To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 19 October 2010 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2010 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

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

 

In accordance with the Petition Scheme, Council has received a petition with more than 1000 signatures. This threshold triggers a debate. The petition has been submitted by Liberal Democrat Councillors on behalf of residents and is against the proposal to close Tangley Hall Intensive Day Care Centre.

 

“We the undersigned wish to state that we are against the proposal of Closing Tangley Hall Intensive Day Care Centre and merging it with Ham Day Centre.

 

We wish for the residents this side of the river to continue to have a specialist dementia provision at Tangley Hall, which has been well attended and well thought of for many years.

 

We feel that local services for carers of people with dementia are essential – Tangley Hall is easy to get to, accessible for carers and purpose built.

 

The proposed alternative is not purpose built, not local to our residents and will be inaccessible for our carers”

Councillor Bouchier presented a petition on behalf of Residents of and around Richmond Hill and the area’s schools – requesting action on pedestrian safety, and especially that of children along the top of Church Road around the corner by St Matthias Church and along Friars Stile Road (and the pavement between Park Road and Marlborough Road).

 

In accordance with the petition scheme, the Council received a petition with more than 1000 signatures, triggering a debate.  The petition had been submitted by Liberal Democrat Councillors and was calling for a halt in the closure of the Tangley Hall Intensive Day Care Centre.

 

Councillor Thornton, as the petition organiser, introduced the petition and said the petition had been well received by residents from across the borough, as well as supporters of all political parties.   Councillor Thornton said that this was an issue which truly captured the public imagination and had focussed attention on council policy.  He re-emphasised that the petition was calling for a withdrawal of the proposals and suggested it was easier to withdraw a proposal than it was to reverse a decision.  In opposing the merger of the Tangley facility with Ham, Councillor Thornton provided a number of objections, including poor accessibility from all parts of the borough, the provision of access for carer groups which would be more difficult to attend in Ham, stress of a longer journey undermining efforts made by staff to stimulate and engage service users attending the centre.  He stated that Tangley Hall was well regarded and well attended and people who knew it had nothing but praise for the purpose built centre,  its high quality services and good management.  Councillor Thornton concluded by urging the Cabinet Member to listen to local people, who had pledged their support to keeping a highly valued community resource which serviced the needs of the most vulnerable members of society. 

 

The Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing, Councillor Urquhart expressed her regret that this painful exercise was causing carers and their loved ones who used Tangley Hall, and valued their services so highly, so much anguish.  She wanted them to know that the services would remain of the highest quality into the future for each individual whatever the outcome of the consultation.  The Cabinet Member stated that these economic restrictions were not of the Council’s making but as 42% of the budget was spent on adult community services it was her duty to ensure that the Council was providing the best quality of service, while meeting the needs of residents, at a sustainable level of operation over the coming years of restricted finance.  She stated that  the Council needed to rationalise its position of centres specialising in dementia care, to allow the service to continue with expert staff and support from the Mental Health Trust.  The geography of this small borough which just happened to have a river running through it, was not a sound reason to replicate all services on both sides, regardless of costs and capacity.  She stated that she was concerned to discover that the one bus to Tangley Hall was taking 2 hours to reach it from the first pick up.  She stated that this proved Tangley Hall was actually at an extreme end of the borough.  People from Whitton and Twickenham were having the lengthiest journeys due to the numbers using the service.  Those from Teddington and the Hamptons were clearly having the shortest journeys as they were the last to be picked up.  This was a local service for only 5 people at present.

 

She reported that while Ham might not be purpose built, it had specific facilities for delivering a high quality service with several breakout rooms that allowed the replication of a cosy settled environment partly enjoyed at Tangley Hall but also to give those who liked to roam the chance to do so in a secure place, both inside and out.  The garden space was a hugely attractive addition and could become a joyful place throughout Spring and Summer for loved ones.  She concluded by stating that current users in Ham said it was entirely suitable and that they were very happy there.  This option had been proposed because it was felt Ham has the potential to grow, with input from the NHS and the voluntary sector, into a thriving hub for dementia care in the borough.

 

The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Knight.said that he hoped it was common cause across the chamber that Tangley Hall provided a first grade, excellent, service to its users.  It was a purpose built facility that was in fact over subscribed and anyone who had spoken to carers of those that used Tangley Hall on a daily basis would know that it changed the lives of those people who used the centre as well as their carers.  In response to the Cabinet Member’s view that the Council was having to make this change because of economic strictures not of its making, he said that the Council not only finished the last year with healthy reserves, but had under spent last year’s budget by £4.5m and the Council was projecting a £1.7m under spend surplus on the current year’s budget.  Of the £35m savings that the Council was being told were necessary over the next four years, £20m was not caused by economic strictures, but was in fact caused by the administration’s policy of real term council tax cuts over the next four years and other spending choices such as parking schemes.  Councillor Knight added that Richmond upon Thames was one of the wealthiest boroughs in this wealthy nation and he was shocked that Council was being told they could not afford to maintain a much needed, much loved, day care centre for older people with dementia.   He concluded by asking the Administration to reconsider.

 

The Cabinet Member for Performance, Councillor Arbour, stated that the previous Administration’s record on social care was not to improve services, but to take them away completely.  A respite care home had been closed without any consultation to save a few pennies and “pet projects” had been promoted., and the meals on wheels service for elderly people removed.  The Opposition was misleading residents in suggesting that what was being proposed would somehow or another diminish the standard of care given.  He asserted that the standard of care would not be diminished and travel time for most people, would be less.  He concluded by stating that  maintaining a  standard of care that was going to be at least as good was infinitely better than simply removing care.

 

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

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

 

“We now have a more Open Society where information that may have been considered privileged two or even one year ago is now publicly available. Such information includes public and civil servants salaries, expenses claimed by and paid to politicians and officers working in all aspects of public life. Would not the Council agree it would be in the public interest for the amounts of local government benefits paid into each Borough residence, to be made available as a public right? Such lists could appear on the Council website and would show residence address and benefits amounts received by that residence.”

 

Councillor True replied in the following terms:

 

“The council is committed to openness and transparency in all its dealings as demonstrated by our publication of spending items over £500 and indeed of salaries in advance of government requirement.  However, there are restrictions – I am assuming Mr. Roxby you are referring to Housing and Council Tax benefits.  In this case there are restrictions imposed by the Data Protection Act which limit the type of personal data that can be published.  Information that identified a particular home cannot be published because the Data Protection Act prevents us from publishing information which could identify living individuals.”

 

 

(b) In accordance with notice given, Mr Richard Hunter asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“Given that there has been no financial modelling or stress testing of future demand at Ham yet, is the Council asking existing Tangley patients (or carers) if they will be able to cope with the journey to Ham and will the Council GUARANTEE to reinstate Tangley if patients cannot cope with the journey or are not satisfied with the service, for whatever reason, since a home visiting service will not be an adequate alternative to Tangley or Ham as patients loose the social interaction and carers (who are often elderly themselves) miss the respite that is needed ?"

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“The consultation seeks views on the proposed changes particularly around how it might affect people’s lives.  Most people who currently attend Tangley Hall do not live very close.  On an average day the following numbers of clients are transported from cluster areas:

 

            Whitton            –          7

            Hampton         –          5

            Teddington      –          2

            Twickenham   –          5

 

The transport plan for the merged service at Ham involves reduced journey times for the service users living in Twickenham and Whitton, that is for 12 out of the 19 people affected.  The decision could not be reversed once made.  However the Council would ensure that the care and support needs of both service users and their carers continue to be met.”

 

Mr Hunter asked a supplementary question, where he requested that Councillors Samuel and Urquhart meet with him to discuss the financial details of the scheme.  Councillor Urquhart advised Mr Hunter that there would be a meeting with service users taking place in the next week and that he was welcome to attend this.

 

Under Council Procedure Rule 10.10 the Leader of the Council moved that the matters raised at this evening’s meeting be referred to the Health, Housing and Adult Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee and its Task Group for independent assessment.

 

This motion was seconded by Councillor Samuel, put to the vote and CARRIED.

 

 

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

 

“Should not the Council be looking to increase the take up of facilities at Ham and maintain existing facilities at Tangley rather than reducing the care available in the borough? In view of the proximity of the Ham Centre to Kingston Borough Council, who I understand do not offer similar facilities to their elderly residents, could the spaces available be offered to them which would then help to raise additional revenue to cover running costs? Thus an additional income stream would be raised without causing anxiety or upheaval for existing attendees.”

 

As Mr Bateman was not present at the meeting, a written reply would be given.

 

[Offering the facilities at Ham to Kingston could generate some additional income, however to make the £135k savings there would need to be an average of 9 people a day living in the part of Kingston close to Ham who chose to use the service (potential service users would be limited to those close to Ham as Kingston service users have access to a service for dementia in Chessington).  Staffing levels would need to rise, and as the centres are used on average for about 3 days a week, we would need c.13-15 individual users from Kingston, which is unlikely given feedback from Kingston (who have indicated that potential numbers would be very small).]

 

 

(d) In accordance with notice given, Ms Helen Pinnell asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“We are undergoing a full evaluation of the financials of the proposals for the intensive day care centres (Tangley, Ham, Twickenham and Sheen). Currently we are collecting information to do this and are waiting for information from the Council. When all information is gathered, scenario costing and stress testing need to be completed. If a more financially viable alternative is found to the proposal, further consultation will be required. This being the case, we will run out of time for decisions to be made. Can Council guarantee that there will be an extension to the decision making process if this occurs?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

”I am grateful for the work that Ms Pinnell and others are undertaking on our behalf but she may or may not know that the Health, Housing and Adult Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee has set up the task group to answer these questions and to study the proposals and will in due course make suggestions to the Cabinet. The Council would consider a change to the clients care associated with the decision making process if an alternative was found that saved the required £315,000 and was a better option than the current proposals.  For the option to be viable it would need to meet our commitment to maintaining current service levels.”

 

 

(e) In accordance with notice given, Mr John Bateman asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“What other options, including increasing the cost to patients, have been addressed to enable Tangley Hall to remain open?”

 

As Mr Bateman was not present at the meeting, a written reply would be given.

 

[Options include: closing Sheen/Twickenham and moving frail elderly users to Ham on different days from dementia clients; and closing Ham/Twickenham and moving the service for frail elderly (and dementia services from Ham) to Sheen Lane.

 

Increased charges would not generate sufficient level of income as this would only bring in income from a small number of people, assessed to pay maximum charges following their financial assessment.  Where someone uses their Council-funded Personal Budget to attend a day centre, this does not generate real income.  It is also believed that removing the current level of Council subsidy would deter people from using the service.] 

 

 

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

 

“Will the Cabinet Member tell us when the public will be able to see the analysis of the consultation on the proposal to close Tangley Hall and Twickenham day centres?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“The analysis of the consultation on the adult social care proposals, including the intensive day care centre proposals will be made publicly available on 6 January in a report form.  It will be available at libraries, the Civic Centre and on the Council’s website.

 

Miss Bunn asked a supplementary question on whether the timescales should be put back.  The Cabinet Member stated that the timescales could be flexible, although this would depend on the level of savings to be achieved.

 

 

(g) In accordance with notice given, Mrs Indu Sood asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“Has any review been carried out of the management structure of the Intensive Day Care Centres, and have any efficiencies been identified.”

 

As Mrs Sood was not present at the meeting, a written reply would be given.

[Yes, as part of the intensive day care centre proposals, it is proposed that the management structure would change, with a requirement for only two managers (overseeing the proposed centres remaining at Sheen Lane and Ham) and two assistant managers. This would represent a reduction from the current establishment which includes four managers and 4.5 full time equivalent assistant managers.]

 

 

(h) In accordance with notice given, Mrs Vivienne Heard asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“Please describe the alternatives considered by the Council to the proposed closure of Tangley Hall, stating any reasons for the rejection of those alternatives, and confirm you will now consult with users and their carers on those alternatives?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“Saving £315,000 required for the use of two less buildings.  For Tangley Hall to remain open the other building would need to accommodate both the physically frail and dementia sufferers.  This would only be possible and recommended when we split up that centre – some days for dementia and some for the physically frail.  There are significant disadvantages around that including the limitation this places on multiple day attendance.  This option and any others proposed during the consultation are being considered.  All affected users and carers will only be consulted on an alternative where it makes the required savings and maintains service levels.”

 

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

 

Attached.

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

 

"Will the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources comment on the implications for the Council of the Comprehensive Spending Review?"

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“Nationally a cut of 25-30% of which 40% must be delivered next year.  An increase in the cost of borrowing – 1% - that alone will cost us £1.9m and a 45% reduction in capital expenditure which threatens our primary programme.  But the full impact on the Borough will not be known until the settlement next month.  I have heard that opposition members are saying that we don’t have to worry too much as we get so little from the government.  That is a particularly ill informed and irresponsible comment unless you regard £18m – sorry £16m in grants as a trivial amount and ignore the fact that 56% of our capital expenditure comes from the government.  When you add to that the expectation that the formula will be changed to ensure that no council comes off lightly the position for us is far from comfortable”.

 

Councillor O’Malley asked, as a supplementary question, as to whether some of the spending cuts were a result of the administration’s desire to freeze council tax.

 

Councillor Samuel responded by saying that as far as next year was concerned, if the notional council tax increase was held to 2.5%, which the Council would do, the government would be giving an additional grant to enable the council tax to be frozen.  He added the opposition had gone on the record as saying they were against this, which in other words meant they would deprive the residents of the borough of the £11m which was available.  As far as the next year was concerned, there was a manifesto commitment to freeze council tax again, which the Administration took very seriously.  There were currently no plans for the following two years.

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question concerning manifesto commitments on inheritance tax and that the Deputy Leader withdraw his allegation that the opposition were not proposing to reduce council tax to 2½%.  The Deputy Leader replied that he was merely providing a quote and that the Opposition might wish to discuss the issue within their Group.

 

Councillor Porter asked a supplementary question concerning tough choices to which the Deputy Leader replied that these were issues which the Administration were ready to face.

 

 

(b) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Coombs asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development:

 

“Given that the minutes of 11th October Cabinet report that Councillor Samuel ‘stated that there would be a consultation period with regard to the proposal not to reopen Heathfield Library’, will she announce when this consultation will take place?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“The public consultation that is being carried out at the moment on the future of the library services will close on 26 November and the results of that consultation and all the Council’s detailed proposals for the future of the delivery of the library services and those detailed proposals will be subject to a further period of public consultation in mid-January next year. The proposal not to re-build Heathfield Library would form part of this second phase of consultation.”

 

Councillor Coombs asked, as a supplementary question,  as to whether the Administration was actually committed  to saying that the library may not close.  Councillor Fleming stated that the decision to close the permanent library at Heathfield was one made by the previous administration.  The current Administration was now consulting on not installing a demountable building.

 

Councillor Elliott asked a supplementary question as to whether this work was linked to Whitton Town Centre improvements and the High Street.  Councillor Fleming confirmed that proposals for Heathfield and Whitton were being looked at, so that an improved library service could be provided.  She added that meetings with all the councillors in the wards that could be affected had been held, with further ones planned once options for alternative sites for providing services had been considered.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked whether details of the money saved from selling the Heathfield Library site would be included in the consultation, so that residents could best give their views on how it might be spent.  Councillor Fleming confirmed that they would be, as this was a transparent Council.

 

 

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

 

“What are the results of the recent consultation on the abolition of the CPZ tax?”

 

Councillor Head replied in the following terms:

 

“I am pleased to announce that following the recent parking charges statutory consultation the public responded by supporting the proposals and confirming their wish to abolish the CPZ tax by a majority of 3 to1”.

 

Councillor Elloy asked why the proposals had not been brought before the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee, given that they would have additional costs and why the publication got so little publicity when published next to the flagship ‘All in One’ consultation, while only issuing a press release on 20 October, when the statutory consultation finished on 29 October.

 

Councillor Head stated that she was surprised Councillor Elloy felt that 193,000 people did not get a proper consultation.  She confirmed that it was advertised in Richmond and Twickenham Times along with thousands of leaflets being distributed.  As far as the administration was concerned, the consultation followed the statutory lines, as did all of these issues.

 

Councillor Avon asked whether any other proposed schemes had received support from residents.  Councillor Head confirmed that the 30 minutes’ free parking proposal had received support from 69.5% of respondents.

 

 

(d) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Jaeger asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health & Housing:

 

“Given that the recent ‘Adult Social Care Consultation’ exercise failed to ask respondents whether or not they support the proposed closure of Tangley Hall and Twickenham intensive day centres, will she announce when consultation on these proposals will take place?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“The Adult Social Care Consultation is currently underway and includes a questionnaire which invited comments on the day centre proposals.  Service users and carers have also been invited to attend a meeting (there were 2 at each centre) at the day centre they attend (or the person they care for attends), where they have had the opportunity to comment in detail on the proposal, and suggest alternatives for saving the identified £315,000. The feedback gathered will be pulled together in a report which will be presented to Cabinet in January and will be considered before any decision is made.”

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question as to how the analysis would be presented, given the confidentiality issues.  Councillor Urquhart said that this had not yet been decided, although officers would be looking at this in due course.  She added the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Task Group would also be looking at the information in depth and assured the Council that the analysis would be available for 6 January.

 

Councillor Mathias sought assurances that the quality of care for intensive day care users would be maintained.  The Cabinet Member reaffirmed her previous comments and added that in order to keep all centres open, there would need to be an unmanageable reduction in the number of staff.

 

Councillor Thornton asked the Cabinet Member whether she was giving consideration to all alternatives presented to her.  Councillor Urquhart assured Members that she was giving due consideration to all proposals that saved at least £315,000.

 

 

(e) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Chappell asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth & Children’s Services:

 

"Can the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth & Children’s Services please let me know if she has any plans for the Croft Centre?"

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“Following the Lib Dem Minister Sarah Teather’s decision not to continue funding for the Croft Centre, I am delighted to say that the current Administration decided to prioritise this in order to provide for some of the most vulnerable children in our community.  This project will provide respite care for children with disabilities, to ensure that families are supported in the most important work of bringing up their children.  As a result, the Council will be allocating £1m to replace the money that has been lost due to Sarah Teather’s decision.    The Council is proud of its record in supporting the most vulnerable and this is a sign of our continuing desire to ensure that all members of our community are well supported.”

 

Councillor Chappell asked whether the Cabinet Member felt that staff at the Croft Centre had done some very effective work.  Councillor Percival said that the staff at the Croft Centre should be congratulated along with officers for seeking out the money to keep the facility running.

 

Councillor Knight asked whether the additional £1m was the full amount needed to keep the Croft Centre running and if there was any work taking place to find funds for the Hampton Children’s Centre Project.  The Cabinet Member confirmed that an additional £700k needed to be found, which had to be spent before the end of the current financial year, or the Council would risk losing this as well.  She advised Councillor Knight that there was currently a review of all facilities in Hampton taking place and the Hampton Children’s Centre would be part of this.

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question concerning alternative proposals for the Croft Centre’s services.  Councillor Percival replied that some alternative sites had been considered but were not viable and therefore at this stage no alternative was being considered.

 

 

(f) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Day asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth & Children’s Services:

 

“What, if any, reductions are being made to the funding and support for the Youth Parliament, Youth Forum and other youth engagement activity?”

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“Youth, alongside community engagement is a key priority.  Education, Children’s and Cultural Services is currently developing an engagement strategy which empowers local communities to become involved in service planning and delivery and budgetary decisions. All services are receiving support in ensuring service users are fully engaged in how services are run. This strategy has allowed us to propose to reduce the dedicated resource given to the youth forum by 0.5fte from 1fte and we are confident that engagement activity will be mainstreamed across all services and communities and any impact minimised”.

 

Councillor Stockley asked whether the Cabinet Member had met with the Youth Forum.  Councillor Percival confirmed that she had.  She said they discussed the problems that might arise for them in view of forthcoming Council-wide cuts.  They were also aware of the current financial situation nationally and seemed alert to the problems that everyone faced.  Councillor Percival was glad to say that the Forum had been meeting Councillor Chappell on a monthly basis.  This was because the Youth Forum wanted a councillor to attend the monthly meetings so that the Council could be fully aware of their concerns.  The Cabinet Member confirmed that Councillor Chappell had agreed to brief her after each meeting so that she knew what the Forum’s concerns were.

 

Councillor Gibbons asked a supplementary question about support for young people given that young people’s faith in democracy is quite fragile.  Councillor Percival replied that she had witnessed the articulate and interesting Youth Parliament debate in the Commons and reiterated her support for such initiatives and the Youth Forum.

 

 

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

 

“In his speech on 6th July the Cabinet member said that the administration aimed to protect the most vulnerable: how does he define 'most vulnerable'?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“I use the phrase “protecting the most vulnerable” as a budget guideline – I used the word “guideline” on 6^th July.  There is no one criterion or set of criteria which will define that term equally for all of the council services.  However the phrase in my view is sufficiently well understood as to command a degree of consensus in making it meaningfulas a guideline.  Exactly that situation of using words and phrases as guidelines applies across the board to all council services.”

 

Councillor Mathias asked the Deputy Leader to provide an example.  Councillor Samuel cited the term ‘un-neighbourly’, which was used in town planning.  He said this term was sufficiently well understood, but nowhere was it defined.  He felt this was the case with “most vulnerable”.

 

Councillor Allen asked why Councillor Samuel had not attended Tangley Hall with his fellow ward members.  The Deputy Leader said that he had visited the centre long before Councillor Allen’s colleagues had been elected and he was well aware of it.

 

Councillor Butler requested that the Deputy Leader say how the Council might show its commitment to the most vulnerable members of the community.  Councillor Samuel pointed to the debates that had been held this evening as an example.  He and his colleagues had committed to at the very least maintaining the standard of service offered to those residents experiencing dementia.  He added, however, that there could not be a guarantee that every service across the board would be delivered in the same way and at the same places.  Councillor Samuel drew attention to the £2m ‘black hole’ in the social services budget, which had been inherited.  He felt that if that had not been the case, the closure of Tangley Hall may not have even been considered.

 

 

(h) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development:

 

“Will the Cabinet Member confirm that Council funding for Police Community Support Officers for South Richmond and Twickenham Riverside wards will not be cut?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“I am sure Councillor Williams is aware that the Community Safety Partnership is currently going through the process of developing the next 3-year community safety partnership plan and this has included carrying out a strategic intelligence assessment, stakeholder meetings and public consultations on priorities.   The next stage is to agree a draft plan which will identify funding to be committed by the partners against each priority and this will be discussed at the meeting of the Community Safety Strategy Group at the meeting on 17^th December”.

 

Councillor Williams asked Councillor Fleming, in light of an announcement from the Borough Commander about deploying safer neighbourhood teams to town centres only, if a straight forward answer on whether the expenditure would or would not be cut could be given.  Councillor Fleming stated that this needed to be discussed at the meeting in December.  She regretted that Councillor Williams was not fully aware of the financial situation, which dictated a need to do things differently.

 

Councillor Bouchier asked the Strategic Cabinet Member to comment on the number of anti-social behaviour incidents in South Richmond ward over the past few months.  Councillor Fleming said that this was an exact example of using resources better as the operation changed. This meant that resources from quieter areas were being diverted to the town centres of Richmond and Twickenham, and including some places for Ham as well.  This meant that there had been less incidents of anti-social behaviour in Richmond which was being reported by residents in her own ward.  She also acknowledged that there had been a problem on Twickenham Green, which also seems to have eased since the operational changes.

 

Councillor Khosa asked Councillor Fleming that as the Borough Commander was redeploying officers from other safer neighbourhood teams, particularly at weekends, how could residents in the wards having resources diverted form them know that community safety in their areas was not being compromised.  Councillor Fleming said that the Council had agreed to monitor the effect on other wards.  If there were any issues, she assured the Council that these would be taken up with the Borough Commander.

 

 

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

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Schools update us on the administration's position on academies for our borough's schools?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“Let me re-state that it is the policy of this administration to promote academies to our schools and support them as it increases choice for parents  We believe that giving independence to our schools to make decisions over their budgets, and managing staff allows them to make the right decisions for their schools to get more value out of those activities.  It allows them to be able to focus resources on the most important areas for their schools improving outcomes for students.  We are currently in close discussion and working with the Government on a number of aspects and clarifying a number of issues for parents and we will continue to do so and work closely with our schools.”

 

Councillor Blakemore asked what the Cabinet Member thought of the Opposition’s criticisms of academies, because it would mean the authority losing the ability to resolve issues when they arose.  Councillor Hodgins stated that he believed giving schools the authority and responsibility to be working with their partners in order to improve themselves would lead to better outcomes.  The Cabinet Member did feel that the Opposition supported academies, as they opted to transform three of the borough’s lowest performing secondary schools into them.

 

Councillor Eady asked if a significant number of Richmond schools were to become academies, how would the Cabinet Member carry out the role of strategic planning for provision of primary school places when a) most parents were resisting additional school places in their primary schools at the moment, and (b) the Council no longer had the power to assist those schools in making their choices.  Councillor Hodgins said that this would happen as it does now, by working together with schools, if the borough was going to expand.  He added that it was not the role of the Council to just go in and dictate.  The Cabinet Member said that the Council had to work with the community and schools to be sure of their needs and to be sure of the benefit for them.

 

Councillor Montague asked the Cabinet Member what impact academies would have on the schools’ relationships with parents and the wider community.  The Cabinet Member said that this was a ‘flip side’ of academies as giving them independence from the Council and Government strengthened their relationship with parents and the level of accountability to them.  Councillor Hodgins confirmed that he was looking at a number of ways in which to do this, including the use of community boards.

 

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

would be given to all remaining notified questions.

 

 

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

 

“In a letter sent out in September to parents in the St Margaret’s area, the Director of Education stated that in the medium to long term there was a desire to expand Orleans Infants should further Government funds become available. Recently a letter has been sent to the same parents stating that the Council now has Government funding to expand the school. Can the Cabinet member tell us when this funding became available?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

[“I am unaware of any letter that has been sent to parents stating that funding is available to convert Orleans Infant (and St Stephen’s) into two-form entry primary schools. That proposal remains a medium-term aim, but, as has been explained to parents at the school, it is contingent upon obtaining additional funding and the approval of both governing bodies. There is, though, some building work going on at the school that will enable it to cope better with the numbers of children currently on roll.  In the meantime, in December, Cabinet will be considering a statutory proposal to expand St Mary’s and thereby provide a much needed sixth form of entry at reception in the St Margarets/Central Twickenham area.”]

 

 

(k) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elliott asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development:

 

“What is the Cabinet member doing to encourage social enterprise?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

[A report is being produced for the Cabinet to consider the approach to social enterprise both in the borough generally and for the Council. This report builds on an initial report produced by Social Enterprise Richmond (SER) and discussions that have taken place with SER, Social Enterprise London and other stakeholders.

 

Steps to facilitate further social enterprises within the Council could include:

 

• Developing a social enterprise strategy and organising a multi-agency conference to launch the borough’s strategy
• Creating strong strategic links with other local authorities and partner organisations.
• Establishing a Social Enterprise Partnership to co-ordinate activity]

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

 

            “Derelict buildings and sites in Richmond town.” (South Richmond Ward)

 

 

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

 

            "Rubbish in Twickenham" (Twickenham Riverside Ward)

 

(a) “Derelict buildings and sites in Richmond town.” – South Richmond Ward

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Bouchier raised concerns about the number of derelict buildings in Richmond Town Centre.  She felt that they were an eyesore in a historic town such as Richmond.  She wanted compulsory purchase powers to be explored, particularly in relation to those buildings that were listed with English Heritage.

 

The Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning stated that English Heritage reported details of the buildings at risk to the Council on an annual basis.  Currently only ten of the 1400 listed buildings in the Borough were recorded at risk, but Councillor Morris was pleased to report that work had recently been undertaken on five of these.  Negotiations for the remaining buildings were ongoing.

 

(b) "Rubbish in Twickenham" – Twickenham Riverside Ward

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Chappell raised the issue of litter around the Holly Road area.  She said that those residents had written to the Council to complain about the issues they were experiencing.  Councillor Chappell was pleased to note that this area had recently been cleared, although some other back streets were still in need of clearing.  She felt that businesses should be encouraged to maintain high standards of cleanliness, with swift enforcement action being taken where necessary.

 

The Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning reported that a significantly improved street cleaning contract had recently been negotiated.  There was also work taking place to improve the cleaning of car parks in the borough, so residents of Holly Road should benefit from both of these initiatives.  Councillor Morris said that enforcement action would be taken where necessary.

 

Attached.

(i) RESOLVED:

 

That the Joint Waste Development Plan Document be agreed for public consultation.

 

(ii) RESOLVED:

 

That the addendum to the London Local Authority ‘Gold’ Resolution and adoption and participation in the arrangements of the Memorandum of Understanding in relation to Mutual Aid be endorsed.

 

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

That the draft Statement of Licensing Policy, as considered at the Regulatory Committee meeting held on 20 October 2010, be adopted.

 

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

That the establishment of Special Standing Committees be noted.

 

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

 

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

 

"The impact on council services of the proposed changes in CPZ permit charges and the 30 minutes 'free' parking scheme".

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

 

"The impact on council services of the proposed changes in CPZ permit charges and the 30 minutes 'free' parking scheme".

 

The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Knight opened the debate and said that his proposal was to end the £1m worth of spending on two initiatives around parking, one of which would result in cheaper parking permits for residents with high emission vehicles at a cost of £400k per annum.  The second proposal was 30 minutes free parking at a cost of £500k per annum.  He noted that the Administration said these were manifesto commitments and therefore were not subject to consultation.  However, Councillor Knight stated that details of cost and the implications for other public services were not included in the manifesto and suggested that if the true cost of these plans had been known, such as the closing of day care centres for elderly people with dementia, libraries, youth services, drug and alcohol prevention and so on, residents would be opposed to these changes.  He stated that a figure of £20m of cuts had been presented at a recent Finance and Performance Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting to achieve real terms council tax cuts over the next four years.  He added that the administration was not being forced to make these cuts, they were choosing to do so.  Councillor Knight concluded by stating that people should be given information on what these choices meant and that as an Opposition, his party’s view was that essential public services came before either parking changes or council tax cuts.

 

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Councillor Head said that the parking changes formed a very small part of the overall number of manifesto pledges.  She added that policies brought in by the previous Administration also greatly affected the borough’s residents.  She reported a £200k reduction in maintenance budgets under the old Administration had led to an increase in accident and damage claims.  The borough’s roads were now safer as a result of recent investment.  She added that the Council had now adopted a “humane attitude” to parking enforcement, and over £1m had been saved by revising the parking contracts and ending staff parking.  She concluded by stating that through its policies, the Administration was returning money to residents’ pockets and the free parking issue was sensitive to local business needs.

 

Councillor Roberts said that the Administration, in their campaigning, offered many sweeteners which they could not afford.  He asserted that  many of the proposed cuts were there to mitigate the costs of these promises.  He queried why, if these issues were happening nationally, reserves were not used to fund some of these changes.

                                                                                                

Councillor O’Malley said that there were some areas that had large houses where residents could afford to pave over their garden to make way for a driveway, leaving less well off residents to pay for unfair parking taxes.  This was an issue raised on doorsteps.  Councillor O’Malley added that only 1/6 of the borough was covered by controlled parking zones, meaning the previous Administration’s policy could have only ever had a small impact on motoring, without even tacking household CO2.  He stated that it was revenue raising only and allowing residents to keep their money could only be right.

 

Councillor Jaeger stated that the closure of Tangley Hall would save the borough £136k per year.  The Administration was removing the current differential parking arrangements, when other authorities were currently taking up similar schemes,.  She was also concerned that the Administration was proposing cuts to organisations such as Age Concern, when the Council was set to rely on such groups even more.  Councillor Jaeger was also concerned that schemes were being introduced that helped 4x4 drivers, who were not the most vulnerable, when cuts to the most needy of the borough’s residents were being made.

 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor True closed the debate.  He stated that the Opposition’s proposal of an increase in taxation was a poor idea, especially as there was the promise of Government grants for authorities holding down council tax.  Under the previous Administration, Richmond upon Thames had the highest tax increase in London, during the grip of the recession.  He added that the retendering of the parking contract, along with the removal of staff car subsidies, offered real savings.  Councillor True stated that a delay in action now would only make the situation much worse.  With regards to Tangley Hall, the Leader said that the current consultation and the Overview & Scrutiny Task Group, would look at concerns raised and any alternatives.  He said that the Administration took dementia care very seriously.

 

None

None.

None

None.

Attached

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

That the appointment of Helen White as Interim Head of Legal & Electoral Services and Monitoring Officer, alongside her current role of Head of Civic & Legal Services at the London Borough of Merton, be extended to 31 March 2011.

 

Attached.

RESOLVED:

That the appointment of Councillor Harrison as the Vice-Chairman of Finance and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the continuing membership of Councillor Porter on this Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year be approved.

 

Attached.

During debate on this report, Councillor Cardy moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Williams, to remove the phrase “or organisation” from the proposed Procedure Rule10.4.

 

This amendment was put to the vote and FELL.

 

RESOLVED:

 

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

 

Attached

An amendment to the recommendation was moved by Councillor Eady, seconded by Councillor Knight in the following terms,

 

After the word decision, insert “but does not agree that the Cabinet member for Schools’ decision should have been “.

After the word below, insert “and requests that he writes letters of apology to those LEA Governors who had their appointment terminated before the end of their term of office”.

 

Following a debate, the amendment was put to the vote and declared to be lost.

 

The amended recommendation therefore FELL.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the decision taken as a matter of urgency (LA Governor Appointments) 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 made the following announcements:

 

·         The Leader of the Council, Councillor Nicholas True, former Richmond Park MP, Susan Kramer and former councillor Dee Doocey had all been honoured with United Kingdom peerages for life..  He extended his congratulations on behalf of all Council members and this announcement was greeted with acclaim.

·         The Mayor’s Christmas Concert was being held on 7 December 2010.

·         A charity ball would be held on Saturday 19 February 2011.

·         The Deputy Mayor would be attending an event, for which a large number of white ribbons were being worn in the Chamber, to combat domestic violence.

 

The Leader thanked the Mayor and Council for their warm wishes and stated that he, Mrs Kramer and former councillor Doocey had been afforded a great honour. He affirmed that he would be taking his reponsibilities in the House of Lords very seriously alongside his continuing his service to the borough and its residents.

 

The Leader of the Opposition also extended his congratulations to Councillor True.

 

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

 

“This Council condemns the Government’s decision to withdraw funding from the Croft Centre and Hampton Children’s Centre projects, despite pleas from both Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors and the two local MPs.  This Council confirms its view that these projects are both vitally important for local children and therefore calls on the Cabinet to use the Council’s own resources to complete these projects.”

 

(a) In accordance with notice given Councillor Knight moved, seconded by Councillor Eady:

 

“This Council condemns the Government’s decision to withdraw funding from the Croft Centre and Hampton Children’s Centre projects, despite pleas from both Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors and the two local MPs.  This Council confirms its view that these projects are both vitally important for local children and therefore calls on the Cabinet to use the Council’s own resources to complete these projects.”

 

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Percival and seconded by Councillor Samuel:

 

After 'Council' insert ', whilst supporting the Coalition Government's strategy to reduce public borrowing,'

 

Delete ‘condemns’ and replace with ‘regrets’

 

Before, ‘decision’, delete ‘Government’s’ and replace with ‘Liberal Democrat Minister Sarah Teather’s’

 

Before ‘withdraw’ insert ‘ignore pleas from local Councillors and MPs and’

 

After ‘Croft’ delete ‘Centre’. After ‘Children’s’ delete ‘Centre projects,’ replace with ‘centres.‘

 

Delete ‘despite pleas from both Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors and the two local MPs.’

 

Delete ‘This Council confirms its view that these projects are both vitally important for local children and therefore calls on’ and insert ‘We support’

 

After ‘the Cabinet’ delete ‘to use the Council’s own’ and replace with ‘in applying £1 million Council’

 

After ‘resources to’ delete ‘complete these projects.’ and replace with ‘secure the Croft Centre and welcome review of the scope for improving Hampton’s inadequate community facilities, including for children and older citizens, after years of neglect.’

 

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, whilst supporting the Coalition Government’s strategy to reduce public borrowing, regrets the Liberal Democrat Minister Sarah Teather’s decision to ignore pleas from local Councillors and MPs and withdraw funding from the Croft and Hampton Children’s centres. We support the Cabinet in applying £1 million Council resources to secure the Croft Centre and welcome review of the scope for improving Hampton’s inadequate community facilities, including for children and older citizens, after years of neglect.”