If you require further information about this agenda please contact: Thomas Ribbits on 020 8583 2251 or [email protected].
BOROUGH COUNCIL
A meeting of the Borough Council will be held in the Council Chamber, Hounslow House, 7 Bath Road, Hounslow, TW3 3EB on Tuesday, 18th June 2019 at 7.30pm
MEMBERSHIP
The Mayor and Deputy Mayor All other Members of the Council
AGENDA
1. Apologies for Absence, Other Announcements and Declarations of Interest from Members
2. Announcements
To receive announcements (if any) from the Mayor, Leader, Members of the Cabinet or the Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive)
3. Minutes (Pages 1 - 40)
To approve the minutes of the meetings held on 26th February 2019 and 12th March 2019
4. Petitions (Pages 41 - 46)
Report by the Head of Democratic Services
5. Mooring Byelaws (Pages 47 - 93)
Report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council
6. Treasury Management Annual Report 2018/19 (Pages 94 - 104)
Report by Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services
7. Appointment of ICT & Digital Director (Pages 105 - 106) Report by Councillor Pritam Grewal, Cabinet Member for Customer Services and Corporate Performance 8. Appointments to Committees and Other Bodies
Members are asked to make any appointments that are nominated at the meeting for the remainder of the municipal year and delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Mayor, to make any adjustments necessary to ensure political proportionality
9. Decisions Taken Under Urgency Arrangements (if any)
The Council is asked to note the following uses of the urgency arrangements: Council and Cabinet Decisions Taken Under Urgency Arrangements: None Forward Plan Urgency Notices: None
Questions from Members
10. Councillor Patrick Barr to ask Councillor Candice Atterton, Cabinet Member for Adults, Social Care and Health
“The NHS (National Health Service) Long Term Plan was published in January 2019 with big ambitions and a secured funding boost of 3.4 per cent a year over the next five years. It states how to overcome challenges faced by doing things differently, preventing illness, tackling health inequalities, backing the workforce, making better use of digital and data technology and getting the best out of tax payers' investment in the NHS. The key delivery mechanism for this is through integrated care systems which are stipulated to cover the whole country by 2021.
Given this excellent plan, can the Cabinet member for Adult Health and Social Care please advise what the Council is doing to drive the move towards integrated care for the residents of the London Borough of Hounslow?”
11. Councillor John Todd to ask Cllr Guy Lambert, Cabinet Member for Highways, Recycling and Companies
“One of the Key Pledges of the Hounslow Labour Party Manifesto was to 'Invest £2 million to fix potholes in local roads - and invite residents to nominate the roads that need it'. To date after one year and numerous referrals by residents to LBH, including representations made at Council meetings, only £10,000 (0.5%) of the £2m promised has been used to discharge this hollow pledge.
Would you kindly clarify when residents and businesses can see action by Hounslow Highways to address the ongoing issue of potholes remaining left unrepaired.” 12. Councillor Michael Denniss to ask Councillor Samia Chaudhary, Cabinet Member for Leisure Services
"Between the 30th May and 5th June 2019, several significant pollution spikes were recorded in Boston Manor Park as a result of the large-scale set-up for the Junction 2 event held last weekend. Can the Cabinet Member for Leisure Services explain how this large scale commercial event was licensed without consideration to protect air quality?"
Motions
13. Proposed by Councillor Katherine Dunne and Seconded by Councillor Salman Shaheen
"The impacts of climate breakdown are already causing serious damage around the world. A ‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C’, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in October 2018, (a) describes the enormous harm that a 2 °C average rise in global temperatures is likely to cause compared with a 1.5 °C rise, and (b) confirms that limiting Global Warming to 1.5 °C may still be possible with ambitious action from national and sub-national authorities, civil society and the private sector.
We believe that all governments (national, regional and local) have a duty to act and that strong policies to cut emissions also have associated health, wellbeing and economic benefits.
We therefore join with other local authorities, the Mayor of London and the UK Parliament in declaring a ‘Climate Emergency’ that requires urgent action.
Furthermore, we commit to reviewing the existing arrangements in place to reduce the council’s carbon footprint and will identify measures towards a goal of making the council’s activities carbon neutral and ultimately zero-carbon within the shortest achievable timeframe. To enable this, we call upon the government to make available the appropriate powers and funding to local and regional government as well as pursuing policies to decarbonise the national grid and support the production of renewable energy."
14. Proposed by Councillor John Todd and Seconded by Councillor Sam Hearn
“The Conservative Group note the material corporate governance and transparency irregularities and omissions in the overall oversight and control of the financial activities of the Lampton group of companies identified in the 11 June Cabinet reports CX 372, 348 and 345 but promised by April 2019 by the Cabinet Member at the October 2018 Borough Council.
The same Cabinet papers fail to provide any Lampton financial data in CEX 376 the Outturn report and there has been no performance report. Furthermore, the business plan for Lampton recycle 360 presents operating costs in excess of the council budget by £0.9m.
This Council therefore requires the Cabinet Member, Cllr Lambert, to submit to the Cabinet at its next meeting in July full financial and performance data from each of the Lampton entities.” 15. Proposed by Councillor Gabriella Giles and Seconded by Councillor Ron Mushiso
“This Council notes that it has a moral and legal duty to reduce the impact of climate change and pollution on the residents of Hounslow and:
Recognises and agrees with the International Energy Agency (IEA) statement that the 'UK has walked the talk' on addressing climate change,
congratulates the Government on meeting their obligations under the first, second and third carbon budgets with headroom to spare,
applauds the UK Government's role in setting up and expanding the 'Powering Past Coal Alliance', the achievement of going for more than 424 hours (17 days and 6 hours) without coal-powered energy and their commitment to phasing out coal entirely from our power system by 2025, and
supports the aims and objectives of the Government’s Clean Growth Strategy. However, this Council notes that there are many issues with air quality across the Borough, that all too often disproportionately affect children. To redress these failings the Council will commit, within this municipal year to:
Sign up to the Times’ ‘Clean Air For All’ Campaign,
make better use of the Community Infrastructure Levy and the Leader’s Green Fund to actively explore and support solutions in partnership with community groups and the business community, to improve air quality across the whole of the Borough,
evaluate the potential health benefits of replicating the ‘living wall’ and associated improvements incorporated to St Mary’s School to all schools across the Borough, and
Set up a Resident's Commission to seek input from the people of Hounslow on how best to resolve this issue through locally co-produced initiatives”
16. Any Other Matters That the Mayor Considers Urgent
17. Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Council is scheduled for 23rd July 2019 and commence at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber, Hounslow House, 7 Bath Road. RECORDING AND REPORTING ON PUBLIC MEETINGS
Please note that members of public can choose to record, or report in other ways, on this public meeting. If you wish to do so then please read the Council’s protocol which can be found on the Council’s website. Copies of the protocol are also available at the meeting. The Council asks that you avoid recording members of the audience who are not participants at the meeting. The Council will seek to facilitate this. However, anyone attending a public meeting does so in the knowledge that recording may take place and that they may be part of that record.
DECLARING INTERESTS
Members are reminded that if they have a personal interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and if the interest is also a prejudicial interest then they may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter.
Niall Bolger Chief Executive, Hounslow House, 7 Bath Road, Hounslow, TW3 3EB
Published on 10th June 2019 Agenda Item 3
At a meeting of the Borough Council held on Tuesday, 26th February 2019 at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber at the Hounslow Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow
Present: The Mayor, Councillor Samia Chaudhary (in the Chair) The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Sohan Sumra
Councillors: Councillors Aqsa Ahmed, Javed Akhunzada, Candice Atterton, Harleen Atwal Hear, Patrick Barr, Lily Bath, Raj Bath, Joanna Biddolph, Tom Bruce, John Chatt, Samia Chaudhary, Komal Chaudri, Unsa Chaudri, Bandna Chopra, Mel Collins, Steve Curran, Theo Dennison, Michael Denniss, Sukhbir Dhaliwal, Poonam Dhillon, Katherine Dunne, Richard Eason, Richard Foote, Adriana Gheorghe, Gabriella Giles, Ranjit Gill, Vickram Grewal, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Shivraj Grewal, Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, Sam Hearn, Hanif Khan, Afzaal Kiani, Hina Kiani, Gurmail Lal, Guy Lambert, Tony Louki, Khulique Malik, Nisar Malik, Amrit Mann, Gerald McGregor, Shaida Mehrban, Hina Mir, Alan Mitchell, Ron Mushiso, Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Daanish Saeed, Sue Sampson, Salman Shaheen, Jagdish Sharma, Corinna Smart, Karen Smith and John Todd.
1. Apologies for Absence, Other Announcements and Declarations of Interest from Members
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Puneet Grewal, Kamaljit Kaur, Raghwinder Siddhu and Mohammed Umair
An apology for leaving the meeting early was received from Councillor Hina Mir
There were no further apologies.
There were no declarations of interest.
2. Announcements
The Mayor thanked Members who had recently attended her Mayoral fundraising gala dinner in January for her two charities, the Suns and Stars appeal being run by CW+, which was based at the West Middlesex Hospital, and also Ealing and Hounslow Mind. She expressed the hope that everyone had enjoyed the evening and was delighted to confirm that total amount raised so far from the event had been £14,407.
The Mayor then formally welcomed Niall Bolger, the Council’s new Chief Executive, to his first full meeting of the Council. She stated that she knew that many Members had already had a chance to meet him on ward walkabouts and at various other meetings, but, on behalf of all Councillors, she was delighted to welcome him formally to Hounslow and to the Council.
The Mayor then also formally congratulated Councillor Ranjit Gill who had just become the interim Deputy Leader for the Conservative Group. 1 Members showed their appreciation for each of the Mayor’s announcements with a round of applause.
Councillor Sue Sampson, Cabinet Member for Leisure Services, expressed pleasure at being able to announce a number of leisure related initiatives across the Borough: The Council had secured funding for the first stage of repair and refurbishment of the stable block at Boston Manor House as part of a longer term project to find a sustainable way to secure its future. The Council had also secured funding to the value of £370000 to provide a critical review of the manor and stables in Gunnersbury Park. Stage two of the Greater London Authority (GLA) Woodland Grant of £150000 had been provided to the Council for works on the De Brome Estate. The Redlees Park Transformation was almost complete with many additional trees having been planted. As part of the Council’s Feltham Master Plan, the second round of public consultation had concluded and, as a result, the Council was planning to make a planning application for better access and lighting for Feltham Park and to make improvements to Feltham Pond. There had also been a successful clean-up of Feltham Park which showed that the Council’s local partnership work was successful.
Members showed their appreciation with a round of applause.
Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce, expressed pleasure that the she had been in attendance earlier in the day at the Council’s first air quality summit held at the Holiday Inn in Brentford, in the company of the Leader of the Council, the Chief Executive and also many Councillors and residents. The event, which included speeches and presentations from a number of academics, had been well received.
Councillor Dunne then reminded Members that 8th March 2019 was International Women’s Day and the Council intended to mark it with a special showing of the film, Made in Dagenham, in the Council Chamber; the film addressed the 1968 strike by female workers at the Ford car factory in Dagenham in East London which ultimately led to the Equal Pay Act 1970. It was intended that, following the film, there would be a discussion on some of the issues raised and the resonances with women’s experiences today, and all Members were invited to attend.
There were no more announcements
3. Minutes
Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce, stated that in relation to the response to Council Question 12 relating to period poverty, she had been incorrectly identified as the initiator of the “red box” scheme in Hounslow. She clarified that the scheme had in fact been set up by a local volunteer, Yelize Hasim, who also collected and distributed sanitary projects across a number of schools in the Borough. Councillor Tom Bruce, Cabinet Member for Education, Children and Youth Services, confirmed this and added that the charity operated in fifteen schools in Hounslow and also in some schools in Ealing. He had asked officers to identify what the Council could do to assist the 2 charity. Officers were also analysing data to identify the extent of the problem. He also wished to see if the Council could assist with identifying sources for donations and to help increase distribution to all Hounslow schools.
It was then
RESOLVED –
That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on Tuesday 26th November 2018 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the following amendments: On page 1, Councillor Amrit Mann to be identified as having sent his apologies to the meeting rather than being present. On page 14, Councillor Tony Louki stated that in an unrecorded altercation between him and Councillor Sam Hearn, the Leader of the Conservatives, he had been called a liar when he suggested that the 2006-2010 Conservative-Independent Administration of the Council had been involved in LOBOS (Lender Option Borrower Options) loans. He had since received an apology from Councillor Hearn for his response and he wished this to be recorded in the minutes. On page 18, references to Councillor Dunne setting up a local “red box” project be amended to reflect that the initiative had set up by local volunteer, Yelize Hasim. On page 20, “aske” should be replaced with “asked”.
TO NOTE: All
4. Petitions
Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services.
Councillor John Chatt provided the Mayor with a petition from 26 residents in Viola Avenue objecting to a local planning application.
There being no further petitions presented to the Mayor and no petitions to be considered at the Council meeting itself, the Mayor invited Members to note the referrals of previously received petitions as detailed in the report.
It was then
RESOLVED –
That the petitions that had been forwarded to other formal bodies of the Authority or to ward Councillors or officers for consideration be noted
ACTION BY: Head of Democratic Services TO NOTE: All
5. Budget & Council Tax Setting 2018/19 (CEX236)
The Mayor reminded Members of the long-standing protocol of allowing the Leader and the Leader of the Opposition up to ten minutes for their speeches and asked Members to 3 agree to the waiving of standing order 12.4 in the constitution to allow this. Members agreed with this proposal and it was therefore
RESOLVED –
That standing order 12.4 in the constitution be waived to allow Councillors Steve Curran and Sam Hearn to speak for up to ten minutes if they wished to do so.
Members then considered the report by Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services, who introduced it and made the following statement:
“This is our first budget since the election of this Council in May 2018 where the Labour Party saw a record number of Councillors elected on an ambitious manifesto with the residents of Hounslow at its heart.
This budget is designed to not only build on our successes of recent years in terms of providing quality, value for money services to our residents but also seeks to provide us with a firm basis upon which we can deliver our new Corporate Plan through some financially challenging years.
Our Residents’ Survey reported to Cabinet this month shows 84% of our residents are satisfied with our services and 65% consider our services provide value for money.
We continue to reduce our costs through more efficient ways of working, better procurement and through transforming our structures and departments so they are better able to meet the challenges ahead.
However, we do have material financial challenges. A number of services within the Council are currently overspending which we cannot allow to continue.
This Administration is fully aware of this challenge and work I have undertaken alongside the Leader and my Cabinet colleagues has led to a strategy to manage these overspends and I can confirm to the Chamber that, alongside our quest to find savings, a parallel process will also be dealing with each and every overspend that the Council is currently reporting. It is not easy and it will not get any easier as long as we have a Tory government wedded to ideological austerity.
Changes in legislation place ever increasing responsibility on key services areas such as Children’s Services and Housing without the corresponding funding. We also know that demand and costs are ever increasing. However we are determined to ensure that we direct our resources to where they are needed most and those areas deliver value for money.
On Council Tax, there is a certain irony that less than 4 months after the Prime Minister informed us that austerity is over, our research shows that each & every London Borough is likely to recommend a rise to Council Tax in order to keep essential services funded. Austerity in Hounslow is not over and we have a difficult few months ahead as we prepare to address the Council later in the year with proposals on how we meet the financial gap we face for future years. However, we do not choose to recommend a tax rise lightly. We continue to retain one of the most generous Council Tax Localisation Schemes as well as continued support for 4 our Local Welfare Support Provision despite no Government funding. We will always do the right thing by our residents especially when the Government will not.
On capital matters, we have been able to generate sufficient capital receipts this year to enable priorities in the capital medium term financial strategy to be delivered. These cover Schools expansion and specialist SEN (special educational needs) provision and housing Projects. Sound projections of capital receipts have enabled us to add several high-profile capital projects to the strategy in recent years which are now progressing. These cover the development of Hounslow High Street, contributing to the development of Gunnersbury Park, and the Waterman's Marina. The jewel in our crown is of course our new Civic Centre, Hounslow House, opening this April on time and on budget.
Our budget report contains, as always, our Treasury Management Strategy which seeks to continue its well-regarded activity in managing our Council’s internal and external cashflows. The lifting of the Government cap on borrowing for housing schemes enable us to develop sites within Hounslow for urgently needed housing. This will mean our surplus balances for investment reduce over time, but this Council remains committed to delivering on its pledges and will use our funds wisely to ensure we achieve those. Lampton360’s property portfolio is another area we will invest in when schemes become available that meet financial targets.
With no help from a Government increasingly side-tracked with the Brexit process, or lack of it, we in Hounslow continue our good work in delivering good quality, value for money services to the residents and businesses of Hounslow. During my time at Area Forums and the Business Forums recently, I was reassured that our community understand the difficulty we face and are supportive of our work. Council Tax rises are not welcome but without a Government willing to work in partnership to support Local Government delivery, we will continue to make difficult decisions that ensure our financial sustainability and protect services. That will continue into 2019 when we will be forced to make further difficult decisions in order to balance our books.
To be clear this budget: Supports our new corporate plan Supports our residents most in need Provides an environment within which our businesses can thrive Safeguards our most vulnerable
And I commend it to this Chamber.”
Councillor Steve Curran seconded the report.
The Mayor then invited discussion on the report and its recommendations. Members made the following comments: Councillor Sam Hearn thanked Councillor Rajawat for his speech and for being brief. He then observed that the Conservative Group had detected a change in tone from the Administration and wished to respond in a positive way to it. As such, he and his colleagues would be commenting on the budget before Members: there would be areas where there was disagreement and others where there was none. In recognition of this, the Conservative Group would be abstaining. He then observed that he would be looking at the situation the Council found itself in due to 5 both external and internal factors. He recognised the hard work done on the budget planning process by Councillor Rajawat as the Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services, the Council’s Finance Team, the Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee but observed that, despite this, there was still a funding gap resulting in a 5% increase in Council Tax being proposed. He understood that the Council had seen an increase in the funding provided to it by Central Government and, remembering the Administrations’ pledge not to increase Council Tax “unless absolutely necessary”, he wished to see specific text in the report justifying the proposed Council Tax increase. He noted that the Labour Administration recognised the debilitating effect of failing to achieve previously agreed savings due to overspending and how this damaged the Council’s financial standing. He noted that the Administration freely blamed Government Austerity for creating its financial difficulties, but it needed to look at endogenous reasons for it failing to meet its own agreed budgets; the budgets set by the Administration were not forced on it – they had been agreed by the Administration itself, and yet had not been achieved. He wondered if there were flaws in the budget setting process. However, it was clear that the principal failure was a lack of corporate will to deliver agreed savings and prevent overspends, as shown repeatedly in performance figures considered by the Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He counselled the Administration that this needed to stop. The Council’s own Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) overtly stated that the Authority needed to have prescribed budgetary limits, controls on overspends, and to find additional savings as part of delivering its corporate plan. Councillor Rajawat had previously spoken about introducing new robust processes and so he, like all Members, could be tentatively optimistic about better controls reducing overspends and delivering savings. He observed that overall, the Council was being presented with a “steady as she goes” budget which could even be described as “bland”, which in many ways was a sensible course to be steering. However, he wondered if Councillor Rajawat was being too modest in his ambitions given that nationally employment was at a high, wages were rising faster than inflation and the nation’s finances were being restored. The Government had also confirmed the end of the age of austerity. He observed too that page 39 of the report, paragraph 1.3(a) stated that the Council’s estimated total expenditure for 2019/20 would be just over £609 million which was an increase of 6% on the figure of £574 million in 2018/19. He wished to judge the new Administration in good faith; it had been in office for ten months and had spoken impressively of its aspirations but no results had yet been seen; these had been promised for Autumn 2019 so it was too early yet to say, but he feared that the good intentions could prove to be merely “straws blowing in the wind”. He asked if the Council Tax rises were necessary. He also expressed concern that there was nothing relating to the Lampton 360 group of companies, the Council’s wholly owned trading companies, in the report; the Council was still seeing no dividend from them yet was paying the companies monies without return. He believed a radical rethink on the policy relating to the companies was required as the Council could not indefinitely keep putting money into them until a return was made. He also expressed concerns about the use of virements which were at high levels and which he considered illustrated “panic measures”. He asked why there were such things as non-operational budgets if their purpose was merely to be vired to problematic areas of spending as seemed to be the case. He noted that the Medium Term Financial Strategy has stated that the Council needed to manage its spend within prescribed monetary limits whereas the use of virements showed that this was not being done. He then discussed the £2 million pothole budget and having noted that it was never funded, nothing had been paid of the budget and that 6 Hounslow Highways had stated that they did not need it, he asked what it was for. He then observed that that it was in reality a reserve fund “with a label on it” which could be vired if necessary. He then complained that two thirds of the Council Tax increase was to fund unnecessary budgets such as the pothole reserve fund and the new homes budget, which remained mostly unspent. He then acknowledged that there were areas of uncertainty for the Council and he praised the overall prudent stance of the Authority which he hoped would always underpin financial decisions. He also welcomed what he saw as “a new realism” in the Administration. He therefore concluded that the Conservative Group hoped for great things in the future but were concerned that there was not enough evidence in the proposed budget of a “grip being taken.” Councillor Nisar Malik asked how the Conservative Group could remain unaware that the Council had been making continuous budget cuts and savings since 2006. It had been difficult but since 2010, the Council had successfully balanced its budgets in the face of significant financial cuts imposed by the Government in the name of austerity. He observed that the Conservative Government had ignored the usual position of Governments in developed countries of imposing corporation tax levels of about 35% by having a British rate of 17.5% in order to help rich companies get richer. However, it order to fund this, he noted that the people who had to pay were the poor; cuts to local Council services paid for financial support for rich companies. He called on the Conservative Group to talk to the Government about the problems being faced by the Council and Hounslow residents. He criticised them for planning to abstain and for not having provided an alternative budget. Councillor Tom Bruce recalled that Councillor Hearn had suggested that the Council’s budgets had not been imposed by Government but chosen locally. This ignored the £150 million cuts required by the Government and so was a “ridiculous” analysis. The Council had been successful in responding to unwanted and unfair cuts imposed by Governments since 2010; every Council department had been affected and the Authority had been open and honest about where it had overspent; the task was a difficult one as all local authorities had found out. Almost every Council was planning to increase Council Tax for 2019/20. He then observed that some of Councillor Hearn’s analysis was sound but it did not get to the heart of the issue which was that the Government had imposed significant financial cuts and the Council had succeeded in meeting them and delivering essential services for residents across the Borough, a fact recognised by the public at the Council election in May 2018 when 51 Labour Councillors were returned. He then thanked Councillor Shantanu Rajawat and the Council’s Finance Team for their excellent work. Councillor Guy Lambert observed that the Lampton 360 group of companies was again being vilified for overspending in the waste budget but he did not believe that any apology was necessary; the overspending arose from an ambitious plan to protect services and deliver better services than had previously been in place. There had been many successes achieved by the companies including buying back 82 properties, most of which were former Council houses and all of which would be managed by the Council for the benefit of tenants. He observed too that the Conservative Group seemed to believe that the Council’s pothole pledge was not real. However, £2 million had been set aside for the four year life of the Council. As only ten months had passed it was not surprising that very little had been spent. The Council had undertaken to listen to residents’ views on the repair of potholes which fell outside the definition used by Hounslow Highways according to their contract. He assured Members that the Council would deliver on the pledge. 7 Councillor Katherine Dunne welcomed the fact that the Conservative Group supported some of the budget proposals and had some warm words for it. However, she did not accept the Government’s declaration that austerity had now ended. She asked how such a claim could be squared with the need for charities to provide sanitary products for girls living in poverty. It was true that employment levels had risen but wages were sufficiently low in many cases that there was a significant class of people who were defined as the “working poor”, partly due to the roll out of Universal Credit. She also concurred with Councillor Tom Bruce’s view that it was simply wrong to say that budgets were not imposed on the Council as they were a direct response to imposed financial cuts demanded by the Government. The Council did not ask to have £150 million removed from its budget since 2010. She welcomed the overall approach on the Budget by the Conservative Group but considered that much of it did not add up. Councillor Ron Mushiso did not agree that the budgets were being forced on the Council by the Government and also did not consider that overspending was forced on the Council either. He blamed the Administration for not being able to meet its own agreed budgets. The £16 million overspend identified in the budget papers was due to the Council mismanaging services. He welcomed the end of national austerity but he accused the Labour Group of deliberately refusing to accept it as it did “not match what they are selling”. He could detect better financial times and was himself now about to buy a privately owned flat. He therefore believed that it was wrong to blame the Government for financial hardship. He asked the Council to acknowledge that the Government had given many grants to the Council – failure to do so would show that the Council’s budget was an exercise in blame and not about the real financial work to be done. He called on the Council to review its Departments and root out overspending. Councillor Vickram Grewal asked Councillor Mushiso if he and the Conservative Group had spoken with users of public services to see if they agreed that austerity was over. Whilst the Prime Minister might have declared that national austerity had concluded, it was hard to agree when there were foodbanks across the country, including in Hounslow. The red box project discussed earlier in the meeting was a good example of how poverty had grown and was affecting people. In terms of austerity ending, actions spoke louder than words. He was pleased for Councillor Mushiso that he had found himself able to buy a flat but the prevalence of poverty across the country and in Hounslow showed that austerity had not finished. Councillor Lily Bath also congratulated Councillor Mushiso on his personal ability to be able to buy a flat but noted that for most people, austerity was making them poorer; there were more homeless people which was one of the most visible examples of increased poverty. She also reminded Members that Councils were having greater responsibilities added to their work by the Government but often with insufficient or no funding to meet them. It was true that there were areas of overspend in the Council’s budgets but also true that the Council had statutory duties on homelessness, adult care and many other issues. These had to be met and usually required the spending of money – failure to do so would be a breach of the law and could see the Council subject to judicial review. She accused the Conservatives of knowing this but not wanting to hear it. Councillor John Todd noted that in 2017/18, the Council had overspent by £8 million but in 2018/19 it was estimated that the overspend would be £16.9 million. This information was never included in any reports to the Cabinet or other Council bodies except in the budget. Overspending meant mismanagement and was not sustainable and this was recognised in the report. He considered that paragraph 5.2.6 was helpful in understanding what the problem was, yet the Cabinet was not 8 acting to implement the savings agreed by the Council. By way of example, he noted that Appendix B of the report stated that £1.8 million of savings agreed under Councillor Bruce’s portfolio in 2014/15 had proven to be undeliverable and were being carried over. The same was true for Councillor Candice Atterton’s Budget. He asked how failed savings from 2014/15 remained unaddressed in the budget proposals for 2019/20. He accepted that there was pressure emanating from central Government on financial spending but the Council was an accountable body and had failed to meet its budgetary targets. He then advised that he considered Councillor Lambert to be a good and effective Cabinet Member but noted that the report before Members included large debts associated with the Council’s wholly owned trading companies which were being continued rather than mitigated; nor was the new homes budget being fully spent. He then observed that the Housing Revenue Account was “awash with money” as the strategy required to unlock spending was late and he called on the Cabinet to resolve that problem quickly. He welcomed the purchase of houses by Lampton 360 but noted that half of the properties remained empty. Paragraph 5.4.1 of the report confirmed that the company was expected to borrow millions of pounds over the next few years but not to make any profit. He questioned why, if this was the case, the fees for the company’s directors had increased and why this was not included in the report. He concluded by stating that he would like to see the Lampton 360 companies succeeding but could see little prospect of it. Councillor Javed Akhunzada stated that all Councils were having to make tough and unwelcome financial decisions. Fortunately, inflation was low at 1.8% in 2019 so far. He observed that the Government had ignored the recent United Nations report on poverty in Britain by Philp Alston, the UN's special rapporteur and expert on extreme poverty and human rights, who had condemned the British government's "punitive, mean-spirited and often callous" treatment of the country's poorest and most vulnerable people. The Conservatives were aware of this but had not mentioned it. Nor had they identified an alternative budget to the one on which they proposed to abstain. He called on them to speak to their own Government to address the big issues affecting people. He then thanked Councillor Rajawat and the Finance Team for the budget before Members which he considered “a good one in a difficult time.” Councillor Salman Shaheen noted that austerity was responsible for a reduction of £100 billion in the British economy since 2010, according to a report published in the last week. It was part of an ideological drive by the Conservatives to shrink the state. Councillor Mushiso’s conclusion that austerity had ended appeared to be based on anecdote and his own personal financial situation rather than an analysis of the wider situation including his own residents. Austerity remained and was crippling the poorest and most vulnerable in society. He lamented the idea being suggested that the Council as a Labour Administration was making cuts because it wished to do so – it did so as it was being required to do so by a Conservative Government. He wished to see the Council invest in the economy and he believed the local Labour manifesto would help this to happen. Councillor Ranjit Gill noted that the Labour Group always blamed the Government but in Hounslow, it was the Council that had the finances and so it was the responsibility of the Administration to carry out good housekeeping. He called on Councillor Rajawat to run the Council’s finances as he would in his own home and then reminded Members of the story from 2010 when the outgoing Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Payne MP, had written a jocular note to his successor, stating “"Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards
9 - and good luck!” which he considered showed the financial mismanagement of the then Labour Government. Councillor Steve Curran light heartedly observed that he agreed with the Conservatives that austerity had ended but only for the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) in Northern Ireland, who had been given over £1 billion by the minority Conservative Government to support it in Parliament and keep it in office. By contrast, the cross party Local Government Association had recently published a survey showing that eight out of ten Councils considered that local authority funding processes “were broken”, and that 53% of all Councils were relying on reserves to plug financial holes in their budgets. At a meeting of the London Leaders recently, there was unanimous agreement between the Leaders (representing the three political parties in Administration in London) that the Governments proposed “fair funding formula” was terrible and would be detrimental to London, with all Councils being financially worse off. Furthermore, outside of London it was calculated that only Conservative Councils would benefit. For Hounslow, the budget was being cut every year; he accepted that overspending was a problem but this was due to the Government cutting the Council’s budget. The Conservative-Independent Coalition that was in office between 2006-2010 had frozen Council Tax, a policy continued by the successor Labour Administrations from 2010, except on the occasions when it was reduced twice, something the Conservatives had not been able to do. The Council had also introduced the Council Tax Support Scheme to help the poorest residents of the Borough and he expressed pride in having done so. The Government was doing nothing to support residents. He then reminded all Members, that 97% of Councils were proposing to increase Council Tax in 2019/20, most with an increase of 3%. Furthermore, 97% of Councils were planning to increase fees and charges – including Councils run Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The simple truth was that there was not enough money in the system to allow Councils to run well: austerity was still very much in evidence in local government. The country was suffering under an ineffectual government. It was a scandal that in a modern country, it was necessary to set up charities to provide girls with sanitary products, and that Government ministers were finding public relations opportunities by having photographs taken of themselves with food boxes. It was clear that the only way to answer the growing financial crisis in local government which was affecting all Councils of whatever political persuasion was to fund Councils fully. He noted that Hounslow had a budget of £630 million – in 2006-2010, the then Conservative-Independent Administration had given £5 million to KPMG, an external consultancy, to help it make savings. Yet, in 2010, the Conservative Group’s coalition partners all lost their seats and in 2014 and 2018, the Conservative Group has lost more and more of its own Council seats so that it now only had nine Members in total. By contrast, and despite financial difficulties, in that time the Labour Group had won increasing numbers of seats so that now it had 51 out of 60. Even his own personal popularity had risen by 2% in the residents’ survey which meant that the Council had to be doing something right. He accepted that more needed to be done to address overspending and that Cabinet Members and officers were working hard to bring them down – but the Council faced new pressures on its services every day, whilst continuing to do good things for its residents. He therefore concluded by expressing his support for the budget. Councillor Theo Dennison light heartedly observed that the Conservative Group seemed to be channelling television comic Harry Enfield in its attitude to money, as epitomised in his joke “I’ve upped my income, up yours”. He also said that Enfield’s character, “Tim-Nice-But-Dim”, also seemed to be much in evidence. More seriously, he observed that the Conservative Group seemed unable to see both the 10 wood and the trees. As the Cabinet Member for Finance in the last Administration he took responsibility for all debt during that time: it was important for all Members to take responsibility for their actions and policies. However, it was clear that the overspends were predominantly in the Council’s most pressured services such as looked after children, adult social care and the like. The pressures on housing and the budget were all caused by the Government and its austerity drive producing significant and damaging cuts to local authorities. Nonetheless, the Council was prudent and it was prepared. It was right to observe that overspends were covered by virements but that was what the money was there to do. This was part of planning and preparedness. The Administration did cover overspends but did not ignore responsibility for them which was the right thing to do. The net deficit in 2017/18 was £1.6 million which, he observed, was one quarter of the cost of the KPMG fees paid by the Conservative-Independent Administration of 2016/2010. He was willing to take responsibility for the management of finances between 2014- 2018 and he called on the Conservative Group to do the same for 2006-2010. Furthermore, the Conservative Government’s net debt in the last year was £39.4 billion. Councillor Candice Atterton observed that the problems faced by Hounslow and other Councils all arose from the fantasy of Conservative ideology that it could reduce and remove the national financial deficit in one (and then two) Parliamentary terms. It had failed to do so and national debt had increased. She then reminded Councillor Mushiso that it was important to remember that there was a bigger picture than just the one that people personally experienced; for her own part, she was in the top one percent of the richest people in the world and operated good housekeeping, yet it would only take on catastrophic event to cause untold problems and damage to her family: for many people in Britain, austerity was that event. She accepted that there had been overspends in the Council department for which she was Cabinet Member but she was aware too that there had been much cost containment and was satisfied that officers were doing what they could to support the most vulnerable in the Borough. She lamented too that the mooted Government white paper on adult social care was being continually delayed due to the ongoing problems with Brexit, which in itself was likely to prove another catastrophic event adversely affecting residents. It was unacceptable that so many people were working hard and yet it was not always helping rise them out of poverty. Councillor Michael Denniss fed back comments from residents he had received about the budget report; the main one being that it was seemingly impenetrable and hard to read. He requested that efforts be made to make similar such reports in the future easier to read as this was essential for transparency, particularly for residents.
There being no more contributions, the Mayor invited Councillor Rajawat to sum up the debate, which he then did by making the following comments: He thanked Clive Palfreyman, Director of Finance and Corporate Services, and his colleagues in the Finance Team for their hard work. He congratulated a number of Members for making their maiden speech. He paid tribute to Councillors Theo Dennison and Jagdish Sharma for their oversight of budgetary matters since 2010. He accepted the comments made by Councillor Denniss about the readability of the report, although he noted that this had not been an issue raised when he had attended a recent meeting of the Chiswick Area Forum to discuss the proposals.
11 He criticised the Conservative Group for planning to abstain on the budget and thereby “ducking the need to offer solutions”. He lamented the Government policy of failing to avoid problems in local government by only providing inadequate funding to address a problem once it had become a crisis, which was another example of Conservatives “ducking problems”. A good example of this was the fair funding review which was likely to prove an enormous challenge to local government, and in particular all Councils in London as it was likely to be a redistribution of money rather than funding Councils properly across the board – and had only been proposed in order to help bail out failing Conservative county Councils such as Northamptonshire County Council; to take money from inner city Councils to distribution it elsewhere was in his opinion disgusting and would exacerbate poverty. The Government was also proposing to remove poverty as a performance indicator which he considered shameful. He concluded by observing that the Conservative Party was fighting for its political survival – and the Labour Party would never turn its back on residents. He commended the recommendations.
The Mayor then put the recommendations to the vote and it was
RESOLVED –
That the following recommendations be approved:
Council Tax
In respect of the calculation and setting of Council Tax: i. That it be noted that at its meeting on the 22 January 2019, Cabinet calculated the Council Tax base 2019/20 for the whole Council area as 85,195.40 [Item T in the formula in Section 31B of Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the “Act”)]. ii. That the Council Tax requirement for the Council for 2019/20 is £104,452,116.26 [Item R in the formula in Section 31B of Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the “Act”)]. iii. That the following amounts be calculated for the year 2019/20 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Act: a a) £609,027,062 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for its total expenditure in accordance with the items set out in Section 31A (2) of the Act. a b) £504,574,946 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for its total income (including formula grant and Council Tax surplus payable for the year into its General Fund) in accordance with the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act. a c) £104,452,116 being the amount by which the aggregate (iii)(a) above exceeds the aggregate at (iii)(b) above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act as its Council Tax requirement for the year. (Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act). a
12 b d) £1,226.03 being the amount at (iii) (c) above (Item R), all divided by Item T at (i) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year. iv. To note that the LB Hounslow element of the Council Tax charge for 2019/20 will increase by 4.99%. This consists of a 2.99% general Council Tax rise plus 2% related to the Adult Social Care precept. v. To note that for the year 2019/20 the Greater London Authority (GLA) has issued a consultation setting out its precept to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for each category of dwellings in the Council’s area as indicated in the table below. vi. That the Council, in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the aggregate amounts shown in the tables below as the amounts of Council Tax for 2019/20 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings. (GLA will approve its precept on the 25 February 2019).
vii. To note that the Council’s basic amount of Council Tax for 2019/20 is not excessive in accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. viii. To note that the current Council Tax support scheme offers up to 100% relief for working age residents who qualify.
Revenue Budget • Approve a base budget, resulting in net operating expenditure, of £173,697,773 as referred to in section 5. The budget has been based on the provisional local authority finance settlement and may need to be reviewed once the final settlement has been announced, which is expected by the end of the month.
Inflation • Approve the inflation bids, totalling £4.5m, as set out in section 5.
Fees and charges • Approve the 2019/20 fees and charges as set out in Appendix C, subject to consultation where relevant.
Local Welfare Provision • To approve the allocation of £0.1m for Local Welfare Provision, as set out in section 5.
Dedicated Schools Grant • To note that Cabinet on 12 February 2019 approved the local schools 5 to 15 Funding Formula for 2019/20, which has been set based on the principles set out in (section 6).
13 Housing Revenue Account (HRA) • To note and adopt the 2019/20 HRA budget as set out in section 7 of this report. This is estimating an in-year surplus of £10.7m in 2019/20. The surplus will be used to fund capital expenditure, resulting in an estimated breakeven position on the HRA as at 31 March 2020.
Capital Strategy • To note and adopt the updated capital programme from 2019/20 to 2022/23 as set out in Section 8 of this report, • To approve the capital strategy as attached in Appendix D.
Treasury Management Strategy, Investment Strategy, Prudential Indicators and Minimum Revenue Provision Policy • To adopt the following: • Treasury Management Strategy (section 9 & Appendix E) • Annual Investment Strategy (Appendix E) • Statement on Minimum Revenue Provision (Appendix E) • The Prudential and Treasury Indicators (Appendix E)
• Council to authorise the Strategic Director, Finance & Corporate Services to: Use short-term (temporary) borrowings. Use cash held in internal funds to offset the need to borrow externally. Use long-term borrowings subject to interest rates at the time of offer: to take long-term loans, as required, from the Public Works Loan Board. to take long term loans from the money market using any of the loan instruments available to the Council as deemed most appropriate at the time of borrowing. o Invest temporary surplus cash within constraints of normal cash flow considerations with approved counterparties. Maintain the approved counterparty list, making additions and deletions, and reviewing counterparty limits as necessary. Review and appoint external cash fund managers if appropriate if one-off lump sums are received, subject to specific conditions for investment. Invest the earmarked PFI funds for periods of over two years in organisations meeting our credit criteria. Review and implement all prudent debt management functions which are required to produce advantages to the Council’s long-term interest rate liabilities. This to include a review of asset lives within the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) policy. Subject to available rental levels, to finance appropriate expenditure through leasing arrangements. Operate the loan facilities made available for implementation of the Lampton Property 360 Investment Plan.
Annual Procurement Plan • Approve the additions to the Annual Procurement Plan as detailed in Appendix F.
This was a named vote, and Members voted as follows:
In favour of the recommendations:
Councillors Aqsa Ahmed, Javed Akhunzada, Candice Atterton, Harleen Atwal Hear, Lily Bath, Raj Bath, Tom Bruce, John Chatt, Samia Chaudhary, Komal Chaudri, Unsa Chaudri, 14 Bandna Chopra, Mel Collins, Steve Curran, Theo Dennison, Sukhbir Dhaliwal, Poonam Dhillon, Katherine Dunne, Richard Eason, Richard Foote, Adriana Gheorghe, Vickram Grewal, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Shivraj Grewal, Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, Hanif Khan, Afzaal Kiani, Hina Kiani, Gurmail Lal, Guy Lambert, Tony Louki, Khulique Malik, Nisar Malik, Amrit Mann, Gerald McGregor, Shaida Mehrban, Alan Mitchell, Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Daanish Saeed, Sue Sampson, Salman Shaheen, Jagdish Sharma, Corinna Smart, Karen Smith and Sohan Sumra.
Against the recommendations:
Councillor Gerald McGregor
Abstaining on the recommendations:
Councillors Patrick Barr, Joanna Biddolph, Michael Denniss, Gabriella Giles, Ranjit Gill, Sam Hearn, Ron Mushiso and John Todd.
This was therefore a majority decision.
The Mayor thanked all Members for their contributions.
6. Calendar of Formal Committee Dates 2019/20
Members considered a report by Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council.
It was proposed, seconded and unanimously
RESOLVED -
That the schedule of formal committee and Council meeting dates for the municipal year 2019/20 as detailed in the appendix to this report be agreed.
ACTION: Head of Democratic Services TO NOTE: All
7. Appointments to Committees and Other Bodies
Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services.
There being no nominations, it was
RESOLVED –
That the report be noted.
TO NOTE: All
8. Decisions Taken Under Urgency Arrangements (if any)
15 Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services
It was
RESOLVED –
That the information be noted.
TO NOTE: All
9. Any Other Matters That the Mayor Considers Urgent
There were no such items.
10. Date of Next Meeting
Members noted that next meeting of the Council was scheduled to take place on Tuesday 12th March 2019. This meeting would commence at 7.30pm and will be held in the Council Chamber.
The meeting ended at 9.02 pm
MAYOR
Minutes End
16 At a meeting of the Borough Council held on Tuesday, 12th March 2019 at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber at the Hounslow Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow
Present: The Mayor, Councillor Samia Chaudhary (in the Chair) The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Sohan Sumra
Councillors: Councillors, Javed Akhunzada, Candice Atterton, Harleen Atwal Hear, Patrick Barr, Lily Bath, Raj Bath, Joanna Biddolph, Unsa Chaudri, Mel Collins, Theo Dennison, Michael Denniss, Sukhbir Dhaliwal, Poonam Dhillon, Katherine Dunne, Richard Eason, Richard Foote, Adriana Gheorghe, Gabriella Giles, Ranjit Gill, Vickram Grewal, Ajmer Grewal, Pritam Grewal, Puneet Grewal, Shivraj Grewal, Bishnu Bahadur Gurung, Sam Hearn, Hanif Khan, Afzaal Kiani, Hina Kiani, Gurmail Lal, Guy Lambert, Khulique Malik, Nisar Malik, Amrit Mann, Gerald McGregor, Shaida Mehrban, Hina Mir, Ron Mushiso, Surinder Purewal, Shantanu Rajawat, Sue Sampson, Salman Shaheen, Jagdish Sharma, Raghwinder Siddhu, Corinna Smart and Karen Smith.
1. Apologies for Absence, Other Announcements and Declarations of Interest from Members
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Aqsa Ahmed Tom Bruce, John Chatt, Komal Chaudri, Bandna Chopra, Steve Curran, Kamaljit Kaur, Tony Louki, Alan Mitchell, Daanish Saeed, John Todd and Mohammed Umair.
An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Theo Dennison.
There were no declarations of interest.
2. Announcements
The Mayor made an announcement about the imminent close of Hounslow Civic Centre in Lampton Road, the home of the Council since 1976, with the following statement: “I think it appropriate to record that this is the last meeting of the Borough Council to be held in this Civic Centre building. Whilst I hope that we are all excited to be moving to our new headquarters down the road, known as Hounslow House, I know that those feelings will be tinged with a sense of bittersweet sadness as this fine building comes to the end of its life. The Council has already celebrated its great contribution to civic life in the Borough at a number of special events aimed at Members, staff and the public, but I hope that Members will share my appreciation of this fine municipal building and the work done by Members of all political parties and officers over a number of generations here for the good of all our residents. I am sure we shall love our new building, but we will also miss this one.
17 By way of goodbye, I have arranged for a very small reception to be held in and around the Mayor’s Parlour after the meeting ends tonight. I hope that you will feel able to join me for that.”
Councillor Lily Bath, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Social Inclusion then made the following statements:
“I am pleased to say that all Council tenants will now receive a quarterly newsletter with their rent statement called “Rent Sense”. The purpose of this newsletter is to keep tenants informed about useful information about benefits and how to manage money, get debt advice but most importantly it’s about giving advice to those tenants that may be struggling with their rent payments and falling into rent arrears.
Unfortunately, since the roll out of Universal Credit in Hounslow, many of our tenants who receive the payment have fallen into rent arrears. When I last looked at the figures, 60% of tenants on Universal Credit were in rent arrears. This is due to Government Policy where rent payments for Universal Credit are paid to the claimants in their benefit instead of before where Housing Benefit was paid directly to the landlord. This is exacerbated by the fact that there are often delays in Universal Credit being paid with a waiting time of six weeks. So claimants get into debt whilst waiting to be paid. Also for many people being transferred to Universal Credit has resulted in a loss of income as previous benefits were more generous. All of this added together causes tenants to fall into arrears making it difficult to clear.
Unfortunately, a number of tenants have been evicted due to rent arrears. I must stress at this stage that this is not many but 50% of those evicted were on Universal Credit. I have requested that officers have a close look at the numbers in this situation.
Obviously, we don’t want tenants to get rent arrears and face homelessness. Not only is it bad for them but also bad for us in terms of our rent collection and ultimately our budgets. So it is for this reason, it’s important that we do as much as we can to try to help those that are struggling with their rent. The Council’s housing advice team is able to offer advice on rent arrears, budgeting and applying for benefits helping tenants to apply with Discretionary Housing Payments. If you do know of tenants, please direct them to their housing officer as soon as possible.
I am also pleased to announce that we have the first wave of electronic notice boards being rolled out in some of our housing estates. The benefits of these new notice boards will be that we will be able to communicate information to residents in real time such as cleaning schedules, fire safety information and so forth and the advantage of them is that they can be easily updated centrally. To date, we have sixty installed in some of our high rise blocks and if they prove to be successful, then they will be rolled out in other blocks.
We are committed to engaging better with our tenants and hopefully this will be a step forward in the right direction.”
Councillor Bath also then paid tribute to Robert Neville, the Labour Group Political Assistant who was soon to leave the Council to take on a role with the Metropolitan Police. She noted that he had said he would miss the Council, but she knew that it was also going 18 to be true that the Council would miss him, particularly Members of the Labour Group. On behalf of all Members she wished him well for the future.
Councillor Ron Mushiso advised that the Conservative Group also wished Mr Neville well and had always found him helpful to work with and to assist in useful cross party communication. In his own case, Mr Neville had been very helpful to him personally in supporting a cross party work experience arrangement for a number of students from the school at which he (Councillor Mushiso) worked.
The Mayor concluded the announcements by also wishing Mr Neville well for the future.
Members appreciation was shown by a found of applause.
There were no other announcements.
3. Petitions
Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services.
Councillor Sue Sampson provided the Mayor with a petition from 360 residents seeking the safeguarding of the Park Road Allotments by the use of an Article Four direction to prevent it being closed.
There being no further petitions presented to the Mayor and no petitions to be considered at the Council meeting itself, the Mayor invited Members to note the referrals of previously received petitions as detailed in the report.
It was then
RESOLVED –
That the petitions that had been forwarded to other formal bodies of the Authority or to ward Councillors or officers for consideration be noted
ACTION BY: Head of Democratic Services TO NOTE: All
4. Hounslow Residents Survey 2018 (CEX394)
Members considered a report by Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce, who introduced the item by making the following statement:
“As Members will know, the Council commissions an independent research company to carry out a representative survey of our residents every two years. The survey captures perceptions of Council performance, both overall and against a range of detailed indicators. This year, as something different, we have produced a video to summarise the results of the survey and I would like to show that you that now.”
19 Members then watched a short video presentation illustrating the results of the residents survey.
Upon its conclusion, Councillor Dunne continued her statement, as follows:
“The video will be made available to the public. I am satisfied that it gives an honest picture of what residents have told us. In terms of our response, we have been able to group the findings into three categories: Positive: such as 84% of residents being satisfied with the area in which they live and 92% of residents feeling safe in the streets of the Borough during the day. Dissatisfaction on Issues of Which the Council is Already Aware: such as our work on resident engagement and customer services, the pothole pledge and the new enforcement team and CCTV (closed circuit television) upgrade. Dissatisfaction on issues that the Council has since responded to following a report to Cabinet: such as the fall in residents who agree that Council staff are friendly and polite – and a Councillors task and finish group together with the Chief Executive will take action on this.
So overall, I hope that the picture I have painted is honest and largely positive.”
Councillor Dunne then formally proposed the recommendations in the report, and Councillor Lily Bath seconded them.
The Mayor then invited discussion on the report and its recommendations. Members made the following comments: Councillor Shaida Mehrban considered the report to be good but added that it was important to learn from what the residents were telling the Council; the Council was working positively but needed to do better in a number of areas. She also suggested that the Council could sensibly enhance how it presented what it did in a focussed way to help people understand areas of success which may not be readily apparent otherwise. She thanked Councillor Dunne for the report. Councillor Ron Mushiso considered the report well written and the video information good but considered that they both “glossed over a lot”. He noted that the residents’ survey had identified some issues that ought to worry Members, but which were well known from Members’ casework. He regretted that the fifty-one Members of the Labour Group were too busy with factional infighting, as illustrated by their response to the Electoral Review (agenda item seven), to address the issues that mattered to residents. He noted that of 51 complaints in the first quarter of 2018, 27 were on housing which was over half. In quarter two, there had been 110 complaints with again over half on housing, at 56. Furthermore, all housing matters referred to the ombudsman had been upheld and financial awards were made to the complainants losing the Council £4000 which was money which could no longer be used to improve matters. He also questioned the survey finding that nine out of ten residents feeling safe in Hounslow during the day; he was aware of much concern about knife crime and mugging across the Borough including in Chiswick, and knew that many people were seriously concerned for their children’s safety. The Children and Young Person’s Scrutiny Panel had recently called for more to be done to address antisocial behaviour in Hounslow but the Administration had not yet done anything to meet the request or solve the issue. This was failure in a basic area, particularly as the survey showed that 75% of the public considered antisocial behaviour to be a big problem. He supported the approach taken in New York 20 where antisocial behaviour was picked up quickly to prevent it escalating into more serious crime. He also noted that the recent overhaul of the Council’s telephone service had not gone well. Overall, it was clear that the public wanted nine active Conservative Members over 51 inactive Labour ones. Councillor Patrick Barr thanked Councillor Dunne for the report; he considered it to be an accurate summation of the views of residents. He suggested that of all of the reports provided to Members, this was the most important as it took Councillors to the heart of their role which was to help residents. He the advised that he personally received a lot of casework about Council communications not being good enough, and how this left him and other Members acting as a “go between” to clarify for residents what the Council was trying to do. He wondered if the Council therefore needed to focus on better communications and asked that this be looked into. He concluded by congratulating Councillor Dunne on the report. Councillor Pritam Grewal noted that the Council’s telephone service was improving though not yet as good as it needed to be. He then noted that like a number of Members he had tweeted about the residents’ survey in order to encourage residents to complete it as it was the best way to find out how people perceived the Council and its services; this was important as the Council was serious about improving its customer services. It was intended that in Hounslow House, the new Council building, all residents needing help would be seen within fifteen minutes. In the last two years, telephone answering statistics had improved from 60% to 90%, although waiting times for telephones to be answered needed still to be improved. However, online responses had improved dramatically and the Council had been awarded one of only two four star ratings given to a London Borough for its website by an independent reviewing body. Nonetheless, he acknowledged areas where improvement was needed including staff attitudes when dealing with residents and this would become a priority. Councillor Ranjit Gill thanked Councillor Dunne for the report but noted in relation to the problems of flytipping and refuse collection, part of the problem was in the inadequacy of the bins; their size was designed for weekly rather than fortnightly collections. He asked if a bigger size could be offered to residents. In addition, support with recycling would be helpful to those who needed assistance such as disabled or very old people. Councillor Gerald McGregor welcomed the report and was pleased that the picture it painted was so good, but he expressed some concern about the lack of filters in the survey itself; he gave the example of how the number of people who paid Council Tax was considerably smaller than the number of residents in the Borough, and so there was a danger of those who were paying nothing helping to decide the direction of Council policy through the survey – a case of representation without Taxation. He noted that 37% of all the Council Tax paid to Hounslow came from the three Chiswick wards but those residents were underrepresented in terms of the direction of Council policy. He pondered if there were structural issues which exacerbated this and whether the Chiswick wards leaving the Borough might be a solution. Councillor Lily Bath also thanked Councillor Dunne for the report and for being so clear about acknowledging that improvements needed to be made in some areas. She was however surprised at some of the comments made by Councillor Mushiso – there was no question in the residents survey about which political party’s Councillors residents wished to have representing them. She then observed that when complaints rose it was sometimes a helpful way of identifying a problem which could then be rectified. She was not surprised about the large number of complaints about housing issues – the overriding problem was a shortfall in suitable 21 properties and lack of supply. The Council had set up a number of cross party Member level “task and finish groups” aimed at addressing a number of concerns identified in the survey. The Council was committed to responding to residents views. After ten years of austerity and the imposition of £150 million of cuts by the Government, the residents survey showed that the Council was still getting a lot right and had much to be proud of.
There being no further comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Dunne to sum up the debate which she did with the following comments: She thanked Members who had made comments and was grateful that most people agreed with the findings which were that the Council was doing a lot of things well but there were areas that needed to be addressed. The purpose of the survey was not to allow the Council to “pat itself on the back” but to find out where it could do better. She agreed with Councillor Barr that the reason all Members were where they were was because of residents. It was necessary to look at both the positive and negative outcomes of the report to get the full picture. The consequence was that there were some areas which surprised the Authority and gave it pause for thought, which was a good thing to do. The exercise was not a cynical one but one to find out what the Council was doing well for residents and where it needed to do more. She also invited Councillor Mushiso to discuss his concerns with her outside of the meeting.
It was then
RESOLVED-
That the results of the Hounslow Residents Survey 2018 which were set out in full in Appendix A to the report be noted.
TO NOTE: All
5. Corporate Plan 2019-2024 (CEX253)
Members considered a report by Steve Curran, Leader of the Council. In the absence of Councillor Curran, Councillor Lily Bath, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Social Inclusion, introduced the item by making the following comments: The current Corporate Plan was agreed in 2014 and was due to expire later in the year. It was correct to celebrate the successes arising from the previous plan but the Council needed to be remain mindful that there was more to be done. The report before Members was the new Corporate Plan which would last until 2024 and reflected the pledges, ambitions and priorities of the Council in that period. The Council would use the plan to help address some of the issues raised by residents identified in the report at agenda item 4. The plan was outcomes based and it was necessity to have such a plan in a time of challenge.
22 The Council was facing ever increasing demands on its services whilst resources were depleting. It was therefore necessary to be ambitious and creative to help residents. She concluded by formally proposing the recommendations and stating that she looked forward to working with all Members to help deliver the plan over the next few years.
Councillor Shantanu Rajawat formally seconded the recommendations.
The Mayor then invited discussion on the report and its recommendations. Members made the following comments: Councillor Patrick Barr made the following statement: “To set the scene; I am walking down Shaftesbury Avenue in London’s glittering West End and come across an all singing all dancing colourful poster outside a theatre, a theatre sadly in the dark, advertising a show called “The Corporate Plan”. According to local reports the show has not been able to open due to overspending on the advertising and a £16.9 million deficit. Like this fictitious production I have invented to illustrate a point, Hounslow Council appears to have spent quite a bit of money putting together a colourful piece of self glorifying literature. How does this Council plan to implement their very own show, the Corporate Plan, with colourful literature, empty words and a £16.9 deficit? In the Corporate Plan, eight specific population wide outcomes are mentioned. With specific reference to one of the eight points; residents are health and active, your promotional literature states “we will provide help and support when you need it”. As the shadow Member for Adult Health and Social Care I ask how are you going to work with the Hounslow Community Care Group, the voluntary care sector and local charities to achieve improved health outcomes for the Borough. Details please.” Councillor Hanif Khan observed that the Corporate Plan was the foundation of how the Council served the community yet it was having to do so following nearly a decade of extreme financial cuts imposed on the Authority by Conservative Governments, with sixty pence of every pound being lost as a result, although the cuts were often less severe for Conservative run Councils. However, the Council still provided good services for its residents and was committed to doing so. The residents had expressed an 84% satisfaction rate on Council services as part of the recent residents’ survey. It was essential that the Council put residents at the heart of what it did. He then related how following a stabbing incident in Feltham Park, the local Councillors looked at ways of trying to bring the traumatised community together, and had arranged a community clear up with over sixty volunteers. He called on other Members to do similarly, and concluded by stating that the Corporate Plan put residents at the centre of the Council’s thinking. Councillor Candice Atterton borrowed Councillor Barr’s metaphor and suggested that the Corporate Plan show would not be put on if the Council agreed an illegal budget or went bankrupt as was the case with Conservative controlled Northamptonshire County Council. However, Hounslow had been consistently prudent in its budgets, and so, despite the significant cuts required by the Government, it was in nowhere near so financially parlous a situation. The Council was therefore well placed to be confident in delivering its promises and had already done so with previous commitments. The Council was doing well in provision of adult care, children’s care and youth services and its crime rate was comparable with other London Boroughs; there was also a disparity between the actual levels of crime and the perception of it. That said, incidences of domestic violence were increasing despite many people feeling unable to report it. The Council needed to 23 prioritise its statutory duties and the Corporate Plan would help it to do so. She then suggested that Councillor Barr’s comments in relation to agenda items four and five were contradictory. Councillor Ron Mushiso began by following on from Councillor Khan’s comments on community clean up events but accepted an intervention from Councillor Khan.
Councillor Khan asked Councillor Mushiso to clarify what he meant by community clean up events as he personally considered them to be a way to help the community to take pride in the Borough. In response, Councillor Mushiso clarified that he agreed and that there had been many such events in his own ward – often involving parents and children in high visibility jackets picking up litter. There had been a very successful event of this kind in his ward in January and it was hoped to make them monthly. He also stated that the next one was being organised jointly with Keep Britain Tidy, the national litter prevention organisation.
The Mayor then invited further debate on the report and the following comments were made: Councillor Sam Hearn considered that there was a conflict in the content of the debate thus far when compared with the motion proposed by Members of the Labour Group at agenda item fourteen. The latter argued that Government austerity was creating a danger for vulnerable people, whilst at the same time, Councillor Atterton had confirmed that the Council’s finances were prudent and sound and therefore able to maintain good services. He the noted that 9% of residents in Hounslow did not have access to the internet and there was often a significant overlap between this group and the vulnerable people the Council was trying most to help; page nine of the report suggested that the Council was trying to create a “single front door” for residents to access its services yet it also wanted multiple channels of access, which was contradictory. He also recalled the concerns raised by residents in the residents’ survey about the reduction of politeness of Council staff when dealing with members of the public; he considered that all Members would agree that it was important for the Council to get things right first time. He knew that there were many excellent, polite members of staff but to get feedback of that nature was to suggest that something had gone wrong somewhere and he questioned why Members received one service whilst residents seemingly got another. He then referred to page eight of the report and its statements about needing to keep track of services and check them, yet the Cabinet repeatedly did not act to deal with overspends in departments. Councillor Gabriella Giles considered the report interesting but noted that in her opinion it had taken its inspiration from Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, in that it was an example of spending on publicity rather than addressing the subject it was about. She also asked that it be made more consistent in its use of language and cited the interchangeability of the terms “residents” and “customers”. She argued that the latter was incorrect as it suggested a merely transactional relationship when the reality was that it was more complex than that, and that Members were accountable to residents. She concluded by looking forward to seeing how the plan would be implemented.
It was then proposed by Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, seconded by Councillor Raj Bath and unanimously
RESOLVED –
24 That the question be put to the vote.
Councillor Lily Bath declined the offer of summing up the debate, and therefore the recommendations were put to the vote, where it was
RESOLVED –
That the new Corporate Plan to run from 2019 to 2024 be adopted; and That an approach to engaging with local residents, to place shaping, and to promoting the Borough through a ‘Shaping Hounslow’ programme be also adopted.
This was a majority decision.
ACTION BY: Head of Policy, Scrutiny & Intelligence TO NOTE: All
6. Review of Statement of Gambling Principles (CEX361)
Members considered a report by Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce, who introduced the item by making the following statement:
“The Council has to produce a triannual statement of gambling principles to set out how we regulate gambling in the Borough. As explained in the report, we are carrying out a detailed review to reflect recent changes in guidance issued by the Gambling Commission. We are therefore asking that the current statement be readopted pending this review to enable us to continue our licensing functions. This will allow the Council to undergo a proper review and a full consultation with the appropriate bodies.”
Councillor Dunne then formally proposed the recommendations in the report.
Councillor Richard Foote seconded the report and made the following comments: He had chaired a meeting of the Licensing Committee yesterday evening where the proposals before Members were debated. There was support for the interim re-adoption of the current statement of gambling principles to allow a fuller, more comprehensive policy to be developed following a review and consultation. The Committee had requested that it meet again when the review was completed so that it could also look at a cumulative impact policy to sit alongside the statement of gambling principles to help ensure that disturbances to residents could be kept to a minimum. He therefore supported the report and its recommendations.
The Mayor then invited discussion on the report. There were no comments except by Councillor Sam Hearn who noted that paragraph 2.1 allowed for “Miners’ Welfare Institutes” and light heartedly wondered if there were many in the Borough.
There being no further comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Dunne to sum up. Councillor Dunne thanked Councillors Foote and Hearn for their comments and commended the report.
25 The Mayor then put the matter to the vote and it was
RESOLVED –
That the Statement of Gambling Principles which formed Appendix 1 of the report be approved.
ACTION BY: Strategic Director, Housing, Planning and Communities TO NOTE: All
7. Electoral Review: Formal Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (Stage Two)
Members considered a report by Steve Curran, Leader of the Council.
The Mayor observed that that since the publication of the original agenda, a supplementary agenda had been published containing a proposed revision to the submission in the original report.
In addition, there had been some further proposed changes and clarifications outlined in the additional supplementary paper which had been published earlier in the day and provided to those present. She therefore asked Members to consider the documents together and clarified that Members would be discussing the following: The original covering report in the first agenda. The proposed submission in the supplementary agenda – which superseded pages 160-199 of the original agenda. The small revisions to the submission in the short supplementary agenda published earlier in the day.
In the absence of Councillor Curran, Councillor Lily Bath, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Social Inclusion, introduced the item by making the following comments: The report presented Members with the proposed Council response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s review of the London Borough of Hounslow’s local government electoral arrangements. The outcome of the review would be implemented for the May 2022 Council elections. The review had been in two stages. The preliminary stage was concerned with determining “Council Size” in terms of the number of Councillors. This had been completed in October 2018 with a submission from the Council proposing that the overall number of Councillors for Hounslow from 2022 should remain at sixty. This submission was supported by all Members of the Council, and the Commission had subsequently advised that it was minded to agree to the proposal. The review had subsequently reached its second stage which was concerned with determining the “Warding Arrangements” in terms of the number, their size and the number of representatives of each ward in the Authority area. The cross party Members Working Group on the electoral review had met several times with all Members being invited to meetings to discuss the Council’s response to the second phase of the review. There had also been a number of Member “drop-in” sessions to allow individual or smaller groups of Members to discuss the matter in detail. 26 The resultant proposed response comprised eighteen wards with three Members and three with two. The Council had been mindful of the three statutory criteria to be used by the Commission when it made its final decision, as follows: The need to secure electoral equality (a consistent number of electors per Councillor) Community identity (strong ward boundaries that reflect communities); and Securing effective and convenient local government (coherent wards) She concluded by formally proposing the recommendations (as revised by subsequent documents identified by the Mayor) and thanked all Members for their help during the development of the proposals.
Councillor Richard Foote seconded the report.
The Mayor then invited discussion on the report and its recommendations. Members made the following comments: Councillor Ranjit Gill advised that he had been a Member of the cross party Members Working Group and had worked on the plan. It had been a difficult task and he wished to thank the officers who had supported Members on the proposals. Then expressed the hope that the plan before Members would not change again, as it had already done so twice, as shown by the publication of the two supplementary agenda: in one version he had found himself in Hounslow Heath ward and in another Hanworth Park – and observed that the changes literally meant you did not know where you were. He considered the resulting plan to be good but then added that an alternative set of proposals created by the Conservative Group were better as it retained twenty wards each with three Councillors. He observed that by contrast there was clear and ongoing disagreement amongst Labour Group Members and that a number of Members such as Councillor Bishnu Gurung would probably privately be happier if the Conservative proposals were agreed. Councillor Vickram Grewal light heartedly suggested that it did not much matter whether Councillor Gill was in Hounslow Heath or Hanworth Park wards as both would provide him with three excellent Labour Councillors so he would be in safe hands. He then thanked officers and all Members for their work in helping to develop the proposals which had been a long and complicated task. Councillor Sam Hearn noted that whilst it was clear that the Labour Group would vote in favour of the proposals before Members, with which the Conservative Group would not be agreeing, he still wished to thank officers and Members for their work in the development process. He specifically thanked Councillors Foote and Curran for keeping him informed of their Group’s thinking as it developed. He then noted that he had personally wished that it would have been possible to find common ground and develop proposals that suited both Groups; he added that looking at both the proposals before Members and the Conservative suggestions, there was still much mutuality. He then explained that his Group had started from the position of wishing to preserve the concept of retaining all wards with three Members, and only deviating from that if there was a real necessity to do so; he considered that model to be sensible and well understood by the public. He then commented on the proposals before Members – whilst the report was correct to state that there were distinct communities in Chiswick and Brentford, given the large amount of new development taking place in Brentford, near the current ward boundaries with the Chiswick wards, it was not true to say that there were only long established communities in place: there would very soon be new ones. The Conservative proposals had recognised this and developed borders that were rational. He 27 concluded by stating that he had hoped to “strike a conciliatory note” on this issue and observed that the Minority Party was at a disadvantage, particularly given the continual changes still being made to the proposals by the Majority Group; there had been no time to consider and digest them properly which he considered unsatisfactory. Councillor Katherine Dunne requested a further change as follows: Isleworth/ Syon/ Hounslow South wards: In respect of the proposed border changes relating to these three wards and the Woodlands Estate which is consequently affected, the following clarification of wording is proposed: On the Isleworth Ward Page of the supplementary agenda (which is where the detail is given), the sentence “ These changes consolidated the Woodlands estate in one ward, namely Isleworth ward, and this would be helpful for residents and make a coherent ward with convenient local government” should be deleted as it is inaccurate. [Subsequent to the meeting, it was noted that this proposal had already been included in the list of final amendments to the proposal included in the short supplementary agenda published earlier in the day]. Councillor Richard Foote apologised to Members for the time taken to develop the report which had seen several changes made to the proposals included in the original Council agenda. The work had been intense, and for his part, he had tried to meet personally with every Member of the Labour Group to ensure that they were represented in the development process. He disagreed with Councillor Hearn over the issue of communities in Brentford and Chiswick, which he considered to be both long established and distinct. He the clarified that it had become clear that Brentford as an area had ideally needed five Councillors which had resulted in proposals for a ward with three Members and one with two. He also accepted that the Hanworth Park ward proposals had needed revision after an initial position had seen it absorbed into Hounslow Heath ward. The work on the proposals had continued until very recently, which meant that the initial proposals in the original Council agenda had not been “the last word” and revisions had been proposed which had necessitated subsequent supplementary reports.
It was then proposed by Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, seconded by Councillor Corinna Smart and
RESOLVED –
That the question be put to the vote.
This was a majority decision.
The Mayor invited Councillor Lily Bath to sum up the debate and she did so with the following comments: She noted Councillor Gill’s comments about the Conservative Group proposals and clarified that the report before Members comprised the proposals to the Commission from the Council as a body, but the Commission welcomed submissions from other individuals, groups and organisations and so she suggested that he and his party colleagues make their own submission. She acknowledged Councillor Hearn’s suggestions about trying to find a unified position between the parties but she considered it would have been very difficult to do. However, she observed that although both political groups on the Council had not been able to agree on a single proposal, she thought that the cross party working 28 during the development process had been good and useful and she thanked all Members for their involvement. All submissions had to recognise the statutory framework being used by the Commission the body that had the final decision on warding arrangements for the future. She agreed with Councillor Hearn that there had been too little time to develop the proposals in a way that all Members would have liked, but reminded him that the timetable for doing so had been set by the Commission rather than the Council itself. Whilst time had been short, she considered it had been sufficient, as evidenced by the fact that both political groups had been able to draw up submissions. She then commended the proposals before Members.
The Mayor then put the matter to the vote and it was
RESOLVED –
That the formal response to phase two of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) Electoral Review for the Borough (attached as an appendix to the report and revised buy the two subsequent supplementary reports) be agreed as the Council’s submission to the Commission for consideration.
ACTION BY: Head of Governance TO NOTE: All
This was a majority decision.
8. Pay Statement (CEX350)
Members considered a report by Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce, who introduced the item by making the following statement:
“As a result of the Localism Act 2011, the Council is required to prepare an annual pay statement which sets out the remuneration of chief officers as well as the lowest paid staff. The decisions on pay levels tend not to be taken at Borough level but at national or regional levels. Chief Officer salaries are often evaluated using the HAY Scheme.
From 1st April, the Council will be implementing the new national pay spine for staff employed on “Green Book” terms and conditions. For the first time, the lowest point on the spine is above the London Living Wage, guaranteeing our lowest paid staff a minimum hourly rate of £10.71 per hour and ensuring regular pay differentials according to the new scale.
All of this leads to a pay ratio of 9.7:1 which compares favourably with other similar public and private sector organisations.
We also include in this statement, pay details for Lampton 360 (and its subsidiaries) and Lampton FM 360 which have pay ratios of 6.5 and 5.6 respectively.
The gender pay gap of 3.05% is down from 7% last year. 29 As Councillor Curran has written in his introduction to the report, the Council is committed to leading by example in reducing inequality.”
Councillor Dunne then formally proposed the recommendations in the report, and Councillor Shantanu Rajawat seconded them.
The Mayor then invited discussion on the report and its recommendations. In response, Councillor Sam Hearn observed that Members were being asked to approve the Chief Officer pay scales without having been consulted on them. However, they seemed sensible given the information in the report and the Conservative Group would be supporting the report as it made sense. He then asked if the date in paragraph 4.2.6 of 31st March 2018 was correct.
There being no further comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Dunne to sum up. Councillor Dunne thanked Councillors Rajawat and Hearn for their comments. She confirmed that the date was correct at the reports were always a year behind. For her own part, she was pleased that the Council was going in the right direction on the gender pay gap.
The Mayor then put the matter to the vote and it was unanimously
RESOLVED –
That the Pay Policy Statement for 2019 which was attached at Appendix A of the report be agreed, as required under the Localism Act 2011; and That the proposed amendment to the chief officer pay scale to re-introduce the CO4 grade into the structure be approved.
ACTION BY: Interim Head of Human Resources TO NOTE: All
9. Renewal of Members' Allowances Scheme 2019/20
Members considered a report by Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services, who introduced the report by making the following comments: The report before Members was an annual administrative report required by law. The Council was a London Living Wage employer and proud of it and so it was correct to ensure that the dependent relative care figures in the scheme reflected this. Last year, the Council had agreed to peg increases to the Members Basic Allowances to the same level as pay rises given to staff and the report before Members was the first to operate in this way. He formally proposed the recommendations.
Councillor Lily Bath seconded the report and its recommendations.
The Mayor then invited discussion on the report and its recommendations. Members made the following comments:
30 Councillor Joanna Biddolph observed that she had stated last summer that Councillors were duty bound to show their value and worth to their residents, which depended on how hard they worked for them. It was important for all Members to remember this. Councillor Sam Hearn recalled the pegging of increases of the Members Basic Allowance to the level of pay rises given to staff and he considered it was rational to do so. However, he regretted that Councillors did different amounts of work for their residents and so it seemed unfair that everyone received the same increase. In addition, he noted that Special Responsibility Allowances were not indexed and as it could be argued that some Cabinet Members were not successful in the way they operated their portfolios, there was a discussion to be had about whether or not they should continue to receive such allowances – as it could be seen as rewarding failure. However, it was probably more appropriate for such considerations to be pondered during the annual budget meeting. Councillor Richard Foote wondered if losing an election counted as failure in the scenario suggested by Councillor Hearn.
There being no further comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Rajawat to sum up. Councillor Rajawat did so by making the following comments: There were no proposals to change the Special Responsibility Allowances in the report before Members, although this was an area that would be reviewed in the future. It was for the electorate to decide who was working hard for them. He reminded Members that any Councillor could decline to accept their allowance if they wished to do so.
The Mayor then put the matter to the vote and it was
RESOLVED -
That the Scheme of Members Allowances be amended in line with the proposed changes listed in paragraph 3.5 relating to the Dependent Relative Care Allowance and the London Living Wage; That the annual uplift to the Basic Allowance detailed in paragraph 3.6 be noted; and That the Scheme of Members Allowances, as amended, be adopted as that for 2019/20.
This was a majority decision.
ACTION BY: Head of Democratic Services TO NOTE: All
10. Appointments to Committees and Other Bodies
Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services.
There being no nominations, it was
RESOLVED –
31 That the report be noted.
TO NOTE: All
11. Decisions Taken Under Urgency Arrangements (if any)
Members considered a report by the Head of Democratic Services
It was
RESOLVED –
That the information be noted.
TO NOTE: All
Questions from Members
12. Councillor Richard Eason to ask Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce
Councillor Richard Eason asked Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce, the following question:
“As the Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce will know, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) History Month took place in February this year. Can she let Members know what the Council did to mark this important month?”
In response, Councillor Dunne made the following statement:
“I can confirm that the following activities took place in February for LGBT History month: Flying the rainbow flag throughout February. Issuing of rainbow lanyards for interested staff to wear throughout February to mark LGBT History month. Screenings of four LGBT films across February in the Council Chamber. The films shown were as follows: o 15th February – Pride o 18th February - Fifty Years and Legal o 22nd February - Beautiful Thing o 27th February - Stud Life
The Director of Fifty Years and Legal attended our screening to have a question and answer after the film which was very successful. Coca Cola and popcorn were sold at each film showing and the proceeds from that sale and all donations are going to West London LGBT forum to tackle hate crime.”
Councillor Eason then asked a supplementary question as follows: “Many London Boroughs have LGBT forums to allow people and parties to come together. The London
32 Borough of Hounslow has an online forum with over fifty Members. Will you support this group to help its Members meet in person?”
Councillor Dunne replied that she would be happy to do so. She also noted that many Boroughs had a presence at each year’s Pride Festival organised by the Rainbow Boroughs Project and she wished to ensure that Hounslow was suitable represented this year.
13. Councillor Raghwinder Siddhu to ask Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce
Councillor Raghwinder Siddhu asked Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce, the following question:
“As you know, the United Kingdom (UK) is due to leave the European Union (EU) on 29th March 2019. Can the Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce let Members know what measures the Council are putting in place to support staff Members who are non-UK EU citizens?”
In response, Councillor Dunne made the following statement:
“As you know, the UK (United Kingdom) was expected formally to leave the EU on 29th March 2019 but now it seems it probably won’t as the vote on the withdrawal deal brokered by the Prime Minister and the EU was lost by 149 votes. Given that most MPs (Members of Parliament) want to avoid crashing out with a no deal Brexit, it seems likely that the departure date will be delayed.
The Council is dedicated to supporting both our residents and communities when the UK exits the EU. Local planning to understand the potential impact and risks from exiting the EU was agreed at Cabinet in February.
For those EU nationals working in the Council their current ‘right to work’ checks will apply until the end of 2020. There will be no change to the rights and status of EU citizens living in the UK until 2021 but they will need to apply for the EU Settlement Scheme. The planned payment for the settlement scheme has been rescinded by Government and will now be free for EU nationals.
HR are working to understand our current workforce to understand the level of EU nationals engaged by the Council to ensure they are appropriately supported through the process. This is a top priority for us.”
Councillor Siddhu declined the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
The Mayor then thanked all Members for their questions and responses.
Motions
14. Proposed by Councillor Shantanu Rajawat and Seconded by Councillor Salman Shaheen 33 The Mayor invited Councillor Shantanu Rajawat to introduce the motion, which read as follows:
“This Council notes that many Council budgets are now at Breaking Point. Austerity has caused huge damage to communities up and down the UK, with devastating effects on key public services that protect the most defenceless in society – children at risk, disabled adults and vulnerable older people – and the services we all rely on, like clean streets, libraries, and children’s centres.
This Council agrees with the aims of the ‘Breaking Point’ petition signed by labour Councillors across the country, in calling for the Prime Minister and Chancellor to truly end austerity in local government by: Using the Budget to reverse next years planned £1.3bn cut to Council budgets; Immediately investing £2bn in children’s services and £2bn in adult social care to stop these vital emergency services from collapsing; Pledging to use the Spending Review to restore Council funding to 2010 levels over the next four years.
This Council resolves to:
Support the ‘Breaking Point’ campaign, recognising the devastating impact that austerity has had on our local community
Ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government setting out the funding pressures faced by our local Council, and calling on the Government to truly end austerity in local government.”
Councillor Rajawat then made the following comments: It was clear that the Conservative Group on the Council were in denial as to the role of the Government in the failure to fund local government properly. Local Government provided a vital safety net not just for vulnerable people in society but for everyone, including those who did not have much interest in their local Authority. The Government had consistently failed to manage its own budget since 2010 and yet had forced swingeing cuts onto local authorities. Despite this, most Councils, barring a few exceptions, had stayed resilient. Consequently, the Government had passed many more responsibilities onto local government to help vulnerable residents, but without additional funding. The latest funding settlement for Councils clearly showed that despite the claims of the Government, austerity was not over. Austerity was still affecting all Councils adversely. The London Borough of Hounslow alone was £9 million worse off than last year. It was therefore right that the Council send a clear message to the Government about funding concerns and the need to ensure that this was resolved as an issue in a sustainable way before there was a crisis.
Councillor Salman Shaheen then formally seconded the motion.
The Mayor then invited debate on the motion and the following comments were made: 34 Councillor Gerald McGregor advised that he had not originally planned to comment on the motion but having remembered that during the budget debate at the February meeting of the Council, the Majority Group had waived standing order to allow debate to be curtailed, he had decided to make use of the opportunity to comment on budgetary matters. He then expressed the view that the motion was “wet, soppy and a good example of what your party [the Labour Party] has degraded itself to” as the argument had no basis in fact. The Council was running a financial deficit yet it claimed to have saved £140 million since 2010. He noted that the Conservative-Independent Administration of 2006-2010 had made no-one redundant except through a voluntary redundancy scheme and had never increased Council Tax. By contrast, the current Labour Administration had raised Council Tax by 4.99% to replenish its coffers. He recalled that Councillor Theo Dennison, as Cabinet Member for Finance, in 2017 and 2018 claiming that the Council deficit was under control yet this was not the case, nor did the Cabinet spend time at its very short meetings looking at dealing with the issue. By way of comparison, he [Councillor McGregor], when Cabinet Member for Finance, had allowed the Labour Group free rein to debate the budget in every year without using standing orders to bring any discussion to a premature close. He concluded by stating that the Labour Group deserved criticism for being wet. Councillor Ron Mushiso expressed support for Councillor McGregor’s comments. His own view was the Council’s deficit of £17 million was due to mismanagement by the Administration rather than austerity. The Recycling 360 company had so far cost the Council £20 million, and the Council had not met its Council house building target. He personally would like to have bought a property built by the Council but as they were not affordable, he had made alternative arrangements. He was clear that austerity was coming to an end but the Administration was incapable of recognising it as it did not follow the narrative they wished to propagate. Councillor Hanif Khan noted that prior to 2010, the Council had been given generous grant funding by the Government but since 2010, this had been cut so that the Council had lost £150 million. For the Council to be running an overspend of £17 million was nothing, particularly as it was helping to ensure the Council met its statutory responsibilities and help people at risk. He considered it a terrible thing that educators in Hounslow were asking parents to provide their children with pencils and stationery for school, and in some cases, teachers were having to undertake school maintenance matters such lavatory cleaning. Austerity was clearly not over, and local government was in a precarious state, as the financial collapse of Conservative controlled Northamptonshire County Council showed. Hounslow was sufficiently prudent to avoid such a disaster but it was having to make significant sacrifices to do so. It was also taking on more responsibilities handed to it by central Government such as public health but without appropriate funding to support it. He asked why the Conservative Group considered that austerity had finished when it was clear it had not. Councillor Theo Dennison expressed great sorrow that despite eight years of tuition by the Labour Group, the Conservative Group seemingly remained unable to understand budgeting or even do basic mathematics and he called the Conservative Group “the most incompetent Tories I’ve met” and quite unlike other Conservatives he had met elsewhere, who understood the difference between a deficit and a debt. In Hounslow the Conservative Group found these concepts hard to grasp which put them in good company with the Government which suffered from the same problem. The then compared the Council’s financial management with that of the Government. He stated that the Council in the year lading to May 2018 had a deficit of £1 million. As Cabinet Member for Finance at the time, he 35 apologised for this but clarified that it was not £16 million: the Council had in fact only added to its debt by £1 million. In 2010, on coming into office following the four years of the Conservative-Independent Administration, the debt had been £200 million. By contrast, the Council’s last Treasury Management report had stated that the current net debt was £42.5 million; one fifth of the debt inherited in 2010. He then reminded the Conservatives that it was necessary to look at the Council’s General Fund and not just the Housing Revenue Account, to get a fair view of the Council’s budget. The General Fund net debt was actually in credit. The Government however was operating a deficit of £27 billion and had a debt of £2.7 trillion, which was the biggest ever recorded in British history; That debt had gone up in every year since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. He advised Conservative Members not to pick a fight on financial matters if they had not read or understood the Council’s papers. Councillor Salman Shaheen considered Councillor Dennison’s intervention to be “superb” and he agreed with it completely. He then noted that whilst Councillor Mushiso insisted that austerity was over, the Government had earlier in the day scrapped the long standing target of a maximum four hour waiting time for NHS patients. Councillor Guy Lambert noted that the residents’ survey suggested that 74% of people in Chiswick considered that the Council provided value for money. Similarly, despite the earlier statements from Councillor Mushiso that the residents’ survey results for people feeling safe in Hounslow during the day were wrong, it was clear from the survey that not only were 97% residents happy in the streets during the day, 80% of Chiswick residents also felt safe at night. Councillor Sam Hearn advised that he and his party colleagues did not agree with Councillor Dennison’s analysis. He considered that that the main hazard facing the Country would be the budgetary debt incurred by a Labour Government headed by Jeremy Corbyn MP. He found it odd that that Councillor Dennison should criticise the Government for its debt when the Labour Group was proposing a motion seeking to encourage the Government to spend more. He also thought that it would be more useful for all Councillors to be discussing the Government’s fair funding review for local government which was going to have a significant effect on Hounslow and all London Boroughs, but the motion before Members was pre- empting that before details were known – some Councils would benefit and some would not, but the outcome was not yet known. He likened the situation to the one that occurred with the education funding formula was introduced: he sat on a school governing body pay and finance committee when the change was being developed but, despite it not yet being known if the school would receive more or less funding, a Labour Member had publically claimed the school would have its budget cut, based on analysis provided by a trade union. However, as the schools budgets were enhanced, this proved to be wrong. He offered to work closely with the Labour Group to lobby the Government to ensure that the fair funding review did not adversely affect Hounslow. He then stated that by setting a budget, the Council as an organisation was making a promise to deliver on it – yet the Council had failed to do so. He noted that during the Council election, the Labour candidates had made it plain there would be no additional Government funding of the Council, so Members were deluded if they believed the motion before them would change that. Councillor Lily Bath was pleased that the motion had been proposed and considered it right to try to make the case for better Government funding. The Council’s finances were at breaking point; austerity both created a greater demand for Council services and also reduced the Council’s ability to meet it. The Council had been given increased responsibility to reduce homelessness by the 36 Government but without additional funding; consequently, it was having to spend more to meet its new statutory duty. She then stated that her husband was a teacher in a Hounslow school and reported how many teachers were leaving because the school was no longer able to buy necessary items and services, including pastoral support. The issue was nationwide and not just confined to Hounslow – 7000 head teachers were protesting about education spending cuts to the Government. She added that whilst she did not expect the Conservative Group to agree with the motion, she had not been expecting to be called “wet” and concluded by reminding Councillor McGregor that his record in office was such that his Group was not elected to serve a second term.
There being no more comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Rajawat to sum up the debate. He did so by making the following comments: He agreed with Councillor Hearn that the changes to the Fair Funding Formula for Local Government were likely to have an enormous impact on Council funding and he welcomed the opportunity to work on a cross party basis on the issue. He then asked if any of the Conservative Members on the Council had lobbied the Government to ask it not to remove poverty as a performance indicator. He considered that the Conservative Group was “out of ideas”; it had not offered an alternative budget at the February budget setting meeting of the Council and the same was true with the motion before Members. He accepted the epithet “wet” as it suggested care and compassion and he was keen to use the Council’s finances to help support vulnerable people; the alternative was the approach displayed by Conservative Members which was not to care about homeless people, people with special educational needs, or any other vulnerable group. He believed that the Conservative Party was “the nasty party” nationally and “the incompetent party” locally.
The Mayor then put the motion to the vote and it was
RESOLVED –
That the motion be agreed.
This was a majority decision.
15. Proposed by Councillor Tom Bruce and Seconded by Councillor Alan Mitchell
The Mayor advised that this motion had been withdrawn.
16. Proposed by Councillor Katherine Dunne and Seconded by Councillor Candice Atterton
The Mayor invited Councillor Katherine Dunne to introduce the motion, which read as follows:
“This Council notes that the public health grant funds vital services and functions that prevent ill health and contribute to the future sustainability of the NHS (National Health Service). Local authorities are responsible for delivering most of these 37 services, but their ability to do so is compromised by public health grant reductions and the broader funding climate.
This Council believes that the impact of cuts to public health on our communities is becoming difficult to ignore. This case becomes more pressing given the Government’s consideration of a 10-year plan for the NHS. For this reason, we support Cancer Research UK’s call for increased and sustainable public health funding, and calls on the Government to deliver increased investment in public health and to support a sustainable health and social care system by taking a ‘prevention first’ approach.”
Councillor Dunne then made the following comments: If austerity was truly over, there was nothing for the Council to debate. However, this was clearly not the case and therefore the motion was to ask Councillor Curran, on behalf of the Council, to write to the Government calling for sustainable funding for public health, along with many other Council leaders. It was clearly understood that intervention helped keep people out of hospital and so was good for them and good for public authorities such as the health service and Councils as it saved public money. However, like last year, the Council was expecting to receive less money than before to deal with increased responsibilities and greater demand. The motion mentioned cancer because of the Cancer Research campaign for better public health funding: the fact was that most cancers were preventable and public health services were invaluable in helping avoid or prevent them by helping people to overcome smoking, drinking, obesity and other factors. Ergo, reductions in public health funding were a false economy. Every year, 80000 people died prematurely due to smoking, 30000 due to obesity and 7000 due to alcohol consumption. On its own, smoking related ill health cost local government £760 million and it was calculated that every pound spent on prevention saved ten pounds later in the health system. Conversely, reduced investment in public health services resulted in lost days of work and productivity reduction. Due to insufficient funding, the Council was locked in a treatment approach rather than a preventative one. The system needed money to be put into it which would improve lives and save money. The recently published NHS long term plan spoke sensibly about investment in prevention but the funding to accomplish this was not in place, particularly in local government public health services. She concluded by commending the motion to ask the Government to create a sustainable financial solution for the good of the community.
Councillor Candice Atterton seconded the motion and made the following comments in doing so: Investment in public health services to enhance prevention was clearly beneficial both in terms of saving lives but also to public finances, as it saved money. It also helped reduce inequality by helping a number of otherwise vulnerable groups. With an effective public health service, more could be done to help people in other areas. 38 There was also a widely acknowledged mental health crisis nationally which also needed to be addressed. She welcomed the fact that the Government was recognising some of the pressures on the NHS but it was not yet doing enough to help.
The Mayor then invited debate on the motion, and the following comments were made: Councillor Mel Collins recalled that the Council had taken over responsibility for public health services from the NHS with a cost of £14.8 million per annum. The Government also required Councils to include looking after infectious diseases as part of the change but did not provide any additional funding, despite increasing the areas of responsibility. Over the next few years, Government funding for the service in fact decreased by 6% to £9.3 million. The Government wished to phase out this funding entirely and require Councils to fund the service from its business rates. Good public health was vital locally and nationally and this was recognised by the motion. Public health services were there to assist the prevention of, or early intervention into, health problems but reduced budgets meant that the service was not operating as well as it should or could. Nor was the money saved by the Government’s funding reductions being spent on acute sector health care or in the primary care sector. The Joint West London Scrutiny Panel on Health had been told that £10 million was to be provided to help local health services but there were no details of where it be allocated which made planning impossible. He asked Members to support the motion and that it should be sent to the Government, to the Mayor of London and the Leader of the Opposition so that everyone knew that Hounslow cared about public health. Councillor Patrick Barr that Councillor Michael Denniss had once light heartedly called him the “wettest Tory Councillor he knew” and like Councillor Rajawat, he considered himself wet with consideration, care and healthcare. He wished to see how far it would be possible for the Council to investigate moving its focus from money to things that could be done free to assist public health. He accepted that the NHS was under pressure; he himself was a nurse and had done a twelve hour shift last Friday. The ten year long term NHS plan had recently been published and had a focus on prevention. As such, he wished to work with Councillor Atterton to find the best way of improving health outcomes in Hounslow; he was concerned that improvements in health relating to heart disease and strokes were not as good as elsewhere, and diabetes was a growing problem in the Borough. He wished to see how Hounslow results and outcomes could be made at least as good as other London Boroughs. He supported the ten year NHS plan as did Cancer Research and, although there was little that could be done about the negatives associated with public health in Hounslow, there was a lot that could be done to enhance the positives. Councillor Ron Mushiso supported the position outlined by Councillor Barr and also the work done by Councillor Atterton on the issue of public health. He appreciated the opportunity afforded by the motion to allow for sensible and informed debate on the matter. He then raised concerns that the support network for elderly care in Hounslow covered everywhere from Feltham to Brentford but seem to miss Chiswick. He wished to see health services and outcomes improved and enhanced across the whole of the Borough. On the matter of austerity, he noted that the Government had promised to give £20 billion to the NHS over the period to 2023; he accepted that this was not enough but it was a good start. He wished to see the Council also to do more to help support charities and health organisations across Hounslow.
39 There being no more comments, the Mayor invited Councillor Dunne to sum up the debate. She did so by making the following comments: She expressed appreciation of the comments made by Councillor Barr and stated that she was in no doubt that he cared about positive health outcomes, but the fact was that they could not be improved without sustainable and appropriate funding. She considered that Councillor Collins’ observations about the Government requiring Councils to do more for less were well made; this was a constant theme across all Council services where the Government increased responsibilities with either no or inadequate funding to do so. It also allowed the Government to shift blame on stretched or failing services from them to local government. Despite the good intentions of the new long term NHS plan, it would not be able to enhance prevention if there was insufficient money to allow it to happen because of cuts to public health budgets. The plan was a long term one and one that needed money to be invested into it to succeed.
The Mayor then put the motion to the vote and it was
RESOLVED –
That the motion be agreed.
This was a majority decision.
17. Any Other Matters That the Mayor Considers Urgent
There were no such items.
18. Date of Next Meeting
Members noted that the next meeting of the Council was scheduled for Tuesday 21st May 2019 and would commence at 7.30pm in the Council Meeting Chamber of Hounslow House, 7 Bath Road, the new Council building. This would be the annual meeting of the Council.
The next ordinary meeting of the Council was scheduled for Tuesday 18th June 2019
The meeting ended at 10.05pm
MAYOR
Minutes End
40 Agenda Item 4
Report for: INFORMATION
Contains Confidential No or Exempt Information Title Petitions Member Reporting Councillor Katherine Dunne, Cabinet Member for Communities and Workforce Contact Details Thomas Ribbits, Head of Democratic Services. Telephone: 020 8583 2251 Email: [email protected] For Consideration By Borough Council Date to be Considered 18th June 2019 Implementation Date if Not applicable Not Called In Affected Wards See below Keywords/Index Petitions
1. Details of Recommendations
Members are asked to:
Note the petitions that have been forwarded to other formal bodies of the Authority and/or ward councillors or officer for consideration; and Note the responses from members to any petitions heard at the meeting.
If the recommendations are adopted, how will residents benefit? Benefits to residents and reasons why they will Dates by which they can benefit, link to Values expect to notice a difference Not applicable
2. Report Summary
This report identifies the petitions previously presented to the Mayor for consideration by the full council or by other formal bodies of the Authority, or where appropriate by ward councillors or officers.
3. Reason for the Report
3.1 At its meeting in July 2010, the Council agreed a new scheme for dealing with petitions. This was revised in January 2012 and allows for petitions to be considered either at borough council or by other41 formal bodies of the authority. 3.2 Below is a table of petitions received by the Mayor and the bodies which will be considering each one. This has been attached as an appendix to this report.
3.3 Under the petition scheme, some petitions may still be considered by the Council itself. In some cases the organisers or nominated spokesperson will introduce the petition, after which the relevant Cabinet Member or Committee Chair will respond (usually in writing) and Members will be invited to agree the response. The appendix to this report lists any such petitions.
3.4 The Scheme allows for one or more of the following outcomes:
taking the action requested in the petition considering the petition at a council meeting holding an inquiry into the matter undertaking research into the matter holding a public meeting holding a meeting with petitioners referring the petition for consideration by the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee writing to the petition organiser setting out our views about the request in the petition Other responses
3.5 Attached as an appendix is a list of petitions received by the Mayor and the bodies at which they will be considered.
3.6 Members are also asked to note that a number of petitions have also been received which relate to current consultation processes being run the council and so in accordance with the current scheme for dealing with petitions, these have been forwarded as responses to the relevant consultation, and are therefore not listed in the appendix.
Option Comments As this report is for noting, there are no options to consider.
4. Key Implications
4.1 The targets and measures in relation to each petition presented will be considered by the council body at which each petition is considered.
5. Financial Details
Financial Impact On The Budget
5.1 There is no impact on the budget as this report is purely for information.
Comments of the Director of Finance and Corporate Services
42 5.2 The Director of Finance and Corporate Services has been consulted on this report and advises that the financial implications of any actions arising from these petitions will need to be considered at the appropriate time.
6. Legal
Legal Details
6.1 There are no legal implications identified in the noting of this report. Further reports on petitions presented to other council bodies will include relevant legal comments in relation to the requests in each case as necessary.
Comments of the Head of Governance and Monitoring Officer
6.2 The Head of Governance has been consulted on this report and has no comments.
7. Value For Money
7.1 The report is for noting and so there are no value for money implications.
8. Sustainability Impact Appraisal
8.1 The report is for noting and as such no appraisal is necessary.
9. Risk Management
9.1 There are no risks related to this report.
10. Links to Council Priorities
10.1 The consideration of requests in petitions presented to the Mayor relate to the Council’s priority to create an ambitious council which improves the lives of residents and works in a transparent way.
11. Equalities, Human Rights and Community Cohesion
11.1 The Council is not being asked to make any decisions on the petitions presented to it, and so there are no implications in relation to equalities, human rights and community cohesion.
12. Staffing/Workforce and Accommodation implications
12.1 The Council is not being asked to make any decisions on the petitions presented to it, and so there are no implications in relation to staffing or accommodation.
13. Property and Assets 43 13.1 The Council is not being asked to make any decisions on the petitions presented to it, and so there are no implications for property or assets.
14. Any Other Implications
14.1 There are no further implications.
15. Consultation
15.1 No consultation is required for this report.
16. Timetable for Implementation
16.1 The petitions presented to area forums or other council bodies would normally be considered at the next meeting of that body to take place.
17. Appendices
17.1 Appendix A comprises a table of petitions received by the Mayor and the bodies which will be considering each one.
18. Background Information
18.1 There is no background information and no background papers in relation to this report.
44 APPENDIX A
PETITIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AT OTHER BODIES
Please note that the petitions below which have been presented to the Mayor. In each case the relevant Cabinet Member has determined which body would be appropriate for them to be considered by. Minor traffic matters are now formally referred to the relevant ward councillors to consider whether or not they wish the petition request to be dealt with by the Council’s Traffic Team, and these are shaded in grey.
No Detail No of Ward Cabinet Action Signatur Member es 1 Repair pavements 107 Hounslow Cllr Guy Council in Rosemary West Lambert Avenue and Ivanhoe Avenue 2 Request to Re- 572 Bedfont Cllr Katherine This petition has open the Bedfont Dunne been referred to Community Bedfont, Centre, Hatton Feltham, Road Hanworth Area Forum alongside a separate petition on the same subject. 3 Request for 40 Hanworth Cllr Hanif Referred to ward residents only Khan councillors and CPZ in Hampton Traffic Team Road East 4 Request to extend 95 Chiswick Cllr Hanif Referred to ward the West Chiswick wards Khan councillors and CPZ prior to Traffic Team opening of the new Brentford Stadium and associated residential development 5 Review the 163 All Cllr Steve Council Council’s carbon Curran/Cllr reduction plans to Katherine become carbon Dunne neutral by 2030. 6 Pave the alley 113 Feltham West Cllr Guy Referred to the to between Padstow Lambert the Bedfont, Walk and Orchard Feltham, Road, Feltham Hanworth Area Forum 7 Request for 21 Hanworth Park Cllr Hanif Referred to ward residents only Khan councillors and CPZ in Vineyard Traffic Team Road, Feltham 45 Members are asked to note that where petitions have been received which relate to current consultation processes being run the council, in accordance with the current scheme for dealing with petitions, these have been forwarded as responses to the relevant consultation, and are therefore not listed above.
REPORT ENDS
46 Agenda Item 5
Report for: ACTION
Contains Confidential No or Exempt Information
Title Mooring Byelaws Member Reporting Councillor Steve Curran, Lead Member Housing & Regeneration Contact Details Michael Sudlow - Director, Asset Management & Major Projects Tel: 077010 56040 Email: [email protected]
Sabina Martin- Senior Project Manager Tel: 0208 583 4085 Email: [email protected]
For Consideration By Borough Council Date to be Considered May 2019 Implementation Date if 7 days after publication on Councils website. Not Called In Affected Wards All Keywords/Index Mooring/Byelaws/Riverfront/Watermans Park
1. Details of Recommendations
i. The Council considers representations received in response to a regulatory advertisement summarising the effect of the proposed mooring byelaws.
ii. That subject to consideration of such representations the Council resolves to make the mooring byelaws.
iii. That (subject to the above) the Director of Corporate Property and Special projects or such officer as authorised, in consultation with the Lead Member, take such steps as necessary to implement the mooring byelaws.
47
If the recommendations are adopted, how will residents benefit? Benefits to residents and reasons why they will Dates by which they can benefit, link to Values expect to notice a difference Within 2 -12 months from The Council will have the ability to control the type implementation of the and style of boats that are moored to its land. mooring byelaws
It will give the Council a means to remove unauthorised boats quickly /efficiently without resorting to lengthy and costly enforcement actions which often fail to produce the desired result.
It will enable the council to ensure mooring is restricted to regulated sites and that pollution is controlled.
The byelaws are intended to allow the authority to regulate un licensed mooring in areas which are not suitable for long term residential occupation.
The byelaws will not affect any existing approved moorings or legitimate facilities that are constructed in the future. There are significant current issues with unregulated moorings which have no proper facilities for disposing of effluent and rubbish for example.
The byelaws will protect any existing rights of navigation. The council is eager to encourage use of the exiting mooring facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment. The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike.
Disturbance to other river users and wildlife will be minimised by ensuring that unregulated mooring ceases.
The byelaws will ensure authorised users are protected and enable licenced boaters to enjoy the full benefits of river use without impediment.
The byelaws will assist in maintaining navigational safety and make allowance for cases of emergency.
Enacting byelaws is one method by which the authority can champion the concerns of local people 48 and tackle problems on the tow paths and river banks arising from unauthorized mooring.
2. Report Summary
1. The purpose of this report is to note progress so far as regards the making of the mooring byelaws; to consider representations received pursuant to statutory advertisement; and (subject to such consideration) to formally make, implement and enforce the proposed mooring byelaws
2. The Council is experiencing serious problems with unauthorised moorings and requires further powers to be able to deal more effectively with the unlicensed and/or illegally moored vessels.
3.The Council’s ability to deal with these unauthorised vessels is limited to civil remedies which can often be ineffective, time consuming and expensive to pursue. The Council does not currently have the ability to impose criminal sanctions currently.
4.The byelaws make allowances for cases of emergency and will contribute to navigational safety by keeping the river banks free from unauthorised obstructions.
5. The making of these mooring byelaws will enable the Council to exert more control and management over its riverbanks given that contravention of a byelaw is a criminal offence liable on summary conviction to a fine.
4. The Council is using new simplified powers contained in The Byelaws (Alternative Procedure) (England) Regulations 2016 (‘the Regulations’) to make these byelaws.
3. Reason for Decision and Options Considered
3.1 The London Borough of Hounslow has 5 miles of riverside. The illegal moorings present five main issues for LBH;
- Inability to remove unauthorised boats without costly legal proceedings - Pollution of the rivers through unregulated foul water discharge - The dominance of poorly maintained boats/vessels which has H&S implications - Illegal and Anti-social behaviour. - Interference with the Council and Publics lawful enjoyment of the open spaces.
49 3.2 In 1999, the Council together with the Port of London Authority (PLA) obtained possession of the areas alongside the Watermans Park and a total of 47 boats were removed from the area. Over time however, new boats arrived in the area and this particular stretch of land has become congested as boats displaced from elsewhere have moored on a permanent basis. Licensed boaters on both sides of the Waterman’s have complained to the council for a number of years regarding the effect on them due to the activities of the illegal boaters.
3.3 Although the Council is not the owner of the river bed, the Council was licensed by the PLA to maintain the ‘river works on this stretch of the river. The PLA has expressed concern that the Council is not managing its ‘river works’ by allowing the situation at Waterman’s Park to go unchallenged. The unlicensed vessels are moored against the ‘river works’ and transfer onto PLA’s land at low tide. The PLA’S criticism is that the Council need to do more to prevent access from the boats onto its land and that by not taking action we are facilitating the boater’s ability to remain on the river.
3.4 In addition, the Council received outline Cabinet approval in September 2014 to create a new marina development next to Waterman’s Park as part of its ambition to create more job opportunities and a prosperous borough. It is imperative that after gaining vacant possession, the site is secured against any new arrivals.
In 2015 the Council commenced legal proceedings against the boaters at Watermans Park. This action has been extremely costly and challenging and was not completed until September 2018. Whilst the Council was ultimately successful in this action, going forward the cost and resources needed to undertake such proceedings is not sustainable.
3.5 It is anticipated that the introduction of mooring byelaws and the threat of a potential criminal sanction will suppress the problems faced by the Council with unlicensed and/or illegally moored vessels and reduce the number of unauthorised moorings given the use of Byelaws will have an immediacy which other means of enforcement lack.
3.6 On 9 June 2015 the Council resolved to enter consultation for the adoption of mooring byelaws and delegated to the Director of Corporate property and Special Projects the authority to consider representations; apply to the Secretary of State for confirmation and take such other steps as are necessary to implement and formally adopt the mooring byelaws
3.7. On 23 January 2019, and pursuant to the Regulations, the Secretary of State formally approved a scheme for making mooring byelaws.
3.8 A draft of the proposed mooring byelaws (and its associated plans) are attached as Appendix A to this report.
3.9 A copy of the regulatory advertisement which publicised the making of the mooring byelaws and invited representations is attached as Appendix B.
50 3.10 There is attached as Appendix C the three representations received in response to the statutory advertisement and which the Council is obliged to consider before deciding to make the mooring byelaws. These representations were received from the National Bargee Travellers Association, The Strand on the Green Association and the Brentford Waterside Forum.
3.11 The Strand on the Green Enquiry was technical in nature and related to comments on the plans which has now been incorporated in the draft byelaws attached. The Director’s response to the two further representations are that they repeat points previously made during consultation; that the byelaws do not affect navigation and allow emergency mooring; that the human rights issues have previously been explored in court proceedings and rejected; the byelaws are secular and do not have any party-political affiliation.
A summary of our responses therefore is as follows:
Mooring Times;
The byelaws do not affect existing moorings. The byelaws are intended to allow the authority to regulate un- licensed mooring in areas which are not suitable for long term residential occupation. The byelaws will protect any existing rights of navigation. In terms of interested parties both the PLA and Canals and River Trust have their own regulations which will not be affected by the byelaw proposals. Careful consideration has been given to the existing rights of river users and how those should be balanced against the needs of the wider community.
The byelaws will also allow the Council to monitor boats polluting its river front and take action against specific boats. The council is therefore of the view that the limitations on mooring times in unregulated locations is reasonable. In addition, the Council received outline Cabinet approval in September 2014 to create a new marina development next to Waterman’s Park. The proposal is to create 26 new moorings in Brentford. This will create job opportunities and provide well-managed, regulated mooring for houseboats as semi - permanent regulated moorings.
Residential and Visitors moorings;
The council is eager to encourage use of the existing facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment. The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike. Currently there are a number of existing approved mooring locations on the river Thames administered both privately and by relevant authorities.
The byelaws are intended to allow the authority to regulate un licensed mooring in areas which are not suitable for long term residential occupation. The byelaws will not affect any existing approved moorings or legitimate facilities that are constructed in the future. There are significant current issues with unregulated moorings which have no proper facilities for disposing of effluent and rubbish for example. In one instance an electric cable has been run through a public park close to a playground.
The byelaws will protect any existing rights of navigation. The council is eager to encourage use of the exiting mooring facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring 51 in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment. The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike.
Public Rights of Navigation/ Navigational Safety;
The byelaws do not affect existing moorings. The byelaws are intended to allow the authority to regulate un- licensed mooring in areas which are not suitable for long term residential occupation. The byelaws will protect any existing rights of navigation. In terms of interested parties both the PLA and Canals and River Trust have their own regulations which will not be affected by the byelaw proposals. Careful consideration has been given to the existing rights of river users and how those should be balanced against the needs of the wider community.
Towpath safety;
The council is eager to encourage use of the existing facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment.
The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike. The proposed bye laws have been welcomed by a number of the stakeholders who are focused on the parks and towpaths who view the additional bye laws as a positive proposal.
Equality matters
The position of a boater displaced by a mooring byelaw in relation to both human rights and residential need was tested in the High Court in Akerman v London Borough of Richmond (2017). In that case a boater sought to argue that making the bye law was a disproportionate infringement and breach of his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Right. The High Court held that the Byelaws were valid since they were a proportionate and necessary step for the council to ensure good rule and government and the suppression of nuisance, in the Borough. The byelaws will provide a means of regulating the quality/safety of the boats moored on the river in areas under the council’s control and set criteria such as the ability of the boats to have pump out facilities for discharge.
Crimalisation of the Demographic
The introduction of new Byelaws is subject to the rules and guidance prepared by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Guidance note was published on 18 September 2012 and updated 23 October 2016. The appropriate penalty for a breach of any bye law is governed by the DCLG. The Byelaws will apply to boundaries/areas in the control of the council and not to public navigation channels administered by third parties (e.g.; PLA)
52 In addition, the council has legitimate concerns regarding Health and Safety issues arising from using facilities for purposes outside their original intention, this would include scaling/climbing park boundaries and unsafe mooring close to public areas.
Currently there are a number of existing approved mooring locations on the River Thames administered both privately and by relevant authorities. In addition, the council is proposing to create additional spaces in suitable locations in the future.
The council is eager to encourage use of the existing facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment.
The byelaws allow for cases of emergency as described above. The bye laws will not penalise legitimate river users. The byelaws will provide a means of regulating the quality/safety of the boats moored on the river in areas under the council’s control and set criteria such as the ability of the boats to have pump out facilities for discharge. The byelaws will also allow the Council to monitor boats polluting its river front and act against specific boats.
3.12 If the Council resolves to make the mooring byelaws, the final regulatory stages in the process are to:
3.12.1 formally execute the mooring byelaws under its common seal;
3.12.2 (at least 7 days before the byelaws are scheduled to come into force) to publicise the new byelaw on its website and place signage in the areas where the mooring byelaws will apply.
3.12.3 Keep a copy of the adopted byelaw for public inspection and make copies available on request.
4. Key Implications
4.1 Targets and measures to be explained here using either paragraphs or table below or both.
How is success to be measured? Defined Unmet Met Exceede Significantl Date they Outcomes d y Exceeded should be deliver by Introduction The This will The No 2- 12 of mooring Council make Council unauthorised months form Byelaws will unauthorise will be moorings implementati continue to d mooring a able to along LBH on of the be plagued criminal serve river byelaws. with illegal offence and notices on frontage. boats carry a fine the boats mooring and or to move 53 on its river prison on. If they (e.g. banks and sentence. do not Richmond be For every 24 move, has engaged in hours the they can significantly costly boat be taken reduced the enforceme remains to court. number of nt actions moored a This is a illegal boats which new offence Simplified from 51 lacks grip is created. process boats before as the than the byelaw boats trying to came into simply enforce force to just move to sections 7 remaining another of the in just one location river at a month.) and the time whole process starts all over again.
5. Financial Details a) Financial Impact On The Budget (Mandatory)
It is anticipated that the overall cost of bring the byelaws into force has been in the region of £70K. This includes the appointment of lawyers and consultants to manage the process of putting the byelaw in place.
b) Comments of the Assistant Director Strategic Finance
Costs of bringing the byelaws into force will need to be met from existing Corporate Services department budgets.
6. Legal (to be completed in conjunction with the Legal Department) a) Legal Details
i. A byelaw is a local law which is made by a statutory body, such as a local authority, under an enabling power established by an Act of Parliament. Byelaws create criminal offences and cannot come into effect unless they have been confirmed by the Secretary of State.
ii. The Council can make byelaws for the good rule and government of its area and for the prevention and suppression of nuisances under section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972.
iii. These byelaws have been made using new procedures contained in The Byelaws (Alternative Procedure) (England) Regulations 2016 54
b) Comments of HB Public Law and Monitoring Officer HB Public Law and Monitoring Officer have been consulted in the drafting of this report and their comments are contained within.
7. Value For Money The mooring byelaw will give the Council the means of removing boats from its land speedily and effectively. It will in the long term provide a cost effective alternative to serving of enforcement notices, which are too often ignored and difficult to enforce.
8. Sustainability Impact Appraisal The byelaw will provide a means of regulating the quality of the boats moored on the river and set criteria such as the ability of the boats to have pump out facilities for discharge. It will also allow the Council to monitor boats polluting its river front and take action against specific boats.
9. Risk Management
Risks Uncontrolled Risk Controls Controlled Risk Challenges from N/A Ensure that the Reply to all responses in boat owners process of a timely manner. moored consultation is unlawfully to followed to the Council property prescribed and river front timescale
10. Links to Council Priorities
10.1 The mooring byelaw will serve to promote the Council’s pledge for a cleaner, greener borough.
10.2 The mooring Byelaw will also serve to promote its pledge of keeping you safe by giving the Council a greater degree of control of who is able to moor on its land and regulate anti-social activities on its river front.
11. Equalities, Human Rights and Community Cohesion
11.1 The Council has to give due regard to its Equalities Duties, in particular with respect to general duties arising pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 , section 149. Have due regard to the need to advance equality involves, in particular, 55 the need to remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant characteristic that are connected to that characteristic.
11.2 The Council has considered the relevance of the proposal to the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and concluded that Equalities Duties and the Human Rights Articles are not engaged by this proposal. As the report does not have any significant bearing on the substantive equality duty it is not considered necessary to undertake an Equality analysis.
12. Staffing/Workforce and Accommodation implications: None
13. Property and Assets
Property Development has authored this report and property comments are included within the body of the report
14. Any Other Implications
15. Consultation Statutory publicity and consultation has been undertaken.
16. Timetable for Implementation
16.1 The new byelaws will take effect 30 days after they have been sealed
17. Appendices
Appendix 1- Draft Byelaws (and plans) Appendix 2- Statutory Advertisement Appendix 3 – Representations received
18. Background Information
None
REPORT ENDS
56 57 A V S N O
' E H 1 R N R
4 S LE O Grove Park 2 O O
6 A Y 6.5m N
8 L W
O 0 A
2 I
M R
Primary 2 D
5 O T S
0 2 7 o
O 9 A t 1
M
A 9
H Montgomery D T 3 2 C 1 A
School T S 0 6.1m 2 O MoP 4.9m N
1 T Court R 1 2 2 9 R S 7 N G 2 6 N 0 O
1 4 E a 1 6 1 I A
5 1 Y P
3 D
2
6 R M
LC 2
O U 2
1 1
2 P
3 0 2 A F D 8 B O
Sculpture S 6.0m
1 I
0 6 E
1
0 R S 5 e M T u s E T 6 5.3m o rd W H 1 0 H a S MoP 8 O 9 th Y 1 u 6 M o k A rtm c
3 a i E 7 rt S 4 l
D w t u 3
' Shelter 4 s S o 0
R i 1 u o
b 1 2
2
h 9 O t S 4
3 C
E A o t
C 6 C 2 a
e 3 D 1
1 5.0m d r A 3
8 l e
R 3
S 2
R P O 8 rm 4 4
3 E W 1 e
T o d 3
1
2 K in 4 r 4
0 5
5 k 3
R 9 1 1 Grasmere 5.8m 3 s 3 A W 3 1 P 3 2
1
t MoP 2 E 1
V o Court
D 5 A O 6 9
R 4
O 5.9m 1
R G 6
2
9 1 9
W ESS Chiswick Trees 3 6
1 1
1 IE 1 1 V 4 War 2 R 3 House
E
1 Memorial
IV 5 3
1 4
4 5
R E 1
0
4.7m 2
4
3 S
1
1 2 9
1 O
3 5 4 4 4 5
3 6.6m L 1 5 1
C 2 3
4 6
5 to 1
5 5
6 1 1 D
5 2 r e 5
6 e
6 4 m
4 R ns
1
2 8 6 8 e
.1m 1 5.8m 5 u e 6 O
9 3 Q 0 5 7 1 8 o urt 3 Staveley House F C 6 2 D 8 6 PC 5 6 2 1 E 4 1 9 El Sub Sta
B MoP
5 6
9
5 0
1 3 3
LB 6 3
3 2 L
2 AT
3 2 4 3 TIM 2 ER PL
ACE
2 1
8 5 5
1 2 0 Windermere
2 1 6.7m
1 1
1
7
1 Court
1 1 5
M
3
2 t
o
o
8
n 2
6 a
S t 2
4.7m 6
g 5 6 b
N 4 2 5 4 o 4 7 E
D m 5.5m y t
R r r
e 1
A r w u 4
G y o 6 6 6.0m o 1
C L C
H 5 1 G o 9 7
2 t
1 A o u Cricket Ground 0
L r
8 9 2
2 t E 4 4 N 6 7
E 4
A s C 1 R 8 d A r
R 1 a l
R l t 2
E o o
T C 7
e B
6 8 K 6 O m 84
43 R s .6
u
4
R 1 0 4
A 4 B 3 1 N o
P ra id 3 6.0m 6 C L E 1 o A 2 1 H E ur W t F Y t V OR D 3
O RO 1 2 R e
n 2 1
AD O R 2
A o
G 7 4 7 D M
4 Pavilion 8 1 8
0
6 2
6.0m 1
2
0 32 5
8
K Play Area 1 8
0
e 1 5 6.4m Trees a 5
n t 4 4
8
o 6 1
n 2
e 8 5 0
tt 4
8
C 6
5
ou 5
6 4
1
4
rt 5 7 7 0 7 1 5 4 AD SL o 2 G RANT HAM RO t 0 6.2m MoP 1 Lake 5.1m 1 to 17 1 1
L an gto n Hou se 1 4.9m 5.8m 5
8 Maltings 0
7 PW 3 3 1 2
8 1 Lodge 6 4 3 1 1 1 to 30 t 1 Y
t o 6
I o A
6.2m s 1 N 5
is 1 ic h o las Court
0 W
7
C 8 5 6
3 2
o 3 T 3 H
ur 1 N 7 Chenies
t E C
C 2 A CR 5 House 2 S dy MoP E D
5 6.0m E B OA
4 d R
R r R 7 1 C a 9 N o W Y U
t Y 5.2m D 6 E R
7 1 O VE 1 1 N R 3
Z R
0 35 T FB
8 3 I O 8 2
G F 8
C
2 2
R t
1 2
1 o
O 2 9
2
0 V 3
E t 1 FB
E o 4 3
1 6 P G
A 7 7 36 R D 32 1 K I to 36 R R 1 to 17 O B 3 8 2 A 9.5m
1 D K Oast Lodge
R
6 2
2 A 9 4
P 2 y
Redcliffe 4.6m r
G 6
6 n E 2
4
R 5 1 to 30 o Gardens 6 V 2 O 1
1 s
V O
a 4 School E 2
R D Chesterman Court
P m
G 3 A A 2 House R 1 g O 5.7m 5.0m K t n o i G R p 4.8m 3 e A M 6 o R K 1 s l P 4 u D R 1 S E 0 o N .7 1 A 22 7 C H
S 5 0 P R 4 2 1 4b 30
1 1 to r Outfall 4.4m
8 O Obelisk 1 e
1 8 i 1 1 F 4a 1 .4m 2 T 1
O P
0 2b
2 1 1
o 2 N e
6.4m t A 2a
1 h 3
0 V 2 E 0b T 4 N 1 TCB 1 to 12 1 30 U 6 1 0a m
E 5 Leg O'Mutton Reservoir
1 Willow .
a 4 V
6 3 1 1 Court 5.8m 29 7 8 E
32 4.6m 9 R
7 D
9 D 1
6
1 3
3 1 1 6 1 2 6 A U
5 4 N 1 O 8
7 R R HUNTINGDON 1 6 O
9 9 Y 0 1 2 8 2 1 GARDENS E D A
H 1 5 A
S D a lfw ay House 9 3 7 a 1 O 1 t 2 3 R S 0 T R U S 1 SO Dolphin Square
b R 5 2 EN T 5 1 D
3 u E E
L T 4
O 1 S
2 H 4
a 6
2 1 n 1 N 0 l 4.6m
c E C
t 3 t 10 to 5
a o C 2 1
s 7 O T 1 5
0 t 4
1
e U 1 A 1 1
4 r 2 5 R 1 6.1m C E
o T m u R R 7 a
h 5.1m 3
rt O 1 9 ting
4 G
1 it
A 1 1 h 4
1 3 W 4
D ur t 1 8 C o
to 6 6 El Sub Sta 0
Surgery 4 4.7m 1 2
1 1 5 R 7 8 1
6 0 1 2 1 i
4 6 Swimming Pool s
2 i 3 4 1 0 n The
3 8 6 g MoP
1 1 to
2 8 B GROVE 1 3
2 3 5
S 3 s o Harrodian School 8 ee ce l
PARK T Tr Pla la 1
5.7m A ow r a V d
ea d T
2 E
MEWS M h
1 1 L 1 6 1 1 17 0 a
9 1 E 5
2 3 Y 5.0m m
7
7 e
a
1 5 1 R s Mill
n 2 E MoP Trees
do O N C 4
o n 7 A 4.5m
L b A L 4
f 1 1 r
o 3 1 D 1
1 e Lodge 7 7 ty s e a 4
si u N s er o 3 2 v H 4 O
n i t T ce U Bo a 6 G 4.6m on 5 L IN n n i 1 U UR t 7 B 1
Chiswick School MoP
6 TCB 4
6 Vicarage 43
H 17 6.7m GR OVE 4 5 W
A 15 5.1m 5 1 4 7 L
R 2
5.7m C T LB
I C N PARK 2 G LB 0 Pond 6
T 55 4
O 4 Edensor Gardens
2 T 1
1 1
h to 6
N
8 o
5.9m e t 9 1 S 2 9 4.7m 2 0
R 9 G 5 le
1 l
79 g o
r 6
O 6.0m o 6 5
p
5 n
v 1 i
A e 87 i
6.4m ( o n
P P t h
D P O 77 g
H a 5 S
4 ) r 1 k Surgery m O AD K R 1 y a Shelter M AR 6 s P d S VE o O P e GR B l
o o n
s a
Cavendish p s r
B n 0 1
1 e y
t 2 i
Ch er we ll s 3
Station Parade 5.4m L n y
8 m H r
1 LB g S
9
t
0 6
1
o
6.0m 1 & i
Co ur t a n
6 1 Primary School g h
8 2 TCBs TCBs t m h o 1
5 0 MoP i
n h s 8 T s h
a D
n g a
5.3m r c W s l A
1 5.5m e o a e o m
a
h iv C e n O rc 2 t g u 8 2 r h B R e R C URL ING T O R o y n s N LANE r r i l' 6.6m 1 y u p E Pa o D Fn e t o L S t l
SP B n 4.9m o 4.6m 1 A 5 0 MoP r S ESS Shelter 1 4.9m o D 0 S
Tennis Courts C F B 4.6m 15 N
9 FS
4 O
3 T 3 2 6 L 8 Chiswick 1 re
e 14
6 s 8 Station 1 5
1 8
3 3 S
2 8 7 8
1
1 h
4 36 4
1 8 27 to
5 Chiswick 1
7 e
2 2 1 0 1 Posts
2 9 3
2 l
t 1 9
1
e
1 7
o
3 1 t
1
2 P 1 r
War Memorial R 2
0
6
5 1 O
S 2 0 6 6 5 M 2 8
l 1 9
o 4 Homes 1 1 6 EN Tennis Courts
p 0 Burlington 1 3 2 6
5 3 6 A i 9
3 2
n t o D 8 Pavilion
o t 1 Sports Court 1 E 6
o g 7 4 4 1
t
4 3 Court 4 1 6 A
o MoP
m 2 8 1 o P t
t 3 1
s P 7
8 t 1 R 5
a s 5 4 5.9m O 1
s o A
o P C 2 Grove Park 1
n 2 H 4
r 6
2
y 3 R R 2
Hartington Court 1 2 6 U Farmhouse O
4 0 A S
S Alexandra D
0 l 3
1 o 2
t
o S b 8 p
1 2 E Gardens
9 1 i 1 L n
L g
K
1 E m MoP 7 1 7 S 2 R a 3 16 T
A R s 3
T o 5 El Sub Sta C 9 I 6 n
O 3
L r
N 5 o
O t y
A 1 The Riverside Club Hall
6 S 1
5 P
5 E
Pavilion 1 0 1
4 U
N P E 4
V E 1 1 9 4 1
A 3 R
D 1 4 P 0
o 0 9 1 R
5 A I 0 O 5 s
r
s 5 t 7 5 9 N 6 N A t 4 s
s e
3 K I
t
C 1 o 3
H 4 2 14
30 4.9m P a 6
5 R
0 4.9m
4 W
O 1 4 6
5 Bowling Green A 4 Childrens
D h AD
5.2m g RO
i
2 Nursery N G 4 TO u 1 H HER
AT
n 2
1 t n
o
2
y o 7
6
t 1 5
a 6 4 7 a
3 e h 3 2 5
4
C 1
M
3 3
7 o 8 o 5
8
1 t 1 1 4 u 5
4
r 2 4.6m C t 4 L 4 3
A R 0
4 E t
5 M o 9
4 5 9 Shelter O NT 7
6.0m 1 70 3
0 3 7 Public 78 GROVE 2 2 W 4 2 a Conveniences 8
IL 6
M 59 4 D
2
I 8 A
o
N 5
t
G 6
9 O
4 3
1
8 s
5 6 t
T t o
R 1
3
2 O 6 s 3 5
N o 2
P 6 E
2 A 7
V 5 o V
t 4
E A
2 5 5
N 7 1 A
6 R
5 N 2 3 U
6 S 4.8m G
3 E T 6
5 I L
B C
1 E 6 E 9
O 6
1 B 3 C
6 L
L 5 1 O T 5 S
S E O 5 s
6 t
l
o N 0 6 s 5 p 3 D o 6 1 4 1 i 4 A 5.0m
n R P o
O 4 t 2 7 2
g O 7
4 8 6 8 R 2 7 4.5m 6 m 1 A 8 2
SP Rosemount Y 2 7 D 0 a 's Trees h K E 9 6
s se p e S House S
o o
t J ch 6 l P LB n
S hu r v T Post
o i E R
r C
c t n Play Area y 4 1
N
ho li C El E
2
Ca t 1 C Gardeners Cottage H
o o 7
E t
u Sub Sta C 6 AD
R 6 0 6 G ALAT A RO
r t T 1
R 3 A O E A
D 2 Signal Box R
S 2
N 5 G
4
DE 5 Allotment Gardens 5
R 1 5.1m 8
2
A
G 1 Posts
1 1
4
E
4 1 I R 3 7
H Presbytery o 1
a t
5 0 S 9 2
3 N 6 Alexandra s
7 O 8
D 2
V 7 t
E 6.1m 7 5
D s A 7
o 5
7 Gardens O
4 LB 1 6 P
R
1 5
2 0
4
4 3
9
o R
0 t
t 2 o 9
4 4 2
S 1 E
1
6.0m 8 TCB 9 D 2
7 2
3 h
6 2 H A 1
3 S
i T U 0 p Sandra F F O w O 6 LK R W R a OA 48
D O
y M E
L
9
1 Court
K
H P 3 9
3
o
t o
t
1
o 3 R
0. 1 5 7 u 1 A 4 s 0 Allotment 46 P e 5.1m Quintin 4
4 Gardens
S 1 0
T 8
Court 7
A 5 C 4
2 O 2 1 1 N 0
5 T Chiswick New 3 IS
2 IO TO
5.4m N C 4
N 9 L O 5.2m 0
Burial Ground 8 S
G E 2
5 y h
6 A R
d t
2 R Riverside Recreation Ground a D C B
E rd P 6.1m N a S Chapel Baptist W 5 Church 6 32
1 9 4
3 0 1
H 5 2 3 1
A 7 4 3 R Outfall 0
a T ta
7 I 3
N 5.4m S 2
b 4 is 4
G a u 3 2 4.9m r 7
T a M 4 l S 0 O E
N 6 2
1 5.5m
7 3
R 4 Recreation Ground
O 3 5.0m 9
1 3 5.3m A 11 6 2 4 D 2 4 LB S
S 1
h 10 8 5 6a 2
i l 1 n o 1
3
g p 3 15 17
7 i 1 3 1 l n 9 3 e 6b 9 1 8 1 7 6 g 8
1 m 0 1
a 3 7.8m 9
6
t
s 2
1 2
5 2
c o o 3
1 6 1
n
2
2
r 4 a 2 y 2
0 5 1 6d S
E Sports Court T
A 0
S 1
1 V O 8 E RI Tk 5.1m
L L VE
C 1 1 E R
1 Y S 2
N 8 G 6 ID
a 3 1 E
O 6 A D
R R
T D IV t o S 3 5 E 1
I 4 E 2
E
N S 1 N 2 3
8 2
O 3 O S 8
LB C 6 L
1 C
4 3
1
8 o t 4.7m
9
3
2 2 3
4
7 3
H 8 1
9
8 1
2 6
4 2 o 5
S 3 1
t 6
0 3
2 4.6m 4
1 U
6 0 3
9 3
R 3 3
4 3
n 4.6m 5
3
o 2 4.8m 3
D i 5
l 9
i 7
v 4 N
I 3
a Pavilion 1
P 9
ESS 6 W 1 1
2 22
6 a
1 1 1 a
2 4.3m 0
2 3 8 4
1 1
0 2 2 4
1 .6m 7 7 2 SL 2 1 1 o
t
5
1 6 4 9 T
6 CB 9 0
1 5.0m 4
Sports Court a
3 1
6.4m 14 2
0 a
3 5 2
9.3m 2 6
1
Riverside
o
1
t 5
7
.1m
1 5.0m
1 0 Diana
1 17 Pumping Station House
18 1 2
1 5.3m
a 1 1 to 1 E
S
7 7 2 O L
R C Stand IV 2 8 ER SI E S D E l DR E o E B IVE 5 H 5 R p IT O 34 i A T n S T L
g K T T
C 4.6m 4
m I 8 O U 2 W 6
S N N 1 a I s s CH en R 3 L 7
o d 4 A
5 O
n in L 1 D
r e A W 5
y Th D A C 0
9 O 2 H
3 3 I R S
W E
I K BE
1
C 2 K 7 4 R 4.2m .6m RKEL E T A S Sports Ground e n n is Courts P T A 2 9 10
I T 5 4
H 3 4
3 Y
3 3 10.9m E 3 R 1 4.0m OAD
t
o 4.7m
2 1
9 1
5 3 4
3 6.2m
3
6.5m 9 4.6m 4
1 8 St Andrews
h
6 4
4 0 2
c
Court 5
1 a 4 t
o 1 to 6 1 e
7 t
3 o R 4 8 0 5 h T e n nis Cavendish t Bolton Lodge a
8 P C S House o urts h 2 i n 4 Sluice g
l 1
e 2
1 6 1
4.9m y 1
Trees e
n r 4 9
Tennis Courts o 0 2 3 1 C
4 5.1m Sp o r ts G round P Crane o n 1 at 11.7m 2 n 1 5 4 A a .2m b 9 i L B 7 0 n e 5 M g 2 s D
t o u A
o o O H R 4 r n 5 Staveley
w ry H
B r y D
e S o O A
r
e t
b I D R 8 L e 2
a l D AN
l n u RL 1
a l 4 1 N BE
it M E 1 CUM o r u 5
t Gardens V 3 l A s
e li e S
e a t 1 C 8
Tree O u l
6 a o m r B
c p o w lin g Green a W
h g i
2 n a n h 2 i 8
6 9 E 4 g
5 4 H r g
d p i
5.5m m I T 8 o
R 5
A 1 l H
T 4 a
C y 7
S
S 2 o
d t n
s
K 2
o a
C B 7 P
o 3
t R I 5 a v ilion 5
El 4 5 n d e
i SW r
v I 1 4.7m r H a 7 M
e y
B Sub C
r L W o
T 8
r Sta T
o h w
1
2 a 6 r C m 8 s S
o
n e M
s 0
s Mast 7
t
4
6
& P o 1 9
t
a e 2
6
8 l
2
L t 7 6 g
6 h 8 Tennis B 10.5m 7 n The Quintin Hogg Memorial Ground i C B
h C d 7 Courts 2 S
y
L 8 6 9
W 3
2
6
1
o
t
2
9
5 4
.8m 5 3
8 .4m 1 0
75 6.7m 7
8 1 8
6 6
6 7
MP 8.25 o
t
3 6
7
6 9
0 1 1
0 0
0 1 3 9
9 6.0m D
1
4 A
D 4
5
3 6 A 5.5m
Civil Service Sports Ground O 6 O on R R li M i Y S v e a E M S a P n T R H 2 R e 1 E i g 2 H E
g 5 lla 2
h 6 V i C H 1 58 L
0
W 6 s 6.8m 5.6m T 4 T 6 e 1 9
m 5 T A 4 1
a a 1 w E W 37 h r 9 t T 6 s 5 O P e R r L a G El Tennis Court t h
Sub Sta 2 D
7 A
y 4 7 8
L Twr 3 d O
5 4.7m
7
B 2
5 R 2
9.3m 2 RO AD B ELAND L 55 STM O R D Fn WE
& 9
7 W t
4 4.6m e 59
4 s L l 1
1 n
1 C E
3 6 7
1 o 8
2 C T
0 C T
1 1
H 5 o Sh ing O
1 5
9 0 r L Sluice 0 A 9
o R 9
4 R 5.0m
T B A
3 I 0 N 4 H W 0 E G 5 C C ES l 1 P Shelter T M
S T O 6 R
u O EL
5 N AN 5
8 b D
5
2
3
S 7 S R 3 0 R OAD
t O 6.1m
h 1 a A
i 5
n D D 4
6
3 Tennis Courts 5
g A 1
6
le 7
5 3 O
2
1 Bandstand 5
1 6
Staveley 5 R L 8 Tank y
T r E
w 2 n L
2 5 6
r o 2 5
s Gardens t A o
7 Tank 4
1
SL 6 s
1
a D 2 2 4
7 7
S 1 0 m
3 N
6 g s
5
S 6
6
1 1 O
3 n e
1 l 5 C i L
2 o 1 7 S
1 p m
p P lip way 2 a i lo
n
9 h
S
6
g 2 T
5 3
1
6
Childrens Nursery 1
9
1 4
m r
2 t
7.9m o e a
2 5 v s 0 i E
o Y
R l
n A
T S
1
r U A 3 0 H
1
y Q l 2 M u 1 5 5.0m K lo 4.8m
E S b C tm Pavilion 2 I 3 5 9 .3m S W e P S n m a ll t S t R e
I G l a O g
H 1
a 6 n C 1 P
r Shelter i r o fits SM 5
d M
e 1 h
E
n 2 2
s 7 S
N
t
6
o
4.6m A 2
5 4 3
8 D
4
6 1 9 E 8
Pontoon Mean High Water 5
7 1
0
2
0
2 2 7 1
0 3 0
1 1 3 S 2
6.9m ta nd o t
2
2 ESS 25
1
6
2
2
6
2 8
1 1
6 G
7 E R 39 1 Slip way T A id eway RD Yacht Basin
RO
A
D 2
1
0 2
7 4 7 4 RO AD Sports Court ILL E 1 Pump MEL V 7 51
y 3 1
8 1
a 3 71 0 5 w 5.2m 2 7 lip
S LB
4 1 S El 4 1 7 h 2 i n
g Sub Sta Tank 2 9
l 5 6.9m
e 3
7
2 0 2 0 5.3m
r
e
t
2
Polytechnic Stadium a 4
2
W 6
9 1 9 h 7.3m g
12 2 i 2
3 2 4.9m H 7
3
5 5
.3m 4
M n 9 1 2
1
e a 6 4 e 1 a 8 n a
3 M 9
1 H S 4 lip way 1
i g 4 .7m 8
h
0
9
1
W 0 ESS 3 6 a 4.7m 0 t e
r
4 2
1 Tank 8 D
1 2 1 1
4 A 6 4 Tennis Courts O
R
2 5 9 Bowling Green 1 E
G
N
4 A
8 3
2 4 R
4 9 rn
S 2 Ba
7
W 8 Th e G E 3
M 5
1 H
Chu rch 8 El r 4 e Sub Sta t N 45 a A S Pond E W S
A 1 N U 9 A h R L g W O SL i orks S D uke's Meadows A D I H 8 B
2 I n 2 2 8
6 a
8
R 7
4 e
Pp Ho 5
2 i v 4 0 e M 3 r K T Sports Centre I h T
a
m 1 S
2 O 1 e y r 6 B s N o R iv erside Lands School Playing Fields n o r R o s
a O
C 0 2
2 4 9
o m A
AGE
9 9 M IT
4 HER D
n g 3
7 T HE 1
t s 4
o n .8m
t i
2 2 8 & p
o 2
C L l B 2
C S 1
3 7
L B 3 2
W 0
d 01 y 1 1 1 l 1
o
Dock 7.0m o 3 1
Gate P Tennis Courts 3 1
2
g 3
in 0 s 1 rd m
lla im
o w 3 1
0
B S 3
1 7.2m 6
5
Bollard 0
3 0
R 21 1 C
Mud 4.9m 23
0 2 Sports Court St Mary's Lodge
2 3 h 7 t
a 3
Waste and Recycling Centre D 3 LY 9 2 1 t o 4
3
A P 2 R 1
1
Club s O 1 IC Tennis Courts 9 e R R us Y O o E A D Julian Court
H S t T 1 oa R Tennis Courts B E WB H 5 C 3 T MP 8.0 5 99 M A y 5 S E d H B h R W i G rd
n a g D T he l W 2 e Play ing F ield A St Osmund's Tennis Courts O G r ange R Allotment Gardens 3.9m RC Primary S S 69 l B N ter o o 4.9m 7 School Sta el
p a N 1 b h
3 i 2 u S
n t A S
4 2 El lk
g H a 1 3 W
o T h 3 rc
m u S h u 9 C
s 4.2m a e 6 s o g
n in 6
r 1 1 w k 1 5
y o n 7.8m 8 R 6 1 8 Ta 5 9 87 4.1m D 79 A Posts
O 1
R 2
3
9 0
3 6 1
2 8
5 5
351 4
9 9 5
3 5
7 9 4 6 8.1m 5 E 3
SM Tennis Court 43 6 2 G
2 6 a 9
N 5 The Cottage 2 2
1 A
1 1
R
0 0
1 3 G
4.7m 4 9 8 4 1 1 4
Tennis Courts 1
1 4.2m 0 2 15 1
s 3 s Shelter
SM t D 3
6
s 3 w 4
o 6 e B A 1 N 9
O
4 A P 7 M
t a
o
1 R y 1 R L s 4.4m
1
g r o s a
o K d
E 7
t n a E i n d 1 37
h r S
1 R t u g u 2
o O o
1 C a F e
1
L P E o R 1 O L 7 Prospect S D M E E A S N m T M n 23 Studios 1
w E 5 2 A . 3
o 3
M 5 7
T Boat House 4 N
y 3 N e O 1 n 6.1m 1 to 6 S 1 ut b R 3 lu P D R T P S
C A N
g E 6 O Bowling Green 29 LB E F 3 n 5.1m 3.2m H O C
i e A S
l D E ow T R g R 6 R n C i E H E S D h L T
l o A S A 8 p D Pavilion i O
n R S g 3
S m Y N
M E 7 4.6m
a O 1 S a s L
o T S e
n R 6 1 to 3 5 5 a
r E . 3 5 5 2 f o 1
y 5 6 rth
o
Shingle H m 5 t
9 L
C 52 1 o d 1
T g e D 1
A 9 5 1 1 OA
Chiswick 4 7 9
E 5.4m 3 1 R
LB 6
1 o H
R Bull's Head T
8 C
G 10.5m Boat House 4 4 R y W H S 1 U
NES IG H T R H
Filter Bed a H BAR EET C
47 1
w 6 4 M (PH) to 2 3 1 p
i 6
l 4
S 8 3.8m e 1
l 64 17
g The Sun Inn D 45 2 n to 2
A i 4
h 3 4 5 1 2
O 6
S 7 5 (PH) 4.4m
U
5 6 R n L 3 6 d d 1 6 I 6 E n 43 F D a to a C 1 F
A 4 Elm
Golf Course A d O
E PH 2 L Shelter 1 n
R o 6
M The Gatehouse a 3 t 7 P y
9b 6 Cottage
3 3 m D 0 8 d S 1 2 N S 7 3 9a .7 1 B 5
8 4 7
S N d a
6 r n 5 9 7 4 a 6 W . 0 A 1
PH PL 4 m W R
O C P
A 9 W
C e
8
T 2
Shelter
E S o Pavilion t d
9 2 r
4.5m o 3 71 5
y 3
r 1 6 2
n a 8 1 0
10.9m o
s 1
3 5
a 3 a
m 5
5 Day Centre S 3 h g 6 4.8m i in
n 2
g p 3
el ol 6
2 3
a BI S 0 RC 1 H
Pitch and Putt Course YA
R 1
TCB 1 D
R c
3 S1 C 1 y a
d 2
B L Twr b
3
6.1m 1
d 2
r a
a 8
a 1 W 1 T
N 4 1 12.4m E to C
SL S
2 1 E 1 5 1 P x R e C ss D riv ing Range 2 m E e E 16 3 9 g H o . od T 1
t t 4 2 4.9m Slipway 6 S 3 o L T 1 3 0 0 J 1 Surgery O l ta H 1 E S
N b
7.5m 6 'S u a 3 G S R L Twr l e O R D uke's Meadows g 1 3 V H
R o i n E 1
I w 2
iv h S t o L 4 Essex e i n 7 L
r g S u 3 9 ub 4.5m s E C C s 8 l S lu o e E ta House R b Pond ry u x S
r D S D
L Twr n S 4
7 t A
6 1 O
o 2 Pond
2 C a N 0 3
s E 5 2 O
C 5 6 (Clinic) a 8 N 2
L o R
D 0 m t
W 1 8 S 3
M R 2 7 N A g 7
A V ni 8 1 O 3 T E p G o 8 N N M l E A S 4 U
e C 9 9 T
E
an c A 1 1 4 S C hiswick Bridge 1 R 4 0 H R C 2 1 gi a 8
h d E r 3 1
Shingle T 5 1
W 1 m
L Twr r 3 T t e 7
o
h a 7.0m t Barnes Bridge i 1
a 9 c
h a t 2
9 8
e 1 a m 4 W 1
r 0 Dorset
e h 5 e Outfall s g le Post 2 l i g C H n 2 House Slipway n h i o 1 a S 1 u
e rt 16 ff
L 1 li Trough
T wr M 1 o c
1 t t
12.7m 2 9 a
1 R se
0 1 u a b 5.2m 4 o 1 3 H 1 l
l B
fa o 0 2
t 3 r 2 4 u o a 0
O C 1 8 4 2 o 1 S 2 n u 1 t o
st r 7 T
& 7 C r t o 1 UR
2
MP 2 4 G o e
L 0 u y 9 O
B 3 R C
6 2
L Twr 2 Barnes Green
Sluice 1 O r X C B 2 3 s 4 t E C d g V a S S L y ni E S 1
W t E M 4 al se R 6
1 3 o 5 1
4.8m Boat House M l 3 O 2 1
C 5
7.6m 3 l 9
S A E t o 1 l 2 D a
o L Twr 1 2 5 St
pi 1 5 4 2 u b n 5 b S
Shingle g R T
m U
4 a 1
9 3
as 5 O
t
o a C
o
n X
r y y 4 E 5
6 4 .
4
d 1 7 S
1 8 S 7
B 6 m 3 E 2
B 1
1
L 9
7 2 6
a
1 a
& 2 H
1 a
t 1
s 1
2 m 4
n M 5 0 5 t
o
P p o
t C 2
s 1 4 o W 0 T 1 h o . 8
or L 7 h i r t o 4
e 7
C 5 7
B O a e 1 Sluice C S Pavilion O 4 f l C 8
f d o T 4 i c 4 L T wr u 1 A 2
e T 2 r
6 1 i T
c L t 8
3 o
k 5
0
t I 3 I
e 3 O M 4
t
t b 4
o N
E
4
1
2 4
Posts 0 S S R B
l 3 o O E 6
p A 2 2
i V 3
A
n 6 9 4 V E 3
D g Outlet 8 m 5.8m E m R D
.7 OA
N L
a a 1 4 R
s 4.4m 1 1 5 4 E 6.0m 5 L U 2 o 0 9 2 E
n Y 2 UR
11.5m r MP E A
y 4 L B 0 C C L T O 2 S
Car Park 5 3
Miniature E 2 1
T 1 Sunday School Shelter Allotment Gardens h 4 P e 3 a Rifle Range 8.1m T S 3 3 th o L E 2
w P l 0 o 9 5
e r s S 3
t u 3 1
s 1 b Tennis Courts 1 B S
a ta r 1 Mortlake 6.0m s n e e 3 1 4.3m P r y m LB s o s n a B 1 7 ts so h r i 3 Methodist
Crematorium a r T d 3
g m e g e 1 1 in iv 2 o p R S Church
S l ta
t 2 io 2 E n
1 2 C
A 33 6 d 1 R 7
5.9m Mud an 5 M d S R 4 e n TE . a d a 3
n u E 5 4.8m m
H i M H 1
g T 7 3
h to 2 4.7m 6
W DAN MASON DRIVE a
a 11 2
t 5 0
er 7.8m V 3 A 39 6 R 6 S E 7 IT 7 L Y L R 4 I Stone 3 5 S O 0 C 2 O W 4 1 L y o E N d 1 8.3m t
B 1 a V R
d 5.7m t E O
r 1 S
5.6m 9 L
2 A a b 6
A 8
t D a y u 3
W R t o r S 1 N AD
C n 6 D
S 2 o l O
Car Park s E 4 Pond
b 4 t R
3 o G t a 1
u ur m 5.0m D
S 2 2 2 A N
o 2 g
l 1 in 3 5 R LA 1
2 5
E C 1 p D E d o 4 V Shelter i l E E e S E N L 1
R ml S C 5
7.8m a
2
8 6 B 0
1 E s
o a 1 7 o st
1 n
1 t P
3 k L 1
7.7m 1 e M 5 t
o 5
5 us M 1
k 7
8.5m 1 T rac o an B 8 H A r s 3 FB 7.5m e i N 1
Shingle iv o 3 1 9 4.1m n 6 K 9 GP s R t
o G
A 8 a 4 4
t 5
er S R
t 0 1
a b D 2 u 4
W S LB
8.5m P E 2 LB
o h l N 1 s t g 4 6
i E 1
4 Outfall H S 2
a n 1
Leyden ud e 2
M M d
2
1
2 0
House T ra ck a a
Mud 1 2
1
0
2 1 8
Slopi 2 2
n g m 6
a so 2 7 S nr y 2 7 hing le E 2 LB 1
U 1 t 5 9 o M
Tudor e a
N n Hi 2
o g h W t Mud and Sand 1
E ate r 3
2
V Lodge 6.1m 0
7 Old Stables 2 H am m ersm ith New Cemetery A 3
9 C
D 0
R
o 6 4.6m 2
R 0 e
m O 3 W C F i Thames Bank F b d Sluice A 1
I I 1
L e L C M 1
House 2
H L B C 2 5 o
I 1 A u 1 R o r 1 I 4.7m u M D t 0
s 1 G S 1 e 3 Asplin E 3 1
1
L h Outfall 3 t 5 2
L R 8 A a o 1 1 Cottage 6.0m n O 6
N P g A 1 4 6 t W
E o 5 e te a 1 D i 7 o b h lk
t 6 W
m 3 C
e 2
1 p
o i Y rt 9 2 r
) a 2 B e
c h H 1 7 r e
s H ) 9 i k S 8 e d P MHW P H g Aynescombe n e ( ( 1 e y 8 1 Chapel h 8 a 20
Cottage A T SM 3 th 3 4.4m P a ELM B 6
ANK GARD E 03 500
NS 9 1 4 Rive r T k h am es 9 o to o P 1 r a C t B 1
h
2 2 E
y t
S 6 o
4 9
1 D
1 to 17 h 1 3 8 e
ip 2 2 3 1
8 l 3 A
L 1 6
a 9 r 3
n 1 R
Lincoln Lodge e B 3 e P or o C 5 E 1 S a on st 9 1 v
s sa & LB Bd y to U E
g 1 e R
e 1 N U
1 7 B 1 O
1 to 25 N
8 E 7 A s V 1
1 to 17 2 E D C A 5
Wycliffe C V
S l CL W 7 4
P o 1 D A 6 p 5 9 3 6 House in 1 1 1 Waiting Room Churchill g m S O The a t M ich ae l O W The Coterie so n 5 an d O Court r y 12 W 5 All An K L Apartments Cedars 6.7m le g els ' 7 L ing Chu rc h O I The S h Tideway Yard O W
Gables R 6 6
Bishop's Palace 9 B
1 to 32 8
S 4
M 3
4
5 2
7 3 4 4 9 (site of) 1
The 1
s 1
WS 2
El AM M E ' E 1 to 9 l 3 W ADH 9
Garden e l
Sub N l 9 0
St Michael's 8 2
a a 1
A 3 7
Sta House h 1 2 1
L 6.6m c H 4 1
i
Vicarage 6.1m 3 1 3
Cromwell P MoPs
I M
5.0m 1
M 3 3 2
e ss ag e 5 H t
a a T ho rn e Pa 1
1 n H
House S igh S Posts 7 W at e s ay S
(site of) r me w u E 5.2m
MoP L i T ub b l
8
F e he T S 5 S
0 B s B ho rn e Pa 5 Ho u r oa d ssa ge 1 ta wa
y 2 7f 4.6m
29 2
1
1 6
MoP 1 4 1 9 7
5.9m 3 1
MoP 1 2 5 R 1 2 2
5 i Posts
6 7 b c 0 5 5.2m
6 8 Shelter C h 3 Bev er ley Path o 1 3
2 7a t m 0
t o 3 0 t
1 1 o
2 7 a 4 n 6.0m 1
M 3 1
o g 4 0
d 6
o e 1
6 r i 5 0
ng 3
3 P 3 t 6 s
o 6 o
s 1
ts S 1 1 1
hin gle TCBs 3 1
4 2
4 3
8 2 5 1
s 6 a so nr y 5 6
e m 3
3 6.5m p ing 6 re Slo 4 8 2 1
T 4.4m 5 3
Brewery 3
to 2 5
9 1 1 to
EET 0 3 0 3
n T R 0 2 97 2 ta tio EE 1 3 ST 3 1 T
3.6m e r S T R S 1 E
t MP w S L E 9 E
r Po H L AR 4 R 0
u ld G 1 B H
Shelters 3
O I C 0 T
1
o 1 e H S Mean High Water 8
4
T h E 1 e
C Tank K 4 3
7 F M A 3 Y i d 4
2 B o or ing L 2 6 A
0
y 1 Po sts ESS a T S
t 21
e o 1 R W metres
s & O y 3
t 1 M H 2 0
1
r 1 12 1 C a
6 1
e 5 FB R Brunel Court w
4 i l
h A 2 a 6 2
C 2 3 4 R The
7 9 t
3
5 o
1
1 5
4 7 3 1 1
1 t 8
9 1
to 9 5 -8 rs b 7 1 0 3 Bungalow
F i 1 6
Tapestry Jubilee Gardens 5.8m 1 e
2 s
2
t o u 2
o
o H
5 2 3
5 6 t
C 3 2 2 8 a 9 1 8
1 a pa tus H
5
6 0
o use Court 1
4
1
r d 1
8 2
6 fo 2 3 9
1 e r 5
4
in Bu 6 5
6 c 1
Ra 6 5 2
lla 4 7 4 73 9 Vi 5 1 4 to 23 2 4 3
2 8 4.9m
1 07 M
2
9
7
1 P
6 5 0 2
5
3
7
7 7
8
9 t
6
0
o
8 0
79 o . 3
2 2 6.3m 6
e t 5
5
4 6 8
8 t
6
7 b
t r
0
5 6.8m
o se 6
5 8
7 1 u 0
u Stockwell 1
2 1 1
1 Ho 7
5 F y 2 5 1 o
6 7
3 B Bo a tr a c e Court le 3
4 1 to 4 2 A B
2 ip 7 C
1 6
1
R y 6 0
3 a 2
6
L U 2
1
4
7 8 2 Villa
7 1 a 7 w 1
L
1 2 7 5 Dukes Court 2
L 1 t o b
8 o Orchard
2
E L 9
1 3 u t
Sutapac 7
3 7 l
2 7 S 7
1 2
5 1
1-4 5.1m 3 Y S
3
1 1 e
1
99 6
1 1 17
House Tapestry 0
2 o n
1 1 Court
o t
4
t
9 u 1
F r 1 2 3
o t
4 2 1 75 5 LB
t B 10 1 se
61 to 69 1
7
1
o B o u 8 B
1 5.2m 4
1 r e wery H Court Shelter 5 4
0
2 2 9 2
1 19 igh 8 6 a
hle 9
9 3
Chy As 2 1
3
3 1 1
1 2
7
7 6
3
9
6
3
8 0
2
t se 1
c
o o u WB 3
1 H 1
igh 1
2
1 hle 1 6
3 Tanks 1
2 As 0 0
2 1 1
Tanks 2 6.1m
3
1
9 1 2
1 0 4 5.2m
9 2
o t
4
1
2 5
6 3
6 0 5.0m 8
8 1
2 6.6m
1 M on tg om er y H ou se
1 a
7
9 1
7 Shelter
1 1 1 1 5.5m 4 LB
t
M OR TL AKE HI GH STR EET o 3 3 T 5 1 8
7 1 E 1
2
Shelter 8 E
o t
3 0 1
1 8 3
R 3 4 0
T 6 1 6
2
S 8
3
OAD
2
t o
Avo nd ale Ho us e E Silos 2
2
LB 9 N 9
1 5
0 R
Kin de ll Ho use O 6 1
6
7 5 Y R
1 H 0 1 2
1
t o 1
T E
1 6 Sheridan
t 6
2
o
1 L
1
t 3 o 2
1 Scale: 1:5,525
1 6
1
1
t 1 9
o
1 Post 6 3 3 6
1 4 3 e Place
4
6 5.3m LB 1 id
1 3 t
0 ESS
1 o 0 C S
2 l y BEVER 2 6 6 u
0 7 o t
2 a
4 4 0 b lw
2 3 E i 1 9 a
5
1 1 4 17 5
0 8
1 2 8
2
9 9 1
1 7
52 NS
48 a DE
1 OXFORD R
6 4 GA
2 0 38 1
1 6
6 9
26 2 8 3
9 6
5.2m 2 1 14 1
o 3
Works t
f 3 7
2 5
4 1 5 7
2 2 t 6 o
D 5.2m LDECK ROA 5
A S 6 4 W ig 1 E na 66 l G V a
W n
a 66b try 2 O
a
r 1 R
d 3
3
3 2
G 5 B 3 3 1 2
o
d 6 t 4 6 2 7
1 g
y G 3
0 2
9 1
N 1 2
1 I 0 1
R 4 6
4 8 1 2 P 5 E S G 2 A
L 5 2 236 L to I 7 Shelter 21 V
2 t
H K o 7
7 8 FB 7 8.9m E IC 1 9 1 W 6 A S HI
R
4 1 C
3 2
N 1
1 1 6 1
E
9 4 to 8
6 1 0 98 R 9 17 2 5.2m 7 2 to
O 2 1 8 2
A 8
E 1 2
D
5 l 1
K Su
b 2
S 3 C t 7 E a h ur 2 t W o
n 7 D P
l 7
80c a c R 80b A
80a SP e t o
9 80
O O
1
0
a
2 c 2 R A W 9 a 2 b 7 1 1
h 0 a 1 D r C MoP f T H
N IS
MHW 0 W
O 0 2
2 I
2 C
o
9 t
4 M E K
5
MoP S 0 V TR R S 2 IL
A Y O L N 1
D P A -O i P 6 L G N er H -T o C E
H us E 1 -G e 1 TCB RE E 5 EN D MoPs 4.9m A E
2 1
1 1 M 0
4
MHW 0
1
D 2
o
E t t
A o 5
N 8
8 O 1 1 4 1 A
R 8 PH L
W 9 E
h 2 1 S
ar M 4
f oP 8 3 N 8
s 83 1 a I K 1
t
o
t
S D
8 O 1
5 4
Landing L 6 2 b 1 l LB O l u A
Stage a S
f 3 R t 4 l 0 R 3 2 B M u E E 3 2 P O 9
G .2
3 5
c
3
1
0
1
1 Childrens Nursery 6
1
9
Strand On The Green 1
t o
o
t
1 1 3
4
2 5 4 24 Junior and Infant t 1
1 14 o
5.8m 24 a 3 a School 2 m 8 8 26 .
26a 5
7
o t
1 1 1
3 Mud 1 and Sh TH ing M A le ea PH M n Hi Tanks C gh W ES C at er 7 R L 2 O 28 30 W A Kew Bridge D 30a 3
3 32 75 32a 73 Play Area
34 71 36
E S 50 3
6.1m O 3 3
7 52 L 8 SP
C 4
R 1
PO IVE 6 5
7 4 L
5 O 4
4 6
9
4
Kew Gardens Pier 4 STRAND ON THE GREEN 8
1
Th 2 Bollards FS e M LB
Landing Stage FS 63 o
4 orin
g 4 s 5 Kew Marine H ouseboat Slop y in Bollards e
g m MoPs l l a 4
Mud and Shingle sonry A 2
1 p
i 6
h 3 8 5 S S loping 6 Recreation Ground nry maso 1 SL ping maso K nry 57 Ship
E 5 C o ttage 7
W 9 0 El Sub Sta 4.3m 72
R Mud
O
A 8 D 2 8 56 4 S 6 lo 0 3 ping R 0 ma 1 son iv ry er 94 T 96 PC B h o a 53 9 ro a 8 C m o e 5 99 ns s 3 4 t M 48 5 & LB u 52 B d Playground C dy a 5.2m C nd Tennis LW S
6 h 4.0m in 59 Court g Allotment le 3 0 5 9 3 Westerley Ware ll 0 Thetis Terrace Works 1 Gardens fa 0 4.6m t 1 2 u 0 3 6 Recreation Ground O 49 8 1 1 1 0 2 1 4 0 1 8 1 M 46 0 Tennis u 1 T t 1 o d o 1 l l H o 47 4 u S a se 1 Court lo n 1 p d 2
1 in 4 g S 1 h 45 1 m 6 a in 1 so g 1 York n le 1 8 r Magnolia 2 y MoP 2
Villa 4 7 Wharf O 3 1
ld 2
F e 8.2m r r 5 y 1 0 H o 2
us 4
e 4 4 2 6 1 2 2 6
1 4 3 5
Tennis Courts 4 0 6 0 S
S E 1
h 2
e
G 7 1 8 Gate l 2 M 3 t ud MoPs
e Willow Cottages A 5 2
r T S
Lodge 5 T E 5
O G 1 MoPs 3 5 C A 1 4 1 3
T 8
E 7 T D
1 A G O 3 MoP 6 D C 1 O I 4 8 0 5 4 R R E 0
1 .0 The 1 B m G MoP A I
M D Post L
I 3
C axton 1 0
A M 4
2 5
R 1 MoP O 5
M u C d 3
B 1 a e N PH H ouse e n c 7 a d fi M n G S f y A H h Mud O e l A
ig in t l 5
C h gl s A 5 o 4
85 e and 3 9 M 2 W 2 P 5 a MoP Post te r M Shingle 58 S e l an 3 o T PC 11 1 p H 0 in ig H 5
g h 10 4 W A 0 m a K a te SM M 2 s r C o E 5 1 n .
LB 3 O E ry S 0 6 P 9 1 2 D S a t R
4.3m D O h P O 5 PH L M
66 L 2 5
O C 8 A 5 56
6 6 D 82 2 1 74 52 MoP 8 M u PH 68 d 5 a KE 0d n 2 W G 4.3m 1 d 7 RE 5 E 5 S s N w 0 h 1 e c M
i k c n i w g d S a 5 W l h
0b a lo e C 2 6
tc p 4 i 0 S 4.0m 5 om ng Bol p 0a be m Oliver's o C a rt 5 o s s 0 tta o P g 1 nr I a es 1 y sland v
i
li 4 Bol y o 1
n 8 Crane a w p
li
S 1 5 2
0
6 a 4
1
LB 1
0 S Shelter 1 6 lo 2 P p o n d L odge in BS g M Loretta Wharf a
s
4 o 6 n M r u y
d
a 8 n 1 1 d S h in 16 g 4 Pond l 1 e M ) ESS H LB e P S a ( lo n 1
p H 6 4 8
in i 0 g g
m h 17
a 0 2 W d so a 1 nr a e 74 y te H H 1 o 72 r lls p u k 17 13 B H in 6 e o B h m M U T e o SH s rr
o is
W f
2 O 1 O R D e
4.0m R s
N 4.3m t O 3 E 1 AD E R Allotment Gardens
G 1
0
2
W 2 2
E 5 1
4.9m 3
K 8
4.6m M
u 9 d 7 a n d 7 S h in P g 5
R le IO 2
RY 3 R OA 15 D 37
3
ESS
2
2
0 100 4 6
S
h
4 MoP
i
o n t 2
7 g 1 2 l 49 Mud e Bowling Green and Shingle
Cecil Court S t ra n - d G -O re n
e -T
n h e
2 2 M
5
2 u 8 S d lo a p n i d 3 5 n 5 7 g S M m h a in metres H s g W o le n 4.9m hurch ry
ne's C 2
St An 0 S
M TCB
0 Sluice 6 Tennis Courts B LB U S H W Scale: 1:1,819 O O 6 D 9 R o n r y
2
2 1 1 2 8 Allen
t
o
9 H ouse 1 3 4
6
0
o
1 t
1
4
2 2
8
1
t
9
1
2
1 o 0
0 2
6
9 2 1 to 35
1 0
t
o
o
t Bridgeman Kem pton
2 1 House H ouse 1 to 49 ALK Masson House Shaft E W AG LB RIT
4 P HE 1 8 o 1 Kew H ouse s 7.0m t 9 s 6 13 C 1 to 9 o 2 a
1 t t o 1 to 49 0 e 1 Shelter 1 4 s 2
4 0 9
W Aitons House D
1 A
O
o a R t E
l P 1 G k D
U RI
M B 3
W 8
P E
3 K 8 2 H t 1 to 46 in t y o o nr O Metropolitan House P so ta 2 a U at
1 9 0 g m eg
0 1 in p S R
6 5 lo 1
2 o 1 5
t Green Dragon S E 4 3
to
2 1 1 8 1 C 58 10 to Primary School R 4 37 E S
9 C 4 E
N 8
1 0 8.2m 9 1 4 1 1 to 41 T 18 Jef f erson House 2 D 6 20 A 0 to RO 4 1 EY
1 TL 5
NE 1
2 4 17 3
E to
6 2 4
l 4 Filling 1
1 t S o
4
u 9 Station 5 2
2 1 V
b to i
1 c 2 t 2 o 2 o 3 t The r i 8 S a 7 t 8 S t 4 e t o p a s
1
Musical Museum Q
4 u 0.4m 8
7 a
4 3
y
7
9 0
2 o
5
0 t 1
8 3
4
10 6
o
2
t
6
a
2 1 PH t 1
o t
2 1 5
b S 6 3
2 u 8 2 4 l S to E 4 6 8.5m
P 6
2
8
1 o ESS 8
2 5
s 0 o t 2
1
t 5
1
6 e Gas Valve
r 4
8 5 a 4
u 8 1
2 Holland t
7 q 2 o
10 Sc h o ol House 1 Compound
S 1 5 6
t n 6 7 o o 9 o T i t to 3 s 7 Gardens 7 is 4 1 t 5 M 14 o & MLW
2 MH
0 3 1
Shelter 1
6
t
1 o
6 1
N 5 r D O Wate
ET ing Posts ean High 7 or M 0 Mo
is R Car E 3.7m
6 7
8 R
1
4 t 5 T s T
o S
i n t o
t l 0 e H Park
H l 1 d 4
e t r 6 G
2 a I
o 9 Victoria 7 4 r G H y R
7 5 6 nd
2 8 O 1 a
W ll 4 o Steps
Mission Hall ts A H e 7 s l
a Po g 6 D in
lk
o Sh t
2 nd
1 9 d a
4 4 2 ESS u
1 0 M 8 k T W l r H B Bdy a i 1 M st & L m Con l W 3 rd Boro l m 7 a C hapel ta 3 Y 6 s t 8.5m n e o e 2
4 u Play Area r rs H ouse 2 Def 2 4 T 5 o
W 1 0 H
5 g
4 a in e
l n g
o ta k 6 t n S
Posts Ru ing
2 nd 1 2 r a
6 te L 7 a 2 ts W
os igh 9 P
1 H 6 n 0 ea M Slop 7 0
3
7
5 5 t
6 0 o 3 1
1
8 4 7
8 Hotel 8 5
P 6
o
t O
T 9
34 6 10.4m T E 1 to 9 R Baptist Y E 9 C ourt 1 68 A R 3
t
9
9 L o
1 O 5 1 ts I 1 os N 9 A P 4 ng G D ri le
8 oo g 3 n M hi R 5 S
O 2 nd
0 a
A 2
6 d
7 n
o
5
5 D a t
r Landing Stage S
5 te 2 a W
9 9 Shelter h 7 2 ig
0 6 H 3 6 t 3 n 1 6 o ea
4 M 7 1
5
0 0
1 8 D
1 5 A
o 3 O t
R
E 9 8
5 TCBs RE
3 T 8.8m
4 2 1 8 T 5 1 NU 2 L Brentford Ait WA C ressage 3 1 3 1 7 r 1 0 te
o 3 a
House 1 t W 2 w 4 o
2 L
1 n
t a
0 o Me
1 ts 3 s Po 1 ing 9 or Griffin Court Mo Mud and Shingle
Posts
1 s
t e o
1 m
1 2 a
5 h 2 T 60 MoP iver Shelter Play Area R 1a 10.7m
rsh
2 1 Ma
5 4
4 6 er
3 BRENTFORD at
PH W 3 8.8m Alma gh
2 Hi El n ater
7 House ea ow W
2 Sub Sta Shelter M an L 5 Me
ce ra 8
er Shelter 1 T 10.7m W t 4
e
e 5 l k a 8 r r a d TCBs T o E B M C E H r 3 e 5.5m d R t 6 R a
T g y W S r igh o ate H H W ean IG Shingle Hog Hole H gh M 2 i 32 H n H 2 Watermans Park ea Mud and Shingle 7 M
Albany House 1 Kew 8
s Shingle Prepara r st le te Po ng 4.0m a g hi W rin S igh o d H o an Post n M d ea n C M Sa har lto
n
6 H
4 o
8 F 3 u
s 9.4m E
0 e
3 R
2 2 R
Y
6 8 r 4.3m 4 1 3 te e a gl W n L
h hi r 7 e
ig S at ry A 0 H on
W s N
6 n w ma 2 a o g
9.1m y e L in E
2 The Watermans d M n op
5 B ea Sl
6 t 4
A 1 s M
lb 4 1 Art Centre n 6
6 9 o
a 7 n 3 C 1 F o y 3 Mooring Posts r P 1 B o
a 7 B 8
ra 2 f
0 1 4.3m
d 9 e 6
2
e 6 Mean High Water D
o
t
7
4 3
5
5
15 4 3 5
s st Po g rin S oo m M i C th P Brentford Ait H i ll
er at W
1 to 56 h Herbarium
4 ig 2
H
t
TCBs o Lighterage n Und MP h
s Library 5 a 0 e M Court r Mar e t a Shelter W w 1 to 9 o L Knowling Court n r a te er a at C e W M W h h ig ig H H Mud n n a Wharf a e e M M 4.6m The Sir Joseph Banks
G Pond Building O Lots Ait A T 1 to 75 W H Malthouse Court A r e R t F Slipway a Pond W
h s g i e s le d H FB r g m a n n ll i a a o a h St B e h b C B S Su T M d T l n r le FB E FB a g d e in n iv h a S R d S n a d u 5.5m Landing Stage M r te
a s
1 W e
le e 4.6m
0 g h r
5 g
n i T
i
o H
t
Works h n 1 M S a e e y M r a nr e n o t s Bols a a H m g W i n S g pi 0 100 M h h lo g S W y i r Pond H n a o s n t e a a Trough e r m g M n y i r p o n l l o S a s cip a rin M P ce n g ra n t i n C p E o 5.8m l Statues Bols S 1 es lk atu a to St metresW 5 Aroid House d 9 r S a e Q ro t ta B 5 a u t No 1 W e u e e
w Fn n
o ' s 5 L 5
n G
a a 3 e r 5 M d e n MHW e Scale: 1:1,760 l g in h S 61 Ad Number: 486407001 Status: Operator Accept
Advertiser: LB of Hounslow Traffic - Public Notices Sales Rep: sumanjit.kaur
Size: 9.75 cm X 9 cm Color: B/W
Run Date: Fri Feb 08 2019 00:00:00 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)
LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW PROPOSED MOORING BYELAWS Notice is hereby given that the Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow intend to make new byelaws to control and regulate the mooring of boats on river frontages owned or managed by the Council abutting the tidal and non-tidal stretches of the River Thames. Except in case of emergency or other avoidable cause the proposed byelaws will prohibit any person from mooring or permitting any boat to be moored for longer than a maximum period of 1 hour in any period of 24 consecutive hours without the Council’s prior written consent. The byelaws will cover river frontages at Boston Manor, River Brent; Kew Bridge, Strand on the Green; Watermans Park, Brentford High Street, Dukes Meadows. 62 Copies of the proposed byelaws (together with associated assessment statement and report) will be kept at the offices of the Council at Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow TW3 4DN and will be open to inspection without payment on any weekday during usual business hours for 28 days from the publication of this notice. Copies of these documents may also be purchased at the price of £2.50 on application. The byelaw may also be viewed at www.hounslow.gov.uk Written representations about the byelaws, including any objections, should be addressed to Mike Sudlow, Director, Asset Management & Major Projects, at Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow TW3 4DN by the 8th March 2019. Alternatively, you may email your response to [email protected] within the same timescale. Signed: Mike Sudlow, Director, Asset Management & Major Projects Dated 29/01/2019 NATIONAL BARGEE TRAVELLERS ASSOCIATION
RESPONSE TO LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW DRAFT BYELAWS RELATING TO MOORING
Introduction
This consultation response is submitted by the National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA). The NBTA is a volunteer organisation formed in 2009 that campaigns and provides advice for itinerant boat dwellers on Britain's inland and coastal waterways. This includes anyone whose home is a boat and who does not have a permanent mooring that has planning permission for residential use.
General
The NBTA opposes the introduction of the Draft Byelaws Relating to Mooring by London Borough of Hounslow (LBH) for the following reasons:
1. The draft byelaws subvert the right to moor pursuant to the Public Right of Navigation (PRN) on the River Thames and are thus repugnant to the general law;
2. The draft byelaws fail to address the needs of Bargee Travellers in violation of LBH's obligation under Section 124 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016;
3. The draft byelaws compromise navigational safety; and
4. In seeking to enact the draft byelaws, LBH appears to be pursuing a policy of social division, social cleansing and gentrification that is contrary to Labour Party policy in a way that is wholly objectionable and unbecoming of a public body.
The NBTA notes that LBH is a Labour administration. We draw the attention of LBH to page 112 of the Labour Party Manifesto dated 12th May 2017 which states:
“We will end racism and discrimination against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and protect the right to lead a nomadic way of life”
The NBTA also observes that Ruth Cadbury MP (Labour: Brentford and Isleworth) has signed a letter to one navigation authority that challenges the institutionalised persecution of Bargee Travellers. LBH should be engaging in supporting its Bargee Traveller population instead of persecuting them. The draft byelaws do the opposite of that and therefore betray the obligation of LBH to members of its constituency.
Public Right of Navigation on the River Thames
LBH is seeking to enact byelaws to limit mooring to one hour on land that the Council owns or manages with water frontage and seeks to prevent what it erroneously describes as “illegal” mooring or “illegal” boats.
A common law Public Right of Navigation (PRN) has existed on all navigable natural and 63 canalised rivers since Time Immemorial, which was first codified in Article 29 of the Magna Carta of 1215. This includes the River Thames part of which falls within the jurisdiction of LBH.
The PRN includes the right to moor and fix temporary moorings in the waterway, or on the foreshore or to ground for undefined temporary periods on the river banks, including on private land; riparian land owners do not have an automatic right to demand payment (see Halsbury's Laws of England, 5th edition, paragraph 691). The rights of the owner of the soil are subject to the precedent general rights of the public to exercise the PRN (see Edmund Whelan, Marine Law: Public Rights of Navigation, page 77).
The authority of Crown Estate Commissioners v Fairlie Yacht Slip Ltd [1978] Scot CS CSIH 3 confirms that while a PRN does not extend to the right to lay permanent mooring structures, where a PRN exists, it includes the right to moor for temporary periods using equipment that is intended to be, and can conveniently be, taken onto and carried on board the vessel in the ordinary course of use. The Court made no ruling on what length of time constitutes “temporary”.
Further authority is given in Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council [1983] 2 AC 509 545, Moore v British Waterways [2009] EWHC 812 (Ch) and others.
Public quays exist throughout the Thames. On all land that the public has acquired the right of mooring or unloading, by whatever means, vessels may stay as long as they like, provided this right is exercised reasonably (J B Phear Esq: A Treatise on Rights of Water, Stevens and Norton 1859).
Therefore, boats may only be prevented from mooring if they remain for longer than a reasonable time. There is no definition in law of what is a reasonable time in this context. The reasonableness of the length of stay depends on factors such as the circumstances of each boat and on river and weather conditions. “Reasonable” is dependent upon the facts and cannot be laid down in advance, and consequently cannot be codified in byelaws (see Moore v British Waterways [2013] EWCA Civ 73 [63]).
In seeking to curtail mooring for a reasonable period of time within the jurisdiction of LBH the draft byelaws seek to rescind the PRN and thus seek to rescind Article 29 of the Magna Carta of 1215 and set aside authorities from Courts of Record. Byelaws are neither primary nor secondary legislation and therefore these draft byelaws would be repugnant to the general law if enacted.
The Port of London Authority (PLA) has powers to regulate mooring including byelaw 15 of the Port of London Thames Byelaws 2012. Therefore there is already legislation that addresses the mischief that the draft byelaws seek to remedy.
Under Section 235(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 a byelaw cannot be made if legislation already exists that addresses the nuisance that the proposed byelaw seeks to remedy.
It follows that LBH would be acting ultra vires if it enacted the draft byelaws relating to mooring. We note that LBH is not now seeking to enact byelaws concerning mooring on waterways under the jurisdiction of Canal & River Trust (CRT) as originally proposed in the 2017 consultation, where legislation also already exists that addresses the mischief that the proposed byelaw seeks to remedy. 64 Housing and Planning Act obligations
Section 124 of the Planning and Housing Act 2016 requires LBH to conduct Accommodation Needs Assessments that include boats upon which people live (Bargee Traveller Accommodation Assessments or BTAAs). The Guidance issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government regarding the periodical review of housing needs for those living in caravans and houseboats requires LBH to consult the NBTA in the conducting of a BTAA.
Section 124 requires LBH to execute BTAAs at the same time as it assesses the housing requirements of the rest of the population. It is then incumbent on LBH to develop a strategy which addresses the need arising from the BTAA, through public or private provision.
The NBTA is not aware of and has not been consulted by LBH regarding a BTAA. and LBH is therefore in breach of its obligations under Section 124.
Elected members have a duty to represent the interests of Bargee Travellers within their jurisdiction as well as the settled community. In proposing this byelaw, LBH is acting in direct opposition to the interests of Bargee Travellers. This is unlawful.
At the very least, LBH should be working with CRT and PLA to ensure an adequate provision of temporary moorings (the Bargee Traveller equivalent of a transit site) rather than preventing mooring.
It is in LBH's interests to address these concerns, because preventing boats from mooring and introducing criminal sanctions will result in boat dwellers presenting as homeless and becoming dependent on local authority services and welfare benefits, whereas at present they are self sufficient.
Navigational safety
LBH stated in its November 2017 consultation that the proposed byelaw “ ...will either fully restrict mooring in these areas or limit this to a temporary period over 24 hours...”
The draft byelaws published in May 2018 restrict mooring to a period of one hour, not 24 hours. This is a draconian step that will make navigation on the Thames Tideway much more unsafe. This will be the case even with the provision for an extension to 24 hours in an emergency.
The nature of a navigational emergency means that it is not possible to predict how long a boat may need to be moored in order to take safe haven to repair damage, wait for safer conditions, or wait for an ill or injured crew member to recover. This is especially true for boat dwellers, who do not have the choice to return to a house elsewhere in order to recover.
The master of a vessel is on responsibility for the conduct and safe passage of his crew, passengers, other crews and passengers, his vessel, other vessels, the public, public property and himself. LBH is at all times subordinate to this essential objective.
65 The tidal range at Teddington is substantial and, because of the specific characteristics of the river, as the tide flows the current can be severe. Boats wishing to transit between Teddington and Thames Lock at Brentford (onto the Grand Union Canal) (i.e. downstream) or Thames Lock to Teddington (i.e. upstream) are admitted by the Environment Agency or by CRT just before the peak tide and as soon as the rising tide is deep enough respectively. This permits the vessel to ride the flowing tide downstream or ride the incoming tide upstream respectively.
This is because it is dangerous to “buck” the tide especially in low-powered vessels such as narrowboats. These transits are also arranged by liaison between the duty CRT lock keeper at Thames Lock and the EA lock keeper at Teddington (both of whom are on 24- hour call-out).
The transit takes approximately the same time as the tide itself and therefore a small window exists with which to execute the vessel movement. If this goes wrong for whatever reason then the master is obliged to seek safe haven until the appropriate conditions return with the next tide. If a vessel fails to reach its objective before the respective tide is complete, and is obliged to seek safe haven, this has to be executed without recourse to LBH.
In a nutshell navigation between Teddington and Thames Lock is sophisticated. In any event the Master has a difficult task to keep his crew, his passengers, members of the public his vessel and himself safe. LBH therefore has no place seeking to intervene through controlling mooring time limits.
In relation to seeking "safe haven", within other jurisdictions this means a suspension of any mooring restrictions until the danger has passed. While this is technically unnecessary (noting the sovereignty of the Master of a vessel and the PRN) it remains the case that inexperienced skippers may feel obliged to execute dangerous manoeuvres even in the presence of danger if compelled to do so by an authority. The NBTA holds records of accidents that have taken place in such an instance.
The suspension of mooring restrictions therefore makes it clear to such a Master that marine safety is paramount. LBH appears to be oblivious of this objective and is therefore acting irrationally.
It is not for LBH to dictate how or where a master can seek safe haven for his vessel on these waters. Therefore if the byelaw were to have force it would be a valid (and compelling) defence for a master to assert his jurisdiction (to which the byelaw would be subordinate) in relation to navigational safety. Given this it is nonsensical (and unenforceable) to preclude mooring at certain locations under any circumstances.
The draft byelaws show an alarming lack of understanding of safety on the water and will endanger boaters, potentially leading to the sinking of vessels; collisions between vessels, and loss of life.
Notwithstanding the safety implications, to restrict mooring to one hour on a tidal river known to have a substantial tidal range and very strong tidal currents will lead to absurdity. A boat may need to stop on LBH land on the riverside at a time when the ebbing tide would prevent it from leaving the mooring to continue in the same direction for another 12 hours.
66 Towpath Safety
The presence on the riverside of residential boats within the jurisdiction of LBH provides passive security for other users such as walkers and joggers. The riverside should be used for mooring boats, not left as a no-go area for most of the day where anti-social behaviour can flourish due to a lack of neighbourly scrutiny. Many users of riverside paths and parks path, especially lone women, report feeling safer when residential boats are present, especially in urban areas. If LBH wishes to attract more visitors to its riverside land, it must recognise the invaluable contribution to safety made by Bargee Travellers, in stark contrast to the draft byelaws.
Equality
The Public Sector Equality Duty in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public bodies to prevent discrimination and promote equality. The proposed byelaw discriminates against people who live on boats without permanent moorings and will have a disproportionate adverse impact on boat dwellers without permanent moorings. The proposed byelaw therefore amounts to a breach of the Equality Act.
There is a correlation between people who are Bargee Travellers and the incidence of poor mental health. Although no formalised study has yet been conducted on this effect the NBTA has considerable evidence within its caseworker workload records of a high preponderance of mental ill-health among Bargee Travellers. This circumstantial evidence is compelling as several influential academics hold the same view.
Mental ill-health is a Protected Characteristic for the purposes of the Equality Act. It follows that the proposed byelaw will adversely affect these people and is thus discriminatory. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has, when confronted with similar discrimination exhibited by certain navigation authority, examined the prospect of engaging in a conviction of that body, this being a live issue. LBH would be subject to similar scrutiny if the draft byelaws were enacted.
LBH has failed to identify the demographic grouping to which the proposed byelaw relates; has failed to identify whether the demographic grouping exhibits protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act; has failed to identify whether the byelaw would have adverse impacts on the demographic grouping and has failed to amend or withdraw the draft byelaws accordingly.
It is obvious that the Equality Impact Assessment that has been carried out regarding the effect of the proposed byelaws has been cursory and uninformed. This is unlawful. Section 149 of the Equality Act requires a public body to conduct a genuine Equality Impact Assessment before bringing into force a new provision such as this.
The draft byelaws also discriminate on grounds of age, contrary to the Equality Act. There will be a disproportionate adverse impact on families with children of school age who live on boats without permanent moorings, for the reasons stated above.
The draft byelaws will also create discrimination contrary to Sections 13, 17 and 19 of the Equality Act. There will be a disproportionate adverse impact on the ability of pregnant women and new mothers who live on boats without permanent moorings to gain access to the maternity health care they and their babies are entitled to.
67 LBH also asserts that the proposed byelaw will allow it to “... grant extended mooring allowances in exceptional circumstances and where prior written consent is provided”. Sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act entitle a disabled person to requisition Reasonable Adjustments. The public body to whom the requisition is made is usually only entitled to object to the requisitioned Reasonable Adjustments in exceptional circumstances. The public body is expected to accede to their requirements unless there are compelling reasons not to.
In the case of a disabled boater, Reasonable Adjustments usually imply extended mooring arrangements and access to and use of mooring space with a hard edge for boarding especially if the disabled boater uses a mobility scooter. If the draft byelaws are enacted they will have a disproportionate adverse impact on disabled boaters, who will be put at substantial disadvantage compared to able bodied boaters. Disabled boaters are more likely to need to moor for longer than one hour, and removing places where boats can moor for longer than one hour will put them at substantial disadvantage due to the safety implications of not being able to stop for as long as they need to.
As Protected Characteristics are typically addressed in retrospect the proposition that LBH will (1) permit extended mooring only in exceptional circumstances and (b) this will only be valid if agreed by LBH in advance, gives rise to violation of the Equality Act.
Criminalisation of the Demographic
The draft byelaws, if promulgated, would make it a criminal offence to moor within restricted zones and enable LBH to bring criminal prosecutions against those who violate the byelaws, resulting in fines or imprisonment. People will be criminalised for the simple and necessary act of living in their homes.
The draft byelaws will result in homelessness for Bargee Travellers. A person is homeless if they live on a boat but have nowhere to moor it. This would be a violation of their right to respect for their homes under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Following Kay v UK [2010] ECHR 37341/06 the European Court of Human Rights determined that "home" was one of the most important aspects of life in a democratic society. While the State is not required to provide a home, once a citizen has established a home then the State is required to respect that home pursuant to Article 8.
The consequence of this is that the State is required to demonstrate proportionality in its actions that affect someone's home (see Canal & River Trust -v- Jones [2017] EWCA Civ 135). In this context the State is afforded a narrow margin of appreciation in the execution of such actions.
Through the proposed byelaw LBH is, in effect, seeking to purge its jurisdiction of Bargee Travellers and this is neither respectful of a boat dwellers' homes nor proportionate when considering its declared essential objective of managing its land.
The proposed byelaw also contravenes Arts 8 and 14 ECHR in that the effect of the byelaw will compel Bargee Travellers to travel in a way that makes it difficult or impossible for them to remain in employment and maintain access to healthcare. This would breach their right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 and would contravene Article 14 by discriminating against this demographic group by disrespecting their Article 8 rights in comparison to other residents of LBH. 68 The sanction of a criminal penalty will breach the right to respect for one's home due to the consequent criminalisation and potential imprisonment of a person for merely living in a particular way and possible forced removal of the boat. This also contravenes Article 14 by discriminating against this demographic group by disrespecting their Article 8 rights in comparison to other residents.
Interference with peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions
The draft byelaws would contravene Protocol 1, Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. By subjecting Bargee Travellers to such criminal penalties interferes with their right to peaceful enjoyment of theirs possessions. The discriminatory nature of this effect also breaches Article 14.
Disregard for the needs of children and their right to education
The proposals contravene Protocol 1, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Subjecting Bargee Travellers who have children in school to this draconian draft byelaw would breach their children's right to education. Parents will be forced to withdraw their children from school if this byelaw comes into force and they comply with it. The discriminatory nature of this effect also breaches Article 14.
Disregard for the duty of care
Local authorities have a duty of care towards all citizens within their boundaries. To deliberately cause homelessness to a group of people is a breach of the duty of care that constitutes gross negligence.
LBH has provided no evidence with this consultation that the nuisances that are cited to justify the proposed byelaw either exist or were committed by BTs. In the circumstances the NBTA can only conclude that this proposed byelaw is driven by prejudice and a lack of understanding of the rights of BTs.
Unfairness
The proposed byelaw is unfair in that it proposes to penalise all BTs for the alleged actions of a few. To lose the right to moor on the towpath or on pubic riparian land for a "reasonable time" is a very great loss to Bargee Travellers.
It is an example of the extreme lack of understanding of LBH of the rights and needs of Bargee Travellers and that the solution proposed to a perceived problem is to restrict mooring for all Bargee Travellers regardless of whether they have themselves caused a nuisance or not.
In enacting the draft byelaws LBH would be acting contrary to the requirement on public bodies to exercise power reasonably following the authority of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 1KB 223.
The proposed byelaw amounts to collective punishment; in other contexts collective punishment would be a crime. This is fundamentally unjust. Adequate remedies already exist to deal with the type of nuisance that the draft byelaws are purported to prevent. There is no need for any additional legislation. 69 Response to consultation reports: Regulation 6c report
The Reuglation 6c report misleads regarding the purpose and need for the draft byelaws. The report only refers to Watermans park, but the draft byelaws cover a much larger area. As a consequence, no justification has been provided regarding the purpose and need for byelaws affecting the rest of the riverside land identified on the published maps, as is required by Regulation 6(2)(c) of the Byelaws (Alternative Procedure) (England) Regulations 2016 (the 2016 Regulations). The procedure for making the byelaws is therefore non-compliant with the 2016 Regulations.
To use the draft byelaws to attempt to regulate against the “unsightly appearance” of boats is draconian and excessive. In addition it would discriminate against Bargee Travellers, contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights taken with Article 8 of the Convention. It is discriminatory because LBH does not enforce against “unsightly” houses or industrial buildings.
The Regulation 6c report states that neither the Human Rights Act nor the Equality Act are engaged by the draft byelaws. This is patently wrong as we explain elsewhere in this consultation response.
Response to consultation reports: Report to DCLG
Bargee Travellers and other boaters are lawful users of LBH parks and open space by virtue of the PRN. The draft byelaws put an extreme burden on them to the extent of risking loss of life.
“Residents” are not just housed people. Bargee Travellers are resident within LBH when they are within its boundaries. These byelaws do not therefore make open space available to the widest possible range of residents, excluding Bargee Travellers as they do.
If there is anti-social behaviour or nuisance on the part of Bargee Travellers, adequate powers exist already to address this. If anti-social behaviour or nuisance have occurred and known perpetrators have not been apprehended, then LBH has neglected its duty to address these and the draft byelaws are designed to cover up such neglect. If LBH has taken no action because there has been no anti-social behaviour or nuisance, then LBH has manufactured an entirely false problem to attempt to justify its draft byelaws.
The byelaws will not create safer mooring areas. To force boaters to leave a mooring after one hour will make boating a very unsafe activity and will decrease their enjoyment as members of the public of LBH parks and open spaces.
There is no evidence provided of any correlation between the draft byelaws and the provision of managed moorings. LBH has not carried out a BTAA and has not put forward any plans for managed moorings with this consultation. The draft byelaws do not provide a mechanism for regulating the quality or safety of boats moored on LBH land; the only provision in the draft byelaws is for the criminalisation of mooring for longer than one hour.
In any event, it is inappropriate to monitor the “quality” of boats on moorings; this implies gentrification and exclusion of the poorer members of the boating community. The only evidence that it is appropriate to require in this context is evidence of compliance with 70 safety standards as set out in the Boat Safety Scheme.
The proposal to create 26 new moorings in Brentford will not replace the mooring space lost to these draft byelaws. We estimate that at least 120 new moorings will be required to replace the mooring space lost to byelaw enforcement.
LBH claims that boaters are mooring “illegally” on the River Brent, including at Boston Manor and Clitheroe Island, and that the byelaws will ensure that “the council can properly legislate against unlawful occupation”; however, the River Brent, Boston Manor and Clitheroe Island are not included in the draft byelaws. In making this statement, LBH is overstating its case by exaggerating the alleged mischief that the draft byelaws are intended to address.
LBH claims that licensed boaters on both sides of Watermans Park have complained; but Watermans Park is under the jurisdiction of the PLA, where boats are not required to be licensed.
LBH asserts that “those affected by the bye law will be required to move from council owned or managed land onto legal regulated moorings”; however, there is an acute shortage of such moorings within the Borough and demand vastly outstrips supply. Furthermore, only about 1% of moorings have planning consent for residential use, meaning that Bargee Travellers will be forced into a well known cycle of taking a leisure mooring which they are then evicted from because they live on their boats. There is no security of tenure for moorings, even for residential moorings, and mooring agreements can be terminated on a whim by the mooring operator. Bargee Travellers moor their homes on LBH land because they have nowhere else to go. These draft byelaws will not change this unhappy cycle of events, they will only exacerbate the shortage of safe places to moor.
Response to consultation reports: Impact analysis
The impact analysis states that byelaw 4 would have a positive impact; this is patently untrue. It would have a significant negative impact on all boaters but especially Bargee Travellers, by depriving them of their rights to moor for a reasonable time pursuant to the PRN.
Similarly the impact analysis states that byelaw 8 would have a positive impact, including to “ensure open vistas”, presumably from the absence of moored boats. This is contrary to one of the fundamental principles of planning law, that ownership or occupation of property conveys no right to preservation of the view from that property. In any case, the concept of ensuring “open vistas” applies to permanent structures such as tall buildings, and not to moveable chattels such as boats.
Propagation of Untruths
The NBTA is extremely concerned about the biased nature of this consultation and the untrue and unfair allegations, which are not supported by any evidence, that are being made in such a public document about a sector of the local population.
The consultation documents contain multiple and obviously untrue allegations that boats are “illegally moored” or that boats and/ or moorings are “illegal”. The boats are not “illegal”. The act of mooring a boat on LBH land is not illegal, nor is it a criminal offence. 71 Boats are not illegally moored, because no such criminal offence exists. If criminal offences had been committed, there would be no perceived need for the draft byelaws which are the subject of this consultation. Indeed, LBH states on page 2 of its report to DCLG that it has no ability to impose criminal sanctions. The moorings themselves are not illegal, because they are riverworks that are licensed by the PLA.
The consultation also contains multiple and obviously untrue allegations that the boats in question are unlicensed and unsafe. Boats used on the Thames Tideway under the jurisdiction of the PLA do not need a licence, and consequently they do not need to comply with the safety standards set out by the Boat Safety Scheme.
The consultation document contains multiple allegations, with no evidence whatsoever to validate the claim, that Bargee Travellers pollute the river by disposing of their sewage. The vast majority of Bargee Travellers understand the antisocial nature of doing such a thing. From opinions gleaned by the NBTA from its membership, the majority of Bargee Travellers are acutely aware of the environment and do not pollute it. It follows that the proposition of LBH that Bargee Travellers pollute the waterways with sewage is highly offensive. Indeed it is a notable feature of prejudice and discrimination throughout the history of the 20th and 21st centuries that all groups that have been the subject of prejudice (such as Gypsies and Travellers; Black and Minority Ethnic people; Jewish people; squatters etc) have been targeted with unfounded allegations of fouling the environment.
The consultation document also contains multiple allegations of anti-social and “illegal” behaviour by Bargee Travellers, with no further information and no evidence whatsoever to validate the claim.
One of the properties of a divisive, overbearing, bullying and non-democratic administration is to target a vulnerable demographic, propagate lies as to its habits or description, stir up hatred towards that demographic and then seek to legislate on the strength of adverse feedback from the majority. This is precisely what LBH appears to be doing in this instance, contrary to Labour Party policy.
Conduct of consultation
The Government's Consultation Principles emphasise that interested parties should be identified early in the process so that consultation exercises can be designed and targeted accordingly. Otherwise key groups can be excluded. LBH has provided no evidence that it has effectively targeted this consultation document at the main group affected by the proposals, namely Bargee Travellers.
As far as the NBTA is aware, no special measures have been taken to ensure that those most affected by the proposals are included in this consultation. Indeed as the chief representative group of itinerant boat dwellers we were not invited to respond, even though we had responded to the 2017 consultation, and we only found out about this consultation by chance very near to the end of the consultation period.
In the absence of evidence that the group most likely to be directly affected has had a proper opportunity to comment in line with the Consultation Principles, we believe that the outcome of the consultation will constitute prejudice against a minority group and will contravene the authority of R v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Gunning [1985] 84 LGR 168. To be proper, consultation must allow those affected by the proposals to give 72 intelligent consideration and an intelligent response. This clearly has not happened.
Alternative proposal
Rather than enacting these draconian byelaws, LBH should use the mooring space at Watermans Park and the riverside land between Chiswick Quay and Chiswick Pier that would otherwise be covered by the draft byelaws to create a network of transit or temporary residential moorings with stay times of between 14 days and 56 days; provide potable water, sewage disposal and rubbish disposal facilities associated with these moorings, and issue affordable annual temporary residential mooring permits for these moorings to Bargee Travellers whose boat is their sole home. A comparable moorings scheme has been operated by Cambridge City Council since 1995.
In addition, LBH should provide a written Undertaking to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government that in the exercise of its statutory functions or its property rights LBH will to have regard to the interests of people who use boats as their sole residence, including people who do not own or have access to a permanent mooring.
National Bargee Travellers Association March 2019
73
Hounslow Boroughwide Mooring Byelaw; Responses to Consultation Exercise.
April 2018
Introduction;
The London Borough of Hounslow undertook extensive public consultation during 2017 with relevant organisations, including the Port of London Authority and London Borough of Richmond on Thames, park users, boaters and other organisations including residents. The intention to bring in new bye laws was advertised and highlighted on the authority’s web site. The proposed bye laws were published widely by the council including meetings and through social media. A specific web site was set up for feedback on the proposed bye laws which was opened in the Summer 2017 and closed on the 31 December 2017. The site was headed;
HOUNSLOW MOORINGS PUBLIC CONSULTATION; HAVE YOUR SAY ON PROPOSALS FOR MOORING BYELAWS IN HOUNSLOW.
The site received 476 viewings and 23 comments were left on the proposals. Following the consultation exercise feedback was received via both the consultation web site (Sticky World) and direct contact as follows. In each instance, we have given the comment initially with the Council’s response thereafter. As many of the comments are based on similar themes where appropriate we have grouped responses or repeated comments made earlier. Please note that the web site allowed interested parties to comment on previous posts. In those instances, we have kept the comments under the heading; Response to above.
Comment 1; The National Bargee Travellers Association (“NBTA”) has been asked to comment on the proposed introduction by the London Borough of Hounslow (“LBH”) of byelaws to restrict mooring on the Thames in Hounslow. The NBTA supports itinerant boat- dwellers (“Bargee Travellers”, “BTs”).
74 The NBTA opposed such a proposition by LBH on the strongest of terms. The consultation introduction itself is highly offensive as it predicates the consultation with the proposition that mooring in the four zones is illegal: it is not.
The opposition of the NBTA falls under five heads as follows: 1 Subverting the right to moor subordinate to the Public Right on Navigation (“PRN”) on the River Thames 2 Subverting the right to moor on Canal & River Trust Water 3 Failing to address the needs of BTs, in violation of LBHs obligation under s.124 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016; 4 Compromising navigational safety; and 5 Pursuing a policy that is socially divisive, objectionable in the extreme, amounts to gentrification, falls generally under the description of “social cleansing”, is contrary to Labour Party policy, repugnant to the general law and is not becoming of a public body.
The NBTA notes that LBH is a Labour administration. The NBTA draws the attention of LBH to page 112 of the Labour Party Manifesto dated 12-05-2017 which states: “We will end racism and discrimination against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and protect the right to lead a nomadic way of life”
The NBTA also observes that Ruth Cadbury MP (Brentford and Isleworth) has signed a letter to one navigation authority that challenges the institutionalised persecution of BTs. LBH should be engaging in supporting vulnerable boaters instead of persecuting them. This proposed byelaw does the opposite of that and is therefore betraying the obligation of LBH to members of its constituency.
Council response; The byelaws do not affect existing moorings. The byelaws are intended to allow the authority to regulate un- licensed mooring in areas which are not suitable for long term residential occupation. The byelaws will protect any existing rights of navigation. In terms of interested parties both the PLA and Canals and River Trust have their own regulations which will not be affected by the byelaw proposals. Careful consideration has been given to the existing rights of river users and how those should be balanced against the needs of the wider community. The position of a boater displaced by a mooring byelaw in relation to both human rights and residential need was tested in the High Court in Akerman v London Borough of Richmond (2017). (It should be noted that the London Borough of Hounslow intends to adopt the same mirror byelaws.)
75 In this case a boater sought to argue that making the bye law by LB Richmond was a disproportionate infringement and breach of his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Right. The High Court held that the Byelaws were valid since they were a proportionate and necessary step for the council to ensure good rule and government and the suppression of nuisance, in the Borough. The byelaws will provide a means of regulating the quality/safety of the boats moored on the river in areas under the council’s control and set criteria such as the ability of the boats to have pump out facilities for discharge.
The byelaws will also allow the Council to monitor boats polluting its river front and take action against specific boats. In addition, the Council received outline Cabinet approval in September 2014 to create a new marina development next to Waterman’s Park. The proposal is to create 26 new moorings in Brentford. This will create job opportunities and provide well-managed, regulated mooring for houseboats.
Comment 2; Council do not have required skill or knowledge to manage any part of the waterways Waterways already over licensed, to pay wages not to improve waterway use, which is there for all not just some Bye law powers will last beyond current council - think on about abuse of powers that could others after this council could do. We should protect our heritage by working with boat owners, not by penalising them in order to social cleanse for developers and those who'll buy their property who are seeking a "perceived lifestyle" Removal of choice of lifestyle, totally anti-Labour ethos? Sounds more like a developers dream, who is the bye-law really protecting? Heard one weak argument that some people on the boats are awkward, so are people on land but we don't create bye-laws for them! The river is already underused due to lack of mooring, believe it or not there is no place to moor between Brentford and I think it's Gravesend or Rochester, many residential moorings are prohibitively expensive ....boats aren't like cars they don't have brakes, you can't just "nip" into a space - when Cathja broke down in central london when the fly wheel on the engine broke mid-stream on our way back from Tower Bridge (two visitor berths on Hermitage Moorings) we drifted over and managed to catch onto Shakespeares Globe mooring platform when we were promptly told to leave as the clippers use it...... errrr doh the engine isn't working, stupidity can be ruled any law and evidence is we are getting less "intelligent" (common sense intellect - innate skills) and more "trained" to be part of a neo- capitalism dream where all and everything is owned, paid for, a funding resource and nothing else, where is the humanity? Creating this bye-law will not only remove some peoples personal lifestyle choice, as it won't just affect the two awkard people, it will make many intentionally homeless, yet the council do not have enough homes to home people!
76 So BIG NO to this from me
Council Response; The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike. In addition, the council has legitimate concerns regarding Health and Safety issues arising from using facilities for purposes outside their original intention, this would include scaling/climbing park boundaries and unsafe mooring close to public areas. Currently there are a number of existing approved mooring locations on the river Thames administered both privately and by relevant authorities. In addition, the council is proposing to create additional spaces in suitable locations in the future. The council is eager to encourage use of the existing facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment. The byelaws allow for cases of emergency as described above. The bye laws will not penalise legitimate river users. The byelaws will provide a means of regulating the quality/safety of the boats moored on the river in areas under the council’s control and set criteria such as the ability of the boats to have pump out facilities for discharge.
The byelaws will also allow the Council to monitor boats polluting its river front and take action against specific boats.
Comment 3; am against the council taking on these excess powers. 24 hour moorings are also not the right answer. The idea that the council should be able to rule on issues of visual appropriateness is ridiculous - look what they do for planning and what they actually build and have built. Poor legislation which does not provide a proper answer to what frankly is not such a great problem - other than for the councils own nefarious and unwanted plans
Council Response; The council is eager to encourage use of the existing facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment. The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike. Currently there are a number of existing approved mooring locations on the river Thames administered both privately and by relevant authorities. In addition, the council is proposing to create additional spaces in suitable locations in the future.
77 Comment 4; I agree with the council proposal. All the comments on here are clearly only from boat owners that have total disregard for the river and the appearance of their boats. We need a better river and this proposal is going in the right direction!
Council Response; Noted
Comment 5; This is a ludicrous over-reach by Hounslow Council. Their approach to the Thames that runs through areas of the borough has historically been one of neglect. But now that a few greedy councillors and property developers see some private profit in it, they want to grab rights and powers that benefits nobody but themselves and at the expense of the people that actually live here. The council should come clean about why they are so reluctant to work alongside their local communities and boaters. Instead of finding easy solutions that benefit everyone, they seem only to want to exclude, restrict and criminalise. I hope this by-law is rejected by borough residents.
Council Response; The proposed byelaws will seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike. In addition, the council has legitimate concerns regarding Health and Safety issues arising from using facilities for purposes outside their original intention, this would include scaling/climbing park boundaries and unsafe mooring close to public areas. Any regulated/approved or legitimate moorings will not be affected by the proposed Byelaws. The council is eager to encourage use of the existing facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment. The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike. Currently there are a number of existing approved mooring locations on the river Thames administered both privately and by relevant authorities. In addition, the council is proposing to create additional spaces in suitable locations in the future.
Comment 6; I regularly sail along this stretch of the tidal Thames. Hounslow Council are deluded to think they can impose a 24 mooring restriction along an embankment that is mostly owned by Syon House and offers no mooring facilities at all. The communities of residential boats are well organised and provide an active and positive addition to the river. Response to above; 24hr is too short a time frame for legitimate tourist and visitors. No issue with removing those there illegally but should be a Minimum of 48hours.
78
Council Response; The byelaws do not affect existing moorings. The byelaws are intended to allow the authority to regulate un licensed mooring in areas which are not suitable for long term residential occupation. The byelaws will protect any existing rights of navigation the council is eager to encourage use of the existing facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment. The byelaws allow for cases of emergency as described above. The initial period of 24 hours can be extended on application. The bye laws will not penalise legitimate river users.
Comment 7; I completely oppose this proposal to change a law that has worked to benefit many residents and visitors to the borough. The law as it exists has been in place for many years and is reflected across the country. The council must have greater priorities than extending their dominion over current residents to gentrify the riverbank on behalf of whom exactly. When I visit your riverside, which I walk regularly from Kew south, I enjoy the varied and colourful homes on the water and I would hate to see only the permanent moorings remain. AND
Comment 8; Hounslow Council should be doing more to work WITH the existing moorers to develop moorings and facilities that will benefit the wider community - not simply turf folk out to build high cost, premium moorings which will only benefit the privileged few. These communities are part of the reason people come to Brentford and Isleworth etc.
Council Response; The council is eager to encourage use of the existing facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment. The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike. Currently there are a number of existing approved mooring locations on the river Thames administered both privately and by relevant authorities. In addition, the council is proposing to create additional spaces in suitable locations in the future. The byelaw will give the Council further powers to be able to deal more effectively with unlicensed and/or illegally moored vessels. In 1999, the Council together with the Port of London Authority (PLA) obtained possession of the areas alongside the Watermans Park and a total of 47 boats were removed from the area. Over time however, new boats arrived in the area and this particular stretch of land has become congested as boats displaced from elsewhere have moored on a permanent basis.
79 Licensed boaters on both sides of the Waterman’s have complained to the council for a number of years regarding the effect on them due to the activities of the unregulated boaters.
Comment 9; How keeping dirty and rotting boats on the river is "benefiting the wider community"?!? Surely to benefit the wider community you want a nice riverside where families can walk and play, not keeping the status quo for a bunch of boat owners?!?
Council response; Noted .The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike
Comment 10; This Labour Council, under its current leadership, appears Hell bent on reshaping the Borough into a Corporate ‘Cleptocracy’. The Council reveals a complete disregard for for the Community and people of Brentford. The people who choose to live on boats are very much part of the heritage of this Borough.and should be supported. This proposed Bye-law is an index of a strategy driven by an impoverished ideology that displays, ‘Social cleansing’ and Corporate greed at its heart. Thoroughly shameful!
Council response; The Council is keen to encourage the use of authorised moorings throughout the borough and elsewhere. Any legitimate current or future moorings will not be adversely affected by the proposals. The moorings close to Brentford High Street as part of the Ballymore Development will be replaced within the new scheme.
Comment 11; Hounslow Council are not the navigating authority for the Thames Under what Act of Parliament are Hounslow empowered to make such a byelaw? Criminal offences are a matter for the legislature not for a local authority Hounslow are arrogating to itself a power to impose a penalty beyond what it has any authority to assert Hounslow has no power to create an offence of mooring in the ordinary course of navigation which as subjects of the Crown all are entitled to freely exercise (since time out of mind) Are Hounslow asserting that they are entitled to penalise boat owners with a criminal record when those boat owners merely navigate and moor and remain on the Thames?
80 As long as moored boats are out of the run of the navigation then since ancient times owners are entitled to remain It is this right that is enjoyed by boats at the Hollows near Kew Bridge They remain and moor as long as they like as they are out of the run of the Thames interfering with no other in their enjoyment of the river
Council response; The introduction of new Byelaws is subject to the rules and guidance prepared by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Guidance note was published on 18 September 2012 and updated 23 October 2016. The appropriate penalty for a breach of any bye law is governed by the DCLG. The Byelaws will apply to boundaries/areas in the control of the council and not to public navigation channels administered by third parties (e.g.; PLA).
Comment 12; Shame on you council Just a land grab You have no jurisdiction over the River Thames You have treated the boaters there in a despicable and criminal way I have been offered one of the new "moorings" there by one of your staff in return for a bribe AND
Comment 13; 24 hour moorings is a joke. 2 week moorings should stay intact for the co tinual cruisers who are more and more getting pushed out by the very council paid to protect them. Your suggestion that continual cruiser boats attract 'anti social behaviour' is unjustified and I am saddened you as a governing body would stoop so low. AND
Comment 14; Yes, and the river AND
Comment 15; I think that if there is illegal mooring, and existing legal moorings are full, then, in the first instance, exploring where additional moorings might be possible would be a good first step to combat the problem. If people are refusing to use available legal moorings then that should be addressed.
AND Comment 16; I completely oppose this proposal to change a law that has worked to benefit many residents and visitors to the borough. The law as it exists has been in place for many years and is reflected across the country. The council must have greater priorities than extending their dominion over current residents in order to gentrify the riverbank on behalf of whom exactly.
81 When I visit your riverside, which I walk regularly from Kew south, I enjoy the varied and colourful homes on the water and I would hate to see only the permanent moorings remain. AND
Comment 17; Hounslow Council should be doing more to work WITH the existing moorers to develop moorings and facilities that will benefit the wider community - not simply turf folk out to build high cost, premium moorings which will only benefit the privileged few. These communities are part of the reason people come to Brentford and Isleworth etc.
Response How keeping dirty and rotting boats on the river is "benefiting the wider community"?!? Surely to benefit the wider community you want a nice riverside where families can walk and play, not keeping the status quo for a bunch of boat owners?!?
Council Response; The byelaws are intended to allow the authority to regulate un licensed mooring in areas which are not suitable for long term residential occupation. The byelaws will not affect any existing approved moorings or legitimate facilities that are constructed in the future. There are significant current issues with unregulated moorings which have no proper facilities for disposing of effluent and rubbish for example. In one instance an electric cable has been run through a public park close to a playground. The byelaws will protect any existing rights of navigation. The council is eager to encourage use of the exiting mooring facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment. The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike. Currently there are a number of existing approved mooring locations on the river Thames administered both privately and by relevant authorities. In addition, the council is proposing to create additional spaces in suitable locations in the future.
Comment 18; I am a boat owner and regularly sail along this stretch of the tidal Thames. This area of the river originally comprised of industrial premises and has always been a place for boats to moor. The new influx of expensive residential buildings should not force the boats off the river. This is tantamount to social cleansing. Response So basically you want an area of London, that is desperately trying to improve, to still look miserable and poor so you can continue to sail up and down the river?
82
Council Response; The Council is keen to encourage the use of authorised moorings throughout the borough and elsewhere. The moorings close to Brentford High Street as part of the Ballymore Development will be replaced within the new scheme.
Comment 19; I am against the new mooring bye laws in Hounslow lots of people live on houseboat and gives people a roof over there heads,i feel it"s an other attack on poor people too and coming from a labour authority as a labour member is against would except this from the tories.in these hard times were poverty and homelessness is rising compassion for others would be nice.
Response Because poor people don't deserve decent accommodations and human living standards, right...?
Council response; The council is eager to encourage use of the existing facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment. The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike. Currently there are a number of existing approved mooring locations on the river Thames administered both privately and by relevant authorities.
Comment 20; I completely agree with council's proposal. I live near the river Brent and I have to witness every day rusty boats overfilled with rubbish and the unsocial behiaviour of the occupants that are using the river banks as their private space: building structures, littering the areas surrounding the boats and polluting the river. Not only I think that the appearance and number of the boats in the council should be strictly regulated, but their numbers should be halved. Please go ahead!
Council response; Noted
Comment 20 (a) ; think this is completely unnecessary. Strand on the Green doesn't have an illegal mooring problem... This bylaw is a total waste of everyones time and should be dropped. Do you really have nothing better to focus on? AND
83 Comment 21; Rowing clubs need these areas to be safe for practising and racing
AND
Comment 22; WATERMANS PARK- I strongly believe that the council have a moral obligation to allow the present people who live on boats there the opportunity to have Moorings there at a reasonable cost. The description of the problem and of the people who live there on this page by the council is unbelievably biased towards the council's aims and slanderous against the people who live there. AND
Comment 23; I have cycled and sailed along this stretch of the GU canal. It passes mostly through industrial and semi-industrial areas. The canal comes under the responsibility of the River & Canal Trust so Hounslow Council shouldn't be dictating how the waterway is run. AND
Comment 24; Again, if Hounslow Council want to do something positive, this is another area where they could engage with existing boaters to develop community moorings and facilities to the benefit of liveaboard boaters, leisure boaters, and local residents. Hands off Hounslow. AND Comment 25; Brentford is an old industrial working area. This is essential to its character and changing this will mean the area loses something that makes it distinct. Boats should be allowed to come and go.
Council Response; The council is eager to encourage use of the existing facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties, pollution of the environment and may contravene Health and safety guidance. The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike. Currently there are a number of existing approved mooring locations on the river Thames administered both privately and by relevant authorities. In addition, the council is proposing to create additional spaces in suitable locations in the future. The position of a boater displaced by a mooring byelaw in relation to both human rights and residential need was tested in the High Court in Akerman v London Borough of Richmond (2017). (It should be noted that the London Borough of Hounslow intends to adopt the same mirror byelaws.) In this case a boater sought to argue that making the bye law by LB Richmond was a disproportionate infringement and breach of his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Right. The High Court held that the Byelaws were valid since they were a proportionate and necessary step for the council to ensure good rule and government and the suppression of
84 nuisance, in the Borough. The moorings close to Brentford High Street as part of the Ballymore Development will be replaced within the new scheme.
Email comments From: Email: @btinternet.com
Subject: byelaws to be last resort eg after voluntary schemes failed and proper consultation with all affected
Message: Dear xxxxx I would attach House and commons and lords briefing paper on how to make valid bylaws but seems this messaging system does not have that facility. Please confirm that LBH will NOT be using this "survey" as part of their obligation to consult affected members before as A: failed to attempt to contact affected boaters, by even the most simple process of taking advert in thames guardian or getting EA to include proposal in their emails or postage out of 2018 registration forms. not contacting me a boater that paid over £1000 council tax one year in Hounslow (and I didnt even have any facilities or rubbish collected) perefacing what should of been a neutral survey with enough non evidenced anti boater allegations to whip up a vigilante lynch mob. Suggesting mooring is illegal. It is not illegal to moor a boat anywhere in the UK. What respondent is going to back any illegal activity? Thus if you want have a valid pre byelaw survey and consultation you need redraft and reissue AND exclude the same anti boating or anti mooring respondents as now being hopelessly irrevocably biased against "illegal moorers" no matter how the next survey / consulation is drafted. Please confirm you willnote their names and take such steps thanks, Please also send through explanation of how boaters mooring to council land is an"expense" to council as you claim. Regards Xxxxxxxxx
PS please add me to your list of houseboat owners wishing a mooring that LBH may provide. Confim thanks
Council Response; The authority has recently pursued possession proceedings against more than 40 boaters moored without consent on river frontage / river works in the control of the authority or whereby access to moored vessels is over council controlled land. The judgement attained in that case in the later part of 2017 deemed that the use of council owned /controlled property and river works was unlawful.
The necessary court action has proven costly, time consuming and difficult to enforce without revised Byelaws.
85
prove benefits of limiting time.
Council response; The limitation of 24 hours is for cases of emergency only (Proposed Byelaw 5a) and can be extended on application. The approach is based on existing regulations used successfully elsewhere and mirrors the timescales adopted by the adjoining Borough of Richmond upon Thames.
what statistics or evidence do you have that suggest there is a problem with "over crowding" or what ever other problems you have. surely restrictions are a last resort when there is significantly competing boats for mooring space. Please send them [email protected] like cars in a town. the town has parking limits outside the town is no parking limits.
AND
This is an unnecessary bylaw, Hounslow council should put far more effort into reducing homelessness, build more council houses and stop persecuting boat dwellers who use boats as homes. The council should offer the boat owners affordable moorings in the Borough and stop wasting council tax payers money persecuting boat owners who are not anti social trouble makers but who are valued members of the local community and themselves council Tax payers.
Council response; The byelaws are intended to address unregulated mooring and accessing the riverside through public spaces/parks in the ownership and control of the council. It is not a matter of overcrowding, although that has proven to be an issue, alone rather than unregulated mooring proving a hazard to navigation, dangerous, not compliant with current Health and Safety legislation and in some cases anti-social.
I’m writing to say No I don’t agree with by-law being implemented for the following reasons.
Firstly I have a very long connection with boats for over 10 years, having lived on one, I have friends living on them and working at Cathja.
Brentford is being re-modernised and I don’t agree with social cleansing mechanisms by a labour council who traditionally are on the side of the “common” man and stand up for the rights of people, nor the removal of choice which doesn’t sit comfortably.
I’ve talked with others and heard the reasoning but after thinking through I still can’t agree with a by-law which will affect more than just a couple of awkward types, there’s people like that that live on the land too, they’re everywhere, but no one tells them to leave their home by law!
86 There are already 3 specialist river licensing authorities in operation, not including canal & river trust and British waterways board, boats are complex and by law is subject to abuse in order to increase revenue and serve the purpose of penalising the already vilified.
I don’t believe a Council possesses the skill and knowledge to determine which boats need moving, for example say I buy a boat which is in a dilapidated state to repair it, it could be perceived as derelict and I could be fined.
I don’t believe the councils powers should extend onto any part of the water, as they don’t have the skill of knowledge of waterways.
The council state “people are using boats as temporary accommodation” but in the same breath state “we don’t have enough homes”??? So why be participant in making people intentionally homeless? See my first comment about social cleansing.
Gypsy mooring has long been around and the council have had many years before now to work collaboratively with boat owners and river authorities if they were really concerned, that’s why I believe this is social cleansing as this action is being brought as development in Brentford is progressing - here is an anecdote highlighting how with a by-law it could be used inappropriately for developers.
Cathja is moored for 20 years - about 8 years ago the industrial quarter next to her mooring was razed to the ground and the flat pack “condo” homes called riverside mill house were built, it took 3 years for residents to move in, of the first few one immediately asked us to move the boat, another asked if they could buy the boat, another asked if we could paint the boat etc etc. We have good relations with most but some residents feel we are the interlopers!
Before that Heron Quays was built, BJ Woods 100 year old plus boatyard is opposite these new builds, the first thing that happened? Steve Woods had to stop working on Saturdays and was banned from grit blasting as it was “too noisy” ...... we are creating a world which fits a bunch of people who have perceived lifestyle, they aren’t “living” but exist in a vacuum of “belief” where only their rights are right and woe-betide anyone who doesn’t agree, they’ll create a by law!!?
I believe introducing this by-law will be extremely harmful to the character, life and well-being of many. That it will actually create homelessness, and a loss of well-being, including to those who have already lost their homes (2 that I know of but number likely to be higher) as that’s why some people are already living on boats as they’ve lost their homes! So it’s not a solution to improving social fabric, social justice it’s just creating another problem for struggling individuals in a country and world where society is being torn apart in pursuit of money and only the fortunate and financially secure are thriving.
I think this is a great council, I believe it works hard to bring and stabilise budgets and income in difficult times without financial or well-being harm to Hounslow residents and tries to create equality and fairness for all, this by-law won’t achieve that.
A by-law once introduced will exist long beyond this current council think on about who may get control and how they might use it, it’s not just a law for now.
Kind regards
87 Council response; The proposed Byelaws relate only to parks/open spaces, play areas and recreation grounds in the council’s control and will sit alongside the existing byelaws already in place.
The regulations are intended to ensure that the authority can properly control the river frontages with a view to making the riverside available to all.
The byelaws are intended to allow the authority to regulate un licensed mooring in areas which are not suitable for long term residential occupation. The byelaws will not affect any existing approved moorings or legitimate facilities that are constructed in the future. There are significant current issues with unregulated moorings which have no proper facilities for disposing of effluent and rubbish for example. In one instance an electric cable has been run through a public park close to a playground.
The byelaws will protect any existing rights of navigation. The council is eager to encourage use of the exiting mooring facilities and is seeking only to abate mooring in unlicensed and unregulated locations which has in the past caused social difficulties and pollution of the environment. The proposed byelaws will complement the existing legislation and therefore seek to ensure that the rules should apply to both river users and park/open space users alike. Currently there are several existing approved mooring locations on the river Thames administered both privately and by relevant authorities.
In addition, the council is proposing to create additional spaces in suitable locations in the future.
I think this is a waste of time and money that can be better spent on more important things. Juts leave them be
AND I don't think this bylaw is necessary. Anti social behavior on the tow path is not caused by boaters. It affects boaters and residents alike. This is caused by a lack of lighting and security along the tow path. A better cooperation with the boaters would be far more beneficial than eviction. Boaters make the tow path safer. An integrated radio communication system would be an option for example to make the tow path safer for EVERYONE. Do we really want to live in a society that has strict normative rules on how to live…? Apart from the fact that most boats look beautiful and not neglected bear in mind all of you who vote for this bylaw that a council that evicts boaters will tear down council houses next as they are a nuisance to the expensive apartment owners next door.
AND I think this is a waste of time and money that can be better spent on more important things. Juts leave them be
AND I oppose this new bylaw.
88
AND Please stop trying to remove everything interesting and a little bit different that our city has. Work with the boaters to overcome problems. This way we won't end up with a soul-less sterile place to live. Your job as the council is not to restrict people's way of life, but to find a balanced way to keep as many people happy as possible. I know my kids love seeing the boats every day and I'd hate for that to stop. AND Where is the written justification for these restrictions? Where are the provisions for enforcement of these restrictions set out?
Council response; The London Borough of Hounslow (LBH) has existing byelaws covering its recreation grounds, parks, play areas and open spaces however it has recognised for some time that these bye laws should be expanded to include areas of riverside with regard to the extensive frontages to the River Thames. In order to ensure that the authority can properly control the river frontages with a view to making the riverside available to all it is proposed to adopt the new Byelaws relating to mooring. The bye laws mirror those adopted by the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and will serve to both improve the amenity of the riverside and ensure that parks and open spaces are maintained for the benefit of all users. In particular, the Council wishes to;
• Introduce bye laws that are clear and consistent with modern practice;
• Enable the Council to control fly-mooring on riversides;
• Reduce pollution;
• Ensure that the byelaws are a robust framework for dealing with unfortunate instances of anti-social behaviour;
• To ensure that the authority has full control over the important riverside asset to the benefit of the majority.
The council sees byelaws as a basis for ensuring the maximum possible benefit of its open spaces is available to the widest possible range of residents. The London Borough of Hounslow is of the view that the proposed new byelaws do not represent a burden on lawful users of its parks/open spaces and are justifiable in the wider public interest.
Ensure boats comply with licensing and boat safety rules. Otherwise they are a floating health hazard!
89 AND Boats should have 24 hours to stay, that's plenty and then move on. AND 24 hours is plenty for visiting and normal practice on the River Wey (run by National Trust). AND I've seen quite a few broken down and abandoned boats which may deter the genuine visiting boater. AND The boats should have boat safety certificates, licenses and pay for any moorings. I have seen rats running up ropes and into boats during low tide. This suggests also there may be hygiene problems which would affect any children particularly living aboard.
Council response; Noted.
I'm writing to express my opposition to the Council's new borough-wide moorings byelaw.
If the moorings are illegal as the council claims, there should be no need to change the law.
Boaters have lived here for many years. Give them the right to continue mooring here and pay a fair price. Boaters are a part of our community and they look after Watermans park. Don't evict them in favour of millionaire boat owners. Far from being a nuisance, boaters look after the park and the boats are an attraction to visitors and locals walking past.
On top of this, the environmental impacts of the project are appalling. It's the site of the former Brentford gas works and the land is toxic. Building a marina would cause arsenic, mercury and asbestos to run off into the river and harm fish and bird life in the area.
AND
If the moorings are illegal as the council claims, why is there a need for a new byelaw?
Boaters have lived here for many years. Give them the right to continue mooring here and they will pay a fair price. Boaters are a part of our community and they look after the park. Don't evict them in favour of millionaire boat owners.
AND
On top of this, has the Council considered the environmental impact of building on the site? It's the former Brentford gas works and the land is toxic and shouldn't be disturbed as it will harm the abundant bird life in the area.
AND
90 I feel that the current mooring restrictions are adequate and object to any further restrictions being imposed. The status quoted should remain, unaltered.
AND
Dear xxxxx
Please oppose this byelaw change. The unofficial free moorings bring charm and character to the Brentford riverside. Those living there could be assisted by the council too remove old rotten and sunken boats. Perhaps adding hanging flower baskets like at Richmond riverside would further add to the quaint charm of your river side setting and its floating community. Tourists to Kew Gardens might wish, if informed of the community, to add a stroll or a bus hop along to this picturesque spot for some photos and a chat with the locals. Perhaps they would also like to visit The Butts, the Steam Museum, walk the canal path, visit Syon Park, etc. This would bring more tourism revenue to Hounslow borough. Yours sincerely,
Council response; The London Borough of Hounslow has five miles of riverside. The number of boats using the riverbanks as permanent or semi-permanent moorings has increased significantly over the last few years. The proposed byelaw is designed to restrict and control the mooring of boats on land with a frontage on the River Thames which is owned or managed by the Council.
To enable the council to ensure the enjoyment and safety of those who use parks and open spaces alongside river frontages the council has a duty to ensure it can tackle nuisance and other anti-social behaviours that adversely affect these sites.
The introduction of a new byelaw will:
• Enable the Council to move the boats on after mooring on its property • Create safer mooring areas across Hounslow Riverbanks; • Promote a cleaner and greener borough by preventing environmental pollution and discharge of waste into the river; • Provide the Council the ability to control anti-social behaviour on its river frontage;
• Increase public enjoyment of parks and open spaces;
• Provide managed moorings with appropriate services and drainage connections for waste where appropriate; and • Encourage responsible mooring to protect the river and future maintenance
The byelaws will provide a means of regulating the quality/safety of the boats moored on the river in areas under the council’s control and set criteria such as the ability of the boats to have pump out facilities for discharge.
91 The byelaws will also allow the Council to monitor boats polluting its river front and take action against specific boats. In addition, the Council received outline Cabinet approval in September 2014 to create a new marina development next to Waterman’s Park. The proposal is to create 26 new moorings in Brentford. This will create job opportunities and provide well-managed, regulated mooring for houseboats.
Brentford is one of the UK’s most important waterway junctions and is one of only two gateways to the canal network in London that link the River Thames with the rest of the country via the Grand Union (which follows the course of the River Brent in its lower reaches).
Boaters displaced elsewhere are now using this important gateway to moor illegally. On the River Brent. Parts of Boston manor and Cletheroe Island, nature reserve, are now being taken over by boaters, with the potential to destroy valuable wildlife habitat. The byelaws will ensure that the council can properly legislate against unlawful occupation and enable the riverside to be manged to the benefit of residents throughout the borough.
Any thought of having social moorings. Similar to social Housing
Council response; Various organisations including for example the Canals and Riverside Trust operate moorings to the wider benefit of the boating community.
remove the illegally moored vessels
Council response; Noted
I completely agree with the proposal. The boats along the river and the canals in Hounslow are a total disgrace, almost always in incredibly poor condition, full of rubbish and untidy. They are a real eyesore when walking along the beautiful banks of the Thames and the Brent rivers. They pollute the air and the water and represent a real danger for the ecosystem (not to talk about the unsocial behaviors of the owners, using the river banks as their personal space for storing building material and bulky items...). We should not only force the owners to keep them in a decent state but at least halve the total number.
Council response; Noted
LONDON BOROUGH HOUNSLOW; APRIL 2018.
92
93 Agenda Item 6
Report for: ACTION
Contains Confidential No or Exempt Information Title Treasury Management Annual Report 2018-19 Cabinet Portfolio Councillor Shantanu Rajawat, Lead Member Finance & Corporate Services Report of Clive Palfreyman, Strategic Director of Finance & Corporate Services Contact for Information Name: Lorelei Watson, Head of Strategic Finance: Treasury, Pensions & Audit Michael Rust, Treasury Management Officer Telephone: 020 8583 2310 Email: [email protected] For Consideration By Borough Council Date to be Considered 18 June 2019 Implementation Date if Not Applicable Not Called In Affected Wards All Keywords/Index Treasury Management Annual Report 2018-19
1 Details of Recommendations Members are asked to: • Note the Treasury Management Annual Report for 2018-19, and • Approve the investment of up to £20m in a Multi Asset Income Fund and delegate responsibility for procurement and implementation to the Strategic Director of Finance & Corporate Services.
2 Report Summary This report presents to Borough Council the Treasury Management Annual Report for 2018-19. This is required under the CIPFA Code of Practice. The key points are:
* The Council’s net debt has increased from £42.5 million at 31 March 2018 to £82.9 million at 31 March 2019. This is due to financing the capital programme through internal borrowing which has reduced funds available for investment. This movement was projected as part of the budget process for the year. No new debt has been incurred, the increase in net debt is entirely due to investments falling from £151m at March 2018 to £105m at March 2019. This strategy formed part of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy.
* The average debt portfolio rate has decreased from 4.74% to 4.42%, due to the maturity of two Public Works Loan Board loans totaling £5m and the restructuring of £25m of debt.
94 * The Council’s investment income received was £2.1m. This was above budget of £0.8m.
* The weighted average rate of return on the temporary investment portfolio at 31 March 2019 was 0.90%, compared to the local authority average of 0.87%.
* The Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) for the year was £0.9m below budget. Together with the additional £1.3m investment income this resulted in a total saving compared to budget of £2.2m.
* During the financial year the Council operated within the treasury limits set out in the Council’s Treasury Policy Statement and Treasury Strategy Statement. These included only investing surplus cash with approved counterparties.
This report also recommends investing up to £20m of General Fund monies in a Multi Asset Income Fund (para 5.22). This would be a change to the Treasury Management Strategy previously approved by Cabinet (in February 2019).
3 Reason for Decision and Options Considered
3.1 The reasons for the decisions stated in this report are outlined within the report. No other options need to be considered.
4 Key Implications
4.1 The key implications for the decisions in this report are outlined within the report.
5 Financial Details
5.1 The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Code of Practice on Treasury Management 2009 was adopted by the Council on 2 March 2010 and the Council fully complies with its requirements. The Code requires the Council to approve an annual strategy report for the year ahead, which was done at Borough Council on 20 February 2018. The Code also requires the Council to approve an annual review of the previous year. This report comprises the annual review for 2018/19. In addition, during 2018/19 the Cabinet has received quarterly treasury management monitoring reports.
Treasury management in this context is defined as: “The management of the local authority’s investments and cash flows, its banking, money market and capital market transactions; the effective control of the risks associated with those activities; and the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks. ”
5.2 The Local Government Act 2003 and supporting regulations also require the Council to ‘have regard to’ the Prudential Code and to set Prudential Indicators for the next three years to ensure that the Council’s capital investment plans are affordable, prudent and sustainable. This report also reviews the outturn for the Prudential Indicators set for 2018/19.
95 5.3 In summary, this Annual Report covers: * the Council’s outturn treasury position; * the borrowing strategy and outturn for 2018/19; * investments strategy for 2018/19; * compliance with Prudential and Treasury Indicators; * debt rescheduling.
5.4 The Council’s Outturn Treasury Position
The Council’s debt position at the beginning and end of year was as follows:
31 March 2018 31 March 2019 Principal Average Principal Average Outstanding Rate Outstanding Rate £m % £m % Fixed Rate Funding: PWLB 121.5 141.1 Market 72.0 47.0 193.5 188.1 Variable Rate Funding: Market nil nil Long Term total 193.5 4.74 188.1 4.42
Temporary Debt nil - Nil - Total Debt 193.5 4.74 188.1 4.42
Temporary Investments 151.0 0.75 105.2 0.90
Net Debt 42.5 82.9
PWLB : Public Works Loan Board
The Borrowing Strategy and Outturn for 2018/19
5.5 The Adopted Treasury Strategy
Due to the availability of internal cash the Council had no new external borrowing requirement in 2018/19. Capital expenditure was funded by reducing investments rather than borrowing. This was cheaper than borrowing long term as PWLB rates were around 2.5%, whereas the loss in investment income was only around 0.9%. Therefore, we haven’t had to increase external borrowing for several years leading to a reduction in budgeted finance costs.
5.6 Short-term variable interest rates and temporary borrowing
At 1 April 2018 Bank Rate stood at 0.50%. Our treasury strategy for 2018/19 was based on the “average” City view that it was likely that Bank Rate would rise to 0.75% by December 2018.
The actual outcome was that the Bank Rate was increased from 0.50% to 0.75% on 2 August 2018, slightly earlier than anticipated. Since then the rate has been held at 0.75%. 96
Our temporary borrowing turnover totalled £81 million. This borrowing was all short- term borrowing for cash flow purposes and ranged from overnight to 92 days. There was no temporary borrowing outstanding at the year end. The average rate of this borrowing was 0.82% for the year, which compared with the average 7-day LIBOR (London Inter Bank Offered Rate) of 0.64%. The reason for the higher rate was that more temporary borrowing was undertaken later in the year when base rate was 0.75% rather than earlier in the year when base rate was 0.50%, but it was still cheaper to borrow at low rates than to pull back on our temporary investments, which are invested at higher rates.
5.7 Long-term fixed interest rates
During 2018/19 the 50-year PWLB rate ranged between 2.36 – 2.99%, quite a narrow range. The high point was in October 2018 and the low point in March 2019. The rate at 31 March 2019 was 2.43% compared with 2.49% at 1 April 2018. This impacted on our debt restructuring which is set out in para 5.21.
5.8 Debt Performance
As highlighted in section 5.4 above the average debt portfolio rate has decreased from 4.74% to 4.42%, due to the maturity of two Public Works Loan Board loans totaling £5m and the restructuring of £25m of debt.
Temporary Investments Strategy for 2018/19
5.9 The monies the Authority has available for investing are primarily cash flow derived, and are only available temporarily pending expenditure. The exception to this are the funds for the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), and £10.8m surplus PFI funds were invested in a corporate bond fund on 20 October 2016. For the bulk of our funds our investment priorities are security and liquidity. This Authority will only invest in institutions with the highest security and/or backing from the Government. The Council's approved lending list is in the Treasury Management Strategy, agreed at Borough Council on 20 February 2018 and 19 February 2019.
5.10 During 2018/19 funds were invested in institutions listed in the Council’s approved lending list, for investment periods ranging from 7 days to 1 year, achieving an average rate of 0.90% for the year. This compared with the average 7 day LIBID (London Interbank Bid or Deposit rate) of 0.51%.
5.11 The Council’s budgeted investment return for 2018/19 was £0.8m, and investment income received was £2.1m. This was primarily due to higher levels of cash available for temporary investing than anticipated due to slippage on the capital programme. The maximum we had invested was £181m in April 2018 and the average we had invested over the year was £163m. The March 2019 position was £103m, compared to the March 2018 position of £151m. The reduction in temporary investments explains the increase in net debt during 2018/19.
5.12 The Council is a member of a benchmarking club organised by its treasury advisers, Link Asset Services. Link has 223 local authorities in its client base. The weighted average rate of return on Hounslow’s investment portfolio at 31 March 2019 was 0.90% compared with the local authority average of 0.87%. This was achieved despite having 97 a low weighted average credit risk score of 2.2, lower than the local authority average of 3.0. The credit risk score is calculated by Link and is based on factors such as counterparty risk and investment duration, the lower the score the less the risk.
Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP)
5.13 As well as incurring interest on long term borrowings the Council has to set aside an amount from revenue to repay borrowings, and this amount is called the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP). The MRP is based on the Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) as at 1 April. Due to slippage in the capital programme and financing capital from resources other than borrowing in 2017/18, the CFR at 1 April 2018 was less than had been anticipated. This resulted in a reduction of MRP in 2018/19 compared to budget of £0.9m.
Comparison of Budget to Outturn
5.14 The reduction in MRP of £0.9m and the additional £1.3m of investment income reported in para 5.11, has resulted in a total saving compared to budget of £2.2m. The table below summarises the outturn of the treasury management costs of the General Fund (GF) compared to budget.
Original Actual Variance 2018/19 2018/19 2018/19 £m £m £m General Fund (GF): MRP – principal repayment 9,341 8,396 (945) Costs of borrowing 850 901 51 Interest receivable on investments: (747) (2,119) (1,372)
Total GF 9,444 7,178 (2,266)
The table below summarises the outturn of the treasury management costs of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which in total are close to the budget.
Original Actual Variance 2018/19 2018/19 2018/19 £m £m £m Housing Revenue Account (HRA): Costs of borrowing: 9,403 9,307 (96) Interest receivable on investments (278) (162) 116
Total HRA 9,125 9,145 20
98 Compliance with Treasury Limits
5.15 During the financial year the Council operated within the Prudential and Treasury Indicators set out in the Council's Treasury Strategy Statement, as agreed at Borough Council. The Prudential Indicators are either indicators of affordability or prudence. The outturn for the Prudential Indicators is detailed below.
Affordability Indicators
5.16 Ratio of financing costs to net revenue stream
2017/18 2018/19 2018/19 Actual Estimate Actual General Fund 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% HRA 10.6% 10.5% 10.5%
Financing costs primarily cover net interest and principal repayment costs. The HRA ratio of financing costs is higher than the General Fund because the bulk of the external debt is for the HRA, and the HRA revenue stream is lower than the General Fund. Hence the debt costs form a much higher proportion of the HRA costs than for the General Fund.
5.17 Capital Financing Requirement (CFR)
2017/18 2018/19 2018/19 Actual Estimate Actual £m £m £m General Fund CFR 185.4 217.5 182.5 HRA CFR 233.0 233.0 233.0 HM PFI* 82.6 79.5 79.5 Lampton 360 2.4 41.4 28.1 companies TOTAL CFR 503.4 571.4 523.1 Gross Debt 193.5 ------188.1
‘* Highways Maintenance Private Finance Initiative
The Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) measures the authority’s underlying need to borrow for capital (not revenue) purposes. The General Fund CFR was less than estimated due to approved borrowing not being as high as anticipated, due to slippage on the capital programme. The HRA CFR was in line with the estimate.
The Highways transfer of services to Vinci Ringway using a 25 years Private Finance Initiative contract started on 1st January 2013. Vinci have undertaken £95m of capital investment on Hounslow’s infrastructure. Under IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) we have to report the capital expenditure as showing as an increase in the 99 capital financing requirement financed by borrowing on Hounslow’s balance sheet, although Hounslow did not undertake the physical borrowing itself. The financing was done by Vinci and is recharged to Hounslow via the annual revenue service charge.
The Council has set up two property subsidiaries to Lampton 360, Lampton Investments 360 and Lampton Development 360. It was estimated that these companies would have spent £41.4m by the end of 2018/19, but only £28.1m was spent.
CIPFA’s Prudential Code states ‘In order to ensure that over the medium term net borrowing will only be for a capital purpose, the local authority should ensure that gross external borrowing does not, except in the short term, exceed the total of the capital financing requirement’
The Strategic Director of Finance & Corporate Services notes that the Authority has had no difficulty in meeting this requirement for 2018/19. Gross debt decreased from £193.5 million at 31 March 2018 to £188.1 million at 31 March 2019, well below the CFR. Borrowing is below CFR due to temporarily using funding from internal surplus cash resources. This reduces external borrowing costs and mitigates credit risks.
5.18 Comparison of External Debt to Authorised Limit and Operational Boundary
2017/18 2017/18 2018/19 2018/19 Indicator Actual Indicator Actual £m £m £m £m
Authorised Limit Borrowing 306.0 282.0 Other long term liabilities 2.3 2.3 TOTAL 308.3 282.3
Operational Boundary Borrowing 283.2 260.4 Other long term liabilities 2.3 2.3 TOTAL 285.5 262.7
Actual External Debt Borrowing - gross 193.5 188.1 Other long term liabilities 2.1 2.1 TOTAL 195.6 190.2
The 'Authorised Limit' and 'Operational Boundary' are estimates of limits for external debt, which ideally should not be exceeded.
The Authorised Limit is the maximum possible limit on borrowing for both capital and revenue purposes, and includes an allowance for unusual or uncertain events. The “other long-term liabilities” allowance enables the Council to use leasing finance if this is financially advantageous. The Authorised Limit should not be set so high that it would never in any possible circumstances be breached. It should be set to establish the outer boundary of the Authority's borrowing based on a realistic assessment of
100 risks. If it is breached a review should be undertaken to assess and understand why. For example a breach could be an early warning sign of revenue overspending.
The Operational Boundary is the most likely maximum level of borrowing for most of the year, without the additional headroom included within the Authorised Limit for unusual cash movements. It may occasionally be exceeded due to cashflow reasons. However, a sustained or regular trend above the operational boundary would be significant and should lead to further investigation and action as appropriate.
Other long term liabilities are finance leases.
The Strategic Director of Finance & Corporate Services reports that actual gross borrowing was maintained below both the Authorised Limit and the Operational Boundary in 2018/19.
Indicators of Prudence
These treasury management indicators recognise the existing structure of the Authority’s borrowing and investment portfolios. They are set to avoid exposing public funds to unnecessary or unquantified risk, and to reflect safety and liquidity.
5.19 Interest Rate exposures – upper limits
2017/18 2018/19 2018/19 Actual Limit Actual £m £m £m Fixed interest rates 194 265 194 Variable interest rates - 55 -
Indicators have been set which limit the extent to which the Council is exposed to interest rate changes. Separate limits are set for the principal sums for fixed interest rate and for variable rate borrowings. During 2018/19 actual borrowings were maintained well within the limits set.
5.20 Maturity structure of borrowing
2018/19 2018/19 2018/19 Upper limit Lower limit Actual Outturn % % % Under 12 months 30 0 5 1 year to 2 years 30 0 16 2 years to 5 years 50 0 25 5 years to 10 years 50 5 23 10 years and over 75 10 31
The Council sets upper and lower limits for the maturity structure of its borrowings. These limit the extent to which we will be exposed to significantly higher interest rates in any period in which we have to refinance maturing debt. During 2018/19 actual borrowings were maintained within the limits set. 101
5.21 Total principal sums invested for periods longer than 364 days
The authority set a limit of £50m to be invested for periods longer than 364 days. The maximum the authority allowed was three years. The Council had no investments with a maturity period of longer than 364 days at 31 March 2019.
5.22 Debt Restructuring The Council borrowed £72m in LOBOs (Lender’s Option Borrower’s Option) between 2006 and 2010, as they were cheaper than borrowing from the PWLB at that time. Under these loan agreements the lenders had the option to change the terms of the loan at set intervals, but if the lender exercised their option, the Council had the option to repay the loan without penalty. All the Council’s loans were at fixed rates of interest. In 2016 the lender of a £7.5m loan waived their option rights, thus converting the loan to a plain fixed loan. In October 2018 the opportunity arose to prematurely repay a £25m LOBO to a bank (running at 4.17%) and replace it with fixed interest borrowing from the PWLB at 2.75%. So, therefore the Council now has £37.5m outstanding in LOBO loans. The Council will continue to investigate the possibility of prematurely repaying these loans if the opportunity arises.
Investment in a Multi Asset Income Fund
5.23 The Council’s Annual Investment Strategy for 2019/20 was agreed at Borough Council on 19 February 2019 following Cabinet approval. The Council currently invests in AAA rated Money Market Funds and has also invested £10.8m of PFI funds in a short-dated sterling corporate bond fund. The Annual Investment Strategy also gave authority to invest up to £20m in enhanced cash funds.
5.24 There are various funds available but generally to achieve higher returns investment would need to be made in higher risk funds. Currently AAA rated Money Market Funds would only yield just over bank base rate of 0.75%. However, they are useful for managing short term cash and liquidity. Monies that will be available for the medium to long term can be invested in longer dated funds, and the PFI investment has yielded about 1.9% to date. On average, using conventional cash investments we estimate to achieve a return of about 0.95% in 2019/20.
5.25 In 2016 the Pension Fund carried out a selection process to invest in a Multi Asset Income Fund and has been invested in that Fund since November 2016. This Fund has consistently produced income gross returns of about 4% per annum and the Fund has fees of 0.25% per annum, so therefore the net return is about 3.75% per annum. Multi Asset Income Funds can fluctuate in value and do not have credit ratings. However, they can be managed in such a way as to reduce the volatility of the capital value.
5.26 The Council’s power to invest is set out in Section 12 of the Local Government Act 2003 and in doing so the Council should have regard to the 2018 Government (MHCLG) Guidance on Local Government Investments and the 2017 CIPFA Treasury Management in Public Services Code of Practice and 2018 Public Sector Guidance
102 Notes. A Multi Asset Income Fund is a collective investment scheme and is therefore a ‘non-specified’ investment under the MHCLG Guidance.
5.27 Whilst most the Council’s surplus funds are cash driven and are only available for short-term investment there will be a core of balances and reserves that are available for longer, and therefore it would be prudent to make an investment that would achieve enhanced returns over those available in the short-term money markets. We therefore propose to invest up to £20m in a Multi Asset Income Fund and to delegate responsibility for procurement and implementation to the Strategic Director of Finance & Corporate Services. The return generated would contribute towards closing the Council’s financial gap within its Medium Term Financial Strategy.
Comments of the Strategic Director of Finance & Corporate Services
5.28 The Director’s comments are included within the body of this report.
6 Legal / Comments of Head of Governance
6.1 Any legal implications arising are as set out in the main body of the report.
7 Value for Money
7.1 Income from investments is maximised, within identified risk management parameters. Regular meetings are held with the authority’s external treasury advisers, to explore opportunities for debt rescheduling.
8 Sustainability Impact Appraisal
8.1 A sustainability impact appraisal is not necessary.
9 Risk Management
9.1 Treasury management is defined as “The management of the local authority’s investments and cash flows, its banking, money market and capital market transactions; the effective control of the risks associated with those activities; and the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks. ”
Therefore the whole report is about how the Council manages its treasury management activity within agreed risk parameters. Key financial risks are reported in the Council’s risk register.
10 Links to Council Priorities
10.1 Regular reporting of the treasury management activity of the Council is an important part of running the Council in a transparent and efficient way.
103 11 Equalities, Human Rights and Community Cohesion
11.1 Members are not being asked to make any decisions with implications in relation to equalities, human rights and community cohesion.
12 Staffing/Workforce and Accommodation implications
12.1 Members are not being asked to make any decisions with implications in relation to staffing/workforce and accommodation.
13 Property and Assets
13.1 There are no implications for property and assets other than cash.
14 Any Other Implications
14.1 There are no further implications.
15 Consultation
15.1 No consultation is required for this report.
16 Timetable for Implementation
16.1 There are no recommendations for implementation made in this report.
17 Background Information
17.1 There is no background information and no background papers in relation to this report.
End of Report
104 Agenda Item 7
Report for: ACTION
Contains Confidential No or Exempt Information
Title Appointment of ICT & Digital Director Member Reporting Cllr Pritam Grewal Contact Details Clive Palfreyman, Strategic Director Finance & Corporate Services For Consideration By Brough Council Date to be Considered 18th June 2019 Affected Wards All Keywords/Index Chief Officer Appointments
1. Details of Recommendations
In accordance with the procedures outlined within the Council’s Annual Pay Statement, Borough Council are asked to approve the appointment of Mark Lumley to the post of Director of ICT & Digital and be placed on the CO2 pay spine.
If the recommendations are adopted, how will residents benefit? Benefits to residents and reasons why they will Dates by which they can benefit, link to Values expect to notice a difference Leadership and stability of the Council From date of appointment
2. Report Summary
For Chief Officer posts attracting a salary above £100,000, Council procedures require appointments to be approved by Borough Council. The established Director of ICT & Digital post, vacant since August 2018 is a CO2 graded post and therefore requires such approval.
3. Reason for Decision and Options Considered
1. The Director of ICT & Digital is a key post in the Council’s senior leadership team, reporting to the Strategic Director of Finance & Corporate Services.
105 The post became vacant in August 2018 however an Autumn 2018 search for a new post holder was unsuccessful.
2. A refreshed search began in February 2019 with support from Hays, the Executive Recruitment Agency. Through a series of technical interviews and tests, a shortlist of candidates was interviewed by a Director Panel in May 2019. This comprised: Strategic Director of Finance & Corporate Services Interim Head of HR Director of Resident Services Director of Customer Services, Environment & Culture.
3. For successful candidates, a final panel was held in May 2019 with the panel comprising: Lead Member ICT Leader of the Council Chief Executive Strategic Director of Finance & Corporate Services Senior HR Advisor
4. At the end of a rigorous process, Mark Lumley emerged as the preferred candidate. Mark is currently an Assistant Director for the shared ICT service between the London Boroughs of Kingston and Sutton. Prior to this appointment, Mark served both Epsom & Ewell and Elmbridge Councils in Surrey.
5. Expectations of Mark moving forward focus heavily on the digital transformation of Council processes and our communities, delivering improved outcomes not only for the Council to interface with its customers in different and more effective ways but also ensuring that communities are not excluded, digitally, from their communities.
4. Financial Details a) Financial Background (optional) The post holder will be paid on the current CO2 salary range and therefore there are no additional budgetary implications arising. b) Comments of the Strategic Director – Finance and Corporate Services There are sufficient resources allocated to support ICT to fund this post.
5. Legal Details a) Comments of the Head of Governance The comments of the Head of Governance are included in the body of the report. REPORT ENDS
106