Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Extraordinary Council and the Ordinary Council  held on 1 March 2011 attached.

The minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 1 March 2011 were taken as read and approved as a correct record. The minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 1 March 2011 were approved as a correct record, subject to the amendment of the start time of the meeting to read 7.52pm.

 

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

Item 3 - Petitions

Councillor Roberts declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of the fact that he was the parent of a pupil at a Catholic Primary school.

 

Councillor Elliott declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of being a governor at St. Edmund’s Catholic Primary School.

 

Member Question 5b

The Mayor, Councillor Marlow, declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of the fact that he was the Council’s representative on RELATE.

 

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 Mr Anthony Kennedy on behalf of residents and requests the establishment of a Catholic Secondary School in the Borough.

 

“We the undersigned declare our support for the establishment of a Catholic Secondary School in the London Borough of Richmond and call upon Richmond Councillors, of all political persuasions, and the Diocese authorities, immediately to take all necessary steps to secure this objective.”

 

In accordance with the Petition Scheme, the Council received a petition with more than 1000 signatures, triggering a debate. The petition had been submitted by Mr Anthony Kennedy on behalf of residents and requested the establishment of a Catholic Secondary School in the Borough.

 

Mr Kennedy introduced the petition by outlining its context. He explained that there were six Catholic Primary Schools in the borough, but that Richmond was one of only two boroughs in London without a Catholic Secondary School. He stated that this caused many Catholic families to send their children to schools outside of the borough at the age of eleven. He concluded that there was sufficient demand within the borough to justify the creation of a Catholic Secondary School. Mr Kennedy stated that a Catholic school would also help to build community cohesion and would provide a strong moral ethos for young people. Intake would not be based on the academic ability or socio-economic background of pupils. Mr Kennedy emphasised the importance of freedom of choice for local families, which he believed would be provided by the creation of a Catholic Secondary School.

 

Councillor Elliott spoke in support of the petition, which he believed was of particular relevance to his ward, as Whitton contained a sizeable Catholic community. He informed the Council that he was a former pupil and now governor of St. Edmund’s Catholic Primary School in Whitton. He highlighted the issues of long travel times and separation from former school friends which had affected him when he had attended a Catholic Secondary School outside of the borough. Councillor Elliott reiterated that there was a community demand for a Catholic Secondary School and emphasised the importance of parental choice in schools.

 

Councillor Eady also spoke in support of the petition. He stated that the previous administration had recognised the demand for a Catholic Secondary School in the borough and had discussed this with the Archdiocese. However, lack of funding and a suitable location had proved insurmountable at the time. Councillor Eady stated that each year approximately 270 Richmond children transferred outside of the borough for secondary education but that in 2010 only 38 children had transferred in from elsewhere. This would need to be considered if a Catholic Secondary School were created. Councillor Eady expressed some concerns about the likelihood of securing funding for a Catholic Secondary School from the government and the archdiocese given the current economic environment.

 

The Leader of the Council, Lord True, welcomed the petition and the fact that it had received cross-party support. He supported the provision of a Catholic Secondary School and stated that this would not jeopardise plans to meet the full secondary school needs of the borough. It was noted that final responsibility for the realisation of a new school rested with the Archdiocese, however, the Council would continue to work with the Archdiocese in an attempt to identify funding and a suitable location. The Council would also make representations to the coalition government on the need for funding. Though acknowledging that there were many obstacles, Lord True hoped to be able to make further announcements on the progress of this matter within the following months.

 

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

 

a) In accordance with notice given, Mrs Julie Hill asked the Chairman of the Planning Committee:

 

“Could you please describe the route and provide an audit trail of Minutes and from the point of writing to publication?”

 

Councillor Linnette replied in the following terms:

 

“Planning committee minutes are produced as follows: the Clerk drafts a set of minutes from rough notes taken at the time of the meeting; the Clerk makes this draft available to other officers who were present at the meeting, who might include the planning officers, the solicitor, the transport planner, etc., so that they may comment on any factual matters and clarify any technical terms; following this advice, the Clerk prepares a second draft for consideration by the Chairman; the minutes are then published for confirmation at a subsequent meeting of the Planning Committee; once confirmed by Councillors at the Planning Committee, the signed minutes become the official record of the meeting and the decisions made.

 

Although the public has a legal right to inspect council and committee minutes by virtue of the Local Government Act 1985, committee clerk’s notes taken at a meeting do not fall within the documents that must be made available for inspection.  Nor are they considered to be background documents used in report preparation. These notes are therefore not routinely retained by the Clerk.  Minutes are not a verbatim record but a summary of the proceedings that includes only the essence of the discussion and the decision. There is no right or wrong way of drafting minutes and no legal definition of how minutes should be written.  Most local authorities have developed their own form of presenting the minutes. 

 

There are principles of good practice in producing minutes.  A minute should be: precise and concise, recording exactly what took place and no more; complete in itself and intelligible without reference to other documents, although this does not preclude reference to reports, appendices and plans; decisive; there must be no ambiguity or lack of clarity. The only proper reason for amending minutes is if there is a question over accuracy. This is a matter for the committee.  A councillor sitting on the committee may propose an amendment.  This motion will be voted on in the usual way and if carried, the minutes will be amended by the clerk and re-published. An amendment is not to be used as an opportunity to resume debate on a particular item.

 

I do take Mrs Hill’s concerns about transparency of the Planning process very seriously, as I have done with Mr Milner’s and others’, and I can assure you that we are making changes to the committee process to ensure that greater transparency is achieved on committee nights in the very near future.”

 

Mrs Hill asked a supplementary question as to whether she could obtain a verbatim transcript of Councillor Linnette’s answer. Councillor Linnette confirmed that this would be published.

 

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

 

“Directives given by the senior council officers at the Kew Recycling Depot, instruct that all plastics are to be put with general waste destined for landfill.  When questioned, the reason given is that China, the former buyer of all waste plastics, is no longer in this market, and as no other buyers have been found, plastics now go for landfill.”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“Townmead Road Household Waste and Recycling Facility in Kew already has recycling bins for plastic bottles and will soon have bins which take the same mixed containers mixture as can be put into black boxes on our household collection service. Hard plastic, such as old garden furniture, is currently directed to the general waste heap.  From there is it sent to a facility run by West London Waste Authority. This waste is then sorted and further materials are captured for recycling.  West London Waste are exploring outlets for these rigid plastics.”

 

Mr Roxby asked a supplementary question to ascertain why advice had been given that plastics should be placed in the general waste section at the facility. Councillor Morris reiterated that soft plastics were separated for recycling at Townmead Road, and that if the wrong advice was being given this would be investigated.

 

c) In accordance with notice given, Mr Marc Cranfield-Adams asked the Leader of the Council:

 

"Would the Leader of the Council set out his administration's policy on participatory and representative sport in the Borough as a means of furthering the Big Society?"

 

Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“The Council is committed to increasing participation in sport by working with local sports clubs and National Governing Bodies.  Advice and support is provided to clubs wishing to grow their membership, develop facilities, extend their coaching programmes and represent the borough. Financial support through rent rebate is also provided to clubs entering into a partnership agreement with the Council.”

 

Mr Cranfield-Adams asked a supplementary question as to whether the Leader was aware that since the summer of 2009, Hampton and Richmond Borough Football Club had been awaiting funding for a secure tenure lease but this was as yet unresolved.  Lord True replied that as he had not been Leader of the Council in 2009 he was unaware of these issues but he would investigate them and write to Mr Cranfield-Adams with a response.

 

d) In accordance with notice given, Mrs Jennifer Haley asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth & Children’s Services:

 

"The Local Authority is proposing to change the transport arrangements for children with special educational needs travelling to More House School in Farnham. Given that in most cases they have difficulties with spatial awareness resulting in a lack of good road sense, why has no risk assessment been carried out by the council with regard to requiring boys to change from being picked up from the safety of their own homes, to travelling to and from a pick-up point and being collected from the side of often busy roads?"

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“The Local Authority has undertaken a consultation process with the parents of pupils attending More House School regarding a proposal to introduce communal pick up points instead of the current arrangement whereby pupils are picked up at their home addresses. No decision will be taken until the results are finalised but if it is felt that risk assessments need to be carried out as a result of the consultation then these will take place.”

 

Mrs Haley asked a supplementary question as to whether a public meeting could be held to discuss the matter. Councillor Percival reiterated that the Council would await the results of the consultation before taking any action.

 

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 Harrison asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development:

 

“Will the Cabinet Member clarify the council funding that is available to support our businesses and high streets?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“The balance of the economic support fund is projected to be £369,000 at year end, of this £255,000 is unallocated.  In addition, a town centres support fund of £65,000 is to be funded through the Revenue Support Grant to provide secure longer-term funding.   This town centre funding also levers in matched funding from businesses. In the report to Cabinet of 23 March we detailed allocated expenditure and possible ideas for the future expenditure. Of course there are many other Council programmes that support businesses and I particularly mention the Christmas lights, in which this year we invested more money than ever, and local businesses and residents were grateful for this.”

 

Councillor Harrison asked a supplementary question enquiring whether funding would be evenly distributed and whether smaller shopping areas would be supported. Councillor Fleming responded that she was very glad to be able to support smaller shopping centres such as St Margarets. The All in One consultation had highlighted the importance of investing in local centres and a range of measures including the creation of local websites and the introduction of cosmetic improvements such as hanging baskets could be used to support high streets.

 

Councillor Acton asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member could ensure that the unallocated funding was retained for business support. Councillor Fleming confirmed that this was the case.

 

Councillor Elliott asked a supplementary question regarding whether the Cabinet Member had particular plans to support Whitton town centre. Councillor Fleming replied that she would continue to support the Town Centre Manager and that a Business and Retail Champion would shortly be appointed who would assist with improvements to Whitton. The re-designation of the town centre within the planning policy framework and the Council’s Uplift Scheme would also contribute to reshaping Whitton town centre.

 

b) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Knight asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Education, Youth & Children’s Services:

 

“Who made the decision, announced by press release on 2^nd March, to award a contract worth £89,231 to the Catholic Children’s Society (in preference to Off The Record & Relate) to provide counselling to school aged children? Why was this decision made behind closed doors without a published cabinet paper or cabinet member paper and why was it not subject to scrutiny call-in in the normal way?”

 

Councillor Percival replied in the following terms:

 

“In line with the Cabinet decision of March 2010 in relation to the corporate grants and Local Authority procurement procedures, there was an agreement between the Director and the Lead Member for Children that eight services would be commissioned through competitive tendering procurement.  Robert Henderson, Head of Protective and Preventative Services, was given authority on behalf of the Director, in line with contract standing orders, to agree the awarding of the contracts and this was done at the contract award panel on the 18^th February 2011.  For non-building contracts between £50,000 - £100,000, the contract standing orders require a report to the relevant Director. There are ordinarily no requirements to report to or get approval from Members for contract values below £100,000.”

 

 

Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question enquiring as to whether the Cabinet Member considered that young people would be comfortable seeking advice from a Catholic organisation on issues such as contraception, unwanted pregnancy and homophobic bullying. Councillor Percival responded that tenders for the service had been judged on their quality of delivery and evidence of best practice and that the Catholic Children’s Society had demonstrated this well. She stated that the service had received excellent references from non catholic settings, adding that the staff were fully trained and adhered to the codes of professional conduct of their respective professional bodies.

 

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question as to the process of allocating contracts and grants. Councillor Percival explained that the former Cabinet Member for Communities had taken a Cabinet Member Decision on 22 March 2010 which meant that a procurement process could be used in this case and that contracts below £100,000 could be awarded at Director level.

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question enquiring whether the Cabinet Member agreed that for controversial decisions the Cabinet Member decision process should be used. Councillor Percival explained that she did not consider the award of the contract to the Catholic Children’s Society to be controversial as the tender received had been far better than any other tenders. She stated that she was confident that a good service would be provided and added that the decision of 22 March 2010 could have been called-in if members were unhappy with the procurement process it but it had not been.

 

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

 

“What is the progress regarding British Telecom fibre/copper relay boxes in the borough?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

“With regard to the installation of the new BT cabinets only those located within a conservation area require Prior Notification applications to be submitted to Planning.  So far over 80 such submissions have been made to Planning and the majority of these have been refused, due to their siting and appearance within a conservation area.  Only three of the outstanding submissions are currently being recommended for approval, since these are not positioned in overtly sensitive locations, and these are being referred to Planning Committee for determination.  Following the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 24 March, Council officers have also met the BT team and expressed their concern over the way these applications have been submitted and over the unauthorised ones which are now the subject of enforcement investigations.”

 

Councillor Harborne asked a supplementary question as to why the boxes had been installed without authorisation. Councillor Morris responded that at the Overview and Scrutiny meeting BT had admitted there had been a breakdown in communication between BT and their contractors which had caused this error.

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member considered it unusual that BT had not been aware that different types of permission were needed for conservation areas and that problems had been encountered in other parts of the country. Councillor Morris replied that BT had been aware of problems in other locations and that Council officers had met with BT representatives to discuss concerns, but she reiterated that the main problem in Richmond had been the lack of communication between BT and its contractors.

 

Councillor Porter asked a supplementary question enquiring as to how the situation could be resolved. Councillor Morris responded that following the Overview and Scrutiny Meeting and the subsequent meeting between BT and Council officers, BT had acknowledged the concerns raised and would ensure better communication with contractors in future.

 

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

 

“Will she update the Council on her negotiations with Kunskapsskolan following her comments to local residents about re-locating Heathfield Library to Twickenham Academy when it is re-built?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

“The Council opened a staffed Library Access Point in Whitton Community Centre on 28 March 2011.  This is a temporary facility and officers are now investigating a more permanent location as part of local building developments such as the new health centre or the re-build of Twickenham Academy.  Officers have had positive meetings with the Academy sponsor, LST, to discuss the opportunities provided by the re-build which will take place over the next three years.  I am going to be meeting LST in April to discuss the contribution the Academy makes to the wider community and will continue these discussions then.”

 

Councillor Coombs asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member was aware that a planning application had been submitted by the academy which included no details of a library. Councillor Fleming responded that the provision of a library on the same site as the school had not formed part of the original discussions so she was not surprised that it currently formed no part of the plans.

 

Councillor Butler asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member would confirm her commitment to finding a long-term location for Heathfield Library and whether she would monitor the use of the library access point. Councillor Fleming responded that monitoring would take place and she reminded Council that the access point was being provided following the previous decision to sell the Heathfield Library property.

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member could confirm her support for Whitton town centre in light of the loss of a location for the Safer Neighbourhood Team and the delay in commencement of improvement works for Whitton. Councillor Fleming confirmed that improvements would be carried out in Whitton in consultation with local residents and businesses as part of the uplift project.

 

e) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Butler asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic:

“Would the Cabinet Member for Traffic please tell me what prospects my residents in Hanworth Road who live between Powder Mill Lane and Hounslow Road have of having the road surface attended to?”

 

Councillor Head not being present, Lord True replied in the following terms:

 

“Given the additional £500,000 that this Council has invested in footpaths and roadways in the new financial year, over and above the neglect by the previous administration and the extra money given by the coalition government, I hope that we can look actively at this location.”

 

Councillor Butler asked a supplementary question as to whether the Leader was aware that a petition of nearly 200 signatures had been received on this issue, and asked whether the potholes could be treated in the near future if no immediate funding for resurfacing was available. Lord True replied that he was aware that this was of local concern. The Council was investigating junction improvements and it was likely that this would include an amount of resurfacing.

 

Councillor Coombs asked a supplementary question as to whether the Leader was aware of the correspondence between officers and the MP for Twickenham on this subject. Lord True responded that he had not been privy to this correspondence.

 

Councillor Naylor asked a supplementary question relating to whether the noise levels caused by the busy road could be addressed. Lord True replied that officers would be made aware of these concerns.

 

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

 

“What is the likely effect in Richmond upon Thames of the Mayor of London’s decision to cut the number of Sergeants running Safer Neighbourhood Teams?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

"All boroughs have been asked to submit potential plans for Safer Neighbourhood Teams, the number of Sergeants is part of this; the impact on each borough has yet to be confirmed. The plans included the need to identify and self define neighbourhoods, this was done after consultation and included the All in One findings. These combined plans and other options are now the subject of consideration by MPS Management Board and the MPA. The Borough Commander has repeatedly given a commitment to share the information when the exact details are known but does not wish to create speculation and concern until he knows the full facts. The MPS and the Borough Commander remain resolute and unequivocal in their commitment to providing communities with community policing."

 

Councillor Williams asked a supplementary question ascertaining whether the Cabinet Member would oppose proposals to cut the number of sergeants and whether she considered that the position of the police would be undermined by further cuts to staffing. Councillor Fleming responded that no cuts to staffing had so far been made. Instead the teams were refocusing their resources on combating Anti Social Behaviour in town centres which had been identified as a priority issue. She added that it was necessary to await the details of borough plans when they emerged before speculating on future staffing issues.

 

Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question on the anticipated effects of drug testing on arrest. Councillor Fleming replied that drug addiction was recognised as a cause for crime and that Richmond would be implementing test on arrest in order to address this issue and to gauge the impact of drug use on crime levels in the borough.

 

Councillor Khosa asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member agreed that any change to the Safer Neighbourhood Teams might jeopardise Richmond’s position as the safest borough in London. Councillor Fleming responded that operational changes made in the summer of 2010 had actually lowered the levels of Anti Social Behaviour in Richmond and Twickenham.  She was grateful for the work of the teams and committed to their continuation.

 

g) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Chappell asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:

 

“Could the Cabinet Member for Schools tell me how we are involving residents and schools in the administration's promotion of sixth forms?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

“In January, we launched a sixth-form forum, including the headteachers and principals of the secondary schools, academies and the two colleges. We launched an online survey to gauge the views of students, parents and other residents on establishing sixth forms. This is now live and will be running until the end of April. We have also brought together the curriculum leads in each school to look at models for introducing sixth forms. The results of the survey are expected at the end of May.”

 

Councillor Chappell asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member agreed that the lack of post sixteen educational choice in the borough meant that parents chose to send their children to schools elsewhere. Councillor Hodgins stated that though he supported the local college he believed that parents wanted more choice within the borough.

 

Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question as to why there had been no reference within the questionnaire to the fact that the creation of a sixth form would reduce the overall intake numbers of a school. Councillor Hodgins replied that the Council was gauging what residents wanted and then would examine issues of overall demand for places.

 

Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question regarding what the response of parents had been thus far. Councillor Hodgins responded that the overall response had been very strongly in favour, both from parents and schools. He added that it would be important to address the concern of how to meet the demand for places, but that the current administration was committed to the introduction of sixth forms.

 

h) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Jaeger asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:

 

“Why did he say, in correspondence to members of the public concerned about the closure of Tangley Hall, that there is no new money when over half a million pounds of new money has come in from the NHS this year, over two million pounds of new money is coming in 2011/12, and around £2.5m of new money the year after, in line with the extra money announced for social care by the government last October and finally confirmed in the March cabinet papers?”

 

Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:

 

“The situation as to the facts has been carefully explained to Cllr Jaeger on many occasions in her frequent meetings with officers which she has chosen to ignore. A lot of what she chooses to describe as new money simply replaces previous grants and the other money has been given to the PCT not to us, but only for projects that are jointly agreed.”

 

Councillor Jaeger asked a supplementary question as to why in light of the continuation of grants the decision to close day centres had not been delayed until the Stage 2 Day Centre Review had been completed. Councillor Samuel responded that the PCT would not support provision that they regarded as uneconomic.

 

Councillor Mathias asked a supplementary question as to whether the Deputy Leader agreed that non-recurring funding should be spent on items such as carer breaks and reablement. Councillor Samuel agreed that intensive day care services should be provided from the general fund of Adult and Community Services rather than non-recurring funds which were better used elsewhere.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question regarding whether day care services could be reinstated on the north side of the river. Councillor Samuel replied that of the many residents who suffered from dementia, only a small minority used the intensive day care centres and that the administration would give priority to supporting more people via assisting with earlier diagnosis, earlier provision and memory clinics.

 

The time allowed for Members' questions having elapsed, a written reply

would be given to all remaining notified questions.

 

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

 

“In how many cases have Bring Bank recycling facilities near to flats not participating in the Council's flats recycling scheme been removed and how much recyclable material does she estimate will be diverted back to residual waste as a consequence?”

 

Councillor Morris replied in the following terms:

 

[19 of Richmond’s 100 bring sites have recently been removed.  Any resident can apply to have their own on site flats recycling facilities.  Even if all residents who are currently using bring sites stopped recycling and put their recycling in the bin the combined ‘lost tonnage’ is estimated to be under 4 tonnes per week.  We are currently surveying flats near bring sites which are due to be removed later to ask them to join the flats recycling scheme.  However, if any Member is aware of flats which need to be provided with new comprehensive recycling facilities they are asked to contact the Members’ Express service.]

 

j) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Miller asked the Chairman of the Planning Committee:

 

“In how many cases in the last year has the Director of Environment personally met residents to discuss their house extension planning applications, and in how many of these cases has he advised the resident that conditions volunteered by the resident at Planning Committee and imposed on the consent by the Committee can be circumvented by partially relying on a previous approval?”

 

Councillor Linnette replied in the following terms:

 

[Cllr Miller is no doubt querying Cllr Morris` case but he must be aware from Mr Chadwick’s “Matters Arising” report to Planning that he treated Cllr Morris differently in terms of the speed of a meeting with Cllr Morris and the seniority of officer attendance. He did so precisely because of the need to protect the integrity of the planning process in terms of the clarity and transparency of advice given. The Matters Arising report, itself unusual, was the result. What is key is the report stating very clearly the fact that Cllr Morris was treated no differently than others in terms of the advice given.]

 

k) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Acton asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community Development:

 

“Why were councillors not consulted on the dates for the Saturday All-in-One public meetings?”

 

Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms:

 

[The Village Planning events which are running on Saturdays between May and July will provide the opportunity for the Council to feedback the results of the All in One survey to residents and start a conversation with communities about how to make their areas better.  They are shaped around areas local people have identified themselves and as such will be very much community events.  The programme of events was determined by the need to fit between the extended Easter break and summer holidays and by the availability of venues.  It would not have been feasible to schedule events which took account of all members’ diary commitments.] 

 

l) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Eady asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:

 

“Will he please tells us what arrangements he has made to contact post 16 students at our two main local colleges, Richmond upon Thames College and Esher College, to take part in the survey on post 16 education provision?”

 

Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:

 

[The survey has been commissioned by the borough’s Sixth Forms Forum, whose members include the headteachers/principals of the secondary schools/academies and the two in-borough colleges. The content of the survey was shared with both RuTC and RACC, and ran from 28^th March until 29^th April, to gauge the views of students, parents and other residents on establishing sixth forms, and how sixth forms would have influenced their educational choices if they had already existed. The Forum will consider the survey results at its next meeting in May. Esher College, being outside the borough, has not been involved in the content of the survey, although its principal has been asked to request Richmond-resident students to complete the survey.]

 

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

 

            Location of office base for Whitton & Heathfield Safer Neighbourhood Police, (Whitton Ward).

 

 

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

 

            Policing in Whitton (Whitton Ward).

 

a) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Gibbons raised concerns about the location of an office base for the Whitton and Heathfield Safer Neighbourhood Police Team [SNT]. The team would be losing their base at Twickenham Academy and were being re-located to Queen’s House, Holly Road, Twickenham. As this was two miles  from Heathfield, Councillor Gibbons was concerned that a large part of the SNT’s day would be spent not policing in Whitton and Heathfield but travelling to and form the area. He hoped that the Council could assist the SNT in finding an alternative base.

 

b) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elliott raised concerns about policing in Whitton. He stated that he was pleased that both parties were united in their support of the SNT which carried out valuable work in Heathfield and Whitton. He outlined the key contributions recently made by the team and highlighted the importance of high visibility policing. However, he was concerned that this work would be negatively affected by a geographical relocation. He also asked the Council to assist in the identification of a new base for the team.

 

Councillor Fleming agreed with both Councillor Gibbons and Councillor Elliott that the work of the SNT was vital and that it was unfortunate that it had been necessary for the team to move away from the ward. She stated that this was a temporary measure and that the Council would work with the Borough Commander to help to identify a permanent base for the Heathfield and Whitton SNT within the ward boundary. Kneller Hall, the Rugby grounds or empty shop spaces would all be considered but the new location would need to be accessible and permanent.

 

Attached

a) Corporate Plan 2011/12

 

It was RESOLVED:

That the Corporate Plan 2011/2012 be endorsed.

 

b) Community Safety Partnership Plan 2011-14

 

It was RESOLVED:

That the Community Safety Partnership Plan 2011-14 be endorsed.

 

None

None.

None

None.

Attached.

Council Meetings Schedule

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

That the draft schedule of Council Meetings, May 2011 – May 2012, be noted.

 

None.

None.

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

The Mayor announced that tickets for the Mayor’s quiz were sold out but that there was currently a waiting list. The quiz would be held on Friday 8 April, with proceeds going to the Shooting Star Children’s Hospice.

 

The Mayor announced that he would be holding a thank you dinner at York House on Wednesday 20 April for those who had helped him raise money during the year.

 

The Mayor announced that he would be travelling to Fontainebleau on 8 May and his visit would coincide with ‘Europe Day’.

 

The Mayor announced that the Mayoress would be holding a knitting afternoon on Sunday 15 May from 12.30pm and that he would be hosting a tea dance on Monday 16 May in Clarendon Hall from 1.30pm.

 

The Leader of the Council announced that the nomination for Mayor for 2011-12 would be Councillor Clare Head.

 

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

 

            “That this Council, in the light of the planned transfer of Public Health to the Council from the local Primary Care Trust, and recognising the major health problems and public expenditure that can be reduced by less smoking, asks the Health, Housing and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider setting up a task group to consider all relevant aspects of smoking and tobacco control in Richmond upon Thames.”

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Williams moved, seconded by Councillor Butler:

 

“That this Council, in the light of the planned transfer of Public Health to the

Council from the local Primary Care Trust, and recognising the major health problems and public expenditure that can be reduced by less smoking, asks

the Health, Housing and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee

to consider setting up a task group to consider all relevant aspects of smoking

and tobacco control in Richmond upon Thames.”

 

The motion was put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED.

 

[It was noted that if the Overview and Scrutiny Committee did set up such a task group, it could consider the information provided and work carried out by the Kingston and Richmond Stop Smoking Service.]