To receive any motions from Councillors in accordance with Standing Order 16.
Motion 1
Proposed by Councillor Michele Gibson
Seconded by Councillor Stuart Whitmore
“Council notes the unilateral decision by Surrey County Council taking over highway verge cutting and on-street parking enforcement. These services are currently performed by Spelthorne to a high standard.
The Council believes these changes will not improve services and reduce local accountability.
The Council resolves the Leader writes to the Leader of SCC:
1. Requesting that the decision is reversed as it is not in the best interests of residents.
2. Seeks justification of the changes in terms of tangible benefits.
3. Seeks a guarantee of no reduction in standards, if implemented.”
Motion 2
Proposed by Councillor Malcolm Beecher
Seconded by Councillor Jo Sexton
"Some 22 district councils, including our neighbours in Runnymede, have either agreed to delay submission or withdraw their Local Plan from examination pending clarification from the Government of its housing policy. Should the Government formally change or modify its housing policy, Spelthorne Borough Council commits to a re-evaluation of the housing numbers set out in the Local Plan by officers for a subsequent review by the Environment & Sustainability Committee.”
Motion 3
Proposed by Councillor Malcolm Beecher
Seconded by Councillor Michele Gibson
"Until such time as the Spelthorne Local Plan 2022-2037 and Staines Development Framework as approved for Regulation 19 consultation and submission to the Planning Inspectorate are formally adopted by this council that the policies within the Staines Development Framework be adopted temporarily for all council-owned assets within the catchment area of the development framework.”
Minutes:
In accordance with Standing Order 16 the Council received three written Notices of Motions.
The Chairman proposed that motion two be dealt with first as motions one and three dealt with confidential business. This was agreed.
Motion two:
Councillor Beardsmore made a statement proposing that the following motion be withdrawn:
“Some 22 district councils, including our neighbours in Runnymede, have either agreed to delay submission or withdraw their Local Plan from examination pending clarification from the Government of its housing policy. Should the Government formally change or modify its housing policy, Spelthorne Borough Council commits to a re-evaluation of the housing numbers set out in the Local Plan by officers for a subsequent review by the Environment & Sustainability Committee.”
Councillor Beecher agreed that his motion should be withdrawn in response to the commitment in the Leader’s announcements that the Environment and Sustainability Committee would meet to discuss the government’s announced changes to national planning policy.
Resolved that the motion be withdrawn.
Motion three:
Councillor Mooney proposed that the following motion be withdrawn as it was dependent on the outcome of discussions related to motion two:
“Until such time as the Spelthorne Local Plan 2022-2037 and Staines Development Framework as approved for Regulation 19 consultation and submission to the Planning Inspectorate are formally adopted by this council that the policies within the Staines Development Framework be adopted temporarily for all council-owned assets within the catchment area of the development framework.”
Councillor Beecher agreed that the motion should be withdrawn as the motion had not been reviewed by the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee as agreed at a previous Council meeting.
Resolved that the motion be withdrawn until it could be discussed by the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee.
It was proposed by Councillor Gething and seconded by Councillor Mitchell and resolved to exclude the press and public for discussion of motion three, in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as amended.
Motion one:
Councillor Gibson moved and Councillor Nichols seconded the following motion:
“Council notes the unilateral decision by Surrey County Council taking over highway verge cutting and on-street parking enforcement. These services are currently performed by Spelthorne to a high standard.
The Council believes these changes will not improve services and reduce local accountability.
The Council resolves the Leader writes to the Leader of Surrey County Council:
1. Requesting that the decision is reversed as it is not in the best interests of residents.
2. Seeks justification of the changes in terms of tangible benefits.
3. Seeks a guarantee of no reduction in standards, if implemented.”
It was proposed by Councillor Leighton and seconded by Councillor Sider that the motion be amended to the following:
“Council notes the unilateral decision by Surrey County Council taking back highway verge cutting and on-street parking enforcement. These services are currently performed by Spelthorne to a high standard.
The Council believes these changes will not improve services and will reduce local accountability.
The Council resolves that the Leader continues working with the other borough and district leaders in Surrey to:
1. Requesting that the decision is reversed as it is not in the best interests of residents
2. Seeks justification of the changes in terms of tangible benefits
3. Seeks a guarantee of no reduction in standards, if implemented.”
The amended motion was carried.