The Mayor paid tribute to ex Councillor Keith Thompson, who had recently passed away at the age of 92.

The Mayor went on to highlight some of her events in recent months, which included judging three classic car shows, opening the new Magna Square development, travelling on the Royal Row Barge on the day of the Queen’s funeral, and reading out the proclamation of the new King.

The Mayor went on to pay tribute to the many volunteers in the borough.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 21 July 2022, as previously circulated.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 21 July 2022 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Apologies were received from Councillors M Darby, E Gill, M Heath, C Mann and N Prescot.

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.

No declarations received.

Any Questions received will be circulated separately following the deadline for submission of questions from the public.

Larraine Reed, a local resident, asked the following question:

“I am partially sighted and hearing impaired. I am a blue badge holder and live in Egham. I have a support worker who drives me into town to shop. We very frequently find some of the disabled parking spaces at Waitrose are taken up by non-Blue Badge holders, and are unavailable to us. I know other members of the disabled community have the same experience as me. Could Runnymede take action to enforce the parking restrictions in this car park, so that disabled residents can have the same access to Egham shops as other residents have?”

The Leader of the Council replied that where the Council own car parks in the borough enforcement officers are directed to ensure that blue badge spaces are only taken up by blue badge holders.

However, Waitrose car park is operated by Waitrose and therefore it is outside the Council’s powers to enforce parking restrictions.

The Leader of the Council offered to write to the store manager of Waitrose to ask for a meeting and better understand how enforcement of the car park was managed.

Ms Reed subsequently asked how many Penalty Charge Notices had been issued at Waitrose car park over the past three months, which the Leader pledged to find out, and would also provide a breakdown of how many parking notices had been issued by the Council’s Enforcement Officers for blue badge offences in Egham during that time.

The Leader thanked the resident for her question.

Please see appendix 1.

To receive any petitions from Members of the Council under Standing Order No 19.

No petitions had been received from Members of the Council under Standing Order No 19.

Question from Cllr Abby King to the Leader of the Council:

As Paul Scully MP, the new Minister of State at the Department for levelling up, declared recently there is more “fat to be trimmed” in local government, how is the Leader going to respond to a further experiment with austerity politics and the threat it brings to the services we provide?

Question from Cllr Rhys Davies to the Leader of the Council:

As highlighted in the new corporate business plan, 1,620 of Runnymede’s residents live in absolute poverty, 8% of our total population and 11.1% higher than the average in Surrey. Given the refusal of the new Prime Minister to confirm she will be uprating benefits in line with inflation, or with general wages, what new funding as of this month will the Leader be announcing to support families who are below the absolute poverty line and those additional households who will now fall below that because of the prime minister’s determination to transfer wealth from the poorest to the richest?

Question from Cllr Robert King to the Leader of the Council:

Is the Leader committed to continuing to provide free bin collection services to churches, certain charities and other religious groups which have a community outlook, as Runnymede has previously done so for many years? If he is, will he be instructing officers, along with the chair of Environment & Sustainability Committee, to cancel demands for new trade collection contracts when missed bins collections have been challenged by these institutions.

Question from Cllr Isabel Mullens to the Leader of the Council:

The Empowering Communities Strategy of the Corporate Business Plan references the importance of reaching residents through social media. Could the leader of the council say what proportion of our residents do not have access or the ability to work with social media, so that we can better address the problem of how to reach these digitally excluded people?

Question One

Cllr Abby King asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

As Paul Scully MP, the new Minister of State at the Department for levelling up, declared recently there is more “fat to be trimmed” in local government, how is the Leader going to respond to a further experiment with austerity politics and the threat it brings to the services we provide?

The Leader of the Council responded that he would reject any suggestion that Runnymede would consider an experiment of austerity politics, adding that since 2010 the Council had embarked on extensive efficiency work to give residents value for money, as well as setting out an investment strategy to protect and develop the services it provides to residents.

Question Two

Cllr Rhys Davies asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

As highlighted in the new corporate business plan, 1,620 of Runnymede’s residents live in absolute poverty, 8% of our total population and 11.1% higher than the average in Surrey. Given the refusal of the new Prime Minister to confirm she will be uprating benefits in line with inflation, or with general wages, what new funding as of this month will the Leader be announcing to support families who are below the absolute poverty line and those additional households who will now fall below that because of the prime minister’s determination to transfer wealth from the poorest to the richest?

The Leader of the Council replied that the term ‘Absolute poverty’ was not recognised in the UK in relation to national statistics.  The term quoted within the Health & Wellbeing strategy was ‘relative income poverty’, which was not directly comparable.

The Leader went on to highlight some of the activities the Council undertake to support those residents requiring support within the borough, which included funding to the Runnymede Food Bank and Citizens Advice Bureau.

The Leader responded to a follow up question about the potential for staff to be affected by relative income poverty by advising that as part of the budget setting process a number of fair and equitable deals would be under consideration for all staff.

Question Three

Cllr Robert King asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

Is the Leader committed to continuing to provide free bin collection services to churches, certain charities and other religious groups which have a community outlook, as Runnymede has previously done so for many years? If he is, will he be instructing officers, along with the chair of Environment & Sustainability Committee, to cancel demands for new trade collection contracts when missed bins collections have been challenged by these institutions.

The Leader of the Council advised that it was ultimately for the relevant Committee to escalate their recommendations to full Council, with the most recent recommendations relating to fees and charges implemented earlier this municipal year.  The Leader encouraged Cllr R King to raise any concerns with the Chair of the relevant Member Working Party.

When asked about the prospect of charities and community organisations being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 293.

To consider the following Minute and recommendation from Community Services Committee held on 15 September 2022.  The full agenda report and any related appendix was circulated with the agenda for that Committee and is available on the Council’s website.

Following on from a number of previous reports and decisions regarding the School Transport Service, emerging from the legacy Yellow Bus Service, the Committee, was asked to make a recommendation to full Council about its future.

Members were referred to previous debate and details as to how the full-service model would work and how the three options before them had been arrived at.

Members were advised that after the Council’s decision to proceed with a service in 2020, Officers worked on the implementation of an in-house service model, as part of an integrated offer within the Council’s Community Transport service.  This proved very challenging for a number of operational, financial and logistical reasons.  The model reached the point of procurement of vehicles.  However, the impact of the pandemic and supply chain issues in relation to build of ordered vehicles, resulted in successive delays to commencement of the service.

Therefore, Officers reviewed the options and viability of the service, bearing in mind the Council’s financial position post pandemic, together with the consequence of parents and children making alternative travel arrangements to school, some as a result of changes within homes and communities.

As a result, Full Council in July 2021, approved cancelling the procurement arrangements relating to the leasing of 7 x Community Transport vehicles, and resolved that delivery of any future service be delayed until September 2022, at the earliest, to allow Officers to consider service options and also other opportunities to support children and young people in the borough.  For example:

·       Provision of play area equipment

·       Provision of other recreational equipment

·       Access to sport and leisure activities either at a concessionary rate or free at the point of access

·       Provision of new/support for existing diversionary activities aimed at children and young people

·       Support to voluntary and community organisations in the development of activities and leisure opportunities for children and young people. 

The Committee was presented with three options:

1.    To discontinue the service and re-allocate some or all of the budget previously agreed to provide a school transport service to Community Services to develop leisure and recreation opportunities for children and young people in the borough in line with the Council’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy

2.    To provide a reduced targeted school transport service to children and young people as referred by local schools, and allocate any budgetary underspend to deliver some of the priorities in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

3.    To revert to the original decision and proceed as previously agreed by full Council in September 2020 to provide a full school transport service.

The Committee was advised that no school transport had been provided for two full academic years and with the likely lead in time being a further two years the relevance of the service  ...  view the full agenda text for item 294.

The recent Community Services Committee had considered a proposal to discontinue the school transport service and reallocate the previously agreed sum of £215,000 to develop leisure and recreation opportunities in the borough in line with the Council’s Health & Wellbeing strategy.

The Community Services Committee Chair advised this was primarily in response to delays in equipment and the ongoing impact of the pandemic resulting in changes to travel patterns and added that the money would be used flexibly on both refurbishments and new equipment.

Some Members expressed dissatisfaction with the discontinuation of the service, the lack of data provided for context and the impact of increasing the number of cars on the roads.  It was also asked to ensure that Surrey County Council would provide additional bus routes on the services affected.  The Leader of the Council would share with full Council the data used to come to the decision.

The Leader advised that to run the service in isolation would cost around £800 per pupil, adding that there were existing transport services available.  It should also be encouraged to use active travel to get to school such as walking and cycling.  Furthermore, Surrey County Council would continue to provide transport for those who had the greatest need for school transport.

The Chair of Community Services stated that schools in the borough were consulted, and most did not respond, whilst others declared that a bus service was not a priority for them and demand was low.  One school did suggest that a bus service to help deal with pupils who were not regular attendees would be useful, but it was felt there were other ways these concerns could be addressed.

The Chief Executive confirmed that the £215,000 was an annual revenue budget to deliver the service, which would be transferred to Community Services Department on an ongoing basis.

A named vote was requested on the item and the voting was as follows:

For (25)

Cllrs Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Broadhead, Bromley, Burton, Clarke, Coen, Cotty, Cressey, Cunningham, Dennett, Furey, Gillham, J Gracey, T Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Nuti, Olorenshaw, Snow, Walsh, D Whyte, S Whyte, Willingale, Wilson

Against (7)

Cllrs Berardi, Davies, A King, R King, Mullens, Ringham, Williams

Abstain (4)

Cllrs Harnden, Jenkins, N King, Lewis

Resolved that –

the previously agreed discretionary school transport service is not to proceed, and that full sum of £215,000, is allocated to Community Services Department for the development and refurbishment of leisure and recreation opportunities for children and young people across the borough, which may include the refurbishment and/or replacement of play equipment.

To consider the following Minute and recommendation from Corporate Management Committee held on 22 September 2022.  The full Corporate Plan and overarching report is available on the Council’s website.

The Chief Executive advised that four of the five strands of the Corporate Plan had previously been approved by this Committee, with the Organisational Development Strategy the only strand that remained subject to approval ahead of the entire strategy going forward for final approval at October’s full Council meeting.

The Chief Executive thanked the Members who had provided feedback on the Corporate Plan, and whilst the comments did not affect the overall strategy they had been noted to help develop the associated action plans. The Chief Executive confirmed to a Member that the action plans, containing some 200 actions that would be divided into Committee areas, would be circulated to all Members in advance of October’s full Council meeting. Those actions would also help to prepare for next year’s budget by identifying which actions required growth.

In responding to a Member’s question about the Climate Change strategy, the Chief Executive confirmed that regular reporting on climate change initiatives would take place across all Committee areas, with the Leader confirming that an overarching report would be a regular item at Corporate Management Committee.

When introducing the Organisational Development strategy, the Corporate Head of HR and Organisational Development confirmed that collaborative working with other authorities was already in place across a number of areas, whilst the strategy was closely linked to the Talent Management Strategy, which would be going forward for approval at October’s Corporate Management Committee.

A further initiative would be to introduce a corporate induction course to go with the Induction checklists and a ‘Train the Trainer’ course for managers with the aim of encouraging internal talent.

Recommended to Full Council on 20 October that:

a) The Organisational Development Strategy was recommended to full Council on 20 October 2022 for approval;

b) The overarching Corporate Plan was recommended to full Council on 20 October 2022 for approval.

c) All other elements of the Corporate Plan, already approved by this Committee, were recommended to full Council on 20 October 2022 for approval.

The Leader of the Council advised full Council that work on the Corporate Plan had been ongoing for nearly 18 months and had been through a thorough consultation process.  Each of the five strands had been signed off by Corporate Management Committee having also been scrutinised by various Member Working Parties.

There was an ambition to ensure the Council was delivering excellent facilities, providing a good quality of life for residents and meet objectives set out within the climate change strategy.

The Leader thanked both officers for the preparation of the Corporate Plan, and Councillors for engaging in the review process.

The Chair of Environment & Sustainability Committee acknowledged the importance of all strands within the strategy but stressed the importance of the climate change strategy and in particular the target to achieve net zero carbon emissions from the Council’s operations and services by 2030.  The ability to calculate where the distribution of the Council’s carbon emissions would be vital to this process.

Furthermore he felt it was important to set an example for others to follow across Runnymede and beyond, including the Council’s supply chain by ensuring suppliers and contractors were also working to net zero targets.

Several Members expressed concern that the Corporate Plan’s accompanying action list had only recently been released and felt that many of the actions and initiatives contained within had not been subject to the appropriate levels of Member scrutiny and debate.  The Leader of the Council confirmed that it was intended that the plans would evolve to reflect new knowledge, understanding and priorities, and would form part of the workplans for Committees and Member Working Parties.

In response to the absence of livestreaming Committee meetings from the Empowering Communities strategy, the Leader of the Council advised Members this was being looked at by the Communications and Service Transformation Member Working Party, who would provide recommendations to the relevant Committee when appropriate.

Resolved that –

a) All elements of the Corporate Plan and overarching report were approved.

As the meeting of Corporate Management Committee was held after the publication of this Summons, the recommendation will be included in the Supplementary Summons, subject to Corporate Management Committee approval.

An amended motion was proposed to address concern from some Members about the proximity of annual Council to the local election.  The proposed amendment would see an additional week between the two dates to allow more time for newly-elected Councillors to familiarise themselves with the role, as well as more time for the potential for political groups to form coalitions.

The amended motion was lost.

Resolved that –

The calendar of meetings for 2023/24 was approved.

Further to the Corporate Head of Law and Governance receiving notification from the Leader of the Labour and Co-operative Group that his Group wished to make a permanent change of membership regarding the Housing and Planning Committees, it is proposed to change the membership of:

a. Planning Committee – Councillor A King replacing Councillor R Davies

b. Housing Committee – Councillor R Davies replacing Councillor A King

                       It is a requirement that such changes for the remainder of this municipal year are resolved by

Council further to the procedure set out in Article 4 of the Constitution.

                       RECOMMENDATION:

That the changes proposed by the Labour and Co-operative Group to the membership of the Housing and Planning Committees for the remainder of this Municipal year (2022/2023), be approved

(To resolve)

Resolved that –

The changes proposed by the Labour and Co-operative Group to the membership of the Housing and Planning Committees for the remainder of this Municipal year (2022/2023) was approved.

From: Cllr Don Whyte

Title: Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) to support the Local Electricity Bill.

Motivation:

This motion is being brought forward by the Runnymede Liberal Democrat Group to support Runnymede Borough Council’s (RBC) endeavours to reduce the carbon footprint of both the Council and the Borough as a whole.

The Local Electricity Bill¹ would help promote the development of locally generated renewable electricity. 

The Council notes:

1. There needs to be a fundamental change in how we generate and consume energy in all aspects of our lives. Both electricity generation and distribution are undergoing rapid evolution, in both shape and scale.
   
   
2. The distribution network (grid), must now cope with power flows in both directions.  Electrification of heat and transport will require an expected quadrupling of electricity capacity. Local community-led energy schemes can make a significant contribution to addressing both issues and encourage a sense of local empowerment to tackle climate change.
   
   
3. Local schemes encourage generation and storage to match local demand thus relieving pressure on the grid. 
   
   
4. Local schemes would be given new impetus and be able to contribute more renewable energy if local people could buy their electricity directly from local suppliers.
   
   
5. Currently the disproportionate cost of meeting regulatory approvals makes it prohibitive to be a local energy supplier at a local scale and so, under the current system, this energy is sold to the nationally licensed energy suppliers (EDF, British Gas, etc) at a nominal price.²
   
   

6.     That making the costs proportionate to the scale of a renewable electricity supplier’s operation would create significant opportunities for local companies, community groups and councils to be providers of locally generated renewable electricity directly to local people, businesses and organisations, if they wished.

7.     That surplus revenues received by such local companies, community groups or councils that choose to become local renewable electricity providers could be used to help improve the local economy, local services and facilities and to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions.

8.     Locally generated renewable electricity could make a significant contribution to reducing the carbon emissions of Runnymede and more generally throughout the United Kingdom.

9.     That the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee, as a result of its 2021 Technological Innovations and Climate Change inquiry, recommended that a Right to Local Supply for local energy suppliers be established.

10.  The Local Electricity Bill supported by a cross-party group of 311 MPs, including 120 Conservative MPs, 120 Labour MPs and all Liberal Democrat MPs, if made law, would establish a Right to Local Supply which would promote local renewable electricity supply by making the setup and running costs of selling renewable electricity to local customers proportionate to the size of the supply company.

11.  That Surrey County Council is among the many Local Authorities supporting the Local Electricity Bill.

The Council Believes That:

1.     There is a real opportunity for local renewable energy generation to provide much needed revenue to RBC and other organisations.

2.     The generation of renewable energy locally could make a material contribution towards tackling  ...  view the full agenda text for item 298.

Motion 1 – Runnymede Borough Council (RBC) to support the Local Electricity Bill.

Cllr D Whyte moved the motion in the summons for Runnymede Borough Council to support the Local Electricity Bill.  In moving the motion, Cllr D Whyte felt that this would reduce the carbon footprint of the Council, as well as the borough as a whole, adding that this would be an enabler for small-scale local energy provision, and would have no cost implications for the Council.

During the debate on the motion the Deputy Leader of the Council agreed that energy storage and production needed to be prioritised, but expressed concerns around both the timing, stating it was premature to support until the Bill became an act of parliament, along with the necessary interface with the national grid, meaning enhancements in technology would need to be available before this was a viable option.

Cllr D Whyte advised that the power would not be affected by the national grid, rather it would stay within the local grid.  Furthermore, it was felt that the current legislation was outdated having been drawn up in the 1990s, and this would have formed part of the now deferred National Energy Bill.

A Member highlighted that the Bill was supported by Surrey County Council and would be a good opportunity for cross-party working, adding that currently the market did not incentivise producers. The Bill would also encourage local entrepreneurs to utilise the technology available.

The Deputy Leader invited Cllr D Whyte to amend the motion to enable it to be referred to Corporate Management Committee to study the detail behind the Bill, which Cllr D Whyte declined.

A named vote was requested on the Motion and the voting was as follows:

For (14)

Cllrs Harnden, Berardi, Burton, Davies, Gillham, Jenkins, A King, R King, Mullens, Ringham, Walsh, D Whyte, S Whyte, Williams

Against (18)

Cllrs Saise-Marshall, Broadhead, Bromley, Clarke, Coen, Cotty, Cressey, Cunningham, Dennett, Furey, J Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, N King, Lewis, Snow, Willingale, Wilson

Abstain (3)

Cllrs Balkan, Nuti, Olorenshaw

(Cllr T Gracey had left the meeting at this point so did not vote)

The motion was lost.

Motion 2 – Ending Fuel Poverty and lowering energy use in homes. Council and Community action through a Green Bond

Cllr R King moved the motion in the summons around ending fuel poverty and lowering energy use in homes.  In moving the motion, Cllr R King stated that the cost-of-living crisis meant that many families would be facing a dark and cold winter, particularly in light of the announcement that the energy price guarantee would cease considerably sooner than first announced.

Cllr R King added that climate change was the biggest crisis facing the country, and whilst he called on government to act faster stated that too many homes in Runnymede were poorly insulated, the cost of green and solar energy was prohibitive to many households, and the planting of trees was not taking place at enough pace.

A Member highlighted that the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 298.

No items of Minority Group Priority business have been registered under Standing Order 23.

No items of Minority Group Priority business had been registered under Standing Order 23.

Exclusion of Press and Public

Officers' Recommendation that –

the press and public be excluded from the meeting during discussion for the remainder of the meeting under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the report in question would be likely to involve disclosure of exempt information of the description specified in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

(To resolve)

By resolution of full 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 of the description specified in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to Part 1 of the Act.

As the meeting of Special Housing Committee was held after the publication of this Summons, the recommendation will be included in the Supplementary Summons, subject to Housing Committee approval.

The Chair of Housing Committee advised full Council that the recent Special Housing Committee had considered an item on the redevelopment of an area within the borough, citing it as critical for the provision of social housing.

Plans to redevelop the area had been under consideration for many years, with lots of the properties in question a prefabricated design that had long since gone beyond their intended lifespan and had poor energy efficiency ratings.

Ultimately the redevelopment would deliver regeneration, improve the quality of housing and provide more of it, and was key to many of the aspirations within the corporate plan.

The Chair of Housing Committee clarified that the funding requested was for the first stage of the redevelopment and included a feasibility study.  The overall project would include a mixed tenure of housing and significantly improve the density of housing on the site.  It would also go a long way towards delivering the target of a minimum 125 social housing units across the borough.

Resolved that –

1)    Full Council approved the supplementary revenue estimate to be spread over the next two years of £5,000,000 to proceed from RIBA Stage 1 to 3.

2)    Full Council approved the delegation of authority to Housing Committee to proceed with RIBA Stage 1, noting that the project can be halted by Housing Committee if the project is not proven to be viable at the end of RIBA Stage 1.

After the meeting the Leader of the Council sent the resident the following email to clarify the answer given under Item 5 – Speaking or Questions from Members of the Public Under Standing Order 12:

Dear Larraine

Thank you once again for submitting your question to full Council on 20 October.  I’m very sorry to say that the answer that I provided verbally on the night was incorrect, and I write to set the record straight.

There are only 8 Blue badge bays at Waitrose Car Park.  Blue Badge holders wishing to park in the disabled spaces at Waitrose need to register with Sagoss (specialist parking management contractor) prior to parking in the disabled bays outside Waitrose. It was incorrect to say that this was managed by Waitrose, Sagoss do in fact manage it on the Council’s behalf.  Once the blue badge is linked to the vehicle there is no requirement to display the blue badge. This, in the main, leads to the misconception that non-blue badge holders are parking in the 8 disabled spaces available. All vehicles entering the Waitrose car park are recorded remotely by ANPR and where non-blue badge holders are parking illegally or where vehicles are staying longer than 20-minutes a PCN is issued.

The car park operator has been asked to enhance its signage provision to make this clearer to the community.

I do still intend to follow up on the number of PCNs issued in Egham over the past three months for blue badge parking offences in Egham, and will be back in touch once I have received this information.

My apologies again for the confusion and misleading answer.

Cllr Tom Gracey

Leader, Runnymede Borough Council