Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 14 September 2010 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2010 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

Councillor Langhorne declared a personal interest in the subject of the ward concern listed as item 6a by virtue of her being a resident of Oldfield Road, Hampton

 

Councillor Thornton declared a personal interest in Item 4 and the petition subject to debate by virtue of his being a member of UNISON.

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

 

In accordance with the Petition Scheme, Council has received a petition with more than 1000 signatures.  This threshold triggers a debate.  The petition has been submitted by UNISON and is in support of Richmond School Meal Workers.

 

“We the undersigned call on Richmond Borough Council to insist that Sodexho, the company that provides meals in the schools of Richmond, implements the government “Code of Practise on Workforce Matters” with immediate effect, fully recompensing school meal workers and bringing an end to the two-tier workforce, paying sick pay and the proper hourly rate for these low paid workers who feed our children”

In accordance with the petition scheme, Council had received a petition with more than 1000 signatures.  This threshold triggered a debate. The petition had been submitted by UNISON and was In support of Richmond School Meal Workers.

 

Mrs Morris, the petition organiser addressed the Council for five minutes. She was a Richmond School Meal Worker at St. Mary’s Infants School in Twickenham.She explained that it was an important job which she enjoyed.  Sodexho, the company which employed the Richmond School Meal Workers, was a multi-national company employing 380,000 staff worldwide with a yearly turnover of approximately 1.3billion Euros. She asserted that the Government’s Workforce Code stated that school staff should be entitled to the same pay and privileges but Sodexho did not provide sick pay to their staff in the borough because it was not a requirement of the Council.

 

She stated that the 79 Sodexho staff, who provided the meals to the boroughs schools, received a lesser hourly rate of pay, they also received no holiday pay or sick pay.She appealed to the Council to take action to ensure Sodexho workers were paid fairly.

 

Councillor Hodgins introduced himself as the Cabinet Member for Schools. He acknowledged it was a substantial petition and assured those present that anything to do with the borough’s schools and children was important.The current contract with Sodexho was expiring and the Council were looking to procure a new contract.  He reminded those present of the difficult economic climate that the Council, like everyone, was experiencing. Bearing that in mind, it was important to reach a decision with due consideration for the families who paid for the school meals. A possible increase of 10-15% to the price of school meals could be difficult for parents to manage, especially those with more than one child.  He stated that the Council was also looking to make improvements to the overall contract and the general quality of the meals.  These things needed to be taken into consideration during the procurement stage. Councillor Hodgins considered that council officers would need to review the situation and find solutions. However, he stressed that it was not possible to make any additional commitments at this time.

 

Councillor Knight thanked UNISON and all the people who had come that evening to highlight the issue.He said the Sodexho Richmond School Meals Worker situation was unacceptable in a borough where average wages were over £40,000.   He said that it was a relatively small number of workers employed by Sodexho and the cost of bringing the workers in line with the Government’s Code of Practice on Workforce Matters was not very high. He considered that as Sodexho’s contract was due for renewal in July 2011 it would be a good time for the Council to take action.

 

Councillor Knight moved, seconded by Councillor Williams, that the order of the agenda be changed to take item 13c immediately after item 3.

 

This motion was put to the vote and declared to be lost.

 

The motion therefore FELL.

 

Closing the debate, Councillor True thanked UNISON for bringing the issue before the Council. He stated that the Council would take the points raised extremely seriously when establishing a new tenure. However, he felt it would be premature, at that point, to make financial decisions as the Council did not yet know how many schools in the Borough would want to take part in the tender exercise. He was certain that Councillor Hodgins would pursue a dialogue with Council officers, Sodexho and their employees.

Council therefore referred the petition to the Cabinet Member for Schools for further discussion with Officers.

 

 

 

Any questions received of which due notice has been given attached.

(a) In accordance with notice given, Mr John Roxby asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning:

“Other Councils in England are reported to have moved to establishing Dormitory Ward status in certain of their Wards, where alcohol is not permitted to be sold or served in Pubs or Clubs or music played in Pubs or Clubs, after 2200 hours in such Wards. Would not the Council agree that establishing similar Dormitory Ward status for selected Wards within the London Borough of Richmond would provide safer, quieter and more amenable areas for residents?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“We are interested in the concept and we are very keen to have the details of other councils who have adopted this Dormitory Ward status so we can follow this up.”

 

Mr John Roxby asked a supplementary question asking if councillors felt it was worth pursuing dormitory ward status in relation to the licensing of pubs and clubs. Councillor Morris replied that it was worth pursuing. She explained that there already existed a cumulative impact policy within the Licensing Policy in which the town centres of Richmond and Twickenham had defined zones. This would prevent applications for pubs and clubs being granted unless they could prove it would not impact on the zones.

 

 

(b) In accordance with notice given, Mr Barry Edwards asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development:

“What is going to replace ACMs (Area Consultation Meetings)?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“As you know, we decided to scrap Area Consultation Meetings because they were an outdated and ineffective mode of engaging with our residents as the poor attendance figures show.  We are committed to listening to what people have to say about their local areas.  Through our All in One consultation we will be asking people how they would like to communicate with us and get involved in decisions which affect the way the services they pay for are delivered.  This is the first step in an open dialogue with our communities which will be more effective than ACMs ever were.”

 

Mr Edwards asked a supplementary question asking if the Council should improve the technology to maximise communication paths. Councillor Fleming replied that they should but some residents didn’t have the internet so it was important to keep the options open for communication.

 

(c) In accordance with notice given, Ms Teresa Read asked the Leader of the Council:

“How many council officers live over thirty miles outside of the borough?”

Councillor True replied in the following terms:

“We do not have the information requested, certainly not in a readily accessible form.  I am not in great favour of personal databases myself and am pleased to see the ID card system going but our aim is to get the best person for the job wherever they live.”

 

Mrs Read asked a supplementary question seeking to know if it would be possible to recruit local staff and who had local interests and reduce the carbon footprint in the process. Councillor True responded that they had to give equal opportunity in recruitment but, in an effort to reduce the Council’s carbon footprint, the Council had abandoned the subsidies for staff car parking that had been operated until recently.

 

(d) In accordance with notice given, on behalf of the Teddington Society, Mr Brian Holder asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic:

“Teddington CPZ Zone T - How many Residents’ Parking permits have been purchased by residents living at addresses on the west side of Park Road, Teddington?”

 

Councillor Head replied in the following terms:

 

“There have been four resident permits and three business ones issued for addresses in this location.”

Mr Holder asked a supplementary question asking if it would be sensible to review the need for the west side of Park Road to be in the CPZ. Councillor Head replied there had been a six months review, and in response to consultation with residents some residents’ CPZ bays had become shared  with business use. Any further alterations would need to have proven residential support.

 

(e) In accordance with notice given, on behalf of the Teddington Society, Mr Brian Holder asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic:

“In response to question 4d at the last meeting, which suggested that expenditure be kept under tighter control by subjecting future Annual Transport Plans to full public consultation at the drafting stage, this answer was given:-

“As with the previous LIP (Local Implementation Plan) the public will be consulted as we develop our new LIP. The work programme for transport is brought to committee on an annual basis with individual schemes being consulted on as appropriate before being implemented”.

 

Would it not be much more cost effective and democratic, to consult the public before schemes are proposed for implementation?”

 

Councillor Head replied in the following terms:

 

“Yes, this is the implementation plan.  Schemes will be included on the work programme for a variety of reasons and this will include work that arises from earlier consultations, planning permissions etc. but equally may be in response to investigations such as surveys on road conditions.  Some items on the programme are to allow investigation to take place so that a meaningful consultation can be undertaken.  As indicated at the previous meeting, individual schemes are consulted on as appropriate before implementation although this before window could be at a different stage for each scheme and may for some work include consultation at more than one time.”

 

Mr Holder asked a supplementary question seeking to find out how the forward plan would change with public consultation and how would the Council monitor public consultation throughout the year. Councillor Head replied that they had a variety of ways to consult including email, input from ward councillors and face to face meetings.

 

(f) In accordance with notice given, on behalf of the Teddington Society, Mr Brian Holder asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic:

“With the scrapping of Area Consultation Meetings, and the plan to discontinue holding Transport Consultative Group meetings, Richmond’s Residents and Amenity Societies have lost the only two public meetings at which they can raise transport issues of public interest and importance.

The response to question 4e at the last Meeting, said that “we are reviewing our resources and processes to focus on activities which offer good value-for-money……..and we are looking into new innovative and engaging ways to invite comments on key transport proposals.”

Will you please give full details of these innovative and engaging proposals and timetable for implementation?”

 

Councillor Head replied in the following terms:

 

“As previously indicated by my colleague, the Area Consultation Meetings were generally poorly supported, and so were the TCG ones.  They did not always provide an accurate and convenient forum for capturing the views of local communities and I favour the approach that is much, much less expensive, seeks to engage with local people, find out their local knowledge and examples that I can give you are the public meeting that I asked the officers to arrange about Hampton Wick Railway Group.  This was back in June.  It had been on the agenda since the May before and no consultation had taken place.  You were, Mr. Holder, I recall at that meeting and I think you will know just exactly the amount of feedback, local genuine honest feedback we got which was – take them back to the officers and acting upon them.  This was a very inexpensive way of doing things.  We are also meeting local amenity groups, we’ve got a public consultation about Richmond Station, one of our officers holds meetings called the Disabilities Access Group to find out the input from disabled people.   I have restarted the cycling liaison group again which I recall you attended, so can testify to the lively exchange of views from the cyclists and of course I invite all of you to join that group - those of you who are cyclists.  We’ve got the Public Transport Liaison Group which again I’ve asked the public to join and in future I am going to allow the public to sit - one member of the public to sit with their ward councillor so that they can advise them on a really local basis.”

 

Mr Holder asked a supplementary question asking how new procedures would match the previous initiatives like the 2001 Teddington Survey. Councillor Head said that she looked forward to consultations and discussions with residents groups.

 

(g) In accordance with notice given, Mr Buckley asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning:

“In this age of recycling, climate change and general sensitivity to anything generating carbon emissions, why, when 10 years ago there was one weekly refuse collection passing my door, are there now seven (sic) per week?”

Mr Buckley not being present at the meeting, a written reply would be given:

“Landfilling biodegradable waste produces methane which is many times more powerful than CO2 as a factor in climate change.  Government directives set 40% recycling target by 2010.  We currently recycle 43%. Recycling keeps waste out of landfill reducing costs of disposal (which will be approximately £100 per tonne next financial year). This does mean that the Council has to collect the recycling separately.  Currently we run 2 vehicles to collect 3 separate recycling streams and another collecting refuse.  Taking into account the landfill savings and the recycling income this is more cost effective than landfilling it all.”

 

 

 

 

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 Avon asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development:

 

"What is the Cabinet Member doing to help attract more people to use their local shops?"

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“The key to our approach is working in partnership with local Retail and Business Alliance Associations to deliver initiatives to reflect local needs.  Specific initiatives are:

 

-          Appointing a new Retail and Business Champion to develop strategy and ensure co-ordination and best practice. 

-          Continuing to provide financial  support through the Town Centre Opportunities Fund and encouraging initiatives in all centres and parades

-          Encouraging new retailers through an Inward Investment Pack to be launched in November

-          Through Planning protecting local shops and improving the local environment

-          Providing 30-minutes free parking policy for residents, along with consideration of removing unhelpful yellow lines.”

 

Councillor Avon asked a supplementary question to ascertain what the Cabinet Member intended to do to address the empty shops in the borough especially along Barnes Common/ Barnes High Street. Councillor Fleming said that this was very worrying as a lot of these shops had been empty for a long time. Part of the problem was high rents, but the council had been trying to address this by speaking to local landlords and Town Centre Managers and arranging meetings with them. She hoped to get a Member of Parliament to attend a meeting too. This would help open up a better dialogue and allow all concerned to see the Council’s vision for the future.

 

Councillor Acton asked a supplementary question to ascertain if the funding for the town centres would be protected. Councillor Fleming replied that the budget would be protected and all areas will be able to apply for match funding from it through their projects. She said the Council hoped to form a retail alliance with the aim of working together so they could get better value for money.

 

Councillor Stockley asked what the Cabinet Member was doing to encourage investment into the borough.  Councillor Fleming replied that an investment and strategy pack was being launched on 16 November. She believed that Richmond’s villages with their unique character would present a good opportunity to draw new investment in.

 

 

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

 

“Given that the cabinet claims to be protecting services for the ‘most vulnerable’ from its budget cuts, will the Cabinet Member explain why she is closing two intensive day centres?”

 

Councillor Urquhart replied in the following terms:

 

“We have absolutely no plans to prevent any needy or frail person in this borough receiving the services that they need.  The proposal in fact is to preserve the service by reducing from four centres to two.  The process of running the four at 66% capacity is completely unsustainable and we are now out to consultation until 10^th December on this matter and every comment will be taken into consideration.”

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question as to the wisdom of closing Tangley Hall.  Councillor Urquhart replied that the Council needed to make savings but was aware that Tangley was a very special place. However the services could potentially be provided from other locations in the borough. The Council were aiming to make these services sustainable and financially viable and they intended to work with everybody concerned for solutions. If people didn’t want to travel to one centre alternative arrangements would be made to suit them.

 

Councillor Mathias asked a question regarding the added travel times that some day centre users were going to experience. Councillor Urquhart replied that she was very concerned about the journey times some users of Tangley Hall had been experiencing. A better arrangement would be made. The Council aimed to reconfigure the whole transport system and work with everybody individually to cut the journey times.

 

Councillor Thornton asked if the Cabinet Member agreed that moving some users to a centre in Ham would result in users coming from Middlesex experiencing difficult journeys. Councillor Urquhart reiterated her previous answer and added that three new buses would be in operation to address this issue. They would collect users from the Twickenham side of the river and drop them off on the Richmond side. This would include a return journey in the evening. She said that the additional bus services would greatly reduce any additional journey times.

 

 

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

 

"Could the Cabinet Member for Schools please update the Council on current activities to provide additional primary school places across the borough?"

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“Of course we know that pressures on primary places are going to last well beyond 2012-2013 so we are currently putting in place the finishing touches on an initial 10-year plan for primary places which we expect to have in December.  This plan will detail proposals for dealing with not only the expected number of primary places required over the 10 years but also to consider different scenarios should the demand exceed forecast and will also outline arrangements for dealing with that demand in a strategic and consistent manner. “

 

Councillor Martin asked a supplementary question asking if the Cabinet member could address the recent comments in the press from the Opposition about the Council’s current expansion project. Councillor Hodgins replied that there were many plans in development. Statutory proposals for Buckingham and Lowther Schools had been published.  Procurement for shared forms of entry had been approved by Cabinet.  Consultation was being undertaken on a way forward for the St John’s Hospital site. 

 

Councillor Eady asked how the Cabinet Member would find places for children in secondary schools without them having to travel to other boroughs. Councillor Hodgins replied that there had been confusion on the number of classrooms. He said that they did have the classroom capacity for residents’ children, although it would be tight. The Council intended to keep working with schools to meet residents’ expectations.

 

Councillor Blakemore asked if the Cabinet Member could say where the greatest pressure for places was. Councillor Hodgins replied that there were areas of concern. The Council needed to put in place a proper strategic tendering plan. He explained that there were potential development sites at pressure points in the borough and that the high performance of the schools and the general economic situation created high demand for places in Richmond’s primary schools.

 

 

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

 

“Given that the cabinet claims to be protecting services for the ‘most vulnerable’ from its budget cuts, will the Cabinet Member explain why she is cutting school uniform grants for the poorest families?”

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“The cost of buying school uniform has dropped considerably over recent years with many high street retailers selling loads of shirts, blouses, trousers, skirts that even those on the lowest income can afford.  Many other local authorities, including neighbouring Kingston and Wandsworth have abolished school clothing grants years ago and in the situation we are placed where very substantial savings have to be made, it would be very foolish to justify to our residents the cost of retaining them.”

 

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question as to how extra expenditure on flowers could be justified against the removal of the grant for uniforms to those students in receipt of free school meals.  Councillor Percival replied that the £30,000 to which Councillor Eady referred was being spent on a community initiative for all.  The percentage of people who actually took up the school uniform grant was very small.

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question to clarify whether schools had to give high priority to cost in determining their uniform policy.  Councillor Percival replied that no school uniform should be so expensive that pupils or their families felt excluded.  The cost of the uniform should not stop parents from sending their children to the school of their choice and governing bodies should consult parents for their views and concerns before changing or deciding on a new uniform policy

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question to clarify whether the suggestion of second-hand shops was the best solution for parents having to purchase new uniforms.  Councillor Percival replied that she saw nothing wrong with a school operating a second-hand uniform shop and reiterated that there should be wide consultation before any changes were made to school uniforms.

 

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

 

"In the Richmond and Twickenham Times of 8th of Oct; the headline "ghetto for the rich" refers to the amended DPD - is it true that amendments will only benefit the rich in this borough?"

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“The LDF amendments will ensure that development is compatible with local character.  The supposition that the amendments will result in a 'ghetto for the rich' is totally unfounded;

 

·         the more flexible approach to the 50% affordable housing target will lead to more housing provision;

·         affordable housing contributions from smaller housing schemes will increase overall level of contributions to fund affordable housing;

·         the removal of the linked sites policy will increase emphasis towards on-site provision and mixed communities,

·         new standards for size of dwelling and garden space will ensure improved standards of housing for all.”

 

Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question as to how the new DPD would assist with development sites.  Councillor Morris replied that the DPD would give the residents greater flexibility to influence their environment.

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member agreed that decisions on any site were decided by the planning committee voting in the normal .way and it was quite improper to imply that planning decisions were made on a party basis to which Councillor Morris agreed.

 

Councillor Naylor asked a supplementary question as to whether social housing levels in the borough were acceptable.  Councillor Morris replied that there was 12% social housing in the borough.  The current aim was quality not quantity as the need was for three-bedroomed homes not overcrowded small units.

 

 

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

 

“Given that the proportion of one-person households in the borough is projected to rise to 40% by 2016 and to 44% by 2026, and that the current housing stock is dominated by larger units, why is she proposing to change the LDF policies away from providing smaller units in the private sector?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“Local communities have consistently expressed concern that developments comprising small units are adversely impacting on local residential character and the changes to the LDF will ensure that new development is compatible.

 

The increase in one person households does not necessarily translate into demand for smaller units as people frequently require a spare room for visitors, carers and family, or to use as a study/office. 

 

For those that do require small units nearly 1400 small units have been completed over the last 6 years and there will continue to be opportunities, for example in town centres, where small units will be appropriate. “

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question that as 1400 was a small number, would single-person units be forced out of the borough.  The Cabinet Member considered that her previous answers had covered the issue.

 

Councillor Harrison asked a supplementary question as to whether there would be a flood of people seeking to transfer buildings divided into flats back into houses.  Councillor Morris did not envisage a flood although a few people might apply initially.

 

 

(g) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Coombs asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development:

 

“Given that she has described Heathfield Library as “a vital resource for the Heathfield community”, and that the Conservative spokesperson for libraries before the election, former councillor Frances Bouchier, said that any proposal to close Heathfield Library would be “a disgrace”, will she withdraw her proposal to close the library?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“The decision to sell Heathfield Library for the development of a new Health Centre was of course taken by the previous Administration alongside a decision to install a temporary library on the school site in Powdermill Lane at an approximate cost of £400,000.     Given the very difficult financial circumstances that we are facing, I feel it is very difficult to justify continuing with this temporary building when library use at Heathfield is dropping and I am afraid we need to look at finding provision for Heathfield in a different way.”

 

Councillor Coombs asked a supplementary question as to what would be done with the £500,000 offered by LiftCo for the move.  Councillor Fleming replied that £350,000 of savings had to be made in the library service.  Library use at Heathfield was dropping and so provision of service was needed in a different way for residents.

 

Councillor Elliott asked a supplementary question as to what improvements were planned for Whitton library.  Councillor Fleming replied that she would propose some investment in Whitton Library so that there was a better and improved service for the whole of the Heathfield and Whitton area.

 

Councillor Butler asked a supplementary question to clarify that some form of library service was needed for Heathfield users.  Councillor Fleming acknowledged that Heathfield residents valued their library service and she would be looking into continued provision for them.

 

 

(h) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development:

 

“Given that voluntary sector grants have already fallen by around 20% in real terms over the past decade, particularly given the reduced PCT contribution, and given her party’s plan for the ‘Big Society’ to take over provision of services following the ‘reduced role of the state’, why is she planning to cut local voluntary sector grants?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“Councillor Williams knows very well that at the cabinet meeting we agreed – it was agreed on 12 July to undertake a review of all grants and in fact there has been no decision to cut grants.  I mean the focus of this review has not been on cutting grants – the focus in fact has been to consider awards within the concept of the Efficiency programme zero based budget review and to make sure that in fact the funding that we are giving is meeting the local priorities and ensures that services of the borough are protected.  The outcome of the review and notification of final decision is due to be communicated by 15 December.  And it has been done in consultation with the sector”

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question as to why grants for about 30 organisations already committed for 2011/12 been cancelled and why the voluntary sector had been asked at the Council’s expense to review how they could save money.  Councillor Fleming replied that there were no cuts to grants for 2010/11.  For 2011-12 assessments would be used with the voluntary sector.  A stakeholder event had been funded so that the sector could suggest some ideas for efficiency savings but no decisions had been taken at present.

 

Councillor Bond asked the Cabinet Member if other Authorities were having to make cuts. Councillor Fleming explained that other local authorities were reviewing their grants. Like Merton, Richmond were carrying out a procedure to ensure the funding would go to sectors that were priority areas. She said that commissioning and grants could mean that many organisations would end up receiving more funding than before.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked the Cabinet Member whether social day care centres would be exempt from cuts.  Councillor Fleming replied that some would benefit from commissioning.  It was difficult to give guarantees but they were being reviewed.

 

 

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

 

            “Oldfield Road Access, Hampton.”   (Hampton Ward)

 

 

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

 

            “Central Twickenham: the night time economy, the community, and ways forward.”

 

(Twickenham Riverside Ward)

 

a)  Oldfield Road Access, Hampton (Hampton Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Nicholson raised a number of concerns about access in Oldfield Road including,

Ø      Oldfield Road was largely residential with industrial units at one end

Ø      The numbers of articulated lorries using Oldfield Road to visit these industrial units

Ø      Examples of lorries getting stuck while turning

Ø      The additional factors of having a level crossing and bus route nearby hindered traffic flow

Ø      Safety for children in the road and damage to parked vehicles

Ø      Not all business units were let which implied more traffic to come in future

Ø      There had been a feasibility study on alternative access

Ø      Residents and politicians favoured a different and easier access road

Ø      Although funding of major projects was difficult at present, consideration should be given to the need for an access road at the earliest opportunity when conditions improved.

 

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Councillor Head, reported that this was a common and important problem as the European Union regulations permitted huge lorries to use very small Victorian roads.  She stated that she looked forward to having an on- site meeting with ward councillors to consider the proposals described in the feasibility study.  Sadly, absolute guarantees or promises could not be made to alleviate the problems.  Should finances become easier in the future then this scheme would be examined.  Residents should notify the police of problems and notify the council, and carry on making representations.

 

 

b)  Central Twickenham, the night time economy, the community and ways forward (Twickenham Riverside Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Salvoni raised a number of concerns about drink-related incidents of violence and other unsavoury behaviour after public houses close in Twickenham town centre including,

Ø      The benefits which the licensed premises brought to Twickenham in terms of jobs and the value of the town’s status as the home of English rugby were acknowledged

Ø      However outside the rugby season, gimmicks such as special  offers were used to attract crowds to the town centre and made it a no-go area for families especially at weekends

Ø      Crime and disorder had risen since 2007

Ø      A co-ordinated town centre night time strategy needed to be created in consultation with residents and local businesses and with the transport, policing and licensing authorities to deliver culture and entertainment for all not just those participating in anti-social behaviour.

 

The Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development, Councillor Fleming, reported that the concerns raised were similar to those for Richmond town centre.  The revised Licensing Policy was expected to strengthen the cumulative impact provisions and give the licensing authority more power to refuse applications for premises licences unless the applicant could demonstrate how their proposed application would not impact on the area.  Operational changes made by the Police were also helping to combat the problems.  The regeneration of Twickenham was long over due and the Twickenham Conference would discuss ideas put forward on how they like residents would like to see Twickenham develop. Residents would be invited to join a panel to draw up a blue print in regenerating the town ahead of the 2015 rugby world cup which is a huge opportunity to show case Twickenham.  The night time economy was an important provider of jobs and generator of income.  Councillor Salvoni was right to suggest that there should be a better balance and a much wider range of visitors.  A new strategy should be considered for the borough’s night time economy for all its town centres.  This was an initiative that the new business and retail champion would be well placed to take forward when appointed next year.

 

Attached.

Interim Corporate Plan

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the current draft interim Corporate Plan 2010-2011 be endorsed.

 

 

Local Development Framework;

Development Management DPD – For publication

 

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

 

“How many properties in the borough which were originally single family dwelling houses but have since been converted into flats are potentially affected by the changes to policy DM HO 1 facilitating reversion to single family use and how many smaller units could therefore be lost?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“The LDF recognises the contribution conversions can make to meeting housing needs however precise data on the number of units provided through conversions from single family dwellings is not available. 

 

Most importantly DMHO1 continues to include a presumption against the loss of these units.  The amendment to the policy does however recognise that there may be some occasions when loss of units may be outweighed by environmental, street scene, transport or parking benefits that could not be achieved without the reversion. 

 

This approach will not lead to a significant loss of converted units but it will provide the opportunity for Planning Committee to take into account the environmental and transport benefits of the reversion to the wider residential area.”

 

(b) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Coombs asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning:

 

“Would the Cabinet Member explain the reason for the deletion of reference to Homes in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in policy DM HO 1 and how many tenants' accommodation is potentially at risk?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“I recognise that HMOs provide an important source of housing particularly for young and transient groups.  The deletion of the reference to HMOs was omitted from the LDF because The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010, which came into force on 6th April 2010, permits a change of use of a building from Class C4 (houses in multiple occupation between 3 – 6 people) back to Class C3 (dwelling house). 

 

As planning permission will generally not be required for the change of use of a house in multiple occupation back to single household occupation and it is not appropriate to include a Development Management policy.  There is no absolute record of the number of HMOs in the Borough - around 460 are currently licensed.“

 

(c) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elloy asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning:

 

“How she proposes to amend the third sentence of paragraph 5.4.25 of the LDF Development Management DPD  - which at present reads "Although the standards set are maximum parking levels as required by the London Plan, car parking provision should not be at a level less than these standards, unless a wholly exceptional circumstance." -

(a) so that it ends grammatically

(b) so that it is consistent with the more flexible wording at the end of the main policy DM TP 8 and in paragraph 5.4.30 and complies with policy CP 5.F of the LDF Core Strategy adopted in 2009.”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“The amendment to the third sentence of paragraph 5.4.25 of the LDF Development Management DPD clearly makes the point that car parking provision should except in exceptional circumstances not be at less than the maximum standards. 

In my view the meaning is clear, it is consistent with the other LDF sentences cited and with policy CP 5.F of the LDF Core Strategy therefore I am not intending to bring forward any further changes.”

 

An amendment to the recommendations was moved by Councillor Elengorn, seconded by Councillor Coombs to,

 

“Refer the Housing section back to Cabinet for further consideration as the content of this section was not sound or evidence-based”.

 

Following a debate, the amendment was put to the vote and declared to be lost.

 

The amendment therefore FELL.

 

Following a debate on the recommendations, these were put to the vote and declared to be carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1. That the Development Management Development Plan Document be agreed for formal publication and submission.
2. That theuse of the formal publication of the Development Management Development Plan Document for development control purposes be agreed (with the exception of Policy DM HO 6 Delivering Affordable Housing).

 

Treasury Management Annual Report 2009-10 and Update

 

RESOLVED:

 

1. That the Treasury Management Annual Report and Prudential Indicators in Appendix A for 2009/10 be approved.
2. That the revised Investment Criteria in Appendix B be approved.

Attached.

Mr Colton, the Chairman of the Standards Committee presented the report to Council.  He considered that while conduct at this council was in general excellent, there were occasional transgressions.  He stressed the importance of the recently introduced Assessment Criteria and the new Guidance for Members and Protocols which would assist Members in understanding the processes and requirements of the Code of Conduct.

 

Councillor Elengorn, a Member of the Standards committee commented that, in the light of the Government’s proposal to abolish the Standards Regime the Liberal Democrat Group would like Council to consider having a non-statutory committee.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Annual Report of the Standards Committee be adopted.

None

None.

None

None.

Attached.

RESOLVED:

That the report and appointments listed be noted.

 

            Education and Children’s Services Overview & Scrutiny Committee

               Mr Andrew Cole                    Voting Member nominated by the Archdiocese of Southwark

               Mrs Esther Mirrielees          Voting Member nominated by the Southwark Diocesan Board of Education

               Mr Charles Hoseason          Co-opted Member

               Mr Nicolas Lait                      Co-opted Member

               Ms Beverley Sanders          Co-opted Member

Environment, Sustainability and Community Overview & Scrutiny Committee

Mr Kevin Bell                                    Co-opted Member

Mr Neil Bryson                      Co-opted Member

Mr Michael Gold                   Co-opted Member

Finance and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Mr Simon Blackburn                        Co-opted Member

Mr Barrie Hatch                    Co-opted Member

Ms Alison McDade                Co-opted Member

Health, Housing and Adult Services Overview & Scrutiny Committee

Ms Maureen Chatterley       Co-opted Member

Mrs Margaret Dangoor        Co-opted Member

Mr Martyn Kingsford                        Co-opted Member

Mr Keith Sangster                Co-opted Member

Standards Committee

Mr Simon Colton                   Independent Member

(Chairman)

Ms Janet Fraser                    Independent Member

(Vice-chairman)

Mr Howard Dix                      Independent Member

Mr Sam Hartley                     Independent Member

Mrs Rosemary Hill                Independent Member

Mr Neil Sandford                  Independent Member

 

Attached.

RESOLVED:

That the changes to the Constitution set out in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the report and in the accompanying Appendices be agreed.

 

Attached.

RESOLVED:

 

(a)   That a Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education be formally established comprising the persons specified in the report.

 

 

Group A Christian and other religious denominations	Name	Religious group
	Vivien Sunlight	Buddist
	Elizabeth Rowley	United Reformed
	Mrs C Singh	Sikhism
	Mr Lahar	Muslim
	Wendy Clark	Twickenham Salvation Army
Group B Church of England
	Sandra Routledge	Southwark Diocese Church of England
	Lesley Mortimer	London Diocese Church of England
Group C Teachers
	Peter Ward	Diocese of Westminster Education Service
	Chris Hope-Evans	Richmond College
	Alison Edwards	Lead Inspector 14-19
Group D Council members
	4 Members	To be confirmed

 

 

(b)   That where nominations are not notified at the time of the Council’s Meeting they be delegated to the Chief Executive for confirmation

 

None.

None.

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

The Mayor announced that,

 

(1)               Following the marvellous news of the mine rescue last week a letter had been sent to the Chilean Ambassador congratulating all on behalf of the Borough.

 

(2)               All tickets for the charity fund raising “Quiz Night” on 29^th October have been sold and thanked all for supporting this event.

 

(3)               The Christmas Concert would be held on Tuesday 7^th December.  Tickets would be available in the first week of November.

 

(4)               This year, Remembrance Sunday falls on the 14^th November.  The Mayor would be attending the service in Twickenham and the Deputy Mayor would be in Richmond. 

 

(a)        Councillor Jaeger has given notice to move the following Motion:

 

            “This council believes that services for the vulnerable should not be sacrificed in order to deliver the administration’s plans for real-terms Council Tax cuts.  This Council therefore calls on the Cabinet to withdraw its proposal to close Tangley Hall and Twickenham intensive day centres.”

 

 

(b)       Councillor Coombs has given notice to move the following Motion:

 

            “This Council calls on the Cabinet to withdraw its proposal to close Heathfield Library.”

 

 

(c)        Councillor Knight has given notice to move the following Motion:

 

            “This council notes Unison’s campaign regarding the pay and working conditions of local primary school meal supervisors, currently employed by Sodexo.  This council notes that the borough-wide primary school meals contract is shortly to be re-tendered, and calls on the cabinet to ensure that it contains provisions for all staff to be paid at least the London Living Wage, be subject to fair terms and conditions and that health and safety concerns are addressed.”

 

(a)  In accordance with notice given Councillor Jaeger moved, seconded by Councillor Lee-Parsons:

 

“This council believes that services for the vulnerable should not be sacrificed in order to deliver the administration’s plans for real-terms Council Tax cuts. This Council therefore calls on the Cabinet to withdraw its proposal to close Tangley Hall and Twickenham intensive day centres.”

 

Following a debate, this motion was put to the vote and declared to be lost.

 

The motion therefore FELL.

 

In accordance with Procedure rule 9 and it being more than three hours since the commencement of the meeting, the Mayor announced that all remaining motions were deemed moved and seconded and no further speeches would be allowed.

 

(b)  Motion deemed moved by Councillor Coombs and seconded:

 

“This Council calls on the Cabinet to withdraw its proposals to close Heathfield Library”

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 20.4, a recorded vote was called, whereupon Councillors Acton, Allen, Burford, Butler, Cardy, Churchill, Coombs, Day,  Eady, Elengorn, Elloy, Gibbons, Jaeger, Knight, Langhorne, Lee-Parsons, Miller, Nicholson, Pollesche, Roberts, Thornton, Treble and Williams voted in favour; Councillors Arbour, Avon, Blakemore, Bond, Chappell,  Elliott, Evans, Fleming, Harborne, Harrison, Head, Hodgins, Linnette, Martin, Mathias, Montague, Morris, O’Malley,  Percival, Porter, Samuel, Stockley, True and Urquhart voted against; and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor abstained.

 

This vote was declared to be lost.

 

The motion therefore FELL.

 

(c)  Motion deemed moved by Councillor Knight and seconded:

 

“This council notes Unison’s campaign regarding the pay and working conditions of local primary school meal supervisors, currently employed by Sodexo. This council notes that the borough-wide primary school meals contract is shortly to be re-tendered, and calls on the cabinet to ensure that it contains provisions for all staff to be paid at least the London Living Wage, be subject to fair terms and conditions and that health and safety concerns are addressed.”

 

This motion was put to the vote and declared to be lost.

 

The motion therefore FELL.