Agenda item

The Leader, or his nominee, to answer any questions raised by members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 14.

 

Note: the deadline for questions to be considered at this meeting is 12 noon on Thursday 20 February 2020.

 

Question from Mr A. McLuskey

 

“Given the recent report by the British Heart Foundation indicating that Spelthorne suffers  from 11.08 micrograms of ‘particulates’ per cubic metre in its air will the Council reciprocate by -

 

a)    Bringing in, as a matter of urgency, a Clean Air Zone for the Borough.

b)    Opposing Heathrow’s potentially immensely polluting 3^rd runway plan?”

 

The Mayor reported that, under Standing Order 14, questions had been received from ten members of the public.

 

1.    Question from Andrew McLuskey

 

“Given the recent report by the British Heart Foundation indicating that Spelthorne suffers  from 11.08 micrograms of ‘particulates’ per cubic metre in its air will the Council reciprocate by -

 

a)  Bringing in, as a matter of urgency, a Clean Air Zone for the Borough.

b) Opposing Heathrow’s potentially immensely polluting 3rd runway plan?”

 

Response from the Deputy Leader, Councillor Tony Harman

 

“Thank you for your question, Mr McLuskey. The air quality level quoted in the question is taken from central Government modelling. Measured levels at monitors in Oaks Road, Stanwell and Sunbury Cross in 2018 were lower and below the World Health Organisation’s guideline. Full details will be provided in the written response.

 

A Clean Air Zone defines an area where targeted action is taken to improve air quality to deliver health benefits whilst supporting economic growth. Action includes access restrictions to encourage cleaner vehicles and a particular focus on measures to accelerate the transition to a low emission economy. There can be two categories:

 

1. Non-charging Clean Air Zones: Which are defined geographic areas used as a focus for action to improve air quality; and
2. Charging Clean Air Zones: Where in addition to the above, vehicle owners are required to pay a charge to enter, or move within a zone if their vehicle does not meet specified emissions standards. Implementation of such zones require at least a three to five year lead-in to allow businesses and individuals to adjust.

 

Spelthorne is not able to establish a Charging Clean Air Zone as the power to introduce such a zone rests with Surrey County Council as the Highways Authority. In addition, Spelthorne already has a whole Borough Air Quality Management Area which has a similar function to a Non-Charging Clean Air Zone. Details of progress with air quality actions can be found in our 2019 Annual Status Report to Defra, which is available on our website (link provided in written response): https://www.spelthorne.gov.uk/article/17839/Air-quality-reports

 

The Council is currently participating in a joint project with Surrey County Council to pilot electric vehicle charging infrastructure at 20 on-street parking bays across the Borough and we are currently recruiting a temporary Air Quality Officer to develop the Council’s new Air Quality Action Plan.

 

The Council’s position on Heathrow Expansion was recently decided at the Full Council meeting of 24 October 2019 (Item 276/19). A motion was put forward and carried that:

 

 “This Council caveats its support for a third runway and appropriate and proportionate expansion, subject to Heathrow meeting:

a)   the 16 requirements as recommended by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its extraordinary meeting on 3 September 2019; and

b)   our demands that our impacted communities be properly compensated via the Wider Property Offer Zone scheme.”

 

Our demands include requirements in respect of air quality impacts and impacts on other environmental issues and these can be viewed in the minutes of the Council meeting, on our website.”

 

Further information provided in written response

“The figure referred to in the question is modelled background pollution data prepared by Defra for 2018 ⁽ⁱ⁾ – 11.08 ug/m³ is the modelled estimate of population-weighted annual average PM2.5 concentration as a Borough average for Spelthorne. The Council is the only authority in Surrey to monitor levels of PM2.5. At Oaks Road, Stanwell, a background location near Heathrow Airport, the annual mean level of PM2.5 for 2018 was measured at 9.11 ug/m³. At Sunbury Cross the measured annual mean for PM2.5 for 2018 was 9.19 ug/m³. The results for both of these locations were below the WHO recommended guideline of 10 ug/m³. At Haslett Road, Upper Halliford a third monitoring station operated on behalf of Suez recorded a 2018 annual mean for PM2.5 of 11.4 ug/m³.”

 

2.    Question from Anthony Woodward

 

“When will Spelthorne Council follow the lead of Parliament, Surrey County Council and numerous other local authorities in declaring a climate emergency and ensure that future decisions and actions of the Council are subject to environmental impact assessments and are in line with reducing carbon emissions and the impacts of climate change?”

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor Ian Harvey.

 

“Thank you for your question, Mr Woodward. This Council strongly believes that climate change urgently needs addressing but we do not feel that we must declare a climate emergency in order to deliver meaningful action. We believe in action not words.  In October 2019, the Council committed to establishing a Leader’s Climate Change Working Group, which has been tasked to deliver a strategy this year outlining how we plan to deliver the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, in line with current Government policy. This Working Group will report back to Cabinet regularly on proposed actions on climate change, and will monitor delivery to ensure we are hitting our targets. If we can deliver those targets sooner than 2050 we will of course do so and any objectives we do have will also be continually reviewed and amended in line with changes in Government policy.

 

Environmental impact assessments are an important tool in helping ensure that our decisions and actions will deliver benefits to communities and the zero carbon target.  All future decisions of the Council will consider all environmental and sustainability issues, as such decisions will influence our ability to meet net zero emissions by 2050 or earlier in line with Government Targets.” 

 

3.    Question from Thomas Bailie

 

“As a pupil at Thamesmead School I am seeing disposable plastic bottles and all sorts of single use plastics ending up in bins or even on the floor after only being used once. This goes on every day in schools across the local area, and on a large scale is not only very harmful for wildlife, but also unnecessary when they could be replaced by reusable bottles.

 

I would like to ask the question “what is the council doing to counteract the unnecessary plastic waste in local schools?”

 

Response from the Deputy Leader, Councillor Tony Harman

 

“Thank you for your question Mr Bailie.  Spelthorne Borough Council supports our schools in the management and disposal of their waste. We advise on what can and can’t be recycled (including food waste), how best to dispose of waste generated and we provide information and bins adequate for the school’s needs.

 

We also visit schools to talk to pupils about sustainability, waste reduction and the correct and responsible disposal of rubbish.

 

This Council has a Single Use Plastic policy and action plan and we promote the reduction in single use items as part of our sustainability and waste management campaigns.  As Surrey County Council has overall responsibility for education it is important that they help in implementing these policies and actions within schools.”

 

4.    Question from Caroline Nichols

 

“Lord Porter is Spokesperson on building safety at the Local Government Association. On 26^th January, the eve of phase 2 of the Grenfell Enquiry, he spoke to Radio 4’s Broadcasting House programme of his concern that many high-rise buildings across the UK are still grossly inadequate with regards to fire safety.

 

Lord Porter says that ACM cladding as used on the Grenfell building is not the only problem. He believes that the cladding material HPL (high pressure laminate) will be a bigger problem to eliminate and only 99 high rise blocks with HPL have been identified so far. In his view, the UK is suffering a legacy of bad construction since the 1960s and a relaxation of building regulations by all political parties in this century. He urges that all high-rise buildings are looked at across the country for fire safety as a matter of urgency, and that people with complicated needs are only housed in buildings which can be evacuated quickly.

Can the Council provide a progress report for Spelthorne residents to confirm that -

1)    That there are no buildings (publicly or privately owned) of 11 metres or more in Spelthorne and properties owned by Spelthorne in other boroughs, that have petroleum-based cladding whether this is ACM or HPL. 11 metres is the height standard operating in Scotland, which is more stringent than in England.

2)    That all buildings of 11 metres or more in Spelthorne and in Spelthorne-owned properties have passed stringent safety tests including the ability to evacuate them quickly and safely.”

 

The Deputy Mayor advised that as she was not able to attend the meeting, Mrs Nichols had agreed to receive a written response.

 

Written response from the Leader, Councillor Ian Harvey

 

“Thank you for your question Mrs Nichols.

On the morning of the tragic events at Grenfell my first action was to meet with officers to request an immediate audit to identify all high-rise buildings in the Borough which could be of a similar construction to Grenfell Tower or at risk.

Our officers have subsequently been working to identify residential buildings and hotels in the Borough that are 18m or above, to review their cladding in line with Government requirements.  This has included making enquiries into the presence and type of any cladding on these buildings.  No buildings of 18m or above have required intervention.

 

The Council is aware that new Building Regulation controls may be introduced in England in relation to materials used on high rise buildings, to include lower level buildings above a height of 11m.  As these proposed changes have yet to be implemented we have not commenced reviewing high rise buildings between 11m and 18m, but will extend our investigations to include any additional buildings or cladding products necessary to meet any future safety standards specified by the Government.

 

Additionally, our assets team are also ensuring the safety, type and presence of cladding associated with buildings owned by Spelthorne within and outside of the Borough.”

 

5.    Question from Chris Hyde

 

“At the Cabinet meeting on 29 January, the response to petitions submitted by residents from Charlton Village, Shepperton, Sunbury and Stanwell, which raised issues about the Local Plan Green Belt proposals, was to note the petitions and ask the Local Plan Working Party to review the matters they had raised. Also, in responding to these petitions, Councillor Beardsmore said he could not answer the petitions specifically because more analysis was needed. When will the Local Plan Working Party report back to the petitioners and when will local residents see the results of the analysis of the submissions?”

 

Response from Councillor Ian Beardsmore, Strategic Planning portfolio holder

 

“It is hoped that recommendations from the Local Plan Working Party will be taken to Cabinet on 25 March. That is a tight deadline, but those recommendations will be a public document. All representations received to the Local Plan preferred options consultation are currently being reviewed by officers and will be made publicly available in due course. The Council will also produce a response document responding to the main issues raised in the consultation and will publish this on our website.

 

Briefly:

There were 1987 representations from 1,032 people or organisations

370 comments were made on policies. 1617 on sites.

These ranged from a single sentence, to 350 pages from professional planners.

Many of the professional representations were uploaded as PDFs.   At the moment they are being treated as single submissions and single comments.

Every representation will be read. When they have all been read they will be published online along with comments from officers about the issues raised.

The numbers do not include petitions and some people signing petitions will also have made individual comments.”

 

6.    In her absence from the meeting the Deputy Mayor read the questions from Margaret Mulowska.

 

Question 1

“Spelthorne came bottom of the Friends of the Earth rankings of every single council in the country for your environmental record - what are you going to do to take action on the Climate and Ecological Emergency?”

 

Response from Councillor Ian Beardsmore, Strategic Planning portfolio holder

 

“This Council strongly refutes a number of key points in the research undertaken by Friends of the Earth which led to the publication of the report you refer to.  It was evident that the methodology used, and data drawn from it, were nearly a decade old.  It did not take into account the fact that the energy efficiency of housing in the borough has improved significantly since that time and they used generalised tree cover estimates that did not take into account the fact that much of the Borough is covered in water.  On publication of the figures we contacted Friends of the Earth and they apologised for the misinformation and agreed the data was “old” and out of date, but offered to work with us going forward.

 

In October 2019, this Council resolved to work closely with the Government, the Environment Agency, our County colleagues, local businesses, residents and other partners to deliver carbon neutrality by 2050.  I personally ordered the setting up of a Leader’s Climate Change Working Group to explore ways to cut our carbon and other harmful emissions,.  A key task of that group, will be to update our climate change and sustainability strategy in 2020 to ensure that we can deliver this target. It is worth highlighting, however, that this Council has been proactively reducing carbon emissions on our estate for a number of years, resulting in a 38% reduction in emissions since 2009.” 

 

Question 2

“There is a legal obligation on pension fund managers to get the highest returns, so now that fossil fuel investments have been shown to perform poorly against non-fossil fuel investments, what action will Spelthorne and Surrey councils be taking to divest their £150 000 000 of fossil fuel investments away from fossil fuels? Both in the interests of financial sense and to avoid making already dire Climate and Ecological Emergency even worse.”

 

Response from Councillor Ian Beardsmore, Strategic Planning portfolio holder

 

“Surrey Pension Fund understands and recognises the severity of Climate Change as an environmental and financial risk, however it chooses to engage and not divest. Some key actions the Fund has taken recently include;

 

·         Holding an Indexed Low Carbon Fund with Legal & General valued £391.2m as at 31 December 2019 and also making a 40m Euro commitment to Glennmont Clean Energy Infrastructure Fund in December 2018.

·         Becoming a supporter of the Taskforce for Climate Related Financial Disclosures , where the Fund will report against Climate Related Financial Disclosures in its 2019/20 Annual Report (link provided in the written response) https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s62861/Report.pdf

The Climate Action 100+ Report reported 2018 Green House Gas emissions, based on information submitted to the Carbon Disclosure Project per sector. It shows that approximately 70% of total reported emissions in 2018 were from sectors outside of Oil and Gas.  (link provided in the written response)

https://climateaction100.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/progressreport2019.pdf

 

Divesting as a sector-wide strategy is therefore seen as more of a symbolic move as opposed to making a tangible difference in reducing the world’s carbon emissions. It ignores the importance all sectors play. Engaging with high emitting industries reliant on fossil fuels, in order to influence and change their behaviour is equally as important as engaging with the suppliers. Further information is provided in the written response.” 

Further information provided in the written response:

“They are the companies who drive energy demand. Consequently, engagement is required with regulators, governments and across industries, as well as with individual companies who all need to move forward in the transition to a low carbon economy. This view is backed by industry experts such as Robeco: “Divestment simply transfers a problem, and an investor cannot sell out of an entire sector if they want to make a long-term impact… Divesting an entire sector may lower the carbon footprint of a portfolio, but it makes absolutely no impact on the environment.

https://www.robeco.com/uk/insights/2017/12/we-need-decarbonization-not-divestment.html “

 

Question 3

“Will you work in partnership with Extinction Rebellion to secure a just transition into a zero carbon future, as Wakefield council recently decided to? Please give reasons for your answer.”

 

Response from Councillor Ian Beardsmore, Strategic Planning portfolio holder

 

“In addressing climate change the Leader’s Climate Change Working Group will consult and work with a wide range of organisations, including public sector partners, businesses and other community stakeholders, with the aim of encouraging our whole community to work with us in moving to a zero carbon economy.  We recognise that this transition will mean that we will all need to do things differently, as carbon intensive jobs are replaced with low and zero carbon employment, but with the support of everyone working together we believe that this can be achieved whilst maintaining this Borough’s thriving economy.” 

 

7.            Questions from Udo Kleinitz

“Thank you for the opportunity to submit questions to Spelthorne Borough Council. I would be grateful for an opportunity to discuss the following areas regarding proposed release of green belt areas in SBC:

1. What is the council doing to actively encourage developers to offset negative environmental impact or build with a positive environmental impact?
2. When assessing and identifying areas for development, what environmental impact assessment criteria does the Council apply?
3. Specific to the 19 green belt areas proposed for release, what action does the council propose in order so the awarding is based on the application of environmental and sustainability criteria such as Life Cycle Assessment/Circular Economy recyclability of components, and offsetting lost habitat on site (such as vegetated roof areas) and carbon neutral performance?

These questions are in anticipation of:

- carbon neutrality becoming the prerequisite for continuous economic growth and job creation in the area,

- an increasing responsibility and accountability towards the public to meet real and significant commitment towards greenhouse gas reductions and maintaining biodiversity.”

Responses from Councillor Ian Beardsmore, Strategic Planning portfolio holder.

 

1. “In terms of the potential allocation of sites, a Sustainability Appraisal has been undertaken for every site to identify possible negative impacts and mitigation measures. Developers will be expected to have regard to these as allocations are included in the Plan and planning applications are submitted. The new Local Plan also includes draft policies on E4: Blue and Green Infrastructure’ ‘E3: Environmental Protection’ and ‘DS2: Sustainable Design and Renewable/Low Carbon Energy’. In addition policy ‘requires all planning applications to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. All developers will need to follow these policies to overcome environmental issues and make a positive impact on the Borough.”

 

2. “Sustainability Appraisal work is undertaken to assess sites against the Sustainability Framework. This identifies any potentially adverse impacts (social, environmentally and economically) and seeks to minimise them. Our Site Selection Methodology document also included sections on biodiversity, flood risk, contamination and landscape to name a few.”

 

3.“The Sustainability Appraisal is a key mechanism in the Local Plan process to spot potentially adverse impacts and identify ways of overcoming them. This is an important consideration in determining which sites to take forward”

 

“I would hope very much to see planning policies being brought in to enforce carbon neutral planning. Unfortunately I am less convinced than some by the government’s commitment to Carbon Neutrality especially as they would have to reconcile it with their driving policy of forcing councils to consume Green Belt for Housing.”

 

Finally for the record, the government wrote to the Council on 14 February 2020 and stated: ‘..the government intends to increase the thresholds for the presumption in favour of  sustainable development early next year to drive up delivery.’‘ So from next year they are going to increase sustainability and increase quantity of new build...”

 

Evidence provided in written response

“Draft Policy ‘DS2: Sustainable Design and Renewable/Low Carbon Energy Generation’ requires developers to integrate sustainable design and construction. This includes maximising energy efficiency and integrating renewable and low carbon energy. This policy also supports sustainable construction to assist with a cost-effective transition to a low carbon economy.

In terms of lost habitats,

Draft  policy ‘E4: Green and Blue Infrastructure’ expects development to contribute to biodiversity through securing biodiversity net gain. This approach aims to leave the natural environment in a better state than beforehand.

The Sustainability Appraisal  framework used to assess sites is available on page 10, Appendix 1 of the following document: https://www.spelthorne.gov.uk/media/19049/Sustainability-Appraisal-Issues-and-Options-Final-Report/pdf/Sustainability_Appraisal.pdf?m=637044049597100000 “

 

8.            Question from Siobhan Molloy

 

"As one of the 5,000 people who signed the recent petition that demanded that Spelthorne Borough council not build on green belt sites, I understand that the initiators of the petition have asked the council (as is their right under the Council's own policy on petitions) to call a public meeting to discuss this issue. When does the SBC plan to hold this public meeting?"

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor Ian Harvey

 

“The petition is on the agenda for debate immediately after the public questions tonight, in a few minutes. Your question will be responded to when we discuss the call for a public meeting during that item.”

 

9.            Question from Malcolm Beecher

 

"In response to Surrey County Council's commitment to plant 1,200,000 new trees across the county to mitigate increasing carbon dioxide levels, Spelthorne borough would be expected to accommodate planting approximately 109,000 trees over and above any commitments by Spelthorne Borough Council to plant and replace trees associated with developments and ash die-back.  This new commitment will require at least 40 hectares of land and maybe even 100 hectares depending on the species to be planted.

 

"In light of this, please can you confirm how engaged the council is with this pledge and what target Spelthorne Borough Council is proposing for planting of new trees in the borough, both in terms of land area and numbers of trees to be planted:

A) In total?

B) What land has already been identified to the council's knowledge, including any land that is owned, leased or managed by the council?

C) Alongside the budget set aside by Surrey County Council what budget and/or other resources has Spelthorne Borough Council allocated to this?"

 

Response from the Leader, Councillor Ian Harvey

 

“Thank you for your question Mr Beecher. In May 2020, Surrey County Council will be launching its New Trees and Climate Change strategies, but at present we have no further details on their plans. This Council fully understands the important role trees play in mitigating carbon dioxide levels, and over the last two winters we have planted 851 trees in our parks.

 

Once the County Council’s tree strategy is made publicly available we will consider what additional budget and other resources we can provide to help deliver the project aims. 

 

In identifying new locations for trees we will, however, have to consider both the status of the land and its biodiversity value before any additional planting is undertaken.”

 

10.         Questions from Kath Sanders

 

Question 1

 

“Re: Local Plan proposals to release some of Spelthorne's Green Belt for housing & economic development 

 

I support all work being done to reduce the proposed housing requirement of 603 homes per annum to a much more manageable and sustainable level. However, my concerns for Spelthorne's Green Belt remain.

 

Spelthorne Borough Council stated in its consultation document, that only 1.6% of Spelthorne's Green Belt would be required to be released under current proposals. Please could the Council give an estimate of what percentage of remaining "potentially developable" Green Belt land this represents? Please exclude all waterbodies, flood zone 3b ("1 in 20 year event") land, any other non-developable land AND land previously developed or with planning consent under "very special circumstances" e.g. schools, Spelthorne Gym & Shepperton Studios.”

 

Response from Councillor Ian Beardsmore, Strategic Planning portfolio holder.

 

“Thank you I think this question is very important as it hits the nail on the head and recognises the unique land use geography of Spelthorne that most people miss and which for us produces a very unique set of issues and constraints. Some know our MP is due to see the minister at some point on our behalf. I know this is part of his briefing because I co-wrote it.

I can report that this meeting actually took place yesterday (26 February) and we will now have to wait for government announcements after the budget

The total area of water features, flood zone 3b, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Area and Common Land, all within the Green Belt, amounts to approximately 1665 hectares (50% of total Green Belt).

We do not hold the data for previously developed land area in the Green Belt but we do have information on current planning permissions. Approximately 70 hectares of land has permission (either recently completed, under construction or extant) for development. All of this is previously developed land with the exception of part of the Shepperton Studios site (totalling 52% of Green Belt). A table summarising this will be provided in the written response.”

 

Question 2

 

“Also, please could the Council clarify which additional Green Belt sites the Council has identified in its latest SLAA as likely to be "susceptible to acquisition" by Heathrow expansion. It seems to state in its Local Plan document that this piece of work had been done (see SLAA, July 2019, section 2.10) and it would be good to have an understanding of the likely extent of these.

 

My overriding concern is for the sustainability of current proposals and I believe answers to the above would help inform residents and other stakeholders as to the most likely current threats to Spelthorne's Green Belt. It would also give a more realistic picture overall of the challenges facing the borough, especially if the likely effects of Heathrow expansion on the transport network and air pollution were to be taken into account - I don't think this has been done in the latest published Strategic Highway Assessment.”

 

Response from Councillor Ian Beardsmore, Strategic Planning portfolio holder.

 

“Many would have heard the news on Heathrow, I am one of the minority on this council who welcomes it. So hopefully the details below are now unnecessary. The latest masterplan for the Heathrow Airport expansion is available online and a link will be provided in the written response.

 

A map showing the preferred masterplan is available on page 53 of Heathrow’s document.  This shows the Development Consent Order boundary and which sites are likely to fall within the application area.

 

Zones H (page 97), J (page 101) and U (page 141) fall into Spelthorne and information is available on the potential uses for these areas.

 

The Strategic Highway Assessment looks at committed developments (Do Minimum Scenario A) as well as other scenarios which include sites identified through the Local Plan (scenarios B, C and D).

 

More work on the transport impacts will be undertaken for Regulation 19 consultation once we have finalised our site allocations. 

 

Further traffic modelling from Heathrow Airport Ltd is expected to be released into the public domain at their focused consultation beginning in April 2020. However, Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey County Council officers have been involved with the impacts on the transport network and air quality through their engagement with Heathrow on the expansion proposals.”

 

Evidence and link provided in written response.

 

Area	Size (ha)	Comments
Total Spelthorne Green Belt	3324
Reservoirs, Flood zone 3b, SSSI, SPA, Common Land	1665	Included within GB
Land with Planning permission (extant; under construction; or recently completed)	70	Commercial – 61.88 (all PDL except part of Shepperton Studios) Residential – 7.60
Preferred allocation sites	53

PDL = Previously Developed land

Masterplan for the Heathrow Airport expansion at: https://aec.heathrowconsultation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/06/Preferred-Masterplan-Hi-Res.pdf