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 23 July 2020.

 

Question from Mr. A. Woodward

 

“In answer to my earlier question about why Spelthorne Borough Council had not declared a Climate Emergency I was informed that “we do not feel that we must declare a climate emergency in order to deliver meaningful action. We believe in action not words.” Could the leader detail the meaningful actions that have been taken in the first half of 2020 to address the Climate Emergency?”

 

Question from Mr. A. McLuskey

 

“In the light of the Green Jobs Challenge Fund recently established by Government to create new jobs in conjunction with local councils and aimed at improving the landscape - will Spelthorne Council commit to seeking funding from this source to enable extra, desirable elements (such as the rebuilding of the West Lodge) to be added to the scheme for a historically themed Nature Reserve on the former Lord Knyvett estate in Stanwell?”

 

Question from Mr C. Hyde

 

“At the Council meeting on 27 February 2020, the Council was asked to consider and respond to a petition which requested “that Spelthorne Borough Council does not release 19 Green Belt areas currently identified in the Local Plan for building or other commercial purposes and to protect the entire existing Green Belt in Spelthorne for generations to come”.  The petition had 5,270 signatories when it was received by the Council and the number of signatories has now risen to over 6100.  On the basis of a 13:13 Council vote and the Deputy Mayor’s casting vote, the Council voted to support a motion “that the Council notes the petition and keeps the matter under review”.  Five months have now passed since the decision to keep the matter under review.  What work has been carried out by the Council to take the review forward, what decisions have been reached and, in the event that no decision has been reached to date, when will a decision be forthcoming on the action requested in the petition?”

The Mayor reported that, under Standing Order 14, questions had been received from nine members of the public.  In view of the number of questions and the fact that several related to the Green Belt and raised the same or similar issues, the Mayor directed that similar questions would be grouped together and one response provided to those.

 

Question from Mr. A. Woodward

“In answer to my earlier question about why Spelthorne Borough Council had not declared a Climate Emergency I was informed that “we do not feel that we must declare a climate emergency in order to deliver meaningful action. We believe in action not words.” Could the Leader detail the meaningful actions that have been taken in the first half of 2020 to address the Climate Emergency?”

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower:

“Thank you for your question.  The Council sees climate change as an important issue to address in relation to our community and estate.  The emergency response on COVID-19 has placed considerable demands on the Council, however, it did not stop us continuing to take actions to reduce our own emissions. We have purchased two electric bikes and two electric pool cars for staff to use, plus two electric vans for use by our operations team.  We have also installed a solar array on the West Wing of Knowle Green.  In looking at further measures we had solar PV surveys carried out on several more buildings and undertook energy surveys on eight of our buildings to identify energy saving opportunities which we will put to Council to take forward as appropriate.  We are currently preparing a tender in conjunction with LASER to ensure our future electricity supply is solely from renewable energy.

 

On a wider scale we are progressing an on-street Electric Vehicle (EV) charging point trial with Surrey County Council, which will provide 20 on-street charge points in the Borough.  We also have a feasibility study being undertaken to assess opportunities for EV charge points in Council car parks.

 

We actively engaged, albeit remotely, in the development of the Surrey climate change strategy and its proposed actions, which we will now look at in relation to our own estate.   Just prior to lockdown a working group on climate change was initiated to drive forward the climate change agenda in the Borough.  As I outlined earlier in my Leader’s announcements, I am looking to kick-start this working group again, with a view to the Group making recommendations for more challenging targets and actions for the Council, which will help deliver zero net carbon emissions much sooner than the 2050 target set by the previous administration.”

 

Question from Mr. A. McLuskey

‘In the light of the Green Jobs Challenge Fund recently established by Government to create new jobs in conjunction with local councils and aimed at improving the landscape - will Spelthorne Council commit to seeking funding from this source to enable extra, desirable elements (such as the rebuilding of the West Lodge) to be added to the scheme for a historically themed Nature Reserve on the former Lord Knyvett estate in Stanwell?’

 

Response from the Deputy Leader, Councillor J. McIlroy

“Thank you for your question Mr McLuskey. The Council welcomes the Government’s announcement about a £40m Green Recovery Challenge Fund (which combines money from the Nature Recovery Fund and Nature for Climate Funding). The intention is for the fund to create a broad range of short and long term jobs such as ecologists, surveyors, nature reserve staff and education workers in environment organisations; and support their suppliers.

 

In its announcement the Government indicates the funding will help charities and environmental organisations to start work on projects across England to restore nature and tackle climate change.  It has also made clear it will be inviting organisations to bid for the money (with details in due course). Once the additional information is provided we will be in a better position to understand the funding mechanisms, whether the Council can assist organisations in gaining access to funding and what the detailed criteria are.”

 

Question from Mr. C. Hyde

“At the Council meeting on 27 February 2020, the Council was asked to consider and respond to a petition which requested “that Spelthorne Borough Council does not release 19 Green Belt areas currently identified in the Local Plan for building or other commercial purposes and to protect the entire existing Green Belt in Spelthorne for generations to come”.  The petition had 5,270 signatories when it was received by the Council and the number of signatories has now risen to over 6100.  On the basis of a 13:13 Council vote and the Deputy Mayor’s casting vote, the Council voted to support a motion “that the Council notes the petition and keeps the matter under review”.  Five months have now passed since the decision to keep the matter under review.  What work has been carried out by the Council to take the review forward, what decisions have been reached and, in the event that no decision has been reached to date, when will a decision be forthcoming on the action requested in the petition?”

 

Question from Mr Hollingsworth

“Can the Council please outline what steps are being taken to defend our Green Belt, local Democracy, and our Finances from gross mismanagement?

We as a community, at least 6,000 or so, signed a petition to stop GB development. Since the outset of COVID, it has become even more important for our mental and physical health to enjoy our green spaces.  If you are a democratic body, SBC, you will not have this "under review" but listen to our wishes.  You may come and go but our GB stays. For future generations.”

 

Questions from Ms Mulowska

“I understand that the former Council leader Cllr Ian Harvey (during whose time as leader the current draft local plan was developed) believes that a Brownfield First Policy could protect all our Green Belt sites for the duration of the next local plan i.e. for the next 5 years. Is the new administration and Council leadership going to take this to heart and remove all Green Belt sites from the draft local plan considering the huge amount of opposition to Green Belt release?”

 

“In July 2016, Spelthorne Borough Council passed a motion stating that ‘the Green Belt in Spelthorne is considered sacrosanct’. If this is the case, why then does the current local plan seek to release 19 Green Belt sites including two sites in Stanwell for warehouses?”

 

Question from Ms Pratley

“Have any of the 19 Green Belt sites been removed from the Draft Local Plan?”

 

Questions from Mrs Doerfel

Spelthorne Borough Council held a Council meeting on 21st July 2016. In that meeting, 2 Councillors proposed the following motion: "The Green Belt in Spelthorne is sacrosanct. This Council confirms that there is no intention whatsoever to allow development of the Green Belt." Let's call this "the Green Belt motion."

 

That motion was accepted by the Council to be put on the Council Meeting agenda to be debated and voted upon in the Council Meeting on 21st July 2016.

 

At the Council Meeting of 21st July 2016, 2 other Councillors proposed an amendment to the Green Belt motion to effectively qualify it in a "yeah, but subject to relevant policies and the Special Circumstances caveats" kind of way.

 

The Council nonetheless debated the Greenbelt motion and carried it - the result was that the Council "Resolved that the Green Belt in Spelthorne is considered ‘sacrosanct’. This Council affirms that it will continue to apply its Green Belt planning polices as laid out in the Local Plan and any relevant PPGs (Planning Policy Guidance) from central government. Any inappropriate development on the Green Belt will only be approved if the applicant can demonstrate acceptable ‘Very Special Circumstances’ as to why it should be approved"

 

Cambridge dictionary defines "sacrosanct" as meaning "thought to be too important or too special to be changed."

Even with the amended version of the 2016 Greenbelt motion which was carried, the Council did nothing to actually refuse or amend the wording of "sacrosanct" - what the council did was replace the part of it which referred to no intention to allow development on Greenbelt with the qualification appended to the "sacrosanct" part and eventually carried it.

 

Cambridge dictionary defines "protect" as meaning "to keep someone or something safe from injury, damage or loss." This is a much lower threshold and standard than "sacrosanct" whose meaning is unequivocal.

 

In February 2020 the Council was compelled to debate a Petition which asked the Council in summary not to release the 19 Greenbelt sites identified in the Local Plan for development, and to protect Greenbelt in Spelthorne. Despite consensus and speeches that nobody wanted to build on Greenbelt and that it should be protected, the Council voted to merely note the petition and keep it under review.

 

Given the intervening pandemic and implications of COVID19 which represents a massive change in circumstances and underlines the need for greater environmental protections such that it begs the question whether the current Local Plan remains either current or local, and given the Council is obliged to make good on its resolution regarding the Greenbelt Petition per the February 2020 council meeting:

1.         why can't the Council now debate or commit in a Council Meeting as it did in 2016, to protect Spelthorne's Greenbelt, even if such commitment is subject to the same kind of caveat or amendment as the motion in 2016?

2.         if the Council can do so, when will it do this and why has it not been done already?

3.         If the Council feels it cannot do so, then was it wrong or acting unlawfully when it did so in 2016?

4.         Does the Council consider the word "protect" be more restrictively binding than the word "sacrosanct" including if qualified by the caveat which enabled the 2016 Greenbelt motion to be carried?”

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

“A significant number of questions have been received asking for the removal of all the proposed site allocations in the green belt from the Local Plan (which is currently under review). As many of the questions overlap one another I will set out a single response to cover all the points which have been made. I understand why this is an issue which is close to residents hearts.

 

Before delving into the detail, I want to acknowledge the petition which now has over 6,000 signatures. It is always positive to see local democracy in action and to hear peoples’ views. However, as a Council we also have a duty to consider the wider public benefit (we are a borough of over 90,000 residents). In terms of the Local Plan this is about being able to demonstrate that we can provide the housing, employment, retail and other uses needed for the next 25 years. There are a significant number of legislative requirements set down by central government which the Council cannot legally set to one side. This is the context within which we as a Council have to make our decisions.

 

It has indeed been many months since the decision of the Council was made to keep under review the potential release of Green Belt sites in the new Local Plan, and I will set out what work has been undertaken since then.

 

The Strategic Planning team has been analysing the responses to the Preferred Options consultation, which closed on 21 January 2020.  The team was then redeployed to the COVID-19 response and work was therefore temporarily paused. However the Consultation Response document has now been completed ready for Members to agree this for publication. This sets out all the comments made and officer feedback but does not make any decisions on the future direction of the Local Plan.

 

Other work currently being undertaken relates to housing need and viability. These are important pieces of evidence that Members will be reviewing when deciding on the content of the Local Plan before the next round of consultation scheduled for early 2021. Officers are also compiling an Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which sets out where there are existing deficits in infrastructure such as healthcare, education, highway improvements, and where investment is needed through developer contributions to ensure the sustainable and managed growth of our Borough.

 

Work has also been progressing on the Staines Masterplan and this will sit alongside the Local Plan, showing how the town will be planned for in terms of housing, retail, employment and infrastructure.

 

All these work streams and pieces of evidence will be reviewed and responded to by both the Local Plan Working Party, which as outlined in my Leaders Announcements will comprise a cross-party membership of councillors, and Cabinet before any decisions can be made on the Plan, taking account of responses to the consultation. The Green Belt is clearly a key issue but must be reviewed in light of all the evidence on impacts arising from releasing and not releasing Green Belt sites, once this evidence is complete and presented to Members over the coming months.

 

What isn’t possible is for the option of releasing Green Belt to be taken off the table as a point of principle, as we are required by national planning policy to assess all reasonable alternatives to meeting housing need. Whilst developing in the Green Belt will inevitably receive objections from local residents, we are still duty bound to consider that option in light of all the available evidence.

 

As its stands at the present time none of the 19 potential site allocations in the green belt which were consulted on at the end of last year have been removed from the draft local plan. When we consulted it was made clear that the consultation was not the end of the process. Councillors on the Local Plan Working Party will shortly be considering the responses from the consultation exercise, and using this and additional technical evidence to inform discussions on individual site allocations. It would be premature at this stage for the cross party Local Plan Working Party to make decisions on any site allocations.

 

In response to a previous motion in 2016 the Council stated that the Green Belt is sacrosanct and no development will be allowed. However the situation has changed between now and then. As a Council we must consider the situation as it stands now. When producing a Local Plan we have to assess all options available to us for trying to meet our housing need in full. One of those options is to release Green Belt in order to meet our need. National planning policy allows for Local Plans to redraw Green Belt boundaries if we have ‘exceptional circumstances’ for doing so, and this has been established through court cases to include meeting housing need.

 

We have taken specialist Counsel’s advice on the lawfulness of the proposed notice of motion from Cllr Doerfel, which have also referred to the 2016 debate. Counsel has advised that there are a number of legal difficulties with the terms of the Motion which would lead the Council into adopting an approach which is not consistent with the NPPF. There is a statutory requirement to take that guidance into account, and the emerging Local Plan must be consistent with it to be sound. Counsel goes on to state that the proposed motion and/or a vote to adopt it would be ‘tainted by legal error’, and therefore it would be capable of being quashed in the High Court. The Council cannot follow such a proposal knowing that it would not be lawful. For these reasons we cannot debate the proposed notice of motion as suggested by Mrs Doerfel. This is not to stifle the democratic process as there is already a clear process for the Council to follow, as I have outlined above.

 

There has been much discussion and two public consultations so far on the new Local Plan and further consultation next year. The process of preparing a Local Plan provides opportunity for anyone to object to any element of it, including specific site allocations. This process cannot be pre-empted by a decision to remove Green Belt sites from consideration and to do so would be unlawful as it is contrary to national guidance on producing Local Plans.

 

However what I can advise residents and councillors is that we will keep in mind the level of objection to releasing Green Belt sites when taking the Local Plan forward to the next stage. In doing so, we are keeping the matter under review as promised in response to the motion to Council in February.

 

Question from Mr Hollingsworth

“How, may I ask, will you defend Spelthorne Borough Council's financial position given rental deferrals that have put a hole in the budget, the result of an unwise debt-funded property frenzy?”

 

Question from Mr. M. Beecher

"How does the Council propose to recover the £4.5 million loss in revenue following the 18-month rent deferral agreed in secret with 'WeWork' and further losses from other rent deferrals?"

 

Response from the Deputy Leader, Councillor J. McIlroy:

 

“Thank you for the questions. I will explain later why it is in the interests of council tax payers for such negotiations to be undertaken in private.  I do, however, understand the concerns of residents, particularly when they are reading press coverage which is not wholly accurate. It is partially in response to these concerns that the Leader is setting up the Leader’s Property Investment Review Working Group to review how we move forward.

 

In respect of the financial position, I am pleased to report that, contrary to the statement that ‘rental deferrals have put a hole in the budget’, Spelthorne Borough Council’s financial position is better than many councils impacted by COVID-19.

 

For the first three months of the financial year the Council has received 95% of the rent due, with all but 0.15% of the balance covered by rent deferral agreements with tenants. Of those rent deferrals, 70% will have been received by 31 March 2021. For the period June to September 2020 we have received to date 93.6% of the rent due, and all but 0.5% of the balance is covered by rent deferral agreements, of which 72% will be received by 31 March 2021. These percentages reflect that We-Work rental due for the March and June quarter days have been received in full. 

 

To be clear - there is no financial hole in the 2020-21 budget. Only around 0.2% at most may end up being written off.

 

The Council has been extremely prudent in light of COVID-19, and as set out in the Extraordinary Council Meeting report of 21 May 2020, we have taken a number of proactive steps to maximise income. For example we have:

 

1.         Set aside £20m from rental streams to date, to provide a cushion against future temporary drops in rental income, and

 

2.         Updated our sinking fund scenarios to look at worst case and expected case COVID-19 scenarios for the next 10 years.

 

I can report that even on the worst case scenarios, the sinking fund balances are more than sufficient to ensure no impact from any shortfalls in rental income streams on the Revenue Budget or council taxpayers over the next 10 years. After financing costs and contribution to sinking funds are taken into account, the Council has budgeted for £10m net contribution from its commercial assets in the current financial year towards the cost of provision of services for residents, and we remain confident that this will be the net contribution received.

 

Reference has been made by one local resident to ‘gross mismanagement’ of the Council’s finances and an ‘unwise debt funded property frenzy’. I have already set out the strength of our financial position and our investment portfolio even in the face of COVID-19. It is difficult to see how mismanagement, as referred to by Mr Hollingsworth could lead to an income receipt of over 93% in the first six months of this year, well ahead of the industry average. This authority has a professional team of officers, with an extensive private sector background, who are well used to managing property portfolios of this size.  

 

One of the questions refers to a “secret deal” with a particular tenant. In order for the Council to protect the interests of council taxpayers, it is important that tenants feel able to have early and honest discussions with us as their landlord. If they are facing financial challenges, we need to discuss such matters in a ‘safe environment’ in order to have the best chance of negotiating deals which best protect the Council’s financial interests.  It is for that reason that we have to treat the detail of the discussions as commercially confidential.

 

With respect to the specific rent free arrangement raised by Mr Hollingsworth, which has been commented on in press as a result of leaked confidential papers, I can confirm that this does not create any financial hole in the Council’s Revenue Budget. This will be spread over a number of future periods and can be accommodated through Sinking Fund adjustments without any reduction in the amount of surplus being passed to the Revenue Budget to support the provision of services.”

 

Question from Mrs. C. Nichols

“Covid 19

Nationally published pillar1 and 2 data shows that Spelthorne continues to experience occasional Covid 19 positive cases.   Covid 19 will flare up again in the Autumn without effective test and trace, face masks across all age groups in crowded public spaces as well as enclosed spaces, and discipline in following separation distances.

 

September will present vulnerable residents with a particular challenge when children – the older ones of whom are thought to be a vector for Covid 19 transmission – return to school.  This is a particular problem in Lower Sunbury where thousands of children discharge onto Green Street during term time.

 

Spelthorne has worked tirelessly to help the community through its Support4Spelthorne scheme. However, the Borough Bulletin gives no indication of a role for the Council in emerging local test and trace programmes although this is the level of local government that is very well informed as to where residents are located.

 

How is Spelthorne working with Surrey’s public health department to ensure that residents have regular up-to-date information on where the local flare ups are occurring?  When can residents expect to receive an information leaflet on a multi-agency action plan for control of Covid 19 as it applies to Spelthorne?”

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

“Thank you for your question. Like the rest of the country, Spelthorne will continue to experience occasional COVID-19 positive cases and we will be monitoring those closely through the NHS pillar 1 and 2 data, which we now have access to. Current NHS data at 27 July 2020 shows that in a 7 day testing period of Spelthorne residents there were 753 tests and 3 positive cases.

 

The Government has proposed a range of measures to prevent flare up of COVID-19 cases, including the Test and Trace programme and requiring the wearing of facemasks in situations where effective 2m social distancing is not possible.

 

Direction on the NHS Test and Trace programme comes from Public Health England (PHE).  In order to support this programme, Surrey County Council’s Public Health team are required to lead on local outbreak planning, and they have published a local outbreak control action plan, which can be found on their website.  The link to this information will be provided in the written response to this question.

 

Whilst this?plan deals with all local COVID-19 outbreaks, it?also?identifies and prioritises preventative?and?early intervention?measures for?key?settings?such as care homes, schools and other high-risk locations, including specific actions which must be followed in those settings in the event of an outbreak.

 

There is considerable guidance for schools on how to operate safely in a COVID-19 environment and many of the schools that have remained open during the past few months already have good operating procedures in place to minimise risk.  The risks associated with children leaving school at the end of each day would have been considered in this guidance, although it is worth noting that transmission of the virus in the open is reported as having considerably less risk than in enclosed spaces.

 

The national NHS Test and Trace scheme has continued to evolve over recent weeks, along with the local outbreak plan.  Any article in the July Bulletin would therefore have been out of date very quickly.  The Borough’s role is also still evolving and its exact role in Test and Trace and other functions will be dependent on the nature of any outbreak.  In such situations, Public Health England will consider the severity and spread of any outbreak and will, in conjunction with Surrey Public Health, determine the need for an outbreak control team.  Our Environmental Health Team has been involved in the development of this plan and will play a key role in controlling outbreaks within certain settings in the borough.

 

The Local Outbreak plan has a very clear communication strategy specifically tailored to the type of outbreak. The communications approach will include traditional offline channels and networks, as well targeted digital communications to ensure messages can reach residents within a few hours of a notification of a local outbreak.   Our communications team have regular meetings with the Surrey-wide communications group so will, as they have done to date, transmit relevant information through Spelthorne’s communication channels.  It is not currently planned to produce any leaflets locally as the next steps for COVID-19 are still evolving and the overall Surrey Plan has mechanisms in it to ensure effective local dissemination of information for local outbreaks of the virus, including how the multi-disciplinary action plan will work.  In the meantime, in order to raise awareness, Surrey County Council has launched a phased communication campaign entitled “Keep Surrey Safe”.  A specific toolkit for businesses is also due to be launched this week, which will incorporate advice from the Department of Health, including action cards for specific types of businesses.”