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

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 13 December 2011 be signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

 

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

Councillor Samuel declared a personal interest during Item 5 – Members Questions by virtue of his appointment by the Council to the Richmond Theatre Trust.

 

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

Councillor Stockley presented a petition of 415 signatures on a planning matter; specifically, objecting to the demolition of the Charlie Butler, Mortlake and its replacement with a development of apartments.

 

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

 

In accordance with notice given, Mr Richard Mellor asked the Leader of the Council:

“Lord True, can I ask you to clarify whether your political desire to bring about the redevelopment of Twickenham Station should allow you and/or your North Richmond Councillors to pay scant regard to policy DM DC3 Taller Buildings, which was only adopted on 1 November 2011 and formed the keystone in your election pledge to the electorate that you would listen to the public with regards to the shaping of their town and that Twickenham would not allow high-rise development?”

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

[The Council’s overall responsibility when making planning decisions is to take full account of and balance all competing merits of a development against its overall local planning policies. Major developments commonly have many strengths and weaknesses which create policy tensions and these are frequently reflected in local opinion, this was the experience with the Twickenham Station. In making a decision, the Committee took into account all evidence, advice and arguments made through representations and while the ultimate decision was made against the wishes of a substantial number of our local residents, this does not mean that public concerns were not listened to. Overall the scheme’s planning benefits were found to have outweighed concerns linked with the ‘taller building‘ policy (DM DC 3).]

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 O’Malley asked the Deputy leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources “On what criteria does he recommend the Council to borrow money?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms,

“If the money raised by borrowing is used exclusively to create or improve a Council owned asset, provided that it benefits future generations I would regard it as reasonable as it were to ask future generations to contribute to the cost. But if in fact the proposal is that future generations should be saddled with debt simply so that this generation can live beyond its means as the Leader of the Opposition so often suggests I regard that as both reckless and irresponsible.”

 

Councillor O’Malley asked a supplementary question seeking to establish whether this was an approach common to all administrations.

 

Councillor Samuel responded by citing an example of economic practice, specifically the award of an annual incremental Grant to Richmond Theatre, which had been agreed by the previous Liberal Democrat administration.

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question concerning the policy fit between Councillor Samuel’s statements thus far and the administration’s plans to borrow £40m to fund 6^th forms and a Catholic Secondary School which would not be within the council’s control in the long term.

 

Councillor Samuel reported that the figure Councillor Knight had stated as required borrowing for 6^th forms and a catholic secondary school was incorrect and this would be debated further in his budget speech in February and in addition the administration considered Academies to be a vital part of the Richmond Borough provision of secondary education and were therefore able to support them in this way.

 

Councillor Porter asked a supplementary question seeking to establish whether there were occasions in the past when reserves had been depleted to fund day to day expenditure.

 

Councillor Samuel replied that overspending on Teddington School was an example of bad financial practice by the previous administration. 

 

(b) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Acton asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways, ‘In view of officers' interpretation, supported by majority party members of the Planning Committee, of policy DM DC 3 in the Development Management Plan (DMP) adopted on 1 November 2011 as applying to the application 11/1443 for Twickenham Station would she reconsider her statement in the Foreword to the DMP that ‘within Twickenham Station area ... where taller buildings may be appropriate, height limits are firmly set’?’

 

Councillor Morris responded in the following terms,

“The inclusion of the height limits within the Supplementary Planning Guidance and the DMP were extremely important in ensuring a clear message was given to the developers in relation to the scale of development and I make no apologies for drawing attention to these in my foreword.

 

I cannot emphasise enough that in reaching decisions in major applications it is necessary to consider schemes against a whole range of policies as the minority party knows and in relation to Twickenham Station the Committee considered the overall benefits outweighed the matters on which there were tensions with policies such as that relating to taller buildings.”

 

Councillor Acton asked a supplementary question seeking an assurance from the cabinet member that the DPD document would help to control the height of buildings in Twickenham Town Centre in the future.

 

Councillor Morris reported that it had already helped to bring down the height of the Station development and would continue to help in the Town Centre.

 

Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question seeking to establish who had written the taller buildings policy.

 

Councillor Morris replied that it had been written by Councillor Elengorn and referred to some of the taller building statements within it.

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question which sought agreement from the Cabinet member that the Core Strategy had to be, and was, written in accordance with the London Plan to which the application by Solum conformed.

 

Councillor Morris was unsure as to the exact nature of the question asked but reported that the consultants hired to assess the suitability of areas for taller buildings under the Liberal Democrat administration had only identified two, and these had both been included in the Core Strategy.

 

(c) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Avon asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Street Scene ‘How many people responded to the Council’s letter concerning the unlawful PCNs and what was the total cost to the Council of the repayments”

 

Councillor Harrison responded in the following terms,

“To date we have had just under 14,000 PCNs reclaimed resulting in just over £800,000 being repaid. There are still about 4,200 PCNs remaining unclaimed at present amounting to approximately £250,000. Although the deadline for claiming was the end of last calendar year we have as a good will gesture extended the pay back period for another two weeks from now. After that we will want to draw the process to a close and any unclaimed monies will be spent on highways purposes.”

 

Councillor Avon asked a supplementary question to ascertain numbers of respondents to the letter who were from outside of the Borough.

 

Councillor Harrison reported that 70% of respondents had been from outside of the Borough and that this should be seen to justify the course of action taken.

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question which sought clarification of the purpose of refunding wrongly applied PCN charges, to recoup the monies in Car parking charges without consultation.

 

Councillor Harrison reported that there would be consultation on any decisions of this kind and that the administration would listen to the responses carefully.

 

Councillor Harborne asked a supplementary question seeking further information on consultations pertaining to yellow lines in the Borough.

 

Councillor Harrison reported that there was currently a review of yellow lines at local shopping centres in the Borough taking place which would be largely completed in this financial year.

 

(d) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Coombs asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways, ‘Will she ensure that officers make clear to developer St James in their negotiations over the former Royal Mail site that affordable housing is not, as the deputy leader said in relation to the recent Twickenham Station application, ‘a very low priority’, and that the authority will expect more than 50% of new homes on the site to be affordable in line with its adopted policies?’

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms,

“Officers will be making it clear to the developers that the Council will be seeking the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing in line with DM HO6 having regard to both the borough-wide target and the individual circumstances of the site.  In considering proposals the Council will of course have to consider all the viability matters referred to in LDF Core Strategy such as economic viability, individual site costs, availability of public subsidies and the overall mix of uses and planning benefits.”

 

Councillor Coombs asked a supplementary question seeking an assurance from the Cabinet Member that an appropriate level of affordable housing would be secured on this site.

 

Councillor Morris assured the meeting that affordable housing would be desirable and sought, but that the height of the development would be weighed against that desire.

 

Councillor Butler asked a supplementary question which sought to ascertain how many times the previous administration achieved the desired 50% affordable housing target on developments granted permission during their time in control of the council.

 

Councillor Morris reported that on some sites specifically designated for affordable housing, such as the linked sites developments, 100% affordable housing was achieved.  However, on sites in private ownership and designated for mixed use 50% affordable housing had never been achieved.

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question which sought recognition from the Cabinet Member that the requirement on developers to build a new youth provision on the site would result in a reduction of space for affordable housing.

 

Councillor Morris stated that there were no firm plans for the site as yet.

 

(e) In accordance with notice given Councillor Chappell asked Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways ‘Following the recent announcement regarding the Twickenham Riverside site, could the Cabinet Member please advise me of the timetable for its transformation to an area that everyone can enjoy and when she expects this to be opened to the public?’

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms,

“The contractors are due to start in early February and will be working to a very tight programme of work. The programme should ensure that the area is open to the public in time for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations in June this year.”

 

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question seeking to establish whether any correspondence from members of the public had been received in relation to the site.

 

Councillor Morris reported that letters had been received the majority of which were happy to see the changes in place.

 

Councillor Elloy asked a supplementary question to discover whether there were plans to move or remove the parking from the font of the site to further improve its aesthetics.

 

Councillor Morris reported that smaller operational issues such as parking would be determined in the detailed plans.  She assured the member that all options would be considered

 

Councillor Salvoni asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet member considered that this redevelopment would benefit the local area.

 

Councillor Morris stated that the redevelopment would benefit the locality, drawing people and families to the river in their leisure time.

 

(f) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Knight asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing ‘What consideration is she giving to the increased use of discretionary grants to help those local residents who are facing hardship and homelessness as a result of the government’s changes to Housing Benefit?’

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms,

 “We are very sympathetic to anybody whois suffering fear and anxiety from the current climate of change which is why we have recently changed our Discretionary Housing policy to give extra assistance to claimants who will be adversely affected by the Government’s Housing Benefit changes.

 

Our Revenues and Benefits and Housing teams work very closely together to identify who those people might be and put in help and support which is what we are all about, there’s a 47% increase in the grant and we are expecting to use all of it.”

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question seeking assurances from the Cabinet member that she would seek an increase above the 40% discussed and would not allow any family in the Borough to lose their home owing to the proposed changes to housing benefits.

 

Councillor Urquhart assured the Council that officers would be working hard to obtain the maximum possible grant for Richmond.  With regard to families being affected, each case would be reviewed on its merits but she warned that people could not be supported indefinitely in a house that was above their means.

 

Councillor Blakemore asked a supplementary question seeking information on the possible impact to Richmond on the changes to single person room rate.

Councillor Urquhart reported that 75 people in the Borough had been identified on whom it might have a negative impact and each of these would be supported individually.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question the purpose of which was to establish the accuracy of her understanding that the local authority could add to the Government grant if it so chose.

 

Councillor Urquhart confirmed that this was correct.

 

(g) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Butler asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing, ‘Following the Government’s recent announcement of additional support funding for social care, can the Cabinet Member please confirm what money is being made available for Richmond upon Thames and how it is intended this will be used locally?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms,

“This year we have one-off funding of £407,000 for social care and extra funding of £39,000 for Disabled Facilities Grants, this will be used to address winter pressures and health services tackling the most prevalent reasons for delayed transfers of care, enabling patients to be discharged from hospital more quickly with effective ongoing support in their own homes. Funding will provide additional capacity for the hospital discharge process, additional capacity in reablement, which we are having a lot of success with, homecare and equipment services, meeting increased demand during the winter period, and to support service changes over a longer term period. Disabled Facilities Grant funding will enable extra adaptations to be made in people’s homes.”

 

Councillor Butler asked a supplementary question seeking further information on how the monies would impact on delayed transfers of care in particular.

 

Councillor Urquhart responded that although results in the Borough were good at present the money would allow further improvements to be made through an even more focussed and joined up approach to patient discharge.  In addition services would be extended to include weekends.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question concerning the reported 1.2m underspend in adult social care and sought assurances from the Cabinet Member that this money would be eventually be spent on Social care Services.

 

Councillor Urquhart confirmed that there was extra money available owing to the underspend and that announcements would be forthcoming as to priorities for how this money would be spent.

 

Councillor Palmer asked a supplementary question seeking further information from the Cabinet member on potential financial support to be received from the NHS to support the delivery of Adult Social Care.

 

Councillor Urquhart reported that in addition to the recent funding support announced; a further £2.5m had been secured via a partnership agreement with NHS Richmond.  This additional funding would help to support Adult Social Care, reablement, and Carers’ breaks services.

 

(h) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Eady asked the Cabinet Member for Schools ‘Would he confirm that there will be no funding, direct or indirect, from Council sources to schools to cover any shortfalls in funding of post-16 courses the schools might incur should they offer post-16 education.

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms,

“Supporting our schools and developing and establishing high quality 6^th forms is one of the key priorities for this administration and we know it’s very popular with residents and the schools themselves. We are currently working with the schools on detailed feasibility around how they can be started including the funding required and we will look at it very carefully, alongside our other primarys including providing sufficient school places at primary  and secondary level and we are very confident that they will be strongly supported and they will be very financially viable.”

 

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question which sought to establish how the current administration would have reacted had they been in control of the council at the time when Sheen School sought support for out of pocket expenses resulting from their unsuccessful attempt to run a 6^th form.

 

Councillor Hodgins would not be drawn on an incident which occurred before he became a Councillor but assured members that he was working closely with schools to ensure successful 6^th forms.

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question requesting information on the popularity of the 6^th form scheme with residents.

 

Councillor Hodgins reported that 87% of respondents to the recent questionnaire supported the establishment of 6^th forms in the Borough.

 

Councillor Churchill asked a supplementary question seeking an assurance that any buildings created for 6^th forms would be transferrable at no cost to 11- 16yr education should the 6^th forms not be sustainable.

Councillor Hodgins reported that this and other issues would be confirmed after a feasibility study had been conducted.

(i) In accordance with notice given Councillor Salvoni asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and Children’s Services ‘Will the Cabinet Member please outline the range of services offered at the newly opened Croft Centre?’

 

Councillor Percival answered in the following terms,

“The Windham Croft Centre continues to be a hub of multi agency services for disabled children and their families, as well as a nursery and now a full time Children Centre.

 

Since re-opening the space is used for

 

·         The Disabled Children’s Team and Short Breaks Team

·         Crofters who run after school, holiday and weekend schemes for disabled children/ young people

·         A respite unit for overnight stays for the most significantly disabled children

·         Children Centre activity throughout the week

·         Specialist Children Centre activity for children and carers of children with additional needs provided by a range of partners including health and voluntary and community sector

·         The Child Development Team offering multi agency assessment and intervention for under fives with additional needs

·         The Three Wings Trust voluntary organisation working with special needs children and families

·         Richmond Youth Partnership, a voluntary organisation running a young parents support service

·         The Occupational Health Team who use the Sensory and Soft Play room on a regular basis.

·         The Catholic Children Society who have a regular slot for using the family room to provide counselling to disabled children and their families.

 

And I have to say that Cllr True and I and Cllr Harborne, went to the opening of the new Croft Centre and it was absolutely fantastic.”

 

Councillor Salvoni asked a supplementary question seeking to establish how the services at the Croft Centre might connect with services at the Windham Nursery.

 

Councillor Percival reported that additional services would build on those provided at Windham Nursery with the continued aim of creating healthy and resilient children and families.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question requesting further information regarding problems that were delaying the opening of the connected respite flat.

 

Councillor Percival reported that the delivery of staff training had delayed the opening.

 

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question which sought an assurance from the Cabinet Member that while supporting those young people who were particularly vulnerable the council would also ensure that all young people were involved in planning and designing the services provided for them.

 

Councillor Percival reported that young people had been, and would continue to be, regularly consulted.  At present young people were being consulted on what services they would like to see in Twickenham.

 

(j) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elengorn asked the Cabinet Member for Community Development “Would he explain why no arrangements were in place to continue the up-to-date maintenance of the Community Notice Boards when the contract expired in November 2011?”

The time allowed for questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given.

 

[At the end of 2007 the Council agreed to end a contract with Adshel regarding Bus Stop advertising. As part of this contract there was a clause regarding the Community Noticeboards, with Adshel updating the boards weekly on the Council’s behalf. This contract ended four years later, at the end of 2011. The Council’s devolved approach to procurement in 2007 meant that this contract was not clearly the responsibility of one officer and was not picked up when it concluded.

 

In 2011 a new centralised procurement function was set up which manages procurement activity and produces and monitors annual procurement plans. Plans are now published and considered at Overview and Scrutiny Committees. This enables the Council to now have a full forward looking plan, ensuring more efficient contract management. Since the contract has been concluded, officers have carried out a full review of the boards and found a number of the frames were damaged, and in need of repair with the windows needing to be replaced.  The Council is currently investigating the costs of replacing all existing boards and potentially installing additional ones in other places around the borough – ensuring they continue to provide communities with up to date information about the area in which they live.]

 

(k) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Stockley asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways “In 2011 how many planning applications recommended by officers but refused by Planning Committee were successful on appeal?”

 

The time allowed for questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given.

 

[During 2011, twelve planning applications which had been recommended for approval by officers and were refused by the Planning Committee, were appealed.  Of these 5 (42%) were allowed and 7 (58%) were dismissed by Planning Inspectors.]

 

(l) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams asked the Leader of the Council “Will he comment on the volte face of the National Trust on the management of cows on Petersham Meadows after the meeting on 23 September reached an agreement apparently acceptable to the National Trust as well as the Council?”

 

The time allowed for questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given.

 

[Following a dog attack on a cow last year, the Council, local residents and the National Trust have been jointly working towards addressing the potential problems caused by dogs on the Meadows when cows are present between April and November. We believed that, following extensive local public engagement, a practical solution acceptable to all parties had been reached. The Council was surprised and disappointed that the National Trust resiled from this position. We and ward councillors intend to meet them to review this.  However, we begin from the assumption that the agreement first reached was a commonsense and proportionate outcome, respecting the traditions of the Meadows and their scenic and cultural place in the Borough.]

 

(m) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Streetscene “In the light of the reply to the recent question on the safety impact of yellow lines, can he confirm that in all cases where a specific dropped kerb has been installed at road junctions allowing pedestrians, wheelchair and buggy users to cross easily, those users will be protected by the appropriate yellow line to prevent vehicles blocking their route?”

 

The time allowed for questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given.

 

[All formal crossings (zebra, toucan etc) are provided and will continue to be provided with the appropriate lines as set out in the relevant regulations. With respect to informal crossings (i.e. dropped kerbs at road junctions) it is an offence under the London Local Authorities Act to park across them and there is no requirement for any additional traffic orders or double yellow lines. We have recently undertaken a press campaign to raise the awareness among motorists and we will issue PCNs where obstructions are caused; as we would if there were double yellow lines. Residents can also phone the council parking enforcement number (no. on LBRUT website) if they would like action taken about an obstruction.]

 

 

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

 

            “Illegal Mooring beside Ham Lands between Teddington Weir and the Kingston Borough Boundary.”

 

(Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside Ward)

In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Jones raised issues concerning Illegal Mooring beside Ham Lands between Teddington Weir and the Kingston Borough Boundary. She thanked Councillors Mathias and Nicholson for their work in raising the profile of the problem and welcomed discussions on the introduction of bylaws by LBRuT and the treatment of illegal moorings as criminal activity by the police.  She urged the Chairman of the Regulatory Committee to continue to pursue the bylaw introduction.

 

Councillor Palmer responded by also welcoming progress to date and reported that the consultation on bylaw introduction had now begun. She explained the process on completion of the consultation and thanked those involved for their hard work.

 

 

None

There were no reports of the Executive and Committees.

None

There were no reports of Overview and Scrutiny Committees

None

There were no reports on Joint Arrangements and External Organisations.

None

There were no reports of the Head of Paid Service.

None

No executive decisions had been taken as a matter of urgency since the last meeting of the Council.

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

The Mayor made the following announcements:

 

• Celebrations to mark Burn’s night would be held on 27^th January at York House and tickets were still available.
• On the 1^st March 2012 there would be a visit from the Llanelli Male Voice Choir who would be performing at Duke Street Church at the St David’s Day concert.
• There would be a celebration to mark St Patrick’s Day on March 17^th, further details would follow.
• She would be hosting a Dinner on the 21^st April to mark St George’s Day.  Full details would be available in due course
• She had attended the Local Government Dinner at the Mansion House to represent the Council, alongside the Leader.

 

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

 

            “Council endorses the Mayor of London’s London Living Wage policy, currently £8.30 an hour, and believes this represents the minimum reasonable rate of pay in the Capital.  Council notes that after several years of pay freezes in local government, the lowest pay grade (Scale 1) in outer London starts at just £7.75 an hour. Council therefore resolves that no member of staff shall be paid on a spinal point lower than the London Living Wage.”

 

Motion: Pursuant to notice, Councillor Knight proposed and Councillor Coombs seconded:

 

“Council endorses the Mayor of London’s London Living Wage policy, currently £8.30 an hour, and believes this represents the minimum reasonable rate of pay in the Capital.  Council notes that after several years of pay freezes in local government, the lowest pay grade (Scale 1) in outer London starts at just £7.75 an hour. Council therefore resolves that no member of staff shall be paid on a spinal point lower than the London Living Wage.”

 

Councillor Arbour tabled the following amendment, seconded by Lord Evans:

 

• After “Council endorses the Mayor of London’s London Living Wage policy, currently £8.30 an hour,” delete “and believes this represents the minimum reasonable rate of pay in the Capital.  Council notes that after several years of pay freezes in local government, the lowest pay grade (Scale 1) in outer London starts at just £7.75 an hour. Council therefore”

 

• After “on a spinal point lower than the London Living Wage” insert “and requests the Remuneration Committee to include this in its Pay Statement; Council demands that the Leader of the Opposition rejects support for his Council duties from Liberal Democrat HQ, while the Liberal Democrat Party pays less than the London Living wage.”

 

 

The amendment was put to the vote and was CARRIED

 

The substantive motion read:

 “Council endorses the Mayor of London’s London Living Wage policy, currently £8.30 an hour, resolves that no member of staff shall be paid on a spinal point lower than the London Living Wage and requests the Remuneration Committee to include this in its Pay Statement; Council demands that the Leader of the Opposition rejects support for his Council duties from Liberal Democrat HQ, while the Liberal Democrat Party pays less than the London Living Wage.”

 

Councillor Williams, seconded by Councillor Knight proposed an amendment to the substantive motion:

 

• After “…….Pay Statement” delete “Council demands that the Leader of the Opposition rejects support for his Council duties from Liberal Democrat HQ, while the Liberal Democrat Party pays less than the London Living Wage”.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and FELL.

 

RESOLVED:

 

Council endorses the Mayor of London’s London Living Wage policy, currently £8.30 an hour, resolves that no member of staff shall be paid on a spinal point lower than the London Living Wage and requests the Remuneration Committee to include this in its Pay Statement; Council demands that the Leader of the Opposition rejects support for his Council duties from Liberal Democrat HQ, while the Liberal Democrat Party pays less than the London Living Wage.