Healthy Streets

Section One: Questions for Cabinet Members
Question 1 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
I made the Cabinet Member aware on 17 December 2015 of a post by the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) urging its supporters to vote for the council's proposals for Enfield Town in which it said the scheme needed saving urgently.
Can the cabinet member tell the council unequivocally:
(a)    What steps he took on receipt of my email, which he failed to acknowledge, to
investigate how the LCC could have become aware of the level of response to the consultation such that it was able to attempt to distort the outcome by seeking to elicit favourable responses from cycling supporters across London?
(b)    Does he believe that it is appropriate for the LCC or any other campaigning
group to seek to encourage responses from persons other than residents and businesses in the borough?
(c)    That responses from persons living outside the borough will not be counted in
assessing the level of support for the various schemes?
(d)    That the 260 responses to the A105 proposals from persons outside the
borough (including 43 living outside London) and included in his claim for "majority support", will now be discounted?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
As I have repeatedly said the Council is engaged in a series of consultation exercises for each segment of the Cycle Enfield programme which will be subject to Cabinet approval. There is no referendum so the continual emphasis on the numbers responding is a complete red herring and there was no outcome with which to distort. The LCC was, therefore, equally mistaken in their assumption that the scheme needed saving.
With regards to the A105 consultation - like all the segments that make up Cycle Enfield - its objective was to elicit comments, views and opinions in order to help us shape the design ensuring that it mitigates and addresses, where possible, concerns raised by the respondents. This would naturally include the views of those living outside of Enfield who are just as capable of identifying improvements as Enfield residents and businesses. Cycle Enfield is a huge project that has regional, not solely an Enfield, impact so we welcome all responses, wherever they come from, to our consultations, although of course we are keen to hear from those who live, work, study and do business and shop in Enfield.
As to Councillor Neville's point about "majority support" for the A105 proposals I believe that David Burrowes MP himself has effectively demonstrated that.
Unhappy with our thorough and methodical consultation process, which was aimed at eliciting comments on the design of the schemes, Mr Burrowes instead engaged in his own methodically questionable tick-box 'referendum' that referred at various points to Cycle Enfield as a principle, the A105 and Enfield Town schemes.
Be that as it may, in spite of his claim that 75% of his constituents oppose our plans for the A105, his 'referendum' actually showed otherwise. Postcards were sent out to 17,000 households, interestingly only a portion of his constituency, of which just 2,828 or 16.64% of those - responded. Of this 1,973 people opposed the proposals, which is just 11.6% of the 17,000 households.
However, rather like the dog that did not bark in Conan Doyle's 'Silver Blaze', the more interesting fact is that the overwhelming majority he polled - 14,172 of households or 83.37% have chosen not to participate. It cannot, therefore, be said that 75% of those polled, let alone of David Burrowes' constituency, are opposed to Cycle Enfield.
Question 2 from Councillor B Charalambous to Councillor Taylor, the Leader of the Council
As well as the penalties imposed upon us by the damping mechanism and the historically poor public health funding, the 2016/17 provisional funding settlement is especially unfavourable to us. Could the Leader of the Council explain why Enfield's funding is worse than many others and whether the methodology used by Government was subject to consultation?
Reply from Councillor Taylor:
Enfield's Settlement Funding Assessment (i.e. Revenue Support Grant and Retained Business Rates) will fall by 11.7% in 2016/17 and by 29.9% by 2019/20. This compares to the average fall for inner London of 8.6% (2016/17 and 24.6% (2019/20). This position is the result of inner London councils' Revenue Support Grant (RSG) and Retained Business Rates still being higher than outer London but with overall smaller percentage reductions set by the Government.
The Settlement has been changed so that rather than all local authorities receiving the same percentage reduction in RSG funding, the government will now take into account the amount that can be raised locally from Council Tax, thereby increasing the reduction in RSG funding for higher taxbase authorities (in terms of the ratio of taxbase income to Settlement Funding Assessment) and lowering the reduction for lower than average taxbase authorities. The government has also altered the split of funding between tiers of government, which would appear to favour upper tier services. These changes have not been consulted upon previously.
Question 3 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
As regards the Cycle Enfield proposals for Enfield Town, will the Cabinet Member confirm to Council that almost every stakeholder in Enfield Town has opposed the Council's proposals, many in pretty strident terms, and that the list includes the following:
"    The Head of UK Retail Property Estate for Standard Life,
"    Freeholders of both Palace Gardens and Palace Exchange
"    The Palace Exchange Traders Association
"    The Old Enfield Charitable Trust
"    The Enfield Over 50s Forum
"    The Enfield Businesses and Retailers Association
"    The Enfield Town Residents Association
Can he now tell the council what action he proposes to take against the background of such overwhelming opposition?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
The responses to the Enfield Town consultation are still being analysed and so any detailed comment at this stage would be extremely premature. However, I reiterate that the purpose of a consultation exercise, unlike that of a referendum, is to elicit comments and identify concerns so that a considered decision can be made. It is not in essence about how many people favour or disfavour proposals. That said I have no doubt that that the draft proposals will adapt and evolve in light of the extensive feedback we have received and will be subject to Cabinet approval. Cycle Enfield remains part of this Administration's vision of creating a better Enfield - one that will transform the borough, boost the local economy, significantly improve transport links and help create a cleaner and healthier borough.
Question 4 from Councillor Stewart to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection
Can the Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection please tell this Council the potential implications of any further reductions of the Government's Schools Grant funding allocations to Enfield?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
I have to tell Council Members that I am very concerned about the negative impact on our schools as a result of the current funding policy. The government is telling us that schools' budgets will be protected and I am afraid to say that this is just not the case. Last year, and again this year, there has been a flat cash settlement, i.e. no reduction in funding but no allowance for inflation or increased costs in say pensions or pay settlements. In order to cover this, schools will have to make hard decisions in terms of staffing just to break even. They are also feeling the impact of cuts to Local Authority services that may have previously been provided free of charge. If you then add the increasing level of need across Enfield and the challenges this is bringing to all schools you will begin to understand my concern.
Several of our schools in Enfield are already finding themselves struggling with deficit budgets and over one third are reporting that they will not be able to set a
balanced budget over three years. This will mean that increasing numbers of schools will be faced with cutting the very staff that are needed to meet the increasing demands of the children and young people.
Colleagues will be interested to know that Schools Forum and my officers have recently asked our MPs to lobby on our behalf to ensure that Enfield's context is taken into consideration and I am happy to report back to Members if we receive any feedback.
Question 5 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Does the Cabinet member agree with the Head of UK Retail Property Estate for Standard Life Investments, who cannot possibly be described as NIMBY, when he says "however having carefully studied the council's current preferred proposals (options 1 and 6a) we have serious doubts about the ability of either of these options to deliver the positive outcomes we would all hope for. We believe both option 1 and option 6a would lead to greater traffic congestion and restrict shopper access, thereby negatively impacting the majority of businesses in the centre of Enfield...
We have identified various specifics within the current preferred proposals that we believe would be particularly unhelpful, especially,
"    Creating a two way traffic flow on Cecil Road
"    Changing the road layout on Church Street "
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
I appreciate and respect those comments and we will, of course, continue to work with local businesses to understand, mitigate and address (where possible) their concerns. As part of the evaluation proposals moving forward and as part of the Cabinet approval process, we will necessarily take into account traffic modelling exercises and the results of an economic assessment. However, it is worth reiterating that the vast majority of traffic that passes through Church Street does not stop and, therefore, can hardly be said to enhance the ambience of Enfield Town. Furthermore, 75% of those who visit Enfield Town do not come by car, but that, nonetheless, existing council car parking facilities will remain.
Question 6 from Councillor Pite to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection
Can the Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection tell this Council if London Authorities such as Enfield are the biggest losers of the new education funding allocations from Government and how much per pupil Enfield is likely to lose?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
The funding allocations to the Council's Education Support Grant are calculated on a per pupil basis and the information we have received about the proposed changes to
that funding indicate that this rate will be reduced for pupils in maintained schools by almost 12%. (Currently we receive £87 per pupil and this is to be cut to £77.)
This money is used to fund a number of Council services that provide statutory support for schools such as Education Welfare, Educational Psychology and School Improvement support for schools causing concern and moderation activities. Colleagues will know that many of these services have already faced reductions to their budgets and are likely to be placed under further pressure as part of the Council's savings programme. The fact that we have one of the largest school-age population in London and that it is continuing to increase will mean that we are one of the biggest losers, particularly as the percentage of vulnerable children in Enfield is still increasing at a much faster rate than many other London Local Authorities. This will place still more pressure on services that are already stretched, as the government is changing the entitlement to benefits and support without actually doing anything to address the real level of need of these families and young people.
Question 7 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Can the Cabinet Member tell the Council why Option 4 in the Cycle Enfield proposals for Enfield Town, which appears to command some support, was not included in the main consultation, and in the light of the opposition, will he now withdraw the present proposals and re-consult on Option 4.
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
As previously explained, a wide range of options were initially considered before going out to public consultation. This included option 4. However, the two options that were consulted upon were the ones that the Council felt would best deliver the improvements we are looking to achieve in Enfield Town and which Transport for London (TfL) would fund if approved by Cabinet. Therefore, we did not believe it right to consult on an option that we did not believe would deliver what we are looking for and would not be funded by TFL.
Question 8 from Councillor Stafford to Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council
I am sure that all councillors thoughts are with the families in Scotland and Yorkshire whose lives have been destroyed by the recent flooding. Whilst this Conservative Government continues to be criticised for its lack of investment in these areas, this Labour Council has invested heavily in protecting all our residents from our recent changes in climate. Could the Leader of the Council comment on our approach and in particular the Salmons Brook Flood alleviation scheme that the opposition opposed vehemently from day one: this is despite its obvious benefits to our residents in Edmonton Green?
Reply from Councillor Taylor:
Enfield has recently developed a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. This document describes how the Council works with partners such as the Environment Agency and Thames Water to protect residents and businesses from flooding across the borough. A public consultation was carried out in 2015 to raise awareness about
these issues and give residents an opportunity to comment on the proposals, the final document is due to be published by March 2016. Aside from some minor landscaping and tree planting, construction works for the Salmons Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme are now complete. This scheme, delivered by the Environment Agency with support from Enfield Council, reduces the risk of flooding for approximately 2,000 properties in the Edmonton area. My recollection is that the Conservative opposition were not supportive of the flood alleviation scheme.
Question 9 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
In connection with the Cycle Enfield proposals, can he tell the Council whether he and or the Leader of the Council have had any meetings with the Mayor of London and or any of his senior representatives to discuss the proposals, and if so with what result?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
We have an excellent relationship with the Mayor's Office and Transport for London (TfL) and had a number of meetings with Andrew Gilligan, the Mayor's Cycling Commissioner for London as well as having had a number of conversations with Isabel Dedring, Deputy Mayor of London. Both have been enthusiastically supportive of our Cycle Enfield proposals.
Question 10 from Councillor Pite to Councillor Brett, Cabinet Member for Community Organisations and Culture
Can the Cabinet Member for Community Organisations and Culture comment on the dire warnings of Sir Bernard Hogan Howe about the future of policing in London and the implications for Enfield?
Reply from Councillor Brett:
The Autumn Spending Review did not see the realisation of 40% cuts to police that had been anticipated and which the Commissioner had raised concerns about publicly. The attacks in Paris and elsewhere would have made cuts to security (including policing) seem contrary to public concerns about safety.
The detail of the review is not yet fully understood, but we will check that Enfield is not disadvantaged. We know that there is a recruitment drive planned over the next year for up to 1900 extra officers. We will seek assurances that Enfield receives its full complement of recruits, but retains the necessary level of experienced officers to ensure community safety.
Question 11 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Can he tell the Council what action he has personally taken to influence the proposals in each of the Cycle Enfield schemes?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
I have frequent meetings and conversations with Council officers and our consultants to discuss the Cycle Enfield schemes and to ensure that they are in alignment with our vision of a better Enfield.
Question 12 from Councillor Simon to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
The Environment Department has recently concluded a comprehensive review of our approach to running large-scale events at Trent Park. This enabled local stakeholders to feed into the process and raise any concerns they may have based on recent events. Can the Cabinet Member for Environment confirm how he will be responding to any issues raised?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
The outcome of the review has been communicated with all local stakeholders. The review highlighted a number of issues raised by stakeholders and recommended additional control measures, which have now been implemented, to assist in the mitigation of these issues, where possible, when planning and delivering future events.
The key actions we will be taking are as follows:
The Council will commit to a maximum number of 8 event days or 4 weekends for large-scale events (i.e. over 5,000 people), per calendar year, within the park.
There will be a minimum of a 3-week gap between all large events (unless there is an exceptional reason not to have this gap).
There will be a maximum of 4 large-scale (i.e. over 5,000 people) event days or 2 weekends during the school holiday in July and August.
The Council will take control of the delivery and implementation of offsite traffic and waste management, but funded by the organiser.
There will be an introduction of an Environmental Impact Fee (subject to the Council agreeing this in February as part of its fees and charges), which will be ring-fenced for investment directly into the park (with the agreement of the Friends of Trent Country Park).
The Council will progress, with the intention to implement, an online event application process to assist in providing a more modern and efficient approach to communication and consultation with stakeholders.
There will be the creation of a Trent Country Park stakeholder group to assist the distribution of information to all interested parties and allow for any concerns around events to be discussed, and for the appropriate control measures to be put in place.
The Council will commit to work, and consult, with all stakeholders on a new borough-wide outdoor event policy for implementation by 2018.
o
o o o o
o o o
Question 13 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Can he tell the council why hard copy consultations were not delivered to every household likely to be affected by the proposals for Cycle Enfield, as would have been the case for very modest traffic schemes?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
The question is not comparing like with like. 'Modest traffic schemes' do not cover three miles of A road. It would therefore be completely impractical and incredibly wasteful to send large scale plans covering, for instance, the entire A105 scheme to each and every household along the corridor.
However, 14,000 letters were sent to all homes and businesses along the proposed route and a further 60,000 leaflets were sent to homes in the surrounding area encouraging them to have their say. Letters were also sent to schools and youth groups, such as the scouts; to larger businesses across the borough to publicise the scheme and encourage participation in the consultation. Details were publicised in 'Our Enfield' the Council's own publication, which goes to ALL households in the borough. The independently produced 'EN Magazine' also featured the scheme. In addition, officers attended the Palmers Green Festival and Enfield Town Show promoting the scheme and meetings were held with older people at sheltered housing complexes and day centres along the proposed route. Contact was also made with the emergency services, road user groups and bus operators. Additionally, posters were publicly displayed and there were articles and adverts in the local papers.
Nonetheless, the online approach taken allowed those interested to see all the detail they required in order to come to an informed view on our proposals. It also allowed us to reach a much wider audience than would usually be the case, in particular the young who are typically under-represented in our consultations. However, those who requested hard copy consultation plans and forms were accommodated.
Question 14 from Councillor Maguire to Councillor Brett, Cabinet Member for Community Organisations & Culture
While I am delighted that Ed Vaizey MP, Minister of State for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, is encouraging local councils to protect their arts budgets in a recent parliamentary debate, does the Cabinet Member for Community Organisations and Culture have any ideas on how this can be made possible in Enfield given the scale of government cuts to local authorities?
Reply from Councillor Brett:
Over the past seven years Enfield Council has invested in the capital infrastructure of the Arts and Culture Portfolio to enable the department to become financially self- sufficient. We have refurbished the Council's four primary cultural venues, Millfield Theatre, Millfield House, the Dugdale Centre and Forty Hall and Estate, enabling the venues to generate increased revenue through a variety of sources including venue
hire and event ticket sales. The investment has enabled the Council to produce a business plan that supports cultural activity whilst at the same time reducing the cost of the service to the council year on year. At the same time the Arts and Culture Team has worked with independent local cultural providers to create a support network for festivals and events throughout the borough that creates a platform to share information and expertise to ensure the sustainability for arts and culture in Enfield, into the future.
Question 15 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Can he tell the Council why the economic impact assessment for the A105 Cycle Enfield proposals was only commissioned shortly before Christmas with a requirement for its completion by mid-January 2016?
Does he not agree that with the Christmas and New Year holiday straddling that period the assessment is unlikely to be accurate?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
No I don't. The economic impact assessment utilises a wide range of published information and the time of year the study was commissioned is entirely irrelevant and displays a complete lack of understanding of the process involved.
Question 16 from Councillor Barry to Councillor Keazor, Cabinet Member for Public Health & Sport
Could the Cabinet Member for Public Health & Sport update on us on significant developments in the sport portfolio over the last 3 months?
Reply from Councillor Keazor:
Enfield Council is part of the leisure and sport national commissioning programme delivered by Chief Leisure Officers Association ( CLOA) and Sport England to explore the cross cutting agendas that sport and physical activity can contribute to strategically. A range of colleagues were interviewed including our Chief Executive, Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services, Director of Public Health and Chair of the Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group (ECCG), and a desktop analysis of our strategies and those of the ECCG and NHS was undertaken. We are working through the findings but the initial steer is around prevention, exercise referral, regeneration and marketing and communications. This project is about changing the perception of sport and physical activity and recognising its benefits to wider social development and health inequalities.
We have also submitted a bid to the Greater London Authority for the Mayor's Sports Participation Fund and we are invited to the second stage for a presentation/interview. We are hoping to hear the outcome by end of the month. The programme would focus on 3 projects including a women and girls project, a falls prevention programme for people who have recently fallen or are at risk of falling working in partnership with the Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and an exercise referral programme.
We are now rolling out the Section 106 community coaching hours, in partnership with the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation (THF), to local community groups to receive free coaching from THF coaches to encourage active lifestyles. Groups already involved in the programme include MIND, Sisters in Islam, Enfield Children, Age UK, Mencap, the Radiomarathon Centre and young people's services to name a few.
The Council's Leisure and Sport Team has piloted health awareness training with a view to roll this out to front line staff such as social workers. The training is called 'Make Every Contact Count', and is about everyone promoting health and well-being through very brief interventions/conversations. This will ensure residents that may not be thinking about physical activity for health benefits are providing information on how they could make a lifestyle change in relation to exercise, nutrition, smoking and drinking less alcohol and sugary drinks.
Question 17 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Can he tell the Council when the Environmental Impact Assessments on all the proposed Cycle Enfield schemes will be commissioned?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
An Environmental Impact Assessment is not actually required under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 2011; although a formal screening opinion will be obtained as and when the schemes are determined. Nevertheless, in early November 2015, Cambridge Environmental Consultants Ltd (CERC) were commissioned to undertake air quality assessments for the five main road cycling schemes, which are likely to see the main environmental impact.
Question 18 from Councillor During to the Councillor Alev Cazimoglu, Cabinet Member for Health & Social Care
The Chief Nursing Officer for England recently visited Enfield's Integrated Learning Disabilities Service (ILDS). Could the Cabinet Member for Health & Social Care tell us what was the purpose of this visit and what was her impression of the service in Enfield?
Reply from Councillor Alev Cazimoglu:
The Chief Nursing Officer, Jane Cummings, visited the ILDS on Tuesday in recognition of the excellent work done by the service and its partners in moving people with learning difficulties on from hospital and to reduce the need for new admissions to Assessment & Treatment (A&T). This has been a priority, post Winterbourne View. Whilst Enfield had very low numbers of people placed in out of borough assessment & treatment services, we have done exceptionally well in moving these people on to new, more inclusive accommodation. We have also reduced admissions from the community to A&T from 1,850 bed nights in 13/14 to 200 bed nights to date in 2015/16.
Jane Cummings met with one of our service users who spent 25 years in a hospital under the Mental Health Act, who is now living in her flat in Enfield and doing incredibly well. Jane was very impressed with what she found in Enfield and particularly commented on the strength of our integrated health and social care service for people with learning disabilities. Jane also highlighted how person centred our service was, noting that this is not consistently found in many other places.
We are rightly proud of our learning disabilities health & social care partnership and our front line staff who work with dedication and skill. To receive this recognition from the most senior nurse in England is fantastic.
Question 19 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
For each of the Cycle Enfield schemes please confirm to the Council precisely when and by whom traffic surveys and for what duration (either desktop or otherwise) were carried out to enable the necessary traffic modelling that you have previously said was undertaken prior to consulting on these schemes?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
Please see below details of the traffic surveys undertaken to inform the traffic modelling for the main road cycling schemes:
Scheme
A105 Survey Times
07:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00 on Tuesday 8 July 2014
10:00-16:00 on Saturday 12 July 2014
Survey Company
Advanced Transport Services
Methodology
Video camera surveys were undertaken, with classified counts recorded in 15 minute periods.
Saturday surveys were only carried out at key locations, such as supermarket access junction etc. where flows would be comparatively high on a Saturday.
Enfield Town 07:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00 on Tuesday 8 July 2014 (Non-Market
Advanced Transport Services
Video camera surveys were undertaken, with classified counts recorded in 15 minute periods.
Day)
07:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00 on Thursday 10 July 2014 (Market Day)
10:00-16:00 on Saturday 12 July 2014
Saturday surveys were carried out at all junctions in the Enfield Town model scope.
A110 Southbury Road corridor
A1010 Hertford Road South
Traffic Survey Partners
Advanced Transport Services
07:00-10:00 and
16:00-19:00
on Thursday 11 December 2014
10:00-16:00 on Saturday
13 December 2014
07:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00 on Thursday 29 January 2015
10:00-16:00 on Saturday
31 January 2015
Video camera surveys were undertaken, with classified counts recorded in 15 minute periods.
Saturday surveys were only carried out at key locations, such as supermarket access junction etc. where flows would be comparatively high on a Saturday.
Video camera surveys were undertaken, with classified counts recorded in 15 minute periods.
Saturday surveys were only carried out at key locations, such as supermarket access junction etc. where flows would be comparatively high on a Saturday.
A1010 Hertford Road North
07:00-10:00 and
16:00-19:00
on Thursday 16 July 2015
10:00-16:00 on Saturday 18 July 2015
Traffic Survey Partners
Video camera surveys were undertaken, with classified counts recorded in 15 minute periods.
Saturday surveys were only carried out at key locations, such as supermarket access junction etc. where flows would be comparatively high on a Saturday.
Question 20 from Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu to the Councillor Sitkin, Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development
Would the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development update the Council on the Sustainability Award that the London Borough of Enfield has been shortlisted for this year - and explain how this adds to the UK Entrepreneurial Council of the Year commendation that the Business and Economic Development Department received last year?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
Enfield Council's Sustainability Team has made the shortlist for the national 'Team of the Year' award, run by weekly magazine the Local Government Chronicle.
The Council is one of just 10 authorities shortlisted for the award, competing against 98 other local authorities from across the UK. Interviews are in mid-January, with the awards ceremony on 16 March 2016 at Grosvenor House, London, which is the LGC's 20th anniversary event.
Judges fed back that the Sustainability Team's entry was 'extremely well presented,' was 'underpinned by strong team work' and was 'both customer and community focussed.' It provides national recognition of Enfield Council's bold vision to make Enfield a better place to live, work and visit.
The Enfield 2020 Sustainability Programme is leading the way amongst UK local authorities. With over 50 large-scale sustainability projects and over £1 billion being invested by Enfield Council and partners in this agenda.
The Council has put sustainability at the heart of our economic development strategy, nurturing a green tech industry that will give our people and entrepreneurs an excellent chance to succeed in the growth sectors of the future. We are also establishing "Energetic" as a Council's own energy company that is becoming a model for the rest of the country. At the same time, we've reduced the Council's carbon footprint by 35% over 5 years and supported our communities in achieving great energy savings.
The innovative nature and impact of Enfield 2020 has been recognised on the national stage for the last three years. In 2014 the Council was finalist in the Local Government Chronicle (CGC's) Public Sector Energy Efficiency Awards. In 2015 the Council received an LGC commendation as UK Entrepreneurial Council of the Year. This was a Council wide award and recognised the approach of our trading company. We're now a finalist in 'Team of the Year' award.
Question 21 from Councillor Rye to Councillor Alev Cazimoglu, Cabinet Health and Social Care
Following the announcement of the closure of Reardon Court, could she inform the Council how many clients are affected by this closure, how many has the council now made alternative arrangements for and at what date would she anticipate Reardon Court closing its doors for the final time?
Reply from Councillor Alev Cazimoglu:
Currently there are 24 residents, 16 tenants and 63 day centre attendees at Reardon Court.
All service users are receiving formal assessments as expeditiously as possible and are being supported by Council officers to find suitable alternative accommodation, care and support. No definitive end date has been set as the Council wants to ensure that the necessary processes are followed to enable all service users to be moved to appropriate alternative placements which meet their needs. However, it is envisioned that service users will be in transition in 2-3 months.
Question 22 from Councillor Uzoanya to Councillor Alev Cazimoglu, Cabinet Member for Health & Social Care
Could the Cabinet Member for Health & Social Care explain impact of the spending review on Adult Social Care in Enfield over the next two years?
Reply from Councillor Alev Cazimoglu:
Before I talk specifically about the spending review let me first say that between 2010 and 2019 the amount of money allocated to this Council through our revenue grant from central government will have fallen by 60%. Despite all of the hard work done to date and the many difficult decisions taken, the council still faces a £70m funding shortfall. Only £20m of that amount has been found so far leaving a further £50m to find. Adult Social Care, with a net budget of around £80m has a savings target by 2019 of £24m, a 30% reduction. Factor in to that increasing numbers of vulnerable people who continue to need our help and we have an additional annual pressure of £2m. The Council has made no provision for these additional pressures and these additional costs will have to be met from within existing resources.
Moving to the Spending Review, there were two very specific items relating to Adult Social Care. The first is the creation of a social care precept equal to a 2% Council Tax levy. In Enfield this equates to about £1.8m per year. The second is an increased allocation for local authorities from the Better Care Fund. I need to say here, however, that this does not begin until 2017/18 when our pressures in Adult Social Care are very real right now and it will be money taken from health services. If you then consider, in addition to the pressures I've mentioned already, the pension reforms and living wage requirements to fund for a front line workforce highly undervalued, struggling to retain its people and finding it so difficult to attract new people, I believe the impact of the spending review will barely scratch the surface when so much more further investment is urgently needed to keep our most vulnerable people safe.
Question 23 from Councillor Fallart to Councillor Alan Sitkin, Cabinet for Economic Regeneration and Business Development
Does Enfield Council offer ultra-high speed broadband connections in buildings it rents out to business?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
High speed broadband connections can be purchased from a variety of telecommunications providers serving the Borough, including Virgin Media, BT and Vodafone. Under OFCOM regulations, the Council is unable to provide broadband facilities to business as this is considered to be public subsidy and anticompetitive in the broadband market space. Consequently the Council is unable to offer these facilities in buildings rented out to business. The Council does however continue to provide free public access broadband, including wifi capabilities at all of its Libraries.
Question 24 from Councillor Hasan to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection
Does the Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection have concerns that the Government's commitment to adequately fund education is a lot of empty words? For example, it is a concern for some London Councils that as much as £600 million will be taken out of the Education Services Grant (ESG). How concerned is Councillor Orhan and what is the likely impact of all this reduction to Enfield families and children?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
Colleagues, I do indeed think that the Government's commitment to adequately fund education is a lot of empty words. My responses to questions 4 and 6 have already given information to support my view. It is very clear that there are serious reductions to the funding and resource that schools will be able to access to improve outcomes for Enfield's children and young people. The Government may be offering a flat cash settlement to the basic funding for schools' budgets but this will not meet the current budgetary increases. For example, increases in pay or conditions of service for staff. In addition they completely mask the other cuts to Council services for schools and the fact that schools will have no additional funds in their budgets to meet the increasing needs of their pupils.
The very real pressure on our schools, at a time when they have made so much progress as judged by Ofsted, is an issue for all Councillors and should mean that we join together, as Schools Forum have done, to lobby our MPs for a fairer settlement . I believe that my officers have had some success already in that this year we have had an increase to the high needs element of the Schools grant but this does not reflect the actual increases in need nor the pressure for special schools places that we are now faced with.
Question 25 from Councillor Dines to Councillor Orhan Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services and Protection
Are you comfortable that the only solution the Council has put forward to meet the school places shortage in central and western Enfield - expect a house builder to build a school whilst delivering housing - will inevitably contravene?:
1)    Enfield's Local Plan
2)    The London Plan
3)    The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
This is not a local authority led proposal to meet future demand for school places. Any proposal to develop land at Enfield Road will require a planning application and no application has been received. There is a clear legislative and policy framework within which the assessment and determination of planning applications relating to development on green belt land must follow. This includes the local, regional and national framework noted above.
Question 26 from Councillor Stewart to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
At the November Cabinet meeting it was agreed to reduce the frequency of grass cutting in parks due to the continuing savage government cuts to our funding. Can the Cabinet Member for Environment explain how this saving will be achieved?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
The saving will reduce the resources available for grass cutting resulting in an increase of natural grass areas in parks. There are distinct advantages of this for biodiversity. For example, in 2015 the Green Flag inspection recommendations pointed towards the opportunity to increase natural grass areas in parks by leaving grass around perimeters of parks to grow naturally, encouraging native plant species to develop.
Question 27 from Councillor Dines to Councillor Orhan Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services and Protection
Did you have any conversations with your Cabinet colleagues responsible for planning over the last two years about the suitability of your department's policy of believing the best way to deliver a secondary school for central and western Enfield is to partner with a house builder and, as there is no other site than green belt to build the houses, contravene Enfield's Local Plan?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
I assume this is referring to the Enfield Road site. This is not a local authority led proposal to meet future demand for school places. Any proposal to develop land at Enfield Road will require a planning application and no application has been received. There is a clear legislative and policy framework within which the assessment and determination of planning applications relating to development on green belt land must follow.
Question 28 from Councillor McGowan to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection
We know how essential a healthy body and mind is and with proposals to introduce cycle lanes as part of the Mini-Holland scheme, can the Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection tell this Council of the positive impact of children safely cycling to school and the contribution to their immediate and long term health?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
Physical activity is associated with a reduction in all Long-term conditions (LTCs) of between 20-40%. This includes conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, mental health and dementia. Cycling is therefore very good for the individual. LTCs account for 70% of the NHS budget. The mini-Holland scheme will therefore help to protect healthcare services in Enfield. Cycling is also associated with a reduction in air pollution, road noise, segregation (e.g. the A10), and financial resilience (not having to pay for public or motorised transport) and is therefore clearly very good for the whole borough. The benefit to our children is obvious with safe routes to school improving physical activity levels and reducing the threat of obesity.
Question 29 from Councillor Dines to Councillor Orhan Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services and Protection
Have either you or your Department pro-actively spoken to the Department of Education in the last year about finding a site in central or Western Enfield that could be suitable for a new school and ascertaining the value of it so it can be purchased?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
We have commissioned Property Services to advise on site options, including sites that could come to market, and expect a report by the end of February to inform school place planning for 2016/17, including future conversations with the EFA about the need for additional secondary school capacity. This is an acceptable timescale given the statements in the October Cabinet report on school places about the need for additional capacity by September 2020, with that capacity ideally in the Central or Western areas of the borough.
Question 30 from Councillor Jemal to Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council
Can the Leader of the Council tell us how London is changing in poverty terms and what does it mean for Enfield?
Reply from the Leader of the Council Unadjusted Means Tested Benefit Rate (UNBR)
The overall level of poverty rose between 2008 and 2013 in outer London (2% using UNBR analysis) and it fell by 19% in inner London. This is driven by claimants and households. This uses Fenton's 'unadjusted means tested benefit rate' as the measure. It takes the number of claimants of out of work benefits and pension credit and divides that by the number of households in the area.
Outer London is getting poorer in comparison to inner London. Indices of Multiple Deprivation
In 2015, Enfield was ranked the 64th most deprived area within England out of 326 local authority districts. Enfield moved from the 14th most deprived London Borough (of 33) in 2010 to the 12th most deprived London Borough in 2015.
London Poverty Profile
According to London's Poverty Profile, 27% of Londoners live in poverty after housing costs are taken into account, compared with 20% in the rest of England. According to the profile, this rate of poverty has not substantially changed in the last ten years but the number affected has risen from 1.9 to 2.2 million people as a result of London's population increase.
This profile looks at a full range of indicators which reflect poverty and highlights which of these have a particular impact in Enfield. Cumulatively, Enfield is in the lowest quartile (lowest 8) of London Boroughs across this set of indicators. This includes landlord possessions of rented property where Enfield recorded 29.7
possessions per 1000 renting households - more than double the London average.
Child Poverty
Under the current definition 29.6% of children in Enfield were in poverty in 2012. This was the 6th highest proportion among London boroughs. However, with over 21,000 children affected, Enfield had the highest absolute number of children in poverty of any London borough.
Question 31 from Councillor Dines to Councillor Orhan Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services and Protection
Given the Council's Plan A for a new school in Central and Western Enfield - expect a housebuilder to deliver a new school on green belt (which is the only possible outcome of the plan as laid out in paragraph 3.11 of the school places strategy) - could fall at many of the planning hurdles placed in front of it ... what is the Plan B?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
I would just like to remind Councillor Dines that the Enfield Road proposal is not the Council's Plan.
Once we have the additional information, expected from the Property Services report, on site options, the wider plans for provision of secondary school capacity for 2020 will be developed. This will include options for permanent provision and any temporary requirements as contingency plans.
Question 32 from Councillor Abdullahi to the Councillor Brett, Cabinet Member for Community Organisations & Culture
Could the Cabinet Member for Community Organisations & Culture give us an update on the expanded work capability assessment and universal credit and whether there is continuing public support for these measures? How will this impact upon Enfield?
Reply from Councillor Brett:
The expanded work capability assessment is linked to the ability to claim Employment Support Allowance (ESA) which since its introduction in 2008, has
required claimants to face a series of challenges to their ongoing receipt of benefit paid because of incapacity for work. The Government has repeatedly tightened the assessment criteria, and introduced conditions and sanctions, which require total compliance from claimants, to remain on ESA. This has left many people in considerable financial hardship as a result of breaks in entitlement.
The impact of any further changes on increased sanction measures could result in a further increase in broken benefits claims and increased poverty. This would require more interventions from the Council in the recovery of rent, council tax and other monies due from affected residents, plus an increase in issues associated with poverty - such as homelessness, substance abuse and a deterioration in health and wellbeing.
The national expansion of Universal Credit has started with the roll out of the first four tranches starting in February 2015, concluding by April 2016. By this time Universal Credit will be live in all 714 Job Centres in England, Scotland and Wales.
By the spring of 2016, Universal Credit will be tested extensively before legacy benefits are migrated over to the new system from 2016. During this period of transition there is significant risk associated with the successful payment of housing rents and Council tax as both organisational systems, and claimants, adapt to the new way of claiming.
Question 33 from Councillor Dines to Councillor Sitkin Cabinet member for Economic Regeneration and Business Development
Given the importance of the Local Plan and the potential changes that could occur to communities such as those in Crews Hill and Botany Bay with any green belt development, does Councillor Sitkin not think part of the public consultation process for the Plan should be to pro-actively go out to these communities and explain the process and what is going on, in effect a mini-roadshow style of event?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
Borough wide public consultation on key issues for the Local Plan is currently underway with a variety of events including at the borough's main libraries and information on the Council's website. The Local Plan consultation data base includes contacts for a wide range of community and residents groups including those for Crews Hill and Botany Bay, all of which have been informed of the current consultation.
Question 34 from Councillor Levy to Councillor Taylor, the Leader of the Council
Can the Leader of the Council say if rail fares have increased since 2010 and what impact does this have on residents in Enfield?
Reply from Councillor Taylor:
Yes. Three times faster than inflation. The privatisation of rail services has not worked, with the UK rail network 40% less efficient than the best performing European railway systems. The percentage increase 2010 - 2016 for example for Enfield to Liverpool Street is 34%.
Question 35 from Councillor Dines to Councillor Orhan Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services and Protection
Has Councillor Orhan or anyone in the Department made representations to the Wren Academy and asked them to lower the 50% faith based entry criteria they are currently proposing?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
As the Council is not involved with the Wren Academy application to open a new school we are not aware if this proposal has been formally approved. If approval is granted then we will of course enter into discussions with them about their admissions criteria. I assume from the question that Conservative policy is to discourage such faith based admissions policy.
Question 36 from Councillor Bond to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection
Can the Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection tell this Council if the concerns by London Councils that the Local Authorities will have to find an additional £70 million to replace the cuts from central government to its Education Services Grant (ESG) funding are justified and explain what impact this will have in Enfield?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
I think that the concerns expressed by London Councils are absolutely justified. My responses to Questions 4, 6 and 24 all address this issue to some degree, but I need to emphasise that the likelihood of this Council being able to replace the reduction to the Education Support Grant is severely limited, if not impossible. We already find ourselves under immense financial pressure as we attempt to make savings from our already slim budgets for services to children and families; these pressures being as
a direct result of the cuts already imposed by this government. All our services are under threat and we are already having to make very hard decisions about what we are going to be able to fund, going forward. We are determined to maintain high quality services for our residents that improve their life chances although this is becoming increasingly difficult with the government's agenda.
If you combine the pressure on the Schools grant with the reduction to the Council's education grant then a definite impact will be that schools, that are already finding it difficult to balance their budgets, will have to look at reducing their staff - this is how the vast majority of their budgets are made up and given the work done over the
recent years to balance budgets and work to eliminate any waste, there is little to no headroom left which will not affect the direct staffing support to children in the classroom. This means probably less teachers and definitely less support staff and staff that are needed to raise achievement and make the difference for our children
and young people and young people
Question 37 from Councillor Dines to Councillor Orhan Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services and Protection
Has Councillor Orhan or anyone in the Department asked the Wren Academy how many children from Barnet they expect will qualify for the school over Enfield children given the close proximity of a number of C of E Primary Schools in that Borough to the Enfield Road location?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
The answer to this question is the same as for Question 35. We have not had those conversations with the Wren Academy at present.
Question 38 from Councillor Bakir to Councillor Alan Sitkin, Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Business Development
Can the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Business Development explain if there will be any impact to Enfield families from the reduction to Adult Education and how would her department be picking up the fall-out from the cuts?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
Due to this Government's draconian and ideologically driven cuts agenda, the Adult Skills budget allocated to Skills for Work has been reduced this year - as have all college funds. In the past, this budget had been primarily used to cover costs of accredited learning. One response in today's more cash-strapped environment has been to provide training free of charge mainly delivering this in schools - while charging for exams. Note that the borough's larger schools have taken to supporting these costs on parents' behalf.
The community learning grant remained the same this year, with the relevant service carrying out even more direct delivery than it had been commissioned to do. This reflects the confidence we have in our quality of provision, recently substantiated by the good Ofsted we were awarded in March 2015.
College area reviews will have a further impact but as the process is currently taking place the outcomes are unknown. There are opportunities for European Strucutural and Investment Fund funding in partnership with Further Education and other local authorities. However, there will also be strong commercial competition from large nationwide organisations. Note that these are funds delivered in partnership with Department for Work and Pensions, Schools Funding Agency and the Big Lottery.
Lastly, it is worth mentioning that for many years we have been applying a "pound- plus" approach to community learning, with residents being asked to make a small contribution towards the cost of training. To date we have had a great deal of success with this way of doing business.
Question 39 from Councillor Smith to Councillor Oykener Cabinet Member for Housing and Housing Regeneration
Following the poor performance of the new repair and maintenance term contractors since their appointment, could he confirm the latest performance indicators for this function, that is: percentage of all responsive repairs completed in timescale; voids works in target time; satisfaction with Decent Homes; percentage of urgent repairs completed on time; average days taken to re-let all properties; and average days taken to re-let general needs vacant properties?
Reply from Councillor Oykener:
The performance of the two repairs and maintenance contractors, who commenced operations in May 2015 did start relatively poorly. This was due to a range of factors including a short mobilisation period and very few staff from the former contractor coming over to them via TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection and Unemployment). The main concern was in the refurbishment of empty properties for new tenants.
Due to a series of actions taken by the Repairs and Maintenance Team performance has improved considerably in the intervening period. The latest performance figures available are for November/December 2015. Savings on R&M expenditure against spend in 2014-15 is projected to be £3.2m. Action Plans agreed with the two contractors are in place to achieve targets by year end. It should also be noted that customer satisfaction with the repairs service (Dec 2015) stands at 95.5% against a target of 92%.
Indicator
Target
YTD
Percentage of all responsive repairs completed in timescale
Void works in target time 98.85%
95%
88.70%
65%
Percentage of urgent repairs completed on time
Average days taken to re-let all properties 96%
27
88.33%
37
26
35
42
42
Average days taken to re-let general needs properties
Average days taken to re-let sheltered housing properties
Gas servicing 100%
100%
Question 40 from Councillor Kepez to Councillor Keazor, Cabinet Member for Public Health & Sport
Could the Cabinet Member for Public Health & Sport set out the benefits she sees from the provision of sports pitches by Power League at Edmonton County School?
Reply from Councillor Keazor:
The new sport facilities at Edmonton County School includes a high quality sports hall, one 11 a side 3G football pitch and five 6 a side pitches, all these facilities will be utilised by the pupils of Edmonton County School during school hours - the school has required an upgrade of it sports facilities for several years and
Powerleague have provided this at no financial cost to the school or Council. The provision provides residents the opportunity to participate in the popular Powerleague provision in their local area. The Council also has 'community use' hours available at the weekends and school holidays to promote sport and physical activity (mainly football) to targeted groups.
Question 41 from Councillor Smith to Councillor Oykener Cabinet Member for Housing and Housing Regeneration
Following Climate Energy going into administration before Christmas, could he confirm when the individual schemes in the small sites programme are likely to restart on site and the revised estimates of practical completion?
Reply from Councillor Oykener:
Kier have since appointed Airey Miller Construction Management (AMCM) to work with them to deliver the seven sites at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately there will be a short period where there is no activity on site while the due diligence review is completed. Following this review we will receive a revised programme for completions.
Appropriate insurances have been put in place, measures have been taken to mitigate against security risks and make the buildings wind and water tight, formal dialogue is ongoing with the administrators and existing sub-contractors, and early indications are that work will commence back on site in the next few weeks.
Question 42 from Councillor Chibah to Councillor Sitkin, Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development
Would the Cabinet member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development provide the Council with the Department for Work and Pensions data evidencing how under this Labour administration, London Borough of Enfield has outperformed other London boroughs in terms of its comparative employment rate?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
Employment rates have improved significantly across London but Enfield has shown particularly strong improvements.
The most recent data from Department for Work and Pension on Job Seekers' Allowance claimants in Enfield dated November 2015 indicates that since November 2014 the claimant count has dropped from 5,598 to 3,775, a shift from 2.7% of the working age population to 1.8%.
The comparison with London-wide figures is stark, where figures in London have also dropped but less dramatically, from 2.2% in November 2014 to 1.7% for November 2015.
Also, due to implementation of Universal Credit in Enfield, employers are notably favourable in employing those in receipt due to the flexibility surrounding the benefit itself that is, not restricted to 16 hours per week to retain benefit.
Another even more noteworthy measure is the differential between the average monthly employment rate in Enfield, verses London as a whole. Whereas under the Tories and during the first period after the 2009 crash Enfield was several percentage points worse off than the rest of London, for the past few months our employment rate has been higher than the London average.
Question 43 from Councillor Smith to Councillor Oykener Cabinet Member for Housing and Housing Regeneration
Given the delays in completing the decanting of the Alma Estate, could he confirm the date when he expects all the original tenants to have vacated their properties and the number and the date when he expects all the temporary tenants who have been moved in in the interim to vacate their properties?
Reply from Councillor Oykener:
Planning for the Alma Estate was approved at September Planning Committee and as part of this process a Section 106 agreement needs to be completed along with final sign off from the Greater London Authority. Negotiations on this agreement are still ongoing with the developer and start on site cannot commence until they have been finalised and the build programme issued.
The decanting of secure tenants is in phases and progressed in-line with the build programme of the developer. At present we are on schedule with our decant programme.
Question 44 from Councillor Hamilton to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency
Could the Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency tell us what the budget reductions announced by the Secretary of State for Enfield over the next four years are?
Reply from Councillor Stafford:
The budget cuts announced by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for Enfield over the next four years are £38.7m (29.9%) based on the provisional Settlement Funding Assessments. With population growth and inflation this means over £50 million of savings are required.
Question 45 from Councillor Smith to Councillor Oykener Cabinet member for Housing and Housing Regeneration
Given the Administration's recent decision to set up a Council sponsored housing association to utilise right to buy receipts, can he confirm the target date for setting up this body and whether any councillors will sit on the Board?
Reply from Councillor Oykener:
On the 18 November 2015 Cabinet approved the report to set up a new Limited Liability Company with the intention of setting up a Registered Provider to support
the spend of Right To Buy receipts.
Since the Cabinet meeting we have been discussing the process with Legal Services and a tender specification is being prepared to appoint external consultants to undertake the process of setting up the body on our behalf.
Part of the consultants' role will be to appoint members of the board, give advice on governance structures and register with the HCA as part of the regulation process. We have been advised that this process could take between 9-18 months to complete.
Question 46 from Councillor Bakir to Councillor Anderson Cabinet Member for Environment
In the current climate of significant government cuts to the Council budget, can the Cabinet Member for Environment give assurances that our Refuse and Recycling Services are operating as cost-effectively as possible.
Reply from Councillor Anderson: Yes, I can.
Question 47 from Councillor Smith to Councillor Oykener Cabinet member for Housing and Housing Regeneration
Now that the management of the community halls has been taken in house by the Council, could he confirm the estimated profit or loss of this function for 2015/16 and the target profit for 2016/17?
Reply from Councillor Oykener:
The overall strategy for managing the twelve Community Halls is to cover repairs, cleaning, staffing and utilities costs and provide inexpensive and available facilities for local people. Since the halls have come back into the Council management, income has risen from £207,335 in 2013/14 to £247,178 in 2014/15. The Council is projecting a loss of approximately £20,000-£30,000 this year because of the impact of refurbishment costs of two halls, Mottingham and Kempe Halls, and the newly imposed cost of Business Rates. It is forecast that the additional income from the increased portfolio will allow the service to break even in 2016/17.
Question 48 from Councillor Levy to Councillor Keazor, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Sport
Does the Cabinet Member for Public Health and Sport welcome the news about the sports pitch on Enfield Playing Fields, and set out the benefits she thinks it will bring to public health and sports participation?
Reply from Councillor Keazor:
Yes, I fully support this proposal as it will provide a much needed facility to enable
the delivery of free community sports sessions, support increased participation in physical activity and generate income to invest back into the borough's leisure facilities.
Question 49 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency
Will he publish an organisation chart showing the previous departmental organisation at head of service level of the Council's departments and the proposed organisation under Enfield 2017 to assist all councillors to understand the major changes being proposed to back office and middle office functions?
Reply from Councillor Stafford:
Once this work has been completed a copy of this will be made available in the Member's Library. Briefings for both political parties are being organised at the moment.
Question 50 from Councillor Jiagge to Councillor Sitkin, Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development
Would the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development share with the Council, Mayor of London, Boris Johnson's letter expressing real surprise and sharp criticism of the Department for Transportation's last minute reversal of its explicit longstanding commitment to see a four train an hour service to Meridian Water?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
Please find attached as Appendix A, a letter from the Mayor of London to the Secretary of State for Transport for an urgent review of the Angel Road and Northumberland Park 4 trains per hour issue.
Question 51 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency
Could he confirm the target financial saving under Enfield 2017 for 2015/16 compared with the projected actual out turn for the same year?
Reply from Councillor Stafford:
The financial position for Enfield 2017 is set out in the monthly monitoring reports to Cabinet. Overall, Enfield 2017 is on track to achieve its end goal and there has been some adjustment to the delivery of the project during the year but Enfield 2017 will deliver the projected savings.
Question 52 from Councillor McGowan to Councillor Sitkin, Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development
Would the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development update the Council on this Labour administration's digital tech hub initiatives?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
The Council is currently advancing in two directions in terms of its digital economy ambitions.
The first relates to the London Regeneration Fund bid that it has helped local workspace social enterprise Building Bloqs prepare. See answer to question 62.
The other relates to the support being provided to a consortium of community sector and statutory providers including Barnet & Southgate College and Enterprise Enfield to progress a digital training skills centre. The initiative has originated from a concern for the needs of the Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) community in Edmonton which has traditionally seen disproportionately high rates of unemployment.
Excellent links have been forged with other London tech initiatives eg Hackney and Croydon to develop a bespoke Enfield specific programme and a meeting with the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) to support this proposal is scheduled in late January 2016.
Digital skills are integral to the growth of new businesses in Enfield, and the inward investment strategy and sector boards development will ensure that the requirement for a trained ready workforce is embedded. This will also be a key requirement of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) work with schools and colleges particularly to increase the number of Enfield residents, starting with women and BAME youths, accessing these skills and jobs.
Question 53 from Councillor Neville to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency
Could he confirm the estimated number of posts that will be removed from the Council structure under Enfield 2017 in 2015/16? Can he confirm how many of these will be compulsory redundancies?
Reply from Councillor Stafford:
It is estimated that 370 posts will be removed from the Council structure under Enfield 2017 in 2015/16. Most reductions have been achieved through a range of initiatives including voluntary arrangements and a significant reduction in the use of agency workers. To date only 14 staff have left due to compulsory redundancy.
Question 54 from Councillor Lemonides to the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development
Would the Cabinet member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development update the Council on the rapid and very real progress this administration has made in accelerating Meridian Water?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
Within the last 12 months the Council has achieved the following on Meridian Water:
- Housing Zone status confirmed awarding the Council £25m of funding
- Completed the purchase of 15 hectares of land (enough land for 4,000+ homes)
- Completed negotiations with 3 Master Developer candidates - final bids are
due on 2nd February
- Appointed an expert team
- Achieved a planning consent to decontaminate the initial sites
- Opened Angel Gardens open space
- Supported a huge London Regeneration Fund bid that would enable the
workspace social enterprise Building Bloqs to scale up considerably
- The Meridian Water Regeneration Strategy is on the Cabinet Agenda for
February 2016
Question 55 from Councillor Laban to Councillor Keazor, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Sport
Please could the Cabinet Member for Public Health and Sport inform the chamber whether she supports the proposals to dispose of the free to use tennis courts on the A10 in favour of an expansion of Edmonton Cemetery?
Reply from Councillor Keazor:
No decision has been taken to dispose of the tennis courts.
Question 56 from Councillor Doyle to Councillor Taylor, the Leader of the Council
In response to questions raised at the last Council on population increases, can the Leader explain how the Office for National Statistics calculates and attributes population increase?
Reply from Councillor Taylor:
Over the next decade population is expected to increase in the UK by 4.4 million. By mid-2039 the increase is expected to be a further 5.3 million. Half of this total of 9.7 million is attributable to natural change (the difference between birth and deaths). Enfield needs to plan for population increase in the borough.
Question 57 from Councillor Laban to Councillor Keazor, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Sport
Does the Cabinet Member for Public Health and Sport not agree that given the borough's obesity levels we should be improving the accessibility of free to use sports facilities not disposing of them especially those in close proximity to some of the poorest parts of our borough?
Reply from Councillor Keazor:
The Council operates an exercise referral scheme with the Health trainer service who work within the deprived areas of the borough to refer people into free physical activity sessions at leisure centres. This service provides a more tailored approach to lifestyle change than simply providing free activities for everyone. The service is offered to a range of individuals including those who are overweight or obese - this approach ensures residents in most need are supported through the programme to make long term changes and support prevention of long term conditions. The health trainer sessions are based predominantly in the poorest parts of the Borough.
The Council will continue to seek external funding for targeted activities and therefore continue to provide affordable and accessible physical activity provision in leisure centres, albeit it may be in a different format. We also have a range of provision within our parks for residents to access sport facilities such as trim trails, outdoor gyms, tennis courts and Multi use games areas.
The Council aims takes a whole system approach to obesity, this includes shaping the environment, influencing policy change and providing the right offer. More information on the Council's Healthy weight strategy will be available in due course. Cycling is of course a very effective means of building physical activity into everyday life for both children and adults. Our Cycle Enfield campaign should significantly increase access and opportunity to help address your concerns.
It is obviously disappointing that the Government cuts to Enfield's funding jeopardises sporting provision.
Question 58 from Councillor Dogan to Councillor Stafford Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency
Can the Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency explain when Enfield will retain its full business rate and will this make Enfield better off?
Reply from Councillor Stafford:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer reiterated his intention in the Autumn Statement, first announced at October 2015's Conservative Party Conference, to enable local government to retain all £26 billion of the income from business rates by the end of this Parliament. A new 100% rates retention scheme would mean that local authorities would benefit from an additional £13 billion of revenue. The additional revenue will mean that councils will take on new responsibilities and that central grant to local authorities will be significantly reduced including the phasing out of Revenue Support Grant (RSG).
There will be further consultation in 2016 about a potential transfer of responsibilities to local government including the funding of:
"    The administration of housing benefit for pensioners
"    Transport for London's capital projects
"    Public health
"    More responsibilities to support older people with care needs
"    Other responsibilities for local government not yet specified.
The system of top-ups and tariffs will remain. The uniform rate of business rates will be abolished. The aim of this proposal is to boost growth, help attract business and create jobs. Those councils with elected mayors will be able to add a premium to their business rates to pay for new infrastructure as long as they have support of the business community through a majority of the business members of their local enterprise partnership.
The Chancellor also announced that the Government will report back on the business rates review by Budget 2016. There is not sufficient detail given within the announcement to decide whether Enfield will be better off or not.
As yet, the details of this scheme are unclear, as is the impact on Enfield. The Government expects to consult on more detailed proposals 2016 and Enfield will make full representations as part of that process.
Question 59 from Councillor Laban to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Could the Cabinet Member for Environment apologise to the users of the tennis courts on the A10 for announcing that you are going to dispose of them in favour of expanding the Edmonton Cemetery?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
The premise of the question is incorrect. No decision has been taken on this matter.
Question 60 from Councillor Barry to Councillor Sitkin, Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development
Would the Cabinet member for Economic Regeneration & Business Development update the Council on the very real successes that this Labour administration has had in restoring Enfield's proud manufacturing tradition?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
The Council is fully committed to creating the conditions so that many thousands of manufacturing jobs will come to Enfield over the next 10-15 years. Our efforts are divided between a proactive inward investment programme; support for Enfield's existing business community; support for start-ups; and employability upskilling jobseekers.
In terms of our inwards investment efforts, we have been having a great deal of success, largely due to the proactive work this is Administration is doing in going out to sell Enfield to the market. Members will have read in recent months about some excellent new manufacturing companies that have decided to move to Enfield and I am confident that we will be able to announce another fantastic newcomer within another few days.
In terms of supporting our existing companies' growth, the Economic Development department has updated communications through both computerisation and regular
meetings with land agents, a novel step for this Council and indeed, we are told, councils nationwide. We have become much more responsive to companies' growth requirements, with some excellent results. Specifically the fact that whereas Enfield's employment rate languished several percentage points below the London average under the party opposite, for the past few months we have moved 0.5% above. Note that external funding has been secured to develop vibrant sector boards in key growth sectors, which will further encourage the growth of manufacturing.
In terms of the work we are doing to support start-ups, one example is the support we have given a local workplace social enterprise that this Administration has nurtured in the hope that they will win London Regeneration Fund funding allowing them to accelerate the development of open workshops for prototype manufacturers in Southeast Enfield. This represents a step change in the commercial use in the area - a move away from industrial warehousing and logistic type uses (relatively plentiful across the borough) and developing small-scale creative workshops for creative makers and artistic uses that both build on the rich industrial artisan heritage of the area, but also take into account trends and opportunities that are arising across London
In terms of employability, I refer you to the work being done across this Administration, including by my friend and colleague Councillor Orhan, to advance Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) programmes benefiting Enfield residents.
Question 61 from Councillor Laban to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Could the Cabinet Member for Environment commit that our refuse and recycling collection service will remain weekly after February?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
Yes. Refuse and recycling services will remain weekly. However, we are looking at the best way to run our composting services in future years.
Question 62 from Councillor Uzoanya to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection
Can the Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services & Protection tell this Council if it is true that young people's behaviour in Enfield has outperformed the rest of London in terms of "good behaviour"?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
I am very happy to report back on this matter which concerns young people's behaviour specifically relating to their health, and the findings of the recent report "What About YOUth" published by Public Health England.
The very pleasing results of the survey of 15 year olds nationwide show that Enfield's young people display a host of good health behaviours in many aspects of health, surpassing those of their peers elsewhere in the country.
These include the following key areas:
- Percentage of those with a long term illness, disability or medical condition diagnosed by a doctor
- Percentage of those with 3 or more risky behaviours
- Percentage who eat 5 portions or more of fruit and veg per day - Percentage of current smokers
- Percentage of regular smokers
- Percentage of occasional smokers
- Percentage who have tried e-cigarettes
- Percentage who have ever had an alcoholic drink - Percentage of regular drinkers
- Percentage who have been drunk in the last 4 years - Percentage who have ever tried cannabis
- Percentage who have taken cannabis in the last month - Percentage of those who were bullied in the last month
The findings of the survey showed that there were no areas of behaviour in the categories of "General Health, Diet and Physical Activity" and "Wellbeing and Bullying", where our young people aged 15 were worse than others.
http://www.healthwatchenfield.co.uk/news/15-year-olds-enfield-engage-less-negative-health-behaviours-15-year-olds-accross-country
Question 63 from Councillor Laban to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Please could the Cabinet Member for Environment update the chamber on the progress of delivery of its promised additional Household Waste and Recycling Centre in the East of the borough?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) has undertaken to develop a Refuse and Recycling Centre (RRC) at the Edmonton Ecopark as part of its redevelopment of that site when replacing the current Energy from Waste (EFW) facility there. The process for obtaining a Development Control Order (DCO) for the site is underway and expected to be completed in February 2017. This will reverse the previous Conservative administration's decision to close the Carterhatch Lane site when Councillor Neville was Cabinet Member for Environment.
Question 64 from Councillor Bond to Councillor Keazor, Cabinet Member for Public Health & Sport
Does the Cabinet Member for Public Health & Sport welcome the new Government sports strategy, launched in December 2015, and how does she see that benefitting community sport in Enfield?
Reply from Councillor Keazor:
It is reassuring to see the that feedback we and I'm sure many other Boroughs provided has been taken into account in this new strategy. We welcome the fact that
the children from the age of 5 will be targeted for specific action which, this will of course support our drive to tackle weight management for children and their families. We all know that traditional sport does not appeal to everyone so the recognition of physical activity such as fitness and dance is positive and will appeal to the wider population. Officers are working closely with Sport England to help shape their new strategy and priorities in light of the new government strategy.
Question 65 from Councillor Laban to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Would the Cabinet Member for Environment apologise to the Leader of the Council for his department holding an event on Chase Green even though a letter was sent to residents by the Council explicitly stating that the Leader had said that events would not occur on Chase Green?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
I understand that a cancer patient charity event to raise thousands of pounds to support local residents dealing with life-threatening illnesses was held on the site. Officers are reviewing the use of the site in line with its purpose, but I would hope that you would celebrate the good works of the charity.
Question 66 from Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu to Councillor Keazor, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Sport
Could the Cabinet Member for Public Health and Sport update councillors on the recent review of excellent practice in sports commissioning, where Enfield was one of the chosen boroughs?
Reply from Councillor Keazor:
Enfield Council is part of the leisure and sport national commissioning programme delivered by CLOA (Chief Leisure Officers Association) and Sport England to explore the cross cutting agendas that sport and physical activity can contribute to strategically. A range of colleagues were interviewed including our Chief Executive, Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services, Director of Public Health and Chair of the Enfield Clinical Commissioning Group (ECCG) to name a few and a desktop analysis of our strategies and those of the ECCG and NHS.
We are working through the findings but the initial steer is around prevention, exercise referral, regeneration and marketing and communications. This project is about changing the perception of sport and physical activity and recognising its benefits to wider social development and health inequalities. Leisure and sport officers have as a result engaged with the Health and Well-being board to take some of this work forward. We will also have the opportunity to work closer with GPs through an initial presentation/engagement session with Dr William Bird who is renowned in the industry for his work around the physiological health benefits of sport and physical activity. We hope this peer to peer session will start to steer GPs towards prescribing physical activity for health.
Question 67 from Councillor Laban to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Please could the Cabinet Member for Environment commit to implementing a communications strategy within the Public Realm division because the many issues regarding the recent event on Chase Green could have been avoided if staff had talked to one another?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
New arrangements for communicating and working with issues of the parks will be introduced following the annual budget. However, it is worth noting that Councillor Laban together with her fellow ward councillors, namely Councillor Steven and Councillor Rye, were consulted prior to the decision to proceed with the Chase Green event, but surprisingly given her subsequent unhappiness expressed no comment. Perhaps the members listed should communicate a bit better.
Question 68 from Councillor Laban to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Could the Cabinet Member for Environment explain why we are changing from paying for waste disposal via the levy method to menu pricing when for years it has been stated that this was not good for the borough economically due to our Co- Mingled Dry Recycling, Mixed Organic Waste, Food Waste and Garden Waste contract?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
I refer you to the Cabinet report for the meeting of 20 January 2016 on this issue.
Question 69 from Councillor Laban to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance Efficiency
Could the Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency explain whether he supports the Cabinet Member for Environment's proposals to dispose of the tennis courts on the A10 as he was previously against it when he led a call in on the issue in July 2007?
Reply from Councillor Stafford:
Councillor Laban's memory is correct. I did oppose the original relocation plan in 2007 because the Director of Environment at that time wanted to keep the public tennis courts west of the A10 in Bush Hill Park where there is already an abundance of private tennis clubs. However I refer you to the answers to questions 55, 57 and 59 on this agenda on this issue.
At present I believe no decision has been taken as to where the public tennis courts will be re-located but the obvious preference is to the East of the A10.
Question 70 from Councillor Laban to Councillor Brett, Cabinet Member for Community Organisations & Culture
Would the Cabinet Member for Community Organisations & Culture:
a.    Arrange for the damaged area which previously housed the stolen public art piece "Lost Treasures" in Grove Street, Upper Edmonton to be tided and made good?
b.    Explain why the damaged area opposite St John and St James School, which previously housed "Lost Treasures" has still not been repaired and replaced despite the fact it is been like it for many months?
Reply from Councillor Brett:
The Mosaic was part of an independent project by Artstart funded by Heritage Lottery called 'Lost Treasures'. Artstart has already been informed of the missing pieces. Council officers are looking at what the provision in the project is for repair and what, if any, role there is in the project for the Local Authority"
Question 71 from Councillor Celebi to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Following the deputation made by myself on behalf of the crossing patrol and local residents to Cabinet on 16th December 2015 in respect of the issues and problems created by a lack of safe crossing facilities at Raglan school in Wellington Road, can the Cabinet Member inform me what action he has taken, or will take, to improve safety of children crossing the road?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
Officers have been investigating remedial measures, including a possible zebra crossing, since well before the deputation and they will be reporting their conclusions to me in the near future. I can assure Councillor Celebi that child safety is of paramount concern to the Council, which is why Wellington Road, by the entrance to Raglan School, has a 20 mph speed limit with traffic calming measures. Can I assume that the Conservative opposition has performed a U turn and now supports traffic calming around schools which it has previously opposed?
Question 72 from Councillor Celebi to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
Can the Cabinet Member confirm whether he has received a copy of the online petition as an addition to the paper petition that I presented at the Cabinet meeting on 16th December 2015 regarding the lack of safe crossing facilities at Raglan school, Wellington Road? Can he also confirm the number of signatories on the electronic petition?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
Yes, we did receive the petition and the number of signatories was 69.
Question 73 from Councillor R Hayward to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children's Services and Protection
What is the present situation regarding the possible new primary school in Grovelands Park? If Historic England has rejected the proposal what alternatives are being considered?
Reply from Councillor Orhan:
We are still committed to delivering the proposed school at Grovelands and the negotiations with Historic England are ongoing and very complex. There have been some recent developments and we have agreed with Historic England to carry out some further work in January. As colleagues will know, we have set up a provision with Bowes School at Broomfield with the intention that this will form the school at Grovelands if the application is successful. This provision is already admitting pupils and we are working closely with both schools to ensure that the provision is able to continue.
Question 74 from Councillor R Hayward to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment
The street lighting is no longer adequate and pedestrians are not being seen by motorists. Has there been an increase in accidents and do you propose to review your dimming policy?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
The Council commenced the adaptive lighting strategy with the installation of a Central Management System (CMS) in early 2012. This system led to a reduction in energy consumption by the street lighting assets and for the on/off timing to be trimmed at both dusk and dawn. During the introduction of CMS reduced levels of lighting were trialled in different areas and councillors, police and various interested parties considered the changes in lighting levels. All agreed that levels were adequate for night time environment. In addition, both crime and collision records continue to be monitored.
The Council has also taken part in a major study - LANTERNS (Local Authority collaborators' National Evaluation of Reduced Night-time Streetlight project) the findings, of which show that a reduction in lighting levels makes very little difference to the level of crimes or traffic accidents.
Question 75 from Councillor R Hayward to Councillor Anderson Cabinet Member for Environment
What are the flood risk areas of Enfield? What is the Council's policy on these areas to protect existing development and future development?
Reply from Councillor Anderson:
Unlike the Conservative group who actually opposed flood elevation schemes, this Labour Administration is fully committed to protecting our residents in flood risk areas. The main flood risk areas in Enfield are in the low-lying areas of the Lee Valley, such as Ponders End, Brimsdown and Edmonton. There are significant flood risk areas elsewhere in the borough where surface water runoff and smaller rivers also have the potential to cause significant flooding during extreme rainfall. Enfield published a Surface Water Management Plan in 2012, which identifies these areas and presents an action plan for managing these risks. This has recently been followed up with a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy which describes all the actions taken by the Council to reduce the risk of flooding. Enfield has clear planning policies to ensure that new development is safe from unacceptable flood risks.
Question 76 from Councillor R Hayward to Councillor Sitkin, Economic Regeneration and Business Development
Has the doubt over four trains per hour for Meridian Water meant that the three developers vying to become the Master Developer are less keen? Will the development suffer?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
No, they remain as keen as ever - and bids from all three developers are in fact being submitted to the Council on 2 February. It is true that all three consider 4 trains per hour as crucial to unlocking housing growth in the years to come. But they seem more than satisfied with the work that the Council is doing to ensure that Meridian Water receives the requisite level of transportation service.
Question 77 from Councillor R Hayward to Councillor Sitkin, Economic Regeneration and Business Development
The fiasco with the Ministry of Transport over the 4 trains per hour at Meridian Water could have been avoided by contractual agreements. Why was this not done? It has already cost £200,000 for the Judicial Review, what further costs are expected during the appeal?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
It is the Department for Transport that has reversed their position on 4 trains per an hour. This is of course completely at odds with the stated Government position of needing to build more homes and the position agreed with this council and the Greater London Authority. Note the 30 November 2015 letter attached as Appendix A from Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson to Patrick McLoughlin, Secretary of State for Transport, decrying the Department for Transport's last-minute betrayal of all the promises that it had consistently made ever since the beginning of the process regarding train frequencies. One of the arguments that the Mayor makes is that business partners need to be as good as their word. I'm surprised that Councillor Hayward doesn't support Mr Johnson in demanding trustworthiness from public bodies. Further costs would be a matter of the way any appeal is determined.
Question 78 from Councillor Robert Hayward to Councillor Sitkin Economic Regeneration and Business Development
In a previous question you provided me with the hectarage of brownfield sites in the Borough. What specific sites make up this hectarage, their names and individual areas?
Reply from Councillor Sitkin:
Many of the brownfield sites lie within the Council's published regeneration priority areas such as Meridian Water. The full list of brownfield sites within the current Housing Trajectory is not in the public domain as it contains sensitive/commercial information on some sites which have been identified as potentially suitable for housing development but may currently be in other uses/ownership. They may be at various stage within the planning process or be subject to tender/acquisition.
Section 2: Questions for Associate Cabinet Members
Question 79 from Councillor Hurman to the Councillor Savva, Associate Cabinet Member for Enfield South East
Can the Associate Cabinet Member for Enfield South East comment on the level of flooding in Enfield this winter?
Response from Councillor Savva:
Recent rainfall levels have been significantly higher than average and, although no serious flooding has occurred so far in Enfield, the risk of flooding is elevated due to the increased soil saturation levels in the catchment and heightened river flows we are currently seeing. Enfield has a robust Multi Agency Flood Plan which sets out how Enfield works with other emergency responders in the event of a flood. It is disappointing that we don't have the support of the conservative group to invest in flood management across the borough.