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 of the following duly constituted Reserve 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 Committee;

(b)               all other Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no declarations of interests made by Members.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2012 and of the special meeting held on 16 January 2013 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2013 and of the Special meeting held on 16 January 2013, be taken as read and signed as correct records subject to the amendment that the last paragraph of Minute 344 should read ‘that it was stressed that the Cabinet Members should ensure that reports were complete, correct and meaningful’.

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 received.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions had been received.

Report of the Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning

The Committee received a report of the Assistant Chief Executive which formed part of an integrated series of papers, including the budget papers, which had been considered by Cabinet on 14 February and were due to be considered by Council on 28 February 2013.

The Chair welcomed the Leader of the Council and the Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning to the meeting.  The Leader, in introducing the report, stated that the Corporate Plan set out the Council’s strategic direction, vision and priorities for the next two years.  In addition, for the first time, a balanced budget for next two years was proposed.

Some Members expressed concern that there appeared to be no base lines in terms of performance management.  It was unclear what the indicators meant and what the measures were.  A Member expressed the view that clearly defined measurable outcomes were required.  The Divisional Director, whilst acknowledging the comments, responded that the Plan aimed to set out the core outcomes which aimed to articulate in greater detail the corporate priorities.  As the Council moved more towards the measurement of outcomes, the Plan set out what these measures could be, and more work was ongoing to agree these with targets for the Corporate Scorecard.  The Plan itself included more specific actions than previous plans as to what was being set out to be achieved, and progress against these would be measured.  The Corporate Scorecard could be made available for a future meeting of the Committee, or the Performance and Finance Committee.

In considering the Corporate Plan, Members made comments and asked questions including the following:

·                    The Safety Deposit Scheme did not appear to be included in the Plan and the Member requested that he be provided with details of the work on the scheme to date.  The Leader advised that it had not been included as a detailed study to identify potential usage was being progressed.

·                    A commitment to introduce the Harrow Card was included in the Plan and it was questioned how this could be done without the completion of a feasibility study.  The Leader advised that it was right that the Plan included the aspirations of the Administration and it was right that this was included.

·                    Concern was expressed in relation to the Environment department and the Leader was questioned as to how he could reconcile the proposed £3m savings with the corporate priority of keeping neighbourhoods clean, green and safe.  The Member went on to state that not locking parks and cemeteries at night would result in a rise in crime.  The Leader responded that a higher grant from Government would have enabled the Council to deal with issues in a different way but that the reality of the situation was that alternatives had to be found.  He advised that, for example, on the spot fines for dropping litter may act as a deterrent.

·                    Referring to the grant the Council had received from Government a Member stated that Merton Council received less than Harrow per head but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 356.

Reference from Cabinet meeting held on 22 January 2013

The Committee received the response from Cabinet to the Scrutiny Review of Housing Revenue Account Self Financing.

The Chair of the Review Group reported that there had been a lengthy discussion at Cabinet on the report and he expressed his thanks to all those who had been involved in the review.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Oral report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise

The Chair informed the Committee that whilst the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise had been invited to attend the meeting she had unfortunately been unable to attend.  He therefore proposed that the item be deferred.

Some Members, whilst acknowledging that circumstances sometimes meant that it was not possible for officers to attend meetings, expressed concern that the agenda had specifically been organised around environment issues and that this was not the first meeting that the Corporate Director had not attended.  Members also expressed their dissatisfaction that the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety, although invited to the meeting, was not in attendance and that no reason had been given.

RESOLVED: That

(1)               the item be deferred to the next meeting;

(2)               the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise be invited to attend the next meeting of the Committee;

(3)               in accordance with paragraph 43 of the Committee Procedure Rules (Part 4B of the Council’s Constitution), the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety be requested to attend the next meeting of the Committee.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise which provided an update on the principles underpinning the Council’s parking policy, outcomes of the parking review undertaken in 2011, links between parking policy and implementation of the Harrow card, the overall impact of parking policy and proposals on identified issues and the status of all proposals.

The Chair welcomed the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration, the Divisional Director of Environment and other officers to the meeting.  In response to questions, the Portfolio Holder explained that in terms of implementation, the feasibility study had not yet been completed but that he was happy to share it with scrutiny colleagues.  The Harrow card, free parking and tiered charges were all interconnected and it was necessary to have a programme to ensure that they were introduced in an ordered way.  The Harrow card did not delay the introduction of cashless parking.

Members then made comments and asked questions as follows:

·                    A Member expressed concern at the implementation of the policy, the expense of altering the pay and display machines and sought clarification on the cost of the Harrow card.  The Portfolio Holder advised that the card would cost £10 but that at this stage he could not confirm that it would be progressed.

·                    In response to a Member’s question as to what measures would be used to mitigate the likely worsening of air quality as a result of the parking policy, an officer advised that promotion of use of the card would have an effect on the use of other modes of transport but that it may encourage people to shop more locally.

·                    A Member questioned the use of the Harrow card to reduce vandalism to parking meters and street crime.  The officer undertook provide the data requested and indicated that the provision of a cashless system would reduce the number of machines required.

·                    A Member expressed concern at the estimated cost of the Harrow card implementation, stated that the interfaces with the IT systems had not been addressed and that, in his view, the Harrow machines would not be able to accommodate the variety of payment methods proposed.  The officer confirmed that the internal workings of 150 machines would require replacement.

·                    In response to a Member’s question in relation to the estimated take up of the Harrow card, the Portfolio Holder advised that it was expected that approximately 10% of the Harrow population would take up the card and that the fee for distributing the card would be £10.  The card would be valid for 3-4 years.

·                    In response to a Member’s question, the Portfolio Holder advised that the 20 minute parking limit had seemed reasonable and would allow sufficient time for shoppers to visit a shop for items such as milk and newspapers.  It would also facilitate the movement of cars from parking bays as there was little point in having 20 minutes free parking if there was nowhere to park.  If, however, the parking meters  ...  view the full minutes text for item 359.

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise which provided responses to Members comments raised on the draftClimate Change Action Plan and Delivering Warmer Homes (HECA) report when it had previously been considered on 18 December 2013.  The Chair drew Members attention to the Lead Member report which appeared on the supplemental agenda.  The Committee agreed to consider the Lead Member report as a matter of urgency for the reasons set out on the supplemental agenda.

Members noted the correction to page 69 of the report in that it was Cabinet Members not officers who needed to ensure that reports were complete, correct and meaningful.  The Lead Members stated that the results of their meeting with officers would feed into the consultation process and advised that it had been a useful exchange.

A Member sought clarification on the position in terms of Harrow’s application to be a fair trade borough, including how much had been spent to date and how much would be spent going forward.  The Director of Environment advised that whilst he did not have this information available he understood that work was underway.  The Leader of the Council stated that an error had been made in a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request in relation to this issue and the cost to date was in the region of £2,000, not £30,000.  He added that responding to FOI requests had cost the Council approximately £300,000.

In response to a Member’s question in relation to the launch of London Big Switch, an officer advised that the Council would be launching Harrow’s Big Energy Switch to help residents to reduce their fuel bills.

In response to a Member’s question as to the cost of compliance in meeting the climate change agenda, an officer advised that the officer cost of meeting the statutory requirements such as Display Energy Certificates, the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) scheme, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reporting and administering the Council’s energy reduction programmes was in the region of £100,000 a year.  In the current year, the Council had invested £500,000 in its carbon reduction capital programme resulting in a saving of £100,000 in energy costs per year.  Making investment in energy efficiency therefore represented a sensible business case going forward.  The government’s programme to reduce carbon emissions and fossil fuel use was designed to avoid significantly adverse changes to the global climate and ensure the country’s future energy security in a world where energy costs were rising and energy frequently came from politically unstable parts of the world.

A Member expressed concern that the Committee would not have the opportunity to comment on Appendix B, which would set out the revised measurement methodology for the Climate Change strategy, prior to its consideration by Cabinet.  It was suggested that either a challenge panel be established or the leads and other interested Members meet to discuss the appendix prior to Cabinet.

The Director reported that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 360.

Report of the Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning

The Committee received the report of the lead Members and considered it in conjunction with the substantive officer report.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director of Resources

The Committee received a report of the Divisional Director of Collections and Housing Benefits which provided an update on what council tax collection monitoring data existed and the plans for future monitoring of the area.  The Committee agreed to consider the report as a matter of urgency for the reasons set out on the supplemental agenda.

The Chair welcomed the Divisional Director of Collections and Housing Benefits and the Portfolio Holder for Finance to the meeting.  The Divisional Director outlined the content of the report and provided some context.

A Member sought clarification as to which other local authorities had set a target of 70% collection rate, what the average collection rate was and what the Council would do if there was an overspend.  The Divisional Director responded that three other London boroughs had set a target of 70% with the remainder between 30-60%.  The average was 50%.  He explained that Harrow had been in the top quartile for collection for a number of years and that in the longer term it was expected that caseload would reduce.  The Welfare Reform Debt Management Sub Group had considered the issue of vulnerable residents and that the team was working on identifying and developing a vulnerability policy which would define vulnerability in respect of debt.  One of the Council’s Baliff contractors had also recently set up a vulnerability team.  Work was underway to identify those residents with a mental health issue or extreme physical disability in order that those case were not passed to the bailiffs for action.  He advised that there would be a further report to the Committee later in the year.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning

The Committee received the report of the Divisional Director of Strategic Commissioning which accompanied the reports from the Scrutiny Lead Members. 

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted and the actions proposed be agreed.

In accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 14.2.1.2 (b) (Part 4B of the Constitution) it was

RESOLVED:  At 9.57 pm to continue until 10.15 pm.