Agenda and minutes

Members are invited to declare any interest in any of the items on the agenda at this point of the meeting. 

Members may still declare any interest in any item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.

Councillor Keith Darvill disclosed an interest in item 7, Appointments to Other Organisations as he was the Chairman of Governors of the Havering Sixth Form College.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Committee held on 9 March 2016, and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 march 2016 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Officers had submitted a report seeking the Governance’s Committee’s approval to a revised set of Contract Procedure Rules and an updated Procurement Strategy. The current Contract procedure Rules had been agreed in 2012 and so were overdue for revision whilst the Procurement Strategy had been agreed in 2011 and had expired in 2014. In introducing the report officers apologised that the wrong Glossary of terms had been appended to the Contract Procedure Rules.

The recent changes in the European Union thresholds and the introduction of the Public Contract Regulations in 2015 had also been reflected in the revised documents.

Officers maintained that the new Contract procedure Rules and procurement Strategy would achieve significant savings through improved procurement management. Collaboration was at the very heart of this as officers had sought to maximise the efficiencies identified through oneSource and through work with other councils and public bodies.

Officers had highlighted the following key areas of change.

·         Procurement Strategy

·                      Value for money; through efficient contracts that deliver high quality goods and services at a competitive price;

·                      Using the Council’s purchasing power to boost Havering’s economy and long term economic sustainability, through maximising the opportunities for local businesses to provide services and helping ensure that where possible contractors actively seek to employ and train local residents;

·                      Community benefit; to ensure opportunities for local economic, social and environmental benefits are achieved through our contracts to meet local resident’s priorities. The specification for our contracts can play a key part in helping to ensure contractors are fully contributing to delivering our vision for Havering;

·                      Innovation and partnerships; to ensure in the right circumstances joint working can deliver efficient, cost effective, risk-sharing solutions and new and better models of service delivery.  We are working to develop different ways of providing and buying goods and services so that we can continue to improve value for money while not reducing quality. Local authorities often contain many different departments or business units which have their own purchasing challenges. It can be difficult to ensure that all buyers purchase the best products and procure them at the best price. In the retail sector, innovators like Amazon, set up digital marketplaces that help buyers to access catalogues of products. In these systems, suppliers openly compete against each other in a controlled environment, which was why we are pioneers in helping to develop such a solution and integrating it into other local authorities.

(b)  Contract Procedure Rules

·                The introduction of e-tendering (CPR 2)

·                Introduction of the pilot Checkpoint process for all procurements above EU Threshold (CPR 8)

·                The publication of opportunities on Contracts Finder (CPR 9.10)

·                An increased emphasis on e-auctions to secure additional savings (CPR 9.11 – 9.12)

·                The use of Constructionline (CPR 13), collaborations and joint commercial enterprise and public sector spin-outs (CPR 23)

·                The introduction of the Social Value Act 2012 (CPR 15)

·                70:30 cost:quality considerations in awarding contracts (CPR 18.4)

·                An increased focus on Contract Management (CPR 21)

·                The introduction of European ‘State Aid’ Rules (CPR 26)

·                The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Committee had received a report regarding the manner in which prior approval submissions were dealt with. Unlike planning application there was a strict deadline for the determination of prior approval applications and the default position was that if a decision was not given within the deadline the application would be approved regardless of the Council’s intended decision.

Planning legislation currently allowed for various prior approval submissions to be made. In Havering the following were the most common:

a)    Larger Home Extensions (42 days, 6 weeks) – 285 received in previous year;

b)    Certain changes of use (56 days, 8 weeks) – 35 received in previous year;

c)    Demolition of buildings (28 days, 4 weeks) – 7 received in previous week;

d)    Telecommunications development (56 days, 8 weeks) – 34 received in previous year.

Committee Procedure Rule 13e of the Council’s Constitution set out the framework and circumstances under which a Councillor could call-in an application for determination at the Regulatory Services Committee. Constitutionally a Councillor was able to call-in any application.

Given the restricted time scales and the consequences of failure to make a decision officers had historically declined councillors requests to call-in prior approval applications. This was because it would be very difficult to thoroughly consider a submission, prepare a report and present it to Committee, which meets every three weeks within the restricted timetables. The only exception was if an applicant formally agreed to extend the time period as permitted by paragraph 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

A councillor had recently tried to call-in a prior approval application for a   telecommunications installation and had queried the constitutional basis for their request being declined. Officers were seeking a decision from the Committee to formalise current practice.

The Committee had asked if prior approval applications were included on the list of planning applications circulated weekly. Officers advised that prior approval applications were not currently included on the list.

The Committee had concerns that officers had been operating this system without member approval. These actions were preventing councillors of the opportunity to represent local residents concerns. However, councillors still had the opportunity to make representations to the planning officer dealing with the application.

The Committee did not wish to place the Council’s reputation at risk by seeing a number of prior approval application receiving approval by default because of delays but wished to ensure that the Council were following best practice.

The Chairman called for a vote on whether to accept the recommendations

set out in the report as amended.

In favour of the motion to accept the recommendations

Councillors: Meg Davis, Melvin Wallace, Roger Ramsey, Damian White, Osman Dervish, Clarence Barrett, Darren Wise and Keith Darvill 

Against the motion: Councillors Ray Morgon, Barbara Matthews, Barry Mugglestone, David Durant and Lawrence Webb

The motion was CARRIED by eight votes to five.

The Committee agreed to authorise officers to decline requests for call-in of prior approval applications by councillors for two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Committee was invited to make recommendations to the various outside bodies to which it was affiliated. Where appropriate, each Group was invited to nominate a representative for the various positions.

With the exception of one appointment, all appointments were made without division, all other positions were filled and those Members appointed are shown on the appendix to this Minute.

The Chairman called for a vote on whether Councillor Clarence Barrett or Councillor David Durant should represent the Council at the Annual Assembly of the Local Government Information Unit.

In favour of Councillor Barrett:

Councillors: Meg Davis, Melvin Wallace, Roger Ramsey, Damian White, Osman Dervish, Clarence Barrett, Darren Wise and Keith Darvill 

In favour of Councillor Durant:

Councillors David Durant and Lawrence Webb

Councillors Ray Morgan, Barbara Matthews and Barry Mugglestone abstained.

Councillor Clarence Barrett was appointed as the Council’s representative to attend the Annual Assembly of the Local Government Information Unit.

The Committee:

1                          (a) determined appointments to the organisations referred to in this minute for the period until the meeting that deals with appointments for the municipal year, 2016/17 (or such other period as may be relevant in any specific case).

  (b)   RECOMMENDED to the Leader that the appointments be made.

2                          Gave authority that, where the Council’s representative (or any deputy or alternative representative where applicable) was unable to attend a particular meeting and the constitutional arrangements of the body in question so permitted, that representative may mandate the Chair of the meeting to exercise a proxy vote.

3                          Noted that the Council’s voting rights at the General Assembly of the Local Government Association be exercised by Councillor Roger Ramsey (4 votes) and Councillor Clarence Barrett (1 vote) (or their respective nominees in the event either was unable to vote in person).

MONITORING OFFICER NO 08 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

The Committee was invited to consider a report concerning amendments

made by the Monitoring Officer to the Constitution.

Following consideration the Committee NOTED the report.