General Purposes Committee - Tuesday 13 October 2026, 7:30pm

General Purposes Committee
Tuesday, 13th October 2026 at 7:30pm

Speaking:

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Perfect, right, I'll turn the mic on in that case.

Welcome.

If members want to introduce themselves

and any declaration of interest,

we'll get that aisled and done with,

and we'll move on to the substantive items on the agenda.

We'll start with you, Councillor Wrigley.

Aye, Councillor Wrigley.

Good evening, I'm Councillor Rex Osborne.

I'm Councillor Malcolm Grinshand, independent.

Councillor Graham.

Perfect. I take it, therefore, there are no declarations of interest.

We'll move on to the minutes of the meeting held on 20th July.

I wasn't present. Well, I was present, but I wasn't a member of the committee,

so I'll stay quiet and let the four of you decide whether I true enact their reflection.

I think Council will be used to that next to me at the back,

because we were not allowed to sit at the table.

Is this an addition to the minutes?

That's the minutes, just time.

Oh, okay, perfect.

Before we proceed, and perhaps I should have said before you talked

about the minutes, because it's item one on the agenda,

can I raise an issue about the agenda, please?

Of course you can.

which is that there's an item,

item six on the agenda, Constitution review,

for which I gather there is now a paper,

but neither I nor Councillor Rigby have seen it.

And I have to say, I think it's unprecedented

for any paper to appear at a committee meeting

in Wandsworth Council when a section

of the councillors haven't even seen the document and therefore would suggest

that that item should come off the agenda because I don't think it's right for us

to be able to discuss something, be asked to discuss something

if we haven't even seen it to take a view on it.

I continue, Councillor Grimson.

Yeah, can I just say I think criticism here may be a little unfair on the administration.

As you know, Rex, you and I and Robin, the Conservative Chief Whip, had an informed meeting

yesterday.

My reading of that meeting was not to trap us up when it comes to committee where, after

all, we as the opposition have a majority on this committee, so we can't really be tripped

up by it.

But I thought it was actually a very fruitful chance for us to sit down for an hour and

a half and talk through some of these issues.

And as you'll remember, and I think you and I disagreed with the leader on this point

to the particular way that the overview and scrutiny

committee on Hammersmith Bridge might be set up.

But I think going forward, it might

be more helpful to have that kind of meeting

a couple of weeks before the committee meeting

so that the papers can be published.

But I think this was actually an attempt

to take different views, test out

the feelings among various opposition councillors

here before it was brought to the committee.

I understand that it hasn't worked particularly well

because we've got a committee landed here.

But I don't think it's meant anything but constructively, personally.

Just on that point that I came to cancer, interviewing cancer, Osborne, the reason we

couldn't meet is wholly my fault.

I've spent two weeks on the road with my job, first of all, at Labour Conference and then

at Conservative Conference, which constrained our ability to meet beforehand.

In an ideal world, I'd totally agree with cancer, Grim, so we would have met way before

yesterday.

and I do apologise.

That was literally due to constraints in my diary.

But the reason why we met yesterday

was so that it was in advance of today.

So I apologise, but I hope that does explain things.

We gave Rigby first, and then Osborne,

because that was the only thing that ended up.

Yeah.

So we got asked to come to a meeting.

It was during a work day, so I couldn't go.

and we didn't have an agenda for that meeting, so we didn't know what it was for.

So Councillor Osborne didn't know what it was for.

We have like a democracy, I mean there's a sign above the door saying public and journalist welcome.

I for one don't like these backroom chats that aren't on record, that the public can't see,

where sort of deals are being done.

We have these meetings so that a paper is produced and we talk about it

and the public can hear us and see us, journalists can come along

and there's no opaqueness.

I mean, yesterday, I wasn't involved in it

and this paper's just been put before me, four minutes before the meeting started,

so it's not an inclusive system.

Councillor Osbourne, as you had your hand up, then it came to Councillor Grimner.

Actually, I'm puzzled because I don't know what the connexion is between an informal

meeting and this paper.

I presume from the way that Councillor Grimston is speaking that items that were discussed

at an informal meeting are in this paper, but I'm unaware of that because I've not seen

the paper and I've got no idea what the connexion is between the two.

Listen, I'm not that averse to informal meetings.

I can see occasionally they might be useful.

I have an uneasiness about them, which I share with Councillor Rigby.

I think they can be a way of obfuscating what's going on.

And that is a danger, and indeed, I think it casts a shadow

over not informal meetings in general.

But this one that we're talking about this evening,

because it's clearly being used as a reason for discussing something this evening,

which I don't think was clear in the discussion that took place yesterday,

an informal meeting.

But the point is, we are in a situation where,

at whatever time this paper came out, it was too late.

It should have been days before we come to this meeting to discuss it.

I'm a bit cross too because nobody had the presence of mind to email it to me.

Nobody had the energy at any stage to drop a copy into my email box

in the members' room in this building.

As far as I'm concerned, something has been dumped on us this evening,

which I have not seen,

and I don't feel that it's right for this committee to discuss it.

And as Councillor Rigby alludes,

this does seem to be a style in the current administration.

The current administration is, in my view,

slowly sliding into a state of ineptitude and chaos

and quite unable to get papers to members of committees

in time for them to read it and have a proper discussion on it.

I'd be far more sympathetic for that.

First of all, if this were a long technical paper that was difficult to understand.

Or, calling this an internet constitutional review is crazy.

The title of the paper is parts of the problem.

I would have more sympathy if it was a long difficult paper that was difficult to understand.

I'd have more sympathy if it wasn't in line with discussions that involved opposition

members within the last 24 hours.

Yes, those points about how it's been published,

I, broadly speaking, would agree with,

but the fact is, coming from two opposition members

who voted through removing any need for this meeting

to happen at all, or any of these discussions

to happen at all, who said it was perfectly fine

to publish just papers like this,

just to go straight to full council,

with no debate and no ability to debate it at full council,

on far more complicated and difficult

and problematic issues than something simple like this.

To turn around and say that somehow

we're frustrating democracy,

but you by removing any discussion

and any meeting like this altogether

were champions of democracy,

I mean that's just humbug, isn't it?

It's just pure hypocrisy.

So while I might be sympathetic

to the points you're making,

given your record, it's very hard to be.

One practical suggestion I would make

is we could adjourn for 10 minutes,

you could read the paper.

Well, so, Nessa, your point is you haven't read the paper, you're given an opportunity

to read the paper, you don't want to read the paper.

It's seven pages.

Seven pages of what?

What did we want to discuss with the colleagues?

I don't know what is in this thing.

It could be absolutely significant.

It could be that you want to repain the office.

I don't know what's in it.

We were expecting a constitutional recue.

Yeah, it's called constitutional recue.

Is that what it is?

I have some symptoms.

I have some sympathy for the point on the title.

Two wholly minor issues around substitutes and other stuff,

which I think, broadly speaking, is,

would help both groups move forward in an equal fashion.

Mr. Charlie, you've indicated you'd like to speak.

I'll let you come in on this, and then we'll move forward.

Thank you, Chair.

Just a procedural point.

I mean, this committee is charged with reviewing any proposed amendments to the Constitution,

but the decision is one ultimately for Council to make, and that isn't until Wednesday of

next week. So why the Council membership will have an option to fully review the recommendations

to determine whether or not they support the recommendations within each.

So, Mr Chairman, what you're saying is the Labour members could reserve that position

and vote accordingly next week if they're so wished.

I'm saying all members will have the chance

to vote whether in favour or against the proposal

in the report.

Yeah, I mean, we need to take whatever's in here

to our group to discuss.

So we can't do that in 10 minutes.

It doesn't matter if this was 300 pages or one page.

It's not how long something is.

It's that we need to be able to look at it.

And I've literally no idea what is in it.

I don't understand in one sense.

If you're saying that you will never exercise your own judgement on this committee

and you will only act as a delegate for your group,

aren't you breaking the Nalen principles of public life?

No, because I don't know what's in this thing.

The fact that you were in the...

Well, stop.

Just say, because I think there are two, possibly two separate issues here.

I mean, the one, and I, you know, clearly having a committee paper appear on the day of the committee,

everybody, I think, here would agree, is not ideal.

Partly that was to do with the fact that we were only able to get together yesterday for the informal chats,

and therefore that's happened now in future,

if we can agree either that we managed to have those chats.

And the point, as I read it,

to what was going on yesterday,

was just to take soundings from the various groups,

obviously the two main parties are the most important ones,

but I was there as well,

almost saying, where are the areas

it's not worth pursuing,

because we're never going to get agreement?

Where are the ones that we think are so important

that we will, if necessary, push them through,

but we want to work with others?

And where are the ones where we can discuss it widely?

Now, if what is coming from the minority group is, the opposition group is, under no circumstances

will they take part in informal discussions of that nature in the future.

I mean, firstly, I would say you cannot do democracy in public.

You have, when you were in control, you had private meetings.

You didn't put your whole agenda, indeed.

At the moment, there's a debate going on, there's the extent to which you are having

private discussions on the agenda,

on the budget which you have not yet made public.

That's how politics works.

You have to have discussions in private,

and once you come to an internal view,

then you go through the official decision -making process

and you can explain to the public and take the public views.

But I would ask the Magyarashuga,

is that what you're saying?

You will not, under any circumstances,

take part in discussions, informal discussions,

a couple of weeks before these meetings,

so we can raise things informally.

We raised a whole range of issues yesterday.

All of us raised things.

Rex raised them, I did, Rob did.

And can get a feel as to the direction

we might be able to go together, reflecting the fact that we

are a hun council now, not a majority council

in either direction.

If you are saying you will not, under any circumstances,

take part in those meetings, then let's not

have those meetings.

I'm well up for those meetings.

I'll continue to take part in any such meetings.

If, on the other hand, it's a matter of anger

that it worked out this way today,

I think we can all agree that this has not been ideal and we will do it differently in

the future. But I would like, if we could, to get a feeling as to whether that is the

role I thought Councillor Rigby was saying, was that she would not take part in an informal

meeting like that. I would add to that, Councillor Grimson, if

I may before I came to Councillor Rigby and then Councillor Osbourne, they have both indicated

in turn that they would like to raise a point. I actually found yesterday's meeting very

constructive and I actually think there is a lot of common ground between the groups

about, for example, both sides' frustration

with how questions operate.

Unless we can have an informal channel

by which we will discuss that and agree a way forward,

i .e. getting rid of the shuffle,

which both sides agree on,

I didn't see otherwise how we're going

to take things forward.

Now, I wholly accept the point

of we can find a different time of day.

I'm super sympathetic to that,

super sympathetic to the point Councillor Ginn has just raised

about getting more notice, and I've already apologised

and I thought it was my diary was the constraint,

for which I am sorry,

but I did try and fit things in before this evening.

Councillor Rigby.

Yeah, so 3 p .m. is not a good time.

Yeah, it's not inclusive.

It means it's for people that, you know,

if you've got a full -time job,

you can't come to the back room chats,

and that's not inclusive.

This chat had no agenda, from what I can gather. It had no agenda. It had no...

That's the point of informal though.

You just come along for a chat and go, by the way, we've got a whole list of things that we want to talk about that we've not given you any heads up on.

I'm not finished yet.

Go on.

We're not going to give you any sort of heads up

on what the meeting's about, so you can prepare.

We're just going to have this chat that's going to go on for an hour and a half,

that no one's going to have minutes on or have any record of.

And then things are then going to appear in papers

like five minutes before. It doesn't work. I don't see what it was trying to achieve

because from what it sounds like it just bounced around a load of ideas and concepts.

That's exactly the point of the informal group.

Point of view, that was what it was there for was to, we've all got things that we think

are important.

Committees like this, frankly, are not the best place

to do that.

And there's a danger that you lose all sorts of things,

because a lot of these things will never

see the light of day if none of us are happy about them.

So there's no need to take them to this stage.

But it's a chance for better understanding

across the various parties, as we'll

be, as to where we're coming from, as to where we agree,

as to where we disagree.

And that can then shape the agenda.

So no decisions were taken yesterday.

No intention to take any decision yesterday.

It was to try and get a better deal.

Now, I would entirely agree with you.

If you want an agenda, fine.

I rather like agenda -liked meetings.

But having an outline agenda, certainly.

Do it in the evening, certainly.

Do it two weeks before now.

All of that, I would totally agree with you on this.

There's not so much...

I don't think Councillor Grimson, for the majority party,

that there is any objection to doing that.

No, no, no.

I pick that up.

But I do come back to the thing you're saying.

If those circumstances were...

If we were able to set it around in such a way that you were able to get here

much easier than you clearly were, which accepted was unfortunate,

then are those meetings that you would find helpful

or are they meetings that you would broadcast in which case?

Unfortunately, I think we're not going to end up with as good an outcome,

which we're where we can all work with.

Well, no, he's asked a question.

So I'm going to say that would be nice.

Yeah, so the idea that, I assume you knew what was going to be talked about at this meeting.

You both did.

The only person who...

Just to clarify, people turned up.

I had a scrap of A4 paper with four or five points that I thought were mutual around questions

some other points, how I felt my grumbles

about how OSCs were happening,

and I said at the very outset of the meeting,

here's the things I'd like to discuss,

I'm sure you've got your own.

But you didn't invite us to bring our own.

We just got called to a meeting.

Nobody said, hey, I've re -bring your five points.

In fairness, Councillor Ruby, you didn't.

I wrote to your group leader to say,

I think it would be, and Councillor Grimston

who was copied on the email,

to say I think it would be super useful

if we had an informal group.

I think we all recognise there were some challenges

at the last four council in terms of how the constitution

and it being new was interpreted and working,

particularly challenging, I think, for my new members

who've never been on the council before.

And would people like to suggest to representatives,

and I think I said who our representative would be,

and invited Councillor Hoog to make his representatives

and he quite rightly nominated you two,

which I don't think anyone objects to.

So the idea of this sort of sprung on people

and there wasn't a sense that people

could put anything forward.

There's a lot of humbug, frankly.

No, that's not true.

We were not asked to bring things to a meeting.

We were just called to come to a meeting.

To a pre -meeting?

It's the first time we've done something.

Can't believe we've done it.

Have it in an evening if that's more suitable to members.

I'm afraid I couldn't do that last night because as you know I had group of leaders, otherwise

I'd have been super happy to meet at seven o 'clock if that would have suited you.

But at seven o 'clock I was sat in this room debating with Councillor Horne what was happening

on the cabinet papers.

So that was clearly not viable.

make no Except thatuu,

I'm spent

Malcolm, can we put the mics on just for the benefit of the recording?

I have no problem hearing you, but people online might.

Right, yeah.

But be careful about that, I'd suggest, Councillor,

because the implication of saying that,

we'll only listen to people if we have to,

which is what you've in effect just said in so many words.

Well, what do you mean by saying

they're only listening to you because they have to?

That's really dangerous.

So, they're only having to listen to you now.

You left the group because you fell out with them all,

and they...

You just take it into good.

I do, exactly, and they've not had to pay any attention to you since then,

and now suddenly they do. It's nothing to do with what I would do.

This is to do with the history between you guys.

That's outrageous.

I've been elected three times as an independent,

standing against Conservative councillors in my ward,

and I have, in the confidence and supply,

negotiated three chairs for your group,

negotiated the opposition majority on this group here.

I could have easily.

You're almost goading me into joining

the Conservatives at the moment.

I'm not going to do that, but I would just say,

but I would just say.

You're very welcome, Councillor Grimston.

Well, you're not getting me like that.

And I've turned down any offers or implied offers

from both sides in order to maintain that independence.

But seriously, unless we're actually saying

that was great the last two years,

the relations in the Chamber were great,

let's get back to that, shall we?

If not, then if every time something

is done for the first time and something goes wrong with it,

the assumption is it was done to try and catch us out.

We're not going to get anywhere culturally with that.

We have a majority, we as the opposition

have a majority on this committee.

We can turn down any issue that comes before this committee.

That's the way it was set up in the confidence supply

agreement.

So nothing can get through this committee without at least one

opposition councillor in favour of it.

That was never the case before.

Opposition councillors were literally ignored

in general purposes over the last two, three years.

But a single issue that we as opposition councillors

questioned was turned down by the controlling group.

Now, I do not think that's the way to run things

because I think every councillor should be treated

with equal respect.

So, the response is we don't want this on the agenda.

Let's go to the chair, you've made your point.

I'm now going to move on with the agenda.

We've had 25 minutes.

When we get to that item, if you don't like it,

you can vote against it.

What's in it?

What?

Did I get on with it?

I've also gave you the opportunity

to read it, which you did wish.

On that point, if anyone would have a right to complain,

it's me.

I'm the only member of the committee

that has been excluded from the pre -discussions, right?

And what's the point?

I only saw this this afternoon.

It took me 10 minutes to get my head around what

was being proposed, and that was it.

There are only three relevant pages

if you look at the actual changes.

I don't understand.

If you hadn't seen it before the meeting, the offer was there

to have a 10 -minute break in which you could have read it.

That's all it took me to get my head around it.

And it's not anything controversial.

And it's in line with discussions,

as I understand it, that you had yesterday.

So what's the problem?

So you're saying that until tonight,

you had no idea what was in that paper, like us?

I saw it this afternoon.

Like literally no idea.

I saw it this afternoon.

It took me a while.

And while I was going between something

that I had to do for my day job

and something else that I was doing

in terms of Mike Warner's role here,

I actually looked at it between meetings.

Okay, I mean, if it's...

This is a bit weird though,

so we're bringing stuff to commissary

that no one's saying.

Do you think it's really the chair, Councillor Rupert?

If, turn off your mic.

You've made the point,

We do have the number of items to get through.

When it comes to that, if you don't like it,

you can abstain or vote against it.

Well, I think we've been,

it's entirely up to you.

What's in it?

In, I also have offered you the opportunity to,

What's this, this is ridiculous.

Correct, I've also given you the opportunity

to read it, if you wish, which you turned down.

I don't think we want time to read that.

Well.

You don't tell me how long it's gonna depend.

What?

It's ridiculous.

That's up to you if you don't like it.

Vote against it, that's how it works.

Item three, Henri Aldermen, paper number 26249.

What are you doing?

I am moving on to the rest of the agenda

because we've spent airing this point

at least 30 minutes now.

In that case, can I formally move

that we don't discuss that item at all.

You can... And vote on it.

You can move and we will vote on it.

I'm really hankering off the old days

when we couldn't discuss anything.

I mean, it's going back to your practise, isn't it?

Yeah, what was that?

I assume cancer Rigby is seconding your formal move.

No one in his dramatic mode can make decisions on that.

Yep.

in favour of the labour motion not to take these papers, raise your hand. Those against? We'll

therefore move, as I was suggesting earlier, to item 3 on the order of the borough, paper

26249. Would anyone like the officers to present this report? I think it's relatively self -explanatory

in that we are capturing all councillors, including a couple who were missed off previously,

who have done their 10 years, somewhat inadvertently.

Councillor Grimston.

Just one point that has niggled me for some years now. Since we introduced the scheme

in 1998 or 2002, whenever it was, three councillors who would have qualified for honorary aldenship

passed away during their terms of office. There's Councillor Hawkins, Councillor Professor

and Councillor Madden.

Now, rightly and joyfully, I was extremely happy,

when dear Councillor Gibbons passed away

at the beginning of the last administration,

we awarded him a posthumous honorary alderman ship.

He and I were the last survivors of the Class of 94 indeed, yes.

The others like, I don't know if you can hear the rest of them,

people like Nadeem Zawe and Steve Kahn, what happened to them?

Obviously they want enough JB.

So we've set the precedent, which I think is right,

is that someone who has given that service to the boroughs,

Andy had done, others have done,

but who through the, you know,

vagaries of fate, happened to pass away

in between two of these meetings,

should be given the award posthumously.

And I'd like to suggest that at least

we put some thought into it.

As far as I'm aware, they're the only three

who had reached beyond 10 years, who passed away

since the era of the honorary alderman ships was introduced.

And whether we could consider, ideally this time round,

but making at least a gesture and putting their names

up on the wall and reflecting their service to the borough.

Because apart from the just very great unfortunate

they happened to pass away while in office,

otherwise they would already be up there.

Yeah, I certainly don't have an objection to it. I think I said to you before my only

concern is that I think someone should sense cheque with the families whether that would

be something that they feel would be appropriate. I wouldn't wish to cause. The one I knew the

most was obviously Jim Madden. And I remember going to his funeral. I wouldn't wish to cause

them any upset. That would be my only reservation, but otherwise we can take away and look at

that. Councillor Graham.

Yes, this is not to speak against that. It's just to note that the arrangements for honorary

order are set out in legislation, so we would need to cheque that it's compliant with the

legislation. The legislation isn't straightforward, so we just need to do that as well. I'm just

saying we would have to look at that before we made that decision. It should hopefully

be fine, but we do need to cheque that.

I'm super happy that we go away and look at it.

Any other comments on this paper, 26 .249?

In that case, are the recommendations agreed?

Agreed.

In that case, we come to item 4, amendments to the Constitution regarding the functions

are reserved to Planning Applications Committee. Mr. Chardu may wish to add to this. I think

these things are, these changes are deeply regrettable, but they are nevertheless conditions

that are opposed on us and we must make sure that our constitution reflects that.

Does any committee member wish to speak or Mr Chaudry, if you wish, will do an introduction

to spell out why this is necessary?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

So as the report sets out of the Italian country planning, discharge of local planning authority

functions regulations 2026 has imposed an obligation on all local authorities

to have in place the new scheme from the 30 or by the 31st of October of this

year so it's a legal requirement for us to amend our local arrangements to

reflect their requirements in the regulations to adopt a national scheme

for dealing with planning applications.

And as set out in the report, the matters

which are required now, say for applications

that relate to the council's own property or its own

applications, those are automatically

matters for offices.

And then those set out in Appendix B

are largely also delegated to offices,

is safe for certain circumstances which are applied and agreed or discussed by the Chief

Planning Officer and the appointed member, which in this case in the recommendations

is the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee for consideration by the Planning

Applications Committee. In practical terms, the business of the Planning Applications

committees will certainly change very significantly and will likely reduce as a result of them.

But as Chair, you introduced at the beginning, these are requirements on all local authorities

and there is a requirement that we have them in place by the 31st of October of this year.

Thank you. Any questions? Councillor Wrigley, come to you first.

Yes, so this paper, we're voting to have the changes legally taken on board by the council.

We're not voting on whether we agree with the changes or not. We're voting to say that

they have to be part of our constitution to protect us from any legal challenges.

Yeah, I think I'm super clear. And this was something we discussed yesterday without wishing

to reopen that particular debate, that we could, for example, add an amendment to this

saying we disagree with those changes. Nevertheless, we're legally required to vote them through.

They are what they are. I don't think any member of this committee wants the Council

to be acting outside the law, so we must approve them. There are a number of councils who voted

these down and then had to have a special, so I don't think that's the sort of mess we

want to get ourselves into.

Rex, sorry, Councillor Osborne and then Councillor Grimston.

Okay, I don't mind being called Rex, actually.

Rob, thank you.

Can I suggest a kind of an amendment to our proposals here, which is that wherever we

suggest that there should be discussion with the chair of the Planning Applications Committee.

Those discussions should also include the opposition speaker on the Planning Applications

Committee.

I understand the principle.

I don't think legally we can do that.

And I came to Mr. Chantry for his advice.

That's right, Chair.

The regulations envisage the chief planning officer determining the matter after consultation

with a named member.

In this instance, the recommendation is as chair of the planning committee.

My understanding is it must be a single named...

Just one named member of the committee.

Correct.

I think that just shows.

I have got great sympathy for your point.

I don't think if Councillor Givindji was here, we would object to Councillor Belton as your

nominated lead taking part in that discussion.

and that is the perversity of the current government's

imposition of us in respect to these planning changes.

Okay, can I ask then, if that's the case,

there is a hint there that there might be

a little bit of leeway.

I think I'm accepting that there isn't,

but if there is a degree of leeway,

can I have it minutied at this committee

that that was a suggestion,

so that we might add it into the process?

If it turns out that we've got a bit more leeway.

I can certainly, at the very least, informally ask

Councillor Govindia to keep his opposite number abreast

of the developments of what's coming forward,

which I think would be right and proper.

And I don't think anyone objects to that.

I just think the issue is legally they can't be present

for the discussion when it takes place.

Can I just back up Councillor Grimsman,

back up Councillor Rigby's response on this?

I think we don't really have much option on a number of things here.

And therefore I think we've got to vote for these changes.

But you used the word regrettable, I think, about the legislation.

I think we should recognise as a committee,

and again it should be noted,

that there is a lot of unease and disquiet,

in particular amongst, for example, amenity societies,

about the contents of this piece of legislation

that we don't really have any choice but to go along with.

And I think it's right for this committee

to share their unease and share their concerns

about the legislation.

I do wonder at some level whether or not

parliamentarians and the government quite understood what it was that they were doing

when they brought this legislation in.

But anyway, like Councillor Rigby says, I don't think we've got a lot of choice here,

and so I guess we've got to vote for these changes.

Indeed, Councillor Grimston.

Could I suggest an extra recommendation along the lines of the committee note with deep

regret the changes to the planning regulations which remove an important way in which local

representatives can shape the environment in which their residents live.

I'm super happy to second that, Councillor Grimson. I think to Councillor Osborne's point,

the many societies I met with with the Chairman of Planning at the forum about 10 days, two

will fundamentally alter our relationship as members,

particularly in our wards, irrespective of what other

positions we hold, with our residents.

And I think that's deeply regrettable.

I could understand if we were a local authority

that refused lots of planning applications,

but we're not 95 % of them go through,

which kind of rather undermines the point really

that this is yet another anti -London measure

and a slouch hammer to crack a nut, quite frankly.

Councillor Correa.

Yes, well just on Councillor Osborne's point about parliamentarians not understanding what

they were doing, these changes have of course been very strongly opposed by the opposition

in parliament, so some parliamentarians clearly were aware of the potential implications and

indeed have been strenuously raising them.

I think what he may be implying is that the borough's three parliamentarians representing

us did not understand what they were doing, or if they did, did nothing about the concerns

that residents in this borough actually hold.

Would you like me to read the suggested extra recommendation?

So what I'm saying is that the recommendation is that the Committee note with deep regret

the changes to the planning regulations which remove an important way in which locally elected

representatives can shape the environment in which their residents live.

Seconded.

I've clearly been listening to a different meeting.

You two are absentians.

They haven't had a labour group meeting to determine what they think.

Item five, if we could move on, please.

Payments on the members of the landscape paper.

Oh, yes, sorry.

As amended, those in favour of the paper.

Whoop -a -saw.

LEMCOM.

Item 5, payment and the members' allowance scheme,

Paper Number 26 -251.

I think it's rare to resolve that it's per hatchery,

but if anyone wants an explanation,

I'm sure Mr. Chadler will be happy to help.

Councillor Graham.

I just wanted to welcome the fact

that it's returned to being published

at this time of the year rather than near Christmas.

Noted.

All those in favour?

Thank you.

Item number six, constitutional review,

paper 26 -252. Mr. Chatterjee, do you want to introduce this paper for the benefit of

those members who may not have had a chance to read it?

Yes, Chair. Thank you. So this paper, members, puts forward two substantive recommendations.

The first is to establish a Hammersmith Bridge standing committee, and the second is to make

provision in the constitution for substitutes to committees and to unify the provisions

within the constitution for substitutes.

With regards to Chair the Hammersmith Bridge Committee, the narrative on this is set out

in paragraphs three to six of the report, in effect reflecting the difficulties that

the residents of the borough have had since the bridge has been closed to vehicular traffic

and the ongoing impact on residents and to then propose that the bridge standing committee

will examine the impact on communities, gather evidence both from members of the public but

also technical and financial evidence in order to make the case to government for reopening

Hammersmith Bridge to motor vehicles and to secure funding for that.

With regards to the constitutional, sorry, Chair, with regards to the changes that are

required in the constitution, those are set out in paragraph 9 onwards, which would see

this committee being added to Article 8 of the Constitution.

And then in part 3, Appendix D, set out the terms of reference for the committee,

which is set out in the attached appendices.

In terms of allocation, it's intended that the committee would have six members

and that there would be three members from the two groups on the Council to represent the committee.

and then the frequency of meetings will be agreed once the committee is established.

Moving then on to the provision for substitutes on the Council's committees.

The current provisions in the constitution make varying provisions,

but they are relatively restrictive in terms of provision,

and given the current makeup of the Council,

the risk is that without a substantive change to the provision for substitutes, then committees

risk being in court or not having sufficient representation from either of groups, given

the current makeup of the council's membership. The intent is to permit each group to nominate

up to two eligible councillors to act as substitutes on the committees. And there are restrictions

around that, and that's set out in the last appendix to this paper. But the restrictions

are around that members of the cabinet cannot substitute as they are legally not permitted

to do so on overview and scrutiny committees, and that those committees that require members

to undergo requisite training before they are permitted to make decisions at those committees,

in particular licencing and planning, that the substitute will have undergone the training

before they are permitted to act as a substitute.

There are notification requirements, and that is to enable the substitute members sufficient

opportunity to become familiar with the papers before they attend the meeting.

And so the proposal is that the notification

is given to either myself or the head of governance

on working day before the meeting.

In terms of the powers that the substitute

will be able to exercise during the meeting,

they will be no different to any other member of the committee.

And therefore, they'll be able to participate fully.

In the event the chair is absent from a meeting and a deputy chair might be absent from that

meeting, the substitute member wouldn't automate, if they were from the group representing the

chair or deputy chair, they wouldn't automatically take those positions.

The normal provisions around appointment of a chair as set out in the council procedures

would need to be followed.

And so, Chair, the relevant amendments to the constitution are set out in the appendix.

With regards to substitutes, it's relatively straightforward in that it's containing one

section of the constitution and that's in the temporary committee procedure rules and

that the provisions it replaces are paragraphs 3 .4 to 3 .6 with the scheme that's set out

in appendix B, which is on page 10 of the supplementary papers.

That's what I intend to say, though, of introduction, Chair.

Thank you. I come to Councillor Grimston, then Councillor Rigby.

Can we take the two issues separately?

Yes, it would be neater.

I've got considerable concerns over the Hammersmith Ridge OAC proposal as they stand.

I think they fall into three sort of broad categories.

I mean, firstly, most of our standing committees are there forever, hence the term standing

committee.

We alter them, we alter their things, but we will always need a committee to look after

transport and so on, and every other function of our scrutiny committees.

Ideally, this won't be the case with this one.

One can almost imagine what a solution might be to Hammersmith Bridge.

We have more difficulty how we get there, maybe.

but at least you can see that there is a potential endpoint to this.

And indeed, if this does become a long -term standing committee of the Council,

it's very difficult to see what it would actually be doing after it had collected all of the data

and made all the recommendations.

And the thing that was very well described is what the nature of the problem is.

I suppose we could probably get a long way with that already.

But there will come a point where it's difficult to see what this committee would do

if it had put everything forward and still hadn't got anywhere.

So I think it just feels that this is not the kind of thing

that you should have before a scrutiny committee.

On the other hand, we've got problems with Albert Bridge

at the moment.

A scrutiny committee looking at the issue of,

or a subcommittee of transport, it would then be I suspect,

looking at the issue of transport across the river,

because if we lose another bridge, then this is going to be,

and already things are pretty horrendous here.

At the moment it almost feels like a local

cut knee issue, whereas the whole riverfront is potentially in danger with this. Battersea

has challenges around Albert Bridge and therefore something which was looking not just at Hammersmith

Bridge but at the whole of the relationship between ourselves and the other side of the

river, that might look more like a scrutiny committee which would have long term legs

and certainly I think we've over the idea that we're not just worried about Hammersmith

Bridge.

And thirdly, I do think this could

be an opportunity for a really serious task of finish group.

It might have quite a long time before it finishes,

because there might be a lot of data it needs to take.

But nonetheless, this feels to me rather more

like something which could be set up.

And then we could avoid the issues

of it having to be defined in terms of the proportionality

on the council.

Anybody who had expertise who was interested in the issue

could attend the committee or not attend the committee

as time went along.

So, as it stands, I don't agree with this proposal.

And I think either looking to shape it more as a task of finish group

or to look at it widening its remit to include the other river crossings,

I think then I would be more happy with it.

If I may come back on that point, Councillor Gipson,

I don't think it precludes,

and certainly the conversation I had with some of my group members yesterday

it doesn't preclude us from doing some of what you just

mentioned at a later date.

I just don't think, in the conversation I had last night,

we could bring that forward today.

I think there's a genuine point about other crossings.

I don't think that necessarily negates the idea that Hammersmith

Bridge is a unique problem in the sense,

at least on Albert Bridge, RBKC, of generally trying

to get it open, I struggle to believe that.

That is the case of H &F, who don't appear, in my view,

to making a case for opening the bridge.

And that's where it's different.

So I think in that respect they are different.

I think you raise a very good point

about those other crossings.

And it's something I would certainly undertake

to bring another paper forward to the next time GP meets

to take that forward.

Or alternatively I suppose that could be done

at the next transport committee as you discussed.

Because I think, certainly speaking to Battersea colleagues,

so I can see that there is an appetite for that.

I think separating them has the benefit of there be different

members who are interested in each.

It's not that I am, that I as a Thamesfield ward member,

uninterested in the plight of people in Ballast,

I think they also suffer, but I think the two committees

will end up with quite different and disparate

compositions in terms of the people who are interested in them,

because I think Hammersmith is a relatively unique thing

that has been going on now for seven years.

That's just my personal feeling.

Councillor Rigby, I'll come to you

and then Councillor Cramb also.

Yeah, I've got two things.

The first one is about the OSC,

is, because we've not read it,

how much money is this predicted to cost us as Wandsworth?

So, if we have an OSC, we have to bring in the cost

of offices sitting on the OSC, such resource.

We also would have to bring in engineering consultants.

So if we're saying that we have to have this committee

because Hammersmith's engineers have not come up with a plan,

then we'd have to commission somebody like an alternative to Costanes

that did the review there.

They spent nearly a million on the Costanes consultation,

so we'd have to get competitive to Costanes.

So then we could, because we can't just sit there and go,

you don't want to do it like this,

you want to do it like that,

like some sort of Harry Enfield character.

You actually have to come up with a plan.

And the only way to have a plan to fix a bridge

is to have civil engineers and they're pretty expensive.

So would that fall upon Wandsworth residents?

And then if we got to a stage where we thought,

actually, we found a way to do it much, much cheaper

than Costanes are recommending,

And it's not going to cost $300 million.

Do we chip in as well?

So I'm just wondering, apart from this just

being a bit of a chatting shop about how we'd

fix bridges differently, what are we actually

putting on the table in terms of cash and resources?

And my second question is, we're sitting

in the middle of another substantial traffic

issue which is the one -way system which nobody here has managed to sort out. So are we deflecting

a bit from sorting out our own engineering challenges by taking on another boroughs?

If there was a, let's say, an elected Labour politician responsible for strategic transport

who happened to live in the borough, say, who'd been maybe mayor for 10 years and had

all that time to sort out the one -way system and would have accepted our offer to pay for

for half of it.

That's not what I would,

not answer to you.

Well, I think in respect to the one -way system,

it was, like, paragraph 20 is very clear,

and this will be the case.

Just imagine, for example, that I had some madcap scheme

to move this town hall to Nine Elms,

and I engaged some consultants to do that.

It was obviously purely a hypothetical,

because no one would be crazy enough

to suggest such a scheme.

That would inevitably involve us commissioning consultants

and that being signed off in a normal way.

We have cheques and balances which as a consequence

of our constitutional reforms we've actually strengthened

in terms of disclosing of spend.

So paragraph 20 is very clear that there isn't

a spend attached to that.

Now if as a consequence the committee,

which at the end of the day we're suggesting is 50 -50,

were to suggest we get that stuff.

And I do think it's the case. We should be making the case.

I don't think it's a purely engineering case.

I think there is an air pollution,

there's an economic case for opening it.

I'm constantly told this is a government

that's interested in growth and prosperity in every postcode.

I don't see how you do that with thousands of people

in one of the most prosperous postcodes in London,

and sat in traffic jams for years on end.

So you don't think it's an engineering issue

to reopen the bridge?

No, of course it's...

You think it could just be opened?

Of course it's an engineering issue,

but it's a much broader issue,

and there are much broader negative externalities,

especially for the people in Putney

who constantly sit there and are having,

especially every weekend where it's particularly bad,

their residential roads overrun

with people going through it.

and it has really, really serious things.

So, yes, its heart is a bridge issue, which is engineering,

but the negative externalities,

which you're dismissing for this borough,

for people in my ward, are really acute,

and they want someone to be articulating

and making the case.

We're trying to do this on a 50 -50 basis

in a non -partisan way.

Councillor Graham, and then I come back to Councillor Rigg.

Yes, for a few points.

The first thing is it's been described as a scrutiny committee

and by Councillor Rigby as an OSC.

It is not an OSC, and it is not a scrutiny committee.

It is an ordinary committee, a standing committee,

and not a scrutiny committee at all.

That's very clear.

Likewise, it's very clear.

Indeed, you only have to get down to the fourth line of it,

Appendix A, where it sets out exactly what this would be.

But it has no delegated executive or non -executive decision -making

powers.

Now, to Councillor Grimston's point about why do it as a standing committee rather than

a task and finish group, I think the problem is how will it finish?

And likewise, this is a reason to make it a standing committee, not a scrutiny committee.

It's not within our power to make Hammersmith and Fulham Council do anything or TFL do anything.

And the timelines cannot be determined by us.

What we can do, however, is look at options that have not been currently pursued.

And Councillor Rigby says it's an engineering problem.

Actually, the biggest problem with this is not engineering.

If it were just down to engineering, they'd have solved it a long time ago.

The biggest problem has been treated as a heritage issue rather than a transport infrastructure

issue.

The reason it's costing so much just to keep it open, like over £100 million just to keep

a bit open to pedestrians and cyclists

is because a lot of nuts and bolts that maybe you can see

have to be replaced with 19th century replica

nuts and bolts.

I don't know if she's familiar with the Ship of Theseus,

which is the mythical ship, well -known to philosophers

where every plank and piece of rigging is replaced

and the question is, is it still the same ship?

But if we went for the full 300 million plus version

of the works that were recommended

to replace all of the nuts and bolts for replicas,

we'd effectively have the bridge of Theseus with us,

and so we ask them the question,

is it still the original Hammersmith bridge,

even though it looks the same?

The fact is, if the listing were removed,

or if alternative options, like for example,

actually disassembling it, reassembling it somewhere else,

and building something that looked alike,

but had modern engineering,

which is not an option that's ever been looked at,

and arguably cheaper,

that there may be ways around that.

So there are all sorts of things where we could pursue it.

Now, in terms of consultancy, of course, in the past,

both the 200 ,000 pound contract, which

has now got us on a cost for not moving to 9 ounce,

and indeed anything of this kind,

would have had to come through committee under the reforms

that she and Councillor Osborne voted for.

It wouldn't even need to go near a Councillor up

to a million pounds.

It wouldn't even need a cabinet member sign off

or the leader sign off.

Officers could do anything they liked up to a million pounds

with no say by any elected member.

Now, we are in the process of reintroducing cabinet member

decisions, which obviously formally have not yet come here,

but will hopefully to the next meeting, whereby there is now

some transparency back on those issues,

and there's some control from elected members.

So we can't have 200 ,000 -pound liabilities

for not moving offices that no councillor, apart

from seemingly Councillor Hogg, knew anything about.

Yes, I think that's pretty much what I wanted to say.

I could go on about the one -way system and the...

I've left you on a lot longer than me.

Well, I think...

I think, as we saw last night,

I try and treat members from all sides,

especially your leader, in a fair and transparent way.

That is the point.

Councillor Rigby.

Yeah, so, I think, was it talked about yesterday

as an RSC then?

I mean...

Yeah, so...

I don't mind if it takes a performance.

I mean, maybe you didn't have enough time to read it either.

Anyway, that's not the point.

So we're saying that we don't like conservation issues.

So we'd be saying to another borough,

like, stop worrying.

No, no, no, let me finish.

I'm putting my hand up.

OK.

I'm laughing.

I'll let you drop.

So we're saying that we don't like conservation issues so if Hammersmith

were to turn around to us and go hey all your conservation areas it's just a bit

unnecessary why don't you just have it looking like we we want you to have it.

I think this is a bit arrogant of Wandsworth to be not finished a bit

arrogant of Wandsworth to be saying to another borough you're not going to have

a nice looking bridge.

We're not going to have a bridge that is listed

because we don't want it to be listed.

I'm interested in what these other solutions are.

And I'm also a bit alarmed that this is a safety issue

so that we would be trying to push another borough

into letting vehicles on the bridge that's not safe

because we don't agree with their engineers,

that are saying it's simply not safe for cars to go on.

Look, I don't think anyone's saying that.

It's not a conservation issue.

And if I may just for a second defend

Hammersworth and Follingham Council.

In fairness to them, it is not their fault.

Because these are national issues

in respect of heritage and safety

and the Health and Safety Executive,

which in fairness to the Hanus -Holland Film Council,

they have no control over.

In that you're making the case, if I may say so,

for the idea that the committee is articulating

and advancing what is in fairness a national position

that we need to treat heritage sensitively, yes.

It's a beautiful bridge.

But its absence really is causing a huge amount

of negative harm to our residents is a bit like saying,

don't pull down old London Bridge,

because all those nice houses on top

are generating a nice rent.

Eventually, we do have to move on.

I was making the analogy to someone earlier today,

that the Victorians who built Hammersmith Bridge

had no qualms about pulling down half the walls

of Newcastle to put the train line right next to the keep

to move the train up to Edinburgh.

We must adapt and move on and be sensitive to local residents' needs.

And as Councillor Graham was trying to articulate, there is a way to do that which preserves

the aesthetic, but doesn't mean to say that every rusty nut and bolt is preserved.

You could replace them with a modern one without any visible difference.

And sure, that is the whole point of having the committee.

And also, at the end of the day, we cannot impose anything, and nor are we seeking to

impose anything on H &F.

We are merely trying to articulate a position

on the effects of our residents,

especially those in Parnell,

I think it is much further because

of the pressures on the bridge,

that there is a national case for what is,

yes, for one local authority,

a relatively large sum of money,

but in the context of, for example,

TFL, who have responsibility for strategic transport,

a relatively modest sum of money that we ought to be making the case for opening that. I

think it was probably the case when the class of 94 joined in Councillor Grimson's case

that this council has always articulated things which either have a pan London in the case

of Ilia or other national positions. We're just merely returning to that point. And that

That is not, certainly not my intention,

to seek to do down H &F.

I don't think it's Councillor Graham,

who himself is a former H &F member, to do down either.

I was making no criticism of the administration

in Hammersmith and Fulham.

They have a very difficult position,

and they don't have the budget to fix the bridge.

50 million has already been spent on it,

and they can't even, at that level of expenditure,

to necessarily keep it open to pedestrians and cyclists.

That is, there's not a problem,

there's not a disputing what the engineers have found.

The engineers were set a certain brief,

and at that point, it looked like

the most cost -effective way would be to do stuff

that was compliant with the listing

and compliant with what the heritage authorities

would permit.

At this stage, we've now seen costs,

after 50 million has already been spent,

you have to spend over 120 million

just to keep it open to cyclists and racers.

No opening to traffic.

I mean, what residents want is a bridge

that looks like the bridge we've got now

and actually takes traffic.

But I don't think residents are particularly

het up about nuts and bolts that no one can see

being exact replicas of the way they were engineered

in the 19th century, which is currently

the position we are in.

I don't think Hammersmith and Fulham would wish to see that.

And indeed, if labour members in this borough

talk more to their counterparts than Hammersmith and Fulham,

they might have different views

both about bridge engineering and indeed council tax

and council finances.

It would be very helpful if they could start

opening that dialogue.

I suspect we have more conversations with them

than you do.

The fact is there are things that have not currently

been considered that we can explore and we should explore

because this is impacting on our residents.

We can't make others go down that path

and indeed Hammersmith and Fulham cannot determine

the outcome in the sense that they do not have

the money to pay for it, they are bidding to a government fund in line with what the

DFT is asking them to do. That's the dilemma they're in. If we from externally can open

up other options for debate that may be more difficult for them to pursue themselves, given

the way they are within that process, and influence that debate and potentially come

up with alternative thinking, I think that is a useful thing. If it does involve some

expenditure that won't be going to this committee, but if this committee can prompt things that

then means that actually it does make sense

for us to commission certain work,

and if we then get somewhere with solution,

I mean, the bridge has been shut since 2019.

There's been a government task force,

there's been all sorts of stuff, it's gotten nowhere.

We're now gonna have a prolonged period

in which there'll be years of work

with still no traffic flowing

and no prospect of traffic flowing.

Surely it's right for us, given the impact

this is having on the borough, to probe this a little

and see if there's other things that can be pursued.

I don't see what the issue is.

Councillor Wrigley then, Councillor Grinsom's in.

Sir Kevin, you both like to speak.

The issue is that our residents are facing unprecedented Council tax rises and cuts to

services while at the same time we haven't seen a paper that's suggesting that we now

take on responsibility for finding other solutions for fixing Hammersmith Bridge.

Now, if these solutions are free and we can just sit around a table and go,

hey, do you know what? We've had a couple of ideas that one of the engineers had.

Brilliant. We should probably sell those ideas to somebody.

But coming up with other ideas is going to cost money.

It's going to, you're going to have to have second opinions.

You're going to have to get engineers involved.

we're going to pull resources from our officers here who are working on our projects to try

and improve services in our borough. We're going to divert that at a time when we're

telling residents that their council tax is being whacked up to fix another borough's

issue and give up on dealing with this issue on the one -way system that is causing all

these people that live around here terrible health issues and we need to

care about all of our residents and their health. I think we do and I just

can seriously contest this idea that this is not our borough's issue or that our

residents are not adversely impacted by Hammersmith Bridge. I was talking with

Councillor Grimston yesterday, I live in his ward and it is definitely the case

that my wife really struggles, for example,

to get to work, and it takes her twice as long

as it used to before the closure of Hammersmith Bridge,

because Puntney Bridge is absolutely chocker every morning.

It's not just impacting a small area,

it's impacting at the very least.

We were talking about the money,

like how much money are we going to put on the table today?

Yesterday, the cabinet brought forward

a whole raft of savings,

so you didn't want us to make any of them.

So I find this pious nature about we want to save

nickel and dime on staff.

It's also the same case in respect of the officers

is not extra money.

It's not like we're paying them overtime

when they work after five o 'clock.

It's a fixed overhead.

So you're not going to be doing work in Monsworth?

No, sorry.

In dealing with somebody else's work.

That's the point that I really take exception to.

The idea that Hammersmith Bridge is a closure

does not affect Monsworth residents.

is fundamentally wrong.

I'm talking about how much money are we prepared to divert to the bridge at the same time as

whacking up everyone's counselling tax?

Counsellor Grimston, then Counsellor Cram.

It seems to me to extent that we're in danger of saying we can't look at anything unless

we know the answers before we start looking into it. Because just thinking about this,

It sounds to me, and we're now seven years into this,

it is clearly not, I think Councillor Graham said

from the start, in our powers to put this right.

So from that point of view, can I suggest there might be

mileage in actually setting up a joint committee

with Hammersmith and Fulham councillors

to look at our joint issues here,

to look at where we as a collective force,

two councils run by different political parties,

may well carry more weight than whatever the external politics is like than any with that.

So it would be genuinely cross -party institutionally as well as individual members.

And one of the focuses there can be, you know, Wandsworth has no financial responsibilities

here, Hammersmith don't have the coffers to deal with it.

It is clear that whatever the solution looks like is going to involve a lot of input, financial

from outside there, either central government or transport for London or possibly others,

although those are the obvious ones.

And working very, very closely with Hammersmith and Fulham to bring this forward

may well both give more weight to it and indeed give a different perspective

from the only one that we'll be able to do from our side of the river,

given that it's an issue that affects both sides of the river

and maybe not the same, well, different times of day, I suspect,

most different sides of the river.

But I'd say as things stand at the moment,

I don't think this is worked out sufficiently far

for me, certainly, to understand what the end point is,

what we realistically expect to get out of this,

how we're going to performance manage it,

what milestones we're going to expect.

There's a pre -stage in these doing at least

before setting up the committee, I'd suggest,

and may result in a very different type

of committee coming here.

But I would very strongly suggest that in the discussion with Hammersmith and Foulham,

we see if there's any appetite on their side of the river, that rather than almost throwing

bricks which has happened to a slight extent, not this evening but there have been moments

when that's been the case, I think, in said that we all come together and fight for something

that affects our area of London equally on both sides of the river.

Well, I'd add to your point, Councillor Cramston, I don't just think it's H &F. I think if you're

in Richmond, you also have an equal interest, just as much as we do, if not greater. And

I don't think if we were to establish a committee, I think actually that would be a catalyst

for perhaps holding a joint session between all three boroughs, for example. But in order

to do that, you do need to have something like a committee with some nominated people

to act as the catalyst for doing that.

It's very difficult, at least in my mind,

to conceive how you would otherwise bring it together.

But if we were to establish one,

then it would be a perfect possibility

to be open to having some joint sessions

with Richmond and H &F, for example.

Councillor Graham.

Yes, well just on that last point,

as I said earlier, I think, I agree,

I'm no problem with setting up a joint committee

with Hamilton and Fulham if they were willing to do that.

I think the issue they have at the moment is that there is a big process which the DFT

is asking them to go through.

Until they've gone through that process, I don't think they're going to be able to do

alternatives.

Also, if a DFT then hands them $120 million but is only going to be used for the purposes

of that bid, which is to just keep it open to pedestrians and not open it to traffic,

then they're not going to be at that point, because they've got DFT money with funding

agreements to pursue that, going to be open to a joint committee that's looking at alternatives

that might cost the same or less and actually get it open to traffic.

That's just the nature of the funding agreement

that the legislature did.

So I think there may be some practical problems to that.

But if, for example, that bid was rejected,

they might immediately wish to go into the joint committee.

Or if we were able to make the case from outside

that there was an alternative, which they're not currently

able to do, again, we might be able to get there.

I think not knowing where this process might end up

and when it might end up is the reason for setting up

a standing committee.

Because we do know it will take some time to resolve whatever.

Going back to the point about expenditure, this committee won't spend any money and setting

it up does not cost any money.

If as the administration we feel that there are options that need to be looked at that

would justify commissioning work or asking officers to undertake work in the interests

of residents, we will do that regardless.

The question is whether we do it in consultation with the committee on which the opposition

is involved, or we just do it by ourselves.

So if Councillor Rieb wishes to oppose this,

because she doesn't wish to have any influence

over how we spend money in that way,

she's welcome to, but all she's doing is cutting herself

out of any decision making process there,

which otherwise would go in consultation with the committee.

I'm not quite sure why she'd wish to do that,

but we don't need a committee, a standing committee,

in order to appoint some consultants

to look at stuff that we want to look at.

Chancellor Rigby?

Yeah, no, I mean, we've said all we need to say,

that we were effectively cut out of this discussion anyway,

because we got the paper four minutes before the meeting

started.

And you're now expecting us to have a full engagement.

And even talking about voting for or against it,

I haven't read it.

We keep going back to that.

You're expecting us to have read it.

We don't even know.

There was thought that the conversation yesterday

it was going to be an OSC.

It's not an OSC.

Again, another thing that's just been rushed through.

You have to have frames of reference for a committee.

What's the frame of reference going to be?

How long is it going?

How long?

Well, it might.

Well, no, because you're just ridiculing us.

You're just absolutely ridiculing us.

And the insult that you decided that I

was going to have 10 minutes to read something as important

as sorting out the bridge in Hammersmith.

I thought you thought this was an important issue

for your residents, and you're giving people

10 minutes to respond to it.

Ridiculous.

Chancellor Graham.

Well, the terms of reference to the committee

literally fit on one side of A4.

There are nine number points which are single sentences.

It took me all of two minutes to work out what that was.

I really don't understand the problem.

the time that Councillor Wrigley has spent talking about the fact she hasn't had time

to look at things would have been time to read this over about 15 or 20 times.

I mean, the fact is that it's not difficult conceptually.

Well, look, whether it's true or not, he's entitled to his view.

From what I'm hearing, though, is it the case that the Labour members are wishing to abstain?

If so, I'll need a lot of this point.

and if you're wishing to abstain,

we'll come to a move on to the second part.

My understanding from what was said at the beginning.

Councillor Grimston.

Yeah, okay, just to take point eight of the terms of reference.

It says the terms of reference,

the committee shall commission reports evidence and expert advice

as necessary to support the committee's work.

And yet, that is a clear contradiction

from saying the committee, in effect, doesn't have a budget.

Because it's not saying here,

the committee will recommend that the council

commission reports as necessary,

saying that the committee will commission the reports.

I would actually like to suggest that we defer this

to the next meeting of this committee.

There are details in here that we can't possibly

have picked up in the short period of time

since it's been published.

That looks to me to be a clear contradiction

within the report.

I entirely agree this is work worth doing, by the way.

I don't want that to be misunderstood.

It is a very serious issue for our residents and I think it's also an issue across by the

Albert Bridge as well.

So I still think that a wider piece of work in looking at our relationship with the other

side of the river is sensible.

But if we want to focus on the issues at the moment, then fair enough.

But we need to have time to look at this in its detail to cheque through those details

and make sure they make sense.

So I'd suggest that we defer the paper until the next meeting.

So, some of the points which have been raised this evening can be taken into account, and

then we'll have had time to go through it in more detail than has been necessary.

That's a separate point.

I think that's the point Councillor Grimstod is making.

What I would say, Councillor Grimstod, is that I think we can amend these points.

I think Council Graham makes a very fair point

that it is the position that the administration

could be advancing these arguments

and does intend to advance these arguments.

The attempt to have a committee is to create a forum

in which those could be discussed.

We are not meeting again for quite a number of weeks,

and I think that it would be a shame not least

because the government is coming out

with its 10 -year plan in November,

and I think at the very least we should be thinking about articulating some of our thoughts

before the government comes up with a 10 -year plan.

For example, it would be very regrettable if reopening Hammersmith Bridge was not the

sort of thing the government was listing in its 10 -year plan, and that's one of my reasons

for being keen to get on with it.

I think articulating and making the case is always useful.

I agree with you in an absolute practical sense.

I don't think Mr Burnham is quaking in his boots for that.

I just don't really see what a deferral is going to achieve.

I agree with you about smoothing out some of the issues, by the way,

but they could be done perfectly reasonably at the next meeting or failing that at the

first meeting at which the committee met.

I come back and say I'm comfortable with this setting up something which either does or

doesn't have considerable spending powers, depending on which bit of hope you read. I've

I've not had a chance on and we had the discussion yesterday, which I thought was very fruitful.

But when it comes to this kind of detail here, we need a bit of time as a committee.

We can't be in the role of looking at this seriously or scrutinising it or whatever the term is for a committee of this nature

if it's landed on as... I don't know, I absolutely understand why that happened and there was no bad will involved in that at all.

It's just the way it panned out.

But with something of this nature, which I totally agree

is something that is worth a while working with,

but without teasing through the ideas

whether we should start it off with working

with the other councils that are most effective

from the start and go from that point onwards

whether that might give greater weight to it or whatever.

At least being able to look at those issues seriously

and in a reflective way, which sadly is not possible

to do if we just had the table this evening for whatever regular reasons.

Chair, if I could try and give some advice and clarify the point with regards to paragraph

8 that Councillor Grimston raised as regards to the Committee having the remit to be able

to commission reports, evidence and expert advice, et cetera. It's not intended to be

inconsistency, the status of the committee is that it doesn't have

delegated executive or non -executive decision -making powers and therefore if

any, if the committee determined that that was necessary, it would still need to go

through the usual decision -making process, whether, as Councillor Graham has

referred to, it falls beneath the threshold for cabinet decisions and

would be determined by officers or if it was above that threshold, it would be

determined through the usual way of overview and scrutiny committees, committees

reviewing a key decision before that decision is taken by cabinet. It wouldn't be this

committee that would be making the decision in order to incur the expenditure.

I was just going to say, rather than voting on deferring the whole paper, if we do that,

then we also take down the substitutions.

So possibly we should separate out.

I mean, I don't actually think recommendation three

is necessary.

So we could just take out recommendation two

and deal with that separately.

Recommendation two is to consider the provision

for substitutes on council committees

as set out in appendix B. So it would just be.

There are three recommendations.

The first is about the standing committee.

The third is to give a wide -ranging power to the monitoring officer to make further consequential

drafting, cross -reference, and formatting changes, which actually, on my reading of

Appendix B, isn't necessary.

Shall we deal with this bit about substitutes and then refer back to voting at the end,

because that might elicit whether that's necessary, if that's useful.

So if you come in turn to the subject of substitutes, who would like to speak to that point?

Councillor Grimson.

Yes, I mean this is something I was very keen on when we were discussing the covenants of

supply, that because of where we are with the hung council at the moment, where every

member's vote is there, then I think you do reach a position where it's quite possible

the democratic workings of the council

can be almost completely upended

by a single member of either side

not being available for a particular meeting.

I did a little cheque around.

Merton has named substitutes for its meetings.

Kingston has named representatives.

Enfield, Richmond actually allows any member

of any committee to nominate any member of the council

to act as a substitute as long as they are

within the same political party,

which is not difficult given the situation

enrichment to achieve.

So we are really quite out of step

anyway with not allowing substitutes.

My preference, I think, would be named substitutes

for the committee so they are part

of the family of that committee and being

aware of the purview of that committee and the issues.

Because as people serve on committees,

clearly they learn more.

And I suspect they become better scroungers over the year

or years they serve on the committee as they

become more aware of the issues.

So my preference would be for a scheme

whereby people were named onto the committees.

I can see that can cause downsides of its own, though.

But I do feel generally that we need to be very aware

as a group, and perhaps I'm almost speaking

as the standards general with this,

of the quality of life of our members.

If someone has a, you know, clearly if someone's on there,

very, very ill, they won't be able to make it in.

But occasionally someone might have a very important

birthday for their partner or children

or a wedding or whatever.

And it's unfortunate if the message that goes out

towards people is you've got to sell your whole life

to the council at every point,

otherwise the business doesn't go through.

And I'm not sure that's a good way of retaining members

in the future or it attracting new people in.

So my real feeling about this was really

a quality of life issue and a council life balance issue.

I think the democracy just works more smoothly

if there is a possibility of allowing substitutes

to serve rather than a committee

being absolutely dependent on every member turning up.

I came to Councillor Agrena's hand.

I have some great sympathy for that.

Councillor Grimsman, I don't have the pleasure

or the downside of having children,

but speaking to my group colleagues who do,

I know that they find it particularly difficult.

And I think a situation where we don't have,

you know, I would argue we have too few members with children.

And this sort of measure, frankly,

brings one into the modern age, in my view.

I think we're an unusual outlier in not already

allowing this stuff.

I prefer the measure as written in respect to substitutes,

because I think it takes into account the nature

of where we are and also that it's very difficult

for the administration to provide two named substitutes

when cabinet members who make up a significant chunk

of the group can't, by their very nature,

have been cabinet members beyond that.

And that's why I think this is a reasonable balance

and I think with a booty on the other foot,

that would also be the case for Labour members.

I think when I'm looking at these things,

I am trying to think not just what's good

for the administration, but actually a settlement

that both sides broadly, albeit imperfect, could live with.

And I think this mirrors many other local authorities.

Councillor Rigby, you had something you wish to add?

Yeah, I mean, I'm just wondering where this was.

When my kids were very little,

It certainly wasn't on the cards when the labour group was very small and we had many young families

and it didn't seem to, sort of like, no one seemed to have lost any sleep over that

and you know maternity cover and maternity pay.

I think we did ask at one point somebody who just had a baby if there could be something like this

and the answer was absolutely no.

My issue with it is that when you're named onto a committee and you want to go on that committee

and some people really want to go on a committee and some people really don't want to go on another

type of committee.

So just getting people to the right committees

is often like a challenge in itself.

And then getting them to know that that is their committee.

They look after it.

They're reading the papers.

They're turning up.

They're fully committed to it.

My issue with this is, and there is

loads of councils that don't do pairing and substitutes,

we've just heard from a handful here,

that it starts to just chip away

at how much that team works together

and how much people are across the papers.

So, you know, like, it's hard,

especially when they're thrown in at the last minute.

But sometimes you read your papers and if you're on another committee and you're a substitute

on that, the expectation is you're going to have to read all those papers too because

you may get called into it.

And nobody really has time for all of that.

And I think there's other reasons why this might be happening because it's been brought

I haven't read it.

It's another thing that is,

I know you don't want to hear again how annoying it is to get papers

four minutes before, but things like substitutions

won't help with that.

This was specifically mentioned in the Supply and Confidence Agreement.

It's been in the public domain that this

is where we'd be moving for nearly six months now.

So it's no, no.

So you were aware it was coming forward and had a chance

as a group to discuss it.

I'll just say, it does say very clearly,

a group may nominate up to two eligible.

There's no duty on the political group to do that.

If either group or any other group in the future

decides not to nominate substitutes,

then they needn't do so.

It just gives the opportunity there

It seems to me, like we say, it is particularly an issue for women in modern local government.

I work with quite a few other councils.

This is an issue that comes up there.

There is that particular pressure already on women with young children particularly.

I think we should be aiming to make it as easy as possible for women with young children

to be members of this council.

and this is one very practical way of doing it.

So I think we should be open to the idea

that the world is changing out there

and be open to being a bit more inclusive

than perhaps some of our practises have been in the past,

as you rightly say.

Chancellor Graham.

So for clarity, we already have introduced,

through the constitutional changes that were made

in, previously, and went through this committee previously,

named substitutes for the ordinary committees,

which would include the planning committee.

Appointments have not been made

to those named substitutes positions by full council,

so there are no substitutes currently in place,

but we don't need this procedure

in order to, at the next full council,

appoint named substitutes for those ordinary committees.

What this does is twofold.

It extends it to all committees,

rather than just having it apply to the order of the business, so it would extend it to

OSCs and other relevant committees.

And to come to Councillor Grimson's point, I think that the wording in 2 is somewhat

ambiguous, so it might need to be tweaked.

I understand the intention of paragraph 2 is to remove, move away from having two named,

pre -named substitutes and just allowing substitutes

who qualify to be nominated at least a day before.

So, which would also move away therefore from full council

needing to appoint them as named substitutes.

Now, I think the wording does need to be tightened up

in two to make that clear.

And if the view here is that it actually should be

same substitutes and it needs to be moved the other way around to make it clear that

it's the other way around at the moment.

It's somewhat unclear.

It only takes some very minor tweaks to do that, but as I understand it, what the intention

here is to allow any eligible council, councillors to be swapped out for a number up to two on

a committee 24 hours prior.

I think mess is somewhat pejorative.

It's not, it, it, it.

I'm not in a very good mood about this paper.

You didn't get the message already.

He's intending to be for Georgia.

I'm glad he prefers the clarity of my drafting.

Do you have a suggested draught for Councillor Grown?

Yes, so all we need to do, if we want to clarify

that the intention is to allow any eligible member to swap out beforehand

in two, we just need to delete the word potential change

for the relevant committee to for a relevant committee,

run on after subcommittee with a comma rather than a sentence break,

so when an ordinary member will be absent from committee full stop,

delete the words the group may notify which,

and just say any nominee is factored in the ordinary member's place.

Likewise, I would also say between, made only by the group leader or group member,

I'd add relevant group leader or group group,

because there is obviously,

or one is likely to be more than one most of the time.

Councillor Osborne.

Perhaps we should defer that item too for a better wording.

It's provided the best wording.

In the interests of moving things,

Councillor Rigby, I'll come to you

and then I'll try moving things on.

I thought we were,

I thought this shuffle was going as well.

What happened? Wasn't there a discussion yesterday about the shuffle going?

Is that in this paper?

Yeah, and the 45 words that you said.

So don't give any nonsense about how we discussed this.

No, no, no.

It's super clear that we want to remove the shuffle.

We haven't worked that up and...

Just add it in.

It's not been discussed by our group.

How can you possibly expect us to take the line?

Can't we just say, build the shuffle?

Sorry, so far there hasn't been a shuffle.

I'm not quite sure what your objections are to a process that hasn't happened.

I mean, look, I'm super sympathetic to the point about the shuffle as I indicated yesterday's back room boys deal.

One simple workaround for the shuffle, if I may, is that if both sides were to agree

on a set equal number of say four questions each,

then there would be no need for a shuffle

and we could get through those.

And that could be managed as a compromise.

I'm super, super, which is effectively

what happened last time.

And I'm super happy to bring forward a paper

and sort out the shuffle as I undertook

to do a full council last time round.

Yeah, I mean, I'm sure Mr. Chaudry,

if he's not otherwise busy tomorrow,

I could bring something forward.

It does require some recommendation

from this committee to propose it to the council.

So it wouldn't be any good if I produced a report tomorrow.

The other thing is it runs through the standing orders

that that process is in place.

That would be technically can be done.

But it's not an easy thing to do.

And any changes to the Constitution

have to come via this committee.

So we can't delegate that away.

Both the days when the ruling group could do as it wished.

Hey, Peter.

Well, I mean, it was to move away

from the dictatorial practise of the past

that we introduced this, yes.

The point is...

Very good teachers.

Yeah, no, I'm super clear about that.

I think the point Councillor Graham is making

is that it would just be super difficult to do,

but it is definitely our undertaking to do that.

I think we made that very clear yesterday.

And if we were to agree a set number of questions of 4 and 4, that would remove the obstacle

to the next full council.

No, it's not for the reasons Councillor Graham and Mr Cherry said.

Nothing in the standing orders prevents informal understanding between the two groups which

would negate the need to have a shuffle for the purposes of determining who gets to ask

questions.

It does then bring things back to everything

being controlled by the WIPs, which is, of course,

the intention to remove.

But there you go.

Do we want to deal with this issue of substitutes first

or vote on the thing as one?

So that would be a recommendation.

I wonder if we've agreed that we're

going to defer the first bit.

I'd just rather we leave to a vote

and then people can have their say.

So are we voting on the two, both the committee?

I'll take them separately so that they're not all defeated.

I just have Mr. Childress for your recommendation

three is necessary.

No, it's not entirely necessary.

It's a stopgap provision just to make sure

that any errant references to substitutes

and other elements of the constitution

that I haven't picked up as part of this initially

that I have the ability to put right.

Fine. So I think my preference would be,

let's just vote on one and two and leave three out,

because we are coming, if there is some minor point

that needs to be fixed, we can pick it up in the next round.

I think it's a good thing.

The Regis delegates powers of monitoring officer

to make changes without bringing them back to anybody,

which is better avoided if it's not necessary,

and we just had a clarification it's not necessary.

Do number three first, those in favour of substitute,

I think is effectively what we're saying.

Sorry.

Sorry, number two, okay.

Yes, you have, go on, Mr. Chavri.

Sorry, as amended, as per the amendment

that Councillor Graham read out to paragraph two

of the substitute's provision.

And was everyone content with that?

We've got that down, what his amendment to that paragraph is.

Malcolm, would you like him to read it again?

Is that the amendment to it?

The bit with him amending...

The original paragraph as amended.

As amended, correct, yes.

Well, I think he's got the word.

And that is what we're doing with you.

But Councillor Graham is happy to read it out again

for the sake of clarity.

I think it's right.

What committee is this amended?

So it's amending on page 10, in paragraph two, on page 10,

which is adding a new section

to the temporary committee procedure rules.

In paragraph two, in the first sentence,

removes the word potential.

In the, then the definite article follows that,

replaces the with a.

After subcommittee, then replaces the full stop

with a comma and presumably reduces the w in when

from upper case to lower case,

if you want it particularly defined.

Runs on until absent from a meeting,

then adds full stop, deletes the words

the group may notify which,

and then adds the word any, and so that it then proceeds

any nominees to act in the ordinary member's place,

and in the next sentence, adds the word relevant

after the before group leader.

All those in favour of the papers as amended.

Those against.

Judy Caradine, now we come to part.

Abstention, I assumed you were abstending, sorry.

Given you weren't for or against, I assumed you were.

I was thinking, sorry.

But that'll never catch on.

We now come to Power F1, which is

the setting up of a Hammersmith Bridge Committee.

Those in favour?

Sorry.

Is it?

I don't want to.

Sorry.

I don't know.

I'm still not sure I'm so advised.

If we refuse it now, does that prevent us

from discussing it again within six months?

It doesn't prevent you from discussing it tomorrow.

It's only Council that's restricted by that provision.

Right.

Because I, seriously, it's an important bit of work,

and I don't want to lose it.

That's not, my objections are not

that I don't think we should be looking at this.

It was that I don't know that we've been in a position

to work out whether this is what would

be our preferred suggestions as to how to look at it.

So leaving it to another cycle so we can look at it properly

is there.

So I'm not voting against the concept of this.

I am asking specifically that we defer it to the next meeting.

And I'm moving it to a vote. I understand what you're saying, and I did take some soundings,

and I think we'd have difficulty moving it as a task and finish group, notwithstanding our conversation yesterday.

I think for the reasons we set out, it makes a lot of sense to do it as it is.

If people don't wish to have an honest with bridge committee, that's their mind.

I understand, Councillor Grimson, that's not what you're saying.

That's not what I heard, however, from the other members of the committee.

We have the same concerns as Councillor Grimson.

There's no... The terms of reference we'd probably want to input into.

We'd probably want to ask around and see if anyone else has done something like this

and what worked for them?

And where do you find other solutions

when the best engineering firms in the country have tried?

So there's lots of questions that we'd want to bring in

and contribute to setting up the terms of reference

rather than having them thrust on us.

Paul Minnich before.

Just in respect of the terms of reference,

If you wish to amend the terms of reference,

it'd be nothing to prevent you coming back

and amending the terms of reference in the future.

All you're actually doing is delaying us

from getting on with the work.

Well, given you haven't read the paper,

it's difficult to know what it is

in the terms of reference you object to,

nevertheless.

Can I just say, you've been really unfair

when you use terms like,

you haven't read the paper as if,

like, we deliberately didn't read the paper.

You have to accept that we were not given the time to do it and you're not going to turn this into a little

Game where it's like a lady councillors turned up and didn't read the papers because that is not cool

But it's not what I said and I actually

Suggested almost two hours ago that we could break for you to have time to read the paper

And I've not been given ten minutes to read a paper since my since an English lit exam

Some of us read it in less than 10 minutes and understood all the points that seemed

to be missing on your time.

You're so clever, Peter.

There's a difference between understanding the gist of a paper, which you can certainly

do in 10 minutes, and being able to look through the details of that paper and come to a view

on it.

And I say, no, it was a great thing, the meeting yesterday, I thought it was very good practise,

I hope we have more of those, but one of the outcomes, just because of the timing, was

that I don't feel confident that I've had time to look through this as it stands at

and I want time to do that.

And that's why I'm suggesting here,

if you want to force me into voting

against the recommendation entirely, that's what I will do.

But I would rather that we were making it clear

that it's not in principle here.

It's a matter of a desire to be able to look at it

in more detail.

Indeed.

Those in favour of recommendation one?

Those against?

Julie Nett?

Thank you and good evening.

Interactive webcast player

General Purposes CommitteeTuesday, 13th October 2026 at 7:30pm

General Purposes Committee
Tuesday, 13th October 2026 at 7:30pm