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.
Minutes:
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:
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:
Mr Evans reserved his right to speak later.
Four Members spoke on the amendment and made the following comments:
Mr Evans, as seconder, made the following points:
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:
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:
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:
Three Members spoke on the motion and made the following comments:
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:
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:
The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement made the following points:
At this point Mrs White withdrew her amendment.
Four Members spoke to the substantive motion and made the following points:
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.