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 15 April 2021.

 

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

 

Question from Councillor J. Doerfel

On 20 October 2020, this Council passed a motion on idling. What has this Council done in the last 6 months to "declare a no idling zone as a matter of urgency", to "encourage all residents and businesses to stop engine idling", to raise awareness in Council publications, communications, and Council campaigns about the harm of idling, to "encourage and assist schools, businesses, and other partners in the Borough to highlight the health hazards and environmental impact of idling and to take measures to combat idling through signage and other measures", to write to Surrey County Council urging the Council to proactively address the declaration of a Clean Air Zone and combat idling as a matter of urgency including through the implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order to this effect, increased use of custom signage, idling penalties and increased enforcement resourcing for monitoring of idling hotspots including in busy shopping areas, car parks, near schools and in residential areas and to write to the Government for legislative reform?

 

 

The Mayor reported that three general questions had been received, in accordance with Standing Order 15, from Councillors J.H. Doerfel, L.E Nichols and T Lagden.

 

1.    Question from Councillor J. Doerfel

On 20 October 2020, this Council passed a motion on idling. What has this Council done in the last 6 months to "declare a no idling zone as a matter of urgency", to "encourage all residents and businesses to stop engine idling", to raise awareness in Council publications, communications, and Council campaigns about the harm of idling, to "encourage and assist schools, businesses, and other partners in the Borough to highlight the health hazards and environmental impact of idling and to take measures to combat idling through signage and other measures", to write to Surrey County Council urging the Council to proactively address the declaration of a Clean Air Zone and combat idling as a matter of urgency including through the implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order to this effect, increased use of custom signage, idling penalties and increased enforcement resourcing for monitoring of idling hotspots including in busy shopping areas, car parks, near schools and in residential areas and to write to the Government for legislative reform?

 

Response from Councillor R. Noble

 

Thank you Cllr Doerfel for your question.

 

1.    In terms of declaring a no idling zone we need to consult with and involve others especially Surrey Highways Authority and organisations such as Highways England who have responsibility for the strategic road network, which is the primary source of emissions in Spelthorne. Obtaining views from such organisations takes time but must be undertaken prior to the declaration. of any “no idling zones”.

 

2.    This has not prevented us from undertaking various activities to address the issue and encourage others to stop or prevent idling.  For example, as a planning condition on new developments in the Borough, signage is required in all parking and set down areas instructing drivers to switch off engines for the prevention of air pollution.

3.    Communications are also key to encouraging drivers to switch off when parked.  Work is in its early stages to produce a ‘No idling’ campaign which will:

• encourage drivers to switch off their engines when parked up and waiting (idling) outside schools, shops, train stations, parks and recycling centres.

·         draw attention to the health risks of continued idling.

The council will use a variety of Council platforms including signage, social media and the Bulletin magazine. We will also be looking to engage with residents, schools and businesses across the Borough.

 

Posters for community notice boards and the use of Vehicle Messaging Signs messaging will be implemented once the need for COVID-19 related messaging is reduced. A further measure that was considered and postponed due to COVID-19 was the use of a banner on Spelthorne Borough Council emails which are currently displaying COVID-19 messaging. If appropriate, such a banner could be used regarding the Climate Emergency and reducing emissions of both greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

 

Spelthorne through its role in the Surrey Air Alliance has been involved in designing a pilot Anti-Idling Schools project to target idling engines outside Schools. The project hopes to achieve preliminary funding to target two school sites in Surrey. If successful, this will enable access to further funds to roll out the project across the whole of Surrey. 

 

The Surrey Air Alliance have proposed that the project includes a competition for school children in Surrey to design an anti-idling banner to be deployed outside schools.

 

Additionally, the use of hand-held air quality monitoring equipment to provide demonstrations of idling emissions from a vehicle to school children is also being considered as part of the project.

 

If funding is secured the project will begin in September 2021.

 

4.    As requested, Spelthorne did write to Surrey Highways Authority regarding the idling issue for their consideration.  As the Highways Authority Surrey County Council, not Spelthorne, would have to issue any Traffic Regulation Orders to allow enforcement of a no idling zone on the highway. Their response was as follows:

 

“Idling is not currently enforced in Surrey, except for (advisory) posters asking drivers to switch off their engines when queuing at level crossings. The topic of idling was considered as part of Surrey County Council's Low Emissions Transport Strategy (link below) (approved by Surrey County Council Cabinet in 2018), However, idling was not deemed to be a priority for the county in regards to this strategy.  The Transport Policy Team at SCC consider that this is primarily due to the impact of idling on overall air quality being very low, and due to difficulties in enforcing idling. https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/policies-plans-consultations/transport-plan/surrey-transport-plan-strategies/low-emissions-transport-strategy”.

 

5.    We fully intend writing to the Government on this issue, but it has been necessary to progress a number of the above matters first to establish the level of support we are likely to receive from the key partners outlined above, This will then enable us to frame our ask of Government accordingly.   

 

6.    Other activities to mitigate air pollution in the Borough and impact on idling include:

 

·         A successful bid produced by the Pollution Control team in October 2020 for DEFRA funds to undertake an educational project with Taxi and Private Hire drivers, encouraging the uptake of EV vehicles.  Funds were awarded in March 2021. The Taxi and Private Hire road user group are being targeted for this project as their vehicles typically pick-up passengers’ kerbside and wait outside properties. The use of EV vehicles will help to reduce idling emissions from this road user group. The Project involves seven Surrey Boroughs and Surrey County Council.

 

·         Construction Environmental Management Plans are being screened for anti-idling measures for construction HGVs /staff vehicles.  Where these measures are not present, this is being raised via the Local Planning Authority.

 

The issue of idling vehicles on Charlton Lane waiting to enter the EcoPark during busy periods has been raised directly with the facility after Spelthorne Pollution Control Officers observed a large volume of traffic waiting to enter the site. The team now has a policy to highlight idling to other businesses where this is observed in the Borough.

 

2.    Question from Councillor Lawrence Nichols

The LGA Peer Review took place in November 2020, with the draft report made available in December. The Council issued a press release on 29th January this year in which the Leader is quoted saying "We fully commit to action the recommendations made in the report and are already putting in place plans to address them which will be regularly reviewed by the Leader and the Cabinet."

 

Could the Leader please advise when Members will be informed what these plans and associated actions are and are the Cabinet satisfied with progress to date?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor J.R Boughtflower

Thank you for the question and for your interest in this matter. As Councillor Nichols states, we published the final report once the text of the final version of the report had been agreed with the Local Government Association, on the 29^th January. We are aware there have been some social media comments suggesting incorrectly that we have only recently published the report.

 

The report commented positively on the strong response the Council made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and made 26 constructive recommendations across a range of issues as to how we can build upon the arrangements we already have in place.

 

Since the receipt of the final report, officers have worked up an Action Plan, which has since been circulated to all councillors on 19^th April, setting out actions, implementation timescales and action owners. In many instances, the suggested actions were already in train or planned at the time of the Peer Review and have been progressed, and a number of the other recommendations are well underway. For example:

 

·         We produced a refreshed Reserves Strategy which went to both Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

·         Despite the additional timing challenges created by COVID-19, we built in extra sessions for Opposition Groups and Overview and Scrutiny to have input into the Budget process.

·         We modelled more scenarios as options for the Outline Budget.

·         Agreeing as part of new Constitution, arrangements to recruit independent lay member to Audit Committee.

·         Agreeing to establish the new Assets Programme Board which will become a sub-committee of the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee.

 

As Councillor Nichols will be aware, our new Chief Accountant has some good proposals for refining the way our financial reports and financial information is presented to councillors, and this will be taken forward with the new Committees system.

 

As will have been seen from the circulated Action Plan, some of the budget related recommendations will not be able to be fully implemented until February 2022.

 

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

 

I note that in connection with the response to the LGA Review we could get a press release out in January with 1,200 words mainly of self-congratulation, in contrast the response document, 4 months in the making, is an embarrassment, it is no surprise that we have been asked to keep the contents confidential, it should not be allowed out in its current form. A couple of examples, the LGA recommendation 13 to have an independent member on the Audit Committee is to be addressed as part of the new committee governance – this committee structure isn’t changing so why are we delaying?   Recommendation 4, improve the Capital programme scheme implementation performance. This is responded to by changes in the accounting and reporting. This is window dressing not action.  My question is, where the Leader and Cabinet consulted in the preparation of this document and does the Leader think that this action plan is an adequate response to the LGA review?

 

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

 

I note that in connection with the response to the LGA Review we could get a press release out in January which had 1,200 words, mainly of self-congratulation. In contrast the response document, four months in the making, is an embarrassment - it is no surprise that we have been asked to keep the contents confidential, it should not be allowed out in its current form. A couple of examples:

 

·         LGA recommendation 13 - to have an independent member on the Audit Committee is “To be addressed as part of the new Committee’s governance” – this committee’s structure is not changing so why are we delaying?

·         Recommendation 4 – “Improve Capital Programme Scheme implementation performance” is responded to by changes in accounting and reporting. This is window dressing not action. 

 

My question is: were the Leader and Cabinet consulted in the preparation of this document and does the Leader think that this Action Plan is an adequate response to the LGA review?

 

Response to supplementary question from Councillor J. Boughtflower:

 

Thank you for your supplementary question.

 

I am disappointed with the tone of your question which demonstrates your lack of understanding of the pressures the Council have been under over the last 13 months. As was stated at the beginning of the Council meeting, it is important to understand the pressures officers have been under during the recent period dealing with the second wave of COVID-19 and supporting the recovery from the Pandemic.  The new Chief Accountant, Paul Taylor, started with the Council on the day the Peer Review team gave their initial feedback, and it was appropriate to allow Paul time to bed in and get to understand the opportunities and challenges before he helps us improve the financial reporting provided.

 

As the report going to Cabinet setting out the Action Plan highlights, a number of the elements of the Peer Review recommendations have already in part been actioned. It is also worth not losing sight of the fact that as the Peer Review acknowledged our relatively strong financial position has helped the Council weather so far the impacts of COVID-19 and protect services to residents and enabled us to flexibly respond to provide support for vulnerable residents

 

Dealing with your two examples:

 

A)   We have not delayed introducing an independent member on the Audit Committee as you have suggested. Under the current Council Constitution we did not have power to appoint independent lay members to the Audit Committee and to make such a change required a review of the Constitution. It therefore made sense to align to the review of the Constitution being undertaken as part of the move to the new Committees system. We are aiming to have a new independent member recruited and scheduled in time for the next scheduled meeting of the Audit Committee in July.

 

B)   The response to recommendation 4 is not window dressing as you have claimed.  The Chief Accountant will be implementing clear multi-year cumulative Capital Monitoring to enable councillors to understand the position on multi-year projects. This I know is something Cllr Nichols has been keen to see. Officers and the Administration are keen to work with councillors across the chamber to improve financial monitoring to ensure it best meets the needs of councillors and the committees. It is disappointing the proposed changes to report being proposed by officers before we have seen the draft outcome of the work. The Assets Programme Board, as a Sub-Committee of the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee, has been set up and I believe this will make a significant contribution towards councillors having more effective input into the monitoring of progress of the most significant elements of the Capital Programme.

 

To answer Cllr Nichol’s question, yes officers consulted the Administration on the progression of the draft plan, with the Finance Portfolio Holder having the opportunity to input, and then myself and my two Deputy Leaders. To answer the question do we think this is an adequate response, yes we do in the difficult circumstances we have been working on due to the pandemic and the changes being implemented to move towards a committee system

 

It is important to note that the Action Plan is meant to be a living document, kept under review and refined as necessary. Officers would therefore be happy to discuss Cllr Nichols’, and indeed any councillors’ suggestions as to how we can best address the Peer Review’s recommendations.

 

 

3.    Question from Councillor Tom Lagden

 

Question to Cllr Noble:

 

At the ‘Extraordinary Council Meeting’ of 21st January 2021, you made the following comment:

 

"...about the Green Belt...I've received some independent calls...about planning issues within Spelthorne,...it's been made clear to me, and I'm talking about not only developers but also councillors from other authorities. If I were a major developer looking in the south west of London, and I'm looking at planning committees, and I look at chairs of planning committees and their political persuasions...those outside people have commented to me on the nature of the political background of our current chair of planning and I'm not sure that's going to help us attract other developers to come into this borough..".

 

Who are the developers and councillors you refer to - who seek to influence planning decisions at Spelthorne Borough Council that have made you biased enough to call for me removal as chair for being a Green Party supporter advocating with officer recommendations in order to protect it?

 

As chair of the Planning Committee, I note that you have at no stage declared any such lobbying during any of the Planning Committee meetings but have lodged continued with an application to build on Green Belt that officers refused to accept.

 

In light of this.  When will you retract and publicly apologise for this assault against me politically and rightfully step down from the Planning Committee?

 

Response from Councillor R. Noble

I understand that you have made a formal complaint to the Council’s Monitoring Officer about my comments at the meeting on the 21 January 2021. Under the arrangements for dealing with complaints this matter was  referred to the Group Leaders for resolution who were unable to agree a course of action. This will now be referred back to the Monitoring Officer.

 

I was appointed to the Planning Committee by the Council and I will not be stepping down.