Agenda and minutes

Prayers were said by Reverend Adrian Guthrie.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Barnes, Garg, Markham, Payne, Retter and Stead.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2010

RESOLVED:  That, subject to the amendment of the second sentence of the second paragraph of item 19 to read: “73 of these events...”, the minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2010 be agreed as a correct record. 

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

Councillor Puddifoot declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 9.2, and remained in the room during the consideration thereof.

Councillors D Mills and R Mills declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 9.2, and remained in the room during the consideration thereof.  They both also declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the amendment to Agenda Item 9.2 and left the room during the consideration thereof.

Councillor Allen declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 6.i, as she was a member of the Hillingdon Homes Board, and remained in the room during the consideration thereof.

The Mayor advised that he had met with Mr Joseph Bernard Brown who has served as Mayor of Hillingdon in 1969 – Mr Brown was the earliest serving surviving ex-Mayor of Hillingdon.  The Mayor had lunch with Mr Brown and his daughter at the beginning of August 2010 and had presented him with the Hillingdon Borough crest. 

To mark the 70^th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, the Mayor had attended a commemorative service at the Battle of Britain Operations Room in Uxbridge.  This was followed by a wreath laying service and the unveiling of the new Spitfire and Hurricane Gate Guardians.  The Mayor also attended a remembrance service at the Polish War Memorial where a Spitfire had flown overhead.  The Duke of Kent had also attended this service. 

Members were advised that the Mayor’s Charity Race Night was being held at the Battle of Britain Club in Uxbridge at 7.30pm on Friday 24 September 2010.  Everyone was welcome. 

The Council was advised that the number of events that had been attended by the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and past Mayors on the Mayor’s behalf totalled 129.  121 of these events were within the Borough with the remaining 8 being outside of Hillingdon.

To take questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.

5.1       QUESTION FROM PENNY RUTHERFORD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR IMPROVEMENT, PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY – COUNCILLOR DOUGLAS MILLS

“The agenda of the Cabinet meeting in March 2009 which discussed implementation of the Sustainable Communities Act listed the following local organisations which would be consulted (in lieu of forming a newly constituted Local Panel) for the purposes of the Act:

• Streets Ahead
• Street Champions
• Other representative Forums such as Connecting Communities BME forum, Older People’s Assembly, Assembly for People with Physical or Sensory Disabilities, the Inter-Faith Network, the Youth Council and others
• Neighbourhood Watch
• Police SNT Panels
• Developing links from the Hillingdon Residents’ Survey
• The Chrysalis Programme and Councillor Ward Budgets.

Given that local Residents’ Associations:

• Probably represent a greater number of residents than any other local organisation
• Have demonstrated the ability to make constructive suggestions in many areas relating to Civic life,
• Comprise a wide range of people with varying knowledge and skills in different areas
• Consistently demonstrate an interest in and commitment to improving and maintaining sustainable life in the local area
• Function in a more consultative way than Street Champions which the Council include on their list,

Will the Council make a commitment to including local residents’ Associations in their consultations for the Sustainable Communities Act, if not, why not and what criteria are used in making this decision?”

Councillor D Mills responded that the Council recognised the commitment and the valuable role of Residents’ Associations but advised that the Sustainable Communities Act was not necessarily the best vehicle or most effective way of meeting the needs of residents.  However, the Council would make use of the Act where it did meet residents’ needs.  For example, the changes in planning policy regarding garden grabbing developments, the RIPA regulations prohibiting the Council from ‘spying’ on residents regarding issues like catchment areas for school places, and the continued collection of refuse on a weekly basis. 

Councillor D Mills was supportive of localism and confident that residents were always put at the heart of everything the Council did.  Consideration would be given to any ideas or proposals that were submitted by groups of residents across the Borough but it was noted that the Council would not always agree with these ideas. 

Residents’ Associations were thought to have a huge part to play in improving engagement with residents.  Whilst consultation with residents was considered to be extremely important, Councillor D Mills stressed that the Council’s Leader, Cabinet and supporting Members had been elected to be responsible for making the decisions. 

5.2       QUESTION FROM TONY ELLIS TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR IMPROVEMENT, PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY – COUNCILLOR DOUGLAS MILLS

“At a recent meeting of chairmen/officers of Residents' Associations from the north of the Borough, there was a general consensus that there is no consistency in the way that officers of the Council consult with Residents' Associations. Some are consulted on a regular basis and others rarely, if at all.

Recent examples are:

• None of us was involved in the formulation of the draft Core Strategy document
• Not all of us were invited to the officers' presentation on the Core Strategy
• Hard copies of the Core Strategy were not made available until we protested at a higher level
• By the time hard copies were available, we had less that 4 weeks to consult with our residents. Requests to extend the consultation period were refused by officers.
• The Rights of Way Improvement Plan consultation was not sent to Residents' Associations
• Changes to parking regulations consultations are not sent to the affected Residents' Associations

Residents' Associations represent many thousands of the Borough's residents and are mandated to protect their interests. This irregular or lack of consultation makes our work very difficult and we feel the many Council officers do not value our opinions.

Assuming that the Leader of the Council agrees that Residents' Associations should be involved in all public consultations, will he instruct the Chief Executive to ensure that his officers consult all of us in future?”

Councillor D Mills reiterated that Residents’ Associations played a valuable role and, as such, had been invited to comment on the Core Strategy.  Furthermore, a Residents’ Planning Forum meeting had been held in June 2010.  On this occasion, the Council had provided the Residents’ Associations with a hard copy of the document rather than a CD-ROM.  However, the cost associated with printing and distributing hard copy versions was prohibitive so should not be considered the ‘norm’.  Residents’ Associations had also been invited to a drop in session in July 2010. 

A revised version of the Core Strategy would be considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 18 November 2010 and residents would then be afforded a further opportunity to provide comments over a six week consultation period.

It was noted that the Council published changes to parking regulations in the media and the relevant Ward Councillors were also made aware of the changes and encouraged to submit their views.  Councillor D Mills advised that the Council welcomed feedback from residents and Residents’ Associations but stressed that there was a distinction between who made the decisions and who made comments.  He went on to state that the Council needed Residents’ Associations to be proactive in commenting and that consideration was given to all suggestions.  However, the Council, through the appropriate Cabinet Member (in consultation with the Leader), would decide whether or not these suggestions were actioned.

(i)         CONSTITUTION – DELEGATIONS RELATING TO HILLINGDON HOMES

Councillor G Cooper moved the recommendation as set out on the Order of Business.  This was seconded by Councillor O’Brien.  The motion was then put to the vote and agreed.

RESOLVED: That the constitutional amendments, as set out in Appendix A to these minutes, be approved and the Head of Democratic Services, in conjunction with the Leader of the Council, be authorised to make any further minor amendments that may be required in relation to the transfer of Hillingdon Homes.

(ii)        MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES AND OUTSIDE BODIES

Councillor G Cooper moved the recommendation as set out on the Order of Business with the addition that Councillor Gilham replace Councillor Bull on the Central and South Planning Committee.  This was seconded by Councillor O’Brien.  The motion was then put to the vote and agreed.

RESOLVED: That:

• RELATE – Councillor Routledge to replace Councillor Seaman-Digby;
• Hillingdon Asian Women's Group Committee – appoint Councillor Harper-O'Neill;
• Uxbridge United Welfare Trusts – reappoint Mrs Gerda Driver for a further four years (to end on 31 August 2014);
• DASH – Councillor Harper-O’Neill to replace Councillor Kemp;
• Central & South Planning Committee – Councillor Gilham to replace Councillor Bull;

• Local Authorities’ Aircraft Noise Council – Councillor Nelson to replace Councillor Duncan;
• North Planning Committee – Councillor Dhillon to replace Councillor MacDonald; and
• Corporate Services and Partnerships Policy Overview Committee – Councillor MacDonald to replace Councillor Dhillon.

(iii)       SCHEME OF MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES 2010/11

Councillor G Cooper moved the recommendation as set out on the Order of Business.  This was seconded by Councillor O’Brien.  Following debate (Councillor Puddifoot), the motion was put to the vote and agreed.

RESOLVED: That the allowance paid to the vice-chairman of the Standards Committee be increased to £1,560 pa and the Scheme of Members Allowances be amended accordingly.

(iv)      REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

It was noted that Councillor Garg had withdrawn his request for leave of absence. 

To consider the contents of the annual report on the work of the committee

Councillor G Cooper moved the recommendation as set out on the Order of Business.  This was seconded by Councillor Bianco.  The motion was then put to the vote and agreed. 

RESOLVED: That Council notes the annual report and work of the Audit Committee.

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

8.1       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR WHITE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR EDUCATION AND CHILDRENS’ SERVICES – COUNCILLOR SIMMONDS

“Can the Cabinet Member for Education & Children's Services please update us on the GCSE results?”

Councillor Simmonds responded that there had been a continued improvement in the GCSE results from schools in the Borough.  Although the results were provisional, it was noted that the number of students gaining 5 A*-C GCSEs (including English and Maths) had increased from 54% to 58% and the number of students gaining 5 A*-C GCSEs (in any subject) had increased from 71% to 80%.

Councillor Simmonds stated that he disagreed with a recent article in the Times newspaper which had suggested that private sector schools were best placed to improve education results and was pleased to report that Hillingdon schools had performed very well.  Councillor Simmonds praised the work undertaken by the staff in the School Improvement Service and requested that the Director of Education and Children’s Services put plans in place to improve results at schools that had not performed as well as hoped.

Councillor White, by way of a supplementary question, asked how children taking other qualifications had performed, particularly looked after children.  Councillor Simmonds advised that the final A Level exam results for the Borough had not yet been published but that all Councillors would receive a breakdown of these figures when published.  With regards to looked after children, Councillor Simmonds advised that improvements had been made and that he had asked the Deputy Director of Education and Children’s Services to provide a detailed brief (to include information regarding children with disabilities) for Members at the next Members’ Seminar.

8.2       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR HARMSWORTH TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND BUSINESS SERVICES – COUNCILLOR BIANCO

“Why wasn’t the Pool Petitioners’ meeting postponed, considering one Ward Councillor was unconscious and another tending to him?”

Councillor Bianco assumed that the question referred to the Cabinet Member Petition Hearing held on 11 August 2010 concerning Yiewsley Pool.  As Chairman of the meeting in question, Councillor Bianco confirmed that it had been convened and conducted completely in accordance with the provisions of the Council Constitution, where adjournments of meetings, although not common occurrences, were fully catered for, for whatever reason.

Councillor Bianco believed that the question implied that, in reconvening the meeting, he had been either insensitive to the situation regarding his fellow Councillor or that in some way the decision he reached was flawed because the Members in question were unable to attend the re-convened meeting in the Council Chamber.

Councillor Bianco stated that neither of these was the case and any such implication was impudent.  Naturally, his first priority was to ensure that the wellbeing of his fellow human being was being taken care of and that the situation was not life threatening.  Councillor Bianco stated that it was fortunate that there were two Councillors present that had trained as nurses and were able to give first aid and look after the Councillor until the ambulance arrived.

Once it was established that the situation was not life threatening, Councillor Bianco considered the merits of a full adjournment but felt that the importance of the matter that was under discussion was such that it was crucial that the meeting proceed so that a decision could be made and the matter brought to a conclusion rather than drag on into a further meeting on a different night.  He believed that this was particularly relevant as the pool had already been closed to the public at the time.

Whilst it was not appropriate to discuss the actual decision taken, Councillor Bianco wanted to assure Members that, in making his decision on the petition, he had taken into account all the views expressed at the meeting including those of the Ward Councillors which had been expressed to the meeting prior to it being temporarily adjourned.

Finally, Councillor Bianco stated how very pleased he was to see Councillor Kemp in the Chamber looking so well and, he trusted, fully recovered.

Councillor Harmsworth, by way of a supplementary question, asked if it was not in fact the case that Councillor Bianco had not cared about Councillor Kemp’s, or anyone else’s, situation on the night of the meeting.  Councillor Bianco advised that he had given a number of residents the opportunity to speak at the meeting and that it was obvious that those present were not in favour of the closure of Yiewsley Pool.  He went on to suggest that those residents that were pleased with the new facilities at Botwell Leisure Centre and Uxbridge Pool had not attended the Petition Hearing to give their support for the closure of Yiewsley Pool. 

Councillor Bianco stated that he was sorry that the residents were not happy with the decision that had been made but that the decision had been made in line with the Council’s Constitution and was thought to be the best course of action. 

8.3       QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MACDONALD TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION – COUNCILLOR BURROWS

“Is Southlands going to be included on the LDF?”

Councillor Burrows stated that Councillor MacDonald had been present at the Members Seminar on the subject but had not raised this issue then.  He also stated that she had not raised this through the consultation.  Southlands was a listed Grade II building owned by the Council and situated in West Drayton Green Conservation Area.  It was in use as an Arts Centre.

Although there were no specific proposals relating to this building at the present time, the LDF draft Core Strategy did include a policy (policy HE1), supported by Map 7.1, to protect and enhance Hillingdon’s unique historic environment.  This policy included listed buildings and conservation areas and also Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens, Locally Listed Buildings, Areas of Special Local Character, and Archaeological Priority Zones and Areas.

In addition to the above, Southlands’ listed and conservation area status meant that it was also subject to legislation and national policies relating to its protection and enhancement.  The building was protected in the same way that any other listed building would be.

There was no supplementary question. 

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

9.1       MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR EAST

Councillor East moved the following motion:

“As part of the Healthy Hillingdon Strategy to protect and encourage healthy eating habits from the earliest age this Council proposes to introduce policies close to parks, playgrounds, schools, youth centres and facilities for young people to:

(i)           reduce planning permissions for new hot fast food outlets

(ii)         not grant licenses to mobile food outlets

Work on the first policy to be developed within the context of the emerging Local Development Framework and planning policies but have reference to the Council’s work on obesity and health. Work on the second policy to be developed in conjunction with the first by Streetscene Enforcement.”

The motion was seconded by Councillor MacDonald.  Following debate (Councillors Corthorne, Major and Simmonds), and on being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

9.2       MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR HARMSWORTH

Councillor Harmsworth moved the following motion:

“That this Council notifies the Secretary of State for Transport that it broadly supports the recommendations of Lord Mawhinney’s report, ‘High Speed Rail Access to Heathrow’.

However, the Council wishes to state its opposition to any major hub development within, or adjoining Hillingdon, not only for both environmental and budgetary reasons, but because it will have a major disruptive effect outside of the Yiewsley and West Drayton area impacting on the Green Belt.”

The motion was seconded by Councillor MacDonald.  Councillor Puddifoot moved an amendment as follows:

The first paragraph to remain unchanged.  The second paragraph to be replaced by:

That the Secretary of State for Transport be congratulated on lifting the threat of the devastating effect on the people of the Borough of the last Labour Government proposal for a 3rd Runway at Heathrow Airport.

That the Council notes the concern of some residents caused by unsubstantiated rumours of a major hub development in West Drayton and thanks him for confirmation given to the Leader of the Council by the Minister of State for Transport at their recent meeting that no such proposal is being considered.

That the Council notes that, whilst supportive of the case for High Speed Rail, that there is still a considerable amount of work to be undertaken on reviewing possible route options, It does not support the Chiltern line option and requests that the review be dealt with in a more strategic and resident and environmentally friendly manner that the “great clunking fist” approach of the previous Government.

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Burrows.

Following debate (Councillors Duncan, Harmsworth, MacDonald, Major and Simmonds), the amendment was put to the vote and agreed.  The substantive motion was then put to the vote and agreed. 

RESOLVED:  That:

1. this Council notifies the Secretary of State for Transport that it broadly supports the recommendations of Lord Mawhinney’s report, ‘High Speed Rail Access to Heathrow’.
2. the Secretary of State for Transport be congratulated on lifting the threat of the devastating effect on the people of the Borough of the last Labour Government proposal for a 3rd Runway at Heathrow Airport.
3. the Council notes the concern of some residents caused by unsubstantiated rumours of a major hub development in West Drayton and thanks him for confirmation given to the Leader of the Council by the Minister of State for Transport at their recent meeting that no such proposal is being considered.
4. the Council notes that, whilst supportive of the case for High Speed Rail, that there is still a considerable amount of work to be undertaken on reviewing possible route options, It does not support the Chiltern line option and requests that the review be dealt with in a more strategic and resident and environmentally friendly manner that the “great clunking fist” approach of the previous Government.