Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

Councillor Coombs declared a Personal Interest in agenda item 5 by virtue of being Vice President of Arts Richmond, tenants of the Environment Trust.

Councillors Arbour, Coombs, Jones, Miller, Mumford, Porter and Samuel and Barry Hatch declared interests in agenda item 6 by virtue of being members of local amenity groups.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2009 (attached).

The Committee requested that the representations made by members of the public as set out at Appendix A to the minutes be summarised in the body of the minutes and that the minutes be presented in their entirety to the next meeting for approval.

It was noted that the word “not” should be deleted from the third bullet point on page 4.

Further to Note 3 at the end of Minute 44, Members requested that the statement issued by Councillor Samuel to the press be circulated as soon as possible.

The Committee heard representations from Barry Edwards, Susan Hamilton-Miller, Jeremy Hamilton-Miller and Tony Shoebridge on agenda item 5 and from Barry Edwards and Scott Naylor on agenda item 6.

None

A time line of key dates and when decisions will be taken on the Twickenham Riverside scheme is attached.

Report of the Assistant Director of Environment attached.

The Commission heard representations from Barry Edwards, Sue Hamilton-Miller, Professor Jeremy Hamilton Miller and Tony Shoebridge.

Barry Edwards raised the following concerns:

• The timeline did not allow for a Thames Area Policy Appraisal to be carried out, contrary to the London Plan.
• A full Environmental Impact Assessment should be carried out in order to properly evaluate alternative schemes.
• The Citizens’ panel had not considered the proposals as required by the Sustainable Communities Act.
• The consultation infers that planning permission will be granted – how can the site be properly valued before the planning restrictions are known?

Sue Hamilton-Miller raised the following concerns:

• The timeline did not allow sufficient time for officers to carry out the “due diligence” required.
• Legal Services would not have enough time to consider all the issues included in a detailed development agreement.
• The updated Business plan was not due to be considered by the Commission until September/October by which time the Council would have signed the development contract.

Professor Jeremy Hamilton-Miller raised the following concerns:

• The Cabinet decision in April should be debated at full Council..
• The consultation period should have been extended because of problems with the website.
• The phrase “cost neutral” should no longer be used as it is misleading.
• The short timescale does not allow sufficient time for the Environment Trust to update its Business Plan and for Officers to carry out the proper amount of due diligence.

Tony Shoebridge raised the following concerns:

• The Environment Trust does not have sufficient expertise to develop the scheme
• There was no opportunity for the Commission to carry out any proper review and due diligence after key issues had been negotiated with the approved bidder.
• The timeline shows sign off for the development contract in July, in advance of the sign off for the River Centre.  This separation was unnecessary and dangerous as it committed the Council to proceed before all elements of the project had been agreed.

Members had also received written representations from Ron Chappell.

Councillor Samuel stated that the Leader had given an assurance that matters would not proceed unless there was a robust business plan.  The Director of Finance and Corporate Services had previously labelled the project “high risk “ and the Adult College had later withdrawn leaving a funding gap.  Councillor Samuel suggested that the whole process be put on hold until the financial gap had been filled and the Director of Finance considered the project to be, at worst, low risk.

Councillor Lourie informed the meeting that he expected the officer report to April Cabinet to deal with the issues listed in the timeline.  Cabinet would need to be satisfied that the business plan was sufficiently robust.

The Director of Finance and Corporate Services reported that it was inevitable that there would be gaps in the business plan at this stage as funding for items such as fitting out costs and the restaurant costs could not be finalised until after a planning application was submitted.

It was agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

In July 2008, the Co-ordination, Finance and Performance Commission decided that in-depth scrutiny of the Council’s public consultation process was required.

The Commission is requested to comment on the draft report, the recommendations of the Task Group and to determine how it wishes to monitor these recommendations.

Draft report of the Public Consultation Task Group attached.

Councillor Coombs, Chair of the Task Group prefaced his remarks by stating that he was saddened by the negative comments on the Task Group report published by Richmond Borough Conservative Group on the Online Communities website and requested that the article be removed. He thanked all those who had contributed to the work of the Task Group and stated that the Council carried out a vast amount of consultation, most of which was not contentious.  The aim of the Task Group’s report was to make improvements in the few areas where concerns had been expressed.

Barry Edwards raised the following concerns:

• The report did not represent Richmond United Group’s (RUG) contributions accurately.
• Recommendation 3 contrasted with the Council’s refusal to consider alternative proposals for the Twickenham Riverside scheme.

Scott Naylor raised the following concerns:

• RUG was not notified of the publication of the report nor informed of the date of this meeting, contrary to Recommendation 7 of the report.
• Contrary to Recommendation 3, the Council did not appear to be willing to ensure that alternative options were treated fairly or to provide resources to cost them.

Members had also received written representations from Teresa Read and Julie Hill.

Councillor Samuel expressed the following views:

• The report did not deal adequately with the issue of how to seek the views of “hard to reach” groups.  Councillors should act as advocates for such groups.
• The report did not address the problem of the irreconcilable difference between the general and the particular.

Councillor Mumford suggested that Recommendations 8 and 9 of the report should be cross-referenced with the recommendation of the Buckingham Fields Member Review that there should be a duty to engage with people at the point of disposal.

Councillor Miller, Chair of Planning Committee, stated that he did not have any problems with Recommendation 10 as long as flexibility was maintained.

Following further discussion it was agreed that the report should be endorsed, subject to the inclusion of additional recommendations to the effect that:

• Those affected should always be consulted.
• There should be suitable criteria to ensure that consultation was appropriate for the particular circumstances rather than a “one size fits all” approach.

The Commission thanked the officers involved in the production of the report and, in particular, Glenna McCulloch, Scrutiny Officer.

RESOLVED: That the report be endorsed, subject to the inclusion of additional recommendations to the effect that:

• Those affected should always be consulted.
• There should be suitable criteria to ensure that consultation was appropriate for the particular circumstances rather than a “one size fits all” approach.

(Councillor Samuel requested that his dissent from Recommendation 5 of the task group report be recorded).

Report of the Cabinet Member for Performance to Cabinet on 19 January 2009 attached.

RESOLVED: That the Executive response be noted and an update report be submitted to the Commission in approximately six months’ time.

The draft work programme has been drawn up, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, from items in the forward plan and from action arising from previous meetings of the Committee.    

The Committee is requested to consider the items within the proposed work programme, set out at Appendix 1 to this report, and suggest any amendments or additional topics to be included in the future.

Report of the Head of Democratic Services attached.

RESOLVED:

1)         That an update report on the Twickenham Riverside Business Plan be submitted to the June meeting (Minute 51 above refers).

2)         That an update on the Executive response to the Performance Management Task Group be submitted to the Commission in approximately six months’ time. (Minute 53 above refers).

3)         That the Chair and Vice-Chair be delegated to nominate Members to a Task Group to develop guidance for local amenity groups to help them in their representative role. (Recommendation 13 of the Public Consultation Task Group report refers).

Members thanked the Chair for her effective chairing of meetings and the officers for their hard work.