Agenda, decisions and minutes

[Note:  The items were taken in the order set out on the agenda.  However, as was customary, the minutes are set out in the following order:  Formal Business; Recommendations to Council on substantive items; Discussions and decisions on the remaining substantive items.]

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 Items 10(b), 10(c) and 12 – Report from the Accessible Transport  Review, Regeneration in North Harrow – Replicating the lessons in other parts of the borough, and Youth Justice Plan 2013-14

Councillor Graham Henson declared non-pecuniary interests in that he had been a Member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee when these items had been considered and referred to Cabinet.  He would remain in the room and take part in the discussions relating to these items.

Councillor Paul Osborn declared non pecuniary interests in that he had been the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee when these items had been considered and referred to Cabinet.  He would remain in the room whilst the reports were considered and voted upon.

Councillor Stephen Wright declared non-pecuniary interests in that he had been a Member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee when these items had been considered and referred to Cabinet.  He would remain in the room whilst the reports were considered and voted upon.  He added that he had also been a member of the Accessible Transport Scrutiny Review Group.

Councillor Kam Chana declared non-pecuniary interests in that he had been a Member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee when these items had been considered and referred to Cabinet.  He would remain in the room whilst the reports were considered and voted upon.

Councillor Tony Ferrari declared non-pecuniary interests in that he had been a Member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee when these items had been considered and referred to Cabinet.  He would remain in the room whilst the reports were considered and voted upon.

Agenda item 10(c) - Regeneration in North Harrow – Replicating the lessons in other parts of the borough

Councillor Janet Mote declared that she was a Councillor for Headstone North.  She would remain in the room whilst the report was considered and voted upon.

General Interests

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared that he had previously served on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  He would remain in the room whilst all the reports on the agenda were considered and voted upon.

Councillor Yogesh Teli declared that he was Scrutiny Lead Member for Environment and Enterprise and that there were 3 items on the agenda relating to this area.  He would remain in the room to listen to the debate on these items.

That the minutes of the Cabinet meetings held on 18 July 2013 and 12 September 2013 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 18 July and 12 September 2013 be taken as read and signed as correct records.

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

(1)               Controlled Parking Zone in Leathsail Road - Petition

Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar presented a petition signed by 13 residents of Leathsail Road and Corbins Lane with the following terms of reference:

“We, the undersigned, being residents of Leathsail Road request the Council to create a full time Controlled Parking Zone on Leathsail Road.”

RESOLVED:  That the petition be received and referred to the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise and the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Environment for consideration.

(2)               Controlled Parking Zone in Whitmore Road – Petition

            Councillor Simon Williams presented a petition signed by approximately 46 residents with the following terms of reference:

“We, the undersigned, recognising that parking in the area has become congested to the point where safety is becoming compromised petition Harrow Council to introduce controlled parking in Whitmore Road between Bessborough Road and Porlock/Treve Avenue.”

RESOLVED:  That the petition be received and referred to the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise and the Portfolio Holders for Community Safety and Environment.

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, 14 October 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, 14 October 2013.]

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

1.

Report of the Corporate Director of Children and Families.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council) 

That the Youth Justice Plan 2013-14 be approved and submitted to the Youth Justice Board, as part of the Youth Justice Board grant conditions for 2013/14. 

Reason for Recommendation:  To meet the requirements of the Youth Justice Board (YJB), the body responsible for monitoring youth justice services in England. Every authority was required by the YJB to produce a Plan setting out how it would meet the key objective of reducing young offending. The YJP is a Statutory Plan and requires the approval of Council.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  As set out in the Youth Justice Plan.

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

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

The Portfolio Holder for Children and Schools introduced the draft Youth Justice Plan for 2013-14, a statutory plan, which when approved by Council would be submitted to the Youth Justice Board as part of the conditions attached to the grant received from the Ministry of Justice.

The Portfolio Holder explained that the purpose of the Youth Justice Plan was to outline how it would meet the key objective of reducing young offending.  She added that the Plan had been produced by a multi-agency group and had had the support of Council’s statutory partners, which was accountable to Harrow Chief Executives’ Group.  She outlined its key aspects, as follows:

·                     the partners had been successful in stopping young people from entering the criminal justice system but there was work to be done in this area.  It was important that the youth were made aware of the impact of a criminal record on their future prospects;

·                     there was a need to reduce the youth from re-offending and stringent processes were required;

·                     there was a need to reduce the number of young people in custody.

Cabinet was briefed on the work carried out by the Youth Offending Service and that its aim was to protect the public – young people themselves, both as perpetrators and victims – and to prevent the perpetrators from offending.  The Portfolio Holder outlined some of the successes and the challenges that lay ahead and she set out the various figures detailed in the Plan.  A key achievement had been a reduction in the number of first time entrants to the youth justice system but the challenges that lay ahead included the need to improve the quality and timeliness of assessments, a stable and empowered workforce, increasing the number of young offenders in education, training and employment, and sharing of resources with other local authorities.  Positive intervention was key, including the work being carried out with the Third Sector.  A triage system had helped reduce the number of young people entering the system.  There was also a need to improve on the rates of young offenders in education, training and employment.

The Portfolio Holder explained that attached to the Youth Justice Plan was an action plan, an ongoing flexible tool which reflected real time targets.  She was pleased to report that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had recognised that good processes were being put in place to improve the lives of young people.  She added that the action plan was forward looking in that:

·                     due to pressures and anticipated reductions in the grant received,  discussions with other local authorities had been initiated with a view to discussing joint working;

·                     the volunteer base needed to be expanded and more group work was essential;

·                     it was important to that the education status of young people was identified.

The Portfolio Holder commended the report to Cabinet and, together with the Corporate Director of Children and Families, responded to a number of questions from the non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Members, who welcomed the positive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 699.

Joint Report of the Corporate Director of Children and Families, Director of Finance and Assurance and Divisional Director of Commercial, Contracts and Procurement.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the 2013/14 Capital Programme be adjusted to include £9.583m Targeted Basic Needs Programme (TBNP) funding and the 2014/15 and 2015/16 Programmes be agreed as part of the budget setting process.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the additional funding of £34.3m secured through the Targeted Basic Needs Programme (TBNP) process be noted;

(2)               the procurement and implementation of contracts to the value of £60m be delegated to the Corporate Director of Children and Families, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Children and Schools and the Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts, subject to none of the additional funding being spent prior to the Council approval of the amended budget;

(3)               it be noted that in order to minimise risk and meet the tight deadline conditions of the TNBP funding, officers would use the Council’s Major Works, Maintenance and Repairs Framework Contract with Keepmoat together with existing Major Works Frameworks established by other Public Buying Organisation(s) to deliver the projects.

Reason for Recommendation/Decision:  To increase the amount in the Council’s Capital Programme for 2013/14 and carry out the procurement process to deliver the projects within tight timescales.

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 to the recommendation to Council and where the item has been noted.]

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report on the Targeted Basic Need Programme (TBNP) and the delivery of the school projects. The report identified the recommended procurement route in order to achieve value for money within timescales.

The Portfolio Holder added that due to the increase in the number of children of school age and the pressures in providing school places, various measures had been put in place including the bidding for grant funding from the government. He acknowledged the history of cross-party working on this matter and was pleased that additional funding had been secured. The funding would help Harrow increase the number of school places available, expand the much needed Special Educational Needs provision and additional secondary school places. Further reports would be submitted to Cabinet on the progress made of this long term programme. He agreed that he would ensure that the Targeted Basic Need Programme funding, which had a tight deadline, was progressed swiftly and that it was not caught up in any procurement issues.

The Portfolio Holder for Children and Schools highlighted the significance and the importance of education, as it opened up opportunities. She added that it was important to recognise that Harrow’s children would be the adults of tomorrow and it was pleasing to note that the quality of education provided in Harrow schools was excellent.

In response to a question from a non-voting non-Executive Member in relation to the administration’s commitment to the schools priority funding projects in Marlborough and Vaughan Schools, the Portfolio Holder for Children and Schools stated that she had met with the Headteacher of Marlborough School and would be meeting with the Headteacher of Vaughan School and was confident that both projects would proceed.

The Leader of the Council responded to a question on the challenges around the construction of additional buildings in schools and the options to decant children to other safe sites in the borough, such as the Civic Centre site.  She explained that all options would be explored and that Ward Councillors would be made aware of the proposals.

A non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member commented that the cross-party working had worked well and asked if similar measures would be put in place as part of the implementation of the Building Schools for the Future Programme.  Both the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Finance stated that a cross-party governance structure would be put in place.  In relation to a question on the lessons learnt from the proposals for Whitmore High School, and as a local authority managing large contracts which required sufficient staff resources, the Portfolio Holder for Finance stated that the Council was not adopting any different processes except that capitalisation would take place as part of the project.

The Leader of the Council added that previously checks and balances had not been put in place and the Director of Finance and Assurance would ensure that sufficient safeguarding measures were put in place.  It was important that correct processes were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 700.

Report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services.

Cabinet received a report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services, which set out the details of a Portfolio Holder Adviser and her area of responsibility.

A Non-Executive Non-Voting Cabinet Member welcomed an appointment to this post which had been created under his administration.  In response, the Leader of the Council stated that her administration welcomed the opportunity to be able to have two experienced Members who would provide value for money.

RESOLVED:  That the appointment of Councillor Christine Bednell as Portfolio Holder Adviser to the Portfolio Holder for Children and Schools with responsibility for Children and Schools be confirmed, together with the role profile set out at appendix A to the report.

Reason for Decision:  To enable support to be provided to the Portfolio Holder in terms of information provision and management to contribute and ensure an effective decision-making framework as part of the democratic process.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

(1)               It be agreed that:

(i)                 Councillor Kam Chana replaces Councillor Susan Hall as Chairman of the Harrow Business Consultative Panel;

(ii)               Councillor Susan Hall replaces Councillor Thaya Idiakkadar as Chairman of the Major Developments Panel.

(2)               In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 1.5 and following notification by the Conservative Group, it be advised that:

(i)                 Councillor Stephen Greek be appointed as a main Member of the Major Developments Panel from his Reserve Member position with Councillor Tony Ferrari being moved from his main Member position to serve as a Reserve Member;

(ii)               Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane replaces Councillor Marilyn Ashton as a main Member on the Employees’ Consultative Forum with Councillor Ashton serving as a Reserve Member;

(iii)             Councillor Manji Kara replaces Councillor Susan Hall as a main Member of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel. The positions of Reserve Members be varied with Councillor Hall serving as 3^rd Reserve Member.

RESOLVED: That

(1)               Councillor Kam Chana replace Councillor Susan Hall as Chairman of the Harrow Business Consultative Panel;

(2)               Councillor Susan Hall replace Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar as Chairman of the Major Developments Panel;

(3)               in accordance with Council procedure Rule 1.5 and following notification by the Conservative Group, the following be noted:

(i)                 Councillor Stephen Greek’s appointment as a main member of the Major Developments Panel from his Reserve Member position with Councillor Tony Ferrari being moved from his main Member position to serve as a Reserve Member;

(ii)               Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane replacement of Councillor Marilyn Ashton as a main Member of the Employees’ Consultative Forum with Councillor Ashton serving as a Reserve Member;

(iii)             Councillor Manji Kara’s replacement of Councillor Susan Hall as a main Member of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel with the positions of reserve Members being varied with Councillor Hall serving as 3^rd Reserve Member.

Reason for Decision:  To meet with the requirements set out in the Constitution.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

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

For consideration.

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

Reference from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Cabinet received for consideration a reference from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee setting out the recommendations of the Accessible Transport Scrutiny Review Group.

A non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member referred to the report of the Scrutiny Review Group and highlighted it as a good example of cross-party work.  He added that accessibility issues resonated throughout the report and he asked if the administration supported the campaign for the provision of full access at both Harrow-on-the-Hill and Stanmore Park Stations.

The Leader of the Council stated that the administration supported the cause and had raised the issue with the Mayor of London.  The costs associated with making stations fully accessible were often vast and that a figure of £35m had been mooted in respect of Harrow-on-the-Hill Station.  It was important that other alternatives were explored and that further discussions would take place when a response report to the recommendation of the Scrutiny Review Group was received by Cabinet. 

RESOLVED:  That the report of the Accessible Transport Scrutiny Review Group be welcomed and that the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise submit a report to the November 2013 meeting of Cabinet responding to the recommendations of the Scrutiny Review Group.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure that the recommendation of the Scrutiny Review Group were addressed.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

Reference from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Cabinet received a reference from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee commending the viability of the work carried out to reduce vacancy rates in North Harrow and to give similar consideration to those areas with 10% frontage vacancy, details of which were set out in the substantive report.

The Leader of the Council responded to a question from a non-voting non?Executive Member and undertook to ascertain why there had been an overspend on the Town Centre Website, as set out in the substantive report, which according to the Member ought to have cost in the region of £1,000.  In relation to his question on the works carried out to a car park, the Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts explained that parking bays had been constructed in the area that had previously been occupied by a market, namely in Blenheim Road.  The same Member enquired about the cost of the festive lights and whether this was a one-off fixed cost.

The Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources suggested that given that the money had already been spent, it would have been advisable to have raised questions earlier in the process.  He added that the purpose of the report from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been to show how the money received from the Mayor of London had been used and to ascertain how the lessons learnt could be transferred to other district centres in the borough where vacancy rates were high.  It would be for Cabinet to examine any measures at a future meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To give due consideration to the referral.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

Information Report of the Corporate Director of Resources.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Reason for Recommendation:  To brief Members on the future of the Board.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

[Call-in does not apply where the item has been noted.]

Cabinet received a report of the Corporate Director of Resources, which summarised the discussion at the meeting of the Partnership Board held on 23 September 2013.

The Leader of the Council explained that this had been the Board’s last meeting.  The report set out that partnership working would continue under the Health and Wellbeing Board, Safer Harrow and Enterprising Harrow with co?ordination provided by the Harrow Chief Executives’ Group.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Reason for Recommendation:  To brief Members on the future of the Board.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

[Call-in does not apply where the item has been noted.]

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the properties detailed in the report be declared surplus;

(2)               the financial implications and projected sale prices, detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, be noted;

(3)               the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and/or Leader of the Council, be authorised to take all action necessary to dispose of the Council’s interest in the land and properties detailed for the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained.

Reason for Decision:  To generate a significant capital receipt for the Council, generate a revenue saving and reduce backlog maintenance, thereby fulfilling part of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) Work Stream.

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 Property and Major Contracts set out the proposals for the disposal of 11 properties and one site, details of which were set out in the report, including the confidential appendix.  He referred to the revised plan circulated for the public lavatories on Whitchurch Lane which also included the site occupied by an electricity sub-station as part of the proposed disposal.  Another minor amendment was in relation to the public lavatories at Greenhill Way and that the OS Plan would not include the pavement/bus stop area.  He referred to the rationale for the disposal of the various sites and commended the report to Cabinet.

The non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Members made the following comments:

·                     whether 231a Station Road could be refurbished for the borough’s homeless;

·                     whether other properties too would be refurbished and why the Council was not able to refurbish them at the same price as a local builder;

·                     whether investment in properties in high costs areas would be carried out prior to their disposal in order to attain a higher capital receipt;

·                     why the properties could not be used to provide additional Council housing and the piecemeal approach to their disposal;

·                     why the Council could not set up an arms length organisation which could rent out the properties.

In response, the Portfolio Holder stated that it was not the Council’s core business to refurbish properties. As a result, it would not be able to achieve economies of scale.  Moreover, it would not be cost effective for the Council to refurbish and rent properties such as 231a Station Road which had been damaged by fire. 

A non-voting non-Executive Member was of the view that the properties had been undervalued and that some maintenance and refurbishment would help maximise their values in the open market.  He asked if any other properties and land had been discounted in meeting the savings set out in the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) target.  The Portfolio Holder responded that the target set out by a former administration would not be met as an expected disposal had not been achieved but he hoped that its disposal could be brought forward during the next financial year.  He added that the Council was obliged to achieve best value and that the figures set out in the confidential appendix were estimates and that the prices would be the subject of negotiations in the open market.  He added that he would ensure that maximum prices were achieved.

The same non-voting non-Executive Member stated that residents would be interested in the Portfolio Holder’s views on appropriate developments for the site in Whitchurch Lane.

The Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts responded to a question about the involvement of community groups on the proposed disposals and whether they had been encouraged to provide challenge.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise reported that the Localism Act required community groups to register challenge and that no community groups had registered that challenge in any of the properties listed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 708.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), attached at Appendix B to the report, be adopted;

(2)               authority be delegated to the Divisional Director of Planning to make typographical corrections and any other necessary non-material amendments to the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) prior to formal publication of the SPD.

Reason for Decision:  To afford weight to the SPD as a material planning consideration.  To clarify the relationship between the Council’s use of its Community Infrastructure Levy 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, Development and Regeneration introduced the report, which proposed the adoption of the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to aid in the effective implementation of the Harrow Local Plan and, in particular, Policy DM50 Planning Obligations.

The Portfolio Holder added that the report explained the Council’s approach to the use of agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which allowed the drafting of planning obligations between developers and the Council.  The legal landscape within which planning obligations were considered had changed with the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for Harrow. The Council CIL would be used to fund strategic infrastructure, such as schools and healthcare.  In addition, the money could also be used to improve public open spaces, highways and community safety.  The use of S106 agreements was therefore more limited than in the past but importantly continued to be the mechanism to deliver affordable housing.

The Portfolio Holder thanked the Divisional Director of Planning and his team for their work on the SPD, including Members of the Local Development Framework Panel for their contributions at its meeting on 3 October 2013.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), attached at Appendix B to the report, be adopted;

(2)               authority be delegated to the Divisional Director of Planning to make typographical corrections and any other necessary non-material amendments to the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) prior to formal publication of the SPD.

Reason for Decision:  To afford weight to the SPD as a material planning consideration.  To clarify the relationship between the Council’s use of its Community Infrastructure Levy 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 Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the review of the Rayners Lane free parking trial, as set out in the report, be noted;

(2)               having considered the implications of on-street free parking borough-wide and reviewed the options available, the following preferred option be agreed:  Do not implement 20 minutes free parking in the borough and remove the Rayners Lane trial of 20 minutes free parking.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure that a consistent parking charges policy was implemented.

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 Community Safety and Environment introduced the report, which set out the background to the Rayners Lane 20 minutes free parking trial and provided options for Cabinet’s consideration on the future use of free parking periods in the borough.

The Portfolio Holder invited questions from Members and, having been asked that her administration was unlikely to expand the trial borough-wide, responded as follows:

·                    that the expansion of the businesses in North Harrow had been as a result of the excellent work carried out by the Head of Economic Development and Research (Minute 706 refers);

·                    the majority of shoppers required more than 20 minutes to do their shopping.  The trial in Rayners Lane had increased the footfall by a small amount only and that unlike the previous administration, it was important that her administration did not rush into implementing a scheme which had not been fully researched;

·                    her administration would be looking to implement a fully researched scheme and she cited the example of a scheme that had been implemented in Hillingdon which had taken up to two years to implement.  The Hillingdon Scheme had been linked to the Oyster Card and allowed a driver to park for one 20 minute session unlike the one in Rayners Lane.  She explained that the trial in Rayners Lane had been open to abuse, as the same driver had been able to use the free parking by printing out a ticket at 20 minute intervals.  The cost of the scheme, £1m, was considerable and unsustainable.

A non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member referred to the contradictions within the report and asked what consultations had been carried out prior to formulating the report.  He was of the view that free parking had brought economic viability for businesses.  The Portfolio Holder reiterated that the 1?hour free parking in North Harrow had not revitalised the businesses which had declined in numbers and that it had been the splendid work carried out by the Head of Economic Development and Research that had helped to rejuvenate this area.  A number of measures needed to be explored to bring about vitality to an area and free parking in itself was not an attraction.

In relation to the consultation, the Portfolio Holder replied that specific consultation had not been carried out but that the trial had provided sufficient information that this scheme was not right for implementation borough-wide bearing in mind that it would have unacceptable cost implications.  She re?iterated that her administration supported free parking scheme(s) but this scheme was not the right one for the borough.

The same non-voting non-Executive Member was of the view that the arguments used for non implementation of the scheme had been based on the reduction of income from the issue of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).  The Portfolio Holder refuted this as chart 7 of the report did not support this argument, as it showed a variable result week-on-week and it was difficult to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 710.