Questions to the Authority

Report: 6
Date: 25 January 2007
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

Members are requested, in accordance with the Authority’s Standing Orders, to hear a question from member of the public. The Chief Executive and Clerk’s response on behalf of the Authority’s is included in this report.

A. Recommendation

That the Authority hears the questions set out below and responds in accordance with Standing Orders 2.7.

B. Supporting information

1. The following question has been received from a member of the public, Mr Michael Patten

‘Regarding to the proposal to build a 30 cell custody unit plus CPS facilities at the site of Teddington Police Station on Park Road, Teddington.

‘A recent House of Lords decision in Barker v. Bromley Council (as reported in the Observer 07.01.07) ruled that developers and local planning Authorities must carry out Environmental Impact Assessments on projects, to assess the effects on the locality in matters such as lighting, traffic, ambience and pollution. Could you please advise if such an EIA has been carried out by the Metropolitan Police before attempting to impose this project, without proper consultation, on the residents of a quiet, low-crime residential area?’

2. Standing Order 2.7 sets out the process for receiving questions at Authority meetings, this is given at Appendix 1.

3. The Chief Executive and Clerk will respond to Mr Patten’s question as follows:

‘The MPA/MPS strategic plan is to provide one Borough Based Custody Centre (BBCC) of appropriate size, for each Borough in accordance with the recommendations laid out in the Service Improvement Review into Custody Capacity (SIRCC). Opportunity costs for reduced staffing of such sites would be realised by taking full advantage of economies of scale. Although centres will be provided for each borough, the plan will take a MPS wide view of the requirements of the MPS as a whole to ensure the most effective use of resources to provide appropriate custody facilities.

With the growth in officer and PCSO numbers in recent years, the need to correspondingly grow custody facilities, pan London, is inevitable as the MPS detains more persons and continues to improve its policing performance for the benefit of all Londoners. The current situation is very inefficient with staffing replicated at a number of small sites whereas the new Custody Centres will release officers for front line policing through economies of scale.

In May 2004 the Service Improvement Review into Custody Capacity identified that Richmond and Merton in the South West of the MPS were in the greatest need for increased custody capacity.

The MPA approved the principle of siting a custody centre at Teddington to support the London Borough of Kingston and Richmond, at the MPA Finance Committee in June 2006. Other sites were considered by the MPS however, located centrally between the two Boroughs, the site at Teddington provides the most effective location to meet operational needs.

There will be a modest growth in police traffic to and from the site, but this can be beneficial as MPS experience shows that the greater number of police vehicles in and around local areas will act as a deterrent to crime and disorder in the area. With the introduction of Central Communications Command and the installation of tracking equipment to police vehicles, any available vehicle can be identified as the closest on hand to deal with local incidents.

Transporting prisoners to the custody centre does not constitute an emergency, so there will be no increased disturbance by police vehicles using blue lights and/or sirens.

In respect of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) the MPA Teddington scheme, currently under consultation, does not require an EIA as it falls outside the scale/type of scheme designated as requiring formal statutory EIA action. The legal case referred to above does not alter this situation.

The proposed scheme remains the subject of ongoing consultation, in addition to discussions with the Local Planning Authority, who will be carrying out their own legal/consultation obligations.

Any comments raised in regard to this proposal will either be addressed via the public consultation and communication process that is led at Borough level by the Borough Commander, or via the appropriate Town Planning processes as and when the necessary planning applications are made.'

C. Race and equality impact

None related to the process of receiving questions from the public.

D. Financial implications

None

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Nick baker, MPA.

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Extract from MPA Standing Orders – 2.7 Questions from the public at full Authority meetings

“2.7.1 Members of the public may ask questions of the Authority which are relevant to its business, functions or responsibilities. The Clerk must receive the question in writing not less than ten working days before a meeting of the Authority.

2.7.2 A person may not ask more than three questions in a rolling 12 month period.

2.7.3 The Clerk of the Authority will, in discussion with the Chair of the Authority, have the discretion to refuse a question. In this event, the Clerk shall respond in writing to the questioner outlining the reason(s) for this decision. This letter will be copied to all members, before the Authority meeting, and the Clerk’s decision reported to the meeting as part of the regular report on action taken under delegated authority. Without fettering that discretion, reasons why a question may not be accepted include the following:

1. The reasons set out in 2.6.2 above.
2. The question cannot be answered satisfactorily without the disclosure of exempt information (as defined in the Access to Information legislation).
3. In the Clerk's opinion, the question has already been answered by another means and contains no issues of wider public interest that require a public answer.
4. The question actually contains a number of different questions, in which case the Clerk will ask for an amended question to be submitted.
5. The question is similar to, or on a similar theme to, a question asked by someone else in the preceding three months.

2.7.4 Any question(s) shall be included on the agenda for the meeting, in the order of receipt, as the next item of business after the approval of the minutes of the last meeting, and must be addressed to the Chair. The Chair will then invite the Clerk to respond, orally or in writing, on behalf of the Authority. Following the Clerk’s response, the person asking the question may speak further for no more than three minutes. Members may also comment on or discuss the issues raised by the question and answer.

2.7.5 The person asking the question can attend the meeting to put the question. If they are not present, the answer as reported to the Authority shall be sent to them following the meeting. If the person asking the question needs some clarification in relation to the answer, this will be given by the Clerk or appropriate officer, in person or in writing, within ten working days of clarification being sought.

2.7.6 The Chair may use discretion to limit the number of questions asked by members of the public in order to avoid the business of the Authority being disrupted. In any event, no more than 30 minutes will be allowed for public questions and answers. Any questions that remain unanswered within the timescale shall receive written responses only.”

Additional information

• Custody centres - additional information [PDF document]
  Information provided in response to the request made by Dee Doocey at this meeting.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback