Venue: Committee Room 1, Town Hall, High Road, Ilford, Essex IG1 1DD
\n\t\tContact: Sazeda Ibrahim, Committee Support Officer\u00a0 \n\t\tTelephone: 020 8708 2315 or Email: \u00a0sazeda.ibrahim@redbridge.gov.uk\n\t\t
\n\t\t\nItems\n\t\t\nNo.\n\t\t\tItem\n\t\t\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tApologies for absence (CAB/01/021208)
\nTo receive any apologies for absence
\nMinutes:
\nNone.
\nDeclaration of Interest (CAB/02/021208)
\nPDF 83 KB
\nAdditional documents:
\n- \n
- \n\t\t\t\t\t\tGeariesPlans, item14. \n\t\t\t\t\t\t PDF 131 KB \n\n
Minutes:
\nThe report presented proposals for the\nestablishment of a Children\u2019s Centre at Gearies Infants\nSchool. A report was presented to Cabinet on 20th\nFebruary 2007 giving details of the Government\u2019s 10 year\nChildcare Strategy and proposals for establishing a number of\nChildren\u2019s Centres in Redbridge. Children\u2019s Centres\nwould play a central role in delivering improved outcomes for all\nyoung children and in reducing inequalities between the most\ndisadvantaged children and the rest.\u00a0 They were at the heart of the\nGovernment\u2019s \u201cEvery Child Matters: Change for Children\nProgramme\u201d.
\n\u00a0
\nThe Department split the Children\u2019s\nCentre programme into three phases for Children, Schools and\nFamilies\u2019 (DCSF) Sure Start Unit. In Phase 1 (2004-2006) four\nChildren\u2019s Centres were established in Redbridge. In Phase 2\n(2006-2008) Redbridge was developing an additional 10\nChildren\u2019s Centres.\u00a0 Phase 2 had been slipped\nnationally for one year to extend the completion of Phase 2\nChildren\u2019s Centres.\u00a0\u00a0 A further 8 were to be\nestablished in Phase 3 (2008-2010).
\n\u00a0
\nThe report also presented the outline scheme\nand estimate for the proposed children\u2019s centre. It sought\napproval to apply the budget for this scheme as required by\nStanding Order 125.
\n\u00a0
\nResolved: That\nwe\u00a0 (i) agree to the\nestablishment of a Children\u2019s Centre at Gearies Infants\nSchool;
\n\u00a0
\n\n(ii) agree the outline scheme for the proposed Children\u2019s\nCentre at Gearies Infants School as further described in Appendix A\nand shown in Appendix B to the report;
\n\n\u00a0
\n\n(iii) agree the outline estimate in the sum of \u00a3677,628 for\nthe proposed Children\u2019s Centre at Gearies Infants School as\nfurther described in Appendix A and shown in Appendix B to the\nreport; and
\n\n\u00a0
\n\n(iv) authorise the Chief Property Manager to proceed with the\ndetailed design and to procure the necessary works in accordance\nwith Standing Orders.
\n\u00a0
\nAdditional documents:
\n- \n
- \n\t\t\t\t\t\tLoxfordAppdx, item15. \n\t\t\t\t\t\t PDF 15 KB \n\n
Minutes:
\n\nThe report\ndetailed how at its meeting on 2nd October 2007, Cabinet\nagreed that the Stage One contract for construction of the Loxford\nBuilding Schools for the Future One School Pathfinder (BSF OSP)\nproject should be awarded to Willmott Dixon Limited.
\n\nAt its meeting\non 15th April 2008, Cabinet agreed that the Stage Two\ncontract for construction of the Loxford Building Schools for the\nFuture One School Pathfinder (BSF OSP) project would also be\nawarded to Willmott Dixon Limited.
\n\nThese awards\nexcluded the provision of Information and Communications Technology\n(ICT), associated services and the provision of fixed furniture and\nequipment (FF&E) which was the subject of a separate\nprocurement.
\n\nThis report\nprovided Members with an update on the current position in relation\nto the main building contract and the associated budgetary\nposition. It also advised Members of the risks that the project was\nrunning and the contingency arrangements that were in\nplace.\u00a0
\n\n
- \n\n\t\t
- Attendance details \n\t\t\t
- Agenda Frontsheet\n\t\t\t
![\"pdf](\"mgimages/logo-pdf-1.gif\")
PDF 45 KB \n\t\t\t \n\n\t\t\t\t - Agenda reports pack\n PDF 6 MB \n\n\t\t\t\t
- Printed minutes\n PDF 61 KB \n\n
Venue: Committee Room 1, Town Hall, High Road, Ilford, Essex IG1 1DD
\n\t\tContact: Sazeda Ibrahim, Committee Support Officer \n\t\tTelephone: 020 8708 2315 or Email: sazeda.ibrahim@redbridge.gov.uk\n\t\t
\n\t\t| No. | \n\t\t\tItem | \n\t\t
|---|---|
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Apologies for absence (CAB/01/021208) \n\n \nTo receive any apologies for absence \nMinutes: \n \nNone. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Declaration of Interest (CAB/02/021208) \n\n \nMembers\nare reminded of the requirement to consider whether they have an\ninterest in any matter on the agenda that needs to be disclosed\nand, if so, to declare an interest when the Committee reaches that\nitem on the agenda. \nMinutes: \n \nMembers were reminded of the requirement to\nconsider whether they had an interest in any matter on the agenda\nthat needed to be disclosed and, if so, to declare an interest when\nthe Committee reached that item on the agenda. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Public Participation: Statements, Questions, Deputations and Petitions (CAB/03/021208) \n\n \nTo hear\nstatements and questions from members of the public. \nMinutes: \n \nThe following speakers addressed the\nCabinet:- \n\n (1) David Sevant – Council Tax and\nCouncil Benefit figures \n(2) Nicholas Hurst – Relocation of\nFrenford Club and The Academy \n(3) Lorraine Silver – Relocation of\nFrenford Club and the Academy \n(4) Gareth Phillips – Five Oaks Lane\n– Compulsory Purchase Order \n(5) Mr Walker – Five Oaks Lane –\nCompulsory Purchase Order \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Variation in Order of Business \n\n \nResolved: that in accordance with\nStanding Order 47.6, item 17 “Five Oaks Lane –\nCompulsory Purchase Order” be taken at this stage. \n\n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Five Oaks Lane - Compulsory Purchase Order (CAB/04/021208) Additional documents: \n
Minutes: \n \nThis report sought authority to initiate\nCompulsory Purchase Order proceedings for the purposes of\nassembling land for residential development at Five Oaks Lane,\nChigwell. \n\n The land was part of the Metropolitan Green\nBelt and comprised a mix of commercial, industrial and residential\nuses which had given rise to land use conflict and complaints to\nthe Council over many years. In 2001, the Council issued planning\npermissions for a scheme by Countryside Properties to\ncomprehensively redevelop Five Oaks Lane to construct 425 homes, of\nwhich 35% were to be affordable. The scheme would bring about\nimportant public benefits, including removing conflicting land uses\nand improving the openness of the Green Belt by returning the\neastern half of the site to open space. \n\n Countryside commenced land assembly at Five\nOaks Lane in the 1980s and controlled just over half the site area,\nbut development had been frustrated by several landowners, some of\nwhom were either unwilling to sell or seeking unrealistic prices\nthat rendered the scheme uneconomic. \n\n Planning permissions for the development\nremained current and the Council’s Local Development\nFramework provided continuing acknowledgment of, and planning\npolicy support for the scheme. The 425 new homes formed an\nimportant part of the Council’s policy commitment to housing\ngrowth, which would be endangered should the scheme fail to\nprogress. This scheme represented about 5% of the Council’s\nhousing target up to 2017. \n\n The planning permissions set out a process\nwhereby compulsory purchase might be deployed and a formal request\nhad been received from Countryside Properties to trigger the use of\nthis power. This involved the Council compulsorily acquiring the\nproperties under the statutory compensation code which would then\nbe transferred on a back-to-back basis to Countryside Properties.\nAll costs associated with the process together with the\ncompensation payments were to be covered by Countryside Properties\nand an indemnity agreement was ready to be executed. There should\nbe no cost to the Council. \n\n The Compulsory Purchase Order would be invoked\nagainst the whole area to be developed in order to deal with any\nrights of way, restrictive covenants etc. which might be found to\nexist. However, in the event, some properties would already be\nowned by Countryside Properties and others might be negotiated by\nagreement. \n\n At this stage authority was sought for a\ndecision in principle to consider the use of compulsory purchase\npowers and to authorise officers to take preliminary steps to\nprepare necessary documentation and to prepare a report to\nauthorise the exercise of the powers. These steps would include\ndiscussions with present landowners, preparatory legal and\nadministrative work, briefings etc. Following these actions, the\nmatter would be referred back to Cabinet to consider a final\ndecision as to whether to make a Compulsory Purchase Order. \n\n We received representations from two speakers\nasking if the Council had enough information to proceed and asking\nfor an independent evaluation. \n\n \nResolved: That\nwe (i) agree in principle to exercise compulsory purchase powers\nover all the land and properties at Five Oaks Lane, Chigwell within\nthe area indicated at Appendix 1 pursuant to Section 226(1)(a) of\nthe Town & Country Planning Act 1991 subject to a further\nreport at the earliest opportunity including responses to the\nissues raised by public speakers at the meeting and confirming the\narea of land to be acquired and setting out the full case and\nreasons for the action to be taken; \n\n \n\n(ii) grant authority for the Director of Environment and\nRegeneration or persons authorised by him to exercise powers\ncontained under Sections 324 and 325 of the Town and Country\nPlanning Act 1990 to gain entry to land and premises for the\npurpose of surveying it or estimating its value; \n\n \n\n(iii) authorise service of notices under Section 330 of the Town\nand Country Planning Act 1990 to obtain information regarding the\npremises from owners and occupiers, \n\n \n\n(iv) authorise the completion of an Indemnity Agreement with\nCountryside Properties PLC to ensure all costs incurred by the\nCouncil in undertaking further preliminary steps and any subsequent\nwork on the Compulsory Purchase Order and subsequent compensation\nare fully reimbursed by Countryside Properties PLC and that\nCountryside Properties PLC will indemnify the Council in respect of\nall compensation claims for which the Council may be liable if it\nmakes and implements the Compulsory Purchase Order. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Minutes of the previous meeting 4th November 2008 for approval (CAB/05/021208) \n\n \nCirculated separately. \nMinutes: \n \nResolved: That the report of our\nmeeting held on 4th November 2008 be agreed and signed\nby our Chairman when available in the minute book. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Forward Plan and Work Programme (CAB/06/021208) Additional documents: \n
Minutes: \n \nAt Redbridge it had become practice for the\nCabinet to agree its Work Programme for the following four months\nat each meeting. \n\n The\nWork Programme consisted of two elements: \n\n \n(i) \nKey decisions to be taken by\nthe Cabinet, Area Committees and Officers that would also be\nincluded in the Leader’s published Forward Plan. \n\n(ii) \nOther matters that were not\nkey decisions, but that fell to be decided by the\nCabinet. \n\n Appendix A of the report informed Members of\nthe Cabinet’s proposed Work Programme for the next four\nmonths. \n\n It was for Cabinet to determine its own work\nprogramme. To the\nextent that this programme included the making of any key decisions\nthese must be included in the statutory Forward Plan. Regulation 13 of the Local\nAuthorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information)\n(England) Regulations 2000 required the Leader to prepare a Forward\nPlan which contained details of all the matters which were likely\nto be the subject of key decisions for a period of four\nmonths. This included\nall decisions, whether they were to be made by Members or\nOfficers. The plan had\neffect from the first working day of each month and each new plan\nhad to be produced at least 14 days before it came into effect. \n\n Resolved: That we agree the items shown in\nthe Work Programme attached at Appendix A of the report and note\nthat any items that are key decisions will also (where time\npermits) be included in the published Forward Plan. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Outcomes of Consultation on 2009-10 Budget Priorities (CAB/07/021208) Minutes: \n \n\nWe were advised that this was the ninth year the Council\nhad undertaken a budget consultation exercise and the report set out the results of the first\nstage of the consultation on the 2009-10 priorities. \n\n \n\nThe approach to the consultation process had been shaped by\nfeedback from previous years. \n\n \n\nThe report highlighted statistical and qualitative evidence\nof public opinion to assist Members in setting the 2009-10 budget,\ngathered from a borough-wide questionnaire and focus\ngroups. \n\n \nResolved:\n That we (i) consider\nthe outcomes of the budget consultation as part of our proposals\nfor the 2009-10 Council budget, and \n\n (ii) agree to receive\na report on 12th January 2009 outlining the results of\nthe supplementary budget consultation survey being undertaken in\nArea 1. \n\n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t The Future of the Chadwell Day Centre for Adults with a Learning Disability (CAB/08/021208) Minutes: \n \n\nCabinet at its meeting on\n6th October, 2008, agreed to formally consult service\nusers, carers and other stakeholders on the future of the Chadwell\nCentre, a day centre for adults with a learning disability. The\nconsultation was undertaken from 7th October to\n14th November, facilitated by a voluntary sector\norganisation, Redbridge Forum, and using a variety of approaches\n– these were further described in the officer report which\nwas at Appendix A to the report. \n\n \n\nThe consultation was\nextensive, canvassing the views of 307 family carers, 162 service\nusers, and other stakeholders. These included service users and\ncarers who were directly involved with Chadwell, as well as carers\nand service users involved in other services, and those who might\nuse the service in the future. \n\n \n\nThe response to the\nconsultation was very mixed: inevitably, a number of service\nusers and carers who were currently using Chadwell favoured\nretaining the centre. Concerns raised by these service users\nfocussed on the stability which had been offered by the centre,\nanxiety about change, and a wish to maintain friendship\ngroups. \n\n \n\nResponses from some Chadwell\nusers, those who had left Chadwell, or chosen other services,\nconfirmed that this majority of service users and family carers\nwere pleased that a wider range of activities was now being offered\nfrom more sites – and that more were being\ndeveloped. \n\n \n\nThe consultation confirmed\nthat there was no prospect of the service at Chadwell being\nexpanded or modernised in any significant way. As several current service users\nhad expressed a wish to move on, the service was set to decline\nfurther from the current usage of 34% capacity. The service would become unviable\nin the near future. \n\n \n\nUnder these circumstances,\nand in the context of a range of suitable options being available\nfor the current Chadwell service users, this report recommended\nthat the centre be closed by the end of June 2009. \n\n \n\nIn light of the concerns\nraised during the consultation, particular sensitivity would be\nrequired in relation to offering suitable options to all current\nChadwell service users, and to providing specific support to\npromote the continuation of existing friendship circles\n. \n\n Resolved: That\nwe (i) agree to decommission the Chadwell service by July\n1st 2009; \n\n (ii) offer alternative\nservices to those using the Chadwell service during this\nperiod; \n\n (iii) transfer the\nproperty to a non-operational portfolio; and \n\n (iv) delegate\nauthority to the Chief Officer of the Learning Disability\nPartnership, in consultation with the Chief Human Resources\nOfficer, to manage any staffing issues that are incidental to the\ndecision to decommission the Chadwell service. \n\n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Budgetary Control Report for September 2008 (CAB/09/021208) Additional documents: \n
Minutes: \n \nThe report before us\nset out the financial performance of the Authority over its revenue\nand capital programmes for the first six months of the financial\nyear. The year-end\nprojections showed a General Fund revenue overspend of\n£805,000 before the application of any markers. \n\n The Capital Programme\nwas currently showing an overspend for the year to date but an\noverall projected net underspend for the year due to re-phasing of\ninternally funded schemes in 2008/09 of £6.898\nmillion. There was an\nunderspend of £647,000 on externally funded schemes. \n\n The Housing Revenue\nAccount was projecting an overspend of £350,000 and the\nDedicated Schools Grant was projecting to be underspent at the\nyear-end by £286,000. \n\n As the year-end\nprojections were only based on six months, there was time for some\nbudget variations to be addressed or for new trends to emerge. \n\n Resolved: That\nwe (i) note the potential year-end budget variations in relation to\nthe 2008/09 budget. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Relocation of Frenford Club & The Academy (CAB/10/021208) Minutes: \n \nThe report detailed how in July 2007, Cabinet\nagreed to submit an expression of interest (EOI) for a new six form\nof entry secondary Academy school on the Cricklefields site.\nMinisterial approval was received for the project to proceed to the\nfeasibility stage in April 2008 and this work was currently\nunderway. \n\n A crucial part of the Academy project was the\nrelocation of the Frenford Club (FC) in order that the school could\nbe built on the Cricklefields site. The FC also had a facility at\nOakfield and wished to move to a single facility. This was part of\nthe Council’s longer-term asset management plan. \n\n FC would be required to enter into a suite of\nagreements that bound them to relocating from their Cricklefields\nand Oakfield sites. The Frenford Club would be required to move\nfrom the Cricklefields site by April 2010. \n\n It was proposed that the FC be relocated to\npart of the PLA site. The Council would be responsible for building\na new Pavilion and providing new pitches on the site. At the\nconclusion of the construction works, the Council would grant the\nFC a 99 year lease for facilities on the PLA site. This would be on terms similar to\nthose of the two existing leases between the Council and the FC for\ntheir premises on Cricklefields and Oakfield which the FC would\nsurrender in order to move to the PLA site. \n\n It was proposed that the Council should\nprovide the FC Pavilion by appointing an architect to take the\nPavilion to RIBA Stage D and through the planning process. In\nparallel, the Council would let a Design and Build contract. A\nmini-competition would be used to select from contractors who were\nalready retained for relevant works and services under the terms of\nthe South East Centre of Excellence (SECE) procurement arrangement,\nor by another appropriate procurement route. \n\n Resolved: That we (i) delegate to the Chief\nCulture, Sport and Community Learning Officer, the Chief Planning\nand Resources Officer, and the Chief Property Manager in\nconsultation with the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services\nand the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and the Olympics, the\nauthority, subject to the Council’s approval of the scheme\nwithin the 2009/10-2013/14 Capital Programme, to finalise terms\nwith the Frenford Club to enter into a building agreement and\nagreement for the lease in respect of part of the PLA site. Under\nthese agreements the Council will construct a Pavilion and\nassociated works and at the conclusion of the works will grant a\nlease to the Frenford Club in exchange for the surrender of its\ncurrent leasehold interests in respect of the Cricklefields and\nOakfield sites; \n\n (ii) approve expenditure of up to\n£250,000 for the design and development costs of the Pavilion\nand associated works from the capital budget of the Major Leisure\nDevelopment Project; \n\n (iii) note that the Chief Culture, Sport\nand Community Learning Officer proposes, in accordance with\nStanding Order 91.1.(ii), to seek a single quotation from ATP Group\nfor design and feasibility work leading to planning application\nreferred to in (iv) below; and \n\n (iv) note that the Chief Culture, Sport\nand Community Learning Officer will be submitting a planning\napplication in respect of the PLA site for a Pavilion and\nassociated works for the Frenford Club in order to facilitate the\nrelocation of the club from its current sites (Cricklefields and\nOakfield) to the PLA site. \n\n \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Provision of Primary School Places (CAB/11/021208) Minutes: \n \nThis report detailed\nhow the primary aged school population had risen sharply over the\nlast five years. Current pupil projections showed a further rise in\ndemand for primary school places that could not be met by the\ncurrent supply of school places \n\n During the summer term of 2008, there were an\nunusually high volume of late applications for primary places. The\npreviously stable ratio of the number of births to the number of\napplications for reception places (the transition ratio) increased\nby approximately10% resulting in an increase of approximately 300\nreception children. \n\n Some of this increased demand was accommodated\nusing a planned surplus of places. The remainder had been met by\nopening four additional reception classes as an emergency\nmeasure. \n\n Should the ratio of births to reception\napplications seen in 2008 be maintained in 2009 there could again\nbe insufficient reception places. Officers were therefore proposing\nto make contingency arrangements to cope with this increased\ndemand. \n\n By 2011 an additional eight forms of entry\n(240 reception age places) needed to be created by either expanding\nexisting schools or by establishing a new school in order to meet\nthe increased demand for school places. \n\n The Officer report attached at Appendix A to\nthe report outlined the future demand for primary school places in\nthe borough, together with options for providing places in order to\nmeet the increasing demand. \n\n \nResolved: That we agree (i) in principle to create an\nadditional eight forms of entry of primary school places for\nSeptember 2011 in accordance with the options contained in\nparagraph 5 of the Officer report; \n\n \n\n(ii) that Officers can put\nin place contingency arrangements for 2009/10; \n\n \n\n(iii) that Officers\nundertake the pre-statutory consultation on proposals to establish\nadditional eight forms of entry of primary school places for\nSeptember 2011 in accordance with Part 2, section 19 of the\nEducation and Inspections Act 2006; and \n\n \n\n(iv) to receive a further\nreport following the pre-statutory consultation in order to inform\nCabinet of detailed proposals for the provision of additional eight\nforms of entry for September 2011 and obtain approval to undertake\nthe statutory process. \n\n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Primary Strategy for Change (CAB/12/021208) Minutes: \n \nWe had a report which detailed how in December\n2007 the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCFS)\nannounced that they were introducing a Primary Capital Programme to\nenable a long term strategic investment in primary school\nbuildings. \n\n The\namount of capital programme funding that would be available\nnationally had been announced for the financial years 2009 through\nto 2011. The indicative allocations for Redbridge in 2009-2010 and\n2010 -2011 had been published. These were £4,004,563 in 2009-10 and\n£6,302,563 in 2010-2011. \n\n In order to access this resource each local\nauthority was required to produce a Primary Strategy for Change.\nInitial investment priorities were identified in line with\nprescribed criteria. \n\n \nRedbridge had now received an unconditional\napproval for the implementation of its Primary Strategy for Change. As a\nresult the DCSF on 11 November 2008 announced that the indicative\ncapital allocations to Redbridge for 2009-10 and 2010-11, set out\nin 1.2 above, were confirmed with immediate effect. \n\n Resolved: That we note the\nallocation of primary capital funding of £4,004,563 in\n2009-10 and £6,302,563 in 2010-2011 from the DCSF in line\nwith the initial investment priorities set out in the Primary\nStrategy for Change. \n\n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Adoption of Agreed Syllabus for Religious Education (CAB/13/021208) Additional documents: \n
Minutes: \n \nThis report described how each local Authority\n(LA) had to have a locally agreed syllabus for religious education\nwhich was binding on all non-denominational schools. \n\n An Agreed Syllabus Conference was convened in\norder to prepare the local agreed syllabus which then became\nbinding on schools when it was formally adopted by the\nAuthority. A local\nagreed syllabus had to be reviewed within five years of its\nadoption. \n\n The present Redbridge Agreed Syllabus for\nReligious Education was adopted in 2001. \n\n A new Redbridge Agreed Syllabus Conference was\nconvened in 2007 and had prepared a new locally agreed\nsyllabus. The document\nwhich it was proposed Cabinet now adopt had been prepared after\nextensive consultation with individuals and groups, including\nschools and religious communities. \n\n The new agreed syllabus would become statutory\nupon adoption by the Authority though schools have been advised\nthat they would not be required to implement it fully until\nSeptember 2009. \n\n Resolved: That we agree to formally\nadopt the syllabus appended to the report as the new Redbridge\nAgreed Syllabus for Religious Education. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Proposed Children's Centre at Gearies Infants School (CAB/14/021208) Additional documents: \n
Minutes: \n \nThe report presented proposals for the\nestablishment of a Children’s Centre at Gearies Infants\nSchool. A report was presented to Cabinet on 20th\nFebruary 2007 giving details of the Government’s 10 year\nChildcare Strategy and proposals for establishing a number of\nChildren’s Centres in Redbridge. Children’s Centres\nwould play a central role in delivering improved outcomes for all\nyoung children and in reducing inequalities between the most\ndisadvantaged children and the rest. They were at the heart of the\nGovernment’s “Every Child Matters: Change for Children\nProgramme”. \n\n The Department split the Children’s\nCentre programme into three phases for Children, Schools and\nFamilies’ (DCSF) Sure Start Unit. In Phase 1 (2004-2006) four\nChildren’s Centres were established in Redbridge. In Phase 2\n(2006-2008) Redbridge was developing an additional 10\nChildren’s Centres. Phase 2 had been slipped\nnationally for one year to extend the completion of Phase 2\nChildren’s Centres. A further 8 were to be\nestablished in Phase 3 (2008-2010). \n\n The report also presented the outline scheme\nand estimate for the proposed children’s centre. It sought\napproval to apply the budget for this scheme as required by\nStanding Order 125. \n\n Resolved: That\nwe (i) agree to the\nestablishment of a Children’s Centre at Gearies Infants\nSchool; \n\n \n(ii) agree the outline scheme for the proposed Children’s\nCentre at Gearies Infants School as further described in Appendix A\nand shown in Appendix B to the report; \n\n \n\n(iii) agree the outline estimate in the sum of £677,628 for\nthe proposed Children’s Centre at Gearies Infants School as\nfurther described in Appendix A and shown in Appendix B to the\nreport; and \n\n \n\n(iv) authorise the Chief Property Manager to proceed with the\ndetailed design and to procure the necessary works in accordance\nwith Standing Orders. \n\n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n Additional documents: \n
Minutes: \n \n\nThe report\ndetailed how at its meeting on 2nd October 2007, Cabinet\nagreed that the Stage One contract for construction of the Loxford\nBuilding Schools for the Future One School Pathfinder (BSF OSP)\nproject should be awarded to Willmott Dixon Limited. \n\nAt its meeting\non 15th April 2008, Cabinet agreed that the Stage Two\ncontract for construction of the Loxford Building Schools for the\nFuture One School Pathfinder (BSF OSP) project would also be\nawarded to Willmott Dixon Limited. \n\nThese awards\nexcluded the provision of Information and Communications Technology\n(ICT), associated services and the provision of fixed furniture and\nequipment (FF&E) which was the subject of a separate\nprocurement. \n\nThis report\nprovided Members with an update on the current position in relation\nto the main building contract and the associated budgetary\nposition. It also advised Members of the risks that the project was\nrunning and the contingency arrangements that were in\nplace. \n\nResolved:\nThat we note (i) that the\nDirector of Children’s Services (in consultation with the\nDirector of Environment Regeneration & Community\nSafety and the Cabinet\nMember for Children’s Services) have signed the relevant\ncontractual documentation to support the rebuild of Loxford\nSchool; \n\n\n \n\n(ii) the current\nprojected outturn for the building works; and \n\n \n(iii) the\nmajor risks that still exist in relation to the rebuild. \n\n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t References to Cabinet - Environment and Highways Portfolio - Budgetary Comments (CAB/16/021208) Minutes: \n \nThe terms of\nreference for all Scrutiny Committees included aspects of\nmonitoring policy, performance service delivery and the allocation\nand use of resources and requested consideration by\nCabinet. Specifically\nStanding Order 6.3 (e) provided for Scrutiny Committees to:- \n\n \n\n“Propose and recommend to Cabinet improvements to the\nCouncil’s services, functions and\npolicies.” \n\n \nThe former Highways and Cleansing Scrutiny\nCommittee’s work (now the Environment\nand Highways Scrutiny Committee),\nhad made two references to Cabinet which fell within the remit of\nthe Environment\nand Highways portfolio. \nThe references related to Environmental Highways Schemes and\nParking Revenue Surpluses. \n\n \nThe\nreferences were formally presented to\nCabinet on 1st July 2008, which resolved to\nrequest Officers to\nprepare a detailed response to each of the references, for\nconsideration at a Cabinet meeting within the next two cycles of\nits meetings. \n\n \nThe references related to the\nportfolio’s budget and were set out in Paragraph 1.2 of the\nOfficer report, which was attached as\nAppendix A to the report. \n\n \nResolved: That\nwe (i) consider the references from the former Highways and\nCleansing Scrutiny Committee (now the Environment and Highways\nScrutiny Committee) and the officer comments contained in Sections\n2 and 3 of the report, and \n\n \n\n(ii) note that the surplus revenue from Parking is applied in\nmeeting highways expenditure in accordance with the relevant\nlegislation. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Increase in Management Charges for Temporary Accommodation (CAB/17/021208) Minutes: \n \nThe Council had a\nduty to provide applicants who made a homeless application to the\nCouncil with interim accommodation in either bed and breakfast or\nnightly let units while their applications were still being\nassessed. Once a family had been assessed as homeless the most\ncommon form of temporary accommodation was a property leased by the\nCouncil from the private sector. \n\n The Council\nincurred costs in managing this accommodation and make a management\ncharge to cover these costs. The current charge was £50 per\nweek. It was proposed\nto increase this charge to £63 per week from 12th\nJanuary 2009. This\nincrease in charges had been put forward as a savings option by\nHousing as part of the 2009/10 budget process. \n\n Resolved:\n That we agree to a\n£63 per week management charge for Nightly Let, Bed and\nBreakfast and Private Sector Leased accommodation with effect from\nMonday, 12th January 2009. \n\n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Post Office Closures (CAB/18/021208) Additional documents: \n
Minutes: \n \nThe report arose from the Motion at the\nCouncil meeting on the 17th July when Council agreed the\nfollowing resolutions: \n\n The Council: \n\n \n(i) \nnotes with regret the Government’s plans for the compulsory\nclosure of sub-post offices and the damaging effect of such\nclosures on local communities; \n\n(ii) \nnotes with regret the failure of the Members of Parliament for\nIlford South and Leyton and Wanstead to support motions calling\nupon the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory\nReform to instruct Post Office Limited to suspend the compulsory\nclosure of sub-post offices while options for business expansion\nand developing business opportunities with local authorities should\nbe explored further; and \n\n(iii) \ncalls on the Cabinet to give consideration to all means available\nto support Post Offices in the London Borough of Redbridge. \n\n The report provided Members with information\non Post Office Ltd’s first round of Post Office closures\ncalled the ‘Urban Reinvention Programme’ and the\ncurrent round of closures under the Network Change Programme. \n\n The\nreport listed those Post Office outlets intended for closure in\nRedbridge and the approach the Council adopted to the public\nconsultation process conducted between 19th February\n2008 and 2nd April 2008. A brief outline of this\nCouncil’s formal consultation response to Post Office Ltd of\nthe 27th March 2008 was also included. \n\n Paragraph 6 of the Officer Report\nhighlighted the future sustainability of Redbridge Post Office\noutlets and the measures the Council might wish to consider to\nretain and sustain the remaining Post Office outlets in the\nborough. \n\n One\noption would be to encourage commercial premises that might wish to\nhave a Post Office outlet on their premises, should they apply.\nAnother option was that of co-location, where ‘failed’\n(i.e. closed by Post Office Ltd) Post Office services might be\nincorporated into an existing Council owned or operated\nbuilding. A map had\nbeen prepared jointly by Planning and Regeneration and Property\nServices that plotted both the location of local Post Office\noutlets closed, together with Council-owned or operated buildings\nthat were within reasonable proximity that might be used for\nco-location. The map\nwas attached to the report as Appendix B. \n\n However, any future co-location or the\nestablishment of new outlets deployed with any local authority or\ncommunity group would need to be the subject of Local Funding\narrangements with Post Office Ltd. \n\n \nResolved: That\nwe (i) note the closure of five of the Borough’s Post Office\noutlets; \n\n \n\n(ii) seek to defend all remaining Post Offices against the threat\nof future potential closure; \n\n \n\n(iii) encourage the use of commercial premises to locate Post\nOffice outlets where this is appropriate and potentially including\nthose premises where post offices previously existed; and \n\n \n\n(iv) agree further research by Officers into the dual-use of\nCouncil owned/operated premises. \n\n \n\n(Councillors Cleaver and Littlewood spoke on this item) \n\n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t ICT Strategy - Annual Statement 2008 (CAB/19/021208) Minutes: \n \nThe report\ndetailed how the Council’s Information and Communications\nTechnology (ICT) Strategy was two years old and set out a work\nprogramme of strategic ICT projects designed to support the delivery of corporate\nobjectives. \n\n The\npace of technological change remained rapid and this demanded that\nthe Council took a flexible approach to the prioritisation of\nresources and the procurement of key ICT facilities. In this light, the strategy must\ncontinually evolve to meet the needs of the\norganisation. \nReflecting this needed, last year Members’ approved the\nintroduction of an Annual Statement. \n\n The Annual Statement recorded the\nprogress of the key strategic projects over the last year and\ndefined the immediate challenges and new initiatives for the coming\nyear. The benefit of\nthis approach was to ensure that Members, Officers and key\nstakeholders were fully aware of the progression of ICT initiatives\nand the Council could target its resources for maximum\neffect. \n\n Following a review of\ndesktop provision, ICT Services initiated entry into the\nGovernment’s e-auction for PC/Laptop equipment. By taking this innovative\napproach, ICT Services sought to maximise the best value for the\nCouncil, through a highly competitive tendering\nmechanism. In July,\nthe Council participated in the e-auction process, which was won by\nInsight Direct. In\nthis regard, the Council was now able to realise significant cost\nsavings. \n\n \nResolved: That\nwe (i) note the progress to date in\nimplementing the ICT\nStrategy; \n\n \n\n(ii) agree the revised programme of developments based on business\npriorities and the associated financial projections for the ICT\nStrategy in 2008/09 and in future years, subject to Council\nfunding; \n\n \n\n(iii) note the Council’s participation in the\nGovernment’s e-auction process and the purchase of computer\nequipment from the winner of the e-auction, Insight Direct; \n\n \n\n(iv) agree to waive Contract Standing Orders 90, 91 and 92 and\nauthorise the Chief ICT Officer to purchase ICT equipment covered\nby the e-auction from Insight Direct for the duration of the\ne-auction agreement; and \n\n \n\n(v) note that the Chief ICT Officer shall purchase ICT equipment\nand software not covered by the e-auction via the Central\nGovernment Catalogue, Catalist in accordance with Catalist\nguidelines, as permitted under Contract Standing Order 95.2 and\npursuant to this agree to waive Contract Standing Order 95.2(b) \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Any other items which the Chairman decides for the reasons stated are urgent (CAB/20/021208) \nMinutes: \n \nNone. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Motion to exclude the public (CAB/21/021208) \n\n \nThe\nfollowing motion will be moved where it is desired to discuss\nbusiness containing exempt information in private:- \n\n “That under Section 100A(4) of the\nLocal Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting\nof business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure\nof exempt information as described in the paragraphs indicated\nbelow of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act.” \nMinutes: \n \nThat under\nSection 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be\nexcluded from the meeting for the following items of business on\nthe grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt\ninformation as described in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the\nAct. \n\n Minute 22\n(CAB/22/021208) paragraph 3 \nMinute 23\n(CAB/23/021208) paragraph 3. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Award of the Banking Contract - 1st April 2009 (CAB/22/021208) \n\n
Minutes: \n \nThis report informed Members of the tender and\nsubsequent evaluation process undertaken to determine the award of\nthe Contract for Banking Services. \n\n The contract comprised the provision of a cash\nmanagement service to all the Council's Bank Accounts and\nSchools. This service\nwas currently provided by the National Westminster Bank, now part\nof the Royal Bank of Scotland group. The contract expires on the 31st\nMarch 2009. \n\n The Council invited tenders for a new contract\nto commence from the 1st April 2009. The tender procedure complied\nwith European procurement requirements. \n\n Resolved: That we approve\nthe appointment of the Royal Bank of Scotland plc for a five year\nperiod from 1st April 2009 with the option of five one\nyear extensions thereafter. \n | \n\t\t
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Oakfield Playing Fields - Redbridge Sports Centre Trust (CAB/23/021208) \n\n
Minutes: \n \nOakfield\nPlaying Fields comprised some 25 hectares (62 acres) of land owned\nfreehold by Redbridge Council, which was used for a variety of\nrecreational purposes. \nThis land was leased to three organisations including the Redbridge\nSports Centre Trust Ltd. (RSCT). The RSCT owned a part of the site\nfreehold extending to some 1 hectare (2.5 acres) and a plan showing\nthe land ownerships was attached as Appendix 2 to the\nreport. \n\n The\nRSCT, which was a registered charity, occupies some 8.5 hectares\n(21 acres) under two leases and has built up a good track record in\nbuilding, operating and managing part of the Oakfield site for\nsporting and recreation purposes, which benefited the wider\ncommunity. \n\n RSCT\nwere seeking to invest some £5m in a new proposed Olympic\nstandard badminton facilities as shown on a Plan at Appendix 3,\nwhich could be used for training purposes for the 2012 London\nOlympics. Planning\nconsent for the proposed development had been obtained. \n\n To\nobtain the necessary funding to provide this facility RSCT were\nseeking the transfer of the freehold of part of the land they\ncurrently lease from the Council. \n\n The report set out options that would\nenable the RSCT to provide Olympic standard badminton facilities.\nThese options would provide improved sporting facilities within the\nBorough and could, subject to planning, also enable Redbridge\nCouncil to be able to support its Capital Programme by enabling\nlonger-term future land sales. \n\n \n\nResolved: That\n(i) we authorise the Director of Environment, Regeneration and\nCommunity Safety, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for\nResources and Communication, to agree terms for the freehold\ntransfer of some 5 hectares (12.5 acres) shown cross-hatched on\nAppendix 2 to the Redbridge Sports Centre Trust Ltd (RSCT) and to\nsecure the surrender of some 3.5 hectares (8.5 acres) of the\nRSCT’s existing leasehold interest in the area shown hatched\non Appendix 2 and the grant of a short term lease for the interim\nmanagement of that land to the RSCT, and \n\n \n(ii) the Director of Environment, Regeneration\nand Community Safety write to the RSCT advising of Cabinet’s\nagreement of (i) above, to assist the RSCT in obtaining their\nfunding whilst the necessary agreements are formalised. \n\n \n \n \n Chairman \n | \n\t\t