Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence were received.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

No declarations were made.

To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2012 - attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2012 were approved as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

This report gives details of the Committee’s proposed work programme and sets out a request from a member of the public.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services and Appendices A and B attached.

The Committee discussed the suggestion from a member of the public as set out at Appendix B. The member of the public had been invited to address the meeting, but had not attended. The Committee considered that due to the specific nature of the suggestion, and the fact that a separate complaint had been lodged on the matter, it was not appropriate for the Committee to carry out a detailed assessment of the issue.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the following items be added to the work programme for the meeting to be held on 18 June 2012 (provisional date):

·         2012 Olympic Planning

·         Update on Biodiversity Strategy (to be considered in conjunction with the Update on the Climate Change Strategy)

2. That the suggestion submitted by a member of the public not be further considered.

This report gives details of the revenue and capital budget position for the Environment Directorate to the end of Quarter 3 2011/12. 

Report of the Director of Environment attached.

Appendices A to D6 attached.

The Committee considered the Quarter Three Finance update report which was presented by the Head of Finance and Performance. She informed the Committee that although this quarter reflected an overspend of approximately £300,000 the accounts were expected to be near balanced by the end of quarter four.  In response to questions the Head of Finance and Performance and the Director of Environment informed the Committee that:

(i)      At the current stage it was difficult to evaluate whether there would be an overall under-spend on capital by the end of the financial year, as this related to large scale projects such as the replacement of street lighting and the construction of school extensions, where finance management could not easily be predicted far in advance. 

(ii)    Some companies had not re-applied for inclusion in the Community Toilet Scheme, but the Council would be encouraging new and previous companies to join the scheme, in particular in view of the numbers expected to visit the borough during the Olympics.

(iii)   The percentage of recycling carried out in the Borough remained at a very good level; however, the percentages and income currently remained static predominantly because manufacturers were now using less packaging and lighter materials.

(iv)  The number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by Parking Enforcement services had risen since the Council had been working with the contractor to address staffing and training issues. The average number of PCNs issued was now approximately one per hour per civil enforcement officer. It was noted that the Council no longer made use of camera cars.

(v)    The Council had renegotiated the Street Cleansing contract in February 2011 and this had allowed for significant savings to be realised without affecting the service quality. The savings were believed to be primarily due to the current competitive nature of the market. 

It was RESOLVED:

That the report and the latest projections be noted.

This report provides details of Environment Directorate performance for the period October - December 2011.  It covers those projects and indicators that monitor the Council’s priorities.

Report of the Head of Finance and Customer Service attached.

Appendix One attached.

The Head of Finance and Performance introduced the Performance report. She reported that the majority of services were meeting the performance indicator targets. In relation to major planning applications it was explained that as there was a small number of these types of applications processed each year, the figures could be skewed by one or two lengthy cases. It was reported that the Council had held discussions with the street cleansing inspectors regarding their performance rating methodology, which was thought to disadvantage the Council due to the categorisation of two streets as ‘rural roads’. This issue had now been resolved and the Council was generally performing well on street cleansing.

In relation to the length of time taken to process major planning applications, the Assistant Director of Environment explained that this could be affected by a variety of factors, such as the requirement for applicants to submit further details. The eight week timescale now included the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement, which was often complex. The Director of Environment reiterated that the Council was predominantly concerned with the quality of the service rather than the speed. 

The Committee considered the information provided on the Environment and Cultural Services’ projects. A discussion was held on the Uplift Scheme. The Director of Environment explained how the Uplift Scheme had been influenced by the results of the All in One Consultation but that further local consultations were also being held on the details of the scheme. Consultants had been appointed for the Hampton North scheme to address complex land ownership issues. It was noted that the Committee was due to consider the Uplift Scheme in more detail at its June meeting.

It was RESOLVED:

That the report and the action plans be noted.

This report sets out details of the Council’s performance and processes for handling planning applications, planning appeals and enforcement investigations.

Report of the Development Control Manager attached.

The Assistant Director of Environment introduced the item. It was explained that the National Planning Policy Framework was expected to be published within the coming days. The context within which the Planning Department operated was explained: in terms of applications received Richmond was the fifth busiest planning authority in London. A number of high profile and complex cases had been considered, including the demolition of a building of townscape merit which had warranted a record fine. In cases such as the former Royal Mail sorting office site, the Council had been able to negotiate a planning performance agreement to part fund the officer time in assessing the application. The appeals and enforcement team was also facing an increased workload and currently reviewed around 600 cases per year. The appeals team had a good record of ensuring the Council’s decisions were upheld by the Planning Inspectorate. In response to the Committee’s questions it was explained that:

(i)      The Council charged £150 for a standard planning application. The average cost to the Council of processing an ordinary application was £500, although this rose to between £1,200 and £1,500 when the application was considered at the Planning Committee. The Council benchmarked its costs against those of other local authorities and these figures were not seen to be unreasonable.

(ii)    There had been some costs awarded against the Council in 2011/12 in respect of planning appeals, but this was not the case for the large majority of cases.

(iii)   The fact that the Borough had a large number of conservation areas significantly contributed to the amount of applications received. Each year up to 1,400 tree works applications were received by the Council in addition to more than 4,000 planning applications.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the details of the Council’s performance and processes for handling planning applications, planning appeals and enforcement investigations be noted.

2. Given the potential for further change within the planning system in the short-term, it be agreed no reviews be undertaken until the outcome of the National Planning Policy Framework and other likely changes are known.

To receive a report on the three year rolling procurement plan with a view to identifying which procurement activity the Committee would want to scrutinise in the future.

Report of the Assistant Director of Commissioning, Corporate Policy and Strategy attached.

Appendix A and B attached.

The report was introduced by the Assistant Director (Commissioning, Corporate Policy and Strategy), the Head of Contracting and Procurement, and the Director of Environment. It was explained that the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of all scrutiny committees had met to consider the process for scrutinising procurement activity and would meet again at the end of April to discuss which procurements should be subject to further scrutiny during 2012/13. This was an opportunity for the Committee members to put forward their own suggestions. In response to questions it was explained that:

(i)      Many of the procurement issues were cross-cutting and for this reason all activities were reported to all committees. The contracts varied in size but it was deemed important to report all upcoming contracts to members because some might be low in cost but sensitive or significant in nature.

(ii)    In general, the approach was to consolidate contracts through the application of category management. An exception to this was the procurement of smaller specialised services such as Parks services. It was open to the scrutiny members to consider groups of contracts as well as individual contracts.

(iii)   When procuring contracts it was important to consider quality as well as price. The weightings varied depending on the nature of the service. A split of 60% quality and 40% price ratio was common, although in some cases quality might be weighted as much as 80%. Members would want to consider the price, quality and social value in reviewing procurement.

(iv)  It could be useful for members to consider the process as well as the details of the contract for whichever services they reviewed. It would be possible to track the delivery of the service over a period of time.

(v)    Scrutiny members might wish to form a task group or working parties to allow for more focused examination of certain contracts or issues. This would be a collaborative process across all four scrutiny committees.

The Director of Environment suggested that there were seven contract areas that were policy priorities and might be considered by the Committee as a long list for procurement-based scrutiny (from which approximately three areas might then be chosen for focus). The long list included service areas where the directorate had recently procured new contracts (and where there were contract management issues) or was soon to procure large contracts for important services such as street lighting, street cleansing, parking enforcement and waste and recycling. The Committee discussed the importance of considering both large contracts and smaller, more specialised services. Members discussed the procurement of interpretation and translation services within the reported national context of changes to working conditions and the requirement to formalise the use of Hounslow’s interpretation services. Members considered that this service and the services suggested by the Director of Environment should be forwarded for consideration.

It was RESOLVED:

That the following contracts be recommended for further scrutiny subject to finalisation at a meeting of the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of Scrutiny Committees:

1. Street Lighting

2. Waste and Recycling

3. Street Cleansing

4. Parking Enforcement

5. Highways Maintenance

6. Corporate and Schools Cleansing

7. Grounds Maintenance

8. Interpretation and Translation Services

This report provides the key findings from the annual Community Safety Partnership Strategic Assessment 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. 

Report of the Assistant Director of Commissioning, Corporate Policy and Strategy attached.

Chief Inspector Steve Kyte of Richmond Borough Police; the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community, Business and Culture; and the Council’s Community Safety Manager and Community Safety Data Analyst presented the findings of the Community Safety Partnership Assessment. For the first time the Council’s crime and disorder assessment and the Police’s assessment had been combined into one document. This analysis, along with residents’ views, would be used to inform the priorities for 2012-13. The current priorities were anti-social behaviour; town centre violence (alcohol related); domestic abuse; counter terrorism; re-offending including drugs misuse; and residential burglary. Officers presented key findings relating to the statistics for each priority area. Overall the levels of crime and anti social behaviour were low and Richmond was statistically the fourth safest borough in London. Officers highlighted the fact that Richmond recorded very low figures of violent crime and that drugs misuse issues were beginning to be addressed via the test on arrest policy, amongst other initiatives. In relation to anti-social behaviour it was noted that this was often related to residents’ perceptions and it was vital to make people feel that their neighbourhood was a safe place to live in. The Safer Neighbourhood Teams played a key role in this. In response to questions the Committee was advised that:

(i)      Domestic Abuse was a priority because the police were encouraging reporting of this crime and building a support system for victims. The Council and other agencies were also providing support for victims and information was being provided in the Borough’s schools about this. 

(ii)    Vehicle crime was often difficult to prevent and took places most frequently on the street at night. This was seen to be an opportunistic crime and residents were encouraged not to leave valuables on display.

(iii)   It was acknowledged that lack of facilities could play a role in youth offending. Ham, South Richmond and Twickenham had been identified as areas which would benefit from further provision of youth facilities and there were now initiatives being progressed in these areas.

(iv)  It was important to remember that the number of youths who entered the criminal justice system remained very low and the large majority of young people were law abiding.

(v)    In the last ten years recorded crime figures had fallen significantly and there was little difference in performance between Richmond and the other three safest London boroughs. Because figures were generally low, a small percentage change could have a larger impact on the average statistics. Members would also wish to consider that in some boroughs low-level crime might not be reported where it was in Richmond. It was encouraging to note that the number of assaults had recently fallen by 10% in Richmond.

(vi)  The number of officers for Safer Neighbourhood teams in Richmond was expected to rise after the period of the Olympics, although exact figures were not yet known.

(vii) The figures recorded for theft of bicycle did not include thefts at stations as these were monitored by the British Transport Police.

(viii)     The enforcement of licensing laws played a key role in targeting alcohol related crime and anti social behaviour. Under-age test purchases had recently led to a number of prosecutions in the Borough.

The Committee commented that it would be useful to be provided with figures from the British Transport Police on bicycle thefts at stations in order to understand the scale of this problem. Members also reiterated the importance of providing facilities for young people in the Borough.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the findings of the Community Safety Partnership Strategic Intelligence Assessment be noted

2. That the proposed community safety priorities for 2012-13 be noted.

This report provides an update to Members on the development of village plans, following the report to this committee on 15 November 2011. It describes a typical village plan and how the plans form part of the council’s approach to community planning.

Report of the Assistant Director, Commissioning, Corporate Policy and Strategy attached.

Appendix One attached.

The Strategic Cabinet Member for Community, Business and Culture introduced the update on Village Plans and apologised that the issuing of the plans had taken longer than anticipated. The draft plans would be made available to all ward Councillors in the beginning of May before being published at the end of May. The Council was also employing Community Links Officers to encourage community involvement with the work of the Council. In response to questions the Strategic Cabinet Member and the Assistant Director (Commissioning, Corporate Policy and Strategy) advised the Committee that:

(i)      Draft village plans would be sent to all ward councillors simultaneously. Councillors could then provide feedback on the plans before they were made available to the public (this may be via drop-in sessions with officers). However, as the plans were an outcome of consultation with the public via the All in One survey, it was not anticipated that they would be radically altered during this process.

(ii)    The village plans were designed to evolve over time to reflect the requirements and aspirations of each community, meaning that the current version of each plan would not remain fixed once published.

(iii)   The plans would be able to take into consideration factors outside of each geographical area which may have an effect on that area, for example: traffic issues.

Committee Members discussed the village plans process. Some concern was reiterated with regards to the means by which communities had been geographically distinguished, and whether this provided a suitable framework for identifying the needs of all residents and businesses in the borough. The origins of the vision for the plans and their perceived complexities were discussed. Some Members were also concerned that there was not adequate timescale within which ward councillors could provide feedback on the village plans for their wards and proposed that a minimum of five weeks should be allowed for. However, the majority view of the Committee was that a guideline should be provided to ensure that members’ feedback was captured during the month of May 2012.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the update be noted.

2. That it be recommended that the draft village plans be made available to all ward councillors no later than 9 May 2012; that following this Council officers should hold meetings with ward councillors in the week commencing 14 May to consider any comments; that the village plans then be published on the website in the week commencing 28 May 2012.

This report gives details of the proposed ‘highway maintenance’ programme for the financial year 2012/13.

Report of the Assistant Director for Environment and Appendix A attached.

The Director of Environment and the Assistant Director of Environment explained the context of the report. Cabinet had agreed extra funding for highways maintenance so that streets and footpaths with less footfall would now also benefit from more substantial repair works. £35,000 had also been set aside to allow for residents in each identified village to identify areas which required highways improvement.

In response to questions it was explained that capital funding had already been set aside for certain roads in the borough which were most in need of repair, but that for other roads the Council would be able to adapt the programme according to the requests of residents in each area. The Council would provide indicative costs to residents to allow understanding of how much work could be carried out. It was envisaged that the allocated money would be spent in each village area and not redistributed to other areas.

Committee Members raised the issue of the fact that some villages may have larger populations or geographical areas than others, and so may have greater need of funding. Officers would consider this and stressed the likelihood of flexibility in the way in which funding would be distributed.

Committee Members recommended that the table setting out proposed works (at appendix 2) should be organised alphabetically or grouped by ward in future for ease of understanding for residents.

It was RESOLVED:

That the report and comments be noted.

This report summarises progress to date in the preparation of the Twickenham Area Action Plan including some of the key issues raised in the statutory public consultation.

Report of the Head of Policy and Design attached.

The Head of Policy and Design introduced the item. It was explained that work on the Twickenham Area Action Plan had begun in early 2011, following the Twickenham Conference and the Barefoot Consultation. During this process a number of issues had been raised, most importantly the quality of retailing and the management of traffic. The aim of the Plan was to consider Twickenham holistically. In late 2011 the Council organised events and exhibitions to receive views on issues and options in the development of the plan. An eight-week formal consultation was then been carried out (ending mid February 2012) on specific policies and proposals. 84 individual responses had been received; most respondents had been supportive of the plans though some issues were raised which were outlined in the report. Consultants were being employed to consider traffic issues in King Street and to suggest a range of options to improve the pedestrian environment.

In response to questions the Head of Policy and Design and the Director of Environment outlined some of the options being considered for specific locations such as King Street and London Road. It was important to consider designs that enhanced pedestrian accessibility without causing traffic congestion. Committee Members highlighted the importance of considering the specific location of bus stops as mentioned in the consultation responses.

In relation to retail, it was explained that though the Council had no control over which shops chose to locate themselves in Twickenham, the Council could ensure that retail space was protected through its planning policies. The Council would also work with landlords to develop a long-term strategy for the town centre. Twickenham was favourably located and with potential investment from the capital funding programme, real and lasting improvements could be made to the town centre. The Committee considered that it would be useful if a flagship store could be attracted to Twickenham. Officers explained that work would first need to be carried out to improve the appearance of the town centre. It was also noted that for the town to be successful it would need to offer a range of functions as well as retailing.

Councillor Naylor, as ward councillor for Twickenham Riverside, thanked the officers for their work on the Twickenham Area Action Plan.

It was RESOLVED:

That the report and comments be noted.