deacon, Marcus East, Robert Hayward, Elaine Hayward, Paul McCannah, & Rohini Simbodyal.  An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Chris Murphy.

Councillor Toby Simon declared a non pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 7 (Opposition Business) as he lived in one of the roads which would be affected by the traffic proposals relating to the Mini Holland scheme.

John Austin (Assistant Director, Corporate Governance) confirmed the interest registered was of a non-pecuniary nature, so he would be able to remain in the meeting and participate in any discussion and vote on this item.

At this stage in the meeting the Mayor advised that he had received notice of an emergency motion, which he had agreed to accept for consideration at the meeting, in accordance with the criteria detailed within the Council Procedure Rules.

The motion related to the efforts being made to seek the release of a student studying at Oasis Hadley Academy from the Yarls Wood detention Centre and to defer her scheduled deportation in order to enable her to remain with her family and complete her studies.  As students from Oasis Hadley Academy had been invited to address Council on the matter the Mayor advised that the Opposition Group had, subject to a formal change in the order of business being approved, agreed to a request for this motion to be considered in advance of Opposition Priority Business.

Councillor Brett therefore moved and Councillor Waterhouse seconded a proposal to change the order of business on the agenda under paragraph 2.2 (page 4-5) of the Council’s procedure rules to enable the meeting to consider the emergency motion as the next item of business.

The change in order of business was agreed without a vote.

Councillor Charalambous moved and Councillor Taylor seconded the following motion:

“Enfield Council notes and wholeheartedly supports the efforts of all the students and staff at Oasis Hadley Academy and politicians and supporters of the campaign seeking the immediate release of Yashika Bageerathi from Yarls Wood detention centre, and for her to be reunited with her family and be allowed to complete her education in Enfield at Oasis Hadley Academy.

Enfield Council requests the Leader of the Council to write and make urgent representations to the Government Ministers concerned regarding Yashika Bageerathi’s situation and request that they defer any consideration of deportation until she finishes her studies.”

In seconding the motion, Councillor Taylor provided Council with an update on the latest position regarding Yashika Bageerathi, which he advised had moved on significantly during the day.  Members noted that despite written representations having being made to the Home Secretary and Air Mauritius that afternoon the decision had been made to proceed with her deportation, which had been scheduled for 9pm that night.  Members expressed regret and disappointment on a cross party basis at the decision to proceed with the deportation and also commended the highly effective campaign undertaken by Yashika’s friends and fellow students at Oasis Hadley Academy in attempting to defer the deportation.

Councillor Charalambous then introduced students and a teacher from Oasis Hadley Academy, as representatives of the campaign group, and with the permission of the Mayor they were given the opportunity to address the meeting, highlighting:

·                the background to the campaign;

·                the exhaustive efforts made to seek the release of their friend and fellow student from her detention centre and to defer the deportation, which had unfortunately not been successful;

Following a short debate the motion was agreed unanimously, without a vote.  Councillor Taylor advised that he would make available to members a copy of the written representations sent to the Home Office that afternoon.

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

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

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

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

·                generating investment for Enfield’s businesses;

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

·                 improving infrastructure and street scene;

Concerns were, however, identified in relation to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To receive a report from the Director of Regeneration & Environment seeking approval of the proposed submission North East Area Action Plan and supporting documents.          (Report No. 208A)

(Key decision – reference number 3866)

Members are asked to note:

·               the recommendations within the report were endorsed and approved for referral onto Council by Cabinet on 12 March 2014.

·         A copy of the detailed Action Plan will be available (for reference) in the Members Library, Group Offices and also with this agenda via the following link on Democracy page of the Councils website: 

·         If required hard copies will be available by contacting James Kinsella (Governance Team Manager).

Councillor Goddard moved and Councillor Orhan seconded a report from the Director of Regeneration and Environment (No.208A) seeking approval of the proposed submission North East Enfield Area Action Plan (NEEAAP) and supporting documents.

NOTED

1.      The recommendations within the report had been considered and referred onto Council for approval by Cabinet on 12 March 2014.

2.      The background to preparation of the NEEAAP, as detailed in section 3 of the report.

3.      The key themes within the Action Plan (as detailed below), which had been designed with the aim of achieving sustainable growth and managing the delivery of key development potential for the area in a co-ordinated way:

·                regeneration of key local centres and improvements in connectivity to the areas surrounding them;

·                provision of a range of housing;

·                improvements to community facilities;

·                provision of improved public transport links;

·                addressing the internal connectivity within North East Enfield and to other areas;

·                making more use of the river and waterways; and

·                adopting a balanced approach towards business and employment;

4.      The need identified, during the debate, to ensure that the NEEAP was used to support the parallel work being undertaken as part of the Northern Gateway Access Plan in relation to improving transport movement and connectivity, particularly in  terms of the retention and improvement of crossing points as part of the West Anglia Mainline Extension Project (WAML).  Members felt this was a key issue to be addressed in terms of local connectivity both within the area and in terms of wider east-west connections across the borough and sub region as a whole.

5.      In response to 4. above, Councillor Goddard advised that this had already been recognised within the Northern Gateway Action Plan and that as a result an additional statement would also be added to the Movement chapter with the NEEAP relating to West Anglia Mainline Extension:

6.      The thanks expressed to officers and other key stakeholders for their work in developing the Action Plan along with the cross party support expressed for the vision and themes within the Plan.

7.      The concerns expressed by the Opposition Group in relation to the wide ranging nature of the operational delegation proposed within recommendation 2.2 of the report for the approval of any subsequent changes to the submission version of the Plan.  It was felt this delegation should be at Portfolio rather than operational level, which the Cabinet Member for Business & Regeneration advised members he would be willing to amend.

8.      The next steps in the development of the Plan and submission process, as detailed in section 4 of the report, which would include a further period of public consultation on the proposed Submission Area Action Plan.

The recommendations in the report were then approved without a vote.

AGREED

(1)       To approve the Proposed Submission Draft North East Enfield Area Action Plan and supporting documents for a statutory 6 week period of public consultation and submission to the Secretary of State for public examination, subject to the inclusion of the following statement in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

To receive the joint report from the Director of Health, Housing & Adult Social Care and Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services seeking formal approval to the funding requirements for the Small Housing Sites.    (Report No.206A)

(Key decision – reference number 3780)

Members are asked to note:

·               the recommendations within the report were endorsed and approved for referral onto Council by Cabinet on 12 March 2014.

·               Council is only being asked to approve the addition of the scheme to the Capital Programme

Councillor Oykener moved and Councillor Stafford seconded a joint report from the Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care & Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.206A) seeking approval to the funding requirements for the Small Housing Sites project.

NOTED

1.         The Small Housing Sites project had been approved by Cabinet on 12 March 2014, with Council only being asked to approve an update to the Capital Programme relating to the allocation of funding from the Investment in Private Rented Sector Homes to the Small Housing Sites project.

2.         The background to development of the Small Housing Sites project, as detailed within section 3 of the report.

3.         The development of funding options to support the scheme, as detailed within section 4 of the report.  The preferred option identified would involve funding the construction costs through council borrowing via the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) and European Investment Bank (EIB) rather than a private finance company, on the basis set out within Option 2 in the report.

4.         Whilst recognising the innovative nature of the scheme, concerns were identified by the Opposition Group in relation to:

a.         The ongoing impact of borrowing identified in relation to management of the overall capital programme and Government cap on the HRA capital programme;

b.         The complex nature of the ownership structure for properties generated as part of the scheme, on the basis that it would require the creation of a further Special Purchase Vehicle (SPV) by the Council;

5.         In response to the concerns outlined in 4. above the Cabinet Member for Finance & Property clarified that the funding required for the scheme would involve the reallocation of resources already approved under the Investment in Private Rented Sector scheme and had already been factored into the Council borrowing requirement.

Following a short debate the recommendations in the report were put to the vote and agreed, with the following result:

For: 30

Against: 0

Abstentions: 17

AGREED

(1)       To approve an update to the General Fund Capital Programme for 2014-16 and allocate £17.3m from the Investment in Private Rented Sector Homes to the Small Housing Sites project.

(2)       To note there are would be no additional costs to the Council from the recommendation to reallocate £17.3m from the Investment in Private Rented Sector Homes to the Small Housing Sites project.  This borrowing had already been factored into the Council borrowing requirement.

To receive, for information only, a report from the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services setting out a process to ensure that the Council complies with its responsibilities as set out in the Localism Act 2011.

(Report No.207A)

(Key decision – reference number 3850)

Members are asked to note that the process for dealing with Assets of Community Value outlined in the report was approved by Cabinet (12 March 2014).  In approving the process, Cabinet requested that the report be referred on to Council for information.

Councillor Stafford  moved and Councillor Georgiou seconded a report from the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.207A) detailing the process developed to deal with Assets of Community Value as a requirement of the Localism Act 2011.

NOTED the procedure for dealing with Assets of Community Value had been approved by Cabinet on 12 March 2014.  In approving the process, Cabinet had requested that the report be referred on to Council for information and noting.  The report was subsequently noted, without debate.

AGREED to note the duty under the Localism Act 2011 to implement the Community Right to Bid and process agreed by Cabinet (12 March 14) to comply with the relevant requirements.

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 fifty three questions received and their written responses are attached to the agenda.

1.1      Urgent Question

The Mayor advised that in accordance with the criteria set out in the Constitution, he had accepted the following as an urgent question:

From Councillor Keazor to Councillor Oykener, Cabinet Member for Housing

“Given the changes that have been made to ECO funding by the Government, will the Cabinet member for Housing provide the Council with an update on recent developments of ECO funding to Enfield.”

Councillor Oykener provided the following verbal response at the meeting:

“I can confirm that ECO works to properties within the borough are being undertaken on a two phase basis.  The first phase involves works (on a pilot basis with British Gas) to properties at Scott House which are due to be completed by June 14.  The second phase involves works to other medium rise housing blocks scheduled for 2015.

Recent Government announcement regarding significant reductions in carbon credits has led to energy providers walking away from similar ECO deals with other local authorities, which in turn will impact on higher energy bills.  In Enfield, however, negotiations have continued with British Gas and as a result it has been possible to reach agreement to secure significant continued investment with a contract due to be signed shortly.  I would like to congratulate officers on this achievement which will have a significant impact in terms of energy efficiency, fuel bills and employment within the borough.

The deal with British Gas will contribute towards the decent homes programme of works and involve 6 small blocks across the Exeter Road and Kettering Estates.  Securing this investment is a significant achievement for Enfield when compared to other councils and in terms of tackling fuel poverty.”

1.2    Questions by Councillors

NOTED

1.      The fifty three questions on the Council’s agenda which had received a written reply from the relevant Cabinet Member.

2.      The request from Councillor Neville for confirmation to be provided on the circulation of written responses to supplementary questions asked at Council on 29 January 2014, which the Assistant Director Corporate Governance agreed to provide following the meeting.

3.      The following supplementary questions and responses received for the questions indicated below:

Question 1 (Palmers Green Library development) from Councillor Ann Marie Pearce to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance & Property:

“Has a date been set for the start of the development work on the library?”

Reply from Councillor Stafford:

“The works are due to start any day now, with full details provided within the Cabinet report already referred to.”

Question 3 (Support to Friends of the Park Groups) from Councillor Chamberlain to Councillor Bond, Cabinet Member for Environment:

In my question I asked for details of the reasons for the reduction in parks officers supporting the Friend’s groups, to which no response has been provided.  Could I ask why these officers have been reduced?”

Reply from Councillor Bond:

“The reduction was as a result of a departmental restructure.”

Question 12 (London Stansted Cambridge Corridor Consortium) from Councillor Savva to Councillor Goddard, Cabinet Member for Business & Regeneration:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

12.1    In the name of Councillor Sitkin:

“This Council notes how reduced central government funding of Enfield, including the 7% grant damping, has diminished the resources available to local residents.  It asserts that there are alternative sources that central government could mobilise, specifically a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) on the speculative activities that have accelerated the enrichment of the few to the detriment of the many.  It therefore calls upon the government to levy the FTT and use the proceeds to increase central grants to local authorities like Enfield.”

12.2    In the name of Councillor Waterhouse:

"Enfield Council welcomes the cross-party campaign on blacklisting organised by Stephen McPartland MP and Kelvin Hopkins MP, supported by the GMB union.

This Council deplores the illegal practice of ‘blacklisting’ within the construction industry and will ensure that any company known to have been involved in blacklisting practices and not to have indemnified their victims will not be invited to tender contracts by Enfield Council.

This Council encourages Enfield residents who may have been affected to visit www.stoptheblacklisting.com".

12.3    In the name of Councillor Hamilton:

“This Council believes that the safety and security of Enfield residents is being put at risk by the Mayor of London and the Tory led Coalition Government as a result of cuts to the key emergency services – the Metropolitan Police Service, the London Fire Brigade, the London Ambulance Service and the Accident & Emergency Departments.

The Council believes that the cuts are too far and too fast and that the many millions of pounds being taken from the budgets of the NHS, the Metropolitan Police Service and the London Fire Brigade will inevitably endanger families and communities in Enfield.

The closures of Met police station front desks, fire stations and A & E departments alongside cuts to the London ambulance service means that the safety of Enfield residents is threatened by longer response times.

This Council calls on the Mayor of London and the Coalition Government to reconsider and abandon the draconian cuts to the emergency services on which we rely to keep Enfield residents and Londoners safe.”

12.4    In the name of Councillor Orhan

“Increasingly this Council is having to support families whose immigration status has not been resolved by Government. Currently, the Council is supporting 105 families, an increase on last year.

Undoubtedly this is a difficult position for these families as they are in a state of limbo. Some have been in this position for almost 5 years. As their immigration status remains unresolved, this Council is obliged under legislation to provide, social care, housing and education for these families and their children.

There is an estimated cost to the Council of £1,037,408.00 for the financial year 2013/2014.

The Council agrees that the Leader of the Council should pursue this with the objective of resolving the situation for these families, and gaining reimbursement from the Government for costs the Council has incurred.”

12.5    In the name of Councillor Neville:

"The Council welcomes the Chancellor's Budget  ...  view the full agenda text for item 146.

Councillor Sitkin moved and Councillor Charalambous seconded the following motion:

“This Council notes how reduced central government funding of Enfield, including the 7% grant damping, has diminished the resources available to local residents.  It asserts that there are alternative sources that central government could mobilise, specifically a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) on the speculative activities that have accelerated the enrichment of the few to the detriment of the many.  It therefore calls upon the government to levy the FTT and use the proceeds to increase central grants to local authorities like Enfield.”

Following a short debate the motion was put to the vote and agreed, with the following result:

For: 32

Against: 17

Abstentions: 0

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.

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

1.1    In the name of Councillor Waterhouse:

"Enfield Council welcomes the cross-party campaign on blacklisting organised by Stephen McPartland MP and Kelvin Hopkins MP, supported by the GMB union.

This Council deplores the illegal practice of ‘blacklisting’ within the construction industry and will ensure that any company known to have been involved in blacklisting practices and not to have indemnified their victims will not be invited to tender contracts by Enfield Council.

This Council encourages Enfield residents who may have been affected to visit www.stoptheblacklisting.com".

1.2    In the name of Councillor Hamilton:

“This Council believes that the safety and security of Enfield residents is being put at risk by the Mayor of London and the Tory led Coalition Government as a result of cuts to the key emergency services – the Metropolitan Police Service, the London Fire Brigade, the London Ambulance Service and the Accident & Emergency Departments.

The Council believes that the cuts are too far and too fast and that the many millions of pounds being taken from the budgets of the NHS, the Metropolitan Police Service and the London Fire Brigade will inevitably endanger families and communities in Enfield.

The closures of Met police station front desks, fire stations and A & E departments alongside cuts to the London ambulance service means that the safety of Enfield residents is threatened by longer response times.

This Council calls on the Mayor of London and the Coalition Government to reconsider and abandon the draconian cuts to the emergency services on which we rely to keep Enfield residents and Londoners safe.”

1.3    In the name of Councillor Orhan

“Increasingly this Council is having to support families whose immigration status has not been resolved by Government. Currently, the Council is supporting 105 families, an increase on last year.

Undoubtedly this is a difficult position for these families as they are in a state of limbo. Some have been in this position for almost 5 years. As their immigration status remains unresolved, this Council is obliged under legislation to provide, social care, housing and education for these families and their children.

There is an estimated cost to the Council of £1,037,408.00 for the financial year 2013/2014.

The Council agrees that the Leader of the Council should pursue this with the objective of resolving the situation for these families, and gaining reimbursement from the Government for costs the Council has incurred.”

1.4    In the name of Councillor Neville:

"The Council welcomes the Chancellor's Budget which will benefit all sections of our community, incentivise investment and help to create much needed new jobs.”

1.5    In the name of Councillor Laban:

“Enfield Council acknowledges the concern of local residents with regard to the increasing numbers of Betting Shops, Pawn Brokers and Pay Day Loan Companies and will act to implement local measures to stop the proliferation of these establishments on the High Streets of Enfield.”

To confirm any changes notified to committee memberships.

No changes were notified.

To confirm any changes notified to the nominations on outside bodies:

No changes were notified.

To note that the next meeting of the Council will be held on Wednesday 11 June 2014 at 7.00 p.m. at the Civic Centre.  This will be the Annual Council Meeting & Mayor Making Ceremony.

As this was the final Council meeting of the current Administration, the Mayor took the opportunity to end the meeting by thanking, on behalf of all members of the Council, the Directors and officers for their support.

NOTED that the next meeting of the Council would be the Annual Meeting and Mayor Making Ceremony, which had been scheduled for 7.00pm on Wednesday 11 June 2014 at the Civic Centre.