Hounslow Council


Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow. View directions

Contact: Bill Lee on 020 8583 2068 or email  william.lee@hounslow.gov.uk or  CHAF@hounslow.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence, Declarations of Interest and any other Communications from Members

Minutes:

Cllr Mukesh Malhotra sent apologies due to Council business.

2.

Police Reports pdf icon PDF 124 KB

Presented by Insp Jonathan Shard.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Please see the police reports (agenda item 2)

The reports were presented by Inspector Jonathan Shard. Members questioned the officer at length.

Minutes:

Please see the police reports (agenda item 2)

 

The reports were presented by Inspector Jonathan Shard. He advised that the reports showed “business as usual” in Hounslow which was a matter for satisfaction given that officers had spent a great deal of time in central London over the past three months because of terrorist attacks.  A new website had been launched, which made crime statistics easily available when users typed in their postcode. The site could also be used to report crime and complete surveys, allowing residents to bring problems to the notice of the police. Changes had been made to neighbourhood policing and there were now to be two dedicated officers per ward (although there were three vacancies in the Borough). This was a slight reduction but the number ‘ringfenced’ for each ward had doubled from one to two. There would no longer be ward sergeants but instead there would be three sergeants per “cluster”; ward officers would total 40 PCs and 7 sergeants from a total of 70 officers borough wide. The “clusters” involved boundary changes and Hounslow West would be in the western cluster, not central in future. A dedicated officer would however ensure that local knowledge was retained and passed on.

 

Body cameras were being launched for all officers including PCSOs, a total of 330 had been issued within the borough to be worn on stab proof vests with a radio. The cameras are on throughout a shift but only record when a button is pushed. A light comes on and a beeper sounds when the device begins to record and officers are obliged to inform people as well; anyone filmed is entitled to ask for a copy. The cameras had already led to a drop in complaints. 35,000 cameras had been purchased by the Metropolitan police and the supporting software was the best in the world. Asked why the cameras had only now been introduced Insp Shard advised that they were rolled out across an 18 month period and that issues had begun in central London then ‘spiralled’ outwards, meaning that Hounslow was among the last boroughs to receive the technology. Training took time as well. Insp Shard disputed a suggestion that people were not told they were being filmed until the interview stage and confirmed that officers were well trained in PACE and the use of cautions. Under operational conditions it was not always possible to inform a suspect they were being filmed before and during an arrest, but officers always said so at the first opportunity. The cameras ensured that police acted correctly at all times. When the camera was not set to record it still recorded and saved the last 20 seconds on a rolling basis, so when set to ‘record’ it would always retain the 20 seconds before the button had been hit.

 

In addition tablets would be issued which would enable officers to avoid returning to the station to file reports thereby allowing them to spend more time  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

3.

Hounslow Highways Q & A pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Questions for Hounslow Highways and Contract Management regarding highway and footpath maintenance and repair.

Decision:

Martin Clack, Divisional Director and Rebecca Mastroggiannis of Hounslow Highways, and Alysse Strachan, Senior Environmental Contracts Manager LBH responded to questions from members.

Minutes:

Martin Clack, Divisional Director, Rebecca Mastroggiannis of Hounslow Highways, and Alysse Strachan, Senior Environmental Contracts Manager LBH presented the response to questions submitted previously by members. (Please see supplementary document on agenda item 6.)

 

Members criticised the lateness of the response and officers advised that some questions had only been received the day before.

 

Cllr Colin Ellar referred to questions 5 and 8, regarding footpaths in conservation areas. He advised that it had been agreed that all conservation areas would have block paving but the answers given said ‘like for like’. He stated that was not the case; he had been present when the decision was made and it had never been agreed to have ‘like for like’. A major mistake had been made with the computer modelling early in the process. Block paving was to have been installed in all conservation areas then cascade down into areas with high footfall. Mr Clack acknowledged that Cllr Ellar was correct with regard to the original agreement but advised that his records showed that ‘like for like’ had been agreed and that some areas would be surfaced with asphalt and the savings spent elsewhere. Cllr Ellar stated that St Stephen’s paving had been torn up ten years ago and the area was tarmacked; that was never intended to be permanent and should have been replaced with block paving. The present situation discriminated against that area. Mr Clack stated that St Stephen’s Road was to be resurfaced ‘like for like’ in 2017 and its concrete paving replaced.

 

Cllr Amrit Mann advised that paperwork regarding contractual obligations could not be found and the officers responsible no longer worked for the Council. In the absence of evidence it was necessary to rely on the existing contract, which included a policy of replacing paving ‘like for like’. The policy had been agreed by the Leader and the Cabinet Member for Finance and any changes would incur significant extra costs. Cllr Ellar remained certain that St Stephen’s was to have reverted to block paving in the agreement, which had explicitly set out that all conservation areas would receive block paving. He therefore believed that the wording on the contract had subsequently been amended. Cllr Corinna Smart referred to significant anger from residents when the asphalt was first laid, which had resulted in work being stopped by the Director of REDe and advised that protests could be expected. Ms Strachan advised that the contracts had been closely examined and there was no reference to St Stephen’s being block paved; all work carried out had been as per the contract. No changes had been made to the contract at any stage. Cllr Ellar did not accept that was so and stated his intention to ensure that St Stephen’s was block paved like every other conservation area.

 

Cllr Ellar advised that minor residential streets were often in very poor condition. He understood the need to prioritise the roads with the heaviest traffic but had observed cases where two roads were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

Minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2017 pdf icon PDF 648 KB

Decision:

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2017 were agreed to be an accurate record.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2017 were agreed to be an accurate record.

5.

Williams Drive CPZ Consultation Responses pdf icon PDF 189 KB

Briefing for decision byJitten Panchal - Traffic and Transport Technician (Parking Management)

 

Decision:

Please see the briefing note by Jitten Panchal, Traffic and Transport Technician (agenda item 4). Mr Panchal presented the briefing.  

 

Members questioned the officer and discussed the matter in full. Two local residents spoke in support of the officer’s recommendations.  After full discussion Cllr Tom Bruce moved that the recommendations be accepted with the proviso that the matter be brought back to the Area Forum for decision following the formal consultation rather than be decided by officer’s delegated decision. The motion was seconded by Cllr Bob Whatley and unanimously agreed.

 

Resolved:

 

Members noted the results of the detailed design consultation undertaken with residents of Mauviene Gardens, Perkins Close and Williams Drive on the proposed expansion of the Hounslow Town Centre South (HTCS) controlled parking zone (CPZ) and agreed that:

 

(a)       All roads consulted in the expansion area be progressed to the formal (statutory) consultation stage for inclusion in the HTCS CPZ with the existing operational times of that CPZ, namely Monday-Friday, 9.30am-6pm & Saturday, 9.30am-12.30pm;

 

(b)       Where possible, officers resolve any objections received to the formal (statutory) consultations and the decision as to whether the roads in question shall be included in the HTCS CPZ shall be determined through the Central Hounslow Area Forum in consultation with the relevant Ward Councillors; and that

 

(c)        Residents be informed of the Forum’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

Please see the briefing note by Jitten Panchal, Traffic and Transport Technician (agenda item 4). Mr Panchal presented the briefing, advising that no objections or counter-petitions had been received. He recommended that the matter be progressed to the formal statutory consultation stage to give residents a final chance to object.

 

Cllr Corinna Smart expressed concern about expenditure on statutory consultation. She believed the matter in question was simply a result of a single resident finding someone parked across their drive and the 13 responses received from over 100 residents was insufficient to proceed. Most people in the area had off street parking apart from a few flats and she felt there was no need or demand for a CPZ.   Cllr Smart proposed that the consultation did not proceed. Mr Panchal advised that the recommendation to proceed was not just based on the 13 responses but on a petition of over 30 signatures. There had been no opposition so officers had judged there to be a significant level of local support. Cllr Smart did not feel that online petitions indicated strong opinion as they were so easy to sign. Cllr Colin Ellar stated that he was very familiar with the area and because of the high level of off street parking there was no need for a CPZ nor would there be in the foreseeable future.

 

Cllr Tom Bruce said that he had received a number of objections to a proposed CPZ in his ward but the same residents now wanted one because of the “knock on” effects of CPZs in neighbouring areas. He suggested that the matter proceed to statutory consultation but be brought to the Area Forum for decision rather than be delegated to officers. Cllr Puneet Grewal agreed, adding that she had found the area to be very busy and had encountered difficulties finding a parking space in daytime. She asked for the consultation to proceed.

 

A resident spoke very passionately about problems in the area, stating that although he had off street parking he found his drive blocked so often it was all but useless. A second resident expressed great disappointment in the Councillors who opposed the proposal as in fact there was a very serious problem with inconsiderate parking by people from outside the area, who greatly inconvenienced residents, often blocking private drives.

 

Cllr Bruce moved that the recommendations be accepted with the proviso that the matter be brought back to the Area Forum for decision following the formal consultation rather than be decided by officer’s delegated decision. The motion was seconded by Cllr Bob Whatley and unanimously agreed.

 

Resolved:

 

Members noted the results of the detailed design consultation undertaken with residents of Mauviene Gardens, Perkins Close and Williams Drive on the proposed expansion of the Hounslow Town Centre South (HTCS) controlled parking zone (CPZ) and agreed that:

 

(a)       All roads consulted in the expansion area be progressed to the formal (statutory) consultation stage for inclusion in the HTCS CPZ with the existing operational times of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Open Forum for Questions from the Public (Maximum of 30 Minutes)

Decision:

There were no questions for the Open Forum.

Minutes:

There were no questions for the Open Forum.

7.

Any other business the Chair wishes to take on the grounds of urgency.

Decision:

There was no urgent business.

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.

8.

Protocol for Speaking

 

i)             Members of the public or applicants should contact the Committee Administrator, Bill Lee, on 020 8583 2068 with details of the proposed submission as soon as practicable and no later than two working days before the meeting.  The Chair will decide whether or not to grant the request to speak and notification will be given of the decision.

ii)            For all highways matters, if there are members of the public with opposing views regarding the proposal the chair will allow both sides to speak. Generally, speakers will only be allowed to speak on issues where funding is available.

iii)           Each party will be given no more than 5 minutes to speak.  The time allotted could be reduced if, for example, the chair wishes to accommodate several speakers on the same item.

iv)           The Area Committee will consider submissions on up to 3 items per meeting.

v)            Written submissions should be made to the Committee Administrator no later than 4pm on the day of the meeting. 

 

9.

The date of the next scheduled meeting is 31 August 2017