Agenda and minutes

That the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 8 November 2012 and the extraordinary meeting on 21 January 2013 be taken as read and signed as correct records.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 8 November 2012 and the Extraordinary Council meeting on 21 January 2013 be taken as read and signed as correct records.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from all Members of the Council.

The Mayor invited appropriate declarations of interest.

Item 7 – Proposed ‘Virtual Licensing Panel’ Procedure

Councillors Sue Anderson, Ramji Chauhan, Mrinal Choudhury, Mano Dharmarajah, Ajay Maru, Amir Moshenson, Varsha Parmar, Anthony Seymour, Lynda Seymour, Mrs Rekha Shah declared that they had non-pecuniary interests in that they were Members of the Licensing Panel.

Item 8 – Corporate Plan 2013-15; Item 9 – Final Revenue Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2013/14 to 2016/17; Item 10 – Capital Programme 2013/14 to 2016/17; Item 11 – Housing Revenue Account Budget 2013-14 and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2014-15 to 2016-17; Item 12 – Treasury Management Strategy Statement, Prudential Indicators and Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Policy and Strategy 2013/14

Councillor Nana Asante declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was a member of the Voluntary Sector Forum and a pecuniary interest in that she was in receipt of Council Tax and Housing Benefit but had been granted a dispensation from the Standards Committee to stay, speak and vote on the items.

Councillor Husain Akhtar declared a non-pecuniary interest in that one of his children was in receipt of Council Tax Benefit.

Councillor Sue Anderson declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she worked for Harrow PCT whose public health functions would be transferring to the Council in the future.

Councillor David Gawn declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was in receipt of Disability Living Allowance.

Councillor Graham Henson declared a non-pecuniary interest in that his wife was an employee of a voluntary organisation in Harrow.

Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar declared a non-pecuniary interest in that his mother was in receipt of Council Tax Benefit.

Councillor Krishna James declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was a member of Rethink did occasional work for Mind in Harrow.

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was an employee of London Councils Ltd and his sister was a teacher at Hatch End High School.

Councillor Kareema Marikar declared a non-pecuniary interest in that her son was in receipt of Disability Living Allowance.

Councillor Chris Mote declared a non-pecuniary interest in that his brother was in receipt of Housing Benefit and Disability Living Allowance.

Councillor Janet Mote declared a non-pecuniary interest in that her brother in law was in receipt of Housing Benefit and Disability Living Allowance.

Councillor Anthony Seymour declared a non-pecuniary interest in that his sister was in receipt of Council Tax Benefit.

Councillor Lynda Seymour declared a non-pecuniary interest in that her sister in law was in receipt of Council Tax Benefit.

Councillors Navin Shah and Mrs Rekha Shah declared non-pecuniary interests in that their daughter worked for a local charity.

Councillor Yogesh Teli declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was the Chair of a local charity.

Item 15(3) – Motion – Fire Service

Councillor Susan Hall declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she was a member of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

Councillor Navin Shah declared a non-pecuniary interest in that he was the Vice-Chair of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 269.

To receive any announcements from the Mayor.  Information as to recent Mayoral engagements will be tabled.

The Mayor requested that Council note the engagements he had undertaken.

The Mayor also congratulated, on behalf of the Council, those Harrow residents that had been awarded in the recent Queen’s New Year’s Honours List.

RESOLVED:  That the report of the Worshipful the Mayor, as tabled, be noted.

To receive and consider any procedural motions by Members of the Council in relation to the conduct of this Meeting.  Notice of such procedural motions, received after the issuing of this Summons, will be tabled.

(i)                 The Leader of the Council, Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar, moved a procedural motion under Rule 25.1 that in line with previous years and for the purposes of the debate on the Final Revenue Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2013/14 to 2016/17, the rules of debate be varied, as set out in the tabled documents, and that the procedure therein be also applied to the reports on the Corporate Plan 2013-15, the Capital Programme 2013/14 to 2016/17, the Housing Revenue Account Budget 2013-14 and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2014-15 to 2016-17 and the Treasury Management Strategy Statement, Prudential Indicators and Minimum Revenue Provisions (MRP) Policy and Strategy 2013/14, insofar as the recommendations and amendments be debated jointly.  This was agreed.

(ii)               The Mayor announced that he had received notice, within the Summons and Supplemental Summonses, of amendments in respect the recommendations from Cabinet on item 9 – Final Revenue Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2013/14 to 2016/17.  This consisted of changes to the Members’ Allowances Scheme, the Model Council Tax Resolution and the Annual Pay Policy Statement.

(iii)             The Mayor announced that if the debate on items 8-12 was continuing at 10.00pm, he would ask for the winding up speeches to commence.  In accord with Rule 9.3, at 10.30 pm he would consider the guillotine as having been reached and put all remaining items on the Summons to the vote without debate.

(iv)             The Mayor stated that he had received notice of an alteration to the proposer for Motion 15(5) – Indian Rape Victim / Violence Against Women. Councillor Krishna James would now be the proposer.

(v)               The Mayor announced that he had received notice, within the tabled papers, of amendments in respect of Motions 15(3) Fire Service and 15(5) Indian Rape Victim / Violence Against Women from its proposers and seconders.  These would be dealt with individually at the items concerned.

(vi)             The Mayor announced that he had received notice, within the tabled papers, of 2 further amendments in respect of Motions on the Summons.  These would be dealt with individually at the items concerned.  The Mayor also announced that the Conservative Group had withdrawn their proposed amendment to Motion 15(5) – Indian Rape Victim / Violence Against Women.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the partial suspension under Rule 25.1, regarding the moving of recommendations from Cabinet and the rules of debate (including extended time for opening speeches by both political groups), as set out in the tabled papers, be approved for the purposes of the debate upon

(2)               the amendments to the recommendations from Cabinet in respect of the recommendations from Cabinet on item 9 –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 271.

To receive any petitions to be presented:

(i)                 by a representative of the petitioners;

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

(iii)             by the Mayor, on behalf of petitioners.

In accordance with Rule 10, the following petition was presented:

(i)                 Petition submitted by Councillor James Bond containing 109 signatures of residentsobjecting to planning application ref: P/0172/13 for the change of use of a traditional family house into a residential care home at 37 Headstone Lane, North Harrow.

[The petition stood referred to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration].

A period of up to 15 minutes is allowed for members of the public to ask questions of members of the Executive, Portfolio Holders and Chairmen of Committees, of which notice has been received no later than 3.00 pm two clear working days prior to the day of this Meeting.  Any such questions received will be tabled.

In accordance with Rule 11, the questions submitted by members of the public and responded to by Portfolio Holders is contained at Appendix I.

Recommendation I:             Licensing and General Purposes Committee

                                                (26 November 2012)

Further to item 7 on the Summons, Councillor Mano Dharmarajah moved Recommendation I of the Licensing and General Purposes Committee held on 26 November 2012.

RESOLVED:  That the ‘Virtual Licensing Panel’ procedure in relation to Section 106A of the Licensing Act 2003 relating to imposition of conditions on standard temporary event notices in cases where the objection(s) seek the imposition of conditions and all parties agree that a hearing was unnecessary, be approved.

Recommendation I:             Cabinet

                                                (14 February 2013)

Further to item 8 on the Summons, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar, moved Recommendation I of the Cabinet meeting held on 14 February 2013.

RESOLVED:  That the Corporate Plan for 2013/15 be adopted.

Recommendation II:                        Cabinet

                                                (14 February 2013)

Further to item 9 on the Summons, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar, moved Recommendation II of the Cabinet meeting held on 14 February 2013 together with amended versions of the Council Tax Resolution, the Members’ Allowances Scheme, and the Annual Pay Policy Statement, which had been subject to minor amendments and to reflect new legislative requirements.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the budget be approved to enable the Council Tax for 2013/14 to be set;

(2)               the Medium Term Financial Strategy be approved;

(3)               the policy on the use of Contingency be approved;

(4)               the Schools budget be approved;

(5)               the Reserves Policy be approved;

(6)               the Members’ Allowances Scheme, at appendix II to these minutes, be approved for 2013/14;

(7)               the Model Council Tax Resolution, at appendix III to these minutes, be approved;

(8)               the Annual Pay Policy Statement for 2013-14, at appendix IV to these minutes, be approved.

Recommendation III:           Cabinet

                                                (14 February 2013)

Further to item 10 on the Summons, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar, moved Recommendation III of the Cabinet meeting held on 14 February 2013.

RESOLVED:  That the Capital Programme for 2013/14 to 2016/17 be approved.

Recommendation IV:          Cabinet

                                                (14 February 2013)

Further to item 11 on the Summons, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar, moved Recommendation IV of the Cabinet meeting held on 14 February 2013.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget for 2013/14, including the additional rent to be generated by the proposed Rental Strategy, be approved;

(2)               the HRA Capital Programme be approved;

(3)               the Portfolio Holders for Housing and Finance, in conjunction with the Corporate Directors of Community, Health and Wellbeing and Resources, be delegated authority to adjust the Capital Programme, within the overall capital envelope for 2013/14, without seeking approval from Cabinet to ensure delivery of works.

Recommendation V:           Cabinet

                                                (14 February 2013)

Further to item 12 on the Summons, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar, moved Recommendation V of the Cabinet meeting held on 14 February 2013.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Treasury Management Strategy (TMS) and Prudential Indicators be approved;

(2)               the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy and Strategy for 2013/14 be approved.

Report of the Constitution Review Working Group.

Further to Item 13 on the Supplemental Summons, the Council considered the recommendations from the Constitution Review Working Group.

RESOLVED:  That the proposed Constitutional changes be approved, as set out in Appendix V to these minutes.

A period of up to 15 minutes is allowed for asking written questions by Members of Council of a member of the Executive or the Chairman of any Committee:-

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

(ii)               which relate to urgent matters, and the consent of the Executive Member or Committee Chairman to whom the question is to be put has been obtained and the content has been advised to the Director of Legal and Governance Services by 12 noon on the day of the Council Meeting.

Any such questions received will be tabled.

In accordance with Rule 12, the questions submitted by Councillors to Portfolio Holders and responses circulated in writing, are contained at Appendix VI.

The following Motions have been notified in accordance with the requirements of Council Procedure Rule 14.1, to be moved and seconded by the Members indicated:

(i)                 At item 15(1) the Council received a Motion in the names of Councillors Thaya Idaikkadar and Sachin Shah in the following terms:

“This Council believes that, for a considerable time under successive governments, the grant which it receives from central funds is inadequate for the needs of the residents of this Borough.

This Council notes that for the coming financial year our grant equates to £1,608 for every resident in Harrow. In comparison the neighbouring Borough of Brent gets £3,317 for each of their residents.  This equates to an extra £400 million pounds annually.

This Council is unable to understand this disparity given the similarity of both Boroughs’ needs and demography.  Further comparison with other London Boroughs presents a similar inequality in Harrow’s annual settlement.

This Council notes that although Harrow has an enviable reputation as a leafy suburb but there are pockets of deprivation which a fair grant would help us address better.

This Council resolves the following:

1.                  That representations be made to relevant government Ministers and officials to bring this matter to the attention of those in positions of decision making.

2.                  That Officers are instructed to examine the formula that is used for the funding calculation and to identify parameters that could be considered to unfairly weigh against the interests of the Borough.

3.                  That Officers are instructed to consult the results of the 2011 census and to establish, where possible, a basis for appeal to the government on grounds of the population characteristics and diversity of the Borough having regard to the characteristics of other comparable Boroughs.

(ii)               There was a tabled amendment in the names of Councillors Susan Hall and Barry Macleod-Cullinane, which sought to amend the Motion as follows:

“This Council believes that there is room for a sensible debate on the amount of grant funding Harrow receives.  It notes that Harrow receives around £450 less per-resident than the outer London average.

This Council does not believe, however, that talking Harrow down and comparing it with boroughs which suffer far more deprivation is the best strategy in arguing for more funding.  When other outer London boroughs such as Merton have similar levels of deprivation to Harrow – while also receiving nearly £50 grant per-resident less – it is disingenuous to compare Harrow with Brent, which is the 24^th most deprived local government area nationally.

Additionally, this Council notes that it is much harder to make the case to the Government that Harrow needs more funding after the Council’s administration turned down nearly £1 million to assist in freezing council tax, and over £300,000 to assist with the localisation of council tax benefit.

This Council therefore believes that representations made to the Government regarding Harrow’s grant funding should be logical and reasonable in both ambition and approach.

This Council resolves the following:

1.                  That representations be made to relevant government Ministers and officials to bring this matter to the attention of those in positions of decision making.

2.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 282.

(i)                 At item 15(2) the Council received a Motion in the names of Councillors Sue Anderson and Phillip O’Dell in the following terms:

“This Council believes that the safety and security of Londoners, including the residents of Harrow, is being put at risk as a result of cuts to police service being pushed through by the London’s Mayor and the Coalition Government.

The Council believes that the unprecedented cuts are going too far and too fast and that these cuts to the budget of the Metropolitan Police Service will inevitably endanger families and communities across London and Harrow.  This council believes that the cuts are being carried out without consideration of the impact on Londoners’ safety.

Most inadequate and sham of a consultation undertaken in Harrow by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) has raised more questions than answered.  We have serious concerns about the Mayor’s proposed ‘New Policing Model’ for London and its impact on Harrow and raise the following issues: 

1.                  Reduction of Police:  There will be loss of 17 police officers as compared to police officers in the year 2010 (Reduction from 402 to 385). 

2.                  Scrapping of the Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs):Replacing the current dedicated SNT of six in each and every ward of Harrow with only one Police Constable will see the end of the current successful ward-wide policing and leave the local areas exposed to more crime and increase the fear of crime.

3.                  Base Stations for SNTs: We are concerned that no assurance is given that these will not be closed.

4.                  Closure of Police Stations and Front Counters:  We oppose the plans to close the police stations at Pinner and Wealdstone and oppose the loss of police facilities at the Harrow Civic Centre.  The Mayor has promised new and better front counters before closing the police stations but we have not seen any evidence of this for any of our areas in Harrow.

5.                  Closure of Custody Suites: We are concerned that MOPAC has not yet finally confirmed the future of Harrow’s custody suites which are planned for closure.  We are opposed to any such closure as we do not believe that the alternative of Kilburn is a viable one.

This Council challenges the Mayor’s position that the scale of the cuts are necessary and acceptable.  This council calls on the Chief Executive of Harrow Council to respond to MOPAC’s consultation and oppose the Mayor’s planned changes for policing of Harrow.  The Council also calls upon Harrow’s MPs and Harrow’s Assembly Member to oppose the Mayor’s plans and draconian cuts in policing which will put Harrow’s residents and community at risk from crime and the fear of crime.” 

(ii)               There was a tabled amendment in the names of Councillors Susan Hall and Barry Macleod-Cullinane, which sought to amend the Motion as follows:

“This Council believes that the safety and security of Londoners, including the residents of Harrow, is being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 283.

At Item 15(3) the Council received a Motion in the names of Councillors Navin Shah and Ajay Maru in the following terms:

“This council believes that the safety and security of Londoners, including the residents of Harrow, is being put at risk as a result of cuts to the fire service being pushed through by the London’s Mayor. 

The Council believes that the unprecedented cuts are going too far and too fast and that these cuts to the budget of the London Fire Emergency & Planning Authority (LFEPA) will inevitably endanger families and communities across London and Harrow.  This council believes that the cuts are being carried out without consideration of the impact on Londoners’ safety.

We oppose the London Mayor’s budget requirements resulting in the Draft LSP5 proposal to close 12 fire stations, remove 18 fire appliances and delete 520 firefighter posts.  We welcome the potential for an additional fire appliance at Stanmore fire station proposed in the plan but Harrow will still be fully exposed from the downgrading of the fire cover London wide and therefore the real risk of safety and security.

We deplore the Mayor’s legal direction requiring LFEPA to ignore the democratic decisions made by the Fire Authority and majority members of the Assembly Members to enable the Mayor to consult on his closure programme. 

We welcome LFEPA’s decision taken on 26 February to consult every Borough in London and look forward to participating in the consultation process.  This council calls on the Chief Executive of Harrow Council to respond to the consultation on the draft LSP5 in due course.

This Council challenges the Mayor’s position that the scale of the cuts is necessary and acceptable.  This council calls on the Chief Executive of Harrow Council to write to the Mayor of London and the Commissioner of the LFEPA expressing the concerns of Harrow about the closure plans.  The Council also calls upon Harrow’s MPs and Harrow’s Assembly Member to oppose the Draft LSP5 proposals promoting closure plans and reckless cuts in the fire service which will put at risk the safety and security of Harrow’s residents and community”.

RESOLVED:  That the substantive Motion, set out above, be adopted. 

At Item 15(4) the Council received a Motion in the names of Councillors Krishna James and Kareema Marikar in the following terms:

“This Council believes that the Welfare Reform Act 2012 is causing untold anxiety and will cause great distress to vulnerable Harrow residents.

The draconian measures, such as, the capping of rent and the so called ‘bedroom tax’ is causing families to be uprooted.  Children are having to move locations and change schools which could lead to long term instability and future problems.

These short sighted measures will cause long term problems resulting in high costs to the public purse.

This Council resolves to write to the Prime Minister & Deputy Prime Minister urging them to rethink their misguided reforms.

This Council urges its three MPs to raise the matter in Parliament on behalf of vulnerable residents in Harrow”.

RESOLVED:  That the substantive Motion, set out above, be adopted. 

At item 15(5) the Council received a Motion in the names of Councillors Kareema Marikar and Zarina Khalid in the following terms:

“The recent rape case leading to the death of a young girl in New Delhi was a deeply distressing event which has brought into focus the heinous violence perpetrated towards women and lack of values and respect accorded to women across the world in many societies.  

In particular, female infanticide continues to happen in many parts of the world.  The fundamental problem is that women are not valued enough in all societies.

In Harrow, this is reflected by a worrying increase in Domestic Violence which is affecting many families.

Mother earth is crying and it is time we took notice.

This Council thanks the former Borough Commander of Police for implementing a Zero Tolerance policy to tackle violence against women and girls and the abuse they are subjected to.  But, much needs to be done.

This Council pays a tribute to and reaffirms its support to the voluntary and statutory organisations in Harrow who actively engage in supporting women and girls.

Approaching International Women’s Month in March, this Council believes that International Communities must work together in a spirit of partnership to exchange and implement good practices to eradicate the evil of violence, abuse and discrimination of women and girls worldwide.

The Council instructs the Chief Executive to

·                     Write to the former Borough Commander, placing on record our thanks for his commitment to women’s rights.

·                     Write to the borough’s Voluntary and Community Sector Organisations thanking them for the work they do for and with the borough’s women.

·                     Write to the Indian High Commissioner regarding the gender imbalance that has been identified in society and offering Harrow’s experience in creating a cohesive society by meeting its Public Sector Equality Duty as published in Our Harrow, Our Story where the Council articulates the services and projects being delivered and advances Equality and fosters good relations.

·                     Write to the new Borough Commander asking him to work with the Council in partnership to raise awareness of the evil of Domestic Violence”.

RESOLVED:  That the substantive Motion, as set out above, be adopted.

Report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services.

The Director of Legal and Governance Services advsed of two urgent decisions taken in respect of matters reserved to Council since the last meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the decision taken under delegation by the Director of Legal and Governance Services, on behalf of Council, be noted.

Report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services.

The Council received a report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services providing a summary of the urgent decisions taken by Cabinet, the Leader and Portfolio Holders, and the use of the special urgency procedure since the last meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

At 10.30 pm, in the course of the consideration of Item 14 (Questions with Notice), the Mayor advised that the ‘guilotine’ procedure had come into operation for the determination of the remaining business on the Summons and was applied to Items 14 (Questions With Notice), 15(1) (Motion: Fair Deal), 15(2) (Motion: Police Service), 15(3) (Motion: Fire Service), 15(4) (Motion: Tory Welfare Reform Act 2012), 15(5) (Motion: Indian Rape Victim / Violence Against Women), 16 (Decisions Taken Under the Urgency Procedure – Council) and 17 (Decisions Taken Under Urgency Procedure by Portfolio Holders, Leader and Deputy Leader and Use of Special Urgency Procedure).

RESOLVED:  That the provisions of Rules 9.2 and 9.3 be applied as set out above.