Agenda and minutes

Not required. 

The Mayor’s Chaplain to give a blessing. 

Father Limbert from Christ Church, Southgate gave the blessing. 

The Mayor began by wishing councillors and members of the public “good evening”, “a happy new year”, “health and success for the coming year” and by thanking Father Limbert for his blessing. 

1.               Past Engagements

November and December had been very busy months for the mayoral team and the Mayor thanked the officers, the deputy mayor, her consort, the deputy mayor’s consort for their support and the people of Enfield for their invitations.

The Mayor had attended the following:

·       Remembrance Events - the armistice services at Broomfield Park, followed by a service of remembrance at City Hall with Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, and the Remembrance Day parades at Southgate, Enfield and Edmonton. 

·       Long Service Awards - attended with the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council, which she said were always a pleasure where she was able to thank the staff for their continued hard work.

·       Fund raisers including the Masquerade Ball and the Syrian Quiz Night.

·       Commemoration of a golf trophy named in the honour of the late Neil Isaac with his family and close friends present.   

·       An afternoon tea, hosted by the Mayor, for a 90 year old resident in the parlour – the resident had had her picture taken in one of the Mayoral chairs – a happy memory for her friends and family, who were also present. 

·       The Arctic Commemoration on the 20th January 2017 which the Mayor said had allowed us to think once again about our valued soldiers and what they had and continued to do for us.

·       The Mayor and her family had been honoured to attend the Christmas Day Lunch following mass for the Homeless and Elderly at Our Lady of Mount Carmel & St George Catholic Church.  When they had arrived home eventually, they had reflected on the dignity of those people and their gratitude which was very humble given their daily circumstances.  

2.               Mayor’s Charity, Enfield Sounds Great, Fundraising Events

The following events had raised money for the Mayor’s charity: 

·       A successful Taste of Italy evening with Councillor Glynis Vince which raised £414.50. 

·       Various Christmas concerts including the Christmas Parade of Lights, Forty Hall Christmas Concert, the Enfield Choral Society Christmas Concert and Christmas carol services and performances at many schools.   

·       An International Music Evening hosted on the 21st January 2017, where various musicians had performed some beautiful pieces.  The evening was well attended and much fun was had by all.  It raised £777.00 on the night and the breadth and the standard of the music from all parts of the world was astonishing.

The Mayor also said a big thank you to the many local businesses, churches and parishes which had provided great support over the Christmas period to her charity.  These included Our Lady of Mount Carmel & St George, St Mary Magdalene Church and the Chickenshed Theatre. 

3.               Afternoon Tea for Olympians

The Mayor had been excited to host an event for Enfield Olympians and honour their success. She said that Desiree Henry had been a delight, together  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2016 as a correct record. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2016 were agreed as a correct record, with an amendment to the figure in Item 23 AGREED 2 which should read £21.44m.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ali Bakir and Turgut Esendagli. 

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

Before inviting members to declare any interests, the Mayor asked Asmat Hussain (Monitoring Officer) to make a short statement regarding a mayoral dispensation and the declaration of interests requirements, in relation to Item 8 (Council Tax Support Scheme and Tax Base).

The Monitoring Officer reported that the Councillor Conduct Committee had agreed a dispensation for Councillor Bernadette Lappage, as the Mayor, for all the Council meetings during her year of office 2016/17. 

This dispensation was in relation to item 10 on the part one and item 20 on the part two agenda, the Council’s main investment decision in energetik!, and was in regard to  her disclosable pecuniary interest arising because of her husband’s position at the North London Waste Authority.

The Monitoring Officer also reported that, in accordance with guidance from the Secretary of State, there was no requirement for members to declare disclosable pecuniary interests in Item 8 on the agenda, even though they may pay council tax within the borough, or may be in receipt of council tax support. 

She advised that there was, however, a legal requirement for any member who was two months or more in arrears on their Council Tax to declare that fact and not vote on any issue that could affect the calculation of the budget or council tax more specifically.  No declarations were made in this respect. 

The following interests were declared at the meeting: 

·       Councillor Achilleas Georgiou declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in relation to item 10 on the part 1 and item 20 on the part 2 agenda concerning the Council’s Main Investment Decision in energetik!.  He left the meeting during the discussion on this item and did not vote. 

·       Councillors Alan Sitkin, Doug Taylor and Ahmet Oykener declared non pecuniary interests in relation to item 10 and 20 as Councillor Sitkin was the chair and the others were members of the energetik! board. 

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for the consideration of Council.

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

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

Issues highlighted were as follows: 

1.               That it was necessary for all councillors, not just the majority group, to have confidence in the control and management of the Council’s finances.  The opposition group had no such confidence.  They were concerned about the £8m, now £7.2m, projected over spend.  Decreases had been promised but had not occurred. 

2.               While acknowledging that some parts of the over spend were due to spending demands in demand led services, others were not. 

3.               The Opposition Group had concerns about the high levels of Council borrowing which were now significantly higher than they had been in 2010.  They felt that the capital programme was being added to in an unplanned way and that if there had been better financial planning during the Labour administration’s first term, the Council would not be in the current situation.

4.               Reference was made to report of the Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management to the Audit Committee in July 2016 which had identified some failings across the Council.  He cited Property Services as an example: the report had indicated that the Council had no corporate asset management strategy, no performance management framework and that income targets had not been informed by strategic objectives.  Whilst these issues had subsequently been addressed, it was felt that there were still issues around shortfalls in rents, benefits paid out to people who were not entitled, mismanagement of payments to those with no recourse to public funds, business resilience and private sector leasing. 

5.               In his view, Cabinet members appeared to have done nothing to address these issues and had showed no clear sense of direction.  Criticising the Government was not felt to be the answer.  Even if the Government were to blame, he felt that officers should still be called to account to address failings of financial management within the Council.

6.               The Opposition were calling for an immediate response and for a special meeting to be arranged to discuss how to bring down the over spend in the three areas listed in the Opposition Business Paper.  He felt that Cabinet members should be taking action, the capital programme should be more carefully planned and a business plan put in place. 

Councillor Lemonides, Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting: 

1.              A large amount of work, to eliminate the over spend, was going on behind the scenes that opposition members might not be aware of.  The deficit had been discussed in great detail in many meetings including at the Corporate Management Board and between directors and their lead cabinet members. 

2.              Since 2003/4, as a result of “damping”, the Council had lost over £100m.  If the Council had received this money they would not have had to borrow - the cost of the borrowing was equivalent to the cost of the over spend. 

3.              The Council had had to balance rationing and efficiencies and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Councillor Stewart moved and Councillor Ekechi seconded a proposal under paragraph 2.2(B) of the Council procedure rules to change the order of items on the agenda so that item 10 be taken at the end of the meeting, after item 18.  Thirty minutes within the time allocated for the meeting would be set aside for discussion on this item. 

The change in the order was agreed without a vote. 

The minutes reflect the order of the agenda. 

To receive a report from the Executive Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services reviewing and seeking approval to changes in the local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2017/18, which the Council is required to produce under section 13A(1)(a) and meeting 1A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

The report also recommends the 2017/18 council tax and business rate bases.                                                                                (Report No. 190)

(Key Decision – Reference Number:  4430)

Members are asked to note that for ease of reference, Appendix A to this report will be provided separately to the main agenda and will be listed as a supplementary pack on the Council’s website.  This report has been marked as “To Follow”. 

The NNDR 1 DCLG Business Rate Base Return (Appendix E) has also been marked as “To Follow”.

Councillor Lemonides proposed and Councillor Levy seconded the report from Executive Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services reviewing and seeking approval to changes to in the local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2017/18, which the Council is required to produce under section 12A(a) and meeting 1A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.   The report also recommended the 2017/18 Council tax and business rate bases. 

NOTED

1.               This had to be agreed before the 31 January 2017.

2.               The report recommended an increase in the minimum contribution for working age households not in a protected group to 26.5%.  This was in line with wider funding reductions and to ensure that the scheme was self-funding. 

3.               This was an opportunity to simplify the administration in anticipation of the introduction of universal credit.  Residents will be consulted further in 2017/18.

4.               There had been an increase of 726 properties in the borough.  The business rate income was estimated to increase by £3.9m to £114,166,246.  Enfield’s rate retention share would be £34,249,874, an increase of £1.2m.      

5.               The Opposition Leader’s acceptance of the report.

6.               Some concern about what was seen as an unprecedented attack by Government on all local government, taking away funding and adding responsibilities.  

The recommendations were then put to the vote and agreed with the following result:

AGREED

1.              To approve the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2017/18 to provide financial support for households on low incomes in paying their Council Tax taking into account the consultation responses (Appendix C) and the Equality Impact Assessment (Appendix B).

2.              For the 2017/18 scheme, the minimum contribution for working age households not in a protected group will increase from 25% to 26.5% to ensure the scheme retains the principle of a fully-funded scheme.

3.              There are also statutory regulation amendments and national uprating of social security benefit rates that have been incorporated into the scheme as set out in Section 6 in the report.

4.              Pursuant to this report (see Appendix D for full detail) 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 2017/18 shall be 95,043 Band D equivalents.

5.              To approve the Department for Communities and Local Government NNDR1 Business Rate base return for 2017/18 (Appendix E). 

6.              To approve the amendment to the discretionary rate relief scheme as set out at 2.2 of Appendix E to the report. 

In accordance with the requirements introduced in February 2014, under the Standing Order Regulations 2014, a recorded vote was taken in relation to decisions 1-6 above, given their relevance to the budget setting process, with the result as follows:

For 52

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Dinah Barry

Councillor Chris Bond

Councillor Yasemin Brett

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu

Councillor Erin Celebi

Councillor Lee Chamberlain

Councillor Bambos Charalambous

Councillor Katherine Chibah

Councillor Lee David-Sanders

Councillor Dogan Delman

Councillor Nick Dines

Councillor Guney Dogan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To receive a report from the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment seeking Council approval for the publication of the Proposed Submission of Edmonton Leeside Area Action Plan.

(Key Decision – Reference Number 4389)

(Report No.156A)

Please note that this report has been considered at the Local Cabinet Sub Committee (22 November 2016) and recommended for approval by Cabinet (14 December 2016). 

For ease of reference, the appendix to this report has been provided separately to the main agenda and is listed as a supplementary pack on the Council’s website.

Councillor Sitkin proposed and Councillor Savva seconded the report of the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment on the proposed submission of the Edmonton Leeside Area Action plan. 

NOTED

1.               The name of the plan had changed from Central Leeside to Edmonton Leeside.  Other changes, since 2014, when the plan was first produced for consultation, included Meridian Water achieving “Housing Zone” status, an increase in the number of homes for Meridian Water from 6,000 to 10,000 and the number of jobs from 3,000 to 6,700. 

2.               The plan was now more aspirational, notable progress had been made in assembling the sites to allow development for more mixed uses, there had been a shift to a higher economic base, increasing efforts made to improve the environment and cycling infrastructure, a new job centre and a new primary care facility included in the plans. 

3.               Enfield was open for business, even in difficult times for local government.  The Council was supporting regeneration in the Eastern part of the borough; two new schools, leisure and culture facilities, better access were planned as well as the new primary care facility. The whole project, one of the biggest in London, was being supported by leaders of the community, local colleges and schools, and a premier league football club.

4.               The qualified support of Opposition for the plan, which while welcoming the regeneration proposals had concerns as follows:

a.           About the impact on the areas surrounding Meridian Water and the increased congestion on already heavily congested roads also resulting in a build-up in pollution affecting residents’ health and wellbeing. 

b.           That more needed to be done to resolve the pressure on the roads, particularly those running North/East to avoid creating gridlock in other parts of the borough.     

c.           That many of the proposals were unfunded and un-prioritised.

d.           The lack of progress on obtaining four tracking along the main railway line - three tracks were not felt to be sufficient - which was unfunded and now linked to the development of Crossrail 2.  This was seen as a major risk to the viability of the whole Meridian Water project. 

e.           The impact on existing businesses especially those which would have to be relocated as a result of proposals in the plan.

f.             The suspension of three staff working at Barratt Homes. However the Council had received a written response assuring them that these people had not been involved in any way with the Enfield proposals. 

g.           The lack of progress in securing the sites in Meridian Water and the delays to the start of the building works.  Local residents needed more certainty. 

h.           That Housing Zone status should have been achieved earlier. 

5.               Councillor Sitkin summed up.  He thanked Councillor David-Sanders for his support, acknowledging the concerns about congestion, but pointing out that the introduction of cycle lanes would reduce car use.  He also highlighted the lack of support from the Opposition when lobbying for the 4 trains an hour and the introduction of Crossrail 2.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Councillor Stewart moved and Councillor Ekechi seconded a proposal under paragraph 2.2(B) of the Council procedure rules to change the order of items on the agenda so that item 12.5 would be taken next and followed by item 12.4.  The minutes reflect the order of items on the agenda.  

To receive a report from the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment seeking approval to the Council’s main investment decision in Energetik.                                                                       (Report No: 175)

(Key Decision Reference Numbers: 4266 and 4035)

Please also note the report on the Part 2 Agenda (Report No: 180).

Please note that this report is due to be considered at Cabinet on 18 January 2017 after the Council agenda is published.  Any changes made to the report at Cabinet will be reported to Council on the Council update sheet, tabled at the meeting. 

Councillor Sitkin moved and Councillor Fonyonga seconded the report of the Executive Director Regeneration and Environment seeking approval for the Council’s main investment decision in energetik.  (Report No: 175)

NOTED

1.               This report was considered in conjunction with report No 180 on the part 2 agenda. 

2.               The view of the majority group that was a fantastic initiative which had widespread support: the entrepreneurial leadership in bringing this forward was saluted. 

3.               The proposal was for a high specification, high quality, sustainable, high social value, piece of infrastructure which had been professionally appraised by an independent board and KPMG.  Significant work had been done to mitigate and manage any risks and to ensure that the business would operate on a solid footing.  More financial detail was provided in the part 2 section of the meeting. 

4.               Members were informed that the project would bring significant economic, social, environmental and public health benefits, reducing air pollution by moving to low carbon.  It would also reduce health inequalities, reducing the cost of energy and resulting fuel poverty which would be particularly beneficial to those on low incomes.  Consequences also included alleviating respiratory diseases and improving mental health.  The security of supply must be a benefit.

5.               The business assumptions behind the scheme had been very conservative and the associated risks had been evaluated by an independent board and KPMG.  The project had the support of the GLA and was consistent with Government policy.

6.               The priority of the Council was to reduce the cost of housing, rent and sale prices with clean green and affordable energy.  Residents of Montmorency Park, formerly the Ladderswood Estate, would be the first customers to benefit from the scheme which would also cover Meridian Water, the Alma Estate and the Ponders End Electric Quarter. 

7.               The concerns of the Opposition Group that there be an acknowledgement that district heating systems, although reducing greenhouse gasses, did have downsides and risks. 

·       Many existing schemes had poor customer service records.  District heat networks were monopoly suppliers and heating costs could be uncompetitive.  If things went wrong energy could become more and more expensive.  If the back-up gas fired boiler had to be used, the promised reduction in greenhouse gasses would not be achieved.  High technical standards would increase costs and may not resolve anticipated problems or prevent heat loss.  If the system broke down, hundreds would be affected.  The customer would end up paying any increased costs. 

·       A recent “Which” report had been critical of district heating systems because of widespread customer dissatisfaction, system breakdowns, high charges - some were paying more that 25% more than those on standard gas tariffs.  Customer complaint handling was also poor. 

·       It was important to ensure fair service level agreements and transparent prices.  

8.               In summing up, Councillor Sitkin said that some of the risks mentioned by the Opposition had arisen as a result of poor construction which would not apply in this case.  Energetik would be treating their customers well and customers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

To receive a report from the Executive Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services seeking approval for changes to the arrangements for the appointment of the external auditors.                                          (Report No: 193)

RECEIVED the report from the Executive Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services seeking approval for changes to the arrangements for the appointment of external auditors. 

AGREED

1.               To note the options appraisal set out in this report for appointing the external auditor by 31 December 2017.

2.               To approve the recommendation of the Executive Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services that the Council should opt in to the sector led body approach, and that the external auditor for the Council and for the pension fund from 2018/19 should be appointed by Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd.

To note that the Opposition Group had indicated that, if there had been a vote, they would have voted in support of these recommendations. 

12.1    In the name of Councillor Anne Marie Pearce:

“This Council is concerned that with the rise in population in Enfield, ever increasing demands are being placed on our local health services. Successive governments have failed to recognise that 'fair funding' has not supported local health services to the necessary levels. In comparison with neighbouring boroughs in the North Central London Sector, Enfield is under-funded. For example, Camden, with a population of 260,000 gets an NHS grant of £372 million, while Enfield receives £10 million less with the higher population of 320,000.

The Council instructs the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care together with the Shadow Cabinet Member to write jointly to the Secretary of State for Health requesting him to review the funding mechanism and allocate available monies in a more equal manner across London. The Council also calls upon Enfield’s three Members of Parliament to support the Council in seeking a revision of the formula.”

12.2    In the name of Councillor Alessandro Georgiou:

“The people of the United Kingdom have voted to leave the European Union. Therefore the Council resolves that the flag of the EU should be removed from the flag pole on the civic centre premises and replaced with the Union Flag of the United Kingdom's of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”

12.3    In the name of Councillor Alessandro Georgiou:

“This Council resolves that the National Anthem of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should have time reserved to be sung during the beginning of each Full Council Meeting.”

12.4    In the name of Councillor George Savva:

“This Council would welcome a new stance by the Government to increase infrastructure spend (as widely reported) to boost the economy, in contrast to the austerity position of the last leader of the Conservative government.

This Council therefore resolves to:

1.              Inform residents of the impact of the Government’s austerity measures upon their well-being.

2.              Encourage the Government to increase funding of local authorities as the ideally positioned public bodies to best serve local people to increase their well-being and to develop the local infrastructure.

3.              Ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Prime Minister bringing to her attention that there should be fair funding for Enfield Council and the added value that this Council can bring for the residents of Enfield.”

12.5    In the name of Councillor Alev Cazimoglu:

“The British Red Cross has said that the NHS is experiencing a "humanitarian Crisis."

The NHS has seen the largest financial squeeze in its history and £4.6 billion has been cut from Social Care.

A third of hospitals have declared they needed urgent help to deal with the number of patients coming through the doors, including The North Middlesex University Hospital which has seen unprecedented demand on its services, resulting in the hospital being forced recently to divert ambulances from the Trust.  This is a crisis for Enfield residents.

Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments have turned patients away more  ...  view the full agenda text for item 14.

Motion 12.5  In the name of Councillor Alev Cazimoglu:

“The British Red Cross has said that the NHS is experiencing a "humanitarian Crisis."

The NHS has seen the largest financial squeeze in its history and £4.6 billion has been cut from Social Care.

A third of hospitals have declared they needed urgent help to deal with the number of patients coming through the doors, including The North Middlesex University Hospital which has seen unprecedented demand on its services, resulting in the hospital being forced recently to divert ambulances from the Trust.  This is a crisis for Enfield residents.

Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments have turned patients away more than 143 times between 1 December 2016 and 1st January 2017.

The Health and Social Care system needs immediate intervention to deal with the current crisis and a long term plan to stabilise Social Care.

This Council instructs the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition to send a joint letter, on behalf of Enfield residents, seeking the Government’s urgent intervention in order to fix this crisis. This must include an increase in Government funding for both the NHS and Adult Social Care in Enfield.”

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

For: 36

Against: 17

Abstentions: 0

Motion 12.4  In the name of Councillor George Savva:

“This Council would welcome a new stance by the Government to increase infrastructure spend (as widely reported) to boost the economy, in contrast to the austerity position of the last leader of the Conservative government.

This Council therefore resolves to:

1.              Inform residents of the impact of the Government’s austerity measures upon their well-being.

2.              Encourage the Government to increase funding of local authorities as the ideally positioned public bodies to best serve local people to increase their well-being and to develop the local infrastructure.

3.              Ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Prime Minister bringing to her attention that there should be fair funding for Enfield Council and the added value that this Council can bring for the residents of Enfield.”

Following a debate the recommendations in the motion were put to the vote and agreed.   

NOTED that the Opposition Group voted against recommendations 1 and 2 but in favour of recommendation 3 which was therefore agreed unanimously. 

DURATION OF THE TIME ALLOCATED FOR MOTIONS

The Mayor advised at this stage of the meeting that the time available for motions had now elapsed, so Council procedure rule 9 would apply.

NOTED that in accordance with Council procedure rule 9 the remaining motions lapsed due to lack of time. 

Motion 12.1  In the name of Councillor Anne Marie Pearce:

“This Council is concerned that with the rise in population in Enfield, ever increasing demands are being placed on our local health services. Successive governments have failed to recognise that 'fair funding' has not supported local health services to the necessary levels. In comparison with neighbouring boroughs in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

13.1    Urgent Questions (Part 4 - Paragraph 10.2.(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. 

13.2    Councillors’ Questions (Part 4 – Paragraph 10.2(a) of Constitution – Page 4 - 8)

The list of 38 questions is attached and the responses will be published, in accordance with the Council procedure rules, on Tuesday 24 January 2017, the day before the Council meeting.

1.1           Urgent Questions

There were no urgent questions.

1.2           Questions by Councillors

NOTED

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

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

Question 1 (Autumn Statement - £100 billion increase in borrowing) from Councillor Maguire to Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council

“Does the Leader recall statements made in 2010 by the Conservative Government that we were “all in this together”?  Is he not sick and tired of being lectured by the party opposite about managing cuts?  Does he agree that we are now in a situation where Government debt is up, the rich are richer and the poor poorer and local government is in crisis through lack of funds?  Does he not agree that the people of Enfield would be better served if the party opposite turned their fire and bile on their own Government for their financial mismanagement?” 

Reply from Councillor Taylor

“This is a point well made.  The Conservatives economic policy mantra was that they would bring the deficit down and balance the budget.  The deficit has now increased to £122 billion, 90% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) – What a mess.  This is nine years after the Leman Brothers collapse.  I agree that this Government is a shambles and should resign”. 

Question 2 (Blue Badge Fraud) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment

“Who enforces blue badge use?”

Reply from Councillor Anderson 

This is an issue.  Since 2010, when the Labour administration took office, significant cuts have been made to Council funding.  Up until 2012 the Council had a full time officer with admin support.  Now, because of the cuts, we only have 0.2 full time officers – a much reduced resource.  However we have now managed to make efficiencies and have maintained the level of prosecutions as before. 

Question 5 (Housing options for adults with disabilities) from Councillor Ekechi to Councillor A Cazimoglu, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care

“Can the Cabinet Member tell the Council more about the extra care housing scheme for older adults with learning difficulties?”

Reply from Councillor A Cazimoglu

“Desmond Court, a housing scheme for older people with learning difficulties, has been much improved and is now fully accessible.  It is a socially inclusive scheme, a flexible alternative to residential care which recently been shortlisted for a Housing Innovation Award.” 

Question 6 (Primary School Performance) from Councillor Alessandro Georgiou to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children’s Services and Protection

“Is Councillor Orhan proud of the parlous state in which she has left Enfield’s primary schools?”

Reply from Councillor Orhan

“I reject the basis of this question.  It is shameful.  The Government has deleted £3m from the School Improvement budget which is for you to answer for not I”.   

Question 8 (Reading, Writing and Maths Primary School Performance) from Councillor Alessandro Georgiou to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children’s Services and Protection  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

To receive a report from the Assistant Director Legal and Governance recommending a 2 year extension to one of the Council’s Independent Person’s term of appointment as recommended by the Councillor Conduct Committee (7 December 2016).                                        (Report No: 166A)

There is no statutory limit on the length of time an Independent Person can serve and the Councillor Conduct Committee felt this extension would enable the Council to retain the knowledge and experience gained in the role.

Recommendation:  Council is therefore asked to approve the extension of the term of appointment for Sarah Jewell as an Independent Person for a two year period expiring on 8 October 2018.

Councillor Stewart moved and Councillor Alessandro Georgiou seconded the report of the Executive Director Finance, Resources and Customer Services recommending a two year extension to the appointment of Sarah Jewell, Independent Person. 

NOTED

1.               The Councillor Conduct Committee had recommended the extension at their meeting on 7 December 2017. 

2.               The thanks of the Councillor Conduct Committee Chair, Councillor Stewart, to Sarah Jewell for her excellent work. 

AGREED to extend the term of appointment of Sarah Jewell (Independent Person) by two years to 8 October 2018. 

To confirm any changes to committee memberships. 

Please note no changes have been identified to date.  Any received once the agenda has been published will be tabled on the Council update sheet at the meeting. 

AGREED to confirm the following changes to Committee Memberships:

·       Green Belt Forum – Councillor Chamberlain to replace Councillor David Sanders

·       Pension Board – Councillor Barry to step down as chair to be replaced by name to be notified.

POST MEETING NOTE Councillor McGowan to replace Councillor Barry as Chair of the Pension Board. 

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

Please note that no changes have been identified to date.  Any received, once the agenda has been published, will be tabled on the Council update sheet at the meeting. 

There were no changes to nominations on outside bodies. 

None received. 

No called in decisions were discussed. 

The date of the next ordinary meeting of the Council will take place on Tuesday 28 February 2017 at 7pm at the Civic Centre. 

The date of the next Council meeting will be Tuesday 28 February 2017. 

Councillor Stewart proposed and Councillor Ekechi seconded a proposal (under paragraph 9.2 of the Council Procedure Rules) that the time allowed for the Council meeting be extended by 30 minutes to enable discussion on the energetik! report on the part 2 agenda.

This was agreed without a vote. 

To consider passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 excluding the press and public from the meeting for any  items of business moved to the part 2 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in those paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006) as listed on the agenda.

(Members are asked to refer to the part two agenda)

AGREED in accordance with Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for consideration of Item 1 listed on Part 2 of the agenda on the grounds that they involve 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 Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment seeking approval to the Council’s main investment decision in Energetik.  This should be read in conjunction with Report No.175, on the Part 1 agenda.                                                                              (Report No.180)

  (Key Decision – Reference Numbers: 4266 and 4035)

(This document contains 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 Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended)

Please note this report is due to be considered at Cabinet on 18 January 2017 after the Council agenda is published.  Any changes to the report agreed at Cabinet will be reported to Council on the Council update sheet tabled at the meeting. 

Councillor Sitkin moved and Councillor Lemonides seconded the part 2 report (Report No: 180A) of the Executive Director Regeneration and Environment on the Council’s main investment decision in energetik. 

NOTED

1.               The report was considered in conjunction with item 9 report No: 156A on the part 1 agenda. 

2.               That Cabinet had approved the recommendations in the report including the business plan at their meeting on 18 January 2017, before referring the investment decision on to Council. 

3.               The supporting detailed information on the finances behind the investment proposals, the conservative estimates on the level of return expected based on fixed costs and the expert opinion that the Council should go ahead with the scheme.  

4.               That the scheme was financially viable and would be built to enable a doubling of capacity for future growth. 

5.               The concerns of the Opposition, while not opposed to the concept:

·       In relation to the finances and the ultimate risk to the Council taxpayer. 

·       The risks because of the current uncertainties in the world and the economy. 

·       The dependence of the project on Meridian Water being built as planned. 

·       The lack of provider choice for consumers. 

·       The lack of democratic transparency and accountability.

·       The lack of a role for the Opposition in the companies.  

6.               The view that there is a need for local authorities to be enterprising, to take the initiative, to do new things as far as is reasonable in the interests of the local residents and council tax payers. 

7.               Councillor Sitkin summed up by saying that the project was an investment in the future and would produce the highest dividends with the lowest rate of physical capital, saying that building society costs money.  He commended the report to Council.  

Following the discussion a vote was taken with the following result and the recommendations agreed:

For: 34

Against: 17 - The Opposition had asked that their names be recorded. 

Councillor Celebi

Councillor Chamberlain

Councillor Jason Charalambous

Councillor David-Sanders

Councillor Delman

Councillor Dines

Councillor Fallart

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor E Hayward

Councillor R Hayward

Councillor Hurer

Councillor Jukes

Councillor Laban

Councillor Lavender

Councillor Milne

Councillor Neville

Councillor AM Pearce

Councillor D Pearce

Councillor Smith

Councillor Steven

AGREED to approve, following recommendation by Cabinet at its meeting on 18 January 2017:

1.               The addition to the Council’s capital programme, as set out in detail in the part 2 report. 

2.               The addition to the indicative capital programme as set out in detail in the part 2 report.  This will be subject to further reports to Cabinet. 

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in this item, left the meeting when the item was discussed and did not vote. 

Councillors Alan Sitkin, Doug Taylor and Ahmet Oykener declared non pecuniary interests in relation to item 10 and 20 as Councillor Sitkin was the chair and the others were members of the energetik board.  They remained in the meeting during discussion of the item and were able to vote. 

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. 

The only remaining item was Item 11 Changes to the Arrangements for the Appointment of External Auditors.