Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence from Members are listed above.

1.2  Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Ebbutt, Gordon, Peters and Webb.

2.1  The Speaker thanked everyone for their support towards her nominated charities and events. A total of £12,679.74 was raised from ticket sales and raffles for the Gala Dinner which was held on 30 October 2015.

2.2  The Speaker then referred Members to her newsletter circulated at the meeting, which set out details of other events the Speaker had been involved with and also details of future events.

2.3  The Speaker notified the Council of the death of former Councillor Arthur Taylor, Chief Whip at the Council from 1978 to 1982, who sadly died of cancer in late August/early September 2015. Members of the Council stood for a one minute silence in memory of the late Councillor Arthur Taylor and also the victims of the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday 13 November 2015.

2.4  Councillor Odze also mentioned the sad passing of the actor Warren Mitchell who was born in Stoke Newington and a great supporter of youth theatre.

2.5  The Speaker paid tribute to Alan Wood CBE, Corporate Director of Children and Young People Services who retires from the Council at the end of the year. The Speaker, on behalf of the whole Council, thanked Alan Wood for all of his excellent transformational work over many years and wished him all the best for the future.

2.6  The Mayor stated that he had worked with Alan Wood for many years and had witnessed the transformation of children’s services within the Council. Previously around 40% of people in the borough wished to send their children to schools outside of the borough and now as a result of the creation of the Learning Trust and programmes such as Building Schools for the Future, all of the secondary schools within the borough were either rated good or outstanding. The children’s social care service within the Council was now viewed as a national benchmark. The Mayor wished to thank Alan Wood for all of his hard work over the years in transforming the service.

2.7  Ex Councillor Siddiqui stated that through the Learning Trust, Alan Wood had created a legacy of becoming one of the best providers of religious education and creating of better understanding of religions within schools.

2.8  Councillors Bramble, Jacobson and Steinberger also thanked Alan Wood for all of his hard work during his time at the Council and wished him all the best for the future.

3.1  Deputy Mayor Linden declared a personal interest in Item 5b – London Living Wage, as her husband was Director of Education at the Diocese of Westminster which has responsibility for catholic schools in Hackney.

3.2  Councillors Demirci and Taylor declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 12 – Report from Cabinet: Draft North London Waste Plan, as they were both members of the North London Waste Authority.

3.3  Councillors Desmond and Rennison also declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 12 – Report from Cabinet: Draft North London Waste Plan, as they both lived close to one of the sites identified in the report.

3.4  Councillor Linden declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 13 – Statement of Licensing Policy 2016, as she had previously been involved with residents in relation to the Dalston Special Policy Area.

3.5  Councillor Gregory declared a pecuniary interest in Item 22b – Trade Union Bill, as she worked for the Trade Union Centre.

3.6  It was noted that the majority of members had an interest in Item 22b – Trade Union Bill as members of various trade unions. The Corporate Director advised the Council that she had granted a general dispensation to Members so that they could participate in the debate.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 22 July be approved, as amended.

4.1  RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 22 July be approved, subject to the following amendments:-

§  Paragraph 2.5 be amended to read – ‘Councillor Odze paid tribute to Mr Lobenstein and stated that he was always approachable and had been there for all the people of Hackney, not just the Jewish community’.

§  Paragraph 3.3 be deleted as it was incorrect.

a)  Development of land at Colvestone Crescent/Ridley Road adversely affecting Colvestone School

On 13^th November 2001 the Council sold a small area of land on the southern boundary of Colvestone Primary School subject to a covenant reserving the right to uninterrupted and unheeded access of light over the land sold to the Council’s retained land.

The retained land is the school’s nursery playground and outdoor learning area for toddler’s aged from 3 to 5 years old. Sunlight is essential to the education, health and sense of wellbeing of the children.

In 2005 planning permission was refused to erect a two storey building because “the proposed development by reason of its design size siting and materials would adversely affect the setting of a Grade II Statutory Listed Building (Colvestone School).

On 2^nd September 2015 planning permission was granted for erection of a three storey building for a café and two flats above the land. The permitted building will cast shadow over the school’s outdoor amenity and obscure views of the Grade II listed building which is at the entrance of the St Mark’s Conservation area.

We request that the Council now resolves to enforce its’ right to prevent any development of the land which will obstruct sunlight to the school’s land.

  To be introduced by Cllr Snell

Speaker: David Gething

b)  London Living Wage

The purpose of our deputation is to request that the Council takes action to ensure that staff employed as cleaners or catering workers in Hackney Schools all receive the London Living Wage. Our deputation is on behalf of staff employed in schools working for contractors. What we have found is that while the Council, schools and where appropriate the Diocese is committed to the London Living Wage, contractors are being engaged who will not pay the London Living Wage. Some staff are on minimum wage levels. We also have evidence of long term zero hour contracts. It is also the case that company sick pay is not available. We therefore request that the Council write to all schools in the borough requesting that with immediate effect contracts are re-costed to include the London Living Wage.

  To be introduced by Cllr Gregory

Speaker: TBC

c)  Mental Health Services in Hackney

GAP Hackney Project was set up during the general election to promote political participation by mental health service users.

GAP Hackney aims to empower people with lived experience of mental illness to make lasting changes and advance the physical and mental health, wellbeing and safety of Borough residents by influencing policy and practice. We champion ‘Experts by Experience’ (of lived mental health difficulties), as uniquely placed to contribute to community dialogue. Our project utilises participant knowledge in conjunction with the expertise of professionals. GAP Hackney will foster community cohesion by tackling stigma, facilitating cross-community discourse and empowering marginalised people to advance their concerns.

However, without formal involvement and cooperation of Hackney Council Members, our aim to impact policy cannot be fully attained.

Background

·  The  ...  view the full agenda text for item 5.

a)  Development of land at Colvestone Crescent/Ridley Road adversely affecting Colvestone School

(Councillor Chapman moved under Council Procedure Rule 16.1 (iii) to vary the order of business in the agenda so that item 6.1 could be taken with item 5a as both items dealt with the same issue. This was duly seconded by Councillor Patrick and agreed unanimously by Council).

5.1  Councillor Snell introduced the deputation and stated that he had been inundated with correspondence from residents and parents of children at the school regarding this issue. He was dismayed that something had not been done to better protect the children at the school. Councillor Snell welcomed David Gething to the meeting.

5.2  Mr Gething advised that he had two children that went to the Colvestone School and had previously attended the nursery. The three storey development which had recently been granted planning permission by Planning Sub-Committee on 2 September 2015 would cast a shadow over the school’s outdoor amenity and obscure views of the Grade II listed building at the entrance of the St Mark’s Conservation Area. This application was now subject to a judicial review. A previous application for a two storey building had been refused in 2005.

5.3  Mr Gething explained that on 13 November 2001 the Council sold a small area of land on the southern boundary of Colvestone Primary School subject to a covenant reserving the right to uninterrupted and unheeded access to light over the land sold to the Council’s retained land. The retained land was the school’s nursery playground and outdoor learning area for toddler’s aged from 3 to 5 years old. Residents were requesting that the Council do the right thing and enforce this covenant.

5.4  Mr Gething stated that the school had worked hard to improve the space and asked the Council to imagine the impact the oppressive development would have on this space, given that sunlight was essential to the education, health and sense of wellbeing of the children.

5.5  Mayor Pipe responded to the deputation and thanked Mr Gething for his attendance. Mayor Pipe explained that the planning process was a quasi-judicial one in which decisions were made within a strict legal framework. The restriction to title regarding the right to uninterrupted light was not a material planning consideration and therefore was not something that the Planning Sub-Committee would have taken into consideration.

5.6  Mayor Pipe confirmed that, as the freeholder for this area of land, it was the Council’s intention to impose the restriction to title in order to protect the school’s right to light. Therefore officers were in the process of appointing a right to light specialist to advise the Council on this matter. Mayor Pipe praised the Ward Councillors Adejare and Snell for their work on this matter.

5.7  Councillor Adejare added that she had also received numerous correspondence on this matter and would continue to inform residents on progress.

b)   London Living Wage

5.8  Councillor Gregory introduced the deputation and welcomed the two speakers, Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1  From Mami McKeran to the Mayor:

“Hackney Council recently approved development of a 3 storey structure with a 31ft x 30ft brick wall bordering Colvestone Primary School's nursery playground despite a 2001 covenant placed on the site by the Council protecting the school's right to uninterrupted access to light. Will the Council resolve to enforce its own covenant?”

6.2  From David Clarke to the Chair of the Pensions Committee:

“Earlier this year, the Pensions Committee announced a formal review into the possibility of divesting from fossil fuel companies. As the future of local authorities' fossil fuel investments come under increasing scrutiny, what happens in Hackney will be watched closely by elected officials, investors and campaigners up and down the country. I'd like to ask the Chair of the Pensions Committee to give an outline of how the review will be carried out and how the committee will arrive at its decision.”

6.3  From Christopher Sills to the Mayor:

“Would you agree with me that the current refugee crisis in Europe is likely to result in a significant number of refugees arriving in Hackney over the winter and what contingency plans are being made to reduce any resulting problems for the refugees themselves and existing residents.”

6.1  From Mami McKeran to the Mayor:

  “Hackney Council recently approved development of a 3 storey structure with a 31ft x 30ft brick wall bordering Colvestone Primary School’s nursery playground despite a 2001 covenant placed on the site by the Council protecting the school’s right to uninterrupted access to light. Will the Council resolve to enforce its own covenant?”

(The question was dealt with as part of item 5a – Deputation – Development at land at Colvestone Crescent/Ridley Road adversely affecting Colvestone School, as it dealt with the same matter. Ms McKeran was not in attendance at the meeting to ask her question).

6.2  From David Clarke to the Chair of the Pensions Committee:

(The Speaker advised Council that agenda item 6.2 and 7.11 would be taken together as both items dealt with the same issue).

  Public question from David Clarke

“Earlier this year, the Pensions Committee announced a formal review into the possibility of divesting from fossil fuel companies. As the future of local authorities' fossil fuel investments come under increasing scrutiny, what happens in Hackney will be watched closely by elected officials, investors and campaigners up and down the country. I'd like to ask the Chair of the Pensions Committee to give an outline of how the review will be carried out and how the committee will arrive at its decision.”

  Member question from Councillor Rathbone

“To ask the Chair of the Pensions Committee what the progress is on to looking at how the Council can divest its pension fund of investments in fossil fuels?”

Response from Councillor Chapman

Councillor Chapman stated that the Pensions Committee took its role in this matter seriously and that corrective actions were being taken in relation to this environmental issue, in recognition of the impact of fossil fuel on climate change. He stated that involvement in fossil fuel was very complex, including that the Council had a responsibility to ensure that the cost of pensions to tax payers was contained. Work was ongoing with investment advisors whose opinions were being sought with a view to putting forward a range of options. Given the importance of this matter the Pensions Committee had agreed to hold an extra meeting towards the end of January 2016 to have in-depth discussion.

Mr Clarke asked whether Divest Hackney would be specifically invited to give evidence at Pensions Committee.

Councillor Rathbone asked if consideration had been given to who would give evidence on this matter and stated that Divest Hackney would give its support.

Councillor Chapman advised that specific arrangements to obtain evidence from those who want to engage in the process had yet to be finalised. Councillor Chapman confirmed that a wide range of views would be sought.

6.3  From Christopher Sills to the Mayor:

“Would you agree with me that the current refugee crisis in Europe is likely to result in a significant number of refugees arriving in Hackney over the winter and what contingency plans are being made to reduce any resulting problems for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  From Cllr Odze to the Mayor:

“Why has the totalitarian regime of this Mayor yet again ignored the clearly expressed wishes of several thousand Stamford Hill residents and businesses and is cooperating with TfL in routing Cycle Superhighway 1 on a route that undermines the safety of schoolchildren and is guaranteed to cause further traffic chaos.”

7.2  From Cllr Patrick to the Cabinet Member for Housing:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Housing tell me what impact he thinks the Housing and Planning Bill will have on the supply of council and social rented homes in Hackney?”

7.3  From Councillor Sharer to the Deputy Mayor:

“What is Hackney Council doing in ensuring the safety of residents if the proposed cuts in the Police service go ahead?”

7.4  From Cllr Peters to the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Culture:

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Health what the Council is doing to help people with autism, both children and adults, to lead full lives as members of our community in Hackney?” 

7.5  From Councillor Jacobson to the Cabinet Member for Housing:

“What is Hackney Council doing in restricting the Right-To-Buy?”

7.6  From Cllr Rickard to the Deputy Mayor:

“Today (25 November) is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, could the Deputy Mayor update members on the work the Council does to tackle violence against women living in Hackney.”

7.7  From Cllr Adams to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration:

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Regeneration how many square metres of office floor space have been lost in Hackney since the introduction of the new policy of allowing developers to convert offices to residential without permission?”

7.8  From Cllr Potter to the Cabinet Member for Finance:

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Finance what progress has been made in ensuring that Council employees and contractors are paid the London Living Wage, in accordance with Labour’s manifesto commitment?”

7.9  From Cllr Muir to the Cabinet Member for Housing:

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Housing to provide members with an update on the Council's Estate Regeneration programme?”

7.10  From Cllr Rennison to the Cabinet Member for Finance:

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Finance for an update on the roll-out of Universal Credit in Hackney?”

7.11  From Cllr Rathbone to the Chair of the Pensions Committee:

“To ask the Chair of the Pensions Committee what the progress is on looking at how the Council can divest its pension fund of investments in fossil fuels?” 

7.1  From Councillor Odze to the Mayor:

“Why has the totalitarian regime of this Mayor yet again ignored the clearly expressed wishes of several thousand Stamford Hill residents and businesses and is cooperating with TfL in routing Cycle Superhighway 1 on a route that undermines the safety of schoolchildren and is guaranteed to cause further traffic chaos?”

Response from Councillor Demirci:

Councillor Demirci advised that a petition of around 3,300 signatures had been submitted during the consultation period, objecting to having CS1 go through their area on the grounds that it would increase danger to pedestrians, increase congestion and reduce parking. These comments were considered as part of the consultation results and the scheme was adjusted to reflect these concerns. Both TfL and Hackney considered the consultation feedback and they each agreed to proceed with the scheme with amendments, where appropriate. Councillor Demirci added that there would be no loss of parking as a result of any of these measures.

In response to a supplementary question, Councillor Demirci responded stating that the only threat to pedestrian’s safety was cars and the volume of traffic in the borough.

Councillor Burke added that the motivation of the scheme was to safeguard children and reduce the number of accidents on the road.

7.2  From Councillor Patrick to the Cabinet Member for Housing:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Housing tell me what impact he thinks the Housing and Planning Bill will have on the supply of Council and Social rented homes in Hackney?”

Response from Councillor Glanville

Councillor Glanville stated that the Government was trying to reduce social housing. He said that the Housing and Planning Bill would have a devastating impact on affordable, social housing in the Borough. It was considered that 700 homes would be lost in Hackney over the first five years with 2100 families in housing need. He advised that there was no objection to Right to Buy if properties in social ownership were replaced. He expressed concern at the proposal to charge market rents to tenants with an income of £40,000, a salary that could be reached by two adults.  He said that a social rent of £432 equated to £1700 market rent and that 33 % of gross income is affordable rent.

Councillor Glanville referred to the fact that Housing Associations would have to cut social housing rents by 1% for the next four years, resulting in fewer affordable homes being built. He confirmed that the Council was committed to social housing, investing in housing that meets the Boroughs’ needs.

In response to a supplementary question, Councillor Glanville stated that he was aware that evidence had been given to Parliament on the matter and emphasised the need to widely publicise the Bill, the consequent cost to the public purse of the provision of temporary accommodation and the decrease in available social housing.

Councillor Glanville stated that it would be necessary to continue to make the argument that the Bill will not increase home ownership and will not help  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1 Mayor Pipe referred to the Government’s Spending Review announced earlier that day, which focused on a reduction in tax credits and welfare support. Mayor Pipe believed that the scrapping of the proposed reductions in tax credits were not as they were being portrayed as they would ultimately still be imposed through the future introduction of universal credit. The cuts in welfare support were affecting the most vulnerable residents within the Borough, especially with respect to housing, who was turning to the Council for support. Mayor Pipe believed that the Government were completely out of touch with the reality of the spending cuts, as evidenced by the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the Leader of Oxfordshire County Council .

8.2 Mayor Pipe advised that the Government was considering changing the distribution of cuts that would see a slightly smaller lower reduction than being anticipated in boroughs such as Hackney, however it was expected that there would be a further 40% reduction in funding by 2020. Mayor Pipe raised the growing issue of affordable housing provision and how this was becoming unaffordable for many people that needed it. The Council currently had 2,320 families on the housing needs register, with more than 500 of these having to be housed outside of the Borough.

8.3  Mayor Pipe stated that the Government was proposing that local authorities charged residents an “adult social care precept” to meet funding pressures. However, if every authority in London levied such a precept it would raise only £55m  towards an estimated gap of £900m in the capital. He added that Gary Porter, the Conservative chair of the LGA, had admitted that: “Even if councils stopped filling potholes, maintaining parks, closed all children’s centres, libraries, museums, leisure centres and turned off every street light, they will not have saved enough money to plug the financial black hole they face by 2020.”

8.4 Responding to the Mayor’s statement, Councillor Levy as Leader of the Conservative Group, stated that the country could not continue to spend money that it did not have and therefore Government cuts were required to reduce the deficit. Councillor Levy stated that there was a need for accountability and a balanced budget. Councillor Levy believed that external pressure in the investment in fossil fuels would affect sustainability.

8.5 Responding to the Mayor’s statement, Councillor Sharer as Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, referred to the previous recommendations of a consultant employed by the Council to reduce the number of Council meetings to five a year. Councillor Sharer believed that the reduction in the number of meeting had resulted in a heavy agenda, where there was only five minutes given to discuss each of the reports. Councillor Sharer suggested that Mayor Pipe rethink this decision and contended that it was reducing the opportunity for the opposition to hold the Hackney administration to account.

8.6 Councillor Sharer was pleased to see that the Government had made a U-turn on the decision to reduce tax credits,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

RESOLVED that the Council note and endorse the 2014/2015 Annual Report of the City and Hackney Safeguarding Adults Board (CHSAB).

9.1  Councillor McShane introduced the report and commended it to Council.

RESOLVED that the Council note and endorse the 2014/2015 Annual Report of the City and Hackney Safeguarding Adults Board (CHSAB).

RESOLVED that the Hackney Transport Strategy 2015-2025 be adopted, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

For: Many

Against: 2

Abstain: None

10.1  Councillor Demirci introduced the report and commended it to Council. Hackney’s Transport Strategy 2015-2015 sets out a coherent set of sustainable transport policies, proposals and actions that aim to further improve walking, cycling and public transport conditions and options for all residents of the Borough. The Strategy had been subject to an extensive consultation process within the Borough.

10.2  Councillor Odze believed that the strategy was not inclusive for the whole of the Borough and was against the use of cars, he therefore opposed the adoption of the strategy.

10.3  Councillor Sales supported the strategy and stated that every effort had been made to consult all communities within the Borough. Councillor Sales stated that many of the streets within Stamford Hill were dangerous for pedestrians and schools due to the level of car use, which the strategy aimed to address.

10.4  Councillor Stops was also in support of the strategy and stated that bus lanes should remain as Hackney was one of the most bus reliant boroughs within the UK.

10.5  Councillor Steinberger referred to the No. 73 bus service which was truncated last year, he believed that this important bus service should be restored to its former route through Stamford Hill.

RESOLVED that the Hackney Transport Strategy 2015-2025 be adopted, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

For:   Many

Against:   2

Abstentions: None

RESOLVED that:

1.  The revisions to the document be noted and the adoption of the Planning Contributions SPD November 2015 as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, be approved.

2.  The Corporate Director of Legal, HR and Regulatory Services be authorised to make any necessary general editorial amendments to the Planning Contributions SPD November 2015 before it was published.

For: Many

Against: 6

Abstain: None

11.1  Councillor Nicholson introduced the report and commended it to Council.

RESOLVED that:

1.  The revisions to the document be noted and the adoption of the Planning Contributions SPD November 2015 as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, be approved.

2.  The Corporate Director of Legal, HR and Regulatory Services be authorised to make any necessary general editorial amendments to the Planning Contributions SPD November 2015 before it was published.

For: Many

Against: 6

Abstain: None

RESOLVED that:

1.  The issues raised during Regulation 18 consultation be noted and that Council agree to take these into account in preparing the Proposed Submission version of the North London Waste Plan.

2.  The issues raised during Regulation 18 consultation regarding the Theydon Road area designation in the draft Plan (ref A414-HC) and that Council agree to amend the area boundary in light of the comments and new evidence received.

For: Many

Against: Cllrs Akhoon, Jacobson, Levy, Odze, Sharer and Steinberger.

Abstain: None

(Councillors Demirci and Taylor both left the meeting for this item as they had declared an interest).

12.1  Councillor Nicholson introduced the report and commended it to Council. Councillor Nicholson explained that consultation on the Draft North London Waste Plan was carried out from 30 July to 30 September 2015 with a total of 220 Hackney specific responses received. The proposed submission version was scheduled for consultation in the summer of 2016.

12.2  Councillor Nicholson thanked Councillors that had represented residents in their ward and engaged in the consultation. This feedback had been reported back as a formal response to the NLWP and incorporated into the plan.

12.3  Councillor Rathbone referred to the site at Theydon Road which had generated a petition of over 1,000 signatures from local residents, with one of the main issues being the encroachment of the Priority Employment Area and the suitability of this area for waste use. He stated that residents had felt that the consultation had been unsatisfactory and that the Council should take responsibility for this issue.

12.4  Councillor Jacobson stated his objection to the site at Theydon Road, which he believed was unsuitable for a waste facility and would be unsafe for surrounding residents.

12.5  Councillors Odze and Steinberger also agreed to the comments made by Councillor Rathbone regarding the site at Theydon Road with relation to the site at Oak Wharf, Timberwharf Road. Councillor Odze stated that it was an impossible site to access and should be withdrawn.

12.6  Councillor Nicholson responded suggesting that some Members had misinterpreted the NLWP. Councillor Nicholson advised that the consultation work undertaken with residents regarding the site at Theydon Road had resulted in a recommendation for a change in the boundary of the priority employment area, which will be considered by the planning authority.

RESOLVED that:

1.  The issues raised during Regulation 18 consultation be noted and that Council agree to take these into account in preparing the Proposed Submission version of the North London Waste Plan.

2.  The issues raised during Regulation 18 consultation regarding the Theydon Road area designation in the draft Plan (ref A414-HC) and that Council agree to amend the area boundary in light of the comments and new evidence received.

For:   Many

Against: Cllrs Akhoon, Jacobson, Levy, Odze, Sharer and Steinberger.

Abstentions:  None

RESOLVED that the Council approves the Statement of Licensing Policy 2016.

(Deputy Mayor Linden left the meeting for this item as she had declared an interest).

13.1  Councillor Plouviez introduced the report and commended it to Council.

RESOLVED to approve the Statement of Licensing Policy 2016.

RESOLVED that:-

1.  The Gambling Policy (Statement of Principles 2016 to 2019) be adopted.

2.  The Corporate Director of legal, HR & Regulatory Services be authorised to make any non-substantive changes to the proposed Policy, as appropriate.

14.1  Councillor Linden introduced the report and commended it to Council. 

RESOLVED that:-

1.  The Gambling Policy (Statement of Principles 2016 to 2019) be adopted.

2.  The Corporate Director of legal, HR & Regulatory Services be authorised to make any non-substantive changes to the proposed Policy, as appropriate.

RESOLVED that:-

The Council agree not to issue casino licences under the Gambling Act 2005 for a further period not exceeding three years effective from 31 January 2016.

15.1  Gifty Edila, Corporate Director Legal, HR & Regulatory Services, introduced the report and commended it to Council. 

RESOLVED not to issue casino licences under the Gambling Act 2005 for a further period not exceeding three years effective from 31 January 2016.

RESOLVED that the revision to the Officer Employment Procedure Rules be approved.

16.1  Gifty Edila, Corporate Director Legal, HR & Regulatory Services, introduced the report and commended it to Council. 

RESOLVED that the revision to the Officer Employment Procedure Rules be approved.

RESOLVED that the recent use of the special urgency provisions as set out in paragraph 4 of the report, be noted.

RESOLVED to notethe recent use of the special urgency provisions as set out in paragraph 4 of the report.

RESOLVED that the Standards Committee’s Annual Report for 2014/15, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be noted.

For: Many

Against: Cllrs Levy, Odze and Steinberger

Abstain: None

18.1  Deputy Mayor Linden introduced the report and commended it to Council.

18.2  Councillor Odze was opposed to the report, as he believed that standards within the Council should be maintained through recourse to the court and that the Standards Committee should be abolished as recommended by the Government.

18.3  Deputy Mayor Linden responded with her disappointment to comments made by Councillor Odze. Deputy Mayor Linden advised that members of the Conservative Group had been offered a place on the Standards Committee and could not understand why they wished not to take it. She stated that Members should recognise the good and important work carried out by the Standards Committee.

18.4  Councillor Steinberger also spoke in opposition to the report and stated that he did not wish to be part of the Standards Committee.

RESOLVED that the Standards Committee’s Annual Report for 2014/15, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be noted.

For:   Many

Against:   Cllrs Levy, Odze and Steinberger

Abstentions:  None

RESOLVED that the Annual Report 2014-15 of the Pensions Committee be noted.

19.1  Councillor Chapman introduced the report and commended it to Council. He told Council that it had been another successful year for the Pensions Fund.

RESOLVED that the Annual Report 2014-15 of the Pensions Committee be noted.

RESOLVED that the Commission’s report and response to it from the Executive be noted.

20.1  Councillor Munn introduced the report and commended it to Council. The recommendations encompassed support for front line housing officers, improving ‘move-on accommodation’, hospital discharge processes and BME access to services, the operation of the new IMHN, the need for job retention programmes and how Hackney Council and the NHS, as employers, could provide leadership on best practice in supporting employees to avoid anxiety and depression and with a managed return to work.

20.2  Councillor Munn took the opportunity to thank all of those who had generously given their time to give evidence to the commission or host a site visit.

20.3  Councillor McShane responded to the report which he believed gave a bigger picture surrounding the issue of preventing depression and anxiety in working age adults and thanked all of those that had taken part in the commission.

RESOLVED that the Commission’s report and response to it from the Executive be noted.

(Councillor Chapman moved under Council Procedure Rule 16.1 (iii) to change the order of business in the agenda to take item 23 next. This was duly seconded by Councillor Odze and agreed unanimously by Council).

RESOLVED that the Commission’s report and the response to it from the Executive be noted.

(During the debate Councillor Chapman moved under Council Procedure Rule 16.1(xiv) to extend the meeting beyond 10pm. This was duly seconded by Councillor Glanville and agreed unanimously by Council).

21.1  Councillor McKenzie introduced the report and commended it to Council. He expressed his thanks to the commission, stakeholders and officers for their work in its preparation. He referred Council to the three areas of focus of the Commission, as follows:

-  Performance on affordable housing gains 

-  The challenges facing Housing Associations

-  Exploring the views of residents

21.2  Councillor McKenzie stated that the Commission acknowledged the policy shift in housing towards right to buy and the impact that this would have on new affordable housing in the Borough, if the Housing Bill was passed by Parliament as it stands.  He stressed that this would represent significant challenges to all providers of affordable housing.  He referred to the proposals to extend Right to Buy to Housing Associations.  He stated that the aim within the Council was to ensure that 50% of new housing delivered was affordable. He said that viability appeared to be one of the reasons why the Council was not being able to achieve this affordable housing level from private developments. 

21.3   Councillor Nicholson reassured Council that planning related recommendations had been adopted and that work was ongoing on these recommendations and findings. A further report would be made to the Commission next year.

21.4  Councillor Glanville welcomed the report. He referred Council to the results of the survey at pages 296/7 of the report.  He stated that the Council would continue to work with the GLA to ensure that funding was directed to areas of greatest housing need.  It would continue to increase the Housing Revenue Account and borrowing and have flexibility in how funds were used. 

RESOLVED that the Commission’s report and the response to it from the Executive be noted.

a  Charges for access to cash

Council notes:

1) the increasing reliance on Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) for accessing cash over recent decades as bank branches have closed.

2) the large proportion of ATMs charging a fee to withdraw cash.

3) that these fees are most onerous on the poor, who typically withdraw smaller amounts of money in each transaction.

4) that fee-charging ATMs appear to be particularly common in areas which are already deprived.

5) that, taken together, these charges extract a significant percentage of the money held both by individuals and circulating in the local economy as a whole.

Council believes:

1) that the lack of free access to cash withdrawals is a significant problem within the borough, especially for the low-paid and socially excluded.

2) that the ability for people to access their own money without being charged a premium would be of real benefit to the people of Hackney and to the local economy.

3) that it should be an agreed policy of this Council to extend the availability of fee-free access to cash.

Council resolves:

1) to carry out an audit of ATM provision in Hackney to assess the extent of this problem and identify neighbourhoods and communities that are particularly hard hit.

2) to identify locations where Council-owned or controlled properties could become sites for fee-free ATMs to extend these services throughout Hackney – giving particular emphasis to those areas identified as at most disadvantage.

3) to work with other public sector bodies operating in Hackney, such as the NHS, Transport for London, Network Rail and Job Centre Plus to provide further sites.

4) where necessary and feasible, to include the siting of a fee-free ATM as a condition of planning and licensing decisions for properties in key areas.

5) to liaise with the Banks and other providers with a goal in promoting and ensuring that all Hackney residents are within easy walking distance to a non fee ATM.

Proposed by Cllr Jacobson

Seconded by Cllr Sharer

b  Trade Union Bill

Hackney Council recognises the positive contribution that trade unions and trade union members make in our workplaces. Hackney Council values the constructive relationship that we have with our trade unions and we recognise their commitment, and the commitment of all our staff, to the delivery of good quality public services.

Hackney Council notes with concern the Trade Union Bill which is currently being proposed by this Government and which would affect this Council’s relationship with our trade unions and our workforce as a whole. This Council rejects this Bill’s attack on local democracy and the attack on our right to manage our own affairs.

This Council is clear that facility time, negotiated and agreed by us and our trade unions to suit our own specific needs, has a valuable role to play in the creation of good quality and responsive local services. Facility time should not be determined or controlled by any Government in London or indeed this country.

This Council is  ...  view the full agenda text for item 22.

a)  Charges for access to cash

Cllr Jacobson proposed an amended version of his own motion to Council following discussions with Deputy Mayor Linden. This was formally seconded by Cllr Sharer.

RESOLVED:

Council notes:

1) the increasing reliance on Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) for accessing cash over recent decades as bank branches have closed.

2) the large proportion of ATMs charging a fee to withdraw cash.

3) that these fees are most onerous on the poor, who typically withdraw smaller amounts of money in each transaction.

4) that fee-charging ATMs appear to be particularly common in areas which are already deprived.

5) that, taken together, these charges extract a significant percentage of the money held both by individuals and circulating in the local economy as a whole.

6.The Council has a financial inclusion action plan that supports residents.

7. The work of LINK and Toynbee Hall assessing access to free ATMs within 1km walking distance in deprived areas.

8.The map of free ATMs available on the council’s website – on the find your nearest page.

9. That one of the 20 areas in London identified by LINK and Toynbee Hall as an area without adequate access to a free cash point is in Hackney.

Council believes:

1) that the lack of free access to cash withdrawals is a significant problem within the borough, especially for the low-paid and socially excluded.

2) that the ability for people to access their own money without being charged a premium would be of real benefit to the people of Hackney and to the local economy.

3) that it should be an agreed policy of this Council to extend the availability of fee-free access to cash.

Council resolves:

1.  To refer the issue of free ATMs and ATMs which dispense £5 notes to be reviewed by the Community Safety and Social Inclusion scrutiny commission.

2.  Work with CSSI to put a case forward if appropriate for free ATMs to LINK.

3.  To liaise with the banks and other providers with a goal in promoting and ensuring that all Hackney residents are within easy walking distance to a non fee ATM.

Proposed by Cllr Jacobson

Proposed by Cllr Sharer

For: Many

Against: None

Abstain: 3

b)  Trade Union Bill

Hackney Council recognises the positive contribution that trade unions and trade union members make in our workplaces. Hackney Council values the constructive relationship that we have with our trade unions and we recognise their commitment, and the commitment of all our staff, to the delivery of good quality public services.

Hackney Council notes with concern the Trade Union Bill which is currently being proposed by this Government and which would affect this Council’s relationship with our trade unions and our workforce as a whole. This Council rejects this Bill’s attack on local democracy and the attack on our right to manage our own affairs.

This Council is clear that facility time, negotiated and agreed by us and our trade unions to suit our own specific needs,  ...  view the full decision text for item 22.

a)  Charges for access to cash

Councillor Jacobson proposed an amended version of his own motion to Council following discussions with Deputy Mayor Linden. This was formally seconded by Councillor Sharer.

Councillor Jacobson stated that poorer areas of the Borough were getting penalised by ATMs which were charging residents to withdraw their money. This issue had been made worse by the increasing reliance on ATMs for accessing cash over recent decades as bank branches had closed.

Deputy Mayor Linden stated that the Council was aware of the financial pressures faced by people in the community and that the lack of fee free cash machines was likely to exacerbate this problem. Deputy Mayor Linden advised that the Council had a financial inclusion action plan to coordinate and oversee a range of initiatives aimed at promoting financial inclusion.

The Council’s last audit of free and fee charging ATMs in the Borough highlighted the large number of surcharging ATMs, particularly where there were areas of deprivation. This would be addressed as part of the financial inclusion action plan. Deputy Mayor Linden added that information on ATM provision within Hackney was widely available on the Council’s website and also on LINKs website, and that there was only one area in Hackney where there was not access to free ATMs.

RESOLVED:

Council notes:

1) the increasing reliance on Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) for accessing cash over recent decades as bank branches have closed.

2) the large proportion of ATMs charging a fee to withdraw cash.

3) that these fees are most onerous on the poor, who typically withdraw smaller amounts of money in each transaction.

4) that fee-charging ATMs appear to be particularly common in areas which are already deprived.

5) that, taken together, these charges extract a significant percentage of the money held both by individuals and circulating in the local economy as a whole.

6.The Council has a financial inclusion action plan that supports residents.

7. The work of LINK and Toynbee Hall assessing access to free ATMs within 1km walking distance in deprived areas.

8.The map of free ATMs available on the council’s website – on the find your nearest page.

9. That one of the 20 areas in London identified by LINK and Toynbee Hall as an area without adequate access to a free cash point is in Hackney.

Council believes:

1) that the lack of free access to cash withdrawals is a significant problem within the borough, especially for the low-paid and socially excluded.

2) that the ability for people to access their own money without being charged a premium would be of real benefit to the people of Hackney and to the local economy.

3) that it should be an agreed policy of this Council to extend the availability of fee-free access to cash.

Council resolves:

1.  To refer the issue of free ATMs and ATMs which dispense £5 notes to be reviewed by the Community Safety and Social Inclusion scrutiny commission.

2.  Work with CSSI to put a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

RESOLVED that:

1.  The appointment of Cllr Gordon to replace Cllr Rathbone on Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission be agreed.

2.  The appointment of Jo MacLoud as the Hackney Schools Governor Association co-opted member on Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission to replace Lisa Neidich be agreed.

3.  The appointment of Sophie Conway as a Parent Governor co-opted member on Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission to take up a vacant place on the Commission be agreed.

4.  The appointment of Cllr Brett to replace Cllr Demirci on Licensing Committee be agreed.

23.1  RESOLVED that:

1.  The appointment of Cllr Gordon to replace Cllr Rathbone on Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission be agreed.

2.  The appointment of Jo MacLoud as the Hackney Schools Governor Association co-opted member on Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission to replace Lisa Neidich be agreed.

3.  The appointment of Sophie Conway as a Parent Governor co-opted member on Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission to take up a vacant place on the Commission be agreed.

4.  The appointment of Cllr Brett to replace Cllr Demirci on Licensing Committee be agreed.

Appendix One

7.7  From Councillor Adams to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration:

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Regeneration how many square metres of floor space have been lost in Hackney since the introduction of the new policy of allowing developers to convert offices to residential without permission?”

Response from Councillor Nicholson:

The Council has granted 38 prior approval applications for a change of use from Office (B1(a)) to Residential (C3) use since May 2013, when the Government’s permitted development change took effect. As of 1^st September 2015, the total combined employment floorspace that was approved for conversion to C3 use is approximately 6,200 square metres. This quantum of B1 floorspace equates to approximately 326 jobs, based on the employment densities (worker: floorspace ratio of 1:19m²) from the Atkins Employment Growth Options Study 2010 (Core Strategy employment evidence base document). The total number of residential (C3) units that have been approved by the loss of employment space is 156, none of which are affordable as planning permission was not required and therefore the local authority had no discretion to consider or apply any of policies within its planning policy framework. Instead applicants are only required to make a ‘prior approval’ application. A local planning authority is permitted only to consider transport and highways impacts, contamination risks and flooding risks as part of this process.

The Council has been successful in ensuring that some areas of Hackney within the Central Activities Zone, and a number of Priority Employment Areas and town centres in the south of the borough (covering the town centres of Hackney Central and Dalston, along with Shoreditch and the City Fringe), are exempt from the office to residential permitted development rights. Under Government legislation, these areas are exempt until May 2019, when in order to continue protecting them the Council would have to bring into effect an Article 4 Direction to withdraw the permitted development rights.

The Council has already approved an Article 4 Direction for all of the other Priority Employment Areas throughout the borough that do not fall within the area already exempt from the permitted development rights. Following a 12 month notice period, if not intervened by the Secretary of State, the Council will be seeking to bring this into effect in July 2016. This would allow for any proposal for a change from office to residential use in these areas to require a planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.