Agenda and minutes

The Enfield Harmony Choir sang Stevie Wonder’s Love’s in need of love tonight in place of the usual blessing. 

The Mayor began by saying good evening and welcoming everyone to the last meeting of 2018.  She continued to embrace her mayoral duties with great pride.

1.            Engagements since the last meeting

1.1       Mayoral Events – The Mayor attended the following events: 

·         Sixth Annual MAD Golf event evening dinner

·         Harvest Festival at Houndsfield Road

·         Town Show at Salisbury House

·         Forty Hall Exhibition

·         KRATOS Chef School Event at Civic Centre

·         Jobs, Apprenticeships and Careers Fair at Southbury Leisure Centre

·         Production of Jekyll & Hyde at Millfield

·         Supreme Boxing Club Charity Event

·         Passing Moments Exhibition at Dugdale Centre on behalf of Patrick Samuel (Local Artist)

·         Enfield Clubhouse AGM at Community House

·         Visit to Clay Hill Singers Community Choir

·         Silver Sunday Sanctuary Care Celebration

·         Enfield Voluntary Action (EVA) AGM

·         Lord Mayors Association Annual Civic Service in Westminster Abbey

·         Annual London Boroughs Mayors Service St Pauls Cathedral

·         Black History Month Event Dugdale

·         Weekly Community Gathering for over 50’s at Kervan Restaurant

·         Ruth Winston AGM

·         Attended Ordnance Road Breakfast Club

·         Bozca Der Charity 10th Anniversary

·         Wellbeing Showcase Event

·         Tour of Community House

·         Rotary Club Lunch

·         Crocus Planting at Forty Hall with Local School Children c/o Edmonton Rotary Club and Enfield Council Parks Dept.

·         Tour of Claverings Industrial Estate CCTV Centre

·         Loving Local Launch Event

·         Remembrance Day Services

·         Southgate Progressive 70th anniversary

·         Age UK AGM

·         Annual Long Service Awards

·         Visit to Courbevoie

·         Waverley Gateway Club 60th Anniversary

1.2       Deputy Mayoral Events - The Deputy Mayor attended the following events:

·         20th anniversary event at West Grove School

·         Enfield Vision Focus Day

·         Face Front Inclusive Theatre Production of “Whisper Me Happy Ever After”

·         Bright Horizon’s Preschool Nursery Opening

·         Windrush event at the Intimate Theatre

·         Achievement Day at Ponders End Youth Centre

·         Enfield Racial Equality Council (EREC) Black History month event

·         Enfield Caribbean Association Black History Event

·         Southgate Remembrance Day Parade

·         Broomfield Park Remembrance Day

·         Palmers Green Christmas Tree Lights Event

·         Enfield In Bloom Awards

·         Ajex Annual Commemoration Service

2.            Citizenship Ceremonies

The Mayor said that the Citizenship ceremonies were still as busy as ever and that she was still enjoying meeting new people from different backgrounds.

She was always humbled by the number of events that she was involved with especially with the voluntary sector organisations in the Borough.

She thanked the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Kate Anolue for working with and supporting her, and also for her close work with the Mayor’s Office.

3.            Town Twinning Visit to Courbevoie, France

The Mayor said that her visit to Courbevoie in France last week had been amazing.  She had been to celebrate 25 years of town twinning friendship between Enfield and Courbevoie, especially poignant on the weekend of Remembrance.  She had been delighted to be accompanied by colleagues and veterans representing the armed forces.  Ian Cameron-Black (Chairman of the Trustees of Southgate Cultural Funds), Brian Wilson and Jackie Pinney of the British Legion, together with Councillors Lindsay Rawlings and Paul Everitt, Head of Leisure and Culture.   

They had planted an oak tree in front of the Courbevoie Town Hall to mark  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

3.1       To receive and agree the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 20 September 2018.

3.2       To receive and agree the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on Tuesday 30 October 2018.

3.1       Minutes of the Meeting held on 20 September 2018

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2018 were received and agreed as a correct record. 

3.2       Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 30 October 2018

The minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 30 October 2018 were received and agreed as a correct record. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Aramaz, Aydin, Eren, Ioannou, Oykener, Pite and Vince and for lateness from Councillors Akpinar, Alexandrou, Achilleas Georgiou and Keazor. 

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

Councillor Brett declared a non-pecuniary interest in the Item 9 on the North London Waste Plan. 

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for the Council to consider.

The Council rules relating to Opposition Business are also attached for information.

Councillor Smith introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.

1.            Issues highlighted by Councillor Smith were as follows: 

·         The Local Plan, which was about to go out on consultation, was an important document which would shape the future development in the borough until 2036.  If we got it wrong, there would be consequences. 

·         His feeling that the Labour administration believed that the borough’s population was due to rise substantially, increasing housing need, leading to the need for more building. His concern that the administration were proposing to allow building on the green belt in areas such as Crews Hill, to increase back land development and to permit high rise blocks in town centres. 

·         The view that building on green belt land would not conform to the Mayor of London’s draft London Plan.  Opposition members queried therefore why such proposals had been included in the consultation document. 

·         It was felt that the main reason for the housing shortage was due to Council’s failures, including delays to large regeneration schemes such as Meridian Water and even to the small housing site schemes.

·         Concern about the possibility of enormous fines if the Meridian Water Station development was not completed by May 2019.

·         Fear that these new proposals, if they went ahead would change, for the worse, the character of Enfield for ever and would damage Enfield residents’ quality of life. 

2.            Councillor Caliskan, the Leader of the Council, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting:

·      The Council were required to update the local plan under the National Planning Policy Framework.  Under the new plan, Enfield would need to increase house building targets to 1,900 properties per year, up from the 798 currently required and in contrast to the Government’s figure of 3,500.  Many more houses were needed. 

·      She argued that there was no point questioning population growth figures or thinking that migration would be reduced because of Brexit, as most migration was domestic; people would continue to come to London whether Brexit happened or not.  All predictions indicated that population would continue to grow. 

·      Without a good plan, it would not be possible to control or shape development in the borough.  Over the past 15 years the average price of houses in the borough had increased from £160,000 to £460,000, and average rents by £400.  Too many people could not afford the cost of housing.  Over 3,000 people were on the temporary housing register.  Half of all council housing had been lost since 1979.  New development was essential.  Work was also needed to tackle climate change, to improve infrastructure, to enable society to grow and prosper. 

·      The local plan was due to be published as part of the start of a 12-week consultation, at the options stage.  The Council was seeking the views of the public, before finalising the plan for submission.  It was a call for sites and a call for ideas from residents and other stakeholders. 

·      The designation of land as Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) was an issue,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To receive a report from the Director of Environment on the revised Gambling Act policy and No Casino resolution.  (Report No:  118) Key decision reference:  KD 4763. 

Council is asked to approve the revised policy and agree the resolution. 

Councillor Dogan moved and Councillor Bond seconded a report from the Director of Environment and Operational Services requesting Council approval of the Gambling Act Policy and no casino resolution.  (Report No: 118). 

NOTED

1.            The Council had a statutory duty to consult on the Gambling Act 2005 licencing policy every three years and could also re-consider their no casino resolution. 

2.            The principle of the gambling act was that activities may be permitted unless there were strong reasons against. 

3.            The Council was obliged to ensure that premises were run fairly and safely.

4.            Some minor changes had been made to the policy and the local area profile would now be presented separately, alongside the policy. 

5.            The local area profile has been updated and this now included data related to sensitive buildings such as schools and religious establishments to help protect young and other vulnerable people from exploitation  

6.            That the number of problem gamblers had grown hugely in recent years.  Recent reports cited that one in seven 11-16 year olds were involved in gambling.

7.            Gambling could cause enormous damage to people’s lives.

8.            Some concern that the consultation had taken place during the summer period.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

At this point Councillor Erbin Erbil moved and Councillor Caliskan seconded the procedural motion 14.11 (a) (ii) that the question now be put.

This motion was voted on and agreed with the following result:

For:  37

Against: 13

Abstentions:  0

The report was then put to the vote and agreed with the following result:

For:  49

Against: 0

Abstentions: 1

AGREED

1.            To note the results of the public consultation and amendments made to the proposed statement of principles, under the Gambling Act 2005.

2.            To approve the statement of principles, under the Gambling Act 2005, attached as Annex 1 and the Local Area Profile attached as Annex 2 to the report.

3.           To resolve not to issue casino premises licences, under the Gambling Act 2005. 

To receive a report from the Director of Finance reviewing the activities of the Council’s Treasury Management function over the half year period to 30 September 2018.  (Report No: 107)  (Key Decision Reference:  KD: 4768). 

The report is due to be recommended for the consideration of Council, by Cabinet, at its meeting on Wednesday 14 November 2018.

Council is asked to approve the report. 

Any comments made at Cabinet will be reported to Council on the green update sheet at the meeting. 

Councillor Maguire moved and Councillor Caliskan seconded a report of the Director of Finance reviewing the activities of the Council’s treasury management function over the half year period to 30 September 2018.  (Report No:  107)

NOTED

1.            That Cabinet had approved the report and recommended it to Council at their meeting on 14 November 2018. 

2.            The report detailed the money borrowed and invested by the Council over the first 6 months of the financial year. 

3.            Table 1 on page 123 of the agenda detailed the current borrowing and Table 2 the amount loaned by the Council to its companies. 

4.            The amount of borrowing was carefully controlled within set limits and the Council only borrowed what it needed.  Table 3 detailed the Council’s investments.  These are secure and elicit the best returns.

5.            The interest rate was currently low, so it made sense to borrow.

6.            The Council has £750m worth of loans, an increase of £50m since April 2018.  The authority borrowed £100m of which £47m was used to replace maturing debt. And £53m was applied to fund new capital expenditure”. 

7.            The Council has 86 loans spread over 50 years the average maturity being 27 years.  The average rate of interest was 3.4%. 

8.            No rescheduling had been done during the year. 

9.            Net borrowing was likely to increase due to the uncertainty caused by Brexit. 

10.         The report confirms the steady position of the Council, which was taking a responsible approach to borrowing, investing for the future. 

11.         Concern on the part of the Opposition about the extent of current borrowing including the £8.9m for revenue spending.  There was also concern that the Council was borrowing to pay staff. 

12.         Although borrowing was within the set boundary, the Council itself had set the boundary and debts would have to be repaid.

13.         CIPFA had recently written to councils expressing concern about local authority borrowing levels. 

At this point Councillor Erbin Erbil moved and Councillor Caliskan seconded the procedural motion 14.11 (a) (ii) that the question now be put.

This motion was voted on and agreed with the following result:

For:  37

Against:  13

Abstentions: 0

The report was then put to the vote and agreed with the following result:

For:  37

Against:  13

Abstentions: 0

AGREED to approve the 2018.19 mid-year treasury position as set out in the report. 

To receive the report of the Executive Director Place seeking Council approval of the North London Waste Plan (set out in Annex 1 to the report).  (Report No:  108)  (Key Decision Reference:  KD: 4709)

Council is asked to note that the plan was due to be agreed and recommended to Council by Cabinet at their meeting on 14 November 2018.

The Cabinet decision will be reported to Council on the Council update sheet at the meeting. 

Councillor Caliskan moved and Councillor Savva seconded a report of the Executive Director Place on the North London Waste Plan Regulation 19 Publication.  (Report No: 108)

NOTED

1.            That Cabinet had approved the report and recommended it to Council at their meeting on 14 November 2018. 

2.            That the waste plan was a policy document that Enfield had worked on together with six other North London boroughs.  It would help ensure that future waste development takes place in the right place and that in future there would be grounds to reject inappropriate proposals.

3.            Without a plan the Council could have to allow waste developments in sites set aside for Cross Rail 2 or Meridian Water for example. 

4.            Council were being asked to agree to putting the plan out for a final round of consultation, before the plan was submitted to the Independent Planning Inspectorate.

5.            Officers were to be congratulated as they had worked hard to ensure that this plan would work for Enfield residents.

6.            Any new waste site proposals would still have to go through the full planning permission process.  The plan would not approve new waste proposals.  There were no plans for additional waste facilities in Enfield. 

7.            If there were any changes proposed, the Council would have the chance to review the plan. 

8.            Concern from the Opposition Group that although there were now fewer waste sites proposed for Enfield than in the original plan, there were still worries about the possibility of increased traffic, especially on the North Circular Road, across the borough and the issue of wildlife on the Pinkham Way site. 

9.            That Enfield did already have a large amount of land given over to waste because of the North London Waste site in Edmonton, but that this plan would mean a reduction in the number of sites designated as potentially suitable for waste overall. 

10.         The Pinkham Way site was in the London Borough of Haringey, so it was felt that protesters should be addressing their concerns to the relevant local authority.  The Pinkham Way site was listed as strategic industrial land as well as being a site of special importance for wildlife. 

11.         Bowes ward councillors had abstained the last time that this issue had come forward, but this time there were no firm proposals for waste development.  Any future proposals would still be subject to planning permission. 

12.         This plan had been over ten years in development.  Mistakes were felt to have been made in the early stages by the seven boroughs, due to issues over consultation.

13.         Concern from Opposition members that, including the Ely Estate site, a site adjacent to the Edmonton facility, would increase waste in the borough and that more effort should be made to ensure that waste development was spread more fairly around all the other boroughs. 

14.         Councillor Caliskan summed up by saying the Enfield councillors had a duty to do what was best for the residents of Enfield.  The plan was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To receive a report from the Director of Law and Governance asking Council to agree to extend the term of Sarah Jewell, Independent Person’s, term of appointment to 8 October 2020.  (Report No:  85A)

Council is asked to note that the report was agreed by the Councillor Conduct Committee at their meeting on 4 October 2018. 

Councillor Ergin Erbil moved and Councillor Vince seconded a report by the Director of Law and Governance asking Council to extend the term of appointment of Sarah Jewell, Independent Person.  (Report No:  85A)

NOTED

1.            The Councillor Conduct Committee had recommended that the Council extend Sarah Jewell’s term of appointment to 8 October 2020. 

AGREED to extend the term of appointment of Sarah Jewell as Independent Person, by two years to 8 October 2020. 

Council is asked to note the details provided of a decision taken under the Council’s urgency procedure relating to the waiver of call-in along with the reasons for urgency. 

The decision has been made in accordance with the urgency procedures set out in Paragraph 17.3 of Chapter 4.2 (Scrutiny) and Paragraph 16 of Chapter 4.6 (Access to Information) of the Council’s Constitution.

Councillor Caliskan moved and Councillor Ergin Erbil seconded the information provided on the use of the Council’s urgency procedures involving a waiver of the call-in process. 

NOTED

1.            The Leader of the Opposition’s concern that the urgency processes should not be used lightly and that their use should not become a regular occurrence.  This sentiment was supported by the Leader. 

AGREED to note the details provided of a decision on the LBE Out of Hours Service taken under the Council’s urgency procedures relating to a waiver of call in, along with the reasons for urgency. 

Councillor Vince moved, and Councillor Alessandro Georgiou seconded a proposal under paragraph 2.2(B) of the Council procedure rules to change the order of items on the agenda so that motion 12.6 be taken as the first motion after the urgent motions. 

The change in the order was not agreed following a vote. 

For:  13

Against:36

Abstentions: 0

12.1      Motion in the name of Councillor Laban

“The officers who work in the group offices do an exceptional job supporting past and present councillors. Enfield Council wishes to thank officers in both groups for their tireless dedication to the borough and its residents over many years. Their work has been greatly appreciated by councillors and residents.”

12.2      Motion in the name of Councillor Laban

“Enfield Council is committed to delivering fairness and equality. However, it currently has one of the highest levels of nepotism in Local Government. This council agrees to deliver on its promise to tackling inequality by reducing the level of nepotism that exists within the organisation. This act will give a strong signal to the local community as well as Officers that we are truly committed to delivering fairness and equality.”

12.3    Motion in the name of Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

“For all future international tournaments, the St. George’s Flag should have a prominent place within the chamber whilst the England team is still in the tournament.”

12.4      Motion in the name of Councillor Nesil Caliskan

“London Borough of Enfield has significant inequalities. Enfield Council serves a complex borough with extremes of poverty and affluence and one of the most diverse areas in England.

This Council is committed to delivering high quality public services to create a borough of opportunity for all residents with vibrant, inclusive and economically strong communities.

Outstanding and responsive council services provide residents with an excellent quality of life. They are a catalyst to tackling deep rooted inequalities to ensure every resident can achieve their full potential. Public services also provide an essential safety net to support the most vulnerable from the worst excesses of Tory-imposed austerity. 

Outsourcing a local authority in its entirety is a long-held Tory municipal fantasy, first articulated by Margaret Thatcher in the late 1980s. Large Tory-run authorities in Cornwall, Suffolk and Barnet embarked on their own high-profile versions of this Thatcherite model, claiming that impoverishment gave them no choice but to pursue large-scale privatisation. 

Enfield Council rejects this failed Tory model of municipalism.

By 2019, local government funding will have been cut by 70% since 2010, and further cuts are planned. Local authorities are, therefore, reviewing how they deliver services in the light of severe budgetary pressure.  There is evidence that many councils are bringing a significant number and range of services back in-house to gain maximum value from decreasing resources. 

Enfield Council believes that bringing services back in-house is desirable.  The benefits of insourcing or direct council provision include: 
•       Improving efficiency and reducing costs 
•       Involving local people in the design of services
•       Delivering better satisfaction levels and outcomes
•       Enhanced public accountability and ownership 
•       Delivering genuine social impact
•       The ability to integrate a range of services 
•       Reducing cost and time spent managing contracts 
•       Greater staff motivation and improved service quality 
•       Creating expertise and capacity in the council

This Council will conduct a realistic analysis on a service-by-service basis to  ...  view the full agenda text for item 13.

The Mayor has agreed to accept the urgent motion set out below for the following reason.

The reason given as to why the motion had not been submitted earlier was because the motion had been about the incidents in Edmonton over the weekend, where some shooting and multiple stabbings had occurred.  Councillors have had many enquiries about the issue, and it was therefore felt that it was too important to wait until the next meeting.

Motion in the name of Cllr Terry Neville

Councillor Neville moved, and Councillor Laban seconded the following motion: 

“Following the shooting on Saturday 17 November of three men in Gordon Road and the soaring level of serious crime in Enfield and across the capital, the Council expresses its dismay at the continuing lack of action on the part of the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to re-prioritise the use of police resources to tackle this most serious problem. This has led to abysmally low detection and clear up rates. Against this background the council is also concerned at the cost of policing the increasing number of marches in central London (to which officers from all over London are drafted in to the centre), and urges the Mayor to seek to re -charge a fixed percentage of the policing cost to the march organizers, which would assist in funding additional officers for front line policing.

The council also condemns the Labour administration for not taking the issue more seriously and calls upon the cabinet member for community safety to bring forward proposals for tackling the root causes of gang related violence.

It further calls on the council to either instruct the Crime Scrutiny Panel to inquire into the problem, taking evidence from all interested parties, and to make recommendations to the council within six months, or to follow the successful precedent of the Conservative administration in2004/5 and set up a Special Commission to undertake such Inquiry.

Finally, it instructs the Director of Law and Governance to write to the Sentencing Council asking them to remind sentencers of both their power to depart from Sentencing Guidelines where, as now in respect of soaring levels of violent crime and burglary, deterrent sentences are required and to remind them that such sentences are exility provided for in section 142(1)(b), Criminal Justice Act 2003.”

During the debate, Councillor Ergin Erbil moved and Councillor Hasan seconded a procedural motion seconded the procedural motion 14.11 (a) (ii) that the question now be put.  This was not allowed by the Mayor, as she felt that sufficient debate had not taken place.

After further debate, Councillor Ergin Erbil moved and Caliskan seconded another procedural motion 14.11 (a) (ii) that the question now be put.  This was not allowed by the Mayor as she felt that sufficient debate had not taken place.”

Following further debate, the motion was put to the vote and not agreed with the following result:

For:  13

Against:  36

Abstentions: 0

The Mayor agreed to accept the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Mayor advised, at this stage of the meeting, that the time available to complete the agenda had now elapsed so Council Procedure Rule 9 would apply. No further contribution or replies were permitted.

NOTED that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9 (page 4-8 – Part 4), the remaining items of business on the Council agenda were considered without debate.

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. 

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

Please note that the list of questions and their written responses will be published on Tuesday 20 November 2018. 

1.            Urgent Questions

The Mayor has agreed to accept the following urgent question: 

The question was urgent because events had come to light since the deadline for questions had passed. The question related to Cllr Brett being dismissed, in a clandestine manner, from the Cabinet. 

Question from Councillor Alessandro Georgiou to Councillor Caliskan, Leader of the Council

“Would the Leader of the Council explain why she has removed Cllr Brett as the Cabinet Member for Public Health and who has the leader appointed as the new Cabinet Member for Public Health?”

Written Response from Councillor Caliskan

“I wrote to Jeremy Chambers on Friday 16th November to inform him that I was removing the Cabinet Member for Public Health from her post from immediate effect. I did not appoint anyone else to replace her. I stated at the time that I intended to reappoint the same Councillor within two weeks. In the meantime, I have taken responsibility for the Public Health portfolio.

The reason for my decision is that our Cabinet operates on the basis of collective positions and confidence. I take the integrity of the Cabinet Structure of the Council to be very important.”

2.            Questions by Councillors

NOTED

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

2.           The following amendment to Question 8

Question 8 from Councillor Greer to Councillor Keazor, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Cohesion

To include the following sentences in the response to the question:

The Black History event which was organised by the Enfield UNISON Black Workers Group with both staff and members of the community present.

The leader made a very positive contribution which was appreciated by those in attendance.

To confirm any changes to Committee memberships.  No changes have been notified to date. 

Please note that any changes received once the agenda has been published will be tabled on the Council update sheet at the meeting. 

There were no changes to committee memberships.   

To confirm any changes to the nominations to outside bodies.  No changes have been notified to date. 

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

AGREED to confirm the following changes to nominations to outside bodies:  

1.         Enfield Racial Equality Council - Councillor Joanne Laban to replace Councillor Will Coleshill

2.         North London Heat and Power Project Community Liaison Group -  Councillor Sinan Boztas to be appointed as the Council representative. 

To note the date agreed for the next ordinary Council meeting:

·         Wednesday 30 January 2019 at 7pm at Enfield Civic Centre. 

NOTED that the next ordinary meeting of the Council would take place on Wednesday 30 January 2019 at 7pm.