Cabinet - Tuesday, 3 September 2024 7:00 pm

September 3, 2024 View on council website  Watch video of meeting or read trancript
AI Generated

Summary

The meeting made a number of decisions, including agreeing to consult on a proposed new Council Tax Support Scheme and approving the designation of the Glebe Estate as a Conservation Area.

Consultation on proposed new Council Tax Support scheme

The Cabinet agreed to consult on a proposed new Council Tax Support (CTS) scheme to begin on 1 April 2025.

The new scheme is intended to address a number of issues with the existing scheme and help to achieve savings for the Council. These are:

  • To take account of increasing demand for CTS, especially from working-age residents.
  • To create a fairer scheme by taking account of household size when determining support. Currently, a family with children may receive the same level of support as a couple without children.
  • To create a scheme that will adjust to inflation. The current scheme has fixed income bands that do not rise with inflation, meaning that as people's wages increase each year they may find that they are no longer entitled to support.
  • To take account of the national roll-out of Universal Credit. The scheme is currently based on Housing Benefit legislation, but as most residents will soon be on Universal Credit it is intended to create a new scheme based on Universal Credit rules.

The key principles of the proposed scheme are:

  • To ensure that everyone makes a contribution to their council tax bill. The current scheme allows some residents to pay nothing towards their council tax bill. The new scheme will ensure that all working-age households pay something towards their council tax.
  • To direct a greater level of support to larger households. For example, a single person will receive less support than a family with one child, and a family with one child will receive less support than a family with two children.
  • To ensure that the scheme keeps up with inflation by applying an annual increase to income bands.
  • To ensure that extra help is available for those experiencing hardship by creating a 'hardship fund' to provide targeted and temporary support.

The proposed changes are opposed by the Conservative opposition, but are supported by Labour Councillors. Councillor Dunn said it is:

the right thing to do

given the financial situation the Council is in. She also highlighted that the Cabinet was:

not simply proposing the easy way to do it

but was taking the opportunity to create a scheme that targeted support towards those most in need. The Conservative opposition agreed it was important that the consultation:

is detailed and thorough and it's not just a rubber stamping exercise talking to the usual suspects and all the rest of it.

The Cabinet also agreed that, if a new scheme is implemented, there will be hardship support available to residents to help them manage the transition to the new scheme. The detail of this support will be determined as part of the consultation.

Proposed designation of the Glebe Estate as a Conservation Area

The Cabinet approved the designation of the Glebe Estate as a Conservation Area. The Council is required by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to designate areas of special architectural or historic interest as Conservation Areas. The Council believes the Glebe Estate is worthy of protection due to its character and appearance as an early and largely intact example of a Victorian working class housing estate. The designation has been controversial with many local residents and the local Conservative councillors opposing it.

The Council previously consulted on the proposed designation in 2021. At that time, the consultation received a largely negative response. The Council believes this was due to a degree of misinformation about what it means to have a property within a Conservation Area, and about the Council's intentions in designating the area. In particular, residents were concerned that they would be prevented from making alterations to their homes, or that they would have to pay for planning permission for works that are currently permitted development.

The Council has undertaken further engagement with the local community and in 2024 undertook a further consultation on the proposed designation. As part of this consultation, the Council produced a leaflet to accompany letters that were sent to all Glebe Estate residents that aimed to address these concerns. The leaflet stated that the Council would not seek to impose Article 4 Directions on the estate and provided assurances that it was not the intention to impose onerous restrictions on residents. The Residents Association also produced a leaflet that was proof-read by the Council to ensure it accurately reflected the Council's position.

This further consultation resulted in the same largely negative response as the first consultation. The Council believes that this negative response is partly due to the fact that many respondents answered the question:

Do you agree with designating the area as a conservation area?

rather than the question:

In general, has the appraisal adequately identified the special interest of the conservation area?

which was the purpose of the consultation. In addition, many of those opposed to the proposal did not read the appraisal at all, but relied on the information contained in the leaflets, which, whilst largely factually correct, misunderstood the reason for designation. It was also evident that many respondents did not trust the Council’s stated intentions, and that misinformation regarding the Council's plans had continued to circulate, despite the assurances given by the Council and the efforts of the Residents Association. It was additionally clear that the Council had failed to consider the environmental and financial impact on residents of conservation area status, including the higher carbon footprint of houses within conservation areas and the often inflated cost of renewable energy installations and other energy-saving measures within conservation areas.

Councillor Tom Bruce, the Labour Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development, highlighted that the Council has a duty to designate areas of special character and appearance, regardless of the results of the consultation, and that:

the opinion of officers, Historic England, the Victorian Society and the 20th Century Society (and Labour Heritage) is that the character and appearance of the Glebe Estate is such that it should be designated as a conservation area, whose character and appearance should be preserved or enhanced.

The Conservative opposition again objected to the proposals on the grounds that the consultation had demonstrated that local people did not support it. They said that at first glance it might seem to be a bit of a strange decision for a listening council to be going against the consultation. They accepted, however, that often there is misunderstanding.

The Cabinet approved the proposal to designate the Glebe Estate unanimously, despite the Conservative objections. Councillor Tom Bruce concluded by saying that he had absolutely listened to all the various voices that have come through but that it did not mean that he would be able to please everybody.

Procurement of a new contract for Special Educational Needs and Disability home to school transport.

The Cabinet approved a proposal to procure a new contract for the provision of hired passenger transport for Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) home to school transport. The current contract, which expires in April 2025, provides transport for 55% of pupils who receive home to school transport. The remaining pupils are transported by the Council's in-house service, or receive reimbursements. The contract will be available to all Council departments.

The decision was made to use an open framework to procure the contract. This was deemed to offer similar benefits to the existing Dynamic Purchasing System, but would be more efficient to manage, due to allowing for periodic tendering windows.

Development of a new culture strategy.

The Cabinet approved a proposal to develop a new culture strategy for the Borough. The decision was made in recognition of the fact that the previous strategy, which was published in 2014, had reached the end of its useful life, and of the recent changes in the borough's cultural landscape. In particular, the loss of Waterman's Arts Centre was seen as a blow to culture in the Borough.

Councillor Salman Shaheen, the Labour Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure and Public Spaces, described the Borough as:

at a crossroads in terms of culture

He explained that the Borough had

so much to celebrate

but also

have to recognize the difficulties, the challenges we face.

He highlighted the ambition that the development of a strategy would allow the Borough to:

win London Borough of Culture

The strategy will be developed by engaging with residents, local businesses, and cultural organisations to define and deliver a new vision for culture in the Borough. Councillor Bruce explained that the development of a culture strategy would:

work well alongside other um strategies that we have developed and that we are developing

and that:

having good quality acts having good quality venues having good quality things going on here is incredibly important and and feeds into all of those areas.

The Conservative opposition agreed that the development of an arts strategy was important, but questioned how it would be delivered, given the lack of resources. Councillor Shaheen explained that at this stage no additional financial resources were needed as he would be chairing the consultation sessions himself. He hoped that:

down the line... we will be looking for for funding from various different external interested parties in the arts.

Petition for a new bridge.

A petition for the construction of a new retractable pedestrian bridge across the River Thames to link Brentford to Kew Gardens was noted by the Cabinet.

The petition, submitted by Mr Peter Coombs, had gained 14 signatures. The Cabinet agreed that whilst the idea was a good one in principle and that they would not dismiss it completely, there were a number of challenges that made it unfeasible to deliver. These challenges include:

  • The potential cost of the scheme which, when it was last investigated, was estimated to be in excess of £10m.
  • Land access and ownership challenges.
  • Challenges related to the tidal nature of the Thames.

Councillor Tom Bruce, the Labour Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development, said that he would like:

to say on record that you know doing these sorts of things, doing these major projects in conjunction with lots of other uh groups and looking at how we might bring something like this forward - I'm not even going to promise a time frame, we could be talking a decade - but it's there to say that you know as a as something that we could be thinking about in the future it's certainly not something I'm going to dismiss today.

Councillor Dunne, the Labour Cabinet Member for Climate, Environment and Transport, agreed, saying that it was:

an idea that's on the table. We're not making any promises right now but we're not taking it off completely either... It will... sort of stay there for for potential future consideration.

The Conservative opposition supported the petition, and agreed that it was:

really nice that residents and local groups sometimes bring the things forward like this that perhaps we wouldn't have thought of.

They noted that:

sometimes they they have ways to you know think about, quite a few things happen in Chiswick that they can get the money and make things happen and get sponsorship and I suppose sometimes councils do have money to build bits of bridges on the Thames, I think we did ourselves I mean not so long ago a bit further down.

They concluded by saying that it was:

about priorities isn't it? As you say. But I think it's really good to have this almost like a a wish list.... and...inviting people to come forward across the borough with these sort of little eyes, you know blue sky thinking what we call them these days schemes it's no bad thing and as and when a pot appears somewhere you know or some you know a few million floats around maybe sometime in the distant future given the pressures we are under it'd be quite nice to to enhance the realm by looking at some of these these approaches.

Documents