To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the Corporate Management Committee held on 23 February 2023.

 

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the Council Tax Setting Committee held on 23 February 2023.

The minutes of the Corporate Management Committee held on 23 February 2023 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

 

The minutes of the Council Tax Setting Committee held on 23 February 2023 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

There were no apologies for absence.

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable and non-registrable interests in items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

The preferred option, as set out in the report, was presented to the Committee.  The preferred option offered a pragmatic approach and would not prevent the Council undertaking actions with regard to assets not specified in the appendix to the report.  The second stage of this work was expected to begin during the summer, with the intention to launch the associated questionnaire around the same time as the ‘Great Big Green Week’.

 

It was resolved that the Council’s approach to defining its organisational boundary, for the purpose of setting its carbon baseline and emissions reporting for its own estate and operations, be that presented in option 2 of the officer’s report.

The report for this item was published as part of the agenda for the Environment and Sustainability Committee on 9 March 2023.

 

The Committee noted a report on the various activities which had been undertaken, were ongoing or were planned to help the Council and the Borough of Runnymede to meet its net zero targets by 2030 and 2050 respectively.

 

The current focuses within the Climate Change team were:

 

·       Providing Members with a comprehensive update on the projects which are planned and will help in the Council’s response to climate change.  Officers would work with the Project Management Officer to ensure all future reporting on climate change activities was easily accessible to Members

 

·       Ensuring the Forward Programme for Committee Meetings was kept up to date and sets out the climate change items being brought to various Committees

 

·       Finalising stage 1 of the Council’s Climate Change Study which would set the carbon emissions baseline for the Borough

 

·       Plan an exciting week of events and activities for this year’s Great Big Green Week

 

·       Improving monitoring procedures and increasing capacity in readiness to start tracking our progress in reducing our carbon emissions over time

 

Officers were congratulated on the report, which was more accessible than previous reports and a joy to read.  The Committee commented that it was good to see the great work done coming together.  

 

The Committee was also keen for Runnymede to champion initiatives.    It was agreed that the Environmental Place Shaping MWP would look into pursuing this.

 

The Committee commented on the success of the warm hubs and asked Officers where cool hubs would be located in the Borough.  Officers confirmed that this information was not yet available, but Members would be notified when the information was available. 

 

The Committee was advised that carbon literary training for Members would be set up for early June following the election period.

The report had been considered by the Environment and Sustainability Committee, with a summary of the Committee’s discussions provided with the agenda papers.  The climate change response activities document provided an overview of activities that had had both direct and indirect impacts on climate change.  The format of climate change related reporting was currently being reviewed.

 

The update was noted.

An overview of the changes that had been made to the suite of documents was provided to the Committee.  New documentation aimed to provide prospective suppliers with useful information about the Council’s procurement processes.  The importance of good practice and minimising instances of noncompliance was emphasised to the Committee. 

 

It was noted that further changes were expected in 2024 as a result of the Procurement Bill that was currently making its way through Parliament.  The changes that were the subject of this report therefore sought to put the Council in a favourable position for adopting further changes later on.

 

The Committee explored the sections relating to social value and sustainable procurement.

 

There was discussion about the level of resource available in the procurement team.  The Committee was keen to ensure that staff were not overstretched by the quantity of work likely to arise from this report.  The Head of Procurement, once appointed, would be tasked with monitoring workloads.

 

Recent discussions on sharing services with a neighbouring authority had been paused due to difficulties in reaching an agreement on the division of a shared team’s resources between the participating authorities. Surrey districts and boroughs had however recently compiled a shared contract register with a view to sharing procurement activities on individual projects. Opportunities to share services would however continue to be explored as and when appropriate.

 

It was resolved that the Procurement Strategy and associated policies be recommended to Council for adoption.

The process for recruiting a new Chief Executive had commenced, following the current Chief Executive’s stated intention to retire by the end of July 2023.  A new, politically balanced Sub-Committee, was therefore required to compile a longlist of candidates to facilitate subsequent stages of the recruitment process.

 

The Committee debated whether it was necessary or appropriate to begin the recruitment process before the election.  Some members felt that the post should be filled without any unnecessary delay, due to the importance of the Chief Executive role.  It was also felt that a smooth transition period between the outgoing and incoming Chief Executives was dependent on the recruitment process proceeding as swiftly as possible.  Other members felt that forging ahead with the recruitment process before the election was inappropriate, again due to the importance of the Chief Executive role, and the close proximity of the local government election on 4 May 2023 which could affect the political balance of the Council.

 

The recruitment timetable was reviewed.  It was noted that only the longlisting meeting, designed to test the quality of the applications received, was proposed to take place before the election.  Longlisted candidates would then be interviewed and tested by the executive consultant, who would present their findings after the election.

 

A new, standing Appointments Sub-Committee, was proposed for implementation at the Annual Council on 17 May 2023.  This standing Sub-Committee would assume responsibility for the recruitment process after the longlisting stage had concluded.

 

Member feedback on the recent Assistant Chief Executive recruitment process, such as the localness of the executive consultant, had been factored into the Chief Executive recruitment process.

 

Detailed due diligence would be carried out on the candidate who was recommended for appointment.

 

It was proposed (by Councillor R. King) and seconded (by Councillor D. Whyte) that the following dates on the recruitment timetable be moved as follows:

 

1.     The longlisting meeting of the Appointments Sub-Committee on 26 April 2023 be moved to 7 May 2023.

2.     The longlisting interviews, to be conducted by Tile Hill and the technical assessor, be moved from w/c 1 May 2023 to w/c 14 May 2023.

 

A named vote on the proposed amendment was requested, with the voting as follows:

 

For the proposed amendment (4)

 

Councillors Gillham, R. King, Mullens and D. Whyte.

 

Against the proposed amendment (8)

 

Councillors T. Gracey, Howorth, Cressey, J. Gracey, Lewis, Balkan, Nuti, and Prescot.

 

Abstentions (0)

 

The amendment fell.

 

There was further debate about the recruitment process.  Concerns were raised about how the process should proceed in the event of a change in the Council’s administration following the local election on 4 May 2023.  Members were reminded that all officer posts were apolitical and should not be affected by an election.  Candidate suitability needed to be tested against the job description and person specification for the role.

 

Concerns were raised about the report not explicitly stating that the recruitment process would cross two sets of constitutional arrangements across two municipal years.    It was confirmed that the recruitment process being undertaken by separately constituted Sub-Committees did not put at risk the probity of the process.

 

Nominations for candidates to join the Appointments Sub-Committee were taken by a show of hands.  Councillors Cressey, Gillham, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Howorth, D. Whyte and Willingale all received votes from a majority of the Committee.  Councillor R. King was also nominated, but his nomination did not gain votes from a majority of the Committee, and he was therefore was not put forward as a nominee.

 

It was proposed (by Councillor T. Gracey) and seconded (by Councillor Howorth) that section b) of the proposed motion be amended to read:

 

That the membership of the Appointments Sub-Committee be agreed as Councillors Cressey, Gillham, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Howorth, D. Whyte and Willingale, in accordance with the proportionality calculations set out in paragraph 2.9, until such time that the Appointments Sub-Committee is superseded by the standing Appointments Sub-Committee (or other successor arrangement).

 

A named vote on the proposed amendment was requested, with the voting as follows:

 

For the proposed amendment (8)

 

Councillors T. Gracey, Howorth, Cressey, J. Gracey, Lewis, Balkan, Nuti, and Prescot.

 

Against the proposed amendment (4)

 

Councillors Gillham, R. King, Mullens and D. Whyte.

 

Abstentions (0)

 

The amendment was CARRIED.

 

A named vote on the proposed amended substantive motion was requested, with the voting as follows:

 

For the proposed amended substantive motion (8)

 

Councillors T. Gracey, Howorth, Cressey, J. Gracey, Lewis, Balkan, Nuti, and Prescot.

 

Against the proposed amended substantive motion (4)

 

Councillors Gillham, R. King, Mullens and D. Whyte.

 

Abstentions (0)

 

It was resolved that:

 

a)    An Appointments Sub-Committee be established in accordance with the proposed arrangements set out in this report.

 

b)    The membership of the Appointments Sub-Committee be agreed as Councillors Cressey, Gillham, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Howorth, D. Whyte and Willingale, in accordance with the proportionality calculations set out in paragraph 2.9, until such time that the Appointments Sub-Committee is superseded by the standing Appointments Sub-Committee (or other successor arrangement).

 

c)     The Appointments Sub-Committee receive a report from Tile Hill, the Executive consultants nominated to assist with this appointment, on all applicants and agree a longlist;

 

d)    Following longlist interviews by a consultant from Tile Hill and an appropriate Technical Assessor, the Appointments Sub-Committee meet to agree a shortlist for interview by the Sub-committee;

 

e)    Candidates complete psychometric exercises and any other appropriate exercises ahead of the interviews with the Appointments Sub-Committee;

 

f)      The Appointments Sub-Committee conduct interviews of suitable candidates;

 

g)    The Appointments Sub-Committee make a recommendation to Full Council of the candidate they recommend should be offered the role prior to an offer being made to that candidate.

This item has been withdrawn from the agenda for this meeting.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

The Committee reviewed the proposed performance indicators (PI) and targets for 2023/24, noting that they had previously been considered by the Communication and Service Transformation Member Working Party.  The proposed targets in PI H10 were corrected to “72”.

 

It was noted that proposed PIs needed to be aspirational, but also achievable.  With this consideration in mind, various targets were discussed, with a view to ensuring that they were appropriate.

 

Members raised queries relating to the following proposed PIs:

 

·       ES1 and ES2 – The Committee requested further information about these targets and whether it was appropriate to retain ‘negative’ PIs.

 

·       H3 – Members sought confirmation on whether the proposed PI related to the overall satisfaction of the repairs that had been carried out.   

 

·       H6 – Members asked for clarification on why this target remained static throughout the year.

 

·       P1 – The Committee queried whether this target was appropriate, given that RBC consistently exceeded it.

 

It was resolved that:

 

1)    The proposed 2023/24 Corporate Performance Indicators descriptions as shown in Appendix A be agreed, with the exception of ES1, ES2, H3, H6 and P1.

 

2)    A further report on PIs ES1, ES2, H3, H6 and P1 be considered by the Corporate Management Committee on 20 April 2023.

 

3)    The proposed 2023/24 quarterly/annual targets be agreed.

The Committee reviewed the corporate service area plans.  Plans for other service areas had been considered by their respective committees.  The Corporate Action Plan, which detailed 212 activities in total, was presented to the Committee.  Work was taking place on developing a corporate reporting system to supplement the monitoring of progress against the Corporate Action Plan.

 

There was debate over the replacement of member IT.  Concerns were raised about the sustainability considerations arising from replacing ageing devices that were currently still serviceable.  The reasons for replacing devices at prescribed intervals were discussed.  These included device and network security and the reliability of devices generally reducing as they aged. It was confirmed that hardware refreshes every four years was typical for businesses and other similar organisations.  The older devices that were being replaced were planned for use in resident engagement panels, where they were more likely to be damaged.

 

It was requested that the member IT survey and device refresh be considered by the Communication and Service Transformation Member Working Party, with a subsequent report back to the Corporate Management Committee if required.

 

It was resolved that the following be agreed:

 

1)    The Service Area Plans for Finance, Customer, Digital and Collection Services, Legal and Governance, HR, and the CEX Office for delivery during 2023/24.

 

2)    The collective Corporate Action Plan for delivery in 2023/24, collated from planned activity across all service area plans.

The Committee reviewed the proposed changes to the Constitution, following their review by the Constitution Member Working Party.  The way in which the changes were presented had changed from previous years, with the aim of providing greater clarity to members.  It was noted that the Corporate Management Committee agenda documents would not be reproduced for Council.

 

There was discussion about the proposed process for alternative budgets.  Concerns were raised about the speed at which opposition groups were expected to prepare their budget proposals.  It was however stated that the administration’s proposed budget would ordinarily be available approximately one week before the relevant Corporate Management Committee and that opposition groups would not be asked for their proposals until nearer the budget setting Council meeting.  The moveable nature of meetings meant that it was not possible to offer greater flexibility in the process.

 

The proposed five day expectation for staff to respond to member enquiries, having been debated by the Member Working Party, could be revisited in due course, should it be necessary.

 

It was resolved that the following recommendations be made to the Council on 27 April 2023.

 

1)    That the updates to the Constitution be adopted at the beginning of the 2023/24 municipal year i.e. from 18 May 2023 (subject to the deletion of a repetitious entry on page 168 of the agenda pack).

 

2)    That Surrey County Council’s withdrawal from The Runnymede Joint Committee be noted.

 

3)    That Runnymede Borough Council withdraws from the Runnymede Joint Committee with immediate effect, thus bringing about the Joint Committee’s dissolution.

 

4)    That the Corporate Head of Law and Governance be delegated authority to make any unforeseen and necessary changes to the Constitution, arising from the dissolution of the Runnymede Joint Committee, in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

The proposed scheme had been drafted in accordance with the previously adopted recommendations of the independent remuneration panel (i.e. uplifts in accordance with the annual staff pay award).

 

It was resolved that the following recommendations be put to the Council on 27 April 2023:

 

1.     The 2022/23 Members’ Allowances Scheme be withdrawn with an end date of 16 May 2023 inclusive.

 

2.     An updated Members’ Allowances Scheme (as attached at appendix 1 of the officer’s report), to incorporate a 3% uplift with the basic allowance and special responsibility allowances, be agreed with an implementation date of 17 May 2023 inclusive

Background

 

The Council, at its meeting on 9 February 2023, agreed the motion below.  A proposed letter, drafted by the Leader of the Council, is attached.

 

This Council notes:

 

1.     The unilateral decision by Surrey County Council to return devolved on-street parking enforcement back to County control.

2.     That these services were previously provided by Runnymede Borough Council, along with other districts and boroughs, and could be highly responsive to the needs of residents and the concerns of Councillors, where they were fully resourced.

3.     Where streets faced parking overspill or parking stress, Councillors and residents are able to apply for a resident parking permit (RPP) scheme to ensure a level of specific control over the area or street considered.

4.     That in Runnymede 7 such schemes are presently in place in the following streets:

 

• Burn Close
• The Hythe
• Hythe Road
• Cumberland Street
• Railway Terrace
• Thorpe Road
• Wick Road

 

5.     That the current permit charge is £80 for first permit issued to a household, £100 for second permit issued to a household and £130 for three or more permits issued to a household.

6.     That the revenue derived by these permits had previously gone into expanding the enforcement team in Runnymede and ensured residents had a better opportunity to park outside their own home and that parking safety was enhanced.

7.     That the unilateral decision by Surrey County Council has had a detrimental impact to this Borough’s ability to enforce these permits and generally maintain the same level of staffing in our parking team.

8.     That residents in Egham Hythe, Englefield Green West and Addlestone North where RPPs are in force are now paying the same price for a permit and a service which is less valuable than it was last year, with lower enforcement ability.

 

The Council resolves:

 

That the Leader write a letter to the Leader of Surrey County Council to make the following points, with group leaders who are agreement with the sentiments raised, invited to co-sign it:

 

1.     That this Council once again reiterates that it believes it is the wrong decision to return those devolved on street enforcement powers back to the County Council.

2.     That we request a revised and published timetable for completion and role out of the new service provided by Surrey County Council and that it be shared with this Council and our residents.

3.     That we reiterate this Council’s wish for all new and transferred staff to be employed with a local remit and base, to ensure their local knowledge is not lost in the new service.

4.     That Runnymede Borough Council encourages Surrey County Council to consider suitable compensation to those Runnymede residents who held a Residential Parking Permit, that the actions of the County have impaired the ability to enforce.

5.     That the Leader of Surrey County Council is asked to confirm that in future, in the spirit of providing good and efficient public services regardless of who provides them, no future unilateral decisions will be taken without consulting districts and boroughs where their services or roles will be directly affected.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Corporate Management Committee review and agree a draft of the letter to be sent to the Leader of Surrey County Council.

The draft letter was reviewed by the Committee.

 

It was resolved that the draft letter be agreed, subject to:

 

1)    The reference to “villages across the borough” being amended to “Englefield Green”.

 

2)    An inclusion referencing compensation for Runnymede’s residents being made, in accordance with the motion agreed by the Council.

By resolution of the Committee, for the reasons set out in the agenda, the press and public were excluded from the remainder of the meeting during the consideration of the remaining matters under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the discussion would be likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as set out in Schedule 12A to Part 1 of the Act.

This report followed an earlier Corporate Management Committee report on restructuring the Legal Services team.  Efforts to recruit into the new team structure had not been successful, which dictated the need to revisit how Legal Services provided support to services across the Council.  The difficulties in attracting individuals to professional posts across the Council were noted.

 

It was resolved that:

 

1)    Recruitment to the vacant posts of Senior Solicitor (Contracts) and Principal Solicitor (Contracts) be suspended until 31 March 2024.

 

2)    A one-off budget, for the sum set out in the officer’s report, to settle external legal costs associated for contract and procurement work in the financial year 2023-24, be agreed.

 

3)    The change of job title from Legal Officer (Property) to Senior Solicitor (Property) be agreed.

 

4)    A £5,000 annual market supplement (to be reviewed in April 2025) be applied to the newly titled Senior Solicitor (Property) role.

 

5)    The current annual market supplement for the vacant Principal Solicitor (Property) be continued until April 2025.

It had not been possible to progress the procurement of internal audit services, as previously proposed.  This had however afforded an opportunity to explore services offered by a range of suppliers that had subsequently been identified.  The existing internal auditor had provided a high quality service and an inflationary increase in the cost of retaining this arrangement was considered reasonable.

 

It was resolved that:

 

1)    A waiver under the Council’s Contract Standing Orders, to allow a one-year extension of the existing Internal Audit contract with TIAA Ltd, be agreed.

 

2)    A report on the preferred route to secure internal audit services, on completion of due diligence activities, be brought back to the Corporate Management Committee in due course.

 

3)    A supplementary estimate, for the amount stated in the officer’s report, to reflect the inflationary uplift in the contract price for 2023/24, be agreed.

The Committee discussed the reasons for the overspends, the majority of which had occurred within the last two financial quarters.  There were ongoing negotiations with the Council’s insurer’s loss adjuster around some of the works that had taken place.  Other issues included litigation with a tenant and various urgent compliance matters.

 

There were discussions about the robustness and longevity of the Civic Centre roof.  The committee was disappointed to learn that the roof’s lifespan was typical of such structures.  Lessons learned in the construction of the Civic Centre would be applied to future projects.

 

It was resolved to:

 

1.     Proceed with the replacement of the lift at Chertsey Museum, in accordance with the costs set out in the officer’s report, to be taken from the 2022/23 provision for Asset Management budget, held in the Capital Programme.

 

2.     Note the additional costs of replacement emergency lighting at the Civic Centre, to be met from the 2022/23 provision for Asset Management budget, held in the Capital Programme.

 

3.     Note the overspend of the planned preventative reactive maintenance budget, in accordance with the costs set out in the officer’s report, for the year ending 2022/2023.

This item has been withdrawn from the agenda for this meeting.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

Reasons for urgency

 

The Chairman is of the opinion that this item is urgent due to the need to provide financial certainty to the organisations concerned, and the impending commencement of the financial year in which the awards are to be made.

 

Background

 

The report for this item was published as part of the agenda for the Community Services Committee on 16 March 2023.

 

Recommendations

 

The Community Services Committee’s approval was sought to make four core grant aid awards and introduce conditions to monitor how funding was spent by those voluntary organisations.  The overall spend was included in the Medium Term Financial Strategy approved by full Council in January 2023.

 

Officers advised that the Council wished to continue supporting four core organisations whose work supported key themes in the Corporate Plan, particularly health and wellbeing, providing significant social value to the community.

 

Officers had engaged with each organisation and gained an understanding of their work and the benefits for residents they worked with.  Findings had been considered by the Health and Wellbeing Member Working Party as the first stage of an overall review of Voluntary Sector funding and an attempt to streamline processes and introduce more consistency and transparency.

 

Members agreed that the conditions attached to each grant were reasonable and proportionate and would also keep the Committee informed.  Each organisation would be required to submit an application for funding and make a report either annually and/or on a quarterly basis to account for the grant and its impact on their work.  With the exception of Addlestone Community Association, one or more Councillors would continue to be appointed as representatives on each organisation.

 

The awards were as set out below and would be made annually for a period of three years:

 

1.     Citizens Advice Runnymede and Spelthorne: £103,700 + 10%

2.     Voluntary Support North Surrey: £33,000 + 10%

3.     Runnymede Access Liaison Group: £1,500 + 10%

4.     Addlestone Community Association: £2,900 + 10%

 

It was agreed that should Council finances become unavailable, or if the grant investment was found not to deliver the intended outcomes, funding could cease subject to each organisation being given six months’ notice.

 

Members noted the legal and equalities implications in the report.  Legal agreements would be drawn up with each organisation to ensure the monitoring conditions were met.

 

The Committee was pleased to recommend the grants be approved by Corporate Management Committee. 

 

Members recommend Corporate Management Committee to approve:

 

a)    the proposal to award an annual core grant to the sum of £103,700 + 10% for a period of three years (subject to approval at full Council) to Citizens Advice Runnymede and Spelthorne on receipt of completed application documentation, with the monitoring conditions outlined in section 2 of this report;

 

b)    the proposal to award a core grant to the sum of £33,000 + 10% for a period of three years (subject to approval at full Council) to Voluntary Support North Surrey, on receipt of completed application documentation, with the monitoring conditions outlined in section 2 of this report;

 

c)    the proposal to award a core grant to the sum of £1,500 + 10% to Runnymede Access Liaison Group, for a period of three years, on receipt of completed application documentation, with the monitoring conditions outlined in section 2 of this report; and

 

d)    the proposal to award the core grant sum of £2,900 + 10% to the Addlestone Community Association for a period of three years, on receipt of completed application documentation, with the monitoring conditions outlined in section 2 of this report.

 

[It was subsequently confirmed that approval by full Council was not required for these proposals and that the funding figure for Voluntary Support North Surrey was £33,000 not £33,700.]

The Chairman was of the opinion that this item was urgent due to the need to provide financial certainty to the organisations concerned, and the impending commencement of the financial year in which the awards were to be made.

 

The discussions of the Community Services Committee were noted.  The decision was within the purview of the Corporate Management Committee, and therefore a referral to the Council was not necessary.

 

It was resolved that the following core grants be awarded:

 

1)    £103,700 + 10% for a period of three years to Citizens Advice Runnymede and Spelthorne, on receipt of completed application documentation, with the monitoring conditions outlined in the officer’s report.

 

2)    £33,000 + 10% for a period of three years to Voluntary Support North Surrey, on receipt of completed application documentation, with the monitoring conditions outlined in the officer’s report.

 

3)    £1,500 + 10% to Runnymede Access Liaison Group, for a period of three years, on receipt of completed application documentation, with the monitoring conditions outlined in the officer’s report.

 

4)    £2,900 + 10% to the Addlestone Community Association for a period of three years, on receipt of completed application documentation, with the monitoring conditions outlined in the officer’s report.

Reasons for urgency

 

The existing fleet of diesel fuelled vehicles has reached the end of its useful life.  The Chairman is of the opinion that this item is urgent due to the existence of a time limited opportunity to secure the best possible value in the procurement of electric vehicles, in pursuance of the Council’s climate change commitments.  It is also important to ensure the continuity of the Meals at Home service, which is used by a number of vulnerable Runnymede Borough Council residents.

 

Background

 

The report for this item was published as part of the agenda for the Community Services Committee on 16 March 2023.

 

The Committee’s approval was sought to enter into a new lease arrangement with Apetito for a fleet of 4 electric vehicles/diesel oven option for a period of 36 months to deliver the Council’s Meals at Home service.  Further, approval was sought to recommend Corporate Management Committee grant a waiver to Contract Standing Orders (CSO 2.6.1) to enable this proposal, Apetito being the only company that could provide the services required.

 

Officers advised that an opportunity had arisen which would allow the Council moved to using electric vehicles for Meals at Home, through its contractor, Apetito.  This was an important and timely step towards achieving carbon net zero emissions.

 

A full review of Meals at Home had been undertaken between October 2022 and January 2023.  A number of options had been considered for future provision, all of which had undergone an options appraisal, the details of which were noted by the Committee.

 

The preferred option (6c), and the one which Members agreed was the best, was to enter into an agreement with the existing suppliers, Apetito, to have 7 electric lease vehicles across Runnymede and Surrey Heath and for Surrey Heath to purchase a small electric van as contingency and to deliver bulk orders and deliveries in close proximity.  The leased vehicles would be under a full maintenance contract.  Officers were currently testing the electric vehicles (Renault Kangoo ZE) for efficiency and quality as well as investigating the necessary electric charging infrastructure.

 

Members recognised the need to act quickly as the service was currently out of contract and the vehicles were available now as a one-off opportunity without the previously anticipated 13+ months lead in.  This proposals would require a supplementary revenue estimate  increase per annum of £15,717 and a supplementary capital estimate increase of approximately £15,000 to instal the infrastructure required.  This was currently with the Council’s Assets and Regeneration business centre, the assessment not having yet been completed, with no provision for it in the Capital Programme.  The total for the 36 month contract for 7 vehicles was £175,140 excluding VAT, with Runnymede contributing 4/7, totalling £100,080.

 

Officers did caution that should the proposed option become unviable, the fall back option was to lease 7, 3.5 diesel vehicles with diesel powered ovens.  This was effectively continuation of the current delivery model and replacement of vehicles for which a supplementary revenue estimate increase of £11,139 was required.

 

The legal implications were noted, including the need for a waiver to Contract Standing Order 2.6.1, as Apetito were the only suitable provider, and a consequential exemption from the Public Contract Regulations 2015 regarding advertising.  Legal advice would also be needed to ensure the contract with Apetito was acceptable.

 

Members welcomed the possibility of steps being taken to address climate change and were keen for the positive message to be communicated and promoted on the vehicle livery.

 

Members also asked that the viability appraisal of the infrastructure should include consideration of installing solar panels at the Depot.

 

The Committee was very supportive of the preferred option and thanked Officers for their dedicated work to deliver Meals at Home.

 

Recommendations

 

RESOLVED that –

 

1.     Members recommend for approval the entry into a new lease agreement with Apetito for 4 x electric vehicles/diesel oven option for the period of 36 months and;

 

·       A supplementary budget estimate of £15,717 per annum and;

·       Members approve a one off virement of £15,000 from existing Community Services budgets for the infrastructure requirements relating to use of electric vehicles.

 

In the event that the preferred option of electric vehicles is unviable:

 

·       Members recommend for approval the entry into a new lease agreement with Apetito for 4 x diesel vehicles, and;

·       A supplementary budget estimate of £11,139 per annum for a period of 5 years

 

2.     Members recommend to Corporate Management Committee that a waiver to Contract Standing Orders (CSO2.6.1) is approved to direct award a contract for the agreed recommended option to Apetito without advertising requirements as Apetito are the only company that can provide the services required.

The existing fleet of diesel fuelled vehicles had reached the end of its life.  The Chairman was of the opinion that this item was urgent due to the existence of a time limited opportunity to secure the best possible value in the procurement of electric vehicles, in pursuance of the Council’s climate change commitments.  It was also important to ensure the continuity of the Meals at Home service, which was used by a number of vulnerable Runnymede Borough Council residents.

 

The discussions of the Community Services Committee were noted.

 

The desire to move the Meals at Home fleet to electric vehicles, in pursuance of the Council’s desire to address climate change, was discussed.  There were however various technical challenges relating to power supplies at the depot.  Consideration also needed to be given to the service’s continuity and the vehicles’ ability to undertake reliable deliveries.  A backup option, that allowed the purchase of diesel powered vehicles, was therefore required.

 

The Committee noted that, regardless of the vehicle type purchased, other efforts would be made to ensure that the Council continued to deliver towards its climate change commitments.

 

It was resolved that:

 

1)    A new lease agreement with Apetito, for 4 x electric vehicles/diesel oven option, for a period of 36 months be agreed.

 

2)    A supplementary budget estimate of £15,717 per annum be agreed.

 

3)    A one off virement of £15,000, to be taken from existing Community Services budgets, for the infrastructure requirements relating to use of electric vehicles, be approved.

 

4)    In the event the preferred option of electric vehicles being unviable:

 

a)    Entry into a new lease agreement with Apetito for 4 x diesel vehicles be agreed.

 

b)    A supplementary budget estimate of £11,139 per annum for a period of 5 years be agreed.

 

5)    A waiver to the Contract Standing Orders (CSO2.6.1) be approved to direct award a contract for the agreed recommended option to Apetito, without advertising requirements, as Apetito were the only company that could provide the services required.