Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Dr Gold (Co-opted Member) and from Councillor Harborne.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

No declarations were made.

To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2012 – attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 March 2012 were approved as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

To provide Members with details of the outturn position, following regular Budget Monitoring Reports throughout the 2011/12 financial year.

Report of the Director of Environment attached.

Appendices A, B, C, D and E attached.

The Director of Environment and the Head of Finance and Performance presented the report and informed the Committee that the Environment Directorate had underspent in overall terms and delivered the vast majority of savings required in the 2011-12 financial year. An unforeseen overspend in the Highways section had been mitigated by a substantial underspend in the Development and Street Scene

section. In response to Committee Members’ questions it was explained that:

i)                    The Print Unit had not been processing as much work as previously due to increasing use of electronic media as well as competition from private competitors. Costs would be reduced in future as part of a recent restructuring programme.

ii)                   Teams in the directorate were being encouraged to share expertise in commissioning projects and to make more effective use of existing systems for managing Highways contracts.

iii)                 Contractors working for the Highways section were encouraged to submit invoices for work on a frequent basis; however, as a large percentage of this work was carried out in winter months it was more common to receive invoices in the fourth financial quarter.

It was resolved:

1. That the provisional revenue outturn position detailed in paragraph 4 of the report be noted.

2. That the provisional capital outturn position as detailed in paragraph 8 of the report be noted.

3. That the outlook for the service and implications for the MTFS as detailed in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the report be noted.

This report provides details of Environment Directorate performance for the period January to March 2012.  It covers those projects and indicators that monitor the Council priorities. A brief update on Cultural Services proposals is also included.

Report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services attached.

Appendix One attached.

The report was presented by the Director of Environment and the Head of Finance and Performance. It was explained that the main report provided information about any areas where the Environment Directorate had not been meeting its performance indicator targets but that the appendices were provided as additional information. In response to questions further information was provided as follows:

i)          The figures for the number of officer’s recommendations that were not upheld at the Planning Committee were provided as a monitor rather than as a target. The current figures were not unusual.

ii)         Staff sickness had reduced each year in overall terms and was not seen to be a particular problem in the Environment Directorate: the figure could be easily affected by a small number of people and it was expected that it would decrease once those who had already left the authority were no longer factored into the statistics.

iii)         A pilot scheme in conjunction with the West London West Authority aimed to encourage recycling in flats. This presented challenges because it involved building relationships with many different landowners in order to install better recycling facilities, but some progress had been made.

iv)        In order to meet the demands of a large number of planning applications and the current complexity of certain applications the Development Control Department would look to recruit more staff (although this could take three to five months due to recruitment processes).

The Committee discussed the measurement of recycling in the borough and whether it would be more beneficial to measure via percentage recycled rather than via weight of recycling in light of reduced supermarket packaging.

The Committee also discussed the development of the Twickenham Area Action Plan which was a key project for the Environment Directorate. The Committee debated the merits of redesigning the town centre, in particular in relation to bus stop location; it was noted that this could be further discussed at the next meeting in September, and that the scheme was still being consulted upon.

It was resolved:

That the action plans as detailed in the report be noted.

This report provides an overview of the issues and progress made towards the development of the translation and interpreting services and procurement options.

Report of the Assistant Director, Commissioning, Corporate Policy and Strategy attached.

Appendix A attached.

The Assistant Director (Commissioning, Corporate Policy and Strategy) presented the report. She reminded the Committee that although the budget for translation and interpretation services was relatively small this was a sensitive and specialised area of the Council’s work as well as a statutory responsibility. The Council was currently finalising its specification and deciding on a procurement route for this service; procurement would take place over the summer of 2012. In response to questions the Committee was advised that:

i)          A large number of those requesting translation or interpretation were individual users. Requests were made at the point at which the service was accessed.

ii)         In relation to paragraph five of the report, the Council would liaise with colleagues in the public health sector to ascertain requirements.

The Chairman noted that it was useful for the Committee to review financially smaller but significant contracts as well as larger contracts.

It was resolved:

That the briefing be noted.

This report examines the impact of the Localism Act on the local planning authority and in particular the likely effects of neighbourhood planning on planning policy.

Report of the Head of Policy and Design attached.

The report was presented by the Assistant Director of Environment (Development and Street Scene) and the Head of Policy and Design who outlined how the Localism Act was affecting the Council’s planning policy functions. It was explained that the full implications of the act were still being explored: for example, the ‘duty to co-operate’ was being tested at inspectorate level by authorities currently submitting their plans. This would affect Richmond in terms of its joint waste plan and future service proposals. The Community Infrastructure Levy was also explained: this would allow local authorities to gain financial compensation for the impact of local development projects; regulations were expected in the autumn of 2012. The scope of the Localism Act was detailed, including: requirements for development management plans; pre-application advice consultations; enforcement legislation; and the determination of major infrastructure applications. 

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Andrew Beedham, who was Vice Chair of the Ham United Group, a former member of the Ham Working Together Group and a retired town planner. Mr Beedham commented on the application of the Localism Act (and in particular neighbourhood plans and forums) to the area of Ham and Petersham, where he was resident. He raised the following points:

i)          In Mr Beedham’s opinion the Ham Working Together Group had been a very useful body which had performed the role of a localised strategic partnership group; it was unfortunate that this organisation had been discontinued.

ii)         The Ham United Group welcomed the idea of developing a neighbourhood forum but had awaited the outcome of the Village Plans and the Localism Act before taking any decisive action. The group had been considering local issues of transport, employment, biodiversity and community cohesion, and would also be looking at diverse issues such as street scene, education and energy use. For this reason the group had been disappointed by the seemingly narrower scope of the Localism Act which focused on managing spatial development.

iii)         Issues which the group would like to see included in a neighbourhood plan (but which may not be included under the current definition) included the introduction of a Multi Use Games Area; improvements to cycling, walking and public transport; a community orchard; restoration of Ham Common Woods; and the retrofitting of the existing housing stock.

iv)        Ham and Petersham currently had a very active voluntary sector but this needed to be linked to public services in order to be effective. The Ham United Group was in the process of applying to set up a neighbourhood forum.

Mr Beedham asked that the Committee consider how neighbourhood plans might be linked to Village Plans and how they could be given a broader remit. In response to questions Mr Beedham clarified that the Ham United Group was not intending to create a neighbourhood plan at the present time. The group awaited the publication of the village plans. It was acknowledged that Ham and Petersham could be viewed as being fairly unusual because the proximity of the river and the park meant that the area boundary was very well defined (in comparison to other suburban areas).

In response to questions and comments, the Director and Assistant Director of Environment explained that:

i)          Village Plans would be seen as ‘living documents’ which could be adapted to community comments as appropriate.

ii)         The ‘community right to buy’ could affect assets owned by third parties as well as the Council. The implications of this were yet to be fully explored but it was evident that this new right could lengthen the application process for new developments (if residents put in a bid for alternative community use). 

iii)         Though Inspector’s recommendations on Development Plan Documents were no longer officially binding, they were effectively so in many cases because an authority would still be open to judicial review if its plans were not seen to be complementing its Core Strategy.

Some Members perceived that the neighbourhood plan framework might better be applied to rural parishes or areas where large regeneration projects were envisaged. It was noted that the full implications of neighbourhood plans were not yet known, but that the potential development of a plan would have resource implications for the Council, who would be required to provide advice and support.

It was resolved:

That the report be noted.

This report provides details of an update on the review of the Climate Change Strategy.

Summary report of the Assistant Director of Environment attached (further information to follow).

The item was presented by the Assistant Director of Environment (Property, Parks and Sustainability) who explained the context of the report being received by the Committee. The report provided an update on the Climate Change workshops; as well as detailing the recent recommendations for local authorities by the Committee on Climate Change and highlighting future considerations for the development of the Council’s Climate Change Strategy. Whilst heeding the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change, the Council would wish to progress with a local strategy tailored to the needs of the borough.

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Andrew Beedham (local resident, Vice Chair of the Ham United Group and a former member of the Ham Working Together Group). Mr Beedham made comments on the Climate Change Strategy in relation to his experience on the Steering Group of Ham’s Low Carbon Zone initiative. He felt that the initiative had so far been very successful with at least 30% residents engaging in carbon reducing activities; in addition he made the following particular comments:

i)          It was important not to lose the momentum and commitment that had so far been developed in Ham and Petersham. Due to the mix of housing stock this part of the borough was an ideal testing ground for the initiative. Mr Beedham requested that, of the new post being recruited, one day per week remain dedicated to the Ham and Petersham area.

ii)         It would be very useful for the Greater London Authority (GLA) to complete a short end of project assessment on the Low Carbon Zone so that different participating areas in London could share knowledge and inform other communities. There were many useful tips (such as placing display boards at primary schools) that the Ham and Petersham steering group could provide. Mr Beedham hoped that the Council could make a representation to the GLA on this issue.

iii)         In the future, the Council could build upon the role that communities and social marketing techniques could play in reducing energy use and delivering a low carbon area. Mr Beedham felt that it was important to employ a wide range of smaller initiatives such as food growing and reducing plastic bag use in order to capture people’s interest in the scheme.

In response to Members’ questions Mr Beedham added that:

i)          Community groups were likely to be the most effective in gaining the support of a higher percentage of people. However, the project needed funding and could not rely solely on volunteers.

ii)         In the future it was hoped that projects such as Ham Hydro and a community orchard would be supported. It would also be beneficial to build upon the success of cycling in the area with small local schemes. It was recognised that public transport in Ham and Petersham could be an issue owing to the fact that the nearest station was 1½  mile away.

Committee Members discussed how the Climate Change Strategy related to other areas of the Council’s work and whether there was any conflict with other policies such those on parking and planting. The role of ‘street champions’ in developing support for initiatives was also discussed. The Assistant Director explained that these would be people who could provide advice confidently to communities and neighbours, but it was not the intention to replicate the work of those organisations already in existence. The role should be focused on reaching achievable low carbon targets rather than becoming simply a representative of the Council in the community.

The Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways explained that the London Plan set carbon reduction targets for the borough but it was up to the Council and the community to decide how best to achieve these targets.

It was resolved:

1. That the action taken to date be noted.

2. That the proposed approach and timetable to complete the review of the Climate Change Strategy benoted.

3. That an update on the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy be considered at the next meeting.

This report provides an update on the Uplift Strategy.

Summary report of the Assistant Director of Environment attached (further information to follow).

The Assistant Director of Environment presented an update on the Uplift Strategy. Projects in Hampton North and Whitton were progressing; consultation would shortly be underway with ward Councillors and thereafter with the wider community.  The Strategic Cabinet Member added that it was of particular importance to progress with the scheme in Whitton before the Rugby World Cup was held in the borough in 2015.

In response to questions it was explained that discussions with Richmond Housing Partnership in Ham were at a very early stage and it was hoped that ward Councillors would be able to be involved with this in the near future. It was also explained that the Council was considering options for the disused White House building adjacent to the playground in North Hampton (including potential demolition and replacement with open space).

Committee Members discussed the link between the Uplift Strategy, the All in One Consultation and the Village Plans. The origins behind the designs for each uplift area were discussed. The Strategic Cabinet Member informed the Committee that the conservation of 1930s style housing in Whitton had been informed by residents’ feedback as part of the All in One Consultation; and that work had been carried out to research and recreate the historical appearance of the area. Conservation Officers had been involved with this work.

Officers advised that work was planned for Mortlake and North Sheen, including investment in infrastructure for Sheen Lane. At present a timescale for this was not identified. It was hoped that work in the priority areas in Hampton North and Whitton would progress by 2013.

It was resolved:

1. That the action taken to date be noted.

2. That the proposed programme of activity for the next wave of Uplift programme activities be noted.

The Committee will receive a verbal update from the Director of Environment on the Council’s preparations and arrangements for the 2012 London Olympics.

The Director of Environment provided an updated on the Council’s preparations for the Olympics. The Borough would be host to a section of the torch road relay as well as the river procession in July. The men’s and women’s cycling road race would be traversing Richmond twice at the opening weekend of the Olympics with the time trial races affecting the borough on 1 August. These events would cause logistical challenges but the Council was progressing very well in its preparations, with the additional help of former Borough Commander (Rick Turner) as Chairman of the authority’s Olympic Programme Board. The Environment Directorate was working with a number of different services in order to ensure that residents’ needs were still met in the context of road closures and pressure on emergency services; this included working with social services, health professionals, traffic engineers and emergency planning officers, as well as the Metropolitan Police, TfL, LOCOG and neighbouring authorities. Some additional measures were being put in place such as the operation of a bank holiday waste collection service in order to address limited road access in certain areas.

The objective of the Council was to see events in the Borough delivered successfully and safely, and to be prepared for any risks. It was important to communicate with local residents and businesses in order that they could prepare for possible large crowds and road closures. A website had been created which allowed users to input a postcode and find out how their neighbourhood would be affected. It was hoped that holding the events in the Borough would be a boost to income for business and promote tourism in the area. The Council had needed to invest some funds into preparations for the events but it was hoped that some of these costs could be recouped from LOCOG.

In response to questions the Director advised the Committee that the Council was not expecting to have a higher number of parking penalty charges during this period because advertisement of road closures and other measures had been extensive. Since the test events in 2011 the Council had made arrangements for more signage which would be placed more prominently and further in advance of events. The Council was also working with TfL to advise people of which routes to avoid on the days affected. Leaflets had been sent to businesses who were likely to be affected by the events so that they could make their own decisions about contingencies.

This report gives details of the proposed work programme for the Environment, Sustainability and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the municipal year 2012 – 2013.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services attached

Appendix A and B attached.

The Committee discussed its work programme for the following meetings.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the following items be considered at the meeting to be held on 19 September 2012:

·         Biodiversity Strategy Update

·         TAAP: Twickenham Town Centre Bus stops (update on discussions with TfL and public consultation)

2.   That the September Work Programme item include information about potential future task groups and how to establish one.

3.    That ‘Village Plans’ be included in the list of recommended topics for future   consideration (to be considered as and when appropriate).