Person's Name

Date: THURSDAY 21 FEBRUARY 2008

Cabinet Time: 7 PM

Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 6, CIVIC CENTRE HIGH STREET, UXBRIDGE

To Members of the Cabinet: Visiting the Civic Centre:

Ray Puddifoot (Chairman) Leader of the Council Members of the Public and Press are welcome to attend this David Simmonds (Vice-Chairman) meeting. Deputy Leader / Education & Children’s Services

Jonathan Bianco Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and Finance & Business Services U7 all stop at the Civic Centre.

Keith Burrows Uxbridge underground station, Planning & Transportation with the Piccadilly and

Philip Corthorne Metropolitan lines, is a short Social Services, Health & Housing walk away. Please enter from the Council’s main reception Henry Higgins where you will be directed to Culture, Sport & Leisure the Committee Room. Sandra Jenkins Environment Please switch off your mobile

Douglas Mills phone when entering the room Improvement, Partnerships & Community Safety and note that the Council

Scott Seaman-Digby operates a no-smoking policy in Co-ordination & Central Services its offices.

Publication Date: 13 February 2008 This agenda is available in Mark Braddock Hugh Dunnachie Head of Cabinet Office Chief Executive large print

Cabinet Office T.01895 250472 F.01895 277373 cabinet@hillingdon.gov.uk London Borough of Hillingdon, 3E/05, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW www.hillingdon.gov.uk Agenda & Business

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

3. To receive the decisions of the meeting held on 24 January 2008 (pages i to xii) (copy attached).

4. To confirm that the items of business marked Part 1 will be considered in Public and that the items marked Part 2 will be considered in private

5. Consideration of Cabinet reports (listed below)

Cabinet Reports – Part 1 – Members, Public and the Press Items are marked in the order that they will be considered. A reference number is shown to indicate that this item has previously appeared on the Council’s Forward Plan. The Forward Plan is a publicly available document updated each month which outlines, as far as possible, the Cabinet’s work programme over the next four months. Page No. Ref No. Policy & Strategy Items 1 Adding Capacity At Heathrow Airport: Consultation 1 71 2 Council’s General Fund Reserve Budget and Capital SI Programme 2008/09 to 2011/12, including Schools Budget - 2008/9 TO FOLLOW & CIRCULATED SEPERATELY 3 Review Of Older People’s Plan 2008-2011 27 - 4 Enhancing Members’ Personal Development in the London 57 113 Borough of Hillingdon 5 Draft Mayor Of London Order 2008 And Government Office 77 116 For London Draft Circular 2008 ‘Strategic Planning In London’: Consultation Response 6 Thematic Review of ICT Procurement 99 34

Monitoring Items 7 Council Budget – Monitoring Report 105 SI

Cabinet Reports - Part 2 – Private, Members Only The reports listed below in Part 2 are not made public because they contain confidential or exempt information as defined by law in the Local Government (Access to Information Act 1985). This is because items 8 to 10 contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) (paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Act). Page No. Ref No. 8 Recruitment Response Service 137 117 9 Appointment Of Term Contractor For Borough Wide Tree 141 35 Maintenance Service 10 Acceptance Of Tender For Highways Responsive 147 112 Maintenance (Including Signs & Street Furniture) Term Contract

6. Any Items transferred from Part 1

7. Any Other Business in Part 2

Cabinet Decisions

24 January 2008

PUBLISHED BY THE CABINET OFFICE ON 28 JANUARY 2008

This decision notice lists the decisions taken by the Cabinet of the London Borough of Hillingdon at its meeting on 24 January 2008.

They will come into effect at 5pm on 4 February 2008 unless called-in by the Executive Scrutiny Committee for consideration.

Click here to view the decisions

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Hillingdon Council strongly believes in open government. This is a public document listing every decision made by the Cabinet, including those decisions made in the non-public part of the meeting where discussion can take place on confidential / commercially sensitive matters.

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you require further information please contact the Cabinet Office on 01895 250472 or by email to [email protected]. Press enquiries should go through the Council’s Public Relations Unit in the first instance.

Mark Braddock Head of Cabinet Office

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page i DECISION LIST

The left hand column indicates the decision number, which relates to the report number on the agenda. The middle column details the decision made, the reason for that decision and also any alternatives considered or rejected. The right hand column indicates the name of the officer(s) responsible for implementing/following up the decision in each case.

Officer contact Cabinet Members Present – Councillors: Cabinet Office

• Ray Puddifoot (Leader of the Council) • David Simmonds (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services) • Jonathan Bianco (Cabinet Member for Finance and Business Services) • Keith Burrows (Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation) • Philip Corthorne (Cabinet Member for Social Services, Health and Housing) • Henry Higgins (Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure) • Sandra Jenkins (Cabinet Member for Environment) • Douglas Mills (Cabinet Member for Improvement, Partnerships and Community Safety) • Scott Seaman-Digby (Cabinet Member for Co-ordination and Central Services)

Other Councillors present: George Cooper, Brian Crowe, Shirley Harper-O’Neill, Patricia Jackson, Mo Khursheed, Mary O’Connor, David Yarrow.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Cabinet Office

There were no declarations of interest.

DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Cabinet Office

The reports on items 1- 9 were considered in public.

Items 10 - 12 were considered to contain exempt information as defined in the paragraphs to the Schedule to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. These reports were considered in the private section of the meeting.

CABINET DECISIONS Cabinet Office

The record of decisions of Cabinet held on 13 December 2007 was agreed as correct.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page ii

1 EXTERNAL SERVICES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPORT: David ‘DOCTORS, DENTISTS, STUDENTS, & ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR Coombs, ON BUSES’ Deputy Chief Executive’s Councillor Mary O’Connor presented to Cabinet the recommendations Office of the External Services Scrutiny Committee review on doctors, dentists, students and anti-social behaviour. Cabinet placed on record its thanks for the work undertaken by the External Services Overview Committee on these issues.

DECISION

1. That Cabinet notes the latest report from the External Services Scrutiny Committee and endorses the recommendations that will be sent to the Council’s partners for formal response.

2. That Cabinet adopts the following recommendations that are addressed to the Council in order to assist partner organisations deliver high-quality services to Hillingdon residents: a. Recommendation 6: Cabinet encourages the NHS to seek early advice from Planning & Community Services on the future location of healthcare facilities, and reassures local GPs that planning applications will be considered as quickly as possible.

b. Recommendation 10: The Council continues to adopt a proactive approach to addressing any problems that arise from students living in privately rented accommodation (including working through a combination of liaison through the private sector landlords forum and enforcement action).

c. Recommendation 11: The Council considers joining the campaign for a change in planning law to introduce a new use class for properties rented by less than six people.

d. Recommendation 15: The Council supports initiatives to integrate the University in the community, including potentially contributing to a reception at the University for new students in Freshers’ Week (i.e. through Council representatives attending).

e. Recommendation 16: The Council encourages TfL to use its enforcement powers to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB) on buses and offers support as appropriate. Cabinet further believe that a 7pm curfew should apply to the use of children’s free bus passes.

f. Recommendation 17: The Council encourages schools to do as much possible to promote good behaviour amongst pupils when travelling on buses, and the LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page iii Council continues to include information on the requirements for an oyster photocard in appropriate communications to parents (e.g. applications for secondary school and end of year communications).

g. Recommendation 18: The Council works with the Police to closely monitor any changes in patterns of anti-social behaviour (e.g. to the end of bus routes or as a result of successful initiatives on targeted routes).

REASONS FOR DECISION

To update Cabinet on the latest work of the External Services Scrutiny Committee to help undertake the Council’s community leadership role: the Committee believe the recommendations will help ensure the Council and partners deliver excellent value-for-money services in line with the Council’s vision.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Cabinet may reject or amend the recommendations and/or request further information on any of the issues raised in the report.

2 REVIEW OF HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE Jonathan Westell, Councillor Shirley Harper-O’Neill presented to Cabinet the Highways recommendations of the Residents and Environmental Services Policy Maintenance Overview Committee review on highways maintenance. Manager

DECISION Maureen Colledge, 1. That the Cabinet consider the Residents’ and Environmental Deputy Chief Services Policy Overview Committee’s report and ask officers Executive’s to progress those of the Committee’s suggestions for Office improvement that they support. That Cabinet adopts the following recommendations:

1.2 Better communication of achievements in reducing accidents and maintaining roads, e.g. through Hillingdon People, posters and local newspaper stories, and of new developments such as trials of the “Enviro kerb”, a plastic kerb made from recycled material.

1.4 Moving to a “clearer highways” strategy where there is less street furniture, fewer road markings and less signs (though still meeting safety considerations). This would simplify highway maintenance and reduce the time and cost required, so more roads can be covered.

1.6 Both residents and Councillors might help to feedback on quality of work and satisfaction. The Committee suggest that officers investigate ways for residents and

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page iv Councillors to help check on acceptability and quality, e.g. through feedback surveys, forums, street champions, etc.

2. That the Cabinet ask officers to report back with proposals for publishing an annual highways maintenance plan, starting in early 2008/9.

3. Cabinet notes the following recommendations:

1.1 An injection of funding for repairing or resurfacing the most damaged estate highways – officers advise that a programme of £500,000 per annum would cover approximately 40 streets per year (depending on size). The Committee recommend that this increase is considered within the Council’s 2008/9 budget-setting process and understand that a capital bid has been submitted.

1.3 Greater clarity on decision-making for residents, an example being a neighbouring borough’s scheme that uses scorecards to deal with requests for highway repairs. This clear setting out of priorities and decision-making was credited with achieving greater acceptance of priorities and better understanding of timescales for repairs. The Committee suggest that officers investigate the most appropriate way of increasing the transparency of decision-making on requests for repairs and resurfacing.

1. 5 Greater specialisation within highway maintenance services and use of the contact centre so that Inspectors can spend more time assessing and commissioning and checking the quality of work and less time dealing with correspondence.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The recommendations are aimed at improving the residents’ satisfaction with the highways maintenance service in the borough. As Cabinet does not agree budget spend before the budget has been set, it was agreed that recommendation 1.1 would be noted. Further work would need to be undertaken on clarifying the decision-making process and procedures put in place to visually record the state of roads, pavements and kerbs around development sites. Members would also receive future information on highways maintenance broken down by ward.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

The Committee could have made no recommendations or alternative recommendations following their review.

The Cabinet could decide not to progress any or all of the suggestions made by the Committee.

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page v 3 RESIDENT ENTITLEMENT CARD – IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL Darryl Wallace, Adult DECISION Social Care, Health & 1. Note the contents of the report and the attached document. Housing

2. Agree in principle the implementation of a resident Steve Palmer, entitlement card for the services outlined in paragraph 2 of Finance and the report. Resources

3. Establish that savings made from the amalgamation of existing card schemes within the Council will be used to help fund the future roll out and implementation.

4. Note that further reports will be provided to Cabinet for decision at phased intervals during the implementation programme. These will include a business case for each service area to be included in the card scheme and the resource, cost and income generation implications.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Recommendations were made to HIP Steering Group in September 2007 regarding the possibility of a Hillingdon resident entitlement card scheme. HIP Steering Group agreed these recommendations in principle. This is the first report to Cabinet on this subject and it proposes pilot work on the implementation of such a card for Hillingdon residents. Implementation of the card will facilitate direct and clear entitlement benefits to Hillingdon residents.

The initial service areas for piloting are parking, libraries, civic amenity sites and leisure. Internal testing will be undertaken on the necessary technologies for each service area as part of the proposed pilot work to ensure that the feasibility of proposals is proven before any commitment to deploy.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Not introducing a resident entitlement card. This option is not recommended as the key tests set by Members, set out in the report, were passed during the research for the HIP Steering Group report. The consultation with residents and business shows support for a resident entitlement card.

4 ESTABLISHING CHILDREN’S TRUST ARRANGEMENTS IN Sarah Harty, HILLINGDON Education and Children’s Councillor Brian Crowe presented to Cabinet the comments of the Services Education and Children’s Services Policy Overview Committee on this report.

DECISION

1. Cabinet agree that current partnership arrangements be LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page vi formalised and designated as Children's Trust Arrangements in Hillingdon, as set out in Model 3 in the report, with joint commissioning as a primary focus.

2. Cabinet delegate the finalisation of the Partnership structure to the Director of Education and Children’s Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Establishing a Children’s Trust (often called Children’s Trust Arrangements) by April 2008 is a statutory requirement for all councils. This report proposes that existing partnership arrangements be formalised to constitute Children’s Trust Arrangements in Hillingdon in recognition of the progress already made towards integration and in the belief that complex structural change at this point is both unnecessary and undesirable. To enable the structure to be finalised, it was delegated to the relevant Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Children’s Trust Arrangements could be established in line with models 1 or 2 as set out below. These models have been discounted as it is felt that they would create unnecessary institutional and legal complexities given that further integration can be achieved by formalising existing partnership arrangements.

5 ENVIRONMENT & CONSUMER PROTECTION WHOLE SERVICE Philomena REVIEW Bach, Environment Councillor Shirley Harper-O’Neill presented to Cabinet the comments of and Consumer the Residents’ and Environmental Services Committee on this report. Protection

DECISION

That Cabinet

1. endorses the outcomes of the review and the future work programme to increase residents’ satisfaction supported by a more efficient and modern business; and

2. notes the savings and efficiencies identified in the report for inclusion in the 2008/09 revenue budget.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The service review contains a number of proposals for business, organisational and service transformation leading to increasing residents’ satisfaction and significant financial savings. As Cabinet does not agree budget spend before the budget has been set, it was agreed that the second part of the recommendation would be noted. LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page vii

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

This review has been wide ranging and has considered a number of options for delivering service transformation. It has been subject to robust external and corporate challenge

6 STREAMLINING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKS: Janet CONSULTATION Rangeley / Maria Garcia, Councillor Shirley Harper-O’Neill presented to Cabinet the comments of Planning and the Residents’ and Environmental Services Committee on this report. Community Services DECISION

That Cabinet:

1. notes the changes proposed by Government to the preparation and scope of the Local Development Frameworks and the implications for Hillingdon contained in this report; and

2. endorses officers recommended response to the consultation as contained in the report.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. To keep Members informed of changes to the planning process which could affect the future content and delivery of the Council’s Local Development Framework and ultimately the Sustainable Community Strategy objectives.

2. To ensure that the Council’s views, support and/or objections are heard on this matter and taken into consideration by Government when working towards finalising the new planning regulations and guidance.

3. To ensure that the Council enhances its joint working and makes best use of its existing expertise and resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

1. Not to comment on this draft document. This option will mean that the Council will miss the opportunity to influence and/or support National Policy on the creation of Local Development Frameworks which will affect the future of the borough and ultimately the delivery of the Council’s Community Strategy.

2. Make representations to the Government’s draft proposals. This option will give the Council the opportunity to share the experience acquired since the commencement of LDF process in 2004 and channel the many challenges faced by the Council to ensure that the Government reforms make for a better set of LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page viii guidance and regulations.

3. Not supporting the creation of a working protocol to increase integration within the Council’s strategy making. This will under- utilise the Council’s resources, may jeopardise the soundness of the Local Development Framework, the Sustainable Community Strategy and the improvement of future Comprehensive Performance Assessments (emerging Comprehensive Area Assessments) ratings.

7 EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING TERM CONTRACT FOR THE Debbie Haith, PROVISION OF SERVICES TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Education and Children’s DECISION Services

That the existing Term Contract for The Provision of Services To Children and Families at the Abacus Centre with NCH Children’s Services be extended for a period of one year with effect from 1st April 2008 in accordance with condition 2.1 of the Terms of Contract, i.e.

“The duration of this Agreement for the provision of the service may, by consent of both parties in writing, be extended for such periods as may be agreed.”

REASONS FOR DECISION

The existing contract is due to expire on 31 March 2008, the extension will enable officers to review the service specification and undertake a re-tendering process which will enable officers to review the specification for the services and ensure that there is both the capacity and capability to meet current and future projected need.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Re-tendering of the Contract for the Provision of Services from the Abacus Centre within the current specification. This option was considered by officers but was rejected due to pending new legislation and guidance, which will directly impact on the level of service required under the contract.

Re-tendering will be carried out during the extension period, which will be 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009.

8 ENFORCEMENT OF MOVING TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS - John Newson, UPDATE ON PROGRESS (2008) Environment and Consumer DECISION Protection

That Cabinet

1. Notes the report on the Enforcement of Moving Traffic

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page ix Contraventions in the Borough since its introduction in October 2006.

2. Approves that the Enforcement of Moving Traffic Contraventions is suspended from 31 January 2008 until the Cabinet Member Planning and Transportation is happy that such enforcement is managed as required with a further report back to Cabinet.

REASONS FOR DECISION

To ensure that focus on road safety continues with a resultant increase in safety and a reduction in congestion.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

Maintaining the service.

9 BUDGET – MONTH 8 2007/8 REVENUE MONITORING Paul Whaymand, DECISION Finance and Resources Cabinet notes the forecast budget position for revenue as at Month 8.

Cabinet agree to fund the following allocations from the Development & Risk Contingency:

• £15k for the procurement of external challenge to the Education & Children’s Service Review • £30k for support to HIP Customer Focus workstream

REASONS FOR DECISION

The reason for the monitoring recommendation is to ensure the Council achieves its budgetary objectives. The report informs Cabinet of the latest forecast revenue position for the current year 2007/8.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

There are no other options proposed for consideration.

10 WHITEHALL INFANT - ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FOR ROOFING Venetia WORKS Rogers, Education and DECISION Children’s Services To accept the tender from Stamford Contracting Ltd

REASONS FOR DECISION

To resolve problems the school is having with rood leaks and an

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page x appropriate procurement process has been followed and budget provision is in place.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

None.

This item was considered in the private part of the meeting as it contained information relating to ‘the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)’ (exempt information under paragraph 3 of the schedule to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985).

11 BREAKSPEAR JUNIOR SCHOOL – ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER Venetia FOR NEW TEACHING BLOCK Rogers, Education and DECISION Children’s Services To accept the tender from NAL Contractors Ltd.

REASONS FOR DECISION

An appropriate procurement process has been followed and budget provision is in place.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

None.

12 TENDER FOR THE PROVISION OF A HOUSING MANAGEMENT Jackie SERVICE AT HAMLET LODGE, LONG LANE, HILLINGDON Hodgson, Finance and DECISION Resources

That Cabinet:

1. Approves the appointment of Look Ahead Housing and Care to provide a housing management service at Hamlet Lodge

2. Approves the grant of a 21 year lease to Look Ahead Housing and Care on the terms set out in Appendix A to this report

3. Instructs officers to complete the lease and enter into a nominations agreement with Look Ahead Housing and Care giving the Council 100% nomination rights to the nine units

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page xi at Hamlet Lodge for the full term of the lease

REASONS FOR DECISION

The appointment of Look Ahead Housing and Care is recommended because the RSL meets the quality standard set for the provision of this service by Adult Social Care Health and Housing and its tender is the most beneficial to the Council.

A 21 year lease is recommended by the Housing Corporation for supported housing services of this type.

A nominations agreement will ensure that the Council derives maximum benefit from the development.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED

1. Provision of housing management services by the Council’s ALMO Hillingdon Homes.

This option was discounted after Legal Services advised that the management of the units by Hillingdon Homes would not be sufficiently remote from the Council to permit the granting of assured shorthold tenancies. Any tenancies granted in this form by Hillingdon Homes would be held to be secure tenancies. Secure tenancies (which give tenants the “right to buy”) are not appropriate to supported housing, which is specialist accommodation providing flexible rehabilitation programmes to enable tenants to move on to more independent living.

2. To appoint the other RSL who submitted a tender.

This option was discounted because the amount of its bid was slightly lower and service efficiencies will arise from the provision of both housing management and care and support services by one organisation.

The meeting closed at 8.08pm

THESE DECISIONS CAME INTO FORCE AT 5PM ON 4 FEBRUARY 2008.

NO CALL-INS WERE RECEIVED

LBH - Cabinet Decisions 24.01.08 Page xii ADDING CAPACITY AT HEATHROW AIRPORT: ITEM 1 CONSULTATION

Cabinet Member Councillor Keith Burrows

Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation

Officer Contact Tim Jurdon, Planning and Community Services, Val Beale (air quality) and Mike Rickaby (noise) Environment & Consumer Protection, Mark Braddock, Cabinet Office, Emma Marsh, Corporate Communications.

Papers with report Appendix 1 Answers to consultation questions Appendix 2 Detailed submissions/technical reports to Dept for Transport – Currently under preparation

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report The Council is currently being consulted by the Department for Transport on ‘Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport’ which provides further details of the proposed expansion of Heathrow and specifically the third runway. This report considers the implications and seeks Cabinet’s endorsement of the proposed response. The report also updates Cabinet on the wider campaign against the third runway.

Contribution to our The emerging Local Development Framework, the Local plans and strategies Implementation Plan and other corporate strategies.

Financial Cost Cabinet has allocated a maximum of £50,000 from reserves to enable the Council to act as banker for the 2M Group and commission specialist consultants to assess technical matters. Additional funding for NoTRAG. Further investigation and / or pursuit of a legal challenge to the consultation and / or its proposals with other local authorities and groups opposed to expansion of Heathrow Airport proportionately sharing legal costs to be met from the existing £50,000. Other costs, including publicity, have been met from within existing budgets.

Relevant Policy Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy Overview Overview Committee Committee

Ward(s) affected All but particularly Heathrow Villages, Pinkwell and West Drayton.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 1 RECOMMENDATION

1. The Secretary of State for Transport be informed that the London Borough of Hillingdon is totally opposed to the proposed third runway and mixed mode and loss of the Cranford Agreement at Heathrow and that, due to the changes made since the 2003 Aviation White Paper, a reassessment of the alternative options for new runways in the South East must be undertaken.

2. The Director of Planning and Community Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation, be authorised to agree finalising amendments or additions to the responses at Appendix 1 and 2 prior to submission to the Department for Transport.

3. The Director of Planning and Community Services and Borough Solicitor be authorised to investigate grounds for a legal challenge to the consultation and / or its proposals with other local authorities and groups opposed to expansion of Heathrow Airport and, subject to legal advice, commit to such action including a proportionate share of legal costs to be met from the existing £50,000 allocated from reserves for specialist consultant advice on the third runway consultation.

4. Cabinet endorses the Council’s public awareness and information campaign and the highly supportive feedback received from Borough residents as set out in the report.

INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

To ensure that the Council’s interests are taken into account in Government decisions affecting the proposed expansion and operation of Heathrow Airport.

Alternative options considered

Not to make representations on behalf of Hillingdon in respect of the Borough’s interests. This would not ensure that the interests of residents and businesses in the borough are protected especially those that will be directly affected by the proposed third runway.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

The Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy Overview Committee heard a presentation about and discussed the consultation proposals at its meeting on 12 December 2007. The Committee were unanimously opposed to the expansion proposals and a number of comments and suggestions were made especially to encourage as many residents as possible to respond to the consultation. It was also agreed to write to the Department for Transport concerning the alleged inadequate distribution of consultation documents in parts of Sipson. Officer Note: A reply has been received confirming that documents were posted to all addresses in Sipson.

The Committee also discussed plans for the consultation response at its meeting on 7th February and thanked the Cabinet, officers and residents for a tremendous response in opposition to the proposals, despite the inadequacy of the consultation. The Committee

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 2 unanimously condemned the proposed destruction of communities, the impact on housing and schools and greatly increased noise pollution over a wide area that the proposals would cause, if they were to go ahead.

Supporting Information

Background to Current Consultation

1. In December 2003 Government published the ‘Future of Aviation’ White Paper setting out the UK’s civil aviation strategy for the next 30 years. It followed 10 months of public consultation.

2. For the South East the key proposals were: • A new second runway at Stansted as soon as possible. • A new third runway for Heathrow after the second Stansted runway and subject to overcoming EU air pollution problems and a self imposed air noise limit (estimate 2015-2020). In the short term introduce mixed mode with potential for 12% more flights using the 2 existing Heathrow runways. • Safeguarding for a second runway at Gatwick in case the Heathrow runway could not be progressed (could only be implemented after 2019 due to a 1979 legal agreement).

3. LB Hillingdon and Wandsworth, in a consortium with others, lost a legal challenge to the Heathrow elements of the White Paper in the High Court in February 2005 and leave to appeal was subsequently refused.

4. The Council’s detailed response to the White Paper’s proposed expansion of Heathrow is set out in its original response to the SERAS consultation (The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East – a National Consultation (Second Edition February 2003)) which is available on the Council’s website. It is considered that the Council’s original submission and arguments against the third runway are equally applicable and therefore remain relevant. In almost every respect the impacts identified have worsened when compared to the current consultation proposals.

5. For the past 4 years the Government has been working closely with BAA and others on the ‘Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow’. The objective of this work has been to overcome the constraints to growth at Heathrow – principally the air pollution problem. Part of the early work on air quality had local authority input and was overseen by independent panels. Later, BAA, consultants and selected bodies have been involved and all work has been conducted in private. The current consultation is the result of this work which also provides details of land take and layout for the third runway including the position of the terminal and local road diversions.

Contents of the Consultation

6. It contains a substantial number of documents, focussing on air quality and noise but little with regard to local impacts and surface access.

7. The principal differences from the 2003 Aviation White Paper proposals include:

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 3 Runway Length 8. An additional 200m ‘operational’ length to the White Paper’s 2,000m runway – although a further 500m (total length 2,500m) would be laid because of displacement thresholds ie aircraft taking off eastwards are constrained by the spire of St Peter and St Paul’s Church Harlington while those taking off to the west are constrained by the elevated section of the M25/M4 junction.

9. This increased length would allow use by all aircraft except for larger wide-bodied 4 engine aircraft. (Previously the runway was to be used only by narrow-bodied regional/European aircraft.

10. This change is intended to make the runway and new sixth terminal more appealing to ‘Alliance’ groups of airlines that operate both long and short haul networks from one terminal.

Timing 11. The proposed runway is now estimated to be operational by 2020 at the earliest and its opening would need to be phased due to exceedence of the 57db noise contour limit of 127km2. The previous White Paper timescale was 2015 to 2020.

Terminal 12. A new passenger terminal is proposed to be sited roughly on the existing M4 Motorway Spur Road near Sipson, with a railway station at the adjacent Heathrow Express underground railway. Layout of the terminal, railway station and airfield is seen as being very similar to that at Terminal 5.

Roads 13. Details of possible local road diversions are provided including new roads through British Airway’s Waterside Park, a new Stockley By Pass across Green Belt land north of the M4, and a replacement M4 Motorway Spur Road coming close to properties in Harlington – including demolition of several houses in the vicinity of Field Close, Harlington – due to the impact of the new Spur Road.

14. The layout plan shows a greater area of land take than the BAA Interim Master Plan of July 2005. Extra land take is now proposed for ancillary development at the western end of the runway near Harmondsworth (including the field adjacent to the Tithe Barn) and also, for surface transport facilities and interchanges, in the area to the west of Harlington.

Mixed Mode Operation/Cranford Agreement/Westerly Preference/6am – 7am Alternation/Night Time Rotation

15. Various options are proposed for increased use of the 2 existing runways prior to the third runway (at which point the third runway would operate in mixed mode with the 2 existing runways reverting to segregated mode for operational reasons).

16. Two of the 3 main options proposed include the 2010/11 introduction of mixed mode but within the Terminal five 480,000 annual air transport movement limit. This would not deliver more flights but would improve flexibility for peak hour flights and avoid the need for a politically high profile planning inquiry to remove the 480,000 limit for relatively little gain.

17. A further main option is as above plus adding full mixed mode with 60,000 extra flights per annum (12% more) from 2015/16 when air quality is predicted to have improved sufficiently.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 4 All versions of mixed mode require removal of the ‘Cranford Agreement’ which prevents aircraft taking off eastwards from the northern runway over residents in Cranford. The consultation advises that Government believes the Cranford Agreement should be removed, in any event, in order to share noise more equally around the airport. The current ‘westerly preference’ for landings and take offs is proposed to be retained without change - approximately 75% of aircraft land and take off to the west.

18. Early morning arrivals between 6am and 7am have alternated between the 2 runways on a trial basis since 1999. It is proposed to make this practice permanent. No changes are proposed to current night time rotation.

Assessment

Air Quality

19. The consultation advises that air quality predictions are now much more positive than at the time of the 2003 White Paper due to:

• higher European vehicle emission standards; re-equipping of aircraft with newer cleaner engines; • the trend for twin engine aircraft producing lower emissions that their four engined predecessors; • modernisation of the fleet of diesel trains on the Great Western line within the next decade; • higher proportions of Heathrow travellers using public transport; • lower vehicle speeds on roads in the area.

20. It is claimed that even with the addition of the third runway NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) emissions will fall by 49% between 2002 and 2030 and NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide) by 36%. This would enable the third runway to be operational by 2020 whilst meeting EU air pollution limits.

21. With mixed mode in 2015 there are 27 properties adjacent to the north side of the M4 west of Harlington over the EU limit level. These would need action – possibly by way of a speed reduction on the adjacent M4.

22. It is clear that this lower forecast for air pollution came through relatively recently. A range of measures such as road pricing, park and ride, additional rail links, motorway ramp metering strategy etc were previously investigated but are now deemed unnecessary to meet third runway air pollution requirements.

23. It is important to remember that the EU limit is an absolute limit and is fixed at 40ug/m3 measured as an annual mean for nitrogen dioxide. It is therefore essential that the air quality predictions made in the consultation document are robust to allow Government to be confident that this EU limit will be met and maintained at all relevant locations from 2010 onwards. Hillingdon maintain that this has not been achieved given the doubt cast on critical inputs and over-optimistic prediction of reductions in NO2 trends. Significantly, no sensitivity testing has been applied. Until this major issue of uncertainty is addressed adequately, and peer-reviewed to ensure its validity, Hillingdon asks for expansion proposals to be cancelled.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 5 24. The consultation documents states that the NO2 limit can be met, close to the airport, and would be consistent with EU obligations under the assumption that a derogation (relaxation) has been applied for, and granted, and that the deadline for compliance has been extended in this area to 2015 rather than 2010. The issue of derogations is still under negotiation in Europe and it is anticipated that there will be strict guidelines on where it can and cannot be applied. Officers consider it wrong to rely on a hypothetical relaxation as a means to expand Heathrow because it would be detrimental to human health.

25. The Government have given no indication of how it can remain confident in future years that the air quality limit can be met and maintained. Such predictions rely on too many uncertainties over too long a time period. Without a robust effective mechanism, with clear controls in place and with appropriate legal powers, together with responsibilities for each, the Government cannot be confident that this environmental limit can be adequately controlled. Until this vital issue of proper control is defined, and able to be effectively monitored, then officers consider that the airport should not be expanded.

Noise

26. In the 2003 Aviation White Paper the Government set itself the target of not increasing the size of the 57dB noise contour area above its 2002 level of 127 sq km even with the addition of the third runway. Due principally to quieter aircraft engines it is anticipated that by 2030 the third runway could operate at full capacity with a 57dB contour area of 113 sq km. However, in 2020 the capacity would be limited to 605,000 flights per year compared to full capacity of 702,000. Therefore the number of flights could gradually increase from 2020 onwards as noisier aircraft continued to be replaced by newer quieter ones.

27. There is only one departure route from third runway. Taking off to the west all aircraft turn north over Gerrards Cross and on over Harefield. Taking off to the east all aircraft fly over the south east corner of Hayes and up the east side of the borough past Yeading, Eastcote, and Northwood. Because the third runway would be used in mixed mode there would be a constant stream of aircraft along these departure routes producing wholly unacceptable new noise impacts for borough residents.

28. Mixed mode operation on the current Heathrow runways is opposed on noise grounds. Although comparatively few Hillingdon residents are affected they would be adversely affected, particularly in Longford and Cranford Cross. The various other potential changes to the operation of the existing runways at Heathrow are all opposed in order that the existing mode of operations is retained.

29. The Council’s detailed response, which is still under preparation, sets out more detailed noise objections and covers air noise (including night noise), ground noise, road traffic noise from the proposed new roads, and impact on schools. It includes technical input from noise consultants and additional analysis including a critique of the use of the 57dB noise contour in light of the ANASE report as well as the concept of the White Paper noise contour limit itself which not only prevents residents around Heathrow from benefiting from less noise from future quieter aircraft but at the same time imposing significant levels of new aircraft noise on residential areas within the borough.

30. For information, the ANASE study (Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources) reported recently. This 6-year long Government study costing £1.5m concluded that a similar proportion of people annoyed by aircraft noise at the benchmark 57 dB noise level when a previous study

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 6 was conducted 22 years ago were now similarly affected at 50 or 51 dB. The Government’s peer reviewers criticised the report such that it will not now influence Government noise policy. Hillingdon argues that the key findings of the ANASE report must be given due weight and may change the critical balance between Heathrow or developing at alternative locations.

Surface Access

31. A range of potential surface access options was previously assessed in order to support the air quality issue by ensuring a cut in vehicle emissions. However, now that these appear not to be necessary, only measures to deal with congestion are required. The consultation document states: “As our work has been focused on measures to ensure that the air quality limit values could be met, we have not considered in detail the precise traffic impacts of additional capacity on surrounding communities or the necessary demand management measures to reduce road traffic growth or contain congestion to specified levels…”

32. No additional strategic public transport proposals or capacity is proposed specifically to support an expanded airport. Only replacement roads are proposed with no new capacity. The failure to assess traffic impacts and mitigation measures means that further options such as road pricing are likely to be needed once congestion becomes acute. Hillingdon considers that these difficulties highlight the error of adding a major traffic generator (comparable to Gatwick Airport) into the middle of the most congested part of the motorway system. Measures necessary to deal with the resulting congestion on the road network are likely to create adverse impacts on local communities. The lack of any new strategic public transport initiatives linked to expansion is a major lost opportunity. It is likely that history will repeat itself with public transport investment lagging ever further behind airport expansion. The Aviation White Paper’s requirement of improving public access to Heathrow has already fallen at the first hurdle.

Local Impacts

33. The current consultation proposes a drastically increased land take in comparison to the plan published in the 2003 Aviation White Paper. It also proposes a significantly increased land take compared to the BAA Interim Master Plan 2005 which itself incorporated all 4 options proposed by BAA in its SERAS submission. The original White Paper consultation (SERAS) proposed the demolition of about 260 residential properties. Those in the BAA Interim Master Plan 2005 involved about 700. No indication is given of the new total, and the layout plans are indicative, but it is clear that more demolition of residential properties – as well as commercial properties – is required to make way for the proposed road system.

34. In addition to land take, the number of flights has increased to around 702,000 up from the 655,000 in the SERAS consultation (Table 7.1 SERAS South East Consultation Document July 2002). It has not been possible to ascertain accurate passenger forecasts for this level of flights but clearly the passenger throughput is many millions more than it was at the time of the SERAS consultation. There will consequently be a range of knock on implications in terms of subsequent urbanisation, regional development pressures, employment and housing pressures, none of which has been objectively assessed.

35. No information is provided about the size of the additional land area involved, but there is now no commercially useable land adjacent to the new boundary of the airfield that is not proposed to be fully utilised for expansion. All of this additional land take is valuable Green Belt.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 7

36. The detailed adverse impacts of this additional land take and road diversions include: • Land adjacent to and affecting the setting of the Harmondsworth Tithe Barn • Greater land take at both ends of the main runway • Western link roads through Harmondsworth Moor Public Park • Diversion of Stockley Road past Shepiston Lane Cemetery • New M4 Spur Road and motorway Junction, plus link to the A4 and grade separated roundabout access adjacent to Harlington • Lack of strategic landscape screening to the north side of Harmondsworth Village

37. The key issue is that none of these development proposals have been assessed objectively in relation to any alternatives but are presented as a fait accompli. Such an approach is unacceptable and makes a complete mockery of the SERAS assessment which was undertaken as an objective analysis of the costs and benefits of providing additional aviation capacity. Specifically it compared alternative sites for new runways in South East England. The following table, prepared at the time of the SERAS consultation, provides a quick comparison with the impacts of the White Paper proposals for: Heathrow with a third runway; the 3 runway option at Stansted; the new airport at Cliffe; and a second runway at Gatwick. No comparable assessment has been made of the impacts of the revised new Heathrow third runway, a situation that is unacceptable.

Land take from airport development

LHR+1 STN+3 Cliffe Gatwick 261 dwellings 226 dwellings 777 dwellings Residential 430 Medium Adverse Medium Adverse High Adverse 18ha 24ha Commercial Negligible Low Adverse Low Adverse 2 buildings 1 building 3 buildings Public buildings Low Adverse Low Adverse Medium Adverse 288ha 1179ha 2022ha Agricultural land 260ha High Adverse High Adverse High Adverse 63ha 747ha Encroachment 13ha Footpath, Recreational land Low Adverse High Adverse Medium Adverse 228ha Encroachment Green Belt None None 530ha High Adverse

38. Now that the environmental and community costs of providing the third runway at Heathrow are so much greater than those in the 2003 Aviation White Paper, having been consistently increased in terms of their scale and impacts, it is essential that a reappraisal of the SERAS options and any alternatives be carried out.

39. The area of land that would be affected should a third runway be developed contains a high proportion of the remaining sand and gravel reserves in West London. Sites within the area are currently operative, and the area includes a large number of worked, filled, restored and virgin sites. In addition, such a project would consume huge quantities of aggregate, particularly if large-scale replacement of former infilled sites were required. As the proposed development would sterilise a large portion of London’s remaining strategic reserves, sourcing aggregate could prove to be extremely difficult, and lead to severe environmental damage and disturbance

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 8 over a wide area as less appropriate and/or inapproprate alternative locations were sought to supply replacement aggregate for London. The environmental impacts that would result include increased green house gas emissions.

40. No account or assessment has been taken of the massive construction impacts that will be in very close proximity to adjacent residential areas. No account has been taken of the need for or visual impact of an air traffic control tower that is certain to be required and which will be visible from a wide area. No obvious account has been taken of the public safety zones which encompass more development now that the runway is proposed to be 500m longer. Their impact on the M25 and on Harlington should have been assessed.

Broken Promises

41. There has been a long history of broken promises concerning Heathrow’s expansion. It is not proposed to repeat them here but they are indicative of the scepticism with which the current proposals are widely viewed. There are no undertakings whatsoever that the length of the proposed runway will not be increased for a second time or that flight numbers will not exceed the 702,000 flights now proposed. Without a limit it is inevitable that financial requirements will dictate that every spare element of capacity is fully utilised. Already Heathrow’s runways are close to capacity causing regular congestion and delays. Yet the only response is to seek more capacity rather than providing some spare capacity to build resilience into the system. The likely congestion at Heathrow with 3 runways, as opposed to the current 2, will be significantly greater and lead to greater passenger delay and frustrations. At the 22 January 2008 London Assembly Environment Committee, Stephen Nelson the current Chief Executive of BAA, did not rule out the need for a 4th runway and 7th terminal. Similarly, no means of control is proposed to ensure that the noise and air quality limits can be controlled if exceeded.

42. It is noted that at paragraph 3.25 of the consultation it is claimed that the longer runway would not affect the forecast mix of short-haul and long-haul traffic across the airport as a whole [following the increase in the length of the runway by 500m]. However, Heathrow is a unique airport and it is considered inconceivable that valuable slots capable of receiving larger aircraft would not be utilised by larger aircraft but instead continue to be used by smaller ones. It is therefore probable that the fleet mix assumptions underlying large elements of the consultation are flawed.

Economic Benefits

43. The Impact Assessment claims net benefits of £4.4bn to £5.2bn for the third runway but mixed mode operation, with fewer implementation costs, would generate £5.4bn to £6.2bn. similar claims in the past have been consistently challenged as being calculated differently from Treasury guidance and common sense, such as excluding the loss of expenditure from British tourism abroad while the UK runs a current tourism deficit of £18bn. A recent draft report from Dutch consultancy CE Delft commissioned by HACAN Clear Skies highlights a number of discrepancies including the low level of taxation of the aviation industry, such as the £9bn exemption from VAT.

44. The overriding justification for expanding Heathrow – as opposed to elsewhere – is the claimed economic benefits that would result. Accordingly, it is considered essential that a fully independent study is undertaken, ideally following the same procedure as with the Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow (PSDH) air quality panels that were demonstrably

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 9 independent and transparent. The economic study should examine the actual benefit to the economy provided by the 35% of transfer passengers at Heathrow and the perceived benefit of extra employment in an area that is effectively overheating economically and at a time when the majority of new jobs are being filled with migrants to the UK. The subsequent costs of housing and educating new workers, the health service costs of extra workers and their families and of health tourism via Heathrow should be assessed. Hillingdon Council and its Primary Care Trust already face financial costs for dealing with passengers entering the UK via Heathrow. These costs need to be assessed.

45. For LB Hillingdon the current unfunded costs of Heathrow include:

• Shortfall on unaccompanied asylum seeking children care leavers grant - £6 million (£3.7 million in 2008/09 budget) • Non-unaccompanied asylum seeking children looked after children referred from Heathrow - £0.6 million • Failed habitual residents returning from abroad via Heathrow - £0.25 million • Environmental Protection Unit - £81k • Trading Standards work at Heathrow - £10k • Imported Food / Port Health / Environmental Health - £292k

Total - £7.2 million

Extra unfunded costs of Terminal 5:

• Business rates collection (extra 4 staff) - £120k (funded by extra cost of collection grant from 2009/10 onwards) • Trading Standards - £36k • Imported Food / Port Health / Environmental Health - £120k

Total - £0.3 million

RAF Northolt

46. The consultation confirms that there will be some loss of airspace flexibility at RAF Northolt with either the third runway or mixed mode at Heathrow. It is stated: “commercial movements at Northolt would reduce available capacity on a third runway, one-for-one. In any trade-off between commercial operations at Northolt and providing additional capacity at Heathrow, the greater economic benefits of the latter would be a material consideration in any Government assessment of their relative merits.” (Paragraph 3.49 of Chapter 3).

47. However, there is no certainty concerning this issue and it is possible that a technical solution may yet overcome this problem. It cannot therefore represent a positive benefit that would improve the currently poor noise environment around RAF Northolt.

Climate Change

48. The climate change impacts associated with the options for expansion are given little regard despite the Government’s recent publication ‘Planning for Climate Change’. A third runway is estimated to produce approximately 3.0million tonnes of carbon a year and although

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 10 the increase is acknowledged in the consultation report there are no control measures suggested as to how this will be mitigated or addressed. The Government states that it is “committed to ensuring that aviation reflects the full costs of its climate change emissions” however this statement is meaningless given that there are no policies in place to ensure this is the case. The Government refer to the inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) as a means of addressing the climate change impacts but there are no agreements for this in place and negotiations are still underway in Europe, suggesting that implementation is still some way in the future. In addition, the EU ETS only covers carbon dioxide emissions and it is widely accepted that aviation creates other non-CO2 climate change emissions, which contribute to global warming. If aviation is included in the EU ETS in the future, these additional emissions will still not be accounted for and addressed.

49. For the above reasons, Hillingdon believe that the Government have not demonstrated any commitment to addressing the climate change impacts associated with expansion at Heathrow. The only policy the document refers to (EU ETS) is a) not in place, and b) will not address the full range of climate change emissions associated with aviation.

Consultation Inadequacies

50. There are 14 technical documents accompanying the consultation which concentrate on the noise and air quality tests set out in the Aviation White Paper. There is only one technical document on surface access and none on local impacts. These technical documents have been prepared in private over a considerable period of time principally overseen by the Department of Transport and BAA. Independent access has been denied. The consultation only allows 14 weeks to respond and places local authorities in a disadvantaged position seeking to appoint specialist consultants to analyse complex technical matters. Requests to the Aviation Minister for an extension of time have been made by 2M Group representatives and others but have all been refused. The restricted timescale favours BAA the airport operator which has a vested financial interest in the consultation and has had unrestricted access and influence over the consultation in the lead up to its publication.

51. Borough residents within the existing and proposed 56dBA noise contour were mailed a summary version of the main consultation document (a total of 10,100) but those within the 50 to 56dBA contours should also have been consulted as they will be adversely affected by new air noise. The summary version of the consultation is considered very limited and the questionnaire biased. The majority of the information is highly complex and likely to be unintelligible to those without existing knowledge of Heathrow and civil aviation. Equally on those issues of particular local concern such as loss of communities there is minimal information, and what there is, it is presented in the Impact Assessment in a way that prevents objective assessment especially of any alternatives.

Overview

52. Hillingdon Council is calling for a reassessment of Heathrow as a location for an additional runway.

53. Compared to the original White Paper proposals the current proposal bears no resemblance and has not been objectively evaluated. It has been proposed on the basis that there are no alternatives. Such an approach to public consultation is unacceptable.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 11 54. There has been no independent assessment of the economic issues. Economic benefit is the principal justification for expansion yet has been only narrowly assessed and shows clear bias.

55. The Impact Assessment at Annex B of the Consultation Document is the principal means for assessing which options the Government will support. However, this document, whilst providing some useful information about costs and benefits, merely assesses each of the 3 options for providing new capacity against a base case. It states:

“This Impact Assessment (IA) assesses whether the Government should support one or more of the possible sequencing options for adding capacity at Heathrow airport against the criteria set out by the Impact Assessment Guidance30. The economic case for Government supporting additional capacity at Heathrow airport was set out in the ATWP and the environmental and surface access requirements are discussed in the main consultation document. The IA takes both positions as given and seeks to present, as far as possible, a factual assessment of the potential impacts of the possible sequencing options which may be available to the airport operator, subject to the outcome of the current consultation and future planning applications.” (Para 1.1 Impact Assessment).

56. Accordingly, the Impact Assessment has not considered the principle of the third runway. Officers consider that a Strategic Environmental Assessment is a statutory requirement that should have been carried out as an integral part of the consultation. To do so would have required a comparison with alternative options which has not been undertaken. Hillingdon says such an assessment must be carried out.

Bias 57. Hillingdon considers that the Impact Assessment cannot be judged to be independent because it has been prepared by Government which is itself already committed to a policy of expanding Heathrow, including provision of a third runway. The Impact Assessment runs through a list confirming numerous cases of high adverse impact on such issues as heritage and ground water. Yet such information is meaningless as it is not used to compare anything except the options for expanding Heathrow against the base case. Although it is possible to ascribe monetary values to such matters as development costs, climate change and traveller benefits, it is not possible to monetise eg the loss of the community of Sipson. Hillingdon considers that a new Impact Assessment looking at all options including other locations for new runways would, given the greatly increased scale of damage of the new Heathrow expansion proposal, result in other locations being ranked above Heathrow.

58. For the above reasons it is considered essential that a transparent reappraisal of the options for alternative runway locations be undertaken and an independent assessment of the economic benefits undertaken on a similar basis to the PSDH (Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow) air quality panels.

Public Awareness and Information Campaign Against Heathrow Expansion

59. The Council has had a long-standing policy against further expansion of Heathrow Airport and has provided support over many years to NoTRAG (No Third Runway Action Group). Previous surveys and feedback from residents, particularly those directly affected by a third runway has always been in support of the Council’s position.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 12 60. Following the launch of the Government’s consultation proposals in November 2007 the Council, along with others, expressed fundamental concerns as to the nature and extent of the consultation. It therefore embarked upon its own public awareness and information campaign entitled “Say NO to Heathrow Expansion” to ensure all residents were able to make their views known to the Government. Working closely with NoTRAG and the 2M group of affected local authorities, this included:

• Comprehensive borough-wide publicity campaign to raise awareness of the consultation • Freepost postcard sent to over 100,000 local households across the borough to seek views on Heathrow expansion • Online poll and information resources on the council’s website • Exhibitions in council buildings, libraries and main reception • A major public meeting on 31st January at the Civic Centre • Close contact and regular meetings with NoTRAG and the 2M Group • Special 8-page feature edition of Hillingdon People – the council’s newsletter • Participation in a Greater London Authority evidentiary session on the matter • Series of regular TV, radio and news spots, locally, regionally and nationally • Youtube™ video highlighting the issue and campaign song by local band ‘Pig Earth’ • NoTRAG information stand in Uxbridge High Street.

61. Independent local events have also been initiated to highlight the Government consultation. This has included the local newspaper, Hillingdon Times, holding reporters’ surgeries in affected areas to gauge views. Schools have also been involved. Children at Warrender Primary School, Ruislip, took to the streets to gather information for a project on Heathrow Airport and how its expansion could affect the levels of noise and pollution in the borough.

Public support against Heathrow expansion

62. Whilst the Government consultation ends on 27th February, the Council has undertaken an analysis of the results received so far from its own resident’s postcard and online poll:

Residents Postcard No. of postcards returned 12,239 (as of 11/2/08) No. of those saying NO to 11,286 Heathrow expansion (92.2%) No. of those not opposed to the 953 expansion (7.8%) Online Poll – do you support Heathrow expansion? No. of hits 246 % YES 17.9% % NO 82.1%

The public meeting on 31st January was well attended with approximately 200 local residents along with Councillors, representatives from neighbouring local authorities and the 3 local Members of Parliament. The overwhelming majority were against further expansion at Heathrow.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 13 63. These results, along with local events that have taken place, clearly demonstrate the vast majority of residents from across the whole borough are against Heathrow expansion. As promised, the Council will send all the postcard response forms received from residents to the Department for Transport by the close of the consultation.

The Council’s stated policy on Heathrow Expansion

64. The Council has always benefited from the cross-party support from all Councillors and the three local Members of Parliament. To re-affirm its position on Heathrow expansion, a motion was submitted to a meeting of the full Council on 17th January 2008. The motion, clearly setting out the council’s policy, was adopted unanimously as follows:

‘The London Borough of Hillingdon reaffirms its absolute opposition to any further expansion at Heathrow Airport.

Council deeply regrets that the Department for Transport’s proposals for a third runway, sixth terminal and changes in runway and flight patterns will obliterate the village and community of Sipson and multiply the suffering for residents around Heathrow, particularly in Harmondsworth and Harlington, who are already subject to excessive amounts of disruption, noise and air pollution.

Furthermore, Council notes that new areas of the borough including the Uxbridge, Ruislip and Northwood areas will be affected bringing additional noise, traffic congestion and carbon emissions along with increased demand for development.

Council is also concerned at the fundamental flaws in the Department for Transport’s consultation process, which is both meaningless and clearly biased in favour of the airport’s growth.

Council therefore resolves to confront this unprecedented environmental and social threat working together with the 2M Group of neighbouring councils, the local action group NoTRAG, Members of Parliament and Councillors of all parties.’

Financial Implications

There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report beyond those previously provided for by Cabinet. Additional funding for the significant awareness and publicity work that NoTRAG have been undertaking will be provided from the Third Runway contingency fund as required and this is likely to be in the region of £5-10k at the present time.

For the future, the financial implications will depend on any further campaign expenditure and / or possible legal challenges.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

The recommendation seeks to prevent significant adverse environmental impacts on significant numbers of residents and businesses that would be directly affected by the proposed third runway.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 14

Consultation Carried Out or Required

The Council has undertaken significant borough-wide consultation and this is highlighted in paragraphs 56-59. A public meeting was held on 31 January and a number of informal meetings have been held between officers and residents and with surrounding authorities and stakeholder groups. The Department for Transport has undertaken its own consultation, referred to in this report, including a number of local exhibitions.

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Legal

The main purpose of this report is to formally agree the Council's response to the Government's consultation exercise on the expansion of Heathrow Airport.

A number of legal principles have evolved on the requirements of any consultation exercise and they were set out in the cases of R. v Brent LBC Ex p. Gunning (1985) and R. v Camden LBC Ex p. Cran (1996). Simply put any "process of consultation must be effective; looked as a whole, it must be fair. This requires that consultation must take place while proposals are still at a formative stage; those consulted must be provided with information which is accurate and sufficient to enable them to make a meaningful response; they must be given adequate time in which to do so; there must be adequate time for their responses to be considered; the consulting party must consider responses with a receptive mind and a conscientious manner when reaching its decision.”

It should however be noted that a decision making party is not bound to make a decision in accordance with the responses it receives.

It is open to the Council to respond to the consultation exercise along the lines set out in the body of the report if it believes this reflects the views of the local community.

The report then goes on to seek authority to explore the possibility of a legal challenge to the consultation exercise and / or its proposals. Such a challenge would be in the form of a Judicial Review. Such a challenge would not deal with the merits of expanding Heathrow Airport but rather the mechanics of the process in which public views have been sought and or the decisions subsequently taken by Government. As explained above a consultation should be in a form in which the people responding to the consultation can understand what they are being asked to comment on and the proposals should have been prepared correctly. If a Court can be persuaded that the consultation or subsequent decisions are unlawful then the outcome would be that the consultation would have to be repeated in a revised form.

It must be stressed that the Court will not make any decision on the merits of expanding Heathrow Airport. In law any such decision remains one for the Government to make. If the Council is advised that there are grounds for making a challenge any such challenge must be brought at the latest 3 months from the date of the decision which is being challenged and if at all possible sooner. The Council therefore has a limited amount of time, following the Government’s consideration of all the consultation responses, in which to make a decision as to whether to challenge.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 15 Relevant Service Groups

An effective cross-council approach in formulating the council’s response and public information and awareness campaign has been taken on this key issue affecting the borough and has been led by the Director of Planning and Community Services.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Adding Capacity at Heathrow Consultation Document, Department for Transport – November 2007. 14 background technical papers accompanying the consultation. The Future Development of Air Transport White Paper – December 2003. The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East – a National Consultation (Second Edition February 2003).

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 16 APPENDIX 1

CONSULTATION QUESTIONS AND PROPOSED RESPONSES

1. Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that a third runway at Heathrow, if built, should be supported by associated passenger terminal facilities? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations you believe need to be taken into account? If so, what are they?

Proposed response:

Disagree. The principle of the entire proposed development, including the associated passenger terminal, is wrong. It is unsustainable to site a major new runway, its terminal and associated infrastructure within Greater London.

It is not disputed that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed development are very severe particularly in terms of community destruction, noise and air safety risks for hundreds of thousands of residents of London. The impacts associated only with the proposed terminal are also severe. They involve a significant increase in dwellings demolished from around 260 (for the runway itself) to over 700. This requires the total demolition of the community of Sipson and the loss of extensive areas of Green Belt countryside which is highly valued within Greater London.

The SERAS consultation in the lead up to the 2003 Aviation White Paper considered the third runway in comparison with alternative runway options in the South East of England. Given the scale of the changes now proposed including the lengthened runway, the terminal, and extended airfield and ancillary development, a new assessment is required. This would need to compare the radically changed property demolitions and community impacts against those at other locations. The reassessment should also take into account the relevant findings of the ANASE study and accordingly give greater weight to the severe noise impacts of the third runway.

2. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s view on the continuing validity of the environmental conditions? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations you believe need to be taken into account? If so, what are they?

Proposed response:

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 17 Disagree Hillingdon strongly disagrees with the Government’s view on the continuing validity of the noise condition requiring no increase in the size of the 57 dB LAeq, 16h noise contour applying in year 2002. We consider the noise contour limit is neither appropriate nor adequate as a noise control.

The ANASE study recently confirmed that people’s sensitivity to aircraft noise has increased significantly since this was last investigated in the ANIS study 22 years ago. This finding is not disputed. On this basis, there needs to be a reassessment of air noise policy and of the Heathrow expansion noise condition set in the Aviation White Paper. Such a reassessment would inevitably set a more stringent noise condition for any expansion at Heathrow. Also, a new assessment of Heathrow expansion in comparison with other runways in the South East should be undertaken. Given that aircraft noise is a primary issue and that more residents are affected by aircraft noise at Heathrow than other potential runway sites (by a factor of at least 10), it is probable that Heathrow would not be judged the most sustainable option.

Even if a noise contour limit were considered appropriate, we consider it perverse to continue using the contour area from 2002 when the most recent available contour for 2006 has a smaller area. A significant reduction in contour area occurred between 2002 and 2006, largely due to the retirement of Concorde in 2003. This demonstrates that choice of the contour size in year 2002 is artificial and arbitrary.

Hillingdon considers it illogical to use a noise contour from year 2002 to determine expansion issues affecting noise levels over the next 25 years and beyond. The consequence of this is that the government would be denying people the benefits of the large reductions in noise levels which would be delivered by less noisy aircraft if there were no expansion of capacity.

The noise contour limit is not sensitive to a number of important noise issues. It does not cover noise in the night, and does not reflect the benefits of runway alternation. It ignores the noise protection provided by the Cranford agreement. It ignores airport ground noise and road traffic noise. Also, a noise limit in the form of an average mode LAeq,16h noise contour conceals large local noise impacts, such as large increases in aircraft noise in Hillingdon borough with a third runway. Furthermore, the noise contour totally ignores noise impact in areas outside the 57 dB LAeq,16h noise contour. The ANASE study suggests that there is significant community annoyance at lower noise levels, and this is consistent with reports of complaints about aircraft noise from areas outside the 57 dB noise contour.

For the above reasons, the Government is requested to review and revise its aircraft noise policy as matter of urgency.

Hillingdon believe that the DfT is moving the goal posts and not adhering to their own strict environmental test of meeting the EU emission limit levels for air pollution applicable from 2010. This is contrary to all their assertions. The consultation assumes that the UK Government has both applied for, and been granted, a derogation with regards to a 5 year extension to the EU limit. This would grant an extension to the compliance date from 2010 to 2015. Hillingdon

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 18 believe it is premature to assume this derogation will a) occur and b) be granted. This issue is still at negotiation stage in Europe and the proposal presented suggests that the derogation will only be granted in special circumstances.

Hillingdon will contest that the environmental condition that should be adhered to is the EU limit set for 2010 and not 2015. The Government has not put any specific plans in place to alleviate residents who will be exposed to levels above the limit in 2010 in areas around the airport even without any airport expansion. It is irresponsible, and could be deemed unlawful, to promote a substantial increase in emissions in an area where the current environmental limit cannot be met even in current conditions. It should be noted that the consultation document clearly states there will still be exceedences in 2015.

3. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s view on adding a third runway and being able to meet air quality limits without further measures? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations you believe need to be taken into account? If so, what are they?

Proposed response:

Disagree. The consultation quotes (Annex B para 5.47) one of the five principles of sustainable development ie Using Sound Science Responsibly as a means of “ensuring policy is developed and implemented on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into account scientific uncertainty (through the precautionary principle)”. Without sensitivity studies and a rigorous assessment of the uncertainties involved in the data inputs to the air quality model, Hillingdon contests that the Government has failed to meet this principle.

The Government is relying on major improvements in future technology, both in road vehicles and in aircraft, to bring about substantial reductions in emissions and hence air pollution levels. There has been no sensitivity analysis on the future technologies referred to in the document. Evidence from recent years suggests that the expected levels of reductions in emissions from vehicle technologies has not, in fact, been realised when these vehicles are in operation in the real world, as has been the case with previous euro emission standards. Hillingdon believes the Government cannot be confident in meeting the EU limit level as there have been no steps taken to assess how this sequence of events could impact on future air quality predictions as presented. This risks exposing people to levels of pollution above, what is a health-based, European standard. The Government has also not provided any means of control by which the air quality limit could be monitored. Without a robust, effective mechanism, with clear responsibilities and controls in place with appropriate legal powers, where applicable, clearly defined the Government cannot be confident that this environmental limit can be adequately controlled. Therefore without this crucial measure, Hillingdon advises that

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 19 Government cannot be confident that the EU limit will be met and maintained in future years

4. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s view that adding a third runway is achievable within the noise contour limit of 127 sq km, at the indicated levels of air traffic? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations you believe need to be taken into account? If so, what are they?

Proposed response:

Hillingdon disagrees with the Government’s view that adding a third runway can be achieved within the noise contour limit.

The noise predictions underlying the Government’s view are contained in ERCD report 0705. Predicting noise contours with a third runway in 2020 and 2030 is a complex process relying on a large number of assumptions relating to types of aircraft operating, numbers of movements of each aircraft type, noise emission levels from each type of aircraft, and aircraft flight paths. There will inevitably be errors in these assumptions when made so far into the future. For example, a large proportion of the aircraft types assumed to form part of the fleet mix in 2020 and 2030 are not yet in service, or even in production. It is therefore considered that the replacement programmes for existing aircraft and the level of reduction of noise emissions of future aircraft types are overly optimistic.

We note that the predicted contour areas in 2020 and 2030 are only 0.1 sq km and 13.7 sq km less than the noise condition contour area of 126.6 sq km in 2002. There is evidently no margin for error despite the inherent uncertainties in making the noise predictions. Hillingdon therefore has no confidence that the contour limit will be met. This concern is supported by the information on historical trends in aircraft noise source reduction in the ERCD report. This suggests that the main technological reductions in aircraft source noise levels have already been achieved, and that further technological improvements will only deliver small source noise reductions. For these reasons, Hillingdon is very sceptical that the noise contour limit can be met.

The other considerations we believe should be taken into account relate to the validity and adequacy of the noise contour limit. We have explained these concerns in our answer to question 2. Even if the noise contour limit were met, a third runway would have very serious adverse noise impacts in Hillingdon and other areas newly overflown by aircraft arriving at, and departing from, a third runway. Noise impacts would be worst in Hillingdon because this is where the third runway would be situated. Since the third runway would operate in mixed mode, there would be no noise respite periods (such as can be provided by runway alternation) with either departures or arrivals. Noise from night flights would increase with a third runway, since the ERCD report acknowledges that the third runway would provide an opportunity to increase night flights. Also, according to a supporting NATS report, there would be triple arrival streams in the

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 20 period 0600 to 0645 hrs. As well as increased air noise, Hillingdon would be adversely affected by new ground noise and road traffic noise sources.

We believe the proposal for a third runway contradicts the Government’s noise policy “to take all practicable steps to prevent any deterioration in the noise climate at Heathrow, and to continue to do everything practicable to improve it over time” (Aviation White Paper, 2003). With a third runway, Hillingdon and many other areas would experience a serious deterioration in nose climate. Also, with the addition of a third runway, the noise climate would not improve over time. The expected reductions in future aircraft source noise levels should not be used to create “headroom” for a third runway. Addition of a third runway would also lead to a breach of the 480,000 ATM limit which the Terminal 5 Inspector considered essential to protect the noise climate.

It is Hillingdon’s case that current noise impacts from Heathrow are unacceptable. The addition of a third runway would seriously worsen the noise impact in Hillingdon and many other areas, resulting in seriously harm to the quality of life of a large number of people.

A third runway must be ruled out on noise grounds.

5. & 6. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s view that mixed mode operations could be introduced within the noise limits set out in the White Paper? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations you believe need to be taken into account? If so, what are they? To what extent would you support the introduction of mixed mode operations: a) throughout the day? b) limited to specific hours (if so, would you support mixed mode between 0600 and 1200 hours? Some other period? (please specify) c) within the current planning cap (i.e. with no extra capacity overall)? If you support additional movements, in what periods of the day do you think they should be provided? What are your reasons for these answers? Are there any significant considerations you believe need to be taken into account? If so, what are they? Please provide evidence where you can (e.g. environmental impacts, business

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 21 benefits).

Proposed response:

Hillingdon disagree with the Government’s view that full mixed mode operations could be introduced within the noise contour limit.

The noise contour predictions for mixed mode operations contained in the consultation document relate to full mixed mode with 540,000 ATMs in years 2015 and 2030. Our answer to question 4 above explains our doubts about the reliability of noise contour predictions projected so far into the future. Our main concern is that the replacement programme for existing aircraft and the level of source noise reduction for future aircraft types are overly optimistic. We also note that the predicted noise contour area for 2015 with full mixed mode is 125.5 sq km, which is only 1.1 sq km within the contour limit area of 126.6 sq km in 2002.

For these reasons, Hillingdon is sceptical that the noise contour limit can be met with full mixed mode operation at 540,000 ATMs. We do, however, accept that mixed mode operation with no increase in aircraft movements may meet the noise contour limit. This is because changing from existing segregated mode operation with alteration on westerlies, to mixed mode operation (without a movements increase), would have relatively minor effects on overall contour area.

With mixed mode operation, the current half-day noise respite periods provided by runway alternation would be lost. This represents a serious deterioration in the noise climate affecting large populated areas. With mixed mode operation, the Cranford agreement would be ended, and there would be easterly departures from the north runway. We have explained the serious noise impact of such departures in our answer below to question 9. We are strongly of the opinion that noise impacts in Longford and Cranford Cross would be so severe that easterly departures from the north runway must never be permitted. It follows that we consider mixed mode operation involving such departures should also be not be permitted. With mixed mode operation, compliance with Continuous Descent Approach would be greatly reduced, and aircraft approaching the southern runway would be held at a lower altitude.

Hillingdon believe the proposal for mixed mode operations contradict the Government’s noise policy (stated above in our answer to question 4). Thus, introducing mixed mode operation would constitute both a deterioration in noise climate, and would not improve noise climate over time. Full mixed mode operation at 540,000 ATMs would also breach the 480,000 ATMs limit which the Terminal 5 Inspector considered essential to protect the noise climate.

The noise impact with mixed mode throughout the day would constitute a worse noise impact than if limited to specific hours. Similarly, mixed mode operation exceeding the 480,000 ATM limit would have a worse noise impact than mixed

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 22 mode operation within the ATM limit. Nevertheless, we are totally opposed to the introduction of mixed mode operation, whether it be (a) throughout the day, (b) limited to specific hours, or (c) within the current planning cap. Our main reason is the unacceptable noise impact with easterly departures from the north runway.

7. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s view that full mixed mode operations could be introduced by 2015 and be compatible with compliance with the air quality limits in the vicinity of the airport? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations you believe need to be taken into account? If so, what are they?

Proposed response:

Hillingdon totally disagrees. Table 12 of the consultation clearly shows that in 2015 there will be exceedences of the EU limit even under current operations. Full mixed mode in the 2015 expansion option causes further exceedances of the EU limit value at relevant receptors. The operation of mixed mode, in itself, also increases concentrations to the north-west of the airport in the residential area of Longford. Hillingdon therefore asks Government to discount mixed mode both as an operational measure within the current cap or as a means to increase capacity.

Hillingdon also considers the Government is mis-applying the EU limit value in this question. As it currently stands, the EU limit must be met in 2010. Any derogation for a 5 year extension is still to be negotiated in Europe and there will be strict guidelines as to where it can be applied. Hillingdon believes that the area around Heathrow, with plans being promoted to substantially increase emissions at relevant receptors, is contrary to the EU air quality legislative framework for the granting of derogations and will therefore be in breach of EU law in 2010.

8. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s views on retaining westerly preference? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations you believe need to be taken into account? If so, what are they?

Proposed response:

Agree. The Government’s provisional view that there are no strong grounds for disturbing the current practice of westerly preference is accepted. Retention of westerly preference is supported.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 23 The ending of westerly preference would cause increases in nitrogen dioxide concentrations to the north-west of the airport in the residential area of Longford. Hillingdon notes that modelling shows that ending westerly preference would have some benefit in terms of reducing NO2 concentrations in some areas, but that this is not critical to achieving air quality limits. We have also noted the results of the review of westerly preference carried out by ERCD. This shows that increasing the proportion of easterly operations generally results in an increase in the population exposed within most noise contours, particularly the 57 dB contour. This is because of the higher population density to the east of the airport. It is also noted that switching to an easterly preference would similarly increase populations affected with mixed mode operation and with third runway. For these reasons, Hillingdon supports retention of westerly preference.

The indicative departures routes from a third runaway suggest that easterly departures from a third runway would have a much greater noise impact than westerly departures from a third runway. This is because easterly departures from a third runway would pass over densely populated areas of Hillingdon and neighbouring boroughs to the north and east of the third runway. This is another reason for our support for retention of westerly preference.

9. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s proposal to end the Cranford agreement? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations you believe need to be taken into account? If so, what are they?

Proposed response:

Disagree. Hillingdon is strongly opposed to ending the Cranford agreement.

Longford would be seriously affected by noise from aircraft departing easterly from the north runway because its residential areas are so close to the north runway. Longford is very much nearer to the adjacent 09L runway threshold than is any other residential area to the three other runway thresholds (09R, 27L and 27R). The start-of-roll component of departure noise with a succession of departures would be intolerable in Longford. Longford would also be affected by taxiing noise from taxiing and queuing aircraft departing easterly from the north runway. Residential areas in Cranford Cross and Cranford would also be seriously affected by noise from easterly departures from the north runway.

Hillingdon recognise that ending the Cranford agreement would have some benefits in low noise exposure areas by allowing easterly arrivals on the south runway and redistributing some arrivals noise more fairly. However, Hillingdon is strongly of the opinion that noise impacts in the high noise exposure areas of Longford and Cranford Cross would be so severe that easterly departures from the north runway must never be permitted. Retention of the Cranford agreement is therefore considered essential.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 24 The Cranford Agreement scenario in 2015 compared with segregated mode in 2015 predicts increases of over 2ug/m3 nitrogen dioxide at receptors in Longford. This increase is unacceptable.

10. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s views on continuing night time rotation? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations you believe need to be taken into account? If so, what are they?

Proposed response:

Agree. Hillingdon agrees with the Government’s view that the practice of rotating westerly and easterly preference at night should be retained.

Hillingdon have noted the analysis showing a significant reduction in flights operating under westerlies under the current system of weekly night rotation, compared with the previous system of westerly preference. We acknowledge that noise impact from aircraft in the relevant part of the night relates to arrivals since there are no scheduled departures at this time, and that noise from westerly arrivals affects densely populated areas east of the airport. We therefore recognise that the practice of weekly night time rotation between westerly and easterly preference is beneficial in giving the more densely populated areas to the east of the airport some relief from noise of aircraft landing at night.

Hillingdon’s main concern with this proposal is that it assumes continued flights in the night period. Hillingdon believe that night flights cause serious and widespread noise disturbance to residents harming their health and long-term wellbeing. It should be a long-term objective to end flights in the night period (2300-0700 hrs).

11. Do you agree or disagree with the Government’s views on continuing runway alternation in the 0600 to 0700 period? What are your reasons? Are there any significant considerations you believe need to be taken into account? If so, what are they?

Proposed response:

Hillingdon agrees with the Government’s view that the trial of alternating the two existing runways for arrivals in the 0600 to 0700 period should be continued on a permanent basis. We recognise that the system of early morning runway alternation is beneficial in providing areas affected by arrivals noise with days of relief during all or part of the period 0600 to 0700.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 25 Over the two years of the trial, full alternation was achieved on only 13% of days in the period 0600 to 0629, and 26% of days in the period 0630 to 0700. It is reported that the low rates of compliance were caused by the frequent need to use a second runway to avoid delays with arrivals. Nevertheless, with such low rates of compliance, there must be concern about the effectiveness of the proposal.

Hillingdon’s main concern with this proposal is that it assumes continued flights in the night period. Hillingdon believe that night flights cause serious and widespread noise disturbance to residents, and there should be a long-term aim to end flights in the night period (2300-0700 hrs).

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 26 REVIEW OF OLDER PEOPLE’S PLAN 2008-2011 ITEM 3

Cabinet Member Cllr Philip Corthorne

Cabinet Portfolio Social Services, Health and Housing

Officer Contact Phillip Sharpe, Adult Social Care, Health and Housing

Papers with report Older People’s Plan 2008-2011

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report This report outlines the development of a new multi-agency, Council plan for older people for 2008-2011

Contribution to our The older people’s plan assists the Council and its partners in plans and strategies meeting the requirements of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) and in delivering the Community Strategy in further improving services to older people in Hillingdon

Financial Cost N/A

Relevant Policy Social Services Health and Housing Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet

1. Approve the draft older people’s plan for wider consultation. 2. Agree to the Plan being further developed and brought to April's Cabinet with an Action Plan for approval.

INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

1. The 3 year older people’s plan will ensure that the Council and its partners continues to develop and improve its services to create a better quality of life for older people in Hillingdon. The plan, which will link to other cross departmental strategies, will also assist the Council in meeting the requirements of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment and in delivering the Community Strategy.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 27

Alternative options considered

None considered

Supporting Information

2. The Older People’s Plan was originally launched on the 3rd October 2005 by the Leader of the Council, Cllr Ray Puddifoot and approved by Cabinet in November 2005. It was developed in partnership with older people together with a wide range of partners including the PCT, Hillingdon Hospital, the voluntary sector, Police, Ambulance Service and Fire Brigade, to improve services for older people in the borough and to promote active ageing in Hillingdon.

3. A 3 year action plan has been monitored by an interagency group consisting of officers from all council departments, the PCT, the voluntary sector and older people and carers. The group is chaired by the Champion for Older People, Cllr Ray Puddifoot.

4. The plan has proved to be very popular with older people in Hillingdon who have been involved in its implementation and monitoring via the inter agency group outlined above, the Older People’s Assembly, FORCE (Fifty and over representative committee) and workshops held specifically to obtain their views.

5. The overall aim of the plan has been to improve cross council services to older people in Hillingdon and ensure there is an on going dialogue with them so that they are fully involved and participating in service planning and delivery.

6. Following Cabinet’s agreement the multi agency implementation group has drafted a new plan for the period 2008-2011 in consultation with older people. Once this draft plan has been approved by Cabinet a draft action plan will be developed and brought to April’s Cabinet for approval

Financial Implications

7. The majority of proposals will be financed from within existing resources. However, some will require additional funding, the proposals for which are included in the budget report which is being considered elsewhere on the agenda.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendation?

8. The launch of the current plan was widely welcomed by older people as positively raising their value and profile and as an opportunity to improve the lives of older people in the community. The new plan will develop and expand this work.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

9. The Older People's Plan and Action Plan are working documents. Regular consultation will take place about the plan through the Older People's Assemblies’ and workshops with older people in the autumn. Any future priorities identified will be presented to the Implementation Group for inclusion in the Action Plan.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 28 CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

Corporate Finance has reviewed this report and the financial implications within it and considers that it properly reflect the implications on Council resources as a whole.

Legal

There are no legal implications contained in this report.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Older People’s Plan 2005-2008

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 29 Appendix DRAFT1/23.1.08

Hillingdon Council’s Plan for Older People 2008 - 2011

Improving the quality of life for our older residents

February 2008

Page 30 Forword – By the Older People’s Champion In Hillingdon the 2005-08 Older People’s Plan has For the past three years I raised the profile of older have been working closely people. It has provided with older people in the roots for positive Hillingdon to find out what evolution and older people a better Hillingdon will are now actively involved mean for them and how in service planning and the council can champion delivery across the whole their ideas. council.

Getting older is a natural This new Plan will part of life and does not concentrate on tackling mean people are less age discrimination, helping creative or active. Indeed older people back into quite the opposite. For work if that is what they example, in Hillingdon want, offering options and older people are having a advice on the direct involvement in opportunities that can be making access to public achieved through transport easier for older retirement. This can passengers; involvement mean volunteering and in the design of new sharing skills, keeping fit buildings; making the most and healthy, or simply of parks and green sharing your experiences spaces; helping out at with others, particularly local police stations with younger people. admin tasks; becoming street champions and The next step is to build watching out for those on our previous success. people who are more We will encourage our vulnerable in the health partners, the neighbourhood and voluntary sector and local alerting the Safer businesses to continue to Neighbourhood Teams be more involved in where necessary. making Hillingdon a place

Page31 of ‘excellence’ for older The Older People’s people, and I intend to Champion, Cllr Ray work with my fellow Puddifoot has overseen councillors towards this the action plan and goal. ensured results. You can read some of the key achievements at the back Cllr Ray Puddifoot, of this Plan. Leader of the Council

Introduction For each of the past three This plan for 2008-2011 years, The Leader of the takes our aims for older Council has made people a step further. £250,000 available to Although it still identifies improve facilities in the what the council can do community for older directly or indirectly people and those with through its influence with disabilities. others to improve life for older people, it seeks to Hillingdon has also led the give them the opportunity way in recognising that to make changes for older people can find it themselves which will difficult to meet every day improve their health, well- financial demands. The being and happiness. Leader has therefore also been instrumental in Over the last three years, reducing council tax by every council department, 2% for people 65+ and health services, voluntary recently announced a sector and other partners freeze for 3 years on like the Police, Transport council tax increases for for London etc have that group. This of worked to improve life for course relates to the older people in Hillingdon. Hillingdon element of council tax only.

Page32 The themes for this Plan 2. Preventative care for Older People, are 3. Keeping linked to The Council Plan independent and 2007 - 2010, which healthy (3a Keeping continues the council’s independent and 3b ‘vision’ for the future of Keeping healthy) Hillingdon’s communities. 4. Tackling age The seven key areas of discrimination this vision are: 5. Planning for • A borough of Retirement learning and 6. Housing culture 7. Learning and • A safe borough sharing skills • A clean and 8. Consulting and attractive informing borough • A borough with This format previously improving health, provided a convenient way housing and of organising what we social care need to do. For example, • A prosperous it stands to reason that borough feeling secure and staying • A borough where healthy does promote opportunities are getting out and about and open to all achieving an active life. • A borough where children and It is also true that many young people are things determine our healthy, safe and health and quality of life. supported This new plan therefore picks up on where the Under these themes this other one left off but at the Plan for Older People same time seeks to proposes the following involve our partners much areas for action: more actively, particularly around providing services 1. Safety and security in the community.

Page33 physical activity, good diet, mental stimulus, It centres upon: good quality housing, health care, employment • Issues for older and enjoyment people opportunities. • What the council and its partners We have extended our want to do health promotion to • What we are children, young people doing now and those who will • What we will do become the next in 2008-2011 generation of 50+. We are talking to people Yes its true. People are regularly about the saying that 60 is the new services they receive in 40, 50 the new 30 and so Hillingdon, regardless of on! who is providing the service and we aim to Our society is changing. make continual People are living longer, improvements. We want demanding better people to remain as healthcare, higher healthy as possible and to standards, and the future enjoy the many will be challenging for opportunities of life. health, social care and community providers. For many, old age has Some facts and figures become a state of mind for Hillingdon from the rather than a fixed Office for National chronological point. Statistics (ONS) 2001 Census The foundations for a good, healthy old age do The number of people in not really change. They Hillingdon aged 65 and are laid out through life over is projected to reach events and depend on 41,300 by the year 2025 and the total population

Page34 aged 75 and over that leads to the need for predicted to live alone is assistance. 9,336. Total population aged 65 and over Older people themselves providing unpaid care to a argue strongly for a partner, family member or change in attitudes other person is projected towards ageing and they at 4,811 by 2025 and welcome services which those people with a mean that they can limiting long-term illness at continue to live 18,571. independently at home, stay active and enjoy life 79.1% of Hillingdon’s with their families and population is white friends. 20.9% from black minority ethnic communities. There are still inequalities and discrimination across We all continue to face the agencies and within challenge of making society generally, despite Hillingdon a good place for legislation and codes of all older people to practice. This Plan will continue living in the seek to tackle those community. inequalities and discrimination. We know the 2001 census under represents the The Older People’s numbers of people in Assembly and Hillingdon these groups. Year on People have provided an year we are responding to excellent platform for a much greater proportion ensuring equality around of people with both high communication and and low level needs. consultation. With our partners, this is something We know that ageing is we will want to build on. simply a process. It is disability or frailty, not age, As we have said earlier, older people have told us

Page35 that the main issues for CCTV have gone a long them are: way to making older people feel safer on the 1 Safety and security. streets, they still feel 2 Preventive Care vulnerable on the streets (Care that helps in the evening, mostly people live at from groups of youths. home) 3 Keeping Older people are also at independent and risk from those using healthy (3a Keeping deception to enter their independent and 3b homes and steal from Keeping healthy) them, or trick them into 4 Tackling age making payments. discrimination 5 Planning for Additionally, anti-social Retirement behaviour on the buses is 6 Housing a cause of great anxiety 7 Learning and and may contribute to sharing skills older people not going out. 8 Being consulted and having What the council and its accurate and clear partners want to do information Encourage older people to And we now set out the talk to their Safer aims of this Plan in Neighbourhood Team, response to those and to use them to identify issues: the most vulnerable people in the community. 1. Safety and Security Continue to use Hillingdon Issues for older people: People and the press to warn people about bogus Although the Safer callers and ensure an Neighbourhood Teams, increase in the number of community policing and

Page36 security and personal We will ensure that older alarms. people know who to contact and talk to if they What we are doing now suspect or fear a crime.

We have made great Continue to work with the progress in increasing the police, Transport for confidence of older people London and others to and reducing both the fear maintain a strong of crime and the chances community police of them becoming victims. presence both on the streets and on public Our previous plan has transport. produced some positive results, and we will Develop initiatives for continue to consult with dealing with groups of older people annually to youths causing anti-social find out what else we can behaviour and racial do. harassment.

Hillingdon has a well We will continue to use established alarm service, Hillingdon People and the CareLine, enabling older press to warn people people to quickly get help about bogus callers and The Age Concern ensure an increase in the Handyperson Service and number of security and Frays Care and Repair personal alarms. Service can help with upgrading home security. Ensure people know how to report anti-social What the council and its behaviour and racial partners will do in 2008- harassment and address 2011 the fear of repercussions. We will continue to reduce the fear of crime and the Increase free home chances of older people security for identified older becoming victims. vulnerable people.

Page37 initiatives to tackle the Explore the use of gated problem of alleyways to prevent the adult abuse. mis-use of these areas by groups of youths or 2. Preventative Care others. (Care that helps people to continue Ensure there is adequate living at home and lighting in areas identified prevents the need for as being unsafe. hospital admission) Issues for older **Comments to come people please from Fire Brigade Older people say that they want to live active Work with Green Spaces and healthy lives in the Team and the Police to community. provide a rapid response to anti-social behaviour in This includes those parks and green spaces. people who may have dementia and need Provide schemes that extra care. break down the barriers between young and older If people need people. residential, nursing or home care, they want to More targeted crime be treated with dignity prevention messages for and respect. It should older people, including be remembered that highlighting ‘safe they have contributed shopping’. much during their lives and this should be Promote awareness of paramount in customer Safeguarding Adults care training. across the borough and with our partners continue What the council and to develop further its partners want to do

Page38 We want to continue to them for social involve older people in engagement and community activities befriending. that they enjoy. We want them to participate We are helping with and create community new equipment and activities in the facilities that will attract community. greater use of these clubs. We also want to We will encourage them see them used by older to take up healthy and people who are less social activities that able. prevent isolation and promote good mental We have introduced health. We will drop in centres for therefore assist their people with dementia participation in and a Telecare scheme community activities. to assist their health and welfare at home. Older people say they enjoy walking, dancing, To support the need for swimming, exercise, dignity in care, we are sex etc and this can all strengthening our add to a healthy heart, contract monitoring body and well-being. arrangements to ensure We want older people quality standards, to enjoy life. including end of life care.

What we are doing Increasing choice and now options through Direct Payments, which mean We are improving the you can buy your own facilities at care or aids and Dining/Lunch Clubs and equipment. will seek to encourage older people to use

Page39 We are working with To achieve this we will Healthy Hillingdon, also introduce a Parks and Green scheme within our Spaces and Leisure sheltered housing Services to ensure that which provides a there is a programme computer and the for healthy living to suit training to use it. all older people. The library services We want older people offer a wide range of to enjoy walking and free access to books, dancing in the parks, films, music, computers using health and fitness and a talking book facilities that suit them service for the visually and having good impaired. They will nutritious meals that also deliver to people provide energy and look who are housebound, good enough to eat. and there is a mobile library service where it Improving accessible may be difficult to transport so that older access a branch library. people can socialise in the evenings without What we will do in fear and caution. 2008-2011

We are encouraging To increase the use of older people to learn to computers amongst use computers and older people, we will websites, through Adult also introduce a Education and the scheme within our Libraries. This will sheltered housing help them to which provides a communicate with each computer and the other and link them to training to use. information networks We will introduce a single point of access

Page40 for health and social Issues for older care services so that people: older people only have to give their details Older people say that once. they want to be independent. Increase opportunities for older people to But, keeping attend lunch and social independent is clubs and take part in sometimes easier said befriending and healthy than done. Poor health activities. and frailty make it difficult for them to Continue the healthy cook, clean and shop. walks programme and Loss of work and encourage older people friends, and distance to become ‘walk from families, can limit leaders’. social contact. Confidence can be lost, We have already seen sometimes with an excellent response depression and anxiety to Age Concern’s as added problems. volunteer recruitment All of this can lead to ill drive, and police health. volunteers. We will continue to develop There is still an opportunities for older assumption that people to use their skills residential care is the and experience in the only safe place for community. people as they get older because they worry that 3. Keeping they are becoming a independent and burden. healthy 3(a) (Keeping What the council and independent its partners want to do

Page41 We will seek to inform residential care, and older people, their recognise that carers and relatives of achieving this depends alternatives to on moving more residential care. resources into intensive home and community Our aim is that older support. people should live as independently as We know that there will possible in the always be some older community. To make people who need and that happen, we will want to live in work with our health residential care. services partners to tackle the difficulties We will ensure that that arise through frailty, people are treated with poor physical and dignity whether they are mental health, and receiving care at home through poverty and or in residential care. social isolation. What we are doing We will work with GPs now to ensure that older people diagnosed with Increasing the mental health problems opportunity for older have access to people to return home treatments and after being in hospital therapies, supporting by providing extra care, an early intervention home care, model. rehabilitation and intermediate care at the **Comments from PCT point of discharge. on improved partnership working **Comments from Hospital Trusts on We want fewer older improved partnership people to go into working

Page42 What we will do in 2008- Providing a rapid 2011 response service for people being cared for We will continue to at home. develop partnership working between hospital **Comments to come trusts, mental health units please from PCT and other agencies for older people with mental Developing plans to health problems. extend sheltered housing into We will explore the use of the private sector. telehealth with our partners. To prevent anxiety, depression and ill health We will offer real we have introduced a alternatives to institutional housework, gardening and care for older people with help in hand scheme. mental health problems.

Offering Telecare, a new Extend the number of drop technology, as a greater ins at sheltered housing opportunity for people with complexes for people with dementia and Dementia. degenerative illness to live inter-dependent lives in Extend sheltered housing the community. to the private sector.

Providing home based 3. Keeping independent emergency replacement and healthy care to provide cover for (3b Keeping healthy unpaid carers who, for (Issues for older reasons of an emergency people) or personal crisis are Everyone wants to stay unable to care for a short healthy. period.

Page43 This is something which older people and the can start well before risk needs to be people become older reduced. and involves improving the lifestyles of both What the council and older and younger its partners want to do people alike. **Comments to come We all know that the please from Healthy prevention of cancers, Hillingdon heart disease, strokes, diabetes and serious Ensure people have respiratory illness all clear details of how to depend on taking action access services, as early as possible. community and leisure But, it is never too late. services, and how you Exercise, healthy eating can engage in healthy and stopping smoking activities. all have major benefits for older people. **Comments to come please from Voluntary Older people need to sector have their health needs taken seriously and Assist the voluntary have their mental and sector in recognition of physical health closely their key position monitored. They need providing health people to take into promotion and account the difficulties activities. that arise from lack of mobility, changes in We will ensure that mental capacity, and carers are part of the deterioration of sight process and they have and hearing. Falling is the opportunity to one of the most participate in healthy common causes of and leisure activities. hospital treatment for

Page44 What we are doing ** Comments to come now please from Pharmacies

**Comments to come What we will do in 2008- please from Healthy 2011 Hillingdon Encourage older people to Improving access to act as Team Walkers and sports, exercise and increase the Healthy leisure activities. Re- Walks activities. launch of Leisure Link Scheme with Work with older people on concessionary rates. healthy eating programmes to reduce Reproduced the 50+ obesity. activities Leaflet and re- launched the Leisure Link Arrange training sessions Scheme. for older people on ‘cooking for health’. Encouraging older people Work with local community to become ‘walk leaders’. facilities to offer keep fit sessions and club Developing a new Toe concessions to older Nail clipping Service to people. assist the Chiropody Services and help people Complete work on the to remain mobile. new Hayes and Uxbridge Health Centre ** Comments to come facilities and ensure please from the PCT that older people are about the GP well being involved in the project. checks. 4. Tackling Age ** Comments to come Discrimination please from the Ambulance Service. This is a much talked about subject and older

Page45 people feel that there is What we are doing still discrimination now around services, for example insurance. We are including this information on What the council and volunteering as a ‘Life its partners want to do Changes’ project on the Hillingdon Council Ensure there is equality website. Through for older people and Hillingdon People we challenge age will let you know when it discrimination wherever goes ‘live’. it has occurred. It includes: **Comments to come please from Hospitals, * Health and well-being PCT and local * Learning businesses * Employment * About Pensions 5. Planning for * Motoring and transport retirement * Housing (Issues for older * Retirement people) entitlements Most older people tell * A new lifestyle us that they want to put * Working after something back into the retirement community when they * Care approach retirement. *Dealing with crime The want to continue *Dealing with death working, either for payment or in a 6. Housing voluntary capacity. (Issues for older They also want to know people) what else is available for them. Research has shown that older people would prefer to live in extra

Page46 care housing given the ** Housing comments choice between that please and residential care. We want to ensure that Older people who are there is sufficient owner occupiers tell us accommodation that they face difficulties suitable to meet the in maintaining their needs of all older homes, particularly people living in where the ‘live in’ family Hillingdon. has left and the house is too large for them. We want older people to: Where people rent privately, some • Feel secure and landlords are reluctant comfortable in the to carry out home in which improvements. they live. • Have a choice Older people are more about where they susceptible to cold and live. damp. • Have access to improvements and Difficulties arise with adaptations so accommodation and they are able to particularly the stairs. continue living in their home. There is a lack of housing which is • Contribute to adapted to meet the housing needs of older people developments and with mental health neighbourhoods. problems. What we are doing What the council and now its partners want to do

Page47 Increasing disabled secure. This includes facilities grants, repair, meeting the law on heating grants and Domestic Violence. ensuring energy saving grants are provided to What the council and older/vulnerable people. our partners wants to do in 2008-2011 Developed 30 new housing units for older We will continue to talk people at Lady Craig to older people about Court in Hillingdon. the types of housing they want, for example, Introduced a Homes blocks of housing just Release reward scheme. for older people or This means that a reward mixed tenancies with is given for releasing a both older and younger larger council home for a people living in the smaller one. same community. This helps to provide a smaller home for some Older people are one of older people and provide a three key priorities for family home for those with the Supporting People young families. Programme and we will continue to fund We have continued to housing related support improve the security and services in sheltered warmth of council homes housing schemes. and are working towards completing the standards We will work with the in the Government paper - police and other “Decent Homes” across partners to reduce Hillingdon Homes. racial and other harassment We are enforcing experienced by older private landlords to people in their own make the homes they homes. rent out safe and .

Page48 7. Learning and people who do not sharing skills speak English. Issues for older people Libraries to complete

Older people do not 8. Consulting and want to stop learning informing new techniques, skills Issues for older and improve their people knowledge. What the council and its What the council and Older people want to be its partners want to do able to express their in 208-2011 views on both local and national issues which We want to encourage affect their daily lives. older people to learn new skills as well as They say they want sharing their wealth of clear, accurate and experience with timely information. younger people. They want answers to We will develop a their questions whether scheme within sheltered it be a “Yes” or a “No”. housing schemes which gives residents the What the council and opportunity of using its partners want to do computers to communicate with their We will continue to family and friends and improve the way and gain new knowledge means we use to inform and skills. and consult with older people so that they may We will expand the use all have a ‘direct’ voice of libraries to include and enjoy working with language classes for us.

Page49 What we are doing • The gardening, now housework and shopping service At a workshop in • A range of social November 2007 and and community following a recent activities, including survey, older people arts, exercise and identified the following dance. priorities for them: These priorities have • The Older been incorporated into People’s Assembly the Older People’s Plan and the and The Leader’s opportunity to Initiative. “have their say”. • The support of the We will continue to Older People’s support the Older Champion. People’s Assembly and • Public toilets its steering group • Suitable resting FORCE. areas in parks and on streets • Dropped kerbs Continue to support • Dining centres and other forums that offer a lunch clubs that direct voice to older offer social and people. befriending activities Developed a method • Street lighting which enables the • Road safety housebound, those in • Pavement repairs residential care and hard to reach groups to • Sports and have their say. exercise During the last three equipment years we have worked • Using computers with older people on the 2005-2008 Plan and

Page50 this has proved a We will improve the way successful partnership. and means we use to (Please see some of inform older people, so the achievements at the that they may all have a end of this Plan – ‘direct’ voice and enjoy (Appendix 1) working with us.

We have produced a Seek to use the directory of Care council’s website for Homes. useful video information, particularly What we will do in 2008- around consumer 2011 protection, community safety etc . Implement this new Plan in consultation Again, we will consult with older people and with older people about our partners and we will this plan and how well it ensure that any actions is being delivered, and not yet completed in the about how it may need 2005-2008 Plan will be to change over time. carried forward to the action plan for 2008- We will continue to seek 2011. to develop access to the Older People’s Continue to ensure that Assembly through all older people are telephone conferencing consulted and involved and other methods in the running of their such as face to face services in Hillingdon. meetings with small groups. We will ensure that the way we consult makes Help older people to it easy for them to use the website. contribute. Continue to use and improve Hillingdon

Page51 People to inform and involve older people.

Survey how we are doing through Hillingdon People.

Use advocates for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Conclusion This Plan seeks to build on the success of the 2008-2011 Plan for Older People which achieved good cross- council and partnership working.

We welcome and thank the involvement of The Champion for Older People, and older people themselves in making the 2005-2008 Plan a success and model for the future.

Appendix 1

Page52 Here are some of the worked to improve life for key achievements older people in Hillingdon. from the 2005-08 Plan: The Older People’s Over the past three Champion, Cllr Ray years, The Leader of Puddifoot has overseen the Council has also the action plan and made £250,000 ensured results. This available to improve ‘introduction’ starts by facilities in the listing some of the key community for older actions that have been people and those with achieved. disabilities. They are: Hillingdon has also led the way in recognising Safe and Secure that older people can * 22 Safer Neighbourhood find it difficult to meet Teams. every day financial demands. day financial * Street Champions. demands. The Leader has also been * Increasing the number of instrumental in reducing homes with security council tax by 2% for measures attached to the people 65+ and recently shell of the building. announced a freeze for 3 years on council tax * 2500 personal alums increases for you. This distributed in 2007/08. of course refers to the Hillingdon element only. * Free home security for identified older vulnerable Over the last three years, people. every council department, health services, voluntary * 85 older volunteers sector and other partners assisting at police stations like the police, Transport on community safety for London etc have projects.

Page53 U2, 331 and 282 * A reduction in the completed. On-going numbers of 65s who are programme. concerned about crime and anti-social behaviour. * A new Shopping Service using an adapted car and Out and about bus.

* Re-opening of the public Independent Living toilets in Hayes and Ruislip and 14 other sites * Increased the identified for user friendly opportunity of older people ‘superloos’, tested and to return home after being approved by older people. in hospital.

* 100% of highway * A rapid response service inspections completed and for people being cared for a reduction in street and at home. transport hazards. * Drop ins at two sheltered * An improvement in housing complexes for controlled crossings. people with Dementia.

* Priority sites identified for * 160 extra care units in improved lighting. sheltered housing accommodation. * More seating and street furniture. * Plans to extend sheltered housing to the * The introduction of a private sector. brown badge parking scheme for the 65+. * Housework, gardening and help in hand * Implemented a schemes. programme to improve access to public transport * Telecare project helping easier. Inspection of U4, people who suffer from

Page54 Dementia to remain living at home. Now being * More older people using extended to people at risk computers and the of falls. website.

* 288 older people * Cabinet ‘Question Time’ supported and prevented Sessions answering your from hospital re- specific questions. admission. * On-going Older People’s 140 Disabled facilities Assemblies and grants and 500 repair, workshops. heating and energy grants. Staying healthy

Housing Needs * Improved access to sports, exercise and * 30 new housing units for leisure activities. Re- older people at Lady launch of Leisure Link Craig Court in Hillingdon. Scheme with concessionary rates. * Homes release reward scheme – a reward given * More use of parks and for releasing a larger green spaces – tea council home for a smaller dances in the park for one. example.

Involved and * Older people doing the Participating walks of discovery and 500 using the library * Increasing the active programmes. opportunity for older people to attend lunch * Joint health and social clubs. care ‘Heatwave’, ‘Keep Warm. Keep Well’ and Flu * 208 volunteers recruited campaigns. through Age Concern.

Page55 * Development of a new Hillingdon has also led the Toe Nail clipping Service way in recognising that for older people who do older people can find it not meet the NHS criteria. difficult to meet every day financial demands. The * Developing a website Leader has also been which illustrates the instrumental in reducing opportunities of “Life council tax by 2% for Changes”. people 65+ and recently announced a freeze for 3 Reducing Age years on council tax Discrimination increases for you. This of course relates to the * All council policies have Hillingdon element of been reviewed. council tax only.

Consulting and Informing

* Older people are now involved in planning PS/BV/23.1.08 applications and highway improvements which affect their daily lives, prior to the release of funding.

* People who are housebound or in residential care now have access to the Older People’s Assembly.

* Regular articles in Hillingdon People specifically for older people.

Page56 ENHANCING MEMBERS’ PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT ITEM 4 IN THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON

Cabinet Member Councillor Douglas Mills

Cabinet Portfolio Improvement, Partnerships and Community Safety

Officer Contact Johanna Michalski

Papers with report Appendix 1 - Report prepared by the Member Development Working Group Appendix 2 - Members’ Personal Development Folder (circulated separately to Members)

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report To seek adoption of the recommendations made by Corporate Services and Partnerships Policy Overview Committee on the report presented to them by the Member Development Working Group.

Contribution to our The Council supports development at all levels and achievement plans and strategies of Charter status would bring external recognition for the work we do and would enhance the Council’s reputation.

Financial Cost It has been estimated that £30k will be required to ensure that adequate member personal development can be delivered.

Relevant Policy Corporate Services & Partnerships Policy Overview Committee Overview Committee

Ward(s) affected All

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Cabinet recognises the importance of ensuring Members are supported in their role as elected representatives and notes the valuable steps the Council has taken to help Members, for example the Induction Programme following the 2006 elections and the successful programme of All Councillor Seminars.

2. That Democratic Services ensure that the annual Handbook and Diary meets Members’ needs.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 57 3. That Cabinet considers the attached report from the Member Development Working Group (MDWG) and accepts the following recommendations:

a) That the Cabinet adopt a Statement of Commitment to Member Development (draft statement on page 3 of the MDWG report) b) That the Cabinet confirm the principle that the Member Development Strategy is Member-led and that the Cabinet Member for Improvement, Partnerships and Community Safety is responsible for driving this forward c) That the Cabinet recommend the revised Members’ Personal Development folder be used across the Council and be the main tool for providing Councillors with all the information they require to begin a programme of personal development. d) That the Cabinet considers the setting up of a Members’ Personal Development Budget within the 2008/09 revenue budget. e) That the Cabinet commit to signing up to the London Member Development Charter (LMDC) in early 2008, for accreditation in late 2008

INFORMATION

Reasons for recommendation

The Corporate Services and Partnerships Policy Overview Committee established the ‘Task and Finish Group’ known as the Member Development Working Group (MDWG) on 19th April 2007. Its Terms of Reference were to:

1. Ensure that Member development is effective in building the capacity of all elected Councillors on Hillingdon Council

2. Develop a strategy and action plan for achieving excellence in Hillingdon’s Member Development and to oversee their implementation

3. Achieve the London Councils and I&DeA accredited London Member Development Charter (LMDC) as a statement of the council’s commitment to development and supporting Councillors

This Working Group has reported to the Corporate Services and Partnerships Policy Overview Committee, and this report seeks the Cabinet’s views on these recommendations. If agreed, the recommendations will lead to the establishment of a structured and fully effective Member- led personal development programme which will be based around the needs of Hillingdon Members.

The essence of the learning programme is that it will be a voluntary undertaking by Members. The Member’s Personal Development folder will be owned personally by each Member and will contain a list of suggested competencies which will help Members identify their development needs. It will contain a Knowledge Library with links to various resources and details of recommended externally provided courses. Mandatory participation in training will continue to be needed in certain cases e.g. for Members newly appointed to the planning, licensing, audit and pensions committees. The folder will be circulated to Members separately.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 58 Members will also be able to request the support of a Personal Development Advisor – usually a senior Member within their Group – or they may choose to manage their own personal development. Achievement of the London Council’s London Member Development Charter will mean Hillingdon is recognised externally for the valuable work that has been done already on Member Development such as the Council’s Induction Programme and the All Councillor seminars as well as the new programme recommended here.

Alternative options considered

Cabinet could seek further information, reject or amend the recommendations.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee

The Corporate Services and Partnership Overview Committee (POC) met on 10th December and agreed recommendations 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 above. The POC also asked that recommendation 3 in the Working Group’s report: ‘That Cabinet recommend the Members’ Personal Development folder be used across the council and be the main tool for providing Councillors with the information they require to begin and a programme of personal development’ be referred for further consideration to the Interim Head of Democratic Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Improvement, Partnerships & Community Safety. Their suggestions for changes to the format of the Members’ Personal Development folder and confirmation that the programme will be based on self-evaluation were accepted by Members of the Working Group and the POC and are included in the attached report.

Supporting Information

This attached report presents the findings from the Member Development Working Group.

Financial Implications

It has been estimated that £30k will be required to ensure that adequate member personal development can be delivered. This does not feature within the proposed MTFF budget for 2008/09 agreed for consultation by Cabinet in December 2007, but could lend itself to being funded from a number of sources, including the risk contingency or from the Priority Growth fund.

EFFECT ON RESIDENTS, SERVICE USERS & COMMUNITIES

What will be the effect of the recommendations?

It will strengthen Members’ understanding of their role and help them engage with residents, and the community. The recommendations will ensure Member development is effective in building the capacity of elected Councillors and that there are sufficient resources in place to deliver a structured development programme based on the needs to LBH members.

Consultation Carried Out or Required

The Member Development Working Group consulted with all Councillors via a survey and a seminar during their review.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 59 CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Finance

In considering recommendation 4 of the Member Development Working Group report, Cabinet should be satisfied that any decision with regard to this recommendation is consistent with the recommendations of the report on the Council’s revenue budgets and capital programme for 2008/09 contained elsewhere on this agenda, for the reasons set out in the financial implications section above.

Legal

There are no specific legal implications arising from this report.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Regional/IDeA Charter Accreditation Guidelines Briefing Note: The London Member Development Charter (LMDC)

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 60

MEMBER DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP

2007/08

Enhancing Members’ Personal Development in LB Hillingdon

Members of the Working Group

Cllr Michael Markham (Chairman) Cllr George Cooper Cllr Paul Harmsworth Cllr Allan Kauffman Cllr Mo Khursheed Cllr Mary O’Connor

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 61

CONTENTS

Chairman’s Foreword ...... Page 63

1. Recommendations...... Page 64

2. Background, Terms of Reference and Methodology ...... Page 67

3. Summary of Findings and Conclusions ...... Page 69

Appendix A: Member Survey Results ...... Page 75

Appendix B: Survey of other Council’s budgets ...... Page 76

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 62

Chairman’s Foreword

Whilst learning and development has always been considered to be an important issue by the Council, it became clear that a more structured and Member-led strategic approach to learning development was required. The Member Development Working Group was established to look into the issue and report its finding and recommendations to the Corporate Services and Partnerships Policy Overview Committee and then to Cabinet.

The role of the Member will always need to keep pace with new social, environmental, economic and political issues. This will necessitate ongoing training and development. Effective Member development is essential to ensure that Councillors update their individual knowledge and learn new skills.

No matter their backgrounds or experience, all Members have a common need for continuing personal development to meet the ever increasing challenges of their individual and political roles when representing or working with their communities. The Council also wishes to help Members recognise and develop the skills and knowledge which will be useful in fulfilling their various roles in achieving the Council’s aims and objectives.

Personal development is a continuous process and the Member Development Programme is an evolving one, designed to provide the best and most relevant learning opportunities for Members. The Member Development Working Group has focused on developing a skills assessment so that individual Members can gauge their skills, identify gaps and tailor-made solutions can be made. Through a process of evaluation and continuous checks learning opportunities provided will be relevant to Members’ needs.

I would like to thank everyone involved in developing the learning and development programme, as well as the Member Personal Development Folder and hope the recommendations in this report will further enhance Member personal development in Hillingdon.

Cllr Michael Markham

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 63

1. Recommendations

Although there has always been Member Development in Hillingdon, the Member Development Working Group (MDWG) was set up to bring a more strategic approach to this. Their recommendations are listed below and the evidence and conclusions for the recommendations can be found in chapter 3 and the appendices.

The Committee recommends:

Recommendation 1 Statement of Commitment

That the Cabinet adopt a Statement of Commitment to Member Development (draft statement on page 66 of Cabinet agenda)

Members’ Personal Development enables Members to be more effective in their roles so they can better serve residents and communities. A Statement of Commitment would state clearly and publicly Hillingdon’s commitment to developing Members in order to achieve the Council’s aims and objectives. It would also be a key milestone in achieving the London Member Development Charter. It could be added as a protocol at the end of the Constitution, and referred to in Council plans.

Recommendation 2 A Member-led Member Development Strategy

That the Cabinet confirm the principle that the Member Development (MD) Strategy is Member-led and that the Cabinet Member for Improvement, Partnerships and Community Safety is responsible for driving this forward.

A Member-led strategic approach to Member personal development will ensure that plans and provisions focus closely on Members’ needs. A Cabinet Member should have responsibility for the policy and budget. Corporate Services and Partnerships Policy Overview Committee should also have the role of periodically reviewing progress on the MD Strategy.

Recommendation 3 Members’ Personal Development Folder

That the Cabinet recommend the Members’ Personal Development folder be used across the Council and be the main tool for providing Councillors with the information they require to begin and a programme of personal development.

The Members’ Personal Development Folder will assist Councillors to build the skills they consider they need to effectively represent their communities. It will help Councillors answer the four key questions of:-

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 64

a) What is my job? b) What do I need to know? c) Where do I acquire this knowledge? d) What have I learnt?

It is intended that the folder be an evolving document and reference tool. The folder would link into opportunities for discussing development needs with the Member’s chosen MPD adviser, for example, experienced and senior party Members (e.g. in one to ones). It will complement the process established in Party groups.

Recommendation 4 Budget

That the Cabinet approve the setting up of a Members’ Personal Development Budget.

In the past there has been no defined budget for Member Development, which has led to ad hoc arrangements for Members seeking funding for training, and no clear structure for their development. The Member Development Working Group have developed tools that will enable Councillors to assess their skills and knowledge and identify gaps. The budget would fund activities to meet those gaps. A clearly defined budget would be seen as a commitment by the Council to Members’ Personal Development. A survey of other London Authorities in August 2007 established that similar boroughs had defined budgets for Members’ Personal Development ranging from £25,000 to £100,000, with the average being £50,907. Consequently a MTFF bid has been submitted for £50,000 per annum for 3 years, from 2008/09. The Head of Democratic Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Improvement, Partnerships and Community Safety, would manage the budget. The process of managing the budget would be kept under review.

Recommendation 5 Signing up to the London Member Development Charter

That the Cabinet commit to signing up to the London Member Development Charter (LMDC) in January 2008, for accreditation in late 2008.

Signing up to the London Member Development Charter would act as a statement of the Council’s commitment to developing and supporting its Councillors and of seeking to achieve the highest standards in Members’ Personal Development. Signing up commits the Council to seeking accreditation. Assessment and the award of accreditation would take place later in 2008.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 65

Draft Statement of Commitment

‘The London Borough of Hillingdon is committed to being a modern, well-managed council, retaining and improving the character of the borough and engaging communities, customers and partners to provide excellent value-for-money services for the people of Hillingdon.

The Council recognises the crucial role that Elected Members play in delivering this vision, and the importance of a successful Member Development Programme to enable them to be more effective in their roles.

We will offer both personal development relevant to all our Members as well as tailor-made solutions for Councillors with special responsibilities and unique learning needs.

Where necessary we will adopt new methods of learning, keeping abreast with best practice in the personal development sector and utilising new technology.

The Council recognises its responsibility to provide equal access for all Members to learning and development in accordance with equal opportunities legislation and existing policies. The Member Development programme of Hillingdon council will promote the work-life balance and equality of learning.

Members will have an active role to play in deciding the format and substance of learning and development. The Council is adopting a Member-led strategic approach to elected Member development through the Whips in conjunction with the Head of Democratic Services.

The Council underlines its commitment to the support of its Members by signing up to the Member Development Charter and working toward accreditation status.’

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 66

2. Background, Importance and Methodology

Background

1. At Council on 25th January 2007, the Deputy Leader announced an intention to ask the Corporate Services and Partnerships Policy Overview Committee to set up a Working Group on Member Development. The role of this ‘Task and Finish Group’ was to oversee the implementation of the Council’s Member Development Plan.

2. In March/April 2007 a Capital Ambition bid for £85k for working towards the London Member Development Charter was successful.

3. The Corporate Services and Partnerships Policy Overview Committee established this ‘Task and Finish Group’ known as the Member Development Working Group (MDWG), on 19th April 2007.

4. In May 2007 the Member Development Working Group (MDWG) met for the first time. Membership consisted of four majority party Members and two opposition Members.

The Terms of Reference of the Member Development Working Group were agreed as follows:

a. To ensure that Member development is effective in building the capacity of all elected councillors on Hillingdon Council. b. To develop a strategy and action plan for achieving excellence in Hillingdon’s Member Development and to oversee their implementation. c. To achieve the London Councils and I&DeA accredited London Member Development Charter (LMDC) as a statement of the Council’s commitment to developing and supporting councillors.

Importance

1 The Council’s vision is to be a modern, well managed council delivering excellent services. Members have a major role to play towards the achievement of this corporate vision and therefore it is essential that they are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to fulfil their varied and challenging roles.

2 Building elected Member capacity in line with good practice means that elected Members are better placed to serve their local communities.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 67

Methodology (witnesses and documents)

1 The Member Development Working Group met six times in 2007 to take evidence and advise on action. Actions taken are identified in the following paragraphs.

2 In May/June 2007 a survey of Members’ Personal Development was carried out via a special section in the annual Democratic Services survey of Members. There was a response rate of 57% and results showed strong support for, and preferences on, Member Development . (see appendix A)

3 In order to achieve the London Member Development Charter, the Member Development Working Group developed an Action Plan setting out the necessary steps the Council needs to take in order to achieve the London Member Development Charter.

4 In May/June 2007 the Working Group began working on the Members’ Personal Development Folder as a tool for Members to self-assess their knowledge levels and development priorities, and to guide them to appropriate learning resources.

5 On 2nd July 2007 a Seminar on Member Development for all Councillors was held. Twenty five Members attended and provided useful feedback on the matrix, which they ‘road tested’ at the seminar. Other aspects of Members’ Personal Development were discussed and ways forward identified.

6 The Member Development Working Group examined the experiences of other Councils who have achieved their respective region’s Member Development Charter, such as Haringey, Chester Le Street and Durham.

7 In August 2007 a survey of London Authorities was carried out to establish the size of their Member development budgets, what activities these covered and how they were managed. (see appendix B)

8 On 10th October 2007, the Member Development Working Group discussed with Kris Hibbert of London Councils working towards London Charter status.

9 In May/June a seminar programme was set up for all Councillors. A training programme for Members is in the process of being developed, in response to Members’ requests.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 68

3. Summary and Conclusions

The reasons for our recommendations are:

Recommendation 1 Statement of Commitment That the Cabinet adopt a Statement of Commitment to Member Development

1 The Member Development Working Group recommends that the draft Statement of Commitment on page 66 is endorsed. It would clearly and publicly state Hillingdon’s commitment to developing Members in order to achieve the Council’s aims and objectives.

2 The Member Development Working Group recommends it could be added as a protocol at the end of the Constitution and be referred to in other Council Plans.

3 A Statement of Commitment is a requirement to achieve Charter status.

Recommendation 2 A Member-led Members’ Personal Development (MPD) Strategy That the Cabinet confirms the principle that the Members’ Personal Development (MPD) Strategy be Member-led and that the Cabinet Member for Improvement, Partnerships and Community Safety be responsible for driving this forward.

1 Member Development refers to any development activities or training programmes specifically designed to improve the knowledge, skills and abilities of elected Members in their varied roles. It is therefore essential that Member development is Member-led, based on Members understanding of their own needs, and on understanding the political and democratic role of Members.

2 A Member-led Members’ Personal Development (MPD) strategy would ensure every elected Member is properly equipped to fulfil their duties and responsibilities as a Member within LB Hillingdon and that Members would be able to participate fully with an enhanced understanding of the local government agenda and the challenges facing LB Hillingdon and the community they represent.

3 To ensure this strategy meets the needs of Members activities will be properly planned, resourced, monitored and evaluated. Members’ needs will be identified by Members using the Member Personal Development Folder and through one to one discussions. These will be fed through to the Members’ Support and Development Manager to develop the strategy.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 69

4 The Head of Democratic Services would make proposals after consulting the Whips but decisions on actions would be taken by the Cabinet Member for Improvement, Partnerships and Community Safety.

5 The Strategy will be renewed annually, to ensure it continues to best meet the needs of Members.

6 The Members’ Personal Development Strategy could be linked to other corporate strategies.

Recommendation 3 Members’ Personal Development (MPD) Folder That the Cabinet recommend the Members’ Personal Development folder be used across the Council and be the main tool for providing Councillors with all the information they require to begin a programme of personal development.

1 The Members’ Personal Development folder will help Councillors answer four key questions:-

e) What is my job? f) What do I need to know? g) Where do I acquire this knowledge? h) What have I learnt?

2 The MPD Folder will provide Members with the tools and resources to answer these questions. An introductory chapter outlines the process of the MPD Programme, explaining the importance of attaining the London Member Development Charter and the benefits this will bring to the Council on a corporate, and individual level. This section will also explain the role of the Councillor Support and Development Manager in overseeing the MPD process, and the system that has been created to ensure Members have access to the best learning opportunities.

3 The MPD Folder will contain a generic job description and a knowledge matrix. Using these two sections Councillors will identify key competency areas they believe can be developed. Members are then invited to create a draft Personal Development Plan for each of these competencies. These plans will lay out a structured approach to learning and development using the resources in the Knowledge Library – a database of learning events, included in the MPD Folder.

4 The Personal Development Plans will be formalised during a six-monthly meeting held with the Member’s development adviser. This review will also provide Members with the opportunity to feedback to their Mentors, their Party Whips, the Councillors’ Support and Development Manager on events they have attended, the resources they have used and the overall process

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 70

of MPD at Hillingdon. This feedback will form the basis of an ongoing review process that will ensure that the programme remains relevant to the needs of Councillors, and addresses the topics they feel should be covered.

5 The Folder contains assessment forms, which Members can complete after attending a learning event, keeping note of the competency areas they have addressed.

6 The Folder will be delivered to Members in a physical hard copy, which will contain a CD appendix of the Knowledge Library. This CD will provide Members with an interactive Library and instant access to dozens of learning resources. An electronic copy of the folder and the Knowledge Library will be placed on Horizon, and a hard copy library of all documents created.

Recommendation 4 Budget That the Cabinet approve the setting up of a Members’ Personal Development Budget.

1 Historically there has not been a defined budget for Member development in Hillingdon nor has there been a process in place for determining how the budget for Member development is spent. Furthermore, there has not been a systematic process in place for determining which events are of value. The limited number of events that Members have attended outside the council have been funded and approved by the relevant service department where they have agreed to take on the cost. Very exceptionally, Democratic Services have paid when events have seemed to be particularly worthwhile from whatever funds have been found.

What would the budget be spent on?

2 The Member Development Working Group have developed tools that will enable Councillors to assess their skills and knowledge and identify gaps. The budget would fund activities to meet those gaps.

3 Whilst Capital Ambition funding will provide for expansion of Member development this year, resources need to be identified if the programme is to be continued.

4 The budget would fund development of the Members’ Personal Development Folder as well as internal and external training and development activities. Where the need for a particular course is high Hillingdon could buy in external trainers for group sessions.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 71

5 The MPD Folder could provide opportunities for shared development activities with local partners or with other councils where we may be able to lever in funding.

6 In order to achieve the London Member Development Charter it will be necessary to evidence both that there is a dedicated rolling budget in place and that there is an equitable and appropriate system for deciding which external events would bring benefit and for effectively apportioning resources.

Size of a budget

7 A survey of other London Authorities in August 2007 established that similar boroughs had defined budgets for Member development ranging from £100,000 to £25,000, with the average being £50,907. It showed the Member Development Working Group the importance placed on Members’ personal development by other Local Authorities and was the basis for determining the importance and the size of a Member development budget. (see appendix B)

8 Consequently a MTFF bid has been submitted for £50,000 per annum for 3 years, from 2008/2009.

Mechanism for budget spend and deciding on attendance at costed events

9 Strict budgetary controls would be in place. Members would apply to the Head of Democratic Services in writing via a simple form explaining the benefits of attending such an event. The Head of Democratic Services would make proposals after consulting the Whips but decisions on actions and spending would be taken by the Cabinet Member for Improvement, Partnerships and Community Safety.

Recommendation 5 Signing up to the London Member Development Charter

That the Cabinet commit to the signing up to the London Councils accredited London Member Development Charter (LMDC) in January 2007 for accreditation in late 2008.

What is the London Member Development Charter?

1 The London Member Development Charter is a statement of the council’s commitment to developing and supporting its elected Councillors.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 72

2 The London Member Development Charter is based on the charter for Member development developed by North West Regional Employers.

3 The London Development Charter is composed of five principal elements that are signed up to and against which key evidence of improvement must be provided for full Charter status to be granted to the Council. It is not an assessment of the competencies of Councillors.

These elements are:

a. A commitment to Member development b. A strategic approach to Member development c. An established Member learning and development plan d. Effective capacity-building learning and development initiatives e. The promotion of good work-life balance and citizenship

Benefits of achieving the London Member Development Charter

4 The following is a list of advantages of signing up to the Charter -

The Charter enhances the profile of Member development as essential to building corporate capacity.

The Charter is tangible and visible evidence of commitment towards continuous improvement. Work done in pursuit of the Charter could be used as evidence that could be taken into account for Corporate Assessment purposes.

The Charter assists in raising the profile of community citizenship and in widening participation in local democracy.

The Charter provides the council with a framework to systematically evaluate the impact and effectiveness of Member development.

The Charter provides the council with access to a network of other authorities that are committed to achieving its standards. This provides opportunity for sharing best practice and for cross-authority working on Member development.

The Charter ensures individual Members to have more say in the design, delivery and evaluation of any development policies and activities and will lead to a wider range of opportunities that suit different learning styles and take account of different needs.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 73

By signing up to the Charter the Council will also benefit from the range of learning, sharing and expertise available from the I&DeA and other local authorities.

Process

5 It will be up to boroughs to decide whether or not they wish to sign up to achieve the Charter.

6 It requires all party commitment and to be Member led.

7 The cost is £1,150. This includes payment of fees to the Members involved as assessors.

8 There are three stages to achieving the London Member Development Charter.

Stage 1

• Sign up to the Charter – declaration of commitment • Develop an action plan • Commence implementation of the plan

Stage 2

• Conduct self-assessment against good practice guidelines • Conduct the official, external review – with Member and officer peers visiting as critical friends • Charter status awarded if principles met

Stage 3

• Maintain good practice • Conduct reassessment within a minimum of 3 years

9 The London borough of Haringey has achieved Charter accreditation status. The London boroughs of Croydon, Kensington & Chelsea, Lewisham, Newham and Merton have already signed up to the Charter. Barking & Dagenham, Ealing, Hackney, Havering, Richmond and Waltham Forest have not yet signed their commitment but are very interested .

Timetable

10 It is proposed that Hillingdon sign up to the London Member Development Charter in January 2008 and assessments will take place before the end of 2008 when Charter status will be awarded if the criteria is met.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 74

Appendix A - All Councillor Survey of Member Development May 2007

Provides a baseline of Councillors’ views and experiences of Member Development in 2006/7, against which change can be measured.

Thirty-seven Councillors responded – a 57% response rate

Summary of results (%s are of the 37 who responded):

Councillors:

• Would welcome guidance on Member Development (76%)

• Would like an officer or Member to talk to about their personal development as a Member (58%)

• Prefer to undertake Member Development collectively or individually rather than in separate party groups.

• Prefer daytime or evenings to weekends for Member Development activities.

• 84% are satisfied with Member Development in Hillingdon – 32% said very satisfied and 51% said fairly satisfied.

• 65% have taken part in training courses and 59% have been to conferences in the last year

• For those who have attended a course or conference, the average number of courses attended is 4.8 and for conferences is 2.

• 16% have taken part in a mentoring session in the last year, on average only once during the year.

• Many Councillors cite the seminar programme as one of best aspects of Member Development in Hillingdon. “Friendly and helpful staff” is mentioned by some.

• Improvements sought are: more training for new Councillors; updates on policies/new legislation; more convenient timing for seminars; a way of recording what Councillors have taken in; speed reading and time management courses.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 75

Appendix B – Audit of other Local Authorities’ Member Development budgets

Thirteen London boroughs responded to the Member Development survey :-

Barking and Dagenham Barnet Croydon Greenwich Harrow Hounslow Kensington and Chelsea Lewisham Richmond Southwark Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest Westminster

Summary of results:

Their annual Member Development budgets ranged from £25,000 to £100,000 with an average being £50,907.

The type of training/development other Authorities spent their budgets on include:

• I&DeA Leadership Academy • Buying in external trainers for group sessions • External seminars and conferences • In house courses and seminars • Briefings on statutory roles • 1:1 Coaching • Specialised skills development

Mechanisms that other Authorities use for determining how the budget is spent

• Approved by party Whips and chief officer team • Member Services Manager works with the Lead Member to agree the annual training programme, further spend agreed by Deputy Leader • Lead Member for Members’ development • Learning and Development Manager • Member Development Manager in conjunction with Members • Member Training Panel

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 76 DRAFT MAYOR OF LONDON ORDER 2008 AND ITEM 5 GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR LONDON DRAFT CIRCULAR 2008 ‘STRATEGIC PLANNING IN LONDON’: CONSULTATION RESPONSE

Cabinet Member Councillor Keith Burrows

Cabinet Portfolio Planning and Transportation

Report Author James Rodger/Maria Garcia, Planning and Community Services Group

Papers with report Appendix 1 - Cabinet report (dated October 2006) on the earlier Government consultation on this matter Appendix 2 – Letter to CLG incorporating Hillingdon’s response to the consultation paper.

HEADLINE INFORMATION

Purpose of report To advise Cabinet of the final proposed changes to the Mayor of London Draft Order 2008 (Mayors powers with respect to Planning) and Government Office for London Draft Circular 2008: ‘Strategic Planning in London’ and the implications for Hillingdon. The report seeks Cabinet’s endorsement of the officers’ recommended response to the consultation as contained in Appendix 2 to the report.

Contribution to our The Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007); plans and strategies the emerging Local Development Framework; the Council Plan;

Financial Cost The financial implications brought in by the proposed Mayor’s powers were addressed as part of the previous Cabinet Report (attached as Appendix 1). The final details of the proposed Mayor’s powers which are part of this current consultation have no further implications regarding the loss of control of the allocation of Section 106 monies.

Relevant Policy Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy Overview Overview Committee Committee

Ward(s) affected All Wards

RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet endorses the response to the Communities and Local Government (CLG) Mayor of London Draft Order 2008 and the Government Office for London Draft Circular 2008: Strategic Planning in London as contained in Appendix 2 to the report.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 77 Reasons for recommendation

Any changes affecting the Mayor of London’s powers and the future planning of London have major implications for the borough’s emerging Local Development Framework, the processing of planning applications and wider national planning requirements. Therefore it is essential that Cabinet members are kept informed of any proposed changes that have implications for Hillingdon.

Alternative options considered

Cabinet could decline to comment on the proposed changes, which would not be in the borough’s best interests.

Comments of Policy Overview Committee(s)

None at this stage.

Background Information

1. The Government consulted on the broad content of the Draft Mayor of London Order in autumn 2006 and published two drafts of this Order in January and July 2007 to help inform the Parliamentary scrutiny of the GLA Bill. Hillingdon’s response to these consultations was the subject of a Cabinet report in October 2006 and is attached at Appendix 1 for information.

2. The Greater London Authority Act (GLAA) 2007 received Royal Assent on 23rd October 2007. The Act includes strengthened new powers for the Mayor of London and in particular new power to decide strategically important planning applications and the content of Local Development Schemes (the project plan for the Boroughs’ Local Development Frameworks). The Act comes into force on the 6th April 2008 and changes various existing legislation to support the transfer of powers to the Mayor. The key piece of legislation this relates to is Section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, which will give the Mayor Power to issue directions (i.e. to take control of applications). These new powers are an addition to the Mayor’s current power to refuse certain applications. The current Secretary of State powers are unaffected by this.

3. In the future, the Mayor of London may direct London Boroughs to refuse an application in the same way as present. He may also decide to take no action as he does in some cases now. Under the new arrangements, he will be able to direct London Boroughs that he will take on and decide applications. The Government are now consulting on the categories and scale of applications over which the Mayor will be able to exercise his powers of intervention. Significantly the consultation period is very short given that the Act comes into force in under 6 weeks from the end of the consultation on the draft Circular.

4. The draft Order and accompanying draft Circular, describe the detail of the arrangements in the Greater London Authority Act 2007. The way the Mayor’s new powers work in practice will be set up in secondary legislation following the end of this consultation. The Mayor’s new powers will come into force 6th April 2008, at the

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 78 same time the Government intends to publish the final provisions of the Order and Circular.

5. This current consultation seeks comments only on areas that were not previously resolved. These are:

• The thresholds, which define applications as being of potential strategic importance and which must be reported to the Mayor of London; • The test which the Mayor must apply to those applications in order to justify intervention; • The process of referral of applications to the Mayor; and • The length of time the Mayor should have to consider whether to direct changes to the boroughs’ Local Development Schemes (the project plan for Local Development Frameworks).

Summary of current powers

6. The Mayor’s current ‘Spatial Development’ powers (development plans)

• Creation of the London Spatial Development Strategy: the London Plan. • Securing strategic interests in London are taken into account in policy and decisions of local and central government and other bodies within London and surrounding areas.

The Mayor’s current ‘Development Control’ powers (planning applications)

• Power to direct a London borough to refuse strategically important applications as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000.

Thresholds

7. The thresholds are the criteria set out in the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 which an application must meet to be defined as being of potential strategic importance and therefore referable to the Mayor. For this to happen, the application must meet at least one of the criteria.

8. The main thresholds (summarised) at present are: i. Residential development comprising of over 500 units. ii. Commercial development of over 15,000 sq.m. iii. Buildings over 30m in height; or addition of over 15m to an existing building which would take it over 30m in height. iv. Mining operations of over 10 hectares. v. Major transportation infrastructure (new bus, coach or railway stations). vi. Use of more than 4 Hectares of employment land for non-employment uses. vii. Development prejudicial to sporting use of more than 2 Hectares of playing field. viii. Floorspace of more than 2500m that does not conform with development plan policies (applies to almost all use classes except residential). ix. Provision of more than 200 car parking spaces for any use other than residential. x. Buildings of over 1000sq.m on Green Belt or MOL land.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 79 xi. Development on which the Major must be consulted by virtue of a direction from the Secretary of State.

9. Although the Government is satisfied with the application of the current categories and the detailed specifications in the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, it would like to prioritise the delivery of housing, affordable housing and waste disposal facilities across London as well as supporting development within the City of London. It therefore proposes a number of changes in these areas.

Processes

• With regard to submission of application to the boroughs, if it meets one of the thresholds in the Order, it must be sent to the Mayor as soon as viably practicable after their receipt. This tends to be, in practice, at the same time as the consultation with other statutory consultees.

• The Mayor must submit representations within 21 days (Normally known as Stage 1). At this stage, the Mayor may inform the borough that:

a) the application can be decided by the borough without further reference to him; or b) he wants to be notified of the borough’s decision in order to decide whether to direct the borough to refuse the application.

• If the Mayor wishes to be notified, the borough must not grant planning permission for 14 days from the date the Mayor receives the notification (Normally known as Stage 2).

• The Mayor may direct the borough to refuse the application. A statement of reasons must accompany any such direction and the Secretary of State must be copied into the statement.

10. The Mayor’s existing powers to direct a borough to refuse a planning application of potential strategic importance are unaffected by the Mayor’s new powers - except for the proposed changes to the thresholds as detailed in the paragraphs below. The Government’s intention is to strengthen the Mayor’s position by adding new planning powers.

Summary of new powers

The Mayor’s new Spatial Development’ powers (development plans)

11. Under the new powers the Mayor will be able to issue a directive on the boroughs’ Local Development Schemes (LDS). The Mayor will look at:

a) to which extent the LDS takes into account national, regional and local priorities; b) whether it is realistic in terms of the timetable proposed; c) the resources likely to be available to the local planning authority to implemented; d) the resources of the Planning Inspectorate to be able to deal with it

12. As part of this consultation, the Government proposes to amend the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 to set out that the Mayor

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 80 will have 28 days (running concurrently with the period for the Secretary of State to assess the draft Local Development Scheme LDS) within which to issue a directive. The Regulations will prevent the Boroughs from implementing the Mayor’s direction for a period of fourteen days from which the decision is made. The Secretary of State will retain the power to direct the local planning authority not to implement the Mayor’s direction. The Mayor is expected to discuss the intention to make a direction with the Secretary of State and the local planning authority.

Implications for Hillingdon

13. This consultation is concerned only with the length of time the Mayor should have to consider whether to direct changes to the Boroughs’ Local Development Schemes. The Mayor will have the same amount of time as the Secretary of State and therefore the commencement of the borough’s local development scheme would not be delayed. Although a 14 day period is added to the process when the Mayor decides to make a direction, the proposed consultation period will not have a significant effect for Hillingdon’s future LDS.

The Mayor’ new ‘Development Control’ powers (planning applications)

14. The GLA Act 2007 gives the Mayor the power to direct that planning applications in Greater London which are of ‘strategic importance’ should be determined by him in place of the local planning authority (London borough). In such cases, the Mayor becomes the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application. He may enforce the terms of any planning permission, but it is expected that in the vast majority of the cases the Borough will continue to do so (The Mayor has no planning enforcement officers at present which is why the Circular does not envisage the Mayor taking enforcement action - The Council raised concerns regarding staffing implications to existing London Boroughs from the Mayor having further powers as part of the earlier consultation response on increased powers to the Mayor).

15. When the Mayor gives direction to take on an application, he will also take on any related listed building, conservation area and hazardous substance consent. The Mayor may pass decision making for approval of reserved matters or approval of details under conditions or consents back to the Borough.

16. The Mayor may agree planning obligations related to the applications to be determined (this was the subject of strong objection from this Council and many others as part of the earlier consultation). Both the Mayor and the Borough may enforce and discharge the obligations agreed (there is very limited explanation of how this would work in practice).

17. All applications will first be submitted to the Local Planning Authority as at present and the council will continue to bank all application fees it receives. There are no measures in the Act or the Circular that enable the Mayor to reclaim fees from the Local Planning Authorities for applications he subsequently determines. A loss of application fees is therefore not envisaged. 18. The GLA Act 2007 enables the applicant and the Borough to whom the application was made to make oral representations to the Mayor at a ‘representations hearing’ before he determines the application. Crucially this hearing is not the actual committee meeting itself –so it is unclear at this stage how this ‘representations hearing’ will work.

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Cabinet report 21 February 2008 Page 81 The Mayor must also publish a document setting out how other persons he will hear will make such representations and the procedures to be followed at the hearing (e.g. similar to the speaking rights that apply to planning meetings at the London Borough of Hillingdon). The Secretary of State is required to make provision to representation hearing and in their conduction with such modifications as she sees necessary or expedient.

Procedures

19. Planning applications will continue to be sub