Council

 

The Lib Dem Executive takes most of the decisions in the running of the Borough but the Council sets the policy and budgetary framework within which the Executive operates. All Members attend this meeting, which is chaired by the Mayor, and is open to the public.

 

Council meetings are held at 7:30pm in Guildhall.

 

The start of the meeting takes the following format:

 

  1. Minutes
  2. Mayoral Announcements
  3. Topical Statements Each Statement is restricted to a maximum of four minutes and contributions will then be taken from up to five speakers one of which will be the Leader (or nominated representative) of the Party Group making the request. The Member making the statement will then have an opportunity to respond to the debate.
  4. Petitions A Member of the Council or a member of the Public may present a petition to the Council on a matter in relation to which the Council has powers, duties or which affects the Royal Borough.
  5. Motion One Motion will be debated per Council meeting which has been put forward by the Opposition.
  6. Questions These may be addressed to the Mayor, Executive Members, the Leader of the Council, the Leader of the Opposition, Chairs of the Overview Commission and Scrutiny Panel, Standing and Neighbourhood Committees and Members representing the Council on Outside Bodies.

Most recent Council Meeting

Tuesday 24th January 2012

Motion

In accordance with (Standing Order No 8(a)), one Motion will be debated per Council meeting which has been put forward by the Opposition. Any other Motions submitted w In accordance with (Standing Order No 8(a)), one Motion will be debated per Council meeting which has been put forward by the Opposition. Any other Motions submitted will be referred to the body indicated by the proposer and seconder.

Motion to be debated: ‘A Healthcare System Fit for the 21st Century’.

Proposed by Councillor Eric Humphrey

Seconded by Councillor David Cunningham

‘This Council fully supports the reform of the National Health Service. The return of Public Health to the local authority and G.P. Commissioning are particularly welcome. The reforms must secure better outcomes for patients and better health for the whole community, coupled with greater efficiency and a reduction in bureaucracy.

We note that further developments will be required in relation to:

1. membership of the Health and Wellbeing Board

2. support mechanisms to defend local services if they are threatened by proposals emanating from the Health Service Review

3. relationship of the Health Overview Panel to the Health and Wellbeing Board.’

Question

By Councillor Ken Smith

To Councillor Howard Jones, Leader of Conservative Group

Would the Leader of the Conservative Group join with me in thanking the Conservative Minister Grant Shapps MP, for awarding £500,000 to RBK, thus enabling us to bring empty family properties back into occupancy?

Reply

Of course I will join my colleague Councillor Smith –who invariably gives me cause to agree with him - in thanking the Conservative Minister Grant Shapps MP for awarding this vital tranche of money to Kingston, and it’s more like £1.4 million rather than £500,000 overall that we might eventually get.

With house building falling to its lowest level since 1924 under the previous Labour government, action was required to build the homes the country desperately needs. The New Homes Bonus is a Government scheme which is aimed at encouraging local authorities to grant planning permissions for the building of new houses, in return for additional revenue.

The scheme is a powerful fiscal incentive for local authorities to deliver more much needed homes.

However, I have to say, I found it quite amusing to see the Executive Member for Better Homes claiming on the Lib Dem website that it was because of her lobbying that RBK received the £500k. What Council should know, and more importantly the

Leader of the Council should know, is that I suspect she is a keen reader of the Conservative Party manifesto.

The truth of the matter goes back to 2010 and the Conservative Party Manifesto which stated – and maybe the Executive Member will recall reading this in her copy of the little blue book on page 74 – ‘we want to create a property-owning democracy, where everyone has the chance to own their own home. Communities should benefit when they choose to develop sustainably, so we will match pound for pound the Council Tax receipts that local authorities receive from new homes to encourage sensitive local development.’

Mr Mayor, how much credit should be given to the Executive Member for reading the Conservative Manifesto – well, that’s for you to decide – the public should know the truth and that is that the New Home Bonus is a direct result of a Conservative policy, managed centrally by Government – contrary to the misleading comments made by the Executive Member on the Lib Dem website.

Question

By Councillor Lynne Finnerty

To Councillor Frances Moseley, Executive Member for Better Homes

A report is to be considered at the next Policy and Resources Committee to recommend Waters Square Sheltered Housing site to be declared surplus to requirements, requiring existing tenants to be removed from their homes. Can the Executive Member for Better Homes therefore inform the Council whether a final decision has been made to demolish Waters Square sheltered housing site?

Reply

No final decision has been made because that is the responsibility of the Policy and Resources Committee and a decision will be taken at the meeting on 9 February.

Supplementary

Would the Executive Member clarify why tenants have been urged to transfer and to undertake the bidding process? It is not in their interests to bid – it requires internet access or relying on Council staff – if there is a decision to demolish Waters Square, the Council has a duty of care to support the tenants afterwards.

Reply

The reason why the tenants are asked to fill in application forms is so that they can immediately go to the highest priority. This is because the bidding system is the Council’s policy. Several of the tenants will need help and they have been offered help. This would be progressed once a decision is made, not in advance of that. It is fully recognised that these tenants need support – that will be the way that we will do the housing allocations. The move will be paid for – there is a displacement allowance. Tenants’ wishes will be taken into account. For example, several of the tenants have expressed a preference to remain together.

Question

By Councillor Vicki Harris

To Councillor Howard Jones, Leader of the Opposition

Does the Leader of the Opposition agree with those of his councillor colleagues who oppose the Tolworth Greenway Project, or does he agree with Boris Johnson, who is providing most of the funding for it?

Reply

My position, and I am sure that of my colleagues, is that any appropriate proposal to improve and regenerate Tolworth Broadway into a once again successful commercial centre would be welcomed. However, I have underlying concerns that these existing proposals may be fundamentally flawed and that they do not provide enough detail about pedestrian safety, pedestrian footfall, and the adverse impact that such a scheme, as that on the table at present, may have on motorists and residents.

As you are aware, I am Chairman of Scrutiny and will not be drawn into making any public statements for or against the project until the scrutiny is completed. Tolworth Broadway is one of the busiest intersections on the A3 and proper scrutiny of the effects of tearing down the central barriers and the proposed informal road crossing proposals may very well prove it to be extremely dangerous to pedestrians.

This is not the place for me to say whether I agree or disagree with a particular decision which has been called in. Neither should it be an opportunity to play party politics.

This is a project of some magnitude – which will cost local rate payers and the rate payers of London something in the region of £2.6 million – and this Council has a history of not being able to bring these projects in within budget. You only have to look at the New Malden High Street disaster to see that. But this is also a matter of public safety and it is quite proper for the Scrutiny Panel to review the Neighbourhood decision and I suggest that at the conclusion of that scrutiny, Councillor Harris will have a better understanding of where I stand on the proposals.

Conservative councillors representing local people in the area who have raised these concerns and are calling for scrutiny, have simply acted responsibly, representing a proportion of local views, trying to ensure that answers to all the issues raised are forthcoming. Issues of safety of pedestrians, traffic congestion, insufficient consultation on the impact to commuters and residents and increased air pollution will be looked at.

Supplementary

I am delighted that you are looking forward to Tolworth being regenerated, as are all of the Liberal Democrat Members who supported the proposals. The proposals have been in the planning for a good couple of years. There has been a Member Officer

Working Group overseeing this, which was an all-party working group - two

Conservative councillors were members. Would you not agree that it would have been more beneficial if they had raised those concerns then, when they attended (which was not that often)? They could have been addressed then, not at this late stage, rather than making cheap political points.

Reply

I am hopeful that these matters will be raised at the Scrutiny Panel meeting. I am glad that there will be the opportunity to consider important issues such as pollution and safety – hopefully these were taken into account in the scheme – we will see at the Scrutiny Panel.

Question

By Councillor Karen George

To Councillor Frances Moseley, Executive Member Better Homes

Why does Kingston Council not allow elderly residents in sheltered accommodation to keep a pet?

Reply

The keeping of pets is not really suitable in communal living. However tenants can have pets with the permission of the Head of Housing in exceptional cases an where there is access to a private garden. None of the sheltered accommodation has private gardens; they all have communal gardens.

Supplementary

It is mainly elderly people who use sheltered accommodation – therefore is this policy not discriminating against the elderly?

Reply

The policy applies to all our tenants, though sheltered accommodation which can only be accessed through a carpeted communal hallway is particularly inappropriate for dogs and cats.

Tuesday 6th December 2011

Petitions

The following petitions were presented:

Fairfield West/ Knights Park mini roundabout

The Mayor presented a petition which had received 79 signatures objecting to the proposal for a new mini roundabout and zebra crossing at Fairfield West/Knights Park. The petition will be referred for a report to the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee.

Meldone and Armeston, Sheephouse Way - double glazing

Councillor Kate Stinton, on behalf of Councillor David Fraser, who had sent his apologies for the meeting, presented a petition which had received 40 signatures which requested that the Council installs double glazing at Meldone and Armeston, Sheephouse Way, to address cold and damp in the property. The petition will be referred for a report to the Maldens and Coombe Neighbourhood Committee.

Pedestrian crossing at the Leatherhead Road and Merritt Gardens junction

A petition which has received 1774 signatures requesting pedestrian crossing phases on the traffic lights at the junction of Leatherhead Road (A243) and Merritt Gardens in Chessington had been presented by Mrs S Yates to the South of the Borough Neighbourhood Committee meeting on 2 November.

Under the provisions of the Petition Scheme whereby petitions with more than 500 signatures can be debated by the full Council, this petition was presented to and considered by the full Council which was informed that a report responding to the petition would be submitted to the South of the Borough Neighbourhood Committee meeting the following evening. As Transport for London is responsible for the A243, the matter is also being raised with the Mayor for London.

Motion

In accordance with (Standing Order No 8(a)), one Motion will be debated per Council meeting which has been put forward by the Opposition. Any other Motions submitted w In accordance with (Standing Order No 8(a)), one Motion will be debated per Council meeting which has been put forward by the Opposition. Any other Motions submitted will be referred to the body indicated by the proposer and seconder.

Motion to be debated: ‘Conservative led Coalition Government helps Council Tax Payers’

Proposed by Councillor Priyen Patel

Seconded by Councillor Michael Burden

‘This Council welcomes the Conservative /Lib Dem coalition’s support to local authorities by proposing plans to extend the Council Tax freeze for another year. We call upon the Council to accept this offer and support our residents through these challenging economic times.’

Councillor Derek Osbourne proposed and Councillor Rolson Davies seconded an amendment which read as follows:

‘This Council welcomes the Conservative /Lib Dem coalition’s support to local authorities by proposing plans to extend the Council Tax freeze for another year.'

We call upon the Council to:

(i) Accept this offer and support our residents through these challenging economic times; and to

(ii) Endorse the action taken, by the Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Finance, in writing on 7 November 2011 to The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to reconsider their proposals and make the £800 million funding available for the whole of the spending review period.’

After a short adjournment and following debate, on being put to the meeting, the amendment was carried, and became the substantive motion, which, on being put to the vote, was also carried.

Question

By Councillor Eric Humphrey

To Councillor Howard Jones, Leader of the Opposition

Can the Leader of the Conservative Group give us his views on the findings from the ‘Better services, better value – the case for change for health services in South West London’ report – which has also received local press coverage suggesting that maternity units and A&E departments across the region may be at risk of closing?

Reply

It is important to say that it is not clear, in fact, from the ‘Better Services, Better Value’ publication whether there are actual plans to close a unit, or relocate resources to a scaled back service. However, the position of the Conservatives in Kingston remains the same as it always has been, that we are entirely opposed to any closures or plans that might see the maternity and accident and emergency units at Kingston hospital closing.

We recognise that all government parties need to tackle this inefficiency, and to achieve more with less. This is the reality of the financial pressures that we are all facing at the moment. Conversely, an important point needs to be made and that is, no matter how much pressure on resources there is, the principle goal of healthcare, up and down the country, should be to achieve the highest possible standards of care for all its patients. We believe that there is agreement across the main political parties that it is simply not feasible to keep on doing what we have always done the way we have always done it. The overarching aim should be to improve the quality of healthcare on offer to patients. That has to be at the heart of any future changes, and the key to making this work - that is, making sure that health and social care services are structured and are approached from a joined-up fashion.

There are probably two questions that we need to ask ourselves: how can we improve services for patients? and how can we be more efficient and get better value for money for local people? Centres of excellence, such as the South London Cardio and Stroke Unit at St George’s Hospital, are examples of where both these questions have been answered and successfully addressed, and I think we all have some personal knowledge of people close to us, or people that we know, that have actually taken advantage of this new service and found it to be most effective and efficient.

Clearly there are important choices to be made, as using and specialising in a few centres of excellence will in fact, of course, cause some problems because some patients will have to travel further to receive their care, but these problems should not be insurmountable. We don’t believe that this is an issue for party politics. We are prepared to work with all councillors, residents, medical professionals and officers to ensure that Kingston becomes a centre of excellence, certainly for maternity and A&E, and to give our residents the best possible local health service that they rightly deserve.

Question

By Councillor Karen George

To Councillor Frances Moseley, Executive Member for Better Homes

Will this Council confirm when residents of Vine Close will have their gas supply reconnected and provide an explanation why residents will have to wait so long to have their heating and cooking facilities restored?

Reply

The contractors are on site now and I can’t guarantee when the work will be finished but the contractors are confident that it will be finished by 23 December. What is happening is that – and they are making really good progress now – they are trying to reconnect the first block as soon as that is possible, rather than waiting until the length of the whole site is done – but there’s no point in my saying that some people will have it by one date – we need everybody to have it. From the audience you can tell that there’s been severe disruption. The reason that it’s taken so long, and that is hugely regrettable, is two-fold, I think. Firstly, it’s a very unusual situation and we don’t have contracts in place to handle this sort of situation. The other reason is that we really do have to go through proper procurement procedures.

I won’t say it’s unique, but I don’t know another case where the gas main is the Council responsibility, and this is because there is a communal meter at the start of the development and so we’ve got responsibility for a gas main, but we don’t have contracts that allow us to just give it to an existing contractor to repair. So we had to get in expertise in order to do the survey. So the first thing we established was that the one place where it had broken – it wasn’t safe just to repair that. The expert we bought in said that the whole length of the pipe was suspect, as was the meter. So we were talking about a job of around £100,000. Hence the need for proper procurement.

Now at that stage, I think it’s right to say that everybody had been supplied with heating and cooking equipment, and there was some financial compensation, but also people were being visited regularly by the Scheme Manager, who has done a brilliant job. But we were very conscious that we needed it to be done as fast as possible. And one option we were looking at was that SGN who supply the gas, they said that they could replace the communal meter by individual meters, and that they would then take responsibility for the whole thing – and that looked good in that it looked as though it would be fast, but we couldn’t tell whether it would be the fastest option, without going to the market, so again we had to have an expert to specify the works needed. We went out to tender and in fact it was one of the commercial companies who came in as the solution that would deliver fastest and they are the ones who are now on site and so that way we are retaining the communal meter, which in other circumstances we might well have replaced by individual ones.

Supplementary

Can you confirm that you will fully reimburse residents for their electricity costs during the six weeks they were without gas supply, and that the Council will in future properly maintain the infrastructure so this does not happen again?

Reply

At the moment we’re paying £2 per day for an electric heater plus an additional cost of £1 per day to cover cooking costs, and the gas element of the rent has obviously not been charged for this period.

Question

By Councillor David Cunningham

To Councillor Simon James, Executive Member for Sustainable Place

Does this Council accept the recommendations put forward in respect to the bus lane located in Eden Street, suggesting that motorists could have been misled by the original scheme?

Reply

We have accepted the recommendations from the Department of Transport in their guidance in that the bus lane, as you will probably have seen, now says ‘Bus Taxi’ and has a picture of a cycle on it, rather than just saying ‘Bus Lane’ , as that is their guidance that they believe that to be less confusing than if it just says Bus Lane. That said, it is not a thing that either I myself or officers particularly agree with, as it is now much more difficult to read; however that is the Department of Transport guidance so that is why it has been changed accordingly.

Monday 31st October 2011

Motion

In accordance with (Standing Order No 8(a)), one Motion will be debated per Council meeting which has been put forward by the Opposition. Any other Motions submitted w In accordance with (Standing Order No 8(a)), one Motion will be debated per Council meeting which has been put forward by the Opposition. Any other Motions submitted will be referred to the body indicated by the proposer and seconder.

Motion to be debated: ‘A Charter for democratic transparency'

Proposed by Councillor Howard Jones

Seconded by Councillor Dennis Doe

‘This Council supports proposals that will strengthen transparency, democracy and the accountability of its elected representatives by recording in the minutes of all meetings how Councillors voted, together with a summary of the debate and to have available either full handwritten contemporaneous notes or electronic recording for future reference purposes.’

During the course of the debate, it was agreed that, whilst the thrust of the Motion was acceptable to the Council, it would be appropriate for there to be a report to an early meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee on the financial and practical implications of its implementation.

On being put to the meeting, it was unanimously RESOLVED that ‘This Council supports proposals that will strengthen transparency, democracy and the accountability of its elected representatives by recording in the minutes of all meetings how Councillors voted, together with a summary of the debate and to have available either full handwritten contemporaneous notes or electronic recording for future reference purposes – subject to consideration of the financial and practical implications

Tuesday 5th July 2011

Motion

In accordance with (Standing Order No 8(a)), one Motion will be debated per Council meeting which has been put forward by the Opposition. Any other Motions submitted w In accordance with (Standing Order No 8(a)), one Motion will be debated per Council meeting which has been put forward by the Opposition. Any other Motions submitted will be referred to the body indicated by the proposer and seconder.

Motion to be debated: ‘This Council should act immediately to establish a Cumulative Impact Policy on alcohol licensing by instructing officers to deliver a draft proposal for the next Place and Sustainability Committee or, if appropriate, for a special meeting of the Licensing Committee.’

Proposed by Councillor David Cunningham

Seconded by Councillor Andrea Craig

Councillor Derek Osbourne proposed and Councillor Simon James seconded an amendment which read as follows:

“The Council:

(i) notes there is a consultation already underway on the possible implementation of a Cumulative Impact Policy;

(ii) notes that to move directly to implementation without completing the consultation will certainly mean that any decisions made under an early implementation will lead to legal challenge and success for the challenger; and

(iii) agrees that as soon as the consultation is complete, the decisions that result are expedited quickly and, if necessary, through special meetings of the Licensing Committee and Council.”

On being put to the meeting, the amendment was carried, and the substantive motion, as shown in (2) above, on being put to the vote, was carried.

Question

By Councillor Ken Smith

To Councillor Simon James, Executive Member for Sustainable Place

Is the Executive Member confident that pothole repairs and work carried out by contractors are delivered to an acceptable standard and also who is responsible for checking the quality of workmanship?

Reply

Obviously, I cannot guarantee that every single repair that the Council ever carries out is 100% right first time (and indeed there may be a supplementary with examples where that wasn’t the case)…but what we can do is to ensure that we have an effective policy control system in order that we can monitor any repairs that are done and to make sure that they are brought up to standard.

Responsive Maintenance is managed by the Street Scene Service and they have eight Street Scene Inspectors who are responsible for identifying areas that need to be repaired, raising the contracts with our contractor, RJ Dance, and for checking that the works are completed satisfactorily for quality assurance purposes.

At present, approximately 50% of the works are subsequently re-inspected to check the quality of the work and any of those that are identified are brought up with R J Dance, and they are then brought back into standard and then they are re-inspected again to make sure that the reinstatements have been done.

Obviously, by that process, we look to find areas where the quality assurance is not up to standard, identifying trends that are taking place, and take remedial action to ensure the contractors are bringing those areas back into the required standard.

Supplementary

Given the answer that you’ve just given, where you say that 50% of the work is actually re-checked, can we therefore be assured that any subsequent work that is carried out to put the problem right is not at any cost to the Council?

Reply

Yes indeed, we can do that. And indeed, the standard of work that takes place repairing potholes in Kingston actually does compare favourably to other boroughs, certainly if you look at the pavements in Surrey, it certainly does. Before the Council meeting, I had a meeting with LOCOG and TfL about the road cycle event that takes place in August. The UIP, the governing body of world cycling, has carried out an inspection along the route and they were very complementary about Kingston’s roads and said there was no remedial works required at all…this situation contrasts very strongly with that in Surrey, where there is a massive amount of work that needs to be done. Every single consultation meeting that they’ve had, had residents coming forward with complaints about potholes all over the borough - all over the county, rather. So we do compare favourably. That said we are not complacent. We do need to make sure our contractors do a good job for us and that they deliver the work that they are required to do to the required standard, and if their workmanship is substandard, they put right their workmanship at their expense.

Question

By Councillor Richard Hudson

To Councillor Simon James, Executive Member for Sustainable Place

In the light of the recent decision taken by the Development Control Committee to ignore the K+20 Plan and the PPS25 policy, when will the Executive take the necessary steps to normalise these new de facto non ratified policies?

Reply

There are no new policies.

Supplementary

I am somewhat surprised at that. So effectively what you are saying is, it is all right to ignore all Council policies moving forward?

Reply

No, Planning Policy Statement 25 makes it clear that in times of, in special circumstances that apply and the committee is of the view (I was not a member of the Committee, so I cannot comment on how they came to their view) but if the Committee is of the view that there are special circumstances that apply to that particular application, they can make a decision based upon those special circumstances, and they have to clearly state what those circumstances are and how they came to those decisions, but that is within the guidance under PPS25 that they can do that.

Question

By Councillor Frank Thompson

To Councillor Simon James, Executive Member for Sustainable Place

Who decided, and for what reason, that Councillors no longer receive IT support at home when confronted with technical difficulties?

Reply

This dates back to the budget process, actually, in 2008/09, so it is quite a longstanding thing where this came from. I cannot personally remember whether that was one of the budgets when the Conservatives could not be bothered to put an alternative budget in place…I am not sure whether that was the case or not…It was done as part of the budget process. The ICT support team continue to be available to Councillors …that support can be made in more ways than one - through phone support or online, because we can get the IT support to actually work your computer remotely. However, it is recognised that IT support is an issue for Councillors, and the Member Officer Group (that is looking at Democratic Support) - that is one of the issues that they are considering, and that is due to report shortly. That is one of the issues that will be looked at – I recognise that that is an issue.

Supplementary

Only following on from that, I would just like to say that I hope you will take steps to reinstate the service and, if necessary, Councillors will simply have to sign a disclaimer, since originally I believe there was an idea that there was a danger for IT people coming to people’s houses. That was the reason I was given originally.

Reply

I can’t comment on that matter of whether officers can come to people’s houses or not. Other than that, the Member Office Group (I don’t actually sit on that Group) will be looking at all forms of Democratic Support and one of the issues will be IT based support.

Tuesday 11th May 2011

Installation of Mayor

The Mayor indicated that the Council, on 27 April 2011, had elected Councillor Patrick Codd to be Mayor of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames for the 2011/12 Municipal Year. Councillor Howard Jones and Councillor David Cunningham, who had put forward his nomination at that meeting, spoke in favour of Councillor Codd.

The retiring Mayor confirmed Councillor Codd’s election as Mayor and congratulated him on his appointment.

The incoming Mayor then left the meeting to be invested with the Chain of Office. On his return to the meeting he made the statutory Declaration of Acceptance of Office and took the Oath of Allegiance.