Agenda and minutes

Community Safety and Environment Policy and Accountability Committee
Wednesday, 1st March, 2017 7.00 pm

Venue: Small Hall - Hammersmith Town Hall. View directions

Contact: Ainsley Gilbert  020 8753 2088

Items
No. Item

31.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 248 KB

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2017.

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

32.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Sharon Holder.

33.

Declarations of interest

If a Committee member has any prejudicial or personal interest in a particular item they should declare the existence and nature of the interest at the commencement of the consideration of that item or as soon as it becomes apparent.

 

At meetings where members of the public are allowed to be in attendance and speak, any Councillor with a prejudicial interest may also make representations, give evidence or answer questions about the matter. The Councillor must then withdraw immediately from the meeting before the matter is discussed and any vote taken unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Standards Committee.

 

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance, then the Councillor with a prejudicial interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration unless the disability has been removed by the Standards Committee.

 

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

34.

Spacehive - Civic Crowdfunding Platform pdf icon PDF 158 KB

Minutes:

Niraj Dattani, Spacehive, explained that Spacehive was a crowdfunding platform specifically for projects which would benefit the local community. The funding of community projects and assets by large numbers of citizens was an old idea, with the plinth for the statue of liberty in New York having been funded through a newspaper led campaign. Spacehive aimed to make access to crowdfunding easier for anyone who had a good community project. Spacehive also allowed projects to access money from organisations and philanthropists; typically the enthusiasm created through small donations from lots of people would encourage those with significant amounts of money to donate it to a project. Using crowdfunding also created social capital for projects as funders would feel ownership of the scheme; there were many examples of funders offering projects far more than just financial support. Spacehive had had 266 successful projects, with 53% of projects getting the funding they needed; this compared well to the international average of 23% of crowdfunded projects being successful.

 

Mr Dattani explained that Hammersmith and Fulham Council had partnered with Spacehive and would be making £100,000 available to help fund proposals.

 

A resident asked what the Council had done to publicise the opportunity. Mr Dattani explained that the opportunities available to residents had only recently been agreed and so there had been little publicity to date. There would however be significant publicity over the Spring and early Summer.

 

A resident noted that crowdfunding through Spacehive included a verification stage. Mr Dattani explained that this was done by Locality, a national network of community organisations; the only things which were checked was would the project benefit the community and was it viable, although advice might well be offered. Project creators would then have to convince potential funders that their idea was a good one.

 

A resident noted that Spacehive charged a fee for hosting the project on its website. Niraj Dattani explained that the fee was 5% on top of the project cost and would only be charged if the project was successful. The fee paid for Spacehive’s website, staff etc. and no project had not received funding because it hadn’t managed to get the additional money to pay for the fee.

35.

Cycling in the Borough - 2017 Update pdf icon PDF 120 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Richard Duffill, Cycling Officer, explained that the Council had in October 2015 adopted a cycling strategy. The report updated members on progress made in each area of the strategy. Key developments were:

-       The introduction of further 20mph zones which made cycling much safer and more comfortable.

-       Significant progress made towards build an upgraded cycle path along the A315, which would be designated as Cycle Superhighway 9.

-       An increased number of cycle training opportunities.

-       A programme to install hundreds of new cycle parking spaces across the borough, based on resident suggestions.

-       Significant progress on the East Acton to Kensington Quietway, construction of which was expected to start in the near future.

-       Plans to develop new Quietways from Putney Bridge to Hammersmith Bridge and from Shepherds Bush Green to Hammersmith Broadway. There would also be a new Quietway from Twickenham to Hammersmith which, whilst mostly in other boroughs, would be of significant benefit to residents.

 

A resident asked whether the new cycle path on the A315 would be bi-directional as King Street was one way from the Gyratory to Bridge Avenue. Richard Duffill said that it would be bi-directional and would not use Beadon or Glenthorne Roads. It was intended that the existing road layout on King Street would not be changed too much with wasted space being used to make room for the cycle path. Designs were still to be drawn up and there would be a full consultation on the proposals, probably starting in the Summer. A resident asked what the likely capacity and usage rate of Cycle Superhighway 9 would be. Richard Duffill said that because of poor connections and facilities the route was currently very lightly used. The new path would be between 3-4 metres wide and that would attract many more cyclists, although it was hard to put a figure to what the usage would be. The theoretical capacity of the route would be around 1,000 bicycles per hour in each direction.

 

A resident felt that it would be unsafe to have a bi-directional cycle path on the A315 as there were lots of side roads from which vehicles would have to emerge, crossing the cycle path and not necessarily looking both ways. Richard Duffill explained that the route had been designed to cross as few side roads as possible; Transport for London’s design team would be reviewing the plans and checking that they were safe.

 

A resident noted that the route along the A315 was initially designated as a Quietway and asked why it was now a Cycle Superhighway; she was concerned that a Cycle Superhighway would be less accessible to those who were less confident on their bicycles. Richard Duffill explained that the initially planned route along the A315 had been reviewed by TfL and they had decided that it met Cycle Superhighway design standards. By designating the route as a Cycle Superhighway, more funding would be available to make the route even safer. Mr Duffill explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

36.

Better Junctions - Final Consultation Report from Transport for London pdf icon PDF 90 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Ed Boatman, Transport for London, explained that 780 responses had been received to the recent consultations on the Better Junctions scheme at Hammersmith Gyratory. 73 percent of respondents either supported or partially supported the proposals. Transport for London therefore proposed to proceed with the scheme which had been consulted on with some amendments in response to the views of residents. The pedestrian crossing from Shepherds Bush Road to the Broadway Centre would now be retained.

 

A resident noted that there was a difference between the proportion of people who TfL had claimed supported the scheme and the proportion who had made positive comments. Mahmood Siddiqi explained that the 73% figure was based on respondents ticking a box to indicate their support, whereas the figures the resident was referring to had only considered the comments which had been made. Many of those who had left negative comments might well have criticised a particular aspect of the scheme, but still selected the Support or Partially Support tick box. A resident explained that they had indeed been very critical of the removal of the crossing from Shepherds Bush Road to the Broadway Centre, but had selected the Partially Support tick box as they were otherwise in favour of the scheme.

 

A resident said that the phasing of traffic lights needed to be planned carefully to ensure that cyclists were not delayed excessively. Ed Boatman said that it was intended that progression around the gyratory would be good. A resident was concerned that pedestrians might walk into cycle lanes. Ed Boatman explained that marshals would be employed when the new layout was introduced; this would encourage all users to be responsible.

 

A resident felt too few people had responded to the consultation for it to be useful. Ed Boatman explained that the consultation had been heavily publicised, including a second consultation phase when errors in the first consultation were pointed out to Transport for London by Hammersmith and Fulham Council. He believed that everybody who might have wanted to respond had been given the opportunity to do so; the results were therefore an accurate portrayal of those who felt strongly enough to answer the consultation. If residents had concerns about the consultation process which they had not already raised they could contact transport for London via their website www.tfl.gov.uk/help-and-contact or on 0343 222 1234.

 

A resident was concerned that there would be a significant traffic impact on smaller roads around the gyratory. Councillor Dewhirst shared these concerns noting that in their previous report there had been suggestion of delays to the south of the gyratory. Ed Boatman explained that modelling had been done which suggested that there would be some minor delay, but that there were not expected to be delays which would have a significant impact on the local road network. Unfortunately Mr Boatman did not have the figures with him to illustrate this although he explained that had there been unacceptable increases in journey times the scheme would not have been progressed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

37.

Update on Cemeteries pdf icon PDF 305 KB

Minutes:

Ullash Karia explained that the cemeteries service was successful, thanks largely to the hard work of officers and staff. New Cemetery Regulations had been drafted to replace the old ones which were quite outdated. Ian Ross said that the Council owned 4 cemeteries, two within the borough and two outside the borough. These contained enough space for around 10 years of burials. Councillors would need to consider options for additional space and changes to management of graves in the next few years. The service was delivered by Quadron idverde whilst expenditure and income were fairly even.

 

Councillor Dewhirst asked whether headstones were still layed flat if they were considered to be unsafe. Ian Ross explained that if a headstone was found to be unsafe it would either be layed flat or supported with a stake and a band.

 

Councillor Cassidy asked what the difference between a Standard and a Premium grave was. Ian Ross explained that standard graves were those in Mortlake and North Sheen Cemeteries whilst premium graves were those in Margravine and Fulham Cemeteries.

 

Councillor Cassidy asked whether there was a friends group for Fulham cemetery. Ian Ross said that there was not, although officers would support one if there was sufficient interest.

 

The chair asked whether there were any trends in income. Ian Ross explained that it had been expected that the number of cremation plots sold would rise but in fact they had remained relatively static.

 

It was clarified that the costs of a pauper’s grave were borne by Adult Social Care.

 

Comments on the draft cemeteries regulations were invited by email after the meeting.

38.

Update on Registration Services pdf icon PDF 94 KB

Minutes:

Dave Page explained that a new Superintendent Registrar had been appointed around 18 months ago. The service had been restructured to make it more efficient and resident focussed. A new charging structure had also been introduced. Weddings were now offered in the Marble Gallery, whilst Birth Registration was offered at the Masbro Children’s Centre. Options to offer a complete wedding package were being explored. Dave Page explained that income for the service had increased significantly in most areas, but the Nationality Checking Service, which had been very successful until a few years ago, had been affected by changes at the Home Office. Income would be affected when the Town Hall was being refurbished and so officers were looking to licence other venues.

 

The Chair asked whether the service sought feedback from residents. Dave Page said that it did and agreed to provide more information on this outside of the meeting.

 

Councillor Cassidy asked what links the service had with the Senior Coroner for West London. Dave Page explained that a properly functioning Coroners Court was important to the Registration Service. All Registration Services across West London had been experiencing difficulties with the Coroner’s Court, and lots of work had been done to improve its service. The Police and JCIO continued to investigate the Senior Coroner.

39.

Work Programme and Dates of Future Meetings pdf icon PDF 167 KB

Minutes:

The committee’s work programme was noted.