Agenda item

The Leader, or his nominee, to answer questions from Councillors on matters affecting the Borough, in accordance with Standing Order 14.

 

 

The Mayor reported that five general questions had been received, in accordance with Standing Order 15, from Councillor Sexton, Councillor Nichols, Councillor S Dunn, Councillor Spoor, and Councillor Beecher.

 

Question from Councillor Sexton:

Why was the Spelthorne Council Position Paper provided to the LGA Peer Review team not discussed with members before it was issued?

 

Response from Councillor Boughtflower, Leader of the Council:

Thank you for your question, Councillor Sexton.  The Position Statement you refer was produced as part of the normal preparation process for a Local Government Association Corporate Peer Challenge (CPC).  The document contained baseline data and other factual information in accordance with an outline template provided by the LGA.  This was designed to provide the CPC Team with a wide range of background material they needed to understand more about our borough, the key challenges faced by both the Council and our communities, and the way we work constitutionally and operationally to deliver our key services and projects. 

 

As a factual document, the Position Statement did not require any decision or approval by Councillors.  The Monitoring Officerdetermined that it was appropriate for this to be signed off by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee, prior to submission.  We did, however, give a commitment that this information would be shared with all Councillors in advance of the CPC commencingand this was done on 7 November 2022.  As you will have noted, the completed document amounted to some 56 pages with 11 Appendices, and this took a significant amount of time to prepare.  Although we had planned to circulate this sooner, the time officers had to do this was curtailed by the date of the CPC being brought forward by a couple of weeks, something which you had requested. 

 

All Councillors were given the opportunity to meet with the CPC Team during the Peer Review process, and they could also email them directly, so if you or any other Councillor felt that anything was missing or factually incorrect there was sufficient opportunity to ensure that they were made aware of this. 

 

Councillor Sexton asked a supplementary question as follows:

I was assured that all members would have the option to be involved and look at the formatting and everything else that was required before it was sent to the LGA, that all members would be inclusive, yet we had to chase for this and we only got it a few days before?

 

Response from Councillor Boughtflower, Leader of the Council:

Thank you for your question. If I remember rightly, as soon as I found out it needed to go due to the deadlines of the Peer Review coming early, it was sent out to all members for feedback that day. As soon as the document was approaching the deadline, I did my part as best as I could, and I can’t answer much more than that.

 

Question from Councillor Nichols:

When will this Council be given the opportunity to appraise and discuss the Surrey County Council plans for a County Deal? Can we be assured that the full Council will get the chance to vote on any proposal before its submitted?

 

Response from Councillor Boughtflower, Leader of the Council:

I, along with the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive have attended 3 meetings of the joint District & Borough Leaders’ meetings – one of which was virtual.

 

The meetings are viewed as a ‘collaboration platform’ for Districts & Boroughs with a focus revolved around ‘Devolution, County Deals and the levelling up agenda’.  

 

Authorities accepted that there needs to be focus on:  

 

a.    Increasing Pride in Place  

b.    Tackling health inequalities  

c.    Empowering communities  

 

It was recognised however that these are not solely County-wide matters and that some of the existing County services needed improving or potentially being devolved to the District and Boroughs.  

 

Arising from the last meeting, a letter has been sent to the Leader of the County Council, Cllr Tim Oliver, setting out a list of devolved powers being sought from Surrey County Council from the District &Borough Leaders as part of any County Deal.  The letter, once received, will be placed on the Council’s modern.gov system. 

 

As you should already be aware, I gave an undertaking to report back to the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee on developments, and that early in the new year, there will need to be a report presented to full Council on the emerging County Deal being pursued, though currently the Leaders of the District and Boroughs are more focused on the devolvement of functions within the County.  

 

So in summary, yes and yes.   

 

Councillor Nichols asked a supplementary question as follows:

Does the Leader accept that there are many members here who are extremely nervous of this process which to us is going on in secret, and which with Surrey County Council, the track record has not been great. Are you confident that we will get proper notification and a chance to discuss before Surrey County Council issue their edicts?

 

Response from Councillor Boughtflower, Leader of the Council:

Thank you for your second question. Yes, I do, I think from the big meeting at Epsom, it was all agreed by all members of various different parties and interests that what was said there would remain quiet, and I think some of that has come out in the letter to Councillor Tim Oliver of the requests such as verge cutting and parking, and also buses which are thrown back to them. I think members may be a bit worried about it but I think there is a lot being done jointly which is very differently from how it was when unitary was knocking around. My guess would be that they will be coming to this Chamber at some point, not just about the shopping list of boroughs and districts, but the options of moving forward whether this borough might look in a different position, and that’s not Surrey Unitary, that’s what Districts and Boroughs would be pushing. That’s early days, but I would be open to more questions and answers at the next Corporate Policy and Resources meeting.

 

Question from Councillor Sandra Dunn:

After receiving feedback from the LGA Peer Review – can the Leader assure Councillors that member Induction Training after the May 2023 elections will include the operation of the Committee system, management of the commercial property portfolio, council developments and the function and facilities of the Local Government Association?  Also, as a previous member of the panel of councillors that were made responsible for organising this can he assure me that this will include cross party members and when is it proposed that this committee will meet? 

 

Response from Councillor Boughtflower, Leader of the Council:

Thank you for your question. I was on the same Committee nearly four years ago. The Member Induction Training for May 2023 is currently in the process of being drafted and has not been finalised. I’m thinking of what the offer of help was from the Peer Review of them offering help and assistance to getting this right. I think we are so early on being a Committee System still and there is a lot of work not just in the Constitution, but other things around it, that we should be asking them to assist to get this training right. The Members Development Steering Group has not been reconstituted and that’s something we need to reconstitute under the Committee system, but the induction programme will be presented for comment at the next meeting of the Administrative Committee – that’s where it sits – in January. It will move to the Administrative committee rather than Corporate Policy and Resources Committee. I’m remembering the point when we were on the Committee. There was a lot of work involved in getting organised and I think we are going to have a lot of new members next time and there’s a lot of training needed, and I think there’s something hopefully coming back in February to full Council about training, but I would hope the LGA could quickly offer some advice to get this right. We can’t afford to get it wrong.

 

Councillor S Dunn asked a supplementary question as follows:

I would like ask if we are still going to have a Council Committee from ourselves that will represent whatever it is the LGA put forward when you have your conversations with them? You can assure me that will still take place?

 

Response from Councillor Boughtflower, Leader of the Council:

It has got to. I’m hoping they will come in and be the consultant in the room to offer their best advice. I think we got to proceed with it with them in place to give more solid advice this time around. So yes, the Committee will exist but it will be under the Administrative Committee.

 

 Question from Councillor Spoor:

?Following the findings of the Coroner in Rochdale that Awaab Ishak died as a consequence of mould and poor living conditions, what assurance can be given about the condition of properties where council holds nomination rights?  What action does the Council take to ensure that tenants are placed in accommodation private and nominated that is fit for human habitation and how are ongoing situations controlled?

 

Response from Councillor R Barratt, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Services & Enforcement Committee:

Thank you for your question Councillor Spoor. 

  

Where the Council nominates those on the Housing Register to properties, the Council relies on the Registered Provider undertaking its own void checks and any appropriate maintenance to meet their required standards. This also applies to Registered Provider provided temporary accommodation.  The Council holds regular meetings with representatives of our largest Registered Provider, A2Dominion, where social housing disrepair cases are discussed to ensure systems, procedures, and their repairs contracts are working well, and to enable any problem areas to be resolved.  

  

Where the Council nominates to private rented properties under our rent assure scheme, the property is inspected and there is a formal inventory.  Routine visits, including inspections, are undertaken at 2 weeks, 3 months, 12 months and 21 months.

 

Moving forwards, as Knowle Green Estates (KGE) stock increases, the company will regularly monitor the condition of its units and will report on any issues in its Annual Report. Currently KGE units are relatively new and currently there are no issues in its stock. 

  

The Council places some homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation and this is inspected on a quarterly basis and clients are visited within a few days of their placement.  It is rare to hear of any damp/mould issues in bed and breakfast units as there tends to be no limit on heating rooms.

 

The Housing Options team involve Environmental Health wherever there are concerns about the conditions of properties which cannot be resolved through dialogue with landlords. Our Environmental Health team continue to respond to complaints from residents about poor housing conditions, taking appropriate enforcement action where necessary.  

 

On the 29 November 2022 Spelthorne’s Chief Executive, Daniel Mouawad, provided an initial response to Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing & Communities, to outline the actions this Council will be taking to prioritise mould and damp in dwellings, following the tragic death of AwaabIshak.  This includes actions to prioritise cases based on risk, reduce response times for appropriate cases and further training for support officers to provide ‘first point of contact’ advice to residents contacting the Council about poor housing conditions due to damp and mould.  A copy of this letter and any subsequent follow up response will be placed in the Members’ Library. 

 

Councillor Spoor asked a supplementary question as follows:

My concerns are not so much on new tenancy, but existing ones. In the Rochdale case, the situation had been going on for some time and ignored. I’m not sure if local councillors had been involved with this at all, but as a local councillor, I have been contacted as an absolutely last step when the landlord had not actually reacted to the situation. Is there anything the Council is going to promote so that the renters can actually contact the Council before they actually contact their councillor because nothing has been done?

 

Councillor R Barratt requested that Councillor Mooney respond:

I’m very grateful that Councillor Spoor asked that additional question because knowing the bit of detail I know about the very sad case in Rochdale where sadly that two year old lost his life and I think it’s known publicly that the actions of the registered social landlord were not great. They didn’t step up and listen to the complaints from the family and they didn’t deal with the situation robustly enough. I think whilst we can accept that this borough council will deal with the Knowle Green Estates properties in a sufficient and efficient way, I don’t have that confidence with A2Dominion, the registered social landlord in Spelthorne. I would like to make a suggestion that Councillor Spoor’s question is passed to A2Dominion and we receive a written response from them. I think many of us here in this Chamber get casework from tenants of A2Dominion where they’re not as robust as they should be in dealing with repairs and disrepairs and standards of their properties, so I think we should seek those assurances. And also, Councillor Spoor, in response to your question, the private sector landlords as well, I’m very happy to let you know that the day after the report was published in the public news about this tragic case, a resident in Staines made contact with regards to a damp and mould issue in their property and Environmental Health visited on that day and have written to the private landlord requesting that they take immediate action and also given words of advice around ventilation to the tenants. Whilst I’m very confident that this borough council’s actions, I really would urge the Chamber to seek a statement from A2Dominion.

 

Question from Councillor Beecher:

Would the Leader not agree that the removal of the Foreword from the Local Plan submitted for examination, a Foreword that has been referenced by others, is a material change to the document?

 

Response from Councillor Beardsmore, Chairman of the Environment and Sustainability Committee:

Officers received advice from the advisory inspector on the Local Plan, who considered that criticisms of Central Government policy were not appropriate in the Foreword. In June, all Group Leaders were invited to sign that Foreword, but only two accepted. Presumably the rest were not willing to criticise government policy. Unlike the policies and allocations, the foreword is not material to the Local Plan, and we are not required to have one. Given the Inspector’s concerns and the lack of support,it was recommended that it be removed for now and further consideration could be given to the inclusion of a Foreword after the examination. As such, the signatories to the Foreword, plus the Chair and Vice Chair of Environment & Sustainability Committee and the Chief Executive all agreed to its temporary removal.It has been referenced in some of the representations to the Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation, so officers have provided a response and the Inspector will be aware of the Council’s position on the Foreword and can raise it at the examination if they are inclined to do so. 

 

Councillor Beecherasked a supplementary question as follows:

You said “temporary.” Can you tell me when the foreword will be reinserted?

 

Response from Councillor Beardsmore:

Basically it will be down to when we actually look at the Plan when it comes back from the Planning Inspector which would be June, July, August next year. At that point, we have the option to put in another foreword, not put in a foreword, or write something completely different or put in the same thing. I certainly wouldn’t fetter the new Council on anything like that.