To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 26 February 2013 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2013 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.

Councillor Hodgins declared that he was an employee of Virgin Media in relation to a question asked on superfast broadband (public question 4a).

 

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

Councillor Cardy presented a petition on behalf of residents of Burtons Road, Hampton Hill, in favour of a 20 mph speed limit.

 

Councillor Nicholson presented a petition on behalf of residents of Hampton calling for reinstated security measures at Carlisle Park.

 

Attached.

a. In accordance with the notice given, Mr Simon Tims asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways:

 

“I would like the Council’s position on its initiatives to create a greater dispersion of Superfast Broadband in the borough, similar to the one launched by Surrey County Council?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“Mr Tims asks a good question and at this stage it would actually be better addressed to the Mayor of London, as he has funding for such initiatives.  BT has already announced plans to allow over 2.9 million homes in London to access fibre broadband and around 80,000 homes in Richmond, so we have some of the best coverage in the country already and higher than Surrey has, as we understand it.  Given that there are a number of different providers in London, the Mayor is calling on providers to map out where superfast broadband can be provided commercially.  It is then possible to map out those few remaining areas that would benefit from high speed access and then secure the means to fund these gaps.  At the moment Richmond does not have enough funding to deal with anything along the same lines as Surrey.”

 

Mr Tims asked a supplementary question regarding the number of residents in the Borough who were currently connected to Superfast Broadband. Councillor Morris replied that information on this would be sent to Mr Tims after the meeting.

 

b. In accordance with notice given, Mrs Hazel Murphy asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways:

 

“In relation to the decision to no longer employ two Park Keepers at Carlisle Park, what is the net saving of doing this and how is that balanced against the adverse local social impact?”

 

Councillor Morris responded in the following terms:

 

“As a Council striving for continuous improvement, we constantly keep our policies under review. With the Council recently starting a new, pioneering framework contract with six specialist providers of services relating to parks, changes are being made to improve the already high quality of the borough’s open spaces. There is no specific saving attributed to having no permanent park keepers at Carlisle Park, and any impact on the local social environment is not judged to be significant, however we will of course monitor this.”

 

Mrs Murphy asked a supplementary question about the vulnerability of the park and nearby residents. Councillor Morris responded that the situation at the park would be monitored continually, in particular in relation to Anti Social Behaviour.

 

In accordance with notice given the following questions were asked of the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways:

 

c. by Mrs Susan Sandy

 

“Would Councillor Morris please explain on what basis a decision was made to cease locking the gates of Carlisle Park, Hampton, at night time, before she listened to the views of those most affected i.e. the local residents, the bowling club, the cricket club and the nursery school and in the light of the strength of local feeling against this decision is she prepared to reconsider?”

 

d. by Mrs Susan Fowler

 

“Given the council's decision to cease locking public parks at night (e.g. Grove Gardens, Teddington, Carlisle Park, Hampton) how will the impact of this decision be monitored and who by and what will be the driver for overturning the decision and how will such information be conveyed to residents? As a concerned resident living opposite a park I am anxious that some vehicle be in place whereby any antisocial behaviour or vandalism is monitored and appropriate action taken to reinstate the security of the parks at night?”

 

e. by Mr Algernon Alexander

 

“Why has no consultation taken place between Councillor Morris and the residents of Hampton about the decision not to close the gates at Carlisle Park and why have the groundsmen at Carlisle Park been relocated since they provide security and good service at Carlisle Park?”

 

Councillor Morris replied to all three questions in the following terms:

 

“I’d like to thank the residents for coming here tonight, and also emailing me to make sure that I am fully aware of your concerns. Richmond Council maintains over 160 parks and open spaces across the borough. Until the 1st April of this year, all but nine of the parks were unlocked at night: this includes the award-winning Terrace Gardens in Richmond; and the newly opened Diamond Jubilee Gardens in Twickenham. In fact, when Hatherop Park in Hampton, and Hampton Common in Hampton, suffered from Anti Social Behaviour they were made inaccessible to people and this actually encouraged more Anti Social Behaviour. Those two areas now have strong Friends Groups which work with the Council and the Anti Social Behaviour has dropped off in these parks. In view of past experience the decision was therefore made at a strategic level to keep Carlisle Park open ‘twentyfour-seven’. The lack of information was deliberate in order to create a gradual awareness that the parks were open, and avoid highlighting the fact widely to those who might seek to take advantage. Perhaps the lack of courtesy warning was, in hindsight, an error, and I would like to apologise to you all here today for that. We are always committed to reviewing this policy on a park-to-park basis, if factual evidence is provided otherwise. As there has been such strong interest in Carlisle Park we are happy to go out to public consultation on this matter as a direct result of your emails, so thank you for bringing this to my attention. This consultation will go via our new Friends Group which is being set up by someone in Carlisle Road. This consultation will be conducted over the summer and I strongly urge the people here today to join that group so that we can not only consult on whether to keep the gates open or shut, but on wider issues, so that you can help to form your park. So thank you very much and I do apologise that you weren’t informed.”

 

Mrs Sandy asked a supplementary question regarding the timeframe of any future reassessment of the decision to leave the gates unlocked. Councillor Morris responded that a consultation would take place over the summer of 2013 via the Friends Group and this would allow the Council to make an informed decision about the future of the park.

 

Mrs Fowler asked a supplementary question regarding whether the decision to leave the gates at Grove Gardens unlocked would also be reviewed. Councillor Morris invited Mrs Fowler to contact her directly to discuss whether a similar Friends Group could be established for Grove Gardens, which would assist in monitoring the situation.

 

Mr Alexander asked a supplementary question on the issue of consulting residents and on the logistics of locking the gates in light of the toilets being locked each evening. Councillor Morris stated that Mr Alexander’s points could be raised at a meeting of the Friends Group on 8 May and that he should contact the Head of Parks for further information on this. 

 

 

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 Salvoni asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Street Scene:

 

“Could the Cabinet Member tell us how many Stage One formal complaints regarding parking operations were received in 2012-13?”

 

Councillor Harrison replied in the following terms:

 

“The number of formal stage one complaints regarding parking operations received in the municipal year 2012/13 was 16.”

 

Councillor Salvoni asked a supplementary question on the number of formal complaints which were received in an equivalent year under the previous administration. Councillor Harrison stated that in the penultimate year of the last administration, ending March 2009, there were 141 formal corporate complaints, meaning that between 2009 and 2013 there had been a reduction of 89%. He added in that the average time taken to respond to residents about parking tickets had fallen by more than 40 days.

 

Councillor Elloy asked a supplementary question regarding whether any of the 16 complaints related to the conduct of parking enforcement officers (conduct such as parking in disabled bays or not supplying identification to residents). Councillor Harrison replied that he was only aware of one complaint being upheld and this was in relation to a parking enforcement officer waiting beside a vehicle for the ticket to expire.

 

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question regarding the method used to achieve the improvement in figures. Councillor Harrison informed the Chamber that there had been a cultural change within the Parking Department in conjunction with the appointment of a new Head of Parking. The Council had also appointed a new contractor to carry out parking enforcement. He reaffirmed his commitment to the ‘Fairer Parking’ policy.

 

b. In accordance with notice given, Councillor Langhorne asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways:

 

“Why was the decision to leave local parks unlocked at night taken without any consultation with local residents or even informing ward councillors?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“I have answered this question under the residents’ questions, but it is interesting that we took our approach of ‘gradual awareness’ from the previous Liberal Democrat administration, in other words, no consultation which would be advertising vandalism. You should know all about the strategy of gradual awareness as this was the approach taken on Terrace Gardens, highly vandalised before 2009 and then open twenty-four seven and there were virtually no reported incidences. So it was your strategy of gradual awareness that we were just adopting for Carlisle Park.”

 

Councillor Langhorne asked a supplementary question relating to whether the Cabinet Member had responded to residents’ emails. Councillor Morris confirmed that she had responded with the assistance of the Head of Parks.

 

Councillor Porter asked a supplementary question regarding the number of parks in the Borough which were now locked. Councillor Morris responded that the only park which was currently locked at night was York House Gardens.

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question regarding the strategic nature of the decision to leave gates unlocked and whether this warranted formal publication and scrutiny. Regarding strategy, he also asked about the significance of York House Gardens surrounding a listed building when Garricks Temple was also listed (and the surrounding gardens unlocked). Councillor Morris responded that the decision was documented via the Environment Directorate and that management details of all parks were subject to continuous evaluation.

 

c. In accordance with notice given, Councillor Bond asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:

 

“Does the Cabinet Member believe recent criticism of our Secondary Schools by the Liberal Democrat Leader and Education spokesman was fair?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“No I don’t think the criticism was fair, nor do I think it’s wise. I don’t believe that we should just be ‘blind cheerleaders’; I think that scrutiny is good; I think that demand for excellence is good. When we took over the administration there was excellence in our schools but there were areas that needed improvement: our schools are working very hard on that and we are working with them, but on the marks that the Liberal Democrats are using to base their criticism on, if you look at the detail, last year, our Maths went up, Science went up, Humanities went up, Modern Foreign Languages held. They are basing their entire arguments on the marking of English last year and everyone knows that there was huge controversy around the English marking and huge inconsistencies. When people see that, it is not only me who thinks this is unfair, it is our schools who think it is unfair as well.”

 

Councillor Bond asked a supplementary question regarding the performance of secondary schools in the Borough under the previous Liberal Democrat administration. Councillor Hodgins responded that in comparison to this period secondary schools were now scoring better overall.

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question regarding whether the Cabinet Member accepted that Liberal Democrat spokesmen had criticised only the administration’s policies and changes in funding, and not the schools themselves. Councillor Hodgins replied that he did not accept this and stated that schools interpreted Liberal Democrat comments as criticism of their performance. He highlighted the collaborative work being carried out between schools and the Council.

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question regarding the performance of the Borough’s primary schools. Councillor Hodgins responded that performance in Maths, Science and English had improved.

 

d. In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elengorn asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways:

 

“What does it say about the Administration’s supposed close relationship with the Mayor of London that, despite the Council’s opposition, Transport for London have successfully appealed against planning refusal and put up ugly and distracting advertising boards on the A316 roundabouts?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“Councillor Elengorn is aware of the pressures that the whole of the public sector face. A result of those pressures is the search for new ways of generating income and for the Mayor of London that has meant the London-wide pursuit of adverts. Whilst I am disappointed that they have done this, it is no reflection on the nature of our relationship with the Mayor, more a reflection of the efficiency challenges that face us all.”

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question regarding whether there were pre-application discussions with Transport for London (TfL). Councillor Morris replied that a response on this would be provided by officers.

 

Councillor Harborne asked a supplementary question regarding what other schemes TfL had funded. Councillor Morris stated that many schemes had been funded including those at Barnes Station, Hampton Court Road roundabout, carriageway cycle lanes and the lighting on Teddington Bridge. She stated that it was important to maintain a good relationship with TfL.

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question regarding whether the Cabinet Member intended to place advertising boards on Council-owned roads. Councillor Morris responded that in the case of any planning applications these would need to be dealt with on their own merits.

 

e. In accordance with notice given, Councillor Chappell asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community, Business and Culture:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member explain how the Village Plans will continue to develop?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“The Village Plans are absolutely key to the Council’s approach to community engagement and the way all our residents have the opportunity to get involved in improving their community in a straightforward and un-bureaucratic way. The first phase built on the priority that residents identified in the All-in-One. As we move on we want to encourage more people to come forward with ideas and indeed look to a more formal approach for shaping planning.”

 

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question regarding whether there would be an opportunity for all residents to contribute ideas. Councillor Fleming reminded the Chamber that this was a complex process but confirmed that whatever approach was decided it would give residents an opportunity to submit their ideas.

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question regarding the low numbers of people accessing the village plans section of the Council website and whether this was an indicator of public apathy. Councillor Fleming responded that many people had been engaging with the Council in the village plans process and feedback was that residents were looking forward to the summer events that the Council would be holding.

 

Councillor O’Malley asked a supplementary question regarding whether residents would be able to comment on more than one village plan. Councillor Fleming confirmed that residents could contribute to as many village plans as they liked.

 

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

 

"Did the Cabinet Member agree the text of the recent council publication, delivered to every home in the borough, which included the factually incorrect sentence:  “GCSE results for 2012 show that the number of pupils achieving five or more A* to C grades, including English and Mathematics, is continuing on the upward trend that we have seen over the past five years.”?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“Yes I did approve that statement and I am confident that it is the case. As I said earlier, if you look at the results behind those figures, our scores went up. It was the English marks that cause volatility, and in any case, any statistician knows that over a long-term trend marks will jump above and below that long-term trend. If Councillor Eady also wants to bolster his argument with the ‘value-added’ scores, as he did in a previous letter, he needs to be able to explain to people the volatility of that score and what it means: that you can’t compare year-on-year; he has to be able to explain the huge margin of error on that; he has to explain how a school like Richmond Park Academy, where its scores went significantly up in ‘5 A* - C’, actually went down with that. In criticising us and our schools in saying only one school improved last year, he has to explain why in his last year, only two out of the eight schools improved on that score.”

 

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question regarding the difference between the GCSE English score trend in Richmond and the national results. Councillor Hodgins reminded the Chamber that there was national controversy about English results in 2012; he did not have an analysis of how this related to different exam boards, but he emphasised the need to assess the performance of schools across all subject areas.  

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question regarding a statement Councillor Eady had apparently made in relation the structure and governance of schools. Councillor Hodgins confirmed that he thought that structure and governance were important.

 

Councillor Allen asked a supplementary question regarding the cost of distributing the booklet in question. Councillor Hodgins replied that he would be able to supply this information following the meeting. He emphasised the importance of keeping residents informed.

 

g. In accordance with notice given, Councillor Stockley asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways:

 

"Is the Cabinet Member minded to devise Planning Guidelines on Basement developments?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“I recognise some residents’ extreme concern over basement development and officers are currently considering whether planning guidance would provide any further means of control, over and above those that already exist.”

 

Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question regarding the powers of the Council in these matters. Councillor Morris replied that there were limitations in the Council’s powers where basements could be built as ‘permitted development’; Council guidance would need to be used to address residents’ concerns in an effective manner.

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question regarding the ‘Subterranean Development Bill’ and its progress. Councillor Morris confirmed that officers were already looking at these matters.

 

Councillor Avon asked a supplementary question regarding the actions of other London Boroughs. Councillor Morris responded that other boroughs’ Construction Management Plans were not dissimilar to Richmond’s in respect of basements; she reiterated that all local authorities currently had limited powers in relation to basements.

 

h. In accordance with notice given, Councillor Knight asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and Children’s Services:

 

“Why have services commissioned by Children’s Services such as Dads Unlimited and the KISS sexual health clinic at Heatham house, been withdrawn without any opportunity for councillors to scrutinise these decisions or even been informed and with no consultation with users?”

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“Services within Children’s Centres are commissioned on a borough-wide or local basis. All tenders are advertised on the Council website. Borough-wide proposals are presented to Overview and Scrutiny. Local commissioning decisions, such as Dads Unlimited, are based on a full analysis of local needs and are not routinely considered by Overview and Scrutiny Committee as the relatively low contract values are not considered to warrant Member scrutiny in line with the Council’s procurement framework.”

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question regarding the manner in which local Councillors were informed about the cessation of these services. Councillor Percival responded that the relevant information had been made available on the Council’s website and that she could have been approached by Councillors on the matter.

 

Councillor Martin asked a supplementary question regarding Dads Unlimited. Councillor Percival responded that she had met ten service users and the service leader and that she had explained the Council’s position with regards to the contract.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question regarding the accessibility of the contract information on the Council’s website and issues of transparency. Councillor Percival reconfirmed that all information was available to Councillors on the website. 

 

i. In accordance with notice given, Councillor Head asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member outline Richmond’s readiness for those aspects of the Care and Support Bill (expected to be included in the Queen’s Speech on 9^th May) which will relate to the way in which Adult Services are currently delivered?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“It is true that Richmond is well-advanced in key aspects of the Bill due to our success in developing and implementing personalisation. As a result we have already extended our responsibilities to carers, increased our information and advice services, have our Adults Safeguarding Board on a statutory footing and offer deferred payments to those needing help with care home fees, amongst many other. The Bill brings together a mass of previous legislation going back many years, but we do need still to understand what, if any, financial impact there will be from the changes, and we will know more on that later in the year.”

 

Councillor Head asked a supplementary question regarding the Carers’ Hub. Councillor Urquhart provided information about the Carers’ Centre which had recently received acclaim from the Carers’ Trust. She confirmed that the Carers’ Hub was in line with the Care and Support Bill. She detailed the services which were provided by the Carers’ Hub and encouraged Members to refer carers to it.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question regarding the support the Council would offer to all residents requiring care, regardless of eligibility criteria. Councillor Urquhart confirmed that the Council would make efforts to provide advice and support to everybody and via London Councils would seek to receive suitable funding from central government.

 

Councillor Speak asked a supplementary questions regarding misconceptions surrounding mental health issues. Councillor Urquhart agreed that more needed to be done at a national level to address these misconceptions. She highlighted the policies of the Council in relation to supporting people within the community.

 

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

 

j.  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Day asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth and Children’s Services:

 

“In the light of Richmond Youth Partnership going into administration, will the council’s youth service step in to ensure that the services to young people previously provided by RYP are maintained?”

 

[It is currently unclear what services delivered by Richmond Youth Partnership will cease to operate. Off the Record, the Youth Cafe Bus and the Kneller Gardens Cafe are attempting to gain independent and separate charitable status to continue to operate. The Council will do what it can to support the continuation of these projects. If any of these projects fail the Council will ensure that there is a clear plan to offer similar services to young people. In relation to Kcafe at Kingsfield, Teddington the Council have identified an interim provider that will start to operate in the next few weeks, prior to a full tendering process.]

 

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

 

“Could the Cabinet Member give us an update on our Adoption services?”

 

[Richmond’s Adoption Service was last inspected in January 2011 when it was graded good. We have recently commissioned an organisation – C4EO – to undertake an independent assessment of the current service and they concluded that there were manystrengths in the service and identified areas for improvement which will be the priorities for the service in the coming year.

Richmond’s Adoption Service is small and on average 5 to 10 children are adopted every year (this reflects the small numbers of children looked after in the borough). Small numbers mean that some performance information can be skewed.]

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

 

“Over development of garages.”

 

(Mortlake and Barnes Common Ward)

 

 

(b)       Councillor Williams has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

 

“Gothic Park.”

 

(Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside Ward)

 

a. In accordance with notice given, Councillor Stockley raised the issue of ‘over-development of garages’ in Mortlake and Barnes Common Ward. She reported that there were many privately owned garage sites in the ward and that since 2010 five sites had sought planning permission for redevelopment. These sites were often hired by residents for storage or for parking; Councillor Stockley was concerned about the potential cumulative impact of these sites being redeveloped at the same time. She asked whether planning applications for such sites could be looked at holistically.

 

Councillor Morris informed the Chamber that she sympathised with this problem but that many garage sites within the borough were no longer fit for purpose. She explained that when garages were used solely for storage their removal could not be seen as a loss of parking (in planning terms). She assured Councillor Stockley that the Council’s Development Management Plan ensured that new developments were compatible with local character and did not result in over-development of sites. She explained how adjoining properties were also protected against loss of privacy and over-shadowing. Councillor Morris informed the Chamber that it was very difficult for the Planning Department to look at sites holistically if they were not owned by the same person: this was not permitted by legislation.

 

b. In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams raised the issue of the riverside pocket park named “Gothic Park” (in Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside Ward) which was in need of significant improvement work. He explained that for many years this Council-owned land had been neglected and that more recently the wall surrounding the land had been marked as ‘dangerous’. He was also concerned about pedestrians having to climb over this wall at high-tide. He added that he had received many complaints from residents on this issue. He asked the Cabinet Member to list the improvement work for Gothic Park in the Council’s Capital Programme and to devise a long-term plan for providing access from the park to Petersham Road.

 

Councillor Morris responded that possible options would be developed for this site: this would include looking at access. However, the Council would need to consider key factors such as use and cost. There was presently no set time-frame for the completion of this work. Councillor Morris noted that the cost of repairing the wall would be high and that TfL had declined to help fund the repair. She reminded the Chamber that this problem had existed under both administrations.

Attached.

During discussion on the Health and Wellbeing Strategy Councillor Urquhart announced that she would like to nominate Councillor Williams to represent the Council on the Kingston & Richmond Tobacco Control Alliance.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

1. That the Richmond upon Thames Community Plan 2013 – 2018 ‘Putting People First’ be approved.

 

2. That the Corporate Plan 2013 – 2014 be approved.

 

3. That the Health and Wellbeing Strategy be approved.

 

 

Attached.

It was RESOLVED that the Addendum to the Richmond Council Pay Statement 2013 be approved.

 

None.

There were no reports of Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

None.

There were no reports on joint arrangements or external organisations.

 

Attached

It was RESOLVED that the draft Schedule of Council Meetings, May 2013 to March 2014, attached at Appendix A, be noted.

 

Attached

It was RESOLVED that decisions taken as a matter of urgency as set out in paragraph 3.2.1 of the report be noted.

 

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

Mayor’s announcements

 

Mayor’s announcements

 

The following announcements were made by the Mayor:

 

1.      The Deputy Mayor of Fontainebleau was welcomed to the borough over the previous weekend. Monsieur Duclos accompanied the Mayor on her engagements in Whitton and Richmond and therefore had the opportunity to meet Richmond residents and young people.  He was also a guest at the St George’s Day Ball which was held on 20 April. 

 

2.      The Mayor’s next major event would be a Grand Tour of the Borough. This would include Kew Gardens, the Wetlands Centre and Strawberry Hill House. Tickets were available from the Mayor’s Office.

 

Leader’s announcement

 

The Leader of the Council announced that his nomination as Mayor of Richmond upon Thames for the next municipal year would be Councillor Meena Bond.

 

None.

There were no notices of motion.