Agenda and minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The  Deputy Leader referred to agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted this  information.

Apologies for absence were received form the Leader of the Council, Claire Kober , Councillor McNamara, Cabinet Member for Environment, and the Chief Executive , Nick Walkley.

 Councillor  Vanier chaired the meeting.

Cllr Demirci, left the meeting at 6.45pm  and his apologies were noted for the remainder of the meeting.

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 to consider.

A Member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A Member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillor Demirci declared a personal interest in item 11 by virtue of his membership of the North London Waste Authority and in relation to item 14 by virtue of his connection with Bounds Green ward.

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 [24, 25 &26] : 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.

No representations were received.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2015 as a correct record.

The minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on the 16^th June 2015 were agreed as a correct record of the meeting.

The Deputy Leader, Councillor Vanier invited Stephen Brice of the Pinkham Way Alliance to put forward his deputation, to the Cabinet, which was in relation to item 11, The North London Waste Plan.

Mr Brice began the deputation by expressing the dissatisfaction of the Pinkham Way Alliance, to the inclusion of the Pinkham Way as a potential waste disposal site option in the North London Waste Plan. The Alliance felt that the attached report did not provide a balanced description of the Pinkham Way site and its biodiversity and open space value. Mr Brice asserted that the valuable advice from the biodiversity study had been ignored and the recommendation of the NPPF to avoid development on environmentally valuable Brownfield sites was also not given due consideration in the report.

The deputation advised that previous Council commitments to investigate the de- cultverting of the water course running under the site and also to complete an open space study had been reneged.

Mr Brice continued to contend that the Council were not being open with plans about his land and whether it could be used for employment / development purposes in the future.

The Alliance continued to express their frustration at the incomplete review of the Pinkham Way site and its subsequent inclusion in the attached North London Waste Plan.

The deputation asked Cabinet to either postpone approval of the draft waste plan, or to approve it subject to the removal of the Pinkham Way site, pending outcome of the site allocations review.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration responded to the issues raised by the deputation and emphasised that Pinkham Way was one of 6 sites put forward as an option for use as waste disposal. This was a draft plan which was putting forward the choice for public comment. This document still provided the opportunity for the PWA to continue making the case against the inclusion of the Pinkham Way site as a potential waste disposal site. The previous promise made by Councillor Strickland remained and any final decision on the Pinkham Way site would be subject to a report at Cabinet.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration advised that the biodiversity ecological and sync designation of the site would remain .He further assured the PWA that were currently no plans for use of this site being taken forward by the NLWA and Barnet Council.

Further to the consultation on the draft The North London Waste Plan, there will follow a statutory consultation and then further public examination of the NLWP by the Planning Inspector .Therefore, there was no final imminent decision on the choice of waste disposal sites in North London  and further opportunities for the Pinkham Way Alliance to make their case for the deletion of the Pinkham Way  option for waste disposal

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration welcomed further dialogue with the PWA in the ongoing development of the North London Waste Plan

Deputation 2 - UNISON objections to the recommendations of Agenda  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

[To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Resources and Culture. Report of the Assistant Director for Finance] Cabinet will be asked to  consider a range of indicators relevant to the Council’s overall financial health. These include the forecast financial revenue and capital outturns for 2015/16 based on actual performance to 31 May 2015.Cabinet will also consider the proposed management actions set out in this report and approve the budget adjustments (virements) in Appendix 1 as required by Financial Regulations.

The Cabinet Member for Resources and Culture introduced the report which contained a range of indicators relevant to the Council’s overall financial health. He further highlighted the need to make a potential £3.5m in year budget reduction as a result of the Government’s recent budget package and government reductions to the Public Health grant.  Cabinet noted the overspend in Children’s and Adult services budget and the work being undertaken to reduce these overspends. There would be a further report back in October on the budget position relating to these service areas. The Cabinet Member would also be working with officers on improving  Council tax collection rates to be line with  London average performance indicators

In response to Cllr Engert’s question on receiving a breakdown of the overspend in Children’s services and Adult Social Care, this was set out at section 5.2.8 and included the high level measures to mitigate against overspend. In particular, reducing the use of agency staff and better supporting clients to access benefits.  Cllr Arthur was happy to meet with the Leader of the Opposition to further discuss the details of the measures if required.

In response to Cllr Engert’s question about the required return of capital receipts relating to RTB and the cost of the refund to the Council; the criteria for using the RTB receipts was difficult, for all Councils, to meet due to need to commit significant capital sums to match the income from RTB [30% income of the sale of the property would need to met with 70% top up by the Council] and at the moment the Council were striving to maximise use of the RTB receipts.  .  It was confirmed that if the Council had to return RTB receipts, then interest will be payable. Agreed that the AD for Finance provide the Opposition Leader with a full written response.

In response to the question on business rate valuations, this was completed by central government and if the outcome was not acceptable the Council had the option of making a legal challenge.

In further response to the question on the exposure of the Council to LOBO’s [Lender option borrowing options], this was a commonly favoured financial mechanisms used by Councils .The Council did not have a large exposure to these forms of investments and the AD for Finance would write back to the Leader of the Opposition with a fuller response.

RESOLVED

1. To note  the  report and the progress being made against the Council’s 2015/16 budget in respect of net revenue and capital expenditure;
2. To approve the budget changes (virements), and note the transfers to/ from reserves approved by the Chief Financial Officer, as set out in Appendix 1;
3. To note the potential use of the Strategic Risk Reserve to mitigate the Council’s overall revenue position; and,
4. Maintain under review the key risks and issues identified in this report.

Alternative options considered

This report proposes that the Cabinet considers the financial position for 2015/16 in line with existing procedures. However,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

[To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration. Report of the Chief Operating Officer] Cabinet will be asked to agree proposals to award a Total Facilities Management contract for Council buildings.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration introduced the report which put forward a preferred delivery option for procuring both hard and soft Facilities Management services in a more efficient and cost effective way through a single contract with an external provider. The staff affected by the proposed change would be transferred to a new operator with their terms and conditions protected through the contract and will be paid at or above the London Living wage and the new contract will deliver apprenticeships to create new employment opportunities.

RESOLVED

1. That, subject to paragraph 3.2, to approve the award by way of a call off from the Tri-borough single supplier Framework Agreement to Amey Community Limited (“Amey”) of a Total Facilities Management services contract for a period of 5 years starting in November 2015 with an option to extend for up to a further 3 one-year periods making a potential total of 8 years, for the total estimated all-inclusive price of £29.724M as further detailed in the exempt part of this report.

2. That Cabinet delegate authority to the Chief Operating Officer in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources and Culture to finalise the detailed payment mechanism, service levels, condition appraisal and other contract terms.

Alternative Options considered

Using the detailed work carried out by the Tri-borough authorities as part of their extensive procurement process we have applied that to Haringey’s criteria for determining the optimum delivery solution. To “do nothing” is not a viable option.

The following criteria have been considered in reviewing the delivery model options:

•        Flexibility and scalability - Council FM services that are capable of meeting changing service requirements, and economically sustainable as size of the estate reduces.

•        Financial savings - A delivery model with a focus on value for money that meets the pre-agreed, future planned and potential savings.

•        Quality of delivery and performance – Simple (ideally single) access to FM services, demonstrable performance of timing and works quality. Performance measured, managed and reported within the contract management and delivery model.

•        Risk transfer - Service and asset compliance risks and ownership clear, managed effectively in the most appropriate place.

•        Innovation - Best practice delivery, responsive to market developments and technological improvements, incentivised and shared investment.

•        Social and economic value -A service that reflects the makeup of Haringey and recognises the social and economic value of its workforce.

•        Customer perception - An effective, integrated customer interface including a seamless service provision through a customer oriented helpdesk. Demonstrable evidence of customer satisfaction.

Following the Tri-borough feasibility evaluation a further options appraisal carried out by V4 Services Ltd also considered the alternative delivery models and concluded that an Integrated model such as TFM is the most appropriate to deliver the required outcomes for Haringey. The range of four models taken forward and considered for evaluation were; As-Is, Enhanced As-Is, bundled and Integrated

Table 1 below summarises the evaluation of each model to meet the required criteria.

Table  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

[To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration. Report of the Assistant Director for Regeneration] . Cabinet will be asked to make further decisions in relation to capital investment priorities both for the existing housing stock and for building new homes. The report also identifies the issues to be considered for the next phase and that will inform long term investment planning and decision making.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration introduced the report which set out further decisions in relation to capital investment priorities both for the existing housing stock and for building new homes.

The report highlighted Decent Homes funding for Wood Green and to the Noel Park estate to update homes with a Pod which were now out of date and becoming unusable.

Agreed a written response be provided to Cllr Engert’s question on the cost estimate connected with the potential RTB of Housing Association properties.

RESOLVED

1. To approve the priorities for Decent Homes investment in 2016/17 set out in paragraph 5.5.

2. To agree the approach to Decent Homes investment set out in this report, including where investment is deferred or delayed due to possible regeneration or estate renewal considerations (paragraph 5.8); where investment needs are beyond the normal scope of works (paragraph 5.21); and the move to longer term programme planning described in appendix B.

3. To note the commitment of £12.7m from the approved HRA capital budget to Phase 1 of the new build programme including the Templeton scheme (paragraph 5.13).

4. To extend the Director of Regeneration, Planning & Development’s existing Delegated authority for the approval of grant funding using Right to Buy receipts for the development of affordable housing by Registered Providers  to now include all RPs developing in the borough up to the approval limit of £500,000, following consultation with the Assistant Director (Finance) (paragraph 5.16).

5. To approve the immediate changes required to facilitate delivery of the current Housing Investment & Estate Renewal strategy by providing flexibility in site identification, appraisal and resident consultation in accordance with paragraph 5.23 of this report.

Alternative Options Considered

For Decent Homes investment, alternative priorities for the new schemes commencing in 2016/17 were available but discounted, in order that the number of homes achieving decency is maximised and that essential works commence for the Noel Park estate.

For the second phase of new build investment, options for development sites and delivery methods have not yet been finalised and are not finally determined by this report.  Any development will be based on further studies currently being carried out and decisions will be determined by the most advantageous mix of cost, risk, outcome and deliverability.

Reason for Decision

A decision is required to enable work on the Decent Homes and new build programmes to proceed.  By deciding the priorities for and approach to the available budget, investment can proceed to ensure that the number of existing homes made decent and the number of new homes built is maximised.

[To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning. Report of the Assistant Director for Planning.] This report introduces a consultation draft of the Joint North London Waste Plan (NLWP) and two Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs):

·         Memorandum of Understanding for Joint Working with North London Boroughs and;

·         Memorandum of Understanding for providing a frame work for co-operation between London Legacy Development Corporation (“Legacy Corporation”) and the North London Boroughs.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration introduced the report, which all 7 North London boroughs would be seeking agreement to, and would confirm agreement to a consultation draft of the joint North London Waste Plan and two memorandums’ of understanding. The first as a basis for joint working with North London Boroughs and the second, providing a framework   for co-operation between London Legacy Development Corporation and the North London Boroughs.

The Board of the NLWA had set out the sites for consultation and there would follow a further statutory consultation and public examination before the final waste disposal sites were agreed. Therefore, a commitment was being sought on taking the draft North London Waste Plan out to consultation, at this stage, and, as previously outlined in the deputation response, the Pinkham Way Alliance views were valued as part of this consultation.

In response, Councillor Engert question, it was noted that Pinkham Way had not been included in the open space study as it was not accessible and had been part of a separate unsuccessful exercise to designate this land as a village green. In the longer term there was a need for evidence to support or disprove this site as appropriate for the disposal of waste.

In response to a further question, this site had been identified by TFL when considering potential around the North Circular as part of the strategic review of infrastructure and when considering the wider aspirations for growth in London. The Council had expressed no views about this site as part of this exercise and no views were included on the site from TFL on the Local Plan or Waste Plan.

RESOLVED

      i.        To approve the draft North London Waste Plan at Appendix A for public consultation, during a 6-8 week period currently scheduled for July to September 2015;

     ii.        To enter into the MoU at Appendix B with the other North London Boroughs, being Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Islington and Waltham Forest, for the purpose of preparing the NLWP;

    iii.        To enter into the MoU at Appendix C to provide a framework for co-operation between London Legacy Development Corporation and the North London Boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington and Waltham Forest undertaking the North London Waste Plan; and

   iv.        To delegate to the, Director Regeneration, Planning and Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, the power to agree any future MOUs related to the NLWP preparation and any minor, non-material changes made to the NLWP prior to public consultation.

    v.        To agree the appointment of Alan Strickland, Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, to the NLWP Planning Members Group.

Alternative options considered

In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 182) to ensure the NLWP is justified, a range of options have been tested to demonstrate that the North London Boroughs have considered reasonable alternatives and that the Plan follows the most appropriate strategy.

The three growth scenarios represent different population and economic factors that will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning. Report of the Assistant Director for Planning] This report seeks Cabinet approval on the draft revised Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) at appendix A for public consultation.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration introduced the report which set out recommendations for agreeing a new Statement of Community Involvement. This was previously adopted in 2008 following public consultation and also updated in 2011 following an examination in public. The SCI now required updating to take into account new planning regulations and the Localism Act changes in 2012.

RESOLVED

To approve the annexed draft revised Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) for an eight week public consultation from September to October 2015 to ensure that Haringey has an effective, flexible and up-to-date SCI pursuant to section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).

Alternative Options considered

The Council could choose not to review the SCI. However, the Council is required to adopt an up-to-date SCI, pursuant to section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended), taking account of national, regional and local policy changes. 

Haringey’s draft Local Plan, which was consulted on during the spring 2015, will be assessed by a Planning Inspector at an Examination in Public against the Soundness Test set out in Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The NPPF states that a local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers is “sound” – namely that it is:

Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;

Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;

Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and

Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

A justified Plan means one which is based on a robust and credible evidence base including evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area. The Haringey SCI provides the framework for assessing that the Local Plan is justified and therefore the Council needs to update its SCI to ensure the relevant practices and procedures for consultation and community participation are followed

A number of changes have been made since the adoption of the previous SCI including the adoption in July 2014 of a revised Planning Protocol to ensure the highest standards of probity in the performance of its planning function, new regulations introduced in the consolidated Development Management Procedure Order 2015 with revised consultation requirements, the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Review of Community Engagement and the Council’s need to streamline and become more efficient which has led to a move to self-service and paperless systems.

Not updating the SCI to take account of these local changes means the Development Management service would not be able to make the necessary budget savings associated with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

[To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children and Families. Report of the Interim Director of Children’s Services.]The report  will seek approval to the Young People’s Strategy following consultation.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families introduced the strategy which had previously been considered by Cabinet in draft form at their meeting in March. Since then, there had been considerable work with young people to develop the strategy, reflected at appendix 3, and to ensure it is aligned to the early help approach being taken forward by the Children’s Service. The document had also been made more accessible for young people and the Council will be working with partners to deliver the outcomes of the strategy.

In response to Cllr Engert’s question, the Children’ Service will be developing delivery plans to underpin the strategy and will contain measures and deliverables for understanding if the aims and objectives of the strategy are being achieved.

RESOLVED

To approve the draft Young People’s Strategy.

Alternative Options

Not having a Strategy – this would reduce the ability to effectively align objectives against the Council’s resources.

Alternatively, introducing individual community based approaches, could be adopted, however this would lead to a disjointed delivery model. Setting out the overall strategic direction within a single Strategy, increases the effectiveness of partnership working and collaboration.

Reasons for Decision

To agree a Young People’ Strategy to ensure young people’s issues and equalities help to shape corporate and key partners thinking.

[To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children and Families. Report of the Interim Director of Children’s Services.] The report will seek Cabinet  approval to enter into a Pre-Construction Services Agreements (“PCSA”) and separate Design and Build Contract (“D&B Contract”) with the preferred contractor to deliver construction works at Bounds Green Primary School.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families introduced the report, which set out the procurement process for expanding Bounds Green Primary school. This was an expansion previously agreed by Cabinet to meet future need for school places and the report set out the contractual relationship to be followed as a basis for delivering the expansion of this site.

RESOLVED

      i.        To note the procurement and tender evaluation process  and outcome of the  process in section 5 below; and

      ii.            To provide approval to enter into a PCSA with preferred contractor Lakehouse Contracts Ltd to provide pre-construction services at the agreed contract value set out in section 8.5 below.

    iii.            To provide approval to issue a letter of intent to Lakehouse Contracts Ltd prior to issuance and execution of the PCSA for the value of 10% of the agreed PCSA contract price. 

   iv.        To note that the Lead Member for Children and Families may approve the full award on completion of the Stage 2 tender process provided that it is within the agreed maximum construction value outlined in 1.4 exempt information.

      v.            To provide approval for the Interim Director for Schools and Learning to issue a letter of intent to Lakehouse Contracts Ltd prior to issuance and execution of the Design and Build Contract for the value of 10% of the agreed contract price.

   vi.        To agree a specific capital project budget, not to exceed £3,400,000, as outlined in section 6 of this report, funded from the already approved budget allocated for school expansion projects.

Alternative options considered

The proposed expansion of Bounds Green Primary School is expected to support additional cohorts from September 2016. A do nothing option would not support local demand for additional pupil places.

The feasibility report considered 3 design options, with emphasis on flexibility, programme, impact on the school and financial viability.

Options 1 and 3 were discounted by stakeholders on the basis that the design and cost did not offer the most beneficial outcomes to meet the project objectives and success criteria.

Option 2 was considered a preferred option and developed at RIBA Stage 2 and Stage 3.

Reasons for Decision

To award a contract which will enable the timely mobilisation and construction     of works to Bounds Green Primary School which, aims to support the Councils requirement for additional school places from September 2016.

[To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Communities. Report of the Deputy Chief Executive]. Cabinet will be asked to approve the draft Community Strategy for public consultation.

The Deputy Leader introduced the strategy which was an opportunity to transform the way in which the Council work in partnership with residents and builds on the successful, innovative projects that are already underway and embedding new ways of working in everything the Council does.

The purpose of the Community Strategy was to lay out how the Council and partners will engage more deeply with communities, to build the resilience, skills and capability of local residents and communities and to strengthen the joint ability to achieve the vision and outcomes set out in the CorporatePlan.

RESOLVED

To approve the Community Strategy for wider public engagement focussing particularly on the principles and toolkit.

Alternative Options  Considered

Much of the work set out in the Community Strategy is planned or underway currently – what the Strategy aims to do is to co-ordinate existing and strategically develop new activity. An option of not pursuing the Strategy was considered but the opportunity for an over-arching strategic framework for current and future activity would have been missed.

Two important policy documents – the Voluntary Sector Commissioning Strategy and the Community Buildings Review are linked to the Strategy as ways in which the Council shapes and develops its relationship with local communities.  The alternative would be to implement these policies without an over-arching strategy, this was not pursued because it was felt important to establish the broader principles and vision that lie behind their development.

It is also the case that the Voluntary Sector Commissioning Strategy and Community Buildings Review only cover two specific ways in which the Council can work with communities – commissioning voluntary sector organisations and the provision of Community Buildings – two ways where the Council’s scope is increasingly limited by financial considerations. The Community Strategy plays an important complementary role in laying out a wider variety of ways in which the Council can work with communities, the positive steps the Council can take as a facilitator, enabler and capacity-builder to work with communities in a time of reducing budgets.

Reasons for decision

It is recommended that Cabinet approve the Community Strategy for wider community engagement on the principles and toolkit featured within the Strategy.

Working with communities already features as a cross-cutting theme within the Corporate Plan 2015-18, and the strategic priorities within the Community Strategy also feature within the Corporate Plan.

Approving the Community Strategy is the first step in embedding new ways of working with communities across the Council. A public consultation will enable an action plan to be created to embed the revised principles and toolkit across the Council – in terms of the commissioning process, specific capacity building projects, community leadership from Councillors, training of staff and business-as-usual functions.

[To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing. Report of the Deputy Chief Executive] This report introduces a new commissioning framework for the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) – attached as Appendix 1.

The Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing introduced the Framework which complimented the Community Buildings review and community strategy by setting out a new relationship with the sector and the approach the Council will take to commissioning the VCS.

RESOLVED

To approve the Voluntary and Community Sector Commissioning Framework as set out in Appendix 1.

Alternative options considered

The option of not setting out this new framework was considered and discarded, based on the need to reframe the Council’s relationship with the sector in light of the new Corporate Plan Building a Stronger Haringey Together and a need to be clear on the Council’s commissioning approach with the sector.

Reasons for Decision

The Voluntary and Community Sector Commissioning Framework is a key document linked to the Community Strategy and Community Buildings Review and sets out how we will work with and commission the sector directly in line with the approach set out in Building a Stronger Haringey Together. 

[To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration. Report of the Assistant Director for Commissioning]This report provides a strategic framework and a set of recommendations to guide decisions for the future of each community building within the scope of the review, consistent with decisions of Cabinet made in 2012 and the vision and principles of the Community Strategy.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration introduced the report, which set out the overarching principles and recommendations of the Community Buildings Review which had been undertaken corporately.

Councillor Strickland highlighted a change to Appendix B, item 20, Selby Trust, final recommendation and rationale, to now read explore and agree use of the site in the medium term, including any options required for re-providing existing community uses, through a feasibility study to be developed collaboratively by the Trust and the Council.

This report included agreeing a community model lease to apply to all community buildings .This will mean, community groups managing and using the community buildings, meeting a social value checklist and criteria to ensure they are working for social outcomes and meeting the needs of residents.

The Cabinet Member indicated that cessation of circular funded rent and peppercorn rent which will be phased out in a managed way in light of the move to community model leases.

In response to Cllr Berryman’s question on deleting strategic framework principle (e) at paragraph 6.4, to ensure that community buildings are not vulnerable to developers, noted that community buildings were ultimately owned by the Council so any disposal would be subject to Cabinet agreement.  This clause was needed to ensure that there is an overriding right for the Council to buy and safeguard a site for regeneration purposes if the need in future arises but the grid at appendix B makes clear that there are no plans to use this clause to take over sites especially if they are delivering social values and outcomes for residents.

Councillor Blake was invited by the chair to ask a question, and he began by supporting the deputations request to pause the decision making on the Community Buildings Review to allow organisations to develop their RTB offer and compile a capital project.

Councillor Blake further spoke about an inherent inequality with the application of the peppercorn rent cessation as some groups would have longer to wait than others for the cessation to impact. The circular rent changes would have a short and medium term impact, so sooner than the changes to some clients on peppercorn rents.

In response to these questions/observations, the Cabinet Member reminded Members that this the review had started over 3 years ago and there had been good consideration of the likely impact of the changes going forward. 

Community Matters, an independent charity, had also helped work on these proposals with community groups and the Council .Also the changes to rent requirements would be phased in. Asset transfer had been part of the discussion with community organisations and would continue.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration agreed that the inequality between organisations rent and lease terms were evident and the new approach taken forward by the review will be applicable at different times. However there was a need to start making changes somewhere .So as and when leases do expire there will be a robust fair criteria applied.

Subject to amendments to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

[To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing. Report of the Deputy Chief Executive] This paper provides an update on progress on the Health and Care Integration (HACI) Programme report brought to Cabinet on the 14^th October  2014. This update focuses on scoping and progress with greater detail around the Better Care Fund (BCF).

This paper also outlines the approach being taken to align the governance of the Health and Care Integration Programme and Priority 2 of the Corporate Plan.

The Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing introduced the report which provided an update on the Health and social care integration programme. The report also focused on scoping and progress with greater detail around the Better Care Fund (BCF).

RESOLVED

      i.        To note progress made to date

     ii.        To approve the approach taken to aligning the Health and Care Integration Programme with the Council’s approach to delivering its Priorities.

    iii.        To note the strategic implications of the wider Health and Social Care Integration agenda and that officers will work with CCG colleagues to explore further opportunities for integration, including further opportunities for pooled budgets, in line with the Health and Care Integration programme.

Alternative options considered

Do nothing with respect to aligning HACI and Priority 2 governance. Keeping the Priority 2 governance separate was considered but the efficiencies gained by streamlining governance were considered too great to delay.

Reasons for Decision

The proposed governance process provides clarity as to how the Council’s Priority 2 and Health and Care Integration objectives will be governed and delivered.

[To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing. Report of the Director of Public Health] This report details the outcome of an open tender process for the award of contracts to provide mental health and wellbeing promotion interventions to local people across the life course (from children to adults and older people). This report recommends the award of new contracts in 4 lots, in line with Contract Standing Order (CSO) 9.06.1(d) following a robust tendering process.

The Cabinet  Member for Health and Wellbeing introduced the report  which detailed the outcome of an open tender process for the award of contracts to provide mental health and wellbeing promotion interventions to local people across the life course (from school age children to adults and older people).

The Cabinet Member further drew the Cabinet’s attention to paragraph 6.3, which outlined the potential to re-assess the budget position and identify sufficient funding before awarding these three year contracts, in light of the recent Government reductions to the Public Health budget.

RESOLVED

1. To agree the award of contracts to the successful tenderers in accordance with Contract Standing Order (CSO) 9.07.1(d), each for an initial term of 3 years with an option to extend for a period or periods of up to a further 2 years.

The table below shows the successful tenderers for each lot:

Alternative options considered

Public mental health prevention initiatives require specialist skills and expertise not currently available in-house and therefore it was not considered suitable or feasible to deliver alternative provision within existing in-house resources.

The tendering of these services is part of Public Health’s wider commissioning plan and part of the Corporate Plan Priority 2 delivery plan.  Failure to provide these interventions would impact on the Corporate Plan delivery and efficiency savings in longer term.

Reasons for decision

The recommendations as outlined in 3.1 and 3.2 are based on those providers who scored the highest MEAT scores and therefore would offer the best value to Council in terms of quality and price. The quality component of this tender was 55% and the price 45%.

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 contract(s) as outlined in 3.1 and 3.2 in accordance with CSO 9.07.1(d).

To note the minutes of the following:

8^th June 2015  Cabinet Member Signing

15 June 2015 Leader’s Decision

29^th June 2015 Leader’s Decision

30^th June Cabinet Member Signing

30^th June Cabinet Member Signing

1 July Cabinet Member Signing

RESOLVED

To note the minutes of the following:

·         8^th June 2015  Cabinet Member Signing

·         15 June 2015 Leader’s Decision

·         29^th June 2015 Leader’s Decision

·         30^th June Cabinet Member Signing

·         30^th June Cabinet Member Signing

·         1 July Cabinet Member Signing

 To note the delegated decisions taken by officers in June.

Note from the Head of Democratic Services

Items 24, 25, 26, 27 allow for the consideration of exempt information in relation to Items ,9, 14,19 and 3 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 paragraph 3, Part 1, schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

As per item 9

As per item 14.

As per item 19