Agenda and minutes

Councillor Anita MacDonald declared a Personal Interest In Cabinet Agenda Item 5 – Conservation Management Plan for Eastcote House Buildings and Gardens as she had carried out some work for St Laurence’s Church which is an organisation which had commented on the consultation. She remained in the room and took part in discussions on the item.

Councillor Edward Lavery declared a Personal Interest in Cabinet Agenda Item 16 – Appointment of consultants in support of a planning application and design for the Ruislip High School additional form of entry and Sixth Form Centre as he was a Governor at Ruislip High School. He remained in the room and took part in discussions on the item.

Agreed as an accurate record.

To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in Public and that the items marked Part II will be considered in private.

It was agreed that all items of business were considered in public.

To hear the Call-In of any decisions made at the Cabinet meeting prior to this meeting or made by Cabinet Members, other Council Committees or a delegated officer and published within five working days of this meeting.

Members should bring their Cabinet agenda to the meeting.

Members should consider any other decisions published in the five working days before this meeting.

The purpose of this meeting is to decide whether to refer back any decision to the decision maker.

Members gave consideration to the Cabinet reports of 23 September 2010 and after careful consideration Members decided not to call-in any decision made by the Cabinet at their meeting.

However Members sought clarification on the following items:

Cabinet Agenda Item 7 - Pan London Emergency Arrangements  - Amendment to the Gold Resolution and Procedures for Mutual Aid

In the financial implications of the report it stated that there may be a number of costs falling upon the Council. If at all possible, could officers provide an estimate of this likely maximum financial commitment?

[Subsequent to the meeting, officers provided the following response:

“It is important to note that neither the Gold resolution nor the Mutual Aid agreement will create additional costs over and above those that we, as a Local Authority, are already liable for during an emergency. Estimating the maximum costs of an emergency is difficult and imprecise as there are many factors that determine our liabilities. However, below are some examples of areas where Local Authorities may respond during an emergency:

o      Provision of humanitarian assistance

o      Provision of temporary additional mortuary capacity

o      Emergency accommodation, predominantly to those enable to return to their homes due to the impact of the emergency

Below are estimated costs incurred by Boroughs from emergencies, which shows the range and extremes of possible spend. It should be noted the a temporary mortuary of the scale of the 7th July bombings is extremely rare:

o      Overnight stay in temporary accommodation for one family of 4 - £150

o      Temporary mortuary for the 7th July 2005 London bombings, incurred by Westminster - approximately £3 million

Recovering the costs:

o      The Bellwin scheme allows Local Authorities to recoup costs from emergencies. However, the criteria is extremely limited and would not be applicable to Hillingdon until we spent over £760,000 on a single emergency. Note: Bellwin only refunds a maximum of 80% of these costs.

o      Government grants - both during 7th July bombings and 2007 flood, Government Departments offered considerable emergency grants to affect local authorities. However, this is not guaranteed.”]

 Cabinet Agenda Item 8 - Revisions to the Chapter 4 'Educational Facilities' of the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document

On page 83 reference was made to the worked example of 26 flats in Uxbridge which stated that no child-yield would be calculated for the 6 studios. Is there a statutory calculation or some other method which stipulated that there should be no child yield for studios?

[Subsequent to the meeting, officers provided the following response:

“The worked example follows the Revised SPD Chapter 4 paragraphs 4.14 - 4.15 on developments that qualify for section 106 contributions. The relevant paragraphs are extracted:  

Qualifying Developments
4.14 The Local Planning Authority will, where appropriate, seek to secure contributions from all new residential development (houses and flats), apart from non-family units. In cases such as sheltered housing, where it can be adequately demonstrated to the Council that there would be no child yield, the education contribution may  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.