To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 13 September 2011 attached.

Resolved: That the minutes of the Council held on 13 September 2011, be signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

 

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

There were no declarations of interest.

 

To receive Petitions in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 2.1 (iv).  In accordance with the Petition Scheme, Council has received a petition with more than 1000 signatures. This threshold triggers a debate. The petition has been submitted by the Friends of Heatham House

“We, the undersigned, petition the council to not sell Heatham House or its grounds. This unique facility should be retained for the use of young people, the local community and remain as a project the whole borough can use and be proud of.

The Twickenham Area Action plan proposes that Heatham House and its grounds could be sold for residential or hotel use and the youth centre moved into new premises on the old royal mail sorting office site next door. Heatham House is a Grade 2 listed building and has been part of the borough's youth provision since 1950, providing a grand, but surprisingly informal setting for young people to socialise, undertake sporting, cultural and creative activities, whilst also learning skills that stay with them into adult life. It would be a tragedy to loose such an iconic youth provision.”

 

 

Councillor Percival presented a petition on behalf of residents of Lonsdale Road, Nassau Road, The Terrace, Gerard Road, Lyric Road and St Ann’s Road, Barnes.  It was opposing planning application 11/3178/FUL – 283 Lonsdale Road.

 

Councillor Naylor submitted a petition on behalf of the Twickenham Residents Action Group opposing development above five storeys at the Twickenham Station and old Post Office sites.

 

Councillor Coombs presented a petition on behalf of residents at Ross Road, Twickenham opposing the introduction of a yellow line in the turning circle at the end of their road.

 

In accordance with the Petition Scheme, the Council had received a petition with more than 1000 signatures, triggering a debate. The Petition had been submitted by Mr Mike Rowe on behalf of the Friends of Heatham House.

 

Mr Rowe presented his petition and thanked all those who had been involved with it.  He said that it was an important time for youth facilities in the borough, Heatham House offering a number of well regarded services.

 

Max Edwards, a service user of Heatham House, was invited by Mr Rowe to talk about his experiences at Heatham House.  He said that part of its success was attributable to the ‘homely’ feel that the high number of young service users experienced when they entered the building, meaning they could be themselves when there.

 

Mr Rowe continued by saying that it was not a matter of retaining a youth facility in Twickenham, but one about the buildings and site itself as well as facilities like the recording studio.  Consultation was welcomed and recent discussions showed that residents want to retain Heatham House as a valued council resource.  There were however concerns about a lack of openness, particularly around the Achieving for Children Social Enterprise proposals.

 

Councillor Percival stated that young people always had been one of the Administration’s priorities.  She confirmed that there were no plans to remove a youth facility and no proposal to close Heatham House.  She added that the Post Office site may prove a unique opportunity to upgrade facilities in the area which was something that should not be forgotten.  It was also important to note that Heatham House was not Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant, meaning that a number of disabled residents were being denied the opportunity to use its services.  Councillor Percival said that because Heatham House was a listed building, it would be difficult and costly to make the necessary modifications in order to make it fully suitable.

 

Councillor Knight thanked the petition organisers.  He said that Heatham House was regarded as one of the best facilities of its type in the country.  It did well because of the attractive building and setting, as well as offering a wide variety of activities for young people and having such a good facility for young people showed that they were important.  Councillor Knight said that he believed it was possible to make Heatham House DDA compliant, suggesting that what was driving plans was cost.  He concluded by saying that the Twickenham Town Plan consultation showed that residents wanted to retain Heatham House.

 

Lord True confirmed that the Administration had no plan to close Heatham House; young people were the ones who should make any decisions on where they wanted a youth facility to be.  He said that he admired the staff and users of Heatham House and believed there must always be some provision for young people where they wanted it to be.  Lord True added that should any plans be made to provide a new youth facility, young people would be the ones to make a decision once they were able to compare the available options.

 

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

a) In accordance with the notice given, Mr Seamus Joyce asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“What is the view of our elected councillors on the use for the new Clifden Road site, and when will a final decision be made about the site?”

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“We have had a debate on this matter. It is rare that a site already in educational use which could be converted to provide additional school places in the Borough becomes available. The purchase of the Clifden road site does represent a real opportunity and we are committed to ensuring that it is used wisely as I have told the Council earlier. We will have a full consultation on the use of that site and will be announcing details shortly.”

 

Mr Joyce asked a supplementary question relating to how much the two petitions would influence any decision being made for the Clifden Road site.  Lord True agreed that the site could be used for a Catholic Secondary School, fulfilling one of the Council’s corporate priorities.  He added that it was not something that members could decide alone.

 

b) In accordance with the notice given, Mr Jeremy Rodell asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“The 21 July Cabinet decision to spend borough funds to purchase the Clifden Road school site was based on:

 

(a) Rapid growth in primary school demand in the borough.

(b) “The opportunity to purchase a site that would enable further additional school place provision, particularly in the Twickenham area”.

(c) The need for a separate decision on the “type of school” to go on the site.

 

As the Council claims this separate key decision has not yet been made, what types of school - apart from Catholic schools - are the Council considering for the site?”

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“In the debate just concluded I made very clear that the Council will facilitate a borough-wide consultation.”

 

Mr Rodell asked a supplementary question on whether the Council was exploring different options for the Clifden Road site.  Lord True said that there was no proposal in front of the Council for a Catholic Secondary school and that there would be a consultation.

 

c) In accordance with the notice given, Mrs Janet Hilton asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“Councillor Hodgins stated at the 21st July Cabinet meeting that "another secondary school [in addition to a Catholic school] would be needed but that this was part of the plan and a site was actively being sought". The Council now claims “there is likely to be sufficient capacity within the borough to take account of increased demand for the foreseeable future” because of unfilled places and other factors. Yet the same information was available in July. What has changed since July to justify dropping the plan for a new community secondary?”

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“We have not necessarily dropped the idea of a community secondary school. The need for a new community secondary school should be seen, as it always has been, within the context of our 10-Year Plan for providing school places.”

 

d) In accordance with the notice given, Mr James Heather asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“Councillor Hodgins has stated that Free School proposals will be made for the borough. They and other potential school providers can be expected to be interested in the Clifden Road site. If, as the Council claims, no decision has been made on the type of school to be provided at Clifden Road, why has only the Catholic Church been "offered the opportunity to establish" a school on the site?”

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“Our 10-Year educational strategy includes the establishment within the borough of a Catholic secondary school and free schools. The Clifden site is already in educational use and could easily be converted into school use, but it is comparatively large and may best be used for a secondary school rather than a free school.”

 

Mr Heather asked a supplementary question relating to a statement made by Zac Goldsmith MP, in which he was alleged to have confirmed that the Council had offered the Clifden Road site to the Archdiocese.  Lord True said that he was unable to comment on statements that he had not personally seen.

 

e) In accordance with the notice given, Mrs Jane Barron asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“The Council has stated that a Catholic secondary is a priority, but there is no need for a new community secondary because of surplus places at Academies. Why are Catholics exempt from the drive to take the surplus spaces at our Academies, and therefore from participation in their development as high quality inclusive schools for the entire community?”

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“There are more than 200 spare places in Year 7 at present, but as we discussed earlier even though we are working and will continue to work with the academies established by Cllr Eady to improve their standards and make them more popular with local people, and there are some making distinct and welcome progress which I am pleased to see, the Council cannot, and would not wish to force any parents to send their children to particular schools.”

 

f) In accordance with the notice given, Mrs Mona Adams asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“There are 6 Catholic secondaries under 3 miles by road outside the borough, 2 under 1 mile. 4 of 6 Catholic primaries are nearer to existing Catholic secondaries (allowing for single-sex schools) than to Clifden Road. The same must apply to distances from children’s homes. Distance to a school is more important than which side of the borough boundary it is on. Given that, what data supports the claim of inadequate provision of Catholic secondary schools for borough children?”

 

As Mrs Adams was not present, a written reply would be provided:

 

[“The distance figures quoted are incorrect. More importantly the underlying argument does not reflect what happens in practice. Most Catholic parents do not choose to use Borough secondary schools; however, distance is self-evidently not the only factor. The preeminent factor appears to be the nature of education provided. Richmond Park Academy, of which Mrs Adams is a governor, does not attract significant numbers of children from local Catholic primaries closer to it than to Catholic secondary schools. The Council hopes the governors will address all the potential reasons for this AET Academy securing only 35 first preferences from Borough-based parents, Catholic or not, this year. That would make a significant contribution to the availability of community places for all.

 

As to Catholic schools potentially covered by the question, St Mark’s, Gumley House and Gunnersbury in Hounslow all reserve only small proportions of their places for Catholic children living within the deaneries that cover Richmond Borough. Although Sacred Heart in Hammersmith uses ‘distance’ to an extent, among Richmond Borough girls, only those who live within its eastern end stand any chance of admission. London Oratory and Cardinal Vaughan use a lottery as their tie-breaker, and Richard Challoner in Kingston is oversubscribed with children who live nearer than Richmond residents.”]

 

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 the notice given, Councillor Mathias asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member please inform Council of what has been done to tackle the very high social worker vacancy rates in Adult and Community Services in Richmond – reported a year ago as the worst in London?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“This is a good news story in fact. Over the last 18 months our Adult Social Services staffing structure has been completely remodelled in line with personalisation, giving residents greater choice and control over their care and support. During this change we did have inflated social worker vacancy rates, as reported in Community Care, because we chose not fill vacancies with permanent staff, but used experienced agency staff, to provide the staff flexibility we needed. This approach meant we were able to avoid redundancy costs.  With our new structure now in place, we have permanently recruited into those vacancies. Many of our vacancies have been filled by the agency staff already working with us, so we have retained their experience and continuity of care for our most vulnerable residents.

 

Councillor Mathias asked a supplementary question about the vacancy rate for social workers.  Councillor Urquhart said that the Council’s vacancy rate was 8.4%, with the national average being 9%.  She added that this vacancy rate was to be maintained in order to provide some flexibility during the current financial situation.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question about whether the money should have been invested in advocacy services and support for carers.  The Cabinet Member said that the money had been reinvested in maintaining frontline services.

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question regarding steps being taken to retain social workers.  Councillor Urquhart said that there was a support package including a financial bonus for those remaining in employment.

 

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

 

“Given that, to quote the cabinet report, ‘most people were against’ the proposal in the Twickenham Area Action Plan to move Twickenham’s youth centre out of its historic home at Heatham House, why does he refuse to drop the idea?”

 

Councillor True replied in the following terms:

 

“I think many Councillors will find it extraordinary that after the debate we just had that Councillor Knight hasn’t withdrawn this question because it’s been emphatically answered. The difference between this side and him is that we are not prepared to rule out a better future for the young people of this town.”

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question about whether the Leader would stand by his party’s manifesto commitments to allow residents to decide what their area’s priorities were.  Lord True said that there would be a detailed consultation which provided three options for the future of youth facilities in Twickenham.

 

Councillor Martin asked in a supplementary question whether young people would be given the opportunity to decide between Heatham House or a new state-of-the-art facility.  The Leader gave assurances that this was his hope.

 

Councillor Day asked in a supplementary question whether the money used to develop a new facility could be invested in Heatham House instead.  Lord True drew attention to Councillor Percival’s earlier statement adding that he felt young people should be able to decide, when they were in possession of all possible options.

 

c) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Evans asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:

 

“Could the Cabinet member tell us when the Council will start preparing for the influx of reception students in 2012 to ensure that there are sufficient primary places available?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“We have already started to work for 2012. We have set out a 10 year strategy and moved to solve the problem long term for 2012. Specifically we will be providing additional places at Hampton Wick Infant and at St Stephen’s, both subject to statutory proposals.  There will also be extra classes at Archdeacon Cambridge, Nelson, St Elizabeth’s and Sheen Mount in addition to the four permanent expansions that we have approved in the last year or so which include Buckingham, Chase Bridge, Lowther and St Mary’s.”

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question regarding the work that was taking place to plan with schools.   Councillor Hodgins said that he was talking with schools directly and formulating plans, particularly for the central Twickenham area.

 

Councillor Eady asked in a supplementary question why there had been a delay in merging Orleans Infant and Nursery School and St Stephen’s CE Junior School.  The Cabinet Member said that this was a long-standing issue and he was addressing it.

 

Councillor Montague asked a supplementary question about whether the Administration’s plans were affordable.  Councillor Hodgins said that they would be catered for in the Council’s capital budget.

 

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

 

“Will the Cabinet member say what discussions she has had with registered social landlords to enable them to use publically owned land to build new homes using funds allocated by the Homes and Communities Agency?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“I haven’t personally held discussions with Registered Providers; however Officers do hold regular meetings with our housing partners.  As Councillor Coombs knows the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) also  support the development of affordable housing.  This has included discussions on publically owned sites in the Borough. Locally all our main developing Registered Providers have received funding from the HCA and Officers are engaging with them regarding their proposals.”

 

Councillor Coombs asked as a supplementary question on whether there were enough resources available to registered social landlords to build properties by 2013 and whether the map of public land available to build on was nearing completion.  Councillor Urquhart said that she believed the map was due imminently and that some of the sites would have HCA money attached to them.

 

Councillor Blakemore asked in a supplementary question about the potential future delivery of affordable housing up to 2015.  The Cabinet Member confirmed that up to 324 properties for rent and 95 for shared ownership could potentially be built.

 

Councillor Knight asked as a supplementary question why the Cabinet had ruled out using public funding for affordable homes at the Twickenham Station site.  Councillor Urquhart said that it was important to provide the right types of homes in the right places for local people and that this was a discussion that should be had with planning.

 

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

 

“What services will be provided at the Hampton Family Centre?”

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“Hampton Family Centre will deliver a range of services to families in Hampton North including:

 

·         Pre and post natal health services, including support for post natal depression

·         Parental support including parenting groups, advice and guidance, and counselling

·         Support for children and adults who are victims of domestic violence

·         Interventions which promote adult, (including father) and child attachment through play and more therapeutic methods.

·         Targeted outreach to the most hard to reach and vulnerable families safeguarding those most in need

·         Specialist services for parents of and children with disabilities and learning difficulties

·         Services which promote school readiness and improve children’s communication and self esteem pre-school

• Childcare services for the most vulnerable.”

 

Councillor Chappell asked about the opening date for the Croft Centre as a supplementary question.  Councillor Percival confirmed that most of the refurbishment had been completed in the previous month, with an opening expected shortly.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked in a supplementary question whether it would have been quicker to refurbish the White House and retain Tangley Hall.  Councillor Percival drew attention to her previous response.

 

Councillor Evans asked as a supplementary question on why the Cabinet Member had retained the Croft Centre in the absence of government funding.  Councillor Percival said that because the Croft Centre was such a vital necessity to the borough’s children, the decision was taken to refurbish and fund it from the Council’s resources.

 

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

 

“Can she confirm that clients having lunch at council day centres will no longer be provided with fresh vegetables?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“I can confirm that Service users will continue to receive fresh vegetables for the duration of the current contract.”

 

Councillor Jones asked in a supplementary question what would happen at the end of the contract.  Councillor Urquhart said that the preferred procurement route was for frozen meals of equal nutritional value, although service users would be consulted.

 

Councillor Bouchier sought to confirm that users of Woodville Day Centre received hot meals 7 days a week.  The Cabinet Member confirmed that this was the case.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked as a supplementary question whether service users would continue to receive fresh vegetables at no extra cost should they wish to retain them.  Councillor Urquhart said that she was unable to confirm this although she said that customers may be able to meet the cost of fresh vegetables themselves

 

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

 

“What services, funded entirely by the Council, have been totally withdrawn and are no longer available?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“The services that have been cut are the school uniform grant and the provision of skips”

 

Councillor Marlow asked as a supplementary question what Councillor Samuel’s thoughts were on the opposition claim that vital services had been cut .   Councillor Samuel dismissed the claim as an ‘untruth’.

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question about whether Councillor Samuel felt his statement was misleading when he considered matters like Tangley Hall, Whitton Youth Café and Heathfield Library.  The Deputy Leader said that the Administration had made the promise to not cut any service, although some may not be delivered in the same location, the same way, or at the same cost.

 

Councillor O’Malley asked in a supplementary question when the decision to close Heathfield Library was taken.  Councillor Samuel said that the decision was taken on 8 July 2008 by the then Cabinet.

 

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

 

“Given that £450,000 has been transferred this year from the PCT to the Council to maintain eligibility criteria for care services, will the Cabinet member reconsider the decision to stop the funding for moderate care needs, which came into effect this April, and apparently is only contributing £50,000 to the Council's savings targets?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“The answer to that Madam Mayor must be no as we invest more with our NHS partners into early intervention and prevention where even greater savings will be made. When the criteria changed it did not change for those with moderate needs currently accessing services at that time, only for those new to the service.”

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question on whether the Cabinet Member felt that it was the NHS’s hope that moderate care needs would still be provided for, given that they were continuing to fund those in receipt of services for a number of years.  Councillor Urquhart said that those with moderate needs were being funded.  She added that money was now being invested in re-ablement and early intervention which was designed to keep service users at home and in a greater degree of comfort.

 

Councillor Butler asked as a supplementary question how many services for vulnerable elderly people had been removed.  The Cabinet Member said that no service had been removed.

 

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

 

“What are the Cabinet Member’s aims for the provision of Youth Services in Central Twickenham?”

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“It is our policy to provide the best possible provision of youth services in Twickenham, and I think this was spelt out in the earlier discussion on the petition.”

 

Councillor Elliott asked a supplementary question on whether the Council’s equal opportunities policy was being considered.  Councillor Percival confirmed that it was the Administration’s intention to make any youth facility DDA compliant.

 

Councillor Coombs sought to confirm what services would be available in the Whitton area, as a supplementary question.  Councillor Percival said that there was the intention to table plans regarding Whitton Library in due course.

 

Councillor Evans confirmed as part of a supplementary question whether the Cabinet Member was aware of public opinion of Heatham House.  Councillor Percival said that she was aware of public opinion, although was pleased to note that young people had visited other centres to see what could be offered if a bespoke facility was developed in Twickenham.

 

j) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Street Scene:

 

“If 6 out 10 households in a road reply to a survey on reducing the speed limit to 20 mph and of these responses 75% are in favour, would he not consider that a reasonable public mandate for action?”

 

Councillor Harrison replied in the following terms:

 

“You will have heard my comments on 20mph zones at the last Council meeting and I would reiterate that if appropriate they are something that we will consider. In terms of allocating limited resources I am sure you will understand that these will usually be put where there is a clear majority of residents affected, who are in favour of a proposal; indeed this was detailed in our March Cabinet report. I am sure that you have something in mind when asking your question and no doubt you will be sending me the details in due course.”

 

Councillor Elloy asked a supplementary question on whether Councillor Harrison felt that a 51% threshold was unworkable, given typically low response rates to consultations.  Councillor Harrison said that this policy was to target the Council’s limited resources on projects that residents genuinely wanted.

 

Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question about whether the Cabinet Member felt community projects would not happen because of the high response rate required.  Councillor Harrison did not feel this would happen, citing a recent project where 54% of residents were in favour of a proposal.  The project was to now be prioritised.

 

Councillor Elengorn asked as a supplementary whether Councillor Harrison was aware of any other consultative process needing 51% support from all residents.  The Cabinet Member said that there was a need to devise a way in which to prioritise the high number of requested schemes and commended the proposed mechanism.

 

k) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Porter asked the Cabinet Member for Community Development:

 

“How great a demand for a River Centre on Twickenham Riverside has been expressed during the recent extensive consultation?”

 

Councillor Salvoni replied in the following terms:

 

“Out of the 344 questionnaires completed in response to the Twickenham Area Action Plan consultation, a river centre was mentioned by 3 respondents. Of those responses, one respondent thought that the option of having such a centre should be in Kingston upon Thames.”

 

Councillor Porter asked a supplementary question on whether the Cabinet Member was aware of any previous consultation that gave minimal choice to residents.  Councillor Salvoni said that she was aware of a consultation which gave the choice of a river centre and nothing else; she added that as a result of two detailed consultations, two areas of the Twickenham Riverside site had now been opened.

 

Councillor Montague asked in a supplementary question whether there were any plans for the Twickenham Riverside site.  Councillor Salvoni said that there were plans being developed and that these would be made available in due course.

 

The time allowed for Members questions had elapsed and a written response would be provided to all remaining notified questions.

 

l) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Elengorn asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“In the light of his response to my question (f) at the July Council meeting can he explain how one tells whether the Deputy Leader’s statements to the press represent personal opinions or are made on behalf of the administration?”

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

[“In the same way as the Prime Minister is able to tell if the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements are personal opinions or are on behalf of the government – empirically, on the basis of the context.

 

In a free society a member of an administration is entitled to express a personal opinion, something that Councillor Elengorn was never reluctant to do in many years of administration.”]

 

m) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Nicholson asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Street Scene:

 

“Does it take deaths or serious injuries along a road to force the change of speed restrictions or does any damage to property count in consideration of changing the speed?”

 

Councillor Harrison replied in the following terms:

 

[There are a number of factors involved when looking at changing speed restrictions and indeed the accident record is a key element; while accidents resulting in death and serious injury need to be considered in any analysis as a priority, other less serious injuries and indeed damage to property will also be assessed.]

 

None.

 

There were no ward concerns.

 

Attached

a) Treasury Management Annual Report 20010-11 and update

 

Resolved that the Treasury Management Annual Report 20010-11 be approved.

 

b) FORMAL ADOPTION OF LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT

 

Resolved that the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Development Management Development Plan Document be adopted.

 

None.

There was no debate on opposition priority business.

 

None.

There were no reports from overview and scrutiny committees.

 

None.

There were no reports on joint arrangements or external organisations.

 

Attached

Attached.

Resolved

 

1)      That it be agreed that the Council make no change to the current Polling Districts and continue to designate the polling district as the polling place and assess suitability of venue at every election.

 

2)      That with regard to the two venues listed below, continued attempts be made to secure the premises or suitable alternatives within close proximity for future elections:

• Hampton North Ward – continue to use Hampton Academy as the designated Polling Station for KB Polling District if possible, but if unavailable, use the Council’s Newhouse Centre in Buckingham Road.

• South Twickenham Ward –return to St James Hall if possible for future elections in EA Polling District or identify an alternative venue other than that of St Catherine’s used for the 2011 Referendum.

 

Attached.

RESOLVED thatthe Protocol for Webcasting of Council and Other Meetings be adopted and included within Part 5 of the Constitution.

 

None.

There were no reports of decisions taken as a matter of urgency.

 

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

The Mayor made the following announcements:

 

·         Richmond upon Thames had been awarded the silver medal in the city category for Britain in Bloom.  Councillor Marlow had attended the award ceremony to accept the honour on behalf of the borough.

·         Richmond upon Thames had gained six awards for London in Bloom.

·         Thanks were extended to those who participated in the Great River Race.

·         There had been a twinning ceremony between Fontainebleau and Lodi in Italy.  The Mayor attended the ceremony in Fontainebleau.

·         Fundraising had been making good progress, with a record amount of money being raised at the Mayor’s Charity Golf Tournament.  The Mayor gave particular thanks to Colin Sinclair for organising the excellent prizes.

·         The ‘Saintly Quiz’ had been a success, with Councillor Linnette winning first prize for his costume.

·         The Mayor would be collecting money for the Citizens Advice Bureau at the fireworks display at Richmond Athletics Club.

·         The Mayor would be attending a remembrance ceremony at Richmond Synagogue on 12^th November.  In this 90^th anniversary year of the national poppy appeal, the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and councillors would be attending Remembrance Day services in the borough on 13^th November.

 

The Mayor reported that there had been a metal theft from one of the borough’s War Memorials.  She and the Chamber denounced this act of vandalism and urged residents to be vigilant toward such crimes.  The Council was pleased to note that a local sculptor had offered to create a replacement plaque, based on the original design.

 

Paul Evans was welcomed as the new Monitoring Officer and Joint Head of Legal Services for the London Boroughs of Richmond upon Thames and Merton.

 

The Council extended congratulations to Councillors Morris and Evans on the arrival of their babies.

 

None.

There were no notices of motion.