Agenda item

ITEM 8 (i)

 

Mr Mike Goodman (Surrey Heath) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

Given the decision by the Government to support a new runway at Heathrow, this Council reaffirms its position on airport expansion set out in the resolution agreed in July 2013.  

 

The Council recognises the crucial role of the airports at Heathrow and Gatwick in supporting employment for Surrey residents, generating investment in the Surrey economy and in attracting and retaining major businesses to locate in the county.

This Council remains strongly of the view that expansion requires the environmental and surface access issues involved to be satisfactorily addressed.

 

This Council wishes to work constructively with the Government, the airport, relevant national agencies, other local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships on the expansion plans in order to protect and promote the interests of Surrey residents and businesses.

 

However, this Council considers that the proposals and commitments, including on surface access, that have so far been made by the airport and by the Government associated with the preferred approach to expansion at Heathrow are inadequate. In particular they give neither confidence that the necessary measures will be prioritised nor that adequate funding will be committed.

 

This Council considers that any expansion will only be a success for Surrey residents and businesses and for the wider South East if there is a clear and agreed framework for the necessary infrastructure, including southern rail access, and other measures to be in place before any new runway comes into operation.

 

This Council calls on the Government to take the lead in developing such a framework.

 

ITEM 8 (ii)

 

Mr Ian Beardsmore (Spelthorne) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

The Council notes the difficulties in recruiting and retaining skilled staff to work for the County Council, the high cost of agency staff and that the situation is becoming critical as the council’s financial position worsens.

This Council has previously agreed that more emphasis should be given to key worker housing as one approach to dealing with this problem.

The Council now agrees to support a new investment strategy that sees increased emphasis on acquiring key worker housing for Surrey, to help recruit and retain more skilled staff whilst reducing agency spend.

 

ITEM 8(iii)

 

Mr Robert Evans (Spelthorne) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

This Council congratulates the many teachers, support staff, parents, governors and children who have enabled the vast majority of Surrey’s schools to be judged, by Ofsted, as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. Council is very proud that Surrey has so many excellent schools at every phase of education.

 

Surrey County Council takes great pride that as an education authority, it has for many years, been at the forefront of innovative, progressive education and setting high standards in schools.

 

There have been many changes in the format of schools in recent years, with for example, academies and free schools being created. Council therefore believes that a period of stability would be beneficial and is concerned that the Government is considering yet further changes.

 

Council expresses confidence in its teachers and headteachers to continue to deliver a high quality education under the current system.

Item 8(i):

 

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Mike Goodman moved the motion, which was:

 

‘Given the decision by the Government to support a new runway at Heathrow, this Council reaffirms its position on airport expansion set out in the resolution agreed in July 2013.

  

The Council recognises the crucial role of the airports at Heathrow and Gatwick in supporting employment for Surrey residents, generating investment in the Surrey economy and in attracting and retaining major businesses to locate in the county.

 

This Council remains strongly of the view that expansion requires the environmental and surface access issues involved to be satisfactorily addressed.

 

This Council wishes to work constructively with the Government, the airport, relevant national agencies, other local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships on the expansion plans in order to protect and promote the interests of Surrey residents and businesses.

 

However, this Council considers that the proposals and commitments, including on surface access, that have so far been made by the airport and by the Government associated with the preferred approach to expansion at Heathrow are inadequate. In particular they give neither confidence that the necessary measures will be prioritised nor that adequate funding will be committed.

 

This Council considers that any expansion will only be a success for Surrey residents and businesses and for the wider South East if there is a clear and agreed framework for the necessary infrastructure, including southern rail access, and other measures to be in place before any new runway comes into operation.

 

This Council calls on the Government to take the lead in developing such a framework.’

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Martin.

 

Mr Goodman said that:

 

• The future expansion of airports would benefit Surrey’s economy.
• Service access to Heathrow was not good from Surrey. Only 4% travelled by rail and the majority by road, which was unsustainable.
• The Leader had written to and awaited a meeting with Chris Grayling MP.
• There was a need to ensure good connectivity with Surrey and reduce emissions around the airport site.
• He had spoken with Lord Ahmad about night flights and residents’ need for respite.

 

Mr Essex moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting. 

 

This was formally seconded by Mr Robert Evans.

 

The amendment was as follows (with additional words underlined and deletions crossed through):

 

‘Given the decision by the Government to support a new runway at Heathrow, this Council reaffirms its position on airport expansion set out in the resolution agreed in July 2013.

 

The Council recognises thecrucial role of the airports at Heathrow and Gatwick in supporting employment for Surrey residents, generating investment in the Surrey economy and in attracting and retaining major businesses to locate in the county.

 

This Council remains strongly of the view that expansion requires theclimate change, noise, air pollution and environmental andsurface access issues, as well as housing needs to all involved to be satisfactorily addressed.

 

This Council wishes to work constructively with the Government, the airport, relevant national agencies, other local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships on the expansion plans in order to protect and promote the interests of Surrey residents and businesses.

 

However, this This Council considers that the current proposals and commitments, including on climate change, noise, air pollution and surface access aspects that have so far been made by the airport and by the Government associated with the preferred approach to expansion at Heathrow are inadequate. In particular they give neither confidence that the necessary measures will be fully addressed prioritised nor that adequate funding will be committed.

 

This Council considers that any expansion will only be a success for Surrey residents and businesses and for the wider South East if the proposed southern rail access and other surface access schemes should be progressed now, there is a clear and agreed framework for the necessary infrastructure, including southern rail access, and other measures to be in place before any new runway comes into operation.

 

This Council calls on the Government to take the lead in progressing the improved Southern Access to the airport, and ensuring that the climate, environment, air pollution and surface access issues remain as preconditions which must be met before any expansion is considered.developing such a framework.’

 

This amendment was not accepted by Mr Goodman and therefore Mr Essex spoke to his amendment, making the following points:

 

• Whilst he sympathised with the original motion, the amendment aimed to match the aspiration of surface access issues.
• The amendment sets out what is meant by improvements.
• That the air pollution limits were already being breached and 40,000 people were being killed slowly each year by pollution. The only answer being to fly less.

• The issue of freight by road was not dealt with.

 

Mr Evans reserved his right to speak later.

 

Four Members spoke on the amendment and made the following comments:

 

• That the speech given by the mover of the motion reflected the amendment more than the original motion.
• It was reported that the Heathrow expansion would create another 20,000 jobs but there was no mention of where those additional workers were going to live.  Therefore it was a threat to the Green Belt.
• The economic benefits were overstated.
• Nitrous oxide limits were already exceeded around the airport.
• Station improvements were needed at Woking before it could have access to Heathrow.
• That 10,000 Surrey residents were employed at Heathrow and Surrey was home to many international businesses.  Therefore the economic benefits were real and the importance of expansion should not be diminished.

 

Mr Evans, as seconder, made the following points:

 

• The amendment strengthened the original motion.
• The 10,000 jobs already provided to Surrey residents would not be lost – they would continue to be there.
• Surrey’s surface access was the worst in Europe.
• This was a missed opportunity to sort out the transport issues.
• That pollution at Stanwell could be tasted at times and the noise was terrible.
• Surrey had a housing problem which would be exacerbated by the expansion due to the properties that would be demolished to make way for it.
• The bus link 555 to the airport was to be reduced.

 

The amendment was put to the vote with 12 voting and 48 voting against.  The amendment was lost and the original motion then discussed.

 

Eight Members spoke to the motion and made the following points:

 

• At the Heathrow seminar members had called upon airlines to adhere to regulations.
• The Surrey case for adequate funding had been well made.
• Expansion was needed at both airports.
• There maybe people working at airports wishing to live in Surrey and current residents may wish to move out due to the noise.
• Support was voiced for a rail link from Guildford.
• East Surrey were having a rail consultation.  Connections were needed from east as well as west Surrey.
• It was important for Surrey to have input into the redesign of Heathrow.
• There was a disconnect between the motion and the speech given.
• Imbalance would increase if expansion went ahead.  Additional housing was needed.
• Although Spelthorne and Guildford were geographically close to Heathrow, it could take a long time to travel from there to the airport due to the 8mph average road speed in those areas.

 

Mr Goodman stated that he was championing rail access and informed Council that there was to be a flight path consultation and members and residents would hear from the districts when the consultation started.

 

The substantive motion was put to the vote with 55 voting for, 9 voting against and 3 abstentions.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

Resolved:

 

Given the decision by the Government to support a new runway at Heathrow, this Council reaffirms its position on airport expansion set out in the resolution agreed in July 2013.

  

The Council recognises the crucial role of the airports at Heathrow and Gatwick in supporting employment for Surrey residents, generating investment in the Surrey economy and in attracting and retaining major businesses to locate in the county.

 

This Council remains strongly of the view that expansion requires the environmental and surface access issues involved to be satisfactorily addressed.

 

This Council wishes to work constructively with the Government, the airport, relevant national agencies, other local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships on the expansion plans in order to protect and promote the interests of Surrey residents and businesses.

 

However, this Council considers that the proposals and commitments, including on surface access, that have so far been made by the airport and by the Government associated with the preferred approach to expansion at Heathrow are inadequate. In particular they give neither confidence that the necessary measures will be prioritised nor that adequate funding will be committed.

 

This Council considers that any expansion will only be a success for Surrey residents and businesses and for the wider South East if there is a clear and agreed framework for the necessary infrastructure, including southern rail access, and other measures to be in place before any new runway comes into operation.

 

This Council calls on the Government to take the lead in developing such a framework.

 

 

Item 8(ii)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Ian Beardsmore moved the motion, which was:

 

‘The Council notes the difficulties in recruiting and retaining skilled staff to work for the County Council, the high cost of agency staff and that the situation is becoming critical as the council’s financial position worsens.

This Council has previously agreed that more emphasis should be given to key worker housing as one approach to dealing with this problem.

The Council now agrees to support a new investment strategy that sees increased emphasis on acquiring key worker housing for Surrey, to help recruit and retain more skilled staff whilst reducing agency spend.’

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Hazel Watson.

 

Mr Beardsmore said that:

 

• Newly qualified staff would not move to Surrey due to the costs and wanted a change of emphasis on human infrastructure.

 

Ms Denise Le Gal moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting. 

 

This was formally seconded by Mrs Mary Lewis.

 

The amendment was as follows (with additional words underlined and deletions crossed through):

 

‘The Council notes the difficulties in recruiting and retaining skilled staff to work for the County Council, the high cost of agency staff and that the situation is becoming critical as the council’s financial position worsens.

This Council has previously agreed that more emphasis should be given to key worker housing as one approach to dealing with this problem.

The Council now agrees to explore the options available to enhance the provision of key worker housing in Surrey in order to to support a new investment strategy that sees increased emphasis on acquiring key worker housing for Surrey, to help recruit and retain more skilled staff whilst reducing agency spend.’

 

Ms Le Gal stated that the amendment allowed the Council to explore the various options in dealing with this issue.

 

This amendment was accepted by Mr Beardsmore and thus became the substantive motion.

 

Mrs Lewis made the following points:

 

• Other government agencies appeared able to pay more for skilled staff than Surrey were.
• Young professionals wanted to be able to buy their home so there was a need for a range of schemes such as part ownership.  There was also a need for a variety of housing.
• Social workers were asking for reduced caseloads and more reflective supervision.  The Council was making progress in this regard with its Safer Surrey approach.

 

Three Members spoke on the motion and made the following comments:

 

• Welcomed Ms Le Gal’s statement that the public estate would be used for key worker staff.
• Increased agency costs were being paid for social workers, planners and highway engineers.
• There was an increase in cost of living in Surrey.
• The Investment Strategy needs changing rather than paying for investment properties outside of Surrey.

 

The motion was put to the vote with the majority voting for.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

Resolved:

 

The Council notes the difficulties in recruiting and retaining skilled staff to work for the County Council, the high cost of agency staff and that the situation is becoming critical as the council’s financial position worsens.

This Council has previously agreed that more emphasis should be given to key worker housing as one approach to dealing with this problem.

The Council now agrees to explore the options available to enhance the provision of key worker housing in Surrey in order to help recruit and retain more skilled staff whilst reducing agency spend.

 

 

The Council adjourned for lunch at 12.53pm and reconvened at 14.00pm.

 

Item 8(iii)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Robert Evans moved the motion, which was:

 

‘This Council congratulates the many teachers, support staff, parents, governors and children who have enabled the vast majority of Surrey’s schools to be judged, by Ofsted, as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. Council is very proud that Surrey has so many excellent schools at every phase of education.

 

Surrey County Council takes great pride that as an education authority, it has for many years, been at the forefront of innovative, progressive education and setting high standards in schools.

 

There have been many changes in the format of schools in recent years, with for example, academies and free schools being created. Council therefore believes that a period of stability would be beneficial and is concerned that the Government is considering yet further changes.

 

Council expresses confidence in its teachers and headteachers to continue to deliver a high quality education under the current system.’

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Essex who reserved his right to speak later.

 

Mr Evans said that:

 

• That there were good schools in Surrey with good results and good teaching.
• Pupils receiving free school meals were underrepresented at grammar schools.
• Surrey provided a good mix of specialist schools.
• He was opposed to the 11+ exam and any further major changes to schools.

 

Mrs White moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting. 

 

This was formally seconded by Mr Forster.

 

The amendment was as follows (with additional words underlined and deletions crossed through):

 

‘This Council congratulates the many teachers, support staff, parents, governors and children who have enabled the vast majority of Surrey’s schools to be judged, by Ofsted, as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. Council is very proud that Surrey has so many excellent schools at every phase of education.

 

Surrey County Council takes great pride that as an education authority, it has for many years, been at the forefront of innovative, progressive education and setting high standards in schools.

 

There have been many changes in the format of schools in recent years, with for example, academies and free schools being created. Council therefore believes that a period of stability would be beneficial and is concerned that the Government is considering yet further changes.

 

Council expresses confidence in its teachers and headteachers to continue to deliver a high quality education under the current system without introducing grammar schools or any further major reorganisations.’

 

This amendment was not accepted by Mr Evans and therefore Mrs White spoke to her amendment, making the following points:

 

• That grammar schools were divisive.
• Another organisation was setting up grammars.

 

The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement made the following points:

 

• Selection was already taking place in secondary schools e.g. with post codes.
• Agreed there should be a period of stability
• Surrey received £450 less per pupil than London boroughs across the border.
• There was a need to work with schools without setting conditions.

 

At this point Mrs White withdrew her amendment.

 

Four Members spoke to the substantive motion and made the following points:

 

• Opposes the motion especially as it was shutting down the means to modernise.  There was a need to modernise the selection process to allow a better mix of pupils.
• Congratulations to the schools in Surrey which were good schools providing good education.
• There was agreement with the Cabinet Member’s speech regarding selection. 
• It was down to schools to challenge.
• There was a need for technical colleges.
• There was a need for some stability for the next few years.

 

The substantive motion was put to the vote with 48 voting for, 5 voting against and 6 abstentions.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

Resolved:

 

This Council congratulates the many teachers, support staff, parents, governors and children who have enabled the vast majority of Surrey’s schools to be judged, by Ofsted, as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. Council is very proud that Surrey has so many excellent schools at every phase of education.

 

Surrey County Council takes great pride that as an education authority, it has for many years, been at the forefront of innovative, progressive education and setting high standards in schools.

 

There have been many changes in the format of schools in recent years, with for example, academies and free schools being created. Council therefore believes that a period of stability would be beneficial and is concerned that the Government is considering yet further changes.

 

Council expresses confidence in its teachers and headteachers to continue to deliver a high quality education under the current system.