Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Centre. View directions

Contact: Mr G Lelliott 

Items
No. Item

549.

Mayor's Announcements

Minutes:

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

550.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 156 KB

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

Minutes:

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.]

551.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

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

552.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

553.

Speaking or Questions from Members of the Public under Standing Order 12

Minutes:

There were no public questions or speaking.

554.

Petitions

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

Minutes:

There were no petitions.

555.

Questions from Members of the Council under Standing Order 13

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

Minutes:

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 555.

556.

Recommendations from Committees

556a

Asset Management Strategy and associated policies - recommendation from the Corporate Management Committee pdf icon PDF 52 KB

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,  ...  view the full agenda text for item 556a

Minutes:

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.

556b

Local Authority Housing Fund - recommendation from the Corporate Management Committee

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.

Minutes:

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.

556c

Pay Policy Statement - 2023/24 - recommendation from the Corporate Management Committee

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.]

Minutes:

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.

556d

Preliminary Consideration of Mayoral Selection - recommendation from the Corporate Management Committee

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.

Minutes:

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.

557.

Preliminary Consideration of Deputy Mayoral Selection

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)

Minutes:

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.

558.

Delegated Authority to Appoint an Assistant Chief Executive

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.

Minutes:

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.

559.

Notices of Motion from Members of the Council under Standing Order 15

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  ...  view the full agenda text for item 559.

Minutes:

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 559.

560.

Minority Group Priority Business

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

Minutes:

There was no minority group priority business.

561.

Press and Public to be Excluded by Resolution

To consider any items so resolved at the meeting.

Minutes:

There was no exempt business.

562.

Urgent business - Local Government Act 1972 – Section 85: attendance dispensation

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.

Minutes:

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.