Agenda item

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 on travellers from Littleton Recreation Ground, thereby denying families of this outdoor facility during this unauthorised encampment and further closure of the park until a full and thorough clear-up and clean-up has been carried out by council staff?

 

Response to supplementary question from Councillor J. Boughtflower:

 

Councillor Sider you know I think what has happened is awful and I think that Surrey police need to take more action and I am very happy to write to the chief constable to ask why there wasn’t a police presence earlier and what more they could have done.

 

2.    Question from Councillor Chris Bateson

The long-standing position of Spelthorne Council was to oppose Network Rail’s proposal to permanently close the railway crossing at Moor Lane on safety grounds, as clarified in a Council press release prior to the commencement of the Enquiry.

 

Two-thirds of the way through the proceedings, the Council performed a complete about-turn and dramatically withdrew its opposition to permanent closure and before all objector’s presentations had been heard. This decision was reached by a select group of Officers and a Deputy Leader at very short notice.

 

How we ended up in this situation is of concern to both Councillors and residents of the Borough. In turn, this decision has damaged the Council’s reputation within the local community. In the light of the Council’s apparent failure to adequately prepare its case, by contrast to National Rail’s defence, what financial cost has been incurred by our Authority?

 

Response from the Deputy Leader Councillor J. McIlroy:

Thank you for your question Councillor Bateson. Before outlining the financial costs incurred by Spelthorne in relation to this Inquiry, I believe that it is essential to give some important background to this case. 

 

Since the temporary order to close this crossing was first implemented, Spelthorne Borough Council has objected to this and has made a strong commitment to challenge the closure based on the evidence we had before us. Prior to the Inquiry, Network Rail did not provide a clearly evidenced case for closure; in particular, because of a lack of detailed evidence supporting their historical decision-making process, and the underlying reasoning that sought to argue that it was not reasonably practicable to implement additional and/or alternative safety mitigation options. 

 

The Council did not fail to adequately prepare its case as you have intimated.  In the run up to the Inquiry, Council officers undertook a great deal of work to prepare evidence to support our arguments and develop our case, based on the information they had available to them prior to the Inquiry. This included liaising with Surrey County Council (SCC), as the authority with responsibility for maintaining such public footpaths.

 

As the Inquiry moved closer, a number of additional documents were produced by Network Rail, both alongside its proofs of evidence, as well as separately. We also discovered that Network Rail had instructed Counsel to present its case. As a result, our officers made the decision to instruct our own barrister (Jonathan Darby), specialising in this type of work, in order to assist us with preparing and presenting the Council’s case. Our officers did enquire whether SCC would like to work with us and come on board with employing Counsel support in the run up to the Inquiry, but they did not receive a positive response. 

 

It was clear from our Counsel’s advice that we were always going to face an uphill challenge to get an Inspector to go against a Network Rail recommendation for extinguishment of the crossing; not least because of the general trend of Inspectors erring on the side of caution in circumstances where fundamental safety issues have been raised as part of the case in favour of extinguishment, with expert evidence having been submitted by Network Rail in support of that position. However, having reviewed the information that became available late in the day, our Counsel’s expert view was that there were reasonable grounds to explore and challenge Network Rail’s decision-making processes and, in particular, its analysis of alternative safety mitigation options.  

 

Just prior to the Inquiry, and at a number of points as this progressed, Network Rail presented new information which provided a persuasive case that the crossing was dangerous and could not be made safe by any reasonably practicable means. The information their witnesses provided for the first time at the Inquiry, provided significant additional evidence as to why the crossing was inherently unsafe, why it could not reasonably be made safe, and how Network Rail had undertaken their assessment to come to that conclusion.  Options such as a bridge and tunnel were explored, but it was obvious that these would be neither physically, nor financially viable in the circumstances.  Any remaining chance of succeeding in our arguments was then significantly weakened by the evidence given by SCC.  

 

In giving evidence at the Inquiry, SCC’s officer responsible for rights of way agreed that public safety was at the heart of the extinguishment and she stated that it was her professional opinion that the crossing should be closed. The County Council’s priority statement for such footpaths listed public safety as second top priority, and she agreed that if the inspector concluded that for the purposes of Network Rail’s section 118a case the crossing is unsafe, the wider expediency test would not overturn any of this and warrant reopening of the crossing. Under questioning from Network Rail’s barrister, SCC’s officer stated that she disagreed that there was a lack of suitable and safe alternative routes and having sought the view of SCC Highways experts, there was nothing to suggest that either the northern or southern alternative connection routes to the Moor were hazardous to pedestrian movements. She further indicated that a number of arguments that had been put forward in the case against closure of the crossing were irrelevant (e.g., the historic usage of the footpath, the fact that it existed before the before railway and the existence of a Site of Special Scientific Interest).

 

This evidence from the officer presenting SCC’s case (in combination with the additional information and evidence provided by Network Rail during the course of the inquiry), significantly reduced any residual chance of the Spelthorne succeeding in maintaining our objections against the extinguishment of the footpath.

 

Taking all of the above factors into consideration as the Inquiry progressed, our Counsel strongly advised that we should consider withdrawing our objection to the extinguishment of the crossing as the Inspector, in the face of all the evidence presented at the Inquiry, would be highly unlikely to agree that the footpath could be made safe and should re-open. To continue pursuing our case would lead to additional costs to Spelthorne and risk the Borough Council potentially having to pay some of Network Rail’s costs. 

 

In presenting our case and challenging Network Rail’s evidence, Spelthorne had, however, achieved notable concessions from them in relation to the funding of improvement works to the proposed alternative routes. Although Network Rail indicated that these had always ‘been on the table’, Spelthorne managed to get a clear undertaking from them that they would designate funding for these improvements, an undertaking which was then provided in writing to Surrey County Council during the Inquiry.  In doing so, we could be satisfied that the ‘northern’ alternative route along Moor Lane could be made sufficiently safe for use by pedestrians as an alternative means of accessing Staines Moor.

 

Our Counsel also believed that since Network Rail had been so slow in providing important elements of their evidence, which proved that the crossing could not be made safe (much of which was provided just before or during the inquiry), Spelthorne would have reasonable grounds for applying for an award of partial costs in its favour. 

 

Following a meeting to discuss these issues between myself, Spelthorne’s officers and our Counsel, reluctantly the difficult decision was taken (in accordance with the scheme of delegations) to withdraw the Borough Council’s objection to the extinguishment of the Moor Lane crossing. Based on our Counsel’s expert advice this was the only reasonable way forward for the Council in these circumstances. As I have outlined, failure to withdraw our objections on the face of the evidence given to the Inquiry, which appeared to present an overwhelming safety case for closure of the crossing, would have resulted in further costs to Spelthorne, including the significant possibility of the Council having to pay some of Network Rail’s costs.

 

Other than our own officer time, the costs which were incurred for the Council in relation to this case were the Counsel’s fees, amounting to around £15,000.

 

3.    Question from Councillor Lawrence Nichols

The number of housing units proposed for the Oast House site at the Extraordinary Council meeting on 21st January was significantly different from the number indicated in the Cabinet paper approved in March 2019.  What was the process followed to authorise this change and why has the Council chosen to spend over £1.2m on planning the development of this site without a revised Cabinet approval of the change or any public consultation?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

Thank you for your question Councillor Nichols.

 

As active members of the Property Investment Task Group looking at property matters, we together identified concerns around how development schemes have progressed from inception to completion.

 

Unit numbers for such projects are always approximate in Cabinet papers, and subject to planning and other risks. Early feasibility work is undertaken prior to acquisition to inform development parameters. There then follows an agile development management process which involves design work, technical analysis and wider stakeholder involvement. This looks to optimise the development in terms of design quality, unit numbers and financial performance within the planning policy context. The unit numbers may go up or down as a result. 

 

The fees to date for this project are £822,000, not £1.2m as you state. Given the scale and complexity of the scheme and the number of changes which have been made, this is not unreasonable. No additional fees will be paid until we have a financially viable scheme that is acceptable in principle to the planners.

 

Having said all that, a gap in reporting changes to Cabinet has been identified by the members of the Property Investment Task group which you are a member of.

 

Currently, a report only goes to Cabinet if there is a budgetary implication (e,g. more budget is required to deliver the scheme than originally anticipated).

 

This is one of the areas that has caused concern from councillors, and this will be looked at in detail under the newly constituted Assets Programme Board.

 

As you know we have discussed these concerns over the Oast House and other developments.  It is important this does not happen again and for these reasons for this Council to have an Assets Programme Board to ensure that schemes are financially viable and value for money and also to provide scrutiny for our residents.

 

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

 

Firstly, I’d like to make it clear to the Leader, he says that the fees to-date for the project are at £822,000, not 1.2 million. However, if he were to add up all the items attributed to the Oast House on the Council’s website, he would come to more than 1.2 million, so that statement in his answer is incorrect. My question is: is he satisfied with the level of public consultation that has taken place over the Oast House?

 

Response to supplementary question from Councillor J. Boughtflower:

 

I am not happy with the amount of consultation that has taken place in relation to the Oast House.

 

4.    Question from Councillor Tom Fidler

The timeline and public information on the Local Plan is not reflecting the current status. When can residents expect the website to provide an accurate timeline and updated account of the Local Plan process?

 

Response from the Deputy Leader Councillor J. McIlroy:

As an active member of the cross-party Local Plan Task Group (chaired by myself) you will be well aware, Cllr Fidler, of the very real challenges that we face of attempting to accommodate government housing requirements, whilst protecting our green belt. This has been severely hindered by central government changing the goalposts with our housing numbers, as recently as last December.

 

I hope you would agree that we collectively have worked incredibly hard to try and find a way forward that works for our residents, but which also delivers the housing the Government expects. There is more work to be done by this Group. Once that has been completed a report will go to Cabinet setting out a proposed way forward, including a revised timeline. That report will be in the public domain and our website will be updated accordingly at that stage.  

 

In accordance with Standing Order 15.2, Councillor T. Fidler asked the following supplementary question:

 

Whilst I respect that certain decisions and discussions need to be kept confidential, does Councillor McIlroy also agree with me that it is important for residents to come on the journey with us and that we should be releasing information and publicly available information should be clearly presented on our website in a timely fashion to make sure that residents feel happy and satisfied with the progress being made towards the local plan?

 

Response to supplementary question from Councillor J. McIlroy 

 

I think my answer has been clearly set out to Councillor Fidler and I am quite happy to provide a written answer, but also to take it up with him at any time. Councillor Fidler knows exactly where we are with the local plan in what we’re trying to do.

 

After the meeting, Councillor J. McIlroy provided the following written repose to supplement the answer provided at the meeting: “I would add I quite agree it is essential that we keep our residents informed when we have information we can share.

The Strategic Planning and New Local Plan website is kept fully up to date and we frequently produce press releases to inform our community on the progress we are making and next steps on the Local Plan and the Staines Development Framework. As Cllr Fidler knows, we are at a crucial stage of our Plan preparation and it’s important that the information we release is not premature or misleading when the overall strategy is yet to finalised but as soon as we have details that are ready to be put into the public domain we will do so.”

5.    Question from Councillor Helen Harvey

The Leader made the following statement in a press release 10^th February 2021:

 

‘I specifically asked for a consultation exercise to be undertaken so that residents could give us their views on the future of Staines…’

 

I was surprised to learn that Cllr Boughtflower thinks that he was the one to have the bright idea to consult with the public over the emerging Staines Development Framework formally known as Staines Master Plan. This is not the case.

 

As part of the preparation of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) it is a standard formal requirement that public consultation exercises be carried out. Indeed, in June 2020 all Staines Councillors and other cross- party Councillors were sent a document entitled ‘Consultation Strategy’ where the proposals from our consultants for this consultation exercise were summarised.  Furthermore, I personally attended a meeting in June, which was minuted, where the methods and approaches for the consultations were discussed in detail and in particular with regard to COVID-19 restrictions.

 

In view of this it is incumbent on Cllr Boughtflower to immediately issue a press release putting the record straight and apologising for misleading the public.

 

A Spelthorne council press release on 17^th June 2020 stated that despite COVID-19 restrictions the Staines Master Plan was expected to be ready ‘early in 2021’ and other documents I have seen say by March 2021. Clearly according to the press release of 10^th February 2021 this date has slipped by many months. Can the Leader inform Council and residents as to why this project; which is to provide an important support document for our emerging Local Plan, has been so delayed and can we be updated of the current Local Plan and Staines Development Framework timetable with key milestone dates? Our residents’ groups need to be kept informed so that they can plan and coordinate their responses should they wish to make formal representations to the Ministry.

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

For the Council, it is critical that the end result of the Staines Development Framework is the right one. Whilst there has been some slippage in moving forward on the Development Framework, I see no issue with this.

 

Whilst all best endeavours have been made to meet specific deadlines expressed, nobody could foresee how this pandemic was to develop and the impact it would have on the work of the Council, as you be aware from the comprehensive regular Council COVID-19 Briefings for all members.

 

Councillor McIlroy will  be providing an update on the timetable on these items at in due course to Cabinet.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 15.2, Councillor H. Harvey asked the following supplementary question:

Whilst I accept that during COVID some officers time has been diverted, the Staines Development Framework SPD document is being produced by external consultants, and as such I do not consider the explanation given is tenable. Can the Leader ensure that progress with the plans for Staines and the Local Plan are not delayed intentionally or any longer?

Response to supplementary question from Councillor Boughtflower:

Thank you for your question. Due to the availability of evening slots we have taken the decision to start switching meetings to daytime so that we can progress as quickly as possible.

6.    Question from Councillor Ian Harvey

At the 21st January Extraordinary Council Meeting to discuss Spelthorne property projects Cllr Boughtflower you proposed SIX separate motions that would transfer responsibility to a “Project Board” that would be a subcommittee of a new Policy and Resources Committee that itself will not come into existence until after the transition to a Committee System in May 2021.

 

A separate report submitted that night stated that the interest cost alone of any delays is £9100 a week. Thus the minimum delay as a result of this is 19 weeks, at a direct cost of £172,900.

 

Having proposed motions to facilitate multi-million funding to these projects, you then proceeded on some of the motions to state that you had not yet made up your mind whether or not to support those motions that you yourself had just proposed. This does not suggest a very strong leadership or decision making ability, or indeed commercial acumen. Please can you justify your actions (or indeed inactions)?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

I thank Councillor Harvey for his question. A decision was made by members at the ECM on the 21January 2021 to direct the Capital Budgets for the Council’s Development Programme. At this ECM the proposed Assets Programme Board was introduced, as you well know.

 

The Assets Programme Board has been set-up at Cabinet last night as a sub-committee of Cabinet to take these matters forward and bridge the gap until May 2021.

 

This Assets Programme Board will give residents and all members reassurance and transparency.

 

As a leader I always listen to all and as a result may change my initial views, I see this is a positive and one of the skills of a leader.

 

I lead by listening to what our residents and colleagues want and need and take steps to achieve that.  I see that as one of the skills of a leader.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 15.2, Councillor I. Harvey asked the following supplementary question:

 

Whilst I accept that a proposed assets programme board has been set up, the fact remains that at the commencement of the ECM on 25 of January 2021 the situation at that point was that the programme board was going to be a sub-committee of the Policy and Resources Committee which itself was not going to come into play until at least after the Annual Council Meeting on 25  May 2021. Therefore, at the beginning of that meeting, that board was going to be receiving referrals with a delay approaching 18 - 19 weeks. I therefore ask if the Leader would like to reconsider his answer, because I consider that his answer was based on what happened in hindsight not what was planned.

 

Response to supplementary question from Councillor J. Boughtflower:

 

Thank you Councillor I. Harvey. I think there is some hindsight here, but I really want to get things moving now, even as a template to move into the committee system. Delays cost as we all know. Waiting for the Committee system to be implemented in May is a long time as you’ve highlighted, so I want to progress as much as possible now to avoid further delays in people being given a place to live and to reduce costs.

 

7.    Question from Councillor Olivia Rybinski

In October 2020 there was a very serious and unlawful leak of a very confidential document to journalists and this led to significant press interest. As Councillors we should abide by the Code of Conduct and not work to bring the Council into disrepute. This type of one-sided journalism causes residents to feel unsettled as they have not been given the full picture.

 

Questions about this leak were asked in full council and we understand only four councillors (Cllr Boughtflower, Buttar, Mitchell and Nichols) had access to this document. At that time Cllr Boughtflower condemned the leak and assured Council members that this was indeed a serious matter and would be investigated, yet we are yet to be updated on the matter.

Can you now provide councillors with an update as to the progress of that investigation?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

The administration takes a very dim view on the leaking of any confidential information. A preliminary Investigation was undertaken but the source of the leak of the information could not be established. Following this incident all councillors were reminded of their obligations with regards to confidential information.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 15.2, Councillor O. Rybinski asked the following supplementary question:

I am disappointed with this answer. Leaks to the press can be very damaging and I hope everyone takes this very seriously. Leaks have occurred several times in the past and reminding Councillors of their obligation does not seem to always work. Will the Leader please ensure that the leak is further investigated, and could he please update us with his findings?

Response to supplementary question from Councillor J. Boughtflower:

I will provide a written answer because I need to be in touch with the Monitoring Officer on this subject.

After the meeting, Councillor J. Boughtflower provided the following written repose to supplement the answer provided at the meeting: “I completely agree that leaks to the press can be very damaging to the Council business and its reputation. I do take them very seriously. When the leak occurred in October, as I have previously answered, a preliminary investigation was undertaken but that preliminary investigation did not give any indication of the source of that leak. As there was no indication as to who had leaked the information no further action can be taken.”

8.    Question from Councillor Amar Brar

Since the Leader is now supporting the Arora Hotel Complex development, can the Leader provide Council with an update as to any interactions, such as phone calls or meetings he has conducted or attended with Arora group during the past 6 months, and does he agree that we as a borough are indeed highly privileged that in such difficult economic times that Arora were still able to take a long term view and agreed to invest approximately £185m in our borough bringing a much needed boost to the planned regeneration of Staines, local jobs, an increase in visitors and to grow our economic prospects?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J. Boughtflower

I am surprised you are not aware of my view of the high rise developments as I have expressed repeatedly.

 

I have received two telephone calls from Mr Arora suggesting a meeting.

 

Therefore one virtual meeting with Mr Arora, Councillor McIlroy and the Chief Executive has taken place.

 

All developments in the borough that meet the expectations of our residents are a privilege to have here, but others that do not are a different matter.