Agenda and minutes

The Mayor’s Chaplain, Kazim Yildirim from the Alevi Centre in Wood Green gave the blessing. 

The Mayor began by wishing everyone good evening and welcoming them to the first Council meeting of the year. He trusted everyone had had a good Christmas. 

He acknowledged that the pandemic was still affecting so many of our lives and advised that we must take as many precautions as possible to safeguard ourselves, our families and loved ones, whilst protecting our NHS.  

He sent his best wishes to all the residents and staff and thanked again all those who were working so tirelessly to help defeat the virus.

This year Enfield Council had hosted and broadcasted a special online event to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day – an International Day of Remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust and other genocides. This event had enabled those taking part to reflect on and remember the millions of people killed under Nazi persecution as well as the many other genocides that had occurred since the end of the second world war. 

The Mayor said that the light at the Civic Centre would always burn brightly in remembrance of those lost.  It is the “Light in The Darkness”, lest we forget.

The Mayor then asked members to observe a minute’s silence in memory of two former councillors who had recently passed away: Andrew Stafford and Jayne Buckland.  Condolences were offered to their families at this sad time

Councillors Nesil Caliskan, Joanne Laban, Daniel Anderson, Doug Taylor, Alessandro Georgiou, Gina Needs, Kate Anolue, Ergin Erbil and Terry Neville, spoke in tribute to Andrew Stafford. 

Councillor Mike Rye spoke in tribute to Jayne Buckland.  Councillor Lappage said that tributes from the Labour group would be given at the next meeting. 

A minute silence was held in memory of them both. 

The Young Mayor, Kayhan Ali, gave a brief update on his activities since the last Council meeting.  He thanked everyone who had helped him during the past year and said that he had been blessed to have had such an amazing opportunity.  He was currently working with the Metropolitan Police on a booklet which he hoped would improve understanding between the police and young people and on a mental health project to support young people. 

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2020 as a correct record. 

The minutes of the Council meeting held on 18 November 2020 were received and agreed as a correct record. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brett, David-Sanders, Karakus, Levy and for lateness from Councillor Akpinar. 

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

NOTED the statement from Jeremy Chambers, Monitoring Officer and Director of Law and Governance as follows:  

“In accordance with guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government, there is no requirement for members to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest in relation to items 9 and 10.

The exception to this being any councillor who is two or more months in arrears on their Council Tax, in which case they will need to declare this and not take part in the vote.”  

Jeremy Chambers confirmed that there were no councillors who were more than two or more months in arrears. 

There were no declarations of interest. 

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for information. 

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

Councillor Maria Alexandrou introduced the issues paper prepared by the majority opposition group.

1.            Issues highlighted by Councillor Alexandrou were as follows: 

·         The view that low traffic neighbourhood schemes were unwanted by local residents and had been ineptly implemented. 

·         That the consultation on the schemes had been flawed and people living within the areas affected had not had an adequate opportunity to comment on them. 

·         Concern that no paper copies of the consultation had been provided, which she felt discriminated against the weakest and most vulnerable.

·         That the imposition of the scheme had resulted in congestion and gridlock in surrounding roads which had increased pollution and made the roads more difficult to cross for pedestrians.  The congestion could delay the delivery of lifesaving medicines and treatments.

·         They had caused local businesses to lose trade and some people had found it harder to sell their properties.

·         Concern that the Council were making money out of the penalty fines which had been imposed due to the schemes.

·         That there was no evidence that the schemes reduced traffic, which she felt was just transferred to neighbouring streets. 

·         Schemes in other boroughs had been found to be unlawful and had been removed. 

·         The Council’s own vehicles had been parked with engines running causing more pollution. 

·         Enfield in comparison to Wandsworth has less than half the number of electric charging points.

·         Currently there were a lack of alternative travel options.  A car was one of the safest options. 

·         A recent high court judgement from Mrs Justice Elisabeth Lang had criticised road closures under similar schemes

2.            Councillor Barnes responded on behalf of the majority party highlighting: 

·         That the current level of traffic on residential roads was unsustainable and destructive. The number of cars on the road had increased dramatically meaning in the last 12 years the number of miles driven on Enfield’s roads every year has increased by over 300 million miles.

·         There were now 140,000 vehicles registered in Enfield and this was predicted to continue to increase, while most of that extra traffic had been pushed onto residential ‘C’ and unclassified roads, sometimes at high speeds, by Sat-Navs.

·         Low Traffic Neighbourhoods were part of Government policy to help fight climate change. 

·         They were beneficial to children and young people. They prevented rat-running. Cars in the Fox Lane estate have been measured up to 80mph which would kill a child on impact.

·         Nearly a third of journeys were shorter than 15 minutes just over a mile which is a 15 minute walk for those who are able and the largest proportion of car journeys are for leisure.

·         The Council had to meet the challenge to improve air quality and encourage more walking and cycling.  This meant bringing about behavioural change. 

·         The schemes would lead to less congestion in future years for those who had to use a car such as those with disabilities.  

·         Low Traffic Neighbourhoods created safe corridors enabling children to travel to school safely inside the LTN and also the surrounding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To receive a report from Tony Theodoulou, Executive Director People, on Empowering Youth Enfield – Children and Young People Plan.

The Council is asked to approve the plan. 

Councillor Jewell proposed and Councillor Vince seconded the report of the Executive Director People – Empowering Young Enfield – Children and Young People’s Plan.

NOTED

1.            In proposing the report Councillor Jewell (Cabinet Member for Children’s Services) highlighted the following: 

·         Thanks to officers for creating a strong robust plan and doing such a fantastic job.

·         The past year had been very difficult for many children; some had missed almost 12 months of schooling, and this would have a far-reaching impact on their futures.

·         Supporting young people, at this time, was more important than ever.

·         This plan replaced and carries on from the previous young people’s plan.

·         Young people and youth organisations had been involved in creating the plan.  It was full of many direct quotes from young people. 

·         The plan had identified 6 priorities; empowering young people, including them in decision making, providing good accessible housing, giving them the best possible health and wellbeing, keeping them safe and protected from harm and giving them an environmentally sustainable future.

·         It was an overarching document which aimed to put young people at the heart of everything the Council does. 

2.            Councillor Vince welcomed the report in seconding it.  She had been involved in children’s services for more than 27 years and seen many changes.  During this time, she had visited all the schools in the borough and had always listened to young people and made sure their views were represented.  She was pleased to support the adoption of the new policy. 

3.            Councillor Anderson on behalf of the Community First group welcomed the new plan and endorsed the comments above. 

4.            The comments of the majority administration members: 

a.    Strong support for the plan, especially from the younger councillors.

b.    The new plan would bring in many positive changes including improving skills at the national and local level and creating safe, healthy and confident communities.

c.    It would encourage stronger and more active youth participation and peer to peer co-operation.

d.    The need for the Council to support young people and to make sure that they were engaged and listened to.

e.    Concern about the financial difficulties many young people faced. 

f.     The Council wanted to work in partnership with young people and to enhance and improve the quality of their lives. 

g.    Over 900 people had been consulted. 

h.    To acknowledge that the Council was listening to young people, shared their vision and ambitions and what they could be empowered to achieve.

i.      It was important to look after young people as they were the future. Housing, education and employment were key. 

j.      Praise for the excellent role model showed by the young mayor talking about his collaboration with the police at the start of the meeting. 

5.            The comments of the majority opposition members:

a.    Support for the plan.

b.    Concern about the lack of information about the success of the previous plan and how the new plan related to what had been done before. 

c.    Concern about the lack  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive a report from the Executive Director Resources on the campaign for fairer funding for Enfield. 

Council is asked to note and agree the recommendations in the report. 

Councillor Caliskan proposed and Councillor Maguire seconded a report of the Executive Director Resources on fairer funding for Enfield.

NOTED

1.            Councillor Caliskan in proposing the report highlighted: 

·         That the Council was under unprecedented financial pressure on account of the Coronavirus.

·         At the start of the pandemic crisis, the Government had promised to cover any extra costs arising from the pandemic response. 

·         Enfield in good faith had acted quickly to support local people.  They had organised food parcels, arranged prescription deliveries, provided local care homes with PPE grants, waived rents, administered grant fund relief and business rate reductions and provided housing for rough sleepers.  They had done this in the belief that any extra costs would be covered by the Government. 

·         The Government were now however asking local taxpayers to cover the costs by asking councils to increase their Council Tax. 

·         Councillor Caliskan had written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him to make sure that Enfield had the funding it needed to cover the extra costs incurred.  She had approached the Leader of the Opposition to co-sign the letter, but the Leader of the Opposition had declined to do so. 

·         Many Enfield residents had lost their jobs and were suffering during the pandemic.  The Leader felt that it was unacceptable for the Government to put the burden of the cost of the pandemic onto residents. 

·         The Government had so far only provided funding to cover 62% of the extra costs of the pandemic. 

2.            The response of Councillor Hockney on behalf of the majority opposition highlighting: 

·         The Conservative Group agreed that there was a need to address the issue of damping, which meant that Enfield received less funding than it was estimated that it needed, but in the letter to the Chancellor, the Leader had conflated several other issues, which meant that the opposition could not support it.

·         This was a time when people should come together to support the Government.

·         Enfield had received an increase in Government funding and the Government has stepped in to fund extra costs.  Enfield residents had also benefited from the Government’s very generous furlough scheme and from business rate holidays. 

·         The ten percent increase in the Mayor of London’s precept was part of the reason for the need to increase council tax. 

·         More Labour than Conservative authorities were increasing  council taxes.

3.            Councillor Anderson for Community First highlighted the following: 

·         Support for what had already been said. Enfield’s unequal funding position had never been properly addressed and it was at a severe disadvantage in terms of low public health funding.  The Council had also lost funding worth £193m, over the last decade. 

·         The large majority (82-84%) of Council funding came from Government.  Only 10% from Council Tax.  Council Tax could not make up the difference.  The whole local government funding model needed reappraisal. 

4.            The comments of the majority group: 

a.    The council was under huge pressure and had suffered from massive funding cuts.  This had had a devastating impact on services.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To receive a report from the Executive Director of Resources reviewing and seeking approval to changes in the local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2021/22, which the Council is required to produce under section 13A(1)(a) and meeting 1A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.  

Councillor Maguire proposed and Councillor Yusuf seconded the report of the Executive Director Finance on the Council Tax Support Scheme for 2021/22

NOTED

1.            Councillor Maguire highlighted the following in proposing the report: 

·         This scheme was reviewed annually.  It enabled the Council to help people on low incomes who have difficulties paying their Council Tax.

·         The Council funds its own scheme. 

·         The proposal was to retain the same scheme as last year as set out in appendix A to the report. 

·         Transitional arrangements would remain covering 122 residents.

·         The scheme had provided vital support to low income households during the pandemic.  During 20/21 the working age council tax support caseload had increased by 1,400.  The highest number of claimants ever. 

·         The government had provided additional hardship funding of £6.2m to enable payments of £250 to be given to eligible council tax payers. 

·         Unemployment was predicted to rise at the end of the furlough scheme and it was important that the Council could continue to provide discretionary support for those who needed it most, to help people avoid falling into debt and support health and wellbeing.

2.            In seconding the report Councillor Yusuf highlighted the following: 

·         He commended the report and said that the council was doing its best to support everyone despite the reductions in funding. 

·         The Council were willing to support everyone who had a reasonable claim. Even those currently on furlough did not have as much money as they would have had without the pandemic. 

·         It was wrong to increase the Council tax at this time.

·         The Council Tax Support Scheme provided essential support to low income families including those effected by Covid and the introduction of universal credit.

At this point in the debate the time available for the discussion of reports came to an end under the guillotine arrangements.

The recommendations in the report were agreed without a vote.  If there had been a vote the minority opposition group indicated that they would have voted against. 

AGREED

1.            To approve the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2021/22 as summarised in Appendix A to provide financial support for households on low incomes in paying their Council Tax. The 2021/22 scheme is based on the 2020/21 scheme, updated for legislative amendments, income uprating and administrative changes.

2.            To delegate responsibility to make any minor and consequential changes, including the correction of accidental errors, necessary to the detailed council tax support provision as a result of any changes in the regulations upon which the scheme is based to the Executive  Director of Resources following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Procurement. 

3.            For the 2021/22 scheme:

·           That the minimum contribution for working age households, not in a protected group, to be maintained at 24.5%

·           That the maximum earned income for Universal Credit claimants to receive council tax support to be £1,100 net per month 

·           That the administrative changes set out in paragraph 15 and 16 of the report be incorporated into the scheme to improve  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Councillor Claire Stewart moved and Councillor Vince seconded a proposal under paragraph 4.2 of the Council procedure rules to change the order of items on the agenda so that Motion 2 under Item 13 Motions should be taken as the next item of business. 

This was agreed unanimously.

Motions for Council – 28 January 2020

Motion 1 in the name of Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Test and trace system

Crucial for defeating Covid-19 is an effective test and trace system. Thus far,

government attempts have proved inadequate. This Council believes that

local authorities working with local public health teams are best placed to

deliver test and trace.

The current test and trace system should be de-centralised with responsibility

and government funds given to local authorities to manage and administer.

Motion 2 in the name of Councillor Joanne Laban

In the week of Holocaust Memorial Day, this council reaffirms its adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism:

 “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Enfield Council pledges to continue to work towards combating antisemitism.

Motion 3 in the name of Councillor Maria Alexandrou

Cervical Cancer Screening

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 Jade 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 4 in the name of Councillor Joanne Laban

Covid thank you

The chamber gives it heartfelt thanks to the Enfield Council staff involved in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Motion 5 in the name of Councillor Joanne Laban

The Council supports the provision of meat options at its events and to exclude them is discriminatory against meat eaters. This chamber agrees that all Enfield Council events where catering is provided should include meat, vegetarian and vegan options to show its commitment to inclusivity.

Motion 6 in the name of Councillor Edward Smith

This Council agrees to review its recently published Climate Change Action Plan which set a target for the Council achieving carbon neutrality by  ...  view the full agenda text for item 11.

Councillor Laban moved and Councillor Dey seconded the following motion: 

“In the week of Holocaust Memorial Day, this council reaffirms its adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism:

 “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Enfield Council pledges to continue to work towards combating antisemitism.”

Cllr Caliskan reaffirmed that previously Full Council has agreed to endorse the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

Following the debate on this motion, it was approved unanimously. 

Motions 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 lapsed under the guillotine arrangements.  

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 8 (page 4-8 – Part 4), the remaining items of business on the Council agenda were considered without debate.

To receive a report from the Executive Director of Resources seeking approval for the 2021/22 Council Tax and Business Rates Bases.

RECEIVED the report of the Executive Director – Resources, on the Council Tax and Business Rate Collection Fund 2021/22.

AGREED

1.            To increase the empty homes premium, for council tax for dwellings empty for more than 10 years, from 200% to 300% effective from 1 April 2021.

2.            That pursuant to this report and in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of the Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012, the amount calculated by the London Borough of Enfield as its Council Tax Base for 2021/22 shall be 92,965 Band D equivalents.

3.            To approve the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government NNDR1 Business Rate base return for 2020/21 as set out in Appendix B to the report.

The majority opposition group indicated that they would have voted against this report if there had been a vote. 

To receive a report from Jeremy Chambers (Director of Law and Governance) on the designation of the new Chief Finance Officer (s151) role. 

Council is asked to approve the designation of Fay Hammond, Executive Director Resources. 

RECEIVED the report of the Director of Law and Governance on the designation of the new Chief Finance Officer (s151) role.

AGREED

1.            To note the contents of the report and to designate Fay Hammond, Executive Director Resources as the Council’s Chief Finance Officer.  (Section 151 Officer). 

If there had been a vote on this report, the minority opposition group indicated that they would have abstained. 

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 Wednesday 27 January 2021. 

1.            Urgent Questions

There were no urgent questions.

2.            Questions by Councillors

NOTED

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

To confirm changes to Committee memberships agreed since the last meeting.

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 membership of Committees,   

To confirm any changes to the nominations on outside bodies agreed since the last meeting. 

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

There were no changes to the nominations to Outside Bodies. 

To note the date agreed for the next Council meeting:

·         Wednesday 24 February 2021 at 7pm. 

NOTED that the next ordinary Council meeting will take place on Tuesday 2 March 2021 at 7pm. Not Wednesday 24 February 2021 as previously scheduled.