Minutes of the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee
8 September 2026
Present:
Councillor G. Neall (Chair)
Councillor C. Bateson (Vice-Chair)
Councillors:
|
M.M. Attewell M. Buck D.C. Clarke |
S. Gyawali M.J. Lee D. Saliagopoulos
|
J.R. Sexton J.A. Turner H.R.D. Williams
|
|
83/26 |
Apologies and Substitutes
|
Apologies were received from Councillors Boughtflower, Button, S Doran and Geach.
Councillor Howkins was in attendance as substitute for Councillor Boughtflower.
Councillor Lee joined the meeting at 19.10
|
84/26 |
Minutes
|
The minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 13 July 2026 and the extraordinary meeting on 29 July 2026 were agreed as a correct record.
|
85/26 |
Disclosures of Interest
|
Councillors Attewell, Bateson and Sexton declared that they were also West Surrey Shadow Authority Councillors.
|
86/26 |
Questions from members of the Public
|
There were none.
|
87/26 |
Q1 2026/27 Performance Report
|
Following a short debate, the Committee resolved to agree that they have been informed and assured of the 2026/27 performance updates relating to:
1. Corporate Key Performance Indicators; and
2. Progress with the delivery of the Council’s Transitional Plan
|
88/26 |
Complaints Reporting - Annual Report 2025/2026
|
The Committee considered the Annual Complaints Report 2025/26.
The Group Head of Commissioning and Transformation advised members that the Council’s complaint procedure consisted of two levels of complaints. Initially, all new complaints were treated as Stage 1 complaints and were responded to by the relevant service. As this stage, as much information and evidence was gathered to provide a robust response. If the complainant is not satisfied with the response from the service, the complaint will be escalated to a Stage 2 complaint and would be dealt with by the Complaints Officer. If the second response did not satisfy the complainant, it could be referred to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for them to review both the original complaint and the Council’s responses.
Concerns were raised about the increase in Stage 1 complaints received in 2025/26. It was suggested that social media provided a platform for the public to express dissatisfaction and made it easier for people to submit complaints.
The Committee resolved to agree to receive and acknowledge the report.
|
89/26 |
Treasury Management Annual Outturn Report 2025/26
|
The Committee considered the Annual Treasury Management Outturn Report that sought to inform members. The Council had a statutory duty to present to this Committee and Council to show the performance of the Council’s Treasury Management activities during the financial year.
The Committee were advised that the value of the Council’s assets was £526m as at 31 March 2026; this equated to a 51% loss compared to the original prices paid.
The Committee requested that an overview of the properties sold in 2026/27 and the sale price be produced and distributed to members to ensure that they are fully informed.
Members were advised that, as outlined in the report, the Council’s debt with the Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) was £717.5m as at 31 March 2026.
It was planned that Treasury Management training would be provided to all members.
Concerns were expressed about the lack of comments from the Commissioners both in the report and on the checklist and some members stated that they considered this to be an incomplete report and were therefore unable to receive it.
A recorded vote was requested by Councillor Williams.
|
For |
Councillors Neall, Attewell, Bateson, Gyawali, Turner – 5 votes |
|
Against |
Councillors Buck, Clarke, Howkins, Lee, Saliagopoulos, Williams – 6 votes |
|
Abstain |
Sexton – 1 vote |
The Committee resolved not to agree to receive the Treasury Management Outturn Position for 2025/26.
|
90/26 |
Governance Assurance update - Organisational Resilience and Cyber Resilience
|
The Committee considered a report that sought to provide members with an update on organisational resilience and cyber resilience.
It was proposed by Councillor Bateson and seconded by Councillor Gyawali to move the meeting into a closed session to discuss exempt information.
For – 4 votes
Against – 4 votes
Abstain – 4 votes
The Chair used his casting vote to move the meeting into a closed session.
Following the discussion in the closed session the meeting moved back into an open session to vote on the recommendations.
The Committee resolved to:
1. Receive the current overall assurance level for the Governance Assurance Areas under the remit of the Corporate Policy & Resources Committee (Appendix A), which form part of the Council’s Governance Assurance Register; and
2. Consider the key areas of focus concerning the Governance Assurance Areas relating to Organisational Resilience (Appendix B) and Cyber Resilience (Confidential Appendix C).
|
91/26 |
Petitions
|
The Committee considered the following petition that was presented by Mr Alex Balkan:
1. Establish a time-limited partnership with Visit Staines BID, residents, businesses and community organisations,
2. Approach Sacha Baron Cohen, his representative and the relevant rights holders at an early stage, inviting him to help shape and potentially fund the initiative,
3. Explore a temporary licensed attraction, event or photo opportunity during the new film’s promotional period,
4. Assess public support and develop a permanent statue, sculpture or other landmark only if external funding is secured for its design, installation and maintenance,
5. Include a secure donation facility supporting affordable sport, arts, leisure and community activities for children and young people in Staines; and
6. Ensure the initiative meets the Council’s legal, financial, planning, safety and ethical requirements, while retaining suitable creative freedom for Ali G’s irreverent humour and satire.
During the debate members raised the following concerns:
1. The Ali G character had belittled Staines-upon-Thames in the past
2. The Council should not support commercial enterprise from outside the Borough
3. No research had been done to understand how much of a positive value this would add to Staines-upon-Thames
4. Scenes from an Ali G film had been filmed at the Matthew Arnold School in Staines-upon-Thames.
5. This would help make Staines-upon-Thames a visitor attraction
6. No evidence of the actor, Sacha Baron Cohen having given anything back to the town
7. Controversy around the character caused the name change from Staines to Staines-upon-Thames
8. The Council has to prioritise their work due to Local Government Reorganisation, and this would not be considered a priority
9. The Ali G character was highly controversial
The Committee resolved not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate.
|
92/26 |
Urgent Actions
|
There were no urgent actions.
The meeting adjourned 20.59
The meeting reconvened 21.06
|
93/26 |
Residential Acquisitions for Housing Need
|
The Committee were advised that approval was given by Full Council to use the balance of a Commuted Sum and monies from Local Authority Housing Fund to purchase properties to help mitigate affordable housing and temporary accommodation pressures as well as reduce the numbers currently living in nightly paid and temporary accommodation.
Members were advised that the Commuted Sum had to be spent or committed as expenditure within 5 years of receipt of it would have to be paid back to the developer. The Local Authority Housing Fund had to be spent by 31 March 2027.
Six properties had been identified as potential purchases, 4 long leaseholds, a freehold and 1 with a share of the freehold.
Councillor Turner proposed and Councillor Bateson seconded and the Committee resolved to go into a closed session to enable exempt information to be considered.
The meeting returned to an open session for the vote.
The Committee resolved to:
1. Approve the acquisition of 4 leasehold properties, 1 freehold property and 1 property with a share of freehold, all located in the Borough as set out in Appendix 1,
2. Delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer and Group Head of Assets, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee, to agree minor variations to the agreed terms; and
3. Delegate authority to the Group Head of Governance to enter all relevant documentation relating to the acquisition referred to above.
It was proposed by Councillor Bateson and seconded by Councillor Turner to suspend Standing Order 38.2 to go 10.30pm to complete the business of the meeting. Due to an equality of votes, the Chair used his casting vote to agree to the meeting going beyond 10pm.
|
94/26 |
Disposal of Elmbrook House and 17 Station Road, Sunbury
|
The Committee considered a report that sought a recommendation to Council to approve the proposed disposal of Elmbrook House and 17 Station Road, Sunbury.
Concerns were raised about the legacy debt that Spelthorne Borough Council would pass to the West Surrey Authority (WSA) and whether the Leader of the WSA had been approached to gauge their opinion on the Council’s rationalisation programme and, in particular, the need for any further asset disposals. Members were advised that the Mid Term Financial Plan for WSA would need to be completed and that it would be based on the assumption that Spelthorne BC would be reducing their outstanding debt. The Chief Executive was asked to write to the Acting Head of Paid Services at West Surrey to ask for their comments on any future asset disposals.
A recorded vote was requested.
|
For |
Councillors Neall, Attewell, Bateson, Gyawali, Sexton, Turner – 6 votes |
|
Against |
Councillors Buck, Clarke, Howkins, Lee, Saliagopoulos – 5 votes |
|
Abstain |
Williams – 1 vote |
The Committee resolved to consider the proposed disposal terms as set out in the report and to make a recommendation to Council:
1. To approve the disposal terms set out in the report,
2. To delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer and Group Head of Assets, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Corporate Policy & Resources Committee to agree minor variations to the Heads of Terms and adjustments to the sale price; and
3. To delegate authority to the Group Head of Corporate Governance to enter into a transfer to complete the disposal and any ancillary legal documentation required in relation to the proposed disposal.
|
95/26 |
Forward Plan
|
The Committee resolved to note the Forward Plan for future business of the Committee.