To receive any motions from Councillors in accordance with Standing Order 19.

The following three Motions were received by the deadline of Monday 8 July 2019:

1.    “That officers investigate whether it is feasible to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Surrey County Council for Spelthorne Borough Council to act on their behalf to remove Traveller encampments when on the highway and append such charges involved to Surrey.”

Proposed by Councillor R.W. Sider BEM

Seconded by Councillor C. Barnard

2.    “That henceforth the formal position of Spelthorne Borough Council will be to oppose any increase in air traffic movements at Heathrow airport.

The Council notes that this new position in principle is based on the impact on local residents and the environment from air traffic, and that the Council now believes that an increase in capacity is unsustainable and damaging to the borough.

The Council’s response to the LHR Expansion Consultation closing on 13th September 2019 will clearly indicate this change in policy and Spelthorne Borough Council’s opposition to the proposals in principle.”

Proposed by Councillor L.E. Nichols

Seconded by Councillor S.M. Doran

3.    “In the light of Spelthorne Borough Council's commitment not to allow "any developments in the Borough that are detrimental to air quality" (as per the SBC press release 'Protecting Air quality in Spelthorne' dated 20/6/2019) and bearing in mind the fact that any Heathrow expansion will have serious knock on effects in terms of air quality and reduction of green spaces in the Borough inter alia through the envisaged building of a large car park between Oaks Road and the A3044 in Stanwell which currently acts as an important noise and pollution buffer zone for residents and as a carbon sink, the Council's new position to be reflected in its official response to the London Heathrow expansion consultation will be to oppose any expansion of Heathrow completely.”

Proposed by Councillor J.H.J. Doerfel

Seconded by Councillor V. Siva

In accordance with Standing Order 17 the Council received three written Notices of Motions.

Councillor R.W. Sider BEM moved and Councillor C. Barnard seconded the following motion:

“That officers investigate whether it is feasible to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Surrey County Council for Spelthorne Borough Council to act on their behalf to remove Traveller encampments when on the highway and append such charges involved to Surrey.”

The Leader, Councillor I.T.E. Harvey gave the following reply to the Motion:

“Thank you Councillor Sider for raising this issue.

I can assure all councillors that Officers will always look to assist the County Council wherever possible to ensure that any unlawful encampments are dealt with quickly and efficiently.   

It seems like a very attractive proposition for us to take more control to respond the travellers on the highway.  I suspect that it’s not a straightforward matter and after initial discussions with Officers we think that it may not prove to be viable in the long run.   

The reason the Borough is able to deal with travellers so swiftly is because of the processes and joint working between the JET team and Legal.  We doubt we can replicate this with County Council staff on whom we would still have to rely on a case by case basis.  The alternative would be for us to take on an agency agreement from the County Council to deal with part of their functions for them.  That may not be something we wish to consider at this time. 

Nevertheless, it is something which I think we can ask Officers to explore and then report back to the Portfolio Holder.  On that basis I will support your motion, and ask all Members to do likewise.”

The Motion was carried.

Resolved that officers investigate whether it is feasible to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Surrey County Council for Spelthorne Borough Council to act on their behalf to remove Traveller encampments when on the highway and append such charges involved to Surrey.

The second Motion was moved by Councillor L.E. Nichols and seconded by Councillor S.M. Doran:

“That henceforth the formal position of Spelthorne Borough Council will be to oppose any increase in air traffic movements at Heathrow airport.

The Council notes that this new position in principle is based on the impact on local residents and the environment from air traffic, and that the Council now believes that an increase in capacity is unsustainable and damaging to the borough.

The Council’s response to the LHR Expansion Consultation closing on 13th September 2019 will clearly indicate this change in policy and Spelthorne Borough Council’s opposition to the proposals in principle.”

The Leader, Councillor I.T.E Harvey proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor A.C. Harman:

“That the matter be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.”

Councillor L. E. Nichols requested a recorded vote on the amendment.

The voting on the amendment was as follows:

The amendment was carried and the substantive Motion put to the vote.

The substantive Motion was carried.

Resolved that the Motion be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.

The third Motion was moved by Councillor J.H.J. Doerfel and seconded by Councillor V. Siva:

“In the light of Spelthorne Borough Council's commitment not to allow "any developments in the Borough that are detrimental to air quality" (as per the SBC press release 'Protecting Air quality in Spelthorne' dated 20/6/2019) and bearing in mind the fact that any Heathrow expansion will have serious knock on effects in terms of air quality and reduction of green spaces in the Borough inter alia through the envisaged building of a large car park between Oaks Road and the A3044 in Stanwell which currently acts as an important noise and pollution buffer zone for residents and as a carbon sink, the Council's new position to be reflected in its official response to the London Heathrow expansion consultation will be to oppose any expansion of Heathrow completely.”

The Leader, Councillor I.T.E Harvey proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor A.C. Harman:

“That the matter be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.”

The amendment was carried and the substantive Motion put to the vote.

The substantive Motion was carried.

Resolved that the Motion be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.