Agenda and minutes

The Mayor announced the death of Ms Jane Rose Williams on 5 September 2016.  Ms Williams had served as a Councillor between 1986 and 1990.  Those present observed a one minute silence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Allen, Bianco, Dhillon, Duducu and Seaman-Digby.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2016 (attached)

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2016 be agreed as a correct record. 

Councillor Lakhmana declared a pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 8.1, as she worked at Heathrow airport, and left the room during the consideration thereof.

The Mayor congratulated Councillor R Mills and his new wife on their recent marriage.  He welcomed Councillors Gardner and Khursheed back to the Chamber following their recent operations and wished them well with their recovery. 

 

The Mayor also congratulated Hillingdon Rifle Club which had recently won the inter-borough rifle shoot for the eighth time in the last ten years.   

 

To date, the Mayor and Mayoress had conducted around 230 engagements. 

5.1       QUESTION FROM MR DAVID BISHOP OF LICHFIELD ROAD, NORTHWOOD HILLSTO THE Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling - COUNCILLOR BURROWS

 

"Can the Cabinet Member please advise me, as Lead Petitioner of over 2,500 residents in Northwood Hills who signed the petition in 2015 requesting a residents' only parking management scheme around Northwood Hills station, what the parking stress survey revealed, confirm that it is Hillingdon Borough's intention to put residents first and definitely introduce a scheme and indicate when the scheme will be implemented, which will ensure that Northwood Hills residents are treated in the same way as the residents in the other 15 locations in Hillingdon Borough who enjoy the benefits of a parking management scheme deterring commuter parking in their area?"

 

Councillor Burrows advised that the parking stress surveys had been undertaken by specialist independent consultants, commissioned following a Petition Hearing.  The data from this work had since been shared with the Ward Councillors.  The area in which the surveys had been undertaken was not insignificant, so analysing the extensive data would take time.  Once the Ward Councillors had had the opportunity to discuss the outcome of the parking stress surveys, they would make their views known to the Cabinet Member and Council officers and a decision would then be forthcoming. 

 

If options to manage the parking in the area could be recommended, then an informal consultation would subsequently be the way forward.  As it was not possible to predict the outcome of such a consultation, it would be wrong for the Council to state that it would "definitely introduce a scheme".  The Council would not implement a scheme unless it was supported by the local community. 

i)        URGENT IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS

 

Councillor Puddifoot moved, and Councillor Simmonds seconded, the recommendation as set out on the Order of Business.

 

ReSOLVED: That the Urgency decisions detailed in the report be noted.

 

(ii)     HEALTH AND WELLBEING BOARD

 

Councillor Puddifoot moved and Councillor Simmonds seconded:

 

"That:

 

a)      Article 7.08(e) of the Constitution and the Terms of Reference of the Health and Wellbeing Board be amended to the effect that that the Chairman shall be the Cabinet Member for Social Services, Housing, Health & Wellbeing and the Vice Chairman, the Deputy Leader of the Council.

 

b)      the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Residents Services be removed from the list of co-opted voting members of the Board."

 

Councillor Eginton moved the following amendment, which was seconded by Councillor East, to include the following:

 

"That Article 8.09(b) of the Constitution, Health & Wellbeing Board Membership, Statutory Members, be amended to include, after '6) Statutory Director of Public Health':

 

7)    The Leader of the 2nd Party on the Council

8)    The 2nd Party Lead on External Services Scrutiny Committee

9)    The 2nd Party Lead on Social Services, Housing & Public Health Policy Overview Committee"

 

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

 

RESOLVED:  That:

 

a)        Article 7.08(e) of the Constitution and the Terms of Reference of the Health and Wellbeing Board be amended to the effect that that the Chairman shall be the Cabinet Member for Social Services, Housing, Health & Wellbeing and the Vice Chairman, the Deputy Leader of the Council.

 

b)        the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Residents Services be removed from the list of co-opted voting members of the Board.

7.1       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DAVIS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY, COMMERCE AND REGENERATION - COUNCILLOR D.MILLS

 

"Can the Cabinet Member responsible for Community Safety provide an update on the traveller incursions and the actions taken to alleviate the distress caused to our residents?"

 

Councillor D Mills advised that there had been an increase in the number of incursions seen over the summer (17) and it was unclear why this number had been higher than previous years.  However, it was clear that these incursions caused uncertainty and concern for residents as anti social behaviour, costly environmental damage and intimidation were commonly linked with these incursions. 

 

The Council had always provided a robust and rapid response to incursions, and continued to do so for every instance.  Travellers often broke into the sites over a weekend or bank holiday when the courts were closed which prevented the Council from applying for a warrant straight away.  However, on each occasion the Council had taken action and successfully obtained court orders to reclaim the land.  Whilst this was being undertaken, further action was being taken by officers to secure and contain the site.  This containment policy worked well for the Council and conveyed the message that poor behaviour would not be tolerated beyond the area that had already been occupied.  These actions took time but did prove to be successful. 

 

Although the Council did not have the power to act in relation to infractions on non-Council owned land, it did provide advice to landlords who were affected. 

 

Once the Council had regained control of a site, it was often in a poor condition and needed a lot of cleaning up.  To date this year, the Council had incurred costs of almost £200k with regard to clearing up the mess that had been left behind to ensure continued use of the sites by residents.  The Council would continue with this robust and rapid response to infractions. 

 

There was no supplementary question. 

 

7.5       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MONEY TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE, PROPERTY AND BUSINESS SERVICES - COUNCILLOR BIANCO

 

"The Cranford Park Friends group is a volunteer group working successfully in co-operation with Hillingdon Council and are looking forward to furthering the joint heritage lottery fund bid ambitions in the park. The Friends group have however been frustrated by a lack of access to any facilities.

 

"At the Council meeting in July 2015 we were assured by Councillor Bianco that the restoration of the park information centre that was damaged in the fire would be completed by Autumn 2015. To date there has been no sign of the work starting.

 

"Could the Cabinet Member please provide a time scale as to when the work will start as Autumn 2016 is fast approaching?"

 

Councillor Puddifoot responded to the question in Councillor Bianco's absence.  The Cranford Park restoration project was one of the Heritage projects included in the Hillingdon Improvement Programme (HIP) and the Council remained fully committed to this exciting project.  A very positive working relationship had been established with the Friends of Cranford Park and a project had been put together which would see: the repair of the historic building and structures at the core of the site; the reinstatement of the stables wing to provide a café space, toilets and education room; the scoping of a new venue on the site of the old house, which would also allow access to the 16^th century cellars; restoration of the 18^th century landscaped gardens which once surrounded the house; proposed improvements to security, lighting, access and interpretation; walking and cycling trails; and exposure of archaeological features. 

 

Public consultation had shown that the proposals had much support from the community.  With the Cranford project, the Council had submitted a Heritage Lottery pre-enquiry form, together with the feasibility study which contained information arising from the public consultation and visitor survey.  This project was more complex that others that had been successfully delivered by the Council, such as Eastcote House, and might take longer to achieve.  However, the Council would continue to involve residents at each step. 

 

Unfortunately, the original tenders received to repair the fire damage to the Visitor Centre had not offered value for money so the work had been retendered.  The new tenders for the restoration works had now been received and it was anticipated that the contract would be awarded in the next two weeks with the intention of the works commencing in early October 2016.  Although this process had taken longer than originally anticipated, this had enabled the Council to widen the scope of the project to include additional works.  A specialist company had also been appointed to reconstruct the marble statue that was damaged in the fire. 

 

Heritage projects took longer to complete than normal building projects, for example, the Eastcote House and Gardens project took five years and cost £1.76m.  Cranford was fifteen times the size of Eastcote and it was anticipated that the cost would be approximately £7m. 

 

It was customary for temporary buildings to be used by the Council on projects such as this. The Friends at Cranford had, however, declined the offer of this facility.  Councillor Puddifoot asked if Councillor Money would be able to establish why this offer had been rejected. 

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Money asked whether the building had been insured and suggested that the Heritage Lottery funding be put to one side whilst the Council concentrated on building the Visitor Centre. 

 

Councillor Puddifoot advised that, when looking at buildings of this nature, there was a lot more to consider than the average building.  The Council was looking at the site as a whole and therefore it took longer as different consultants and specialists were involved.  The authority was working as quickly as it could and was involving individuals at every step of this major investment.  It was anticipated that this work would result in a superb facility. 

 

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

 

"Can the Cabinet Member provide an update on the Council's involvement in supporting refugee children?"

 

Councillor Simmonds advised that Hillingdon was justifiably proud of the achievements of the many unaccompanied children that had passed through its care over the years.  The Council's involvement and responsibilities were not only a matter of sentiment, but also a matter of law.  The 2003 Hillingdon judgement had clarified the responsibilities of all councils in respect of unaccompanied asylum seeking children in their area.  As a consequence of this judgement, all of these children came into the care of the Council under the terms of the Children Act 1989.  This meant that, not only was the Council responsible for finding somewhere for them to go in the short term, but it was also responsible for their care in the same way as it would be for any local child until they reached their mid twenties.  The authority's Social Workers and Personal Advisors were not only there at the front line at the airport, but also supporting them through their years at school and potentially their years at university.  Many young asylum seekers had gone on to achieve great qualifications and continued to make fantastic contributions to both the economy and the wider society. 

 

The ongoing challenge for Hillingdon had been in relation to funding.  From the date of the Hillingdon judgement, Councillor Simmonds and the Leader of the Council had been actively engaged with a variety of different Ministers, most recently with James Brokenshire.  Although there had been a funding regime in place for most of this time, its operation had varied over the years.  The ongoing contribution of Hillingdon Council Tax payers to the support of young people in the Council's care amounted to around £20m since 2003.  It was not just a matter of ensuring that the Council provided a good statutory service, it was also recognising that Hillingdon tax payers had been covering a significant proportion of the cost of providing the kind of support that the young people needed. 

 

Although the numbers had varied significantly over the years, the Council currently had 104 unaccompanied children in its care.  The Council was not only responsible for those who came to the UK to claim asylum, but also had significant numbers who arrived at the UK border travelling with adults who were not who they claimed to be, for example, traffickers.  These children found themselves coming into the care of the Council, sometimes for a short period of time but quite commonly for the rest of their childhood and potentially up to the age of 25.  This was a significant service for which the Council had significant staffing, specially trained Social Workers, Foster Carers, etc, to provide support. 

 

After a long period of lobbying and campaigning in relation to this, a scheme had taken effect from the beginning of July with the aim that unaccompanied children would be transferred to councils who had more capacity based upon a formula which clearly showed that Hillingdon was handling in excess of the number it should be expected to support.  It was a matter of national policy that children and young people should be able to come to the UK and claim asylum and was supported by the Council.  However, it was not acceptable that a small number of local authorities that were ports of entry should bear the vast majority of the burden of providing the services and the associated costs.  This scheme was having a slow start but Councillor Simmonds was aware that 50 children that had previously been in Kent's care had been transferred and it was clear that Hillingdon was a priority.  This would alleviate the financial burden on the local tax payers and would mean that the young people would have the opportunity for a new start in the UK in a local authority area that had more capacity in terms of foster carers and other services to support them. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

7.4       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR EGINTON TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, HOUSING, HEALTH & WELLBEING - COUNCILLOR CORTHORNE

 

"How many social housing properties has the Council built in the year ended 31 March 2016?"

 

Councillor Corthorne advised that the Council was delivering a wide range of housing options to support local residents to access suitable, affordable housing in the Borough.  This included social rented housing, support for first time home buyers as well as access to lower-cost home ownership. 

 

During the year ending March 2016, there had been a total of 48 completions of social rented accommodation in Hillingdon, which included buy-backs of former ‘Right-to-Buy’ Council properties and 6 properties for supported housing.  In the same period, 95 households had been assisted to buy a home of their own including 40 new build low cost home ownership.

 

The Council pro-actively worked to prevent homelessness which involved securing private rented sector accommodation, with 39 additional units of temporary accommodation that had been procured through the in-house private sector leasing scheme and 32 through the Council's Finders' Fee scheme.

 

A number of further sites for development and acquisition were currently progressing, including supported accommodation for vulnerable adults.

 

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Eginton asked whether he was right in thinking that the answer to his question was nil. 

 

Councillor Corthorne reiterated that, during the year to March 2016, there had been a total of 48 completions of social rented accommodation in Hillingdon, which included buy-backs of former ‘Right-to-Buy’ Council properties and 6 properties for supported housing.  He advised that he would send Councillor Eginton a fuller breakdown of these figures. 

 

[Following the meeting, Councillor Corthorne provided Councillor Eginton with the following information:

 

During the year ending March 2016 there was a total of 48 completions of social rented accommodation in Hillingdon, which included buy-backs of former ‘Right-to-Buy’ Council properties and 6 properties for supported housing.

 

·         25 affordable rent properties (completions by Housing Associations)

o   20 at St Andrews Park

o   2 at KMS garage site

o   2 street purchases by Paradigm Housing Association

o   1 street purchase by Notting Hill Housing Trust

·         6 supported housing units at Church Road (supported housing, learning disabilities)

·         17 completions under the Right to Buy, Buy-Back scheme which adds properties to Council housing stock for use as social rented housing

 

This of course does not include all forms of new affordable housing.]

 

7.3       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MARKHAM TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR CENTRAL SERVICES, CULTURE AND HERITAGE - COUNCILLOR LEWIS

 

"Can the Cabinet Member please inform Council if the Hillingdon Arts Festival is going to be revived?"

 

Councillor Lewis was delighted to be in a position to promote, enhance and develop all aspects of the arts in the Borough and confirmed that there would be an Arts Festival in 2017 which would run from 24 June 2017 to 9 July 2017.  Plans were still at the early stages so further details would follow in due course. 

 

In addition, Bigfest would be held on 25 September 2016 from 12pm to 4pm in Uxbridge with a full programme of activities.  Culture bite would run throughout October - this was the second year that this event had been held and it was growing in popularity.  Further details of Bigfest and Culture bite could be found on the Council's website.

 

There was no supplementary question.

Councillor O’Brien moved, and Councillor Morgan seconded, the suspension of Council procedure rules 14.4 to allow 10 minutes for the mover of motion 8.1.  This was agreed.

 

8.1       MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

Councillor Puddifoot moved, and Councillor Simmonds seconded, the following motion:

 

"That this Council notes that the Prime Minister will be chairing the Cabinet Committee on Heathrow and calls upon her and the Government to bring a swift end to the blight of Hillingdon residents living with the constant threat of losing their homes and communities by making a decision on the Airport Commission report as soon as Parliament returns after the summer recess.

 

"Council reaffirms its long standing opposition to Heathrow Airport expansion and its commitment to use all the resources at its disposal to put our residents first and resist any proposal that brings harm to our community.

 

"Council further notes that a second runway at Gatwick Airport will deliver the UK the same number of passengers, the same number of long haul routes, better UK and regional connections and the economic boost the UK needs, all at a dramatically lower environmental impact, at less than half the cost of Heathrow and with no public subsidy.

 

"Council, therefore, believes that Gatwick is the most logical airport for increased runway capacity, supports the 'Gatwick Obviously' campaign and urges the Government to choose Gatwick as the best option for South East Airport expansion in the long term interests of London and the UK as a whole."

 

Councillor Money moved, and Councillor Nelson seconded, an amendment to delete last two paragraphs of the motion and replace with:

 

"Hillingdon is experiencing increasing pollution harmful to health, particularly around Heathrow, which is affecting thousands of Hillingdon residents with consequent health and financial costs. Instead of adding to this already unacceptable damage to the environment, communities and human health the Council calls on the Prime Minister and Cabinet Committee on Heathrow to support Hillingdon in trying to combat these problems and resist proposals for Heathrow expansion."

 

Following debate on the amendment (Councillors Curling, Khatra, Puddifoot and Sweeting), the amended motion was put to the vote and lost. 

 

Following debate on the original motion (Councillors Burrows, Curling, Davis, Gilham, Lavery, Morse and Riley), the motion was put to a recorded vote:

 

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

 

Those abstaining:  Councillors Birah, Burles, Curling, Dheer, Dhot, Duncan, East, Eginton, Gardner, Garg, Jarjussey, Khatra, Khursheed, Money, Morse, Nelson, Oswell, Sansarpuri, Singh and Sweeting.

 

RESOLVED:  That this Council notes that the Prime Minister will be chairing the Cabinet Committee on Heathrow and calls upon her and the Government to bring a swift end to the blight of Hillingdon residents living with the constant threat of losing their homes and communities by making a decision on the Airport Commission report as soon as Parliament returns after the summer recess.

 

Council reaffirms its long standing opposition to Heathrow Airport expansion and its commitment to use all the resources at its disposal to put our residents first and resist any proposal that brings harm to our community.

 

Council further notes that a second runway at Gatwick Airport will deliver the UK the same number of passengers, the same number of long haul routes, better UK and regional connections and the economic boost the UK needs, all at a dramatically lower environmental impact, at less than half the cost of Heathrow and with no public subsidy.

 

Council, therefore, believes that Gatwick is the most logical airport for increased runway capacity, supports the 'Gatwick Obviously' campaign and urges the Government to choose Gatwick as the best option for South East Airport expansion in the long term interests of London and the UK as a whole.

 

8.2       MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR OSWELL

 

Councillor Oswell moved, and Councillor Sansarpuri seconded, the following motion:

 

"That this Council condemns racism, xenophobia and hate crimes unequivocally. All Members of this Council are proud to live in a diverse and tolerant society. Racism, xenophobia and hate crimes have no place in our country. We will not allow hate to become acceptable.

 

"This Council will work to ensure that local bodies and programmes have the support and resources they need to fight and prevent racism and xenophobia and will reassure all people living in this area that they are valued members of our community."

 

Councillor Puddifoot moved, and Councillor D Mills seconded, an amendment to delete all wording after "That this Council..." and replace with:

 

"...believes that hate crimes have no place in our country, whether based on race, religion, sexual orientation, age or disability.

 

"This Council condemns racism, xenophobia and hate crimes unequivocally and reassures all residents of this Borough that they are valued members of our community."

 

Following debate on the amended motion (Councillors Curling, Davis, Denys, Flynn, Jarjussey, Lakhmana, Lewis. Nelson and Oswell), it was put to the vote and agreed. 

 

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

 

RESOLVED:  That this Council believes that hate crimes have no place in our country, whether based on race, religion, sexual orientation, age or disability.

 

This Council condemns racism, xenophobia and hate crimes unequivocally and reassures all residents of this Borough that they are valued members of our community.