No apologies were received.

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.

No declarations were made.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meetings held on 12 October 2010 and 16 November 2010 – attached.

It was RESOLVED:

(i)                  That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2010 be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them, subject to the following amendment:

·        Item 23 – Budget Review

At the Appendix to the Minutes, the entry in the second column relating to “General staffing costs and other minor restructures” be amended to read: “General Staffing Costs – 5; Health & Safety and Parking Enforcement – 2.”

(ii)                That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2010 be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them, subject to the following amendment:

·         Item 26 – Minutes

Amend to read: “RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2010 and the minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2010 be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them.”

This report sets out the detailed revenue budgets for the Environment Directorate for the financial year 2011/12, highlighting significant changes from the previous year.

Report of the Director of Environment attached.

The Director of Environment introduced the report and explained the context of the 2011/12 budget. The Environment Directorate was on course to deliver its target for Efficiency Programme based savings for full year effect in 2011/12, particularly through the ongoing Organisational Restructure work. Other specific savings expected in 2011/12 were also outlined and these included those resulting from vacating office space in Regal House; the introduction of the London Permit Scheme and the re-letting of the Parking Enforcement Contract. The Directorate aimed to continue to deliver a high quality service to residents despite requisite budget savings. The Director of Environment clarified that the Environment Directorate budget for 2011/12 would be £24.6m.

In response to questions the Committee were advised that:

·        A very small number of Council staff were still located in the Regal House building but the two leases for this office space were managed on a short term basis and it was anticipated that they would be no longer required within one year.

·        When publishing the cost of the Civic Centre refurbishments the Council had included all payments made incorporating those made for new furniture.  This was likely to be a more comprehensive figure than those generally produced by other authorities. It was estimated that the Council would save around £900,000 each year on Regal House costs due to the Civic Centre upgrade.  It was advised that pay-back period for the works and revenue savings in overall terms would be four to five years which was good for a capital investment of this type. It was estimated that no further substantial refurbishment would need to be carried out for up to twenty years.

·        The Council was reducing the number of Full Time employee posts but a high quality service would still be delivered to residents by the use of innovative delivery methods. The level of agency staff employed was not expected to rise and agency staff were not used for periods of sickness or annual leave. Agency fees were kept low via the use of the London-wide Comensura procurement contract. In the preceding week the Environment Directorate was employing around 37 temporary employees. Agency staff were often used for short-term, grant funded project work.

·        Levels of overtime were strictly monitored by management to ensure that overtime payments were only provided for specific functions such as road gritting in winter weather.

·        Service teams who carried out similar functions, such as the street scene teams, were being integrated in order to reduce the required number of staff. To increase efficiency and cost effectiveness the Council was also promoting the use of portable technology and online services.

·        The Borough Contingencies Unit and the Health and Safety team were also being merged due to overlapping functions and skills sets. The Council was expecting to receive grants for further flood risk assessments though these would be directed towards the Development Control and Planning Policy teams.

·        The maintenance and use of the Council’s transport fleet was under review and this included the refuse and recycling vehicles. In terms of recycling collections, it would be more expensive to sort materials if they were not collected separately. A preferable means of reviewing the service level would be to examine hours of operation and consider whether the service could be run more flexibly.

·        Other work areas under review included administrative and customer services.

·        The net income from parking services had risen by 9.4% in the past two years and now stood at £7.2m.

·        Other efficiency savings arose from initiatives such as the absorption of the ward champion role into the role of the Environment management staff and the reduction in the number of premises which the facilities staff needed to maintain.

The Head of Environment Finance and Performance would circulate further background figures in relation to the Environment budget following the meeting.

It was RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

This report outlines the fees and charges proposed for the Environment Directorate in 2011-12.

Report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning, Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development and Cabinet Member for Traffic attached.

The Director of Environment introduced the report, explaining that in light of restrictions on the Council’s finances it had been necessary to raise charges by approximately 10% for many services. Recycling services and services for older people had been exempted. In addition the parking charges were not being increased as they had only recently been subject to review. Charges for licensing and planning applications were not open to review as these were set by central government. 

The Committee considered the details of the report and examined proposals for charges relating to cemeteries. Concerns were raised over the proposal to introduce an interment charge of £50 in the case of a resident child aged 1 to 5. It was explained that this charge would be in line with charges at other boroughs and would contribute to support for families and for the site. However, Members of the Committee felt that any revenue gained would be negligible in comparison to the added difficulty for families. The Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning suggested that this charge could be reviewed.

In response to questions, the Committee were advised that:

·         Trade waste charges were set in accordance with the West London Waste Authority charges. The Council estimated how much the charge would increase on the basis that it was on average £8 per tonne each year.

·         Sex establishment charges were set at a higher rate than gambling premises fees as a reflection on the longer amount of time and higher number of correspondence involved in processing applications for the former. The fees were subject to benchmarking with other authorities.

·         The increased charge for suspension of parking bays would be introduced primarily to discourage the use of skips on the highway for lengthy periods. As parking was limited in some areas of the borough it was necessary to ensure that spaces were not suspended for longer than required. These charges would not affect street traders who could obtain a separate street trading license.

·         The Council was drafting an events policy which would encourage more organisations to hold events within the borough. The Council had successfully raised the income levels from events within parks and open spaces in 2010/11 and it was envisaged that in the build up to the 2012 Olympics and the 2015 Rugby World Cup there would be opportunities to hold further events within the borough. The Council aimed to support residents who were holding street parties for events such as the 2012 Jubilee and the Royal Wedding by simplifying the application system.

·          The Careline service was managed by the Adult and Community Services Directorate and was already significantly subsidised by the Council. It was possible that a review would take place in future to examine how it could be more efficiently provided.

·         Public Hall charges were being raised by 10% in 2011-12 but prior to this there had been no rise in cost for three years. Charges covered costs of caretaking and maintenance.

·         Charges for schools’ use of recreational facilities had been standardised in order to avoid discriminating against academies.

·         Allotment charges would increase by 4.7%. It was planned that in future the allotment service would no longer need to be subsidised, but it would take five or six years to reach a point at which the service would be self-sufficient. The Council was keen to promote the use of allotments for local residents though few allotment holders currently lived outside the borough.

It was RESOLVED:

That the report be noted with the following comment:

·        The Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning be requested to reconsider the introduction of an interment charge for resident children aged 1 to 5.

This report outlines the fees and charges proposed for cultural services in 2011-12.

Report of the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development attached.

The Head of Culture and Service Improvement introduced the report and explained that the proposed fees and charges for cultural services had been market tested against those of other local authorities wherever possible. Sports and Fitness charges in particular had been benchmarked against those in other boroughs. However, Cabinet Members were keen to ensure that there were minimal cost increases for youth sport and for services for older people.

The Committee examined the details of the proposed fees and charges for 2011-12 and in response to questions it was advised that:

·        In relation to Library charges, a fee for borrowing foreign language courses had been introduced which was comparable to charges being made at other authorities.

·        A 42p charge for posting library reservation notifications had been introduced to cover part of the postal costs. There would be no cost to customers if they chose to receive notification via email or SMS. It was acknowledged that the cost could become more relevant to customers if Library Access Points were more widely used in future, but the charge had been consulted upon and was deemed appropriate.

·        There was no differentiation of cultural services’ charges in relation to residents living in areas of relative deprivation as evidence showed that residents in the borough used a number of facilities across the borough and differential charging was confusing. 

·        It had been necessary to increase charges by 10% due to the restrictions on the Council’s budget. The Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development explained that it was preferable to increase charges for services rather than being forced to cease providing a service altogether. Concessionary charges were available to those on low incomes.

·        Though charges for holiday clubs and some arts activities were being increased, these services remained free for target groups such as low income families.

It was RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

This report seeks comments on the proposed Community Safety Partnership Plan for 2011-2014.

Report of the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development attached.

The Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development explained that the Community Safety Partnership Plan had been compiled following consultation with a number of different community groups. The draft Plan for 2011-14 had been placed online for public comments. Burglary had been added as a priority following community input.

In response to questions it was advised that:

·        NHS Richmond was working on a new drugs strategy and it was more appropriate for the recommendations of the Drugs Misuse Task Group to feed into this rather than the Community Safety Partnership Plan.

·        Crimes which were not identified within the Plan would not be ignored. Issues such as sexual offences were regarded by the police as priorities. Though serious acquisitive crime was no longer recommended as a priority issue this would still be addressed by the police.

·        The recommendations of priorities were based on the public’s perception of important issues: for example, Anti Social Behaviour was viewed as being a more prominent issue than ‘fear of crime’.  However, the Safer Neighbourhood Teams were combating fear of crime by visiting residents and informing them of the work that the police carried out. The Community and Police Partnership had won an award for this project.

·        The police were addressing re-offending rates via the Youth Offending Team and via the monitoring of Prolific and other Priority Offenders [PPOs]. Some successes had been made in the reduction of re-offending, though some individuals remained difficult to reach.  

·        ‘Alcohol related violence’ related to incidents where alcohol could be deemed to generate the violent behaviour and this could be addressed via licensing regulations.

·        In relation to Anti Social Behaviour [ASB], the ASB Development Group would take a strategic approach to these issues, whilst a focus group would be able to capture the experiences of local stakeholders such as housing associations. What was viewed as ASB was affected by residents’ expectations.

·        It was estimated that approximately half of the crime committed in Richmond and Twickenham town centres was perpetrated by people who lived outside the borough. This was referred to as ‘commuter crime’. Richmond borough was likely to attract a high level of commuter crime due to its relative affluence and its good transport links.

·        Counter terrorism was recommended by the Strategic Assessment as a priority as Richmond attracted many tourists and it was important for the public to remain aware of the risks.

·        Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences [MARACs] were used to ensure that adequate support was in place for victims of domestic violence. This type of crime was difficult to record as victims were not always willing to contact the police.

·        Issues such as violence on roads and use of mobile phones whilst driving were dealt with by the Metropolitan Police’s transport teams. However, Police Liaison Groups and Safer Neighbourhood Teams worked with local residents to raise awareness of these issues.

·        As crime was comparatively low in Richmond borough any small increase would have a significant effect on the crime statistics. It was important to give residents and local business owners’ confidence in the safety of their environment.

·        Over the last five years the introduction of Safer Neighbourhood Teams [SNTs] had been very successful. In a period of financial restraint it would be important for the teams to work more flexibly and to concentrate on priority areas. The 2012 Olympics would also require the local police teams to work together closely.

·        South West London boasted a high number of voluntary officers who made a valuable contribution to the safety of the community. Teddington Police Station had been kept open primarily through the use of volunteers.

It was RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

This report provides Members of the Committee with an overview of and opportunity to comment on the proposals agreed at Cabinet on 6 December for taking forward community development refocused around building the capacity of communities to contribute to the planning, design and delivery of services.

Report of the Assistant Director, Commissioning, Corporate Policy and Strategy attached.

The Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development introduced the report. She explained that the Council wanted to build upon the success of the Working Together Groups so that local communities could have more involvement with initiatives in their area. It would be important to implement this across the borough and not solely in the five areas where the Working Together Groups had been introduced. The role of ward Councillor within the community would also be examined. Currently the Council was seeking comments from the public on the Community Development proposals.

In response to questions the Committee was informed that:

·        Pilot schemes which had been introduced in areas of identified need such as Ham, Castelnau and Mortlake were intended to continue. It was hoped that the projects would become self-sustainable. Hampton North and Heathfield wards had also been identified as areas with need of further support in future. The Council’s Uplift Scheme would focus on those areas identified.

·        Community Development proposals would follow on from the All in One survey but would focus on communities at a more local ward level. The results from the All in One survey were expected to be available in April 2011.

·        It was expected that following the All in One survey, differing needs would be identified in different parts of the borough.

·        A cross-party working group would be set up to examine the role of the ward councillor in relation to community development. This group would consist of two Members from each of the parties.

Some members of the Committee expressed an interest in obtaining more information about the Uplift Scheme and how this could relate to Community Development Proposals.

It was RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

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.

It was resolved:

1. That the following items included in the ‘recommended items’ section be added to the work programme for the meeting on 24 March 2011:

·        Waste collection Service / Joint Waste strategy (To provide an overview of the Council’s current waste and recycling procedures including any recent initiatives. To include information on best practice.)

·        Six month feedback following the 20mph Scrutiny Task recommendations

·        Six month update on Climate Change Strategy

2. That the following additional item be added to the work programme for the meeting on 24 March 2011:

·        Uplift Strategy (to provide an overview of current Cabinet proposals)

3. The following additional suggestions be recorded in the ‘recommended items section’:

·        Localism Bill

·        Feedback on results of All in One survey

·        Community Development Proposals (To be reviewed once the proposals had progressed.)

4. An update be provided on when the Green Travel Plan was likely to be implemented.