Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 17 June 2008 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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

The following petitions were presented and, in accordance with the Constitution, referred to the relevant Cabinet Member/Committee Chair for a response:

 

Councillor Morgan – Request investigation and resolution of the difficult and dangerous turning out of Tayben Avenue into Whitton Road, Twickenham.

(Cabinet Member for Transport, Traffic and Parking)

 

Councillor Mumford – As a result of severe parking problems experienced by residents of Teddington High Street, Wade’s Lane and Watts Lane, requests to make parking permits available in the Teddington Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) to neighbouring residents.

(Cabinet Member for Transport, Traffic and Parking)

 

Councillor Mumford – Request from Springfield Road residents for inclusion of their road in the Teddington CPZ at the earliest opportunity and before the scheduled review, and permission to allow them to apply for parking permits within the CPZ without delay.

(Cabinet Member for Transport, Traffic and Parking)

 

Councillor True – Objection by residents of Avenue Gardens and Grosvenor Avenue, East Sheen to a planning application for 24 Avenue Gardens, on the basis of excessive density, parking, noise pollution and ‘Garden grabbing’.

(Chair of Planning Committee)

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

 

"Will you please provide; (a) the number of Business Permits purchased; and

(b) the number of Residents Permits purchased in each of the areas below?

 

1. The area to the west of Teddington station

2. The area to the east of Teddington station

3. Waldegrave Road?”

 

(b) Mr Pieter Morpurgo has given notice to ask the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

"On 22nd April Councillor Seymour submitted a petition to the Council on behalf of the majority of residents of Park Road who objected to the undemocratic inclusion of Park Road in the Teddington Zone T CPZ.  It was installed on the basis of a YES vote from a minority of residents only. Have you instructed that the inclusion of Park Road be the subject of a review by the Cabinet Member for Transport, Traffic and Parking? If not, what is the position please?"

 

(c) Mr Paul Lorentz has given notice to ask the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

 

“Why is the Council not fulfilling its legal obligation to the residents of Richmond and not answering my official complaints with in the allocated time limit over this matter and why is the Environment department reluctant to deal with my complaints?”

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

 

"Will you please provide; (a) the number of Business Permits purchased; and

(b) the number of Residents Permits purchased in each of the areas below?

 

1. The area to the west of Teddington station

2. The area to the east of Teddington station

3. Waldegrave Road?”

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

“The requested numbers are:

 

Area	Business Permits	Resident Permits
West of Teddington Station	17	137
East of Teddington Station	9	168
Waldegrave Road	0	17

 

Mr Holder asked a supplementary question concerning the disparity between the number of spaces allocated to permit holders (667) and the number of permits issued (348) and requested a review to better balance these numbers, thus allowing spaces to be available for free turnover or Pay & Display spaces to support the hard pressed local shopping centres.  Councillor Trigg stated that all CPZs had a review and the one for Teddington would take place three months after commencement.  These criteria would be taken into account in the review.

 

In accordance with notice given, Mr Pieter Morpurgo asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

"On 22nd April Councillor Seymour submitted a petition to the Council on behalf of the majority of residents of Park Road who objected to the undemocratic inclusion of Park Road in the Teddington Zone T CPZ.  It was installed on the basis of a YES vote from a minority of residents only. Have you instructed that the inclusion of Park Road be the subject of a review by the Cabinet Member for Transport, Traffic and Parking? If not, what is the position please?"

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“The consultation results for the section of Park Road included in the Teddington CPZ were:

           

For	17
Against	16
Undecided:	3

 

On this basis I am satisfied as to its inclusion in the CPZ and have no need to review that inclusion.”

 

Mr Morpurgo asked a supplementary question concerning the interpretation of the following wording in the policy, “The area must be viable to be considered for a CPZ ……but the majority will always need to be in favour in a proposed zone. Where there is minimal support a CPZ will not be introduced.”  Councillor Lourie explained that it was always a difficult decision as to whether to include a road in a CPZ, but on balance he entirely concurred with the decision taken by the Cabinet Member and others in this case.

 

(b)  In accordance with notice given, Mr Paul Lorentz asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

 

“Why is the Council not full-filling its legal obligation to the residents of Richmond and not answering my official complaints within the allocated time limit over this matter and why is the Environment department reluctant to deal with my complaints?”

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“I understand from officers that the complaints that were sent to the Council were not dealt with within the timescale of our own procedures, although Mr Lorentz will know that he had a reply to them at the Stage 2 Complaint Process.  This reply included an apology for the fact that our timescales were not met and I am told that Mr Lorentz has opted to elevate his complaint now to Stage 3 and this is currently being investigated and he will be contacted again with a full response. I can only echo the apology that he has already received.”

 

Mr Lorentz again asked why the Council was not fulfilling its legal obligation.  Councillor Knight responded that the complaint was now being dealt with at “Stage 3” and he invited Mr Lorentz to put forward any further information to support his complaint to the Chief Executive.

 

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 Jones asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

“Would the Cabinet Member for Environment please make a statement on the electricity so far generated and the reduction in carbon emissions from the solar panels on the Civic Centre roof?”

 

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

 

“Between the 25^th April, when they were commissioned, and earlier this afternoon which was a sunny afternoon, the 42 solar panels on the roof of the Civic Centre generated 2450 kWh and saved 1400 kg of carbon dioxide which otherwise would have been released into the atmosphere.  Up to date information is available to the public on weekdays between 9am and 5 pm on the display unit in the Civic Centre reception area and I do recommend Councillors to stand and watch it as it responds to different climatic conditions – it’s a fascinating thing to watch.”

 

Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question concerning the payback period for the panels and was informed by Councillor Elengorn that this would depend on the price of electricity which was rising rapidly at present.  On the basis of the present contract the payback period would be 45 years, but if the price of electricity doubled the payback period reduced to 20 years.

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question as to whether there had been additional CO₂ savings as all Council buildings were supplied with Green energy and queried why the payback ratio of 45 years had been set on solar panels that generally only had a lifetime of 20 years.  Councillor Elengorn replied that rightly or wrongly, Green electricity did not count against energy targets, as there was no guarantee that future contracts would offer such electricity, although he very much hoped they would.  The solar panels were an exemplar project as well as being something which demonstrated the power of solar panels and the project was part funded from Central Government’s Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

 

(b)  Councillor Munira Wilson’ s question to the Cabinet Member for Environment, “Would the Cabinet Member for Environment make a statement on the Crane Riverside Park project?”, was ruled out of order as it was substantially the same as a question asked at the meeting of Council on 4 March 2008.

 

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

 

“Would the Cabinet Member for Environment make a statement on the Community Toilet Scheme including the recent visit of the House of Commons Select Committee on Communities and Local Government to see it in operation and discuss it?”

 

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

 

“With improved signage for around 70 community toilets, the scheme is proving a significant step that is attracting interest from some 100 Local Authorities.  Recent visitors have been from Torbay and Llandudno.  The Select Committee’s visit on June 10^th attracted press and radio interest and our visitors seemed impressed by what they saw – we look forward to their report with interest.”

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question as to whether there were plans to build on this success.  Councillor Elengorn replied that there would be a report to Cabinet in the Autumn to review the situation regarding the very few existing conventional toilets and to look at the prospects for including other toilets in the Council’s scheme, such as cemetery toilets, parks toilets and some library toilets.

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question as to whether the Select Committee had been informed that the scheme was developed by the previous Conservative Administration and opposed by the Liberal Democrats.  Councillor Elengorn replied that he was happy to give credit and his only criticism had been about the signage.   The first two pilots were in the late 1990’s under the previous Liberal Democrat Administration and the whole history was given to the Select Committee. From visitor comments it seemed that the signage needed to be improved further.

 

Councillor Parsons asked a supplementary question as to whether the visitors from Wales and the public were also informed that the scheme was a Conservative idea.  Councillor Elengorn replied that the scheme was the result of team work.  He was sure that the Conservative Administration would have used the late 1990’s examples and seized on the good thinking of Officers in bringing this forward.  He had mentioned to all the visitors that the scheme emerged in 2003/04.

 

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

 

“Could the Cabinet Member for Environment make a statement on the Council’s Go Green Campaign for businesses?"

 

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

 

“I don’t think the Party opposite will claim credit for this.  In May 2007, the Cabinet agreed to invest £250k from LABGI, the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme, to provide free environmental assessments of local businesses to help them identify ways to reduce their environmental footprint across energy, waste, water, travel and procurement; prepare for any environmental regulation and legislation and reduce costs to lower resource consumption.

 

The programme has been designed to:

·         Work with partner organisations, such as the Carbon Trust and the Environment Agency.

·         Provide additional consultancy where partners are unable to provide free support.

·         Offer training opportunities to build capacity for businesses to take action themselves and

·         Recognise good practice through three-tiered accreditation.”

 

Councillor Stanier asked a supplementary question as to whether training alongside briefings was essential to gain results.  Councillor Elengorn replied that the accreditation scheme, run by a dedicated officer, would have a number of tiers of awards and to go from the lowest tier to the higher ones would involve learning and training.  Workshops and seminars would be provided for this purpose.  This was an example of local strategic partnership working.

 

Councillor Seymour asked a supplementary question requesting that officers be asked to prepare a submission to the London Mayor, Boris Johnson, for his Green Energy Zones initiative, which would give this Council an opportunity to show an exemplar project on things like the Academies and Twickenham campus and provide opportunities to introduce such things as micro-hydro in the Thames.  Councillor Elengorn replied that all London Mayoral initiatives were being studied and what advantages could be gained for the Borough.  There was one initiative in terms of the Parks which the Council might pursue.

 

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

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Communities confirm that we are now the safest borough in London?"

 

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

 

“I can confirm that Richmond upon Thames is the safest Borough in London.  We had 16 crimes per 1000 population, which is the lowest figure in 32 London Boroughs.  It’s also the lowest total number of crimes that we had in this Borough as well, at the same time.  We were also the lowest crime per 1000 figure in the previous quarter from 12 December – 29 February as well and I do think it’s important to recognise that whatever the fear of crime may be amongst our communities, we have an enviable record in London.  Crime in London has gone down, but crime in Richmond upon Thames is the lowest of any the 32 London Boroughs – we’ve got to keep saying that – and has been for many months now.”

 

Councillor Davies asked a supplementary question concerning the impact of youth engagement projects.  Councillor Williams replied that in the last year of the previous Administration there were 2819 young people taking part in youth engagement facilities in the Summer.  In the present Administration’s first year this figure rose to 6922. The result of these increased facilities quite definitely showed that crime had fallen because robberies were down 34% in the first year and criminal damage and wounding were both down 18%.  These were the three groups of crime most particularly associated with young people.  The Council therefore had an enviably good record on this issue and this Administration had cut crime.

 

Councillor Arbour asked a supplementary question as to whether lower crime rates were coincidental as crime rates were falling all over London and why it was the policy of the Liberal Party not to imprison thieves and burglars.  Councillor Williams replied that he could not answer questions on behalf of the Liberal Party which was a quite independent organisation.  He reiterated that the Administration had a record of combating crime.

 

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

 

“Please can the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education comment on why a Conservative Councillor has senta particular letter addressed to the Richmond and Twickenham Times about Academies, when the Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Michael Gove, MP has particularly welcomed Kunskapsskolan?”

 

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

 

“I think that this question refers to the many letters from Councillor Samuel that have been appearing in the newspapers.  I did not expect Cllr Samuel to take Kunskapsskolan’s methods to heart so I did expect letters criticising them and having a go at me.  But it is his phrases that are worrying.  His words, to some, conjure up disturbing imagery.  His letter a couple of weeks ago, and I’ll just read the sentence said “it appears that the youngest pupils will be herded into the hut while the rest of them soldier on”.  Those words “herded” and “soldier on” have upset quite a few people.  I would just let your imagination work on these words. A mistake easily made in the heat of the debate or by an inexperienced Councillor, who is not used to writing.  But Cllr Samuel is our most experienced Member, an expert wordsmith.  I can only believe that he got carried away, a mistake was made so I would like you to offer the supplementary question so that he can offer an apology.”

 

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question concerning whether the Councillor had been selective in choosing his quotes and whether it would have been better to have quoted from the political editor of the Spectator.  Councillor Eady referred to an article in the Spectator [Made in Sweden: The New Tory Education Revolution by Fraser Nelson] which detailed how the major parties were looking to Sweden for their ideas on how to improve UK secondary education.  In the subsequent Spectator, Mr Nelson detailed how he had asked Per Ledin, the head of Kunskapsskolan to “please come and open a school in Richmond” and that this had been achieved under Labour.  Councillor Eady stated that at this stage the Liberal Democrat Administration had only preferred sponsors.

 

Councillor Samuel asked a supplementary question concerning effective choice.  Bearing in mind that parents were permitted by the law to have their children educated in accordance with their wishes, he requested a cast iron guarantee that those of his constituents who rejected progressive education for their children would receive an acceptable alternative place.  Councillor Eady replied that the current consultation was not a referendum on the Academy process but an opportunity to comment on the vision that the two sponsors had put forward.  Comments received would be built into the Expression of Interest stage.

 

Councillor Coombs asked a supplementary question about the schools’ success in teaching whilst having building programmes on site.  Councillor Eady stated that Councillor Samuel often raised the issue of disturbance, overlooking that when he was a Cabinet Member, Collis School had a number of years with building programmes and a very highly successful OfSTED Report. Building programmes were therefore not linked to bad education.  The Council had highly professional teachers, who knew how to work with contractors to minimise pupil disruption. 

 

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

 

“Will the Cabinet Member for Communities outline what steps he has taken since May 2006 to provide Council services at Post Offices?"

 

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

 

“I and my Cabinet colleagues continue to explore ways in which to increase the opportunities for residents to make payments for council services at Post Offices.  As Councillor Fleming and for that matter, the public generally, will be aware, at the Cabinet Meeting on 7^th July we agreed to the closure of the Civic Centre cashiers office with effect from April 2009 and to enter into contracts with the Post Office to enable residents to make payments at their local Post Office.

 

The Cabinet meeting also asked officers to undertake research on the experience of other councils in dealing with post office closures and have asked that they look at the branch network with Ward Councillors and identify any post offices vulnerable to future closure, so that these could be protected where possible.”

 

Councillor Fleming, as a supplementary question, expressed her support for initiatives to boost the viability of Post Offices and asked why there was a delay over the transfer of Parking Permits.  Councillor Williams replied that the issue of Parking Permits was being looked at by Councillor Trigg.

 

Councillor Morris asked a supplementary question concerning any approach to the Post Office Ltd about providing an emergency Post Office service at the Sheen Lane Post Office, because the one in East Sheen had been closed.  Councillor Williams replied that the Council has been in constant contact with the Post Office and it was understood that the temporary closure of East Sheen Post Office would be solved more quickly than would justify a temporary Post Office.  Problems resulting in temporary closures of Post Offices were not normally in the public domain, but he was hopeful that the East Sheen Post Office would be open shortly.

 

(h)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Cranfield-Adams asked the Cabinet Member for Performance:

 

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Performance, which areas of Council performance are most in need of improvement?"

 

Councillor Dodds replied in the following terms:

 

“I will be looking to the Administration’s Manifesto commitments and the Corporate Plan for service improvement to include three key areas: sustainability, youth service and secondary education.”

 

Councillor Cranfield-Adams asked a supplementary question requesting that Councillor Dodds examine the refuse collection service run by this Council, the state of the education brief or, alternatively the Social Services brief and why the Council had been employing companies that had been retaining illegal immigrants.  Councillor Dodds thanked the Councillor for his suggestions and indicated that they formed part of her remit.

 

Councillor True asked a supplementary question in relation to the level of cost overrun considered acceptable as it had been admitted that the £25 million figure for Teddington School had been exceeded by £7.6 million.  Councillor Dodds queried the figure quoted and stated that she was sure that the Opposition would welcome the improvement that was being made at Teddington School through the Building Schools for the Future programme.

 

Councillor Stanier asked for comment on the MORI Poll as her supplementary question.  Councillor Dodds replied that the tri-annual Mori Poll had been taken in this Borough in February/March 2008.  It looked at residents’ satisfaction with services.  The results showed that 69% of residents were satisfied with Council services, 77% felt they were well informed about Council services and 61% felt the Council offered good value for money.

 

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

 

“Could the Cabinet Member for Children's Services and Education give an update on the Council's Academies programme?"

 

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

 

“The Expression of Interest documents have been drafted and have been sent to the three schools proposed to become Academies and also to their respective Borough feeder schools.  We’ve asked for their comments back by 25^th July.  Parents of the children at these schools are also being consulted about the proposals.  They have received a revision to the Expression of Interest and a short questionnaire.  The revised Expressions of Interest will be produced taking into account the various comments from schools and the parents.  A report will be presented to the Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 10^th September and the Cabinet on 22^nd September.  If agreed, they will be considered by the DCSF during October and Ministerial approval should be received by the end of that month.”

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question concerning parents’ perceptions that the consultation was bogus and they had no choice.  Councillor Eady reiterated that the consultation should not be considered a referendum on the Academy process, as that would come at the next stage.  He stated that he had attended a number of public meetings with parents and Governors where there had not been a strong anti-Academy presence.  Parents desired improvements in the schools The Academy process was at an early stage and the sponsor’s solutions would become clearer during the feasibility stage when the full public consultation exercise would be carried out.

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question concerning arrangements with other partners.  Councillor Eady replied that Both EduTrust and Kunskapsskollen had indicated that they wished to work with local Universities, the Borough’s two colleges and local independent schools and he expect that this cooperation would take the form of educational partners.  Kunskapsskollen might also develop an international partnership, especially with its contacts in Sweden, while EduTrust Academies worked with accountants, Price Waterhouse Coopers and lawyers, Pinsent Masons.

 

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

 

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Children's Services and Education (a) who first proposed (i) Edutrust and (ii) Kunskapsskolan as potential sponsors for an Academy in the Borough and on what date they first did so, and (b) if he consulted his Liberal Democrat colleague in Bradford, Councillor David Ward, on Edutrust’s suitability as a sponsor for an Academy?"

 

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

 

[A number of potential sponsors were introduced to us, one of these was Kunskapsskolan.  Edutrust were on the DCSF list of sponsors and as we wanted a wider choice, we asked the DCSF if they would put Edutrust on our list; the DCSF said that was fine.

 

The first meeting with Kunskapsskolan was on 22^nd February and with Edutrust on 25^th February.  I did not directly consult other local authorities about their experience of working with these sponsors. 

 

I did note the very favourable comments and reception of Kunskapsskolan at a conference organised by Reform, a conservative think tank, in May 04, and more recently in comments by Michael Grove MP, shadow secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.

 

My officers have recently spoken to colleagues at Birmingham, where Edutrust are sponsoring three academies (two initially agreed and a further added when there were difficulties with a previous sponsor), and where they have been impressed by Edutrust’s professionalism and responsiveness.]

 

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

 

“Given the protracted and long overdue rebuild of the Avenue Centre, would the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing advise who is responsible for this delay?"

 

[There were difficulties with control over intellectual property for plans on Council land; an absence of legal agreements with other parties causing protracted disputes, and the departure of one party.  As a result, costs had to be revisited. 

 

We now need to deal with the change to Self Directed Support and the development of non centre-based activities required by Valuing People – which is well underway in this borough. 

 

We remain fully committed to new facilities at the Avenue Centre as part of a wider portfolio of services for people with learning disabilities, but given these wider service changes, we need to re-consult on the options in autumn.]

 

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

 

“Does the Cabinet Member agree that official Council signage should neither mislead nor deceive; and will he therefore ensure that the large number of "no cycling" signs on footpaths and alleyways (installed by the Conservative administration as part of a package of measures removing cycling facilities), which have no basis in either national legislation or local bye-laws, are removed and replaced by more suitable signs ensuring pedestrian priority?"

 

[Yes I do.  I am equally aware of the complexity surrounding cycling on footpaths both in bye-law, signing and safety terms.  If Councillor Mumford provides me with details of any particular locations causing him concern, I will arrange for officers to investigate these and assess the potential for shared use.]

 

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

 

Plastic bags festooning trees and shrubs in Uxbridge Road, Hampton (Hampton North Ward)

 

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

 

Road markings (Teddington Ward)

a)  Plastic bags festooning trees and shrubs in Uxbridge Road, Hampton (Hampton North Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Samuel raised a number of issues about the proliferation of plastic bags along the Uxbridge Road including:

• In 2006 Sainsbury’s had been unwilling to attend meetings and engage on this issue
• In 2007, at Councillor Samuel’s request, a meeting was convened involving Sainsbury’s and Amida where Officers made it clear that statutory powers existed and could be used
• Although matters improved significantly, the situation deteriorated in the winter of 2007.  The local MP became involved
• In spite of a communications breakdown, It became apparent that Council inspections of the area were taking place but that reports were not being sent to Sainsbury’s
• Following a further meeting on 29 May 2008, there was some encouraging progress, although it had taken some time for minutes of the meeting to be made available.
• Local residents felt very strongly about the issues and wished to see a solution to this unpleasant problem.

Councillor Samuel concluded by asking if the Council was prepared to operate the agreed control mechanism, with regular reports to the Cabinet Member, as he was convinced that the situation could be kept under control.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Elengorn replied that this was a situation where litter was being blown from one private property to another.  Statutory notices had to be served on the recipient who then had to serve notice on Sainsbury’s.  Good offices had been used to make progress and following meetings held this year, Sainsbury’s were persuaded to move their storage area for bags.  A clean up day took place on 4^th July using Community Payback Teams in partnership with the Police and Probation Service.  Arrangements were in hand to remove the remaining small number of bags high up in the trees once the specialist equipment was available.   He stated that the area was regularly monitored and there was direct communication with local business, residents and Ward Councillors.  Should there be a re-occurrence of a problem in this area, the Enforcement Team had direct contacts with all concerned, and would take appropriate action.

 

b)  Road markings (Teddington Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Mumford raised a number of issues about road markings, including:

• Environment and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be considering the package of improvements on road surfaces in the Autumn
• However Councillor Trigg should also look at the operation of lining crews
• It was understood that there were problems with inherited contracts
• In Teddington there had been visits on different occasions from three different crews
• This meant markings were often conflicting and inconsistent
• Confusion had also been caused to residents by short notice to move cars and incorrect literature
• Correct lining plans should be made public
• Plans should be co-ordinated with robust contract management.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Traffic and Parking, Councillor Trigg reported that he was aware that the Council’s road marking contractors had made a number of acknowledged errors when marking roads in Teddington in May.  Officer supervision had therefore already been increased and contract requirements would be reviewed prior to the contract being re-let next year.  He stated that there was an absolute requirement for value for money and quality and excellence in delivery.  Failure by a contractor to acknowledge these requirements would be taken into account when contracts were re-let.  Officers would also be asked to ensure that information on the website was kept up-to-date.

 

Attached.

Following an extensive debate, the recommendation was put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the immediate implementation of the new structure for the Directorate of Education and Children’s Services be approved as recommended by Cabinet.

The Standards Committee on 9 July 2008 considered the Standards Annual Report 2007/8 and a proposed amendment to the Members’ Computer Protocol.

 

A report setting out the recommendations of the Standards Committee is attached.  The Standards Annual Report 2007/8 and the Proposed Amendment to the Members’ Computer Protocol, which form the appendices to this report, were previously circulated.

 

An amendment to the recommendation in the following terms was moved by Councillor Stanier and seconded by Councillor Bennett,

 

Add the following after “adopted”,

“subject to the 3^rd sentence of paragraph 2.1 in the Members’ Computer Protocol being amended to read as follows:

 

“Where a Councillor is a candidate in an election other than for Richmond upon Thames Council, his or her Council e-mail address should also not be advertised in party political literature relating to such an election in the period between the notice of that election and the election itself.”

 

During the debate it was considered that further clarification on the use by Councillors of their Council email addresses during elections would be useful and the Leader stated that along with the Leader of the Opposition, he could meet with the Chief Executive and Chair of the Standards Committee and provide an agreed paper to a future meeting of Council.

 

Both the amendment and recommendation were CARRIED unanimously.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the proposed amendment to the Members’ Computer Protocol, including the amendment made by the Standards Committee, be adopted, subject to the 3^rd sentence of paragraph 2.1 in the Members’ Computer Protocol being amended to read as follows:

 

“Where a Councillor is a candidate in an election other than for Richmond upon Thames Council, his or her Council e-mail address should also not be advertised in party political literature relating to such an election in the period between the notice of that election and the election itself.”

 

N.B.  This minute refers to Appendix B of the Members’ Protocol included within Part 5 ‘Codes and Protocols’ of the London Borough of Richmond’s Constitution (as amended from time to time).

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

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

None.

None.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

That the changes to the Constitution set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the report and in the accompanying Appendices be agreed.

Attached

RESOLVED:

 

That the decision 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.

The Mayor announced that there would be a celebration of Nelson Mandela’s birthday on Friday at 2.30 pm in the Salon and asked that this be supported to emphasise the positive aspects of Africa in the face of current political problems on the continent.

 

The Leader presented a plaque given by visitors from Llandudno Town Council.

 

The painting of the Temperate House at Kew Gardens by David Downes purchased from Councillor donations was displayed.

 

None.

None.