Agenda and minutes

Attached.

With the consent of Council and in accordance with Procedure Rule 16 (c), the Mayor announced that the order of business would be revised to hear Agenda Item 11a as the first item.

 

The Mayor warmly welcomed former Councillors Anna Davies, Martin Seymour, Shas Sheehan, Carol Stratton, Celia Hodges, Rodney Bennett, Pat Parsons, Eleanor Stanier, James Mumford, Bob King and Serge Lourie.  He noted that between them, these former councillors represented well over a century of public service.

 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor True, praised the former councillors for the good service which they had provided to the Borough and offered his thanks to the four former councillors present who had also served as Mayors of Richmond upon Thames.  The Leader noted in particular the contribution of Serge Lourie who as the former Leader of the Council and the community had overseen a revival in the Borough’s finances and demonstrated his thoughtfulness towards all councillors.

 

The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Knight, expressed his thanks to those former councillors present and to others who were unable to attend.  He also paid tribute to Serge Lourie for his long service as a ward councillor, his role as Leader of the Council and his work with local organisations and pan-London bodies.

 

To the acclamation of Council, The Mayor presented each former councillor present with a certificate to mark their service.  Gifts were presented to those with the longest service, namely, Rodney Bennett (8 years), James Mumford, Pat Parsons, Eleanor Stanier, (12 years), Bob King (24 years) and Serge Lourie (28 years).

 

RESOLVED:

 

That thanks be expressed to former councillors for their services to the Council.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 6 July 2010 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2010 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

 

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

No declarations of interest were made.

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

Councillor Fleming presented a petition on behalf of visitors to the River Thames Visitor Centre in support of the centre and against any Council enforcement proceedings.

 

Any questions received of which due notice has been given attached.

(4a) In accordance with notice given, Ms Teresa Read asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development:

 

 “The previous administration signed up to the Sustainable Communities Act but did not form a Citizen’s Panel which was a requirement of the Act. When will the Council fulfil this requirement and what will be the composition of the Panel?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“The previous administration do not appear to have actually formed a Citizen’s Panel but I understand that they intended to designate it to the former sustainable Richmond sub-group of Richmond’s Local Strategic Partnership and include resident representation.  Our administration fully supports the objectives of the Act and the opportunities that it provides for the local community to put forward submissions.  No dates have actually been announced for further rounds yet but we will probably use a panel of local residents identified through our All in One consultation process to consider the process.”

 

Teressa Read asked a supplementary question seeking details of the methods of public engagement being planned. Councillor Fleming replied that she felt it was important for the community to be involved, and the local economic assessment provided a valuable snapshot for the local economy, to which community groups would be given access . She wanted to engage the community and ensure that they had input into local issues like the economic assessment.

 

(4b) In accordance with notice given, Mr Jamie Edwards asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning:

 

"As the overwhelming majority of residents don’t want individual large scale

developments planned or approved out-with a coherent, well thought out urban

design strategy that facilitates joined up thinking and given the importance of

Twickenham Rail Station and the adjacent post office site bordering London Road and the rail track, are theses sites being designated 'strategic sites' and being integrated into an overall urban design strategy for the whole of Twickenham? If so, when? If not, why not?"

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

“I share Mr. Edwards’ concern that redevelopment must be in keeping with the local character and Planning Guidelines.  New guidelines as part of the Local Development Framework (LDF) were recently subject to consultation and will be adopted shortly.  The Council recognises that these sites are of strategic importance and site - specific proposals are included within the Unitary Development Plan and will be further developed within the LDF.  We will conclude on how to take Twickenham forward once we have analysed both the results of the Barefoot Consultation and the results of the forthcoming Twickenham Conference.”

 

Mr Edwards asked a supplementary question regarding the Twickenham Rail Station and the adjacent post office sites’ future use.  Councillor Morris replied that the Council had to remain neutral in these applications and anything put forward by the residents would be considered by the Council’s planning department.

 

(4c) In accordance with notice given, Mr John Roxby asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning:

 

"Given it is the policy of the Council to support environmental information centres, would the Council hope to protect and encourage such facilities into the future?"

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“The Council considers that Environmental Information Centres can be a valuable resource if they are representative of the environmental agenda, and are accessible, viable and sustainable facilities.”

 

Mr Roxby asked a supplementary question regarding whatmeasures were being taken to ensure the protection of the Environmental Information Centre which was the only such facility in the borough and was under threat. Councillor Morris said she felt it would be improper to comment on the centre as it was currently under investigation by the Council’s planning department.

 

(4d) In accordance with notice given, on behalf of the Teddington Society, Mr Brian Holder asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic:

 

“The public was last consulted on the Transport Local Implementation Plan in mid to late 2005. In none of the intervening years since that date have the public been consulted about forward Annual Transport Plans and Budgets. As a consequence, residents have had no say in whether work needs to be done, and whether any expenditure involved, is fully justified. As a consequence, a number unnecessary and costly schemes have taken place. In order to keep expenditure under tight control, will you be ensuring that future Forward Transport Plans are subject to full public consultation and scrutiny?”

 

Mr Holder not being present at the meeting, a written reply was given:

 

“As with the previous LIP (Local Implementation Plan) the public will be consulted as we develop our new LIP. The work programme for transport is brought to committee on an annual basis with individual schemes being consulted on as appropriate before being implemented.”

 

(4e) In accordance with notice given, on behalf of the Teddington Society, Mr Brian Holder has given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Traffic:

 

“Since 17July 2009, only one Transport Consultative Group Meeting has been held, with the previous Cabinet Member for Transport making decision after decision behind closed doors. Most residents are not aware how these decisions are made, what evidence has been considered, and that these decisions are listed in an obscure location on the Council website. In view of the new Administration’s stated commitment to full public consultation, will you be announcing that Transport Consultative Group meetings will, in future, take place on a monthly basis, to give residents the opportunity to make their views known publicly?”

 

Mr Holder not being present at the meeting, a written reply was given:

“The Transport Consultative Group is not a statutory or constitutional body, neither is it a ‘decision making’ group but was originally set up to provide a forum to discuss the moresignificant transport issues in the borough. However, over the years, it was used increasingly to comment on routine/minor traffic proposals. Furthermore the attendance from the general public was often found to be very low.      

In the light of unprecedented financial challenges currently faced by the Council we are reviewing our resources and processes to focus on activities which offer good value-for-money. Therefore, there are no immediate plans to resurrect Transport Consultative Group and we are looking into new innovative and engaging ways to invite comments on key transport proposals.”

 

 (4f)In accordance with notice given, on behalf of the Teddington Society, Mr Brian Holder has given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Traffic:

 

“The Cycle Liaison Group Meeting scheduled for 28September been cancelled,

when will it now take place?”

 

Mr Holder not being present at the meeting, a written reply was given:

“The meeting planned for 27^th September has been rescheduled for Monday 4^th October to suit most participants. The agenda and supporting papers will be circulated later this week.

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/council_committees_list?mgl=ieListMeetings.aspx&CommitteeId=453 “

 

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

Attached.

(5a)In accordance with notice given, Councillor Harrison asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

“Could the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources please tell us what provision is there in the current year budget for the 200-300 redundancies which the last administration accepted as the likely result of the PWC review?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“None.”

 

Councillor Harrison asked a supplementary question requesting information on how the administration would fund redundancies which may arise in the financial year. Councillor Samuel explained that an Invest to Save Fund had been established specifically for cases where spending could lead to Council savings. Details of expected savings would be published to enable Scrutiny to monitor the success of the investments.

 

Councillor Knight asked whether the Deputy Leader would accept that in view of the previous Administration’s aim to introduce savings over four years a loss of 200 – 300 posts would equate to normal turnover and so the actual number staff made redundant would have been lower and that the previous administration had left reserves of £52million? Councillor Samuel said that at the last meeting of the Scrutiny Commission redundancies were discussed and it was openly accepted that compensation would be needed during this financial year.  Councillor Samuel agreed that the previous administration had left reserves of £52million.

 

Councillor Montague asked the Deputy Leader what the present state of the reserves was and how it compared to the Liberal Democrat promises about the reserves in 2006. Councillor Samuel replied that the previous administration claimed that the reserves were £54m during the 2006 election. Their manifesto stated that their administration would not hoard money but would spend that money for the benefit of local people. However the previous administration has passed on £52m in reserves in 2010.

 

(5b)In accordance with notice given, Councillor Knight asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“Will the Leader of the Council explain why he considers it a higher priority to reduce parking permit charges for owners of large cars than to fund services for vulnerable children and young people?”

 

Councillor True replied in the following terms:

 

“I disagree with the premise of Cllr Knight’s question. The Council’s proposals on parking help residents of smaller homes without drives in that one-sixth of the borough that was hit by the tax introduced by the party opposite.  That tax was unfair and regressive. The Scrutiny Committee confirmed it had no discernable environmental benefit, the public voted against it, and we will remove it.  The policy is not related to funding in any other areas.”

 

Councillor Knightasked a supplementary question seeking to establish if the Leader accepted that it is the responsibility of the new administration to prioritise the borough’s spending bearing in mind the cuts to children’s services and the scrapping of the emissions based parking charges. Councillor True responded that the choices were made by the electorate at the last election.

 

Councillor Salvoni asked if there was any evidence that the Emissions Based Parking Charges had a positive effect on CO2 emissions in the borough. Councillor True responded thatthe Emissions Based Parking Chargeshad no discernible benefit, as confirmed by Council officers.

 

Councillor Eady asked the Leader to comment on the suggestion that as the cuts in Council expenditure were much greater than expected, all manifesto pledges should have been put on hold and that programmes for young people most in need, such as the Positive Activities Programme and the Metropolitan Police Kids Programme should have been given priority. Councillor True responded that the Youth Development Fund was set up by the Liberal Democrats in their first year of office at £1m and none of that was spent over two years.  Much of that money still needed to be spent and he would see that it was allocated to young people. All cuts that were made were in response to the statement made by the Chief Secretary for the Treasury. The Leader suggested that Councillor Eady write to him.

 

(5c)In accordance with notice given, Councillor Mathias asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“Has the Cabinet Member for Social Services discovered the reason for the £2million pound deficit in her budget left by the last administration?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“In 2002 we inherited a £4,000,000 deficit in Adult Social Services so I suppose I should be grateful for the deficit being only £2,000,000 this year.  But this is the worse year to be in a deficit , especially as there has been an increase in the number of people requiring intensive care services .By not overestimating the savings we have managed to keep the deficit to a more reasonable figure while still  acknowledging the ageing local population and growing demand.”

 

Councillor Mathiasasked a supplementary question requesting to know what recovery plan was in place. Councillor Urquhart replied that the recovery plan was going toa Divisional Management Group Meeting that week so she did not want to go into detail about the plan but said they needed to remain focused.

 

CouncillorJaeger asked if the Cabinet Member agreed that the overspend was £270,000. Councillor Urquhart said she agreed but this only formed part of the Adult Services budget.  The Commissioning Care Services Commission was overspent by £2.21m. 

 

(5d)In accordance with notice given, Councillor Day asked the Strategic Cabinet Member Education, Youth and Children’s Services:

 

“Will the Cabinet Member explain why she has scrapped the proposed new youth provision at the Old Town Hall in Richmond and what replacement facilities she is proposing to offer young people in central Richmond?”

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“The proposal for developing the facility in the Old Town Hall in Richmond has been withdrawn following an initial feasibility assessment.  The proposed site raised a number of issues such as accessibility and absence to natural light and limitations for flexible service delivery. The proposed site was in a deep, dark, dank basement which is clearly unsuitable for the Youth Service.”

 

Councillor Dayasked a supplementary question requesting that the cabinet member reveal the savings achieved by scrapping the youth provision at the Old Town Hall. Councillor Percival responded that she did not have the figures, but would provide them to Councillor Day. 

 

CouncillorBouchier asked if the Cabinet Member agreed that the new youth provision was a last minute suggestion by the previous administration and was unlikely to attract the youth of Richmond due to the lack of light and its previous usage. Councillor Percival agreed and said that youth services would be a priority in Richmond and other areas. A mobile unit was planned to dissuade young people from congregating on Richmond Green.

 

Councillor Jaeger askedwhat the Council was going to provide immediately for young people in Richmond now and Councillor Percival replied that she was looking to consult on alternatives.

 

 

(5e)In accordance with notice given, Councillor Harborne asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

"What demands on the reserves / underspend has the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources identified so far?"

 

Councillor Samuelreplied in the following terms:  

 

“Potential under-achievement of saving is £2.5m. Plugging the black hole in Social Services bequeathed to us by the last administration is £2.m.  Redundancy is a minimum of £1.5m.  Reported overspends by Environment is £1m, (four at half a million each). Inflation, looked after children, loss of grants and buying out staff car usage have also been identified, making a total of £9m  notified to us since the last meeting of the Council, We also have loss of capital grants at £3.7m, the effect of which is not fully calculated and the worst possible scenario of recurrent Department for Health consultation is £6.2m.”

 

CouncillorChurchill asked a supplementary question seeking clarification on the proportion of the invest to save fund that would be needed to pay for redundancies. Councillor Samuel respondedthat if the figure of £1.5m is correct it would be 20% but he was advised on current thinking that £1.5m would be inadequate.

 

Councillor O’Malley asked the Deputy Leader to explain how the reserves had been impacted by the public spending cuts announced by the government. Councillor Samuel responded that identified demands upon the reserves were as high as £9m. This was before the announcements from Government expected on 20^th October.  Any suggestion that Council was in a robust enough situation to avoid some of the necessary cuts being implemented, was irresponsible and reckless.

 

(5f)In accordance with notice given, Councillor Nicholson asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and Children’s Services:

 

"Will the Cabinet Member explain how she intends to carry out the duties placed on the Council under the 2006 Education and Inspection Act, to ensure that young people at risk of anti-social behaviour are provided with constructive activities, now that she has ceased the funding of the Positive Activities programme?”

 

Councillor Percivalreplied in the following terms:

 

“Positive Activities, as part of the Area Based Grant, was reduced by £20,000, an 8 % reduction of the total £250,000 Positive Activities budget and a 3% contribution to the overall ABG in year cuts.

 

To compensate for this and future cuts, the Youth Service will ensure that there is better targeting of existing resources within the Council and local voluntary sector to those most in need and at risk of anti social behaviour. This will involve more effective commissioning and a review of youth work provision is current. 

 

Any services that were not in place already would not go forward in light of the ABG cut.”

 

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question inquiring if the Cabinet Member agreed that the positive activities programme was a success in wards such as Ham. Councillor Percival replied that because the area based grant had been cut any schemes that had not come to fruition would not be progressed.

 

CouncillorChappell asked if the Cabinet Member felt it was important to encourage young people to engage in leisure pursuits. Councillor Percival said she agreed. The recent launch of the free leisure card for all young people would encourage them to engage in activities to improve their health and well-being.

 

Councillor Jones asked if the administration had carried out a cost benefit analysis of the positive activities programme before agreeing to cut funding. Councillor Percival explained that the reduction in ABG meant that projects could not proceed.

 

(5g)In accordance with notice given, Councillor Bond asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development:

 

“What steps is the Cabinet member taking to ensure the voluntary sectors are properly consulted and involved in the grants review?”

 

Councillor Flemingreplied in the following terms:

 

“We have been open and transparent to the voluntary sector since the announcement of the grants review.  All the comments that were received have been addressed in the Council’s response and the final version has now been published on the Council’s website.  Organisations have been invited to discuss their funding and local priorities with their relevant Link Officer within the Council. The Council has in fact now funded a sector led stakeholder meeting, involving organisations subject to the review, to be held on 30^th September to give groups the opportunity to discuss options for making more effectiveuse of resources.”

 

Councillor Bondasked a supplementary question seeking confirmation that there would be no reduction in grants in the current financial year. Councillor Fleming confirmed that was correct.. In fact awards had been given anew to voluntary organisations including Linden Hall Day Centre for Elderly People and Mortlake Community Association and Passmore Centre.

 

Councillor Acton asked whether money for the voluntary sector would be protected in the future. Councillor Fleming replied that grants from London Councils were a subject of consideration. The Council wanted to protect money for the voluntary sector but she stressed that it would need to be administered in a different way.

 

Councillor Bouchier asked what progress had been made on feedback from the voluntary sector. Councillor Fleming replied that all the feedback from workshops with the voluntary sector had been included in an action plan. As the voluntary sector knew what was needed locally, the Council would work closely with it in commissioning services. 

 

 

(5h)In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elengorn asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning:

 

“How does the Cabinet Member propose to operate zero tolerance against developers who build without permission, given that such works are not generally unlawful, are not in every case objectionable on planning grounds, and can, when and if the Planning Committee acting independently deem it appropriate, be enforced against?”

 

Councillor Morrisreplied in the following terms:

 

“Within the framework of natural law and guidance unauthorised development would not be allowed to just happen without firm action being taken.  If there are breaches of planning regulations that are objectionable on planning grounds we will investigate and act accordingly.”

 

Councillor Elengornasked a supplementary question enquiring if the Cabinet Member agreed that the manifesto committing to zero tolerance was unlikely to be achieved bearing in mind that at the last planning committee members voted in favour of two retrospective planning applications. Councillor Morris said that action would be taken to remedy the harm these planning breaches had caused.  The Council would aim for voluntary compliance if possible, but would take formal action if not. Those persons responsible would be requested to either remove the unlawful development or submit a planning application in the same way as those provided by the law.

 

Councillor Stockley asked if the Cabinet Member could justify the cost of this service. Councillor Morris replied that there was always a cost associated with public service but it seemed justified in order to bring fairness for all and protect the character of the borough which is what the voters wanted.

 

Councillor Coombs asked the Cabinet Memberif she had read the report of the Task Group from 2006 which addressed this matter, especially paragraph 13. Councillor Morris replied that she looked forward to reading paragraph 13.

 

5i)In accordance with notice given, Councillor Stockley asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Schools comment on the signing off of Shene School as an academy over the summer?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“As we haven’t met since early summer, I am delighted to report that the three academies have now been signed off. The two Twickenham academies have had their building funds approved, while Shene academy's building funds are subject to the government's spending review which will be concluded late October.  With respect to Shene, becoming an academy represents a very exciting opportunity.  We’ve got a very good sponsor in AET, and significant demand for the school in the community. However, these conditions alone are not enough. We need to bring them together. We need to give the community a proactive voice with AET to ensure they deliver a school the community wants.  We have done this by putting in place a community board which we will be developing together with the community and with the school to facilitate the necessary engagement. We have also agreed with AET to work towards quality sustainable sixth forms which will be part of a network of sixth forms in the borough.”

 

CouncillorStockley asked a supplementary question about the risk of not having the community board in place when the school opened. CouncillorHodgins replied that this had not been in place in the project which the new administration inherited and reiterated that the school needed parent to be active in the school’s improvement.  The community board would provide this route to get where the administration wanted to be, which was having one of the best secondary schools.

 

Cllr Eady asked if any change had been made to the expressions of interest that went out for consultation. Cllr Hodgins replied that the expression of interest had been left as it was but there had been agreement with AET to develop a community board .

 

Councillor Martin asked about the benefit of the addition of the Richmond Park Academy. Councillor Hodgins replied that it was a very positive development which would be used as a model and means of working well with the community.

 

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

 

5j)In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance:

 

“Will the Deputy Leader say how many typing requests he has made to Democratic Services between 10 May and 31 August 2010 in terms of numbers of letters, memoranda, reports, etc., and how many of these have mentioned Zero Based Budgeting?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

“Requests were made as follows: May, 64; June, 82; July, 67; August, 65 and 23 on behalf of the Leader. Few, if any, related to Zero Based Budgeting.”

 

 

5k)In accordance with notice given, Councillor Eady asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:

 

“Following his decision to postpone the appointment of 29 school governors in July, will the Cabinet Member explain what new skills he considers school governors will require after this summer, and how many existing school governors does he therefore consider are not up to the job?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“The skills of strategic leadership and management are fundamental to the role of a school governor; along with knowledge of the state school system and an understanding of the statutory duties of the governing body.

 

The CPD programme provided by the authority ensures that all governors have appropriate skills, knowledge and understanding for their role.

 

Additional updates on new initiatives and changing polices such as: academies; sixth forms in schools; safeguarding regulations; and changes to Ofsted inspection will be the main foci for governor updates in the near future.

 

The expectation is that all school governors will be well briefed in these to carry out their role effectively.”

 

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

 

            “High Rise clusters.” 

(Twickenham Riverside Ward)

 

 

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

 

            “Bus transportation in Whitton.”

(Whitton Ward)

 

a)  “High Rise clusters.” (Twickenham Riverside Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Naylor raised concerns regarding High Rise Clusters in Twickenham Town Centre. He explained that this had been an issue since Regal House was built in 1962, approximately. The community had been concerned that the station area was being targeted for major development and in 2008 permission was granted for Regal House to be extended.  He questioned if the promise of 170 flats on the Regal House site would have justified the damage the site would cause. Councillor Naylor felt that members present should agree that the local skyline must be protected and any developments must be stopped.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning replied that she shared Councillor Naylor’s concern that high rise building clusters would not be appropriate within Twickenham town centre which was essentially suburban in character.  To ensure that development of the Twickenham Station and Royal Mail sites was in keeping with local character, and did not have an unacceptable impact on local residents, Planning Guidelines had been prepared and would be adopted shortly. The Cabinet Member also mentioned that the administration would be putting in place additional safeguards which would be published soon.

 

b) “Bus transportation in Whitton.”  (Whitton Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elliott raised the issue of the 110 bus in the Whitton Ward. He explained that he had campaigned for the regeneration of Whitton High Street and raising Whitton’s profile. He asked if the Cabinet Member for Transport would be acknowledging this and would she be seeking to open up negotiations with the bus operators and TfL to scope out the possibility of linking Heathfield with its major shopping centre and railway station.  He acknowledged that budgets are under pressure, but that he was keen that a solution be found and phased in over time.

 

The Cabinet Member for Traffic replied that she acknowledged the situation and said she was aware of concerns that residents in the Whitton and Heathfield area had regarding bus services, and of their desire for changes to be made to the route of the 110 service so that it better served their community. She agreed that a bus service allowing direct access to the local shopping area would be beneficial to many local residents. Transport for London had been engaged on this issue in the past but unfortunately with little success. Councillor Head said she would be pressing TfL on this at the Public Transport Liaison Meeting on Monday the 27th of September.

Attached

Restructure – Education, Children’s and Cultural services directorate

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the revised senior management structure for Education, Children’s and Cultural Services be approved.

 

To consider an item of Opposition Priority Business or Key issues in accordance with Rule 14.

 

For this meeting the Leader of the Opposition has requested that the following matter be placed on the agenda:

 

"The Cabinet's failure to consult before decision making".

 

 

At the annual meeting in May the Council had introduced a new opportunity for an opposition priority business debate.  For this meeting the Leader of the Opposition had requested that the following matter be placed on the agenda:

 

"The Cabinet's failure to consult before decision making".

 

 

The debate was opened by Councillor Williams, whose submission included the following points. He was grateful for the opportunity to have this kind of debate.   The lack of consultation carried out by the current administration was contrary to their manifesto, which included on its second page, the sentence, “You the people who pay should be the people that have the say.”   He considered that the previous Administration had consulted widely on emission based parking  and asked for reassurance that there would be consultation before action on major decisions.  He asserted that participatory budgeting had been suggested by a previous cross-party Task group but had not been adopted by the Deputy Leader.  He asserted that proper consultation produced change and cited the scheme for Barn Elms which had involved local councillors and residents and received plaudits from the community.

 

Members of the Majority Group, Councillor Porter and Councillor Naylor made speeches which included the following points.  Proposals over many years to build houses and flats and commercial premises to enable development of the Twickenham Riverside sites had proved deeply unpopular with local residents.  The previous Administration had incurred enormous cost in failed consultations on schemes which had not been implemented, while failing to listen to alternative proposals.

 

Members of the Opposition Group, Councillor Eady, Councillor Nicholson and Councillor Roberts made speeches  which included the following points.  Concerns were raised on the lack of consultation on service and budget reductions  for work with children and young people.  Area Consultation Meetings were being scrapped without testing the ideas of the cross-party Task Group.  These meetings, which were particularly popular in some wards, had offered regular contact, while the “All in One” consultation was being offered as a one-off.  The Administration appeared to offer consultation where it suited it and many decisions were being made without consultation.

:

 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor True, brought the debate to a close.  He stated that this open debate had been an opportunity for the minority party to raise concerns for local residents  and he was disappointed that it had not been well used on this occasion.  He asserted that the new administration would meet its promise to act differently on consultation and cited the success of the recently held Barefoot Consultations that were attended by almost 1000 residents.  He noted that with one exception the highest attendance figure for an Area Consultation Meeting was 36 with all others being considerably less well attended. The “All in One” consultation would for the first time survey every household.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scrutiny Annual Report attached

Scrutiny Annual report 2009-2010

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Annual Report for the Overview and Scrutiny functions covering the last twelve months be noted.

None

None.

 

proposed london local authorities bill

 

RESOLVED:

 

1. That the Council approves the inclusion in a bill to be promoted by Westminster City Council of provisions effecting all or some of the following purposes –

 

(a) to alter the application of Chapter VIII of Part IV of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 so that different provision may be made for travel concessions in

relation to different railway services and journeys on railway services on the London Local Transport Network and so as to make provision for arbitration in cases where London Authorities consider that charges notified by Transport for London under the

reserve free travel scheme are excessive;

 

(b) to enact any additional, supplemental and consequential provisions that may appear to be necessary or convenient.

 

2. That the Chief Executive be authorised to take the necessary steps to ensure the Council’s participation in the

Bill.

 

MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES SCHEME 2010/2011

 

resolved:

 

That the following amendment to the Members’ allowances Scheme 2010-2011 be approved:

 

(a) “6. Dependent Carers’ Allowance (DCA)

 

(b) The inclusion of a new Appendix B as detailed in the appendix to

this report.

 

(c) The consequential re-label of the existing Appendix B as Appendix

C and the reference to it in paragraph 8.1 of the scheme be agreed.

(Please see minutes when published for full details.)

 

None

None.

 

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

1. The Mayor announced that he had attended London in Bloom and Richmond Borough had received two ‘Gold’ and one ‘Silver’ award. Richmond had also come second in the Bio Diversity award.

 

2. The Mayor announced that at the London Youth Games Richmond had won the Regatta competition and had been placed fourth overall.

 

3. The Mayor announced that the Council had received a statue of Bernardo O’Higgins as a gift of the Chilean embassy.

 

4. The Mayor announced he would be hosting a fund raising quiz for his charity - Shooting Stars Children’s Hospice - on 29 October.

 

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

 

            “This council notes that the budget cuts being made by cabinet in 2010-11 focus almost exclusively on important services for children and young people, including preventative services for the most vulnerable.

 

This council believes that local spending priorities should be set by the council based on local needs rather than slavishly based on which government grant is cut.

 

This council calls on the cabinet to examine alternatives to cutting services for children and young people.”

 

In accordance with notice given Councillor Knight moved, seconded by Councillor Eady:

“This Council notes that the budget cuts being made by Cabinet in 2010-11 focus almost exclusively on important services for children and young people, including preventative services for the most vulnerable.

 

This Council believes that local spending priorities should be set by the Council based on local needs rather than slavishly based on which government grant is cut.

 

This Council calls on the cabinet to examine alternatives to cutting services for children and young people.”

 

Following a debate, this motion was put to the vote and declared to be lost.

 

The motion therefore FELL.