Agenda and decisions

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Moema, and also from Councillor Williams who was absent due to her attendance at a Windrush event.

NOTED

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business. (Late items of Urgent Business will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items of Urgent Business will be dealt with under Item 14 below. New items of exempt business will be dealt with at Item 16 below).

There were no items of urgent business.

The Mayor advised that there was a TO FOLLOW report at Item 8 and reasons for lateness would be given when the meeting reached that item.

The Mayor also advised that the order of business would be varied to consider agenda item 10 after item 3. The Mayor advised the meeting, in accordance with his powers of discretion as stated in the Council’s constitution, that he would be allowing two residents to speak during consideration of Item 10  - LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOOD DURING COVID-19 - Key Decision No. NH Q82 .

NOTED

A Member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A Member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 8.1-15.2 of Section Two of Part 5 of the Constitution  and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were no declarations received.

NOTED

This report seeks Cabinet’s approval to authorise and implement a necessary Experimental traffic order , subject to the requirements of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, , which consist of two road filtering schemes for the following  areas:

  (i)  Shepherdess Walk just south of Murray Grove together with Nile and Ebenezer Street at their junctions with Vestry Road ; and

  (ii)  Pritchards Road at Cat and Mutton Bridge together with further filters of Forest Road, Richmond Road, Middleton Road / Haggerston Road, Dunston Street and Lee Street to the east of the A10.  The further filters would ensure that vehicles do not divert through other residential roads

RESOLVED

i.  that the Head of Streetscene be authorised to make and implement the necessary Experimental traffic order , subject to the requirements of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, which would consist of two road filtering schemes for the following  areas:

a.  Shepherdess Walk just south of Murray Grove together with Nile  and Ebenezer Street at their junctions with Vestry Road ; and

b.   Pritchards Road at Cat and Mutton Bridge together with further filters of Forest Road, Richmond Road, Middleton Road / Haggerston Road, Dunston Street and Lee Street to the east of the A10.  The further filters would ensure that vehicles do not divert through other residential roads.

ii.  That the Head of Streetscene be authorised to make minor adjustments to the proposals as listed in i. a and b above and as shown in the Appendix 1 attached to the report , as required following design development and feedback from key stakeholders, including local residents; and

iii.  That it be noted that all objections/responses received in the statutory six month period in respect of making the experimental traffic order be considered before any decision to make the traffic order continue permanently to be recorded in writing and signed by the Head of Streetscene in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Energy, Waste, Transport, and Public Realm.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This report recommends taking forward filtering proposals in two areas:

(1)  Shepherdess Walk, Nile Street and Ebeneezer Street - hereafter referred to as the ‘Hoxton West’ filters in this report.The filters are all in Hoxton West Ward (see plan in Appendix). These filters would create two lower trafficked areas, effectively north and south of Murray Grove, in areas of relatively high population density. This proposal would build on the Council’s implementation works carried out on the Central London Cycle Grid, which has improved facilities for both cyclists and pedestrians. This would also prevent drivers from using the area to bypass the main road network, and Old Street Roundabout in particular.

(2)  Pritchards Road, Lee Street, Dunston Street, Middleton Road / Haggerston Road, Richmond Road and Forest Road near their junctions with the A10 - hereafter referred to as the ‘London Fields’ filters in this report. The filter at Pritchards Road is on the boundary with Haggerston Ward and will also impact Tower Hamlets to the southeast. The complementary filters parallel to the A10 will impact the TLRN (see plan in Appendix).

This proposal would build on the Council’s implementation works of the bus gate and School Street in the London Fields area, as well as recent consultation measures on potential improvements to Richmond Road. It would also support any further implementation of upgrading Queensbridge Road for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as remove a through route via Scriven Street, that is on the programme for resolving. It would be proposed to work with Tower Hamlets to put a further filter on their part of Pritchards Road to fully prevent  ...  view the full decision text for item 10.

On occasions part of the Cabinet meeting will be held in private and will not be open to the public if an item is being considered that is likely to lead to the disclosure of exempt or confidential information. In accordance with the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”), members of the public can make representations about why that part of the meeting should be open to the public.

This agenda contains provision for consideration of exempt items as set out at Item 15 : Exclusion of the Press and Public.  No representations with regard to these have been received.

This is the formal 5 clear day notice under the Regulations to confirm that this Cabinet meeting will be partly held in private for the reasons set out in this Agenda.

There were no representations given there were no exempt items for consideration.

NOTED

There were no formal deputations, or petitions, or questions.

The Mayor had previously advised the meeting, in accordance with his powers of discretion as stated in the Council’s constitution, that he would be allowing two residents to speak during consideration of Item 10  - LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOOD DURING COVID-19 - Key Decision No. NH Q82 .

NOTED

To agree the minutes of the previous meeting of Cabinet held on 18 May 2020.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 18 May 2020, 2020 be confirmed as an accurate record of the proceedings.

To receive the minutes of the Cabinet Procurement Committee (CPC) held on 11 May 2020 - for noting only.

This OFP presents an update on the current financial position which takes account of the estimated financial impact of COVID 19 and the on-going emergency.

Reasons for lateness stated by Deputy Mayor Rennison.

RESOLVED

That the updated overall financial position for March 2020, covering the General Fund, Capital and the HRA be noted and agreed.

REASONS FOR DECISION

To facilitate financial management and control of the Council's finances.

CHILDREN, ADULT SOCIAL CARE AND COMMUNITY HEALTH (CACH)

The CACH directorate is forecasting an overspend of £6,174k after the application of reserves and drawdowns - an increase of £76k from February.

Children and Families Service

The service is overspent by £2,148k. The main variances from budget are discussed below.

The Children in Need (CIN) outturn position is an overspend of £500k mainly due to staffing costs. This year we have seen significant pressures on staffing across the whole service and particularly in CIN. This is mainly due to the number of posts exceeding the established number of posts in order to ensure caseloads are at a reasonable level in response to an increase in demand, to provide additional capacity to support the response to the Ofsted focused visit earlier in the year and to cover for maternity/paternity/sick leave and agency premiums. Given the outcome of the recent inspection, alongside further increased demand in the system, it is likely that staffing costs will continue to be above the established number and this is being built into future financial modelling including the use of the increased social care grant. The service is also working with finance to ensure that there is a systematic approach (backed by enhanced approval steps) to managing staffing levels flexibly across the service to minimise additional posts.

The adverse movement of £113k from the February budget monitors produced by directorates relates to a combination of  direct support to families over and above social work support (in areas such as postnatal support, counselling and play therapy, parenting support and skills training), interpreter's fees and increase of purchase card expenditure that occurred in March.

Corporate Parenting’s outturn position is an overspend of £1,870k after the use of £2,300k of commissioning reserves and £300k one-off staffing reserves. This position also includes the use of £1,200k of Social Care funding that was announced in the October 2018 Budget. This is a result of an increase in numbers of Looked After Children (LAC) in recent years and a marked change in the profile of LAC placements. The outturn on LAC and LC placements was £21,400k compared to last year’s outturn of £18,300k – an expenditure increase of £3,100k. The main budget pressures were within residential care (£1,400k); semi-independent care (£900k); and fostering including both in-house and IFA (£1,100k) placements.

Management actions are both in place and being further developed by the service to reduce the number and unit cost of residential placements. For example, working with young people and their families so they are able to move back home or moving young people on to other less costly settings such as semi-independent accommodation with appropriate support. Given that the average annual cost is approximately £200k, a net reduction  ...  view the full decision text for item 8.

This report seeks Cabinet’s approval for revised procedures in the review and designation of conservation areas in the borough. The changes relate to how proposals are reported to and adopted by Cabinet and the length of public consultation that takes place with key stakeholders.

RESOLVED

i.  That it be agreed that the formulation of and public consultation on items relating to the Council’s Conservation Area Review Programme be commenced by the Head of Planning following consultation with the Lead Member for Planning; and .

ii.  That it be agreed that the standard procedure for proposals to designate, extend or review items relating to the Council’s Conservation Area Review Programme shall include a consultation period of 28 days.

  REASONS FOR DECISION

  This decision is required in order to enable the Council’s ongoing Conservation Area Review Programme to be carried out more efficiently and to increase work outputs.

  This decision is required in order to protect trees, open spaces and buildings within proposed conservation areas from demolition under the Prior Approval process.

  This decision is required to ensure that there is clarity on the revised consultation procedure and that the justification is clearly set out.

  DETAILS OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

  The option of doing nothing was rejected as it would negatively impact the length of time it takes to deliver the Council’s Conservation Area Review Programme and would put heritage buildings that are identified as contributing positively to an area under threat.

  Consideration was given to moving towards a practice of carrying out public consultation post designation in order to give immediate protection to the historic environment. However, this was rejected because it would generally be contrary to the principles of lawful and genuine consultation.

  Consideration was given to reducing the public consultation period from less than 6 weeks but more than 28 days. However, this was rejected as it would increase the demolition threat under the Prior Approval process. Consideration was also given to a consultation period of shorter than 28 days. However, the 4 week period was considered to strike an appropriate balance that improves the efficiency of the Conservation Area Review Programme but is not a significant departure from past practice.

  Consideration was given to continuing to request agreement of Cabinet to commence consultation on items relating to the Council’s Conservation Area Review Programme. However, this was rejected because removing an unnecessary extra step in the process and reducing the number of items that are taken to Cabinet (where possible) is preferred.

This report seeks Cabinet’s approval to the proposed dockless bike enforcement policy.

RESOLVED

i.  That the dockless bike enforcement policy as detailed in appendix 1 be approved; and

ii.  that the power to make minor changes to the enforcement policy be delegated to Group Director, Neighbourhoods and Housing.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The issue of managing where dockless bikes are safely left has exercised TfL and borough officers. TfL’s Code of Practice on dockless bike operation, to which operators should adhere, requires operators to manage their schemes so that bikes do not restrict or affect the use of footways or other public spaces. But not all operators have effectively managed this. Currently, London Councils and TfL are promoting a London-wide byelaw which would require operators to only allow users to leave or hire dockless bikes from designated parking areas. Operators would be liable for a penalty charge for any bikes left outside these areas. Enforcement would be by the relevant borough. In order for this to happen every London borough is required to delegate its powers to promote and making of the byelaw to London Councils. However, it is not clear if this delegation will be achieved. Even if the byelaw is supported by all boroughs it is likely to be some time before it is enacted. The intention of the policy is to allow the Council to undertake enforcement action and is complementary to the Londonwide byelaw.

Hackney Council have contractual relationships with two dockless bike operators, Beryl and Jump who have commenced a two year scheme from December 2019. This relationship provides a mechanism for managing the parking of their bikes. It was not appropriate to enter into agreements with every dockless bike operator, as not all meet our standards or agree to our requirements so we need a mechanism to enforce against all operators including those with whom we do not have an agreement.

As part of their contractual agreement with the Council, Beryl and Jump have committed to manage their users to minimise the chances for dockless bikes being left at inappropriate locations and that users are only allowed to leave their bikes in designated parking areas.

Specific measures comprise:

-  Operators to set up a credit system to fine or ban users from misuse and to control parking

-  Agreement that the Council reserves the right to remove any bike that cause an obstruction and poses a health and safety risk and pay a fee for collection of removed bikes at £80 per bike

-  Agreement that dockless bikes should only be left or hired from designated parking areas

  DOCKLESS BIKE ENFORCEMENT POLICY

  The aim of this policy is to reduce clutter caused by dockless bikes parked on the footway. Dockless bikes left on the footway can be a hazard to pedestrians, especially people with visual impairments or physical disabilities or people with pushchairs. 

  The enforcement policy is set out in the appendix. The policy is in line with our A-boards policy which has been in operation for a number of years.

Any alternative options considered  ...  view the full decision text for item 11.

RESOLVED

That approval be given to the following reappointments of school governing body nominations as follows:

There were no appointments to outside bodies.

NOTED

To consider any items admitted at Item 2 above.

There were no items of urgent unrestricted business.

NOTED

Note from the Governance Services Manager

In the event of there being any late items of exempt urgent business then the Chair will MOVE the resolution as defined below to allow consideration of urgent exempt matters.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION :

That the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting as the item (s) below contain exempt information, as defined under Part 1, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of exempt items of business to consider therefore the requirement to exclude the public and press was not necessary.

NOTED

To consider any EXEMPT items admitted at Item 2 above.

Nil.