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 Chair referred those present to agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at the meeting and the information contained therein.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Gallagher. CllrChristophides was in attendance as a substitute for Cllr Gallagher.

It being a special meeting under Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 17 of the

Council’s Constitution, no other business shall be considered at the meeting.

It being a special meeting under Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 17 of the Council’s Constitution, no other business was considered at the meeting.

None.

To consider any requests received in accordance with part 4, section B, paragraph 29 of the Council’s constitution.

The Committee received a deputation from Ceri Williams. Sona Mahtani and Richard Hawkins were also part of the deputation party. The following points were noted as part of the deputation:

a.    The deputation party raised concerns that none of the questions that they had raised previously at the Cabinet Member Signing on 19^th March had ben satisfactorily answered.

b.    Ms Williams commented that there had been no consultation or proper process involved in the transfer of the Youth Zone budget.

c.    Concerns were also raised around OnSide’s governance profile and the fact that they had presented a niche one site solution that did not reflect the views of the local community.

d.    The deputation party raised further concerns around the fact that no tender process had been undertaken, as Council officers had suggested that no similar providers could be found. Ms Williams questioned the fact that the Council was also proposing to provide match funding to OnSide, particularly in light of there being no open tendering process.

e.    The deputation party highlighted that in the response to their questions at the 19^th March Cabinet Member Signing, officers had advised that the £250k un-budgeted funding would have to be found from elsewhere within the service’s budget.

f.     Additional concerns were put forward about the proposed central location of the Youth Zone site and a lack of any evidence that the police supported  the location.

g.    The deputation party questioned why the decision was being taken in Purdah by an outgoing administration against a backdrop of concerns from the local community. The deputation party requested that the decision be deferred until after the local elections being held on 3^rd May.

In response to the deputation the following questions were put forward by the Committee:

a.    The Committee sought clarification around concerns with youth provision at Bruce Grove. In response Ms Mahtani advised that they were concerned that the Council was seeking to create new facilities rather than investing in the existing services and that as a result, a number of staff would be transferred into the new facilities, seemingly without consultation.

b.    The Committee also sought clarification from the deputation party about whether they had received the letter of support for the proposal from the Police, following the assurances given at the meeting of 19^th March. In response Ms Williams advised that she had not received the letter and that it was not part of the documents included in the agenda pack for this meeting.

c.    In response to a query about whether the deputation party were aware of other local providers who could potentially provide youth services, the Committee were advised that the whole building centred model was wrong. Instead, the key element of youth work was around building trust with the young people and that should be the focus of any successful model. There were existing spaces within the borough that could be used to hold youth services and funding should be diverted to investing in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

a. Report of the Monitoring Officer.

b. Appendices:

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

- Equalities Impact Assessment attached to Cabinet Member Signing Report.

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

- Copy of call-in 1.

- Copy of call-in 2.

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

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

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

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

b.    No EQIA had been undertaken.

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

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

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

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

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

N/A