ALG Transport and Environment Committee by decree

VIEWS: 10 PAGES: 18

									London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee
11 June 2008
Minutes of a meeting of London Councils‟ Transport and Environment Committee
held on Wednesday 11 June 2008 at 2:30pm in the Conference Suite, 59½
Southwark Street, London SE1 0AL

                                        Present:

                         Council                           Councillor

               Barking and Dagenham                   Cllr Mick McCarthy
                         Barnet                       Cllr Andrew Harper
                         Bexley                        Cllr Peter Craske
                          Brent                       Cllr Irwin Van Colle
                        Bromley                         Cllr Colin Smith
                        Camden                         Cllr Mike Greene
                        Croydon                         Cllr Jason Perry
                         Ealing                            Apologies
                         Enfield                     Cllr Terence Neville
                       Greenwich                      Cllr Rajwant Singh
                        Hackney                          Cllr Alan Laing
              Hammersmith and Fulham                Cllr Nicholas Botterill
                        Haringey                        Cllr Brian Haley
                         Harrow                         Cllr Susan Hall
                        Havering                       Cllr Barry Tebbutt
                       Hillingdon                     Cllr Keith Burrows
                       Hounslow                   Cllr Paul Lynch (Deputy)
                        Islington                     Cllr Greg Foxsmith
               Kensington and Chelsea          Cllr Daniel Moylan (Chairman)
               Kingston Upon Thames                      Cllr Bob Steed
                        Lambeth                        Cllr Sally Prentice
                       Lewisham                      Cllr Heidi Alexander
                         Merton                       Cllr David Simpson
                        Newham                          Cllr Pat Murphy
                       Redbridge                        Cllr Mark Aaron
               Richmond Upon Thames                  Cllr Martin Elengorn
                       Southwark                   Cllr Lisa Rajan (Deputy)
                         Sutton                          Cllr Colin Hall
                    Tower Hamlets                       Cllr Abdal Ullah
                   Waltham Forest                       Cllr Bob Belam
                      Wandsworth               Cllr Adrian Knowles (Deputy)
                  City of Westminster                Cllr Danny Chalkley
                     City of London                        Apologies
                 Transport for London               Malcolm Murray-Clark




TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                          TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                   Agenda Item 4, Page 1
The meeting started at 2.57pm


1.      Declaration of Interests

The following members declared their interest as Freedom Pass Holders:

Cllr Irwin Van Colle (LB Brent), Cllr Terence Neville (LB Enfield), Cllr Paul Lynch (LB
Hounslow), Cllr David Simpson (LB Merton), Cllr Martin Elengorn (LB Richmond
upon Thames) and Cllr Bob Belam (LB Waltham Forest).

The following member declared an interest as a Taxicard Holder:

Cllr Rajwant Sidhu (LB Greenwich)

The following councillors declared an interest for being members of the North London
Waste Authority:

Cllr Andrew Harper (LB Barnet), Cllr Mike Greene (LB Camden), Cllr Brain Haley (LB
Haringey), Cllr Alan Laing (LB Hackney) and Cllr Greg Foxsmith (LB Islington)

The following councillors declared an interest for being members of the West London
Waste Authority:

Cllr Irwin Van Colle (LB Brent), Cllr Susan Hall (LB Harrow) and Cllr Martin Elengorn
(LB Richmond upon Thames).

The following councillors declared an interest for being members of the East London
Waste Authority:

Cllr Barry Tebbutt (LB Havering) and Cllr Pat Murphy (LB Newham)

The following member declared an interest in being members of the South London
Waste Authority

Cllr David Simpson (LB Merton)

The following member declared an interest in being a member of the Western
Riverside Waste Authority:

Cllr Nicholas Botterill (LB Hammersmith & Fulham) and Cllr Sally Prentice (LB
Lambeth)


2.      Apologies for Absence & Announcement of Deputies

Apologies for absence were received from:

Cllr David Millican (LB Ealing)
Cllr Barbara Reid (LB Hounslow)
Cllr Jeff Hook (LB Southwark)
Cllr Jane Cooper (LB Wandsworth)
Archie Galloway (City of London)




TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                          TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                   Agenda Item 4, Page 2
The following deputies were announced:

Cllr Paul Lynch (LB Hounslow)
Cllr Lisa Rajan (LB Southwark)
Cllr Adrian Knowles (LB Wandsworth)


3.      Membership of London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee
        2008/09

The Committee received a report that set out the latest details of TEC membership
for 2008/09.

Councillor Moylan informed members that the London Borough of Croydon‟s main
representative had changed at the last minute.

Councillor Moylan said that there had been a big change to the TEC membership for
2008/09. He thanked Councillors Offord (LB Barnet), Barchuk (LB Ealing), Rajan (LB
Southwartk), Watt (LB Islington), Cllr Paul Lynch (LB Hounslow), Green (RB
Kingston), Nicholay (LB Harrow), Ahmad (LB Merton), Goody (LB Redbridge),
Grimston (LB Wandsworth) and Peck (LB Lambeth) for their contributions to the
Committee, and in particular, Councillor Sidney Kallar (LB Barking & Dagenham),
who was one of the longest serving TEC members.

Decision: The Committee noted the new membership of TEC for 2008/09.


4.      Election of Chair

Nominations were invited for the Chair of TEC. Cllr Smith nominated Cllr Daniel
Moylan (RB Kensington & Chelsea) as Chairman of TEC. Cllr Moylan was therefore
elected as Chairman of the Transport & Environment Committee for the 2008/09
municipal year.


5.      Election of Deputy Chair & Vice Chairs.
The Standing Orders of London Councils state that the Committee will, at its AGM,
elect the Chair, the Deputy Chair and three Vice-Chairs of the TEC. It was agreed to
operate under the political proportionality of 3:1:1 to elect a Deputy Chair and three
Vice-Chairs of the Committee for the Municipal Year 2008/09.

The following members were elected as Deputy and Vice Chairs:

Deputy Chair:
Cllr Colin Smith (LB Bromley) Conservative

Vice Chairs:
Cllr Mike Greene (LB Camden) Conservative
Cllr Alan Laing (LB Hackney) Labour
Cllr Colin Hall (LB Sutton) Liberal Democrat




TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                         TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                  Agenda Item 4, Page 3
6.          Election to the TEC Executive Sub Committee

It was agreed that the Executive Sub Committee would consist of nine voting
members (five Conservatives, two Labour and two Liberal Democrats) and the City of
London representative as a tenth non-voting member as per previous years.

Decision: The Committee elected the following members to serve on the TEC
Executive Sub Committee for the remainder of the municipal year for 2008/09:

Councillor Daniel Moylan (RB Kensington & Chelsea) – Conservative
Councillor Colin Smith (LB Bromley) – Conservative
Councillor Mike Greene (LB Camden) – Conservative
Councillor Andrew Harper (LB Barnet) – Conservative
Councillor Irwin Van Colle (LB Brent) – Conservative

Councillor Alan Laing (LB Hackney) – Labour
Councillor Patrick Murphy (LB Newham) – Labour

Councillor Colin Hall (LB Sutton) – Liberal Democrat
Councillor Martin Elengorn (LB Richmond)

Plus non-voting member
Archie Galloway (City of London) - Independent


7.      Nominations to Outside Bodies & Appointment of Advisors to the
        Committee

The Committee received a report that sought nominations to various outside bodies,
which were related to the work of the Committee. All appointments were made by
London Councils‟ Leaders‟ Committee, which had delegated this function to an
Appointments Panel, comprising of the Elected Officers. The Appointments Panel
further delegated this task to the Chief Executive of London Councils, within agreed
guidelines, including consultation with the chair of the relevant London Councils‟
member body. In this case, this was the Chair of London Councils‟ Transport &
Environment Committee.

Decision: The Committee nominated the following members and agreed to pass
their names on to the Chief Executive of London Councils, and then to the
Appointments Panel for ratification:


(a)     Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC)

Main Representative: Cllr Mike Greene (LB Camden)
Deputy: Cllr Heidi Alexander (LB Lewisham)


(b)     Regional Environmental Protection Advisory Committee (REPAC -
        Thames Region)

Main Representative: Cllr Jason Perry (LB Croydon)
Deputy: Cllr Brian Haley (LB Haringey)




TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                        TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                 Agenda Item 4, Page 4
(c)     The Thames Regional Flood Defence Committee (TRFDC)

Cllr Barry Tebbutt (LB Havering                  – LB Barking & Dagenham, Havering,
Conservative)                                      Redbridge and Waltham Forest

Cllr Andrew Harper              (LB    Barnet    – LB Barnet, Brent, Harrow and Hounslow
Conservative)

Cllr Rajwant Sidhu            (LB Greenwich – LB Bexley, Greenwich, Lewisham,
Labour)                                       Newham and Tower Hamlets

Cllr Jason Perry              (LB     Croydon    – LB Bromley, Croydon, Lambeth and
Conservative)                                      Southwark

Cllr Alan Laing (LB Hackney – Labour)                LB Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey
                                                     and Islington

Cllr Keith Burrows (LB Hillingdon – LB Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham,
Conservative)                       Hillingdon, RB Kensington & Chelsea,
                                    City of Westminster & City of London

Cllr Martin Elengorn (LB Richmond upon RB Kingston upon Thames, LB Merton,
Thames – Liberal Democrat) and Cllr Richmond upon Thames, Sutton and
Bob Steed (RB Kingston – Liberal Wandsworth
Democrat) as deputy


d)      The London Sustainable Development Commission (LSDC)

Main Representative: Cllr David Simpson (LB Merton, Conservative)

It was noted that nominations to the London Safety Camera Partnership (LSCP)
would be made at agenda item 16.

e)       London Energy Partnership (LEP)

Main Representative: Cllr Colin Smith, (LB Bromley - Conservative)


(f) Urban Design London (UDL)

Representatives: Cllr Daniel Moylan (RB Kensington & Chelsea, Conservative) and
Cllr Martin Elengorn (LB Richmond upon Thames, Liberal Democrat)


g)      London Waterways Commission (LWC)

Representatives: Cllr Nicholas Botterill (LB Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative),
Cllr Brian Haley (LB Haringey, Labour); Mr Archibald Galloway (City of London), Cllr
Barry O‟Mahony (RB Kingston upon Thames, Liberal Democrat).

(h)     The Thames River Basin District Liaison Panel (RBDLP)

Main representative: Cllr Barbara Reid (LB Hounslow, Conservative)



TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                                 TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                          Agenda Item 4, Page 5
(i)     The Local Government Joint Channel Tunnel Rail Initiative (LGJCTR)

Main representative: Cllr Mike Greene (LB Camden, Conservative)


(j)     London Waste Action – (LWA)

Cllr Moylan said that it was likely that the LWA would be wound up in the forthcoming
months. It was therefore agreed to continue with last year‟s nominees. Therefore the
nominations were: Cllr. Michael Cartwright (LB Hammersmith and Fulham, Labour),
Cllr. Daniel Moylan (RB Kensington & Chelsea, Conservative) and Liz Greene (RB
Kingston upon Thames).

It was agreed that Alan Edwards would notify Leaders’ Committee and the outside
bodies of the nominations agreed by London Councils’ Transport & Environment
Committee.

Appointment of Committee Advisers

The Committee agreed the appointment of the Committee Advisers listed in the
report.


8.      Minutes of the London Councils’ TEC meeting held on 12 March 2008

Mayor’s Second Transport Strategy – Item 6, page 6, third paragraph: It was agreed
that “take out” should be read “taken out”.

(Post meeting amendment from Cllr Smith: Presentation from Andy Doran, Item 5,
sixth paragraph – Delete sentence in brackets “to eliminate weekly paper collections”
and replace with “apart from paper which we continued to collect separately and
hoped to shortly upgrade to a weekly service (currently fortnightly)”.

Subject to the above amendments being made, the minutes of TEC on 12 March
2008 were agreed as an accurate record.


9.      Freedom Pass: Legislative Study

The Committee received a report that outlined JMP Consultants review of the
legislative context for the Freedom Pass. The report informed members of the
findings of this work and sought members‟ views on the way forward.

Councillor Moylan said that the study outlined the options for the future and the legal
background. He said that the Committee needed to confirm its position on section 3
of the report (existing policy). Councillor Moylan said that there was a dispute with
TfL over the total costs, therefore the issue would need to be settled by an arbitrator
such as the Secretary of State (it was currently being decided by TfL). Councillor
Moylan said that London Councils would continue to work with the Mayor and come
to an amicable arrangement and to look at options for the future.

Decision: The Committee noted the report by JMP Consultants Ltd on the Freedom
Pass legislation.


TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                          TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                   Agenda Item 4, Page 6
10.       Freedom Pass: Apportionment Study

The Committee received a report that summarised the conclusions from Kay Linnell,
the independent evaluator, on the apportionment of the Freedom Pass. Discussions
on how her findings might be taken forward would be discussed under agenda item
11.

Councillor Moylan said that a minimum of 22 members needed to be present and
agree unanimously to move to an apportionment based on usage. He informed
members that the evaluator, Kay Linnell was present to answer questions.

Councillor Moylan said that no decision was needed on agenda item 10. He
confirmed that, under item 11, a motion would be tabled to adopt a recommendation.
The phasing of “damping” would be equal over a 3-year period (⅓, ⅓, ⅓) and this
was what had been put forward to Leaders‟ Committee. Councillor Moylan confirmed
that no Leaders had said that they would vote against this and, as a consequence, it
would be recommended that this version of the evaluation process be adopted.

Nick Lester informed members that all boroughs were asked to submit written
evidence regarding the apportionment. He confirmed that 24 boroughs had
responded and 13 boroughs had made representations on 18 April 2008. Nick Lester
said that the conclusions of the evaluator were on pages 21 and 22 of the report. The
transition period would be over 3 years. Nick Lester said that some parts of the
settlement did not have usage data and that a Government grant be paid to London
Councils for the next two years would cover these costs.

Decision: The Committee noted the evaluator‟s report on the Freedom Pass
apportionment, which recommended moving to apportionment based on usage data,
where available (averaged over two years) from 2009/10, over a 3-year transition
period, with 57% of the change happening taking place in 2009/10.


11.       Freedom Pass: Apportionment Decisions

The Committee received a report on the apportionment of the Freedom Pass
settlement, which asked members whether they wished to adopt the apportionment
methodology for 2009/10 onwards in line with the arbitrator‟s recommendations, or
whether they wished to adopt another method of apportionment.

Councillor Moylan moved the following motion:

This Committee, on the basis of section 12.1 of the TEC Agreement and s.244 of the
Greater London Authority Act 1999, resolves that:

      -   For the period from 2009/10 onwards, the basis of apportionment of Freedom
          Pass costs will be by reference to usage – defined as the number of recorded
          journeys made by the residents of each borough but excluding any recorded
          journeys made on passes which are notified as lost, stolen or faulty;
      -   This change should be phased in over a three year transitional period split
          equally for each year;
      -   With respect to the parts of the settlement where no usage data is available,
          so long as Government grant is paid directly to London Councils and exceeds



TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                           TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                    Agenda Item 4, Page 7
        the cost of this block of services, the costs should be met as a first call on this
        grant;
    -   If, in 2011/12 or later, the grant is paid directly to individual boroughs as part
        of Revenue Support Grant, then the apportionment of the parts of the service
        where no usage data is available should be made in the same proportion as
        the grant is allocated to boroughs.
    -   That the usage data relied on for the purposes of apportionment should be a
        two year rolling average

Councillor Laing (Hackney) and Councillor Hall (Sutton) seconded the motion.
Councillor Moylan said that unanimity amongst those present and voting was
required for the motion to be passed. Councillor Moylan said that TfL were not able to
vote on the resolution. Members were reminded that, under paragraph 12.12 of the
TEC Agreement, if a unanimous agreement could not be met, the matter would be
referred to an arbitrator and the decision of the arbitrator would be binding on
boroughs. Councillor Moylan said that TEC worked best when the Committee
demonstrated that it could manage its own agreements.

Councillor Moylan said that in principle, it was proposed to move to a “usage” based
apportionment, although this was very difficult as there were big financial shifts.
Councillor Moylan said that all boroughs accepted that principle.

Councillor Smith informed the Committee that he wished to propose an amendment.
Councillor Moylan said that he had no notice of an amendment, but was willing to
hear what the proposed amendment was. Councillor Smith asked the Committee to
consider a three year transition based on the proportions of 45/30/25 (instead of the
proposed equal thirds), to ensure that the “losers” in the new apportionment method
did not lose too much. This amendment was seconded by Councillor Craske (LB
Bexley) and Councillor Perry (LB Croydon). Councillor Smith said that this was a fair
way of moving forward.

Councillor Murphy asked whether the Committee had to decide, as a group, whether
the amendment had to be heard, or whether the Committee could refuse. Councillor
Moylan said that, legally, the motion could be amended by a majority. If this was
agreed, the amended motion would require unanimity of those present and voting.
He said that there were two ways to stop an amendment: (a) by being “out of order”
(which this was not), and (b) by being voted down. Councillor Moylan said that the
motion on the amendment should be decided by a majority vote.

Councillor Hall said that it was important for a decision to be made at the meeting. He
asked whether it was possible to vote for both proposals to ascertain what the
outcome would be. Councillor Moylan said that it was not possible as this would
effectively amount to a “non vote” that would still need unanimity and therefore
achieve nothing.

Councillor Greene asked whether it was possible not to vote today, if unanimity could
not be reached, and to move on to the next item. Councillor Moylan said that there
was an option not to vote at all, but this option would not be given, as there was
uncertainty on whether there was any real value in this. Councillor Tebbutt asked
whether an abstention would be classed as a “no” vote. Councillor Moylan said that
those members who abstained would not be preventing unanimous agreement.

Councillor Neville said that he welcomed the decision not to take the vote off the
table. He said that it was important for the organisation to come to a unanimous vote.


TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                           TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                    Agenda Item 4, Page 8
Councillor Neville said that the worst case scenario would be if there was no decision
made at all. He said that there was no merit in deferring the matter until the next
meeting as there would be no change. This would just result in a delay to the
arbitration and the apportionment deadline would not be met.

Councillor Murphy asked for clarification on the voting situation and whether any
members were required to leave the room. Councillor Moylan asked Anne Pietsch,
the City‟s legal adviser, for her advice on the matter. Anne Pietsch said that the
situation was as per stated by the Chairman (ie unanimity amongst those present
and voting). Councillor Moylan said that the Committee would proceed as previously
noted. He asked that the vote be recorded for the minutes.

A vote was then taken for an amendment to the motion to change the transitional
proportions from equal thirds to 45/35/20.

Votes were as follows:

For                                                         Against

Cllr Nicholas Botterill (LB Hammersmith & Fulham)           Cllr Greg Foxsmith (LB Islington)
Cllr Irwin Van Colle (LB Brent)                             Cllr Bob Belam (LB Waltham Forest)
Cllr Paul Lynch (LB Hounslow)                               Cllr Martin Elengorn (LB Richmond)
Cllr Terence Neville (LB Enfield)                           Cllr Colin Hall (LB Sutton)
Cllr Danny Chalkley (City of Westminster)                   Cllr Lisa Rajan (LB Southwark)
Cllr Barry Tebbutt (LB Havering)                            Cllr Bob Steed (RB Kingston)
Cllr Susan Hall (LB Harrow)                                 Cllr Heidi Alexander (LB Lewisham)
Cllr Adrian Knowles (LB Wandsworth)                         Cllr Sally Prentice (LB Lambeth)
Cllr Andrew Harper (LB Barnet)                              Cllr Mick McCarthy (LB Bark & Dag)
Cllr Mark Aaron (LB Redbridge)                              Cllr Abdal Ullah (LB Tower Hamlets)
Cllr David Simpson (LB Merton)                              Cllr Alan Laing (LB Hackney)
Cllr Peter Craske (LB Bexley)                               Cllr Brain Haley (LB Haringey)
Cllr Jason Perry (LB Croydon)                               Cllr Rajwant Sidhu (LB Greenwich)
Cllr Colin Smith (LB Bromley)                               Cllr Pat Murphy (LB Newham)


Abstentions:

Cllr Mike Greene (LB Camden)
Cllr Keith Burrows (LB Hillingdon)
Cllr Daniel Moylan (RB Kensington & Chelsea)

The outcome of the voting for the amendment to the motion was 14 for and 14
against, with 3 abstentions.

A short break was then taken by the Chairman, Councillor Hall and Councillor Laing.
On returning, Councillor Moylan informed members that the evaluator. Kay Linnell,
had offered to say a few words before a further decision was made.

Kay Linnell said that some boroughs were in a “no win” situation regarding the
apportionment of the Freedom Pass. She said that while the previous apportionment
process could not easily have been carried out in any other way, the evaluation had
concluded that the previous process had been carried out in an unfair way. Had the
decision been made from scratch on the basis of today‟s information, there would be
few objections to using a usage basis. Kay Linnell said that, in moving towards an
apportionment based on usage, a recommendation had been made to “shade it” by
4/2/1.



TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                           TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                    Agenda Item 4, Page 9
Kay Linnell said that she strongly recommended that the Committee did not fail to
reach an agreement today. She said that if members failed to reach a unanimous
decision and the matter went to arbitration, this would cost boroughs money and
could take 4 to 6 months. Should a unanimous decision not be reached, she
recommended that the committee made the matters referred to arbitration as
“narrow” as possible.

Kay Linnell said that this was an issue for members to decide, although she strongly
encouraged them to “go that extra mile” when coming to a decision. She said that
she was happy to take any comments members may have, as long as this was
acceptable to the Chairman.

Councillor Moylan said that a consensus needed to be reached at the meeting.
Councillor Moylan asked whether members would agree to a further amendment to
the motion to adopt proportions of 36/32/32. He said that this was now down to very
fine shading. If there was no agreement, boroughs would have to prepare their own
evidence, which would consume officer time. Councillor Barry Tebbutt seconded the
proposal. Councillor Hall said that it was a difficult decision for all boroughs. He said
that the Liberal Democrat Group also accepted Councillor Moylan‟s proposal, as this
would avoid arbitration if this could be agreed unanimously. Councillor Hall said that
he did understand the difficult position that the London borough of Bromley was in.
Councillor Smith, however, indicated that LB Bromley would not support this. The
suggestion was, therefore, dropped.

As the Chairman had the casting vote for Bromley‟s previous amendment, Councillor
Moylan now said that he would be voting against the amendment. Councillor Smith
said that Chairman had already abstained and queried whether the Chairman could
now vote against the amendment. Councillor Moylan confirmed that, as Chairman of
TEC, he could now make the casting vote.

Members voted on the substantive motion. The votes counted were as follows:


For                                                     Against

Cllr David Simpson (LB Merton)                          Cllr Colin Smith (LB Bromley)
Cllr Pat Murphy (LB Newham)                             Cllr Jason Perry (LB Croydon)
Cllr Rajwant Sidhu (LB Greenwich)                       Cllr Mark Aaron (LB Redbridge)
Cllr Brian Haley (LB Haringey)
Cllr Alan Laing (LB Hackney)
Cllr Abdal Ullah (LB Tower Hamlets)
Cllr Mick McCarthy (LB Barking & Dagenham)
Cllr Sally Prentice (LB Lambeth)
Cllr Heidi Alexander (LB Lewisham)
Cllr Andrew Harper (LB Barnet)
Cllr Adrian Knowles (LB Wandsworth)
Cllr Susan Hall (LB Harrow)
Cllr Martin Bob Steed (RB Kingston)
Cllr Lisa Rajan (LB Southwark)
Cllr Colin Hall (LB Sutton)
Cllr Martin Elengorn (LB Richmond)
Cllr Bob Belam (LB Waltham Forest)
Cllr Greg Foxsmith (LB Islington)
Cllr Terence Neville (LB Enfield)
Cllr Danny Chalkley (City of Westminster)
Cllr Paul Lynch (LB Hounslow)
Cllr Keith Burrows (LB Hillingdon)


TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                           TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                   Agenda Item 4, Page 10
Cllr Irwin Van Colle (LB Brent)
Cllr Mike Greene (LB Camden)
Cllr Nicholas Botterill (LB Hammersmith & Fulham)
Cllr Daniel Moylan (RB Kensington & Chelsea

Abstentions

Cllr Peter Craske (LB Bexley)
Cllr Barry Tebbutt (LB Havering)

The outcome of the substantive vote was 26 for, 3 against and 2 abstentions. As
unanimity could not be reached, the issue of the Freedom Pass apportionment would
now be referred to the arbitrator.

Councillor Laing thanked the Chairman for his efforts and bringing forward this
proposal. He said that it was regretful that TEC could not reach an agreement on this
issue. Councillor Moylan said that there had been agreement, in principle, to move to
usage based apportionment. He said that there were some advantageous of
narrowing the interpretation – it would be quicker, less work less costly. Councillor
Moylan (referring to the TEC Agreement) said that it did not follow that there had to
be a decision of the Committee to narrow the Terms of Reference of the arbitration.

Councillor Laing thanked the arbitrator for her good evaluation work. He said that
boroughs had come to the meeting to agree what had already been discussed at
Leaders‟ Committee the day before.

Councillor Moylan asked whether the remit of the arbitrator should be narrowed or
not. Councillor Haley said that boroughs did not have the authority to decide to
narrow the remit of the arbitrator. Councillor Greene said that if agreement was
obtained before the arbitration commenced, this would be acceptable. He said that
Leaders could be consulted on the issue. Councillor Moylan said that this was not
accurate and confirmed that arbitration would have to start immediately. He said that
if agreement was reached, even after the arbitration had started, this would close
down the arbitration.

Kay Linnell said that once the arbitration had started, it was very possible at anytime,
if all parties were in agreement, to stop the arbitration and issue a separate award on
any issues which had been agreed pending the arbitrator‟s decision on issues still in
dispute. Councillor Moylan said that he did not see on what basis the remit of
arbitration could be narrowed by TEC. He said if the remit could be narrowed by
TEC, then this should be moved to now.

Councillor Moylan asked Anne Pietsch whether narrowing the remit of arbitration
would mean narrowing the scope of the TEC Agreement. Anne Pietsch said that the
motion which was considered related to the method of apportionment and that
unanimity had been required to adopt the new method. As the committee had failed
to take a unanimous decision, the method of apportionment must be referred to
arbitration in accordance with the TEC Agreement. Councillor Moylan said that
Councillor Smith‟s motion would have been workable if there was unanimous
agreement on the proposed change as to the proportions in which the costs of the
proposed new method would be phased in. He said that there had not been
unanimous agreement to move to a usage based system for apportionment.
Councillor Moylan said that there two ways to deal with this, either move to a motion
or put to a vote and take legal advice afterwards.




TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                           TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                   Agenda Item 4, Page 11
Councillor Moylan confirmed that the issue would be referred to the arbitrators. He
encouraged boroughs to come to as much agreement as possible, whilst arbitration
was underway. Councillor Moylan forewarned members that arbitration would take
place very quickly and boroughs would be asked for their submissions at an early
stage.

Councillor Moylan thanked Kay Linnell for her evaluation work on the Freedom Pass
apportionment.

Decision: The Committee did not reach a unanimous decision regarding the
apportionment methodology and the matter would now be referred to an arbitrator
nominated by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators under the terms of the TEC
Agreement.


12.       The Mayor of London’s next Transport Strategy: Initial Proposals from
          London Councils’ TEC

The Committee received a report that asked members to comment on the amended
version of the Mayor‟s next Transport Strategy report produced by the TEC cross-
party sub group and to agree a way forward. The report was discussed previously at
TEC on 12 March 2008 and then at Leaders‟ Committee on 20 May 2008.

Councillor Moylan thanked Councillors Greene, Murphy, Van Colle, Hall, Craske and
Archie Galloway for their efforts on the MTS2 working group, which was important
work. He informed members that the MTS2 had been discussed at Leaders‟
Committee and comments had been made and taken on board. Councillor Moylan
suggested that the recommendations in Appendix 1 be adopted and the rest of the
text be used as supporting text. Councillor Moylan said that this issue could be re-
energised at the TEC Executive Sub Committee on 17 July 2008.

Councillor Neville said that he was unable to support the paragraph on “making
congestion charging fairer” on page 14 (Appendix 1), concerning “boroughs to work
with TfL to develop road pricing schemes”. Councillor Moylan suggested adding
“boroughs that wished to work with TfL”.

Decision: The Committee:

         Adopted the TEC sub-group‟s key objectives and recommendations (attached
          at Appendix 1) as London Councils‟ policy
         Commented on the supporting text (attached at Appendix 2)
         Agreed on the plans for publishing the report and taking it forward as the
          basis for further policy development, and
         Agreed to bring a further report for discussion to the TEC Executive Sub
          Committee on 17 July 2008
         Agreed to amend the paragraph on page 14 (Appendix 1) to read “boroughs
          that wished to work with TfL” (“Making Congestion Charging Fairer”).


13.       London Councils’ Response to the National Air Traffic Services (NATS)
          Consultation on Airspace Changes to the Terminal Control North Region

The Committee considered a report that set out the draft London Councils‟ response
to the NATS consultation on airspace changes to the Terminal Control North Region.



TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                          TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                  Agenda Item 4, Page 12
Decision: The Committee considered and agreed the draft London Councils‟
response to the NATS consultation on airspace changes to the Terminal Control
North region, as in Appendix 1 of the report.


14.       London Service Level Agreement for Unmetered Electricity Supply for
          Streetlighting

The Committee received a report that summarised the outcome of the meeting
between TEC Elected Officers and OFGEM in February 2008, concerning the
development of a Londonwide service level agreement (SLA) with London Councils,
the London Lighting Engineers Group (LoLEG) and EDF for unmetered electricity
supply for streetlighting.

Councillor Moylan informed members that a meeting had taken place with EDF and
OFGEM. London Councils had asked for a Londonwide service level agreement.
Councillor Moylan said that a letter should be written to EDF and OFGEM, as a way
forward, explaining how important the issue was. Councillor Hall said that there was
disappointment at the way EDF had entered into discussions with London Councils‟
officers. He said that they were only willing to work to the national SLA.

Decision: The Committee:

         Noted the efforts made by London Councils and LoLEG to develop a
          Londonwide service level agreement with EDF
         Noted that EDF only intended to work to the national SLA and were reluctant
          to agree a specific SLA for London, and
         Agreed to write a letter to EDF and OFGEM stressing the importance of a
          Londonwide SLA.


15.       Traffic Signals Allocation of Capital Funding

The Committee received a report that provided information regarding the potential
use of the traffic signals capital funding pot (previously known as the “precept”) and
sought member views on how this money (£2.3m) should be allocated in 2008/09.

Malcolm Murray-Clark said that TfL had received requests from two boroughs. He
said that a total of 22 sites had been proposed, although TfL had raised safety
concerns on 11 of these. In total, only one site had been implemented. Malcolm
Murray-Clark informed members that TfL had contracted for 5 of these sites.
However, there was an issue with the borough concerned signing this off. He said
that there needed to be a decision how to progress these 5 sites. Malcolm Murray-
Clark said that money in 2007/08 was spent on modernisation on borough roads.

Councillor Moylan said that TfL had asked boroughs what they wanted money to be
spent on in the middle of the last financial year. As a consequence of this, schemes
had now slipped into this financial year. Malcolm Murray-Clark said that the money
had been spent, although there was a need to find out what issues there were into
getting schemes completed in the last three months. Councillor Moylan said that the
proposed allocation of funding was cited in the report, in good faith. There was now
the need to get the process right.




TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                           TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                   Agenda Item 4, Page 13
Councillor Moylan said that the £2.3m traffic signals precept was available to
boroughs to spend on work they needed carrying out. He asked whether this money
would now be going to TfL. Malcolm Murray-Clark said that the way forward needed
to be re-examined. He said that the whole LIPs process needed to be made more
flexible. He said that the allocation of funding should be over a number of years and
the programme made smaller.

Councillor Moylan voiced concern that it was the second year that boroughs had
been asked to make a recommendation after the financial year had commenced. He
said that boroughs wanted to see a timetable and the right processes for allocation
set in place. He also said that it was important to get the money programmed in so
that funds could be spent in the current financial year and to have confidence that the
work would be delivered in time.

Councillor Moylan said that boroughs and TfL needed to work towards getting a
process in place. He said that boroughs had to come to a decision on what they
wanted to spend the money on. It was the intention of boroughs to decrease the
number of traffic signals they had, as some had remained the same for over 30
years.

Councillor Greene queried what the money was actually being spent on. He said that
the modernisation programme had not stretched to paying for dropped curbs.
Councillor Greene requested that the scope for what was being paid for be
expanded, as this would be a more honest way in which to assess what the money
was being spent on.

Malcolm Murray-Clarke said that the letter from TfL, attached to the report, talked
about signal modernisation in various locations. Councillor Greene said that it was a
requirement of engineering works to drop the curbs, but there was not any money
available for this work to be carried out. Councillor Hall agreed and said that this work
added to borough costs. Malcolm Murray-Clark said that money was being focussed
on the signals programme, and as a consequence, funds might not go as far in a
number of schemes. Councillor Neville said that certain alterations had to be carried
out when traffic signals were being improved. However, these alterations needed to
be funded by the borough. Councillor Neville said that he would like to see any
underspend highlighted. Councillor Moylan said that boroughs wanted a full
breakdown of costs from TfL, even if it meant that fewer signals were completed.
Councillor Moylan said that these issues would be passed to the relevant officer
group to take forward.

Councillor Moylan asked boroughs if they would prefer to have the increase in the
amount of funds set aside for traffic signals (as illustrated in Table 1 of the report) or
a decrease (as in Table 2). He suggested that, if no boroughs objected, the smaller
amount be set aside, as funds had been offered late in the financial year. Councillor
Haley said that he would like more money to be spent on “civils” work, owing to the
financial burden this put upon local authorities.

Decision: The Committee:

       Noted that the traffic signals capital funding pot was for capital expenditure
        and could not be used for revenue expenditure
       Agreed that the £2.3m traffic signals capital funding pot for 2008/09 be
        allocated as set out in Table 1 of the report.




TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                            TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                    Agenda Item 4, Page 14
16.       London Safety Camera Partnership

The Committee considered a report that provided members with an update on recent
developments in connection with London Councils‟ involvement in the London Safety
Camera Partnership (LSCP).

Councillor Moylan informed members that Councillor Smith would be the full Elected
Member to the Board and would have to sign the Officials Secrets Act. It was
proposed that the cross-party delegation would be as follows:

Councillor Andrew Harper (LB Barnet) – Conservative
Councillor Heidi Alexander (LB Lewisham) – Labour
Councillor Bob Belam (LB Waltham Forest) – Liberal Democrat

Councillor David Simpson (LB Merton) would be the standing substitute.

Decision: The Committee:

         Noted the recent developments in the London Councils‟ relationship with the
          LSCP
         Agreed that Councillor Smith would be the full Elected Member to the Board,
          along with Councillors Harper, Alexander and Belam as the cross-party
          delegation and Councillor Simpson as substitute
         Agreed to notify the LSCP of the TEC nominations to the LSCP Board


17.       Transfer of the London Bus Priority Network and the London European
          Partnership for Transport to London Councils

The Committee received a report that sought member approval for the transfer of
work currently undertaken by LB Bromley on behalf of al London Boroughs in
connection with the London Bus Priority Network and the London European
partnership for Transport to London Councils.

Councillor Moylan informed members that Gordon Hayward had now retired and
wished him well for the future. He said that LB Bromley could no longer continue this
work and it had now been handed over to London Councils. Councillor Moylan said
that there practical issues involved with this transfer, especially with the funding.

Councillor Moylan asked Committee whether the transfer was a path members were
willing to go down. He suggested that a further paper should (preferably) be taken to
the TEC Executive Sub Committee on 17 July 2008 and that the report be agreed “in
principle”.

Decision: The Committee:

         Agreed “in principle” that London Councils should take on the work that was
          currently being carried out by LB Bromley on behalf of all London boroughs,
          in connection with the London Bus Priority Network and the London European
          partnership for Transport, and
         Agreed that a further paper, if possible, would be taken to the forthcoming
          TEC Executive Sub Committee meeting on 17 July 2008.




TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                           TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                   Agenda Item 4, Page 15
18.       LLA Act 2007: Update on Implementations of Sections Requiring TEC
          Decisions

The Committee received a report that informed members of the current status of
several outstanding matters requiring implementation under the London Local
Authorities Act 2007. The report provided an overview of what these matters were
and the ongoing timetable of work proposed to implement them.

Councillor Moylan said that this was a matter for Committee to agree. He said that
although the legislation from the LLA Act was moving along slowly, it did inform
boroughs of the position they were at.

Councillor Moylan said that there was a typo in paragraph 16 of the report – “now in
place” should read “not in place” (page 3).

Decision: The Committee noted the progress on the various outstanding sections of
the LLA Act 2007 and the proposed programme of work to address these.


19.       LLA Act 2007 (Section 28): Consultation on the Prescribed Amount of
          Bond Required in Connection with Nuisance & Abandoned Vehicles

This report was withdrawn as it was not a matter for the Committee to make a
decision on at this stage.


20.       London Waste & Recycling Board Update

The Committee received a report that previously went to the Leaders‟ Committee on
10 June 2008. The report informed members of the agreement between London
Councils and the Mayor on the membership of the London Waste and Recycling
Board (LWaEB).

Councillor Moylan asked the Committee to note the letter sent to Joan Ruddock MP
(attached at Appendix 1) and suggested that further reports be brought to TEC on the
this issue.

Decision: The Committee:

         Noted that the Board would now be chaired by the Mayor (or his nominated
          deputy),
         Noted that the Board would consist of 7 other members: 4 borough
          councillors appointed by London Councils, 2 independent members
          appointed by London Councils and 1 independent member appointed by the
          Mayor.
         Agreed that further reports on this issue be brought to TEC.


21.       Municipal Waste Strategy – Proposed Member Group

The Committee received a report that proposed that a small cross-party working
group of members be established to consider borough interests in the next Mayor‟s
Municipal Waste Strategy.




TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                          TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                  Agenda Item 4, Page 16
Councillor Moylan proposed that there be 3 Conservative members, 1 Labour
member and 1 Liberal Democrat member, along with Archie Galloway, as an
independent from the City of London.

Councillor Moylan praised the Chairman of the Transport Group. He said that work
on this now needed to be progressed as quickly as possible.

Decision: The Committee agreed to set up a small cross-party working group
comprising of the following TEC members:

Councillor Colin Smith (LB Bromley) – Conservative
Councillor Andrew Harper (LB Barnet) – Conservative
Councillor Van Colle (LB Brent) – Conservative
Councillor Patrick Murphy (LB Newham) – Labour
Councillor Martin Elengorn (LB Richmond) – Liberal Democrat
Archie Galloway (City of London) – Independent


22.     The Mayor’s draft Business Waste Management Strategy Consultation

The Committee considered a report that set out London Councils‟ response to the
Mayor‟s draft Business Waste Management Strategy – “Making Waste Work in
London”. It included a summary of key concerns with the draft Strategy and previous
work in shaping the document.

Councillor Moylan informed members that this was a proposal by the former Mayor
Ken Livingston that had not yet been withdrawn.

Decision: The Committee agreed the draft London Councils‟ response to the
Mayor‟s draft Business Waste Management Strategy, as attached at Appendix 1 of
the report.


23.     Consultation on draft Regulations & draft Guidance on Proposals for the
        Establishment of Joint Waste Authorities in England

The Committee received a draft response from officers on draft Regulations and
Guidance on proposals for the establishment of Joint Waste Authorities under
powers in the Local Government and Public Involvement on Health Act 2007

Councillor Moylan said that this would assist in the formation of a Joint Waste
Authority Act from the “bottom-up”. Councillor Hall said that this was not a “one size
fits all” situation. He said that there was a need for joint working “where appropriate”.

Decision: The Committee agreed the draft response as attached at Appendix 1 of
the report and agreed for the response to be sent to Defra.


24.     London Councils’ Response to the Communities and Local Government
        (CLG) Consultation on the Future of Building Control

The Committee considered a report that set out the draft London Councils‟ response
to the Communities and Local Government consultation on the Future of Building
Control.



TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                           TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                   Agenda Item 4, Page 17
Councillor Hall informed members that Building Control in Sutton had turned to
officers for advice on the matter. He said that Building Control were in need of some
training regarding these issues. Councillor Moylan said that there appeared to be a
real weakness in this area among London boroughs. Councillor Hall said that LB
Merton and Sutton were working together to improve services in this area.

Decision: The Committee:

         Noted the draft London Councils‟ response to the CLG consultation on the
          Future of Building Control, and
         Agreed that the London Councils response should also endorse comments
          submitted on behalf of the boroughs by the London District Surveyors
          Association (Appendix 2).


25.       Items Considered under the TEC Urgency Procedure

The Committee considered and noted the following reports that were sent to TEC
Elected Officers under the TEC Urgency Procedure:

      (1) Transport Recruitment & Retention – BETTER Partnership (deadline was 31
          March 2008 in order for members to agree the BETTER Partnership before it
          was re-tendered)
      (2) BAA Consultation on Improving Public Transport Access to Heathrow Airport
          (deadline was 24 April 2008 to meet consultation deadline on 25 April)
      (3) Responses to „Improving Surface Water Drainage‟ and „Draft Statutory
          Guidance to Ofwat (deadline was 25 April 2008 to meet Defra deadline on 30
          April)


26.       Matters Arising from the Minutes

There were no matters arising from the minutes.


The meeting finished at 17.12pm




TEC Minutes of 11 June 2008                           TEC Executive Sub Committee – 17 July 2008

                                   Agenda Item 4, Page 18

								
To top