The Leader, or their nominee, to answer questions from Councillors on matters affecting the Borough, in accordance with Standing Order 15. The deadline for submission of questions is noon on 15 December 2016.
The following questions have been received from Cllr. Quentin Edgington:
1. “Can the number of signatories required for a petition to be considered by the full Council be reduced?”
2. “Can the Leader talk to the Leader of Surrey County Council and urge him to address the increasingly dangerous road safety, congestion and parking issues on and around Wheatsheaf Lane, Staines before a fatality takes place?”
3. “What benefits are the Council looking forward to enjoying from Brexit?”
4. “What is the current Policy of Infilling for the Borough? And can copies of the policy be laid around for members of the Council and members of the public attending the meeting.”
5. “Does the Leader think that the Principal Opposition Parties namely The Liberal Democrat Group and the Spelthorne Residents Independent Party Group are treated reasonably and fairly in Spelthorne?”
Minutes:
The Mayor reported that five general questions had been received, in accordance with Standing Order 15, from Councillor Edgington.
1. Question from Councillor Q.R. Edgington:
“Can the number of signatories required for a petition to be considered by the full Council be reduced?”
Response from Councillor I.T. Harvey, Leader of the Council:
“Thank you for your question, Councillor Edgington. The Council welcomes petitions as an important way in which people can let us know their concerns.
I believe that the current threshold for a petition to be debated at Council is set at an appropriate level and ensures that those issues of greatest significance to local residents are recognised and treated with the importance that they deserve. There are no current plans to review these arrangements.”
In accordance with Council Standing Order 15.2, Councillor Q.R. Edgington asked the following supplementary question:
“Given that the current requirement for a petition to go to full Council on a local issue is a third of most wards – 1000 signatures – isn’t this undemocratic?”
Councillor I.T. Harvey, Leader of the Council, provided the following written answer to the supplementary question after the meeting:
“No.”
2. Question from Councillor Q.R. Edgington
“Can the Leader talk to the Leader of Surrey County Council and urge him to address the increasingly dangerous road safety, congestion and parking issues on and around Wheatsheaf Lane, Staines before a fatality takes place?”
Response from Councillor I.T. Harvey, Leader of the Council:
“As Councillor Edgington is fully aware, the correct route for such matters is for a ward councillor to raise highways related issues with the relevant divisional member, who I can advise you is Councillor Denise Saliagopoulos."
In accordance with Council Standing Order 15.2, Councillor Q.R. Edgington asked the following supplementary question:
“Is he scared of talking to the Leader of Surrey County Council? Does he have no concern for the residents of this Borough about this safety issue? He should talk to the Leader of Surrey County Council.”
Councillor I.T. Harvey, Leader of the Council, gave the following response to the supplementary question:
“The correct route on a highways matter is to the divisional member. I’ve advised you that in this case the divisional member is Councillor Saliagopoulos. I am not scared of the Leader of Surrey and held a meeting with him last week.”
3. Question from Councillor Q.R. Edgington
“What benefits are the Council looking forward to enjoying from Brexit?”
Response from Councillor I.T. Harvey, Leader of the Council:
“It is too early to speculate on the possible benefits that Spelthorne Borough Council may receive from the Country’s decision to leave the European Union. Furthermore, as an experienced politician, I am sure you have your own views on this.”
In accordance with Council Standing Order 15.2, Councillor Q.R. Edgington asked the following supplementary question:
“How about planning for the future? Can the Leader ask the Chief Executive to speak to the Spelthorne Residents Independent Party and we will provide some benefits for residents of the Borough.”
Councillor I.T. Harvey, Leader of the Council, gave the following response to the supplementary question:
“We are planning for the future. This includes the purchase of properties which I outlined in my end of year report; we also consider Heathrow expansion to be fundamental to our future which is why we are supporting it.”
4. Question from Councillor Q.R. Edgington:
“What is the current Policy of Infilling for the Borough? And can copies of the policy be laid around for members of the Council and members of the public attending the meeting.”
Response from Councillor N. Gething, portfolio holder for Planning and Economic Development:
“As Councillor Edgington is fully aware we have comprehensive planning guidance which deals with the range of issues raised by new development and provides a clear basis to assess particular development forms. All these documents have been made available to all councillors and they are also on the Council’s web site.
Policy HO1c of the Council’s Core Strategy and Policies DPD (96 pages) responds to the underlying demand for housing and says the Council will ensure provision is made by: “encouraging housing development, including redevelopment, infill, conversion of existing dwellings and the change of use of existing buildings to housing, on all sites suitable for that purpose taking into account other policy objectives.
Such other objectives would include for example the Council’s policies on the Green Belt, Flooding and Design but other polices may also be relevant subject to the particular circumstances of a site.
Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy deals specifically with the design of new development and is supported by a 41 page Supplementary Planning Document on ‘Design of Residential Extensions and New Residential Development’.”
In accordance with Council Standing Order 15.2, Councillor Q.R. Edgington asked the following supplementary question:
“Is there a specific policy?”
Councillor N. Gething, portfolio holder for Planning and Economic Development gave the following response to the supplementary question:
“Your colleague in the Spelthorne Residents Independent Party is a member of the Planning Committee and she should be able to brief you on the contents of that policy and explain the issue.”
5. Question from Councillor Q.R. Edgington:
“Does the Leader think that the Principal Opposition Parties namely The Liberal Democrat Group and the Spelthorne Residents Independent Party Group are treated reasonably and fairly in Spelthorne?”
Response from Councillor I.T. Harvey, Leader of the Council:
“All opposition political groups in Spelthorne are treated reasonably and fairly and in accordance with the law and the Council’s Constitution which is applied consistently by the Council officers who are of course impartial.”
In accordance with Council Standing Order 15.2, Councillor Q.R. Edgington asked the following supplementary question:
“Can the Leader provide evidence of all attempts he has made to constructively engage with the Spelthorne Residents Independent Party?”
Councillor I.T. Harvey, Leader of the Council, provided the following written answer to the supplementary question after the meeting:
“Your party is treated fairly by Spelthorne Council as required by statute. I presume you are not suggesting that any staff, or indeed the Council’s Constitution are discriminating against you?
I have already stated in my end of year report that I have sought to engage positively with opposition and minority parties, who, with the exception of yours, have cordially and constructively embraced this. I believe this has benefited all concerned, in particular the residents we are all elected to represent. It is a shame you have not similarly engaged. You have ignored attempts to communicate by both my deputy and myself.
At the July Council meeting you asked why Cllr Forbes Forsyth, the other member of the Spelthorne Residents Independent Party Group, did not serve on any committees. Notwithstanding that it was you as Leader that did not allocate any committees to her, I did place her on the Planning Committee. Subsequently there have been three Planning Committee meetings that she was due to attend, and she attended none, nor submitted apologies for any.
Following the Council meeting, I enquired of committee services to ensure that you and your Spelthorne Residents Independent Party Group are receiving fair and equal support. I am assured and satisfied that you are more than fairly treated by them.”