To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 23 November 2010 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2010 were subject to the amendment below, taken as read and agreed and approved as a correct record.

Amendment to Minute number 60a:

The sentence, “Currently only ten of the buildings mentioned by Councillor Bouchier were recorded at risk” to read,

‘Currently only ten of the 1400 listed buildings in the borough were recorded at risk’.

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) and the Petition Scheme.

Councillor Stockley presented a petition of over 1000 signatures from residents of Barnes opposing the siting of the Thameslink sewer entrance on Greenfield land in Barnes.

The signatures would be verified and subject to that verification a debate would be held at the next full council meeting in accordance with the council’s petitions scheme.

Any questions received of which due notice has been given attached.

(a)               In accordance with notice given, Mr John Roxby asked the Leader of the Council:

“Throughout this Borough there are boarded up developer’s sites, left stalled and barren month after month.  Like puss-filled abscesses, these boarded up sites – that were invariably forcibly torn from the hands of the residents - scar our Borough, cause immeasurable distress to residents and deprive the community of beneficial facilities that once existed.  Why are time limits not imposed on any company applying to develop a site, time limits to start the work and time limits to complete the work, with stringent penalties, culminating with forfeit of the property, against any company that fails to comply?” 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

“Although the validity of planning permissions is limited, usually to 3 years, national planning law does not allow Councils to require a development to start within a set period once permission is granted. Likewise, limits on the duration of the construction period once started could rarely be applied in terms of planning law. Powers do exist to require a site, awaiting development or otherwise, to be kept tidy.”

Mr Roxby asked a supplementary question which suggested that the council should not give planning permission to those developers who would not carry out the proposed developments.  Councillor Morris agreed that it was disappointing when developments given permission were not then progressed but advised that the planning committee had no powers to force faster development.  She asked that if the questioner had a specific site in mind he contact her after the meeting to discuss.

(b)   In accordance with notice given, Mr Serge Lourie asked the Leader of the Council:

“Would the Leader indicate the names of any council governors removed from the governing body of borough schools since May 2006 and the reasons for these removals?” 

As Mr Lourie was not present at the meeting a written reply would be given.

[According to documentation and minutes held on all LA Governor Vacancy Advisory Group meetings since May 2006, I can confirm the following ‘removals’ were approved:

·         Serge Lourie – Kew Riverside Primary – Autumn 2010

·         Philip Morgan – Orlean’s Infants and Nursery – Autumn 2010

·         Deryn Harvey – St Mary’s CE Primary – Autumn 2010

·         Martin Elengorn – Teddington – Autumn 2010

·         Bob King – St Edmunds Catholic Primary – Autumn 2010

As the appointing body, the local authority has the right to remove LA governors. As in the case of those governors outlined above, this right is usually only exercised following a local election, when LA membership on governing bodies may be adjusted to reflect, more accurately, the political balance of the Council.

·         James Mumford – Collis Primary – Autumn 2010

Mr Mumford was removed based on grounds of disqualification for non attendance.]

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

Attached.

(a)               In accordance with notice given, Councillor Butler asked the Leader of the Council:

“Heathfield residents and councillors mourn their library’s closure.  Will the Cabinet Member report circumstances surrounding closure and plans to ameliorate its short and long term loss to our community? Would she confirm, following the statement at the public meeting on 11 January 2011 by fellow ward Councillor Coombs, that the previous administration were planning to site Heathfield Library in the old Whitton Clinic. If this was the case, how has it transpired that the site has been sold for housing, much to the consternation of Heathfield residents who oppose this proposed social housing development, which now evidently will not be a library?”

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

“I understand your concern that the Library land was sold before for the clinic and regret that the clinic as Councillor Coombs said, the existing clinic, has now been sold for housing.  Unfortunately we can’t progress [with another building] because it is now necessary to make savings but we are determined to provide some library facilities for Heathfield and we see this as extremely important. We are currently looking at the Community Centre and are in negotiations with Richmond NHS for space and also with the Methodist Hall”

Councillor Butler asked a supplementary question regarding the number of Liberal Democrats that voted against the closure of the Library under the last administration.  Councillor Fleming did not have the figures but expressed her disappointment that the decision had been made.

Councillor Coombs asked a supplementary question seeking confirmation from the Cabinet Member that she was aware that the original decision to sell the library was taken on the condition that alternative library provision was provided in Heathfield, specifically at Heathfield Junior School.  Councillor Fleming responded that the sale was not conditional on the £400k being used for library provision.  She also argued that the economic climate was now very different and alternative provision was harder to provide than when the decision was taken.  In addition Whitton library was very close to Heathfield.  However she assured the councillor that some provision would be provided, possibly a mobile library or utilisation of space at Twickenham Academy.

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question seeking information on volunteers within the Library Service.  Councillor Fleming confirmed that there were residents of the Borough volunteering within the Library service and furthermore, a recent consultation had identified an appetite for volunteering in this sector within the Borough.

(b)               In accordance with notice given, Councillor Gibbons asked the Leader of the Council:

“Does he agree with the Conservative Secretary of State for local government Eric Pickles when he advocated last month that councils, such as Richmond, with significant reserves should reduce them in order to mitigate the impact of grant reductions?”

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

“In so far as the Secretary of State was referring to Councils with unallocated and uncommitted resources, I would agree with him.  With the proviso that a junior minister has said that these funds can’t be used for recurrent expenditure.”

Councillor Gibbons asked a supplementary question seeking to establish the reason for cuts to services considering that the amount of reserves at Richmond was above those recommended for reduction by the Secretary of State.  Councillor Samuel reiterated that the amount of reserves that were unallocated and uncommitted is about 10 million or 7.5%; midway in the range of acceptable levels identified by Mr Pickles. 

Councillor Harrison asked a supplementary question seeking agreement from the Cabinet Member that it would be unwise to spend reserves in light of the need for school places rising and new housing developments being built.  Councillor Samuel agreed and also reminded councillors of the further risk of inflation. 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary which sought to establish why cuts of more than £10 million had been proposed when the council had experienced budget losses of only £3million (including the additional grant of £2 million for Social Care).  Councillor Samuel disagreed with Councillor Knight’s accounting in general and in particular remarked that the additional grant referred to was in the hands of the PCT and to imply that it was available to the Council was misleading.

(c)               In accordance with notice given, Councillor Salvoni asked the Leader of the Council:

“Could the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources please explain why he is making cuts when the reserves stand at £50million?”

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms

“As I have just explained; this council has unallocated and uncommitted reserves of £10million; that is 7.5% of the total.  All of the other monies in the reserves, and a detailed list of these will go to scrutiny next month, are there for a purpose.  The reserves gross total is down by £11 million and net total by £7 million.  In addition there needs to be provision for £6 million in redundancy costs for which the last administration made no plans.”

Councillor Salvoni asked a supplementary question asking the Cabinet Member to elaborate on the risks that the Council faced.  Councillor Samuel spoke about the risks of reduced funding for school places and the fact that reserves may have to be used to keep the programme going in the face of uncertainty around government grants.

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question questioning the administration’s focus on negative financial impacts at the expense of those developments which had been positive.  Councillor Samuel replied that not every financial detail could be covered in meetings but the reasons he had previously given regarding cuts and reserves were correct.

Councillor O’Malley asked a supplementary question seeking an explanation of how much of the Government Grant was due to the grant floor and how secure that was.  Councillor Samuel replied that the answer was 47% or £14 million and he argued that a united council could make a strong case for keeping it but would face opposition from those authorities who were more reliant on grant.

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

“In the comprehensive spending review an extra billion pounds was allocated nationally to the NHS for spending on measures that support social care but also benefit health. Ministers say this gives local authorities the resources they need to maintain vital services. Could she tell us where things stand with NHS Richmond as regards how the one and three quarter million pound share allocated to Richmond will be spent?”

In the absence of the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing the Leader of the Council replied in the following terms:

“Thank you.  There are a number of uncertainties surrounding these funds at present but we are actively discussing with NHS Richmond how these funds will be spent.  In addition the section 256 agreement being drawn up will ensure that these funds are spent innovatively on Social Care Services.”

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question which sought clarification of why cuts had been made to services before the impact of these additional funds known.  Councillor True replied that the administration was forced to look for efficiencies in the Social Care Budget which was currently supporting an ongoing £2 million debt.  He argued that the decision to make cuts had been fully investigated and carefully considered.

Councillor Salvoni asked a supplementary question seeking to ascertain how the failure of the reablement project to reach target savings had been addressed.  Councillor True referred to the emergencybudget and Councillor Samuels’ use of reserves.  In addition he reported that the reablement contract had recently been awarded to Housing 21 and would reduce the unit costs from £969 per user to £776 at the same time as improving service.

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question seeking to establish whether the administration felt it could have resisted cuts to Adult Services by forgoing expensive changes to the parking system.  Councillor True did not agree.  He argued that the changes to parking charges would save money in the long term and that Adult Services would become more efficient and provide a better service because of the efficiencies identified.

(e)               In accordance with notice given Councillor Stockley asked the Cabinet member for Environment:

“Could the Cabinet Member for Environment state the Council's position on Thames Water's proposal to use Barn Elms for construction of the new Thames Tunnel?”

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

“The Council supports the principle of a Thames Tunnel to remove the millions of tonnes of sewage that are currently being discharged into the Thames around the Barnes peninsular. This we believe to be right for the health of the community and those who use the river.  Thames Water appears to have taken the easy option and selected a major construction site at Barn Elms.  We are questioning this decision and have suggested some alternatives that minimise the impact on the community.”

Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question seeking a guarantee that should the development go ahead the majority of waste would be transported by river.  Councillor Morris assured the questioner that the Council would do all that it could to see residents’ views accommodated by Thames Water, but that she could make no guarantee as the final decisions would not be in the hands of the Council.  

Councillor Percival asked a supplementary question seeking to ascertain whether there would still be a need for development if the construction in question did not go ahead.  Councillor Morris confirmed that if this project did not go ahead there would still be a need to develop an outlet to link up with the tunnel but that it would only take 2-3 years as opposed to the 7 years that the current proposals would take.

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

“Would she make a statement on what steps she proposes to take concerning the reported unauthorised demolition of a Building of Townscape Merit in the Trafalgar Road Conservation Area?”

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

“I take this matter very seriously as a valuable Building of Townscape Merit has been lost.  My priority is to see appropriate action taken to deal with those who are responsible and officers have conducted interviews and are gathering evidence before a decision is made on how to deal with it.”

Cllr Elengorn asked a supplementary question seeking to secure a review of the procedure for demolition applications and an assurance that members of the planning committee be kept informed when one is in progress.  Councillor Morris assured Councillor Elengorn that the Council was using all of the powers at its disposal where Buildings of Townscape Merit had been demolished.

Cllr O’Malley asked a supplementary question which sought to establish how many Buildings of Townscape Merit had been demolished in this manner.  Councillor Morris replied that it was rare but cited two historical cases of concern.

Cllr Allen asked a supplementary question seeking assurance that residents’ interests would be paramount in any further action involving this case.  Councillor Morris could not comment on the particular case due to ongoing investigations and possible action.

(g)               In accordance with notice given Councillor Chappell asked the Cabinet member for Schools:

“Could the Cabinet Member for Schools state how we are currently assessing demand for primary places in September 2011?

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

“We are looking at birth trends and take up rates from past years and setting predictions for the demand in September from these. This is our first year in the pan-London primary co-ordination scheme so the situation is a little different than previously but we believe we have better predictions than in the past.” 

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question seeking to ascertain how many schools were prepared to take a bulge class should the numbers of children be higher than the predictions.  Councillor Hodgins replied that negotiations with schools were currently ongoing and details would be available in due course.

Councillor Evans asked whether the council would only be seeking improvements or expansions to primary school places.  Councillor Hodgins reported that as demand for places built up over time it would transfer pressure to secondary schools and therefore a ten year plan had been introduced.

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

“What is the timescale for the promised review of a Children's Centre for Hampton North?”

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

“The Council is currently reviewing provision of services for the community in the Hampton North area, including services for older people as well as for children.  We are considering the feasibility of providing more services but clearly this is within the context of the much tougher financial climate that the Council has to deal with.”

Cllr Nicholson asked a supplementary question seeking justification of the time delay on the review.  Councillor Percival defended the administration on the grounds that the financial settlement had only recently been received.

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question to seek assurance that any redevelopment would be accessible to all.  Councillor Percival assured the questioner that this would be the case.

Councillor Thornton asked a supplementary question seeking an assurance that the Capital Budget when published would identify resources for Hampton.  Councillor Percival replied that she could not guarantee this at this stage.

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

(i)    In accordance with notice given Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet member for Traffic:

“By what criteria will she measure the success or otherwise of the 30 minutes  free parking scheme?”

Councillor Head replied in the following terms:

[There is no strict formula for assessing usage.  I will be taking views from local businesses and residents along with looking at the number of times it is being used.]

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

“Given that offering residents the chance to buy food waste recycling liners from libraries achieves the dual purpose of both encouraging residents to make better use of the food waste recycling service and encourages residents into libraries, could the cabinet member explain why, apparently without any consultation with residents, the decision has been taken to withdraw this useful service?”

[The Council has not made a policy decision to stop libraries from offering any supplies.  However the Environment Directorate are no longer publishing a standard fixed price for the sale of food waste liners as part of the fees and charges report.  The fees and charges report was subject to review by Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 26^th January 2011. 

The Council provided food waste recycling liners when they were difficult to source locally.  We are now avoiding providing services which can be easily sourced in supermarkets to save Council administrative costs.]

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

            “Notification of ward councillors of disruptions to traffic in Petersham Road, Petersham”

(Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside Ward)

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

            "The bridge in Crane Park".

(Heathfield Ward)

(a)               “Notification of ward councillors of disruptions to traffic in Petersham Road, Petersham” – Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams raised his concern regarding the lack of information being received by ward Councillors when works took place on the Petersham Road.  He felt that as any works caused great disruption to this very narrow road and questions from residents about the works were often directed to Ward Councillors, they should be in the possession of the facts before work began.  In particular he referenced an incident which had occurred earlier in the month.

The Cabinet Member for Traffic addressed the specific incident where urgent work had to be carried out by Virgin Media.  On a more general note she commended the officers in the Highways department for their good work and assured the councillor that they would continue to work hard to minimise disruption to residents.

(b)               "The bridge in Crane Park" – Heathfield Ward

In accordance with notice given Councillor Butler raised the issue of the bridge in Crane Park.  He was concerned that work continued in order to create a bridge in this location despite negative local opinion towards it.

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning agreed with Councillor Butler that the Council should and would represent resident opinion.  The Council was of the opinion that the money would be better used investing in play facilities.  The Council would also suggest an interactive trail linking the two banks of the river and encouraging the use of all the facilities by both communities. Our position has been made clear to the GLA who are considering this.

Attached.

(i)     RESOLVED:

That the Council Tax Base for the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames for 2011/2012 of 89,291.15 be confirmed

(ii)   RESOLVED:

That the policies as to discounts, referred to at paragraph 3.4 and 3.5, be continued.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

That the revised Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy and the Whistleblowing Policy be approved.

None

None.

None

None

None.

None

None.

None

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

The Mayor made the following announcements:

·         The Mayor’s Christmas Concert on the 19^th December 2010 had been a great success. .

·         The New Years Day Parade had proceeded through central London and collected more than £800. In addition, the borough’s entry in the parade was judged eighth best overall, securing an extra £1,500 prize. 

·         The Mayor’s Night at the Orange Tree Theatre on the 5^th January 2011 had raised £436.50 in a collection at the end of the performance.

·         The Pupil Parliament elected Bertie Hobbs as a new Mayor and Elena Salvoni as Deputy Mayor on the 18^th January.

·         The Mayor officially welcomed five members of the Helsinki City Education and Youth Department on the 19^th January as part of a lifelong learning programme which allowed good practice to be shared between Children’s Services in Richmond and education professionals in Finland.

·         The Mayor’s Charity Ball would be held on the 19^th February.  Councillors should telephone Amanda Farrell to check the availability of tickets. 

·         The date of the next Mayor’s Quiz would be the 8^th April 2011.

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

            “Given the significant lead time for building projects, this Council expresses its concern at the lack of any new significant capital announced by the administration for primary school expansion post 2013.”

In accordance with notice given Councillor Eady moved, seconded by Stephen Knight:

"Given the significant lead time for building projects, this Council expresses its concern at the lack of any new significant capital announced by the administration for primary school expansion post 2013."

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Hodgins and seconded by Councillor Evans:

Delete the ‘Given’ and replace with ‘This council recognises’.

Delete ‘this Council expresses its concern at the lack of any new significant capital announced by the administration for’ and replace with ‘endorses the adoption for the first time of an open ten year school places plan to identify future gaps between supply and demand of high quality’

Delete ‘school expansion post 2013’ and replace with ‘and secondary places, and reaffirms the commitment of this council to ensure this demand is met’

The amendment was put to the vote and CARRIED

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

RESOLVED:

"This council recognises the significant lead time for building projects, endorses the adoption for the first time of an open ten year school places plan to identify future gaps between supply and demand of high quality primary and secondary places, and reaffirms the commitment of this council to ensure this demand is met."