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 whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

This item is for Councillors only, to declare any interests in items on the agenda.  Newly appointed co-opted members have an opportunity to declare their interests later on the agenda.  It is necessary for Councillors to declare any interests at this point, to enable the committee to confirm the appointment of co-opted members.

From the next meeting, declarations for all members will be made under a single agenda item.

Councillor Harborne declared a personal interest in agenda item 8. WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICE UPDATE by virtue of being a director of the Richmond Furniture Scheme.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2010 – attached.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2010 be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them, subject to the following amendments:

Item 4, 2^nd paragraph

Amend “beginning” to read “enhancing”.

Item 4, 6^th paragraph

Amend “The Twickenham Town Plan” to read “Twickenham Town Centre”.

Item 5, 2^nd paragraph

Amend “seem” to “seen”.

Item 5, 2^nd paragraph

Amend “It was already known that the town centres” to read “When looking at recent trends in terms of shops opening and closing, the town centres”.

This report seeks to confirm the appointment of three non-voting co-opted members of the committee, following interviews held with shortlisted candidates.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services attached.

Resolved that:

·        The appointment of Kevin Bell, Neil Bryson and Michael Gold as non-voting co-opted members of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames for a maximum of four years be confirmed.

·        There be a review of these appointments after approximately two years.

The committee welcomed the three new co-opted members and thanked them for applying for the positions.

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 whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

This item has been included on the agenda, to give newly appointed co-opted members an opportunity to declare interests in any items on the agenda.

From the next meeting, declarations for all members will be made under a single agenda item.

There were no declarations of interests from co-opted members.

Apologies for absence were received from Mr Neil Bryson.

Presentation by the Cabinet Member for Traffic.

Councillor Head apologised for not being able to attend the previous scheduled committee meeting.

The Cabinet Member stated that she wanted to introduce a fairer, simpler system for parking which included more online facilities for users of the boroughs roadways.  Officers were tasked with looking at maximising on-street parking provision in places where it would not compromise the safety of road users.

As part of her commitment to improving highways, £500k had been allocated for the work.  It was hoped that much of the backlog of repairs which had built up would now be cleared and a reduction in insurance claims for damaged vehicles would be observed.

It was noted that if a certain level of repairs were not carried out in the near future, the bill for the works would increase dramatically.  A general improvement in how the highways were managed and maintained was being sought, including the co-ordination of utilities repairs via the London roadway permit scheme.

Improving safety was still an ongoing target, with the aim of having all street users feel safe on the borough’s highways.

The highways department was also tasked with seeking more bespoke solutions to problems that occurred, with the hope that correct solutions could be found for all areas.

Councillor Head said that she was happy that she was able to oversee the finishing stages of the Richmond Station project.  She added that the final parts of the work would be subject to a further consultation, as the project had evolved to a point where the original consultation did not suit what was now proposed.  Much of the funding for the final stages of this work was being sought via LIP bids.  These bids were due for submission in October.

The success of the Smarter Travel Richmond initiative was also going to be evaluated this year.

Following questions the committee, members received further information:

·        Previous cuts in the road repair budget were only now starting to become noticeable.  Cuts made now could take many years to start becoming a concern.  There was a duty placed upon the Council to maintain its roads to an acceptable standard.

·        There had been a recent increase in claims against the Council for damage to vehicles using its highways.

·        It was hoped that the repairs would both maintain the integrity of the roads and also improve safety.

·        The use of enforcement cameras was not being ruled out in the future, although a ‘common sense approach’ was being adopted in order ensure that their use was not unreasonable.

·        The locations of fixed cameras would be made as clear as possible, in order to ensure that their use was fair.

·        The consultation for the Richmond Station scheme was aimed to better respect residents views.  It was felt that residents’ hopes for the scheme were generally reflective of what visitors would want.  The proposed adjustments also aimed to make the area outside the station simpler.

·        The proposed adjustments would still involve some degree of urbanisation, but with a better layout that the original.

·        There would be cycle parking provision provided with the works at Richmond Station, although the bicycle hire scheme was not going to occupy the new forecourt.

·        Three options were being consulted on:

o       To continue with the current plans;

o       To continue with a revised scheme; or

o       To discontinue the project and re-direct the money the Council had earmarked for the scheme to other projects/services.

·        The new scheme was going to be working to ensure that there was no increase in car travel around the area.

·        The current administration pledged in its election manifesto that it would make train stations safer, while providing taxi ranks where possible.

·        The £500k for road improvement had been drawn from capital.

·        Lead Members and officers had spent, and would continue spending, a lot of time ensuring that level crossing downtime was kept to an absolute minimum.

·        Although AirTrack was currently being delayed, it was noted that level crossing downtime could be affected if a revised service was to be offered by the train company.

·        The criteria for including roads in a 20mph trial scheme were available to members on request.

·        Work would be taking place to look at increasing parking provision in existing community parking zones.  This would ensure that residents would not need to spend as much time driving around looking for a space as they currently do now.

·        Many measures were being introduced to encourage people out of their cars, such as new secure bicycle storage and well situated car club bays.

·        A lane hire scheme was currently being explored by the Mayor of London, which it was hoped could build on the powers given already by the London Permit Scheme.

Some members of the committee hoped that residents around Richmond Station would not choose to scrap improvements around the station, and that the consultation would be ‘weighted’ correctly.

To inform the committee of recent and past power supply failures, to enable informed and reasoned questioning of representatives from EDF Energy.

Report of the Senior Democratic Services Officer attached.

The Chairman welcomed Mary Preece, Customer Relations Manager; Dave McAy, Local Engineering Manager; and Gareth Nicholls, Local Engineer to the meeting and thanked them for attending.

The committee were presented with some background information on how EDF Energy’s (EDF) network was set up and how it related to the National Grid.  The power supply systems were divided into sections which carried varying amounts of voltage.  The highest power section of this setup was between Laleham, Surrey and Twickenham. From here, the network then divided up into smaller sections, where the power is ‘stepped down’ until it has reached individual homes.

The fault which occurred in June 2010 was in EDF’s highest level part of the network, which carried 132,000 volts.  It was noted that failures on this part of the network were extremely rare, particularly as there were back-up supply cables at this level of the network.  Renewal work was taking place on the back-up cable which meant that when a fault occurred on the one remaining cable, power was cut to every home on that regional supply.  The cause of the power cut was the result of a generally reliable style of joint between two sections of cable failing.

Following questions the committee, members received further information:

·        Power was re-routed via other supplies to customers in the affected area as quickly as possible.  The speed at which this was done was affected by the need to manually alter supplies at some sub-stations.

·        Most failures on EDF’s network occur as a result of vandalism, moisture ingress, or ground movement.

·        The failed joint was currently being analysed by an independent company, with the hope that the cause of the failure could be established.

·        The report on the cause of the failure would go to EDF’s asset manager.

·        The joint that failed was of an old design, which had proved very reliable over time, although it was due for replacement within the next year.

·        In the North Surrey section of EDF’s network (where Richmond upon Thames is located), the June 2010 failure had been the only one within the last year.

·        There was still an element of risk that there could be another power cut on the scale experienced in June 2010, which would remain until the back-up cable was fully replaced by the end of 2011.

·        Work on power cables generally took place during the summer, as the load placed upon the network was lower than it would be during the winter.

·        There had been one further failure on the 132,000 volt section of the network in the last three years, which was the result of third party damage.

·        The borough’s Contingencies Unit was notified of the outage by EDF within 15 minutes of it occurring.

·        EDF did not keep records of people to contact in the event of a power failure.  This was not information it had access to, as it was not necessarily people’s energy supplier.

·        There is a general programme of asset replacement taking place on EDFs network.

·        The style of joint that failed in June 2010 was of an uncommon style.  The specific type of joint had however proved reliable over time and could not have been expected to fail.

·        There was no ‘shelf life’ placed on cabling used, although it was reported that some cables of around 90 years old were in better condition than that of some much newer ones.

·        There was a register maintained by EDF, which vulnerable residents could subscribe to.  It was designed to provide priority support to residents who were dependent on their power supply, in conjunction with The British Red Cross.

·        If there was a power outage lasting more than eight hours, a door-to-door calling service would be commenced.

·        The British Red Cross had been involved in at least two incidents in recent years – one in Barnes (gas supply) and a further incident in Kew.

·        Areas in the far east of the borough were covered by a different EDF regional area, although the committee was assured that each region was based in the same contact centre.

·        The water pumping station at Hampton shut down because it was on the affected section of EDF’s network.

·        The pumping station had secondary systems which could generate power, although these failed on this, and one other previous occasion.

·        Work was ongoing to ensure that EDF better communicated with the Council in the event of outages.  The borough’s Contingencies Unit was leading on this work.

·        EDF’s record of known faults was not available to Councils by request.  It was noted that the data would be difficult to compile in any case, as it was recorded by post code area, not borough.

·        Momentary dips in the power supply were a normal feature of any power grid.  This was caused by switches operating on the network and was unavoidable, owing to the way electricity reached homes.

·        Within 18 months, a new web-based map would be made available to Councils and other agencies, which  would show the current known power systems status.  It was then hoped that this could be rolled out to customers in due course.

The Assistant Director for Development and Streetscene reported that many previous attempts to gather information from utilities companies had failed.  This was because of data protection issues associated with utility companies sharing information.  Councils were only permitted to obtain information on a top postcode level (i.e. TW1, TW2, etc).

The committee thanked the representatives from EDF for attending the meeting, and for their frank and honest answers to the committee’s questions.

RESOLVED that:

·        The Health, Housing and Adult Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee be recommended to look into the response provided by the Council’s social care teams and the associated communication between departments of the Council.

·        Thames Water be invited to the next meeting of the committee to discuss its backup systems in the event of supply failures and why they had failed on at least two occasions.

·        The Council seek to advertise the self registration service, offered by EDF and The British Red Cross, to residents of the borough via a press release.

The report summarises the national legislative and local context for waste and recycling.  It describes the current waste and recycling services and how these are evolving; sets out proposals for service improvements which should lead to an increase in the household recycling rate.  Approval for service changes and the letting of short term contracts have been recommended to Cabinet on 6^th September 2010.

Report of the Head of Streetscene attached.

Following questions the committee, members received further information:

·        The provision of recycling banks would be an area which was looked at in the future because household collections were being further enhanced, resulting in bins in public spaces being used less.

·        Street cleansing waste was currently being taken to Townmead Road, where it was sorted and broken down into recyclable materials.

·        Clingfilm could not be processed.

·        The Colnbrook incinerator would eventually be able to handle 90,000 tonnes of waste per year.

·        Townmead Road also recovered serviceable items of furniture, which could then be sold on.

·        The Council offered advice on urban foxes and how to prevent them from causing mess, particularly on rubbish collection days.

·        Many ‘bring banks’ across the borough were able to cater for plastics, although it was recognised this was not available at every site.

·        Flats were looked at to see if a bespoke solution could be offered in order to improve recycling rates.

·        Accommodation above shops was usually most difficult to cater for, although further solutions were being looked at via bids to West Waste.

·        Items recovered as a result of fly-tipping were currently not recycled.

·        The new scheme would be communicated to every household in the borough.

·        The main cost associated with ‘bring banks’ was the vehicles needed for inspection and collection.  The Council would be looking to reduce the number of collections for each site while using a single type of vehicle (two types were currently needed).

·        Townmead Road now accepted mattresses.

·        Finding low cost units where items could be sorted through was proving to be difficult.

·        Supermarkets were currently being encouraged to reduce packaging at a national level.  It was noted that the behaviour of supermarkets could not be affected at a local level.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

[Councillor Harborne declared a personal interest by virtue of being a director of the Richmond Furniture Scheme.]

This report gives details of the proposed work programme for the remainder of the municipal year 2010/11.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services attached.

RESOLVED that:

1.      the following items be received at the next committee meeting:

            - Reliability of Thames Water’s network and supply.

            ­- Thames Tideway Tunnel

            - Library Stock Review

2.      the following items be deleted from the work programme:

            - Communication of CPZ schemes

            - Waste reduction and partnerships

            - Classification/de-classification of the borough’s roads

3.      quarterly performance reports on services within the committee’s remit be received.