Agenda item

Item 8(i)

 

Mrs Hazel Watson (Dorking Hills) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

This Council notes that:

 

1)    Surrey County Council has invested £186m, as of 24.7.17, in purchasing commercial properties (such as warehouses, offices and retail premises) outside of Surrey via a wholly owned property company called Halsey Garton

 

2)    There is a significant risk that Surrey County Council will lose money on these property investments as a result of the costs of maintenance, professional advisors, rates and other costs exceeding the income from rent, loss of rent as a result of voids and loss of value as buildings become outdated

 

3)    That the County Council's stated intention is to invest up to £1bn by 2020/21, with a maximum return of only 2%

 

4)    Surrey County Council owns a significant number of buildings across Surrey which have been left vacant for years, in some cases over a decade and that such vacant buildings constitute a waste of money as those assets are unutilised, deteriorating and thus losing value.

 

Council is concerned that:

 

The County Council has invested in a large property portfolio outside of Surrey despite its clear inability to properly utilise its own vacant buildings within Surrey.

 

Therefore, Council calls upon the Cabinet to:  

 

a)    cease further commercial property investment outside of Surrey as it risks losing public money

 

b)    prioritise County Council owned vacant buildings to either be used to provide services, or to be sold or let.

 

Item 8 (ii)

 

Mr Eber Kington (Ewell Court, Auriol & Cuddington) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

This Council notes:

 

i.      the challenging financial position faced by SCC

ii.     the savings made across several years to meet those challenges

 

However, this Council expresses its concern that in many areas the priorities for both spending and service reductions, and also new and increased expenditure, are unreasonable and do not reflect the priorities of residents.

 

 

This Council therefore calls upon the Leader and Cabinet to re-assess their spending and cost reduction plans through all-member and cross-political group discussions over the coming months to ensure that SCC has a set a priorities which will more closely reflect the concerns and aspirations of Surrey residents.

 

Item 8 (iii)

 

Mr David Harmer (Waverley Western Villages) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

That the wording of the Financial Framework for Members' Allocations, contained in Part 5 of the County Council’s Constitution, be modified in the Section "What we cannot consider", point 5, to replace the word "core" with the word "statutory”.

 

Item 8 (iv)

 

Mr Jonathan Essex (Redhill East) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

Council notes the widening gap in pay between the lowest and highest paid council employees in Surrey.

Council believes that a pay ratio policy in Surrey would be transparent, open and would increase employee participation and morale.

Surrey County Council therefore agrees that a pay ratio policy should be considered by the People, Performance and Development Committee at the earliest opportunity.

 

Item 8(i):

 

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

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mrs Watson moved the motion, which was:

 

This Council notes that:

 

·         Surrey County Council has invested £186m, as of 24 July 2017, in purchasing commercial properties (such as warehouses, offices and retail premises) outside of Surrey via a wholly owned property company called Halsey Garton

 

·         There is a significant risk that Surrey County Council will lose money on these property investments as a result of the costs of maintenance, professional advisors, rates and other costs exceeding the income from rent, loss of rent as a result of voids and loss of value as buildings become outdated

 

·         That the County Council's stated intention is to invest up to £1bn by 2020/21, with a maximum return of only 2%

 

·         Surrey County Council owns a significant number of buildings across Surrey which have been left vacant for years, in some cases over a decade and that such vacant buildings constitute a waste of money as those assets are unutilised, deteriorating and thus losing value.

 

Council is concerned that:

 

The County Council has invested in a large property portfolio outside of Surrey despite its clear inability to properly utilise its own vacant buildings within Surrey.

 

Therefore, Council calls upon the Cabinet to:  

 

a)    cease further commercial property investment outside of Surrey as it risks losing public money

 

b)    prioritise County Council owned vacant buildings to either be used to provide services, or to be sold or let.

 

Mrs Watson made the following points:

• SCC invests large amounts in property outside of Surrey and encouraged the council to invest more in property inside of the Surrey borders in order to increase economic growth.
• Investment in retail premises was risky with a low rate of return.
• Some SCC owned properties had been vacant for years, which amounted to a waste of money.
• She considered there was secrecy around the vacant properties that were owned by SCC.  Whilst there was a project looking at this it was still not open to the public and she requested that a full list of sites be published.
• She considered that SCC should prioritise investing more in Surrey.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mrs White who reserved her right to speak.

 

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

 

• That a number of inaccuracies had been given to the media by Mrs Watson and Mr Essex and that, rather than criticising the council, they should help to find a solution.
• Informed decisions were made, supported by expert officers and CBRE using a scoring matrix.  A full business case was then prepared for the Investment Board and Cabinet.  Select committees were able to look at those proposals.
• Property in Surrey would also carry a risk.  The Council had a limited ability to raise income and property was a long term investment.
• Considering the Council’s own properties should be done in a controlled way and providing lists of vacant properties would be counter-productive.
• Procurement rules also had to be followed.
• One Member made reference to a site in their division that had no road or pedestrian access, which made it very difficult to try and sell that for housing.  However, it was also stated that the property service should also consult county councillors as well as district and borough councillors.
• The diversified spread of investment complies with the Investment Board’s mission statement.
• Statements were read out from the CIPFA Code and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ Code to highlight that this motion was naïve.
• One Member stated concern that SCC were not sophisticated property investors.
• There was a need to look at the portfolio as a whole.  There were too many councils chasing too few deals both inside and outside of Surrey.
• The Leader gave some examples of some decisions taken by the Investment Board inside Surrey, which had been good decisions. He stated that the Investment Board considered all the risks and had robust debates, which was borne out by the fact that not all proposals were accepted.  He also stated that residents were concerned about services and not buildings.
• One Member stated that, whilst borough and district councils invested in Surrey,SCC should look outside Surrey.

 

Mrs White, as seconder of the motion, talked of work done by previous working groups and using vacant buildings to provide services.  Any assets not used for direct service delivery should be used to provide much needed capital for Surrey.  Vacant buildings costs the county money.

 

Mrs Watson concluded the discussion by making the following comments:

• There was a need to tackle vacant properties urgently.
• 77% of investment by this Council was outside of Surrey and that was too much.
• More investment should take place inside Surrey to benefit residents.
• There was a lack of openness and transparency in gaining information.
• The Council were cutting services and risking money in investments outside Surrey.

 

The Chairman agreed that the motion would be taken in two parts, a) and b), as given in the motion.

 

Part a) of the substantive motion was put to the vote with 13 Members voting for and 54 Members voting against. There was 1 abstention.

 

Part b) of the substantive motion was put to the vote with 20 Members voting for and 46 Members voting against. There was 1 abstention.

 

Therefore it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That parts a) and b) of the motion were lost.

 

Item 8(ii)

 

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

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

 

This Council notes:

 

i.      the challenging financial position faced by SCC

ii.     the savings made across several years to meet those challenges

 

However, this Council expresses its concern that in many areas the priorities for both spending and service reductions, and also new and increased expenditure, are unreasonable and do not reflect the priorities of residents.

 

This Council therefore calls upon the Leader and Cabinet to re-assess their spending and cost reduction plans through all-member and cross-political group discussions over the coming months to ensure that SCC has a set a priorities which will more closely reflect the concerns and aspirations of Surrey residents.

 

Mr Kington made the following points:

·         This was not about reduced funding or savings that had been made but about the choices made, without proper consultation, ignoring residents’ priorities.

·         That there was a ‘shrinkflation’ of services, involving a reduction in services and higher costs, which was not unnoticed by residents. 

·         What was the point of seeking views when they were then dismissed, as in the case of the proposal to cut the free non household waste service, which received a very high number of objections from residents but the service was cut anyway.

·         It was understood that there were hard choices to make but there was a lack of consideration of all the options.

·         There had to be a way to discuss these issues properly before a decision is made, with plans shared at an earlier stage and select committees given the opportunity to review the options.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Townsend, who reserved the right to speak.

 

The Leader of the Council suggested that council should not debate this motion as actions had been taken that Mr Kington was unaware of.  Budget planning sessions had been arranged for Members and at the last Cabinet meeting concerns were discussed.  An email invitation was sent to council, the Senior Management Team and to the Chairman of Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee stating that two Cabinet workshops had been arranged to look at balancing the budget.

 

The Chairman made the decision that Council should continue debating the motion.

 

Five Members spoke to the motion and made the following comments:

·         Residents’ concerns included issues such as streetlights, footpath repairs, traffic lights and parking signs and not about what investments the council was going to make.  There were so many hoops to jump through as councillors, it was a full time job.  Cabinet says no to all requests.  Cabinet should use all Members’ talents before a decision was made.

·         On election day the Conservatives increased their number on Council and therefore the electorate supported Conservative priorities.  Cabinet meetings were an opportunity for Members to ask questions of the Cabinet.  Mr Kington had not attended or taken part in any meetings since the election.

·         The Leader has asked for the assistance of the Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise plans that have been developed by Cabinet.

·         A timeline was requested of service cuts planned if the budget position did not change.  This would help Members to respond to residents’ questions.  Without the detail one cannot know the consequences and therefore cannot fight for funding changes.

·         Cabinet was salami slicing and did not look back at the impact of cuts and whether it was the right decision to make.

·         Whilst the annual budget is set each February, Members should also keep in mind the Medium Term Financial Plan where priorities and alternatives should be considered in a realistic manner.

 

Mr Townsend, as seconder to the motion, made the following comments:

·         Many good points had been made and he hoped that council were listening.

·         He cited recent examples of issues that the public were interested in.

·         Investing in commercial property was not diversifying.

 

The Chairman asked Mr Kington, as the proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate.

·         He stated that some of the responses to the motion were patronising.

·         He also thanked some Members for their comments.

·         Attending Cabinet was a waste of time for opposition Members and rather than attend meetings he was out meeting with residents.

 

The substantive motion was put to the vote with 20 Members voting for and 23 Members voting against. There were 24 abstentions.

 

Therefore it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the motion was lost.

 

 

Item 8(iii)

 

The Leader requested that the council accept a recommendation to approve the amendment as it was an error that needed to be put right.

 

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

 

That the wording of the Financial Framework for Members' Allocations, contained in Part 5 of the County Council’s Constitution, be modified in the Section "What we cannot consider", point 5, to replace the word "core" with the word "statutory”.

 

Mr Harmer made the following points:

• That this motion returned the wording to as it was six months ago.
• That the wording, as it stood at the moment, disadvantaged children in rural settings as Members were unable to use their allocations to support spending on play equipment.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Hall.

 

The Chairman put the motion to the vote and it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the wording of the Financial Framework for Members' Allocations, contained in Part 5 of the County Council’s Constitution, be modified in the Section "What we cannot consider", point 5, to replace the word "core" with the word "statutory”.

 

 

Item 8(iv)

 

The Deputy Leader proposed that this motion be referred to the People, Performance and Development Committee as a report on this topic was to be discussed at its meeting on 23 October 2017.

 

Mr Essex agreed to the referral of the motion.

 

Therefore it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

To refer the motion to the People, Performance and Development Committee meeting on 23 October 2017.

 

 

The Council adjourned for 35 minutes and reconvened at 1.17pm.

 

The following Members were not in attendance for the remaining items of business:  Mrs Clack, Mr Furey, Mr Nuti, Mr Furniss, Mr Islam and Mr Chapman.