Agenda and minutes

That (1) the minutes of the meeting held on 24 February 2005, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

[Notes:  (i)  The 24 February 2005 Council minutes have been circulated previously within Volume 9 of the Cabinet and Council Minutes (February 2005);

(ii)  those minutes are also now enclosed with the Summons for ease of reference].

RESOLVED:

THAT THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL TAX MEETING HELD ON 24 FEBRUARY 2005, HAVING BEEN CIRCULATED, BE TAKEN AS READ AND SIGNED AS A CORRECT RECORD.

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from all Members present.

It was noted that there were no declarations of interest on behalf of Members with regard to the business to be transacted at this Council Meeting.

[Note:  Under this item Councillor Mrs Bath notified Council of an additional interest she held as an appointed Board Member of the Harrow Churches Housing Association].

To receive any announcements from the Mayor.

[Note:  Information as to recent Mayoral engagements will be tabled].

RESOLVED:

THAT THE COUNCIL RECEIVE AND NOTE THE REPORT OF THE WORSHIPFUL THE MAYOR, AS TABLED, UPON HER OFFICIAL DUTIES, TOGETHER WITH THOSE OCCASIONS ON WHICH SHE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MAYOR AND A PAST MAYOR, SINCE THE COUNCIL MEETING ON 24 FEBRUARY 2005.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11 and presented:-

(i)                 by a representative of the petitioners;

(ii)               by a Councillor, on behalf of petitioners; or

(iii)             by the Director of Corporate Governance, on behalf of petitioners.

The following petitions were submitted by Members of Council:

(1)                 Submitted by Councillor Harriss, containing some 54 signatures of residents of Rayners Lane and neighbouring streets situated close to the Rayners Lane Estate Development, seeking answers from the Council to a variety of questions relating to (i) the lack of notification and consultation after planning applications were submitted to alter the originally approved scheme, (ii) the damage to property and the roads caused by the size and frequency of London Buses along Rayners Lane and (iii) drawing attention to road safety issues as Rayners Lane is the subject of weight restriction for heavy vehicles.

[Part (i) of the petition stood referred to the Development Control Committee and parts (ii) and (iii) to the Traffic Advisory Panel].

(2)                 Submitted by Councillor Mrs Kinnear, containing some 26 signatures of residents of “Georgian Way, Harrow Hill”, referring to the ongoing problems of St. Dominic’s School students parking in their road and recommending a number of traffic options to be considered by the Council at the earliest opportunity.

[The petition stood referred to the Traffic Advisory Panel].

(3)                 Submitted by Councillor Anjana Patel, containing some 1,000 signatures of local residents, urging the Council to improve the safety of the crossing at the intersection of The Ridgeway and Imperial Drive between North Harrow and Rayners Lane and proposing various initiatives to address the perceived problems for the consideration of the Council.

[The petition stood referred to the Traffic Advisory Panel].

A period of up to 15 minutes is allowed under Council Procedure Rule 12 for members of the public to ask questions of members of the Executive, Portfolio Holders and Chairs of Committees, of which notice has been received no later than 5.00 pm two clear working days prior to the day of this Meeting.

[Note:  Confirmation of any such questions will be tabled].

Further to Item 6 on the Summons, the following question was submitted by a member of the public, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.3:

[Note:  (i)  The Leader of the Council advised that he would provide a written response to the questioner;

(ii)  the questioner was permitted to pose a supplemental question notwithstanding but this was considered to have been expressed in the form of a statement, to which there was not a response;

(iii)  upon request, the Council agreed that the Leader’s written reply referred to at (i) above would be copied to all Members].

[Note:  The answer to the question has been published on the Council’s website]. 

CABINET (14 APRIL 2005):                    RECOMMENDATION I

Further to Item 7 on the Summons, the Council received Recommendation I of the Cabinet meeting of 14 April 2005 in this matter.

The Leader of the Council formally moved Recommendation I and commended the Corporate Plan to the Council.

The Recommendation was adopted as printed.

RESOLVED:

(1)  THAT THE DRAFT CORPORATE PLAN 2005/06 BE APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION IN MAY 2005;

(2)  THAT THE CORPORATE PLAN BE ADOPTED AS THE COUNCIL’S BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO CONTENT, AND THAT CABINET BE AUTHORISED TO APPROVE THESE MODIFICATIONS;

(3)  TO NOTE THAT AS WELL AS PUBLISHING THE CORPORATE PLAN, A FOUR PAGE SUMMARY OF THE CORPORATE PLAN WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN THE BOROUGH;

(4)  THAT THE CORPORATE PLAN BE REFERRED TO THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR THEIR COMMENTS WHICH WOULD THEN BE FORWARDED TO CABINET FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION WHEN APPROVING THE FINAL BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE PLAN IN JUNE 2005.

In accordance with the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules and Rule 17.3 of the Access to Information Rules, as set out in Part 4 of Constitution, it is a requirement to report respectively those urgent decisions and special urgency decisions taken on behalf of the Executive (that is as individually authorised by the Portfolio Holders), since the previous Council Meeting.

Those requirements are met in the attached paper from the Director of Corporate Governance.

In accordance with the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules and Rule 17.3 of the Access to Information Rules, as set out in Part 4 of the Constitution, the Director of Corporate Governance reported at Item 8 of the Summons respectively those urgent decisions and special urgency decisions taken on behalf of the Executive, as individually authorised by Portfolio Holders since the previous Council Meeting.

RESOLVED:

THAT THE URGENT DECISIONS TAKEN BY INDIVIDUAL PORTFOLIO HOLDERS ON BEHALF OF THE EXECUTIVE SINCE THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING, AS NOW REPORTED, BE NOTED.

A period of up to 15 minutes is allowed (Council Procedure Rule 13.2) for the asking of written questions by Members of Council of a member of the Executive or the Chair of any Committee:-

(i)                 of which notice has been received at least two clear working days prior to the day of this Meeting;

(ii)               or which relate to urgent matters, the consent of the Executive member or Committee Chair to whom the question is to be put has been obtained and the content has been advised to the Chief Executive by 12.00 noon on the day of the Council Meeting.

[Confirmation of any such questions will be tabled].

Further to Item 9 on the Summons, the following question had been submitted by a Member of Council, notice of which had duly been given under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 13.2.

[Note:  The original question and a supplemental question under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 13.5 were both answered orally by the Portfolio Holder].

The following Motions have been notified in accordance with the requirements of Council Procedure Rule 15, to be moved and seconded by the Members so indicated.

(1)            Property Revaluation and the Council Tax

To be moved by Councillor C.Mote and seconded by Councillor John Nickolay:

“That this Council notes that options for change to the financing of local government are under consideration through the Lyons Inquiry, expected to report to Government in December 2005. These options, combined with the effect of Council Tax revaluation, could drastically increase the bills of Harrow residents. As a result of the recent revaluation in Wales, one in three households have been moved up one or more bands whilst less than one in ten have moved down a band. In some parts of Cardiff and Wrexham, nine out of every ten homes have moved up one or more bands. With the revaluation just starting in England, there is genuine concern that this process will lead to substantial rises. This concern is particularly acute in London, and especially in Harrow, where property values are a poor proxy for ability to pay.

This Council believes that:

1.      Harrow residents should not be penalised in any revaluation process or changes in the system of local government finance;

2.      the impact should not be disproportionate for Harrow taxpayers;

3.       every effort should be taken to achieve a tax neutral outcome from the revaluation in recognition of the disparity between disposable income and property values for lower income households, be they pensioners, low income families or young people;

           This Council resolves:

1.      to campaign for Harrow taxpayers to be treated fairly by the revaluation and any proposed changes to local government financing;

2.      to write to the ODPM expressing concern at the impending revaluation and its possible effects on Harrow  and to ask that it be tax neutral in outcome for Harrow residents;

3.      to campaign for London to be treated as a distinct region in revaluation through regional Council Tax banding so as to better reflect London’s higher house prices compared to house prices in other parts of the country”.

            FOR CONSIDERATION

(2)Postal Voting

To be moved by Councillor Anjana Patel and seconded by Councillor C.Mote:

“This Council deplores the postal vote rigging that has occurred in elections and wishes that our system is as foolproof as possible, so that we can be seen to be a model Council”.

FOR CONSIDERATION

(3)PCT Contracts

To be moved by Councillor Silver and seconded by Councillor Myra Michael:

“This Council, due to the financial losses incurred on joint PCT contracts, asks that the Health and Social Care Sub Committee of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee investigate past contracts with a view to make recommendations on how this can be avoided in future”.

FOR CONSIDERATION

(i)                   Councillor C. Mote moved and Councillor John Nickolay seconded the Motion appearing at Item 10(1) of the Summons.

(ii)                 Councillor Dighé moved and Councillor Foulds seconded the following amendment:-

“Under the section “This Council believes that: …” to add a paragraph 4, to read as follows:-

“4.    a property based tax requires revaluations to smooth out anomalies”.

Under the section  “This Council resolves: …” to add paragraphs 4 and 5, to read as follows:-

“4.    To campaign for the savings and income disregards to also be set regionally to reflect disparities in the cost of living.

5.     To campaign for a fairer system that better reflects ability to pay.” ”

Upon a vote the amendment was carried.

(iii)                Upon a further vote the substantive Motion, as amended, was carried in the following terms:-

“That this Council notes that options for change to the financing of local government are under consideration through the Lyons Inquiry, expected to report to Government in December 2005. These options, combined with the effect of Council Tax revaluation, could drastically increase the bills of Harrow residents. As a result of the recent revaluation in Wales, one in three households have been moved up one or more bands whilst less than one in ten have moved down a band. In some parts of Cardiff and Wrexham, nine out of every ten homes have moved up one or more bands. With the revaluation just starting in England, there is genuine concern that this process will lead to substantial rises. This concern is particularly acute in London, and especially in Harrow, where property values are a poor proxy for ability to pay.

This Council believes that:

1.         Harrow residents should not be penalised in any revaluation process or changes in the system of local government finance;

2.         the impact should not be disproportionate for Harrow taxpayers;

3.         every effort should be taken to achieve a tax neutral outcome from the revaluation in recognition of the disparity between disposable income and property values for lower income households, be they pensioners, low income families or young people;

4.         a property based tax requires revaluations to smooth out anomalies.

           This Council resolves:

1.         to campaign for Harrow taxpayers to be treated fairly by the revaluation and any proposed changes to local government financing;

2.         to write to the ODPM expressing concern at the impending revaluation and its possible effects on Harrow  and to ask that it be tax neutral in outcome for Harrow residents;

3.         to campaign for London to be treated as a distinct region in revaluation through regional Council Tax banding so as to better reflect London’s higher house prices compared to house prices in other parts of the country;

4.         to campaign for the savings and income disregards to also be set regionally to reflect disparities in the cost of living;

5.         to campaign for a fairer system that better reflects ability to pay.” 

RESOLVED: 

THAT THE MOTION SET OUT AT (iii) ABOVE BE ADOPTED.

(i)                   Councillor Anjana Patel moved and Councillor C. Mote seconded the Motion appearing at Item 10(2) of the Summons.

(ii)                 An amendment in the names of Councillor Burchell and Councillor Idaikkadar had been tabled.

(iii)                The mover and seconder of the original Motion indicated their willingness to accept the amendment.

(iv)                With the assent of the Council the amendment was formally moved by Councillor Burchell and seconded by Councillor C. Mote in the following terms:-

“In line one, to delete the words “the postal vote rigging” and to substitute the wording:-

“any form of fraud or malpractice”

After the word “elections”, to delete all remaining words and to substitute the following:-

“in other parts of the country and resolves to request the Electoral Commission to bring forward recommendations to government to improve the integrity of the electoral system”.”

(v)                  By the general assent of the Council the substantive Motion, as amended, was adopted in the following terms:-

“This Council deplores any form of fraud or malpractice that has occurred in elections in other parts of the country and resolves to request the Electoral Commission to bring forward recommendations to government to improve the integrity of the electoral system”.

RESOLVED:

THAT THE MOTION SET OUT AT (v) ABOVE BE ADOPTED.

(i)                   Councillor Silver moved and Councillor Myra Michael seconded the Motion at Item 10(3) of the Summons, in the following terms:-

“This Council, due to the financial losses incurred on joint PCT contracts, asks that the Health and Social Care Sub-Committee of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee investigate past contracts with a view to make recommendations on how this can be avoided in future.”

(ii)                 Councillor Margaret Davine moved and Councillor Ann Groves seconded the following amendment:-

“After the opening words “This Council” to delete the remaining wording in the original Motion and to substitute the following:-

“would welcome scrutiny of the Council’s present and future NHS continuing care arrangements, which have been agreed with the PCT.

This Council believes:

1.            That as a result of the settlement of past invoices, which was welcomed and agreed by the Cabinet with all party support on Thursday 17 March 2005, a line is drawn under the former unsatisfactory and complicated arrangements.

2.            That the new commissioning arrangements, which reflect the agreed continuing care criteria, create a fundamentally different relationship between the Council and the PCT.

3.            It would not be good use of the Health and Social Care sub committee’s time and resources to review again the detail of the contract going back to 2000/2001.

This Council resolves:

1.            That the Health and Social Care Sub Committee of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be asked to review future contracts and arrangements with the PCT for the delivery of NHS continuing care with a view to making recommendations on improvements for the future. 

2.            That the Health and Social Care Sub Committee be asked to monitor the implementation of contracts by receiving updates on a three monthly basis.” ”

(iii)                In the course of debate on the amendment, the mover and seconder of the amendment indicated their wish to delete paragraph “3” under the section “This Council believes”, with a view to achieving a consensus.

(iv)                The mover of the original Motion advised that the wording of paragraph “1” in the same section remained unacceptable.

[Note:  Under the provisions of Procedure Rule 17.10(d) it was twice moved “that the question be now put”;

(a)                By Councillor Toms at 8.42 pm, which was not then accepted by the Mayor as she then had notice of further speakers; and

(b)                by Councillor Romain at 8.46 pm, which was accepted by the Mayor].

(v)                  The Mayor then put to the Council for a vote the amendment then under debate, as altered by the deletion of paragraph “3” under the section

“This Council believes”.

Upon a vote the amendment, as so altered, was carried.

(vi)                Upon a further vote the substantive Motion, as amended, was carried in the following full terms:-

“This Council would welcome scrutiny of the Council’s present and future NHS continuing care arrangements, which have been agreed with the PCT.

This Council believes:

1.            That as a result of the settlement of past invoices, which was welcomed and agreed by the Cabinet with all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 311.

The Worshipful the Mayor notified Council that she had been advised after the commencement of the meeting that Councillor Bluston’s absence from the proceedings was due to him having been admitted recently to hospital.

The Council recorded its best wishes for Councillor Bluston’s speedy recovery from illness.