Agenda and minutes

Venue: Civic Centre, High Road, Wood Green, N22 8LE. View directions

Contact: Ayshe Simsek, Principal Committee Co-ordinator 

Media

Items
No. Item

73.

FILMING AT MEETINGS

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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

74.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

  • Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ahmet.

 

  • Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Goldberg.

 

75.

Urgent Business

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 19 below. New items of exempt business will be dealt with at Item 22 below).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Leader had accepted, as late business, the comments of Regulatory Committee relating to items 12 and 13 on the agenda. This Committee had met on the 9th of October 2017, after publication of the Cabinet papers. Consideration of the Committee’s comments was required to be in accordance with Part three of the Council constitution, section B, and paragraph D of the Constitution.

 

76.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest put forward.

 

77.

Notice of Intention to Conduct Business in Private, any Representations Received and the Response to any such Representations

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 [20] : 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.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no representations received.

78.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 181 KB

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2017 as a correct record.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the Cabinet held on the 12th of September 2017 were agreed as a correct record of the meeting.

79.

Matters Referred to Cabinet by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

There are no matters for referral from Overview and Scrutiny.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no matters for consideration from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

80.

Deputations/Petitions/Questions

To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Deputation - Mr Paul Burnham - Haringey Defend Council Housing

 

Mr Burnham was invited by the Chair to put forward his deputation to the Cabinet.

 

The Deputation argued that the HDV had been given exemption from prioritising Right of Return due to the previous decisions made by Cabinet when agreeing the HDV [Haringey Development Vehicle] at the July meeting. They contended that these decisions discounted the Revised Estate Renewal and Rehousing Payments Policy. They asked for the policy to be revised in light of residents’ concerns about: right to remain, providing replacement secure Council tenancies, no increase in rents and service charges, providing better homes for overcrowded tenants and ensuring that there were provisions made for existing tenants on regeneration schemes to be protected.

 

Mr Burnham further contended that the agreements made by Cabinet at the 3rd of July meeting on the HDV only allowed a single move and did not allow for the rehousing of Housing Association residents, making the commitments provided in the report worthless.

 

The Deputation did not trust the Council’s commitment on Right of Return. They referred to the recent decision on Love Lane Estate where they felt the public consultation documentation indicated encouragement and support for existing tenants to move away to homes elsewhere. The Deputation argued that 70 % of secure tenants had left the Love Lane Estate and questioned the Council’s commitment for existing residents to gain the benefit of regeneration.

 

The Deputation did not agree with the Council’s stance of no estate ballots. They contended that the Equalities Impact Assessments, completed on regeneration associated decisions, had not addressed the issues that Council tenants and residents faced in a regeneration scheme. There were barriers to accessing homes, with lower to medium income families being priced out and unable to afford to rented homes on a regenerated estate. The deputation argued that no estate regeneration should be commenced until an Equalities Impact Assessment was completed which included mitigation on how local residents are able to stay on their estates and do not need to move away.

 

The Deputation asked the Cabinet to not agree the recommendations in the report but consider the deputation’s representations and consider revised proposals.

 

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning thanked the Deputation for putting forward their views and responded as follows:

 

  • There were no exemptions from the Revised Estate Rehousing and Payments Policy for HDV schemes. There had been a timing issue with the decision on the HDV and when the policy had had been published for consultation. However, paragraph 4.1 clearly stated that the policy applied to all regeneration schemes, including HDV and Housing Association schemes where the Council decides it has a strategic interest and applies the policy. Right of Return was clearly set out as an absolute right for every tenant and resident leaseholder/freeholder in a regeneration scheme. Only tenants themselves could waive the right of return. The next iteration of HDV documentation would also communicate the wording in this policy.

 

81.

Approval of revised Estate Renewal Rehousing and Payments Policy pdf icon PDF 351 KB

[Report of the Director for Housing and Growth. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning.] Cabinet approval  will be sought on a revised Estate Renewal Rehousing and Payments Policy following consultation. The policy sets out the rehousing commitments for secure and assured tenants, and for leaseholders who are required to move due to regeneration.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning introduced the report which sought agreement, following public consultation, to a revised Estate Renewal Rehousing and Payments Policy. This policy included a set of commitments, attached at appendix 3, to residents whose properties will be demolished as part of a renewal scheme.

 

The Cabinet Member highlighted the following:

·         More than 80% of tenants consulted on the policy had agreed with the commitments put forward.

·         The commitments in the policy are the minimum offer to residents affected by a regeneration scheme. Where possible the Council, working with the HDV or other partners, would strive to go beyond the policy’s requirements.

·         Following the consultation, the Council recognised that the individual circumstances of some residents/leaseholders could lead to an inequitable or unfair outcome in some cases. An Estate Renewal Payments Discretionary Panel was therefore proposed as a body to consider these cases in line with the policy’s general principles.

 

The Cabinet Member proposed that in Appendix 3 (proposed Policy), page 3 entitled The Council’s Commitments to residents’, the second bullet point and associated text should be amended as follows:

 

“All tenants will have a guaranteed Right to Remain or Return on equivalent terms - This means that tenants will have: The right to move to, or return to, a replacement home in the new development should they wish to do so and that the new home will have”. The subsequent text in this section remained unchanged.

 

Given the high percentage of tenant support for the commitments and EQIA findings, the Cabinet Member proposed the revised Estate Renewal Rehousing and Payments Policy for adoption.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Engert and Councillor Brabazon the following was noted:

 

  • Where a site in an estate was agreed for demolition that included a supported housing block / specialist accommodation, it may not be always be possible to rebuild the same specialist housing on the site. The proposed policy did reaffirm the offer of a Right to Return to the site, with appropriate floating support, or, if preferred, priority to move to the nearest appropriate specialist accommodation. It may also be the case that specialist supported housing is being built on a later phase of the scheme and access to this housing may also be possible. The Council were in agreement that it was important to provide replacement specialist supported homes, and it was a question of phasing and what works according to the care needs of the tenant.

 

  • There was an existing Council Allocations Policy, applicable for all Council tenants who were under-occupying, which says they can retain a spare room when they voluntarily downsize, if they have 2 or more spare rooms. This policy is in place to encourage residents to downsize to make more homes available for families in the borough. However, on estate renewal schemes the Council is aiming to meet the needs of existing and new tenants on the estate. For example, if there are tenants living in an overcrowded home they would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

82.

Choice and Third Party Top-up policy pdf icon PDF 240 KB

[Report of the Assistant Director for Commissioning. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Culture.]This report sets out a suggested approach to implement care act guidance on choice and third party top-ups for placements in Adults accommodation-based services (i.e. care homes, shared lives, supported accommodation) for cabinet sign-off. A third party top-up is where a relative or a family member of a person pays the difference between the person’s personal budget, and the actual cost of a service.

The report outlines a policy tantamount to the formalisation of existing practice. The policy sets out how residents will be given a choice of service if they are accessing accommodation-based services, and when a third party top-up may apply.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Culture introduced the report which set out the obligations of the Council to ensuring that residents were given an appropriate choice of good quality care homes. The policy also put in place a framework to manage circumstances where residents choose to live in a costlier environment, and how they can use ‘third party top-ups’ to access their preferred choice.

 

The Cabinet Member outlined that this policy builds on existing practice and seeks to ensure that residents have a consistent experience in choosing a care home or other service. The policy also ensures that the Council was compliant with its obligations under the Care Act (2014)

 

 

RESOLVED

 

  1. To agree the approach for calculating service users’ personal budgets as set out in paragraph 5.3 of the attached report.

 

  1. To agree the third party top-up policy for accommodation based services attached as Appendix 1.

 

Reasons for decision

 

The Care Act 2014 and The Care and Support and After-care (Choice of Accommodation) Regulations 2014 allows local authorities to apply third party top-up arrangements where service users/families choose accommodation-based services to meet identified needs which are more expensive than the local authority usually pays and exceeds the service user’s personal budget. A third party top-up is an arrangement whereby a person known to a service user pays the difference between the cost of a service and their personal budget.

 

Currently, personal budgets are calculated based on the market rates of placements identified to meet individual needs. Haringey does not currently have a formal choice or third party top-up policy for accommodation-based services. This in practice means that fees paid for given placements varies widely. This fee variation is not always a reflection of differences in need or limits in supply, but in some cases may reflect service users and family members choosing particular placements that are of higher cost. This in effect leads to a higher personal budget than the assessed needs would require.

 

The Council does occasionally reach agreement with service users and their families for a ‘third party top-up’ where there is a difference between the care home a service user/family chooses to live in and their personal budget, based on the costs of a placement which meets their needs. However, this is not implemented consistently.

 

All of our North Central London neighbouring local authorities have a top-up policy. These are summarised in Annex 1 but the approach taken is largely consistent within each borough. In essence, where service users are presented with a choice of services which can meet their needs, but reject these in favour a more expensive option than their personal budget allows, then the service user must fund the difference between their preferred placement fee and their personal budget via a third party top-up.

 

In most instances within Haringey’s neighbouring local authorities the difference between a service user’s personal budget and the total cost of a service is funded via a third party top-up because a service user’s income and savings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

83.

Care Leavers (Council Tax) Relief Scheme pdf icon PDF 235 KB

[Report of the Interim Chief Finance Officer. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Health.]Cabinet will be asked to create a new class of beneficiaries under s13(a)(c) of the Local Government Act (1992) and to approve the Care Leavers (Council Tax) Relief Scheme Policy and amendment to current council tax discretionary award policy.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Health introduced the report which sought approval for the Council to exercise its discretionary powers and to provide, from the 1st of April 2018, 100% Council tax discount to care leavers that reside in the borough until their 25th birthday.

 

This proposal builds on the study by the Children’s’ society which recommends Council’s provide as much support as possible to care leavers who are particularly vulnerable to Council tax debt. This proposal would create a new Council tax class and there would be a 100% discount in line with the Council’s Corporate parenting responsibility.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families spoke in support of the recommendations and felt that the Cabinet should be proud to adopt this new policy. It was important for the Council to do all it could to help care leavers sustain their future by building their own lives.

 

RESOLVED

 

  1. That for the purposes of reducing Council tax, the Council should agree to the creation of a new class of Council tax charge payers to be known as ‘Care Leavers’;

 

  1. That the Council exercises its discretionary power to provide 100% Council tax discount to ‘Care Leavers’ that reside in Haringey until their 25th birthday;

 

  1. To agree the Care Leavers (Council Tax) Relief Scheme policy;

 

  1. To agree that from 1st April 2018, reduction to care leavers Council tax liability, should be applied in line with the Haringey Care Leavers Relief Scheme policy as set out in Appendix 1 of this report; and

 

  1. To agree to the amendments to the “Policy for the Award of Discretionary Reductions in Council Tax Liability…” attached at Appendix 2.

 

 

Reason for Decision

 

Haringey Council now has responsibility for Council tax benefit following the Government’s decision to transfer responsibility to local authorities in April 2013.

 

Outside the CTRS, the Council has discretionary powers to reduce Council tax liability in individual cases, under section 13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. These powers have been used to create a discretionary Council tax discount policy that allows the Council tax charge for residents facing financial hardship to receive relief. However, this policy is not specific to the needs of care leavers which the CLRS seeks to address.

 

A report by the Children’s Society shows that care leavers who are looked after by a local authority rather than their parents are amongst the most vulnerable groups in society and are more likely to be behind with Council tax payment.

 

The Children’s Commissioner for England has written to the Leader of the Council to make the case for exempting care leavers from payment of Council tax as part of the Council’s parenting responsibility and as a means of helping this group of young adults to get the best start in life.

 

The Council takes its parenting responsibility toward care leavers seriously and, where possible, the Council is prepared to intervene in order to ensure that care leavers are not disadvantaged compared to their peers.

 

 

Alternative options  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

84.

Haringey's Draft Transport Strategy for Consultation pdf icon PDF 158 KB

[Report of the Assistant Director for Planning. To be introduced by the Leader of the Council.] This will be a new Transport Strategy that clearly sets out the transport objectives and priorities that will provide the context for preparing more detailed plans, policies, and bids for investment and works over the next 10 years.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Leader introduced the report which invited comments on the draft Transport Strategy and also sought agreement to consult on the draft strategy in October 2017.

 

Taking account, the comments of the Regulatory Committee, contained in the tabled pack:

 

RESOLVED

 

To approve the draft Haringey Transport Strategy, attached at appendix 1, for public consultation.

 

Reason for decision

 

The Transport Strategy was needed to ensure clarity around the Council’s strategy and priorities for managing the local transport network and to support the delivery of corporate priorities for growth and regeneration as well as improving health and environmental quality.

 

The absence of a Strategy runs the risk of decisions about investment in transport being made in an uncoordinated manner.

 

 

Alternative Options considered

 

The Council could rely on the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy and the North London sub-regional Transport Plan to provide the Strategy and priorities locally. However, while Haringey shares many of the same transport challenges as the rest of London and the sub-region, these higher level strategies and plans fail to recognise variations in approach based upon local context, and therein, the weight to be afforded to the realisation of specific objectives and priorities.

 

85.

Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule & Planning Obligations SPD Update pdf icon PDF 281 KB

[Report of the Assistant Director for Planning. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning. Following the consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, and associated governance arrangements for CIL spending, and draft Regulation 123 list, Cabinet will be asked to note the findings of the consultation, approve governance arrangements for the spending of Haringey CIL, and agree that, an updated draft Planning Obligations SPD will consulted on.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning introduced the report which provided a summary of the comments received in the consultation on the CIL [Community Infrastructure Levy]. The report further sought agreement to: consultation on the Planning Obligations SPD, the CIL governance arrangements, and a new revised Regulation 123 List.

 

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning highlighted:

 

  • That seeking agreement to consultation on the Planning obligations SPD, would strengthen the Council’s position on obtaining more funding for affordable housing for the borough. This exercise would also help to formalise the Council’s approach on viability assessments and to enable a firmer approach, in respect of affordable housing numbers, with developers at the planning application stage. The SPD would also support ensuring new developments meet their zero carbon commitments and include the addition of affordable workspace clauses.

 

  • Cabinet previously agreed consultation on the CIL and this was carried out between March and May 2017. This considered increases in the CiL rates to maximise the benefits of regeneration activities. In the consultation an important issue had been raised which had not been detected by the Scrutiny Panel which had previously undertaken a review of CIL. This was the fact that, for outline applications the Council had already granted, the new CIL rate will be applicable to the subsequent reserved matters applications. In these circumstances, the LPA has determined the application based upon a balance of obligations and viability predicated on a CIL liability rate of £15m2. The imposition of a change in CIL to £130m2 would have a significant detrimental impact on delivering these regeneration schemes and the levels of affordable housing negotiated. Evidence indicated that the increase should take place in Jan 2019 so in the medium to longer term the Council can obtain the CiL return and in the more immediate term continue to preserve the affordable housing already negotiated.

 

  • The revised 123 list which sets out what the CIL would be spent on was important to update, to ensure it reflected the priorities of the Council.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Engert, the following information was noted:

 

There was no association between the lower CIL rate in Tottenham and the High Road West Scheme agreements. The Housing Zone was also currently running at 40% affordable housing. This was a complex scheme and involved multiple landowners. The Cabinet Member with officers were working hard to get buy in from these landowners to build a new area with a new health centre and new housing.

 

The Cabinet Member drew Cabinet’s attention to the recommendations at 3.3 and clarified that the reference to paragraph 5.16 should be 6.16 and the reference to paragraph 5.13 and paragraph 5.15 should read 6.13 and 6.15. The Cabinet Member further clarified that Appendix B was attached at pages 209 to 222 and that appendix C was attached at pages 223 to 275.

 

Taking account of the changes to paragraph 3.3 outlined above and further to considering the Regulatory comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

86.

Transfer of Laurels lease to Bridge Renewal Trust pdf icon PDF 162 KB

[Report of the Assistant Director for  Commissioning and the Assistant Director for Economic Regeneration. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Resources.]The Laurels Healthy Living Centre was purchased as part of the DCLG's New Deal for Communities. The purchase was designed to ensure the legacy of the healthy living centre in Seven Sisters. This report proposes that the head lease for the building is transferred to the Bridge Renewal Trust, the NDC legacy organisation.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Resources introduced the report which sought approval to the transfer of the Laurels building to the Bridge Renewal Trust. This proposed decision represented an important point in carrying forward the legacy of the NDC. Over the last 8 years the Bridge Renewal Trust have demonstrated that they are a strong and sustainable voluntary and community organisation well equipped to put into effect the original intentions of the NDC and to ensure a continued contribution to the health and wellbeing of the borough. The transfer of the Laurels building would safeguard its future as an integrated healthcare centre, support the delivery of the NDC legacy and ensure that this valuable asset remains available for community use, benefiting local residents directly.

 

RESOLVED

1.    To approve the disposal of the 125-year head lease in ground and first floors premises at 250-266 St Ann’s Road London N15 known as the Laurels Healthy Living Centre to the Bridge Renewal Trust for the sum of £1.00 (subject to the consent of the Secretary of State and Circle 33 Homes Ltd).

 

2.    To give delegated authority to the Strategic Director for Regeneration, Planning and Development to agree the final terms of the disposal.

 

3.    To note that the Council will continue to be able to nominate two representatives, one Councillor and one officer, onto the Board of the Bridge Renewal Trust.

 

Reasons for decision

The Council has a leasehold interest in the property known as 250-266 St Ann’s Road, London, N15 (“Laurels”). The transfer of the 125-year lease of the Laurels from the Council to the Trust as the NDC’s successor body was always intended in order to secure the legacy of the NDC for local residents. The transfer was considered in 2009 but was not taken forward at that time since the successor body was untested and it was too early for the Council to realistically assess its capacity to successfully own and manage the asset. The 10-year funding agreement was put in place at that time specifically to allow the Trust to develop and to have the opportunity to demonstrate their longer term sustainability and reach. It is considered that the Trust have now established themselves as both a key community organisation in the borough and as a viable voluntary sector operation and, with a strong board and management, have demonstrated that they have the capacity to own and manage the asset and deliver the NDC legacy.

 

This decision is needed now as there are less than four years left to run on the Funding Agreement. Audit stipulations require any capital investment to be depreciated over the lifetime of the Funding Agreement. The very short depreciation period hinders the Trust from making long term decisions which would improve and expand health service provision and realise the NDC’s original vision – which the Trust maintains - of a holistic healthy living centre with a range of services. This includes bids to external funding agencies for capital investment. Examples of work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

87.

Withdrawal of subsidy for Meals on Wheels pdf icon PDF 131 KB

[Report of the Assistant Director for  Commissioning. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Culture.]As set out in the Medium Term Financial Strategy, the Council is considering withdrawing subsidy from the Meals on Wheels Service. This report presents the findings of the public consultation and in light of these makes recommendations on the budget proposal to end the subsidy for meals on wheels.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Culture introduced the report which outlined the outcome of the consultation on the proposed withdrawal of the meals on wheels’ subsidy. The report recommended the withdrawal of the subsidy for the meals on wheels’ scheme and also considered the mitigations that would be put in place to support users following withdrawal of the subsidy.

 

The Leader and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Culture responded to questions from Councillor Engert and Cllr Ejiofor. The following information was noted.

 

  • The saving had been delayed as alternative savings had been identified to fill the temporary gap, but the savings to the base budget were still required.

 

  • All the 110 users would receive an assessment review and support plan to ensure they were supported to get the best alternative option for delivery of their meals.

 

RESOLVED

 

  1. To take into account the detailed feedback of the consultation undertaken with users of the Meals on Wheels service, as set out in appendices 1 and 2 of this report.

 

  1. To take into account the equality impact assessment of the proposals on the protected groups, i.e. service users, and the proposed mitigations in appendix 3.

 

  1. To approve the withdrawal of the subsidy for the Meals on Wheels service.

 

  1. To approve the future service arrangement with the Council acting as a facilitator and navigator and helping service users to decide which community alternatives meal options available they want to take up.

 

Reasons for decision

 

In delivering the Corporate Plan, the Council aims to enable all adults to lead healthy, long and fulfilling lives through a strong emphasis on promoting independence, personalisation and choice and control. There is no statutory requirement for local authorities to fund the costs of food or meals directly and a significant proportion of other Councils have withdrawn from delivering or subsidising a meals service over the past five years or so.

 

The current arrangements for meals on wheels, where a subsidy is paid by the Council towards the cost of each meal delivered through a contract with an external supplier, are taken up by approximately 110 users at any one time. This is a significant reduction from the 300 users accessing the service in 2010 reflecting changing user preferences and habits.

 

There has been no increase in client contributions to the service since 2012/13 and the contribution has only increased by 20p per meal from £3.20 to £3.40 since 2010. However, as the volume of meals has decreased the cost of the meals has increased each year with a standard meal now costing £7.60. The Council now contributes at least £4.20 as subsidy towards the cost, costing the Council over £140,000 each year.

 

The responses to the consultation demonstrate that the vast majority of users disagreed with the proposal to withdraw the subsidy and highly value the current subsidised meals on wheels’ service. However, half of respondents indicated that they would be able to afford to pay more than the current contribution level with 39%  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

88.

Wood Green Business Improvement District (BID) pdf icon PDF 251 KB

[Report of the Director for Regeneration. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Social Inclusion & Sustainability]The Cabinet decision will be:
1)  to note the contents of the proposed Wood Green Business Improvement District (BID)  business plan
2) to approve the recommendation to commence a Business Improvement District (BID)  Ballot
3) to commit to support this Business Improvement District (BID)  at Ballot Stage

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Social Inclusion and Sustainability introduced the report which set out the proposal to set up a Business Improvement District (BID) in Wood Green. This was an initiative developed and led by businesses in Wood Green, aimed at revitalising Wood Green Town Centre. This decision had come about as result of the success of other BIDs in London. If it succeeded in achieving its proposed objectives, it would make a positive contribution to business growth in Haringey and as such be an integral part of the wider Wood Green Regeneration Programme. BIDs across the UK had been proven to be useful vehicles to bring about improvements to struggling business districts. A BID in Wood Green would be a statement of intent that the local authority was supporting local businesses in their endeavour to improve their businesses.

 

There was a healthy level of appetite and support for a BID amongst Businesses in Wood Green.

 

As per ‘Business Improvement Districts (England) Regulations 2004’ the Council was obliged to respond to the request of the BID proposer- Wood Green BID Steering Group and support them in their attempt to set up the BID. As the Council occupies premises as a ratepayer in the proposed BID area, it would also be entitled to vote.

 

Membership of a BID in Wood Green would allow businesses to come together and forge a strong partnership, collective voice and influence the development of the area and benefit from joint investment and procurement exercises.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Engert, it was noted that the BID was a first step to support businesses in Wood Green. The basic partnership led services such as responding to crime and anti-social behaviour, and improved cleanliness were not being fully delivered as Partners had also incurred government reductions in funding. The Wood Green BID would be owned and led by local businesses, addressing issues and concerns as well as creating opportunities for cost saving and capacity building exercises.

 

The Cabinet Member outlined that business have to be comfortable with the BID and feel that it allows them to be able respond to changing circumstances in Wood Green. If a more fully pedestrianised area was wanted by residents and businesses, then this could be taken forward. However, the decision, before Cabinet was to agree the consultation on the BID, and this type of decision making could come forward much later, once the BID was established and working.

 

RESOLVED

 

 

1.            To endorse the Wood Green BID Proposals, formally submitted by the Wood Green BID Steering Group in accordance with the BID Legislation.

 

  1. To note that the Wood Green BID Proposals do not conflict with any formally adopted or published policies of the Council.

 

  1. To instruct the Returning Officer to hold a BID Ballot in relation to the Wood Green BID Proposals aiming to hold the ballot on 1st March 2018.

 

  1. To agree to delegate authority to the Director of Regeneration to vote ‘yes’ on behalf of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

89.

Minutes of Other Bodies pdf icon PDF 83 KB

To note the minutes of the following:

 

Leader’s Signing on the 31st of August 2017

Cabinet Signing on 5 September 2017

Leader’s Signing on 18 September 2017

Cabinet Member Signing  on 26th September 2017

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

To note the minutes of the following:

 

Leader’s Signing on the 31st of August 2017

Cabinet Signing on 5 September 2017

Leader’s Signing on 18 September 2017

Cabinet Member Signing  on 26th September 2017

 

90.

Significant and Delegated Actions pdf icon PDF 206 KB

To note significant and delegated actions taken by directors in September.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

To note the significant and delegated actions taken by Directors in  September.

91.

New Items of Urgent Business

To consider any items admitted at Item 3 above.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

None

92.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

Note from the Democratic Services &Scrutiny Manager

 

Item 21 and 22 allow for the consideration of exempt information in relation to items 6 &  3 respectively.

 

TO RESOLVE

 

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  and 5 , Part 1, schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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  and 5 , Part 1, schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

93.

Exempt Cabinet Minutes

To consider the exempt Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on the 12th of September 2017.

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

To agree as an accurate record  the exempt minutes of the meeting held on the 12th of September 2017.

94.

New Items of Exempt Urgent Business

To consider any items admitted at Item 3 above.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no new items of exempt business to consider.