Agenda item

Motions

Councillor Rodney Bates to move that

 

this Council RESOLVES to

 

(i)      formally support the general principle of unitary authorities within local government and agree that any such unitary authority affecting Surrey Heath should be ideally around the region of 300,000 to 500,000 residents; 

 

(ii)     oppose the principle of a single unitary authority to cover Surrey on the grounds that such a unitary authority would be too big, too remote and not in the best interests of Surrey Heath residents;

 

(iii)   instruct the Acting Chief Executive to formally open negotiations with neighbouring authorities (not just within Surrey) with a view to Surrey Heath forming part of a unitary authority;

 

(iv)   confirm that it has no formal position or preferred option at this stage regarding the specific unitary grouping that it wishes to be part, but believes that all options must be thoroughly and positively reviewed and properly considered; this includes the establishment of a network of locally Parish/Town type Councils which could deal with localised issues, including certain planning functions;

 

(v)    instruct the Acting Chief Executive to convene regular Group Leader meetings to update on the various options as they progress and to bring forward a report to Full Council once all options have been clearly worked through;

 

(vi)   ask the Acting Chief Executive to send a copy of this motion to the Chief Executives and Leaders of all of Surrey Heath’s neighbouring authorities, other Surrey Boroughs, and Surrey County Council to inform them of the Council’s position.”

 

 

Minutes:

The Council was reminded that, at its meeting on 22 July 2020, it had agreed to defer consideration of the following motion moved by Councillor Rodney Bates and seconded by Councillor Morgan Rise.

 

“This Council RESOLVES to

 

(i)      formally support the general principle of unitary authorities within local government and agree that any such unitary authority affecting Surrey Heath should be ideally around the region of 300,000 to 500,000 residents; 

 

(ii)     oppose the principle of a single unitary authority to cover Surrey on the grounds that such a unitary authority would be too big, too remote and not in the best interests of Surrey Heath residents;

 

(iii)   instruct the Acting Chief Executive to formally open negotiations with neighbouring authorities (not just within Surrey) with a view to Surrey Heath forming part of a unitary authority;

 

(iv)   confirm that it has no formal position or preferred option at this stage regarding the specific unitary grouping that it wishes to be part, but believes that all options must be thoroughly and positively reviewed and properly considered; this includes the establishment of a network of locally Parish/Town type Councils which could deal with localised issues, including certain planning functions;

 

(v)    instruct the Acting Chief Executive to convene regular Group Leader meetings to update on the various options as they progress and to bring forward a report to Full Council once all options have been clearly worked through;

 

(vi)   ask the Acting Chief Executive to send a copy of this motion to the Chief Executives and Leaders of all of Surrey Heath’s neighbouring authorities, other Surrey Boroughs, and Surrey County Council to inform them of the Council’s position.”

 

Having agreed at its meeting earlier that evening to rescind the decision to defer consideration of the motion, the Council resumed consideration of the debate.

 

It was moved by Councillor Alan McClafferty and seconded by Councillor Sashi Mylvaganam that the motion be amended as follows:

 

a.      amend (ii) by removing and inserting the following wording:

 

oppose express serious concern regarding the principle of a single unitary authority to cover Surrey on the grounds that such a unitary authority would may be too big large, too remote and not unlikely to be in the best interests of Surrey Heath residents;;

 

b.      amend (iii) by removing “(not just within Surrey)”;

 

c.      amend (iv) to insert the following words at the end of the paragraph:“with an emphasis that any such local Councils or other bodies must be democratically elected”;

 

d.      add thefollowing additional wording to the motion:

 

i.          agree a budget of up to £35,000 in order to conduct a thorough joint business plan with other authorities of all relevant unitary options to submit to the Secretary of State;

 

ii.      delegate authority to the Acting Chief Executive in consultation with Group Leaders to agree the procurement and spending authorisation for the joint business plan;

 

iii.     agree itsfinal position on unitary authorities at a future meeting ofFull Council or Extraordinary Full Council following receipt of the joint business plan and that of Surrey County Council and prior to submission to the Secretary of State;

 

e.      amend (vi) to insert the words “Surrey Members of Parliament”.

 

Members were advised that the proposed amendments to the motion had been drafted by all of the Group Leaders.

 

Councillor Rodney Bates, as the mover of the original motion, indicated that he was happy to accept the amendments. As a result, they became part of the substantive motion.

 

RESOLVED to

 

(i)        formally support the general principle of unitary authorities within local government and agree that any such unitary authority affecting Surrey Heath should be ideally around the region of 300,000 to 500,000 residents; 

 

(ii)       express serious concern regarding the principle of a single unitary authority to cover Surrey on the grounds that such a unitary authority may be too large, too remote and unlikely to be in the best interests of Surrey Heath residents;

 

(iii)     instruct the Acting Chief Executive to formally open negotiations with neighbouring authorities with a view to Surrey Heath forming part of a unitary authority;

 

(iv)     confirm that it has no formal position or preferred option at this stage regarding the specific unitary grouping that it wishes to be part, but believes that all options must be thoroughly and positively reviewed and properly considered; this includes the establishment of a network of locally Parish/Town type Councils which could deal with localised issues, including certain planning functions, with an emphasis thatany such local Councils or other bodies must be democratically elected;

 

(v)       agree a budget of up to £35,000 in order to conduct a thorough joint businessplan with other authorities of all relevant unitary options to submit to the Secretary of State;

 

(vi)     delegate authority to the Acting Chief Executive in consultation with Group Leaders to agree the procurement and spending authorisation for the joint business plan;

 

(vii)    agree itsfinal position on unitary authorities at a future meeting of Full Council or Extraordinary Full Council following receipt of the joint business plan and that of Surrey County Council and prior to submission to the Secretary of State;

 

(viii)   instruct the Acting Chief Executive to convene regular Group Leader meetings to update on the various options as they progress and to bring forward a report to Full Council once all options have been clearly worked through; and

 

(ix)     ask the Acting Chief Executive to send a copy of this motion to the Chief Executives and Leaders of all of Surrey Heath’s neighbouring authorities, other Surrey Boroughs, Surrey Members of Parliament, and Surrey County Council to inform them of the Council’s position.

 

Note1: In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillors Paul Deach, Edward Hawkins, David Mansfield and Charlotte Morley declared non pecuniary interests as they were Members of Surrey County Council and the discussions might relate to the County Council.

 

Note 2: In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 17.4, a recorded vote on the motion was taken.

 

The following Members voted in favour of the motion:

 

Councillors Dan Adams, Graham Alleway, Peter Barnett, Rodney Bates,Cliff Betton, Richard Brooks, Sarah Jane Croke, Vivienne Chapman, Paul Deach, Colin Dougan, Tim FitzGerald, Sharon Galliford, Shaun Garrett, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Ben Leach, David Lewis, David Mansfield, Alan McClafferty, Emma-Jane McGrath, Charlotte Morley, Sashi Mylvaganam, Adrian Page, Robin Perry, Darryl Ratiram, Morgan Rise, JohnSkipper, Graham Tapper, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler, Helen Whitcroft, Valerie White, Kristian Wrenn.

 

The following Members voted against the motion:

 

Councillors Edward Hawkins, Josephine Hawkins.

 

Supporting documents: