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).