Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record and to note that, regarding Minute 76 (Strategic Plan) the Local Government Association has since confirmed that, following an investigation of other potential data sources, the 2011 census is still the most up to date source for statistics about travelling to work.  Officers therefore confirm that, based on currently available evidence, it is correct to say that most (working age) residents travel to work outside the District by car.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 28^th July 2020 were approved as a correct record. It was noted that, regarding Minute 76 (Strategic Plan) the Local Government Association has since confirmed that, following an investigation of other potential data sources, the 2011 census is still the most up to date source for statistics about travelling to work. Officers could therefore confirm that, based on currently available evidence, it is correct to say that most (working age) residents travel to work outside the District by car.

This review, conducted by the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS), was originally submitted to the Committee on 28^th July 2020 (Minute 75 refers). Consideration of the matter had been deferred, hence the main reason for convening this meeting. 

            The accompanying officer report recommended that the committee:

A.        discusses and notes the findings of the independent review of the Council’s governance;

B.        endorses the statement by Group Leaders as set out at section 3.2 of the report; 

C.        requires to see a separate Implementation Plan by September 1st that addresses the review’s recommendations, with dates and owners for each activity; and

D.      agrees to review progress against this Plan.

            Councillor Sayer, seconded by Councillor Botten, proposed that with reference to recommendation A, “the findings of the independent review of the Council’s governance be noted, additionally noting the summary of the recommendations as per 2.5 of the covering report, subject to the 9^th bullet point being amended to read:

·           Developing a clearer understanding of members’ roles, including the role of parties in opposition and ensuring that councillors lead on strategy and, where appropriate, officers lead on operational matters.”

            Upon being put to the vote, this amendment was agreed.

            Councillor Botten proposed that recommendations C and D be deleted and that a new C be inserted as be follows: 

“That a Full Council meeting be convened as soon as possible to consider the following recommendations:

(1)       Each Council Committee will have a second Vice Chair to be appointed at the next meeting of that committee, (drawing no special responsibility allowance) drawn from one of the main opposition groups 

(2)       All members agree to abide by the Nolan Principles which should be printed at the head of each Council and committee agenda paper, for the next committee cycle, and which should be agreed by each member signing a document setting them out on an annual basis, and on this occasion as soon as practicable 

(3)       Full Council meeting agendas should begin with Members Question Time, lasting no longer than sixty minutes, for which members give notice of questions to the Leader or Committee chairs, and may have up to two supplementary questions in response to their replies

(4)       At full Council meetings, Committee minutes are, subject to the necessary legalities, agreed en bloc, rather than item by item

(5)     A Task and Finish Group of three members drawn from each of the three major Groups shall review the production of committee papers and make recommendations to S&R at its meeting at the end of September”.

            This was seconded by Councillor Sayer, subject to (1) above (appointments of second Vice Chairs) being restricted to the Community Services, Housing, Planning, Planning Policy and Strategy & Resources Committees. Upon being put to the vote, the revised amendment was agreed.    

            Councillor Milton, seconded by Councillor Cooper, proposed that recommendation C be replaced with, “a Committee Review Working Group (CRWG) be appointed to report to the Strategy & Resources Committee, formed of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

It was anticipated that the forthcoming White Paper on recovery and devolution could result in the establishment of unitary authorities in place of the current two-tier structure of County Councils and Districts/Boroughs. Full Council, on 16^th July 2020, had agreed a motion calling upon the Secretary of State to consider alternative models to the single Surrey unitary favoured by Surrey County Council.  A letter, dated 22^nd July, had been sent to the Secretary of State to this effect.  

All eleven District and Borough Councils in Surrey had also agreed to work together to consider alternative delivery models, recognising that change was needed but that a single Surrey unitary was not practicable. These views had been expressed in a joint letter to the Secretary of State (23^rd July 2020) signed by the eleven District / Borough Leaders. 

The Committee was advised that, as part of a joint approach to scoping alternative restructuring options, each of the eleven Districts and Boroughs had been asked to contribute £10,000 towards engaging consultants. While the Committee supported the proposed contribution, Members expressed a wish for the identity of the consultants and the associated brief to be communicated as soon as possible.   

                   R E S O L V E D – that a contribution of £10,000 be approved to support work on a joint District and Borough Council outline proposal for the development of alternatives to a single unitary structure for Local Government in Surrey.