a) Question from Councillor Peter Snow to the Leader of the Council

“My question is with regard to the bad press we recently received from the Surrey Advertiser on the 5 January.  The article related to a warning by Suzanne Clarke from the DLUHC which referred to a "Best Value Notice".  Can the Leader please confirm whether the article was factual or not and how we have addressed the concerns that are now being raised by all Runnymede residents since the article was published. Specially can the Leader clarify whether the less than ONE percentage is correct or the figure of 4.1 % is the actual figure as recorded?”

(a) Councillor Peter Snow asked the Leader of the Council the following question:

“My question is with regard to the bad press we recently received from the Surrey Advertiser on the 5 January.  The article related to a warning by Suzanne Clarke from the DLUHC which referred to a "Best Value Notice".  Can the Leader please confirm whether the article was factual or not and how we have addressed the concerns that are now being raised by all Runnymede residents since the article was published. Specially can the Leader clarify whether the less than ONE percentage is correct or the figure of 4.1 % is the actual figure as recorded?”

The Leader replied in the following terms:

“I can confirm that the article was not factual in respect of reporting a less than one percent return. I would like to take this opportunity to ensure there is an unambiguous understanding of our finances.

Within the line “investment property” we include all those assets in which we primarily sought a return to provide the borough with stable cash flows during the period when a number of our established town centre assets were regenerated, as well as the assets that have been delivered through that regeneration, namely Addlestone One, Magna Square and the Egham Orbit.

Factoring in all costs other than interest and Minimum Revenue Provision and excluding revenue derived from residential units, we receive an income of just over £26mn against assets valued at just under £540mn, for a return of 4.9%. When we factor in borrowing costs our total net revenue from our investment property comes to £11.2mn, for a net return of 2.1%.

Without wanting to pre-empt the budget items coming forward shortly, I would point out that this compares to our core spending power of £10.4mn and provides this Council with the financial stability and capability to maintain its broad range of discretionary services and support to its residents.

In terms of the steps that were taken following the publication of the story, a correct presentation of our returns was immediately made available to the two media outlets that ran the story online. One corrected their record immediately, the latter however took several days in which time an additional version of the story was published in the 12 January 2024 edition of the Surrey Advertiser.

Following further discussion with the newspaper’s editor, the 19th January edition contained the corrected record in the form of a letter from me. I would note that when the article was being prepared by the journalist, the Council was not contacted to present its view up front or offered the right of reply to the quotes made in the article.

To describe the return as less than one percent is wholly inaccurate. Some have suggested these figures were shared with the media despite knowing they were inaccurate purely for political ends and to bring this Council into disrepute. I, as Leader of this Council, would like to think that no member of this Council would ever do such a thing and I would welcome the relevant councillor to correct the record in print.

Our finance team are consummate professionals who work tirelessly on behalf of this Council and the residents we serve and I have full confidence in their and this Council’s ability to deliver for residents.”

Councillor Lewis asked which member had provided the original information to the local press?  Councillor Gracey stated that the quote reported in the local press was attributed to Councillor R King.

Councillor R King asked whether the Leader understood the level of risk involved in purchasing assets between 2014 and 2019, in light of the non-statutory Best Value Notice’s (NSBVN) reported nominal return of 1.4%?  Councillor Gracey stated that he was confident all members had an understanding of the risks and that the committee-based system of governance offered recurring and regular scrutiny through papers such as treasury management reports.  He added that when appreciation on the Council’s assets was factored in, the figures were considerably higher than those quoted in the NSBVN.