Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm attendance, the Chair will perform a roll call. Members will also have the opportunity to declare any interests.

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.

The Chair carried out a roll call to confirm attendance. There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED

That, the minutes of the meeting held on the 20^th July were approved.

This meeting is being held remotely via Microsoft Teams. If you would like to make a comment or ask a question about any of the items on the agenda, either via Teams or in writing, please contact: amrita.gill@lbhf.gov.uk

The Chair noted that the Committee had received a lot of questions and comments on the Hammersmith Bridge item. To address the main concerns in a manageable way, representative questions were chosen to cover the top issues and concerns. The questions and answers can be found under Item 5, Hammersmith Bridge.

This item will be a discussion between members and officers around the closure of Hammersmith Bridge.

Bram Kainth (Chief Officer - Public Realm), provided a presentation on Hammersmith Bridge and noted the following key updates:

-       The bridge was closed to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic on 13^th August 2020.

-       Sensors positioned throughout the bridge alerted engineers to a rapid increase in the size of dangerous micro-fractures in the cast iron pedestals.

-       There had been a significant financial impact of Transport for London’s (TfL’s) emergency budget and resulted in the £25m existing budget being reduced to £17m.

-       TfL were unable to commit to any further resources until the outcome of further negotiations with the government.

-       The Leader sent two letters to the Prime Minister, seeking the government’s engagement and financial support.

-       The secretary of state announced a taskforce to review the engineers plans on 9^th September 2020 and the first meeting was held on 16^th September 2020.

-       Design concept for full stabilisation and strengthening were being finalised and this would cost £46m.

-       The Council was also exploring detailed design options for a temporary bridge for pedestrians and cyclists and this could take up to 9 months, costing £27m.

-       Full restoration and strengthening, including stabilisation works would cost £141m and up to £163m for a quicker option.

-       The Council was exploring a number of proposals for a ferry service.

-       The Council had requested TfL to put on extra bus services on routes 533 and 378 to address school transport concerns.

-       TfL were also exploring a point to point coach services for school children.

-       Alternative walking and cycling routes had been identified by Council officers and measures on how to improve these routes were being explored.

-       A temporary road bridge proposal was assessed by TfL in November 2019; however, this was rejected due to key reasons highlighted in the presentation.

-       It was noted that immediate urgent stabilisation measures were being developed to reopen the bridge to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic.

Councillor Stephen Cowan (The Leader of the Council) addressed the committee and gave an update on the work of the taskforce. The first taskforce meeting was held on 16^th September 2020 to review the engineer’s reports. The taskforce was Chaired by Baroness Vere of Norbiton and included representatives from the Council, TfL, the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames, Network Rail and the Department for Transport  The Leader provided details of the discussions that were had at the taskforce meeting and noted that everyone involved in the taskforce was keen to open a safe fully functioning bridge to pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles as soon as possible. The Council would to go to tender with TfL when assurances on finances were provided by the government.

The Leader stressed the urgent need for short term mitigating actions and noted that he wrote to Baroness Vere  on the 15^th September 2020 setting out some of the main challenges faced by members of the public due to the closure of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

This report sets out the recommendations of the Policing & Crime Commission and the H&F officer responses.

Matt Hooper (Chief Officer - Safer Neighbourhood) provided a presentation on the Policing and Crime Commission’s (PCC’s) final recommendations. It was noted that the Commission was created in November 2018. Since then, members of the Commission had undertaken a huge amount of field work, interviews and research to inform their final report. The report set out 35 ‘ambitious recommendations, each one evidence-led and designed to make residents safer, less fearful and better informed’. The report served as a resource and benchmark and included 7 headline recommendations as follows:

1. Crime communication infrastructure

2. A new H&F crime helpline

3. Disbanding existing resident engagement structures

4. New recommended groups, committee and roles

5. Prioritise pupil safety

6. New H&F youth commission

7. Addressing drug and alcohol misuse

In total 33 actions were proposed for the Council, Metropolitan Police and other organisations. 18 of these were supported, 12 were partially supported and 3 were not supported. The 3 actions that were not supported for either legislative or financial reasons were; a new H&F crime helpline, disbanding existing resident engagement structures and addressing drug and alcohol misuse.

Superintendent Mark Lawrence, relating to recommendation 3, noted that Ward Panels were functioning across the borough, some more well attended and more productive than others, but these cannot be disbanded. These were driven by The Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) and the central Neighbourhood Unit. Again, representation could always be increased, and everyone was welcome to join. It was crucial to deliver a consistent engagement strategy across London and Ward Panels formed part of that. However, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) recognised the validity and importance of the Ward Action Groups recommended in this report and made a commitment to ensure Ward Panels and Ward Action Groups work together to achieve the best outcomes.

Councillor Sue Fennimore (Deputy Leader) praised the sheer amount of work that had gone into the PCC. She thanked everyone that was involved in the Commission to bring forward these recommendations for an important and invaluable piece of work.

The Chair also thanked the members of the Commission for taking their time to address the Committee.

Councillor Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler asked Councillor Sue Fennimore to clarify what her views were on the recommendations included in the report. In response Councillor Sue Fennimore noted that she was grateful for all the work carried out by the Commission to produce these recommendations. All recommendations would be presented at Cabinet for consideration in November 2020 at which point it would be collectively determined which ones would be taken forward. 

Councillor Victoria Brocklebank-Fowler asked for further clarification to be provided on whether Council officers were involved in responding to the recommendations. In response Matt Hooper noted that the Council worked in collaboration with the Police to jointly agree and respond to the recommendations proposed by the independent Commission.

Lorraine Ainscow-Searle (Police and Crime Commission) asked why the recommendation to consider working with the Police to adopt a diversion scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.