Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Extraordinary Council and the Ordinary Council held on 20 October 2009 attached.

The minutes of the Extraordinary meeting and the Ordinary meeting held on 20 October 2009 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

 

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were none.

To receive Petitions in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 2.1 (iv).

There were none.

To receive any questions of which due notice has been given.

To follow

 

There were none.

To receive questions from Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.2, of which due notice has been given.

 

(a)      In accordance with notice given, Councillor Michael Wilson asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

“In the light of the Leader's statement at the last full council meeting, will he make comment on the progress he expects to make on Twickenham Riverside?”

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“ A contract would not be signed until next Summer. The development is important to the adjacent embankment providing extensive new open space to the river centre and café, a new children’s playground, and further improvements to the adjacent embankment, all at no capital cost to the local council tax payer. Between now and next summer we will continue to promote the real benefits of this scheme and to address the misinformation peddled by certain opponents including, regrettably, certain opposition councillors.”

 

Cllr Michael Wilson asked a supplementary question as to whetheror not Councillor True sent a letter to developers discouraging them from taking part in the procurement process for the Twickenham Riverside site. Councillor Lourie replied by stating that Councillor True had stated at the Commission meeting that he had not sent such a letter. However, it subsequently transpired that he had handed the letter to officers to distribute to potential bidders for the site.

 

Cllr True questioned whether the Leader was aware that the account and the answer given were in fact factually incorrect; that the public would  be absolutely delighted to hear that nothing more would be done on this wretched scheme; and that the public were hoping that it would be abandoned forever. Councillor Lourie replied that he was present at the Commission meeting and heard Councillor True clearly denying having sent a letter to developers and then subsequently announcing that he had actually given the letter to officers of the Council to distribute to developers. Councillor Lourie added that the decision was with the electorate but that he was very confident that this scheme would be a tremendous benefit to Twickenham.

 

Councillor Elloy asked whether the Leader would kindly provide some information on the misinformation being divulged by the opposition. Councillor Lourie stated that three pieces of misinformation were that the Administration intended to sell the whole site to developers; get rid of the playground and also the café. The Council scheme assumed that only a quarter of the site would be used for housing; the playground would be moved to a better location on the site; and the café will be replaced by a larger and better facility beside the river within the River Centre.

 

(b)      In accordance with notice given, Councillor Stanier asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

“Could the Leader comment on progress with the Comprehensive Area Assessment.”

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“The Audit Commission will announce the results of the Comprehensive Area Assessment on the 9^th December. I am confident that the CAA report will recognise the many and varied achievements which have resulted from close and collaborative working between the Council and its partners. The Local Strategic Partnership have a clear understanding of the needs of residents, including those in the poorest areas and have delivered sustained improvements to housing conditions, protection of the environment, improving community cohesion, achieving low levels of childhood obesity, protecting vulnerable adults, supporting the local economy, and two recent publications have been absolutely superb madam mayor, and improving access to services for the disadvantaged.

 

Councillor Stanier asked a supplementary question as to whether the Leader considered the results of the CAA were comparable to the star rating in the CPA. Councillor Lourie replied that four stars were achieved in the CPA and Officers including the Chief Executive and the Head of Corporate Performance were to be congratulated for their hard work in achieving that result. The CAA was different and judged the Council alongside its partners in the Local Strategic Partnership, and looked across all council services. The two scores could not be directly compared, but based on discussions with the lead inspector it is anticipated that the organisation assessment and the area assessment would be positive.

 

Councillor Fleming acknowledged how hard officers had worked but, as a supplementary question, queried the cost to the Council for this work. Councillor Lourie replied by statingthat far too much was having to be spent on the regulatory regime.

 

Councillor Michael Wilson asked a supplementary question as how CAA related to the fact that this borough had the highest residents’ satisfaction rating in the place survey. Councillor Lourie replied that partners had worked well together in the borough in delivering priorities and residents recognised the borough as a good place to live. The score of 92.2% was the highest of any of the boroughs in London.

 

(c)     In accordance with notice given, Councillor Stratton askedthe Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing please comment on the implementation of Self Directed Support for adults needing social care in the borough?”

 

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

 

“Madam Mayor, the Council is a leader in this area introducing Self Directed Support in October 2007 for new service users and rolling it out as our default way of operating Social Care for all in August 2008. Since then more than 1200 people have received a personal budget easily exceeding the government targets. Feedback from people using personal budgets indicates we are improving people's lives and people are benefiting from greater control and choice.

 

There are many challenges in rolling out self directed support, but I believe that our approach - to meet these challenges in full partnership with service users, carers and other organisations, will ensure that we are able to deliver services that really meet people's needs and that people are treated as equal partners in making the best use of all available resources”.

 

Councillor Stratton asked a supplementary question as to how business processes were being improved to meet the challenges in the Adult and Community Services Directorate. Councillor Carr replied that a user-led support service was being piloted and would be expanded over the coming year as part of the care management redesign. On the 23^rd November the Cabinet had approved the plans for the redesign which would be rolled out from April 2010 following detailed consultation with staff for the implications of their roles. There would also be investment to enable provision of  comprehensive advice and information for any resident in need of support regardless of whether they were eligible for funding from the Council or not.

 

Councillor Urquhart asked a supplementary question on how many people with learning difficulties living in residential care were receiving a personal budget and what they were doing with the money.  Councillor Carr replied that day-services’ budgets for those people with learning difficulties living in residential care had been transferred to the residential home providers so that they could be used as part of an all week comprehensive range of activities for residents. Providers were actively working with the residents concerned and their friends and colleagues to identify activities wanted and this was leading to wider and more varied activities in the community.

 

Councillor Davies asked a supplementary question as to what was being done to highlight the Council’s achievements. Councillor Carr replied that in addition to sharing the self-directed support experience with the network of London Councils, the application for the local innovation awards, under the theme taking control of care had been shortlisted.

 

(d)      In accordance with notice given, Councillor Samuel asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

“Will the Cabinet Member make a statement on the Annual Governance Report 2008/09?” 

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“I am very happy to comment on this report and the conclusions because they are extremely positive, although auditors rarely use superlative language, as I am sure most members of the council will be aware. The report concludes: ‘Our overall assessment for the Council’s use of resources is that the Council is performing well (at level 3), only one Council in London (Camden) has scored higher than this. The Council was assessed as performing well in respect of managing finances and managing resources themes, and performing adequately with regard to governing the business theme. The Audit Commission recognises that Richmond Council’s services are amongst the lowest cost and highest performing of any local services in the country and has consistently scored the Council highly for providing ‘value for money’.

 

Councillor Samuel asked a supplementary question with reference to pages 20 and 21 of the report of the Statutory Accounts Committee, where the Council did not receive the top rating under twelve headings; and in as many as four out of twelve it received the lowest rating permissible. Councillor Knight stated that the overall conclusion of the report was extremely positive, and added that the items quoted were those within the overall score at level two, which was an entirely satisfactory score. He confirmed that the council was now scoring level three for a number of items which were scored at level two in 2006.  Steady improvement was therefore being made and overall the report was extremely positive on how the Council managed resources.

 

Councillor True asked a supplementary question about the poor score on value for money and whether improvements could be secured. Councillor Knight replied by stating that Councillor True was referring to a very specific judgement based on how the Council improved value for money, which was judged at level two at the moment and had also been judged at level two under the previous Conservative Administration. The Audit Commission’s judgement on whether the Council  achieved value for money overall in its service provision was consistently at level four.

 

(e)      In accordance with notice given, Councillor Marlow asked the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education:

“What steps did Councillor Eady take to correct the misleading statement in the Lib Dem Borough leaflet that the decision on Academies had already been taken prior to the completion of the consultation period?”

 

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:                       

 

“We have made it clear from the very start of the academies development process that the proposals are subject to full consultation before Cabinet considers them in its role as local decision-maker. During the consultation process over 40 meetings have been held, with parents, governors, pupils and other local people. At those meetings it was emphasised that this was not a done deal that the academies programmes would go through. At the meeting at cabinet on 14^th December, I, and my colleagues, will listen to the arguments, read the reports and consider the feedback from the O&S Committee. It is only then that we will make our decision.”

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question as to whether it was improper for the Cabinet Member to intervene during the consultation process to look at the result, and an abuse of the consultation process to call for support when he could clearly see that the replies were not to his liking. Councillor Eady replied that he had called for support from quite a number of sources, and had encouraged headteachers to advertise the consultation to parents so that they would feel able to respond.

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question as to why all questions about post-16 provision had been deleted in relation to the feasibility stage of the Sheen Academy. Councillor Eady replied by stating that the feasibility stage for the Sheen Academy had not yet commenced and therefore the questions had not been produced. They would be produced and analysed by the project manager for the DCSF and not for the Council.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question about the independent consultation exercise undertaken by Appleyards for Hampton Community College and Whitton School. Councillor Eady replied that this was a complex consultation and views were sought on a range of questions.  One of the surprising things that came out of the consultation was how similar the results from the two schools were, for example:

74% for HCC, 79% for Whitton were in favour of the vision for the two schools; 74% for HCC, 79% for Whitton wanted the academy; 82% for HCC and 81% for Whitton in favour of 11-16 schools and working with the local colleges.

 

(f)       In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elengorn asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

"Following Councillor True's claim at the last council meeting that he opposes the sale of public land, could the Cabinet Member list all public land that was either sold, placed on a disposal list or otherwise considered for development between May 2002 and May 2006."

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“I too was rather taken aback to hear Councillor True at the last Council meeting telling us that he was opposed to the sale of public land as when I investigated the answer to this question I discovered that between the period May 2002 and May 2006, when Councillor True himself was responsible for land and property issues within the Council, as the Deputy Leader, the Council completed disposal sales on a total of 28 properties with a total value of £16.42M. I also discovered that in terms of new properties which Councillor True proposed to the Cabinet and his Cabinet colleagues agreed to sell, an additional 26 properties were agreed to in 2004  and a further 3 properties agreed a year later in 2005. I don’t wish to go through the entire list but I will just make a point that of those 26 properties that Councillor True recommended and his Cabinet colleagues agreed to in 2004,  included on that list was a garage site on Shacklegate Lane, Teddington, the Sherland Road garage site in Twickenham, envisaged for a housing development and I think notably Madam Mayor, land in Water Lane Twickenham and Bell Lane Twickenham which was identified for housing development which is in fact closer to the river in Twickenham almost than the houses proposed on Twickenham Riverside. So in a sense Councillor True himself recommended and agreed a housing development on Twickenham Riverside while he was running the Council”.

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question as to whether the Deputy Leader would not agree that the blatant hypocrisy of the Opposition on this subject shows complete contempt for the intelligence of the public only matched by their similar approach to planning policy. Councillor Knight agreed with those statements.

 

Councillor True stated that the Opposition were not opposed to the sale of public land but opposed to the inappropriate sale of public land on Twickenham Riverside and queried progress on the Avenue Centre. Councillor Knight replied by stating that he recalled Councillor True saying that he was opposed to property sales. Councillor Knight added that even if Councillor True is now only opposed to property sales on Twickenham Riverside that really doesn’t explain why he recommended and the Cabinet agreed to a housing development on Twickenham Riverside opposite the pool site in 2004.  Plans were being developed for the Avenue Centre and he stated that this Administration had succeeded in delivering capital schemes and capital improvements.

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary as to whether the Opposition had one policy when in power and one whilst in opposition. Councillor Knight referred Council to decisions in  July 2004 in order to determine the Conservative position on Twickenham Riverside and what they would do in power.

 

The time allowed for Members’ questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given to all remaining notified questions.

 

(g)      In accordance with notice given, Councillor Allen asked the Cabinet Member for Communities:

“Would the Cabinet Member for Communities please give an up to date position on Richmond upon Thames being the safest borough in London?”

 

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

 

[“The most recent crime data (up to 31^st Oct) indicates that the London Borough of Richmond continues to be London’s safest borough. Using the most recent financial year position (Apr-Oct 09), and the rolling 12 month position (01 Nov 08 – 31 Oct 09), the borough has the lowest number of total crimes per 1000 population when compared to the other 32 London boroughs. This position has been maintained throughout 2008/09 and financial year to date. Using the rolling 12 month total, the borough has a crime rate of 67.412 per 1000 population. The next nearest borough, Kingston, has a crime rate of 71.174”].

 

(h)      In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

"Mayor Boris Johnson has been able to ensure that there is no increase in the GLA precept by ditching plans for the western extension of the congestion zone, and by introducing swingeing increases in tube and bus fares. Would the Cabinet Member outline the consequences of these measures for the residents of the Borough, and on the environment generally?"

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

[“Although Richmond is not directly affected by the removal of the Western Congestion Zone, the decision to increase bus fares by almost 13 percent while the Retail Price Index and inflation are at historically low levels is disappointing. It will encourage more people to use their cars, increasing congestion and CO2 emissions.

 

Richmond has been leading with innovative policies to reduce the impacts of transport with emission based parking and the Smarter Travel Richmond partnership with TfL.

 

I have written to Mr Johnson’s transport advisor asking how much will be raised from these increases, and how it will be spent”].

 

(i)       In accordance with notice given, Councillor Parsons asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

“What standards does the Council apply to the use of children in advertising within the borough in relation to:-

a)  prior parental permission

b)  handling and data protection

c)  CRB checks of those handling photographs of children”

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

[“Whenever photographs of children are required for any marketing or publicity purposes they are sourced from either purchased stock photography companies e.g. Getty or they are taken by a member of the Communications Team (or Children's Services and Culture Team). Stock imagery comes with official consent from all the models used. All children photographed locally must have a signed consent form from their parent or guardian, who has given permission for the images to be used for publicity purposes. All legal consent forms are available to download on the intranet.

 

There is no requirement to be CRB checked to simply handle photographs of children”].

 

(j)       In accordance with notice given, Councillor Urquhart asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

“Will the Cabinet Member please tell us what this council is doing through her Directorate, for the vast majority of Richmond upon Thames residents who are labelled 'self funders'?”

 

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

 

[“The Council offers information and advice about arranging care and support.  Anyone, regardless of their financial means, can request a Community Care Assessment.  A voluntary consortium, commissioned by the Council, provides support planning and brokerage services available to self-funders.  Its support workers visit people at home to look at how they might organise their care and support, accessing facilities in their local community and offering information and advice about the range of services available.  The Council’s maximum personal contribution (£310 per week) allows residents with higher levels of care needs to continue receiving subsidised services from the Council”].

(k)      In accordance with notice given, Councillor Coombs asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

“What percentage of Twickenham riverside site is currently open to the public?”

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

[“Only around a third of the Twickenham Riverside site has been utilised for the existing playground, café and landscaping.  This is of course considerably less than will be available to the public once our new proposals for the site are completed”].

 

(l)       In accordance with notice given, Councillor Fleming has given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

“Is the Cabinet Member satisfied that Section 106 planning agreements restricting the issue of residents’ parking permits are being complied with”?

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

[“I am aware that the Councillor has been in discussion with officers and no doubt will have been informed that I have asked them to investigate the S106 agreements in place, some of which originated many years ago. A process is in place to ensure that permits are only issued to those residents authorised to receive them. The Parking website has a section which summarises all agreements with links to the full details to enable residents to view the full decision. In addition I have also asked officers to check all the existing S106 agreements to ensure that they have not been breached”].

 

(m)     In accordance with notice given, Councillor Sheehan asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

“Please would he comment on the major gas works taking place in Kew, in particular with respect to the relative timing between these works and the very recent refurbishment of Priory, Forest, Maze and Bushwood Roads?”

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

[“North London Gas Alliance (NLGA) are involved with replacing existing iron gas mains with plastic.  The mains in Kew and Richmond North are in the higher risk category and therefore need replacing.  These works were discussed at the recent Kew ACM and NLGA will be having a public relations bus on two separate days, which residents can visit to gain any further information and work explained in detail.  The Council can only protect works that fall in the category of reconstruction and resurfacing.  The work that was carried out in these roads was small patching which cannot be protected”].

 

(a)        Councillor Stanier has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

 

      Commercial Dog Walking on Barnes Common (Mortlake and Barnes Common)

 

 

(b)       Councillor King has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

 

      110 bus route – re-routing (Heathfield Ward)

 

 

(c)        Councillor Miller has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

 

      Surrey County Council’s action in clearing a large area of Ham Lands of all vegetation without regard to its local nature reserve status (Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside Ward)

 

 

 

(a) Commercial Dog Walking on Barnes Common (Mortlake and Barnes Common Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Stanier raised concerns about commercial dog walking on Barnes Common.  She commented on the problems of one person walking many dogs and being able to control them, increased dog mess, and a lack of litter bins on the south side.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment stated that a limit on how many dogs could be walked by any one person had not been stipulated in the Dog Control Orders when they had been agreed in 2007, but that officers were in the process of reviewing the position and would be carrying out a consultation early in the new year on a proposal to limit the numbers that can be walked by any one person.

 

 

(b) 110 bus route (Heathfield Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor King requested that the existing 110 bus route be re-routed through Powder Mill Lane and Whitton.   This would be of value to residents as it would mean that they would not need to take two buses to their nearest shops in Whitton and there would be direct services to Twickenham and the hospital.

 

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking advised that re-routing of buses was the responsibility of TfL. Officers had been instructed to raise this with TfL, who will be extending the bus route to West Middlesex University Hospital. It was acknowledged that increasing the ‘middle’ part of the route would increase people’s accessibility to the hospital. The reliability and frequency of the 110 bus route had been looked into and was considered to run on time and had adequate capacity.

 

(c) Clearance of Ham Lands of vegetation (Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Miller raised concerns about the removal of vegetation from 2-3 acres of Ham Lands by Surrey County Council in an attempt to remove Ivy and Japanese knotweed from trees, without regard to its local nature reserve status. Councillor Miller stressed that it was important that Richmond’s Parks Service formed a relationship with Surrey County Council to establish a joint approach towards Ham Lands.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment stated that the area from which vegetation had been cleared was occupied by the Thames Young Mariners and was owned and managed by Surrey County Council.  The Cabinet Member agreed that it would have been good practice for Surrey County Council to have informed this Council as their neighbours. Officers had been in contact with Surrey County Council and it had been agreed that Surrey County Council would endeavour to communicate its proposals for future works well in advance.

 

Attached

RESOLVED:

 

(1)   The re-endorsed No Casino Resolution be adopted.

 

(2)   The revised Draft Statement of Principles under the Gambling Act 2005 be adopted.

 

 

Attached

RESOLVED:

 

That the approved change in the composition of the Audit Committee to appoint an Independent Member be endorsed and an amendment to the Constitution to reflect this change be required.

 

None

There were none.

None

There were none.

Attached

Councillor Stanier, Chair of the Member Training Steering Group introduced the report by stating that it had been an aim of the Steering Group since its establishment in 2007 to work towards gaining this charter for the council.  She informed Council that research showed that that training and development was needed for Councillors to provide practical skills for existing Members and as an opportunity to attract new councillors.  The Steering Group had sought to focus on the needs of Members of this Council and the Charter provided a clear framework for the development of Members to meet the needs of the community. 

 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Lourie considered that commitment to the Charter would demonstrate the Council’s belief in the high quality of support that members receive and would enable the Council to provide measureable evidence for that belief.  He confirmed his support as a signatory to the commitment to the Charter and thanked the Member Training Steering Group and the Joint Member Services Managers for their preparatory work.

 

The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor True stated that his Group was committed to the Charter.  He considered Member development to be an important area as generally there were too many one-term Councillors, and any obstacles to a second term needed to be considered and removed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That commitment to the London Member Development Charter be agreed.

 

None

There were none.

None

There were none.

To receive any announcements from the Mayor, Leader, Members of the Cabinet or the Head of Paid Service.

The Mayor announced the following:

 

(1)   All tickets had been sold for the Christmas Concert on 8th December. 

(2)   There would be Carol Singing in aid of the Mayor’s charities in Richmond Town Centre at 12 noon on 12 December, near Richmond Station. 

 

(3)   The quiz in October had raised over £1000. A second quiz would be held on 5 February 2010.

 

(4)   Advance notice of a concert at the Barn Church, Kew at 3.15 pm on Sunday, 21 February 2010.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education announced that two of the Council’s primary schools were in the top 10 best performers in London.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment announced that the Go Green programme had been given a national CharteredInstitutionofWastesManagementGreen Apple Award and the trophy was displayed.

 

(a)        Councillor Williams has given notice to move the following Motion:

 

 

‘This Council opposes the changes to the CO₂ related parking charges proposed by the Conservatives, which would result in gas guzzlers paying less and small engined environment friendly cars paying more’.

 

a)         In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams moved, seconded by Councillor Trigg:

 

‘This Council opposes the changes to the CO₂ related parking charges proposed by the Conservatives, which would result in gas guzzlers paying less and small engined environment friendly cars paying more’.

 

            The motion was put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED.

 

            RESOLVED:

 

‘This Council opposes the changes to the CO₂ related parking charges proposed by the Conservatives, which would result in gas guzzlers paying less and small engined environment friendly cars paying more’.