cabinet section one 021002 at0 - tower hamlets · c:\documents and...

$: CABINET SECTION ONE 021002 AT0 - Tower Hamlets · C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator.SUPERTED\Desktop\Tower Hamlets\Cabinet\20021030\Minutes\CABINET_SECTION ONE_021002_AT0. doc$
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator.SUPERTED\Desktop\Tower Hamlets\Cabinet\20021030\Minutes\CABINET_SECTION ONE_021002_AT0.doc

1

LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS

At a meeting of the CABINET held on WEDNESDAY 2ND OCTOBER 2002 in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, FIRST FLOOR, TOWN HALL, MULBERRY PLACE, 5 CLOVE CRESCENT, LONDON E14 2BG commencing at 7.30 PM.

SECTION ONE - UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PRESENT Councillor B. Chattopadhyay Councillor D. Jones (Vice-Chair) Councillor D. Edgar Councillor S. Islam Councillor A. Rahman Councillor A. Shukur OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT Councillor Alexander Councillor Duffey Councillor Griffiths Councillor Ludlow Councillor Phelps Councillor Rew Councillor Sanderson Councillor Williams OFFICERS PRESENT: Sue Benjamins, Eric Bohl, Isobel Cattermole, Siobhan Crozier, Christine Gilbert, John Goldup, Paul Greeno, Stephen Grix, Dave Hill, Julia Ingall, Steve Inkpen, Helen Jenner, Julius Joseph, John Kettlewell, Dave Kingdon, Sue McCauley, Maureen McEleney, David Richardson, Jim Ricketts, Martin Smith, Angus Taylor, Meryl Wade, Sara Williams, Ian Wilson and Heather Wills.

COUNCILLOR D. JONES IN THE CHAIR.


2

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H. Abbas, A. Asad, M. Keith and M. Uz Zaman. Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor B. Chattopadhyay.

Noted

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor S. Islam declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 6.4 “Tarling East Estate SRB Progress Report” (CAB 101/023).

Noted

3. SECTION ONE MINUTES

The Chair Moved and it was: -

Resolved

That the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Cabinet held on 4th September 2002 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

At this juncture the Chair Moved and it was Resolved that the order of business be varied so that agenda item 4.2 Deputations be taken as the first item of business and that agenda items 4.1, 6.2, 6.4, 9.7 and 10.1, to which the deputations related, be considered as the next items of business after agenda item 4.2.

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 4.2 Deputations

A statement was Tabled by Mrs Davis (Sidney Estates Tenants and Residents Association) in respect of agenda item 4.1 “Petitions report” and in particular the petition O’Leary Square (31/02) presented and detailed therein.


3

Mr C. Gay presented a petition to the Chair in respect of the proposed closure of Appian Court Day Centre which was passed to the clerk for processing in accordance with the petitions procedure. A statement was Tabled by Mr G. Jones (Age Concern Tower Hamlets) in respect of agenda item 6.2 “Social Services- further savings proposals”. Staffside comments were Tabled in respect of agenda items 6.2 “Social Services- further savings proposals” and 9.7 “Pension Fund – Revised Statement of Investment Principles”. A statement was Tabled by Mr G. Jones (SOS Alliance) in respect of agenda item 10.1 “Tower Hamlets Coalition for Disabled People – Fair Access to Care Services – Review of Eligibility Criteria”. The Chair Moved and it was: - 1. That the following deputations be formally received and noted: -

• Mrs R. Davis (Sidney Estates Tenants and Residents Association) in respect of Agenda item 4.1 “Petitions report” and in particular the petition O’Leary Square (31/02) presented and detailed therin.

• Mr C. Bex and Ms C. Merrion (Ayshford House Regeneration) in

respect of in respect of Agenda item 4.1 “Petitions report” and in particular the petition Ayshford House (17/03) presented and detailed therin.

• Mr R. Trimble (Bromley by Bow Community Regeneration and

Healthy Living Centre) in respect of Agenda Item 6.2 “Social Services- further savings proposals”

• Mr C. Gay (Carers and Residents of Appian Court) in respect of

Agenda Item 6.2 “Social Services- further savings proposals” • Mr G. Jones (Age Concern Tower Hamlets) in respect of Agenda

Item 6.2 “Social Services- further savings proposals”

• Ms J. Geldart (Staffside – UNISON) in respect of Agenda Item 6.2 “Social Services- further savings proposals”

• Mr A. Prokopp (Resident of Sheridan House) in respect of Agenda

Item 6.4 “Tarling East Estate SRB Progress Report”

• Mr J. Gray (Staffside – UNISON) in respect of Agenda Item 9.7 “Pension Fund – Revised Statement of Investment Principles”


4

• Mr G. Jones (“SOS Alliance”) in respect of Agenda Item 10.1

“Tower Hamlets Coalition for Disabled People – Fair Access to Care Services – Review of Eligibility Criteria”.

4.1 Petitions Report (CAB 096/023)

The Chair informed members of the Cabinet that: - • A letter from Mr Dickins, lead petitioner in relation to the petition

McBride House (14/03) presented and detailed in the report (CAB 096/023) had been Tabled.

• A letter and incident log from Mr Lyons, lead petitioner in relation to the

petition Nelson Gardens / Oaklands School (03/03) presented and detailed in the report (CAB 096/023) had been circulated to members of the Cabinet.

The Chair Moved and it was: - Resolved

1. That the petitions presented and detailed in appendix A to the report (CAB

096/023) be formally received and noted; and 2. That the Corporate Directors Housing and Education ensure that

appropriate officers meet with local residents and the Head Teacher of Oaklands School to find a satisfactory resolution of the issues raised by the petition Nelson Gardens/Oaklands School (03/03) and that progress be reported back to the Cabinet.

6.2 Social Services – Further Savings Proposals (CAB 099/023)

The Chair informed members of the Cabinet that Staffside comments in relation to this agenda item had been Tabled. The Corporate Director Social Services, Mr Wilson, briefly outlined the context in which the report was being presented to the Cabinet and what proposals it was being asked to agree. Councillor Shukur asked how the overspend on social services in Tower Hamlets compared with that of other local authorities in London and how the Authority would be placed were it to receive the most optimistic settlement from Government.


5

The Corporate Director Social Services, Mr Wilson, responded that the overspend in social services was a national phenomenon with some local authorities, such as Lambeth and Ealing overspending by far more than Tower Hamlets and others overspending by a similar amount of £2 to 3 million. The London Association of Directors had produced a list of local authority overspends in social services, for 2001-2002, which could be provided to members. Mr Wilson informed members of the Cabinet that there had been unprecedented demand for Adults and Children’s Social Services and Tower Hamlets was not alone in projecting an overspend in 2002-2003. He continued by saying that it was understood that Government would be changing the way in which it distributed the funding available for social services to the various local authorities. Of the 4 or 5 models currently being considered, by Government, only one would give Tower Hamlets an increase in its Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) settlement which was commensurate with inflation, the other models would leave it a net loser. The Authority would be informed of its SSA settlement from Government at the beginning of December 2002, however he considered that it would be a miracle if Tower Hamlets received any enormous increase in funding. In response to a request from the Chair, the Corporate Director Social Services, Mr Wilson, addressed some of the main points raised by the deputations in respect of this agenda item commenting that: - • The points raised by the deputations would be dealt with during a period of

consultation with stakeholders. • Should the Bromley by Bow Centre be able to show that it could raise

additional funding that would prevent the Authority’s need to terminate its Service Level Agreement then that option would of course be considered.

• Mr Gay’s deputation (Carers and residents of Appian Court) had

highlighted some telling points, but his mother would be exactly the sort of vulnerable person that the Authority would be trying to protect and continue provision for at another day centre. However he recognised that this might be disruptive for her, as she would have become familiar and comfortable with the staff and environment at the Appian Court Day Centre.

• Mr Jones (Age Concern Tower Hamlets) was entitled to his view.

However, he did not view the proposed savings as panic measures but as necessary steps, given the short timescale available to act, for the Authority to secure a viable budget within which it could protect the most vulnerable people in the Borough.


6

• During the consultation period if stakeholders saw ways for the Authority to save money or put its resources to better use they should bring their proposals forward and these would be examined carefully.

• The indications from Government were that Ms Geldart’s suggestion, that

lobbying Government to increase the resources available for social services, would prove futile. This was borne out by the Government’s response to the Association of London Government and Local Government Association campaigns in recent years.

• The Best Value Review of Homecare Provision, to which Ms Geldart had

referred, actually stated that the Authority’s high cost service should be personal care and that agencies should be used to provide domestic care. The Review had stated that agencies provided a poorer quality of home care service, however this had now been addressed by a re-tendering exercise to reduce the number of agencies on the Authority’s approved list to several that provided a good quality service.

Councillor Ludlow, speaking with the consent of the Cabinet, commented that she was aware of the pressures on social services across the country and also that each local authority had local factors to manage e.g. there had been a 20% increase in children looked after in Tower Hamlets compared with the national average of 13%. However Councillor Ludlow expressed surprise that the Corporate Director Social Services had said that the Government had been told of the problem two years previously, given that the overspend in Tower Hamlets had only been identified in February 2002. Councillor Ludlow also expressed concern that there had been an 8 day delay between a management group briefing regarding the closure of Appian Court and the letter informing stakeholders of the proposed closure. Also that the letter had been delivered the morning before a meeting of local stakeholders. Councillor Ludlow continued by informing members of the Cabinet that a local housing association, which ran Gawthorne Court, was concerned at the prospect of the closure of Appian Court, because many of its clients used the day centre. It had expressed a desire to have discussions with the Social Services Directorate in the context of “Housing Choice” and possible economies of scale. The Corporate Director Social Services, Mr Wilson, responded that all constructive suggestions were welcome.


7

Councillor Shukur commented that the Cabinet did not want to make cuts and in normal circumstances would not do so. In addition to officers, a group of 4 Members had examined this matter with a fine toothcomb and together they were recommending the least uncomfortable savings. If there was further delay the required savings would be greater as would be the associated hardship. That said, Councillor Shukur welcomed any suggestions to minimise the discomfort of cuts in social services and assured the public that he would ensure that these were examined carefully. Councillor Edgar commented that: - • The suggestion that the Authority could make savings elsewhere and

preserve frontline services was misguided. He had been a member of the Authority for 8 years and in that time it had consistently made greater savings in support services in an effort to preserve frontline services but clearly this could not continue indefinitely. In any case Social Services had overspent in both 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 but were not being asked to make good the entirety of the overspend, as the Authority would draw on its reserves and this impacted on the Authority as a whole.

• The proposed savings were not being made in a panic, but had been the

subject of much discussion and thought and a consultation process was being agreed to examine all suggestions.

• The Authority did consult meaningfully as had been shown by the recent

withdrawl of proposed savings in respect of warden cover in sheltered accommodation.

• The Authority still aimed to protect the most vulnerable people, such as

those of Appian Court, during the savings process.


Resolved 1. That service users, carers, staff and other stakeholders be consulted

regarding the savings proposals listed in Appendix 1 to the report (CAB 099/023), except for those where no further consultation is required (C1, C2, C7, S1, S2, S3, and H1) and that these be implemented immediately; and

2. That the outcome of the consultation on the remaining savings proposals,

listed in Appendix 1 to the report (CAB 099/023), be reported to the Cabinet.


8

6.4 Tarling East Estate SRB Progress Report (CAB 101/023) The Chair informed members of the Cabinet that revised recommendations had been Tabled and Councillor Keith had also circulated a memorandum to members of the Cabinet, outlining several of his concerns regarding the report (CAB 101/023). Councillor Shukur commented that the maps attached to the report (CAB 101/023) were poor and asked what percentage of the Tarling East Estate site would be for the benefit of the local community. The Corporate Director Housing, Ms Benjamins, responded that: - • The “Rights of Way” map, attached at Appendix C to the report (CAB

101/023), was poor however she could give an assurance that the rights of way were the areas shaded, those proposed for appropriation corresponded to the cross hatched area in Appendix B to the report (CAB 101/023);

• The inclusion of a community centre followed discussions with residents,

the proposed location was clearly indicated on the map attached at Appendix D to the report (CAB 101/023) and this had been the site requested for it during consultation with tenants and residents. The community centre site as a proportion of the scheme as a whole could be judged form the map, however the value of it would not be known until the full detail of the scheme was drawn up.

Councillor Edgar commented that: - • He was familiar with the Tarling East Estate and considered that people

should not reside in the two blocks, referred to in the report (CAB 101/023), if there was any alternative.

• The funding required to refurbish the blocks was not available.

• There was a great need for social housing in the Borough and the Tarling

East Estate scheme was part of a response to that need, by the Authority.

• There had been extensive consultation with stakeholders over a considerable period of time.

• He was pleased to see the Toynbee Housing Association participating in

the Tarling East Estate scheme.

• The establishment of a community centre through the scheme was an achievement but should be prioritised early in the programme.


9

• Tenants who wished to remain living on the estate in the longer term should be prioritised so that they could do so.

He concluded by remarking that it would be tremendous if the Tarling East Estate scheme were to be agreed as the improvements it would bring to the area were badly needed.

Councillor Rahman expressed concern that under the proposed Tarling East Estate scheme there would only be 65 units of social housing, which was less than the current number of units, and asked how this could be justified. The Corporate Director Housing, Ms Benjamins, responded that there would be fewer units of social housing but they would be better units. In addition the range of housing on the estate would make it a nicer place to live. Ms Benjamins considered that it was important to get the Tarling East Estate scheme started and not to delay in the hope of securing more social housing. The Acting Head of Housing Strategy and Development, Ms McEleney, added that the new homes proposed included a high proportion of large units which were more appropriate to the needs of the local community. In response to a request from the Chair, to address the points made by the deputation, Ms Benjamins informed members of the Cabinet that the deputation had a very different perspective regarding the degree of consultation already carried out in respect of the Tarling East Estate. However, she could give an assurance that all stakeholders would soon feel more than adequately consulted. Councillor Williams, speaking with the consent of the Cabinet, asked why all reference to SRB5 funding had been deleted from the revised recommendations that had been tabled. The Corporate Director Housing, Ms Benjamins, responded that although it had been intended that significant resources for the Tarling East Estate scheme would be secured from SRB 5 funding, she was no longer certain that sufficient comfort could be given to people in the area that the tight timescale of SRB 5 could be met, although discussions were continuing. However Toynbee Housing Association had given an assurance on 2nd October 2002 that it would forward fund the cost of demolition pending a decision on the SRB 5 funding and would work in partnership with the Authority to successfully complete the Tarling East Estate scheme. Councillor Griffiths, speaking with the consent of the Cabinet, commented that the SRB 5 Area Committee had agreed on 1st October 2002 that SRB 5 funding be used for refurbishment and not demolition of the blocks and asked if this would effect the timescale for the completion of the Tarling East Estate scheme.


10

The Corporate Director Housing, Ms Benjamins, responded that such a scheme would be radically different, would fly in the face of other local opinion and the opportunity to adapt housing to meet the needs of people in the area would be lost. The Tarling East Estate scheme proposed by the Authority would result in a significant increase in housing and in particular larger units, for which there was a great need, as well as the establishment of a community centre. Ms Benjamin’s added that refurbishment could not achieve the required benefits because of the layout of the blocks and the cost involved. The Chair commented that she had been a local resident for 30 years and as such welcomed the prospect of improvement for the area that the Tarling East Estate scheme brought.

The Chair Moved the revised recommendations, as Tabled, and it was: -

Resolved 1. That the results of consultation carried out on Tarling East Estate by the

Public Policy Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London (PPRU), as detailed in Appendix A to the report (CAB 101/023), be noted;

2. That Tarling & Sheridan House be demolished and that the redevelopment

of the site by partner organisation/s be agreed; 3. That the site of Tarling & Sheridan House plus associated land be declared

surplus to requirements, and the disposal of the site to Toynbee Housing Association for a nominal sum, as detailed in Appendix B to the report (CAB 101/023), be agreed;

4. That the appropriation of relevant estate roads and footpaths for

development purposes in accordance with Section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972, as detailed in Appendix C to the report (CAB 101/023), be agreed;

5. That Toynbee Housing Association be appointed as agents of the Council

for the demolition of Tarling & Sheridan House and authorised to obtain comparative competitive estimates for the demolition;

6. That a Capital Estimate of £2 million, to facilitate the demolition of

Tarling & Sheridan House, be adopted noting the comments in paragraph 6.2 of the report (CAB 101/023) and subject to compliance with Financial Regulations, the remainder to be Local Authority Grant to Toynbee Housing Association to facilitate the redevelopment of the site;


11

7. That Notice of Seeking Possession be served on the remaining 8 tenants of Sheridan House; and

8. That the Authority make a Compulsory Purchase Order, in pursuance of its

powers under S17 Housing Act 1985, to purchase relevant leasehold interests, details of which are included in the exempt section of this agenda.

9.7 Pension Fund – Revised Statement of Investment Principles (CAB 120/023)

The Chair informed members of the Cabinet that Staffside comments in relation to this agenda item had been Tabled. The Chair Moved and it was: - Resolved

That the revised Statement of Investment Principles as set out in Appendix 1 to the report (CAB 120/023) be adopted.

10. ANY UNRESTRICTED DECISIONS “CALLED IN” BY THE OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

10.1 Social Services Fair Access to Care Services Review of Eligibility Criteria (CAB 128/023)

Councillor Rew, speaking with the consent of the Cabinet, asked whether the guarantee made by the Corporate Director Social Services at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, held on 24th September 2002, “That nobody would be forced into residential care as a result of the review of the Eligibility Criteria” would be included within the resolution being agreed by the Cabinet. The Corporate Director Social Services, Mr Wilson, responded that at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, held on 24th September 2002, he had been asked whether, as a result of the proposed changes to the Eligibility Criteria, anyone would be forced in institutional care and he had replied that he could guarantee that they would not. However he had not been asked the question in relation to the proposed changes in the Usual Cost Review Policy and could not give the same guarantee in this regard. That said, Mr Wilson did not envisage anyone being forced into institutional care as a result of the review of the Usual Cost Review Policy.


12


Resolved 1. That the contents of the report (CAB 128/023) be noted;

2. That the comments and proposals of the Tower Hamlets Coalition for

Disabled People, referred by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be noted; and

3. That the endorsement, by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, of the

provisional decisions taken by the Cabinet on 4th September 2002 be noted.

SECTION ONE REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION 5. A BETTER PLACE FOR LIVING SAFELY 5.1 Review of Parking Services’ Fees and Charges (CAB 097/023)


Resolved

1. That the levels of fees and charges for the services and functions as set out in

Appendix 1 to the report (CAB 097/023) be approved with effect from 1st December 2002; and

2. That the making of the necessary Traffic Management Orders to provide

(a) exclusive Disabled Parking Bays outside residential locations which would be operational and enforceable at all times and (b) Disabled Parking Bays, available for any Disabled Badge Holder, outside public buildings which would be operational and enforceable at all times, as detailed in paragraph 6.3.7 of the report (CAB 097/023), be approved, subject to no objections being received as a result of consultation and the statutory Notice of Proposal.


13

6. A BETTER PLACE FOR LIVING WELL

6.1 Integration of services for adults with learning disabilities (CAB 098/023) The Chair Moved and it was: -

Resolved That the commissioning of health and social care services for adults with learning disabilities be undertaken on a joint commissioning basis with Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust, through a jointly funded and jointly appointed post of Service Manager (Learning Disabilities Commissioning), to be established within the Social Services Directorate.

6.3 Supporting People Strategy (CAB 100/023)

The Acting Assistant Director Housing (Strategy and Development), Ms McEleney, gave a brief introduction to the report (CAB 100/023) in which she informed members of the Cabinet that there had been some minor changes (mainly of a textual nature) to the strategy, since its inclusion in the agenda papers. Also as a result of consideration of the strategy, by the commissioning body, some further work was required to the order of priorities detailed.


Resolved 1. That the draft Supporting People Shadow Strategy for 2003/4 be agreed;

and 2. That it be noted that: -

• A draft charging policy will be developed in line with Government guidelines, as set out in section 6 of the report (CAB 100/023).

• There is likely to be little impact on current service users from the

charging proposals. • The draft charging policy is currently being consulted upon and will

be the subject of a report for consideration by the Cabinet in November 2002.


14

6.5 Doorstep Green Bigland Estate (CAB 102/023)


Resolved 1. That a Deed of Covenant be placed on the land, shown at Appendix A to

the report (CAB 102/023), to enable its development as a Doorstep Green and prevent development on the land for a period of 30 years; and

2. That Trees for London act as agents for the Authority in the creation of a

Doorstep Green at Bigland Estate. 6.6 Housing Revenue Account 2001/2002 Provisional Out-turn Report (CAB

103/023)


Resolved That the provisional out-turn, as shown in Appendix A to the report (CAB 103/023), be noted.

6.7 Corporate Revenue Budget Monitoring 2002/2003 1st Report – Housing Revenue Account (CAB 104/023) The Chair Moved and it was: - Resolved That the projected out-turn, as shown in Appendix A to the report (CAB 104/023), be noted.

7. A BETTER PLACE FOR CREATING AND SHARING PROSPERITY 7.1 Recruitment Monitoring Statistics (CAB 105/023)


Resolved That the monitoring information contained in the report (CAB 105/023) be noted.


15

8. A BETTER PLACE FOR LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT AND LEISURE 8.1 Education PFI Projects Update (CAB 106/023)


Resolved 1. That the contents of the report (CAB 106/023) be noted; and 1. That the monitoring and reporting arrangements, as set out in the report

(CAB 106/023), be agreed. 8.2 Education Capital Programme (CAB 107/023)


Resolved 1. That the contents of the report (CAB 107/023) be noted;

2. That a revised capital estimate of £140,000 be adopted and expenditure be authorised to carry out condition surveys of education buildings, as detailed in paragraph 3.1 of the report (CAB 107/023);

3. That a revised capital estimate of £3,870,000 be adopted and expenditure be authorised for George Green’s School, with the additional funding identified, as set out in paragraph 4.10 of the report (CAB 107/023); and

4. That a revised capital estimate of £115,000 be adopted and expenditure be authorised in respect of works at Rachel Keeling Nursery School.

8.3 School Organisation Plan 2002-2007 (CAB 108/023)


Resolved 1. That the contents of the report (CAB 108/023) be noted; and

2. That the draft School Organisation Plan, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report (CAB 108/023), be agreed and submitted to the School Organisation Committee for consideration.


16

8.4 New legislation affecting Post 16 further education travel support for the 2003/2004 academic year (CAB 109/023)


Resolved 1. That the need to develop the policy on post 16 further education transport

support, to meet the needs of new legislation coming into force for the 2003/04 academic year, be noted;

2. That appropriate consultation be undertaken by the Authority as part of the

policy development; 3. That it be noted that there may be a need for the Authority to make

adequate finances available to undertake its statutory duties under the new legislation, both in terms of support to students and human and IT resources; and

4. That a report regarding post 16 transport policy options be submitted for

Cabinet consideration in January 2003.

8.5 School Admission Arrangements 2003/2004 (CAB 110/023) The Chair Moved and it was: - Resolved 1. That the contents of the report (CAB 110/023) be noted; and 2. That the recommendation set out in paragraph 4.5 of the report (CAB

110/023) be agreed.

8.6 DDA Improvement Works to St George’s Pool – Phase 2 (CAB 111/023) The Chair Moved and it was: -

Resolved 1. That DDA Improvement Works to St George’s Pool – Phase 2 be included

within the Capital Programme and a Capital Estimate of £454,000 (inclusive of fees) be adopted;

2. That the method of funding outlined in Section 6 of the report (CAB

111/023) be approved;


17

3. That an exception to Financial Regulation C4.1(a), relating to competitive tendering, be authorised under the provisions of Financial Regulation C1.1; and

4. That the DDA Improvement Works to St George’s Pool – Phase 2 be

included within the Phase 1 Project Specific Partnering Contract awarded to Borras Construction Limited.

8.7 Idea Stores Update (CAB 112/023)

The Corporate Director Customer Services, Mr Bohl, in his brief introduction to the report informed the Cabinet that revised recommendations had been Tabled. Mr Bohl also advised that it would no longer be possible to submit a report, regarding the disposal of Limehouse Library, for consideration by the Cabinet at its next meeting. Councillor Shukur asked what level of risk was posed to the Authority from the funding gap, in relation to the Whitechapel Idea Store, referred to in paragraph 10.2 of the report (CAB 112/023). The Corporate Director Customer Services, Mr Bohl, responded that there were a number of risks to the Authority, which were summarised in the body of the report and regularly reviewed and updated. The key risks were the inflation of construction costs and that funding to for the Whitechapel Idea Store scheme would not be secured. Mr Bohl informed members of the Cabinet that the Authority’s track record in securing funding, exemplified by the Bow Ideas Store, had been good. Mr Bohl advised that the Authority would be returning to existing funders to establish if funding could be increased, however if this proved impossible the Whitechapel Idea Store scheme would have to be scaled back as would the overall number of Ideas Stores being proposed. Councillor Shukur asked whether the Whitechapel Idea Store would still be viable if the funding gap was not bridged. The Corporate Director Customer Services, Mr Bohl, responded that discussions with funders, regarding the reduced size of the Whitechapel Idea Store building and the outputs they required to achieve funding, would be necessary to establish that. However he felt that the scheme was viable within the funding identified. Councillor Ludlow, speaking with the consent of the Cabinet, asked why there was a delay in the disposal of Limehouse Library to Millenium Advanced Technology Training (MATT).


18

The Corporate Director Customer Services, Mr Bohl, responded that: - • MATT were a well regarded training organisation operating in the

Borough which reused existing buildings for community use. • The Authority was continuing to pursue the proposed sale of Limehouse

Library to MATT and was in dialogue with it regarding the raising of the necessary funding for the purchase.

The Chair, referring to paragraphs 5.8 and 5.12 of the report (CAB 112/023) asked: - • Whether the funding was in place for the start up increase in library stock • Whether the options appraisal, in relation to the bringing forward of the

disposal programme for redundant buildings, meant that sale prices for such properties would be raised and as a result some bidders would be forced out of the market.

The Corporate Director Customer Services, Mr Bohl, responded that: - • A start up increase in library stock was one of a number of projects

competing for support from the Authority and it would have to be assessed in the context of the Council’s priorities and competing community demands.

• That a meeting would take place with Cityside Regeneration shortly

regarding the disposal of the Wessex Centre for community use. No discussion had yet taken place on the price of the property and there had been no recent valuation. Should Cityside Regeneration wish to take on the St Matthias Centre the option to sell the site for residential development might occur, however there was no prospective purchaser at the present time.

• The disposal of limehouse library would be the subject of a future report to

the Cabinet. Councillor Shukur asked how long MATT would be given, by the Authority, to raise the necessary funding to purchase Limehouse Library. The Corporate Director Customer Services, Mr Bohl, responded that MATT had been unable to complete the purchase of the library by 31st march 2002. However, it seemed reasonable to extend the completion date to allow MATT a period of time to raise the necessary funding to achieve this. MATT’s position would be reviewed but currently the Authority was working with MATT to achieve its objective of securing the funding.


19

Councillor Shukur commented that in the property market if an organisation could not pay the necessary price for a site it would be given notice that other options might be considered by the vendor. He considered that this sale should be treated in the same way, even if in the end the building was not used for the benefit of the community. The Corporate Director Customer Services, Mr Bohl, responded that a decision would be made before the contract was awarded and capital estimate adopted for the Chrisp Street and Whitechapel Ideas Stores and therefore February 2003 was the absolute deadline for MATT to complete the purchase of Limehouse Library. The Chair commented that the original recommendations contained in the report (CAB 112/023) had failed to indicate the possibility of a sizeable overspend on the Whitechapel Idea Store and in future reports such a possibility should be clearly detailed in the recommendations. The Chair then Moved the revised recommendations, as Tabled, together with nominations for the Authority’s representation on the Idea Store Partnership Management Group and it was: -

Resolved

1. That experience to date and lessons learned at the Bow Idea Store be

noted; 2. That the revised programme, budgets and funding profiles for Whitechapel

and Chrisp Street Idea Stores be noted; 3. That a report with recommendations regarding the disposal of Limehouse

Library be submitted to a future meeting of the Cabinet; 4. That a contract for groundworks at the Whitechapel site be let prior to the

identification and receipt of all funding for the Whitechapel Idea Store;

5. That a Member-level Idea Store Partnership Management Group be established and that Councillors Asad, Rahman and Ludlow be nominated to represent the Authority on this body;

6. That authority to finalise the terms of reference of the Idea Store Member-

Officer Working Party be delegated to the Corporate Director Customer Services;

7. That the proposed fund-raising strategy for Whitechapel Idea Store as set

out in section 5.13 of the report (CAB 112/023) be agreed; and


20

8. That the projected increase in construction costs, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report (CAB 112/023) be noted and that a further report detailing the revised capital estimate, be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration once costings have been finalised. That it also be noted that the Authority will not enter into the main construction contract until the necessary resources have been confirmed.

8.8 DDA Refurbishment to Lakeside Pavillion and Reprovision of Changing

Facilities within Victoria Park (CAB 113/023)


Resolved

1. That DDA Refurbishment to Lakeside Pavillion and Reprovision of Changing Facilities within Victoria Park be included within the Capital Programme and a Revised Capital Estimate of £520,000 (inclusive of fees) be adopted;

2. That the method of funding outlined in Section 6 of the report (CAB

113/023) be approved; and 3. That an exception to Financial Regulation C.4.1(a), relating to the

approved lists ‘strict rotation’ principle, be authorised under the provisions of Financial Regulation C1.1.

9. A BETTER PLACE FOR EXCELLENT PUBLIC SERVICES 9.1 Estate Parking (CAB 114/023)


Resolved 1. That the recommendations of the Ombudsman be accepted; and 2. That appropriate consultation be undertaken by the Authority on the

possible introduction of controlled parking Borough-wide.


21

9.2 Report of Housing Scrutiny Panel: Community Safety Sub-Group (CAB 115/023)


Resolved That the contents of the report (CAB 115/023) be noted.

9.3 Report of Housing Scrutiny Panel: Housing Plus Sub-Group (CAB 116/023)

The Corporate Director Housing, Ms Benjamins, undertook to provide Councillor Alexander with written feedback in relation to the referral of recommendations contained in the report (CAB 116/023) to the Tower Hamlets Housing Forum in July 2002.


Resolved That the contents of the report (CAB 116/023) be noted.

9.4 Implementing Electronic Government (IEG) Statement (CAB 117/023)

The Chair informed members of the Cabinet that the report required urgent consideration because “ The timely submission of the draft IEG statement would trigger the release of funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister”. The Chair Moved and it was: -

Resolved

1. That the work completed by the eGovernment programme and IT

department over the past year be noted; 2. That the priorities identified in Appendices A and B to the report (CAB

117/023) for the eGovernment programme and IT department during the current year be noted;

3. That the Implementing Electronic Government statement, as detailed at

Appendix C to the report (CAB 117/023), be endorsed and the Corporate Director Customer Services be authorised to make any final textual changes to the IEG Statement before its submission to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister;


22

4. That the funding arrangements for the IEG work programme, as set out in paragraph 7.6 of the report (CAB 117/023), be endorsed and a capital estimate in the sum of £2.2m be adopted for the capital improvement works;

5. That a further report identifying Invest to Save priorities to fund the

eGovernment and IT work programme in 2003/2004 be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration as part of the 2003/2004 budget-setting process;

6. That the submission of the two National Pathfinder proposals to the Office

of the Deputy Prime Minister, as referred to in paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10 of the report (CAB 117/023) be endorsed; and

7. That it be noted that the requirement to use the Unsupported Credit

Approval, granted to the Council in support of the Local Public Service Agreement, will be reduced in the event of the Authority being chosen to lead a National Pathfinder project.

9.5 Refurbishment of Bromley Public Hall Phase 2 (CAB 118/023)

In response to a question posed by Councillor Ludlow, with the consent of the Cabinet, the Corporate Director Customer Services, Mr Bohl, undertook to examine the merits of installing a web camera at Bromley Public Hall Registry Office, at as part of the Authority’s e Government Strategy. The Chair Moved and it was: - Resolved 1. That Refurbishment of Bromley Public Hall Phase 2 be included within

the Capital Programme and a Capital Estimate of £175,000 (inclusive of fees) be adopted;

2. That the method of funding as outlined in Section 6 of the report (CAB

118/023) be approved; and 3. That the awarding of the works via competitive tender from the Council’s

Approved List of Contractors be approved.


23

9.6 Treasury Management Policy Statement (CAB 119/023) The Chair Moved and it was: -

Resolved 1. That the revisions to Financial Regulations, as set out in paragraph 5 of the

report (CAB 119/023), be adopted; 2. That the Treasury Management Policy Statement, as set out in paragraph 6 of

the report (CAB 119/023), be adopted; and 3. That the Treasury Management Practices, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report

(CAB 119/023), be adopted;

9.8 Council’s Strategic Plan 2001/2002 – Annual Report (CAB 121/023)


Resolved That the contents of the report (CAB 121/023) be noted and agreed.

10. ANY UNRESTRICTED DECISIONS “CALLED IN” BY THE

OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Considered earlier on the agenda. 11. ANY OTHER UNRESTRICTED BUSINESS CONSIDERED TO BE

URGENT

Nil items. 12. EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

Resolved

That in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting for the consideration of the Section Two business on the grounds that it contained information defined as exempt or confidential in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government, Act 1972


24

SUMMARY OF EXEMPT PROCEEDINGS 13. SECTION TWO MINUTES

Cabinet 4th September 2002 approved.

SECTION TWO REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION 14. A BETTER PLACE FOR LIVING SAFELY 14.1 Award of Borough-wide Cleansing Contract (CAB 122/023)

Revised Recommendations agreed.

14.2 Award of Waste Transfer & Waste Disposal Contracts (CAB 123/023)

Revised Recommendations agreed.

15. A BETTER PLACE FOR LIVING WELL 15.1 Camden Society Extension of the period of contracts (CAB 124/023)

Recommendations agreed.

15.2 Tarling East Estate SRB Progress Report (CAB 125/023)

Recommendations agreed.

16. A BETTER PLACE FOR CREATING AND SHARING PROSPERITY

Nil items.

17. A BETTER PLACE FOR LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT AND LEISURE

17.1 Award of Contract for Provision of Fresh and Frozen Food (CAB 127/023) Recommendations agreed.


25

18. A BETTER PLACE FOR EXCELLENT PUBLIC SERVICES

Nil items. 19. ANY SECTION TWO DECISIONS “CALLED IN” BY THE OVERVIEW

& SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Nil items. 20. ANY OTHER SECTION TWO BUSINESS CONSIDERED TO BE

URGENT Nil items. The meeting ended at 9.50 p.m.

_____________________________ COUNCILLOR HELAL ABBAS CHAIR OF THE CABINET