The minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on the 22 October are submitted for confirmation. [To follow]

Council confirmed, and the Mayor signed as a correct record, the minutes of the Council meeting held on 22 October 2025.

Any member of the Council who has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting is reminded to disclose the interest to the meeting and to leave the Chamber while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

Members are also reminded that if they have any other significant interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting, which they feel should be declared in the public interest, such interests should be declared to the meeting. In such circumstances Members should consider whether their continued participation, in the matter relating to the interest, would be reasonable in the circumstances, particularly if the interest may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests, or whether they should leave the Chamber while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

No Members made any declaration of interest.

The Mayor informed Council that the nominations for the Mayor’s Awards 2025/26 were now open. The awards celebrated the achievements of individuals, groups and organisations that had made an outstanding contribution to life in the borough. He informed all present that they could visit the Council’s website to make nominations.

The Mayor thanked the Year 4 pupils and teachers at Bousfield Primary School for participating in the Mayoral Christmas Card Competition. He was delighted to visit the School and to announce the winners of the competition. He congratulated Natalia (Christmas Lights) and Charles (Chelsea Pensioner) for their winning designs and Nathalia and Isla as runners-up of the competition.

The Mayor invited all present to join him for an evening of Christmas carols and readings, including a special reading by Oscar-winning actor Jeremy Irons, at his Christmas Carol Service at 6pm on Wednesday, 10 December, at St Mary Abbots Church. Guests would be invited to stay for a festive reception to round off the celebrations. Details of the booking link were available via The Mayor’s Office ([email protected]). All proceeds from the service would go to London’s Air Ambulance Charity.

(i)       Apologies for Absence

(ii)     Other Communications

Councillors Bakhtiar, Benton, Elnaghi, Lane, Marshall, Petit, and Thaxter submitted apologies for absence.

The Chief Executive provided an update on the cyber-incident affecting the Council, Westminster Council, and Hammersmith and Fulham Council due to shared systems. Cyber security experts responded quickly, took systems offline, and the Council activated emergency arrangements under the Civil Contingencies Act.

A list of answers to 42 frequently asked questions had been sent to residents, and the ongoing system restoration was being undertaken following best practice. ‘Gold command’ procedures would continue for at least another week. The Customer Service Centre would stay open, including weekends, as the Council monitored and responded to the incident.

All resident-facing services remained operational and contactable, including waste collection, libraries, family centres, and housing officers. However, it was acknowledged that phone contact was more difficult and website functionality was limited, although the website itself remained safe to visit. The Customer Service Centre would be opened on weekends and would remain open, with ongoing review of the situation.

Up to one hour has been set aside for Council to hear from people living, working, or studying in the Borough who have registered in advance to address this meeting.

The Mayor announced that, as the first three public speakers covered similar themes, these would be grouped together before Members responded.

(i)         Fund Investments in High-Risk Companies Linked to the Occupation of Palestine.

Ms Sofia Suleman, a resident, highlighted that around 4% of the RBKC pension fund had been invested in companies allegedly complicit in the occupation and violence in Palestine. Ms Suleman argued that this contradicted the Council’s ethical commitments and exposed the fund to long-term risk. She referenced other local authorities, such as Tower Hamlets, which had already divested from similar companies, and asked whether the Council would commit to divesting from these firms and, if not, provide justification.

(ii)       Ethical Pension Fund Divestment from Companies Complicit in Palestinian Oppression

Mr Chris Somes-Charlton, a resident with experience in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel, expressed concern over the high death toll in Gaza and violence in the West Bank. He argued that institutions like the Council should not continue business as usual, as inaction by the UK government and councils had enabled negative developments in Israeli politics.  He urged RBKC to show leadership by divesting from companies involved in the occupation, highlighting both moral and financial risks to the Council’s Pension Fund if it failed to act.

(iii)      Ethical Investment Risks in Military and Surveillance Supply Chains

Mr Dominik Miketa, a resident, spoke about the long-term financial risks of investing in companies linked to military supply chains, illegal settlements, and mass surveillance. He noted that such investments had faced increasing sanctions, lawsuits, reputational damage, and global divestment campaigns, which could result in stranded assets. Mr Miketa questioned how the Investment Committee had assessed these risks and how it had ensured that Pension Fund Members were not exposed to companies that might become liabilities in the future.

 Cllr. Kemahli, Lead Member for Lead Member for Finance, Digital, and Efficiency, thanked residents for attending and addressing their concerns. He urged prompt reporting of racial abuse to the Police, with support available from the community safety team. On the Palestinian settlement scheme, Cllr. Kemahli clarified that the Council followed national government policy. Regarding the Council’s Pension Fund, he explained its duty is to secure scheme members’ pensions while minimising funding pressures, with divestment decisions based on financial risk and regulations. The fund monitors environmental, social, and governance risks, escalating issues if fund managers fall short, and it always acts in members’ best interests.

Cllr. Kasim Ali, Leader of the Opposition, thanked residents for attending and voicing their concerns. He highlighted the Labour Group’s ongoing advocacy for a ceasefire and peaceful coexistence regarding the conflict in Gaza and the West Bank, urging councillors to work together for peace. Addressing concerns on Council investments, Cllr. Kasim Ali emphasised that officials should avoid supporting companies linked to genocide or crimes against humanity, prioritizing ethical standards over financial gain. He encouraged residents to hold councillors accountable for spending and investments, reaffirming the Labour group’s commitment to opposing violence and promoting peace and prosperity in Israel,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Presentation of petitions (if any).

No Members submitted any petition.

Cllr. Addenbrooke moved, and Cllr. Lari seconded, under Standing Order 42, to suspend Standing Order 30, to allow up to eight minutes for speeches by the Leader of the Council and Leader of the Opposition Group. This was carried.

The Mayor invited the Leader of the Council to address the meeting. The Leader then rose to speak:

‘Mr Mayor, there is only one place I can start tonight. As the Chief Executive outlined at the start of this meeting, last week this Council alongside Westminster City Council and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham was the victim of a large cyber-attack.

Before I talk about what this means for our residents and what our plan is for the next stage of recovery. I wanted to say a heartfelt thank you to our staff. Our teams have stepped up and faced this challenge head-on, working literally day and night. Our IT team has been fighting back, investigating the cause, and assessing the impact. I am incredibly proud of the way that our staff have responded. It shows the very best of this Council and reminds me of why this place is so special.

As we recover, we will have set backs this is a complex issue, but people are working hard to overcome challenges and keep this Council running as well as it possibly can. Our main aims will be to support residents who need us fix things as quickly as possible and be transparent with the public on where we are on this recovery journey.

We have written to everybody in the borough – and our communications will continually be updated as we know more –please do keep checking our website for the very latest updates. We have a plan but there is a long way to go on this – our advisors are telling us to prepare for weeks of disruption but in some cases it could be months.

Mr Mayor, being given the news that we are under attack, is what no Leader wants to hear. But, like any public body, there was always that possibility. To counter this threat, we had invested significantly in our digital, data, and technology services and had up to date cyber defence systems. That system worked well mitigating the damage. Part of the response to an attack is to shut off systems, taking them offline ourselves and away from the reach of the attacker. Because we believe the attack started on K&C infrastructure, we are likely to be hit the hardest and will take longer to recover as a result.

Mr Mayor, there are three things I can announce tonight.

One, through our ‘gold,’ ‘silver,’ and ‘bronze’ structures, we are establishing a Cyber Recovery Team with staff from across the council. It will include staff in IT, experts in data and in resilience as well as senior staff leading on details of departmental recovery.

Two, our efforts are supported by some of the best cyber experts in the UK.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Mayor to announce the order of business for the remainder of the meeting.

The Mayor confirmed that the order of business would be as printed on the agenda.

Cllr. Campbell moved the reports’ reception, and Cllr. Thalassites seconded.

Cllr. Thalassites discussed the renewal of the licensing policy, which was its first update since before COVID. He thanked officers for balancing residents' interests with business support, and noted recent changes in the borough, including more licensed venues and outdoor dining in high-traffic areas like Chelsea Green and Sloane Square. He emphasised the Council's role in shaping public spaces and ensuring fair access. The updated policy aimed to reflect both the borough's popularity and community needs, introducing a midnight closing policy and enhanced safety measures such as the ‘Ask for Angela’ initiative.

Cllr. Evans thanked the Licensing Team for their hard work and highlighted the licensing policy’s focus: child protection, crime prevention, public safety, and nuisance reduction. She said the committee collaborated across parties to address challenges like COVID and economic changes. Cllr. Evans noted that outdoor social spaces supported mental health and emphasised hotel responsibility for child safety. She described the policy as flexible and responsive to evolving needs.

Cllr. Nur thanked staff for their work and explained that the policy update was necessary due to changing licensing responsibilities. The revised policy added new safety measures, such as Martin’s Law, enhanced safeguarding, especially for women and girls, and clarified staff duties to reduce harm. It balanced support for hospitality with protecting residents from crime and nuisance, prioritising public safety and community well-being. Cllr. Nur recommended approval of the updated policies.

Cllr. Schmetterling recognised the significant progress made in adding hotel provision to the policy, noting that it had taken nearly seven years to achieve. He explained that his experience on the licensing committee had shown the challenges linked to hotels in wards, especially those with bars or drinking places attached. Adding that he was pleased that this issue had finally been addressed and thanked everyone involved.

Cllr. Wade acknowledged the policy's strengths but believed it overlooked the balance between businesses and residents, especially in high-traffic areas like Earl's Court Road. With numerous licensed premises, fast food outlets, gaming centres, and only a few retail shops, she argued that residents’ concerns must be better addressed. Cllr. Wade suggested a cumulative impact zone to manage the density of these businesses, noting that despite investments, safety and quality of life remain unresolved issues for residents.

Council RESOLVED that the Licensing Policy 2026-2031 be approved and adopted.

Council RESOLVED that the correction to Appendix Two of the Treasury Outturn 2024/25 be noted.

Cllr. Addenbrooke moved and Cllr. Taylor-Smith seconded the report’s reception.

Cllr. Addenbrooke introduced the Council’s new Charter for Public Participation, which was developed with input from over 600 residents following the Grenfell tragedy. The Charter aimed to increase transparency and responsiveness and included a five-year review requirement based on recommendations from the Grenfell inquiry. Resident feedback guided the Charter's development, resulting in regular evaluations, staff training, best practice sharing, and the creation of a resident oversight group. Cllr. Addenbrooke said by integrating the Charter into its Constitution, the Council formalised its commitment to resident-led public participation.

Cllr. Taylor-Smith expressed gratitude to Cllr. Addenbrooke and all stakeholders for their contributions to making this project a success. He highlighted the importance of reviewing the Council’s progress since the initiative began five years ago. The project was started in response to inquiry commitments and demonstrated inclusive engagement, involving over 600 participants. Although the Council received some criticism about outreach and communication, constructive feedback from various committees proved valuable for planning and policy development. Cllr. Taylor-Smith stated that the revised charter outlined how residents could successfully influence council services, showing the effect of meaningful consultation.

Cllr. Simmons expressed that the report and its process appeared superficial and ineffective, describing it as a “tick boxing exercise” that did not lead to meaningful change within the Council. She said the Council claimed to have implemented the Charter for Public Participation and other governance principles, but these commitments were often ignored or unenforceable after adoption. She stated that engagement with non-executive Councillors and scrutiny was minimal, consisting mainly of one briefing after decisions had already been made. Cllr. Simmons claimed the Council continued to favour majority party members and privileged certain residents, offering incentives and recognition, while others felt excluded or feared reprisals.

Cllr. Dent Coad noted that while the Council attempted to boost public participation, minority party Councillors were frequently neglected and felt left out. She suggested that their calls for greater transparency were often dismissed, and significant decisions such as acquiring Kensington-Chelsea College were made without their knowledge. She claimed that officers sometimes treated Councillors more like subordinates and recommended training to address this concern. According to Cllr. Dent Coad, strategic reviews tended to take the place of meaningful action, and promises of progress failed to bring about real change. As a result, both Councillors and residents ended up disappointed, feeling that the review did not achieve substantive improvement and that many remained marginalised.

Cllr. Lari pointed out that the Council had previously broken its own charter by proposing to build a skyscraper near Trellick Tower, which would have altered the area’s character and went against residents’ preference for a care home. The planning inspector later ruled these plans illegal. Cllr. Lari then asked how the new charter and the Resident Oversight Group would help prevent similar problems in the future and ensure accountability.

The Mayor addressed Cllr. Addenbrooke's point of order, asking Cllr. Lari to retract his remark about the skyscraper near Trellick Tower,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10a

Cllr. Weale moved and Cllr. Hudd seconded the report’s reception.

Cllr. Weale described the year as successful and busy, with peer reviews confirming effective scrutiny and strong budget focus. She noted that Scrutiny’s recommendations were widely accepted by the executive and stressed the importance of data-driven analysis and clear reporting for Council performance.

Cllr. Weale reported that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee achieved notable progress across several areas: a public consultation addressed issues with online bikes in Environmental Services; a joint working party investigated Gordon Hospital in Health & Adult Social Care; statutory safeguarding duties were met in Family & Children’s Services, supported by an external review; and a collaborative project on hostels was completed in Housing. The Committee also focused on Grenfell and transformation, introducing new ideas through dedicated working groups. Success was attributed to active public participation, rigorous officer support, well-prepared committee members, effective chairs, and a Leadership Team that accepted 97% of recommendations, reflecting strong collaboration.

Cllr. Simmons, Chair of the Housing & Communities Select Committee, thanked committee members and supporting officers for their efforts over the past year. She made a reference to the Grenfell Tower public inquiry, noting that strong scrutiny is vital for council operations and decision-making, but said sometimes recommendations are ignored, about 3% overall, with a higher rate in Housing and Communities. Cllr. Simmons expressed concern about challenges to effective scrutiny, including instances where senior officers provided incomplete or inaccurate information without proper accountability, which she said undermines good governance.

Cllr. Gardner reaffirmed the Council's dedication to robust scrutiny processes, endorsing the report as a solid basis for ongoing improvement and welcoming additional input. She expressed appreciation to all Scrutiny Chairs for their transparency and impartiality, and extended gratitude to Cllr. Weale, Chair of Overview & Scrutiny, as well as Ms Jackie Hird, Scrutiny Manager, for their effective leadership and valuable support. Cllr. Gardner also acknowledged Cllr. Weale’s consistent engagement and constructive collaboration with officers.

Cllr. McVeigh praised the Overview & Scrutiny Committee’s report and Cllr. Weale for her thorough work, highlighting strong Council collaboration. She explained that Housing scrutiny documents were distributed to committee members well in advance, sometimes before she received them herself. Additionally, Cllr. McVeigh encouraged open discussion and asked for evnce when claims about officer conduct were raised, especially since the officers themselves couldn’t respond during the meeting.

Cllr. Weale expressed appreciation for all contributions and acknowledged Cllr. Simmons’s concern. She stressed the importance of specificity and emphasised that timely, accurate data is essential for effective scrutiny and urged officers, leadership, and committee members to work together to ensure access to necessary information. Cllr. Weale recognised the ongoing efforts to improve clarity and timeliness and said the committee is committed to continued improvement.

RESOLVED:

That the recommendations as stated in the report be adopted.

(i)         Serious issues affecting Housing Association residents in Golborne Ward

Cllr. Adam asked the Lead Member for Housing what actions had been taken to address the serious issues that affected housing association residents in Golborne Ward? Residents had repeatedly raised concerns, but there had been no Housing Officer or Neighbourhood Officer available for contact. Reports had to be made by phone, but calls went unanswered, leaving residents unsupported. Conditions included persistent mould, repairs taking up to six months, unresolved leaks, pest infestations, and a lack of updates or direct contact. The housing associations concerned had become unresponsive, and the situation had become unacceptable for residents

Cllr. McVeigh acknowledged the difficult living conditions that had affected some housing association residents in Golborne Ward. Although these residents were not Council tenants, housing officers had sought to help those impacted. Cllr. McVeigh explained that it would not be appropriate to discuss individual cases in public. A drop-in session with all registered providers, including Peabody and Notting Hill Genesis, had been arranged so residents could raise their concerns directly. The Council’s Housing Needs Team had been made aware of the issues and had actively worked to support residents.

Cllr. Adam asked a supplementary question, on what practical steps would be taken to address the ongoing issues faced by housing association residents, given that previous discussions had not resolved matters. She encouraged Cllr. McVeigh to visit homes impacted by these issues to fully grasp the residents' hardships. Emphasising the urgent problems faced by tenants of the housing association, she insisted that immediate action from the Council was needed instead of another routine meeting. Furthermore, she said she would attend the upcoming session and would bring along affected residents so their voices could be properly represented.

Cllr. McVeigh emphasised the importance of encouraging residents actively to participate in meetings and engage directly with the relevant housing association. She noted that the housing association in question maintains an office in North Kensington, which she has previously visited. Cllr. McVeigh expressed her willingness to accompany residents on visits to housing association properties, demonstrating her commitment to supporting resident engagement. She stated that she regularly inspects council-owned properties and is pleased to extend this practice to include visits to housing association properties alongside residents.

(ii)       UK Shared Prosperity Fund Plans for Notting Hill Gate

Cllr. Joanna Gardner asked the Lead Member for Environment and Planning about the plans to spend a share of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund grant on Notting Hill Gate.

Cllr. Thalassites stated that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, endorsed by Camden and Pembridge ward councillors, had facilitated enhancements in Notting Hill Gate. The planned initiatives included cleaner streets using sweepers and electric vehicles, new paving between Pembridge Road and Pembridge Gardens, upgraded waste collection bins, planter benches, and improved wayfinding systems. Cllr. Thalassites emphasised that these developments had been made possible through cooperation with ward councillors and local residents, whose ongoing engagement contributed to the sustained success of Notting Hill Gate.

Cllr. Gardner asked a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Councillors may draw to the Council’s attention Ward or other ‘live’ issues that are primarily local in nature. Each Councillor raising such an issue under this Standing Order may speak for not more than two minutes, however they will receive no response at the meeting. No more than three Majority Group Councillors and one Minority Party or ungrouped Councillor may raise issues in this way per meeting. Councillors wishing to raise such matters must register their intent with the Head of Governance & Mayoralty prior to the meeting and such registration will be on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. The relevant Lead Member or Executive Director will be expected to respond to the Councillor raising this issue within six weeks.

Cllr. Jedut reported that residents of Dalgarno Ward felt insecure and disadvantaged due to perceived neglect and actions by the Council. Persistent health inequalities and ignored petitions contributed to their concerns, while developments proceeded despite local objections. Residents raised allegations of favouritism and a lack of transparency, noting that Council spending delivered minimal community benefit. Injuries and poor services were overlooked, property sales lacked proper consultation, and support for local improvements was insufficient. She stated that those who challenged the Council’s decisions often encountered hostility.

Cllr. Idris expressed concern over the Government's neglect of the Sudanese crisis, noting that two minutes is insufficient to describe the ongoing atrocities. She highlighted widespread displacement, destruction, starvation, and violence driven by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) profits from smuggled gold, with little global attention. Ignoring Sudan's plight, she argued, is tantamount to enabling genocide. Cllr. Idris stressed the need for Sudanese unity and declared that Sudan will persevere, insisting that the world must support Sudan’s justice, dignity, and survival.

Cllr. Knight raised concern about the increasing rise of crime in Holland Ward, following recent burglaries, which left many feeling unsafe. She said resident anxiety increased after the announcement of plans to remove the 24-hour counter at Kensington Police Station after Notting Hill Police Station had closed. She explained that ward councillors met with residents to discuss possible solutions, including applying for CCTV through and considering the installation of gates to deter intruders. Residents were working with local officials to identify effective measures and sought reassurance that their safety remains a priority for both the Council and the Police.

Cllr. Zvedeniuk highlighted that high streets had been a vital part of Kensington and Chelsea, serving as social hubs, especially during Christmas with festive events and decorations. The Council’s pro-business approach had led to improvements like al fresco dining and pedestrianised areas. However, residents had grown concerned about Government policies affecting local businesses, particularly in hospitality, retail, and leisure. Many pubs faced rising bills, and job losses had occurred. The majority party had proposed abolishing business rates for high street shops. The Council was urged to protect and revitalise local high streets.

Cllr. Simmons expressed concerns that shortcomings in governance and local democracy had negatively affected North Kensington residents. Ward Councillors had often not been kept informed by officers or leadership, and decisions about local assets had been made without elected members’ awareness. Cllr. Simmons said she often received incorrect information, experienced unprofessional communication, and had sometimes been ignored by officers.

At the last Council meeting the outgoing Mayor Will Lane made the most extraordinary speech in celebration of diversity and the co-dependent community it has engendered. I surprised myself by giving him a standing ovation; I believe most if not all Council members joined in.

In London, many boroughs are working towards becoming Boroughs of Sanctuary, demonstrating a commitment to creating a more inclusive and supportive environment for those seeking refuge. This currently includes: Lewisham; Camden; Islington; Ealing; Richmond; Wandsworth; Royal Greenwich; Waltham Forest; and Sandwell.  

A Borough of Sanctuary is a term used by the City of Sanctuary UK network, which works to create a more welcoming environment for refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants in the UK. It signifies a local authority's commitment to providing a place of safety and support for individuals fleeing persecution or violence. 

Key aspects of a Borough of Sanctuary:

o   Welcoming and inclusive environment:

Boroughs of Sanctuary aim to create a culture of welcome and support for those seeking sanctuary. 

o   Collaboration and partnerships:

They often involve local councils, community groups, and charities working together to provide resources and support. 

o   Specific goals:

These may include ensuring fair treatment and access to essential services, providing language support, and promoting cultural understanding. 

o   Recognized by City of Sanctuary:

Boroughs are formally recognized as such by the City of Sanctuary UK organization. 

Given our history of opening our arms to migrants and to refugees – most recently those from Ukraine and Afghanistan – and the stability of our communities now comprising 54% of non-British born residents, we ask the Council to commit fully to the four guidelines above, and to ask for recognition to be acknowledged as a Borough of Sanctuary.

Moved by Councillor Emma Dent Coad

Seconded by Councillor Dr Mona Ahmed

With Council’s consent to use the altered text version, Cllr. Dent Coad moved, and Cllr. Ahmed seconded it.

‘At the May Council meeting, the outgoing Mayor Will Lane made the most extraordinary speech in celebration of diversity and the co-dependent community it has engendered. I surprised myself by giving him a standing ovation; I believe most if not all Council members joined in.

In London, many boroughs are working towards becoming Boroughs of Sanctuary, demonstrating a commitment to creating a more inclusive and supportive environment for those seeking refuge. This currently includes Lewisham, Camden, Islington, Ealing, Richmond, Wandsworth, Royal Greenwich, and Waltham Forest.

A Borough of Sanctuary is a term used by the City of Sanctuary UK network, which works to create a more welcoming environment for refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants in the UK. It signifies a local authority's commitment to providing a place of safety and support for individuals fleeing persecution or violence. 

Key aspects of a Borough of Sanctuary:

Boroughs of Sanctuary aim to create a culture of welcome and support for those seeking sanctuary. 

They often involve local councils, community groups, and charities working together to provide resources and support. 

These may include ensuring fair treatment and access to essential services, providing language support, and promoting cultural understanding. 

Boroughs are formally recognized as such by the City of Sanctuary UK organization. 

Given our history of opening our arms to migrants and to refugees – most recently those from Ukraine and Afghanistan – and the stability of our communities now comprising 54% of non-British born residents, we ask the Council to commit fully to the four guidelines above, and to ask for recognition to be acknowledged as a Borough of Sanctuary.’

This Council, therefore, welcomes the work underway by its Councillors and officers to: 

1. Use monies made available by the Pension Fund for levelling up purposes to acquire temporary accommodation properties, which is a new way of tackling a pan London problem that could be a game changer if it succeeds; and
2. Promote the financial model that makes using monies made available by the Pension Fund possible, so that this Council and other councils can unlock external institutional investment to acquire the homes needed to help address the problem. 

And this Council wishes to thank the Investment Committee, in particular the chairman Cllr Marshall, for their work in managing the Fund, both discharging their fiduciary duties and thinking creatively about how to reduce the burden on local people, as well as Cllr Will, who has driven this work forward with a single-minded focus on doing what is right for the greater good.

This Conservative Council includes people who have lived in temporary accommodation in the borough and who live in social housing. We know that safe and decent homes are the foundation upon which a stable and happy life can be built. We will continue supporting the most vulnerable.

After the mover  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14a

This Council welcomes the Amazing Spaces programme, which has seen the transformation of Chelsea Green, Bute Street, St Helen's Gardens—and now, Hogarth Road. 

But what a contrast there is between Hogarth Road, sympathetically paved and greened, and nearby roads managed by Transport for London (TfL), such as Earl's Court Road / Redcliffe Gardens and Warwick Road / Finborough Road. 

The difference between the Council’s and TfL’s approach to streets is stark, and—as we heard at the April 2025 Full Council meeting—residents have noticed.

Both these TfL streets suffer from noise pollution, congestion, and poor-quality pavements. And despite pressing TfL for quick approvals for acoustic cameras, the removal of Covid-era build outs on Earl's Court Road, a safer redesign of Warwick Road junctions, and the replacement of old paving stones, there is little to no action on any of these fronts. 

This Council calls on the Lead Member for Environment and Planning to ensure that there will continue to be funding for future enhancements to the street scene in Earl's Court, and that TfL are held to account for their responsibilities and failings.

Moved by Councillor Hamish Adourian

Seconded by Councillor Sidney Yankson

The Mayor deferred this motion to the next meeting.

Education is a vital pathway to opportunity, success, and long-term prosperity for individuals and communities alike.

In recognition of the lives lost and the enduring impact of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, this Council calls for the establishment of a Grenfell Scholarship to support children and young people from the local area, particularly those in and around North Kensington. The scholarship should aim to provide financial assistance and educational opportunities to young people facing similar socio-economic circumstances as those affected by the Grenfell disaster.

This Council believes that the Grenfell Legacy should include a meaningful, lasting investment in the future of the next generation. A borough-wide Grenfell Scholarship would serve both as a tribute and a practical commitment to the memory of our community members lost in the tragedy.

To that end, we will seek meetings with the relevant Government Ministers to explore and pursue the creation and funding of this scholarship initiative.

This Council supports the establishment of a Grenfell Scholarship as part of our collective responsibility to honour the memory of the victims and help build a better future for the affected community.

Moved by: Councillor Kasim Ali

Seconded by: Councillor Marwan Elnaghi

The Mayor deferred this motion to the next meeting.

The recent changes announced by the Government to reform Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and their funding models will have a detrimental impact on the residents of Kensington and Chelsea.

The new blueprint outlines a future vision for ICBs as strategic commissioners. ICBs are expected to shift from operational delivery to a more strategic role. Much of the responsibility currently with ICBs will transfer to NHS Trusts, Local Authorities or Neighbourhood Health structures as part of these changes with very limited or no extra funding,

This and the cut to Better Care Fund (BCF), which is a £600,000 hit to our budgets for this financial year and a further £900,000 for next year undermines the NHS and the Council's ability to have a integrated and joined up care model - the whole point of the BCF.

The abolition of Healthwatch as an independent scrutineer of local health services is also a concern as the abolishment of the Integrated Care Partnership that scrutinises the work of the ICB.

This Council calls on;

·       Our Members of Parliament to write to the Government urging them to review the funding formula for NHS and local government

·       To remind the NHS that local authorities are legally barred from providing primary care services and if more social care is required to be provided by Council's, funding must come with this

·       To reestablish an independent scrutiny body to ensure local people can hold their health services accountable.

Moved by: Councillor Lucy Knight

Seconded by: Councillor Anne Cyron  

The Mayor deferred this motion to the next meeting.

This Council recognises that dockless e-bikes, currently operated by Lime and Forest, are popular with some residents, providing a new means of affordable mobility for short journeys. However, they have also caused new problems like obstructing the pavements and roads with poor parking and increased traffic accidents.

We welcome the practical steps that this Council has taken to make this new transport method workable for everybody, for example by designating a number of agreed parking areas. We also welcome this Council using its limited powers to seize dockless e-bikes where they have been parked in such as way as to cause an obstruction to the highway. But we recognise that there is more to do, particularly by the Government and Mayor of London, and we call upon the Lead Member for Environment and Planning to:

(i) Request the Executive Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods to review the Council's enforcement policy and take appropriate steps to ramp up the seizing of dockless e-bikes and issuing more fines to operators, finding new storage facilities for this if needed, and to take legal advice on what constitutes “danger”, in highways terms, to enable more dockless e-bikes to be seized where they are causing an obstruction;

(ii) Write to the responsible Minister again to request powers to regulate the market be delegated to Local Highways Authorities, including the power to fine operators if their dockless e-bikes are found outside designated parking areas;

(iii) Write to the Mayor of London to express this Council’s view that his flawed Holland Park roundabout bike lane plan should be withdrawn, and do something useful by working with councils across London to create a regulated environment for dockless e-bikes that can be effectively enforced.

We further call upon the Lead Member for Communities and Community Safety to write to the Borough Commander to express this Council’s and residents’ view that the Police should do more to prioritise enforcing the Highway Code, including rules about cyclists not riding on pavements and obeying traffic signals.

Moved by: Councillor Joanna Gardner

Seconded by: Councillor Greg Hammond

The Mayor deferred this motion to the next meeting.

No one should spend the final months of life burdened by avoidable financial stress. By waiving council tax for those with a terminal prognosis, this Council can offer vital support and dignity to our most vulnerable residents. This policy is both compassionate and just, aligning with the principles of care and social responsibility that underpin our community values.

This Council recognises the profound challenges faced by individuals diagnosed with a terminal illness, particularly those given a prognosis of 12 months or less to live. These individuals and their families often endure not only emotional and physical hardship but also significant financial strain as they face reduced incomes and increased care costs.

Therefore, this Council resolves to:

1.     Introduce a full waiver of council tax for residents who have been medically certified as having a terminal illness with a life expectancy of 12 months or less, irrespective of age, income, or existing exemptions.

2.     Ensure that:

·            The process for applying for this waiver is simple, compassionate, and handled with sensitivity.

·            Eligibility is determined based on certification from a registered medical professional (e.g., a GP or specialist consultant).

·            The waiver applies from the date of certification and lasts until the resident passes away or their prognosis is officially revised.

3.     Work in partnership with local health services, hospices, and social care providers to ensure all eligible individuals and families are informed about this exemption.

4.     Advocate for similar national reforms for introducing statutory provisions for council tax relief for terminally ill individuals across all local authorities in England and the rest of the UK.

Moved by Cllr Mohammed Bakhtiar

Seconded by Cllr Portia Thaxter 

The Mayor deferred this motion to the next meeting.

Members agreed to remove Cllr. Marwan Elnaghi from the Investment Committee and replace him with Cllr. Sina Lari.

[Each written report on the public part of the Agenda as detailed above:

(i)   was made available for public inspection from the date of the Agenda;

(ii)  incorporates a list of the background papers which (i) disclose any facts or matters on which that report, or any important part of it, is based; and (ii) have been relied upon to a material extent in preparing it. (Relevant documents which contain confidential or exempt information are not listed.); and

(iii)  may, with the consent of the Mayor and subject to specified reasons, be supported at the meeting by way of oral statement or further written report in the event of special circumstances arising after the despatch of the Agenda.]

Exclusion of the Press and Public

There are no matters scheduled to be discussed at this meeting that would appear to disclose confidential or exempt information under the provisions Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Should any such matters arise during the course of discussion of the above items or should the Mayor agree to discuss any other such matters on the grounds of urgency, the Council will wish to resolve to exclude the press and public by virtue of the private nature of the business to be transacted.