Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Extraordinary Council and the Ordinary Council held on 1 December 2009 attached.

 

The minutes of the Extraordinary meeting and the Ordinary meeting held on 1 December 2009 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

 

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

Councillors King and Elloy both declared a personal interest under Item 5 (g) of the agenda by virtue of their being practising motorcyclists.

 

Councillor Fleming declared a personal interest under Item 5 (h) of the agenda by virtue of her membership of the Community Policing Partnership (CPP) which is part of the Community Safety Partnership.

 

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

Councillor Morris presented a petition on behalf of residents of Sheen Lane, East Sheen – Objection to proposals for a Tesco store.

 

To receive any questions of which due notice has been given.

To follow

 

There were none.

 

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 Jones asked the Cabinet Member for the Environment:

“Would the Cabinet Member for the Environment please inform me of the progress made in the latest campaign to increase food recycling in the Borough?”

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

“A planned campaign to promote food waste recycling has already started with articles in Arcadia and will be followed up in early spring using the following messages:  "Thank you for recycling; please recycle your food waste and call or text to get free compostable kitchen caddy liners."  This will be displayed on lamppost banners, the sides of refuse trucks and in leaflets.  Next we are going to do a trial to deliver liners to 6000 properties in trial areas to encourage further participation in food waste recycling.  We already recycle more food than other West London boroughs with about 40-45% of our households participating but we hope to encourage everyone to join in.”

 

Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question which sought to ascertain how much food waste was diverted from landfill and what happened to it instead.  Councillor Acton replied that 3500 tonnes of food waste was diverted from landfill each year and was used to produce electricity, through the harnessing of methane gasses produced during the rotting process and as a fertiliser for famers’ fields. 

 

Councillor Seymour offered the Cabinet Member for Environment his compliments for building on the success of the Conservatives’ food waste and recycling initiative and asked that he now give an assurance that the Council would not lose focus on other types of material collection including the one that is most often asked for by residents which was an increase in the types of plastics collected.  Councillor Acton confirmed that the current administration was indeed determined to build on the recycling programme started in 2005 and had done so successfully to date.  He also announced that with regard to the collection of plastics it was hoped that a trial would be conducted in the spring that would include the collection of commonly used plastics such as yoghurt pots and margarine tubs.

 

Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet Member to comment on the effect that the current waste minimisation programme would have on food recycling rates and was informed that as part of the Borough wide and indeed national drive to reduce waste, it was hoped that in the long run food waste collection, indeed all refuse collection, would be reduced.

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

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Adult Services Health and Housing please update the Council on the joint consultation on mental health service provision in the Borough?”

 

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

 

“LBRuT and NHS Richmond are currently developing a joint Mental Health Commissioning Strategy for both working-age adults and older people to cover the 2010s.  This has included two stages of engagement with a wide range of stakeholders including service users, carers, clinicians, providers and the voluntary sector. Briefing paper materials were available on the website, inviting responses to specific questions. Over 50 submissions were received and meetings were arranged and well attended. Feedback from the first stage of consultation informed development of draft papers which in turn were responded to at the second stage. This feedback is being assessed and the final draft is due to go to the (Health, Housing and Social Care) Overview and Scrutiny Committee in February and to Cabinet and the NHS Richmond Board in March.”

 

Councillor Davies asked a supplementary question the purpose of which was to establish how the current administration was implementing the findings of the recent dementia task group and in particular their recommendations surrounding ‘Care before Crisis’.  Councillor Carr informed Councillor Davies that   part of the government’s 2009 ‘Living well with dementia’ national strategy was raising awareness and understanding as well as an emphasis on early diagnosis and support.  The Council had identified through consultation that locally these areas could be improved particularly in helping GPs to know where to refer people for support at early stages before a crisis developed.  The key actions for the commissioning strategy would improve access, prevention and treatment in primary care and improve community support for people with dementia and their carers.

 

Arguing that consultation was the easy part of the solution, Councillor Urquhart sought clarification of how the Cabinet Member would ensure that any losses would be addressed and balanced with the requisite care in the community at no extra cost to the Council.  Councillor Carr explained that there would be a disinvestment strategy as well as an investment strategy as part of these commissioning papers and they would include the reduction of bed based services in favour of community based services in the homes of people and carers where possible.  This combined approach would be necessary because there was no extra public money accompanying either the strategy for adults with mental health problems or the dementia strategy.

 

Councillor Lee Parsons asked for an update on employment opportunities for people with mental health problems.  Councillor Carr explained that the adult commissioning strategy currently at preliminary draft stage was rooted in “New Horizons”, the Department of Health’s ambitions for people with mental health issues.   This included reducing stigma and improving the employment prospects of people with mental health problems.  She praised Richmond for its very good track record of vocational support services for people with mental health problems, in terms of helping people to keep employment if they were at risk of losing their job and in breaking down some of the barriers that employers perceived about employing people with mental health difficulties. But she recognised that there was much more that the council could do to ensure that people with Mental Health problems were given a ‘fair crack of the whip’ as far as employment and volunteering related opportunities were concerned and that would be a key plank on this commissioning strategy.

(c)               In accordance with notice given Councillor Samuel asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance:

 

            “Whether the Deputy Leader will take the opportunity in his forthcoming budget to return to council taxpayers the £750 per head which residents were led to expect in 2006?”

 

            Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“Cllr Samuel’s question of course refers not to what this administration said in 2006 but instead what he wishes this administration said in 2006. This administration, Madam Mayor, was very clear in 2006 that our priority was to move from hoarding Council Tax payers’ money in the form of excess reserves at the town hall, instead to investment in public services which is exactly what this administration did.”

 

Councillor Seymour asked a supplementary question asking that the Cabinet Member accept that, in view of the £2m saved on the Civic Centre lease and that there was rental income of nearly £1m and an under spend of over £1m, he should start by reducing the Council Tax in his next budget.  Councillor Knight stated that the priority was, and remained, increased investment in services whilst maintaining stable finances and low increases in Council Tax.

Councillor Michael Wilson asked if the Deputy Leader would agree that this administration had presided over one of the most ambitious investment programmes in the borough’s history.  Councillor Knight agreed with the statement and reported that this administration had succeeded in implementing the most radical investment programme in the history of this borough.  He reminded Members that virtually half of the secondary schools in the borough were being rebuilt, the capacity of primary schools was being increased, investment had occurred in the environment and improving recycling services and the Council had invested in measures to tackle climate change. 

 

Councillor True asked the Cabinet Member, in light of Richmond’s local reserves, to pledge to return the millions he took needlessly in the highest Council tax in London.  Councillor Knight refuted Councillor True’s claims as misleading.  He repeated that the current administration was very clear; Council tax would be set at what was needed to fund quality public services and no more.

 

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

 

“Now that he has scrapped sixth forms from the original plans for Teddington and the three proposed Academies at HCC, Whitton and Shene Schools, what are his plans for sixth forms in the Borough’s secondary schools?”

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

 

“Madam Mayor before I answer the main part of Councillor Marlow’s question, I would like to correct some of the errors in the preamble. I did not scrap the sixth form at Teddington school, when we prepared the bid to open a sixth form the school did not make the top 25% measured by added value in the country, it could have opted for diploma status for a mixture of level 2 and level 3 places, but Teddington, the school, decided not to continue with this option and the bid fell by the wayside. The removal of post-16 for HCC and Whitton proposals came from the results at 10 consultations, and was backed up by the results from those consultation questionnaires.

 

There are currently no specific plans to develop new sixth forms in the borough. There is no clear case that a sufficiently large or viable sixth form could be created. You might want to remember Councillor Samuel’s Shene School fiasco, which started with nine and I think ended up with only five pupils.  With current constraints and other high priorities (including providing primary school places), it is not clear how these new sixth forms would be supported financially. The attainment of post-16 is not a problem, national performance indicators show that young people in Richmond currently enjoy very high levels of participation and attainment post-16 when compared with other boroughs.”

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question claiming that many parents in the borough would like to see sixth forms at local secondary schools and asking for Councillor Eady’s response to those parents given this missed opportunity of providing sixth forms in three schools.  Councillor Eady suggested that Councillor Marlow revisit the recent Cabinet report to which he referred.  This explained that it was very unlikely that a viable large sixth form that had a sufficient subject range could be established in the short term.  From April the council would be the commissioning agents for post-16 and would have a duty to ensure that all young people are offered the choice of learning opportunities which matched their potential, being flexible, offering individual children an appropriate choice of courses, and personalised learning for all the young people in this borough.

 

Councillor Samuel raised a point of order under Standing Order 11.4 (a) which sought to limit verbose responses.  The Mayor confirmed that this was the case and reminded all Members of their duty to be succinct in answering and in asking questions.

 

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

 

“Would the Leader comment on the petitions on Twickenham Riverside presented to the Council on 20 October?”

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

“Thank you Madam Mayor, in 100 words I was not surprised to see that there was a combination of petitions spanning several years with different wording and lacking a clear focus. I suspect this might have been a source of confusion to those invited to sign them. I would have been tempted to sign the first petition, which refers to 23 years of neglect and therefore presumably dates from 2004 signed by 5743 of a total of 9074 with some minor amendments.

 

Councillor Michael Wilson asked a supplementary question which sought an explanation from the Leader of the Council of the current proposals for the site and what the opponents of the scheme were suggesting should be built and how they proposed to finance those alternative proposals.  The Leader explained that the Council was proposing a river centre, open space on two fifths of the site, a better café, the playground in a better position and improvements to the embankment all worth over £4m.  The plans were supported by the Twickenham Society and the Twickenham Town Centre Management Board as these organisations realised that they would help improve Twickenham as a viable town centre. All of the improvements would be paid for by the construction of houses and flats on 26% of the site designed by a local architect and fitting in with the local houses. He said that opponents of the plans had not agreed on what they would want for the site, but they and the conservative opposition agreed that whatever was put on the site should be funded by Council tax payers.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships whether he agreed with the first petition collected in 2004.  The Leader said that there was much of the 2004 petition with which he could agree and was indeed included in the current proposals, however there were certain points with which he would disagree such as the sentence claiming the land should “be restored to public use” as it was not public space previously and that he also thought that the cafe /playground could be better placed.

 

Councillor True asked the Leader to confirm that not one signature in the early petitions supported the “Countryside” scheme.  The Leader confirmed that this would be the case as those signing in 2004 would not have heard of the scheme which at that time did not exist and the question was therefore nonsensical.  However he refuted the insinuation that he did not listen to the people of Twickenham and described some of his more recent consultation activities including personal meetings and correspondence with all of the 200 respondents to a recent leaflet drop.

 

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

 

(f)     In accordance with notice given Councillor Stanier asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic Transport and Parking:

 

“Could the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking advise on the latest position regarding the sustainable transport initiatives notably car clubs and cashless parking?”

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

“There are now 105 car club cars in the borough after two phases of implementation with 2,390 members as of end of November. Average use per day is: Streetcar 9.8 hours; Zipcar 3.9 hours; and City Car 1.8 hours. The Smarter Travel target for car clubs was 2,000 members by 2011 and this was reached in August 2009.

Currently all on-street parking facilities and most off-street car parks accept payment by RichmondCard, by mobile phone and credit/debit cards. By mid January the two multi-storey car parks will be able to accept the RichmondCard and work is in hand to offer payment by phone for these two facilities.”

(g)   In accordance with notice given Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet member for Traffic Transport and Parking:

 

"Will the Cabinet Member confirm when the Borough's bus lanes will be made available for use by motor cyclists, and would he let us know the financial implications of adopting this approach?"

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

“Motorcycles are allowed in two Richmond upon Thames bus lanes: at London Road, Twickenham and at Eton Rise / Paradise Road, Richmond. These permissions were implemented as part of a larger trial undertaken by Transport for London (TfL). Upon coming to office in June 2008 the Mayor of London extended TfL's trial and broadened its scope to include all TfL bus lanes on red routes .

 

We are currently awaiting the final findings of the TfL trial to know whether these are to be rolled out London-wide. We expect that all costs arising from making the provision permanent are to be met through dedicated funding from TfL. The budget cost estimate is circa £35K.”

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

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Communities comment on the changes in crime figures in the borough between 2008 and 2009?”

 

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

 

“It is not possible to compare calendar years 2008 and 2009 as the data will not be available until the end of January 2010. Crime figures are analysed on a financial year basis.

 

Looking at 2007/08 and 2008/9: in 2008/09, LBRuT had the lowest total notifiable offences per 1,000 population in the Metropolitan Police Service area; an improvement on 2007/08 when the borough was the second safest after Harrow.

 

Comparing financial year 2007/08 with 2008/09, total crime was reduced by 2% from 12,098 offences to 11,883 (215 crimes). This is a decrease from a high of 16,814 total crimes in 2002/3.”

 

Source iQuanta:

 

(i)      In accordance with notice given Councillor Seymour asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

“After nearly four years of a Lib Dem administration that claims to put the environment first we have the dubious distinction of being the highest emitting Borough in London. What has gone wrong?”

 

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

 

“Cllr Seymour needs to let us see his data source.  The official figures we have indicate that Richmond ranks just 23^rd in London for resident per capita carbon emissions.  A 2008/9 comparison by Wandsworth of carbon emissions for 26 boroughs identified Richmond as having the third lowest CO₂ emissions.  In 2008/9 the Council reduced its own carbon emissions by 2.5% and is committed to significant further future reductions across the Borough through the low carbon zone initiative and the extensive business and school support programmes for which we recently won a champion status environmental Best Practice Green Apple award.”

(j)      In accordance with notice given Councillor Allen asked the Cabinet Member for Youth Culture and Leisure:

 

“Could the Cabinet Member comment on the Ofsted inspection on the Borough’s Youth Services?”

 

Councillor Jaeger replied in the following terms:

 

“Ofsted undertook an Inspection of Richmond’s Integrated Youth Support Services focusing on:

 

·         Things to do and places to go for young people

·         Youth services delivery

·         Engagement and involvement of young people

·         Targeted youth support at vulnerable groups

 

In all areas the inspectors noted good practice with outstanding features, including best practice examples, demonstrating improved outcomes for young people. Inspectors were impressed that after only 2 years the quality of youth work had improved significantly and the levels of integration were high. They commented on young people’s high level of involvement in service planning and volunteering.

 

Outcomes of the inspection form part of a national report due in March 2010.”

 

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

 

“What is the Cabinet Member doing about the falling income from adult day care charges?”

 

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms

“Under Self Directed Support (SDS), people eligible for a Council funded service are offered a Personal Budget which is subject to a single means-tested contribution. This single contribution replaces individual charges for services such as day care and home care.  In 2009/10, expected income from the SDS personal contributions is forecast at £1.8m compared to a budgeted income of £1.6m.”

 

(l)      In accordance with notice given Councillor Percival asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

 

"When will the amalgamation of the zones B1 and CB1 in Barnes be fully implemented and why has it taken so long to change the signage etc?"

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

“The Barnes CPZ merge covers a large area with over 1,000 signs. Site visits were necessary to update the sign inventory, post locations and parking layout to accommodate residents’ driveway parking requests etc.

Also, there were a number of concerns not raised during the public consultation which became apparent after writing to residents. The Council has tried to address these issues positively, which has required substantial officer time including several site meetings with residents and others at the request of ward Councillors and we aim to implement the scheme in April/May 2010.  Every effort is being made to deliver the scheme as planned.”

 

None.

           

 

There were none.

 

Attached

Attached.

A                 CABINET (18 JANUARY 2010)

1.Local Development Framework; Development Management DPD – Pre-Submission Version

Councillor Action, Cabinet Member for Environment moved an amendment to the recommendation which was put to the vote and CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That the amendments to the text of the Development Management Development Plan Document, which relate to development of garden land and are detailed below, be agreed:

 

LDF – DMDPD – Development of Garden Land

 

The following amendments follow the Minister’s letter of the 19^th January and are to strengthen and clarify the approach to back garden development.

 

Proposed changes are underlined

 

Policy DM OS3:   Other open land of townscape importance

 

Amend 1^st line para 4.1.7

 

‘In some parts of the Borough, open areas including larger blocks of back gardens, which are not extensive enough to be defined as metropolitan open land or green belt……………..’ 

 

Policy DM HO2:   Backland and infill development

 

Add to Criteria 4

 

‘any significant loss of local ecological value including wildlife habitats, trees or shrubs which would also adversely affect the character and appearance of the area’

 

5.1.3 Add 6^th line

 

‘local character and ecology and the general environment.  In assessing local ecological value the Council will take into account the length and overall size of the gardens and value of adjacent land as larger areas support a wider range and number of species.  Gardens are also important in establishing the character of certain parts of the Borough and this is recognised in Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document and in various Conservation Area studies.   The Council’s Tree and Landscape Strategy…………..

 

 

Policy DM DC1: Design Quality

 

6.1.6 Add

 

‘This is particularly important when development is proposed on backland sites where the scale of development is expected to be more intimate and the height lower to reduce impact on the character of the street and existing properties’. 

 

LDF-DMDPD

6.1.12 Add new 2^nd sentence

 

‘New access roads will not be acceptable where they visually disrupt the character and appearance of an existing street frontage’

 

(2)   That the Development Management Development Plan Document be submitted for formal public consultation.

 

2. Council Tax Base

(1)   That the Council Tax Base for the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames for 2010/2011 be 88,895.44.

(2)   That the policies as to discounts, referred to at paragraph 3.4 and 3.5, be continued.

3. Corporate Asset Management Plan

Councillor True moved an amendment to the recommendation in the following terms:

 

Delete remainder of sentence after “be” and insert:

 

“deferred for consideration by a later meeting of Council after a report on the progress of the current disposals programme and the details of the new 3 year sales/investment programme referred to in paragraph 3.5 have been laid before the Scrutiny Commission and been CONSIDERED by that body and APPROVED by Cabinet”

 

The amendment was put to the vote and was declared to be LOST by 17 votes against to 27 for.

 

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

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)   That the revised and updated Asset Management Plan, attached at Appendix A be approved and adopted.

 

Attached.

resolved:

 

That the revised Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy and Whistleblowing Policy be endorsed and adopted.

 

None

There were none.

 

None

There were none.

 

Attached

RESOLVED:

 

That changes to the Scheme of Delegation set out in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4 of the report be agreed.

 

Attached

RESOLVED:

 

That decisions 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)      Mr Peter Moore, citizen of the Borough and former Town Crier of London had passed away.

2)      Mr John Ormiston former Richmond and Kingston Borough Councillor had passed away

3)      A Family fun day hosted by the Mayor and her Deputy would be held on Saturday 30 January celebrating cultural harmony in the borough.

4)      The Mayor’s quiz night would be held on 5^th February 2010

 

5)      Visit to Richmond, North Yorkshire on 16^th February and meeting with other Mayors of Richmond.

 

6)      A concert of contemporary choral music from around the Globe at the Barn Church at 3.15 pm on Sunday, 21 February. 

 

7)      An Award was won at the New Year’s Day Parade for the Mayor’s float, which would also  benefit the Charities.

 

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

 

            “That this Council congratulates the local police and the Community Safety Partnership on reducing reported crime from a monthly average of 1,301 between 2002/03 and 2005/06 to a monthly average of 1,026 from 2006/07 to date, making Richmond upon Thames the safest borough in London since 2007, and deplores the attack on the local police and the Council in a Conservative press release this month using selective statistics which also misleads the public and could raise the fear of crime locally without any justification.”

(a)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams moved, seconded by Councillor Lourie,

 

"That this Council congratulates the local police and the Community Safety Partnership on reducing reported crime from a monthly average of 1,301 between 2002/03 and 2005/06 to a monthly average of 1,026 from 2006/07 to date, making Richmond upon Thames the safest borough in London since 2007, and deplores the attack on the local police and the Council in a Conservative press release this month using selective statistics which also misleads the public and could raise the fear of crime locally without any justification."

 

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

 

Delete after “local police”: “and the Community Safety Partnership”

Delete after “on”: 

“reducing reported crime from a monthly average of 1,301 between 2002/03 and 2005/06 to a monthly average of 1,026 from 2006/07 to date, making”

And

Insert: “maintaining”

Insert after “Richmond upon Thames: “’s status as being”

Delete after “London”:

“since 2007, and deplores the attack on the local police and the Council in a Conservative press release this month using selective statistics which also misleads the public and could raise the fear of crime locally without any justification”

 

The amendment was put to the vote and was declared to be LOST by 18 votes against to 26 for.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 18.4 a recorded vote was called

whereupon Councillors Arbour, Bennett, Bouchier, Cranfield-Adams, Evans, Fleming, Head, Hodgins, Howard, Marlow, Morris, Palmer, Parsons, Percival, Samuel, Seymour, True and Urquhart voted in favour; Councillors Acton, Allen, Ball, Cardy, Carr, Cole, Coombs, Davies, Dodds, Eady, Elengorn, Elloy, Jaeger, Jones, King, Knight, Lee-Parsons, Lourie, Miller, Morgan, Nicholson, Stanier, Stratton, Treble, Williams and Michael Wilson voted against.  The Mayor and the Deputy Mayor did not vote.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

“That this Council congratulates the local police and the Community Safety Partnership on reducing reported crime from a monthly average of 1,301 between 2002/03 and 2005/06 to a monthly average of 1,026 from 2006/07 to date, making Richmond upon Thames the safest borough in London since 2007, and deplores the attack on the local police and the Council in a Conservative press release this month using selective statistics which also misleads the public and could raise the fear of crime locally without any justification.”