Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies for absence (if any).

None received.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests arising from business to be transacted at this meeting from:

(a)               all Members of the Cabinet; and

(b)               all other Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 5 – Public Questions

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was employed by London Councils Limited, which was mentioned in an answer given to a question.

Agenda Item 12 – Adoption of the Development Management Policies DPD, Site Allocations DPD and Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan DPD

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he lived close to the Harrow-on-the-Hill Conservation Area and that his mother owned a property near a development site in Northolt Road.  He would remain in the room and participate in the debate relating to this matter, which he did not envisage to be specific to the interests declared.

Councillor Susan Hall declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she owned a business in Wealdstone.  She would participate in the discussion relating to this item.

Councillors Paul Osborn and Joyce Nickolay declared a non-pecuniary interest in that they were members of the Harrow West Conservative Association, which was referenced to in the report.  They would remain in the room to listen to the debate relating to the report. 

That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 11 April 2013 and special Cabinet meetings held on 23 May and 28 May 2013 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the ordinary Cabinet meeting held on 11 April 2013 and special Cabinet meetings held on 23 May, 28 May and 6 June 2013 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 no petitions had been received.

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, 17 June 2013.  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, 17 June 2013].

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

1.

The Leader of the Council reported that the ‘Community Safety Plan’ and the ‘Joint Waste London Waste Plan’ items from the Key Decision Schedule had been deferred to later Cabinet meetings.  He added that a report on the ‘Commissioning of Libraries and Leisure Management’ was considered at the special Cabinet meeting on 6 June 2013.

RESOLVED:  To note the contents of the Key Decision Schedule for June 2013.

For consideration.

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

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan Local Plan, the Site Allocations Local Plan, and the Development Management Policies Local Plan be adopted.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the outcome of the independent Examination in Public of the three Local Plans be noted;

(2)               the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration be notified as soon as practicable when the post-adoption statutory requirements for the Local Plans have been complied with.

Reason for Decision:  To progress the Local Plans to adoption in accordance with the current Local Development Scheme. To ensure that an up-to-date Development Plan for the Borough was in place and to comply with regulatory requirements.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

[Call-in does not apply as the decision is reserved to Council.]

Cabinet received a report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise, which documented the outcome of the independent Examination in Public of the three Local Plans, formerly known as Development Plan Documents.  The proposal was to recommend to Council the adoption of the Local Plans, as part of the Local Development Plan for Harrow.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration briefed Cabinet on the outcome of the Examination in Public and the subsequent changes made to simplify the Plans.  He added that the Plans would set policy until 2026.

In commending the report to Cabinet, the Portfolio Holder explained that the Plans may need re-visiting before that time should the forthcoming revision to the London Plan significantly increase Harrow’s housing delivery “target.”

A non-Executive non-Voting Cabinet Member suggested that instead of wasting valuable resources, reference to tall buildings ought to be deleted from the Plans.  He was of the view that the Council’s vision that it would not support, for example, 20-storey buildings being built in Harrow should be clearly set out in the Plans.

In response, the Portfolio Holder stated that whilst he too recognised the Member’s concern, the Council was not in a position to make unequivocal statements and that the Council had been guided by the Planning Inspector in this regard.  He added that the Planning Inspector was satisfied with the Plans.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the Harrow and Wealdstone Area Action Plan Local Plan, the Site Allocations Local Plan, and the Development Management Policies Local Plan be adopted.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the outcome of the independent Examination in Public of the three Local Plans be noted;

(2)               the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration be notified as soon as practicable when the post-adoption statutory requirements for the Local Plans have been complied with.

Reason for Decision:  To progress the Local Plans to adoption in accordance with the current Local Development Scheme. To ensure that an up-to-date Development Plan for the Borough was in place and to comply with regulatory requirements.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

[Call-in does not apply as the decision is reserved to Council.]

Joint Report of the Corporate Director of Community, Health and Wellbeing and Director of Finance and Assurance

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Housing Business Plan 2013, at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved;

(2)               the consultation draft Asset Management Strategy, at Appendix 2 to the report, be approved;

(3)               officers be authorised to proceed with the first phase of the Affordable Housing Programme, set out at Appendix 3 to the report, and the Corporate Director of Community, Health and Wellbeing and the Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services and Housing be authorised to approve alternative sites if those identified were unable to be progressed;

(4)               expenditure from HRA reserves, HRA capital receipts and the Affordable Housing Fund of up to £6.5m to fund the development of the first phase of the Affordable Housing Programme be approved;

(5)               officers be authorised to procure an external Development Management Service with a value of up to 5% of the estimated development costs to support the first phase of the Affordable Housing Programme, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report;

(6)               officers be authorised to undertake detailed regeneration feasibilities on the HRA housing estates, as set out in the Affordable Housing Programme at Appendix 3 to the report;

(7)               officers be authorised to develop Business Cases for long term strategic housing delivery options, as set out at Appendix 3 to the report;

(8)               the Grants to Move Scheme, attached at Appendix 4 to the report, be approved and the Corporate Director of Community, Health and Wellbeing, the Director of Finance and Assurance and the Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services and Housing be granted delegated authority to approve amendments to the Scheme as necessary to ensure the Scheme objectives were achieved to time and within budget.

Reason for Decision:  To have in place an agreed 30 year Housing Business Plan for the purposes of long term planning (subject to annual review) and to enable delivery of agreed key housing objectives.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the officer report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

Cabinet received a report of the Corporate Director of Community, Health and Wellbeing setting out the long term aspirations of the Council to be achieved through the Housing Business Plan, including how the Council intended to maintain and improve its housing stock over a 30 year period, offering grants to existing tenants to move if they wished and deliver a new build Council Housing Programme on housing land that was underutilised.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing highlighted the key aspects of the report, as follows:

·                    the HRA account was in a healthy position and was projected to generate a balance of £170m once costs had been deducted;

·                    the draft Asset Management Strategy was ‘fit for purpose’ to meet both current and future housing needs;

·                    the HRA could afford to develop up to 150 new affordable homes, which was a clear priority of this administration.  He thanked the former Portfolio Holder for Housing, Councillor Currie, and Councillor Bath for their work in identifying the potential sites for development; some of which would be utilised for this purpose;

·                    houses owned by the Council would be utilised effectively, as grants would be provided to tenants whose properties were under occupied thereby encouraging them to downsize.  Such measures would help free up affordable housing for the vulnerable.

A Non-Executive Non-Voting Cabinet Member asked why Option 1, a higher cost option, was being recommended over Option 2.  He was also concerned that the report had not addressed the risks associated with changes in the governing of the HRA by future governments, as in the past 15 years three different arrangements for the HRA had been put in place by consecutive governments.  He was of the view that the report should have addressed these points on the basis that a 30-year Business Plan had been put in place for the HRA.  Additionally, he was also concerned how and why only some estates had been chosen for the regeneration programme and others in similar condition, such as Grange Farm, had been omitted.

The Divisional Director of Housing explained that Option 2 was a one off event while Option 1 was linked with the developing of the Council’s skills base and ability thereby keeping options open for determining what the Council did in the future and how it developed alternative development options.  The logic behind recommending Option 1 was to rebuild that capacity to keep options open for the future, which, whilst expensive in the short term would provide long term benefits.  The Portfolio Holder for Housing added that Option 1 represented better value for Harrow residents.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing explained that various estates had been chosen for feasibility studies as part of the regeneration programme on the basis that they were dilapidated and consideration had been given to identifying these across the borough.

The same Non-Executive Non-Voting Cabinet Member, whilst welcoming the desire for new development on existing garage sites as part of the programme, was concerned that the Council might not have the capacity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 656.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the new on-street and off-street tiered parking charges and standard charging periods in paragraph 2.10 of the report be agreed and statutory consultation be authorised to amend the Traffic Regulation Orders;

(2)               the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety be delegated authority to consider representations received from the statutory consultation and to agree the final Scheme for implementation;

(3)               a trial locally in Rayners Lane with a variation to the tiered parking charges that permits the first 20 minutes of on-street parking free be implemented;

(4)               a before and after study on the trial in Rayners Lane be undertaken and a report be submitted to Cabinet to allow consideration of the outcome of the study with a view to a wider implementation across the borough as soon as was practicably possible.

Reason for Decision:  To implement a new charging regime for on and off street parking to enable the borough to simplify parking charges and better support the local economy.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety introduced the report, which set out the background to the Parking Review, including proposals to implement the Review agreed in 2011.

The Portfolio Holder added that the report focused on standardising parking charges across the borough in order to avoid confusion and frustration amongst users.  He was pleased that part of the proposals included a free 20 minute free period of parking, which had been championed by the Leader of the Council, and would involve a trial in Rayners Lane prior to its introduction across the borough.

A Non-Executive Non-Voting Cabinet Member expressed caution, as the proposal for concessionary or free parking was not supported by a key Director.  The same Member stated that she too was concerned, as free parking could be easily abused, resulting in loss of income thereby putting additional pressure on the budget.  She asked if extra enforcement officers would be required to stop abuse and the associated costs of the trial in Rayners Lane, including the nature of the trial.  She added that it was important to identify these issues now rather than later as once the proposal was introduced, it would be unreasonable to remove.  Moreover, would the money be better spent elsewhere, such as on repairing potholes and street cleaning.

Both the Non-Executive Non-Voting Members felt that it was important to be aware of the cost implications at the outset, including costs associated with the implementation of 20-minute free parking across the borough.  They asked if the proposals were robust.  They were mindful of the risks identified in the report and urged that all information be gathered and made available before important decisions were taken.  Additionally, Equality Impact Assessments and Corporate Priorities needed to be assessed, as sections of the report were contradictory.  They felt that all these matters had also been ignored in the initial report considered in 2011.  They added that the Review had failed to gather all the relevant information and asked that the report be deferred as there was need to have true regard of the impact of the trial and the roll out.

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety stated that it was important that the Council listened to its residents and businesses who wanted some free parking time and he cited recent examples where the Council had listened to its residents and where it had tackled parking abuse.

An officer explained that the financial impact of the Rayners Lane trial would be monitored as part of the before and after study of the trial and the costs of the trial were minimal, the principle cost being one day of officer time.  The trial was not anticipated to cost more than £1,000 and related to the physical nature of the proposal.  Operation costs would be additional and it was difficult to assess these until a trial was conducted.  The trial would also help establish the true impact on the vulnerable.  Should the proposal be rolled  ...  view the full minutes text for item 657.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

RESOLVED:  That 

(1)               the Council be authorised to enter into a framework agreement commencing on 1 August 2013 for a period of up to four years, subject to performance review at the end of Year 3, for the provision of Responsive Repairs and Maintenance Works in Lots to Corporate Properties and Schools with the companies listed below:

Lot 1 General Build – 1^st D & L Contract Services; 2^nd Terry & Stephens; 3^rd Mead Building Services

Lot 2 Fencing – 1^st D & L Contract Services; 2^nd Terry & Stephens

Lot 3 Plumbing – 1^st Blackbourne Integrated Services; 2^nd Terry and Stephens; 3^rd Mead Building Services

Lot 4 Electrical – 1^st SCC International; 2^nd Blackbourne Integrated Services; 3^rd P3 Electrical Services

Lot 5 Drainage and External Works – 1^st D & L Contract Services; 2^nd P & R Installations Company Limited

Lot 6 Gas and Heating – 1^st R & L Paul; 2^nd P & R Installations Company Limited;

(2)               the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise, in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services, be delegated authority to agree the final contract details with the contractors and to award call off contracts under the framework agreement throughout the term of the framework agreement. 

Reason for Decision:  The evaluation of the tenders received had been conducted to arrive at the most economically advantageous bids.  The framework structure was designed to maintain a degree of competitiveness and resilience throughout the 4-year framework period. 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

The Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Major Contracts introduced the report, which set out the results of the tender process for the provision of general repair and maintenance services to Corporate properties and schools.

The Non-Executive Non-Voting Cabinet Members enquired if Cabinet was satisfied that staffing levels were sufficient to manage the contracts and that the staff had had the requisite skills, as they were mindful that the Council had not always managed contracts successfully, such as the Kier contract.  They identified this as a risk, and asked if the Council was getting value for money.

The Leader of the Council stated that there had been no objections from residents in relation to the proposals and that the contracts were small, including the savings to be achieved.  The Corporate Director(s) had not identified any staffing issues.  He was satisfied that the contracts provided value for money.

RESOLVED:  That 

(1)               the Council be authorised to enter into a framework agreement commencing on 1 August 2013 for a period of up to four years, subject to performance review at the end of Year 3, for the provision of Responsive Repairs and Maintenance Works in Lots to Corporate Properties and Schools with the companies listed below:

Lot 1 General Build – 1^st D & L Contract Services; 2^nd Terry & Stephens; 3^rd Mead Building Services

Lot 2 Fencing – 1^st D & L Contract Services; 2^nd Terry & Stephens

Lot 3 Plumbing – 1^st Blackbourne Integrated Services; 2^nd Terry and Stephens; 3^rd Mead Building Services

Lot 4 Electrical – 1^st SCC International; 2^nd Blackbourne Integrated Services; 3^rd P3 Electrical Services

Lot 5 Drainage and External Works – 1^st D & L Contract Services; 2^nd P & R Installations Company Limited

Lot 6 Gas and Heating – 1^st R & L Paul; 2^nd P & R Installations Company Limited;

(2)               the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise, in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services, be delegated authority to agree the final contract details with the contractors and to award call off contracts under the framework agreement throughout the term of the framework agreement. 

Reason for Decision:  The evaluation of the tenders received had been conducted to arrive at the most economically advantageous bids.  The framework structure was designed to maintain a degree of competitiveness and resilience throughout the 4-year framework period. 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)     the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Planning Obligations, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, be approved for publication for formal public consultation to be undertaken in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement;

(2)     it be noted that the consultation period would be extended.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure the SPD, when adopted, was afforded weight as a material planning consideration. To reflect the Council’s proposal to introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and to clarify the relationship between CIL and Planning Obligations to reduce the planning risk of ‘double dipping’ when seeking or securing contributions from development towards specific infrastructure requirements.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration introduced the report, which set out the Council’s approach, policies and procedures in respect of the use of planning obligations alongside the proposed introduction of Harrow’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in September 2013.

The Portfolio Holder added that government policy was clear and the legislative framework within which planning obligations were considered had changed with the introduction of the CIL.  These changes meant that the strategic infrastructure, such as schools and healthcare, could no longer be funded through planning obligations, which had been scaled back.  He added that the role of Planning Obligations had been limited to funding affordable housing, including the mitigation of site specific impacts.  The purpose of the draft SPD was to clarify the types of site specific obligations, such as affordable housing, that the Council might see in addition to a CIL depending on the nature of the development, including any mitigation required.

The Portfolio Holder agreed that the consultation period ought to be extended and he undertook to address, through the imposition of relevant planning conditions, the concerns relating to littering in relation to fast food restaurants in new developments, as this would help alleviate the problems associated with street cleaning.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Planning Obligations, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, be approved for publication for formal public consultation to be undertaken in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement;

(2)               it be noted that the consultation period would be extended.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure the SPD, when adopted, was afforded weight as a material planning consideration. To reflect the Council’s proposal to introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and to clarify the relationship between CIL and Planning Obligations to reduce the planning risk of ‘double dipping’ when seeking or securing contributions from development towards specific infrastructure requirements.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the revenue and capital outturn position for 2012/13 be noted;

(2)               the contributions to Reserves outlined in paragraph 3 of the report be approved;

(3)               the net remaining revenue underspend of £0.996m be utilised to increase the General Reserves from £7.650m to £8.646m;

(4)               the changes in quarter 4 and carry forwards on the Capital Programme outlined in paragraph 26 and set out at Appendix 2 of the report be approved;

(5)               the timetable for accounts completion and external audit review as outlined in paragraph 29 of the report be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To confirm the financial position as at 31 March 2013.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.

Cabinet received a report of the Director of Finance and Assurance, which set out the Council’s Revenue and Capital Outturn position for 2012/13.

The Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report and added that Cabinet was being asked to approve a number of transfers to reserves and the addition of £996k to the General Fund balance, taking it to a figure of £8.6m.  He identified the transfers, as follows:

·                     £4.8m to be transferred to a MTFS implementation reserve;

·                     £3.3m to be carried forward into the next financial year to allow Directorates to continue to deliver Council priorities for residents and projects that would help deliver additional savings in future years;

·                     a Business Risk Reserve to cover the financial risks associated with contractual disputes.

The Leader added that the Council’s Section 151 officer had advised that it would be appropriate for the Council to hold reserves of £10m and, as a result, £996k would be added to the existing reserves.  Moreover, any additional spend would not be dictated by political events.

The Non-Executive Non Voting Cabinet Members welcomed the desire of the administration to retain the dog mess collection service, which residents had campaigned for and asked which other services would be implemented to improve outcomes for residents.  The Leader of the Council replied that amongst the suggestions included spot fines for littering, environmental projects such as potholes, street cleaning and tree pruning.  He added that the costs of the various proposals had not yet been identified.

The Non-Executive Non Voting Cabinet Members asked questions on the underspend on sewage and highway works, the small amount of money that was being carried forward, if there had been any loss of income from the TfL resulting from non-implementation of schemes, how issues associated with troubled families were funded, including related costs, and how slippage on the HRA budget could be avoided.  They were concerned that income from parking enforcement would be lost as a result of the introduction of a 20?minutes free parking period.

In response, the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Finance, the Director of Finance and Assurance, the Corporate Directors of Resources, Children and Families, and Community, Health and Wellbeing stated that:

·                     the change of contractors had led to an underspend in sewage and highway works.  The TfL grant money had to be submitted in August 2013;

·                     £150k had been used for intervention measures for troubled families.  The youth service was also being targeted as part of the overall early intervention programme.  The Early Intervention Service would be funded by the Local Area Agreement Reward Grant, which would be received and measured following its successful delivery;

·                     due to a challenging number of referrals, recruitment and retention of staff in the social care area was underway, as part of the Transformation Programme.  This had proved to be a challenge and bench marking of salaries had been built into the programme. Internships were also being considered.  The Corporate Director of Children and Families  ...  view the full minutes text for item 660.