Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Tony Arbour, Councillor John Coombs and Councillor David Porter.

The meeting opened with prayers led by Reverend Peter Bustin.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Annual Council held on 25 May 2010 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2010 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

The Mayor received the consent of the Council to apply forthwith the new wording for the Constitution Procedure Rule 17.4 (as set out under agenda item 11b at page 41) with regards to the length of speeches at Council.

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).

None.

Attached.

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

“Can the Cabinet Member confirm that strategic budget plans promised for July publication will be made available for scrutiny at the 19 July O&S meeting.”

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

“This administration is committed to promoting an effective scrutiny process. I will be speaking to Councillor Miller after the meeting to ensure that he is provided with all the relevant details.”

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question to clarify that the full budget details would be made available prior to the 19 July O&S meeting. Councillor Samuel confirmed that this would be the case.

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

“Why is there no mention in this report of the decisions to make the Community Development workers in the five areas of relative deprivation redundant and to stop Council funding for the five Working Together groups?”

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

“This statement is incorrect as no decision has yet been made. The five posts referred to are three year fixed-term posts, part funded by the PCT, and were due to conclude in October of this year. In the current financial climate this is a growth item and I would advise that this is an issue which you should discuss with Councillor Fleming.”

Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question, enquiring as to whether Councillor Samuel was aware of the importance of the Development Workers to areas such as Ham where they worked to reduce crime and unemployment and helped to prevent anti social behaviour. Councillor Samuel reiterated that Councillor Jones should liaise with the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development on this issue.

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

“What is the Deputy Leader’s estimate of the reduction in revenue arising from the proposals in paragraph 3.3.1 (b) to reduce CPZ charges?”

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

“This is to be discussed at Cabinet next Monday and within 48 hours all the figures will be available.”

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question enquiring as to how the public view on changes to CPZ charges could be ascertained in circumstances where not all residents were familiar with the Conservative party manifesto. Councillor Samuel replied that the public view could be ascertained from the results of the May 2010 local election. 

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

 “The table in 3.1.4 gives the reduction of £906,000 in Government grant, but does not include the savings with the National Insurance increase cancellation and the salary freeze announced at the same time. Why does this table omit the £600,000 saved in 2010/11 and the £1.2 million saved in 2011/12?”

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

“We could have included various demands on the Council budget, however, we used a table format as it is informative for Members and sets out our designs.”

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question seeking clarification about the inclusion of National Insurance and public sector pay issues at paragraph 3.1.6 of the report. Councillor Samuel responded that the question had been in reference to the table only. It had not been possible to cover all factors, such as increasing social service funding demands, which had been omitted.

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

“How do the matters detailed in this report (in particular those outlined in paragraphs 3.1.6 and 3.3) impact on the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and why is no revised iteration of the MTFS included with this report?”

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

“With daily changes going on it would be pointless to have a new MTFS every time there was a new government announcement. All I can say on this is that my plan at the moment, which is on track, is that we have an under-spend at the end of this year which we will be able to apply to ameliorate some of the cuts that will be necessary over the next four years.”

Councillor Gibbons asked a supplementary question regarding the importance of considering the MTFS outlook in order to make informed decisions about Council spending. Councillor Samuel referred Councillor Gibbons to the Statutory Accounts Committee of 30 June 2010 at which such matters had been discussed.

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

“Why is there no breakdown of the £906,000 cut in grant other than the statement in 3.3.2 that £500k will be cut immediately and the other £400k reviewed later?”

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

“I prefer to provide some of these figures for Scrutiny in a few days time, if I can just speak briefly to the other two figures that are there: officers found it relatively easy to identify £500,000 of cuts which are being discussed with colleagues and Cabinet Members at the moment. Equally, of course, we are soon to begin our ‘zero based’ review. We felt that these two factors should be integrated so that there will be no final decision on this, certainly for several weeks.”

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question enquiring about the possibility of cuts to personal support. Councillor Samuel informed the meeting that discussions were ongoing with Cabinet Members and Officers and all figures would be published when finalised.

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

“As it is nearly four weeks since the £906,000 cut in grant funding referred to in 3.1.2 was announced, would the Cabinet Member tell the Council if the Positive Action for Young People programme due to start in a few weeks, and which has been so successful in cutting crime, will go ahead this summer, and if so whether the budget has been cut?”

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

“£160,000 is in the budget for this purpose and I am pleased to be able to tell the Council that £140,000 already committed to the activities over the summer will in fact be going ahead as planned. There was an additional £20,000 for matters beyond the summer: that figure is at present frozen.”

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question regarding the reduction of Children’s Services spending by £0.7million in light of an increase of £0.5million being allocated to the repair of potholes and the reduction of CPZ charges. Councillor Samuel replied that the new administration had a mandate for these issues.

Councillor Samuel moved, seconded by Councillor True:

That the Council approve the proposals set out in the Budget Review report.

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

RESOLVED:

The proposals set out in the Budget Review report be agreed.

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

(a) In accordance with notice given, Mr Simon Hewitt asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic:

“I would like to know why motorcycles are not permitted to share bus lanes on key routes such as Heath Road and Hospital Bridge Road? Presently motorcycles have to queue with cars due to the cobbled strip that prevents filtering into the opposite lane. This is utterly ridiculous and means bikes simply take short cuts down quiet residential roads to avoid the traffic.”

Mr Hewitt not being present at the meeting, a written reply was given:

“TfL has confirmed that operation of the Kings Street/Cross Deep/Heath Road signal controlled junction is included in the list of signals earmarked for review as part of their wider programme to reduce congestion and smoothing of traffic flows across London. We will pass specific concerns on to TfL to assist in their review.”

(b) In accordance with notice given, Mr Cranfield-Adams asked the Leader of the Council:

“If an Officer of the Council can be shown to have committed a criminal offence in the course of their duties, whether that Officer would be liable to summary dismissal?

Mr Cranfield-Adams not being present at the meeting, a written reply was given:

“An officer would not automatically be liable to summary dismissal in this situation.  In terms of summary dismissal, guidance to managers on the Disciplinary Procedure states: “in some (rare) cases of gross misconduct, summary dismissal may be appropriate.”

There would normally be an investigation as part of the disciplinary procedure, and the panel hearing the disciplinary case would decide on any penalty, based on all the evidence presented.For a few very senior posts a report would first be needed from an independent person before any action could be taken to dismiss. Proceeding without due process, or in an unfair manner, could make the authority liable in the courts.”

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 Elengorn asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning:

 “Does the Cabinet Member for Environment think it was good practice for her to seek to influence the results of the recent consultation on the Twickenham Station scoping document by suggesting via Deborah Thomas how it might best be answered and does she intend to organise the results of future Environment department consultations in the same way?”

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

“The scoping document in relation to Twickenham Station is to inform the technical work related to the planning application and my suggestion that matters considered in relation to the hotel proposal on the Regal House site would also be relevant to the Station site is perfectly reasonable to ensure that these important matters are taken into account.

I can assure Councillor Elengorn that the administration is committed to open minded consultation on environmental matters and of course the ‘All in One’ survey will for the first time be asking for people’s priorities within their area. “

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question enquiring as to Councillor Morris’ involvement in the creation of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) [Design Guidance, Twickenham Station and Surrounds]. Councillor Morris confirmed that this document would be open to public consultation and it was for the public to decide upon the final version.

Councillor Salvoni asked a supplementary question regarding the form of public consultation which had been involved in the development of the Regal House site. Councillor Morris replied that the normal consultation procedure would have been followed which included sending letters to residents in the vicinity of the planning application. She stated that prospective councillors and Deborah Thomas had consulted the public about the amenities of this site when the previous administration had not done so.

Councillor Khosa asked a supplementary question about whether, as the Conservative party had allowed the original Regal House building to be constructed, it could be said that they held responsibility for the current planning and design issues in this locality. Councillor Morris emphasised that this building had been erected several decades ago, and that it was not true that Regal House would be used as a benchmark for future developments in the area. She added that the Cole Park Residents’ Association was opposed to increasing the number of tall buildings in the area and that it was important to consult the public on the future of the station site.

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

“What plans does the Cabinet Member have for improving on the last year’s projected savings on Reablement which were not realised?”

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

“Reablement is a preventative service. Certain actions could be taken to improve savings achieved through the reablement service. These include asking the provider to be more flexible, working with the provider on improving quality and staff training and receiving support from the Department of Health with regards to best practice.”

Councillor Mathias asked a supplementary question regarding the possibility of commissioning for a fourth provider, and whether this indicated that there were shortcomings in the first, second and third providers. Councillor Urquhart replied that it was a question of having specialised skills and also a question of capacity given the high number of people who were referred to social care services.

Councillor Bond asked a supplementary question querying as to why these issues were only being addressed one year after the initial introduction of the service. Councillor Urquhart replied that there had been management problems but that the infrastructure had not been sufficient to meet the high number of referrals made during the Department of Health pilot scheme.

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member could confirm that there would be no cuts to the level of care provided for those of moderate need. Councillor Urquhart responded that it would be necessary to await the completion of the budget review process.

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

“In light of the recently announced revenue reductions for Richmond, can the Cabinet Member assure us that financial support for small businesses will be maintained bearing in mind the healthy balances left by the previous administration?”

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

“The Council is committed to supporting small businesses and I will be ensuring that the Council’s planning, transport, parking and community safety policies take into account the impact on business. As Councillor Acton will realise after listening to the debate, all budgets are being reviewed to ensure that value for money is being achieved and services are efficiently provided, but supporting our businesses is not just about money it is about creating a much closer dialogue between residents and businesses and giving them a real say in shaping the area in which they live and work.”

Councillor Acton asked a supplementary question regarding the continuance of the Town Centre Manager role. Councillor Fleming replied that all town centres would be supported and that business alliances would be encouraged.

Councillor Harrison asked a supplementary question regarding the protection of post offices. Councillor Fleming responded that the administration would be looking at whether various additional Council business could be offered through post offices in order to support them, as post offices were important to local communities and helped maintain trade at neighbouring shops.

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

 “In view of the administration’s plan to scrap CO2 based charging for parking permits, will the Cabinet Member say how this will affect the amount collected in charges from (a) owners of low emission vehicles (Less than 150g/km or older vehicle up to 1800cc) and (b) owners of high emission vehicles (Greater than 186g/km or older vehicles over 2400cc); and what consultation will take place on these changes?”

Councillor Head replied in the following terms:

“I must refer my fellow Member, Councillor Elloy to the Cabinet repot on parking charges which will be published in the next few days. This details the proposals, the principles of which we took to the electorate in May, along with the associated costs to the motorist and the Council. The report also deals with consultation and seeks approval to formally invite views from members of the public.”

Concillor Elloy asked a supplementary question about whether in light of fairly close election results, it would be desirable to carry out an extensive consultation on the proposed changes to parking charges. Councillor Head replied that the election manifesto had been followed and that it was important not to penalise residents who could not afford low emitting vehicles. She stated that given the difficult economic climate it was important to adopt a simpler and fairer system and to give money back to residents.

Councillor Montague asked a supplementary question regarding the nature of CPZ [Controlled Parking Zone] charges and in particular emissions based charging. Councillor Head stated that these charges could be described as taxes in line with the National Statistics Office’s definition of a tax as a ‘compulsory unrequited payment,’ where unrequited meant that the payer did not receive anything directly in return. 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question enquiring as to whether the parking charge proposals would be carried out if a majority of the public consulted was not in favour of them. Councillor Head replied that if a clear majority of those consulted was against the proposals then they would not go ahead.

(e) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Day asked the Leader of the Council:

“Will the Leader agree to consult young people before implementing his decision to axe the borough’s youth magazine Outskirts after the forthcoming July edition?”

Councillor True replied in the following terms:

“I have to say that this Council did say, before the election, that it would cease the formal old style publication of magazines. That was a pre-announcement.”

Councillor Day asked a supplementary question regarding future consultation of young people. Councillor True replied that the Council would continue to be in touch with young people but that it would be possible to provide different forms of communication services in the future. He added that it was difficult to justify the current high levels of expenditure on the publication of the magazine.

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question enquiring as to the level of savings that would be made through such decisions. Councillor True replied that the administration was reviewing expenditure on all Council publications and it was estimated that around  £408,000 could be saved during this Council period. He added that it was important for the Council to use modern and inclusive forms of communication; to contact every person in the borough to ascertain their priorities; and to embrace electronic and social networking media.

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question regarding the cost of producing an issue of the magazine in comparison with the amount of money the Council was to spend on repairing potholes. Councillor True replied that he could not confirm exact percentage figures but that when officer time was accounted for, the total savings for discontinuation of the magazine would be around £36,000. He reiterated that the Council could no longer afford to use old style forms of communication. 

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

“Will the Cabinet Member confirm that Shene School will be open to new admission this September, despite calls from Zac Goldsmith for admissions to be frozen?”

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

“We are in discussions with AET [Academies Enterprise Trust] and Zac Goldsmith. We expect the school to reopen as an academy on 1 September with a year 7 intake of about 90 pupils.”

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question enquiring as to whether decisions about the new academy should be made quickly. Councillor Hodgins replied that it was important not to take critical decisions too precipitously as it was necessary to consider the implementation of two key enhancements: the first being an increase in community involvement; the second being the creation of a sixth form within the borough. Discussions on these issues were ongoing.

Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question regarding the reaction of stakeholders to the scheme. Councillor Hodgins replied that Shene School staff, parents, and feeder schools were all very positive about the school’s progress.

Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question about whether any delay would have a negative effect on parents, pupils and staff, with regards to uncertainty about uniform and similar issues. Councillor Hodgins responded that whilst it was important to reach a resolution as soon as possible, it was also necessary to secure the long term success of the school.

(g) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Jones asked the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning:

“Given the administration’s plan to remove the requirement for new developments to include 50% affordable homes, will the Cabinet Member say what alternative policies will be used to achieve their other manifesto promise to ‘secure more affordable homes’?”

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

“The complexities of sites means that a ‘one-size fits all’ 50% target is not appropriate. A more flexible approach will help bring forward more difficult underutilised sites and avoid the necessity for unacceptably high densities and schemes of dubious design quality.

So, I will be working closely with the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing to pursue the single conversation with the HCA to maximise resources for schemes that are of a high quality design and meet the needs of the most vulnerable. We will also be seeking to work much more closely with the private rented sector and with owners of empty houses, flats and spaces above shops to help address homelessness.”

Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question about how the Council would find homes for key workers. Councillor Morris reiterated that it would be important to work closely with the private rental sector and to make use of empty properties to find solutions to housing issues.

Councillor Harborne asked a supplementary question regarding whether the Council would be identifying more closely the housing needs of the community, and focusing on starter homes, family and key worker homes. Councillor Morris agreed that it was important to consider what was required in the borough and that there was a need for more social housing for families.

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question enquiring as to whether removing the 50% target for affordable units would actually reduce the level of family sized affordable housing as the market favoured the construction of smaller units. Councillor Morris replied that in the past too many small units of affordable housing had been built of bad design quality and it was crucial to move away from this and to provide the right mixture of properties for the borough.

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

            “Issues concerning Teddington Station,

1. The two condition of the footbridges

2. The ugly new wire fence on east side

3. Poor security for sub-station on west side.”

(Teddington Ward)

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

            “Traffic, cycling and pedestrian problems at Richmond Gate, Richmond Park.”

(Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside Ward)

a) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elengorn raised concerns about the conditions of the footbridges and surrounding amenities at Teddington Station. It was noted that since raising the issue, progress had been made by meeting with Network Rail, Vincent Cable MP and the Teddington Society to discuss improvements to the new wire fencing, the security sub-station and the more northerly bridge at Teddington Station. However, Councillor Elengorn requested that the new administration assist with the funding to carry out improvements to the more southerly bridge which was still in poor condition.

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Councillor Head, recognised that this was an ongoing issue in Teddington ward and that past attempts to find a solution had so far been unsuccessful. She was pleased that her fellow Cabinet Member, Councillor Morris, had been able to carry out a site visit with residents to consider these issues and was awaiting confirmation for the timescale of work to be carried out on the site. It was hoped that further liaison with South West Trains would bring about additional improvements. Councillor Head thanked Vincent Cable MP, Councillor Elengorn and Brian Holder of the Teddington Society for their continued concern for the amenities of the station.

b) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams raised the issue of traffic cycling and pedestrian problems at Richmond Gate, Richmond Park. Councillor Williams stated that the road layout outside Richmond Gate was poorly designed and that traffic had the wrong priority at Star and Garter Hill. In addition there was not enough provision for cyclists and pedestrians at this location. He requested that the Council work with TfL to effect improvements.

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Councillor Head, responded that a proposal to improve the road layout would be included for consideration in the 2011/12 Local Implementation Plan submission, but it was not possible to foresee whether funding would be secured. Though the layout would benefit from improvement, it was noted that the accident record was relatively low, meaning that it did not figure in the Road Safety Programme. Councillor Head invited Councillor Williams to visit the site with her and welcomed any suggestions for improvements which could be made with the limited available budget.

None.

None.

None.

None.

None.

None.

Attached

Attached.

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Elengorn, seconded by Councillor Elloy:

·         Page 26 of the report

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING

In line 2 after “including” restore the words “Climate Change”

·         Page 37 of the report

Cabinet Member Traffic

Paragraph (b) after “business needs” add ”,environmental considerations”

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

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

resolved:

That the arrangements for delegation and function of Cabinet included in Part 3, Section 3 of the Constitution and set out in the Appendix to the report be agreed, with the inclusion of the above amendments to Appendix A.

Attached.

resolved:

That the changes to the Constitution set out in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the report and in the accompanying Appendices be agreed.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

The following amendment to the Members’ Allowances Scheme 2010-2011 be agreed:

“13. Refreshments after Council Meetings

13.1 An annual sum of £50 will be deducted from the Basic Allowance per Councillor in respect of a contribution towards refreshments provided after meetings of the Council.”

Attached.

RESOLVED:

That the appointments to Outside Bodies made by the Leader, as set out in the report and the supplementary agenda be noted and endorsed.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

That the Directorate of Children’s Services and Culture be renamed the Directorate of Education, Children’s and Cultural Services, the Director’s title be amended to Director of Education, Children’s and Cultural Services and that this be reflected in the constitution.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

(a)          That confirmation of the appointment of new Independent Members of the Standards Committee be delegated to the Chief Executive to allow them to commence their period of service prior to the next meeting of Council.

(b)          That confirmation of the appointment of new co-opted Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees to be delegated to the Committees themselves.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

That the appointment from 1 August, for a period of up to 6 months, 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 noted and endorsed.

None.

None.

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

The Mayor announced the following:

1. The ship’s company of HMS Richmond would be exercising its Freedom of the Borough on Friday 9 July.

2. The ceremony for Bernado O’Higgins would take place on 20 August in Richmond.

3. The borough’s young people had achieved fourth place in the recent Youth Games and congratulated all those who had taken part.

4. The Mayor’s Ball was provisionally scheduled for 19 February 2011.

None.

None.