To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 18 September 2012 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2012 were received and approved as a correct record of proceedings.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and the nature of the interest being declared.

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 Councillor Jeremy Elloy.

 

“We, the undersigned, petition the council to not move any of the existing Bus Stops out of King St, Twickenham.

The current consultation does not emphasise sufficiently the impact that the proposed relocation of bus stops away from King Street would have on bus users. The present location offers an interchange between routes merging at King Street, and is convenient for mothers with children, the elderly, and the disabled. If the bus stops are moved these groups will be inconvenienced by having to walk between the bus stops which are located at the fringes of the Town Centre.”

 

 

Councillor Percival presented a petition on behalf of residents of Elm Grove Road (Barnes) against a proposal to turn this road into a one-way street.

 

Councillor Morris presented a petition on behalf of customers of The Stylist on the Sheen Hairdressers, who were opposed to the installation of a bus stop and shelter outside the premises at 485 Upper Richmond Road West (East Sheen).

 

Councillor Elloy presented a petition against the proposed relocation of the bus stops of King Street, Twickenham: as this petition had received more than 1,000 signatures a debate was held, in accordance with the Petition Scheme.

 

Councillor Elloy introduced the petition by highlighting the number of signatories in comparison with the number of residents who had responded to the recent Council consultation on this matter. He also questioned the effectiveness of the consultation in light of recent changes to the proposals. Councillor Elloy emphasised the importance of maintaining a transport interchange in the town centre and ensuring that transport was accessible for the elderly, disabled and parents with small children. He also raised issues of highway safety in relation to design of bus stop location and encouraged the Council to prioritise sustainable transport in any future plans for town centres. Councillor Elloy raised concerns that if bus stops were located further from Twickenham town centre this would encourage people to visit different towns. He believed that if the proposals had changed significantly they should be consulted on again.

 

Councillor Harborne responded to Councillor Elloy’s statement by confirming her confidence in the Twickenham Town Centre Action Plan and its accessibility for all. She stated that the town centre proposals would create a more sustainable and pleasant town centre environment. She reported that only one comment had been received on the proposals via the Richmond AID (Advice and Information on Disability) website and that this had been supportive of the proposals. She emphasised the importance of progressing with town centre improvement plans which would benefit residents, visitors and local businesses.

 

Councillor Elengorn spoke in support of the petition. He asserted that London Buses did not wholly support the Council’s town centre proposals. He recognised that the current town centre design was not ideal but considered that the proposals needed to take more serious consideration of the location of bus stops. He was concerned that plans to locate more bus stops on York Street would add to town centre congestion. He re-emphasised concerns about pedestrian safety when interchange involved crossing the road and supported Councillor Elloy’s request for a fresh public consultation on these proposals.

 

Councillor Harrison (Cabinet Member for Highways and Street Scene) responded that whilst he recognised the right to petition, the Council’s consultation had greater statistical validity because a petition represented a self-selecting sample of views. The Council’s consultation had received an even balance of views. It was recognised that this had been carried out before the exact details of bus stop locations had been drawn up with TfL. This detailed work was ongoing; it was hoped that a solution could be found for Twickenham town centre which meet the needs of all, including those of the elderly and disabled. Councillor Harrison reconfirmed his commitment to transforming the street scene of Twickenham town centre without unnecessary delay.

 

Attached.

In accordance with the notice given, Mr Iain Paton asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community, Business and Culture:

 

“The Richmond Fairtrade Steering Group thanks Richmond Council for its active support since Fairtrade Borough status was achieved on 13 July, 2006. The Group also acknowledges with appreciation the Council’s help in renewing Richmond upon Thames’ Fairtrade status on 23 August of this year.

 

Given the Council’s role in leading this Fairtrade Borough, could the Cabinet member confirm the Council’s own commitment to Fairtrade, and express its support by the use of Fairtrade products in York House and other Council establishments?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“Yes I can assure Mr Paton that the Council remains committed to Fairtrade and we continue to prioritise the use of these products, particularly coffee, tea and sugar, in our catering services certainly from York House and other Council establishments. I don’t have a list of them all but we certainly use them at the Civic Centre and the Mortlake Training Centre.”

 

Mr Paton asked a supplementary question regarding whether the Council would support the Go Further campaign by publicising its fair trade status in all publications. Councillor Fleming replied that the details would need to be examined but that the Council was committed to publicising and supporting fair trade in the borough.

 

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

 

Attached.

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

 

“Does the Leader wish to comment on the decision of the High Court with regard to Catholic Schools?”

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“I am of course very pleased for the many parents who have wanted such a school for many years and were also led to believe the party opposite wanted it too and discovered otherwise. The High Court has wholly endorsed the lawfulness of the Council’s decisions to approve the establishment of these two schools. Despite allegations to the contrary, the judgement also found that our consultation process, which attracted over 4,000 responses, set out the arguments for and against the proposals in a fair and helpful manner. I believe the judge said it was flawless. We now look forward to working with the Diocese so that the schools can provide the excellent education that we want from next September.”

 

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question regarding the number of applications to the secondary school and the benefit to the community of additional primary school places and an SEN unit. Lord True responded that he was pleased to highlight the additional primary places and SEN provision; and that there had been 364 applications for the 150 places at the secondary school (165 of which were a first or second preference).

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question regarding press releases on the matter and whether these were politically divisive. Lord True replied that his only criticism had been of the national body of the British Humanist Association which he believed had intervened in a local democratic matter and had risked delaying the establishment of the school via commencing with legal proceedings.

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question regarding the cost of the judicial review and the Leader’s response to any further legal action. Lord True replied that he would provide further information about the costs but that they were substantial; he hoped that those who had pursued the legal case would now desist, in order that the Council could focus on the provision of education for all the borough’s children.

 

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

 

“Why did he sack Councillor Naylor from the vice-chairmanship of the Planning Committee and with immediate effect?”

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“Appointments to Council Committees and Chairmanship are determined in this Council on a proportionality basis, the Leader of the Council makes majority party appointments and the Leader of the Opposition minority party ones, if Councillor Miller wants to know more about my appointments he is more than welcome to join my group.”

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question regarding whether more information could have been provided in the interests of transparency. Lord True disagreed that there was a need to disclose reasons for party appointments.

 

Councillor O’Malley asked a supplementary question regarding the appointments made by the Richmond Liberal Democrat Party. Lord True responded that this was a political matter.

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question regarding Councillor Naylor’s current role. Lord True responded that he was carrying out good work for the party and for the people of Twickenham.

 

5(c) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Mathias asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Heath and Housing:

 

“In view of recent misleading statements that increased charges in Adult Social Care are significantly reducing the daily quality of life for disabled residents in the Borough, can the Cabinet Member assure us that she is protecting our most vulnerable and that no one is paying more than they can afford?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“The fact of the matter is that under the financial circumstances at the time we inherited an unsustainable contributions policy from the Liberal Democrats in 2010 which needed to be addressed or we faced cutting front-line services for our elderly. We did adjust our contributions policy in the fairest way possible following national guidelines and taking hardship into account. Asking people who can afford to make a grater contribution, or in some cases a contribution for the first time ever, has meant that services for the most vulnerable have not been reduced and 42% of users continue to pay nothing at all.”

 

Councillor Mathias asked a supplementary question regarding a recent media story about a service user and Councillor Urquhart provided clarification on this matter.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question regarding the effect of changes to financial support for disabled people in the borough. Councillor Urquhart responded that a framework was being developed which meant that disabled people were supported within the community and had greater choice about the services they received. The Council was also giving further support to preventative services to encourage independent living.

 

Councillor Butler asked a supplementary question requesting more information about investment in services. Councillor Urquhart responded that Richmond spent on average 4% more than other London boroughs on services for the elderly and vulnerable. The means by which Richmond assessed the eligibility of residents was also more generous than other boroughs, allowing for a higher capital cap and discounting £20 of disability living allowance. Councillor Urquhart provided further details on investment in preventative services, including the promotion of the careline service.

 

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

 

“In the light of the serious financial problems faced by Richmond Youth Partnership, will the Council provide financial support to secure the future of the organisation and the many important services it runs for local young people?”

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“We are currently undertaking an assessment of Richmond Youth Partnership’s financial situation and their plans for a sustainable organisation.”

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question regarding whether the Council could offer support to the range of services that Richmond Youth Partnership currently provided, including drugs outreach and the Off the Record service. Councillor Percival replied that the Council would need to await the outcome of current negotiations before any decisions were made.

 

Councillor Martin asked a supplementary question regarding the partnership’s KCafe. Councillor Percival replied that the Council was exploring options with the partnership to keep this café open; in addition she confirmed that there were no plans to close the skate park.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question regarding the importance of keeping all services running. Councillor Percival agreed that all services provided by the partnership were important but she believed that funding had been removed from the drugs outreach programme by the NHS.

 

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

 

“Could the Cabinet Member for Schools provide an update on the feasibility study being undertaken in partnership with Richmond upon Thames College?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“I am very happy to confirm the joint release that the College and the Council put out within the last two weeks that we have agreed in principle on the outcome of the feasibility study that was done over the summer that looks at addressing a new build for college facilities, a new secondary school on the site of the college and we will be looking at specially built facilities, SEN facilities for Clarendon School as well. The next stage will be a consultation with staff, with students, and with residents, to ask their views, which we will be issuing shortly and which will run through March. We’re very excited about this partnership we have with the college.”

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question regarding the benefits of the project. Councillor Hodgins responded that the college would be provided with new facilities and that the borough would be provided with a new secondary school as well as new SEN facilities: this would complement the Council’s other education proposals and provide a centre of educational excellence at the site.

 

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question regarding the potential establishment of an educational trust between the Council and the college. Councillor Hodgins replied that discussions were being held with the college about the exact form of management to be used for the school.

 

Councillor Bond asked a supplementary question regarding the forecast on secondary school places. Councillor Hodgins responded that 2012 had seen a five percent drop in applications for places and that in previous years the Council had been able to meet demand; therefore 2017 was deemed to be the appropriate time for the creation of a new secondary school.

 

5(f) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Elengorn asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Street Scene:

 

"Why does the Cabinet report on Twickenham Town Centre Highways and Street Scene Scheme not refer to and take account of his promise to the July Council to make the interests of the disabled and elderly "paramount"?”

 

Councillor Harrison replied in the following terms:

 

“While the word “paramount” may not have been used in the recent Cabinet report it is not correct to then infer that the Twickenham Town Centre proposals do not take due account of the elderly and disabled. It is clear that features such as wider pavements, a de-cluttered environment, at grade and reduced width crossing points, public seating, bus stops nearer the surgery, dentist, the library, banks and destination shopping are all features which will help not only the elderly and disabled but many other members of the community. As he may know there was a thorough discussion on equalities in the November Cabinet and the detailed scheme will be subject to further discussion in the equalities context at a future Cabinet before final approval to proceed with the scheme implementation.”

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question regarding the definition of the word ‘paramount’ in this case. Councillor Harrison reiterated that all equalities issues would be considered very carefully by the Cabinet when the final scheme was designed and that the scheme would be beneficial to all.

 

Councillor Harborne asked a supplementary question in relation to cycle improvements in Twickenham. Councillor Harrison confirmed that if bus stops were removed from King Street, cycle lanes would be placed on both sides of the street, increasing safety for cyclists as well as pedestrians.

 

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

 

“What is the estimated cost of the provision of sixth forms in our Secondary Schools and how will it be met?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“The net cost of the sixth forms is approximately £25million. I refer the Council to my statement on the Budget on 28 February in which I said that the Capital Programme was funded by underspends, by support from the reserves, from revenue, from Government Grants, from Section 106 money and by borrowing, and at that stage borrowing was under 30% of the total. The figures have changed since then because the fully funded Academies have dropped out of the programme but the general approach remains the same.”

 

Councillor Elliott asked a supplementary question regarding whether it would be necessary to raise Council Tax to pay for the programme. Councillor Samuel confirmed that it would not be.

 

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question regarding the budget for supporting schools and academies during start-up periods. Councillor Samuel responded that there were no current provisions for this but that any reasonable requests would be considered.

 

Councillor Head asked a question regarding the relationship between funding for primary school places and funding of secondary and sixth form places. Councillor Samuel confirmed that the Council would be able to provide quality primary school places for all the borough’s children whilst expanding secondary and sixth form provision.

 

5(h) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Jones asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways:

 

“What progress has she made with her policy of contracting out the provision of Parks and Open Spaces?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“The recent Cabinet meeting, held on 15 November, received a report outlining the progress made so far which I am sure Councillor Jones has read in full but I will summarise: this report seeks approval to delegate authority to award the eleven contracts in a Framework Agreement to the Strategic Cabinet Member following clarification of the evaluation of tenders.  The paper is anticipated to take a couple more weeks and thereafter we can award contracts.”

 

Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question regarding timescales for announcing the awards of contracts. Councillor Morris replied that the information would become available as soon as the analysis stage was completed.

 

Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question regarding investment in parks. Councillor Morris informed the Council that under the first Parks Improvement Investment Programme £5 million had been invested whilst under the second programme £3 million would be invested. This was linked to the feedback received from the All in One Consultation.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question regarding the take-up of funding by amenity groups in order to help run local parks. Councillor Morris replied that this was being examined.

 

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

 

5(i) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Stockley asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways:

 

“Could the Cabinet Member detail the works to be carried out in Mortlake and Barnes Common as part of the Uplift Programme?”

 

The Uplift Programme for Barnes is currently focused upon improvement to facilities at the Castelnau Community Project and includes adaptations to enhance facilities for young people, a new lift to improve access, new windows and repairs to the roof to improve the efficiency of the building, and refurbishment of toilet, kitchen and relaxation areas.  The Uplift Programme for Mortlake includes activities relating to improvements to outdoor space and involves upgrading of the play areas in Mortlake Green and Mullins Path, with the installation of new park furniture and enhancements to paths.

 

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

 

“Why has he chosen to politicise the appointment of school governors by abandoning the long standing custom and practice of political balance in the appointment of secondary school/Academy governors?”

 

The situation has changed since the first time a sitting councillor was prevented from continuing to represent the Council on a school in his own ward by my Lib Dem predecessor in 2006. The new constitutional regulations relevant to newly-constituted school Governing Bodies or, for academies, Management Councils, mean that there is now only one local authority recommendation for appointment.  That person needs to represent and advise on the views of the local authority.  Given the Liberal Democrat leadership’s ongoing strong opposition to our administration’s most important policies and priorities, it is deemed that their Members are likely to have a significant conflict and therefore appointments to academy governance boards have been made on that basis.

 

5(k) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Speak asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community, Business and Culture:

 

“What is the Cabinet Member doing to encourage entrepreneurs and attract businesses to locate to the Borough?”

 

The Council applies a range of actions to encourage enterprise, support a business-friendly environment and improve the public realm.   Parking services, planning and regulatory services take full account of business needs.  We provide match-funding to boost high streets and encourage the use of empty shops.  We promote inward investment opportunities, support tourism and we're promoting a BID in Twickenham. The Council supports business networking and promotes best practice through our support for the Chamber of Commerce, including sponsoring the Business Awards.  Next year we will repeat ‘Richmond's Den’ and we’re planning to provide business support with a high street bank.

 

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

 

“Will any of the borough’s day centres experience a cut in funding, or increased rents, as a result of the move to ‘commissioning’ of services?”

 

Overall the Council is committed to maintaining the current levels of funding when moving from grant giving to commissioning. Work is still in progress working in partnership through an agreed collaborative approach with all stakeholders, and plans for the final community support services model are yet to be determined. In relation to rent subsidies, the funding given to providers for services under the commissioning arrangements will include an amount to cover the costs of rents. Our commitment to meeting all agreed priorities and appropriate needs through this process remains the same.

 

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

 

“Given the 13% decrease (1858 down to 1616) in the number of council-supported care service users since April 2011, set against the expected increase in demand each year because of the increasing number of older people in the borough, could the cabinet member tell us how much of this is due to reablement, and how much due to the tightening of eligibility criteria introduced in April 2011?”

 

People with Moderate Needs continue to access Reablement and due to the success of this service 90% of people either require no ongoing support or require a reduced level of support. There are now approximately 150 fewer people receiving non-intensive services resulting from a combination of the success of Reablement and due to the tightening of eligibility.

 

Last year, 1,800 vulnerable residents benefitted from a range of preventative services available to all residents, including meals, equipment/adaptations and employment support.

 

This Administration continues to prioritise Adult Social Care, spending 4% more on these services than the national average. Services are focused to provide early intervention to promote recovery, thereby allowing people to live independently without ongoing care services after an initial period of intensive support.     

In addition to the 1,600 people receiving ongoing services, many older residents access preventative services or services commissioned from the voluntary sector.

 

5(n) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Williams asked the Leader of the Council:

 

“With the Dog Control Order for Petersham Meadows planned to be in place in time for next year’s grazing season, subject to consultation, will the Leader of the Council ensure that all efforts are made by the Council to persuade the National Trust to operate the grazing regime without electric or other fences as was the case before May 2011?”

 

As the Council is the landowner of the Petersham Meadows, we are keen to ensure the continued safe enjoyment of this site.  Embarking upon the process of a Dog Control Order is one such effort.  The Council is encouraging a proportionate response to the incident that originally provided the National Trust with the pretext to install electric fencing that it is generally agreed is unsightly.  Any tenant would be expected to manage the risk associated with the management of this site but we remain in discussion with the National Trust and are encouraged that it will be possible to achieve a position that manages risk but retains cattle grazing on the meadow and public access to Petersham Meadows without the continued use of electric fencing on the Meadows.

 

5(o) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Coombs asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community, Business and Culture:

 

“Did she, or another cabinet member, authorise the withdrawal of the planning application for the proposed new Heathfield Library in the autumn of 2010?”

 

Yes. As the Cabinet Member responsible for the library services, and following discussion with the Head of Cultural Services and other senior Council officers, I authorised the withdrawal of the planning application for the new Heathfield Library.  I met with members of the local community to explain this decision at two public meetings on 11 and 13 January.  I subsequently met with the Head of Cultural Services to arrange for replacement library services to be provided at Whitton Community Centre from the beginning of March 2011.

 

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

 

            “Rogue landlords in Heathfield.”   (Heathfield Ward)

 

 

(b)       Mr Mike Pemberton (sponsored by Councillor Mathias) has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

 

            “Proposed Byelaw to prevent and suppress the nuisance of unauthorised mooring.”   (Hampton Wick Ward)

 

a) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Coombs highlighted his concerns about the operation of ‘rogue landlords’: he described three cases in Heathfield ward which were of concern. In these cases it seemed that new separate dwellings were being created without proper planning permission. He feared that these dwellings could be used to offer sub-standard living accommodation.  Councillor Coombs referred to a London Councils’ briefing on ‘rogue landlords’, which indicated that this was a growing problem across London and caused health and safety issues. His specific concern was that if neighbouring boroughs received additional funding to combat this problem, these ‘rogue landlords’ would become more prevalent in Richmond. He called for the Council to seek to address this problem using means not solely confined to the planning system.

 

Councillor Morris acknowledged that this was a serious matter. She referred Councillor Coombs to the current planning regulations with regards to unauthorised developments and to the rules surrounding houses of multiple occupancy. She asked that he send her further details of the cases in Heathfield ward so that these concerns could be addressed.

 

b) In accordance with the notice given, and sponsored by Councillor Mathias, Mr Mike Pemberton, a member of the Broom Water Residents’ Association, raised concerns about the delay in the ratification of the illegal mooring byelaw which had been approved by the Regulatory Committee on 29 March 2012. He was concerned about the implications for Hampton Wick (and other riverside wards) of this delay. He asked the Council to confirm its commitment to progressing with this byelaw and to provide an estimate of the timescale for implementation. Mr Pemberton provided an explanation of the background to the byelaw proposals, which had been supported by many different residents’ associations. He thanked Councillor Mathias, Councillor Jones and Councillor Nicholson for their efforts to combat the problem. He explained that many residents were, however, frustrated with the apparent lack of progress on this issue. Mr Pemberton further described the negative impact of illegal moorings on the communities in Hampton Wick and other riverside wards and requested that action be taken without delay.

 

Councillor Chappell thanked Mr Pemberton, his fellow residents’ association members, and the aforementioned ward Councillors, for raising the profile of this issue and seeking to address it. She confirmed that she fully supported the Regulatory Committee’s decision to implement the byelaw. She reported that the final paperwork for the byelaw was being completed; it was estimated that the file would be submitted to the Secretary of State before the Christmas period. It was further confirmed that the Council and both local MPs would press the Secretary of State to determine the application in a speedy manner. Whilst empathising with his situation, Councillor Chappell assured Mr Pemberton that it was important to submit an accurate and comprehensive file and that she would press for its submission before Christmas.

 

Attached

Attached.

It was RESOLVED:

 

1.      That section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 be adopted formally, to approve the transfer of powers to the Council from the Metropolitan Police.

 

2.      That the submission of an application to London Councils to approve the enforcement of moving traffic contraventions from 1 May 2013, (the appointed day for commencement of enforcement) be approved.

 

Attached.

Councillor Cardy, Chairman of the Audit Committee, reported that at its meeting of 19 November 2012 the Committee had resolved to appoint Dr Nick Norton as its sole Independent Member.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

That the appointment of Dr Nick Norton as the Independent Member of the Audit Committee be noted.

 

None.

There was no Opposition Priority Business at this meeting.

None

There were no reports of Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

 

None

There were no reports on joint arrangements or external organisations.

 

Attached

Attached.

It was RESOLVED:

 

That the changes to the Constitution set out in paragraph 3.3 of the report be agreed.

 

Attached.

It was RESOLVED:

 

That the updated Financial Regulations (Appendix A), Contract Standing Orders (Appendix B) and changes to the Constitution (Appendix D) be approved.

Attached.

It was RESOLVED:

 

1.      That the following dispensations be granted to all members from Section 31(4) of the Localism Act 2011 on the basis that without the dispensation the number of persons prohibited by section 31(4) from participating in any particular business would be so great a proportion of the body transacting the business to impede the transaction of the business, such dispensations to be made in respect of members of the Council and take effect from 28 November 2012 for the period of 4 years:

(i)  housing, where the member is a tenant of the authority; provided that those functions do not relate particularly to that member’s tenancy or lease;

(ii)  welfare benefits which are administered by the authority, where the member is in receipt of a benefit, provided that those functions do not relate particularly to that members benefits;

(iii)  school meals or school transport and travelling expenses, where the member is a parent or guardian of a child in full time education, or is a parent governor of a school, unless it relates particularly to the school which the child attends;

(iv)  an allowance, payment, pension or indemnity given to members;

(v)  any ceremonial honour given to members; and

(vi)  setting Council Tax or a precept under the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

2.      That the Monitoring Officer be designated as the proper officer of the authority for the purposes of written requests by a Member(s) or co-opted Member(s) of the authority for the grant of a dispensation.

 

3.      That the power to grant dispensations pursuant to section 33 Localism Act 2011, be delegated to the Monitoring Officer and be subject to a right of appeal to the Members’ Standards and Disciplinary Committee.

 

4.      That where the Monitoring Officer has used his delegated powers to grant a dispensation a report on the use of the power be prepared and submitted to the next meeting of the Council.

 

5.      That the Terms of reference for the Members’ Standards and disciplinary Committee be amended to reflect its role as an Appeals body for dispensations and that any consequential constitutional amendments required to reflect the role of the Monitoring Officer in granting dispensations be delegated to the Head of Democratic Services for inclusion in the Constitution.

 

Attached.

It was RESOLVED:

           

1.      That the appointment of Miss Mandie Lavin and Mr Hirsh Cashdan be confirmed as the Council’s Independent Persons in accordance with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011.

2.      That the Independent Persons be granted an allowance of £300 per annum (pro rata from 1 November 2012) in accordance with Paragraph 9.1 of the Members’ Allowances scheme and that this paragraph be amended to reflect this change.

 

To follow

During debate on this item, Opposition Members expressed disquiet that Council had not had an opportunity to consider the establishment of ‘Achieving for Children’. Consequently the Leader of the Council suggested that the Leader of the Opposition might submit an item for consideration as Opposition Priority Business at the next meeting of Council, even though it would not be timetabled normally, if the Opposition so desired.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

That (contingent to approvals to proceed with the establishment of Achieving for Children by decision makers from both Richmond upon Thames and Kingston upon Thames Boroughs) the appointment of individuals to the Integrated Management Team for Achieving for Children be delegated to the Joint Director of Children’s Services following consultation with the Heads of Paid Service and Cabinet Members with responsibility for Children’s Services from both Boroughs.

None.

There were no executive decisions taken as a matter of urgency reported.

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

The following announcements were made by the Mayor:

 

(1)               The Mayor attended two events which commemorated those who had served the country in conflicts.  On 7^th November she was present when the Queen visited the Poppy Factory in its 90^th anniversary year.  She also laid a poppy wreath at Richmond on 11^th November.

 

(2)               Fund-raising for the Mayor’s charities, the Horse Rangers Association and The Poppy Factory, had gained pace.  Since the last Council meeting, a Golf Day, a Halloween quiz and an evening at an Italian restaurant had been held and the total amount raised for charity to date was nearly £10,000.

 

(3)               On 4^th December the Mayor’s Christmas concert would take place with the musicians of Kneller Hall.  Tickets could be purchased from the Mayor’s office.

 

The Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing thanked the Mayor and her support team for arranging the Jubilee Tea Parties for Senior Residents over the summer period. These had been very successful and enjoyable events for residents.

 

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

 

            “Following the Council’s cross-party decision in January to endorse the Mayor of London’s London Living Wage policy, this Council calls on the Cabinet to take all necessary steps for the Council to become an accredited Living Wage employer, including the application of the policy to contract staff, such as cleaners and care workers.”

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Knight and seconded by Councillor Thornton:

 

            “Following the Council’s cross-party decision in January to endorse the Mayor of London’s London Living Wage policy, this Council calls on the Cabinet to take all necessary steps for the Council to become an accredited Living Wage employer, including the application of the policy to contract staff, such as cleaners and care workers.”

 

A debate on the motion was held. Following this the motion was put to the vote and declared to be NOT CARRIED.