Agenda and minutes

The Mayor reported that Maureen Woodriff, former Councillor (1983-2002) and Mayor (1997/98) had died on 2 July.  The funeral had been held on 13 July and there would be a memorial service on 24^th September.  The Mayor extended the Council’s deepest sympathies to her husband Bryan and three children.

 

Councillor Williams (on behalf of the Administration) and Councillor True (on behalf of the Opposition) paid tribute to Maureen Woodriff, who had been a quiet but effective presence on the Council and had made a lasting contribution to the Borough.

 

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 Tuesday 12 June 2007 Attached.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 June 2007 were taken as read and were approved as a correct record.

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

Councillor Seymour declared a Personal interest in Agenda item 6 as a member of a number of community organisations.

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

The following petition was presented and, in accordance with the Constitution, referred to the relevant Cabinet Member (indicated) for a response.

 

Councillor Parsons – Traffic Calming Measures for Hampton Wick High Street (Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking).

(a)        Mr Omar Madha has given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

            “Can Palewell Common please have its gym / exercise station back?”

 

 

(a)        Mr Omar Madha had given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

“Can Palewell Common please have its gym/exercise station back?”

 

In the absence from the meeting of the questioner a written reply would be given.

 

[“The FitPoint is being tried out in the Borough's parks and open spaces on a rotating basis and as part of this process was situated in Palewell Common for a 6 week period.  Comments on each trial will be assessed and if the FitPoint has been successful, the Parks and Open Spaces Department will aim to work with a local group of park users towards establishing a permanent unit.  This process will consist of supported fundraising, purchase and installation, including a contribution from the Parks Improvement budget.

 

If Mr Madha is interested in working towards a permanent unit for Palewell Common he should contact Gaye Galvin on 020 8891 7496.”]

To receive questions from Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.2, of which due notice has been given.

 

Attached.

(a)            Councillor Head had given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education:

 

“I understand that Clarendon is to have a bulge class. Why does a special school require a bulge class?”

 

In the absence from the meeting of the questioner a written reply would be given.

 

[“Clarendon does not have a bulge class in the way that the term is applied to our mainstream schools.  This year one of its year groups was split into two.  Special schools do not have prescribed numbers within each year group, but they do have an overall capacity number on roll.  Clarendon has the capacity for 100 pupils and in 2005/06 it operated at a number between 87 and 92.  In general, it is expected that all schools will operate either 10% above or below numbers, with no effect on their funding formula within the same year.  Council Officers have met with the Head Teacher of Clarendon regarding their request for additional places.  During this academic year (2006/07), five extra pupils were placed in one year group, meaning the year group needed to be split into two.  It was agreed that the Local Authority would provide £10,000 of additional funding for an additional LSA.  There are currently 101 pupils on roll.”]

 

(b)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Samuel asked the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education:

 

            “What are your plans for Primary School places in 2008?”

 

            Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

 

“The Director of Education and Children’s Services and I have had a meeting with the two MPs and the matter has been raised at the Department for Children, Schools and Families and also with the Schools’ Commissioner. We have requested an urgent meeting with the Ministers to seek funding for permanent expansion of the Stanley schools and other schools within the Borough.  This is because the Department for Children, Schools and Families have not had a bidding round for new primary school places since May 2005 and they have not announced if and when they will have any further rounds.  The issue has been raised with the Heads Forum and a number of governing bodies have already had discussions on the subject.  A letter has been sent to all Headteachers of infant, junior and primary schools inviting them to a meeting in the second week of September to consider which schools may have to be expanded to provide additional temporary classes to accommodate any surplus demand in 2008 and, if I may just add one little piece of extra information to put this into context, as of yesterday we had received a total of 2306 applications for reception class registrations compared with this time last year; that was an increase of 22%.”

 

Councillor Samuel asked a supplementary question seeking an assurance from the Cabinet Member, in view of OFSTED’s criticism of the last Liberal Council’s use of bulge classes, that there would be no bulge classes in 2008 unless it was as the first stage of a permanent expansion.  Councillor Eady replied that he could not give that assurance because he did not know where the funding would come from for permanent expansion.

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question as to the Cabinet Member’s plans for areas such as Hampton Wick and Teddington where there was already an identified need for more primary school places. Councillor Eady reiterated that he would be having a meeting with the various Headteachers in September to discuss this, following previous informal discussions.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question regarding reception class places for September.  Councillor Eady replied that in March, when the places had been allocated, there were 136 children in the Borough who had not been allocated places; 89 on the Middlesex side and 47 on the Richmond side.  By very careful and skilful management of the process this number had been reduced to just eleven unplaced children and most of those were at the top of the schools’ waiting lists.  He stated that he was confident that all those children would have places by the start of the school year.  To achieve this extra places had been made available at Orleans, Holy Trinity and other schools and he thanked those schools for their high degree of cooperation in arranging this very difficult process. 

 

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

 

“In view of the £58 million your Deputy has hoarded in Reserves, will you say right now that there will be no Council Tax increase in April 2008?”

 

            In the absence of Councillor Lourie, Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“No I will not give such an assurance right here and now as Cllr Hodgins suggests.  As usual, decisions about Council Tax will be taken in the New Year.  We are, indeed, only three months into the current financial year.  I would remind Councillors that the Council does face underlying cost increases in the medium term of between 6 and 7% per annum and, in that financial scenario, it would be irresponsible, imprudent and unsustainable to freeze Council Tax at the current moment.“

 

Councillor Hodgins asked a supplementary question as to what the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources would say to a local resident who pointed out that, before the last Election, the Liberal Democrats had called on the previous Administration to freeze Council Tax because of the excessive level of reserves.  Since elected this Administration had not only increased Council Tax by the maximum allowable amount but had also increased those reserves and were now refusing to make that same pledge which it had called on the previous Administration to make.  Councillor Knight replied that the Administration stood entirely by what it had said at the time.  It had not called upon the Council to freeze Council Tax as has been suggested.  The leaflet concerned was talking about the previous year when Council Tax was frozen which the Liberal Democrats had supported.  He stated that the underlying position was that the previous Administration increased Council Tax in their first year by 15.6% when inflation, as measured by Retail Price Index, was 2.9%.  This year’s increase was just 0.1% above the inflation rate as measured by RPI and he reminded Councillors that RPI was the index by which the pension was increased each year.  It was this Administration’s intention both to keep Council Tax rises to the minimum sustainable to support services and to invest surplus reserves because it acknowledged that there were surplus reserves.  It was intended to invest those surplus reserves in service improvements such as Teddington School and Whitton School and other vital public service improvements

 

Councillor True asked a supplementary question in which he referred to a leaflet featuring Councillors Stanier and Davies, which had stated  “Lib Dems call for Council Tax freeze in view of £54 million unused cash mountain.”  He asked the Deputy Leader why, in view of the increased level of reserves, he would not give that pledge.  He also asked whether Councillors Stanier and Davies had asked him for the same Council Tax freeze that they had asked for from the previous Administration. Councillor Knight replied that the leaflet related to 2005/06 when there was a Council Tax freeze supported by the Liberal Democrat Group.  He stated that, as costs for the Council were rising, it would be unsustainable to have further Council Tax freezes at this moment. However, this Administration, unlike the previous one, was planning to invest surplus reserves in improved services.

 

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

 

“Are you aware that 80 year old people who are acting as carers for their equally elderly relatives are on the waiting list for respite care and will you insist that these elderly carers are prioritised for finance towards immediate respite?”

 

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

 

“I am advised that the Council has no respite waiting list and that there is no evidence of any waiting list for respite care services.  If a particular person in need of respite care is previously not known to the Council an assessment is made, usually within three weeks.  When there is a clear risk of carer breakdown, it will be prioritised as Priority 1 and assessed very quickly.  Emergency respite is agreed by a Principal Manager immediately in most cases, depending on the specific circumstances.  Most requests for respite relate to known people and come through the duty system.  However if Councillor Parsons is aware of a particular case, then I can only suggest that she contacts the Director of Social Services about it immediately.”

 

Councillor Parsons asked a supplementary question, asserting that there were more than 100 people on the respite waiting list and asking the Cabinet Member why, given the accumulated level of reserves, she had not used her influence to secure resources for at least 2-3 hours of weekly respite care or was it that she was being ignored again by her colleagues. Councillor Carr replied that, if she thought for one moment that the Council was failing the needs of the vulnerable and of carers in the Borough she would be insisting that additional resources be put into the carers’ budget.  However, she had been advised by officers that there was no waiting list for respite.  If any Councillor had firm case specific information to the contrary, she urged them to notify the Director forthwith. 

 

Councillor Davies asked a supplementary question regarding the provision of emergency support to carers.  Councillor Carr replied that concerns had been raised with her last year about providing support to carers in an emergency. As a result a carers’ emergency card scheme had been put in place, whereby carers could carry a card, with an emergency number and know that, in the event of illness or accident, they could contact Careline and be provided immediately with a minimum of 24 hours care.  She stated that this was particularly valuable to carers because they had the reassurance and guarantee that they could rely on a service being available in the event of unforeseen circumstances.

 

Councillor Bouchier asked a supplementary question asking why the Cabinet Member had imposed new costs on elderly residents instead of focusing on their well-being. Councillor Carr replied that the Council had put in place an extremely generous and appropriate financial needs assessment system for home care charges.  Home care services were heavily subsidised in the Borough and that subsidy was particularly weighted towards those receiving higher levels of respite care of ten hours or more, because they had the greatest need.  She reiterated that if anybody had evidence of a particular person, who they felt was not getting the service that they needed or was being subjected to a charge which they could not afford, then they must bring the evidence forward.  The Administration had specifically delegated authority to the Director of Social Services to deal with any cases of hardship around charges and, as yet, no such cases had been brought forward.  Councillor Carr stated that she understood that vulnerable people and their families might be reluctant to go through procedures around financial assessment and charging for a whole range of reasons.  However, there were a number of voluntary organisations such as Age Concern who could help carers and users deal with the financial assessment procedures and ensure that they were getting all the benefits to which they were entitled.  She pledged that if cases were brought forward, they would be addressed positively.

 

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

 

“What criteria would the Cabinet Member use to allow car free developments?”

 

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

 

“Decisions on planning applications are made not by the Cabinet Member but either under delegated powers by officers or by the Planning Committee, of which Councillor Morris is a distinguished, if occasionally wayward, member.  A major consideration in any decision will be whether the proposal is consistent with policies contained in the adopted development plan; at present the 2005 Unitary Development Plan, First Review.  In determining whether a car free development is appropriate, criteria to be considered would include:

 

1.      Whether the site is within a town centre with a wide range of facilities within walking distance and public transport for journeys further away;

2.      Whether the site is within a CPZ and there can be agreement that residents of the new development will not be eligible for on-street parking permits; or

3.      Where car parking on-site would be impracticable or otherwise unacceptable through impact on visual or neighbour amenity or utilisation of the site.”

 

Councillor Morris asked a supplementary question, seeking confirmation from the Cabinet Member that car free developments could only be practical in CPZs as they were the only places where this could be controlled.  Councillor Elengorn replied that there might be situations in town centres or where car parking was impracticable where car free developments might also be appropriate.

 

Councillor Dodds asked a supplementary question asking whether the Cabinet Member agreed that many Borough residents neither had nor wanted a car and would want to live somewhere where they could maintain a sustainable lifestyle using more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Councillor Elengorn agreed, adding that it was a mystery to him why the Opposition seemed not to be favourable to the idea of some residents making less demands on their environment by their transport choices. He stated that it seemed sensible to accommodate such people in appropriate parts of the Borough, thus making more efficient use of land, enhancing sustainability and decreasing the impact on climate change.

 

(f)         In accordance with notice given, Councillor Howard asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Health and Housing:

 

“In light of the increase in reserves from £54 million to £58 million, will you now insist that the increase in Day Centre charges from £5.00 to £15.00 which formed part of Councillor Knight’s 2007 budget and which is due to come into effect in January 2008 is reversed so that the charges remain at the current level for the duration of this Council?”

 

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

 

“Our current financial assessment policy exempts the vast majority of people from making any contribution at all and we ignore disability related benefits when determining the contribution to be made by the remaining number.  We intend to retain this policy. We will also continue to provide a significant subsidy to the intensive day care service for those who have been assessed as able to pay the full costs of their care.  I notice the word “intensive” was missing from the question, probably deliberately, but there is a big difference between an intensive day care centre and a social day care centre as I am sure the questioner knows.  Moreover, Richmond Council is a national pilot for Self Directed Support.  Over the next year service users will be transferred to a new system of allocating care, using a needs based formula that allocates individual budgets to people and allows discretion on how these should be spent.  Under Self Directed Support, service users will be financially assessed to determine their personal contribution to their budget.  People using day centres will pay the charge from their individual budget, so it is their personal contribution to that budget that is of most significance.”

 

Councillor Howard asked a supplementary question as to when, given the record level of reserves, the Cabinet Member would take responsibility for her portfolio by securing increased financial support as other Cabinet Members had done. She also stated that a £1million fund was required to protect elderly people from the Administration’s cuts.  Councillor Carr replied that the Administration had a plan to use the surplus reserves, which had been spelt out quite clearly. The priorities were secondary school education, youth services, crime and anti-social behaviour and the Borough’s five areas of relative deprivation. Those and the Administration’s environmental objectives would be the leading recipients of those additional resources at the moment.  If Councillor Howard took the trouble to look at the budget within the Cabinet Member’s portfolio, she would see that, as well as savings targets (particularly to do with the Learning disability service), there were items of growth, particularly around independent care; the home care and the services to keep people and their carers as independent as possible in their own homes for as long as possible. Self Directed Support, referred to in her previous answer, was specifically designed to give the people who needed those resources and those services the power to determine how the money was used and how the services were provided.  If Councillor Howard had evidence of vulnerable older people, carers, people with learning disabilities or people with mental health problems who were being failed by the Adult Social Services and Housing Directorate then she should bring it to the Cabinet Member’s attention.

 

Councillor Mumford asked a supplementary question requesting that the Cabinet Member tell the Council the level of savings elderly people would need to have before they could be charged for these services.  He also asked her to confirm that, as a result of the recommendations of the Social Services Charging Task Group a few years ago, these were some of the highest levels of savings in the country which the last Conservative Administration had introduced reluctantly in order to justify a massive rise in the cost of home care.  Councillor Carr replied that the Council had the highest level of savings in the country on any finance assessment before the full charging mechanism was applied.  Even the full charging mechanism for the intensive day care centres was heavily subsidised. These actually cost the Council £80 per day to provide as opposed to a charge of £15 a day for the first and second day; £10 for the third day, capped at £40 for the week and for people with home care needs above a certain number of hours.  The result of this was that the majority of the people who came to the Council for home care did not pay any charges at all.  This demonstrated that the Administration was meeting the needs of the most vulnerable in the community very well and very comprehensively and, for those who had the resources to make their own arrangements, there were plenty of providers in the Borough able to service their needs. 

 

Councillor Percival asked a supplementary question as to why, given the high levels of elderly residents in the Borough, the Cabinet Member did not mention targeting any expenditure of reserves in this area.  Councillor Carr replied that although the Borough had one of the highest, if not the highest, numbers of over 85 year olds in London, as well as relatively high numbers of people aged 60-75, they were not necessarily in need of Council services.  The demographics of the Borough also included the highest level of income, the lowest levels of poverty, the lowest levels of unemployment and the lowest levels of health problems.  The Administration’s objective was to improve the health and well-being of all Borough resident, not just the most vulnerable.  Councillor Carr stated that the quality of life of local residents, including older residents, did not just depend on what they got from Social Services.  It also depended on the environment, community safety and other objectives, including support for youth services, where the Council was targeting its resources.

 

(g)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Nicholson asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Health and Housing:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member tell me how many people who are threatened with being made homeless, or who are homeless, the Council has actually helped find somewhere to stay in the last three months (both vulnerable and non vulnerable persons)?”

 

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

 

“During the period April-June 2007 the Council has:

 

·         Found 29 homes for 29 households in the private sector via the Rent Deposit Scheme;

·         Accepted 22 cases as homeless with a duty to provide accommodation;

·         Prevented homelessness by giving advice in a further 7 cases; and

·         Made 77 offers of permanent accommodation to homeless households.

 

This makes a total of 135 households.  Local charity, SPEAR, will also have helped some people independently of the Council, but we do not have reliable statistics of the numbers that SPEAR have done yet.”    

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member thought that Councillor Nicholson would be better off advising any residents who contacted her to seek advice from the Council Housing officers, or whether she should give them her own publication entitled “How to Live Rough in Richmond upon Thames”. Councillor Carr replied that she would advise all Councillors that there was a very helpful booklet, freely available in the Civic Centre, libraries and various other places entitled “Housing Advice”.  She stated that there was a dire shortage of affordable housing in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, as was graphically illustrated by the latest Fordham survey.  There was a dire shortage of sites on which to develop more affordable housing, many local residents did not want to see the density of housing increase and there was a need to provide more affordable housing.  A key element of the Council’s strategy was to stop people becoming homeless in the first place.  That meant supporting them to maintain their existing tenancies if they were under threat and, if those tenancies could not be sustained, to help them to find another private tenancy within the Borough.  One of the ways was through the Housing Advice team, and Councillor Carr encouraged Councillors to make that information available to their residents who came to them with queries.  She also encouraged Councillors who had specific cases which they did not feel were being satisfactorily addressed by officers to inform the Director of Social Services, who would ensure that a response was expedited.

 

Councillor Dodds asked a supplementary question requesting that the Cabinet Member comment on the success of the rent deposit scheme in helping prevent households from becoming homeless.  Councillor Carr replied that great strides had been made in the effective use of the rent deposit scheme, which was one of the main tools in preventing more households becoming homeless. In 2005/06, 31 households had been helped by the rent deposit scheme; in 2006/07, 113.

 

(h)            Councillor Hassam had given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

 

“When do you expect the pedestrian crossing outside the Amida health club on Staines Road to be installed?”

 

The time allowed for Member’s Questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given.

 

[“Progress on the scheme has not been as smooth as I, and I know yourself, would have hoped.  While efforts were made to construct the crossing in June, there has been a need to ‘make up’ the short fall in funding between the amount received under the section 106 agreement and the actual cost of the work.  I am told that this gap has now been closed by linking the works to the adjacent local safety scheme.  Traffic signals have to be installed by Transport for London and a new ‘slot’ has been obtained from them for October and I, along with many others look forward to seeing the crossing installed and the improvement it will bring.”]

 

(i)            Councillor Arbour had given notice to ask the Leader and Cabinet Member for Startegy and Partnerships:

 

“Will you follow the Prime Minister's example and fly the Union Flag at York House every day, except St.George's Day and when England are at home at Twickenham, when England's national flag is to be flown?”

 

The time allowed for Member’s Questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given.

 

[“I cannot speak for the Prime Minister.  London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Council will continue with its present practice of flying the Union Flag on the 21 dates recommended by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The 21 dates include St George’s Day, when the Council will also fly the St George’s flag.  In addition, the Council will fly the Council Flag on the day that Full Council meets.”]

 

(j)            Councillor Seymour had given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education:

 

“Having been given delegated authority to decide how the £1million Schools Improvement Fund was to be spent, will you remind the Council of the details of how you have decided to spend the money?

 

The time allowed for Member’s Questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given.

 

[“Full details of how the £1m School Development Fund is to be spent is contained in an addendum report taken to Cabinet on 9 July 2007.  The agenda item number is 13 and the report title is 'Additional funding for school standards'.  In the addendum report reference is made to Personalisation.  By this we mean tailored support to meet children's particular needs and interests.  It is important at every key stage. We have identified three main priorities for this expenditure:

·                     to support intervention and catch-up provision for children who have fallen behind in English and Maths;

·                     to support the education of gifted and talented learners; and

·                     to help learners from deprived backgrounds to access after school and year-round activities.”]

 

(k)            Councillor Sheehan had given notice to ask the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

“Could you outline efforts made to date by local groups and individuals in opposing the closure of the Post Office in Richmond Town Centre?”

 

The time allowed for Member’s Questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given.

 

[“On 5 May 2007 a street protest was organised by Susan Kramer MP, Ward Councillors and local residents, at which local people signed a petition against closure of the post office in question.  This was reported in the Richmond & Twickenham Times on 14 May 2007.  On 7 June 2007 the Richmond & Twickenham Times reported that a local resident, Sarah Bentley, intended to mount a 48 hour vigil outside the post office in order to collect more signatures for the petition.  A public meeting was held on 12 July 2007, which was attended by ward councillors, Susan Kramer, the Post Office and WH Smiths.  Residents present expressed strong opposition to the closure plans.  Last week Susan Kramer handed over the petition, signed by over 1,500 local residents, to the Post Office.”]

(a)        Councillor Seymour has given notice to raise the following Ward concern:

 

Improvements to relationships between the Council and community groups (Hampton North Ward).

(a)            Improvements to Relationships Between the Council and Community Groups (Hampton North Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Seymour raised the issue of the need for a clearer definition of the relationship between the Council and small, organised groups of individuals such as Friends Groups and Residents’ Associations in Hampton North Ward.  Such an improvement would aid understanding and integration.  Representatives of these groups had requested written clarification of the relationship, which set out each party’s powers, influence, authority and responsibilities and what they could expect of the other.  Such clarification would help to maintain continuity when individual representatives stepped down and were succeeded by others, and would reassure groups that they were not receiving preferential treatment.

 

In reply Councillor Williams reported that an updated Compact between the Council and the voluntary sector was about to be issued.  As it was a general document it would not meet the specific requirements of each of the huge range of voluntary organisations in the Borough that had operated for many years but he believed that it would go a long way towards meeting Councillor Seymour’s request.  Councillor Williams suggested that Councillor Seymour and his fellow ward councillors should consider establishing a Hampton North or Hampton Nurserylands Working Together Team, initially with the Primary Care Trust, as had been done successfully in Ham with a Community Development worker, to work with all the organisations in the area, the Council and other public services to address the problems and the challenges which inevitably were multi-disciplinary.  If this were to be established, he would be happy to suggest that Councillor Seymour chair it.  He confirmed his support for enabling voluntary organisations and for community engagement and empowerment.

 

[Councillor Seymour declared a Personal interest in Agenda item 6 as a member of a number of community organisations.]

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

The ICT Strategy be adopted as part of the Policy Framework.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

(1)        The Licensing Protocol be renamed the Licensing and Gambling Acts Protocol.

 

(2)        The revised Members’ Protocol, including the Planning and Development Control Protocol, the Protocol for Members’ Use of Personal Computers Provided by the Council, the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy and the Licensing and Gambling Acts Protocol, be adopted with immediate effect.

 

(3)        The Fourth Annual Report of the Standards Committee be received, and noted.

Attached.

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

 

“Could you state what increase in housing density is planned for each of the areas of Richmond, Twickenham, East Sheen, Whitton and Teddington?”

 

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

 

“Following the town centre hierarchy of the 2005 Unitary Development Plan, the Local Development Framework Preferred Options refer to developing the potential of Richmond Town Centre and the four district centres for retail employment and higher density housing.  There has never been an intention, then or now, to apply this approach to the whole of the five areas of which the town centres form a part.  Higher is a comparative word and is used in the same sense as in the 2005 Unitary Development Plan.  Accordingly there is no intention to specify housing densities for specific sites or the centres as a whole.  The approach will continue to recognise that developments will have to be compatible with the existing character, quality and amenity of their area.  Councillor Marlow might find it helpful if I remind him of the very similar approach in the 2005 Unitary Development Plan which he commended to residents of the Borough only two years ago.  For example, paragraph 8.60 states “the character of the town centres, their accessibility by public transport and the availability of facilities such as shops means that town centres and areas within walking distance of town centres or otherwise well served by public transport may be very sustainable locations for higher density development”.”

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member thought that it would be helpful if more specific information could be given to residents during the consultation period.  Councillor Elengorn replied that the present document was a very broad core priorities document and was not intended to be detailed, although there would come a time later in the process when there would be detailed development control and site allocation policies. The way in which the issues that Councillor Marlow raised had been dealt with in the draft of this document were remarkably similar to the way in which they had been dealt with in the 2005 Unitary Development Plan which was ringingly endorsed by Councillor Marlow in his introduction to that plan.

 

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

 

“Will you consider amending the options to take account of the need for short term parking in local and neighbourhood centres to assist the viability of small shops and businesses?”

 

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

 

“The Local Development Framework Preferred Options recognise that neighbourhood centres and parades have an important function for residents and it is Council policy to continue to manage existing car parking to favour short term parking over long stay parking.  Core Policy 8 refers to managing existing car parking to help maintain the vitality and viability of the centres and Councillor Fleming may feel this meets her point.  However, it is not proposed to increase the overall supply of car parking as, for sustainability reasons, the overall strategy is based on providing shops and services at as local a level as possible to minimise the need to use cars.”

 

Councillor Fleming asked a supplementary question as to what consultation there had been and would be with shops about car parking, as they needed to provide it in order to survive.  Councillor Elengorn replied that there had already been two sets of consultations in arriving at these core priorities; there would be a further consultation process starting in September, which the whole community would be invited to join in and there would be further consultations on the various other documents. However the core priorities document was unlikely to go into detail on car parking policies, which were matters for the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking, who would be producing his own Transport Policy in due course, to replace the ‘Mr Toad’ document of the previous administration.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)        The preferred options for the LDF Core Strategy, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report to Cabinet, be agreed, subject to the further changes set out in the addendum to the report and the sustainability appraisal set out in Appendix 4.

 

(2)            Authority be delegated to the Head of Policy and Design to make any further minor changes, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, prior to consultation in September 2007.

 

[An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Marlow, seconded by Councillor Seymour:

 

Add to the end of Recommendation (2) “This consultation will include every household in the Borough.”

 

Amendment put to the vote and declared to be LOST on a division.

 

(3)        The proposals regarding the Unitary Development Plan, as set out in Appendix A to the report to Cabinet, be agreed.

 

(4)            Authority be delegated to the Head of Policy and Design to make any further minor changes, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, prior to submission to the Government Office for London by 1 September 2007.

 

(5)        The Food Law Enforcement Service Plan 2007-2008 be adopted as part of the Policy Framework.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

The Annual Report for the Overview and Scrutiny function, covering the last twelve months, be noted.

None.

None,

This item has been WITHDRAWN.

This item was withdrawn to enable further cross-party discussions to take place.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

The adjustments to the proposed structure of the proposed Adults Care, Housing and Commissioning Directorate, as set out in the report, be agreed and authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing, to determine the final title of the Directorate and, consequently, the title of the Director.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

The decisions taken as a matter of urgency, as set out in paragraph 3.2 of the report, be noted.

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

On behalf of the Council, the Mayor congratulated all the athletes who took part in the London Youth Games at the end of June, and who secured no fewer than 18 top ten finishes.

 

He reminded Members that the third Community Concert would take place on Friday 27 July, and announced that he would be returning to Richmond, Virginia in September.  He also reported that he would be hosting receptions on 24 and 26 July. 

 

The Council joined the Mayor in congratulating the Leader, Councillor Lourie, and his wife Julia who were celebrating their 40^th wedding anniversary.

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

 

"This Council has no confidence in the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education."

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Percival moved, seconded by Councillor Samuel:

 

“This Council has no confidence in the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education.”

 

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Knight, seconded by Councillor Williams:

 

Delete “has no confidence in” and Insert “notes that under the leadership of”

 

After “Education” Insert “the Council has achieved the following:

 

•            Highest ever achievements at Key Stages 1 and 2;

•            Significant improvements at Key Stage 3 and GCSE – now both in the top quartile nationally;

•            Significantly improved relationships with schools;

•            Massive new investment in the youth service;

•           New school dinners service, after years of a fragile Scolarest contract; and

•            Excellent feedback from the Joint Area Review of Children’s Services“.

 

Amendment put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED, on a division.

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council notes that under the leadership of the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education the Council has achieved the following:

 

•            Highest ever achievements at Key Stages 1 and 2;

•            Significant improvements at Key Stage 3 and GCSE – now both in the top quartile nationally;

•            Significantly improved relationships with schools;

•            Massive new investment in the youth service;

•           New school dinners service, after years of a fragile Scolarest contract; and

•            Excellent feedback from the Joint Area Review of Children’s Services.