The Mayor provided an update on the events and engagements that she had attended since the last Council.  As this was her final meeting as Mayor, Councillor Harnden also recounted various highlights from her Mayoral year.

The Mayor, joined by members from across the chamber, paid tribute to Councillors Broadhead, Cotty, Heath and N. King who were retiring from their roles as councillors for Runnymede Borough Council.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 2 March 2023.

The minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 2 March 2023 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N. King and Ringham.

If Members have an interest in an item, please complete a member interest form and email it to Democratic.Services@runnymede.gov.uk by 5pm on the day of the meeting. Members are advised to contact the Corporate Head of Law and Governance prior to the meeting if they wish to seek advice on a potential interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no public questions or speaking.

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

There were no petitions.

a)    Question from Councillor Sam Jenkins to the Leader of the Council

“Our recently adopted Climate Change Strategy encourages the local community to support the Council’s work in tackling climate change. Recently a campaign was initiated at Royal Holloway, led by the President of the Students’ Union, to encourage the university to stop investing in fossil fuel companies. A letter in support of this campaign was signed by over 200 students and staff. Please can the Leader of the Council confirm if Runnymede Borough Council has any active business interests involving coal, gas or oil companies, and if so can this information be made available to the general public?”

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

“Many women in Runnymede experiencing domestic violence understandably feel too afraid to approach service providers. Given Runnymede doesn’t have a fully funded women’s centre, how does Runnymede work with women who experience domestic violence, and their families, to enable them to access advice and urgent support without fear?”

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

“With even one of the cheapest areas in Runnymede for buying a first home over 8 times the average household income, it is completely unaffordable to be approved for a mortgage.  What advice would the leader give to those trying to buy their first home in Runnymede Council’s area under this administration and is it doing enough to support them?”

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

“What is Runnymede Council doing to inform residents when water companies dump sewage into our local rivers, to keep them safe from the pollution and mitigate the risk of residents and their pets falling ill from contaminated water?”

e)    Question from Councillor Alex Balkan to the Leader of the Council

“Would the Leader of the Council agree with me that whilst Councillors and officers efforts to improve the transparency of its services have seen progress over the last year, there is more that can be done to further improve this in the coming years. Would the Leader support that in the coming year we develop a calendar on the Council website, which includes the scheduled activities to be undertaken by the DSO across our range of services including bin collection, grass cutting, street cleaning etc?”

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

“Our recently adopted Climate Change Strategy encourages the local community to support the Council’s work in tackling climate change. Recently a campaign was initiated at Royal Holloway, led by the President of the Students’ Union, to encourage the university to stop investing in fossil fuel companies. A letter in support of this campaign was signed by over 200 students and staff. Please can the Leader of the Council confirm if Runnymede Borough Council has any active business interests involving coal, gas or oil companies, and if so can this information be made available to the general public?”

The Leader responded in the following terms:

“I can confirm that Runnymede Borough Council does not directly invest in fossil fuel companies. Investments undertaken by our Treasury Management function are governed by the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy, with our approach to Environmental, Social and Governance issues covered in section 14 of the Strategy and in Appendix F of the accompanying Treasury Management Practices which you will recall were approved by Full Council in February 2023.

However, there is a possibility that the Council may have some exposure via the funds it invests in. The Council invests funds with CCLA Investment Management. Whilst their own funds are subject to their ESG Policy (which considers climate change, biodiversity and the environment) their trading mandate allows for investment in companies that generate more than 10% of their revenue from the extraction and/or refining of oil and gas.

The Council also places deposits with banks and building societies and with Money Market Funds. It is possible, though less likely, that some indirect exposure to fossil fuel companies may exist as a result of these investments.”

There were no supplementary questions.

b) Councillor Abby King asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

“Many women in Runnymede experiencing domestic violence understandably feel too afraid to approach service providers. Given Runnymede doesn’t have a fully funded women’s centre, how does Runnymede work with women who experience domestic violence, and their families, to enable them to access advice and urgent support without fear?”

The Leader responded in the following terms:

“Your question is very timely, following a letter received last week from NHS England, on behalf of the Women’s Support Centre Surrey, based in Woking, which due to a financial shortfall is at risk of closure. 

Within this letter, given that the Women’s Centre is available to support women from across Surrey, a request for a contribution of £15,000 from each district and borough council in Surrey was made, that would address the financial shortfall and allow for more sustainable financial models to be considered. 

I am pleased to confirm that Runnymede Borough Council, through its 22/23 budgets, has been able to commit its support with the requested sum and I have asked for the preparation of an SO42 to be brought forward so we can make this contribution as soon as possible. 

The Woking Women’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 698.

The report and appendices associated with this recommendation were circulated to all members with the agenda for the 23 March 2023 meeting of the Corporate Management Committee and are available on the website.

An overview of the changes that had been made to the suite of documents was provided to the Committee.  New documentation aimed to provide prospective suppliers with useful information about the Council’s procurement processes.  The importance of good practice and minimising instances of noncompliance was emphasised to the Committee. 

It was noted that further changes were expected in 2024 as a result of the Procurement Bill that was currently making its way through Parliament.  The changes that were the subject of this report therefore sought to put the Council in a favourable position for adopting further changes later on.

The Committee explored the sections relating to social value and sustainable procurement.

There was discussion about the level of resource available in the procurement team.  The Committee was keen to ensure that staff were not overstretched by the quantity of work likely to arise from this report.  The Head of Procurement, once appointed, would be tasked with monitoring workloads.

Recent discussions on sharing services with a neighbouring authority had been paused due to difficulties in reaching an agreement on the division of a shared team’s resources between the participating authorities. Surrey districts and boroughs had however recently compiled a shared contract register with a view to sharing procurement activities on individual projects. Opportunities to share services would however continue to be explored as and when appropriate.

It was resolved that the Procurement Strategy and associated policies be recommended to Council for adoption.

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 Procurement Strategy and associated policies be adopted.

The report and appendices associated with this recommendation were circulated to all members with the agenda for the 23 March 2023 meeting of the Corporate Management Committee and are available on the website.

The Committee reviewed the proposed changes to the Constitution, following their review by the Constitution Member Working Party.  The way in which the changes were presented had changed from previous years, with the aim of providing greater clarity to members.  It was noted that the Corporate Management Committee agenda documents would not be reproduced for Council.

There was discussion about the proposed process for alternative budgets.  Concerns were raised about the speed at which opposition groups were expected to prepare their budget proposals.  It was however stated that the administration’s proposed budget would ordinarily be available approximately one week before the relevant Corporate Management Committee and that opposition groups would not be asked for their proposals until nearer the budget setting Council meeting.  The moveable nature of meetings meant that it was not possible to offer greater flexibility in the process.

The proposed five day expectation for staff to respond to member enquiries, having been debated by the Member Working Party, could be revisited in due course, should it be necessary.

It was resolved that the following recommendations be made to the Council on 27 April 2023.

1)    That the updates to the Constitution be adopted at the beginning of the 2023/24 municipal year i.e. from 18 May 2023 (subject to the deletion of a repetitious entry on page 168 of the agenda pack).

2)    That Surrey County Council’s withdrawal from The Runnymede Joint Committee be noted.

3)    That Runnymede Borough Council withdraws from the Runnymede Joint Committee with immediate effect, thus bringing about the Joint Committee’s dissolution.

4)    That the Corporate Head of Law and Governance be delegated authority to make any unforeseen and necessary changes to the Constitution, arising from the dissolution of the Runnymede Joint Committee, in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

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

It was resolved that:

1.    The proposed updates to the Constitution be adopted at the beginning of the 2023/24 municipal year i.e. from 18 May 2023 (subject to the deletion of a repetitious entry on page 168 of the agenda pack).

2.    Surrey County Council’s withdrawal from the Runnymede Joint Committee be noted.

3.    Runnymede Borough Council withdraw from the Runnymede Joint Committee with immediate effect, thus bringing about the Joint Committee’s dissolution.

4.    The Corporate Head of Law and Governance be delegated authority to make any unforeseen and necessary changes to the Constitution, arising from the dissolution of the Runnymede Joint Committee, in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

The report and appendices associated with this recommendation were circulated to all members with the agenda for the 23 March 2023 meeting of the Corporate Management Committee and are available on the website.

The proposed scheme had been drafted in accordance with the previously adopted recommendations of the independent remuneration panel (i.e. uplifts in accordance with the annual staff pay award).

It was resolved that the following recommendations be put to the Council on 27 April 2023:

1.     The 2022/23 Members’ Allowances Scheme be withdrawn with an end date of 16 May 2023 inclusive.

2.     An updated Members’ Allowances Scheme (as attached at appendix 1 of the officer’s report), to incorporate a 3% uplift with the basic allowance and special responsibility allowances, be agreed with an implementation date of 17 May 2023 inclusive.

Note: The recommendation of the Corporate Management Committee was to implement the new Members’ Allowances Scheme with effect from Annual Council on 17 May 2023.  It is however a requirement of the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 for allowances schemes to commence from 1 April each year.  The following recommendations are therefore put to the Council:

1.     The 2022/23 Members’ Allowances Scheme be withdrawn with an end date of 31 March 2023 inclusive.

2.     An updated Members’ Allowances Scheme (as attached at appendix 1 of the officer’s report), to incorporate a 3% uplift with the basic allowance and special responsibility allowances, be agreed with an implementation date of 1 April 2023 inclusive.

3.     That any required payments or recovery of sums paid to holders of special responsibility allowances be backdated to 1 April 2023 inclusive.

It was proposed (by Councillor T. Gracey) and seconded (by Councillor Willingale) that the recommendations of the Corporate Management Committee be agreed, subject to the subsequent amendment stated in the summons also being agreed.

It was resolved that:

1)    The 2022/23 Members’ Allowances Scheme be withdrawn with an end date of 31 March 2023 inclusive.

2)    An updated Members’ Allowances Scheme (as attached at appendix 1 of the officer’s report), to incorporate a 3% uplift with the basic allowance and special responsibility allowances, be agreed with an implementation date of 1 April 2023 inclusive.

3)    Any required payments or recovery of sums paid to holders of special responsibility allowances be backdated to 1 April 2023 inclusive.

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

a)    From Councillor Jonathan Hulley

This Council recognises the impact that breaches of planning rules can have on local communities. This Council recognises that, whilst Planning Enforcement is not a statutory responsibility and is therefore not allocated ring-fenced funding, Runnymede Borough Council remains committed to maintaining and developing our Planning Enforcement resource.

This Council welcomes the recent increase in resource that has been allocated to support Planning Enforcement and re-affirms its support for the RBC Planning department in upholding national and local planning guidance.

The importance of this issue is also recognised by our Member of Parliament who has been campaigning to strengthen the legislative framework in respect of planning enforcement both the through the administration of sanctions and the ability to track repeated offenders through a national database.

Therefore, we call on the Council to:

·       Reaffirm our commitment to upholding planning rules through the use of enforcement where warranted.

·       Express its support for our Planning team working to deliver this.

·       Request the Leader of the Council to write to our MP outlining our support for his campaign to give local authorities increased powers of enforcement.

·       Hold discussions with our MP to advocate for Planning Enforcement to become a statutory service

b)    From Councillor Marissa Heath

This Council notes that it has set out a comprehensive outline plan to tackle its carbon emissions and to play its role in addressing climate change. Since this plan was agreed further evidence has been published through the 6th IPCC report highlighting the importance of action on every front. This means we all have a role to play from residents and local authorities to national government. The IPCC report also set out that avoiding the worst ravages of climate breakdown is still possible, and there are “multiple, feasible and effective options” for doing so. Government have set out ambitious targets and County, Borough and District councils have set out strategies on howe to deliver this. We must also support our residents in shifting to low carbon lifestyles.

This Council will continue to take action locally to reduce carbon emissions and the Council will continue to work collaboratively with other councils, the community and businesses and also seek expertise where possible to further its objectives.

Therefore, this Council agrees to:

·       Recognise the strong work so far undertaken by officers and members in delivering a robust strategy and way forward;

·       Will actively support and work with businesses and local organisations in moving towards net zero;

·       Will join UK100 and utilise the resources offered through this body to take forward our strategy.

Motion a)

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

The motion was seconded by Councillor Mann

The proposed motion was debated by the Council. As a result of the debate, Councillor Hulley altered his proposed motion, in accordance with Standing Order 17.9 as follows:

·       Amend the third bullet point to read “Request the Leader of the Council to write to our MP outlining our support for his campaign to give local authorities increased powers of enforcement (affording group leaders in agreement with the letter an opportunity to countersign it).”.

·       Insert an additional bullet point to read “Seek to ensure that appropriate funding is made available to local authorities in respect of the planning enforcement functions.”.

The proposed altered motion was carried:

This Council recognises the impact that breaches of planning rules can have on local communities. This Council recognises that, whilst Planning Enforcement is not a statutory responsibility and is therefore not allocated ring-fenced funding, Runnymede Borough Council remains committed to maintaining and developing our Planning Enforcement resource.

This Council welcomes the recent increase in resource that has been allocated to support Planning Enforcement and re-affirms its support for the RBC Planning department in upholding national and local planning guidance.

The importance of this issue is also recognised by our Member of Parliament who has been campaigning to strengthen the legislative framework in respect of planning enforcement both the through the administration of sanctions and the ability to track repeated offenders through a national database.

Therefore, we call on the Council to:

·       Reaffirm our commitment to upholding planning rules through the use of enforcement where warranted.

·       Express its support for our Planning team working to deliver this.

·       Request the Leader of the Council to write to our MP outlining our support for his campaign to give local authorities increased powers of enforcement (affording group leaders in agreement with the letter an opportunity to countersign it).

·       Hold discussions with our MP to advocate for Planning Enforcement to become a statutory service.

·       Seek to ensure that appropriate funding is made available to local authorities in respect of the planning enforcement functions.

Motion b)

The proposed motion, as set out in the summons, was moved by Councillor Heath.  The motion was determined at the meeting, in accordance with Standing Order 15.6 (b) ii.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Coen.

Councillor R. King, seconded by Councillor D. Whyte, proposed that the motion be amended to add an additional bullet point to read “That this Council declare a climate emergency.”.

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

For the amendment (13)

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

Against the amendment (22)

Balkan, Broadhead, Bromley, Coen, Cotty, Cressey, Cunningham, Darby, Dennett, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Heath, Howorth, Hulley, Lewis, Mann,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 700.

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.