Minutes:
There were two deputations to address the meeting, and one petition.
The first deputation was received from Jonathan Boswell and Nicky Pryce in respect of Second Annual Carbon Report. Mr Boswell commented that he was speaking on behalf of local environmental campaigners who try to live sustainably and raise awareness of climate change.
In advising that he was a member of the cross party Haringey 40:20 Steering Group together with other local and community /environmental groups, Mr Boswell commented on the excellence of the report before the Council. He also advised that as he and Nicky were Grandparents they were acutely concerned regarding the future the world was facing with the evident environmental crisis, the deepening recession, poverty levels both nationally and locally in Haringey, together with the direct and indirect changes in climate and extreme weather conditions, of floods and devastation in the wake of the recent Hurricane Sandy. Mr Boswell commented that whilst the 40:20 target was ambitious to meet this target, it required more than just Local Authority efforts. In praising the excellence of the Haringey Carbon Commission report, every effort was needed locally and nationally to achieve these goals in order to make Haringey a more environmentally sound place to live.
Mr Pryce emphasised that it was possible to change direction, to reduce carbon emissions while at the same time generating sustainable jobs and creating growth in the local economy. The ‘green’ economy was one of the few sectors of the economy that had shown growth in recent years, and measures such as reducing energy consumption would reduce utility costs, freeing up more money to be spent in the local community. More ambitiously, a community utility company, harnessing sustainable sources of power, could create new jobs and reduce people’s bills, but would require partnership between the Council, local businesses, individual residents and the Government. The steering group praised the Council for its progress so far, but there was more to be done, and would require a national effort. All Councillors were invited to give this work their full support.
Members asked questions of the deputation and received responses thereto.
The Cabinet Member for Finance and Carbon Reduction responded to the deputation and thanked both speakers for highlighting the need to take firm action on climate change. The carbon commission would continue to work with community bodies on these issues, and individuals also needed to take decisions to reduce carbon emissions and meet targets. There was a need for a political consensus in order to drive this forward, as ultimately these were issues affecting everyone’s future.
The second deputation was received from Stephen Brice – on behalf of Pinkham Way Alliance in respect of the Waste Debate on the agenda later in the proceedings. Mr Brice advised that the long term contract the Council was entering into with the North London Waste Alliance with regard to the Pinkham Way site would lead to the risk of financial penalties, were the Council to produce insufficient waste to meet the plant’s capacity in future. It was reported that this had already happened in Stoke on Trent. The trends in London were for higher levels of recycling and a reduction in waste; these trends were likely to accelerate in the next few years and may lead to a shortfall in the amount of waste produced for processing. The proposed contract would therefore lead to the risk of councils being punished for reducing their levels of waste below the minimum level required in the contract, and would tie the Council in for many years.
Members asked questions of the deputation and received responses thereto.
The Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Social Inclusion responded to the deputation. Cllr Strickland advised that estimating the amount of waste that would be produced throughout the duration of the contract was a standard way of contracting such an agreement, and would enable the authority to obtain better value for money and better environmental solutions. The risk of incurring financial penalties was felt to be low, as the estimates used had taken into account the anticipated increase in recycling rates and reduction in levels of household waste. Moreover, the guaranteed minimum tonnage had been set at 70% of the estimates. Compared with today’s levels of waste, there would have to be more than a 50% reduction in waste levels in order to fall beneath the minimum levels of waste set out in the contract.
The Mayor reported that a petition had been received from Chris Ostwald representing traders and user/residents of Muswell Hill requesting the Council to reduce the extremely high cost of pay and display charges in Muswell Hill. The Mayor advised that as the petition was in excess of 2200 signatures a debate would follow receipt of the petition.
The Mayor asked that the named representative give a brief presentation to the meeting for no more than 5 minutes. Mr Ostwald spoke in respect the requests to the Council to reduce the extremely high cost of pay and display charges in Muswell Hill, which was putting customers off using the local high street and was having a detrimental effect on local shopkeepers, particularly in the current economic climate. Local shops were a source of local employment and it was therefore important to encourage people to support them; it was also more environmentally sustainable for people to use their local high street. The Council was asked to consider the strength of local feeling, represented by over 5,000 signatures.
Members sought clarification on points of clarification of the petitioner.
A 15 minute debate amongst members of the essence of the petition took place.
The Cabinet Member for the Environment responded to the petitioners. Cllr Canver advised that this petition highlighted the difficulties facing local businesses in the current financial environment, across the country. The parking charges had been set on 2010, at which time demand was regularly exceeding capacity, and the consultation response at that time had indicated that turnover of parking spaces was the main concern.
At this point in the proceedings Councillor Wilson MOVED a variation to the order of business to consider Item 14 – MOTION D as part of this debate/discussion, in accordance with Part Four, Section A 3.2(ii) and 14 (c) of the Constitution. The MOTION was seconded by Councillor Bloch.
Councillors Egan and Kober responded to the MOTION request.
On a Vote there being 22 for, and 34 against the MOTION was lost.
The Mayor thanked both the deputee and petitioners for their attendance.
NOTED