To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 25 January 2011 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2011 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 Jaeger presented a petition which was signed by the residents of St Vincent Road, who were concerned about the safety of exiting their road onto Nelson Road.

Budget papers previously issued for Cabinet attached.  Subject to the Cabinet’s proposals, the formal Council Tax Resolution 2011/12 is attached.

 

Any questions in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.1, of which notice has been given to follow.

 

(a)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Gibbons asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

“What is the latest estimate of the revenue budget underspend in 2010/11?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“£2.5 million as of the end of the third quarter.”

 

Councillor Gibbons asked a supplementary question to clarify whether the Deputy Leader considered that an underspend this early in the financial year was likely to turn into a larger underspend by the end of it.  Councillor Samuel indicated that he considered this more than likely.

 

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

 

“How many staff redundancies are expected as a result of the 2011-2012 budget and what provision is being made for redundancy pay?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“No specific figure has been planned. The last administration made no provision for redundancies. I have with me the minutes of a previous Finance, Co-Ordination and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Commission meeting (17 February 2010) which proves this. We have made provision under the Invest to Save fund.”

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question to clarify the percentage figure for staff losses expected as a result of natural wastage.  Councillor Samuel indicated that he did not have a specific figure but the number of vacancies arising other than by redundancy was approximately half.

 

(c)           In accordance with notice given, Councillor Churchill asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

“What changes have been made to the budget as a result of public consultation?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“Briefly our responses to the consultation were:

 

1)      Half a million pounds on potholes and pavements

2)      In response to one of the social services consultation we have

      continued to make provision for those with moderate needs

3)      Modified the proposals on lifting the cap

4)      Transport proposals, which were supported 4:1 by residents”

 

Councillor Churchill asked a supplementary question to clarify whether the consultation also showed that the highest priority for people was protecting services for the most vulnerable.  Councillor Samuel indicated that he slightly agreed that a priority was to protect frontline services.

 

(d)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Miller asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

“What level of staff vacancies is assumed by the 2011/12 budget?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“None whatsoever in that sense; it broadly operates on the basis that there will be no cuts in frontline services with one in four posts in back offices being cut.  The Vacancy Panel is helping to deal with these issues in a different way and I would thank Councillors Harrison and Harbourne for their help with it.”

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question to clarify whether the numbers of vacancies were in line with those in previous years.  Councillor Samuel replied that the Vacancy Panel was giving advice to officers and its view was that leaving a vacancy unfilled at the present would prevent redundancy later.

 

(e)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Knight asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

“What would be the effect on the 2011/12 revenue budget of funding the £3.25 million one-off ‘investment in the council’s priority’ items from the capital programme rather than from the revenue budget?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“£300k per year as a cost on the revenue budget.”

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question to clarify whether £300k was smaller than £3.25million and that would be better spent on protecting services.  Councillor Samuel replied that that if £315,000 was spent for 25 consecutive years, it would cost the Council £7.5million.  Only £3.25 million needed to be spent.

 

(f)         In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elloy asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

“What has been the effect on the 2011/12 revenue budget of the decision to scrap CO2 related charges for parking permits and the introduction of the ‘30-minutes free parking’ scheme?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“£240,000.”

 

Councillor Elloy asked a supplementary question to clarify whether the subsidy was included in the budget.  Councillor Samuel confirmed that the figure he gave was correct and residents showed 4:1 support for this measure in the consultation.

 

(g)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Jaeger asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

“Given the substantial reduction in the Council's contribution to London-wide charities, is there any provision to give further support to local charities, such as the Vineyard project, and review the decision to cut funding from 16 local charities on 1st April?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“I do have sympathy with the Vineyard, but as a result of the Judicial Review, no formal decision will be made until it is finished.  I do sympathise and I am pleased to hear that the Council is able to support those who may be at risk.”

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question to clarify if the £300,000 windfall would be ring-fenced for local charities.  Councillor Samuel replied that he could not guarantee a ring fence as although money remained in the particular budget, no decision had yet been taken.

 

(h)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

“What provision is made in the 2011/12 revenue budget for providing extra Police Community Support Officers in Twickenham and Richmond town centres?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“I am personally appreciative of the work of PCSOs in my Ward and the rest of the Borough.  Unfortunately their conditions of service mean that they are not as flexible or available to deal with the types of things you rightly raise. I have agreed with the Borough Commander a budget for policing in town centres.“

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question to clarify if the number of PCSOs was being cut.  Councillor Samuel replied that it would be improper to comment on an operational matter for the police.

 

(i)         In accordance with notice given, Councillor Coombs asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

“Where is the £750,000 received from the sale of the Heathfield Library site shown in the budget papers?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“Long experience has taught me to never spend money paid until received.  The money is not due until the end of the month”.

 

Councillor Coombs asked a supplementary question to clarify if, once received, the money would be spent in Heathfield Ward on the possible provision of a new library.  Councillor Samuel replied that he was not prepared to ring fence the money for the Heathfield area, but it was likely that some of the money would find its way into the Whitton area, which was a priority.

 

(j)         In accordance with notice given, Councillor Thornton asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

“How much of the £1,148,000 allocated in 2010-2011 by the last administration for environmental improvements in the five areas of relative deprivation has been spent, and what additional resources are being made available as part of the ‘uplift’ project?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“£748,000 by the end of the year and £400,000 will slip to next year when it will become part of the uplift projects. Twickenham Riverside will benefit from a further £1 million.  I would ask Councillor Thornton to support the uplift and in view of his experience as a campaigner I would ask why he didn’t campaign when his minister, Sarah Teather, reneged on promises to fund a Children’s Centre in Hampton North”.

 

Councillor Thornton asked a supplementary question to clarify if the ‘Uplift’ was a shadow of previous work and masked cuts.  Councillor Samuel replied that as part of the ‘Uplift’ project, total regeneration of the Tangley Hall area would take place.

 

Councillor Samuel moved, seconded by Lord True:

 

1. That the Revenue Budget for 2011/12 be agreed.

 

2. That it be agreed that the Richmond upon Thames’ element of the Band D Council Tax be unchanged at £1,287.39.

 

3. That that the overall Band D level of Council Tax for 2010/11 including the GLA element be set at £1,597.21, the same level as 2010/11.

 

4. That the Council Tax 2010/11 resolution (page 53 of the Agenda) proposed be agreed.

 

Councillor Knight moved, seconded by Councillor Williams:

 

“At end of recommendation (1), insert:

 

“subject to the following changes:

 

(i)                  reductions in the budget requirement by:

 

a.      £400,000 by cancelling the scrapping of CO₂-related parking permits; and

b.      £2,000,000 by shifting part of the cost of the new one-off ‘priority investment items’ into the capital programme; and

 

(ii)                increases in the budget requirement by:

 

a.      £900,000 to pay for the reversal of front line cuts to schools support, children’s and youth services;

b.      £1,000,000 to pay for the reversal of front line cuts to social care, including the funding of support for those with ‘moderate’ needs, the removal of the disregard for disability living allowance in the contributions policy and the closure of Tangley Hall and Twickenham intensive day centres;

c.      £100,000 to pay for the reversal of cuts to support services for local businesses;

d.      £100,000 to pay for keeping a library in Heathfield Ward; and

e.      £300,000 to pay for additional funding to the voluntary sector to support projects under threat, such as the Vineyard Project.”’

 

The amendment was put to the vote and declared to be LOST.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

1. That the Revenue Budget for 2011/12 be agreed.

 

2. That it be agreed that the Richmond upon Thames’ element of the Band D Council Tax be unchanged at £1,287.39.

 

3. That that the overall Band D level of Council Tax for 2010/11 including the GLA element be set at £1,597.21, the same level as 2010/11.

 

4.  That it be noted that at its meeting on 25^th January 2011 the Council calculated the amount of 89,291.15 as its Council Tax base for the year 2011-2012 in accordance with regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992 made under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

(i)  That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2011-2012 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1992:-

 

(a)   £411,292,900      being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(2) (a) to (e) of the Act

 

(b)   £265,336,900      being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(3) (a) to (c) of the Act

 

(c)   £145,956,000      being the amount by which the aggregate at 2 (a) above exceeds the aggregate at 2 (b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 32 (4) of the Act, as its budget requirement for the year

 

(d)    £31,003,100       being the aggregate of the sums which the Council estimates will be payable for the year into its General Fund in respect of redistributed non-domestic rates, revenue support grant, or additional grant increased by the amount of the sums which the Council estimates will be transferred in the year from its Collection Fund to its General Fund in accordance with Section 97 (3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Council Tax surplus) and increased by the amount of any sum which the Council estimates will be transferred from its Collection Fund to its General Fund pursuant to the Collection Fund (Community Charges) directions under section 98 (4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Community Charge surplus) made on 7th February 1994.

 

(e)       £1,287.39        being the amount at 2 (c) above less the amount at 2 (d) above, all divided by the amount at 1 above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 33 (1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax  (Band D) for the year

 

(f) Valuation bands

 

A	B	C	D
858.26	1,001.30	1,144.34	1,287.39
E	F	G	H
1,573.48	1,859.56	2,145.65	2,574.78

 

being the amounts given by multiplying the amount at 2 (e) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5 (1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36 (1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands

 

(ii) That it be noted that for the year (2011-2012) the major precepting authority has stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:-

 

Precepting Authority	Valuation Bands
	A	B	C	D
GLA	206.55	240.97	275.40	309.82
	E	F	G	H
	378.67	447.52	516.37	619.64

 

(iii) That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 2 (f) and 3 above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30 (2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the following amounts of council tax for the year (2011-2012) for each of the categories of dwelling shown below:-

 

            Valuation Bands

 

A	B	C	D
1,064.81	1,242.27	1,419.74	1,597.21
E	F	G	H
1,952.15	2,307.08	2,662.02	3,194.42

 

(iv) That the Director of Finance and Corporate Services be authorised to institute legal proceedings where necessary for the collection of the aforesaid Council Tax and Non Domestic Rates.

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:

 

“Considerable and significant confusion exists between the roles of residents, council and councillors, and council officers, and understanding whatever responsibilities that may apply to those roles. In addition there is often confusion, as to the limitations and authorities, that each of the three groups can exercise or are required to apply. Would it not therefore be in everyone’s interest and of benefit to all concerned, if a Charter was available detailing responsibilities and limitations that do apply? Not just one Charter, Mr Mayor, but three Charters representing each of the three groups, Council and Councillors, Council Officers and Borough Residents?”

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“I have been clear that I want to change how the council works with residents of the borough.  A conversation has been started with residents through the All in One process and we are asking what services the Council can deliver and what local people would like to do themselves.  The Council will be setting out minimum standards, so residents know what they can expect and I will be happy to discuss any points Mr Roxby wants to raise, outside of this forum.”

 

Mr Roxby asked a supplementary question about whether there could be three charters to represent members of the public, councillors and council officers, and whether a committee could be set up to establish this. Lord True stated that he had always aimed to treat residents as individuals and felt that setting up a new committee was possibly not the best use of resources.

 

(b)        In accordance with notice given, Mrs Theresa Read asked the Leader of the Council:

 

"Could the Leader of the Council update us on the review which has taken place concerning the video or audio recording of Council meetings since this Public Question was last asked because it is understood that some meetings have now been recorded to provide greater accuracy to the public?"

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“Webcasting was considered by Overview and Scrutiny in Autumn 2009 but no action had been taken since then. 

 

This Administration is keen to find new ways of communicating with and listening to residents and I have therefore asked officers to look urgently at providing webcasting so that residents may see the Council at work even if they cannot attend our meetings.”

 

Mrs Read asked a supplementary question regarding whether it was possible to provide amplification during Planning Committee meetings.  Lord True stated that the current facility for amplification was not sufficient and there was a need to try and overcome this along with webcasting.  He gave his assurances that the administration was committed to improving these facilities.

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 Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and Children’s Services:

 

“Will the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and Children's Services please explain how the decision to build the adventure playground in Crane Park was made including the provenance of the plan, the area and numbers of residents consulted and the results of the consultation?”

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“Crane Park play space is being constructed as part of the Playbuilder Programme funded by the Department for Education following requests from local families.  15 consultation events involving 678 residents were held between August and December 2010 including on-site meetings and a survey of all residents living in Ellerman Avenue, Lyndhurst Avenue, Sheringham Avenue and Villiers Avenue.  The Friends of the River Crane Environment and the London Wildlife Trust were also consulted.  The consultation showed that 70% of residents were in favour of the scheme.  Alterations were made to the design and location of the play space following the consultation.”

 

Councillor Butler asked a supplementary question about addressing anti-social behaviour at the Crane Park site and whether there would be an opportunity to review the area after a year.  Councillor Percival said that there was no indication of any undesirable activities at already constructed Playbuilder sites, although she would monitor the situation but did not consider it was necessary to consider moving it.

 

Councillor Roberts asked a further supplementary question about how residents’ concerns would be addressed.  Councillor Percival said that the sites were inspected regularly and the Council would be listening carefully to any issues raised by residents.

 

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

 

“What effects does she consider the proposed cut of 500 staff at Kingston Hospital, including doctors, nurses and midwives, will have on health services for local residents?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“New national models of care mean more healthcare delivered outside of hospitals, in general practice and in the community. The admissions numbers for elderly people with long term conditions are expected to rise rapidly over the next 10 years. It is better to treat them early, in the community to stop them becoming ill and being admitted to hospital.

Hospitals have to make efficiency improvements as hospital to home programmes reduce the length of time people stay in hospital and more care is moved into community settings, meaning better outcomes for local people.

Kingston Hospital expects the reduction of these 486 posts over 5 years to be managed as part of natural staff turnover and it is my hope that this will not affect frontline services.”

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question regarding the preparedness of Council services to deal with this situation.  Councillor Urquhart said that transitional arrangements would be in place from April.

 

Councillor Bond asked about services to be commissioned.  Councillor Urquhart said there would be a joint commissioning unit, with a close working partnership and integrated services.  She stated that Council officers would be working closely with the Joint Director of Public Health.

 

Councillor Coombs asked a further supplementary question on whether GP commissioning would put further pressure on local services.  Councillor Urquhart said that hospitals needed to be careful as caring moved into the community.  She added that demand for such services would need to be monitored.

 

(c)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and Children’s Services:

 

“What activities for young people is the council planning for this year’s summer holiday period?"

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“The Council will be delivering a full programme of activities for children and young people throughout the summer holidays in our libraries, gallery, sports centres, parks, playgrounds, children’s centres and youth clubs.  The precise details of the programme are still at the planning stage but will include: sports coaching and multi-sports clubs; outward bound activities; adventure play sessions; and arts, drama, music and dance workshops.  The programme, which will include a wide range of free and charged for activities, will be advertised in the ‘Live it Up’ brochure and on the Council website in June 2011.“

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question as to whether Councillor Percival was aware that the previous administration quadrupled funding for youth activities, which resulted in a reduction of youth related crime.  Councillor Percival confirmed that she was aware of this and added that she took the intervention agenda to reduce crime very seriously.

 

Councillor Montague asked why it was important to maintain this funding in the face of cuts elsewhere. The Cabinet Member stated that she and her colleagues were committed to the preventative agenda, which was demonstrated by the decision to open a family centre in Hampton North ward.

 

Councillor Eady asked whether Councillor Percival considered that she was out of step with Government thinking.  Councillor Percival stated that many activities were currently being provided for children and would be provided in the summer programme to help prevent youth crime.

 

(d)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elengorn asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning:

 

“Will she set out her plans to apply her manifesto commitment to zero tolerance of unauthorised development in respect of the Council's own unauthorised development of the secret garden at Twickenham Riverside?”

 

Councillor Morris responded in the following terms:

 

“The final decision to proceed with the garden was taken by officers with no liaison with Members. The context for this decision was: there had been earlier, broadly supportive planning advice; a part of the site had already been opened up without the need for planning permission; and the site brief made reference to open space.

 

These are circumstances that are far removed from those that the Council’s maintained zero tolerance approach tackles. No reasonable person could make a link between a stunning and well received community garden and flats.”

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question suggesting that the Local Planning Authority should adopt an even-handed policy towards those undertaking unauthorised development.  The Cabinet Member stated that the Council had not enforced when the temporary planning permission granted for the café premises lapsed.

 

Councillor Naylor asked a supplementary question as to whether the previous Administration had undertaken enforcement action on the site.  Councillor Morris said that the previous Administration did not enforce against itself.

 

Councillor Roberts asked whether the Cabinet Member knew of any high fences which had been implemented previously.  Councillor Morris said that the wall at this site was fantastic and loved by all.

 

(e)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Miller asked the Chairman of Planning Committee:

 

“Would he agree that a Cabinet Member would have a prejudicial interest in an application before the planning committee if the council was relying on the application being granted in order to authorise a council development?” 

 

Councillor Linnette responded in the following terms:

 

“The virtue of being a cabinet member does not in itself create a prejudicial interest in such an application as it does not satisfy the test under the Council’s Code of Conduct.   Simply put, the legal test for a prejudicial interest is:

 

interests that are personal interests that affect a member, their family, or their close associates in relation to:

 

·         finances, or regulatory functions;

·         and which a reasonable member of the public with knowledge of the facts would believe likely to harm or impair the member’s ability to judge the public interest.

 

Therefore, a cabinet member sitting on the committee dealing with a matter relating to the council does not satisfy the test set out in the code, just because they are sitting on the committee.”

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question as to whether a Cabinet Member might fail the test of pre-determination.  Councillor Linnette said that all members could be pre-disposed to a particular point of view, but as long as they had not closed their mind to persuasion, they were able to remain on the committee.

 

Councillor Chappell asked whether Councillor Linnette felt what had happened at the Twickenham Riverside site was a positive move.  Councillor Linnette stated that he was pleased members of the community had an opportunity to comment on the proposals.

 

Councillor Elengorn asked whether Councillor Linnette considered that links between the applications were being drawn after events.  Councillor Linnette stated that it was for individual members to consider their own interests.

 

(f)         In accordance with notice given, Councillor Eady asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:

 

“What is the cost to the council of the ‘academies briefing’ seminar being held on 2nd March at the Lensbury Conference centre in Teddington?”

 

Councillor Hodgins responded in the following terms:

 

“The cost of hiring the venue and providing refreshments will be £1,684 plus VAT. In addition, reasonable travelling expenses (to be submitted) will be reimbursed for the headteacher of a school in Kent who has been invited to be a guest speaker. The venue was chosen because it will comfortably accommodate the anticipated large audience and because its acoustics and equipment make it more appropriate for presentations and a question-and-answer session than any Council-owned meeting space.”

 

Councillor Eady asked  a supplementary question about the purpose of the meeting.  Councillor Hodgins said that the meeting would be addressed by two speakers, who were tasked with presenting the pros and cons of moving to academy status.  He said that the current Administration was committed to providing schools with as much information as possible, thus allowing them to make their own decisions.

 

Councillor Evans asked how much money the Council had spent in previous years, encouraging three of the borough’s schools to become academies.  Councillor Hodgins said that he was not aware of the exact figure, but believed it was a significant amount.

 

Councillor Knight asked why schools were still being approached to become academies, when many had stated they had no interest.   Councillor Hodgins stated that he was only aware of schools requesting further information to enable them to make informed decisions.

 

None.

 

There were no ward concerns.

Report of Cabinet Attached

CAPITAL BUDGET 2010/11 TO 2015/16

 

Councillor Knight tabled the following amendment, seconded by Councillor Williams:

 

“In recommendation (1), at end insert:

 

“subject to the addition of:

 

(iii) £400,000 for the provision of a public library in Heathfield Ward on the Heathfield Junior School site, and

 

(iv) £1,000,000 for the provision of a children’s centre in Hampton North ward.”’

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 20.4, a recorded vote was called, whereupon Councillors Arbour, Avon, Blakemore, Bond, Bouchier, Butler, Chappell, Elliot, Evans, Fleming, Harborne, Harrison, Head, Hodgins, Linnette, Martin, Mathias, Montague, Morris, Naylor, O’Malley, Percival, Porter, Salvoni, Samuel, True and Urquhart  voted against the amendment;  Councillors Acton, Allen, Burford, Cardy, Churchill, Coombs, Day, Eady, Elengorn, Elloy, Gibbons, Jaeger, Khosa, Knight, Langhorne, Lee-Parsons, Miller, Nicholson, Pollesche, Roberts, Thornton, Treble and Williams voted in favour of the amendment; the Mayor did not vote.

 

Therefore the amendment was declared to be LOST.

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)      That the overall capital budget for 2011/12 be approved.

 

(2)      That the Prudential Indicators as set out in Appendix B to the report be approved.

 

TREASURY MANAGEMENT POLICY AND STRATEGY FOR 2011/12

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)       That the Treasury Management and Investment Strategy for 2011/12 as set out in Appendix A to the report be approved.

 

(2)       That the Treasury Management and Investment Strategy for 2011/2011 as set out in Appendix B be approved.

 

(3)       That the Investment Criteria as set out in Appendix C be approved.

 

(4)       That the CCLA Public Sector Deposit Fund as set out in paragraph 6.4 although not currently approved, be considered for use, subject to the further deliberation of the Audit Committee.

None

There were no reports from overview and scrutiny committees.

None

There were no reports on joint arrangements or external organisations.

Attached

RESOLVED that:

 

1.                  Following the approval of Cabinet for the establishment of a Shared Legal Service with the London Borough of Merton, Helen White be appointed as Head of Legal & Electoral Services and Monitoring Officer, alongside her current role of Head of Civic & Legal Services at the London Borough of Merton, from 1 April 2011.

Attached

RESOLVED that:

 

1.                  The Executive decision taken as a matter of urgency be noted.

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

The Mayor announced that the Charity Ball had raised over £10,000 for his chosen charity, the Shooting Star Hospice, with the Oberbürgermeister of Konstanz being the guest of honour.  Officers involved in the arrangements were thanked for ensuring that the evening was a success.

 

The Mayor also announced that he had held a tea party to thank the children involved in Richmond upon Thames’ contribution to the Lord Mayor of London’s New Year’s Day Parade.

None.

There were no notices of motion.