Decisions

The Chairman introduced members and officers present and welcomed everyone to the meeting.

 

The Chairman asked the applicant to introduce themselves. He then explained the procedure to be followed at the hearing.

 

The Council’s Principal Licensing Officer summarised the application which was set out in full in the report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

 

The hearing continued in accordance with the procedure.

 

Having heard the evidence presented, the Sub-Committee retired to consider and determine the application, having regard to the licensing objectives on prevention of crime and disorder and prevention of public nuisance.

 

Upon reconvening, the Chairman gave the Sub-Committee’s summary decision.

 

The full decision with reasons would be notified to the applicant and other parties within five working days of the hearing.

 

Resolved that the application for a Premises Licence at Burger Plus, Church Street, Staines-upon-Thames be granted subject to conditions, as set out in full in the attached Decision Notice.

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

 

Motion 1

In accordance with Standing Order 20.13, Councillor J.R. Boughtflower proposed an alteration to the first motion after receiving amendments from Councillor R.A. Smith-Ainsley:

 

“In response to SCCs recently publicised proposal, this Council strongly opposes a single Surrey-wide Unitary Authority and will write to Tim Oliver and SCC accordingly.”

 

The Council gave its consent to the alteration.

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor J. McIlroy.

 

The motion was debated and unanimously carried.

 

Resolved that in response to SCCs recently publicised proposal, this Council strongly opposes a single Surrey-wide Unitary Authority and will write to Tim Oliver and Surrey County Council accordingly.

 

Motion 2

In accordance with Standing Order 20.13, Councillor J.R. Boughtflower proposed an alteration to the second motion after receiving amendments from Councillor R.A. Smith-Ainsley:

 

“This Council is concerned by the prospect of a Government White paper

as an attack on Local Government and local democracy. While the Council is open to taking part in discussions about Unitary Authorities it does not support

Centralisation by National Government and recognises the value and

contribution made already by this authority. In doing so it will only

endorse change that actively improves the quality and provision of

services available to residents and that demonstrably increases local democracy and accountability.

 

The Council will write to Mr Tim Oliver to this effect and express our concerns over the manner the proposals were published in particular the lack of prior consultation of and dialog with existing borough, town and parish councils in Surrey, specifically Spelthorne Borough Council.” 

 

The Council gave its consent to the alteration.

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor J. McIlroy.

 

The motion was debated and unanimously carried.

 

 

 

 

Resolved that:

 

This Council is concerned by the prospect of a Government White paper

as an attack on Local Government and local democracy. While the Council is open to taking part in discussions about Unitary Authorities it does not support

Centralisation by National Government and recognises the value and

contribution made already by this authority. In doing so it will only

endorse change that actively improves the quality and provision of

services available to residents and that demonstrably increases local democracy and accountability.

 

The Council will write to Mr Tim Oliver to this effect and express our concerns over the manner the proposals were published in particular the lack of prior consultation of and dialog with existing borough, town and parish councils in Surrey, specifically Spelthorne Borough Council.

 

 

Motion 3

In accordance with Standing Order 20.13, Councillor J.R. Boughtflower proposed an alteration to the third motion after receiving amendments from Councillor I.J. Beardsmore:

 

“This Council directs that all Local Government Structures be fully explored to ascertain the best options for Spelthorne and its residents. As part of this exploration, the Council expects to engage in active dialogue with neighbouring authorities about partnerships and other opportunities.  A report on this would then be considered by Full Council.”

 

The Council gave its consent to the alteration.

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor T. Fidler.

 

The motion was debated and unanimously carried.

 

Resolved that:

 

This Council directs that all Local Government Structures be fully explored to ascertain the best options for Spelthorne and its residents. As part of this exploration, the Council expects to engage in active dialogue with neighbouring authorities about partnerships and other opportunities.  A report on this would then be considered by Full Council.

 

 

Motion 4

Councillor T. Fidler moved and Councillor S.A. Dunn seconded the fourth motion:

 

“This Council recognises the importance of residents’ interests in the

future of its local government and will commit to informing residents

about progress in relation to opportunities for the future structure of

Local Government in Spelthorne. The Council should consider methods

of measuring public opinion, along with the cost effectiveness of such

options, including the use of a referendum as outlined in the Local

Government Act 2000 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011)."

The motion was debated and unanimously carried.

 

Resolved that:

 

This Council recognises the importance of residents’ interests in the

future of its local government and will commit to informing residents

about progress in relation to opportunities for the future structure of

Local Government in Spelthorne. The Council should consider methods

of measuring public opinion, along with the cost effectiveness of such

options, including the use of a referendum as outlined in the Local

Government Act 2000 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011).

 

 

Cabinet considered a recommendation from the Property and Investment Committee on the acquisition of property ‘AA’, a key retail unit in the High Street,  Staines upon Thames providing an opportunity for strategic regeneration within the Borough. 

 

Resolved to:

 

1.    Approve the acquisition of the site (property ‘AA’) for strategic regeneration within the Borough;

 

2.    Agree the offer submitted for the acquisition, and authorise the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer, the Leader and the Cabinet Member for Finance to undertake any necessary subsequent negotiations (including a further bid if required) and complete the acquisition of the asset;

 

3.    Authorise the Chief Finance Officer to decide (i) the most financially advantageous funding arrangements for the purchase, (ii) the most tax efficient method of holding the asset, and overall to ensure the acquisition is prudentially affordable; and

 

4.    Authorise the Group Head of Corporate Governance to enter into any legal documentation necessary to acquire the asset.

 

Reason for Decision

This regeneration acquisition directly supports the Council’s longer term sustainability vision for the town centre, enabling reduced reliance on mainstream retail and a transition towards more diversified uses including residential.  Moreover, it enables the Council to attain control of a key High Street unit that is currently integrated and focal to the shopping centre, and strategically important to the wider Staines-upon-Thames town centre and the Council’s regeneration aspirations.  The acquisition provides a long term residential led, mixed-use development opportunity for the Council.

 

 

 

Cabinet considered the recommendation from the Local Plan Task Group to approve the Consultation Response Document for publication.

 

The Consultation Response Document summarised the representations to the Preferred Options consultation held between November 2019 and January 2020 and included officer responses to the comments made. The Document represented a rearward view by setting out the reasons why policies were drafted and sites selected in the manner agreed upon at the time of the consultation. It does not make any decisions on the future direction of the Local Plan and the sites that will or will not be selected to progress to the next stage.

 

To reflect some of the comments of the Task Group a section had been added to set out the purpose of the document and explain that it would be for the Task Group to develop the Local Plan in light of the responses to the consultation.

 

Resolved to approve publication of the Consultation Response Document.

 

Cabinet considered a report seeking approval for the payment of a grant to A2Dominion to support the provision of 26 homes on the former Brooklands College site, Ashford, for Affordable Rent. This was a complex case concerning liability for the Community Infrastructure Levy as a result of the transfer of the site from Brooklands Helix to A2Dominion.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by Cabinet:

 

·         Do nothing         

·         Consider the use of Neighbourhood CIL to fund the affordable housing.  This was rejected as it was likely to be a lengthy process

 

Resolved to approve the payment of grant to A2Dominion as detailed in the report, to support the delivery of 26 homes for Affordable Rent, subject to the completion of a legal agreement which will allow the Council to reclaim the grant should Brooklands Helix successfully challenge the Council’s decision in relation to the CIL demand.

 

Reason for Decision:

The Council is committed to enabling the delivery of more affordable homes in Spelthorne, and this will secure the delivery of 26 new homes for Affordable Rent in the centre of Ashford, for local residents in housing need.

 

 

 

 

 

To consider an exempt report on the construction costs for Victory Place.

 

Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

 

Cabinet considered an exempt report on the construction costs for Victory Place, Ashford.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Cabinet:

·         Delay works

·         Do nothing

 

Resolved to:

 

1.    Recommend to Council to approve the increase in Capital spend for construction works, from £16.25m to £25.93m. This increase delivers an additional 19 units over and above the initial feasibility;

 

2.    Authorise the Group Head of Corporate Governance to enter into any legal documentation necessary to implement this construction project; and

 

3.    Approve the appointment of the contractor to undertake these works as contained in this paper.

 

 

Reasons for Decision

·         To facilitate the development of much needed key worker (a version of affordable) and S106 affordable, housing primarily for our Borough’s key workers including adjacent NHS staff. The site also has a history of antisocial behaviour and our proposals will contribute towards the regeneration of this area.

·         To reflect the Council’s firm intention to provide more affordable housing in the Borough.

·         To meet the needs of local residents by improving the quality and quantum of residential accommodation within the Borough.

·         To increase the provision of well managed and affordable rental properties within the Borough.

 

To consider an exempt report on the construction costs for Phase 2 of Ceaser Court.

 

Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

 

Cabinet considered an exempt report on the construction costs for Ceaser Court Phase 2, Sunbury-on-Thames.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Cabinet:

·         Delay works

·         Do nothing

 

Resolved to:

 

1.    Recommend to Council to approve the increase in spend for the construction works from £13.3m to £18.913m (cost for both Phases I and II). This increase delivers an extra 34 residential units and community space on the ground floor;

 

2.    Authorise the Group Head of Corporate Governance to enter into any legal documentation necessary to implement this construction project; and

 

3.    Approve the appointment of the contractor to undertake these works as contained in this report,

 

subject to officers providing some additional information and technical clarification within the report, with such information being provided to the Leader and Deputy Leader prior to publication for Council on 22 October 2020.

 

 

 

Reasons for Decision

·         To facilitate the development of much needed rental and affordable housing in the Borough. The scheme provides a total of 36 apartments and will contribute a minimum of 8 affordable units (subject to planning). There is clear intention to provide further affordable units, once technical planning viability negotiations have been completed.

·         The ground floor will provide a new community facility.

·         To increase the provision of well managed rental properties within the Borough .

·         To provide a long term income stream for the Council. 

To note the Annual Asset Investment report.

 

Cabinet considered the Annual Investment Report (AIR) 2020 which sets out the performance of the investment and regeneration portfolio as at the end of March 2020. It fully reflects the impact of COVID-19 in the last few weeks of March.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by Cabinet:

·         To not approve the report.

 

Resolved to approve the Annual Investment Report.

 

Reason for Decision

The report sets out a clear picture of the Council’s investment and regeneration assets as at the end of the financial year March 2020 ensuring there is full transparency of the portfolio and its performance.

 

 

 

Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

 

Cabinet considered an exempt report on the tenders for the managed service provider of White House and Harper House.

 

Following a successful procurement exercise, a preferred bidder was identified to deliver a Managed Service at White House and Harper House which will consist of specialist housing management and intensive resident support for some of our most vulnerable homeless residents.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Cabinet:

·         Do nothing

·         Award the tender to one of the other bidders

 

The Leader invited Cllr C. Bateson, as ward councillor to speak on the item. Cllr Bateson commented that there was still huge concern from residents as to how the White House would be managed. He noted the cost difference between the preferred bidder and one of the other tenders and asked whether the preferred bid would meet the Council’s needs, how the Council would monitor the performance of the provider and the provisions within the contract.

 

Officers responded that they were satisfied the preferred bidder had addressed the requirements in the high level specification document that formed part of the tender, in many instances exceeding those. The Council was also satisfied that the preferred bidders’ plans and ability to move clients onto settled occupation, would be met.  They confirmed that there were robust Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) within the contract and bidders were aware of these at the time they submitted a tender. The contract had also been drafted with mechanisms to monitor performance and should any be in default, the contract included termination provisions.

 

Resolved to:

1.    Agree to award the tender for the Managed Service Provider at White House and Harper House to the provider named in this report;

 

2.    Authorise the Group Head of Corporate Governance to enter into any legal documentation necessary to formalise the appointment; and

 

3.    Note the financial implications of the award of the tender, which will be addressed as part of annual budget setting for the 2021/22 financial years onwards.

 

Reasons for Decision

The provider will bring a wealth of experience and expertise to the service.

The services have been competitively tendered for and represent good value to the Council.

 

Cabinet considered a report on the replacement of Spelthorne Leisure Centre.

 

The current Spelthorne Leisure Centre in Staines-upon-Thames had served the borough well, but was likely to be nearing the end of its useful life by the end of 2021. In view of the importance of this Centre to the community, a feasibility exercise was undertaken to assess options for replacing the current facility. Cabinet had made a decision in January 2020 to pursue the development of a new leisure centre which met modern standards and today’s customer expectations.

 

A consultation exercise on the Council’s revised proposals was undertaken from February to April 2020, building on the information gathered from the first consultation undertaken in summer 2018.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by Cabinet:

·         pursue development of a leisure centre which does not meet the full Passivhaus standard

·         propose an alternative option for the development of a new leisure centre

·         not to proceed with the development of a new leisure centre

 

Resolved to:

 

1.    Note the results of the consultation exercise on proposals for a new Spelthorne Leisure Centre (‘the new centre’) undertaken in February – April 2020, seeking the views of residents, businesses and other stakeholders on proposals for: ·         The revised location, ·         The proposed design and facilities mix for the new centre;   2.    Approve the amendments to the design of the new centre as outlined in Appendix 4;   3.    Approve modifications to the design of the new centre to meet the full Passivhaus standard;   4.    Agree to the submission of a planning application for the development of the new centre on the proposed site outlined in Appendix 1, with the proposed facilities mix outlined in Appendix 2;   5.    To delegate the decision regarding the selection of the contractor for the construction of the new centre to the Leader and Portfolio Holder for Leisure in conjunction with the Deputy Chief Executive; and   6.    Recommend to Council a supplementary capital estimate outlined in the confidential Appendix 5 to cover the projected costs of developing the new centre.

 

Reason for Decision

To ensure that the Council can progress with proposals to develop a new Spelthorne Leisure Centre before the current facility becomes unviable to operate.

Cabinet considered the Asset Management Plan (AMP) which sets out how the Council will support the delivery of its Capital Strategy which was approved by Council in February 2020.  The Asset Management Plan was written prior to COVID-19 and subsequently amended to include an opening paragraph regarding this.

 

The purpose of the Plan is to ensure that the property assets owned by the Council are used, developed, fit for purpose and managed effectively thus representing value for money for the Council’s residents. 

 

Alternative options considered and rejected:

Not to approve the AMP –  this would result in the Council not being in a position to clearly set out and define its intentions on how it will be managing its assets or development programme.

 

Resolved to:

 

1.    Approve the Asset Management Plan (AMP) for the period 2020 to 2025; and

 

2.    Delegate authority for any annual updates which may be required (excluding any substantive changes in approach) to the Group Head for Regeneration and Growth in consultation with the Deputy Leader who has responsibility for Asset Management.

 

Reason for Decision

The Asset Management Plan will minimise long term risk and help sustain the local economy and ensure continued and effective delivery of Council services.