Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 December 2020 and the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 21 January 2021.

The minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 21 January 2021 were agreed as a correct record.

The minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 December 2020 were agreed subject to the following amendment to minute number 287/20 that, as Councillor Olivia Rybinski had been a Director of Knowle Green Estates, Ann Fillis was not the first female board member. This sentence will be amended. 

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

Councillor T. Fidler disclosed a conflict of interest on item 9e Pay Award as a family member works for the Council, and would be impacted by the decisions, he would not take part in the decision on this matter.

To receive any announcements from the Leader.

The Leader made the following announcements:

·         This Borough, along with the rest of England is still enduring a period of lockdown and I know this continues to be a very difficult time for many of our residents and businesses in the Borough. COVID-19 positive numbers are decreasing in Spelthorne, however if you do need help our Support4Spelthorne helpline remains open and is on hand for residents who need support. The Prime Minister has set out the road map towards the end of lockdown and, for it to be successful, we must continue to follow the rules.

·         The Council continues to support business in Spelthorne and to date have issued £16 million in business and discretionary grants and £18m of business rates 12-month reliefs. We will continue to signpost businesses to the various support grants available.

·         Earlier this month, Spelthorne Borough Council became the first Borough in Surrey to launch asymptomatic community testing with a centre at the Thameside Centre in Staines and three pharmacies in Spelthorne. Anyone in the Borough who must leave home to work and does not have access to a symptom-free test through other routes can access to these tests. We are particularly encouraging critical workers leaving home for work to be tested.

·         Following a  four week consultation the Council are reviewing the submissions from residents on the proposed changes to the way decisions are made at the Council. Following the 30 July 2020 Council meeting, a motion was approved which proposed adopting a Committee System of governance; meaning that decisions which are currently taken by the Cabinet would instead be taken by several committees. I consider that the Committee System could provide a more open, democratic, inclusive and transparent way of conducting Council business. 

·         We have also been undertaking a consultation on putting in place a Public Space Protection Order to prohibit the possession and use of New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) in the Borough. Details of the consultation, which closes on Sunday 28 February, can be found on our website.

·         Spelthorne Borough Council announced the purchase of the freehold of the former Marks & Spencer building in the heart of Staines-upon-Thames.  Having bought the Elmsleigh Centre in February 2020 this opportunity supports the Councils regeneration and housing strategy for Staines town centre, to the benefit of its residents and local retail businesses.

·         The Council is working on the extension of the Fordbridge Day Centre, which is due to be completed by the end of April. These works will provide a bigger and brighter venue for visitors to enjoy once the Centre is allowed to reopen.

·         The Cabinet voted to impose a temporary moratorium, and to pause three significant Council development proposals in Staines-Upon-Thames until the Annual Council Meeting in May 2021. This is to allow the Strategic Planning team to undertake a public consultation exercise on Issues and Options for the Staines Development Framework.

·         Spelthorne Borough Council hosted a series of free virtual events to keep children entertained over the half term break. These events were well  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40/21

To receive any announcements from the Chief Executive.

The Chief Executive, Daniel Mouawad, stated that it had been nearly a year since the Council had declared the COVID-19 pandemic a Borough Emergency and the Councils services had been integral to the success of protecting and supporting communities in Spelthorne.

Despite the many trials and challenges faced by frontline staff, Council officers have successfully supported over 17,000 of the Boroughs most vulnerable residents through the dedicated Support4Spelthorne hub.

Officers have developed essential partnership working with community champions, volunteers and the NHS to ensure residents have had the support they need whilst facing these most difficult of circumstances.

The Chief Executive advised that as we start to see a roadmap to recovery, he was confident that Spelthorne Borough Council had the right plans in place to ensure communities would continue to benefit from critical local services.

On behalf of the Borough Emergency team the Chief Executive thanked everyone for their commitment and contribution to making the Borough a safer and more resilient place to live.

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 18 February 2021.

At the time of publication of this agenda six questions were received.

Question from Mr A. Peters

The proposal for Phase 2 at the site formerly known as Ceaser Court has united Lower Sunbury residents in opposition to it and even led to Mrs Ceaser formally requesting her family name be disassociated with the site, which must be extremely embarrassing for the Council. The 225 letters of objection received to date note that this application contravenes in a very substantive manner many of the councils own planning guidelines, guidelines agreed in full Council and clearly documented in the Planning Policies and Supplemental Planning Documents.

Can the Leader please explain why and how the council feels entitled to submit an application which rides roughshod over its own planning rules? After all if the council cannot show leadership and comply with its own rules can the Leader please explain why should any other developer, be they a single householder or large corporation? In addition, as the council will be both applicant and judge in this substantial development, to avoid conflict of interest, can the Leader confirm that the Council will appoint another authority to review this application at the decision stage? 

Question from Revd. A. McLuskey

Why given that it is now seven years since the disastrous 2014 floods – which resulted in the death of poor Zane Gbangbola – and after which promises of improvements were made, have we now seen a repetition of the inundation?

Question from Mr P. Thompson

Will the Leader of the Council please explain the process for reviewing the proposed phase 2 of the Benwell House / Ceaser Court development as agreed at the Council meeting on 21st January, and detail what opportunity there will be for public involvement, given the very high level of concern and opposition amongst residents immediately affected and more widely in Lower Sunbury?

Question from Mr A. Woodward

Given that Spelthorne Borough Council declared a climate emergency on 14th October 2020, how has this informed the current round of budget planning and when might we expect to see plans for how all departments of the Council will implement changes to address this emergency?

Question from Ms S. Orchard

I would like to ask the following question addressed to the Leader of the Council at the full Council meeting on 25th February 2021. Will Spelthorne Borough Council vote to declare their support for the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill that has been submitted to the UK Parliament?

Details of the Bill can be found here Climate and Ecology Bill (parliament.uk)

Question from Greta Mattar

I would like to ask the following question addressed to the Leader of the Council at the full Council meeting on 25th February 2021.

Given the complete collapse  ...  view the full agenda text for item 42/21

The Mayor reported that, under Standing Order 14, 16 questions had been received from eight members of the public.

1.    Question from Mr A. Peters

The proposal for Phase 2 at the site formerly known as Ceaser Court has united Lower Sunbury residents in opposition to it and even led to Mrs Ceaser formally requesting her family name be disassociated with the site, which must be extremely embarrassing for the Council. The 225 letters of objection received to date note that this application contravenes in a very substantive manner many of the councils own planning guidelines, guidelines agreed in full Council and clearly documented in the Planning Policies and Supplemental Planning Documents.

Can the Leader please explain why and how the council feels entitled to submit an application which rides roughshod over its own planning rules? After all if the council cannot show leadership and comply with its own rules can the Leader please explain why should any other developer, be they a single householder or large corporation? In addition, as the council will be both applicant and judge in this substantial development, to avoid conflict of interest, can the Leader confirm that the Council will appoint another authority to review this application at the decision stage? 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

The planning application for what is now to be called Benwell House Phase 2 does not, as you suggest, contravene in a very substantive manner planning policies, guidelines or supplementary planning documents. In light of your contentions, I instructed officers to undertake a thorough review of the application to assess whether or not, in fact, it did, as you say, substantially contravene planning policies and guidelines. I can confirm it does not. It complies fully apart from a very small number of instances where any non-compliance is well within industry tolerances. So, for example, a very minor shortfall in one of the three areas which are used to define impact of a development on daylight to windows of adjoining existing properties. 

When developing sites, we also have a duty to ensure we achieve value for money. Every scheme has to cover its own costs as a minimum. We endeavour to meet and exceed policies and guidelines for every development. For example, on this scheme we are well ahead of the curve as we are providing underground bin storage which very few developers do. We are also providing 33% s106 affordable housing and topping this up voluntarily to deliver 50% in total.

Notwithstanding this, as you may be aware, I have committed to ensuring that each Council development is reviewed by the Assets Programme Board before they can move forward. This will ensure that there is sufficient challenge and scrutiny of our development programme. I have no doubt that the views expressed by this body will be taken into consideration as we move forward with our development programme in future.

As to your last point, the Local Planning Authority is a quasi-judicial body which sits apart from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42/21

To receive any petitions from members of the public.

There were none.

(1). Allocation of seats on Committees – Appendix A

Following the formation of two new groups since the last Council meeting, the Independent Spelthorne Group and Independent Labour Group, it is necessary under section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, to review the representation of the different political groups on Committees.

(Appendix A will be circulated in advance of the meeting.)

(2). Appointment of members to Committees - Appendix B

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, to appoint the members to serve on Committees.

Mr. Ian Winter and Mr. Dylan Price were appointed as the non-elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Members’ Code of Conduct Committee respectively, at the Council meeting on 10 December, until the Annual Council meeting in May 2021.

(Appendix B will be circulated in advance of the meeting.)

Allocation of seats on Committees

It was moved by Councillor J.R. Boughtflower and seconded by Councillor J. McIlroy and

Resolved that pursuant to Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Council agrees the political allocation of seats as set out in Appendix A to this item.

Appointment of members to Committees

It was moved by Councillor J.R. Boughtflower and seconded by Councillor J. McIlroy to appoint the members to serve on the Committees as shown in Appendix B.

Resolved that the Council agrees the Councillors to serve on Committees as shown on Appendix B.

Council considered the recommendation of the Cabinet on the Treasury Management Strategy Statement for 2021/22.

The proposed Strategy represented an appropriate balance between risk management and cost effectiveness.

Resolved to approve the Treasury Management Strategy Statement for 2020/21.

Council considered a recommendation from Cabinet to approve the pay policy statement for 2021/22. Pay Policy statements must be agreed by full Council and published by 31 March each year to apply to pay decisions during the next financial year.

Resolved to approve the Pay Policy Statement 2021/22.

Council considered the recommendation of the Cabinet on a Capital Strategy for the period 2021 to 2026.

The 2021 Strategy was very different to those that preceded it and it puts ‘front and centre’ how the Council’s new priorities of delivering affordable housing, achieving the regeneration of its town centres and ensuring a sustainable future in recognition of declaring a climate change emergency are to be delivered.

A recorded vote was conducted as requested by Councillor J. Sexton with the results as follows:

FOR (20)

Attewell, Barnard, Barratt C, Barratt R, Boughtflower, Brar, Buttar, Chandler, Gething, Harman, Harvey H, Harvey I, Islam, Leighton, Madams, McIlroy, Mitchell, Noble, Rybinski and Sider.

AGAINST (7)

Beardsmore, Fidler, Saliagopoulos, Sexton, Smith-Ainsley, Spoor and Vinson.

ABSTAIN (9)

Bateson, Doerfel, Doran J, Doran S, Dunn R, Dunn S, Grant, Lagden, and Nichols. 

Resolved to approve the Capital Strategy for 2021-2026.

Council considered the recommendation of Cabinet on the Capital Programme for the period 2021/22 to 2024/25 in the light of the available resources and the corporate priorities.

Resolved to:

1.    Approve the Capital Programme for 2021/22 to 2024/25

2.    Approve the Prudential Indicators for 2021/22 to 2024/25.

Councillor T. Fidler did not participate or vote on this item due to a conflict of interested in the matter.

Council considered the recommendation of the Cabinet on the Pay Award 2021/22.

The proposed pay award of 0.75% to all staff, including those on personal salaries and apprentices, and an additional 0.25% for scales 1 to 3 had been subject to consultation and negotiation with Unison and was made to help attract and retain staff.

Council also considered the deletion of scale points 8 and 9 from scale 1, as there was only a £4 difference between these points, and a one-off non-consolidated payment of £100 (gross) to all staff (excluding casual workers) in recognition of the hard work, dedication and additional efforts staff had made to ensure services were delivered as usual during the pandemic

Councillor J.R. Sexton proposed an amendment to the motion, seconded by Councillor R.A. Smith-Ainsley, to cap the pay award up to and including managerial grade 2 and to remove the one off payment for all staff.

A recorded vote was conducted on the amendment, as requested by Councillor A.J. Mitchell, which FELL with the results as follows:

FOR (4)

Sexton, Smith-Ainsley, Spoor and Vinson.

AGAINST (30)

Attewell, Barnard, Barratt C, Barratt R, Bateson, Beardsmore, Boughtflower, Brar, Buttar, Chandler, Doerfel, Doran J, Doran S, Dunn R, Dunn S, Gething, Grant, Harman, Harvey H, Harvey I, Islam, Lagden, Leighton, Madams, McIlroy, Mitchell, Nichols, Noble, Rybinski and Sider.

ABSTAIN (1)

Saliagopoulos.

A recorded vote was conducted on the original recommendations as requested by Councillor J. Sexton with the results as follows:

FOR (31)

Attewell, Barnard, Barratt C, Barratt R, Bateson, Beardsmore, Boughtflower, Brar, Buttar, Chandler, Doerfel, Doran J, Doran S, Dunn R, Dunn S, Gething, Grant, Harman, Harvey H, Harvey I, Islam, Lagden, Leighton, Madams, McIlroy, Mitchell, Nichols, Noble, Rybinski, Sider, Spoor.

AGAINST (4)

Saliagopoulos, Sexton, Smith-Ainsley and Vinson.

ABSTAIN (0)

Resolved to approve the 2021/22 pay award and deletion of scale points as follows:

1.    0.75% to all scale points including personal salaries and apprentices;

2.    An additional 0.25% for scales 1 to 3;

3.    A one-off, non-consolidated payment of £100 (gross) to all staff (excluding casual workers), and

4.    The deletion of scale points 8 and 9 from Scale 1

The Budget Book (green cover) will be issued in a supplementary agenda and will reflect the recommendations considered at the meeting of the Cabinet on 24 February 2021.

The Council considered the recommendation of Cabinet on the detailed Revenue Budget for 2021-22 and the proposed Council Tax for 2021-22. The Mayor referred councillors to the Budget Book (green cover) reflecting the decisions and recommendations made by Cabinet on 24 February 2021, including the precepts being levied by Surrey County Council and the Surrey Police.

It was moved, seconded and 

Resolved to agree that in accordance with Standing Order 20.4, the respective Budget speeches of the Group Leaders may each exceed 10 minutes in length if necessary.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor J.R Boughtflower made a statement on the Budget and the Council Tax and moved the recommendations on the detailed Budget for 2021-22 as set out in the report circulated in the Budget Book. The Leader of the Liberal Democrats Group, Councillor S. Dunn, Leader of the United Spelthorne Group, Councillor I.T. Harvey and Leader of the Green Group, Councillor J. Doerfel then made statements.

A copy of Councillors Boughtflower, Dunn, Harvey and Doerfel’s speeches are attached to these minutes as Appendices A - D respectively.

During the debate on this item, it was moved, seconded and

Resolved to suspend Standing Order 5, Duration of Meeting, to allow the meeting to continue until the completion of this item of business.

At the conclusion of the debate on the Revenue Budget, the Mayor explained it was a legal requirement to record in the minutes of the proceedings the names of the persons who cast a vote for the decision or who abstained from voting.

Councillor Gething left the meeting before the vote was called.

The voting was as follows:

FOR (19)

Attewell, Barnard, Barratt C, Barratt R, Boughtflower, Brar, Buttar, Chandler, Harman, Harvey H, Harvey I, Islam, Leighton, Madams, McIlroy, Mitchell, Noble, Rybinski and Sider.

AGAINST (3)

Doerfel, Lagden and Sexton.

ABSTAIN (13)

Bateson, Beardsmore, Doran J, Doran S, Dunn R, Dunn S, Fidler, Grant, Nichols, Saliagopoulos, Smith-Ainsley, Spoor and Vinson.

Resolved to:

1.    Approve a 0.00% increase on Band D for the Spelthorne Borough Council element of the Council Tax for 2021/22. Moreover:

a)    The revenue estimates as set out in Appendix 1 be approved.

b)    No Money, as set out in this report is appropriated from General Reserves in support of Spelthorne’s local Council tax for 2021/22.

c)    To agree that the Council Tax base for the year 2021/22 is 39,016 band D equivalent dwellings calculated in accordance with regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council tax base) Regulations 1992, as amended, made under Section 35(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

2.    Continue the Council’s Local Council Tax Support Scheme with the current rules and regulations.

3.    Continue the complete disregard of war pension / armed forces pension income from benefit calculations.

4.    Approve the growth and savings items as set out in the report’s appendices.

5.    Note the Chief Finance Officer’s commentary in section 4 of the report on the robustness of budget estimates and levels of reserves under sections 25  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50/21

To receive the reports from the Leader of the Council on the work of the Cabinet at its Extraordinary meeting on 25 January and ordinary meetings on 27 January (attached) and 24 February 2021 (to follow).  

The Leader of the Council, Councillor J. Boughtflower, presented the reports of the Cabinet meetings held on 25 and 27 January and 24 February 2021 which outlined the matters the Cabinet had decided since the last Council meeting.

To receive the report from the Chairman of the Members' Code of Conduct Committee on the work of his Committee.

The Chairman of the Members’ Code of Conduct Committee, Mr. Ian Winter, 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 15 February 2021 and none were received.

There were none.

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

Note: the deadline for questions to be considered at this meeting is 12 noon on Thursday 18 February 2021.

At the time of publication there were no questions on Ward issues.

There were no questions on Ward issues.

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

Note: the deadline for questions to be considered at this meeting is 12 noon on Thursday 18 February 2021.

At the time of publication of this agenda, one question had been received.

Question from Councillor Robin Sider BEM

Once again Travelers have encamped in Shepperton, and once more their presence is on the highway which is the responsibility of Surrey County Council, who have subsequently informed Spelthorne Head of Neighbourhood Services that they are working on a lockdown toleration policy and are not at this stage prepared to move them on from their current location. In response, the Travelers have indicated that their next move would be back to Old Charlton Road, where they were last year and where their presence caused anguish and grief to local residents. Such encampment in their present location has again caused local residents considerable concern. In the year 2019, and again in the year 2020 it is documented in full council agendas that I asked that officers seek through the legal channels, an injunction through the courts to prevent Travelers entering Spelthorne. That said, can the Leader of the council inform me when officers last wrote to the relevant authorities regarding this issue,  what response did they receive, and from whom came such response?

The Mayor reported that eight general questions had been received, in accordance with Standing Order 15, from Councillors R.W. Sider BEM, C. Bateson, L.E. Nichols, T. Fidler, H. Harvey, I.T.E. Harvey, O. Rybinski and A. Brar.

1.    Question from Councillor Robin Sider BEM

Once again Travelers have encamped in Shepperton, and once more their presence is on the highway which is the responsibility of Surrey County Council, who have subsequently informed Spelthorne Head of Neighbourhood Services that they are working on a lockdown toleration policy and are not at this stage prepared to move them on from their current location. In response, the Travelers have indicated that their next move would be back to Old Charlton Road, where they were last year and where their presence caused anguish and grief to local residents. Such encampment in their present location has again caused local residents considerable concern. In the year 2019, and again in the year 2020 it is documented in full council agendas that I asked that officers seek through the legal channels, an injunction through the courts to prevent Travelers entering Spelthorne. That said, can the Leader of the council inform me when officers last wrote to the relevant authorities regarding this issue,  what response did they receive, and from whom came such response?

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

Thank you for your question Councillor Sider. Since you last posed this question, Spelthorne officers have continued to gather information to enable us to apply to the courts for an injunction to protect all of our parks and open spaces within the Borough. Officers have been working with the Police, DVLA and the barrister appointed by our legal department to ensure that the legal bundle for the injunction was complete for the barrister to submit to the court.  

Whilst working on this approach, the Court of Appeal considered the appeal against the London Borough of Bromley and widened the scope to look at all 38 injunctions granted to other District and Borough Councils. The appeal judge stated, amongst other points, that the injunctions were too wide and amounted to borough wide prohibition of encampments.  During this appeal the judge also considered the gypsy way of life which includes their rights to stop on a temporary basis whilst travelling and the absence of sufficient transit sites to enable the Gypsy Romany Travelling Community (GRTC) to travel.

The appeal judge also decided that a directions hearing should be listed for January 2021 to review all issues raised at the appeal hearing.  Information from this hearing has not yet been published and we would expect this to be available in the latter part of 2021. Until such time as the outcome of the directions hearing is known, officers are not able to pursue this injunction further. 

In accordance with Standing Order 15.2, Councillor Sider asked the following supplementary question:

Will the Leader share my concerns together with those of local residents that the police did not exercise their powers to move  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57/21