Agenda and minutes

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.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda items 9/10 – Future Organisation of West Lodge First School and West Lodge Middle School/Harrow’s Vision for Education and the Primary Capital Programme

(i)                   Councillor Husain Akhtar, who was not a Member of Cabinet, declared a personal interest in that he was a governor of Bentley Wood School.

(ii)                 Councillor Miss Christine Bednell declared personal interests arising from the fact that she was a governor of Vaughan First and Middle School, a governor of Whitmore High School and a non-LEA representative of Stanmore College.

(iii)                Councillor Robert Benson, who was not a Member of Cabinet, declared a personal interest in that he was a governor of Cedars Manor School.

(iv)               Councillor Mitzi Green, who was not a Member of Cabinet, declared a personal interest in that she was a governor of Kenmore Park First and Middle School.

(v)                 Councillor Susan Hall declared a personal interest in that she was a governor of Priestmead First School.

(vi)               Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared personal interests in that he was a governor of Canons High School and that his sister was a teacher at Hatch End High School.

(vii)              Councillor Julia Merison, who was not a Member of Cabinet, declared a personal interest in that she was a governor of Newton Farm First and Middle School.

(viii)            Councillor Janet Mote, who was not a Member of Cabinet, declared a personal interest in that he she was a governor of St. John Fisher First & Middle School.

(ix)               Councillor Chris Mote declared a personal interest in that he had friends at West Lodge School.

(x)                 CouncillorMrs Anjana Patel declared a personal interest in that she was a governor of St Dominic’s College.

(xi)               Councillor Bill Stephenson, who was not a Member of Cabinet, declared a personal interest in that he was a governor of Hatch End High School and Marlborough First and Middle School.

Accordingly, they would all remain in the room to listen to the debate, take part in the discussion and decision-making, as appropriate, on these items.

Of the Cabinet meeting held on 15 May 2008 to be deferred until the next ordinary meeting

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2008 be deferred until the next ordinary Cabinet meeting.

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

b)     To consider the suspension of Executive Procedure Rule 8.2.2 to allow the submission of petitions and the asking and answering of Public and Councillor Questions.

The Leader of the Council stated that in light of the public attendance at the meeting, he would re-order the agenda and take item 9 - Future Organisation of West Lodge First and Middle School and West Lodge Middle School and item 11 - Development of Cedars Hall Site, Uxbridge Road, Harrow, after item 6 - Councillor Questions.  For clarity business is recorded in the order set out on the agenda.

The Leader added that due to the large number of questions received, supplemental questions would not be answered at the meeting but that the questioners would be sent written responses.

It was noted that there was no exempt report at item 13 - Development of Cedars Hall, Uxbridge Road, Harrow.

The Leader explained the reasons behind the need to suspend Executive Procedure Rule 8.2.2 and it was

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

(2)  Executive Procedure Rule 8.2.2 be suspended to allow the submission of petitions and the asking and answering of public and Councillor questions;

(3)  that supplemental questions be answered in writing rather than at the meeting.

To receive any petitions submitted by members of the public or Councillors.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following petitions had been received and were considered alongside the relevant reports on the agenda.

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.

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

1.

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.

RESOLVED:  To note the following Councillor Questions had been received:

1.

2.

Report of the Director of Community and Cultural Services

Cabinet considered a report of the Director of Community and Cultural Services, responding to the findings and recommendations of the Scrutiny Review Group that had investigated the operation of the Beacon Centre in Rayners Lane.

The Chairman of the Review Group stated that the case study on the Beacon Centre was the final element of the review of cultural services undertaken during 2007.  She stated that the Cultural Strategy Review Group had visited the Beacon Centre in 2007 and, as the Centre had just opened at that time, it had been agreed that the study would be carried out in six months’ time in order to allow a ‘true’ assessment of its impact.

The Chairman of the Review Group stated that the development of the Beacon Centre was very welcome and the facilities provided were of a very high standard. She stated that some of the evidence presented to the Group during the review had shown tensions between Home Group and the local community over access to the Centre and participation in its activities.  Amongst the recommendations set out in the report of the Review Group, she drew particular attention to recommendation 6, which requested that the Council convene a ‘Summit’ to set out a new strategic vision for the Beacon Centre.  She thanked those involved, in particular Home Group and Harrow College, for their contributions, and the scrutiny officer for his work on the report.

Another Member of the Review Group also addressed Cabinet and explained that the remit of the Review Group was specific to the operation of the Beacon Centre.  The wider relationships with the Rayners Lane Estate, including housing and regeneration issues, had not been part of its remit.  He added that the Beacon Centre was an excellent and valuable resource for Harrow and that the Review Group had looked to ascertain whether the provision was compatible with the needs of residents.  The focus had been on the users and therefore the evidence base had been limited to that area only.  Whilst there might not have been anything wrong with the provisions at the Beacon Centre, evidence had shown that so far it did not fully meet with the aspirations of local residents.

The Portfolio Holder for Schools and Children’s Development speaking in her capacity as the former Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services during which the Review Group had met, stated that whilst the Council had a role to play in this matter, the Beacon Centre was actually owned and run by Home Group.  She added that the £330k had been a one-off capital investment at the Beacon Centre with no commitments to any ongoing capital or  revenue support.  She acknowledged that there had been teething problems but that the residents, Home Group and the Council needed to move forward on this matter with the Council acting as a mediator.

The Director of Community and Cultural Services outlined the actions that had been taken since the report of the Review Group.  He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 427.

Report of the Corporate Director of Finance

The Corporate Director of Finance introduced the report, which set out progress on the Revenue Income Optimisation (RIO) project and recommended changes to fees and charges in 2008-09.  She added that a framework for charging had been approved by Cabinet in February 2008, and that the RIO was a major piece of work, which would generate income for the Council.  Future such reports would be submitted to Cabinet in due course, and Business Cases for some short to medium term projects would also be developed.

The Corporate Director referred to the ‘top down’ analysis that would be conducted to compare charges with other boroughs and identify why Harrow’s income was lower than those of its neighbours.  It would help identify discrepancies.

The Leader of the Council stated that the RIO was a long term programme and would entail the consideration of ‘rolling’ reports by Cabinet.

RESOLVED:  That the proposals in relation to fees and charges, set out in Appendix 1 to the officer report, be agreed.

Reason for Decision:  To maximise income opportunities.

Report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development

Cabinet received a report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development, which set out the outcome of the statutory consultation about the future organisation of West Lodge First School and West Lodge Middle School, and the recommendations of the Future Organisation of West Lodge Schools’ Steering Group.

Prior to the consideration of the report, the Leader of the Council asked if an outstanding complaint under stage 2 of the Corporate Complaints procedure, which had alleged procedural improprieties and had requested the Council to stop any amalgamation process, impacted on any decision to be taken by Cabinet that evening.

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services who had dealt with this matter under her previous portfolio remit of Schools and Children’s Development during 2007/08, responded to the Leader’s question as follows:-

·                     Council was currently investigating a complaint under Stage 2 of the Corporate Complaints procedure which alleged procedural improprieties and requested the Council to stop any amalgamation process.

·                     The investigation had not been concluded in time to report to this Cabinet.  The complaint was confidential to the complainant and disclosure of this would lead to a possibility of identification.

·                     The decision for Cabinet that evening regarding the future of two successful schools in Harrow was very important, and the Cabinet had considered this whole situation in detail prior to this Cabinet meeting.  The Cabinet had concluded that it should not delay making a decision about whether to publish statutory notices because further uncertainty was not in the best interests of the children or the schools.

·                     The statutory notices, if published, would return to Cabinet for a decision in September 2008.  Any relevant recommendations arising from the complaint could be looked at then.

The Portfolio Holder made the following statement in relation to the report submitted to Cabinet:-

“In January 2008, Cabinet decided:-

o                    to consult to gather views of stakeholders; and

o                    that these views would be reported back to Cabinet.

The decision that the local authority would conduct a consultation was made only after all avenues had been explored with the governing bodies of the two schools to find a way forward, on which they were unable to agree.  The report today was about the outcome of the consultation, and Cabinet now needed to decide on the future organisation it proposed for the two schools.

I would like to start by saying that I am most impressed by the response to the consultation from stakeholders, and by the extensive range of comments received.  Over half of the consultation response forms that were returned contained comments for us to consider.  This was most helpful, and reflected the strong level of interest and commitment among all associated with the schools.

I am also most grateful for the work of the Steering Group that was established to conduct the consultation, and for the recommendations that it had made, and I will say more about this work in a moment.

Cabinet considered the organisational and educational reasons for amalgamation in October 2007 when  ...  view the full minutes text for item 429.

Report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development

Cabinet considered the report of the Director of Schools and Children’s Development, which presented Harrow’s Vision for Education. The report also provided an outline of the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) Primary Capital Programme and proposed principles to identify schools to receive capital funding.

The Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services stated that the report was seeking approval of two important issues for Children’s Services and Schools in Harrow – the vision for education in Harrow and the primary strategy for change.  It was recognised that Harrow’s schools were a success, and that the views of all stakeholders had been gathered to influence and inform Harrow’s vision.

The Portfolio Holder made the following statement:

“Vision for Education

·                     The Harrow Vision for Education was an important statement about how the community of schools and partners see education in Harrow and where our aspirations are. It brought together all the key elements that contributed to making schools successful in Harrow.

·                     It was relevant to all phases of education in Harrow, including Early Years and pre-school provision, special schools, community and voluntary aided schools and partners.

·                     The vision recognised the wide ranging partnerships and their contributions. The view of stakeholders, including headteachers, governors and young people, had been gathered to influence and inform the vision.

·                     Realising the vision was central to guiding and influencing all strategies and developments within schools. In particular, this vision would be central to submissions made to the Department for Children, Schools and Families for strategic funding including primary Capital Programme and Building Schools for the Future.

Primary Capital Programme

·                     The government’s Primary Capital programme was a long term investment strategy. It was about transforming primary schools and achieving the government’s target for the programme of 50% of all primary schools and in particular schools in the worst condition serving areas of deprivation. The local authority was required to prepare a Primary Strategy for Change and submission to the DCSF to secure Primary Capital Programme funding.

·                     Funding was available from April 2009 and Harrow had been allocated approximately £9m in the first two years of this programme. Harrow was expected to receive approximately £45m over the fourteen years of the programme.

·                     The Strategy for Change would be based on the Vision for Education and would include the identification of schools to receive funding in the first four years. Guiding principles had been proposed, and set criteria to identify schools once these had been agreed by Cabinet would be applied to Harrow’s schools to identify those which would receive funding in the first wave.”

The Portfolio Holder added that the report brought together the vision for education as the driver to inform investment and would enable the completion of the Primary Capital Programme submission, as well as future submissions to the DCSF.  It was noted that the submission had to be made by 16 June 2008.  In addition, the recent meeting with the headteachers and governors of schools to discuss this report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 430.

Report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment

Cabinet considered the report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment, which set out the options available to the Council in respect of the development of the Cedars Hall site.

The Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services stated that the report was comprehensive and explained the reasons why the Council had gone out to consultation in regard to this site.  The Portfolio Holder added that Cedars Hall site had remained vacant since 2006 and that the building was in disrepair and an eyesore.  He outlined matters that the Council was responsible for as a ‘guardian’ and spoke in support of Recommendation 3.  He added that officer support would be provided to the Weald Tenants’ and Residents’ Association (TRA) in this regard.  However, should the Weald TRA not able to realise the requirements set out under option 3, then option 2, subject to Cabinet’s agreement that evening, would be pursued.

The Portfolio Holder suggested that the representative from ‘Kids Can Achieve’ who was present at the meeting and had expressed an interest in bidding for this site should liaise with the TRA with a view to working jointly on option 3.

RESOLVED:  (1) That the action below be agreed:-

Option 3 – Community Use hall –

Report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment

Cabinet received a report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment, which related to the final drafts of the Harrow on the Hill Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document and the Harrow on the Hill Conservation Areas Sustainability Appraisal.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Enterprise drew Members’ attention to the recommendation in the report, and commended the extensive piece of work in relation to the Harrow on the Hill Conservation Area.  It was recognised that conducting such pieces of work on a geographical basis was a positive change in policy, and that the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), once adopted, would assist the Council’s case at any future planning appeals.  She added that the next piece of work would be for Pinner.

The Portfolio Holder for  Performance, Communication and Corporate Services congratulated all for this piece of work and, as Ward Councillor, looked forward to the SPD for Pinner.

RESOLVED:  That the Harrow on the Hill Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document and the Harrow on the Hill Conservation Areas Sustainability Appraisal be adopted following the recommendation of the Local Development Framework Panel of 9 April 2008.

Reasons for Decision:  (1)  To enable the Supplementary Planning Document, together with its supporting documents, to have greater weight as a material consideration in determining planning applications both at planning committees and at appeals.

(2)  To provide useful guidance to applicants, planning consultants and relevant Council departments when dealing with issues relating to Harrow on the Hill conservation areas. 

Report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment

The Portfolio Holder for Major Contracts and Property introduced the revised confidential report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment, which sought various approvals in this regard.  The revised report had been circulated with the supplemental agenda.

The Leader of the Council stated that this area would involve a great deal of work which the Council would need to carry out.

RESOLVED:  That (1) an increased bid to Department of Transport for PFI credits for the sum set out in the officer report, subject to confirmation, be approved;

(2)  an additional procurement budget for the sum set out in the officer report be approved:

(3)  the funding of the revised base case affordability gap for the sum per annum (2010/11prices), set out in the officer report, be approved for the duration of the contract term and as set out within the Council’s Outline Business Case.

Reason for Decision:  Following a request by PRG for Harrow to resubmit its PFI proposal, the Council had been advised by DfT of their willingness to consider an increased bid to cover likely increases in lighting column connection charges.  As a result, the base case affordability gap had been amended due to the increased bid, and PRG had recommended a review of the procurement budget.