Minutes for Council meeting, Dec 2 2008, 7.00PM official page

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Council held on 7 October 2008 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2008 were taken as read and were approved as a correct record.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive Petitions in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 2.1 (iv).

The following petition was presented and, in accordance with the constitution, referred to the relevant Cabinet Member/Committee Chair for a response:

Councillor Stanier - Request for extension of CPZ in and around White Hart Lane from residents of White Hart Lane and roads in vicinity, SW13/14. (Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking).

(a) Ms Julie Hill has given notice to ask the Chair of Planning Committee:

"Members of the majority party have stated that the "linked sites strategy" will provide more affordable housing. As this "strategy" still has to undergo Examination in Public, sites already identified have yet to go to planning and further sites have still to be identified, can you explain exactly how more houses will be built as a result of this "strategy", or are Councillors attempting to impose a Whip on Liberal Democrat members of the Planning Committee?"

Any further questions received of which due notice has been given To follow

(a) In accordance with notice given, Ms Julie Hill asked the Chair of Planning Committee:

"Members of the majority party have stated that the "linked sites strategy" will provide more affordable housing. As this "strategy" still has to undergo Examination in Public, sites already identified have yet to go to planning and further sites have still to be identified, can you explain exactly how more houses will be built as a result of this "strategy", or are Councillors attempting to impose a Whip on Liberal Democrat members of the Planning Committee?"

Councillor Miller replied in the following terms;

" The Linked Sites Strategy is a policy of the Council to be implemented as landowner. Its basis is that the Council as a landowner will, either directly or through agreements with registered social landlords, seek planning permission for 100% affordable housing at a range of sites that it owns, in effect in exchange for two other larger sites having 0% affordable housing.

The Council as landowner is arguing that most of the sites at which it proposes 100% affordable housing are too small for the Council as planning authority to demand the provision of affordable units. The Council as landowner is therefore presenting the case to the planning authority that the strategy represents a net increase in the provision of affordable units over and above what would be required in planning policy terms.

The Council as planning authority will of course consider all applications that come forward against the strategy in a reasonable manner, and in a way that reflects the general policies around this kind of linkage contained within the Unitary Development Plan, as well as site by site specific issues.

The other point of the question was something on which I have had conversations in the past with Mrs Hill. The Liberal Democrat Group does not operate a whipping system. In any event whipping in planning committee would be entirely illegal. Party allegiance is not relevant in making planning decisions"

In a supplementary question, Ms Hill asked whether the outcome of the Linked Site Strategy's "Examination in Public" would be taken into account. Councillor Miller stated that the Linked Site Strategy was included in the extant Unitary Development Plan 2005. Any application would be weighed against existing policies. Emerging plans would become material considerations and be given more weight as they came closer to adoption.

To receive questions from Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.2, of which due notice has been given.

Attached.

(a) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Jones asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

"How are the activities of the Local Strategic Partnership being communicated to Council members and officers?"

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

" All papers from meetings are on the Council's website, including agendas and minutes of previous meetings.

The work of the LSP is communicated through Arcadia. There have been articles from the Council's partners and the latest edition has an article on the LSP itself. We will build on this, highlighting how partnership has led to key achievements.

We are also organising a briefing on the LSP for councillors on 12 January.

In June this year, the LSP held an annual conference where officers, councillors and representatives from a range of organisations discussed how to make it more effective. This will be repeated in 2009 as a larger event open to a wider group."

Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question as to whether the Leader was satisfied with the Opposition's commitment to the LSP. Councillor Lourie replied that he was, as although it appeared to him that the previous Administration had taken no interest in the LSP, he was very pleased that Councillor True had agreed to become a member of the LSP and was delighted that Councillor Fleming made a valuable contribution to a recent meeting. The three Ward Councillors for Hampton North also came to the LSP and gave the benefit of their knowledge of the ward, one of the areas of relative deprivation in the borough. Councillor Lourie stated that he considered the LSP to be one of the most important drivers to change in the borough as it brought together many statutory and other organisations.

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question concerning the main achievements of the LSP. Councillor Lourie replied that recognition of the five areas of relative deprivation had been driven through the LSP, allowing the concentration of resources on these areas. The LSP had been responsible for changing the way a number of organisations operated in the borough.

(b) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Stanier asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

"What steps are being taken to monitor the success of Arcadia magazine in communicating the council's messages to local residents?"

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

"The Council's Corporate Communications Team carries out regular research among the local population.  A survey was run in December 2007 using the citizen's panel, which is a representative sample of approximately 1,000 borough residents, and through the magazine itself. Results showed that 72% of participants thought that Arcadia helped them understand more about Council services. 70% said it helped them understand more about how Council Tax is spent.

In September 2007 there was also a cross-party Member review of the publication. A number of recommendations were agreed and subsequently implemented within the publication.

Further evaluation is planned in early 2009 and, as the Cabinet Member responsible for communications I am always interested in hearing views from members."

Councillor Stanier asked a supplementary question regarding more frequent publication paid for by advertising and publication in different formats with different font sizes. Councillor Lourie replied that more frequent publication needed to be considered in the light of budgetary constraints. Advertising could be a consideration but there was a danger that its use might detract from the message the publication sought to promote.

Councillor True asked a supplementary question as to whether publication of a glossy magazine needed to continue in the light of the evolution of communication methods. Councillor Lourie replied that he was advised by Westminister Communications Department, following the contract negotiated by the previous Administration. Within the Council communications had improved dramatically and it was very important to keep people informed. He stated that it was impressive that people felt they knew what was going on in the borough and satisfaction ratings were high.

(c) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Percival asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

"Could the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing reassure me that the drive to bring People with Learning Disabilities back to the Borough and to reduce out of borough placements will not be done without due cognisance being given to a) their wishes and b) their overall well-being?"

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

"All new placements and out of borough placement reviews involve full consideration of the needs of the individual as stated in their support plan. There are some people who need particularly specialized services which typically require complex and expensive packages which should involve additional financial support from the NHS. Whilst we explore local options in the first instance, we need to demonstrate that we can provide a sufficiently comprehensive and robust service to support the individual. For some people an out of borough placement may remain the best option to meet their identified needs."

Councillor Percival asked a supplementary question requesting assurance that the wishes of people were taken into account and there would be a real balance made between living in a supported community environment and living on their own. Councillor Carr replied that the public purse placed a constraint on the granting of all wishes. However it was important that needs, wishes and abilities were included in the assessment of a personalised service.

Councillor Head asked a supplementary question concerning the number of people who would return to the borough and where they would live. Councillor Carr replied that the borough supported 230 people in residential care with 80 out of borough. Fifteen had been brought back into the borough with some in residential care and others in supported placements. Costs varied from £40,000 to £100,000 The issues of personalisation and the appropriateness of services were uppermost in making the provision.

Councillor Davies asked a supplementary question as to the benefits to users and families for those brought back into the borough. Councillor Carr replied that residential placements at some distance made it difficult for regular contact to be maintained. This was not a positive effect on their life experience and made it difficult for the Council to monitor the quality of care. Residents living away could not enjoy the benefits of life in the borough.

(d) In accordance with notice given, Councillor True asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources:

"To ask the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources, in view of his agreement to the escalation of the cost of the contract for the construction of Teddington School to £37 million, as against the £30 million stated in his Press Release of 17th October 2007, and £32 million in his Press Release of 21st January 2008, what terms he has placed in the contract such that additional profits accruing to the developers from falls in fuel prices or construction costs will be shared with council taxpayers?"

Councillor Knight replied in the following terms:

"The Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the wide range of issues that led to the escalation of the contract price for Teddington School. I would refer him to the Cabinet report in September 2008 which dealt with these matters."

Councillor True asked a supplementary question as to whether work was being undertaken to mitigate the effect of the price rise and re-negotiate the contract. Councillor Knight stated that the Administration's experience compared well with conservative-run councils and gave the example of Wimborne where construction costs had risen from £32 million to £50 million.

Councillor Porter asked a supplementary question as to what constructive suggestions had been made with the contractor to cap costs. Councillor Knight replied that many steps had been taken to limit the future risk of cost escalation and that risk around groundworks had been transferred to the contractor, which was unusual.

(e) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Samuel asked the Cabinet Member for Communities:

"May I thank Councillor Williams for his unequivocal offer on behalf of the Council on 14 October to consider alternatives to the Council scheme for Twickenham Riverside and invite him to set a date when he will meet (a) local residents (b) the opposition to discuss their proposals?"

Councillor Williams replied in the following terms:

"I did not do as he alleges in his question".

Councillor Samuel asked a supplementary question requesting assurance that the Cabinet Member would use his best endeavours given that consultation was genuine and not restricted to the three identical developerments but to any development for which planning consent was applied to which Councillor Williams replied "Yes and no".

Councillor Seymour asked a supplementary question as to whether it was believed that the Leader's mind could be changed on this issue. Councillor Williams replied that he had stated that, in view of the representations at the meeting, he would raise the matter with the Leader with an open mind.

Councillor Nicholson asked a supplementary question regarding whether it was appropriate for Councillor Samuel to ask Councillor Williams to meet residents and the Opposition. Councillor Williams replied that it was clearly not appropriate in view of Councillor Samuel's failure to consult with the public on the change from sixth form colleges to secondary schools and with ward councillors on the Buckingham Field fence.

(f) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Bennett asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

" Will the Leader endeavour to follow the example of Harrow and other London councils who are waging war on incomprehensible jargon in council documents and endeavour to see that all such documents in this borough, in particular those for the ordinary man, woman, and even child on the Richmond omnibus, are couched in simple, clear and easy to understand English? Will he also endeavour to see that care is always taken to explain unfamiliar acronyms?"

Councillor Lourie replied in the following terms:

"The Council's Corporate ID guidelines, which are available on the Council's intranet, state that all Council documents should be written using Plain English.

The Human Resources Section provides annual Plain English training for staff and there are a number of courses offering advice on report and letter writing.

The Council is also a member of the Plain English Society. This includes a discounted rate for their experts to review specific documents. Following this consultation, approved documents are awarded a Crystal Mark."

Councillor Head asked a supplementary question as to whether a clearly written executive summary on council documents would help to which Councillor Lourie replied that all reports had summaries and suggested that any ideas for improvement be passed to Democratic Services.

(g) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Sheehan asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

"Would the Cabinet Member for Environment comment on the Mayor of London's recent advice to our local London Assembly Member that in considering Richmond's LDF Core Strategy "very little weight can be attached to emerging policy proposals" such as the Mayor's July 2008 document Panning for a Better London "as they are still under informal consultation and have not been tested by public examination"?"

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

"The Mayor has confirmed my view that very little weight can be attached to emerging policies such as those envisaged within 'Planning for a Better London', which is described as a direction of travel document.

He also stated in relation to the Council's LDF that:

"Richmond Council has to proceed on the basis that their Core Strategy is required to be in conformity with the existing London Plan, which has been subject to formal consultation and has been tested by public examination."

This confirms that the Council has taken the correct course in submitting a Core Strategy in conformity with the policies of the February 2008 London Plan."

Councillor Sheehan asked a supplementary question concerning the Cabinet Member's satisfaction with the progress of the Examination in Public of the LDF's core strategies. Councillor Elengorn replied that the Examination in Public was near completion having started in the previous week and seemed to be going satisfactorily. The task for the Inspector was to decide whether the Council's core strategy was sound and she had emphasised this in response to people making representations to her.

Councillor Arbour asked a supplementary question as to whether the Cabinet Member would join with the Mayor of London's proposal to withdraw the requirement that all development should include 50% affordable housing as the 50% requirement was an unnecessary burden on the development of housing in the borough. Councillor Elengorn replied that he would not as he understood the Mayor's approach to allow a degree of local autonomy to the boroughs in their development frameworks.

(h) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Miller asked the Cabinet Member for Environment:

"What in his view are the prospects of any significant alterations to the London Plan before 2012?"

Councillor Elengorn replied in the following terms:

" The Mayor himself recognises in 'Planning for a Better London' that the process for changing the London Plan set out in legislation can be quite lengthy.

Although he has suggested that some changes will be brought forward towards the end of 2010, significant alterations will require a complete review, which he suggests may not be completed until 2012. Even this timescale could be delayed, particularly if there are conflicts with National Planning Guidance."

Councillor Miller asked a supplementary question as to whether the Opposition's plea for delay to await the changes was disingenuous and Councillor Elengorn indicated his agreement.

Councilor Head asked a supplementary question as to why the three key issues in Boris Johnson's manifesto "Planning for a Better London" of housing targets, garden grabbing and more power to local councils including banning high rise and high density buildings were not included in the latest draft. Councillor Elengorn replied that the policy being adopted by this Council regarding tall buildings and building on garden land was likely to be as strict if not stricter than anything emerging from the Mayors of London's work on this topic.

( i) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Davies asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

"Could the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing please update Council on the new community meals contracts?"

Councillor Carr replied in the following terms:

"The process for evaluating the tenders to supply the three Intensive Day Care Centres and the frozen meals at home service is on target for completion. I am anticipating considering the recommendation to award the tenders with the Interim Director in early December, and would anticipate a smooth transfer to the successful contractor as planned by the beginning of May 2009. The Health, Housing & Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered a full report on this subject on the 24 November 2008."

Councillor Davies asked a supplementary question concerning the task group's major objective to improve the quality of meals. Councillor Carr replied that a key concern was the need to improve the quality of the current meals' service and to improve the nutritional value and choice of the meals on offer. The task group also recommended that fresh vegetables should be included in the intensive day care centre and the nutritional value of the frozen meal at home option should be improved. Both of those had been included in the specification that went out to tender and were expected to be reflected in the eventual contract.

Councillor Stratton asked a supplementary question concerning the number of user reviews and their outcome. Councillor Carr replied that letters were sent out in October to all those receiving the hot meals at home service and since then 61 individual service reviews had been carried out. 24 people decided to take the frozen meal option and, of that 24, ten would be doing so with additional support. 25 people had decided they actually no longer need the service and seven people would continue with the service for a few months but intended to stop it in May and five people would require further assessment to meet their individual needs.

(j) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Khosa asked the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategy and Partnerships:

"What impact do you think the views of Ian Taylor MP and John Redwood MP supporting a third runway will have on the opposition to the expansion of Heathrow expressed through the all party 2M group?"

The time allowed for Members' questions having elapsed, a written reply would be given for this and all remaining notified questions.

[" On Channel 4 News on 16 October, Conservative MPs, Ian Taylor and John Redwood questioned Conservative opposition to a third runway for Heathrow.

Ian Taylor stated that a third runway is necessary on the grounds that 'we need Heathrow to keep the south east economy vibrant'.

John Redwood stated that because of recession, the prospects of raising the money needed for the rail project 'are low'.

I think that their comments are extremely unhelpful but am delighted that the Conservative members of 2M have engineered a change in Tory policy. I hope the 60 or so Labour MPs who signed the early day motion on 27 October will persuade the Government to change its position."]

(k) In accordance with notice given, Councillor Parsons asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, Health and Housing:

"Given the borough-wide opposition to the Cabinet Member's intention to stop delivery of daily hot meals-on wheels, does she realise how indifferent the Council is appearing with this attitude and will she reverse her decision?"

[" The decision to switch to a frozen only service was taken after a full and detailed review conducted by an All Party Scrutiny Task Group. The then Adult Social Care and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet approved the recommendations of the Task Group as the new service would increase choice and improve quality. I believe the decision was correct and that the new service will produce the intended results."]

(a) Councillor Samuel has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

Parking in Wordsworth Road (Hampton North Ward)

(b) Councillor Stanier has given notice to raise the following Ward Concern:

Level Crossings in Mortlake and Barnes Common Ward in the light of the Airtrack Consultation (Mortlake and Barnes Common Ward)

(a) Parking in Wordsworth Road (Hampton North Ward)

In accordance with notice given Councillor Samuel raised a number of issues concerning parking in Wordsworth Road, including,

• The nature of the road and dwelling layout meant that road space per house was restricted
• When there was parking on both sides of the road, family cars had to proceed with caution to avoid damage and larger vehicles proceeded with difficulty
• For parking with two wheels on the pavement, a constituent had been given a penalty notice even though guidance on parking enforcement referred to flexibility in dealing with first offences

As the road met the criteria for pavement parking, Councillor Samuel asked that a scheme be devised and put forward for consultation. He reminded Council that under the general principles of public law, authorities had a duty to act fairly and proportionately.

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking, Councillor Trigg, stated that officers had agreed to conduct an investigation into footway parking in the road and to test appliance access with the London Fire Brigade. As there was no such provision at present, the enforcement action had been correct but representations had led to cancellation of the constituent's penalty notice. The Cabinet Member further noted that footways were not generally of the same robust construction as roadways for parking. Footway parking was often requested where pavements were narrow. He was determined that policies would be applied fairly and proportionately with good communication with those concerned.

(b) Level Crossings in Mortlake and Barnes Common Ward in the light of the Airtrack Consultation (Mortlake and Barnes Common Ward)

In accordance with notice given Councillor Stanier raised a number of issues concerning level crossings and the Airtrack consultation, including,

• Alarm that the consultation was described as second stage as residents had not been informed about changes to the tracks and level crossings
• Normally a two-year study would be undertaken but in this instance Orders would be published early in 2009
• Three studies were needed

Councillor Stanier considered this to be a very important project which should not be rushed.

The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking, Councillor Trigg, stated that there was a real challenge for BAA/Airtrack to get things right. There were a number of benefits for the borough in that there would be increased rail services stopping at local stations. However there were major issues with the downtime of level crossings, community severance, and emergency services' access. One issue already raised was modernised signalling facilities along the lines so that downtime could be decreased. Airtrack had agreed to fund a traffic origin and destination survey. Environmental impact studies were also needed. This initiative provided a huge opportunity but there was no leeway to get it wrong.

(a) Treasury Management Update

Report of the Cabinet meting held on 20 October 2008Attached.

RESOLVED:

That it be agreed that banks that are 100% owned by the UK Government are added to the approved list within the Treasury Management Policy.

Council noted its thanks to the Director of Finance and his team for their prudent advice on the Council's investments at this difficult time.

None.

None.

None.

None.

(a) Changes to the Constitution

Report of the Head of Paid ServiceAttached

RESOLVED:

That the following changes to the Constitution be agreed;

(i)      Part 3, Section 3 (D2), Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources - insert "(r) to oversee legal and electoral matters."

(ii) Part 3, Section 3 (D7), Cabinet Member for Communities - insert "(j) to oversee the development of records management and promote a culture of sustained records management throughout the Council."

None.

None.

To receive any announcements from the Mayor, Leader, Members of the Cabinet or the Head of Paid Service.

The Mayor announced that all tickets for her Christmas concert had been sold and invited Members to join her for celebratory drinks on 19 December 2008. She informed the meeting that there would be a second quiz night on 6 February 2009. Congratulations were offered to the Deputy Mayoress and the Leader of the Council on their completion of the "Cabbage Patch 10 Mile Race" on 19 October 2008.

The Cabinet Member for Children's Services and Education, Councillor Eady made the following statement.

"This Council is deeply saddened at the death of any child and in particular a death in the circumstances of the baby P case. Such a case brings home once again the need for all of us working with children to be both vigilant and diligent in the way that we work.

In Richmond, although our services have been regularly assessed as excellent we are in no way complacent and continue to monitor the quality of our services on a regular basis.

We have strong systems in place to review our practices so that managers can assess the quality of the work being undertaken. We also have experienced and high quality managers who work very closely with partner colleagues. All of this is supported by strong partnerships and we continue to build upon these.

It is timely that our new Head of Protection and Prevention took up post on Monday of this week. This will help us to ensure that we continue to strengthen and join up services that we offer so that we are able to support all of those working with children.

Clearly, the Council seeks to learn from any external report and the Directorate's Senior Leadership Team are working to ensure that all recommendations from the Haringey case are implemented. In particular we are currently focusing on:

*          Improving the training and support to our front line staff.

*          Continuing to work with our partner agencies to improve integrated working and improve the quality of the children's workforce.

Richmond will convene an extraordinary meeting of its Local Safeguarding Children Board to discuss and ensure that the recommendations in Haringey's Ofsted report are addressed.

We will of course continue to review our child protection services to ensure that the children most at risk in Richmond receive a quality service across the partnership."

On behalf of the Opposition, Councillor Marlow expressed support for the statement and emphasised the importance of both parties working together to ensure that children in the borough were protected.

(a) Councillor Parsons has given notice to move the following Motion:

This Council. noting with concern the expenditure of £1,500,000 on parking meters while the meals on wheels services to vulnerable elderly people are being cut, calls for an immediate public undertaking from the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, that, prior to the renewal of the delivery contract for meals on wheels in May 2009, there will be

a) full individual consultation on the preference between hot and frozen meals of all 391 service users who currently receive meals on wheels and of those requesting meals on wheels during the consultation period

.

b) full individual assessment of the ability of each service user to finance, accommodate and use safely the necessary equipment for a frozen meals service,

c) arrangements to be put in place to continue the current safety daily monitoring of users.

d) a full report to Council on the outcome of the consultations and the proposed safety arrangements to be made, which will contain a recommendation on whether a daily meals service should continue for those who want it, so that Members may express an opinion in the light of the user consultation prior to a final decision by Cabinet.

In accordance with notice given, Councilor Parsons moved, seconded by Councillor Percival,

"This Council. noting with concern the expenditure of £1,500,000 on parking meters while the meals on wheels services to vulnerable elderly people are being cut, calls for an immediate public undertaking from the Cabinet Member for Adult Services, that, prior to the renewal of the delivery contract for meals on wheels in May 2009, there will be

a) full individual consultation on the preference between hot and frozen meals of all 391 service users who currently receive meals on wheels and of those requesting meals on wheels during the consultation period

b) full individual assessment of the ability of each service user to finance, accommodate and use safely the necessary equipment for a frozen meals service,

c) arrangements to be put in place to continue the current safety daily monitoring of users.

d) a full report to Council on the outcome of the consultations and the proposed safety arrangements to be made, which will contain a recommendation on whether a daily meals service should continue for those who want it, so that Members may express an opinion in the light of the user consultation prior to a final decision by Cabinet."

An amendment in the following terms was moved by Councillor Carr, seconded by Councillor Lourie,

In first paragraph, after "This Council," delete "noting with concern the expenditure of £1,500,000 on parking meters while the meals on wheels services to vulnerable elderly people are being cut,"

And insert "following the recommendations of the All Party Scrutiny Task Group,"

In first paragraph, after "Cabinet Member for Adult Services," insert "health and Housing,"

In (a) delete "on the preference between hot and frozen meals of all 391 service users who currently receive meals on wheels and of those requesting meals on wheels during the consultation period"

In (c) delete "continue the current safety daily" and insert "ensure daily or frequent"

In (d) delete "which will contain a recommendation on whether a daily meals service should continue for those who want it, so that Members may express an opinion in the light of the user consultation prior to a final decision by Cabinet."

The amendment was put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED.

The substantive motion was put to the vote and declared to be CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

"This Council following the recommendations of the all Party Scrutiny Task Group, calls for an immediate public undertaking from the cabinet Member for adult Services, Health and Housing, that, prior to the renewal of the delivery contract for meals on wheels in May 2009, there will be

a)       full individual consultation,

b)      full individual assessment of the ability of each service user to finance, accommodate and use safely the necessary equipment for a frozen meals service,

c)       arrangements to be put in place to ensure daily or frequent monitoring of users,

d)      a full report to Council on the outcome of the consultations and the proposed safety arrangements to be made."