Interactive webcast player

Cabinet
Monday, 12th October 2026 at 6:00pm

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

1 Declarations of Interests

to our two guests at the end of the table,
colleagues from GMB.
I'm guessing you wanted to speak on the re -enablement paper,
paper 17, is that correct?
Yeah.
With everyone's indulgence, we'll therefore take this
as our first item on the agenda,
and then we'll move back to item two
on the medium -term financial plan,
which I know Councillor Hogg, you would like to speak on.
The format is super simple.
You've kind of got up to five minutes to make your case.
Someone from our side will respond in your case,
I think, probably you, Councillor Gossain,
and then we'll move to a vote.
So over to you, and thank you for joining us.
Sorry, declarations of interest.
I don't think we have any.
None.
And I should also add for the record,
if we're getting into that, Councillor Dela Sejour is running about 15 minutes late, but
will be joining us and she's our only apology, otherwise we're a full house.
My name is Agnes, I work for KITE, the environment team. Mainly my job is to go out and complete

17 Reablement Services - Supporting residents to live healthier, more independent lives (Paper No. 26-204)

the assessment in people's homes once they are discharged from hospital. Yes, KITE have
been a royal team to the council and when COVID -19 came along, we were the only team
within in -house social services that was frontline, caring for people in their own homes, face
to face, at a great risk to our own health. One of our colleagues lost her husband because
because she took the COVID home.
Our managers also followed up in the community
to complete the assessment, face -to -face assessments.
All the social workers and the OTs,
we are working from home.
So which means,
the enablement officer and the managers of the KITE,
we will go out there, complete assessment
and feedback to the social worker and the OT
to complete their paperwork.
We understand the service may need to change due to the capacity as Kite was not allowed
to fill in vacancy for almost four years.
Our staff have gone for long -term sickness with no replacement.
Our staff have gone for retirement with no replacement, talking about four years down
the line, no replacement, but still we continue to work hard and take care of our clients
in the community.
We did all we could.
The council tax is going up by almost 100 percent to generate the income, but it appears
as the council has picked on the oldest team
to lose our jobs in time where the cost of living
is extremely high.
Why not look at the options on how KITE staff
can be integrated within other teams?
For example, quality assurance where there are
several vacancies, or example hospital team
or NHS Quick Start.
This gets a few ideas for the council to consider.
Thank you very much.
And I think from the GMB's perspective, we sat in the meeting where this was announced.
The director made it very clear that this wasn't the only team that was going to be affected.
And I thought it was important for people here to see today that there is a human cost to the decisions that are made.
One of the things that the GMB stated in that meeting is that we're not going to spend the
next three years sitting, holding the hands of people, good people, that will be losing
their jobs as a result of a programme of cuts.
We will fight the cuts and we invite the leader of the council to meet with us to discuss
if there are alternatives for it.
If we can't have those discussions,
then we will be looking at industrial action
across the council to resist this programme of cuts
because all of our members matter.
They deliver a service to the residents of Wandsworth
and they deserve better than a pink slip
at the end of the day.
I'm super happy to meet with you.
That's not a problem whatsoever.
And I do share and sympathise with some of your points
on cuts from our point of view.
These are being forced upon us.
I noted with interest the representation
that your own GMB representative made to a Labour Party
conference.
And I think I wholeheartedly agreed
with every single word of it.
So this has been done to us.
And if you like, then Liverpool has
The consequence of that is that it gets passed on
both in terms of cuts, as you mentioned,
but also in terms of higher council tax payments.
That's an inevitable consequence of what the fair funding
formula has done to a borough like this,
but I'm super happy for us to meet up.
I'd like to extend Councillor Moritz's invitation
to speak at any time.
Thank you Agnes for your testimony.
I think you really brought home the value of your profession and the work that you do.
I myself, I work in the health sector.
As a clinical psychologist I work closely with support workers carers.
Day to day I see first hand the wonderful job that you do.
And this isn't a decision that we come to lightly.
This is something that requires careful and sensitive consideration,
because as you say, these are people's livelihoods.
And not just people's livelihoods, but people who've worked for many years with us.
Some of our most hardworking, most valued members of staff who've done a fantastic job
in really, really testing circumstances.
You gave some examples of that and a really poignant personal example of a colleague of yours during the Covid era.
So this is a difficult decision.
And it's not a decision that we're making
because of the CUTS.
This isn't part of the CUTS programme.
This is something that a decision that's been
come to over a number of years in order to determine
what's the best way to deliver cost effective care
to residents and the best quality service to residents.
Much like you see in the NHS,
you see decisions made every day.
There are services or treatments
that they could provide that they are unable to because they're not cost effective.
And it's important that we're able to spend the money in the best way to provide the best
possible service to our residents.
So we're looking at reconfiguring the service to be able to do that.
But it's something that we inherited from the previous administration.
As I say, this plan has been in place for a while.
and it's particularly pressing now I think with the perilous financial
situation of the council but it's the decision has been made because of that
so I think it's important to say that first of all we as I say we're very
aware of the human cost and we're offering a very comprehensive support
package to people like Agnes and her colleagues so there will be advice on
employment advice on pensions there will be introductions to potential
employers. There's a generous redundancy package that has been offered to all of the kite workers.
So it's not a case that we're cutting them loose. We understand fully that this is a
very, very serious decision with a very, very significant effect on people's lives and we
will do whatever we can as a council to ensure that that transition for our valued staff
is made as seamless as possible.
And we're more than happy to arrange meetings
with potential future employers or advisors,
as I say, the KITE members of staff with advice on pension
and other ways of support over the coming period.
Are there any questions that you would like to ask me?
Essentially, you're outsourcing the service.
That's effectively what you're doing.
You're taking well -paid, good -conditioned jobs
that many people in the community have relied upon
and delivered with for the residents.
And instead, you're putting it into the hands
of the private sector and maybe even third sector.
And from what I can see, it feels like you're just washing your hands of it.
What we see very often is ideological decisions made by politicians and
local government that leads to worse service outcomes for
the residents, leads to people losing their jobs, their livelihoods.
I understand you said that there is a great package on offer.
A lot of the people working in this service
are very close to retirement.
It's going to be difficult for them to find other employment.
That doesn't seem to matter to the local authority.
From my perspective, I think that this
is an ideological decision that's being made.
It's an unnecessary decision.
And what it's going to lead to is the breakdown
of industrial piece of the council.
You've picked a group of workers that I would say
are some of the most loyal and yet some
of the most vulnerable workers and expose workers
to losing their jobs in the current job market.
and I don't find much comfort in the words that you've given and I'm sure the colleagues
who've come out today also don't.
As I said, we are aware that this isn't going to be the only team affected by cutbacks.
Our position is we will ballot every single member across both councils and bring them
out on strike if there isn't a change in course, a change in direction. Because
there is, we are here to demonstrate the human cost, we're here to protect our
members, we're here to protect their livelihoods, their families. I don't see
any comfort in the words that you've given us, I don't find any and I struggle
to understand the need of this authority to slash and burn and hand things off to the
private sector without really a good enough sort of reason and justification for it. I
don't see it.
First of all, we're not privatising the service.
80 % of our current provision for reablement is in the private sector.
You'll see across London, pretty much every borrower has a completely private service.
So council provided reablement services are their outliers.
I think only Merton possibly in London provide that.
I do have to come back strongly on the ideological point.
I repeat, this is something that we inherited
from the previous Labour administration.
I have not, this administration has not
changed the policy in any substantial way.
It's essentially the same policy that we inherited
from the previous Labour administration, who
don't happen to believe that there is a need for cuts,
which there clearly is.
So it's not an ideological thing.
It's purely informed by a decision,
how can we make best use of our resources
to provide the best possible care for our residents?
And with any service of this kind,
they've always got to be uppermost in our considerations.
And it is a decision made about what's
the best way to provide high quality
care in a cost effective way.
And by providing the cost effective way,
you can meet more people's needs rather than fewer.
So that's the reason we've come to the decision.
It's nothing to do with ideological persuasion
or anything to do with the need to make significant savings
across the council.
This policy was in place before I arrived in my post
and before the current administration came into power.
Any colleagues want to comment or are we content to turn to Councillor Graham?
I mean, very briefly, just to reiterate the comment made, the service is currently six
times more expensive than the alternative, and yet the alternative services have a similar
– alternative services available have a similar rating from the regulators in this
area. So while I have a great deal of sympathy with what is being said, that is not just
an ideological point. There is a cost -effectiveness value for money point that we are duty -bound
to consider, given that the saving here would otherwise result in more than a percentage
point increase on capital tax to cover. And that is not something we can justify. And
there is shown to be a reason for that disparity. And while I have sympathy with the points
you've made, I don't think that reason has been provided to us.
Thank you. Right. CABANA is asked to agree the recommendations in A and B as set out
in Paragraph 2 .1 of the report on the agenda page 441. Is that agreed? All those in favour?
Carried. Right. Thank you very much, both of you. And we'll set up that meeting.
Simon, I don't know if you're happy to stay there or if you want to shuffle round,
whichever you prefer.
I don't –
Thank you.
Perfect.
You want to speak to us about item two, the medium -term financial strategy.

2 Medium Term Financial Strategy (Paper No. 26-237)

A bit like last time, I'll let you know when you're getting close to your five minutes
should you get there.
Otherwise, the floor is yours.
Thank you.
appreciate the opportunity. Unfortunately this paper sets in stone the plan for Wandsworth
Conservatives to double your council tax. This is awful for local people, it's unnecessary
and it will really hurt hard -pressed families, too many of whom are just getting by at the
moment and this sudden blow will mean no summer holiday or no stool shoes or even more debt.
There is no financial need for a vast increase this year.
This decision is purely political.
It's clear the Tory plan is to increase council tax
way beyond what's required now
and then reduce it again the year before the election.
They plan to bribe you with your own money
and hope that you don't notice.
And when Labour ran Wandsworth Council,
we had the lowest council tax in the country,
the highest reserves of any neighbouring borough
and no external debt.
and the new Conservative administration has brought chaos.
They are extreme, they are divided,
and they clearly don't have a credible plan
for how to run the council.
So Labour promised to keep any council tax increase
below 5 % and we would deliver this,
and I'll say more about that later.
But let's be clear on the figures.
You know, you had all of these figures last year
when the three -year funding settlement was signed
before you wrote your manifesto,
before you made promises to local people.
So the Conservatives misled residents and they now want to bring in a staggering tax
increase with no consultation, with no referendum for local people.
And it has been incredibly unpopular with residents and they are wrecking their reputation.
I say it's setting it in stone, but I don't think we can go on like this.
and I think there is an outline of a way forward
coming into view, because the tax demand itself,
we've seen from national coverage, is absurd,
and no one believes the council needs to go
from taking 80 million pounds a year
to more than 200 million pounds a year.
Doubling council taxes is sort of over the top,
opening bid, and I think now councillors on both sides
recognise the public pressure to be more realistic.
because residents think doing it up front in one go is insane. Even the meanest monopoly
like Thames Water doesn't get to double your bill and make your service worse at the same
time. So any increase must be smaller, more reasonable, and should be spread across multiple
years. I have to say I've not yet found anyone who was involved in this spending review.
It actually became clear during some of the committee meetings that some of the cabinet
members hadn't actually read the spending review elements that related to them yet.
So we all have a lot of work to do before the budget is set in January or February to
make things more credible and more palatable to local people.
And yes, some of the assumptions about budgets are not sensible.
Any savings which you put forward, which we do believe in savings, we're actually proposing
more than you had, but they are dwarfed by spiralling departments or budgets.
Accountants are openly ridiculing the assertion that there should be 130
million pound tax increases in year one to cover all the requirements of the
organisation over the next three years. No professional would put their name to
that approach in their own company. It is a hugely muddled approach. The incoming
administration scrapped much of the work in progress to make the council more
modern, you know, people without experience of transforming organisations
in the age of AI are trying to take us back to the 1980s. It's more sort of grim
bookkeeping than actually growth and partnerships. And residents are very
clear, they're very clear they expect the Council to drive every ounce of
efficiency and reform and to use all of our financial muscle, whether developer
contributions and reserves and so on before we even think of coming back to them with
massive demands for extra money. So I think, Chair, we should put their views and their
hopes at the centre of our financial planning, not the absurd need for Wandsworth Council
to keep all of its budgets and personnel the same and to avoid reform which is coming to
all organisations in the economy. So I hope we can use the coming months wisely to get
a better deal for local people. Thank you.
Councillor Graham, in the interest of fairness, here's four and a half minutes.
I have a couple of very short questions for Councillor Holts. I won't take even 30 seconds
to ask my first one, which is that we're not the only cabinet meeting this evening. In
Hammersmith and Fulham, there is a Labour cabinet meeting
this evening which is looking at a paper which
says that they would need to increase council tax by 150 %
in April to broadly balance their budget.
So does he regard Labour, Hammersmith, and Fulham
as extreme, as purely political, as cruel,
as he's described us on other circumstances,
or somehow totally out of touch and out of practise
with the basic accountancy?
Up to you, Councillor Hogg.
Your second point, you can make Councillor Graham if Councillor Hogg is not willing to
answer that one.
Councillor Hogg was in charge here and it seems extraordinary that he doesn't want to
defend his record.
He thinks that he should come here and make absurd statements like the fact that his savings
are more ambitious than ours when he explained very clearly that he was targeting 45 million
and our paper set out 79 million.
I mean, that does show that he can't add up, but I would have thought that he would want
to defend his record.
And when he says he has an alternative, I would have thought he would want to set it
out.
Is he refusing to answer any questions on this?
Do we have to set up evidence sessions at our ICs in order to get answers on what he
would set out as an alternative?
Councillor Hogg, it's up to you. You're not required to get into a backwards and forwards,
but the opportunity in the floor is yours.
I'll just say a very few words, Chair, because I do appreciate the format of the meeting
and I had sort of agreed that it would be five minutes per item and you are allowing
me to speak a lot this evening. So it's not for me to come here and I'm very happy to
run the Council. If you want to make that arrangement, we can do that. But no, not here
to give evidence or to answer Councillor Graham's questions.
In fact, he should be providing rebuttals
to some of the points we made.
It's not a very attractive image,
but a Tory councillor said to me this week,
Councillor Graham's filled his nappy
and now he has to sit in it for a while.
You know, it's not for us to actually explain
how you get out of this problem.
You've created a huge problem
and you have to get out of it.
Sorry, well, if I may briefly,
Councillor Hoag consistently refuses to get engaged
with evidence, with numbers, make any kind of case,
and then resorts to juvenile and slightly perverse language
on every possible occasion.
He was quoted in the Times, not just as suggesting
that we were doing this as bizarrely,
given the numbers involved to stage some sort
of pre -election council tax cut,
but it was, in his words, filthy council tax cut.
I mean, he is the one that indulges in very odd language
and yet does not engage.
When we allow ward councillors to come to the planning committee
in order to make points about a planning application,
the members of the committee ask them questions and they answer.
When we allow members that aren't on a committee
to come to an OSC,
The members of the OSC ask some questions and they answer.
He has been mentioned to come here, he has put a point and he should answer his position,
otherwise he should not attend.
He's entitled to attend but in the interest, unless someone's got Councillor Cornyn, if
you've got something substantive to add, then otherwise we'll move through that.
I was just going to put on record that paragraph 59 says it makes clear, it is clear that council
tax increases of 5 % each year proposed by Councillor Hogg would not close the structural
budget gap and would exhaust the Council's reserves fully within two years after which
the Council would effectively be bankrupt. This clearly shows that Labour's plan just
is not realistic at all and as Councillor Graham says, just does not engage with reality.
Okay, let's move onwards.
As Councillor Hogg's rightly noted, we've got a lot of items on the agenda.
Could I just bring your attention to that?
There was a late appendix relating the Sustainable Communities Act.
Therefore Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out in paragraphs one to five on page
five.
Is that agreed?
All those in favour, raise your hand.

3 General Fund Capital Programme Update (Paper No. 26-238)

Right, item three, members will have read and consider the papers.
Councillor Hawke, is this another one that you have on your list?
The floor is yours in that case.
Thank you.
And yeah, I'm happy to come back on some of the points made, but as I say, I think I'll
do it within the five -minute buckets you've given me, because otherwise it could become
quite public debate.
So we're talking about the capital programme mainly and I was just wondering if cabinet
members could talk about the significant reductions in investment in the hitting specific projects
which will concern local people. For instance, the investment in Tooting Town Centre and
the Oasis in Battersea, those are neighbourhoods that haven't seen a huge amount of capital
investment over the years and people would be very disappointed that that investment's
withdrawn so it'd be good to understand the thinking there. I know residents in Roehampton
were particularly concerned about the proposed changes to the budget for Portsmouth Place so
it'd be helpful to understand what the plan is with the Alton Renewal Plan just to reassure
residents we are going ahead with the plan that we balloted on and you know the funding from the
Mayor of London has been secured and so on because there's just some uncertainty about what's going
happen there. And just the two other things was very disappointing. The cut to
the capital funding to support the net zero ambition, both the ones with
sustainability strategy and the net zero funding, and also ending Britain's
biggest bike hanger roll out. I hope that 17 % of people who voted green in the
election have sort of noted the outcomes that they've got from that. And do we
still have the ambition as a council to be net zero by 2030 because it will make
it much more difficult to get there if we're not going to keep that ambitious
progress. And I think as we've talked elsewhere as well we feel the change of
plan about getting a great workplace is foolish that instead of you know trying
to make the town hall extension livable with air conditioning and so on and
keeping people together in those big floor plates,
trying to renovate this heritage asset,
it's gonna be hugely expensive,
you know, it's listed, it's single glazed,
we'll find all sorts of special things
when we start trying to convert it into modern workplace.
You'll know it's very hot in the winter,
it's cold, no, it's cold in the winter
and hot in the summer, there you go.
But we'll work on that.
And when we had an LGA peer review,
one of the things it noted quite an arresting phrase,
they just issues with Wandsworth's hierarchical culture,
but it said the culture is in the walls,
keeping everyone in oak -panelled offices
separate to each other in this old building
was not actually helping,
and that move to a modern workplace
would actually have helped.
So I just want to be clear that is something
that if Control of the Council changes next year
or in a few years' time,
that is something that we would stop and reverse
because we just think it's not the best way
to attract the best workforce.
And we've got to go forward and become
a modern, effective organisation,
not go backwards to a past that needs
ever more taxpayers' money for less and less.
But back to council tax, I mean,
you asked about our position,
and I'm happy to say more about that.
I mean, low council tax has,
for as long as any of us can remember,
and it's good to see Councillor Govindia here
being part of life in Wandsworth,
it is one of the most effective cost of living measures
this borough's ever had.
People really appreciate it.
And as I say, there's a lot of families
really feeling the squeeze at the moment.
We'll hear more of their testimonies later.
And I just keep coming back to this idea
that council tax is a dreadful, unpopular, unfair tax.
It hits low -income people six times harder
than the most affluent.
So it is fair and the right thing to do
to keep it as low as we can.
And that's our starting point.
That's our starting point when we're on the council.
That's our starting point from this position.
So you've got to kind of have an anchor.
And as it's not, you know, let's raise taxes to, you know,
whatever maximal level we think they should be,
it's let's try and anchor them as low as we can
because that's fair for local families.
And blaming the funding settlement from the government,
I mean, it is a very serious reduction in funding,
But it doesn't change the fact that this is a local choice for us about how to manage our finances
And you are asking people to pay much much more for much less your this evening scrapping free bulky waste collections
we've scrapped hundreds of new affordable homes in the past couple of months and
unbelievably all grants to the charity sector
How can you increase taxes? How can you increase income by 130 million?
and not have enough to hand out a few thousand pounds
here or there to local charities.
And all of this, while the council's reserves
remain substantial and the council has zero external debt
and remains one of the best off councils in the UK.
We're at the five minute mark,
can I just ask you to wrap up briefly?
So I was gonna explain what Labour will do differently,
but I'll let you continue.
You'll have to wait for my next five minute contribution
if you'd like to do that.
But just if we could just seek a bit of explanation
in terms of the tuting and the OASIS sites,
what the future is on the old term,
are we still committed to net zero?
That'd be very great.
Perfect.
I think we'll start with Councillor Graham,
but Councillor Conlon, some of these
are quite housing related, so we might want to pick those up.
Start with you, Councillor Graham, first.
Yes, well, we're not ending the rollout of bike hangars.
The capital that was associated
with carbon reduction projects wasn't actually attached to any projects.
Councillor Hogg himself had failed to come up with a single project on which to spend
that money, which is why it has been reallocated.
And he talks about the town hall refurbishment.
It was his administration that entered into a contract without any discussion, without
anyone being aware of it, with, as far as I'm aware, even his cabinet being unaware,
that we were committed as a council
to move to rented offices,
which was supposedly in nine alms,
and if we failed to move, the taxpayer,
this council, was on the hook for £200 ,000
to get out of the contract.
Can he explain to us why he entered into that contract,
why there was no discussion or disclosure
or debate with anybody,
and what benefit that served to the taxpayer?
Back to Councillor Hawke, let's try and answer his question.
We haven't answered that first, and then we'll get back to you.
No, because we'll never get through all the items otherwise.
So, Councillor Cornyn, specifically on Portsmouth Place in the autumn, I think you first.
And then there was also a point, I don't know who wants to answer it, about tooting
an oasis, and then we'll return to Councillor Hawke.
Thank you, Chair.
So on alternate state, this administration is committed to improving the state of our
current housing stock and much of the stock on the alternate state is below the standards
we would expect and certainly that we would want to improve.
So we are committed to estate regenerations, but we do need to recognise that the plan
that was voted on in the ballot was unfunded by the previous Labour
administration. The delta between GLA funding and the overall cost of the
scheme is essentially unaccounted for so we need to make sure that we can fund
that. We're very pleased to be going ahead with the Block A site as a
kind of first phase of the regeneration under this administration to make sure
with driving forward improvements.
And we'll be continuing to take a phased approach
to make sure that we can deliver the highest,
make sure that future aspects of the regeneration
meet the potential of the area.
And this includes looking at how we can, for example,
get business investment.
I know it's something that the local MP, for example,
has been calling for, and it's something
we're very happy to go away and do work to see if it's possible. Just on
Portsmouth's place specifically, that scheme was a hit to the general fund, so
to go ahead with it would mean even greater tax increases, which would be a
direct hit on residents in the borough. And as he said, it's not a very good tax,
so we should be looking into opportunities to reduce it where
possible, especially on unfunded schemes such as this one.
Councillor Brooks, do you want to pick up the net zero point?
Yes, thank you very much, Leader. I just refer Councillor Hogg to my answer to Councillor
Glynne's question at the last full Council, where she asked me whether there was any change
of plans on the carbon neutral target by 2030, the net zero by 2043 targets? The answer was no.
These targets remain in place. Obviously, we'll be watching central government closely
as to what support they have and what support they'll be maintaining to help local governments
achieve targets like that and we'll be bringing an update on the WES to the
February environment oversight and scrutiny committee. Perfect thank you.
Chancellor Hawke, I don't know if you want to answer. Councillor Graham, he's waving his hand at you and me
so you can pick it up in your next five minutes or you can answer it now
whichever you prefer.
I don't think we are going to get an answer, are we?
The thing is that we had Councillor Hawke who for several years refused to turn up to
the finance OSC to take any questions or take any evidence sessions there, who certainly
didn't allow us to attend cabinet meetings to ask questions, who has been allowed this
opportunity to engage in a way that he never gave to opposition councillors when he was
in charge and in that process absolutely spurns it.
Now you quite rightly, like Councillor Morrick pointed out,
that he's not obliged to answer our questions,
but nor are we obliged to answer his.
So perhaps we should just stop answering as well.
You've more than made your point.
The cabinet is recommended to agree the recommendations are
set out in paragraphs 1 .1 to 1 .3 on the agenda page 107.
Is that agreed?
If so, raise your hands.
Agreed.

4 Corporate Q1 Quarterly Monitoring Report (Paper No. 26-240)

agenda item for corporate quarterly monitoring report pages 145 to 154. Councillor, was this
one that you had on your list or is this one worth skipping?
I'll just make a few comments and pick up the questions that were made there. I think
Councillor Graham's statement about the office move is extraordinary. He's just admitting
to a blunder to wasting a few hundred thousand pounds.
I mean, you have an option to move to Battersea Power Station,
which will attract the best talent in the sector
and from outside the sector
to have a modern, agile organisation.
Or you can blunder in and uproot that plan and say...
Why didn't you tell anybody about it?
Did your cabinet know about it?
Or you can say, let's just sit here
in this Edwardian town hall forever.
And of course my cabinet knew about it.
Of course senior officers knew about it.
That's how we've managed to work through the plan.
But as I say, you guys now have the very difficult
responsibility of running the council.
You can't just keep attacking anyone who disagrees
with your assertions.
You can't just keep saying things in a creepy voice
and hope it intimidates people.
You're the decision maker.
You're responsible.
You have to justify your decisions.
What is it with the perverse language, creepy voice,
all this other stuff?
What is your problem?
Why can't you just engage in an argument in good faith?
Unless you have no arguments at all and no evidence at all.
The fact is you took a decision which had direct consequences
for the taxpayer and you absolutely refused to defend it
and your cabinet didn't know, I'm sorry,
and lots of senior officers certainly didn't know
because that's what they told us.
Let's keep the personal out of it
and move on to the substantive remarks.
I was the one getting personal.
I didn't say you were.
So I think, as I say, I'll try and stick to the speaking boxes given, because I'm aware
if I show up and wipe the floor with him too often, it will be withdrawn, the opportunity
that I've been given. But the point about the overspends here is it's all very well,
building castles in the sky about future savings. You haven't got control of the two biggest
budgets of adults and children here. These are overspending. These are huge budgets that
we just have to get under control.
So that's the specific paper we're looking at.
So what measures are we taking to get even the in -year spending back under control?
It's hard to wipe the floor of anybody when you won't get onto it.
No further comments. Right.
The Cabinet is asked to note the report, in particular the forecast outcome,
term, position and explanations are set out in paragraph 1 .1 on page 145.
Is that all agreed?
Agreed.
Agreed.

5 Review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme Consultation (Paper No. 26-241)

Agenda item five, review the Council Tax Reduction Scheme, pages 155 to 190.
I'm guessing, Councillor Hogg, this is also on your list?
Yeah.
No, no.
This is hugely concerning, but perhaps...
Sorry, it's up to you how you structure the meeting, but perhaps an instance where it
would be helpful to have an introduction or to explain it, just because it's hugely technical
and residents would probably need to understand it.
But I'm happy to go first and...
No, no, no, I'm sure Councillor Gromer is very happy to introduce it.
I'm certainly happy to introduce it, as I did at the Finance Committee.
The fact is we are extremely concerned about the impact
that the Council tax increases that the Government is forcing onto us,
which as the current serving Treasury Minister, Torson Bell, described it,
Wandsworth is setting artificially low Council tax
because of what he has attributed to a Tory funding system
that the Labour government was proud to be, in his words,
reforming.
Just as other Labour MPs have talked about their pride
in taking funding away from Wandsworth
and giving it to other areas of the country,
this is forcing us into that position,
and we know that council tax is regressive,
and we know that it will have a serious impact
with an increase of any scale,
but certainly of this huge scale on those on lower incomes,
and therefore, we are looking particularly
at what we can do to try to ease the impact on those on the very lowest incomes, both
those who are currently in receipt of counter -tax reduction, but also those who fall just outside
it.
So we are expanding the criteria so that more people benefit, and we are nearly doubling
the support provided next year in order to cushion that impact and stagger it across
through to the 2030 -31 period.
Everyone will now pay something, which was the case in the past, but no one will have
to face a large one -off increase, and over that period it then brings the overall expenditure
on the working age element back down to just slightly above where it is now.
So this both can be very generous next year, but does not mean that we have to make a higher
tax increase than we need to across the four years because we are basing it on where we
will be in 2030 -31.
It would be possible on one sense to leave the council tax discounts where they are right
now, but that would lead to a permanent doubling in the cost of the scheme.
You'd be looking at a 8 % or higher percentage increase in council tax needed on top of the
one we have already announced in order to fund that.
So if Councillor Hogg wishes to argue for changes to this or wishes to say it should
be even more generous than he is, he needs to explain if he wishes council tax to be
higher than the very high level we have unfortunately already had to set out.
Councillor Hogg, hope that's a good explanation. The floor is yours.
Thanks. Yeah, I think it's helpful for people to understand that, you know, you set council
tax, but actually the impact that that will have on lowest income people is very dependent
on what support scheme you put in place.
And these changes are awful.
You know, this scheme is getting much, much worse, not better.
And it sort of comes back to that choice we have tonight.
You know, do you make the council more modern and effective
using our vast financial muscle,
or do you panic and cut back support for the most vulnerable?
And pretending that this is better or stronger
really does reveal the mindset.
It is objectively worse for individuals in the real world.
and then it becomes even more terrible. Some of the people are going from paying zero council
tax to really a lot of council tax and they're on low fixed incomes that they can't really
shift. But because the absolute figure will appear bigger on a spreadsheet, Tory councillors
will convince themselves the scheme is stronger, but in the real world, people will notice
and this will have a really awful impact. Many people have been in touch already, scared
out of their wits of how they will find £1 ,000 on that low fixed income. Again, you could
easily spread the council tax increase across two years, but you choose not to in order
to help the Conservative Party win the next election. And this is, you're not supposed
to nod at that Matthew. This is the old trick where you get the bad news out of the way
in year one and then you can do your pre -election giveaway in year four. And Councillor Graham
masks about facing the public or scrutiny. I know Ian, Councillor Morritt, haven't yet
found time to hold public meetings with residents. Obviously, I did that every month and visited
every ward in the borough throughout the year. I hope they'll do that. We've had more than
10 ,000 signatures on our petition about council tax, been contacted by, had more than 2 ,000
messages about the impact of these budget announcements.
I'll just pick 10 almost at random.
Because doubling our council tax is unfair
and will force lots of families out of their local area
where their children go to school.
Five or 10 % increase is palatable.
100 % who has an extra grand in their bank account.
As a paramedic on NHS wages, I cannot afford to pay
an increase and will be forced to terminate
my housing contract.
A 94 % increase in one year is simply unaffordable.
Whatever the financial pressures facing the council, almost doubling households' council
tax in one go is too much.
After a decade of saving, my boyfriend and I got the keys to our first home two months
ago.
The most expensive and carefully budgeted decision of our lives.
We feel absolutely blindsided by this and don't know where we'll find the extra money.
I'll just say a few more as I think the voices of residents should be front and centre in
these decisions. A rise of 94 % in a single year is not something residents
can absorb. It needs phasing over several years at a minimum. It's the difference
between putting food on the table and heating on and me going into debt. It's a
despicable increase and will tip many Wandsworth residents into poverty and I
have three kids and just cannot keep up with the cost of living and doubling my
Council tax is going to make life harder.
Sorry, I've got 2 ,000 of these, shall I?
I'll just finish with one more.
You're almost making me nostalgic for the days of Jeremy Corbyn when he used to read
these out at PMQs.
At 70 years old, this increase will financially cripple me.
I mean, you're getting the idea that whatever feedback you're getting from the people around
you in the real world, this is just about as serious a decision and imposition that
the council could make because as we agreed, council tax is a dreadful unfair tax and it
is going to hit the lowest income people the hardest and raising it while reducing the
safety net for the most vulnerable is appallingly unfair and will have a huge impact on those
people and it is that link back to you scrapping the cost of living support work to ending
access for all, raising council tax, removing support for the charity sector.
All of those budget measures are regressive.
You are making lowest income people pay the most to close the gap that we have in our
budget, and withdrawing support for refugees, low income people, disabled people, and just
ordinary income families that are struggling to make ends meet.
And the recurring theme is being forced out of the borough for financial reasons.
So I'd say you could of course keep all of those things because you're proposing Britain's biggest ever council tax increase
You'll have a hundred and thirty million pounds extra
But you don't you choose to cut support for the most vulnerable in our community, which is shameful
I'll let you come back cancer. I'm just on this point about engagement. I'm super happy to
To engage do a walk around and in any ward and I think I've almost visited
I have joined some of the estate walkabouts.
I think we are doing one next week with Councillor Corner.
So I am super happy to do that.
Councillor Graham and then Councillor Corner.
Councillor Hopp just read out lots of quotes about a one -off increase, large increase in
year one, which is of course the position for people who are not on Council tax reduction
scheme.
I wish we could phase it for everybody else.
Unfortunately, the funding that his government provided and the arrangements that they have
provided don't allow us to do that.
It is financially impossible for us to do that.
However, on council tax reduction,
we are phasing it, and it still doesn't accept that.
So this is an example of us phasing it across the period.
Were we to not just phase it,
but then go beyond the current level of support,
we would have to increase the bills for the people,
the very people who just read out those quotes, buy more.
That would result in a larger increase for them.
And his idea that the council tax increase
that we will have to make,
unless the government reconsiders its position,
is to fund all driven by some pre -election tax cut.
We currently, if we kept council tax where it is,
would raise £77 million through council tax next year.
By 2030 -31, the additional income
from this council tax increase,
if we have to go ahead with it,
will be 143 million pounds.
Is he seriously suggesting that we're doing that
for a council tax cut?
Is he seriously suggesting that actually we're proposing
to set negative council tax in the year before the election?
And how would that be sustainable in any case?
It is absolute nonsense, which is exactly why
other councils, Labour councils like Hammersmith and Fulham
are in exactly the same boat as us,
looking at exactly the same things.
The one thing he could do to help all of those people
who are justifiably concerned about the position they would be in,
is to support our challenge to the government
so we might get better transitional arrangements or better funding.
Will he support us?
Right, in the interests of moving us on,
we're only on agenda 5, after all.
Cabinet is asked to...
Will he tell us if he'll support us?
We're so happy to say a few words about what we would do differently,
I asked if you'd support our challenge to the government.
Well, let him finish it just so...
Guys, guys, I'm not here for you to like, shout questions.
As I say, you will assert your version,
but then if someone disagrees with you,
you just sort of shout them down.
I'm saying you've chosen one path,
which I think is an extraordinary path,
it's not the right one.
We would have done it differently,
we will do it differently.
But just to explain, you know,
that is built on the record of sound financial management,
where we did keep council tax down,
We did protect frontline services,
and we did pass on high reserves
and very low external debt.
The reduction in government grant is really serious.
We campaigned hard against this.
You even complained about how hard we campaigned against this
before you campaigned about how we didn't campaign.
I must admit that campaign, you paid £86 ,000 to a lobbyist,
to lobby in private without telling anybody.
Will you support our challenge to the government?
It's a very simple question.
One at a time.
So it is a very serious reduction.
As you know, the...
Sorry, if Councillor Holm is going to treat us with contempt in this way, I don't see
why we should even bother to listen to him.
Why are we hearing?
Trying to talk in full sentences rather than shouting over people.
It is a very serious reduction, but we need to be clear, this funding settlement, this
three -year funding settlement was closed last year.
You know, we've discussed this, there is a near zero likelihood of that fair funding
settlement being reopened. The will, there always are, the extra funding opportunities
from central government. Me, the MPs, I hope very much you two are very actively engaged
with government to try and maximise every opportunity for Wandsworth. But if your answer
on how do we get out of this is get the government to reopen a settlement that will disadvantage
hundreds of other councils around the country, you are selling local residents for all sorts
That is not a sensible plan.
Just to be very clear, that's not our proposition.
That's not what we're suggesting.
What we're actually suggesting.
There are loads of extra funding streams
thanks to what is effectively a very high tax labour
government that likes fleecing ones with residents,
whether that's people who live in normal family
homes that are over 2 million quid,
whether that's the overnight duty levy.
None of that involves unpicking.
And it's wholly disingenuous to suggest
it does involve unpicking the existing settlement.
Our Labour MPs, yes, we'll work with them and lobby them,
but let's spread an illusion,
two of them voted to take this money away from this council.
Well, Sitzi, you'd have to ask them about that,
but we are absolutely committed to try and get
the best possible result that we can
for local people in Wonser.
we'll try and get all of that funding back.
But I'm just saying, let's focus our energies
where it's actually most useful,
and not just shout at each other,
are you supporting this Conservative Party stunt?
But I'm just gonna set out what we would do differently
to protect local residents from this,
Britain's biggest ever council tax increase,
instead reforming the council, pushing as hard as we can.
So increasing council tax by no more than 5 %
as we pledged in our manifesto.
So that would make you an extra 20 million pounds,
roughly speaking, right?
Well, I was going to appeal to the chair
to not be interrupted.
Sorry.
But since it's the chair doing it, I don't know what to do.
I've been relatively indulgent, I think.
But there does come a point where either my patience
is expanded, where I get the point.
You want to do it slower, and you want
to only go up by 5 % per annum.
It's very simple to work out what the quantum is.
As I understand it, that's roughly speaking
an extra 20 million.
It doesn't fill in the gap.
Are you saying that your 45 million of cuts, for example,
is on top of the cruel and unjust cuts
that Councillor Graham is proposing?
Or have I missed something about this magic money orchard?
Allow me to explain.
We would protect local residents from those large increases
by reforming the Council, like every other organisation,
facing a shortfall in its income over the coming years.
So we keep Council tax increases low,
because the second you increase it,
you can forget the reform, you can forget
the government doing a deal with you.
By increasing your Council tax in year one,
you're blowing all of that.
We would use part of the reserves
to smooth the adjustment over several years.
We would cut temporary accommodation payments
to private landlords.
We would reduce duplication in corporate services,
Wandsworth core staffing cost twice the London average.
We'd modernise services and deepen the successful partnership with Richmond Council and we would
drive every ounce of efficiency before even thinking of asking hard -pressed residents
for your money.
Just to remind you of the Conservative plan, they are exaggerating the scale of the financial
challenge to push through their agenda.
They're declaring an emergency, they're granting themselves sweeping powers and saying something
must be done.
Because even on its own terms, the Conservative plan doesn't make any sense.
They're trying to tackle a loss of income of £80 million in three years' time by
£130 million tax increase next year.
And you can tell it's not a credible plan, because let's say you're successful.
Let's say you beat the odds and you actually get the whole of fair funding reversed.
The whole of it gets reversed and you get all of that money back again.
your inflated plans would still mean
you need to do a council tax increase of 70 or 80%.
It's perfectly clear this is not about fair funding.
It would be an increase of 151 million pounds to our coffers.
I'm interested in reading this on,
given the length of the agenda.
If you have these numbers, and let's just assume
for a second that you're acting in good faith on them.
20 million you get extra from council tax.
The best thing you could do to advance your argument
and actually to protect local residents
would be just to publish your numbers
and show us how it all works.
And then every, because I think ultimately
neither side here is going to agree.
You have things you want to cut.
May well be the case that we think some of your ideas
are good and we can build them into what we're doing
and that would protect local services.
But all I'm hearing is I'm getting an extra 20 million
in extra revenue from an extra 5%,
which is all well and good,
but I'm not hearing where the other
100 plus million quid comes from.
And aside from this stuff,
if we just take the 151 million of fair funding,
that 20 million extra doesn't even fill next year's hole
all the year after, and in the meantime,
reserves are kaput.
So we've had more than fair discussion on agenda item five.
I'm going to move it on.
The cabinet is asked to agree to the recommendations
set out in paragraph 1 .1 of the report
on the agenda page 155 by way of taking forward
option three for the consultation.
Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Item six, I think this is one of the ones,

6 Investing in a Dedicated Policing Team (Paper No. 26-243)

Councillor Hogg, that you wanted to speak to briefly.
If we can, in the interest of time, make it brief,
I'd be obliged.
Of course, yeah, I mean, I think it's just a proposal
without perhaps all the detail that residents
might want to get for such a large commitment of funds.
Sort of, you know, how is it being paid for,
how much is developer contributions
and how much is general funds, sort of,
how will the management and the control
of these offices work, what will their location be?
Because this costs 15 million pounds this term.
We've just heard about your fiscal conservatism, but this proposal on its own would require
a 7 % increase in council tax and in normal times trigger a referendum for that extra
spending.
So while we all want to see more police on the beat, there are actually organisations
that have a statutory responsibility to employ police officers.
So can we please hear more about these plans and can we be reassured that they won't be
neighbourhood wardens, public safety charities, the work that we do to support victims of
domestic abuse, because you could see a very large headline increase in this area taking
up a lot of resources elsewhere.
Councillor Di Ciano, do you want to respond to that briefly?
And I'll have a statement, no question this time. So we have found $79 million in net
savings, that's after the $5 million cost associated with this annually.
Councillor Hogg said that he was only going to make $45 million in savings.
So I think the idea that this is driving any sort of expenditure problem is simply not
true.
The fact is that we have more than covered the amount this will cost through the savings
that we have identified and that this would make no significant difference to our ability
to close the remaining gap.
Thanks, Peter.
In terms of the other points, I think the first thing to say is
we're actually delighted to have this paper here tonight,
delivering on one of our key manifesto promises.
I think it's a very ambitious paper in terms of neighbourhood
enforcement, community safety, etc.,
and the most ambitious plans across all of London, actually.
So, delighted to have that tonight.
There are a number of questions.
I didn't jot them all down,
so maybe I can follow up with you in due course.
But the paper talks about investment in policing.
That would be additional to the current provision
that we have.
I think that's key to understand that.
And the paper also signals our ambition
when it comes to integrated enforcement team.
You asked some quite specific questions
in terms of location, I think.
The plan will be to locate them on the Town Hall campus.
In terms of management, the police officers will be hiring,
will remain under operation control,
under the MET's operation control,
but we will obviously have a say in terms of where
that resource is deployed across Wandsworth,
and that would also fit in with the enforcement team,
integrated enforcement team that will be building.
So the idea is that as a council, as community groups,
residents, councils, et cetera, can feed into that process
and to how we can best utilise that resource.
There's a lot of work going on in terms of KPIs
and in terms of numbers, et cetera.
So this is just signalling our ambition
when it particularly comes to the enforcement team.
So I'm very happy to take follow -up questions if you want
and was more detailed.
Perfect, thank you.
Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendation
set out in paragraph one of the report
on agenda page 191.
Is that agreed?
Item seven, Councillor Hogg,

7 Waste & Street Cleansing Services Investment (Paper No. 26-219)

do you want to speak to this one?
Yeah, again, briefly, thanks, Chair.
So obviously much of this is welcome.
Indeed, much of it is the plan
that we were putting forward.
But I think as was raised in committee,
we're very concerned we're opposed
to cutting free bulky waste.
I think it's a really valued service.
And we need to provide services
to a broad range of residents.
We can't just have a council for people
who have social care needs.
We need a beautiful borough as well.
And free bulky waste collections are really popular.
Tens of thousands of bookings.
When we asked hundreds of people to rate it,
it was I think 4 .8 stars out of five,
and it contributed to a reduction in fly tipping,
as did the Mega Skips programme.
And I think we should not only not reduce that,
I think it would be beneficial
to bring that to more neighbourhoods.
And I think as well as free bulky waste and Mega Skips,
the committee also asked for support
for community cleanup projects and more beautification
and planters kind of co -designed with residents.
So it'd be good to hear ideas about that.
And I think there's also a question about when your manifesto pledge to re -injure split
back waste collection vehicles will be fulfilled.
Councillor Brooks, do you want to respond to those?
Yes, thank you very much, leader.
Yeah, I'll deal with the free bulky waste issue primarily.
I think it's important to start by saying that they're not free.
They cost the council over one million pounds annually to provide.
I think without any expenditure like this, we need to look at what it actually achieves.
Whilst the policy was supposed to reduce fly tipping, what we actually saw during the period
after it was introduced was an increase in the tonnage of fly -tipped waste that was being
collected by our contractors. That was up to a 65 tonne increase per month during 2025.
So I don't think it's right to be spending over £1 million annually for a service that
doesn't provide the results ultimately that it seeks to.
Our proposed £30 charge is entirely normal by London standards and lower than the headline
charges in several neighbouring boroughs.
And crucially, as a result of this decision, we're able to reinvest this financial capacity
into more jetwashing, more frequent sweeping, better contract monitoring and tougher enforcement.
So that's the choice we're ultimately making.
Councillor Hogg also asked about the split back,
split back to vehicle manifesto pledge.
In the manifesto, we said we'd look at doing it
as practical.
Obviously, as a result of the previous administration
making the decision to purchase those vehicles outright
rather than lease them from the contractor,
We're stuck with those vehicles.
So any decision we make going into the contract,
renewal, sorry, not renewal,
the procurements for March, 2028,
we'd need to take into account
that we now own that asset
and can't rush into any decision.
But yes, there is a big job to do
in the procurement process going into that 2028.
and I'm sure everything like that will be covered
at the environment OSC.
Thank you, right.
Cabinet has asked to agree the recommendations page eight,
so that paragraph 1 .1 is reported on page 219.
Notes, I don't think eight is on your list,
is it, Councillor Hogg?

8 Wandsworth Libraries - Future delivery model options (Paper No. 26-220)

So in that case, Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations A to C set out in paragraph
1 .1 of the report on agenda page 225 in respect of the Wandsworth Library's future delivery
model options. Is that agreed?
Item 9 was on your list, Councillor Hawke. The floor is yours.

9 Culture and Leisure Future Concession Scheme (Paper No. 26-239)

Thank you. Yeah, no, this is another awful proposal. This is scrapping access for all,
which is Britain's best concessionary scheme
that provides eligible residents 50 to 100 % discounts
on sport, leisure, great days out, key council services.
And that's to help with the cost of living,
but also to ensure that everyone can access
the opportunities that makes living
in Wandsworth so special.
More than 10 ,000 members signed up,
they've made more than 100 ,000 bookings,
and you wanna end this progress,
seemingly out of spite,
and certainly for no great financial gain.
As well as free gym and swim,
we saw thousands of discounted tickets
sold for flagship London Borough of Culture events,
like Country on the Common, Battersea Parking Concert,
the Secret Cinema Greece and so on.
It was great to have half price access
to the e -scooter and e -bike schemes,
which are great for active travel,
but not all residents can actually take part in them
unless they're given some financial support.
And well over 100 baby boxes were handing out to new parents.
They're just wonderful, this not only welcome to the world,
but a gateway to our excellent wrap -around
children's services, including in our family hubs.
So how did we afford it?
Well, three years ago, when we froze council tax,
we increased departmental frontline budgets.
and we had four million pounds left over surplus.
So we created a locked box fund
to create Britain's best concessionary scheme,
measured by breadth and by depth.
And that's what sound financial management
and investing in the future looks like.
And that endowment would have lasted for many years,
not least because the smart deals that we've made
with private sector partners have moved much of the cost
off the council.
So this cut isn't actually about saving money,
is about reducing access and the Tories are cutting it because it's a labour scheme and
because they disagree with its goal of equality. And even if you are doing it to save money,
let's be clear what the deal is. You know, you're taking away gym, swim, trips to the
fireworks, school trips you can't pay for, all to put a few thousand pounds back into
reserves. Not to be used for anything, just to keep our reserves above this arbitrary
figure of £70 million, which of course is public money in the first place. And our auditors
are perfectly happy for that to be £40 million in reserves. And if you talk to residents,
they're absolutely clear that is their money and they do not want to see access for all
refugee support, net zero cut until their money has actually been used. They don't want
you to come back and demand thousands more problems from them. And just to be clear to
Access for All is being suspended,
and we will resume it when we take control of the council,
whether next year or in a few years time.
So I want officers to manage this mothballing
in a way that's reversible to cause
as little disruption as possible,
because building up that trust,
building up that mailing list is hugely important.
We had residents who were scared to go in
swimming with their children
because they weren't sure what they were gonna pay.
The Access for All cards gave them the confidence
to do that.
And Access for All did help to heal some of the divisions
in Wandsworth's life between those who don't come
from top universities and have dual incomes
and families who have to grow up locally.
Because you have that phrase, full market price.
And full market price doesn't work for everyone.
Some children grow up without the experiences
that others can take for granted.
But Access for All meant everyone could have a childhood
that would include culture, that would include sports.
So you get to go see the occasional big day out,
like the Battersea fireworks, and they
didn't have to feel like second -class citizens.
So many families used Tooting Back Lido for the first time
ever when we provided free tickets there,
just using the thin air and the cold water that was available.
No skin off our nose, a real win -win arrangement.
But that's now ended, and people will be poorer mentally
and physically, and the divides in one's worth life
will continue to grow.
And children from poor backgrounds
will have to sit out at school trips.
They'll have more tatty uniforms.
And they won't be able to go to the leisure centre
when their friends ask them at the weekend.
And the walls will go back up.
There will be fewer low -income people using our community
facilities.
They'll be less visible at major events.
You'll only have to mix with people who pay full market
price.
but perhaps that's what you're aiming for.
Thank you, I'll make some couple of observations
and I'm gonna move on super briefly.
This isn't just thousands, this is millions, right?
Maybe that's why we can't add up
where all the numbers come from.
Income foregone is not free.
There is a, everyone who does anything in business
that when you forego income,
it's not at zero cost to the council.
So there is a very real world cost
if we forego income on our contracts,
which means that there's actually a hidden cost
to this scheme, as well as the actual financial one.
I happen to agree with much of what you've said
about culture.
We're very fortunate to live on the doorstep virtually
of world class museums which are free
and have been free at the point of access
paid for by national government.
I just think there's a very large ideological difference
between your position and ours, Councillor Hogg, which is,
I don't believe it's the job of this local authority
to be some kind of pseudo -welfare state
and to write some understandable wrongs
that you've risen with us.
The Labour Party has a majority of hundreds, let's face it.
If it wanted to do all this stuff, it could do.
I just don't happen to believe it's the council's job
to put those things right when we effectively have
this Labour Party with a massive majority
that could fix all those social ills
if it really wanted to.
Anyway, in the interest of time, I digress.
The cabinet is asked to agree.
The recommendations set out in paragraphs 1 .1 to 1 .5
of the report on the agenda page 247, is that agreed?

10 Progressing a Lane Rental Scheme for the London Borough of Wandsworth (26-214)

I think item 10 is another one where we don't have
any contributions, so that being the case,
cabinet is asked to agree recommendations A to E
set out in paragraph one of the report on agenda page 293.
Is that agreed?

11 Hire E-Bikes Fair Use Charter (Paper No. 26-215)

Item 11, was this one that you wanted to speak to briefly?
And before we do, Councillor Austin,
you have some things to say on this item.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Yes, so since this paper went to the OSC Committee
and taking into account the large number of emails
that myself and Councillor for enforcement have got,
we have made some changes to this paper
in order to make it more robust,
and to take those changes into account
while bringing this paper,
before bringing this paper to cabinet.
So there are some recommended changes
that came from residents,
as well as other councillors in their wards.
Thank you, Councillor Austin.
That being the case,
this, I'd actually mix this up with the next one,
which I think is the one you want to speak on,
Councillor Hogg.
That being the case,
The Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out in paragraphs 1 .1 to 1 .6 of the report
on agenda page 299.
Is that agreed?
That brings us to agenda item 12, the draught London Plan consultation.

12 Draft London Plan Consultation (Paper No. 26-216)

This is one that you wish to speak on briefly, I understand.
Okay.
Perfect.
The Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out in paragraph 2 .1 of the report on
the agenda page 311.
Is that agreed?
Agreed.

13 Putney High Street Updates (Paper No. 26-217)

Item 13.
Any contributions
on this? Councillor Austin.
I think Councillor Hogg has
asked me to comment on this paper. However,
before he does, there has been one change made to this paper
between OSC and Cabinet,
which is that the
implementation of the Vice Road
one -way scheme has been
paused pending
a secondary full area consultation after we get the results of the traffic impact survey
back.
Perfect.
Councillor Hogg, do you wish to speak on this or content to move on?
Okay.
Thank you.
Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out in paragraphs 1 .1 and 1 .6 of the report.
Agenda page 331.
Is that agreed?
Item 14, HRA business plan update.
I guess this might be one you wish to speak on, Councillor Haugh, or not.

14 HRA Business Plan Update (Paper No. 26-232)

Yes, only briefly, and I think really just to say, well, in a sense it's disappointing,
but it's very, very similar to the business plan that we would put forward, but obviously
with the removal of hundreds of council homes, of genuinely affordable homes for local people.
And I think it's just worth pointing out that we haven't seen a balancing increase in investment
in repairs or any advance at all,
it's just you've taken out that productive investment
that would have given us those assets,
that would have given local people hundreds of extra homes.
So I'd say it's in many ways welcome,
but I'm just pointing out it's not a radical departure.
Fair enough.
Councillor Colle, do you want to just comment on that?
Thank you, Leader.
Quite something to be lectured by Councillor Hogg
about the delivery of new homes, given that he said in his manifesto in 2022 that one of his
administrations quote first acts would be to build 1 ,000 new council homes. Four years later,
barely a third of them had even started. It was extraordinary and the company alongside that,
there was a massive reduction in housing built by private developers. He stuck two fingers up at
which resulted in a reduction in community infrastructure levy by half, which meant
less kind of place making and community amenities being delivered in the borough. The schemes taken
out of the HRA business plan that he refers to include the Ashburton and Lennox estate schemes,
which residents opposed tooth and nail, yet his administration repeatedly refused to listen to
those residents who were campaigning,
despite the fact that his manifesto in 2022
said that they would allow local residents to decide what
was built in their communities.
We're delighted to have listened to residents,
and we're pleased to remove these schemes from the council's
programme going forward, along with some other schemes that
were actually technically unviable
and could never have been delivered even if he was still
in administration.
Thank you. Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out in Paragraphs 1 .1 and 1 .2 of the report

15 Ten Year Plus One Leasing Model (Paper No. 26-233)

on the agenda, page 339. Is that agreed? Item 15. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this?
That's the 10 -year plus one leasing model. If not, we will move straight forward to a
vote. Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out in Paragraphs 1 .1 and 1 .2 of the report
on the agenda page number 395.
Is that agreed?

16 Allocation Policy Review - Consultation (Paper No. 26-247)

Item number 16, allocation policy review consultation.
Does anyone wish to make any comments on this?
If not, cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations
set out in paragraphs 1 .1 and 1 .2 of the report
on the agenda page 399.
Is that agreed?
Item 17, we have already taken with our GMB colleagues present.

18 Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report (Paper No. 26-248)

Therefore, Item 18, Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report,
the Cabinet, unless there's any comments anyone wishes to make on this,
I'm not seeing any.
Therefore, the Cabinet is recommended to note and receive
the Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report 2526 and note
the positive assurance regarding the Council's safeguarding adults
arrangements and partnerships effectiveness is that agreed? Perfect in
that case I am happy to close at going Councillor Hogg. Sorry just a comment on
item 19 the recommendations from OSCs just to say we had some well yeah
complaints and colleagues that not all of the you know comments they were
giving, you know, that's quite a sketchy sort of pro forma document. It doesn't really pass
on its flavour. Yeah. And even colleagues who'd actually made amendments or they'd made points
and asked them to be passed up to cabinet, they didn't feel that that had kind of been
reflected. And sorry, I wasn't aware till Councillor Austin said that some papers had
changed on the way here. But I think there was some kind of incorrect figures that they
wanted to get corrected as well. So just to note, if we can keep working on that kind
feedback process because we all want to strengthen scrutiny and have OSCs working on and strengthening
these policies.
But I think some colleagues didn't feel that it quite worked this time around.
Yeah, it's a fair point.

19 Recommendations from Overview and Scrutiny Committees (Paper No. 26-253)

It's one that Councillor Osborne picked up with me and Councillor Humphries and the informal
working group.
Councillor Graham, you've got some reflections on that point?
Yes.
Well, it's just, I mean, recommendations should be recommendations that the committee has
So obviously, there are neat, if opposition speakers wish to put forward recommendations
for the Committee's approval, they need to bring appropriate amendments or appropriate
wording.
I know that there was some discussion of finance, but there was no wording available.
Certainly, when we wish to make amendments of that kind, when we were in opposition,
we would not only produce that, but produce it in advance and circulate it in advance,
so it's very clear what everyone was voting on.
if the opposition wish to do likewise, they should probably copy our example.
It's a fair point, Councillor Hogg. It's one in the unit I can perhaps pick up about.
Obviously we don't want inaccuracies in the report. That needs to be done, but just capturing
people's feedback I think is a, notwithstanding Councillor Graham's point, is a reasonable
one and one we will try to do. That concludes the rest of the business on the agenda. Thank
you all.