The Mayor provided an update on the events and engagements that she had attended since the last Council.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the meeting held on 24 October 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Clarke, Davies, Howorth, Milstead, Singh and Snow.

If Members have an interest in an item, please complete a member interest form and email it to Democratic.Services@runnymede.gov.uk by 5pm on the day of the meeting. Members are advised to contact the Corporate Head of Law and Governance prior to the meeting if they wish to seek advice on a potential interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

a) Mr Barry Lewis has given notice to speak about flooding of properties in and around Green Lane in Chertsey

a) Mr Barry Lewis on flooding of properties in and around Green Lane in Chertsey

 

Mr Lewis highlighted ongoing concerns that he had around flooding in the Green Lane area of Chertsey.  He stated that he had unsuccessfully attempted to engage with Surrey County Council, the Environment Agency and Runnymede Borough Council regarding measures that he felt would help alleviate his concerns, following the commissioning of a report.  The agencies concerned had, according to Mr Lewis, declined to help due to there being insufficient resources.

 

Councillor D Whyte thanked Mr Lewis for attending the meeting and noted that his concerns would be reported in the minutes.

To receive any petitions from members of the Council under Standing Order 19.

 

a) Councillor Gates has given notice that he intends to present a petition relating to Victoria Street car park in Englefield Green.

a) Victoria Street car park in Englefield Green

 

Councillor Gates presented a petition on behalf of residents and businesses in Englefield Green, which raised concerns about the impact of newly introduced weekend parking charges.

 

It was noted that the petition would be discussed at a meeting of the Environment and Sustainability Committee.

a) From Councillor Mark Williams to Councillor Robert King (as Chair of the Corporate Management Committee):

 

“Can the Council confirm that it is carrying out a review of the maintenance of our surface car parks, and now ensuring under this new administration works are actually done to keep them in a proper state of repair, particularly for my residents in the Heriot Road Estate?”

 

b) From Councillor Ken Graham to the Co-Leaders of the Council:

 

"Given the shortage of affordable homes in the Borough, can one of the Co-Leaders please explain why a block of flats in Addlestone One, built for the Council in 2017, has remained empty ever since?"

 

c) From Councillor Dolsie Clarke to the Co-Leaders of the Council:

 

“I would like to ask the leaders of the council how they feel about a homeless client not having access to the property he expected on time?

 

The client had to be put up in a Travelodge for three nights, after which exactly the same thing happened, having spent a night on an estranged relative’s floor and another in a shed.  The client viewed a property with an officer only to find he could not move in as the paperwork was not up to date. On telling them he had nowhere to sleep and no money he was told that they could not help. He approached myself and a local charity, having been given our numbers by someone outside an Egham supermarket.  The charity approached Housing requesting funds from the Crisis fund, to be informed Runnymede does not have one. The client asked if we could lend him a tent and a sleeping bag.  With the weather as it was, wet and frosty, I would not like my son, brother, father or any member of my family sleeping rough.  Surely as the error was Runnymede’s the leaders would agree that there must be a system in place so that situations do not occur and if they should then there are funds available to correct errors should they arise and clients are treated with kindness and consideration.

 

The charity found him a bed and Revive café supplied meal vouchers with the food bank supplying a food parcel.”

 

d) From Councillor Jonathan Hulley to Councillor Mike Smith (as Chair of the Housing Committee):

 

"How many Runnymede Borough Council tenants, who pay rent by way of the housing benefit element of Universal Credit, are in rent arrears of £400 or less as 24 November 2024?”

 

e) From Councillor Peter Snow to the Co-Leaders of the Council:

 

“I understand that the leadership made enquiries to the relevant government department at the end of October to gain permission to divert funding away from the Guildford Street regeneration project. If this was the case I presume discussions had taken place earlier in October. Can I ask why there was no communication with councillors and no public consultation?”

 

f) From Councillor Shannon Saise-Marshall to the Co-Leaders of the Council:

 

“Can the leadership explain the introduction of military classification on RBC emails? I have read the HM Government policy (dated August 24) which explains that it’s a method to protect against threats, as a civilian government organisation we already have the use of 'Part 2' so why use pseudo-military classifications and besides that, no-one on this council has the clearance to read above 'Official'!”

 

g) From Councillor Mark Nuti to the Co-Leaders of the Council:

 

“Chertsey businesses have said the deadline for completed shop front works originally set as the 31 December 2024 was unachievable and not practical. This has been instrumental in shop owners not applying.

 

Can the leadership extend the deadline in line with the fund parameters i.e. the end of the financial year 2024/25 and confirm what funds are still available to then be applied for?”

 

h) From Councillor Jaz Mavi to the Co-Leaders of the Council

 

“With respect to the diversion of Shared Prosperity Funds from Chertsey, at Corporate Management Committee in November, we were informed that officers had consulted businesses in Guildford Street about adopting and looking after the planned planters in terms of watering and general maintenance. Please can the Co Leaders provide a list of the businesses approached, and the outcomes of each conversation?”

a) Councillor Williams asked Councillor R King (as Chair of the Corporate Management Committee):

 

“Can the Council confirm that it is carrying out a review of the maintenance of our surface car parks, and now ensuring under this new administration works are actually done to keep them in a proper state of repair, particularly for my residents in the Heriot Road Estate?”

 

Councillor R King outlined recent remedial works that had been undertaken on the Heriot Road and Hummer Road car parks.  A review of the exit of the Hummer Road car park had also been carried out by Surrey County Council following a request from Councillor Parry.  An independent survey of the Council’s car parks was to be undertaken in order to inform the creation programme of works.

 

Councillor Williams asked whether there were plans to introduce online reporting of maintenance issues for the borough’s car parks?  Councillor King said that this was the intention and that it would be linked to the introduction of a map of the Council’s assets on its website.

 

Councillor Lewis asked whether there were plans to introduce parking charges in car parks that currently did not have them?  Councillor King stated that the parking charges for the 2025/26 financial year had been approved.  Councillor D Whyte said that he would arrange for the agreed parking charges and accompanying minutes to be recirculated to all members in due course.

 

Councillor Mullens asked whether there were any plans to undertake further works in the Hummer Road car park?  Councillor R King said that the previously mentioned survey would inform the creation of a plan of works.  The plan of works would be reviewed by the appropriate committee in due course.

 

b) Councillor Graham asked the Co-Leaders of the Council:

 

"Given the shortage of affordable homes in the Borough, can one of the Co-Leaders please explain why a block of flats in Addlestone One, built for the Council in 2017, has remained empty ever since?"

 

Councillor R King stated that when the new administration was formed in May 2024, a key priority was to reduce the number of empty assets.  Now that the sale of Witley House had completed, it was hoped that units would begin being occupied in the new year, bringing about greater footfall in the Addlestone area.  Discussions with potential investors, relating to a number of sites across the borough, were ongoing.

 

Councillor Graham asked what the void costs for Witley House had been?  Councillor R King said that the costs, for the previous seven years, had been around £763,000.

 

Councillor A King asked whether the proceeds from the sale of Witley House were being used to pay down the Council’s borrowing?  Councillor R King confirmed that this was the case.

 

Councillor Hulley asked whether there was an update on the sale of Barbara Clark House in Egham?  Councillor R King said that he would provide an update outside the meeting.

 

c) Councillor Clarke was not present to put her question to the Co-Leaders of the Council.

 

d) Councillor Hulley asked Councillor Smith (as Chair of the Housing Committee):

 

"How many Runnymede Borough Council tenants, who pay rent by way of the housing benefit element of Universal Credit, are in rent arrears of £400 or less as 24 November 2024?”

 

Councillor Smith said that, as at 24 November 2024, there were 1,239 tenants on Universal Credit and that of these, 282 owed between £0 and £400.

 

Citing a resident that had approached him, Councillor Hulley asked whether the Council was able to review instances where tenants’ rent due dates did not align with the payment of their housing benefits, in order to avoid pursuing them for late rent payments?  Councillor Smith said that he was unable to discuss individual cases in the meeting, but welcomed a separate discussion with Councillor Hulley, after which he would update all members.

 

Councillor Furey asked whether it was possible for delays in rent payments being registered on the system used to write to tenants in arrears could be addressed, in order to avoid sending unnecessary letters to individuals whose rent accounts were otherwise in good standing?  Councillor Smith said that he would discuss this with officers outside the meeting and report back to members in due course.

 

Councillor Lewis asked whether any individuals had been prevented from registering for housing, over the previous 24 months, because they had debts of over £1,000?  Councillor Smith said that he would discuss this with officers outside the meeting and report back to members in due course.

 

e) Councillor Snow was not present to put his question to the Co-Leaders of the Council.

 

f) Councillor Saise-Marshall asked the Co-Leaders of the Council:

 

“Can the leadership explain the introduction of military classification on RBC emails? I have read the HM Government policy (dated August 24) which explains that it’s a method to protect against threats, as a civilian government organisation we already have the use of 'Part 2' so why use pseudo-military classifications and besides that, no-one on this council has the clearance to read above 'Official'!”

 

Councillor Ringham said that new data classification framework was being trialled by a number of officers in advance of a wider rollout in the new year.  The framework had been based on the government’s own framework, which was an approach that had been taken by a number of local authorities across the country.  It was confirmed that the statutory status of committee reports was different to this arrangement and that they could not be combined.

 

Councillor Saise-Marshall queried why this arrangement had not been discussed at a committee and what had determined the style of the banner on Council e-mails?  Councillor Ringham said that a committee was not required to make this decision and that the style of the e-mail banner was not a political matter.

 

Councillor Jenkins asked whether similar data classification sets could be used for committees and trialled with the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee?  Councillor Ringham said that he would take advice from officers outside the meeting.

 

g) Councillor Nuti asked the Co-Leaders of the Council:

 

“Chertsey businesses have said the deadline for completed shop front works originally set as the 31 December 2024 was unachievable and not practical. This has been instrumental in shop owners not applying.

 

Can the leadership extend the deadline in line with the fund parameters i.e. the end of the financial year 2024/25 and confirm what funds are still available to then be applied for?”

 

Councillor Gillham said that any works undertaken using the Shared Prosperity Fund needed to be completed and available for inspection by 1 February 2025.  She felt that there had been an open and transparent process which engaged a number of businesses in Chertsey, and that no issues about the timing had been raised at the time.

 

Councillor Nuti said that the Council’s own deadline of 31 December 2024 had dissuaded a number of businesses from applying for funding.  He asked whether the Council’s deadline, which had previously been extended, could be extended again to allow bids for an unspent £165,000 provision?  Councillor Gillham said that she would consult with officers and respond outside the meeting.

 

h) Councillor Mavi asked the Co-Leaders of the Council

 

“With respect to the diversion of Shared Prosperity Funds from Chertsey, at Corporate Management Committee in November, we were informed that officers had consulted businesses in Guildford Street about adopting and looking after the planned planters in terms of watering and general maintenance. Please can the Co Leaders provide a list of the businesses approached, and the outcomes of each conversation?”

 

Councillor Ringham said that a number of businesses in Guildford Street had been consulted, with only one prepared to formally agree to maintain a planter directly outside their premises.  He added that as the Town Centre Manager had now left the Council’s employment, it was not possible to confirm which businesses had been approached.

 

Councillor Mavi asked whether such records should have been retained and whether they should in future?  Councillor Ringham agreed.

 

Councillor Nuti asked whether there would be an inquiry into discussions about the planters and the reasoning behind removing from the previously agreed scheme?  Councillor Ringham said that this matter was the subject of the later motion and that it was important for works in Chertsey to complement Surrey County Council’s emerging Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan.

 

Councillor R King added that in the absence of formal agreements with businesses in Guildford Street, the installation of planters was not practical or affordable.

The Chief Executive reported that the Council had been notified by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that it was not renewing the non-statutory best value notice, issued in December 2023.

 

In response to a question, Councillor R King confirmed that the future of the currently in abeyance Property and Assets Task Force (along with all member working parties) would be a topic of discussion at an upcoming Constitution Member Working Party.

 

The Council thanked officers for their work in reaching this important milestone for Runnymede Borough Council.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 20 November 2024 Environment and Sustainability Committee.

 

The Committee was asked to recommend to Full Council following consultation, to rescind The Broadway, New Haw as a consent street and remove the ability of street traders to apply to operate in the area.

 

At the June meeting of this Committee a report regarding the future of the Council’s sole consent street in the borough, which was a small section of The Broadway, New Haw was discussed.   The Committee resolved to recommend to Full Council a consultation regarding removing its status as a consent street.  Full Council subsequently approved this recommendation at its meeting on 18 July 2024.

 

That consultation took place throughout August and the responses received from Surrey Police and Surrey County Council reaffirmed Officers’ belief that The Broadway should be re-designated as a prohibited street.

 

This issue had come to light as there had been a slight upturn in enquiries and applications to trade at The Broadway over the past 12 months, and it became apparent that when processing those applications, that they were likely to be met with a blanket rejection from those we are required to consult with due to various concerns including litter, parking and antisocial behaviour.

 

If removed this would result in Runnymede having three licenced streets in the borough, which would allow markets to take place. The remaining streets in the borough would continue to be designated as prohibited streets. If approved by Full Council, there were still some tasks to complete.  Therefore, this would come into effect on 10 February 2025.

 

It was resolved that the Environment and Sustainability Committee recommend to Full Council that:

 

1)    All previous resolutions of the Council made pursuant to paragraph 2 of schedule 4 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 (the Act) be hereby revoked

 

2)    Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Act, that as from the date when this resolution takes effect, all areas of land within the Borough of Runnymede which are “streets” within the definition of that term contained in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Act shall be designated as prohibited streets with the exception of any streets referred to in resolution 3 below.

 

3)    The parts of streets set out below be designated as Consent Streets or Licence Streets, as defined in Schedule 4 to the Act:

 

·       Consent Streets

 

None

 

·       Licence Streets

 

High Street, Egham

Station Road North, Egham

Guildford Street, Chertsey

With effect from 10 February 2025.

It was proposed (by Councillor D Whyte), seconded (by Councillor Ringham) and resolved that:

 

1)    All previous resolutions of the Council made pursuant to paragraph 2 of schedule 4 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 (the Act) be hereby revoked.

 

2)    Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Act, that as from the date this resolution takes effect, all areas of land within the Borough of Runnymede which are “streets” within the definition of that term contained in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Act shall be designated as prohibited streets with the exception of any streets referred to in resolution 3 below.

 

3)    The parts of streets set out below be designated as Consent Streets or Licence Streets, as defined in Schedule 4 to the Act:

 

Consent Streets

 

None

 

Licence Streets

 

High Street, Egham

Station Road North, Egham

Guildford Street, Chertsey

 

4)    That the above come into effect from 10 February 2025.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 28 November 2024 Standards and Audit Committee.

 

The Committee was asked to note the positive outcome of the recent corporate peer challenge (CPC) and approval was sought to recommend to Council that the action plan attached at Appendix B of the Officer’s report be approved.

 

Members recalled the very recent visit of the CPC during October 2024.  Members were advised that hosting a CPC at least every five years was recognised in the sector as assisting councils to meet their Best Value duty and as the last such visit was in 2019, another exercise was timely.  This has also provided additional evidence in support of the Council’s response to the non-statutory Best Value Notice received in Dec 2023 and in particular met the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government's requirement for an external governance review.

 

The CPC had focussed on five key areas: local priorities and outcomes, organisational and place leadership, governance and culture, financial planning and management, and capacity for improvement.

 

The Committee noted the overall messages and observations made by the CPC and the seven outcome recommendations, most of which were either in place, planned for or underway.  These had been translated to an action plan, which because of its cross-cutting nature, Officers considered it appropriate to seek the approval of the full Council thereon.

 

It was noted that an update on progress of the action plan would be brought to the Committee in 2025 ahead of the follow-up visit of the CPC team.

 

The Committee was pleased to recommend to the Council approval of the action plan accordingly.

 

The Chair proposed a vote of thanks from the Committee to Sarah Hall for her exemplary work which was supported by all the Members present.

 

Resolved that:

 

1)    The LGA’s Corporate Peer Challenge report be noted; and

 

2)    The proposed action plan shown at Appendix B of the report, be agreed for recommendation to full Council on 19 December 2024.

The Council wished to place on record its thanks to the officers involved in facilitating the corporate peer review.

 

It was proposed (by Councillor Gillham), seconded (by Councillor D Whyte) and resolved that:

 

1)    The LGA’s Corporate Peer Challenge report be noted.

 

2)    The proposed action plan shown at Appendix B of the officer’s report be agreed.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 28 November 2024 Standards and Audit Committee.

 

The Committee’s approval was sought for the Council’s Risk Appetite Statement for 2025, the first version of which was approved by the Council in December 2023.

 

Members noted that the overarching risk appetite statement remained unchanged from 2024.

 

The Committee reviewed each of the existing 13 risk categories, their definitions, and the recommended risk appetite position.  Members agreed with the Officers’ conclusions for the risk appetite position for 2025, with the exception of the Property risk category.  For clarity, it was proposed to create a 14th risk category and definition for ‘Investment Holding’ risk, and for this risk category to have cautious risk appetite rather than having two separate definitions within the one risk category for Property.

 

In addition to this amendment, Members requested that the definition of Security risk category be updated to include the security risk for Members when fulfilling their civic duties.

 

With regard to the Commercial risk category, it was noted that the current ‘cautious’ rating could change in future years once the Procurement Act 2023 had been implemented and bedded in with the introduction of the new Competitive Flexible Procedure for above-threshold procurements.

 

In addition, Members were advised that contract management had been identified as an area for development and the rolling-out of the contract management framework was due to take place during 2025.

 

The Committee noted the policy framework, resource and legal implications and were content to recommend the risk appetite statement for 2025 accordingly.

 

Resolved that:

 

1)    The Council be recommended to approve an additional risk category of Investment Holdings Risks; and

 

2)    The overarching Risk Appetite Statement for 2025, and supporting risk appetite statements for each risk category, as set out in Appendix B of the report be agreed for recommendation to full Council on 19 December 2024.

It was proposed (by Councillor Jenkins), seconded (by Councillor R King) and resolved that:

 

1)    An additional risk category of “Investment Holdings Risks” be agreed.

 

2)    The overarching Risk Appetite Statement for 2025, and supporting risk appetite statements for each risk category, as set out in Appendix B of the officer’s report, be agreed.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 12 December 2024 Corporate Management Committee.

 

The Committee supported the principle of a banded scheme, appreciating that it enabled the highest levels of support to be targeted at those most in need.  There was debate over the maximum level of support that could be provided to eligible claimants.  Some members felt that due to the financial challenges being faced by the Council, a higher level of support was not sustainable.  Others felt that higher levels of council tax support would result in longer term resource savings to the authority and that it was important to support residents with the cost of living.  The continued work of the Council’s financial inclusion officer was welcomed and support for this post continuing was expressed.

 

It was resolved that the following recommendations be put to the Council:

 

1)    That an income banded scheme, for those in receipt of universal credit, be agreed.

 

2)    That for those not in receipt of universal credit, an assessment for council tax support under the existing means tested scheme, be agreed.

 

3)    That a maximum entitlement of 80% support for those of working age, and 90% for those classed as vulnerable, be agreed.

The points made at the Corporate Management Committee, regarding the merits of a banded scheme, the desire to have a more generous scheme and a need to consider the Council’s financial challenges were mentioned.

 

It was proposed (by Councillor Gillham), seconded (by Councillor Ringham) and resolved that:

 

1)    An income banded scheme, for those in receipt of universal credit, be agreed.

 

2)    For those not in receipt of universal credit, an assessment for council tax support under the existing means tested scheme, be agreed.

 

3)    A maximum entitlement of 80% support for those of working age, and 90% for those classed as vulnerable, be agreed.

A review of the allocation of seats on committees is required following the by-elections for Addlestone South and Ottershaw wards.

 

Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 sets out how ordinary Committees must be constituted when the authority is divided into one or more political groups. The authority is to give effect, as far as reasonably practicable, to the following four principles when constituting its committees or sub-committees:

 

a)    that not all the seats on the committee or sub-committee are allocated to the same political group;

 

b)    that the majority of the seats on the committee or sub-committee are allocated to a particular political group if the number of persons belonging to that group is a majority of the authority's membership;

 

c)     subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) above, that the number of seats on the ordinary committees of a relevant authority which are allocated to each political group bears the same proportion to the total of all the seats on the ordinary committees of that Authority as is borne by the number of members of that group to the membership of the authority; and

 

d)    subject to paragraphs (a) to (c) above, that the number of the seats on the committee or sub-committee which are allocated to each political group bears the same proportion to the number of all the seats on that body as is borne by the number of members of that group to the membership of the Authority.

 

It is important to note that the commonly accepted definition of a “political group” is a grouping of two or more members.  Independent councillors therefore do not have an entitlement to a seat on a committee, although the Council is at liberty to allocate seats to independent councillors, should it so wish.

 

The Licensing Committee is separately constituted under the Licensing Act 2003.  There is no statutory requirement for political balance but it has been the practice of the authority to ensure that this committee is constituted with consideration for proportionality arrangements. The Licensing Committee is therefore included in the wider calculations.

 

The calculated entitlement to seats and recommendations on the proposed allocation of seats to political groups are to follow at the conclusion of discussions between group leaders.

 

Update: 17 December 2024

 

The committee calculations (attached), as reviewed in May 2024, remain unchanged following the by-elections for Addlestone South and Ottershaw wards.

 

The Co/Group Leaders were therefore consulted on a proposal to maintain the current arrangements for the remainder of this municipal year (subject to no further reviews being required).  No objections to this proposal were received.

 

Recommendation for the Council’s consideration:

 

That the allocation of seats on committees (attached) be agreed.

It was proposed (by Councillor Ringham), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that the allocation of seats on committees, as attached to the summons, be agreed.

Recommendation:

 

That the Council note that group leaders can make appointments to committees in accordance with Standing Order 22.8.

It was noted that group leaders were able to make appointments to committees in accordance with Standing Order 22.8.

A review of the allocation of seats on member working parties is required following the by-elections for Addlestone South and Ottershaw wards.

 

Update: 17 December 2024

 

The member working party calculations (attached), as reviewed in November 2024, remain unchanged following the by-elections for Addlestone South and Ottershaw wards.

 

The Co/Group Leaders were therefore consulted on a proposal to maintain the current arrangements for the remainder of this municipal year (subject to no further reviews being required).  No objections to this proposal were received.

 

Recommendation for the Council’s consideration:

 

That the allocation of seats on member working parties (attached) be agreed.

It was proposed (by Councillor Ringham), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that the allocation of seats on member working parties, as attached to the summons, be agreed.

Recommendation:

 

That it be noted that group leaders can make appointments to member working parties, once seats are allocated to political groups.

It was noted that group leaders were able to make appointments to member working parties in accordance with Standing Order 22.8.

To receive and consider any notices of motion from members of the Council under Standing Order 15.

 

a) From Councillor Mark Nuti

 

This Council notes:

 

There are three designated towns in Runnymede – Chertsey, Addlestone and Egham.

 

There has been considerable investment in both Addlestone and Egham, improving their town centres. New and improved retail areas, much needed accommodation and public realm improvement for the benefit of the wider communities.

 

Chertsey has been overlooked consistently in recent years, partly due to the complexity of the make-up of the town and partly the lack of funding available to implement substantial improvements. However, the previous administration had committed to making Chertsey a priority for regeneration and saw the Shared Prosperity Fund as an opportunity to start to make good on that promise.

 

The new Co-Leaders (one who represents Chertsey South residents) have recently recommended to the November Corporate Management Committee that a large amount of the money committed to the Guildford Street public realm improvements, be used elsewhere in the borough. The money now to provide a substantial number of new bins in Egham and to include £75,000 for a playground in Egham Hythe, the ward that the leader of the co-leaders and the chair of Corporate Management Committee represents!

 

Chertsey is steeped in a tapestry of rich history. The Abbey where Henry VI was originally buried, where the commonly used wedding vows were written, where the Lord’s Prayer is purported to have been penned and hugely important to the cricketing world Chertsey is recognised to have used a third stump in cricket for the first time in 1737 changing the game for ever.  All of this documented in one of the county’s best and most respected museums.

 

The Council believes:

 

The Shared Prosperity Fund was introduced with the primary goal to build pride in place and increase life chances across the UK. Buying new waste bins for the Borough is hardly inspirational and I am guessing not what government had in mind!

 

The original strategy was signed off on 11 January 2023 by the then Department of Levelling Up , Housing and Communities (DHLUC) containing detailed plans improving the public realm of Chertsey with improvements to Guildford Street (the main ‘high street’) and providing grant funding for local high street businesses to improve shop fronts. As well as money for way finding improvements - signage etc…

 

The amount set aside form the £1 million grant for the above projects was circa £650,000.

 

Consultation with local business and the community helped to co-produce the plans and had the overwhelming support from all who would benefit in and around Chertsey.

 

The process has been very slow in moving forward, hampered by inadequate officer resource and what appears to be a very laboured, complex, and unprofessional approach to making this happen.

 

The new leadership have obviously been discussing taking away monies designated for the Guildford Street improvements much earlier in the year without any consultation or discussion with local councillors. The new co-leaders brought their decision/recommendation to the Corporate Management Committee, having already agreed with the new government that this was acceptable, leaving very little time for objections and reappraisal with the deadline to spend the grant looming at the end of March 2025.

 

The reasons given at Corporate Management Committee as to why monies were to be diverted away from the Chertsey plan were at best weak and at worst insulting.

 

The Council resolves to:

 

Work with the newly launched Chertsey Chamber of Commerce, local leaders, businesses and councillors to create a strategy to improve Chertsey and in particular Guildford Street and the surrounding retail areas. With the specific goal of improving the local economy and the public realm, shaping areas that the public can feel proud of and want to visit.

 

The strategy to incorporate a staged approach to be practically achievable over the short and mid-term.

a) From Councillor Mark Nuti

 

Councillor Nuti proposed the motion, as set out in the summons.

 

Councillor Nuti stated that many residents and businesses in Chertsey had contacted local councillors to express their disappointment at the revisions to the scheme, as previously discussed and recommended for approval by the Corporate Management Committee.  The reasoning given for the revisions were challenged, as was the proposal to divert some of the funding to other town centres that had already received significant investment in recent years.  It was asserted that some of the reasons given, such as Surrey County Council’s proposed Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan were not applicable because this did not encompass Guildford Street.  The value of additional bins, benches and new signage was questioned.

 

Councillor Mavi seconded the proposed motion.

 

Councillor Mavi supported Councillor Nuti’s remarks, adding that a petition had been created and was now being circulated among businesses, residents and visitors.  Disappointment was expressed about a lack of communication regarding the alterations to the scheme.  It was also stated that it was difficult to engage with the necessary individuals to discuss the proposals.

 

Councillor D Whyte proposed that the motion be amended as follows:

 

This Council notes:

 

There are three designated towns in Runnymede – Chertsey, Addlestone and Egham.

 

There has been considerable investment in both Addlestone and Egham, improving their town centres. New and improved retail areas, much needed accommodation and public realm improvement for the benefit of the wider communities.

 

Chertsey has been overlooked consistently in recent years, partly due to the complexity of the make-up of the town and partly the lack of funding available to implement substantial improvements. However, the previous administration had committed to making Chertsey a priority for regeneration and saw the Shared Prosperity Fund as an opportunity to start to make good on that promise.

 

The new Co-Leaders (one who represents Chertsey South residents) have recently recommended to the November Corporate Management Committee that a large amount of the money committed to the Guildford Street public realm improvements, be used elsewhere in the borough. The money now to provide a substantial number of new bins in Egham and to include £75,000 for a playground in Egham Hythe, the ward that the leader of the co-leaders and the chair of Corporate Management Committee represents!

 

Regrettably, aspects of the original design proposal from RBC officers to utilise part of the Shared Prosperity Fund for Guildford Street, took no account of the inherent ongoing cost to Runnymede for their maintenance.  More importantly and more recently, significant proposals are being brought forward by Surrey County Council (SCC) for Guildford Street as part of their Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP).  This LCWIP would see significant elements of this council’s design dismantled and replaced in a short space of time.

 

Given that the Borough is facing a £4.1m per annum budget challenge, the decision was later taken through committee to remove those elements to avoid the unbudgeted future costs and the waste of money and council resource in delivering said elements.

 

Chertsey is steeped in a tapestry of rich history. The Abbey where Henry VI was originally buried, where the commonly used wedding vows were written, where the Lord’s Prayer is purported to have been penned and hugely important to the cricketing world Chertsey is recognised to have used a third stump in cricket for the first time in 1737 changing the game for ever.  All of this documented in one of the county’s best and most respected museums.

 

The Council believes:

 

The Shared Prosperity Fund was introduced with the primary goal to build pride in place and increase life chances across the UK. Buying new waste bins for the Borough is hardly inspirational and I am guessing not what government had in mind!

 

The original strategy was signed off on 11 January 2023 by the then Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DHLUC) containing detailed plans improving the public realm of Chertsey with improvements to Guildford Street (the main ‘high street’) and providing grant funding for local high street businesses to improve shop fronts. As well as money for way finding improvements - signage etc…

 

The amount set aside form the £1 million grant for the above projects was circa £650,000.

 

Consultation with local business and the community helped to co-produce the plans and had the overwhelming support from all who would benefit in and around Chertsey.

 

The process has been very slow in moving forward, hampered by inadequate officer resource and what appears to be a very laboured, complex, and unprofessional approach to making this happen.

 

The new leadership have obviously been discussing taking away monies designated for the Guildford Street improvements much earlier in the year without any consultation or discussion with local councillors. The new co-leaders brought their decision/recommendation to the Corporate Management Committee, having already agreed with the new government that this was acceptable, leaving very little time for objections and reappraisal with the deadline to spend the grant looming at the end of March 2025.

 

The reasons given at Corporate Management Committee as to why monies were to be diverted away from the Chertsey plan were at best weak and at worst insulting.

 

The Council resolves to:

 

Work with the newly launched Chertsey Chamber of Commerce all stakeholders, local leaders, organisations, businesses and councillors to create a strategy to improve Chertsey and in particular Guildford Street and the surrounding retail areas. With the specific goal of improving the local economy and the public realm, shaping areas that the public can feel proud of and want to visit.

 

The strategy to incorporate a staged approach to be practically achievable and financially sustainable over the short and mid-term.

 

Speaking in support of his proposed amendment, Councillor D Whyte said that he was supportive of the intent behind Councillor Nuti’s motion but could not ascribe to it in its submitted form.  He added that it was his hope to prioritise Chertsey for future investment.

 

The proposed amended motion was seconded by Councillor Ringham.

 

The Council debated the proposed amendment.  Views expressed included:

 

• The SPF was a separate government fund which did not impact on the Council’s finances.
• The ongoing maintenance commitment for the previously agreed planters was not considered when agreeing the previous scheme.
• That the proposed amendment removed factually correct information and was for political reasons.
• The proposed revisions to the SPF scheme were not sufficiently consulted upon among residents and businesses.
• There was wastage associated with the abortive costs for the previously agreed scheme.
• There was a lack of consideration of other proposals which did not attract ongoing maintenance costs.
• There was insufficient time to devise and consult upon alternative uses of SPF funding due to the impending government deadline for the completion of works.
• SCC’s LCWIP was a long-term plan which was not likely to deliver improvements to Chertsey town centre in the short to medium term.

 

The proposed amendment was the subject of a named vote, with the voting noted as follows:

 

For the amendment (20)

 

Councillors Harnden, Berardi, Gahir, Gates, Gillham, Graham, Jenkins, Kettle, A King, R King, Lee, Mehta, Mullens, Parry, Ringham, Rowsell, Smith, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

 

Against the amendment (14)

 

Councillors Cressey, Cunningham, Day, Eldridge, Furey, Gracey, Hulley, Lewis, Mann, Mavi, Moudgil, Nuti, Saise-Marshall and Tucker-Brown.

 

Abstentions (1)

 

Councillor Gill.

 

The proposed amendment was CARRIED.

 

In the absence of further debate on the substantive amended motion, it was put to the vote.

 

The proposed amended motion was the subject of a named vote, with the voting noted as follows:

 

For the amended motion (24)

 

Councillors Harnden, Berardi, Cressey, Day, Eldridge, Gahir, Gates, Gillham, Graham, Kettle, A King, R King, Lee, Mehta, Mullens, Nuti, Parry, Ringham, Rowsell, Saise-Marshall, Smith, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

 

Against the amended motion (5)

 

Councillors, Cunningham, Furey, Hulley, Lewis and Mann,

 

Abstentions (6)

 

Councillors Gill, Gracey, Jenkins, Mavi, Moudgil, and Tucker-Brown.

 

The amended motion was CARRIED:

 

This Council notes:

 

There are three designated towns in Runnymede – Chertsey, Addlestone and Egham.

 

There has been considerable investment in both Addlestone and Egham, improving their town centres. New and improved retail areas, much needed accommodation and public realm improvement for the benefit of the wider communities.

 

Chertsey has been overlooked consistently in recent years, partly due to the complexity of the make-up of the town and partly the lack of funding available to implement substantial improvements. However, the previous administration had committed to making Chertsey a priority for regeneration and saw the Shared Prosperity Fund as an opportunity to start to make good on that promise.

 

Regrettably, aspects of the original design proposal from RBC officers to utilise part of the Shared Prosperity Fund for Guildford Street, took no account of the inherent ongoing cost to Runnymede for their maintenance.  More importantly and more recently, significant proposals are being brought forward by Surrey County Council (SCC) for Guildford Street as part of their Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP).  This LCWIP would see significant elements of this council’s design dismantled and replaced in a short space of time.

 

Given that the Borough is facing a £4.1m per annum budget challenge, the decision was later taken through committee to remove those elements to avoid the unbudgeted future costs and the waste of money and council resource in delivering said elements.

 

Chertsey is steeped in a tapestry of rich history. The Abbey where Henry VI was originally buried, where the commonly used wedding vows were written, where the Lord’s Prayer is purported to have been penned and hugely important to the cricketing world Chertsey is recognised to have used a third stump in cricket for the first time in 1737 changing the game for ever.  All of this documented in one of the county’s best and most respected museums.

 

The Council believes:

 

The Shared Prosperity Fund was introduced with the primary goal to build pride in place and increase life chances across the UK. Buying new waste bins for the Borough is hardly inspirational and I am guessing not what government had in mind!

 

The original strategy was signed off on 11 January 2023 by the then Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DHLUC) containing detailed plans improving the public realm of Chertsey with improvements to Guildford Street (the main ‘high street’) and providing grant funding for local high street businesses to improve shop fronts. As well as money for way finding improvements - signage etc…

 

The amount set aside form the £1 million grant for the above projects was circa £650,000.

 

Consultation with local business and the community helped to co-produce the plans and had the overwhelming support from all who would benefit in and around Chertsey.

 

The process has been very slow in moving forward, hampered by inadequate officer resource and what appears to be a very laboured, complex, and unprofessional approach to making this happen.

 

The Council resolves to:

 

Work with all stakeholders, local leaders, organisations, businesses and councillors to create a strategy to improve Chertsey and in particular Guildford Street and the surrounding retail areas. With the specific goal of improving the local economy and the public realm, shaping areas that the public can feel proud of and want to visit.

 

The strategy to incorporate a staged approach to be practically achievable and financially sustainable over the short and mid-term.

No minority group priority business has been registered under Standing Order 23.

There was no minority group priority business.

To consider any items so resolved at the meeting.

By resolution of the Council, 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 report associated with this item was circulated to all members as part of an exempt document pack for the 20 November 2024 Environment and Sustainability Committee.

 

Environment and Sustainability Committee:

 

The Committee was asked to consider four options for the future refurbishment of the Council’s depot.

 

Officers advised the Committee that having considered all the relevant factors the preferred option was to refurbish the building opposite the Depot to accommodate staff who delivered the Depot’s key administrative functions.  Additionally, a modular building would be installed on the existing Depot site to provide welfare facilities for operational staff.

 

The asset known as the Ford Road Depot was a council owned site delivering statutory waste provisions.  At present, 19 Environmental Services staff worked from the main depot offices, with 3 Community Services staff working from an adjoining annex.   This was in addition to the 26 collection operatives and 22 street care operatives who worked out of the site.

 

Over the years, the depot has evolved to deliver other services for the borough.  The services presently delivered from the site included waste and recycling collection, vehicle maintenance, street cleansing, grounds maintenance, and fleet management.  Community transport was also based on the site, as was meals at home, plus storage for various other teams including CCTV and elections.  A new fuel management system was installed in April 2024 and the fuel tank cleaned and refurbished.  The tank was currently used to store and supply HVO fuel for the Council’s fleet.

 

In June 2022, a report was taken to the Corporate Management Committee to release a capital estimate for the procurement of the works contract for the commencement of refurbishment and upgrade of the Ford Road Depot prior to grounds maintenance and green spaces services being relocated and delivered in-house.

 

Following a procurement exercise a comprehensive feasibility study took place.  The surveys took longer than anticipated due to their complexity and the need for specialised professional services, as well as consultations with key staff.  The survey results confirmed that the building had exceeded its economical lifespan and lacked the capacity to be future proofed to meet carbon net zero goals.

 

The four options considered were:

 

Option 1:  Move administrative employees to the nearby former St. John Ambulance Site, Ford Road, Chertsey and provide fit for purpose modular buildings on the existing site to accommodate welfare facilities for operational employees, to include WC’s, showers, and canteen area.

 

While the surveys were being undertaken by external consultants, the Council was advised by their tenants, St. John’s Ambulance, who were in the building opposite the Depot, that they no longer required the building. Noting that the surveys had revealed the Depot office space and welfare facilities were at end of life, Officers considered this to be an opportunity for this asset to provide a possible location for the main offices of the depot.  Appropriate surveys of the St. John’s Ambulance building identified that the building could be used for office purposes but was not sufficient to house all the welfare requirements of the service currently based at the Depot.  In order to address this, it was proposed that a small modular building is located on the existing site, with office-based employees being relocated to the property St. Johns Ambulance vacated.

 

It was noted that limited interest had been shown for occupation of the site vacated by St. Johns Ambulance with most interest coming from charitable organisations seeking peppercorn rents.

 

By moving office-based staff into the site vacated by St. Johns Ambulance it would bring new life to the building, update it and address issues that would have to be resolved even if the Council sought to re-let it as a commercial asset.

 

Option 2:  2 x Modular Buildings on existing site

 

The modular buildings would be leased for a 5-year period to give the Council flexibility.  It was proposed that modular buildings would be stacked and placed on the former scout hut site with expansion, if so required.  The provision of modular buildings for employees who remained at the depot throughout the working day, had been carefully considered.  Whilst Option 2 required a reduced capital outlay this was not preferred by existing staff who worked at the depot.

 

Option 3:  Complete Refurbishment

 

Option 3 was a high-cost option at a time when the Council was focused on achieving efficiencies and savings, and may not, therefore, be compatible with the existing Medium Term Financial Strategy.

 

Option 4: Demolition and Rebuild

 

In alignment with the Medium-Term Financial Strategy approved by Full Council in October, this option was not financially viable in the short or medium term.

 

The Committee was supportive of Option 1. 

 

Resolved that:

 

The Committee recommend Option 1 for the works at the depot.

 

The Committee requested that Corporate Management Committee approve the capital estimate required to deliver the essential maintenance works vital to the day-to-day operation of the Depot site, including replacement of fences, landscaping, partial resurfacing, CCTV and external lighting, repairs to external drainage, repairs to retaining wall.

 

Corporate Management Committee

 

The Committee reviewed proposals for works which aimed to ensure that operational services could continue to be delivered from the depot.  The recommendation of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, which itself took account of the views of the staff based at the depot, was noted.

 

It was resolved that a capital estimate, for the sum detailed in the officer’s report, to fund the Environment and Sustainability Committee’s preferred option for works at the depot, be recommended for approval by the Council.

 

Recommendations for the Council’s consideration:

 

The Council is recommended to agree:

 

1)    Option 1, as set out in the officer’s report, for the works at the depot.

 

2)    A capital estimate, for the sum detailed in the officer’s report, to fund the Environment and Sustainability Committee’s preferred option for works at the depot.

 

Following the meetings of the Environment and Sustainability Committee and the Corporate Management Committee, officers identified the need to seek authorisation to undertake an appropriate procurement exercise in order to deliver the works set out in the report, in pursuance of the Environment and Sustainability Committee’s preferred option.  A further recommendation is therefore added for the Council’s consideration:

 

3)    That the undertaking of an appropriate procurement process be authorised to deliver the preferred option of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, within the budget recommended by the Corporate Management Committee.

In the context of the government’s recent white paper on the future of district and borough councils in Surrey, a query was raised about whether committing to substantial works at the depot was prudent at this time.  In response to this query, it was stated that the depot was an important asset to Runnymede and would continue to be for any successor organisation.  It was also important to safeguard the continuity of services and the wellbeing of staff based at the site, and consequently, commencing works without further delay was important.

 

It was proposed (by Councillor D Whyte), seconded (by Councillor Ringham) and resolved that:

 

1)    Option 1, as set out in the officer’s report, for the works at the depot, be agreed.

 

2)    A capital estimate, for the sum detailed in the officer’s report, to fund the Environment and Sustainability Committee’s preferred option for works at the depot, be agreed.

 

3)    That the undertaking of an appropriate procurement process be authorised to deliver the preferred option of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, within the budget recommended by the Corporate Management Committee, be agreed.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members as part of an exempt document pack for the 12 December 2024 Corporate Management Committee.  The report outlines various works required to maintain and repair the Civic Centre and its components.

 

The Committee noted that the report’s publication had been delayed due to the complexity of the work involved in its preparation.  It was stated that deferring consideration of this item would affect the budget preparation process.  Further delays in undertaking maintenance were also likely to increase the cost of necessary works.  Members noted that the Committee was being asked to put its recommendation to the Council and that a further debate at that meeting was possible, once members had had time to assimilate the content of the report.  The offer of a member briefing, in the lead up to the meeting of the Council, was made.

 

There was agreement that urgent works were required on the Civic Centre and that these were necessary because of a combination of some components reaching the end of their expected lifespan, and previously delayed maintenance.  There were however some questions over the form of some projects, particularly where there was scope to reduce the Council’s climate impact.  It was confirmed that there were a number of potential climate change related works for both the Civic Centre and the wider Addlestone One campus being considered as part of another workstream, which would be reported to the Committee in due course.  A tender document relating to replacement fire doors, along with mechanical and electrical components, was currently open to bidders.  The exercise had been adapted to include some accessibility improvements to the Civic Centre.

 

Members discussed the lifespan of various Civic Centre components, noting the building’s relatively modern design.  It was stated that many components had performed as expected over time, with emphasis placed on the importance of a well-structured preventative maintenance programme to prolong the life of various parts of the building.

 

It was resolved that the following be recommended to the Council:

 

1)    That a revised capital estimate, for the amount set out in the officer’s report, for the replacement component parts to the Civic Centre, to be funded from the property repairs and renewals reserve, be agreed.

 

2)    That the works be procured in accordance with the Council’s procurement processes and procedures.

In the context of the government’s recent white paper on the future of district and borough councils in Surrey, a query was raised about whether committing to substantial works at the Civic Centre was prudent at this time.  In response to this query, it was stated that the Civic Centre was an important asset to Runnymede (and Surrey Police as tenants) and that it would continue to be as such to any successor organisation.  It was also important to safeguard the wellbeing of staff based at the Civic Centre, and consequently, commencing works without further delay was important.  Many of the works were also expected to deliver savings on the revenue budget, so delaying the commencement of works would reduce potential ongoing savings.

 

It was proposed (by Councillor R King), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that:

 

1)    A revised capital estimate, for the amount set out in the officer’s report, for the replacement component parts to the Civic Centre, to be funded from the property repairs and renewals reserve, be agreed.

 

2)    The works be procured in accordance with the Council’s procurement processes and procedures.

 

The resolutions above were the subject of a named vote, with the voting noted as follows:

 

For the resolution (27)

 

Councillors Gill, Harnden, Berardi, Cressey, Day, Gahir, Gates, Gillham, Graham, Hulley, Jenkins, Kettle, A King, R King, Lee, Mann, Mehta, Moudgil, Mullens, Parry, Ringham, Rowsell, Saise-Marshall, Smith, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

 

Against the resolution (1)

 

Councillor Nuti.

 

Abstentions (7)

 

Councillors Cunningham, Eldridge, Furey, Gracey, Lewis, Mavi and Tucker-Brown.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members as part of an exempt document pack for the 12 December 2024 Corporate Management Committee.  The report provides details of various condition surveys for assets across the borough, with a view to informing the prioritisation of maintenance works, to be delivered within the next five years.

 

The Committee noted that the report’s publication had been delayed due to the complexity of the work involved in its preparation.  It was stated that deferring consideration of this item would affect the budget preparation process.  Members noted that the Committee was being asked to put its recommendations to the Council and that a further debate at that meeting, once members had had time to assimilate the content of the report, would be possible.  The offer of a member briefing, in the lead up to the meeting of the Council, was made.

 

The comprehensiveness of the condition surveys was appreciated by the Committee.

 

Members noted that officers would continue to work on draft capital proposals and that a report would be brought back to the Committee in Autumn 2025, following the assessment of all ongoing commitments.

 

It was resolved that a supplementary revenue estimate, for the mount set out in the officer’s report, relating to the overspend on current budgets, be agreed, to ensure that assets remained legally compliant.

 

It was resolved that the following be recommended to the Council:

 

1)    The Medium Term Financial Forecast (MTFF) be amended to reflect the additional revenue costs of £50,000 from 2025/26 to deliver on the ongoing planned and reactive needs of managing a compliant operational estate (including the Civic Centre).

 

2)    The MTFF be amended to reflect the additional revenue costs £2,906,000, over the next five years, for additional life cycle repairs for the operational estate (including the Civic Centre).

It was proposed (by Councillor R King), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that:

 

1)    The Medium Term Financial Forecast (MTFF) be amended to reflect the additional revenue costs of £50,000 from 2025/26 to deliver on the ongoing planned and reactive needs of managing a compliant operational estate (including the Civic Centre).

 

2)    The MTFF be amended to reflect the additional revenue costs £2,906,000, over the next five years, for additional life cycle repairs for the operational estate (including the Civic Centre).