Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business. (Late items of Urgent Business will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items of Urgent Business will be dealt with under Item 22 below. New items of exempt business will be dealt with at Item 27 below).

There were no items of urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2013 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2013 be confirmed as a correct record.

On occasions part of the Cabinet meeting will be held in private and will not be open to the public if an item is being considered that is likely to lead to the disclosure of exempt or confidential information. In accordance with the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”), members of the public can make representations about why that part of the meeting should be open to the public.

This agenda contains exempt items as set out at Item 23 Exclusion of the Press and Public.  No representations with regard to these have been received.

This is the formal 5 clear day notice under the Regulations to confirm that this Cabinet meeting will be partly held in private for the reasons set out in this Agenda.

There were no representations received.

A deputation had been received and accepted in relation to Item 14 ‘Haringey Outdoor Events Policy’ which was led by Mr Doug Palin on behalf of the Friends of Finsbury Park and Stroud Green Residents Association.

(Report of the Assistant Director Finance. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Finance, Employment and Carbon Reduction). The report sets out the forecast financial position for the period 2014 – 2017 and seeks approval of draft revenue and capital proposals for recommendation to Council in February 2014.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Finance, Employment and Carbon Reduction, which set out the forecast financial position for the period 2014 – 2017 and that sought approval of draft revenue and capital proposals for recommendation to Council in February 2014.

RESOLVED:

        i.            That the budget proposals and financial planning assumptions set out in this report be noted and that it also be noted that they would be refined and updated after the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement was published in mid to late December;

      ii.            That the draft revenue proposals, set out in the report, be approved for  recommendation to the Council at its meeting in February 2014 for the Council’s MTFP 2014/15 – 2016/17 (Appendices 1-3);

    iii.            That the draft capital proposals, be approved for recommendation to the Council at its meeting in February 2014 for the Council’s Capital Programme (corporate resources) for the period 2014/15 – 2016/17 (paragraph 9 and Appendix 4);

     iv.            That the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Capital Programme 2014/15 – 2016/17 as set out in Appendix 5 and the HRA MTFP 2014-17 as set out in Appendix 6 be noted;

       v.            That the proposed housing rent increases set out in paragraph 11 which will be subject to consultation be noted;

     vi.            That changes to the 2014/15 North London Waste Authority levy apportionment arrangements as set out at paragraph 15.1 and at Appendix 7 to this report be approved;

   vii.            That delegate authority be given to the Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, to agree minor changes to the proposed NLWA levy arrangements set out in Appendix 7 arising as a result of other boroughs’ consideration of the arrangements; and,

 viii.            That changes made to the Dedicated Schools Budget as set out in paragraph 14 be noted.

Alternative options considered

This report proposes that the Cabinet should consider proposals to deliver a balanced and sustainable MTFP at its final budget meeting in February 2014.This approach has been pursued in order to respond to on-going central government funding cuts that are unprecedented in scale. Cabinet has no other option than to make savings in order to propose a balanced budget to full Council.

Reasons for decision

21.1 The Council has a legal duty to set a balanced budget. This report sets out the strategic financial issues for the three year financial planning period to 2016/17, and updates on the process for setting the Council’s 2014/15 Budget and Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) to 2016/17.

(Report of the Assistant Director Finance. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Finance, Employment and Carbon Reduction). The report forecasts financial revenue and capital outturns for 2013/14 based on actual performance to 31 October 2013 and seeks approval of the budget adjustments (virements) greater than £100,000 as required by Financial Regulations.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Finance, Employment and Carbon Reduction, which forecast financial revenue and capital outturns for 2013/14 based on actual performance to 31 October 2013 and seeks approval of the budget adjustments (virements) greater than £100,000 as required by Financial Regulations.

RESOLVED:

1. That the report and the progress being made against the Council’s 2013/14 budget in respect of revenue and capital expenditure be noted.

2. That the budget changes (virements) set out in Appendix 3 of the report be approved.

3. That transfers to earmarked reserves of, set out below, be approved:

a)      £687k relating to the Families First programme (Paragraph 6.2);

b)      £446k relating to the Haringey 54k programme (Paragraph 6.3); and

c)       £870k relating to future regeneration activity at the Alexandra Park and Palace Trust (Paragraph 6.4)

4. That a transfer from HRA reserves of up to £3m in order to fund one-off Homes for Haringey redundancy costs arising from their savings programmes (Paragraph 7.2) be approved.

5. That the draw down of £1m from HRA reserves to fund the estimated costs of additional works within a number of Decent Homes schemes (Paragraph 8.5) be approved.

6. That the transfer of £400k capital resources for adaptations work from the General Fund to the HRA capital programme (Paragraph 8.7) be approved.

Alternative Options considered

This report proposes that the Cabinet should consider the overall financial position for 2013/14 in line with existing procedures.

A risk-based approach to budget monitoring has been developed in order to manage the Council’s finances in a time of economic and financial uncertainty.

Cabinet could choose to adopt a less rigorous reporting regime and examine the financial position later in the year. In this case, projections would be more accurate if a delayed approach were adopted, but there would be less time for approval and subsequent implementation of management actions.

Reasons for decision

This report is mainly for noting the Council’s current forecast financial position. However, there are financial management decisions to be taken by Cabinet, in accordance with financial regulations, regarding the approval of transfers from/to reserves.

(Report of the Chief Executive. To be introduced by the Leader of the Council). The report provides an overview of performance against the Council’s outcomes and strategic priorities for the second quarter of 2013/14.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Leader of the Council, which detailed progress against the Council’s outcomes and strategic priorities for 2013/14.

RESOLVED:

1. That progress against the Council’s corporate priorities in the second quarter of 2013/14 be noted.

2. That the areas of focus and emerging issues going forward be noted.

Alternative options considered

Not applicable.

Reasons for decisions

Not applicable. 

(Report of the Director of Adult and Housing Services. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration). The report proposes policy changes with respect to the recharges imposed on leaseholders for works funded by external grants or other sources of non-Council funding for specific schemes.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, which proposed policy changes with respect to the recharges imposed on leaseholders for works funded by external grants or other sources of non-Council funding for specific schemes.

RESOLVED:

1. That it be approved that the Council, as landlord, should exercise discretion in respect of recharges to leaseholders in cases of improvement works that are not funded directly by the Council, and that this discretion will be applied only to the grant element received from third parties for improvement works in respect of community energy saving programmes, other equivalent green initiatives and community improvement initiatives, as set out in paragraphs 5.13 – 5.18;

2. That it be approved that leaseholders who have been recharged for CESP will be granted an exemption and refunded, as set out in paragraph 5.16; and

3. That it be approved that where the exemption of a recharge results in a refund of more than £5,000, the leaseholder will be required to repay it if they sell the property within 5 years from the date of completion of the work.

Alternative options considered

The alternative option of continuing with the current policy has been considered. A change is proposed in the light of leaseholder representations and comparison with the practice of other local authorities. 

Reasons for decision

A decision is required in order to vary the current policy and practice in relation to the recharging of leaseholders for improvement works.

A change to the recharge policy will enable the Council to exercise discretion in specified cases where it is appropriate to ensure that improvement works are achieved equitably and without placing undue financial burdens on leaseholders.  

(Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning and Enforcement). The report seeks approval of an Additional HMO Licensing Scheme for the designation of Houses in Multiple Occupation within all or parts of the wards of Northumberland Park, Tottenham Hale and Bruce Grove, for a five year period, to commence on 1 May 2014.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning and Enforcement, which sough approval of an Additional HMO Licensing Scheme for the designation of Houses in Multiple Occupation within all or parts of the wards of Northumberland Park, Tottenham Hale and Bruce Grove, for a five year period, to commence on 1 May 2014.

RESOLVED:

1. That the results of the evidence gathering exercise that has been undertaken to meet the designated declaration criteria for proposing such a scheme (which are summarised in Section 5 of this report and described in Appendices 1 and 2) be noted;

2. That the results of the consultation exercise undertaken in relation to the proposed Additional HMO Licensing Scheme (which are summarised in Section 5of this report and described in Appendix 4) be noted;

3. That the role played by the Additional HMO Licensing Scheme and the Article 4 Direction in the delivery of a co-ordinated approach to HMO enforcement be noted;

4. That the declaration of an Additional HMO Licensing Scheme for the designation of houses in multiple occupation within all or parts of the wards of Northumberland Park, Tottenham Hale, Bruce Grove, Tottenham Green and Seven Sisters (as described in Section 5 of this report) for a five year period that will commence on 1 May 2014 be approved;

5. That the fee structure and property standards that will apply to the Additional HMO Licensing Scheme and which were agreed by the Cabinet on 7 June 2011 (summarised in Section 5 and described in Appendices 5 & 6 of this report) be approved;

6. That the designation of the proposed area for Additional Licensing of houses in multiple occupation (summarised in Section 5 and described in Appendix 7) be approved;

7. That he ring-fencing of the HMO licensing fee income and the proceeds from any Rent Repayment Orders to support the robust enforcement of the licensing scheme and standards for the duration of the scheme be approved; and

8. That the use of £15,000 of the additional funding allocated for HMO and Article 4 work to assess the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour associated with the private rented sector, as part of the Council’s assessment of the merits and feasibility of introducing a Selective Licensing Scheme be approved.

Alternative options considered
Consideration has been given to other options that the Council could pursue if it decides that an Additional HMO Licensing Scheme should not be introduced. These include Landlord Accreditation, the expansion of the Landlords Forum and the introduction of Selective Licensing.

Landlord Accreditation and Landlords Forum

London’s Landlord Accreditation Scheme provides official recognition for responsible private landlords who comply with professional standards and are prepared to undertake regular training. This is a voluntary scheme that relies on landlords wanting to become accredited and to enrol themselves on training courses.

The Landlords Forum is an open forum for all Haringey landlords. It is used as a platform for networking and providing advice and guidance, education and training. It is held several times a year, but attendance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 572.

(Report of the Director of Children’s Services. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children), The report seeks approval of the revised Schools Formula Funding Model.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children, which sought approval of the revised Schools Formula Funding Model.

RESOLVED:

1. That the revised Schools Formula Funding Model 2 set out in the Appendix be agreed; and

2. That a lump sum of £60,000 each for the two schools on split sites be agreed.

Alternative options considered

The Council in reviewing its schools funding formula in preparation for 2014-15 liaised with a working party of the Schools Forum. The view of the Working Party was that:

Ø  The 2013-14 funding formula, introduced following significant national changes, distributed too little through the basic per pupil entitlement.

Ø  The range of factors used for deprivation and Additional Educational Needs (AEN) and their relative values were suitable.

As a result of this work four options were modelled; retaining the relative deprivation and AEN values but progressively reducing the total distributed through these factors and increasing the basic per pupil entitlement. The modelling also continued the narrowing of the differential between primary and secondary funding towards the national average that had begun in 2013-14.

Options Modelled for Varying the Relative Proportions of Basic Entitlement and Deprivation Funding.

This approach was tested through consultation with school governing bodies and the Schools Forum. The response supported retaining the current formula factors and their relative values but was divided on the issue of changing the balance between the basic entitlement and deprivation and AEN funding and the narrowing of the primary/secondary differential.

Schools Forum on 24 October 2013 agreed to recommend Model 2 (set out in the Appendix) as this brought Haringey’s funding formula into line with the comparator group of other local authorities (see Table 2). It was also thought to be in line with the proportions expected in the national funding formula in April 2015.

The Forum also recommended abolishing the lower rate lump sum of £30,000 for split site schools less than 200 metres apart, recommending that the higher rate lump sum of £60,000 be applied to both schools on split sites.  

Reasons for decision

The proposed change brings Haringey’s funding formula in line with those of comparative authorities and will address issues raised by some schools on the level of the Basic Entitlement in the 2013-14 allocation. It will also more closely align Haringey’s formula with the expected profile of the national funding formula planned for 2015-16. 

(Report of the Interim Director of Children’s Services. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children). The report seeks approval of the proposed admission arrangements for 2015/16 and consultation on the proposed admission arrangements between 2 January 2014 and 27 February 2014.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children, which sought approval of the proposed admission arrangements for 2015/16 and consultation on the proposed admission arrangements between 2 January 2014 and 27 February 2014.

RESOLVED:

1. That the proposed admission arrangements for 2015/16 be approved;

2. That it be agreed that consultation on the proposed admission arrangements would take place between 2 January 2014 and 27 February 2014;

3. That it be noted that following the consultation, the final arrangements will be agreed at a Cabinet Member Signing in March 2014; and

4. That it be agreed that the coordinated scheme could be published on the Council’s website on 1 January 2014.

Alternative options considered

None as this is a statutory requirement.

Reasons for decision

To ensure that the admission arrangements are consulted upon and co-ordinated scheme is set in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the School Admissions code.

(Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Communities). The report seeks approval of a new operational policy for the management of Outdoor Events in the Borough.

Prior to consideration of the report a deputation was received from Mr Konrad Borowski of Stroud Green Residents Association and Mr Douglas Palin of Friends of Finsbury Park in objection to proposals with respect to the Haringey Outdoor Events Policy (OEP).

Mr Borowski noted that Stroud Green Residents Association (SGRA) and the Friends of Finsbury Park (FoFP) objected to the proposals primarily on the basis of the impact that additional large scale events would have on the park and upon the amenities of local residents and the proposed increase in fees and charges for the use of the park for events.

Mr Borowski noted that the existing policy allowed for five one day major events and that in practice event promoters had combined days in order to concentrate events over weekends thereby limiting the disruption experienced by local residents to approximately four weekends per year. He contended that residents would face further significant disruption if the new policy were to be agreed as this would allow for five major three day events per year increasing the total number of days permitted from five to fifteen days per year.

With regard to the increased fees and charges proposed Mr Borowski argued that the Council should have consulted with residents on this as part of the consultation undertaken in relation to the OEP. He contended that if residents had been aware of the proposed increases they would have questioned why the Council needed to increase the number of event days from five to fifteen as the income generated by one two day event would meet the Council’s income target of £165k.

Mr Borowski advised that the impact upon local residents caused by noise and nuisance generated by having up to fifteen days of events each year would be unacceptable. The proximity of the area of the park where concerts would be held to homes on the edge of the park would mean that residents living in these areas would have to keep their windows shut during the summer months. In addition to nuisance caused by noise Mr Borowski noted that there had been a significant level of Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) generated by major events held in the park in the past and that this included dumping litter in streets adjacent to the park and people urinating in public areas including gardens and the nearby Stroud Green Primary School playground.

In relation to the timing of events Mr Borowski contended that, in reality, events were unlikely to be spread between April and September, as event organisers would be keen to hold major events during the summer months; therefore events were likely to take place between mid May and mid July, as events would not be permitted during the school holidays. This would, therefore, lead to a concentration of events during this period that would have a significant impact on local residents.

Mr Borowski also argued that the ability of local residents, who regularly used the park, to enjoy the park would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 575.

(Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability. To be introduced by the Leader of the Council). The report seeks approval to formally implement play streets across the Borough in accordance with the policy and process as set out in the report.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Leader of the Council, which sought approval to formally implement play streets across the Borough in accordance with the policy and process as set out in the report.

RESOLVED:

1. That the implementation of Play Streets in the borough, be agreed and;

2. That the conditions of application proposed in Appendix 1 be endorsed, including that organisers are advised to obtain public liability insurance, but that it is not a mandatory requirement of the application.

Alternative options considered

Other cities and London boroughs, for example Bristol and Hackney do not charge for road closures. They close roads using the Town & Police Clauses Act 1847, which does not involve a direct cost.

In line with legal advice we will exercise powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act (RTRA) 1984 Section 29, to prohibit traffic for the road to be used as a playground for children. The times and conditions of the prohibitions will be specified in the Order (i.e. one day per week for 3 hours). This requires the publication of a statutory notice and it is felt that the council can absorb the costs involved in handling applications.

The Council’s insurance team feel that as play streets are a regular and ongoing event, that the application process should require organisers to obtain public liability insurance.  Other cities and London boroughs for example, Bristol and Hackney recommend that residents obtain public liability insurance, but it is not a mandatory requirement of the application.

The experience of organisers of play streets is that the insistence of public liability insurance will act as barrier for the community in organising and operating play street schemes. The view of legal services is that the Council is simply carrying out its statutory duty in considering applications for road closures, and that it is not necessary to insist that organisers obtain public liability insurance.

They also consider the council’s obligations under section 2(1) Local Government Act 2000 which makes it a duty of the Council to promote the economic, social or environmental well-being of the residents of its area. It is felt that the contribution that this scheme makes in terms of promoting the well being of children, empowering communities and supporting community cohesion, outweighs the risks associated with not making the need for public liability insurance mandatory.

Therefore it is proposed that the Council adopt the same approach as others, where organisers are only strongly advised to obtain the appropriate public liability insurance.

Reasons for decision

To seek formal approval for the introduction of plays streets and the conditions of application set out in the report.

(Report of the Assistant Director Finance. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Finance, Employment and Carbon Reduction). The report seeks approval of the procurement of the Property and Liability insurance policies.

There is exempt information pertaining to the report at Item 24 below.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Finance, Employment and Carbon Reduction, which sought approval of the procurement of the Property and Liability insurance policies.

RESOLVED:

That the procurement of the Property Insurance Policy (Housing Stock, Education and General Properties); and Liability Insurance Policy via the ILC and awards the contract for the insurance policies to the Zurich Municipal be approved.

Alternative options considered

Purchasing stand-alone cover for the Council, using agreed procurement processes. This was not considered appropriate because:

a)      The insurance market for local authority risks has historically had a limited number of competitors, which has resulted in reduced competition and higher rates; and

b)      The Council has benefited from its membership of the ILC both in terms of achieving good value for money on the policies purchased and in the facility to share best practice on insurance and risk management practices.

Reasons for decision

The current contract for this policy has been in place since the 1^st April 2012 and is due to expire on 31^st March 2014. It is necessary to ensure that a new contract is in place from 1 April 2014, to avoid any gap in insurance cover for the Council.

(Report of the Director of Public Health. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Services). The report seeks approval for expenditure for the provision of services reallocated to the Council as part of the new commissioning responsibilities inherited under the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Services, which sought approval for expenditure for the provision of services reallocated to the Council as part of the new commissioning responsibilities inherited under the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

RESOLVED:

That the variation of the Whittington Health NHS contract, to clarify the Council’s commissioning responsibilities, including its share of expenditure for the provision of public health services and associated changes to the contract arrangements as set out in a Deed of Variation between Islington Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) as the co-ordinating CCG and Whittington Health NHS Trust, to which Haringey Council is to be a party as an Associate Commissioner, be approved.

Alternative options considered

No alternative options were considered as the previous commissioner NHS North Central London had agreed a two year block contract with NHS Whittington Health for 2012/13 and 2013/14.

The block contract ends 31^st March 2014. The intention is for Haringey council to hold its own contract for these services from 2014/15.

Reasons for decision

The ‘Deed of Variation’ outlines the public health services within the existing two year NHS block contract that were transferred to Haringey council in April 2013.

(Report of the Interim Director of Children’s Services. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children). The report seeks approval to award a contract to provide substance misuse prevention and treatment services to children, young people and families who are at risk of or who are experiencing drug and alcohol problems.

There is exempt information pertaining to the report at Item 25 below.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Services, which sought approval of the ‘Deed of Variation’, which outlined the public health services within the existing two year NHS block contract that were transferred to Haringey council in April 2013.

RESOLVED:

That the award of contract to the successful tender in accordance with Contract Standing Order (CSO) 9.07.0 (d) to Blenheim Community Drug Project (BCDP), for an initial term of three years, with an option to extend for a period of up to a further two years, be approved.

Alternative options considered

The option of tendering for two separate services was considered; however, in order to achieve better value for money to the Council and to improve outcomes for children and families, the two existing specifications have been rolled into once creating an integrated prevention focussed on children. This service aims to tackle intergenerational patterns of substance misuse and to offer help to those families and young people experiencing problems with substance misuse.

Reasons for decision

The recommendations as outlined in paragraph 3.1 of the report were based on the provider that scored the highest MEAT scores and therefore would offer the best value for money to the Council in terms of quality and price. The quality component of this tender was 60% and the price 40%.

As a result of the procurement exercise, which was carried out in accordance with the Procurement Code of Practice, it is now recommended that the successful tenderers being awarded contracts as outlined in paragraph 3.1 of the report, in accordance with CSO 9.07.1 (d). 

(Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Finance, Employment and Carbon Reduction). The report seeks approval of an award of contract for the provision of First and Second Class post.

There is exempt information pertaining to the report at Item 26 below.

Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Cabinet Member for Finance, Employment and Carbon Reduction, which sought approval of an award of contract for the provision of First and Second Class post.

RESOLVED:

That approval be given to award a contract for First and Second Class post to Royal Mail Group Ltd for a period of two years.

Alternative options considered

Currently Royal Mail is the only postage carrier that is licensed to provide a First Class postal service; therefore the

Reasons for decision

To note the minutes of the following:

Ø  Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee – 3 October 2013

Ø  Decision by the Leader – 5 December 2013

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the following meetings be noted: 

a)      Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee – 3 October 2013

b)      Decision by the Leader – 5 December 2013

To note significant and delegated actions taken since the previous meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

There were no new items of urgent business.

Note from the Head of Local Democracy and Member Services

Items 24, 25 and 26 allow for the consideration of exempt information in relation to Items 16, 18 and 19 respectively.

RESOLVED:

That the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting as the items below contain exempt information, as defined under paragraphs 3 and 5, Part 1, schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED:

That the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting, as agenda items 23-26 contain exempt information, as defined under paragraph 3, Part 1, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

To consider exempt information pertaining to Item 16 above.

Exempt information pertaining to Item 16 was considered.

To consider exempt information pertaining to Item 18 above.

Exempt information pertaining to Item 18 was considered.

To consider exempt information pertaining to Item 19 above.

Exempt information pertaining to Item 19 was considered.

There were no new items of exempt urgent business.