Venue: Council Chamber, York House, Richmond Road, Twickenham
\n\t\t\t\tContact: Ron Schrieber, Head of Democratic Services, 020 8831 6274, Email: r.schrieber@richmond.gov.uk \n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\tItems\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\tNo.\n\t\t\tItem\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tMINUTES PDF 87 KB
\nTo approve as a correct record the Minutes of\nthe Council held on 2 December 2008\nattached.
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 2 December\n2008 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
\n\n\nMembers are asked to\ndeclare any interests in matters for consideration at the\nmeeting.
Minutes:
During debate on Item 13, Notices of Motion,\nCouncillor Warren declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of his\nworking at Heathrow Airport and left the room.
PETITIONS
\nTo receive Petitions in accordance with\nCouncil Procedure Rule 2.1 (iv).
Minutes:
The following petition was presented and, in\naccordance with the constitution, referred to the relevant Cabinet\nMember/Committee Chair for a response:
\n\n
Councillor Samuel - Request for pavement\nparking to be implemented in the upper part of Rectory Grove,\nHampton from the residents of Rectory Grove. (Cabinet Member for\nTraffic, Transport and Parking).
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
\n\n\n(a) Mr Brian Holder has given notice to ask the Cabinet Member for\nTraffic, Transport and Parking:
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\"Both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties say they have\n\"Clean and Green\" policies for the Borough. Cycling and Walking are\nboth clean and green. Would not Councillor\nTrigg therefore agree with the\nTeddington Society that it would be a\ngood idea to reintroduce Cycle Liaison Group meetings (last one\nheld on 27th February 2007), and to introduce a Walking\nStrategy based on the Borough's March 2002 Action Plan, thus\ndemonstrating a commitment to reducing all types of air pollution -\nnot just CO2 \n?\n\"
Minutes:
\n(a) In accordance with\nnotice given, Mr Brian Holder asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic,\nTransport and Parking Committee:
\n\n
\n\n\"Both the\nConservative and Liberal Democrat Parties say they have \"Clean and\nGreen\" policies for the Borough. Cycling and Walking are both clean\nand green. Would not Councillor Trigg therefore agree with the\nTeddington Society, that it would be a\ngood idea to reintroduce Cycle Liaison Group meetings (last one\nheld on 27th February 2007), and to introduce a Walking\nStrategy based on the Borough's March 2002 Action Plan, thus\ndemonstrating a commitment to reducing all types of air pollution -\nnot just CO2\n?\"
\n\n
\n\nCouncillor Trigg replied in\nthe following terms:
\n\n
\n\"I am grateful\nto the Teddington Society for their\nsupport for the Council's green vision as set out in our Community\nand Corporate Plans. The Council recently appointed a new Senior\nEngineer with lead responsibility for cycling and he is in the\nprocess of arranging a Cycle Liaison Group meeting in February.\nWalking will feature prominently in the Council's new Transport and\nSmarter Travel Richmond strategies, both of which are currently\nbeing drafted and will be completed within the next four\nmonths\".
\n\n
\n\nMr Holder\nasked a supplementary question as to whether funding would be set\naside to ensure that all cycling and walking routes, including\nthose crossing footbridges as at\nTeddington Station, were made\nfully accessible to\ncyclists, wheelchair and pushchair users, and to anyone unable\nclimb steps. Councillor Trigg stated that he endorsed the feelings\nand views of the Teddington Society,\nbut said that the borough infrastructure, built up over the years,\nmeant there could be issues with respect to combining\nfacilities for cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled. Wherever\npossible, conflicts would be resolved but it was not always\npossible to do so. He would be seeking to get the maximum amount of\nfunding so that such conflicts were addressed.
\n
MEMBERS' QUESTIONS PDF 25 KB
\n\n\nTo receive questions from Members in accordance with Council\nProcedure Rule 11.2, of which due notice has been\ngiven.
\n\n\n
\n\n\nAttached.
Additional documents:
\nMinutes:
\n(a)\nIn accordance with notice\ngiven, Councillor Cranfield-Adams asked the Leader and Cabinet\nMember for Strategy and Partnerships:
\n\n
\n\n\"To ask the\nLeader of the Council what duty of care the Council has to its\nelected members?\"
\n\n
\n\nCouncillor Lourie replied\nin the following terms:
\n\n
\n\"By\nlaw, the Council has a legal obligation to take care to apply a\nreasonable standard of care while carrying out or performing any\nact which could cause foreseeable harm or damage to an\nindividual\".
\n\n
\n\nCouncillor Cranfield-Adams\nasked a supplementary question regarding the Leader's intentions\ntowards the culture from the top down of deceit, deception and\ndishonesty as alleged by correspondence in the local Press.\nCouncillor Lourie stated that he did not accept Councillor\nCranfield-Adams description of the Council and refuted entirely\nwhat he had said.
\n\n
\n(b)\nIn accordance with notice given, Councillor Michael Wilson asked\nthe Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and\nPartnerships:
\n\n
\n\n\"What progress\nis being made on the Twickenham Riverside Development, the public\nopen space and the Riverside Centre?\"
\n\n
\n\nCouncillor Lourie replied\nin the following terms:
\n\n
\n\"The\nCouncil is making considerable progress. We have received three\nsets of initial proposals in December 2008 from prospective\ndevelopers, and are currently in the process of negotiation that is\ntesting the extent to which these may be improved.
\n\n
\nThe\nnext step in the procurement process is that we will shortly be\nissuing an invitation to tender, with a view to receiving firm\nproposals by the beginning of March. A three week public\nconsultation will follow and will include a public exhibition in\nthe first week. Cabinet will take final decision as to the\npreferred developer on 27 April\".
\n\n
\n\nCouncillor Wilson asked a\nsupplementary question as to whether the Leader of the Council\nagreed that underhand tactics had been shown by the Leader of the\nOpposition in writing to potential developers interested in\nrenewing the Twickenham Riverside. Councillor Lourie replied that\nhe was appalled by the Opposition's tactics and that the threat,\nwhich was subsequently withdrawn, to withdraw funding from\norganisations that were involved with the scheme was entirely\nunacceptable.
\n\n
\n\nCouncillor Samuel asked a\nsupplementary question as to whether the Leader of the Council\nagreed that refusing to publish the full Business Plan, which was\nrequested by the Scrutiny Commission in November and the\nunjustified refusal of a Freedom of Information request, served\nonly to confirm that this was a flawed and unworkable Business Plan\nfor an unpopular and unwanted project. Councillor Lourie replied\nthat he had no objection to proper scrutiny, but considered it to\nbe unacceptable to bully members representing the Environment Trust\nby threatening to withdraw grant to organisations, and unacceptable\nthat the Leader of the Opposition had written to developers\nexplaining his position on this matter, which was extremely\nunhelpful.
\n\n
\n\nCouncillor Williams asked\na supplementary question as to whether the Leader of the Council\nagreed with him that the redevelopment of the Twickenham Baths site\nwould have a great benefit in regenerating Twickenham town centre\nand improving its commercial viability. Councillor Lourie agreed\nwith the statement and added that one of the major impacts of the\nscheme would be to improve a long derelict piece of land. This\nproject was a continuation of the Twickenham Challenge, and he\nhoped that one of the three projects would find general\nacceptance.
\n\n
\n(c)\nIn accordance with notice given, Councillor Munira Wilson asked the\nCabinet Member for Environment:
\n\n
\n\n\"Could the\nCabinet Member for Environment make a statement on public support\nfor the Crane Valley Park bid to the Mayor's Priority Parks\nscheme?\"
\n\n
\nCouncillor Elengorn replied in the following\nterms:
\n\n
\n\"This Council has been working closely with\nthe London Borough of Hounslow and FORCE (Friends of the River\nCrane) to gain public support for the Crane Valley Park Bid. FORCE\nhas delivered 10,000 flyers to local properties, and we, the\nCouncil, have managed to get numerous articles in the local press.\nWe have no certain way of knowing how many people have voted, but\nwe are confident that public support will be high as a result of\nthe efforts made to publicise the bid\".
\n\n
\nCouncillor Munira Wilson asked a supplementary\nquestion as to whether the Cabinet Member was aware that local\nschools and local Councillors had also been involved in the\ncampaign to maximise the public vote for Crane Park. Councillor\nElengorn commended the great deal of effort made locally and the\npresentations at school assemblies to publicise the campaign. He\nhoped that a very substantial vote would result. Councillor\nElengorn also stated that it had been an all party effort and that\nhe and Councillor Seymour had been photographed together for the\ncampaign.
\n\n
\nCouncillor Seymour thanked the Cabinet Member\nfor Environment for acknowledging the cross-party support shown to\nthe Mayor's initiative and asked a supplementary question as to\nwhat compensating funds the Cabinet Member for Environment might\nmake available if the bid was unsuccessful. Councillor Elengorn\nreplied that in the event of the bid being unsuccessful, the\nCouncil would speak to its partners and see what was possible.
\n\n
\n\n(d)\n \nIn accordance with notice\ngiven, Councillor Stanier asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic,\nTransport and Parking:
\n\n\n
\n\n\"What steps is\nthe Council taking to ensure that\nAirtrack does not inconvenience local\nresidents?\"
\n\n\n
\nCouncillor Trigg replied in the following\nterms:
\n\n\n
\n\"The borough has taken a positive but cautious\nview of BAA's\nAirtrack proposals. While\nAirtrack could contribute to a better\ntransport network, it could also exacerbate traffic and severance\nproblems, and reduce the amenity of areas bordering the proposed\nsite.
\n\n
Our submission to BAA argued that before\nRichmond could endorse the project, a more detailed assessment of\nthe impact of the proposals was required, with appropriate\nmitigation measures identified.
\n\n
We are working with BAA to undertake a major\ntraffic study in the Sheen-Mortlake\narea to collect data to assist in assessing impact on the borough\nin that area in particular\".
\n\n
Councillor Bennett asked a supplementary\nquestion requesting the Cabinet Member to emphasise that worries\nabout this scheme were separate from worries about the threatened\nexpansion at Heathrow. Councillor Trigg agreed as the proposals for\nAirtrack were a result of Terminal 5\nand not future development.
\n\n
Councillor Beevor asked a supplementary\nquestion requesting confirmation that\nAirtrack planned to use the old Feltham\nMarshalling Yards as their depot, and that vehicles would be\naccessing the depot from roads via Godfrey Way, Hounslow.\nCouncillor Trigg replied that the Marshalling Yard site would be\nused for stabling trains for maintenance and cleaning. He confirmed\nthat Richmond was working closely with Hounslow on how the impact\nof traffic in Heathfield could be\nmitigated; and with FORCE on the ecological value of that site. The\nCouncil was fully aware of the potential impacts there and was\nworking with all respective parties to gain maximum benefit for the\nborough.
\n\n
(e) In\naccordance with notice\ngiven, Councillor Marlow asked the Cabinet Member for Children's\nServices and Education:
\n\n
\n\"Can the\nCabinet Member detail for us all the messages of support for his\nAcademy sponsors which he has received from the link schools of the\nthree proposed Academies?\"
\n\n
\nCouncillor Eady replied in\nthe following terms:
\n\n
\"Whilst some governing bodies of the link\nschools have discussed the proposed academies, none of them\nresponded to the initial fact-finding exercise that took place\nduring the summer term. Positive responses were reported at the\nAutumn Cabinet Meeting on academies. Full, wide-ranging\nconsultations with academies will take place during feasibility. If\nin the meantime Cllr Marlow wishes to look for support of our two\nacademy sponsors, I think he could do no better than to first ask\nCouncillor Les Longs, who is the Conservative Cabinet Member for\nChildren's Services in Birmingham, and they a year or so ago\nawarded Edutrust a further third\nschool. He could also have a look at the video that was shown at\nthe Conservative Party Conference which showed the Shadow Member\nfor Education being shown round\nKunskapsskolan schools, and if he\nlistens to it he will be able to listen to Michael\nGove's positive comments.\"
\n\n
\nCouncillor Marlow asked a supplementary\nquestion as to how the opposition from all the schools in Hampton\nNorth, including Hampton Community College (HCC), to the proposed\nsponsors, Kunskapsskolan was being\naddressed. Councillor Eady replied that the only school that had\npublicly declared it was not in favour of\nKunskapsskolan was HCC.
\n\n
\nCouncillor Fleming asked a supplementary\nquestion as to what action was being taken to address the concerns\nof parents and pupils, as reported in the press, about the future\nof Shene School and the uncertainty and\nspeculation surrounding Edutrust.\nCouncillor Eady replied that in early February there would be a\nmeeting with the Minister, Jim Knight, the two MPs and the Director\nto discuss this. Back in September the Expressions of Interest had\nbeen signed off and had now been signed off by the two sponsors.\nMinisterial sign-off was awaited and it was not expected to be\ndelayed.
\n\n
\nCouncillor Nicholson asked a supplementary\nquestion requesting further details on the progress of the Academy\ndecisions. Councillor Eady replied that the\nKunskapskolan decisions were with the\nMinister, but it was difficult to say exactly when they would be\nsigned.
\n\n
\n\n(f)\nIn accordance with notice\ngiven, Councillor Jones asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for\nStrategy and Partnerships:
\n\n
\n\n\"What steps\nare the Council taking to combat the expansion of Heathrow\nAirport?\"
\n\n
\nCouncillor Lourie replied in the following\nterms:
\n\n
\n\"We co-piloted and co-chaired the 2M Group, we\nalso have a productive partnership with the Richmond/Heathrow\nCampaign and we have excellent officer support. Through 2M our high\nprofile press coverage secured the delay until January 2009 because\nof concerns in Government about the legality in what they were\ndoing. The dropping of 'mixed mode' is also a win.
\n\n
The promotion of high speed rail shows that we\nare positive and not just NIMBYs. We\nalso have a powerful ally in the EU Commissioner who will make sure\nthat the Government cannot allow expansion by ignoring pollution\nrules\".
\n\n
\nCouncillor Jones asked a supplementary\nquestion on whether the Leader would like to comment on the Mayor\nof London's proposal for an airport in the Thames Estuary.\nCouncillor Lourie replied that he believed that the view of most of\nthe Members of 2M was that this matter should be discussed\nseparately from a discussion about the expansion of Heathrow.
\n\n
\nCouncillor Arbour asked a supplementary\nquestion on whether the Leader of the Council realised that the\nonly way of being certain that there would not be a third runway\nwas to elect a Conservative Government. Councillor Lourie replied\nby disagreeing with Councillor Arbour's comment and stated that not\nall Conservative MPs opposed expansion.
\n\n
\nCouncillor Wilson asked a supplementary\nquestion on whether the Leader of the Council was aware that on the\nnight of the Government announcement, Shadow Conservative Transport\nSpokesperson, Teresa Villiers, had refused to guarantee that there\nwould be no expansion in London and the South East if the\nConservative Government came to power at the next election.\nCouncillor Lourie replied that he was not aware of this, but, when\nhe had appeared with Teresa Villiers on radio and TV programmes,\nshe had not make it clear that the Conservative Party were opposed\nto the expansion of Heathrow.
\n\n
\n(g)\nIn accordance with\nnotice given, Councillor Davies asked the Cabinet Member for Adult\nServices, Health and Housing:
\n\n
\n\n\"Can the\nCabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing comment on\nthe respite services for adults with learning disabilities at\nEgerton Road?\"
\n\n
\n\nCouncillor Carr replied in\nthe following terms:
\n\n
\n\"Egerton Road is a\nsix-bedded respite care service for adults with learning\ndisabilities. The respite service provides short term care to\nadults with learning disabilities and allows their carers to have a\nbreak.
\n\n
\nFollowing an unannounced inspection in October\nby the Commission for Social Care Inspection, it was awarded a 3\nstar excellent rating. The inspection report was based on both the\nvisit by an inspector and feedback from service users and\ncarers\".
\n\n
\nCouncillor Davies asked a supplementary\nquestion regarding whether views of the carers had been canvassed.\nCouncillor Carr replied that the inspection had canvassed the views\nof the carers and confirmed that she had been able to speak to some\nof the carers. She stated that there were three aspects of the\nservice that the carers particularly valued. The first one was the\nstaff, which was strong and stable at\nEgerton Road. The booking arrangements\nput in place give reassurance to carers that they could plan ahead\nfor respite breaks, which they saw as an enormous advantage. The\ncarers were also very impressed by the range of activities provided\nat Egerton Road while people with\nlearning disabilities were staying there. Finally, the facility\nitself, the house and garden, were a credit to the team who ran it\nand very much valued by the carers.
\n\n
\nCouncillor Urquhart asked a supplementary\nquestion about how often respite beds were used and what was being\ndone to address the needs of other carer groups requiring respite.\nCouncillor Carr replied by stating that\nEgerton Road respite was very well used\nand the booking system had allowed carers to plan. Respite services\nfor carers across the borough, both for people with learning\ndisabilities and other needs, was a key action area in the carers'\nstrategy. Residential respite was only one kind of respite and\nthere were many other kinds of home based and activity based\nrespite which people with learning disabilities, older people and\npeople with physical disabilities also valued.
\n\n
\nCouncillor Allen asked a supplementary\nquestion as to whether the Cabinet Member could share the views of\nthe users of the service. Councillor Carr replied that whilst\nvisiting Egerton Road, she had spoken\nto some of the users. They valued the opportunity to meet and share\nactivities with their friends. Users were very complimentary about\nthe staff and the carers saw the interpersonal aspects of the staff\nall around the service. They were also very complimentary about the\nfood.
\n\n
\n(h)\nIn accordance with\nnotice given, Councillor Miller asked\nCabinet Member for\nEnvironment:
\n\n
\n\n\"Could the\nCabinet Member for Environment make a statement on the effect of\nthe Environment Agency's Local Levy for Flood Prevention schemes on\nthe Borough?\"
\n\n
\n\nCouncillor Elengorn\nreplied in the following terms:
\n\n
\n\"I represent the former South West London\nboroughs on the Thames Regional Sub Defence Committee. This Council\nbudgeted for the Committee's forecast 10% increase in a levy for\n2009/10. Unfortunately I was in the minority of one on the Flood\nDefence Committee as authorities represented by Tory and Labour\nMembers had apparently made no such extra provision and voted for a\nzero increase. We may now have to wait some years for feasibility\nstudies on projects such as Beverley Brook in Kingston and making\nspace for water in Ham and Petersham.\nThe saving to this borough from a zero increase is about \u00c2\u00a317,000, a\nfalse economy given the urgent need to address potential flooding\nproblems\".
\n\n
\nCouncillor Miller asked a supplementary\nquestion regarding the risk to residents living along the river.\nCouncillor Elengorn replied that he considered that the action by\ncolleagues from other boroughs and parties on the Defence Committee\nto be extraordinarily short-sighted. In this borough the threat of\nfluvial flooding, tidal flooding and surface water flooding was\nreal and the Council was known to be very active, as evidenced by\nthe Scrutiny Report on surface water flooding. Richmond and\nKingston had been awarded a grant from DEFRA of \u00c2\u00a350,000 to start\nthe work on the surface water flooding study.
\n\n
\nCouncillor Seymour asked a supplementary\nquestion requesting agreement that these sorts of projects were\nexactly the sort of things that reserves should be spent on, and\nthat there were millions of pounds available from those reserves\nfor such projects. Councillor Elengorn replied that the issue\nneeded to be seen in the context of the Floods and Water Bill\ncoming before Parliament and where the exact delineation of\nfunction between the Environment Agency and Councils would be. The\nRichmond surface water flooding project was in advance of nearly\nevery other London borough. Councillor Elengorn agreed this issue\nneeded to be given a higher profile, and, therefore, higher funding\nby all Councils in view of the increasing flood risk facing the\nwhole country.
\n\n
\n\n(i)\nIn accordance with\nnotice given, Councillor Parsons asked the\nCabinet Member for Adult Services,\nHealth and Housing:
\n\n
\n\n\"Given the\nintention that microwave ovens be installed in the homes of the\nfrail and vulnerable elderly, will the Cabinet Member for Adult\nSocial Services, Health and Housing take full responsibility should\nany serious incident occur as a result of\nthis\n?\"
\n\n
\nCouncillor Carr replied in the following\nterms:
\n\n
\n\"I'm slightly perturbed by the tense, but\nactually of course the Council already does provide microwave\novens. The Council's contractor does that under the current\nservice. In fact the Council's contractor has third party liability\ncover in relation to the equipment that they provide. The\ncontractual terms place a duty of care on the Contractor to provide\nthe service in a safe manner, having regard to the Service Users'\nage and ability. The Council is also under an obligation to provide\nreasonable monitoring, given the nature of the service.
\n\n
\nNaturally the Council fully assesses the needs\nof individuals before they are offered the frozen meal service.\nThis includes an assessment of the individual's ability to use the\nvarious equipment that can be used to reheat the meals. Where\nadditional support is required, this is made available. However,\nultimately, as with all equipment supplied to individuals by Social\nServices or their contractors, the Council is not in a position to\ntake unfettered responsibility in relation to how equipment is used\nby individuals\".
\n\n
\nCouncillor Parsons asked a supplementary\nquestion on how safety measures for the elderly frail would be\npromoted. Councillor Carr replied that as with all equipment\nsupplied to all individuals by Social Services and its contractors\nthe Council was not in a position to undertake unfettered\nresponsibility in relation to how equipment was used by\nindividuals.
\n\n
\nCouncillor Percival asked a supplementary\nquestion as to why the Cabinet Member had allowed\nApetito to assume responsibility for\ndaily check ups during the life of the contract, which enabled her\nto compile the statistics set out in her letter to the Council,\nwhen she publicly stated in the Press that\nApetito was not responsible for\npeople's welfare. Councillor Carr confirmed that she had not said\nthat they had no responsibility, instead what she had said was that\nthe Council ultimately had a responsibility to ensure that services\nwere provided on the basis of needs and that the hot meal delivery\nservice was not a Social Care service. People who were vulnerable\nand at risk should and would be assessed and have a range of\nservices provided for them to protect them. The suggested reliance\non a hot meal delivery driver calling was not an adequate service\nfor people who were at risk in the community.
\n\n
\nCouncillor Davies asked a supplementary\nquestion about how the Apetito\nequipment actually compared with other microwave equipment on the\nmarket. Councillor Carr replied that these specialised ovens were\nactually specifically designed to make it as simple and\nuncomplicated as possible for people to use them. The meals had a\nnumbering system on them and the microwave had a numbering system\non it that matched the meal. Therefore people did not have to worry\nabout calculating timings and wattage.
\n\n
\n(j)\nIn accordance with\nnotice given, Councillor Allen asked the\nCabinet Member for\nEnvironment:
\n\n
\n\n\"Could the Cabinet Member\nfor Environment make a statement on the Council's plans to control\nOak Processionary Moth?\"
\n\n
\nThe\ntime allowed for Members' questions having elapsed, a written reply\nwould be given for this and all remaining notified\nquestions.
\n\n
\n\n\n[The Council has recognised that there\nis potentially a significant impact on public health from the local\nOak Processionary Moth (OPM)\noutbreak.
\n\n\n
\n\n\nIn response to this the Borough has implemented a\nprogramme to control its spread and\nalert the public to its presence. This\nprogramme is concentrating on direct\naction while the OPM caterpillar is active, as well as gathering\ninformation about the best methods of control. The\nprogramme will include surveying, an\narea of trial spraying and nest removal. We will also be working\nwith the Health Protection Agency to inform the public of the\npotential risk.]
\n\n
\n(k)\nIn accordance with\nnotice given, Councillor Stratton asked the\nCabinet Member for\nEnvironment:
\n\n
\n\n\"Could the Cabinet Member\nfor Environment make a statement on the Mayor's response to the\noutcome of the consultation on his document 'Planning for a Better\nLondon'?\"
\n\n
\n\n\n[The Mayor is now moving away from an incremental approach\ninvolving substantial use of supplementary guidance. Instead he is\nputting emphasis on a full revision of the London Plan, with formal\ndraft publication in the winter of 2011. This longer programme\nconfirms that to delay the LDF to await changes in the London Plan\nwould have been a serious mistake.
\n\n\n
\n\n\nIt is also clear from the Mayor's response that the Council's\napproach of restricting tall buildings to a very small number of\nidentified sites, and promoting further protection of garden land\nthrough Development Policies, is entirely consistent with the\nMayor's approach.]
\n\n
\n(l)\nIn accordance with\nnotice given, Councillor Coombs asked the\nCabinet Member for Adult Services,\nHealth and Housing:
\n\n
\n\"What\nprogress is being made on the plans for a new Health and Social\nCare Centre in Whitton?\"
\n\n
\n\n\n[Users of the building (including the Council and the PCT), are\ncurrently being consulted about their final space requirements by\nLIFTcO.
\n\n\n
\n\n\nA further pre-application meeting with the Planning Department will\ntake place in early February. Consultation meetings are also\nscheduled with Whitton Community\nAssociation and St. Augustine of Canterbury.
\n\n\n
\n\n\nLIFTcO\nwill undertake pre-application consultation, beginning with Ward\nCouncillors in late February. This will be followed by a public\nexhibition in advance of a planning application being submitted\n(intended to be in April).]
\n\n
\n(m)\nIn accordance with\nnotice given, Councillor Fleming asked the Cabinet Member for\nTraffic, Transport and Parking:
\n\n
\n\"Will\nthe Cabinet Member for Transport, Traffic and Parking review\n\ncar parking charges\nin town centres and\nshopping areas?\"
\n\n\nI am currently seeking views on a proposal to link other parking\ncharges to the CO2 emissions of vehicles. Under the proposals it is\nanticipated that the majority of motorists will be in a position to\neither have cheaper parking charges or have them at the same level\nas present. There would however be an increase for the most\npolluting (in terms of CO2) vehicles.]
\n\n\n
\n(n)\nIn accordance with\nnotice given, Councillor Warren asked the Leader and Cabinet Member\nfor Strategy and Partnerships:
\n\n
\n\"Does\nthe Leader think that the residents of\nWhitton are less deserving than those\nof Richmond with regards to the state of the pavements within the\nmain shopping areas of the towns concerned?\"
\n\n
\n\n[\nThe people of Whitton are treated in\nthe same way as other residents.
\n\n
\nI\nrecently went on a ward walk with Councillors Warren and Jaeger and\nTrevor Pugh, the Director of Environment, and have visited on a\nnumber of other occasions. As in other parts of the borough, there\nare ways in which the town centre could be improved.
\n\n
\nA Town\nCentre Manager has recently been appointed after its abolition by\nthe Conservative administration. I am sure that she will act as an\nadvocate for the Town Centre, and that we will respond positively,\nsubject to resources.]
\n\n
\n(o)\nIn accordance with\nnotice given, Councillor Hodgins asked the Leader and Cabinet\nMember for Strategy and Partnerships:
\n\n
\n\"If\nadopted by the Council, what impact does the Leader think the\nproposed changes to short term parking charges will have on our\nborough's small shops?\"
\n\n
\n\n[At present\nthe Council is seeking views. If there are any changes to parking\ncharges, I do not expect a negative impact on local\nbusinesses.
\n\n
\n\nUnder the\nproposals, motorists will be able to register for a discount or no\nincrease in the current rate. While for some there will be an\nincrease, I do not believe this will deter people from using local\nshops. \nIndeed in the most expensive car park the charge will still be\nbelow\n\u00c2\u00a32/hour\n, which represents good value for money when compared to other\nsimilar locations.]
\n\n
\n(p)\nIn accordance with\nnotice given, Councillor Head asked the Cabinet Member for Traffic,\nTransport and Parking:
\n\n
\n\"What\nis the policy of the present administration with regard to\nControlled Parking Zones?\"
\n\n
\n\n\n[The Council's Controlled Parking Zones policies were agreed at a\nCabinet meeting on 17 July 2006. I would refer Councillor Head to\nparagraphs 3.7 to 3.18 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the\nreport\n\n\nhttp://cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/Published/C00000163/M00001516/AI00010912/$CabinetReport17July2006CPZPoliciesd.doc.pdf']
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
WARD CONCERNS
\n\n(a) Councillor\nCranfield-Adams has given notice to\nraise the following Ward Concern:
\n\n
Empty\nCommercial Properties on the A316 (North Richmond Ward)
\n\n
\n\n(b) Councillor Stanier has\ngiven notice to raise the following Ward Concern:
\n\n
\nThe Closure\nof the Stag Brewery (Mortlake and\nBarnes Common Ward)
\n\n
\n\n(c) Councillor Williams has\ngiven notice to raise the following Ward Concern:
\n\n
\nThe threat to the\nprotected view of St. Paul's Cathedral from King Henry's Mound in\nRichmond Park (Ham, Petersham and\nRichmond Riverside)
\n
Minutes:
(A)\nEmpty Commercial Properties on the A316 (North Richmond\nWard)
\n\n
In accordance with\nnotice given Councillor Cranfield-Adams raised a number of issues\nconcerning empty properties on the A316 and how other land could be\nidentified for much bigger affordable housing in this borough,\nincluding:
\n\n\n*\n \nCommending the Council's move towards a target for 50% affordable\nhousing and its allocation of over \u00c2\u00a32.6 million of its own funds to\nbuild more affordable housing.
\n\n\n*\n \nThe Council having the fourth smallest social housing sector of any\nLondon borough at just under 12%. The supply of social, rented and\nintermediate homes was influenced by a number of factors, primarily\nland availability and land viability.
\n\n\n*\n \nThe number of large vacant properties along the A316.
\n\n\n*\n \nThere was a lack of joined up thinking between planning\nconsiderations and the need to meet affordable housing targets in\nthe Housing Strategy Paper. This was something that needed to be\ntackled tackle, as it highlighted the need to continue to develop\nworking relationships between housing and planning services to\ndeliver more affordable housing.
\n\n\n*\n \nIn terms of the relevant policies, the UDP and EMP4 and the\nemerging policy LDF CP19 started from the principle of retention of\nemployment use. The UDP recognised that land or buildings could be\nconverted from employment use where marketing had been\nunsuccessful.
\nTherefore, the\nCabinet Member was requested to enforce emerging policies for the\nbenefit of the borough as a whole, but particularly for the Ward of\nNorth Richmond.
\n\n
The Cabinet Member\nfor Environment, Councillor Elengorn, stated that the Council had a\nlong standing policy under both administrations to retain the very\nlimited supply of employment land and premises in the borough, and\nthat this had been particularly relevant during recent years\nbecause of the very high land values for housing in the whole of\nthat period. The retention of employment opportunities was\nimportant in terms of maintaining sustainable communities and\nmaking sure the borough did not turn into a dormitory suburb. The\nInspector recognised that land or buildings could be converted from\nemployment use where marketing had been unsuccessful, and that\nsites could be used for alternative employment generating schemes\nsuch as health, leisure, tourism, hotel or mixed use.
\n\n
It was intended\nthat this approach, while providing retention and appropriate\nrefurbishment of offices, also provide flexibility for owners to\nbring forward mixed use schemes, which maximised affordable\nhousing. The work that had been done on employment land had\nestablished that there was a demand for high quality offices, not\nnecessarily for some of the existing offices .
\n\n
(b) The\nClosure of Stag Brewery (Mortlake and\nBarnes Common Ward)
\n\n
In accordance with\nnotice given Councillor Stanier raised a number of issues\nconcerning the Closure of Stag Brewery, including:
\n\n
\n\n*\n \nThe closure of the Stag Brewery in\nMortlake approximately three weeks ago\nmarked the end of chapter in Mortlake's\nhistory. The news of the closure had shocked the community which in\nyears gone by had provided a large and stable work force for the\nbrewery.
\n\n\n*\n \nDespite discussions with representatives of the Union and\nmanagement with both Councillor Lourie and Councillor Stanier about\nthe reasons for the closure, implications for the borough, possible\nways of keeping the brewery open, and retaining employment, the\nsite was no longer looking viable.
\n\n\n*\n \nSales of Budweiser in public houses were declining, and off sales\nwhich are sales in retail outlets were not rising enough to replace\nthem. Off sales require bottles and cans and the Stag Brewery\nproduces bottles only.
\n\n\n*\n \nThe technology was 5 years out of date and there were 3 other\nBudweiser sites in the UK far better placed to meet these\nchallenges. Therefore, the workforce departures would be in three\nstages over 18 months, and then there would be decontamination\nworks so the site would not actually be ready for development for\nat least 2 years.
\n\n\n*\n \nThe Council's Planning Department was already preparing a site\nbrief, but obviously the future of the site was of enormous local\ninterest.
\n\n\n*\n \nWard Councillors and Susan Kramer MP were arranging a public\nmeeting on February 5th at the Sheen Lane Centre at\n7.30pm, for residents to learn more and express views about the\nfuture. Representatives of both the Union and management of the\nBrewery would be present.
\n\n
The Leader of the\nCouncil and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships,\nCouncillor Lourie, stated that the proposal to close the brewery\nhad come as a shock to a lot of people. The Council was encouraging\nInBev to continue brewing on the site,\nand if ultimately they did withdraw from the site, to encourage the\nretention of the site for brewing use. There was a potential\npurchaser looking at the possibility of buying the site to continue\nbrewing.
\n\n
The Council's\ngeneral planning policies required employment premises such as this\nto remain in employment use. Use for other purposes would only be\nacceptable if there was evidence that the site could no longer be\nused for brewing or other employment purposes. The site specific\nproposal was concerned that operational development takes into\naccount the important riverside location.
\n\n
The playing fields\nwhich were very important for the local community, were designated\nin the UDP as other open areas that are of townscape importance,\nand this policy sought to protect and enhance that.
\n\n
Pending full\nconsideration of the potential use of the premises for employment\npurposes, the Council would not be providing planning guidance on\nthe development of the site for other users. However, if\nalternative brewing operations or employment uses were demonstrated\nas not viable, the Council would produce supplementary planning\nguidance to guide the development of the site. The Unions had made\nenormous efforts over the past few years to improve the\nproductivity of the site. This was the only Budweiser site in the\ncountry at the moment which produced beer in bottles, the other\nthree sites were InBev sites, but they\nwould be able to produce Budweiser. In addition to the 300 or 400\nstaff employed on this site, the old Budweiser employed another 200\nor 300 based in Richmond in\nheadquarter's activities, and that was\nsomething that would have to be looked into in the future.
\n\n
\n
\n(c ) The threat to the\nprotected view of St.Paul's Cathedral\nfrom King Henry's Mound in Richmond Park (Ham,\nPetersham and Richmond\nRiverside)
\n\n
In accordance with\nnotice given Councillor Williams raised a number of issues\nconcerning the threat to the protected view of\nSt.Paul's Cathedral from King Henry's\nMound in Richmond Park , including:
\n\n
\n\n\n*\n \nFor the last 35 years until recently a campaign has been waged\nsuccessfully to protect the view from King Henry's Mound of St\nPaul's Cathedral.
\n\n\n*\n \nThe previous Mayor for London decided that he wanted this protected\ncorridor narrowed from about 150 metres to 70 metres. The order was\nmade effective on 13 July 2007.
\n\n\n*\n \nOn 22 November 2007 London Underground Limited put in a planning\napplication to Westminster City Council to build a 9 storey\nbuilding which would seriously damage the view from Richmond\nPark.
\n\n\n*\n \nDuring the 2008 Mayoral election, Boris Johnson said in his\nManifesto that he would reinstate planning rules that would protect\nthe view of St Paul's Cathedral and the Palace of Westminster and\nreinforce protection around new viewing corridors.
\n\n\n*\n \nAt his first Mayor's Question Time on 21st May,\nCouncillor Arbour asked Boris Johnson:
\n\n\n\n \nwould he restore the original protection?
\n\n\n\n \nwould the Mayor consider rejecting any planning application under\nhis discretion that falls within the original strategic viewing\ncorridor?
\nAssurance was given\non the first point, but the second question was not answered.
\n\n\n*\n \nThe Mayor for London also Chairs Transport for London, which in\nturn is responsible for London Underground Limited.
\n\n\n*\n \nA public enquiry has been held since October on the proposed\nplanning application. The matter is now with the Inspector and will\neventually be passed to the Secretary of State.
\n\n\n*\n \nCouncillor Williams requested the Cabinet Member to consider:
\n\n\n\n \npressing the Mayor of London to fulfil the promise he made last\nMay, and widen the view back to what it was as a protected\nview;
\n\n\n\n \npressing the Mayor of London as Chair of Transport for London to\nstop the excessive and damaging Victoria development, irrelevant of\nthe outcome of the planning process; and
\n\n\n\n \nasking the Legal Department to check whether the former Mayor of\nLondon acted correctly regarding any conflict of interest that he\nmay have had in narrowing the view in 2007.
\n\n
The Cabinet Member\nfor Environment, Councillor Elengorn, stated that the GLA was\nworking on reviewing the 'View Management Framework', and the\ndecision which was likely to be made shortly would be how to do\nthis, not the detail of it or indeed the achievement of it.
\n\n
Based on the\nexisting View Framework and existing policies the Council had\nregistered an objection to the Victoria Station development on the\ngrounds that the proposal could be shown to obscure or crowd the\nprotected vista. The actual protected view would be restricted,\nwhich was in breach of various policies affecting this Council such\nas Richmond Park Conservation Area, the View Framework in its\npresent format, and the adopted land in its present form.
\n\n
Councillor\nWilliams' requests were noted.
\n
REPORTS OF THE EXECUTIVE AND COMMITTEES
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tSTANDARDS COMMITTEEE - 9 December 2008 PDF 16 KB
\n\n\n\nAttached.
Additional documents:
\nMinutes:
\n\n
\n\n\n(1)\n \n\nThat the revised\nAnti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy be adopted as Appendix C to the\nMember' Protocol for inclusion in the Council's Constitution, to\nreplace the existing\nversion.
\n\n\n(2)\n \n\nThat the revised\nWhistle Blowing Policy be included in the Council's Constitution,\nto replace the existing version.
\n
CABINET - 15 December 2008 and 19 January 2009 PDF 23 KB
\n\n(a) Treasury Management\nUpdate (15 December 2008)
\n\n
\n\n\nReport of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources\nAttached.
\n\n
\n(b) Housing and\nHomelessness Strategy
\n\n
\n\n\nSummary report of the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and\nHousing Attached.
\n\n
\n\n(c) Council Tax Base Calculation 2009/2010
\n\n
Report of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member\nfor Resources\n\nattached.
\n\n\n
\n\n(d)\nTreasury Management Update (19 January 2009)
\n\n
\n\n\nReport of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources\nAttached.
\n
Additional documents:
\nMinutes:
\n1. Treasury Management Update (15 December).
\n\n
\n\nRESOLVED:
\n\n(December)
\n\n\n(1)\n \n\nThat the changes since the October report as detailed in paragraphs\n2 and 3 be noted and in particular the primacy of the government\nsupport ratings over other ratings.
\n\n\n
\n\n\n(2)\n \n\nThat the increases in counterparty limits as detailed in paragraph\n3.7 be approved.
\n\n(January)
\n\n\n(3)\n \nThat the addition to the approved\ncounterparty list as detailed in paragraph 5.9 of the report be\napproved
\n\n
\n2. Housing and Homelessness\nStrategy
\n\n
\nRESOLVED:
\n\n\nThat the Housing strategy 2008-2012 and its sub strategies\ncomprising the Homelessness Strategy 2008-2012, the Young Peoples\nHomelessness Strategy 2008-2012 and the Teenage Parents Supported\nHousing Strategy 2008-12 be noted.
\n\n
3. Council Tax Base Calculation\n2009/2010
\n\n
\n\nRESOLVED:
\n\n
\n\n\n(1)\n \nThat\n theCouncil Tax Base for the\n London Borough of Richmond upon Thames for 2009/2010 be\n 88,275.61.
\n\n
\n\n\n(2)\n \nThat the discounts for empty\nproperties and second homes referred to at paragraph 3.4 be\ncontinued at the current rates.
\n\n
\n\n\n(3)\n That the\npolicy on discretionary discounts referred to at paragraph 3.8 and\nin Appendix B be adopted and the Assistant Director of Finance and\nCorporate Services and the Director of Finance and Corporate\nServices be authorised to make, and review, determinations\naccordingly.
\n\n
\n4. Treasury Management Update (19 January).
\n\n
\nRESOLVED:
\n\n
\nThat the addition to the approved\ncounterparty list as detailed in paragraph 5.9 of the report be\napproved
\n
REPORTS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES
\nNone.
Minutes:
None.
REPORTS ON JOINT ARRANGEMENTS AND EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
\nNone.
Minutes:
None.
REPORTS OF THE HEAD OF PAID SERVICE
\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tChange to the Constitution PDF 20 KB
\nReport of the Head of Paid Service\n\nattached.
Minutes:
\nRESOLVED:
\n\n
\n\nThat the following change to the Constitution be agreed by the\naddition of a line to Part 3 Section 3A of the Council's\nConstitution as follows:
\n\n
\n\n\"To prepare and submit a\nLocal Area Agreement to the Secretary of State\".
\n
Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education PDF 19 KB
\nReport of the Head of Paid Service\n\nattached.
Minutes:
\nRESOLVED:
\n\n\n
\n\n\nThat a Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education be formally\nestablished comprising the persons specified in the\nreport.
\n\n
\n\nCouncil\nnoted that Peter Ward was to be included in the list as the Roman\nCatholic representative.
\n
EXECUTIVE DECISIONS TAKEN AS A MATTER OF URGENCY
\n\nNone.
Minutes:
None.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
\nTo\nreceive any announcements from the Mayor, Leader, Members of the\nCabinet or the Head of Paid Service.
Minutes:
The Mayor announced a programme of\nevents, as follows,
\n\n
\n
The Leader of the Council and\nCabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships announced that\nCouncillor\nActon, the Deputy Mayor had been appointed as the Council's\nBusiness Champion.
NOTICES OF MOTION
\n\n\n(a)\nCouncillor True has given notice to move the following\nMotion:
\n\n
\n\"This\nCouncil condemns the decision by the government to build a third\nrunway at Heathrow; congratulates the Mayor of London on his stance\nagainst expansion of Heathrow; and supports proposals by\nenvironmental campaigners for investment in high-speed rail links\nfrom London as an alternative to shorter-distance air traffic.\"
\n\n
Minutes:
In accordance with notice given, Councillor\nTrue moved, seconded by Councillor Seymour,
\n\n
\n\"This Council condemns\nthe decision by the government to build a third runway at Heathrow;\ncongratulates the Mayor of London on his stance against expansion\nof Heathrow; and supports proposals by environmental campaigners\nfor investment in high-speed rail links from London as an\nalternative to shorter-distance air traffic.\"
\n\n
\nAn\namendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Elengorn,\nseconded by Councillor Trigg,
\n\n
\n\nInsert after\n\"congratulates\" in line 2
\n\n
\n\n\"the\nall-party 2M group, Susan Kramer MP, Vince Cable MP and\n\"
\n\n
\n\nReplace \"his\" by \"their\"\nin line 2
\n\n
\n\nInsert after \"Heathrow\"\nin line 3 \"but regrets the Mayor's support for a Thames Estuary\nairport, given the impact on carbon emissions and climate\nchange\"
\n\n
During the debate, the offer to change the\nword \"regrets\" to \"opposes\" in the amendment was made.
\n\n
The amendment was put to the vote and declared\nto be\nCARRIED.
\n\n
The substantive motion was put to the vote and\ndeclared to be\nCARRIED.
\n\n
\n\nRESOLVED:
\n\n
\n\n\"This Council condemns the decision by the government to build a\nthird runway at Heathrow; congratulates the all-party 2M group,\nSusan Kramer MP, Vince Cable MP and the Mayor of London on their\nstance against expansion of Heathrow but opposes the Mayor's\nsupport for a Thames Estuary airport, given the impact on carbon\nemissions and climate change; and supports proposals by\nenvironmental campaigners for investment in high-speed rail links\nfrom London as an alternative to shorter-distance air\ntraffic.\"
\n