The Mayor’s Chaplain led all present in one minute’s silence in memory of former councillors Katie Gent (Member for Barnes 1986 – 2002 and Mayor 1990 -1991) and Anna Davies (Member for Mortlake and Barnes Common 2006 -2010) who had sadly passed away during February 2013. 

 

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of Council held on 22 January 2013 and the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of Council held on 22 January 2013 attached.

 

The minutes of the Ordinary meeting held on 22 January 2013 and of the Extraordinary meeting held on 22 January 2013 were 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).

Councillor Burford presented two petitions, both of which were calling for a 20mph speed limit on Sandycombe Road.  One petition was from the residents of Sandycombe Road, the other from residents of the area around Sandycombe Road.

Budget papers previously issued for Cabinet attached.  The formal Council Tax Resolution 2012/13 is to follow.

 

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

The Leader moved a motion, seconded by Councillor Knight, that agenda item 8 (Reports of the Executive and Committees) be moved to follow this item.

 

The motion was put to the vote and CARRIED.

 

Councillor Samuel moved, seconded by Lord True:

 

1.      That the Revenue budget for 2013/14 be agreed

2.      That the Richmond upon Thames’ element of the Band D Council be unchanged at £1,287.39: thereby enabling the Council to accept a further £1.166m one off funding in Council Tax Freeze Grant from Government.

3.      The overall Band D level of Council Tax for 2012/13 including the GLA element be set at £1,590.39, a reduction of 0.23% on 2012/13 be agreed.

4.      That the Council agree the Council Tax 2013/14 resolution (Pages 1 and 2 of the Supplementary Agenda.)

 

Councillor Knight moved, seconded by Councillor Williams:

 

At the end of recommendation 1, insert:

 

“subject to the following changes:

 

(i)                  reductions in the budget requirement by:

 

1.      £1,900,000 by removing one-off capital items from the revenue budget and instead funding them within the capital programme using prudential borrowing;

2.      £1,200,000 by one-off use of reserves in advance of removing the current six month 75% Council Tax discount for empty properties from 2014-15;

3.      £400,000 by removing the one-off provision for ‘local taxation’ from the ongoing revenue budget and instead earmarking this amount within the revenue reserves; and

4.      £700,000 by capitalising this amount of revenue expenditure, as has been common practice in the past.

 

[Total = £4.2 million]

 

(ii)                increases in the budget requirement by:

 

1.      £1,200,000 to pay for the reversal of front-line cuts to school improvement, children’s and youth services;

2.      £1,400,000 to pay for the reversal of front line cuts to adult social care, including the funding of support for those with ‘moderate’ needs and the restoration of the disregard for disability living allowance;

3.      £100,000 to pay for a small team of ‘waste advisors’ to reduce waste going to landfill and boost recycling;

4.      £300,000 to pay for implementing the London Living Wage as part of all contracts being let during the year;

5.      £200,000 to pay for the reversal of library cuts including the cost of running a library in Heathfield Ward;

6.      £300,000 to reverse cuts to the voluntary sector;

7.      £500,000 to pay for extra discretionary payments for those families badly affected by cuts to housing and other benefits; and

8.      £200,000 to pay for the financing costs of the above additions to the capital programme.”

 

[Total = £4.2 million]”

 

The amendment was put to the vote and FELL.

 

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

 

RESOLVED that:

 

1.                  The Revenue budget for 2013/14 be agreed.

2.                  The Richmond upon Thames’ element of the Band D Council Tax be unchanged at £1,287.39; thereby enabling the Council to accept a further £1.166m one off funding in Council Tax Freeze Grant from Government.

3.                  The overall Band D level of Council Tax for 2012/13 including the GLA element be set at £1,590.39, a reduction of 0.23% on 2012/13 be agreed.

4.                  The Council Tax Base for the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames for 2013/14 be 83,504.41 in accordance with regulation 3 of The Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 2012 made under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

5.                  The following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2013/2014 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended:-

 

(a) £392,252,300         being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A (2) (a) to (f) of the Act

 

(b) £284,749,300         being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A (3) (a) to (d) of the Act

 

(c) £107,503,000         being the amount by which the aggregate at 2 (a) above exceeds the aggregate at 2 (b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31A (4) of the Act, as its Council Tax requirement for the year

 

(d) £1,287.39              being the amount at 2 (c) divided by the amount at 1 above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31B (1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax (Band D) for the year

 

(e) Valuation bands

 

A	B	C	D
858.26	1,001.30	1,144.35	1,287.39
E	F	G	H
1,573.48	1,859.56	2,145.65	2,574.78

 

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

 

6.                  It be noted that for the year (2013/2014) the major precepting authority (the Greater London Authority) has stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended), for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:

 

Valuation bands

 

A	B	C	D
202.00	235.67	269.33	303.00
E	F	G	H
370.33	437.67	505.00	606.00

 

7.                  Having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 2 (e) and 3 above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30 (2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended), hereby sets the following amounts of council tax for the year (2013/2014) for each of the categories of dwelling shown below:-

 

            Valuation Bands

 

A	B	C	D
1,060.26	1,236.97	1,413.68	1,590.39
E	F	G	H
1,943.81	2,297.23	2,650.65	3,180.78

 

8.                  The Director of Finance and Corporate Services be authorised to collect and institute legal proceedings where necessary for the collection of the aforesaid Council Tax and National Non Domestic Rates.

 

9.                  In accordance with Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended), the Council’s relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2013/14 was not excessive in accordance with principles approved by the Secretary of State under Section 52ZC, be noted.

 

None.

None.

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

It was proposed by Councillor Knight and seconded by Councillor Williams that a motion be put before Council to suspend Standing Orders to continue the meeting beyond the maximum permissible time of three hours.

 

On being put to the vote, the motion FELL.

 

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

 

“How will Boris Johnson’s proposals for the fire service in Richmond upon Thames during 2013-14 affect the residents of the Borough?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“On 11^th January 2013 the Commissioner of the London Fire Brigade announced proposals for savings including closure of some fire stations and changes to others.

 

The potential impact on Richmond is positive, with Twickenham Fire Station gaining an extra fire appliance. This increase in the number of appliances is to address response times to incidents where Richmond has been identified as one of several London Boroughs that were missing target times, particularly for attendance of second appliances.”

 

Councillor Speak asked in a supplementary question, what the Cabinet Member thought about the opposition’s publicity around fire station closures?  Councillor Fleming said that she felt it was irresponsible and welcomed the improvement in fire response times across the borough.

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question about whether the Cabinet Member was aware that Councillor Arbour’s vote on the Greater London Authority was instrumental in costing the borough an additional appliance at Richmond Fire Station?  Councillor Fleming questioned whether this was case and welcomed the much needed extra appliance at Twickenham.

 

Councillor Arbour asked Councillor Fleming in a supplementary question whether she felt the Opposition were being “utopian” in their views of the financial situation?  The Cabinet Member agreed with Councillor Arbour’s position and suggested that the petition against fire station closures be removed from the Liberal Democrats website.

 

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

 

“How many professionally qualified school inspectors, advisors and managers were directly employed on school effectiveness by the Children’s Services directorate in May 2010 and by the Education and Children’s Services directorate in January 2013?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“We are finding innovative, better ways of doing things, that both save money and lead to improvements.  Our schools are working together in their Quindrats and by giving them more independence to decide how to spend their own money, by working together through Education Richmond, there has never been more focus on school improvement than now.  We are improving results and reducing direct employment from 10.5 FTE to 5.5 FTE to save money.”

 

Councillor Eady asked as a supplementary question, about the staffing arrangements which led to the school improvement team being led by managers whose expertise was not school improvement and whether the Cabinet Member felt that the Council’s role in driving achievement was being compromised?  Councillor Hodgins re-emphasised the points he made previously about schools working more closely together.

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question about the trend in school achievement over the past three years? The Cabinet Member said that the borough’s schools had performed very well.

 

Councillor Knight asked as a supplementary question whether the latest set of results which showed a fall in attainment, particularly with contextual value added scores, were attributable to halving the number of in-borough inspectors?  Councillor Hodgins said that schools would find such an accusation offensive as the marking of papers, in particular for English, was called into question.  He drew attention to improved results in Mathematics and said that improvement would continue across subjects next year.

 

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

 

“Can the Cabinet Member provide an update of the move from grants to commissioning in Adult Services?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be aware that contracts were commenced in 2012, including the carers’ hub, advocacy, home maintenance and health improvement.  I am pleased to report contracts were awarded to existing local organizations, with advocacy to an expert voluntary organisation working in partnership with RUILS

 

The Community Support Services competitive tendering process commences this Spring with award of new contracts in September this year and new services mobilised by Christmas. Existing grant-aid will continue until December this year.  Individual meetings with each organisation have begun and in March facilitated meetings in the four localities. Transitional funding is available with specialist expertise in partnership with RCVS to support organisations in developing partnerships and to complete the tender process.”

 

Councillor Mathias asked a supplementary question about grant aid in relation to smaller organisations like Teddington and Hampton Wick voluntary care groups?  Councillor Urquhart confirmed that current arrangements would continue for bodies who were currently in receipt of a grant, including rent subsidy and volunteer mileage expenses.  It was the Cabinet Member’s hope that smaller organisations such as Teddington and Hampton Wick’s voluntary care groups would work with larger hubs, with the Council’s support.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question about the council’s contingency arrangements, should the voluntary sector not be able to respond quickly enough to meet what the Council was requiring of them?  The Cabinet Member said that the process had been ongoing for some time and confirmed that more time would be given, if necessary, in order to ensure that local groups were properly recognised and supported.

 

Councillor Head asked a supplementary question about the arrangements for contracts for community support?  Councillor Urquhart said that the initial intention was to have a borough-wide contract but since communicating with local organisations, it would disadvantage too many of the smaller groups.  As a result, the ‘hub and spoke’ model was devised with four neighbourhood localities, with each commissioning the most appropriate local support services.

 

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

 

“What is your view of MOPAC’s plan to reduce the opening hours of Richmond Police Station and to reduce the number of officers dedicated to each ward’s Safer Neighbourhood Team from six to two?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“These proposals are being consulted on and there will be an opportunity to raise questions tomorrow night with the Mayor’s police chief.  I want to see the most effective use of police time and high visibility on our streets; a survey at Sovereign Gate shows that at peak times, there were two visitors an hour.  As far as the safer neighbourhood teams are concerned, there will of course be an increase of 44 officers by 2015, when compared with 2011.”

 

Councillor O’Malley asked a supplementary question about the coverage safer neighbourhood teams provided and whether there would be any changes to this?  Councillor Fleming said that coverage would be improved because there was to be more flexibility.  She added that this approach had been successful at reducing antisocial behaviour in both Richmond and Twickenham town centres.

 

Councillor Knight, in a supplementary question, sought to clarify whether a reduction to two officers dedicated to each ward, instead of the current six would lead to improvements and coverage in policing locally, particularly when shift patterns were taken into account?  Councillor Fleming said that it was an improvement as it was a more flexible arrangement, allowing better allocation of resources, with the addition of safer neighbourhood teams working seven days a week.

 

(e) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Chappell asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning, Parks and Sustainability:

 

“Could the Cabinet Member say how the works in the pocket parks in Twickenham are progressing?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“In the Holly Road Garden of Rest, vegetation has been removed, hedges reduced, fences painted and new park furniture installed.  In Garfield Road, tree works have been completed and new park furniture installed.  Work is also progressing on the creation of a permanent play beach at Champion’s Wharf, with consultation taking place during March.”

 

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question clarifying what other work was taking place in parks in Twickenham?  Councillor Morris outlined some of the planned improvements to York House Gardens.

 

Councillor Williams asked, as a supplementary question, whether the Cabinet Member was going to address the neglected park on Richmond Riverside?  Councillor Morris said that the parks department were aware of the situation and it would be dealt with in due course.

 

Councillor Salvoni asked what the opposition had done for Twickenham between 2006 and 2010, in a supplementary question?  Councillor Morris stated that nothing had been done.

 

(f) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Elloy has asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Streetscene:

 

“Why has the council failed to take the London Cycling Campaign’s ‘Safer Lorries, Safer Cycling’ pledge?”

 

Councillor Harrison replied in the following terms:

 

“We tend not to formally sign ‘pledge statements’ that are sometimes sent to us from individuals or groups campaigning for various causes and we are not alone in that. In fact as of the beginning of this week, only 4 of the 33 London Boroughs have signed this particular pledge but that is not to say that as a Borough we don’t support many of the aims these individuals or groups promote. Indeed in the case of this ‘pledge’ this Borough strongly supports improving the management of potential conflicts between lorries and cyclists and has a very good record in this respect. For example, the provision of nearside detectors is something that we have followed for a while and our current procurement of new gritters has included this in the specification.”

 

Councillor Elloy asked, as a supplementary question, whether the Council’s measures, particularly around training, were deficient given the 30% increase in cycling accidents over the previous two years?  Councillor Harrison emphasised that Richmond upon Thames was not alone in not signing up to this particular ‘pledge’ mainly because many authorities had aging fleets of vehicles.  The Cabinet Member stated that the Council’s main contractors were well known for working towards cycle safety and felt that London Cycling Campaign’s online verdict of Richmond upon Thames was misleading.

 

Councillor Harborne asked, as a supplementary question, how many of the Council’s contractors had signed up to the Freight Operator Recognition Scheme?  Councillor Harrison explained that the Freight Operator Recognition Scheme was a benchmarking scheme to ensure that freight operators worked lawfully and in accordance with industry best practice.  He stated that FM Conway was a silver member of the scheme and Veolia was a gold member.

 

Councillor Roberts asked a supplementary question about whether the administration was committed to encouraging cycling, given that a Cabinet Member voted against the Mayor of London’s £41m cycling investment and all administration councillors opposed the extra funding proposed in the opposition’s earlier motion?  Councillor Harrison replied, saying that cycling in the borough had a 5% mode share, but that it received 15% of the funds raised locally.  He added that following the recent announcement from Transport for London, promising an extra £1billion for cycling over the next ten years, the Council would be robustly bidding for additional funding.

 

As the time limit for the Council meeting had elapsed, all other notified questions would be given a written response.

 

(g) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Bond has asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:

 

“What role will a single campus with a rebuilt College, a new Clarendon School and a new Secondary School play in our Richmond family of schools?”

 

The proposals to rebuild Richmond upon Thames College, establish a secondary school and re-provide Clarendon on one site would create an enviable educational facility for our young people. The College plays a highly-valued role in the borough and, with the imminence of school sixth forms, it makes sense for it to reposition itself and to do so in new accommodation.  

Similarly, the secondary school would provide more places when they are needed and would share state-of-the-art facilities with the College. Clarendon’s re-provision on the same site would ensure that students with special educational needs can learn within first-class accommodation.

 

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

 

“Given your undertaking in July 2012 to ask officers to progress the re-establishment of the Design Panel or similar body to carry out local design review in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, why has this not happened?”

 

The establishment of a local design review body has been delayed because of other priorities within the Policy and Design team including advising on planning and listed applications, progressing the Twickenham Town Centre Action Area Plan, the Latchmere House Planning Brief, various uplift projects, and the designations of new buildings of townscape merit.

 

(i) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Naylor has asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Streetscene:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member please provide an update on street lighting in the Borough?”

I am pleased to say that after we retendered the street lighting contract in 2011, a contract lifetime saving of 120,000 pounds was achieved and (perhaps even more important) under the new contract the level of faults reported are now running at roughly a quarter of the rate experienced in earlier years.

(j) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Roberts has asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning, Parks and Sustainability:

 

“In light of increased TfL funding for cycling projects, will he improve upon his unambitious target of increasing the proportion of journeys undertaken by bicycle in the borough from 5% to 7% by 2020?”

 

I’m not sure that I would agree that this is an unambitious target. Either way, it is too early to start adjusting targets when we are unclear at this stage as to exactly how much money will likely be available for specific projects in this Borough. When this does become clearer we will review the figure that Councillor Roberts refers to.

 

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

 

“What is the current situation with regard to Strathmore School?”

 

Formal consultation on the redevelopment of Strathmore School is complete. Votes are being analysed before a decision is made on next steps. Parents are in favour by a significant majority; however, some residents are concerned about the loss and sale of land.  If proposals proceed there will be statutory consultation, followed by a Cabinet decision and a planning application. We are committed to working with all stakeholders to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children by improving facilities and increasing school places, whilst maintaining the landscape of the local area and addressing parking and traffic issues.

 

(l) In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Jaeger has asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for community, Business and Culture:

 

“What impact will the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 have on the Council’s commissioning decisions?”

 

The Act requires the Council to consider how what is proposed to be procured might improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the area. Cabinet agreed the Council’s approach on 17 January 2013 and the procurement process has been adjusted accordingly.

 

In practice commissioners already explore the social value a service could deliver and capture this in the service specification. The Act brings additional formality. The approach depends upon the nature of the service being procured. In terms of impact on outcomes, examples might include stipulating the use of volunteers or increasing access to jobs by including training requirements.

 

 

 

None.

None.

Attached

Attached.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)               That the Treasury Management and Investment Strategy for 2013/14 as set out in Appendix A to the report be approved.

 

(2)               That the Treasury Management and Investment Strategy for 2013/2014 as set out in Appendix B be approved.

 

(3)               That the Investment Criteria for 2013/2014 as set out in Appendix C be approved.

 

Attached.

Lord True moved, seconded by Councillor Samuel that:

 

1. The Council approve the overall capital budget for 2013/14 as part of the Council’s Financial Strategy.
2. The Council approve the Prudential Indicators listed in Appendix B to the report.

 

Councillor Knight moved, seconded by Councillor Williams:

 

At the end of recommendation 1, insert:

 

“subject to the following changes:

 

1. the addition of:

 

(i)                  £5 million to create new and upgrade existing cycling infrastructure to improve cycle safety across the borough;

(ii)                £1 million to implement a borough-wide 20mph limit on all residential, non-trunk roads;

(iii)               £1 million for the provision of extra affordable housing;

(iv)              £400,000 for the re-provision of a permanent public library in Heathfield Ward; and

(v)                £350,000 for the improvement and modernisation of Heatham House youth centre, including disability access.”

 

The amendment was put to the vote and FELL.

 

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

 

RESOLVED that:

 

1. The overall capital budget for 2013/14 as part of the Council’s Financial Strategy be approved.
2. The Prudential Indicators listed in Appendix B to the report be approved.

 

Attached.

In presenting the report of the Remuneration Committee, Councillor Arbour reported that new guidance had been received recently from Government.  In particular this stated that there should be Member involvement in all appointment or severance decisions involving sums of £100,000 or more.  If it proved necessary to amend the Pay Statement, it would be brought back to Council.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Richmond Council Pay Statement 2013 be approved.

 

Attached

RESOLVED:

 

That the revised Statement of Principles under the Gambling Act 2005 be adopted.

 

None.

None.

None

None.

Attached

RESOLVED:

 

1.      That the new public health function of London Borough of Richmond upon Thames be noted.

2.      That the delegated powers to the Director of Public Health be approved.

3.      That the Scheme of Delegation in the Constitution be updated to include the Director of Public Health.

 

Attached

None.

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

The Mayor made the following announcements:

 

·         The Deputy Mayor had represented the borough in Konstanz at the annual Fasnacht Festival.

·         The Mayor’s Celtic quiz was to take place on 8 March 2013 and all members were invited.

·         Over £15,000 had been raised so far for the Poppy Factory and the Horse Rangers.

·         The St George’s Day Ball was to take place on 20 April 2013.

·         A grand tour of the borough was taking place on 8 May 2013.

 

None.

None.