To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 16 June 2009 attached.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 June 2009 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

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

Councillors Davies, Morris and Urquhart declared personal interests in a question asked under Item 5 by virtue of their being Governors of Sheen School.

 

Councillor Bennett declared a personal interest in questions asked under Item 5 as the owner of a flat in a listed building.

 

Councillor Knight declared a personal interest in Item 3b by virtue of his membership of the Standards Board for England.

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

The following petition was presented and, in accordance with the constitution, referred to the relevant Cabinet Member for response:

 

Councillor Marlow – Traders of Twickenham – Objections to proposals for Twickenham Riverside.

 

Any questions received of which due notice has been given To follow.

(a)         In accordance with notice given, Jeremy Hamilton-Millerasked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

"Cllr Lourie wrote about the Riverside development on 19 Oct 2008 on www.Richmond.libdems.org.uk "our scheme will not cost the taxpayer a penny". Would he consider withdrawing this in view of an Officer's statement in March 2009 that between £567,000 and £607,000 had already been spent?"

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“I was referring to the capital aspect of the scheme.  The objective is to provide the capital for new open space, a new playground, the river centre and café and improvements to the embankment from within the scheme.”

Mr Hamilton–Miller asked a supplementary question to establish whether Councillor Lourie now wished to reconsider his remarks to local newspapers in November last year regarding the percentage of the development that would be left for open spaces and public use.  Councillor Lourie replied that he did not wish to reconsider those statements as those statements were made before the more detailed plans became available.  He reiterated that only 26% of the scheme would be taken up by housing and gardens.”

 

(b)         In accordance with notice given, Sue Hamilton-Millerasked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

"Can you please assure us that all the obvious costs involved with Twickenham Riverside Development have been included in the contract with Countryside Properties, so that the Council Tax Payer will not be liable for any further expense regarding this scheme?"

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“The financial implications of the Twickenham Riverside development were set out in Section 5 of the April 2009 Cabinet report.  Mrs Hamilton-Miller is familiar with this as she was a speaker at the meeting.  If she has concerns not addressed in the report then I would ask her to write either to the Interim Assistant Director of Environment, Graham Beattie, or to me, articulating those concerns.”

 

Mrs Hamilton-Miller asked a supplementary question seeking to further clarify the costs of traffic measures required at Wharf Lane and whether these would be included in any contract.  Councillor Lourie referred Mrs Hamilton-Miller to his previous answer.

 

(c)         In accordance with notice given, Mr. Graham Tallentire had been scheduled to ask the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships a question, but was unable to attend.  The question and a written answer are reproduced below,

“Twickenham Riverside Development - turnover maybe £30m, profit will be in the order of 28%, not the usual agreed 17%. Can you explain this discrepancy, and will the costs of the River Centre be profit-free?”

[“I do not understand Mr Tallantire’s figures. I am satisfied that the developer, Countryside Properties, will make a reasonable profit from this scheme and no more.”]

 

(d)         In accordance with notice given, Adrienne Roweasked the Leader and

Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

"In the manifesto for the 2006 local election, one of the Liberal Democrat pledges was:

'We will listen to local people and carry out genuine consultation on services and proposals affecting local communities.'

There has recently been a referendum where local people have voted by a majority of 93.5% against the sale of public land on Twickenham Riverside to a property developer.  Cllr Lourie, will you keep your promise, listen to local people and stop the sale of this site?"

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

“I am delighted that you have read our manifesto.  The key word is “genuine”.  I do not consider that the following question could possibly be a genuine consultation:

“Should public land on Twickenham Riverside be sold to a property development company?”

We also said “We will develop local decision making” and hope to do so as a result of the work of Cllr Williams’ task group on “Devolution and Engagement”.

 

Ms Rowe asked a supplementary question regarding the distribution of consultation information and why if this was a Borough wide issue they had not been sent to all the Borough.  Councillor Lourie agreed that it was a Borough issue as all residents would benefit from and be able to use the scheme, however consultation had been limited to the 4 Twickenham Wards as it was clear interest was at its highest in those wards.

(e)          In accordance with notice given, Julie Hillasked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

“When Sherland Road, Shacklegate Lane and Railway Road -  the three garage sites the Council decided were to take affordable housing for Twickenham Riverside - came before the planning committee there was much confusion as to their significance as linked sites and it was noted by the Chair of the planning committee that they were NOT linked in any way to Twickenham Riverside, so can Cllr Lourie confirm that no off site provision is yet in place?”

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

“The Marketing Brief advised that the 50% affordable housing target would be achieved elsewhere.  This is within the linked site strategy.  The planning applications for 100% affordable housing are considered on their merits.   

 

No special case is allowed for the ‘link’ to Twickenham Riverside (and Friars Lane).  The link becomes more relevant when planning applications are considered for Riverside and Friars Lane.  The applicant will make the link to the 100% affordable housing sites within the Strategy in order to demonstrate that there has been adequate off-site provision.  The Council, as planning authority, will consider whether this has been demonstrated.”

Ms Hill asked a supplementary question which sought to clarify that this was not a link site.  Councillor Lourie again reiterated that any ‘link’ was not relevant to the decision of the Planning Committee and that the committee was separate from the Executive of the Council and would make any decisions based on relevant planning issues alone.

 

(f)           In accordance with notice given, Scott Naylorasked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

“93.5% of Twickenham respondents directly affected by the Council’s riverside scheme voted NO to housing. The relationship of River to town is key to the survival as demonstrated in the NEF report published in March with massive concerns about the Environmental Impact on the working river and town. Does the leader agree that the Third Consultation in the Civic Centre resulting in 57% against and the tiny number of 125 pro land sell-off voters in the referendum demonstrates the sliding numbers even in his own camp now backing away from the junked scheme?”

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

“The so-called referendum was little more than a publicity stunt based upon apparent misuse of the local electoral register.  I am proud that the current administration has shown commitment to finding an effective solution to this key riverside site after 28 years of what the NEF report describes as ‘disgraceful dereliction’ .  I consider that the redeveloped site will have a positive effect on the viability of Twickenham and will increase the attractions in and reasons for visiting the town centre. “ 

Mr Naylor asked a supplementary question concerning the loss of open space in favour of concrete in the scheme.  Councillor Lourie replied that the dereliction of the site has been a disgrace.  A number of schemes had been put forward over the years and abandoned as it was easier to decry a scheme than to suggest an alternative.  He considered that the wording of the referendum was an absolute disgrace, as was the accompanying literature.

 

(g)         In accordance with notice given, Mr. Roy Chappell had been scheduled to ask the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships a question, but was unable to attend.  The question and a written answer are reproduced below:

“Richmond Council Newsletter No 2 says the Riverside development will be at ‘No capital cost to Council Taxpayer.’

Please give the estimated cost that will be borne by the Council tax payer?” 

 

[The direct financial implications of the Twickenham Riverside development are set out in Section 5 of the April 2009 Cabinet report, available on the Council web site.  From this, you will see key elements of spend of around £270,000 on consultancy work since the site use priorities were agreed in March 2007 and agreement to a further £75,000 to support the completion of the procurement process. 

                   

The new River Centre and cafe, open space, playground and embankment improvement offer real and wide ranging community benefits from the development.]

 

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

“To mirror changes to DVLA CO2 emission banding effective May 2009, the Council expanded CPZ bands to 13 & this structure is now being applied to parking charges.

Why do the Council’s bands differ from the DVLA’s ; who approved this; and for the bands that differ, is it the CO2 emissions range or the DVLA band that determines the permit/parking charge payable?  For completeness of understanding the council’s practice does the word “viable” in the CPZ policy have the everyday English meaning of “capable of maintaining independent existence”  or, if not, what is the definition in this context?” 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

“The bands used for the parking permit scheme were taken from the road tax announcement in March 2008 and, following Cabinet approval, were introduced at the beginning of April 2009. Later in April 2009 the government confirmed its intention to adjust the banding once again and hence the small discrepancy that currently exists for bands G to J.                                     

I shall be asking officers to take account of the latest changes introduced by the Chancellor at the earliest opportunity.   With respect to the phase “viable area” this is essentially a “practicable” or “workable” area.”

Mr Shaw asked a supplementary question questioning the capacity of the Traffic department to implement these types of changes.  Councillor Trigg assured the questioner that there were no issues of capacity or competence and that the issues with timing had been as a result of National Government not the Local Authority.

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

 

To follow

(a)               In accordance with notice given, Councillor Arbourasked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

“When will the Council issue a repairs notice for the former Normansfield Hospital?”

 

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

 

“Planning permission has been granted for conversion to residential use. However, there is no evidence that this will be implemented.  Following recent vandalism, officers have been seeking without success to contact the owners to agree emergency measures.  If the owner continues not to co-operate the Council will consider serving an Urgent Works Notice in order to undertake emergency repairs and to make the building secure. 

 

A Repairs Notice requiring more extensive work to preserve the building would not be appropriate at this stage and would have significant financial implications if it were ultimately necessary to serve a compulsory purchase order.”

 

Councillor Arbour asked a supplementary question which sought to establish whether the contract with Diligent Finance UK had contained permission for 40 extra houses on this site with the condition that this building be restored.  Councillor Acton replied that he would investigate the matter.

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question which sought the agreement of the Cabinet lead Member that progress had been made on safeguarding the building in difficult times as English Heritage had re-categorised the severity of the risk of deterioration.  Councillor Acton agreed that it had especially with reference to the safeguarding of the theatre. 

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question regarding whether the Council would raise a Compulsory Purchase Order  to mitigate the threat to the building.  Councillor Acton informed the meeting that he and officers were currently in contact with the owner and progress was being made.  No compulsory Purchase Order had been raised as yet.  He also pointed out that the Council had had some successes in removing 10 buildings from the ‘at risk’ list.”

 

(b)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elengorn asked the Cabinet Member for Environment

 

"How many listed buildings are there in the borough and how many and what percentage of these are on English Heritage's 2009 Heritage at Risk Register?"

 

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

“There are in the order of 1500 listed buildings in the Borough, of which 10 are on the Heritage at Risk Register (this equates to 0.7% of the Borough total). This compares broadly to a national figure of 3.1% which relates only to Grade I and II* buildings.

 

Of the 10 within the Borough, works are currently being carried out on 2 of these buildings so I am confident that these will be removed from the register in the near future.”

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question concerning the favourable condition of the borough compared with that of most other London boroughs in that only 10 out of 482 listed buildings at risk in London were in this borough.  Councillor Acton replied that he was pleased that this fact was recorded and that hard work was being undertaken to keep the figure low in comparison with other boroughs.

 

Councillor Bouchier asked a supplementary question concerning a building in Richmond which was still in a state of disrepair and unoccupied despite being removed from the ‘at risk’ list.   Councillor Acton replied that English Heritage  had removed the building from the list and he would investigate the reasons why. 

 

Councillor Bennett asked a supplementary question seeking the agreement of the Cabinet Member that there was little or no consultation regarding the categorisation of buildings and that any decision that created a ‘listed’ building had consequences for local residents particularly if there were residents in the building.  Councillor Acton agreed but reiterated that listing classifications were not the responsibility of the council but of English Heritage. 

 

(c)               In accordance with notice given, Councillor Miller asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

“What progress is the Council making to counter the spread and potential health threat of the Oak Processionary Moth?”

 

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

“I can confirm that the Council is actively managing the Oak Processionary Moth in council owned trees very well. Since April this year we have had a dedicated surveyor inspecting trees throughout the borough, identifying the pest and coordinating with our special contractors to remove them when found. We have removed in the region of 200 nests this season and we are working closely with Kew Gardens and neighbouring boroughs to share expertise. We also carried out a trial spray on 10 trees to establish if this was an appropriate management tool. We are waiting for the results of the trial at this time but we are quite pleased with the progress so far.”

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question seeking to establish whether any concerns had been raised by local GPs or PCTs about the moth and its possible health consequences.  Councillor Acton replied that there had been no contact made by those groups on the issue.  There had been a potential issue regarding overhanging trees on Kew Road and this had been swiftly resolved.

 

Councillor Sheehan asked a supplementary question seeking to ascertain whether local residents had been kept fully informed of any issues and whether they had been happy with the information received and action taken.  Councillor Acton confirmed that they had been informed and were happy with the council's response to the problem.

           

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

 

“Is the Leader of the Council satisfied with the Council's record on involving local residents in decision making?”

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“The Council has a good record on involving residents in decision making. A wide range of consultation takes place including on planning applications, annual consultations through focus groups and Area Consultation Meetings. Residents have also been involved in devising action plans for the areas of relative deprivation, consultation on a number of plans has been exemplary and a number of us went to the launch yesterday of the  children’s plan which I think is worthy of a special note. The Cabinet has also largely accepted the recommendations of the Public Consultation Task Group which formed in April. There is always more we can do as we are working with partners to deliver on our local area agreement targets to increase the number of residents who feel they can influence decisions made by all borough public services.”  

 

Councillor Fleming asked a supplementary question which sought to ascertain why the medium of the internet had been chosen to consult with residents on the subject of new executive arrangements, as she felt that this was exclusionary and would further frustrate residents 69% of whom stated in the place survey that they did not feel they could influence Council decision making.   Councillor Lourie agreed that the result in the place survey relating to people’s perceptions of their influence on the Council was disappointing at 69% but that consultation was undertaken genuinely and results taken seriously and that the medium of the internet was appropriate and accessible.

 

Councillor Howard asked a supplementary question requesting that the Leader declare whether he thought the figure of 93.5% ‘against’ the Twickenham Riverside Development was true or false.  The Leader declared that he considered the results to be entirely false and misleading due to the phrasing of the question therefore any results were not valid and he deemed the use of such a question in a consultation to be a disgrace.

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question which detailed the Conservative administration’s consultation on Town Centre Managers during their time in control of the Council and asked whether the leader agreed with him that it seemed the results of these consultations had been ignored.  The leader confirmed that the then Conservative administration had indeed ignored the overwhelming response to consultation and the decision to abolish those posts was overturned by the incoming Liberal Democrat administration in 2006.      

 

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

 

“Could the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education state the minimum level of parental support required before the Council is prepared to hand a school to a sponsor? How many Governing bodies and PTAs of primary schools have gone on record in support of the proposed sponsors?”

 

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

           

“In accordance with statutory requirements, parents and other local people will have a 6-week period which for HCC and Whitton schools is planned for September in which to express their views of the closure of the schools and the opening of new ones. In considering those responses the Cabinet will as it is meeting in November look at the strength and quality of the arguments put forward. It will then make decisions which it feels to be in the best interests of the current and future generation of local children. In the case of HCC and Whitton the prospectus will be issued in early September and the consultation is based around that. I have attended a number of parent meetings and although the questioning, as expected, was tough, most of the audience understood why we were making the changes and were prepared to wait and see the final proposals before they made up their minds. The number of governing bodies or PTAs who have so far declared their support for the proposals is not relevant to the statutory decision-making process.” 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question seeking assurance that when a new partner was found for Sheen it would be with the approval of the Parents at the school and not just the Governors.  Councillor Eady informed the meeting that parents were represented on the Board of Governors and therefore their views had been taken into account.  He also reported that two strong candidates had been identified which would also be reviewed by opposition members.

 

Councillor Davies asked a supplementary question urging Councillor Eady to confirm that work would be carried out as soon as possible in order to avoid further disruption.  Councillor Eady confirmed that everything would be in place by the start of the school year 2009/10 in order to help those people making decisions about secondary school choices.

Councillor Seymour asked a question seeking reassurance that the work for HCC would not go ahead without approval of the sponsors by parents, and that this support might be achieved more easily if the sponsor had experience of the English education system.  Councillor Eady responded by informing Councillor Seymour that the sponsors were both strong candidates.

 

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

 

“Given that Apetito's franchise is charging £5.99 for a delivered hot meal to a MINIMUM of 40 users, will the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing give the specific numbers required to reduce the cost according to the volume of applications?”

 

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

 

“Following the successful negotiation and agreement with Apetito the base price of £5.99 for a two-course meal has been fixed for 12 months. It will be reviewed after this period and if the annual volume is then equivalent to 75 service users having a daily meal (seven meals per week) the base price will be reduced to £5.81 and if it is equivalent to 100 service users having a daily meal it will be reduced to £5.72 per meal. After the adjustment for volume, if any, the base price will be adjusted for inflation using weighted indices with a minimum increase of 1.5%”.

 

Councillor Parsons asked a supplementary question asking that if there was to be an annual review of this service the outcome be published.  Councillor Carr responded, stating that the residents had been informed that the price of £5.99 was secured for 12 months.

 

Councillor Davies asked a supplementary question seeking to establish how many residents chose the frozen meal option.  Councillor Carr informed the meeting that it was currently 70% of all customers.  This, she reported, was a huge increase and followed a series of individual service assessments which had helped bring greater freedom to many residents.

 

Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question seeking to identify how many of those users who chose the frozen meal option needed support.  Councillor Carr reported that this figure was 54 out of a total 188.  Therefore 134 did not need support.  This was to be expected, she reported, as a large number of users were classed as having only moderate needs.  This was to the credit of the Borough who did not have a statutory responsibility to these users but continued to provide a service unlike many other councils. 

 

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

 

“How many empty shops are there currently in the borough?"

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“In April 2009 there were 96 empty units within designated frontages in the 5 town centres which is 7.7%, this is an increase of 23 from July 2008, which was 5.6%. The vacancies comprised 30 units in Twickenham, 25 in Richmond, 17 in East Sheen, 16 in Whitton and 8 in Teddington. Although the increase is relatively modest in comparison to the overall number of shops, which stands at 1243, the Council is not complacent and is promoting a range of measures to support local businesses, including the town centre opportunities fund, which is supporting town centre management in a number of centres and car parking tariffs to encourage business.”

 

Councillor Morris asked a supplementary question regarding the advent of Tesco in East Sheen and possibly in Kew.  She asked whether the Leader would agree that any shop seeking A1 permission should be considered by the planning committee.  Councillor Lourie replied that the Planning Committee was a quasi-judicial body and should not be subject to political interference from Council.  He stated that he did not know of a new proposal for a Tesco in Kew but that the branch serving Kew village had been valuable to the vitality of local shops.  He did however sympathise with small businesses who were struggling in the current economic climate and in the face of competition from the internet.

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question about the value of ‘destination’ shops.  Councillor Lourie replied that the introduction of a shop like Tesco could have both good and bad impacts and that it would be interesting to analyse the effect of the Sainsbury’s shop in Mortlake to see what impact it had.

 

Councillor Fleming asked a supplementary question which requested that the Council draw up a Town Centre Policy.  Councillor Lourie said that this was not currently planned but that, unlike the previous Conservative administration, the role of Town Centre managers would be maintained to provide direction to the Town Centres.   

 

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

           

(h)               In accordance with notice given, Councillor Percival asked the Cabinet Member for Youth, Culture and Leisure:

 

“Would the Cabinet Member for Youth and Leisure say when the Council will sign the Deed of Dedication with Fields In Trust relating to the future of the playing fields at Barn Elms?”

 

Councillor Jaeger replied in the following terms:

 

[“This is a funding condition of one of the potential funders of the Barn Elms improvements. The aim is to report to September Cabinet with a scheme jointly developed with Barnes Vision, then submit a planning application. Some of the external funding can only be applied for once planning permission is achieved so the intention is to sign the deed once planning permission and funding are achieved. Subject to agreeing satisfactory terms, it may be possible to enter into the Deed conditional on planning permission and the other external funding being achieved.”]

 

(i)                  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Palmer asked the Cabinet Member for Youth, Culture and Leisure:

 

“Would the Cabinet Member for Youth & Leisure confirm when the decision was made by the Council to erect a Skateboard Park and BMX Track at Barn Elms, who was consulted on this; and why neither Barnes Vision nor the local Ward Councillors were advised of either the plan or the consultees?”

 

Councillor Jaeger replied in the following terms:

 

[“”I’m thrilled that we’ve responded to needs identified by young people with the £1m Youth Capital Fund. The ideas for all 15 projects including the BMX/Skateboard facility at Barn Elms, were suggested by young people.

 

The options were publicised by a press release, on the Council’s website and in promotional material distributed in schools and youth centres.

 

Barnes Ward Councillors received a leaflet (internal post 12^th June) explaining the options – including the BMX/Skateboard facility at Barn Elms. Barnes Vision was informed at a meeting on May 18 that the possibility of a BMX/skateboard facility had been proposed by young people and that this would be voted on.”]

 

(j)                  In accordance with notice, Councillor Seymour asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

“What response will the council give to the Environment Agency’s TE2100 Plan consultation?”

 

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

 

[“The Council broadly welcomed the analysis but expressed concern over the impact of fluvial flooding, which could arise from a projected 40% increase in flows.

 

Specific issues raised with the Environment Agency were the cumulative impacts of tidal and fluvial flooding; the continued use of the Thames Barrier to protect the Borough; the need to work with Partners on local measures including increasing the capacity of the floodplain; the need to investigate further tributary flooding and groundwater flooding (in so far as this is connected to Thames levels) and to consider more explicitly cost implications for the Council.

 

 

Additional Information

 

The full comments are as below:

 

“The Study is generally welcomed in providing a well researched analysis of the tidal flood risk.

 

The Council is however concerned over the impact on the Borough of fluvial flooding which could arise from flows projected to increase by 40% during the study period. The increased propensity to flooding is due to increased rainfall and mitigation measures upstream and there are many vulnerable areas between Teddington and Kew including the undefended islands. The study is primarily concerned with tidal flooding and as a result fluvial flooding is given limited priority.

 

It is suggested that the Environment Agency:

 

·                     Ensure that the implications of the Lower Thames Strategy (which are primarily concerned with fluvial flooding) are fully taken into account in the TE2100 analyses to ensure cumulative impacts of tidal and fluvial flooding are fully taken into account;

 

·                     Commit to maximising as far as practical the continued use of the Thames Barrier to help alleviate fluvial flooding (the Study suggests the Barrier will be used less for this purpose);

 

·                     Include a positive commitment to working with Partners on local measures for Twickenham and Richmond policy units and increasing the capacity of the floodplain (including financial provision);

 

·                     Consider more explicitly the potential costs arising from fluvial flooding in both the TE2100 and Lower Thames Strategy, including the costs on the local authority for example in emergency planning, localise flood resilience and resistance measures and other direct action to assist local residents;

 

·                     Commit to further investigation of tributary flooding, in particular where fluvial flooding is exacerbated by high levels in the Thames;

 

·                     Commit to investigate the potential of groundwater flooding from superficial strata (possibly connected to Thames levels)”

(see also report to Cabinet, 6 July 2009, item 12)]

 

 

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

 

            Avenue Centre Rebuild (Hampton Wick Ward)

 

 

 

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

 

            Concessionary Parking for Richmond Good Neighbours Volunteer Drivers (South Richmond Ward)

 

 

(a)  Avenue Centre Rebuild (Hampton Wick Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given Councillor Parsons raised issues concerning the rebuild of the Avenue Centre, in particular that the centre would no longer be for the sole use of people with Learning Disabilities but would be for the general use of the Community.   Councillor Parsons argued that there were sufficient community spaces in the Borough at present and that this site should be maintained for the specific use of those with Learning disabilities. 

 

The Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing, Councillor Carr, confirmed that although the needs of those people with Learning Disabilities was central to the design, the centre would be open for the general use of the community.  She considered that it was not beneficial to segregate people with Learning Disabilities and in work carried out with local users of services, they had indicated that they too wanted facilities that encouraged integration. 

 

 

(b) Concessionary Parking for Richmond Good Neighbours Volunteer Drivers (South Richmond Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given Councillor Fleming raised the issue of parking charges for volunteer drivers who enabled the elderly residents of the Borough to shop and carry out errands.  Councillor Fleming argued that these volunteers should be provided with badges or cards that would entitle them to free parking in a similar way to the ‘blue badge’ scheme for disabled drivers.  It had been mooted before and initially supported but Councillor Fleming had become concerned with the apparent lack of progress now being made. 

 

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking, Councillor Trigg, stated that there was political support for such a scheme but that there were a number of technical issues which needed to be addressed.  He assured Councillor Fleming that work would continue to make a new scheme possible but that in the meantime volunteers could make use of the carers permit scheme which allowed carers to purchase parking permits at a much reduced rate.  

 

Attached

(i)  Corporate Plan 2009-12

 

(ii)  New Executive Arrangements - Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 

 

Reports of the Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service attached.

1. CABINET – 8 JUNE 2009
   
   Corporate Plan 2009 - 20012

 

The Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships, Councillor Lourie, moved, seconded by the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources, Councillor Knight, that the report of the Cabinet and its recommendation be accepted.

 

Councillor Lourie stated that although adoption of the Corporate Plan was a decision for Cabinet under the Constitution, the document was of sufficient importance to be placed on the Council’s agenda.

 

Cabinet’s recommendation was put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Corporate Plan be noted.

2. CABINET - 6 JULY 2009
   
   New executive arrangements – Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007
   
   The Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships, Councillor Lourie, moved, seconded by the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources, Councillor Knight, that the report of the Cabinet and its recommendation be accepted.

 

Cabinet’s recommendation was put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Cabinet’s preferred model of executive arrangements be approved as the Leader and Cabinet model and that this be put forward for consultation.

 

3. CABINET - 6 JULY 2009
   
   Treasury Management Update
   
   The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources, Councillor Knight, moved, seconded by the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships, Councillor Lourie,  that the report of the Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service and its recommendation be accepted.

 

Cabinet’s recommendation was put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the use of one or more Money Market Funds for short term investment as detailed in paragraph 8.6 be approved.

None

Attached.

The Scrutiny Annual Report for the Overview and Scrutiny function covering the last twelve months was commended to Council by the Chair of the Co-ordination, Finance and Performance Commission, Councillor Jones

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Scrutiny Annual Report be noted.

 

None

None.

Attached

None

None.

None.

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

The Mayor announced that:

 

      (i)            She would be attending a Buckingham Palace Garden Party for Project YOU, aimed at improving links with uniformed young people – Air Training Corps, Army Cadets, Boys Brigade, Girl Guiding, Sea Cadets, Scout Association, St John’s Ambulance,  and Volunteer Police Cadets and that further work would be undertaken with these groups in the Borough.

    (ii)            On the Edge, Richmond’s world music event would be taking place on the 15^th & 16^th of August

   (iii)            The ceremony for Bernardo O’Higgins would take place on 20^th August in Richmond.

 

  (iv)            The Great River Race would take place on 5 September and the Mayor would be hosting the reception at the finish in Ham this year.

    (v)            The Mayor’s Quiz night would be held on the 23 October.  Members were urged to support the Mayor’s charities by entering a team.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources announced that tours of Teddington School Building would be available at 5.30pm on the 15^th & 21^st July and all Councillors and Staff would be welcome.

 

(a)        Councillor Cranfield-Adams has given notice to move the following Motion:

 

"This Council notes with concern the quality of advice given by the Legal Services Department particularly in relation to (i) the direction given to the Standards Committee in respect of the legitimacy of complaints; (ii) in respect of implementing the Freedom of Information Act, and calls on the Chief Executive to instigate an open and independent inquiry into the conduct of the Legal Services Department."   

 

(a)               In accordance with notice given, Councillor Cranfield-Adams moved, seconded by Councillor Marlow,

 

“This Council in recognition at concern that the Members’ Protocol may, in part, contradict the National Code of Conduct, and may not meet the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, resolves to withdraw the Protocol with immediate effect.”

 

The Vice Chair of the Standards Committee made a statement informing Council that the Committee agreed the rules were complicated and that it would be working to simplify the Code and protocols by 2010.  She did however emphasise that all members of the Committee were agreed that although resident advocacy was a noble cause there would never be an occasion when publicly criticising an officer was appropriate.

 

The motion was put to the vote and FELL.

 

(b)               In accordance with notice given, Councillor Marlow moved, seconded by Councillor Arbour

 

“This Council accepts the result of the independently-conducted referendum in Twickenham opposing the sale of public land in Twickenham Riverside.  The Council calls on the LibDem MP, Dr. Cable, and the LibDem Councillors of Twickenham Riverside to respect the views of their electors as expressed overwhelmingly in the referendum.”

 

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Lourie, seconded

by Councillor Lourie,

Delete “accepts” And insert “notes”
Delete “independently-conducted” and insert “so-called”
Delete “sale of public land in”And insert “proposals for”

After “Riverside”, insert: “promoted by the Conservative Party”

Insert after “Conservative Party” as a new paragraph “This Council regrets the use of a referendum with a loaded question”

Delete “LibDem MP, Dr. Cable, and the” And insert “of Twickenham Riverside”

Delete “as expressed overwhelmingly in the referendum” And insert “through the consultation process and act in the best interests of Twickenham by proceeding with the scheme to provide a river centre, restaurant, improvement to the embankment, a substantial addition to open space and a new playground”

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 23, and after a number of warnings, at 9.45 pm, the Mayor ordered the removal of those persons, who were interrupting proceedings, from the public gallery.

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 18.4, a recorded vote was called on the amendment, whereupon Councillors Acton, Allen, Ball, Cardy, Carr, Coombs, Davies, Dodds, Eady, Elengorn, Jaeger, Jones, King, Knight, Lee-Parsons, Lourie, McLeod, Miller, Morgan, Mumford, Sheehan, Stanier, Stratton, Treble, Trigg, Warren, Williams, Michael Wilson and Munira Wilson voted in favour of the amendment; Councillors Arbour, Bennett, Bouchier, Evans, Fleming, Head, Hodgins, Howard, Marlow, Morris, Palmer, Parsons, Percival, True and Urquhart voted against the amendment;

 

Councillor Cranfield-Adams abstained from the vote. 

 

The Mayor and the Deputy Mayor did not vote.

 

Therefore the amendment was declared to be CARRIED.

 

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

RESOLVED:

"This Council notes the result of the so-called referendum in Twickenham opposing the proposals for Twickenham Riverside promoted by the Conservative Party.

 

This Council regrets the use of a referendum with a loaded question

 

The Council calls on the LibDem Councillors to continue to respect the views of their electors through the consultation process and act in the best interests of Twickenham by proceeding with the scheme to provide a river centre, restaurant, improvements to the embankment, a substantial addition to open space and a new playground."

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 24, Councillor True moved, seconded by Councillor Marlow that Procedure Rule 9 be suspended to allow debate to continue beyond 10 pm and for a further amendment to be put.  This motion was put to the vote and FELL.