Agenda and minutes

Councillor Levy welcomed all attendees to the meeting. 

It was noted that Councillor Rick Jewell was substituting for Councillor Gina Needs and Councillor Hockney was substituting for Councillor Edward Smith for item 3 – ‘Call in of Decision: Meridian Water Station Public Realm Place Making’. 

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Alev Cazimoglu Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care and from Councillor Gina Needs.

Councillor Levy reminded everyone that discussion on the two call-ins to be looked at this evening, should be about the specific reasons for call-in given in the papers and responses to them.  The reasons given should be evidence based and not opinions or statements. Discussion needs to specify what is being asked to go back to the decision taker for reconsideration.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive and consider a report from the Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a call-in received on the Portfolio Decision taken on Meridian Water Station- Public Realm Place Making (Report No.202).

The decision that has been called in was a Portfolio Decision taken on 22 February 2019 and included on the Publication of Decision List No: 52/18-19 (List Ref: 4/52/18-19) issued on 22 February 2019.

It is proposed that consideration of the call-in be structured as follows:

· Brief outline of the reasons for the call-in by representative (s) of the members who   have called in the decision

· Response to the reasons provided for the Call-in by a Cabinet Member responsible for taking the decision

· Debate by Overview and Scrutiny Committee and agreement of action to be taken

Please also see the Part 2 agenda

The Committee received a report from the Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a call-in received on the decision taken by the Leader of the Council on the Meridian Water Station, Public Realm Place Making.

NOTED that this report was considered in conjunction with the information in the part 2 agenda.

The Chair invited Councillor Smith to outline the reasons for call-in. It was noted that this discussion was held in public under the part 1 section of the meeting. 

Councillor Smith outlined the reasons for calling in the decision:

1. The report provided was not clear in some respects and although responses had been provided to the reasons for call-in – not all points had been covered. However, he said the level of reporting was improving.
2. Concern that the estimate for the cost of works had increased substantially and that the costs had not been properly reported at the call-in meeting in September 2018.
3. That the estimated cost of the project appeared to have risen by 62% in four months, which he now estimates to be £3.9million. A cost breakdown had been prepared by Councillor Smith which gave what he considered to be an estimate of total scheme costs. He had sought a detailed cost breakdown from officers, which had subsequently been provided by them and which had been included in the agenda papers.
4. The decision to award the design and works contract to a single contractor -Volker Fitzpatrick was taken after a failed procurement and a renegotiated contract, when the original Master Developer procurement was abandoned. Earlier concerns had been given that the lack of a competitive procurement process for the scheme might lead to significant increase in costs which, he felt, was now apparent.
5. Further clarity was needed regarding the cost estimate for the scheme - what fees have been included and maintenance expenditure expected. 

Councillor Levy, reminded everyone that calling- in a decision was not a mechanism to satisfy curiosity as this could be achieved by other means, for example by having discussions with officers and asking for further information.

He invited Councillor Caliskan to respond to the points raised by Councillor Smith.

The response of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caliskan. She highlighted the following:

• The decision to call-in this report was a waste of members and officers time. Four reports relating to Meridian Water have been called-in which could have been resolved by members discussing issues of concern with officers or with the Chief Executive or herself.
• As set out in the ‘Response to reasons for call- in’ the latest Delegated Authority Report (DAR) provides a full and complete break down of the costs which show that there has not been an increase in costs. The correct figure for the works is £3.5 million which is within the original estimates given at the previous Overview and Scrutiny Committee in September. This reflects the VolkerFitzpatrick contract works at £3m and £500k on other packages.
• The sequencing of the Meridian Water contract meant that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1032.

To receive and consider a report from the Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a call-in received on the Portfolio Decision taken on Enfield Council and Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) joint commissioning for Community Rehabilitation Support Services (Report No.203).

The decision that has been called in was a Portfolio Decision taken on 22 February 2019 and included on the Publication of Decision List No: 52/18-19 (List Ref: 2/52//18-19) issued on 22 February 2019.

It is proposed that consideration of the call-in be structured as follows:

· Brief outline of the reasons for the call-in by representative (s) of the members who   have called in the decision

· Response to the reasons provided for the Call-in by a Cabinet Member responsible for taking the decision

· Debate by Overview and Scrutiny Committee and agreement of action to be taken

Please also see the Part 2 agenda

The Committee received a report from the Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a call-in received on the Portfolio decision taken on Enfield Council and Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) joint commissioning for Community Rehabilitation Support Services (Report no:203).

NOTED that this report was considered in conjunction with the information in the part 2 agenda.

All the discussion on this item took part in the part 2 section of the meeting.

To agree the minutes of the meeting held on the 19^th February 2019.

AGREED the minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2019.

To note the dates of future meetings as follows:

Provisional Call-Ins

· Tuesday 26 March 2019

· Thursday 11 April 2019

Please note, the business meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee will

be held on:

· Wednesday 3 April 2019

Noted the dates of future meetings as follows:

Provisional Call-Ins:

Tuesday 26 March, 2019

Thursday 11 April, 2019

The business meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee:

Wednesday 3 April, 2019

To consider, if necessary, passing a resolution under Section 100A (4) of the

Local Government Act 1972 excluding the press and public from the meeting

for the item of business listed in Part 2 of the agenda on the grounds that it

will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in those

paragraphs of Part 1 Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local

Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006), as are listed on

the agenda (Members are asked to refer to the Part 2 agenda).

Resolved in accordance with the principles of Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of the Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006.

Attached for consideration as part of the Call-in on this item, is the Part 2

Portfolio report considered as part of the decision made on 22 February 2019.

The report should be read in conjunction with the report attached at Appendix

1 to the Call-In report on the Part 1 agenda.

(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 see the Part 1 agenda.

NOTED the information provided under the part 2 agenda.

All discussions took place under part 1 of the agenda

To receive the Part 2 information relating to the Call-in on Enfield Council and Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group joint commissioning for the Community Rehabilitation Support Services.

.

The information should be considered in conjunction with the information provided under Agenda item 4, on the part 1 agenda.

(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 see the Part 1 agenda.

‘To agree the proposal to remodel and retender the pathway for service users with high/complex mental health needs, currently in secure units or locked rehab, requiring a well-supported transition back into the community.’

Councillors Levy, Akpinar, Aramaz, Susan Erbil and Jewell voted in favour of the above decision. Councillors Smith and Hockney abstained.

Councillor Levy thanked everyone for attending the meeting.