Councillor Hulley substituted for Councillor Snow.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 December 2024 (Appendix ‘A’).

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2024 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 Committee reviewed the progress that has been made in gaining level 2 “disability confident employer” status.  There was evidence that the previous success in gaining level 1 “committed disability confident” status had had a positive impact, with existing employees feeling more comfortable sharing whether they had a disability (from 3% to 4.6%).  It was noted that the disability staff network had recently started meeting.

The Committee thanked officers for their work and asked that on gaining “disability confident employer” status, this be celebrated through public communications and other means such as e-mail signatures.

This report was for information only.

It was noted that this report had also been shared with the Standards and Audit Committee, and was due to be shared with the Council on 6 February 2025.

The Committee thanked officers for the significant amount of work that had been delivered in advance of the positive news that the non-statutory best value notice would not be renewed.  Work would now be undertaken via a continuous improvement programme board, which would also be tasked with monitoring workstreams arising from the corporate peer challenge.  The board was also likely to be involved in workstreams associated with the impending local government reorganisation. 

This report was for information only.

The Committee reviewed the proposed strategy.  It was noted that the Capital Programme was now included in an overall budget report.  The modest changes from last year’s agreed strategy were highlighted, in particular those on page 76 of the agenda reports pack.

The low level of capital receipts remained a concern.  It was reported that this may dictate the need to utilise the existing framework for prioritising capital projects.

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to approve the Capital and Investment Strategy 2025/26 – 2028/29, as set out in Appendix A of the officer’s report.

The Committee reviewed the proposed strategy.  Changes to this strategy were limited to the minimum revenue provision policy statement.  The Committee’s attention was drawn to the prudential indicators set out in Appendix B of the officer’s report, along with the new International Accounting Standard definition for leases.  It was noted that the level of internal borrowing from cash balances was not sustainable and that external borrowing was likely to be needed to replace this as the Council’s reserves and balances reduced.

Officers were thanked for their work in putting the Council on a solid financial footing, and for the favourable performance of the Council’s treasury management function when compared to other local authorities.

It was resolved that the report be noted, and that the Council be recommended to approve the following:

1)    The proposed 2025/26 Treasury Management Strategy encompassing the Annual Investment Strategy.

2)    The Prudential and Treasury Management Indicators for 2025/26.

3)    The Authorised Limit for external borrowing by the Council in 2025/26, be set at £705,246,000 (this being the statutory limit determined under Section 3 (1) of the Local Government Act 2003).

4)    The MRP Policy Statement for 2025/26 as set out in paragraph 7.16 of the officer’s report.

The draft budget had been prepared following consideration of matters such as fees and charges, various supplementary documents including the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), and inflation.  Members’ attention was, in particular, drawn to the statement of the Chief Financial Officer at Appendix G of the officer’s report.

Work on identifying savings and efficiencies was ongoing, with this workstream being kept under review by the Standards and Audit Committee.  To date, approximately £1.4m of savings and efficiencies had been identified for 2025/26.  Details of the savings and efficiencies that had been identified and their impact on the Council’s financial position had been factored into the MTFS.

A budget envelope for the annual staff pay uplift was proposed.  A delegation to progress these discussions was sought for the Chief Executive.  It was explained that the proposed 2.25% increase may not be reflected across all pay grades, and that a graduated increase to salaries, dependent on individual pay grades, was one possible outcome of the discussions with the union.  This impact of grade compaction also needed careful consideration.  It was stated by a member of the Committee that the ongoing pay and grading review may present budgetary challenges in the future, but that it was correct to undertake this task and that it was in the Council’s interest to pay its staff fairly.

Various proposals for ringfenced budgets were highlighted to the committee.  One of these proposals related to ensuring that there were resources available for anticipated workstreams associated with the impending local government reorganisation.  Uses for this budget would potentially include the commissioning of consultants or the backfilling of posts where postholders were facilitating local government reorganisation related workstreams.  It was confirmed that any requests for additional funding would require Committee approval.  The frugality with using the previously agreed budget for responding to the non-statutory best value notice was highlighted.

Consideration had been given to recent increases in national insurance employer contributions.  The Council would be receiving a grant to offset some of this cost, although the grant was not expected to cover the full cost of the increase.  It was explained that the Council’s exposure to contractor related increases was more limited than many boroughs because Runnymede delivered a number of its services in-house.   Contractual provisions would dictate whether suppliers could pass on increased national insurance costs to the Council.

Changes to the way in which business rates were collected, brought about by the fairer funding review, were likely to reduce income for the Council.  It was also likely that the current pooling arrangement across Surrey would need to be reviewed once the full impact of the fairer funding review was known.

The extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme was mentioned.  Whilst it had been included in the proposed budget for 2025/26, it was not advisable to assume that it would continue in future years.  Any future inclusions would therefore positively impact future years’ budgets.

Members’ attention was drawn to remarks made earlier in the meeting about the low level of capital receipts.  The Council had previously committed to using capital receipts gained from the sale of assets funded by debt to pay down its borrowing.  It was therefore important to begin identifying alternative sources of income, and for careful consideration to be given to the urgency of various capital projects, using the aforementioned framework for doing so.

There was a debate about the performance of the Council’s assets.  It was stated the Council’s assets had delivered more gross income, but less net income than in the previous year.  It was also noted that the Council owned a number of challenging assets, the leases for many of which would be coming to an end in the near future.  A request was made to reinitiate the Property and Assets Task Force to keep the Council’s assets under close member scrutiny.

Plans to begin cross-party work on reviewing the working capital of Runnymede’s companies was mentioned.  It was expected that this work would commence within 6-8 weeks, and that officers would contact members about this separately.  In response to a query about when the previously delayed Runnymede company annual general meetings would be held, it was confirmed that this was expected to be by the end of March.

It was resolved that, following consideration of the updated Medium-Term Financial Forecast at Appendix A and the statement of the Chief Financial Officer at Appendix G of the officer’s report:

1)    The Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive) be authorised to enter into pay negotiations with staff and Union representatives within the total provision set out in the officer’s report.

2)    The Council be recommended to approve:

a)    The Revised Budget for 2024/25 and Revenue Budget Estimates for 2025/26, as set out in the officer’s report and at Appendix D of the officer's report.

b)    An increase to the Band D Council Tax level of 2.99% (£5.69) from £190.45 to £196.14.

c)     The maintenance of the minimum threshold for the General Fund Working Balance at £5m.

d)    The creation of, and transfers to and from reserves as set out in the officer’s report, including:

i)   Use of up to £250,000 from the Service Transformation Fund to support the Council’s response to the devolution white paper and proposals for local government reorganisation, expenditure from which to be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Corporate Management Committee.

ii)  Use of £570,000 per annum over 10 years as Voluntary Revenue Provision for the repayment of debt.

iii) Transfer of £250,000 for the creation of a new reserve to support changes to service delivery required as a result of the implementation of national waste and recycling measures.

e)    The Capital Programme as set out at Appendix F of the officer’s report.

A named vote was held on the resolution above, with the voting noted as follows:

In favour (8)

Councillors R. King, Gillham, Cressey, Jenkins, Milstead, Ringham, Smith and D. Whyte.

Against (0)

Abstentions (4)

Councillors Gracey, Howorth, Hulley and Mavi.

The Council was required undertake an annual review of its RIPA related activities and the policy which governed these.  It was confirmed that the Council had not used these powers since 2011 and that previous uses were largely attributable to benefits fraud related surveillance.

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to:

1)    Note that the Council had not used its RIPA powers during the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024.

2)    Adopt the proposed policy to govern the use of RIPA powers for the period 7 February 2025 to 5 February 2026.

The report associated with this item has been distributed to all members as part of a supplementary agenda for the 22 January 2025 Environment and Sustainability Committee. The Committee’s recommendations are attached.

The Committee reviewed the request for capital and revenue funding from the Environment and Sustainability Committee, to enable the Council to procure an additional waste collection vehicle, caddies and communal waste bins, in order to meet a legal requirement to collect food waste from all households from 1 April 2026.

The Committee supported the proposals, with various members suggesting that they would contact officers separately with suggestions for sites that would benefit from communal food waste bins.

It was resolved that:

1)    A capital estimate in the sum of £175,585, to meet the cost of purchasing a new food waste collection vehicle and food waste bins and caddies as set out in the report, to be financed from new burdens grant funding, be approved.

2)    A supplementary revenue estimate in the sum of £16,990, to allow the service to meet the current revenue costs associated with the additional vehicle and collections, be approved.

The Community Services Committee is due to meet after the publication of this agenda. The Farming Recovery Grant report can be found here and here.

Any recommendations will be distributed as part of a supplementary agenda.

The Committee considered a request from the Community Services Committee for the release of grant funding to undertake remedial works on sites previously affected by flooding.  The Committee supported the proposal and was pleased to note that tree species’ expected survival rates in the settings covered by the report had been considered.  The Committee thanked officers for engaging with local people during this project.

It was resolved that a supplementary revenue estimate, in the sum of £11,375 during the 2025/26 financial year for the four recommended actions, as set out in the officer’s report to, and the resolution of the Community Services Committee, to be funded from the grant received from the Rural Payments Agency, be approved.

The Committee reviewed the project data provided in the officer’s report.  Members were reminded that some of the data was commercially sensitive.

There was discussion about the use of the shared prosperity fund in Chertsey.  Some members requested that the application deadline be extended, to enable more businesses to apply for funding.  It was stated that the government mandated deadline of 31 March 2025 made this impractical, particularly in the context of seeking planning permission for proposals in Guildford Street due to it being within a conservation area.  Other members stated that there had been significant levels of engagement with businesses in Chertsey prior to the original deadline and extended deadline of December 2024.  Officers would be providing an update on the number of businesses entering legal agreements to use their shares of the grant funding in due course.

There was discussion about various targets relating to the Council’s Housing service.  It was hoped that as vacancies were filled, these projects would begin moving forward.  It was confirmed that the Parkside regeneration project was reporting ‘amber’ because of the ongoing discussions with the Environment Agency over flood risk.

This report was for information only.

By resolution of the Committee, 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.

The Committee reviewed a proposal to enter into a planning performance agreement for two sites within the borough.  The role was to be funded by the developers concerned, and it was hoped that a member of staff currently employed on a fixed term contract, would be willing to accept this role.  The impact of the impending local government reorganisation had been given due consideration prior to putting this proposal to the Committee.

The Committee supported the proposal and welcomed the continuity associated with retaining existing staff.

It was resolved that:

1)    The Corporate Head of Planning, Economy and Built Environment (CHPEBE) be authorised to extend the post of Major Projects Planner until 31 March 2028.

2)    Should 1) above not be possible, the CHPEBE be authorised to employ an alternative staff member on a fixed term agreement or contract basis, providing the cost of doing so was met by the additional income provided from the Planning Performance Agreements (or existing budgets), subject to these costs being agreed with the Assistant Chief Executive (S151).

The Committee reviewed proposals to remarket one of the Council’s assets, which had become necessary due to the prospective purchaser not being in a position to proceed.  Some members expressed concerns about not being notified of the sale falling through prior to communication being undertaken with residents.  A commitment was made to engage all members of the Committee when reviewing options for the site, on receipt of any future offers.

There was a debate over the circumstances surrounding the aborted transaction.  Following a query from a member of the Committee, members were reassured that the Council’s Legal Services team had responded to requests made internally and by the prospective purchaser in a timely manner, and that the transaction had fallen through solely because the prospective purchaser had not undertaken sufficient due diligence regarding their ability to finance the transaction.  Officers had therefore accepted the need to engage more robustly with prospective purchasers, when it was felt that they were not engaging fully with pre-transaction activities.

There was discussion about how the proceeds of this sale could be used.  As the asset was not subject to any external debt, it did not form part of the Council’s commitment, made as part of the non-statutory best value notice process, to use any capital receipts to pay down its debts.  Such an approach would however still possible and the matter would be given due consideration at the appropriate time.

Members debated whether remarketing the asset concerned should be delayed until such time that the property market improved, particularly due to the minimal holding costs associated with the site.  It was stated, in response, that testing the market at this time could still be beneficial and that in doing so, the Council was not obliged to proceed should it receive an unsatisfactory offer.

The current planning permission for the site required four affordable housing units to be built.  Members expressed a strong desire to maximise the level of affordable housing where possible.  With this desire in mind, the Committee debated the officer’s recommendation, with an alternative proposal being made and agreed.

It was resolved that:

1)    The marketing of the asset identified in the officer’s report and Appendix A therein be approved.

2)    Delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Chief Executive (S151), in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Corporate Management Committee, to sign off the terms of the transaction to dispose of the asset where:

·         Bids were more than the amount set out in the exempt minutes, and/or;

·         Bids delivered 100% Affordable Housing.

The report associated with this item was distributed to all members as part of an exempt document for the 16 January 2025 Community Services Committee.

Any recommendations will be distributed as part of a supplementary agenda.

The recommendation of the Community Services Committee, to restructure the Safer Runnymede and Community Safety teams in order to address operational capacity within these services, was reviewed.  Members’ attention was drawn to the full proposals contained within the draft staff consultation document.  Officers considered that this was an appropriate time to consider such a restructure, in the context of the likely local government reorganisation.

The Committee thanked the members involved in a recent staff appeal panel for recommending that officers review the staffing arrangements for the teams concerned.

It was resolved that the proposed restructure of Safer Runnymede and the Community Safety teams be approved, and that consultation with employees and Unison on the proposals be commenced.

The report associated with this item was distributed to all members as part of an exempt document pack for the 16 January 2025 Community Services Committee.

Any recommendations will be distributed as part of a supplementary agenda.

The Committee considered a recommendation from the Community Services Committee, regarding a Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space compliance matter at Hare Hill open space.

There was debate over whether the measures proposed in the recommended option should be the subject of public consultation, potentially via the developing citizens’ panel, prior to progressing the matter further.  It was stated that statutory consultation would be required as part of the planning application process, should the Corporate Management Committee agree the recommended option.  It was also confirmed that the citizens’ panel was not yet operating and that this matter would not be an appropriate topic given the limited options available and the compliance matters surrounding the issue.

A request for further information, such as a study of the site’s usage and the pattern of visitors, prior to committing to a course of action, was made.  However, due to the compliance issues that existed, such a study was not a fundamental consideration for the Committee and would therefore be a poor use of the Council’s resources.

The impact on the site, arising from the recommended option, was discussed.  It was noted that whilst there would be a limited number of trees lost, the trees concerned were of a low quality and unlikely to reach maturity.  There was also a net gain for biodiversity in the area as a result of supporting the Community Services Committee’s preferred option.

It was noted that Surrey County Council had been consulted and that following their feedback, the recommended option was the only viable one available to the Council.

Members were reminded that the decisions of this Committee and that of the Community Services Committee were separate to that which may be reached through the planning process.

It was resolved that Option 3, as set out in the officer’s report to the Community Services Committee, be approved.

The resolution above was the subject of a named vote, with the voting noted as follows:

In favour (6)

Councillors R. King, Gillham, Milstead, Ringham, Smith and D. Whyte

Against (5)

Councillors Cressey. Gracey, Howorth, Hulley and Jenkins.

Abstentions (1)

Councillor Mavi.