Councillors' Attendance Statistics
Agenda and minutes
Tuesday, 25 January 2011 7:00 pm
Venue: Council Chamber, York House, Richmond Road, Twickenham
Contact: Kathryn Thomas, Head of Democratic Services, 020 8891 7860, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 23 November 2010 attached.
The minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2010 were subject to the amendment below, taken as read and agreed and approved as a correct record.
Amendment to Minute number 60a:
The sentence, “Currently only ten of the buildings mentioned by Councillor Bouchier were recorded at risk” to read,
‘Currently only ten of the 1400 listed buildings in the borough were recorded at risk’.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
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) and the Petition Scheme.
Councillor Stockley presented a petition of over 1000 signatures from residents of Barnes opposing the siting of the Thameslink sewer entrance on Greenfield land in Barnes.
The signatures would be verified and subject to that verification a debate would be held at the next full council meeting in accordance with the council’s petitions scheme.
Any questions received of which due notice has been given attached.
In accordance with notice given, Mr John Roxby asked the Leader of
Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:
“Although the validity of planning permissions is limited, usually to 3 years, national planning law does not allow Councils to require a development to start within a set period once permission is granted. Likewise, limits on the duration of the construction period once started could rarely be applied in terms of planning law. Powers do exist to require a site, awaiting development or otherwise, to be kept tidy.”
Mr Roxby asked a supplementary question which suggested that the council should not give planning permission to those developers who would not carry out the proposed developments. Councillor Morris agreed that it was disappointing when developments given permission were not then progressed but advised that the planning committee had no powers to force faster development. She asked that if the questioner had a specific site in mind he contact her after the meeting to discuss.
In accordance with notice given,
Mr Serge Lourie asked the Leader of the Council:
· Serge Lourie – Kew Riverside Primary – Autumn 2010
· Philip Morgan – Orlean’s Infants and Nursery – Autumn 2010
· Deryn Harvey – St Mary’s CE Primary – Autumn 2010
· Martin Elengorn – Teddington – Autumn 2010
· Bob King – St Edmunds Catholic Primary – Autumn 2010
As the appointing body, the local authority
has the right to remove LA governors. As in the case of those
governors outlined above, this right is usually only exercised
following a local election, when LA membership on governing bodies
may be adjusted to reflect, more accurately, the political balance
of the Council.
· James Mumford – Collis Primary – Autumn 2010
Mr Mumford was removed based on
grounds of disqualification for non attendance.]
To receive questions from Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.2, of which due notice has been given.
In accordance with notice given, Councillor Butler asked the Leader
of the Council:
“I understand your concern that the Library land was sold before for the clinic and regret that the clinic as Councillor Coombs said, the existing clinic, has now been sold for housing. Unfortunately we can’t progress [with another building] because it is now necessary to make savings but we are determined to provide some library facilities for Heathfield and we see this as extremely important. We are currently looking at the Community Centre and are in negotiations with Richmond NHS for space and also with the Methodist Hall”
Councillor Butler asked a supplementary question regarding the
number of Liberal Democrats that voted against the closure of the
Library under the last administration.
Councillor Fleming did not have the figures but expressed her
disappointment that the decision had been made.
Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question seeking information on volunteers within the Library Service. Councillor Fleming confirmed that there were residents of the Borough volunteering within the Library service and furthermore, a recent consultation had identified an appetite for volunteering in this sector within the Borough.
In accordance with notice given, Councillor Gibbons asked the
Leader of the Council:
Councillor Harrison asked a supplementary question seeking agreement from the Cabinet Member that it would be unwise to spend reserves in light of the need for school places rising and new housing developments being built. Councillor Samuel agreed and also reminded councillors of the further risk of inflation.
Councillor Knight asked a supplementary which sought to
establish why cuts of more than £10 million had been proposed
when the council had experienced budget losses of only
£3million (including the additional grant of £2 million
for Social Care). Councillor Samuel
disagreed with Councillor Knight’s accounting in general and
in particular remarked that the additional grant referred to was in
the hands of the PCT and to imply that it was available to the
Council was misleading.
In accordance with notice given, Councillor Salvoni asked the
Leader of the Council:
Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question questioning the administration’s focus on negative financial impacts at the expense of those developments which had been positive. Councillor Samuel replied that not every financial detail could be covered in meetings but the reasons he had previously given regarding cuts and reserves were correct.
Councillor O’Malley asked a supplementary question seeking an explanation of how much of the Government Grant was due to the grant floor and how secure that was. Councillor Samuel replied that the answer was 47% or £14 million and he argued that a united council could make a strong case for keeping it but would face opposition from those authorities who were more reliant on grant.
In accordance with notice given, Councillor Jaeger
asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and
Councillor Salvoni asked a supplementary question seeking to ascertain how the failure of the reablement project to reach target savings had been addressed. Councillor True referred to the emergencybudget and Councillor Samuels’ use of reserves. In addition he reported that the reablement contract had recently been awarded to Housing 21 and would reduce the unit costs from £969 per user to £776 at the same time as improving service.
Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question seeking to establish whether the administration felt it could have resisted cuts to Adult Services by forgoing expensive changes to the parking system. Councillor True did not agree. He argued that the changes to parking charges would save money in the long term and that Adult Services would become more efficient and provide a better service because of the efficiencies identified.
In accordance with notice given Councillor Stockley asked the
Cabinet member for Environment:
Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:
“The Council supports the principle of a Thames Tunnel to remove the millions of tonnes of sewage that are currently being discharged into the Thames around the Barnes peninsular. This we believe to be right for the health of the community and those who use the river. Thames Water appears to have taken the easy option and selected a major construction site at Barn Elms. We are questioning this decision and have suggested some alternatives that minimise the impact on the community.”
Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question seeking a
guarantee that should the development go ahead the majority of
waste would be transported by river.
Councillor Morris assured the questioner that the Council would do
all that it could to see residents’ views accommodated by
Thames Water, but that she could make no guarantee as the final
decisions would not be in the hands of the Council.
In accordance with notice given
Councillor Elengorn asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:
Cllr Elengorn asked a supplementary question seeking to secure a review of the procedure for demolition applications and an assurance that members of the planning committee be kept informed when one is in progress. Councillor Morris assured Councillor Elengorn that the Council was using all of the powers at its disposal where Buildings of Townscape Merit had been demolished.
Cllr O’Malley asked a supplementary question which sought to establish how many Buildings of Townscape Merit had been demolished in this manner. Councillor Morris replied that it was rare but cited two historical cases of concern.
Allen asked a supplementary question seeking assurance that
residents’ interests would be paramount in any further action
involving this case. Councillor Morris
could not comment on the particular case due to ongoing
investigations and possible action.
In accordance with notice given Councillor Chappell asked the
Cabinet member for Schools:
Councillor Evans asked whether the council would only be seeking improvements or expansions to primary school places. Councillor Hodgins reported that as demand for places built up over time it would transfer pressure to secondary schools and therefore a ten year plan had been introduced.
In accordance with notice given Councillor Nicholson asked the
Cabinet member for Education, Youth and Children’s
Nicholson asked a supplementary question seeking justification of
the time delay on the review.
Councillor Percival defended the administration on the grounds that
the financial settlement had only recently been received.
Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question to seek
assurance that any redevelopment would be accessible to
all. Councillor Percival assured the
questioner that this would be the case.
Councillor Thornton asked a supplementary question seeking an assurance that the Capital Budget when published would identify resources for Hampton. Councillor Percival replied that she could not guarantee this at this stage.
The time allowed for Members’ questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given to all remaining questions:
(i) In accordance with notice given
Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet member for Traffic:
Councillor Head replied in the following
In accordance with notice given Councillor Roberts asked the
Cabinet Member for Environment:
The Council provided food waste recycling liners when they were difficult to source locally. We are now avoiding providing services which can be easily sourced in supermarkets to save Council administrative costs.]
(a) Councillor Williams has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:
“Notification of ward councillors of disruptions to traffic in Petersham Road, Petersham”
(Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside Ward)
(b) Councillor Butler has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:
"The bridge in Crane Park".
(a) “Notification of ward councillors of disruptions to traffic in Petersham Road, Petersham” – Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside
In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams raised his concern regarding the lack of information being received by ward Councillors when works took place on the Petersham Road. He felt that as any works caused great disruption to this very narrow road and questions from residents about the works were often directed to Ward Councillors, they should be in the possession of the facts before work began. In particular he referenced an incident which had occurred earlier in the month.
The Cabinet Member for Traffic addressed the specific incident where urgent work had to be carried out by Virgin Media. On a more general note she commended the officers in the Highways department for their good work and assured the councillor that they would continue to work hard to minimise disruption to residents.
"The bridge in Crane Park" – Heathfield
REPORTS OF THE EXECUTIVE AND COMMITTEES
That the policies as to discounts, referred to at paragraph 3.4 and 3.5, be continued.
That the revised Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy and the Whistleblowing Policy be approved.
REPORTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES
REPORTS ON JOINT ARRANGEMENTS AND EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
REPORTS OF THE HEAD OF PAID SERVICE
EXECUTIVE DECISIONS TAKEN AS A MATTER OF URGENCY
To receive any announcements from the Mayor, Leader, Members of the Cabinet or the Head of Paid Service.
The Mayor made the following
The Mayor’s Christmas
Concert on the 19th December 2010 had been a great
· The New Years Day Parade had proceeded through central London and collected more than £800. In addition, the borough’s entry in the parade was judged eighth best overall, securing an extra £1,500 prize.
The Mayor’s Night at the
Orange Tree Theatre on the 5th January 2011 had raised
£436.50 in a collection at the end of the
The Pupil Parliament
Hobbs as a new Mayor
Salvoni as Deputy Mayor
on the 18th January.
The Mayor officially welcomed
five members of the Helsinki City Education and Youth Department on
the 19th January as part of a lifelong learning
programme which allowed good practice to be shared between
Children’s Services in Richmond and education professionals
The Mayor’s Charity Ball
would be held on the 19th February. Councillors should telephone Amanda Farrell to
check the availability of tickets.
· The date of the next Mayor’s Quiz would be the 8th April 2011.
NOTICES OF MOTION
(a) Councillor Eady has given notice to move the following Motion:
“Given the significant lead time for building projects, this Council expresses its concern at the lack of any new significant capital announced by the administration for primary school expansion post 2013.”
In accordance with notice given Councillor Eady moved, seconded by Stephen Knight:
"Given the significant lead time for building projects, this Council expresses its concern at the lack of any new significant capital announced by the administration for primary school expansion post 2013."
An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Hodgins and seconded by Councillor Evans:
Delete the ‘Given’ and replace with ‘This council recognises’.
Delete ‘this Council expresses its concern at the lack of any new significant capital announced by the administration for’ and replace with ‘endorses the adoption for the first time of an open ten year school places plan to identify future gaps between supply and demand of high quality’
Delete ‘school expansion post 2013’ and replace with ‘and secondary places, and reaffirms the commitment of this council to ensure this demand is met’
The amendment was put to the
vote and CARRIED
The substantive motion was put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED
"This council recognises the significant lead time for building projects, endorses the adoption for the first time of an open ten year school places plan to identify future gaps between supply and demand of high quality primary and secondary places, and reaffirms the commitment of this council to ensure this demand is met."