At a meeting of the Borough Council held on Tuesday, 28th November 2017 at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber at the Hounslow Civic Centre,

Lampton Road, Hounslow Present: The Mayor, Councillor Sue Sampson (in the Chair) The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Mukesh Malhotra Councillors: Keith Anderson, Candice Atterton, Harleen Atwal Hear, Felicity Barwood,

Lily Bath, Raj Bath, Tom Bruce, Manjit Buttar, John Chatt, Samia Chaudhary, Bandna Chopra, Sam Christie, Mel Collins, Steve Curran, Theo Dennison, Sukhbir Dhaliwal, Katherine Dunne, Colin Ellar, Richard Foote, Linda Green, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, Sam Hearn, Kamaljit Kaur, Hanif Khan, Gurmail Lal, Guy Lambert, Tony Louki, Paul Lynch, Khulique Malik, Amrit Mann, Ed Mayne, Gerald McGregor, Shaida Mehrban, Hina Mir, Alan Mitchell, Sheila O'Reilly, Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Daanish Saeed, Myra Savin, Jagdish Sharma, Corinna Smart, Peter Thompson, John Todd, Gurpal Virdi and Bob Whatley

1. Apologies for Absence, Other Announcements and Declarations of Interest from Members Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Peter Carey, Samantha Davies, Puneet Grewal, David Hughes, Elizabeth Hughes, Adrian Lee, Nisar Malik and Robert Oulds. There were no apologies for lateness. There were no declarations of interest. 2. Announcements The Mayor advised that the first announcement was to confirm that in accordance with Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 Tina Howe had ceased to be a Member of this Council as from 23rd November 2017. In addition, Sachin Gupta had resigned from the Council on 22nd November 2017. The Mayor advised that although announcements were usually only made by Cabinet Members, she occasionally allowed others also to make statements to Members and so she was happy to invite Councillor Mukesh Malhotra, the Chair of the Council’s Pensions Fund Panel, to address the Council on the recent Pension Fund Annual Meeting which had taken place on 21st November 2017. Councillor Malhotra thanked the Mayor for allowing him to speak and then made the following comments:

Despite volatility in the financial markets, the Council’s pension fund had continued to grow as was currently valued at £983 million.

The fund had seen growth over the three and a half years he had been chair of the Pension Fund Panel of approximately £280million.

He hoped it would have a value in excess of £1 billion by May 2018.

It took hard work and commitment to ensure that difficult but correct decisions were made for the Fund but he reminded Members that the performance of investments did not directly impact the funds pensioners.

He advised that last year he had reported to the Council that the fund was about to transition into being cashflow negative but he was pleased to report that since then arrangements had been made with Fidelity International to help alleviate this situation.

The Pension Fund had also been highly commended for its strategy in a recent awards ceremony, coming second out of 99 Authorities.

The Council engaged with 72 Local Authority pension funds and held large corporations in which the fund invested to account by voting at Board Meetings.

He concluded by reminding Members that the fund had about 21000 Members. Councillor Steve Curran, the Leader of the Council, advised Members that he had recently attended the Hounslow Town Primary School topping out ceremony. He was pleased that this new building would be able to offer primary school places to 1200 local children. He commended the development which had seen the school built as well as affordable housing. Councillor Curran advised that he had also attended the topping out ceremony for the completion of the first phase of the Lampton Road Housing Development. He was pleased that this was a significant milestone in delivering the Administration’s manifesto to regenerate Hounslow Town Centre, a project supported by Mr Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, who had earlier visited the site. Councillor Curran then reported to Members that the Council had won a legal action against illegal occupation at Waterside Park. This was something that the Council had been fighting for sixteen years, and he was pleased to note that the Council had not only succeeded in its action but also been awarded costs of £300000 in damages. Councillor Mann, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Environment, announced that on 17th November 2017, the Council had taken charge of a £22 million material handling facility in Southall Lane and that these premises were now fully operational. The facility had a state of the art fire suppression system and it had been praised by the Environment Agency as being the best in Europe. He had invited all Members to a tour of the premises before it opened, but was disappointed that only Labour Members had been able to attend; however, he was hoping to arrange a further opportunity to visit the site for all those Members who had not previously done so. Councillor Mann also claimed that despite widespread misinformation in the Borough, the Space Waye Recycling and Re-Use Centre in Feltham would reopen on 18th December 2017, and had not been sold as some rumours had suggested.

He paid tribute to Members of the Member Level Waste Strategy Working Group which had assisted in driving the projects and also thanked all Council officers and partners who had been involved. Councillor Tom Bruce, Cabinet Member for Education, Children’s and Youth Services, advised Members of the enjoyable and successful Foster Carer Award Ceremony that had been held a fortnight ago. This event celebrated foster parents who had given many years of loving support to foster children across the Borough; some of those present had been foster parents for twenty five years. He formally thanked all foster parents in Hounslow and also Council staff who worked with them. He recognised that there were high caseload figures but that the Council did well in meeting them as successfully as it did and he praised all those involved. The Mayor then concluded the announcements with the following statement concerning some forthcoming mayoral events:

“As Members will know, there is a masquerade ball on Saturday 9th December 2017 at the Clayton Hotel in Chiswick – this is a fundraising event for my Mayoral charities, and all Members are invited to it. It is a ticketed event and there are still some left so if any Member has not yet contacted me or my Personal Assistant, Carol Pearce, about attending please do so soon. It should be a lot of fun. And secondly, I just want to remind Members that there is still an opportunity to attend the special festive event being held in Ypres and Bruges over the weekend of 16th and 17th December, with an all in overnight stay in a hotel. As you will recall, this will include attendance at the Bruges Christmas Market and also attendance at the last post ceremony which takes place every night at 8.00pm at the Menin Gate in Ypres.”

3. Minutes Councillor Gerald McGregor advised that he had not yet received the information promised from Councillor Theo Dennison detailed on page three of the minutes. In response, Councillor Dennison apologised to Councillor McGregor for the oversight and advised that he had sent the promised response to him as well as Councillors Hearn and Thompson earlier in the day. He also stated that he would be happy to answer any further questions they might have outside of the meeting. Councillor McGregor thanked him for his statement. It was then RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on Tuesday 27th November 2017 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair. TO NOTE: All 4. Petitions

Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services. The Mayor drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper which included a revised and updated version of the table forming the appendix to the report. The Mayor then invited Members to submit any new petitions that they might have. In doing so, the following three petitions were formally presented to her:

Councillor Jagdish Sharma submitted a petition containing over 3000 signatures against the proposed development of the former Morrisons Supermarket site in Hounslow West.

Councillor Sam Christie submitted a petition from residents of the Bedfont Ward objecting to the development of the Two Bridges site in Hatton Road.

Councillor Gerald McGregor submitted a petition from residents of Stamford Brook seeking traffic calming measures to curb speeding in Prebend Gardens; there had already been accidents involving domestic animals and residents wished to see action to prevent any future possible fatalities. The problem was exacerbated by the blind S-bend under the London Underground railway bridge and cyclists travelling in the wrong direction.

There being no further petitions presented to the Mayor, she then explained that there was one petition for consideration by the Council itself, which was listed at number six in the report and related to the proposed resurfacing of Oaklands Avenue. However, the Mayor also advised that Ms Mamita Woodward, the organiser of the petition, was unable to be in attendance at the meeting, so she therefore invited Councillor Mann, as the relevant cabinet Member, to respond to the petition. Councillor Mann thanked the Mayor and advised that his response was short, but he hoped helpful and stated that the footway works for Oaklands Avenue had been postponed until an assessment of the potential conservation status had taken place, which was the issue detailed in the petition. It was then RESOLVED –

That the petitions that had been referred to ward councillors or other formal bodies of the Authority for consideration be noted; and

That the response from Councillor Mann to the petition referred to the Council also be noted.

ACTION BY: Head of Democratic Services TO NOTE: All 5. Implementation of the Community Safety Strategy 2017-2020 (CEX209) Members considered a report by Councillor Hanif Khan, Cabinet Member for Community Protection and Enforcement.

The Mayor advised that, due to their size, appendices B and C to the report had been made available only in electronic form. However, due to a printing error in the hard copy of the agenda, some pages of appendix A were also omitted and the last five pages of appendix C were included in error. However, Appendix A had since been recirculated in full to all Members in a paper copy. The Mayor invited Councillor Khan to introduce the report. In so doing, Councillor Khan made the following comments:

The Community Safety Partnership Board worked hard to reduce crime and re-offending in Hounslow.

It was a partnership body and needed to make the best use of available resources.

It had been successful in that it had met most of the targets set out in the previous 2014-2017 strategy document, including a reduction by 23% across the seven identified areas of priority listed therein.

He was pleased also to see a 3% reduction in the fear of crime across Hounslow and that 94% of residents felt safe.

The Board wished to build on its previous success and this was reflected in the new strategy.

He commended the new strategy and the aspirations it contained before concluding by formally proposing the recommendation in the report.

Councillor Steve Curran seconded the recommendations. The Mayor then invited discussion on the report and the following comments were made:

Councillor Alan Mitchell advised that having read the report, he could see negatives and positives but overall he thought it was good news and he applauded the aspiration of the new strategy to do better with few resources. He also observed that one of the pie charts in the report showed that people unsafe felt due to anti-social behaviour, even when this was at the seemingly low level of littering and he stated that when an area was looked after, it stayed looked after, whereas if it were not, it started to decline in lots of ways including fly-tipping and littering, and this led in turn to anxiety and fear of more crime. He suggested that the key lesson to be learned was effective community engagement. He gave an example of how residents had worked together to raise money to buy a gate to close off an area frequently used by a local gang in Feltham for anti-social behaviour. The result was that the land was reclaimed and the area improved for the benefit of all. He reiterated the importance of effective communication but noted that many areas, including the Waterloo Estate in Feltham West ward, had a number of issues which never seemed to be resolved and he considered that by addressing small examples of anti-social behaviour in a community, you could create a virtuous circle and make other previously intractable problems better as well. He concluded by asking if this approach could be fed into the strategy for the future.

Councillor Mel Collins advised that he was a part of the Community Safety Partnership Board (CSPB) and considered that Councillor Mitchell’s views echoed the CSPB position closely. There was a strong drive to engage with the communities across Hounslow which was an area on which there had been less focus in the past. The CSPB was also intent on bringing all the relevant local partners and agencies together

to provide a holistic approach rather than a fractured one which had been the previous situation. He advised that he hoped that there would be closer working between Council services such as the Anti-Social Behaviour Team and the Domestic Violence Team. He concluded by commending the report and called for it to be used not as a document but as an instrument.

Councillor John Todd advised that he had read the document and had been disappointed by it. He criticised its length at 134 pages which he thought would mean that few would read it. He advised that he had written to officers of the Council for information on the funding for the organisations identified on page 35 of the report as it had not been included. He also noted that no explanatory information about featured bodies such as the Community Rehabilitation Company was included, even though the table at page 49 of the report showed that work or information expected to be provided by the Company had not been done, which suggested that not all partners were proving willing to co-operate with the strategy. He also observed that some of the crime statistics were worrying and noted that the number of victims of serious crime had risen by 20%, crime against young people had risen 18% and there had been a rise of 100% in large injuries. The report also acknowledged that sharing the analyses of data was “under-developed” as well as data on the number of children living with families with a history of domestic abuse. He then clarified that he appreciated the strategy had a broad brief and that overall he was pleased to see it, and the good work that was undoubtedly being done, but he did have a number of significant reservations as he has already detailed. He therefore advised that the Conservative Group would support the recommendations but asked for its reservations to be noted. He then concluded by reminding all Members that intervention and prevention was always better than retrospective action.

Councillor Steve Curran advised that the Council recognised the pressures on the police, other agencies and the Council itself caused by reduced Governmental funding, and he noted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had provided no additional funding to the police to tackle terrorism in the Capital as part of his recent budget. He lamented that police stations were being closed across London whilst the need for the police had never been higher. However, he noted that whilst all agencies were under pressure, the suggestion by Councillor Mitchell that changes to the environment within a community could make significant differences in reducing anti-social behaviour was well made and he called on all Councillors to help in this area. He then commended the report and concluded by stating that the Council needed to do more in difficult circumstances, a situation recognised by the Mayor of London but not the Government.

Councillor Gerald McGregor noted that the previous strategy had concluded at the end of March and asked why there had been no formal strategy in place since then. He also questioned why this had not been mentioned when the strategy had been discussed by the Cabinet and wondered if the Council had been failing in its duties for the last eight months. He also considered that the operational management of the police was a matter for the Police and not for the Council. He then noted that the Chancellor’s Budget had in fact increased funding to address the threat of terrorism within the national security budget rather than specifically in the funding to the police. He also observed that emergency calls (to 999) were dealt with outside of the Council’s boundaries and so there was no connection between the Council’s policy on the police and what the police provided as a service to Hounslow. He regretted the police policy on closing custody suites locally and considered that it would result in poorer policing; in Hampshire some criminals had been let free as the nearest custody suites were too

far away to be practical. He therefore did not think that the police deserved Council funding in the way suggested in the strategy. However, he did agree with the views of Councillor Mitchell about community engagement and improvement. He then concluded by reiterating his concerns about the approach taken in London by the Metropolitan Police at a higher policy level (rather than that at a local level) and so supported the report but with reservations.

There being no further comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Khan to sum up the debate. In doing so, he made the following points:

He thanked all Members who had contributed for their comments.

He agreed with Councillor Mitchell’s thoughts on working effectively with the community.

The strategy was attempting to try to change offenders’ behaviour and to help people affected by crime.

Crime came in many forms including violence against women and hate crime.

The priorities in the strategy had already been agreed by the Council’s partners.

He acknowledged the comments of Councillor Todd and expressed his appreciation for the seriousness with which he had addressed the report.

He then observed that some levels of crime had been increasing, including knife crime which was a significant problem across London and seriously constraining on the police in terms of time and resources.

He observed that since 2010 the Metropolitan Police Service had endured £600 million of cuts and a further £400 million were expected to be found by 2021.

This was one of the drivers of the police station closure programme which the Council opposed.

However, he noted that even if all the proposed closures took place, it would still only raise £200 million, half of what was required.

He concluded by again thanking all Members for their comments and advised that it was the Council’s intention to use data better and in a more intelligent and sophisticated way to reduce crime.

The Mayor then put the recommendations to the vote and it was unanimously RESOLVED – That the Community Safety Strategy 2017-2020 be approved. ACTION BY: Alan Adams, Executive Director of Chidren’s, Housing and Adults Services. TO NOTE: All 6. Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2017/18 (CEX192) Members considered a report by Councillor Theo Dennison, Cabinet Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement, who introduced the item and made the following comments in doing so:

He praised the Council’s Finance Team as excellent and commended its success in achieving good returns on prudent, conservative principles.

He light-heartedly observed that he was happy to endorse “conservative with a small c” principles as it meant that public money was looked after carefully by a Labour Council whilst getting positive results and outcomes.

The Council’s rate of return was above the Local Authority average.

He therefore commended the report, proposed the recommendations and paid tribute to the Finance Team.

Councillor Steve Curran seconded the recommendations. The Mayor then invited discussion on the report and the following comments were made:

Councillor Gerald McGregor echoed Councillor Dennison’s comments on the excellence of the Council’s Finance Team which had done well under huge pressure. However, he had some concerns about the Council’s future financial position. He observed that the Council did not seem to be looking at housing development in the Borough outside of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), nor considering likely changes to grant funding. He noted that the net debt figure of £2.9 million identified in table 4.4 of the report was normal at this point of the financial cycle but he worried that it might be hiding some issue that would manifest later in the financial year; he therefore looked forward to seeing the Council’s budget papers in early 2018 to get the complete story. He thanked the Finance Team for ensuring that problems were transparent in reports but sounded a note of caution about things not being handled well for the future, which had been evident from “loose ends” included in the recent budget papers considered by the Cabinet.

Councillor Steve Curran thanked Councillor McGregor for voicing his concerns on the budget and added that he had some too which were due to stringent financial cuts created by the Government since 2010. He praised the work of Councillor Jagdish Sharma, the then Leader, and successive Cabinets since that time in “keeping the wolf from the door”, despite the difficulty in doing so. He reiterated that Hounslow was a prudent Council and would continue to be so into the future. He then clarified that he did not accept the comment on “loose ends” in that the Cabinet was determined that where financial problems had been located, plans of mitigation were instigated to help make up shortfalls. He thanked all Members who were involved in helping develop the budget for 2018/19 and advised that the Administration’s formal budget to be considered by the Council in February 2018 would help provide support to the most vulnerable people in the Borough in the face of Government cuts.

There being no further comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Dennison to sum up the debate. In doing so, he made the following points:

He thanked Members and reminded them that the report for consideration was a treasury management report; issue on the HRA and grant funding were usually identified and dealt with in financial monitoring reports.

He hoped to see meaningful budgetary proposals from the Conservatives at the February meeting of the Council.

He reminded Members that the Council was committed to helping the most vulnerable in society.

In an email he had earlier sent to Councillor McGregor, he had spoken of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme, the responsibility for which had been passed to Councils some years ago but with a reduced level of financial support which was in reality a cut

– part of the consistent pattern of the Government taking money from the poorest people in society.

He concluded by stating that the Treasury Management picture was clear and consistently on or above target.

He concluded by commending the Finance Team and the report before Members. The Mayor then put the recommendations to the vote and it was unanimously RESOLVED – That the Treasury Management Mid Year Report for 2017/18 be approved. TO NOTE: All ACTION BY: Director of Finance and Corporate Services 7. Appointments to Committees and Other Bodies Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services. The Mayor drew attention to some proposed nominations which had been included in the tabled paper which had been circulated to those present. There being no further nominations, it was RESOLVED – That the following Members be appointed to the bodies detailed:

Blue School Foundation: Councillors Katherine Dunne, Linda Green and Sue Sampson.

ACTION: Head of Democratic Services TO NOTE: All 8. Decisions Taken Under Urgency Arrangements (if any) Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services It was RESOLVED – That the information be noted. TO NOTE: All

Questions from Members 9. Councillor Sam Hearn to ask Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council Councillor Sam Hearn asked Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council, the following question:

“Will Councillor Curran clarify how he can, in the absence of any procurement or best value process, demonstrate that Lampton 360 Ltd can provide value for money, detailed costing and meet the numerous outcomes required given the remaining leisure budget provision?”

In response, Councillor Curran made the following points:

He was pleased that the Council had brought control of parks back in-house and added that the public seemed to be happy with this as well.

The deal between the Council and Carillion, the former contractor in this area, to do this was a good one.

Carillion was currently facing financial uncertainty and was making staff reductions so it was prudent for the Council to act as it had to bring the parks service back in-house in order to safeguard it for residents.

He observed that the question was the seventh one relating to Lampton 360 and he felt it useful to remind Members that the Council was committed to trying to trying to offset Government cuts; Lampton 360 as a wholly owned trading company would provide value for money services to residents and also make a surplus where possible.

He did not think this was a bad thing.

He also noted that the recent local government peer review had commended the Council on its approach to the company except to suggest that the Authority was perhaps being too prudent.

He did not intend to apologise for saving local tax payers money.

There had been complaints about Council parks since 2010 and so he was pleased that by bringing the service back in-house, the Council would be able to get value for money and staff would be paid at minimum the London Living Wage.

The Council had ensured that independent benchmarking had taken place prior to the service coming back to the Council and the organisers of that process had stated that the results showed that the Council was right to proceed in the way it had.

He was also pleased that it would give the Council more control over the parks and engagement with community groups so he commended the decision.

Councillor Hearn stated his view that Councillor Curran had not answered the question he had asked on the issue of value for money, and so therefore asked a supplementary question which was to ask whether, given that the Council had not gone out to the market in this case, how could it know it was getting value for money. Councillor Curran replied by repeating that independent benchmarking had taken place and shown that the change would provide value for money for the Council. He also observed that the previous contract which was being replaced had been introduced by the Conservative-Independent Administration of 2006-2010 and within it was the right for the Council to terminate it. He reiterated that he would not apologise for making the change and he

challenged Councillor Hearn to provide evidence if the was of the view that the Council had acted wrongly. 10. Councillor Gerald McGregor to ask Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Housing Councillor Gerald McGregor asked Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Housing, the following question:

“Has the Cabinet Member considered establishing a cross party standing committee on the future of residential tower blocks, in light of the high density residential developments envisaged in the West of Borough and Great West Corridor consultations?”

In response, Councillor Dunne made the following statement:

“No. In the wake of the Grenfell tragedy, the Government, Fire Service and other public bodies have initiated a number of inquiries into the causes, circumstances and wider implications of the fire. It is expected that these inquires will result in a number of policy and process recommendations. It is right therefore that we await the outcome of those to inform our own actions and plans.”

In response, Councillor McGregor advised that he understood the answer but feared that the Council was, in effect, waiting on events rather than being pro-active. He therefore asked a supplementary question, which was to ask if Councillor Dunne would comment on the proposal to set up a cross party body to look at the Grenfell Tower Report when it was eventually published to ensure the fullest possible support and co-operation on this important issue. Councillor Dunne responded by stating that she rejected the idea that the Council was not concerned about safety and reminded Members that the Council had moved very quickly after the Grenfell Tower fire to ensure that tower blocks in Hounslow were safe. She also clarified that the Council was not waiting to implement any immediately necessary works; these had been carried out. However, it was waiting to determine what further works might be necessary in the light of the official outcomes of the Grenfell Tower report. She expected further discussion at that time and hoped that the Council could work on a unified cross-party basis but concluded that she hoped she had the support of all Members for the works that had already taken place. 11. Councillor Harleen Atwal Hear to ask Councillor Hanif Khan, Cabinet Member for Community Protection and Enforcement Councillor Harleen Atwal Hear asked Councillor Hanif Khan, Cabinet Member for Community Protection and Enforcement, the following question:

“Given the recent anti-knife crime campaign launched by the Mayor of London earlier this month, please can the Cabinet Member clarify what measures the Council and the police are taking to combat knife crime in the Borough?”

In response, Councillor Khan made the following statement:

“There are 653226 teenagers in London and they are all important. As such, Hounslow Council has welcomed the new anti-knife crime movement – ‘London Needs You Alive – don’t carry a knife’, a new campaign that was launched last week to stop knife crime, which has the support of some of the capital’s most influential Londoners and anti-knife campaigners. The campaign focuses on the value and potential of London’s teenagers and is a key part of the Mayor’s ground-breaking Knife Crime Strategy which got underway in June. It is asking young people to post on social media to their family and friends telling them why London needs them alive and why they shouldn’t carry a knife. To help spread the message, the Mayor approached young artists and campaigners to encourage young people to take part. Hounslow Council and the Metropolitan Police work jointly to take action on all forms of crime, including knife crime and anti-social behaviour. We fully support the Mayor of London’s anti-knife campaign and the messages it includes. It is so important that people, especially young people, are made aware of the consequences of knife crime and that they actually have a positive role to play, in telling those who do carry knives or are thinking of doing so, it is not right, it is not good and don’t do it. We continue to work closely with the local police and also all our communities in the Borough as they all can help make Hounslow a safe and great place to live, work, go to school and to visit. I am also aware of recent stabbings in a Hounslow park but though they were still being investigated, they were not thought to be related to gangs or drugs.”

Councillor Atwal Hear declined the opportunity of asking a supplementary question. 12. Councillor Gurpal Virdi to ask Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Housing Councillor Gurpal Virdi asked Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Housing, the following question:

“Please can the Cabinet Member provide an update on the fire improvement works at Clements Court tower in Cranford?”

In response, Councillor Dunne made the following statement:

“I am pleased to be able to reiterate what the Council has done. The project to carry out major fire safety improvement works at the Clements Court tower block, which began very quickly after the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy in June, was completed on Friday 17th November. This was marked by an event involving residents; Steve Curran, Leader of the Council; Fiona Twycross, Chair of the London Fire and

Emergency Planning Authority; Mary Harpley, Chief Executive of the Council; Peter Hillyard from contractor D+B Facades; and housing officers from the Council. The 12-storey tower block has had its cladding removed, firebreaks upgraded, mineral wool insulation reinstalled, new fire doors fitted throughout the block, and the building completely re-clad with solid aluminum panels. The total cost of the project was £900,000. The major improvements carried out at Clements Court were made possible so promptly and in such a short time, due to the co-operation of residents and hard work of Council staff and contractors. The Council was lucky to have only one tower block which was affected in this way; many other Authorities had many more. The funding for this process had come from the Council’s own Housing Revenue Account; the Government has not funded the Council on this issue, despite stating that it would.”

Councillor Virdi then acknowledged the good work done by the Council officers and Members but declined the opportunity of asking a supplementary question. Councillor Dunne, in turn, thanked all Councillors and officers for their work in the aftermath of the Grenfell Fire and considered that the Council’s success was due to how it engaged with residents. Other Boroughs, particularly the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, had much to learn in this area about having real conversations with residents. 13. Councillor John Todd to ask Councillor Amrit Mann, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment Councillor John Todd asked Councillor Amrit Mann, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment, the following question:

“We note from the Cabinet Revenue Monitoring Report (CEX199) that the Regeneration Economic Development and Environment Department is projecting an overall overspend of £7.6m at the end of period six. This worrying report amongst other things, highlights ongoing undelivered savings, as yet uncapped costs associated with the waste depot and related contract and that 'consultants spend continues to exceed budget'. Can the Cabinet Member kindly explain why this overspending blatantly continues without effective remedial action and the departments management structure being urgently reviewed?”

In response, Councillor Mann mad the following statement:

“Whilst I think that this matter might better have been addressed to Councillor Theo Dennison as Cabinet Member for Finance and Customer Engagement, I will answer it. I disagree with the assertion that there is an overspend. There is considerable council wide remedial action with regard to overspend and the Member will be aware of this through his thorough review of our Budget Monitoring reports and subsequent analysis and discussion

by Cabinet. Every overspend within the Council over £100,000 has a supporting Mitigation Plan that seeks to bring the overspend back into balance. The Member will be aware that in the current financial environment, our ability to do so is challenged yet in recent years, the Member will acknowledge that our Annual Outturn Reports show that we have been successful in the past in bringing overspends down in year and we expect to do the same in 2017/18. With regard to the specific REDE overspend:

Progress has been made with regard to a REDE Leadership Restructure which will deliver an agreed saving

Cabinet have recently taken bold decisions to bring our libraries back in-house and Parks services back from a private contractor to our trading company, Lampton 360 and some of our overspend is driven by the one-off costs of these transitions. Waste is another service brought into Lampton 360 and our new depot in Southall Lane is now operational. This provides the platform for lower Waste management costs in the future.”

Councillor Todd apologised for asking the question of the wrong Cabinet Member but then asked a supplementary question. He observed that Lampton 360 was an in-house trading company and he asked when the recycling and waste contract that it now operated for the Council would turn a profit and also return the amount of Council tax already invested into the venture. In response, Councillor Mann advised that when the company made a profit, he would come back to him. The Mayor thanked Members for their questions and responses. Motions 14. Proposed by Councillor Richard Foote and Seconded by Councillor Katherine Dunne The Mayor invited Councillor Richard Foote to introduce the motion, which read as follows:

“The Council notes that in 2009 the then Government conducted a consultation process about the high concentrations of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s). The consultation process resulted in the announcement of an intention to legislate to allow tighter planning controls over HMO’s by amending the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. This resulted in the revised order dated 6th April 2010 which introduced these tighter controls. The order was further revised following the 2010 General Election and came into force in October 2010 where the need for planning permission was abolished for small family houses converting to HMOs. The Council urges the Government to revert to The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010 to bring back control of the ability for family houses to be changed to HMO’s under the local planning arrangements. In

making this change we also urge the addition of minimum room sizes be added to the order.”

Councillor Foote then made the following comments:

He wished to commence by giving a short history of HMOs in the United Kingdom.

In 2008, the then Labour Government had responded to concerns about concentrations of HMOs being created in some areas.

A consultation on the Government proposals was commenced in 2009.

The plan was to legislate to create tighter planning controls on HMOs which were then introduced in April 2010.

The result was that a landlord wishing to create an HMO required planning permission to do so.

However, the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government of 2010 stated that it would overturn this new requirement and that family homes could be made into HMOs without the need for prior planning permission.

This change was introduced in October 2010.

Consequently, a problem with a concentration of HMOs began to occur in Hanworth and residents began the raise the issue with their ward Councillors, who shared their concerns.

This problem had been getting worse as since 2016, developers had begun to help create business plans to help landlords convert houses into HMOs in order to maximise rents, often to exploitative levels.

Due to the Government’s changes in 2010, the Council was powerless to do anything to prevent this.

The result of a concentration of HMOs was an increase in anti-social behaviour, noise nuisance, increased crime, pressure on local facilities, and unstable communities – the very concerns to which the Government in 2008 had been responding.

He noted that there were was evidence that landlords associations had been lobbying the new Government of 2010 on the issue but it was not clear why the matter had been so high a priority for the incoming Government to deal with.

Since then there had been a small change requiring HMOs to be licensed and this brought with it some protection for residents; this was known as an Article Four notice.

The Council had also been attempting to block changes of houses to HMOs where possible and had been successful in court.

The Bedfont Hanworth Feltham Area Forum had supported the blocking of further HMO development in Hanworth and since the Council had published an Article Four notice there had been no further conversions to HMOs in Hanworth.

However, he concluded by calling on the Government to revert to The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010 to bring back control of the ability for family houses to be changed to HMO’s under the local planning arrangements.

Councillor Dunne then seconded the motion. The Mayor then invited debate on the motion, and the following comments were made:

Councillor Steve Curran commended the Hanworth Ward Councillors for the work they had done on this issue which helped the Council introduce the Article Four Notice.

Councillor Gurpal Virdi expressed his support for the motion and noted that there was a similar problem with HMOs in Cranford, and in some cases semi-detached houses were being converted into five flats.

Councillor Peter Thompson agreed that concentrations of HMOs were damaging to an area and he acknowledged the local impact of such a situation described by Councillor Foote. However, he also advised that small scale conversions caused no trouble, and so a balance needed to be struck. He therefore favoured a local solution. The Article Four notice provisions had been introduced by the then new Government in 2010 at the same time of the relaxation of the previously introduced rules. In 2013, the Department for Communities and Local Government Cross Party Select Committee said that HMOS should be controlled by local determination and that Article Four provision was the best way of doing this. He therefore needed to hear why the “one size fits all” approach that the motion was seeking was the best way forward and why it was superior to the Article Four process which could be used in single wards or across the whole Authority area. This was a vast improvement on the situation before 2010 when there were no restrictions at all. The Council had information on HMO concentrations, not least because it collected Council tax from such addresses. He recognised the issues in Hanworth and the solution that had been introduced in that part of the Borough to resolve the problem but it did not follow that a national solution was therefore required. He also noted that the 2008 Government review was on student accommodation rather than HMOs in general.

Councillor Amrit Mann stated that a large influx of people in Hounslow was due to HMOs and it contributed to the “churn” of residents in the Borough; 25% of the population moved out annually. This had an impact on local communities and it prevented community cohesion and community bases being built. He therefore supported the motion as it arose from the impact of the population turnover and the damage it did to communities everywhere. He noted that the greatest levels of population change were in the West part of the Borough but it was still part of a wider issue, and he called on Members to support the motion.

Councillor Katherine Dunne observed that a motion at the last meeting of the Council proposed by the Conservative Group was about a loophole in the law that was being exploited and how it might be rectified. She considered that the current motion did the same thing and she supported it as it helped to resolve a bigger problem than just one being faced in Hounslow. She did not agree with Councillor Thompson that the use of Article Four was sufficient. The problems in Hanworth affected others and it was better to close loopholes rather than patch them. She welcomed the use of Article Four provisions but it was not enough so she commended the motion to Members.

At this point, and in accordance with the Constitution, Councillor Shantanu Rajawat proposed that the question be now put. As there was general agreement to this, and Councillor Foote declined the opportunity to sum up the debate, the Mayor put the motion to the vote and it was RESOLVED – That the motion be agreed. This was a majority decision.

15. Proposed by Councillor Candice Atterton and Seconded by Councillor Ed Mayne The Mayor invited Councillor Candice Atterton to introduce the motion, which read as follows:

“This Council notes that for most workers in local government and schools, pay and other terms and conditions are determined by the National Joint Council (NJC) for local government services. On average, across the country, NJC basic pay has fallen by 21% in real terms since 2010 and NJC pay is the lowest in the public sector. This Council therefore supports the NJC pay claim for 2018, submitted by Unite, UNISON and the GMB on behalf of Council and school workers and calls for the immediate end of public sector pay restraint. This Council also welcomes the joint review of the NJC pay spine to remedy the turbulence caused by bottom-loaded pay settlements. This Council resolves to write to the Local Government Association asking it to make urgent representations to Government to fund the NJC claim and the pay spine review, and write to local NJC union representatives to convey support for the pay claim and the pay spine review.”

Councillor Atterton then also made the following comments:

She was concerned about the cost of living crisis caused by long term pay freezes, which, given that inflation continued to rise at a faster rate than pay, meant real terms cuts for many.

This affected lower paid people more acutely than those with better incomes.

There had been pay increases for public sector workers but these had been capped at 1% and had been outstripped by inflation and thus were too low.

She supported the trades union movement campaign seeking the end of public sector pay restraint.

Councillor Mayne then seconded the motion. The Mayor then invited debate on the motion, and the following comments were made:

Councillor Alan Mitchell observed that since 2009, local government and school support staff had seen their quality of lives reduced due to public sector pay freezes and after nearly ten years, this situation was reaching crisis point for many. Many school staff who supported children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) had trouble balancing childcare commitments and work with the necessary study required for the job. This was driving people out of the profession at a time when there was increase in the diagnoses of children with SEN by 4% since 2013. Given that real inflation was 3.5%, the 1% cap on pay increases for public sector staff meant that people could no longer afford to live and so staff were giving up their jobs. It was not right for the Government to continue to rely on people accepting reduced circumstances year on year. He feared that in the next two years, unless the situation changed, there would be a significant loss of experienced SEN staff and that any less well paid replacements would not care as much. He concluded by stating that it was shameful for this to be the case in 2017.

Councillor Sam Hearn advised that the Conservative Group was unable to support the motion as it did not move the situation along; it appeared to be object to “bottom loading” in a time of austerity and he could not understand why people not support it. He asked if the Labour Group was seeking to favour top or middle earners over lower paid ones as this appeared to be the case. He noted that the Local Government Association (LGA) Chair of National Employers had responded to the trades unions demands by acknowledging there had been low pay but observing that increasing pay along the lines requested would result in further job losses. He (Councillor Hearn) recognised that there would be demands that the funding for pay increases should come from the Government but it was likely that the responsibility would fall on Councils. Nor had the issue been costed. He considered it essential that Members were mindful of the need to maintain best value for services paid for by taxpayers. All Members had friends and family Members who worked in the public sector so it was inappropriate for Members to seek to increase the pay of public servants as it might bring claims of failure of integrity, and Members should consider declaring attempts to get benefits for them. He concluded by wishing to see a register of help and assistance given to Members of the Labour Party by the trades unions.

Councillor Shantanu Rajawat then proposed that, in accordance with the constitution, the thirty minute limit on debate on motions in standing orders be waived to allow discussion to continue until the end of the item. There was general agreement to this proposal. The Mayor then invited further comment on the motion and the following comments were made:

Councillor Gerald McGregor noted that 2010 had seen the end of the tenure of Mr Gordon Brown as Prime Minister whose policies were not progressive as they had created an enormous public debt caused by significant overspending and a failure to understand the situation that arose as a result; his Government had seen a fracturing of banking regulations, the cult of consumerism and a lack of welfare reform trapping people in the benefits system. The result was a debt fuelled boom which then resulted in a crash and 2.5 million unemployed in 2010. The Coalition Government that was elected in that year then saw the private sector create eight times more jobs that were lost in the public sector at that time which had the effect of rebalancing the economy. In addition, there were 300 new public sector schools created which were able to match private sector schools and saw an increase in exam results. He also noted that there had been an increase in the take home pay for people at the bottom of the pay scale which in turn created higher tax returns. However, he reminded Members that the top 1% of tax payers generated more tax for the Government than the other 99%.

Councillor Tom Bruce recalled that at the time of the General Election in 2010, the Conservative Party had suggested that Gordon Brown had been responsible for the financial crisis and this was false. He regretted that in the first year of the new Government that followed, the Labour Party unwisely spent more time on leadership elections that fighting the new Government. The financial cuts to local authorities were directly due to Conservative Party-led Government cuts. It was Councillor Hearn who had raised the issue of austerity but it was not a necessary or useful policy. He recalled a recent meeting with Nick Gibb MP, Minister of State for School Standards in which he was asked why the Government would not fund an increase in the pay of teachers, despite head teachers asking for this to happen. He had been unable to reply. Any increase in pay for local government staff would need to come out of local

government budgets and this was currently impossible, hence the last paragraph of the motion seeking Government to pay for this, as it should. He stated that he had many friends in the education sector and he knew that many people were leaving their jobs and the profession. He considered it shameful that the United Kingdom, as one of the richest countries in the world, was unprepared to fund proper payment to its public servants.

Councillor Bob Whatley stated that he had worked for local government for over forty years and he accepted that for some time the salaries in the public sector had been good when compared with the private sector; this had helped attract talent and get the best people into local authorities. However, this was no longer the case and he could see in various Councils that there were fewer people working in them and that young people were no longer entering the profession or staying in it as they could not afford to support their families on a public sector wage which was worth less year on year. He did not think that it was sustainable to let this continue and so he supported the motion.

Councillor Ed Mayne expressed pride that the Council and the Labour Party had links with the trades union movement, and observed that there was no more transparent form of political funding. He was also proud that the Labour Government under Gordon Brown as Prime Minister had saved the banking system. A large debt had been created but during a time of low money costs and minimal interest rates. By contrast, George Osborne, when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer in 2010 had declared that he would clear the debt within five years – which remained an unachieved ambition. The Council had also contributed significantly to the drive to help improve things for workers. In 2010, there had been Council staff on the minimum wage whereas now no-one was paid below the London Living Wage; it was the Council’s firm belief that the lowest paid workers needed at least a liveable wage not the bare minimum. He was proud of what the Council’s workers and teachers did for people and so he supported the motion.

Councillor Hanif Khan observed that since 2010, national borrowing levels had increased and Government debt had not reduced. He thought it appalling that in the United Kingdom, one per cent of the population retained 99% of the wealth. However, he detected a change in the mood of the people towards this situation. He also stated he was proud to be a Member of a union.

Councillor John Todd observed that whilst Lampton 360 staff were paid the London Living Wage as Councillor Mayne had observed, they were also given a poorer pension offer than staff employed directly by the Council. This was not equality. He that observed that John McDonnell MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, had refused to provide financial projection figures for his proposed budgets, unlike any previous holder of the role. The Institute of Financial Studies had stated that public sector staff were paid 11% more than private sector officers.

There being no further contributions, the Mayor invited Councillor Atterton to sum up the debate. In doing so, Councillor Atterton made the following comments:

She agreed with the sentiments expressed by Councillor Mayne and the links between the Labour Party and the trades union movement.

She was also offended by the suggestion by Councillor Hearn that by raising the motion she had been in breach of rules on declarations or the Members’ code of conduct.

Her mother worked in a Council and she was happy to declare it.

She cared for women in general and observed that austerity policies had adversely affected women more than men.

She was also offended by Councillor McGregor’s implication that people were lining up for unemployment benefit.

She called on Members to support the notion of helping people to have good lives. The Mayor then put the motion to the vote and it was RESOLVED – That the motion be agreed. This was a majority decision. 16. Proposed by Councillor Daanish Saaed and Seconded by Councillor Candice Atterton This motion was withdrawn. 17. Any Other Matters That the Mayor Considers Urgent There were no such items. 18. Date of Next Meeting Members noted that the next meeting of the Council was scheduled Tuesday 30th January 2018 and would commence at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber 19. Exclusion of Press and Public It was RESOLVED – 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. 20. Appendix to Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2017/18 (CEX192) Members noted that part 2 appendix to the report at agenda item 6, Treasury Management Mid-Year Report 2017/18 (CEX192)

21. Any Other Items Which The Mayor Considers Urgent And Are Exempt From Publication There were no such items. The Mayor concluded by noting that it had been the last Council meeting of the year and so she wished everyone a very happy Christmas break and a good new year. The meeting concluded at 9.35 pm Mayor