Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Clarke, Cunningham, Furey, Hulley, Jenkins, A King, Mann, Mehta 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.

The Council received updates from the Chief Executive and Councillor Gillham (as a Co-Leader), both of whom had been representing Runnymede Borough Council in discussions between the chief executives and leaders of councils across Surrey.

Members debated the proposals within the reports prepared by Surrey County Council and collaboratively by most of Surrey’s district and borough councils.  During the debate, a number of views were expressed, including:

·       Unitary councils offered greater clarity for residents, particularly when it related to matters where there was an apparent crossover of responsibilities such as highways.

·       There could be less local democratic representation, which it was suggested did not represent a devolution of powers to local people.

·       The possibility of a strategic mayor represented a centralisation of powers that were currently exercisable by local district and borough councils.

·       The financial argument for undertaking the review was the primary catalyst and that evolving local democracy was a secondary consideration for some.

·       Residents were not able to have their say on the topic of local government reorganisation due to the local elections being postponed.

·       The postponement of the local elections ensured that resources were not used inefficiently, particularly because the authorities affected would only exist for a short time after the reorganisation.

·       There were reservations about Surrey County Council’s proposal for local community boards, particularly because such an arrangement had yet to prove itself elsewhere in the country.

·       Localised arrangements, which respected local identity of Surrey’s communities, were an important consideration.

·       The longer-term efficiencies realised through local government reorganisation would ensure that successor councils’ finances were more robust and that some of the eventual savings could be reinvested into frontline services.

·       The creation of parish or town councils was potentially a way in which to maintain highly localised services.

·       Residents were more concerned about receiving services – not who was delivering them.

·       The attractiveness of partnering with some councils in Surrey remained limited due to their financial sustainability.

·       Runnymede, whilst the subject of a comparably high level of debt, was able to service it.  It was also important to emphasise that Runnymede was able to maintain a relatively high number of discretionary services because of the income generated by its assets.

·       The government’s timetable for reorganisation was unnecessarily short.

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

1.     The plans for local government reorganisation, for submission to MHCLG on behalf of the 12 local authorities of Surrey, be noted.

2.     The Council express its preference for three unitary councils within the boundaries of the county of Surrey when the existing 12 authorities were abolished.

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

In favour (30)

Councillors Gill, Harnden, Berardi, Cressey, Davies, Day, Eldridge, Gahir, Gates, Gillham, Gracey, Graham, Howorth, Kettle, R King, Lee, Mavi, Milstead, Moudgil, Mullens, Parry, Ringham, Rowsell, Saise-Marshall, Singh, Smith, Tucker-Brown, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

Against (1)

Councillor Nuti.

Abstentions (1)

Councillor Lewis

To consider any items so resolved at the meeting.

There was no exempt business.