Agenda and minutes

A Cabinet decision was agreed on 21 January 2015, the decision taken was to:

·         Agree to establish a Residents’ Steering Group to oversee the improvement deliver programme, and comment on the proposals.

·         Agree to consult the residents on the possibility of renaming the Highfield Road estate and the individual blocks to names which reflected the celebrations due to take place on 9 September 2015.

·         Approve the expenditure of £1.853m from the HRA capital programme of 2015/16 to carry out the improvements detailed in the appendix attached to the report. This approval would be subject to Council ratification.

·         Authorise officers to invite tenders from appropriate building firms to carry out the proposed works.

In accordance with Paragraph 17 of the Overview and Scrutiny Rules, a requisition signed by two members representing more than one Group (Councillors Ray Morgon and Lawrence Webb) had called in the Cabinet decision of 21 January 2015.

Reasons for the requisition:

The reasons for the ‘call-in’ were:

·                The full cost, process (including timescales) and implications in re-naming the Highfield Road estate had not been fully disclosed for both residents and the Council.

·                No evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the area was neglected and suffered from a lack of demand for Council or private housing.

·                No details had been provided on the re-alignment of priorities and why such a decision was required.

·                No evidence is provided to demonstrate the poor environment of the entire estate.

The Cabinet Member for Housing addressed the questions raised in the requisition in order and invited questions from Members of the Board afterwards.

In relation to point number one of the requisition the Cabinet Member advised that the original £130,000 set aside had been a prudent provision and the final cost would be known following consultation with other services such as the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority and the London Ambulance Service.

In reply to point two members were advised that a recent site visit had taken place with members of the Residents’ Steering Group which had shown that the estate suffered from neglect and highlighted the fact that no investment had taken place on the estate in over nine years whereas other areas in the borough had benefitted from considerable investment.

In response to item three the Cabinet member commented that no re-alignment of priorities had taken place. No priority survey had been undertaken but the estate had been identified as receiving no investment for a substantial period of time.

In reply to item four the Cabinet Member advised that he was more than happy to visit the estate with members and arrange for them to talk to residents about the poor environment of the estate and demonstrate how the entire estate would benefit from investment.

In response to a question, Members were advised that an Asset Management Strategy was currently being worked on.

During the debate members agreed that there should be some way of commemorating the Queen’s anniversary as the longest serving monarch but there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Report attached.

The report before Members considered a number of changes to the draft financial strategy in response to the public budget consultation.

Members were advised that the results from the consultation process had been reported extensively to Cabinet on 21 January 2015. In response to the consultation Cabinet requested that a number of the budget proposals be reconsidered. The proposed revised options were summarised in the report.

During a brief debate members received clarification from officers on the following points:

Changes to Parks Parking

Parking charges would include parks within sporting grounds

Libraries

That the alternative budget proposal submitted from Library staff had been considered but was not consistent with the Council’s new business practice of using a combination of staff and volunteers. The alternative proposal had also not allowed for cover during periods of annual leave and sickness. The proposed business practice of using staff and volunteers was one that was widely used across the country with successful results.

No questions were asked regarding the Queen’s Theatre and Youth Services.