To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 14 July 2009 attached.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 July 2009 were approved as a correct record.

 

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

None.

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

None.

Any questions received of which due notice has been given.

 

To follow

 

 

Tim Sierwald has given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Communities:

 

“With reference to the Sustainable Communities Act, Minute 133 (2) of Cabinet November 2008 reads "that a procedure to consider proposals put forward from the community be developed".  Could Councillor Williams please give full details of the procedure developed over the past 9 months?”

 

(a)     In accordance with notice given, Tim Sierwald had been scheduled to ask the Cabinet Member for Communities a question, but he was not present.  The question and a written answer are reproduced below.

 

“With reference to the Sustainable Communities Act, Minute 133 (2) of Cabinet November 2008 reads "that a procedure to consider proposals put forward from the community be developed".  Could Councillor Williams please give full details of the procedure developed over the past 9 months?”

 

[“Following the support for the Sustainable Communities Act at the Cabinet meeting in November 2008, the Greener Richmond group of the Local Strategic Partnership was planned to be used for any Sustainable Communities Act applications, added to as appropriate. However no applications arrived with the Council anywhere near in time for the requirements placed upon us by the Act to be followed ahead of the initial deadline for submission to the Local Government Association of 31 July 2009.  The proposals will be considered when a second round for the bidding process with new deadlines is announced.”]

 

 

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 Samuel asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

“Will the Leader of the Council make a statement on the delay in the publication of the Countryside accounts, including reasons for the delay, likely consequences and implications for the unpopular Riverside scheme?”

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“We are expecting the accounts this month or early next month.  This site has been largely derelict for 28 years; a delay of a couple of months, whilst unfortunate, is of limited significance to this excellent proposal.

 

I have written personally to all members of the Co-ordination, Finance and Performance Commission about the delay, and made a press statement, and I have nothing further to add.

 

I consider this important scheme will help bring significant economic benefits to Twickenham as well as providing first class facilities for all local residents”.

 

Councillor Samuel asked a supplementary question which invited the Leader to accept that until he made a clear statement about the reason for Countryside’s delay, verified by independent audit, people were entitled to suspect the worst.  Councillor Lourie replied that his understanding was that financial restructuring was ongoing and, once completed, the audited accounts would be made available to the Council for review.

 

Councillor Michael Wilson raised concerns over the actions of the Opposition Party over the last 18 months and its future actions over the next nine months, to wreck any form of progress on the Twickenham Riverside site. Councillor Lourie agreed with Councillor Wilson’s sentiments, and reiterated that he had made it quite clear that a contract would not be signed with Countryside until their accounts had been received and properly reviewed.  Councillor Lourie added he considered that the behaviour of the Conservatives in writing to the founders of the Environment Trust, to Countryside, and to a whole range of organisations had been a disgrace.

 

Councillor True stated that the Opposition Party would stand to be judged by the electorate on these matters, and in reminding Council that for 24 of the 28 years of the site’s dereliction the Administration had been in control, requested the Leader to assure the Council that a business plan would be made available to the Commission as promised for October. Councillor Lourie replied that he did not control the Overview and Scrutiny Committees but whatever was promised would be delivered.  He further stated that the Administration was trying genuinely to produce a scheme based on consultation, which was initially based on the Twickenham Challenge.

 

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

“Will the Cabinet Member provide the evidence that he has received from the Government and a categorical assurance that the Government will provide funding for the rebuilding of all 3 Academies?”

 

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

 

“Madam Mayor, the Government has set up a body called the Partnership for Schools and it is their job to deliver the new academy building.  In recent meetings with the Partnership they have reiterated the Government’s assurance that capital will be provided to rebuild or refurbish the three schools that have been proposed to become academies in September 2010.  The Partnership has given us indicative allocations for the rebuilding and refurbishment needed at HCC and Whitton.  And they will provide the allocation for Shene when the Minister has signed off the statement”.

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question as to what contingency plan Councillor Eady had in place if funding was not forthcoming.  Councillor Eady replied by stating that a full risk analysis would be produced at the same time as the business case and that this would include estimates of the building costs of the design agreed.  Furthermore, by this time Government allocation to the Council would also be known.  The Government has set up a framework of twelve construction companies and has assured the Council that the buildings can be produced to agreed rates.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked what actions had been taken to ensure that the design of the Kunskapsskolan academies were cost effective and met the design requirements of producing a Kunskapsskolan type of school. Councillor Eady replied that following a meeting with the Kunskapsskolan architects in Sweden, the project team had a much better understanding of the design requirements to deliver the Kunskapsskolan style of teaching, which would be invaluable in producing the design brief for the school academy.

 

Councillor Samuel asked about contingency plans if Government money was not forthcoming fully to rebuild HCC in view of the fact that the Council had received categorical assurances from both Kunskapsskolan and its Principal designate that they could not deliver their education in the existing buildings.  Councillor Eady reiterated that the Council had received assurances that the money would be available. 

 

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

“Given the "Shaping of Future Care Together" Green Paper was published in July for the "Big Care Debate" to run until 13 November and as it is now 2 months into the consultation period, will the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing disclose how many local debates she has arranged and collated opinions throughout the borough to give credence to "Putting People First" and people's choice.”

 

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor.  Our approach to the consultation is to seek directly the views of residents and partners, and to support the events held by other organisations.  A briefing paper has gone to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee now for tomorrow evening’s meeting and the Council is holding a stakeholder event on the 1^st October to which all Councillors have been invited.  In addition, there will be a specific presentation for Councillors on 13^th October.

 

I am encouraging partner organisations to consult with their respective networks including service users, and both officers and I will be attending a number of such events.  I am committed to ensuring that it is a community led process with as many local people as possible being able to put forward their views.  As we receive feedback through the various channels, I shall be working with officers to draft

the borough’s response”.

 

Councillor Parsons asked a supplementary question about whether the voluntary sector had been given adequate time to consider the Green Paper. Councillor Carr stated that the Green Paper had been published in the middle of July, just before the summer holidays. Information was on the website (and the Council’s website) and the Richmond Council for Voluntary Services had circulated the information to its members, as had other key strategic organisations.  Councillor Carr added that she looked to Councillors to promote an understanding of the website; to encourage people to look at the key questions being asked; and to make their views known either to the Council or directly to the Government as part of the Government’s consultation and development.

 

Councillor Lee-Parsons asked whether the Green Paper set out finances for the next four to five years. Councillor Carr replied that the proposals in the Green Paper were about long term funding for health and social care in Richmond, but added that in the current economic climate, there would be cuts in funding from the Government for health and social care. 

 

Councillor Davies asked whether the proposals in the Green Paper would deliver a fairer, more affordable and easier to understand system on social care. Councillor Carr replied by stating that a fair, affordable and easy to understand system was needed and noted the injustice felt by those who had saved and made provision for old age and who were unable to get services freely available to others.  The Green Paper was a Government attempt to understand and analyse these problems and propose a solution and the sharing of cost and risk between the individual and their families and the state and the health organisation was a universal concern.

 

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

 

“Would the Cabinet Member for the Environment explain why the recent policy change on high-rise buildings in Twickenham does not enjoy the support of his fellow members?”

 

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor.  The Local Development Framework (LDF) approach which identifies limited areas for taller buildings based on Richmond and Twickenham Stations may well prove to be one of the most restrictive policies of all London Boroughs.  Local planning policies must conform with national and regional guidance including the identification of locations with potential for taller buildings.  The less precise policy in the UDP had been deleted by the Government Office for London (GOL) as failing this test.

 

Applications here will only be approved if they are of high quality design, compatible with the local townscape in locations that are highly accessible by public transport.”

 

Councillor Head asked a supplementary question on whether the Cabinet would reveal its high rise policy in view of the fact that it was unpopular with residents and back benchers. Councillor Acton replied that the Council did not have a high rise policy.          

           

Councillor Elengorn asked Councillor Acton if he would agree with him that the policy in the 2005 UDP, which stated that buildings higher than the general height of surrounding buildings would not normally be permitted, was weaker and less specific, and would have been much less useful at appeal because it was not evidence based, compared to the very restrictive policy contained in the core strategy as developed by the Council and endorsed by the LDF inspector.  Councillor Acton indicated that he was in assent with this view.

 

In response to a further question concerning the detail of a high-rise policy from Councillor Morris, he reiterated that the Council did not have a high-rise policy and reminded Members that all planning applications had to be treated on their own merit.

 

(e)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Morris asked the Chair of the Planning Committee:

“Would the Chair of the Planning Committee agree that it is misleading for some planning members to suggest that modern designs are more capable of accommodating renewable energy sources than pastiche designs as any new build can have such things as solar panels designed into their structure?  Would he not agree that the best way to reduce the need for carbon hungry fuels is through proper insulation and not through poorly located photovoltaic and solar systems?”

 

Councillor Miller replied in the following terms:

                       

“Thank you Madam Mayor.  Incorporating visible renewable energy installations sensitively into designs that emulate earlier architectural styles can be more of a challenge than for contemporary proposals, but need not be impossible if designed in at an early stage.

 

Effective insulation plays an important part in reducing carbon based fuel consumption, but it does not eliminate it.  The Council, therefore, adheres to the combined strategy incorporated in its own planning policies and those of the London Plan of producing efficient buildings that are properly insulated, supplemented with suitably sited renewable energy installations to further minimise the need for carbon based fuels”.

 

Councillor Morris asked a supplementary question on merits of granting planning permission to an applicant where there was late agreement to use solar energy for lights, resulting in poorly designed green energy; a poorly designed building; and as a result has no gain. Councillor Miller replied by stating that all applications were dealt with on their merits.

 

Councillor Elengorn asked whether the Chair of the Planning Committee would agree that raising questions at Council relating to the behaviour and utterances of individual members of the Planning Committee was inappropriate.  Councillor Miller indicated that he did indeed agree.

 

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

“What applications he has received from local groups under the Sustainable Communities Act and why the Council has not submitted any proposals of their own?”

 

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

 

“No applications arrived with the Council anywhere near in time for the requirements placed upon us by the Act to be followed ahead of the initial deadline for submission to the Local Government Association.  Any proposals that have been subsequently submitted will be considered when the second round for the bidding process with new deadlines is announced.  As far as the second part of Cllr Fleming’s question, the Council hasn’t made any applications because the guidance is set to encourage local communities to come forward with ideas of proposals for the sustainability of their local area.  But I think it might help Cllr Fleming if I say that only six of the sixteen Conservative controlled councils in London have had any applications dealt with under the Sustainable Communities Act, and I am not aware of how few of those six were each Council’s own applications”.

 

Councillor Fleming asked a supplementary question on how the Council had publicised the Sustainable Communities Act and the steps taken to set up a local panel. Councillor Williams replied that this had been done via the decision made by the Cabinet in November.  The Greener Richmond group of the Local Strategic Partnership was planned to be used for any Sustainable Communities Act applications.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked Councillor Williams to comment on the press article in the Richmond & Twickenham Times. Councillor Williams replied by stating that the Richmond United Group (RUG) had called a meeting to which Councillor Williams and the Twickenham MP had been invited.  RUG placed a press release stating that the meeting was about Twickenham Riverside and presented their own agenda without allowing the elected representatives any rights of reply. After being told that this was unacceptable, RUG cancelled the meeting but still turned up on the appointed time with a Press photographer and complained to the local Press that they were disappointed that Councillor Williams and the MP had not turned up. 

 

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

“To ask the Leader of the Council if he will convene or attend a round table conference of all interested parties to consider a community led alternative to the current Council scheme for Twickenham Riverside”

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor.  This is a community led scheme, and the community chose the riverside.  The Council has, since 2007, been pursuing a procurement process to achieve its agreed priorities for Twickenham Riverside at no capital cost to Council Tax payers.  I looked at the six so-called community schemes at Arthurs and was struck by the fact that they were so very different and did not comply with the Unitary Development Plan agreed by the previous administration, although they seemed to have been trying to wriggle out of that.  Nor do they indicate how they will be funded.  In the light of this Madam Mayor I see no point in a meeting to discuss alternative funding arrangements”.

 

Councillor True asked a supplementary question inviting Councillor Lourie to convene a round table meeting to discuss the issues in view of the community divisions on the subject. Councillor Lourie replied that as the Council was in a procurement process, the meeting as suggested would be inadvisable in this context.

 

Councillor Michael Wilson asked Councillor Lourie for his views as to why the previous Conservative Administration’s Leader had not followed the steps outlined by the position and why housing on the site had been supported previously.  Councillor Lourie replied by stating that he could not comment on the views of the previous Leader of the Council.

 

Councillor Arbour asked Councillor Lourie whether it would not be better to wait a further six months, bearing in mind that Cllr Lourie had stated previously that a few more months was nothing given the twenty-eight years this site had been left derelict. Councillor Lourie replied by stating that despite the objections raised to this scheme, the Opposition had no vision for the site.

 

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

“Can the Cabinet Member for Communities outline how voluntary sector organisations have benefited since the Council took back the grants programme and what impact has the 6% reduction in funding imposed by the Council had on these organisations?”

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

“Voluntary organisations have benefitted in a number of ways:

 

1.                     Three year awards have been made under Round One which will support long-term sustainability.

2.                  Closer working relationships with Link officers.

3.                  Closer Alignment with Council and NHS Richmond priorities to strengthen their position in the move towards commissioning.

 

The Council’s own contribution to the grants budget increased by 2.5% in 2009/10; the overall reduction is due to other partner funds no longer being available.  As Councillor Bouchier is the Opposition Member on the Grants Panel she is aware.  The Council has not specifically assessed the impact of reduced funding levels on organisations considered under Round One, but has put mechanisms in place to counter any impact such as the introduction of a Funding Advice Service”.

 

Councillor Bouchier asked a supplementary question on whether Councillor Williams agreed that the process was more complicated, deterring organisations from applying.  Councillor Williams disagreed as the Council had received more applications for grants than Grants Direct.  The Council had also set up a small Grants Programme and had given or would be giving out approximately £100,000 of money in a much simpler way for the organisations applying for grants at the level in question. 

 

Councillor Miller asked whether it would be an advantage to outsource the grants to voluntary organisations. Councillor Williams disagreed and stated that the process was now more strategic and meant that the voluntary sector had been integrated in a mainstream way and not been marginalised. As far as funding and reduction was concerned it was almost entirely because the Learning Skills Council was likely to withdraw its temporary funding from the Grants system and had nothing to do with Council.

 

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

 

(i)         In accordance with notice given, Councillor Seymour asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Planning:

“Will the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking state the number of penalty tickets required by the quota indicators set for parking civil enforcement officers?”

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

[“The parking enforcement contract does not contain any ‘quota indicators’ for either individual civil enforcement officers or a total for the contract”].

 

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

“Does the Cabinet Member believe CCTV cameras are a useful way of detecting and preventing crime and keeping us the safest borough in London?”

 

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

 

[“In Richmond upon Thames in 2009 there have been 180 arrests that have involved CCTV.  The Police have reviewed over 117 hours of footage on 176 occasions.  Criminal justice agencies believe that in many cases the existence of CCTV evidence leads to an early guilty plea rather than a protracted court case.  The police also use CCTV during events involving large crowds (particularly at the RFU) to monitor activity and direct officers to any potential problems enabling them to defuse situations or relieve pinch points. CCTV clearly has a deterrent effect and reduces fear of crime.

The recent comment from David Davis MP that “CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness” is simply not true in our experience locally”].

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

 

            Airtrack (East Sheen Ward)

 

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

 

            Planning permission given under delegated powers (East Sheen Ward)

 

(c)        Councillor Cranfield-Adams has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

 

            Travis Perkins site on Bardolph Road (North Richmond Ward)

 

(a)        Airtrack (East Sheen Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Urquhart raised issues concerning the projected extra downtime of the barriers and, to date, the lack of suggested mitigation of the effects of that on residents’ daily lives.  She queried why use of the ‘Hounslow Loop’ had been ruled out and why new technology for railway control and communication was not being discussed.

 

The Cabinet Member shared the concerns raised in relation to residents and businesses and assured Council that traffic management studies would be undertaken at the beginning of October. It was noted that representations had been made by the Cabinet Member and Susan Kramer MP to the Secretary of State (SOS). The SOS and BAA had been requested to look at better timetabling and the implementation of better technology, and also the European Rail Traffic Management System.

 

Cllr Trigg stated that should the proposals go ahead, with use of ‘the Windsor lines’ there would be a direct commercial benefit to Richmond and Twickenham town centres, which would be lost on the ‘Hounslow loop’.

 

(b)       Planning permission given under delegated powers (East Sheen Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Morris raised issues about one shop unit in East Sheen being given permission under delegated powers to change to A1 use but without proper traffic surveys being conducted and the lack of consultation. This had resulted in two Tesco's shops being opened in unsuitable locations resulting in traffic congestion.

 

The Cabinet Member advised Council that representations were not made about the change of use or traffic concerns raised when the decision to grant planning permission under delegated powers (change of use to A1) was taken. The Development Control Manager and the Council’s transport engineers who dealt with this case were satisfied that they had sufficient traffic and transport information from both the submitted transport statement and their knowledge and experience to make a proper and informed decision on this relatively small retail proposal. Council was further advised that the Department of Transport guidelines were used to determine the application.

 

However, the Council’s transport officers would be meeting with Tesco with a view to finding ways of addressing the servicing issues raised.

 

(c)        Travis Perkins site on Bardolph Road (North RichmondWard)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Cranfield-Adams raised issues about requests received from residents for the adoption of Bardolph Road as public highway. Travis Perkins, which was located in a residential area, was a builders’ merchant which had outgrown the site it currently occupied resulting in visitors to its premises taking up residents’ parking. In addition there was a lack of storage facilities. Access for emergency vehicles was also restricted.  It was requested that the Cabinet Member arranged for the adoption of Bardolph Road and assisted in relocating the business to Orchard Road.

 

The Cabinet Member confirmed that the ownership of Bardolph Road was unknown as the title deeds were not registered with the Land Registry. Lighting and parking restrictions were put in place to assist the residents.  In adopting a road care must be taken to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that the borough is protected from incurring unreasonable maintenance liabilities in the future. It was hoped that meetings with the senior management and directors of Travis Perkins would take place, as it was important to look at this site and its long-term use in a structured way.

None.

None.

None.

None.

None.

None.

Attached.

RESOLVED that:

 

1.         the following amendments to the Constitution/Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules arising from the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and the Police and Justice Act 2006 be agreed:

 

i.                     changes to Article 6 of the Constitution: Overview and Scrutiny Committees (attached as Appendix 1);

 

ii.                   addition of a new paragraph 10 and Annexes to the Overview and Scrutiny procedure Rules (attached as Appendix 2);

 

iii.                  inclusion of a new paragraph under Article 2.03 (a) of the Constitution – Roles and functions of all Councillors as stated below:

 

            ‘Councillors will have the right to refer to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee any matter which affects his/her ward except one in relation to a planning, licensing or regulatory application or where an individual has a right of appeal or review ( see Scrutiny and Overview procedure rules)’;

 

2.         community safety be included within the remit of the Commission (and thereby removing it from the Environment & Sustainability OSC) in view of the advantages outlined in paragraph 16 of the report;

 

3.         it be agreed to change the name of Children’s Services OSC to Children’s Services and Culture OSC to reflect both the name of the directorate and the Committee’s remit; and

 

4.         any consequential changes to the Constitution arising from the above be delegated to the Chief Executive.

 

 

Attached.

RESOLVED that the Council note the decisions taken as a matter of urgency as set out in paragraph 3.2 of the report.

 

None.

None.

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

The Mayor announced the:

 

1.       Coffee Morning in the Mayor’s Parlour on the 25 September 2009 in aid of Macmillan and the Quiz Night on 23 October 2009 in aid of the Mayor’s charities.

 

2.       Christmas Concert on 8 December 2009.

 

3.       Council’s success at London in Bloom

 

The Leader of the Opposition announced that Councillor Parsons would be standing down at the next election and was therefore standing down with immediate effect as the Opposition Spokesman for Adult Services. Councillor Urquhart would take on the position of Opposition Spokesman for Adult Services as of 19 September 2009 and that subject to ratification by Council, Councillor Percival would take on the role of Chair of the Health, Housing & Social Care Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

 

Councillor Parsons was thanked for her outstanding service.

 

The Leader of the Council announced:

 

1.           that the Parks department should be congratulated for their achievements (gold award in London in bloom);

 

2.            the Council’s participation in reducing CO2 emission by 10%; and

 

3.            a party of delegates from Bulgaria had visited the Council to hear about social care. The gifts given to the Council by the delegates were presented to the Mayor

 

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

 

            "This Council congratulates OutWest, the largest LGBT group in West London, for having recently been awarded charitable status by the Charity Commissioners in recognition of its work with, and on behalf of, the LGBT Community across all seven West London Boroughs and particularly within the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames;  further, welcomes the launch of the OutWest third party reporting initiative which has the support of the Metropolitan Police."

 

Any further motions of which due notice has been given to follow.

 

 

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

 

            "This Council recognises the Borough-wide potential of the Stag Brewery site and instructs officers to undertake a Borough-wide consultation.”

 

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

 

            "This Council congratulates the local police and the Community Safety Partnership in keeping Richmond upon Thames the safest borough in London, and in particular supports the recent initiative to combat the unacceptable level of thefts from motor vehicles by taking valuables into safekeeping when left on view in unlocked cars.”

 

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

 

            "This Council congratulates OutWest, the largest LGBT group in West London, for having recently been awarded charitable status by the Charity Commissioners in recognition of its work with, and on behalf of, the LGBT Community across all seven West London Boroughs and particularly within the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames;  further, welcomes the launch of the OutWest third party reporting initiative which has the support of the Metropolitan Police."

 

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Williams and seconded by Councillor Lourie:

 

After “congratulates” insert “the Richmond upon Thames LGBT Forum and”.

After “OutWest” delete “, the largest LGBT group in West London, for having recently been awarded”, and insert “on the progress that has been made in serving the needs of the local LGBT community following the setting up of the Forum with Council encouragement and support in 2007 and the recent award of”.

After “status” delete all words up to and including “further”.

Insert “and”.

 

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

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

“This Council congratulates the Richmond upon Thames LGBT Forum and OutWest on the progress that has been made in serving the needs of the local LGBT community following the setting up of the Forum with Council encouragement and support in 2007 and the recent award of charitable status to OutWest, and welcomes the launch of the OutWest third party reporting initiative which has the support of the Metropolitan Police.”

 

 

(b)       In accordance with notice given, Councillor Morris moved, seconded by Councillor Fleming,

 

            "This Council recognises the Borough-wide potential of the Stag Brewery site and instructs officers to undertake a Borough-wide consultation.”

 

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Stanier and seconded by Councillor Davies,

 

Delete “potential of” Insert “policies and site specific proposal applying to”

Delete “and instructs officers to undertake a Borough-wide” Insert “in the adopted 2005 UDP, and, subject to the ongoing investigations of the viability of continuing brewery use, the”

Insert at end “arrangements officers would undertake under the adopted Statement of Community Involvement in the preparation of a planning brief.”

 

The amendment was put to the vote and was CARRIED.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

"This Council recognises the Borough-wide policies and site specific proposal applying to the Stag Brewery site in the adopted 2005 UDP, and, subject to the ongoing investigations of the viability of continuing brewery use, the consultation arrangements officers would undertake under the adopted Statement of Community Involvement in the preparation of a planning brief."

 

( c)       In accordance with Council Procedure Rule (Standing Order) 15.7 (a) Councillor Williams, with Council’s consent, moved his amended motion, seconded by Councillor Fleming,

 

 “This Council congratulates the local police and the Community Safety Partnership in keeping Richmond upon Thames the safest borough in London, and supports the initiatives which they are taking.”

 

The Motion was put to the vote and was CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED:

 

“This Council congratulates the local police and the Community Safety Partnership in keeping Richmond upon Thames the safest borough in London, and supports the initiatives which they are taking.”