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

 

a) From Councillor Tom Gracey

 

This Council notes that the ULEZ expansion will add further costs for residents and businesses when budgets are already under pressure, disproportionately impacting those on lower incomes, including key workers required to commute to London.

 

There is no evidence that ULEZ expansion will deliver improved air quality in outer London boroughs, and there is a risk of worsening the situation on Surrey roads.  

Residents within Runnymede should not have to pay a London-centric tax which has been developed to provide a source of revenue generation to offset poor financial management on the part of the Mayor of London’s administration.

 

That the Council agrees and resolves the following:

 

a)    there is consistent and cross-party support for this Council to reduce its emissions and impact on the environment as quickly as practically possible;

 

b)    this Council does not support the expansion of the ULEZ.

 

c)     this Council rejects the proposal by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to expand the ULEZ £12.50 daily charge and potential large fines for non-compliant vehicles which will hit small businesses and those on lower incomes hardest;

 

d)    the evidence and economic modelling of the impact is wrongly focussed on the impact on Londoners and revenues for the Mayor of London, ignoring the impact on Runnymede residents who do not have access to the same tube and bus networks within the Greater London area;

 

e)    the roughly £400 million of government funding set aside for the Mayor to spend on reducing air pollution would be better spent on public transport, cycle ways, and other initiatives rather than a network of ULEZ cameras that penalise lower income households and those that must travel for work;

 

f)      that the Leader of Runnymede Borough Council writes to the Mayor of London to request that he reverse his current approach and replace it with a strategy that will benefit residents in neighbouring regions alongside those in his own jurisdiction;

 

g)    that the Leader of Runnymede Borough Council invites our local MP and group leaders of political groups on Runnymede Borough Council who are in agreement with the sentiments raised to co-sign the letter.

 

b) From Councillor Alex Balkan

 

Level Crossings Motion

 

This Council notes that:

 

·       Since the railway lines within the Borough were first bult, the impact of level crossings on local residents has increased hugely as the local population has expanded.

 

·       Residents have expressed ongoing concern about level crossing waiting times which can lead to traffic congestion, resulting air pollution from engine idling and can negatively impacts on the quality of life on residents living or working near level crossings in the Borough.

 

·       Network Rail continue to investigate innovative ways to reduce the number of level crossings across the railway network. This was highlighted in a 2019 report "Enhancing Level Crossing Safety 2019 - 2029".

 

·       There are ongoing works to improve the efficiency of the signalling at the crossings in the Egham area, however, whilst this work is aimed at improving safety at the crossings, it only marginally reduces the barrier down times which continue to impact on the daily lives of residents.

 

·       In Addlestone, crossing times have increased due to the length of trains being run on the local service being to long for the platform, resulting in barriers being lowered for longer.

 

·       One complicating factor to date has been the need to mitigate the risk of flooding in any proposed alternative infrastructure.

 

·       The progress and potential flood relief offered by the River Thames Scheme provides an opportunity to re-assess the feasibility of alternative solutions to a level crossing which could positively impact the lives of road users and local residents by reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality enhancing local connectivity.

 

That the Council resolves the following:

 

·       Runnymede Borough Council is committed to improving connectivity and reducing the negative impact of level crossings on our towns, including the environmental impact.

 

·       Runnymede Borough Council will continue to engage with all stakeholders from Network Rail, the Department of Transport, South Western Railways, Heathrow Southern Rail Link, residents groups and local businesses to pursue viable alternatives.

 

·       To support this the Leader of the Council will write to Network Rail to request a review of level crossing provision in the Borough in light of the development of the River Thames Scheme, and to provide a cost analysis for alternative options which could address the congestion and delays caused by the current level crossing sites in Runnymede.

Motion a)

 

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

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor Howorth.

 

Councillor R. King moved, seconded by Councillor A. King, that the motion be amended to read:

 

This Council notes that the ULEZ expansion will, without further support from central government, add further costs for residents and businesses when budgets are already under pressure from spiralling inflation under the present government, disproportionately impacting those on lower incomes, including key workers, facing below inflation pay rises, required to commute to London. Further compounded by the lack of interacted public transport, with TFL zoning and fare capping, and poor service courage by Surrey County Council subsidised services and those from commercial operators.

 

The Council also notes that the cuts to evening time services on bus route to Heathrow such as the number 8, makes driving the preferred option for many commuting or flying out of Heathrow.

 

There is evidence that ULEZ expansion will have a positive impact on reducing NOX emissions PM10 & PM2.5 emissions and be part of broader solutions to improved air quality in outer London boroughs, as highlight in the Jacobs’s study revision 04, 17 October 2022. There has however been no study is on how better integrated publics transport can improve the situation on Surrey roads. Residents within Runnymede should not have to pay a London-centric tax without London levels of financial support and transport coverage. It is completely reasonable to expect that the revenue raised from ULEZ should it go ahead should come with hand in hand with greater public transport levels and money to fix up Surrey’s roads which have been left to rack and ruin.

 

Recognises the affect the £7 billion debt TFL incurred between 2008/09 and 2015/16, under Mayor Boris Johnson, has had on TFL’s ability to weather the collapse in fare revenue due to Covid lockdowns, and that TFL under Mayor Khan prior to the pandemic was on track to paying off this debt and producing a surplus. As well as the piece meal support that TFL compared to the blank cheque train operators got during the pandemic, has had an effect on Cross Border Services not just for Surrey but also for London.

 

That the Council agrees and resolves the following:

 

a)    there is consistent and cross-party support for this Council to reduce its emissions and impact on the environment as quickly as practically possible;

 

b)    this Council does not support the expansion of the ULEZ, without central government who imposed this deal on TFL, funding an outer London scrappage scheme, similar in scope to the £110 million scrappage scheme the Mayor of London launched, which particularly targets support to low-income and disabled people, supports charities and has particular support to sole trader and smaller businesses;

 

c)     this Council rejects the proposal imposed on the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, by central government to expand the ULEZ £12.50 daily charge without the support for a scrappage scheme from central government and a commitment from central government of London level support for integrated public transport and fare structure.  Are concerned that without central government support for a outer London scrappage scheme business and residents will be landed with potential large fines for noncompliant vehicles;

 

d)    notes with concern the actions of Surrey County Council to block signage for ULEZ on Surrey assets and lack of proper consultation and debate which the Mayor of London has invited outer London authorities too and that this action by Surrey County Council could cost Surrey Tax Payers £100,000s of thousands of pounds in Legal fees. Right at the time the County is looking to cut £30 million out of its highways budget;

 

e)    the evidence and economic modelling of the impact is limited by central government is and reflected in that of TFL. Too little attention has been paid by the DFT in joining up services and offering holistic funding schemes, that bidding for funding restricts local authority who do not have the resources to expand this offering and respond to timescales like the ATE grants with close in weeks of being announced;

 

f)      the roughly £400 million of government funding set aside for the Mayor to spend on reducing air pollution supports the continued work TFL are doing on public transport, cycle ways, and other initiatives and that this Council recognises again we must have London levels of Public transport to make not using the car attractive;

 

g)    that this council joins the Mayor of London, in calling for an outer London scrappage scheme and join the Council’s Labour group in doing the same: https://www.london.gov.uk/Mayor%20of%20London%20calls%20for%20PM%20to%20back%20ULEZ%20with%20scrappage%20cash%20for%20London%20and%20Home%20Counties;

 

h)    that the Leader of Runnymede Borough Council writes to the Mayor of London to request that the current approach be paused whilst a review with outer London Boroughs takes place and negotiations with Central government take place to fix a scrappage scheme and improve it with a strategy that will benefit residents in neighbouring regions alongside with the positive work he has done in his own jurisdiction;

 

i)      that the Leader of Runnymede Borough Council invites our local MP and group leaders of political groups on Runnymede Borough Council who are in agreement with the sentiments raised to co-sign the letter.

 

The proposed motion and Councillor R. King’s proposed amendment were debated.  A named vote was requested on the proposed amendment and the voting was as follows:

 

For the amendment (12)

 

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

 

Against the amendment (23)

 

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Broadhead, Bromley, Clarke, Coen, Cotty, Cunningham, Darby, Dennett, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Heath, Howorth, Hulley, N. King, Lewis, Olorenshaw, Prescot, Snow, Walsh, Willingale and Wilson.

 

Abstentions (1)

 

Councillor Harnden.

 

Councillor Heath moved, seconded by Councillor Willingale, that paragraph b) of the proposed motion be amended:

 

“this Council does not support the expansion of the ULEZ at this time”.

 

Councillor J. Gracey moved, seconded by Councillor Heath, that paragraph b) of the proposed motion be amended to read:

 

“this Council does not support the expansion of the ULEZ without full consultation, a cost-benefit analysis, and consideration of possible alternative measures to improve air quality”.

 

Councillor Heath withdrew her proposed amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 17.10.

 

Councillor J. Gracey’s proposed amendment was debated.  A named vote was requested on the proposed amendment and the voting was as follows:

 

For the amendment (25)

 

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Broadhead, Bromley, Burton, Clarke, Coen, Cotty, Cunningham, Darby, Dennett, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Heath, Howorth, Hulley, N. King, Lewis, Olorenshaw, Prescot, Snow, Walsh, D. Whyte, Willingale and Wilson.

 

Against the amendment (2)

 

Councillors Berardi and Ringham.

 

Abstentions (9)

 

Councillors Harnden, Davies, Gillham, Jenkins, A. King, R. King, Mullens, S. Whyte and Williams.

 

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

 

For the amended motion (25)

 

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Broadhead, Bromley, Burton, Clarke, Coen, Cotty, Cunningham, Darby, Dennett, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Heath, Howorth, Hulley, N. King, Lewis, Olorenshaw, Prescot, Snow, Walsh, D. Whyte, Willingale and Wilson.

 

Against the amended motion (2)

 

Councillors Berardi and Ringham.

 

Abstentions (9)

 

Councillors Harnden, Davies, Gillham, Jenkins, A. King, R. King, Mullens, S. Whyte and Williams.

 

The amended motion was carried.

 

Councillor R. King requested his concerns, namely that the Council had agreed a factually incorrect motion, be recorded.

 

Motion b)

 

With the agreement of the Mayor, the Leader of the Council, and the Chief Executive, the proposed motion was determined in accordance with Standing Order 15.6(b)(iii).

 

The proposed motion, as set out in the summons, was moved by Councillor Balkan.  Councillor Balkan altered the final bullet point of his motion in accordance with Standing Order 17.9 to read:

 

To support this the Leader of the Council will write to Network Rail to request a review of level crossing provision in the Borough in light of the development of the River Thames Scheme, and to provide a cost analysis for alternative options. This includes requesting an updated costing following the last feasibility study which previously took place in 2009-2010.

 

The proposed motion was seconded by Councillor Snow.

 

The proposed motion was debated by the Council.  As a result of the debate, Councillor Balkan further amended the resolution section of his proposed motion, in accordance with Standing Order 17.9:

 

That the Council resolves the following:

 

·       Runnymede Borough Council supports measures to reduce engine idling, including appropriate signage.

 

·       Runnymede Borough Council is committed to improving connectivity and reducing the negative impact of level crossings on our towns, including the environmental impact.

 

·       Runnymede Borough Council will continue to engage with all stakeholders from Network Rail, the Department of Transport, South Western Railways, Heathrow Southern Rail Link, Surrey County Council, the Local Government Association, residents groups and local businesses to pursue viable alternatives.

 

·       To support this the Leader of the Council will write to Network Rail to request a review of level crossing provision in the Borough in light of the development of the River Thames Scheme, and to provide a cost analysis for alternative options. This includes requesting an updated costing following the last feasibility study which previously took place in 2009-2010.

 

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

 

For the altered motion (34)

 

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Broadhead, Bromley, Burton, Clarke, Coen, Cotty, Cunningham, Darby, Davies, Dennett, Gillham, J. Gracey, T. Gracey, Heath, Howorth, Hulley, Jenkins, A. King, N. King, R. King, Lewis, Mullens, Olorenshaw, Prescot, Ringham, Snow, Walsh, D. Whyte, S. Whyte, Williams, Willingale and Wilson.

 

Against the altered motion (0)

 

Abstentions (2)

 

Councillors Harnden and Berardi (due to his having left the meeting during the debate).

 

The altered motion was carried.