Council - Wednesday 21 October 2026, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Council
Wednesday, 21st October 2026 at 7:30pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

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.

Thank you.

Please be seated.

You have microphones.

Welcome Councillors to this meeting of the Council.

Apologies have been received from Councillor Hedges,

Councillor Lewis, Councillor Simos,

Councillor Sarah Davies and Councillor Cooper.

Are there any other apologies?

Do we have any items which need to be approved

for urgency reasons?

Thank you.

Item one on the agenda is the minutes.

The minutes of the council meeting held on the 22nd of July

and the 15th of September, 2026 have been circulated.

Are those minutes agreed as a correct record?

Item two, declarations of interests.

Do any members have a disclosable pecuniary interest,

other registrable interest, or non -registrable interest

to declare in relation to an item on tonight's agenda?

Members do not need to repeat interests

already recorded in the council's register of interests unless those

interests are relevant to a matter being considered at this meeting.

Oh, Councillor Critchard.

Can you use your microphone sorry Councillor Crichton. Do you want me to go over it again?

Yes please. Okay just to say as this is going to come up in the discussion, I'm a Governor

of the maintained nursery schools of which Eastwood, which is on the Alton estate, is

one. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Critchard.

Madam Mayor, it might be helpful, although they may not be aware of it, members of the

Council who work or have a close relation working for one of the borough's MPs do have

a disclosable procuniate interest in relation to the first group motion and indeed the amendment

to that motion. Apologies, I didn't know.

Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on. Um item

to welcome back Canon Martin Edwards of the Roman Catholic Church the Oratory

of Saint Mary Magdalene at the top of East Hill and where we will have our

civic service this mayoral year. Thank you Canon Edwards for agreeing once

again to address our full council meeting with words and thoughts that I

hope will inspire councillors and get the meeting off to a good start. Thank

you. Thank you. I'm not used to talking sitting down but the microphones

designed for this. Long -serving, indeed in this context long -suffering, members of

the Council may recall this is my third incarnation in this role. Over many

years I've seen some of you age in the service of this borough. It's the first

time I have been here and there's been nobody at all up in the gallery. Perhaps

the general public knows something we don't, but there's there doesn't seem to

be a huge interest this evening. I always feel sorry for you at this juncture when I'm

about to speak. When Thought for the Day comes on, the Today programme, I normally pop to the

loo, put the kettle on, something like that, but there is nowhere for you to run, but I

will be brief. Today in the Catholic Church we keep the feast of Saint

Margaret Clitheroe. Some of you may have heard of her, particularly those of you

who are from the north. She is known as the Pearl of York. She is a Reformation martyr

and she lived in one of the most famous roads in England, the shambles in York

that appears in the Harry Potter films preserved from mediaeval times. Her

Her husband was a butcher and they had 10 and 11,

which weren't opposite sides of the road then.

There were two properties and he ran his business from there.

Anyway, she got in trouble because she maintained the Catholic faith

at a time when it was, to put it mildly, rather not popular.

She harboured clergy, priests in her little house.

and for that she was arrested and she didn't want her children to be tortured

so she didn't plead because they would have been put to torture under the rules

of that time, late 16th century, and she was condemned to what is described as

la pain d 'eure et fort, fort et d 'eure. For men that was hanging, drawing and

and for a woman, in order not to outrage modesty by having a woman stripped in public,

she was pressed to death.

And may I just briefly tell you what that involves,

because hopefully it will wake you up for the council meeting.

Pressing was the woman was put in a nightgown,

put on sharp stones, a door was placed on top of her,

bowls of rice and water either side of her head not

for comfort's sake but to sustain the agony because then weights were placed on the door and slowly increased until

The victim eventually was crushed to death. That is what she

endured

Catholic celebrator, of course as a heroine for standing up for the faith

But I believe that she has a wider

message and it's twofold. Firstly, as a woman, she was a wife, she was a mother,

but that did not define everything about her. Her husband was a Protestant, he

helped her in any way he could, but he didn't share her belief. She was an

independent person in a world where that was quite unusual. And secondly,

She was somebody like the Huguenots who were so important for the history of Arbarra coming

from the other side of the religious divide who believed in standing up for what she believed.

She believed in free speech, free worship, and the supremacy of conscience over state -enforced

right thinking.

This, as you know, is something that is attacked so often around the world, and those who celebrate

it, I think, have something to teach us.

So on this Feast of Mary Magdalene, be assured, dear Councillors, of our prayers for your

work and for my parishioners who have been asked today to keep particularly in their

prayers before God, gratitude for the work that goes on on behalf of the wider community.

Thank you. Thank you, Canon Edwards. Before we move on to the business of the meeting,

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of former West Hill Councillor

John Tweedy Smith, who served at the borough as an elected member between 1953 and 1962.

I invite members to join me in observing a short period of silence in his memory.

Thank you.

Members may wish to place on record their memories

of Mr. Tweedy Smith's contribution to public life.

Councillor Grinsman.

I was hoping to say a few words about Councillor Tweedy Smith.

Of course, yes.

Sorry, yes, usually when we face the sad but fitting job

paying tribute to former colleagues. We have at least Councillor Belton and

Councillor Govindi and sometimes a few others who can give us personal

anecdotes about their time on the council. I think I'm fairly safe in

saying that I'm the only person here today who actually met John Tweedy Smith.

We had a very enjoyable lunch together seven or eight years ago just after I'd

written the book on West Hill. He was elected for the new West Hill Ward, it

was only four years since we had wards in the borough but he was elected in

in 1953, served for, until 1962 on Wandsworth Council,

Wandsworth Met Council, it was then.

He was also a member of London County Council

for four years, from 1961, winning his seat

by 70 votes in 15 ,000.

For another conservative, a gentleman called

Gordon Passmore, who will be known to many people

here today, and indeed who is, subsequently

became a Freeman of this borough.

John was a businessman.

One of the most interesting points of his political career

was that an award which was made up of big villas

with big gardens, his father was the last owner

of Edgecombe Hall, where the Edgecombe Hall estate,

Councillor Ireland, as the chair of the resident association

will be very familiar with this.

And he sat on the housing committee.

And even in those days when perhaps declarations of interest

were not as tight as they are today,

he decided it was probably worth declaring an interest

when the committee started debating

whether they were going to buy his father's house,

demolish it, and make way for the Edgcombe Hall estate.

In those days, Wandsworth Council

and the London County Council would often be in competition

for buying up the old villas.

That was one that Wandsworth Council won,

and we have Clifford Culpin's wonderful

Edgcombe Hall estate in the place of that.

As so often, business and politics

weren't a great bedfellow for him,

and he had to stand down from Wandsworth Council

in due course.

He was a rare bird and he was one of the few conservative

founders of the Social Democratic Party in 1983.

And he kept an interest in what was going on locally

and indeed on the national scene,

right until his later days.

And one final point of contact,

he housed with Councillor Anthony and indeed with myself.

He was an old stoic, he was at Stowe School

where I would teach 35 years later,

and some years after me,

Councillor Anthony would be a pupil.

So we have those links as well.

In a sense, you know, John was an awful long time ago,

but I do think it's worth our remembering those people

who have served the borough over the many, many years.

John is one of the few last connexions

with the old Metropolitan Borough of Wandsworth.

And as such, I think it's appropriate

that we should remember him this evening.

Thank you, Councillor Grimston.

Item number four,

The presentation of petitions.

Members, please raise your hand to indicate

if you have a petition to hand in.

Once I've called your name, please announce the subject

of the petition and who you are presenting it on behalf of.

Please then come forward and hand your petition to Mrs. Ritchie.

Are there any petitions?

Fantastic.

Councillor Giorgiani.

Thank You madam mayor yes, I'd like to present a petition on

keeping upper Tooting Park playground and Wandsworth Commons toddler playground on the capital programme for 26 27

And it's been signed by over 150 residents in Wandsworth who would like to keep this for our under fives as a provision in the borough

Please thank you. He's bring it to mrs. Ritchie

cancer Henderson

Thank you Madam Mayor. I have a petition signed by almost a thousand people overwhelmingly

residents of the ordinary state asking for the ordinary new plan to be implemented in

the full.

Thank you Councillor Henson. Do you bring it to Mrs Ritchie?

Any more petitions?

Item number five is announcements by the Mayor.

The Deputy Mayor and I have attended dozens of events since we were here last year, only

five weeks ago in September.

We have hosted and visited schools, community groups, and have spoken at business, sporting,

and charity events.

The deputy mayor recently took part in an event

at the Ballum Mosque, an event with the Ballum

and Tooting Community Association, a litter picking day,

and one with council's foster carers reception,

as well as the opening of the fantastic new refurbished

athletics track in Battersea Park.

We have also both done several black history events

this month celebrating the creativity and community spirit

of our borough.

I was particularly delighted to participate in the

African Book Foundation's Celebration of Africa

and heard from one of the Songs of Praise

winning gospel choirs.

I also spoke at the Southside Shopping Centre

for a Black History Month schools event

showcasing images from a schools programme

from children in our community.

I've recently been part of the graduation ceremony

of students from Roehampton University

at the Royal Festival Hall,

awarded sporting achievement at Wandsworth Moves together,

presented awards at Wandsworth in Bloom in Battersea Park,

and awarded at various cadets around the borough awards,

including for Wandsworth, Putney, Tooting,

and Ballamsea Cadets, as well as the Battersea Army Cadets.

We opened a psychiatric unit for women in Putney,

a new AV studio in Lindon Lodge,

celebrated a 100th birthday with Age UK Wandsworth,

and watched a performance on East Hill

about the life of the Italian British composer

Antonio Mantovani and his links to Wandsworth.

Many of us here also attended the 100 year anniversary

of London's first purpose -built mosque in Southfields

and addressed the several hundred guests present.

I have also officiated here at a citizen ceremony

for 45 residents, including French

and Australian family friends,

and hosted meetings with the London Fire Brigade

Borough Commander and the Police Chief

and Superintendent of Wandsworth.

Heathmere Primary School visited the parlour

and took part in a debate and a vote in this very chamber

on whether under 16s should have access to social media.

Yesterday I took part in a planting session

to remember the 500 Battersea civilians

killed in World War II at the 75th anniversary

of the Battersea Memorial in Christchurch Gardens.

And on Sunday, all 32 London mayors

were in Westminster Abbey for the celebration

of the feast of the dedication of the Abbey.

Looking ahead, the Civic Awards are taking place

on the 26th of November and on Wednesday,

the 2nd of December.

I will be hosting a Christmas quiz

for my charities in the Civic Suite.

I hope to see you all there.

And now for the formal business of the meeting.

As a reminder, please could all speakers keep to time

and wind up their speeches when the red light comes on.

When the red light comes on,

you will have 30 seconds remaining to wind up.

This is to allow as many Councillors

as possible to participate.

Item number six, questions to the leader of the Council.

The overall period for questions to the leader

is 20 minutes.

The first question is allocated

to the leader of the opposition.

The leader will answer each question.

The leader, the opposition may ask

up to three supplementary questions

following the answer to the first question.

Each other counsellor whose question has been selected

may ask one supplementary question.

Supplementary questions must take no longer than 30 seconds.

If the questioner is absent, the question is withdrawn.

Requests for supplementary questions

must alternate between administration and other councillors. Members must rise

if they can or otherwise raise their hand to indicate they wish to ask a

supplementary question. When the 20 -minute period has elapsed any

questions not reached will receive a written reply in accordance with the

standing orders. Councillor Hogg. Pardon me, question one to the leader, how many

residents are currently members of the council's access rule scheme, what

services and opportunities will be missed out on

when the programme is ended?

Can I thank him for his question?

As at 20th of October, i .e. yesterday,

there were 10 ,811 members of Access for All.

Access for All was nether three.

It came, in my view, an unsustainable cost

to Wandsworth taxpayers, up to 2 .6 million

at the point at which it was reviewed

by us as an administration.

I think if the leader of the opposition

generally wants to open up and protect communities he should be joining our

challenge. Councillor Hogg supplementary. Supplementary thank you for that answer

as he didn't find time to say access for all provides cut price access to

culture and sporting opportunities to special day out like Go Ape or the

fireworks as well as baby boxes and as those private sector partners shoulder

the overwhelming cost,

it's only a very small fraction of the council.

So I don't believe this is about saving money.

Can the leader confirm the view he gave

at cabinet last Monday,

that he believes the council simply shouldn't be

in the business of supporting low income residents

with this sort of service and promoting equality?

I don't think anyone's, at least of all me,

is against people having access to culture,

but I think what he's actually highlighting here is the real fundamental difference between both parties as I

Accepted the other day at committee access for all is a bit like fair funding in the sense of it has this Orwellian

Disconnect between what is said and what is meant it doesn't help all it actually privileges those on benefits

versus those who are not

and I'm sorry if that's if you wanted to gas but it is a

fundamental truth. Now you can argue for it as much as you wish but that is the

case. There'll be lots of people in this borough making choices about what they

can and can't do and you have made a decision that's perfectly fair it's not

a choice I'm prepared to make.

Council Holg, second supplementary. Supplementary question I think as he

says he has very clearly laid out the difference in values there. Four years

ago we all voted unanimously to make this a borough of sanctuary for refugees.

It's been a huge success building on our proud tradition of welcoming people

fleeing conflict from the Huguenots in the 17th century to our

Ukrainian guests today. Why is he abandoning that commitment that we all made?

I simply don't agree with it. I don't agree with the importation of left -wing

ideology largely from the US and which is what borough sanctuary is all about

it's perfectly legitimate for other members to take a different view on that

I'm just super clear about what my view is I don't support borough sanctuary and

I never have done.

Councillor Ock, third staff member.

Thank you Madam Mayor again.

A very clear divide in values and residents will decide

whether they wanna support people on lower incomes,

whether they think we should be compassionate

towards refugees.

And listening to local people is important.

Just wondering if the leader could say

how many public meetings he's held as leader

and how many he intends to hold for the rest of the year.

I'm doing my first public meeting in a couple of weeks time on 10th of November

as it happens where one of the guests will be the Labour Member of Parliament

where we'll be jointly sharing a platform and articulating our concerns

about Heathrow.

Thank you.

Any more supplementaries?

No, thank you.

Second question, Councillor Covindia.

Can I thank Councillor Covindia for his question?

The national scheme of delegation, I think, which should be no illusion, is a major change

and it fundamentally alters the relationship of every member of this

council between them and their residents. It is something that is imposed upon us

nationally and I must say I don't really understand the problem that it's seeking

to solve. This borough, and I think that is true of both parties actually and it's

also true of the opposition when they were in charge, consistently got through

the business if I look at what happens in terms of the stats and the planning

applications committee we are recognising good quality development and

that's reflected in us that that 87 % of things went through in the last six

months so I share the concern that you have over this but more applications

being decided by officers is not something I can support

supplementary madam mayor. supplementary.

as the leader noted that many other councils have similar views to what he's just expressed

and expressed their opposition to these changes, will he undertake to work with them to press

on the government that this is a false move on their part, it is not going to improve

the throughput of planning decisions,

and least of all, it is not going to build confidence

between people and the planning process.

And quite apart from that,

will he write to the Secretary of State

on behalf of all of us who oppose this change?

Thank you, Kelsey Winder.

I'm super happy to write to the Secretary of State

on behalf of all of us who oppose this change.

I've already sent a letter

Joining many council leaders across the country and other councillors who can sort of this to be a detrimental

move

It is very sad that we're going to have to implement that and that's reflected madam mayor and the papers that will come before us

later I would I think it's important to note that

Residents will still be able to comment on applications

And their views will be considered but they'll be no longer considered by members

they'll be considered by officers and I think that's one of the

things that fundamentally removes that vital link between ours as members immunity societies and

Officers and I can only regret that the government and the local MP who voted for it has decided to cut us out in this way

Thank You cancer dickerdom

Yeah, I want to agree with you. I think it's overreach by the government. I think it attacks

the democratic rights and responsibilities of the local authority to make decisions on

planning. And I think it's a legacy of the previous administration, government administration,

that doesn't match with the devolution programme that I think is really exciting and good that

the new government is bringing forward. On the question of democracy, though, because

it's about democracy, there is one major planning area that had the highest democratic support

in this bar and that was the Alton regeneration which got eighty two point

four percent in a ballot of residents the largest ballot in history so on the

basis that we both agree with democracy in the planning system please see

through that ballot and the plans behind it to the to the to the detail in the

full stop

I do agree with him very much about the devolution stuff and I think actually

it's a real shame because it does cut across what I think is some great work

by this government on devolution lie wholeheartedly support the rhetoric I'm

super happy to update him later but the reality is we only got six forty percent

of what we asked for from our GLA grant so that is going to mean that we have

faced some choices they need to be worked through until they are worked

through I'm not able to give an answer to that as I've been super clear they

may not have liked all my answers but I do think when I answer the question I

am super clear where I'm coming from and so as soon as we've worked that out

there'll be an opportunity for me to answer those questions on the Alton and

I'm sure Councillor Corner in the closing debate will go slightly further

than what I've said but given we only got 40 % we do have to make some choices

and we need to plan and work that through with officers and I can't give

a definitive answer right now. Thank you just moving on to the third

question just to remind members to read out the questions under the the new

system. Thank you, Councillor Apps. Does the leader agree with me that the first

black mayor in London, John Archer, was a champion of social justice because if he

was faced with cutting swimming for children, living in poverty or erecting a

statue, he would have prioritised the children in this borough every time.

Um, no, I do not um as the simple answer to your point

I think this administration has enormous respect for former bada si mayor John Archim is legacy

But we do have to look at this in the round and we are facing a choice as an administration

And I think to present this as a choice between children and heritage

Is a real false one

The real challenge is how we and this would have happened had you won also

face protecting core services and supporting vulnerable residents back and

at the same time putting back the council on a sustainable financial

footing there is inevitably a trade -off between those two things I think it's

perfectly respectable for both sides to disagree where we put that line but I

suspect John Archer would have recognised that responsible stewardship

of the public finances in itself is a matter of social justice because when a

council goes bust and let's make no mistake that is what would otherwise

happen unless we took these sensible decisions then it would be the

vulnerable residents who suffer the most

supplementary cancer apps well John Archer was very clear about his

principles too. He campaigned for a minimum wage. Do you really believe that he would

have supported your cuts to free breakfast for children in this borough? Do you really

think he'd have supported an ending to the commitment of the borough of sanctuary? If

the leader really wants to invoke the spirit of John Archer, he should focus on protecting

those residents who need it. And we left the borough in good state for him to do that.

he shouldn't continue slashing services

and doubling council tax.

As a resident said to me,

they're doing more than doubling council tax

because they're cutting our services at the same time.

Look, I really think we shouldn't confuse

an ongoing revenue commitment,

which is what you're calling for,

with a one -off capital cost of a statue

paid for by funds raised from developers. I think to pretend that those two are

somehow aligned all the same, just as our residents are huge disservice, the

council faces a significant budget gap. You can disagree with that as much as

you like, but it was there in your own set of accounts. And despite the

financial challenges, there are actually some things we are going to keep. We are

going to keep, for example, because your original question was about swimming,

Free swimming for children under 8 and we're going to introduce a target of initiative to strengthen water safety awareness

Including providing free swimming lessons for children in the years 12 to 11

You can't yet swim but that will be subject to approval and debate in due course. It is there's a constant refrain

and I

regret to say a

Cheatening of the debate in this chamber that if you disagree with what you're doing that somehow that this side is

cruel and wicked.

And I don't think that's at all helpful.

And I don't think that he would have agreed with it.

Thank you, Councillor Moritz.

Thank you, Councillor Givinyan.

Is the leader aware that when the original idea

of a statue was proposed in this chamber,

the party opposite wholeheartedly welcomed it?

Is he also aware that when the leader was reminded

of the commitment, he promised that it would all be done

within the borough of culture.

And they didn't obviously deliver on that.

Does he also agree with me that celebrating

a black role model is an important statement for us to make

for those in our community for whom that is a role model

and an object to follow?

Council Givin, I wholeheartedly agree with you

about the point of role models

and then this month more than any other.

I think that's an acute point,

but it's not a surprise to me

that it was yet another broken Orwellian promise.

It's a bit like, for example,

if you're going to say your council tax is frozen

and then you get a bill and it's gone up by 2%.

Thank you, Councillor Moritz.

I'm gonna move on to the fourth question,

Councillor Mitten.

Can you read out the question, thank you.

Thank You Madam Mayor the opposition has repeatedly changed its position on the

council's finances and now proposes increasing council tax by 5 % annually

what funding shortfall would this still leave and what would the consequences be

for the council's financial sustainability thank you councillor

mitten look a 5 % increase generates the following 4 .6 million in the first year

9 .4 in the following

14 .6 in the year after and

20 million in year for that generates an extra 49 million of income over the four years

In fairness to the side opposite. They did have a transformation programme

Where they were attempting to deliver savings

But even taking those into account when you add an inflation

demand pressures because of change in demographics, etc. The reality is there

would have been a significant, significant shortfall. Our reserves

actually would not have covered those and therefore the budget gap would be

99 million in 27 -28, raising to 125 million the following year. And reserves

are only expected to be 94 million at the end of this year the gap cannot be

plugged by reserves alone or even a combination of 5 % reserves and the 45

million of savings that the opposition are suggesting going slower let's face

it is really just code for going bust supplementary supplementary

Councillor Mitten. In that case have you seen or been presented any financial

plans by the opposition to avoid bankruptcy? No Councillor Mitten sadly I

have not certainly not one which adds up. I'll repeat again the transformation on

a quantum of savings suggested by the other side are 45 million add to that

49 million that you would generate from a 5 % annual increase we've gone much

further than that and come up with 79 million of savings that's 34 million

then Labour's plans so it's hard to see how the alternative proposal is in any

way serious I wholly understand and get the fact that reasonable people can

suggest we could perhaps do the council tax changes in a slower way or

either a longer period

But the reality is if we did so we would be bust

Next year. The reality is that our reserves are a one -off

As I've said with those numbers with that level of shortfall

We don't have sufficient to do it even over the two years that are available to us

we would exhaust our reserves let's be under no illusions to what that means

that means the rubbish piled uncollected in our streets statutory services on

which the genuinely vulnerable really declare now councillor Hawke and the

others could do the right thing if they believe that they are pain -free savings

out there you wind up in some work publish their numbers but I suspect they

because they simply don't exist.

Supplementary, Madam Mayor.

Supplementary, Councillor Giorgiani.

Thank you, thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'm sorry, this question is,

I find it strangely perverse for the opposition,

sorry, the Councillor to be asking

when it's about the opposition

and then for us not to have anything back.

We said in black and white, in our 2206 manifesto,

we would not employ the government's permission

to increase beyond the 5%, which is what you're doing.

It is now you that has a responsibility

of running the council, not us.

So will the administration pay heed

to the comments of residents in the borough

who are imploring the council to seek alternative ways

to raise income and not unfairly and cruelly double

council tax, which was in the paper that was taken

to cabinet, which set down the top four priorities

that residents want to see.

you wind up please cancel your journey. Instead of doubling council tax in one go.

Perhaps the member of the city was not listening to me. If you do that we go bust next year.

What then happens? You keep shaking your head. We get this all the time from you.

If that is the case publish your numbers. I've just read through them. I'm super

happy for the slow and hard of hearing to read out those numbers again. If you

compound that 5 % a year it is 49 million. Even add to it your 45 million of

savings, you're still short and don't cover what we've got in reserves. So next

year we would be bust. Every time we seek to cut expenditure you tell us we're cruel

and wicked and you vote against it. So if anything what we ought to be saying is

that I'm being super generous to you because I don't believe you'd have ever

have made your 45 million pounds worth of savings because you've no record of

doing so. Thank you, thank you, Councillors. The time for questions to the leader has

now finished. We come to item 7, reports for decision. We come to the reports for

decision. Item 7A, update on the General Fund Capital Programme, paper number 26 to

238. I call Councillor Peter Graham, Deputy Dean of the Council and cabinet

member for finance to move the recommendations. Formally moved. Is the motion seconded? Second.

Thank you. The motion is that the council adopts the capital programme set out in Appendix

B and approves the updated flexible use of capital receipt strategy in Appendix C.

I can put the motion to a vote. Is it agreed? So we will have a vote. All those in

favour?

20. Yeah. All those against?

Any abstentions? No. Okay. Thank you. It's carried. 28 in favour, 24 against.

Item 7B, the Constitution review paper number 26, 252.

We now come to that.

I understand there have been some discussions

on one of the recommendations in the paper.

I call on Councillor Moritz to explain the position

and move the recommendations as relevant.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Since the General Purposes Committee last week

in the publication of this paper,

I've had further discussions,

including with the independent member on the proposal for a standing committee on

the Hammersmith Bridge. Following those discussions we've reached agreement to

delay that until the next cycle in the council's calendar. Therefore Madam Mayor

I'm not moving the first two amendments or two recommendations rather in this

paper. I am however moving the third recommendation which seeks to establish

a scheme for substitutes to our committees. For clarity of everyone that

means we are voting only for the recommendation set out in paragraph 6

and the related constitutional changes set out in appendix 3 of the published

council papers to this item.

And formally moved. Is the motion seconded? Thank you.

Councillor Grinsden. Thank you. I'm going to be taking a vote on the remaining

recommendations. All those in favour?

Thank you. All those against?

Any abstentions?

None. So, thank you. Carried. 28 in favour and 24 against on the remaining recommendations.

Thank you. Item 7C, amendments to the constitution regarding the functions reserved to the Planning

Applications Committee, paper number 26 to 250. I call on Councillor Morratt to

read and move the recommendations. Motion moved Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor, I wish to address the

council on this item. Councillor Covindi, we just need a seconder. Thank you.

Thank you Councillor Covindi. Thank you.

I think that it's not normal to speak on this kind

of technical matters, but actually this is far

from technical matter.

This goes to the heart of the function

for which we have been elected.

We are elected to represent our residents, and we are elected

to take their views into account when making decisions.

The proposal that's come from the government

to which we are now duty bound by law to accept is that that link

between residents and elected councillors is broken.

It is at an end.

I looked at some of the decisions we have made

in the last few years and I looked, I mean,

tomorrow Councillor Crivelli is going to come

and address the committee about a planning application.

It is an application that he'd asked for it

to be brought to the committee.

That won't happen again.

It's finished.

It won't happen.

We also have a written representation

from Councillor Lindsay and Councillor Ailes

about the ballot matter.

And again, that won't happen again

because this is all at an end.

I look back at application Mayford Road garages,

and Councillor Belton will remember those.

On the first instance, officer recommended refusal,

acceptance after local ward council representation,

and we refuse it, that was upheld on appeal.

They came back six months later with a revised application

and one that we could accept.

All of that will not happen again.

It just is not possible for those representations

to be made and for the planning committee

to take those into account.

The idea that residents will see the representations

publicly aired for those who make decisions

to publicly debate it and determine it,

It will just not be possible.

I just cannot see how this council can accept

that this diminution of democracy is a good thing.

It cannot be a good thing,

and it goes to the heart of why we are here,

and it breaks the faith in a relationship with the residents.

If it was in our power, I'm sure we would have opposed it

and not accepted this constitutional change.

For my part, I will abstain on this vote,

But I hope the members recognise that we are almost in this cleft situation, we cannot

be clay -cross martyrs on this issue.

I hope the government actually reflect on it, because this particular bunch of ministers

were not behind this change, and I hope they reflect on it and they would retreat from

this measure.

Thank you councillor Govindia. I will put this motion to a vote.

I just want to echo the comments. I just want to make a point about the actual

processes of the council because if this falls we can't do anything at all

the Planning Applications Committee fails to function so I just I want that

to be on record because I actually think this is a rare example where there is

cross -party support for the principle of saying that these changes are wrong.

I'm happy to in my position as shadow position also make that publicly you

know I think I've been pretty clear about it for four years so I'd like to

leave it there but I think it's important to exercise to the people at

home that there's a in order for the council to function if we don't accept

this amendment the Planning Application Committee can't build housing and we

need to build housing in this borough. Thank you Councillor Dickerton. Councillor

just to say that when I came onto the council many years ago,

the powers that local councils had

were beyond comparison with today.

And there was a piece of legislation

that the government put forward at the time

which rent the Labour Party in general

across the country apart.

You referred to Clay Cross,

and that turned up in Labour Party conferences

for at least 15 years afterwards as a consequence of that.

But the fag of the matter was that we lost powers

and we lost that vote, and ever since we've lost votes

and powers continually every year, every decade.

I support everything that Councillor Govindi has said,

particularly the point about I doubt

whether this government ministers know much about it.

I suspect the civil service position but the ice do support councillor India's

comments

customer thank you I'd like to thank everyone who's made a contribution so

far and I wholeheartedly agree with with the points raised as a way forward

because I do very much take to heart what cancer Dickenham said we must be

lawful. One reasonable manner which I hope both sides could agree to is that

every member of this chamber with the exception of the mayor, sorry madam mayor,

could abstain and we could show this measure the contempt it deserves with

one member who is above party politics voting it through.

Thank you.

I will now put this motion to a vote.

All those in favour?

atheists's

those against

And then abstentions.

Thank you.

I think I've got that down.

Anyway, votes four are 24 for the motion.

There are zero votes against and there are 28 abstentions,

so it's carried, thank you.

Item number 70, appointments to committees

and outside bodies, paper number 26252.

As the recommendations relating to the proposed Hammersmith

Bridge Standing Committee and paper number 26 252 Constitution review were

not pursued we will vote only on the recommendations one and two in this

paper. So taking these recommendations in turn are the

appointments in recommendation one agreed? Madam Mayor we aren't in

agreement with the recommendations in the report so on specifically item small

four on the report is a different number in the paper report to it was in the

other one we'd like a vote please

Thank you.

For clarification, we only want to vote against one specific item and that's in the appendix

to recommendation 1 item A.

the appendix.

The appendix.

The appendix, one, page three.

I'm just looking on the screen here.

Okay.

So it's on the supplement.

Yeah.

It's on the supplement.

That's why I'm going to put it on the calendar.

In the appendices,

which is appendix two,

page three it's recommendation one sub item a

okay I'm going to read it out the recommendation appendix one committee

appointments the council is recommended to approve the changes to committee

appointments listed as below a which is what cancer a hunk freeze is referring

to environment overview and scrutiny committee the appointment of Councillor

I can take a vote on that.

Is there opportunity to speak on this?

We're just going to move to a vote on this.

Um.

Can I just clarify if the recommendation fails the existing appointment continues.

and

Councillor Cooper has resigned from this committee. It would be very unfair

quite cruel actually of the administration to force somebody to do a role that

They have said that they're not fit to do right now

And just to clarify this is a council appointment

So yes, we can continue with a vote on this

Shall I move to vote?

So all those in favour of recommendation one,

a environment over the execution committee

at the appointment of Councillor Hopkins as chair

in place of Councillor Cooper.

All those in favour.

All against?

Thank you. Abstentions?

And for clarity madam mayor we don't need a vote on any of the others.

On B, then.

So we want to vote for B.

Okay, so we have here in favour votes for 24 votes against 27

and one abstention, and therefore,

the recommendation that's in the paper that the environment over in this community committee the point of Councillor Hopkins as chair in place of

Councillor Cooper fails. Thank you

Councillor Rigby, do you want to change the recommendation B?

Should I read out recommendation B? Madam Mayor, it's helpful, we would support

them if they wanted to change that. Okay, so recommendation B under item 1B

Transport overview and excretion committee appointment of cancer apps in

place of Councillor Hopkins. So the remaining recommendations are approved.

Right okay yes yes I've got nominations so I'm going to take that to a

Yeah, it's agreed.

Yep, that paper's all agreed.

It's agreed by everybody.

Separately, the outside bodies are the nominations

in recommendation two agreed.

Are they agreed by everybody on the council?

Yeah, okay, thank you.

No vote.

Item number eight are questions to the cabinet.

Eight questions have been selected,

four of them through the ballot process

that some of us were part of on Monday.

The relevant cabinet member will answer each question

and the counsellor who submitted it

may then ask one supplementary question.

Supplementary questions must take no longer than 30 seconds.

I ask members and cabinet members to be concise

so that the published questions can all be reached.

Question number one, Councillor Pridham.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

It's very encouraging to see the administration

deliver delivering on its manifesto promises so quickly.

Can the cabinet member confirm how these 25 officers

will be additional to existing resources

and how this approach differs from that

of the previous administration?

Yes, thank you for that, Keshen.

Absolutely, those 25 offices will be additional to the existing MET resources.

They will be solely focused on Wonsworth and the priorities that matter the most to our residents.

These are not offices being diverted from existing borrower locations,

and nor are they replacing offices a MET would otherwise fund.

In short, we're delivering on a clear manifesto commitment.

More police officers on the streets deployed alongside a transformed enforcement service

to make one's worth cleaner, safer and better manage.

Compare that to the previous administration,

which funded a short -term single area wardens pilot,

which resulted in limited enforcement activity.

So rather than isolated initiatives,

we are creating a joined up enforcement service

with clear accountability, better deployment of resources

and invisible presence across the whole border.

Council President, supplementary.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

Like, I'm sure, a few other councillors in the area around Clapham Junction,

a number of residents have been in touch with me to express their concerns about

growing issues to do with antisocial behaviour and crime.

Would the cabinet member be able to provide some reassurance

that that will be an area that will be the focus of this new resource?

As I'm sure you can understand, I'm not going to commit to any specific area

as we obviously need to be agile

and operational priorities will be determined by local needs.

But what I can give you reassurance on

is that we will be leveraging intelligence

we gather from wide range of partners,

and that will absolutely include councillors,

all councillors in the chamber.

You have an important part to play in this process,

so I'd absolutely encourage you to relay the concerns

that you're hearing from residents

to the community safety team,

so that we will understand

where we should be allocating those resources.

But with regards to Clapham Junction specifically,

clearly this is a very large transport hub for the borough.

It has a thriving nighttime economy,

So I think it'd be reasonable to assume that we would receive some additional focus on that area.

Thank you. Councillor Stark, Saffirmandji.

Second, Saffirmandji. And just to support Councillor Pridham's question there in relation to Clapham Junction,

I would just also ask the cabinet member from my perspective that that support is both north and south of Clapham Junction Station.

But in relation to the cabinet member's answer, she stated that Met Police officers' sole focus would be Wandsworth

and there'd be more Met police officers on Wandsworth Street

and there'd be a visible presence right here.

However, the lived experience of residents in Wandsworth

and what's regularly reported at all of our ward panel

meetings and the Safer Neighbourhood Board meetings

is that our Safer Neighbourhood teams are not always

walking the streets in Wandsworth.

They are abstracted out of borough to support

policing in central London.

So will she guarantee, as promised

by the Conservatives during the election,

that there will be no abstractions of the Met police officers that are funded by Wandsworth.

And thanks for your question and on your first point, just reiterate what I said earlier,

which we all councillors will participate in that process of where do we allocate those resources,

so North and South of Clapham Junction, absolutely. On your question about abstractions,

in terms of how the contract is phrased, there will be eight abstraction days for

police officers. Some of those days will be what they're called red days, that

would be something like New Year's Eve for example, but those abstraction days will

also include training and CPD etc. So not necessarily a bad thing for that to

happen, I'm pretty standard, but those, so it's eight days of driving fenced and

there'll be nothing above and beyond that. Does that answer the question?

Thank you Councillor Di Ciano. Our question number two is from Councillor

Councillor Critchard. Thank you Madam Mayor. I hope I'm going to get this right

because it's a new format. Oh I'm so sorry

Councillor Graham. I just thought I'd take a bit more time. Following the

withdrawal of the additional funding for the GP services, the family hub and the

nursery at Portsmouth Place, what are the council's plans to provide Eastwood

nursery and the family hub with suitable premises to continue their vital work

with under fives in this deprived area.

Can I thank Councillor Critchard for her question. The spending review has

confirmed that Wandsworth will continue with the delivery of the scheme on

Block A of the alternate state. Officers are continuing to review all elements of

the scheme to ensure it maximises the benefit and value for residents in

Hampton, one of the potential benefits of the delivery of blockade is the better

co -location of community services which I'm sure something that Councillor

Critchard would actually agree with. I thank the Assembly Member for his answer though I

would say I didn't actually ask about blockade. What I'm going to say is this

the reduction we've already seen the reduction in the capital programme in

agenda showing no funding for Portsmouth Place for this year onwards. If this

decision has already been taken, how can the cabinet member assure us, as he did

in his written answer, that he will consult with all stakeholders prior to

formalising the changes, especially as I know there has been no consultation so

far with the nursery. Can I thank Councillor Critchard for her question. I know that she's

deeply interested in this as she's a governor of Eastwood Nursery School and Centre for

Families. The reason I mentioned Block A is the proposals at Portwood Place which are

here marked to relocate the family hub and children's nursery that's currently located

at 166 Roehampton Lane.

Portsmouth Place was forecast to cost £19 .5 million

under the general fund capital budgets.

So the situation is it's envisaged

that what would happen with Block A is that the family

hub that's on Roehampton Lane would go into Block A,

the GP practise could potentially go into Block A,

and also two nursery schools at Eastwood

could potentially go into Block A.

But as you've quite rightly pointed out,

There needs to be work with the Council's design team. Officers are confident solutions

can be found to rehouse the proposed users from the family hub or from the nursery and

potentially they can either go into Block A or elsewhere. So it's a case of in effect

collocating them within Block A. That's why I mentioned Block A in the first place.

So Madam Mayor, I just would like to say is I asked also whether the cabinet member...

Answer the question, I need to take a potential supplementary from the administration.

I don't think he answered the question because I asked about...

He did, unfortunately he has answered the question.

I asked about consultation with other members and I didn't hear an answer.

Any more supplementaries on that question?

Third question.

Councillor Mrs Graham.

If you could read the question, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

The question to the cabinet member of housing is how will the administration actions to

re -establish a dedicated housing department help ensure once again that tenants and leaseholders

get the service they deserve.

I'd like to thank Councillor Graham for the important question on this.

Last year, under the previous administration, the Council received a C3 rating from the Regulator for Social Housing

which outlined that there were serious failings in how the Council were providing a service to tenants

tenants and residents within our council estates.

Re -establishing a dedicated housing department,

which is one of the first actions

that this administration is taking,

sends a clear statement of intent

that we are serious about improving services,

increasing accountability,

and making the investment needed

to deliver the improvements

that will result in residents

receiving that better service.

The new department is driving through

the housing improvement and transformation plan.

That's a plan that we inherited from the previous administration but have improved with additional

work streams on top of the original 32 to make sure that leaseholders get a better service

and that we're tackling antisocial behaviour as well.

We're completing the 100 % stock condition survey so that we know where the problems

are in our housing stock and what we need to do to rectify those.

We're also reshaping and simplifying resident engagement channels and as I mentioned briefly

earlier, recognising that leaseholders interests may sometimes differ to tenants. So making sure

that leaseholders and tenants get the service they deserve and are properly listened to.

This is the work that the new housing directorate will deliver for us.

Councillor Cornyn, can you, thank you.

Thank you. supplementary, I have a new power on this microphone so I can cut people off. Thanks.

I was going to announce it at the beginning. Thank you.

Thank you cabinet member. But can the cabinet member set out the biggest achievement is with the new housing service under this administration, also thinking of housing associations as well?

Two really important points there. I'd say there are lots of great achievements already,

but a key one for me and perhaps the most significant when we think about the wider

context of the funding challenge as well is getting a grip on temporary accommodation

overspend. At the moment we have over 4 ,000 households living in temporary accommodation,

which is a tragedy for everyone involved. It's not where we want anyone to be stuck

for any length of time. The cost of temporary accommodation has spiralled out of control

by 700 % since the start of this decade. Under the new Housing Directorate, we are bringing in

new officers who are going to tackle this challenge. I'm delighted to say that we are

producing a really effective temporary accommodation strategy that we will roll out

that will address, essentially prevent people from going into temporary accommodation in

the first place where possible, but also make sure that we can tackle the serious overspending

so that people are in temporary accommodation for a shorter amount of time and we are able

to deliver services for residents instead.

Thank you.

I mean, just for a point of information, every single paper that came to the housing committee

was a paper that was already drawn up by this administration.

There's not a single new pound allocated.

We're agnostic about the new directorate, but does he recognise that the C3 grading

was given when there was a dedicated directorate, an all powerful dedicated directorate, and

the changes made were to try and change internal cultures within how the

operation was working. So like I say we're agnostic about it but the idea

that the C3 was because we didn't have a dedicated directorate is misinformation

to residents, it's a misreading of what happened and also I think frankly one of

the big mistakes was was us not being more serious about the legacy that we

had inherited from you. I mean this was a department that didn't do stock

condition for 40 years.

Councillor Dickon, do you mind asking a question?

My question is, fine, new directorate, but what actual difference to our policies are

being introduced?

Like to thank Councillor Dickerdame for that question.

I think there's a real opportunity for us to, and I think he alluded to it, really shake

things up, right?

Under the new directorate, under the previous housing service that he alludes to, essentially

standards were not good enough.

and I think everyone now recognises that

in light of the regulators report findings.

The previous administration's response to that

was actually to scrap the housing service

and essentially there was then no housing representation

at the top table of senior offices.

Well, you got rid of it.

And it was amalgamated

into this sprawling resident services department.

What we have done following our pledges at the election is re -establish a dedicated housing

directorate where we're getting new officers in to make sure that the housing challenge has

the leadership that it deserves and we are committed to making sure that we have the

best possible team in a dedicated directorate within the council to make sure that we give

tenants and leaseholders the service they deserve and I look forward to us all seeing

the improvements in the coming months and years. Thank You councillor Cornyn.

I'm going to move on to question four. Councillor Giorgiani, read out your

question. Thanks so much. Thank you Madam Mayor. My question to the cabinet member

for environment, sorry. Councillor Brooks. Thank you.

Councillor Brooks, what reassurance can we give to vulnerable residents, residents

in our borough living with disabilities with mobility limitations and those who

are living on low and incredibly stretched incomes that bulky waste

collection will remain free for them and continue to be provided twice a year?

Thank you very much Councillor Giorgiani for the question. We had a long

discussion about this at committee but it's an important issue to dig into. All

bulky waste collections will revert to being charged for as they were before

the implementation of the two free collections. The price is very low

compared to other London boroughs which is important for people on stretched

incomes. Residents will also have the opportunity to dispose of bulky

waste free of charge through our mega skip scheme that rotates throughout the

local communities and through the drop -off sites at Smuggler's Way. The

increase in fly -tip waste being collected off our streets showed that

the previous scheme wasn't reducing fly -tipping and the return of the charge

enables us to invest in expansion of street cleansing that will benefit

everyone and make our borough cleaner and tidier. Thank you. Thank you Councillor

Brooks, supplementary Councillor Giorgione. Thank you, thank you Madam Mayor. I'm pleased to hear

that mega skips are staying, Councillor Brooks.

And yes, we did have a conversation

about this during committee.

But I don't think that neither yourself nor cabinet

more widely have fully costed the impact

of getting rid of service that already exists.

And I don't just mean financial.

What will happen?

What is the impact going to be

on residents with disabilities, with disabled children,

with no access to cars or vans,

who are surviving on less than a pound a day?

What is the impact on the traffic cues to smugglers way the impact on our air quality in our borough?

Will we see councillor Brooks a proper EQI a equality's impact assessment, which was missing from that from that report?

Environment OSC will we see you once asked the question, please council George on environmental impact on the removal of this service, please

As to the question of the equality and back assessment, I'm pretty certain that the paper

we brought to committee contains the assessment from officers.

If that's correct, we will circulate what was missing, make sure it comes to the next

committee, but I remember there being one in there.

But the question of access is answered by our decision to keep the charge as low as possible.

Neighbouring Richmond charges £85 for each collection.

Kingston £48, Hammersmith and Fulham £49, Kensington Chelsea £44, and Westminster £36 and Hounslow £41.

So the price of £30 which won't even come in till next year because £23 will

be the original price we're bringing in at as it was previously is our

answer to making sure that as many people can still access the services as

they can. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Brooks.

Councillor Islet, you have a supplementary. Thank you Councillor Islet.

Thank you Madam Mayor. A question for Councillor Brooks and I'll keep it

sure because I think that is important with questions. There is a reason that

we're doing this after all and it is to save money that can be I hope better

spent elsewhere and could you clarify and outline how it will be spent

elsewhere? Thank you. I would love to Councillor Alip, thank you very much.

Cleaner streets are a basic expectation and we're determined to deliver them.

That's why our Conservative administration is investing an extra

767 ,000 pounds a year in cleaner streets,

better waste management service, and tougher enforcement.

That means 427 ,000 pounds more every year

for street cleansing alone,

delivering two new specialist jet washing crews,

almost tripling our pavement washing capacity,

daily sweeping on more of our busiest streets,

replacing twice -weekly cleaning,

and much more frequent deep cleaning

of our high streets and town centres.

Our message is simple.

higher standards, cleaner streets,

and a council that gets the basics right.

That's what conservative leadership's about.

Thank you, Councillor Brooks.

At the time, I'm afraid members, for questions to come.

Madam Mayor, could I raise a standing order?

It relates to standing order 23E.

the council will have a right to ask one supplementary question.

If anything goes on, say, they may allow a further supplementary question if this preserves

the automation between the administration group and other councillors in that question.

Now, I would argue the faculty says a supplementary question means only one supplementary question,

not an opportunity for the administration to answer further questions.

The supplementary is so we can achieve alternation that is our

interpretation and the way that we have done it to date. On a point of order Madam

So I think Councillor Henderson is misreading Standing Order 23e which

allows the supplementary question, because the original question when read

out is not the supplementary question, it allows the original questioner to ask a

supplementary question and then it allows for one further supplementary

question providing it comes from a group that isn't the one that asked the

original question. So the book was perfectly in order what just happened.

Councillor Marat wants to say something. I think there's a genuine point that

Councillor Henderson is driving at and that some of these changes are difficult

to follow. I will definitely raise that point when we have the next working

group to try and sort some of this stuff out because I must confess like him and

many of my colleagues we struggle with Councillor Graham's invention.

Could I have a vote of sympathy for Councillor Rigby myself, I have to find

it into practise. Thank you Councillors, as I have said the time for questions to cabinet

members is now finished. Item 9 is the first group motion. We now come to the

first group motion which is from the Conservative group. I call Councillor

Craig to move the motion. Moved. Thank you Councillor Craig. Is the motion

seconded? No? Thank you, Councillor. Two amendments have been

received. I invite Councillor Richard Jones to move his amendment first. Moved.

Is there a seconder? Councillor Mertens has seconded. Councillor Craig, do you accept the

amendment I'd like a vote please yeah yeah we're gonna have the speakers first

we've run through this we don't have votes at the end of that okay the second

amendment is from councillor hog yep okay thanks

is there a seconder by per council Rigby cancer Craig to accept the amendment no

Okay, we will deal with this vote later on.

The orders of the speakers,

I would particularly like to welcome Councillor Craig.

Are you here?

Madam Mayor, on a point of order first,

and I apologise for this,

but I did mention at the start

under declarations of interest

that those members who work for one of the borough's MPs,

or have a family member who worked

for one of the borough's MPs,

have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

That's particularly the case now

that the amendment has been moved,

which calls on the MPs to take a different position

to the one that they appear to have taken to date.

That is a disclosure of pecuniary interest,

and therefore it is standard when there is a DPI

for members who have one to vacate the room or chamber

in which matters are being discussed.

and looking at this task force and these

specifically related to that byche

facility caught in freshman year.

meeting it's not a matter for discussion for the chamber. But it isn't a

matter of debate is it because it's in the register of interest so that the DPI

is known and declared and therefore it's obvious what should happen.

I think we need to move on as I said well madam this is a matter of criminal

law it is it is not just unlawful but illegal if you have a DPI to remain and

monitoring officers on an obligation to see that the law is upheld.

Mr. Childress is going to respond, thank you. Members, I repeat my advice, the

responsibility to make a declaration is on councillors individually if they wish

to do so, they can do so, whether or not it amounts to a breach is a matter for

discussion with the individual member rather than for the council to debate.

Madam Mayor, the declaration has been made in the register of interest that the

existence of the DPI isn't a matter for doubt. It has been made and declared by

those members and the guidance says that when you have a DPI you should leave for

chamber.

So we've had the advice and it's a and as we understand it's a matter for the

individual member if he wishes to remain.

But the advice I've had so far doesn't relate to my point.

Still the advice and the individual member

has opted to remain.

So can we move now onto the conservative group first motion

and first speaker who's proposed the motion

is Councillor Craig and it's his maiden speech,

so congratulations to Councillor Craig

on his maiden speech, thank you.

Thank you.

Is this on?

Yep.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

It is a pleasure to give my maiden speech this evening,

even on such an important topic.

Northcote is a very special place.

It has a lot of names.

Napi Valley, Twix the Commons, unfortunately too often, people call it Clapham, but I do

feel privileged to represent the people there.

I know it's benefited from really good representation over the years, such as Councillor Richard

Jones, Madam Mayor herself, and I do want to pay particular tribute to Henry Alderman

Peter Dawson, who has offered much wisdom and advice to me as a candidate and since

the election.

But, I mean, we could all talk about all of our awards all evening long, I'm sure, but

Given the subject matter, I do actually want to move on

and get into the substance.

Because Wandsworth Council faces the most challenging

financial picture in its history.

Residents are about to experience a cut

that is imposed on them by the Labour government

that is compounded by the actions

of the previous Labour administration.

The scale of this cut is immense.

It is more than we spend on bin collections,

recycling, street cleaning, libraries,

three times over every single year. And this motion really comes down to a

simple question which is will Wandsworth Labour finally admit the scale of the

challenge and will they support us in asking the government to think again? As

the leader of the opposition has pointed out this cut was not a surprise to him, he knew

about it before the 2026 election. So in writing this speech I did go back and

have a look at the Wandsworth Labour manifesto to see what it said. And do you

described as recent funding changes,

followed by the assertion that absolutely nothing needed to happen.

So there were no figures, there was no explanation,

and there was no plan.

After the extraordinary council meeting a few weeks ago,

a Labour member came up to me and said,

surely this is a stunt, this figure you're putting out there.

The actual rise is going to be much lower.

And I have to say, I was absolutely astounded,

because it's the first time it occurred to me

that actually a lot of the members over there

don't actually think there's a problem

that we have to confront.

Previously, I did sort of think

that this was political posturing,

which at least I would have understood before an election.

But I now suspect that many councillors,

probably particularly new councillors,

don't actually appreciate the scale of the challenge.

I mean, Labour's argument for just 5 % increases

in council tax per year implies that by 2030,

by sort of back of the packet maths,

council tax would only need to be 63 %

of the level we are proposing is necessary

unless the government changes their minds.

So I will offer, you know, the leader of the opposition the opportunity perhaps

unusually in a maiden speech to intervene right now and commit to going

into the next election offering a 37 % cut in the rate of council tax. No? No, I

didn't think so. He knows he can't commit to that because he knows that his

position is totally untenable.

I'm begging Wandsworth Labour, please join us in being honest with residents.

We have explained the scale of the problem, we have explained what needs to happen if

the government doesn't change course, and we are pulling every lever available to us

to challenge this settlement and to secure a better outcome for Wandsworth.

The leader of the opposition's refusal either to support that challenge or

indeed to provide a credible alternative leaves only two possibilities. One, he's

more interested in political point scoring than he is in actually

protecting residents or two, he knows his numbers don't add up. So I say this sort

of directly to him really, please tell us what you've cut, tell us the savings that

you would find, help us reduce the burden on my residence, on your residence, on

everybody's residence because no one came into this chamber or into public

life to raise council tax and if you can't provide those answers and

we suspect you can't then at least join us in challenging the settlement for the

sake of everybody in this borough and everybody we represent and if you refuse

to do either of those things I think history will judge ones with labour very

poorly indeed. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you Councillor Craig and congratulations again on your maiden speech.

I'm now going to call on Councillor Ireland.

Opposition speaker.

Thank you Madam Mayor. Residents expect us to manage the council's finances

responsibly, to protect the services they depend on and to make decisions in their

best interests. This motion includes several claims about the government, the

previous administration and political disagreements with our members of

Parliament. We all recognise that the Council's finances are challenging, but this motion

does not tell us how this administration intends to respond to these challenges. We believe

that our residents need good, reliable services, support for vulnerable children and adults,

well -maintained streets, decent housing and the everyday services that make positive differences

to their lives. We repeatedly made representations to the government about our funding, making

the case for the resources we require to meet our residents' needs, and we will continue

to work hard to get one's with all the funding it deserves and needs. However, if this administration

wants to pursue further legal action, residents are entitled to know what that would cost,

What grounds it would be based on and what it could realistically achieve?

Residents should also be shown the options being considered to protect services and manage the council's finances

What matters now is how we respond how we protect the services our communities rely on and how we make sure every pound of?

Public money works for Wandsworth residents

Political arguments about who is responsible are not a substitute for the

practical work of running this council, but instead of setting out practical

steps to protect residents and services, this motion is a political attack

criticising Wandsworth Labour and Labour MPs. This... Excuse me, I don't

interrupt you. This council has zero... Mayor, please. This council has zero

external debt and high levels of reserves and of course reserves must be

managed prudently. Reserves are public money held on behalf of our residents

not the property of whichever political party happens to be running Wandsworth.

They help protect the council's long -term financial stability and can

but cannot fund ongoing spending indefinitely. We know this but reserves

are also there to help councils manage financial pressures, protect services and

provides time to make sensible, sustainable decisions.

The question is simply not how much money is in reserves,

but how those reserves are being used.

What options have been considered,

and whether the council is striking the right balance

between protecting its finances

and protecting the services our residents rely on.

Residents want to understand what services

are experiencing increased demand.

What costs are rising?

What options have been considered,

and why particular choices are being made.

And that requires meaningful transparency and scrutiny,

including the opportunity for residents

and their elected representatives

to properly examine the decisions that affect them.

Scrutiny becomes even more important

at a time when difficult financial decisions

are being considered.

Unfortunately, the council's established scrutiny committees

were suspended and opportunities for public engagement

were interrupted. Therefore it is crucial that this administration clearly sets

out the choices available to the council, the evidence behind these choices and

the consequences for residents. We believe that the expenditure budgets in

the final spending review are inflated. Let's just imagine that fair

funding is reversed. Now I know the leader said in cabinet that he accepted

there's no chance of fair funding settlement being changed but just let's

it could be and it was totally cancelled. To cover these inflated budgets we would

need to increase council tax by between 70 and 80 percent but of course without

fair funding we wouldn't be able to do this above 5 % without a referendum. This

is ridiculous day. So I want to say the Conservatives were proposing to make

residents pay while removing protections for the most vulnerable disabled

residents who depend on the support given by the council tax reduction

scheme. Now we agree that fair funding should be phased over a longer period to

give us time to adapt so by the same token any council tax increase should be

phased in to give local people the time to adapt. The government has given

ones with the power to face significant council tax increases over two years. Now

the only reason not to spread the burden is Tory party politics. We will all have

chance to vote on this amendment this evening to reflect the strong desire of

local people to spread out and increase across two years. Residents should be our

priority. I was interrupted I don't believe I've gone over time. Many are

terrified by the proposal to almost triple the council's share of...

Ten seconds Councillor Anne. Thank you and I would like you to remember that when you

cast your vote on this motion and on the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ireland. It's now over to Councillor Richards -Jones. Thank you, Councillor

Richards -Jones. Thank you, Madam Mayor. There's some excellent chairing of this meeting this

evening. This motion calls out the Labour government's punitive and unfair

funding cuts to Wandsworth, but it also shines a spotlight on Wandsworth Labour's

role in this saga.

And I have to say that after just one speech this evening,

I'm still none the wiser as to what

Wands of Labour's actual position is in this debate.

Because over the months, they've adopted a series of shifting

and incoherent positions.

None of them were honest.

None of them were based on facts.

But all were contrived one way or another

to avoid them having to call out their own government

and stand up for residence.

I can identify at least three phases of Labour's position on the government cuts.

Phase one was total denial. We knew what the funding was in December of last year.

Labour didn't talk about it, the then leader gave obfuscating and misleading

answers in the chamber, and it was only when Conservative councillors got the

figures published in the report by the Director of Finance, was it clear that we

would lose up to $84 million in three years.

And yet the Labour Party then went into the election

claiming that over the next four years,

they wouldn't use the power their own government had

obligingly given them to set council tax above 5 %

and instead maintain they could keep council tax increases

below 5%.

That was in spite of the fact that their own published papers

showed that the incoming administration would inherit

an unprecedented budget gap of $137 million,

and the fact that Councillor Hogg was secretly

writing to Labour ministers warning of, quote,

radical service cuts unless they felt differently.

So what Councillor Hogg was saying in public

was very different to what he was panicking

writing in private.

That letter, by the way, was mysteriously

withheld when Conservative councillors made an FOI

request.

Then phase two. When Labour lost the election the language shifted. Suddenly

there were challenges to government funding. But don't worry, they had a

solution. Their solution was 45 million in savings for a transformation programme.

There's an obvious problem with that. Leaving aside the fact the

transformation programme was not defined at the time of the election, the then

chief executive called it a broad ambition aspiration to get us going, but

the government cuts were 84 million.

So even if the entire transformation programme

had been realised, it wouldn't cover the government cuts.

There are now apparently additional savings

that the leader of the opposition has identified.

Of course, he hasn't brought them to this chamber.

He hasn't brought them to Finance Committee.

I asked Councillor Ireland at the last Finance Committee

several times if he would share these figures with us,

because we don't want to increase council taxes

We don't want to make cuts we don't have to make. But if she genuinely had any insight into how we could avoid these,

she should come forward and bring the numbers, bring the workings, we'll go through them line by line together in Finance Committee,

and we'll adopt the ones that are sensible.

Finally, we had phase three this evening, when Councillor Ireland stood up and said,

well, okay, maybe then phases in over time.

The problem is there is no answer to the clear statement that the leader gave this evening

that if we don't take the action now, we'll be bust in two years' time.

There is no answer to the fact that the reserves stand at about 100 million,

but the budget gap we've inherited is about 140 million.

There is simply no answer to that from that side.

Finally, Madam Mayor, there is still time for wands of labour to change course.

They could join us in our challenge.

They could write to their MPs.

They could lobby their MPs and say in public what at least some of them are saying in private,

which is how could you vote in favour of taking this funding away from your wands of residence?

Work with us on the Finance Committee.

Bring these savings you say that exist.

We'll adopt the ones that are sensible.

and ultimately fundamentally as Councillor Craig has said be honest with

residents because if you're not residents will judge you as harshly as

they did at the last election

thank you Councillor Richards Jones I now have Councillor Hogg speaking thank

you thank you madam mayor the service cuts and doubling council tax are a

foolish mistake and there is another way.

Wandsworth labours priorities are clear

and will keep council tax low, protect frontline services

and invest in our communities.

In power, we balanced our budgets,

maintain strong financial reserves

and left the council with zero external debt.

We have 100 million in the bank

collected from property developer taxes

and we're by far the largest landowner in the borough.

The Tories are making very different choices.

in their first six months they've lost a leader, they've lost a by -election and

they now plan to double your council tax. We are being asked to pay an extra 130

million pounds upfront and every year to cover a shortfall of 84 million pounds

in year three. Something doesn't add up. They plan to raise taxes now and cut

them before the next election and hope that you don't notice. And to be clear we

opposed the fair funding changes we believe they're wrong for us and we will

keep pressing for more government funding for Wandsworth. So what was our

plan? We examined budgets carefully over a number of years and found an initial

45 million pounds in savings before fair funding was confirmed with more to come.

Directors were told that demand growth must be contained at the 25 -26 baseline.

We were clear that number one, services for the most vulnerable would be the absolute last to go,

and number two, we would not come back to local people to ask for more taxes until we had driven

every ounce of efficiency internally. The Tories have bizarrely decided to do the exact opposite

of that strategy. Their plan demands huge budget increases, it cuts support for the most vulnerable

first and it smacks you with Britain's biggest ever council tax increase. It's mad. No one

voted for this. They hid this from you back in May. So how did we get here? Well, let's

blame the system. We have great staff, but the very last people in Britain who will say

we must radically reform Wandsworth Council are the existing senior staff of Wandsworth

Many have spent most or all of their careers here,

and if you ask them, they will of course say,

let's add 100 million to budgets and send counsellors out

to sell 100 million tax rise.

I think even they're pretty staggered

at the extent to which it's worked.

Let's just look at one department,

at Children's, a crucial outstanding department.

The spending review somehow increases its budget

by more than 20 million pounds from our plan,

despite child numbers falling so sharply

that schools are closing every year,

that fewer children are in care than for many decades.

Let's be smart.

If we bring children into the shared staffing arrangement

with Richmond, like every other department,

we can save between 10 and 20 million pounds a year.

And just to be clear, this spending review

does not protect children.

There are truly disgusting and spiteful cuts

to support for low -income children.

baby boxes, free school uniforms, the youth bus, funding for local charities

and reduced -price leisure sport and special days out, all to save about 1 %

of that children's budget. So it isn't about the money, as we heard earlier.

They simply don't think a council should try to make our community fairer.

This is an extreme and divided administration and one of the most inept and right -wing

in the country. Opportunities for reform are all around us. It's completely

unacceptable we have 5 ,000 families in temporary accommodation this evening. For

a borough like ours, it should be no more than 3 ,000 today and far less in future.

Serious reform could give those families a better life and reduce payments that

we give to private landlords by 20 to 30 million pounds a year. As a final

observation, Madam Mayor, the spending review includes just 2 % in council

efficiency savings by 2930, while adding more than 100 million a year to budgets by that point.

It reads like a sort of easy jet ticket. You get demographic pressures, inflation, and even additional inflation piled on top,

until you expect charges for gym membership or corkage or £12 to put your baggage in the hold.

Every single year, your budget increases far more than any savings that you're proposing.

Residents will wonder why on earth they must pay twice as much for services that

keep getting worse. There is another way. We can be bold and ambitious, we can stop

these amateurs creating chaos and we can keep one's worth special.

Thank you Councillor Hogg. I now turn to Councillor Mertes. It is his maiden

speech as well this evening. Congratulations, Councillor Mertos on your maiden speech. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, esteemed colleagues. First of all, allow me to pay tribute

to my dear late father, who I'm sure would be extremely proud to see me here today.

Used to say, son, always lead with an apology.

Lesson that I'm keen to put in practise today of all days.

In fact, as I sit here in this magnificent chamber,

it happens to be my 26th wedding anniversary.

Thank you.

My father was marked, but I don't think he believed

this advice of work or indeed was meant for such occasion as this, but I made a

commitment to our residents so here I am trying to pull these off. So let me

therefore try to undo some of the damage by thanking my lovely wife, Marlena, for

having put up with me all these years. Couldn't do it without her. She's so loving,

supportive and hopefully forgiving. Those of you who know me know my election was

quite long in the making. It took me three attempts to finally get here and it is

an honour and a true privilege to address this chamber for the first time

as elected representative of Thamesfield residents and Wentworth Council. A council

with a proud history of success, a success that Wandsworth conservatives have written

for decades and I hope to be part of the next chapter.

Public duty is important to me. In its highest form, it compels us to take difficult, even

unpopular decisions when required. And that's very much what tonight's debates are all about.

Making tough decisions is what we are elected to do.

We have a duty to be truthful, to be accountable,

to be bold in our actions and be brave

when facing up to the many difficulties that arise.

It is true we do not often agree on the solutions

to the problems we all know and recognise.

But I do ask you to support our motion today because the so -called fair funding settlement

for Wandsworth by the government is anything but fair.

How is it fair that Wandsworth's taxpayers contribute over £5 billion in taxes each

year only to receive £200 million in return?

How is it fair that for every £1 of taxes raised in Wandsworth we only receive £4p

How is it fair that we only get a third of what the average council gets?

How is it fair that the government is cutting 40 % of a founding to prop up failing local authorities elsewhere

and still expect us to provide essential services as if nothing has changed?

colleagues, I strongly believe that at times like this, when there is a cost of living

squeeze and difficulty for many of our residents, the sense of public duty ought to supersede

party political allegiance. The same party allegiance that clouded the judgement of the

three Labour Members of Parliament that represent a ones -worth constituency when they failed

to oppose the government cuts and stand up for a resident.

Winston Churchill, my political hero,

said this of public service.

The wider the span, the longer the continuity,

the greater is the sense of duty in individual men and women,

each contributing their brief life's work

to the preservation and progress of the land in which they live,

the society of which they are members,

and the world of which they are the servants.

I therefore beseech you in the high spirit of public duty

that I'm sure we all share to support the motion,

persuade our three members of parliament to challenge

with us all the decision of this government

to cut funding in Wentworth.

Thank you very much.

One more second.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Mertes,

and congratulations on your maiden speech,

and thank you to your wife for being so understanding.

As Councillor Craig proposed the motion,

he also has the right of reply.

Councillor Craig, you have, if you want to reply,

you have up to three minutes.

Thank you, Councillor Craig.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I have to admit, I didn't actually realise when I signed up for this

that I would get the opportunity to sum up.

Actually, I didn't know until about 20 minutes before the meeting.

If I did, I'd have probably been less keen to have my maiden speech,

and on reflection, I'd have probably asked for a plinth.

Like we said, this is a very serious matter that we're discussing today,

and it's been quite disappointing, actually, to hear from the Labour benches.

I just don't think they're taking it seriously.

Wandsworth Labour's position doesn't make any sense.

They say they don't want to put up council tax, that savings can be found, that they

have a plan, but then they oppose every single efficiency that we find.

This cut currently is happening.

It will mean incredibly tough choices on both council tax and other matters, and that's

why we want to challenge the government using every possible lever we have.

We really hope the opposition will join us in that instead of opposing it, as Councillor

Murtagh said, in the name of partisan politics.

I do want to address a couple of the points that have been raised. I mean the

Shadow Cabinet member for finance, I mean she stated in the Finance Committee the

other day that she stands by her numbers from her previous budget but on the

basis of those very same figures Labour's approach won't close the funding gap. It

will exhaust the reserves and it will leave this council bankrupt. I mean she

said that the reserves don't belong to any particular party. I completely agree

which is why we don't want to get rid of them. We want to make sure that we have

reserves to cover those situations that the reserves are there for rather than

just covering day -to -day spending. The leadership opposition said their plan is

clear as what? Mud? It's not clear. All he does is insult officers, insult the

cabinet member for finance and also mostly insult the intelligence of the

residents of the people of you know the people of Wandsworth. He

complains also about inflation. I mean it's actually a Labour government that's

a 24 month period of inflation being above target,

so maybe he can take that up with the ministers as well.

Look, I mean, despite this huge challenge,

I do want to finish on perhaps a slightly more positive note

despite the difficult topic.

Because like I said in my opening,

most of us got into, I mean, none of us got

into public service to put up council tax.

We've been put in an awful situation here.

And despite that huge challenge,

I think we can still achieve some positive things together.

And I mean, speaking of someone who,

I mean I was born in Blackpool and like many others I came to Wandsworth for work

And I settled down like I fell in love with the place and that's why I'm so proud

To stand here this evening and I want to do everything I can to make Wandsworth a better place

And I really hope that all of us here can join in that and achieve some of those best things together. Thank you

Madam Mayor. Thank you Councillor Craig. Madam Mayor, can I just I didn't want to interrupt any of the

I didn't want to interrupt any of the maiden speeches,

but can I just pretend for a moment

that Councillor Craig has not quite finished

and I'm asking him to give way,

because I wanted to raise a point of fact in the debate.

There've been several allusions to the role

of the three borough Labour members of parliament,

and I want it to be categorically recognised and clear

in this council chamber that the MP for Tooting...

Councillor Craig, do you want to give way?

Vote, thank you.

Did not vote for the fair funding regime.

Thank you.

Can we move on Councillors?

There's no interventions at this point.

We've just had that clarified, thank you.

So when we come to the vote,

First we will take a vote on Councillor Richard Jones

Amendment could we have a name vote please madam there?

name votes

Councillors, we are going to vote first on the Councillor Richard Jones suggested amendment.

please indicate whether you are for, against or abstain.

Councillor Ahmad.

For.

Councillor Kinoala.

Councillor Abbs.

Councillor Santé.

Councillor Austin.

For.

for

Councillor Barron

Councillor Amour can you turn your microphone off please

for

Councillor Belton

Councillor Boswell

against

Councillor Botting

for

Councillor Brooks

for

Councillor Cook

against

Councillor Corner

for

Councillor Craig

for

Lee

ball

for council dick Adam council dupe for council Fisher for

council gasa

councillor georgiani against councillor go sane councillor glean against

councillor Govindia councillor mrs. Graham Oh

councillor Peter Graham for as the Grimstone Stein

councillor Hamilton councillor mrs. Hampton councillor Henderson against

councillor hog okay councillor Hopkins against councillor Humphreys or councillor

I live Councillor Island Councillor Lola's

Councillor Moritz for council Muertos for as la meetin Councillor Osbourne

against Councillor Paul against Councillor freedom

for council richard jones for council rigby against council stock

council suite council tila against council white against council wires

against. Councillor Wirral. Against. Councillor Yates. Do I call the mayor? And Councillor

that has now seemed to be

vote.

Thank you, Councillors. Uh votes for the motion. 28 votes

against. Um I'm sorry for the Richards Jones and Richards

which is doing this amendment, votes for 28,

votes against 21, abstentions one.

So the amendment is carried, thank you.

Next we are on to Councillor Hogg's amendment.

Let's take a vote, Councillor Hogg's amendment.

Those in favour?

Any abstentions?

Okay.

So, votes for?

on Councillor Hogg's amendment 21 votes against 27 abstentions zero

abstentions so it is amendment is now lost I'm going to take now the fact that

Councillor Richard's Jones amendment has been carried and becomes a substantive

motion we will now take a vote on the substantive motion all those okay name

Thank you.

Councillors, I'm going to call your names. Please indicate whether you are for, against

or abstaining. Councillor Ahmad?

Councillor Kinojua? For.

Councillor Abbs? Sorry, no, he just answered on my behalf.

I'm definitely against.

Councillor, you might have to take off your microphone.

Let me start again, Councillors.

Councillor Ahmad.

For.

Councillor Kinoghlan against Councillor Apps against

Councillor Santé against

Councillor Austin Councillor Barron

Councillor Belton Councillor Boswell

against Councillor Botting

Councillor Brooks Councillor Cook

against Councillor Corner

for Councillor Craig

4. Councillor Crichard.

Councillor Crivelli. 4. Councillor Claire Davies.

4. Councillor de la Sejour.

4. Councillor Dickadam.

4. Councillor Doob.

4. Councillor Fisher.

4. Councillor Gasser.

Councillor Giorgiani. Against. Councillor Gosain. For. Councillor Glynne. Against. Councillor Govindia. For.

Councillor Mrs Graham. For. Councillor Peter Graham. For. Councillor Grimston. For.

Councillor Hamilton. For. Councillor Hampton. For.

Councillor Hogg against. Councillor Hopkins against. Councillor Humphreys

Councillor Eliff. Councillor Ireland. Councillor Lawless. Councillor Moritz.

Councillor Mottas. Councillor Minton. Councillor Osbourne.

Councillor Paul. Councillor Pridham.

Councillor Richard Jones. Councillor Rigby.

Councillor Stock. Councillor Sweet.

Councillor Tilla. Councillor White.

agan,

Thank you, Councillor.

We have four, 29 against 20 abstentions, zero.

So the amended motion is therefore carried, thank you.

Item 10, moving on to matters of local interest.

We now come to the matters of local interest

understanding order 39.

These will be directed to the cabinet member for transport.

I'd like to call Councillor C Davis to speak on her maiden speech.

Congratulations Councillor Clare Davies and I think it's three minutes that you

have on a matter on the matter of local interest directors of the cabinet member

for transport. Thank you. Thank you Madam Mayor. So this evening I am delighted to

address the council for the first time. It is an honour to have been elected as

Conservative Council of a Battersea Park Ward which I have a feeling that came as

a bit of an unwelcome surprise to Labour. I would like to raise the issue that

affects thousands of residents across Wandsworth but which has been felt

particularly acutely in North Battersea and in my ward of Battersea Park and

that is an issue that's a simple one crossing the river. For months residents

have faced significant disruption as a result of the closure of Albert Bridge

Journeys that were once straightforward have become time -consuming, unreliable

and frustrating and some say unsafe. Local roads have experienced increased

congestion, bus journeys have been disrupted and many residents who rely on

cross -river travel have found their daily lives turned upside down. But as

residents have repeatedly told us, difficulties being experienced are more

than just the result of Elbert Bridge alone. While the closure of Elbert Bridge

has undoubtedly been disruptive, it's also exposed a deeper issue. Residents

increasingly feel that the cumulative impact of transport decisions affecting

roads and river crossings have made travel across the river more difficult.

The challenge is not simply the temporary loss of one bridge, but the

growing sense that communities in Wandsworth are becoming increasingly cut

off from the other side of the river. The closure may have brought these

challenges into sharp focus but they did not create all of them. That is why I

want to place on record my sincere thanks to residents and in particular

to Meles Ongan. She has worked tirelessly to bring residents together,

encourage engagement across both sides of the river and ensured that local

people's experiences have been heard. Her efforts have not only demonstrated the

scale of the impact on residents, but also highlighted that many of these

concerns predate the current bridge closure and require longer -term

solutions. Her work has been a model of positive community leadership and civic

engagement. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the officer team

here at Wandsworth Council. They have faced a huge volume of inquiries from

concerned residents and businesses and have worked diligently to respond. Many

of these issues sit outside the council's direct control and they have

spent considerable time supporting residents and businesses. They deserve

our thanks. Residents are entitled to expect the same level of responsiveness

from those bodies that do hold the powers and have direct responsibility

for London's transport network bodies like TfL.

So I hope the cabinet member for transport

will agree with me that when taxpayers

fund a senior leadership team at TfL

costing in the region of three to four million pounds a year

according to publicly available information,

residents and businesses, councillors alike,

have every right to expect clearer communication,

better engagement, and a greater willingness

to listen and respond to their concerns.

and I should add respond to those concerns in a timely manner. Our residents

do not particularly care which organisation is responsible for a problem.

They simply want the people responsible to listen, engage and act. They want a

transport that allows them to get about their city safely, reliably and

efficiently. Surely that's not too much to ask. The people of Battersea and

Wandsworth deserve better and this council should continue to make this

case on their behalf. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Clare Davis, C Davis and

congratulations once again on your maiden speech. I have as far as I

understand, Councillor Austin has the right to reply.

Yeah, Councillor Austin will be replying first of all. Thank you. Thank you very

much. I think you've got three minutes. I didn't know whether

Councillor Yates wanted to make a point of order. First of all, thank you very much

Councillor Davies for the speech and congratulations

and to every new member this evening on their maiden speech.

There's a number of points to unpick here,

which I'll try and sort of look in three main bowls.

In Wandsworth, we're in the wonderful position

where as all the bridges that are controlled

by Wandsworth Borough Councillor in complete working order.

And I'd like to thank the officer team

for their due diligence and hard work in that,

that they do every day.

We've recently completed the ones with bridge works

under budget and early

and kept it open to through traffic throughout,

which is a fantastic achievement.

But we have more than one bridge out of action

on either side of us.

We've got Hammersmith Bridge, we've got Albert Bridge,

and we have a weight restriction on Vauxhall Bridge

currently and there's suggestions

that Southwark and the City of London are going to have issues with their bridges in

the coming future. And it's what we do about this moving forward and where we land, not

only as Wandsworth but also as the greater London boroughs in this matter. We're having

to make changes to Putney Bridge because of the significant traffic congestion that the

changes would cause. The accident data that was released last week means that in the last

12 months accidents at that bridge have actually increased not to decrease since

the changes and that is a significant safety concern to us. I know that there

are a couple of decisions and amendments that have to be made that are not liked

universally but we have to protect the safety of all road users on that

endeavour. I'd like to thank the Royal Borough of Kenton and Chelsea for the speed of

which they're acting on Albert Bridge and works has commenced. I only wish that

Hammersmith and Fulham Council could have acted with the same speed and the

recent funding bid that went in didn't open the bridge to all traffic which is

incredibly disappointing and is not something that this administration is

ever going to support. I met with Councillor Davies and Councillor Nissanti

at the bridge and had a walk round with her recently and I'd like to thank all

the local members also that are engaged in this.

And that brings us on to my third point, which is TfL.

I've only been in this job a very short time,

but my thought process with TfL and where I land currently

is that if there's an issue,

they tend to be at the bottom of it

and at the beginning of it.

I've asked repeatedly for bus stop P and Q

to be moved in Putney and they've refused.

I've asked repeatedly for the bus lane on Battersea Bridge Road to be opened to traffic

again at the very least while the works are going on in the bridge and they have refused.

And I've asked repeatedly for TfL to come back to the drawing board with their plans

with regards to the ones with one way system works and consultation and they have refused.

However, we have a funding problem and if TfL can spend 450 million...

Can you wind up Councillor Austin?

and Thames Crossing, they can certainly spend money on upholding the bridges and I think

we do need to look seriously at bringing these all under central TfL control.

Thank you, Councillor Austin. I now have Councillor Yeates on a matter of local interest. Thank

you, Councillor Yeates. Thank you, Madam Mayor. The huge and completely

unnecessary increase in council tax announced by this Tory administration

will hit our poorest residents hardest. Hiking council tax will worsen the cost

of living crisis and make covering all household essentials more difficult

including of course transport costs such as paying for the bus or train to get to

work or hospital appointments. I was really moved when I read Joan Orbay's

storey last year. Regular gym sessions through the access for all scheme helped

her regain her mobility after being in intensive care. Currently our low -income

residents benefit from this fantastic scheme Labour introduced, but this Tory

Council is abolishing access for all. No more free gym and swim for our poorer

residents. When I asked the cabinet member for transport if he had ensured

that e -bike providers Lyman Forest would continue to offer access for all

discounts when the scheme was abolished, he didn't even know these discounts

existed. That's just typical of the carelessness with which the ones with Tories treat those

on low incomes. Currently they're running a petition for more investment in the District

Line Wimbledon branch. I absolutely agree that investment is badly needed, but the hypocrisy

of this Conservative administration is astounding. Successive Tory governments undermine TfL's

ability to invest. During Covid they brought London's transport system to the brink of

collapse with a series of short -term and inadequate financial settlements. As your own petition

says, facing pandemic -hit finances, TfL cut the District Line Wimbledon branch upgrade.

So you complain about the lack of public investment in a key part of Wandsworth's transport infrastructure,

but at the same time, you're making deep cuts in the Council's Capital Investment

Programme. Cutting funding for bike hangers despite huge waiting lists. Cutting funding

for zebra crossings to make our roads safer and despite resonant demand. The

last Tory administration installed just seven zebra crossings in four years

while Labour putting 26, cutting 12 active travel and public realm

improvement schemes. When I became cabinet member for transport in May 23, I

was shocked to discover that every year our roads and pavements were getting

worse. Yes, more potholes, more trip hazards every year. That's why the Labour

Council more than doubled our investment in them using income from developer

levies. It's Tory austerity that has led to the decay of so much of our

infrastructure across the UK that our Labour government is now working hard to

repair. Now you're reverting to the same old Tory approach here in Wandsworth.

Under Labour we had a carefully costed and prudent capital investment programme

to improve and maintain our infrastructure and the public realm.

There's no need to change this, it's just Tory ideology. So I asked the cabinet

member for transport, will he challenge his colleagues to reinstate the road safety, public

realm and active travel schemes that have been so unnecessarily axed?

Thank you Councillor Yates, that was exactly three minutes. Councillor Austan.

Thank you very much Madam Mayor. I'm trying to pick some out, I'm not quite sure what

was rest of it and what were questions, but I think I've certainly managed to find a couple

I think first of all the Prime Minister has capped bus fares at £2, so that's been done.

On the district line investment, firstly it's not our petition, it's the Save Wimbledon

district line petition which we are supporting.

If TfL want us to get on board with that, may I suggest that they spend £10 million

upgrading the district line and not spending it on putting some bus lanes in the ones with

one way system.

I do take the Councillor's point actually.

So I do take the Councillor's point actually

with regards to the access for all scheme

with regards to Lime bikes.

I didn't know the answer, she's absolutely correct

and I hold my hands up to that.

I'm sorry I've been two months in the brief

and I hadn't quite come across that.

However, the Lime access scheme is continuing

and the Lime access scheme and the Forest bike access scheme

which is a scheme run by the operators

which provides discounts for people on low incomes,

and the operators' waiters will be continuing

those schemes going forward.

On the zebra crossings, would you like me to continue

with her zebra crossing in Roehampton that I put through

on my first day in the job in this chamber?

If anybody else wants a zebra crossing,

please do feel free to email me,

and I will certainly give it the full attention

of myself and the officers.

actually have to be in place.

With the bike hangers. Um we're

working on a priority basis with

the bike hangers, and we're

looking for those that are most

in need and where they are most

needed with regards to people

who don't have front gardens.

In places to instal these bikes

places where there are

necessary is where they have in

out drives on Chart Field Avenue

and off street parking. We need

to centralise the bike hangers into areas

that are most in need first.

With regards to the 12 active gravel schemes that have been

cut, they haven't been cut.

They are being rolled out under a slower programme with LIP

funding as and when we have the funding in order

to be able to do that.

I'm afraid, due to the fair funding review,

and we're going to hear a lot of this over the next four years,

due to the fair funding review, we

have taken a substantial decrease in funding

and we have to slow programmes down in order to get local implementation structure funds

in order to be able to carry these schemes out.

I'm actually meeting with members of Wandsworth Cycling next week in order to get their take,

in order to be able to put forward more proposals for more TfL funding in order to be able to

roll these schemes out.

She did fail to mention that we have retained in full the £11 million refurbishment fund

for roads and highways, the highest of any London borough.

She has failed to mention the officer team and the work

that they do.

If you can remember back to 2016,

they have a fantastic track record on delivering schemes

early and under budget.

She actually was at the head of one

when we had to jack up the whole of Wandsworth Bridge.

If you can remember back to 2016,

we finished Putney Bridge early.

We have a phenomenal officer team that work incredibly hard,

and we are making some difficult decisions.

However, we are also steaming ahead refurbishment programmes

and securing the £11 million to do that.

Thank you, Councillor Austin.

We now need to move on to item number 11,

the second group motion.

So as we come to it, I call on Councillor Dickerdon

to move the motion. Moved. Thank you. Is the motion seconded? Seconded. Thank you.

An amendment has been received from Councillor Graham. Councillor Graham, P

Graham, can you move your amendment? Formerly moved. Is there a seconder?

Seconded. Councillor Dickardam, do you accept the amendment? Absolutely not. Okay, thank you

Councillor Dickard.

We now move to the speakers.

First speaker, Councillor Dickard,

who has proposed to the motion, thank you.

Yeah, so I mean, the first thing I wanna say

is there is nothing inevitable

about the decision being taken here tonight

on Access for All.

This is not about tough financial decisions

or the pressures of the fair funding arrangement.

When you look at the actual percentages of the budget,

this is about two competing world views.

One, in which the role of the council is to take proactive, innovative and bold

measures in addressing both class inequalities and frankly the impacts of

living in a borough like Wandsworth where gentrification just means that

things are more expensive, you know, low -income communities are being

squeezed. And another worldview, the Wandsworth conservative view, and it's best

summed up in the words of your own leader, that it is not the job of a local

authority to be some kind of pseudo -welfare state, which is as you put it.

And well, you know what, you say correct, but I actually do think the welfare and well -being of our residents is our job, right?

And that's what that's what today's about

So firstly on access for all I think it's worth clearing up some of the myths about the scheme which it's often framed as this

Kind of huge random financial burden access for all was created from a surplus in the budgets just around five million quid

Just under back in 2022 -23 and its goal was to break down the barriers that low -income households have when living in an increasingly

expensive borough like Wandsworth. It was explicitly and proudly

redistributive. Now, I've listened to some of the transcripts from the Finance

Committee where people are asking about the social value of subsidising

children's activities like putt in the park and the secret cinema. And I

just personally think there's just a huge gap in the life

experiences of this side and that side of the chamber on this, because we're

talking about the dignity of kids having the chance to do things that otherwise

they would be priced out of doing, right? Inequality is a social phenomenon as

much as it is an economic one and I don't know, look I don't want to speak

for you because it's not right for me to speak for you but if you've ever tasted

the kind of almost like the shame of when you cannot afford to do something

that your peers in your school or you're looking through a cage at kids doing go

ape that you can't afford to do, like that is not a feeling that that any kid

should have to go through and I think it's absolutely fine to take it into

the state to take a proactive role in that. Happy to as long as my time is held.

Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Zickem, I just find it extraordinary that you think in such cliches that everybody

on this side of the house is a mega -millionaire, Tory, baby -eating, monster -breathing, farmer,

and all the rest of it.

How can you be so patronising and make the assumptions that we've all grown up in luxury

and privilege?

That's absolutely not the case anymore and it's such a cliche to say the opposite on

your side.

Please stick to reality.

I understand we have different principles but please acknowledge that not everybody

has the same lived experience across this chamber.

So I think that's a, I'm disappointed in that intervention because it's not what I said.

I literally said the opposite. I said I don't want to speak for you, but I wanted to emphasise

that feeling of when you're a kid looking at something that you can't afford, suggesting

that it's something, there's something wrong with that as a policy programme. And the reason

why I arranged it is because it's been explicitly said by the man walking out of the chamber

right now. He said that access for all was about privileging people on benefits, right?

That is not the world view of this side of the chamber.

So I'm disappointed that intervention.

I think that was a that was a that wasn't what I was talking about.

Look, okay.

Look, Tories are going to Tory.

I suspected I suspected that there would be some changes to access for all, you know, but you've had six months.

You've had six months and you have completely gutted it for no reason.

Because you've left no money in the kitchen.

Your so -called culture and leisure strategy removes the entire cultural concession part, right?

You've just you've abandoned that.

So fine, you can call it a leisure strategy if you want,

but you've deliberately torpedoed the user base.

90 % of access for all users are either on universal credit,

housing benefit, free school meals, or PIP.

And you have gutted that.

You've removed it to about 10 % of the user basis.

Now, have any of you visited

Latchmere Leisure Centre in the last six months?

Peter, have you visited?

There's a yes or no question.

You haven't, you haven't gone.

You haven't gone to see it.

There's an entire community that are using it there

during off -peak hours.

It doesn't cost the contract anything.

the gym would be empty. These are people who are on PIP. Is it precisely the kind

of people who go into the gym, getting out of the house, having some community,

having some friendship, some camaraderie, is exactly what a public health

strategy should be using. You could even charge them a quid if you're desperate

to charge, you could charge them a quid. We are not using up any of the council's

resources. This is an excellent scheme that is building... I mean, just go. I mean, I

just can't believe that we're having to vote on this and you haven't even

visited, right? It's just outrageous. It's about... and it brings me on to the borough of sanctuary

position because I just like, I'm genuinely shocked for statements that we heard at the

beginning of this, that you're going to wind down the borough of sanctuary. I think it's

shameful. I think there are people on that side of the chamber who think it's shameful. The only

other people doing this across the country are reform councils. This is a project of reform

councils shutting this down, right?

It started in 2005, that nonsense about America,

and ridiculous.

Like, you've got refugees, people who are sick

and who are trying to get out the house.

You've got kids on free school meals.

And they all are coming together to do something proactive

together in our leisure centres.

And you want to shut that down.

And it is a tiny fraction.

The savings you're going to make from increasing the cost

and cutting the number of people coming to use it, I think,

is about 85 ,000 pounds.

It's peanuts.

This is a political decision. It's shameful. I can imagine a time when your side would actually allow a concessionary screen during off -peak

Because it doesn't matter on your budgets.

This is a political decision and I'm frankly disgusted by it and I know some of you on that side must be as well.

Thank you, thank you, Councillor Dickerton.

Councillor Graham.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Well, I want to start by re -emphasising Councillor Humphrey's point.

There was an implication that somehow we on this side of the chamber wouldn't understand

what life was like for anyone below the upper middle classes, essentially.

That is simply not the case.

I went to two comprehensive schools, both of which were demolished under Ed Bull's tenure

as Education Secretary.

We've had this debate before.

There's as much, if not more, privilege on your side as there is on ours.

And the fact is, he is talking about schemes that were, as he acknowledged, being paid

for by reserves.

Day -to -day spending that was being paid for out of the reserves.

And we know that those reserves simply will not exist anymore on the plans that they are

advocating.

There is no money to pay for this in this form.

And he talks about access for all at some length.

Well, I haven't attended the Latchmore Leisure Centre,

that is true, but I don't need to have attended

the Latchmore Leisure Centre to note

that the overall number of people accessing

all of those services, while access for all was in place,

went down.

I don't need to have attended the Latchmore Leisure Centre

to know that after having heard him for years

complain about poor doors on the States,

that his party introduced poor doors,

poor lanes, sorry, in our swimming pools.

Now he wants to talk about hypocrisy. Why is a... That point of information, that's factually inaccurate, that's just not true.

Correct. And it goes on. I mean the fact is that access for all was not for all.

It was for those who qualified through being on benefits.

And those just above that level of qualification who might have children who'd be delighted to go to the fireworks

or delighted to go to the country on the common.

and an outrageous subsidy, by the way,

if you look at the cost per ticket

that that was paying paid for by the taxpayer,

they didn't qualify.

They couldn't take their children.

They were paying for other people's children to go

under his scheme.

That is the reality.

And you might say that that's all right

when we're not in this position

of having to look at huge financial pressures

and huge increases to council tax.

But we simply cannot and will not justify that to residents.

It is not right to keep going with that in this period.

The fact is that if you add up across the schemes that he's talking about

you and I'm the numbers we've got here actually at the bare minimum because it does sound like he wants to proceed with full fat access

For all and full fat by a sanctuary. You're actually talking about over nine million pounds and an additional

12 % or more increase on council tax

There is no alternative where it's coming from you have not set out a single basis on which you would find that money

Can I make an intervention on this? Can I make an intervention? Yes

There is 2 .2 million pounds left over that you have taken out of the scheme and put into a random

Financial resilience fund that we have no idea about where it's being spent

So it's a political decision to withdraw the support for the very people you were just talking about who were on benefit and are using

Currently public health facilities. That's true in your own papers. I

Don't think he's been listening or looked at the modelling that we have provided

to their members which shows that there will be no reserves left next April on

the plans that he advocates and the leader of the council advocates. You put

money into reserves and you want to keep them in reserves. To have a reserve, their

policy is to have no reserves and still not be able to set a lawful budget. I

will give way to Councillor Bell. Funnily enough I was in Latchmere Bards this

morning I go on Thursdays and Mondays and there is no poor lane what's he

talking about I don't think he knows what he's talking about at all there's

no poor lane of swimming in Latchmere Bath. I didn't say there was a one at

Latchmere but there were lanes established for access for all within

swimming pools within the Barra but it's nice to know that the privately educated

Councillor Belton's been to it. If not in Latchmere which is clearly the most

deprived area that has a swimming pool, begging your pardon, then where else

would it be? Obviously in a posh place with lots of money, you know.

Possibly like Northcote, where he lives. But where I can't afford to live, I have to say.

But let me make some progress. So, what particularly I object to in this

motion is the idea that we are slashing council tax reduction when actually we

are nearly doubling it next year for those of working age in order to phase

in that the impact it will have for them and even we're doing that in such a way

that then phases out over four years but at the end of those four years the total

amount that we spend on council tax reduction when you include the scheme

for pensioners as well will increase from 11 million to 16 million. Now if you

want that to be 23 million, which is what you're talking about, you have to say

where that money would come from. It can't come from reserves, you already

want to spend them all and still be unable to set a budget. The fact is

your numbers do not add up. We cannot even, we heard about staggering the

increases over two years, you can't even do that. The number we, the modelling we've

shown you shows that if you split the increase, the percentage increase over

two years you wouldn't be able to set a lawful budget this April. If you split it

in cash terms perhaps or change the percentages over those two years you'd

simply end up with nothing in reserves and no ability to deal with any

financial shock or any challenge or any saving failing to be delivered. It would

put the council in financial peril at every possible moment. You can't advocate

for more spending out of reserves when you want to spend all the reserves in

one go. You wind up Councillor Groom please. We simply don't know. The fact is what you could do and what you

should have done is help challenge the government. We heard Councillor Hogg say

he had challenged the government none of us saw that there wasn't a single

campaign a single piece of literature going up you spent eighty four thousand

pounds on Police and Police and Lobbyists, Lobbyists in Private and failed to say a word in public you should back

us now you should back Wandsworth instead you're absolutely failing to

stand up for our residents.

Thank you, Councillor Graham. We now have Councillor Cook on her maiden speech. Congratulations,

Councillor Cook. You have five minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's a profound privilege to stand in the chamber tonight in this Black

History Month to deliver my first maiden speech representing the residents of Wandsworth Town.

I want to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Sarna Jaffrey. As this borough's first Pakistani

Muslim mayor, a dedicated immigration lawyer and a passionate human rights advocate, Sarna

brought compassion, conviction and a commitment to social justice to public service. Her contribution

to this borough is something I greatly admire and I hope to honour that legacy through my

own work in this chamber.

I'm a Wandsworth lifer.

I grew up on Surrey Lane through the 70s and the 80s.

My dad, who came from Trinidad in the 60s,

was a bus conductor who also designed costumes

and was part of organising Notting Hill Carnival.

My mum, an ex -rebellious suburbanite,

was a placard -carrying political activist and St. Mary's Labour

Branch Secretary.

Some of my early memories are the smell of glue, feathers,

and sequins in my hair, the whole 19 bus route,

or alternatively, how to hold a picket

and be correctly arrested at a demonstration.

Growing up on an estate in the 80s wasn't an easy backdrop.

Money and resources were scarce, and there was no other choice

than to collaborate through the hardest times as a community,

or perhaps get lost in a book by candlelight

when the electric metre couldn't be fed.

Some of it was tough and I fear more children will face similar hardship,

particularly with the incoming rises in council tax.

But Wandsworth as a community has this silent, determined tradition of coming together from all walks of life,

of life and backgrounds, to help each other rise through challenges.

That is the spirit of our borough and the aspect that shaped my values.

Our thriving volunteer community is an emblem of this in its most organised incarnation,

which is also where I got started.

Services that do so much with so little, currently facing hard times and challenges locally with

the incoming cuts.

It was never my intention to become an activist, preferring more organised chaos.

I pursued a career in charity and have worked across a very diverse range of social issues in the third sector

over the last 25 years.

But ultimately destiny calls.

Through that work

I increasingly witnessed the pressures facing families and communities, the strain on essential services and the

consequences when hard -won progress begins to unravel.

being rooted in Wandsworth tradition, for me, this was a clarion call.

The thing that triggered that was Madame Mayor, I think, a charity that you support working for Homestar Wandsworth

and trying to plug the gaps of statutory service failures because there was no funding.

That's what led me here.

Sorry, I've got a little bit stuck in Wandsworth tradition, but that's for the...

Because community responsibility isn't simply something we celebrate,

it's something public policy should enable.

Take as example, free bulky waste collection,

a small concession in the grander scheme,

but one that during its operation coincided with an 18 to 20 % reduction

in reports of fly tipping.

It appears this incentive was a worthwhile investment

in improving our environment.

Some residents suggest it may prove to be a false economy to attempt to achieve savings in this way,

with a risk of a rebound effect that may reduce any savings or contribute to the noticeable recent decline in borough cleanliness

that perhaps some of the councillors in the chamber have begun to experience themselves.

So I close by asking how, if at all, these risks have been acknowledged and whether the savings outweigh the benefits to our communities.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cook and congratulations on your maiden speech. I now turn to Councillor Corner.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and congratulations to Councillor Cook on her maiden speech and

welcome to the chamber.

I really want to take a step back on this motion because what this administration is

proposing is not something that is being done just for the sake of it.

It is because the government, the Labour government, has withdrawn £84 million of funding for

this council in four years' time.

That's the equivalent of 40 % of our core spending power.

On top of that, the previous Labour administration at this town hall left us with an unbudgeted

funding gap of £52 million and that was confirmed in the latest Finance Committee budgets.

Together those two, the government funding cuts and the funding gap that the previous

administration left us, sum to more than the council's entire payroll.

So you could lay off every member of staff, every council officer, shutter the buildings

and still we wouldn't be able to close the funding gap.

Councillor Yates earlier spoke about Tory austerity.

The funding cuts that her government that she supports

are inflicting on this council are ordered a magnitude

larger than the cuts that the previous conservative

of government delivered during the period

that she speaks about.

It is extraordinary that she does not space up to that fact

and just chooses, like her colleagues,

to stick her head in the sand

and pretend it all doesn't exist.

That is the context that we are operating in.

And it is possibly the most serious financial situation,

definitely the most serious financial situation that this council has ever found itself in.

I urge colleagues to support our amendment to this motion because we are making sure that we

can deliver what we can in a sustainable way. We are replacing access for all, which is expensive

and not well evidenced as providing an efficient service, with a new concessionary scheme.

Councillor Dickardem spoke movingly about the impact of what being disadvantaged financially

does to people and the shame that young people and children feel when they see their peers

experiencing things that they don't get to. That's why our new concessionary scheme, whilst being

financially sustainable, is focused on those very people, children and students. And that is really

important and he didn't recognise that in his speech, but I think we need to in addition to

the wider financial context that we find ourselves in.

The revised scheme is going to generate additional income of between 87 ,000 and just over a quarter

of a million pound per annum compared to the existing access for all scheme.

So it will bring in revenue for the council and it is still delivering for many, many

disadvantaged people in the borough.

We're also expanding the council tax reduction eligibility, nearly doubling funding for thousands

of working age, low income households next year while ensuring that everyone in the borough

contributes something.

I think most people would agree that that is fair and it makes sure that

everyone in our borough has a stake in the running of our council. If these

changes were not made the annual cost of keeping the schemes mentioned in the

motion in their current form would exceed eight million pounds. What does

that mean in reality for every single council taxpayer in our borough? It means

council tax would have to be increased by at least 10 % more than projected. I'm not sure that

Labour would want to own that when it came to it if their ideas were taken forward.

This administration believes that anyone wishing to spend that additional money

should clearly identify specific offsetting expenditure they would cut. Otherwise,

they are demanding that people pay that higher council tax. And if they really wanted to keep

these schemes, they would do what many of my colleagues and indeed many residents are saying

that they should do and back our administration's challenge against the government cuts and make

sure that their MPs back us as well so that we can get the government to think again.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

I call on Councillor Glynne.

This is her maiden speech as well.

Congratulations, Councillor Glynne.

Members can be quiet during maiden speech.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Before I begin, I'd like to pay tribute to my predecessor,

former Councillor Finna Ayres, who made history as the first ever Labour Councillor for East Putney.

I know Finna made a big impact on the way she was a member of the Labour Council.

in her four years in the town hall. I'm honoured to have followed in her footsteps and solidified

East Putney as a ward that has a labour counsellor. I just wish my first speech didn't have to be

about this. There are many people these cuts will deeply impact but I'd like to use my first speech

to focus on the impact on single parents and their children. I was raised by a single mom,

we got no financial support from my dad and I was able to succeed in life because of the support me

and my mum received from the state.

From the council flat in West Hill I started my life in,

to having access to a good state education

and free school meals,

the state invested in me as a child of a single parent,

and now I'm able to stand here as a counsellor

for the borough I grew up in.

Which should feel like an amazing achievement,

but quite frankly, I am disgusted.

I am disgusted I have become a new counsellor

under an administration that is implementing

such cruel cuts that impact our most vulnerable residents, an administration that has ignored

equality's impact assessments that say their cuts will have an adverse impact on single

parents and single mothers in particular. Single parents are going to be hit incredibly

hard by the council tax increase. Single person households already only get a 25 % reduction

in their bills and those on the council tax support scheme face losing their support just

as the council tax hike hits.

For single parents who can't split an increase in bills

like a working couple might,

this increase will be absolutely crippling,

which is what many single parents have been telling us

in our council tax petition.

They've been telling us about the stress and anxiety

this is causing them,

that they are already struggling to pay their bills

and put food on the table for their children,

and they don't know how they are going to cope.

But in the context of this motion,

one comment from a single mum stood out to me.

She said, this increase will literally take

more opportunities away from my children.

Because this motion is really about who gets

opportunities in our borough and who doesn't.

By making cruel cuts to schemes like Access for All,

and taking away support for

the voluntary sector that plays

a vital role in our communities,

while squeezing parents harder

than ever through their council tax,

you are depriving the next generation of opportunities.

Now this doesn't just have an impact in the here and now,

this has an impact for the rest of these children's lives.

Baking in inequality with their peers,

whose parents can afford to give them opportunities,

all in the name of ideology,

and not believing the council should be

a pseudo -welfare state.

But what is a local authority for,

if it's not for supporting local children?

No parent wants to see their child go without, least of all single parents, who

are often trying their best to hold it together for their children while

navigating separation, bereavement or escaping abuse. And often single parents

themselves get a lot out of the schemes designed for their children. It's not

just their kids getting to try a new sport or access a soft play centre, it's

help with childcare and its connexion with their community

during a time they may feel incredibly isolated.

When I told my mum I was gonna be giving my first speech

on this topic, she spoke about a council service

that she said was a lifeline to her when I was little.

She had somewhere she could go and have regular contact

with the staff who would keep an eye on her

and make sure she was okay during a time

that must have been really difficult for her.

It was the one o 'clock club in King George's Park, right on the border of my ward.

So it feels like an incredibly full circle moment for me to now be representing East Putney as its ward councillor.

And it's unfortunately fitting in another way too, because one o 'clock clubs were later cut by the Conservatives.

I often wonder if I had been born into the same circumstances within the past 15 years,

When so much has been cut, so many public services gutted, and the cost of living has

completely spiralled, would I have been able to get where I am today?

I'm not sure I would have.

We have a real responsibility to make sure our borough supports the next generation to

thrive.

Right now, this administration is failing to invest in our young people, and these cruel

cuts will follow them for the rest of their lives.

Thank you.

and I'm very grateful to the

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ginn and

congratulations again on your

maiden speech.

I now have Councillor Gossain.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Let's be clear, I don't want

residents to pay more council

tax. Nobody has heard me speak

in this chamber could seriously mistake me

for a high tax conservative.

I've said often enough that people know better

than politicians how to spend the money they earn.

The proposed 94 % increase troubles me deeply,

and I take zero pleasure in defending it.

These financial difficulties did not begin in May.

Labor's last budget assumed a 48 million draw on reserves.

Its transformation programme had identified just 14 million

in savings against the 45 million target.

Then came the government's funding cuts.

Our spending review assumed 79 million

in ongoing savings by 2030 -31,

and still cannot close the gap without additional revenue.

Councillor Grimston, who owes neither party any allegiance,

recognises this.

Labour is entitled to challenge our choices,

but it must offer more than indignation.

The word cruel is being used indiscriminately.

I'm not sure that kind of language does much

for reasoned political debate.

Although I suppose I should thank Labour

for giving me an excuse to consult someone

who actually knew a thing or two about morality.

Thomas Aquinas understood that good intentions

are only the beginning of moral judgement

and that the consequences of our actions

must also enter into that judgement.

An honourable intention, however sincerely held,

is no guarantee of an honourable outcome.

This may come as news to some of you,

but morality is the easy bit.

We can all do morality.

moral responsibility is harder.

It sometimes demands that we compromise principles,

we hold compromise principles we hold dear

because insisting upon them regardless of the consequences

may do more harm than good.

Max Weber distinguished between an ethic of conviction

and an ethic of responsibility.

Between doing what we believe is right

and answering for the consequences.

And that's where I believe the members opposite

have a problem.

They may sincerely believe that opposing our council

tax increase is morally correct, but sincerity cannot absolve them of

responsibility for the consequences of that position. If they believe we can

avoid this increase without jeopardising the services our residents depend upon,

surely they have an obligation to tell us how. Residents are understandably

anxious, yet the leader of the minority party claims to have found a way of sparing

them much of what they fear and refuses to share it. What possible moral

justification can there be for withholding such information from the

people he professes to defend? If anything deserves to be called cruel

surely it's that. Of course there's a more straightforward explanation for

Councillor Hogg's reluctance to provide credible plans. He hasn't got any. And

since we're discussing moral responsibility perhaps we should

examine how Labour exercised its own when it ran the council. Take the access

for all scheme, funded from reserves with no provision for its continuation.

4 ,000 places at the Battersea Park fireworks subsidised by the taxpayer.

A generous gesture, no doubt.

But what about the working family who earn just too much to qualify, struggle to make

ends meet and can't afford to take their children to the fireworks?

Not only are they excluded from the festivities, they're expected to pay for everyone else's.

I wonder what Attlee or Bevin would make of a Labour party that seems to have forgotten

from the working people it was founded to represent,

people who pay their taxes and ask for little in return.

There's something rather perverse about a politics

which congratulates itself on its compassion

while expecting those very people

to finance its generosity.

There's a broader principle here.

The fact that somebody can't afford something

does not automatically entitle them to have it,

to have it provided at somebody else's expense.

Of course, you must help those in genuine need,

but we also owe consideration to those expected to pay,

many of whom are struggling themselves.

And then there's the intellectual incoherence

of Labour's position.

For years we've been accused of pursuing austerity

and starving public services of funds, driven by ideology.

Now when we propose to raise taxes

to sustain those very services.

On that same word, the tax?

Yeah, now when we propose to raise taxes

to sustain those very services,

were accused of acting out of the same ideology.

Apparently whatever we do, conservative ideology is always to blame.

It might occur to the members opposite

that we're simply doing what we believe to be the right thing

in challenging circumstances.

For Labour members who still can't believe

that four years of Labour administration have left us in this position,

I have a simple message.

This is what you do.

Every Labour government has left the country in a financial mess

with Conservatives left to clean it up.

Curiously, the two Labour Prime Ministers

The two Labour Prime Ministers who put the country's economic health ahead of socialist

principles are the two you've disowned, Macdonald and Blair, which tells us more about the Labour

Party's understanding of moral responsibility than anything contained in tonight's motion.

So before the members opposite accuse us of cruelty again, they might reflect on whether

there's anything particularly compassionate about leaving the people of Wandsworth to

bear the consequences of their decisions,

whilst claiming the moral high ground for themselves.

It's a great deal easier to parade one's virtue

than to take responsibility for one's failures.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Gussane.

As a motion, oh, point of order.

With your permission Madam Mayor,

I'd like to say a few words.

No problem.

Thanks.

It's been, you know, the debate we were expecting tonight

and that's the way it should have been.

Sitting where I am, we've heard a lot about

being honest with people, that maybe,

let's just take a second and be honest with ourselves.

At present, the average council tax in London

is about 1 ,700 pounds.

The average council tax across the country

is just over 2 ,400 pounds, 2 ,400 pounds.

Unless it is the case, and for the majority group,

this would mean accepting that the overwhelmingly dominant Labour Party in London has been far

more efficient in running councils than has been the case nationally. Unless that is the

case, and there's really no evidence for it, this is absolutely prima facie evidence, unfortunately,

that the funding formula as it stood unfairly favoured London over the rest of the country.

And any government has an absolute right, one may even say a duty, to look at things

like that and to make changes within it.

If we're going to be honest, we need to face,

and of course within that, we have ones

with a Westminster at about 1 ,000,

we have the City of London around 1 ,300,

Hammersmith and Fulham 1 ,500, Kensington Chelsea 1 ,600,

the five councils in London who are being affected most

by fair funding, are the ones who have had

the lowest council tax for some time.

Now part of that, I think, has been genuinely

through radical changes to local government,

which one's at the forefront of many, many,

many years ago, but it can't all be that.

The fact must be that we reckon,

and therefore the debate we've been having tonight

and the brick bats flying backwards and forwards

about which MP should do what

and how we should be pressuring the government.

To do that, after the changes next year,

it is entirely possible that we will still be

the lowest council tax in London.

That's how big the gap is.

After the changes next year, it's still entirely possible

will it be the lowest council tax in the country?

That's how big the gap is.

And frankly, it's unrealistic for any of us to believe

that a government will, or maybe even should,

reverse these changes when we take the national position.

That's a dreadful thing for a London councillor

to have to face up to, and that's certainly not something

I take any pleasure.

But if we are going to be genuine with our residents,

can I suggest that we drop this idea

that there's any possibility of the government

significantly changing its position.

Because I don't think anybody in this chamber

is cruel in any sense, but it edges on cruelty

to be creating a possible false sense of hope among people.

The reason why in the confidence to supply agreement

we put in that we would announce next,

or the administration would announce

next year's council attack as early as we've done,

far before any of the other councils

which are facing this, was precisely so people

could get a flavour of how serious we'd be.

and indeed that the opposition could come up

with alternatives and put those alternatives forward.

And I think that was the right thing to do.

But we mustn't dilute that by living in a world,

we've all accused each other of living in worlds

that don't exist.

Well, I'm afraid one of the worlds that doesn't exist

is that the government is going to significantly

change stance because at the end of the day,

government is probably right in where it's coming from,

given the way the numbers actually stack up.

So I would like to see in due course,

We have the beginnings, prepared to counsel at Hogg,

of what the labour alternative looked like.

I hope we'll get more substance on that

in the next few minutes.

And I hope we'll have a proper debate

about what these numbers are.

But let's not pretend to people anything but the fact

that actually we've had it remarkably good

for many, many years in Wandsworth.

Great that we have,

but those days are solidly in the past now.

And we're going to have to live to a new reality

where yes, we're going to be a low tax authority

by national standards.

but not at the sort of difference that we've been fortunate enough to enjoy over

the course of the last few decades.

Thank you, Councillor Grimston. Councillor Dickerdon, this is your motion and you

have the right to reply. Do you want to reply? You have three minutes, thanks.

So the main thrust of all the arguments tonight is come up with some credible

plans. God, I can't even speak, I'm so angry. Come up with some credible plans to offer

to you guys, alright? So I'm going to do that. The leisure centres during off -peak hours

are empty. It's about filling vacant space that the contract has already signed. So if

you're willing to sit down with me and think through how we can reopen and establish concessionary

schemes for the wider range of people who are on free school meals, on PIP, in Universal

credit of which 40 % are in work by the way from all the things that you've been

saying we can re -expand it to the original access for all pool I think

there's a way of doing that which isn't going to damage the contract is actually

going to get the leisure centres more used as I understand it the bar of

sanctuary the the cost of renewing it each year is maybe 700 quid or something

like that I will fundraise that money I will fund raise that money I commit here

as long as we pledge to keep the bar of sanctuary because the bar of sanctuary

is about showcasing that this is a place where people who are fleeing war, and this

borough was incredible when the Ukraine crisis happened, opening its doors. We have

Syrian refugees, we've welcomed them into the town hall. I think that would be if

you're worried about the budget, I will fundraise to cover the cost of that

biorefringery. The government also gives grant for the work that we do. We have

teams in the council that abolishing them is going to be more costly in the

long run. So that's another credible plan. I also think it's like absurd that we

We built this scheme as a centre of gravity in order to pull in private sector

concessionary schemes as well. We were incredibly successful, particularly with the line bikes. Now that concessionary scheme is London -wide.

It started here.

If you're a real Thatcherite council, go and speak to the private sector and

twist their arm and get them involved. By shrinking the scheme, you shrinken the social contract around it.

If you're worried about the public taking on too much of the weight, do what Conservatives do. Go and sell the concessionary scheme.

The problem is you don't believe in it. That's what I've been trying to argue at this debate.

You don't believe in the concessionary scheme and that for me is what makes me so frustrated because you're pretending that you have always

It's just about the funding. Otherwise we would do it. Well, here are some credible plans. We can sit down

We can work them out together, but I worry this is about politics

this isn't actually about the direction and that's comes to the fundamental point on the budget as well because

You keep accusing us as not being able to close the gap

But we have systematically gone through and seen where you are over expanding costs and refusing to take seriously

And look, it was the same with us. In our first year we were predicted a 40 million overspend.

It didn't happen. We closed it.

There are efficiencies that can be made.

If your argument, your political argument, is we have to come up with those for you in opposition, that is ludicrous.

You know that's not going to happen. That speaks to Malcolm's point about build a world that's real.

But there are ways of doing this that don't have to fall on a handful of people on low incomes

who currently are using our leisure facilities. That is ludicrous.

So I'm going to leave it there, credible plans on the table.

If you're serious about it, come and ask me about them.

Thank you, Councillor Dickerton.

We now turn to the vote.

We have had one amendment from Councillor Graham.

We will therefore take first a vote on that amendment.

All those in favour of Councillor Graham's amendment.

Thank you. Those against Councillor Graham's amendment?

Any abstentions?

Okay.

Votes for, for Councillor Graham's amendment, 27.

Votes against, 24.

One abstention.

The amendment is therefore carried.

as the amendment has been carried it becomes the substantive motion so we

will now take a vote on the new substantial the now substantive

amendment motion those those fall

yeah, there goods.

Yes,

stan.

Thank you. Motion we have votes for 27 votes again against 24 abstentions one

therefore it is carried. Thank you. Right now turn to item 12 any other

business. I received mm -mmm I was just going to sorry Councillor Tiller not yet

not yet not yet that's later on item number 13 thank you Councillor Tiller

sorry. I have received the following item of business which is a group motion

without debate to be taken under standing order number 32 is the motion

moved. Thank you. Is that seconded? So we will be putting that now to a vote.

Those for?

That is against.

Any abstentions?

I locate myself

There has been an equality of votes, 24 for,

24 against, and one abstention.

I will therefore cast the vote.

For.

Against.

Therefore the motion fails, thank you.

We now come to item 13, the closing debate.

Under standing order 42, I have received

a closing debate motion from the Labour group.

The total time available for this is 10 minutes.

Councillor Tiller, do you wish to speak

on the closing debate?

Yes, I do.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

So, for a large part of my life,

there's been talk of regenerating the Alton estate.

There was talk in the first decade of this century,

but it came to nothing.

Then came a master plan under a previous Conservative administration that chiefly involved inserting more than a thousand flats

predominantly for private housing with no increase in council homes.

That proposal was profoundly unpopular.

Residents organised meetings against it in numbers that could fill this chamber and the gallery.

Their objection was not to reveal to the renewal itself,

it was to a plan that they felt would change the estate around them without meeting their needs.

The council partnered with the developer Red Row, but then Red Row ceased operations in London.

This was the situation that Labour inherited. We went back to the drawing board, developed through

extensive resident consultation, including ideas from grassroots group Autonaction, the new plans

balanced demolition of blocks that were too far gone, with refurbishment of buildings that could

be saved. Most crucially, given the council housing waiting lists, we

substantially increased the provision of social rented and affordable homes. The

ballot offer promised that over 40 % of the homes would be council homes and a

total of 57 % of the new homes would be affordable. Residents were given the

chance to decide. In the ballot, 82 .4 % voted yes. That was a decisive

endorsement of the plan, not a blank cheque for just any development, but a clear mandate

for the scheme residents have been shown and asked to support.

I know not every Councillor in this Chamber was involved in the earlier debate.

Some of you have been elected more recently.

I don't expect everyone to have the same personal history of the autumn as I do, but I do ask

you all to look at what residents were asked and what they voted for and what they expect

us to deliver.

Alton resident Charles Einloth said we had real hope that this promised renewal

was soon to become a reality guided by input from a diverse group of residents

from the estate. Please do not let this long overdue renewal get shoved to the

sidelines again. The residents of Roehampton deserve better. I hope that

this administration will heed Mr. Einloth and all the

and all the synetries of the petition and there were

around 1 ,000 of them who asked for the renewal to go ahead

in the form it was balloted on.

There's important common ground.

When the plans came to full council last year,

councillors across the chamber supported the renewal.

The current administration is progressing demolition

of the old co -op site and has promised community hub

and the 55 new homes there.

We welcome those steps.

They matter to residents and they show

that the renewal can move forward,

but the commitment must extend to the whole balloted scheme.

At the full July council meeting, the deputy leader, who is now finished, said, and I quote

it aptly, there is no question of putting in danger the regeneration or the funding

that has been allocated to that, either from us or from the Mayor of London.

We welcome that assurance.

I hope all councillors of either party or none will want to see it honoured.

And we've already heard about Portsmouth Place losing its funding and the proposal to cram

into the community hub the family services, even though the community hub is due to housing

adults and children's libraries, GP surgery, youth space, council offices and the community

Hall, that just isn't going to work. That just isn't practical. And we've also

heard something from Councillor Morritt about not, if I understand incorrectly, not

obtaining the full funding from the GLA. I would like some further

explanation of that because that was sprung on us and you know really if

are going to provide a surprise like that,

then they should be leading the debate, not coming after me.

So we know that the Conservatives and Labour

do not view the Council's financial situation

in the same way, but the autumn renewal

should transcend such divisions

because of the urgency of providing new shops,

new services, and most importantly, new Council homes,

and the record -breaking endorsement of the plans.

Borrowing comes up as a bogeyman,

but if you treat borrowing as evil or irresponsible,

if you think it's evil or irresponsible to borrow

to acquire property or to rely on future income

from renters, what would that imply

about millions of ordinary voters,

including those in the borough,

who've taken out mortgages or done by to let?

It's imperative that the Alton renewal plans go ahead as balloted on with GLA

funding without delays and without backsliding into some scheme that

benefits only people outside the estate rather than those within it. I look

forward to hearing a commitment to this from the cabinet member. Thank you Madam

Thank you, thank you, Councillor Tiller. Councillor Corning, you have a few minutes,

five minutes in fact, thank you, Councillor Tiller, to respond. Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. This administration is committed to supporting regeneration of

the Alton Estate as set out in our manifesto and is fully aware of the commitments made in

ballot last year. This is a stark contrast to the first year of the Labour administration

four years ago. One of their first acts was to tear up the Mayor of London and GLA -approved

plan for the Alton Estate, which would have delivered thousands of new homes,

including more social housing, I would just like to add,

which you falsely said.

Point of information.

Point of personal information.

Well, point of information about the facts on the ground.

So the original council, the original Red Rose scheme

was not going to provide additional social units.

It was going to see a reduction in social units.

And that's, in your own papers, I was on the committee

for many years arguing around it.

So, and your own side made arguments as to why that was,

but it's not the case that it was gonna provide

more additional social units.

I have reviewed the papers from before.

There was a commitment to delivering more social housing

within that regeneration plan.

And new community services and retail units.

This caused years of unnecessary delay.

Now, Council Attila has suggested

that this abandonment of the previous scheme

was because of property developers withdrawing

from the market.

But the papers that Councillor Dickerdame

has just alluded to clearly set out,

in fact, their comments by Councillor Dickerdame

in those papers saying that the administration

was uncomfortable with the plan and wanted to tear it up.

It's that decision by the Labour administration

that caused years of delay

and have brought us to this point.

I was named, so I'd like to make a point

of personal explanation.

what the plans should be for the Alton.

Yes, make a point of explanation, Councillor Dickard.

Two things can be true at once.

I can both be absolutely correct

and the developer pulling out can be the fact

that they were pulling out

because the market was a bad condition.

They're not mutually exclusive.

Sit down, I never said they were.

I'm just quoting or alluding to the comments

that you made directly in those papers at the time.

Since our new Wandsworth Conservative administration

has begun. We have made significant progress to improving the Alton Estate area. We initiated the

demolition of Block A. This represents a key milestone in the regeneration and is expected.

I approved the demolition. It had not started under you.

Factual point of factual information. I had to sign off the SO83 on demolition

before the election. We did it in March, the day after the planning application went in.

The demolition, I'm not denying that he signed off

on a piece of paper, but the demolition had not started.

I approved that with the officers.

Councillor Dickerdame, he needs to make his speech.

A video of Councillor Dickerdame in a hard hat.

It's a video of you in a hard hat

in standing on the building, right?

Clearly the demolition had not begun

because you were standing on the building

in that video that you're alluding.

The demolition of Block A was initiated

and is continuing under our administration

and it will be complete next month.

That scheme is set to deliver 55 new homes

and a community hub with improved facilities

and better public spaces.

Now, designs do remain under review

as we engage with stakeholders.

Regeneration is a complex endeavour,

but residents will have the chance to share their views

before those designs are finished.

We also remain committed to enhancing the green spaces and the public realm and better pedestrian access and connectivity around the estate.

For example, the play area at Downshire Fields will be opened in the coming two to three weeks, subject to final inspections.

The play space in front of the Alton Activity Centre as well has been held back while remedial works are undertaken to a walkway.

However, we're confident that they will be able to open soon.

This progress shows our administration's commitment to making regeneration happen.

When considering the next steps, we do need to acknowledge that we have limited resources.

Total forecast HRA borrowings in the Alton Renewal Plan are set to be £120 million.

There is also a funding gap of £47 million after allowing for the incomes from rent and

shared ownership homes.

Now this gap was originally expected to be bridged by HRA balance sheet reserves,

however the borough -wide stock condition survey, supported by both sides of this

chamber, may require previously unbudgeted investment. This totals a

£167 million gap in Labour's plan that wouldn't need to be met by

either HRA borrowing or is entirely unbudgeted. Now it's all too easy to

proposed ambitious regenerations but failed to explain how they will be funded and delivered

in practise.

The previous administration chased positive headlines without doing the hard work required

beforehand.

So to make sure the Council can address this challenge and make good on improvements to

the old scenario, we are conducting several pieces of work.

Firstly, the 100 % Stock Condition Survey is expected to be complete in the new year.

That will help us understand where we need to target our investment in our borough -wide

housing stock to ensure maximum efficiency.

Can you wrap up, Cancer Corner, please?

Second, we will work to secure GLA grant funding.

On the recent round of funding, we only got 40 %

of what was asked for.

And this will mean we need to take time

to understand our options and what the way forward looks like.

And thirdly, we're working with developers and investors

to understand opportunities for business investment

in our borough.

Exploring the most viable options to improve local shops and opportunities for new retail is important and it's been backed

That has been made by the MP for Putney and we are we are committed to looking into that

It's only right that officers continue to review all elements of the scheme in context

Can you finish now please Councillor Cornyn?

In this context and

And the broader priorities for investments I have set up

We will consult with all stakeholders including the GLA once this work is complete prior to formalising

Counsellor corner. Thank you. Thank you. Counsellor corner

Thank You councillors that concludes the business of the council meeting

But please do be advised that I will be opening the special meeting of council

Just as soon as we can stop the current webcast and start the webcast for the special meeting

I wonder what else is there.

Interactive webcast player

CouncilWednesday, 21st October 2026 at 7:30pm

Council
Wednesday, 21st October 2026 at 7:30pm