Agenda and minutes

Father Emmanuel Ogunnaike from St Edmund’s Church, Edmonton gave the blessing. 

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

1.         Statement from the Leader of the Council

The Leader made a statement to comply with one of the sanctions recommended by the Councillor Conduct Committee on 4th September 2019. 

2.         Mayor’s Announcements 

The Mayor began by stating that it was a pleasure to be at the meeting after the long holiday period and that she hoped everyone had had a good break.

She had been very lucky to have been able to go to Nigeria to the New Yam Festival, a celebration of food and harvest and the installation of the traditional prime minister who remains until death.

She had been busy and had continued to enjoy her role, especially presiding at the Citizenship Ceremonies.

In September she had visited one of Enfield’s twin towns, Gladbeck in Germany, to celebrate 100 years of the town’s existence.  She was planning to invite them back to Enfield in May next year to celebrate the 50 years of town twinning between the two places.

October was looking to be a busy with lots of activities for Black History Month. 

The Mayor thanked Bill Cornish and Paresh Thakore, her attendants, for all their help and support and Koulla Panaretou in the Mayor’s Office. 

She praised the collaboration with the young mayors saying how much she had enjoyed the apple festival in Gladbeck with the 22 year old Apple Queen.  She felt that it was important that young people were involved in their communities. 

On 6 October 2019 she was looking forward to the African market at Edmonton Green, where many types of food and artefacts would be on sale.

On the Sunday following the meeting, she invited her fellow members to join her at the 3pm Church Service which was to be officiated by the Bishop of Edmonton. 

On the 22 October 2019 at the Selby Hall in Tottenham she was planning a gala dinner in aid of her charities. 

3.            Deputy Young Mayor’s Speech

The Deputy Young Mayor, Miss Christevie Ngoma, apologised for the absence of Okan Gurhan and updated members on their plans for the year.  They had already set up a young cabinet, made plans to visit as many secondary schools as possible, were hosting a youth conference, were working to spread awareness of their work and to get young people involved in decision making and were also supporting two charities. 

4.            Response of Councillor Brett

Councillor Brett responded to the Leader’s statement. 

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2019 as a correct record. 

The minutes of the Council meeting held on 8 May 2019 were received and agreed as a correct record. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Aramaz, Boztas, Chibbah, David Sanders, Eren and Hockney and for lateness from Councillor Achilleas Georgiou and Doug Taylor. 

Councillor Will Coleshill made a statement apologising for events of a year ago.  He was aware, as he hadn’t been at the time, of the breach of courtesy which he had committed. 

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

Councillor Taylor declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 10 (Energetik, Tranche 2 Investment) as he was a director of the company.   

To receive a report from the Director of Law and Governance detailing a petition received seeking to stop the bin collection changes. (Report No. 94)

Members are asked to note that the Petition has been submitted under the Council’s Petition scheme and, in accordance with the scheme, has been referred for debate at Council as it contains more than the requires 3124 signatures.

Under the terms of the Petition Scheme the petition organiser will be given 5 minutes to present the petition at the Council meeting.  Council will then have the opportunity to discuss the petition for a maximum period of 15 minutes.

The Council will then need to decide how to respond to the petition.  In doing this, Council may decide to take the action requested, not take the action (for reasons given during the debate) or to commission further investigation. 

Where the issue is one on which the Council Executive are required to make the final decision, the Council will decide whether to make recommendations to inform that decision.

The Lead Petitioner Seraphim Leonides spoke for 5 minutes in support of the petition, Stop the Bin Collection Changes.  He raised the following points: 

·         He thanked the members for the opportunity to address the chamber. 

·         He asked for the changes to be reversed or at least modified. 

·         The petition had followed on from the consultation which had taken place last year on the changes to the current arrangements for domestic recycling and garden waste. 

·         The options put forward were unacceptable to the majority of those who had responded to the consultation. In particular, the reduction from weekly to bi-weekly collections of general waste, retaining the smaller black bins and the imposition of the charge for collecting garden waste which residents regarded as a stealth tax. 

·         Many residents had welcomed the introduction of wheelie bins a few years ago, but most families in the opinion of the petitioners filled up the smaller black general waste bins every week.  Making these collections bi-weekly would in the petitioners’ view, increase rubbish on the street encouraging foxes, rats and other wildlife. 

·         Charging for the green waste bins would also encourage people to burn rubbish or drive to Barrowell Green which would have a negative impact on the environment. 

·         There was recognition that the Council had to make savings, but also a feeling that there should be room for compromise.

·         These proposals would they felt, bring down standards of cleanliness across the green and leafy borough.

·         There was uncertainty around any benefits in improving the clean, healthy and hygienic environment the changes may bring about. 

·         The request that the Council review the proposed changes, open a genuine dialogue with residents and look again at increasing the size of the black bin or at retaining the weekly general black bin waste collections and reducing or removing the new green waste charge. 

·         In conclusion he appreciated the opportunity to address the chamber and hoped that the members would consider his suggestions and negotiate an acceptable conclusion for the community. 

In response, Councillor Dogan, Cabinet member for Environment and Sustainability made the following points: 

·         He thanked the residents for coming along to the meeting and understood that changes could be unsettling.

·         The decision to make the changes had not been taken lightly, but the Council had to make savings.  Government had decreased Enfield’s grant by £178m since 2010.

·         The cost of waste disposal was increasing and these changes would save approximately £2m per year.

·         The changes would also enable an extra £500,000 to be put into street cleansing and to improve recycling rates, which would be good for the environment.  Increasing recycling would create extra space in the black bins.

·         Across the country 78% of councils have already moved to fortnightly collections, 4% to 3-4 weekly collections and 56% of councils charge for garden waste. 

·         Food waste would be collected weekly from November 2019. 

·         Four new permanent members of staff would be appointed.  Leaflets were being circulated to inform people what they can and can’t put in each  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for 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 Opposition Group were alarmed at the proposals for high rise, high density developments on sites in Enfield including at Cineworld and at Cockfosters Tube Station which they felt were out of keeping and would strain the amenities of these areas. 

·         Clarification of planning guidance on housing densities following the publication of the Mayor of London’s Local Plan is necessary to make clear to developers the Council’s position.

·         There is acknowledgement that there is a huge need for more affordable housing, but there is a debate about where this housing should be situated and whether is should be in tall buildings.   

·         It was felt to be inappropriate to build adjacent to the green belt or near the listed underground stations. There should be a presumption against tall building and changes to the skyline.

·         Good quality building that fits in with the area should be encouraged. 

·         Area Action Plans could highlight areas which might be appropriate for high rise buildings but these should be limited.

·         The Opposition were seeking reassurance that current guidance would not be jettisoned. 

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

·         That the National Planning Policy Framework established a need for all local authorities to update their Local Plans.

·         When the Council’s 2010 Core Strategy was developed, population growth and the housing crisis was not on the planning agenda to the extent that it is now.

·         Previous Council housing targets were challenging, but moderate in comparison to today’s housing challenges.

·         Enfield’s current target was 798 new homes every year, but under the new London Plan it is set to be 1,900. The government’s assessment of need is higher at 3,500. Whatever the target, there is a need to increase the delivery of housing in the borough.  

·         The emerging Enfield Local Plan 2036 has put forward 7 options to meet the borough’s growth. These will include looking at the role that existing industrial land and retail parks will have to play.

·         Meeting a minimum target of 1,900 new homes a year, increasing industrial capacity and protecting and enhancing Enfield’s character and green belt means being realistic.

·         Intensification and co-locating residential development in industrial areas, as well as building on retail parks is important – and both these approaches are included in the Local Plan. The council is taking a brownfield, town centres first approach to accommodating growth. However, this will not be enough to meet the borough’s housing needs.

·         In that context the new Local Plan will provide updated policies regarding height and density to guide development in different places across Enfield. The approach to height will be dealt with on a case by case basis across the borough.

·         There will be sites in Enfield, particularly where we have transport hubs, where development could increase density and include excellently designed taller buildings.

·         The commitment to creating safe and strong communities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive a report from the Executive Director of Resources presenting the Council’s Annual Treasury Management Report for 2018 -19 in accordance with Treasury Management Practices. 

It is a regulatory requirement for Council to receive this report by 30 September each year. (Report No: 41) (Key Decision Reference Number: KD: 4926)

Councillor Maguire moved and Councillor Caliskan seconded the report of the Executive Director Resources presenting the Council’s Annual Treasury Management Report for 2018-19.  (Report No:  41)

NOTED

1.            The points raised by Councillor Maguire proposing the report: 

a.  That the Council was required to produce an annual report each year setting out the Council’s debt, borrowing and interest payments.

b.  Outstanding debt to 31 March 2019 was £844.8m an increase of 148m since April 2018.

c.   Borrowing this year has increased by £125.5m with interest payments of £19.6m.  The Council had kept within its borrowing limits.

d.  The Council borrowed money to fund the capital programme.

e.  Tables in the report show the current borrowing, loans taken out, cost of borrowing and debt spread over 50 years.   

f.    Much of the borrowing is taken from the Public Works Loans Board. 

g.  No debt rescheduling was carried out last year.

h.  The Council had provided assistance to schools whose accounts were overdrawn with a revolving credit facility.

i.    When interest rates were low it was cheaper to borrow. 

j.    The current uncertainty arising from BREXIT was being monitored. 

2.            The following highlighted by the Opposition:      

a.    Support for the actions with regard to the schools’ debt.

b.    Praise for the presentation of the report.

c.    Concern about the levels of debt and the view that if the Council borrowed less then they would need less money to service the debt and that this was increasing pressure on the revenue budget and creating problems for the future.

d.    As the Council sets its own borrowing limit it was not difficult to meet it. 

e.    Concern about the consequences of such high debt.  Since 2010 Council debt has increased by £574m and the capital finance requirement gone up by £60m.  Over the next 2 years it would reach £600m.  This was felt to be unsustainable. 

3.            The following highlighted by the Majority Group: 

a.    Thanks for officers and members for the report

b.    Acknowledgement that this was a period with high levels of uncertainty, especially with the issue of BREXIT but that it was appropriate for the Council to strike a balance between borrowing when interest rates were low and achieving cost certainty over the period for which funds were required. 

c.    Making investments now was part of the strategy for the Council’s capital programme and saves money in the future.

d.    It was clear evidence that the Council’s finances were sound and were being managed effectively and efficiently alongside measures for income generation. 

4.            The summing up from Councillor Maguire that the money borrowed was to enable to council to spend to invest, to build houses.  In borrowing they had followed the advice of their external advisors and most of the money had been borrowed from the Public Works Loans Board.  The aim of the Council was to make people’s lives better.

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

For:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To receive a monitoring report from the Executive Director Resources on the Capital Programme First Quarter to June 2019.  (Report No: 72A)

(Key Decision Reference Number:  KD 4943)

Council is asked to approve changes to the Capital programme.

Cabinet is due to consider this report at their meeting on 11 September 2019. 

The Cabinet decisions will be reported to Council on the green update sheet tabled at the meeting. 

Councillor Maguire proposed and Councillor Caliskan seconded the report of the Executive Director Resources on the Capital Programme First Quarter to June 2019.  (Report No:  72A)

NOTED

1.            Cabinet agreed at their meeting on 11 September 2019 to recommend the report to Council. 

2.            Councillor Maguire in introducing the report highlighted the following: 

·      To acknowledge the good news that the Council had won £156m from the Housing Infrastructure Fund.  The represented a substantial investment in Enfield and would support the Council’s work to build houses in Meridian Water.  Thanks to Peter George (Programme Director Meridian Water) and his officers and to all the councillors who had lobbied and supported the bid. 

·      The report sets out the Council’s current position on capital schemes, the estimated capital spending and required financing.

·      The Council were planning to spend £144m.  £32.4m financed from external grants.  Forecasts are contained in tables 1-5 in the report. 

·      Table 7 shows financing for the Housing Revenue Account.  Loans would only drawn down when required.

·      There are two additions to the capital programme.  Reardon Court and the Capital Condition Programme.

3.            Concern from the Opposition Group:

·         That reprofiling of £63m has been required since the Capital Programme was agreed in March earlier this year, suggesting that previous forecasts had been unreliable.

·         About the lack of building work at Meridian Water and the extra £34m required for decontamination works.

·         That extra items could be charged to the capital fund.

·         About the money being spent on the Council companies including Housing Gateway.  The view that this money could have been better spent on a specialist housing provider. 

·         Queries about the additional monies required for environment schemes including the changes to the waste collection scheme. 

·         The lack of details in the report. 

4.            Comments from the majority group: 

·         This report shows the overall expenditure for the approved capital programme and the increased funding from the GLA for Reardon Court.  The Council is investing in major and minor works to improve the lives of Enfield Council tenants and address fire safety concerns.

·         That the success of the bid for Meridian Water infrastructure shows a confidence in the scheme and in Enfield which will help unlock the huge potential of the project. 

5.            The summing up from Councillor Maguire that the capital programme was for investing in services and should be supported by the Opposition Group.  She suggested that Councillor Rawlings put her queries in writing and these would be addressed.

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

For:  36

Against: 14

Abstentions: 0

AGREED:

1.            To note the additions for the Capital Programme as set out in Table 3 in paragraph 4.9 and approves the addition of the following to the approved capital programme:

i)             Reardon Court

ii)            Corporate Capital Condition Programme (CCCP)

2.            To note the proposed reductions set out in Table 4 in paragraph 4.11 of the report. 

3.            To note the £156m Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) award

4.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To receive a report from the Director of Commercial seeking a second tranche of funding to deliver the remainder of the Energetik business plan. 

(Report No: 74) (Key Decision Reference Number: KD: 4642)

This report should be considered in conjunction with Report No: 78 on the part 2 agenda. 

This report is due to be considered at Cabinet on 11 September 2019 after this agenda has been published.  The Cabinet decision on recommendation will be reported to Council on the green update sheet tabled at the meeting. 

Councillor Maguire moved and Councillor Caliskan seconded the report of the Director of Commercial seeking a second tranche of funding to deliver the remainder of the Energetik Business Plan.  (Report Nos:  74 and 78).

Councillor Ergin Erbil moved and Councillor Laban seconded a resolution to exclude the press and public so that the part 1 and part 2 reports could be discussed at the same time. 

RESOLVED, in accordance with Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for the item of business listed on part two of the agenda on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).

All press and public left the meeting at this point. 

NOTED

1.            Cabinet had considered this report at their meeting on 17 July 2019 and agreed to recommend that Council approve the additional funding. 

2.            Councillor Maguire introduced the report highlighting:

·         Energetik had been set up to provide a cheaper reliable form of renewable energy for new developments.  An initial sum of £15 had been invested.  So far four networks have been created. 

·         It helps the Council tackle the climate change emergency reducing the borough’s carbon footprint, provides improvements to air quality and health and helps alleviate fuel poverty.

·         A supply agreement with the North London Waste Authority was due to be signed by the end of the month.

3.            The concerns of the Opposition Group with regards to: 

·      The effectiveness of district heating systems in helping the environment.

·      The administration costs and customer resistance.

·      The difficulties in delivering the second part of the project.

·      The amount of money involved.  Although provided by grants and loans, if the company were wound up, the Council would have to pay these back. 

·      Risks that the system would break down or that the Meridian Water and other developers may not sign up to the scheme.

·      That the project was too ambitious and too much of a financial risk. 

·      That the scheme could cause poor air quality.

·      That agreements were not fully signed up. 

4.            The comments of the Majority Group: 

·         The report had been agreed by Cabinet the preceding week for the second tranche of funding to deliver the remainder of its business plan including the hearing infrastructure required to serve Meridian Water. 

·         In October 2018 Cabinet had asked Energetik to review the alternative funding sources and to develop a more customer focussed approach and to focus on alleviating fuel poverty and helping the Council tackle the climate change emergency. 

5.            Councillor Maguire summed up by saying that due diligence had been carried out, the project would be investing in fuel poverty, and needs this next tranche of money to move forward.  The Council had been very  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Councillor Ergin Erbil moved and Councillor Nesil Caliskan seconded a proposal under paragraph 2.2(B) of the Council procedure rules to change the order of items on the agenda.

It was proposed that motions should be taken as the next item of business. 

This was agreed after a vote with the following result:

For: 30

Against: 13

Abstentions: 0 

The minutes reflect the order of the meeting. 

Councillor Caliskan moved and Councillor Yusuf seconded the following motion: 

“This Council believes that Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament during a critical period approaching the 31st October deadline is a cynical affront to the principle of parliamentary democracy. This view has been reinforced by Scotland's highest civil court who ruled on the 11th September that the Prime Minister’s shutdown of parliament was unlawful. On the 6th September the English high court judges decided that suspending Parliament was a ‘purely political’ move by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister’s refusal to allow our representatives in the House of Commons to debate and scrutinise his government, is the disposal of democratic legislative scrutiny altogether.

As Johnson hurtles towards a no-deal exit, residents across Enfield are worried. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned of an instant shock to the economy in the event of a no-deal, and that medicine and food would become more expensive if the UK leaves the EU without an agreement.

EU nationals and their families living in Enfield and across the country face huge instability about their ‘settled status’ and the threatened prospect of the end of freedom of movement on the 31st October 2019.

This council opposes the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue parliament and believes he should respect the court ruling that his actions are unlawful.”

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

For:  32

Against:  12

Abstentions:  0

The Mayor had agreed to accept the above motion as an urgent motion for the following reason: 

“The reason for submitting this motion as an emergency is because on the 11th September 2019 Scotland's highest civil court ruled that the Prime Minister’s shutdown of parliament was unlawful. The 11th September is after the 12 calendar days required for notice of a motion to Council on 18 September 2019.

Also, the Supreme Court is currently dealing with the case against the Prime Minister. These are unprecedented times and warrant the permitting of the motion.”

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

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

To receive the report of the Executive Director People on the Reardon Court Extra Care Housing Scheme.

Council is asked to approve the allocation of capital funding for the Reardon Court development from the Council’s Capital Programme based on an improved business case.  (Report No: 48) (Key Decision Reference Number:  KD: 4898)

Council is asked to note that Cabinet agreed the scheme on 17 July 2019 and recommended that Council approve the additional funding. 

This report should be considered in conjunction with report no 51 on the part 2 agenda. 

RECEIVED a report from the Executive Director People on the Reardon Court Extra Care Housing Scheme (Report No:  48)

NOTED

1.            The Scheme was agreed and recommended to Council by Cabinet at their meeting on 17 July 2019. 

2.            The report was considered in conjunction with report no:51 on the part 2 agenda. 

AGREED

1.         To note that Cabinet agreed at their meeting on 17 July 2019:

1.1         To note the content of this report, including the Council’s successful bid to the Greater London Authority (GLA) for £9,443,161 capital funding to develop Extra Care Housing at Reardon Court.

1.2         To delegate authority to the Executive Director of Place in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Procurement, the Director of Health & Adult Social Care and the Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Health & Social Care:

1.3         The award of construction work contracts for the demolition and redevelopment of the site.

1.4         Project management and procurement arrangements including operational resourcing, appointments for all pre and post contract construction services and submission of a planning application

1.5         To approve the application of funds (circa £2.5m – see section 3.5.7) from the Kingsdowne Society Trust to this project - subject to administrators releasing the funds and the Charity Commission approval - to reduce the Council’s borrowing requirement for the scheme.

2.         To approve the allocation of capital funding for this development from the Council’s Capital Programme based on the improved business case. (See Part 2).

The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Joanne Laban, advised that if there had been a vote her group would have voted against. 

To receive a report from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee setting out the Scrutiny Annual Work Programme and Workstreams identified for 2019/20. (Report No: 69)

Council is asked to approve the work programme and workstreams for 2019/20.

This report is also due to be considered at Cabinet on 11 September 2019.  Any comments will be reported on the update sheet at the meeting. 

RECEIVED a report from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee setting out the scrutiny annual work programme and workstreams identified for 2019/20.  (Report No:  69)

NOTED

1.            The report was considered at Cabinet on 11 September 2019 and recommended to Council for approval. 

AGREED to approve the scrutiny work programme and workstreams for 2019/20. 

To receive a report from the Director of Housing and Regeneration seeking changes to the terms of reference to the Housing Advisory Board.

The Member and Democratic Services Group at their meeting on 3 September 2019 agreed to recommend the changes to Council.  (Report No: 61). 

RECEIVED the report of the Director of Housing and Regeneration on revised terms of reference for the Housing Advisory Board.  (Report No:  61)

AGREED to approve the revised terms of reference for the Housing Advisory Board.

The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Joanne Laban, advised that if there had been a vote her group would have voted against. 

The Members’ Allowances Scheme forms Part 6 of the Constitution. Paragraph 6.3 (c) states that “Annual Increases in allowances will be linked to average earnings, for the period ending the previous March of each year. New rates will be effective from the new Municipal year.”

There is a need to consider the level of allowances payable under the scheme for 2019/20, with Council asked to consider the following recommendation.

Recommendation: 

“That the current Members Allowances Scheme is re-approved as set out in Part 6 of the Constitution, and that the automatic increase in allowances by the average earnings as at March not be implemented for the 2019/20 financial year.”

AGREED that  the current Members Allowances Scheme is re-approved as set out in Part 6 of the Constitution, and that the automatic increase in allowances by the average earnings as at March not be implemented for the 2019/20 financial year. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list of questions and their written responses will be published on Tuesday 17 September 2019. 

1.            Urgent Questions

There were no urgent questions.

2.            Questions by Councillors

NOTED

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

Motion 1 in the name of Councillor Joanne Laban

“Bullying is the use of coercion, force, or threat to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate. In light of the recent articles in the press, Enfield Council agrees to confirm its opposition to the use of bullying and will deliver an anti-bullying campaign across the authority.”

Motion 2 in the name of Councillor Joanne Laban

“The administration failed to listen to resident’s views on changes to wheeled bin collections. It was clear from the consultation that the majority of people did not support alterations to the current wheeled bin collection service. The recent refusal to accept a petition supported by 6,000 people further underlines that this new administration is simply not listening to the residents of Enfield.”

Motion 3 in the name of Councillor Edward Smith

“This Council agrees to resist residential developments on Underground Station car parks in Enfield that are not in conformity with the existing local plan on the grounds that these car parks encourage commuters to use public transport.”

Motion 4 in the name of Councillor Maria Alexandrou

“Cervical screening is a way for women to protect themselves from cancer. The sad reality is that fewer women are now having cervical screening. Last year 1.3m women didn’t attend NHS screenings. There are 3,200 new cases of cervical cancer every year and of those 870 women die from it.”

According to CANCER RESEARCH UK 99.8% of cases are preventable. When Jane Goody fought her cancer battle, nearly 80% of women went for smear tests.10 years later, only 72% of women go. If this rate falls any lower, the rise in deaths will shoot up. In the case of Jade Goody, she ignored letters about her abnormal cells. She needed to go to hospital for surgery to remove those abnormal cells, surgery which most probably would have saved her life.

Many young women in their 20s and 30s are dying from cervical cancer and the tragedy is they are leaving behind their partners and young children. We need to encourage everyone to look after their health and have regular check-ups.

“Enfield Council therefore agrees to work together with other agencies for a local campaign on cervical cancer awareness and encourage women to attend that important screening test. It only takes 5 minutes at the doctor’s surgery and this test can save your life.”

Motion 5 in the name of Councillor Ian Barnes

“Air pollution is a cause of major health inequality in Enfield and across London: Some areas of our borough suffer nitrogen dioxide levels higher than the World Health Organisation limit.

Obesity is also a huge issue and Enfield is in the grip of an inactivity crisis. The number of adults in the borough who are obese stands at 57% and even though this number is slowly decreasing there are twenty boroughs across London which are doing better than Enfield.

More than 40% of Londoners do not achieve the recommended 150 minutes of physical activity a week, hardly surprising  ...  view the full agenda text for item 19.

The following motions lapsed under the guillotine arrangements:  16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.7, 16.8, 16.9, 16.10, 16.11. 

To confirm changes to Committee memberships:

No changes notified to date.

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

There were no changes.   

To confirm any changes to the nominations on outside bodies: 

No changes notified at present. 

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

There were no changes.   

To note the date agreed for the next Council meeting:

·         Wednesday 20 November 2019 at 7pm at Enfield Civic Centre. 

NOTED that the next ordinary Council meeting will take place on Wednesday 20 November 2019 at 7pm. 

RESOLVED, in accordance with Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for the item of business listed on part two of the agenda on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).

To receive a report from the Director of Commercial seeking a second tranche of funding to deliver the remainder of the Energetik business plan.

(Report No: 78) (Key Decision Reference Number: KD: 4642)  

This report should be considered in conjunction with Report No: 74 on the part 1 agenda. 

This report is due to be considered at Cabinet on 11 September 2019 after this agenda has been published.  The Cabinet decision on recommendation will be reported to Council on the green update sheet tabled at the meeting. 

The minute for this report has been included in the part 1 agenda. 

To receive the report of the Executive Director People on the Reardon Court Extra Care Housing Scheme.

Council is asked to approve the allocation of capital funding for the Reardon Court development from the Council’s Capital Programme based on an improved business case.  (Report No: 51) (Key Decision Reference Number:  KD: 4898)

Council is asked to note that Cabinet agreed the scheme on 17 July 2019 and recommended that Council approve the additional funding. 

This report should be considered in conjunction with report no 48 on the part 1 agenda. 

RECEIVED the part 2 report of the Executive Director People on the Reardon Court Extra Care Housing Scheme.  (Report No:  51)

NOTED

1.            that Cabinet had considered this scheme on 17 July 2019 and recommended it to Council for approval. 

2.            That the report was considered in conjunction with the part 1 report no 48. 

AGREED to approve the allocation of capital funding for this development from the Council’s Capital Programme (as detailed in the part 2 report) based on the improved business case.