Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Leader of the Council sought Cabinet’s approval to include an urgent item of business in relation to Wood Farm, Wood Lane, Stanmore - Pear Wood Cottages and Ten Acre Field, and to vary the order of business so that he could make a statement in relation to Wood Farm, after agenda item 8.  He explained that the statement was intended to brief Cabinet on the outcome on Wood Farm following the decision taken on 8 March in respect of this site.  He explained that the outcome of the decision was not known until 30 April and therefore the matter had not been included on the agenda when it was despatched.

RESOLVED:  To note that Cabinet agreed with the inclusion of the urgent item of business and to the variation of the agenda order.

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests arising from business to be transacted at this meeting from:

(a)               all Members of the Cabinet;

(b)               all other Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 5 – Councillor Questions

Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor AmirMoshenson declared a prejudicial interest in relation to Councillor questions 1 and 2 in that he lived in the vicinity of Whitchurch Pavilion and Playing Fields.  He left the room whilst the questions were asked and answered.

Agenda Item 12 – Primary School Expansion Programme

Councillor David Perry declared a personal interest in that he was a governor of Marlborough Primary School, which was referenced in the report.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor John Nickolay declared a personal interest in that he was a governor of Welldon Park  Infant and Junior School, which was mentioned in the report.  He would remain in the room to listen to the discussion and decision made in respect of this item.

During consideration of this item, Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a personal interest in that he had been involved in the lobbying of London Councils with regard to the subject matter.  He remained in the room to listen to the discussion and decision made in respect of these items.

Agenda Items 12/13 – Primary School Expansion Programme/Determination of Community School Admission Arrangements – Academic Year 2013/14

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared an interest in that his sister was employed by Hatch End High School Academy.  He did not consider that these items would make his interest prejudicial, but stated that he would leave the room should this happen during the course of the meeting.  He would remain in the room to listen to the discussions and decisions made in respect of these items.

Councillor Paul Osborn declared a prejudicial interest in that he was a governor of Roxbourne, Junior and Infant School and Norbury Primary School.  He would leave the room prior to the discussions and decisions in respect of these items.

CouncillorThaya Idaikkadar declared a personal interest in that he was a governor of Welldon Park Junior School.  He also declared personal interest in some property involvement as part of the School Expansion Programme.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 8 March 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 March 2012, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

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

RESOLVED:  To note that the following petitions had been received and that petition 1 below was referred to the Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services, the Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing and, in light of the number of signatures, to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and that petition 2 was referred to the Corporate Director Place Shaping:

1.                  Shop Mobility – Petition urging Harrow Council to continue funding for Harrow Shopmibility to provide its service to the disabled people of Harrow

Mrs Eileen Kinnear presented a petition on behalf of the Chair of Shop Mobility, which was signed by 1,347 people with the following terms of reference:

“We, the undersigned, urge Harrow Council to reconsider its decision not to grant funding to Harrow Shopmobility in this coming year.

The suffering that this will cause to those for whom Harrow Shopmobility is the only way of accessing shops and the other services that Harrow provides is immense.

It condemns them to virtual imprisonment within their own home; providing services for them will place a far greater demand on the resources of Harrow Council than the cost of providing a continuing service, allowing them access to Harrow through their use of Harrow Shopmobility.”

2.                  Kodak Development – Remove the cut through traffic between Harrow View and Headstone Gardens – Planning Reference P/3405/11

Councillor Bill Stephenson presented a petition signed by 141 residents with the following terms of reference:

“The petitioner asks Harrow Council to ensure that Section 106 money is used to stop the cut-through traffic using the roads between Harrow View and Headstone Gardens to avoid the lights at Harrow View and Headstone Drive Junction (former Goodwill Pub Junction).”

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.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, 30 March 2012.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

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 agreed with the relevant Group Leader by the deadline for submission and there be a time limit of 15 minutes.

[The deadline for receipt of Councillor questions is 3.00 pm, 30 March 2012].

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

1.

RESOLVED:  To note the contents of the Forward Plan for the period 1 April – 31 July 2012.

For consideration.

RESOLVED:  To receive and note the current progress of scrutiny projects.

Having received Cabinet’s permission, as indicated under Minute 403, the Leader of the Council made the following Statement in relation to the site at Wood Farm:

“Cabinet - 15 October 2002

On 15 October 2002, Cabinet gave initial approval for what has become known as the Wood Farm project.

Put simply, the key objective for this project has been and remains the extension of Stanmore Country Park.  This was to be enabled by a relatively small development of ten new homes on a plot of land of approximately 3.5 acres and the surrender of the two existing Agricultural Leases of Wood Farm, held by Stanmore Dairies Ltd.

The surrender of the leases would return Pear Wood Cottages and Ten Acre Field to the Council, plus a substantial capital sum.

Cabinet - 23 October 2008

On 23 October 2008, Cabinet approved the freehold disposal of approximately 3.5 acres of Wood Farm, the surrender of the two Agricultural Leases, held by Stanmore Dairies Ltd., the extension of Stanmore Country Park and the extension of Pear Wood Nature Reserve.

The extension of the Pear Wood Nature Reserve was to be achieved by the inclusion of the Pear Wood Cottages site, of approximately 0.75 acres, and Ten Acre Field, approximately 12.3 acres.

The Council’s overriding objective since 2002 has been the extension of Stanmore Country Park by approximately 60 acres, bringing the total area of the Country Park to 150 acres, which would in turn open up some of the very best views across London to public access.  This land is currently private and there are no formal public rights of way or access.

The Secretary of State granted planning permission in November 2009, for the Wood Farm enabling development, of ten substantial dwellings in the North East corner of the Wood Farm site.  The Secretary of State has also approved the disposal of this Green Belt land.

The Section 106 Agreement, which forms part of the 2009 planning permission, provides for the extension and enhancement of the Stanmore Country Park.  There is no reference to the future use of the Pear Wood Nature Reserve, Pear Wood Cottages and Ten Acre Field, within this Legal Agreement.

Cabinet  - 8 March 2012

In the Summer of 2011, the ownership of Stanmore Dairies Ltd changed hands.  The Council had no involvement whatsoever in this private transaction.  The relationship between the Council as landowner and our agricultural tenant remains unchanged.  The Agricultural tenant is Stanmore Dairies Ltd.

Negotiations which had been ongoing with CP Holdings, the previous owner of Stanmore Dairies Ltd had reached a point where it was intended that the Wood Farm property transactions, would be completed within the current year, 2011/12.  The new owner of Stanmore Dairies Ltd had no commitment to this arrangement, but negotiated an agreement, which put simply, tied the purchase of Pear Wood Cottages and the lease of part of Ten Acre Field, to completion of the ‘Wood Farm transaction’ by the end of March 2012.

This was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 411.

Information Report of the Assistant Chief Executive.

The Leader of the Council referred to the information report, which summarised the discussion of the meeting of the Harrow Partnership Board held on 29 March.  The Leader added that the regular reports provided an audit trail of the discussions that had ensued at meetings of the Board for Cabinet’s information.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Corporate Governance Framework be noted;

(2)               the 2012/13 Council Statement of Risk Appetite, as set out in the appendix to the report, be approved. 

Reason for Decision:  To ensure the Council complies with the UK Corporate Governance Code 2010, as reviewed by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and specifically Section C - Accountability, wherein the Cabinet was responsible, on an annual basis, for “determining the nature and the extent of the significant risks it was willing to take in achieving its strategic objectives”.  The annual statement of risk appetite fulfils this requirement.

Cabinet received a report of the Assistant Chief Executive on Risk Appetite in the context of fulfilling its responsibilities for good corporate governance, which included determining the nature and extent of the significant risks it was willing to take to achieve its Corporate Priorities and ensure that these risks were properly and fully disclosed to Council stakeholders.

The Portfolio Holder for Performance, Customer Services and Corporate Services informed Cabinet that the Statement of Risk Appetite was new and significant in UK Corporate Governance terms and had largely been introduced by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) in response to the 2010 financial crises.  It was part of the best practice requirements under a new Corporate Governance Code.  He added that the report captured risk appetites for various categories of risk for each Directorate.

The Portfolio Holder added that Cabinet was responsible for determining the nature and extent of the significant risks it was willing to take in achieving its strategic objectives and the Statement of Risk Appetite, set out in the appendix to the report, was recognised as fulfilling this requirement.  Its intention was to ensure that organisations were fully aware of the level and quantity of risk exposure being carried by the organisation in pursuing its strategic objectives.  Moreover, it was essential that risk exposure was fully communicated to stakeholders.

Cabinet was informed that the following definitions applied:

·                     Risk Appetite - “the amount and type of risk that the Council was prepared to seek, accept or tolerate.”

·                     Risk – “a barrier to the achievement of strategic objectives.”

·                     Risk Management – “the process of understanding and managing the risks that an organisation was inevitably subject to in attempting to achieve its corporate objectives.”

Additionally, Cabinet noted that risks should not merely be seen as a threat or a hazard as they could also take the form of positive risk opportunities or benefits to be exploited or innovated by the Council and its partners in entrepreneurial terms which could enhance, increase and accelerate the achievement of its objectives.

The Portfolio Holder explained that whilst the Council would maintain its overall informed cautious approach, it would have areas within this where a higher level of risk would be taken.  For example, the Council would support innovation in service delivery.  Such actions would be offset by areas where the Council would maintain a lower than cautious appetite, for example, in matters of compliance with the law and public confidence in the Council.  He outlined the main types of significant risks that the Council would take as part of its Risk Portfolio in 2012/13: Strategic, Financial, Service Delivery/Business, Legal and Compliance and Reputation Risks.

The Portfolio Holder stated that:

·                     the Council’s key challenge would be to maintain and advance its excellent services whilst managing significant reductions in its spending power with the Corporate Priorities helping the Council decide how best to allocate and manage its reducing resources. Consequently, in 2012/13, the Council would be accepting and taking on additional and increased levels of inherent risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 413.

Report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the establishment of a Shared Legal Practice with the London Borough of Barnet to start on 2 July 2012 be approved, subject to the approval of London Borough of Barnet’s Cabinet Resources Committee;

(2)               a delegation from the London Borough of Barnet of its legal function, under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, be accepted;

(3)               the Director of Legal and Governance Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Performance, Customer Services and Corporate Services, be authorised to:

·                     agree the terms of and execute an Inter-Authority Agreement which reflected the principles outlined in the report;

·                     implement a Shared Legal Practice in accordance with that Agreement.

Reason for Decision:  To allow the development of a resilient and cost effective legal practice, which can provide improved support to both Councils at a reduced cost.

The Portfolio Holder for Performance, Customer Services and Corporate Services introduced the report, which recommended the establishment of a Shared Legal Practice to support the London Boroughs of Harrow and Barnet.

The Portfolio Holder welcomed the proposal and explained that, in order to protect the front-line services, the Council was continuously looking at options to reduce costs in back office functions and to find savings that would not impact upon residents.  The Council’s Legal Practice was well respected and efficient and this was regularly articulated in the Quarterly Improvement Board performance reports.  Moreover, the Council’s Legal Service was shortlisted for both the LGC Award for Legal Services in 2012 and, previously, for the 2011 Municipal Journal Award.  Additionally, the demand for legal advice was increasing steadily, partly in response to new legislation.

Members were informed that the Council had two options in challenging financial and economic climates with continued pressures on costs: either keep cutting back or build on existing services.  Cutting the existing practice would leave the Directorates to fund advice externally at a higher cost than an in-house service could deliver.  However, building an enlarged service would allow both the Councils to benefit from a greater range and depth of legal expertise, more flexibility in response to demands, reduced cost, improved career opportunities for staff, to provide greater resilience and improve the ability to recruit and retain the best staff.

The Portfolio Holder explained how the sharing arrangements would work in that the lawyers from the London Borough of Barnet would be based with Harrow’s Legal Practice for a period of five years.  Initially, the staff would work on their respective Council projects but, as the transfer was embedded, teams would work for both the Councils and provide a more experienced staff team with increased resilience.  The Shared Service would offer legal expertise in all major areas of local government law, including child and adult protection, procurement, employment and Freedom of Information.  The initiative would help deliver an improved service at a lower cost to Harrow’s Council Tax payers, and was an excellent example of how Councils could work together to manage the challenges that lay ahead.

The Chief Executive addressed Cabinet and highlighted the Council’s ambition to protect its front-line services.  As a result, available opportunities in back office functions were embraced and the proposal had identified savings in the region of £300,000 whilst providing greater resilience in service delivery.  He thanked the Council’s Head of Legal Practice and the Director of Legal and Governance Services for their achievements in bringing the proposal to fruition, and wished the Service well in its journey which he hoped would develop further.

The Leader of the Council welcomed this exciting development in the provision of services, in particular, the care being taken in incorporating Barnet’s legal staff in the Harrow site.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the establishment of a Shared Legal Practice with the London Borough of Barnet to start on 2 July 2012 be approved, subject to the approval  ...  view the full minutes text for item 414.

Joint Report of the Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing and Assistant Chief Executive.

RESOLVED:  That 

(1)               the progress made against the Single Equalities Scheme (SES) Action Plan, at appendix 1 to the report, be noted;

(2)               the proposed Equality Objectives, at appendix 2 to the report, be agreed;

(3)               the proposed Equality of Opportunity Policy, at appendix 3 to the report, be agreed;

(4)               progress on equalities be monitored through the Council’s Improvement Boards.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure equalities were key to service development and decision making, services were fair and equitable, improve services, increase customer satisfaction and comply with the Council’s obligations under the Equalities legislation and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Cabinet received a joint report of the Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing and Assistant Chief Executive, setting out a summary of the progress and achievements made against the Council’s Single Equalities Scheme (SES) Action Plan and the proposed Corporate ‘Equality Objectives’ which were a requirement of the new Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) introduced by the Equality Act 2010 and replaced the Council’s SES.  The report also set out the review of Equality of Opportunity Policy in light of the Equality Act 2010.

The Portfolio Holder for Performance, Customer Services and Corporate Services provided a background to the report since Cabinet’s approval of the Single Equalities Scheme in December 2010 and the Equality Act which received Royal Assent in the same year.  He added that the Act contained a range of new rights, powers and obligations to help drive equality, and also required the Council to have published information to demonstrate compliance with the general equality duty and, by 6 April 2012 and at least every four years thereafter, one or more equality objectives.  The Council would have eight equality objectives to support the Council’s Corporate Priorities.  In meeting the requirement to publish data, the Council had decided to publish its equalities data in a form that was easy to understand and ensured transparency with regard to the progress in addressing inequality and delivering services reflective of the needs of the community.  In meeting the second requirement of the Equality Act, the Council had undertaken research and consultation to inform producing and using the Single Equality Scheme and information held by the Council to develop the new equality objectives highlighted in the report.

Members were informed that consultation on the new Equality Objectives had been undertaken, including a review of the Equality of Opportunity Policy.  The analysis had shown that a huge majority supported all of the equality objectives and, in the case of the narrowest majority in favour, there were almost four times as many in favour as against.  A majority of the members of the Residents’ Panel who responded had supported all of the equality objectives.

The Portfolio Holder referred to a letter received from Harrow Council for Justice raising concerns that the Policy did not seek to provide for a contextualised Education Campaign.  Due consideration of its remarks would be responded to once Cabinet had taken a decision.

Cabinet was also informed that the Council’s progress against the Equality Objectives would be measured quarterly against existing measures from Directorate scorecards.  This course of action would help mainstream equalities within existing processes and Service Plans, but also adhere to the COUNT (collate once use numerous times) framework.  Moreover, the Equality Objectives would help meet the needs and requirements of Harrow’s diverse communities and foster good community relations that would underpin the Corporate Priorities and principles, including the decision-making process.

The Portfolio Holder commended the Policy and Partnership Service Manager and the Equalities and Diversity Policy Officer on the construction and publication of the report which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 415.

Report of the Corporate Director Children and Families.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the outcomes of the statutory consultations on Proposals for Primary School Expansions be noted;

(2)               the publication of Statutory Notices to expand permanently the following schools be agreed: 

Camrose Primary School with Nursery

Cedars Manor School

Glebe Primary School

Marlborough Primary School

Pinner Park Infant and Nursery School

Pinner Park Junior School

Stanburn First School

Stanburn Junior School

Vaughan Primary School;

(3)               a report on the Special School/SEN Placements Strategy, with a series of options for consultation, be submitted to July Cabinet.

Reason for Decision:  To enable the Council to fulfill its statutory duties to provide sufficient school places in its area.

Cabinet considered a report of the Corporate Director Children and Families on the outcome of the statutory consultations on the Primary School Expansion Programme agreed in December 2011, including proposals for the next stage.  In addition, the report included information on other related school organisation matters, including plans to develop a Special School/Special Educational Needs (SEN) Placements Strategy.

The Head of Education Strategy and School Organisation informed Cabinet that the Council had a statutory responsibility to provide sufficient school places for its area.  Following an earlier decision by Cabinet, the exercising of delegated powers by the Corporate Director of Children and Families, and in light of a feasibility study, it was agreed that statutory expansion processes would be launched in relation to nine schools instead of the eleven schools previously agreed.  Moreover, these were considered the most suitable in terms of operational capacity and provided value for money.

Cabinet was informed that a large number of responses had been received to the consultation and, overall, there was agreement with the proposals.  Many of the responses received referred to the need to alleviate associated traffic issues and the officer responded by saying that traffic issues would occur naturally in any area that was to have an expanded school.  School Travel Plans were difficult to monitor and generally unworkable.  He added that the governing bodies of all nine schools were supportive of the move to statutory consultation.

The officer referred to the low capital allocation from the government and the resulting unaffordability of the proposed School Expansion Programme for the South West Planning Area, it had been proposed to undertake statutory consultation on the proposed expansion of Vaughan Primary School but to defer statutory consultation on proposals to expand permanently the Welldon Park schools and explore a different solution to meet the remaining need for additional places in the South West Primary Planning Area.

Members were briefed on the applications for school places in September 2012, matters relating to School Organisation and the revenue and capital implications of the proposals.  Several funding streams had been identified and the feasibility studies had identified the capital investment required to ensure that high quality school places were established.  Additional funding streams had also been identified and government announcements were awaited on the Primary School Expansion programme and on the additional £600m for pupil places nationally, which had been included in the government’s Autumn Statement.

In summing up, the officer stated that school expansion was becoming increasingly complex and the pressures in north-west London were immense, as a result of which the majority of schools were having to expand and provide bulge classes.

The Leader of the Council expressed disquiet about the manner in which Harrow had been treated by the government. In response, the Corporate Director of Children and Families stated that the formula applied by the government in allocating funding was not clear and that the apportioning had not followed the need of the area.  However, London authorities would be making special representations to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 416.

Report of the Corporate Director Children and Families.

RESOLVED:  That, having taken into account the recommendations of Harrow Admissions Forum, the following admission arrangements be applied to Harrow Community Primary and High Schools for the 2013/14 academic year:

(1)               admission arrangements Part A–G be determined without any further changes to the proposed arrangements and schemes other than the following:

1.i        Use the new definition for ‘looked after children’ as required by the School Admissions Code and reword the first criterion in the oversubscription to:

A 'looked after child' or a child who was previously looked after but immediately after being looked after became subject to an adoption, residence, or special guardianship order.  A looked after child is a child who is

(a) in the care of a local authority, or

(b) being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions (as defined in Section 22(1) of the Children Act 1989).

An adoption order is an order under Section 46 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.  A ‘residence order’ is an order settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom the child is to live under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989.  Section 14A of the Children Act 1989 defines a ‘special guardianship order’ as an order appointing one or more individuals to be a child’s special guardian (or special guardians).

(2)               the wording on shared responsibility in the definition of “home address” be changed to:

‘Where a child lives with parents with shared responsibility, each for part of a week, the address where the child lives is determined using a joint declaration from the parents stating the pattern of residence.  If a child’s residence is split equally between both parents, then parents will be asked to determine which residential address should be used for the purpose of admission to school.  If no joint declaration is received where the residence is split equally by the closing date for applications, the home address will be taken as the address of the parent who receives child benefit.  In cases where parents are not eligible for child benefit the address will be that of the parents where the child is registered with the doctor.  If the residence is not split equally between both parents then the address used will be the address where the child spends the majority of the school week.’

(3)               the work undertaken by officers in relation to the Fair Access Protocol, as detailed in paragraph 13 of the report, be noted.

Reason for Decision:  There is a statutory requirement under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 for admission authorities to determine admission arrangements by 15 April in the determination year.

Cabinet received a report of the Corporate Director Children and Families in relation to the determination of admission arrangements for Community Schools. Members noted that the Council was required to consult before determining admission arrangements and that the consultation took place between 3 January 2012 and 28 February 2012.  The Harrow Admissions Forum, at its meeting on 14 March 2012, made a number of recommendations for Cabinet’s consideration.

The Head of Service, Achievement and Inclusion, introduced the report and clarified that the report made reference to Community Schools only and did not include the Academies, and that the response received had been low.  The matter had also been considered by the Harrow Admissions Forum and its views were appended to the report.  The proposals would help broaden the definition of Looked After Children and give increased priority to them.  Additionally, the definition of ‘home address’ would be of assistance as it would help alleviate some of the concerns expressed by parents and ensure that places were offered in a fair way.

He added that the Fair Access Protocol was used extensively when allocating places in schools but acknowledged that it caused anxiety and that officers had met with the Chairs of the Primary and Secondary Headteachers’ Executives as a result of which it had been agreed to investigate headteacher representation on the School Placement Admissions Panel.  Additionally, changes to the Protocol would be examined further.

RESOLVED:  That, having taken into account the recommendations of Harrow Admissions Forum, the following admission arrangements be applied to Harrow Community Primary and High Schools for the 2013/14 academic year:

(1)               admission arrangements Part A–G be determined without any further changes to the proposed arrangements and schemes other than the following:

1.i        Use the new definition for ‘looked after children’ as required by the School Admissions Code and reword the first criterion in the oversubscription to:

A 'looked after child' or a child who was previously looked after but immediately after being looked after became subject to an adoption, residence, or special guardianship order.  A looked after child is a child who is

(a) in the care of a local authority, or

(b) being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions (as defined in Section 22(1) of the Children Act 1989).

An adoption order is an order under Section 46 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.  A ‘residence order’ is an order settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom the child is to live under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989.  Section 14A of the Children Act 1989 defines a ‘special guardianship order’ as an order appointing one or more individuals to be a child’s special guardian (or special guardians).

(2)               the wording on shared responsibility in the definition of “home address” be changed to:

‘Where a child lives with parents with shared responsibility, each for part of a week, the address where the child lives is determined using  ...  view the full minutes text for item 417.

Report of the Divisional Director Environmental Services.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the results of the public consultation be noted;

(2)               Options 1 and 3 be adopted for implementation;

(3)               the new Street Lighting Policy be adopted and noted this would be introduced progressively, subject to funding;

(4)               it be noted that concrete columns would be replaced through the Capital Programme over the next 4 years.

Reason for Decision:  Harrow signed up to the Climate Change Strategy which required it to reduce the carbon footprint and energy consumption.   Street lighting accounts for 25% of the Council’s electricity consumption and 12% of its carbon emissions.  The continued application of the existing policy on lighting levels and technology would lead to a significant increase in this consumption as old lighting stock gets replaced.  It was proposed to introduce a new policy reflecting commitments to reduce the impact of climate change by new approaches to lighting levels, embracing the new technology available. 

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety introduced the report, which set out a case for a new policy in the Street Lighting of Highways and Residential Roads.  He added that there was also need for the Council to align energy use in the context of its Climate Change Strategy.

The Portfolio Holder provided some background to the report and the need to reduce lighting levels and increase use of new technology.  The Council had over 1500 street lights over which ¾ provide lighting levels below the current recommended standard. Energy costs had risen by over 43% over the last 4 years and this trend was likely to continue in the long term but at a reduced level.  In the short term costs could fall.  He added that wide ranging consultations had been carried out and of the 1,500 responses received, the majority preferred Option 1, decrease lighting levels, with Option 3, dim lighting during quieter night periods, coming second.

It was noted that the use of LED (light emitting diode) would increase overall efficiency.  There had been a number of technological advances in lighting in recent years, which would help reduce the amount of energy used, of which the most significant was LED lighting, which offered longer life and lower levels of energy consumption and efficiency but were currently more expensive to install.  New technology was emerging and developing at speed, as a result of which new lighting options were available but most of these were around the use of LED.  Control gear for lighting had improved with increased efficiency and provided the ability to trim and dim.

National standards in lighting had been relaxed allowing the use of lower lighting levels, including the conditions that needed to be met, which had helped pave a way for Option 1.

The Portfolio Holder informed Cabinet that five demonstration projects had been undertaken based on lighting class S4, lower lighting level, and included areas such as the Highlands in Edgware, Kingsfield Avenue and Pinner View.

The Portfolio Holder added that the Lighting Industry was also responding with huge advances in technology and the Council would ensure best value for Harrow.  He commended the report to Cabinet.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the results of the public consultation be noted;

(2)               Options 1 and 3 be adopted for implementation;

(3)               the new Street Lighting Policy be adopted and noted this would be introduced progressively, subject to funding;

(4)               it be noted that all concrete columns would be replaced through the Capital Programme over the next 4 years.

Reason for Decision:  Harrow signed up to the Climate Change Strategy which required it to reduce the carbon footprint and energy consumption.   Street lighting accounts for 25% of the Council’s electricity consumption and 12% of its carbon emissions.  The continued application of the existing policy on lighting levels and technology would lead to a significant increase in this consumption as old lighting stock gets replaced.  It was proposed to introduce a new policy reflecting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 418.

Joint report of the Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing and Divisional Director Environmental Services.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Domestic Gas Heating Contract be awarded to Quality Heating Systems, with any final contractual matters delegated to the Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Housing;

(2)               the Commercial Gas Heating Systems Contract be awarded to T Brown Ltd, with any final contractual matters delegated to the Divisional Director Environmental Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Property and Major Contracts and Housing;

(3)               once the Contracts have commenced, they be monitored quarterly (including customer scrutiny), the results of which be reported to the relevant Council Improvement Board and Tenants’, Leaseholders’ and Residents’ Consultative Forum (TLRCF).

Reason for Decision:  To ensure appointment of contractors offering to meet the quality requirements and those that have provided the best prices.

Cabinet received a joint report of the Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing and Divisional Director Environmental Services, which set out the results of the tender process for the provision of Gas Servicing and Repairs together with the renewal of Council house Gas Heating Systems.  A confidential appendix analysing the tenders received was also considered by Cabinet.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing informed Cabinet that the existing contract with Kier Group would expire on 30 June 2012.  A fresh approach focusing on customer care and encouraging a local supply chain involvement to produce financial benefits in the current economic climate was being proposed.  Also, a previous analysis had shown that there was scope for lower overheads by using smaller contractors.  The main objectives of the proposal included in the Tender Strategy were:  improved customer satisfaction, greater use of local labour, improving the accuracy of invoicing and the use of improved technology in service delivery.  The proposed contractors together with an internal restructure and streamlining of procedures would help meet these objectives.  Whilst the contracts proposed were for a period of four years, there was an option to extend these beyond this time.

The Portfolio Holder outlined the potential savings that would arise as a result of the proposed new contracts, and that, in relation to servicing of gas appliances, Quality Heating Services had indicated a willingness to offer this service to leaseholders for a small additional administrative charge, thus allowing leaseholders to access the benefits brought by this larger contract.  Moreover, both contractors had undertaken to prioritise employment opportunities for Harrow residents, ex-offenders and those with learning difficulties, within any recruitment relating to these contracts.  

Cabinet was informed that, based on the tender from Quality Heating, it was anticipated that there would be a reduction of around 14% in relation to the revenue spend.  Further savings were anticipated in respect of the capital spend, and spend on heating and boiler replacement programmes for Council dwellings.  This was anticipated at £650k for 2012/13. 

In concluding his remarks, the Portfolio Holder referred to the Project Board which had overseen the work culminating in the proposals before Cabinet and he thanked Councillor Camilla Bath for her participation, including representative(s) from the local Tenants’ Association(s).

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Domestic Gas Heating Contract be awarded to Quality Heating Systems, with any final contractual matters delegated to the Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Housing;

(2)               the Commercial Gas Heating Systems Contract be awarded to T Brown Ltd, with any final contractual matters delegated to the Divisional Director Environmental Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Property and Major Contracts and Housing;

(3)               once the Contracts have commenced, they be monitored quarterly (including customer scrutiny), the results of which be reported to the relevant Council Improvement Board and Tenants’, Leaseholders’ and Residents’ Consultative Forum (TLRCF).

Reason for Decision:  To ensure appointment of contractors offering to meet the quality requirements and those that have provided the best  ...  view the full minutes text for item 419.

Report of the Divisional Director Planning Services.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Planning Enforcement Policy be adopted;

(2)               the Divisional Director Planning Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Enterprise, be authorised to agree any minor amendments to the Policy to enable its preparation and publication.

Reason for Decision:  To enable the implementation of the Planning Enforcement Policy for the purposes of Planning Enforcement in line with the Corporate Priorities of ‘supporting our Town Centre, our local shopping centres and businesses’ and ‘keeping neighbourhoods clean, green and safe’.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Enterprise introduced the report on the outcome of the public consultation undertaken on the Draft Planning Enforcement Policy.  He added that following consideration by Cabinet in November 2011, public consultation had taken place and some revisions had been incorporated.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Planning Enforcement Policy be adopted;

(2)               the Divisional Director Planning Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Enterprise, be authorised to agree any minor amendments to the Policy to enable its preparation and publication.

Reason for Decision:  To enable the implementation of the Planning Enforcement Policy for the purposes of Planning Enforcement in line with the Corporate Priorities of ‘supporting our Town Centre, our local shopping centres and businesses’ and ‘keeping neighbourhoods clean, green and safe’.

Which cannot otherwise be dealt with.

Councillor Susan Hall, Leader of the Conservative Group

On behalf of Cabinet, the Leader of the Council sent his best wishes to Councillor Hall, who was in hospital, and wished her a speedy recovery.

CristianMarcucci, Senior Media Officer

The Leader of the Council informed Cabinet that this was Cristian’s last Cabinet meeting and that he would be leaving the Council.  He commended Cristian’s professionalism and commitment which had been excellent and wished him well in his future career.

To resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of confidential information in breach of an obligation of confidence, or of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972:

RESOLVED: That, in accordance with Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item for the reason set out below:

Appendix II to the Joint Report of the Divisional Director Community, Health and Wellbeing and Divisional Director Environmental Services at item 15.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To allow the appendix to be considered in conjunction with the main report at agenda item 15.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To allow the appendix to be considered in conjunction with the main report at agenda item 15.