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 offered additional relief around environmental services provision, the Leader advised that he felt the country was at the start of a prolonged period of stress and it was important for the Council to be aware of what was happening across the borough, however it was currently too soon to provide information on specific areas.

 

Question Four

 

Cllr Isabel Mullens asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

 

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?

 

The Leader of the Council felt that a combination of factors such as technical ability and appetite to embrace social media made it impossible to provide an accurate answer, but added that he felt that the Council’s digital offering was excellent, whilst acknowledging that it only reached a certain percentage of the population. 

 

Through the Citizens Panel that forms part of the Corporate Plan, it was strongly hoped that a large cross-section of the community could be called upon through an outreach strategy to give their views on matters through non-digital means such as focus groups.

 

In response to a follow up question about finding the necessary numbers for the Citizens Panel to get a representative sample, the Leader advised this would be done through a combination of engagement with local organisations such as the Citizens Advice Bureau as well as outreach through Councillors’ work.

 

A Member suggested building up a database of residents willing to engage by email with the Council via the electoral process.

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 was questioned.  Members generally agreed that those children and families who previously accessed the service appeared to have adapted to there being no service and like pupils new to secondary schools in Runnymede had made alternative arrangements.  This was also the case for children transferring to secondary schools in the 2022/2023 academic year.  Nevertheless it was acknowledged that had a service been available, potentially children and families may have chosen to access it.

 

Some Members were concerned that children most in need of the service and least able to afford other means of transport would be disadvantaged.  However, other Members reported receiving no feedback to this effect, noting the assistance available from the County Council in this regard.

 

In terms of financial viability, some Members recognised that the Council’s subsidy per pupil, which could be even higher in the future, was already excessive.  The section 106 monies had long since disappeared to fund the original ‘yellow bus scheme’, leaving a larger shortfall to make up. 

 

The majority of the Committee considered that the subsidy assisted fewer children and young people (250) than using the budget to develop the Council’s Health and Wellbeing strategy, which would be of wider community benefit.  It was noted that delivering the service was also likely to cost more, primarily fuel, and procuring vehicles.  There was also the cost of re-grading the Community Transport drivers to reflect the development of their role and aid recruitment.  Therefore provision of the future school transport service was very expensive in the current climate.

 

A number of Members also considered the detrimental effects on the environment of using diesel vehicles, about which there was currently no choice and in the context of climate change, the benefits of walking and cycling to school, supporting the Active Travel opportunities, for which funding could be available.  Other considerations were discussions about the wider Community Transport service across Runnymede and Surrey Heath, the role and feedback of the County Council with whom the Council was currently contracted to provide other bus services.  The latter were under review and would be discussed at the Health and Wellbeing Member Working Party in due course.  The County Council had also observed no significant demand for public transport at peak school times with the demise of the school transport scheme. 

 

Members were reminded that, when fully up and running, this service was estimated to cost in excess of £250,000 in a full year with plenty of risk surrounding that figure, all of which were set out in previous reports to committee.  In addition, there was significant risk to this figure with potential additional lease costs increasing this by £70,000+ before any other inflationary effects were taken into account.

 

Officers advised that, by the time the new vehicles were estimated to arrive this service would have been off the road for nearly 4 years in which time new parents would have found alternative transportation arrangements and a majority of old users would have left school.  If the scheme was to progress as originally agreed, a fresh data collection exercise would be needed to assess the likely take up to ensure that the proposals were still viable.  Some Members expressed concern that schools had not been consulted further prior to the report being submitted.

 

The Committee noted the legal implications set out in the report.  Principally, that the Council was under no legal duty to provide a school transport service.  The legal liability for such provision rested with the Local Education Authority and was subject to eligibility criteria. 

 

Members noted that Officers would, in due course, provide Corporate Management Committee with a report setting out how to utilise the budgeted sum of £215,000, with a view to improvements in parks and play areas to be discussed by the Health and Wellbeing Member Working Party

 

The Council’s Equalities Group had advised that a Full Impact Assessment would be required, to be considered by full Council.

 

Members were conscious that in making a recommendation, the Council still had an underlying budget deficit of approximately £2m a year to be addressed.

 

Recommended to Full Council on 20 October 2022 that:

 

the previously agreed discretionary school transport service is not to proceed, and that from the budgeted sum of £215,000, as determined by Corporate Management Committee, an agreed sum is allocated to Community Services for the development of leisure and recreation opportunities for children and young people across the borough

 

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

 

For: (8) Councillors A Balkan, T Burton, D Clarke, V Cunningham, S Dennett,

C Howorth, C Mann, J Wilson.

Against: (2) A King and S Jenkins.

 

This being the case, and in accordance with Standing Orders, the other options (two and three) ‘fell’ and did not need to be voted on.

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 our aspirations to achieve net zero carbon emissions.

 

3.     The delivery of locally generated renewable energy would help address some of the infrastructure challenges currently facing the electricity generating and distribution industries, particularly in the south east of Britain.

 

4.     The Local Electricity Bill should become law expeditiously by being included into any upcoming energy legislation.

 

The Council Resolves That

 

·       It will support the Local Electricity Bill.

·       It will publicise its support for the Local Electricity Bill.

·       It will, through the Leader of the Council, ask the MP for Runnymede and Weybridge, Dr Ben Spencer, to support the Local Electricity Bill when it comes before Parliament. 

 

Footnotes:

 

1. The Bill was introduced by a cross-party group of MPs last Parliamentary session and is due to be reintroduced again in the next few weeks. Further information can be found at https://powerforpeople.org.uk/

2. Energy retailers currently pay around 3p per kilowatt hour (kWh).  The domestic retail price of electricity over in the last year has ranged from 16p per kWh in June 2021 to the latest capped rate of 34p per kWh.

From: Cllr Robert King

 

Title: Ending Fuel Poverty and lowering energy use in homes. Council and Community action through a Green Bond

 

Motivation:

 

This motion is being brought forward by the Runnymede Labour & Co-operative Group to support Runnymede Borough Council’s response to the cost-of-living crisis and to support meeting the council’s target of net zero in Scope 1 emissions by 2030 and of net zero across all emission by 2050 as set by the UK government.

 

This Council notes:

(1)            The serve strain that the cost-of-living crisis and the rise in energy prices are having on all households in Runnymede.

(2)            That the new energy price cap, which came into effect on the 1^st of October 2022, resulted in the average capped unit of electricity rising by 27% and gas rising by 40%. (See appendix for figures for bill metre customers only).

(3)            That the typical household energy bill will now be around £2,500, up from £1,971 per year, with this varying between property types. Ofgem estimates that a typical household has 2.4 people living in it, with usage of 242 kwh of electricity and 1,000 kWh of gas per month.

(4)            That following averages per property type under the new price guarantee the average price per property type will be the below:

A purpose-built flat - £1,750 (Before October the 1^st  £1378)

A mid-terraced house £2,350 (Before October the 1^st £1850)

A semi-detached house £2,650 (Before October the 1^st £2087)

A detached property £3,300 (Before October the 1^st £2598)

(5)            That the Energy Bill Support Scheme from the 1^st of October awards £400, none means tested, to all standard energy households, split over the next 6 months of bills through which will result in a typical bill for energy by residents of £2,100, up from the £1971 per year previously.

(6)            That the average housing stock in the UK are some of the most expensive to heat in Europe due to poorer insulation and poorer maintenance causing heat to dissipate through walls, windows and doors. That the higher prevalence of older gas boilers in UK housing stock means more gas is used to heat water and provide heating than elsewhere in Europe with more modern heating equipment

(7)            That is driven due to more than 52% of homes in England being built before 1965 and nearly 20% being built before 1919, as detailed by research from the New Economics Foundation.

(8)            That just over half of UK homes have an EPC rating certificate, given they have not been rented or sold to a new owner since 2008 meaning they have not been required to obtain certification, limiting residential understanding of the effect poor insulation is having on building efficiency and energy leakage.

(9)            That many lower income households are trapped in a cycle of high bills, low home energy efficiency and insufficient savings to upgrade their insulation, boilers, windows and doors or install green energy generation on their homes.

(10)         The ambition of Runnymede Council to ensure all its social housing stock is at an EPC rating of C or above and that the council achieves Net Zero on its scope 1 emissions by 2030

This Council believes that:

 

(1)   Lower- and middle-income household should not face barriers to making their homes more efficient and cheaper to run because of constraint in finding the finance to upgrade their homes.

(2)   That all homes in Runnymede should have an EPC rating and certificate by the end of 2030, so owners can understand the rating of their older homes and the steps they can take to improve their energy efficiency and reduce their bills.

(3)   The best way of reducing energy bills is through a combination of switching generation to renewable sources of energy and improving the insulation of homes.

(4)   That many homeowners and landlords face barriers of knowledge and lack a trusted contractor to carry out the works to insulate their homes, install new windows and doors, install local energy generation units like Solar Panels or electric vehicle charging points.

(5)   That community cooperation is essential if Runnymede is to decarbonise as a whole Borough in scope 1,2 and 3 emissions by 2050 and that empowering green investors will facilitate a quicker transition to a carbon neutral borough than Council lead action on its own.

(6)   Green Bonds, like those launched by Camden and Warrington Councils, are effective tools to both gather the financial resources and community drive to decarbonise Council activities, private homes and community projects. And that by using investment platforms such as abundance investment or other providers, Councils can reach out to their residents, engage them in projects and share in the commonwealth produced by green investments.

 

This Council Resolves that:

 

(1)   Runnymede becomes a member of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition.

(2)   That the head of Environmental Services produces a new strategy and publicity campaign to encourage all households to undertake an EPC rating of their property, and this be remitted to Environment and Sustainability Committee before their January 2023 meeting.

(3)   Working with the Council’s 151 officer, climate change officer and head of assets and regeneration, a report be presented, within 6 months, to the Corporate Management Committee on the logistics of launching a Green Bond in Runnymede. Outlining any costs, resource constraints and an initial study of what other authorities have done and a list of recommendation for Runnymede.

(4)   That this full council supports the principle of Runnymede launching a Green Bond where residents could invest as little as £5 in:

a.     schemes which would see the council decarbonise its own activities faster

b.    schemes in private homes in Runnymede to improve their energy efficiency and green energy generation

c.     schemes in the community, such as supporting Surrey County with the role our of EV charging points, which would help achieve carbon neutrality before or by 2050.

(5)   That the environmental Place Shaping working party, begin to draw up a list of projects which could be funded by a future green bond and the process by which residents could suggest projects themselves, working with the future citizens panel.

(6)   A report be delivered back to full council within 1 year detailing either the launch of a green bond or the steps needed to be taken for Runnymede to launch such an investment scheme.

 

We therefore remit this motion, subject to full councils’ approval to the committees above, within the detailed timescale.

 

Appendix 1

Energy Type	New energy price cap guarantee from 1st of October 2022	Previous price cap until 30th of September 2022
Gas	Unit rate: 10.33p per kWh   Standing charge: 28.49p per day	Unit rate: 7.37p per kWh   Standing charge: 27.22p per day
Electric	Unit rate: 34.04p per kWh   Standing charge: 46.36p per day	Unit rate: 28.34p per kWh Standing charge: 45.34p per day

 

 

From: Cllr Abby King

 

Title: Tackling violence against women and girls: Making misogyny a hate crime.

 

Motivation:

 

This motion is being brought forward by the Runnymede Labour & Co-operative Group to support Runnymede Borough Council’s response to a rise in violence against women and girls.

 

This council notes:

 

Women and girls around the borough are subject to harassment and abuse due to their gender. In 2021, there were 20 counts of violence and sexual offences for every 1,000 residents, a number higher than in previous years[1]. 

 

Misogyny disproportionately affects those from minority communities. ‘Not including misogyny within the hate crime framework ignores the experiences of women who are subject to hatred based on multiple factors’[2].

 

Cuts to police budgets and a decline in community policing in the last ten years have led to a rise in unsolved hate crimes, a reduction in policing capacity to respond to antisocial behaviour and a lower number of sexual and harassment crimes having perpetrators  brought to justice

 

The Council Believes that:

 

Misogyny should be recorded as a hate crime and policing resources should be increased nationally to levels above those seen in 2010, to ensure that police forces are able to deal with these new responsibilities.

 

It is encouraging to see the support we have seen from our Borough Commander at Runnymede Police in responding to violence against women and girls.

 

The Government was wrong to whip against an amendment to classify misogyny as a hate crime.

 

The Council Resolves That:

 

(1)   Runnymede is committed to ending hate crime in all its forms and work with organisations such as Women’s Aid and Pride in Surrey for a safer Runnymede.

(2)   The Council, through the crime and disorder committee, commission a report within the priorities of the Borough Commander, to crack down on hate crime in the Borough and learn how lessons from victims of abuse can improve the Council direct response and its joint work with Runnymede Police.

(3)   The Leader of the Council writes to our local MP, calling on them to lobby for misogyny to become a hate crime. 

 

We therefore remit this motion, subject to full councils’ approval to the committee above.

 

From: Cllr Rhys Davies

 

Title: Keeping Runnymede & Surrey frack free

 

Motivation:

 

This motion is being brought forward by the Runnymede Labour & Co-operative Group to support Runnymede Borough Council’s response to the government’s statement that there will only be fracking where there is local support.

 

This council notes:

(1)   That fracking is unlikely to bring down the price of gas, electricity or petrol prices given these are driven by international commodity prices.

(2)   That fracking sites cause an ecological impact on biodiversity, pollute water tables and lead to sites which were once green and pleasant spaces for people to enjoy and wildlife to thrive, to be ecologically damaged often beyond repair.

(3)   That fracking construction and the operation of sites increases traffic on roads and has a limited economic impact on the areas it occurs.

(4)   That the process of fracking in sites already operating in the UK has begun to support a link with its activity and ground tremors and land movements, not felt before the process started.

The Council believes that:

(1)   Fracking in Runnymede would be inappropriate if we are to achieve carbon neutrality as a Borough before or by 2050 and improve the quality of local air.

(2)   The Business Secretary is wrong to brand all members and residents who oppose fracking as “socialist” and that this Council recognises that opposition to fracking comes from all communities and a range of political supporters.

(3)   That this council stands across the political divide to oppose fracking and protect the Green belt that makes Runnymede such an attractive and visually pleasant place to live and work.

 

The Council Resolves That:

 

(1)   In light of the Government’s Statement that there will only be fracking where there is local support, the Leader issues a joint letter, signed with all opposition leaders who wish to co-sign, that confirms to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Minister for State (Minister for Climate), of this Council’s opposition to fracking in the Borough of Runnymede.

(2)   That the Leader also writes to our local MP and Leader of the mineral authority, Surrey County Council, to voice this Council’s view that it is opposed to fracking and it is not supported by the residents we represent.

 

We therefore remit this motion, subject to full councils’ approval to the Environment and Sustainability committee

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 does not join lobbying groups but rather makes representations through the LGA, and whilst the administration was in broad agreement over many of the aims set out in the motion, officers had been asked to consider the green bond along with a raft of other options as part of the budget setting process.

 

It was asked to set out how opposition Members could engage with the administration outside of the Committee cycle as part of the budget process, and the Deputy Leader of the Council would follow up with the Leader and report back to Members. 

 

It was added that bringing forward bonds of this nature would take experts a significant amount of time, and it would not be economic to carry that expertise within the Council staff.  A Member replied that the proposed six months within the motion was a reasonable timeframe for a report to be readied to understand the costings and principle.

 

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

 

For (13)

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

 

Against (20)

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

 

Abstain (2)

Cllrs Balkan, Olorenshaw

 

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

 

The motion was lost.

 

Motion 3 – Tackling violence against women and girls: Making misogyny a hate crime

 

Cllr A King moved the motion in the summons that sought to tackle violence against women and girls whilst making misogyny a hate crime.

 

The motion called for the Crime & Disorder Committee to commission a report within the priorities of the Borough Commander to crack down on hate crime in the Borough and learn how lessons from victims of abuse can improve the Council direct response and its joint work with Runnymede Police.  It also called for the Leader of the Council to write to the local MP calling on him to lobby for misogyny to become a hate crime.

 

In moving the motion, Cllr A King spoke of a traumatic personal experience, and stated that serious sexual assaults were crimes that did not happen overnight but rather were crimes built up over a prolonged period of time that were allowed to happen by a society deeply rooted in sexism and that demeaned survivors. 

 

Cllr S Jenkins tabled an amendment to the motion (Appendix 2) that included changing the wording to ‘tackling discrimination against women, girls, men and boys’ (rather than ‘violence against women and girls’).  It also added wording to consider acts of misogyny ‘…and misandry a hate crime.

 

Cllr Jenkins acknowledged that dealing with gender-based crimes was a sensitive issue and should be dealt with in a non-partisan, inclusive evidence-based manner.  He also felt that the original motion prevented a discrimination by creating a separate discrimination, with a lack of detail about the gender of the perpetrators of the crimes set out in the motion. 

 

During the debate on the motion it was remarked that all Members of the Council would benefit from hearing the action plan rather than just Crime & Disorder Committee, and some Members felt it would be more powerful to engage with the Police & Crime Commissioner and Borough Commander via a meeting rather than the submission of a written report, particularly in light of the Police & Crime Commissioner being the national lead against violence towards women and girls.

 

A number of Members thanked Cllr A King for bringing the motion forward, whilst several Members highlighted their support for the amendment based on part of the original motion going beyond the remit of Council by asking the Borough Commander to commission a report.

 

Cllr A King as the proposer of the original motion expressed her extreme disappointment that the motion was amended, adding that whilst the amendments were all valid in their own right, she felt that they should have come forward as a separate motion and other than technical amendments relating to the engagement with Police, the original motion should have been allowed to stand.

 

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

 

For (22)

Cllrs Harnden, Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Broadhead, Bromley, Coen, Cotty, Cressey, Cunningham, Dennett, Furey, Gillham, J Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Jenkins, N King, Lewis, Nuti, Olorenshaw, Williams, Willingale

 

Against (11)

Cllrs Berardi, Davies, A King, R King, Mullens, Ringham, Snow, Walsh, D Whyte, S Whyte, Wilson

 

Abstain (2)

Cllrs Burton, Clarke,

 

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

 

The amended motion was carried.

 

Motion 4 – Keeping Runnymede & Surrey frack free

 

Cllr Davies moved the motion in the Summons that sought to keep Runnymede and Surrey frack free.  In moving the motion Cllr Davies highlighted that the government’s 2019 manifesto placed a moratorium on fracking on England with immediate effect, which had recently been reversed in parliament.

 

Whilst acknowledging there were no proposed fracking sites within Runnymede, Cllr Davies felt that the knock-on effect of fracking elsewhere in Surrey would have a significant detrimental impact on the environment, particularly in terms of air quality, damaging water sources and the transportation of materials.

 

Several Members commented that they felt this was an important national issue but was not relevant to Runnymede given the geology in north Surrey, and felt that passing the motion might result in unnecessarily causing concern amongst residents.  Furthermore, it was stressed that the revised government policy would only see fracking taken forward with community assent.

 

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

 

For (12)

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

 

Against (16)

Cllrs Broadhead, Bromley, Clarke, Coen, Cressey, Cunningham, Dennett, J Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, N King, Lewis, Nuti, Snow, Willingale, Wilson

 

Abstain (6)

Cllrs Harnden, Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Cotty, Olorenshaw, Walsh

 

(Cllrs Furey and T Gracey had left the meeting at this point so did not vote)

 

The motion was lost.

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