Agenda item

ORIGINAL MOTIONS

Meeting of Council, Tuesday, 8 October 2019 10.00 am (Item 66/19)
Share this item

Item 9 (i)

Mr Chris Botten (Caterham Hill) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

This council notes:

With concern that Surrey residents who pay for their own elderly care significantly subsidise the residents who rely on County to pay for their care. This is a result of an unjust and inequitable funding regime which is itself a result of inadequate government funding. It further notes with concern that the proposal for the coming financial year in the local government funding settlement appears to allow councils to raise a precept on residents to cover the funding gap.

This approach is deeply flawed; it perpetuates the injustice of the current system, asking those who have savings to subsidise the care of those who don’t, and it is a sticking plaster to cover up the failure of successive governments to bring forward a sustainable and equitable solution to the problem of social care funding.

Therefore resolves that:

This council accordingly calls on the government to bring forward urgently a sustainable solution so that councils can restore equity and enable a sustainable market for social care provision in Surrey and across the country.
The Cabinet is called upon to publish the business case it promised in February examining the possibility of the Council entering the market as a provider of adult social care, since that move could stabilise a fragile market, potentially re-balance some of the inequities of a for profit environment, and secure quality against the significant risk of the impact of Brexit on the local workforce.

This Council further requests that Cllr Sinead Mooney, the cabinet member for adults and public health, seek an urgent meeting with Caroline Dinenage MP, the minister of state in the department for Health and Social Care.

Item 9 (ii)

Mr Robert Evans (Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

This council notes:

This Council has previously noted that both Heathrow and Gatwick airports make vital contributions to the continuing success of Surrey’s economy and Surrey County Council now takes note of Heathrow’s Airport Expansion document, dated June 2019 and the associated community consultations events.

Council welcomes Councillor Kemp’s letter to Heathrow dated 9 September 2019, highlighting the many serious concerns and discrepancies in Heathrow’s latest position.

Surrey County Council also notes the serious reservations on airport expansion now being registered by an increasing number of councils, around Heathrow airport, in particular Spelthorne Council which recently voted to send a strong message to Heathrow Airport Limited, stating that its masterplan for expansion now presents “significant issues” for residents of Spelthorne, concluding that it could only support the expansion and third runway if the council’s 15 demands laid out last year are met, including compensation for those people whose properties are worst affected.

Council is dismayed that neither the Government nor the aviation industry have shown any intention to invest in road or rail connections and that far from reducing congestion, the current proposals will inevitably increase overcrowding on Surrey’s roads and put undue pressure on communities, especially those near Heathrow. Council believes that unless and until the surface access links, delivering improved public and active transport links to the airport are implemented, there must be no increase in the current 480,000 flights a year.

Furthermore Council is concerned that large areas of Green Belt in the north of Spelthorne, proposed to include around 220 Hectares of green space, will be sacrificed. Heathrow Airport Limited, by their own admission, set out that the proposed Heathrow plan will adversely affect many people’s health by a deterioration in air quality due to ‘dust and vehicle emissions’ as well as totally unacceptable increases in noise pollution.

Finally, the proposed expansion, without any curbs on flying elsewhere, will exceed the carbon budget for aviation set out in the 2015 final report from the Government’s Airports Commission, let alone the more stringent targets now committed to by the Government, Surrey County Council and many other local authorities.

At its meeting on 16 July 2013, Surrey County Council agreed that ‘expansion at either airport would require the environmental and surface access issues involved to be satisfactorily addressed.’ Council called on ‘Government and the aviation industry to prioritise investment in road and rail connections to the airports to reduce congestion and overcrowding.’

On 6 December 2016 Council reiterated its view that any expansion ‘requires the environmental and surface access issues involved to be satisfactorily addressed,’ adding that the 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 therefore agrees:

I. To suspend its unqualified support for Heathrow expansion and seek meetings with the Secretary of State for Transport and Heathrow Airport Limited to register these concerns and demand that plans are finalised and funding secured for vastly improved surface access to the airport and sufficient safeguards on air quality, noise pollution, night flights, protection of the Green Belt and compensation for residents, most seriously affected.

II. That expansion of Heathrow is not consistent with either the Council or the Government’s declaration of a climate emergency, and the need to now reduce carbon emissions to zero.

III. And additionally agrees to support Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Richmond, Hammersmith & Fulham and Windsor & Maidenhead councils in seeking a judicial review of these plans on the grounds of air quality, climate change, noise pollution and surface transport access.

Item 9 (iii)

Mr Tim Hall (Leatherhead and Fetcham East) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

This council agrees:

Sustainable growth needs to be supported by infrastructure.
Homes, highways, schools, businesses, leisure facilities and healthcare are essential for well-functioning and well-connected communities.

This council notes:

The Surrey Infrastructure Study, which indicates that delivering the necessary infrastructure to support growth planned in Surrey to 2031 is estimated to cost at least £5.51 billion with only £3.04 billion of potential funding identified.

Therefore this council resolves:

To continue to work closely with partners, such as district and borough colleagues, Local Enterprise Partnerships, and with authorities in London, the East of England and South East to coordinate strategic policy and infrastructure investment across the wider South-East, including joint lobbying for strategic infrastructure priorities.
To engage with Government and national agencies to shape their investment plans, as part of the shadow Sub-National Transport Body, Transport for the South East.
Revisit the evidence base behind this study on a regular basis in collaboration with partners to maintain a rolling understanding of the infrastructure landscape and funding priorities.

Minutes:

Item 9 (i)

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

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Chris Botten moved:

an amendment to the motion set out in the agenda for this meeting in his own name, as follows: (with additional words in bold/underlined and any deletions

crossed through)

This council notes:

With concern that, owing to Government policy, Surrey residents who pay for their own elderly care significantly subsidise the residents who rely on County to pay for their care. This is a result of an unjust and inequitable funding regime which is itself a result?of inadequate government funding. It further notes with concern that the proposal for the coming financial year in the local government funding settlement appears to allow councils to raise a precept on residents to cover the funding gap.

This approach is deeply flawed; it perpetuates the injustice of the current system, asking those who have savings to subsidise the care of those who don’t, and it is a sticking plaster to cover up the failure of successive governments to bring forward?a sustainable and equitable solution to the problem of social care funding.

Therefore resolves that:

I. This council accordingly calls on the government to bring forward urgently a sustainable solution so that councils can restore equity and enable a sustainable market for social care provision in Surrey and across the country.

II. The Cabinet is ~~called upon to publish the business case it promised in February~~ asked to consider examining the possibility of in-house provision and/or new approaches to commissioning adult social care which can manage the market more effectively ~~the possibility of the Council entering the market as a provider of adult social care, since that move could stabilise a fragile market,~~ to potentially re-balance some of the inequities of a for profit environment,?and secure quality against the significant risk of the impact of Brexit on the local workforce.?

III. This Council further requests that Cllr Sinead Mooney, the cabinet member for adults and public health, seek an urgent meeting with Caroline Dinenage MP, the minister of state in the department for Health and Social Care.

Members agreed to debate the amended motion and therefore it became a substantive motion.

Mr Botten made the following points:

· He thanked Mrs Mooney, the Cabinet Member for Adults and Public Health for her support in the reformulation of the amendment.

· He commented that there was a shortage of money in the country and county for support in adult social care; that placed providers and service-users at risk. He praised officers despite the challenging market and noted staffing was vulnerable due to Brexit uncertainty.

· The iniquity of the rationing of the National Health Service (NHS) continuing care was scandalous and often hidden. It was wrong that the Council and residents had to face the consequences of that rationing.

· He highlighted the ‘triple bereavement’ as a result of the ageing population - the loss of a loved one to dementia, the loss of the loved one and the loss of their home.

· He called upon the Government with support of the Council to enact significant policy changes regarding the care of ageing populations for the long-term. The 2% precept rise would not address the iniquities and the inequities in adult social care.

· It was wrong that the ease of getting packages of continuing care was geographically determined.

The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Goodwin, who made the following comments:

· She outlined a recent visit to a care home where she was informed by a gentleman that the process of securing care for a loved one was traumatic. It was financially focussed without empathy.

· That the Government must have the courage to provide an equitable social care policy and stop short-term funding to allow local authorities to plan for future care provision.

Two Members made the following points:

· That there was an injustice in the funding of adult social care as the Council subsidised care by a third less for those who could not afford it, compared to those who could self-fund it.

· When social care was contracted out of the Council the cost per hour halved, noting that services brought in-house were not always less expensive.

The motion was put to a vote and received unanimous support.

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

This council notes:

This approach is deeply flawed; it perpetuates the injustice of the current system, asking those who have savings to subsidise the care of those who don’t, and it is a sticking plaster to cover up the failure of successive governments to bring forward?a sustainable and equitable solution to the problem of social care funding.

Therefore resolves that:

II. The Cabinet is asked to consider examining the possibility of in-house provision and/or new approaches to commissioning adult social care which can manage the market more effectively, to potentially re-balance some of the inequities of a for profit environment,?and secure quality against the significant risk of the impact of Brexit on the local workforce.?

Item 9 (ii)

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

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Robert Evans moved:

This council notes:

Council welcomes Councillor Kemp’s letter to Heathrow dated 9 September 2019, highlighting the many serious concerns and discrepancies in Heathrow’s latest position.

This council therefore agrees:

II. That expansion of Heathrow is not consistent with either the Council or the Government’s declaration of a climate emergency, and the need to now reduce carbon emissions to zero.

Mr R Evans made the following points:

· The motion concerned the lives of Surrey’s residents and future generations and if supported would be a bold stance by the Council signalling its commitment against airport expansion.

· The Heathrow Airport Expansion document of June 2019, ignored the Council’s requests over expansion. It had not taken into consideration the Council’s long-standing concerns over its expansion, with reference to previous motions in July 2013 and December 2016, a recent member briefing in July 2019 and at road shows on the matter.

· Heathrow’s expansion would see years of disruption up till 2050. There would be increased congestion, vehicle pollution, and construction traffic in surrounding boroughs and districts such as Spelthorne.

· The largest car park in the world would be built at Stanwell with 24,000 car spaces, having a knock on effect to the M25, open spaces would be lost, rivers diverted and residents were not to be compensated.

· The Heathrow Airport Expansion document did not include the provision of modern and direct rail links – bypassing London – and both the Government and Heathrow must be held to account on that.

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

Seven Members made the following points:

· The Council’s position had not changed since it last debated Heathrow expansion in a motion in October 2018. A key part of the motion focused on the need for the Government to prioritise infrastructure before a third runway was built – primarily a Southern Rail link.

· On behalf of the Council, the Deputy Leader had submitted the comprehensive response – outlining ten concerns of the Council – to Heathrow Airport Limited, on the Statutory Heathrow Airport Expansion Consultation.

· The Leader of the Council had recently met the Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps and with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste, he will meet the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Paul Maynard who had responsibility for Aviation.

· The Council was still awaiting the modelling information from Heathrow on its expansion and both the provision of Southern Rail and the removal of the 220 hectares of green belt to the north of Spelthorne were still to be resolved.

· The Council had declared a ‘Climate Emergency’, reflecting the Government’s target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 which was challenging but achievable.

· The Council was awaiting the results of the judicial review sent to the Court of Appeal challenging the Government’s support of Heathrow expansion.

· The Council will continue to challenge and engage with Heathrow directly and through the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG).

· A further motion would have to be considered in the future if the Council’s concerns within its response to the Statutory Heathrow Airport Expansion Consultationwere not satisfactorily addressed.

· Residents’ ability to cope with expansion had not been taken into consideration especially concerning minor roads in rural areas, where small villages received substantial vehicle movements funnelled through to Gatwick Airport.

· Contrary to the motion, the Council had never had ‘unqualified support’ for Heathrow expansion nor Gatwick. The Council since July 2013 had not supported expansion and had called for the right infrastructure beforehand.

· That Heathrow expansion was an ill-thought-out expensive project which would cause environmental damage and exacerbate existing issues such as the high cost and shortage of housing and road congestion.

· If Southern Rail access was proposed by Heathrow, there would need to be consideration over the change in capacity that would affect the current commuter lines in Guildford and Woking to London.

· That the right place for airport expansion was in the Thames Estuary. Although a substantial number of Surrey residents were employed at Heathrow, expansion was not sustainable in the centre of populations.

Mr Botten moved an amendment, which was formally seconded by Mr Harmer.

The amendment was as follows (with additional words in bold and deletions

crossed through):

This council notes:

Council welcomes Councillor Kemp’s letter to Heathrow dated 9 September 2019, highlighting the many serious concerns and discrepancies in Heathrow’s latest position.

This council therefore agrees:

I. To ~~suspend its unqualified support for Heathrow expansion and~~ seek meetings with the Secretary of State for Transport and Heathrow Airport Limited to register these concerns and demand that plans are finalised and funding secured for vastly improved surface access to the airport and sufficient safeguards on air quality, noise pollution, night flights, protection of the Green Belt and compensation for residents, most seriously affected.

II. That expansion of Heathrow is not consistent with either the Council or the Government’s declaration of a climate emergency, and the need to now reduce carbon emissions to zero.

~~III.~~ And additionally agrees to support Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Richmond, Hammersmith & Fulham and Windsor & Maidenhead councils in seeking a judicial review of these plans on the grounds of air quality, climate change, noise pollution and surface transport access.

The Leader of the Council called for the meeting to be adjourned to discuss the amendment. It was adjourned at 12:15pm

The meeting reconvened at 12:23pm

Mr R Evans accepted the amendment and therefore it became the substantive

motion.

Mr Essex, the seconder of the motion, made the following comments:

The Council’s response to Heathrow Airport Limited pandered towards their rhetoric of building the runway first and then having the infrastructure and transport links implemented later.
The Council must be more firm than its response to the Statutory Heathrow Airport Expansion Consultation. One condition within the response called for the Development Consent Order (DCO) to limit air traffic movements to no more than 600,000 a year until both the Western and Southern Rail infrastructures were in place. That meant 120,000 flights a year would occur before the public transport bet.
Since last debate on this in October 2018, the Council had declared a ‘Climate Emergency’, but the Council’s position on Heathrow was to wait. The Council must avoid ‘constructive ambiguity’ and have a clear strategy to act on the emergency.
Noted the Government’s Committee on Climate which called for the halving of the Government’s aviation growth plans.

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

At a Meeting with Heathrow on their road show where he challenged a representative on the rail links, he stated that the third runway should be built first before rail links were discussed/built.
The Council must not be ambiguous on their position for its demand on better transport links in Surrey to ease congestion and therefore pollution addressing climate change.

The Leader of the Council called for a separate vote on each point of the substantive motion and the Chairman agreed.

The first point of the amended motion was put to a vote and received unanimous support.

The second point of the amended motion was put to a vote with 18 Members voting for, 38 against and 8 abstentions.

Mr Bennison declared a non-pecuniary interest as some members of his family worked at Heathrow Airport.

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

This council notes:

Council welcomes Councillor Kemp’s letter to Heathrow dated 9 September 2019, highlighting the many serious concerns and discrepancies in Heathrow’s latest position.

This council therefore agrees:

I. To seek meetings with the Secretary of State for Transport and Heathrow Airport Limited to register these concerns and demand that plans are finalised and funding secured for vastly improved surface access to the airport and sufficient safeguards on air quality, noise pollution, night flights, protection of the Green Belt and compensation for residents, most seriously affected.

II. That expansion of Heathrow is not consistent with either the Council or the Government’s declaration of a climate emergency, and the need to now reduce carbon emissions to zero.

Item 9 (iii)

Mr Hall agreed to withdraw his motion.