Agenda, decisions and minutes

[Note 1:  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, if any, to Council on substantive business; Decisions on the remaining substantive business.

Note 2:  During the course of the meeting, the Leader of the Council thanked senior officers, who were seated in the public gallery, some of whom were authors of the reports being considered by Cabinet that evening, for their attendance and their excellent work.]

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 9 – Revised Proposed West London Waste Plan: Pre?Submission Consultation Document

During consideration of this item, Councillor Susan Hall declared a non pecuniary interest in that her business in Wealdstone was situated within the Plan’s border.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 12 – Final Revenue Account Budget 2014/15 and Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2014/15 to 2016/17

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a non-pecuniary in that he was employed by London Councils Ltd.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Paul Osborn declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was Vice?Chair of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, which was a levying body.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Susan Hall declared a non pecuniary interest in that she owned a business in Wealdstone.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda item 16 – External Fees and Charges

During consideration of this item and upon a general question from a non?Executive non?Voting Cabinet Member on charges relating to the provision of beauty therapies, Councillor Susan Hall declared an interest in that her business also provided such treatments.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon but indicated that she would leave the room if the discussion became specific to businesses.

Agenda Item 17 – Customer Services – Scrutiny Review Group Report and Recommendations

Councillor Paul Osborn declared a non-pecuniary interest in that the response report related to the review ‘Putting the Customer First, Customer Care at Harrow Council’ which he had chaired until September 2013.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Agenda Item 21 – Proposed New Museum Building Adjacent to West House, Pinner

Councillor Janet Mote declared a pecuniary interest in that her husband, Councillor Chris Mote, rented office space at West House.  She would leave the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he had been treated at the West House practice belonging to Councillor Chris Mote.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 15 January 2014 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2014 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

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

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions had been received.

To receive any public questions received in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Executive Procedure Rules.

Questions will be asked in the order notice of them was received and there be a time limit of 15 minutes.

[The deadline for receipt of public questions is 3.00 pm, Monday 10 February 2014.  Questions should be sent to publicquestions@harrow.gov.uk  

No person may submit more than one question].

To note that two public questions had been received and responded to, and the recording of the questions and answers given had been placed on the website.

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 10 February 2014].

To note that four Councillor questions had been received and responded to, and the recording of the questions and answers given had been placed on the website.

RESOLVED:  To note the contents of the Key Decision Schedule for the period February to April 2014.

For consideration.

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

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the draft West London Waste Plan, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved for publication for a minimum six-week public consultation period in March 2014 and, subject to representations, be submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the changes made to the draft West London Waste Plan, following the original approval to proceed with consultation in June 2012, as detailed in the report, be noted;

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

(3)               the Corporate Director for Environment and Enterprise, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Regeneration, be authorised to make minor modification to the Draft Plan as was necessary for factual correctness and in response to representations received;

(4)               the revised Local Development Scheme, attached at Appendix 2 to the report, be approved for publication on the Council’s website.

Reason for Recommendation/Decision:  To enable compliance with the procedural requirements for Local Plan making and to ensure the Council made meaningful progress on the West London Waste Plan (WLWP) in order to meet targets set out in the London Plan 2011, Planning Policy Statement 10, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

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 to the decisions that have been noted.]

The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Regeneration introduced the report, which explained the reasons why further redrafting of the West London Waste Plan (WLWP), approved in June 2012, had been necessary and sought approval to proceed with consultation on the revised Plan.

The Portfolio Holder added that the WLWP set out areas of potential development and made reference to the only such site in Harrow which was the Forward Drive Depot site in respect of which consultation was ongoing.  He responded to questions from a non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member in relation to the redrafting of the WLWP, including the accessibility of the Victoria Road Transfer Station site situated on the border of Harrow and Hillingdon, as follows:

·                    the loss of the Victoria Road site had been the result of the need to safeguard sites for the High Speed 2 (HS2) rail route through West London;

·                    the need to procure new consultants who had recommended less and reduced overall capacity.

The Portfolio Holder stated that despite various changes, the Plan remained robust.  Upon further questioning from the same non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member about the impact on residents due to the loss of the Victoria Road site and the charges being imposed at the Forward Road site, the Leader of the Council replied that discussions with Hillingdon Council would ensue.  However, the Victoria Road site was expected to retain its civic amenity status which would help ensure that there was no adverse impact on residents and other users of the site.  Any changes would be reported back.  With regard to the levy of charges at the Forward Road site, the Leader stated that this had been necessitated as a result of the abuse of policy and aggressive behaviour by some users of this important civic amenity site.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the draft West London Waste Plan, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved for publication for a minimum six-week public consultation period in March 2014 and, subject to representations, be submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in Public.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the changes made to the draft West London Waste Plan, following the original approval to proceed with consultation in June 2012, as detailed in the report, be noted;

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

(3)               the Corporate Director for Environment and Enterprise, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Regeneration, be authorised to make minor modification to the Draft Plan as was necessary for factual correctness and in response to representations received;

(4)               the revised Local Development Scheme, attached at Appendix 2 to the report, be approved for publication on the Council’s website.

Reason for Recommendation/Decision:  To enable compliance with the procedural requirements for Local Plan making and to ensure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 779.

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

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)  

That

(1)               the Housing Revenue Account Budget (HRA) for 2014/15 be approved;

(2)               the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Capital Programme, as detailed in Appendix 7 to the report, be approved.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for the HRA, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved;

(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;

(3)               a service charge increase of 3.7% (an average of £0.10) resulting in an average weekly service charge of £2.85 be approved;

(4)               in accordance with the policy recommended by Tenants’, Leaseholders’ and Residents’ Consultative Forum in January 2012, that garage and car parking rents be frozen pending finalisation of the Garage Strategy, as set out at Appendix 3 to the report, be approved;

(5)               an increase in energy [heating] charges of 10% from 1 April 2014, as detailed in Appendix 4 to the report, be approved;

(6)               an increase in annual water charges of 4%, as detailed in Appendix 5 to the report, be approved;

(7)               increases in Community Centre charges, as set out in Appendix 6 to the report, be approved;

(8)               the four year Capital Programme, set out in Appendix 7 to the report, be approved;

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

Reason for Recommendation/Decision:  To publish the final HRA budget and set Council rents and other charges for 2014/15.

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 to the decisions that have been noted.]

The Portfolio Holder for Adults and Housing introduced the report, which set out the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget for 2014/15 and Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for 2015/16 to 2017/18.

The Portfolio Holder referred to the proposed national rent-setting policy and its impact on the Council, the plans to develop estates and the garage strategy; the latter of which would be brought into fruition with the submission of planning applications in the next few months.  He referred to the proposed increase in rents, which had been based on the revaluation carried out by a former administration and incorporated into the 2013/14 budget, and the rental strategy previously agreed by Cabinet.  Overall, the HRA Budget and the MTFS continued to reflect a healthy position, as a result of the government’s HRA reforms.

In response to questions from non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Members, the Portfolio Holder and an officer responded, as follows:

·                     in relation to dwelling rents, a prudent assumption had been taken on the inflation measure;

·                     new builds were subject to depreciation as they were brought into use.  A straight line depreciation accounting method was being applied to the existing stock based on the lifecycle replacement of key building components. The condition of the stock was being factored in to the feasibility studies being undertaken;

·                     in terms of the Mayor of London’s draft Housing Strategy, the administration was keen to look at local housing needs as a key driver and ‘a local option for Harrow’ would be explored.  With Harrow having been designated as an Opportunity Area, with some 2,800 new homes and 3,000 new jobs planned.  Additionally, with the ongoing work on estate regeneration and the garage strategy, it was expected that at least a further 700 new homes would be built in Harrow.  The Portfolio Holder also praised his predecessor’s efforts in “removing the logjam” and moving the Council’s garage strategy forward.

The Portfolio Holder commended the report to Cabinet.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)  

That

(1)               the Housing Revenue Account Budget (HRA) for 2014/15 be approved;

(2)               the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Capital Programme, as detailed in Appendix 7 to the report, be approved.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for the HRA, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved;

(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;

(3)               a service charge increase of 3.7% (an average of £0.10) resulting in an average weekly service charge of £2.85 be approved;

(4)               in accordance with the policy recommended by Tenants’, Leaseholders’ and Residents’ Consultative Forum in January 2012, that garage and car parking rents be frozen pending finalisation of the Garage Strategy, as set out at Appendix 3 to the report, be approved;

(5)               an increase in energy [heating] charges of 10% from 1 April 2014, as detailed in Appendix 4 to the report, be approved;

(6)               an increase in annual  ...  view the full minutes text for item 780.

Report of the Corporate Director of Resources.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the Corporate Plan be adopted.

RESOLVED:  That the Leader of the Council be authorised to make any minor amendments to the Plan as necessary prior to the matter going to Council.

Reason for Recommendation/Decision: To update the Council’s Policy Framework and set out the Council’s direction of travel for the year ahead.

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 and to the decisions that have been noted.]

The Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources was proud to present the Council’s Corporate Plan for 2014/15, the first of an integrated series of papers that set out the Council’s strategic direction, vision and priorities and how these would be funded.  He outlined the Council’s Vision ‘a place to live and work and be proud of’ and the three Priorities, ‘Cleaner, Safer and Fairer’, which would help deliver the Vision by targeting resources, as follows:

Cleaner:  A borough where streets were cleaned regularly and parks and green spaces were places to enjoy;

Safer:  A borough where residents felt safe to live and enjoy their lives.  The administration would work with the police and other partners to make Harrow even safer;

Fairer:  A borough where hard working residents could bring up their families knowing they would have fair access to opportunity.

The Portfolio Holder provided examples of measures that had already been put in place to ensure a Cleaner, Safer and Fairer Harrow, such as additional street sweeping in town centres, targeting of ‘beds in sheds’, an injection of extra investment in Children’s Services in the context of the safeguarding role, avenues to reduce Council Tax, an increase in the personalisation of services, which had helped to empower users, and additional money to combat fraud.

The Portfolio Holder added that the administration had embarked on a journey that would deliver effective and efficient services, deal with issues left behind by a previous administration, such as the Council’s IT Contract.  Moreover, the performance management infrastructure required focus so that it was forward looking and a useful tool instead a ‘box ticking’ exercise.  In response to questions about the provision of affordable housing, the Portfolio Holder stressed that the Corporate Plan was a high level document which contained key strategic directions and highlighted expected benefits to enable the Council to achieve its mission objective(s).  He explained that the detail of a Cleaner, Safer and Fairer agenda would be provided in the Service Plans.

The Portfolio Holder for Adults and Housing stated that in terms of the provision of affordable housing and the 35% target given by the Mayor of London, the administration would be looking to achieve the target, identify which groups were affected, and ensure that residents had every opportunity to acquire ownership of a home.

A non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member was of the view that the administration had failed to address the IT issues in 2008, but this claim was refuted by the Portfolio Holder who stated that the administration had left the IT system in a stable position.  It was the current IT contract entered into by the previous administration(s) that was causing problems, as it was running two years behind schedule and continued to be beset with everyday problems thereby stopping the Council to move forward.  He also stressed the importance of not signing up to long term contracts, particularly in the run up to a local election.

A non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member acknowledged the importance of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 781.

Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That

(1)               the budget be approved to enable the Council Tax for 2014/15 to be set;

(2)               the Medium Term Financial Strategy at Appendices 1 and 2 of the report be endorsed;

(3)               the policy on the use of the contingency at Appendix 5 of the report be approved;

(4)               in relation to schools, the schools’ budget at Appendix 6 of the report be approved;

(5)               the Members’ Allowance Scheme at Appendix 14 of the report be adopted for 2014/15.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), at appendices 1 and 2 to the report, be approved;

(2)               the planned investment in services and efficiencies, as set out in Appendix 2 and summarised in table 5 of the report, be noted;

(3)               the sum, £3.560m, of NHS Transfer funding to be received by the Council, as set paragraph 17.1 of the report be noted;

(4)               therisk assessment at Appendix 7 to the report be agreed and referred to the Governance, Audit and Risk Management Committee for consideration and monitoring.

Reason for Recommendation/Decision:  To ensure that the Council sets a balanced budget for 2014/15.

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 to the decisions that have been noted and to the decisions that have been noted.]

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, which set out the final Revenue Budget for 2014/15 and the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for 2014/15 to 2016/17.  He identified the report as the delivery mechanism for the Council’s Corporate Plan 2014/15.

The report showed that the Budget for 2014/15 was balanced and the MTFS identified budget gaps for future years.  A substantive change to the draft budget presented to Cabinet in December 2013 was the financing of the 20 minutes free parking.

The Leader of the Council referred to the invitation extended to the largest opposition Group to present its ‘alternative’ budget initially to Cabinet for scrutiny but noted that this offer had been declined.  The residents of Harrow would not be given an opportunity to scrutinise the ‘alternative’ budget.

The Leader of the largest opposition Group replied that it was important for his Group to present a robust ‘alternative’ budget in due course.  As the main opposition, it was essential that his Group had had an opportunity to scrutinise the administration’s proposed budget.  He was critical of the proposal to spend £400,000 on bins over four years and he considered that the money would be better spent on those affected by domestic violence.  He also asked about the duration of the proposed 20 minutes free parking which he said had been announced with haste.  He was of the view that the administration’s proposed budget would increase the deficit for future years with rate payers having to pay in later years.

The Leader of the Council, the Deputy Leader and the Portfolio Holder for Finance responded as follows:

·                     it was important to differentiate between capital and revenue budgets as these budgets could not be switched around.  The provision of bins by the administration would be met the capital budget and the proposal put forward by the largest Opposition Group, on domestic violence had revenue implications. It was suggested that the largest opposition Group did not understand this important difference;

·                     a U-turn on the Cleaner, Safer and Fairer agenda was implausible and the administration’s achievements in a short period of time since it came to power ought be applauded;

·                     the 20 minute free parking proposal had been included in the 2014/15 budget.  The next administration would need to make a decision in this regard on the basis of the overall savings that it would need to achieve;

·                     the largest opposition Group had not taken opportunities to provide effective scrutiny of the administration’s budget and had failed to present its own ‘alternative’ budget for scrutiny.

During a further discussion on the proposed budget, the same non-voting non?Executive Cabinet Members stated that the budget, which included potential overspends, was electioneering as every policy area had had its finances increased.  They considered this to be reckless, as it would put pressures on future administrations.  They were critical of the proposed reduction in the welfare contingency budget and the message this sent to residents.  They referred to the £60m savings achieved during their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 782.

Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the Capital Programme, as detailed within Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.

Reason for Recommendation:  To enable the Council to have an approved Capital Programme for 2014/15 to 2017/18.

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 to the decisions that have been noted.]

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, which set out the proposed Capital Programme from the financial year 2014 to 2018, which included provision in the administration’s priority areas of Cleaner, Safer and Fairer Harrow.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the Capital Programme, as detailed within Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.

Reason for Recommendation:  To enable the Council to have an approved Capital Programme for 2014/15 to 2017/18.

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 to the decisions that have been noted.]

Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That

(1)               the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Prudential Indicators for 2014/15 be approved;

(2)               the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement for 2014/15 be approved;

(3)               the Annual Investment Strategy for 2014/15 be approved;

(4)               the lower limit for borrowing of between 5 and 10 years be reduced from 10% to 5%;

(5)               the limit of investments for over one year be increased to £30m for 1?2 years and £10m for over 2 years.

RESOLVED:  That the report be referred to the Governance, Audit and Risk Management Committee for review.

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.

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 to the decisions that have been noted.]

Cabinet received a report of the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy Statement, Prudential Indicators, Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy 2014/15.

A non-voting non-Executive Member asked how the Governance, Audit and Risk Management Committee’s views would be taken into account in setting the budget and it was noted that this body would, as it did every year, be carrying out a review on the approved position.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That

(1)               the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Prudential Indicators for 2014/15 be approved;

(2)               the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement for 2014/15 be approved;

(3)               the Annual Investment Strategy for 2014/15 be approved;

(4)               the lower limit for borrowing of between 5 and 10 years be reduced from 10% to 5%;

(5)               the limit of investments for over one year be increased to £30m for 1?2 years and £10m for over 2 years.

RESOLVED:  That the report be referred to the Governance, Audit and Risk Management Committee for review.

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.

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 to the decisions that have been noted.]

Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That an increase in the Empty Property Grants budget of £0.100m, as detailed in paragraph 58 of the report, in respect of additional grant funding received in the current year be approved.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the revenue and capital forecast outturn position at the end of Quarter 3, December 2013, be noted;

(2)               the Capital virements, detailed in paragraphs 55 of the report, be noted.

Reason for Recommendation/Decision:  To ensure that Cabinet was updated on the forecast revenue and capital financial position for 2013/14, that budget virements were agreed in line with the Financial Regulations and available external funding was fully utilised to achieve Council priorities.

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 and to the decisions that have been noted.]

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, which set out the Council’s Revenue and Capital monitoring position as at December 2013.  The report sought to close the substantial gaps inherited from the previous administration(s).  It was noted that the additional recommendation, set out on the supplemental agenda, was withdrawn.

A non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member referred to the appendix set out on the supplemental agenda and the potential pressures on the homelessness budget.  He asked about a comment that the Leader of the Council had made that Harrow did not suffer from problems of homelessness but that she had expressed a desire to keep an eye on this area and he asked how she had managed to do this in light of the pressures being experienced.  The Leader of the Council replied that this comment had related to people sleeping rough and she confirmed that the Council’s Homelessness Strategy was robust.

The same non-voting non-Executive Member was of the view that the administration was out of touch with the key issues affecting the vulnerable and the impact their measures were having on this section of the community.

The Portfolio Holder for Adults and Housing replied that the Council was a key member of the Single Homelessness Forum which brought various organisations together to look at those individuals who were rough sleeping and how assistance could be provided.  He also commended the excellent work undertaken by the Firm Foundation.

The Portfolio Holder added that the administration would not be lectured on the savings issue by the Leader of the Group which had failed to make the savings set out in their budget.  It had singularly failed to control the budgets on procurement and agency staff.

The Portfolio Holder for Business and Transformation stated that the administration would not be lectured by a Group operating under the false premise of being a caring Party.  He added that it should not be forgotten that the same administration had increased Council Tax in 2013/14 and had made staff redundant.

The same non-voting non-Executive Member commented that the administration was being disingenuous, as London-wide figures had shown that Harrow was suffering from an increase in homelessness.  He added that he was merely highlighting the problem in this area with a view to both parties working together to resolve the issue.  His party’s ‘alternative’ budget would increase its budget for this issue.

In response to a question about the action being taken to reduce deficits within the various budgets and why the spending strategy had not been used, the Portfolio Holder for Finance stated that the Corporate Directors and the Portfolio Holders were required to operate within their budget targets and each would have their own action plans bringing budgets within targets set.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That an increase in the Empty Property Grants budget of £0.100m, as detailed in paragraph 58 of the report, in respect of additional grant funding received in the current year be approved.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the revenue and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 785.

Joint report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services, Director of Finance and Assurance and Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the Council, acting as trustee of the Pinner Memorial Park Trust,

(1)               authorise the Director of Finance and Assurance to transfer to The West House and Heath Robinson Museum Trust without recoupment the current balance of funds of circa £25,000 held by the Pinner Memorial Park Trust for the purpose of the construction of the new museum facility, subject to any necessary approval of the Charity Commission;

(2)               authorise the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise, acting in the best interests of the Council as trustee, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts, to take all necessary steps to agree and implement changes to the existing lease of West House in order to enable the construction and use of the new museum building.

RESOLVED:  That the Director of Finance and Assurance, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance, be authorised to make available a loan facility to The West House and Heath Robinson Museum Trust on the terms set out in paragraph 5.10 of the report.

Reason for Recommendation/Decision:  To facilitate the construction of a new museum and arts facility for the benefit of Harrow residents and the wider community.

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 to the decisions that have been noted.]

The Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts introduced the report, which sought various approvals to enable the construction of a new museum building adjacent to West House, Pinner, by The West House and Heath Robinson Museum Trust.  He referred to the grant of £1.133m awarded to the Trust from the Heritage Lottery Fund towards the major parts of the costs of the project, and commended the report to Cabinet.

In his capacity as Pinner Ward Councillor, the Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources welcomed the proposal and paid tribute to the work carried out by the volunteers to bring it to fruition.  He was pleased that the Council was able to assist in this regard.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the Council, acting as trustee of the Pinner Memorial Park Trust,

(1)               authorise the Director of Finance and Assurance to transfer to The West House and Heath Robinson Museum Trust without recoupment the current balance of funds of circa £25,000 held by the Pinner Memorial Park Trust for the purpose of the construction of the new museum facility, subject to any necessary approval of the Charity Commission;

(2)               authorise the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise, acting in the best interests of the Council as trustee, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts, to take all necessary steps to agree and implement changes to the existing lease of West House in order to enable the construction and use of the new museum building.

RESOLVED:  That the Director of Finance and Assurance, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance, be authorised to make available a loan facility to The West House and Heath Robinson Museum Trust on the terms set out in paragraph 5.10 of the report.

Reason for Recommendation/Decision:  To facilitate the construction of a new museum and arts facility for the benefit of Harrow residents and the wider community.

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 to the decisions that have been noted.]

Report of the Director of Finance and Assurance.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Fees and Charges, set out at appendices 2-5 of the report, be agreed and implemented from April 2014;

(2)               the Director of Finance and Assurance and relevant Corporate Director be authorised, following consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder, to amend fees and charges in-year.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure the Council set a schedule of fees and charges for 2014/15. 

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 proposed the fees and charges to be applied to services for the financial year 2014/15.  The charges were set, in most cases, within the framework of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and the Council’s Charging Policy, with some items being subsidised.

Questions on the charges applied to cricket pitches, including their sustainability, and beauty therapies from a non-voting non-Executive Member were responded to, as follows:

·                    no inflationary increases were proposed for cricket pitches.  Adequate ground maintenance measures were in place to ensure quality pitches;

·                    with regard to the charges for beauty therapies, the reductions were being applied to domestic areas only and fees and charges were governed by law in this area.  He cited an Ombudsman case and the 2013 Court of Appeal ruling in Hemming v Westminster City Council as examples.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Fees and Charges, set out at appendices 2-5 of the report, be agreed and implemented from April 2014;

(2)               the Director of Finance and Assurance and relevant Corporate Director be authorised, following consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder, to amend fees and charges in-year.

Reason for Decision:  To ensure the Council set a schedule of fees and charges for 2014/15. 

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 Business Transformation and Customer Services.

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

Reason for Decision:  To improve customer service across the Council.

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 Chair of the Scrutiny Review Group ‘Putting the Customer First, Customer Care at Harrow Council’, addressed Cabinet and paid tribute to the work carried out by the former Chair of the Review Group who now served on Cabinet as Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources.  He thanked all Members of the Review Group and officers for their contributions, and outlined the background and evidence gathering measures that had culminated into the recommendations of the Review Group.  He stated that he was satisfied with the responses given to the recommendations and requested an updated report which addressed all the recommendations set out in the report of the Review Group.

The Chairman of the Review Group responded to a question from the Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts and confirmed that the dealing of complaints referred to the Council’s own internal process and not those dealt with by the Local Government Ombudsman.

A non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member applauded the benefits of the scrutiny process.  He added that, overall, the migration process had been successful and he supported the perception given of Access Harrow which, overall, was positive.

The Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources undertook to ensure that all recommendations of the Review Group were responded to.  He added that a substantial number of savings set out in the budget set by a former administration would impact on Access Harrow during 2015.  Accordingly, if the website and online information was not of acceptable standard or quality, then channel migration would not succeed.  It was therefore important that the next administration delivered the savings in an effective manner.

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

Reason for Decision:  To improve customer service across the Council.

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 the contract for buildings insurance for residential leaseholders be awarded to Zurich Municipal for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2017.

Reason for Decision:  As freeholder, the Council was obliged to arrange buildings insurance for its residential leaseholders.  The Long-Term Agreement (LTA) with existing insurers would expire on 31 March 2014, hence it was necessary to re-tender the contract on behalf of leaseholders.

An open tender process was conducted according to EU procurement rules for Part A Service contracts.

A pre-defined evaluation model was constructed to fairly evaluate each tender against a set of criteria, which was approved by Procurement, Leasehold Services and leaseholder representatives.

Zurich Municipal achieved the highest total scores in the evaluation process.

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 provided an overview and the outcome of the competitive tendering process undertaken to seek a new contract for the provision of buildings insurance for residential leaseholders.

The Portfolio Holder explained the need to renew the policy for a period of three years only as this would help to align with a future Insurance London Consortium (ILC) tendering arrangement to facilitate the option of tendering as a member of the ILC, which comprised of nine boroughs, for future contracts so as to enable further savings.

Having considered the report and a confidential appendix, it was

RESOLVED:  That the contract for buildings insurance for residential leaseholders be awarded to Zurich Municipal for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2017.

Reason for Decision:  As freeholder, the Council was obliged to arrange buildings insurance for its residential leaseholders.  The Long-Term Agreement (LTA) with existing insurers would expire on 31 March 2014, hence it was necessary to re-tender the contract on behalf of leaseholders.

An open tender process was conducted according to EU procurement rules for Part A Service contracts.

A pre-defined evaluation model was constructed to fairly evaluate each tender against a set of criteria, which was approved by Procurement, Leasehold Services and leaseholder representatives.

Zurich Municipal achieved the highest total scores in the evaluation process.

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 Resources.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Financial Hardship Fund Policy and application pack, incorporating the guidance notes, be agreed and adopted;

(2)               the Financial Hardship Fund assessment criteria be agreed and adopted;

(3)               the decision-making process for awarding Financial Hardship Grants be agreed and adopted.

Reason for Decision:  The Financial Hardship Fund was created as a direct result of feedback to the Localisation of Council Tax Support consultation carried out over the summer of 2012 and was put in place to support those experiencing most hardship from the current economic situation and/or those who needed assistance to transition to the reformed welfare system.  It also coincided with the transfer from the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) to Harrow of a £489k un-ring-fenced Social Fund grant which previously provided emergency support to claimants and was administered by the DWP.

The Financial Hardship Fund was a pot of funding of £100,000 that sat within the overall banner of the Harrow Help Scheme.  The intention of the Financial Hardship Fund was to commission community projects that would help to mitigate the impacts of welfare reforms and the current economic situation. 

The draft policy, including the assessment criteria, had been developed in partnership with the Welfare Reform’s multi-agency Community Reference Group and Officer Project Board.  

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 new policy for the Financial Hardship Fund, funding developed to support people impacted by the welfare reforms and the current economic climate.

In response to a question from a non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member, the Portfolio Holder replied that the funding of £100,000 was available for 2014/15 only.  He added that beyond 2014/15, Councils would have to provide funds from within their own general fund budgets.

The same non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Member stated that, if in power, his administration would continue to allocate £100,000 to support the vulnerable and expressed a desire to work more closely with the voluntary sector in this regard.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Financial Hardship Fund Policy and application pack, incorporating the guidance notes, be agreed and adopted;

(2)               the Financial Hardship Fund assessment criteria be agreed and adopted;

(3)               the decision-making process for awarding Financial Hardship Grants be agreed and adopted.

Reason for Decision:  The Financial Hardship Fund was created as a direct result of feedback to the Localisation of Council Tax Support consultation carried out over the summer of 2012 and was put in place to support those experiencing most hardship from the current economic situation and/or those who needed assistance to transition to the reformed welfare system.  It also coincided with the transfer from the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) to Harrow of a £489k un-ring-fenced Social Fund grant which previously provided emergency support to claimants and was administered by the DWP.

The Financial Hardship Fund was a pot of funding of £100,000 that sat within the overall banner of the Harrow Help Scheme.  The intention of the Financial Hardship Fund was to commission community projects that would help to mitigate the impacts of welfare reforms and the current economic situation. 

The draft policy, including the assessment criteria, had been developed in partnership with the Welfare Reform’s multi-agency Community Reference Group and Officer Project Board.  

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 Resources.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Risk Based Verification policy at Appendix A to the report be agreed and take effect from April 2014;

(2)               the Electronic Claims policy at Appendix B to the report be agreed and take effect from March 2014;

(3)               the policies apply initially to Housing Benefit/Council Tax Support new claims and extend to change of circumstances notifications in due course, as detailed in the report, without the need for Cabinet to review the policies again;

(4)               the policies remain as approved unless an annual review by officers identified a need for change;

(5)               the Acting Head of Paid Service be authorised to sign an Electronic Communications Direction, Appendix A to Electronic Claims Policy refers.

Reason for Decision:  Implementation of Risk Based Verification and electronic communications supports the savings requirement within the Resources Directorate.  Adopting the policies would reduce the necessity for benefit claimants to contact the Council through more expensive methods such as face to face, and decrease the need to produce original documents to support their claim, resulting in a reduction in the number of customer contacts in Access Harrow, lower volumes of scanning and indexing within the Business Support hub and less information requests made by the Housing Benefit Service.

Through online claims, Risk Based Verification allowed the targeting of resources from low risk cases to those which were at higher risk of potential fraud and error.  By identifying these cases at the point of entry, the process should help to reduce fraud and error from entering the system.

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.

Cabinet received a report of the Corporate Director of Resources, which set out new policies for the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support for Risk Based Verification and Electronic Communication.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance explained that across the country work had been carried out on how to be effective and obtain accurate assessments of benefit claims thereby reducing costs.  A recommendation from the government required focus on high risk claimants with a view to reducing associated problems.  The report would enable the Council to carry out the work required.

In response to a question from a non-Voting Non-Executive Cabinet Member about the need to monitor performance, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that this would be carried out through the Council’s Performance Boards.  In this context, the Leader of the Council asserted her administration’s continued desire to remain open and transparent.

Having considered the report and a confidential appendix, it was

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Risk Based Verification policy at Appendix A to the report be agreed and take effect from April 2014;

(2)               the Electronic Claims policy at Appendix B to the report be agreed and take effect from March 2014;

(3)               the policies apply initially to Housing Benefit/Council Tax Support new claims and extend to change of circumstances notifications in due course, as detailed in the report, without the need for Cabinet to review the policies again;

(4)               the policies remain as approved unless an annual review by officers identified a need for change;

(5)               the Acting Head of Paid Service be authorised to sign an Electronic Communications Direction, Appendix A to Electronic Claims Policy refers.

Reason for Decision:  Implementation of Risk Based Verification and electronic communications supports the savings requirement within the Resources Directorate.  Adopting the policies would reduce the necessity for benefit claimants to contact the Council through more expensive methods such as face to face, and decrease the need to produce original documents to support their claim, resulting in a reduction in the number of customer contacts in Access Harrow, lower volumes of scanning and indexing within the Business Support hub and less information requests made by the Housing Benefit Service.

Through online claims, Risk Based Verification allowed the targeting of resources from low risk cases to those which were at higher risk of potential fraud and error.  By identifying these cases at the point of entry, the process should help to reduce fraud and error from entering the system.

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 Resources.

RESOLVED:  That the Corporate Director of Resources be delegated authority to enter into a contract with Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd for the supply of recruitment services, as detailed within the report, for a period of up to 18 months to co-terminate with the Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd contract for agency workers, which expires in September 2015.

Reason for Decision:  The contract with Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd for the supply of recruitment services would improve the efficiency of the Council’s recruitment processes and reduce spend on recruitment advertising enabling delivery of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Savings (MTFS) of £100, 000.

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 Communications, Performance and Resources introduced the report, which set out proposals for the supply of recruitment services with Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd until September 2015.  He indicated that the report was designed to implement the Medium Term Financial Savings (MTFS) that had been included in the budget previously set by the former administration.

In response to questions from a non-Voting non-Executive Cabinet Member, on how the Council would be informed of complaints from external applicants about the process and the Council’s own monitoring process through Improvement Boards, including the setting of targets, the Portfolio Holder replied that any monitoring ought to be structured and indicated that he would discuss suggestions with the Member concerned.

The Portfolio Holder responded to an additional question from another non?Voting non-Executive Cabinet Member regarding the government’s recent announcement on agencies that used ways of getting around National Insurance payments.  He explained that the contract would not have any such impact and, furthermore, agency spend should not be used to avoid tax liability on behalf of the Council.

Having considered the report and a confidential appendix, it was

RESOLVED:  That the Corporate Director of Resources be delegated authority to enter into a contract with Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd for the supply of recruitment services, as detailed within the report, for a period of up to 18 months to co-terminate with the Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd contract for agency workers, which expires in September 2015.

Reason for Decision:  The contract with Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd for the supply of recruitment services would improve the efficiency of the Council’s recruitment processes and reduce spend on recruitment advertising enabling delivery of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Savings (MTFS) of £100, 000.

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 Legal and Governance Services.

RESOLVED:  That, subject to 7 May 2015 Cabinet being deleted, the Calendar of Meetings for the Municipal Year 2014/15 be approved.

Reason for Decision:  The Calendar of Meetings was approved on an annual basis for the succeeding Municipal Year.  Advance approval of the Calendar facilitated the planning and forward commitments of both Members and officers, and allowed the room booking arrangements to be put in place at the earliest opportunity.

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.

Cabinet received a report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services, which set out the proposals for the Council’s Calendar of Meetings for the Municipal Year 2014/15.

The Leader of the Council reported that the 7 May 2015 Cabinet meeting ought to be deleted, as the General Election had been set for that day.  She added that it had not been possible to find another date for the May 2014 Annual Council meeting.

RESOLVED:  That, subject to 7 May 2015 Cabinet being deleted, the Calendar of Meetings for the Municipal Year 2014/15 be approved.

Reason for Decision:  The Calendar of Meetings was approved on an annual basis for the succeeding Municipal Year.  Advance approval of the Calendar facilitated the planning and forward commitments of both Members and officers, and allowed the room booking arrangements to be put in place at the earliest opportunity.

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.