Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 17 May 2011 attached.

The minutes of the meeting of the 17^th May 2011 were taken as read and agreed and approved as a correct record.

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

In relation to Item 14(a), a number of Councillors announced that they were members of the National Trust.  However since membership was not considered to affect the well-being of Councillors to a greater extent than any other person, declarations were not required.

 

 

 

 

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

Councillor Urquhart presented a petition on behalf of residents in East Sheen which asked the council to investigate the effect on local residents of a new business in the area.

 

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

(a)               In accordance with notice given, Mr John Roxby asked the Leader of the

Council:

 

“Within our Borough area it is possible to place orders via internet companies for the supply of alcohol, providing only a credit or debit card number.  Such orders can be placed by persons of any age.  Such “services”, I understand, are often used by party-goers in the late-night and/or early-morning hours, and with no specific checks on the age of the recipients, waves of drunken anti-social behaviour can result where unsupervised house parties are concerned.  Can the Cabinet Member give assurances that such internet based companies supplying alcohol are regulated and policed so ensuring they are not infringing licensing acts?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“There have been no waves of drunken Anti Social Behaviour related to house parties reported.

 

The Licensing Team is aware of a couple of premises in the borough selling alcohol over the internet. Restrictions on the age of purchasers form part of the condition of their licences.

 

Enforcing against the sale of alcohol to minors is challenging as the Licensing department can only respond retrospectively to an incident. This makes it is impossible to anticipate such an occurrence.

 

Noise related anti social behaviour should be reported to the police or environmental health.

 

If Mr Roxby you have any information relating to specific premises you can share with us we will, of course, endeavor to follow it up.”

 

 

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

 

Attached

(a)   In accordance with notice given, Councillor Mathias asked the Leader of the

Council:

 

“What are the priorities of the Administration in its second year?”

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor. The Council will continue to set new standards   for involving local people in planning their future, like building on the successful All In One process for which I am so grateful to Councillors from both parties. We will publish a Twickenham Action plan, and uplift projects for Hampton North and Whitton and begin to implement them. We will also work to open more of Twickenham Riverside and keep the council tax rise at zero. We will develop our fair parking policies to help local residents and high streets. We will work to sustain school improvements to address primary based shortages and promote sixth-form entry, we will protect our parks and environmental standards and resist any increase in the use of Heathrow.”

 

Councillor Mathias asked a supplementary question which sought to establish whether the priorities described were in line with manifesto commitments and would protect vulnerable people in the Borough.  Lord True was happy that this was the case and reassured Council that protecting the vulnerable would continue to be a key feature of the administration’s activities.  He cited various examples such as the provision of monies for the Croft Centre and the creation of a Dementia Care Centre of Excellence to emphasise this point.

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question which sought to establish whether the Thames Tideway Sewage Tunnel project would be shelved and if this was the case whether the administration supported the continued disposal of large amounts of raw sewage into the Thames.  Lord True replied that Richmond alongside a number of other authorities had agreed to look into the economic and environmental case for the Thames Tunnel and the administration would await the response of that report before taking further action.  He promised that whatever the future held the Council would maintain its unwavering support for the people of Barnes and Barn Elms and hoped that this support would be cross political boundaries.

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question which sought to establish how far the views of the local administration reflected those expressed during the consultation.  Lord True felt that the policies reflected well the priorities identified as part of the engagement process.

 

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

 

“Why was the 31 March General Fund Balance so much higher than was forecast earlier this year?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor, a year ago the general reserve stood at £10.7million there was some expectation during the year that it might be necessary to apply up to three quarters of a million to the council tax but that was not necessary so the reserves remain at £10.7million that’s 7.3% of council expenditure almost exactly mid way between our target percentage of being between 5 and 10%.

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question seeking an admission from the Deputy Leader that in light of these facts some of the cuts that had taken place in the last year had not been necessary.  Councillor Samuel did not agree.

 

Councillor O’Malley asked a supplementary question which sought an explanation as to the purpose of the Council’s General Reserve.  Councillor Samuel provided an explanation.  He explained that the reserves were in place as a contingency fund should emergencies arise and as such would negate the need for unplanned cuts that would damage services.

 

Councillor Gibbons asked a supplementary question which sought to ascertain why, in the light of a prediction of a surplus in the budget, the reserves continued to be increased and cuts made.  Councillor Samuel reported that a series of criteria had been agreed to determine how any underspends now and in the future, would be used and that these would be taken from a scheduled list of agreed priorities informed by the all in one consultation.

 

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

 

“How many full-time-equivalent posts have been deleted from the Budget since May 2010?  How many were redundancies?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

As of the end of the financial year Madam Mayor the number of full time equivalent posts deleted from the budget was one hundred and sixty two, of those one hundred were redundancies, fifty five voluntary, forty five compulsory.

 

Councillor Elliot asked a supplementary question seeking to ascertain the cost of those redundancies to date.  Councillor Samuel informed the Council that the cost so far was £2.3 million. 

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question seeking agreement from the Deputy Leader that provision monies from the general fund, unspecified would have been sufficient to cover the costs of any redundancies and that specifying separate funds was not necessary.  Councillor Samuel informed Councillor Williams that he did not agree.

 

Councillor Porter asked a supplementary question seeking comment from the Deputy Leader on the effectiveness of the Vacancy Advisory Panel.  Councillor Samuel replied that applications to advertise vacancies stood at 134, well down on the previous year and this showed that managers had received and understood the message that only those posts that were absolutely critical to service would be filled.

 

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

 

“Following recent proposals for charging the borough’s maintained schools for the collection of waste and recycling, what is his estimate of the total cost to the borough’s schools of this service?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor, the Cabinet has agreed the principle that charges in the waste collection services and recycling services should at least cover the cost of these Services so these charges have been proposed. It is our estimate that in the primary schools depending on the size the charges will range from a thousand to three thousand annually and for secondary schools between five and ten thousand pounds. That’s giving a total for all maintained schools of about £170k. We are working with schools and the environment department to see how we can minimise the impact of these changes and look for different options where available.”

 

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question seeking assurances that there would be no further attempt to make such charges for services that can be obtained free of charge.  Councillor Hodgins stated that the Council was looking at all charges in response to the current economic climate in an attempt to create sustainable finance at LBRuT.  However any financial consequences for those using services would be minimised where possible.

 

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question seeking to confirm that all schools would be encouraged to find innovative ways to increase recycling.  Councillor Hodgins confirmed that this would be the case.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question which sought to establish that as schools had not received increased funding these charges were a reduction in funding for pupil education.  Councillor Hodgins stated that the current economic climate made such charges necessary but that the council would seek to minimise any impact on services.

 

(e)               In accordance with notice given, Councillor Chappell asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:

 

“What percentage of respondents to the Council’s survey on sixth forms responded supporting them in our schools?”

 

Councillor Hodgins responded in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor, there are a number of statistics I can give from the survey but let me just quote a few.  We had 1325 respondents, 86% of those said it was important to them that we should have sixth forms in their school, 85% said they would be more likely to choose a Richmond secondary school if they did have sixth forms and the response has been overwhelmingly clear. We will continue working towards this end.”

 

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question seeking assurance that the current administration would continue to listen to the views of parents and give them as much choice as possible in all areas of education.  Councillor Hodgins confirmed that choice for parents was a priority for the administration.

 

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question seeking to establish how the views of secondary school children would be taken in to account in light of the fact that no responses to the survey were from current pupils.  Councillor Hodgins assured Council that attempts had been and would continue to be made to engage with secondary school students but that the views of parents were considered very important in the process.

 

Councillor Harborne asked a supplementary question seeking information on the current status of work towards Sixth Form schools.  Councillor Hodgins informed Council that the survey was an initial study and a detailed piece of work on options for sixth forms was underway between schools and officers and proposals would be available by September 2011.

 

(f)                 In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elengorn asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“What is the status of Cllr Samuel's recent statement to the local Press that affordable housing would be ‘a very low priority’ in considering the Twickenham Station planning application?”

 

Lord True answered in the following terms

 

“Councillor Samuel was expressing a personal opinion.”

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question seeking agreement from the Leader that the Planning Committee should not give any additional weight to Councillor Samuel’s comments than any member of the public and that the policies of the Council should guide the decision.  Lord True reiterated that Councillor Samuel expressed a personal opinion and that the council as a whole had set out its views on the scale and mass of the design and the Planning Committee would consider any application against this background and on its merits.

 

Councillor Naylor asked a supplementary question seeking to establish that the Leader agreed that the station issue was a complex one with many opposing demands and interests.  Lord True agreed that this was the case and that the station development was one of the most difficult and challenging issues that faced the community at present.  He thanked the Twickenham Panel for agreeing to facilitate a public meeting on the matter which he hoped would clarify the views of the community.

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question seeking agreement from the Leader that Councillor Samuel was wrong to describe affordable housing as a low priority given that it was the 6th highest priority of the All in One survey.  Lord True agreed that affordable housing was an important priority and for the borough, Councillor Samuel was expressing a personal opinion on one particular site.  The nature of any affordable housing or other considerations would be taken into account by the Planning Committee.

(g)               In accordance with notice given, Councillor O’Malley asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

“Will the Cabinet Member comment on the report in the Sunday times that the payment of £2.6m to architects by the last Administration was the largest such payment under the BSF programme?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“Madam Mayor, this refers to probably the biggest financial scandal in the history of this Borough; the plans for Teddington School in 2006 for a sum of £25 million under the last administration that went 50% over budget and cost our council tax payers an additional £12 million to build. Residents were contacting us to express their outrage, their justified outrage when £2.6 million of that was on architects fees”

 

Councillor O’Malley asked a supplementary question which sought to establish how the Deputy Leader would ensure that such wastage did not occur in the future. Councillor Samuel reported that every contract let under the conservative administration clearly details a cash limit and contractors were advised that this cash limit would not be breached.

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question which sought the Deputy Leader’s confirmation that the figures he had quoted did not only include architects fees but in fact included a range of other professional fees and whether he would accept that the outcome of these and other funds was a fine example of a school.  Councillor Samuel agreed that Teddington School was a fine school but that the fact remained that the project had gone hugely over budget without action being taken by the Project Board.

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question which sought to establish what actions had been taken to address the overspend as it occurred.  Councillor Samuel reported that there had been none.

 

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

 

“What progress has been made with the six new youth facilities selected for funding by young people under the £1 million ‘change your world’ initiative established by the last administration, namely:

(a) Barn Elms skate park and BMX track;

(b) Ham youth centre multi-use games area;

(c) Whitton Youth Café;

(d) Hampton Youth Project kitchen and IT room development;

(e) King’s Field skate park; and

(f) New hall at Heatham House in Twickenham?”

 

Councillor Percival answered in the following terms:

 

“These projects are being reviewed in light of the strategic direction of the Council and the economic climate. Heatham House, Whitton Café and Ham MUGA are on hold because they need to be placed within the context of larger scale capital projects in the pipeline and linked to the UPLIFT strategy. The Barn Elms project, the skate park in the middle of Barn Elms, in the event was not popular with residents and almost impossible for Kew residents to access by public transport.  I am delighted that both projects at Hampton and Kings Field are now complete although the Hampton café project is in phase 2 and will be completed by September 2011. Remaining funds will be used to ensure excellent youth facilities are developed in the areas identified.”

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question which sought to establish how long it would take before a youth service was available in Whitton.  Councillor Percival assured Councillor Jaeger that a youth service in Whitton would be available as soon as it was possible.

 

Councillor Elliot asked a supplementary question which sought assurance from the Cabinet Member that the views of the residents of Whitton would be given due regard.  Councillor Percival reported that she had found the recent meeting with young people and residents very useful.  It had been the view of the administration that it would be better to spend any available monies for improvements to buildings used for youth services on buildings which the Council owned but two alternative solutions were put forward at the meeting and one of these would be explored further.

 

Councillor Churchill asked a supplementary question which sought a concession from the Cabinet Member that progress on these projects had been disappointing, despite the high number of votes from local residents and sought assurances that the residents who had taken part in the All in One would have their views regarded in decisions made by the administration.  Councillor Percival defended the record of the administration, citing projects that were open and popular such as the Hampton Café and assured those present that residents views would always be given due regard in the decision making process.

 

(i)                  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Day asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways:

 

“Given Heatham House’s long and successful history as a youth centre, why is she now proposing that the building and its grounds be sold for residential or hotel use?”

 

The Leader of the Council in Councillor Morris’s absence answered in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor, Cllr Morris has made no such proposal nor has any other member of this council. Any suggestion that the Council has made such a decision is scurrilous, misleading and can only be of harm and I submit, exploitive of the young people who are being fed that untruth.”

 

 

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question seeking assurance from the Leader that the Administration was committed to working with the youth of the Borough to deliver innovative youth services, and that all options towards delivering such a service would be explored.  Councillor True assured those present that this would be the case and that for youth services an exciting potential project would be a purpose built youth centre which was being considered in relation to the development of the post office site.  Young people would be involved at every stage and it would be an opportunity to create exemplary youth provision for the Borough.

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question which sought an assurance from the Leader of the Council that Heatham House and its grounds would remain as a youth centre in to the future and that the Twickenham Area Action Plan proposals to sell the grounds and move the youth centre would be withdrawn.  Councillor True would not provide that assurance.  He repeated his statement of policy that Heatham House would not be sold unless and until there was a better and more modern facility available for young people.   

 

 

The time allowed for Members' questions having elapsed, a written reply

would be given to all remaining notified questions.

 

(j)         In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Streetscene:

 

“Given the recent announcement by the Government that it intends to make the introduction of 20 mph schemes simpler and cheaper, what further obstacles exist to prevent the administration from carrying out the wishes of residents and the recommendations made by the cross party Working Group on 20 mph zones and limits?”

 

Councillor Harrison replied in the following terms:

 

[The Council welcomes the Governments approach to relaxing the regulations to introduce 20mph limits. You are no doubt aware that neither 20mph zones nor limits are enforced by the Metropolitan Police and that they will only support such schemes that are self enforcing e.g. speed humps etc.

 

The only other enforcement option open is to deploy static time -distance cameras. These cameras are not supported by all because of their (potential) impact on street-scene and invasion of privacy.

 

The Council is committed to reducing speed limits in residential streets and is looking into less intrusive ways - changing streetscape and partnership with neighbourhood police etc – to improve road safety, amenity and the environment in the Borough.]  

 

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

 

            “Given the urgent need for additional primary school places in the Hampton Wick/Teddington Area, why is the majority of the Avenue Centre site, opposite Hampton Wick Infant School, to be sold off for housing rather than used for school expansion?”

 

            Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

[Ideally the site is too small for a school.  Most of the site will be used for building a fit for purpose replacement care home for vulnerable people: the site of the existing home will be sold.  This will provide a considerable capital receipt for the Council, and will swell our resources available for educational purposes.  Plans are already under consideration for the provision of additional school places in the Hampton Wick area.  I accept no criticism from those who allowed this site to become neglected and derelict throughout their entire four years of administration.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

“What are the plans for Whitton Station?”

 

(Whitton Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elliot raised his concern regarding Whitton Station.  Councillor Elliot explained that the community of Whitton was heavily reliant on the station to access central London for business and social purposes and it was a secondary station for Rugby matches.  The station also did not have disabled access which he argued was essential to any modern facility.  Councillor Elliot praised the staff who worked at the station as helpful and efficient and maintained that a better designed station would aid them in providing an already excellent service.

 

He noted that the Uplift project prioritised Whitton for change and hoped that the station would become part of this wider project.

 

The Cabinet member for Highways and Streetscene assured Councillor Elliot that work was being undertaken which sought improvements to the station and that in the near future a bid would be made to enable access improvements, such as lifts and associated measures.  In addition talks were talking place with interested stakeholders to address the issue of how to raise the profile of the station in relation to Rugby commuters.

 

 

None

There were none.

To consider a topic raised by the opposition as priority business in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14.

 

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

 

“Hoarding reserves whilst cutting services for the vulnerable”

 

To consider a topic raised by the opposition as priority business in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14

 

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

 

“Hoarding reserves whilst cutting services for the vulnerable”

 

The Leader of the Opposition opened the debate.  He argued that having claimed that the reserves were for use in emergencies the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources should recognise that the economic events of recent times constituted an emergency and that monies should have been used to save services for the vulnerable from cuts.  There was currently £51m in the Council’s reserves and in addition a £4m budget surplus but despite this the Council had cut services in many areas including youth services (Connexions), Adult Services (Dementia Care) and preventative services which some of the Borough’s most vulnerable residents relied upon.  He maintained that the monies in reserves could and should have been used to save these services.  He accused the administration of bad financial management that had lead to savage and unnecessary cuts.

 

Councillor Elliot responded to the claims made by Councillor Knight by reminding the Leader of the Opposition that under the last administration only £1 million of the £52 million reserves inherited had been spent.  The reserves had not grown under the Conservative administration.  He argued that the current administration would not use the reserves as a quick fix to painful economic times; instead they would seek long term, sustainable financial solutions.  Councillor Elliot remarked that the opposition did not have plans for what the reserves should be spent on.  He argued that they had no clear plan and would invest the reserves as short term solutions in any struggling service or project without seeking better alternative ways of delivering that service which would be sustainable over time.

 

Councillor Eady joined the debate.  He focused on the cuts to Children’s Services where he claimed that cuts were more severe than necessary and would result in more spending being required where families have not received support early on.  He was concerned that these families often did not engage in the political process or surveys such as the ‘All in One’ and the Council risked ignoring the views and needs of this very vulnerable group.

 

Councillor Blakemore spoke to defend the administration’s record.  She acknowledged that cuts had had to be made but investments had also occurred where it was prudent and possible such as at the Croft Centre where central Government monies had not been forthcoming and that Council funds had been found to cover the gap.    Funding had also been found for the Hampton Centre.  In addition the administration had supported her role as Tenants’ Champion, the first role of its kind in London and one which sought to help and protect tenants many of whom were vulnerable social housing tenants.   She concluded that examples such as those she had put forward proved that far from services for the vulnerable being damaged they would be improved. 

 

Councillor Jaeger disagreed that the case was as Councillor Blakemore stated it.  She argued that there was no doubt that services for the vulnerable had been affected negatively by the cuts that had been made to spending.  In particular she referred to the changing criteria for social care and the closure of Tangley Hall.  Councillor Jaeger also referred to the various assets which the council was to sell off and hoped that the money would be reinvested into services and not put into the reserves.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources responded to the various points raised during the debate.  He reported that the Council would be introducing for the first time a reserves policy.  This policy would help to maintain a consistent and logical approach to the level of reserves that the Council could hold and was a sign of the Conservative administration’s commitment to well thought out, long term financial management.

 

The reserves had been scrutinised at Overview and Scrutiny meetings and no suggestions from the Opposition had been received as a result of this scrutiny of the plans.

 

He reminded the Leader of the Opposition that during the Liberal Democrat administration only £1 million of the £52 million reserves available to them had been spent, despite there being opportunity to do so; for example the closure of Hampton Clinic.  

 

In conclusion the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance defended the ethos behind the current efficiencies programme.  He argued that where cuts were made to services they would be replaced by something better, more efficient and more customer focused.  Where the Council no longer provides a service such as the school uniform Grants other statutory and voluntary organisations must look to provide it for those most in need.  In addition where people had the means they should pay for services. 

 

He maintained that the record of the current administration in terms of the level and use of reserves and the provision of services alongside long term sustainable financial measures was one of which he was proud.

 

None

There were none.

None

There were none.

A.                  JOINT APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE

RESOLVED:

 

1.                  That a Joint Appointment Committee for appointments (detailed in the Officer Employment Rules in the constitution) which this council may seek to make jointly with another Authority, be established.

 

2.                  That the Terms of Reference for a Joint Appointments committee detailed at Appendix A be incorporated within Part 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, be agreed.

B.        AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

            RESOLVED:

That the changes to the Constitution set out in Appendix A of the report be agreed.

 

 

 

Attached

RESOLVED that:

 

1.         The Executive decisions taken as a matter of urgency be noted.

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

The Mayor made the following announcements:

 

(i)      The Mayor was pleased that Team Richmond had been crowned overall champions at the Balfour Beatty games.

(ii)    The Mayor had attended various events as part of her new duties, and the fundraising for her charity, The Citizens Advice Bureau was well underway.

(iii)   A Mayors quiz, would be held on 15^th July in order to raise funds for the Charity.  There would be fancy dress along a ‘Bastille Day’ theme.

(iv)  There would be a Big Band Concert on 13^th July at Kneller Hall at which a collection would be made in aid of the Mayor’s Charity.

 

No other announcements were received.

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

 

            “That this Council, as custodian of the protected view from Richmond Hill and as freeholder of Petersham Meadows, urges the National Trust, with the generous endowment they have received last year from local residents, to keep cows on the meadows as they have been for centuries, and offers all assistance in avoiding problems with dogs and other deterrents to the unrestricted grazing of the cows.”

 

(b) Councillor Elengorn has given notice to move the following Motion:

 

                “Noting many borough schools, shops, workplaces and homes are very close to roads carrying more than 10,000 vehicles per day; and both PM₁₀ and NO₂ emissions exceed air quality objectives, this Council will:

 

(1) accelerate improvement of its vehicle fleet;

 

(2) maintain advice on travel plans to businesses;

 

(3) monitor the effect on pollution levels of 30 minutes free parking;

 

(4) call upon the Mayor of London to fully apply the London Low Emission Zone.”

 

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

 

“That this Council, as custodian of the protected view from Richmond Hill and as freeholder of Petersham Meadows, urges the National Trust, with the generous endowment they have received last year from local residents, to keep cows on the meadows as they have been for centuries, and offers all assistance in avoiding problems with dogs and other deterrents to the unrestricted grazing of the cows.”

 

The motion was put to the vote and CARRIED

 

RESOLVED:

“That this Council, as custodian of the protected view from Richmond Hill and as freeholder of Petersham Meadows, urges the National Trust, with the generous endowment they have received last year from local residents, to keep cows on the meadows as they have been for centuries, and offers all assistance in avoiding problems with dogs and other deterrents to the unrestricted grazing of the cows.”

 

(b)               In accordance with notice given Councillor Elengorn moved, seconded by Councillor Knight:

 

“Noting many borough schools, shops, workplaces and homes are very close to roads carrying more than 10,000 vehicles per day; and both PM10 and NO2 emissions exceed air quality objectives, this Council will:

(1) accelerate improvement of its vehicle fleet;

 

(2) maintain advice on travel plans to businesses;

 

(3) monitor the effect on pollution levels of 30 minutes free parking;

 

(4) call upon the Mayor of London to fully apply the London Low Emission Zone.”

           

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Harrison and seconded by Councillor Harborne:

 

“After 'workplaces and homes are' delete 'very'.

 

After ‘10,000 vehicles per day; and’ delete ‘both PM10 and NO2 emissions exceed air quality objectives’ and replace with ‘noting that this administration inherited from its predecessor some of the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the whole of London’.

 

After ‘this Council’ delete ‘will:

(1) accelerate improvement of its vehicle fleet;

(2) maintain advice on travel plans to businesses;

(3) monitor the effect on pollution levels of 30 minutes free parking;

(4) call upon the Mayor of London to fully apply the London Low Emission Zone.’

 

And insert,

‘endorses the environmental and traffic policies of the current Administration’.

 

 

The amendment was put to the vote and CARRIED

 

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

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

“Noting many borough schools, shops, workplaces and homes are close to roads carrying more than 10,000 vehicles per day and noting that this administration inherited from its predecessor some of the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the whole of London, this Council endorses the environmental and traffic policies of the current Administration".