Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 2^nd September 2014

RESOLVED –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 2^nd September 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

There were no apologies for absence.

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 Audit, Pensions & 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 Audit, Pensions & Standards Committee.

Cllr Hamilton declared a personal interest in relation to item 5 as he was employed by Fujitsu, which was working with HS2.

To invite questions from members of the public present. Questions relating to items later in the agenda will be taken as part of that item.

Members of the public with more complex issues are invited to submit their questions in advance in order to allow a more substantive answer to be given. Questions can be sent to the contact officer shown on the front page of the agenda.

The Chair invited members of the public to make any comments in relation to issues on the agenda as part of that item.

In light of the large number of residents in attendance for item 8, it was agreed that the ‘Establishment of a working group to assess Heathrow Airport expansion’ would be taken as the first substantive item.

To receive a presentation from Transport for London on the proposals and options for a new overground station at Old Oak Common. TfL’s consultation leaflet is attached.

The Committee received a presentation from Peter Moth from Transport for London (TfL) on the proposals for a new overground railway station at Old Oak Common. Mr Moth explained that there were three options being consulted upon by TfL, and urged members of the public and community organisations to respond with their views on the plans.

It was asked whether TfL had consulted the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs on the proposals and Mr Moth explained that there had been constructive engagement for around a year now with at least quarterly meetings. The Friends were opposed to option A as this involved building new rail infrastructure over some of the Scrubs land. Chris Bainbridge, the Council’s Head of Transport Policy & Network Management, reported that the Council supports the building of the station as it would be necessary to make the most of HS2. However like the Friends, the Council was opposed to option A due to the detrimental effect on the Scrubs. It was also acknowledged that the issues caused by option B that would require trains to reverse were not ideal. The Council was therefore likely to support option C, although even this option was not ideal as it would require a double station with the HS2 interchange being 650m away. However option C did appear to represent the best value for money. Members of the opposition on the Committee explained that they would also support option C, and suggested that the Committee should formally recommend that the Council support option C.

Andy Slaughter MP argued that there was a healthy consensus locally opposed to option B and supporting option C, and that option A should not be entertained due to its environmental impact. He asked whether the views of the West London Rail User Group had been considered, as their preference was to have a stacked station with interchanges for HS2, Crossrail and the overground on top of each other on the same site. Mr Moth reported that the West London User Group was involved in the early stages of planning. However the stacked station was not developed further as it would significantly increase the risk of HS2 not being delivered on time and in budget. It was also representative of the TfL, the Department for Transport (DfT) and HS2 all working separately, with DfT only willing to work on one major project at a time.

Members asked if early consultation responses had indicated a preference from any of the options. Mr Moth explained that there was not a clear consensus yet, although option B was generally regarded as being the least preferred. He described that statutory bodies, including the Council, usually only responded at the very end of consultations.

RESOLVED –

That the Committee recommends that the Council’s response to the consultation supports option C.

To receive a report from the Bi-borough Head of Waste and Street Enforcement discussing current arrangements for recycling in the borough and how recycling could be made easier for residents

The Committee received a report and brief presentation from Kathy May, Bi-Borough Head of Waste and Street Enforcement and Sue Harris Director for Cleaner, Greener & Cultural Services, outlining current recycling arrangements and options for the future.

The Committee noted that recycling rates were a concern and that targets were not being met. It was suggested that the Council could explore implementing an incentive scheme similar to that used in Windsor & Maidenhead to encourage people to recycle more of their waste, although it was accepted that such an approach was easier with boroughs where wheeled bins were part of the collection regime. It was also argued that the Council’s communications needed to include information on the financial cost of not recycling, alongside the environmental reasons. If people knew their actions had a direct impact on Council Tax levels, it was suggested that they would be more responsible with their waste.

It was asked whether there were any trends regarding which sort of households were better or worse at recycling. Officers explained that they had mapped this sort of information, and it was the estates and areas with a high level of transient population which tended to have lower recycling rates and higher levels of contaminated waste. As such the Council would be focussing resources to investigate and address the issues and complications involved in recycling on the estates. Members asked whether contaminated waste sacks were the result of user-error or laziness and officers explained that it varied. When waste was analysed at the MRF (Material Recycling Facility), it was sometimes apparent that people had tried to separate out recyclable waste and made mistakes, while others just used the free recycling sacks for all general waste.

It was highlighted that the Council used to fund initiatives such as garden composting and free  re-usable nappies but had stopped. Officers explained that such schemes were funded by central Government and that when the funding had ceased the Council could not afford to meet all of the costs.

The Committee discussed the implications of the borough having a large transient population with 40% of homes privately rented. As tenants appeared to not be aware of requirements for recycling, it was asked whether the Council should focus on engaging with landlords and making it their responsibility to communicate with their tenants. Officers agreed that this approach would help, but explained that it was very labour intensive as it would require constant reinforcement. The Committee asked for officers to provide further details on what information was currently going to landlords.

Action: Kathy May / Sue Harris

Members also noted that the report described that volunteers were going door-to-door to residents in underperforming areas to remind residents of their recycling responsibilities, but that this did not include flats or estate properties. It was asked why properties identified as being significant problem areas were being avoided. Officers explained that the Western Riverside Waste Authority (WRWA) wanted the volunteers to focus on curb-side collection, but the Council wanted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

To receive a report from the Bi-Borough Director of Cleaner, Greener & Cultural Services on the impact of the TEEP Regulations

The Committee received a report from the Bi-Borough Waste Action Development Manager outlining the implications of the Waste (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012. Officers apologised for the overly technical nature of the report and explained that the Committee was required only to note the report.

RESOLVED –

That the report be noted.

To establish a resident-led working group to consider the proposals for the expansion of Heathrow airport and to help form the Council’s response to the Airport Commission

The Committee received a report from the Head of Policy & Strategy proposing the establishment of a resident-led working group to gather evidence regarding the impacts of the proposed Heathrow Airport expansion.

Officers reported that the Airports Commission was established by Government in 2012 to consider how additional aviation capacity could be delivered for the UK. In December 2013 there were three options for expansion published – two at Heathrow and one at Gatwick. The Commission undertook to consult on the three options in the autumn of 2014, but this had not yet commenced. In order to inform the Council’s response to the Commission it was proposed that a resident-led working group, chaired by Christina Smyth, would look at the evidence and report its findings to the PAC at its January 2015 meeting.

The Chair invited comments on the proposed terms of reference of the working group. A member of the public asked whether they could include reviewing the capacity of Stansted Airport. It was argued that if Crossrail was extended to Stansted and more flights were directed there, then Heathrow could be developed as a business hub without increasing the number of flights crossing the borough. Ms Smyth explained that whilst suggestions such as this would be collected and reported, the working group would need to focus on the shortlist prepared by the Airports Commission, and what the impact on Hammersmith & Fulham residents would be. In order for the working group’s conclusions to have some weight, they would need to address issues such as health, noise, the economy, people and communities. Concerns regarding the capacity of local roads was also raised by members of the public and Ms Smyth confirmed that traffic increases during and post construction would be part of the investigations.

A member of the public expressed concern that increased flights over the borough would pose significant risks of an air disaster, especially as there were recent examples of near-misses. He cited incidents in June 2013 when flight BA A319 flew over the borough whilst on fire and in January 2008 when a large BA 777 flight crash-landed at Heathrow, as well as the fatal helicopter crash in Vauxhall. It was suggested that the working group might like to submit a Freedom of Information request for details of all near-misses in the area so that it could fully understand the risks. Members of the public expressed the view that a one in 100 year risk of a serious incident was too high for a heavily populated area.

Ms Smyth was asked whether the working group would include any environmental experts to fully analyse the evidence. She explained that the working group would not co-opt experts, but would be interviewing a number of them and weighing-up the evidence available. In particular, the working group would be seeking to interrogate the assertions made by the Airports Commission regarding noise levels, and comparing them against the guidelines published by Defra and the World Health Organisation. Cllr Holder informed Ms Smyth that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

The Committee is asked to consider the Work Programme of future items and suggest any additional topics or relevant resident groups who should be involved

RESOLVED –

That the work programme be noted and agreed.

The following dates are proposed:

·         Tuesday 13^th January 2015

·         Tuesday 3^rd February 2015

·         Tuesday 21^st April 2015

The future meetings were agreed as follows:

·         Tuesday 13^th January 2015

·         Tuesday 3^rd February 2015

·         Tuesday 21^st April 2015