Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held 20 May 2008 attached.

The minutes of the Annual Meeting held on 20 May 2008 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 Davies declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5 by virtue of her being a Governor of Shene School.

 

Councillors Elengorn and Mumford declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5 by virtue of their being governors of Teddington School.

 

Councillor Knight declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5 by virtue of his partner being a governor of Teddington School.

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

None.

(a)        Mr Brian Holder has given notice to ask the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

"The Cabinet approved new Controlled Parking Zone consultation procedures on 17^th July 2006, the objective criteria introduced by the previous administration were dropped, and were replaced by more flexible subjective criteria. When you and your Cabinet colleagues approved the new procedures, were you aware that they would give the Cabinet Member for Transport, Traffic and Parking powers almost without limits? If you believed that there were limits to his powers - what are they please?”

 

(b)       Dr Walter Van Stigt has given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

 

“Paragraph 3.12 of the CPZ policy approved by the Cabinet in July 2006 outlines the new rules for the introduction of a CPZ. It talks about level of support in each road, it mentions, but does not define, what is a viable area, and says “There will be no set numeric thresholds as such but a majority will always need to be in favour in a proposed zone.”  Paragraph 3.13 states that “Where there is minimal support a CPZ will not be introduced”. Will you please explain how these rules have been applied in Teddington?”

In accordance with notice given, Mr Brian Holder asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources (in the absence of the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships):

 

"The Cabinet approved new Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) consultation procedures on 17^th July 2006, the objective criteria introduced by the previous administration were dropped, and were replaced by more flexible subjective criteria. When you and your Cabinet colleagues approved the new procedures, were you aware that they would give the Cabinet Member for Transport, Traffic and Parking powers almost without limits? If you believed that there were limits to his powers - what are they please?”

 

Councilor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“In the absence of the Leader, who is away at the moment I am acting in his stead in answering a number of questions this evening.  As the member of the public will be aware, in keeping with the Council’s constitution, I and other Cabinet colleagues, do indeed make decisions without having to return to full Cabinet meetings where those powers are delegated to us and in the case of implementing CPZ decisions, that is certainly the case.  However, I would say that this Council does have very full and thorough consultation arrangements in place, including the Transport Consultative Group, which is not a statutory set of consultations that we have to do.  We aim to ensure that we consult very thoroughly before taking such decisions.”

 

Mr Holder asked a supplementary question requesting that, in view of a lack of political representation, the production of inaccurate information, queries about signs and road markings, and many other serious problems, the Deputy Leader order a review of the CPZ policy with a view to making it more democratic and accountable.  Councillor Knight replied that the proposal for a CPZ in Teddington was being implemented largely in roads which indicated, through the consultation process, that parking controls were needed.  It was not implemented in roads that said parking controls were not wanted.  Councillor Trigg had made a commitment to a thorough post implementation review of the Teddington scheme three months after its introduction so that any issues arising could be considered.    

 

In accordance with notice given, Dr Walter Van Stigt asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

 

“Paragraph 3.12 of the CPZ policy approved by the Cabinet in July 2006 outlines the new rules for the introduction of a CPZ. It talks about level of support in each road, it mentions, but does not define, what is a viable area, and says “There will be no set numeric thresholds as such but a majority will always need to be in favour in a proposed zone.”  Paragraph 3.13 states that “Where there is minimal support a CPZ will not be introduced”. Will you please explain how these rules have been applied in Teddington?”

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

“Our initial consultation in Teddington, which took place in December 2007/January 2008 included 30 roads.  From the results, there was support for inclusion in 10 roads or part of roads.   Following additional representations from a further three roads, these were added to the zone after a consultation indicated support for inclusion.  I think this process clearly demonstrates the application of the Council’s CPZ policy and the inclusion only of those roads where there has been demonstrable majority support from those responding to the consultation.”

 

Dr van Stigtasked a supplementary question concerning the apparently arbitrary choice of the CPZ boundary which divided Park Road in the middle of a continuous row of houses, the process of analysing the vote, and whether the choice of an alternative boundary point would have resulted in a “No” vote for the CPZ.  Councillor Trigg replied that the policy was aimed at making any implementation of the CPZ as fair as possible.  Geography had to be taken into account.  Decisions were made after looking at the statistics.  Therefore cut-offs were made in particularly long roads.  The review process in Teddington would take place in three months time.  As a result could be made which could mean decreasing or increasing the CPZ.  The major object of the policy was flexibility so that the CPZ was available to those who wanted it.

 

The following motion was moved by Councillor True, seconded by Councillor Samuel,

 

            “That CPZ consultation procedures and their application in Teddington be referred to Environment and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.”

 

The Motion was put to the vote and declared to be LOST by 27 votes against to 15 for.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 18.4 a recorded vote was called whereupon Councillors Arbour, Bennett, Bouchier, Evans, Fleming, Head, Howard, Marlow, Mumford, Palmer, Parsons, Percival, Samuel, Seymour and True voted in favour; Councillors Allen, Ball, Cardy, Cole, Coombs, Davies, Dodds, Eady, Elengorn, Elloy, Hodges, Jaeger, Jones, Khosa, King, Knight, Miller, Morgan, Nicholson,  Sheehan, Stratton, Treble, Trigg, Warren, Williams, Michael Wilson and Munira Wilson.

 

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 Head asked the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education:

 

“Would the Cabinet Member for Children's Services and Education kindly name all the potential sponsors for Academies who made presentations to members, with a list of all the members who were invited to the presentations?”

 

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

 

“The potential sponsors who made presentations to the final stages of the brokering process were ARK, Edutrust, Excell3, Kunskapsskolan, Richmond Adult & Community College and Richmond upon Thames College.  This process for the presentations made during the brokering process was spread over a number of months and consisted of a number different of meetings, some more formal than others and some with structured presentations.  During this process some organisations pulled out and another was deemed unsuitable.  I also met the Leader of the Opposition and Councillor Samuel under Privy Council conditions and kept them informed of progress we were making.  They of course gave me feedback on their views. I cannot comment on these meetings, but needless to say that the views they had subsequently expressed had not surprised me.  I also consulted with my Liberal Democrat councillor colleagues, who invited the potential sponsors to a Group meeting so that the group could hear first hand the information I had used as a basis for my recommendations.”

 

Councillor Head asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member considered it undemocratic that Opposition Members of the Education and Scrutiny Committee had not been involved in these presentations?  Councillor Eady  stated that he had first voiced the issue of an academies programme in October 2007, and had subsequently attended meetings of Overview & Scrutiny.  Opposition members could have put a question on the Agenda at any time but failed to do so.

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question suggesting that Cabinet Member had involved Members of his own group in this decision at the expense of Opposition Members and querying whether this was wise as it has now been revealed that negotiations with the Government were proving fraught and this whole matter could fail.  Councillor Eady replied that negotiations were not complete and the Council would not agree if it was at all unhappy with the conditions.  He stated that his role was to improve school standards and to persuade the Government to fund the rebuilding of some of the secondary schools.  Progress could only be made on the clear advice of Officers and with the support of the majority of the Council, which was forthcoming.

 

Councillor Munira Wilson asked a supplementary question regarding any time constraints to make a decision on the first sponsors.  Councillor Eady replied that he had communicated with potential local sponsors and encouraged the colleges to take part.  DCFS told us that if we did not make an announcement by mid March, we would not be considered for the Academy process under the old rules, which were much more generous in the financial conditions than the current rules.  This meant that the time frame between the first meeting for some of the potential sponsors and the decision day was only a few weeks.

 

(b)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Percival asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources (in the absence of the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships):

 

“Does the Leader of the Council agree with the tenor of the remark made by the Chair of the Education and Children Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee who, when challenged on the failure of the majority party either to consult or involve Opposition members in the choice of Academy sponsors, said “I can tell you the majority group was consulted so it would have been carried anyway"?”

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“”he decision on whether to proceed with Academies at HCC, Sheen and Whitton will of course be taken in September by the Cabinet. At present we are going through an “expression of interest (EOI)” stage where the sponsors are developing expressions of interest for the various schools.  Members of the Opposition have been consulted as appropriate and Overview & Scrutiny will consider the matter before the decision is made.  There is of course a matter of fact that the Liberal Democrats have a majority on this Council and were elected to run this Council.”

 

Councillor Percival asked a supplementary question regarding the role of Overview and Scrutiny committees in scrutinising fully and not just acquiescing to Cabinet decisions.  Councillor Knight replied that the Council was operating under very tight and strict timetables laid out by the Government for this funding stream.  The Administration’s priority was to improve secondary schools in this Borough and gain access to a programme which would deliver some £80 million of investment.  Extensive consultation around the EOI stage, which was not a normal requirement of this stage of the process, and a decision would be made in the light of this. 

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question as to how residents could have any faith that, in the future, the Administration would consult with them and listen to them on issues of significance.   Councillor Knight replied that a number of secondary schools in this Borough had very significant issues which needed to be addressed.  The Administration was elected with a mandate to sort out the problems.  As the Administration came to make decisions in September, all those involved including Members of the Opposition would be consulted. 

 

Councillor Mumford asked a supplementary question as to whether the Deputy Leader was surprised by the criticism of Opposition Members following their poor track-record on education matters as an Administration.  Councillor Knight replied that it was a matter of fact that the current Administration had inherited some secondary schools that had very significant need for improvement.  He hoped that all Members of the Council could put political differences apart and focus on improvement of the schools for the benefit of children.

 

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

 

“Could the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources give details of the likely dates of commencement and completion of work on site and the forecast total cost of the Teddington School development?  How does this compare with the original start and completion dates and total cost estimate and what is the reason for delay?”

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“Members will be aware from newsletters and statements at public liaison meetings that our target, until recently, had been to commence works on site at Teddington School in Spring of this year.  This would have allowed us to finish construction of the school in late 2009.  It is obviously regrettable that these target dates have had to move.  There are a number of difficult contractual matters that are being worked through and addressed by the officers, design team and construction firm that are involved.  These issues predominantly relate to cost and it is fair to say that current estimates are very significantly above the current £32.6m budget for the project.  Much work is being done right now to seek to reduce those costs but we are a number of weeks away from finalising our attempts to do so.  Until that work is complete I cannot give a firm figure for the construction costs and nor would it be commercially sensible to do so.  The process we are following means that a further delay in the start date is inevitable.  A start in August 2008 is currently our target, which would lead through to completion of the construction works around May 2010.”

 

Councillor Arbour asked a supplementary question regarding the apparent lack of control of this substantial project and whether the Deputy Leader of the Council would resign.  Councillor Knight replied that the Teddington School rebuild was probably the single biggest investment initiative this Council had ever engaged in.  The Administration was working extremely hard to deliver this school at a cost that was affordable to Council Tax payers, and to deliver the best possible education for the pupils of this Borough. 

 

Councillor Parsons asked a supplementary question regarding virement of monies from other projects to pay for the Teddington development.   Councillor Knight replied that there were no specific projects in mind.  Clearly the Council had finite resources and every extra pound spent on capital on Teddington School, would be money which could not be spent elsewhere.  There was a commitment to deliver this project for a reasonable cost.

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question as to whether the Deputy Leader agreed that it was financially reckless to start a project without knowing what the cost was.  Councillor Knight replied that it would clearly be irresponsible to start a construction scheme without having a final cost, when there were indications that costs could be very large.  However to consider not building the school at all would also be irresponsible about the future education chances of the pupils of this Borough. 

 

(d)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Samuel asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources (in the absence of the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships):

 

“To ask the Leader whether he is satisfied with all the Council's current partnerships?”

 

Councilor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“Yes”.

 

Councillor Samuel asked a supplementary question regarding whether,in view of their total lack of either experience or expertise in managing, organising or running multi-million pound projects, the Environment Trust was a suitable partner for the Council in the Riverside project.

 

Councillor Knight replied that the choice of a project involving the Environment Trust was the consequences of decisions which the Opposition themselves took when deciding the Twickenham Challenge.  The Environment Trust were proposing a very interesting, innovative river centre and this was the only proposal that the Administration had from the Twickenham Challenge process, which was river related.  The Twickenham Riverside Development proposals, including the Environment Trust, would deliver a very substantial new benefit for this Borough.   

 

Councillor Bennett asked a supplementary question as to whether the project should receive further consideration in the light of potential future problems.  Councillor Knight replied that the project was kept under careful consideration at all times.

 

Councillor Michael Wilson asked a supplementary question as to whether the deputy Leader considered that Councillor Samuel’s supplementary question indicated that the Opposition was intent on preventing any possibility of renewing a site which had lain dormant for nearly 30 years and showed contempt for the many members of the Environment Trust group and their work on sustainability.  Councillor Knight replied that the former baths site at Twickenham had been derelict since 1983 since its closure by a Conservative Administration. There had been numerous attempts to redevelop that site and to bring it back into public use.  He stated that Members of this Council should not try to undermine a very positive proposal to deliver public benefit for people of this Borough on that site. 

 

(e)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Morris asked the Cabinet Member for Children's Services and Education:

 

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Children's Services and Education if he will guarantee to explain to the parents of Primary Schools in Barnes and Sheen that the Council’s top priority for Shene School is to find a sponsor with understanding and experience of multi-cultural, inner city education?”

 

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

 

[“I recently had organised, and also attended, two meetings for the governors of the local schools.  The first was for Barnes, Lowther, and St. Osmond's primary schools and the other for Sheen Mount, East Sheen and St. Mary Magdalen’s primary schools.  The Chief Executive of Edutrust, Mr Fred Groom, attended both meetings.

 

I was able to explain at these meetings why we had embarked on the academies process, its stages, and the consultation which we will organise.  Fred Groom explained Edutrust’s vision for the school and what Edutrust will bring to the school.  I emphasised that our top priority is to ensure that the academy is a local school for local children.

 

Cllr Morris is correct that one of the specific criteria in selecting the sponsor for Shene was to make sure that the sponsor could respond to the needs of the current children in the school.  This was to show our commitment to the children currently at the school, so that they maximise their potential.  This would also demonstrate the success of the new academy.  It does not in any way conflict with my aims to make this a local school over the coming years.”]

 

(f)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Michael Wilson asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources (in the absence of the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships):

 

“Does the Leader of the Council agree with me that one of the central aspects to regenerating Twickenham town centre is the renewal of the Twickenham Riverside site?”

 

Councilor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“I agree with Councillor Wilson that the Twickenham Riverside site is predominantly derelict, and has been for 28 years.  This is a ridiculously long period of time for any site to be vacant and it clearly doesn’t help the town’s economy, or indeed the enjoyment of local people.  There are few town centres that have such an attractive stretch of river running alongside them.  The site, and the embankment alongside it, could and should be the jewel in the crown for Twickenham, helping draw visitors towards shops and businesses.  This is our intent and we have every confidence that the River Centre and the new open space and playground and the improvements to the embankment will be well-used, will be popular and will help serve as a catalyst for the wider regeneration of Twickenham.”

 

Councillor Michael Wilson asked a supplementary question regarding the confirmation at a recent Finance & Resources Overview & Scrutiny meeting that, as part of the Twickenham Challenge process the Conservatives, when they began that process, were going to use enabling development as part of the site’s redevelopment.  Councillor Knight replied that it has always been the Conservative Group’s intention to use enabling development as did this Administration.  Almost every project such as this would require a certain amount of enabling development. 

 

Councillor Seymour asked a supplementary question regarding the amount of time the site was derelict under Liberal Democrat control and other defunct proposals for the site.  Councillor Knight replied that there had been a number of proposals over the years to develop that site.  The current proposal, in response to residents’ concerns, was a low level development which would deliver public benefit.

 

Councillor Porter asked a supplementary question on the importance of the role of the Town Centre Manager in the regeneration of Twickenham town.  Councillor Knight replied that the Town Centre Managers made a fantastic contribution to the town centres and Whitton now also had a Town Centre ManagerThe role was extremely important in the regeneration of Twickenham and Richmond town centres and he hoped it would be developed in due course.

 

(g)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Bennettasked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Environment give me any idea when I will no longer be inundated with complaints from ward residents about his 'successful' new refuse collection service?”

 

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

 

“Cllr Bennett’s somewhat rhetorical question conjures up a vivid mental image – King Canute on a deck chair perhaps - but does not admit of a precise answer.  However I do apologise to residents who have had problems since the Waste and Recycling Service changes were implemented.  Most are now receiving a reliable service and we are working hard to resolve remaining issues.  A survey in April showed over 80% of customers thought the service excellent or good compared to 40% before the changes.

 

However, we are working on further improvements and a paper will be presented to Cabinet outlining the next steps.”

 

(h)  In accordance with notice given, CouncillorCardy asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking arrange an improvement in the pedestrian access to Fulwell station via Wellington Gardens?”

 

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

 

[The pedestrian access via Wellington Gardens is over private land, I believe in multiple ownership, and is thus for the private owners to maintain.  However, I am aware of the condition of the access and have asked officers to see if any funding can be identified that could be used for this purpose.]

 

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

“To ask the Cabinet Member for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Council Conservative Group submitting a large number of representations against the LDF Core Strategy document after it had been submitted to the Secretary of State rather than at an earlier stage when they could have been discussed at the Environment and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Committee or at the Council?”

 

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

 

[I find it quite extraordinary that the Opposition Party has ducked all opportunities to discuss their concerns in a structured way at the proper time through the many opportunities the process provides.  Instead much too late in the day they have come up with substantial suggestions for change which have not been through public consultation or sustainability appraisal and to which the LDF Inspector will therefore be unable to give much weight. This is seriously incompetent.]

 

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

“To ask the Leader of the Council to make a statement on the progress of the ongoing campaign against Heathrow expansion?"

 

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

 

[The campaign against Heathrow expansion is very going well, with 3 full pages of coverage in the Richmond & Twickenham Times on 6 June.  The campaign has many strengths, as it is cross-party, inter-Borough and engages with a wide group of stakeholders, including many private individuals and a large number of pressure groups, each with their own special but united focus. 

 

The Council is a leading member of the hugely successful 2M group, which now includes 21 local authorities, represents roughly 4 million people, and receives regular media coverage. 

 

The campaign is not only about what the Council has done.  The grass roots opposition to the expansion has been huge, as evidenced by the march on 31 May.]

 

(k) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Cranfield-Adams asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking, should the experiment being undertaken in the London Borough of Kensington & Chelsea allowing cyclists to cycle the wrong way down one day streets prove successful, would he adopt it in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames?”

 

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

 

[I am aware that Kensington & Chelsea are undertaking a trial and at this stage can only comment that I will be very interested in the results, and will certainly give consideration to any aspect that is shown to be successful.  However, this would be on a ‘case by case’ basis, rather than allowing all one way streets to have cycling in both directions.]

 

(l)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Fleming asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

“How much longer will it take for the Cabinet Member to decide whether to allow Good Neighbour groups short stay concessionary permits for their volunteer drivers?”

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

[I am sure Councillor Fleming is aware that the matter was discussed at the last Environment and Sustainability Overview & Scrutiny Committee.  I am currently reviewing the comments of that committee with officers, and anticipate being able to advise you of my decision in the near future.]

 

(m)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Parsons asked the Cabinet Member for Performance:

“Will the Cabinet Member for Performance explain how she proposes to improve Council's unmet targets?”

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

 

[Targets that are not met are analysed to decide the appropriate action to take through service and budget planning.  The analysis will take account of:

 

Ø      Whether the target is a priority service;

Ø      The extent of improvement, even though the target is unmet;

Ø      How performance compares with other councils;

Ø      The performance trend over the last few years;

Ø      Whether the target was realistic; and

Ø      The reasons for not meeting the target.

 

Action to be taken will depend on the nature and priority of the service, and some actions will be more long term than others.]

 

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

 

Use of plastic beakers by licensed premises (South Richmond Ward)

 

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

 

Lighting of car park behind the former Texaco garage on Hampton Hill High Street (Fulwell and Hampton Hill Ward)

a) Use of plastic beakers by licensed premises (South Richmond Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Bouchier raised a number of concerns about litter in Richmond, particularly plastic containers used for drinks on licensed and other premises, including,

• The litter on the riverside, open spaces and shopping streets was unsightly for tourists and residents.
• It had become normal practice for licensed premises to sell drinks in plastic containers, which might then be taken away.
• The plastic used was non-recyclable and not collected separately.
• Litter pickers had to collect each container individually.  The containers filled many refuse sacks and they ended up in landfill.
• A suggestion that the Council persuade or insist that recyclable containers were used.
• Richmond Green often resembled a rubbish tip.
• Civic pride needed to be restored by dealing with this issue.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Elengorn, reported that some of the problems were being addressed through use of controlled drinking zones.  Plastic bottles were collected for recycling, but not other types of plastic and, if other plastic were added to the bottles, the consignment would be rejected.  The issues raised needed to be addressed in liaison with the licensed trade and work would be undertaken with partners to address the problems.  Although such waste was cleared quickly by the Council, he agreed that the litter was offensive.

 

b) Lighting of car park behind the former Texaco garage on Hampton Hill High Street (Fulwell and Hampton Hill Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Cardy raised a number of issues about lighting the car park, including,

• The lack of lighting.
• Issues of light pollution that would need to be addressed.
• Provided local residents were involved in the scheme, they would be supportive.
• Safety improvements.

 

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking, Councillor Trigg, reported that he had asked officers to address this issue and they were preparing a lighting scheme to be agreed with the Police and the retailer, Budgens.  Clearly there was a need for sensitivity to the park and its wildlife in any design.  He was looking forward to working closely with representatives of Budgens on this scheme.

None.

None.

None.

None.

None.

None.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

That the Investment Committee be renamed the Pension Fund Committee with the revised terms of reference as set out in the report and the Constitution be amended accordingly.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

A.      That the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Groups be authorised to appoint up to two named substitutes respectively (to be nominated by the Group Leaders) to act in place of a member of the Planning Committee subject to the Chair/Opposition Planning spokesperson notifying the Head of Paid Service in advance of the meeting.

 

B.     That it be noted that the quorum for the Planning Committee has been set at 3.

 

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

A.      That changes set out in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 in the report and in the accompanying Appendices be agreed;

 

B.     That authority be delegated to the Head of Paid Service in consultation with the Leader to make changes to Council Procedure Rules 4 and 25 in Part 4 of the Constitution, as set out in paragraph 3.4 of the report.

 

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

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

None.

None.

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

The Mayor announced that she had been presented with a painting by Andras J. Bality of the river at Richmond, Virginia by a group of visitors from that area. 

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

 

“This council condemns:

 

(i) the decision by Post Office Ltd to close three local post offices at

 

• The Common - Staines Road, Twickenham;

 

• Cambridge Park - East Twickenham; and

 

• Broad Street - Teddington.

 

(ii)  the sham consultation by Post Office Ltd and the Government for the current round of closures in London which ignored the overwhelming views of local people; and

 

(iii) the Conservative opposition for not supporting the  previous motion on closures at the March council meeting prior to the results of the consultation being announced.”

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Allen moved, seconded by Councillor Michael Wilson,

 

“This Council condemns:

 

(i) the decision by Post Office Ltd to close three local post offices at

·         The Common – Staines Road, Twickenham;

·         Cambridge Park – East Twickenham; and

·         Broad Street, Teddington.

 

(ii) the sham consultation by Post Office Ltd and the government for the current round of closures in London which ignored the overwhelming views of local people; and

 

(iii) the Conservative opposition for not supporting the previous motion on closures at the March council meeting prior to the results of the consultation being announced.”

 

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor True, seconded by Councillor Samuel,

 

Delete all words after “local people; and” in paragraph (ii) and insert the following:

 

“(iii) congratulates Councillors of both parties for their efforts to oppose these damaging closures; and

 

(iv) expresses the unanimous resolve of the Council to work together to oppose closures in the borough and to offer the Council's constructive support to any practical proposals that may avert closures."

 

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

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council condemns:

 

(i)         the decision by Post Office Ltd to close three local post offices at

·         The Common – Staines Road, Twickenham;

·         Cambridge Park – East Twickenham; and

·         Broad Street, Teddington.

 

(ii)        the sham consultation by Post Office Ltd and the government for the current round of closures in London which ignored the overwhelming views of local people; and

 

(iii)       the Conservative opposition for not supporting the previous motion on closures at the March council meeting prior to the results of the consultation being announced.