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

There were no apologies for absence.

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 17 below. New items of exempt business will be dealt with at Item 20 below).

There were no items of urgent business.

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 [18 ] : 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.

There were no  representations received at the  agenda publication  stage in relation to the  exempt items on the agenda.

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.

Councillors: Mark Blake, Zena Brabazon, Emine Ibrahim,  and Kirsten Hearn  declared personal interests in items 14a, 14b, 14c, and 14d. They had either participated or chaired the scrutiny reviews which were for noting and responses to the  recommendations put forward for agreement.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th  June 2018 as a correct record.

The minutes of the  Cabinet meeting held on the 26^th of June 2018 were agreed as a correct record of the meeting.

The Leader had received requests for three representations at the meeting.

• Dan Labbad of Lendlease put forward the first representation  in relation to the HDV report at item 8.

• The second deputation was from Ms Mirca Morera in relation to item 9 on the agenda, the Fairness Commission launch.

• The third representation was put forward by Unison in relation to Shared Digital Service implementation report at item 12.

The Leader started the meeting by considering the representation from Dan Labbad.

Dan Labbad – Lendlease

Mr Labbad thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak at the meeting. He outlined that Lendlease had been working to support housing ambitions in the borough for three years. However, Lendlease accepted that the new administration did not want to continue with the model developed by the previous administration. Mr Labbad instead focused on the issues that could be agreed upon. These were, in his view, as follows:

• 10,000 households on the housing waiting list in Haringey
• Urgent need for new homes
• Capability to deliver these homes at pace and scale.
• Need for the Council to keep public assets and minimise exposure to risk
•  Council setting the agenda on affordable and social housing including adhering to Council policies such as right to return.

Mr Labbad emphasised that the Council cannot deliver on meeting housing need by itself nor can the private sector also deliver this solely. Mr Labbad contended that the Council needed capable and willing partners to deliver on its Housing agenda. Mr Labbad re-iterated that the partnership offered by the HDV was flexible enough to still offer these opportunities. Mr Labbad highlighted the clear advice provided from a QC expert in public procurement which also verified this.

M Labbad referred to the report which highlighted that the Council had invested time and money over 4 years in the HDV. Mr Labbad asked the Cabinet to take a little longer to explore opportunities and options with Lendlease, which was keen to continue working with the Council to meet the community’s needs.

Mr Labbad explained that the public procurement process, followed for the HDV did not allow engagement with the local community. Dissimilarly, in the High Road West regeneration project, for which the contract had been signed in December, there had been extensive community activities and local people were benefiting from regeneration. Mr Labbad invited the Cabinet to visit Lendlease’s other London regeneration projects, in particular Elephant Park in Southwark where the Council had worked with Lendlease for over 8 years. Mr Labbad encouraged Cabinet Members to speak with community representatives in Elephant Park to understand more fully the nature of the partnership working completed. Lendlease had a number of projects in London and was proud of their work for delivering regeneration.

Mr Labbad, on behalf of Lendlease, acknowledged the right of the local authorities to lead and direct on what is needed in communities, in particular level of affordable homes. It was also important for Lendlease to keep its word and deliver  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

[Report of the Interim Director for Housing, Regeneration and Planning. To be introduced by the Leader of the Council. ]

To make a decision on the future of the Haringey Development Vehicle.

The Assistant Director for Corporate Governance and Monitoring Officer reminded the Cabinet of their duty to approach the decision with an open mind. He advised Cabinet to take into account all relevant considerations before coming to a decision. This included giving sufficient attention to the points raised, both in the officer's report as well as in any representations made at the meeting at item 7 and any representations received from Lendlease including any correspondence.

The Leader confirmed that the Cabinet had received three letters from Lendlease with regards to the report and the Council had responded to the third letter received. The Cabinet had these representations and would consider them when considering the report and recommendations.

The Leader continued to introduce the report and set out that this administration was elected on a promise to build Council homes on Council owned land. There was also a commitment to house Haringey’s people, creating a diverse mixture of housing options for Haringey’s residents. There was a commitment from the administration for doing the best for Haringey and delivering the best for Haringey’s residents.

The Leader expressed that there can be little disagreement about the importance of tackling poverty and deprivation, providing access to housing and jobs, and securing a sustainable future for the public services we provide. However, the proposed HDV had shown how strongly opinions differ, both inside and outside the Council, about the best way to address these important issues.

Building on the commitments made during the recent elections, the new administration were taking decisive action to set a new direction for the Council, by taking this final decision on the HDV.

It was recognised that this decision should not be taken lightly. As set out in this report, this was an informed decision. Furthermore, the work completed to develop the HDV proposals by the bidders, including by Lendlease was recognised. The decision proposed was neither a reflection on the quality of that work nor of their desirability as a partner. Indeed, the Council remained grateful to Lendlease for the interest that they had shown in Haringey and its future, and for their commitment to the Council in its other partnerships.

The Leader expressed that a decision of this significance must be taken having weighed the risks and demerits against the benefits. He continued to advise that this administration had taken a different view on that balance from the previous one.

The Leader understood that the residents and businesses of Haringey would expect the Council to offer a clear alternative vision for how to tackle the challenges faced The work on the alternatives had already begun and was not only to described but being put it into action, as could be seen from the other reports being considered by Cabinet alongside this one.

In response to questions from Cllr Adje and Cllr Barnes:

• In relation to continuing engagement in the Northumberland Park estate renewal, paragraph 6.45.3 was referred to and outlined the engagement with residents in Northumberland Park .This encompassed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

[Report of the Assistant Director for Strategy and Communications. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Civic Services.]

Cabinet agreement will be sought for the launch of the Fairness Commission .

A deputation had been received from Ms Mirca Morera, representing Save Latin Village and Wards Corner campaign, in relation to item 9 of the Agenda.

Ms Morera spoke as the representative of Save Latin Village and Wards Corner and firstly welcomed the creation of the Fairness Commission as it had the potential to signify necessary change to ensure fairness for all.

Ms Morera further stated that such a body was significant in creating a dialogue for the future with its number one regeneration resource, its people. Ms Morera spoke about the Fairness Commissions set up in other Boroughs which served as a valuable blueprint for the Haringey Fairness Commission to follow.

Ms Morera went on to highlight the following:

• The good community work that takes place at the Latin Village, such as, providing access to childcare, health and supporting users with disability.

• The alternative community plan that Save the Latin Village campaign has produced for Wards Corner which, in the view of the deputation, was a viable and affordable plan that would involve a full renovation to provide a diverse and genuinely unique landmark.

• In the deputation’s view, the developer had not complied with section 106 of the agreement to support existing traders.

• The Save Latin Village and Wards Corner campaign has had three failed judicial reviews but had now filed a race discrimination claim against the developer agent following several disputes with local traders.

• The deputation felt that the diversity of Latin village should be valued and questioned the lack of affordable housing on the site.

• The Save Latin Village and Wards Corner campaign was seeking Haringey Council to withdraw and annul its co-operation the developer at Wards Corner and referred to the recent behaviour of the developer agent at a meeting.

The Cabinet Members asked the deputation questions and the following was noted:

• That the race discrimination case, mentioned above, was filed in November 2017 but, as of yet, there was no update regarding the progression of this case.

• The deputation welcomed the opportunity to take part in the evidence gathering stage and asked for Cabinet to look at the Wards Corner development with fresh eyes and review the case of Latin Village, judging this on its merits.

The Cabinet Member for Civic Services thanked the deputation for their presentation, which covered a range of areas, wider than the remit of the Fairness Commission. The Commission would be gathering information from across the borough and would welcome hearing from the group. They were invited to submit evidence in writing to understand implications for policymaking. The Cabinet Member was interested in deputation’s comments about childcare as this was an area of particular concern in the borough. Also how the Council shapes its policies in relation to this will be important going forward.

The Leader invited the Cabinet Member for Civic Services to introduce the report on the Fairness commission.

The Cabinet Member for Civic Services introduced the report which sought agreement to the establishment of the Fairness Commission, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

[Report of the Director for Housing and Growth. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing, and Estate Renewal.]

To set up a company, wholly owned by the Council, to deliver new Council-led housing development schemes.

The Cabinet Member for Housing, and Estate Renewal introduced the report which sought permission to set up a wholly owned company (WOC) to deliver new build Council-owned homes.

The Cabinet Member expressed that current Labour leadership was elected on a manifesto that placed housing at its heart and was committed to delivering 1,000 new Council homes at Council rent by 2022, to meet the needs of those on the waiting list. The creation of a wholly owned company represented a clear change in direction of housing in Haringey and the Council owns a number of sites in the borough which can be used to develop new housing.

The Cabinet Member referred to the last two bullet points at recommendation 3.6 and advised that the inclusion of these two housing sites was subject to approval of agenda item 19.

• In response to a question regarding the allocation of up to £500,000 funding from the Government’s Flexible Homelessness Support Grant to address the initial set up of WOC, it was noted that no current projects were losing funding as a result. This was a three year funding programme that was entirely flexible and so the money could be moved around, between projects and over different years, and it was expected to be repaid once the costs of WOC become capitalised. Furthermore, although the cost allowed for the setup of the WOC  is up to a maximum of £500,000, it was expected to be far less than this.

• In response to a question regarding the potential of the WOC to be able to deliver on larger schemes, it was noted that other local authorities whose  WOCs had taken on large schemes in the first instance, had taken considerable time to enable procurement of land and get development underway. The proposed WOC was in a better position because the Council was already in possession of the land for the type of schemes proposed in the report. In time, the WOC may be able to take on much larger and more complex schemes, but expertise would need to be built up first.

RESOLVED

1.            To agree to set up a Wholly Owned Company (WOC), as set out in paras 6.5 to 6.30, with the primary purpose of maximising the delivery of new Council owned homes on the condition that the WOC shall not be incorporated until Cabinet has considered the further report set out in paragraph 3.6;

2.            To note that the Director of Housing, Regeneration and Planning, in consultation with the Director of Finance and Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal, will take all necessary steps towards setting up the WOC, including but not limited to drawing up the Articles of Association of the WOC, the Shareholder’s Agreement between the Council and the WOC, any other necessary agreements and legal documentation required, including, if necessary, registration of the WOC as a Registered Provider; subject to recommendation 3.6;

3.            To agree that the WOC may undertake commercial activities,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

[Report of the Director for Housing and Growth. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing, and Estate Renewal.]

To set up a Community Benefit Society  to acquire, repair and manage homes to be used as housing options for Haringey housing applicants. Also to update Members on work on a potential Purchase, Repair and Management Partnership to deliver additional homes for the same purpose.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Estate Renewal introduced the report which proposed two schemes to increase housing options. These options were A Community Benefit Society (CBS), and a Purchase, Repair and Management Joint Venture Partnership (PR&M).

This would allow an increase in the number of properties available to the Council to use as temporary accommodation, or provide more affordable and better quality private rented housing into which homelessness duty can be discharged.

The Cabinet Member outlined that the manifesto upon which the Labour Council Leadership was elected is clear on the need to act decisively to address homelessness in the borough and to help the 3,000 households in temporary accommodation, and sometimes in homes that are in poor condition. The administration promised to deliver housing differently, alongside the position of the wholly owned company.

In response to questions, the following was noted:

• It was highlighted that the decision on the Community Benefit Society was more of a safety mechanism as it was anticipated that the wholly owned company (WOC) may be able to achieve what the CBS seeks to achieve in terms of provision of homes.
• It was noted that the caps on acquiring 100 properties and spending £25m did not mean an expected £250,000 cost per home. Instead these two figures represented a double lock on spending and acquisitions by officers, before the proposal comes back to Cabinet for review and to agree further spending and acquisitions. For information, the modelling for the CBS had assumed an average cost of properties acquired as £360k per home.
• With regard to what discussions there had been with potential partners in PR&M, it was noted that there was a formal procurement process, started late last year, which in January 2018 identified three bidders as potentially meeting the requirements needed. Although there has been initial meetings with them, this process has been paused in order to explore the proposal with the newly elected Council before further progressing negotiations. The bidders would be named once the procurement had been finalised, if Cabinet decided to proceed with the proposal at that stage.
• It was noted that, where possible, the Council was aiming to house residents in temporary accommodation within the borough but may use properties in neighbouring boroughs such as Enfield, Waltham Forest or Barnet.
• All homes acquired through CBS would be managed by Homes for Haringey. It was further clarified that there may be bidders for the Purchase, Repair and Management Joint Venture Partnership (PR&M) in the form of a consortium, including a registered provider.

RESOLVED

1.    To agree to set up a Community Benefit Society, as set out at paras 6.8 to 6.18.

2.   To agree to the acquisition of the first 100 residential units for the purposes as set out in paras 6.8 to 6.18.

3.            To approve the first funding tranche of capital of up to £25m in 2018/19 for the purchase of properties set out in recommendation 3.2 to be funded by £17.5m of borrowing and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

[Report of the interim Director for Customers, Transformation and Resources. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Resources and Insourcing.]

Update on progress on the implementation of the Shared Digital Service, learning from first twelve months' operation and recommendations on the detailed future implementation and governance for the service. The report will set out implications of those recommendations for the council’s sovereign Digital and ICT services.

Deputation from Gerard McGrath and Kevin Prior.

The deputation outlined experienced issues with the management of Shared digital service and included problems with the communication about the direction of the service with staff, causing a state of confusion. The deputation continued to outline their concerns in relation to the proposals contained in the report, which were as follows:

• There was a short allocated time line on TUPE –and employees were concerned that they would end up working for Camden rather than working for Haringey, which was the borough they chose to work for.

• Welcomed the reduced scope of the shared service but this lacked clarity and needed further work, particularly in terms of posts.

• If the Unions and Management cannot reach a decision on a delegated decision then Unison proposed this decision should be and signed off by Cabinet instead.

• Option of alternatives to TUPE not being considered properly, further options need to be explored - staff faced with TUPE want to leave. One of the proposals is to TUPE 50 members from each borough and if this happened at Haringey there would be no staff left in Haringey as it is the smallest IT service of the three boroughs. This also reflected the proportionality issues that Unison had concerns about.

• There was a worrying lack of control for Haringey if this model was adopted as Camden will dictate the term and conditions and Haringey staff terms and conditions are compromised.

• The proposed model for the shared service may not be the best value option as the costs were divided equally and Haringey are smaller IT unit than other partners.

• The detail of the proposals needs to be considered. If the proposal to TUPE members goes ahead then the members need to understand the deal and whom they will work for. For the record, Unison members wanted to work for Haringey and not Camden.

In response to Cabinet Member questions the deputation responded as follows:

• There had been a form of consultation when the idea for the TUPE plan was launched. Staff have had discussions and attended huddles in response to proposal. There has been a mix of trade union members and non -union members. However the key message was that staff preferred working for Haringey to Camden. There was also concern about the lack of clarity on who stays and who goes.

• In relation to alternatives to TUPE, these were secondments in line with section 113 of the Local Government Act. Members were given an assurance to discuss this option in detail but as the report came to Cabinet it was prudent to formally register representations.

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Resources and Insourcing thanked the deputation and the entire workforce and provided assurance of his continued involvement in this process. These issues had been raised with management and the Cabinet Member wanted to assure the workforce that both management and Cabinet notes and respects the points being raised and want to make sure the workforce was  fully on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

[Report of  the Interim Director for  Customers, Transformation and Resources. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Insourcing]

The report  will  be seeking authority to complete refresh of the Council’s laptop and desktop estate.

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Insourcing introduced the report which sought Cabinet approval to the allocation of funding of up to £4.1m to enable the delivery of phase 2 of the Council’s Laptop and Desktop Refresh Project (part of the End User Compute Programme) by Shared Digital Service.

The Cabinet Member went on to state that this project was about capital investment to ensure that staff of Haringey Council could continue to work effectively. Currently, the Council was still using Windows 7 which would soon become obsolete and cease to be supported by Microsoft. Furthermore, the project would allow the Council to utilise Office 365 to its fullest extent.

The Cabinet Member emphasised that the project was required to ensure that the necessary equipment is supplied to staff and that it would be funded by Capital Funding and not revenue allocation.

In response to a question, it was noted that an Equalities Impact Assessment screening tool had been carried out and that the utmost attention has been given to access issues and ensuring that all disabled members of staff have full access to the equipment. Furthermore, it was noted that, due to the rollout of newer and better systems across the Council, it was anticipated that efficiency savings would be released as a result.

RESOLVED

To approve the allocation of funding up to £4.1m to enable the delivery of phase 2 of the Council’s Laptop and Desktop Refresh Project (part of the End User Compute Programme) by Shared Digital Service.

Reasons for decision

The Council has an ageing estate of laptops, desktops and monitors which were last refreshed in 2012/2013. The hardware is now failing at an increasing rate and the general level of dis-satisfaction and frustration with the existing estate from the user community is very high. The estate is also not suitable for running the latest software applications and is inadequate in supporting users with smart / mobile working. The ability to procure new or refurbished Windows 7 devices (the operating system currently installed on Council computers) is now proving almost impossible.

In addition to the critical usability issues, Windows 7 will no longer be supported by Microsoft from January 2020. No further security fixes will be released by Microsoft from that date. It is therefore critical that the Council move to the new Shared Digital recommended platform of Windows 10 before January 2020. Failure to do so may compromise the Council’s security and potentially expose the Council to exploitation of known hacking attacks. The Council’s access to Public Services Network (PSN) based systems e.g. NHS, may also be affected, as access to PSN is predicated upon the Council demonstrating that it is only running supportable and patchable hardware and software.

The move to Windows 10 is aligned to the Council’s software strategy (office tools, server and end user device operating systems) and the Council is currently renewing its Microsoft Enterprise Subscription Licensing Agreement and have recently migrated to Office 365. This will allow the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

For Cabinet to note the following Scrutiny reviews and agree the responses to the recommendations.

In introducing this item, the Leader, referred to the distinct powers of Cabinet and Scrutiny, located in the Local Government Act 2000 & consolidated by the Localism Act 2011. Furthermore, taking account of the personal declarations of interest made at the start of the meeting, Cabinet would not be taking forward presentation of the scrutiny reviews. These had been agreed by Scrutiny Committee in March and Cabinet would proceed to consider the responses to the scrutiny recommendations in line with their responsibilities.

[Report of the Director for Housing and Growth.  To be introduced by the Leader of the Council.]

Cabinet to consider and approve the responses to the Scrutiny Review of Social Housing.

(a)       Cabinet Response to the Scrutiny Review on Social Housing

The Leader introduced this item, and advised that the recommendations made in the attached scrutiny review report could be used to help guide the development of the policy agenda in housing, regeneration and planning for the new administration. While the report did not set out a detailed list of explicit objectives to be delivered to a given timescale, it did propose a clear direction of travel for policy in these areas. Many of the recommendations were positive and were either currently being incorporated into the Council’s approach or could be incorporated going forward. Some recommendations presented challenges to implementation and have therefore been responded to cautiously, with partial agreement. Specific reasons for each recommendation response were given in Appendix 2.

The overall approach of the report, which was comprehensive and detailed, was a helpful framework to inform the future housing policy of the Council.

In response to what other measures were being re-examined, in light of the acceptance of recommendation 13 (the need for sprinklers), it was highlighted that there was a thorough review of all blocks being carried out and that this involved all mechanisms, not just fire doors and hand-held sprinklers, being re-examined.

RESOLVED

1.    To consider the Overview and Scrutiny Report on social housing (attached at appendix 1).

2.    To agree the responses to the Overview and Scrutiny report recommendations (attached as Appendix 2).

Reasons for decision

On 26 March 2018, Overview and Scrutiny Committee approved the report of the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel (HRSP) on social housing.

In developing its report, the HRSP held a number of evidence gathering sessions and took evidence from Council officers as well as a range of experts and local stakeholders. The HRSP then made a number of recommendations, which were adopted by Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 26 March 2018.

The recommendations made in the HRSP report can be used to help guide the development of the policy agenda in housing, regeneration and planning for the new administration. While the report does not set out a detailed list of explicit objectives to be delivered to a given timescale, it does propose a clear direction of travel for policy in these areas. Many of the recommendations are positive and are either currently being incorporated into the Council’s approach or can be incorporated going forward. Some recommendations present challenges to implementation and have therefore been responded to cautiously, with partial agreement. Specific reasons for each recommendation response are given in Appendix 2, the draft responses to recommendations. The overall approach of the report – which is comprehensive and detailed – is a helpful framework to inform the future housing policy of the Council.

Alternative options considered

None.

[Report of the Interim Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods. To be introduced by the Leader of the Council.]

Cabinet to consider the Scrutiny Review findings and agree the responses to the recommendations.

(b)       Cabinet Response to Scrutiny Review on Parks

The Leader introduced this item and outlined that the Scrutiny recommendations were a positive contribution to improving the management and protection of Parks in the Borough.

Haringey parks were well used. Millions of visits were made to parks and open spaces each year and it was clear that parks are enjoyed and valued across the Council, partners and residents.

It was therefore encouraging to note that evidence received by the Committee reflected this and the recommendations would help to support and protect parks in the long term.

This was an important and timely review that will help shape the forthcoming Parks Strategy to be developed collaboratively over the next twelve months.

The Council recognised that there were always improvements to be made to enhance parks users’ experience and the recommendations will support the Council and partners to raise standards in a sustainable way.

This has been a useful piece of work in ensuring that our parks are of a high standard. The Leader was particularly pleased that the Friend’ of the Parks groups have been involved in this review. It is important that users groups are involved in the use and development of their parks.

Parks played an important part in promoting health and well-being.

In response to Councillor questions, the following was noted:

·         The possibility of exploring a future partnership between Tottenham Hotspur Football Club and the Council in relation to building all weather pitches in the borough, mirroring the existing arrangement between Islington and Arsenal Football Club.

·         In response to the proposal from Cllr Hare that the Council commit to a programme of putting all of the borough’s designated parks and green open spaces under a Fields in Trust covenant which was a stronger protection than the MOL protection, it was noted that this was not cost effective. Placing all parks in the Fields in Trust would cost £150k and would also require an additional officer to manage this. The Council’s response was based on the element of risk to the park and the protections that do exist and categorisations. A more prudent approach would be to consider the 10 unprotected sites as a priority for protection under a Fields in Trust Covenant over the next two years and for further consideration be given to the remaining parks as part of the development of the Parks and Open Spaces Strategy.

·         In response to representations regarding the response to recommendation 16, the Leader agreed that further financial detail is added to the proposed report to Overview and Scrutiny, including a breakdown of income with specific spending items park by park .The Leader further agreed that a timescale for Overview and Scrutiny considering this report is added to the response.

RESOLVED

1.    To consider the Overview and Scrutiny Report on Parks (attached as Appendix 1).

2.    To agree the responses to the Overview and Scrutiny report recommendations (attached as Appendix 2).

Reasons for decision

Haringey parks are safe places, enjoyed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35b

Report of the Director for Children’s Services. To be introduced by the Cabinet  Member for Children, Education and Families.

Cabinet to consider scrutiny review findings and  agree responses to the recommendations.

(c)        Cabinet Response to Scrutiny Review on Support to Children from Refugee families

The Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Families introduced the report which reinforced the commitment of the Council to providing the right support, at the right time to children, young people and families in Haringey.

The report highlighted the many issues that affect NRPF families living in Haringey. It considered the current experience of children and families in light of the provision available, the support provided by the third sector and voluntary agencies in advocating for families and the interface with other government departments. In doing this, the report gives a clear account of the complexity and challenges involved in delivering services to families.

Haringey has been hit hard by the budget cuts imposed by central Government. The borough was home to some of the most vulnerable families in the country had lost over 40% of its funding since 2010. One in three children in Haringey lived in poverty, and NRPF families are disadvantaged further by being precluded from much of the welfare system and delays in Home Office decisions on their immigration status. In this context, the Council were keen to ensure that these children and families were supported, and would work with organisations like NELMA and Project 17 to achieve this.

RESOLVED

To consider the Scrutiny Review Report in Appendix 1 and approve the responses to the Scrutiny recommendations as outlined in Appendix 2 of this report.

Reasons for decision

The evidence supporting the Panels’ recommendations on the enhancements that could be made to the support provided to children from refugee families is at (Appendix 1).

Alternative options considered

The evidence supporting the Panels’ recommendations is outlined in the main body of the report (Appendix 1). The Cabinet could choose not to accept the recommended response by officers to them as outlined in Appendix 3. The potential implications of alternative courses of action are referred to within this as appropriate.

[Report of the Director for Children’s Services. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Families.]

Cabinet to consider scrutiny review findings and  agree responses to the recommendations.

(d)       Cabinet Response to Scrutiny Review on Restorative Justice

The Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Families introduced the report which provided strong evidence of restorative justice providing benefits as an approach and application across a range of settings for organisations engaging with young people, encouraging desistance from offending, and whom are at risk of school exclusions.

The Cabinet Member outlined that restorative justice had the potential to offer clear and measurable benefits to reduce young people’s involvement in crime whilst also reducing school exclusions. There was also evidence that restorative justice can provide value for money by reducing reoffending rates whilst at the same times providing tangible benefits to victims.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Families looked forward to working with the Cabinet Member for Communities, Safety and Engagement in order to implement the recommendations of the review.

RESOLVED

To consider the Scrutiny Review Report in Appendix 1 and approve the responses to the Scrutiny recommendations as outlined in Appendix 2 of this report.

Reasons for decision

The evidence supporting the Panel’s recommendations on the potential for promoting and extending the use of Restorative Justice and a Restorative Practice approach in Haringey is outlined in the main body of the Report (Appendix 1).

Alternative options considered

The evidence supporting the Panel’s recommendations is outlined in the main body of the Report (Appendix 1). The Cabinet could choose not to accept the recommended response by officers to them, as outlined in Appendix 2. The potential implications of alternative courses of action are referred to within this, as appropriate.

To note the minutes of the following:

Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee 20^th March 2018.

RESOLVED

To note the minutes of the  Corporate Parenting Advisory  Committee on  the 20^th of March 2018.

To note the significant and delegated actions taken by directors in June.

RESOLVED

To note the significant and delegated actions taken by directors in June.

To consider any items admitted at Item 3 above.

None

Note from the Acting Democratic Services &Scrutiny Manager

Item 19, 20 and 21  allow for the consideration of exempt information in relation to items 8 , 5 &  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.

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.

As per item 8.

The  minutes for this item were  exempt.

To agree the exempt minutes from the  Cabinet meeting held on the 26^th of June 2018.

RESOLVED

To agree the exempt minutes of the meeting held on the 26^th of June 2018.

To consider any items admitted at Item 3 above.

None