Agenda and minutes

Cabinet considered a report from the Executive Director (Organisational Development) concerning the Community Strategy for Harrow.

In considering the report, Cabinet noted that the Strategy:-

·                     had been produced by the Harrow Strategic Partnership (HSP) and that it had been subject to extensive consultation with residents and stakeholders through various channels;

·                     would be launched at the HSP Summit scheduled to be held on 19 May 2004;

·                     had been presented to both the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Strengthening Communities Sub-Committee in its draft form;

·                     when implemented, it would be monitored and reviewed annually by the Board of the HSP;

·                     provided an indication of the current position of the borough and the priorities that each agency is addressing;

·                     showed vision for the next ten years;

·                     showed the extent and benefit of positive partnership working.

The Leader of the Council stated that the Community Strategy was owned by all the partners and that it had gone through an unprecedented amount of consultation.  He added that the HSP faced considerable challenges and stated that he was delighted with the Strategy and looked forward to its launch.

The Conservative Group Members on Cabinet stated that they were disappointed with the Strategy which they felt was unclear, unstructured and needed refining.

In response, the Leader of the Council stated that this view had not been expressed by Members of the Conservative Group previously.  He stated that the Strategy ought to be seen as a springboard for real action.  The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group welcomed the Strategy.

The Portfolio Holder for Partnership and Property stated that this was an important document and showed benefits of working in partnership with other organisations.  He added that the HSP had had discussions on how the document could be made concise but felt that it did not make the final document any less important.  He added that the Strategy projected vision, identified the main issues, and that the challenge was to ensure that the Council worked together with its strategic partners.  He further added that the Strategy was a document to build upon.

The Portfolio Holder for Partnership and Property acknowledged that ‘focus group’ sessions had not been well attended and that improvements here would be examined further.  He added that he wanted the Strategy to reflect the aspirations of the Community.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council on 29 April 2004)

That the Community Strategy for Harrow, endorsed by Cabinet at its meeting held on 20 April 2004, be approved.

Reason for Recommendation: The Strategy is the overarching strategy for the borough and articulates the priorities of Harrow’s communities as well as the work being done by partners to address those priorities.  

[Note:  Councillors Chris Mote and David Ashton abstained from voting on this item at Cabinet.]

Cabinet considered a report from the Director of Organisational Performance (Organisational Development) concerning the Best Value Performance Plan (BVPP) 2004/05 which sought approval of the draft Plan and the authority to make further changes prior to its publication.

In making their recommendation to Council, Cabinet noted that the BVPP:-

·                     incorporated the Council’s priorities set out in the Corporate Plan;

·                     had to be published by 30 June 2004 as required by the Local Government Act 1999;

·                     differed in structure from the previous BVPP in that the commentary on past performance and future plans is arranged not by department but according to the six themes – Environment, Strengthening Communities, Lifelong Learning, Health and Social Care, Prosperous and Sustainable Economy in Harrow and Developing a Customer Focussed Council - set out in the Corporate Plan.  The themed approach allows explicit links to be shown between the Council’s priorities and actions.

Cabinet also noted that the BVPP, when complete, would include targets for Performance Indicators (PIs) 2004/05 and the two years following, and that the Council’s performance against the 2004/05 PIs would contribute to the CPA rating for 2005.

Cabinet further noted that the Plan for 2004/05 would be examined by the Council‘s Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 27 April 2004.  Cabinet was informed that the Plan before them was a working draft and that some of the text would require updating including the numerical performance data.

Cabinet agreed the draft BVPP 2004/05 and

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council on 29 April 2004)

(1)  That the draft Best Value Performance Plan 2004/05 be adopted, subject to (2) below;

(2)  that Cabinet be authorised to amend, modify or vary the draft Plan as may be necessary prior to its publication.

Reason for Recommendation:  To ensure that a complete and accurate Plan is published by the statutory deadline.

(Also see Minute 495)

To receive declaration of interest (if any) from Members of the Cabinet.

RESOLVED: To note that the following interests were declared:

Of the Cabinet meeting held on 16 March 2004, having been circulated, to be taken as read and signed as a correct record; and to consider the signing of the minutes of the special Cabinet meeting held on 8 April 2004.

RESOLVED:  (1) That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2004, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record;

(2)  that consideration of minutes of the special meeting held on 8 April 2004 be deferred until the minutes have been printed in the Council Bound Minute Volume.

[Note:  The Chair mentioned that the minutes of the special meeting held on 8 April 2004  had been published on the internet.]

To consider whether any of the items listed on the agenda should be considered with the press and public excluded.

The Chair reported that owing to his personal interests in respect of items 14 and 20, Councillor Navin Shah would Chair the meeting for these items.

RESOLVED:  (1) That all business be considered with the press and public present with the exception of the following items for the reasons set out below:-

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors.

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions had been received.

To receive any public questions received in accordance with paragraph 15 of the Executive Procedure Rules.

(Note:  Paragraph 15 of the Executive Procedure Rules stipulates that questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received and that there be a time limit of 15 minutes.)

RESOLVED:  To note that the following public questions had been received:-

1.

2.

3.

[Note:  Oral answer was provided to question 1 and, under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 15.4, the questioner asked a supplementary question which was additionally answered. The Chief Executive undertook to speak with the questioner outside the meeting in relation to item 13 – Best Value Performance Plan 2004/07.

Mr Stanley Sheinwald was unable to be present at the meeting owing to ill-health and had requested a written answer to his question.  Ms Barbara Gomez Del Olmo was not present at the meeting and therefore a written reply would be sent to her.] 

Councillor Miss Lyne enquired why the ‘Replacement Harrow Unitary Development Plan’ was not before Cabinet that evening as had been indicated in the Forward Plan.  The Leader explained the reason for the delay and agreed to speak with Councillor Miss Lyne on this matter outside the meeting.

RESOLVED:  To note the contents of the Forward Plan for the period 1 April – 31 July 2004.

(if any).

No reports were submitted from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The reference from the Strengthening Communities Sub-Committee meeting held on 30 March 2004 in relation to the ‘Community Strategy’ was considered with the report from the Executive Director (Organisational Development) titled ‘Approval of the Community Strategy for Harrow’ (Recommendation I refers).

Report of the Chief Executive

Cabinet considered the report by the Chief Executive which sought approval of the establishment of the two additional posts – Director of Community Care (People First) and Director of Strategic Planning (Chief Executive’s) - along the lines set out in the exempt report (Minute 500 refers), a copy of which had been circulated to Members of Cabinet only.

The Chief Executive introduced her report which updated Cabinet on the situation with regard to the filling of all the posts set out in the organisational structure at Appendix 1 to the report and the costs associated with the proposed revised structure.  She added that she had discussed the proposals with most Members of Cabinet.

The Chief Executive responded to a couple of questions from a Member in relation to the Senior Management Structure set out at Appendix 1 to the report.  She explained the role of the Area Director (Customer Innovation) which would be based within Organisational Development and mentioned how she intended to fill the post.  She also explained the thinking behind why the post of Area Director within Organisational Development would be filled on an interim basis and why it was envisaged that the post of the Area Director (Business Connections) would be filled last.

RESOLVED:  That the establishment of the two additional Directors’ posts, as detailed in the associated exempt report circulated to Members of Cabinet, be approved.

Report of the Executive Director (Organisational Development)

The Chief Executive introduced the report which set out a revised staffing structure including revised pay and grading structure for the middle management tiers within the Council.

Members were informed that the proposals followed on from the changes to the Executive Management structure and were designed to support new ways of working within Harrow and to secure improved service quality, organisational efficiency and effectiveness.

The Chief Executive stressed that this major review was necessary in order to achieve greater coherence and to achieve clear methods of progression which the current structure was found to be lacking.

She drew out the salient points in the report which are set out in paragraph 8 of the report and pointed out the slight variation identified in ‘People First’ where the proposal was to create two Group Manager Plus posts.  She added that the review was also looking at ‘professional’ posts and the need for clarity of these roles was also essential.

She reported the intent of the proposals set out in the report and stressed that the timetable set out in paragraph 11 was indicative only and that changes in service areas such as Children’s Services in People First and other social care services might be necessary much earlier because of the Annual Review when Inspectors will expect to see improvements.  She pointed out the need to monitor and to meet diversity and equality policies and the Council’s organisational change management.

The Chief Executive added that, bearing in mind the uncertainty involved, consultations had been positive, and that external advertisements would test the appropriateness of the proposed salaries.

In response to queries from Members, the Chief Executive stated that the organisational structure would only be subject from now on to minor adjustments.  She explained that the Medium Term Budget Strategy included targets for achieving savings through the process proposed. She added that the proposals did not include the current review of the Law and Administration Division and that a report on this review and proposals for the Communications Unit would also be submitted to Cabinet.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Human Resources and Performance Management apologised for the fact that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Groups had not been consulted on these proposals.

The Leader stated that the proposals were another phase in the development and implementation of the New Harrow Project and were central to the Administration’s desire to modernise.  He believed that the current structure could be improved and that it was necessary to eradicate the ‘silo’ mentality embodied in the existing structure.  He explained that the intention was to reorganise the Council root and branch in order to make it more customer focussed, effective and efficient.  He added that a step by step approach would be taken to achieve these aims.

A Member questioned the concept of Group Manager Plus as set out in paragraph 8.2 of the report and explained his reasons. 

In response, the Leader stated that a great deal would depend on market forces.

Members were mindful  ...  view the full minutes text for item 491.

Report of the Borough Solicitor

The Borough Solicitor responded to questions from a couple of Members following which it was

RESOLVED:  That the executive powers currently delegated to officers and set out in part 3B of the Constitution be reassigned to the Executive Director within whose area they fall, as set out in Annex 1 to the officer report.

Reason for Decision: To ensure that existing officer delegations are routed to the correct Executive Director.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer titled ‘Harrow Town Centre Strategy and Master Plan, considered by Cabinet at its meeting held on 16 March 2004, was tabled at the meeting for Members’ information.

The Leader of the Council reminded Members of the discussions that had taken place at the Cabinet meeting on 16 March 2004 on whether the Panel ought to be an Executive Committee or Advisory Panel.  He felt that with hindsight and to avoid the need to call special meetings of Cabinet, it would have been appropriate to set up an Executive Committee rather than an Advisory Panel and moved accordingly.  

He added that the terms of reference previously agreed would still apply, and that the membership of the body would still comprise 6 Members – 3 Labour, 2 Conservative and 1 Liberal Democrat.  However, should his proposal be agreed, the membership would have to be altered as it could only be drawn from Members of Cabinet and that, as a result, both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Groups would not be able to have reserves.

Members of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Groups were of the view that the proposal was unfair and asked several questions.

The Borough Solicitor explained that the Executive Committee would be open to all Members of the Council as observers but that a Member of the Council who is not an Executive Member could only speak if invited to do so by the Chair and, for example, would exclude spokespersons of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or one of its bodies.

Following a vote it was

RESOLVED:  (1)  That an Executive Committee of the Town Centre Project be established with the same terms of reference agreed by Cabinet at its meeting held on 16 March 2004, replacing the Advisory Panel and with the following revised membership:-

(2)  that Councillor Burchell be appointed as Chair of the Executive Committee..

[Note:  (1)  Both Councillors Burchell and C Mote had been nominated but following a vote, Councillor Burchell was elected as Chair.

(2)  that it be noted that Councillors Chris Mote and David Ashton wished to be recorded as having voted against the decision to set up an Executive Committee because they considered the proposal to be an infringement of democracy.] 

Report of the Executive Director (Organisational Development)

Reference from the Meeting of the Strengthening Communities Scrutiny Sub-Committee on 30 March 2004 (To Follow)

(See Recommendation I).

Report of the Executive Director (Organisational Development)

A Member pointed out minor errors in the Plan which would need amending.

RESOLVED:  That the report be submitted to the April 2004 meeting of the Council rather than the Annual Council meeting in May 2004.

(Also see Recommendation II).

Report of the Executive Director (People First)

(Councillor Navin Shah in the Chair).

The Executive Director (People First) introduced his report and stated that the Centre was facing a potential loss in income of £72k if it continued to apply the current level of charges.  He drew attention to the increase in charges recommended by the Best Value Advisory Panel, which would apply from September 2004 on a pay?as?you?go basis. He also commended to Cabinet the view of Best Value Panel Members to incorporate the Best Value Review within a feasibility study to develop a new staff organisational development facility referred to in the report as the “Harrow University”.

The Portfolio Holder for Partnership and Property moved that recommendation 3 set out in the Recommendation from the Best Value Advisory Panel ought also to be agreed by Cabinet.  The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development, Housing and Best Value felt that the availability of free accommodation at the Civic Centre was affecting the use and income of the Teachers’ Centre.  The Portfolio Holder for Education and Lifelong Learning stated that the pay-as-you-go system was the most sensible course of action, and pointed out that “Harrow University”  was a transitional name only.  He congratulated officers on this positive report.

Members felt that the Teachers’ Centre was a tremendous resource which ought to be developed further and made available to various other organisations in Harrow which had training and development needs.  Members noted that this idea was being examined.  Members felt that if these suggestions were implemented, priority for the use of the Centre ought to be given to the Council.

RESOLVED:  (1)  That Cabinet supports the approval given by the Best Value Advisory Panel on 25 March 2004 that the Best Value Report of Harrow Teachers’ Centre is incorporated into and superseded by the feasibility study into the potential development of Harrow Council as a Work Based Learning provider that is part of the new “HarrowUniversity” (the “HU”).

Reason for Decision:  Important changes, including the potential development of Harrow as a Work Based Learning provider (the “HU”) may significantly affect the outcome of the recommendations of the Best Value Review report.

(2) That Cabinet supports the approval given by the Best Value Advisory Panel on 25 March 2004 that there is a change to the rate of fees and charges as laid out in Appendix A of Appendix 1 to be implemented from 1 September 2004for using the Teachers’ Centre above the rate of approximately 2.8% agreed at Cabinet.

Reason for Decision:  The Service Level Agreement with schools for using the Teachers’ Centre will cease on 31 March 2004.  Use of the Teachers’ Centre (e.g. attendance at INSET sessions by school staff) will instead be on a pay-as-you-go basis for all users from 1 April 2004.  An interim rate of fees and charges was approved by Cabinet based on an inflationary increase of 2.8% pending the recommendations from the Best Value Panel after their consideration of the interim report at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 496.

Report of the Executive Director (Urban Living)

The ALMO Project Director introduced his report and drew out the salient points.  During discussion on the report it became apparent that recommendation 2.2 ought to be amended as it would be inappropriate to consult with the nominated Members who were Members of the ALMO Shadow Board.  It was suggested that consultations ought to be carried out with the Leader of the Conservative Group and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group.  It would also be possible to use the same process for approval of the final version of the Delivery Plan.

The Executive Director (Business Connections) and the Borough Solicitor outlined the controls and enforcement provisions in the agreement and stated that all efforts had been made to minimise the risks.   Members were reminded that the Council did not indemnify Members who sit on outside bodies whose primary duty was to that organisation.  The Borough Solicitor referred to the training which had been set up for Members who sit on outside bodies.

The Portfolio Holder for Partnership and Property stated that Cabinet ought to receive annual reports on the ALMO in order to monitor its performance and to ascertain how the organisation was being managed.

RESOLVED: (1) That the current draft of the Management Agreement between the Council and Spire Community Homes be agreed;

(2)  that the Executive Director (Urban Living), in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development, Housing and Best Value and appropriate Conservative and Liberal Democrat Groups’ Members, be authorised to finalise and make further minor amendments to the Management Agreement and the Delivery Plan;

(3)  that the draft Delivery Plan be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To implement Cabinet’s previous decision to set up an Arms Length Management Organisation to manage the Council’s housing stock.

Report of the Chief Planning Officer

The Executive Director (Urban Living) introduced the report and stated that:-

·                     the report sets out the Planning Delivery Grant (PDG) received and how the money would be spent;

·                     the increase in PDG was small and that the allocation received by Harrow was low in comparison with the amounts received by other local authorities;

·                     that the reasons for the small increase in PDG was due to the failure of the Planning Service to improve upon its development control performance significantly from previous year.

Cabinet then received the comments of the Chief Planning Officer.  The Chief Planning Officer commented on the details of the Plan and drew attention to the six objectives of the Plan.  He mentioned that ideally the report ought to have been considered by the Development Control Committee first but, unfortunately, this had not been possible.  He added that the Plan would be submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister once Cabinet and the Development Control Committee had agreed it.

He added that performance of the Planning Service had improved in the past 3 years and that there was now an opportunity to invest and utilise the money received from the PDG and the Development Control fee income to build on this improvement.  He went on to outline the targets that would need to be achieved in the first year.

The Chief Planning Officer mentioned that the Development Control Committee would also be asked to agree the following additional recommendation:

“That an early report on a revised scheme of delegation be submitted to the Development Control Committee for its consideration.”

Finally, the Chief Planning Officer reported that

·                     Harrow would receive more PDG allocation if targets are met;

·                     commitment and support of the IT Service would be necessary in the implementation of the Plan;

·                     training for Members had also been embodied in the Plan.

In response to questions from Members, the Chief Planning Officer replied that

·                     the recruitment process would commence in April and that it was intended initially to fill some of the posts by employing agency staff;

·                     that additional training for Members in Year 3 ought to have been included in the Plan as local government elections might bring in new Councillors;

·                     that the £5k set aside for Member training was inadequate and that the sum ought to be increased;

·                     that £50k set aside for development costs in IT, would not – in all likelihood - cover the full improvements to the system;

·                     that £100k would be required in Year 2 to achieve improvements in IT.

During further discussion, a Member stressed that it would have been beneficial to have had the views of the Development Control Committee and that it was disappointing that the report had not been submitted to Development Control Committee first.  He added that it was important for Cabinet to be aware of the views of the Development Control Committee before taking a decision on this report.

A Member moved that recommendation 2.1.3 be amended to allow the Leaders of the 3  ...  view the full minutes text for item 498.

Which cannot otherwise be dealt with.

Consultation on Home Care Charges

Councillor Chris Mote, with the agreement of the Leader of the Council, referred to a complaint made by a local resident under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 on the above matter.

He asked how the Labour Group intended to move forward on the issue of consultation and proceeded to read out details of the complaints that were upheld.  He was of the view that, had the Home Care Charges gone up, the Council would have been held answerable.

In response, the Leader of the Council stated that the way forward was to develop a ‘Consultation Strategy’ in consultation with the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  He pointed out that it was important to note that whilst seven complaints in this case had been upheld, eleven other complaints had been rejected.  He acknowledged the flaws in last year’s budget consultation process and stated that experience had shown that the methodology employed was flawed.  He stressed that there was never any question that decisions would be made to change home care charges in light of the results of the consultation process.

He added that as a consequence, the matter had now been referred to the Health and Social Care Scrutiny Sub-Committee  who would be reporting back on the quality of Home Care and the Charging Structure.  He pointed out that Harrow had amongst the lowest Home Care Charges in London.

The Portfolio Holder for Social Services stated that there had never been any intention on the part of the Council to deceive anyone and she felt very injured by the word ‘sham’ used by the questioners (Minute 487 refers).

The Portfolio Holder for Finance stated that officers had also been asked to consult with the lead Finance Members on Overview and Scrutiny Committee with regard to the budget consultation process and that consultations would also be carried out with the Liberal Democrat Group.  He acknowledged that there were lessons to be learnt from the previous year’s consultation process.

RESOLVED:  That a ‘Consultation Strategy’ be developed in consultation with the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Cabinet considered a confidential report from the Chief Executive.

RESOLVED: That the establishment of the two additional Directors’ posts, as detailed in Appendices 3 and 4 of the Chief Executive’s report, be approved. (Minute 490 also refers)

Report of Director of Learning and Community Development (People First)

Cabinet considered a confidential report of the Director of Learning and Community Development (People First).

RESOLVED:  That a Member from the Labour Group and a Member from the Conservative Group be nominated as observers to the Arts Culture Harrow (ACH) Board, and that Councillor Bill Stephenson be involved in the appointment of a new Chief Executive for ACH.

Reason for Decision:  To safeguard the Council’s interest, and improve decision making by the ACH Board.

Report of the Executive Director (Urban Living)

(Councillor Navin Shah in the Chair).

Cabinet considered a confidential report from the Director of Professional Services (Urban Living).

RESOLVED: (1) That the report be noted;

(2)  that the Director of Professional Services (Urban Living) be authorised to take action as he deems appropriate, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Property and Partnership, to progress the Prince Edward Playing Fields development;

(3)  that the Leaders of all Political Groups and the appropriate Portfolio Holders be kept informed of the situation as it develops.

Reason for Decision:  To facilitate the implementation of the Prince Edward Playing Fields project.

Report of the Executive Director (Urban Living)

Cabinet considered a confidential report from the Director of Professional Services (Urban Living).  The Leader of the Council moved that the decision be deferred.

RESOLVED: (1) That consideration of the report be deferred;

(2)  that officers be requested to examine the possibility of making the homes safe and secure.

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 22.2 (Part 4D of the Constitution) it was

RESOLVED:  (1)  At 10.00 pm to continue until 10.15 pm;

(2)  at 10.15 pm to continue until 10.30 pm and;

(3)  at 10.30 pm to continue until 10.40 pm.