Agenda and minutes

The Mayor reported that Derek Wainwright, Mayor of the Borough in 1984/85 had died and his funeral had been held on 2 March.

 

The Council stood for a minute's silence as a mark of respect.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 27 January 2009 Attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 January 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.

Councillor Elengorn declared a personal interest in Item 4 by virtue of his being a governor of Teddington School.

 

Councillor Knight declared a personal interest in Item 4 by virtue of his partner being a governor of Teddington School.

 

Councillor Mumford declared a personal interest in Item 4 by virtue of his being a governor of Teddington School.

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

None.

Report of the Executive attached.

 

Members are requested to bring with them Report 10 to 23 February Cabinet 2009 (previously circulated.)

 

Any questions in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.1, of which notice has been given to follow.

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

 

“What is the estimated total cost of the Teddington school rebuild?  How much of this will be met by Government grant?”

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“The agreed budget for the Teddington School rebuild project is £36.75m of which the Government grant is covering just under £25m and I can report this evening that the project is currently on schedule and within budget.”

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question enquiring as to what other projects would be affected in view of the overspend on Teddington School.  Councillor Knight reiterated that the Teddington School project was on schedule and on budget.

 

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

 

“Will the Cabinet Member for Resources please tell us which London boroughs have this year a higher percentage Council Tax increase than Richmond upon Thames’s 4.33 percent?”

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“No London councils are proposing a higher increase in Council Tax although there are many councils outside London who are.  I would also say that no other London council faces the kind of financial position that we face – as the lowest funded and lowest spending council in London.”

 

Councillor Bennett asked a supplementary question concerning responsibility for the funding position and stating that local people needed financial help.  Councillor Knight replied that it was precisely because local people needed help and support that a budget was proposed which protected services.

 

Councillor Knight moved, seconded by Councillor Lourie:

 

(1)               That the Council agree the Revenue Budget for 2009/10.

(2)               That the Council agree Richmond upon Thames’ element of the Band D Council Tax be set at £1,287.39 (an increase of £53.45 or 4.33%).

(3)               That the Council agree that the overall Band D level of Council Tax for 2009/10 including the GLA element be set at £1,597.21, an overall increase of 3.46%. 

(4)       That the Council agree the Council Tax 2009/10 resolution to be proposed by the Leader (attached at Appendix A).

 

Councillor True moved, seconded by Councillor Samuel,

 

To Recommendation 1 add the following:

 

“and, noting the unprecedented gravity of the present recession and the need of local people and businesses for financial help now, resolve to apply an additional£4.718 million from balances in order to effect a cash freeze and maintain the level of Council tax unchanged."

 

In Recommendation 2, delete “£1,287.39 (an increase of £53.45 or 4.33%)” and insert "£1,233.94 (a cash freeze)"

 

In Recommendation 3, delete “£1,597.21 (an increase of 3.46%)" and insert "£1,543.76 (a cash freeze)"

 

In Recommendation 4, delete “ ...to be proposed by the Leader” and insert “as amended)”

 

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

 

Therefore the amendment was declared to be LOST.

 

Councillor Parsons moved, seconded by Councillor Howard,

 

To Recommendation 1

 

At end insert -
"except that extra resources, initially of £35,000, be applied to provide daily hot meal delivery to existing and new elderly service users who wish no change in the current system and that provision be vired in 2009/10 by reducing expenditure on Council public relations."

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 18.4, a recorded vote was called, whereupon Councillors Arbour, Bennett, Bouchier, Cranfield-Adams, Fleming, Head, Hodgins, Howard, Marlow, Morris, Palmer, Parsons, Porter, Samuel, Seymour, True and Urquhart voted in favour of the amendment; Councillors Allen, Beevor, Cardy, Carr, Cole, Coombs, Davies, Dodds, Eady, Elengorn, Elloy, Hodges, Jaeger, Jones, Knight, Lourie, Miller, Morgan, Mumford, Nicholson, Sheehan, Stanier, Stratton, Treble, Trigg, Williams, Michael Wilson and Munira Wilson voted against the amendment; Councillor Warren abstained; The Mayor and the Deputy Mayor did not vote.

 

Therefore the amendment was declared to be LOST.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)               That the Revenue Budget for 2009/10 be agreed.

(2)               That the Richmond upon Thames’ element of the Band D Council Tax be set at £1,287.39 (an increase of £53.45 or 4.33%) be agreed.

(3)                                                              That that the overall Band D level of Council Tax for 2009/10 including the GLA element be set at £1,597.21, an overall increase of 3.46% be agreed. 

(4)                                                              That it be noted that at its meeting on 27th January 2009 the Council calculated the amount of 88,275.61 as its Council Tax base for the year 2009-2010 in accordance with regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992 made under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

(5)                                                              That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2009-2010 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1992:-

 

(a)   £396,822,700      being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(2) (a) to (e) of the Act

 

(b)   £255,562,500      being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(3) (a) to (c) of the Act

 

(c)   £141,260,200      being the amount by which the aggregate at 2 (a) above exceeds the aggregate at 2 (b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 32 (4) of the Act, as its budget requirement for the year

 

(d)    £27,615,495       being the aggregate of the sums which the Council estimates will be payable for the year into its General Fund in respect of redistributed non-domestic rates, revenue support grant, or additional grant increased by the amount of the sums which the Council estimates will be transferred in the year from its Collection Fund to its General Fund in accordance with Section 97 (3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Council Tax surplus) and increased by the amount of any sum which the Council estimates will be transferred from its Collection Fund to its General Fund pursuant to the Collection Fund (Community Charges) directions under section 98 (4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Community Charge surplus) made on 7th February 1994.

 

(e)       £1,287.39        being the amount at 2 (c) above less the amount at 2 (d) above, all divided by the amount at 1 above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 33 (1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax  (Band D) for the year

 

(f) Valuation bands

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
858.26	1,001.30	1,144.34	1,287.39	1,573.48	1,859.56	2,145.65	2,574.78

 

being the amounts given by multiplying the amount at 2 (e) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5 (1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36 (1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands

 

(6)               That it be noted that for the year (2009-2010) the major precepting authority has stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:-

 

Precepting Authority	Valuation Bands
	A	B	C		D		E		F		G		H
GLA	206.55	240.97	275.40		309.82		378.67		447.52		516.37		619.64

 

 

(7)               That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 2 (f) and 3 above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30 (2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the following amounts of council tax for the year (2009-2010) for each of the categories of dwelling shown below:-

 

            Valuation Bands

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
1,064.81	1,242.27	1,419.74	1,597.21	1,952.15	2,307.08	2,662.02	3,194.42

 

 

(8)               That the Director of Finance and Corporate Services be authorised to institute legal proceedings where necessary for the collection of the aforesaid Council Tax and Non Domestic Rates.

It was moved by Councillor Lourie, seconded by Councillor Knight and agreed:

 

That Council Procedure Rule 9 be suspended to enable the Council meeting to continue to 11 pm. Unless all business had been completed before then.

(a)        Mr Sergei Bezkorvany has given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

 

"Why were we not consulted about proposed parking bays that were painted for this so called "car club"?"

(a)  In accordance with notice given, Mr Sergei Bezkorvany asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

 

“Why were we not consulted about proposed parking bays that were painted for this so called “car club”?”

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

“The proposed car club bays are being implemented under an Experimental Traffic Order which allows for six months extended consultation.  This enables both residents and operators to make an objective assessment of the bay performance before a decision is taken whether or not to make the bays permanent.

 

Experience from elsewhere in London supports this approach.  Sutton, Wandsworth and Greenwich have all used Experimental Traffic Orders to install bays.  Westminster Council is currently tendering for car club operators and they too are following the Experimental Traffic Order routes.”

 

Mr Bezkorvany asked a supplementary question as to why residents were not sent letters, the usual procedure by the Council to publicise such proposals.  Councillor Trigg stated that the standard procedure, also used in other boroughs in implementing these bays, was to place signage on the nearest lamp stands.  Ward Councillors were also made aware.  Some seventy bays were being introduced in the Borough and representations were being received, thus demonstrating that the consultation process followed was in order.  

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 Munira Wilson asked the Cabinet Member for Communities:

 

“Will the Cabinet Member for Communities comment on the crime figures in the borough since 2006?”

 

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

 

“The crime figures in the Borough since 2006 have dropped by approximately a third and several serious offences have dropped by as much as half and this is of course primarily to the credit of the police, but it is also to the credit of the Council for what we have been doing on Community Safety Partnership and in other ways.”

 

Councillor Munira Wilson asked a supplementary question concerning what actions were being taken to combat anti-social behaviour in West Twickenham ward, particularly on the Glebe Gardens Estate.  Councillor Williams replied that every Ward had a Safer Neighbourhood Team and a Police Liaison Group.  He understood that better lighting was being installed at Glebe Gardens directly as a result of the concerns about anti-social behaviour.

 

Councillor Bennett asked a supplementary question concerning offences against the person and drunkenness in Richmond town centre, which amounted to 18% of crimes in the Borough.  Councillor Williams replied that South Richmond had the difficult problem of the night time economy in Richmond town centre.  The reduction in crime also applied to Richmond town centre.  The Council was providing two extra Police Community Support Officers out of the Council budget to help the Safer Neighbourhood Team.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question concerning what action the Council had taken to reduce the crime figures since 2006.  Councillor Williams replied that one of the most significant measures was the increased expenditure on the Youth Service up to the London average.  There had been long overdue improvements to the Youth Clubs, a major increase in holiday engagement facilities which had made a marked reduction in the level of crime normally associated with youth.

 

(b)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Jones asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

“Can the Leader of the Council please inform me as to what steps are being taken by the Council to improve the outlook for businesses in the Borough?”

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“A ‘How to do Business with the Council’ event was held in September.  In December, the Council agreed to pay invoices promptly, advertise procurement opportunities, encourage take-up of rate relief, promote the ‘Go Green’ business accreditation scheme and the town centre opportunities fund.  The council, with the LSP, is running a breakfast seminar, three seminars specifically for business managers and a further event for individuals in business.  Work continues on developing a strategy to support enterprises in the period 2009-2012.  Councillor Acton has been appointed Business Champion and he and I will look carefully at any practical suggestions from Councillors.”

 

Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question concerning the effect of the “credit crunch” on local businesses and residents and whether regular reports could be provided to Cabinet on what the Council was doing to improve the situation locally.  Councillor Lourie replied that Officers had been asked to provide a report to the April Cabinet meeting building on the decisions already taken.  Reports would also be placed before the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) Executive and the main LSP Committee.  The LSP also had a sub-group working on this issue under the Chairmanship of Christina Conroy.

 

Councillor Fleming asked a supplementary question as to whether communication of the events was satisfactory, given the disappointing attendance at last month’s seminars and how future initiatives to business would be marketed.  Councillor Lourie replied that attendance at the business breakfast was excellent and reiterated his invitation to Councillors to make practical suggestions about how to improve relationships with business. 

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question on what courses of action had been discussed.  Councillor Lourie replied that a 5 -10 year strategy, which would extend beyond the credit crunch was being considered.  Possible experimental parking arrangements would be reviewed and initiatives elsewhere examined.  Communications would also be reviewed.  The Council would also be working with businesses, partly through the Town Centre Managers, to ensure that businesses themselves worked to raise their potential.

 

(c)  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 comment on the use of CCTV for traffic control and parking and its effects in the borough?”

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms;

 

“Currently the Council uses CCTV for parking enforcement purposes only, namely in bus lanes, static camera at St Margaret’s and by deploying two Smart Cars fitted with mobile equipment.  CCTV is installed to cover a number of bus lanes in the Borough where congestion is particularly bad.  Their presence has resulted in an improvement of turnover of parking in the region of 30%. 

 

St Margaret’s CCTV is also used to ensure that the loading bay and bus stops areas are being correctly used.  Similarly, an improvement of turnover of parking in the area has been of around 30%.”

 

Councillor Stanier asked a supplementary question concerning areas in the borough where CCTV had been particularly effective.  Councillor Trigg replied that CCTV had been particularly effective in the areas of school safety zones.

 

Councillor Head asked a supplementary question as to whether it could be ensured that the present use of CCTV would not deter shoppers from using local shops.  Councillor Trigg replied that one of the benefits of parking enforcement in general, and CCTV in particular, was that it improved turnover in parking areas around larger and smaller shopping areas, thus improving customer turnover in the shops.

 

Councillor Sheehan asked a supplementary question concerning the revenue implications of CCTV.  Councillor Trigg replied that, in general any revenue received was ploughed back into transport related activities such as funding for the Freedom Pass.

 

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

 

“Will the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health, and Housing make a statement on the Government’s “ Valuing People Now “ strategy to improve outcomes for people with learning disabilities?“

 

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

 

“The new three year banding in our strategy was issued in January and it reiterates the vision that all adults with a learning disability should have the right to lead their lives like anyone else does.  A renewed emphasis is placed on ‘making things happen’, and in particular that every locality has:

·                     an effective Partnership Board

·                     a multi-agency employment strategy for people with learning difficulties

·                     effective plans to remove the barriers that prevent people with learning disabilities participating in leisure and social activities

·                     effective plans to promote personal budgets and direct payments and arrangements to improve access to transport, housing and health care.

 

The Borough’s Learning Disability Partnership is overseeing the local implementation of “Valuing People Now” and our action plan for 2009-10 and beyond will address all these areas.

 

Councillor Morgan asked a supplementary question on whether additional funding was available.  Councillor Carr replied that the vision of providing a better range of services and improved life choices was shared by PLD (People with Learning Disabilities), their families and voluntary organisations who represent them.  However there was heartfelt concern that Councillors would struggle to deliver them within the current financial resources.  Research by provider organisations estimated that it would cost £1 billion to deliver the aspirations in “Valuing People Now”. 

 

Councillor Urquhart asked a supplementary question concerning plans for ensuring that people with learning disabilities who might be isolated in their homes had access to available services.  Councillor Carr agreed that there was a risk of isolation, but the traditional model of day centres had actually excluded people with learning disabilities from the main stream and had segregated them.  This was contrary to their wishes and was not how young people coming through transition from children’s services wanted to see their lives.  Support mechanisms and service plans that would deliver the individual aspirations of people with learning disabilities were in place. The Council was also committed to personal budgets.

 

Councillor Stratton asked a supplementary question concerning work with partner agencies to provide personalised services and support for people on the autistic spectrum.  Councillor Carr replied that the emphasis in “Valuing People Now” on the needs of people on the autistic spectrum and indeed other marginalised groups with complex needs was encouraging.  She hoped that the appointment of Elaine Hill as the Department of Health adviser would see the development of a national strategy for autistic spectrum disorder by the government.  Once again there was no additional funding available, however in Richmond the project group would look at how the resources that were currently devoted to care and management of people with learning disabilities and support for people with mental health problems could be reinvested more efficiently for better tailored support for people on the autistic spectrum, their families and carers. 

 

(e)  In accordance with notice given Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

“Could the Cabinet Member make a statement on the Thames Tideway Tunnel?”

 

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

 

“Thames Water started to progress the Thames Tideway tunnel now known as the Thames Tunnel to improve the quality of water to meet the European Water Quality Directive.  They have a broad concept for the scheme approved by the Secretary of State to deal with the 34 most polluting stop overflows from up and down streams affecting sewage treatment works. This is a very major construction project with significant environmental benefits including to this borough but one challenge for Thames Water is finding 5 or 6 potential construction sites close to the Thames.” 

 

Councillor Elloy asked a supplementary question concerning the negative position on this matter adopted by Conservative-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham.  Councillor Elengorn replied that a negative position was unfortunate.  In contrast Richmond was joining Thames Water’s Tunnel Forum to make positive input into this process.

 

Councillor Arbour asked a supplementary question as to whether Richmond could offer an alternative site to the one proposed for Hammersmith and Fulham.  Councillor Elengorn replied that the required site was likely to be on the northern side of the river.

 

(f)  In accordance with notice given Councillor Miller asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

“Could the Cabinet Member make a statement on the percentage of planning appeals allowed so far in 2008/9 compared with the previous two years?”

 

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

 

“The proportion of appeals allowed in the first three quarters of 2008/09 of 35% is comparable with the national average.  It compares with 36% of appeals allowed for 2007/08 and 42% of appeals allowed for 2006/07.”

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question concerning the reasons for these results.  Councillor Elengorn replied that he gave credit to the huge efforts of officers in defending the committee’s decisions.

 

Councillor Morris asked a supplementary question regarding potential high rise and high density developments when the recent declaration on low density, low rise developments could have been implemented.  Councillor Elengorn replied that the Planning Inspector supported the Council’s efforts into putting highly restrictive policies on high buildings which could be sustained with evidence.  She also went out of her way to say that the Council’s policies regarding affordable housing provision were very sensible and reasonable.

 

Councillor Mumford asked a supplementary question as to whether the chances of reducing risks of lost appeals would increase under the Local Development Framework.  Councillor Elengorn replied that the policies had been carefully worked out.  There was a sounder foundation than before in the core strategies. 

 

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

 

“Can the Cabinet Member tell me the amount the Council received from LABGI for 2007/8 and how this was used to assist small businesses?”

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“The Council received a payment of £366,000 from the government’s Local Authorities Business Growth Initiatives scheme in 2007/08.  The Council has established an economic development fund of £600,000 using this receipt to target to spend over a number of years on town centre management and green business supplies.  In addition to this, the Council also spends from various other budgets to directly or indirectly support businesses in the borough.“

 

Councillor Fleming asked a supplementary question on whether it could be guaranteed that the funding received was being invested in businesses.  Councillor Knight replied that no decision had been made on the allocation of the funds as it had only been received that day, but the Administration would continue to give extremely high priority to supporting local businesses.

 

Councillor Michael Wilson asked a supplementary question concerning the Twickenham Town Centre Manager.  Councillor Knight replied that commitment to town centres was key for the Council and demonstrated by the retention of the Twickenham Town Centre Manager.

 

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

 

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing, how many care firms were identified by the Council as having employed illegal immigrants in 2007-08? “

 

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

 

[There was one homecare provider in 2007–08 that was found to be employing illegal immigrants and this was confirmed by the Home Office in February 2008.]

 

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

 

“Could the Cabinet Member for the Environment make a statement on the Capital Standards award for improving the local environment?”

 

[I am pleased to inform Council that our Street Scene Services have won an award from Capital Standards for improving local Environmental Quality. The award covered a range of areas including, street cleaning and improvements, use of good practice, graffiti removal, partnerships, internal and external, innovations, engagement in the Capital Standards programme, potential and willingness to improve.

 

Richmond won third place in London.]  

 

(j)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Cardy asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and partnerships:

 

“Will the Leader comment on the proposal by the Mayor of London for a massive new airport on reclaimed land in the Thames Estuary?”

 

[This Council and 2M consider that there is no proven need to increase airport capacity in the South East.  Heathrow handles 480,000 flights per annum which meet the needs of the economy in the London and the South East. 

 

A wholesale transfer, as suggested by the Mayor, would devastate the West London economy, would add to carbon emissions and makes little or no environmental sense with rising sea levels.  No thought seems to have been given to the potentially disastrous effects on wildlife and the danger of air strikes which caused previous proposal to be abandoned.] 

 

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

 

“Will the Cabinet Member explain what monitoring has taken place of People with Learning Disabilities since they were dispersed to various venues across the borough? What care and training have they received and why has attendance drastically dropped?"

 

[People with learning disabilities continue to be supported through Care Management and specialist healthcare staff as appropriate. People have not been dispersed, but rather continue to access a range of community based venues in order to take part in activities including, swimming, sports, makaton, dance, music, art and IT. They are supported in these activities and receive personal care (if required) by the Community Support Service (CSS).

 

Our residential providers are taking full responsibility for the care of their residents which has reduced the number of people supported by our CSS staff. These staff are now able to focus on the needs of individuals living with family carers and those living independently who will as a consequence receive a more responsive, flexible and individualised service.]

None.

 

None.

(a)        Capital Budget 2009/10 to 2013/14 (19 January 2009)

 

Report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources attached

 

(b)       Treasury Management and Investment Strategy and Treasury Management Policy 2009/10 (23 February 2009)

 

Report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources attached

 

(c)        Directorate Name Change (23 February 2009)

 

Report of the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education and the Cabinet Member for Youth, Culture and Leisure attached

1.  Capital Budget 2009/10 to 2013/14.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)              That the capital budget for 2009/10 be approved.

(2)              That the Prudential Indicators as set out in Appendix C to the report be approved.

 

2.  Treasury Management and Investment Strategy and Treasury Management Policy 2009/2010.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)               That the Treasury Management and Investment Strategy for 2009/10 as set out in Appendix A to the report be approved.

(2)               That the Treasury Management Policy as set out in Appendix B be approved.

 

3.  Directorate Name Change

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)               That the Constitution be updated to reflect the directorate name change (Children’s Services and Culture) as recommended by Cabinet.

None.

None.

None

None.

Report of the Head of Paid Service attached

RESOLVED:

 

The draft Calendar of Meetings May 2009 – May 2010, attached at Appendix A, be noted.

None.

None.

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

The Mayor welcomed her guests, the Mayor of Richmond, Yorkshire, Mrs Judith Steggles, who was accompanied by her husband, to the meeting.

 

The Mayor reminded Members that the HOLI event, announced at the last meeting, would be taking place on 14 March 2009.

 

The Mayor announced that the Council had been named in third place in the London-wide Capital Standards and had received an award (made from recycled glass) for improving the quality of the local environment (street cleaning, graffiti removal etc.).

(a)        Councillor Seymour has given notice to move the following motion:

 

"That this Council requests the Leader of the Council, in the interests of community involvement and effective consultation, to invite those community groups who have submitted alternative proposals for the development of Twickenham Riverside to display their proposals, if they wish to do so, within the precincts of the planned exhibition of the administration-backed proposals; and to enable the public who attend the exhibition to express an opinion on the community alternatives in the same way as they can on the administration proposals."

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Seymour moved, seconded by Councillor Samuel,

 

"That this Council requests the Leader of the Council, in the interests of community involvement and effective consultation, to invite those community groups who have submitted alternative proposals for the development of Twickenham Riverside to display their proposals, if they wish to do so, within the precincts of the planned exhibition of the administration-backed proposals; and to enable the public who attend the exhibition to express an opinion on the community alternatives in the same way as they can on the administration proposals."

 

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

 

Delete

 

“to invite those community groups who have submitted alternative proposals for the development of Twickenham Riverside to display their proposals, if they wish to do so, within the precincts of”

 

And insert:

 

“to ensure that as many people as possible attend”

 

Delete “administration-backed” and insert “fully costed”

 

After “proposals”, insert:

 

“that comply with the development brief and the adopted UDP proposal T1 for the redevelopment of Twickenham Riverside, derelict since 1981, so that they can”

 

Delete “and to enable the public who attend the exhibition to” and “community alternatives in the same way as they can on the administration”

 

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

 

Therefore the amendment was declared to be CARRIED.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

That this Council requests the Leader of the Council, in the interests of community involvement and effective consultation, to ensure that as many people as possible attend the planned exhibition of the fully costed proposals that comply with the development brief and the adopted 2005 UDP proposal T1 for the redevelopment of Twickenham Riverside, derelict since 1981, so that they can express an opinion on the proposals.