There were no declarations of interest.

There were no apologies for absence.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 September 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The Committee’s approval was sought to replace three community defibrillators at different locations in the borough, originally installed by, but not maintained by the Council.  It was noted that colleagues in Assets and Regeneration had embarked on a rolling programme for the maintenance and replacement of units at Council owned venues, including parks and open spaces.

 

Members agreed that the provision of defibrillators was very important and were supportive both of their replacement and the proposal to invite the three named organisations to apply for one-off funding to assist with the installation of the units, a cabinet to house it, signage, maintenance costs and eventual replacement of units going forward as responsibility would rest with them instead of the Council.

 

Officers proposed that a formal memorandum of understanding be entered into with each recipient body to whom a grant was made setting out the obligations in relation to use of the grant.  Members agreed this approach was consistent with other grant arrangements.

 

The proposed budget of £7,500 was considered sufficient.  In addition, it was agreed to signpost organisations to match funding opportunities to meet on-going maintenance costs post funding.  Consideration of alternative sites was appropriate if other sites ceased to become available.

 

Officers agreed to confirm to Members the current locations and maintenance requirements of the existing defibrillators with a view to identifying where there might be gaps and to prioritise connections to blue light services.

 

Resolved that –

 

i)          the proposed direction to replace the identified defibrillator units, located at community buildings not operated by the Council, be approved; and

 

ii)         the sum of £7,500, allocated from within 2024/25 Community Services budgets, be approved, for the provision of grants to three identified community organisations.

The Committee reviewed progress with the key performance indicators relating to Community Services for Quarter 2 of 2024/25.

 

Officers reported that the service continued to perform well against the key performance indicators set, as set out in the appendix to the report.  Members noted some more detailed narrative where the rating was ‘red’.  For example, the transition from analogue to digital of all the community alarms systems, a piece of work shared with Surrey Heath Borough Council.  This was currently at the live tender stage, and it was hoped to be able to order from a successful bidder later in the month.  Also highlighted was a slight decrease in the number of social prescribing referrals, attributable to work with partners to create a new funded model for future delivery led by the North West Surrey Health and Care Alliance with input from partners including colleagues in Community Services.

 

The report was duly noted.

The Committee reviewed progress with the Service Area Plan for Quarter 2 of 2024/25.

 

Members recalled that there were 56 objectives in the plan, some of which were carried forward from previous years.  The objectives were, as previously agree, split into primary and secondary, with the latter being worked through, resources permitting.

 

Officers reported that 14 objectives had been completed, split equally between the primary and secondary categories.  Only two of the primary objectives were classified as not yet started.  These being the potential implementation of a community hub at Egham Hythe and the writing of development plans for parks and open spaces, focussing on the Kings Lane site and Runnymede Pleasure Grounds.

 

Members noted more detailed updates with regard to the Citizens Panel, the Period Poverty project, SANG Management and Infrastructure Improvements, and the splash pad at Runnymede Pleasure Grounds.  The full list was appended to the report, and further updates would be submitted in due course.

 

Officers were asked to provide Ward Councillors with an update on progress with the Heathervale All-wheeled facility.  It was understood that the final design and siting were currently being discussed with the design contractor and colleagues in Planning in respect of any concerns about noise to be addressed prior to a planning application being submitted.

 

The report was duly noted.

There were no changes to the Committee membership.

The Committee received for information, an update on the Service Review of Safer Runnymede.

 

Members recalled that the scope of the review was in two phases and included a review of the existing CCTV maintenance contract, developing a greater understanding of Safer Runnymede’s costs, risks and new business opportunities, to enhance existing relationships with CSS Ltd and the second phase which was to conduct an options appraisal for the provision of the Community Alarm monitoring services.

 

Officers reported that with the departure of the former Safer Runnymede Manager, the need to provide greater support for the service had also been identified.

 

Members noted progress with each strand of the review.  With the CCTV contract, elements of the specification had been changed to provide greater accuracy against Safer Runnymede’s technical requirements.  New processes had been introduced in the day to day management of the contract.  In addition, there were new and more flexible charging structures for the provision of routine preventative maintenance, and undertaking fault response and repair, to reflect the response level required.  It was hoped that a modest saving would result and that full cost recovery would be completed where appropriate. 

 

Officers reported they had certainly gained a greater understanding of Safer Runnymede’s true costs and as a result an agreed unit cost had been identified that could be applied to discussions with potential new clients and on renewal with existing ones.  In terms of risk, capacity in the control room was an important factor as well as staffing resources, with the opportunity for additional resources being considered, within the existing budget.

 

The Committee was pleased that despite losing the former Safer Runnymede Manager, relationships with the existing CCTV contractor had been maintained and the contract management function had been enhanced with regular monthly meetings with the various stakeholders.

 

Officers confirmed that the second phase, to conduct an options appraisal with regard to community alarms, was underway, noting that the current contract for alarm monitoring software was due to expire in June 2026.  Officers would be investigating several options, one of which could include outsourcing provision of the community alarms monitoring service.

 

Officers confirmed that this review was now complete.  However, opportunities to enhance the service and rigorous monitoring of Safer Runnymede would continue.

 

The report was duly noted.

 

 

The Committee’s approval was sought for the various fees and charges under the remit of Community Services for 2025/26.

 

Members were advised that extensive preparatory work had been undertaken to understand existing budgets, levels of subsidy applied to services, the unit cost of provision for each service and the impact of potential fees and charges both in relation to budgets and with consideration to residents accessing services.  A benchmarking exercise had also been undertaken.  Officers stressed that moving towards more sustainable services and reduced subsidies was vital in the current financial climate and in the awareness that all the services in Community Services were discretionary.  Officers had been particularly mindful that all costs included building, internal recharges and depreciation where appropriate.  Increases would be made in increments of 25p where possible, this being the minimum, up to some in region of an increase of £1.50 to £1.90.

 

The Committee was advised that the Meals at Home Service currently cost £250,543 to provide, a cost jointly shared with Surrey Heath Borough Council.  In the context of increasing costs of food, vehicles and fuel, the need to try and recover some of the costs was necessary whilst maintaining affordability.  Four increases were proposed which Members supported.

 

Officers reported that in respect of Community Transport, the current subsidy was approximately £220,000, even with the recent service review which had realised a reduction in subsidy of £120,000.  Where possible a move away from cash might result in a small revenue saving.

 

For Community Alarms, also delivered jointly with Surrey Heath Borough Council. Officers aimed to keep the service cost neutral.  However, to reflect the need to move from analogue to digital a modest increase on the weekly charge for the service from £5.15 to £5.65 was approved.

 

Officers confirmed that the most highly subsidised service was for Day Centres, standing at approximately £700,000, which it was recognised was a significant cost to the Council.  However, as centre usage had not recovered fully from pre-pandemic levels, the increases proposed were relatively modest.  For example a two-course meal would increase from £4.95 to £5.50 per day.

 

With regard to Chertsey Museum, there was a range of different charges to reflect the variety of services on offer; the current subsidy level was £267,000 for 2024/25.  It was proposed that an increase of 7% was applied across all charges.  Members noted that an update on the service review of Chertsey Museum would be submitted to a future meeting.

 

Community Halls carried a budgeted subsidy of £240,000.  An average increase of 10% was approved, as was a new charge to Councillors for all room hire to help cover costs.

 

Members agreed that in respect of Tennis Courts and to reflect the previous move from a free of charge to £5 per hour, this would only be increased to £5.25 per hour, with Household annual passes remaining available for £38.00 per annum as opposed to £36.00.

 

Finally, Members reviewed the Safer Runnymede Fees and charges, relating to the preparation and supply of CCTV footage via DVD, copy photographs, and reviews of footage by request.  It was acknowledged these were used less frequently but would be retained for at least the next financial year.  An increase was agreed which Officers would monitor over the coming year with a view to removing them if appropriate in 2026/27.

 

The Committee agreed that the range and value of the discretionary services provided by the Council should be celebrated and supported.

 

Resolved that –

 

the proposed fees and charges as set out in Appendix A to the agenda report be approved, to be effective from the dates within the appendix or as soon as practical thereafter.

The Committee received for information an update on the Period Poverty project; introduced following approval of a budget of £24,000 for 3 years in September 2023 to work with local organisations to provide access to free sustainable and where possible biodegradable sanitary products.

 

Members were pleased that a total of 37 venues across the borough were engaged with the project using the organisation Hey Girls as approved by the Committee in March 2024.  In addition, the service had been extended to an additional participant, Just a Helping Hand, and was publicised through the Council’s Homelessness Prevention Team.  Officers reported that to date approximately 6,500 sanitary pads and 5,000 tampons had been distributed with plans to enter into talks with other local sports clubs to provide products in their changing rooms.

 

Of the original budget, £16,523.41 remained, which Officers were confident would last for the remainder of the project, with an option to request a carry over of any residual funds beyond the three years if necessary, and in line with financial standing orders.

 

The Committee thanked Councillors and Officers involved with the product which it was agreed was both worth while and value for money.

 

The report was duly noted.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Chertsey Meads Management Liaison Group held on 3 September 2024 were received and noted (Appendix B).

The Minutes of the meetings of the Cabrera Trust Management Committee held on 18 July 2024 were received and noted (Appendix A).

 

The Committee’s approval was sought for the proposed approach to future management of the Council’s meadows, which would form the basis of a Council wide Meadow Management Policy.  This had arisen from a request from the Environment and Sustainability Committee and assigned to the Open Space and Community Development team to produce a policy to be implemented by the Green Spaces and Grounds Maintenance teams in Environmental Services.

 

Officers had focused on three key areas.  These were; choosing which of the borough’s existing meadows to enhance, consideration of their future maintenance and identifying potential opportunities to enhance designated meadow sites, including how to involve the community and local residents in such projects.

 

The Committee was appraised of the general principles of Meadow Management, which were to encourage biodiversity and make a positive contribution to carbon sequestration.  In addition, Councils were required to comply with the Environment Act 2021, to enhance and not just maintain green spaces.

 

The Committee agreed that the environmental, ecological and other benefits of properly managed meadows, made this policy a vital contribution to mitigating the effects of climate change, as well as making huge improvements to the borough’s green spaces.  Members also noted the risks of continuing with the current regime. 

 

Members were provided with a detailed summary of the condition of each of the 14 currently designated meadows and how it was proposed to manage them in future.  Officers had prioritised the sites according to their current condition, size and potential for enhancement.  It was proposed to return 6 sites to be managed as amenity grass.  These were Barrsbrook Farm, Dudley Close open space, Englefield Green open space, Pooley Green Recreation Ground and the closed churchyards at St John’s Church in Egham and ChristChurch in Virginia Water.  It was proposed to continue with the management of the following sites; Bourne Meadow, Chertsey Meads, Hare Hill, Homewood Park (also to extend so the meadow covered the whole site), Hythe Park, Marshall Place, Thorpe Green and Runnymede Meadows.  Members agreed that as there was currently no contract in place (because it was awarded annually), it was an opportune moment to re-evaluate the Council’s approach to meadow management.

 

Officers informed the Committee of the particular circumstances of each site and current management methods.  For example, it was noted that at Chertsey Meads there was potential to significantly improve the biodiversity of the site by undertaking one annual hay cut in August to avoid ground nesting birds.  However, the timing of the Chertsey Show would need to be balanced with the ecological needs of the grassland as well as other considerations, including fire safety.  Bourne Meadow was also identified as a priority habitat which would benefit from two cutting operations per year to encourage wildlife and wildflowers.

 

The Committee was presented with four options for Meadow Management, as well as the potential funding opportunities to deliver the preferred way forward.  A detailed specification for each site was appended to the report, setting out what would be required of a successful contractor.  A full options appraisal and SWOT analysis had also been undertaken.

 

In respect of the annual hay cuts at the two largest sites; Chertsey Meads and Runnymede Meadows, it was acknowledged that the indicative cost of purchasing a Flail Collector, and a new, larger, tractor to undertake the proposed hay cutting regime was currently prohibitive.  Additional staff would be needed and training for staff would also be required for full in-house provision.  Members agreed that it would be too ambitious to bring all the grounds maintenance functions in house at this time and that a blended approach of bringing the cut and collect operation in house but contracting out the hay operation was the sensible route, pending a further assessment of the Council’s financial position and available resources at a later date. 

 

It was confirmed that, subject to the agreement of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, under whose remit the procurement of contractors to deliver the service fell; and once a new contract was underway for the hay cuts, initially for three years, with an option to extend for a further two years, a report would be submitted on the viability of transitioning to an in-house function.  Officers were asked to discuss the options with colleagues in Procurement and Environmental Services the potential for a phased in-house transition subject to available resources and other practical considerations.

 

The Committee was presented with two options of what to do with the hay cut arisings from the identified sites.  Officers advised that disposal as waste would result in increased revenue costs of approximately £145.57 (likely to rise in future years), with associated costs to transport to a waste transfer station with the need for an additional trailer.  Therefore, it was recommended and agreed that arisings should be left on site in a discreet location to provide additional habitat and in mitigation for climate change apart from Chertsey Meads, where the Management Plan required the arisings to be removed.  Officers were asked to enquire of the farmer tending to Chertsey Meads what they did with the resulting hay cut taken from the site.  There was no obligation however to receive this information.

 

The Committee welcomed the new direction for Meadow Management and Officers were asked to provide Members of the Committee with some data regarding the

estimated carbon sequestration benefits when the new meadow management policy was written.

 

Another strand of the Meadow Management Policy was how to involve the community and residents in projects to enhance the meadows and peoples’ enjoyment of them.  The potential contribution to the Council’s Health and Wellbeing strategy was well recognised and the Committee was very supportive.  Officers were asked to consider the inclusion of Green Social Prescribing projects within these opportunities.

 

Officers also outlined the funding opportunities associated with meadow management.  Officers had discussed such matters with Natural England as currently Chertsey Meads was the only land subject to a stewardship agreement.  The potential to also include Homewood Park, Thorpe Green, Hare Hill and Bourne Meadows in the new Countryside Stewardship or Sustainable Farming Initiative was discussed and approved, noting the significant funding that could be secured for a five year period if assessed as eligible by Natural England.  It was important to note that any future meadow management policy would need to take into account the potential need for contribution funding from the Council in the event of funding ending, or the cost of meadow management exceeding funding received.  Officers were asked to advise Members if implementation of the policy became subject to any budgetary concerns that might affect its delivery.

 

The Committee was pleased to recommend to Corporate Management Committee that a sum of £8,000 per annum from the Stewardship funding be devoted to Community Development projects to improve biodiversity.  It was anticipated that if funding was forthcoming a healthy surplus in the region of £52,000 could be generated by entering the approved sites into the stewardship scheme.  Members agreed that as soon as the applications were open to proceed with the bid, sometime in quarter 3 of 2024.

 

Resolved that –

 

i)          Members approve the proposed direction for a future corporate Meadow Management Policy as detailed in the report;

 

ii)         Members approve an application for Stewardship/Sustainable Farming Incentive Funding for the eligible sites approved within this report; and

 

iii)        On the proviso that the application in ii) above is successful, the Corporate Management Committee be requested to approve a supplementary estimate in the sum of £8,000 per annum for a period of three years (2024/25 – 2026/27), for the co-ordination of enhancements of meadow sites and community participation activities, to be managed by the Open Space and Community Development team in Community Services

Prior to consideration of the item, a motion was proposed by Councillor Graham who wanted the report to be in the public domain.  The motion to move the item into the public part of the agenda was seconded, but defeated.  The votes were 2 in favour and 7 against.

 

Resolved that –

 

the press and public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following report under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the report in question would be likely to involve disclosure of exempt information of the description specified in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

 

Following a question from Members of this Committee in January 2024, Officers within Open Space Development were asked to consider options for a future Meadow Policy for the borough.

 

Within Runnymede, there were two main ways in which the meadows were managed: traditional hay cutting and the cut and collect method using flail attachments to tractors.  Both of which were currently carried out using external contractors.  This was due to the fact that this was a substantial piece of work which required expensive specialist equipment, and it only took place a few weeks a year.

 

There were currently 14 designated meadow sites in the borough of varying size and location type.   Hay cutting was only practical where the site was large enough.  There were only two meadows in Runnymede which were currently practical:  Chertsey Meads and Runnymede Meadows, although others could be added.

 

Currently, the majority of sites were in poor ecological condition due to inappropriate maintenance and were largely dominated by undesirable ruderal weeds including nettles, thistles and docks.  Chertsey Meads, Hare Hill, Homewood Park and Thorpe Green were in better condition and had greater restoration potential.

 

The Committee was advised that when discussing opportunities with Natural England, it had been identified that the Council could apply for funding from the Countryside Stewardship scheme.  This funding was paid to landowners who undertook environmentally beneficial approaches to management of their land.   These discussions had resulted in an indicative £60,000 that could be realised by the Council to support delivery of a Meadow Management Policy. 

 

Officers had identified five sites that would be considered appropriate for stewardship; Chertsey Meads, Homewood Park, Thorpe Green, Hare Hill and Bourne Meadows.

 

Entering into a Countryside Stewardship or Sustainable Farming Incentive agreement would secure funding for an initial five-year period, but it was implied that funding would continue beyond this initial period (subject to central government policy).

 

The Committee was given four options to consider:

 

Option 1 – Do nothing and turn all meadows (non-hay cut) to amenity grassland

Option 2 – Bring all grassland management in-house

Option 3 – Contract out all meadow cutting operations

Option 4 – Bring cut and collect operation in-house but contract out hay operation

 

The Committee was advised that Officers considered either Option 3 or Option 4 was the most viable way forward for the Council, with Option 3 being the preferred choice. 

 

Some members were keen for Officers to pursue Option 4 now, but this wasn’t fully supported by all of the Committee.  It was noted that the option to bring all operations in house (as in Option 4) could be reviewed towards the end of year 2 of the contract.  This would enable Officers to collect information as to how the process worked and likely costs.

 

Officers recommended to the Committee an initial direction via an external contractor which in turn would provide Officers the time and opportunity to consider future in-house management options.

 

The Committee was pleased to receive the report and welcomed the boost to biodiversity the policy would bring.

 

Resolved that:

 

Members note the proposed direction for a future corporate Meadow Management Policy as detailed subject to approval by the Community Services Committee; and

 

The procurement of an external contractor for an initial term of three years with an option for extension for a further 2 years be approved; and

 

If the value of the tender returns exceeds the budgetary provision a report will

be brought back to Members of this Committee 

 

The Committee was asked to approve a number of changes to the current charges in the Council’s car parks.

 

It was reported that the Council faced a significant financial challenge, with a projected budget deficit of £4.1 million by 2026/27.  To address this shortfall, the medium term financial strategy set out the Council’s strategy to developing its approach in terms of efficiency, income and savings, as the deficit needed to be addressed by 2027/28.

 

When setting fees and charges it was vital to ensure that there was a balance between recovering the cost of running services and ensuring our charges were affordable.

 

Runnymede managed 27 off-street car parks, with free motorcycle parking as well as disabled parking spaces at each location.

 

Officers reported that prior to the Covid pandemic, parking income was relatively high at £636kpa and as such the Council could afford to offer free parking in relation to its open space car parks.  However, this income had reduced over the past four years with a budget of £474k set for the 2024/25 financial year.

 

During 2024/25, the Council invested heavily in upgrading and implementing new pay and display machines and Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) to improve customer experience and protect Council income.  Fees were increased from April 2024 for the first time in five years to ensure parking services remained self-financing.

 

The Committee was advised that it had become apparent that over 55% of the Council’s car parks were being subsidised by revenue from fee-paying car parks.

 

Benchmarking with other Surrey Authorities showed that Runnymede costs were comparable across the county and a modest increase of 0.05 and 0.10 for Out of Town and Town Centre car parks would bring in an additional revenue of approximately £90k pa whilst remaining affordable when compared to neighbouring authorities.

 

Officers advised the Committee that several neighbouring authorities also charged for both evening and overnight stays at a fixed fee of between £2.00 and £7.00 depending on the length of stay.  This charge helped to reduce the ongoing operational costs of lighting and maintenance and was particularly successful in barrier ANPR car parks where payment on exit was mandatory.

 

To ensure consistency, all seven open space car parks would be included in the Council’s Off-Street Parking Orders.  A recreational charge was therefore proposed.  This would allow for three hours of free parking for leisure and recreational use, followed by a nominal fee of £2.80.

 

Officers were also proposing to add a new section to the Off-Street Parking Orders that allowed for a temporary waiver of car parking charges to support specific annual community events.  This waiver would be granted at the discretion of the Council and would be subject to conditions.

 

Officers had been in discussion with Surrey County Council regarding how Runnymede could best support their local street improvement scheme, whilst also addressing the administrative challenges of offering limited parking permits equivalent to the number of on-street spaces removed. 

Officers were asked to clarify to the Committee, details of the amount spent/remaining in the parking reserve fund.   Officers advised members that the parking reserve has reduced to £100k following the investment in pay and display and ANPR with £30k set aside for electrical surveys for EV project.

 

Some members of the Committee felt very strongly that the increase at Cooper’s Hill car park and the impact it would have on the local football and tennis clubs was unacceptable.   Officers advised the Committee that they had been in dialogue with both the football and tennis club and support would be given to community days.  However, car parking needed to be self-supporting and could not be supported from public funds.

 

A member of the Committee stressed that she felt some members of the Committee were behaving appallingly to both Officers and other Members during this meeting and wanted this minuted, they stressed that all Councillors should work for all residents. She would love to be in a position not to put charges up but sadly this wasn’t an option due to the Council’s current financial position.

 

Some Members of the Committee strongly felt that 3 hours free parking at Coopers Hill would have a detrimental impact on the Manorcroft Junior Football Club in particular.   Whilst matches only lasted 90 minutes,  the children needed to arrive some time before the match and would be there some time after.

 

It was suggested that the Football Club and/or the Tennis Club may wish to submit a petition to the Council, thereby giving them the opportunity to show their dissatisfaction democratically.

 

There was a discussion regarding parking in the vicinity of the Chertsey library and it was suggested that all Council car parks within 150m of a library should have 30 minutes free parking,  and a motion was put forward to this effect.

 

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

 

In favour:  Councillors J Hulley, S Lewis, S Saise-Marshall (3)

 

Against:     Councillors D Whyte, S Ringham, C Parry, T Gates,  M Harnden, M Williams,

                   K Rowsell (7)

 

Abstentions:  None

 

The proposed motion fell.

 

With regard to parking at Coopers Hill Car Park it was suggested  that an increase from 3 to 4 hours free parking at the car park would be more acceptable, and an amendment was put forward to this effect.

 

The amendment was subject to a named vote as follows:

 

In favour:  Councillors J Hulley, S Lewis, S Saise-Marshall (3)

 

Against:     Councillors D Whyte, S Ringham, C Parry, T Gates,  M Harnden, M Williams,

                   K Rowsell (7)

 

 Abstentions:  None

 

The proposed amendment fell.

 

A named vote was requested on each of the Resolutions from 1 – 8 and voting was as follows:

 

1)    In favour:-  Councillors D Whyte, S Ringham, C Parry, T Gates,  M Harnden,
                          M Williams,  K Rowsell (7)

 

        Against:-    Councillors J Hulley, S Lewis, S Saise-Marshall (3)

 

        Abstentions:  None

    

2)    In favour:-  Councillors D Whyte, S Ringham, C Parry, T Gates,  M Harnden,
                          M Williams,  K Rowsell (7)

 

       Against:-     Councillors J Hulley, S Lewis, S Saise-Marshall (3)

 

       Abstentions:  None

 

3)    In favour:-  Councillors D Whyte, S Ringham, C Parry, T Gates,  M Harnden,
                          M Williams, K Rowsell (7)

 

       Against:-     Councillors J Hulley, S Lewis, S Saise-Marshall (3)

 

       Abstentions:  None

 

 4)   In favour:-  Councillors D Whyte, S Ringham, C Parry, T Gates,  M Harnden,
                         M Williams, K Rowsell (7)

 

       Against:-     Councillors J Hulley, S Lewis, S Saise-Marshall (3)

 

       Abstentions:  None

 

 5)    In favour:  Councillors D Whyte, S Ringham, C Parry, T Gates, M Harnden, J Hulley,

                         S Lewis, M Williams, K Rowsell, S Saise-Marshall (10)

 

        Against:-  None

 

        Abstentions:  None

 

 

6)    In favour:-  Councillors D Whyte, S Ringham, C Parry, T Gates,  M Harnden,
                          M Williams, K Rowsell (7)

 

      Against:-    Councillors J Hulley, S Lewis, S Saise-Marshall (3)

 

      Abstentions:     None

 

 7)    In favour:  Councillors D Whyte, S Ringham, C Parry, T Gates, M Harnden, J Hulley,
                         S Lewis, M Williams, K Rowsell, S Saise-Marshall (10)

 

        Against:-  None

        Abstentions:  None

 

 

8)    In favour:  Councillors D Whyte, S Ringham, C Parry, T Gates, M Harnden, J Hulley,

                        S Lewis, M Williams, K Rowsell, S Saise-Marshall (10)

 

       Against:-   None

 

       Abstentions:  None

 

 

Resolved that the following changes be approved:

  

1)    modest fee increases of £0.05 (Out of Town) and £0.10 (Town)

2)    introduction of recreational charging at open space car parks of £2.80 after 3 hours

3)    introduction a new charging structure which includes 30-minutes free parking at Pooley
       Green and Egham Library to support SCC Cycling and Infrastructure projects,

4)    flat evening (£2) and overnight (£3) parking fees,

5)    New procedures for granting temporary waiver of parking charges to support
       community events subject to costs being contained within budgets.

6)    an increase of £30 (OFT) & £60(T) for annual permits,

7)    standardisation of parking orders in terms of return and waiting times,

8)    a thorough review of permits to introduce more flexible options.

 

The Committee was asked to consider the proposed fees and charges as detailed in Appendix A of the report.

 

The Council faced a significant financial challenge, with a projected budget deficit of £4.1 million by 2027/28.  To address this shortfall, the Medium-Term Financial Strategy sets out the Council’s approach to achieving financial sustainability including the delivery of savings, efficiencies and income generation.

 

While the setting of the fees and charges needs to be considered within the overall financial context of the Council, there were many factors affecting their determination.  For some charges, a full cost recovery basis may be appropriate thereby ensuring that service users pay the full cost of the service they received, while for others the Council may choose to subsidise services to residents to support the aims of the Council such as for health and wellbeing.

 

Officers had been developing a standardised  template to enable identification of the level of subsidy provided for each chargeable service.   This would require further refinement over the next 6 – 9 months, to fully support fee setting for 2026/27.

 

Whilst the Council’s constitution placed initial fee setting with each service committee, it also provided delegated authority to Officers to alter fees, charges and prices without reference to a committee,  in order to respond to market conditions, new needs, changes in tax rates etc.

 

Some members of the Committee were dissatisfied with some of the increases particularly in relation to the use of football pitches and bowling greens. 

 

Officers advised the Committee that currently some of the discretionary services fees did not cover the cost of delivering the service.  Subsidizing these services was considered a fair rationale for increasing charges.   This would ensure the Council could protect services going forward.

 

 

Resolved that:

 

The proposed fees and charges as set out in the report be approved effective from the dates set out in the appendix or as soon as practical thereafter.

The Committee was asked to recommend to Full Council following consultation, to rescind The Broadway, New Haw as a consent street and remove the ability of street traders to apply to operate in the area.

 

At the June meeting of this Committee a report regarding the future of the Council’s sole consent street in the borough, which was a small section of The Broadway, New Haw was discussed.   The Committee resolved to recommend to Full Council a consultation regarding removing its status as a consent street.  Full Council subsequently approved this recommendation at its meeting on 18 July 2024.

 

That consultation took place throughout August and the responses received from Surrey Police and Surrey County Council reaffirmed Officers’ belief that The Broadway should be re-designated as a prohibited street.

 

This issue had come to light as there had been a slight upturn in enquiries and applications to trade at The Broadway over the past 12 months, and it became apparent that when processing those applications, that they were likely to be met with a blanket rejection from those we are required to consult with due to various concerns including litter, parking and antisocial behaviour.

 

If removed this would result in Runnymede having three licenced streets in the borough, which would allow markets to take place. The remaining streets in the borough would continue to be designated as prohibited streets. If approved by Full Council, there were still some tasks to complete.  Therefore, this would come into effect on 10 February 2025.

 

Resolved that:

 

Environment and Sustainability Committee recommend to Full Council that;

 

1)    All previous resolutions of the Council made pursuant to paragraph 2 of schedule 4 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 (the Act) be hereby revoked

 

2)    Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Act, that as from the date when this resolution takes effect, all areas of land within the Borough of Runnymede which are “streets” within the definition of that term contained in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Act shall be designated as prohibited streets with the exception of any streets referred to in resolution 3 below

 

3)    The parts of streets set out below be designated as Consent Streets or Licence Streets, as defined in Schedule 4 to the Act:

 

Consent Streets

 

None

 

Licence Streets

 

High Street, Egham
      Station Road North, Egham
      Guildford Street, Chertsey

With effect from 10 February 2025.

At the meeting in June 2024 the Committee asked Officers to bring a comprehensive overview of parking services to this Committee.

 

Officers gave Members a comprehensive overview of parking services, which included the background to parking, the current position, parking operations and key initiatives.

 

It was noted that recent improvements at the Borough car parks included new pay and display machines.  It was hoped that the ANPR installations would be completed by the end of March next year.   Officers would then be looking at more prepayment options and the potential use of QR codes.

 

It was noted that Officers aimed to make parking equitable, fair and consistent for all residents. 

 

 

 

The Committee was advised that the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee at its meeting on 28 March 2024 requested that the following activities be reviewed by the Environment and Sustainability Committee;

 

1)    A review to consider if there was sufficient evidence to implement an additional HMO licensing scheme in the borough to include non-licenable HMOs

 

2)    Introduction of new HMO licensing conditions on the following themes which would apply to existing and additionally licensed HMO’s

a)   Bins and waste management
b)   Garden Maintenance
c)   ASB and nuisance behaviour

 

3)     To review HMO licensing fees

 

Officers advised the Committee that after careful consideration they had concluded the following:

 

·         The evidence gathered, on analysis, did not meet the three evidential
tests required for implementation of an additional licensing scheme as set out in the Housing Act 2004

·         Existing powers and processes were available to tackle ASB, nuisance behaviour, waste management and garden maintenance issues.   The use of the existing powers would deliver more targeted, effective and efficient results.

 

The Housing Act 2004 sections 56 and 57 contained three evidential tests that must be reviewed before any designation could be made;

 

Test one – The authority must consider that a significant proportion of the HMOs of that description in the area were managed sufficiently ineffectively as to give rise, or to be likely to give rise, to one or more particular problems either for those occupying the HMOs or for members of the public.  (Section 56 (2)).

 

Test two – The authority must not make a particular designation under section 56 unless they had considered whether there were any other courses of action available to them (of whatever nature) that might provide an effective method of dealing with the problem or problems in question, (section 57(4)(a)).

 

Test three – The authority must not make a particular designation under section 56 unless they considered that making the designation would significantly assist them to deal with the problem or problems (whether or not they take any other course of action as well) (section 57(4)(b))

 

The Committee was advised that having analysed the data with respect to introducing an additional HMO licensing scheme.  Officers had not found the evidence to support the introduction of a scheme.

 

The Committee was in support of this approach with an additional recommendation for HMOs to be kept under review and an update brought back to this Committee again in 12 months.

 

 

Resolved that:

 

The Committee does not progress the introduction of an additional HMO licensing scheme to include non-licensable HMOs where there are two or more separate households, because none of the three evidential tests prescribed in the Housing Act 2004 are met; and

 

The Committee does not approve the introduction of new HMO licensing conditions because existing powers and processes are available to tackle ASB, nuisance behaviour, waste management and garden maintenance issues. The use of existing powers will deliver a more targeted, effective and efficient results.

 

The Committee notes that the approach to evidencing nuisance arising from HMOs in the borough, and the strategic approach to dealing with cases of nuisance associated with HMOs, will be kept under review by the Head of Environmental Services and following consultation with key councillors of Egham Town, Englefield Green East and Englefield Green West wards, those most affected by HMOs an update will be brought to Committee again in 12 months.

 

Resolved that:

 

The press and public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following report under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the report in question would be likely to involve disclosure of exempt information of

the description specified in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Agenda item 10 -  Councillor D Whyte and Councillor J Hulley both declared an interest.  They both rented an RBC managed allotment.  They both withdrew from the meeting for this item.

 

No apologies for absence were received.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 June 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

To record that Councillor M Williams substituted for Councillor R Milstead and Councillor C Parry substituted for Councillor P Gahir.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor D Clarke.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 June 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

There were no exempt or confidential items on the agenda.

The Committee’s approval was sought for the proposed fees and charges for the services provided under the Licensing Act 2003.  All of the fees and charges apart from the pre-application fees, which had been introduced from 1 April 2024, were set by statute and could not be altered to recover the full cost of running the service. Therefore, Members only had discretion to alter the pre-application advice charges which it was noted had been set on a full cost recovery basis in line with advice from colleagues in Finance. 

 

It was acknowledged that only one other neighbouring local authority in Surrey appeared to offer a pre-application advice service, and their fees were thought to be more expensive than the proposed fee.  [Subsequently, Officers found that only the 1 hour advice service was equivalent to the other local authority’s current fees]  It was also noted that to obtain advice from a specialist licensing solicitor or consultant would cost the applicant a considerable amount more than the proposed charges.  Officers were asked to consider a wider benchmarking exercise with regard to the pre-application fees and to supply the Committee with some data from other Councils other than those in Surrey which Officers were confident would demonstrate the proposed fees were good value for money.

 

There was a level of frustration that because the statutory fees had not been increased since their introduction, the service was carrying a running deficit, currently estimated to be £25,900 for 2025/26.  It was discussed whether this was a sum that could be ‘written off’.  It was also suggested that it might be a timely moment for further lobbying through the Local Government Association; this could also be carried out by elected Members.

 

The Committee was content to approve the proposed fees and charges accordingly.

 

Resolved that –

 

The proposed fees and charges as set out in Appendix A of the report, be approved, to be effective from the dates within the Appendix or as soon as practical thereafter

There were no declarations of interest.

The Committee’s approval was sought to undertake a public consultation on the proposed revised Statement of Gambling Policy for 2025 – 2028.

 

Members were pleased to be presented with a copy of the policy document showing tracked changes as this clearly showed amendments, additions, and deletions.

 

In the main, Officers advised that substantial reliance had been made on the Guidance issued by the Gambling Commission in order to update policy as set out in the report.  In addition, Officers had taken into account local demographics and welcomed feedback on any particular areas of concern from the public, statutory and non-statutory consultees. 

 

Members agreed that whilst much of the policy was stipulated, the local area risk assessment was an integral part of the process.  It was especially important to take into account the views and experiences of local organisations devoted to helping people that could be adversely affected by Gambling.  An Equality Impact Screening Assessment had been reviewed and updated accordingly, focussing on how the authority sought to protect children and vulnerable adults.

 

Reference was also made to the review of the Gambling Act 2005 under the previous Government, the result of which introduced new requirements around age verification test purchasing aimed to complement the existing controls to prevent under age gambling.  Members were advised that there was a joint regulatory regime between local authorities that issued the premises licences and permits and the Gambling Commission who were responsible for personal licences and operators licences.

 

Officers were asked to confirm the list of consultees in respect of local public and mental health teams and to include the North West Surrey Alliance in the public consultation exercise.

 

The Committee was supportive of the revised policy which was approved for a public consultation to last 8 weeks.

 

Resolved that –

 

i)          the revised Statement of Gambling Policy be approved for public consultation; and

 

ii)         the results of the consultation be brought back to this Committee for further discussion in January 2025, with a view to approval of the policy accordingly

There were no exempt or confidential items on the agenda.

The Committee’s approval was sought for the proposed fees and charges for the services that fell within the remit of the Regulatory Committee.

 

In line with the direction of colleagues in Finance, where possible, fees had been set at full cost recovery, noting that it was important to balance the needs of service users, and remain competitive and affordable.  However, in the case of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing the authority could only recover the cost of issue, administration and in the case of drivers, compliance.  Therefore, the running deficit for Taxi Licensing was estimated to be £90,250 for 2025/26.  The Committee agreed this was disappointing but that it would be unsustainable to increase the fees to such a level that could not be borne by the Trade.  Members were also mindful of the case of Hemmings and Others V Westminster City Council which had prompted the fee setting structure adopted by the Council in 2014.

 

Officers reported that to reflect the free availability of the drivers’ information packs on line, it was proposed to remove the current charge of £25.  It was proposed to increase the charge for the Knowledge Test to reflect Officer time engaged in the 4^th element of the Knowledge Test for Hackney Carriage Drivers which was route testing.  The Knowledge Test was undertaken in person which gave Officers an additional reassurance about drivers being ‘fit and proper’, and competent in oral and written English.

 

Members recalled that the retrospective fee charged to the authority for the taxi ranks at the stations operated by South Western Railways (SWR), had increased from £5,000 to £6,600.  This would be recouped from the drivers in the 2025/26 fees.  However, this would be a saving going forwards as SWR had taken back management of the ranks and would in future be contracting directly with the drivers who wanted to use their ranks.

 

In respect of other fees and charges it was noted that Gambling licence fees and charges were set by statute, and the estimated deficit for 2025/26 was £12,900.

 

Officers proposed that where there was greater discretion higher increases were justified.  These included the initial fee for an application for a sex establishment, whilst lowering the annual maintenance fee, and increasing the fee for a film licensing certificate issued by the authority as opposed to those granted by the British Board of Film Classification.  It was acknowledged that both these sets of fees and charges were rarely used.

 

In approving the proposed fees and charges the Committee gave weight to the rationale of trying to recover the cost of running services whilst keeping fees and charges reasonable and proportionate.

 

Resolved that –

 

The proposed fees and charges as set out in Appendix A to the report, be approved, to be effective from the dates within the appendix, or as soon as practical thereafter

There were no declarations on interest.

There were no apologies for absence, noting the substitution to the Committee Membership.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18 September 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Councillor P Tucker-Brown substituted for Councillor D Clarke.