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 10 - Key Decision - School Expansion Programme

Councillors Simon Williams, Paul Osborn, Stephen Wright, Tony Ferrari, Kam Chana, and Janet Mote declared non-pecuniary interests in that they were governors of various schools in the borough.  They would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

During consideration of the item, Councillor Kam Chana declared that he had served on the governing body of Cannon Lane School which had decided on the outcome of the proposals.

During consideration of the item, Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar declared that St John Fisher School was in Roxeth Ward and that he was one of the Members who represented that Ward.

That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 17 October 2013 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2013, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

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

Planning Reference P/2734/13 – Harrow View – Petition

Councillor Bill Stephenson presented a petition signed by 126 people, requesting that the Council reject the application for change of use from retail space to residential use.  The terms of the petition were as follows:

“We, the undersigned, object to the planning application P/2734/13.  Loss of retail space will make these shops unviable and will damage the shopping parade.  This will be detrimental to the community.”

RESOLVED:  That the petition be received and referred to the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise and the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Regeneration for consideration.

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, Monday 18 November 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.

2.

3.

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, Monday 18 November 2013].

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

1.

2.

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

For consideration.

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

Report of the Corporate Director of Children and Families.

RESOLVED:  That, having determined the statutory proposals in relation to Stanburn First School (4-7 Years) and Stanburn Junior School, the two schools be amalgamated in January 2014, namely to:

·                     extend the age range of Stanburn First School (4-7 Years) to establish a primary school with an age range of 4 years (reception) to 11 years (year 6) from 1 January 2014;

·                     expand the capacity of Stanburn First School (4-7 Years) from 1 January 2014; and

·                     discontinue Stanburn Junior School on 31 December 2013.

Reason for Decision:  In line with the Council’s amalgamation policy, combining the two schools would give the opportunity to further improve educational standards by enabling planning as a coherent whole across the primary phase of the national curriculum.  It would also provide a greater flexibility across and between key stages.  Access to the whole primary curriculum supports and informs whole school planning, assessment, pastoral systems, etc., and provides opportunities for wider staff development and experience across the full primary phase.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  Reject the proposals. Approve the proposals with modifications, for example in relation to the implementation date. Approve the proposals subject to meeting a separate condition.

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

The Portfolio Holder for Children and Schools introduced the report, which sought approval to enable Stanburn First School and Stanburn Junior School to combine in January 2014.  The Portfolio Holder added that the Council’s Amalgamation Policy, which required governing bodies of separate schools to amalgamate schools when trigger circumstances arose, had been triggered as the Headteacher of Stanburn Junior School had retired in August 2013.

The Portfolio Holder expressed her gratitude for the work carried out by the governing bodies and stated that, following a challenging consultation, both the governing bodies had supported the amalgamation.  She praised the effective collaborative work and communication undertaken by the governing bodies in reaching a decision, and commended the report to Cabinet.

RESOLVED:  That, having determined the statutory proposals in relation to Stanburn First School (4-7 Years) and Stanburn Junior School, the two schools be amalgamated in January 2014, namely to:

·                     extend the age range of Stanburn First School (4-7 Years) to establish a primary school with an age range of 4 years (reception) to 11 years (year 6) from 1 January 2014;

·                     expand the capacity of Stanburn First School (4-7 Years) from 1 January 2014; and

·                     discontinue Stanburn Junior School on 31 December 2013.

Reason for Decision:  In line with the Council’s amalgamation policy, combining the two schools would give the opportunity to further improve educational standards by enabling planning as a coherent whole across the primary phase of the national curriculum.  It would also provide a greater flexibility across and between key stages.  Access to the whole primary curriculum supported and informed whole school planning, assessment, pastoral systems, etc., and provided opportunities for wider staff development and experience across the full primary phase.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  Reject the proposals. Approve the proposals with modifications, for example, in relation to the implementation date.  Approve the proposals subject to meeting a separate condition.

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

Report of the Corporate Director of Children and Families.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the outcomes of the statutory consultations on proposals for primary school expansions be noted;

(2)               the publication of statutory notices to expand permanently the following schools be agreed: 

·                     Aylward Primary School

·                     Pinner Wood School

·                     Grange Primary School

·                     Norbury School

·                     Belmont School

·                     Priestmead School and Nursery

·                     Newton Farm Nursery, Infant and Junior School

·                     Kenmore Park Infant and Nursery School

·                     Kenmore Park Junior School

·                     Whitchurch First School and Nursery

·                     Whitchurch Junior School;

(3)               in relation to Cannon Lane Primary School the following be agreed:

·                     to extend the consultation period for the Governing Body of Cannon Lane Primary School to respond to the consultation by 4.00 pm on Friday 29 November 2013;

·                     to delegate to the Corporate Director of Children and Families, in consultation with Portfolio Holder for Children and Schools, the decision whether to publish statutory proposals to expand permanently Cannon Lane Primary School;

(4)               in  relation to St Anselm’s Catholic Primary School and St John Fisher Catholic Primary School, it be agreed to delegate to the Corporate Director of Children and Families the decision whether to make representations on any published statutory proposals and for the Corporate Director to liaise with the schools and the Diocese of Westminster through the statutory process;

(5)               the Demographic Information School Roll Projections 2014-2022 Report be noted;

(6)               the Secondary School Place Planning Strategy be approved.

Reason for Decision: To enable the Local Authority to fulfil its statutory duties to provide sufficient school places in its area.

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 Children and Schools introduced the report which set out the outcome of the statutory consultations on Phase 2 of the Primary School Expansion Programme agreed by Cabinet in July 2013 and proposed the next stages.

The Portfolio Holder outlined the statutory responsibility on local authorities to provide sufficient school places for its area and the work carried out previously, including putting a Strategy in place.  She added that this was Phase 2 of the proposals which had received broad support and thanked those who had responded to the consultation, included the concerns expressed which were being discussed with schools.  The report also included demographic information, school roll projections and the Secondary School Place Planning Strategy.  She commended the report to Cabinet.

The non-voting non-Executive Members welcomed the report which had received cross-party support, including recognition by successive governments of the issue.  A Member asked about the risks which, in his opinion, had been addressed inadequately.  He added that the report was reliant on the project being delivered by June 2014 and asked about the financial risks if the deadline was not met.

In response, the Portfolio Holder explained that contingency plans had been built into the process and a reference group had been set up to log all progress made and to ensure meticulous planning.  She responded to further questions and assured Members that the consultation problems in relation to Vaughan School had been a helpful learning exercise for the Council and checks and balances would be kept for the future.  In relation to the responses that did not support the proposal, verbal responses had been received from Cannon Lane School of support.  Additionally, St Anselm and St John Fisher Voluntary Aided Schools had re-checked their consultation and were prepared to move to the next stage of the process.

With regard to the Council’s IT systems, the Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources informed Cabinet that discussions were underway with the Planning Department to ensure that the planning system was robust and whilst issues had arisen it was hoped that the Council would be able to minimise these.  The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Regeneration added that compared to previous times, the Planning Department was involved in discussions from the outset so that any potential issues could be identified at an early stage.  Moreover, local residents were being consulted early at the design stage.  These standards should apply not only to developers but also the Council who was both an education authority and a developer.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the outcomes of the statutory consultations on proposals for primary school expansions be noted;

(2)               the publication of statutory notices to expand permanently the following schools be agreed: 

·                     Aylward Primary School

·                     Pinner Wood School

·                     Grange Primary School

·                     Norbury School

·                     Belmont School

·                     Priestmead School and Nursery

·                     Newton Farm Nursery, Infant and Junior School

·                     Kenmore Park Infant and Nursery School

·                     Kenmore Park Junior School

·                     Whitchurch First School and Nursery

·                     Whitchurch Junior School;

(3)               in relation to Cannon Lane  ...  view the full minutes text for item 725.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

RESOLVED:  That the actions recommended by officers in response to the recommendations made in the Accessible Transport Scrutiny Review Group report be approved.

Reason for Decision:  To improve accessibility on the borough transport network.

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 Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise, which recommended the actions to be taken in response to the Scrutiny Review Group’s recommendations on Accessible Transport.

In accordance with the Cabinet/Scrutiny Protocol, the Leader of the Council invited the Chairman and a Member of the Review Group to address Cabinet.  They

·                     thanked those who had participated in the Review Group and the assistance that had been received from the bus companies and Transport for London (TfL), including residents.  They particularly thanked Anthony Wood, Harrow Public Transport Users Association, for his invaluable knowledge and contacts, including his knowledge of transport in Harrow;

·                     stated that the driving force behind the Review was the different life opportunities experienced by people who could not readily access transport facilities.  Additionally, during the Review issues such as being able to reach the buttons in lifts, being able to access dropped kerbs, had also been highlighted.  Small changes such as double yellow line markings near dropped kerbs helped.  They hoped that Harrow would emulate and learn from the measures implemented in other boroughs, and welcomed the provision of a community bus stop in Harrow.  The Chairman of the Review Group referred to the issue of access at Harrow-on-the-Hill Station and the cost of £35m to make it fully accessible.  She also explained the various measures that other boroughs had put in place and welcomed the response report.  However, she would have liked timescales and target to have been included.

In response to a question associated with the political pressures in obtaining funding, the Leader of the Council stated that she was meeting with the Deputy Mayor for London and would be raising the issue of accessibility, including the provision of facilities for people with disabilities, at Harrow-on-the-Hill Station and other stations.  She appreciated that other areas of Harrow also needed to be made accessible, and that she was aware of the nuances such as the doubts over TfL’s community project in Harrow on the Hill Ward.  She assured Cabinet that all such aspects would form part of her discussions with the Deputy Mayor for London the following day.  A non?voting non-Executive Member was pleased to learn that the Mayor’s office was being lobbied and he suggested that it was also important for the Council to have a commercial outlook and to encourage and attract private investment.

The Deputy Leader was of the view that it would have been helpful if the Review Group report had set out the challenges and costs associated with various proposals.  He suggested that the work being carried out by the Health and Wellbeing Board in respect of children and adult care ought to be incorporated, in particular the empowering elements of that work.  The Chairman of the Review Group responded that discussions had taken place on the financial aspects, however it was agreed not to include these as the financial aspects were also dictated by other contributory factors.

The Leader of the Council agreed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 726.

Report of the Corporate Director of Resources.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               for the purposes of calculating income support entitlement, the key figures, as set out in the report, be uprated in line with the rate used by the government;

(2)               having considered whether to review the Local Scheme, it be agreed that there was no need to review it, and the two year Council Tax Support  (CTS) Scheme, as originally adopted by full Council on 21 January 2013, be continued;

(3)               it be noted that the Council Tax Support (CTS) Scheme was fit for purpose and required no fundamental changes.

Reason for Decision:  The localised Council Tax Support (CTS) Scheme was determined by full Council and implemented on 1 April 2013 after extensive consultation designed to ensure that residents within Harrow were given the opportunity to comment and help shape the final scheme provisions. 

The Scheme design and consultation process were based upon retaining the provisions for two consecutive financial years, 2013/14 and 2014/15, so long as key conditions remained unchanged.  This was to ensure that awards of Council Tax Support did not exceed the government funding made available and for it, as far as reasonably practicable, to enable a degree of stability for claimants and their families. 

There had been no significant fundamental changes, either in caseload, demographics, the economy or funding, which required the Council to consider reviewing or replacing the Scheme as determined by full Council. However, some parameters required an inflation uplift as set out in the determined Scheme.  Harrow was updating the Local Scheme to meet those requirements and as such was recommending minor changes to ensure, operationally, assessments were carried out under the same rules and applied consistently.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  To undertake a review of the Scheme.

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

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, which informed Members of the requirement to consider a review of the localised Council Tax Support Scheme introduced on 1 April 2013.  He added that legislation required the Council to consider whether, for 2014/15, the Scheme needed to be revised or replaced.

The non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Members referred to the reasons why the Scheme had been put in place which was to help the vulnerable and asked if the administration, which had been critical of the proposal in the past, had changed its view and their long term commitment to the Scheme.  They asked if the administration would join the campaign on Council Tax benefit.  Another non-voting non-Executive member asked how an underspend would be addressed.

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Finance stated that the Scheme itself was not under consideration and was merely being reviewed.  The Scheme had to be approved soon and there was not sufficient time to make any changes even if the administration had wanted to.  A number of changes relating to the finances of the Council would be made and this avenue would be used, if necessary, to channel back money for those in need.  In respect of meeting a 70% collection rate, it was not clear at this stage whether this would be met as the available data was poor.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               for the purposes of calculating income support entitlement, the key figures, as set out in the report, be uprated in line with the rate used by the government;

(2)               having considered whether to review the Local Scheme, it be agreed that there was no need to review it, and the two year Council Tax Support  (CTS) Scheme, as originally adopted by full Council on 21 January 2013, be continued;

(3)               it be noted that the Council Tax Support (CTS) Scheme was fit for purpose and required no fundamental changes.

Reason for Decision:  The localised Council Tax Support (CTS) Scheme was determined by full Council and implemented on 1 April 2013 after extensive consultation designed to ensure that residents within Harrow were given the opportunity to comment and help shape the final scheme provisions. 

The Scheme design and consultation process were based upon retaining the provisions for two consecutive financial years, 2013/14 and 2014/15, so long as key conditions remained unchanged.  This was to ensure that awards of Council Tax Support did not exceed the government funding made available and for it, as far as reasonably practicable, to enable a degree of stability for claimants and their families. 

There had been no significant fundamental changes, either in caseload, demographics, the economy or funding, which required the Council to consider reviewing or replacing the Scheme as determined by full Council. However, some parameters required an inflation uplift as set out in the determined Scheme.  Harrow was updating the Local Scheme to meet those requirements and as such was recommending minor changes to ensure, operationally, assessments were carried out under the same rules and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 727.

RESOLVED:  That the Motion be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To meet with the requirements set out in the Constitution (Council Procedure Rules).

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].

Cabinet received a Motion on the ‘Senior Management Structure’ that fell within the remit of the Executive and which had been referred from Council.

In response to a question from a non-voting non-Executive Member on the views of the Executive Members on the Motion, the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources stated that it would be inappropriate to comment on or discuss the Motion which was the subject of an ongoing consultation that had yet to expire.  In addition, it was important to note that some of the Members serving on the Executive would have to make decisions on the outcome of the consultation.  The Motion had, therefore, not been discussed at Council and it was inappropriate for Cabinet Members to give views as the decision could be perceived to have been pre-determined.  Those Councillors would need to consider their position in any decision-making.

The same non-voting non-Executive Member enquired about the process following the consultation period and informed Cabinet that his Group would be submitting their comments.  He also asked how the administration had arrived at the consultation, about the process going forward, how the decision would be made and by who, as Council was awaiting the outcome.  The decision would have ramifications for all staff and the administration ought to consider the message that was being sent to loyal and hardworking staff.  Another non-voting non-Executive Member asked about the timetable and whether the decision would be taken by the Executive or Council.  The Leader of the Council replied that, following the consultation period, a view would be taken on this matter.  She added that the Executive needed to take responsibility and make a decision in this regard.

A non-voting non-Executive Member asked whether given the fact that the decision to be taken was significant, and that the local elections were to take place soon, would it not be appropriate for democratically elected Councillors to determine a way forward on this matter.  It was important that Council was allowed to make a decision on this matter so that democracy could prevail.

The Leader of the Council replied that should it be decided to delete the post, any incoming administration in May 2014 could reverse that decision.  It would be for the incoming administration to decide whether it wanted to invest a large sum of money in a single individual.  The Conservative administration wanted to invest in and maintain frontline services whilst providing best value to Harrow residents.  No decision had yet been made to delete any posts but that it was appropriate that her administration examined ways to save money.  She concluded by stating that the administration was in the business of making effective decisions in a timely fashion.

RESOLVED:  That the Motion be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To meet with the requirements set out in the Constitution (Council Procedure Rules).

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted:  None.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 728.

RESOLVED:  That the Motion be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To meet with to meet with the requirements set out in the Constitution (Council Procedure Rules).

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].

Cabinet received a Motion on ‘Blacklisting of Employees’, which had been referred by Council on the basis that it fell within the remit of the Executive.

The Leader of the Council invited the proposer of the Motion to explain its contents.  The proposer of the Motion stated that whilst an apology had been received from the companies concerned for their involvement with the blacklist and the impact on any individual construction worker, it was important that the Council had an ethical policy in place to ensure that this practice and the injustice suffered did not happen again.

 A non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member, who had also seconded the Motion, explained that the issue had occurred over a number of years, that the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) had seized databases of construction workers used by many companies to vet new recruits and keep out of employment trade union and health and safety activists which was unacceptable as the individuals had suffered.  It was therefore important that detailed questions were asked by the Council at the procurement stage to ensure an ethical strategy.

The same Member responded to a question from the Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources about the role his own administration had played to address the concerns expressed.  He added that whilst assurances had been received from some companies that they were not involved with the blacklist, it had subsequently transpired that this had not been the case.  As a result, he was suggesting that pertinent questions be asked and addressed at the procurement stage.  The Deputy Leader asked what steps and research had been undertaken by that former administration to ensure that the assurances received had been true.  The Member responded that he was merely asking for the matter to be taken forward.

RESOLVED:  That the Motion be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To meet with to meet with the requirements set out in the Constitution (Council Procedure Rules).

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].