Issue - meetings

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of Council held on 1 November 2011 and the minutes of the Ordinary meeting of Council held on 1 November 2011 attached.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of Council held on 1 November 2011 and the Council held on 1 November 2011 be signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

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 the notice given, Councillor Mathias asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member please inform Council of what has been done to tackle the very high social worker vacancy rates in Adult and Community Services in Richmond – reported a year ago as the worst in London?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“This is a good news story in fact. Over the last 18 months our Adult Social Services staffing structure has been completely remodelled in line with personalisation, giving residents greater choice and control over their care and support. During this change we did have inflated social worker vacancy rates, as reported in Community Care, because we chose not fill vacancies with permanent staff, but used experienced agency staff, to provide the staff flexibility we needed. This approach meant we were able to avoid redundancy costs.  With our new structure now in place, we have permanently recruited into those vacancies. Many of our vacancies have been filled by the agency staff already working with us, so we have retained their experience and continuity of care for our most vulnerable residents.

 

Councillor Mathias asked a supplementary question about the vacancy rate for social workers.  Councillor Urquhart said that the Council’s vacancy rate was 8.4%, with the national average being 9%.  She added that this vacancy rate was to be maintained in order to provide some flexibility during the current financial situation.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question about whether the money should have been invested in advocacy services and support for carers.  The Cabinet Member said that the money had been reinvested in maintaining frontline services.

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question regarding steps being taken to retain social workers.  Councillor Urquhart said that there was a support package including a financial bonus for those remaining in employment.

 

b) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Knight asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“Given that, to quote the cabinet report, ‘most people were against’ the proposal in the Twickenham Area Action Plan to move Twickenham’s youth centre out of its historic home at Heatham House, why does he refuse to drop the idea?”

 

Councillor True replied in the following terms:

 

“I think many Councillors will find it extraordinary that after the debate we just had that Councillor Knight hasn’t withdrawn this question because it’s been emphatically answered. The difference between this side and him is that we are not prepared to rule out a better future for the young people of this town.”

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question about whether the Leader would stand by his party’s manifesto commitments to allow residents to decide what their area’s priorities were.  Lord True said that there would be a detailed consultation which provided three options for the future of youth facilities in Twickenham.

 

Councillor Martin asked in a supplementary question whether young people would be given the opportunity to decide between Heatham House or a new state-of-the-art facility.  The Leader gave assurances that this was his hope.

 

Councillor Day asked in a supplementary question whether the money used to develop a new facility could be invested in Heatham House instead.  Lord True drew attention to Councillor Percival’s earlier statement adding that he felt young people should be able to decide, when they were in possession of all possible options.

 

c) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Evans asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:

 

“Could the Cabinet member tell us when the Council will start preparing for the influx of reception students in 2012 to ensure that there are sufficient primary places available?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“We have already started to work for 2012. We have set out a 10 year strategy and moved to solve the problem long term for 2012. Specifically we will be providing additional places at Hampton Wick Infant and at St Stephen’s, both subject to statutory proposals.  There will also be extra classes at Archdeacon Cambridge, Nelson, St Elizabeth’s and Sheen Mount in addition to the four permanent expansions that we have approved in the last year or so which include Buckingham, Chase Bridge, Lowther and St Mary’s.”

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question regarding the work that was taking place to plan with schools.   Councillor Hodgins said that he was talking with schools directly and formulating plans, particularly for the central Twickenham area.

 

Councillor Eady asked in a supplementary question why there had been a delay in merging Orleans Infant and Nursery School and St Stephen’s CE Junior School.  The Cabinet Member said that this was a long-standing issue and he was addressing it.

 

Councillor Montague asked a supplementary question about whether the Administration’s plans were affordable.  Councillor Hodgins said that they would be catered for in the Council’s capital budget.

 

d) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Coombs asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“Will the Cabinet member say what discussions she has had with registered social landlords to enable them to use publically owned land to build new homes using funds allocated by the Homes and Communities Agency?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“I haven’t personally held discussions with Registered Providers; however Officers do hold regular meetings with our housing partners.  As Councillor Coombs knows the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) also  support the development of affordable housing.  This has included discussions on publically owned sites in the Borough. Locally all our main developing Registered Providers have received funding from the HCA and Officers are engaging with them regarding their proposals.”

 

Councillor Coombs asked as a supplementary question on whether there were enough resources available to registered social landlords to build properties by 2013 and whether the map of public land available to build on was nearing completion.  Councillor Urquhart said that she believed the map was due imminently and that some of the sites would have HCA money attached to them.

 

Councillor Blakemore asked in a supplementary question about the potential future delivery of affordable housing up to 2015.  The Cabinet Member confirmed that up to 324 properties for rent and 95 for shared ownership could potentially be built.

 

Councillor Knight asked as a supplementary question why the Cabinet had ruled out using public funding for affordable homes at the Twickenham Station site.  Councillor Urquhart said that it was important to provide the right types of homes in the right places for local people and that this was a discussion that should be had with planning.

 

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

 

“What services will be provided at the Hampton Family Centre?”

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“Hampton Family Centre will deliver a range of services to families in Hampton North including:

 

·         Pre and post natal health services, including support for post natal depression

·         Parental support including parenting groups, advice and guidance, and counselling

·         Support for children and adults who are victims of domestic violence

·         Interventions which promote adult, (including father) and child attachment through play and more therapeutic methods.

·         Targeted outreach to the most hard to reach and vulnerable families safeguarding those most in need

·         Specialist services for parents of and children with disabilities and learning difficulties

·         Services which promote school readiness and improve children’s communication and self esteem pre-school

• Childcare services for the most vulnerable.”

 

Councillor Chappell asked about the opening date for the Croft Centre as a supplementary question.  Councillor Percival confirmed that most of the refurbishment had been completed in the previous month, with an opening expected shortly.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked in a supplementary question whether it would have been quicker to refurbish the White House and retain Tangley Hall.  Councillor Percival drew attention to her previous response.

 

Councillor Evans asked as a supplementary question on why the Cabinet Member had retained the Croft Centre in the absence of government funding.  Councillor Percival said that because the Croft Centre was such a vital necessity to the borough’s children, the decision was taken to refurbish and fund it from the Council’s resources.

 

f) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Jones asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“Can she confirm that clients having lunch at council day centres will no longer be provided with fresh vegetables?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“I can confirm that Service users will continue to receive fresh vegetables for the duration of the current contract.”

 

Councillor Jones asked in a supplementary question what would happen at the end of the contract.  Councillor Urquhart said that the preferred procurement route was for frozen meals of equal nutritional value, although service users would be consulted.

 

Councillor Bouchier sought to confirm that users of Woodville Day Centre received hot meals 7 days a week.  The Cabinet Member confirmed that this was the case.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked as a supplementary question whether service users would continue to receive fresh vegetables at no extra cost should they wish to retain them.  Councillor Urquhart said that she was unable to confirm this although she said that customers may be able to meet the cost of fresh vegetables themselves

 

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

 

“What services, funded entirely by the Council, have been totally withdrawn and are no longer available?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“The services that have been cut are the school uniform grant and the provision of skips”

 

Councillor Marlow asked as a supplementary question what Councillor Samuel’s thoughts were on the opposition claim that vital services had been cut .   Councillor Samuel dismissed the claim as an ‘untruth’.

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question about whether Councillor Samuel felt his statement was misleading when he considered matters like Tangley Hall, Whitton Youth Café and Heathfield Library.  The Deputy Leader said that the Administration had made the promise to not cut any service, although some may not be delivered in the same location, the same way, or at the same cost.

 

Councillor O’Malley asked in a supplementary question when the decision to close Heathfield Library was taken.  Councillor Samuel said that the decision was taken on 8 July 2008 by the then Cabinet.

 

h) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Jaeger asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“Given that £450,000 has been transferred this year from the PCT to the Council to maintain eligibility criteria for care services, will the Cabinet member reconsider the decision to stop the funding for moderate care needs, which came into effect this April, and apparently is only contributing £50,000 to the Council's savings targets?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“The answer to that Madam Mayor must be no as we invest more with our NHS partners into early intervention and prevention where even greater savings will be made. When the criteria changed it did not change for those with moderate needs currently accessing services at that time, only for those new to the service.”

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question on whether the Cabinet Member felt that it was the NHS’s hope that moderate care needs would still be provided for, given that they were continuing to fund those in receipt of services for a number of years.  Councillor Urquhart said that those with moderate needs were being funded.  She added that money was now being invested in re-ablement and early intervention which was designed to keep service users at home and in a greater degree of comfort.

 

Councillor Butler asked as a supplementary question how many services for vulnerable elderly people had been removed.  The Cabinet Member said that no service had been removed.

 

i) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Elliott asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and Children’s Services:

 

“What are the Cabinet Member’s aims for the provision of Youth Services in Central Twickenham?”

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“It is our policy to provide the best possible provision of youth services in Twickenham, and I think this was spelt out in the earlier discussion on the petition.”

 

Councillor Elliott asked a supplementary question on whether the Council’s equal opportunities policy was being considered.  Councillor Percival confirmed that it was the Administration’s intention to make any youth facility DDA compliant.

 

Councillor Coombs sought to confirm what services would be available in the Whitton area, as a supplementary question.  Councillor Percival said that there was the intention to table plans regarding Whitton Library in due course.

 

Councillor Evans confirmed as part of a supplementary question whether the Cabinet Member was aware of public opinion of Heatham House.  Councillor Percival said that she was aware of public opinion, although was pleased to note that young people had visited other centres to see what could be offered if a bespoke facility was developed in Twickenham.

 

j) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Street Scene:

 

“If 6 out 10 households in a road reply to a survey on reducing the speed limit to 20 mph and of these responses 75% are in favour, would he not consider that a reasonable public mandate for action?”

 

Councillor Harrison replied in the following terms:

 

“You will have heard my comments on 20mph zones at the last Council meeting and I would reiterate that if appropriate they are something that we will consider. In terms of allocating limited resources I am sure you will understand that these will usually be put where there is a clear majority of residents affected, who are in favour of a proposal; indeed this was detailed in our March Cabinet report. I am sure that you have something in mind when asking your question and no doubt you will be sending me the details in due course.”

 

Councillor Elloy asked a supplementary question on whether Councillor Harrison felt that a 51% threshold was unworkable, given typically low response rates to consultations.  Councillor Harrison said that this policy was to target the Council’s limited resources on projects that residents genuinely wanted.

 

Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question about whether the Cabinet Member felt community projects would not happen because of the high response rate required.  Councillor Harrison did not feel this would happen, citing a recent project where 54% of residents were in favour of a proposal.  The project was to now be prioritised.

 

Councillor Elengorn asked as a supplementary whether Councillor Harrison was aware of any other consultative process needing 51% support from all residents.  The Cabinet Member said that there was a need to devise a way in which to prioritise the high number of requested schemes and commended the proposed mechanism.

 

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

 

“How great a demand for a River Centre on Twickenham Riverside has been expressed during the recent extensive consultation?”

 

Councillor Salvoni replied in the following terms:

 

“Out of the 344 questionnaires completed in response to the Twickenham Area Action Plan consultation, a river centre was mentioned by 3 respondents. Of those responses, one respondent thought that the option of having such a centre should be in Kingston upon Thames.”

 

Councillor Porter asked a supplementary question on whether the Cabinet Member was aware of any previous consultation that gave minimal choice to residents.  Councillor Salvoni said that she was aware of a consultation which gave the choice of a river centre and nothing else; she added that as a result of two detailed consultations, two areas of the Twickenham Riverside site had now been opened.

 

Councillor Montague asked in a supplementary question whether there were any plans for the Twickenham Riverside site.  Councillor Salvoni said that there were plans being developed and that these would be made available in due course.

 

The time allowed for Members questions had elapsed and a written response would be provided to all remaining notified questions.

 

l) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Elengorn asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“In the light of his response to my question (f) at the July Council meeting can he explain how one tells whether the Deputy Leader’s statements to the press represent personal opinions or are made on behalf of the administration?”

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

[“In the same way as the Prime Minister is able to tell if the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements are personal opinions or are on behalf of the government – empirically, on the basis of the context.

 

In a free society a member of an administration is entitled to express a personal opinion, something that Councillor Elengorn was never reluctant to do in many years of administration.”]

 

m) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Nicholson asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Street Scene:

 

“Does it take deaths or serious injuries along a road to force the change of speed restrictions or does any damage to property count in consideration of changing the speed?”

 

Councillor Harrison replied in the following terms:

 

[There are a number of factors involved when looking at changing speed restrictions and indeed the accident record is a key element; while accidents resulting in death and serious injury need to be considered in any analysis as a priority, other less serious injuries and indeed damage to property will also be assessed.]