Hounslow Council


Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Open Area, Lampton Park Conference Centre, (Civic Centre), Lampton Road, Hounslow. View directions

Contact: Carol Stiles Tel: 020 8583 2066 Email:  carol.stiles@hounslow.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

99.

Apologies for absence, declarations of interest or any other communications from Members

Decision:

Apologies had been received from Councillor Richard Foote, Councillor Amrit Mann and Councillor Kamaljit Kaur. The Chair informed members of the sad news of Councillor Foote’s recent bereavement. The thoughts of all members were with him.

 

There were the following declarations of interest:

 

Item 3 – Councillor Tom Bruce declared that as parent of a young child he was a user of the Children’s Centres. He also declared that his wife was employed at Hounslow Town Primary School.

 

Item 5 – Councillor Theo Dennison declared that he had some professional association with the company Forty Shillings who were retained by the Nishkam School but had not worked with them in respect of Syon Ward, Nishkam School or any other item related to the borough. He confirmed that this interest is recorded on the Members’ Declaration of Interests records.

Minutes:

Apologies had been received from Councillor Richard Foote, Councillor Amrit Mann and Councillor Kamaljit Kaur. The Chair informed members of the sad news of Councillor Foote’s recent bereavement. The thoughts of all members were with him.

 

There were the following declarations of interest:

 

Item 3 – Councillor Tom Bruce declared that as parent of a young child he was a user of the Children’s Centres. He also declared that his wife was employed at Hounslow Town Primary School.

 

Item 5 – Councillor Theo Dennison declared that he had some professional association with the company Forty Shillings who were retained by the Nishkam School but had not worked with them in respect of Syon Ward, Nishkam School or any other item related to the borough. He confirmed that this interest is recorded on the Members’ Declaration of Interests records.

100.

Minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2015 pdf icon PDF 128 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2015.

Decision:

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2015 were confirmed.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2015 were confirmed.

101.

CAS 488 - Brighter Futures for Under Fives pdf icon PDF 461 KB

Report by Councillor Tom Bruce, Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet noted the outcome of the 90 day consultation (as set out in Appendix 1 of the report).

2.     Cabinet agreed the model for the future delivery of services for under-fives in Hounslow (as set out in Appendix 3 of the report).

3.     Cabinet noted the alternative use of sites that will be closed (as set out in paragraph 6.6 of the report).

4.     Cabinet approved savings of £1.48m of the £1.76m savings target as set out in the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) (as set out in paragraph 8.1 and 8.2 of the report).

5.     Cabinet noted the gap in the MTFS savings of £0.28m.

6.     Cabinet considered the options for closing the funding gap as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the report and agreed Option 3, to identify additional savings to be made elsewhere as part of a review of the Early Intervention Service (EIS).

7.     Cabinet noted that further work will be undertaken to develop a consistent charging policy for discretionary services for under-fives.

Minutes:

See the report by Councillor Tom Bruce, Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services – Agenda Item 3.

 

Three petitions had been received by the Council in respect of the proposals and the Chair had agreed to the petitioners addressing the Cabinet. He welcomed the petitioners present and invited them in turn to address the meeting for up to five minutes.

 

Mrs Rachel Fung and Mrs Noveen Phillips spoke to a petition submitted in respect of Southville Children’s Centre.

 

Mrs Fung spoke as a parent using Southville Children’s Centre. She advised that the petition had 2385 signatures and the support of the local MP. It expressed the wealth of support amongst the local community for the Centre. Mrs Fung explained that the Centre was a community hub providing integrated services and a place of refuge for those with a variety of needs and feelings of isolation. She described the staff as amazing as they knew their people and provided invaluable support. That support was available for women in horrific situations. In her own situation, as a new mother, Mrs Fung reported that she had found access to a community, friends and advice and did not know what she would have done without this. She stressed that the Centre was a thriving, vibrant community. They had been advised that the Centre would continue to run some sessions but that staff would be moved. This would damage the continuity of support available as a fixed team. Mrs Fung made a plea to members not to tear out the heart of their community. The Centre served three generations and she wished to see it kept to serve those generations to come.

 

Ms Noveen Phillips commented that 2385 signatories was a huge petition and what had come of the consultation had not recognised this. The Centre provided support for three generations in the West area of the borough and all would be very upset if it were to close. It was understood that the proposal was not closing the Community Centre but the Children’s Centre. However, this would result in loss of budget for the Community Centre, leaving the Centre with only 0.5 of a post and a part time cleaner. This would mean that all the work which had been done for a long time would stop. The Centre was an exemplar of community service for ages 0-90, providing activities for children and parents, older children and their grandparents. However, all these services would go if there were no staff. Ms Phillips gave an example of the type of activity organised by the Centre. This was a joint action group on the environment which included representatives of the police and fire service. They had heard a suggestion that teenage holiday activities would continue but they used the Children’s Centre for these. The larger centre held lots of people for a wide range of activities. The closure would be a loss to the whole community; removing the heart from the community. Ms Phillips commented  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

102.

REG 372 - Waste and Recycling: Decision on Recycling Collection Method and In-house/LAC for Delivery of Service pdf icon PDF 254 KB

Report by Councillor Amrit Mann, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Environment.

 

Please note that this item is subject to a General Exception Notice which is published with this report. The General Exception Notice is required as it was not possible to publish the item on the Forward Plan with the required 28 day notice.  

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet agreed the proposed arrangements for the dry recycling service:

·       The retention of a weekly kerbside sorted service based as currently provided.

·       The development of the East Site (adjacent to Western International Market) (East Site) to provide a materials handling facility.

·       The options for the sale/processing of collected recyclables.

2.     Cabinet invited the Council’s wholly owned and controlled trading company Lampton 360 to prepare a detailed business case for the delivery of the waste and recycling service from October 2016 when the contract with SITA ends.

3.     Cabinet noted:

·       The financial implications set out in this report.

·       That the final costs of the service (and level of saving on the current arrangements) will be known once Lampton 360 has established a detailed cost model.

·       That the waste and recycling fleet will be located at the East Site.

4.     Cabinet approved the diversion of the remainder of the £1.4m allocated to the works at Bridge Road depot to the works at the East Site.

5.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director, Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment (REDe):

·       To explore the potential for a joint venture with London Business Waste and Recycling (LBWR) in respect of a commercial waste service and, if appropriate, to enter into an agreement with LBWR.

·       To invite tenders and award contracts relating to the construction works to the bidder submitting the most economically advantageous tender in terms of technical and commercial ability and value for money for works, services and goods necessary to deliver the project.

·       In consultation with the Director for Finance and Corporate Services to vary the estimated capital budget as may be necessary should construction or other costs increase.

 

Minutes:

See the report by Councillor Amrit Mann, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Environment – Agenda Item 4.

 

In Councillor Amrit Mann’s absence, the Chair, Councillor Steve Curran, introduced the report and moved the recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Ed Mayne.

 

Councillor Theo Dennison noted that this was an interesting report, preparing for waste/recycling services in future years. He pointed out that there had been a formal request by the Residents’ Association Forum with reference to consultation on the matter. Councillor Dennison acknowledged that the work of the Working Group had been comprehensive but had missed out on greater involvement of residents’ own views. Councillor Mann had attended the Residents’ Association Forum in July and had stated that there would be consultation. Councillor Dennison now asked him to take forward areas of the scheme where there were options to consult with residents. This was important, given that recycling rates would be increased by the involvement of residents, how they found the service and how it was ensured that the most efficient way of recycling was used. Councillor Dennison requested Councillor Mann to consider consultation in such areas on his return and to do this in the New Year.

 

Councillor Katherine Dunne noted that Recommendation 1 proposed the retention of a weekly kerbside service for recycling but currently plastics were only collected every two weeks. She asked for clarification on future proposals for plastic recycling. The Chair was able to confirm that the plastics collection would be weekly. This was a benefit of the proposal.

 

The Chair also noted Councillor Dennison’s comments in respect of consultation. He recognised Councillor Dennison’s role as a champion of consultation. He would support consultation as helpful as there were aspects of the report which could be discussed.

 

Councillor Ed Mayne was in favour of consultation but questioned what this would achieve in the light of services to increase recycling reaching such a stage. He believed that a weekly non recycling collection was not necessary. He suggested if there were consultation it needed to be clear what this could achieve. He suggested that they sought advice from residents about recycling methods, for example extending to collecting cooking oil, and also about how to improve education and where this needed to be targeted.

 

Councillor Mayne did not feel that there needed to be consultation on this proposal but recognised that there were other areas to consider. There were lots of places where people left recycling out early and plastic spilt out of the bag. He sought reassurance that there would be conversations with the contractor to ensure that there was joint working with Hounslow Highways to keep the streets clean. He pointed out that when Hounslow had an in house service, street cleaning followed the collection date. He suggested the borough would see ‘messier’ streets without such action.

 

Councillor Theo Dennison felt that Councillor Mayne was correct. He stressed that he was not suggesting that the options proposed in the report should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

102a

REG 372 Waste and Recycling - General Exception Notice pdf icon PDF 662 KB

Decision:

The General Exception Notice was noted.

Minutes:

The General Exception Notice was noted.

103.

REG 287 - Free School Enabling Proposals - HIP/relocation of Grasshoppers RFC pdf icon PDF 118 KB

Report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, Planning and Regeneration.

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet agreed to proceed with proposals for the relocation of Grasshoppers RFC as detailed in this report.

2.     Cabinet agreed to allocate and approve the funding of £6m to the scheme as detailed in section 4 of the report.

3.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director, Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment (‘Director’) to negotiate and agree terms for the lease of part of the Conquest Club site to Grasshoppers RFC.

4.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director to agree Heads of Terms with the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and Sky for the land swap and disposal of the MacFarlane Lane Sports Ground site.

5.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director to determine whether it is necessary or desirable to appropriate the land prior to its disposal.

6.     In accordance with the provisions of Section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 and subject to the Secretary of State’s consent, Cabinet agreed, if required, to delegate authority to the Executive Director, Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment to:

a)    Determine whether the Council’s land at MacFarlane Lane Sports Ground site should be appropriated for planning purposes to allow it to be utilised in part for the HIP Free School;

b)    Take all necessary steps to obtain any statutory consents to the proposed appropriation as may be required;

c)     Arrange for the advertisement of the intention to appropriate the land in a newspaper for two consecutive weeks and to invite objections;

d)    To proceed to appropriate the land where no objections have been received; and

e)    To consider any objections received before determining if the land should be appropriated or where considered necessary, due to the nature of the objections, to refer the matter back to Cabinet for final decision.

7.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director to negotiate and enter into a deed (or deeds) for variation or release of any covenants affecting the land.

8.     In respect of the Grasshoppers RFC project, Cabinet authorised the Executive Director of REDe or such officers as may be authorised to act on his behalf to take all necessary actions to progress the procurement and letting of the contracts in consultation with the Lead Member for Education and Children’s Services; to accept and award the construction phase works and other associated costs, professional fees and surveys subject to gateway review sign-off for each project stage remaining within budget forecast costs.

 

(Councillor Dennison, having declared an interest, played no part in the debate or the decision on this item.)

Minutes:

See the report  by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, Planning and Regeneration – Agenda Item 5.

 

Councillor Theo Dennison had declared an interest in respect of this item and did not participate in the discussion or the vote.

 

The Chair, Councillor Steve Curran, introduced the report. He noted that the Planning Committee had approved the application for Nishkam School and that was proceeding through the formal process. This report formed part of the jigsaw to enable school development, in anticipation of a planning application for Bolder Academy (HIP). The relocation of Grasshoppers Rugby Football Club had been a matter of extensive consultation and members had attended open meetings. The management committee of the club had agreed to move from their current location to the new location. Councillor Curran moved the recommendations of the report.

 

These were seconded by Councillor Tom Bruce. Councillor Bruce recognised that ideologically many members, including himself, were uncomfortable with the promotion of Free Schools. However, this was the only alternative available. The authority needed to provide enough school places for borough children and those who wanted to come to school in the borough. The current proposals would enable two secondary schools in Hounslow. This was moving in the right direction to support borough children. For £6m, the scheme enabled two secondary schools and the relocation and a sustainable future for the rugby club, so was a positive way forward.

 

The Chair spoke of the consultation and a difficult planning process. He had met with the ‘Keep Osterley Green ‘ group who were against the proposal and met with supporters of the scheme. Other Cabinet members had also attended the meeting. Councillor Curran felt the authority should be pleased with the extent of consultation. The scheme enabled two secondary schools. There was particular support for Bolder Academy (the HIP) as some residents had been very concerned about the lack of a non- faith, mixed school in the area.

 

The recommendations had been moved and seconded. Members considered the report and all the issues and options contained therein and in conclusion the recommendations were agreed with all voting in favour. Councillor Dennison, having declared an interest, did not vote.  

 

 

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet agreed to proceed with proposals for the relocation of Grasshoppers RFC as detailed in this report.

2.     Cabinet agreed to allocate and approve the funding of £6m to the scheme as detailed in section 4 of the report.

3.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director, Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment (‘Director’) to negotiate and agree terms for the lease of part of the Conquest Club site to Grasshoppers RFC.

4.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director to agree Heads of Terms with the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and Sky for the land swap and disposal of the MacFarlane Lane Sports Ground site.

5.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director to determine whether it is necessary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

104.

REG 364 - Church Meadow Playing Field in Sutton Lane - Appropriation of Land for Wellington Primary School pdf icon PDF 135 KB

Report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, Planning and Regeneration.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet agreed, in accordance with the provisions of Section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 and subject to Secretary of State consent, if required, to delegate authority to the Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment to:

 

a)    Determine whether the Council’s land at Church Meadow, Sutton Lane, shown edged in red on the plan at Appendix 1, is no longer required for the purpose of playing fields and should be appropriated for planning purposes to allow it to be utilised in part for the expansion of Wellington Primary School;

b)    Take all necessary steps to obtain any statutory consents to the proposed appropriation as may be required;

c)     Arrange for the advertisement of the intention to appropriate the land in a newspaper for two consecutive weeks and to invite objections;

d)    To proceed to appropriate the land where no objections have been received; and

e)    To consider any objections received before determining if the land should be appropriated or where considered necessary, due to the nature of the objections, to refer the matter back to Cabinet for final decision.

    

2.     Cabinet agreed to delegate authority to the Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment to:

 

a)    Take all necessary actions to progress the procurement for the expansion of Wellington Primary School;

b)    Award contracts to the bidder/s submitting the most economically advantageous tender/s in terms of technical and commercial ability and value for money, in consultation with the Lead Member for Education and Children’s Services; and

c)     Accept and award the construction phase works and other associated costs, professional fees and surveys subject to gateway review sign-off for each project stage remaining within budget forecast costs.

 

 

 

Minutes:

See the report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, Regeneration and Planning – Agenda Item 6.

 

The Chair, Councillor Steve Curran, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. These were seconded by Councillor Tom Bruce.

 

Councillor Bruce explained that the proposals met the need for vital school places, especially needed in this area. He was pleased to see in the report that the considerations of St Mark’s School and the Bowls Club had been taken into account. All three could co-exist, together with use by the Hounslow Gymkhana Club and the Cricket Club. There would be sustainable use going forward so this was a positive outcome.

 

Councillor Theo Dennison advised that although not his ward he had visited the area. Residents had raised concerns about access and egress around the bridge. It was right that this issue should be taken into account for the safety of children and parents. This needed to be looked at carefully and Councillor Dennison proposed that the Head of Traffic and Transport should be asked to consider this.

 

Councillor Bruce acknowledged that this was a narrow point but he was also aware from the experience of Hounslow Cricket Club that there had been regular use with children coming in and out for some time. He agreed that this needed to be considered fully but the regular access and egress had happened previously at times other than school times, so this would not stop the proposal going forward.

 

The recommendations had been moved and seconded. Members considered the report and all the issues and options contained therein and in conclusion the recommendations were agreed unanimously.

 

 

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet agreed, in accordance with the provisions of Section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 and subject to Secretary of State consent, if required, to delegate authority to the Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment to:

 

a)    Determine whether the Council’s land at Church Meadow, Sutton Lane, shown edged in red on the plan at Appendix 1, is no longer required for the purpose of playing fields and should be appropriated for planning purposes to allow it to be utilised in part for the expansion of Wellington Primary School;

b)    Take all necessary steps to obtain any statutory consents to the proposed appropriation as may be required;

c)     Arrange for the advertisement of the intention to appropriate the land in a newspaper for two consecutive weeks and to invite objections;

d)    To proceed to appropriate the land where no objections have been received; and

e)    To consider any objections received before determining if the land should be appropriated or where considered necessary, due to the nature of the objections, to refer the matter back to Cabinet for final decision.

    

2.     Cabinet agreed to delegate authority to the Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment to:

 

a)    Take all necessary actions to progress the procurement for the expansion of Wellington  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

105.

REG 365 - Allocation of Syon Lane Site (The Green School for Boys) pdf icon PDF 97 KB

Report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, Planning and Regeneration.

 

Please note that there is a confidential appendix to this report, Appendix 1, exempt from publication, in the confidential part of the agenda, following the exclusion of press and public.

 

Background documents published electronically only are available in hard copy on request.

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet approved allocation of the Syon Park site at Busch Corner for a Free School, both permanent and temporary accommodation, as set out in paragraph 3.14 of the report.

2.     Cabinet approved the relocation of Continued Access to Education (CATE) from the Syon Park site to St George’s community building.

3.     Cabinet noted the draft proposed Heads of Terms for the Green School Trust for temporary and permanent accommodation on the Syon Park site within confidential Appendix 1 and delegated authority to the Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment (‘Director’) to negotiate detailed terms and enter into an agreement for a disposal of those parts of the Syon Lane site identified in the Heads of Terms or terms of substantially like effect.

4.     Having approved recommendations 1 to 3, Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director to determine whether to appropriate the site for planning purposes, and, if so, to take all steps required to appropriate the site prior to its disposal, as set out in the report.

5.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director to take all steps necessary so as to secure the satisfactory disposal of the site, by way of a 125 year lease.

6.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director to negotiate, enter into a deed/deeds of variation for the release of any covenants that might affect the land and authorise payment of compensation where the land is appropriated for planning purposes in reliance on section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

7.     Cabinet agreed to allocate and approve the funding of £100k, identified in paragraph 4 of this report, that is associated with professional fees and surveys for studies and disposal of the site.

Minutes:

See the report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, Regeneration and Planning – Agenda Item 7.

 

The Chair, Councillor Steve Curran, moved the recommendations of the report.

 

Councillor Theo Dennison referred to the confidential appendix to the report which was exempt from publication. He commented that an issue had arisen in respect of a peppercorn rent for a lease at Brent Lea to Floreat School. Such a lease followed the Education Funding Agency (EFA) model and a similar lease was proposed for this site. Councillor Dennison explained that he was supportive of a peppercorn lease for this site. The Council was not in the business of making money from schools so a peppercorn rent was appropriate for this site.

 

Councillor Tom Bruce seconded the recommendations of the report, noting that the proposals were helping meet the continued need for school places in the borough.

 

Councillor Katherine Dunne expressed her support for people providing education in the borough, although she would have preferred had the school proposed not been a church, single sex and Free school. However, she thanked Councillor Bruce for the meetings with ward councillors on this matter.  

 

The recommendations had been moved and seconded. Members considered the report and all the issues and options contained therein and in conclusion the recommendations were agreed unanimously.

 

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet approved allocation of the Syon Park site at Busch Corner for a Free School, both permanent and temporary accommodation, as set out in paragraph 3.14 of the report.

2.     Cabinet approved the relocation of Continued Access to Education (CATE) from the Syon Park site to St George’s community building.

3.     Cabinet noted the draft proposed Heads of Terms for the Green School Trust for temporary and permanent accommodation on the Syon Park site within confidential Appendix 1 and delegated authority to the Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment (‘Director’) to negotiate detailed terms and enter into an agreement for a disposal of those parts of the Syon Lane site identified in the Heads of Terms or terms of substantially like effect.

4.     Having approved recommendations 1 to 3, Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director to determine whether to appropriate the site for planning purposes, and, if so, to take all steps required to appropriate the site prior to its disposal, as set out in the report.

5.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director to take all steps necessary so as to secure the satisfactory disposal of the site, by way of a 125 year lease.

6.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Executive Director to negotiate, enter into a deed/deeds of variation for the release of any covenants that might affect the land and authorise payment of compensation where the land is appropriated for planning purposes in reliance on section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

7.     Cabinet agreed to allocate and approve the funding of £100k, identified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

106.

CEX 094- WorkSmart Programme: Pilot Evaluation and Organisational Implementation pdf icon PDF 250 KB

Report by Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement.

 

Please note that Appendix A of the report – The WorkSmart Pilot Evaluation document – will be published electronically only. A reference copy will be on deposit in the Members’ Area for members to consult.

 

Appendices and background documents published electronically only are available in hard copy on request.

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet noted the findings and recommendations of the WorkSmart Pilot Review.

2.     Cabinet gave approval to roll out the WorkSmart Pilot solution (as set out in paragraph 7.3 of the report) to the rest of the organisation.

3.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Chief Executive to take all such steps as may be necessary to procure and award contracts for goods and services in accordance with the Contract Procedure Rules to achieve the roll out.

4.     Cabinet approved a budget of £4.07m to fund the roll out of the WorkSmart solution to the rest of the organisation over the period 2015/16 to 2017/18.

Minutes:

See the report by Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement – Agenda Item 8.

 

Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement, introduced the report. He advised that the evaluation report had identified 90% of staff as happy with the new working environment; 70% reporting an improved work/life balance; 55% reporting efficiency/performance improvement and only 17% now relying on paper copies. So he looked forward to the roll out and moved the recommendations of the report.

 

Councillor Corinna Smart seconded the recommendations. Anecdotally she felt that she had witnessed improvement occurring. Staff in the WorkSmart area appeared busy but smiled and said hello. She felt it was a pleasant place to work. It was incredibly important to have that combination of getting things done whilst staff enjoyed the working environment. She commended the staff who had implemented the pilot and those who had entered into the arrangements positively. She welcomed its continuation.

 

Councillor Dennison also wished to commend Tony Morrison and his team for their good work. The Chair also expressed his delight at the results of the evaluation which bore out members support of the project.

 

The recommendations had been moved and seconded. Members considered the report and all the issues and options contained therein and in conclusion the recommendations were agreed unanimously.

 

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet noted the findings and recommendations of the WorkSmart Pilot Review.

2.     Cabinet gave approval to roll out the WorkSmart Pilot solution (as set out in paragraph 7.3 of the report) to the rest of the organisation.

3.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Chief Executive to take all such steps as may be necessary to procure and award contracts for goods and services in accordance with the Contract Procedure Rules to achieve the roll out.

4.     Cabinet approved a budget of £4.07m to fund the roll out of the WorkSmart solution to the rest of the organisation over the period 2015/16 to 2017/18.

107.

CEX 098 - Quarterly Performance Monitoring Report (Quarter 2) - 2015/16 pdf icon PDF 577 KB

Report by Councillor Corinna Smart, Cabinet Member for Corporate Performance and Customer Care.

 

This colour pack will be circulated to members as a separate supplementary agenda pack to the main agenda.

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

·       Cabinet noted and discussed the report on Quarter 2 2015/16 performance data. In particular members asked for investigation of the figures for the use of non-permanent staff and consultants.

·       Cabinet noted the London-wide LAPS performance data for Quarter 1 (Q1) 2015/16 (retrospective).

 

 

Minutes:

See the report by Councillor Corinna Smart, Cabinet Member for Corporate Performance and Customer Care in the Supplementary agenda pack– Agenda Item 9.

 

Councillor Corinna Smart, Cabinet Member for Corporate Performance and Customer Care, introduced the report. There were 15 indicators which had not achieved the target and 25 which had. Members could see the areas which were doing well. Councillor Smart was aware that there were a variety of reasons for those indicators not meeting the target. There were some targets which were difficult to meet in some areas, especially Customer Services. There was a need to revisit some targets as new targets had made it difficult for staff to achieve them. Councillor Smart noted that there were areas where she was not satisfied with what was being achieved and drew attention to the Action Plans to address this.

 

Councillor Smart informed members that a new member of staff had been appointed to the Head of Customer Services and a new Head of ICT. Both had experience of customer services so she hoped to see a significant improvement. In other areas, Councillor Smart accepted that there were reasons why some targets had not been met. They needed to look at benchmarking against other boroughs as in reality the borough was not doing as badly as it might appear and in fact was doing well compared with other boroughs. However, Hounslow was an ambitious borough, looking for perfection but doing so realistically and encouraging staff to do better.

 

Councillor Theo Dennison echoed Councillor Smart’s comments. The authority was a good authority but they wanted all to be right, with the ideal being nobody needing to make a complaint. There had been a useful meeting on the complaints procedure. It was critical that the authority was on top of these areas. He thanked Councillor Smart and Councillor Kaur for their work to overhaul the procedure as this would benefit all. Councillor Dennison considered that it was especially important for staff to understand how to recognise a complaint, to show that concerns mattered and to show how they might be improved. A complaint offered an opportunity to focus on the points raised.

 

Councillor Dennison also questioned the figures for the number of non- permanent staff. Members had been concerned about these figures and the high cost they represented in 2010 and had taken action to reduce them. It seemed to Councillor Dennison that the present increase was too dramatic and that urgent action was needed in the last quarter of the financial year to investigate the figures to bring them back to acceptable levels, as has been done in 2010. In respect of the use of consultants, he suggested it would be useful to have a Register of Consultants, showing that they had been brought in for a specific job with a timeline.

 

Councillor Katherine Dunne, as the responsible Cabinet member, noted Councillor Dennison’s concerns and would look at these points.

 

The Chair noted some indicators at page 14 and 15 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

108.

CEX 091- Authority to Outsource Corporate Services Contract pdf icon PDF 209 KB

Report by Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement and Councillor Corinna Smart, Cabinet Member for Corporate Performance and Customer Care.

Decision:

Resolved:

 

1.     That Cabinet agreed to amend the recommendations of the report to withdraw Recommendation 2 and noted that a further report will be presented to Cabinet for consideration.

 

2.     Cabinet agreed Recommendation 1 of the report and authorised the commencement of a procurement exercise for the provision of corporate services from 1 October 2017 to include the services currently delivered through the revenues and benefits contract, finance and HR transactional services, post and print services and Customer Services.

Minutes:

See the report by Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement and Councillor Corinna Smart, Cabinet Member for Corporate Performance and Customer Care – Agenda Item 10.

 

Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement, introduced the report and commended the recommendations to members. He noted that Councillor Ed Mayne had raised a query about the scope of the proposal. He explained that he was satisfied with the contract with Liberata but going forward considered that they might expand the scope and explore the potential for delivery of other services, particularly customer services and Human Resources. There were a number of private sector providers so it was intended to explore opportunities with them and with other local authorities for the provision of these services. This was an enabling report to look at the best options going forward. Paragraph 3.9 of the report explained that the authority would continue to look at other options in parallel. Councillor Dennison assured members that they would look at the best possible arrangements for residents, recognising that one size did not fit all circumstances.

 

Councillor Ed Mayne expressed concern that what Councillor Dennison had said by way of reassurance at this meeting did not match what was stated in the report. He referred to the options in paragraph 3.3 of the report but pointed out that paragraph 3.5 appeared to rule out exploring all the options in paragraph 3.3. There was a lack of clarity and a need for greater detail. Councillor Mayne sought clarification as to whether all options would be explored as the report seemed to lean heavily towards option b). He expressed confusion about what exactly was proposed.

 

Councillor Dennison stated that there were a number of options but options b) and d) were considered the most fruitful and were the two options to look at going forward. It was proposed to consider expansion of the service to include customer services and Human Resources. There was not necessarily a single solution to service provision but what was intended was to go to the market to explore what options might be available. There could then be a decision on the provision of those three services.

 

Councillor Mayne understood this to mean that paragraph 3.5 of the report was not correct and that Councillor Dennison was saying that option d) would be explored. Councillor Dennison explained that they were to come to a decision about which vehicles might be used and which services. However, Councillor Mayne felt that this statement did not fit with the recommendation to agree delegation of the decision. Councillor Dennison advised that the final decision would come back to Cabinet for discussion and final decision on which vehicle and which services. However, Councillor Mayne questioned the fact that this was not consistent with the wording of the second recommendation in the report, if it was intended that Cabinet would decide the final option. He considered the report flawed and preferred deferral to tighten up the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

109.

REG 361 - Proposed Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for Land South of Brentford High Street pdf icon PDF 207 KB

Report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, Planning and Regeneration.

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet approved in principle to use its Compulsory Purchase powers pursuant to section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the acquisition as necessary of the land outlined in red on the draft map at Appendix 1 of the report (‘the Order Land’) for planning purposes in order to enable Geronimo Limited (‘to redevelop a mixed retail and housing scheme on the land to the South of Brentford High Street and compete the land assembly in relation to the Land and to use its powers under Section 13 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to acquire any new rights that are required for the development. The use of these powers is subject to the Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment (‘the Director’) being satisfied as to the provision of a full and sufficient indemnity, surety and/or bond covering all the Council’s costs in and incidental to the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order or acquiring the Land by agreement to facilitate the development of the Land by Geronimo Limited (‘GL’) pursuant to planning permission and listed building references 00607/BA/P2, 00607/BA/L1, 00607/AJ/P10, 00607/AJ/L9, and 00607/80/L2 (‘Planning Permission’).

2.     Cabinet gave approval for the Council entering into a combined Indemnity/Development Agreement with Geronimo Limited and/or other parties as may be appropriate.

3.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Director to complete and settle the land referencing exercise to identify all owners, tenants, occupiers and others with a legal interest affected and which may be included in any future Compulsory Purchase Order and/or become eligible for compensation.

4.     Cabinet noted that (subject to Geronimo Limited using all reasonable endeavours to assemble the Land by agreement/private treaty by 30 March 2016) a detailed report in relation to the proposed Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) setting out justification and a Statement of Reasons will be presented to Cabinet and Borough Council in due course.

5.     Cabinet confirmed that Geronimo Limited will be expected to continue to use all reasonable endeavours up to and beyond 30 March 2016 and throughout the CPO process to acquire the various land interests by agreement.

6.     Cabinet noted that the Council through the provisions of the combined Indemnity/Development Agreement, will not be providing an illegal indirect subsidy of State Aid to Geronimo Limited in the use of its Compulsory Purchase powers.

Minutes:

See the report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, Regeneration and Planning – Agenda Item 11.

 

The Chair, Councillor Steve Curran, introduced the report and moved the recommendations. These were seconded by Councillor Theo Dennison. It was noted that the report would be considered by Borough Council in January.

 

The recommendations had been moved and seconded. Members considered the report and all the issues and options contained therein and in conclusion the recommendations were agreed unanimously.

 

Resolved:

 

That Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the report as follows:

 

1.     Cabinet approved in principle to use its Compulsory Purchase powers pursuant to section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the acquisition as necessary of the land outlined in red on the draft map at Appendix 1 of the report (‘the Order Land’) for planning purposes in order to enable Geronimo Limited (‘to redevelop a mixed retail and housing scheme on the land to the South of Brentford High Street and compete the land assembly in relation to the Land and to use its powers under Section 13 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to acquire any new rights that are required for the development. The use of these powers is subject to the Executive Director Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment (‘the Director’) being satisfied as to the provision of a full and sufficient indemnity, surety and/or bond covering all the Council’s costs in and incidental to the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order or acquiring the Land by agreement to facilitate the development of the Land by Geronimo Limited (‘GL’) pursuant to planning permission and listed building references 00607/BA/P2, 00607/BA/L1, 00607/AJ/P10, 00607/AJ/L9, and 00607/80/L2 (‘Planning Permission’).

2.     Cabinet gave approval for the Council entering into a combined Indemnity/Development Agreement with Geronimo Limited and/or other parties as may be appropriate.

3.     Cabinet delegated authority to the Director to complete and settle the land referencing exercise to identify all owners, tenants, occupiers and others with a legal interest affected and which may be included in any future Compulsory Purchase Order and/or become eligible for compensation.

4.     Cabinet noted that (subject to Geronimo Limited using all reasonable endeavours to assemble the Land by agreement/private treaty by 30 March 2016) a detailed report in relation to the proposed Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) setting out justification and a Statement of Reasons will be presented to Cabinet and Borough Council in due course.

5.     Cabinet confirmed that Geronimo Limited will be expected to continue to use all reasonable endeavours up to and beyond 30 March 2016 and throughout the CPO process to acquire the various land interests by agreement.

6.     Cabinet noted that the Council through the provisions of the combined Indemnity/Development Agreement, will not be providing an illegal indirect subsidy of State Aid to Geronimo Limited in the use of its Compulsory Purchase powers.

110.

Urgent Business

Any business which the Chair agrees to accept on grounds of urgency.

Decision:

There was no urgent business.

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.

111.

Exclusion of Press and Public

To resolve that the public and press be asked to leave the meeting during discussion of the remaining items of business because exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known.

 

Please note that members of the public and press must leave the meeting at this point.

Decision:

Resolved:

 

That the public and press be asked to leave the meeting during the discussion of the remaining items of business because exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known.

Minutes:

Resolved:

 

That the public and press be asked to leave the meeting during the discussion of the remaining items of business because exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known.

112.

REG 365 - Confidential Appendix 1 to report on Allocation of Syon Lane Site

Please note that this is a confidential appendix, Appendix 1, exempt from publication, to a report in the public part of the agenda.

Decision:

The confidential appendix, Appendix 1, was taken into account when Cabinet considered the item in the public part of the meeting.

Minutes:

The confidential appendix, Appendix 1, was taken into account when Cabinet considered the item in the public part of the meeting.

113.

Any other items which the Chair considers urgent and are exempt from publication

Decision:

There were no urgent items, exempt from publication.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items, exempt from publication.

114.

Date of next meeting: 12 January 2016

Decision:

It was noted that the date of the next meeting had been altered with the agreement of Cabinet and was now scheduled for Wednesday, 20 January 2016. However, as this date proved problematic for several members, it was further agreed to move the date to Tuesday, 19 January 2016.  

Minutes:

It was noted that the date of the next meeting had been altered with the agreement of Cabinet and was now scheduled for Wednesday, 20 January 2016. However, as this date proved problematic for several members, it was further agreed to move the date to Tuesday, 19 January 2016.