Issue - meetings

The Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager to report that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the 29^th of March 2018 on consideration of the call in of the Leader’s decision of the 19^th of March , minute number 44, resolved that the decision relating to the Confirmation of the site proposed for a Youth Zone and approval of capital and revenue funding towards the project,  be referred back to the Leader to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision within 5 working days in light of the views expressed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Part Four Section H(Call in Procedure Rules) Paragraph 10(b) of the Constitution requires that when the Overview and Scrutiny Committee decides to refer a decision back to a decision maker then the decision taker has 5 working days  to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision .

The following documents are attached:

a)    Report of the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny setting out the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to the Leader following consideration of the Call In form, verbal representations considered at the Overview &Scrutiny meeting, the Cabinet reports, and  minutes relating to the Leader’s decision Confirmation of the site proposed for a Youth Zone and approval of capital and revenue funding towards the project

Additional Information

b)    Copy of the Call In forms

c)    Excerpt from the draft minutes of the Leader’s Decision held on 19 March 2018.

d)    The  Report  and appendices on Confirmation of the site proposed for a Youth Zone and approval of capital and revenue funding towards the project

e)    Report of the Monitoring Officer considered by the Overview and Scrutiny meeting.

f)     Report of the Director for Children’s Services considered by the Overview and Scrutiny meeting

The Leader referred to the agenda, which set out that this, was a Leader’s Signing convened, within the constitutionally required timescale of 5 working days, to re-consider the 19th of March Decision on the Confirmation of the site proposed for a Youth Zone and approval of capital and revenue funding towards the project. This was following the outcome of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting, held on the 29th of March to consider the call in of this key decision.

Councillor Wright, Chair of Overview and Scrutiny, introduced his report, which advised that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee did not find that the key decision reached, fell outside the Budget or Policy Framework.

There were 4 Scrutiny recommendations arising from the call in meeting which focused on the following areas: the capital funding allocation and sources of revenue funding allocation for the Youth Zone project at a time when there was a budget forecast overspend in Children’s service, the suitability of the chosen site, concern about the impact of the budget revenue decision on existing youth provision in the borough, lack of needs assessment with assurance needed that a full and thorough consultation  was being undertaken with young people. Also concerns about potential future TUPE implications arising from the revenue allocation to this youth project.

The Leader responded to the Overview and Scrutiny recommendations and the following was noted:

That there is significant clarification on the sources of funding for the Early Help and Prevention budget to provide assurance that the allocation of revenue funding for the Youth Zone, which begins in 2021, will not have a detrimental impact on statutory services and will not be at the expense of other Children’s related services.[ Scrutiny Recommendation A]

With regard to the £3.5m Council capital funding allocation, it was important to note that there would be additional match funding from OnSide of £3m to provide the Youth Zone facility. OnSide would be able to use their experience and leverage to provide this additional funding. This was evidenced in their work on Youth Zones in other boroughs. The source of funding for the Early Help and Prevention budget was the General Fund. The annual funding, £596k, in the budget for youth services would be used to meet the required allocation of £250k per annum to the Youth Zone, from 2021. Both the March 2018 Cabinet and the March 2018 OSC reports had made clear that there may be financial implications arising from entering into contractual arrangements to create the Youth Zone, dependent upon what would have to be foregone to meet this commitment.

There was no planned use of other budget lines in Children and Young People’s Services to fund the Youth Zone.

The Leader clarified that youth services, and their management, were funded through the Early Help and Prevention budget. This included Bruce Grove Youth Service and wider youth provision, However, these were not statutory apart from the NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) service which does have statutory  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55

a. Report of the Monitoring Officer.

b. Appendices:

- Report for Cabinet Member Signing 19^th March 2018.

- Equalities Impact Assessment attached to Cabinet Member Signing Report.

- Minutes of the Cabinet Member Signing held on 19 March 2018.

- Copy of call-in 1.

- Copy of call-in 2.

c. Report of the Director of Children’s Services.

Stephen Lawrence-Orumwense, Deputy Monitoring Officer introduced the Monitoring Officer report to the Board, which was included in the agenda pack at pages 1-8. The Deputy Monitoring Officer outlined the Call-In procedure to the Committee and advised that the advice of the Monitoring Officer and Chief Financial Officer was that the decision taken by the Leader was within the Council’s Budget and Policy framework. The Committee noted that in relation to the called in decision on Youth Zone capital and revenue funding, the relevant budget and policy framework documents were the Community Safety Strategy, the Youth Justice Plan and the Budget and MTFS report presented to Cabinet in February  2018. The Deputy Monitoring Officer reminded the Committee questions must be focused on the substance of the reasons outlined in the two Call-In submissions.

Cllr Hare introduced the first Call-In on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Cllr Hare suggested that the Call-In was both outside of the Policy Framework and the Budget Framework, highlighting that there was no explicit allocation in the MTFS for the £3m capital funding required. The Liberal Democrats requested that the decision was paused until after the election to allow proper consideration.  The following concerns were noted as part of the Call-In introduction:

a.    Having a single location in the borough would inevitable make it difficult to access from some parts of the borough. The specific location proposed in Woodside was especially problematic. Cllr Hare suggested that the travel time from Highgate was around 45 minutes and would involve 3 buses.

b.    No EQIA had been undertaken.

c.    A lack of funding, in terms of both the £3m capital allocation and the £250k per year revenue funding, which would presumably have to be found from elsewhere within the revenue budget.

d.    The Call-In also questioned why a new facility was being proposed rather than investing in existing services. Cllr Hare noted that both Jacksons Lane and Muswell Hill had youth service facilities.

e.    The lack of formal consultation with residents was also raised. Cllr Hare suggested that proposals had not been properly scrutinised by the Community Safety Partnership.

Following the introduction of the first Call-In, the Committee sought clarification on the outcome being sought. The Committee highlighted that the Monitoring Officer’s report set out the options available to Committee and emphasised that any deferment of the decision would ultimately have to be taken by the original decision maker. Cllr Hare acknowledged this and requested that the Committee refer the decision back to the original decision maker with a recommendation that its implementation be deferred until after the election. The Committee also sought clarification on the budgetary concerns set out in the Call-In. In response the Committee was advised that the Call-In signatories had significant concerns about the final implications of this decision and were also concerned with the centralisation of services.

Cllr Blake introduced the second Call-In. Cllr McNamara and Cllr Brabazon were also present. Cllr Blake suggested that the Call-In was both outside of the Policy Framework  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90