Agenda item

The Leader, or his nominee, to answer any questions raised by members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 13.

The Mayor reported that, under Standing Order 14, eleven questions had been received from a member of the public.

 

1.            Question from Mr A McLuskey

 

Why, given that the Building Regulations department have passed the cladding at West Plaza as being in conformity with national rules, is the insurance company unwilling to cover the flat dwellers in the development?”

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor L Nichols

 

Thank you for your question Mr McLuskey.

 

The responsibility of Spelthorne Building Control, like all Building Control bodies, is to ensure that developments comply with the necessary legislation, principally the Building Regulations 2010 and the Building Act 1984.

 

As you have been advised by the Council’s Building Control Manager, the works carried out on site to construct the West Plaza development complied with the relevant legislative requirements at the time of the development process, as well as those which apply today.

 

The Council’s Environmental Health team routinely provide information to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government about tall buildings which may be of concern with regards to their external cladding. They also liaise with the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service, who are responsible for the enforcement of Fire Safety Orders.

 

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service carried out an inspection of the West Plaza in February 2021 and found the fire safety provisions to be adequate, based on the information available to them at that time. They did, however, request further documentation regarding the cladding and insulation from the managers of the building. Since receiving this information, the Fire Officer has required the West Plaza management to make amendments to the fire safety system (which have been completed) and future works to be undertaken to the cladding and insulation system.

 

Your question as to why insurance companies are unwilling to cover flat dwellers in these circumstances is, I’m afraid, something I cannot answer. This is a matter for their own underwriters and any questions in this regard should therefore be addressed directly to the companies concerned.

 

2.            Question from Mr A McLuskey

 

Why did the Environmental Health department give permission for an Industrial Kitchen (sic) to operate on the top floor of the block with all the attendant fire risks that involves?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor L Nichols

 

Thank you for your question, Mr McLuskey.

 

As you have previously been advised, the Council’s Environmental Health Officers have no powers to prevent a retail food business from preparing food in a residential premises, provided they comply with food safety and hygiene regulations. All food businesses are required under the Food Safety Act to register their business wit the local Environmental Health Services, so that local authorities can ensure they are inspected. The Council cannot refuse such a registration application, although in certain circumstances such businesses may separately require planning permission. When undertaking an inspection of any such food businesses, our Environmental Health team would also enforce any health and safety requirements. However, any fire safety risks associated with any part of the West Plaza block would be a matter for the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service, as I’ve outlined in my answer to your previous question.

 

The food operation you refer to is a home-based catering business rather than an industrial kitchen as you have suggested. The owners have now relocated this to a different premises in the borough, which has since been inspected by one of our Environmental Health team.

 

3.    Question from Mr A McLuskey

 

Does the Council think it has fully learned the lessons of the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017?

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor L Nichols

 

Thank you for your question, Mr. McLuskey. Spelthorne takes the safety of its residents very seriously. Following the Grenfell tragedy, this Council took immediate steps to start identifying all high-rise buildings in the Borough which could be of a similar construction to Grenfell Tower and we have continued to work  closely with Surrey Fire and Rescue Service to follow up on those that required further investigation.

 

There will clearly be many lessons to be learned from this tragedy and we await the findings of the ongoing Inquiry. Spelthorne will of course take account of any guidance arising from the Inquiry and as a Council we will fulfil our responsibilities for implementing any requirements arising from the Building Safety Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

 

4.    Question from Mr G Lock

 

When will the identity of the investigator be announced, and will full details of his/her background and experience with similar such politically sensitive independent investigations as well as his/her independence from Spelthorne Borough Council (including from its current and former staff and Councillors) be included in the announcement?

 

Response from Councillor C Barnard

 

The Waterfront Inquiry Review Group issued a statement on 11th October to update councillors and the public on the progress to date. It contains the name of the independent investigator, her background and experience in this type of work, and that she has had no contact with any officer or councillor prior to taking on this investigation.

 

5.    Question from Mr J de Pear

 

Why did the Chief Executive (Daniel Mouawad) not recuse himself from any involvement in the establishment and/or administration of the investigation into the provenance of and contract for the Waterfront Development Project, given

 

a)     the clear inappropriateness of such involvement because of his central role in this “officer led” project and

b)    Declared intent of the investigation originally announced on 28 April to “explore the possibility of misconduct and/or fraud?”

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor L Nichols

In May this year the Council moved to a committee system of governance. Under this system, decisions cannot be delegated to individual Councillors or groups of councillors, decisions can only be made by the Council, Committees, Sub-Committees, and officers.

 

The decision taken by the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee sought to initiate the Inquiry into the Waterside Hotel development without further delay. To achieve this, it was decided to delegate the finalisation of the terms of reference (and amendments) and the appointment of the investigator (and possible replacement) to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Review Group. Without this delegation there would have been considerable delay in commencing the inquiry, as the appointment of the investigator and any adjustments to the terms of reference would have had to be referred to a meeting of the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee.

 

The Chief Executive was named as the officer who was to hold the delegated power. This delegation can only be exercised in consultation with the Review Group. It was the members of the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee who agreed the terms of reference. In practice it was the Review Group who approved the appointment of the independent investigator. The Chief Executive has only used his delegated authority to give effect to these decisions. Subsequent discussions with Yinka Owa, the Investigator, have been held without the Chief Executive being involved. There is no need for the Chief Executive to recuse himself, this is already the case in practice, but there remains a requirement for someone to hold the delegated authority to enact any further decisions.

 

The Review Group have been clear in all discussions that the investigation should cover any and all relevant areas without restriction. There are no “no go” areas and all requested documents are being made available.

 

In regards to your reference to the “Declared intent of the investigation originally announced on 28 April”, please note that the document to which you refer was released by an external third party via social media, not from the Council.

 

6.    Question from Mr J de Pear

 

Was any attempt made to persuade the Chief Executive to recuse himself?

 

Response from Councillor R Noble

 

The appointment of an independent investigator to undertake the Waterfront Enquiry required the actions of a senior officer under the governance system that the council operates. The Corporate Policy and Resources Committee, through the appointed Review Group, requested the Chief Executive to exercise the delegation under their direction to issue the initial terms of reference and seek support from the Local Government Association to provide recommendations for an Independent Investigator. Nothing more.

 

The Review Group chose and appointed the Independent Investigator. The Review Group met with the Independent Investigator to ensure the initial terms of reference were sufficient for her to begin her inquiries.

 

The Chief Executive was not involved in the agreed appointment nor any discussions on the initial terms of reference.

 

The Chief Executive has not taken part in any meetings with the Independent Investigator subsequently, has had no contact with the Independent Investigator either in the past or currently, nor has he been involved with the additional terms of reference that have been added since the investigation began.

 

There has been no need for the Chief Executive to recuse himself and neither the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee, nor the appointed Review Group, feel the need for him to undertake such a step given his total lack of involvement apart from ensuring that requests for all information, either via written documentation or via future interviews required with any staff members, are facilitated.

 

7.    Question from Mrs M Geraci

 

What role did the Chief Executive (Daniel Mouawad) and/or the Leader of the Council at the time (Cllr Ian Harvey) have in drafting the scope of the investigation into the Waterfront Development Project (essentially draft terms of reference) as set out with the draft minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee of 5 July 2021 and announced on 20 August 2021, and what role do either have currently in briefing the investigator?

 

Response from Councillor C Barnard

 

The Chief Executive played no role in the preparation of the terms of reference presented to the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee. He was made aware of the content just prior to the meeting as is normal practice in disseminating the information between the officers and Management Team.

 

The former leader, Cllr Ian Harvey, played no part in drafting the terms of reference. They were drafted by the Group Head of Corporate Governance and presented to the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee on the 5^th of July.

 

The briefing of the investigator is entirely in the remit of the Review Group. The Chief Executive or former leader do not play any part in the review meetings and do not attend those meetings.

 

The Chief Executive’s only role has been to request the Local Government Association to provide an experienced investigator, who was interviewed and selected by the Review Group. He was also requested to instruct the administrative support team to compile the information requested by the investigating officer.

 

8.    Question from Mr P Bower

 

Terms of Reference for an independent investigation into the “officer led” Waterfront Development Project announced in April had a declared intent to “explore the possibility of misconduct and/or fraud”. Key elements of these Terms of Reference are either absent altogether from those announced in August or have been rephrased to narrow significantly the context in which the issues can be investigated.

 

According to the draft Minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee of 5 July 2021 the Chief Executive was authorised by the Committee to finalise the Terms of Reference and appoint the investigator, to modify the Terms of Reference “as considered appropriate”, and appoint a replacement investigator if needed. The Minutes also say the Review Group of Councillors overseeing the investigation will “receive updates from officers on the progress of the inquiry and next steps to be taken”.

 

1.    Given the above preamble and his central role in the “officer led” Project, on what basis does the Policy and Resources Committee consider it appropriate for the Chief Executive (or any other officer) to have any role in determining the Terms of Reference for the investigation, or the appointment of the investigator, or indeed any role in the conduct of the investigation itself (other than to give evidence to it)?

2.    Will the more specific Terms of Reference of 28 April 2021 be incorporated into the new Terms of Reference for the investigation?

 

Response to question one from the Leader, Councillor L Nichols

 

I would refer you to the answer given in response to a question from Mr de Pear earlier in this meeting, which covers similar issues.

 

The original terms of reference reflected the requirements of members for a comprehensive inquiry.  The drafting of the document was undertaken by officers to formalise what members had requested.  The terms of reference were formally agreed by the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee.  The intent has always been to allow an inquiry to take place which was not unnecessarily restricted in its scope. 

 

The Review Group have asked the investigator if she is prepared to incorporate additional points as raised by Staines councillors and local residents’ groups, and she has indicated that she is happy to have these points included in the terms of reference.  The formal terms of reference will be revised to incorporate the additions, and these will be re-published. 

 

The terms of reference for this inquiry are unambiguously owned by councillors and not by the Chief Executive or any other officer.

 

Response to question two from Councillor R Noble

 

The authority did not release terms of reference for this inquiry on the 28 April 2021, this relates to a document issued by an external third party on social media.

 

The Corporate Policy and Review Committee established at the outset of the inquiry that the Review Group could amend the terms of reference as considered appropriate as the inquiry developed, or as recommended by the Independent Investigator. The Review Group and the Independent Investigator have agreed that additional terms of reference as referred to in the motion for this council should be added to the original terms.

 

9.    Question from Mr R Neville

 

The land in Feltham Road, Ashford known as Ashford Clumps has been used for allotments for over 100 years. Some current tenants have been gardening there for decades. There are three charities utilising plots at Ashford Clumps to support those with specific needs. Out of the blue allotment holders received a letter from Spelthorne Council dated 15th September 2021 giving 12 months notice to quit due to the lease expiring in March 2020 and not being renewed. The letter was abrupt and legalistic, with no apparent consideration for its impact on people. Allotments have been a sanctuary for many people across the borough during the pandemic, and provide many benefits, both for health & wellbeing and the environment.

 

a) What discussions and meetings took place to consider the impact of this situation and the notice to quit letter, on both the residents who rent plots at Ashford Clumps and the loss of the allotment land on Spelthorne's ability to provide allotments? The loss of this site will be an 8% reduction (62 plots) in allotment plots in Spelthorne, leaving the borough short of plots to meet demand. 

 

b) Why was the expiry of the lease, eviction and loss of allotments not discussed at The Environment and Sustainability Committee, a meeting of which was held on 14th September 2021, the day before the notice to quit letters were dated?

 

10.Question from Ms J Clements

 

Did Spelthorne council consider any options and try and negotiate a new lease for the Ashford Clumps Allotments land to support its residents not just current plot holders but for people in the future. Or did Spelthorne Council, as it seems just accept the termination of the lease at face value, send the plot holders letters and move on.

 

11.Question from Ms S Mason

 

1. The custodians of the land on which Ashford Clumps Allotments are situated are Ashford Relief in Need Charities (ARIN) & The Charities Commissioners. Spelthorne has been leasing this land from them. The lease ended in 2020 and is not being renewed.

 

When were Spelthorne Council first notified that the lease was not going to be renewed and why if the lease ended in March 2020 was the notice to quit not sent until September 2021?

 

2. The Clumps Allotments have been used for growing fruit and vegetables by the community for many years. Council records show it being leased by them since at least 1982, however local people know it has been used by the people of Spelthorne for far longer. This land having been appropriated by Spelthorne Council by means of a lease for at least 39 years is classed as Statutory Allotment Land. This brings certain responsibilities for a Council. These are published by the Government in a document titled 'Allotment disposal Guidance: Safeguards and Alternatives.' Are Spelthorne Council aware of these responsibilities and have they carried them out in relation to the disposal of The Clumps Allotments in September 2022?

 

Response from the Chairman of the Environment and Sustainability Committee, Councillor I Beardsmore to questions 9-11

 

I would like to thank Mr Neville, Ms Clements and Ms Mason for their questions. 

 

The Ashford Clumps allotment site, which is located outside our Borough boundary, was last leased to Spelthorne Borough Council in 2011 by the owners, Ashford Relief in Need Charities (ARIN).  This lease was for 9 years expiring on 24 March 2020.  The Council was notified of ARIN’s intention to terminate the lease on 20 December 2020 and the charity has since served notice on Spelthorne to quit the land and provide vacant possession under the terms of the lease by September 2022. 

 

Since becoming aware of ARIN’s intention to end our lease, Council officers have had ongoing discussions with representatives of the charity’s Trustees.  Our understanding from those discussions was that the charity intended to dispose of the land, rather than having any new or extended lease for the site. 

 

The decision to issue ‘notices to quit’ to allotment holders was not a decision which was taken lightly by the Council.  We fully appreciate the implications this will have for users of the site, who will undoubtedly have put many years of hard work and passion into maintaining their plots.  Officers have discussed this issue with the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council on several occasions at briefings relating to the Council’s assets but having received a termination notice from ARIN, and no confirmation of any option to extend the lease, the Council was obliged to begin the process of giving ‘notice to quit’ to allotment holders. 

 

Since the service of these notices, the Council has continued to actively engage with ARIN in the hope of finding a suitable solution which would enable a satisfactory outcome for all parties concerned.  Spelthorne would positively support the Ashford Clumps site remaining as allotments and if this is also ARIN’s intention, we would be happy to consider options to take this forward.

 

We will continue our dialogue with ARIN in the hope of resolving this difficult situation and will ensure that all relevant parties are kept advised of any further developments in these discussions.

 

Addressing the other points raised in the questions:

 

This matter was not discussed at the Environment and Sustainability Committee on 14^th September as the authority to issue ‘notices to quit’ in such circumstances is contained within the officer ‘scheme of delegation’, and the report being presented at that Committee related only to an update in the terms and conditions for all allotment sites.

 

I would apologise that the contents and tone of the letter and ‘notice to quit’ to allotment holders may have seemed abrupt and legalistic.  I am sure that this will have come as a shock to many plot holders, but unfortunately the Council is required to use the formal legal wording expected by the courts in such circumstances.

 

In relation to the timing of these notices, under the 1922 Allotments Act the Council has a limited window to serve notice, which is either before April or from September onwards (effectively outside the main growing season).  Ongoing discussions with representatives of the Trustees meant that the Council was not in a position to serve notice before April 2021, so the service of notices had to be delayed until September this year.  This has at least given the allotment holders a further growing period over this summer. 

 

The requirements for Statutory Allotment Land are not applicable to this site.  The Clumps was leased to Spelthorne Borough Council by ARIN charity and was not purchased or appropriated by the Council for use as allotments. Therefore, it is not classed as a statutory allotment site. The Clumps is instead classed as ‘temporary’ allotment land and is therefore not covered by Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925.  As such, there is no requirement for the Council to follow the Allotment Disposal Guidance to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent to close.

 

Spelthorne currently has 756 allotments available for residents of the Borough.  Although the loss of The Clumps would reduce this number, the remaining plots available, together with the plots on self-managed sites at Shepperton and Shortwood North, would enable Spelthorne to continue to provide the recommended number of plots to meet demand for the number of properties in the borough.

 

20:00 Councillor M. Madams left the meeting