Agenda and minutes

To sign as a true record the minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 19 September 2012.

The minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 19 September 2012 were before the Council for approval.

The minutes were AGREED without division and it was RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held 19 September 2012 be signed as a correct record.

On behalf of the Council, the Mayor welcomed Councillors Mark Logan and Fred Osborne on their returns, following recent spells of illness.

Councillors Rebecca Bennett, Sandra Binion, Paul McGeary, Barry Oddy and Michael White each declared a non-pecuniary interest in the subject matter of agenda item 12C  (motion: Hospital A&E Services in North East London).

Councillor White indicated that he would not participate in the debate or vote on the motion.

The Mayor’s Announcements are attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

With the consent of the Council, the Independent Residents’ Group Motions at agenda items 12A (Olympic torch relay) and 12B (Housing Policies) were both withdrawn.

A procedural motion was proposed, that the order of agenda item 12 (Motions) be changed, so that the remaining motions would be taken in the following order:

12D (Number of Councillors)

12C (Hospital A&E services) and

12E (Permitted development rules)

The procedural motion was agreed without division and it was RESOLVED accordingly.

Councillor Linda Trew has given notice of an intention to present a petition.

NOTE: The deadline for amendments to items 7 - 10 following is midnight, Monday 26 November 2012

Pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 23, petitions were presented as follows, by Councillors:

Councillor Linda Trew -      from residents of Hainault Road, seeking traffic calming measures for vehicles travelling between the A12 Eastern Avenue and Collier Row Lane

Councillor Pat Murray -       seeking additional residents’ parking facilities in Chippenham Road

It was NOTED that each petition would be passed to Committee Administration for attention in accordance with the Council’s Petitions Scheme.

To consider a report of the Governance Committee

The Ingrebourne Way Sustrans Connect2 project aimed to form a continuous, fully accessible walking and cycling route from Noak Hill to the River Thames at Rainham, as far as possible following the River Ingrebourne, using a number of parks and open spaces, as well as highway space, on its way.

The Council’s current pleasure ground byelaws provided for qualified prohibition of cycling in many of the Council’s parks. In order to permit cycling on signed, designated routes through Parks it was now proposed to make a single minor amendment to the existing byelaws, adopting the Department for Communities & Local Government model byelaw on cycling and amending byelaw 9(ii) to provide that:

No person shall without reasonable excuse ride a cycle in the ground except in any part of the ground where there is a right of way for cycles [or on a designated route for cycling].

The Governance Committee had now recommended that steps be taken to secure that amendment to the byelaw.

The recommendations of the Governance Committee were APPROVED without division and it was RESOLVED:

1          That the new model byelaw on cycling as approved by the Department for Communities & Local Government be adopted.

2          That, simultaneous with the adoption of the new byelaw the current byelaw 9(ii) of the 1990 Pleasure Ground Byelaws be revoked

3          That the Assistant Chief Executive be authorised to take all steps necessary to secure the revocation of the existing byelaw and its replacement by the new byelaw as soon as practicable, including publication of all necessary  notices and the securing of all necessary consents.

To consider a report of the Governance Committee

In November 2011, the Boundary Commission for England had published proposals for new Parliamentary Constituencies for Havering, two of which would be wholly within the borough, with a third partly covering Havering and parts of eastern Barking & Dagenham.

On the recommendation of the Governance Committee, the Council had subsequently expressed the view to the Commission that the proposals were unacceptable as they stood, and alternatives were suggested.

The Commission, having considered the representations submitted, had prepared new proposals, broadly retaining the existing constituency boundaries (for Havering). The constituencies now proposed were as follows:

In general, the new proposals retained the current constituency boundaries, with the Eastbrook ward of Barking & Dagenham – which includes the Dagenham portion of Rush Green –added to the Romford constituency.

The Governance Committee had concluded that, while not entirely ideal, the new proposals were a significant improvement upon the unacceptable initial proposals and therefore recommended that the revised proposals be welcomed.

The recommendations of the Governance Committee were APPROVED without division and it was RESOLVED:

That the revised proposals for the Borough’s Constituencies be welcomed.

To consider a report of the Governance Committee

The current procedure for the consideration of traffic management proposals by the Highway Advisory Committee often resulted in the service proposal being considered multiple times by the Advisory Committee.  It was proposed to streamline the work for the Advisory Committee while maintaining the consideration of representation on highway schemes.

Following review of the working of the Advisory Committee, it had been concluded the level of Member oversight involved appeared excessive compared with almost all other decisions made by the Council which affected the physical environment, and also resulted in staff time being deployed on schemes having little or no likelihood of proceeding.

It had therefore been proposed that the role and functioning of the Advisory Committee should be amended to streamline the current arrangements whilst maintaining the effective consideration of traffic schemes.

Accordingly, the Committee now submitted the following proposals:

(a)          That the general practice of reporting draft schemes to the Advisory Committee prior to them being sent out for public consultation cease, but that the Head of StreetCare may refer a draft scheme to the Advisory Committee if appropriate, with a minor change to the terms of reference to reflect this.

(b)          That the Head of StreetCare be authorised to determine whether initial requests for traffic schemes proceed further or not based on criteria approved by the Cabinet Member for Community Empowerment following consultation with the Committee.

(c)          That traffic schemes fully delegated to the Head of StreetCare be extended to include ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions at bends and junctions.

(d)          That Paragraph (a) of the Committee Procedure Rules for the Committees be amended to “The Highway Advisory Committee will consider representations on all parking schemes which are not subject to officer delegation.”

(e)          That Highway related matters outside the terms of the Committee are no longer considered.

The necessary changes to the Council’s Constitution are set out in Appendix 2 to these minutes.

The recommendations of the Governance Committee were APPROVED without division and it was RESOLVED that:

The changes to the Highways Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference and Procedure Rules and to the Head of StreetCare’s delegated powers be approved, as set out in Appendix 2.

To consider recommendations of the Appointments Sub-Committee

In consequence of the new statutory regime for regulating Members’ standards of conduct introduced by the Localism Act 2011, the Appointments Sub-Committee had interviewed four candidates for the appointment of an Independent Person for Standards of Members' Conduct and now nominated for the appointment Keith Mitchell, who was considered to possess the qualities needed to undertake the statutory role of Independent Person.

As there would be occasions when the Independent Person would be unable to act (for example because of illness or holiday, or because of a possible conflict of interest), a deputising arrangement was needed. Redbridge Council had indicated that it was willing to enter into an informal mutual support arrangement whereby the Independent Person appointed by that Council would be available when necessary to deputise for this Council’s Independent Person, and vice versa.

Redbridge had appointed Kevin Madden as its Independent Person. Mr Madden had formerly been an Independent Member of this Council’s Standards Committee. The Sub-Committee now recommended that the arrangement be approved.

The nomination and recommendation of the Appointments Sub-Committee were APPROVED without division and it was RESOLVED that:

1.            Keith Mitchell be appointed as the Council’s Independent Person for Standards of Members’ conduct, for the purposes of the Localism Act 2011.

2.                  The Independent Person, Kevin Madden, appointed by Redbridge Council be appointed to deputise for the Council’s Independent Person when necessary; and that the Council approve this Council’s Independent Person deputising for Redbridge.

Mr Mitchell, who was present at the meeting, was introduced to Members.

See attached paper

Eight questions were asked and replies given.

The texts of those questions, and their answers, together with those not asked orally, are set out in Appendix 3 to these minutes.

See attached paper.

Motion on behalf the Labour Group

This Council notes with concern the recent report of BHRUT presented to the Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee and in particular:-

1)         That the timetable for the proposed improvements to the A&E Department at Queens Hospital will not be met;

2)         That the required developments in community health to enable improvements to be delivered has been delayed; and

3)         The consequent adverse financial impact identified in the report and its negative affect on the local health economy.

This Council calls upon NHS North East London and the City to reconsider its decision to close the A&E services at King George Hospital and develop policies to provide full A&E services at both Queens and King George Hospitals to meet the needs of residents in the outer north east London Boroughs of Havering, Redbridge and Baking & Dagenham.

Amendment on behalf of the Administration

Amend to read

This Council notes with concern the recent report of BHRUT presented to the Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee and agrees with the Secretary of State's decision that the mergers of A&E on the Queen's Hospital site should only be done when it is clinically safe to do so.

Following debate, the Administration amendment was CARRIED by 29 votes to 19 (see division 3); and it was then CARRIED as the substantive motion without division.

RESOLVED that:

This Council notes with concern the recent report of BHRUT presented to the Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee and agrees with the Secretary of State's decision that the mergers of A&E on the Queen's Hospital site should only be done when it is clinically safe to do so.

Motion on behalf the Residents’ Group

Further to the government's proposals to relax planning rules thus allowing house extensions of up to eight metres (26ft) to be built without planning permission or  consideration for neighbouring properties, this council agrees to explore the following options and implement the action that will bring about the most significant impact:

a)         To write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government conveying our serious reservations

b)         To join together with other councils expressing similar concerns (e.g. LB Richmond-upon-Thames and LB Sutton) to express our joint concerns

c)         To call upon the Local Government Association to express a collective concern to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Amendment on behalf of the Administration

Amend to read

This Council notes that its Leader has written to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government conveying our serious reservations with regards to the Government's proposals to relax planning rules thus allowing house extensions of up to eight metres (26ft) to be built without planning permission or consideration for neighbouring properties and recommend the following action;-

1)?         To join together with other councils expressing similar concerns (e.g. LB Richmond-upon-Thames and LB Sutton) to express our joint concerns

2)?         To call upon the Local Government Association to express a collective concern to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

In view of the hour and in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9.1(b), the motion was considered without debate and, on being put to the vote, the Administration amendment was CARRIED by 29 votes to 19 (see division 4); and it was then CARRIED as the substantive motion without division

RESOLVED that:

This Council notes that its Leader has written to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government conveying our serious reservations with regards to the Government's proposals to relax planning rules thus allowing house extensions of up to eight metres (26ft) to be built without planning permission or consideration for neighbouring properties and recommend the following action;-

1)?         To join together with other councils expressing similar concerns (e.g. LB Richmond-upon-Thames and LB Sutton) to express our joint concerns

2)?         To call upon the Local Government Association to express a collective concern to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

The record of voting divisions is attached as Appendix 4.