Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Avon who was substituted by Councillor Mathias.

Apologies were received from Mr Bryson, Co-opted Member.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider and approve the minutes of the meeting held on 24 March 2011 and the minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 9 May 2011 – attached.

The minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 24 March 2011 were approved as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

The minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 9 May 2011 were approved as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

This report provides details of the performance of the Environment Directorate indicators that monitor the council priorities for the period April to June 2011.

Introduction of the Report

The report was introduced by the Assistant Director of Environment (Development and Street Scene) and the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning, Parks and Highways. In reporting the underperformance of processing of planning applications, the following points were outlined:

(i) The areas of underperformance highlighted in the report related to the government national indicator system which was now no longer operational. The Council was developing its own performance indicator system. Although it was important to provide a fast service to residents and developers, the Council wanted to ensure that a high quality service was maintained.

(ii) The number of planning applications received by the Council had increased in recent months by around 15%. A higher number of applications was also being referred to the Planning Committee. This increased the pressure on the service.

Members’ questions

In response to Members’ questions the following information was provided:

(i) It was difficult to compare these figures to those of other London boroughs as not all boroughs used the same performance indicators.

(ii) New performance indicators were being developed for Richmond Council which included examining the percentage of Planning Committee decisions which were in accordance with officer recommendations.

(iii) It was not yet possible to evaluate whether reducing the planning committee cycle from fortnightly to every three weeks had an effect of the speed of application determination because this change had only been introduced in May 2011. However, it was not anticipated that this would have a detrimental impact and where necessary it would be possible to hold special meetings for major applications.

(iv) The staff number within the Planning Department had not been significantly altered. It would be possible to accommodate the increased number of applications within current resource levels.

(v) It was noted that at times delay in processing applications related to applicants not submitting all of the requisite information initially. It was hoped that promoting the use of the pre-planning advice service would reduce the length of time it took to process applications as applicants would be better informed.

The Cabinet Member stated that officers were working efficiently to meet an increased demand in applications.

It was RESOLVED:

That the action plans as detailed in the report be noted.

This report provides Members of the Committee with an update on All in One and the development of the Council’s approach to community involvement.

Introduction of the Report

The report was introduced by the Assistant Director of Environment (Development and Street Scene), the Assistant Director for Commissioning Corporate Policy and Strategy and the Strategic Cabinet Member for Community, Business and Culture. In presenting the report the following points were outlined:

(i) The Council was examining how to progress proposals which had emerged from the All in One survey and the subsequent village events. The role of ward councillor in engaging the community was being examined by a cross-party working group.

(ii) The first draft village plans would be produced in the following weeks and would be open to consultation. The Assistant Director of Environment clarified that in this context the village plans were not the same as ‘village plans’ in the context of the Local Development Framework.

(iii) Many of the issues that residents had raised in response to the survey and at the events related to Environment issues such as improvements to roads and pavements. For this reason it would be useful for the Environment, Sustainability and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee to continue to play a role in examining the proposals which lead from the All in One survey.

The Chairman explained that at a meeting of the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the Council’s scrutiny committees it had been agreed that the Environment, Sustainability and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee would lead in the scrutiny of the All in One project in order to provide focus and to avoid replication of work across scrutiny committees.

Members’ questions

In response to Members’ questions the following information was provided:

(i) In order to meet the requirements of each community the Council would need to be flexible in how it procured services.

(ii) The All in One survey was not a sample survey. It had been sent to all households in the borough in order provide all households with an opportunity to have a voice. The level of respondents (13,500) was very high for this type of survey as a percentage of the borough’s population, which was encouraging. However, the Council had also undertaken further work to engage young people, as this group had a lower response rate. Taking the survey forward in terms of engagement would also recognise any areas which had had a lower response rate than others.

(iii) The All in One Survey was viewed as being the starting point for a programme of community involvement that would be ongoing over the coming years. As the Council moved to a commissioning model it would be especially important to ascertain residents’ service priorities.

(iv) The village plans would be based on those local areas which had been identified by residents as distinct neighbourhoods. To carry forward community development in a meaningful way it would be necessary to focus on these distinct village areas rather than to dissect communities further into micro-communities.

(v) The Council was working with local partners such as the police via the Richmond Partnership. However it was important for residents to be aware of the remit of the Council and the limits of its influence. For example, the Council could encourage the continued development of shopping centres via the planning system but it could not control the mix of shop types in an area.

(vi) It was vital to the process of community engagement that ward councillors played an active role. Councillors should be consulted on the Council’s proposals that were relevant to their wards and if this was not happening this would be investigated. The Council’s approach to consultation was devolved and undertaken by individual services. Although there was now a centralised process with a dedicated webpage which was  set up to provide a list of all live and past consultations.

(vii) It was acknowledged that not all residents would have the time or capacity to be involved in the work of the Council in a significant way and hence the Council should not base all of its service decisions on the feedback of those who did get involved, although this could be used an indicator of residents’ expectations. It would also be vital for the Council to give direction and focus to those who did want to volunteer their time in order to gain the most benefit for the community.

(viii) The village events had been evaluated as being very successful in continuing the Council’s engagement process. Feedback had been that residents appreciated the Council and its officers spending time in each separate community to listen to its concerns. The Cabinet Member thanked officers for contributing to the success of these events.

(ix) Individual consultations on the Council’s proposals and services would continue as distinct processes. However, the All in One survey could be seen as a starting point for re-orientating the Council’s relationship with residents. It was a reminder to the Council to continue to invest in exemplary services such as parks and open spaces which had registered as being of key importance to residents. The Environment directorate was also tailoring its work to match those priorities identified in the survey by other means. For example the Highways Strategy had previously focused on roads but following residents’ feedback later drafts of the strategy had paid equal attention to pavement issues.

Members discussed how to identify a community and how to ensure that the needs of all the borough’s residents were met: in particular those who were difficult to engage. The Committee also discussed how the internet could be used further as a resource for community engagement.

It was RESOLVED:

1) That the proposals for taking forward the All in One and developing an approach to community involvement be noted.

2) That the development of public consultation since the task group, including recent consultations on environmental issues, be noted.

3) That the development of village plans be considered at the meeting of the Environment, Sustainability and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee in November 2011, or as soon as the information became available.

4) That it be recommended that ward councillors be consulted on the relevant village plans as they are developed.

5) That it be recommended that ward councillors are informed of relevant Council consultations as and when they are carried out (where this was not already happening).

This report gives details of the proposed work programme for the remainder of the municipal year 2011/12.

The Committee discussed its future work programme in light of themes discussed during the meeting and topics raised by individual Members as being of contemporary concern.

It was RESOLVED:

That the following items be added to the work programme:

15 November 2011

·         The development of village plans (following the All-in-One consultation)

·         Procurement Plan

·         The 2012 Olympic cycle race and effect on traffic in the borough

20 March 2012 (if appropriate)

·         Update on the Thames Tunnel project