Councillor Jenkins substituted for Councillor Berardi.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 July 2024 (Appendix ‘A’).

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2024 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

Councillor MD Cressey gave apologies for absence.

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable and non-registrable interests in items on the agenda.

Agenda item 16 - Urgent business - To seek authority to incur costs in respect of legal proceedings beyond the delegated limit granted to officers

Councillor Jenkins declared that he had pre-determined his view on the matter and withdrew from the meeting for the duration of this item.

It was mentioned that, since the report had been published, Councillor R King had offered a £1,500 contribution towards the cost of activities taking place during Great Big Green Week 2025 through his Surrey Your Councillor Community Fund.

The Committee agreed that it would be appropriate for the Council to take a lead role in the arrangements for Great Big Green Week 2025, and therefore supported option 4, as set out in the officer’s report.  Committee members were encouraged to promote participation in 2025’s events.

The Committee requested that officers investigate the practicalities of holding a car free day as part of 2025’s GBGW events.

It was resolved that:

1.     The information and feedback relating to the Council’s participation in 2024’s Great Big Green Week activities be noted.

2.     Option 4 (support, promote, co-ordinate, provide assistance and participate) for the Council’s participation in activities for 2025’s Great Big Green Week, be agreed in accordance with the provisions set out in the officer’s report.

The Committee noted that whilst a significant amount of work was still required, strong progress had been made in improving the Council’s working balances.  The new government’s autumn budget, and the impact of, was currently awaited.

The report was noted.

There was discussion about the performance of the Council’s appointed treasury management adviser, and how they compared with other operators in the market.

The proposed internal borrowing arrangements were highlighted to the Committee.

A query was raised about when member working parties could be expected to restart, with a view to them resuming asset monitoring workstreams.  It was confirmed that a proposal from the co-leaders would be discussed with group leaders, with a view to formalising ongoing arrangements at the October meetings of the Committee and the Council (if required).  It was suggested that the links between working parties and committees needed strengthening.

The report was noted.

The Committee welcomed the report, whilst noting that its format was to be finessed over time.  A member training session had been arranged during November 2024, at which the arrangements for reporting to the Committee would be a topic for discussion.

There was mention of the current market volatility.  The Council proactively pursued resultant arrears, with only those deemed irrecoverable being proposed for write off.  A benchmarking exercise, measuring Runnymede’s vacancy rate position against similar organisations, would be undertaken and reported at a future meeting.

The Committee noted the challenges the Council faced regarding KPI 006 (capital values) because of the present value of the investment assets purchased between 2014 and 2020, compared to their purchase price.  It was also noted that KPI 011 (average return on investments) looked at the present value of the asset versus income and not the purchase price, and that this would be changed to better reflect the actual return for the Council and Runnymede’s Residents.

The positive impact of the recent strengthening of the Council’s assets and regeneration function was highlighted.

The report was noted.

Following the publication of the report, the red/amber/green (RAG) status of target H5 (rent arrears of current tenants as a percentage of rent due (cumulative result)) had been confirmed as reporting ‘green’.

There was discussion about the ‘red’ RAG status of various housing targets.  This was primarily due to the underperformance of the Council’s appointed contractor.  Work was ongoing to address this underperformance, although due to market conditions, there was a shortage of individuals with the necessary skills to undertake the works required.  This was a challenge facing councils and housing associations across the country, and reporting to the Housing Committee would contain benchmarking data across comparable organisations.  The Committee requested that a summary of the outcome of the benchmarking exercise be provided in a future performance report.

The Committee reviewed target CDCS2 (percentage of lost customer service calls per annum).  Due to the age of the telephony system, it was not possible to track whether a call was dropped at the point that signposting information was provided during an ‘on hold’ message.  It was stated that there had been no formal complaints relating to accessing customer services by telephone, that use of the voicemail facility had been declining and that use of the website’s services had been increasing.  Officers therefore believed this was potentially an indication that customer service was providing a better experience for residents.

The report was noted.

By resolution of the Committee, the press and public were excluded from the remainder of the meeting during the consideration of the remaining matters under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the discussion would be likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as set out in Schedule 12A to Part 1 of the Act.

It was resolved that the commencement of the procurement process, utilising a suitable framework for the Council’s banking services, be agreed for a period of four years plus optional extensions of up to four years, up to the value stated within the officer’s report.

It was noted that this matter would be the subject of a further report at the conclusion of works assessing the feasibility of any proposals.

It was resolved that, subject to a further report containing costed options being brought back to a future meeting of the Corporate Management Committee, authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Assets and Regeneration to submit a permitted development application in accordance with the provisions set out in the officer’s report.

It was confirmed that proposals for the site would be subject to consultation with residents.  The consultation process would incorporate lessons learned from previous exercises, such as that for Magna Square.  The Committee was pleased to note that, subject to a suitable unit being available locally, in-person consultation would take place.

The Committee noted that the planning application process would be an opportunity for bodies such as the Runnymede Access Liaison Group to review and provide feedback on any proposals.

It was resolved that:

1.     Authority be delegated to the Corporate Head of Assets and Regeneration to submit an outline planning permission application in accordance with the provisions set out in the officer’s report

2.     In the event outline planning permission was successfully obtained, a further report detailing the options available to the Committee and information on ‘market’ testing regarding the potential capital receipt, be received.

The Committee noted that the prospective purchaser for the site required an efficient turnaround time, which necessitated a suitable delegation to officers to conclude the transaction.

It was resolved that:

1.     The disposal of the asset to the recommended bidder, be agreed in accordance with the provisions set out in the officer’s report.

2.     The Assistant Chief Executive/Section 151 Officer be delegated authority to, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Corporate Management Committee, make necessary amendments to the proposed terms in order to ensure the matter progresses to completion, provided that the deal continued to fulfil the statutory obligation of best consideration reasonably obtainable.

See separate supplement

It was proposed that Runnymede’s pay and grading structure be reviewed, to ensure that it remained equitable and able to adapt to ongoing recruitment challenges being experienced in some areas of the Council.  Initial discussions had been held with the recognised trade union, whose views had been replicated in the report.

It was resolved that a supplementary revenue for the sum detailed in the officer’s report, to be funded from the service transformation reserve, be agreed in order to engage South East Employers in undertaking a pay and grading review on behalf of Runnymede Borough Council.

This item has been added to the agenda in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.  The requirement for the item was not confirmed until after the publication of the agenda.

Reasons for urgency

The Council is the recipient of a legal claim to which it must respond within 21 days.  Waiting for the next scheduled meeting of the Committee will therefore inhibit the Council’s ability to obtain urgent legal advice to enable it to respond to this claim.  Not issuing a timely and high quality response to the claim risks significant legal and reputational damage for the Council.

This item was added to the agenda in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.  The requirement for the item was not confirmed until after the publication of the agenda.

Reasons for urgency

“The Council is the recipient of a legal claim to which it must respond within 21 days.  Waiting for the next scheduled meeting of the Committee will therefore inhibit the Council’s ability to obtain urgent legal advice to enable it to respond to this claim.  Not issuing a timely and high quality response to the claim risks significant legal and reputational damage for the Council.”

The exemption applied to the report was queried.  The Council’s Corporate Head of Law and Governance (Monitoring Officer) confirmed that, due to the live nature of the legal proceedings, it was not appropriate to discuss publicly the Council’s intended approach to the matter.  Members were reminded of the importance of discretion when discussing exempt items of business.

There was discussion about the claim being brought against the Council.

The value of constructive debate and a mindfulness of the seven principles of public life (the Nolan principles) were highlighted as important considerations for all members of the Council.  The Committee expressed its gratitude for the healthy debate at the meeting.

It was noted that this matter may be the subject of a further report, where the Committee would be invited to decide how to proceed.

It was resolved that a supplementary revenue estimate, in accordance with the sum and provisions set out in the officer’s report, be agreed.