Venue: Committee Rooms 1 & 2 Harrow Civic Centre
Contact: Alison Atherton, Senior Professional Democratic Services (Corporate) Tel: 020 8424 1266 Email: alison.atherton@harrow.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PART I - RECOMMENDATIONS - NIL |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PART II - MINUTES |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests arising from business to be transacted at this meeting from:
(a) all Members of the Cabinet; and (b) all other Members present. Minutes:
RESOLVED: To note that the following interests were declared:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Of the Cabinet meeting held on 18 December 2008 to be taken as read and signed as a correct record. Minutes:
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2008 be taken as read and signed as a correct record, subject to the following correction:-
Minute 535 - Scrutiny Review – “Delivering on Strengthened Voluntary Community Sector for Harrow” – Paragraph 3, last sentence “She welcomed the establishment of the scrutiny implementation group and indicated that HAVS may part-fund the funding officer post if that recommendation were to be agreed by Cabinet.” |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Petitions To receive any petitions submitted by members of the public or Councillors. Minutes:
RESOLVED: To note that no petitions had been received. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public Questions To receive any public questions received in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Executive Procedure Rules.
Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received and there be a time limit of 15 minutes. Minutes: The Chairman indicated that, with Cabinet’s agreement, there would be a flexible approach in relation to the questions from the Harrow Youth Council representatives in terms of the time limit, the number of supplemental questions and the number of people asking the questions.
RESOLVED: To note that the following public questions had been received:
1.
2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councillor Questions To receive any Councillor questions received in accordance with paragraph 17 of the Executive Procedure Rules.
Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received and there be a time limit of 15 minutes. Minutes:
RESOLVED: To note the following Councillor Questions had been received:
1.
2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Forward Plan 1 January - 30 April 2008 PDF 75 KB Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Strategy, Partnership and Finance advised that the Harrow Tourism Strategy 2009?12 would be now submitted to Cabinet in February whilst the Temporary to Permanent Housing Initiative and the Refresh of the Sustainable Community Strategy would be submitted in March 2009.
RESOLVED: To note the contents of the Forward Plan for the period 1 January – 30 April 2009.
(See also Minute 560) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Progress on Scrutiny Projects PDF 18 KB For consideration Minutes:
RESOLVED: To receive and note current progress on the scrutiny reports. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Price Waterhouse Coopers Performance Benchmarking Presentation Minutes: Nick Sewell and Andy Ford, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC), gave a presentation on Comparative Performance Analysis for 2007/08. Cabinet were informed that there were currently 84 local authority members of the PWC benchmarking service.
During the presentation, PWC reported that
· Harrow was the 6th highest performing authority in London;
· in relation to all upper tier authorities, Harrow was ranked 37th out of 150;
· some previously poorly performing indicators had improved but some of the better performing indicators had slipped;
· a chart showing performance against net expenditure indicated that Harrow demonstrated good value for money;
· the new national indicators should be positive for Harrow;
· they did not see their analysis as a rival to the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA). Some elements of CPA suffered a time lag effect, for instance on satisfaction data, which the PWC model did not;
· their results were based on the unaudited data available from local authorities and their analysis could assist authorities in understanding their position;
· the Audit Commission were aware of their work and individual relationship managers were keen to see what authorities did with the data;
· Capital Ambition were positive about the benchmarking service and PWC hoped for agreement to implement it fully across all London councils.
Members and officers asked questions and made comments in relation to the presentation including that:-
· the previous years’ data on performance versus net expenditure was requested by the Leader of the Council;
· in terms of Environment Services, the CPA block did not reflect the Council’s good work in this area;
· the Adults and Housing indicators were improving but this was not reflected in the CPA score. It was pleasing to see that the PWC model had addressed this issue;
· there was an aggressive transformation programme in Adults and Housing and for the first time in 7 years there had been an improvement in the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) rating for prospects for improvement;
Cabinet thanked PWC for their presentation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Strategy, Partnership and Finance introduced a report which reminded Members that on 15 May 2008 Cabinet had agreed the timetable for preparation and consideration of the statutory plans. There was now a need to vary the timetable in respect of the Development Plan and the Sustainable Community Strategy.
RESOLVED: That (1) the timetable for the preparation and consideration of the Development Plan be varied as set out in paragraph 2.1.6 of the Director of Legal and Governance Services’ report; and
(2) the timetable for the preparation and consideration of the Sustainable Community Strategy be varied as set out in paragraph 2.1.7 of the Director of Legal and Governance Services’ report.
Reason for Decision: Cabinet had previously agreed the timetable in order to comply with the requirements of paragraph 3 of the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules set out in Section 4C of the Council’s Constitution. It was therefore necessary to seek Cabinet’s agreement to vary the timetable.
(See also Minute 557) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Decision - Collection Fund 2009-10 PDF 42 KB Report of the Corporate Director of Finance Minutes: The Corporate Director of Finance introduced a report, which set out the estimated financial position on the Collection Fund as at 31 March 2009. She advised that significant improvements had been made to the way the fund was collected and that the current economic climate had been considered when preparing the estimates.
RESOLVED: That (1) an estimated surplus of £380,779 on the Collection Fund as at 31 March 2009 be noted, of which £300,092 was the Harrow share;
(2) an amount of £300,092 be transferred to the General Fund in 2009?2010.
Reason for Decision: The Council had a statutory obligation to make an estimate of the surplus or deficit on the Collection Fund by 15 January 2009. Approval of the recommendations set out was a major part of the annual budget review process. If the recommendations were not approved, statutory requirements would not be met. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development Additional documents: Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Schools and Children’s Development introduced a report, which stated that Statutory Proposals had been published in November 2008 that could effect the amalgamation of Roxeth Manor First School and Roxeth Manor Middle School. No objections had been received during the representation period and both governing bodies had unanimously agreed to the amalgamation. Cabinet approval was sought to enable the two schools to combine in September 2009. The Portfolio Holder reminded Members that, in making their decision, they must consider the Decision Makers Guidance.
RESOLVED: That the statutory proposals to close Roxeth Manor First School and extend the age range and expand the capacity of Roxeth Manor Middle School, to effect the amalgamation of the two schools in September 2009, be approved.
Reason for Decision: Cabinet agreed the publication of statutory proposals on 23 October 2008 and was under a statutory duty to determine the proposals within two months from the end of the representation period, which ended on 22 December 2008, or the matter would be referred to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator for determination. In determining the proposals, Cabinet as the decision maker, must have regard to the statutory and non?statutory guidance provided by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Decision - Proposals for School Reorganisation in Harrow PDF 110 KB
Report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development Additional documents:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Schools and Children’s Development introduced a report, which presented the outcome of the consultation on proposals to change school organisation in Harrow, an update on the work of the School Reorganisation Stakeholder Reference Group and information on the Primary Capital Programme and the Building Schools for the Future government initiatives. She advised that the proposals had received cross party support.
The Director for Schools and Children’s Development reported that the consultation had been wide-ranging with over 30,000 documents circulated. Less than 1,000 responses had been received and of those, 55% of individual respondents, mainly parents and carers, had indicated support for the proposals. She advised that 66% of governing bodies were in agreement with the proposals. The Director of Schools and Children’s Development explained that the workstreams of the stakeholder reference group would address issues raised during the consultation.
The Chairman referred to a letter signed by all of Harrow’s high school head teachers which indicated their unanimous support for the proposed reorganisation. He added that Cabinet Members had been supplied additional documentation, including the full consultation responses on the proposals.
RESOLVED: (1) That the outcomes of the consultation on proposals for school reorganisation in Harrow be considered and decisions made while having regard to the statutory and non?statutory decision makers guidance issued by the Secretary of State;
(2) that the outcome of the consultation in respect of the following voluntary aided schools be noted: Krishna?Avanti Primary School, St John Fisher Catholic First and Middle School, St John’s Church of England School, and St Teresa’s First and Middle Catholic School;
(3) to adopt the proposals for school reorganisation across Harrow that would change:
(i) separate first schools (Reception to Year 3) to become infant schools (Reception to Year 2) as proposed for individual schools in Annexe 2i of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development report;
(ii) separate middle schools (Year 4 to Year 7) to become junior schools (Year 3 to Year 6) as proposed for individual schools in Annexe 2ii of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development report;
(iii) combined first and middle schools (Reception to Year 7) to become primary schools (Reception to Year 6) as proposed for individual schools in Annexe 2iii of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development report;
(iv) high schools (Year 8 to Year 13) to become secondary schools with 6th form provision (Year 7 to Year 13) as proposed for individual schools in Annexe 2iv of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development report;
(4) to publish statutory proposals to give effect to these changes.
Reason for Decision: To consider the outcome of the consultation undertaken on proposals for school reorganisation in Harrow, exercise the local authority’s statutory responsibility in relation to school organisation and to consider whether to publish statutory proposals to effect the change.
(See also Minute 552). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Decision - Children's Trust PDF 89 KB Report of the Corporate Director of Children’s Services Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services introduced a report, which stated that the establishment of a Children’s Trust was a legal requirement under the Children Act 2004. This was emphasised by the lessons learnt from the ‘Baby P’ case in Haringey. The report stated that a Children’s Trust formalised children’s partnership arrangements, combined partners’ resources and ensured that children, young people and their families who were in need of services experienced a more co-ordinated approach by those working with them.
The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services advised that Harrow was being cautious in its approach to the Children’s Trust. The proposals had the support of the Council’s Chief Executive, the Chief Executive of the Primary Care Trust and the Borough Commander.
The Corporate Director of Children’s Services advised that it had taken three years to progress the Children’s Trust, partly due to financial issues with partner organisations. The exact representation had not been determined and there were a number of individuals who had expressed a wish to participate. The final approval of the guidance by the government was awaited.
RESOLVED: That a Children’s Trust be established with a governance framework formalised by a legal agreement with the decision to finalise the terms and execute the legal agreement being delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services.
Reason for Decision: To improve outcomes for children and young people by formalising partnership arrangements. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Decision - Draft Climate Change Strategy PDF 82 KB Report of the Divisional Director of Environment Services Additional documents: Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Environment Services and Community Safety introduced a report, which set out the background to and the reasons why a Climate Change Strategy was required. The report also set out the proposed methods of public consultation.
The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Enterprise reported that there had been engagement with Greener Harrow and Harrow Agenda 21 on this issue. There was a need to encourage all parties to sign up to reducing carbon emissions.
The Divisional Director of Environmental Services reported that the Council was expected to show how it would take the Nottingham Declaration forward within 2 years of signing it. Subject to Members’ agreement, the draft strategy would be put out for consultation with a closing date of 29 March 2009.
RESOLVED: That officers be authorised to submit the Climate Change Strategy to public consultation.
Reason for Decision: The Climate Change Strategy would help enable the council to meet its Carbon Reduction commitment, reduce its energy costs and inform the development of the Local Development Framework (LDF). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Decision - London Councils - London Borough Grants Scheme 2009/10 PDF 34 KB
Report of the Director of Community and Cultural Services Additional documents:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services introduced a report, which set out the proposals received from the London Councils’ Grants Committee for expenditure in 2009/10. He advised that the Committee had approved their proposals for expenditure the previous day but that two thirds of the constituent Councils had to agree the proposal by the end of March 2009 for it to be implemented. He recommended that Harrow support the proposals, which represented a £4,843 reduction in the borough’s contribution. If it were not supported, the previous year’s contribution would apply.
RESOLVED: That Harrow’s contribution of £747,865 for 2009/10 be approved and a formal response submitted.
Reason for Decision: The London Borough Grants Scheme informed the Borough through a circular dated 13 November 2008 of the recommended budget for 2009/10.
(See also Minute 552) |