The Mayor reported the death of former councillor Jill Miller, who served as a member of the Council, representing Kew from 1990 to 2002.  The funeral was held on 26 April 2010.

As a mark of respect, Council stood in silence for one minute.

The Mayor also informed Council of the recent deaths of the serving Mayor of Wandsworth and of a previous Mayor of Lewisham.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 2 March 2010 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2010 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

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

No declarations of interest were made.

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

Councillor Stanier presented a petition on behalf of residents of Cambridge Road objecting to breach of conditions of planning permission at The Yard House, Cambridge Road.

To receive any questions of which due notice has been given.

To follow

a)                  In accordance with notice given, Mr. Dahesh Patel had been scheduled to ask the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking a question, but was not present.  The question and a written answer are reproduced below,

“Why is the cost of parking behind Twickenham High Street (and indeed where the parking office is) so expensive?  Hounslow have a scheme where it costs 10p for 30 minutes (good for local shops). Moreover, why is it so complicated - band a, b, c etc?”

“The parking charges you refer to are not in car parks comparable to Holly Road, Twickenham, as they are away from the main town centres. Charges in Hounslow Town Centre are the same as Holly Road. However, as you will be aware, in this Borough motorists using low and medium CO2 emitting vehicles can benefit from reduced charges in both our car parks and, importantly for local shops, at the ‘on-street’ parking meters.

With respect to the emission based charging arrangements, I do not believe the system is complicated as the lower charges are automatically applied to anyone using the RichmondCard or paying by phone.”

b)                  In accordance with notice given, Ms Teresa Read asked the Leader Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

“The Gifford House site, in a conservation area opposite Twickenham Green, has been used by squatters, vandalised and the boundary wall destroyed; at the back of the site the Council has built a Contact Centre on a children’s garden in order to sell more land with Gifford House.

A plan to build flats was withdrawn and at least two sales have fallen through - there has been complete failure to engage with local residents over Gifford House and a residents’ Planning Brief was ignored. Do you agree that residents could have done a better job than the Council?”

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

“No.”

Ms Read asked a supplementary question as to whether the Leader was ashamed of the problems surrounding the sale of Gifford House.  The Leader stated that he was not and explained some of the difficulties that had been encountered and how these were being addressed.  The Council was currently working through applications with Care UK.

c)                  In accordance with notice given, Ms Julie Hill asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

“By continuing with the sale of land containing street scene trees and an award winning community garden in Sherland Road, Twickenham, despite it being listed and commented upon in the current DPD open spaces consultation document, this Administration shows total disregard for the community and I ask what is the point of holding consultations if they are pure tokenism, as decisions have already been made and the views of participants are completely ignored?”

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

“The sale of this land is separate from the Local Development Framework and the development control process and in any event the land has planning permission.  Before planning permission was granted, the Planning Committee considered in detail the submissions which were made.”

Ms Hill asked a supplementary question claiming that Councillor Lourie’s response was factually incorrect and seeking to establish how the Council had reflected the views of residents within the plans.  Councillor Lourie reiterated that planning consent was granted, and explained that the planning process was separate from the political administration of the Council and judged applications on planning law, without consideration to political will.

d)                  In accordance with notice given, Mr Graeme Tallantire asked the Cabinet Lead Member for Children’s Services and Education:

“Could you please confirm how many Permanent Primary school places the current administration has actually provided in its last 4 years in office and at what stage did you decide that substandard playing field space provision would be acceptable for the children of the borough?”

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

“Madam Mayor we are delivering 1050 new places under phase 1 of the school expansion programme and I can now announce that under phase two, if the purchase of the St Johns site goes through we will deliver a further 1050 places which is up on the planned 840.  In the second phase schools with limited space for expansion shared form entries are being provided and the first of these which went in last year which went in last year at St Elizabeth’s following this year St Osmond’s and Marshgate.  Madam mayor the Conservatives in their four years, commissioned just 210 places, 25% of what was actually required and when they lost the election they had no plans for future provision other than a simple request for a study by some consultants.  As it takes three years to deliver an expanded school this was not a very good legacy to inherit.

The answer to the last part of the Mr Tallantire’s question is, we do not, we provide necessary facilities.”

Mr Tallantire asked a supplementary question reiterating his previous question and asking that the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education confirm the actual number of permanent places made available something he did not feel was addressed in the answer.  Councillor Eady responded that the places he was talking about were full time places and not bulge class places.

e)                  In accordance with notice given, Mr Barry Edwards asked the Cabinet Member for Communities:

“You signed up to the Sustainable Communities Act, you had the opportunity to use the Act and you didn't.  Why not?”

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

“The Sustainable Communities Act is an opportunity for communities and Councils to volunteer ideas which would contribute to sustainability locally, but would require national action to put into effect.  In November 2008, Cabinet agreed that a procedure was needed for considering proposals, however no applications were received until 30^th July 2009, a day before the deadline.  For this round there was insufficient time for consultation on the proposal as required by the Act.

Mr Edwards asked a supplementary question claiming that the Council had broken the law by not following specific duties in relation to the Act.  Councillor Williams refuted the suggestion that the Council had broken the law or that he should take advice from Mr Edwards on this matter when he was the author of the application to which he referred and had submitted that application late and, initially, to the wrong authority.

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 Morris asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

“How many members of the public have responded to the DPD consultation?”

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

“Thank you Madam Mayor.  An initial analysis of the response to the DPD consultation which ran from January 29^th to March 12^th 2010 shows the following results:

In total there were 125 respondents; of these 90 were members of the public, including representatives of residents’ groups.

The consultation can be subdivided as follows:

For the actual Development Management DPD there were 519 comments from 64 consultees

For Proposals Map Review and Changes, 125 comments from 85 consultees

Some consultees responded on both documents.”

Councillor Morris asked a supplementary question claiming that the consultation was not sufficient and asking why those resident views that were collected were ignored particularly on the LDF allowing high rise applications to be approved.  Councillor Action replied that there had been a long process of consultation of which Councillor Morris had been a part and that views had and would continue to be taken in to account. 

Councillor Elengorn asked the Cabinet Member whether Councillor Morris was talking about her involvement in a different stage of the process and a different policy, the one adopted in April 2009 and guided by the current restrictive policy of the Mayor of London on high buildings.  Councillor Acton confirmed that this was correct.

Councillor Head asked how the Cabinet Member planned to deal with the flood gates now being opened by the LDF to high rise buildings in Richmond and Twickenham.  Councillor Acton firstly refuted that the ‘flood gates’ were open but conceded that the LDF did allow for some high rise buildings in the town centres.  This was because the LDF had to stay in line with the Core Strategy introduced by the Conservatives in 2006. 

b)                  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Samuel asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

“Will the Cabinet Member, taking due note of the consultants' statement that ‘the savings identified will close some of the financial gap’ set out in detail his proposals to close the remainder of the gap?”

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

“Madam Mayor, as Councillor Samuel knows, this administration has been extremely successful in finding efficiency savings over the last four years.  Which is why we succeeded in freezing the Council Tax in real terms rather than the 20% real terms increase which their administration presided over.  However it is clear that the next four years are going to be extremely tight and even tighter if Mr Cameron becomes Prime Minister.  It is because we expect the next four years to be an extremely tight financial settlement that we are already planning ahead now to achieve efficiency savings over that period.  Our administration, Madam Mayor if we are re elected in a few days time, will be characterised over the next four years by a rigorous approach to achieving efficiencies in order to protect frontline services. I clearly cannot give the same commitment if the party opposite were to win.”    

Councillor Samuel asked a supplementary question urging Councillor Knight to let voters know what cuts he was planning for after the election.  Councillor Knight maintained that he had admitted efficiencies would be needed under any administration and that work was being done to make these efficiencies in the future, but that there were no secret cuts up his sleeve.

Councillor True asked a supplementary question regarding the findings of consultants who he claimed had identified savings that were the result of a lack of a rigorous approach to efficiency by the Administration.  Councillor Knight refuted the allegations and said that the Administration would continue to focus on making efficiency savings whilst protecting frontline services. 

Councillor Mumford asked Councillor Knight to confirm that under the Conservatives Teddington school would not have been rebuilt.  Councillor Knight confirmed that had they been in power the Conservatives would not have rebuilt Teddington School.

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

“Since nearly 40% of applicants are failing to get their first choice of secondary school, what is the Cabinet Member doing to reduce this disappointing figure?”

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

“Madam Mayor, our rate is higher than Kingston and considerably higher than Hammersmith and Fulham and Wandsworth.  Richmond residents are therefore getting a better deal than those in other local Boroughs.  Now, why is it not higher?  Firstly, parents know that the system allows them to state the first preference of the school, which statistically they are unlikely to attain, without the risk of not getting their second preference. Secondly, historically some of our secondary schools have underperformed, that is why three years ago we started the academies programme and put more money into school improvements. Last summer we had a significant improvement in GCSE exam results, up seven percent on last year which was up six percent on the year before. Our aim is to get all our Secondary schools to be good or outstanding, which will give parents the confidence to pick our local schools and make them their first choice.”

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question which sought to establish that the Liberal Democrat Administration had failed to give parents the schools they wanted.  Councillor Eady responded by quoting figures showing the improvement of schools in the Borough since 2006 which now had 4 in the top 50% of the added value scores.

Councillor Hodgins asked a question which referred to Councillor Eady’s comments at an Overview and Scrutiny Committee and suggested that Councillor Eady would tell parents what was best for their children rather than listen to their opinions.  Councillor Eady denied that was the case and further noted that 82% of respondents had approved of the proposals put forward.

Councillor Williams asked how the number of first choice preferences for Grey Court School had changed over the last four years.  Councillor Eady reported that in 2006 they were 97, 62 in 2007, and a significant improvement in September to154.

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

“Can the Cabinet Member comment on the implementation of the new Community Meals Services, including the provision of hot ‘meals-on wheels’ in the Borough?”

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

“Thank you Madam Mayor. The new community meals services commenced in July 2009.  Overall, they have been very successful and continue to perform well. Gross expenditure on meals by the Council has reduced, thus contributing to the efficiency and the way that we manage our budgets.  There were some concerns about the service provided at Sheen Day Centre but action is being taken through performance monitoring to improve this and further monitoring of service users’ satisfaction levels is taking place, including face to face discussions with users and carers over the coming weeks. Generally however, satisfaction levels for service users receiving frozen and the hot meals both at home and at the Council’s intensive Day Care centres, are high.”

Councillor Morgan asked a supplementary question seeking to establish how many people still used the hot meals service.  Councillor Carr confirmed that 90 people per month continued to receive hot meals and that people would continue to be able to choose this option despite many preferring the freedom and quality offered by the frozen meals option.

Councillor Samuel asked that the Cabinet Member guarantee that the hot meals service would continue at the same cost for the next four years should the Liberal Democrats be re-elected.  Councillor Carr said that she had never said otherwise and hoped the Conservatives would also offer such a guarantee.

Councillor Allen asked the Cabinet Member to report the savings generated by the new scheme.  Councillor Carr reported that £100,000 had been saved in the last 6 months.

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

“Will the Cabinet Member please update the Council on the implementation of the Carers’ Strategy”

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

“Thank you Madam Mayor.  We have 15,000 carers, approximately, in the Borough about 2000 of whom are known to services.  Many of them are over 65 and the majority are female.  As a result, it was with great pleasure that we launched our Richmond upon Thames Carers Strategy in 2007 and indeed nominated Councillor Anna Davies to be our carers champion, reflecting the importance that we attach to supporting informal carers, to reach out to them, identifying them and supporting them.

Our key achievements so far, in this strategy, have been:

·      Emergency Respite Scheme providing access to 24/7 emergency support for Carers.

·         Staff training for LBRuT / NHSR / Voluntary Sector also accessing DoH training

·         Securing NHSR Carers Breaks money jointly developing process to provide direct breaks for carers

·         Developed “Former Carers” Policy used across voluntary sector organisations

·         Ensuring Carers are a key group in consultations e.g. End of Life Care Strategy, Self Directed Support, Anti-Bullying Strategy

·         Reviewed allocation of Carers Grant to voluntary sector based on strategy priorities”

Councillor Davies asked a supplementary question asking what steps were being taken to find and support young carers in the borough.  Councillor Carr replied that there were indeed many carers aged 5-18 years old in the Borough and had set up the post of Young Carers’ School Liaison Worker to help identify and support them.

Councillor Urquhart asked what was being done for those carers still waiting for an assessment of need.  Councillor Carr reported that under the Self Directed Support system a more holistic assessment was undertaken and that this was offered to all carers, although not all had taken up the offer. 

Councillor Lee-Parsons asked that Councillor Carr elaborate on the subject of Self Directed Support.  Councillor Carr elaborated on an area that was particularly important and this was identifying people with dementia and their carers.  A new Dementia strategy just agreed by Council would put in place a framework for identifying and supporting people with dementia and getting personalised services in place for their individual needs.

f)                    In accordance with notice given, Councillor Urquhart asked the Cabinet member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 “What provision is the Cabinet Member making to meet the costs of free personal care for the elderly - expected this October?”

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

“The Personal Care at Home Bill was passed on 8 April 2010, however its implementation has now been delayed until at least April 2011 following strenuous protests from the local government, local government representatives and indeed our own council.  The Council will therefore not incur any additional costs relating to free personal care at home in 2010/11 and no budget provision has been made.  The estimated cost of providing free personal care at home in a full year in our Borough is £1.9m and the Council’s provisional grant allocation is set at would be £1.25m.  The difference between the cost and government grant funding will need to be considered in the budget setting process, depending on the final date for implementation.  The Department of Health is blithely assuming that this can be delivered from efficiencies and we will have to strive to ensure this is met.

Councillor Urquhart asked a supplementary question as to whether there would be money set aside in case it was needed or whether the administration, should it be in power, would use some of the Council’s reserves.  Councillor Carr confirmed that the Council may need to fall back on its reserves but that because assessments would now take place after a 6 week reablement period it was likely to reduce the costs of after hospital care in the long run.

Councillor Davies asked the Cabinet Member to elaborate on the long tem impact of these changes for a Borough with an ageing population.  Councillor Carr reported that the Personal Care at Home Bill had created many problems that would need addressing and although the pressure was off in the short term the Liberal Democrats were focusing on resolving the issues for the long term before they happened.

Councillor Howard asked that in light of the recession and difficulties funding services under her care that the Cabinet member consider a cut in her own wages should she be re-elected.  The Mayor informed Councillor Carr that she was under no obligation to answer as the question was not relevant to the initial question posed by Councillor Urquhart.

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

g)                  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Seymour asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

“The Leader of the Council has announced that Lib Dems could move to fortnightly waste collections - but not yet. Will he now tell us exactly when?”

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

“Cllr Seymour is well aware that I made no such statement.  I am delighted that we have record levels of recycling at around 43%.”

h)                  In accordance with notice given Councillor Fleming asked the Cabinet Lead Member for Communities:

“Does the Cabinet Member agree that the level of Anti-Social behaviour in the borough is too high?”

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

“When looking at the 2009 strategic assessment anti-social behaviour incidents reported to the Police have decreased by 5.7% (300 reports) on the same period the year before (April 08-March 09: April 07-March 08). Richmond Borough continues to record the lowest level of anti-social behaviour per 1,000 population; when compared to the other MPS Boroughs. The Community Safety Partnership is committed to continuous improvement on services provided to tackle anti-social behaviour and has just signed up to the minimum standards stating our commitment to victims and witnesses who experience anti-social behaviour.”

i)                    In accordance with notice given Councillor Elengorn asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

“Given that the Tory manifesto says that “bad planning and parking policies led to the loss of scores of gardens” and that these policies are those adopted by the Tories in 2005, would the Cabinet Member agree that the draft LDF policies recently put out to public consultation by the Lib Dem administration offer better safeguards for residential character and that it is highly misleading for the Tories not to admit ownership of their own policies?”

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

“Yes the draft LDF policies which have been out to public consultation earlier this year offer greater protection to gardens in residential areas, including designating some particularly valuable contiguous gardens as Other Open Land of Townscape Importance. I find it extraordinary that the Tories seek to pretend that the UDP policies adopted in 2005 are nothing to do with them despite the enthusiastic commendation given to them by Cllr David Marlow in the foreword.  It is on a par with their seeking to pretend that they have not run this Council at any time in the last 30 years.”

j)                    Councillor Parsons asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Housing and Health:

“Given the mismanagement and lack of foresight which caused the previous Apetito Contract to be extended by a further year, would the Cabinet Member for Adult Care, Health and Housing reveal her foresight for the forthcoming annual review of the current contract for frozen meals?”

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:           

“The current meal contracts with Apetito Ltd (one contract for meals provided at the Council’s intensive day care centres and another contract for home delivered services) were awarded on 23 February 2009.  This is a three year contract with the option to extend by a further year at the end of that three year period and a further year after that.  There are annual reviews of contracts such as this as well as ongoing monitoring of the performance of the provider which takes place in regular contract monitoring forums with Apetito.  Details of the quality of meals provided by Apetito and levels of service users’ satisfaction were reported in detail at the O & S Committee on 16 March 2010.”

(6a)  Councillor Bennett has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

“Trees in Princess Street.”(South Richmond Ward)

(6b)  Councillor King has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

“The bridge over the railway on Hanworth Road, near the Hounslow Heath Estate.” (Heathfield Ward)

(6c) Councillor Ball has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

“The R70 bus service and a suggested new direct bus service to Teddington Hospital from the west side of Hampton (i.e. Oak Avenue and Broad Lane).”  

(Hampton Ward)

a)                  Trees in Prince’s Street, 
(South Richmond Ward)

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Bennett raised concerns about Trees in Prince’s Street, Richmond. He provided photographic evidence of the damage caused to tree enclosures where tree roots had outgrown the space provided and damaged the brickwork around them and asked that a solution be sought.

The Cabinet Member for Environment stated that he was aware of the problem and had requested that officers review the possible solutions preferably one where the tree can be preserved.  However, if this were not possible an alternative solution would be found.

b)                  Railway Bridge on Hanworth Rd

(Heathfield Ward)

In accordance with notice given, Councillor King raised concerns regarding the bridge over the railway lines on Hanworth Road.  He reminded Councillors that the issue had been raised before but that the Heathfield Schools had now added their concerns for children and families using the bridge to get to school.  The bridge he claimed was over narrow and over used and therefore unsafe. 

The Cabinet Member for Traffic Transport and Parking stated that he was aware of the concerns of local people about the bridge but that it was the responsibility of Network Rail and they had no plans to undertake any work on it at present.  Councillor Trigg noted that Network Rail had undertaken work on a similar bridge and would raise this and the possibility of a stand alone bridge for pedestrians with them.

c)                  R70 Bus Service
(Hampton Ward)

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Ball raised concerns over the reliability and appropriateness of the R70 service and suggested that a new direct bus service to Teddington Hospital from the west side of Hampton was needed. 

The Cabinet Member for Traffic Transport and Parking reported that TfL had investigated the feasibility of this service and had found that there was not the demand for such a route.  However, Councillor Trigg reported that some data had not been considered and would press TfL to do so.

Attached

A.                              CABINET

Proposals for Borough Based Commissioning of Community Services

RESOLVED:

(1)   That the jointly funded appointments with NHS Richmond at a total cost to the Council of up to £90,000 per annum be endorsed.

(2)   That the re-designation of Directors of the Council as “Executive Directors” with effect from 1 April 2010 be endorsed.

Attached

Appendix 3 to follow

B.                             STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Changes to the Constitution – Guidance for Members and Reduced Scope of Members’ Protocols

RESOLVED:

(1)   That ‘Guidance for Members’ for inclusion in the Council’s Constitution to replace the Current Members’ Protocol and appendices B - C be adopted.

(2)   That the proposals for Councillors’ use of ICT, as set out in Appendix A of the Guidance for Members be agreed.

(3)   That the present Planning and Development Control Protocol be maintained.

(4)   That Licensing and Gambling Protocol, (attached as Appendix 2 of the report) be updated and the current Licensing and Gambling Protocol be replaced.

(5)   That the Guidance and Protocols referred to in the recommendations above be agreed to take effect as from 10 May 2010, and that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair of Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer be authorised to agree any future adjustments to the wording of the Guidance for Members.

(6)   That the terms of reference of the Standards Protocol Sub-Committee (attached as Appendix 3 of the report) for incorporation into the Constitution at the Council’s Annual meeting be noted and agreed.

None

There were none.

None

There were none.

Attached

A.                  CHANGES TO THE CONSTITION – NEW EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND OTHER UPDATES

RESOLVED:

That the changes to the Constitution set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 and in the accompanying Appendices for implementation on 10 May 2010 be agreed.

Attached

B.                 Council meetings schedule

RESOLVED

That the draft Schedule of Council Meetings, May 2010 – May 2011, attached as Appendix A of the report be noted.

Attached

C.                 LOCAL ELECTION MAY 2010

RESOLVED:

(1)   That the list of 13 Councillors not standing for re-election included in the report be noted.

(2)   That, in view of her lengthy service, Councillor Stanier be also recognised with a special presentation alongside the others included in the report with eight or more years continuous service.

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 following:

a)      The Mayor’s recent tour of Kew with fellow Mayors was very successful and raised just short of £1000 for chosen charities.  12 Mayors and their consorts from other London boroughs and Surrey councils supported this event.

b)      The Rotary Ramble took place on 17 April.  Sponsorships are still being received.

c)      The Mayor would be attending a twinning reaffirmation with Konstanz in May.

d)      Richmond Council had been awarded the Charter for Member Development and received a certificate from London Councils in March. 

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

            “This Council regrets that the Conservative Party in the House of Lords refused to vote for the motion moved by Jenny Tonge which would have stopped the car parking charges in Richmond Park and Bushy Park.”

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

            "This Council notes that in her video presentation to staff on the need for efficiency savings the Chief Executive stated that the Council would need to look at new income streams; calls on the Leader of the Council to explain where new fees and charges will arise and which current fees and charges will rise and by how much."

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

            “This Council believes that the best interests of the residents of the borough are served by integrated community health and social care provision that is locally accountable and responsive to the needs and wishes of our residents.  The Council has worked in partnership with NHS Richmond and others to this end and has supported the development of Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare (HRCH) as the most suitable NHS community health provider.

The Council therefore rejects the proposal by NHS Richmond, acting on the instructions of NHS London, to integrate HRCH into a remote acute or other NHS trust; and deplores the timetable adopted and that it is being rushed through without consultation and in contradiction of the Government's stated commitment to promoting locally accountable services. 

The Council will work with local residents and groups, and with Hounslow Council, to achieve a successful HRCH by whatever means necessary.”

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

“This Council regrets that the Conservative Party in the House of Lords refused to vote for the motion moved by Jenny Tonge which would have stopped the Car Parking charges in Richmond Park and Bushy Park”

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

RESOLVED:

This Council regrets that the Conservative Party in the House of Lords refused to vote for the motion moved by Jenny Tonge which would have stopped the Car Parking charges in Richmond Park and Bushy Park.

(b)               In accordance with notice given Councillor Cranfield –Adams moved, seconded by Councillor Warren:

“This Council notes that in her video presentation to staff on the need for efficiency savings the Chief Executive stated that the Council would need to look at new income streams; calls on the Leader of the Council to explain where new fees and charges will rise and by how much.”

This motion was put to the vote and FELL.

(c)               In accordance with notice given Councillor Carr moved, seconded by Councillor Urquhart:

“This Council believes that the best interests of the residents of the borough are served by integrated community health and social care provision that is locally accountable and responsive to the needs and wishes of our residents.  The Council has worked in partnership with NHS Richmond and others to this end and has supported the development of Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare (HRCH) as the most suitable NHS community health provider.

The Council therefore rejects the proposal by NHS Richmond, acting on the instructions of NHS London, to integrate HRCH into a remote acute or other NHS trust; and deplores the timetable adopted and that it is being rushed through without consultation and in contradiction of the Government's stated commitment to promoting locally accountable services. 

The Council will work with local residents and groups, and with Hounslow Council, to achieve a successful HRCH by whatever means necessary.”

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

RESOLVED:

This Council believes that the best interests of the residents of the borough are served by integrated community health and social care provision that is locally accountable and responsive to the needs and wishes of our residents.  The Council has worked in partnership with NHS Richmond and others to this end and has supported the development of Hounslow and RichmondCommunity Healthcare (HRCH) as the most suitable NHS community health provider.

The Council therefore rejects the proposal by NHS Richmond, acting on the instructions of NHS London, to integrate HRCH into a remote acute or other NHS trust; and deplores the timetable adopted and that it is being rushed through without consultation and in contradiction of the Government's stated commitment to promoting locally accountable services. 

The Council will work with local residents and groups, and with Hounslow Council, to achieve a successful HRCH by whatever means necessary.