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.  Agenda items 10, 11 and 12 (Minutes Nos. 740-742 refer) were considered together by Cabinet but the minutes sets out the discussions separately on each of the items.]

To receive apologies for absence (if any).

None received from Cabinet Members.

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 interest was declared:

Agenda Item 5 – Public Question 5

During consideration of the question, Councillor Susan Hall declared a non pecuniary interest in that she owned a business in Wealdstone.  She would remain in the room whilst the question was answered.

That the minutes of the special Cabinet meeting held 18 November 2013 and the ordinary meeting held on 21 November 2013 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the special meeting held on 18 November 2013 and the ordinary meeting held on 21 November 2013 be taken as read and signed as a correct records.

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

(1)               Alfriston Avenue/Fernbrook Drive - Petition

CouncillorKairul Marikar presented a petition signed by 50 residents with the following terms of reference:

“We, the undersigned residents of Alfriston Avenue and Fernbrook Drive urge Harrow Council to resurface the roads and pavements of our streets, add street bumps and improve the street lighting.  The reasons why we are calling for action is because of the following:

·                     The pavements are dangerous, with people tripping up on them, and are a hassle if you have a push chair.

·                     The roads are in a poor state of repair and urgently need to be resurfaced.

·                     The street light provisions are inadequate and residents do not feel safe walking the streets late at night.

·                     Without street bumps cars can speed down the road, which is a danger to children who may be playing on the street.”

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)               Ashridge Gardens, Pinner – Petition

            Councillor Janet Mote presented a petition signed by 32 residents with the following terms of reference:

“We, the undersigned, want Harrow Council to: provide a long term permanent solution to fix the poor state of the road and pavements of Ashridge Gardens in Pinner.  As this road is used by both the residents and regular pedestrians accessing the short cut, we do not believe this is just a residential issue, but a wider issue that affects everyone using these facilities.”

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.

(3)               Local Safety Parking – Kenton Park Avenue – Petition

Councillor Yogesh Teli presented a petition signed by 30 residents with the following terms of reference:

“We, the undersigned residents of Harrow, ask Harrow Council to improve the safety of the residents, motorists and pedestrians by implementing a double yellow line at the sharp 90 degree bend in Kenton Park Avenue, between house numbers 41-55.  The motorists park in such a way that it makes it difficult for the residents to come out of their

driveway, the Council bin collection vehicle getting obstructed and it also impedes the road visibility.  There have been many incidents, thankfully, none have been fatal and we request the Council to act now and not wait for a fatality before addressing issues and concerns of the residents.

We urge Harrow Council to take all the points into consideration as well as the strong views and wishes of the residents since safety of all users is of paramount importance.”

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.

(4)               Planning Application on Anmer Lodge and Surface Level Car Park in Stanmore

Mr John Williams, Chairman of the Stanmore Society, presented a petition signed by 24 people  ...  view the full minutes text for item 733.

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, 9 December 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, 9 December 2013].

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

1.

Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the minimum credit criterion for The Royal Bank of Scotland be amended from F1 to F2 as discussed in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the report.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the half year Treasury Management Activity (TMA) for 2013/14 be noted;

(2)               theGovernance, Audit and Risk Management Committee consider and review the report;

Reason for Recommendation/Decision: To promote effective financial management and comply with the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) Regulations 2003 and other relevant guidance. To be informed of Treasury Management Activities and performance.

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 to the Recommendation to Council.]

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, which set out the mid?year review of Treasury Management activities for 2013/14.  It was noted that Treasury Management operation ensured that cash flow was adequately planned, with surplus money being invested with low risk counterparties.  It also ensured that adequate liquidity was provided before consideration was given to optimisation of investment return.  Another function of the Treasury Management service was to fund the Council’s Capital Programme.

Cabinet considered the report and resolved to recommend appropriately to February 2014 full Council meeting and to ask the Governance, Audit and Risk Management Committee to consider and review the report.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the minimum credit criterion for The Royal Bank of Scotland be amended from F1 to F2 as discussed in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the report.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the half year Treasury Management Activity (TMA) for 2013/14 be noted;

(2)               theGovernance, Audit and Risk Management Committee consider and review the report;

Reason for Recommendation/Decision: To promote effective financial management and comply with the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) Regulations 2003 and other relevant guidance. To be informed of Treasury Management Activities and performance.

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 to the Recommendation to Council.]

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

For consideration.

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

Report of the Corporate Director of Children and Families.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)              the outcomes of the statutory consultation be noted;

(2)              the publication of statutory notices to expand permanently and extend the age range of Whitefriars Community School to include provision for secondary aged pupils be agreed.

Reason for Decision:  To fulfil the Council’s 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 outcomes of the statutory consultation on the proposals to expand Whitefriars Community School by one form of entry and to extend the age range to make provision for secondary aged pupils.  The report also included an update on Phase 2 of the Primary School Expansion Programme and increased the intake in the primary phase.

The Portfolio Holder added that the Council had received £12.4m for the project under the government’s Targeted Basic Need Programme (TBNP), and the funding had to be spent and places made available by September 2015. She added that this was an exciting project which would enhance school provision in Harrow and help regenerate the areas around the schools. 

Cabinet was informed that whilst the responses received to the consultation were not high, the majority were in support of the proposal.  The Portfolio Holder was grateful of the support from Whitefriars School.  The Director of Children and Families responded to a question from a non-voting non?Executive Cabinet Member in relation to the location of pupil referral unit(s).  She informed Cabinet that alternative sites were being explored, including associated costs and any Basic Needs Funding.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)              the outcomes of the statutory consultation be noted;

(2)              the publication of statutory notices to expand permanently and extend the age range of Whitefriars Community School to include provision for secondary aged pupils be agreed.

Reason for Decision:  To fulfil the Council’s 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.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Stanmore and Edgware Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), attached as appendix 2 to the report, be approved;

(2)               the representations received to public consultation on the draft Stanmore and Edgware Conservations Areas SPD, provided at Appendix 1 to the report, and the Council’s response to the individual comments made be noted;

(3)               it be noted that the conservation area boundaries for the Little Common Conservation Area and Old Church Lane Conservation Area had been altered, and new Article 4(2) Directions had been proposed for Old Church Lane, Stanmore Hill, Kerry Avenue and Canons Park Conservation Areas;

(4)               authority be delegated to the Divisional Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration, to make typographical corrections and any other necessary non-material amendments to the SPD prior to its formal publication.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure that when adopted the Stanmore and Edgware Conservation Areas SPD would be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.  The SPD would also provide useful guidance to relevant Council departments when dealing with issues relating to Stanmore and Edgware Conservation Areas.

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 summarised the responses received to the consultation and how these had informed the final Stanmore and Edgware Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)which was being proposed for adoption.  The proposal included the amendment of the conservation area boundaries for the Little Common and Old Church Lane Conservation Area and new Article 4(2) directions were proposed for Old Church Lane, Stanmore Hill, Kerry Avenue and Canons Park Conservation Areas.

The Portfolio Holder added that the possibility of a re-evaluation of the Conservation Area to include Cavendish Road and Dorset Drive, as suggested at the Local Development Framework Panel, would be explored separately.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Stanmore and Edgware Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), attached as appendix 2 to the report, be approved;

(2)               the representations received to public consultation on the draft Stanmore and Edgware Conservations Areas SPD, provided at Appendix 1 to the report, and the Council’s response to the individual comments made be noted;

(3)               it be noted that the conservation area boundaries for the Little Common Conservation Area and Old Church Lane Conservation Area had been altered, and new Article 4(2) Directions had been proposed for Old Church Lane, Stanmore Hill, Kerry Avenue and Canons Park Conservation Areas;

(4)               authority be delegated to the Divisional Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration, to make typographical corrections and any other necessary non-material amendments to the SPD prior to its formal publication.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure that when adopted the Stanmore and Edgware Conservation Areas SPD would be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.  The SPD would also provide useful guidance to relevant Council departments when dealing with issues relating to Stanmore and Edgware Conservation Areas.

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 representations received to public consultation on the draft Locally Listed Buildings SPD, provided at Appendix 1 to the report, and the Council’s response to the individual comments made, be noted;

(2)               the Local Development Framework Panel’s recommendations at appendix 2 to the report be noted, including the amendments made to the SPD in response to the recommendations set out in the body of the report;

(3)               the Locally Listed Buildings SPD, attached as Appendix 3 to the report, be adopted.

Reason for Decision:  To afford weight to the SPD as a material planning consideration.

To set out best practice guidance and advice to the owners and occupiers of Locally Listed Buildings to acknowledge the contribution these buildings made to Harrow’s character and to promote the continue preservation of these significant local heritage assets.

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 Locally Listed Buildings Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to aid owners and occupiers of these buildings to conserve these important heritage assets in Harrow.  He referred to the deputation received at the Local Development Framework Panel and that the deputee’s suggestions had been taken on board and incorporated in the SPD.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the representations received to public consultation on the draft Locally Listed Buildings SPD, provided at Appendix 1 to the report, and the Council’s response to the individual comments made, be noted;

(2)               the Local Development Framework Panel’s recommendations at appendix 2 to the report be noted, including the amendments made to the SPD in response to the recommendations set out in the body of the report;

(3)               the Locally Listed Buildings SPD, attached as Appendix 3 to the report, be adopted.

Reason for Decision:  To afford weight to the SPD as a material planning consideration.

To set out best practice guidance and advice to the owners and occupiers of Locally Listed Buildings to acknowledge the contribution these buildings made to Harrow’s character and to promote the continue preservation of these significant local heritage assets.

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 Authority Monitoring Report 2012/13, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved for publication on the Council’s website;

(2)               authority be delegated to the Divisional Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration, to make further minor changes to the Authority’s Monitoring Report prior to publication.

Reason for Decision:  To comply with the requirement under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended).

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 set out theAuthority’s Monitoring Report (AMR) for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013.  The AMR monitored the effectiveness of the implementation of local planning policies and production of Harrow’s new Local Plan.  He added that it was intended to analyse all the indicators, and confirmed that all data entry had now been completed.  He thanked officers for having completed the significant amount of work involved in the preparation of the AMR.

The non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Members asked questions relating to the reported performance during March 2013, including any involvement of the Mayor of London on the issue of the provision of new homes, the New Homes Bonus, the Kodak site and its relationship with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), and how the longer term achievements would be prioritised and help to shape the forthcoming budget.

In response the Portfolio Holder and the Divisional Director of Planning stated that:

·                     the New Homes Bonus was not something that the Council was able to control. The Council supported all growth and the CIL would bring in an excess of £1m per annum  to support infrastructure and growth;

·                     in relation to the Kodak site, the £10m of the infrastructure would be delivered through Section 106 money.  The site would not be subject to the Council CIL payments. The changes in the government’s Autumn Statement did not affect the use and provision of Section 106 money;

·                     the majority of the targets were being achieved which was a reflection on the excellent work of the officers and the economic improvements nationally.  Work was in progress in cases where the targets were proving to be a challenge.  There was an issue over the quality of improvement of open spaces and this was being addressed through the Green Grid Policy, including CIL and Section 106 money;

·                     the effect of recent permitted development changes was hard to quantify.  Whilst there were new proposals for permitted development extension, the market had not seen a significant reduction in householder planning applications.  There was an issue over the conversion of office buildings to residential properties.  It was difficult to put a figure on the offset in real income but it was likely to be in the region of £150k of fees being forgone.  Because of the relatively short period since these changes, the statistics in relation to officer permitted development were still being captured, the situation was dynamic and sampling was being done.  Reliable indicators would be available at a later stage.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Authority Monitoring Report 2012/13, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved for publication on the Council’s website;

(2)               authority be delegated to the Divisional Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration, to make further minor changes to the Authority’s Monitoring Report prior to publication.

Reason for Decision:  To comply with the requirement under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 742.

Joint Report of the Corporate Director of Community, Health and Wellbeing and Resources.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the draft HRA Budget be approved for consultation;

(2)               the proposed increase of 5.1% to housing rent charges for 2014/15, resulting in an average rent of £112.43 per week for 2014/15 be approved for consultation;

(3)               the proposed increases in facility and water charges set out in appendices 4 and 5 to the report be approved for consultation;

(4)               the draft four year Capital Programme be approved for consultation;

with final approval being sought from Cabinet and Council in February 2014;

(5)               the government’s proposals to change national rent policy from 2015/16 onwards be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To publish the draft HRA Budget and Capital Programme for consultation.

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 Adults and Housing introduced the report, which set out the Draft Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget for 2014/15 and the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for 2015/16 to 2017/18.  He added that the HRA was in ‘good health’ since the introduction of the reforms by government, as it allowed Councils to do more to improve the quality of their estates.  He explained that the Retail Price Index (RPI) was 3.2% in September, which had resulted in a proposed average rent increase of 5.1% for 2014/15.  There would be no increase in garage rents pending finalisation of the Garage Strategy Review.  Additionally, a proposal from the Tenants’, Residents’ and Leaseholders’ Consultative Forum (TLRCF) meeting held on 11 December 2013 to introduce a pilot scheme in which estate residents and voluntary groups paid a reduced rate for hire of community halls would be explored and reflected in the budget.

The Portfolio Holder responded to questions from the non-voting non?Executive Cabinet Members who asked about his involvement in the HRA Budget process.  He explained that he had taken a longer term view at the nature of the HRA, including how the Capital Work Programme and that the structure of the debt was being maintained.  Additionally, it was important the double-entry system was done on a 4-year basis/programme cycle and he intended to roll this out in order to save money.

A non-voting non-Executive Member enquired about the Portfolio Holder’s vision as he felt that the report did not set out a strategic view and the key priorities, including how stakeholders would be consulted.  The same Member referred to recent government announcements on the Right to Buy Scheme and enquired about its impact on the HRA.  The Portfolio Holder replied, as follows:

·                    the TLRCF had been consulted the previous evening, which he had reported upon;

·                    the impact on the HRA was difficult to predict and was dependant on the change in relation to the Retail Price Index (RPI) and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as future rent increases would be based on the CPI;

·                    there was a need to lobby the government to ensure better outcomes, and look at revaluing the housing stock and abolish the cap imposed. Currently, there was a requirement to service the debt;

·                    he was examining ways in which there would be a sharing of services, including the carrying out back office functions for Housing Associations.  Additionally, new build schemes were being explored, including the leveraging of money by working with other organisations, as it would help to finance the remainder of the development and increase the income stream.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the draft HRA Budget be approved for consultation;

(2)               the proposed increase of 5.1% to housing rent charges for 2014/15, resulting in an average rent of £112.43 per week for 2014/15 be approved for consultation;

(3)               the proposed increases in facility and water charges set out in appendices 4 and 5 to the report be approved for consultation;

(4)               the draft  ...  view the full minutes text for item 743.

Report of the Corporate Director of Resources.

RESOLVED:  That, having considered the information given in the report, the following be agreed:

(a)               the Band D equivalent number of taxable properties be calculated as shown in accordance with the government regulations;

(b)               the provision for uncollectable amounts of Council Tax for 2014-2015  be  agreed at 2.50% producing an expected collection rate of 97.50%;

(c)               subject to (a) & (b) above, a Council Tax Base for 2014-2015 of 78,550 Band D equivalent properties (being 80,565 x 97.50%) be approved, allowing for payment in lieu of Ministry of Defence properties.

Reason for Decision:  To fulfil the Council’s statutory obligation to set the Council Tax Base for 2014-2015.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, which set out the requirements placed on the Council to formally calculate the Council Tax Base and to pass this information to precepting authorities by 31 January 2014.  The requirement was to set the Tax Base by between 1 December 2013 and 31 January 2014.

RESOLVED:  That, having considered the information given in the report, the following be agreed:

(a)               the Band D equivalent number of taxable properties be calculated as shown in accordance with the government regulations;

(b)               the provision for uncollectable amounts of Council Tax for 2014-2015  be  agreed at 2.50% producing an expected collection rate of 97.50%;

(c)               subject to (a) & (b) above, a Council Tax Base for 2014-2015 of 78,550 Band D equivalent properties (being 80,565 x 97.50%) be approved, allowing for payment in lieu of Ministry of Defence properties.

Reason for Decision:  To fulfil the Council’s statutory obligation to set the Council Tax Base for 2014-2015.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

Report of the Corporate Director of Resources.

RESOLVED:  That the report be withdrawn and a revised report be submitted to the next Cabinet meeting.

[Call-in does not apply]

The Portfolio Holder requested that the report be withdrawn, as the government’s recent Autumn Statement had changed the rules on the Calculation of Business Rates Income for 2014/15.  A revised report would be submitted to Cabinet in January 2014.

RESOLVED:  That the report be withdrawn and a revised report be submitted to the next Cabinet meeting.

[Call-in does not apply].

Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the draft budget for 2014/15 and the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), as set out in appendix 3 to the report,  be approved for general consultation including an anticipated 0% Council Tax increase;

(2)               the current remaining budget gaps of £19.481m in 2015/16 and £18.612m in 2016/17 be noted;

(3)               the draft Public Health Budget for 2014/15, as set out in Appendix 5 to the report, be approved;

(4)               the statutory changes to schools funding for 2014/15 be noted and the proposed arrangements for the 2014/15 school funding formula as set out in Appendix 6 to the report be approved;

(5)               the sum of £239,219 be approved as Harrow’s contribution to the London Grant Scheme in 2014/15;

(6)               a Capital Financing Risk Reserve be established to allow for delays in capital receipts in the current financial year.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure that the Council publishes a draft budget for 2014-15.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, which set out the draft Revenue Budget for 2014/15 and the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for 2014/15 to 2016/17, with the report on the budget returning to Cabinet in February 2014 prior to the final approval by Council.  The Portfolio Holder added that £30m savings had to be identified and shortfalls had to be addressed. He was critical of the way the savings and the shortfalls had been handled by the previous administration(s) and outlined the savings that had not been achieved previously.  As a result, the new administration was presenting a modest set of proposals in order to ensure that the budget was fair.

The non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Members were critical of the proposed reduction in the welfare contingency budget and the message this sent out to residents.  They enquired about the long term strategy, in view of the possible changes in welfare entitlement.  They also asked about the proposed freeze on the Council Tax for 2014/15 which one of them considered to be irresponsible, claiming it was electioneering, which would create problems for future administrations.  He was of the view that at some point the Council Tax would need to be increased and that this proposal could increase the deficit for future years with rate payers having to pay in later years.

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Finance stated that the claims against the welfare contingency budget had been modest and a £1m contingency was still available to help mitigate the impact of welfare changes.  He added that the new administration would go as far as to say that it would freeze or reduce Council Tax during the next administration should it be elected.  The Portfolio Holder explained that the argument put forward by a non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member that as prices generally went up he expected the Council Tax to go up as well was an invalid one, as it did not equate with the inflation figures which were 5% and 1.3% in 2012/13 and 2013/14 respectively.  He added that well established practices on spending would ensure that officers were compelled to manage budgets and confirmed that the new administration would reduce or freeze Council Tax in future years.

The Portfolio Holder referred to the amount of money that was spent on servicing the debt on the £250m Capital Budget, which had risen during by £10m under the previous administration(s).  This issue needed to be resolved.

The Leader of the Council stated that her administration would freeze or reduce Council Tax at every opportunity and it was the way this administration would be moving forward; which was warmly received by her colleagues.

The Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources added that Harrow had one of the highest Council Taxes in London and there had been a time when a Labour administration had increased Council Tax by 21% and still had run out of money.  It was important that budgets were controlled and managed appropriately, with Value  ...  view the full minutes text for item 746.

Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance.

RESOLVED:  That the draft Capital Programme, as detailed within Appendix 1, be approved for consultation, with the final version being presented at the February 2014 meeting of Cabinet.

Reason for Decision:  To enable the Council to have an approved Capital Programme for 2014-15 to 2017-18 and to enable preparation work to be undertaken for future years.

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 Finance introduced the report, which set out the proposed Capital Programme for 2014/15 to 2017/18 for consultation.  The report also set out the Council’s proposals for Capital investment over the 4?year period, including a substantial investment of £248m in infrastructure on General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) services.

The Portfolio Holder added that a rigorous regime was applied when setting the Programme and that it did not include vanity projects.  He responded to various questions, including a question on consultation and confirmed that consultation would be carried out in a traditional manner and on individual projects as it was difficult for residents to appreciate and identify various projects within an overarching theme.  The Director of Finance and Assurance explained that the Council was paying off more of its debt.

RESOLVED:  That the draft Capital Programme, as detailed within Appendix 1, be approved for consultation, with the final version being presented at the February 2014 meeting of Cabinet.

Reason for Decision:  To enable the Council to have an approved Capital Programme for 2014-15 to 2017-18 and to enable preparation work to be undertaken for future years.

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 forecast outturn position at the end of Quarter 2, September 2013, be noted;

(2)               the Capital virement detailed in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the report be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure that Cabinet was updated on the forecast revenue and capital financial position for 2013/14 and that budget virements were agreed in line with Financial Regulations.

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]

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, which set out the Council’s revenue and capital monitoring position as at 30 September 2013.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Revenue and Capital forecast outturn position at the end of Quarter 2, September 2013, be noted;

(2)               the Capital virement detailed in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the report be noted.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure that Cabinet was updated on the forecast revenue and capital financial position for 2013/14 and that budget virements were agreed in line with Financial Regulations.

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].

Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               an estimated surplus of £2,095,937 on the Collection Fund as at 31 March 2014 of which £1,676,274 was the Harrow share be noted;

(2)               an amount of £1,676,274 be transferred to the General Fund in 2014/15.

Reason for Decision:  To be informed of the Council’s statutory obligation to make an estimate of the surplus or deficit on the Collection Fund by 15 January 2014.  Approval to the recommendations set out was a major part of the annual budget review process.

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 estimated financial position on the Collection Fund as at 31 March 2014 and how it was shared amongst the constituent precepting bodies and the government.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               an estimated surplus of £2,095,937 on the Collection Fund as at 31 March 2014 of which £1,676,274 was the Harrow share be noted;

(2)               an amount of £1,676,274 be transferred to the General Fund in 2014/15.

Reason for Decision:  To be informed of the Council’s statutory obligation to make an estimate of the surplus or deficit on the Collection Fund by 15 January 2014.  Approval to the recommendations set out was a major part of the annual budget review process.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

Joint Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance and Divisional Director of Commercial, Contracts and Procurement

RESOLVED:  That, having taken into account appendix 1 in respect of the supply of banking services for the term of five years beginning on 1 April 2014 and ending on 31 March 2019 with an option to extend for a period of up to a further two years to 31 March 2021, the Royal Bank of Scotland be awarded the contract for the supply of banking services for the term of five years beginning on 1 April 2014 and ending on 31 March 2019 with an option to extend for a period of up to a further two years to 31 March 2021.

Reason for Decision:  The Council’s current banking contract was due to expire in March 2014.  In compliance with the Council’s Standing Orders, an open tendering procedure had been followed and, based on the results, a decision has been made to award the contract to the most economically advantageous tender.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, including a confidential appendix, which set out the project management and procurement tender process undertaken for the provision of Banking Services.

RESOLVED:  That, having taken into account appendix 1 in respect of the supply of banking services for the term of five years beginning on 1 April 2014 and ending on 31 March 2019 with an option to extend for a period of up to a further two years to 31 March 2021, the Royal Bank of Scotland be awarded the contract for the supply of banking services for the term of five years beginning on 1 April 2014 and ending on 31 March 2019 with an option to extend for a period of up to a further two years to 31 March 2021.

Reason for Decision:  The Council’s current banking contract was due to expire in March 2014.  In compliance with the Council’s Standing Orders, an open tendering procedure had been followed and, based on the results, a decision has been made to award the contract to the most economically advantageous tender.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

Report of the Corporate Director of Resources.

RESOLVED:  That Portfolio Holders continue working with officers to achieve improvement against identified key challenges.

Reason for Decision:  To be informed of performance against key measures and to identify and assign corrective action where necessary.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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

The Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources introduced the report, which summarised the Council and service performance for Quarter 2 against key measures and drew attention to areas requiring action. He identified the following three main challenges facing the Council:

·                     Children’s Services – that he had been assured that the position in relation to the number of referrals was appropriate.  He was concerned about the outcome of the recent Ofsted Inspection which was awaited;

·                     IT Transformation – the Transformation Programme was significantly behind schedule and he was personally dealing with certain issues directly with the provider, Capita, and how issues could be mitigated;

·                     Clean Streets – the previous administrations had set unachievable targets with reduced budgets.  As a result, the streets were not kept clean, and increased litter and graffiti were also an issue.  The new administration had put money back into street cleaning so that the issues could be addressed.

The Portfolio Holder responded to questions from a non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member and pointed out that the new administration had inherited a budget framework from the previous administration(s), including targets set.  The new administration would set out is priorities in the Corporate Plan and the budget as it moved forward and would focus on areas which residents had identified as their priorities.  He added that this administration was looking at the whole performance management infrastructure as the current one was backward looking and reflective of the old Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA). He re-iterated that poor target setting under the previous administration(s) had been particularly unhelpful.  There was a need to for the performance management infrastructure to be focused and forward looking and the data supplied for the quarter that was under consideration.

RESOLVED:  That Portfolio Holders continue working with officers to achieve improvement against identified key challenges.

Reason for Decision:  To be informed of performance against key measures and to identify and assign corrective action where necessary.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  None.

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