Kingston Conservative Councillors

Council Questions

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, 19th January 2010

Motions

(1) Councillor Nick Kilby proposed and Councillor Howard Jones seconded the following motion:

With the disclosure that £2million of savings have been lost owing to the failure of the One Council Programme to achieve its financial targets, this Council has grave concern about the validity of the financial forecasts and future savings projected.

(2) Following debate the motion as set out in (1) above was put to the meeting and declared lost.

Topical Statements

Councillor Ken Smith requested a topical statement from Councillor Bob Steed, Executive Member for Environment, Sustainability and Climate Change, as follows:

The recent snow and freezing weather has exacerbated cracks in many of the Borough’s roads. Lack of previous maintenance has in many cases caused these cracks to become potholes. What actions does the Administration propose to take to ensure that cracks and potholes are speedily identified and effectively repaired?’

Statement by Councillor Bob Steed, Executive Member for Environment, Sustainability and Climate Change:

There is no doubt that the recent severe weather will have had a significant impact on the condition of our roads and pavements. Given we are only in January we can expect further damage to be done during the remaining winter months.

However, we start from a position of strength. The Council has placed a high priority in recent years on highway maintenance. We invested £10 million of capital expenditure in our Highways during the five years to 31 March 2009. That funding was on top of the revenue budgets of £1,025,000 per annum managed by the Neighbourhood Committees. In the current year we increased the revenue funding for asset management by £500,000, and in the light of last winter’s severe weather made a one off additional allocation of £500,000 to address the damage caused .

In November last year TfL confirmed that the Borough’s principal roads were in the best condition of any Council across London with 98% below the national threshold for further investigation.

The Council has a well established process for the regular inspection, monitoring and repair of highways. Neighbourhood Committees receive regular reports on the prioritisation of maintenance work required in their Neighbourhood. I am aware that officers have already identified exceptionally severe damage caused by the recent bad weather in Presburg Road and remedial works are already in hand. I anticipate similar action being required in many other roads across the Borough. We should be confident that we have in place both the processes to identify the required work and the flexibility at Neighbourhood level to adjust the previously agreed maintenance plans and address the work required in a sensible order of priority.

Councillors David Cunningham, Tricia Bamford, Patrick Codd and Derek Osbourne made contributions in response to the statement, and Councillor Bob Steed replied.

Questions:

Councillor Robert-John Tasker

To Councillor Patrick Codd, Chair Maldens & Coombe Neighbourhood Committee

Question:

Will the Chairman of Maldens & Coombe update the Council on his progress in resolving the problem inherited by the Conservative run neighbourhood from the former discredited Liberal Democrat control in respect to New Malden High Street?

Reply:

I will with great pleasure. Transport for London has allocated £50,000 for 2010/2011 to investigate the condition of sections of the carriageway in New Malden High Street, and to consider ways to smooth the flow of traffic along the road.

The bid has been approved by TfL through the Corridors Funding Programme and by the New Malden Neighbourhood Committee. It awaits final approval from the Executive, and I am disappointed by the Leader’s reference to it tonight, because before then I was confident that he would agree for the benefit of residents and the businesses, which depend on free and easy access to the High Street. How naïve I was!

This cannot be compared with the LIP 2 two consultants for a scheme which may well be shelved when there is a change of Government in May. And I hope this does not get dumped on ideological grounds that defy reason or common sense. The £50,000 will fund the detailed feasibility study and design of any consequential repairs to be made and we are also identifying the construction elements to be funded in future years following the outcomes from this piece of work.

The various elements involved will need to be fully designed and costed before any project management and programming can be started. It is anticipated that the scheme would broadly consist of the following aspects:

- realignment of curves to maintain traffic flows;

- redistribution of road space;

- reconstruction of the main carriageway

With the redistribution of road space we plan to eventually reinstate the bus bays to ease congestion caused by traffic backing up behind stationery buses. We will also remove the unnecessary clutter on the pavements, which hinder easy pedestrian progress. For instance the benches that are placed across the pavement and all the free standing advertising hoardings.

In this way we will make shopping in the High Street an even more enjoyable experience. The biggest problem, however, will be the reconstruction of a highway itself. This has and continues to deteriorate with devastating impact due to the illadvised decision by the former Liberal Democratic Administration in the neighbourhood to squeeze the road space into two narrow lanes. This forces the traffic including the buses and heavy articulated vehicles with their massive axel rate, to drive in tram like style on the same small section of road pounding it to destruction. This impact is aggravated by the quality of the sub-surface. Subsurfaces which were already at risk before the ill-advised scheme went ahead.

Part of the fill used in the subsections was coke spoil from the former Kingston Power Station. While this would be adequate in normal circumstances where the strain is spread over a wide area, in the context of New Malden High Street, it has proved disastrous. Sooner, rather than later, the highway will have to be reconstructed with deep excavation down to the lower levels – at huge cost and massive inconvenience and impact on residents,’ shops and businesses. The road condition has been causing concern since we took over the administration of the neighbourhood. It started with the not so pretty cobbled steps that proved dangerous and has degenerated into the massive problems we now face. We have patched and patched causing great inconvenience, but we cannot continue in this fashion and there is no easy solution.

One that would have tided us over for a few more years would be to put a thick top layer across the whole carriageway strengthening from the top, but this would mean raising the carriageway level to the same height as the pavements with the inevitable risk of severe flooding in heavy rain, so no help there.

This is the legacy, Mr Mayor, of a badly thought through scheme we opposed, but which we have inherited, and that is why we need to spend £50,000 to start to finally sort it out.

Supplementary:

Clearly, there is a need for drastic improvement as I would hope all colleagues on either side of the chamber would agree, but obviously in agreement with my own residents here this is a signature piece, I am afraid, of Liberal Democrat incompetence, which needs to be put right correctly and soon. Could Councillor Codd tell the Council what chance we have of the £50,000 being made available for a much needed improvement?

Reply:

Well, until this evening and I heard the Leader of the Administration, I would have thought it was in the bag so to speak. It is necessary, it is needed, and I would have thought the last thing a wise administration would do would be to block something that is aimed to improve the condition of New Malden High Street and make it once again a must go destination and not what it is at times a traffic jam. This is necessary. We need it and I would sincerely hope that as I say commonsense will prevail and that the Executive will in their wisdom see it fit to forward this money towards this scheme.

Councillor Howard Jones

To Councillor Bob Steed, Executive Member for Environment, Sustainability and Climate Change

Question:

Will the Liberal Democrats support the Conservative initiative for the Freedom Pass Petition that is currently on the Number 10 website?

Reply:

No, we will not. This is not because my colleagues and I disagree with its sentiment. As a member of London Councils Transport and Environment Committee I was immensely proud to agree the five year extension of our Freedom Pass deal on behalf of the Borough.

We have complained against the proposed cuts to funding from the Labour Government as well as the threats the Conservative Mayor of London posed to the scheme when they increased the cost of subsidy for London Boroughs by £1m. I am told that the epetition in question is currently undergoing external investigation by London Councils and I do not believe it will be appropriate for me to sign at this time.

As I understand it, a few days ago, a Conservative Party researcher at London Councils submitted this petition to a number 10 website under the organisation’s name without explanation of his political role or approval from London Councils.

London Councils will be reminding the researcher in question that under their organisation’s rules all political parties should set up campaign websites publicly and openly so as not to mislead the public.

I and my fellow local Liberal Democrats want the Transport Minister to reverse his plan to cut important funding to London’s Freedom pass scheme. I have signed the official Freedom Pass Petition on the Liberal Democrats’ website and I will continue to support all public campaigns on this issue and others which ask for a fair deal for the residents of Kingston upon Thames.

Supplementary:

Given all the politicking that is going on behind the scenes with Councillor Steed and his situation with regards to a perfectly proper petition that is on the website. Given that, Mr Mayor, we are in a situation where this Council will have to probably find a substantial sum of money to replace the Government subsidy, can the Executive Member give us a clue as to where the Liberal Democrats would cut in order to meet this requirement?

Reply:

I think I have made it clear that the Liberal Democrat policies are absolutely clear on this, but the point is somebody was abusing the London Councils and I can’t actually support somebody abusing that. If I heard of a Liberal Democrat doing that as a researcher I would be very concerned because it is misleading so I would suggest that hopefully if the London Councils website is set up properly, the petition on 10 Downing Street is set up properly I will sign it, but I can’t sign it this case.

Councillor Derek Osbourne

To Councillor Howard Jones, Leader of the Opposition

Question:

In October of last year, the opposition Group Leader told the local press that David Cameron gave a “nod nod, wink wink” to improving Kingston’s local government settlement grant if his party came to Government. Given Mr Cameron’s recent admission that he has ‘messed up’ over previous tax pledges, and once solid-sounding promises of public sector investment and tax cuts have been ditched from the Tory manifesto, what confidence does Cllr Jones now have in his party leader’s ‘nod nod, wink wink’?

Reply:

I have the article in question in front of me and I am afraid that the Leader of the Council is totally misquoting the article, let alone what I said, so can I suggest he has a word with his own researcher about what is said in the article. I will, actually, read the article, Mr Mayor, just to prove my point, then I shall sit down. If the Leader would like to then extrapolate from his question, a proper question, I might answer it.

This is what is said in the article “North Kingston residents have been invited” and there is stuff about a meeting in Richmond. It is about Conservative Party Leader, David Cameron, coming to a meeting and it says “the meeting with the Party Leader, David Cameron comes as local Tory leader, Howard Jones, said he hoped any new Conservative Government would improve Kingston’s local government grant. In discussions, shadow Cabinet Members were unwilling to make firm commitments, but Councillor Jones said I would love them to change the formula”.

Mr Mayor, in this article, which I have in front of me, there is no mention at all of me quoting David Cameron and on that basis I have just bounced the question back to the Leader of the Council.

Supplementary:

I do recall reading it and indeed hearing it, so on the evidence of that I am quite content unless Councillor Jones is going to stand up in this chamber and say he never used the expression. Howard, that will do as a supplementary and we will fight it out afterwards.

Reply:

Well, now that I have got a question that I can answer, I will attempt to do so. I am going to take advantage of the opportunity now where the Leader of the Council has seen fit, not to attack anything that is going on in this Council, or any of the Councillors, but to attack the Conservative Party Leader, which actually puts into play as far as I am concerned the whole of the Liberal Democrat Administration nationally and locally. Therefore, Mr Mayor, what I actually said was that I hope the Conservative Government would improve Kingston’s rate support grant and that there was pressure from Conservative leaders in outer London Boroughs for a change in the formula, which would mean that we would get a better deal. I did say that I had talked to Shadow Ministers and that although they would not make any specific promises they were aware of the situation and would do what they could to improve it. Financial commitments at the time were not on the table. The Shadow Team was, however, very concerned about the country’s debt situation, but they were very well aware also of London Boroughs prides. The situation still exists, Mr Mayor, where the Conservative Government will match fund Council Tax increases kept below 2.5% and will create a situation where the Council will be allowed to keep new business rates collected after the election. These measures will undoubtedly help towards the funding crises.

Addressing the second part of the question, it is may be time to remind the Leader of the Council and Liberal Democrat supporters two things about voting Liberal Democrat at the moment. Firstly, a vote for a Liberal Democrat MP, Mr Mayor, is a vote which will be wasted, because the vote and the struggle to get Kingston’s voice heard at the table of a new Conservative Government might quite clearly be made much more thoroughly and strongly by Conservative MPs..

And secondly, Mr Mayor, I understand the derision that is in the Leader’s voice regarding the Leader of the Conservative Party’s alleged about turn on some financial matters I was looking at something about Mr Clegg today. Mr Clegg shelves party policy. Mr Clegg said shopping lists of pledges won’t wash anymore. The politics of plenty are over. He said that he would no longer be able to afford a £2 billion pledge to provide free personal care for the 65s. A big Liberal Democrat plank, Mr Mayor. The citizens’ pension rising immediately in line with earnings rather than prices, no longer on the Liberal agenda, Mr Mayor.

Extending free child care to all 18 month olds, no longer on the Liberal agenda, Mr Mayor. Flagship policy of scrapping university tuition fees, Mr Mayor, no longer on the agenda. Come on Mr Mayor, Mr Clegg, Mr Osbourne, all the Liberal Democrats should not start throwing stones in glass houses when they themselves could not manage this Council effectively.

Thank you Mr Mayor.

Councillor Ken Smith

To Councillor Patrick Codd , Chair of the Maldens & Coombe Neighbourhood Committee

Question:

Would Councillor Codd join with Councillor Howard Jones, Councillor Mary Clark and myself in thanking the RBK officers, Safer Neighbourhood Teams and Fire Services, plus all other agencies for making Beverley Ward and St James Ward Open Day such a success.

Reply:

Well, of course, it was a success and I am delighted to add my congratulations and my thanks to those of the aforementioned Councillors. It was the sort of thing we are trying to do to have a closer contact with our residents and as that particular one was held on the same afternoon as the lighting of the New Malden Christmas lights it attracted very large crowds, which was excellent and while I fully accept that the Mayor was there riding down the middle of the High Street lighting the lights, which was a delight to everyone, it was disappointing, however, that some of the local Councillors did not see fit to turn up for such an engagement, which gave a very good opportunity for meeting members of the public who do not often get involved in local government affairs in any shape or form and normally do not attend neighbourhood meetings, or have much contact with us. So, I think, I would only hope and urge all Councillors in Maldens and Coombe who are relevant to try and come to our next open day, which is at Robin Hood Primary School. The Leader, I know, is with me and Councillor Jones at a meeting. Robin Hood Primary School on February 1 in late afternoon which is being organised with the school. Parents will be there and it will be again a good turnout, the officers are doing a splendid job on these; getting to know the public and getting more closely and try and get people more involved in the Council, what we do, what we can offer and how we can help them, so I do urge everyone who can to attend that one on February 1.

Tuesday, 24th November 2009

Questions:

Councillor: Nick Kilby

To Councillor: Howard Jones, Leader of the Conservative Group

Question

Following the recent delivery of the Liberal Democrat newspaper to homes in the borough that suggested the Mayor of London is planning cuts to front line policing resources in Kingston, would the Leader of the Opposition tell us what a Conservative administration would do in similar circumstances?

Reply:

There is no doubt that disinformation and scaremongering with downright misinformation causes great concern within communities and is a cynical way of trying to deflect resident’s attention from the nightmare of bureaucratic waste within this Council.

The Liberal Democrat MPs and this Administration are deliberately engaged already in an election ploy to try and convince residents that public safety and security is safe with them.

Let's get this straight, straight from the horse’s mouth: there will be no reduction in front line policing; police officers available to fight crime and disorderly behaviour on our streets will not be reduced; Safer Neighbourhood police team numbers are not negotiable; that is the message from Boris and the Deputy Mayor for policing in London, Kit Malthouse and I quote directly so that our MPs should take note:

To be completely clear we have no plans whatsoever to reduce front line police officers. Quite the reverse in fact. We have demanded and expect the Met to deliver a significantly increased uniformed presence on the streets of every Borough. More single patrolling, more uniforms on public transport, and in our town centres. We expect to see the number of warranted officers in London beat all known records.

That sounds pretty clear to me Mr Davey, Mrs Kramer and Councillor Osbourne.

If you were really on this case we would see more evidence of positive activity, more responsibility – more leadership, more visible signs that you are actually caring – rather than negative scaremongering.

What has this Administration done within the Community Leadership role that we expect - and that the community has a right to expect?

Burglaries have risen by 49% and drug abuse is on the increase – we see no response from the Council other than to repeat the mantra that we live in the safest Borough in London.

Conservative Councils across London are working with the Mayor of London to reduce the back office costs of our police service and where possible and necessary have made substantial local investment in the fight against crime by investing money - by paying for additional police officers and providing other on the street policing resources – actually putting money where their mouths are!!

We would actively engage with the local Police Commander and discuss what local investment may be possible and appropriate.

We will if necessary put our money where our mouths are.

The police numbers in this Borough: provided by the Metropolitan Police Service show that we now have more Police Officers in this Borough at the moment than at this time last year - the numbers have increased from 279 to 304 within the last 12 months.

This is Conservative Leadership by the Mayor of London keeping his pledge to the residents of Kingston.

We will do even more. Up to recently we have as a Shadow Executive followed the portfolios of the Executive of this council.

I am tonight asking Councillor Ian George to take on the role of Shadow Executive Member - not only for Housing but for Crime Reduction and Prevention, Licensing and Enforcement.

Unlike the Liberal Democrats we will bring all these related functions together so that we will ensure that a Conservative Council will truly put all its efforts into supporting the police, supporting the community, supporting residents groups and other agencies in this important work.

By Councillor Eric Humphrey

To Councillor Derek Osbourne, Leader of the Council

Question:

Will the Leader of the Council make access to Members’ Financial Interests and Members’ and Officers’ Expenses available for public scrutiny by publishing the details on the Council Website?

Reply:

Dealing first with Members’ interests, I see no problem at all with details of the Members’ Register of Interests being made available on the Council’s website. Indeed, I understand that the Standards Committee, some years ago, sought to achieve that but met some resistance in certain quarters – people who were on the Standards Committee might remember that – and, consequently, the proposal was proceeded with at that time. Perhaps, in the light of this renewed interest in the topic, the Committee could be asked to look at that again.

Similarly, I can personally see no problem with details of expenses claimed by Members being available on the Council’s website. So far as allowances are concerned, the Scheme of Allowances (that is, the amounts paid to specific office holders) is on the website and has been for many years. We also publish, annually, the amounts paid to individual Councillors. In relation to expenses claimed by Members, there are periodic Freedom of Information requests relating to these and, again, I can see no problem in this information being available on the website.

In relation to Officers, I have already made a commitment (at the 21st July Council Meeting) in response to your question at that meeting, that details of expenses claimed by the Chief Executive and Senior Officers (defined by you as those earning more than £80,000 a year) be made available on the website. Work is in hand to achieve this, hopefully by the end of this calendar year, which is well ahead of my commitment that details will be published by May 2010.

In terms of the openness that I think we ought to extend, I think that Councillors on this local authority should feel no worry about our expenses being claimed. Sunlight, as we know, is considered to be the best disinfectant, and we should hate to have any infections coming to Kingston. We would not, for example, want to reflect within this authority on the Leader, who may or may not be a Conservative, although I think he might be, of Essex County Council, who charged his residents £59,000 to cover his pay and expenses, on top of a personal chauffeur-driven car service, and we know he is currently being investigated, and that will go where it will.

I have the very greatest respect for Councillor Merrick Cockell who is the Conservative Leader of Kensington and Chelsea, and is the Conservative Leader on London Councils, but it is quite interesting that if you look at the expenses that he has taken – first class flights and eaten at the most prestigious restaurants in New York at a cost to the central London ratepayer, and he has also entertained, been entertained in fact, at the finest restaurants in London such as The Ritz by property developers, interested in his Royal Borough, and actually, I have to say, that if you look at his current declared expenses, I have to say that his taxi expenses are extraordinary, and I have to say that I would never claim for a taxi ride on the rate payer of this council. And we must not forget, of course, that standard we should all put up in front of us – that very fine former Leader of Bexley who has this week started his community service painting the public toilets for – let me think, what is it here? – using a City Hall credit card to pay for thousands of pounds of personal spending including flight upgrades, and expensive dinners with his girlfriend and Tory colleagues, and groceries and car repairs.

Councillor, I am absolutely happy that we all of us will have our expenses put on the website – because I am absolutely certain all of us will have expenses which are nowhere near what other people are claiming, both as individual councillors and as leaders or other office holders. I think that we should be proud, I am sure across all of us as a local authority, as a group of councillors, that we do not take our tax payers for a ride on our expenses.

Supplementary:

I thank the Leader for the most opaque speech, which did not deal with the question, didn’t in fact conceal the glacial progress that has been made, and in the interests of transparency, because he is obviously very keen on transparency, though he does nothing about it, will you publish on the website details of the monies you receive from the IDeA?

Reply:

Well, of course, I will; of course, I will. I mean, you know, actually, you can go to the IDeA website and find that out, I would have thought, but we can do that here, and you can get what I get from London Councils, and I’m sure that any one of us, all of us, will want to publish those sorts of...but I will say this – it is interesting, isn’t it? – that it seems to me that the debate that drove into the ground on putting the register of Members’ interests on to the website, and what they were receiving elsewhere, was driven into the ground from the rejection by a Conservative Councillor, not anybody on this side. So if we are going to do the spirit of openness, if this is referred back to the Standards Board, are you telling me categorically that the Conservatives on the Standards Board will say that we are going to do it absolutely openly, and there will be no objection like there was last time to a full and open disclosure? Because that is what happened last time – it was a Conservative Member that talked it out and, yes, that person is here as it happens.

Thank you. I am not making any disparaging comments about Councillor Howard Jones, of course.

By Councillor Bob Steed

To Councillor Howard Jones

Question:

What is the Conservative opposition’s position on the proposed development of Heathrow’s third runway?

Reply:

Thank you Mr Mayor, thank you Councillor Steed.

I think you asked me a similar question at our Council Meeting on the 31st March, and I thought I made myself clear that I affirm my own, this Group’s, the Conservative Party’s known position, which is total opposition to a third runway at London Heathrow Airport.

Zac Goldsmith, our fine candidate in Richmond Park and, has, as you know, been a leading light in the campaign both nationally and locally and, I think, this has received approbation from all persons that are concerned, so that is all I can say to you right now.

Supplementary:

Yes, Mr Mayor. I welcome those comments, because, I think, we can speak as one of those, but, just as a supplementary, as you are aware, there is interest in the Thames Estuary as far as a future London airport – could you explain your position regarding an airport in the Thames Estuary?

Reply:

I am just wondering whether Cllr Steed has a memory, or not, because, I mean, frankly, that’s the question he asked me on 31st March. Well, I have got a two-page answer here, and I will read it again if you want me to, or I will refer you to my answer of 31st March.

It would be briefer, but it would not, actually, answer the question tonight, and I will give Councillor Steed the value of my thoughts on that. As far as I understand, and I am not an expert, and I do not claim to be, the Mayor of London has asked for some investigations to be carried out to establish whether or not the idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary, off the coast of Kent, is a worthwhile exercise to take further.

I actually, do not believe we need any more airports in this country, but I would say this, I do not believe Heathrow is the right place to have an airport, and, therefore, it might be that the alternative, in the Thames Estuary, is an appropriate alternative. I think it has to be that the jury is out on that at the moment, but when we have some substantial information concerning the effect of the airport compared against where the airport currently exists in Heathrow, in terms of ecological matters, biodiversity, all the issues that count, as far as upsetting (I understand) the Thames marshland, which we should all be very concerned about – as far as all that is concerned, the jury is definitely out – so no more airports, but maybe, just maybe, an airport that would replace Heathrow.

By Councillor Nick Kilby

To Councillor Derek Osbourne

Question:

Would the Leader of the Council confirm he has instructed officers to prepare a budget that will allow this Council to approve a zero percentage increase in the RBK Council Tax for the municipal year 2010/11?

Reply:

The short answer is that no, I haven’t, but I will just expand ever so slightly, but not for very long. There is, of course, and we know about this, there is widespread pressure across London to minimise Council Tax increases, and we all know also that there is a ‘rush for gold’ that appears to be 0% tax increase – which some have committed to but they do not have the gearing effect that we have in our local authority. We share the concern our residents have around council tax increases, and aim to keep any increase, if any, to an absolute minimum.

Now, you would expect us, at this time of year, to be looking at detailed preparations. You would expect us to look at the balance of service against zero. My categoric assurance is that we are not going to aim for zero to make a purely political point ahead of an election – I am not saying that anybody else is, by the way.

We are not going to do that, at the risk of seriously undermining Council services next year to the people who most need Council services. The fact is, as we all know, and I have said this at London Councils, so this is hardly new stuff, that at a time of recession, the demand on Council services is greater than it is when you are in good economic circumstances. The drive to zero at a time when demand on Council services is greater, is to my mind, ill thought out, if you’re only doing it for purely political purposes. If the whole point of a Council Tax increase, or non-increase is about ensuring that people get elected, or not elected, we fail the people who put us there who would expect us to make sensible decisions, not around tax levels alone, but also about the services that they fundamentally need, and when we do the budget, it will be based on that balance. We will have disagreements about that, but that is the basis upon which we will do it.

By Councillor Bob Steed

To Councillor Howard Jones, Leader of the Opposition

Question:

At the next Executive meeting, it is my intention to announce that the Royal Borough will be signing up to the 10:10 carbon cutting campaign. Will opposition members join us in signing up to this important environmental pledge?

Reply:

Yes, thank you, Mr Mayor, and we accept and we welcome the 10:10 carbon copy campaign. The Conservative front bench in Parliament has signed up to it, and the Conservative Group in this Council has signed up to it. We look forward to seeing the recommendation that Cllr Steed is going to bring to an enormously long agenda, and that I had a look at on receiving this question. When I saw the Executive agenda this evening I could see no reference to this, but I am looking forward to it, and I am looking forward to seeing us take this matter further.

Supplementary:

I welcome that. But I just wondered, when I saw the statement in the press from George Osborne this morning, I wondered whether he might like to remind his leader, David Cameron, who is an Oxfordshire councillor, to persuade Oxfordshire County Council colleagues that they might actually follow suit in signing up to the 10:10 campaign.

Reply:

I would like to answer questions about this Council and about Kingston upon Thames. In fact, I must say that Cllr Steed has the imagination always to ask me questions about Boris Johnson’s opinion, and about other Conservative organisations and councils around the country. I will not try to defend any decisions they may, or may not have made that I am not aware of, and I certainly refuse to talk to George Osborne MP regarding his attitude and his relationship with David Cameron. I mean, Mr Mayor, could we have some relevance, could we have some relevance in terms of the questions in future, please.

Tuesday, 15th September 2009

Motion: The Council notes:

1. That the Greenwich Judgement was opposed by every political party on the Council at the time the Judgement was passed by a Court of Appeal in 1989.

2. That subsequent legislation or Judgement by both the Conservative and Labour Governments made it even more difficult for local authorities to plan for and educate the children of their boroughs by allowing the removal of an even greater number of schools from local authority admission arrangements to the point that there is now eight admission authorities for Secondary schools alone in the borough whereas there were two at the time of the Greenwich Judgement.

The Council affirms:

That the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames will be able to provide a school place for every Kingston child as needed, through the pro-active planning underway in the Primary Capital and Building Schools for the Future programmes, and on-going discussions with the Department for Children, Schools and Families to secure the capital investment needed before any modification of the Greenwich Judgement is implemented.

Proposed by Councillor Dennis Doe

Seconded by Councillor Nick Kilby

After the debate the substantive motion was carried.

Questions:

Councillor Eric Humphrey

To Councillor Bob Steed, Executive Member for Environment, Sustainability and Climate Change

Question

What steps are the Council taking to remedy deficiencies in the Green Waste Collection System?

Reply:

Performance of all waste management services are analysed regularly. The data for Green Waste suggested that the number of missed collections was unacceptable so discussions to remedy this have taken place with Veolia. As a result, Veolia reviewed and changed their administration and redrafted all daily collection sheets for this service, checking them against each subscriber. The indications are that performance has improved since this work was completed.

It is acknowledged that further communication about the service and its operation with subscribers would be of value. Consequently new leaflets have been drafted and will be sent to subscribing residents shortly.

Supplementary:

I feel that reply was typical of so many of the replies one gets; it shows a degree of complacency and a failure really to be responsive. I'll just concentrate on one aspect of the Green Waste and I would ask the Executive Member what steps have been taken to address the very many complaints which have been made by residents who have found themselves paying £22 for 10 plastic bags, which I suppose you could say are of the consistency of wet brown paper bags. They find them totally useless. They are just about alright I suppose for grass cuttings but if you tried to put any twigs, rose cuttings or anything of that kind. And it is my understanding that we have had very many complaints and 8I would like to know something from the Executive Member as to what's been done? If any Member has not seen one of these sacks, I'll happily pass it around for you to look at.

Reply:

I accepted that the service was not up to standard and we have addressed that problem. We are continuing to look at this and officers are looking - actually dealing with this all the time. I've accepted that we do need to do something on this and we are doing something.

Councillor Mary Clark

To Councillor Bob Steed, Executive Member for Environment, Sustainability & Climate Change

Question

Councillor Green acknowledged to the local press recently that serious crime had escalated in Victoria Recreation Ground and something needed to be done. Does this recent change of mind indicate that gates in all parks in Kingston will be locked at night and if this is the case, how soon will this commence?

Reply

The Council has a clear and transparent policy regarding access to parks. This policy is set out in the Council's Green Spaces Strategy that was adopted by the Executive in March 2008. The Strategy states and I quote 'The Council's policy is not to lock park gates. There will consequently be a resistance to any residents' requests to locking any park gate.' However the Green Spaces Strategy goes on to state that if a request is made to lock gates a due process will be followed and that process will be as follows:

  • The nature and function of the request will be clearly established
  • The capital and revenue cost implications will be established
  • Consultation will take place with current users
  • Consultation will take place with the Police
  • Findings of a Health and Equalities Impact Assessment will also be considered

This process has worked well in responding to previous requests to lock park gates. In the light of recent incidents in Victoria Park officers are reviewing the locking of gates in that park as per the process set out in the Green Spaces Strategy. The situation at Victoria Park does not justify a wholesale change to the Council's recently consulted and adopted policy actually as the question suggests.

Supplementary

Well I'm pleased to hear that you have taken notice of the actual due process of consultation. Again it should be obviously on the wider strategy this consultation should take place and that is borough wide. Are you meaning to say then that a consultation because of the many requests and the petitioning over the years by the residents that particularly on Victoria Park and measures that were put in 2007 have actually been non-effective shown as the increased severity of the assaults recently in the parks? Consultation should be done borough wide on the wider strategy regarding the locking of gates of all the parks in the borough?

Reply

With respect Councillor Clark, I have clearly stated our policy. The policy is that there is a due process where there is a problem for us to actually look at this, but that policy is clear that we are against locking park gates, but, I mean obviously we will look at things in the light of such situations as Victoria Park has thrown up.

Councillor Robert Tasker

To Councillor Derek Osbourne, Leader of the Council

Question

The Council has agreed to make payments to the Kingston Theatre Trust of £600k per year for three years totalling £18m. Please tell the Council the legal form of agreement entered into to cover the payments.

Reply:

Discussions with KTT have reached agreement on the arrangements for delivering the agreed community benefits and goods and services specified in the New Deal approved by the Executive. In return for the New Deal, KTT will receive an annual contribution for three years from the Council. Financial due diligence having been completed, these arrangements are being finalised into a formal Funding Agreement to be entered into between the Council and KTT. A similar agreement will be entered into Between KU and KTT.

Supplementary:

So this is a grant without measurement of services provided and a reverse of the legal arrangement you informed the Council that would be entered into?

Reply:

No, I think Cllr Tasker has just delivered a question that he wrote before I answered the question. This is entirely measurable and we will on the year's anniversary of the beginning of negotiations be happy to produce a report, as was our intent and indeed our indication that we gave at the end of last year and the beginning of this, to show what it is that we'll have got for our money. That will include the thousands of tickets that have been made available for schools, it will include the establishment of a youth group that was identified and which starts - actually two youth groups, two different age groups - which open this Saturday and a whole range of other measures which are entirely measurable so no it would not be true to say what Robert John Tasker has just suggested. Of course, none of these benefits would have been available to the people of the Borough had Cllr Tasker had his way and closed the Theatre at the beginning of January this year.

Tuesday, 21st July 2009

Motion: This Council has no confidence in the current incompetent Executive and demands its resignation.

Proposed by Councillor Howard Jones

Seconded by Councillor Paul Johnston

After the debate the motion was declared lost.

Questions:

Councillor Robert Tasker

To Councillor Bob Steed, Executive Member for Environment, Sustainability and Climate Change

Question

Please give the Council details of the reinstituted summer noise patrols.

Reply:

Following requests from local residents we have re-introduced, on a pilot basis, Saturday night noise patrols from Saturday 20th June to Saturday 29th August inclusive. The patrols run between Midnight on Saturday night to 3 am Sunday morning, the time period over weekends when officers believe the majority of noise nuisance occur, and are carried out with the assistance of the police. When there are no noise complaints to investigate, Officers carry out checks on licensed premises to ensure they are closing at the correct time, are using appropriate security staff etc. We will review the scheme’s operation in the autumn but there is no doubt the effectiveness is closely linked to Police availability.

Supplementary:

But Ok, the police have no power do they? The Community Police Officers have no authority and Kingston Council doesn’t operate the noise prevention team throughout the week so how are people supposed to get a good night’s sleep with the exception for three hours on a Saturday night? Now, bearing that in mind, could the Executive Member confirm that the funding is only for three months, only that there was a distinct lack of information sent out in the press release in June.

Reply:

As I said, it was agreed to go ahead with a pilot scheme, I repeat, it is dependent on police availability and of course the police can act in certain circumstances but we are seeing how it goes and we will review once we have got the results of the pilot.

Councillor Mary Reid

To Councillor Penny Shelton, Executive Member for Housing

Question:

What are the Executive Member’s views on the Opposition spokesperson’s withdrawal from the Council’s Cross Party Member Group on Housing Investment options?

Reply:

There is a long history of joint working between the two main political parties on the Council on the issue of investment in the Council’s housing stock.

Prior to the Housing Stock Transfer ballot in 2004, members of both parties were involved in working groups which were responsible for the preparatory work with residents. Both parties were represented on the Shadow Board of the new body which would have taken on the housing stock had the transfer proceeded.

During 2005 the Council undertook an Option Appraisal on how to proceed following the decision of tenants that they did not wish to support Stock Transfer at that time. Both parties were represented on the Working Group that oversaw that Option Appraisal which was signed off by the Government in 2006.

In the light of that appraisal, the views clearly expressed by residents in the stock transfer ballot, the Council set about making efficiency savings in the Housing Revenue Account which could be used to fund additional prudential borrowing. This resulted in the highest investment programme for some years in 2006/07.

However, by the following year, it was apparent that the rate of increase in ‘negative subsidy’ being paid to the Government would deprive the Council of the opportunity to borrow further to fund more investment in repairs and improvements. A review of the medium-term outlook for the HRA showed that this position was likely to persist and that we needed a change of direction.

In the summer of 2008, the Executive established the Cross Party Group on Housing Investment Options, Both parties participated in the work of that Group and its report went to Executive on 7th July.

This was a Cross Party Group set up to examine all the Housing Investment Options: that is how to get more money to do up our dilapidated stock to the Decent Homes Standards that our tenants and leaseholders deserve, especially the tenants who have suffered for years from the monstrous and escalating tenants tax. I am not clear whether the Housing Spokesman has the full support of the Party opposite, but knowing the complexity and detail of the Cross Party’s task, I speculate that the assignment was too tough and demanding and was one that he would have preferred not to have. I do think that the loss of the Cross Party working in the interests of all our tenants and leaseholders will be a wounding loss for those people and for others who believe that it is necessary to work together to overcome the housing challenges that this Government seems determined to keep throwing at us.

A new survey by Savills has detailed the extent of the investment problem. The total forecast expenditure to improve and maintain the stock over the next 30 years is £306m, with £80m required in the first five years. In contrast, the capital we have currently got to invest in Housing Revenue Account properties is about £5m per year and the stock condition survey shows that 32% of the housing stock does not meet the Government’s Decent Home Standard. The key fact is that without a substantial increase in investment over the next few years, this figure is likely to grow rapidly. I deeply regret the decision to withdraw from cross party working in the interests of our residents.

Councillor Eric Humphrey

To Councillor Derek Osbourne, Leader of the Council

Question:

Would you please inform the Council if arrangements will be made to publish the details of the expense claims of all council officers earning more than £80,000 a year?

Reply:

Thank you Councillor Humphrey, can I first of all say that to the best of my knowledge no Council officer has made any claims to clean out a moat or have anything to do with a duck island. Senior Council staff may claim payments to reimburse them for reasonable expenses incurred as part of their normal duties. Such claims are generally limited to travelling costs and do not compare in amount or range to the expenses claimed by MPs which have caused so much recent [public debate.

However, in order to demonstrate transparency on what has become a point of public interest, plans are already in place to put the Chief Executive’s expenses on the Council’s website. We will also look at extending the publication of expenses information of other senior officers. In any event, there are currently proposed changes to Regulations on the reporting of senior staff remuneration in the accounts to include expenses.

Supplementary:

I must say I am rather disappointed with that answer. It seems to me that a Party that has always prided itself on transparency; has always prided itself on looking for accountability – oh, and I appreciate that it is an election year so references to duck islands, which don’t seem to me to have much to do, are probably acceptable – but what I would say is this. I believe, and indeed the Government Minister – I keep forgetting which one because they have changed so often recently it’s very hard to keep track of them – but he did say that people who are employed by public bodies should account for the expenses – I am not saying for one moment that there i9s anything amiss, but the question is this: Why are we not, as the BBC is doing, leave out MPs from this argument, 5the BBC has provided detail of their expense claims and some quite interesting reading it has made. So I will repeat my question to Councillor Osbourne, when will these consideration reach a conclusion or is it one of those things that perhaps it will be May of next year before you get round to even thinking about it?

Reply: