Agenda item

13.1    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.  A supplementary question is not permitted.

13.2    Councillors’ Questions (Part 4 – Paragraph 9.2(a) of Constitution – Page 4 - 8)

The list of forty nine questions and their written responses are attached to the agenda.

1.1    Urgent Questions

The Mayor informed Council of the receipt of an urgent question from Councillor Neville relating to the content of a letter from Secondary School head teachers during purdah and the costs associated with legal advice obtained on it.  Members were advised that having considered the reasons for urgency, the Mayor had decided not to accept submission of the question under the urgency procedure.

1.2    Questions by Councillors

NOTED

1.            The forty nine questions on the Council’s agenda which had received a written reply from the relevant Cabinet Member, Associate Cabinet Member or Committee Chair.

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

Question 1 (Cycle Enfield Partnership Board membership) from Councillor Laban to Cabinet Member for Environment.

Will the newly appointed Cabinet Member commit to invite more Resident Associations to sit as members on the Cycle Enfield Partnership Boards, given that there are many more Associations in existence than currently serving as members of the established Boards.

Reply from Councillor Anderson:

Given that I have only been serving in the role as relevant Cabinet Member for less than an hour I will need to consider and evaluate the request made.

Whilst having the opportunity I would also like to pay tribute to Councillor Bond, as my predecessor in the role as Cabinet Member.  Councillor Bond is a formidable presence and performed this role with dignity honour and talent alongside his hard work as a ward councillor.  He will be a tough act to follow and I wish him every success in his new role as chair of Licensing Committee and hope that I can follow in his footsteps providing my own contribution in the role of Cabinet Member.

Question 3 (Enfield West Cycle Partnership Board membership) from Councillor Laban to Cabinet Member for Environment

Will the new Cabinet Member please confirm whether he will also allow, in the spirit of fairness, the newly re-elected M.P. for Enfield Southgate to be invited to attend the Enfield West and North Cycle Partnership Boards due to the anomaly identified in terms of the boundaries covered by each Board as they compare to the Parliamentary and Ward Constituency boundaries.

Reply from Councillor Anderson:

I refer the councillor to the response I made to her first supplementary question.

Question 7 (School crossing patrol – Parsonage Lane/Baker Street) from Councillor Laban to Cabinet Member for Environment

Can the Cabinet Member advise whether he will be prepared to consider the provision of a school crossing patrol officer at the junction identified, given the cost identified of approx. £50k as opposed to more expensive alternative traffic calming or junction remodelling works.

Reply from Councillor Anderson:

I refer the councillor to the original written response provided.

Question 14 (Housing Zone application) from Councillor R.Hayward to the Cabinet Member for Housing and Housing Regeneration.

I understand we are expecting good news in this area.  Would the Cabinet Member like to take the opportunity to spread the word?

Reply from Councillor Oykener:

All I can say at this stage is that we are confident and are anticipating good news in terms of an announcement and sign off by the Mayor for London shortly.

Question 15 (action to tackle drivers racing on A10) from Councillor Dines to the Cabinet Member for Environment

Can I ask the Cabinet Member to consider the use of a Public Space Protection Order as a means of assisting to tackle the problems being caused by drivers meeting in the car parks of MacDonalds and Krispy Kreme in the A10 retail outlet in order to race along the A10.  Other Councils have sought to use this same power in order to prevent car parks being used as meeting venues.  All available powers need to be used by the Council working alongside TfL and Police in order address the problems being caused.

Reply from Councillor Anderson:

I am happy to look at all possible measures available.

Question 40 (expenditure on Temporary Accommodation) from Councillor Smith to the Cabinet Member for Housing and Housing Regeneration.

I would take this opportunity to congratulate Councillor Oykener on his reappointment as Cabinet Member for Housing and look forward to working with him on this area again in future.  In the written response to my question there is reference to the 2015/16 forecast for Nightly Paid Accommodation assuming the achievement of £5m worth of mitigation savings.  Can he indicate how these savings will be achieved?

Reply from Councillor Oykener:

We are looking towards the Government for additional funding, which I’m sure Councillor Smith would support and be willing to support me in looking to secure.

Question 42 (Assets of Community Value – former Middlesex University site, Trent Park) from Councillor J.Charalambous to the Leader of the Council

My written question was submitted prior to what I feel is this Council’s disgraceful decision to reject the nomination of both the former Middlesex University site in Trent Park and the former Green Dragon Public House as Assets of Community Value.  The Council waited until the very end of the statutory deadline to provide its response which was a short one paragraph rejection.  In my opinion, this wasn’t in the spirit of local opinion and the campaign groups are now very seriously looking at challenging the decisions, as there appears to be no right of appeal against the decision by the campaign groups available under the Council’s procedure.  Can I therefore ask the Leader of the Council what mechanisms are available to challenge and appeal against what was an internal officer decision to reject the nominations in respect of both sites?

Reply from Councillor Taylor:

Councillor Charalambous will be aware that the process set up for dealing with Assets of Community Value is one that follows the Regulations laid down.  I do, however, share many of the sentiments expressed about the process and am therefore going to approach Councillor Neville (as Leader of the Opposition) to see if we can discuss improvements that can be made and the way that we do it.  At the end of the day though, we have to be mindful that the legislation is clear.  In terms of immediate options I can see at least two possible alternatives for the campaign groups (a) to follow the judicial review process; (b) unlike some of our neighbouring boroughs, we have not got a restriction on anyone resubmitting a nomination following an initial rejection, if there are further grounds for reconsideration.

I will, however, reiterate that the process established does require some re-consideration and I will discuss with the Leader of the Opposition how we can achieve this within the legislative requirements.. It is unusual to have a decision-making process without any form of democratic accountability so this democratic deficit does need to be addressed to allow a greater level of member input within the current rules allowed, which may require a change in Regulations for the scheme as it currently stands.

Question 49 (Planning Committee High Court Judgement) from Councillor Neville to Chair of the Planning Committee

Having seen the revised response circulated in advance of the meeting I still do not think that this answers my original question.  I’ve assumed that Councillor Simon has seen the court order or at least been advised of it so how can he explain the assertion that the Council accepted a technical error but is not able to provide an estimate of the legal costs.

Reply from Councillor Simon:

The document to which Councillor Neville refers is a judgement on costs not a judgement on the specifics of the decision. I have taken legal advice in relation to the issue of costs and I believe my revised response does answer his question and is accurate about the Council’s position.