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

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 9 February 2023.

The minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 9 February 2023 were confirmed and signed as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:

 

·       Item 502 – 2023/24 Budget and Council Tax - recommendation from the Corporate Management Committee

 

The recorded vote on the proposed amendment from the Runnymede Independent Residents Group, pertaining to the inclusion of a budget for webcasting meetings, be amended to note that Councillor Cotty Voted against the amendment and Councillor Cressey abstained.

 

·       Item 496 – Questions from Members of the Council under Standing Order 13, Question c)

 

That the term “budget cuts” in Councillor R King’s supplementary question be changed to “sacking striking workers”.

 

[It was reported that the councillor membership of the joint committee with the operators of Egham Orbit would consist of Councillors Burton, Cressey, T. Gracey, Howorth and Willingale.]

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cressey, Furey, Gill, Mann and Nuti.

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.

There were no public questions or speaking.

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

There were no petitions.

a) Question from Councillor Sylvia Whyte to the Leader of the Council

 

“In April 2022 I asked the Leader of The Council when elected members would receive monthly Enforcement updates.  The Leader advised that “the most effective ways of reporting accurate information to Members would be looked at as soon as possible after the Election.”  Whilst I and my fellow ward councillors have received some verbal updates on some key Enforcement issues in our ward, I would like to know when we, and all elected members, will receive a complete list of those enforcement issues across the Borough.”

 

b) Question from Councillor Don Whyte to the Leader of the Council

 

“Since October 2022 most households in Runnymede will have been progressively receiving part of the Government funded £400 Energy Bills Support Scheme (EBSS) discount.  These households have a direct relationship with an electricity supplier. 

 

Those households that buy their fuel through a third party or are not on mains electricity, have as of 20th February, not yet received any of the £400 EBSS discount. This includes people who live in park homes, a houseboat or care homes. Similarly, those who don’t use mains gas or electric are entitled to a payment of £200.  

 

Can the Leader please explain what Runnymede Borough Council is doing or planning to do to encourage and help residents to claim their £400 Energy Bill Support Scheme (EBSS) discount and or their £200 Alternative Fuel Payment?”

 

c) Question from Councillor Steve Ringham to the Leader of the Council

 

“Our next council elections, in May of this year, will be the first to be held where polling station voters will be required to show valid Photo ID before they can vote. Central government’s excuse is that it is to prevent voter fraud or impersonation. However this restriction has not been extended to postal voters. Can the leader of the council tell me, with regard to Runnymede in the last 10 years, how many instances of voter fraud have been detected, investigated and prosecuted, split between postal and polling station voters, and as a percentage of all voters?”

 

*Clarification – I’ve asked for 10 years but any period will do depending on what data you hold

a) Councillor Sylvia Whyte asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

 

“In April 2022 I asked the Leader of The Council when elected members would receive monthly Enforcement updates.  The Leader advised that “the most effective ways of reporting accurate information to Members would be looked at as soon as possible after the Election.”  Whilst I and my fellow ward councillors have received some verbal updates on some key Enforcement issues in our ward, I would like to know when we, and all elected members, will receive a complete list of those enforcement issues across the Borough.”

 

The Leader responded in the following terms:

 

“I can confirm that from 1 April 2023, the Planning Enforcement team will be producing a report that will be circulated to all local members with regards to key enforcement cases in the borough. At this stage, it is expected that the list will include no more than 50 cases which will include those cases classified as medium or high priority, as set out in the Enforcement Charter as well as some significant cases that have been discussed with members for inclusion. The list and update will be circulated to all councillors on a quarterly basis.”

 

Councillor S Whyte asked whether members could be informed about all planning appeals, regardless of ward, in order to enable them to observe how such processes worked?  Councillor Willingale, as Chairman of the Planning Committee, agreed that this would be helpful and stated that he would take up the matter with the Corporate Head for Development Management and Building Control.

 

Councillor D Whyte asked whether members could be advised of the outcome of all enforcement cases, regardless of ward?  Councillor Willingale said that he would liaise with the Corporate Head for Development Management and Building Control, adding that striking a balance between enforcement activities and report writing needed to be considered.

 

Councillor Mullens asked whether the Leader agreed that resident involvement in the planning inquiries should be encouraged.  The Leader agreed.

 

b) Councillor Don Whyte asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

 

“Since October 2022 most households in Runnymede will have been progressively receiving part of the Government funded £400 Energy Bills Support Scheme (EBSS) discount.  These households have a direct relationship with an electricity supplier.

 

Those households that buy their fuel through a third party or are not on mains electricity, have as of 20th February, not yet received any of the £400 EBSS discount. This includes people who live in park homes, a houseboat or care homes. Similarly, those who don’t use mains gas or electric are entitled to a payment of £200.

 

Can the Leader please explain what Runnymede Borough Council is doing or planning to do to encourage and help residents to claim their £400 Energy Bill Support Scheme (EBSS) discount and or their £200 Alternative Fuel Payment?”

 

The Leader replied in the following terms:

 

“This Council is committed to supporting residents through this difficult time and administering the EBSS Alternative Funding scheme is one way in which we are doing this.  The Chief Executive and I have met regularly with our local MP, Dr Ben Spencer, and discussed this specific topic and I would like to thank Dr Spencer for the work that he has undertaken in this area.

 

We identified when the first announcement was made by Government last year that those households without a direct relationship with an electricity supplier would be unable to receive this support directly. Within Runnymede, this particularly affects park home residents and those in retirement homes, as well as some houseboat residents, as you have identified in your question.

 

Dr. Spencer raised this issue directly with Ministers who committed to establishing a method of payment with the aim of delivering this support and that local authorities would be best placed to administer the scheme, in a similar way to how covid grants were administered.

 

I am delighted that the scheme that was opened on Monday 27 February 2023 will allow residents to apply directly via a Gov.UK portal and that the support will not be passed on through an intermediary owner. On application, Runnymede Borough Council will make final checks on applicants and authorise payments.

 

At this time, I cannot confirm how many applications have been made as the scheme has only very recently gone live, but every park home resident has been contacted since Monday, and if it would be helpful we can look to provide a form of reporting on utilisation of the scheme in Runnymede.”

 

Councillor D Whyte asked whether there was more that the Council could do to identify hard to reach people that were entitled to payments?  The Leader agreed that awareness of, and access to, the scheme was important and welcomed a separate discussion with Councillor D Whyte and the Chief Executive on how to facilitate this.

 

Councillor Marshall asked whether the Leader encouraged ward councillor support, for residents of park homes, with the sourcing their own energy supplier, as opposed to paying premiums to landowners?  The Leader said that he did.

 

c) Councillor Steve Ringham asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

 

“Our next council elections, in May of this year, will be the first to be held where polling station voters will be required to show valid Photo ID before they can vote. Central government’s excuse is that it is to prevent voter fraud or impersonation. However this restriction has not been extended to postal voters. Can the leader of the council tell me, with regard to Runnymede in the last 10 years, how many instances of voter fraud have been detected, investigated and prosecuted, split between postal and polling station voters, and as a percentage of all voters?”

 

*Clarification – I’ve asked for 10 years but any period will do depending on what data you hold

 

The Leader replied in the following terms:

 

“I can confirm that we have had no instances of impersonation in a polling station or of fraud relating to postal votes over the past 10 years. Given Runnymede’s history, I am glad that our well respected democracy continues to thrive. However, to the central point of your question, Runnymede along with all other Local Authorities, are required to implement Photo ID requirements under the Elections Act 2022.  The Act seeks to address shocking and highly publicised instances of fraud, harassment of electors outside polling stations and demands from campaigners to electors to hand over their postal votes. This unscrupulous behaviour is something we must do our utmost to guard against and so it is sensible that we have proportionate measures in place to discourage and prevent such behaviour.

 

Councillor Ringham asked whether the Leader felt that the new measures were disproportionate, discriminatory and wasteful?  The Leader said that he did not agree and that the measures sought to ensure probity in the electoral system remained.  He suggested that Councillor Ringham may wish to take up this issue with the local MP, as it was a legislative matter.

 

Councillor Gillham asked whether the Leader agreed with the Council of Europe’s advice on requiring voter ID, in order to prevent fraud, and that it was the responsibility of elected representatives to encourage residents to register for voter identification?   The Leader agreed with Councillor Gillham’s observations.

 

Councillor Burton asked what activities were being undertaken to reach as many voters as possible?  The Leader said that there had been engagement through social media, printed publications, and letters sent directly to residents.

The report for this item was published as part of the agenda for the Corporate Management Committee on 23 February 2023.

 

The draft strategy was an important document, which sought to ensure that the Council had an asset base that was fit for purpose.  It also sought to formalise the Corporate Management Committee’s role as the corporate landlord.  The strategy document and performance against the key performance indicators within would be kept under regular review, as it was important to ensure that the Council’s portfolio of properties continued to meet the Council’s needs in what was a challenging and changeable economic climate.

 

The draft strategy was discussed by the Committee.

 

Suggested additions, such as referencing significant employers like St Peter’s Hospital, and the proposed housing development at Longcross, were made.  A number of other minor amendments were noted by officers.

 

There was discussion about the proposed minimum energy efficiency rating.  It was planned for this to align with the higher rating expected of the borough’s housing stock when the next iteration of the strategy was developed in 2028.

 

The value of a number of properties had decreased since they were last reviewed.  The Committee was assured that this was normal for assets that had long term tenancies nearing their end points.  Efforts were being made to secure new tenancy agreements at the best possible value for the Council.

 

The levels of delegation that were being sought as part of the table in the addendum to the report were discussed.  Whilst the Committee was content with most of the proposed delegations that were sought, it was considered that the current officer level delegation for rental values below £100k (detailed in row 1 of the table in the addendum) was appropriate and that member oversight of leases above this value should remain.  It was further felt that a suitable mechanism, in the form of Standing Order 42, already facilitated speedy decision making where it was required.  It was reported that the Constitution Working Group had reviewed the request for greater delegation and that those present at the working group held similar views to those expressed by members of the Committee.

 

The Committee discussed the mechanism for upward only rent reviews.  There was concern about how this might affect organisations that added substantial value to Runnymede’s communities.  It was noted that whilst this mechanism needed to remain in the strategy, there were other measures available to safeguard such organisations.  These measures included grant aid and a provision, within defined limits, as set out in Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The complexity of the health and safety policy elements of the strategy were reviewed.  These sections were necessarily detailed, in order to safeguard the Council and its interests.  These parts of the strategy would be kept under review.

 

It was proposed, seconded and agreed that the proposed motion be amended to read:

 

“The Asset Management Strategy and associated policies attached at appendix A be recommended to the Council for adoption, subject to:

 

1.     The amount in row 1 of appendix 8 (grant or renewal of a lease by officers) being retained at £100k.

2.     The various minor amendments discussed during the debate being incorporated into the strategy.”

 

It was resolved that the amended substantive motion be agreed.

 

[An addendum, which takes into account comments received from the Corporate Management Committee, has been attached to this supplementary summons.]

It was proposed (by Councillor T. Gracey) and seconded (by Councillor Howorth) that the recommendation of the Corporate Management Committee be agreed.

 

Resolved that the Asset Management Strategy and associated policies attached at appendix A be agreed, subject to:

 

·       The amount in row 1 of appendix 8 (grant or renewal of a lease by officers) being retained at £100k.

 

·       The various minor amendments detailed in the addendum to the report being incorporated into the strategy.

The report for this item was published as part of the agenda for the Corporate Management Committee on 23 February 2023.

 

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities had allocated a sum of money to Runnymede for the purchase of properties to house eight Ukrainian and Afghan families.  These properties, when vacated by these families, would then become part of the borough’s housing stock.  Other neighbouring local authorities had agreed to similar arrangements with the Department.

 

The Committee lauded the support that Runnymede had provided to Ukrainian and Afghan families, and noted the contributions that many had already made to their communities.

 

It was resolved that:

 

1.     Runnymede sign-up to the Local Authority Housing Fund scheme.

2.     The suggested delivery route, as outlined in the report, be agreed.

3.     Due to the unavailability of 1-4-1 receipts, additional use of the HRA working balance be approved, in accordance with the arrangements set out in the report.

4.     Authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Housing, in consultation with the Chairman of the Corporate Management Committee, to determine rent levels related to properties purchased via this scheme.

 

It was resolved that the following recommendation be made to the Council on 2 March 2023:

 

That the budget, as set out in the report, to purchase 8 properties to fulfil the requirements of the Local Authority Housing Fund, be agreed.

It was proposed (by Councillor J. Gracey) and seconded (by Councillor Hulley) that the recommendation of the Corporate Management Committee be agreed.

 

Resolved that the budget, as set out in the report, to purchase 8 properties to fulfil the requirements of the Local Authority Housing Fund, be agreed.

The report for this item was published as part of the agenda for the Corporate Management Committee on 23 February 2023.

 

The Pay Policy Statement was a statutory document that had to be published on an annual basis. 

 

The increase in the difference between the lowest and highest paid, when compared to the previous year, was noted.  The Corporate Head of Human Resources agreed to review the reasons for this and report back to the Human Resources Member Working Party.

 

It was resolved that the Pay Policy Statement 2023/24 be recommended for approval by the Council on 2 March 2023.

 

[Following the Corporate Management Committee’s meeting on 23 February 2023, where a query was raised about the pay ratio between the lowest paid and highest paid employee in last year’s Pay Policy Statement, the Corporate Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development liaised with Payroll and identified that there had been an error in that year’s Pay Policy Statement.  The ratio should have been reported as 1:7.424 and not 1:5.475.  There has therefore been a gradual reduction in the difference between the lowest and highest paid since 2020.]

It was proposed (by Councillor T. Gracey) and seconded (by Councillor Howorth) that the recommendation of the Corporate Management Committee be agreed.

 

It was resolved that the Pay Policy Statement 2023/24 be agreed.

The report for this item was published as part of the agenda for the Corporate Management Committee on 23 February 2023.

 

It was resolved that the Council, at its meeting on 2 March 2023, be recommended to propose Councillor Shannon Saise-Marshall as Mayor for the 2023/24 municipal year.

It was proposed (by Councillor T. Gracey) and seconded (by Councillor Willingale) that the recommendation of the Corporate Management Committee be agreed.

 

It was resolved Councillor Shannon Saise-Marshall be proposed as Mayor for the 2023/24 municipal year.

In accordance with Standing Order 7, Council is asked to consider candidates for the office of Deputy Mayor for 2023/24.

 

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

 

The nominee will be put forward as a candidate for the office of Deputy Mayor at the Annual Council meeting on 17 May 2023 providing that they are still a member of the Council.

 

(To resolve)

It was proposed (by Councillor T. Gracey), seconded (by Councillor Balkan) and resolved that Councillor Nick Prescot be proposed as Deputy Mayor for the 2023/24 municipal year.

At its meeting on 19 January 2023, the Corporate Management Committee commissioned an Appointments Sub-Committee to administer the recruitment to the newly created Assistant Chief Executive post.  As part of the report, the committee considered that, in the interest of ensuring an efficient timetable for recruiting to this post, it was necessary to seek delegated authority from the Council, to formally offer the role to the preferred candidate at the conclusion of the shortlisting and interview process.

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Corporate Management Committee be delegated authority to make a formal offer of employment for the role of Assistant Chief Executive, following consideration of the recommendation of the Appointments Sub-Committee.

It was proposed (by Councillor T. Gracey), seconded (by Councillor Howorth) and resolved that the Corporate Management Committee be delegated authority to make a formal offer of employment for the role of Assistant Chief Executive, following consideration of the recommendation of the Appointments Sub-Committee.

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

 

a) From Councillor Tom Gracey

 

This Council notes that the ULEZ expansion will add further costs for residents and businesses when budgets are already under pressure, disproportionately impacting those on lower incomes, including key workers required to commute to London.

 

There is no evidence that ULEZ expansion will deliver improved air quality in outer London boroughs, and there is a risk of worsening the situation on Surrey roads.  

Residents within Runnymede should not have to pay a London-centric tax which has been developed to provide a source of revenue generation to offset poor financial management on the part of the Mayor of London’s administration.

 

That the Council agrees and resolves the following:

 

a)    there is consistent and cross-party support for this Council to reduce its emissions and impact on the environment as quickly as practically possible;

 

b)    this Council does not support the expansion of the ULEZ.

 

c)     this Council rejects the proposal by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to expand the ULEZ £12.50 daily charge and potential large fines for non-compliant vehicles which will hit small businesses and those on lower incomes hardest;

 

d)    the evidence and economic modelling of the impact is wrongly focussed on the impact on Londoners and revenues for the Mayor of London, ignoring the impact on Runnymede residents who do not have access to the same tube and bus networks within the Greater London area;

 

e)    the roughly £400 million of government funding set aside for the Mayor to spend on reducing air pollution would be better spent on public transport, cycle ways, and other initiatives rather than a network of ULEZ cameras that penalise lower income households and those that must travel for work;

 

f)      that the Leader of Runnymede Borough Council writes to the Mayor of London to request that he reverse his current approach and replace it with a strategy that will benefit residents in neighbouring regions alongside those in his own jurisdiction;

 

g)    that the Leader of Runnymede Borough Council invites our local MP and group leaders of political groups on Runnymede Borough Council who are in agreement with the sentiments raised to co-sign the letter.

 

b) From Councillor Alex Balkan

 

Level Crossings Motion

 

This Council notes that:

 

·       Since the railway lines within the Borough were first bult, the impact of level crossings on local residents has increased hugely as the local population has expanded.

 

·       Residents have expressed ongoing concern about level crossing waiting times which can lead to traffic congestion, resulting air pollution from engine idling and can negatively impacts on the quality of life on residents living or working near level crossings in the Borough.

 

·       Network Rail continue to investigate innovative ways to reduce the number of level crossings across the railway network. This was highlighted in a 2019 report "Enhancing Level Crossing Safety 2019 - 2029".

 

·       There are ongoing works to improve the efficiency of the signalling at the crossings in the Egham area, however, whilst this work is aimed at improving safety at the crossings, it only marginally reduces the barrier down times which continue to impact on the daily lives of residents.

 

·       In Addlestone, crossing times have increased due to the length of trains being run on the local service being to long for the platform, resulting in barriers being lowered for longer.

 

·       One complicating factor to date has been the need to mitigate the risk of flooding in any proposed alternative infrastructure.

 

·       The progress and potential flood relief offered by the River Thames Scheme provides an opportunity to re-assess the feasibility of alternative solutions to a level crossing which could positively impact the lives of road users and local residents by reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality enhancing local connectivity.

 

That the Council resolves the following:

 

·       Runnymede Borough Council is committed to improving connectivity and reducing the negative impact of level crossings on our towns, including the environmental impact.

 

·       Runnymede Borough Council will continue to engage with all stakeholders from Network Rail, the Department of Transport, South Western Railways, Heathrow Southern Rail Link, residents groups and local businesses to pursue viable alternatives.

 

·       To support this the Leader of the Council will write to Network Rail to request a review of level crossing provision in the Borough in light of the development of the River Thames Scheme, and to provide a cost analysis for alternative options which could address the congestion and delays caused by the current level crossing sites in Runnymede.

Motion a)

 

The proposed motion, as set out in the summons, was moved by Councillor T Gracey, subject to a referral being made to the Corporate Management Committee.

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor Howorth.

 

Councillor R. King moved, seconded by Councillor A. King, that the motion be amended to read:

 

This Council notes that the ULEZ expansion will, without further support from central government, add further costs for residents and businesses when budgets are already under pressure from spiralling inflation under the present government, disproportionately impacting those on lower incomes, including key workers, facing below inflation pay rises, required to commute to London. Further compounded by the lack of interacted public transport, with TFL zoning and fare capping, and poor service courage by Surrey County Council subsidised services and those from commercial operators.

 

The Council also notes that the cuts to evening time services on bus route to Heathrow such as the number 8, makes driving the preferred option for many commuting or flying out of Heathrow.

 

There is evidence that ULEZ expansion will have a positive impact on reducing NOX emissions PM10 & PM2.5 emissions and be part of broader solutions to improved air quality in outer London boroughs, as highlight in the Jacobs’s study revision 04, 17 October 2022. There has however been no study is on how better integrated publics transport can improve the situation on Surrey roads. Residents within Runnymede should not have to pay a London-centric tax without London levels of financial support and transport coverage. It is completely reasonable to expect that the revenue raised from ULEZ should it go ahead should come with hand in hand with greater public transport levels and money to fix up Surrey’s roads which have been left to rack and ruin.

 

Recognises the affect the £7 billion debt TFL incurred between 2008/09 and 2015/16, under Mayor Boris Johnson, has had on TFL’s ability to weather the collapse in fare revenue due to Covid lockdowns, and that TFL under Mayor Khan prior to the pandemic was on track to paying off this debt and producing a surplus. As well as the piece meal support that TFL compared to the blank cheque train operators got during the pandemic, has had an effect on Cross Border Services not just for Surrey but also for London.

 

That the Council agrees and resolves the following:

 

a)    there is consistent and cross-party support for this Council to reduce its emissions and impact on the environment as quickly as practically possible;

 

b)    this Council does not support the expansion of the ULEZ, without central government who imposed this deal on TFL, funding an outer London scrappage scheme, similar in scope to the £110 million scrappage scheme the Mayor of London launched, which particularly targets support to low-income and disabled people, supports charities and has particular support to sole trader and smaller businesses;

 

c)     this Council rejects the proposal imposed on the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, by central government to expand the ULEZ £12.50 daily charge without the support for a scrappage scheme from central government and a commitment from central government of London level support for integrated public transport and fare structure.  Are concerned that without central government support for a outer London scrappage scheme business and residents will be landed with potential large fines for noncompliant vehicles;

 

d)    notes with concern the actions of Surrey County Council to block signage for ULEZ on Surrey assets and lack of proper consultation and debate which the Mayor of London has invited outer London authorities too and that this action by Surrey County Council could cost Surrey Tax Payers £100,000s of thousands of pounds in Legal fees. Right at the time the County is looking to cut £30 million out of its highways budget;

 

e)    the evidence and economic modelling of the impact is limited by central government is and reflected in that of TFL. Too little attention has been paid by the DFT in joining up services and offering holistic funding schemes, that bidding for funding restricts local authority who do not have the resources to expand this offering and respond to timescales like the ATE grants with close in weeks of being announced;

 

f)      the roughly £400 million of government funding set aside for the Mayor to spend on reducing air pollution supports the continued work TFL are doing on public transport, cycle ways, and other initiatives and that this Council recognises again we must have London levels of Public transport to make not using the car attractive;

 

g)    that this council joins the Mayor of London, in calling for an outer London scrappage scheme and join the Council’s Labour group in doing the same: https://www.london.gov.uk/Mayor%20of%20London%20calls%20for%20PM%20to%20back%20ULEZ%20with%20scrappage%20cash%20for%20London%20and%20Home%20Counties;

 

h)    that the Leader of Runnymede Borough Council writes to the Mayor of London to request that the current approach be paused whilst a review with outer London Boroughs takes place and negotiations with Central government take place to fix a scrappage scheme and improve it with a strategy that will benefit residents in neighbouring regions alongside with the positive work he has done in his own jurisdiction;

 

i)      that the Leader of Runnymede Borough Council invites our local MP and group leaders of political groups on Runnymede Borough Council who are in agreement with the sentiments raised to co-sign the letter.

 

The proposed motion and Councillor R. King’s proposed amendment were debated.  A named vote was requested on the proposed amendment and the voting was as follows:

 

For the amendment (12)

 

Councillors Berardi, Burton, Davies, Gillham, Jenkins, A. King, R. King, Mullens, Ringham, D. Whyte, S. Whyte and Williams.

 

Against the amendment (23)

 

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Broadhead, Bromley, Clarke, Coen, Cotty, Cunningham, Darby, Dennett, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Heath, Howorth, Hulley, N. King, Lewis, Olorenshaw, Prescot, Snow, Walsh, Willingale and Wilson.

 

Abstentions (1)

 

Councillor Harnden.

 

Councillor Heath moved, seconded by Councillor Willingale, that paragraph b) of the proposed motion be amended:

 

“this Council does not support the expansion of the ULEZ at this time”.

 

Councillor J. Gracey moved, seconded by Councillor Heath, that paragraph b) of the proposed motion be amended to read:

 

“this Council does not support the expansion of the ULEZ without full consultation, a cost-benefit analysis, and consideration of possible alternative measures to improve air quality”.

 

Councillor Heath withdrew her proposed amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 17.10.

 

Councillor J. Gracey’s proposed amendment was debated.  A named vote was requested on the proposed amendment and the voting was as follows:

 

For the amendment (25)

 

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Broadhead, Bromley, Burton, Clarke, Coen, Cotty, Cunningham, Darby, Dennett, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Heath, Howorth, Hulley, N. King, Lewis, Olorenshaw, Prescot, Snow, Walsh, D. Whyte, Willingale and Wilson.

 

Against the amendment (2)

 

Councillors Berardi and Ringham.

 

Abstentions (9)

 

Councillors Harnden, Davies, Gillham, Jenkins, A. King, R. King, Mullens, S. Whyte and Williams.

 

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

 

For the amended motion (25)

 

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Broadhead, Bromley, Burton, Clarke, Coen, Cotty, Cunningham, Darby, Dennett, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Heath, Howorth, Hulley, N. King, Lewis, Olorenshaw, Prescot, Snow, Walsh, D. Whyte, Willingale and Wilson.

 

Against the amended motion (2)

 

Councillors Berardi and Ringham.

 

Abstentions (9)

 

Councillors Harnden, Davies, Gillham, Jenkins, A. King, R. King, Mullens, S. Whyte and Williams.

 

The amended motion was carried.

 

Councillor R. King requested his concerns, namely that the Council had agreed a factually incorrect motion, be recorded.

 

Motion b)

 

With the agreement of the Mayor, the Leader of the Council, and the Chief Executive, the proposed motion was determined in accordance with Standing Order 15.6(b)(iii).

 

The proposed motion, as set out in the summons, was moved by Councillor Balkan.  Councillor Balkan altered the final bullet point of his motion in accordance with Standing Order 17.9 to read:

 

To support this the Leader of the Council will write to Network Rail to request a review of level crossing provision in the Borough in light of the development of the River Thames Scheme, and to provide a cost analysis for alternative options. This includes requesting an updated costing following the last feasibility study which previously took place in 2009-2010.

 

The proposed motion was seconded by Councillor Snow.

 

The proposed motion was debated by the Council.  As a result of the debate, Councillor Balkan further amended the resolution section of his proposed motion, in accordance with Standing Order 17.9:

 

That the Council resolves the following:

 

·       Runnymede Borough Council supports measures to reduce engine idling, including appropriate signage.

 

·       Runnymede Borough Council is committed to improving connectivity and reducing the negative impact of level crossings on our towns, including the environmental impact.

 

·       Runnymede Borough Council will continue to engage with all stakeholders from Network Rail, the Department of Transport, South Western Railways, Heathrow Southern Rail Link, Surrey County Council, the Local Government Association, residents groups and local businesses to pursue viable alternatives.

 

·       To support this the Leader of the Council will write to Network Rail to request a review of level crossing provision in the Borough in light of the development of the River Thames Scheme, and to provide a cost analysis for alternative options. This includes requesting an updated costing following the last feasibility study which previously took place in 2009-2010.

 

A named vote was requested on the proposed altered motion and the voting was as follows:

 

For the altered motion (34)

 

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Broadhead, Bromley, Burton, Clarke, Coen, Cotty, Cunningham, Darby, Davies, Dennett, Gillham, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Heath, Howorth, Hulley, Jenkins, A. King, N. King, R. King, Lewis, Mullens, Olorenshaw, Prescot, Ringham, Snow, Walsh, D. Whyte, S. Whyte, Williams, Willingale and Wilson.

 

Against the altered motion (0)

 

Abstentions (2)

 

Councillors Harnden and Berardi (due to his having left the meeting during the debate).

 

The altered motion was carried.

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

There was no minority group priority business.

To consider any items so resolved at the meeting.

There was no exempt business.

This item has been added to the agenda in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.  The requirement for the item was not confirmed until after the publication of the summons.

 

Reasons for urgency

 

It is necessary for the Council to consider whether to grant a dispensation under Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972.  The Mayor is of the opinion that the item is urgent because it cannot be held until the next ordinary meeting of the Council.

 

Recommendations a)    The Council is asked to consider whether it wishes to exercise its powers under Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972 by granting a dispensation to the attendance requirements for elected Members in recognition of Councillor Furey’s ill-health. b)    The Council is asked to agree the duration of the dispensation, to apply from 20 April 2023.

 

1.     Councillor Furey last attended a meeting of the authority on 20 October 2022 and has not been able to attend a meeting since then owing to ill health.

 

2.     Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that if a member of a local authority fails throughout a period of six consecutive months from the date of his/her last attendance to attend any meeting of the authority, he/she, unless the failure was due to some reason approved by the authority before the expiry of that period, will cease to be a member of the authority.

 

3.     Therefore, if Councillor Furey fails to attend any meeting of the authority due to take place before 20 April 2023, or any meeting of an outside body to which he has been appointed as the Council’s representative, he will cease to be a member unless the Council grants a dispensation.

 

4.     As this is the last ordinary meeting of the Council before 20 April 2023, it is suggested that in light of Councillor Furey’s continuing recuperation, members consider whether a dispensation should be granted.

This item was added to the agenda in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 for the following reasons:

 

“It was necessary for the Council to consider whether to grant a dispensation under Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972.  The Mayor was of the opinion that the item was urgent because it could not be held until the next ordinary meeting of the Council.”

 

It was resolved that:

 

1.     The Council exercise its powers under Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972 by granting a dispensation to the attendance requirements for elected Members in respect of Councillor Furey’s ill-health.

 

2.     That the duration of Councillor Furey’s dispensation be set at six months, to apply from 20 April 2023.