To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 26^th  January 2010 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 January 2010, with the following corrections, were taken as read and approved as a correct record;

(1)   Minute 93 delete ‘Councillor Treble’ and replace with ‘Councillor King’

(2)   The meeting ended at 9.35pm, not 7.25pm as stated.

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

No declarations of interest were made.

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

Councillor Samuel presented a petition on behalf of residents of Hampton requesting that a licensing application for the Royal Oak Public House be rejected.

Councillor Samuel presented a petition on behalf of residents of Rectory Grove requesting that pavement parking be trialled.

Councillor Percival presented a petition on behalf of residents of Barnes opposing planning application 09/3076/FUL.

Councillor Williams presented a petition on behalf of residents regarding additional road safety requests at Sandy lane / Lauderdale Drive, Petersham.

Budget papers previously issued for Cabinet attached. The Medium Term Financial Strategy has been published on the Cabinet page of the website.  Following the Cabinet meeting, the formal Council Tax Resolution 2010/11 with the Cabinet’s proposals will be circulated.

Any questions in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.1, of which notice has been given to follow.

Councillor Knight moved, seconded by Councillor Lourie:

(1)               That the Council agree the Revenue Budget for 2010/11.

(2)               That the Council agree Richmond upon Thames’ element of the Band D Council Tax be unchanged at £1,287.39.

(3)               That the Council agree that the overall Band D level of Council Tax for 2009/10 including the GLA element be set at £1,597.21, the same level as 2009/10.

 (4)       That the Council agree the Council Tax 2009/10 resolution to be proposed by the Leader (Supplementary Agenda).

Councillor Samuel moved, seconded by Councillor Porter,

To recommendation 1:

after 'Council' insert 'considers the proposed’ and after ‘2010/11’ insert ‘to be flawed because it delays the cost reductions required given the overall state of public finances.

Therefore consideration of the revenue budget, the setting of the borough element of the Council tax and the overall Council tax be deferred until such time as appropriate cost reduction proposals are submitted recognising that this must be on or before 11 March 2010.

Consequently:

Delete recommendations (2), (3) and (4).

In accordance with Procedure Rule 18.4 a recorded vote was called, where upon Councillors Arbour, Bennett, Bouchier, Evans, Fleming, Head, Hodgins, Howard, Marlow, Palmer, Parsons, Percival, Porter, Samuel, Seymour True and Urquhart voted in favour of the amendment; Councillors Acton, Allen, Ball, Cardy, Carr, Coombs, Davies, Dodds, Eady, Elengorn, Elloy, Jaeger, Jones, King, Knight, Lee-Parsons, Lourie, Miller, Morgan, Nicholson, Sheehan, Stanier, Stratton, Treble, Trigg, Warren, Williams, Michael Wilson and Munira Wilson voted against the amendment; The Mayor and the Deputy Mayor did not vote.

Therefore the amendment was declared to be LOST.

Councillor True moved, seconded by Councillor Arbour,

To delete recommendation (2) and insert:

(2) That the Council

(a) Notes with concern the £1.9 million underspend in 2009/10 which followed the unnecessary imposition of the highest Council Tax rise in London of 4.33% in April 2009

(b) Condemns the Cabinet plan to continue to hoard this money in reserves during a recession.

(c) Resolves that £1.44m of the underspend be applied immediately to reduce the Council Tax level in order to give money that this Council did not need back to local tax payers and to provide real help to the local community in times of recession; and therefore

In recommendation (3):

After 'Council' insert ‘Congratulate the Mayor for London on again freezing the GLA precept and'

Delete ‘overall’ and insert ‘Richmond upon Thames element of’

Delete ‘level of’

After ‘Council Tax for 2010/11’, delete remainder of sentence and insert ‘be reduced by 1% to £1,274.52.’

Delete the existing recommendation (4) and replace with

(4) That the Council agree that the overall Band D level of Council Tax for 2010/11 including the GLA element be set at £1,584.34

And insert recommendation (5)

(5) That, following amendment on the basis of the figures above, the Council agree the Council Tax 2010/11 resolution to be proposed by the Leader.

The amendment was put to the vote and FELL.

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

RESOLVED:

(1)               That the Revenue Budget for 2010/11 be agreed.

(2)               That it be agreed that the Richmond upon Thames’ element of the Band D Council Tax be unchanged at £1,287.39

(3)               That it be agreed that the overall Band D level of Council Tax for 2009/10 including the GLA element be set at £1,597.21, the same level as 2009/10.

(4)               That it be noted that at its meeting on 26th January 2010 the Council calculated the amount of 88,895.44 as its Council Tax base for the year 2010-2011 in accordance with regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992 made under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

(2)        That the following amounts be calculated by the Council for the year 2010-2011 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1992:-

(a)   £405,989,400      being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(2) (a) to (e) of the Act

(b)   £263,030,685      being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(3) (a) to (c) of the Act

(c)   £142,958,715      being the amount by which the aggregate at 2 (a) above exceeds the aggregate at 2 (b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 32 (4) of the Act, as its budget requirement for the year

(d)    £28,515,216       being the aggregate of the sums which the Council estimates will be payable for the year into its General Fund in respect of redistributed non-domestic rates, revenue support grant, or additional grant increased by the amount of the sums which the Council estimates will be transferred in the year from its Collection Fund to its General Fund in accordance with Section 97 (3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Council Tax surplus) and increased by the amount of any sum which the Council estimates will be transferred from its Collection Fund to its General Fund pursuant to the Collection Fund (Community Charges) directions under section 98 (4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Community Charge surplus) made on 7th February 1994.

(e)       £1,287.39        being the amount at 2 (c) above less the amount at 2 (d) above, all divided by the amount at 1 above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 33 (1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax  (Band D) for the year

(f) Valuation bands

being the amounts given by multiplying the amount at 2 (e) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5 (1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36 (1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands

(3)       That it be noted that for the year (2010-2011) the major precepting authority has stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:-

(4)        That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 2 (f) and 3 above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30 (2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the following amounts of council tax for the year (2010-2011)be set for each of the categories of dwelling shown below:-

            Valuation Bands

(5)   That the Director of Finance and Corporate Services be authorised to institute legal proceedings where necessary for the collection of the aforesaid Council Tax and Non Domestic Rates.

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

Robin Jowitt has given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Environment:

"Does the LibDem Council consider that they are green and support green initiatives to reduce carbon emissions and water usage?"

In accordance with notice given, Mr Robin Jowit asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

"Does the LibDem Council consider that they are green and support green initiatives to reduce carbon emissions and water usage?"

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

“We have established our green credentials. A Sustainability Unit has successfully been introduced and we have signed the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change. We have also adopted a Climate Change Strategy and an Energy Policy.  This policy contains measures to reduce our carbon emissions and we are the first Council to roll-out use of biodiesel on its vehicle fleet, saving over 1000 of tonnes of CO2 p.a. We have committed to all three climate change National Indicators and developed a range of programmes, working in partnership with the local community, to combat climate change throughout the borough.”

Mr Jowitt asked a supplementary question as to why, considering these green credentials, the plans for the North Sheen Recreational Pavilion did not include solar panels or rain water collection facilities.

Councillor Action replied that high environmental specifications were included on all public buildings but said that the specific issues of solar panels and rain water collection would be investigated.

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 Bennett asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking

“Is the Cabinet Member for Transport aware that some buses are now regularly using the bus lane in Paradise Road in Richmond to park instead of using the ample available space in the bus station just around the corner and that this unsatisfactory practice is regularly causing added traffic congestion in an area where this is already a significant problem? If he did approve this practice what consultation did he make with ward Councillors?”

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

“London Buses are standing the 419 in the bus lane in Paradise Road whilst demolition works are being undertaken in Wakefield Road thus denying them the use of their usual stand. I am informed this practice will continue into April. I did not approve this temporary relocation and I have asked officers to investigate with London Buses the causes for added congestion and to mitigate this wherever possible.”

Councillor Bennett asked a supplementary question asking the Member for Traffic Transport and Parking to confirm that he agreed that bus lanes should facilitate the easy movement of buses and not contribute to traffic problems.

Councillor Trigg confirmed that he did agree.

Councillor Bouchier asked how the Liberal Democrats could balance their Green agenda with certain activities in the town, specifically bus drivers leaving engines running while standing and people driving further to look for car parking spaces as so many had been lost to Car Clubs bays.

Councillor Trigg reported that he and others had made many representations to the bus companies to ensure that drivers turned off engines when standing but unfortunately there would always be some drivers who would continue to do it.  In response to the criticism of Car Club spaces he argued that evidence showed that car club bays significantly reduced car usage in an area once embedded.

(b)               In accordance with notice given Councillor Morgan asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 “Can the Cabinet Member for the Environment update us on the current status of the Crane Park improvements and the consultation process being carried out?”

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

“The London Boroughs of Richmond and Hounslow have an established Steering Group, and are working in partnership with FORCE and the London Wildlife Trust, to advise on these improvement works.  The project will focus on making the park more welcoming; improving access; creating links between the two sides of the river; enhancing the biodiversity value; and creating an exciting and vibrant identity for the park.  A public consultation on initial proposals ran throughout February.  The response has been very good and positive. Feedback will be collated and used by the Steering Group to finalise designs.”

Councillor Morgan asked a supplementary question requesting information on the consultation responses received to date.

Councillor Acton replied that there had been two drop in sessions each attended by approximately 70-80 people and the general feeling had been largely positive.  Two main themes were emerging, residents wanted the park to be ‘kept natural’ and to ‘feel safe’. 

Councillor Seymour asked for figures detailing the percentage of funding spent on the park and the percentage spent on Project Management and administration

Councillor Acton replied that he did not have the figures to hand although it was likely that the figure for the former was much higher than the latter but that he would have them sent to Councillor Seymour after the meeting. 

Councillor Elengorn asked about the likely timescale for the works and Councillor Acton replied that they would commence in late Spring and end in December 2011.

(c)               In accordance with notice given Councillor Elengorn asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

  “Would the Leader comment on whether the Council has taken up the suggestion that it should work on a number of important services with its partners to get one or more green flags awarded under the Comprehensive Area Assessment?”

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

“The focus of the Council’s work with partners should be on providing high quality, cost efficient services to the local residents of Richmond upon Thames.  Our success in delivering against our Community Plan priorities has been recognised by the Audit Commission in its 2009 Comprehensive Area Assessment report. We seek out innovative approaches and ways to achieve significant improvements but do not consider it appropriate to spend resources in pursuit of green flags where these do not result in any additional benefits for residents.

The Audit Commission has encouraged us to try for green flags in a number of areas including our success in tackling childhood obesity.”

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question which sought to identify areas where the council would be eligible for Green Flag status and asked whether applications would be made.

Councillor Lourie replied that although the Council could well be eligible in many services the view of the current Administration was that resources should not be used to pursue Green Flag status where there would be no additional benefits to residents.

Councillor Seymour asked whether the Leader would agree that priorities should be given to those services which residents valued most highly.

Councillor Lourie confirmed that he agreed entirely.

(d)               In accordance with notice given Councillor Allen asked the Cabinet member for Transport, Traffic and Parking:

“Would the Cabinet member please comment on the highways treatment during the bad weather period in January”

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

“I am pleased to say that as a Borough we were extremely well prepared for the recent spell of ‘arctic’ weather, with sufficient stocks of grit to ensure main roads in the borough were properly treated. We were of course mindful of the regional and national situation with some authorities running out of grit and were able to help two other boroughs as part of the pan London ‘mutual aid’ arrangements.

I can also announce that immediately following the cold weather a programme of ‘Pothole’ repair was put in place to deal with road damage that can unfortunately occur during freezing conditions.”

Councillor Allen asked a supplementary question seeking to identify the financial implications of the policy Councillor Trigg had described.

Councillor Trigg replied that £100,000 was now allocated to the repair of potholes which had been exacerbated during the cold weather.

Councillor Head asked the Cabinet Member for a guarantee that any pot holes in the Borough would be repaired within a month.

Councillor Trigg replied that this would not be possible and was not a sensible request given the size of the Borough and the damage to roads from the winter weather.  He did however reiterate that a programme was underway and drew attention to a new reporting tool on the website for members of the public.

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

“What steps is the Cabinet member taking to market existing Council services to residents receiving personal budgets?”

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

“Existing Council services are central to the range of service options for residents receiving personal budgets.  They are particularly a priority for residents who are in need of the very specialist services the Council provides such as the Intensive Day Centres for older people.  Residents are made aware of the range of service options they can choose from including existing Council services and are given advice on the appropriateness of service options that would most effectively meet their support and care needs.”

Councillor Urquhart asked a supplementary question claiming that numbers choosing council providers continued to decrease and seeking to establish what the current strategy was to deal with this decline.

Councillor Carr replied that this was not deemed by the current Administration as a failure as the aim was to enable people to choose the best specific services for their needs and to this end the council continued to encourage diverse provision and not confine people to limited choices.

Councillor Davies asked that the numbers of people receiving personal budgets be confirmed and that the Cabinet Member divulge their choices of services.

Councillor Carr confirmed that at the end of January 2010 there were 899 people claiming personal budgets of which 117 received the money as direct payments.  Money tended to be spent in two main areas, namely provision of care, and maintaining of relationships and friendships through stimulating activities.

Councillor Percival asked that those people who fell just outside of the criteria for receipt of support in relation to learning disabilities be considered for further support.

Councillor Carr replied that Richmond was one of the few Councils in London that went beyond its statutory responsibilities and provided for people who had ‘moderate needs’.  Anyone needing support would be satisfied by the wealth of excellent specialist support services operated by the voluntary sector and partner services within the Borough.

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

"At the last full Council meeting, the opposition quoted crime statistics including borough wide statistics on rape. Could the Cabinet Member make a statement about the use of statistics and specifically the increases mentioned by Councillor Samuel?"

Councillor Williams responded in the following terms:

“The Council debated questionable Conservative crime statistics in January. Perhaps they were trying to emulate national Conservative campaigns which don’t compare like with like, or get the decimal point crucially in the wrong place. I assume Councillor Samuel picked out the increase in rapes reported last year as one of the very few crime statistics which hadn’t gone down. In fact the increase was largely caused by increased confidence in the system. Five of the rapes reported last year occurred between 1966 and 2004. However rape is an abhorrent crime which is always investigated as a very high priority.”

Councillor Wilson asked a supplementary question seeking to ascertain how much crime had been reduced in the Borough since 2006.

Councillor Williams reported statistics from 2006 to the present showing decreases in all areas bar one, theft from motor vehicles, and reported that thanks to a high profile campaign this too had now decreased.  Richmond remained the safest Borough in London.

Councillor Jones asked for information on work done since 2006 to increase reporting of crime.

Councillor Williams reported that all Councillors supported work being done to increase reporting particularly in areas such as Hate Crime.  He was more than happy for figures to increase slightly if this was due to increased confidence in reporting, as this would allow action to be taken.

Councillor Percival asked for an apology relating to comments made at the last Council meeting regarding the increase in reported rapes in the Borough. 

Councillor Williams replied that he regretted that the Opposition had raised this issue at the last meeting for political ends, but that he, the Administration, the Community Safety Partnership and the Metropolitan Police took the crime of rape extremely seriously and the increased confidence evidenced in increased reporting was testament to the excellent job the London-wide unit now established to deal with these crimes was doing.

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

“What benefits does the Cabinet Member hope to see from making the leisure card free for young people”

Councillor Jaeger replied in the following terms:

“A major benefit will be raising awareness of the increased youth offer. The new free youth leisure card joins up the youth and leisure offer, so people will better see what’s on offer across the piece.

A lot of effort and money has gone into increasing the range of enjoyable things to do and places to go for young people, as prioritised in our Children and Young People’s Plan.

Now, we need to make sure everyone knows about the wider range of facilities, clubs, and sports and cultural opportunities available. The new card is a big step towards this.”

Councillor Stanier asked a supplementary question seeking information on the uptake of the card so far.

Councillor Jaeger replied that although the card had only been released a month previously uptake had increased by 20% equating to well over 200 young people now possessing the card.

Councillor Evans asked what the cost of the new card would be and what efficiencies had been identified to offset these costs.

Councillor Jaeger replied that although the council no longer charged young people £6 per card it was hoped that in the long run the scheme would be cost neutral as more young people, used more facilities, more often and at times when they were traditionally underused such as after school.

None.

No ward concerns were raised.

Report of Cabinet attached.

Members are asked to note that the Community Safety Partnership Planis a large document.  It has therefore been published on the website and may be viewed via the link below.

Community Safety Partnership Planor via www.richmond.gov.uk

A.  CAPITAL BUDGET 2010/11 TO 2014/15

RESOLVED:

(1)               That the overall capital budget for 2010/11 be approved.

(2)               That the Prudential Indicators as set out in Appendix B to the report be approved.

B.  TREASURY MANAGEMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY FOR

2010/11

RESOLVED:

(1)               That the Treasury Management and Investment Strategy for 2009/10 as set out in Appendix A to the report be approved and the proposed roles for Audit Committee and Cabinet be noted.

(2)               That the Treasury Management and Investment Strategy for 2010/2011 as set out in Appendix B be approved.

(3)               That the Investment Criteria as set out in Appendix C be approved and the proposals in relation to Building Societies set out in paragraph 10 of the report be noted.

C.  ORLEANS HOUSE CHARITABLE TRUST – ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE

RESOLVED that the Constitution be amended at:

(i)                 Part 3, Section 3B to reflect that Cabinet has powers to allocate executive functions to Cabinet Committees (Insert: “The Cabinet has power to create Cabinet Committees, and agree protocols on matters relating to the operation of its remit”);

(ii)               Part 4, Executive Procedure Rules (Insert: 4 COMMITTEES OF

THE CABINET 4. 1 The Cabinet may establish one or more Cabinet Committees to exercise specified executive functions.  Standing Committees established by the Cabinet are listed below. In addition the Cabinet may from time to time establish ad hoc committees on a time-limited basis.)

(iii)             Part 4, Executive Procedure Rules, (Insert the terms of reference detailed at paragraph 3.4 of this report within the new section 4)

D.          COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP PLAN

RESOLVED that the Community Safety Partnership Plan 2008-2011, as updated, be agreed.

None.

None.

None.

None.

None.

None.

Attached

The Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships announced that the Minister had agreed the Funding Agreement referenced in the reported urgent decision.

RESOLVED:

That the decision taken as a matter of urgency as set out in paragraph 3.2 of the report be noted.

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

The Mayor announced the following:

(1)               Details of the appeal fund for the Chilean Earthquake had been received and she had expressed the Council’s sorrow at this tragic event to the Chilean Embassy.

(2)               Thanks were expressed to those who attended the recent Mayor’s Quiz which had been a great success; furthermore £730 had been raised at the concert held in the Barn Church the previous Sunday.

(3)               Councillors were invited to celebrate the Hindu festival of Holi at York House on Saturday 6 March between 1 – 4pm.  The Deputy Mayor would be present.

(4)               Councillor Lee-Parson had been given a commemorative shield for the Council by Twickenham Rugby Club.

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

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

“This Council welcomes the progress made in promoting the use of Fairtrade goods within

the borough, and commends the efforts of local residents, businesses, organisations,

churches and schools, in supporting Richmond as a Fairtrade Borough.”

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elloy moved, seconded by Councillor Fleming:

            “This Council welcomes the progress made in promoting the use of Fairtrade goods within the borough, and commends the efforts of local residents, businesses, organisations, churches and schools, in supporting Richmond as a Fairtrade Borough.”

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

             RESOLVED:

This Council welcomes the progress made in promoting the use of Fairtrade goods within the borough, and commends the efforts of local residents, businesses, organisations, churches and schools, in supporting Richmond as a Fairtrade Borough.