Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Dann, East, Gardner, Garg, Higgins, Markham, Money, Seaman-Digby and Sweeting.

To receive the minutes of the meetings held on 25 February and 12 May 2016 (attached)

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 25 February 2016 and 12 May 2016 be agreed as correct records,

The Mayor thanked everyone who had supported his charity launch which had raised £1,800.  He also congratulated Hillingdon's female football team on winning a silver medal at the London Youth Games. 

An Ickenham resident had recently been awarded the Chevalier in the Legion of Honour which was the highest French order for military and civil merits.  This resident had been invited to attend the Armed Forces Week celebrations.  In September 2016, Uxbridge College would be working with veterans to put together a DVD of their memories. 

On behalf of the Council, the Mayor wished Councillor Gardner a speedy recovery from her recent operation. 

The urgency decisions detailed in the report were noted.

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

"Air Quality is a major concern to residents across Hillingdon.  Can the Cabinet Member please outline the measures the Council is considering to improve it?"

Councillor Burrows advised that the Council took a strong stance on the issue of air quality and how it affected residents.  Actions that the Borough had undertaken were currently being reviewed in the Council's air quality action plan and the authority was in the process of identifying where further actions were required and what those actions would be.  From the start of the air quality action plan in 2005, the Borough had been successful in implementing measures in many areas such as: all schools now had active school travel plans for reducing car travel; the planning system ensured that the air quality impacts of new developments were assessed and appropriate mitigation sought; and there were plans in place to encourage safe walking and cycling and to ensure that public transport in the Borough was safe and accessible to all.

The Council had taken opportunities to include air pollution concerns in initiatives such as the recent Heathrow Villages Public Safety Order which included the unnecessary idling of engines as an offence subject to a penalty notice.  The authority had looked at areas such as Cowley Mill Road as a case study for improvements where the movement of freight could impact negatively on residents.  The Council would continue to build on these successes.

The new action plan would be a joint initiative combining Transport and Public Health so that links between air pollution and health were recognised and strengthened.  It would be scrutinised in terms of its development via updates at the Health and Wellbeing Board.  The Council would review all the actions that it was able to take and would implement measures where they could help improve air quality and where the authority had the powers to do so.  This included actions to encourage cleaner vehicles on the Borough's streets, looking at localised solutions for improvements to neighbourhoods to ease congestion, increasing the use of green infrastructure and green space and how the Council could lead by example ensuring it operated a clean vehicle fleet.  Further joint actions would be sought with stakeholders such as Transport for London, Heathrow Airport, Highways England and local businesses where the measures needed to improve air quality were not solely in the gift of the Council to deliver.

The review of the action plan would be subject to public consultation seeking views on the actions to improve local air quality.  This consultation would take place towards the end of this year.

Air pollution remained one of the Council's major objections in relation to the detrimental impacts which would come from any unacceptable development expansion of Heathrow Airport and the authority had ensured that its air quality concerns had been robustly made and defended at the recent planning appeal into the ending of the Cranford Agreement at Heathrow and in the planning inquiry into the M4 Smart Motorway proposal.

Hillingdon residents would be deeply disappointed to see that the Labour GLA member for Ealing and Hillingdon had recently been photographed attending a pro-Heathrow expansion event.  Councillor Burrows assured all Members in the Chamber and all Hillingdon residents that the Administration would not kowtow to big foreign businesses or governments of any colour but would continue to put Hillingdon residents first.  The Council would also continue to fight for better air quality and increased wellbeing for the whole of Hillingdon, which included fighting against an unnecessary and unwanted Heathrow Airport expansion.

There was no supplementary question.

6.3       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR OSWELL (ON BEHALF OF COUNCILLOR SWEETING) TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

"What support will the Council provide the residents of Yiewsley and West Drayton in the likely event that Powerday appeals the decision made by the Major Applications Planning Committee regarding Powerday's plans to build an industrial waste plant on the Old Coal Yard site, Yiewsley?"

Councillor Puddifoot was aware that, like the Ward Councillors for Yiewsley and fellow Ward Councillors in West Drayton, Councillor Sweeting had objected strongly to the Powerday application.  As he had mentioned on a number of occasions in the Chamber over the past 16 years, one of the reasons that he had become a Councillor was to defend the residents of Hillingdon against inappropriate development.    

The Conservative administration in Hillingdon had an enviable record for defending its residents in this area and the Council's strong financial position enabled it to provide a robust challenge or defence against proposals that would damage the environment or the health and wellbeing of residents.  There were a number of ways that this had been achieved, for example, with the concept approach (such as the proposal to expand Heathrow) or the Hybrid Bill approach (being used for HS2), where the Council had funded expert legal advice and assisted residents to actively campaign against the proposals.  Although Heathrow Airport Ltd had spent millions of pounds on campaigns over the years to promote expansion at Heathrow, the Council remained strong and constant in defending its residents and would continue to do so. 

With a planning application, such as that submitted by Powerday, the Council had to go through the statutory process, ever mindful of not undermining its position at a possible subsequent appeal.  The Council had robustly defended its position with legal counsel at the West London Waste Plan examination in public.  This had culminated with the Inspector determining that the existing site access junction with Tavistock Road was totally inadequate and that heavy goods vehicles accessing the site had to pass through areas and along highways that were unsuited to the traffic volumes likely to be generated by major waste use.  An enforcement appeal process was already underway on the Powerday site.  This had followed the Council's decision to issue an enforcement notice last year related to night time noise disturbances caused by Powerday's existing skip and waste container transport operation.  In support of the Council's case, specialist legal representation had been secured and expert witnesses had been instructed. 

Since the beginning of this year, the Council had also been monitoring noise levels, both within and surrounding the site, to establish the harm to neighbouring residents.  In effect, the Council had been putting whatever resources were required into robustly defending this enforcement notice at appeal. 

The Powerday planning application for a materials recovery and recycling site would have resulted in a very high number of vehicle movements on roads in Yiewsley and West Drayton.  The Council's Planning Committee had unanimously agreed to refuse the application on the grounds of: the principle of waste development being unacceptable on the site due to the conflict with the West London Waste Plan; the adverse impact on the Borough's highway network, including free flow of traffic, highway and pedestrian safety; and the adverse impact on air quality. 

The Council now awaited confirmation from the Mayor of London that the Council could proceed to refuse the planning application.  Whilst Councillor Puddifoot did not have as much influence with the current Mayor as he'd had with the previous one, he did not anticipate that the Mayor would wish to intervene in this case. 

To summarise, as with any inappropriate development, the Council would take robust and appropriate action, using its adequate financial resources as required to defend Council Planning Committee decisions, should Powerday choose to appeal.

There was no supplementary question.

6.2       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR FLYNN TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR EDUCATION & CHILDREN'S SERVICES - COUNCILLOR SIMMONDS

"Can the Cabinet Member for Education & Children's Services set out the next steps in providing secondary school places for local children?"

Councillor Simmonds advised that the Council's policy had always been to put its younger residents first, primarily by ensuring that it provided a good quality place in a school where good and high quality education could then be delivered.  In the Hillingdon primary expansion programme, the Council had always sought to build high quality facilities that would stand the test of time and could be used effectively in the future.  Clearly, this had been a significant factor in the planning that had gone into the next phase, which was moving into secondary education. 

There had been 3,323 secondary school applications in Hillingdon this year, which was the highest number since records had started.  This had led to an 8% increase in the number of offers that had been made compared to the previous year.  The rise in the number of children at primary schools was now beginning to feed through to secondary schools.  The average London increase on the previous year had been 3.3%, illustrating that Hillingdon remained a popular destination for families. 

At 91%, Hillingdon continued to remain above the London average of 89% of young people who had secured one of their top three school choices.  However, it was important to ensure that, as the numbers came through the system, the Council continued to be able to offer the first choice of school to as many families and children as possible. 

Having had one of the largest primary school capital programmes, Hillingdon was now embarking on a significant secondary school capital programme.  With regard to those expansions already in the pipeline, a number of Members had had the opportunity to visit Northwood School which was in the process of being substantially rebuilt.  This, combined with the expansions at Swakeleys and Abbotsfield (which was largely being funded by the Council), would deliver an additional 6½ forms of entry and represented significant expansion in the centre and north of the Borough. 

In contrast to where the population figures showed significant pressures in the past at primary school age, there was now significantly more pressure at secondary school age where, historically, there had been less spare capacity in the north of the Borough.  The Council was about to move to the next stage with three schools, primarily in the north, to provide the additional capacity needed.  The Council would now move to the design stage of expansions at Ruislip High School, Queensmead School and Vyners School following an extensive process of consultation.  It was likely that a number of other schools would also need to be expanded in due course.  Bishopshalt and Uxbridge High had expressed an interest in coming forward for expansion but this would need to be done at a time when the demand and capacity in the system made this the most appropriate course of action. 

There were a number of free school applications doing the rounds in the Borough and, whilst this was not within the control of the Council, the authority was engaging with providers and the Regional Schools Commissioner to ensure that they were located in the most appropriate places and that they would be high quality additions to the Hillingdon educational scene. 

The expansions being funded at both primary and secondary level had taken account of the need to provide additional places for children with Special Educational Needs (SEN).  For example, at Vyners School there had been expansion of the specialist resource provision for children with hearing impairment and, at each of the other sites, the Council had been engaged about what would be the most relevant type of SEN to provide on each site. 

There was no supplementary question.

7.1       MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR CURLING

Councillor Curling moved, and Councillor Khatra seconded, the following motion:

"That this Council recognises the importance of mental health awareness, especially when making decisions that may affect people with mental health issues or when representing people who have mental health issues.

Council, therefore, requests that 'Mental health awareness' is added to the Member development programme, this could be in the form of the mental health first aid course, or something similar if it is felt that it would be more appropriate in assisting elected Members with their duties.

Council further requests that the Leader of the Council considers the appointment of a 'Mental Health Champion' to help raise general awareness of mental health issues as well as assisting elected Members with regard to putting residents first."

Councillor Cothorne moved, and Councillor Riley seconded, the amended motion as set out on the Order of Business.  Following debate (Councillors Jarjussey and Sansarpuri), the amended motion was put to the vote and carried.  The substantive motion was then put to the vote and it was:

RESOLVED: That this Council recognises the importance of mental health awareness, especially when making decisions that may affect people with mental health issues or when representing people who have mental health issues.

Council therefore requests that a mental health awareness health and wellbeing module covering all relevant aspects of the issues affecting our residents be added to the Member development programme.

Council further recognises the significant contribution of the Health, Wellbeing and Disabilities champion to raising awareness of mental health issues across the Borough.

7.2       MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR DUNCAN

Councillor Duncan moved, and Councillor Dhillon seconded, the following motion:

"That this Council wishes to combat the effects of rogue landlords on Hillingdon tenants and refers this matter to the RESPOC for study and a report back to Cabinet for their decision and action. The study should include financially dishonest practices by landlords and their agents, rights of appeal by tenants, registers of bad landlords, revenge evictions and publicity."

Following debate (Councillors Bridges, Corthorne, Gilham and Morse), the motion was put to a recorded vote:

Those voting for: Councillors Allen, Birah, Burles, Curling, Dheer, Dhillon, Dhot, Duncan, Eginton, Jarjussey, Khatra, Khursheed, Lakhmana, Morse, Nelson, Oswell, Sansarpuri and Singh.

Those voting against:  The Mayor (Councillor Hensley), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Melvin), Councillors Ahmad-Wallana, Barnes, Bianco, Bridges, Burrows, Chamdal, Chapman, G Cooper, J Cooper, Corthorne, Crowe, Davis, Denys, Duducu, Edwards, Flynn, Fyfe, Gilham, Graham, Haggar, Jackson, Kauffman, Kelly, Lavery, Lewis, D Mills, R Mills, Morgan, O’Brien, Palmer, Puddifoot, Riley, Simmonds, Stead, White and Yarrow.

The motion was lost.