Agenda item

To agree the Minutes of the Advisory Committee of 31 October 2006.

The Chair asked if there were any issues of accuracy or matters arising.

Mr Aspden referred to page 2 of the minutes in relation to the CUFOS building and whether Ms Myers had any further comment in terms of the listed building auspicies.

Ms Myers advised that correspondence received from English Heritage confirmed that that the building was included within the listed building consent for the Palace as a Grade II listed building.  In response to questions the Chair commented that the lease would be up for renewal in 2011 and whether or not CUFOS remained and renewed its lease this did not affect the actual status of the building itself, and any future occupant would have to asbide by this.

The Chair asked if there were any further points of clarification.  Mr Aspden refrred to the 5^th paragraph on page 2 and the recorded comments contained. Mr Aspden felt that these comments did not entirely reflect his expressed view.  The Chair asked Mr Aspden to state what his actual sentiments had been. Mr Aspden advised in the following terms:-

“ Mr. Aspden expressed his concerns that it had been a specific request from the Committee and that it seemed not to have been taken seriously. This repeated request, where we seem to be flogging a dead horse, is being made not just on the grounds of Haringey’s planning procedures but by us as a Statutory Advisory Committee trying to fulfil its defined functions under the 1985 Act (subsequent ref Schedule I Part III 19 (iv)). He pointed out that he was aware of at least one previous such survey having been carried out (that by Oscar Faber in 1996) and that this had certainly not been accomplished in five minutes. It was important, therefore, to commission the work “up front” so as to allow sufficient time for it to be produced”.  

The Chair asked if Members had any comments.

Councillor Oatway stated that she felt that the minute entry as recorded was accurate in its content and that indeed the minutes that were produced by the Clerk for this Committee were some of the most accurate  minutes that the Authority produced.  She therefore felt that Mr Aspden’s views should be recorded as an additional comment in the minutes of this meeting rather than as an amendment to the minutes of 31 October 2006.

The Committee agreed with Councillor Oatway’s comment as a way forward.

The Chair also referred to the bottom of page 8 of the minutes in respect of Councillor Dobbie’s dissention to the vote and the subsequent discussion with Mr Aspden as to elaborating on the comments. In response to Mr Aspden’s views the Chair commented that reference to Cllr. Dobbie was  or could be read as pejorative and critical and that it may be thought  that the Committee were picking on one political side of the Committee and not the other, and that it should not be taking sides or becoming embroiled in any political points.

Councillor Oatway commented that she concurred with the Chair’s comments and that in respect of recording dissent at other meetings of the Authority it was wholly sufficient that just that in itself was recorded and that that dissent in itself spoke volumes.

The Chair then asked if there were any further comment.

Mr Aspden referred to pager 8 in relation to HLF audit and that he had emailed Mr Loudfoot his concerns which had been acknowledged.  The Chair asked that the item be brought back to the next meeting of the Advisory Committee.

RESOLVED

i.                    that the minutes of the meeting of the Advisory committee held on 31 October 2006 be signed as an accurate record of the proceedings;

ii.                  that the the comments expressed by Mr Aspden in relation to the traffic survey as referred to in the discussion of the minutes be noted as an additional comment;

iii.                that the HLF audit be brought back to the next scheduled meeting of the Committee for consideration.