11.1 In the name of Councillor Neville:
"This Council notes the recent decision of the High Court in the case of Attfield v L B of Barnet, which ruled that increases in charges for residents permits by Barnet Council in 2011 were unlawful because Barnet's primary reason for imposing the increase was to raise additional income for highway maintenance and to contribute to the cost of concessionary fares.
This Council further notes that the report of the Director of Environment to Cabinet on 14 June 2010 proposed increases to residents parking permit charges and on street parking charges which the Cabinet approved. The June 2010 report which the Cabinet accepted, made plain the reason(s) for the proposed increases which were identical to those in the Barnet case, and must therefore be regarded as unlawful, which were repeated by Cllr Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance, at a public meeting which was properly minuted by Democratic Services.
The Council notes that Barnet have as a result of the High Court ruling, decided to refund not just the claimant, Mr Attfield as they were ordered, but also to refund all residents who had paid the increased charges since their introduction. In the light of this the Council instructs the Director - Environment to make immediate arrangements for similar refunds to all affected Enfield residents."
11.2 In the name of Councillor Taylor:
“The Council reaffirms its general opposition to the consequences of the BEH Strategy and its impact upon Chase Farm Hospital and the residents of Enfield.
The Council also reaffirms its opposition to the decision of the Secretary of State for Health to ignore the views of the residents of Enfield and to continue to support the decision to remove A & E and Maternity services at Chase Farm Hospital, and particularly without the planned and necessary primary care improvements being made which were a precondition agreed by his predecessor.
The Council supports the commencement of legal proceedings to challenge this decision as advised by leading Counsel and agrees that action should be pursued expeditiously in light of criticism during previous proceedings in 2008.”
11.3 In the name of Councillor Charalambous:
“This Council notes that Enfield residents will be better off under a One Nation Labour Government rather than with the divisive policies being put forward by the other parties.”
11.4 In the name of Councillor Sit-in:
“Enfield Council's 2020 Action Plan seeks a 40% reduction in the borough's CO2 emissions by 2020 vs. a 2005 baseline, reflecting our conviction that it is a public responsibility to help incentivise eco-investment. In Enfield, this approach is contributing to the creation of new career opportunities in the construction and manufacturing sectors; our workforce is being equipped with useful, high value skills; even as we are doing what we can to fight global warming.
This Council invites representatives from the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC), Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) to Enfield in the hope that they may benefit from the work we are doing in this area and use it to inform policy.”
Minutes:
1.1 Councillor Taylor moved and Councillor Ann Marie Pearce seconded the following motion:
“The Council reaffirms its general opposition to the consequences of the Barnet Enfield and Haringey (BEH) Clinical Strategy and its impact upon Chase Farm Hospital and the residents of Enfield.
The Council also reaffirms its opposition to the decision of the Secretary of State for Health to ignore the views of the residents of Enfield and to continue to support the decision to remove Accident and Emergency and Maternity services at Chase Farm Hospital, and particularly without the planned and necessary primary care improvements being made which were a precondition agreed by his predecessor.
The Council supports the commencement of legal proceedings to challenge this decision as advised by leading Counsel and agrees that action should be pursued expeditiously in light of criticism during previous proceedings in 2008.”
Having been moved and seconded the motion was then put to the vote and unanimously agreed, with no abstentions.