Apologies for absence were received from Co-opted Member Michael Gold.

Apologies for late arrival were received from Councillor Gemma Stockley.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

In accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16, the Chief Executive (as Proper Officer) has called in the following Cabinet Member Decision, having been requested to do so by two Members of the Environment, Sustainability and Community Overview & Scrutiny Committee:

Highways Works Prioritisation (Report to Cabinet, 23 March 2011)

It was resolved:

·        Cabinet supported the work being undertaken in the Environment Directorate to simplify the policy approach to all pavement and roadway related works in the Borough as described in the report at sections A E.

·        Cabinet noted the process for the latest LIP2 programme for TfL funded works in the Borough for 2011/12 as described in the report and granted delegated authority of the decision on the final programme to the Assistant Director of Environment in liaison with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Traffic prior to its submission to the Mayor of London.

·        Cabinet noted the process of the Council funded Highway Maintenance Programme (HMP) for 2011/12 as described in the report and its incorporation of the additional allocation of £500,000 made available by Members for investment in potholes and pavements repairs, and granted delegated authority for the  decision on the final programme to the Assistant Director of Environment in liaison with the Cabinet Member for Traffic.

·        Cabinet supported the ongoing review of the Council's approach to winter footway and roadway maintenance as described in the report and sought a further report on this subject at a future Cabinet meeting.

The reasons for the call-in, as supplied by Councillor Elloy and Councillor Elengorn, were as follows:

1.         As regards traffic schemes the report does not have a coherent policy basis

2.        It conflicts with LDF Core Strategy policy CP5 Sustainable Transport

3.         It is inconsistent with the Council's Climate Change Strategy

4.        It does not set targets for reduction in personal injury accidents

5.         It appears to give higher priority to allowing smoother flow of vehicle than improving the ability of pedestrians (including pensioners) to cross roads safely and conveniently.

6.         It fails to give any priority to speed reduction schemes such as 20 mph zones.

7.         The views of immediate frontagers should not necessarily be determinant where schemes have wider benefits.

Report of the Cabinet Member for Traffic ATTACHED.

Introduction by Members calling in the decision

Councillor Elloy provided an introduction on the reasons why the Highways Works Prioritisation item had been called in. The following points were raised by Councillor Elloy and Councillor Elengorn in summary of the call-in and in response to Members’ questions:

(i) It was felt that the Highways Works Prioritisation report lacked a coherent policy basis, particularly in relation to carbon emissions and public transport issues. It was deemed to be in conflict with the Local Development Framework (LDF) policies and the Climate Change Strategy which emphasised the importance of sustainable forms of transport.

(ii) The report appeared to prioritise the smooth flow of traffic and the requirements of motorists at the expense of pedestrians. It also appeared to prioritise the interests of the individual (i.e. those whose property fronted the highway) over those of the general public.

(iii) There was no mention within the report of the previous task group’s recommendations on 20mph zones.

(iv) It was felt that funding from TfL was being concentrated on issues such as potholes when there were other areas within the Council’s remit which would benefit more from the funding. For example, the funds could be used for the creation of new pedestrian crossings.

Response from the Cabinet Member, the Director of Environment and the Assistant Director

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, the Director of Environment and the Assistant Director (Highways and Transport) responded to the points raised and to members’ questions. The following information was provided:

(i) The Highways Works Prioritisation report was not seen to be in conflict with the LDF. The LDF required the Council to protect and enhance local facilities and employment opportunities and the report set out how this could be achieved via improvement works to the borough’s highways.

(ii) In response to the concern that there were no set targets for reduction in personal injury accidents within the report, it was noted that a separate system already existed to monitor and report levels of injury which was required by government.

(iii) It had emerged from the results of the All-in-One survey that highways and traffic issues were of importance to local residents and this is why the Council continued to invest in highways repair works and improvement to traffic flow.

(iv) The scope of the Highways Works Prioritisation report was deliberately limited in nature and was not intended to address all of the Council’s traffic and transport concerns such as the implementation of 20 mph zones.

(v) The Council did consider the needs of the pedestrian and had made significant investment in schemes to improve pedestrian safety in the borough. It was added by way of example that any future redevelopment of Twickenham town centre would allow for a review of pedestrian crossings.

In discussing details of the Highways Works Prioritisation report Councillors noted that the remit of the report had been limited intentionally and that it did not encompass all transport issues affecting the borough. These issues were better addressed via the draft second Local Implementation Plan (LIP 2) which could consider subjects such as the promotion of cycling, and car clubs, for example.

It was RESOLVED:

That the decision of the Cabinet be noted.

In accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16, the Chief Executive (as Proper Officer) has called in the following Cabinet Member Decision, having been requested to do so by two Members of the Environment, Sustainability and Community Overview & Scrutiny Committee:

Richmond Card Implementation (Cabinet Member Decision of the Leader of the Council, 14 April 2011)

The Leader agrees to:

·        A package of additional measures relating to the provision of Richmond Cards automatically to CPZ permit holders and to the production and distribution of a batch of trial Richmond Cards. As described in paragraphs 3.6 to 3.9 of the Leader's report.

·        Fund the costs from General Contingency

The reasons for the call-in, as supplied by Councillor Elloy and Councillor Elengorn, were as follows:

1.         The cost of the scheme.

2.         The lack of a clear cost/benefit basis to this scheme: the costs are open ended with no basis as to how to gauge the success of the scheme or to monitor its progress; and

3.         The lack of consultation.

Report of the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for TrafficATTACHED.

Introduction by Members calling in the decision

Councillor Elloy and Councillor Elengorn explained to the Committee why they had called in the Richmond Card implementation item. The following points were outlined:

(i) The Richmond Card scheme had already cost the Council a significant amount of money whilst only 2,400 cards had been issued borough wide. It was considered that spending up to a further £85,000 on the scheme was a risk as it was not clear whether the scheme would be successful. It was not possible to conclude that this cost would have been incurred in the normal course of the scheme because demand may not have been considerable enough to warrant it. In addition it would be difficult to measure the popularity of the scheme since the cards were being issued without being requested.

(ii) Residents who lived in Controlled Parking Zones would be receiving the Richmond Card for free but this did not apply to residents who lived outside of this area who were apparently disadvantaged in this respect.

(iii) It was considered that the scheme was in conflict with the Council’s income generation priorities and that there was no evidence that the scheme would be effective in encouraging shopping at local high streets.

(iv) It was viewed that there had been a lack of consultation on the scheme. Parking was rated as thirteenth priority in the results of the All-in-One survey so it was arguable that it was not of high importance to many residents. It was felt that there were other areas where the Council should be investing its funds.

Representation by a Member of the Public

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Peter Shaw. He explained that he was a resident of Teddington and a member of the Teddington Society. He raised the following points:

(i) The card currently only offered a 10% discount to residents which was not enough to attract a high take up of the scheme. He did not believe that it was an efficient investment of tax-payers’ money.

(ii) There had been a lack of communication about the scheme which did not assist uptake.

(iii) In Windsor and Maidenhead a similar scheme existed which did not require the vehicle registration number to be recorded. Mr Shaw queried why Richmond Council required this information. It was also queried why the prices were calculated to the nearest 5 pence rather than exactly.

Response from the Cabinet Member, the Director of Environment and the Assistant Director

Councillor Elengorn and Elloy having nothing further to add, the Cabinet Member for Traffic, the Director of Environment and the Assistant Director (Highways and Transport) were invited to  respond to the points raised. The following information was provided to the Committee:

(i) The scheme required the registration number of residents’ vehicles in order to ensure that parking vouchers were validated. The vehicle registration was printed on the parking ticket. It was also noted that if variables of less than 5 pence were used the cost calculations would become overly complicated.

(ii) It was envisaged that in future the Richmond Card could become more similar to the Residents’ Card used in the borough of Hillingdon. In Hillingdon residents could use a single card for discounts in local shops as well as library, leisure and other services such as parking.

(iii) The Richmond Card was currently obtainable free of charge for any resident no matter which part of the borough they lived in. The reason that it had been sent only to those residing within Controlled Parking Zones was that the Council already had the contact details for these residents. Cards would be sent out en masse rather than individually upon request whilst the trial period was in operation as this was more efficient and allowed more cards to be used in the trail.

(iv) It was necessary to provide adequate marketing for the scheme to be successful and the distribution of cards was viewed as being a good method of creating publicity.

(v) The Cabinet Member for Traffic had received positive feedback on the scheme at meetings with local business owners.

The Committee discussed the information received. It was felt that it would be useful to obtain further information about how frequently the Richmond Card was being used by residents and about how much officer time was spent on card distribution in order to assess the effectiveness of the scheme. The Director of Environment agreed that he would be able to obtain these details and report them back to Committee.

It was RESOLVED:

That the decision of the Leader of the Council be noted.

At the request of the Environment, Sustainability and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee, this report gives details of an update on the Climate Change Strategy, including implementation of the strategy and proposal to review.

Report of the Assistant Director of Environment ATTACHED.

 [This report had been received initially as an information item in March 2011. However, following requests from Committee Members it was agreed that the report would be included as a substantive agenda item at a meeting of the Committee.]

Introduction by the Director of Environment

The Director of Environment introduced the report. He explained that it outlined the Council’s approach to the issues of climate change and sustainability. He described the level of resources for these issues that had been retained despite the budget pressures and how the Council continued to play a role in supporting residents to use energy in a more sustainable manner. He cited the support given to the introduction of a low carbon zone in Ham. He stressed that the Council was keen to take an advisory rather than a dictatorial approach when communicating with residents. The role of central government had shifted with the discontinuation of the national indicator system. However, the Council continued to monitor sustainability in the borough and was also focusing on ways to lower the emissions of its own its transport fleet and its buildings.

In response to a question about the Council’s work towards the 10:10 carbon reduction campaign, the Director of Environment explained that the Council’s results would be available at the end of 2011 and this would enable a comparison between 2010 and 2011 carbon emissions to be made.

Representations by Members of the Public

The Committee heard a representation from Ms Vicky Phillips, who explained that she was a member of Friends of the Earth and a former Co-opted member of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee (2002 – 2006). Ms Phillips raised the following points as part of her representation and in response to Members’ questions:

(i) In 2004 the Council’s Climate Change Scrutiny Task Group had identified the importance of implementing a robust Climate Change Strategy and recognised the need for a borough-wide approach.

(ii) In the borough it was estimated that 1.8% emissions were produced by the Council and 98.2% were from other sources. It was thus especially important for the Council to continue communicating with local residents and business about how to reduce energy usage. Ms Phillips believed that local authorities were better placed than central government to co-ordinate emission reducing projects and to distribute public information.

(iii) The Council could look into ways of attracting funding for other low carbon projects in the future and to do this it was vital to have a strong Climate Change Strategy. The low carbon zone in Ham could be used as a template for future projects.

(iv) The Council could set itself clearer targets for sustainability. The Council had focused on transport issues in recent years but it was also important to consider emissions from buildings. In Richmond 78% of CO² emissions came from buildings (47% of which was domestic buildings and 31% commercial). In order for the Council to meet the Mayor of London’s target of 200,000 sustainable homes for 2020 it would be necessary to upgrade many of the homes already built in the borough. Improved insulation was key to making a house more energy efficient.

(v) It was suggested that the Environment, Sustainability and Community O&S Committee could play a key role in promoting the Climate Change Strategy and could consider another task group report on the subject.

The Committee heard a representation from Mr James Page, who was also a former co-opted member of the Environment Scrutiny Committee and had chaired the Climate Change Scrutiny Task Group. Mr Page spoke in support of Ms Phillips’ representation. He raised the following points in his representation and in response to Members’ questions:

(i) He felt it was unfortunate that some of the task group’s recommendations were not yet implemented and he considered that in some respects the Council had taken a backwards step with regards to the strategy.

(ii) It would be useful if the Council could provide further details about its spending strategy for the £1million Climate Change Fund and to have further monitoring of the effectiveness of the Council’s Climate Change Strategy.

(iii) It was vital that the Council continued to promote the strategy and to publicise the services that were available to residents. For example, the Council ran a scheme whereby residents could loan energy meters from libraries in order to measure the efficiency of their own home. However, this scheme was underused because it was not well publicised.

(iv) It was acknowledged that the Council’s planning policies did encourage the construction of sustainable homes and businesses and that the borough’s new academies would benefit from sustainability measures. However, Mr Page felt that these measures were slow to take effect and that the percentage of buildings with adequate sustainability within the borough was relatively very small.

(v) Mr Page felt that the Council needed to commit to the Climate Change Strategy more vocally. Progress had been made in areas at the Council such as investment in greener technologies. However, the Council would need to play a greater role in advising the borough’s residents and businesses about sustainability issues and how to consume less energy.

Members were interested to learn about the library loan scheme for energy meters which represented a low cost method of encouraging energy efficiency. It was agreed that it would be useful for the Council to promote this more widely. The Director of Environment informed that Committee that issues may have arisen with the availability of meters but that this would be investigated.

Questions from Committee Members to the Director of Environment

In response to the points raised by speakers and to questions raised by Members, the Director of Environment provided the following information:

(i) The Sustainability team at the Council consisted of 3.5 FTE employees and had a retained sustainability fund of £1 million. The fund was used for a range of projects including for schools  which allowed for energy savings and for the borough’s young people to be educated about environmental issues. However, The Director of Environment accepted that the Council’s role in distributing information to the wider community about climate change and sustainability was to an extent restricted by resources.

(ii) The Environment Directorate was considering how best to attract further green funding from central government. The Council was likely to be bidding for the creation of further low carbon zones within the borough. The Coalition government’s Green Deal was also being investigated as a possible funding source. Locally the Go Green grant support for Richmond businesses had been successful and the Council was looking to continue this scheme.

(iii) The Council was open to innovative ideas about local energy production, such as the scheme being trialled in Woking. However, it would be necessary to focus initially on achievable targets rather than high risk strategies.

(iv) He explained the pay back issues for energy related projects and that usually schemes were capable of paying back the initial investment relatively quickly which allowed the £1m fund to be used for other schemes given its revolving nature. The investment in the solar panels at the Civic Centre would take 25 years to become cost neutral but owing to the exemplar nature of the scheme this was viewed to be acceptable.

(v) Though the Council no longer had its own housing stock a relationship was maintained with Richmond Housing Partnership who made use of energy efficiency measures in their buildings.

(vi) Much of the existing Climate Change Strategy was still relevant to the Council but there were areas which could be updated in light of small changes introduced by central government more recently. It would be useful to review the existing Climate Change Strategy in the autumn of 2011.

The Committee discussed how the Council could promote green initiatives using low cost methods. It was felt that it was important to publicise the good work already being carried out via press releases. The sustainability features of the housing stock within the borough were an example of good practice which could be better advertised to the public.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the update be noted.

2. That a timely review of the Climate Change Strategy including a review of the recommendations of the Climate Change Task Group (2004) be received by the Committee at a future date.

This report gives details of the proposed work programme for the next municipal year 2011/12 which has been compiled by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman from items in the forward plan; from actions arising and topics suggested at previous meetings of the committee; and from key themes identified at the agenda planning meeting of the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services and Appendix ATTACHED.

Committee Members discussed the work programme for the 2011/12 municipal year and noted the proposed themes for each meeting.

It was RESOLVED:

That the proposed work programme for the entire 2011/12 municipal year be noted, subject to the following addition and amendment:

·        12 September 2011: Consultation Procedures item - add ‘communication of consultations’

·        15 November 2011: New item ‘Update to the Climate Change Strategy – to include feedback on task group recommendations’ [Report to be submitted to Scrutiny Committee before Cabinet]