Agenda and minutes

Call-In Sub-Committee - Thursday 26 January 2006 7.30 pm

Venue: Committee Room 4 Harrow Civic Centre

Contact: Michelle Fernandes, Committee Administrator  Tel: 020 8424 1542 E-mail:

No. Item




Attendance by Reserve Members

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 Member:-


Ordinary Member


Reserve Member


Councillor Thammaiah

Councillor  Ann Groves


Declarations of Interest

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 there were no declarations of interests made by Members in relation to the business to be transacted at this meeting.


Arrangement of Agenda


RESOLVED:  That (1) in accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, this meeting be called with less than 5 clear working days’ notice by virtue of the special circumstances and grounds for urgency detailed below:-


Special Circumstances/Grounds for Urgency:  Under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 22.6, a meeting of the Call-in Sub-Committee must be held within 7 clear working days of the receipt of a request for call-in.  This meeting therefore had to be arranged at short notice and it was not possible for the agenda to be published 5 clear working days prior to the meeting.


(2)  all items be considered with the press and public present.



That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2005, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.


RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2005, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.


Call-In of Cabinet Decision: Role of the Wealdstone Regeneration Advisory Panel


The Sub-Committee considered a decision of Cabinet made at the meeting held on 12 January 2006, which determined that the Wealdstone Regeneration Advisory Panel (WRAP) be dissolved following its meeting on 19 January 2006. 


The decision had been called-in on the grounds of inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision.


As part of the agenda, Members received the notice invoking the call-in procedure, the tabled report presented to Cabinet on 12 January 2006, the subsequent minute, the report presented to WRAP on 19 January 2006 and a statement from a Member who backbenched at WRAP.  In addition, a Member who was a signatory to the call?in of the Cabinet decision tabled a diagram defining the outlined transitional plan and the proposal to subsume WRAP and its work. 


The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Housing and the Portfolio Holder for Communications, Partnership and Human Resources had indicated that they were unable to attend the Sub?Committee.  However, the Portfolio Holder for Communications, Partnership and Human Resources had provided a statement with minutes of the relevant Cabinet and WRAP meetings appended to it, which was tabled at the meeting.  Members agreed to adjourn the meeting for 10 minutes in order to read all the tabled documents.


The Chair invited a Member representing the signatories to the call?in to speak.  The Member expressed her concern at Cabinet’s decision to dissolve WRAP as she felt that it had not been formally debated and agreed at WRAP prior to being referred to Cabinet.  She was also critical of the way in which the decision had been made in that the report had been tabled at Cabinet without any explanation of its urgency.  In addition, she felt that the traders had not been consulted on the immediate dissolution of WRAP.  The Member was of the view that as a report to cease the Best Value Advisory Panel (BVAP) was being presented to Cabinet, it appeared to be “convenient” to insert a brief note on the cessation of WRAP as well.  She stated that the abolition of BVAP had however been discussed at its Panel meeting prior to coming to Cabinet.  The Member also raised concerns that WRAP and its workload had been subsumed into the Wealdstone Neighbourhood Renewal Forum (WNRF) but the Forum was not yet in existence.  The Member felt that the process had been hastily rushed through without the proper consultation of Members and stakeholders and she requested that WRAP continue until the relevant consultation and handover had been completed.


The Director of Strategic Planning advised that a report to Cabinet in July 2005 had implicitly stated that WRAP would be subsumed by the WNRF, as the ongoing initiatives in the area would be more effective if it was coordinated at neighbourhood level, thereby giving a more holistic approach.  He also confirmed that a report presented to Cabinet in November 2005 had clearly indicated steps taken in terms of consultation with WRAP.  He did confirm, however, that a report had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.


Timescale for the Arrangement of Call-in Sub-Committee Meeting

Which the Chair has decided is urgent and cannot otherwise be dealt with.


Further to this having been raised as an item of other business, a Member noted that the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Housing and the Portfolio Holder for Communications, Partnership and Human Resources, were not present at the meeting due to prior commitments.  Members stated that it would have assisted the Sub-Committee in reaching a decision if they had been able to question the relevant Portfolio Holders directly.  The Chair reminded Members that, in accordance with the Constitution, a meeting of the Call?In Sub Committee had to be arranged within 7 clear working days of receipt of the call-in request, an extremely tight deadline, which may as a result prevent attendance by relevant parties due to their prior commitments.


The Chair suggested that the Constitutional Review Working Group review the requirement with a view to extending the period in which a meeting could be arranged.


RESOLVED:  That the Constitutional Review Working Group be requested to review the appropriateness of the timescale for the arrangement of Call-In Sub-Committee meetings, which was currently required to be within 7 clear working days of the receipt of a call-in request.