Agenda and minutes
Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:00 pm
Venue: Council Chamber, York House, Richmond Road, Twickenham
Contact: Kathryn Thomas, Head of Democratic Services, 020 8891 7860, Email: email@example.com
Webcast: View the webcast
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of Council held on 1 November 2011 and the minutes of the Ordinary meeting of Council held on 1 November 2011 attached.
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of Council held on 1 November 2011 and the Council held on 1 November 2011 be signed by the Mayor as a correct record.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.
Councillor Coombs declared a personal interest with regard to Item 3 – Petitions on the agenda. The nature of the interest being that the petitioner, Mr Coakley was known to him through his constituency work.
Councillor Roberts declared a personal interest with regard to Item 3 Petitions on the agenda. The nature of the interest being that he was the parent of a child attending a Catholic Primary School in the Borough.
Councillor Elloy declared a personal interest with regard to Item 3 – Petitions on the agenda. The nature of the interest being that his wife was a teacher at Richmond College.
Councillor Lee Parsons declared a personal interest with regard to Item 3 – Petitions on the agenda. The nature of the interest being that she was a governor at St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School.
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 the Friends of Catholic Secondary Education in Richmond.
We, the undersigned, petition the council to support the creation of a new Catholic Secondary School within the Borough.
We support the continuing efforts of the council to bring a Catholic Secondary School to Richmond. A Catholic Secondary School in Richmond would give our children the opportunity to receive continuity of education within their local community. Currently Catholic children leave the authority to continue their education at age 11. Due to rising pupil numbers across London, children from Richmond are already finding obtaining a place at a Catholic Secondary School difficult.
In accordance with the Petition Scheme, the Council had received a petition with more than 1000 signatures, triggering a debate. The Petition had been submitted by the Friends of Catholic Secondary Education in Richmond.
Mr Coakley commenced his presentation by emphasising the desire of the Catholic Community in Richmond to have access to Catholic education at primary and secondary level within the Borough. He highlighted the role of Catholic Schools within the wider community and the achievement of pupils learning within the Catholic ethos. The petition had been willingly signed by parents of Catholic children within the Whitton and Heathfield Wards which he noted emphasised the strong support for a Catholic Secondary school and the desire to use the site available at Clifden Road for this purpose.
Councillor Hodgins thanked the Group for their petition and reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to building capacity and quality within the secondary school system. He noted that a decision was awaited from the Secretary of State for Education regarding the proposal put forward by the Diocese of Westminster for use of the Clifden Road site. A borough wide consultation would take place when the decision had been communicated to the Authority. The numerous variables locally which would impact on school place planning in Richmond were highlighted.
Councillor Eady spoke to oppose the petition. He presented some alternative figures for future school place planning which were in contrast to those provided by officers of the Borough. He expressed concern that creating extra sixth form capacity would limit the potential for the Borough’s secondary schools to expand their rolls and further noted the potential for the establishment of free schools in Richmond. He discussed the potential use of the Clifden Road site for a Catholic sponsored academy with an admissions policy of Catholic and community places in equal number.
Lord True spoke to close the debate. He reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to deliver a Catholic Secondary School and to provide Sixth Forms in the Borough, with both elements included in the Council’s Corporate Plan. He acknowledged the strong desire of the Catholic Community to access continuity of education within the Borough and need to commence the borough wide consultation at the earliest opportunity.
The Mayor announced that there would be no vote on this debate.
Consequently Council noted the content of the debate.
Any questions received of which due notice has been given attached.
(1) In accordance with the notice given, Mr John Finnerty, asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:
‘What benefits will a Catholic School on the Clifden Road site provide to the Borough?’
As Mr Finnerty was not present at the meeting, a written response will be provided.
(2) In accordance with the notice given, Mrs Clare Lee, asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources:
‘Can the Council please provide a cost / benefit summary between the provision of a voluntary aided Catholic School and a Community School on the Clifden Road site and can the Council confirm what savings might accrue to the Council from either proposal?’
Councillor Samuel replied in the following terms:
‘Thank you Madam Mayor, the Council has not produced a cost benefit analysis in that particular form however I am given to understand that the cost of any adaptations or refurbishments or improvements to the building that would be the responsibility of the Catholic community and therefore that would not be at cost to the Council rate payers.’
Mrs Clare Lee asked the supplementary question ‘Is that the only cost benefit?’
Cllr Samuel replied that this was the clearest example in which the provision of a Catholic school would be cheaper for the Council than the alternative.
(3) In accordance with the notice given, Mr Guarav Mathur asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:
‘At its last meeting, the Council decided to hold a ‘Borough wide consultation on any proposal that comes forward’ for a Catholic secondary school ‘including on the use of the Clifden site.’ Does the Council agree that, if this consultation is to be meaningful, there is a possible outcome that would result in the Cabinet deciding not to support the use of the Clifden Road site for a Catholic Voluntary Aided School?’
As Mr Mathur was not present at the meeting, a written response will be provided.
(4) In accordance with the notice given, Mr James Heather asked the Leader of the Council:
‘A petition calling for a Catholic secondary school was debated by the Council in April. A second, almost identical petition has recently closed, with no control over whether the signatories are overlapping. Are any changes planned in the petition rules to prevent this type of duplication?’
Lord True replied in the following terms:
‘Thank you Madam Mayor, this Council strongly believes in the principles of openness and that includes the right of the public to petition it to express their views and hear the response of their elected representatives as they have this evening. Now I believe that Mr Heather supported the petition we debated at the last Council meeting and I had no procedural quibble from the supporters of the Catholic school to the exercise of that right to petition and I suggest that both sides in this debate should have the same access to the Council. The Council always keeps its procedures under review, of course, but we have no current plans for a change.’
Mr Heather asked a supplementary question regarding the role of Council in responding to petitions with proposed action.
Lord True explained that the views of all petitioners on the subject would be noted when the final decision was made and it was not appropriate, at the current time for the Council to take action regarding any of the petitions regarding the use of the Clifden Road site.
(5) In accordance with the notice given, Ms Janet Hilton asked the Cabinet Member for Schools:
‘There are no plans for a new community secondary school ‘until beyond 2016 at the earliest, if at all’ in the strategy the Cabinet recently adopted. This is mainly because it assumes demand for places from outside the borough will nearly halve by 2015. Hounslow accounts for nearly 50% of this demand but has had a 40% increase in birth rate since 2001, far outstripping any planned increase in secondary places at new or existing schools. What evidence is there to support the Council’s assumption that demand from Hounslow will decline?’
Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms:
‘Thank you Madam Mayor, the reduction of places taken up by Hounslow students is not a simple reduction, in fact Hounslow like everywhere else is facing a growing number of, growing demand for places. The reduction in our plans comes from two different factors, one is an increase in supply within Hounslow, there is a new Free School being established in Feltham in 2012 to increase supply and there are three of their secondarys that are expanding each by a form of entry over the next couple of years, we also have adjudication but we will need to monitor that as their schools move to academies they will increase to meet demand, that is an indication that we have been given but as I say we will have to monitor that. The other factor in that is not just an increase in demand. It is that there are places in our schools that are not currently being taken up by Richmond residents that could be, both in the academies and if the linked school system gets changed we believe that it will open up additional places for residents so it comes from those two factors.’
Ms Hilton asked a supplementary question seeking a response to her view that the Council’s picture on secondary provision and demand is currently a very confused one.
Councillor Hodgins acknowledged that there were many variables affecting school place planning and that the subject was very complex in nature.
To receive questions from Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.2, of which due notice has been given.
In accordance with the notice given Councillor Marlow asked the Leader of the Council ‘What requests has the Leader had from Councillor Knight for discussions to meet financial targets to achieve a zero increase in Council tax?’
Lord True replied in the following terms ‘ Well, none actually Madam Mayor which I suppose is scarcely surprising since Cllr Knight opposed all reductions in spending consistently and also when in office he increased spending, he pushed up Council tax above the London average, and introduced a whole new tax, the CPZ tax not mentioned in his manifesto. We have abolished that detested tax, we have frozen the Council tax and will freeze it again and we have introduced 30minute free parking. Every one of those measures he and his party opposed.
Councillor Marlow asked a supplementary question regarding the views of Councillor Knight regarding the Coalition’s economic policies.
Lord True responded that this was a political view in line with the Labour Party.
Councillor Knight asked a supplementary question regarding the lack of an invitation from the Leader of the Council to discuss how a zero increase in Council tax could be achieved.
Lord True extended an invitation to Councillor Knight to discuss the matter.
Councillor O’Malley asked a supplementary question about the contrast been Conservative and Liberal Democrat policies on freezing Council tax.
Lord True responded by stating that Council Tax would be frozen for the 2012 – 2013 year as had been the policy of the Administration in the past several years.
In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Elengorn asked the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning, Parks and Highways ‘ Will she explain the process by which the residential recommendation for Station Yard Twickenham explained in the October Cabinet Paper for the Twickenham Action Area Plan became a proposal for a multi storey car park in the Appenix to the November Cabinet paper, without any mention of the change in the covering paper?’
Councillor Morris replied in the following terms ‘The decision in relation to Station Yard followed further consideration of parking issues subsequent to October Cabinet and reflected the need to ensure that there was adequate car parking to support the regeneration of Twickenham. The Station Yard site has long been under-utilised and the location provides an opportunity for car parking to serve the needs of the town centre. As it was identified as a Site Specific Proposal of the Draft Plan it was not considered necessary to refer the matter in the covering report.
Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question regarding the Twickenham Area Action Plan forming part of the Local Development Framework process, a key part of which is consultation.
Councillor Morris responded to state that the Twickenham Area Action Plan would be launched for public consultation on 16 December 2011 and representations regarding the proposals could be made via the usual consultation process.
Councillor Naylor asked a supplementary question about the previous Administration’s policy towards solving parking problems in the town centre.
Councillor Morris responded with reference to the Core Strategy CP5 adopted by the previous Administration which had introduced parking controls which impacted upon local shop keepers.
Councillor Coombs asked a supplementary question about the need for affordable housing for residents before additional car parking facilities.
Councillor Morris explained that the parking problem in Twickenham was self-evident but that she was unable to comment on any schemes currently within the Council’s Planning process.
In accordance with the notice given, Councillor O’Malley asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Street Scene ‘Could the Cabinet Member please report on progress in implementing the fair parking policy?’
Cllr Harrison replied in the following terms ‘Well there have been well publicised developments on the fair parking front like the removal of the spy cars from the Borough’s roads but there has also been a lot of detailed work going on to improve the service that we offer residents. The proof that we are succeeding is in the latest performance figures, comparing the latest figures with the last three months of the previous administration the backlog of parking correspondence from residents is massively reduced from an average of over 2100 correspondence items at any one time down to just 300 that’s a reduction of 86% in the correspondence backlog and the time taken to respond to residents dropped from an average of 35 days in the final months of the last administration to just 3 days in this one. That’s a 92% improvement and I think you’ll agree that that shows the level of service we give our residents has improved very substantially.’
Councillor O’Malley asked a supplementary question regarding evidence of the impact of the improved services for residents.
Councillor Harrison responded to explain that official stage 1 complaints to the Council about parking matters had been reduced by 87% over the last three months.
Councillor Elloy asked a supplementary question regarding the cost to non car owning residents of the Borough to subsidise the fair car parking scheme.
Councillor Harrison explained that there was a balance between creating the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people in the Borough.
Councillor Porter asked a supplementary question regarding the repayment of parking fines issued by the improperly licensed camera car.
Councillor Harrison responded that there had been a decision taken to rectify the situation as fully as possible.
In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Acton asked the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community, Business and Culture ‘What are her proposals to replace the inappropriate title ‘Village Plan’ for something more appropriate to our towns and neighbourhoods as requested by the Environment and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its last meeting?’
Councillor Fleming replied in the following terms ‘Thank you Madam Mayor. Well firstly I have of course considered very carefully the views of overview and scrutiny but I also think it very important and I’m sure Council will actually agree, that we listen to our residents and when we sent out the All in One survey, we asked our residents to define the areas in which they lived and they came up with the 14 areas. And we have in fact had over a thousand quotes from people specifically saying that the village feel was an important part of what they liked about their area and so if you like I suppose we have the goldilocks option, not everybody really will feel that their neighbourhood is too small, a town is anonymous and too big, but the town village responds to peoples needs to recapture the the feeling of community that many feel they have lost.
Councillor Acton asked a supplementary question about when Ward Councillors would be able to see and comment on the plans.
Councillor Fleming explained that following a significant response from residents, she hoped to be able to share plans with Ward Councillors prior to the end of the year.
Councillor Stockley asked a supplementary question regarding the potential to ostracise areas such as Barnes Village and East Sheen village who had fully adopted the village title.
Councillor Fleming noted that for some areas, the title of village had been welcomed by residents and businesses.
Councillor Elengorn asked a supplementary question regarding the move from a village to a suburb in Teddington in 1891.
Councillor Fleming referred to a report of the Greater London Authority in 2002 called the City of London Villages.
In accordance with the notice given ,Councillor Palmer asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing ‘ When did she last visit the Woodville Centre?’
Cllr Urquhart replied in the following terms ‘ Thank you Madam Mayor, I’ve been there several times recently, most recently this morning, the place was suffused in sunshine and the ambience was warm and happy and the transformation I think of Woodville into a wonderful venue for people with dementia, supportive of carers and open seven days a week including Bank Holidays is just marvellous for everybody, for those that need the service and need the support. I think that we want to make more of the fact that its open seven days a week and I’ve asked the officers to try and think of some way of doing that, I would like to thank all of them and the staff and management who have managed to bring and deliver the Woodville centre as we see it today.’
Councillor Palmer asked a supplementary question about how the centre was developing.
Councillor Urquhart replied that the Woodville Centre was being developed into a hub of support for carers and external organisations working in this field.
Councillor Jaegar asked a supplementary question regarding the journey times for users of the centre from the South West Side of the Borough, in particular Hampton Wick and Teddington.
Councillor Urquhart stated that the contract provider had agreed to transport times of 90 minutes maximum and if this was not working, discussions would be held with the provider.
In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Eady asked the Cabinet Member for Schools, ‘Does he support the opening of a two form entry primary and secondary free school on Council land in Hampton?’
Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms ‘Thank you Madam Mayor, there is a potential free school provider interested in the site, it is still very early on in the process and we will see how that goes but we do know that there is concern amongst parents in the area in getting into their closest primaries and we know that there is demand for choice in secondarys, so I do support in principal the use of that site to expand our provision within the area but as I say we will see how proposals develop.’
Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question about the potential difficulties in managing and operating small schools.
Councillor Hodgins replied to explain that excellent small schools were in existence and that any provider working within the Borough would be encouraged to work within the existing family of schools.
Councillor Blakemore asked a supplementary question about support for free schools in other parts of the Borough.
Councillor Hodgins expressed support for free schools across the Borough and a willingness to work with potential providers.
Councillor Roberts asked a supplementary question seeking assurance that the residents of Hampton would be fully consulted on any future proposals for the Oldfield Centre and use of land for potential primary expansion to be made available for free schools.
Councillor Hodgins explained that the decision to establish free schools was not taken by the Borough but that he would work with local Councillors to hear local opinion regarding the matter.
In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Evans asked the Cabinet Member for Schools ‘What is the Cabinet Member’s reaction to the proposal by the Hampton and Twickenham Academies to open sixth forms next year?’
Councillor Hodgins replied in the following terms ‘I think it is extremely telling that whilst during the last administration we heard that there was very little demand for sixth forms in this area, that the schools didn’t want it, that the two schools that are making their proposals first are two of Cllr Eady’s three academies and I think that it is a very strong statement that actually it is an important part of their overall offering, they want it and it will be strongly supported by parents and residents.’
Councillor Evans asked a supplementary question about how the two academies were working with other secondary schools and the local college.
Councillor Hodgins referred to the establishment of the Sixth Form Forum and close working across schools.
Councillor Eady asked a supplementary question about the proposed impact of sixth form provision on oversubscription at primary level across the Borough.
Councillor Hodgins referred to the work underway to plan for pupil places and sixth form provision.
Councillor Martin asked a supplementary question about the impact of sixth form plans on secondary places.
Councillor Hodgins referred to figures which demonstrated a proposed increase of in Borough provision by over 600 places in future years.
In accordance with the notice given , Councillor Jaegar asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing ‘Given the concerns of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission about the quality of home care, what will the Cabinet Member be doing to ensure that the procurement process of domiciliary homecare services, agreed at Cabinet in November, will ensure that home carers are given enough time to properly carry out their care tasks, sufficient training and pay about the London Living wage?’
Coucnillor Urquhart replied in the following terms ‘The specification for the Home Support Service going forward will identify the principles upon which the services are to be provided, (e.g. dignity, respect and courtesy) but will also set out clear requirements on quality, training, monitoring and compliance with employment law. The overall emphasis will be an outcome-based approach and will strengthen controls on provider compliance so as to ensure good quality care is provided. The Council will seek the best value for Richmond residents taking into account both associated costs of providing the service and quality of services.
Councillor Jaegar asked a supplementary question about the changes to eligibility criteria and the need to focus on outcomes and quality.
Councillor Urquhart provided an explanation of the focus on personalisation of services and freedom of choice through personalised budgets.
Councillor Butler asked a supplementary question about the aims of the new home support service.
Councillor Urquhart referred to increased control for budget users and more direct contact with providers.
Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question about consultation undertaken with service users to ascertain views on issues service procurement and issues such as potential high turnover.
Councillor Urquhart responded that the quality of service required will be written into the specification and user satisfaction continually monitored.
The time allowed for Members questions had elapsed and a written response would be provided to all remaining notified questions.
In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Elliott asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources ‘Will he comment on the state of school balances?’
[School balances stood at £5.9m at March 2009. They increased by 27% (£1.6m) to reach £7.5m by March 2010. Last year they rose by a remarkable 36% (£2.7m) to £10.2m. Thus the reserves by March were 72.6% higher - i.e. £4.3m more than in 2009. School grants were 8% higher leaving the schools sector in a very comfortable financial position.]
In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Jones asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing, ‘Could the Cabinet Member explain why, in planning to commission out transport for vulnerable children and adults to their schools or day centres in the borough, it is thought okay to retain the ‘quality measure’ of a 90 minute maximum journey time for the elderly while special educational needs children only have to endure a maximum 75 minute journey time?’
[We would like to be able to reduce journey times for all the vulnerable people we transport, but as the Councillor will know, to do this requires less people on each vehicle, more vehicles and much more money than the council has. I can confirm that the 75 minutes for SEN children is linked to case law, whilst the 90 minutes for older people is more of a custom (that goes back at least 10 years). The tendering process for transport is for an “as is service” – there will be no cuts, but sadly we cannot afford to reduce journey times.]
In accordance with the notice give, Councillor Elloy asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Streetscene ‘In view of the Council policy to remove yellow lines, how will he ensure that illegal parking is prevented at street corners to maintain the safety both of pedestrians and motorists as well as highway access for emergency vehicles and dustcarts?’
[It is not Council’s policy to remove yellow lines per se. It is Council policy to review the existing waiting and loading restrictions and, where they are no longer required, consider their removal to free up road space for parking by residents, businesses and visitors.
Where it is necessary to ensure safety on street corners or maintain access for emergency services, waiting and loading restrictions will be provided. It should be noted that many waiting and loading restrictions have been installed over the years and in some cases the original reason for their introduction has been affected by change in land-usage, demographic and economic trends.]
In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Cardy asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources ‘ Will the Cabinet Member join me in thanking the Hampton Hill tidy group for litter picking the frontage of the old library in Hampton Hill during the many months that the building has sat empty?’
[I am very pleased to add my thanks. Residents will be pleased that an appropriate sale has now been completed.]
In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Knight asked the Leader of the Council ‘ Does the Administration support the application by Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust for Foundation Trust status, including the continuing ownership and management of Teddington Memorial Hospital?’
[The previous and the current administration, along with other stakeholders, including GPs and patient and carer groups, fought for the creation of Hounslow & Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust (HRCH) as the best option to provide responsive local community services. In line with NHS requirements, HRCH must apply for Foundation Trust status, or face the possibility of being merged with another NHS body. Given that NHS Trust status gives us the best chance of retaining our local provider and a flourishing local community hospital at Teddington, this administration supports their application.
With regard to ownership of the Teddington Memorial Hospital (TMH) site, we understand that the viability of the Trust’s application relies on ownership of this asset and furthermore that there is currently no legal mechanism for ownership of the site to pass outside the NHS. For these reasons we are supportive of ownership remaining with The Trust, but will work with NHS colleagues (ultimately it will be for the GP led Clinical Commissioning Group to decide the services it commissions from HRCH, including services at TMH) and other partners to ensure that we have active involvement and influence in any considerations about future use of the site, and to ensure the continuation of the hospital’s important role in providing local health services. This includes Cabinet member representation on the newly established TMH Advisory Committee.]
In accordance with the notice give, Councillor Nicholson asked Councillor Palmer ‘ When is it hoped to start the consultation for a new bye-law on illegally moored boars on Council land (agreed at the Regulatory Committee) and are there any other immediate measures that could be put in place and so answer residents concerns that nothing appears to be happening to deal with this persistent problem?’
[Officers are currently drafting the consultation documents in accordance with the set statutory process and it is expected to commence the consultation in the New Year. Once the programme is developed, it will be taken to the Cabinet Member for approval and then shared with Ward Councillors.
Unfortunately there are no immediate measures that are deemed to be effective in the interim period.]
(a) Councillor Stockley has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:
"How can the council prevent several large developments in a small area being applied and granted at the same time, so as to reduce environmental impact and disruption to local residents"
(Mortlake and Barnes Common Ward)
In accordance with the notice given, Councillor Stockley requested clarification regarding the mechanisms in place to enable the Council to prevent several large developments in a small area being applied and granted at the same time, so as to reduce environmental impact and disruption to local residents. She highlighted the concerns of the residents of Little Chelsea on the impact of construction works on traffic, local community infrastructure and parking.
Councillor Morris responded with reference to the Local Development Framework as the basis for determining land use and planning applications within the Borough.
REPORTS OF THE EXECUTIVE AND COMMITTEES
(1) Local Development Framework – Pre Submission Draft Joint Waste Development Plan Document
Resolved: That the pre-submission draft Joint Waste Development Plan Document for public consultation be approved.
(2) Twickenham Action Plan – Pre Publication Version to be agreed for Public Consultation
Councillor Elengorn proposed the following amendment, seconded by Councillor Coombs:
At the end of the recommendation add ‘ and subject to amendment of the relevant paragraphs for the TW4 Station Yard at section 7.2.8 on pages 141 and 142 that refer to this site as ‘car park of 3 to 4 storeys from ground level to serve established needs of users of the town centre, landscaping, environmental improvements’ back to those paragraphs that refer to this site as ‘residential use up to four storeys, environmental improvements’ per the earlier draft Action Plan circulated to Twickenham Ward Councillors for their meeting with officers on 9 November 2011.’
In accordance with Procedure Rule 20.4, a recorded vote was called, whereupon Councillors Acton, Allen, Burford, Cardy, Churchill, Coombs, Day, Eady, Elengorn, Elloy, Gibbons, Jaeger, Jones, Khosa, Knight, Langhorne, Lee Parsons, Miller, Nicholson, Pollesche, Roberts, Thornton and Williams voted for the amendment. Councillors Arbour, Avon, Blakemore, Bouchier, Butler, Chappell, Elliott, Evans, Fleming, Harbourne, Harrison, Hodgins, Linnette, Marlow, Martin, Mathias, Morris, Naylor, O’Malley, Palmer, Percival, Porter, Salvoni, Samuel, Stockley, True and Urquhart voted against the amendment. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor abstained from the vote.
Amendment not carried: The amendment on being submitted to Council was not carried.
The recommendation, on being submitted to Council was carried.
Resolved: That the pre-submission version of the Twickenham Area Action Plan be approved for public consultation with the exception of proposal site TW1, which will be submitted to a future Council meeting.
(3) Contract Standing Orders and Procurement Governance Framework
Councillor Knight proposed the following amendment, seconded by Councillor Miller:
Add at end:
‘Subject to the Procurement Governance Framework including provision for:
1. Representatives of the local voluntary sector being involved in the design of tender specifications for services that have previously been, or could reasonably be, provided by local not for profit organisations. These specifications will give appropriate weight to the importance of local knowledge, networks and experience in the delivery of services. The Council will also consider funding reasonable ‘mobilisation’ costs up-front and limit financial liabilities for such providers.’
Add at end:
‘Subject to the Procurement Governance Framework including provision for:
2. A commitment to socially and environmentally responsible procurement and asks the Cabinet to come forward with proposals for how social and environmental objectives can be incorporated into service specifications and how Members can give appropriate political leadership to this process.
In response to assurances from Councillor Samuel regarding the consideration and incorporation of comments regarding the documents, Councillor Knight withdrew the amendment.
Resolved: That the revised procurement governance framework, including revised Contract Standing Orders with implementation from January 2012 be approved.
Resolved: That the Standards Report for 2010/11 be approved.
REPORTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES
There were no reports of Overview and Scrutiny Committees on this occasion.
REPORTS ON JOINT ARRANGEMENTS AND EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
There were no reports on joint arrangements and external organisations on this occasion.
REPORTS OF THE HEAD OF PAID SERVICE
Resolved: That the following changes to Committee Membership as indicated below be approved:
EXECUTIVE DECISIONS TAKEN AS A MATTER OF URGENCY
There were no reported Executive decisions taken as a matter of urgency on this occasion.
QUARTERLY REPORT ON SPECIAL URGENCY DECISIONS
There were no reported decisions taken as a result of special urgency.
To receive any announcements from the Mayor, Leader, Members of the Cabinet or the Head of Paid Service.
The Mayor, on behalf of the Council made the following announcements:
NOTICES OF MOTION
(a) Councillor Eady has given notice to move the following Motion:
“Council notes the Administration’s plan to spend over £25 million on building extensions to the borough’s five secondary schools. In view of the significant increase in local primary pupil numbers, this Council believes that it is a higher priority to ensure that every child can be accommodated at their local secondary school rather than to add sixth forms. Council therefore calls for these new buildings to be used to increase Year 7 admission numbers.”
Motion: Pursuant to notice, Councillor Eady proposed and Councillor Williams seconded:
‘Council notes the Administration’s plan to spend over £25 million on building extensions to the borough’s five secondary schools. In view of the significant increase in local primary pupil numbers, this Council believes that it is a higher priority to ensure that every child can be accommodated at their local secondary school rather than to add sixth forms. Council therefore calls for these new buildings to be used to increase Year 7 admission numbers.’
Councillor Hodgins tabled the following amendment, seconded by Lord True:
Before ‘Council’ add ‘This’
Leave out ‘notes’ and insert ‘supports’
Leave out from ‘to’ to ‘add’
After ‘forms’ add ‘to Borough secondary schools’
Delete last sentence.
In accordance with Procedure Rule 20.4, a recorded vote was called, whereupon Councillors Arbour, Avon, Blakemore, Bouchier, Butler, Chappell, Elliott, Evans, Fleming, Harbourne, Harrison, Hodgins, Linnette, Marlow, Martin, Mathias, Morris, Naylor, O’Malley, Palmer, Percival, Porter, Salvoni, Samuel, Stockley, True and Urquhart voted in favour. Councillors Acton, Allen, Burford, Cardy, Churchill, Coombs, Day, Eady, Elengorn, Elloy, Gibbons, Jaeger, Jones, Khosa, Knight, Langhorne, Lee-Parsons, Miller, Nicholson, Pollesche, Roberts, Thornton and Williams voted against. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor did not vote.
Therefore the amendment was declared to be CARRIED
The substantive motion was put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED
Resolved: This Council supports the Administration’s plan to add sixth forms to Borough secondary schools.’