Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1  Apologies for absence from Members are listed above.

 

1.2  Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Coban, Potter, Rickard and Snell.

2.1  The Speaker welcomed everyone to the meeting and informed Members that the budget item would be a recorded vote.

 

2.2  The Speaker notified Members of the following forthcoming civic events:-

 

§  Fair Trade Reception, Tuesday 7 March, 6.00 – 8.00pm – Speaker’s Parlour

§  Exercising the Freedom of the Borough by 3MI (Military Intelligence) Battalion, Saturday 1 April, 10.00am – Hackney Town Hall

§  Hackney Refugee Welcome Meeting, 26 April, 4.00pm – Clapton Girls Academy with Citizens UK, Hackney

 

2.3  The Speaker notified Members of the following forthcoming fundraising events:-

 

§  Comedy Night, Thursday 23 March, 7.30pm – Ribbons and Taylor, Stoke Newington

§  Brewery Tour, Thursday 27 April – visit Hackney’s micro breweries, details to follow

§  Hackney Half Marathon, 30 April

§  Hackney in Harmony – Speaker’s Concert, Saturday 6 May – 7.00pm – St John of Jerusalem Church, Hackney

3.1  Councillor Selman declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 8 – Budget and Council tax Report 2017/18, as she was a trustee of the Citizens Advice Bureau, referred to in the Liberal Democrat alternative budget.

RESOLVED:

 

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 January 2017 be approved, as amended.

4.1  RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 January 2017 be approved, subject to the following comment from Councillor Steinberger:-

 

§  Item 5 b) Deputation – Wordsworth Road Area CS1 Motor Traffic Reduction Scheme – It should state Stamford instead of Stanford and it was Councillor Steinberger not Councillor Odze who raised the issue of the petition.

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

 

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

 

For: Cllrs Sharer and Akhoon (2)

 

Against: Mayor Glanville and Cllrs Adams, Adejare, Bell, Bramble, Brett, Burke, Chapman, Coban, Conway, Demirci, Desmond, Etti, Fajana-Thomas, Gordon, Gregory, Hanson, Hayhurst, Kennedy, Lufkin, Maxwell, McKenzie, McShane, Moema, Moule, Mulready, Munn, Nicholson, Odze, Oguzkanli, Ozsen, Patrick, Peters, Plouviez, Potter, Rahilly, Rathbone, Rennison, Rickard, Sales, Sharman, Snell, Steinberger, Stops, Taylor, Webb and Williams (47)

 

Abstentions: None (0)

 

Not Present: Cllrs Buitekant, Bunt, Cameron, Ebbutt, Hercock, Levy, Papier and Selman (8)

 

The vote was not carried.

 

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

 

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

 

For: Cllrs Steinberger and Odze (2)

 

Against: Mayor Glanville and Cllrs Adams, Adejare, Akhoon, Bell, Bramble, Brett, Bunt, Burke, Chapman, Coban, Conway, Demirci, Desmond, Etti, Fajana-Thomas, Gordon, Gregory, Hanson, Hayhurst, Kennedy, Lufkin, Maxwell, McKenzie, McShane, Moema, Moule, Mulready, Munn, Nicholson, Oguzkanli, Ozsen, Patrick, Peters, Plouviez, Potter, Rahilly, Rathbone, Rennison, Rickard, Sales, Selman, Sharer, Sharman, Snell, Stops, Taylor, Webb and Williams (49)

 

Abstentions: None (0)

 

Not Present: Cllrs Buitekant, Cameron, Ebbutt, Hercock, Levy and Papier (6)

 

The vote was not carried.

 

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

 

For: Mayor Glanville and Cllrs Adams, Adejare, Bell, Bramble, Brett, Bunt, Burke, Chapman, Coban, Conway, Demirci, Desmond, Etti, Fajana-Thomas, Gordon, Gregory, Hanson, Hayhurst, Kennedy, Lufkin, Maxwell, McKenzie, McShane, Moema, Moule, Mulready, Munn, Nicholson, Oguzkanli, Ozsen, Patrick, Peters, Plouviez, Potter, Rahilly, Rathbone, Rennison, Rickard, Sales, Selman, Sharman, Snell, Stops, Taylor, Webb and Williams (47)

 

Against: Cllrs Akhoon, Odze, Sharer and Steinberger (4)

 

Abstentions: None (0)

 

Not Present: Cllrs Buitekant, Cameron, Ebbutt, Hercock, Levy and Papier (6)

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.  To bring forward into 2017/18 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 20 February2016.

 

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 Group Director, Finance and Corporate Resources, is of the viewthat:

 

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 2017/18 and that  ...  view the full decision text for item 8.

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

 

8.2  Mayor Glanville introduced the budget and thanked the Group Director Finance and Resources and his staff for their assistance, as well as Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Finance and Customer Services. Mayor Glanville also thanked his fellow Cabinet Members for their assistance, as well as scrutiny and backbenchers, who had all played an essential role in developing this budget.

 

8.3  Mayor Glanville referred to the cuts to Local Government and stated that the Council faced a number of financial challenges from 2020, as a result of the planned Government austerity cuts. Mayor Glanville advised that the Council had faced a reduction in its grant from 340million in 2010 to a predicted £160million in 2019. Mayor Glanville believed that the poorest people in the borough would bear the brunt of these cuts, which targeted the most vulnerable people in society. 

 

8.4  Mayor Glanville stated that it was important to think long-term and the budget was about protecting services and investing for the future. Mayor Glanville was proud to propose a budget that kept open every one of the borough’s libraries, children centres, award winning museum, parks, leisure centres and maintained investment in its voluntary sector. He added that the Learning Trust and Hackney Homes had now come back to the Council, in addition to insourcing IT, recycling and other contracts, improving the quality of services, improving staff pay and conditions and saving money.

 

8.5  Mayor Glanville was proud that the council had frozen council tax for a period of 10 years from 2005-2015, saving the average household £1,400. However, it had not been possible to manage the cost pressures and subsidise Government cuts, so this year it was proposed to put up the Adult Social Care precept by 2% and council tax up by 1%. These rises would enable the council to raise £2million, which could be spent supporting social care and services.

 

8.6  Mayor Glanville referred to the Council’s commercial income which was due to increase by 400% by 2018/19 to over £12million, compared with £3million in 2012/13. He regretted the overspend on the works to Hackney Town Hall, however the project would save the Council money in the long run, as it enabled 40% more staff to be accommodated in the building and freed up other buildings across the campus.

 

8.7  The proposed budget enabled the Council to invest in the future by maintaining and creating circumstances needed to build over 3000 homes, create a new apprenticeship programme, invest in its parks, maintain its schools and build new ones.

 

8.8  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 as money was tighter, more advice should be given on debt and money management. The Liberal Democrat Group proposed a number of minor amendments to the budget and agreed with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

We, the undersigned residents of Lower Obsbaldeston Road (south of Cazenove Road) and Lower Kyverdale Road (south of Cazenove Road), on behalf of the majority of residents who have signed petitions to the same effect, would like to see some form of controlled parking within our sections of road implemented without delay.

 

Can the Council tell us when some form of controlled parking will be implemented for both of our roads?

 

The Deputation will be introduced by Cllr Mete Coban

The Deputation spokesperson is Michael Graham

5.1  Councillor Fajana-Thomas introduced the deputation on behalf of residents.

 

5.2  Mr Michael Graham was speaking on behalf of residents of Lower Osbaldeston Road and Lower Kyverdale Road, who had been adversely affected by surrounding controlled parking zones. The roads had been experiencing high parking stress south of Cazenove Road. Stage 1 consultation had been carried out in 2015 which resulted in neither of the two roads in entirety wanting parking controls. Residents had written to the previous Mayor in 2015 regarding the issue of parking stress, however no solution had been found.

 

5.3  A further consultation had taken place in November 2016, which resulted in 70% of residents in Lower Osbaldeston Road and 90% of residents in Lower Kyverdale Road being in favour of some form of parking control measure. He therefore requested that some form of parking control measure be implemented to ensure that residents were able to park in their own road, as there had also been instances of vandalism to parked vehicles. He believed that residents should take precedence as there was often no parking spaces left in their road.

 

5.4  Mr Graham made reference to neighbouring Alkham Road which had been assigned a CPZ, which he believed would only add to the parking stress and cause displacement to surrounding roads.

 

5.5  Mr Graham, on behalf of residents, stated that the residents from both roads had demonstrated an overwhelming amount of support for parking controls and asked the Council when they would be implemented.

 

5.6  In response to a question from Councillor Hanson, Mr Graham indicated that their Ward Councillors were not in support of CPZs.

 

5.7  Councillor Demirci responded to the deputation and thanked the residents for their attendance. Councillor Demirci stated that she had full sympathy for the residents affected and was aware of the parking stress around Lower Osbaldeston Road and Lower Kyverdale Road. She stated that Parking Services had previously received two petitions for parking controls from the Stamford Hill area which were previously not in favour of parking controls. Stage 1 consultation had been undertaken in 2015 which received a 48% response from residents. The majority of responses received from the Stamford Hill area were not in favour of parking controls.

 

5.8  The Council generally conducted two stages of consultation before a CPZ was introduced. The decision to consult was normally made by the Council’s Cabinet, according to evidence of a need for a CPZ. A full consultation could typically take 8-12 months to implement as the Council was required to follow certain processes and procedures.

 

5.9  Councillor Demirci advised that Parking Services would be carrying out a stage 2 consultation in the new Stamford Hill parking zone between March and April 2017. She urged residents to respond to the consultation and to gather support from Ward Councillors.

6.1  From Councillor Rickard to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Business and Investment:

'Can the Cabinet Member for Planning, Business and Investment tell me how the Council proposes to support Hackney businesses through this period of economic uncertainty brought about by the UK’s decision to leave the EU?'

 

6.2  From Councillor Adams to the Deputy Mayor:

'In recent times, the focus has been on the young people who go onto apprenticeships or further education at the age of 18. However I am concerned that many young people do not gain enough qualifications to start an apprenticeship or go to university, and are not engaging in any meaningful trade. Can the Deputy Mayor share with us what the council is doing to help/engage this group in the context of rising inequality in the borough?'

 

6.3  From Councillor Etti to the Mayoral Advisor for Private Renting and Housing Affordability:

'As part of the council's drive to improve standards within the private rented sector in Hackney would the Mayoral Advisor for Private Renting and Housing Affordability be able to update members on how the council intends to tackle rogue landlords?'

 

6.4  From Councillor Rathbone to the Cabinet Member for Energy, Sustainability and Community Services:

'In July 2015 the council re-affirmed its commitment to fairtrade by passing a resolution which agreed to serve Fairtrade products within its buildings and offices. The Hackney fairtrade group will be seeking to re-apply for Fairtrade borough status in 2017. With this in mind, what is being done to ensure procurement guidelines are observed and secondly, what is being done to expand the purchase and use of other Fairtrade products across the Council?'

 

6.5  From Councillor Adejare to the Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services:

'There has been public concern that some local authorities are using money raised from parking charges to subsidise general, non-transport-related expenditure. What is the position in Hackney?'

 

6.6  From Councillor Hayhurst to the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Devolution:

'CHUSE has been a success story in Hackney with reports of improved provision in the out of hours GP service which in turn has been credited to have contributed to a reduction in A & E admissions. The proposed 111 service across our INEL partners will be staffed by non-clinician call handlers in contrast to CHUSE where the residents calls are answered by GP's directly. Does he share my concern that the proposed 111 service may result in delayed diagnosis and possibly be counter productive in terms of increasing pressures on local Accident and Emergency service provision'

 

6.7  From Councillor Chapman to the Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Enforcement:

'I have been concerned to see the apparent increase in reporting of ASB in in the Homerton and Hackney Central wards in Hackney. Would she be able to comment on possible causes; as well as the measures which are in place to address this recent increase?'

 

6.8  From Councillor Brett to the Mayor:

'Would the Mayor outline what effect the measures announced in  ...  view the full agenda text for item 6.

6.1  From Cllr Anna-Joy Rickard to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Business and Investment:

  “Can the Cabinet Member for Planning, Business and Investment tell me how the Council proposes to support Hackney businesses through this period of economic uncertainty brought about by the UK’s decision to leave the EU?”

 

  Response from Cllr Nicholson:

  Councillor Nicholson stated that Hackney had a diverse economy and the UK’s decision to leave the EU, along with recent business rates revaluation, was causing uncertainty on the ongoing prosperity of businesses across the UK.

 

Councillor Nicholson explained that at this stage in the Brexit process, it was not possible to fully determine the true impact that leaving the EU would have on Hackney’s business community. However, it was the priority of the Council’s Economic Regeneration Service to monitor the situation. During this period the Council would work with the Government, London Boroughs, think tank advisory bodies and business representation groups to build an informed strategy for supporting businesses going forward. Councillor Nicholson suggested that he would extend an invitation to the Chair of the Brexit Select Committee to hold a meeting in the borough and meet local businesses.

 

6.2  From Councillor Adams to the Deputy Mayor:

'In recent times, the focus has been on the young people who go onto apprenticeships or further education at the age of 18. However I am concerned that many young people do not gain enough qualifications to start an apprenticeship or go to university, and are not engaging in any meaningful trade. Can the Deputy Mayor share with us what the council is doing to help/engage this group in the context of rising inequality in the borough?'

 

The Deputy Mayor stated that the Council had recently launched its own apprenticeship programme, with the aim of having 75 apprentices employed across the Council during 2017/18, and 100 during 2018/19. These were high-quality apprenticeships which paid the London Living Wage, with the majority being entry-level apprenticeships at Level 2 and 3. The Apprenticeship Programme Manager had been working with recruiting managers to ensure that entry requirements and person specifications were not prohibitive and that these roles should not ask for GCSEs as a pre-requisite unless there was a clear justification to do so. Functional skills in English and Maths had been built into all apprenticeships, and apprentices were required to achieve Level 2 in those areas by the end of their apprenticeship. Members were informed that the Council was also ensuring that the vacancies were promoted through Young Hackney and other services to young people who faced a range of disadvantages.

 

The Council’s Young Hackney Service aimed to remove barriers that minimised learning progression for young people through Young Hackney Early Help teams attached to secondary schools in the borough.  Young Hackney organises out of school careers events aimed at inspiring young men and young women. The Service also commissioned careers education for young people in voluntary and community sector settings. Six Apprenticeships for local young people had been provided within Young  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1  The Mayor highlighted the position of the Government in relation to the Dubs Amendment and Syrian Refugees. It was explained that the Mayor had written to the Home Secretary outlining the support that the Council had previously offered but unfortunately the support was not taken up.

 

7.2 The Mayor thanked the Deputy Mayor Councillor Bramble on her campaigning work on schools and the threat of funding cuts citing that Hackney was a great example of what works.

 

7.3  The Mayor paid tribute to Councillor Nicolson, the East End Trades Guild and various teams in the Council on their work which had been put in to the campaign on business rates. There had been a 46% rise on small businesses, as well as rises for the Council, Schools’ and the NHS, It was explained that there was still uncertainty. The Council was informed that the Petition had reached 4,832 signatures.

 

7.4  Tribute was also paid to Councillor McShane and the work that had had been carried out in relation to the local NHS with the Council, CCG and others. Not only on devolution and the responding to the STP, but also the new integrated Health and Social Care commissioning body for Hackney.

 

7.5  Councillor Steinberger responded to the Mayor’s statement on behalf of the Conservative Group. He congratulated the Conservative Party on Copeland by-election result, it was highlighted that it was the first time since 1935 that the majority vote was Conservative compared with Labour. Council on its by-election. The Business Rates Petition was supported and it was agreed that assistance would be supported in gaining signatures.

 

7.6  The Mayor encouraged everyone to nominate others for the Hackney Awards Ceremony and congratulated Gareth Snell on his by-election victory in Stoke-on-Trent.

 

7.7  Councillor Steinberger stated that he was satisfied with the letter on the 73 Bus route. Although it was highlighted that the letter did not include any comments on the pensioners and vulnerable people who would be affected.

 

7.8  Councillor Sharer responded to the Mayor’s statement on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group. He supported the Business Rates Petition and agreed to take the petition to residents in his ward. It was also stated that the Independent Schools of Hackney were an essential saving for the borough of Hackney.

 

7.9   The Mayor welcomed the support from the opposition groups on business rates petition.

RESOLVED:

 

In respect of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel:

 

1.  The Scrutiny Chairs Group be disbanded and replaced with the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.  The responsibilities of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel will include: maintaining an overview of the scrutiny work programme; invoking the call-in procedure; co-ordinate the involvement of scrutiny in the budget process; identifying cross cutting reviews to deal with scrutiny opportunities which fall in-between the remits of the topic-specific commissions; operate as a forum of shared learning to share good practice and hold question time for the Mayor and Chief Executive.

 

2.  The Overview and Scrutiny Panel’s membership will consist of the chairs and vice-chairs of the proposed four thematic Commissions and a member of the larger opposition party.

 

3.  The Overview and Scrutiny Panel will meet quarterly.  The frequency of thematic Commission meetings to reduce from monthly to six-weekly.  Meetings to include site visits and informal meetings.

 

In respect of Overview and Scrutiny Commissions.  Proposal to reduce to 4 thematic scrutiny commissions as follows:

 

4.  Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission’s remit to remain unchanged.

 

5.  Health in Hackney Scrutiny Commission’s remit to remain unchanged.

 

6.  The Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission with the remit of quality of life in local communities covering neighbourhoods, place, wellbeing, amenities and the added remit of scrutiny of the formal crime and disorder partnership function.

 

7.  The creation of a new scrutiny commission called Working in Hackney Scrutiny Commission, with the remit of the prosperity of the borough and development, in particular economic development, employment and large scale schemes.

 

8.  The Community Safety and Social inclusion Commission and the Governance and Resources Commission to be disbanded.

 

 

 

 

  9.1 The Council was informed that Independent Consultants were commissioned on behalf of the Scrutiny Chairs Group (SCG) in February 2016 to carry out a review of the Overview and Scrutiny function in Hackney.

 

9.2  The review found that Overview and Scrutiny in Hackney was considered to have a strong track-record in scrutiny and operated a good practice model.  The review noted that in the climate of austerity in which all councils currently operated, it was particularly important to seek to ensure that the ‘added value’ provided by overview and scrutiny was commensurate with the resources allocated to the function. The key objectives of the review was to identify areas of improvement to the system and processes and to consider the changes that could be implemented in a cost-effective way. 

 

9.3  The recommendations were supported by the SCG.  Members were advised that should those recommendations be agreed they would come into effect in June 2017 following the Council’s Annual General Meeting in May 2017.

 

9.4  Councillor Odze proposed a number of amendments to the report, which were seconded by Councillor Steinberger. These proposed amendments were not carried.

 

9.5  Councillor Steinberger stated that the majority party could not scrutinise their own decisions.

 

9.6    The Mayor stated that there was a need for scrutiny as it held the executive to account, it was added further that the majority party welcomed the involvement of the opposition.

 

RESOLVED:

 

In respect of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel:

 

1.  The Scrutiny Chairs Group be disbanded and replaced with the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.  The responsibilities of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel will include: maintaining an overview of the scrutiny work programme; invoking the call-in procedure; co-ordinate the involvement of scrutiny in the budget process; identifying cross cutting reviews to deal with scrutiny opportunities which fall in-between the remits of the topic-specific commissions; operate as a forum of shared learning to share good practice and hold question time for the Mayor and Chief Executive.

 

2.  The Overview and Scrutiny Panel’s membership will consist of the chairs and vice-chairs of the proposed four thematic Commissions and a member of the larger opposition party.

 

3.  The Overview and Scrutiny Panel will meet quarterly.  The frequency of thematic Commission meetings to reduce from monthly to six-weekly.  Meetings to include site visits and informal meetings.

 

In respect of Overview and Scrutiny Commissions.  Proposal to reduce to 4 thematic scrutiny commissions as follows:

 

4.  Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission’s remit to remain unchanged.

 

5.  Health in Hackney Scrutiny Commission’s remit to remain unchanged.

 

6.  The Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission with the remit of quality of life in local communities covering neighbourhoods, place, wellbeing, amenities and the added remit of scrutiny of the formal crime and disorder partnership function.

 

7.  The creation of a new scrutiny commission called Working in Hackney Scrutiny Commission, with the remit of the prosperity of the borough and development, in particular economic development, employment and large scale schemes.

 

8.  The Community Safety and Social inclusion Commission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

RESOLVED:

 

That the amendments to the Constitution as set out in appendices 1 to 4 of the report with effect from the start of the 2017/18 Municipal Year, be approved.

10.1  The Director of Legal introduced the report and commended it to Council.

 

10.2  Councillor Odze proposed a number of amendments to the appendices to the report. Councillor Odze requested that the sentence ‘The Overview and Scrutiny Panel’s Chair shall be a Member of the majority political group of the Council’, which was referred to within the report and appendices, be deleted.

 

10.3  The Council voted on the proposed amendments to the report, which were not carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the amendments to the Constitution as set out in appendices 1 to 4 of the report with effect from the start of the 2017/18 Municipal Year, be approved.

 

For: Many

Against: 2

Abstention: None

RESOLVED:

 

1.  That the report of the Council’s independent adviser on Members Allowances, be noted.

2.  To agree to include the Chair and Vice Chair of the Scrutiny Panel in the Members Allowances Scheme from 2017/18.

3.  To agree the recommended Special Responsibility Allowance for the role of Chair of the Scrutiny Panel be set at £8,224.73.

4.  To agree the recommended Special Responsibility Allowance for the role of Vice Chair of the Scrutiny Panel be set at £5,483.15.

11.1  The report was introduced to Members by the Monitoring Officer. The Council agreed its Members Allowances Scheme for 2016/17 at its meeting on 20^th July 2016.  In February 2016 the Scrutiny Chairs Group agreed to carry out an independent review of the Council’s overview and scrutiny arrangements. One of the recommendations from the review was to set up a Scrutiny Panel to replace the Scrutiny Chairs Group.

 

11.2  Council Officers approached Sir Rodney Brooke CBE DL as the Council’s Independent Adviser on Members Allowances to develop a report with recommendations on the proposed remuneration of the Chair and Vice Chair of the new Scrutiny Panel and to add the remuneration of the Chair and Vice Chair of the new Scrutiny Panel to the Members Allowance Scheme.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.  That the report of the Council’s independent adviser on Members Allowances, be noted.

2.  To agree to include the Chair and Vice Chair of the Scrutiny Panel in the Members Allowances Scheme from 2017/18.

3.  To agree the recommended Special Responsibility Allowance for the role of Chair of the Scrutiny Panel be set at £8,224.73.

4.  To agree the recommended Special Responsibility Allowance for the role of Vice Chair of the Scrutiny Panel be set at £5,483.15.

RESOLVED:

 

1.  To approve that the terms of reference for the Hackney Integrated Commissioning Committee and Integrated Commissioning Board, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be included in the Constitution in Part 3.3.

2.  To approve other amendments to the Constitution to reflect the establishment of the Integrated Commissioning Committee as detailed in paragraph 3.5 of the report.

12.1  The Director of Legal introduced the report and commended it to Council.

 

12.2  Councillor Odze welcomed the report and acknowledged the benefits of joint working. He suggested that consideration should be made for a better name, which better reflected the role of the committee.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.  To approve that the terms of reference for the Hackney Integrated Commissioning Committee and Integrated Commissioning Board, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be included in the Constitution in Part 3.3.

2.  To approve other amendments to the Constitution to reflect the establishment of the Integrated Commissioning Committee as detailed in paragraph 3.5 of the report.

RESOLVED:

 

That the Annual Report of the Audit Committee set out in Appendix 1 to the report be noted.

13.1  Members were informed that the purpose of the report was to detail the role of the Audit Committee and summarise the key activities and achievements in 2016/17 that demonstrated how the Committee had fulfilled this role effectively and to measure consistency with the guidance issued by the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards and other statutory requirements. It was added that in reviewing the performance of the Audit Committee against the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards and in the areas mentioned above, the judgement was that the Committee had fulfilled its role effectively.

 

13.2   Members of the Council commended the Finance Department on their work and congratulated them on completing the accounts within 4 months.

 

13.3  Opportunities for further strengthening the performance and effectiveness of the Audit Committee were identified and would be addressed through a programme of development sessions delivered to members on issues including Treasury Management, Anti-Fraud and Risk Management.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Annual Report of the Audit Committee set out in Appendix 1 to the report be noted.

RESOLVED:

 

That indicative approval of the programme of meetings for the Municipal Year 2017/18 be granted, subject to the following amendment:

 

§  Council scheduled for 29 November 2017 be moved to 25 October 2017.

RESOLVED:

 

That indicative approval of the programme of meetings for the Municipal Year 2017/18 be granted, subject to the following amendment:

 

§  Council scheduled for 29 November 2017 be moved to 25 October 2017.

RESOLVED:

 

To agree the following appointment to Outside Bodies on behalf of the Council, as set out in the schedule tabled at the meeting:

 

Cllr Clare Potter appointed to the Finsbury Park Trust

RESOLVED:

 

To agree the following appointment to Outside Bodies on behalf of the Council, as set out in the schedule tabled at the meeting:

 

Cllr Clare Potter appointed to the Finsbury Park Trust

There were no appointments to Committees/Commissions.

16.1  There were no appointments to Committees/Commissions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix One

 

6.9  From Councillor Desmond to the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, Transport and Parks:

“With a number of residents and businesses in Hackney Downs badly affected by the burst pipe in Northwold Road late last year, does not agree that Thames Water’s priority for the area should be investing in infrastructure – in particular replacing the pipes there, which were first installed in 1868 – as well as prioritising the installation of water meters to manage supply and demand.”

 

  Response from Councillor Demirci:

Thames Water need to continue to invest in the area in a variety of aspects:

 

1.  Certainly they need to invest in their water supply assets to ensure that incidents such as that in Northwold Road last do not happen again. This investment also needs to be within the smaller diameter mains to prevent the significant amount of leakage that they have on their network but also to reduce the numbers of smaller bursts that affect customers, damage the highway, and causes disruption when being repair under emergency basis rather than in a planned way.

 

For the major burst Thames Water have said:

 

Thames Water plan for 30” at Northwold Rd

 

·  Design study currently being undertaken with a view to relining Design study currently being undertaken with a view to relining 1.6km of pipe.

·  TW are committed to delivering a solution that will remove the risk from this main.

·  Independent review led by Paul Independent review led by Paul Cuttill OBE

·  Wider study of bursts in last year study of bursts in last year study of bursts in last year study of bursts in last year study of bursts in last year study of bursts in last year study of bursts in last year by summer 2017

·  Long -term investment strategy

 

2.  Managing Supply –  Below is email correspondence between Councillor Jacobson and Thames Water regarding water metering and their need do this as part of their 25 year plan for managing water resources:

 

Dear Councillor Jacobson

 

Thank you for your email. I am sorry to hear you feel that way and I understand your concerns and will make sure these are passed on to the Head of Metering.

 

We believe metering is the fairest way to pay as customers only pay for the water they use, and will help address the immediate supply and demand gap in London in a sustainable way to ensure Londoner's continue to have a stable water supply in future years as our population grows and our climate changes.

 

Customers will also be able to go online or call us to find out how much water they are using, giving greater control of usage and ultimately their bills. Our smart meters use wireless technology to send us frequent and accurate readings and will enable us to track leaks remotely on across our network, as well as customers' pipes which accounts for a quarter of our total leakage. This means we will be able  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.