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

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the following meetings:

 

·       Council on 6 February 2025

·       Standing Council Tax Setting Committee on 13 February 2025

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2025 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Furey, Mann and Mavi.

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.

No questions or requests to speak have been registered.

There were no public questions or requests to speak.

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

There were no petitions.

a) From Councillor Hulley to Councillor S Whyte as Chair of the Planning Committee

 

“The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently invited views on how the government could reform local planning committees.

 

Does Runnymede Borough Council intend to respond to this invitation? If not, why not? If so, what does it intend to say?”

 

b) From Councillor Snow to Councillor D Whyte as Co-Leader of the Council

 

"There has been huge interest in the number of Local Authorities that continue to be in financial difficulty.

 

A lot of blame is being portioned to the size of employer pension contributions. At a recent CMC meeting dated 13/2/25 the agenda stated the RBC employer`s financial contribution was 17.5%.

 

Can Cllr Don Whyte as one of the Co-Leaders confirm what the 17.5% represents in monetary value and as a percentage of nett annual income."

 

c) From Councillor Tucker Brown to Councillor R King as Co-Leader of the Council

 

“Cllr Lewis recently arranged a town hall for residents with Ben Spencer and Lisa Townsend, Lisa was also accompanied by Officer Ali Kerrigan. During his presentation, he mentioned that he and other colleagues would like to engage with younger residents around behaviour patterns that may lead from anti-social behaviour to petty crime and more, how to make them more aware of choices they make at a young age that can later become instilled habits. He added that it is a struggle to engage schools to support this kind of talk. Would you and your group collaborate with me and my group on approaching the schools to support this initiative and highlight its importance as a key measure for the education and guidance of our young residents?”

 

d) From Councillor Nuti to Councillors Gillham, Ringham and D Whyte as Co-Leaders of the Council

 

“I have been approached by a resident who, after reading the recent Labour promotional leaflet, was concerned that the Labour party, a minority party within Runnymede, are running the council. I read the article, and agree that wording such as, and I quote ‘Since taking over the council in May’ would suggest to residents that Labour has somehow ignored democracy and taken control of the council.

 

I would like to ask Cllrs Ringham, Whyte and Gillham if they are concerned that at best the wording is misleading and at worst it is correct and in fact Labour as the biggest party within the coalition are in control and have an unelected mandate to make decisions?”

a) Councillor Hulley asked Councillor S Whyte, as Chair of the Planning Committee, the following question:

 

“The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently invited views on how the government could reform local planning committees.

 

Does Runnymede Borough Council intend to respond to this invitation? If not, why not? If so, what does it intend to say?”

 

Councillor S Whyte stated that, due to the matter not being a formal consultation, it did not represent a good use of member and officer time in preparing and discussing a response.  Councillor S Whyte said that any member was welcome to respond in their personal capacity, and that should a formal consultation be launched in the future, further consideration would be given to responding at that time.

 

Councillor Hulley asked whether Councillor S Whyte would consider responding on behalf of the Council, to emphasise the need for local representation in the  planning process?  Councillor S Whyte said that members may hold different views that they wished to be included in a response, with each requiring collation and presentation to the Planning Committee for consideration.  She therefore encouraged any interested members to respond in their personal capacity.

 

Councillor Gracey asked whether a recent model for gathering the views of committee members, as used recently with the Standards and Audit Committee, could be used for this matter?  Councillor S Whyte said that she would review the exercise that had been undertaken by the Standards and Audit Committee and respond in writing outside the meeting.

 

Councillor Mullens asked whether details of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s invitation for views could be shared with members?  Councillor S Whyte said that she would arrange for it to be distributed outside the meeting.

 

b) Councillor Snow asked Councillor D Whyte, as Co-Leader of the Council, the following question:

 

"There has been huge interest in the number of Local Authorities that continue to be in financial difficulty.

 

A lot of blame is being portioned to the size of employer pension contributions. At a recent CMC meeting dated 13/2/25 the agenda stated the RBC employer`s financial contribution was 17.5%.

 

Can Cllr Don Whyte as one of the Co-Leaders confirm what the 17.5% represents in monetary value and as a percentage of nett annual income."

 

Councillor D Whyte confirmed that the Council’s pension contribution rate as an employer was currently 17.6% against current employees’ salaries, producing an estimated figure of £2,414,300 for the current year, rising to £2,884,000 for 2025/26. This was based on estimated Runnymede salary costs less an adjustment for vacancies and reduced further by an assumption that 7% of staff were not in the pension fund. This equated to 2.57% of gross annual income for 2024/25 and 3.02% for 2025/26 (using the gross income figure taken from the Council Tax Resolution in each year). It was confirmed that if nett income was taken to be gross expenditure less gross income, as set out in the Council Resolution, then the respective percentages were 35.71% for 2024/25 and 41.06% for 2025/26.

 

Councillor Snow asked whether the figure of 17.6% was across all salaries or an average?  Councillor D Whyte said that he would seek this information and respond in writing outside the meeting.

 

c) Councillor Tucker Brown asked Councillor R King, as Co-Leader of the Council, the following question:

 

“Cllr Lewis recently arranged a town hall for residents with Ben Spencer and Lisa Townsend, Lisa was also accompanied by Officer Ali Kerrigan. During his presentation, he mentioned that he and other colleagues would like to engage with younger residents around behaviour patterns that may lead from anti-social behaviour to petty crime and more, how to make them more aware of choices they make at a young age that can later become instilled habits. He added that it is a struggle to engage schools to support this kind of talk. Would you and your group collaborate with me and my group on approaching the schools to support this initiative and highlight its importance as a key measure for the education and guidance of our young residents?”

 

Councillor R King drew members’ attention to the pilot of the Citizen’s Engagement Panel, which was initially focussed on the adult population.  He confirmed that engagement with young people was of equal importance, and that a recent committee report highlighted the potential need to consider alternative approaches to engagement.

 

The Community Services Service Area Plan was highlighted, in particular the objective relating to determining the future priorities of the Community Safety Partnership.  The potential to engage young people on the issue of antisocial behaviour was something that may support this work. Community Services officers would therefore be asked to consider if, and how, engagement with young people on the matter of antisocial behaviour could be incorporated into this workstream and/or whether antisocial behaviour should remain a priority for the Community Safety Partnership.

 

Officers, working with colleagues in other Community Safety Partnerships, were considering how immersive technology could be utilised to engage with young people.

 

Councillor Tucker-Brown asked whether the administration was able to facilitate urgent councillor involvement in talking to schools, such as during events where the local police also visited?  Councillor R King stated that the administration placed a high level of importance on engaging with young people and schools, citing a number of projects and activities already in train such as a pilot in Pooley Green and work with Magna Carta School.  Councillor R King invited Councillor Tucker-Brown to contact both him and the Corporate Head of Community Services to discuss any ideas that she had.

 

Councillor A King asked whether she could also be involved in any conversations outside the meeting, in her role as Chair of the Community Services Committee?  Councillor R King welcomed Councillor A King’s participation.

 

d) Councillor Nuti asked Councillors Gillham, Ringham and D Whyte, as Co-Leaders of the Council, the following question:

 

“I have been approached by a resident who, after reading the recent Labour promotional leaflet, was concerned that the Labour party, a minority party within Runnymede, are running the council. I read the article, and agree that wording such as, and I quote ‘Since taking over the council in May’ would suggest to residents that Labour has somehow ignored democracy and taken control of the council.

 

I would like to ask Cllrs Ringham, Whyte and Gillham if they are concerned that at best the wording is misleading and at worst it is correct and in fact Labour as the biggest party within the coalition are in control and have an unelected mandate to make decisions?”

 

Councillor Ringham, on behalf of himself and Councillors Gillham and D Whyte, stated that they did not share Councillor Nuti’s concerns.

 

Councillor Parry, citing discussions that he had held whilst delivering leaflets, asked whether the Co-Leaders shared many residents’ positivity around the withdrawal of the non-statutory best value notice and the creation of the community support fund?  Councillor Ringham confirmed that the Co-Leaders shared this positivity.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 22 January 2025 Environment and Sustainability Committee.  The proposed resolution of the Council is attached.

 

The Chair of the Committee introduced his request for the Committee’s support in taking his proposal to the Council.  He considered that Runnymede, as a body responsible for significant areas of land, should be giving a high priority to enhancing the natural environment and increasing biodiversity.

 

The Committee debated the Chair’s proposal.

 

Many members were in support of the approach that had been proposed by the Chair, echoing the views that he had presented to the Committee.  It was also suggested that it was important for the Council to demonstrate that it was taking the matter of climate change and the environment generally seriously, particularly because it had declared a ‘climate emergency’.

 

Other members, whilst supportive of the sentiments laid down, were concerned that the Council should not be publicly endorsing legislation that was in the early stages of the parliamentary process, particularly because it was likely to be subject to changes following the consideration of MPs and Lords.

 

There was discussion over whether it was appropriate for councils to lobby parliament in the manner that was proposed, particularly because of the uncertainty over what any eventual piece of legislation would encompass.  In response to this comment, it was stated that many councils and other bodies were already lending their support to the Bill, which had also received support from a number of MPs representing various political parties.  It was stated that the Bill had also been supported by a number of academics and scientists.  Additionally, the Chair stated that should the Bill not pass its second reading in the House of Commons, the matter would not be debated by the Council.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the Committee defer further consideration of this item, to a point after which the Bill received Royal Assent.  The proposal was subject to a named vote, with the voting noted as follows:

 

In favour of deferral (3)

 

Councillors Hulley, Lewis and Saise-Marshall.

 

Against deferral (7)

 

Councillors D. Whyte, Ringham, Gahir, Gates, Harnden, Milstead and Rowsell.

 

Abstentions (0)

 

The proposal to defer further consideration of this item FELL.

 

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

 

In favour (7)

 

Councillors D. Whyte, Ringham, Gahir, Gates, Harnden, Milstead and Rowsell.

 

Against (1)

 

Councillor Hulley.

 

Abstentions (2)

 

Councillors Lewis and Saise-Marshall.

 

It was resolved that:

 

1)    The Chair’s proposed resolution of the Council be agreed.

 

2)    In the event the Climate and Nature Bill passes its second reading in the House of Commons on 24 January 2025, the Chair’s proposed recommendation be put to the Council on 27 February 2025.

It was proposed (by Councillor D Whyte) and seconded (by Councillor Ringham) that the proposed resolution from the Environment and Sustainability Committee be agreed.

 

It was proposed (by Councillor Snow) and seconded (by Councillor Jenkins) that the proposed resolution be amended to read as follows:

 

Preamble

 

The average global temperature has already increased by 1.3°C above pre-industrial levels, and July 2024 marked the thirteenth consecutive month that the world exceeded the 1.5°C threshold. Above 1.5°C, we risk reaching climatic tipping points, meaning we could lose control of our climate for good. Climate change remains a major concern for UK voters with 80% of people expressing they are ‘very or fairly concerned about climate change.’

 

The natural world has also reached a crisis point, with 28% of plants and animals threatened with extinction. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, as more than one in seven of our plants and animals face extinction, and more than 40% are in decline. Alongside this, the popularity of Sir David Attenborough’s Save Our Wild Isles initiative demonstrates public concern that UK wildlife is being destroyed at a terrifying speed.

 

Climate and Nature Bill

 

The Climate and Nature Bill, a private member’s (ballot) bill has in effect been put on hold as Ministers work with Dr Roz Savage MP of the Liberal Democrats on an agreeable way forward. It is not appropriate for the Council to determine its support for or against this bill at this time.

 

Runnymede Council notes that:

 

It is important that Runnymede Borough Council takes practical steps to demonstrate its own ambition and commitment towards biodiversity, in line with our existing Climate Change Strategy.

 

It is also important that Runnymede Borough Council demonstrates the same level of commitment towards biodiversity as it already does with Net Zero and that this is reflected in the Terms of Reference of the Climate Change Member Working Party.

 

Runnymede Council therefore resolves to:

 

1.     Consider supporting the Climate and Nature Bill at the point in which it becomes an Act of Parliament and receives Royal Assent.

 

2.     Request that the Environment and Sustainability Committee consider whether it is feasible to devise a Biodiversity baseline for the Borough of Runnymede and undertake additional activities to visibly and measurably enhance biodiversity in Runnymede by 2030.

 

3.     Inform local residents, and inform local press/media, of our motion, via the means set out in the accompanying paper;

 

4.     Write to Dr Ben Spencer MP and Jack Rankin MP to inform them that our motion has been passed;

 

5.     Write to Zero Hour, the organisers of the cross-party campaign for the Bill, expressing our intention to revisit the council’s position towards CAN legislation at a later date (councils@zerohour.uk); and

 

6.     Offer all co/group leaders the opportunity to sign the letters mentioned in 4 and 5 above.

 

[The meeting adjourned between 8.05pm and 8.28pm.]

 

Councillor Jenkins altered the fourth resolution of his proposed amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 34.6, to read:

 

“Write to Dr Ben Spencer MP and Jack Rankin MP to inform them that our motion has been passed, urging them to support the Bill;”

 

The proposed amendment (as altered) was debated by the Council.  At the conclusion of the debate, the proposed amendment was put to a named vote, with the voting noted as follows:

 

In favour of the amendment (as altered) (12)

 

Councillors Cressey, Cunningham, Eldridge, Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Jenkins, Lewis, Nuti, Saise-Marshall, Snow and Tucker-Brown.

 

Against the amendment (as altered) (25)

 

Councillors Gill, Harnden, Berardi, Clarke, Davies, Gahir, Gates, Gillham, Graham, Kettle, A King, R King, Lee, Mehta, Milstead, Moudgil, Mullens, Parry, Ringham, Rowsell, Singh, Smith, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

 

Abstentions (1)

 

Councillor Day.

 

The proposed amendment (as altered) FELL.

 

A further amendment to the substantive proposed resolution was proposed (by Councillor Jenkins) and seconded (by Councillor Berardi), to include the following as a sixth element, with the Environment and Sustainability Committee requested to remit it to the Climate Change Member Working Party for initial consideration:

 

“Request that officers submit a report to the Environment and Sustainability Committee considering the feasibility of devising a Biodiversity baseline for the Borough of Runnymede, as well as setting out how the Council will visibly and measurably enhance biodiversity in Runnymede by 2030.”

 

The proposed amendment was put to a named vote, with the voting noted as follows:

 

In favour of the proposed amendment (37)

 

Councillors Gill, Harnden, Berardi, Clarke, Cressey, Cunningham, Davies, Day, Eldridge, Gahir, Gates, Gillham, Gracey, Graham, Howorth, Hulley, Jenkins, Kettle, A King, R King, Lee, Lewis, Mehta, Milstead, Moudgil, Nuti, Parry, Ringham, Rowsell, Saise-Marshall, Singh, Smith, Snow, Tucker-Brown, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

 

Against the proposed amendment (0)

 

Abstentions (1)

 

Councillor Mullens.

 

The proposed amendment was CARRIED.

 

The substantive amended resolution was put to the vote and CARRIED:

 

Preamble

 

The average global temperature has already increased by 1.3°C above pre-industrial levels, and July 2024 marked the thirteenth consecutive month that the world exceeded the 1.5°C threshold. Above 1.5°C, we risk reaching climatic tipping points, meaning we could lose control of our climate for good. Climate change remains a major concern for UK voters with 80% of people expressing they are ‘very or fairly concerned about climate change.’

 

The natural world has also reached a crisis point, with 28% of plants and animals threatened with extinction. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, as more than one in seven of our plants and animals face extinction, and more than 40% are in decline. Alongside this, the popularity of Sir David Attenborough’s Save Our Wild Isles initiative demonstrates public concern that UK wildlife is being destroyed at a terrifying speed.

 

Climate and Nature Bill

 

The Climate and Nature Bill, a private member’s (ballot) bill currently passing through the House of Commons, would address the challenge that this greatest, long-term, global risk poses by delivering a whole-of-government approach to securing a net zero and nature positive future.

 

Based on the latest scientific evidence, the Bill aims to align current UK environmental policy with the need to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, which was a goal agreed to at COP15, via the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (22 December 2022); and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the UK’s fair share of the remaining global carbon budget to give the strongest chance of limiting global heating to 1.5°C, which was the goal agreed to at COP21, via the Paris Agreement (12 December 2015).

 

By bridging the gap between the UK Government’s current delivery, and what has been agreed at international levels, Britain has a chance to be a world leader on climate and the environment; seizing the opportunities of the clean energy transition, including green jobs and skills; reduced energy bills; boosting the UK’s food and energy security and creating a nature-rich UK.

 

Runnymede Council notes that:

 

The Climate and Nature Bill (formerly, the Climate and Ecology Bill) has been introduced in the UK Parliament on four occasions since 2020, including most recently in the House of Commons on 16 October 2024 by Dr Roz Savage MP. Its second reading will take place on 24 January 2025, and it is now progressing through the UK Parliament with cross-party support.

 

The Bill is backed by [255] cross-party MPs and Peers; [377] local authorities and the London Assembly; [1,240] scientists, such as Prof Sir Partha Dasgupta and Prof Sir David King; NGOs, such as The Wildlife Trusts, Doctors’ Association UK, Friends of the Earth, The W.I., The Climate Coalition and CPRE; businesses, such as The Co-operative Bank, Arup, JLL, SUEZ UK and Ecotricity; and 53,000 members of the public.

 

The Bill would require the UK Government to develop and deliver an integrated climate and nature strategy, as part of:

 

1)    Tackling the intertwined crises in climate and nature in a joined-up way;

 

2)    Reducing emissions fairly and rapidly for the highest chance of meeting the UK’s obligation to limiting global warming to 1.5°C;

 

3)    Halting and reversing the decline in biodiversity by setting nature measurably on the path to recovery by 2030;

 

4)    Taking responsibility for the UK’s overseas emissions and ecological footprints;

 

5)    Prioritising nature in decision-making, and ending fossil fuel imports and production as rapidly as possible;

 

6)    Ensuring that no-one and no community is left behind in the just transition by providing retraining for those currently working in fossil fuel industries; and

 

7)    Involving citizens in finding a fair way forward via an independent, representative and temporary ‘Climate and Nature Assembly’, in order to bring public opinion along with the pace of change required.

 

Runnymede Council therefore resolves to:

 

1)    Support the Climate and Nature Bill;

 

2)    Inform local residents, and inform local press/media, of our motion, via the means set out in the accompanying paper;

 

3)    Write to Dr Ben Spencer MP and Jack Rankin MP to inform them that our motion has been passed, urging them to support the Bill;

 

4)    Write to Zero Hour, the organisers of the cross-party campaign for the Bill, expressing our official support (councils@zerohour.uk); and

 

5)    Offer all co/group leaders the opportunity to sign the letters mentioned in 3 and 4 above.

 

Request that the Environment and Sustainability Committee consider whether it is feasible to devise a Biodiversity baseline for the Borough of Runnymede and undertake additional activities to visibly and measurably enhance biodiversity in Runnymede by 2030.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 13 February 2025 Corporate Management Committee.

 

It was noted that the national living wage (NLW) had been the primary impactor for this year’s Pay Policy Statement.  It had been necessary to review some pay scales in order to ensure that the Council met its legal obligations around pay, whilst balancing the desire to provide pay progression for employees whose pay grades had been affected by the NLW.

 

There was discussion about the Council’s pension liabilities and whether its rate of contribution was unduly high.  It was confirmed that Runnymede’s rate of contribution was set by actuaries operating on behalf of the wider Surrey pension scheme, with the borough’s rate of contribution being reviewed tri-annually by the pension fund’s administrators.  The Council was obliged to ensure that its contributions were sufficient to meet current and former employees’ entitlement to the defined benefits of the scheme.

 

Further actuarial work was expected in the near future, after which an updated contribution rate for the next three-year period commencing April 2026 would be agreed for Runnymede.

 

It was noted that a report on the gender and disability pay gaps would be considered by the Committee at its next meeting.

 

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement 2025/26, as set out in the appendix to the officer’s report.

It was proposed (by Councillor R King), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that Annual Pay Policy Statement 2025/26, as set out in the appendix to the officer’s report, be approved.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 13 February 2025 Corporate Management Committee.

 

Councillors Margaret Harnden and Pippa Tucker-Brown were nominated for the office of Mayor, for the 2025/26 municipal year.

 

In support of Councillor Tucker-Brown’s candidacy, it was said that she was a personable community champion who worked hard to make residents’ lives more fulfilling.

 

In support of Councillor Harnden’s candidacy, her knowledge of services in the community, and her hard work and engagement with championing events such as recent Christmas celebrations should be noted.

 

It was stated that it had been a custom to offer the role of Mayor to the incumbent Deputy Mayor.

 

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to appoint Councillor Margaret Harnden as Mayor for the 2025/26 municipal year.

It was proposed (by Councillor Gillham), seconded (by Councillor R King) and resolved that Councillor Margaret Harnden be nominated as Mayor for the 2025/26 municipal year.

In accordance with Standing Order 7, the Council is asked to consider candidates for the office of Deputy Mayor for the 2025/26 municipal year.

 

If there is more than one nomination, the selection of Deputy Mayor will be conducted by secret ballot. In the event of an equality of votes on the nomination, the Mayor will exercise a casting or second vote.

 

The nominee will be put forward as a candidate for the office of Deputy Mayor at the Annual Council meeting on 14 May 2025 providing that they are still a member of the Council.

The following nominations for Deputy Mayor, for the 2025/26 municipal year, were received:

 

·       Councillor Steve Ringham (nominated by Councillor D Whyte and seconded by Councillor Gillham)

·       Councillor Pippa Tucker-Brown (nominated by Councillor Snow and seconded by Councillor Cunningham)

 

The Council debated the nominations that had been received.

 

As there was more than one nomination, a secret ballot was conducted in accordance with Standing Order 7.

 

It was resolved that Councillor Steve Ringham be nominated at Deputy Mayor for the 2025/26 municipal year.

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

 

a) From Councillor Shannon Saise-Marshall

 

This Council notes the recent closure of numerous bank branches across Runnymede, as part of an increasing spate of bank closures across the country.  Council further notes that whilst many residents are comfortable and able to bank online, many vulnerable or older residents (who make up a large proportion of Runnymede residents), and many businesses, still rely on banking in person and on being able to easily access free cash-dispensing facilities. Closing local branches means that these residents and businesses may have to travel significant distances to access their accounts when many may not have an independent means of transport, at additional cost and inconvenience.

 

Council further notes the proposed introduction of Banking Hubs to fill the gap left by bank closures, but which currently have no legislative support.

 

The Council therefore resolves to:

 

1)    Write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to request that the Financial Conduct Authority be given more powers to prevent bank companies carrying out large-scale closures of local branches without adequate alternative provision and to mandate the introduction of Banking Hubs or Post Office banking services in those communities left without adequate access to banking provision.

 

2)    Offer all co/group leaders the opportunity to sign the letter above.

 

3)    Request the Community Services Committee review the activities undertaken by Mole Valley District Council in securing a Banking Hub for the residents and businesses of Dorking, and consider whether Runnymede Borough Council is also able to undertake similar activities.

 

b) From Councillor Mark Nuti

 

Council Notes:

 

The country will come together on May 8th this year to honour and remember the 80th anniversary of VE Day, the end of the Second World War in Europe.

 

There will be a programme of events across the borough culminating in the lighting of the Runnymede Beacon.

 

The beacon is situated on St Annes Hill Chertsey.

 

The Chertsey Society, led by Major (retd) Rob Marshall MBE have kindly agreed to organise the Beacon event with the support of The Golden Grove public house and other volunteers from Chertsey.

 

The 4 leaders and the Mayor of Runnymede will be attending with other VIP’s including representatives from our town twins from France and Germany. The mayor will light the beacon alongside the Chair of the Surrey Royal British Legion.

 

There will be a plaque marking the event which will join the other plaques from previous years on the beacon which RBC have agreed to pay for.

 

Runnymede is a Gold Award holder of the Armed Forces Covenant which supports those that have served and are serving in our armed forces.

 

The council believes:

 

As a Gold Award holder of the Armed Forces Covenant, Runnymede Borough Council should be setting an example and leading from the front in commemorating this important anniversary.

 

It believes that, although the beacon is situated in Chertsey, it represents the whole borough and as such the Chertsey Society should be given every assistance in organising the event.

 

That through generous donations from residents and businesses of Chertsey money has been raised that could be used to pay for the event.

 

That as one of only two beacons in Surrey it’s really important that we join the national beacon and lamp lighting initiative on the 08th May.

 

The council resolves:

 

·         To accept that it’s not the responsibility of Chertsey residents to cover the cost of lighting the Boroughs beacon event.

 

·         To refer back to the relevant committee to ask for funding and resources to be provided to support the event.

 

·         Formally thank the Chertsey Society and in particular Major (retd) Rob Marshall for his and their role in making this happen.

a) Community banking hub

 

The proposed motion, as set out in the summons, was moved by Councillor Saise-Marshall.

 

The proposed motion was seconded by Councillor Parry.

 

The proposed motion was debated by the Council.

 

The proposed motion was put to the vote and CARRIED:

 

This Council notes the recent closure of numerous bank branches across Runnymede, as part of an increasing spate of bank closures across the country.  Council further notes that whilst many residents are comfortable and able to bank online, many vulnerable or older residents (who make up a large proportion of Runnymede residents), and many businesses, still rely on banking in person and on being able to easily access free cash-dispensing facilities. Closing local branches means that these residents and businesses may have to travel significant distances to access their accounts when many may not have an independent means of transport, at additional cost and inconvenience.

 

Council further notes the proposed introduction of Banking Hubs to fill the gap left by bank closures, but which currently have no legislative support.

 

The Council therefore resolves to:

 

1)    Write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to request that the Financial Conduct Authority be given more powers to prevent bank companies carrying out large-scale closures of local branches without adequate alternative provision and to mandate the introduction of Banking Hubs or Post Office banking services in those communities left without adequate access to banking provision.

 

2)    Offer all co/group leaders the opportunity to sign the letter above.

 

3)    Request the Community Services Committee review the activities undertaken by Mole Valley District Council in securing a Banking Hub for the residents and businesses of Dorking, and consider whether Runnymede Borough Council is also able to undertake similar activities.

 

b) 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day

 

Councillor Nuti withdrew his motion in accordance with Standing Order 34.6.

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

There was minority group priority business.

The requirement for this item was not known until after the publication of the summons.

 

Reasons for urgency

 

A notification to a change to the membership of a political group, served in accordance with Regulation 9 of The Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, has been received by the Proper Officer.  On receipt of such a notification, Section 17 of the Regulations requires the Council to review the allocation of seats on committees “as soon as practicable”.

 

The Corporate Head of Law and Governance (Monitoring Officer) is of the opinion that the meeting of the Council on 27 February 2025 is the first practicable opportunity to the review the allocation of seats.   This item has therefore been added to the agenda in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

Details

 

A review of the allocation of seats on committees is required following notification by Councillor Jenkins that he has joined the Conservative Group.

 

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 constitute this Committee with consideration for proportionality arrangements. The Licensing Committee is therefore included in the wider calculations.

 

The calculated entitlement to seats on committees and member working parties is attached to this supplementary summons.

 

Further information on the proposed allocation of seats to political groups is to follow after discussions between group leaders.

 

Recommendations

 

1)    The calculated entitlement to seats on committees be noted.

 

2)    That the Council agree the allocation of seats to political groups on committees and member working parties.

 

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

 

Update – 26 February 2025

 

The proposed allocation of seats on committees and member working parties, following the consideration of co/group leaders, is attached.

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

 

1)    The calculated entitlement to seats on committees be noted.

 

2)    That the allocation of seats to political groups on committees and member working parties, as published on 26 February 2025, be agreed.

 

3)    That it be noted that group leaders were able to make appointments to committees in accordance with Standing Order 22.8.

The requirement for this item was not known until after the publication of the summons.

 

Reasons for urgency

 

The Corporate Head of Law and Governance (Monitoring Officer) is of the opinion that the meeting of the Council on 27 February 2025 is an appropriate opportunity for the Council to consider a vacant position for Chair of the Standards and Audit Committee.  This item has therefore been added to the agenda in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

Details

 

Prior to Councillor Jenkins joining the Conservative Group, the Proper Officer was notified by Councillor Linda Gillham, as a co-leader of the Runnymede Council Alliance Group, that she had removed Councillor Jenkins from the Standards and Audit Committee.  On receipt of this notification, Councillor Jenkins became ineligible to carry out the role of Chair, and a vacancy therefore arose for both a member of the Committee and Chair.

 

Standing Order 31.6 permits the Standards and Audit Committee to elect its own Chair at the first meeting after the occurrence of the vacancy, for the remainder of the municipal year.  Standing Order 31.7 permits the Council to also make such an appointment.

 

If the Council is minded to make this appointment, it must be drawn from the membership of the Committee.  Until such an appointment is made, the Vice-Chair will fulfil the role of Chair.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council either:

 

1)    Appoint a new chair of the Standards and Audit Committee for the remainder of the municipal year; or

 

2)    Note that the Standards and Audit Committee may elect its own chair at the next ordinary meeting.

It was proposed (by Councillor Ringham and seconded (by Councillor R King) that Councillor Singh be appointed as Chair of the Standards and Audit Committee for the remainder of the municipal year.

 

It was further proposed (by Councillor Snow) and seconded (by Councillor Gracey) that the appointment of a Chair be left to the Standards and Audit Committee at its next ordinary meeting.

 

Both proposals were put to the vote and it was resolved that Councillor Singh be appointed as Chair of the Standards and Audit Committee for the remainder of the municipal year.

To consider any items so resolved at the meeting.

There was no exempt business.