URL: https://moderngov.kingston.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=5426

Decision Maker: Council

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: The Council debated a motion which was submitted on behalf of the Kingston Independent Residents Group, as proposed by Councillor Jamal Chohan and seconded by Councillor James Giles.   “Proposed by Councillor Jamal Chohan Seconded by Councillor James Giles   This Council Notes: 1.    The Pension Fund Panel’s decision on September 17th, 2025, to review and strengthen the Responsible Investment Policy. 2.    The Panel's commitment to consider international best practice, noting that the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund model was discussed as an example. 3.    The direct precedent set by other pension funds, such as the Danish Teachers' Pension Fund (Lærernes Pension), which have already divested from companies found to be complicit in violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. 4.    That other UK Local Government Pension Scheme pools, such as the Brunel Pension Partnership, have adopted detailed responsible investment policies that include specific commitments on human rights, demonstrating a clear pathway for pooled funds to manage these issues.   This Council Believes:   1.    That a strengthened Responsible Investment Policy, with clear and robust exclusion criteria, is the most effective way to provide a clear mandate to the London CIV and fulfil the democratic will of the Full Council. 2.    That this policy-strengthening work must be completed in a timely manner to maintain public confidence and ensure prompt action.   This Council Therefore Resolves To:   1.    Mandate that the final, strengthened Responsible Investment Policy, incorporating the principles of international best practice, be presented to the Full Council for formal approval no later than the December 2025 meeting. 2.    Instruct the Pension Fund Panel to immediately conduct a review to differentiate between its pooled fund holdings and any segregated or directly held investments. 3.    Asks the Panel, where any directly held or segregated investments are found to be in companies on internationally recognised exclusion lists (such as those published by the UN Human Rights Office), to consider whether the process of divestment from those investments should begin immediately, in line with a prudent, 'no-loss' sales policy.”   An amendment to the motion was proposed by Councillor Andreas Kirsch and seconded by Councillors Sabah Hamed on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group, so that it read as follows:   “This Council notes: ·         the Pension Fund Panel’s decision on September 17th, 2025, to review and strengthen the Responsible Investment Policy and its agreement, having identified its directly held investments, to consider options to divest from and actively not invest in companies on the UN OHCHR List; ·         the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund model as an example; ·         the direct precedent set by other pension funds, such as the Danish Teachers' Pension Fund (Lærernes Pension), which have already divested from companies found to be complicit in violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; and ·         that other UK Local Government Pension Scheme pools, such as the Brunel Pension Partnership, have adopted detailed responsible investment policies that include specific commitments on human rights, demonstrating a clear pathway for pooled funds to manage these issues.   This Council believes: ·         that a strengthened Responsible Investment Policy, with clear and robust exclusion criteria, is the most effective way to provide a clear mandate to the London CIV and fulfil the democratic will of the Full Council; and ·         that this policy-strengthening work must be completed in a timely manner to maintain public confidence and ensure prompt action.   This Council therefore resolves:   ·         that the final, strengthened Responsible Investment Policy will be reported back latest at the 19th March Corporate and Resources Committee and thereafter to the next meeting of Full Council; and   ·         that the Pension Panel reports regularly on progress on the recommendations of the Task and Finish group, agreed by the Pension Panel on 17th September 2025 to the Corporate and Resources Committee.   The Chair adjourned the meeting between 9.27pm to 9.37pm under Procedural Rule 4 to allow Members to read the tabled amendment.   After some debate and on the being put to the vote the amendment became the substantive motion.   Voting: For:     Councillors Mark Beynon, Andrew Bolton, Emily Davey, Jackie Davies, Lorraine Dunstone, Mark Durrant, Liz Green, Patrick Hall, Sabah Hamed, Roger Hayes, Lesley Heap, Lynn Henderson, Peter Herlinger, Alison Holt, Andreas Kirsch, Ian Manders, Sharukh Mirza, Nicola Nardelli, Anne Owen, Elizabeth Park, Tom Reeve, Anita Schaper, John Sweeney, Thay Thayalan, Richard Thorpe, Olly Wehring, Diane White and Yogan Yoganathan. (28)   Against: Councillors Jamal Chohan and James Giles. (2)   Abstentions: Councillors Noel Hadjimichael (Mayor), Sue Ansari (Deputy Mayor), Rowena Bass, Helen Grocott, Ian George, Farshid Sadr-Hashemi, Mike Massimi. (7)   Councillor Andrew Wooldridge did not vote as he left the meeting during the debate.   It was proposed by Councillor James Giles and seconded by Councillor Jamal Chohan under Procedure Rule 10(10) that the original motion be withdrawn.   A further four motions were submitted by the Kingston Independent Residents Group. In accordance with Procedural Rule No 8(A) (7), the motions were moved and seconded and stood referred without discussion to the relevant Committee.   Motion (2):   COUNCIL MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO PLACE COMMITTEE   “Motion on Vehicle Crossover Policy   Proposed by Cllr Yvonne Tracey Seconded by Cllr James Giles   This Council notes:   1.    That the Council’s current Vehicle Crossover Policy requires applicants to demonstrate a minimum space of 3x4.6m to allow for a crossover, which has led to a significant number of applications being refused despite households having adequate space for safe off-street parking.   2.    That, in addition, many applications are being refused where grass verges are deemed “too deep” beyond 2.0m, even when safe and practical crossovers could be installed, resulting in residents being unfairly denied access to off-street parking. This has created disparities especially in Berrylands where deep grass verges are the norm.   3.    That, prior to 2019, rejected crossover applications could be referred to the relevant Neighbourhood Committee for determination by elected Members, ensuring democratic oversight and local accountability.   4.    That the current centralised decision-making process has removed this layer of accountability and has led to frustration among residents whose applications are refused with no right of democratic recourse.   This Council believes: 1.    That crossover policy should balance highway safety with the practical needs of residents, and that rigidly applying a 2-metre depth maximum on grass verges or disallowing applications on the grounds of short driveways does not always achieve this balance.   2.    That excessive restrictions based on verge width can unfairly penalise households, particularly in parts of the Borough where wide grass verges are common.   3.    That enabling more residents to create off-street parking supports the borough’s wider objectives, including:   4.    Facilitating electric vehicle (EV) charging at home, thereby helping to meet Kingston’s climate and air quality commitments.   5.    Reducing pressure on on-street parking, improving road safety and accessibility.   6.    Enhancing residents’ ability to transition towards more sustainable transport in line with Council policy.   7.    That decisions with a clear local impact are best made locally, and that ward councillors and neighbourhood committees are best placed to consider individual crossover applications in the context of local circumstances.   8.    That restoring Member oversight of disputed crossover applications would improve public confidence in the fairness and transparency of the system.   Therefore, this Council resolves to:   1.    Review and amend the policy on grass verges so that deep verges do not automatically prevent residents from being granted a crossover, where it is otherwise safe and practical to do so, especially where many dropped curbs already exist on a street with deep grass verges.   2.    Reinstate within the policy an appeals process, especially where the 3x4.6m requirement is the barrier, whereby rejected crossover applications can be referred to the relevant Neighbourhood Committee for final determination by elected councillors.”   Motion (3):   COUNCIL MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO CORPORATE AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE   “Committee System versus Leader and Cabinet in Kingston   Proposed by Councillor James Giles Seconded by Councillor Jamal Chohan   This Council notes: ·         The Minister of State for Local Government & English Devolution’s characterisation of the committee system of governance as being “unclear, duplicative, and wasteful”.   ·         The government’s stated intention to abolish the committee system and compel councils to adopt a Strong Leader and Cabinet model.   This Council believes: ·         That the committee system provides clarity, accountability, and inclusivity in local decision-making.   ·         That imposing a one-size-fits-all governance structure undermines local autonomy and diminishes the democratic engagement of elected representatives.   ·         That residents are best served when all councillors are empowered to play a meaningful role in shaping the future of their borough.     Therefore, this Council resolves to: ·         Oppose the government’s plans to abolish the committee system.   ·         Continue to champion governance arrangements that put residents first and empower all councillors.   ·         Communicate this position through writing a cross-party letter (from the leaders of those groups willing to sign) to the Minister of State for Local Government & English Devolution and to the local MPs representing Kingston upon Thames.”   Motion (4):   MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO CORPORATE AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE   “Amendment to the Council Constitution – Member Call-In Threshold   Proposed by Councillor Yvonne Tracey Seconded by Councillor James Giles   This Council notes: ·         The findings of the recent Local Government Association (LGA) Peer Review into Kingston Council, which highlighted concerns regarding the current threshold for member call-in of decisions.   ·         That under the current Constitution, nine elected members or residents of the borough are required to call in a decision from the Strategic Committee or a Neighbourhood Committee.   ·         That there are only six opposition councillors on Kingston Council, which makes it impossible for the full opposition to exercise the call-in mechanism without support from administration members.   This Council believes: ·         That effective scrutiny is a vital component of transparent, accountable local democracy.   ·         That opposition councillors should have a fair and realistic ability to exercise the constitutional right of call-in, ensuring that decisions taken by the administration can be subject to proper review.   ·         That aligning the call-in threshold with the total number of opposition councillors will strengthen democratic accountability and public confidence in the council’s decision-making processes.   Therefore, this Council resolves to: ·         Amend the Council’s Constitution so that the threshold for member call-in of a decision from the Strategic Committee or a Neighbourhood Committee is reduced from nine elected members to six elected members.   ·         Instruct the Monitoring Officer to update the Constitution accordingly and ensure that the change is communicated clearly to all members and relevant officers.”   Motion (5):   MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO THE PLACE COMMITTEE   “Stopping the Over-concentration of HMOs   Proposed by Councillor Jamal Chohan Seconded by Councillor Yvonne Tracey   This Council notes: ·         The rapid and unchecked growth of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in our borough, particularly in family residential streets.   ·         That this expansion is eroding community cohesion, driving up antisocial behaviour complaints, intensifying parking and waste problems, and placing significant pressure on local services.     ·         That many smaller HMOs can still be created without planning permission under national permitted development rules, leaving communities powerless to prevent the over-concentration of HMOs in their area.   ·         That other local authorities have already taken decisive action, using tools such as Article 4 Directions, tighter planning policies, and rigorous enforcement to protect their communities.   This Council believes: ·         That residents have a right to live in safe, stable, and balanced communities, not in streets dominated by transient, poorly managed HMOs.   ·         That the current imbalance between landlord profit and resident quality of life is unacceptable.   ·         That the unchecked spread of HMOs undermines family housing, damages neighbourhood character, and risks hollowing out our communities.   ·         That it is the Council’s duty to act swiftly and decisively to stop the further erosion of our borough’s residential areas.     Therefore, this Council resolves to: ·         Instruct officers to begin immediate work on implementing an Article 4 Direction to remove permitted development rights for the conversion of family homes into HMOs across the borough, and to bring a report on the fastest possible timetable to the relevant committee.   ·         Introduce strict saturation policies and thresholds in planning policy, including maximum density limits and buffer zones to prevent clustering of HMOs on individual streets.   ·         Strengthen licensing and enforcement by:   o   Imposing tougher licence conditions on landlords covering noise, waste, antisocial behaviour, and property standards.   o   Increasing inspections and resourcing enforcement teams to ensure compliance.   o   Pursuing maximum penalties against rogue landlords, including licence revocation.   ·         Ensure full public consultation with residents on these measures, but commit in advance that this Council will prioritise protecting communities over landlord lobbying.   ·         Write to the Secretary of State demanding that government urgently reform national planning laws so that all HMO conversions require full planning consent and are subject to local democratic control.”  

Date of Decision: October 14, 2025