To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 3 March 2009 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 2009 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

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

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 Arbour – Request for abandonment of proposals to re-locate Hampton Wick library and instead improve existing facilities and extend opening hours. (Cabinet Member for Youth, Culture and Leisure).

 

Councillor Khosa – Objection to the 12.5m monopole and 2 cabins at the junction of Egerton Road and A316 (Chair of Planning Committee).

 

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

 

"Would the Leader of the Council outline the reasons why all forms of filming of Council proceedings are currently banned on legal advice, and would he be prepared to overturn this ban in the light of procedures in other London Boroughs which permit selected filming to keep residents informed of current decision making by the authority?"

 

(b)        Mrs Rosemary Jarvis has given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education:

 

“What is the Council's view on the right of parental withdrawal from sex education classes?"

 

            Any further questions received of which due notice has been given To follow

 

(c)        Ms Julie Hill has given notice to ask the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

 

            "If Registered Social Landlords, leading Environmentalists and Green organisations encourage residents to take a pride in their environment and support community initiatives, why does Cllr Knight refuse to acknowledge the efforts of residents of Sherland Road Twickenham, whose eight award winning community planted area and cherished street scene trees he has included in land for sale?"

 

(d)        Mr D Williams has given notice to ask the  Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

            "In the Summer 2008 Arcadia Magazine article about the Twickenham Baths development, the Assistant Director of Environment answered the question, "Is this just about the Council selling public land to make money?" as follows "No…. We are not out to make money - we aim to break even. If it appears developers will make too much profit, they will have to scale back the development."

An examination of the three short listed developers' proposals reveal no contingency plans for this "scaling back".  Has the Council discussed this eventuality with the developers and what was their reply?”

 

(e)        Mr Ron Chappell has given notice to ask the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

            "Under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 Competitive dialogue procedure being used for this development, it is understood that to have reached this stage of the procedure, the three short listed Developers all satisfied the requirements of these regulations.

Can the Council confirm that all the requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 regarding evaluation have been complied with, and that an up to date report on this evaluation, including the present economic and financial standing of each developer by a qualified independent authority has been prepared for the Council and is available in the public domain?"

 

 

(a)        In accordance with notice given, Mr Phillip Taylor asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

"Would the Leader of the Council outline the reasons why all forms of filming of Council proceedings are currently banned on legal advice, and would he be prepared to overturn this ban in the light of procedures in other London Boroughs which permit selected filming to keep residents informed of current decision making by the authority?"

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“A Council is not required "to permit the taking of photographs of any proceedings or the use of any means to enable persons not present to see or hear any proceedings (whether at the time or later) or the making of any oral report on any proceedings as they take place" (Section 100A Local Government Act 1972).

 

There is no provision in the Constitution for the public to be entitled to film or tape proceedings.

 

I have asked officers to look at the practicality of providing webcasts of the Council, which happens in other councils, given our financial situation.”

 

Mr Taylor raised his concern for recording the history of the borough and how webcasting could assist this aim as a supplementary question.  Councillor Lourie replied that he would be happy to discuss the matter further with Mr Taylor.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 10.10, Councillor True moved, seconded by Councillor Lourie that the proposal for webcasting be referred to the Co-ordination, Finance and Performance Commission for consideration.

 

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

 

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

 

"What is the Council's view on the right of parental withdrawal from sex education classes?"

 

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

 

“The Council complies with DCSF guidance that parents have the right to withdraw their children from all or part of the Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) provided at a school except for those parts included in the statutory National Curriculum (e.g. the biological aspects of human growth and reproduction necessary under the national curriculum for science).

 .

Schools should always work in partnership with parents, consulting them regularly about the SRE policy and the content of such lessons.

 

If a parent still chooses to withdraw their child, the school is responsible for making alternative educational arrangements. “

 

Mrs Jarvis asked a supplementary question as to whether the local authority would support the retention of the parental right of withdrawal from SRE classes in both primary and secondary schools according to the parent’s religious or philosophical convictions.  Councillor Eady replied that this would be supported for as long as the law stated that it was possible. Although he understood that there was a review underway he had no reason no reason to think that the review should change this position.

 

(c)        In accordance with notice given, Ms Julie Hill asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

 

"If Registered Social Landlords, leading Environmentalists and Green organisations encourage residents to take a pride in their environment and support community initiatives, why does Cllr Knight refuse to acknowledge the efforts of residents of Sherland Road Twickenham, whose eight award winning community planted area and cherished street scene trees he has included in land for sale?"

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“The site that Mrs Hill refers to is of course a lock-up garage site that the council decided in July 2004 should be disposed of for housing development. And whilst there are some street trees on the site it is largely a concrete area. The plan that we are developing for the site includes three homes for those in housing need, social rented housing, and some replacement car parking for the loss of garages. And as Mrs Hill knows, the issues which she raises will of course be dealt with during the planning process and I would encourage her to raise her concerns through that process.”

 

Mrs Hill asked a supplementary question as to why residents had been allowed to continue to improve the site from their own resources and carry on winning awards if the council was going to sell it off.  Councillor Knight replied that residents help to maintain street trees and maintain the wildlife around those trees was acknowledged and appreciated but the Council had an ambition to provide homes for people on that site.  The homes would have gardens and far more soft landscaping and bio diversity than at present where the majority of the site was concrete and garages.

 

 

(d)        In accordance with notice given, Mr D Williams asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

"In the Summer 2008 Arcadia Magazine article about the Twickenham Baths development, the Assistant Director of Environment answered the question, "Is this just about the Council selling public land to make money?" as follows "No…. We are not out to make money - we aim to break even. If it appears developers will make too much profit, they will have to scale back the development."

An examination of the three short listed developers’ proposals reveals no contingency plans for this "scaling back".  Has the Council discussed this eventuality with the developers and what was their reply?

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“The cabinet report is being finalised and will contain a section that deals with the procurement processes that have been followed, it will include the competitive dialogue discussions held in respect of the scale of development and include the views of the valuation panel on whether the tender proposals as they now stand are appropriate in terms of the scale of residential buildings level of developers’ profit and scale of open space. In broad terms there should not be any scaling back as any potential for this has been considered through the earlier stages of the process.”

 

Mr Williams asked a supplementary question on the increase in central Twickenham’s carbon footprint as a result of the construction of carbon emitting buildings and increase in vehicle traffic on the site.  Councillor Lourie replied that the carbon footprint of the site would be minimised and reminded all that Cabinet would be discussing the proposals on 27 April 2009.

 

(e)        In accordance with notice given, Mr Ron Chappell asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

"Under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 Competitive dialogue procedure being used for this development, it is understood that to have reached this stage of the procedure, the three short listed Developers all satisfied the requirements of these regulations.

Can the Council confirm that all the requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 regarding evaluation have been complied with, and that an up to date report on this evaluation, including the present economic and financial standing of each developer by a qualified independent authority has been prepared for the Council and is available in the public domain?"

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“The cabinet report that is being finalised, you will have heard me say this already, and will contain a section that deals with the procurement processes that have been followed including a description of compliance issues and a report of the evaluation panel. The latter will include the views of the panel in respect of the financial standing of the companies involved, their having been advised on such matter by the assistant director of finance who has in hand the latest available checks from independent financial analysts.”

 

Mr Chappell asked a supplementary question as to how up to date the Cabinet report could be as one of the developers last issued a balance sheet in September 2007.  Councillor Lourie replied that the council was receiving expert financial advice from the assistant director of finance and he had in hand the latest available checks from independent financial analysts. Councillor Lourie added that no one in the chamber had any doubt but that the council would be advised correctly on the financial standing of the three bidders.

 

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

 

To follow

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

 

“Will the Leader comment on the fact that the independent Audit Commission has awarded the Council four stars and considers it to be “improving strongly” in the final round of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment?"

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“Richmond upon Thames Council’s top score of four stars and judgement of “improving strongly” places us in the latest and final round of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA), amongst the very best in the country. Only 62 councils (42%) achieved the score of four stars last year and 24% were judged as “improving strongly”. Only 26 authorities have been scored as four stars and “improving strongly”.

 

This represents a significant improvement on the previous assessment of three stars and “improving well” for 2007 and 2008 and recognised the hard work of officers and members and the Council’s commitment to performance improvement.”

 

Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question on the steps being taken for the transition from the CPA to comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA).  Councillor Lourie replied that officers and members had been working hard with all partners to consider how well the stated priorities met local needs and on the delivery of improvements and to ensure that the council was ready for the change.  It was important that the Leader of the Council was chair of the LSP.

 

Councillor True stated that he would have been happy to second the motion later on the agenda on the CPA but asked a supplementary question as to whether some might not see the Administration’s comments on the four-stars as self-congratulatory.  Councillor Lourie replied that the council should be judged on performance. The council was delivering good service with a continuous improvement year upon year.  The Place Survey would show areas for improvement and those areas which had been doing well.  He stated that he had found the presentation of the young people before Council inspiring.

 

 

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

 

“Will the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education tell me how many parents have been offered places at Secondary Schools this year which were not on the list of their preferences?"

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

 

“A total of 199 sets of borough-resident parents were offered places at schools that they had not stated as preferences. The reasons why they did not have any of their preferences met are many and varied. The majority of those parents would have stated only one or two preferences on their application forms, although they were able to express up to six. A number of them would have stated preferences for selective schools, gaining admission to which is statistically improbable, and/or for Catholic schools, without having named any schools in the borough as preferences. Some would only have stated single-sex schools so there are a number of reasons for why the figure is 199.”

 

Councillor Howard asked a supplementary question about the numbers for her ward to which Councillor Eady replied that he did not have a break down available at the meeting.

 

Councillor Samuel asked a supplementary question as to what arrangements would be made for Hampton North parents who did not wish to send their children to a school run by Kunskapsskollan.  Councillor Eady stated that in the previous year there had been 197 offers made for Hampton community college and this year the figure was 216.  Successful schools had more than 1000 applications and there was a strong link between the number of applications and success.  Kunskapsskollan had been chosen as they had shown they could move schools from average to excellent.  Parents would therefore respond by making applications in future.

 

Councillor Davies asked a supplementary question concerning the percentage of first choice places offered.  Councillor Eady replied that the figure was 62% and compared with 53% in Wandsworth Council.  Of neighbouring authorities only Sutton and Hounslow showed a higher percentage than Richmond.  Orleans School had 900 applications but only 167 places.

 

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

 

“Will the Cabinet Member respond positively to the petition from residents of Rectory Grove which I presented to Council on 27 January and ask Transport Officers to implement the proposals which are strongly supported by virtually every resident in this section of the road?"

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

“'Officers have assessed the request for footway parking in the cul-de-sac section of Rectory Grove following initial complaints from residents and Councillor Samuel. The traditional style of town houses along this section of road had almost continuous dropped kerbs. There is therefore insufficient kerb up-stand between vehicle crossovers to allow footway parking bays. The Council can not support the provision of footway parking bays across vehicle crossovers as it would be impossible to enforce non-resident vehicle parking. Footway parking at the entrance to the cul-de-sac forms part of a questionnaire delivered to residents on 21 March.”

 

Councillor Samuel asked a supplementary question as to whether residents, who were well aware of the disadvantages, could have their requirements met.  Councillor Trigg replied that there were legal requirements that the Council had to adhere to, in terms of safety and sight lines along the road.

 

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

"How many proposals for amendment of the LDF Core Strategy were made to the Inspector by the local Conservative Party and in how many cases did the Inspector accept these proposals as necessary for a “sound” document and make amendments to the Core Strategy accordingly?"

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

 

“The Conservative party made 85 representations seeking amendments to the submitted core strategy.  In respect of these representations, other than 5 minor changes which the council made prior to the examination, the Inspector considered that no other changes were necessary for the core strategy to meet the tests of ‘soundness’ and recommended adoption.”

 

Councillor Mumford asked a supplementary question concerning the Opposition’s failure to bring suggestions to Scrutiny and their claims on ‘garden-grabbing’.  Councillor Elengorn replied that he was sad that there had not been a bipartisan approach.  The council needed policies on ‘garden-grabbing’ which were evidence-based and would be effective in the face of appeals

 

Councillor Morris asked a supplementary question concerning opposition to high rise and high density developments.  Councillor Elengorn replied that the council took the precaution of having a very sound report by Kirby Associates which concluded that only certain narrow parts of the borough such as Richmond station and Twickenham station area were suited to tall buildings.

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question as to whether the borough was protected against tall buildings.  Councillor Elengorn replied that the council had a very sound defence against unsuitable buildings.  Development could be concentrated where it was favourable to do so and thus enable better protection of the rest of the borough.

 

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

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing comment on the contribution of adult social care services to the excellent achievement by the Council of the top score in the 2008 Comprehensive  Performance Assessment?"

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

 

As in 2007, Adult Social Care achieved a rating of 3 (out of 4) in the 2008 CPA process, which classifies it as ‘performing well’.  This rating puts Richmond in line with over two-thirds of eligible councils, with 69% scoring 3, (64% in London).   The Audit Commission commented; “Adult social care services continue to deliver improved outcomes overall and work is in progress to increase opportunities for independent living. “  This is also about appreciation of our staff and partners, particularly the PCT.

 

Councillor Davies asked a supplementary question about the importance of Self Directed Support (SDS) in contributing to the score.  Councillor Carr replied that the council was a leader in personalisation and 800 were now on personal budgets.  An independent chair for the Safeguarding board had been recruited.  The roll-out of SDS went hand-in-hand with appropriate levels of safeguarding.

 

Councillor Percival asked a supplementary question as to whether the Audit Commission had commented on the loss of the meals on wheels service.  Councillor Carr replied that safeguarding and personalisation had been fully addressed since the CSCI report.  The Audit Commission had not made any comment on the meals service.  Its revision would mean better food for vulnerable adults and those attending day centres.

 

Councillor Coombs asked a supplementary question as to which areas would next be the focus for improvement.  Councillor Carr replied that SDS would be a two year programme to ensure each person had a personal budget,  Additionally, dementia care and an ageing well strategy for those aged 50+ was being considered by the council and its partners.

 

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

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing comment on the contribution of housing services to the excellent achievement by the Council of the top score in the 2008 Comprehensive Performance Assessment?"

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

 

“The council’s housing service achieved the maximum score of 4 under CPA in 2008, the same rating as in 2007. Under the CPA process, if in 2008 any of our service areas had scored less than 3 (out of 4), and then the council would not have been awarded 4-star status.  Measures that went into the housing score and which the council scored ‘above the upper threshold’ on included having no cases of repeat homelessness, a reduction in the number of homelessness households in temporary accommodation, and the number of private sector empty properties returned to occupation as a result of local authority action.  I would again like to congratulate the staff of the department and in particular the Assistant Director, who had led the staff and service which has benefited so many residents in our borough.”

 

Councillor Morgan asked a supplementary question as to what impact the new housing strategy would have on maintaining performance.  Councillor Carr replied that the housing strategy would reinforce the commitment to preventing homelessness, the provision of good quality advice and information and in developing an affordable housing programme.

 

Councillor Samuel asked a supplementary question as to whether partners in the housing association could be persuaded to enforce their own tenancy agreements, in the face of tenants’ concerns on anti-social behaviour.  Councillor Carr replied that as she attended the LSP regularly, she was aware of the matters raised and that Richmond Housing Partnership was taking steps and working with the Council to monitor and manage instances of anti-social behaviour and follow the full procedures.

 

Councillor Hodges asked a supplementary question as to what steps were being taken to increase the supply of affordable houses.  Councillor Carr replied that the Local Area Agreement target for the local area was 400 new affordable properties over the next 3 years. Delivery of this would be undertaken with partners, and included 16 council home sites which were being developed particularly for social housing and family homes.  Sponsored moves were being arranged where there was under occupation of larger properties to free up the accommodation and there was a major drive in hand on empty properties.

 

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

 

“Would the Cabinet Member comment on the 2008/9 traffic schemes with particular regard to improved road safety measures in the Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside wards?"

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

“During 2008/9 a number of local safety schemes and 20mph zones were implemented, new measures were also introduced within an existing 20mph zone so it now complies with current legislation. To measure the effectiveness of the schemes we compare traffic data before and after the new measures have been introduced which highlighted some significant reductions in speeds on Petersham Road, Ashburnham Road and Broughton Avenue. Further to this we undertook a comprehensive post construction assessment on Petersham Road which shows a significant reduction in the number and severity of accidents along this stretch of road.”

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question about the overall reduction in accident figures.  Councillor Trigg replied that overall figures were provided in four-year slots.  From1995-1999 there were 22 accidents one fatal, four serious and 17 slight. After the first implementation in the area and from 2003-2007 that total of 22 was reduced to 12 with zero fatal, from four to one serious and 17 to 11 slight. In 2008 the first year of it produced zero fatal, zero serious and two slight.

 

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

 

"The former bowling green site in Mortlake has been sold and housing is proposed by the developers. Can he confirm that he will support the residents in their fight to retain the site for recreational activities only and not to support this apparent change of use?"

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

 

“Any planning application will need to be considered against the council’s planning policies contained in the 2005 UDP and the 2009 LDF Core Strategy. These include the general policies to resist the loss of sports facilities and playing fields.  Under the members’ protocol for planning and development control it would, as Cllr Morris knows, be difficult for me to comment further prior to the formal consideration of any application.”

 

Councillor Morris asked a supplementary question as to whether the recreational use of the site should be kept unless there was no demand.  Councillor Elengorn replied that a report would be produced for the planning application which would consider this and other material planning issues.

 

Councillor Stanier asked a supplementary question concerning the misconception in Mortlake that the site was council-owned and whether the site could be considered as open space.  Councillor Elengorn replied that officers were aware of local feeling.

 

(i)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Munira Wilson asked the Cabinet Member for Youth, Culture and Leisure:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Youth, Culture & Leisure comment on the contribution of youth services to the excellent achievement by the Council of the top score in the 2008 Comprehensive Performance Assessment?"

 

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

 

[‘Youth services’ are not classified as an individual service block within CPA. However, the primary ‘scoring’ contribution of Youth Services is towards the ‘Children and Young People’s’ service assessment. Richmond achieved a maximum rating of 4 in the CPA 2008 process, one of only 7 councils in London and 9 nationally to achieve this. JAR 2007 and APA 2008 rated as outstanding the ‘Make a positive contribution’ area to which the Youth Services contributed through youth participation work and delivery of positive activities.

 

The Ofsted annual performance letter stated; “The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames consistently delivers outstanding services for children and young people. The council and its partners have maintained and steadily improved upon performance over the past year in most areas of work.” The letter also contains numerous examples of where Youth services are making a ‘significant difference’.]

 

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

 

“How much will it cost to install parking machines in areas where the voucher system is being withdrawn?"

[The average cost of installing a new pay and display machine is £250; the cost does vary slightly due to local conditions of the sub surface and the proximity of underground services. It is intended to make all bays in the seven zones currently served by voucher parking open to payment via pay by phone, pay & display and vouchers. The retention of the voucher option will allow those already purchased to be used.

Any costs of extending the payment methods will be met within existing budgets.]

 

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

 

“Would the Cabinet Member for Communities like to comment on the CPA score for community development?"

[Although there is not a specific score for the Council’s work in leading the partnership work on community development the Audit Commission has acknowledged the contribution this excellent work is making in identifying and tackling inequality in the 5 areas of relative disadvantage in the borough by recognising it as one of the contributors to the Council’s ‘improving strongly’ assessment.  

 

The Community Development work goes from strength to strength and I am delighted to have chaired the first Community Development Conference last Thursday which raised greater awareness of the innovative work which is being done by us and partner agencies to reduce inequality across the borough.]

 

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

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Environment comment on the contribution of environmental services to the excellent achievement by the Council of the top score in 2008 Comprehensive Performance Assessment?"

[The environment service score under CPA for 2008 was 3 out of 4 that is to say “performing well, consistently above minimum requirements”. This increase, from a score of 2 in 2007, enabled an overall 4 stars achievement for the Council. Under CPA rules any service score of 2 or less prevents the overall score from increasing above 3 stars. The environment score is based on a selection of performance measures that are assessed against upper and lower threshold levels. Improvements in performance, for example in highway conditions, planning, waste and street cleaning, have led to this success.]

 

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

 

“Before the recent decision to close all the public toilets in the centre of Richmond Town was taken what consultation took place with:

1) Ward Councillors?

2) Local amenity groups including the Richmond Society and Friends of Richmond Green?

3) Local businesses?

Is he satisfied this was adequate consultation for such an important matter?"

 

[The few remaining public toilets were closed because they no longer met the standards residents and visitors expect.  We had successfully encouraged more decent, well kept toilets in the area to join the Community Toilet Scheme and we were grateful to Ward Councillors for helping to identify some of them. There was therefore no longer a need to keep poor quality, inaccessible toilets open at the public expense when financial pressures were upon us.

 

A similar approach was taken to consultation to that followed by the previous administration when it closed other public toilets a few years ago.]

 

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

 

“What is the difference between a car hire bay (car club bay) and parking for a commercial car hire firm which requires planning permission to operate?"

 

[‘Car clubs allow pay-as-you-go access to vehicles for as little as 30 minutes at a cost of £4-5/hour.  Car club vehicles principally use on-street bays because vehicle proximity is the key factor in membership and use.  Car hire firms operate from centralised bases with typical minimum daily hire periods and therefore cater for a different market.  On-street parking is not subject to direct planning control but covered by various Road Traffic Acts.  Commercial vehicle hire premises are subject to normal planning controls. The Mayor of London himself champions car clubs as assisting improvements to theurban environment in “Way to go!"]

 

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

 

“Would the Cabinet Member for the Environment please give the reason for the doubling of the green garden waste charge?

 

[I am more than happy to set out again the reason for increasing the charges. 

In 2007/08 we subsidised the collection of green garden waste by approximately £250,000.  The aim in increasing charges is to reduce this by approximately £130,000 thus reducing the burden on residents generally so that people pay for the service they choose to use.  In parallel we are promoting the use of home composters through an offer on our web site.   Overall we anticipate this will help reduce our overall waste arisings to meet the targets we have been given.]

 

(p)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Cranfield-Adams asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

“To ask the Leader of the Council if he is satisfied that proper respect and courtesy was shown to the former Chairman of the Council's SACRE when it was decided to change the status of the SACRE, which led to the Chairman's removal without his knowledge, and would he agree it would have been more appropriate for the change of status to have been communicated to the former Chairman in advance of a paper report being submitted to full Council for ratification?"

[I agree with Cllr Cranfield-Adams that “it would have been more appropriate for the change of status to have been communicated to the former Chairman in advance of a paper report being submitted to full Council for ratification.”]

 

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

 

            The regeneration of Longford River and surrounding area (Hampton North Ward)

 

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

 

            Parking Charges in Richmond Park and Impact on Surrounding Roads and Through Roads (Mortlake and Barnes Common Ward)

 

(c)        Councillor Seymour has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

 

Poor Public Transport Provision in Hampton North Ward (Hampton North Ward)

 

(a)  Regeneration of Longford River and surrounding area (Hampton North Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given Councillor Howard raised a number of issues concerning regeneration of the Longford River, including,

Ø      The Longford River  had been established in the seventeenth century to improve the water supply to Hampton Court

Ø      Today, fly-tipping regularly blocked the flow of the river under Longford bridge leading to flooding in gardens

Ø      There was poor fencing, making the environment seem hostile, on the Longford bridge

Ø      There was a need to try to regenerate the Longford bridge as an amenity area for families

Councillor Howard considered that the area had been neglected for too long.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Elengorn, stated that he welcomed the points raised and would visit the site himself.  He explained that the Longford River was owned by the Royal Parks.  Meetings with the Royal Parks had not resulted in progress.  Wildlife was a concern which needed to be managed.  It was thought that the Longford River might be relevant to the Thames Strategy.  The landowners had overall responsibility for the river not the Council, but landowners could be required to remove the fly-tipped refuse.

 

(b)  Parking charges in Richmond Park and impact on surrounding roads and through roads (Mortlake and Barnes Common Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given Councillor Stanier raised a number of issues concerning the impact of parking charges in Richmond Park on roads in her ward, including,

Ø      Concerns over the parking charges in Richmond Park

Ø      Congestion caused in nearby streets as people parked locally to avoid the charges

Ø      It was not clear why the Royal Parks needed the funds

Councillor Stanier emphasised that the issue affected residents and businesses in her ward. 

 

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking, Councillor Trigg, stated that this was a concern around both Richmond and Bushy Parks.  He had responded though a past consultation on this issue and asked for an assessment to be made on the neighbouring and surrounding residential areas of the borough. Royal Parks had been asked to consider the environmental impact and follow the Council’s lead in introducing CO₂ emission based charges.  They had also been asked to consider better public transport provision to and through the park and to encourage more cycling by introducing improved cycling parking facilities within their car parks.  The council was keeping the issue under constant vigilance because this could have a very big effect not only on Cllr Stanier’s ward but also in a number of other wards.

 

(c)  Poor public transport provision (Hampton North Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given Councillor Seymour raised a number of issues concerning the poor public transport in his ward, including,

Ø      Although many chose to walk or cycle this was not practical when carrying a load

Ø      Public transport provision in Hampton north was two bus routes

Ø      People were not inclined to leave cars at home if there was no viable alternative

Ø      The Mayor of London had pledged £4.2 million to improve travel.

Councillor Seymour suggested that Hampton North’s share of this money for improvements would be around £300,000.

 

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking, Councillor Trigg, stated that there were issues in differing parts of the borough with respect to provision of public transport, for example Hampton North was close to a railway station whereas Ham was not.  The Smarter Travel Initiative was generally aimed at education and not the implementation of specific facilities. The implementation of specific facilities for buses was the responsibility of Transport for London and London Buses. This borough had worked well with Transport for London and had received the highest level of funding of any London borough. The process for implementation and change of bus routes was part of a five year plan.  Proposals were sent to all councillors but this was a slow process. The Council would continue working with TfL towards improving public transport services.

 

 

 

 

Attached

(a)        Community Safety Partnership Plan 2008 to 2011

            Updated Richmond upon Thames Community Safety Partnership Plan 2008-11 Attached

 

(b)       Local Development Framework

 

            Report of the Cabinet Member for Environmen Attached

Community Safety Partnership Plan 2008 to 2011

 

(1)   That the draft updated Community Safety Partnership Plan 2008 to 2011 be endorsed.

 

Local Development Framework

 

(1)   That the Core Strategy submission version, together with the changes previously put forward by the council to the Inspector prior to and during the examination and suggested changes by the Inspector be adopted.

 

None

None.

None

None.

None

None.

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 the imminent retirement of her Macebearer and Chauffeur, John Brooker, and that a reception would be held to mark this event before 19 May.  This news was received with universal acclaim by Council.

 

The Mayor announced that this was the last meeting of Council that Trevor Pugh would attend.  He received cross-party thanks for his service as Director of Environment and the good wishes of Council for his new post with Surrey County Council.

 

The Mayor announced that the Anthony Adkins piano recital would take place on 5 May in the Clarendon Hall and encouraged all to attend. 

 

The Mayor stated that she had been a participant in the 36^th annual ‘All London Mayors’ Charity Walk‘ in the City of London.

 

The Leader announced that the nomination for Mayor at the Annual Council Meeting would be Councillor Hodges with Councillor Khosa nominated as Deputy Mayor.

 

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

 

            “This Council, recognising the contribution of its partners, congratulates the Chief Executive and staff for the authority being recognised by the independent Audit Commission as having “four star status” “improving strongly” in the final Comprehensive Performance Assessment”

.

(b)       Councillor Cranfield-Adams has given notice to move the following Motion:

 

            "This Council notes with concern the quality of advice given by the Legal Services Department particularly in relation to (i) the direction given to the Standards Committee in respect of complaints against Councillors, (ii) in respect of implementing the Freedom of Information Act, and calls on the Chief Executive to instigate an open and independent inquiry into conduct of the Legal Services Department." 

 

(c)        Councillor True has given notice to move the following Motion:

 

“This Council requests that before the signing of any contract with a developer for the construction of luxury homes and a shell building for a River Centre on publicly owned land on Twickenham Riverside, and before agreeing any disposal, lease or assignment of this land in connection with those projects, the Cabinet organise a referendum of residents of Twickenham Riverside, South Twickenham, West Twickenham and St.Margaret's and North Twickenham wards to ascertain whether the signing of a contract for their preferred development scheme has the support of a majority of the residents of Twickenham.”

 

Any further motions received of which due notice has been given To follow

 

 

N.B      Councillor Cranfield-Adams has withdrawn the Motion listed as Item 13 (b). This motion will therefore not be considered at the meeting.

(a)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Lourie moved, seconded by Councillor Dodds,

 

“This Council, recognising the contribution of its partners, congratulates the Chief Executive and staff for the authority being recognised by the independent Audit Commission as having “four star status” “improving strongly” in the final Comprehensive Performance Assessment”

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

“This Council, recognising the contribution of its partners, congratulates the Chief Executive and staff for the authority being recognised by the independent Audit Commission as having “four star status” “improving strongly” in the final Comprehensive Performance Assessment”

 

(b)  This motion was withdrawn.

 

(c)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor True moved, seconded by Councillor Samuel,

 

“This Council requests that before the signing of any contract with a developer for the construction of luxury homes and a shell building for a River Centre on publicly owned land on Twickenham Riverside, and before agreeing any disposal, lease or assignment of this land in connection with those projects, the Cabinet organise a referendum of residents of Twickenham Riverside, South Twickenham, West Twickenham and St.Margaret's and North Twickenham wards to ascertain whether the signing of a contract for their preferred development scheme has the support of a majority of the residents of Twickenham.”

 

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

 

In line 2, delete “luxury”

 

In line 4, delete all words after “Cabinet” and insert:

 

“review thoroughly the arguments for and against the re-development of Twickenham Riverside with particular reference to:

 

1. the economic downturn which has resulted in the closure of many local shops in Twickenham;
2. the fact that a decision to close the old pool was taken in 1981; and
3. the clear desire of local people for a River Centre.“

 

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

 

There for the amendment was declared to be CARRIED.

 

It being 10 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 9.1, the Mayor called for an immediate vote on the substantive motion.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

“This Council requests that before the signing of any contract with a developer for the construction of homes and a shell building for a River Centre on publicly owned land on Twickenham Riverside, and before agreeing any disposal, lease or assignment of this land in connection with those projects, the Cabinet review thoroughly the arguments for and against the re-development of Twickenham Riverside with particular reference to:

 

1. the economic downturn which has resulted in the closure of many local shops in Twickenham;
2. the fact that a decision to close the old pool was taken in 1981; and
3. the clear desire of local people for a River Centre.“