Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Allam, Baker, Barnes, Crowe, Garg, Jackson, Kelly, Kemp and O’Brien.  

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2013 (attached)

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2013 be agreed as a correct record. 

To note any declarations of interest in any matter before the Council

Councillor Lindsay Bliss declared a pecuniary interest in agenda item 8.2 – Motion from Councillor Curling, as she was employed by a company based at Heathrow Airport, and left the room during the consideration thereof.  

The Mayor advised that the Mayoress had taken part in the Trinity Big Sleep Out on 29 November 2013 and thanked all of those who had sponsored the Mayoress and those that had visited her and the other volunteers during the night.

 

It was noted that Hillingdon had taken part in London’s New Year’s Day Parade and the Mayor was delighted to announce that Hillingdon had been awarded second place and had received £6,000 towards his charities. 

 

The Council was reminded that Holocaust Memorial Day would take place on 27 January 2014.  The Mayor noted that the Council had resolved on 15 January 2009 that: “This Council welcomes Holocaust Memorial Day as an opportunity to remember the victims of Nazi persecution and all other genocides, past and present. “ Those present stood for a minute’s silence. 

Councillor Puddifoot moved the recommendations as set out on the Order of Business.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Simmonds and it was:

 

RESOLVED:  That:

1. the urgency decisions detailed in the report be noted;
2. upon the nomination of the Conservative Group, Councillor Bridges be appointed to fill the vacancy in the membership of the Major Applications Planning Committee; and
3. the timetable of meetings for 2014/15, including a revised programme for May 2014, as set out in Appendix A, be approved and the Head of Democratic Services, in consultation with the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, be authorised to make any amendments that may be required throughout the course of the year.

To consider the annual report on the Council Tax Base 2014/15

Councillor Bianco moved the recommendations as set out on the Order of Business.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Puddifoot and, following debate (Councillor Duncan), it was:

 

RESOLVED:  That:

a)           the report of the Director of Finance for the calculation of the Council Tax Base and the Business Rates Forecast be approved.

b)           in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012 the amount calculated by the London Borough of Hillingdon as its Council Tax Base for 2014/15 shall be 89,248.

c)           the Corporate Director of Finance be authorised to submit the 2014/15 NNDR1 return to the Department of Communities & Local Government (CLG) and the Greater London Authority (GLA) in line with the business rates forecast contained within the report.

d)           the continuation of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme in 2014/15, approved by Council on 17 January 2013, be noted.

To take questions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11

7.12             QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR Graham TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

“Is the Leader of the Council able to inform Members how Hillingdon has achieved such a strong level of financial stability?”

 

Councillor Puddifoot responded that, as he had told staff at this year’s Roadshow events, the Council was on track to deliver its savings target of £17.1m for 2013/2014.  In 2014/2015, the Council would be working towards at a savings target of around £8m.  He advised that, since April 2010, the Council had achieved savings of £76.8m.  Further savings of £28m would be needed over the next two years as it was anticipated that there would be a 15% reduction in Government funding in 2015 which would equate to a 46% reduction on the total since 2010. 

 

It was recognised that these were financially challenging times but that the Council had used its HIP (Hillingdon Improvement Programme) and BID (Business Improvement Delivery) programmes to protect and improve services for residents.  Councillor Puddifoot believed that this approach had set this Council apart from those local authorities that used a “slash and burn” approach.  It was noted that BID would continue to feature heavily in the future of the Council as it had been successful in improving service delivery. 

 

Councillor Graham, by way of a supplementary question, asked what effect the savings targets had had on service delivery, staffing levels and the facilities provided by the local authority.  Councillor Puddifoot advised that the Council had met its first savings target of £22.1m in 2010/11 without the drastic loss of posts predicted by the Labour Group. 

 

At last year’s Staff Roadshow, it had been noted that, even though other councils had cut hundreds of posts, Hillingdon had had only 51 redundancies and had not resorted to fortnightly refuse collection to save money.  To date, there had been 345 staff redundancies, 156 of which were at PO grade or above. 

 

Councillor Puddifoot advised that Hillingdon was the only Council in the country that had a programme in place to completely rebuild or refurbish all of its libraries.  In addition, Hillingdon was making significant investment in its primary schools, had been awarded more Green Flags than any other council, was developing more affordable housing than its neighbouring local authorities and had frozen Council Tax for all residents for six consecutive years (eight years for those aged over 65). 

 

7.1                QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR GARDNER TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

“How many staff have had to take a drop in salary in order to continue to do their existing job, albeit with a different job title?”

 

Councillor Puddifoot advised that there were none.

 

Councillor Gardner, by way of a supplementary question, asked Councillor Puddifoot to clarify that he was saying that there had been no members of staff who had taken a drop in salary yet had continued to do the same job with a different job title.  Councillor Puddifoot stated that there had been none as it was only posts that were made redundant and not people. 

 

7.2       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BRIDGES TO THE Cabinet Member for SOCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH & HOUSING – COUNCILLOR CORTHORNE

 

“Would the Cabinet Member for Social Services, Health & Housing update Members on the position of the Council as regards to the current and future provision of affordable housing in Hillingdon?”

 

Councillor Corthorne responded that, overall, the Council was exceeding its housing delivery target of 425 units as set by the Mayor of London.  Between 2008 and 2013, over 30% of all new units had been delivered as affordable housing.  He noted that the Council would continue to meet the targets set within its Local Plan with 35% of all new units being delivered as affordable housing.  It was noted that 500 new units were planned in Hillingdon in 2014/2015.

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

7.11             QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR EAST TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

“David Cameron told voters, ‘no ifs, no buts, no third runway’. Will the Leader of the Council now write to the Prime Minister to seek assurance for our residents and all those who were opposed to the expansion at Heathrow that this is still Conservative policy?”

 

Councillor Puddifoot responded that, at the last election, the Labour Party had supported expansion at Heathrow airport – the Conservative Party had not supported the 3^rd runway.  He noted that the media had picked up on the results of the local referendum that had been undertaken in Hillingdon and elsewhere which had resulted in 72% of respondents stating that they were opposed to the 3^rd runway and 73% being opposed to an increase in the number of night flights (based on a 41% turnout).

 

Look West London had picked up on a comment that the Leader had made which stated that, even though closure of Heathrow airport would benefit residents, he anticipated that there would always be an airport on the site.  Councillor Puddifoot believed that the threat of closing Heathrow airport, prompting the loss of a significant number of jobs, was media hype.

 

The GMB union had stated that Heathrow was currently operating at 90% capacity and that, without expansion, jobs would be lost.  Furthermore, in December 2013, the Davies Commission had put expansion at Heathrow on a shortlist of three options to be considered.  Councillor Puddifoot believed that this was a blow to the south of the Borough and that expansion at Heathrow would result in the need to reconfigure the M25 motorway which, if it went ahead, would not be completed until 2026. 

 

The Council was advised that Councillor Puddifoot had produced a press release in December 2013 stating that Nick Clegg and David Cameron had both said no to a 3^rd runway at Heathrow and that the Prime Minister would lose credibility amongst the electorate if he changed his stance now.  Councillor Puddifoot assured Councillor East that he had written personally to David Cameron to ensure that he had made his feelings clear on the 3^rd runway or any expansion at Heathrow. 

 

There was no supplementary question. 

 

7.4       Question submitted by councillor RILEY to the Cabinet Member FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH & HOUSING – COUNCILLOR CORTHORNE

 

“Would the Cabinet Member for Social Services, Health and Housing please update Members on progress on the re-provision of Adult Services as part of the Disability Commissioning Plan?”

 

Councillor Corthorne responded that the Disabilities Commissioning Plan, 2011-2015, set out how future service provision would ensure that people with disabilities were fully supported to lead full and active lives within the community, wherever possible.  This included the development of a specialist resource centre for people with learning disabilities who had complex needs in Queens Walk, South Ruislip.  The proposal that Cabinet had agreed in January 2013 was that, once the resource centre opened, three existing day centres for people with learning disabilities, i.e. Park View, Phoenix and Woodside, would close.

 

He went on to state that, at present, building work was in progress on the Queens Walk resource centre and was on target for completion at the end of July 2014.  Service users at Phoenix and Woodside would then be able to transfer to the new service in September 2014.  A project group that met on a monthly basis had enabled service users and carers to be involved in all decisions about the design of the resource centre and the programme of activities to be provided from it.  Service users and carers would continue to be involved in key decisions through this project group as the opening of this flagship service drew nearer.

 

The opening of Queens Walk would result in the closure of Phoenix and Woodside from September.  Park View had already closed as a result of the work that officers had done with service users who had less complex needs to use their personal budgets as part of a tailored programme of community based support.

 

Councillor Corthorne thanked Councillor Riley for the question because there had been a high level of interest in this issue which included receipt of a petition and a question to Council.  He advised that officers were making every effort to engage with residents to be able to bring about change in the area. 

 

There was no supplementary question. 

 

7.3       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR HARMSWORTH TO THE Cabinet Member for FINANCE, PROPERTY and BUSINESS SERVICES – COUNCILLOR BIANCO

 

“Tax avoidance by organisations and individuals results in reduced amounts of taxation being paid by those who indulge in such practices. This either means that other people have to pay more taxes or the funds available to provide services to residents and communities is restricted. Does the Cabinet Member agree that tax avoidance should be discouraged whether this refers to Council tax, Corporation Tax or National Insurance Contributions?”

 

Councillor Bianco responded that the Council had no responsibilities in relation to the recovery of Corporation Tax or National Insurance Contributions so he would be unable to answer this part of the question.  However, with regard to Council Tax and NNDR, Councillor Bianco noted that the Council had a vigorous recovery policy which used every available legal method at its disposal to obtain payment.

 

In 2012/13, the Council collected 97.3% of Council Tax in year which was a record high for the Council and put it 8^th highest in London and 98.8% of NNDR in year, which was 5^th highest in London.  The Council had recently increased resources in the Specialist Recovery Team to enable it to pursue persistent defaulters by instigating bankruptcy or winding up proceedings or by obtaining Charging Orders on properties and this was proving to be very successful.

 

Councillor Bianco noted that the Council also had a very active anti fraud programme on both Council Tax and NNDR that specifically targeted avoidance.  Further resources were proposed as part of the draft 2014/15 budget to target NNDR avoidance to ensure that the Council could continue to deliver services to its residents. 

 

Councillor Harmsworth, by way of a supplementary question, asked whether or not Councillor Bianco would condemn those who avoided paying taxes.  The Mayor advised that Councillor Bianco should not respond to the question as it was out of the Council’s control.

 

7.5       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR j.COOPER TO THE Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling – COUNCILLOR BURROWS

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling please inform Council about the support Hillingdon residents have received during the recent bad weather across the whole of Hillingdon and how the ongoing problems resulting from the consequences of flooding and high winds, such as the removal of fallen trees, are being resolved?”

 

Councillor Burrows responded that officers, through the Civil Protection Team, monitored the weather forecasts and, over the recent period, had taken appropriate and immediate action where necessary.  A number of key Council Services had a 24 hr call out service thus ensuring that, at all times, the needs of residents were being put first.

 

Highways teams had responded to calls of localised flooding and continued to clear gullies and trash screens in known hotspots, in addition to the regular daily maintenance program for gullies and ditches.  Officers had provided advice to residents on how best to take action to secure their property and, in some cases, had delivered sand bags to assist residents in protecting their property from the flood water.  Both of the Council's gulley cleaning machines had been working flat out to cope with blocked gullies as a result of debris in the flood water.  The Council had not received any reports of water entering residential properties in the Borough.

 

Liaison with the Council's Flood Management Officer had ensured that issues of flooding were recorded to help inform future flood planning in the Borough.  Problems that were not the Council's responsibility had been raised with bodies such as Thames Water and the Environment Agency to ensure that action was taken.

 

During the worst period of weather in November, 150 trees had been lost and there were over 300 incidents of tree damage.  Bad weather in December resulted in an additional 35 trees being lost and more than 100 further cases of tree damage.  The first priority was always to prioritise incidents so that the highway network remained clear and residents could access/exit their properties.  Green spaces staff and the Council’s various contractors had all provided resources to quickly clear the damaged trees and debris.  In a limited number of cases, trees and debris in harder to access areas had been made safe and would be dealt with when ground conditions improved.

 

Councillor Burrows thanked the officers that, under these extreme weather conditions, had continued to provide residents with an excellent service.

 

There was no supplementary question. 

 

7.8                QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR CURLING TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

“Does the Leader of the Council agree with me that the “Local Audit & Accountability Bill” is yet another example of Eric Pickles trying to micro-manage local authorities by preventing Councils like Hillingdon putting their residents first by keeping them informed about the Council’s position with regard to issues such as the opposition to HS2 and a 3^rd Runway?”

 

Councillor Puddifoot responded that he strongly opposed the proposals laid out in this Bill and had set these objections out in a response to the DCLG.  He believed that, if they were to come into force, it would be a devastating assault on councils and Councillors’ freedom to communicate with the people that they served.  He went on to state that if Councillors and officers could not communicate freely without the fear of Government direction and court action, their jobs, and their ability to do them well would be fundamentally compromised.

 

Councillor Puddifoot stated that he felt that this was an attempt to control, and potentially put a complete halt to, local government’s ability to communicate with and stand up for its residents.  For example, in Hillingdon, the Council had been very vocal about its stance on both Heathrow and High Speed 2.

 

In 2010, Hillingdon, along with other councils, residents and other concerned groups, successfully won a High Court battle over plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport.  Under this proposed legislation, the Council could have been barred from campaigning in the Borough’s interests or from publishing comment on this ‘contentious’ area of public policy.  Councillor Puddifoot queried whether the Secretary of State would also have stopped the Council from communicating with its residents about High Speed 2. 

 

Councillor Puddifoot believed that it was abhorrent to think that, if these proposals came into force, the Council might not be able to represent and communicate with its residents on national issues that directly affected them.  He went on to note that, counter to the Secretary of State addressing so-called ‘propaganda’, he wanted to establish further state regulation on what locally elected Councillors could do and say to represent local people.

 

Councillor Puddifoot did not think that residents would be in any doubt about how valuable the Hillingdon People publication was in terms of communicating with them.  He noted that Councillor Curling, at the Council meeting on 7 July 2011, had moved a motion with regard to the Council’s Corporate Communication Strategy proposing putting an end to the publication of the Hillingdon People.  Councillor Puddifoot believed that Eric Pickles’ policy would be equally as damaging as the Labour Group policy.

 

Councillor Curling, by way of a supplementary question, asked if the Leader was saying that the Hillingdon People was the only way in which the Council communicated with its residents.  Councillor Puddifoot responded that there were many ways in which the authority communicated with its residents, including through the Council’s website.  He advised that there was a significant difference between publishing a weekly newspaper and publishing a magazine six times each year.

 

Motion Without Notice

Councillor G Cooper moved the suspension of Council Procedure Rule 11.5 (c) to allow unlimited time for Member questions to be asked and answered.  This was seconded by Councillor Gilham and, on being put to the vote, was agreed.

 

7.7                QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR bliss TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

“How many people employed by the Council are from agencies, doing work that could have been done 'in house' by staff that have been made redundant?”

 

Councillor Puddifoot responded that there were none. 

 

There was no supplementary question. 

 

7.9       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR ALLEN TO THE Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling – COUNCILLOR BURROWS

 

“In view of the fact that some areas of the Borough, including Townfield, had to wait two weeks for their household rubbish to be removed, could the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation & Recycling please inform this Council whether this was due to staff shortages or bad planning?”

 

Councillor Burrows responded that every council had altered its refuse and recycling collections over the Christmas and New Year period.  In Hillingdon, four collection days were changed because of the bank holidays with normal collections resuming from 6 January 2014.  Residents in those areas of Hillingdon where the collection days were unavoidably changed received double collections.  Additional waits for collections were either 2 or 7 days.

 

Councillor Burrows noted that boroughs such as Ealing and Harrow had suffered 13 days of disruption and change and had only returned to normal collections on 13 January 2014.  He believed that, during long periods of changed collection dates like this in other boroughs, many residents were unsure when their collections would be so ended up missing them.

 

Council was advised that the Hillingdon approach had been to minimise this period of uncertainty by keeping collection days the same where possible and taking all household waste presented by residents without question.  Councillor Burrows went on to note that Hillingdon did not have restrictions on extra waste like so many other boroughs where wheeled bins were in use, or worse still, where two weekly collections were practised throughout the year.  He believed that this planned approach and the way that it had been advertised enabled the Council to continue to put its residents first.

 

Councillor Allen, by way of a supplementary question, asked how many Cabinet Members had had to wait two weeks for their waste collection over the Christmas period.  Councillor Burrows advised that he had waited two weeks for his collection and it hadn’t been a problem for him or his neighbours as they had been well informed of the scheduled change. 

 

7.10             QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR NELSON TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES – COUNCILLOR SIMMONDS

 

“Can you please let me know which Hillingdon schools you have visited (and when) in the period from 1 January to 31 December 2013?”

 

Councillor Simmonds responded that his role as Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services afforded him the pleasure of being able to visit many schools during the course of the year.  With regard to the schools that he had visited between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013, Councillor Simmonds advised that these had included: Rosedale College; Harefield Academy; Yeading Infants School; Whitehall schools; Guru Nanak; Hermitage Primary School; Colham Manor Primary School; Charville Primary School; Field End Primary School; Belmore Primary School; Rabbsfarm; the new primary school in Uxbridge (John Locke Academy); Chantry Special School; Uxbridge High School; Bourne Primary School; Glebe Primary School; Pield Heath House; and Brookside Primary School.

 

There was no supplementary question. 

 

7.6                QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR RETTER TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

“Does the Leader of the Council agree that Hillingdon Council Tax payers should notfund Political Parties?”

 

Councillor Puddifoot responded that he believed that Council Tax payers should be allowed to subscribe to whichever political party or union that they wanted to from their own income or assets.  He noted that, in the quarter to September 2013, £7.8m had been donated to political parties - £2.8m of this had been donated by individuals. 

 

Councillor Puddifoot advised that the Conservative Group Members were Council Tax payers and had committed to paying subscription fees to the Conservative Party as well as a Group subscription fee and a contribution to the Conservative Councillors Association.  He noted that these fees were paid from allowances after tax and National Insurance payments had been deducted. 

 

The Leader advised that he did not have a problem with individuals making donations to political groups if that was what they wanted.  He did, however, appreciate that there was a valid debate about using public funds. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

To consider Motions submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12

8.1       MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR MAJOR

 

Councillor Major moved the following motion:

 

“This Council recognises that Social and Affordable housing offers the stability and security that many Hillingdon residents desperately need. It offers a platform for our residents to achieve their aspirations and the below market rates at which this housing is available, making it easier for our residents to move into work.

 

“This Council notes:

·         That item 6, Council’s Budget MTFF (page 74, paragraph 29) clearly states; “This pressure on supply has arisen from properties being taken by private tenants unable to buy properties and from other local London authorities offering higher incentives to landlords. In addition, foreign buyers are acquiring London properties, sustaining house prices at levels that are unaffordable for local residents. Within this context of diminishing supply, the Council has to house people in much more expensive Bed and Breakfast (B&B) accommodation to meet statutory obligations.”

·         The additional £9 million borrowing headroom in the Council’s Housing Revenue Account.

·         The Government’s Autumn Statement, which committed to increasing the Housing Revenue Account borrowing limit by £300 million.

·         The annual cost to London Borough of Hillingdon tax payers of housing residents in Bed and Breakfast accommodation is at least £1,980,000.

 

“This Council recognises that:

·         Having a decent and energy efficient home is a fundamental necessity for all Hillingdon residents.

·         There are currently 3,325 residents in priority need for housing and a further 513 households in temporary accommodation including 231 in Bed and Breakfast accommodation.

·         The Borough’s housing strategy calls for 2,625 affordable homes to be built every year for the next five years to meet demand.

 

Therefore the Council is called upon to:

·         Work on a cross party basis to find solutions to tackle this rapidly developing crisis in the best interest of all our residents, which will consider, but not be limited to, the following: an emergency programme of Council House building; a no evictions pledge on Bedroom and Benefit caps basis; a fully updated inventory of empty properties; and a halt to moving residents out of the Borough.

·         Set up a public consultation into the housing crisis that affects all our residents so a residents’ led approach can be developed and their needs put first.”

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor East.  Councillor Corthorne moved, and Councillor D Mills seconded, the following amendment:

 

Delete the fourth paragraph and replace with:

 

“Council notes Hillingdon's outperformance against the affordable housing requirements of the London Plan, and the projections for this to continue in the years ahead.

 

Council reaffirms its current Local Development Plan and in doing so restates categorically that it will not seek to encourage or permit residential development on Green Belt, Metropolitan Land or Green Chain designated land.

 

Council asks Cabinet to continue to seek available suitable housing units from all sectors across Hillingdon to help end the need for continued use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation. Further, it will communicate with residents that the current pressures of supply and demand are such that, for some households, alternative accommodation will be more appropriately located out of Borough.”

 

Following debate (Councillors Curling and Major) the amendment was put to a vote and carried.  The substantive motion was then put to the vote and carried.

 

RESOLVED:  That:

 

This Council recognises that Social and Affordable housing offers the stability and security that many Hillingdon residents desperately need. It offers a platform for our residents to achieve their aspirations and the below market rates at which this housing is available, making it easier for our residents to move into work.

 

This Council notes:

·         That item 6, Council’s Budget MTFF (page 74, paragraph 29) clearly states; “This pressure on supply has arisen from properties being taken by private tenants unable to buy properties and from other local London authorities offering higher incentives to landlords. In addition, foreign buyers are acquiring London properties, sustaining house prices at levels that are unaffordable for local residents. Within this context of diminishing supply, the Council has to house people in much more expensive Bed and Breakfast (B&B) accommodation to meet statutory obligations.”

·         The additional £9 million borrowing headroom in the Council’s Housing Revenue Account.

·         The Government’s Autumn Statement, which committed to increasing the Housing Revenue Account borrowing limit by £300 million.

·         The annual cost to London Borough of Hillingdon tax payers of housing residents in Bed and Breakfast accommodation is at least £1,980,000.

 

This Council recognises that:

·         Having a decent and energy efficient home is a fundamental necessity for all Hillingdon residents.

·         There are currently 3,325 residents in priority need for housing and a further 513 households in temporary accommodation including 231 in Bed and Breakfast accommodation.

·         The Borough’s housing strategy calls for 2,625 affordable homes to be built every year for the next five years to meet demand.

 

Council notes Hillingdon's outperformance against the affordable housing requirements of the London Plan, and the projections for this to continue in the years ahead.

 

Council reaffirms its current Local Development Plan and in doing so restates categorically that it will not seek to encourage or permit residential development on Green Belt, Metropolitan Land or Green Chain designated land.

 

Council asks Cabinet to continue to seek available suitable housing units from all sectors across Hillingdon to help end the need for continued use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation. Further, it will communicate with residents that the current pressures of supply and demand are such that, for some households, alternative accommodation will be more appropriately located out of Borough.

 

8.2       MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR CURLING

 

Councillor Curling moved the following motion:

 

“Council notes the publication of the interim Davies report into aviation and the subsequent resurrection of plans to build a 3rd runway at Heathrow. Council therefore reaffirms its opposition to any further expansion of Heathrow, but also recognises the importance of its continued operation, especially with so many local residents being employed either by the airport itself or the many dependent industries located in this part of West London.

 

“Council therefore calls on the Leader of the Council and his Cabinet to, not only support the opposition to Heathrow expansion, but to also continue the campaign for a "Better Heathrow Airport, Not a Bigger Heathrow Airport" and to use this to lobby the current and next Government, of whatever political colour, to make a sensible decision that takes into account the benefits of having both hub and point to point capacity utilising the 7 runways that already service London.”

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor Nelson.  Following debate (Councillor Sansarpuri), Councillor Puddifoot moved, and Councillor Burrows seconded, the following amendment:

 

Delete all after "reaffirms its opposition to any further expansion of Heathrow" and add:

 

". Council does, however, acknowledge that Heathrow may cease to operate as an airport if it is not allowed to expand and recognises the immense opportunity that this affords the Borough and the west of London as regards the provision of much needed housing and community infrastructure as well as the provision of employment to mitigate the effects of closure.

 

Council therefore calls on the Leader of the Council to continue to work with his 2M colleagues on preventing the devastating effect of expansion at Heathrow. Furthermore, given the Heathrow Ltd statement that it would have to close the airport if not allowed to expand, the Leader ensures that the huge advantages emanating from the redevelopment options for the Heathrow site for the benefit of the local community, London and the South East are drawn to the attention of the Government and the Davies Commission."

 

Following debate (Councillors Curling, Gilham, Harmsworth and Simmonds), the amendment was put to a recorded vote and carried. 

 

Those voting for:  The Mayor (Councillor Kauffman), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Dann), Councillors Barker, Barrett, Benson, Bianco, Brar, Bridges, Bull, Burrows, G Cooper, J Cooper, Corthorne, Fyfe, Gilham, Graham, Harper-O’Neill, Hensley, Higgins, Jenkins, Lavery, Lewis, Markham, Melvin, D Mills, R Mills, Morgan, O’Connor, Payne, Puddifoot, Riley, Routledge, Seaman-Digby, Simmonds, Stead, White and Yarrow.

 

Those voting against:  Councillors Allen, Curling, Dhillon, Duncan, East, Ghei, Harmsworth, Jarjussey, Khursheed, Lakhmana, MacDonald, Major, Nelson, Sandhu and Sansarpuri.

 

Those abstaining:  Councillor Retter.

 

The substantive motion then put to the vote and it was:

 

RESOLVED:  That:

 

Council notes the publication of the interim Davies report into aviation and the subsequent resurrection of plans to build a 3rd runway at Heathrow.  Council therefore reaffirms its opposition to any further expansion of Heathrow.  Council does, however, acknowledge that Heathrow may cease to operate as an airport if it is not allowed to expand and recognises the immense opportunity that this affords the Borough and the west of London as regards the provision of much needed housing and community infrastructure as well as the provision of employment to mitigate the effects of closure.

 

Council therefore calls on the Leader of the Council to continue to work with his 2M colleagues on preventing the devastating effect of expansion at Heathrow. Furthermore given the Heathrow Ltd statement that it would have to close the airport if not allowed to expand, the Leader ensures that the huge advantages emanating from the redevelopment options for the Heathrow site for the benefit of the local community, London and the South East are drawn to the attention of the Government and the Davies Commission.