Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:-

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 11 – Corporate Plan

Councillor Sue Anderson declared a personal interest in that she worked part-time for Harrow Primary Care Trust.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Susan Hall declared a personal interest in that her Group had instigated many of the ideas contained within the plan document.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a personal interest in that he had voted on a number of items, including SmartWater and Neighbourhood Champions, whilst he was a member of Cabinet.  In addition, he declared a personal interest in that his sister was a PE teacher in a Harrow School.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2010 and of the special meeting held on 12 January 2011 be taken as read and signed as correct records.

A Member challenged the accuracy of the minutes of the Special meeting held on 12 January 2011 making specific reference to the answer given to the third question in the Question and Answer session and inclusion of the Leader of the Council’s response.  The Chairman advised that the minutes had been cleared both by himself and the Vice-Chairman.

An officer advised that the minutes of the Special meeting had been submitted in draft to the meeting of Cabinet on 13 January 2011 but would be updated in terms of accuracy prior to Members’ consideration of the budget.  She undertook to circulate the updated version of the minutes to members of the Committee and to check the content of answer 3 as part of that process.

A Member suggested that consideration be given to the recording of the question and answer sessions.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2010 and of the Special meeting held on 12 January 2011 be taken as read and signed as correct records, subject to the following amendments to Minute 81 of the Special meeting:

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rules 17, 15 and 16 (Part 4B of the Constitution) respectively.

Recommendation from the Health Scrutiny Sub-Committee meeting held on 7 December 2010.

The Committee received a report from the Health Sub-Committee which outlined proposals for the revision of their terms of reference, areas for future consideration in respect of their remit and a proposed protocol for the appointment of co-optees.

A Member questioned whether there were sufficient staffing resources given the current situation in relation to the Primary Care Trust (PCT).  An officer advised that there was one full time member of staff and that a paper would be submitted to the next meeting of the Scrutiny Leadership Group on the proposal to increase the number of meetings from four to six.

The Committee, having agreed the proposed changes

Resolved to RECOMMEND: (to Council)

That Council ratify the changes to the name of the Sub?Committee and its terms of reference.

RESOLVED: 

(1)               the terms of reference attached as an appendix to these minutes be agreed;

(2)               the Health Sub-Committee be renamed the “Health and Social Care Scrutiny Sub-Committee” to reflect the revised terms of reference incorporating social care.

Report of the Corporate Director of Adults and Housing and the Assistant Chief Executive

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Adults and Housing and the Assistant Chief Executive which set out the final draft Single Equalities Scheme.  The scheme covered the Council’s approach to taking forward the protected characteristics (Age, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Marriage and Civil Partnership, Pregnancy and Maternity, Race, Religion or Belief, Sex and Sexual Orientation) under the Equality Act 2010 and working towards the excellent level of the new Equality Framework for Local Government (EFLG) with a view to achieving the excellent accreditation by March 2012.

An officer advised that the scheme set out the actions the Council intended to take and also the actions it was hoped would achieve excellence.  The officer added that Cabinet had recommended the scheme to Council for approval as it was a change to the policy framework.

A Member stated that the scheme did not appear to address double and triple discrimination.  The officer advised that the Equality Act specifically provided for the recognition of dual discrimination but due to the timing of the production of the scheme, this would be addressed when it was revisited.

In response to a Member’s question in relation to the reduction of inequalities through corporate commitment and partnership working, the officer advised that there had been a significant increase in equalities and diversity training.  In addition, there was an e-learning package and an improved version of the induction training for both new staff and managers.  Officers were ensuring that Equality Impact Assessments were completed for changes to policies.  He added that there was a quality assurance process in place to ensure that these were done correctly, with a selection being sent to the Equality Centre for checking.

A Member questioned whether there was an indicator in place in terms of the data held by the Council on its residents.  The officer advised that there was a link to categories of information and by 31 July 2011, the Council was due to publish how its functions supported the general equality duty against each of the protective characteristics.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to Council)

That the comments of the Committee be considered.

Report of the Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance

The Committee received a report of the Assistant Chief Executive which set out the results of the “Let’s Talk” public consultation on the Council’s draft vision and priorities and the Corporate Plan.  The Plan set the direction for the Council for the coming three years.

The Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance took the committee through a presentation which outlined the process of how the Council developed and consulted upon its draft Vision and Priorities through Let’s Talk and then developed the Corporate Plan.  He advised that the priority ‘Supporting our Town Centre, local shopping centres and businesses’ changed as a result of Let’s Talk given that conversations with residents had shown a greater affinity with all shopping centres, not just a focus on the town centre.

The Leader of the Council advised that the Council faced difficult decisions in the coming years and needed to consider how it could be modernised.  The idea of a united Harrow was encapsulated in the proposed final vision – Working together:  Our Harrow, our community.  He advised that work was being done with partners and that the Council wanted to work with local residents.

Following the presentation by the Divisional Director and Leader of the Council, the Committee asked questions, made a number of points and received responses, including the following:

·                     In terms of crime and safety, a Member challenged the Leader of the Council as to why a town centre police team had not been agreed, particularly given the proposed priorities.  The Leader advised that discussions were underway with the Borough Commander and that crime and safety were reflected in the proposed priorities.

·                     In relation to the structure of the “Let’s Talk” question approach, a Member suggested that the costs and consequences were not clear. The Member referred to the online consultation carried out by the London Borough of Redbridge which had mapped out the consequences of the choices made by respondents.  The Leader accepted the point raised and took on board the comments made.  He advised that the Redbridge campaign had been looked at.  He added that, through Harrow Council’s Let’s Talk campaign, residents had welcomed the sight of both Councillors and Senior Officers out in the community and having the opportunity to talk with them directly.

·                     A Member challenged the value for money of the “Let’s Talk” campaign as the percentage response rate was not high.  In response, the Leader advised that there would always be a cost if the Council wanted to involve and engage with residents.  He considered, however, that Let’s Talk represented good value for money.  Another Member questioned the cost of the consultation in terms of officer time and indicated that it appeared to be a bureaucratic way of working.  If the Council were transparent, residents would come and talk.  The Leader reiterated that engaging and involving residents would not be at zero cost.  The Divisional Director added that the Council was open to learn about better ways of involving residents and that Redbridge was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Report of the Corporate Director of Place Shaping

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Place Shaping which introduced the submission publication version of the Harrow Core Strategy.  It was intended to publish this document for public consultation in March 2011, prior to its submission to the Secretary of State in May 2011.

An officer reported that an updated version of the document had been circulated electronically to the Committee.  He would highlight the changes from the document included in the Committee agenda via a presentation if required. 

The officer advised that the Core Strategy was the most important document in the Local Development Framework and set out the broad strategy and vision for the borough.  The officer outlined the background to the consultation on the preferred option.  The revised Core Strategy was now ready for the next statutory stages in its preparation and progress to adoption.  The overall strategy had not been changed from that proposed in the Preferred Option, in terms of the quantum of different types of development to be delivered and where in the Borough.  In order to respond to the comments raised in relation to the need for more detail about how growth outside the intensification area would be managed, the document had, however, been changed to move away from policies that dealt with land based issues in preference to area based policies.

The officer advised the Committee that the report was a work in progress and that the version circulated with the agenda was an early draft.  An updated version had been circulated electronically to Members on 25 January 2011 and the Local Development Framework Panel had considered that version at their meeting on 1 February 2011.  He outlined the comments made by the Panel, the recommendations of which would also be considered by Cabinet at their meeting on 10 February 2011.  He added that further comments were still being received and that the final version would be forwarded to Plain English for a critique.

Members, in considering the Core Strategy, asked questions and made a number of comments which were responded to as follows:

·                     A Member questioned whether the implications of the Mayor’s new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) had been considered.  The officer advised that a local viability assessment had been undertaken by GVA Grimley which showed that new office development was currently not viable and other commercial development could only carry a modest charge.  If the Mayor imposed a £35 per sq m tariff, economic development in Harrow would be wiped out and officers were responding robustly on the consultation.  Other boroughs, including Richmond, also opposed the Mayoral CIL.

·                     In response to a Member’s question, the officer advised that the strategy had been updated as it dealt with all types of land use and that it was more aligned with the Sustainable Community Strategy.

·                     A Member questioned the performance of Harrow in terms of emissions and was advised that Harrow’s carbon footprint was 11.4 tonnes of CO² per capita.  This was higher than the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Reference from the Cabinet meeting held on 15 December 2010.

The Committee received a reference from the Cabinet meeting held on 15 December 2011 advising of an overspend in the Children’s Services Capital Programme.

Members noted the content of the report and

RESOLVED:  That 

(1)               development work be carried out on how the Council monitored its projects;

(2)               the Scrutiny Leadership Group determine how this project should be scoped.

Reference from Cabinet

Members received a reference from the Cabinet meeting held on 13 January 2011.  The reference set out the Cabinet’s response to the Committee’s comments on the draft budget.

A Member expressed concern at the lack of response from Cabinet to the suggestion that the inflation figures being used in the budget were overly optimistic.

RESOLVED:  To note the response of Cabinet to the Committee’s comments and the Chairman and Vice Chairman’s presentation on the budget.

To effect the following changes in the memberships of the Sub-Committees, of which notice has been given by the Majority Group:

(a)     that Councillor Varsha Parma replace Councillor Sachin Shah on the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee; and

(b)     that Councillor Sachin Shah replace Councillor Varsha Parma on the Health Sub-Committee.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               Councillor Varsha Parmar replace Councillor Sachin Shah on the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee; and

(2)               Councillor Sachin Shah replace Councillor Varsha Parmar on the Health Sub-Committee.

Report of the Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance

The Chair of the Review Group introduced the scope for the Standing Review of the Better Deal for Residents.  He advised that the first phase of the review’s work would involve examination of the council’s project management processes to ensure that the programme is being properly project managed.  He added that, to date, three projects had been considered; libraries, reabling focussed care and changing tenant behaviour.

The Chair advised that there would be a quarterly report to the Committee and it was

RESOLVED:  That the scope for the standing review of the Better Deal for Residents programme be agreed.

Report of the Divisional Director of Partnership Development and Performance

The Committee received an update report on the progress of the 2010/11 work programme.

An officer updated the Committee on a number of changes to the programme since the report had been written including that:

·                     the HAVS challenge panel had been deferred to March/April 2011;

·                     the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee had received a report on the Housing Ambition Plan which meant that the proposed challenge panel was no longer required;

·                     the Performance Management report would be submitted to the Committee on 15 March 2011;

·                     the Capital Programme monitoring would be included on the work programme.

A Member stated that an undertaking had been given at the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee, by the Finance Director, that the monthly report in terms of SAP would be submitted to Members and he questioned the current status of this request.  The officer indicated that this would be picked up at the Chairman and Vice Chairman’s briefing.

In response to a Member’s suggestion that there be a challenge panel to consider the IT contract, the officer undertook to include this item on the agenda for the next Leadership Group.

A Member emphasised the importance of starting the standing scrutiny review of the budget.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the content of the update be noted;

(2)               the action being taken be agreed;

(3)               the standing review of the budget be scheduled.