Minutes for Executive meeting, Sep 8 2009, 7.00PM official page

All members were present. There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2009.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2009 were confirmed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2009 were confirmed.

There were the following matters arising:

Item 18, page 1: Members’ expense claims

Councillor Paul Fisher noted that the minutes recorded that expenses would be published by 1 September 2009. However, he now understood that expenses’ information was being collated and would be published in three months time. This contradicted what was said in the minutes and residents reading the minutes would expect to see a breakdown by 1 September.

Mark Gilks, Chief Executive, explained that what had been put in place was a system to collect the data from 1 September. The data would then be published quarterly. It had been explained to the press that a system was in place to capture the data on members and Chief Officers’ expenses regularly on a quarterly basis and this had been well received. The Chief Executive clarified that figures would be posted within a few days of the end of the first quarter, after 1 January 2010. Previously, Members Services had been inputting past expenses. The present model was based on that used by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and balanced openness with the officer time required to collate the data.

Item 19, page 2: Customer Access

Councillor Bowen was sorry to report an example of another Department deviating from the policy. He reminded the Corporate Management Team of the responsibility of officers to implement Executive decisions.  

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2009.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2009 were confirmed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2009 were confirmed.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2009.

The minutes of the Joint Executive/CMT Performance Monitoring meeting held on 17 February 2009 were confirmed.

The minutes of the Joint Executive/CMT Performance Monitoring meeting held on 17 February 2009 were confirmed.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2009.

The minutes of the Joint Executive/CMT Performance Monitoring meeting held on 16 June 2009 were confirmed.

The minutes of the Joint Executive/CMT Performance Monitoring meeting held on 16 June 2009 were confirmed, with the addendum tabled. The addendum confirmed that the following were also in attendance:

            Councillor Andrew Morgan-Watts

            Councillor Todd

            Councillor Cadbury

            Councillor O’Reilly

Sunita Sharma, Head of Scrutiny and Performance was also present. Mimi Konigsberg had sent apologies. 

There were the following matters arising:

Item 1 (i), page 27: BCPI/LAA NI181

Councillor McGregor asked whether any member had seen the proposed letter from Liberata. As nobody had, he agreed to follow this up.

Item 1 (ii), page 27: L193

Councillor McGregor advised that he had now written to Lead Members and Directors about Improvement Savings.

This colour pack will be circulated to members as a separate attachment to the main agenda.   

The report was noted.

See the Quarter 1 Performance Monitoring Report Pack – Agenda Item 6.

The Chairman had signalled his intention to take this item first on the agenda. He welcomed the Councillor Carey and Councillor Todd, together with Sunita Sharma, Head of Scrutiny and Performance, who were present for this item.

The Chairman advised that he intended to concentrate on the targets showing Amber and Red, rather than those showing Green, where the target had been met or exceeded.

Councillor Carey raised three general points at the outset of the item. He asked whether the Executive were satisfied with the format of the report, whether they were satisfied with the snapshot it provided and whether they felt that the report focused on the most important areas.

The Chairman replied in the affirmative to all three questions. He pointed out that the Executive had designed this format to receive the data.

Councillor Carey referred to the external scrutiny of the Audit Commission but asked what measures were in place to ensure that there were sufficient internal checks in place to ensure that poor performance was not disguised.

Mark Gilks, Chief Executive, explained that it was the responsibility of each department to ensure that there were mechanisms in place to check performance. Then when the Audit Commission undertook their regular and random checks the material on performance would be ready for them. The overall performance data was collated by Policy and Performance Unit, who instigated checks from time to time and checks across fields. So the Chief Executive confirmed that there were mechanisms in place to check performance both locally in departments and corporately.

Councillor Carey asked about the Finance report on Capital monitoring. This had been reported to a previous meeting of the Joint Executive/CMT Performance Monitoring meeting on 18 November 2008, alongside the Performance Management data. He asked whether there were advantages in considering financial performance monitoring at the same meeting and asked whether there was scope to reintroduce this practice.

Councillor McGregor, as Lead Member for Finance, expressed his preference for looking at financial performance statistics separately, as he felt this would ensure greater clarity rather than linking them to one area.

Stephen Fitzgerald, Director of Finance, advised that both Revenue and Capital performance information was submitted regularly to the Executive, as soon as it was available. This was in keeping with the steer given by the Executive and Scrutiny. The reporting could wait until the meeting reporting the Performance Management pack. The Finance Department would have no problem in providing the reports at the same meeting, but he was not convinced that this would be of benefit. He realised that there was a time lag in the reporting of data because of the time required to collate the information. Implicit in the enquiry seemed to be the suggestion that the financial reporting offered less clarity than previously, whilst the Director considered that there was in fact more clarity.

Councillor Carey suggested that in some sense it was advantageous to look at both reports at the same time, but he took the point made.

Councillor Hardy noted a point about presentation and the need for clarity. He referred to LAA NI 152, a target related to working age people on out of work benefits, where the figure for the quarter was higher but the commentary suggested a drop against the target. Yet this comment was confusing as the figure showed an increase in unemployment.

Councillor Hardy spoke of the need to be confident in the voracity of the figures. He advised that he had challenged the results over the last week, particularly those shown as ‘blue’ and awaiting figures. He had challenged each one to test why there were no figures and had been satisfied with the explanation in each case.

The Chairman reiterated his intention for the meeting to consider where there were issues not where the authority was doing well against the target.

Priority People – Improving the well-being of vulnerable people and promoting choice and control – report page 8.

The Executive considered the targets showing ‘red’ on page 8 of the report under the above category. Councillor Pamela Fisher made the following comments:

NI 135 – This target related to the number of carers receiving a specific service or advice and comparison with last year’s figures showed that this was usually low at this time of year. The monthly figures showed improvement in the second quarter.

LAA NI 130 – This target was a measure of direct payments. The figures should include the personalisation programme but this would not be done until October. For the next quarter, the Transformation agenda would provide their own budget to people and the figures would then show improvement.  

LAA NI 141 – The target related to independent living for vulnerable people. A few vulnerable people had not got into their homes, but there had also been some problems with review of the data, with some data not yet loaded. So it should be possible to move to ‘amber’ and possibly to ‘green’ on this target.

Councillor Hardy agreed with Councillor Fisher’s comments on this target.

LAA NI 142 – Councillor McGregor noted that the numbers supported to remain in independent living were above target and welcomed this positive approach. He felt that considering this, the figures related to the previous three targets were insignificant and he asked whether this proved Councillor Carey’s point, namely were the Executive getting information suited to purpose.

In respect of LAA NI 141, Councillor Carey asked why performance improved as they moved through the financial year. Councillor Fisher commented that the data was compiled and inputted quarterly. However, she invited Mimi Konigsberg, Director of Community Services, to give a fuller explanation.

Mimi Konigsberg explained that as the department went through the year, the number of people they were able to move to independent living increased. However, it took time to move people to supported living, so this was a cumulative indicator of performance.

LAA NI 156 – Councillor Carey noted that at the last meeting, Mimi Konigsberg had undertaken to check whether the economic climate encouraged private sector landlords to join Council schemes. He asked whether this was the case and the impact on the figures. Mimi Konigsberg advised that there were various schemes for private landlords with reward tariffs but the department had not experienced a particular change as a result of financial crisis.

Councillor Bowen noted the positive progress on NI 156 so far. Reducing the number of households in temporary accommodation had been a feature of Executive discussion over time. Councillor Bowen understood that the particular project to achieve this was due to end in 2010. He asked when specifically the project would end. If it were to be early 2010, the next quarter report would be the last discussion on the project, so Councillor Bowen asked whether there was anything proposed to replace it.

Councillor Hardy advised that this was a key government target. The end date was December 2010 but the borough hoped to complete by March 2010. The direction of travel was positive. The department had pushed hard with this target, taking into account the human cost and the Resettlement Team had worked actively to help people out of temporary accommodation.

Priority Improve – Safeguarding and enhancing the environment – report page 9

LAA NI 192 – Councillor Carey congratulated Councillor Reid on the continuing improvement in recycling, which was terrific news. However, he suggested that the target was modest at 30% and asked why it was so low.

NI 195 a-d – Councillor Carey asked whether the residents of Chiswick were now happy with the street cleaning service, as there had been some concerns recorded in the minutes of 7 February.

In respect of LAA NI 192, Councillor Reid advised that 30% had seemed a large target, rising as it did from 22% at the beginning of the year. She was delighted that this target had been exceeded and considered that this was because the authority had introduced a comprehensive system. She believed that Hounslow was the only borough in London able to recycle 70% of household waste.  She also advised that to source the materials separately was the most environmentally friendly way of recycling. There would be a new communications campaign to encourage those residents who did not currently recycle.

Councillor Reid could not answer in respect of the comment about Chiswick residents, but Councillor McGregor replied that, anecdotally, from keeping in touch with the shop owners in Turnham Green Terrace, he could report that they considered street cleansing was working well. The contact with shop owners ensured that if there were problems, there would be a fast response, so anecdotally he was confident that those with commercial premises were happy. The Chairman was also unaware of any concerns in his own ward of Turnham Green and believed that residents were happy with the service.

NI 195 d- The Chairman was also pleased to note that the target for levels of graffiti was ‘green’ for the first time.

L201 – The target was to reduce offences recorded as criminal damage, including graffiti. Councillor Carey asked what might be gleaned from the fact of graffiti improvement in respect of the overall reduction of offences of criminal damage. However, the Chairman pointed out that there were no figures available for this target at this meeting, although they would be available for the next quarter. Councillor Carey withdrew the question.

Priority Empower – Improving children and young people’s well-being and standards in schools – page 10

L220 – The target related to national attainment indicators. Councillor Oulds advised that this report had been compiled before the public examination results had been known. He was pleased to report that the borough’s examination results showed a substantial improvement in GCSEs and A levels, outstripping the national average. He congratulated the students and to the team providing support to schools. It was especially pleasing to see the 17% increase in GCSE A-C grades for Feltham Community College.

Councillor Oulds reported that the London Borough of Hounslow had also received congratulations from another London borough on the strength of its results. He and Councillor Linda Davies were both incredibly pleased with the results.

Priority Dialogue – Transparency, Accountability and Participation – page 10

L193 – The target related to the delivery of the Improvement Plan. Councillor Todd asked when the savings would be identified.

Stephen Fitzgerald, Director of Finance, advised that what they were saying with the Improvement Plan that a relatively small element of the savings was unachievable, as the result of a technical reason in respect of letting a contract. However, the Budget was set and it was necessary to achieve the full benefits. So the balance would be replaced by other initiatives. The process of identifying these would be reported to members through the usual procedures in due course.

L217 – Councillor Carey asked Councillor Bowen in respect of the target to increase residents’ use of the Council website and the use of E-forms, what assurances he could give that non IT literate customers were not disadvantaged in accessing services or impaired in the service delivery.

Councillor Bowen replied that the system was live and exposed the myth that the authority wanted to decommission all telephones. There were functions available to every person, providing an enhanced service with potential savings. Councillor Bowen stressed that they were not closing the door to anybody but were emulating the private sector in order to improve the service.

Councillor Carey asked whether enquiries had been made of those who were not provided with IT access because they were not able to work the system. He was concerned that such people might be denied services and that there was truth in the myth.

Councillor Bowen believed it was a myth. He referred to the fact that phone contact was more available and provided in an enhanced way in order to release officers to do other things. Councillor Bowen spoke of the importance of his case work for constituents and the opportunity this provided for an objective view of how systems were operating. There were isolated cases of people unhappy about the system, for example where reference numbers had been lost, but he emphasised that these were isolated cases. He was confident that denial of access was not happening.

The Chairman noted that pages 13-14 of the report related to targets reported annually.

Priority Empower – Sustainability into the future – page 11

LAA NI 155 – The target related to delivery of affordable homes. Councillor Hardy commented that although the target was ‘green’ and indeed currently ahead of target, the figures should be considered with caution. He noted that in the recession, builders were building affordable homes first. Councillor Hardy noted that the authority was doing well against the target but should not be complacent.

The Chairman advised that the next pages recorded partnership targets.

LAA NI 4 – The target referred to the number of people who feel that they can influence decisions in their locality. Councillor Carey noted that the commentary referred to a process of implementing action plans. He asked what progress had been made and how far this had reached.

The target listed Councillor Paul Fisher as the Lead Member but Councillor Fisher advised that Councillor Hardy had now taken over the portfolio for Service Improvement.

Councillor Hardy reported that the place survey instigated by central government had given flawed results. Local government at large had identified problems with the methodology. The results were out of date and did not accord with the Residents’ Panel survey. So it had been suggested that Hounslow might do its own survey, face to face with 2000 residents. At present any action had been paused to allow for further reflection.

Councillor Carey asked whether this meant that the action plans would be reconsidered and Councillor Hardy explained that the current consideration was in the respect of use of the place survey or the use of other methodology to obtain results.

LAA NI 181 – The target related to the time taken to process Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit new claims and changes. Councillor Todd commented that although he did not say so lightly, he found the figure meaningless. A report to the Audit Committee had shown improvement, so Councillor Todd found the lack of relevant data disappointing.

Councillor McGregor explained that the source of the data was the Council’s supplier, Liberata. He had no evidence of public concern about the time taken to process claims. He dealt regularly with questions about Council Tax assessment and these were often the result of poor applications.

The Director of Finance, Stephen Fitzgerald, explained that when the schedules were prepared only short abstracts had been included. The technical position was that there was a problem with the system available to process the data on a national basis. The authority did have local data, which showed a significant improvement over the last quarter.

The Director suggested that he should provide a note to all relevant members to clarify what the summary commentary meant and the current position.

The Chairman advised that Appendix C from page 27 on of the Performance Pack related to a basket of indicators selected by the Economic Taskforce to assess how the economic downturn affected the borough. There were difficulties in data designed to report annually or quarterly to obtain a clear picture of the current situation, but this was a best attempt to achieve this.

The Chairman thanked all present for their comments on the Quarterly Performance report and the report was noted.

Resolved:

The report was noted, with the comments raised.

Councillors Carey and Todd and the Scrutiny officers, Sunita Sharma and Alan Weaver, left the meeting at this point.

Report by Councillor Paul Fisher, Executive Member for Communities – Engagement and Safety.

Resolved:

The Executive agreed the recommendations of the report as follows, subject to the additional proposal from the Lead Member that there should be a separate report to the Executive on the Area Committees:

1. That the Executive endorsed the proposals in the report as the response to the Motion on community engagement carried at Borough Council on 21 July.
2. That CMT implement the proposals in the report.
3. That this report also serves as the Council’s implementation of the IDeA report’s recommendations concerning its community engagement activities.
4. That the statement at Annex C is endorsed by the Executive as a clear account of what it expects from officers when undertaking Community Engagement (CE) exercises.
5. That the Executive should receive a separate report on proposals for the Area Committees.

See the report of Councillor Paul Fisher, Lead Member for Communities – Engagement and Safety – Agenda Item 7.

Councillor Paul Fisher introduced the report. The local authority had already stated its commitment to listen to residents via a motion at Borough Council on 21 July in respect of implementing a community engagement strategy. The recommendations of this report provided the means of improving the way that it did so. Councillor Fisher believed that with the right publicity to explain the intentions, the proposals would be embraced by residents and staff. All councillors would have experienced cases of residents asking why they had not been told about something in their area. The proposals allowed for a culture change to set consultation where it was needed and to be realistic about consultation.

Councillor Fisher recommended the People and Participation website, referred to in the report, as a source of good ideas. The Executive proposals followed the IDeA report and it was expected that there would be periodic progress reports to the Executive.

Page 65 of the report referred to the Area Committees and Councillor Fisher wished to propose an amendment to the recommendations as they stood. He believed that consideration of the Area Committees deserved a report in its own right. There were differing views from members, especially on Planning and issues relating to the Area Committee Co-ordinators and Area Committee  Clerks. For example, Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee had recently experienced a different clerk at every meeting and this lack of continuity did not help with matters arising and capital spend.

Councillor Fisher asked members to endorse the recommendations and drew attention to the Toolkit included in the pack.

Councillor McGregor expressed concern at some of the terminology used in the report and on the website, which he did not consider helpful as meanings were unclear. He referred specifically to terms such as ‘design charrette’ and ‘world café’, which he described as ‘New Labour’ language.

Councillor McGregor also asked what the proposals would cost. Councillor Fisher replied that the proposals were basically cost neutral but Councillor McGregor questioned whether this assurance had been received from Finance Department or the operating department and whether it had come from someone financially qualified. Councillor Fisher was unable to confirm this point but the Chairman pointed out that page 30 of the report identified that no additional funds would arise from the changes. However, Councillor McGregor remained sceptical that this would in fact be the case.

Stephen Fitzgerald, Director of Finance, advised that the Director of Finance’s comment in the report had been made in the light of what was currently known. If there proved to be extra costs, a further report would be brought through the usual process, which would usually be to the Executive.

The Chairman noted that this was a valid point and that the Executive needed to be reassured about the financial position.

The Chairman went on to comment that the independent IDeA report made fascinating reading. He agreed that there were also areas requiring more thought. Area Committees had been mentioned and indeed had not been reviewed for ten years. Borough Council was another area the Chairman referred to. He considered that the Council could not continue to do the same things and could not impose member/officer models of engagement on residents. It was important to consider what would attract residents to engage more in Council processes. The Chairman took Councillor McGregor’s point about the language of community engagement, but stressed that the Executive’s commitment was to talking to local residents rather than telling them.

Councillor Hardy regarded the proposals in the report as reiterating something the authority was already doing. He saw this as a process of consolidation, recognising resources were not exhaustive and hence putting the Council’s resources where they would do residents most good, through asking residents’ their priorities.

The Chief Executive referred to the earlier item on Performance Monitoring and explained that much of what was proposed was a matter of a change of style within the existing framework. The Performance Monitoring report had highlighted the greater use of the website, e-forms and e-consultation. On sensitive issues these were alternative, effective ways to obtain residents’ views rather than always using the medium of a public meeting. There were alternative means of consultation to be used which would be cheaper and more effective.

The Chairman took the point about the further work to be done in respect of a report on the Area Committees and with that amendment asked the Executive whether they endorsed the recommendations. The recommendations of the report were agreed.

Resolved:

The Executive agreed the recommendations of the report as follows, subject to the additional proposal from the Lead Member that there should be a separate report to the Executive on the Area Committees:

1. That the Executive endorsed the proposals in the report as the response to the Motion on community engagement carried at Borough Council on 21 July.
2. That CMT implement the proposals in the report.
3. That this report also serves as the Council’s implementation of the IDeA report’s recommendations concerning its community engagement activities.
4. That the statement at Annex C is endorsed by the Executive as a clear account of what it expects from officers when undertaking Community Engagement (CE) exercises.
5. That the Executive should receive a separate report on proposals for the Area Committees.

Report by Councillor Jon Hardy, Executive Member for Housing and Service Improvement.

Resolved:

1. That the Executive agreed to the allocation of Housing Revenue Account (HRA) funds from the sale of 61 Barrowgate Road, Chiswick, W4 4QT for the refurbishment of Elm Court, 10 Spencer Road, Chiswick, W4 3SN. Elm Court is a property within the HRA. The building costs will be £308,765 plus on costs of £15,000 to provide 11 self contained rooms for young mothers with communal and office facilities for support staff.
2. That the Executive agreed to Hounslow Homes contracting for the building works with Apollo Building Services under the existing Framework agreement. Hounslow Homes will manage the building contract on behalf of the Council.
3. That the Executive agreed that the Joint Commissioning Team select a support service provider under the terms of the Supporting People Framework agreement. The support provider will be expected to provide a full housing management support service.
4. That the Executive agreed Community Services and Children’s Services and Lifelong Learning will develop partnership arrangements involving Targeted Youth Support. Connexions and the Leaving Care service and Health colleagues to deliver co-located services based at Elm Court to support young mothers towards independence.

See the report of Councillor Jon Hardy, Lead Member for Housing and Service Improvement – Agenda Item 8.

Councillor Hardy introduced the report and commented that it was a privilege to bring forward good news. He referred to an earlier report brought to the Executive in February, which agreed a strategy for the borough’s hostel accommodation and reconsideration of the future of the hostel stock, following a decline in demand. There had been an evaluation of use of the existing hostels to adapt to meet current demands. This report related to specific proposals for alternative use for one small hostel, but was also linked to proposals for St Margarets hostel which was too outdated and no longer fit for purpose.

The present report proposed to use the capital receipt from the sale of the Council property in Barrowgate Road to resite the provision for young mothers and children from St Margarets to Elm Court. St Margarets would then be reutilised as an Assessment Centre for young people. The funds from the sale of the Barrowgate Road property would be used to refurbish Elm Court and the remaining hostel stock.

At Elm Court it was proposed to create 11 bedsits with self contained and community space, at a cost of £324k. The floor plans were included with the report and provided good accommodation for young mothers. Some existing services would be co-located to the hostel to encourage the young people to achieve independent living. The young mothers would stay from 6 months to 2 years, so they would not get embedded in the hostel but stability would be provided to enable the young women and their children to move to independent living in social housing. The arrangements were being developed with Children’s Services and provided an exciting new opportunity.

Councillor Hardy commended the recommendations of the report to the Executive.  

Councillor Paul Fisher noted that the relevant ward at page 72 of the report was shown incorrectly as Hounslow Heath. Councillor Hardy confirmed that this was an error as Elm Court was in Spencer Road, Chiswick, although the provision was relevant borough wide.

The Chairman welcomed the development, pointing out that St Margarets had been decommissioned as a home for older people ten years ago.

The Executive endorsed the recommendations of the report.

Resolved:

1. That the Executive agreed to the allocation of Housing Revenue Account (HRA) funds from the sale of 61 Barrowgate Road, Chiswick, W4 4QT for the refurbishment of Elm Court, 10 Spencer Road, Chiswick, W4 3SN. Elm Court is a property within the HRA. The building costs will be £308,765 plus on costs of £15,000 to provide 11 self contained rooms for young mothers with communal and office facilities for support staff.
2. That the Executive agreed to Hounslow Homes contracting for the building works with Apollo Building Services under the existing Framework agreement. Hounslow Homes will manage the building contract on behalf of the Council.
3. That the Executive agreed that the Joint Commissioning Team select a support service provider under the terms of the Supporting People Framework agreement. The support provider will be expected to provide a full housing management support service.
4. That the Executive agreed Community Services and Children’s Services and Lifelong Learning will develop partnership arrangements involving Targeted Youth Support. Connexions and the Leaving Care service and Health colleagues to deliver co-located services based at Elm Court to support young mothers towards independence.

Report by Councillor Pamela Fisher, Executive Member for Adult Social Service and Health.

Resolved:

1. The Executive reviewed the work carried out by staff in protecting vulnerable adults and the work of the Safeguarding Adults Team over the past year and approved the Action Plans for 2009/2010.
2. The Executive also passed their thanks to the team for the difficult but important work they undertook.

See the report of Councillor Pamela Fisher, Lead Member for Adult Social Care and Health – Agenda Item 9.

Councillor Fisher had also circulated to the Executive members at the meeting copies of the yellow leaflet advertising the services available in respect of Adult Abuse. The main report provided a summary of the work of the Safeguarding Team in the London Borough of Hounslow. Councillor Fisher reminded members that this was a Hounslow Plan priority, which was as important as Child Protection.

Paragraph 2.3 of the report set out the targets and paragraph 2.4 provided the key statistics and instances of abuse. It was considered that the rise in numbers indicated increased reporting rather than increased instances. Councillor Fisher noted that it was good news to see that the training and communications were working both to encourage better reporting and to show that it would be possible to stop abuse taking place. It was proposed to train staff, raise awareness and learn from good practice such as the introduction of Champions, contact points, advice and awareness training. All these initiatives had been successful elsewhere.

Councillor Fisher reported that Adults Services would be subject to external inspection in January 2010. She reported that this was a service to be proud of, which would continue to provide leadership to enhance the services with partners. Councillor Fisher commended the recommendations of the report to the Executive.

The Chairman also drew the comparison with Child Protection and commented that it was staggering what people would do. He noted that increased reporting resulted from more education and public awareness. This was a vitally important area and he was delighted to see the reassurance that there was a robust system in place. He welcomed the receipt of the report by the Executive.

Councillor Fisher pointed out that page 195 of the report detailed the type of abuse. She noted that Adult Services had an excellent team, working with GPs, the police and hospitals to encourage these groups to train their own staff. As a result people were no longer frightened to report abuse.

The Chairman advised the Executive that they were asked to note the Plan. He also wished to send thanks to the team to show that the Executive appreciated the difficult but important work they did. Councillor Fisher noted that one of the officers responsible for the Annual Report, Val Norris, was present. The Chairman asked her to please pass thanks to the team.

The Executive endorsed the recommendations of the report.

Resolved:

1. The Executive reviewed the work carried out by staff in protecting vulnerable adults and the work of the Safeguarding Adults Team over the past year and approved the Action Plans for 2009/2010.
2. The Executive also passed their thanks to the team for the difficult but important work they undertook.

Report by Councillor Barbara Reid, Executive Member for Environment.

Resolved:

The Executive agreed the recommendations of the report as follows, with two amendments:

1. The Executive noted the Transport for London funded programme of improvements to transport infrastructure and the street environment and provision of road safety education and travel demand management initiatives, from 2007/08 to 2009/10, under the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) process;
2. The Executive noted the review of the LIP process effective from the transitional year 2010/11, and
3. The Executive reviewed and approved the proposed LIP submission to Transport for London for 2010/11, as set out in Tables 4-6, which closes on 21 September 2009.
4. The Executive agreed the following amendment to the proposals in the report:

·        At page 224, Table 6, it was agreed to leave out Reference 4 and to replace it with the following :

Ref

Package Name & Location

Package Description

Area

Approx Cost

4

Installation of a zebra crossing outside Feltham Hill Infant and Nursery School, Bedfont Road, Feltham

Installation of a zebra crossing to improve road safety for vulnerable pedestrians

WAC

35

5. The Executive also agreed that in respect of the development of Car Clubs (Item 18, page 225), that these should not be introduced without the specific approval of the Area Committees.

See the report of Councillor Reid, Lead Member for Environment – Agenda Item 10.

Councillor Reid introduced the report, which set out the borough’s proposed submission of the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) for 2010/11. Transport for London had significant funds committed for schemes to support the LIP and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. The new Mayor was compiling a new strategy currently with new principles. Key targets were protecting the environment and decreasing pollution. The new formula reduced bureaucracy and gave more empowerment to the local authority.

The main purpose of the report was to gain Executive approval for the LIP submission. A summary was given at page 221 and the Plan compared favourably to the previous submissions. The Plan had been to Area Committees for consideration and there had been some minor amendments made as a result. Major treatment was proposed along Twickenham Road, together with pedestrian facilities, the removal of street clutter and sustainab;e travel.

Councillor Bowen had tabled a proposed amendment to the Local Implementation Plan, namely to remove the present reference 4 in Table 6 in the Plan and add in its place ‘Installation of a zebra crossing outside Feltham Hill Infant and Nursery School, Bedfont Road, Feltham.’ Funding was available. Councillor Reid thanked Councillor Bowen for putting forward the amendment and was happy to accept it.

Councillor Lin Davies seconded the amendment. Councillor Bowen thanked members for accepting the amendment, which would be popular with parents.

The Chairman noted that the Plan had been considered by the Area Committees. He also explained that the new Mayor allowed for more flexibility so that if a scheme could not be progressed, then the money could be moved elsewhere.

Councillor McGregor referred to Item 18, page 225 in respect of Car Clubs. Councillor McGregor commented that when Car Clubs had been considered at the Chiswick Area Committee, there had been widespread concern about the locations where officers had allocated bays, especially in areas where there was limited parking provision and the Car Club bays reduced parking space. There had been particular issues concerning parking spaces in Turnham Green ward and an attempt to introduce Car Club bays in Homefields ward. Councillor McGregor noted that Car Clubs were commercial opportunities, making use of the areas. Given the previous concerns, Councillor McGregor sought assurances that Car Clubs would not be introduced without the specific approval of the Area Committees.

Councillor Reid was willing to give that assurance as she was aware of the same issues at the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee. She was in favour of Car Clubs but recognised the need to protect existing parking provision for residents. She understood that ward councillors were consulted before proposals for Car Clubs were put to the Area Committee.

Councillor Hardy confirmed from his own experience that the consultation with ward councillors was happening. He understood that every Car Club removed the need for 7-8 places for additional cars.

The Executive agreed to the recommendations of the report, as amended, with the point that Councillor McGregor had made in respect of consultation on Car Clubs.

Resolved:

The Executive agreed the recommendations of the report as follows, with two amendments:

1. The Executive noted the Transport for London funded programme of improvements to transport infrastructure and the street environment and provision of road safety education and travel demand management initiatives, from 2007/08 to 2009/10, under the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) process;
2. The Executive noted the review of the LIP process effective from the transitional year 2010/11, and
3. The Executive reviewed and approved the proposed LIP submission to Transport for London for 2010/11, as set out in Tables 4-6, which closes on 21 September 2009.
4. The Executive agreed the following amendment to the proposals in the report:

·        At page 224, Table 6, it was agreed to leave out Reference 4 and to replace it with the following new Reference 4 :

Package name and location: Installation of a zebra crossing outside Feltham Hill Infant and Nursery School, Bedfont Road, Feltham

Package Description: Installation of a zebra crossing to improve road safety for vulnerable pedestrians.

Area: West Area Committee (WAC)

Approximate cost: £35k

5. The Executive also agreed that in respect of the development of Car Clubs (Item 18, page 225), that these should not be introduced without the specific approval of the Area Committees.

Report by Councillor Linda Davies, Executive Member for Children’s Services and Family.

Resolved:

That the Executive approved the strategy to deliver across the Borough the free childcare for 2 year old children pilot.

See the report by Councillor Linda Davies, Lead Member for Children’s Services and Family – Agenda Item 11.

Councillor Linda Davies explained that the report referred to a pilot to grant free childcare places to 2 year olds over a two year period. The pilot offered 157 places in 2009-10 and 157 in 2010-11 for the most disadvantaged children. The intention was to help these children’s speech, language and social skills.

Paragraph 2.5 of the report set out the criteria for families and Appendix 1 set out the criteria for providers. Paragraph 2.9 set out the cost of the scheme over 2 years.

Councillor Davies considered that this would be a beneficial scheme and asked the Executive to endorse the recommendations.

Councillor McGregor pointed out that the pilot funding could not be considered as free as the grant was funded centrally by tax payers. Paragraph 2.9 of the report and the Director of Finance’s comments made it clear that the allocated funding was for two years. After that the borough might need to find resources itself and Councillor McGregor drew attention to pressures on the budget.

Councillor McGregor also questioned the criteria. He noted that Paragraph 2.5.2.6 amongst the list of priority groups included those currently seeking asylum whilst the eligibility criteria at Paragraph 2.5.1 required the family to be in receipt of one of a list of benefits. As asylum seekers could not claim benefits, the criteria did not seem to match up.

Councillor Linda Davies suggested that she email Councillor McGregor outside the meeting with more detailed comment on this point.

The Chairman spoke positively of the policy and noted that it accorded with Conservative Party commitment, which acknowledged that every penny spent in early age paid benefits for the child. However, he was aware of reports in the Sunday press querying the effectiveness of the scheme in respect of the amount payable to childcare providers. The offer to families was set as up to £6 per hour but most private, independent providers could not provide childcare for £6 per hour. He asked whether it was expected that this would have an impact in Hounslow on the availability of childcare places and whether people would be turned away, if the amount families were receiving did not cover the cost. He accepted that the scheme could have been misrepresented in the Sunday paper.

Councillor Bowen also supported the aims of the scheme but wondered whether the eligibility criteria correctly captured all the children at highest risk of under-achievement. For example, the criteria referred to lone parents but he stressed that there were children who should be in the cohort who had two parents. Similarly, Paragraph 2.3.2 identified deprived areas. Whilst those areas listed covered most of the borough, there were also pockets of deprivation elsewhere such as in Chiswick Homefields ward. Councillor Bowen noted that ward councillors would want to be reassured that cases of deprivation in such areas were not lost to the scheme.  

Councillor Bowen spoke of the commitment to cradle to the grave lifelong learning and commented that ethically he saw no problem with tax payers’ money enhancing achievement in the long term.

Councillor Linda Davies suggested that she might report back on some of these points. She agreed that there were children in Chiswick as well who would benefit from the scheme. However, only 157 places were available borough wide so the department had looked at the areas where there were more children in need of care.

The Chairman invited the Director of Children’s Services and Lifelong Learning, Judith Pettersen, to comment on the eligibility criteria.

Judith Pettersen explained that the criteria were based on the DCSF guidance, but were constructed widely to allow the authority to pick up on cases. For example, an audit in Feltham identified a teenage parent who a social worker referred to the scheme, which in turn gave the authority more purchase on child protection.

The Director suggested that the experience of the pilot could be used to rectify any errors in the criteria.

The Director acknowledged that the funding per hour was a problem. The scheme had been discussed with private providers but this was not part of the market that they were keen to develop. There might be a case in each part of the borough in developing provision for two year olds in Children’s Centres or school based Nurseries. The scheme was not economically attractive to the private sector.

Councillor Stewart asked whether, while receiving tax payer funding, these parents would be forced to enter training or opt out of the scheme. The Director explained that the borough was not in a position to dictate the use of the time. The idea of the scheme was to offer a service and get entry into a situation. Experience suggested that those with younger children were more likely to co-operate with the services.

Councillor Stewart advised that she would like to see a tangible benefit to tax payers’ funding and suggested feedback on how many had taken up training at the end of the pilot.

Councillor Bowen agreed that this was an important point. In respect of educational achievement, research suggested that long term prospects were enhanced where parents were in the world of work. So using the scheme as part ‘stick’, part ‘carrot’ with some form of contract in return for the support would deliver a ‘win/win’ situation.

Councillor Reid drew attention to Paragraphs 2.3.3 and 2.5.3 of the report, which recognised that the eligibility criteria were guidelines and that it was possible to assess and accommodate individual circumstances. She suggested that the pilot scheme should not lose sight of these caveats, since it was recognised that there might be other areas, so that a child in Chiswick could be considered.

The Executive agreed the recommendations of the report.

Resolved:

That the Executive approved the strategy to deliver across the Borough the free childcare for 2 year old children pilot.

Report by Councillor Peter Thompson, Leader of the Council.

Resolved:

The Executive agreed the recommendations of the report to:

1. Ratify the allocation of £1.25 million to the BSF programme in 2009/10 as agreed by the Executive on 5 May 2009.
2. Authorise the Director of Finance to draw up to £250,000 from the Performance Improvement Fund during 2009-10 to fund any expenditure incurred on this project in excess of £1.25 million during 2009-10.

See the report of Councillor Thompson, Leader of the Council – Agenda Item 12.

Councillor Robert Oulds, Lead Member for Children Services and Education, introduced the report. He explained that the Building Schools for the Future programme had been discussed at the previous Executive meeting in June. This report set out recommendations for the funding to take the programme forward. Pages 235 and 236 of the report set out the reasons for taking it forward.

The Executive agreed to ratify the recommendations of the report.

Resolved:

The Executive agreed the recommendations of the report to:

1. Ratify the allocation of £1.25 million to the BSF programme in 2009/10 as agreed by the Executive on 5 May 2009.
2. Authorise the Director of Finance to draw up to £250,000 from the Performance Improvement Fund during 2009-10 to fund any expenditure incurred on this project in excess of £1.25 million during 2009-10.

Any business which the Chair agrees to accept on grounds of urgency.

There was no urgent business.

There was no urgent business.

To resolve that the public and press be asked to leave the meeting during discussion of the remaining items of business because exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known.

Please note that members of the public and press must leave the meeting at this point.

Resolved:

That the public and press be asked to leave the meeting during discussion of the remaining items of business because exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known.

Resolved:

That the public and press be asked to leave the meeting during discussion of the remaining items of business because exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known.

Report by Councillor Rebecca Stewart, Executive Member for Leisure.

Resolved:

That the recommendations of the report and the supplementary report be agreed.

Reference the confidential report and the late supplementary report – Agenda Item 15.

The Chairman drew members’ attention to the late supplementary report, circulated that day, which gave details of the tenders. The report related to works to extend the life of Brentford Fountains Leisure Centre and repair works on the community halls. Additional costs in respect of the Leisure Centre works and the need to meet renewable energy requirements had led to a shortfall in the budget. As a result it was proposed to enhance the community halls over a three year programme rather than the original, more extensive, 15 year programme.

Councillor Bowen asked what the authority would no longer be committed to doing, in respect of the impact on residents. Councillor Stewart, Lead Member for Leisure, explained that the first phase of works on the community halls as proposed would bring the halls up to standard to make them useable and health and safety compliant. Usage and take up would also be considered.

The Chairman stressed that this was the most favourable option in the circumstances and avoided less acceptable alternatives.

Resolved:

That the recommendations of the report and the supplementary report be agreed.

Report by Councillor Pamela Fisher, Executive Member for Adult Social Services and Health.

Resolved:

That the recommendations of the report be agreed.

Reference the confidential report by Councillor Pamela Fisher, Lead Member for Adult Social Services and Health – Agenda Item 16.

Councillor Pamela Fisher advised that the report set out the outcome of a tendering process to provide an information and advice service that would also be available to carers. It was proposed to award the contract to Age Concern Hounslow, although the service would be for all groups not just older people.  This was an important service with the expectation that the contractor would encourage people to lead active, healthy lives. The contract would start on 1 October 2009 running to 30 September 2012, with the option to extend.

Councillor Fisher asked the Executive to endorse the recommendations of the report. Councillor McGregor expressed his willingness to second this proposal, welcoming the receipt of the report and the outcome of a sound tendering process.

Resolved:

That the recommendations of the report be agreed.

There were no urgent confidential items.

There were no urgent confidential items.