Agenda and minutes

Prayers were said by Father John O’Byrne.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Barnes, Bliss, East, Nelson and Routledge.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2011 (attached)

It was agreed that the word “student” be deleted from the resolution of Minute Number 38 – Article 4 Direction to Control Houses in Multiple Occupation Around Brunel University so that it read:

 

“RESOLVED: That an Article 4 Direction for the Uxbridge South and Brunel Wards to address Houses in Multiple Occupation issues raised by local residents be approved.”

 

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2011, as amended, be agreed as a correct record. 

The Council was advised that, since the start of the municipal year, the number of events that had been attended by the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and past Mayors on the Mayor’s behalf totalled 619.  The Mayor noted that several other fundraising events would be taking place in the near future in support of her charities.

 

The Leader of the Council was invited by the Mayor to make a statement regarding the Government’s recent HS2 decision.  Councillor Puddifoot stated that he wanted to make it quite clear that this authority was not against the concept of High Speed Rail travel and that nor were any of the other 17 authorities that made up the 51M Group.

 

On Tuesday 10 January 2011, The Secretary of State for Transport had announced the Government’s preferred route for the proposed High Speed Rail link between London and Birmingham with a future extension to Leeds, Manchester and a spur link to Heathrow Airport.  The Secretary of State had opened her statement by referring to “One of the largest national consultations” on the scheme having taken place, but chose not to mention that the overwhelming response from the nation had been to reject the proposed scheme. 

 

Councillor Puddifoot noted that it was of course correct for the Government, when proposing something in the national interest, to have a national consultation to gauge support, or otherwise, for something being done in the name of the people.  Whilst he had no doubt that the consultation result was a disappointment for the Government, Councillor Puddifoot also had no doubt that it was wrong to broadly ignore the views of the people.

 

The All Party Parliamentary Transport Select Committee reporting on the proposal in November of last year concluded that the project needed more planning and more consultation.  The Committee had raised fundamental issues on the environmental case and had called into question the scheme's deeply flawed business case, which claimed it would bridge the North / South divide at some future date between 2030 and 2070.  The Select Committee findings also emphasised that any High Speed Rail scheme should be part of an integrated national transport infrastructure – all very much in tune with the concerns of Hillingdon Council and the 51M Group.

 

The Leader went on to advise that, to her credit, the Secretary of State had made 12 refinements to a substantially flawed scheme including a tunnel in the Ruislip area, which unfortunately happened to have an adverse effect on residents in Ickenham.  As such, what was left was a substantially flawed scheme that was not a good use of an enormous sum of money. 

 

Councillor Puddifoot noted that the scheme had been further amended to delete the link connections to Heathrow airport that had been shown on the original plans but maintained that a link would be built on an undetermined route to a station within the boundaries of Heathrow by 2032.

 

He went on to state that he was immensely proud of the residents of the Borough who had campaigned so well, particularly those in Ruislip, Ickenham and Harefield.  Councillor Puddifoot noted that these residents were rightly concerned with what might happen in the area in which they lived, but that they also continued to drive home their concerns for others affected and the folly of committing an obscene amount of money at this time of financial constraint to what could only be described as a vanity project.

 

The Leader expressed his gratitude to the Council officers that had worked with professionalism and dedication to keep both Members and residents appraised of the technical, environmental and legal aspects of this scheme.  He also publicly thanked the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour Group for their support – the Council was united on this issue.

 

Councillor Puddifoot stated that it was vitally important to understand that this proposed project was very far from being a “done deal”.  In reality, all that had happened was that the Government had expressed an opinion, which was at odds with public opinion as expressed in the public consultation.  He believed that there would now be almost frantic activity to get some momentum behind this scheme and to discourage and undermine public opposition.  However, Councillor Puddifoot stated that the fight had not yet started and that no-one was throwing in the towel.

 

The Leader stated that ‘Our People, Our Environment’ were two of the main principles of the administration and that these would be defended.  In fact, if it was not the people and the environment of the country as a whole that made up the national interest, he was not sure what did.

 

Through the 51M group, Councillor Puddifoot advised that the Council was taking legal advice on the correct and most appropriate form of legal action in the UK (and possibly Europe).  He gave a public commitment that this Council would commit to funding legal action, and other appropriate courses of action, to ensure that both the local and national interest of the people and the environment were safeguarded.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Puddifoot noted that this scheme was off the wall and off the rails and that, despite all the fluster and bluster from national politicians, if the Council remained focussed, it would prevail.

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

 

RESOLVED:  That:

 

(i)                 the Urgency decisions detailed in the report be noted;

 

(ii)               the following amendment to the Council’s petition scheme be approved and implemented with immediate effect:

 

Multiple Petitions

 

For issues of practicality, where the Council receives more than one petition with broadly similar contents or raising broadly similar matters in relation to the same topic or agenda item, the relevant Cabinet Member or Chairman (dependent on the type of meeting hearing the petition) will have discretion to amend the speaking rights, the number of speakers and speaking timings such that there is not a duplication of presentations to the meeting. In such circumstances it will not be an automatic right that each petition organiser will get 5 minutes to speak and a maximum of 10 minutes may be allowed for one speaker to represent multiple petitioners on the same topic or agenda item.

 

(iii)             the timetable of meetings for 2012/13 in Appendix A of the report 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.

To consider a refreshed set of rules for Procurements and Contracts

Councillor Seaman-Digby moved the recommendations as set out on the Order of Business.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Bianco and:

 

RESOLVED:  That:

 

a)     the new version of Procurement and Contract Standing Orders, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, be approved to replace the current version in Part 4 Schedule H of the Council’s Constitution.

 

b)     the Code of Practice attached to the current version of Procurement and Contract Standing Orders in the Constitution cease to have effect.

 

c)     authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Co-ordination and Central Services, to initially approve and, if necessary, to subsequently amend and update a set of Procurement Standard Operating Procedures which are to read together with the new version of Procurement and Contract Standing Orders.

 

d)     the Head of Democratic Services be authorised to amend related articles and sections within Constitution to comply with the changes outlined above.

To consider the annual report on the Council Tax Base 2012/13

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

 

RESOLVED:  That:

 

a)     the report of the Chief Finance Officer, for the calculation of the Council Tax Base for 2012/2013, be approved.

 

b)     pursuant to the report of the Chief Finance Officer, and in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2003, the amount calculated by the London Borough of Hillingdon as its Council Tax Base for the year 2012/2013 shall be 100,236.

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

8.1       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR GILHAM TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND RECYCLING – COUNCILLOR BURROWS

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling confirm that Hillingdon Council has been granted the funding to complete the much welcomed High St Improvement Program in Yiewsley and West Drayton?”

 

Councillor Burrows responded that Transport for London had announced in November 2011 that the Council had been granted £966,000 for the programme in Yiewsley and West Drayton.  This was a good news story for these areas and a clear demonstration of how, when the Council, the local community and Transport for London all pulled together, really worthwhile improvements to local town centre environments could be secured.  Councillor Burrows paid tribute to the local Ward representatives who had been so supportive, as well as the local town centre action group in Yiewsley and West Drayton who had engaged so enthusiastically with the Council.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that the Council had set out some time ago to mastermind the regeneration of various town centres across the Borough.  Several of these town centres (for example, High Street, Ruislip and Green Lane, Northwood) had already been greatly enhanced through this process.  He believed that this was no small task, given that Hillingdon was the second largest borough in London with a large number of town centres of various sizes.  Although there was a great deal of potential, there were limited funds.  Despite this, the Council was already working on the next town centre improvement projects, with a lot about to happen in Hayes, for example.

 

Councillor Burrows stated that the Mayor of London had been supportive of the Council’s endeavours and, with his encouragement, the Council had embarked upon the Yiewsley and West Drayton scheme referred to in the question.  This scheme had been the largest such project for the Council to date. 

 

The Cabinet Member went on to advise that the Mayor of London had been welcomed to the Borough on 11 January 2012 and thanked for his continued help and support of Hillingdon.  The Cabinet Member believed that it was fitting that the Mayor of London had visited the RAF Uxbridge site, a site on which a new community would develop.  He had also met with residents of Ruislip where, with his support, the Council was working to protect its existing community from the threat of huge blight as result of the Government’s HS2 proposal.

 

It was noted that, with regard to the work being undertaken in Yiewsley and West Drayton, the Council aimed to improve the whole of the High Street, running from the junction of Falling Lane and Yiewsley High Street, right through the heart of the town centre as far south as the junction of Station Road and Swan Road, West Drayton.  This was a distance of about a kilometre.

 

Councillor Burrows advised that, as result of the feedback received during the consultation exercise that had been undertaken with all households in the two wards (Yiewsley and West Drayton), the Council had submitted a ‘Major Schemes’ bid to Transport for London.  The Mayor had set aside a special fund to support these major scheme bids, and Hillingdon’s bid had been fully accepted.  As Members were keen to demonstrate the Council’s commitment to this process, the Cabinet Member had authorised the two pilot schemes which were constructed in 2010 (one in Yiewsley and one in West Drayton) to give residents an idea of what was in store once the full funding became available.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that the past year had seen the first phase of the major scheme advance, with paving works and parallel improvements alongside the canal.  The announcement made just before Christmas meant that the Council would be able to move on to complete the remainder of the work in this second year.  This work included exciting plans to open up the canal with some major changes at Colham Bridge as well as the completion of various paving, carriageway and junction improvements.  By the time the work was finished, there would have been well over £2 million worth of improvements in Yiewsley and West Drayton.  Councillor Burrows believed that this would help create a town centre to be proud of, ahead of the next stage when the Crossrail improvements would begin.

 

Councillor Gilham, by way of a supplementary question, asked for confirmation as to whether Yiewsley and West Drayton would also see benefits from Transport for London’s Legible London Scheme.

 

In response, Councillor Burrows advised that Yiewsley and West Drayton would see benefits from the Legible London Scheme and that £60k had been secured through the Local Implementation Plan funding for 2012/2013.

 

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

 

“Can the Cabinet Member tell me if Hillingdon has any plans to support the “Barnardo’s Cut Them Free Campaign” to tackle the sexual exploitation of children, and thereby make a commitment to take the necessary steps to tackle the risk of this abuse in Hillingdon?”

 

Councillor Simmonds responded that the Council did have plans to support the campaign. 

 

Councillor Curling, by way of a supplementary question, asked if the Council had already signed up to the campaign and whether or not this had been publicised. 

 

In response, Councillor Simmonds advised that the there was a facility on the Barnardo’s website where an individual could type in their postcode and find out whether or not their council had pledged to support the Cut Them Free campaign.  Given that Hillingdon liaised regularly and worked closely with Barnardo’s, Councillor Simmonds had been surprised to find that, when a Hillingdon postcode was typed into the Barnardo’s website, it stated that Hillingdon was not supporting the campaign.  The Cabinet Member had contacted the organisation, but the issue had not yet been resolved.  Until the website was updated, he was reluctant to create too much publicity about the campaign. 

 

8.2       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR O’BRIEN TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND RECYCLING – COUNCILLOR BURROWS

 

“Mayor Boris Johnson established the Outer London Commission to ensure that Boroughs like Hillingdon are listened to and to clearly demonstrate that he is Mayor for all of London and not just Zone 1 unlike his predecessor.

 

Can the Cabinet Member say what representations we have made to the Commission and how beneficial have they been?”

 

Councillor Burrows responded that, since the Commission was set up in early 2009, Hillingdon had played a key part in shaping its views.  Officers had attended the first Outer London Commission meeting in West London in 2009.  Following this meeting, the Council had submitted a response highlighting areas of the Borough which were considered to have potential for economic growth in the future.  This response had also highlighted the need to support other smaller town centres such as Yiewsley/West Drayton, Ruislip, Northwood Hills, Northwood, Ruislip Manor and Eastcote, which were being badly affected by the general economic downturn. 

 

In October 2011, the Commission thanked Hillingdon for its helpful and constructive views on:

• the need for more flexible parking standards;
• the need for more account to be taken of local views with regard to housing density and type; and
• the need to find ways of retaining and relocating key businesses such as post offices to a central location where they were considered to be vital to the local town centre.

 

The Council’s representations had been very successful in shaping the Mayor of London’s thinking on town centres.  The Mayor had listened to the Council’s concerns about smaller town centres and established the Outer London Fund in which he gave £10m to outer London boroughs for town centre improvements.  From this Fund, Hillingdon was delighted to have received approximately £240,000 for Hayes.  Councillor Burrows stated that he was hoping that the bids for Ruislip Manor and Northwood Hills would be successful in the second round.

 

The Commission’s views were also taken into account by the Mayor when the London Plan of 2011 was produced, resulting in it being much more flexible to the needs of local communities.  The Cabinet Member believed that the Mayor had recognised that the previous bidding process for TfL funding had been far too complicated and prescribed so had changed it in 2010. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

8.4       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR ALLEN TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR IMPROVEMENT, PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY – COUNCILLOR DOUGLAS MILLS

 

“Just before Christmas it became apparent that the number of burglaries in the Borough rose and this coincided with some local SNT teams experiencing severe staffing difficulties. Can the Cabinet Member tell us how many SNT’s still have staffing issues and what he has done to assist the Police in this difficult time in his partnership and community safety role?”

 

Councillor D Mills responded that responsibility for the Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) belonged to the Metropolitan Police and advised that the Council was not involved in the day-to-day staffing issues experienced by the Service. 

 

It was noted that a review of SNTs had been undertaken by the Metropolitan Police Authority last year.  During this review, the Council had expressed its concerns and advised that the existing arrangements needed to be addressed.  The Cabinet Member was aware that there had been a significant number of vacancies which had taken longer to fill than expected and stated that the Police needed to consider the associated consequences. 

 

The Cabinet Member noted that there were three main areas in which the Council would continue to work with the Police:

1. Education – educating residents about how they could better protect themselves. 
2. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) – the Council had provided the Police with ANPR equipment. 
3. £148k would be included within the budget proposals due for consideration by Council on 23 February 2012 for a mobile community safety officer post to support the SNT wherever the need was greatest in the Borough.

 

Councillor Allen, by way of a supplementary question, asked for reassurance that the Council would monitor the situation to ensure that there was a full complement of SNT officers in each Ward.

 

In response, Councillor D Mills reiterated that the Council was not involved in the day-to-day staffing activities of the Police.  He advised that the issues raised would be fed back to the Police to help them with their efforts to reduce crime and the fear of crime.

 

8.5       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BRAR TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

“Would the Leader of the Council please inform the Council how many of our staff took part in the recent strike called by public sector trade unions?”

 

Councillor Puddifoot responded that Hillingdon was fortunate to have a staff who, by and large, were providing good and excellent services to its residents and who had rightly come to earn the respect and thanks of the people of this Borough for their efforts.  These staff could take pride in a job well done.

 

The Leader believed that the Borough was also fortunate that, on the whole, Council staff recognised the realities of the financial situation faced by the population of this country and most of the Western world – both private and public sector employees.  Furthermore, he believed that the Council was fortunate that the majority of staff recognised the importance of putting the needs of residents’ first and the futility and injustice of inflicting a loss of services on those with whom they had no dispute and who could not do anything to advance their cause.

 

Councillor Puddifoot was pleased to be able to inform Councillor Brar that only 207 Hillingdon Council employees (which represented 6.3% of its workforce) had taken the day off and the effects on Council services had been negligible.  Negligible, that is, with the exception that the Council had saved money by not having to pay those staff for the day.  This saving, together with other strike related savings, totalled about £16,000.

 

Councillor Brar, by way of a supplementary question, asked what would happen to strike related savings.

 

In response, Councillor Puddifoot noted that Hillingdon was fortunate that its staff had not taken out their concerns on its residents.  As it tended to be the vulnerable and children that were inconvenienced by public sector strikes, the Leader had thought it appropriate that, rather than add the savings to the Council’s balances, the money should instead be used to provide something that would benefit that sector of the community.

 

As such, the Leader advised that £15,000 would be invested in an award winning device called Soundbeam, which used sensor technology to translate body movement into digitally generated sound and image.  Soundbeam would provide a medium through which even profoundly physically disabled or learning impaired individuals could become expressive and communicative using music and sound.  The sense of control and independence which this provided could be a powerful motivator, stimulating learning and interaction in other areas of development and independence.

 

Hillingdon’s Music Service would work using Soundbeam and additional percussion instruments in a fully accessible way across a wide age range to enable young children, school age children and young adults with learning difficulties and physical disabilities to engage in music as a therapy and as a way of expressing themselves.

 

The Leader noted that the use of Soundbeam would enable Special Schools within the Borough to engage in the National Plan for Music Education’s vision for all children between 5 and 18 years to have experience of whole class or small group musical experiences.  It would also form the foundation of music engagement for children who otherwise would not be able to access this experience.

 

Soundbeam would also be used by adult learning staff with young adults with disabilities and difficulties who were in preparation for supported employment programmes as part of their personal and social development unit.  They would be able to use Soundbeam to facilitate group and team communication activities, producing a single performance piece as a group project.  Furthermore, it would be used as part of the wider family learning offer, working with Children’s Centres to engage young children and their parents or carers with restricted movement to enjoy generating sound.

 

Councillor Puddifoot advised that the funding would provide three complete sets of Soundbeam equipment with associated percussion equipment and relevant training and teaching measures.

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

Councillor Curling moved the following motion:

 

“This Council is committed to maintaining mixed and stable communities, and encouraging the development of housing to meet local need. Council housing is a vital part of the social rented sector and we are committed to ensuring that our tenants are put first. Furthermore the Council recognises that to meet local housing need it requires more new, and improved council tenancies, other secure and genuinely affordable homes for rent.

 

Council therefore requests that the Cabinet ensure that Hillingdon’s tenants are reassured that their secure tenancies will not be undermined by the outsourcing of the Council’s housing stock, or the introduction of fixed term tenancies.”

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor Major.  Following debate (Councillor Puddifoot), the motion was put to a recorded vote.

 

Those voting for:  Councillors Allam, Allen, Curling, Dhillon, Duncan, Gardner, Ghei, Harmsworth, Jarjussey, Khursheed, Lakhmana, Major, Sandhu and Sansarpuri.

 

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

 

Those abstaining:  None.

 

The motion was lost.