Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received by Councillor James Hockney, who was substituted by Councillor Jim Steven.

Apologies for absence had also been received from Councillor Elif Erbil, who had been unable to attend due to ill health and Councillor Lee Chamberlain who was unable to attend the meeting to present the reasons for call-in in relation to Item 5 the Meridian Water Security Budget Extension.

The Chair explained the purpose of the meeting was for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the reasons the decision had been called-in in relation to the following two items.

Item 4 - KD 5546 Changes to Controlled Parking Zone Permit Charges, Councillor Rick Jewell, Cabinet Member for Environment was present in relation to this item.  Officers were also present.

Item 5 – KD 5357 Meridian Water Security Budget Extension Officers were present to put their responses to the reasons for call-in and to answer questions put by the Committee.

The Committee noted that Councillor Alessandro Georgiou would present the reasons for the call-in of both items as Lead Member for item 4 - KD 5546 Changes to Controlled Parking Zone Permit Charges and, on behalf of Councillor Lee Chamberlain item 5 Meridian Water Security Budget Extension present the reasons for call-in for this decision. 

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 made at the meeting.

To agree the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 10 November 2022 and 24 November 2022.

To follow.

It was AGREED that the minutes for the meetings held on 10 November 2022 and 24 November 2022 would be taken at the next business meeting scheduled on 16 January 2023. 

To review the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment  taken on 25 November 2022 as a result of the matter having been called-in.

Details of the decision taken and issued on 25 November 2022, had been included on Publication of Decision List No. 26/22-23. The report also set out officer responses to the reasons for call-in.

The decision had been called-in for review by 13 Members of the Council; Councillors Alessandro Georgiou (Lead), Lee Chamberlain, Andrew Thorp, Paul Pratt, Adrian Grumi, Stephanos Ioannou, Reece Fox, Ruby Sampson, Julian Sampson, David Skelton, Peter Fallart, Edward Smith and Emma Supple.

The reasons for call-in received from thirteen members of the Council.

The reasons for the call-in were presented by Councillor Alessandro Georgiou as Lead Member.

The response to the reasons for call-in.

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Rick Jewell, responded to the reasons for the call-in and explained that there were clear reasons for the proposed changes to the controlled parking zone permits charges.  These were to ensure that all operating costs were fully recovered with no costs to the Council to administer the scheme and that other residents, who did not require a parking permit, did not subsidise the scheme.  The scheme continued to contribute to the Council’s wider transport objectives.  There had not been a review of the scheme in recent years.  However, whilst the Administration fully understood the current cost of living crisis there was the necessity, due to the both the Council’s and the wider current economic situation, a careful and thorough review of all budget areas had been undertaken.  Costs had been stripped down to the bare essentials to enable the Council to deliver on budget.  Cost recovery on all items was necessary.  Revenue from the car parking was not ring fenced from other areas of the budget, which was extremely complex with overlapping in some areas. 

Officers advised that the proposals were designed to support the Council’s objectives to encourage active and sustainable transport in the light of a developing policy framework locally and Pan London.  The Council remained a highways and transport authority to manage the road network.  The charges would also better manage existing kerbside space.

Officers reiterated that a consultation had been carried out between December 2020 and February 2021 which had generated 890 responses.  As a direct result of the consultation, where Officers had paused, reflected, and carried out further research, a number of the proposals were subsequently amended. These included the link between permit price and engine size was retained (rather than being linked to emissions).

As a larger engine size would generally equate to a larger vehicle, the connection between the price of the permit and the amount of kerb-side space occupied was also retained.  The proposal to limit the number of permits per household had not been implemented.  The 25% uplift in price applies to individuals rather than households that want more than one permit.

The consultation results had been fully considered and had helped to shape the proposals set out in the report and one recommendation, and as a result of the consultation exercise, had been to retain the current between permit price and engine size.

Officers reassured Members that a great deal of thought had been given to the impact the proposed changes would have on people who share one of the different nine protected characteristics.  The Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) had been completed fairly with knowledgeable colleagues across the Council.  Where it had been recognised that where there would be some impact on particular groups, such as large, multi-generational households of certain ethnic groups, the original proposal to limit the number of permits per household was not being taken forward at this stage to enable further investigation to determine whether this would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b

To review the decision of the Director of Development, Peter George taken on 28 November 2022 as a result of the matter having been called-in.

The Committee AGREED that the Part 1 and Part 2 reports be taken together as there were no press or public present at the meeting.

Details of the decision taken and issued on 18 November 2022, had been included on Publication of Decision List No. 27/22-23. The report also set out officer responses to the reasons for call-in.

The response to the reasons for call-in.

The reasons for the call-in were presented by Councillor Alessandro Georgiou, which were NOTED.

The original decision documents.

The decision had been called-in for review by 7 Members of the Council; Councillors Lee Chamberlain (Lead), Adrian Grumi, Paul Pratt, Andrew Thorp, Edward Smith, Peter Fallart, Alessandro Georgiou.

Officers, responding to the reasons for call-in, stated that this was an important decision regarding security and, critically, human health and safety.  There was a significant security requirement for the East Bank due to the criminal activity taking place there.  There were areas which were susceptible to fly tipping, incursions and violent incidents involving people working there, the consultants and security staff.  Measures had been put in place to mitigate and reduce the cost of security in this area and a number of security measures had been put in place to reduce the need for human security guards on site.

Officers stated that they were conscious that the cost of extending the contract was significantly over budget, which was due to inflationary pressures, together with the level of uncertainty regarding Housing Infrastructure Funding (HIF) from the Government.  Officers would have preferred for the Council’s infrastructure partners, who would take over responsibility for the security arrangements, to have been on site months ago.  The original security contract was procured in 2019 with a contract value of £2million and for 3 years with the ability to extend for one.  The proposal sought to extend the contract by a year as outlined in the report by Officers and approved in the original Cabinet report and an additional £800k funding from contingency to cover the rest of this year and the next calendar year. Subject to the programme progressing as planned, it was anticipated that there would be a significant reduction to this among over the course of next year.  The contract would end regardless in November 2023.

The proposal had been through the proper procurement process and complied with all requirements of the Council’s Constitution and Contract Procedure Rules.

The Council had been and continued to be working very closely with the Police to reduce security costs.  Security costs had increased due rise in the cost of living and inflation.  Consideration was being given to the weight attached to pricing and quality.  Whilst the procurement for the contract extension had not been market tested, it had been in 2019 and it was these costs which had been used to provide the figures for the budget extension.  It would not be possible to extend the contract further as a full procurement exercise would be required.

Members requested further, detailed clarification be provided regarding the cost of security based on the current market rates and conditions and details of the contingency planning around procurement.

The Call-In Lead, Councillor Alessandro Georgiou summarised the points made during the discussion.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the reasons provided for the call-in and responses set out in the Officer’s report.  Having considered the verbal responses and information presented by Officers, the Committee AGREED to refer the matter back to the original decision taker, the Acting Executive Director, Place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5b

To note that the date of the next business meeting is on Monday, 16 January 2023 at 7pm.

NOTED that the next business meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was scheduled to take place at 7pm on 16 January 2023 at the Civic Centre, Enfield.