ITEM 8 (i)
Mr Ian Beardsmore (Sunbury Common and Ashford Common) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘This Council agrees to:
(i) oppose additional runways at Heathrow and Gatwick in view of the adverse impact this additional capacity will have on Surrey residents, on Surrey’s already congested roads and on Surrey’s environment and Green Belt;
and
(ii) call on the Leader of the Council to lobby all Surrey MPs, the current and future Governments regarding the Council’s opposition to additional runways at Heathrow and Gatwick.’
ITEM 8 (ii)
Mr Will Forster (Woking South) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘In light of the recent significant fall in oil prices, Council calls on the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet to ensure the Transport Review and negotiations with bus operating companies are conducted to preserve bus services throughout Surrey.’
Minutes:
ITEM 8(i)
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:
‘This Council agrees to:
(i) oppose additional runways at Heathrow and Gatwick in view of the adverse impact this additional capacity will have on Surrey residents, on Surrey’s already congested roads and on Surrey’s environment and Green Belt;
and
(ii) call on the Leader of the Council to lobby all Surrey MPs, the current and future Governments regarding the Council’s opposition to additional runways at Heathrow and Gatwick.’
The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Watson.
Mr Beardsmore said that:
· This motion was about logistics and expansion and whether Surrey and the South East could absorb any further expansion at these airports
· He referred to an advertisement that he had seen on a bus stop stating that expansion at Heathrow would create 120K jobs, however, additional housing and infrastructure would be required
· Passenger numbers would increase at Heathrow and Gatwick regardless of any expansion due to larger planes
· He acknowledged that 10% of his division depended on employment opportunities at the airport and supported Heathrow as it was now
· He considered that Heathrow and Gatwick would continue to be successful, whether they expanded further or not.
Mr Johnson moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting. This was formally seconded by Mrs Windsor.
The amendment was as follows (with additional words underlined):
‘This Council agrees to:
(i) oppose additional runways at Heathrow and Gatwick in view of the adverse impact this additional capacity will have on Surrey residents, on Surrey’s already congested roads and on Surrey’s environment and Green Belt, without detriment to the already stated position of the Council, that these two airports retain their role as the nation’s hubs.
and
(ii) call on the Leader of the Council to lobby all Surrey MPs, the current and future Governments regarding the Council’s opposition to additional runways at Heathrow and Gatwick.’
Both Mr Beardsmore and Mrs Watson agreed to accept the amendment to this motion and therefore it became the substantive motion.
Twelve Members spoke on the substantive motion, with the following points being made:
· The County Council had debated the expansion of Heathrow and Gatwick two years ago and had agreed to say no to expansion without the required infrastructure in place
· This was the wrong time to debate this issue because submissions to the Davies Commission had now closed and their findings would not be reported until later this year
· Support for expansion at both airports
· Issue of alternative development for the Heathrow site if the airport closed and an estuary airport was developed
· The County Council had a duty to residents already employed at Heathrow and Gatwick
· It was regrettable that the decision on the future for Heathrow and Gatwick would be made public after the general election
· Heathrow had been allowed to evolve in a densely built up area and the country should be looking at innovative ways for airport expansion, such as options for Luton, Stansted, Southampton or Birmingham
· Questioned whether air travel would continue to increase as more people use Eurostar / trains as alternative options
· Continued increase in economic growth was only in the South East
· Additional housing would be required and there would be infrastructure problems if the airports expanded
· Aviation was the fastest growing cause of climate change
· This motion altered the County Council’s position, agreed in 2013.
· Since agreement of that resolution, there had been 3 Member seminars on airport expansion, which had been well attended and Members views had been submitted as part of the response to the Davies Commission
· Without the outcome of the Davies Commission being known, the County Council could not depart from its agreed 2013 position because it would need to consider the package of mitigating measures, for the recommendations proposed by the Commission
· Some Surrey residents would welcome further airport expansion
· Hub status at Heathrow could not be retained unless the airport expanded
· The airport authority’s for Heathrow and Gatwick were meeting and engaging with Surrey County Council
· A need to protect Surrey residents – concern about the effect on residents of increased noise and blocked roads which could worsen if the expansion of these airports were agreed
· This was the right time to debate this issue.
After the debate, the substantive motion was put to the vote with 15 Members voting for it. 47 Members voted against it and there were 7 abstentions.
Therefore, the motion was lost.
ITEM 8(ii)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Will Forster moved the motion, which was:
‘In light of the recent significant fall in oil prices, Council calls on the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet to ensure the Transport Review and negotiations with bus operating companies are conducted to preserve bus services throughout Surrey.’
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Cooksey.
Mr Forster said that, as the fall in oil prices was likely to last for some time, this benefit should be used to help preserve Surrey’s bus services because the Council should be able to get a better deal from its operators. He did accept that changes were needed but said that bus services were key to many residents’ daily lives.
Mr Johnson moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting.
The amendment was as follows (with additional words underlined):
‘In light of the recent significant fall in oil prices, Council calls on the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet to ensure the Transport Review and negotiations with bus operating companies are conducted to preserve and expand bus services throughout Surrey.’
Both Mr Beardsmore and Mr Cooksey agreed to accept the amendment to this motion and therefore it became the substantive motion.
Mr Goodman moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting. This was formally seconded by Mrs Frost.
The amendment was as follows (additional words underlined and deletions crossed through):
‘In light of
the recent significant fall in oil prices, Council calls on the
Leader of the Council and the Cabinet to ensure the Transport
Review and negotiations with bus operating companies are
conducted to preserve bus services throughout
Surrey.
include this factor in developing proposals to meet the objectives of the Review.’
This amendment was not accepted by Mr Forster and therefore Mr Goodman spoke to his amendment, making the following points:
· That oil prices were discussed when bus contracts were re-negotiated – contract price could only be changed at contract renewal date
· He was pleased to report that the bus review had attracted 6800 responses
· Stakeholder events had been organised and there had been a comprehensive approach to communicating with residents
· Officers were currently analysing the response and he assured Members that they would listen to their comments
· Whilst the County Council spent £8.9m annually on bus subsidies, there was a need to produce a £2m saving to public transport costs, as set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan
· That the detailed consultation report would be on the website within the next few days and all Members would be sent the link to the report
· The outcome and decisions following the Bus Review would be considered at the Cabinet meeting on 26 May.
Six Members spoke on the amendment and made the following points:
· That the amendment was weak, unspecific and failed to protect Surrey’s bus services
· That the Bus Transport Review had been discussed at the last Environment and Transport Select Committee meeting
· The oil price was a small part of the overall cost of providing bus services
· Examples of new services were given i.e. a commuter service to and from rural areas of Mole Valley to Dorking railway station and the Chatterbus in the Cobham area
· The review had been extensive and included responses from Borough / District and Parish Councils, and local committees
· The County Council had a good record of supporting bus companies
· The importance of working together with SCC officers and other partners and also using matched funding to ensure that bus services that suited the needs of residents were provided
· This had been an excellent review of the bus provision and had been conducted in a sensitive way
· In many rural areas, buses provided a vital community service
· There was a need to improve the viability of Surrey’s bus services and preserve and expand them and the use of community transport was important and could improve the service provision
After which, under Standing Order 23.1, the Leader of the Council moved:
‘That the question be now put’
Twenty Members stood in support of this request. The Chairman considered that there had been adequate debate and agreed to this request and the debate was wound up.
The amendment was put to the vote with 56 Members voting for and 14 Members voting against it. There was one abstention.
Therefore the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.
After which, under Standing Order 23.1, the Deputy Leader moved:
‘That the question be now put’
Twenty Members stood in support of this request. The Chairman agreed to this request and the substantive motion was put to the vote, with 53 Members voting for and 11 Members voting against it. There was one abstention.
Therefore, it was:
RESOLVED:
In light of the recent significant fall in oil prices, Council calls on the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet to ensure the Transport Review and negotiations with bus operating companies include this factor in developing proposals to meet the objectives of the Review.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.45pm and resumed at 1.30pm with all those present who had been in attendance in the morning session except for Mrs Angell, Mrs Barton, Mrs Bramhall, Mrs Coleman, Mr Ellwood, Mrs Frost, Mr Harmer,
Miss Heath, Mr Johnson, Mr Kington, Mr Mahne, Mrs Saliagopoulos, Mrs Thomson and Mr Townsend.