Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 July 2020 and the extraordinary meetings held on 10 and 24 September 2020.

The minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 July 2020 and Extraordinary Meetings held on 10 and 24 September 2020 were agreed as a correct record.

To receive any disclosures of interest from Councillors in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To receive any announcements from the Mayor.

The Mayor reported that he had been busy in spite of the restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. He had been able to present some awards personally, instead of in the Council Chamber and thanked those councillors who had assisted him in this.

To receive any announcements from the Chief Executive.

The Chief Executive reminded councillors of the need to contact the ICT team to set up their authenticator app for Office 365.

To receive any announcements from the Leader.

The Leader made the following announcements:

“The Council has continued to do its utmost to support residents amid the Coronavirus pandemic. The Borough of Spelthorne has been placed in the medium tier, and I ask residents to adhere to the government guidelines. Neighbouring boroughs, including Hillingdon, Hounslow and Elmbridge, have been placed in the high tier so it is important we all continue to follow the rules to limit the spread. It is coming up to eight months since this Council moved to an emergency footing. Our website contains up to date information for residents and business on how to access support.

I am pleased to announce that the Council has made donations, totalling £71,000 to support local charities and food banks in the Borough which have all played a vital role in supporting vulnerable residents over the past few months.

Following Government instructions designed to help reduce the spread of Coronavirus, the Council will be moving Remembrance Day services online. Following the success earlier in the year of our VE Day and VJ Day virtual commemorations, a fitting tribute will be released on Sunday 8 November on our website and social media channels to ensure that residents can join us with remembering those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

The Council has declared a climate emergency for the Borough. We have always regarded climate change as a very serious threat and have made some great steps to reduce our carbon footprint. However, to avoid any doubt how serious this administration takes climate change we have taken the decision to declare a Climate Emergency. A study has been commissioned to identify our own carbon footprint and in 2021 this Council plans to launch 'Community Climate Change Forums'.

The Council’s green spaces have also been honoured at a regional and national level.  Sunbury Walled Garden and Staines Cemetery have, once again been awarded Green Flag status. These two sites also won gold at the South East in Bloom Awards, along with Sunbury Cemetery and Ashford Cemetery.

Spelthorne Borough Council is stepping up its battle against litter with the launch of the #NoRubbishExcuses campaign. I urge you to support our campaign and would like to take this opportunity to thank our officers who work tirelessly to clean up our parks and streets and the growing army of residents who are running regular litter pickups. The Mayor of Spelthorne is also honouring our young litter heroes for their commitment in making Spelthorne a greener and cleaner place to live.

As part of Spelthorne Borough Council's continued drive to improve community safety, a new, modern CCTV camera has been installed at Orchard Meadow car park in Sunbury. The camera will be monitored 24/7 along with cameras in Staines-upon-Thames town centre. The installation was arranged in response to concerns regarding anti-social behaviour in the area.

Entries for the third Spelthorne Business Awards have been extended until 11 December. Highstreets and local businesses across the Borough need our support now more than ever and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229/20

1.    To consider a report from the Monitoring Officer (to follow) on the following Motion which was proposed at the meeting held on 30 July 2020 and in accordance with Standing Order 28.2, was adjourned without discussion, to the next ordinary meeting of the Council:

“The Leader said he would be more inclusive when he was elected and yet has not demonstrated this so under Standing Order 28.2, I propose a variation to Council Standing Order 8.3 little f.   I move the following:

8.3 little ‘f’ be amended to prevent the Leader assigning all the Outside Bodies to his own party as opposed to the councillors best suited to carry out these roles.”

Proposed by Councillor R.A. Smith-Ainsley

Seconded by Councillor D. Saliagopoulos

2.    There were two Motions outstanding from the meeting held on 30 July 2020, however Motion 3 was withdrawn by the proposer following the meeting. The remaining Motion reads:

Motion 4.

“The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee published its report on Local authority investment in commercial property on 13th July 2020.  The Council notes the following conclusions arising from the report:

·         That in the view of the PAC, Spelthorne Borough Council borrowing from the Public Works Loans Board since 2016 has been excessive and undertaken against DHCLG and CIPFA guidance.

·         That in some authorities there have been failings in transparency, with decision making by small groups and inadequate scrutiny.

The Council resolves to take the following actions in response to the PAC report:

·         To require greater member involvement in all future investment related decisions above a defined transaction value.

·         To make available to members full information on significant portfolio expenditures, lettings and contractual amendments within 14 days of the decision.

·         To revise accounting structures to clearly separate the property investment portfolio from other Council activities and to make this segmentation transparent in future reporting to members.

·         To establish portfolio performance measures and risk management parameters to be reported periodically to members.

The details of these actions are to be agreed by the Leader's Property Investment Task Group and submitted to the Council for ratification.”

Proposed by:  Cllr Lawrence Nichols

Seconded by: Cllr Bernie Spoor

The Mayor explained that there were two motions to deal with which were carried over from the Council meeting held on 30 July 2020.

The first Motion was proposed at the meeting held on 30 July 2020 by Councillor R.A. Smith-Ainsley and seconded by Councillor D. Saliagopoulos and in accordance with Standing Order 28.2, was adjourned without discussion, to this meeting.

The Council considered the report from the Monitoring Officer in relation to this Motion.

Councillor R.A. Smith-Ainsley proposed and Councillor D. Saliagopoulos seconded the following amended Motion, to reflect the comments of the Monitoring Officer in her report:

“That Standing Order 8.3 little ‘f’ be amended to read: ‘Appoint to outside bodies except where appointment to those bodies has been delegated by the Council or is exercisable only by the Leader (the Leader’s appointment to be on a non-political basis and based upon individual Councillors’ skills)’.”

In accordance with Standing Order 20.13, the Council gave its consent to the alteration of the Motion.

The Motion was debated, put to the vote and carried.

Resolved that:

Standing Order 8.3 little ‘f’ be amended to read: ‘Appoint to outside bodies except where appointment to those bodies has been delegated by the Council or is exercisable only by the Leader (the Leader’s appointment to be on a non-political basis and based upon individual Councillors’ skills)

Motion 2

Councillor L.E. Nichols proposed and Councillor B.B. Spoor seconded the following Motion:

“The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee published its report on Local authority investment in commercial property on 13th July 2020.  The Council notes the following conclusions arising from the report:

• That in the view of the PAC, Spelthorne Borough Council borrowing from the Public Works Loans Board since 2016 has been excessive and undertaken against DHCLG and CIPFA guidance.
• That in some authorities there have been failings in transparency, with decision making by small groups and inadequate scrutiny.

The Council resolves to take the following actions in response to the PAC report:

• To require greater member involvement in all future investment related decisions above a defined transaction value.

• To make available to members full information on significant portfolio expenditures, lettings and contractual amendments within 14 days of the decision.
• To revise accounting structures to clearly separate the property investment portfolio from other Council activities and to make this segmentation transparent in future reporting to members.
• To establish portfolio performance measures and risk management parameters to be reported periodically to members.

The details of these actions are to be agreed by the Leader's Property Investment Task Group and submitted to the Council for ratification.”

The Motion was debated and Councillor R.A. Smith-Ainsley called for a recorded vote.

The voting was as follows:

The Leader or his nominee to answer questions from Councillors on issues in their Wards, in accordance with Standing Order 15.

There were two Ward issue questions outstanding from the meeting held on 30 July 2020:

1.    Question from Councillor I.T.E. Harvey

Regarding the Lendy Memorial

·         Who exactly at the Council engaged this expert?

·         Who is this expert? What qualifications does he or she have?

·         Is this expert sufficiently knowledgeable about west African and southern African 19th century history so as to be able to make a valid judgement on the Lendy Memorial?

2.    Question from Councillor D. Saliagopoulos

“I would like to make Council aware that the Riverside area within my Ward needs some attention please. There is a stretch of River walk which runs from Penton Hook Lock towards Staines Town. For those of you who know, we also have the large grassed area called “Silvery Sands” which has housing fronting this large open area.

Until the unfortunate onset of the Virus Pandemic, this area was clean, free of dog fouling (thanks to the fabulous campaign organised by Councillor Joe Sexton a couple of years ago) and the bins never overflowed. Now, people leave plastic bags of litter, litter has been left on the grass and riverside area. One weekend there were hundreds of empty beer cans, all cleared up by local residents.

I have to recognise the work that my fellow Councillor, Michelle Gibson, who lives on the river, does every day to keep the area clean. Many residents are also doing this.

Every day there have been gatherings of people, all enjoying the River and it has been nice to see children out in the fresh air enjoying themselves. However, there’s always a but isn’t there? The area is now blighted by empty legal hi canisters, little small silver phials about the length of a cigarette. The users of these drugs must surely come from the nightly hoards of young people who congregate at Silvery Sands. I actually feel very sorry for those residents whose properties face directly onto this lovely area. Some have actually taken to putting up high fences and I have even heard of complete strangers walking through residents’ gardens.

Crime is also on the rise with several properties being broken into. Litter, as I have mentioned and dog fouling is on the increase. Inconsiderate parking is rife. Two roads in particular, Penton Hook Road and parts of Wheatsheaf Lane are actually Private Roads - the residents pay for the upkeep of these roads, independently from the County Council. Visitors to the River In their cars were not respecting this.

The biggest complaint I hear from residents is regarding cyclists. Why are these cyclists not understanding that Pelatons do not have right of way over pedestrians. There have been many near misses, dogs being hit, and many complaints about the general attitude of cyclists. So far I have personally witnessed 2 accidents. Cyclists should at least slow down for pedestrians and give way.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 231/20

The Mayor reported that councillors were provided with written responses in advance of this meeting, to the two questions received for the Council meeting on 30 July 2020. Councillors I.T.E. Harvey and D. Saliagopoulos were given the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.

1.    Question from Councillor I.T.E. Harvey –

Regarding the Lendy Memorial

·         Who exactly at the Council engaged this expert?

·         Who is this expert? What qualifications does he or she have?

·         Is this expert sufficiently knowledgeable about west African and southern African 19th century history so as to be able to make a valid judgement on the Lendy Memorial?

Response from the Leader, Councillor J.R. Boughtflower:

“Thank you for your question Councillor Harvey. Deborah Ashman and Karen Sinclair, Joint Community Heads of Community Wellbeing are responsible for contracting an appropriately qualified expert.  As this question was not responded to at the July meeting, this response reflects the most up to date position on this matter.

The Council committed to review all historical information of Council owned monuments following the issues identified by the recent “Black Lives Matters” protests. The Lendy Memorial Lion which is a statue in the Walled Garden in Sunbury was identified by the campaign as a statue of concern and is one of 29 Council owned monuments.

In order to undertake this exercise and to enable Councillors and residents to be informed of the full historical background of all the monuments, it was identified that there was a need to employ the services of an appropriately qualified, impartial historian, who has experience in this type of research..

Discussions initially took place with an expert who work in a London University and has a BA Honours in English Literature and History, as well as a Masters in Historical Research (specialising in social and cultural history). This expert also has a PhD from the University of London (Institute of Historical Research).  Officers contacted other academics to establish that the cost and timetable for this exercise are reasonable for the work to be undertaken.

After extensive discussions between officers and relevant experts it was identified that the cost for them to undertake the review was prohibitive (a quote was received of £28,000 for research on Lendy alone).

After an approach by Council officers, Mr Alan Doyle a long-time resident of Sunbury who is an investigative journalist by profession kindly agreed to assist the Council without charge and draft a report on the historical background to the memorial. It was decided Councillors could then consider this information and decide if any action would be necessary. Mr Doyle has been researching the Lendy family periodically for 30 years. The evidence which has been used by the “Topple the Racists” website to justify their call for the Lendy Memorial to be taken down is a brief article on a website which credits Alan Doyle as a source of research, although the article only quotes partial and selective elements of the summary written by him some 10 years ago.

I am able  ...  view the full minutes text for item 231/20

The Leader, or his nominee, to answer questions from Councillors on matters affecting the Borough, in accordance with Standing Order 15.

There were 10 questions outstanding from the meeting held on 30 July 2020.

Question 1 from Cllr. R.W. Sider, BEM

At the meeting of the full Council on the 18th of July 2019 I placed the following Motion before the Council. It was, ‘That Officers investigate whether it is feasible to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Surrey County Council for Spelthorne Borough Council to act on their behalf to remove Travellers encamped when on the highway and append such charges involved to Surrey’. It was seconded by Cllr Barnard. The motion was debated and the Leader of the Council said- quote - ‘I think it is something that we can ask officers to explore and then report back to the portfolio holder. On that basis I will support your motion and ask members to do likewise.’ The Motion was carried and it was Resolved ‘That officers investigate whether it is feasible to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Surrey County Council for Spelthorne Borough Council to act on their behalf to remove Traveller encampments when on the highway, and append such charges involved to Surrey County Council.’

My question is “It is now one calendar year since the foregoing resolution was debated and carried, and again Travellers have encamped in Old Charlton Lane, Shepperton, requiring officers from Surrey to deliver the relevant documentation to secure their removal. Can the Leader of the Council inform me what discussions with Surrey have taken place as required by the Motion of the 18th of July 2019, and what progress has been made in carrying out the requirements of the said resolution.”

Question 2 from Cllr. R.W. Sider, BEM

“After a further invasion and encampment of Travellers in the borough in mid- summer last year, I requested that officers pursued through the legal means and through the courts, an injunction along the lines that had been secured by our neighbouring borough, which would prevent them entering Spelthorne on any occasion. After one year, can the Leader inform me of the progress that has been made by officers to secure such an injunction?”

Question 3 from Cllr. J. Sexton

“At the Cabinet meeting on 15th July the Leader stated at the very beginning ‘Can I remind everyone that mobile phones should be switched off or set to silent mode’. 

When Cllr Attewell was reading one of her reports regarding homelessness she stopped and said ‘Sorry I’m reading this from my phone and someone just tried to call me.’  This was followed shortly after by another interruption with Cllr Attewell saying ‘Oh gosh I’m never doing this again, I am reading this from my phone and people keep ringing me.’

Over 86 subscribers have now accessed the recording and it does not make the Spelthorne Council Cabinet look veryprofessional. Will the Leader now ensure that Cabinet meetings are video  ...  view the full agenda text for item 232/20

The Mayor reported that nine general questions were received for the Council meeting on 30 July 2020.  Written responses had been sent to councillors before this meeting. He gave an opportunity for each of the councillors to ask a supplementary question.

1.    First question from Councillor R.W. Sider, BEM

“At the meeting of the full Council on the 18^th of July 2019 I placed the following Motion before the Council. It was, ‘That Officers investigate whether it is feasible to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Surrey County Council for Spelthorne Borough Council to act on their behalf to remove Travellers encamped when on the highway and append such charges involved to Surrey’. It was seconded by Cllr Barnard. The motion was debated and the Leader of the Council said - quote - ‘I think it is something that we can ask officers to explore and then report back to the portfolio holder. On that basis I will support your motion and ask members to do likewise. The Motion was carried and it was Resolved ‘That officers investigate whether it is feasible to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Surrey County Council for Spelthorne Borough Council to act on their behalf to remove Traveller encampments when on the highway, and append such charges involved to Surrey County Council.’

My question is ‘It is now one calendar year since the foregoing resolution was debated and carried, and again Travellers have encamped in Old Charlton Lane, Shepperton, requiring officers from Surrey to deliver the relevant documentation to secure their removal. Can the Leader of the Council inform me what discussions with Surrey have taken place as required by the Motion of the 18^th of July 2019, and what progress has been made in carrying out the requirements of the said resolution.”

Response from Councillor R. Barratt:

“Thank you for your question, Councillor Sider. Old Charlton Lane has been the subject of four unauthorised encampments in the last two years. The first was dealt with by the Police under a section 61 Notice pursuant to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The next two were dealt with by Surrey County Council under section 78 Notices.

The last encampment occurred on 7 July. Notices under section 77 of the Act were served by Surrey County Council Officers on 13 July, and a hearing at the Magistrates’ Court took place on 21 July.

Enquiries of officers at Surrey County Council have not been fruitful to date. Offers of an agency type arrangement have been made but we have been advised that Surrey County Council wishes to retain control of enforcement of this area, which is County Council highway land.  Surrey’s officers will continue to work in close cooperation with Spelthorne Officers to ensure that any adverse impacts are minimised.”

Supplementary question from Councillor R.W. Sider, BEM

“Can officers please provide an update as to whether any further progress has been made?”

Written response from Councillor R.O. Barratt, provided after the meeting:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 232/20

The Leader, or his nominee, to answer any questions raised by members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 14.

Note: the deadline for questions to be considered at this meeting is 12 noon on Thursday 15 October 2020.

At the time of publication of this agenda, 1 question was received

Question from Mr Andrew McLuskey

“Given the decision by the Secretary of State to authorise the construction of a new, unnecessary and potentially extremely disruptive pipeline from Southampton to Heathrow and given the council’s previous lacklustre response to the proposal will Spelthorne Council now commit to whole heartedly using all means possible to mount a strong legal challenge to the plan in the few weeks remaining which are available for this.”

The Mayor reported that, under Standing Order 14, 12 questions had been received from members of the public for this meeting.

1.    Question from Mr. McLuskey

“Given the decision by the Secretary of State to authorise the construction of a new, unnecessary and potentially extremely disruptive pipeline from Southampton to Heathrow and given the council’s previous lacklustre response to the proposal will Spelthorne Council now commit to whole heartedly using all means possible to mount a strong legal challenge to the plan in the few weeks remaining which are available for this?”

Response from Councillor J. McIlroy:

“Thank you for your question, Mr McLuskey. The Southampton to London replacement pipeline sought by Esso was granted consent last week. It had been designated a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and as such was considered under the Development Consent Order process. This means that the Government had already established the principle of the development in publishing the relevant National Policy Statement (NPS); in this case the ‘Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy’ and the ‘National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Supply Pipelines’. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy considered that the proposed development was in accordance with the two National Policy Statements and therefore benefitted from the presumption in favour of oil pipelines. To challenge the principle of the development would require a challenge to the NPS itself, which is not possible as they were both adopted in 2011. By contrast, in the case of the Heathrow expansion proposal there were legal challenges against the Airports National Policy Statement within the 6-week period following the parliamentary vote and that meant the scheme has yet to reach the Development Consent Order stage.

The Development Consent Order process was largely concerned with the detail of impacts the pipeline would have and what mitigation should be secured, with particular focus on the construction period. Spelthorne played a major role throughout the process, including pre-application discussions, preparing written submissions and appearing at the hearing sessions. We did not object to the principle of the replacement pipeline and focused our efforts on ensuring the development had the least possible impact on our communities and public spaces affected by the route, such as Fordbridge Park in Ashford. Through our engagement we were able to secure detailed construction plans for ‘hot spots’ in Spelthorne where there were important issues relating to trees, proximity to residential properties and access arrangements. Further detail will need to be agreed by all the affected local planning authorities and we will have powers to enforce measures required by the Order to ensure our residents and businesses are protected from any adverse impacts arising from the development. The Council can see no basis to challenge the decision and would consider it a fruitless use of our resources.”

2.    Questions from Ms. Mulowska

“Where does the legal power to release Green Belt land for development reside - is it with the local council, or with central government?”  ...  view the full minutes text for item 233/20

The Council has received a petition with 1800 signatories requesting that Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey Police give their full assurance that:

(1) The Lendy Memorial Lion will not be removed, dismantled, or toppled from its current location at Sunbury’s historical Walled Garden (The Walled Garden, Thames Street, Sunbury-on-Thames, TW16 6AB),

(2) the heroic and valiant efforts of Charles Fredrick Lendy Captain R.A and Edward Augustus William Lendy, D.S.O, to which this memorial was erected, will not be marred with a plaque or sign bringing into disrepute their upstanding moral integrity, and

(3) that the memorial will be protected by the police from the threat of vandals, thugs, and terrorists.

The matter is referred to Council for consideration and a response.  In accordance with Standing Order 16.4 in the Constitution, the options available to Council are:

(a) take the action the petition requests; or

(b) not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate; or

(c) note the petition and keep the matter under review; or

(d) if the content relates to a matter on the agenda for the meeting the petition be considered when the item is debated; or

(e) the petition be referred to the Cabinet or Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration.

The Mayor advised that the Council had received a petition with 1800 signatories requesting that Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey Police give their full assurance that:

(1) The Lendy Memorial Lion will not be removed, dismantled, or toppled from its current location at Sunbury’s historical Walled Garden (The Walled Garden, Thames Street, Sunbury-on-Thames, TW16 6AB),

(2) the heroic and valiant efforts of Charles Fredrick Lendy Captain R.A and Edward Augustus William Lendy, D.S.O, to which this memorial was erected, will not be marred with a plaque or sign bringing into disrepute their upstanding moral integrity, and

(3) that the memorial will be protected by the police from the threat of vandals, thugs, and terrorists.

In accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, the matter was referred to Council for consideration and a response.

Mr Philip Sivyer presented the petition, which now had over 2000 signatories, and referred to the ‘Topple the Racists’ website which identified the Lendy Memorial as one of the statues which should be toppled. The justification for this was the belief that the Lendy brothers were “both responsible for murdering African tribes with machine gun fire.”

He explained the reasons why the Council should not agree to this request: Edward Lendy was decorated for bravery in rescuing 4 of the black soldiers under his command from drowning and was awarded the DSO for his actions against slave traders in West Africa and freeing 250 slaves, and Charles Lendy was defending his men from attack when he opened machine gun fire against a 6000 strong tribal ambush. Mr Sivyer concluded that the Lendy Lion memorial is not an endorsement of every action of the Lendy brothers or conflicts they were involved in.

Councillor R.O. Barratt responded to the petition as follows:

“Thank you, Mr Sivyer for your petition and for sharing the understandably strong views of residents.

I expect that you are aware that the Council committed to review all historical information of Council owned monuments following the issues identified by the recent “Black Lives Matters” protests.

The Lendy Memorial Lion statue in the Walled Garden was identified by the campaign as a statue of concern and is one of the 29 Council owned monuments under review.

In order to undertake this exercise and to enable Councillors and residents to be informed of the full historical background of all the monuments, it was identified that there was a need to employ the services of an appropriately qualified, impartial historian, who has experience in this type of research.

It is the Councils intention that once this was undertaken, the information could then be used by Councillors to review the future of an identified monument if it is established to have sensitive connections.

Following extensive discussions between Officers and relevant experts it was identified that the cost for them to undertake the review would be a cost of approximately £28,000, for research on the Lendy Memorial Lion alone.

After an approach by Council Officers, Alan Doyle a long-time resident of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 234/20

Reason for partial exemption

Appendix 5 to the report contains exempt information within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 and by the Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006 Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information because, disclosure to the public would prejudice the financial position of the authority in the tendering process for a developer to build the new leisure centre, allowing tenderers to know the Council’s estimated costs and budget for this development.  This in turn prejudices the Council by (i) distorting the tendering process and (ii) prejudicing the opportunity for the Council to get the most financially advantageous deal for building the new centre.

The Council considered the recommendation of the Cabinet on the replacement of Spelthorne Leisure Centre.

It was moved and seconded that Council approvesa supplementary capital estimate outlined in the confidential Appendix 5 to the report (attached as an exempt item) to cover the projected costs of developing the new centre.

Councillor Nichols indicated that he had a question in relation to the exempt information in Appendix 5 to the report to Cabinet. The Mayor advised that the question would be taken in a Part 2 session at the conclusion of this meeting.

Reason for exemption

This report contains exempt information within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 and by the Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006 Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information because, disclosure to the public would prejudice the financial position of the authority in agreeing final financial and contract terms with the preferred bidder. If the bids were to be made public then it may make the Council vulnerable to a renegotiation with the preferred bidder.

Council considered the recommendation from the Cabinet in relation to Victory Place construction costs.

It was moved and seconded that Council approvesthe increase in Capital spend for construction works, from £16.25m to £25.93m.

Councillor Nichols indicated that he had a question in relation to the exempt report to Cabinet. The Mayor advised that the question would be taken in a Part 2 session at the conclusion of this meeting.

To consider the report of the Monitoring Officer on a proposal for a change in the Council’s Governance arrangements.

The Council considered the report of the Monitoring Officer on a change to the Committee system.

Councillor J.R. Boughtflower proposed:

1.    the objectives as set out in paragraph 4 of the report are adopted to achieve the desired change;

2.    this is recognised as a flagship project for the Council;

3.    the indicative budget is allocated for this flagship project and on-going structure as set out in this report; and

4.    this project proceeds without a meaningful public consultation exercise built into the timetable, as it is acknowledged that to undertake such an exercise may result in the timetable extending beyond the May 2021 date for implementation.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor J. McIlroy.

Councillor R.A. Smith-Ainsley proposed and Councillor I.J. Beardsmore seconded the following amendment by the addition and deletion of words, to Paragraph 4 of the Motion:

“this project proceeds with a meaningful public consultation exercise built into the timetable, it is acknowledged that to undertake such an exercise may result in the timetable extending beyond the May 2021 date for implementation.”

Having sat for three hours, it was moved, seconded and agreed to suspend Standing Order 5 to continue the business on the agenda until 10pm or close of business, whichever was sooner.

Councillor R.J. Noble called for a recorded vote on the amendment.

The result of the vote was:

The amendment was lost and the original Motion was open to debate.

Councillor R.J. Noble left the meeting following the vote on the amendment.

Councillor J.H. Doerfel proposed and Councillor I.J. Beardsmore seconded the following amendment by the addition and deletion of words, to Paragraph 4 of the Motion:

“This project proceeds with a meaningful public consultation exercise built into the timetable, as agreed by Council on 30 July 2020.”

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the timetable agreed by Council on 30 July 2020 was to change to the Committee system at the Annual Council meeting on 27 May 2021.

The Leader, Councillor J.R. Boughtflower advised that it was his intention that all councillors would be invited to agree the questions to be posed in the public consultation.

The amendment was debated, put to the vote and unanimously carried.

The substantive Motion was put to the vote and it was:

Resolved

1.    the objectives as set out in paragraph 4 of the report are adopted to achieve the desired change;

2.    this is recognised as a flagship project for the Council;

3.    the indicative budget is allocated for this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 237/20

To consider the reappointment of Council representative Trustees to the following charities:

1.    Ashford Sick and Needy Charity

Mr A. Hatchman and Mr M. Mulford, each for a further four year period to October 2024.

2.    Ashford Relief in Need Charity

Mrs M. Bushnell for a further four year period ending in October 2024.

3.    Laleham Charities - Village Hall and Recreation Ground

Mr C. Squire for a further four year period to expire October 2024.

Ashford Relief in Need

It was proposed by Councillor J.R. Boughtflower and seconded by Councillor J. McIlroy and resolved that Mrs. M. Bushnell be reappointed as a Council representative trustee to serve on Ashford Relief in Need for a four year term of office until October 2024.

Ashford Sick and Needy Charity

It was proposed by Councillor J.R. Boughtflower and seconded by Councillor J. McIlroy and resolved that Mr. A Hatchman, Mr. M. Mulford and Mr. D Shenton be reappointed as Council representative trustees to serve on Ashford Sick and Needy Charity for a four year term of office until October 2024.

Laleham Charities – Village Hall and Recreation Ground

It was proposed by Councillor J.R. Boughtflower and seconded by Councillor J. McIlroy and resolved that Mr. C. Squire OBE be reappointed as a Council representative trustee to serve on Laleham Charities – Village Hall and Recreation Ground for a four year term of office until October 2024.

To receive the report from the Leader of the Council on the work of the Cabinet at its meeting held on 23 September 2020.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor J.R. Boughtflower presented the report of the Cabinet meeting held on 23 September 2020, which outlined the matters the Cabinet had decided since the last Council meeting.

To receive the report from the Chairman of the Licensing Committee on the work of his Committee.

The Chairman of the Licensing Committee, Councillor R.W. Sider BEM, presented his report which outlined the matters the Committee had decided since the last Council meeting.

To receive the report from the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the work of her Committee.

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor V.J. Leighton, presented her report which outlined the matters the Committee had decided since the last Council meeting.

To receive the report from the Chairman of the Planning Committee on the work of his Committee.

The Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor T. Lagden, presented his report which outlined the matters the Committee had decided since the last Council meeting.

To receive any motions from Councillors in accordance with Standing Order 19.

Note: The deadline for motions to be considered at this meeting was Monday 12 October 2020 and 6 were received:

Motion 1

The following amendments to the SBC Constitution are to be proposed.

That the Constitution be amended as follows:

Part 4 section (d)
Financial Regulation B: Financial Planning
Capital
Authorisation of Capital Expenditure
Para B24 be amended as follows
‘Capital expenditure on a scheme not included in estimates or budgets may only be incurred after full evaluation of that scheme by the Leader (if under £20,000) or Cabinet (between £20,000 and £1million) Any proposed capital expenditure over £1 million must be evaluated and agreed by majority of Council Members'.

The paragraph will continue as detailed- ‘This will include a statement………….’

A final sentence to be added: ‘This paragraph (B24) shall take priority over any other clause or paragraph within this Constitution that may be, or appear to be, in conflict.’

Para A38 be amended as follows:

The Leader is authorised to approve a total supplementary expenditure in a year not exceeding 5% of the approved net revenue budget and £20,000 on any approved capital scheme.

Part 4 section (c)

Who May Make Cabinet Decisions

Para 2.1 be amended as follows

‘The arrangements for the discharge of Cabinet functions may be set out by the Leader. The Leader may, after full consultation and agreement of the majority of Cabinet members, provide for Cabinet functions to be discharged by: The list (a) to (g)

Quorum

Para 6.1be amended as follows:

The quorum for a meeting of the Cabinet is 5.

Proposed by Councillor T. Mitchell

Seconded by Councillor R. Barratt

Motion 2

“Members will undoubtedly have noticed the growth in the number of small silver canisters lying around in our borough. These are Nitrous Oxide gas cylinders which are not being used for the purpose that they were manufactured but are being used by youngsters to give themselves an instant ‘high’. 

The gas does unfortunately have side effects. It is very dangerous to inhale nitrous oxide directly from the canister and doing it in an enclosed space is also very dangerous. If you take too much nitrous oxide you risk falling unconscious and/or suffocating from the lack of oxygen. People have died this way.

This is a psychoactive drug and is covered by the 2016 Psychoactive Substances Act, which means it’s illegal to give away or sell. There’s no penalty for possession unless you’re in prison.  Supply and production can get you up to 7 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.

In order to try to protect our residents from the effect of this drug:-

This Council resolves to:-

a) Hold an advertising campaign to 

i) remind local businesses of the legislation regarding supply of these canisters. 

ii) remind parents/guardians of the harm that inhaling Nitrous Oxide from these cylinders will cause for their children.

b) ask schools and youth organisations to highlight the dangers of  ...  view the full agenda text for item 243/20

The Mayor advised that in accordance with Standing Order 17 the Council had received six written Notices of Motions.

The Monitoring Officer advised that Motion 4, proposed by Councillor Siva, could not be considered by the Council as it was unlawful.

Motion 1

The Council considered the Report of the Monitoring Officer on the Motion to make changes to the Constitution.

Councillor A.J. Michell moved and Councillor R.O. Barratt seconded the following motion:

“That the Constitution be amended as follows:

a.         Part 4 Section (d) – Financial Regulations

i. Para B24 be amended as follows:

‘Capital expenditure on a scheme not included in estimates or budgets may only be incurred after full evaluation of that scheme by the Leader (if under £20,000) or Cabinet (between £20,000 and £1million) Any proposed capital expenditure over £1 million must be evaluated and agreed by majority of Council Members'.

The paragraph will continue as detailed- ‘This will include a statement………….’

A final sentence to be added: ‘This paragraph (B24) shall take priority over any other clause or paragraph within this Constitution that may be, or appear to be, in conflict.’

ii. Para A38 be amended as follows:

The Leader is authorised to approve a total supplementary expenditure in a year not exceeding 5% of the approved net revenue budget and £20,000 on any approved capital scheme.

b. Part 4 section (c) Who May Make Cabinet Decisions

i. Who may make cabinet decisions: Para 2.1 be amended as follows:

‘The arrangements for the discharge of Cabinet functions may be set

out by the Leader. The Leader may, after full consultation and

agreement of the majority of Cabinet members, provide for Cabinet

functions to be discharged by: The list (a) to (g)

ii. Quorum: Para 6.1 be amended as follows:

The quorum for a meeting of the Cabinet is 5.

c. Part 4a Standing Orders

That Standing Order 4(a) be amended to read:

‘The quorum of the Council is one quarter of the total number of councillors (and in the case of Cabinet shall be 5 members) and no business shall be considered unless a quorum is present.’

In accordance with Standing Order 20.13 the Council gave its consent to the alteration of the Motion on notice.

The motion was debated, put to the vote and carried.

Resolved that the Constitution be amended as follows:

a.         Part 4 Section (d) – Financial Regulations

i. Para B24 be amended as follows:

‘Capital expenditure on a scheme not included in estimates or budgets may only be incurred after full evaluation of that scheme by the Leader (if under £20,000) or Cabinet (between £20,000 and £1million) Any proposed capital expenditure over £1 million must be evaluated and agreed by majority of Council Members'.

The paragraph will continue as detailed- ‘This will include a statement………….’

A final sentence to be added: ‘This paragraph (B24) shall take priority over any other clause or paragraph within this Constitution that may be, or appear to be, in conflict.’  ...  view the full minutes text for item 243/20