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 ordinary meeting on 27 February 2025.

·       The extraordinary meeting on 17 March 2025.

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

·       The ordinary meeting on 27 February 2025.

·       The extraordinary meeting on 17 March 2025.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Berardi, Cunningham, Davies, Furey, Kettle, Mavi and Milstead.

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.

Agenda item 8d – Outside body appointment to Sir William Perkins’s School - recommendation from the Corporate Management Committee

Councillors Harnden and Rowsell declared interests and left the meeting during consideration of this item.

a) Question from Mr John Osborn to the Co-Leaders of the Council:

“The Egham Tabletop Society is one of the community's fastest growing groups, and depends on local car parking infrastructure to remain viable. Do the Co-Leaders accept that raising charges in Egham's car parks without consultation will be detrimental to groups like ours, which are important to the social well-being of our area?”

a) Parking charges in Egham

Mr Osborn put his question to the Co-Leaders of the Council.

Councillor D Whyte, responding on behalf of the Co-Leaders, stated:

“We care a great deal about the vibrancy of our town centres and want them to be accessible to everyone, whether as an individual or part of a group.

Raising charges in our car parks is part of the annual budget setting process and as such is not subject to consultation. However, we welcome all comments and suggestions from residents, businesses or groups on parking or any other matter. So, in answer to your question, we believe that raising car park charges will help to secure the future of our car parking infrastructure across Runnymede.

Car park income is ring fenced and can only be spent on our car parks.  In recent years the car parks have received very little investment, and we were faced with a decision that could not be avoided any longer. We now need to carry out a range of works to ensure that they remain safe, secure, efficient and functional. This work will seriously deplete the car parks reserve that have been set aside.  As an example, it would cost tens of thousands of pounds to resurface and to repaint the lines, which is urgently required in some of our car parks.

Going forward, it is important that we ensure that our resident-facing assets, such as the car parks, are in as good a condition as we can get them, within the constraints of funding and time, to safeguard them as far as is possible within the future local government regime.

I would also add that, beyond the Runnymede’s car parks, there is free on-street parking across the borough.

Finally, I want to re-assure you that all comments and input we have received will be fed into the annual review of car park fees and charges, later this year.”

Mr Osborn asked, as a supplementary question, whether a lack of consultation was detrimental to residents, businesses and other organisations?

Councillor D Whyte referred to remarks that he made in his previous response, in particular the need for significant urgent works in some car parks.  He added that the increased charges, whilst regretful, were for the benefit of users across the borough’s car parks.

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

a) Councillor Jenkins has given notice that he intends to present a petition entitled “Oppose Increases to Car Parking Charges in Runnymede”.

Councillor Jenkins presented a petition entitled “Oppose Increases to Car Parking Charges in Runnymede”.

a) From Councillor Jenkins to Councillor D Whyte as Chair of the Environment and Sustainability Committee

“When the Alliance was formed, all of its signatories agreed to act in the best interests of the community by "involving residents, businesses and the third sector, keeping them informed, and reflecting their views in developing policy and commissioning / delivering effective and efficient services". Yet the Alliance has introduced sweeping increases to parking charges that will put people off from visiting the Borough, participating in local activities or supporting High Street businesses. Please can the Chair of Environment and Sustainability explain why no public consultation was organised before this decision was taken?”

b) From Councillor Snow to Councillor Ringham as Co-Leader

“For many months now The Addlestone Bowls Club has been dealing with different departments within RBC trying to move  their request to become a Community Interest Company (CIC) forward.

The bowls club is under pressure from within RBC to continue with their existing financial arrangement which has become unviable.

The goal is to focus on and increase involvement with local community organisations as well as support individual people within the local community with club volunteers.

The CIC structure will allow this to be achieved.

Cllr Ringham as Co Leader and ward councillor for this particular ward I am sure you agree with me that this is a good proposal and that any delay in the proposal could jeopardise the very existence of this valuable Community Club.

So why as a Co Leader do you appear reluctant to drive this forward to a successful conclusion?”

a) Councillor Jenkins asked Councillor D Whyte as Chair of the Environment and Sustainability Committee:

“When the Alliance was formed, all of its signatories agreed to act in the best interests of the community by "involving residents, businesses and the third sector, keeping them informed, and reflecting their views in developing policy and commissioning / delivering effective and efficient services". Yet the Alliance has introduced sweeping increases to parking charges that will put people off from visiting the Borough, participating in local activities or supporting High Street businesses. Please can the Chair of Environment and Sustainability explain why no public consultation was organised before this decision was taken?”

Councillor D Whyte replied in the following terms:

“As you know, car park charges are part of the annual budgetary review of all fees and charges, both statutory and discretionary. The review for the 25/26 charges was conducted against a background of the need to make significant savings and increase revenues in order to be able to deliver a balanced budget in the medium term. As a consequence of all the work that went into this latest budget setting process, the budget challenge was reduced from £5.2m to £3.9m over the next three years. The widely-referred-to current level of the car park reserve fund has already been earmarked for various future improvements and upgrades. Therefore, we have had to raise charges in order to carry out necessary further improvements and remedial work, as there isn’t money elsewhere to subsidise it. 

As already mentioned tonight, the review of car parking charges was simply one element of the budget setting process and as such not subject to consultation. We do not have to consult with businesses or the community prior to any increase in fees.

Section 35c of the Road Traffic Act 1988 deals with the power to vary the charges contained within the Authority’s Parking Orders for off street parking.”

Councillor Jenkins asked whether Councillor D Whyte would support a change to the Council’s petitions scheme to permit the use of change.org petitions?  Councillor D Whyte said that he was happy for the Constitution Member Working Party to consider this request.

Councillor Parry asked whether Councillor D Whyte wished to thank officers for their recent work in addressing issues at a number of car parks, in particular Chertsey Library?  Councillor D Whyte said that significant work had been done to improve a number of car parks and to make more effective of the space available.  He extended his thanks to officers.

b) Councillor Snow asked Councillor Ringham as Co-Leader:

“For many months now The Addlestone Bowls Club has been dealing with different departments within RBC trying to move  their request to become a Community Interest Company (CIC) forward.

The bowls club is under pressure from within RBC to continue with their existing financial arrangement which has become unviable.

The goal is to focus on and increase involvement with local community organisations as well as support individual people within the local community with club volunteers.

The CIC structure will allow this to be achieved.

Cllr Ringham as Co Leader and ward councillor for this particular ward I am sure you agree with me that this is a good proposal and that any delay in the proposal could jeopardise the very existence of this valuable Community Club.

So why as a Co Leader do you appear reluctant to drive this forward to a successful conclusion?”

Councillor Ringham said that he had not been involved in any discussions with Addlestone Bowls Club.  In speaking about the impact of unitarisation of councils across Surrey on local sports clubs, Councillor Ringham said that Runnymede, as a borough council, was fortunate to have been able to financially support the number of sports clubs that it had.  Due to the uncertainty of local government reorganisation, he said that it was important for any clubs that received grants from the council to begin considering their financial sustainability.  He added that the Council was willing to work with clubs that were interested in becoming community interest companies.

Councillor Snow asked what was being done to ensure that clubs which supported residents with learning difficulties were not affected in the coming year?  Councillor Ringham said that decisions needed to be fair to all clubs whilst also recognising the Council’s financial challenges.

Councillor Tucker-Brown asked whether conversations with clubs interested in becoming community interest companies would be a priority?  Councillor Ringham confirmed that he would continue working with clubs that approached the Council.

Councillor Smith asked whether clubs that had the necessary commitment and skillset could share their expertise for the benefit of other clubs interested in becoming community interest companies?  Councillor Ringham encouraged any club interested in self-management to approach the Council and that he would ask officers to reach out to clubs that were affected.  He committed to making the process as frictionless as possible.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 30 January 2025 Standards and Audit Committee, which made its recommendations to the 20 March 2025 Corporate Management Committee.

The Corporate Management Committee recommended that the revised Local Code of Corporate Governance be adopted.

It was proposed (by Councillor R King), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that the revised Local Code of Corporate Governance be adopted.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 26 March 2025 Planning Committee.

The recommendation of the Planning Committee was considered by the Corporate Management Committee on 10 April 2025.  The Planning Committee and officers were thanked for their work on this item.

It was resolved that the following recommendations be put to the Council:

1.    That Planning Policy Advisory Group be constituted with effect from 14 May 2025 (this being the date of the annual meeting of the Council).

2.    That the terms of reference for the Planning Policy Advisory Group, as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer’s report to the Planning Committee, be agreed.

It was proposed (by Councillor S Whyte), seconded (by Councillor Gates) and resolved that:

1.     A Planning Policy Advisory Group be constituted with effect from 14 May 2025 (this being the date of the annual meeting of the Council).

2.      

The terms of reference for the Planning Policy Advisory Group, as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer’s report to the Planning Committee, be agreed.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 20 March 2025 Corporate Management Committee.

Following questions from the Committee, members were advised that:

·         Many public bodies had referenced the ‘Nolan principles’ in their staff codes of conduct, and that this was the proposal for Runnymede Borough Council.

·         In order to manage member and officer workloads, it was proposed to limit each relevant committee to convening one task and finish group (TFG) at a time.

·         The default position was for officers to not be involved in supporting TFGs, as they were intended to provide an opportunity to discuss matters privately among members.

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to adopt the proposed changes to the Constitution, as detailed in the officer’s report, to come into effect at the beginning of the municipal year i.e. 14 May 2025.

It was proposed (by Councillor Ringham), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that the proposed changes to the Constitution, as detailed in the officer’s report to the Corporate Management Committee, be adopted, to come into effect at the beginning of the municipal year i.e. 14 May 2025.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 20 March 2025 Corporate Management Committee.

There was widespread sympathy from the Committee for the councillor who had been prevented from taking up the outside body appointment, and disappointment was expressed about the breakdown of the relationship between the Council and the outside body concerned.

Several members confirmed their support to recommend to Full Council the withdrawal of nominating a Council representative to the board of management, whilst there was support elsewhere to either offer the outside body a further opportunity to accept the Council’s nomination, or to seek a different avenue of communication with the school.  The prospect of formally challenging the school’s position was raised but discounted.

During the debate it was noted that the school had recently changed its Articles of Association that meant it would require three Council nominations for one position going forward, which would require each nominee to attend an interview and one appointment made from those interviews.  It was considered that the Council’s appointment pre-dated this requirement, however repeated attempts by officers to bring this to the school’s attention had yielded no progress.

Several Committee members expressed their willingness to re-engage with the school should their stance on the subject change in future, but it was considered that in light of the current impasse the withdrawal of a Council representative should be recommended to Full Council.

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to withdraw from nominating a Council representative to the board of management for Sir William Perkins’s School.

[Councillors Harnden and Rowsell declared interests and left the meeting during consideration of this item.]

The Council expressed its regret at the issues that had been experienced with Councillor Gahir’s appointment to the management board of Sir William Perkins’s School.

It was proposed (by Councillor King), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that the Council withdraw from nominating a representative to the board of management for Sir William Perkins’s School.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 18 March 2025 Standards and Audit Committee.

The Committee was asked to review and endorse the first annual report of the Standards and Audit Committee.  This was recommended best practice from CIPFA to local authorities to provide assurance to those charged with governance that the Committee fulfils its purpose and can demonstrate its impact both internally and to the public.  The CIPFA position statement was appended to the Officer’s report.

The annual report set out the Committee’s:

·       terms of reference

·       membership details

·       highlights, and a summary of work undertaken during the year

·       a focus on external and internal audit

·       the governance framework

·       oversight of complaint handling

·       risk management

·       external review and self-assessment

·       performance and effectiveness

Officers highlighted some of the major pieces of work for the Committee during the year which illustrated its increased profile with particular regard to improved risk reporting and dealing with the Non-Statutory Best Value Notice response programme.

Prior to its submission to the full Council, Officers agreed to reflect the election of Councillor Gillham as the new Vice-Chair of the Committee at paragraph 2.3 of the annual report.

An area of continued concern was signing off the previous external auditor’s reports an update on which was imminently expected.  Officers were asked to expedite the letters in respect of the former External Auditors, which it had been agreed would be produced at a previous meeting, publish them on the Council’s website and share with the Committee any subsequent feedback arising therefrom.

It was resolved that the Standards and Audit Committee Annual Report 2024/25, as amended, be endorsed and referred to the Council for approval.

It was confirmed that the letter of complaint to BDO had been prepared by officers, in consultation with the Chair of the Standards and Audit Committee, and was expected to be sent imminently.  Further letters would be sent to Public Sector Audit Appointments and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to make them aware of the complaint. Formal complaints to these two bodies could only be considered once the complaints process with BDO had been completed, in accordance with the respective complaints process of each body.

It was proposed (by Councillor Singh), seconded (by Councillor Gillham) and resolved that the Standards and Audit Committee Annual Report 2024/25, as amended, be approved.

The report associated with this item was circulated to all members with the agenda for the 27 March 2025 Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee.

A summary of the Treasury Management Strategy, Prudential and Treasury Management Indicators, and Minimum Revenue Provision Statement were presented to the Committee.

The only proposed change to the Treasury Management Policy for 2025/26 was that the Council would continue to actively seek opportunities to apply Voluntary Revenue Provision (VRP) payments or general MRP overpayments as and when conditions allowed.

The work of the Council’s Finance team was praised by the Committee, in particular in relation to the work around IFRS16 and the complexity of assessing multiple leases.  The work on the PWLB loans was also positively reflected, and the importance of ensuring members were provided with the knowledge and data to make key financial decisions was emphasised.

Officers were asked how the Council balanced the objectives of security, liquidity, and yield in its investment decisions, and it was advised that the Council prioritised safety and security above liquidity and yield, with the majority of cash investments in fixed-term deposits (that provide higher certainty from planning perspective and minimise interest rate risk exposure)and the remainder in high quality (AAA-equivalent) Money Market Funds.   A proactive outlook was in place in order to identify any funds that were underperforming.

Noting that the Council would be considering the need to start borrowing from 2027, officer advice felt that given the current interest rates forecasts, it would be likely to borrow on a shorter-term basis in order to benefit from lower interest rates.  Advice was being sought on an ongoing basis from treasury advisors and the borrowing process aimed to be as transparent as possible.

It was resolved that Committee recommended to the Council that –

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

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

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 be approved.

The Council noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee endorsed the approach previously adopted by the Council, namely items one to four as set out in the summons.

It was proposed (by Councillor Saise-Marshall), seconded (by Councillor Mann) and resolved that:

1.     The proposed 2025/26 Treasury Management Strategy, encompassing the Annual Investment Strategy, be approved.

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

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 be approved.

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

a) From Councillor Jonathan Hulley

Council notes that:

Angela Rayner (the Deputy Prime Minister) has published a planning and infrastructure bill designed to liberalise planning rules.

The Local Government Association has written to ministers to express reservations about this plan.

Council believes that:

The proposed changes will lead to the vast majority of planning decisions being made with no input from Councillors.

It is the democratic role of councillors to be involved in the decision making process of planning applications.

Removing the ability for councillors to discuss, debate or vote on key developments in their localities could erode public trust in the planning system and local government itself.

Council resolves:

That the Leader of the Council writes to Angela Rayner (the Deputy Prime Minister), outlining its opposition to this plan.

That the Planning Committee prepares mechanisms for Councillors to express views on planning applications related to their ward

b) From Councillor Sam Jenkins

This Council notes:

·       In November 2024, the RCA Alliance Administration imposed new charges on car parks across the Borough, including: flat evening (£2) and overnight (£3) parking fees and an increase the cost of annual permits(1).

·       When the RCA Alliance Administration was formed, all of its participants pledged to involve residents, businesses and the third sector in policy making by keeping them informed and reflecting on their views.

·       The parking charge increases were agreed without any public consultation.

This Council believes that:

·       The new charges will put people off from visiting our High Streets, damaging the local economy and making it harder for small charities and local clubs to survive.

·       The main rationale offered by the Alliance for introducing these changes is the Council’s ‘significant financial challenge’ and reducing parking budgets (2).  However under the previous Conservative administration, General Fund Revenue income from car parks was forecast to increase from £98k to £106k (3).

·       More than 700 residents have signed a Change.Org petition calling for the changes to be reversed (4).  This petition as well as the sheer volume of direct feedback Councillors have received from residents demonstrates the public strength of feeling on this issue, and the need to ensure that their voices are properly heard before making decisions that will impact their daily lives.

This Council Resolves to ask the Environment and Sustainability Committee:

1)    To consider commissioning a public, transparent survey to allow local businesses, community organisations and residents the opportunity to share their views on the new charges that have been introduced in RBC’s car parks.

2)    To review the feedback from this survey and any subsequent recommendations that may follow within 6 months of today’s date (24th April).

Footnotes:

(1) (2) Parking fees and charges review

(3) Budget Information 2024 to 2025 (see page 10/95)

(4) Oppose Increases to Car Parking Charges in Runnymede - Change.org

a) Planning and Infrastructure Bill

The proposed motion, as set out in the summons, was moved by Councillor Hulley.

The proposed motion was seconded by Councillor Snow.

The proposed motion was debated by the Council, with the key points raised summarised below:

·       The Bill would result in reduced democratic accountability for the planning process.

·       Decision making would be made further from the communities that it affected.

·       The Bill, and the associated national scheme of delegation, was not sufficiently developed to enable the Council to express an informed view.

·       Some elements of the Bill would have a positive impact for residents.

·       Not responding to the proposed Bill at an early stage would miss an opportunity to influence it before decision makers’ views had ‘crystalised’.

·       Some areas of the borough, such as designated public open space, already had a high level of protection as a result of the Council’s policies.  It was further suggested that this is where the Council’s efforts in representing residents’ interests should be made.

·       The Council had recently expressed its view on another Bill and that not to do so for this Bill was inconsistent.

The proposed motion was the subject of a named vote, with the voting noted as follows:

In favour (14)

Councillors Clarke, Cressey, Day, Eldridge, Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Jenkins, Lewis, Mann, Nuti, Saise-Marshall, Snow and Tucker-Brown.

Against (19)

Councillors Harnden, Gahir, Gates, Gillham, Graham, A King, R King, Lee, Mehta, Moudgil, Mullens, Parry, Ringham, Rowsell, Singh, Smith, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

Abstentions (1)

Councillor Gill.

The proposed motion therefore FELL.

b) Survey on parking charges

The proposed motion, as set out in the summons, was moved by Councillor Jenkins.

The proposed motion was seconded by Councillor Howorth.

The proposed motion was debated by the Council, with the points raised summarised below:

·       The recently agreed parking charges had had a disproportionate effect on various community organisations, carers supporting vulnerable residents, and businesses.

·       The new charges would have a detrimental effect on footfall in town centres.

·       Varying the budget, particularly during the financial year, would have a negative impact on the Council’s finances.

·       Whilst increasing the car parking charges had been difficult, the Council’s car parks were in need of significant investment in order to address deferred maintenance, and improve accessibility and safety.

·       There was no statutory obligation to consult on fees and charges, which were agreed as part of the annual budget setting process.

The proposed motion was the subject of a named vote, with the voting noted as follows:

In favour (14)

Councillors Clarke, Cressey, Day, Eldridge, Gracey, Howorth, Hulley, Jenkins, Lewis, Mann, Nuti, Saise-Marshall, Snow and Tucker-Brown.

Against (20)

Councillors Gill, Harnden, Gahir, Gates, Gillham, Graham, A King, R King, Lee, Mehta, Moudgil, Mullens, Parry, Ringham, Rowsell, Singh, Smith, D Whyte, S Whyte and Williams.

Abstentions (0)

The proposed motion therefore FELL.

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.