Agenda and minutes

(a)    To approve as an accurate record, and the Chairman to sign, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10^th September and attached at Appendix 1.

(b)    To monitor the acceptance and implementation of recommendations as set out at Appendix 2.

RESOLVED that –

a)      the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 September 2012 be confirmed and signed as a correct record; and

b)      progress with the acceptance and implementation of recommendations be noted.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ali de Lisle and for lateness from Councillor Jane Law.

If a Councillor has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a particular item, whether or not it is entered in the Authority’s register of interests, or any other significant interest which they consider should be declared in the public interest, they should declare the existence and, unless it is a sensitive interest as defined in the Member Code of Conduct, the 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 disclosable pecuniary interest or other significant 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.

Where Members of the public are not allowed to be in attendance and speak, then the Councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest should withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is under consideration. Councillors who have declared other significant interests should also withdraw from the meeting if they consider their continued participation in the matter would not be reasonable in the circumstances and may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest.

Councillors are not obliged to withdraw from the meeting where a dispensation to that effect has been obtained from the Audit, Pensions and Standards Committee. 

There were no declarations of interest.

Tim Hardy, Director of Airside and Cheryl Monk, Head of Community Engagement will attend the meeting on behalf of BAA to answer questions from Members of the Committee and the public in respect of Phase 2 of the Operational Freedoms Trial at Heathrow Airport.

Representatives of BAA attended the meeting to provide a presentation on the progress of Phase 2 of the Operational Freedoms Trial at Heathrow Airport and answer questions on the topic from Members of the Committee and the public.

Simon Baugh, BAA Director of Public Affairs, Tim Hardy, Director of Airside, and Cheryl Monk, Head of Community Engagement, set out the background to the trial, the changes in operating arrangements at the airport, the way in which Hammersmith & Fulham was affected and the public response to date.

Members noted that the trial, developed in consultation with the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), was designed to gather data to establish whether a series of new departures and arrivals procedures could be applied to help reduce delays and disruption to flights and to assess the impact of the changes on the airport, passengers, the environment and the local community. Phase 1 of the trial had taken place between 1^st November 2011 and 29 February 2012. Phase 2 had commenced at the beginning of July 2012 and would continue until 31 March 2013, at which point a final report would be submitted to the DfT and CAA. The CAA and DfT would assess the results and any permanent changes to operating procedures arising from the trial would be the subject of full consultation.

The Committee was informed that the trial broadened the circumstances in which Heathrow was able to operate with arrivals on both runways. A system of runway alternation had been in use since the 1970’s with the airport’s arrivals and departures runways being switched in the middle of each day. This ensured that people living under the respective flight paths for the two runways had predictable daily periods of respite from aircraft noise. The trial, however, permitted the use of both runways for arrivals if operational problems occurred such as aircraft being held in stacks for 10 minutes or more or schedules were running late due to bad weather. In the first three months of the trial an average of 38 flights per day landed on the designated departure runway out of the alternation arrangements, thereby intruding on the respite periods. This represented an increase of around 16 on the pre trial figures. Total arrivals at the airport were unchanged, numbering around 650 daily. BAA suggested that of the 16 additional out of alternation arrivals the numbers that affected Hammersmith & Fulham were in the low single figures. They concluded that the impact on the borough was marginal.

Despite this conclusion there had been a very significant increase in complaints received from members of the public, with around 1,800 recorded in August 2012 compared with 400 a year earlier.  One of the explanations for the surge in resident dissatisfaction was the coincidence of an increase in westerly operations with the start of the trial. Aircraft normally landed and took off into the wind for safety reasons and the prevailing winds in the South East meant that they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Get H&F moving is the Council’s multi-modal transport identity developed to engage with stakeholders across the board in order to improve transport quality and provision in the borough. This report summarises the high profile media campaign culminating in the Transport Summit a year ago, the driver’s charter and links to the boroughs current transport plan 2011 - 2031 and seeks views on how the campaign could be used over the next year and beyond.

The report  also forms part of the wider consultation on the borough’s 2013/14 (and 2014/15 to 2016/17) integrated transport investment plan and seeks recommendations from the Committee for transport investment projects and initiatives. 

The Committee received a detailed report which summarised the ‘Get H&F Moving’ campaign to improve local transportation run between February 2011 and March 2012 and the comments received in response to the initiative. Members also reviewed progress made with the Drivers Charter which was launched at the beginning of the campaign in order to deliver practical measures to improve the experience of driving in the borough and noted the links between the campaign and Borough’s adopted Transport Plan for 2011-2031. Details of the integrated transport projects which were due to be delivered in 2013/14 with Transport for London (TfL) funding were also noted.

In response to questions on the proposals to relieve congestion on Fulham Palace Road, the Committee was informed that firm data was not yet available on the success of the first phase slip road works but the initial anecdotal evidence was positive. An additional £2m of funds had been obtained to upgrade the whole length of the route over the next two years.

Members enquired about the position in respect of the lane rental proposals previously considered by a Scrutiny Task Group. It was noted that TfL was currently undertaking a trial scheme on the main routes but Hammersmith & Fulham, Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea were expected to become the first local authorities in the country to introduce borough-wide schemes as the second phase of the pilot.

The Committee requested that ward members be consulted at an early stage in the development of the proposed integrated transport projects. 

This report details sports participation in Hammersmith & Fulham parks, open spaces and leisure facilities.  It addresses the impact on uptake and participation in the light of recent pricing reviews and how the Council can build on the legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games.

The Committee received a report which set out details of sports participation in the borough’s parks, open spaces and leisure facilities in the light of recent pricing reviews.

Members noted details of sports booking policies and procedures, local sports facilities and current usage and pricing levels. The general trends pointed towards an increase in participation for most sports and at most venues. This was due to competitive and regularly benchmarked pricing, improvements in the grounds maintenance contract which improved playing surfaces and allowed more usage, enhanced floodlight provision and the impact of the Olympic Games.

There had also been a significant increase in the amount of school usage with many local schools dependant upon public parks and open spaces. Members observed that demand at Ravenscourt Park in particular was reaching challenging levels and enquired about measures to protect general public access. It was noted that all schools had been surveyed in connection with their sporting requirements in order to identity areas of conflict across each term. This had highlighted extremely high demand for all weather pitches in the afternoons and few gaps for other users. Two new netball courts had been marked out on the existing Ravenscourt Park tennis courts to relieve demand, with potential to provide additional facilities at Wormholt Park and Hammersmith Park.

Efforts were also being made to relocate school activities to currently underused locations such as Lillie Road Recreation Ground, although it was recognised that the cost and time of transportation would be obstacles. It was noted that the Linford Christie Outdoor Sports Centre also had capacity to accommodate higher levels of usage although some schools were put off by the conditions of the facility and travel costs. In response to questions from Members it was reported that differential pricing in the form of peak and off peak charges were already used to manage demand but there was scope to see if more could be done to encourage use during quiet periods. Attempts had been made to encourage schools with playing fields to share their facilities with some limited success.

The Committee expressed some concern at the possibility of incremental development on parks and open spaces in response to school demands for changing rooms and other associated facilities. Councillor Greg Smith, Cabinet Member for Residents Services, emphasised that there was no intention to lose utilised open space for these purposes. It was expected that existing structures or dead space would be used.

Officers reported that a greater emphasis was now being placed on addressing schools which currently refused to book and pay for their usage of the parks and open spaces. Sports Officers and the Parks Constabulary were now recording and reporting unbooked usage.

The Committee requested that a more detailed report be brought forward on the schools use of parks, containing data on the position at each individual park and the charges applied.

Members noted the barriers to sports participation which included work commitments, financial constraints, the lack of family based activities and limited  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

This report reviews and evaluates the success of the revised concessionary leisure card arrangements. 

The Committee reviewed the revised concessionary leisure card arrangements for borough residents in receipt of a range of benefits and full time students.

The Council’s former Lifestyle Plus Scheme had been withdrawn early in 2012 and replaced with concessionary offers from the Council’s private sector leisure providers, Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL) and Virgin Active. Members noted details of the transitional arrangements, charging structure and early scheme usage. It was reported that there appeared to have been minimal impact on participation rates with usage of the various leisure facilities continuing to grow, although the annual increase had slowed slightly, from 14.1% in 2011/12 to 12.4% in 2012/13. Further analysis would be undertaken when data covering a complete 12 month period was available. It was noted that conversations were ongoing with GLL regarding open book accounting arrangements and income splits.

This report sets out the Executive response by the Cabinet to the report and recommendations of the Flooding Scrutiny Task Group.

Members welcomed the  Executive response by the Cabinet to the report and recommendations of the Flooding Scrutiny Task Group. It was noted that all of the Group’s 19 recommendations had been either approved or approved in principle.  The response of the other key stakeholder, Thames Water, was currently being sought.

The Committee is asked to review its work programme for the current Municipal Year. Details of forthcoming Key Decisions which are due to be taken by the Cabinet are provided in order to enable the Committee to identify those items where it may wish to request reports.

The Committee gave consideration to its work programme for the remainder of the 2012/13 Municipal Year. It was noted that as a consequence of changes in the contractual arrangements for the provision of the Community Payback scheme the offender management item would now be received at the April meeting rather than January as originally scheduled. Members agreed that a brief report on the impact of the Westfield Shopping Centre on the community in Shepherds Bush should be submitted to the February meeting with a view to more in depth examination of specific issues at  a later date if it was considered necessary. It was also agreed that the same meeting should receive reports on fly tipping and schools usage of parks and the issue of the preservation of local public houses should be added to the longer term work programme.

Members also noted details of forthcoming relevant key decisions which were to be taken by the Cabinet and would be open to scrutiny by the Committee.

The Committee is asked to note the date of its next meeting, which is scheduled to be held on 15 January 2013.

The Committee noted that its next meeting was scheduled to be held  on 15^th January 2013