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

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the meeting held on 19 December 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cunningham, Mann, Mehta and Moudgil.

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.

In pursuance of Standing Order 12.1, speaking or questions from members of the public are not permitted at this meeting.

Public questions or speaking were not permitted at this meeting.

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

There were no petitions.

a) From Councillor Jaz Mavi to the Co-Leaders of the Council

“Given the recent speculation of further infrastructure development at Heathrow and the long held concerns by residents of the Borough around the potential impact on the environment and increased noise pollution: what is the administration's position in respect of a third, or extended, runway at Heathrow? Do all the leaders agree with this position?”

b) From Councillor Mark Nuti to the Co-Leaders of the Council

“The Surrey Leaders Group representing the 11 Surrey Borough’s and District’s signed a letter on 10th January addressed to the Minister of State for local government and English devolution stating that, and I quote, “we represent the entire political spectrum within Surrey”.

The letter goes on to say that, as there is a consensus across the political spectrum, the government should acknowledge their wish that County elections scheduled for May 2025 should go ahead.

Does the leadership agree with me that this letter is inaccurate and in fact our new co-leadership model was not in agreement. Therefore, there was not a consensus across the political spectrum and an apology explaining that Runnymede’s Labour leader does agree with the ministers’ outlined proposals, and, in fact, the Liberal Democratic leader, Green Party leader and an independent councillor leader disagree with him? No consensus!”

c) From Councillor Tom Gracey to the Co-Leaders of the Council

“Could the co-leaders provide an update on the latest round of household support funding?”

a) Councillor Jaz Mavi asked the Co-Leaders of the Council the following question:

“Given the recent speculation of further infrastructure development at Heathrow and the long held concerns by residents of the Borough around the potential impact on the environment and increased noise pollution: what is the administration's position in respect of a third, or extended, runway at Heathrow? Do all the leaders agree with this position?”

Councillor Gillham provided the Chamber with an overview of the Council’s discussions when the expansion at London Heathrow Airport was considered in 2018.  In doing so, she acknowledged that differing and often competing views were held both locally and nationally.  Councillor Gillham committed to maintaining both member and officer level engagement with Heathrow Airport Ltd, along with ensuring that current discussions at a national level were monitored.  Potential future options available to the Council included a task and finish group and a further motion of the Council, both of which could be considered at an appropriate time.

There were no supplementary questions.

b) Councillor Mark Nuti asked the Co-Leaders of the Council the following question:

“The Surrey Leaders Group representing the 11 Surrey Borough’s and District’s signed a letter on 10th January addressed to the Minister of State for local government and English devolution stating that, and I quote, “we represent the entire political spectrum within Surrey”.

The letter goes on to say that, as there is a consensus across the political spectrum, the government should acknowledge their wish that County elections scheduled for May 2025 should go ahead.

Does the leadership agree with me that this letter is inaccurate and in fact our new co-leadership model was not in agreement. Therefore, there was not a consensus across the political spectrum and an apology explaining that Runnymede’s Labour leader does agree with the ministers’ outlined proposals, and, in fact, the Liberal Democratic leader, Green Party leader and an independent councillor leader disagree with him? No consensus!”

Councillor R King drew Councillor Nuti’s attention to a recent meeting of Surrey County Council (SCC), during which he said that he had set out his group’s position on the impending round of local government reorganisations.  He added that he was supportive of the principles behind the proposed reorganisation in Surrey but that he remained sceptical about delaying the local elections in the absence of clarity over what SCC’s administration was seeking from the process.  Councillor R King said that his fellow co-leaders were entitled to take a stronger line on local government reorganisation and that they were all focused on delivering the best for the local community.

Councillor Nuti requested that Councillor R King address the substantive element of his question, namely whether he felt the letter from the co-leaders was inaccurate.  Councillor R King suggested that Councillor Nuti hold similar discussions with the Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and said that the matter of local government reorganisation would be debated by Runnymede’s councillors in due course.

Councillor Jenkins asked whether opportunities to consult with Runnymede’s residents on the reorganisation would be created?  Councillor R King said that members of his party ran for election on a platform of devolution, and that he welcomed suggestions for activities to assist with the Council’s due diligence activities around reorganisation.

c) Councillor Tom Gracey asked the Co-Leaders of the Council the following question:

“Could the co-leaders provide an update on the latest round of household support funding?”

Councillor Gillham said that for the sixth tranche of funding, between October 2024 and March 2025, the Council received less than in previous rounds due to expenditure on projects by Surrey County Council (£62,834). There was also a delay in districts and boroughs receiving funds with it only going live on 2 December 2024.  The first mid-point return sent to Surrey showed that the Council had processed 224 applications and that it had distributed £21,911 to 156 households by 31 December 2024.  It was stated that January was likely to have higher expenditure and a greater number of applications due to a school uniform campaign during the Christmas break and the recent poor weather.

Councillor Gracey asked what support residents affected by the removal of the winter fuel allowance or declined applications for pension benefits received in accessing household support funding or the newly introduced residents’ support fund?  Councillor R King said that officers had been contacting affected residents and that he would provide more information on the process and number of applications received outside the meeting.

The report, which had previously been reviewed by the Corporate Management Committee and the Standards and Audit Committee, was noted.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 8 January 2025 Regulatory Committee.

The Committee was asked to approve the revised Statement of Gambling Policy for the period 2025 – 2028, following an 8 week consultation period.

Members were advised that only one response to the consultation had been received.  Nevertheless, it was very useful feedback, which had prompted Officers to recommend two amendments to the revised statement, which the Committee was content to include.  The feedback had been received from GamCare, a national provider of information, support, and advice for anyone affected by gambling harms.  GamCare also operated the National Gambling Helpline.  The feedback was set out in full in the report and due regard was given thereto by the Committee.

The Committee agreed that GamCare’s suggestion to approach gambling as a public health issue was reasonable and proportionate and the commitment to work with partner agencies to improve health inequalities in the borough due to harmful gambling was welcomed.

In addition, it was agreed that within the Local Area Profile, useful data provided by GambleAware which was specific to Runnymede should be added to the infographics section of the Statement of Gambling Policy.

Members agreed the Statement of Gambling Policy was robust and set out a clear framework for regulation.

It was resolved that the revised Statement of Gambling Policy be approved, to be recommended for adoption by full Council on 6 February 2025.

It was proposed (by Councillor Harnden), seconded (by Councillor Kettle) and resolved that the Statement of Gambling Policy be approved.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 23 January 2025 Corporate Management Committee.

The Council was required undertake an annual review of its RIPA related activities and the policy which governed these.  It was confirmed that the Council had not used these powers since 2011 and that previous uses were largely attributable to benefits fraud related surveillance.

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to:

1)    Note that the Council had not used its RIPA powers during the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024.

2)    Adopt the proposed policy to govern the use of RIPA powers for the period 7 February 2025 to 5 February 2026.

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

1)    It be noted the Council had not used its RIPA powers during the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024.

2)    The proposed policy, to govern the use of RIPA powers for the period 7 February 2025 to 5 February 2026, be adopted.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 15 January 2025 Housing Committee.

The report was outlined to members. It was also proposed to transfer £30,000 of HRA funds to top up the Discretionary Housing Payment pot for which Secretary of State permission would be sought.

Queries were raised over the 40% increase in heating and hot water supplies in certain independent retirement living accommodation. It was explained that this was a result of the cost of heating rising significantly, although it was ensured that heating costs within individual accommodation could still be covered by housing benefit. Further queries were raised over if tenants had raised concerns over the increased costs. It was explained that tenants would be contacted and a hardship fund put in place for those who required it.

A further query was raised over the increase in salary expenditure between 2023/4 and 2024/5. It was explained this was the responsibility of the budget managers but that clarity would be sought.

A final query was raised over the close alignment of the probable and estimated budgets for the general management which would also be clarified.

It was resolved that:

1)    Members approved the draft estimates for 2025/26 as set out in Appendix A to be approved as submitted, and the Full Council be requested to make provision accordingly; and

2)    The proposed changes in rents and charges (including those for Housing General Fund services) for 2025/26, as set out in pages 84-5 of the agenda be approved to be effective either from the first rent week of April 2025, or 1 April as appropriate.

[Cllr T. Gracey refrained from voting on this item as he had not been present at the beginning of the discussion].

It was proposed (by Councillor Smith), seconded (by Councillor Davies) and resolved that:

1)    The draft estimates for 2025/26, as set out in Appendix A of the officer’s report, be approved and that provision be made accordingly.

2)    The proposed changes to rents and charges (including those for Housing General Fund services) for 2025/26, as set out in in the officer’s report, be approved to be effective either from the first rent week of April 2025, or 1 April as appropriate.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 23 January 2025 Corporate Management Committee.

The Committee reviewed the proposed strategy.  It was noted that the Capital Programme was now included in an overall budget report.  The modest changes from last year’s agreed strategy were highlighted, in particular those on page 76 of the agenda reports pack.

The low level of capital receipts remained a concern.  It was reported that this may dictate the need to utilise the existing framework for prioritising capital projects.

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to approve the Capital and Investment Strategy 2025/26 – 2028/29, as set out in Appendix A of the officer’s report.

It was proposed (by Councillor R King), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that the Capital and Investment Strategy 2025/26 – 2028/29, as set out in Appendix A of the officer’s report, be approved.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 23 January 2025 Corporate Management Committee.

The Committee reviewed the proposed strategy.  Changes to this strategy were limited to the minimum revenue provision policy statement.  The Committee’s attention was drawn to the prudential indicators set out in Appendix B of the officer’s report, along with the new International Accounting Standard definition for leases.  It was noted that the level of internal borrowing from cash balances was not sustainable and that external borrowing was likely to be needed to replace this as the Council’s reserves and balances reduced.

Officers were thanked for their work in putting the Council on a solid financial footing, and for the favourable performance of the Council’s treasury management function when compared to other local authorities.

It was resolved that the report be noted, and that the Council be recommended to approve the following:

1)    The proposed 2025/26 Treasury Management Strategy encompassing the Annual Investment Strategy.

2)    The Prudential and Treasury Management Indicators for 2025/26.

3)    The Authorised Limit for external borrowing by the Council in 2025/26, be set at £705,246,000 (this being the statutory limit determined under Section 3 (1) of the Local Government Act 2003).

4)    The MRP Policy Statement for 2025/26 as set out in paragraph 7.16 of the officer’s report.

It was proposed (by Councillor R King), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that the following be approved:

1)    The proposed 2025/26 Treasury Management Strategy encompassing the Annual Investment Strategy.

2)    The Prudential and Treasury Management Indicators for 2025/26.

3)    The Authorised Limit for external borrowing by the Council in 2025/26 of £705,246,000 (this being the statutory limit determined under Section 3 (1) of the Local Government Act 2003).

4)    The MRP Policy Statement for 2025/26 as set out in paragraph 7.16 of the officer’s report.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 23 January 2025 Corporate Management Committee.

The draft budget had been prepared following consideration of matters such as fees and charges, various supplementary documents including the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), and inflation.  Members’ attention was, in particular, drawn to the statement of the Chief Financial Officer at Appendix G of the officer’s report.

Work on identifying savings and efficiencies was ongoing, with this workstream being kept under review by the Standards and Audit Committee.  To date, approximately £1.4m of savings and efficiencies had been identified for 2025/26.  Details of the savings and efficiencies that had been identified and their impact on the Council’s financial position had been factored into the MTFS.

A budget envelope for the annual staff pay uplift was proposed.  A delegation to progress these discussions was sought for the Chief Executive.  It was explained that the proposed 2.25% increase may not be reflected across all pay grades, and that a graduated increase to salaries, dependent on individual pay grades, was one possible outcome of the discussions with the union.  This impact of grade compaction also needed careful consideration.  It was stated by a member of the Committee that the ongoing pay and grading review may present budgetary challenges in the future, but that it was correct to undertake this task and that it was in the Council’s interest to pay its staff fairly.

Various proposals for ringfenced budgets were highlighted to the committee.  One of these proposals related to ensuring that there were resources available for anticipated workstreams associated with the impending local government reorganisation.  Uses for this budget would potentially include the commissioning of consultants or the backfilling of posts where postholders were facilitating local government reorganisation related workstreams.  It was confirmed that any requests for additional funding would require Committee approval.  The frugality with using the previously agreed budget for responding to the non-statutory best value notice was highlighted.

Consideration had been given to recent increases in national insurance employer contributions.  The Council would be receiving a grant to offset some of this cost, although the grant was not expected to cover the full cost of the increase.  It was explained that the Council’s exposure to contractor related increases was more limited than many boroughs because Runnymede delivered a number of its services in-house.   Contractual provisions would dictate whether suppliers could pass on increased national insurance costs to the Council.

Changes to the way in which business rates were collected, brought about by the fairer funding review, were likely to reduce income for the Council.  It was also likely that the current pooling arrangement across Surrey would need to be reviewed once the full impact of the fairer funding review was known.

The extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme was mentioned.  Whilst it had been included in the proposed budget for 2025/26, it was not advisable to assume that it would continue in future years.  Any future inclusions would therefore positively impact future years’ budgets.

Members’ attention was drawn to remarks made earlier in the meeting about the low level of capital receipts.  The Council had previously committed to using capital receipts gained from the sale of assets funded by debt to pay down its borrowing.  It was therefore important to begin identifying alternative sources of income, and for careful consideration to be given to the urgency of various capital projects, using the aforementioned framework for doing so.

There was a debate about the performance of the Council’s assets.  It was stated the Council’s assets had delivered more gross income, but less net income than in the previous year.  It was also noted that the Council owned a number of challenging assets, the leases for many of which would be coming to an end in the near future.  A request was made to reinitiate the Property and Assets Task Force to keep the Council’s assets under close member scrutiny.

Plans to begin cross-party work on reviewing the working capital of Runnymede’s companies was mentioned.  It was expected that this work would commence within 6-8 weeks, and that officers would contact members about this separately.  In response to a query about when the previously delayed Runnymede company annual general meetings would be held, it was confirmed that this was expected to be by the end of March.

It was resolved that, following consideration of the updated Medium-Term Financial Forecast at Appendix A and the statement of the Chief Financial Officer at Appendix G of the officer’s report:

1)    The Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive) be authorised to enter into pay negotiations with staff and Union representatives within the total provision set out in the officer’s report.

2)    The Council be recommended to approve:

a)    The Revised Budget for 2024/25 and Revenue Budget Estimates for 2025/26, as set out in the officer’s report and at Appendix D of the officer's report.

b)    An increase to the Band D Council Tax level of 2.99% (£5.69) from £190.45 to £196.14.

c)    The maintenance of the minimum threshold for the General Fund Working Balance at £5m.

d)    The creation of, and transfers to and from reserves as set out in the officer’s report, including:

i)      Use of up to £250,000 from the Service Transformation Fund to support the Council’s response to the devolution white paper and proposals for local government reorganisation, expenditure from which to be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Corporate Management Committee.

ii)     Use of £570,000 per annum over 10 years as Voluntary Revenue Provision for the repayment of debt.

iii)   Transfer of £250,000 for the creation of a new reserve to support changes to service delivery required as a result of the implementation of national waste and recycling measures.

e)    The Capital Programme as set out at Appendix F of the officer’s report.

A named vote was held on the resolution above, with the voting noted as follows:

In favour (8)

Councillors R. King, Gillham, Cressey, Jenkins, Milstead, Ringham and Smith.

Against (0)

Abstentions (4)

Councillors Gracey, Howorth, Hulley and Mavi.

The Council discussed the proposed budget.

In proposing the budget, Councillor R King stated it prioritised fiscal prudency (such as holding robust levels of reserves) and support with day-to-day living costs for the borough’s residents.  He listed what he saw as key budgetary achievements for the administration including the reduction of the Council’s budget gap, the borough’s financial inclusion strategy, and the continuing work with developing the Council’s special purpose vehicles.  It was further added that challenges remained around the Council’s capital programme, in particular low levels of capital receipts, and the number of leases due to end in the near future.

Councillor Hulley joined Councillor R King in welcoming the robustness of the Council’s reserves, attributing this to the previous administration’s prudent financial planning.  He added that he was relieved to see the previous year’s proposed reductions to staffing in the Chief Executive’s office, as set out in the then opposition alternative budget, had not featured in this year’s proposals.  The as yet fully unknown impact of the national insurance increase both to the Council and its suppliers was also noted.  Councillor Hulley said that, because of this, he was minded to abstain from voting.

Councillor Howorth set out his group’s discussions and advised the Chamber that they had decided to offer a ‘free vote’, in the interests of depoliticising budget discussions.

Councillor Mullens advised the Chamber that the increase in national insurance employer contributions were a government imposition and that this should not draw support away from the proposed budget.

Councillor King, in drawing a close to the discussion, drew members’ attention to approximately £1m of unallocated funding on salaries.  He asserted that this was not evidence of previous prudent financial management.  Examples of matters beyond the Council’s control that affected Runnymede’s financial position were provided.  This included hospital waiting lists which in turn increased the numbers of people out of work and drawing on benefits.  He agreed that the previous administration’s decision to increase the level of reserves was a wise one.

It was proposed (by Councillor R King), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that, following consideration of the updated Medium-Term Financial Forecast at Appendix A and the statement of the Chief Financial Officer at Appendix G of the officer’s report, the following be approved:

1)    The Revised Budget for 2024/25 and Revenue Budget Estimates for 2025/26, as set out in the officer’s report and at Appendix D of the officer's report.

2)    An increase to the Band D Council Tax level of 2.99% (£5.69) from £190.45 to £196.14.

3)    The maintenance of the minimum threshold for the General Fund Working Balance at £5m.

4)    The creation of, and transfers to and from reserves as set out in the officer’s report, including:

a)    Use of up to £250,000 from the Service Transformation Fund to support the Council’s response to the devolution white paper and proposals for local government reorganisation, expenditure from which to be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Corporate Management Committee.

b)    Use of £570,000 per annum over 10 years as Voluntary Revenue Provision for the repayment of debt.

c)    Transfer of £250,000 for the creation of a new reserve to support changes to service delivery required as a result of the implementation of national waste and recycling measures.

5)    The Capital Programme as set out at Appendix F of the officer’s report.

A named vote was required on the resolution above, with the voting noted as follows:

In favour (29)

Councillors Gill, Harnden, Berardi, Cressey, Davies, Day, Gahir, Gates, Gillham, Graham, Jenkins, Kettle, A King, R King, Lee, Milstead, Mullens, Nuti, Parry, Ringham, Rowsell, Saise-Marshall, Singh, Smith, Snow, Tucker-Brown, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

Against (1)

Councillor Furey.

Abstentions (7)

Councillors Clarke, Eldridge, Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Lewis and Mavi.

It was resolved that formal approval of the Council Tax Resolution be deferred to a meeting of the previously established Council Tax Setting Committee or a future meeting of the Council, as considered appropriate by the Assistant Chief Executive (S151), once all precept notifications had been received.

No motions have been registered under Standing Order 15.

There were no notices of motion.

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.