Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence from Members are listed above. An apology for absence was also received from Charlotte Graves, Chief Executive Hackney Homes.

1.2  Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Gordon, Sharer and Thomson.

2.1  The Speaker referred to her newsletter which had been circulated at the meeting and informed Members that in the last few months since the last full Council meeting she had attended 38 events.

2.2  The Speaker regretfully advised Members that former Councillor Harold Shaw, Mayor of Hackney from 1992 to 1993 had recently died, and a minute silence was held in his memory.

2.3  The Speaker was pleased to announce that the Council had won 3 awards at the recent London Planning Awards. The Awards, organised in partnership with the Mayor of London, London First, the Royal Town Planning Institute and London Councils, recognised and rewarded best practice in planning in the Capital. The Council won the following awards:-

  Best Community Led Project – Stamford Hill Area Action Plan

Best Town Centre Project – BL NK Curtain Road

  Best Project 5 years on – Hackney Marshes Centre

This is the time for Members to declare any disclosable pecuniary or other non-pecuniary interests they may have in any matter being considered at this meeting having regard to the guidance attached to the agenda.

Members are reminded that, under Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, any Member who is in arrears of two or more months Council Tax must declare it at the meeting and abstain from voting on agenda item 9.

3.1  There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 27 January 2016 be approved, as amended.

4.1  RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 27 January 2016 be approved, subject to the following amendment:-

§  Insert between 8.3 and 8.4:

‘Councillor Steinberger maintained that the cuts to which the Mayor had referred had been imposed by a government that had the support of the voters. Councillor Taylor intervened to point out that the Conservative government had been elected with the support of only 37% of those voting; 63% had voted against the Conservatives. Councillor Steinberger acknowledged that that was how the first-past-the-post voting system worked.’

Post-16 educational provision for children with a diagnosis of autism and severe learning difficulties

The Garden School caters for children and young people from 4-16 with a diagnosis of autism and who have severe learning difficulties. The degree of need of pupils served by the Garden is reflected by the school’s admission criteria, which state that the school is not suitable for “children who have a meaningful use of spoken language” – our pupils don’t have such a meaningful use and most will never be able to communicate verbally. The highly specialist nature of the provision at the school addresses the core challenges of students who have autism, i.e. difficulty with social communication, flexible thinking and understanding and regulating emotions.

The staff at the Garden are specialists and there is a tangible sense of pride in supporting the school’s pupils and their parents, using best practice evidence based approaches taken from academics and practitioners from across the world. The school hosts regular visits from leading academics and practitioners in the field. They update and advise staff from the Garden and from other schools, both special and mainstream, from across London, as well as relevant staff from Hackney Learning Trust. The Garden is rapidly evolving into a centre of expertise and excellence in the education of pupils with autism. It is a school that Hackney Council is rightly committed to supporting.

The Garden received an outstanding rating from Ofsted in 2014.

Both the parents and carers of the Garden’s pupils and its staff are deeply concerned by the fact that, once a child reaches 16 years of age, suitable educational provision disappears in Hackney. This causes very considerable stress and consternation to pupils, parents, carers, staff and governors alike, which is why the Garden is committed to opening and running a sixth form for its pupils.

Unfortunately, the current site of the school is not big enough to house a sixth form.

We ask Hackney Council and the Learning Trust to commit to helping us find a suitable site in time for the coming school year.

  The deputation will be introduced by Cllr James Peters

  The deputation spokesperson is David Lowry

5.1  Councillor Peters introduced the deputation, as a Governor for the Garden School. Councillor Peters explained that the Garden School received an outstanding rating from Ofsted in 2014. He highlighted the concerns raised that once a child reached 16 years of age, suitable educational provision for children with a diagnosis of autism and severe learning difficulties disappeared in Hackney. Councillor Peters introduced Mr Lowry to the meeting.

5.2  Mr Lowry explained that the Garden School catered for children and young people from 4-16 with a diagnosis of autism and who have severe learning difficulties. Both the parents and the carers of the Garden’s pupils and its staff were deeply concerned by the fact that, once a child reached 16 years of age, suitable educational provision disappeared in Hackney. A proposed solution was to extend the educational offer to 16-19 olds, however the existing school did not have the capacity to provide a sixth form on site. Discussions had taken place with the Learning Trust who were in support of the proposals, subject to suitable accommodation being found.

5.3  Mr Lowry requested that Councillor Bramble and relevant officers from the Council and the Learning Trust meet with representatives from the Garden School to help identify a suitable site in time for the coming school year.

5.4  Councillor Sharer welcomed the deputation and identified with the problems raised. In response to his question, Mr Lowry advised that a suitable space within an alternative school had been identified however the application had been refused by the Governors of the school.

5.5  Councillor Sales also welcomed the deputation and questioned whether the school had looked at the possibility of providing support post 19 years. In response, Mr Lowry stated that the option to provide support beyond 19 years had been looked at and would be beneficial, however they would consider this option once they had secured provision from 16-19 year olds.

5.6  Councillor Bramble responded to the deputation and stated that both the Council and Hackney Learning Trust were committed to ensuring there was adequate post 16 provision for young people with autism and severe difficulties with learning. Councillor Bramble recognised the significant support that the Garden School provided to this young people and had also visited the school and witnessed the great work being done.

5.7  Councillor Bramble explained that Hackney Learning Trust have initiated a SEN strategy review, exploring the issues involved in ensuring that young people have opportunities for progression not just from 16-19 but potentially up to the age of 25. The review was due to be completed by August 2016. Hackney Learning Trust have been in discussions with the school about developing a pre-school provision on site for 10 young people aged 2 to 4. The proposal was for this provision to open in January 2017.

5.8  Councillor Bramble advised that unfortunately, the Council and Hackney Learning Trust were not in a position to commit to finding an off-site venue to house a sixth form from September 2016, however  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1  Mr Christopher Sills to the Mayor

Since it is likely that the Council will be putting up the Council Tax next year which will hit Hackney’s working class very hard, please can I have an assurance that you will not make it harder for working people who depend on their car to get to work by putting up parking charges or extending controlled parking zones.

Would you not agree that Council officers’ time saved on fewer consultations would be better spent seeking ways to improve public transport in Hackney so that residents do not have to use their car.

5.1    From Christopher Sills to the Mayor:

“Since it is likely that the Council will be putting up the Council Tax next year which will hit Hackney’s working class very hard, please can I have an assurance that you will not make it harder for working people who depend on their car to get to work by putting up parking charges or extending controlled parking zones.

Would you not agree that Council officers’ time saved on fewer consultations would be better spent seeking ways to improve public transport in Hackney so that residents do not have to use their car.”

Response from Councillor Demirci (on behalf of the Mayor):

Councillor Demirci told Council that Hackney had been hit hard by government cuts and has had to make difficult choices. She said that following a government decision, Councils could now increase Council Tax. The decision to increase the level of Council Tax was difficult but the Council was running out of options. Council noted that the additional revenue of approximately £1.3m could only be used to fund adult social care. Also, revenue from parking controls cannot be used to support other areas. She stated that the Council has a duty to manage the demand for parking within the borough under the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1984, and to ensure that the needs of all road users within the borough are balanced fairly. Further, there was a duty to ensure flow of traffic. She said that she would be happy to explore this matter with Transport for London.

7.1  Cllr Sharon Patrick to the Cabinet Member for Housing

Could the Cabinet Member for Housing please update members on what plans Hackney has for building new Council homes. Can the Cabinet Member also update members on works to replace kitchens and bathrooms and the timescales for this?

7.2  Cllr Vincent Stops to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration

To ask the Cabinet Member for Regeneration whether he thinks is it not outrageous that a Conservative Government are proposing to take away the democratic right by which local councillors and a local community can decide through the planning system, if fracking for gas should take place in their own backyard? 

7.3  Cllr Clare Potter to the Cabinet Member for Finance

There is concern that the adoption of TTIP might impose new and onerous restrictions on the Council’s procurement policy. Can I ask the Cabinet Member for Finance whether, if it were to have such implications, Hackney Council should investigate the extent of these potential impacts; and communicate any concerns arising from this investigation, to the relevant decision making bodies?

7.4  Cllr Peter Snell to the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Sustainability

Please can the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Sustainability update members on the Council's response to initial Crossrail 2 proposals?

7.5  Cllr Soraya Adejare to the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Culture

To ask the Cabinet Member for Heath, Social Care and Culture what assessment has been made of the potential impact of the Government’s benefit cap on the provision of supported housing in the borough?

7.6  Cllr Susan Fajana-Thomas to the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Culture

Can the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Culture provideme and the people of Stoke Newington with a brief update regarding Abney Park Cemetery since the Council took over its maintenance in 2015? What plans, if any, are there to engage local people and to improve safety in this unique space?

7.7  Cllr Nick Sharman to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration

Will the Cabinet Member for Regeneration add his support to Wick Councillors endorsement of the Hackney Wick Neighbourhood Centre Masterplan?

7.8  Cllr Kam Adams to the Cabinet Member for Housing

In light of the new Housing and Planning Bill that the Government is trying to push through parliament, what does the Cabinet Member for Housing think the impact of this would be on affordable rent properties in Hackney?

7.9  Cllr Rosemary Sales to the Cabinet Member for Finance

From 1 April 2017, new Employment and Support Allowance claimants who are placed in the Work-Related Activity Group will receive the same rate of payment as those claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance, a weekly cut of £30. Could the Cabinet Member for Finance explain how this is likely to impact on residents with disabilities, including those with a learning disability?

7.1  From Councillor Sharon Patrick to the Cabinet Member for Housing

Could the Cabinet Member for Housing please update members on what plans Hackney has for building new Council homes. Can the Cabinet Member also update members on works to replace kitchens and bathrooms and the timescales for this?

  Response from Councillor Glanville:

Councillor Glanville explained that, as part of the Estate Regeneration Programme, the Council had built 300 new homes, 300 in construction, and hundreds more starting construction over the next year. Over half of the homes to be built as part of this 2,760 home programme would be for social rent or shared ownership. Councillor Glanville confirmed that proposals for the new Housing Supply Programme (HSP) had been approved at Cabinet on 29 February 2016

The HSP would deliver additional new build homes on Council owned sites currently occupied by non-residential uses. The HSP had the potential to deliver over 400 new homes across the Borough, with more than half for Council social rent and shared ownership. They would be made available through both a local lettings policy and the Choice Based Lettings process. The proposed tenure mix of 70% Council rent and shared ownership and 30% private sale homes was amongst the best in London.

Councillor Glanville advised that as part of the Decent Homes Programme, Hackney had invested £326m in making 14,413 Council homes in the borough decent between 2004 and 2015. This work included the installation of 6,269 kitchens, 6,316 bathrooms and windows to 3,373 homes between 2009 and 2015. The Hackney Investment Programme would continue the work of the Decent Homes Programme, with a further 2,500 kitchens and bathrooms installed in homes by the end of March 2017. 

In response to a supplementary question, Councillor Glanville referred to the recent Housing and Planning Bill and reiterated the need to provide Council housing in the Borough. He also referred to the work of the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission regarding this matter.

7.2  From Councillor Vincent Stops to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration:

To ask the Cabinet Member for Regeneration whether he thinks is it not outrageous that a Conservative Government are proposing to take away the democratic right by which local councillors and a local community can decide through the planning system, if fracking for gas should take place in their own backyard?

(Councillor Stops was not in attendance at the meeting, therefore a written response would be provided, as attached at Appendix One).

7.3  From Councillor Clare Potter to the Cabinet Member for Finance:

There is concern that the adoption of TTIP might impose new and onerous restrictions on the Council’s procurement policy. Can I ask the Cabinet Member for Finance whether, if it were to have such implications, Hackney Council should investigate the extent of these potential impacts; and communicate any concerns arising from this investigation, to the relevant decision making bodies?

  Response from Councillor Taylor:

Councillor Taylor explained that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was a series of bi-lateral  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1  It was agreed that the Mayor would deal with his statement as part of the budget debate and he allowed some flexibility within that debate to allow both Minority Group Leaders (or their deputies) to respond to what the Mayor had to say as part of that debate.

(Please note that Appendix 8 to the report can be viewed in larger font online, however A3 paper copies will be available upon request and copies available at the meeting).

Councillor Steinberger moved the Conservative Group alternative budget proposals, as tabled at the meeting. This was seconded by Councillor Levy.

The Speaker invited Council to vote on the Conservative Group alternative budget proposals.

For: Cllrs Levy, Odze and Steinberger (3)

Abstentions: None (0)

Against: Mayor Pipe and Cllrs Adams, Adejare, Bell, Bramble, Burke, Chapman, Coban, Demirci, Desmond, Ebbutt, Etti, Fajana-Thomas, Glanville, Gordon, Gregory, Hanson, Hayhurst, Hercock, Jacobson, Lufkin, McKenzie, McShane, Muir, Munn, Nicholson, Oguzkanli, Ozsen, Patrick, Peters, Potter, Rahilly, Rathbone, Rickard, Sales, Selman, Sharer, Sharman, Snell, Taylor, Thomson and Webb (42)

Not Present: Cllrs Akhoon, Brett, Buitekant, Bunt, Cameron, Kennedy, Linden, Mulready, Papier, Plouviez, Rennison, Stops and Williams (13)

The vote was not carried.

Councillor Sharer moved the Liberal Democrat Group alternative budget proposals, as tabled at the meeting. This was seconded by Councillor Jacobson.

The Speaker invited Council to vote on the Liberal Democrat Group alternative budget proposals.

For: Cllrs Akhoon, Jacobson and Sharer (3)

Abstentions: None (0)

Against: Mayor Pipe, Cllrs Adams, Adejare, Bell, Bramble, Burke, Chapman, Coban, Demirci, Desmond, Ebbutt, Etti, Fajana-Thomas, Glanville, Gordon, Gregory, Hanson, Hayhurst, Hercock, Levy, Lufkin, McKenzie, McShane, Muir, Munn, Nicholson, Odze, Oguzkanli, Ozsen, Patrick, Peters, Potter, Rahilly, Rathbone, Rickard, Sales, Selman, Sharman, Snell, Steinberger, Taylor, Thomson and Webb (43)

Not Present: Cllrs Brett, Buitekant, Bunt, Cameron, Kennedy, Linden, Mulready, Papier, Plouviez, Rennison, Stops and Williams (12)

The vote was not carried.

The Speaker then invited the Council to vote on the recommendation in the substantive report.

For: Mayor Pipe and Cllrs Adams, Adejare, Bell, Bramble, Burke, Chapman, Coban, Demirci, Desmond, Ebbutt, Etti, Fajana-Thomas, Glanville, Gordon, Gregory, Hanson, Hayhurst, Hercock, Lufkin, McKenzie, McShane, Muir, Munn, Nicholson, Oguzkanli, Ozsen, Patrick, Peters, Potter, Rahilly, Rathbone, Rickard, Sales, Selman, Sharman, Snell, Taylor, Thomson and Webb (40)

Abstentions: None (0)

Against: Cllrs Akhoon, Jacobson, Levy, Odze, Sharer and Steinberger (6)

Not Present: Cllrs Brett, Buitekant, Bunt, Cameron, Kennedy, Linden, Mulready, Papier, Plouviez, Rennison, Stops and Williams (12)

RESOLVED:

1.  To bring forward into 2016/17 the Council’s projected General Fund balances of £15.0m and to note the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) balances of £10.2m.

2.  To agree for approval the directorate estimates and estimates for the General Finance Account items set out in Appendix 2, and to take into account the comments arising from scrutiny of the budget by a meeting of the Governance and Resources Scrutiny Commission on 22 February 2016.

3.  To note that the budget is a financial exposition of the priorities set out within the Corporate Plan and Business (Divisional–level) Plans.

4.  To note that in line with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2003, the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources, is of the view that:

The General Fund balances of £15.0m and the level of reserves, particularly in relation to capital, are adequate to meet the Council’s financial needs for 2016/17 and that in light of the economic uncertainty they should not fall below this level.  This view  ...  view the full decision text for item 9.

9.1  The Speaker reminded Members that legislation now required that full Council must have a recorded vote on any decision relating to the budget or council tax.

9.2  Alternative budget proposals from the Conservative Group and the Liberal Democrat Group were tabled at the meeting.

9.3  Mayor Pipe introduced the budget and thanked the Corporate Director Finance and Resources and his staff for their assistance.

9.4  Mayor Pipe was pleased to announce that for the 14^th year the Council had finished the financial year within budget, which had been achieved without closure of vital public services. Mayor Pipe advised that since 2010 the Government had introduced a total of £152 million in cuts to the Council’s budgets. Mayor Pipe stated that he would continue to lobby Government regarding these cuts, as if they continued the Council would have to make difficult choices in order to continue to provide vital public services.

9.5  Mayor Pipe reported that this year had been the first in over a decade in which the Council had raised Council Tax, as a result of the proposed social care precept, which was an additional council tax charge of 2% used to fund the increasing costs of Adult Social Care services.

9.6  Mayor Pipe stated that, despite the ongoing cuts by the Government, the proposed budget would allow the Council to continue to protect front line services and strive to provide a better future for residents of the Borough.

9.7  Councillor Steinberger thanked the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources and his staff and presented the Conservative Group’s alternative budget, as tabled at the meeting. Councillor Steinberger expressed his disappointment that the Council Tax had been raised this year, however recognised that it was becoming increasingly harder to provide vital services with increasing cuts to the budget. Councillor Steinberger proposed a number of measures set out within the tabled paper, amounting to a total reduction of £2,400. The Conservative Group’s alternative budget was seconded by Councillor Levy.

9.8  Councillor Sharer thanked the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources and his staff and presented the Liberal Democrat Group’s alternative budget, as tabled at the meeting. Councillor Sharer believed that further cuts to budgets from the Government would result in further increases to Council Tax. Councillor Sharer proposed a number of measures set out within the tabled paper, including an increase in support to residents with difficulties paying Council Tax via the Local Hardship Fund. The Liberal Democrat Group’s alternative budget was seconded by Councillor Jacobson.

9.9  Councillor Demirci spoke in support of the Mayor’s budget and suggested that the proposals set out in the alternative budgets from both opposition groups were very similar to previous years. Councillor Demirci explained that the graffiti removal team carried out important work by removing 20,000 pieces of graffiti from across the Borough last year. She added that the traffic calming measures carried out by the Council had resulted in a reduction of 50% in road injuries and casualties throughout the Borough.

9.10  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

RESOLVED:

That the Children’s Social Care Bi-Annual Report be noted.

10.1  Councillor Bramble introduced the report and commended it to Council. Councillor Bramble told Council that Children’s Social Care worked with families to support safe and effective parenting. The aim was to ensure that children were returned to their families.  The Council, NSSPC and City and Hackney Clinical Commissioning Group had worked together to launch a helpline, listening to children in a non-judgmental way. She stated that the Council was looking at how to provide more specialised training for Foster Carers who foster teenagers.

10.2  Councillor Bramble stated that the Council had received positive feedback from a recent OFSTED inspection and would continue to ensure that the current quality of care continued. Council noted that Hackney’s GCSE results for looked after children and the percentage of Hackney’s care leavers in higher education was higher than the national average.

10.3  Councillor Rahilly expressed thanks to the Children’s Safeguarding Board for its work. In response to a question from Councillor Rahilly, Councillor Bramble explained that a joint targeted agency inspection had been carried out, looking at various services.  Councillor Bramble advised that the feedback had been very positive and that the Council would continue to build on this positive feedback.

10.4  Councillor Patrick advised Council of the work of the Fostering Panel, on which she was a representative. She praised Council staff for the work that they do, together with the virtual school, one of the largest in the country.

10.5  Councillor Sharer also contributed to the debate.

10.6  Councillor Bramble took the opportunity to thank Councillor Patrick and other Members that had sat on the Corporate Parenting Board for their hard work and contributions. Councillor Bramble commended the report to Council.

RESOLVED:

That the Children’s Social Care Bi-Annual Report be noted.

RESOLVED:

That indicative approval of the programme of meetings for the Municipal Year 2016/17 be granted.

11.1  Councillor Patrick raised concern regarding a number of potential clashes regarding scrutiny commissions she may be sitting on in the Municipal Year 2016/17. Governance Services would look into this matter and determine whether any amendments could be made to the calendar to prevent any clashes.

RESOLVED:

That indicative approval of the programme of meetings for the Municipal Year 2016/17 be granted.

There were no Appointments to Committees/Commissions.

12.1  There were no Appointments to Committees/Commissions.

Appendix One

7.2  From Councillor Vincent Stops to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration:

“Does the Cabinet Member for Regeneration think it is outrageous that a Conservative Government is proposing to take away the democratic right by which local Councillors and a local community can decide through the planning system, if fracking for gas should take place in their own backyard?”

  Response from Councillor Nicholson:

In response I can confirm that, yes, I am extremely concerned about any proposals that take away from elected local Councillors their ability to make decisions about local Planning matters. This is without doubt an assault on local democracy and removes the ability of a community to shape their own neighbourhoods.

Perhaps more crucially, the proposals put forward by the Conservative Government weaken the current environmental safeguards, which are already seen by many as wholly inadequate.  Whilst Hackney is not seen as an area of interest when it comes to potential gas deposits, the Council has reservations around Government interference in any local authorities’ ability to make a local decision about whether or not fracking should take place in their neighbourhoods.

The most recent example in Hackney of planning powers being taken away from Members has been the Bishopsgate Goods Yard Planning Application.  The Mayor of London, at the request of the developers, has used his powers to call in this planning application and take the decision making process away from local Councillors and the community they serve.

The Mayor of London quoted amongst other reasons, that Hackney’s Planning Authority was unable to fulfil its role in determining this major Planning application and in the interests of expediency he would now determine the application himself.

This could not be further from the truth, at the time of writing Hackney would have already determined this planning application, it was recommended to be refused. The Mayor of London, meanwhile, is still to confirm the final date for the public hearing before he makes his decision.

7.8  From Councillor Adams to the Cabinet Member for Housing:

“In light of the new Housing and Planning Bill that the Government is trying to push through parliament, what does the Cabinet Member for Housing think the impact of this would be on affordable rent properties in Hackney?”

  Response from Councillor Glanville:

The Housing & Planning Bill will have a major impact on both the future supply of new social housing and on the existing 22,382 rented properties that Hackney owns and manages, as well as the residents that have made them their home. The Government has not yet published details of the exact mechanisms by which many of these new policies will be implemented, despite the Bill already passing through the final stages of the Lords, so our assessment of the impact is based on the limited information currently available. 

From what we know already I am deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed changes, both for the supply of new genuinely affordable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.