Agenda, decisions and minutes

On behalf of Cabinet, the Leader of the Council welcomed Councillor Sachin Shah, Portfolio Holder for Finance, to the Cabinet meeting.  He also welcomed Leora Cruddas, Divisional Director of Quality Assurance, Commissioning and Schools, to her first meeting of Cabinet.

The Leader of the Council received Cabinet’s approval to vary the order of the agenda and bring agenda item 15, Whitchurch Playing Fields, forward due to the public interest in the item.  It was noted that both the public and Councillor questions on the Whitchurch Playing Fields would be answered prior to the consideration of the substantive item.  Thereafter, the Leader would revert to the order of business set out on the agenda.

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 11 – Primary School Expansion Programme

Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor David Perry declared a personal interest in that he was a governor of Marlborough School.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 13 - Implementation of the Health and Social Care Act 

Councillor Brian Gate declared a personal interest in that his wife was a health professional and worked in a General Practice.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 16 – Pre-Submission Site Allocations DPD

Councillors Marilyn Ashton, Barry Macleod-Cullinane and Paul Osborn declared personal interests in that the Harrow West Conservative Association premises was situated in the area referenced in the report.  They would remain in the room to listen to the debate on this item.

Agenda Items 16-17 – Pre-Submission Site Allocations DPD, Development Management Policies DPD – Submission Consultation Document

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared personal interests in that he lived on the edge of the Harrow on the Hill Conservation Area and that his mother’s property was situated in the Northolt Road development site.  He would remain in the room to listen to the debate on this item.  However, he would leave the room should his interests become prejudicial during the debate.

Councillor Marilyn Ashton declared personal interests in that she lived next door to the Bentley Priory site.  She would remain in the room to listen to the debate on the items.

Councillor Husain Akhtar declared personal interests, particularly in relation to the Teacher’s Centre and his support for School Academies and Free Schools.  Additionally, the Harrow East Constituency Offices were situated at 209 Headstone Lane and referenced in the report.

Agenda Items 16-20 – Pre-Submission Site Allocations DPD, Development Management Policies DPD: Submission Consultation Document, Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan: Pre-submission Consultation Document, Revised LDS, Revised Proposed West London Waste Plan: Pre-Submission Consultation Document

As an employee of the Greater London Authority (GLA), Councillor Stephen Greek declared personal interests due to the references made to the London Plan in the reports.  He would remain in the room to listen to the debate on these items.

General Interest

Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar declared a personal interest in his capacity as the Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts.

That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 4 April 2012 and the special Cabinet meeting held on 24 May 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 4 April and 24 May 2012, be taken as read and signed as correct records.

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

RESOLVED:  To note that the following petitions had been received and that they were referred to the Corporate Director Place Shaping and Interim Director Environmental Services, as appropriate:

1.                  Anti-Social Behaviour on Footpath between Eastcote Lane and Primrose Close

Councillor Graham Henson presented a petition signed by 65 people with the following terms of reference:

“We, the undersigned, are totally fed up with the anti-social behaviour that takes place on a regular basis along the public footpath between Eastcote Lane and Primrose Close.

There are groups congregating in this area, drinking, swearing, smoking, drug taking, couples coupling, graffiti, detritus, using the area as a lavatory, intimidating residents and rubbish being dumped that have included cooking oil, fridges, building materials, televisions and carpets.

We therefore demand that the Council, in liaison with the police urgently, take action to put in place measures to deal with this disgraceful and unwarranted anti-social behaviour.”

2.                  Proposed Wood Lane Bus Route

Councillor Marilyn Ashton presented a petition signed by 62 people with the following terms of reference:

“We, the undersigned, confirm that we have read the attached letter to Councillor Phillip O’Dell and that we support the views expressed in this letter.”

The petitioners objected to the proposed Wood Lane Bus Route and the letter made reference to a number of issues and set out arguments and constructive suggestions.

3.                  Anmer Lodge Petition

Councillor Marilyn Ashton presented a petition signed by 66 people with the following terms of reference:

“We, the undersigned, express considerable concern at the decision of Harrow Council to market the Anmer Lodge and adjacent car park site without proper consultation, engagement or planning documentation. We therefore call on the Council’s administration to:

·           cease all current activity on the Anmer Lodge and car park site;

·           complete the process of adopting a Supplementary Planning Document/Planning Brief, before giving any consideration to marketing the site;

·           conduct a complete and thorough consultation exercise with local residents, businesses and Ward Councillors on both the development of the SPD/Planning Brief and on any subsequent proposals put forward by developers.”

4.                  Petition to Harrow Council to reject planning application for 3^rd floor extension to 90-100 Pinner Road, Harrow

Councillor Bill Stephenson presented a petition signed by 65 people with the following terms of reference:

We, the undersigned, urge Harrow Council object to the planning application of a 3^rd floor extension to 90-100 Pinner Road, Harrow, for the following reasons:

·           Overdevelopment – the development size is inappropriate.  The current streets are 2-storeys and the existing development is of 3?storeys and a further storey extension takes it to 4-storeys;

·           Character of the area – the development will alter the character of Devonshire Road and Pinner Road;

·           Parking – the development will add additional requirements for parking in the area.  This will cause increased traffic in Devonshire Road, as the on site parking proposals are not adequate, existing residential scarce spaces will be further congested.  Any new development should not add stress to parking and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 430.

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, 15 June 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, 15 June 2012].

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

1.

2.

The Leader of the Council informedCabinet that agenda item 14 ‘Shared Public Health Service – Outline Business Case’ was Key but had not been included on the June Forward Plan.  The Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been notified that this item would be included on this Cabinet agenda for decision.

RESOLVED:  To note the contents of the Forward Plan for the period 1 June to 30 September 2012.

For consideration.

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

Report of the Corporate Director Place Shaping.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)  That

(1)               the Site Allocations DPD be agreed for pre-submission consultation;

(2)               the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration be authorised to approve any changes to the Site Allocations DPD that are required, in response to the pre-submission, consultation and prior to submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public.

Reason for Recommendation:  To progress production of the Site Allocations DPD in accordance with the adopted Local Development Scheme.

[Call-in does not apply to the Recommendation].

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration introduced the report, setting out the changes that had been made to the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) for pre-submission consultation and submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public.  The Portfolio Holder added that consultation was a legislative requirement and would allow the public to provide a challenge on the Plan.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)  That

(1)               the Site Allocations DPD be agreed for pre-submission consultation;

(2)               the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration be authorised to approve any changes to the Site Allocations DPD that are required, in response to the pre-submission, consultation and prior to submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public.

Reason for Recommendation:  To progress production of the Site Allocations DPD in accordance with the adopted Local Development Scheme.

[Call-in does not apply to the Recommendation].

Report of the Corporate Director Place Shaping.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)  That

(1)               the Development Management Policies DPDbe agreed for pre-submission consultation;

(2)               that the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration be authorised to approve any changes to the Development Management Policies DPD that are required, in response the pre-submission consultation, prior to submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public.

Reason for Decision:  To progress production of the Development Management Policies DPD in accordance with the adopted Local Development Scheme.

[Call-in does not apply to the Recommendation].

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration introduced the report, setting out a summary of the changes that had been made to the Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) for pre-submission consultation and submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public.  The Portfolio Holder added that consultation was a legislative requirement and would allow the public to engage formally with the Council on the Plan.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)  That

(1)               the Development Management Policies DPDbe agreed for pre-submission consultation;

(2)               the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration be authorised to approve any changes to the Development Management Policies DPD that are required, in response the pre-submission consultation, prior to submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public.

Reason for Decision:  To progress production of the Development Management Policies DPD in accordance with the adopted Local Development Scheme.

[Call-in does not apply to the Recommendation].

Report of the Corporate Director Place Shaping.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)  That

(1)               having reviewed and commented on the pre-submission version of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan, annexed at Appendix A, to the report, the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan be approved for a six week pre-submission consultation;

(2)               the Divisional Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration, be authorised to make minor changes to the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan resulting from the pre-submission consultation, prior to its submission to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public.

Reason for Decision:  To progress production of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan in accordance with the adopted Local Development Scheme (LDS).

[Call-in does not apply to the Recommendation].

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration introduced the report, setting out a summary of the comments made to consultation on the Preferred Option document in January 2012 and the changes that had been made to prepare it for pre-submission consultation and submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public.  The Portfolio Holder added that consultation was a legislative requirement and would allow the public to engage formally with the Council on the Plan and comment on the soundness of the policies.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)  That

(1)               having reviewed and commented on the pre-submission version of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan, annexed at Appendix A, to the report, the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan be approved for a six week pre-submission consultation;

(2)               the Divisional Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration, be authorised to make minor changes to the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan resulting from the pre-submission consultation, prior to its submission to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public.

Reason for Decision:  To progress production of the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan in accordance with the adopted Local Development Scheme (LDS).

Report of the Corporate Director Place Shaping.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council):  That

(1)               the West London Waste Plan: Pre-Submission Consultation document, at Appendix A to the report, be approved including the revision to the Harrow Council Depot site designation;

(2)               the revised West London Waste Plan: Pre-Submission Consultation document, at appendix A to the report, and the associated Sustainability Appraisal, be approved for an eight-week public consultation in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the amendments to the Harrow Council Depot site, which reduces the area to be safeguarded for waste management, be noted;

(2)               it be noted that final approval was also being sought to undertake consultations on the West London Waste Plan: Pre-Submission Consultation Document by five other West London Councils, namely Brent, Ealing, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames, as members of the West London Waste Authority partnership

(3)               officers report to a future meeting on the outcome of the public consultation and any further proposed changes to the Plan prior to its formal submission to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

Reason for Decision:  To enable the Council to make meaningful progress on the West London Waste Plan (WLWP) in order to meet targets set out in the London Plan 2011 and Planning Policy Statement 10, which is still extant.

To provide, in due course, an up-to-date policy framework to assess planning applications for waste management facilities across the six West London boroughs: Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames.  Planning applications for waste management facilities would also be assessed by each borough against their individual Local Plans, including local development management policies and any other material considerations.

[Call-in does not apply to the Recommendation].

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration introduced the report which, following discussions amongst the partner boroughs, sought agreement to a revised site designation to Harrow’s Depot site that would help overcome the Council’s concerns in relation to the policy wording of the Plan.  He added that the outcome of the revision would result in a reduced site area being proposed for waste management of 1.83 hectares and, overall, this would reduce the total site area identified in the WLWP to 27.54 hectares.

The Portfolio Holder added that, following public consultation and an assessment of the responses received, including further evidence based research, the draft WLWP would be reported back to Cabinet and Council for further approval to submit the draft WLWP with any further proposed changes to the Secretary of State for formal examination.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)  That

(1)               the West London Waste Plan: Pre-Submission Consultation document, at Appendix A to the report, be approved including the revision to the Harrow Council Depot site designation;

(2)               the revised West London Waste Plan: Pre-Submission Consultation document, at appendix A to the report, and the associated Sustainability Appraisal, be approved for an eight-week public consultation in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the amendments to the Harrow Council Depot site, which reduces the area to be safeguarded for waste management, be noted;

(2)               it be noted that final approval was also being sought to undertake consultations on the West London Waste Plan: Pre-Submission Consultation Document by five other West London Councils, namely Brent, Ealing, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames, as members of the West London Waste Authority partnership

(3)               officers report to a future meeting on the outcome of the public consultation and any further proposed changes to the Plan prior to its formal submission to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

Reason for Decision:  To enable the Council to make meaningful progress on the West London Waste Plan (WLWP) in order to meet targets set out in the London Plan 2011 and Planning Policy Statement 10, which is still extant.

To provide, in due course, an up-to-date policy framework to assess planning applications for waste management facilities across the six West London boroughs: Brent, Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Richmond upon Thames.  Planning applications for waste management facilities would also be assessed by each borough against their individual Local Plans, including local development management policies and any other material considerations.

[Call-in does not apply to the Recommendation].

Reference (To Follow) from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 30 May 2012.

RESOLVED:  That the report of the Scrutiny Review Group ‘Redefining Youth Engagement’ be welcomed and that the Corporate Director Children’s Services be requested to submit a report responding to the recommendations of the Review Group to Cabinet on 19 July 2012, including the giving of consideration to officer time and resources, such as meeting rooms being made available to enable implementation of the recommendations.

Reason for Decision:  To respond to the recommendations and ensure engagement.

Cabinet received a report of the Scrutiny Review Group on ‘Redefining Youth Engagement’, which set out the findings, recommendations and ways in which the Council could effectively communicate with young people in decision-making and community activity.

The Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools and Families welcomed the report and stated that an interim report would be submitted to Cabinet in July with a detailed response report to a later Cabinet meeting.  He expected the partners from Harrow Youth Parliament and Harrow Mencap to participate at the July Cabinet meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the report of the Scrutiny Review Group ‘Redefining Youth Engagement’ be welcomed and that the Corporate Director Children’s Services be requested to submit a report responding to the recommendations of the Review Group to Cabinet on 19 July 2012, including the giving of consideration to officer time and resources, such as meeting rooms being made available to enable implementation of the recommendations.

Reason for Decision:  To respond to the recommendations and ensure engagement.

Report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the timetable for the preparation and consideration of the statutory Plans and Strategies, including the non-statutory plan and strategies, set out at Appendices A and B respectively, be approved;

(2)               variation to the timetable be reserved to the Leader of the Council;

(3)               additional Plans and Strategies, other than the Corporate Plan, set out at Appendix B, be submitted to Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cabinet and Council for approval.

Reason for Decision:  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.

Cabinet received a report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services, which set out the requirements of the Council’s Constitution in terms of the development of its policy framework and sought approval to the timetable for consideration of the key Plans and Strategies comprising the Policy Framework.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the timetable for the preparation and consideration of the statutory Plans and Strategies, including the non-statutory plan and strategies, set out at Appendices A and B respectively, be approved;

(2)               variation to the timetable be reserved to the Leader of the Council;

(3)               additional Plans and Strategies, other than the Corporate Plan, set out at Appendix B, be submitted to Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cabinet and Council for approval.

Reason for Decision:  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.

Report of the Corporate Director Resources.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the revenue and capital outturn position for 2011/12 be noted;

(2)               the proposed revenue carry forwards of £2.8m, as set out in paragraph 28 and detailed at Appendix 5 to the report, be approved;

(3)               the movements between reserves and provisions, as outlined in paragraph  27, be approved;

(4)               the net remaining revenue underspend of £1.3m, of which £0.5m allocated to the general reserves and  £0.8m to the Transformation and Priority Initiatives Fund, be approved;

(5)               the additions, movements and virements on the Capital Programme during quarter 4, and as set out at Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix 3 to the report, be approved;

(6)               the carry forward on capital projects, as set out in paragraph 35 and Table 4  of Appendix 3 to the report, be approved;

(7)               the timetable for accounts completion and external audit review, as outlined in paragraph 38 of the report, be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To confirm the financial position as at 31 March 2012.

Cabinet received a report of the Corporate Director Resources, which set out the Council’s Revenue and Capital Outturn position for 2011/12.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance was pleased to report an underspend of £1.3m on the Revenue Account which was an improvement on the position declared mid-year when an overspend had been forecasted.  He added that the underspend was the result of careful financial management in-year, and paid tribute to all the Directorates, particularly the work carried out by the Children and Families Directorate in the use of the Council’s Procurement Services and in bringing forward savings.  The year-end position allowed the Council to allocate £0.5m to General Reserves, which would help mitigate the shunting of costs by central government to Councils and the poor settlements received.

The Portfolio Holder added that General Reserves held by the Council would rise to £7.5m, which would meet with the policy approved by Council in February 2012 based on the risk assessment of the budget.  Moreover, the administration was investing in priority areas, such as £114k in public health and £50k in Summer Youth Projects, and he identified the Scrutiny report on Youth Engagement as an example of a ‘listening’ Council.  The Housing Revenue Account position had also improved from the one that the administration had inherited.

In summing up, the Portfolio Holder added that the Council was committed to strong prudent financial management and was in a sound position to face the challenges from central government.  It would continue to invest in its priorities.

The Corporate Director Resources explained that the underspend had been as a result of the early delivery of savings in the Children and Families Directorate, the carry forward of revenue of £2.8m and the delaying or stopping of expenditure due to the spending protocol.  She added that some of the expenditure had been stopped permanently but some of it would need to be spent in 2012/13 and was considered to be a timing difference rather than an actual underspend.  Redundancy provisions had also been made. However, these measures did not mean that the budgets had been overstated or that there had been an overreaction with the spending protocol.  However, the measures had been necessary and had served their purpose effectively.

The Corporate Director was grateful for the support given by other Directorates and Members in this regard.  She added that the in-year pressures, such as on homelessness, had been addressed by increasing the budget and this demonstrated the close and important relationship between the in-year budget monitoring and annual budget setting and medium term financial planning process.  The underspend had provided an opportunity to strengthen the balance sheet and deal with newly emerging issues whilst leaving £1m in contingency untouched.  With relatively low level of reserves, it was important that spending was controlled carefully and the Council did not risk running an overspend at year-end. 

The Corporate Director reported that there had been a significant underspend in the Capital budget.  Some projects had been deferred, others delayed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 441.

Report of the Corporate Director Resources.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the outturn position for Treasury Management activities for 2011/12 be noted;

(2)               the report be referred to the Governance, Audit and Risk Management Committee for review.

Reason for Decision:  To promote effective financial management and comply with the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) Regulations 2003 and other relevant guidance.

To keep Cabinet informed of Treasury Management activities and performance.

[Call-in does not apply to decisions that have been noted]

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, summarising the Treasury Management activities for 2011/12.  He reported on a favourable variance of £1.5m and the good rate of investment income received against an adverse economic situation.

The Portfolio Holder thanked staff in Finance for their work in achieving a positive outturn.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the outturn position for Treasury Management activities for 2011/12 be noted;

(2)               the report be referred to the Governance, Audit and Risk Management Committee for review.

Reason for Decision:  To promote effective financial management and comply with the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) Regulations 2003 and other relevant guidance.

To keep Cabinet informed of Treasury Management activities and performance.

[Call-in does not apply to decisions that have been noted]

Report of the Corporate Director Children and Families.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               statutory proposals to expand permanently the following schools by one form of entry (30 pupils), to fill incrementally from the point of admission into the school, be approved: 

·         Camrose Primary School with Nursery from September 2013

·         Cedars Manor School from September 2013

·         Glebe Primary School from September 2013

·         Marlborough Primary Schoolfrom September 2013

·         Pinner Park Infant and Nursery School from September 2013

·         Pinner Park Junior School from September 2014

·         Stanburn First School from September 2013

·         Stanburn Junior School from September 2014

·         Vaughan Primary School from September 2013;

(2)               the Corporate Directors Children & Families and Resources, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Children, Schools & Families and Finance, be authorised to negotiate and agree with the Department for Education and the government appointed agencies the financial arrangements for the rebuild of the schools in the Priority School Building Programme;

(3)               the Corporate Directors Children & Families and Resources, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Children, Schools & Families and Finance, be authorised to agree and implement the building works to the remaining schools within the 2012/13 - 2014/15 Capital Programme estimated expansion costs.

Reason for Recommendation:  To enable the local authority to fulfil its statutory duties to provide sufficient school places in its area.

The Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools and Families introduced the proposals to expand permanently nine schools on seven sites following the publication of statutory proposals in April 2012. The report contained recommendations to enable Cabinet to determine the statutory proposals. The Portfolio Holder added that there was a shortage of approximately 70,000 primary school places across London and measures were being put in place to address the shortage.  As far as Harrow was concerned, the work carried out by officers was to be commended, particularly the work relating to the Priority School Building Programme where eight Harrow schools out of the eleven application submitted had been selected for inclusion in the Programme.

The Divisional Director of Quality Assurance, Commissioning and Schools informed Cabinet that three schools included in the expansion programme had also been selected for the Priority School Building Programme.  Two of these schools, namely Vaughan and Marlborough Primary Schools, were significant projects totalling £19m.  The published dates for expansion of these schools was September 2013 and a significant amount of money had already been committed to these projects.  However, the Priority Schools Building Programme would help reduce the funding commitment of the Council but the government had not announced the timescales or the procurement arrangements of the Programme.  As a result, Cabinet was being asked to approve further delegation to the relevant Directors and Portfolio Holders.

The Portfolio Holder was appreciative of the work carried out by officers from the Children and Families and Resources Directorates to ensure best value.  They had established a good working relationship with the Department for Education.  In conclusion, he commended the proposals to Cabinet which should be seen as an expansion for the future, with better and efficient buildings.  The administration should be proud to leave this legacy for future generations.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               statutory proposals to expand permanently the following schools by one form of entry (30 pupils), to fill incrementally from the point of admission into the school, be approved: 

·                     Camrose Primary School with Nursery from September 2013

·                     Cedars Manor School from September 2013

·                     Glebe Primary School from September 2013

·                     Marlborough Primary Schoolfrom September 2013

·                     Pinner Park Infant and Nursery School from September 2013

·                     Pinner Park Junior School from September 2014

·                     Stanburn First School from September 2013

·                     Stanburn Junior School from September 2014

·                     Vaughan Primary School from September 2013;

(2)               the Corporate Directors Children & Families and Resources, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Children, Schools & Families and Finance, be authorised to negotiate and agree with the Department for Education and the government appointed agencies the financial arrangements for the rebuild of the schools in the Priority School Building Programme;

(3)               the Corporate Directors Children & Families and Resources, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Children, Schools & Families and Finance, be authorised to agree and implement the building works to the remaining schools within the 2012/13 - 2014/15 Capital Programme estimated expansion costs.

Reason for Recommendation:  To enable the local authority to fulfil its statutory duties to provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 443.

Report of the Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the work carried out on the cross-borough leisure and libraries market testing, including proposals relating to further development of a shared service, be noted;

(2)               the further work carried out on the development of the full service specification and the preparation for formal market testing and procurement, be noted;

(3)               authority be delegated to the CorporateDirector Community, Health and Wellbeing, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Community and Cultural Services and Property and Major Contracts, to invite tenders, engage in discussion with bidders and proceed with the evaluation of tenders following any necessary consultation and equality analysis of the proposals, as outlined in paragraph 3.2 of the officer report;

(4)               it be noted that a further report would be submitted to Cabinet with recommendations for the award of contract(s) and/or suggestions for alternative delivery models;

(5)               the proposed outline collaborative governance arrangements be approved and it be noted that a report would be submitted to Cabinet to seek approval, prior to entering into those arrangements.

Reason for Decision:  To deliver the next phase of transformation of Harrow’s cultural services and to ensure the continuation of leisure and library service delivery whilst at the same time delivering efficiency savings.

The Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services introduced the report, which set out the work conducted for the potential commissioning of library and leisure management services in partnership with Brent (leisure) and Ealing (libraries and leisure).  The report also sought approval to proceed to the next stage to include invitations to tender and evaluation of any tenders prior to bringing a further report to Cabinet with the outcome of the tender process for approval of award or alternative delivery model.

The Portfolio Holder added that a number of expressions of interest had been received:  3 for library management, 4 for leisure management and 1 for the joint management of both libraries and leisure facilities.  For reasons of commercial sensitivity, the details had not been publicised.

Cabinet was reminded that out of the 2,000 residents who took part in the Let’s Talk initiative, the majority had identified the Council as the best provider of a library service.  Whilst the Council would take into account the results of the consultation, it needed to explore all avenues in the current financial situation and in order to protect the frontline services.  No decisions had been made and further information would be made available at a future Cabinet meeting to allow a decision to be made.

The Leader of the Council stated that no decision had been reached and that a number of alternatives were being pursued.  He also drew attention to the comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 12 June which had been circulated to all Members.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the work carried out on the cross-borough leisure and libraries market testing, including proposals relating to further development of a shared service, be noted;

(2)               the further work carried out on the development of the full service specification and the preparation for formal market testing and procurement, be noted;

(3)               authority be delegated to the CorporateDirector Community, Health and Wellbeing, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Community and Cultural Services and Property and Major Contracts, to invite tenders, engage in discussion with bidders and proceed with the evaluation of tenders following any necessary consultation and equality analysis of the proposals, as outlined in paragraph 3.2 of the officer report;

(4)               it be noted that a further report would be submitted to Cabinet with recommendations for the award of contract(s) and/or suggestions for alternative delivery models;

(5)               the proposed outline collaborative governance arrangements be approved and it be noted that a report would be submitted to Cabinet to seek approval, prior to entering into those arrangements.

Reason for Decision:  To deliver the next phase of transformation of Harrow’s cultural services and to ensure the continuation of leisure and library service delivery whilst at the same time delivering efficiency savings.

Report of the Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               it be noted that the Council would continue to lobby for a fair and viable public health allocation;

(2)               officers continue discussion with the Clinical Commissioning Group and the North West London Commissioning Support Service on opportunities to establish a ‘joint venture’;

(3)               a further report on any proposals to establish a joint venture with the North West London Commissioning Support Service be submitted to Cabinet;

(4)               once guidance was received, a further report on the proposed final arrangements of the Health and Wellbeing Board be submitted to Cabinet;

(5)               a report on the proposed process for Commissioning Healthwatch be received.

Reason for Decision:  To progress the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act.

Cabinet considered a report of the Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing updating on progress in Harrow against the following key areas: Transfer of Public Health, Public Health Budget, Development of the Health and Wellbeing Board, Progress on the creation of a North West London Commissioning Support Service, Establishment of Harrow’s Clinical Commissioning Group and Creation of Healthwatch.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Health and Social Care Act received Royal Assent in March 2012 and from April 2013 local authorities would have a statutory duty to promote the health of its population.  A Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board had been set up in Harrow and the arrangements were working well, particularly with the General Practitioners (GPs).  A draft Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy had been produced and would be consulted on.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               it be noted that the Council would continue to lobby for a fair and viable public health allocation;

(2)               officers continue discussion with the Clinical Commissioning Group and the North West London Commissioning Support Service on opportunities to establish a ‘joint venture’;

(3)               a further report on any proposals to establish a joint venture with the North West London Commissioning Support Service be submitted to Cabinet;

(4)               once guidance was received, a further report on the proposed final arrangements of the Health and Wellbeing Board be submitted to Cabinet;

(5)               a report on the proposed process for Commissioning Healthwatch be received.

Reason for Decision:  To progress the implementation of the Health and Social Care Act.

Report of the Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the outline Business Case be approved and the “in principle” development of a shared public health service for Harrow Council and Barnet Council be agreed;

(2)               the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care, Health and Wellbeing and Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing, be authorised to develop the operating model and structures between the two authorities;

(3)               a further report be submitted to Cabinet with a view to agreeing the final operating model and inter-authority agreement.

Reason for Decision:  To implement the required transfer of Public Health to Local Government.

The Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing introduced the report, which set out a Business Case for an “in principle” agreement between Harrow and Barnet Councils to develop and implement plans for a shared public health function.  The shared public health team would discharge the statutory public health responsibilities that would transfer from the National Health Service (NHS) to local authorities on the 1 April 2013.

The Portfolio Holder added that the transfer of the health functions from the NHS to local authorities would mean that Harrow would receive a ring fenced budget based on NHS historical spend.  For Harrow this was considerably lower and would not help fulfill our statutory obligations in the beginning.  It also reflected the challenges that NHS Harrow had faced.  The base line allocation was approximately £7.5m, which was the sixth lowest in London.

As a result, a shared public health team with another borough was being considered in order to ensure that allocated resources went further, whilst maintaining capacity and expertise.  Harrow had explored opportunities and looked at shared arrangements with other Councils in the West London Alliance, and Barnet Council was considered to be the best option as both boroughs faced similar challenges.  The Portfolio Holder thanked Dr Andrew Howe, Director of Public Health, Harrow, for his knowledge, expertise and contributions in moving forward on this journey. The Portfolio Holder asked for it to be noted that the suggestion in the paper that a Deputy Director be appointed for each borough was no longer correct.

Cabinet was informed that should the recommendations be agreed, negotiations with Barnet Council would continue.  It was noted that since the issue of the Cabinet report, discussions between the Council had progressed well. Depending on the outcome of these discussions, a final Operating Model would be submitted for approval at a future date.  Hosting was important to Harrow, and if this was not possible, a separate proposal which was also being considered alongside the shared service proposal would be put in place.  The Portfolio Holder commended the report to Cabinet

The Chief Executive stated that the key driver behind the proposal was to ensure that the arrangements served the best interests of the Council and its residents.  Both Harrow and Barnet had received poor financial settlements and their needs were similar.  Therefore, in essence, both Councils had similar synergies and opportunities, including performance gaps.  Moreover, both organisations’ public health areas were mainstreamed and it was essential to build an Operating Model for consideration.

He thanked the Corporate Director of Community Health and Wellbeing, the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care, Health and Wellbeing and Dr Andrew Howe for moving this business forward in a positive manner.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the outline Business Case be approved and the “in principle” development of a shared public health service for Harrow Council and Barnet Council be agreed;

(2)               the Portfolio Holder for Adult Social Care, Health and Wellbeing and Corporate Director Community, Health and Wellbeing, be authorised to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 446.

Report of the Corporate Director Place Shaping.

RESOLVED:  That, having considered the feedback from the consultation and engagement activity summarised within the report:

(1)               the Whitchurch Consortium be commissioned to develop a community sport and leisure facility, at the Whitchurch Playing Fields, subject to agreement in respect of commercial terms;

(2)               it be noted that negotiations in respect of the Development Agreement, associated Service Level Agreement and Lease Terms would now commence, as previously authorised by Cabinet.

(3)               it be noted that the outcome of the negotiations would be reported to Cabinet for final approval.

Reason for Decision:  To attract inward investment to establish a modern sports and leisure facility, to include substantially improved playing pitches, for the benefit of the Community, at no direct financial cost to the Council.

Cabinet received a report of the Corporate Director Place Shaping, which provided a comprehensive summary of the consultation and engagement activity which had been undertaken in respect of proposed development of the Whitchurch Playing Fields, since November 2011. 

The Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts was of the view that, if approved, the proposal would provide excellent facilities for people of all ages.  The Portfolio Holder added that the consultation had been wide and that he was grateful that the site was being considered for development after many years.  He added that this was only the second stage of the process and that many other considerations would be necessary before any development on the site could go ahead.  Moreover, there were no guarantees that the development would go ahead.  He assured that the proposal would not be ‘nodded’ through without robust and careful consideration.  He commended the report to Cabinet.

The Corporate Director Place Shaping stated that the Whitchurch Playing Fields site was of strategic significance to the borough.  The Corporate Director explained the consultation process following approval by Council in November 2011 and the feedback received following engagement with residents.  He added that all Members of Cabinet had previously received the petitions received in relation to the proposals, including that organised by the Whitchurch Consortium in support of the proposals.

The Corporate Director added that this was the second stage of the process and that the report was impartial and comprehensive and had captured the key issues made by residents.  He was of the view that the proposals would not adversely impact on the residents and that the object had been to manage, mitigate and minimise the impact on both the local community and the borough as a whole.  The Council would have failed if the development would result in creating an adverse impact on the community.

The Corporate Director added that, if the proposals were approved, the Whitchurch Consortium would be expected to undertake pre-application consultation prior to the submission of a planning application, which would be considered by the Council’s Planning Committee.  He added that the planning process was an independent one.

The Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools and Families was of the view that the proposal would create a legacy for future generations and that the young people of Harrow, who often felt that they were not listened to, would particularly benefit from the creation of a sport facility.  The Council had an opportunity to develop a facility for families to use, and he expected the various processes to be approved independently.

The Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services stated that a recently conducted survey by the Council had shown that only 15% sport pitches were rated as good or excellent.  The proposals from the Whitchurch Consortium would help improve this figure and he alluded on the support received from the various colleges, scout groups and sporting organisations to this investment in the borough during an Olympic Year.  The Portfolio Holder added that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 447.

Report of the Corporate Director Place Shaping.

RESOLVED:  That the revised Local Development Scheme, at Appendix A to the report, be approved for publication, with the Scheme coming into effect from the 1 July 2012.

Reason for Decision:  Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended), the Council has a statutory duty to maintain an up-to-date Local Development Scheme (LDS).  The revised LDS is intended to fulfil that requirement.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration introduced the report, which set out the revised content and timetable for the Local Development Framework (LDF) documents that the Council was intending to prepare over the coming years.  The revised Local Development Scheme (LDS) was intended to replace the current outdated LDS.

RESOLVED:  That the revised Local Development Scheme, at Appendix A to the report, be approved for publication, with the Scheme coming into effect from the 1 July 2012.

Reason for Decision:  Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended), the Council has a statutory duty to maintain an up-to-date Local Development Scheme (LDS).  The revised LDS is intended to fulfill that requirement.