Councillors and committees
Issue - meetings
Meeting: 24/04/2019 - Council (Item 88)
5.1 To receive any petitions – members 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.
5.2 To debate the petitions referred to in the report at Appendix A of the agenda. [Under the Council’s Petition Scheme, petitions with more than 500 signatures will be debated by the full Council - if possible, at the next ordinary Council meeting after submission.]
- 5_1_Annex_Children's Centre Strategyreport, item 88 PDF 677 KB
- 5_2_Enclosure 1 to Annex 1_ Children's centres consultation results, item 88 PDF 742 KB
- 5_3_Enclosure 2 to Annex 1_ Children's Centre_Equality Assessment, item 88 PDF 989 KB
88.1 Two petitions were presented by members of the public at the meeting as follows:
(1) ‘Assess other options and resident support before awarding estate regeneration contract’ petition
The petition which was submitted by Mr Derek Moss had 41 online signatories with KT postcodes and 5 signatories from a paper version and requested:
“At its meeting on 24 April the Council should vote against awarding the contract to Countryside Properties and instruct officers to produce a detailed assessment of the alternatives to joint venture regeneration which are provided by the Government's decision to scrap the HRA borrowing cap, with reference to the 2012 council housing investment plan drawn up by the previous Lib Dem administration.
Once that report has been considered, if the Council still considers that joint venture regeneration is the best option, then before signing a contract with a developer that will waste £1.5m if residents reject the masterplan it should first ballot residents, at a estimated cost of less than £50,000, to find out whether there is any chance of them supporting a regeneration plan that involves the demolition of their homes.
Any ballot should include all residents and home owners on the Estate and the regeneration should only go ahead if at least 50% of eligible voters vote in favour.
(2) 'A fair ballot for residents on Kingston's Cambridge Road Estate' petition
The petition which was submitted by Mr Phil Bevin had 246 signatories with KT postcodes and requested "Cambridge Road Estate residents must have a free and fair ballot." The detail of the petition request read:
"We the undersigned believe that, because of the risks posed to the future of residents on Cambridge Road Estate through potential rent rises and the disruption to their lives, the regeneration ballot should represent a free and fair vote and that any associated campaign by RBK Council must honour this principle in a financially responsible manner. To this end we demand:
- on the terms of the ballot:
· a legally binding ballot on the final proposals that the Council must honour (all viability assessments to be completed before the ballot)
· that only CRE residents should be balloted and every CRE resident over the age of 16 should be eligible to vote
· a simple yes/no question on whether the final plans of the regeneration should go ahead
· that because of the significant change occasioned by the regeneration, no change should take place unless a yes vote garners 50% support but if there is no vote or less than 50% of residents participate in the ballot, there must be an alternative programme of reinvestment in the estate, one that does not include wholesale demolition
· that residents are informed of what any possible rent or council tax rises they may face on the new estate before the ballot takes place
- on the cost of the ballot:
· that all resources produced during the campaign by the Council contain a balanced assessment of the risks and opportunities of the plans; council ... view the full minutes text for item 88