Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 15 September 2009 attached.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 15 September 2009 were approved as a correct record.

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

Councillor Coombs declared a personal interest under Item 5 (Members’ Questions) of the agenda by virtue of his being a Governor of Whitton School and the Vice-President of Arts Richmond, tenants of the Environment Trust respectively.

 

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

A)            Cllr True presented a petition on behalf of the Twickenham Riverside Terrace Group, Save Our Riverside and Friends of Twickenham Riverside – Objection to proposals for private housing in the Twickenham riverside development

B)            Cllr Fleming presented a petition on behalf of the Taxi Drivers – Objection to the proposals for the works at Richmond Station

C)           Cllr Cardy presented a petition on behalf of the Residents of Seymour Road – objection to the presence of fruit bearing trees in the area.

D)           Cllr Davies presented a petition on behalf of the tenants of flats 18 to 32 John Dee House – request that trees between St. Mary’s Church and John Dee House are cut back and improvements are made to the recent works undertaken to the inner courtyard area of John Dee House.

 

To receive any questions of which due notice has been given.

To follow

(a)     In accordance with notice given, Jeremy Hamilton-Miller asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

“One year ago Councillor Lourie said in this Chamber concerning the Business Plan of the Environment Trust for the proposed River Centre, "…the Council would not proceed if it was not confident that the scheme was viable in revenue terms".  Can he confirm that this statement still applies?”

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“The answer is yes”.

 

Mr Hamilton Miller asked a supplementary question as to whether a business stream had been identified in the absence of a business plan.

 

Councillor Lourie replied by re-iterating what he had said on a number of occasions previously, that the Council would only proceed when it was satisfied with the financial position of the developer Countryside and their parent company and that the business plan was viable.

 

(b)     In accordance with notice given, Brian Holder asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

 

“The Highways and Transport Department employs a number of Transport Consulting Companies. What steps are taken to ensure that all their staff, who may have been trained in the UK or elsewhere, know how to consult the public, and have the full range of skills, knowledge and experience necessary to provide the quality of service and value for money that Council Tax Payers expect?”

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms: 

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor, all public consultations on transport schemes are initiated, managed and concluded by the Council’s own in-house staff. Consultants are used occasionally to assist with the various elements of the process but the Council retains overall control on content, presentation, methodology and analysis of results to ensure it conforms with corporate standards and Council policy.”

 

Mr Holder asked a supplementary question as to whether in light of the present economic climate, would the Council be introducing a system-based approach, similar to planning and consultation to ensure standardised procedures; maximum efficiency; minimum costs; better record keeping; no duplication; customer satisfaction; value for money; and job satisfaction to reduce staff turnover with the objective of reducing consultancy costs by 20% or more.

 

Councillor Trigg replied by stating that any responsible organisation, be it in the public sector or a corporate structure such as Tesco or IBM, would be undertaking the process identified by Mr Holder. Councillor Trigg added that the Council was looking at efficiencies, as was every other organisation and that the Council would progress along the lines suggested by Mr Holder.

 

 

 

 

 

(c)     In accordance with notice given, Mr. Thomas O’Malley asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

 

“Would the Cabinet member for transport and highways explain why he has not adequately consulted residents, businesses and other stakeholders on the revised plans for pedestrians and vehicles accessing Richmond station?”

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor, the original proposal to pedestrianise the station forecourt was included in the public consultation carried out in March 2007. This included the distribution of 5,000 consultation leaflets to residents and businesses and a manned public exhibition that was visited by approximately 4,000 members of the public. The consultation proposals received substantial support from residents, businesses and users of the town centre station.

 

In addition there has been consultation with disability representative groups, residents groups, businesses, the emergency services, London Buses, the Public Carriage Office, South West Trains and Network Rail. Following these detailed discussions the layout of the area outside the station has changed with the bus stops and taxi ranks exchanging locations.

 

In view of this I would suggest that the Council has more than adequately consulted upon these proposals and involved stake holders throughout the design process and we will continue to do so”.

 

Mr. Thomas O’Malley asked a supplementary question as to whether Richmond residents and businesses would get the consultation they deserve, as the answer given bore little resemblance to the experience of station users, bus and taxi drivers.

 

Councillor Trigg replied by stating that the current proposed movement of the taxi ranks was in the region of 10 yards and that the Council was seeking to reduce that. The overall proposal would not include kerbs and therefore, people with disabilities and the whole cross section of society would not have to negotiate them. It would be an overall benefit to all transport users, and an overall benefit to those using the station.

 

(d)     In accordance with notice given, Mr. Tony Shoebridge asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

"Will the terms of the assessment and report by an independent expert, on Copthorn Holdings Limited, which Councillor Lourie announced to the Richmond and Twickenham Times (reported 9th October 2009), be made public?"

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“The answer to this question is also yes. We intend to be as open as possible”.

 

Mr Shoebridge asked a supplementary question as to whether the Council would assure the residents that it would be taking a deposit from Copthorn if it failed to complete.

 

Councillor Lourie replied that as a result of the restructuring that Countryside and Copthorn went through less than a month ago, and after viewing their accounts, the Council was satisfied that it looked like a stable company. However, Councillor Lourie reiterated that the Council would not proceed with this development until it was entirely certain of the financial stability of Countryside and its parent company.

 

 

To receive questions from Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.2, of which due notice has been given.

To follow

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

“Which London in Bloom 2009 awards were won by the borough and if the Cabinet Member would comment on their range and diversity”

 

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor. I’d like to this opportunity actually of thanking the hard work of the Parks Department in getting these awards and the work that they are doing in the borough. In the recent London in Bloom awards, which the Borough hosted this time, we actually received better results than any previous year. There was a good range of winners from community groups and businesses to our own Parks Department.

 

These awards were:

Ø      in the ‘City’ category we received a gold medal,

Ø      in the ‘Town Centre’, Twickenham received a Silver-Gilt and Category Winner,

Ø      in the ‘Neighbourhood’ (less than 1000 population) category Ham United Group, who we support, won a Merit award,

Ø      in the Park/Large Public Garden category Terrace Gardens: Gold and Category Winner.

Ø      The Chairman’s biodiversity award: 1^st Prize was awarded to the borough

Ø      in the Denys Hodder Business Premises Award Church Street, Twickenham got 2^nd place.”

 

Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question as to whether the Council would be receiving any other prizes or potential prizes.

 

Councillor Acton replied that the Council had received the seven Green Flag awards earlier this year and would be receiving two further awards later on this year.

 

(b) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Samuel asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

“What progress has the Cabinet made towards identifying the £14m cuts in services which he is planning to impose next year?”

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

“I am afraid that Cllr Samuel’s question is nonsense, he knows very well that we have never been planning to impose £14m of cuts next year”.       

 

Councillor Samuel asked a supplementary question invitingthe Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources to comment on why he was wasting £100k of tax-payers’ money on city analysts to advise him on how to implement cuts of £14m.

Councillor Knight stated that like every other Council, efficiency savings had to be achieved year on year and that the efficiency process would help to avoid cuts in services. Councillor Samuel was invited to attend the members briefing on the efficiency challenge on 3 November at 6pm in the Salon in York house.

 

Councillor Coombs invited Councillor Knight to comment on the implications to this Council if a government were elected next year which introduced drastic cuts to public spending. Councillor Knight stated that everyone across the whole of local government would be concerned if a future government were determined to implement vast and savage cuts to public expenditure. Councillor Knight added that it was clear from the state of the public finances that savings would be needed irrelevant of who was elected next year, but the Conservatives seemed determined to cut public finances much faster than any other party in the middle of a recession. Councillor Knight stressed that local councils such as Richmond would find it extremely difficult to maintain services in the face of savage cuts.

 

Councillor True stated that Teddington school had run over budget by £10m and asked whether Councillor Knight supported the proposal put forward by Dr Cable for a public sector pay-freeze and a saving of 25% from salaries of officers earning in excess of £200,000. Councillor Knight replied by stating that Teddington School was within budget and on schedule. Councillor Knight stated that people in charge of public finances would do well listening to Dr Cable’s views.

 

(c)  In accordance with notice given, Councillor Miller asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

“What are the implications for the Council of your signing the 10:10 pledge as announced at Council on 15 September?”

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor. The council is one of the original signatures on the 10:10 pledge to reduce CO₂ emissions by 10% by 2010. It is an ambitious project to unite all sectors of British society behind a simple idea.

 

Supporting this initiative will focus our efforts in tackling the central Community Plan challenge of climate change and our Corporate Plan priority of keeping the environment at the heart of our decision making.

 

Cabinet approved an updated climate change strategy and corporate energy policy in June and these provide the framework for our response to the 10:10 challenge.”

 

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question as to how many Conservative Councils had signed the pledge. Councillor Lourie replied by stating that he did not have that information but believed that of the original 10, two were Conservative Councils.

 

Councillor Seymour asked about the Corporate Energy Policy and improving performance indicators on carbon emissions.  Councillor Lourie replied by stating that the climate change strategy had been updated and that there was a corporate energy policy. Councillor Lourie further added that all of the Council’s fleet would be converted to bio-diesel, which would have a significant impact on the Council’s target of reducing its carbon footprint by 25% by 2012/13.

 

(d) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Jones asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

 

“What initiatives are being taken by the Local Strategic Partnership and the Council to help reduce the effects of the recession in the borough”?

 

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

 

“Thank you Madam Mayor, the Council and the LSP’s recession task group have developed a joint action plan, building on the Council’s initial 9-point recession plan and evidence of the recession’s impact. I think it is significant that this is the first recession that has really affected residents of this borough. The plan covers improving collaboration, provision of information for individuals and businesses, and I would just point out the excellent guide to businesses in Richmond that has just come out (I recommend it to all Councillors) supporting employment and return to work, benefit and rate relief take up, inward investment and many targeted initiatives.  Indeed I am speaking at an event on Thursday to try to promote this. Key initiatives include skills development courses encouraging local shopping, promoting tourism and addressing impacts in disadvantaged areas. Work is under way to address empty shops, develop entrepreneurialism and promote resource efficiency for businesses, particularly energy. Many of these initiatives will be delivered jointly with the LSP partners.”

 

Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question as to whether Councillor Lourie was convinced that the conservatives had signed up to this partnership. Councillor Lourie replied by stating that he had no reason to think that the Opposition had not signed up to this partnership. Although he acknowledged that the Leader of the Opposition did not attend the meetings, Councillor Fleming attended on his behalf.

 

Councillor Fleming asked why it had taken so long to respond to the effects of the recession and questioned the increase in council tax. Councillor Lourie replied that the increase in council tax was kept to a minimum. Councillor Lourie stated that money had not been taken out of the local economy for this purpose and confirmed that Richmond was probably the first council to have a conference on the subject in London and was developing a range of policies with its LSP partners to deal with the recession’s effects locally.

 

Councillor Miller asked whether the report of the Small Business Task Group had been of any benefit. Councillor Lourie replied that the findings had been very useful and that the document should be recommended by Members to their constituents.

 

(e) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Michael Wilson asked the Chair of the Planning Committee:

“Would the Chair of the Planning Committee comment on Councillor Morris’  accusations of improper behaviour by Members of the Planning Committee and other Councillors at the 15 September 2009 Council Meeting?”

 

Councillor Miller replied in the following terms:

 

“It is outrageous that Councillor Morris said that there was a personal agenda set by members of the Planning Committee.  To say that Mortlake Councillors decide applications in their ward is appalling. There is no evidence given for this allegation.”        

                       

Councillor Wilson asked a supplementary question as to what action Councillor Morris should take. Councillor Miller replied by stating that Councillor Morris should withdraw the allegation and should not undermine the processes of the Council through political point scoring.

 

Councillor True asked whether Councillor Miller agreed that it was perfectly legitimate in a democratic council to have a difference of opinion on planning policy and to comment on the party line voting that took place at the Commission meeting, of which he is a Committee Member. Councillor Miller did not feel the question warranted a reply.

 

(f) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking advise on the representations being made regarding the proposal by Royal Parks to introduce parking charges?”

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

“Madam Mayor, we have made representations to both the Royal Parks and the government minister who would need to approve any changes to the current parking arrangements; expressing our concerns and in particular the possible impact the proposals may have on the parking situation in roads close to the parks’ entrances. Furthermore the Leader of the Council, Councillor Lourie, has requested a meeting with the minister (along with the Leaders of Kingston and Wandsworth Councils) to discuss the matter.”

 

Councillor Elloy asked a supplementary question on the surveys undertaken. Councillor Trigg replied that the results of the survey undertaken by the Royal Parks (contained within a document dated 29 July) mentioned on several occasions the detrimental impact on the roads around the parks, the majority of which are in this borough. Councillor Trigg added that he did not think the surveys had been completed.

 

Councillor Seymour asked whether the Cabinet Member remembered writing to Royal Parks encouraging them to adopt a similar approach on introducing charges to that of the Council. Councillor Trigg replied by stating that if the Royal Parks were to progress with this, which was not what this Council wanted, then Royal Parks would be encouraged to adopt a similar environmentally sustainable charging structure to this Council. 

 

(g) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Cranfield-Adams asked the Cabinet Member for Communities:

“To ask the Cabinet Member for Communities, further to his statement at the last Full Council that the recently introduced Vulnerable Vehicle Scheme, in which the Police remove private property from unlocked cars, had been tried in other local authorities in the UK, if he would now list those other local authorities?”

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

 

“There are various campaigns across the country tackling theft from motor vehicles, using a range of approaches including letters and notices on vehicles/properties. Richmond’s scheme has been based on a previous similar campaign in partnership with the DVLA where owners of identified vulnerable vehicles were contacted by letter. An anti-burglary campaign by Merseyside Police developed this idea further by trying people’s doors and windows and entering people’s properties to give advice. Richmond Police took these two initiatives developed as an awareness-raising local response whereby insecure property on show was taken into safe keeping by the police. Feedback from residents informs us that it is a lesson well learnt and theft from homes and vehicles in this borough has gone down significantly since this was introduced.”

 

Councillor Cranfield-Adams asked a supplementary question as to the other organisations that had adopted Richmond’s procedure. Councillor Williams replied by re-iterating that the Merseyside police and the local authority in Kent had a similar procedure.

 

Councillor Davies asked whether anyone would prefer to have their property stolen rather than taken into safe custody. Councillor Williams stated that people would prefer the latter and added that the legal view on this was that it was not trespass. The police were acting within the common law to prevent crimes and protect property.

 

(h) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Marlow asked theCabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education:

“What credence will Councillor Eady give to the responses to the slanted questionnaires issued in respect of Hampton Community College and Whitton School Academy consultation?”

                       

Councillor Eady replied in the following terms:

 

“Madam Mayor I can only assume that Cllr Marlow is referring to the very even-handed questionnaire which was issued by the academies’ project management company, Appleyards. For those of you who have not seen the document it is a 4 page document seeking people’s views on the proposed teaching methods and learning etc at the school. It has questions on their specialism. Appleyards’ main task is to carry out a consultation to inform the Secretary of State, and help him in his decision making process. They will then send a summary response to the Council and this will be included in the report that will go to Cabinet on 23 November. Cabinet will then consider the strength and quality of the views expressed by residents and decide whether the proposals are in the best interests of the local community and its young people.”

 

Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question as to whether this was really a consultation or a ‘done deal’. Councillor Eady replied by stating that it was certainly not a done deal and that more consultation on this exercise had been carried out by Richmond than by any other council. The consultation process had started as early on as at the expression of interest stage.

 

Councillor Nicholson asked whether the Cabinet Member had been to any of the recent consultation events. Councillor Eady confirmed that he had been to the well-attended HCC event held at the end of September, where the majority of people were in favour of the proposal.

 

Councillor Evans asked what support would be given to those parents who did  not want their children educated by the Kunskapsskolan method and therefore would have no choice in that area of the borough. Councillor Eady replied that he had spoken to a number of residents around the borough who had stated that what they wanted most of all was successful schools.

 

(i) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Ball asked the Cabinet Member for Communities:

“Does the Cabinet Member for Communities consider that further measures are needed to control the night time economy in Richmond and Twickenham town centres?”

 

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

 

“The Council and our partners have already taken a raft of measures in respect of the night time economy of Richmond and Twickenham town centres. The Regulatory Committee reviewed the two controlled drinking zones and the cumulative impact policy for premises licence applications; we’ve supported the use of dispersal orders, direction to leave powers and joint tasking on local hotspot locations with intelligence mapping; officers attend pub watch; we’ve commissioned late night anti social behaviour research; the alcohol strategy was adopted, its recommendations are being progressed; we will participate in alcohol awareness week from 19 October and we are investigating the possibility of purple flag accreditation.” 

 

Councillor Ball asked a supplementary question on the powers to ban 24 hour drinking in town centres. Councillor Williams stated that the 24 hour ban on drinking was not yet in force. However, Councillor Williams believed that the Council was doing everything that could be done.

 

Councillor Bouchier asked whether all these measures were satisfactory for the residents living in town centres.  Making reference to an Evening Standard article she asked if supermarket licences could be curtailed in the evening and whether the licences of those selling to the under-age could be removed.  Councillor Williams replied by stating that vigorous action was taken against any breaches of licences. He also made reference to the article and pointed out that Richmond has the lowest rate of alcohol-related crime in London, a figure of 6.51 per 1000.

 

Councillor Lee-Parsons asked about the ‘purple flag’.Councillor Williams explained that the flag is the new gold standard for hospitality and is built on the experience of the Civic Trust Night Vision programme. The flag is a fresh approach to nightlife and it is the standard that people expect from their town centres at night, so that a  balance is reached between people’s need to enjoy themselves and the need to protect local residents.  

 

The time allowed for Members’ questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given to all remaining notified questions.

 

(j) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Davies asked the Cabinet Member for Youth, Culture and Leisure:

 

“Will the Cabinet Member for Youth, Culture and Leisure please inform the Council of the current position regarding Barn Elms?”

 

Councillor Jaeger replied in the following terms:

 

[“The athletics track has been repaired and renovated. £250k has been earmarked towards the cost of a scheme providing much needed pitch improvements and a new pavilion – agreed by the users of the site. The consultant team needed for the planning application stage is being appointed. Initial discussions have taken place with London Marathon on a draft deed of dedication (required for certain external funding). The Youth Service has initiated the tendering process to appoint a firm to design and construct the BMX/skateboard facility. Officers and Barns Vision are finalising cost estimates for additional improvements which Barnes Vision will fundraise for.”]

 

(k) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Allen asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking:

 

“Has the Cabinet member been advised yet of the consultation process for the replacement of the underpass under the A316 Chertsey Road by a toucan crossing near Meadway/Jubillee Avenue?”

 

Councillor Trigg replied in the following terms:

 

[“I am aware that Transport for London is carrying out feasibility studies along the A316 with regard to pedestrian crossing facilities and the possibility of light controlled crossings at surface level to replace some of the footbridges and the subway at Meadway.

 

The Council has not been consulted on any formal proposals on this; we have contacted TfL to update us on the findings of their studies and future plans.”]

 

(l) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Urquhart asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

 

“The cost to Council of settling Stage 2 complaints in Adult Social Services has more than doubled from 2007/8 to 2008/9.  What is the reason for this?”

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

[“Stage 2 complaints are investigated by independent investigators and the cost varies in relation to the complexity of the complaint.  There were two very complex stage 2 investigations in 08/09 involving a number of care providers and NHS organisations. The cost of dealing with the two most complex complaints in 2008/09 was £7,460.”]

 

(m) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Cardy asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

“What has been the impact this year of the Chestnut leaf miner and other conker tree diseases on the Borough's tree stock?”

 

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

 

[“The pathogens affecting Chestnut trees are: bleeding Canker, Leaf Miner and leaf Blotch.  Bleeding canker kills individual branches and smaller stems whilst both leaf infections reduce trees photosynthetic capacity.

 

Although not known as killers of trees, these diseases will reduce longevity, often leading to other disease / fungal infections.  We monitor all of our horse chestnut trees, and if any become a risk to the public, remedial works are arranged as a priority. 

 

The impact on affected trees is not any worse than in previous years, however a small percentage of mature trees will require removal as they become defective and / or dangerous.”]

 

(n) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Fleming asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

 

“Will the Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Resources ring fence the 2009/10 LABGI settlement for business?”

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

[“The Council has yet to receive a LABGI grant for 2009/10, but we expect to receive £256,000.  Cabinet will consider its use when this funding is received, but in past years we have used LABGI money to support programmes that help the local economy, such as town centre managers and green business initiatives.”]

 

(o) In accordance with notice given, Councillor True asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

 

“To ask the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources whether since May 2008 he has received any representations from, or had any discussion with, J.V. Cable MP or Mrs S Kramer MP in relation to the levels or incidence of local taxation in the Borough; if he will state what representations they made about local taxation; and if at any time since May 2006 either Liberal Democrat MP has ever asked the Liberal Democrat Council to reduce the level of Council Tax it proposed?”

 

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

 

[“I meet regularly with both local MPs and we work together on many issues of local concern, including pressing government for a better funding settlement for local services.  Both MPs strongly support the view of the administration that council tax, an unfair tax introduced by the last Conservative government, should be kept as low as possible whilst maintaining vital public services.”]

 

(p) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Seymour asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

“A recent Council press release published the figure of 42% as the recycling rate achieved since the latest revision to the collection regime, when blue boxes replaced blue bags.

Cabinet minutes immediately prior to the change show the rate as 43%.

What is the Cabinet Member for the Environment planning to do next for recycling in this Borough?”

 

Councillor Acton replied in the following terms:

 

[“Recycling rates fluctuate each month so whilst we use monthly rates occasionally, we also use annual results, which is where the difference comes from. We have increased rates from 31.8% in 2006 to around 43% this year.

 

Our recent work has been focused on reducing the overall tonnage of waste we deal with and we now have the lowest tonnage of waste per household in west London which helps to keep Council Tax costs down.  We have done this rather than just focusing on recycling rates. 

 

Our next campaign is to encourage people to compost or recycle their food waste.”]

 

 

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

 

            Request for a dropped kerb in South Road, Hampton (Hampton North Ward).

 

 

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

 

                        Lighting at the junction of Eton Street and George Street in Richmond Town.  (South Richmond Ward)

           

 

(a) Request for a dropped kerb in South Road, Hampton (Hampton North Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Samuel raised concerns that requests for dropped kerbs had been rejected in accordance with the policy guidelines, leaving no allowance for officer discretion in the case of wholly exceptional circumstances. The example used was an application for a dropped kerb at the end of a cul-de-sac which would have no adverse effects to pedestrians and was within an inch of an existing dropped kerb in front of a house on the opposite side of the street.

 

The Cabinet Member agreed with Councillor Samuel in that the Council does need to look at the individual circumstances surrounding any particular application, but that they have to be looked at with respect to the policy.  Councillor Trigg added that the supply of crossovers to the individual’s house is just one part of the issue because crossovers have to be crossed by pedestrians crossing the pavement. Therefore, a benefit to the householder could potentially disadvantage pedestrians.

 

(b)Lighting at the junction of Eton Street and George Street in Richmond Town. (South Richmond Ward)

 

In accordance with notice given, Councillor Bennett raised concerns about theunder floor and overhead lighting at the junction in question. Councillor Bennett stated that the under floor lighting was unreliable and that heavy rainfall and flooding should be considered when installing under floor lighting. It was stressed that Richmond town should remain well lit, particularly during the weekends and at night.

 

The Cabinet Member confirmed that the lighting team were aware of the reliability issues associated with the in-ground fluorescent lighting in Lower George Street. Councillor Trigg further added that discussions were taking place within the Urban Design Team and the Public Space Group to determine whether, given maintenance cost implications, there was value in retaining this form of lighting or seeking suitable replacements.  Councillor Trigg agreed that it was unacceptable that lights were not working all the time.

 

 

Cabinet 7 September 2009

Attached

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Council Capital funding of £250,000 towards the cost of the Barn Elms sports improvement scheme be approved.

 

Mrs Hill, the Chair of the Standards Committee presented the report to Council.  She updated Council on recent determinations by the Standards Committee and the Adjudication Panel for England.

 

She stressed that the complaints procedure should be used for the most serious breaches and that resources should not be wasted on trivial matters.

 

Members were informed that the Standards Committee would be revising the existing Members’ Protocol documents as Guidance, with responsibility for oversight of the IT Protocol being remitted to the Audit Committee.  Comments from all Councillors would be welcome on the draft to be issued shortly.

 

The Leaders of the political groups on the Council expressed their support for the work of the Standards Committee.  It was considered that political groups use informal measures to resolve issues where possible.

 

Adoption of the report was put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Annual Report of the Standards Committee be adopted.

None

There were none.

None

There were none.

Attached

RESOLVED:

 

That the Cabinet’s decision, as outlined in Appendix A, to object to the application under Section 6 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 by Heathrow Airtrack Limited for an Order under Sections 1 and 5 of that Act for the Heathrow Airtrack railway proposal, be endorsed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1. That the decisions made by Councillor Urquhart to step down as Chair and Councillor Parsons to step down as a Member of the Health, Housing and Social Care Overview & Scrutiny Committee and the decision of Councillor Percival to step down as Chair of the Pension Fund Committee be noted.

 

2. That in accordance with resolutions made at the Annual Council meeting, it be agreed that the Health, Housing and Social Care Overview & Scrutiny Committee and the Pension Fund Committee continue to be chaired by representatives of the Conservative Group on the Council.

 

3. That Councillor Percival be appointed to serve as the Chair of the Health, Housing and Social Care Overview & Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the 2009/2010 Municipal Year.

 

4. That Councillor Hodgins be appointed to serve as the Chair of the Pension Fund Committee for the remainder of the 2009/2010 Municipal Year.

 

5. That Councillor Howard be appointed as a Member of the Health, Housing and Social Care Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

 

Attached

RESOLVED:

 

That the decisions taken as a matter of urgency as set out in paragraph 3.2 of the report be noted.

 

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

The Mayor announced the following:

 

Ø      Richmond and East Sheen cemeteries were officially among the best in the country after receiving a national Cemetery of the Year Award.

Ø      The Mayor’s Quiz Night would be taking place on Friday 23 October.

Ø      Remembrance Sunday services were being held throughout the borough on 8 November and details had been sent by the Mayor’s Secretary.

Ø      The Mayor’s Christmas Concert would be taking place on the 8 December and that tickets would be available from the Mayor’s Secretary.

Ø      There would be carol singing in Richmond Town Centre on 12 December.

 

The Leader of the Council announced the following:

 

“I wish to make a statement on why the Council will not sign a contract on Twickenham Riverside before Summer 2010.  This will enable the people of the borough to have their say in the local election.

 

We are proud of the Council scheme which provides extensive open space, the river centre, an improved playground and café enabled by the housing on a quarter of the land. It also pays for a major upgrade of the embankment all at no capital cost to hard pressed local council tax payers.  It will also help to revitalise Twickenham.

 

As all members know, the Council’s procurement programme for the redevelopment has slipped because of delays with the publication of Countryside Properties’ and Copthorn Holdings accounts for the year to 30 September 2008.

 

These were delayed because Copthorn Holdings, the parent company of Countryside Properties, like many large developers, had to undertake a significant refinancing exercise with its bankers in response to the economic downturn. This has been successfully completed and the company believes it is now well positioned to meet short term challenges and has considerable long term prospects. The accounts have been published and will now be subject to detailed review by the Council.

 

The last audited accounts are over a year old.  As I have pledged not to authorise the contract until I am satisfied that the accounts of Copthorn Holdings and Countryside Properties are in order, I have agreed with the Deputy Chairman of the company that we will not sign a contract until we have examined, with external advisers, the accounts to 30 September 2009.  This is expected to be in Summer 2010.  

 

The administration and Countryside Properties continue to be committed to this scheme, which will end 30 years of dereliction of this key riverside site, will contribute to the regenerationof Twickenham and bring a range of community benefits, all at no capital cost to council tax payers.”

 

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

 

            “This Council believes in affordable public transport and in the need to ensure that passengers who use “Pay As You Go” Oystercards have a fair deal;

 

notes that in other European capital cities bus passengers have the benefit of a time-limited bus ticket which enables them to use two or three buses within a set time without having to pay again;

 

notes that almost a million car journeys every day in London are less than one mile in length, and supports effective ways of encouraging modal shift to public transport;

 

views with concern at this time of economic recession that even short journeys in London may involve using two or three buses and can cost up to £3.00 if more than one bus is needed;

 

notes that the average bus journey length is 3.54km (2.2 miles, 9 stops), and that TfL estimate that 16% of bus journeys on Oyster ‘Pay As You Go’ involve using a second bus within 60 minutes of the first;

 

commends the proposal for a One Hour Bus Ticket to be available on “Pay As You Go” Oystercard, enabling passengers to use more than one bus during a 60-minute period without paying more than £1.00;

 

calls on the Leader of the Council and the lead executive member for transport to write to the Mayor of London promoting the One Hour Bus Ticket proposal;

 

and calls on the Mayor of London to instruct Transport for London to implement it as soon as possible.”

 

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

 

This Council calls on the Leader of the Council not to sign any contract with a developer for the construction of housing on Twickenham Riverside, unless and until:

 

a) he has laid before Council a report from the Director of Finance positively recommending the developer as a risk-free financial partner and had that report approved by Council; and

 

b) he has, in accordance with past undertakings given to Council, received a viable and sustainable business plan from the Environment Trust, certified as risk-free by officers

 

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

           

 

This Council notes with great concern that the proposals for the area around Richmond Station and along The Quadrant, which were the subject of a major public consultation in 2007, have been substantially altered and calls on the Cabinet Member for Transport & Highways to carry out a public consultation on the revised plans.

(d)       Councillor Cranfield-Adams has given notice to move the following Motion:

 

This Council congratulates Richmond Park parliamentary candidate Zac Goldsmith, HACAN and local campaigners in their success in persuading BAA to drop its plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport and notes that the principled stand by the Conservative Party in opposing this expansion was crucial to the BAA decision.

 

(a)        In accordance with Council Procedure Rule (Standing Order) 15.7 (a) Cllr Trigg, with Council’s consent, moved his amended motion, seconded by Cllr Knight:

 

“This Council believes in affordable public transport and in the need to ensure that passengers who use “Pay As You Go” Oystercards have a fair deal;

 

“notes that in other European capital cities bus passengers have the benefit of a time-limited bus ticket which enables them to use two or three buses within a set time without having to pay again;

 

“notes that almost a million car journeys every day in London are less than one mile in length, and supports effective ways of encouraging modal shift to public transport;

 

“views with concern at this time of economic recession that even short journeys in London may involve using two or three buses and can cost up to £3.00 if more than one bus is needed;

 

“notes that the average bus journey length is 3.54km (2.2 miles, 9 stops), and that TfL estimate that 16% of bus journeys on Oyster ‘Pay As You Go’ involve using a second bus within 60 minutes of the first;

 

“commends the proposal for a One Hour Bus Ticket to be available on “Pay As You Go” Oystercard, enabling passengers to use more than one bus during a 60-minute period without paying more than £1.00;

 

“calls on the Leader of the Council and the lead executive member for transport to write to the Mayor of London promoting the One Hour Bus Ticket proposal;

 

“and calls on the Mayor of London to instruct Transport for London to implement it as soon as possible.”

 

“This Council notes with concern the proposals by the Mayor of London to increase bus fares by up to 20% making 30% since the beginning of his term of office and Underground fares by an increase of 3.9% whilst RPI and inflation are at historically low levels.  This Council also notes with concern potential proposals to reduce public transport services in outer London.”

 

“This Council calls on the Mayor to seriously reconsider these proposals and work towards improving the service provision in outer London and at the same time benefitting the economy by reducing the fares from their current levels.”

 

This Motion was put to the vote and was CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council believes in affordable public transport and in the need to ensure that passengers who use “Pay As You Go” Oystercards have a fair deal;

 

“notes that in other European capital cities bus passengers have the benefit of a time-limited bus ticket which enables them to use two or three buses within a set time without having to pay again;

 

“notes that almost a million car journeys every day in London are less than one mile in length, and supports effective ways of encouraging modal shift to public transport;

 

“views with concern at this time of economic recession that even short journeys in London may involve using two or three buses and can cost up to £3.00 if more than one bus is needed;

 

“notes that the average bus journey length is 3.54km (2.2 miles, 9 stops), and that TfL estimate that 16% of bus journeys on Oyster ‘Pay As You Go’ involve using a second bus within 60 minutes of the first;

 

“commends the proposal for a One Hour Bus Ticket to be available on “Pay As You Go” Oystercard, enabling passengers to use more than one bus during a 60-minute period without paying more than £1.00;

 

“calls on the Leader of the Council and the lead executive member for transport to write to the Mayor of London promoting the One Hour Bus Ticket proposal;

 

“and calls on the Mayor of London to instruct Transport for London to implement it as soon as possible.”

 

“This Council notes with concern the proposals by the Mayor of London to increase bus fares by up to 20% making 30% since the beginning of his term of office and Underground fares by an increase of 3.9% whilst RPI and inflation are at historically low levels.  This Council also notes with concern potential proposals to reduce public transport services in outer London.”

 

“This Council calls on the Mayor to seriously reconsider these proposals and work towards improving the service provision in outer London and at the same time benefitting the economy by reducing the fares from their current levels.”

 

(b).      In accordance with notice given, Councillor True moved, seconded by Cllr Samuel:

 

“This Council calls on the Leader of the Council not to sign any contract with a developer for the construction of housing on Twickenham Riverside, unless and until:

 

a)      he has laid before Council a report from the Director of Finance positively recommending the developer as a risk-free financial partner and had that report approved by Council; and

 

b)      he has, in accordance with past undertakings given to Council, received a viable and sustainable business plan from the Environment Trust, certified as risk-free by officers.”

 

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Lourie and seconded by Councillor Knight:

 

Delete all after “construction of”

 

Insert: “the state of the art river centre supported by Sir David Attenborough, the new playground, the new restaurant, the new open space amounting to 48% of the site and the substantial improvements to the embankment until he considers it to be appropriate under the terms of decisions already taken by the Council and the procurement process.”

 

The amendment was put to the vote and was CARRIED.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

“This Council calls on the Leader of the Council not to sign any contract with a developer for the construction of the state of the art river centre supported by Sir David Attenborough, the new playground, the new restaurant, the new open space amounting to 48% of the site and the substantial improvements to the embankment until he considers it to be appropriate under the terms of decisions already taken by the Council and the procurement process.”

 

 

(c)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Fleming moved, seconded by Cllr Bennett:

 

“This Council notes with great concern that the proposals for the area around Richmond Station and along The Quadrant, which were the subject of a major public consultation in 2007, have been substantially altered and calls on the Cabinet Member for Transport & Highways to carry out a public consultation on the revised plans.”

 

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Trigg,  seconded by Councillor Dodds:

 

Delete “great concern” and insert “approval”

 

After ‘2007, have”, delete “been”

 

After “substantially” delete “altered” and insert “progressed, reflecting the points raised in”

 

After “consultation”, insert “and comments received are still being considered”

 

Add sentence at end, “This council congratulates all those involved in this project for their exceptionally high standard of work.”

 

The amendment was put to the vote and was CARRIED.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

“This Council notes with approval that the proposals for the area around Richmond Station and along The Quadrant, which were the subject of a major public consultation in 2007, have substantially progressed, reflecting the points raised in  consultation and comments received are still being considered.  This Council congratulates all those involved in this project for their exceptionally high standard of work.”

 

(d)        In accordance with notice given, Councillor Cranfield-Adams moved, seconded by Cllr True:

 

“This Council congratulates Richmond Park parliamentary candidate Zac Goldsmith, HACAN and local campaigners in their success in persuading BAA to drop its plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport and notes that the principled stand by the Conservative Party in opposing this expansion was crucial to the BAA decision.”

 

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Elengorn, seconded by Councillor Knight:

 

Delete “Richmond Park parliamentary candidate Zac Goldsmith,”

Insert “the all-party 2M Group,”

 

After “local campaigners” insert “and elected politicians of all parties”

 

Delete “drop its plans”

Insert “postpone its submission of a planning application”

 

Delete “notes that the principled stand by the Conservative Party in opposing this expansion was crucial to the BAA decision”

Insert “rejects other airport proposals for London such as Mayor Johnson’s Estuary Island scheme which will increase carbon emissions.”

 

The amendment was put to the vote and was CARRIED.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:

 

“This Council congratulates the all-party 2M Group, HACAN and local campaigners and elected politicians of all parties in their success in persuading BAA to postpone its submission of a planning application for a third runway at Heathrow Airport and rejects other airport proposals for London such as Mayor Johnson’s Estuary Island scheme which will increase carbon emissions.”