Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies received.

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 14 below. New items of exempt business will be dealt with at Item 18 below).

No items of urgent  business were put forward.

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 McNamara, Cabinet Member for Environment, declared a personal interest by virtue of his membership of the NUT.

Councillor Demirci, Cabinet Member for Planning, declared a personal interest by virtue of his membership of UNISON.

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 [16 &17 ]: 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 20^th January 2015 as a correct record.

The minutes  of the Cabinet meeting held on the 20^th January were approved as a correct record of the meeting.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.

The Leader was handed a petition in relation to the proposed closure of the Haven day-care centre. In accordance with committee standing order 31.1 this was recorded as received and a response due at the next ordinary meeting of the Cabinet in March.

There had been a total of seven deputations received, six in relation to agenda item 7[Corporate Planning 2015-18] and one in relation to agenda item 11[423 West Green Road, Red House]. 

Unison – Deputation 1

The Leader invited UNISON spokesperson Chris Taylor to address the Cabinet. 

Chris Taylor put forward his deputation on behalf of the joint trade unions and set out the reasons for Cabinet not taking forward the proposed budget reductions contained in the Corporate Planning report. He asked the Cabinet to consider the impact of the budget reductions on vulnerable adults, on day care centres, support to families, young people and stressed that the savings would impact most on the vulnerable and marginalised.

The Unions asked how communities could recover from these reductions with decreased numbers of council staff providing local services. The Unions felt that there was an alternative; the council could set a one year budget and give regard to a potential change in government which may provide a change in budget allocations to local authorities. Alternatives put forward, were cutting spend on consultants, making further use of the council’s reserves and discontinuing partnership working with private organisations.

Councillor Kober, the Leader of the Council, responded to the issues raised and made clear that no one in the council wanted to be in this position of needing to make £70m budget savings. It was important to keep in mind that the council had already made £117m  in  cuts over the last 4 years  through making efficiencies and  protecting Frontline services  but options were limited  now in how the £70m budget savings could be achieved.  It was important to remember that the coalition government had promised to complete the budget reductions in 4 years but this had not happened and local government was continuing to face the brunt of decreased funding.

 In response to the option of setting a one year budget as opposed to a three year budget, there were no signs that the government funding situation would change in the next year. All the major parties were signed up to continuing to reduce the budget deficit .Labour had indicated that they would change the funding formulae for the New Homes Bonus and this had been analysed as benefiting Northern metropolitan towns and reducing funding for London boroughs.

It was important to have a clear and open three year budget for consultation and engagement with staff, residents and partners instead of one year budget where the council would be forced to salami slice services year on year.

In response to avoiding the budget reductions, the council could not set an illegal budget as there was provision in the law for the section 151 officer to step in and compile a budget on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 818.

(Report of the Chief Executive  - To be introduced by the  Leader of the Council) Cabinet will be asked to note the summary of the consultation feedback, agree the Corporate Plan,  and consider the Council’s finalised Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for the period 2015-2018 with  approval sought  of the following constituent elements of the strategy to be put forward  to Council on 23^rd February 2015:-

·         Proposed summary revenue Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2015-2018 (Annex 1);

·         Proposed General Fund Capital Programme 2015-2018 (Annex 2);

·         Proposed HRA Capital Programme 2015-2018 (Annex 3);

·         Proposed HRA Medium Term Financial Plan 2015-2018 (Annex 4);

·         Proposed Dedicated Schools Budget 2015-16 (Annex 5); and,

·         Overview and Scrutiny Committee Recommendations and Cabinet Responses (Annex 6).

The Cabinet considered a report, introduced by the Leader which provided a summary of the budget consultation feedback, sought agreement to the corporate plan and endorsement to the enclosed medium term financial strategy and its constituent elements going forward to Full Council on the 23^rd February for approval.

In introducing the report, the Leader thanked the deputation parties for coming forward with their representations and to all the responders’ of the budget consultation. The Leader acknowledged and understood the concerns put forward and emphasised that no one in the Council wanted to be in the situation of making £70m savings.  Government economic plans required local authorities to make deeper and harder cuts leading to some invidious and tough choices.

In response to calls for setting a one year budget the Leader re- affirmed that all the political parties were committed to reducing the budget deficit and this meant continuing reductions for local authorities .The Leader and Cabinet felt it was important to fully engage on the challenges facing the borough with residents, staff and partners and this could only be done by setting a three year budget.

The budget process was a continuing process and the consultation undertaken had already seen an impact with the withdrawal of the savings proposal to reduce the care packages budget by £5.7m.

It was important to note that the Council had already saved £117m over the last 4 years, a 60% reduction of real terms of the budget. In response to the assertion on spend on consultants the Council, much of the spending was  on needed agency social workers  and the council had  to invest  to deliver further savings.

In terms of the suggested option of increasing Council tax, in Haringey this tax was already high and increasing it would disproportionately affect the lower paid.  Also the Council received a financial incentive from the government to freeze the Council tax and therefore increasing it would require both a referendum and mean a loss of the financial incentive.

The Cabinet Member for Resources and Culture continued to reinforce the importance of the consultation exercise undertaken and developing plans with residents for continual engagement .He further spoke about : having difficult decisions to make , the  strategy for reserves , and emphasised the importance of remaining positive about the future despite the savings being made . This meant continuing to strive for service improvements,  and considering the positive  steps  being taken on protecting libraries, freezing Council tax, investing in a housing licensing scheme , investing in regeneration,  building more homes, keeping roads safe . The Cabinet Member for Resources and Culture concluded by promising that the Cabinet would strive to spend the remaining budget £240m budget wisely and negate impact of the savings.

The Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing spoke about the budget challenge facing adult social care services and how equality and fairness was at the centre of provision going forward. There would a strong concentration on providing a smooth transition process where  ...  view the full minutes text for item 819.

(Report of the Assistant Director for Planning. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for  Planning) The report will seek to  obtain approval from Cabinet of the review of, and proposed changes to, the Council’s pre-application planning advice services reported to Regulatory Committee on 15 January 2015.  The review has been undertaken in the context of the priorities set out in the Corporate Plan 2015-2018 and the Development Management Improvement Plan as set out in the annexed “Supporting high quality development in Haringey – Our pre-application advice services at Appendix and new charges for Building Control Services.

The Cabinet member for Planning  introduced the report and explained that

The Regulatory Committee considered a report on 15 January 2015 setting out details of the  review of and proposed changes to the Council’s pre-application planning advice services to align with priorities set out in the Corporate Plan and Development Management Improvement Plan and new proposed charges for Building Control services. The Committee supported the proposed charges and changes to the service.

Cabinet noted that the  scope, quality and value of the pre-application advice service has been reviewed in the context of Government Planning Practice Guidance 2014 and best practice.  It is intended to introduce a more tailored, customer focussed service approach including the provision of advice at the feasibility stage of householder proposals and to make improvements in the information and signposting provided on the Council website. The new service offer aims to reduce the costs experienced by householders in not getting it right first time, improve the quality of planning applications coming forward and the likelihood of success for both householders and commercial businesses.  Proposals have been developed for a new charging regime for the redesigned pre-application service following a benchmarking exercise with other authorities.  New charges aim to recover the cost of providing the advice, with an exemption for micro businesses and a discount to small and medium businesses.  Subject to Cabinet approval, the new charges would come into effect on 1 April.

RESOLVED

        i.            That  the charges as set out in “Supporting high quality development in Haringey – Our pre-application advice services” set out at Appendix 2 for use by the Planning Service with effect from 1 April 2015  be adopted.

      ii.            That  the Building Control charges set out Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9 set out at Appendix 1 for use by the Building Control Service with effect from 1 April 2015;  be adopted and 

    iii.            That Cabinet reviews annually the fees and charges set out therein.

Alternative options considered

Do nothing

·         The Planning service could continue to provide free Duty Planning advice to householders and keep fees for commercial applicants at the current level.

·         However, the Planning service is committed to making £75,000 in savings, as set out in the Medium Term Financial Strategy in 2015/16. This saving cannot be accommodated within the service budget without a reduction in officer resources, which would lead to a reduction in capacity for non statutory services including planning advice. .

·         While the Planning service is committed to providing the best advice to customers that it possibly can, the existing walk in service does not allow officers a chance to carry out background research on the property, or take account of other supporting materials from the client which could enhance the service customers get.

·         A recent ‘Deep Dive’ session with the Council’s Corporate Delivery Unit has identified that the Planning service faces pressures on officer workloads as caseloads per officer have risen significantly every year. Applicants who are refused planning permission the first time around are allowed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 820.

(Report of the  Assistant Director for Finance. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Resources and Culture). This report considers the relevant factors affecting the review of fees and charges, identifies those services where an increase is being proposed and seeks:
 

Approval to increase the fee or charge rate to those services where an increase is proposed, subject to Equalities Impact Assessments being undertaken,  as set out in paragraph 10; and,

Agreement to where an alternative approach is being proposed.

The Cabinet Member for Resources and Culture introduced the report which set out a general increase in fees and charges of 2.3%  and indicated services where an alternative approach has been proposed, where also reasonable.

RESOLVED

(i)                 That a general increase of 2.3% be applied to Fees and Charges levied by the Council with effect from 1 April 2015;

(ii)               That the approach for those services set out in this report where a different rate other than the general increase is proposed be approved;

(iii)             That final decisions on (i) and (ii) above be delegated to the respective Assistant Directors in respect of their services following completion and consideration of equality impact assessments where this is appropriate; and,

(iv)              That the estimated additional income arising from the increases in Fees and Charges as set out in this report amounting to c£240k be reflected within the Council’s 2015-16 budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy documents.

Alternative options considered

This report proposes a range of alternative approaches dependent on particular services and relevant factors. As such a range of alternative options ranging from no increase to differentiated rates of inflationary increases have been considered and reflected in this report.

Reason for Decision

It is a requirement to review Fees and Charges annually. The financial position that the Council finds itself in supports the view that levels of fees and charges should be maximised taking into account all relevant factors including the effect on service users and any consequent demand for services.

(Report of the Director of Planning, Regeneration, and Development. To be introduced by  the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration.)This report seeks Cabinet approval for the proposal to tender for a feasibility study and business case including engagement with Members, staff and stakeholders for a Haringey development vehicle, and – if such an approach is recommended – support for the procurement of partners for that vehicle.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration   introduced the report which set out the procedural requirements to tender for a feasibility study and business case for a Haringey development vehicle.

RESOLVED

        i.            That the proposal to tender for an external consultant to (a) refine the feasibility work commenced by Turnberry and develop a business case for the preferred option; and (b) support the council through the procurement of one or more joint venture partners[ if that approach is recommended and subsequently approved by Cabinet] be approved.

      ii.            That  the additional budget provision of £400,000 be allocated from the earmarked Urban Renewal Reserve to fund the project.

Alternative options considered

The work proposed here – to develop a business case for the establishment of a development vehicle – is intended to weigh up the case for establishing a single vehicle against the alternative options, including alternative joint venture approaches and more traditional approaches, as well as assessing the various options for pursuing a single vehicle-based approach.  The alternatives to the work proposed here would be either to terminate the council’s work on assessing those options, or to adopt and pursue one of them without further analysis and proceed direct to procurement of the vehicle itself, with risks both to optimising the delivery of our objectives and value for money.

As set out in paragraph 1.2, termination of council’s work to assess options for a development vehicle would significantly hamper delivery of its ambitions (as set out in the draft corporate plan for 2015-18) for building new homes and securing its wider regeneration objectives, including in relation to the Tottenham regeneration programme; the emerging Wood Green Investment Framework; housing estate renewal and the council’s own commercial portfolio.  While the council has access to the land required to achieve its desired outcomes, it can neither access sufficient capital funding through its general fund or housing revenue account (partly because of constraints imposed on borrowing), nor draw on sufficient in-house commercial and development expertise.  Only through a partnership arrangement such as the proposed vehicle could the council marry its land assets with the necessary investment and expertise, while retaining a stake and a degree of influence over the pace and nature of development that would not be possible with more traditional land deals or development agreements.  

Reasons for Decision

The option of establishing a joint venture development vehicle as a way of pursuing housing development and regeneration on the council’s land has potentially significant implications in governance and financial terms for the council itself, and could have a major material impact on places and people across a number of wards, hence this is considered a key decision for approval by Cabinet.

(Report of the Director of Planning, Regeneration, and Development. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration). To re- confirm disposal of this property.

Joanna Fone, represented  the Derby Hall  Christian Assembly, who had not been successful in  the bidding process for acquiring  the freehold interest in  the Red House[423 West Green Road].Ms Fone put forward objections to the recommendations on procedural grounds. She contended that Derby Hall Christian Assembly had not been allowed the same opportunity as Magic Homes/Leonard Cheshire Disability to provide two different bids and had been  penalised for working within the set perimeters which included plans for an expanded church. It was claimed that the hall had a covenant on the parking land making the award of special purchaser to Magic Homes/Leonard Cheshire Disability invalid and if this deal proceeded they would complain to the local government ombudsman.

The deputation further contested the designation of Magic Homes/Leonard Cheshire Disability as special purchaser as their landholding was not adjacent to the Red House, 423 West Green Road.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and  Regeneration responded to  the deputation and advised that both Derby Hall  Christian Assembly  and Magic Homes/Leonard Cheshire Disability had  equal treatment in the negotiation process and  both bids been subject to detailed analysis by specialist officers and there had been an objection to the scheme from Derby Hall Christian assembly by  Transport planners  a set out in the report. The Cabinet Member and officers were happy to meet with the Derby Hall Christian Assembly to further discuss the process.

The Cabinet Member continued to introduce the report which reconfirmed the disposal of the Red House, 423 West Green roads and designated a special purchaser for the site.

RESOLVED

1. That the original decision by Cabinet on 12 February 2013 that the Red House, 423 West Green Rd, N15 is surplus to requirements be re-confirmed.

2. That the Assistant Director of Property & Capital Projects be authorised to dispose of the Council’s freehold interest in the Red House, 423 West Green Rd, N15 for best consideration reasonably obtainable to Magic Homes/Leonard Cheshire Disability.

3. That In the event that Magic Homes/Leonard Cheshire Disability is unable to proceed with the acquisition, officers engage with Derby Hall Christian Assembly/Aitch in an attempt to agree a holistic policy compliant scheme.

4. That In the event that Derby Hall Christian Assembly/Aitch are unable to present a holistic policy compliant scheme and proceed to an acquisition, that the Red House, 423 West Green Rd, N15 is offered for sale on the open market for best consideration reasonably obtainable.

Alternative Options

Retention of the property as is:-

Reasons for Decision

This report recommends that Members re-confirm the original decision by    Cabinet on 12 February 2013 that the Red House, 423 West Green Rd, N15 is surplus  ...  view the full minutes text for item 823.

(Report of the Director for Planning, Regeneration and Development. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration) The report will seek agreement  for the Assistant Director of Property and Capital Projects to dispose of the Council’s freehold interest in the land on the rear of 1-11 The Drive for best possible consideration reasonably obtainable.

The  Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration  introduced the report which set out the council’s intentions to dispose  of the Council’s freehold interest in the land rear of 1-11 The Drive for best consideration as  reasonably obtainable.  Cabinet noted that that  this land has long been used by the residents as extensions to their gardens. The site has been declared surplus to requirements and available for disposal. A sale to the residents will generate a capital receipt which will be used to support the Council’s capital programme whilst also allowing residents the continued use of the land.

RESOLVED

        i.            That the Assistant Director of Property & Capital Projects be authourised to dispose of the Council’s freehold interest in the land rear of 1-11 The Drive for best consideration reasonably obtainable.

      ii.            That the owners of No.’s 1-11 The Drive be given  first refusal to collectively acquire the site as one lot (rather than as individual plots).

    iii.            That in the event the residents are unable to proceed with a collective acquisition, the site to be offered for sale on the open market for best consideration reasonably obtainable

     iv.            That should the site not receive a satisfactory offer when offered for sale on the open market, that the subject land is retained for the Council’s New Build Programme.

Alternative Options Considered

Continue to lease individual plots on a non secure basis to the adjoining properties – EXEMPT (This is information is contained within Part B of the report).

Dispose of individual plots to the adjoining properties for the market value –  the sale of individual plots is not supported as some residents may opt not to buy with the Council left with inaccessible small parcels of land.

Dispose of the land as one lot (rather than in single plots) to the adjoining properties collectively restricting its the use to garden land – such a restriction would artificially suppress the value of the land thereby failing to demonstrate best consideration for the Council. This option is therefore not supported.

Reasons for Decision

This report confirms that following cross service consultation, the subject land is surplus to requirements and on the Council’s disposal’s list. The report consequently recommends that the residents of 1-11 The Drive, N11 are given first option to acquire the subject land for best consideration.

To note the significant actions and delegated decisions taken in January.

RESOLVED

That the significant and delegated actions taken  by officers in January  be noted.

None

Note from the Head of Democratic Services

Items  16 17 and 18  allow for the consideration of exempt information in relation to Items 11,12, and 2 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.

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, and schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

As per item 11.

As per item 11.

As per item 12.

As per item 12.