A report of the Mayor had been circulated with the agenda.

The Chairman invited Members to indicate whether they wished to ask a question of the Mayor.  Councillors Bell, Shah, Martins, Bashir and Turmaine indicated that they wished to ask questions.

a)      Councillor Bell said that his question was about the Metropolitan Line Extension.  He asked the Mayor whether she agreed that this was important for the town and should be above party politics.  He also questioned whether she agreed that as the Mayor of London had never said he was against the scheme, and that the £73 million was still available, that Government ministers should cover the risk.  It was understandable that the Mayor of London would not want to go alone on the risk and the Government had the overall responsibility for the area beyond the Mayor’s Greater London boundary.

         The Mayor agreed that the Metropolitan Line Extension was an important issue for the town.  The Mayor of London would not be expected to take all the risk, however he expected the other partners to accept responsibility for any risks.  Transport for London (TfL) had already designed the scheme and would build it, but they expected the partners to bear all the risk whilst TfL bore none.  It was the equivalent of giving someone a blank cheque.

         The Mayor said that like most people she had been shocked and disappointed following the Mayor of London’s announcement that TfL was withdrawing from building the Metropolitan Line Extension.  It had been completely unexpected as the council and its partners, including the MP, Hertfordshire County Council, the Local Enterprise Partnership, the Department for Transport and their officers had been working with TfL.  It was believed that if the ‘funding gap’ of £73 million could be raised, which was the estimated difference in the building costs that the partnership and TfL considered correct, then the scheme would go ahead.  The sum included a generous amount to cover any risks and overspends.  Previously she had said that she had been hopeful the funds would be found and then the ‘green light’ for the scheme would be given.  She had been pleased when Richard Harrington MP had advised that all efforts had worked and the Government had said that the money was available.  To then be told in the last couple of days that an additional £40 million was required to fully cover the risk that TfL thought might have occurred during the last 11 months; this was incredulous.  This was for five miles of track on a disused railway and all the preparatory works had been done.

         The Mayor felt the scheme was paying the price for two political decisions.  The first was that the Transport Minister had decided to withdraw £700 million of funding from TfL over a period of two to three years.  Secondly the Mayor had pledged not to increase fares.  She had been reliably told these had halted the project.  She understood that this was politics, but she did not feel this made the decision about the Metropolitan Line Extension right morally or economically.  The Mayor acknowledged that TfL had difficulties financially, however the partnership was funding the project and TfL was building and delivering it.  It was fully funded with a comfortable risk package, however there was now haggling about an extra risk that had not been evidenced or quantified.  The Mayor believed that TfL should allow the scheme to go out to the market and to find out if someone could build the five miles of track for the budgeted amount.  Considering the amount of public money already put into the scheme and the backing and support from businesses, surely it was still possible to take the next step, so that the exact level of risk was known.

         The Mayor said her challenge to Councillor Bell was that as the Mayor of London was a member of Labour, what leverage Labour had got to make the Mayor see sense.  She asked him if he would stand with her and the Liberal Democrats and the MP to make a final cross-party plea.

         The Chairman allowed Councillor Bell to respond to the Mayor’s direct question to him.

         Councillor Bell said that he was in favour of the Metropolitan Line Extension and supported it.  They had talked to the Mayor of London’s office.  His group was in favour of negotiation; however the overall risk should be taken by the Government and possibly the County Council.  The Government was responsible for the area beyond London.  The group supported it and that negotiations should carry on with the Mayor’s office.

            The Mayor added that TfL would receive all profits from the scheme and had been given the air rights and other things that would make it quite lucrative.

b)      Councillor Shah referred to the Cabinet decision to increase the Fixed Penalty Notice charges for fly tipping.  There was no mention of the introduction of CCTV especially in some of the worst black spots, such as West Watford.  She asked how this would reassure residents that the council was working to fix this serious issue.  They felt that the council was not doing enough.

         The Mayor took issue with the statement that nothing was being done.  If the statement referred to a failure in service, then the Mayor assumed this had been reported to Councillor Taylor, as it was the responsibility of Veolia.  Fly tipping should not be blighting neighbourhoods as the council had a policy with Veolia to remove fly tipping very quickly.  On the issue of fines, it had been agreed to increase them.  It was not believed this was a complete deterrent.  However the real issue for her was the idea that CCTV on every bin would suddenly stop fly tipping.  The United Kingdom was one of the most surveyed countries in Europe. 

         The Mayor informed Council that there were very strict powers regarding CCTV, known as RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act).  The council’s previous powers had been clawed back.  CCTV could not be installed for what the ‘powers that be’ would consider to be minor issues.  If there was a serious endemic issue with fly tipping in a particular place on a large scale, this was on a completely different scale.  There would be a full operation for that.  If CCTV was put in place, signs needed to put up informing people.  She did not feel this would reduce fly tipping, as people would go elsewhere.  However if councillors were able to provide evidence that CCTV in a local neighbourhood reduced the amount of fly tipping, and the council had the powers to do that, it could be reviewed.  It was not believed the council had the power to do it under the RIPA legislation.  The council would continue to fine and prosecute people and clear the mess as quickly as possible.

c)      Councillor Martins thanked the Chairman for mentioning Fairtrade Fortnight.  He added that on 6 March there would be a cheese and wine event at West Herts College.

         Councillor Martins said that his question related to the article in the Watford Observer about the number of empty homes in Watford.  He was surprised that Councillor Dhindsa had quoted a figure of 1,000.  He could not believe this figure was correct.

         The Mayor informed Council that there were 39,000 properties in Watford and currently there were only 48 long term empty, which was over two years.  This was 0.1% of the entire housing stock.  24 of those properties were not paying Council Tax.  She advised that a home owner was under no obligation to tell the council when the property was empty, as there was no incentive for them.  The council had removed any Council Tax discount for empty homes.  The council therefore would be unaware that properties were empty.  Any figures relied on self-reporting.  Of the 24 the council was currently looking at if it was possible to put a charge on the property and put pressure on the home owner.  There could be genuine reasons why properties remained empty, for example probate took a long time, a person could be in a care home and the family did not want to sell the home or someone with a bridging loan as they moved between properties.  There were many genuine reasons.  The council had introduced a premium tax of 150% for those properties unoccupied for more than two years.  This often generated a reaction.  The council then put pressure on the owner to sell the property. 

         The Mayor commented that this would do little to solve the housing crisis.  Compulsory Purchase Orders and EDMOs (Empty Dwelling Management Orders) took years.  The council had got to court and the judge had felt sorry for the owner and then the order was not granted.  She assured councillors that the council took action where there were environmental concerns or the property was a blight on the neighbourhood.  She advised that she was unaware where the councillor had obtained his information, but it had probably included empty commercial properties.

d)      Councillor Bashir said that the taxi trade in Watford felt extremely aggrieved by the council’s policies.  It had decimated their trade.  They felt alienated.  Most recently they had been moved out of visible spots in the Town Centre to the back of Wellstones.  The rank was not particularly well used.  There had been meetings with senior officers who had done their best to try and address the situation.  He had spoken to the chair of the taxi trade who was very concerned about the impact on their trade, particularly regarding the relocation of the rank to the back of Wellstones.  He asked the Mayor what assurances she was able to give that this was an issue that needed to be addressed quickly to enable people to earn a decent living.

         The Mayor questioned why they were all driving taxis if the trade had been decimated.  They had to be earning a living or they would do something else.  It was easy to say that the council had decimated the trade.  The council’s role was to licence them, train the drivers and make sure that everything was legal and above board and safe.  The councillor appeared to be asking the council to have policies that gave preferential treatment to a certain group of businessmen within the town.  Previously the Labour group had brought forward a motion suggesting they should be compensated by the Watford Council taxpayers.  Another motion had asked for Uber to be banned.  It appeared that taxi drivers were going through a difficult time for a variety of reasons. 

         The Mayor confirmed that the taxi drivers had been moved out of the Town Centre and councillors were aware of the reason for that.  Another taxi rank had been provided, which it was hoped the drivers would use.  The attention drawn to the taxi service gave the public the signal that it was an unreliable service.  There was signage to the new taxi rank; people went there and there were no taxis waiting so people got the Uber app or phoned someone else.

e)      Councillor Turmaine said that he wanted to return to the issue of fly tipping and the problem in West Watford.  Previously, with Councillor Mills, he had brought a motion suggesting the use of mobile CCTV.  At the time he had been told it could not be done.  Recently he had noticed large signage on the junction of the A405 and the M25, which showed it could be done.  He questioned why this council would not consider it.  It would be fine it was tested but then found it did not work.  It had not been suggested that CCTV cameras should be put on every bin.  It was clear that CCTV could be done as had been shown just across the border.

         The Mayor responded that she would ask the Head of Legal to look into the issue.  The Mayor had understood that for low level problems it was not possible to use the RIPA powers.  If she were to be advised that it would be possible to use it for low level incidents in a particular area, then an extensive review would probably have to be carried out.  However she still remained to be convinced that it would make any difference other than moving the problem to another place.  The location on the A405 was probably where there had been heavy industrial dumping.  She assured the councillors that she did not want West Watford to have problems with fly tipping.  The current contract with Veolia had a high level regarding picking up fly tipping and the removal of graffiti.  She genuinely did not believe that CCTV would solve the problem.  She had already had a legal response, however she would ask again and if the response was different then the matter would be reviewed to show that everything was being done for the residents.  The Portfolio Holder had advised that there was a new hot spot project starting in West Watford.