Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 5 July 2011 attached.

Resolved: That the minutes of the Council held on 5 July 2011, be signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

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

Councillor Roberts declared a personal interest with regard to Item 3 – Petitions. The nature of the interest being that he was a parent of a child currently attending a Catholic School within the Borough.

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

In accordance with the Petition Scheme, Council has received a petition with more than 1000 signatures. This threshold triggers a debate. The petition has been submitted by Mr Jeremy Rodell of the Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign.

“We, the undersigned, petition the council to ensure that every state-funded school opening in the borough from now on is inclusive, so that no child can be denied a place in a good local school because of the religion or belief of their parents.

Rising pupil numbers mean the borough needs more secondary schools. Sites are hard to find and money is tight. Yet the Council has given top priority to offering a site for a Voluntary Aided Catholic school, which will effectively be closed to a majority of the borough's children. It needs to think again.”

Councillor Cardy presented a petition on behalf of the residents of Seymour Road, Hampton Hill requesting that the Council consider felling and replacing the trees on the street with a different variety.

Councillor Harrison presented a petition on behalf of the residents of Falcon Road requesting that the Council reconsider the decision to refuse an application for the installation of a crossover at 16 Falcon Road, Hampton.

Councillor Churchill presented a petition on behalf of the users of Park Lane Stables seeking support to reduce the speed limit on Park Lane to 20 miles per hour.

In accordance with the Petition Scheme, the Council had received a petition with more than 1000 signatures, triggering a debate. The Petition had been submitted by Mr Jeremy Roddell on behalf of the Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign.

Mr Roddell commenced his presentation by stating that the Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign did not oppose the provision of faith based education within the Borough. The Campaign was committed to supporting improvements in quality, choice and provision of education and highlighted that rising pupil numbers indicated that two additional secondary schools would be required by 2015. He explained that the purpose of the Campaign was to promote inclusive admissions policies and fair access to school places for all of the Borough’s children. It was the strong belief of the Campaign that the use of the site procured for a secondary school at Clifden Road should be made available for a community school with an inclusive admissions policy.

Councillor Evans spoke in support of the petition. He highlighted that parents of secondary age Catholic children currently had to send their children outside the Borough to school and that it was equitable, in a fully inclusive admissions system that those parents should be able to select a Catholic secondary school within the Borough.

Councillor Eady spoke to oppose the petition. He explained that he supported the principle that secondary education needed to be reviewed across the Borough however, the priority should be to utilise the Clifden Road site for a community secondary school and make alternative arrangements for a Catholic secondary school. He expressed concern that rising birth rates in the Borough meant that parents of primary children attending link community schools did not always have their preferences accommodated by the secondary system. The environment of limited resources and drive to improve education standards was highlighted with regard to ensuring the future of fully inclusive secondary education in the Borough.

The Cabinet Member for Schools, Councillor Hodgins spoke to conclude the debate. He explained that the priority for the Borough was to raise the standard of secondary education within an inclusive system, ensuring that the needs of all children and young people were met. The issues of quality and capacity needed to be progressed jointly, particularly in light of the pressures of the existing economic climate. He referred to plans to expand pupil rolls at primary level and the aspiration for a range of educational provision to be available for all age ranges within the Borough.

Resolved: That the content of the debate be noted.

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

a) In accordance with the notice given, a written response regarding the matter raised by Mr Roxby would be provided. Mr Roxby was not present at the meeting.

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 the notice given, Councillor Chappell asked the Cabinet Member for Community, Business and Culture:

‘Will the Cabinet Member outline the steps the Council is taking to ensure local Voluntary Sector organisations are not disadvantaged by procurement procedures when services are commissioned?’

Cllr Fleming replied in the following terms ‘Our local Voluntary Sector provides a wide range of the highest quality services and I hope commissioning will open up new opportunities for them so more people so more people can actually benefit from their excellence. We are holding a number of events to find out directly what advice and help they need to succeed and have involved them in fact in assessing local need so we know our commissioners are commissioning the right services for residents. Many of the local organisations have told us that they find the whole procurement process time consuming and difficult to navigate so our procurement team are working to make adjustments so the whole process is less bureaucratic and takes account of social impact and local priorities.’

Cllr Chappell asked a supplementary question regarding existing arrangements to procure services from the voluntary sector. She was informed by the Cabinet Member that existing services were procured from the voluntary sector through grants, contracts and rent subsidies.

Councillor Williams, in asking a supplementary question sought reassurance from the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources that small businesses would not be disadvantaged by future procurement and commissioning strategies adopted by the Borough. He reminded Members that it was agreed at the Finance and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee, that the Cabinet Member would meet with the Chairman of that Committee to consider this issue.

Councillor Blakemore asked a supplementary question requesting details of activity currently underway to encourage local voluntary sector and community groups to find out about social enterprise. She was informed of the activity of the Richmond Social Enterprise Partnership in which the Council took a lead role. She promoted an event being run by the Partnership on 22 September 2011.

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

‘Given the importance of promoting the democratic process amongst young people, why did his administration prevent former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone from visiting Heatham House Youth Club on 5 September 2011?’

Councillor Lord True replied in the following terms ‘No formal request was made making clear the purpose of the visit to the Council. Such a request that was made, as I understand, was made just one week before the visit and was made by an independent organisation and didn’t make clear the purpose of the visit. The fact is that the Council would welcome a formal request from Mr Livingstone to visit Heatham House and my colleague Councillor Percival would be very happy to host it. We have written to Mr Livingstone to make that clear and we await his response. ‘

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question regarding the anticipated response should the request have been made from the existing Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question seeking confirmation regarding the future of Heatham House. He was informed that the facility would remain open until such time as an improved youth facility, designed by the young people of the borough was in place.

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

‘How many clients of Tangley Hall have indicated they will not attend the new Centre of Excellence ‘ Woodville Haven?’

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms ‘The answer is none.’

Councillor Mathias asked a supplementary question about any changes in journey times and any identified improvements. In responding, Councillor Urquhart reported that for more than half of the existing users of Tangley Hall, the journey times would be greatly improved or of a similar length and that two individuals had accepted the offer of travel via taxi.

Councillor Jaegar asked a supplementary question regarding journey times for service users travelling from the north west area of the borough, including Hampton and Whitton. Councillor Urquhart explained that she had been informed that the maximum journey time for any service user to the facility would be ninety minutes.

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question regarding the added facilities and amenities which would be provided at Woodville Haven. Councillor Urquhart informed Members that new facilities included more outdoor space, including a sensory garden, activity rooms with a dedicated hairdressing salon, kitchen facility, computer study area and themed reminiscence room. In addition to physical space, a range of additional activities and social opportunities would be provided at the Centre for service users, their carers and families.

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

‘When and how will the Council make a decision as to the nature of the new school to be provided on the Clifden Road site?’

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms ‘We have offered the opportunity to the Diocese of Westminster to establish a Catholic secondary at Clifden. If it chooses to take up that opportunity and it’s looking very much like it will want to, it will apply to the Secretary of State for permission to do so and to advertise that fact.  There will be a six week consultation period over which the public will be able to make its views known, those will then come back and then the decision will then come back to Cabinet for consideration within two months and we will decide whether it should go forward or not.’

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question regarding the availability of funding for development of the site and other related education projects in the Borough and how these would be prioritised based on monies available.

Councillor Elliott asked a supplementary question regarding the aims of the Council to provide quality education for all residents.

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question about the financial position of the Diocese in supporting development at the Clifden Road site. Councillor Hodgins replied that discussions were ongoing with the Diocese and that no conclusion could be drawn regarding the matter at the current time.

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

‘In light of national developments, could the Cabinet Member confirm what progress has been made locally in our joint work between the Council and the NHS?’

Councillor Urquhart responded in the following terms ‘ The national changes have given us the best opportunity to expand on our good partnerships locally with the NHS. Progress has been made on several key areas where we have ‘Pathfinder’ status,  the clinical commissioning group with budget responsibility transferring to GPs, support provided by both NHS Richmond and Council staff. The Health and Wellbeing Shadow Board will be meeting for the second time tomorrow which is led by the local authority who have overall responsibility. Work is underway with Richmond LINk regarding the transition to HealthWatch which will be established to be the consumer voice for health and social care and development.The local authority will be taking on public health functions from April 2013 and we are developing transition plans with the NHS in between times.’

Councillor Bouchier asked a supplementary question regarding the benefit to the Council of additional monies from the NHS being transferred into local government.  In responding, Councillor Urquhart made reference to £1.753 million income in 2011/12  to support expenditure on adult social care which had also impacted positively on health.

Councillor Jaegar asked a supplementary question regarding information about the distribution of the shadow allocations for public health monites between the Council, the GP Commissioners and Public Health England. She was informed that indications had not been received regarding this matter.

Councillor Mathias asked a supplementary question regarding the virtual joint commissioning unit currently being operated by NHS Richmond and Council social care staff. Councillor Urquhart informed Members that arrangements were being investigated by various partners to ensure the most cost effective support for commissioning in the future.

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

‘What consideration has been given to the use of the Council’s housing capital budget, or HCA grant to enable 100% of the new homes planned as part of the Twickenham Station redevelopment as affordable?’

Councillor Urquart responded in the following terms ‘ The Council is not intending to utilise the capital budget to support affordable housing provision on this site; our priority is to support schemes that are in more suitable locations to provide a range of affordable housing including larger family homes. When appropriate the Council will support 100% affordable housing schemes with its Capital Budget such as the development at Third Cross Road, Twickenham. The Council’s position on the development of the Station site will be resolved through the determination of planning applications with consideration of the most recent application expected in October 2011.’

Councillor Coombs asked a supplementary question regarding the Cabinet Member’s awareness of a letter sent to London Boroughs from Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP regarding the use of publically owned land to build affordable housing and support for this initiative by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. In responding to the question, Councillor Urquhart explained that all avenues were being explored to provide affordable housing in the Borough.

Councillor Naylor asked a supplementary question regarding 100% affordable housing schemes provided in previous years.

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question regarding any ongoing discussions between the Council with either Network Rail or the SOLUM development operation. Councillor Urquhart explained that activity regarding future developments would be decided through the Council’s Planning procedures.

5 (g) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Naylor asked the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning, Parks and Highways:

‘Will the Cabinet Member comment on the outcome of court proceedings concerning 6 Trafalgar Road, Twickenham?’

Councillor Morris responded in the following terms ‘The Twickenham resident who demolished his 19^th Century House was ordered to pay £80,000 and has also been ordered to pay Council costs of bringing the prosecution to court which is a further £42,000. The fine takes into consideration the irreplaceable harm to the conservation area and the loss of heritage, together with the savings that the owner could make by demolishing the property and rebuilding it rather than extending and refurbishing it.’

Councillor Naylor asked a supplementary question regarding additional policies being put in place as part of the Development Plan Document to protect the Borough’s heritage. Councillor Morris replied that the document would include policies to protect areas against infill and back land development and improved design qualities.

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question regarding the role of officers in dealing with this case and sought support from the Cabinet Member in thanking them for their efforts.

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question regarding previous instances of court case enforcements and the level of penalty awarded.

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

‘Given that 20mph zones can be introduced without the need for any extra traffic calming measures in many residential roads, where average traffic speeds are below 24mph, when will he carry out the wishes of residents and the recommendations made by the cross party Working Group on 20mph zones and limits?’

Councillor Harrison responded in the following terms: ‘I should say to start that there are forty or so 20 mile an hour limit or zone schemes already existing in the Borough, so this is more about on-going work rather than unchartered territory. Following the working party report Cabinet agreed in September 2010, where the road layout and the speeds are appropriate then further 20 mile an hour limit or zone schemes will be considered. The approval of schemes is an evidence based process and the selection criteria include support from residents, analysis of accident records in the area, possible alternative approaches and cost benefit analysis. Selection of further schemes is an ongoing process and we would welcome Cllr Elloy’s suggestion for this particular scheme.’

Councillor Elloy asked a supplementary regarding the number of outstanding applications for schemes and was informed by the Cabinet Member that he was not aware of any schemes pending within the system.

Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question regarding the monitoring of adherence to the 20mph speed limit by motorists and any attributed costs. In responding to the question, Councillor Harrison provided an explanation of the differences between zones and limits and enforcement techniques applied in both instances.

Councillor Churchill asked a supplementary question regarding a request from the residents of Park Lane for a 20mph limit when average traffic speeds were recorded as 23mph. Councillor Harrison requested that suggestions for scheme should be made to him directly and would be assessed for suitability against the relevant criteria.

The time allowed for Members questions had elapsed and a written response would be provided to all remaining notified questions.

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

‘How many green flags did we achieve this year for our parks?’

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

[The London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames now has eleven Green Flag Awards for our parks]

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

‘Can she confirm that clients being transferred from Tangley Hall to Woodville Haven day centre will no longer be able to benefit from a regular shower?’

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

[That is not correct. A number of service users who were receiving a regular shower at Tangley Hall are now receiving this service with their carer’s agreement as part of their Home Care Package. Another three service users who are unable to have showers or baths at home, or who prefer to have this at the day service will continue to receive a regular shower when they transfer to Woodville Haven. A further three service users have the offer of a shower at Tangley Hall and in the future at Woodville Haven should they require this as part of their service.]

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

‘What consultations were carried out before the Aircraft Noiseline was discontinued?’

[The Aircraft Noiseline service was identified as a suitable area in which to make some efficiency, in terms of staff time resources as it duplicates the BAA service. The change of service provision identified and accepted in the Environment Directorate schedule for detailed savings. The change in service was not identified publicly in advance but the ongoing telephone message was changed in April to notify complainants of the change of service and to recommend that any complaints should now be redirected to the BAA Flight Evaluation Unit’s noise complaint service. Complaints made to BAA are still forwarded to HACC.]

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

            “Kew Village Community Market initiative”

(Kew Ward)

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

            “Road closures and related aspects of the Olympic Games cycle road races.”

(Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside Ward)

(a)   In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Linnette highlighted his support for the Kew Village Community Market Initiative. The initiative had brought together local residents and businesses to provide a community market. Footfall within the village had been increased. Surveys of residents and businesses had been undertaken which indicated strong support for the further development of the initiative.  

Councillor Fleming indicated her continued support for the initiative and the community spirit which had been demonstrated by residents and businesses. She acknowledged the importance of the officer support in getting the market up and running.

(b)   In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Williams highlighted his concern regarding the road closures and related aspects of the Olympic Games cycle road races. He explained that the 2012 Olympics was an opportunity which should be embraced and supported by the Council. However, the nature of extended road closures for cycling events entering the Borough during August 2012 would impact significantly on residents and local businesses. Issues had been encountered as result of the test cycle event on 14 August 2011 with delays in re-opening roads and lack of capacity for cyclists observing.

Councillor Harrison expressed his thanks to officers of the Council for working collaboratively with representatives from Transport for London and the London Olympic Games Organising Committee (LOCOG) for making the event a success. He acknowledged the issues raised by residents and businesses affected by road closures. He agreed to ensure that advance notice of road closures was maximised in the run up to events for the 2012 Olympic Games and work with Councillor Williams to minimise disruption for those affected communities.

Resolved: That the ward concerns raised by Councillors Linnette and Williams be noted. 

Attached

The Leader of the Council, Lord True addressed the Chamber regarding the issues relating to the operation of Camera Cars which had not been correctly registered by the Council. He reported that following initial consideration by Cabinet on 21 July 2011, subsequent legal advice had been sought by the Council in the light of similar emerging legal cases.

Lord True tabled the following amendment, seconded by Councillor Samuel:

‘To delete the third bullet point, contained within the original recommendation as listed in the report and replace with:

‘That recipients of the PCN’s (Penalty Charge Notices) issued by the uncertified camera cars be notified of the appeal process by letter.’

Councillor Samuel expressed a view that in not making every effort to ensure monies illegally obtained by the Council in respect of PCN’s issued by the uncertified car were repaid to recipients, the Council would be breaching its moral obligation. Recipients would be contacted at the registered address to which the PCN was issued.

Councillor Knight spoke in opposition to the amendment. He highlighted the requirement to balance the legal fiscal responsibilities of the Council against the responsibilities towards local residents.

In support of the amendment, Councillor Harrison addressed the meeting. He spoke in favour of a proactive approach to returning monies obtained in respect of PCN’s issued by the unregistered car. In furthering this point, Councillor Arbour expressed support for the amendment.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 20.4, a recorded vote was called, whereupon, Councillors Arbour, Avon, Blakemore, Bouchier, Butler, Chappell, Elliott, Evans, Fleming, Gibbons, Harbourne, Harrison, Hodgins, Lee-Parsons, Linnette, Marlow, Martin, Mathias, Montague, Morris, Naylor, Palmer, Percival, Pollesche, Porter, Roberts, Salvoni, Samuel, Stockley, True and Urquhart voted for the amendment: Councillors Acton, Burford, Cardy, Churchill, Coombs, Day, Eady, Elengorn, Elloy, Jaegar, Jones, Khosa, Knight, Nicholson, Thornton, Treble and Williams abstained from the vote, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor did not vote.

Amendment Carried: The amendment, on being submitted to Council was carried.

The substantive recommendation, on being submitted to the Council was carried.

Resolved:

1. That the penalty charges incurred by the Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s) issued by the uncertified camera cars be repaid to those who properly appeal to the Council.
2. That this be handled by a Traffic Management Act 2004 based appeal process creating an appeal period until the end of the calendar year 2011.
3. That recipients of the PCN’s issued by the uncertified camera cars be notified of the appeal process by letter.
4. That unclaimed forms be invested into parking, highway and footpath related improvements as an addition to original spend projections and as part of the 2012/13 budget review process.
5. That the detail of this process of payback be delegated to the Director of Environment in liaison with the Cabinet Member for Highways and Streetscene.

Attached

Councillor Jones commended the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2010 – 2011 to the Council for approval.

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2010 – 2011 be approved.

None

There were no reports on joint arrangements and external organisations.

Attached

Attached.

Resolved: That the appointment of Mr Paul Evans to the post of Assistant Director Corporate Governance and Joint Head of Legal Services and Monitoring Officer as recommended by the Joint Appointments Committee of the London Boroughs of Richmond and Merton be approved.   

Attached.

Resolved: That the amendments to the Council’s Constitution, as set out at Appendix A to the report be agreed.

Attached

Resolved: That the decision taken as a matter of urgency as set out in paragraph 3.2.1 of the report (Purchase of Site for the Provision of School Places) be noted.

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

The Mayor, on behalf of the Council made the following announcements with regard to recent activity:

• Fundraising for the Mayor’s charity, the Citizen’s Advice Bureau was progressing well with a number of successful events including a quiz, big band concern, cricket match and Last Night of the Proms Events having recently taken place.
• Recent events attended by the Mayor included unity and diversity service in Twickenham on 11 September 2011 and traditional Bernard O’Higgins ceremony in Richmond on 19 August 2011.
• Forthcoming events included the Great River Race on 17 September 2011, Mayor’s Golf Day on 7 October 2011 and Saintly Halloween Quiz on 28 October 2011.

The Mayor, on behalf of the Council, welcomed Laura Latham, Assistant Head of Democratic Services to the Authority.

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

            “This Council supports 20 mph limits and zones on residential roads where there is majority support from residents in accordance with the recommendations of the cross party task group report of March 2010, especially where there is no need for extra traffic calming measures and in the light of the Department of Transport announcement of 9 June 2011 facilitating such limits and zones.”

Motion: Pursuant to Notice, Councillor Elloy proposed (and Councillor Williams seconded) :-

‘This Council supports 20 mile per hour limits and zones on residential roads were there is majority support from residents in accordance with the recommendations of the cross party task group report of March 2010, especially where there is no need for extra traffic calming measures and in the light of the Department for Transport announcement of 9 June 2011 facilitating such limits and zones.’

 Motion carried:

The motion, on being submitted to the Council was carried.