Agenda and minutes

Online meeting, Council
Tuesday 15 December 2020 7:30 pm

You can view the individual reports for this meeting by selecting the headings from the numbered list of items at the bottom of this page. Alternatively you can view the entire agenda by selecting 'Agenda Reports Pack' below.

Watch Council meetings here

Contact: Sam Nicholls tel. 020 8547 5533  e-mail:  sam.nicholls@kingston.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

39.

Global Teacher Prize

Minutes:

The Mayor, Councillor Margaret Thompson and the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services including Education, Councillor Diane White, gave a presentation to recognise the achievements of Jamie Frost, a maths teacher at Tiffin School, who had been featured on a shortlist of the ten most outstanding teachers in the world in the annual Global Teachers Prize competition, which was run in partnership with UNESCO.

 

The Council expressed its appreciation for Jamie’s inspirational work with school children in Kingston and, indeed, across the world. It was explained that as well as teaching at Tiffins, Jamie had also created and ran a free online learning platform for maths that was originally designed to support lower attaining students but became an essential resource across the globe whilst schools were closed during lockdown. It had quickly reached 1.3m page views a day and the site was used in some capacity by over half of all secondary schools in the UK alone.

40.

Apologies

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors Jon Tolley and Munir Ravalia.

41.

Declarations of Interest

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests and any other non- pecuniary interests (personal interests) relevant to items on this agenda.

 

Minutes:

The Mayor, Councillor Margaret Thompson, declared an interest in relation to the question posed by Councillor Sharron Falchikov-Sumner at Item 8 on the agenda.  She therefore left the meeting for the duration of that question and the Deputy Mayor took the Chair in her absence.

42.

Minutes

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 13 October 2020.

Minutes:

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 October 2020 were approved as a correct record.

43.

Mayor's Announcements

Minutes:

The Mayor paid tribute to Councillor Patricia Bamford, who had stood down as a member for Chessington South Ward at the beginning of December. It was explained that Councillor Bamford had been first elected to the Council in 1998 and served in numerous leadership roles, including Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People, and for Better Homes and, most recently, Chair of the Development Control Committee. The Council joined the Mayor in thanking Councillor Bamford for her long and dedicated service to the residents of Chessington South and the wider Borough and wished her and her family every happiness in the future.

 

The Mayor also thanked everyone that took part in the Great Christmas Quiz on Thursday 10 December, which included several Councillors and their families too.  She announced that over 60 people attended virtually and raised just over £900 for the Mayor’s Charitable Trust.

 

It was explained that the Mayor’s Ball was provisionally scheduled to take place on Friday 23rd April and more details would follow nearer the time.

 

The Mayor reminded Members that the Mobile Mop Up project which had been run in the borough earlier in the year in partnership with Genuine Solutions would be returning after Christmas. The Mayor called for donations of unwanted mobile phones so that they could be reused or the parts recycled, so the Mayor's Charitable Trust could continue to benefit from the proceeds raised.

44.

Petitions

To receive petitions submitted by Councillors, or by members of the public who live, work or study in the Borough, on a matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the Royal Borough. The petition must contain at least 20 signatures, and notice of the intention to submit the petition must be given in writing to democratic.services@kingston.gov.uk by 10am the day before the meeting. The petitioner will have up to 2 minutes speaking time to present the petition. Up to 5 petitions can be presented at the meeting which will be presented in order of the number of signatories. (Any remaining petitions can be submitted, without speaking.)

 

 

Petitions will be processed in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme.

 

 

Minutes:

The Council received notification of two petitions.

 

Councillor Rowena Bass presented a petition on behalf of the Lead Petitioner Jane Ramsey, signed by 384 residents, which concerned development at Roupell House.

 

There was also a request for the Council to hear a petition concerning the Go Cycle lane on Ewell Road, where notice of which was received after the deadline.

 

The Council unanimously agreed on this occasion to suspend the requirement to provide notice of a petition as outlined in the Petitions Scheme (Part 4G of the Council’s Constitution). 

 

The Lead Petitioner, Jayne Lomanto presented the petition, signed by 84 residents, which objected to the Go-Cycle Scheme at Ewell Road and the subsequent reduction of car parking affecting local businesses. It was explained that there were no parking spaces on surrounding streets and this was significantly affecting the small businesses in the area, especially during the covid situation.

 

It was confirmed that the petitions would be dealt with in accordance with the Petition’s Scheme as set out in the Council’s Constitution.

45.

Public Questions

The following public questions were received by the deadline as set out in the Council’s Meeting Procedure Rule 17(A):

 

Megan Taylor

Flytipping and condition of road at Broad Oaks in Tolworth

 

Janet Brannigan- Croggon

Boat Mooring near Queen’s Prominade

 

Mary Parmar

Alpha Road Estate parking issues

 

James Giles

Anti-Bullying Pledge

 

Rob Robb

Planning Sub-Committee process

 

Vicky

Communications with children with special educational needs and disability (SEND)

 

 

A period of up to 30 minutes shall be allowed at each Ordinary Meeting of the Council during which any person who resides, studies or works in the Borough other than Members of the Council may ask questions of the Mayor, the Leader of the Council, Leaders of the other Party Groups, any Portfolio Holder, Chairs of` the Strategic and Neighbourhood Committees, and members representing the Council on outside bodies any question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the Royal Borough.

 

At any one meeting no person may submit more than one question and no more than one such question may be asked on behalf of one organisation.

 

Questions will be asked in the order in which notice of them was received, unless the Mayor decides otherwise in the interests of the efficient conduct of the meeting.

 

One supplementary question shall be allowed provided it is for clarification, arises directly out of the original question/response and is not a statement.

 

Any question which cannot be dealt with during public question time, either because of lack of time or because of the non attendance of the Member, to whom it was to be put, will be dealt with by a written answer and a copy of the answer will be recorded with the minutes of the meeting.

 

Minutes:

In accordance with Procedure Rule 17(A) replies were given to Public Questions (as set out in Annex 1 to the minutes) and supplementary questions (as set out in Annex 2 to the minutes).

 

46.

Motion: White Paper, ‘Planning for the Future’ pdf icon PDF 27 KB

In accordance with Procedure Rule 8(A)(5), the Council will debate a motion which has been submitted by Members of the Council.

This alternates, from meeting to meeting, between a motion submitted on behalf of the Administration and a motion submitted on behalf of Opposition Members of the Council.

The following Motion has been received from the Administration (the Liberal Democrat Group):

Proposed by Councillor Rebekah Moll

Seconded by Councillor Caroline Kerr

“White Paper, ‘Planning for the Future’

 

This Council notes:

      i.        The Royal Institute for British Architects called the proposals in the White Paper ‘shameful, and which will do almost nothing to guarantee delivery of affordable, well-designed and sustainable homes.  RIBA also said, ‘proposals could lead to the next generation of slum housing.

                

    ii.        The proposals to reform the planning process seek to blame councils and communities for the root cause of issues with the planning system and yet, it’s clear the housing delivery system is broken; not the planning system.

 

a)    90% of planning applications are approved by councils and more than one million homes with planning consent in the past decade are yet to be built according to figures from the LGA; and

b)    Kingston Council has permitted 2753 homes over the past five years which are not yet built.

 

This Council is concerned that the proposals seek to:

      i.        Significantly increase housing targets in Kingston from 964 pa to 1526;

 

    ii.        Provide less affordable housing, taking no account of housing land supply;

 

   iii.        Take away many of the opportunities for communities and their locally elected representatives to have a final say on how their areas develop; .

   iv.        Reduce or remove the right of residents to object to applications near them by giving automatic rights to build in ‘growth’ areas, and increase permitted development rights, risk unregulated growth and unsustainable communities;

 

    v.        Remove Section 106 payments and the Community Infrastructure Levy for infrastructure and replace them with a national levy; it is unclear how the new level of developer contributions would work; and

 

   vi.        Minimise the climate emergency as the reforms do not make it a key priority that would enable the planning system to respond to the climate crisis.

 

Calls on the Government to reform its current rules on development to give local authorities more powers to:

·         Challenge unrealistic targets;

·         Insist on improved infrastructure with new developments;

·         Challenge viability assessments that allow developers to get away without   providing adequate affordable housing for local people;

·         Remove those permitted development rights that lead to substandard homes being built;

·         Require new development to meet high sustainability standards.; and

·         Prevent loss of biodiversity, threatening species of fauna, insects and other wildlife.

 

This Council resolves to:

      i.        Object to the Government’s proposals for arbitrary housing targets and the reduction of local control proposed in the consultation paper;

 

    ii.        Highlight our concerns over these proposals with the public and local residents; and

 

   iii.        Campaign for a planning framework that provides for our residents and our communities and puts  ...  view the full agenda text for item 46.

Minutes:

In accordance with Procedure Rule 8(A)(5), the Council debated the following motion which was submitted on behalf of the Administration of the Council (Liberal Democrat Group), as proposed by Councillor Rebekah Moll and seconded by Councillor Caroline Kerr.

 

‘Motion: White Paper, ‘Planning for the Future’

 

This Council notes:

 

      i.        The Royal Institute for British Architects called the proposals in the White Paper ‘shameful, and which will do almost nothing to guarantee delivery of affordable, well-designed and sustainable homes.’  RIBA also said, ‘proposals could lead to the next generation of slum housing.’

    ii.        The proposals to reform the planning process seek to blame councils and communities for the root cause of issues with the planning system and yet, it’s clear the housing delivery system is broken; not the planning system.

a)    90% of planning applications are approved by councils and more than one million homes with planning consent in the past decade are yet to be built according to figures from the LGA; and

b)    Kingston Council has permitted 2753 homes over the past five years which are not yet built.

 

This Council is concerned that the proposals seek to:

 

      i.        Significantly increase housing targets in Kingston from 964 pa to 1526;

    ii.        Provide less affordable housing, taking no account of housing land supply;

   iii.        Take away many of the opportunities for communities and their locally elected representatives to have a final say on how their areas develop; .

   iv.        Reduce or remove the right of residents to object to applications near them by giving automatic rights to build in ‘growth’ areas, and increase permitted development rights, risk unregulated growth and unsustainable communities;

    v.        Remove Section 106 payments and the Community Infrastructure Levy for infrastructure and replace them with a national levy; it is unclear how the new level of developer contributions would work; and

   vi.        Minimise the climate emergency as the reforms do not make it a key priority that would enable the planning system to respond to the climate crisis.

 

Calls on the Government to reform its current rules on development to give local authorities more powers to:

·         Challenge unrealistic targets;

·         Insist on improved infrastructure with new developments;

·         Challenge viability assessments that allow developers to get away without   providing adequate affordable housing for local people;

·         Remove those permitted development rights that lead to substandard homes being built;

·         Require new development to meet high sustainability standards.; and

·         Prevent loss of biodiversity, threatening species of fauna, insects and other wildlife.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

      i.        Object to the Government’s proposals for arbitrary housing targets and the reduction of local control proposed in the consultation paper;

    ii.        Highlight our concerns over these proposals with the public and local residents; and

   iii.        Campaign for a planning framework that provides for our residents and our communities and puts people not developers at the heart of any solution.”

 

Councillor Sharron Falchikov-Sumner proposed an amendment to the motion, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Kevin Davis, that inserted the words “on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

47.

Member Questions pdf icon PDF 84 KB

In accordance with Procedural Rule 6 (1&2) replies will be given to questions of which notice has been given  which may be addressed to the Mayor, the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holders, the Leader of the Opposition, Chairs of the Standing and Neighbourhood Committees and Members representing the Council on Outside Bodies.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

In accordance with Procedural Rule 6 (1&2) replies were given to Member Questions (as set out in Annex 1 to the minutes) and supplementary questions (as set out in Annex 2 to the minutes).

 

48.

Achieving for Children Governance Arrangements pdf icon PDF 85 KB

At its meeting on 30 July 2020, the Response and Recovery Committee considered a report which included a recommendation to Council regarding the transfer of Band 3 Reserved Decision Making from the Achieving for Children (AfC) Joint Committee to the Children’s and Adults Care and Education Committee and noted the consequential need for changes to the the AfC Joint Committee Terms of Reference in respect to its change in function to a dispute resolution committee.

 

AfC was initially established by the London Borough of Richmond and the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames to undertake and provide a range of services to children and young people and an Inter Authority Agreement (IAA) was entered into on 31 March 2014. On 1 August 2017, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead was admitted to the Company as a new member and entered into an IAA with the other authorities and AfC. The three councils established a Joint Committee to agree and assess the operation and performance of the Company.

 

As set out in the report to the Response and Recovery Committee, a review of AfC governance arrangements was carried out and reported to the Joint Committee on 2 March 2020.  It was noted that the AfC Joint Committee had approved the transfer of functions in relation to Band 3 Reserved Matters from the Joint Committee to relevant bodies of the constituent authorities and changing the Joint Committee to an ad-hoc dispute resolution committee.  In the case of this Council it was proposed that the functions be transferred to the Children’s and Adults Care and Education Committee (CACE). This will strengthen governance arrangements in respect of AfC and ensure that each Council has direct oversight and influence over a number of significant AfC functions.

 

Similar reports have been considered and approved by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (on 27 October 2020) and the London Borough of Richmond (on 24 November 2020).

 

The Council is RECOMMENDED to resolve that the amendments to the constitution detailed in APPENDIX A be approved.

Minutes:

Members considered the recommendations of the Response and Recovery Committee at its meeting on 30 July 2020regarding adjustments to the Achieving for Children (AfC) governance arrangements.

 

It was noted that AfC had been initially established by the London Borough of Richmond and the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames to undertake and provide a range of services to children and young people and an Inter Authority Agreement (IAA) had been entered into on 31 March 2014. On 1 August 2017, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead was admitted to the Company as a new member and entered into an IAA with the other authorities and AfC. The three councils established a Joint Committee to agree and assess the operation and performance of the Company.

 

 Following a review of AfC governance arrangements it was proposed that functions in relation to Band 3 Reserved Decision Making Matters be transferred from the AfC Joint Committee to relevant bodies of the three constituent authorities with the Joint Committee becoming an ad-hoc dispute resolution committee.  In the case of this Council it was proposed that the functions be transferred to the Children’s and Adults Care and Education Committee. This would strengthen governance arrangements and ensure that each Council had direct oversight and influence over a number of significant AfC functions.

 

It was noted that similar reports had been considered and approved by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (on 27 October 2020) and the London Borough of Richmond (on 24 November 2020).

 

Resolved that the amendments to the Constitution detailed in Appendix A be approved.

 

Voting: Unanimous

 

49.

Appointments of Members to Committees, Panels and other bodies

The Council is RECOMMENDED to make the following appointments:

 

·         Louise Gallagher be appointed as alternate to Majid Mafi as the RBK Staff Representative on the Pension Fund Panel. 

Minutes:

Resolved that the following appointments to Committees, Panels and other bodies be approved -

 

1.    Councillor Sushila Abraham to be appointed as Chair of the Staff Appeals Panel to replace Councillor Patricia Bamford;

 

2.    Councillor Anita Schaper to be appointed as a member of the Blue Badge Panel to replace Councillor Patricia Bamford;

 

3.    Councillor Olly Wehring to be appointed as a member of the Scrutiny Panel to replace Councillor Patricia Bamford;

 

4.    Councillor Diane White to be appointed as a member of the Response and Recovery Committee to replace Councillor Katrina Lidbetter;

 

5.    Louise Gallagher to be appointed as alternate to Majid Mafi as the RBK Staff Representative on the Pension Fund Panel.

 

Voting: Unanimous

50.

Urgent Items authorised by the Mayor

 

 

To consider any items which, in the view of the Mayor, should be dealt with as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances in accordance with S100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

51.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

The following resolution is included as a standard item which will only be relevant if any exempt matter is to be considered at the meeting for which the Committee wish to resolve to exclude the press and public:

 

To exclude the public from the meeting under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that it is likely that exempt information, as defined in paragraph *….of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, would be disclosed and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

(*relevant regulatory paragraph to be indicated)