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 meetings of the Council held on 17 May 2023 and 29 June 2023.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the Standing Appointments Sub-Committees held on 5 June 2023 and 16 June 2023.

The minutes of the following meetings were confirmed and signed as a correct record:

·       Council – 17 May 2023.

·       Council – 29 June 2023.

·       Standing Appointments Sub-Committee – 5 June 2023.

·       Standing Appointments Sub-Committee – 16 June 2023.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Burton, Clarke, Cunningham, Davies, Furey, Nuti and Walsh.

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.

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

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 Sam Jenkins to the Leader of the Council

“Over four sessions during the last few weeks, Councillors received the opportunity to undertake Carbon Literacy training. This training was designed to equip Councillors with a better understanding of what needs to be done to tackle climate change. One of the sessions addressed ‘turning points’ that Runnymede could experience at a local level if emissions continue to rise, such as increased flooding, drought, lack of access to food, water and vital resources and even civil unrest. Meanwhile it was announced in May that scientists now believe the Earth’s temperature will exceed 1.5C by 2027, before Runnymede’s intended Net Zero target of 2030. Given all of this, does the Leader of the Council agree with me that Runnymede should declare a Climate Emergency as soon as possible?”

b)    Question from Councillor Robert King to the Leader of the Council

“What forward planning is taking place for greater levels of support this winter time as residents, already impacted by the cost-of-living crisis, will again be struggling to keep the lights on, keep cupboards full and keep a roof over their heads?”

c)    Question from Councillor Rhys Davies to the Leader of the Council

“Will the Leader apologise to residents who were impacted by the grounds maintenance chaos, with parks and public spaces left in a mess and is he any closer to knowing how much of residents money his administration has wasted on the purchase of incorrect equipment for the service?”

d)    Question from Councillor Abby King to the Leader of the Council

“A number of small businesses have written to myself and my group colleagues looking for workshop and production space in the Borough, which is both affordable and meets their needs so they can grow as firms. As the council owns a large portfolio of office space, a significant proportion of which is vacant, is the Leader developing a strategy to convert existing estates to provide affordable workshop and production spaces needed for these local engines of growth?”

e)    Question from Councillor Eliza Kettle to the Leader of the Council

“The footpath which runs from Bagshot Road to Blays Lane, next to Englefield Green Cemetery, despite repeated efforts by my colleague Cllr Abby King to lobby Surrey County Council continues to be left unkept, untidy and overgrown. Will the Leader join myself and other Englefield Green Councillors in asking Surrey to take action to clean up and cut back the overgrown path to help our residents have a clean and safe route home?”

f)      Question from Councillor Nick Prescot to the Leader of the Council

“The progress of the sale of Barbara Clark House has been long and slow. Whilst the sale of the land has been completed; there is no date for the redevelopment of the land by PA housing.

Whilst I understand there is the section 47 element to be completed along with the arrangements of the S106, this is a needed capital receipt for  ...  view the full agenda text for item 33.

a) Councillor Sam Jenkins asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

“Over four sessions during the last few weeks, Councillors received the opportunity to undertake Carbon Literacy training. This training was designed to equip Councillors with a better understanding of what needs to be done to tackle climate change. One of the sessions addressed ‘turning points’ that Runnymede could experience at a local level if emissions continue to rise, such as increased flooding, drought, lack of access to food, water and vital resources and even civil unrest. Meanwhile it was announced in May that scientists now believe the Earth’s temperature will exceed 1.5C by 2027, before Runnymede’s intended Net Zero target of 2030. Given all of this, does the Leader of the Council agree with me that Runnymede should declare a Climate Emergency as soon as possible?”

The Leader responded in the following terms:

“I too attended the Council’s Carbon Literacy training and understand the very sincere intent with which your question is asked. I would note though that the situation we are facing in regard to our environment is not new. We have debated this item a number of times. As has been said on those occasions, we favour action and results, rather than rhetoric and soundbites.

Runnymede has been working on reducing our carbon footprint and being more sustainable for a number of years. In our Corporate Business Plan approved last year we incorporated a climate change strategy setting out our ambitions to become a net zero council by 2030 and support the transition to becoming a net-zero borough by 2050.

We have more than 6 staff focussed on supporting this strategy which is more resource than any other Surrey district or borough that I am aware of.

Rather than obsessing on an almost Canute-ean desire to make a declaration, what we are and should be doing is demonstrating to our residents real action and a plan to deliver more. There are numerous examples of councils who have declared a climate emergency and yet have not delivered on their net zero commitments. ??

The priority at Runnymede is to get on with making things happen.

We have:

·         Transitioned the meals at home service to an electric fleet, saving 7 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year.

·         Installed solar panels on two of our day centres.

·         Delivered a high EPC rated transformative regeneration scheme in the heart of Egham

·         Planted 2,250 trees in the last four years

·         Supported local, corporate and national activity through the Great Big Green week

·         Adopted a new procurement strategy that rewards climate friendly approaches

·         Secured grants to fund renewable energy installation in residents’ private homes

·         Begun investing £13 million in upgrading our social housing

I am not aware of any instance where declaring a set form of words has delivered more than the achievements of this Council. I am proud of the work we are doing and thank councillors and officers for their continued focus, support and hard work on this important area.”

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Prior to commencing this item, the Council took an opportunity to thank Paul Turrell (the outgoing Chief Executive) for his service to the borough and it residents.  Mr Turrell was wished well for his retirement.

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that:

1)    That Andrew Pritchard be appointed to the role Head of Paid Service of Runnymede Borough Council, holding the position of Chief Executive and Electoral Registration Officer and Returning Officer.

2)    That a salary as stated in the report for Council on 29 June 2023 apply from 1 August 2023.

The report and appendices associated with this recommendation were circulated to all members with the agenda for the 25 May 2023 meeting of the Corporate Management Committee and are available on the Council’s website.

The Code of Corporate Governance had been reviewed by the Standards and Audit Committee the previous night and was recommended for approval by the Corporate Management Committee, prior to its consideration by the Council on 20 July 2023.

The format of the Code of Corporate Governance had been updated to reflect the  structure of the Annual Governance Statement.  The Code was reviewed on an annual basis, in order to ensure that it remained reflective of the current governance arrangements.  A new process for reviewing the Code was included in the report.

Following a question regarding webcasting, it was confirmed that the next opportunity to review this would be the budget setting process for 2024/25.  The proposed member training and development programme was welcomed.  It was suggested that a skills audit, to supplement the proposed programme, be considered.

It was resolved that the Local Code of Corporate Governance be recommended to the Council for approval.

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey), seconded (by Councillor Howorth) and resolved that the Local Code of Corporate Governance 2023/24 be agreed.

The report and appendices associated with this recommendation were circulated to all members with the agenda for the 8 June 2023 meeting of the Environment and Sustainability Committee and are available on the Council’s website.

The Committee was asked to endorse and recommend to Full Council recommendations by officers in relation to updating the Land Drainage Byelaws.

Members were advised that Section 34 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 which gave Runnymede the power to create the Land Drainage Byelaws 1984 was repealed by the Water Consolidation Act 1991 and then superseded by the Land Drainage Act 1991.  Although the existing byelaws remained in force the legislation they refer to was not and therefore there would be no legal basis to enforce them.

The proposed byelaws for Runnymede Borough Council were based on the Model Land Drainage Byelaws for local authorities, which were produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).  The use of model byelaws was not compulsory but would help to ensure that byelaws were correctly worded and were within the authority’s powers, thus reducing the risk of legal challenge.

Runnymede had several watercourses and ditches.  The Environment Agency being responsible for rivers.

The Committee welcomed the proposal to update the byelaws and therefore hold people to account.

It was noted that many private owners were not aware of their riparian responsibilities when living close to a watercourse.

It was resolved to recommend to Full Council that:

1)    the proposal to update the drainage byelaws, as set out in Appendix A to the report be endorsed: and

2)    the Council consult with Defra, Natural England and the local navigation authority on the Council’s proposal to make the drainage byelaws; and

3)    subject to there being no objections by Defra, Natural England and the local navigation authority to the informal consultation, the byelaws be made; and

4)    the Head of Environmental Services in consultation with the Principal Engineer, be authorised to consider and seek to resolve any objection to the said byelaws being made (including amending the proposed byelaws); and

5)    the byelaws be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation with or without any outstanding objections (as the case may be); and

6)    in the event these byelaws are adopted by the Council, authority be delegated to the Principal Engineer to:

a)    authorise or refuse any applications for consents submitted under the said byelaws.

b)    serve enforcement notices for contraventions of the said byelaws.

It was proposed (By Councillor Coen), seconded (by Councillor Mavi) and resolved that:          

1.     The proposal to update the drainage byelaws, as set out in Appendix A to the report, be agreed.

2.     The Council consult with Defra, Natural England and the local navigation authority on the Council’s proposal to make the drainage byelaws.

3.     Subject to there being no objections by Defra, Natural England and the local navigation authority to the consultation, the byelaws be made.

4.     The Head of Environmental Services, in consultation with the Principal Engineer, be authorised to consider and seek to resolve any objection to the said byelaws being made (including amending the proposed byelaws).

5.     The byelaws be submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation with or without any outstanding objections (as the case may be).

6.     In the event these byelaws are adopted by the Council, authority be delegated to the Principal Engineer to:

a)    Authorise or refuse any applications for consents submitted under the said byelaws.

b)    Serve enforcement notices for contraventions of the said byelaws.

The report and appendices associated with this recommendation was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 13 July 2023 meeting of the Corporate Management Committee and are available on the Council’s website.

The Committee’s recommendations will follow after it has met.

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey) and seconded (by Councillor Howorth) that the approach set out in the report, with regard to the identification and delivery of savings, income generation and efficiencies be agreed.

Members debated the proposals set out in the report.  It was felt by some that, due to the significance of the workstream and its potential impact on services, greater scrutiny of any proposals put forward was required by service committees.

It was argued that the process had been designed to allow the process to move forward quickly in order to realise potential savings and efficiencies as soon as possible.  Some members also felt that the ability for all members to attend and participate the proposed working parties (to be considered under a later agenda item) provided the member participation that was sought.

Following a debate on the proposals before the Council, a named vote was requested.  The voting was as follows:

In favour of the proposed motion (15)

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Bromley, Balkan, Coen, M.D. Cressey, M.K. Cressey, Dennett, Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Lewis, Mavi, Prescot, Willingale and Wilson.

Against the proposed motion (17)

Councillors Berardi, Gates, Gill, Gillham, Harnden, Jenkins, Kettle, A. King, R. King, Mullens, Ringham, Singh, Smith, Snow, D. Whyte, S. Whyte and Williams.

Abstentions

Councillor Mann.

The proposed motion therefore fell.

The report and appendices associated with this recommendation were circulated to all members with the agenda for the 6 July 2023 meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Select Committee and are available on the Council’s website.

The Committee was provided with an overview of the topics covered over the past twelve months, which included treasury management and a call-in relating to the process of the appointment of a new chief executive.

The Committee was disappointed with the sparsity of the items covered, and made clear an intention to fully utilise meetings to build on good performance in addition to establishing lessons learned.

The Vice-Chair in the chair suggested scheduling additional meetings if required, and the Committee came up with proposals for a work plan for the coming year, which included:

·       Integrated care partnership.

·       Open spaces and grass cutting, which should include an invitation to Surrey County Council to attend.

·       Statistics from the reporting side of the website to understand the most common matters reported by residents.  This should include proactive communication to encourage residents to report the things that matter to them most.

·       The role of the Runnymede SAG in approving community events to ensure an appropriate balance between the introduction of Martyn’s Law and not imposing unnecessary barriers that would discourage community groups from hosting events.

The Committee agreed to recommend the annual report to Full Council, but asked for an update on the breach of counterparty limits reported in September 2022.  It was also asked that Members be provided with a copy of the Committee’s terms of reference as set out in the Council’s constitution.

            Resolved that –

The Committee recommended the annual report to Council in July 2023.

It was proposed (by Councillor Prescot), seconded (by Councillor Lewis) and resolved that the Overview and Scrutiny Function – Annual Report be agreed.

Synopsis of report: This report seeks authority to commence the process to designate streets within Chertsey Town Centre in which street trading is permitted, specifically Guildford Street.

Recommendation(s): The Corporate Head of Law and Governance be authorised to proceed with public consultation to designate Guildford Street, Chertsey as a licence street to permit street trading, assess the responses to the consultation and proceed with the designation of Guildford Street as a licence street if appropriate, pursuant to the Council’s powers under Schedule 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982

On the 8^th June 2023 The Environmental and Sustainable committee resolved that The Corporate Head of Law and Governance be authorised to review the designation of licenced streets in the Borough pursuant to its powers under Schedule 4 of the Local Government (MiscellaneousProvisions) Act 1982, and a public consultation be undertaken to designate Guildford Street, Chertsey as a licence street to permit street trading.

As outlined in point 5.9 of the report, this however should be presented to and agreed by Full Council before an authorisation is given to start the consultation process.

If the Full Council agrees with this report's recommendations and the overall support from the E&S committee to take this action forward, Officers will proceed to take the steps outlined in point 5.10 of the report.

It was proposed (by Councillor Coen), seconded (by Councillor Mavi) and resolved that:

1)    The Corporate Head of Law and Governance be authorised to review the designation of licensed streets in the borough, pursuant to powers under Schedule 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

2)    Public consultation to designate Guildford Street, Chertsey as a licensed street to permit street trading proceed.

Member Working Parties

Report attached.

Developer Contributions Advisory Group

The Corporate Management Committee, at its meeting on 19 January 2023, agreed that a Developer Contributions Advisory Group be constituted, consisting of the following individuals:

·       The Leader of Runnymede Borough (or their nominated Representative) [Advisory Group Chairperson]

·       The Chairman of the Planning Committee

·       The Chairman of the Environment and Sustainability Committee

·       The Chairman of the Community Services Committee

·       The Chairman of the Housing Committee

·       The Council’s Corporate Leadership Team (Chief Executive, Assistant Chief Executive(s), The Corporate Head of Law and Governance)

The full terms of reference for the advisory group, as agreed by the Corporate Management Committee on 19 January 2023, can be found on pages 24-25 of this agenda.

Recommendations:

The Council is asked to:

1)    Endorse the creation of a Developer Contributions Advisory Group, in accordance with the arrangements set out within the Corporate Management Committee report.

2)    Authorise the Corporate Head of Law and Governance to make any necessary amendments to the Council’s Constitution to give effect to the Developer Contributions Advisory Group.

Member working parties

Members requested that working party papers have greater visibility among all members by distributing them via the same method as committee papers.

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey), seconded (by Councillor Willingale) and resolved that:

1)    The revised Working Party structure be introduced with effect from 1st August 2023 and be reviewed at the end of the municipal year.

2)    That delegated authority be given to the Corporate Head of Law and Governance to make necessary amendments to the Council’s Constitution to give effect to the changed structure and composition of Working Parties.

3)    That delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive (or Assistant Chief Executive (S151) in his absence) to agree the composition and membership of Working Parties following discussions with group leaders.

Developer Contributions Advisory Group

It was proposed (by Councillor Willingale) and seconded (by Councillor Gracey) that:

1)    The creation of a Developer Contributions Advisory Group, in accordance with the arrangements set out within the Corporate Management Committee report, be endorsed.

2)    The Corporate Head of Law and Governance be authorised to make any necessary amendments to the Council’s Constitution to give effect to the Developer Contributions Advisory Group.

There was extensive debate about the proposals before the Council.  Some members felt that there was a lack of democratic accountability, particularly with regard to the use of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding for local/ward level projects.  It was alleged that the proposals created a Cabinet-like group which, it was felt by those stating this, was not appropriate in a committee based system of governance.  It was reported that some councillors had been approached by residents expressing concerns about the proposed process.

Other members stated that a balance between local and borough-wide strategic use of the CIL needed to be struck, and that having extensive ward member presence would make achieving this balance more challenging.  It was also suggested that there was a clear process for consulting residents on the local use of CIL funding.

Following a debate on the proposals before the Council, a named vote was requested.  The voting was as follows:

In favour of the proposed motion (11)

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Bromley, Balkan, Coen, Dennett, Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Mavi, Prescot and Willingale.

Against the proposed motion (22)

Councillors Berardi, M.D. Cressey, M.K. Cressey, Gates, Gill, Gillham, Harnden, Jenkins, Kettle, A. King, R. King, Lewis, Mann, Mullens, Ringham, Singh, Smith, Snow, D. Whyte, S. Whyte, Williams and Wilson.

Abstentions (0)

The proposed motion therefore fell.

The Council’s Constitution provides the following provision for designating minority groups, for the purposes of consideration of minority group business in accordance with Standing Order 23:

“a political group which is not the majority group, if there is a majority group. If there is no majority group, the Council may designate any political group or groups as a minority group for the purposes of Standing Orders”.

As the Council, following the local election on 4 May 2023, no longer has a majority group, the Council is invited to consider which groups it wishes to designate as minority groups for the purposes of Standing Order 23.  This item may be subject to reconsideration, should there be any changes in the political groups represented on the Council.

Officer’s recommendation:

That the Council agree which groups on the Council be formally designated as “minority groups” for the purposes of Standing Order 23.

It was proposed (by Councillor Gracey) seconded (by Councillor Willingale) and resolved that all current political groups be designated as “minority groups” for the purposes of Standing Order 23.

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

a)    From Councillor Abby King

Cost of living crisis – Free Period Products in Runnymede Borough Council Buildings

1. This council notes that:

a. In 2022 a survey commissioned by Action Aid UK found nearly one in eight women in Great Britain had recently struggled to buy menstrual products – either for themselves or for a dependent.

b. The charity found that girls across the country were cutting down on food and school supplies in order to afford period products. Of those who struggled to afford menstrual products, 75% had needed to prioritise spending money on food and 49% needed to prioritise spending money on gas/electric.

c. A number of councils across the UK, including Surrey County Council, Oxford City Council and Southwark Council, have all set up or agreed to schemes to provide free period products.

d. In a YouGov survey undertaken last year two thirds of Britons supported making it a legal requirement for local authorities to provide free period products.

2. This council believes that:

a. The cost of living crisis has forced many women to prioritise other household essentials such as food, clothes and heating over menstrual products.

b. No one should experience period poverty.

3. This council resolves to:

a. Ask the Community Services Committee to look at ways to provide free, and where possible sustainable, period products in all of the council’s public accessible toilets and buildings including leisure centres, libraries and community centres.

b) From Councillor Steve Ringham

Public Consultation on Proposed Closure of SouthWestern Railway Ticket Offices

1. This Council notes that

a.    There are 6 train stations across the borough - Addlestone, Byfleet & New Haw, Chertsey, Egham, Longcross and Virginia Water. All of which bar Longcross currently have some level of manned ticket office operation.

b.   These stations will be impacted by the “Station Change Proposal” - see Appendix 1 for link - as they are identified as type 2,3 or 4 stations.

c.   Egham and Virginia Water stations will be upgraded to contactless payment by December 2023 (not to be confused with Oyster Zone membership).

d.   1.3 million UK adults were identified as “unbanked” in 2019 - having no bank account.

e.   15 Disability Charities, including Transport For All, RNIB, RNID and Guide Dogs have written to the Secretary of State with their objections to the proposals.

f.     Not all ticket fares can be purchased via Ticket Vending Machines. Some such as 50% Wheelchair User Discount can only be purchased at a ticket office.

g.   Travellers can only get refunds at ticket offices

2. This Council believes that 

a.     The proposed measures are about cutting costs rather than a genuine attempt to improve the traveller experience.

b.     The proposed changes do not demonstrate sufficiently how they will deliver real benefit to all travellers.

c.     Having a manned ticket office provides a more universal and consistent customer experience, especially for vulnerable travellers, if compared to trying  ...  view the full agenda text for item 39.

Motion a)

The proposed motion, as set out in the summons, was moved by Councillor A. King, subject to a referral being made to the Community Services Committee.

Councillor Ringham seconded the proposed motion.

The proposed motion was debated by the Council.

Councillor Ringham proposed (seconded by Councillor R. King) that the final paragraph of the proposed motion be amended to read as follows:

“Ask the Community Services Committee to look at ways to provide free, and as a preference, plastic-free and bio-degradable, period products in all of the council’s public accessible toilets and buildings including leisure centres, libraries and community centres.”

The proposed amendment was put to the vote and carried.

The amended motion was carried:

1)    This council notes that:

a)    In 2022 a survey commissioned by Action Aid UK found nearly one in eight women in Great Britain had recently struggled to buy menstrual products – either for themselves or for a dependent.

b)    The charity found that girls across the country were cutting down on food and school supplies in order to afford period products. Of those who struggled to afford menstrual products, 75% had needed to prioritise spending money on food and 49% needed to prioritise spending money on gas/electric.

c)    A number of councils across the UK, including Surrey County Council, Oxford City Council and Southwark Council, have all set up or agreed to schemes to provide free period products.

d)    In a YouGov survey undertaken last year two thirds of Britons supported making it a legal requirement for local authorities to provide free period products.

2)    This council believes that:

a)    The cost of living crisis has forced many women to prioritise other household essentials such as food, clothes and heating over menstrual products.

b)    No one should experience period poverty.

3)    This council resolves to:

a)    Ask the Community Services Committee to look at ways to provide free, and as a preference, plastic-free and bio-degradable, period products in all of the council’s public accessible toilets and buildings including leisure centres, libraries and community centres.

Motion b)

The proposed motion, as set out in the summons, was altered by Councillor Ringham in accordance with Standing Order 17.9 to read as follows:

This Council notes that

a)    There are 6 train stations across the borough - Addlestone, Byfleet & New Haw, Chertsey, Egham, Longcross and Virginia Water. All of which bar Longcross currently have some level of manned ticket office operation.

b)    These stations will be impacted by the “Station Change Proposal” - see Appendix 1 for link - as they are identified as type 2,3 or 4 stations.

c)    Egham and Virginia Water stations will be upgraded to contactless payment by December 2023 (not to be confused with Oyster Zone membership).

d)    A number of residents also choose to use one of a number of stations on the boundaries of the borough due to the current level of service offered. These include the stations of Staines, Woking, West Byfleet and Weybridge, all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

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.