13 July 2016

Dear Councillor

SUMMONS TO A MEETING OF THE COUNCIL

I hereby summon you to attend the meeting of the Council to be held on Thursday 21 July 2016 at 7.30pm in the Council Chamber at the Civic Centre, Addlestone.

PAUL TURRELL Chief Executive 01932 425500 Email: paul.turrell@runnymede.gov.uk

A G E N D A

1. FIRE PRECAUTIONS

The Mayor will read the Fire Precautions, which set out the procedures to be followed in the event of fire or other emergency.

2. MINUTES

To approve and sign, as a correct record, the Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 18 May 2016 (Appendix ‘A’, blue pages).

3. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

If Members have an interest in an item, please record the interest on the orange coloured form circulated with this Agenda and hand it to the Democratic Services Manager at the start of the meeting. A supply of the form will also be available from the Democratic

1 Services Manager at the meeting. Members are advised to contact the Corporate Head of Law and Governance prior to the meeting if they wish to seek advice on a potential interest.

6. SPEAKING OR QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF PUBLIC UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 12

7. PETITIONS

To receive any petitions from Members of the Council under Standing Order No 19.

8. PETITION RELATING TO PARKING CHARGES IN ADDLESTONE MULTI-STOREY CAR PARK

1. To give consideration to a petition submitted by Lance Jones, Chairman of Addlestone Community Theatre. Mr Jones will attend to present the petition.

2. The petition prayer is set out below:- ‘We the undersigned petition Runnymede Borough Council to drop the parking fees in the Addlestone multi-storey car park to £1 per hour before 6pm and a flat rate of £1 to park in the evening.’

3. The prayer was supplemented by the following:

‘Whilst the new Addlestone multi-storey car park offers free parking for the first half hour, we feel that £1.50 per hour thereafter is unreasonable and will impact negatively on local businesses and community activities. It is out of step with neighbouring boroughs and will make Addlestone too expensive to visit and park a vehicle. We therefore suggest a £1 per hour fee up to 6pm and a flat rate of £1 to park in the evening.’

4. As the petition amounted to 1,851 signatories, under the Council’s petition scheme contained in the Constitution, the matter must be heard at Full Council. Under the Constitution a petition can only be discussed for a maximum of 15 minutes, at the end of which the Council will then decide how to respond to the Petition.

9. QUESTIONS

To answer questions asked under Standing Order No 13.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES

To consider the following recommendations from the Committees shown below:-

a) Environment and Sustainability Committee – 29 June 2016

i) Food Service Plan 2016/17

The Committee’s approval of the proposed Food Service Plan for 2016/17 was sought. There were no significant changes to the report. Accordingly, the proposed Food Service Plan for 2016/17 was unanimously approved and it was accordingly agreed to –

RECOMMEND that –

The Food Service Plan for 2016/17, as attached at Appendix ‘B’ (yellow pages) hereto, be approved.

b) Corporate Management Committee – 30 June 2016

2 ii) Treasury Management Annual Report 2015/16

The Committee considered the annual report on treasury management activity and performance for the 2015/16 financial year.

The Council’s treasury management activity was underpinned by CIPFA’s (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) Code of Practice on Treasury Management (“the Code”), and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (“the Prudential Code”). The Code recommended that Members were informed of treasury management activities at least twice a year. The Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee would consider the annual report at its meeting on 7 July 2016.

During 2015/16 the Council had complied with its Treasury legislative and regulatory requirements. Treasury management activity had been conducted in all material respects in accordance with the approved Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy for 2015/16. There had been two minor departures where it had proved necessary to lend large sums to the Debt Management Office at short notice in order to ensure funds matured in time to pay the first instalment of the Addlestone One development. Rather than a major departure, this highlighted a conflict within the Investment Strategy itself which had now been rectified.

A prudent approach had been taken in relation to all investment activity with priority being given to security and liquidity over yield. A full set of Treasury Prudential Indicators for 2015/16, the economic background to treasury management and a schedule of the outstanding loans at the end of the year were noted. The UK Bank Rate had remained at its historic low of 0.5% throughout the year. The Committee noted a summary of investment activity during the course of the year, split between the sectors of the counterparties with which the funds were invested.

The Council’s investment in longer duration investment vehicles once again had proved beneficial during the year with a 4.75% return achieved by the CCLA Property Fund. A return of 7.1% had resulted from the Funding Circle where money was lent to small and medium sized enterprises with the risk spread across 375 different businesses. The original estimate for investment income for 2015/16 was based on the Council achieving an average interest rate of 1.10%. However, this was based on base rates that did not materialise. Ongoing problems in finding suitable counterparties and the need to keep money in short term low interest earning accounts meant that the Council averaged a rate of return of 0.934% during the year. This compared favourably against average short-term indices for 2015/16. The Council’s Treasury Management Strategy set out a lower rate of interest for the Housing Revenue Account based on the risk free nature of the account. This lower rate was achieved by deducting the credit risk margin from the actual rate achieved by the Council. The resulting interest rate applicable to the HRA during 2014/15 was 0.84%.

The financial year continued the challenging investment environment of previous years, namely low investment returns and continually changing credit ratings. The management of counterparty risk remained the primary treasury management priority. The criteria in the Annual Investment Strategy were continuously reviewed to minimise risk as far as reasonably possible whilst retaining the ability to invest with secure institutions. The estimate for investment returns for 2016/17 was based on achieving an overall return on investments of 0.6%. This had been reduced from 0.9% following revised forecasts and advice after the turmoil in the financial markets at the end of January 2016. This meant that the investment income shown in the budget approved by full Council for 2016/17 was highly unlikely to be met with an anticipated shortfall of £76,000 for the General Fund and £40,000 for the HRA. The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU) (known as Brexit) following the referendum result on 23 June 2016 would also have an impact on the markets and Officers would continue to review the position in the coming months and would report back in 2016/17 with proposed mitigating measures to reduce these potential losses without increasing the Council’s current risk profile.

3 RECOMMEND that –

the Treasury Management Annual Report 2015/16 be noted. iii) Corporate Business Continuity Policy

The Committee considered a proposed Corporate Business Continuity Policy which set out the strategic direction for the Council’s Business Continuity planning.

The Civil Contingencies Act (2004) had established a statutory duty on local authorities to ensure that they were prepared to provide unperturbed critical functions in the event of an emergency or disruption. This duty was known as Business Continuity and was a different function to emergency planning. Under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and associated regulations, the Council, as a ‘Category One Responder’ had to put in place business continuity management arrangements and ensure that staff were trained in the arrangements and that they were regularly exercised. Past experience had demonstrated that business continuity planning was a vital exercise for local authorities. The 2015 arson attack on South Oxfordshire District Council’s offices, carried out by a disgruntled resident in that location, highlighted the importance of robust contingency plans for local authorities and vigorous risk assessment. The Committee noted that South Oxfordshire District Council had provided Runnymede and other Surrey authorities with a workshop which had informed the Policy.

The Business Continuity Policy was the overarching element of the Business Continuity Management process. The Policy, along with the Corporate Business Continuity Operational Plan and Service Level Business Continuity Plans aimed to comply with the duties under the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), to provide clear policy guidance for the Business Continuity Planning process, and to guide services to deliver effective recovery processes, based on pre-determined plans. The critical functions within the Council had been identified through conducting Business Impact Analyses (BIAs) with Heads of Service and senior managers. A Corporate Business Continuity Operational Plan with a target date for completion of October 2016 would provide a framework for maintaining the Council’s mission critical functions in the event of serious disruption and detail effective communication channels between staff, partners, suppliers and the public during a business continuity event. Service Level Business Continuity Plans with a target date for completion of January 2017 would mitigate the risks and consequences of disruption and help facilitate the return to normal levels of service as promptly as was reasonably possible, ensure that staff understood the importance of business continuity planning (BCP) and embed a culture of BCP throughout the Council. Each of the plans would be reviewed on the timescales stated in the Policy.

Under the Business Continuity Institute Business Continuity Cycle and its key processes, an assessment of the different types of risk that faced the Council’s business functions, would be undertaken such as power outages, loss of ICT or loss or denial of access to the Civic Centre. Business Impact Analyses would determine major service functions, the consequence of their disruption, minimal service requirements, maximum tolerable period of disruption and resource requirements. The Policy and plans would fit together and interact to provide an integrated business continuity management process and responsibility for the various planning and response elements and how these were managed and how plans were invoked would be determined. The governance and management of the Policy and plans would be established including staff training. The target date for completion of staff training was May 2017.

The Business Continuity Policy was managed and maintained through the Corporate Office via Applied Resilience with approval from the Corporate Leadership Team and Corporate Management Committee. The associated operational plans would be developed and maintained by the relevant business centres/services with support from Applied Resilience.

4 The operational plans would require Officer resource time in their development, implementation and embedding, and in some cases some additional resources might be required to support key resilience measures, for example in the purchase of emergency mobile telephones or some limited ICT requirements for alternative work locations. Where at all possible measures would be taken in line with work programmes already under way corporately. The Business Continuity Process was cyclical and would be reviewed and updated to reflect changes to working arrangements. The review process was flexible and could take on board new developments if they arose. Due to the nature of this Policy, the Council’s Equalities Group had advised that any associated Equalities Impact Screenings, and possible subsequent Equalities Impact Assessments, would be better undertaken during the Service-Level Planning stage of this process, rather than during the policy creation phase.

RECOMMEND that – the Corporate Business Continuity Policy at Appendix ‘C’ (white pages) be adopted. iv) Marshall Place – Development Proposals

By resolution of the Committee, the press and public were excluded from the meeting during the consideration of this matter under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the discussion would be likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information of the description specified in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to Part 1 of the Act.

The Committee considered plans for the redevelopment of Marshall Place. The Committee noted that the development of land at Marshall Place had been discussed at several Committee meetings and at full Council previously. The Council had agreed the disposal of Marshall Place open space subject to adjacent land at Moated Farm becoming accessible from Marshall Place and being prepared for recreation. At its meeting on 29 October 2015, the Corporate Management Committee had considered options for the development of Marshall Place in line with the Council’s Property Investment Strategy. That Committee had noted this analysis which showed that the return from development of the site for private sale housing would allow the Council to maximise its income and generate income for future investment. That Committee had agreed that Marshall Place be developed with dwellings for private sale housing and had agreed a development budget for the Marshall Place site, including provision for a play area. That Committee had also agreed that consultants be appointed to develop the detailed scheme.

As part of the agreement to develop Marshall Place, the adjacent amenity space had been opened up and access provided for local residents. It was envisaged that the works for the play area at Moated Farm would begin in September 2016. The play provision would be funded from the proceeds of the development.

The Council had an obligation to consider the register of persons seeking to acquire land to build a home (‘self-builders’), when disposing of any land of the authority under section 2 of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. The Committee noted the number of individual registrations in the Runnymede Borough Council Self and Custom Build Register. In view of the comparatively low demand for custom and self-build as indicated by the Register, and in response to the current stage of the Runnymede Local Plan, which would also give consideration to the Register and could make a more comprehensive assessment of the need for such housing and the locations and methods to allocate land accordingly, it was not recommended that the opportunity to dispose of the land for self-build or custom homes should be taken in this case.

The Committee considered a detailed analysis of three Options for private sale consisting of Option 1: 4 two bedroom and 6 three bedroom semi-detached houses, Option 2: 4 two bedroom semi-detached houses and 15 two bedroom flats and Option 3: 24 two bedroom flats. The Committee noted the existing site layout and the proposed site layout for Option

5 1, Option 2 and Option 3. Under Option 1 all properties would be available at Market Rate with no affordable housing, while for Options 2 and 3 some of the units would be available as affordable housing.

The Committee noted the constraining issues associated with the Marshall Place site, including its proximity to the M25 motorway. The Committee noted a preliminary review of the site which had been undertaken by Officers and this advice would need to be supplemented with detailed site investigations and surveys as the scheme developed. Planning permission would be required to carry out any of the three options and procurement of a construction contractor would be required by tender.

The budget development costs and the preliminary revenue calculations including the anticipated residual land value/profit and yield of each of the three options were noted. Risk assessments of each of the three options were noted. The Committee noted an amendment to the Planning advice in respect of the options in that, in the light of recent changes to Planning policy, none of the three options contained any significant Planning risk.

The Committee considered its aspirations for the disposal of land at Marshall Place in respect of minimum capital receipt, housing density and affordable housing and recommended that Option 1 be pursued, consisting of 4 two bedroom and 6 three bedroom houses for private sale, which had the highest yield and the lowest gross development value of the Options considered. In order to pursue Option 1, the Capital Funding for the scheme would need to be increased as set out in Exempt Appendix ‘1’ and the Corporate Management Committee recommended this increase.

RECOMMEND that – i) having considered aspirations for the disposal of land at Marshall Place in respect of minimum capital receipt, housing density and affordable housing, Option 1, consisting of 4 two bedroom and 6 three bedroom houses for private sale, be pursued which has the highest yield and lowest gross development value; ii) Marshall Place be not included in the the Runnymede Self and Custom Build Register as serviced plots; and iii) the Capital Funding for the scheme be increased as set out in Exempt Appendix ‘1’ and the 2017/18 and 2018/19 capital programme be revised accordingly. c) Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee – 7 July 2016 v) Treasury Management Annual Report 2015/16

The Committee considered the annual report on treasury management and performance for the 2015/16 financial year.

The report began with a summary setting out the treasury management regime. The treasury management indicators were noted. The Council placed security and liquidity of investments ahead of yield. As always, the management of counterparty risk remained the priority and the Annual Investment Strategy was continuously reviewed to minimise risk as far as reasonably possible.

The Council operated two “loans pools”, one for the HRA and one for the General Fund. The HRA borrowing was taken out in 2011/12 and had reduced slightly as some of the properties had been appropriated into the General Fund – taking the associated borrowings with them. All the General Fund loans related to either the purchase of investment properties or funding for ongoing development schemes. The Committee noted

6 the borrowing undertaken last year. The Council borrowed £33million in the year. One of the loans - £3million for 3 years - was arranged through the M3 Local Enterprise Partnership and was “interest free”. This was repayable in equal instalments and the first £500,000 repayment was made at the end of March 2016. The Committee noted a total list of all outstanding borrowings. This showed that the average interest rate on General Fund borrowings was 2.20%, well below the assumed rate in the original budget. Some of the new borrowing was taken out in advance of need, to lock into some excellent rates with these additional borrowings being reinvested until needed to meet payments.

The Council turned over £185m in investment activity last year, £40m more than in the previous year. This generated £419,000 interest for the year, despite some difficult market conditions. The bank base rate had remained at its historically low rate of 0.5% all year. This, along with the ongoing effects of the funding for lending scheme, meant that investment rates remained suppressed throughout the year. Despite this, the Council still achieved a return of 0.93% which compared favourably against average short term indices. A full list of investment balances held at the end of the year was noted.

The successful borrowing and investment strategy adopted during the year contributed to the Council saving £700,000 over the original budget for the year. A large part of the saving resulted from the delay in the start of the Addlestone ONE development project and hence the delay in the need to borrow. The Committee noted a summary of the expected returns to be generated in the current financial year.

Investment income of 0.9% was forecast for the year in the initial draft Treasury Strategy for 2016/17 . Shortly afterwards, the market changed and the Council’s Treasury advisors suggested that this should be closer to 0.6%. The events of the last two weeks had now seen this reduce to 0.25%. The implications of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, (known as Brexit), following the referendum result of 23 June 2016, had led to extreme market volatility. Officers had attended four different post Brexit seminars which had all reached different conclusions. The only consensus economists could agree on was that the base rate would now drop to 0.25% some time this year – possibly as early as next week - which would have an adverse impact on the Council’s ability to generate investment income. The latest interest rate forecast from Capital Asset Services – the Council’s treasury advisors – which was released on 5 July 2016 - even suggested that interest rates could fall further before going back up 0.5% in quarter 2 of 2018.

Despite some challenging market conditions, the Committee was pleased to note that the Council’s treasury activities fared very well last year with a betterment in both borrowing and investment rates being achieved. Unfortunately the outlook going forward was currently too uncertain to make any predictions. However, the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy was robust and Officers would therefore continue to monitor the position and take any action deemed necessary to safeguard the Council’s funds. The Committee agreed to recommend that Officers monitor the extreme market volatility regularly and its implications for the Council and, if necessary, report further to the Corporate Management Committee. Until some semblance of stability had returned to the markets it would not be possible to assess finally the risks resulting from Brexit. The Committee noted that the Council’s loans and investments were all at fixed rates. A lower Bank base rate would have a particularly adverse effect on investment maturities, which would be reinvested at much lower rates.

RECOMMEND that – i) the Treasury Management Annual Report 2015/16 be noted; and ii) Officers monitor the extreme market volatility regularly and its implications for the Council and, if necessary, report further to the Corporate Management Committee. vi) Annual Report of the Overview and Scrutiny function

7 The Committee considered a draft Annual Report for the Municipal Year 2015/16 (at Appendix ‘D’) in accordance with sub-paragraph 6.03 (d) of the Council's Constitution which stated that the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee must report annually to Full Council on its workings and make recommendations for future work programmes and amended working methods if appropriate.

The Committee noted that the Surrey Pension Fund triennial review was currently taking place and it would be receiving a report on the outcome of that review later in the year. At its meeting on 1 October 2015, the Committee had agreed that an advisory panel/ Member Working Group be set up, including the last four mayors of the borough, to review the Mayor’s role and to make recommendations on future Officer support and allowances for the Mayor. This Member Working Group had not yet met and a Member of the Committee suggested that it should do so, in order to consider Mayoral duties. That Member referred to improvements which had been made to the Mayor’s parlour and considered that there were further improvements to that room which could be made.

At its meeting on 21 March 2016, the Committee had considered a call-in of the Corporate Management Committee’s decision of 25 February 2016, relating to the Bourne car park site, Virginia Water. At its meeting on 31 March 2016, the Corporate Management Committee had concurred with the recommendations of the Committee on this matter. One of those recommendations was that Officers use their best endeavours to find up to 35 additional parking spaces at reasonable cost in the vicinity of Virginia Water station in order to meet the recognised demand for parking in the area. The Committee noted that there was currently a shortage of parking in the Virginia Water station area. The Committee noted that the Council’s Officer Corporate Leadership Team were currently discussing various options in relation to parking in that area and it was agreed that the Committee would receive a report on progress on this matter at its next meeting.

RECOMMEND that –

the Annual Report at Appendix 'D' (pink pages) be received and noted.

11. NOTICE OF MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR MRS G KINGERLEY – HATE CRIMES

Councillor Mrs Kingerley has given notice of the following Motion under Standing Order 15:-

‘’I am proud to live in a diverse and tolerant society. However, following recent events throughout the country I believe racism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti- Semitism, intolerance and hate crimes have no place in our country and accordingly I wish to move the following Motion:

1. Runnymede Borough Council join me in condemning racism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance unequivocally. We should not allow hate to become acceptable.

2. Runnymede Borough Council Officers and Members work to ensure local bodies and programmes have the support needed to fight and prevent racism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance and reassure all people living in the Borough that they are valued members of our community.

3. Runnymede Borough Council publicly condemns any such attacks and confirms its anti-racism policy wholeheartedly.’’

8 12. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – SECTION 85: ATTENDANCE DISPENSATION

RECOMMENDATION

i) The Council is asked to consider whether it wishes to exercise its powers under Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972 to grant a dispensation to the attendance requirements for elected Members in recognition of Councillors N Wase-Rogers’ and T Dicks’ ill-health.

ii) The Council is asked to specify the duration of the dispensation.

1. Councillors Wase-Rogers and Dicks last attended a meeting of the authority on 30 March 2016 and have not been able to attend a meeting since then owing to ill health.

2. Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that if a member of a local authority fails throughout a period of six months from the date of his/her last attendance to attend any meeting of the authority, he/she, unless the failure was due to some reason approved by the authority before the expiry of that period, cease to be a Member of the authority.

3. Therefore if Councillors Wase-Rogers and T Dicks fail to attend any meeting of the authority due to take place before 30 September 2016 or any meeting of an outside body to which they have been appointed as the Council’s representative they will cease to be Members unless the Council grants a dispensation.

4. As this is the last Full Council meeting before the 30 September deadline, it is suggested that in light of Councillors Wase-Rogers’ and Dicks’ continuing recuperation, Members might like to consider a dispensation now as a precaution in case the Councillors cannot attend a meeting before the deadline.

5. As such, Members are asked to consider granting a dispensation to the attendance requirements for Councillors N Wase-Rogers and T Dicks on the grounds of ill-health and the duration of any dispensation. For example, a dispensation until the end of this year would mean that both Councillors would have up to and including the Council meeting on 8 December 2016 to attend a meeting.

(To resolve)

13. PRESS AND PUBLIC TO BE EXCLUDED BY RESOLUTION

To move, if appropriate, the exclusion of the press and public for the following item, in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

14. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS – EXEMPT

To consider any recommendations which relate to exempt business.

9 Appendix 'A'

ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL

18 May 2016 at 7.30pm

The Worshipful the Mayor (Councillor D A Cotty) retiring Mayor in the chair.

Members of the Councillors A Alderson, D E Anderson-Bassey, J R Ashmore, J Broadhead, Council present H A Butterfield, I A Chaudhri, Mrs D V Clarke, D A Cotty, R J Edis, J R Furey, Mrs E Gill, Mrs L M Gillham, Mrs J Gracey, T Gracey, Mrs M T Harnden, Miss M N Heath, Miss D Khalique, Mrs G M Kingerley, D J Knight, M T Kusneraitis, Mrs Y P Lay, S Lewis, S M Mackay, M J Maddox, Mrs C S S Manduca, M Nuti, D Parr, B W Pitt, Ms C Simmons, Miss J K Sohi, P S Sohi, A P Tollett, P B Tuley, P J Waddell, Mrs G Warner, and J J Wilson

Members of the Council absent: Councillors T Dicks, N M King, N Prescot, P Roberts, N Wase-Rogers and M Willingale

1. FIRE PRECAUTIONS

The Mayor read out the Fire Precautions.

2. RETIRING MAYOR

The Mayor welcomed Members and Guests. The Mayor reported that he had had a momentous Mayoral year where he had attended many events. Highlights included the Magna Carta 800th Anniversary celebrations and the visit to the Meadows by the Queen and Royal Family last June. The Mayor paid tribute to various charity groups, and commented that the visits to schools provided many memorable occasions.

The Mayor gave details of his fundraising for his three nominated charities.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Paul Tuley, former Councillor Meares, Mr Paul Beck and Mr Ron Enticott for their support in connection with the statute of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II which proudly stands by the Thames at Runnymede.

The Mayor thanked his Mayoress Susan Jones for her commitment and support during the year. A floral tribute was presented to Susan Jones.

The Mayor paid tribute to the Mayoral Assistant Sonia Druce for her support during the year and presented a floral tribute to her.

The Mayor welcomed Katie Edmond who was the newly appointed Mayoral Assistant.

The Mayor thanked his Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayoress, Officers and fellow Councillors for their support, in particular the work undertaken by Sarah Walsh in the preparation of Runnymede’s contribution to the Magna Carta celebration and the voluntary photographic services of Alan Bostock.

The Mayor presented Councillor Mrs Gill with a scroll on behalf of residents of the Borough for organising various Magna Carta events and installation of Magna Carta planters in Thorpe, and fundraising for the new Community Hall in Thorpe.

The Mayor was congratulated on his Mayoral Year.

3. MAYOR – ELECTION OF

RESOLVED that –

Councillor Alan Alderson be Mayor of Runnymede for the Municipal Year 2016/2017.

10 Appendix 'A' 4. DECLARATION BY MAYOR OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE

The statutory declaration of acceptance of office was made and signed by Councillor Alderson, who thanked the Council for his election and took the Chair.

(The Worshipful the Mayor, Councillor Alderson in the Chair).

5. DEPUTY MAYOR – APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY MAYOR

RESOLVED that –

Councillor Iftikhar Chaudhri be Deputy Mayor of Runnymede for the Municipal Year 2016/2017.

6. DECLARATION BY DEPUTY MAYOR OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE

The statutory declaration of acceptance of office was made and signed by Councillor Chaudhri, who thanked the Council for his appointment.

7. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 21 April 2016 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

8. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Councillors Dicks, King, Prescot, Roberts, Wase-Rogers and Willingale.

9. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The new Mayor thanked the Council for the honour of serving in this office and was looking forward to his Mayoral Year, where he would be proud to represent the Borough. His Mayoress would be his wife, Margaret Alderson.

The Mayor congratulated former Mayor, Councillor Cotty, on his splendid Mayoral Year and Councillor Chaudhri on his appointment as Deputy Mayor. The Mayor thanked the former Mayoress for her hard work during the year

The Mayor mentioned that a Quiz Night would be held in Egham on 22 October, the Civic Reception on 7 December at Great Fosters and the Charity Ball would be held at the Runnymede Hotel on 25 March.

The Mayoral Charities would be:

Woking and Sam Beare Hospices Dementia Carers Support in Runnymede Homestart Runnymede and Woking

10. CONSTITUTION FOR 2016/17

Council was informed that the Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of the Council on 21 April 2016, would apply for the Municipal Year 2016/17.

11 11. COMMITTEES – APPOINTMENT OF

The Council considered the report of the Chief Executive, which set out the requirements of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Members received information as to the wishes of the various Political Groups as to Committee appointments. The Council noted that the allocation of an additional seat on the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee for the Runnymede Independent Group resulted in a seat allocation not quite in accordance with the relevant Regulations. Resolution (i) below was passed, with no Member voting against, as required by the Regulations, and accordingly the distribution of seats would be valid until a review was necessary.

RESOLVED that –

i) the allocation of seats be as follows:-

Committee Political Groups Con Ind Total Corporate Management 8 2 10 Environment and Sustainability 8 2 10 Housing 9 1 10 Community Services 9 1 10 Planning 13 2 15 Regulatory 4 1 5 Overview and Scrutiny Select / Crime 7 2 9 and Disorder Standards and Audit 9 1 10 TOTALS 67 12 79

ii) the allocation of Committee seats to Members of Political Groups as at commencement of the Municipal Year 2016/17, as requested by those Groups and as laid before Council, be approved; and

iii) any Member of the Council be eligible for appointment to any Committee or Sub-Committee.

12. LICENSING COMMITTEE

RESOLVED that –

the Members of the Licensing Committee for the Municipal Year 2016/2017 be Councillors Broadhead, Mrs Clarke, Edis, Mrs Gill, Mrs Gracey, Mrs Harnden, King, Parr, Mrs Lay and P S Sohi.

13. ENGLEFIELD GREEN COMMITTEE

RESOLVED that –

the Englefield Green Committee (as required by the Crown Lease) for the year 2016/17 be established and constituted as follows:

i) Councillors Miss Heath, King, Kusneraitis, Prescot, P I Roberts and Miss Sohi; and

ii) Two representatives appointed from the qualifying householders, namely Mr A E Panter and Mr N Band.

12 14. CHAIRMEN AND VICE-CHAIRMEN – APPOINTMENT OF

RESOLVED that –

the following Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen be appointed for the Committees specified:-

Corporate Management Committee

Chairman : Councillor P J Waddell Vice-Chairman : Councillor D A Cotty

Environment and Sustainability

Chairman : Councillor J Wilson Vice-Chairman : Councillor I A Chaudhri

Housing Committee

Chairman : Councillor Ms C Simmons Vice-Chairman : Councillor B W Pitt

Community Services Committee

Chairman : Councillor Miss M N Heath Vice-Chairman : Councillor M Nuti

Planning Committee

Chairman : Councillor Mrs G M Kingerley Vice-Chairman : Councillor D W Parr

Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee / Crime and Disorder Committee

Chairman : Councillor H A Butterfield Vice-Chairman : Councillor P B Tuley

Licensing Committee

Chairman : Councillor Mrs J Gracey Vice-Chairman : Councillor D W Parr

Regulatory Committee

Chairman : Councillor Mrs J Gracey Vice-Chairman : Councillor D W Parr

Standards and Audit Committee

Chairman : Councillor N H Prescot Vice-Chairman : Councillor J Broadhead

15. SUB-COMMITTEES

Council received and noted the nominations to existing Sub-Committees from the Conservative and Runnymede Independents Groups. The Sub-Committees would elect Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen at their first meetings in the Municipal Year.

13 16. SURREY LEADERS' GROUP – APPOINTMENT/NOMINATION

Council considered appointment to the Surrey Waste Partnership and nomination to the SCC Wellbeing & Health Scrutiny Board as requested by the Surrey Leaders’ Group.

Councillor Wilson and Councillor Mrs Gillham were nominated to be the Council’s representative on the Surrey Waste Partnership. Councillor Wilson was appointed in his capacity as Chairman of Environment and Sustainability Committee. Councillor Mrs Gillham would continue to attend in an observer capacity.

RESOLVED that –

i) Councillor Wilson be the Council's representative to serve on the Surrey Waste Partnership for 2016/17;

ii) Councillor Maddox be nominated for appointment to Surrey County Council Wellbeing and Health Scrutiny Board.

17. ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS TO OUTSIDE BODIES

The Council noted that the External Appointments Sub-Committee would meet on 26 May 2016 in order to make these appointments.

Mayor

(The meeting ended at 8.22pm)

14 Appendix 'B'

RUNNYMEDE BOROUGH COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION,

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

FOOD SERVICE PLAN - YEAR 2016/2017

Runnymede Borough Council Runnymede Civic Centre Station Road Addlestone Surrey KT15 2AH Appendix 'B' Telephone No.: 01932 838383

15 FOOD SERVICE PLAN 2016/2017

1. SERVICE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

2. BACKGROUND

3. SERVICE DELIVERY

4. RESOURCES

5. QUALITY ASSESSMENT

6. REVIEW

16 FOOD SERVICE PLAN 2016/2017

1. SERVICE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 Aims and Objectives

1.1.1 To ensure that any food purchased and produced in the Borough of Runnymede is safe for consumption.

1.1.2 To meet statutory responsibilities in a cost effective and responsible manner in accordance with Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Local Government Regulation (LGR) and other centrally issued guidance.

1.1.3 To encourage best practice and publish advice on Food Hygiene Regulations to business and voluntary groups.

1.1.4 To carry out enforcement responsibilities as laid down in the Environmental Health Enforcement Policy, the Enforcement Concordat adopted by the Council for Environmental Health Services in November 1999 and the Regulators Code 2014.

1.1.5 To undertake discretionary duties in relation to Food Sampling and Food Safety Promotion.

1.2 Links to Corporate Objectives and Plans

1.2.1 The Food Service Plan fits into the Authority’s corporate planning process having been subjected to Best Value scrutiny and the production of a Continuous Improvement Plan in January 2001 The Council’s Sustainable Community Strategy adopted in September 2012 has four key priorities for Runnymede:

• A voice for Runnymede • An environment to be proud of • Healthy and vibrant communities • Revitalisation

1.2.2 The Food Service Plan is a key driver in achieving a Health and Vibrant Community. An effective food safety service contributes to the above priorities in protecting the health of its residents and visitors through the provision of safe food outlets, the prevention and detection of food borne illness and food poisoning and ensuring good businesses are not being disadvantaged by non-compliant traders.

1.2.3 Implementation of the National Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) is a key performance indicator for the food service within the Environmental Service Business Centre Plan

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Profile of the Local Authority

2.1.1 With a population of 80,510 (Office for National Statistics, Census 2011) the Borough of Runnymede covers 7,804 hectares in the north west of Surrey where it has a lengthy boundary formed by the rivers Thames and Wey. Within its boundaries, which reach from Windsor Great Park almost as far south as Woking, the Borough comprises a number of towns and villages, including in the north, the town of Egham and the residential areas of Virginia Water, Thorpe and Englefield Green. Further south is the town of Chertsey, the town of Addlestone and the villages of New Haw, Ottershaw and Woodham. Although it has a number of businesses Runnymede is basically a residential area bisected by the M25 running north-south and the M3 running east-west.

17 2.2 Organisational Structure.

2.2.1 The organisational structure of the Council comprises the full council and 5 main service committees. Food safety issues fall under the terms of reference of the Environment and Sustainability Committee. The Corporate Head of Planning and Environmental Services (CHPES) and the Environmental Health and Licensing Manager (EH&LM) have delegated responsibility for food safety enforcement with service delivery undertaken by the authorised officers of the Environmental Health and Licensing Section.

2.2.2 The organisational structure of the Council and Environmental Services Business Centre is as follows:

RUNNYMEDE BOROUGH COUNCIL – ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

COUNCIL

OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY SELECT COMMITTEE

CORPORATE HOUSING COMMITTEE PLANNING MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE Includes food safety, pollution, non-housing environmental health, refuse, recycling, licensing, & sustainability.

Corporate Head of Planning and Environmental Services

Environmental Health & Licensing Manager

Licensing Team Private Sector Housing Environmental Health

SEHO SEHO (0.73 FTE) (0.80 FTE)

SEHO Senior Environmental Health Officer

2.2.3 Specialist services are provided by: (i) Public Analyst: Eurofins Scientific Ltd, 28-32 Brunel Road, Westway Estate, Action, London

18 W3 7XR (ii) Food Examiner: Health Protection Agency, Food Water & Microbiology Laboratory Porton, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JG (iii) Kent, Surrey & Sussex Public Health England: Consultant in Communicable Disease Control County Hall North, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1XA

2.3 Scope of the Food Service

2.3.1 As a designated Food Authority the Council is responsible for the full range of duties under the Food Safety Act 1990, Including:

• the provision of advice to businesses and the public on food safety matters • the investigation of complaints and requests for service relating to food safety matters • food premises inspection • food inspections • investigations of food complaints • responding to food safety incidents • provision of training • investigation of food related infectious diseases • control of Imported foods

2.3.2 The Council has additional food related responsibilities under the European Communities Act 1972 in respect of Products of Animal Origin imports and exports and 2 officers from the Environmental Health are presently authorised to undertake this work.

2.3.3 Further service elements are provided at the discretion of the Council, e.g. health education and water sampling. These discretionary services have a complementary and reinforcing role in the Council’s overall objectives of protecting public health.

2.3.4 Enforcement of Food Standards and Animal Feeding Stuffs legislation is the responsibility of the Surrey County Council Trading Standards Department and is outside the scope of the service.

2.3.5 In addition to food safety, other environmental health functions are delivered alongside the food service. These include health and safety at work, infectious diseases, private water supplies, animal welfare licensing, pollution, contaminated land, environmental crime, health and safety and smoke- free enforcement responsibilities.

2.4 Demands on the Food Service

2.4.1 The majority of food premises in the area are predominately small to medium sized catering or retail businesses. The premises profile for the Authority as at 1 April 2016 was:

Type of Premises Number Primary Producers 6 Manufacturers & packers 4 Importers/Exporters 2 Distributors/Transporters 2 Retailers 147 Restaurant/Caterers 591 Total 752

Categorisation as per FSA LAEMS Return 2016

2.4.2 In addition there are:

• an international golf tournament held each year at Wentworth requiring the inspection of a number of visiting food outlets • a large activity centre at Thorpe Park with in excess of 20 food outlets catering for up to 1½ million visitors a year

19 • a number of annual agricultural show/fairs e.g. Egham, Chertsey and the Black Cherry Fair.

2.4.3 The service is delivered through the Environmental Heath and Licensing Section based at the Runnymede Civic Centre and the service is available from 8.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. Monday to Thursday and 8.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. on Friday (e-mail messages can be left outside normal work hours via the Council website). In the event of a major incident or an outbreak of food poisoning the Safer Runnymede Centre holds contact details of Senior Officers who could be contacted in the event of an emergency.

2.4.4 A significant number of catering establishments are operated by people whose first language is not English. Where appropriate and feasible, documentation and information is provided in the business owners first language

2.5 Enforcement Policy

2.5.1 The council adopted the Central and Local Government Enforcement Concordat in regard to its Environmental Services Department in November 1999 expanding this adoption to all other Council enforcement services in 2001. Additionally the Environmental Services works to the current Environmental Health Enforcement Policy. All food safety enforcement decisions are made in consideration of the enforcement policy and any deviations from the policy will be documented. . Statutory action may only be taken with the agreement of the CHP&ES or EH&LM.

2.5.2 Copies of the Environmental Health Enforcement Policy are available on request and the Policy is made available on the Council’s website.

2.5.3 As a follow-up to inspections carried out in 2015/2016 the Division undertook the following enforcement actions;

Action 2015/2016 Prosecutions taken 0 Simple cautions issued 3 Food Safety Act Notices issued 3 Written warning Food 65 Voluntary closures 6

3. SERVICE DELIVERY

3.1 Food Premises Interventions (Inspections, audits, monitoring)

3.1.1 It is the Council’s policy to carry out programmed food hygiene interventions in accordance with the minimum inspection frequencies defined in the Food Safety Act Food Law Code of Practice issued April 2015. Priority will be given to inspections of higher risk premises and any product specific approved premises.

3.1.2 The current profile of premises by risk rating in Runnymede and the anticipated number of interventions/inspections to be undertaken during the year 2016/2017 is as follows:

Risk Number of Inspection Number of Category Premises Frequency Inspections * Due 2015/2016 A 2 6 months 4 B 17 12 months 18 C 110 18 months 66 D 269 24 months 128 E 339 (AES) 36 months 73 Unrated 15 18 Total 752 307 Number of inspections outstanding from 43** 2015/2016

20 Estimated total number of inspections due 350 2016/2017

*Risk categories are derived from the scoring system laid down in Annex 5 the FSA Food Law Code of Practice (England) April 2015. Scores being given for the type of food produced, size of the business, level of compliance with hygiene and structural requirements and extent of management control, the higher the score the higher the risk category.

**The majority of these inspections relate to access problems and seasonal variations in trading hours.

In addition it is estimated that: • 25 premises will require revisiting to check compliance following adverse reports after initial inspection • 20 new food premises will open and require inspection • 30 outdoor/temporary mobile food traders at show/fairs will be visited • 25 premises will request official re-visiting under the FHRS (8 official requests in 2015/16). Total 100

3.1.3 The authority endeavours to carry out 100% of the inspections due for 2016/2017. The service will continue to respond to any inspection priorities identified by the Food Standards Agency.

3.1.4 An Alternative Enforcement Strategy (AES) continues to be applied to some premises in the lower risk category C and the majority of the low risk premises in categories D and E.

3.2 Food Complaints

3.2.1 The authority will investigate all food complaints or complaints relating to the hygiene of food premises in accordance with the relevant Food Safety Act Code of Practice, centrally issued guidance and its own Food Complaint Procedures. All food complaints involving an imminent risk to health will be responded to as soon as possible and all others within 3 working days.

3.2.2 Enforcement of food safety is undertaken in accordance with the Food Safety Act 1990 and associated legislation, Codes of Practice and in particular the LACORS “Guidance on Food Complaints” for Local Authorities Dealing with Food Complaints, Second Edition November 1988. Decisions shall be made in accordance with the Council’s Environmental Health Enforcement Policy

3.2.3 The number of food complaints and complaints relating to food hygiene practices investigated in 2015/2016 was 48 down from 377 for the 2014/2015 period. (Due to a major internal reclassification in how the service receives and records the information). It is estimated that a similar number of complaints will require investigation in 2016/2017.

3.3 Home Authority Principle/Primary Authority

3.3.1 The authority endorses and supports both the LACORS Home Authority Principle, and the BDRO Primary Authority scheme which entail the local authority in whose area the decision making body of large or national food business are located to act as a lead and coordinating authority for other local authorities when dealing with such business to ensure consistency of advice and enforcement across the whole of that individual business undertakings.

3.4 Advice to Business

3.4.1 The authority will work with food businesses to help them comply with the law. It is the Council’s policy to provide advice to businesses including:

• providing on the spot advice during routine visits and inspections • responding to queries • advisory visits on request • provision of advice relating to planning applications • provision of free advisory leaflets and information sheets (including leaflets in other languages) • targeted mail shots arising from legislative and policy changes • the use of consultation mechanisms to seek comments on proposals and policy

21 3.4.2 The authority is an activate participant in the BDRO Better Business for All (BBfA) programme a partnership approach to better regulation whose purpose is to bring businesses and local regulators together to consider and change how local regulation is delivered and received. .

3.4.3 In 2015/2016 the department dealt with a total of 68 specific requests from food businesses and individuals for information requiring officer input on food safety matters in addition the service provided consultation on a number of planning applications in respect of food premises

3.5 Food Sampling

3.5.1 The Authority recognises the important contribution sampling makes to the protection of public health and the food law enforcement functions of the Authority. The Authority will actively participate in: • EU coordinated control programmes • LGR/PHA voluntary coordinated sampling programmes • Coordinated programmed surveillance sampling with other members of the Surrey Food Liaison Group

In addition, the Authority where necessary, and in accordance with its Food Sampling Policy, will submit samples for analysis or examination which arise from the investigation of food contamination and food poisoning incidents, as a result of inspection and/or complaint work. The number of informal food samples submitted for analysis/examination in 2015/2016 was 0. This was due to only 2 sampling programmes running and the topic subjects not being applicable to the Runnymede area e.g. sampling of raw milk sales.

3.5.2 For the year 2016/2017 it is intended that a number of LGR /HPA studies will be undertaken. • April - October: Study 58 Hygiene study – catering practices • Nov – March inclusive Study 59 Topic presently subject to consultation: • April – March: Study 60 Reactive Response study to be decided via separate consultation to allow response to an issue of public health concern arising during the year

This will result in approximately 50 samples being submitted for examination.

3.5.3 Unless otherwise directed as part of a nationally coordinated sampling programme, analysis and/or examination of all food samples is undertaken by one of the ‘Official Food Control Laboratories in the UK’ as indicated at 2.2.3.

3.6 Control and Investigation of Outbreaks and Food Related Infectious Disease

3.6.1 In the event of an outbreak of food poisoning the Authority follows the procedures set out in the Surrey Outbreak Control Plan and the Environmental Protection Division will act in conjunction with the Public Health England and if necessary, under the direction of the Consultant in Communicable Disease Control (CCDC).

3.6.2 There were no major food poisoning outbreaks reported in the Borough during 2015/16.

3.6.3 Notifications of food related infectious disease are investigated in accordance with the Environmental Protection Division Infectious Disease Procedures. In 2015/2016 the division received 69 individual food related infectious disease notifications, down from the previous year’s figure of 98. It is estimated that a similar number of notifications will require investigation in 2016/2017.

3.7 Food Safety Alerts

3.7.1 The Authority will on receipt of any food alert warnings issued by the Food Standards Agency respond as appropriate and in accordance with:

• The divisions documented procedure • Food Safety Act Food Law Code of Practice April 2015 • Instructions issued by the FSA

22 3.7.2 Out of hours contact arrangements are in place whereby the Environmental Health and Licensing Manager can be contacted by the Food Standards Agency.

3.7.3 The resource implications are very much dependent on the category of any particular food alert warning. All work relating to food alert warnings is undertaken by officers of the authorised food officers. In the event of a large scale warning support staff would be utilised from other areas of the department.

3.8 Liaison with Other Organisations

3.8.1 The authority has in place various arrangements to ensure that enforcement action taken in its area is consistent with those in neighbouring local authorities.

• A senior officer sits on the Surrey Food Safety Study Group. • A senior officer sits on the Surrey Food Liaison Group which includes Surrey County Council Trading Standards and representation from LGR. • Both of the above groups have professional representation from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) the professional body for environmental health officers.

3.8.2 There is formal liaison with the Kent, Surrey & Sussex Public Health England Unit and the local water company in relation to public water supplies.

3.9 Food Safety Promotion

3.9.1 The authority will aim to accommodate any request to run basic food hygiene courses during the course of the year (subject to minimum attendance numbers being available). Requests for in-house or one off company training courses will be met subject to staff availability. The service will continue to provide a range of suitable and relevant food safety promotion materials, publications and advice sheets on request and where required in other languages.

3.9.2 The service continues to operate the FSA’s National Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) across the Borough. As of the 31 March 2016, remains at 93% of premises included within the scheme had achieved ratings of 3 or above 1% below the target set in the Environmental Services Business Centre Plan for 2016. In addition the Authority in partnership with Surrey Trading Standards continues to support the Eat Out Eat Well scheme.

4. RESOURCES

4.1 Financial Allocation

4.1.1 The actual costs of the service for the year ending 31 March 2016 were

Expenditure Salaries £90,400 Training and Recruitment £2,440 Travelling and Subsistence £5988 Furniture and Equipment £433 General Office Expenses £2,453 Communication and Computing £1,747 Support Service Recharges £38460 ------£141,921

Income Costs recovered £345

Total £141,576

4.2 Staffing Allocation

23 4.2.1 The 2016/2017 staffing allocation is presently 1.53 full time equivalents (FTE). Administrative support staff allocation (0.3 FTE) remains within the general Customer Services Section. The FTE is slightly less than the previous year’s figure however the intended re-balancing of the FTE numbers by training up non-food officers detailed in the 2015/2016 service plan should come through in 2016/20017 as an additional staff resource increase in the another area frees up staff to assist in food hygiene work.

4.3 Staff Development Plan

4.3.1 The Council operates a staff appraisal scheme which includes an agreed Personal Development Programme for the forthcoming twelve months following any appraisal. Each year training needs are identified and may be provided in house or externally depending on the requirement. Environmental Health Officers are required to undertake 20 hours per year Continuous Professional Development. Under the statutory Food Law Code of Practice April 2015 there is a minimum requirement of 20 hours on-going CPD for officers specifically engaged in food related work. Records are kept of training undertaken and continuous professional development records are available for scrutiny by the professional body (CIEH) or for audit purposes.

4.3.2 The 2016/2017 food service training budget has been increased to ensure that all officers authorised to undertake food safety work are able to meet the statutory requirements of the code of practice.

5. QUALITY ASSESSMENT

5.1 Quality Assessment

5.1.1 Ranges of monitoring arrangements are in place to assess performance, particularly having regard to the number of premises due for inspection that are to be inspected during the year.

5.1.2 Officers are monitored by accompanied visits to assess conformance to standards and to ensure consistency of approach. Section meetings, routinely address consistency issues within the team.

5.1.3 The information is used by the FSA to assess the compliance of the authority in relation to the standards set out in of the FSA Framework Agreement on Local Authority Enforcement and in the compilation and publishing of enforcement information this provides a continuing assessment by which the Food Safety Service is measured.

6. REVIEW

6.1 Review against the Service Plan 2014/2015

6.1.1. The service has continued to provide a professional and quality service to both its external and internal customers. Overall the main food objectives of the Council’s food service were met. The service completed 91% of its programmed inspections, had limited participation in the national food sampling surveys, regularly attended all the relevant liaison body meetings and generally met its internal performance targets across all food enforcement areas.

6.1.2. The FSA’s National Food Rating Scheme has now been running within the Borough since April 2012. The scheme is well embedded within the food business community and use of the rating scheme via the FSA website by the general public continues to grow. The was a very slight fall to 93% of Runnymede’s eligible businesses under the scheme having ratings of 3 or above, this was a 1% drop from the previous year.

6.1.3. The authority continued to provide a large volume of information and assistance to local business in publishing and helping food business operators successfully meet the requirements of the Food Information Regulations 2014.

6.1.4 Unfortunately the service was not able to achieve 100% of the inspection due in 2015/2016 due to a combination of staff changes and problems of accessing some of the premises particularly the domestic childminders and seasonal outlets. These factors are being addressed as staff changes which occurred in the reporting year begin to take full effect. The reallocation of the technician

24 post to an EHO post has had a positive effect on the quality of the team and the desired outcome of increasing the resilience of the section going forward.

6.2 Variation from the Service Plan

6.2.1 There were no significant variations from the from the service plan in 2015/2016.

6.3 Areas for Improvement

6.3.1 The following improvements are planned for 2016/2017:

• Continue to update and implement any policies and procedures required to ensure the services compliance with the FSA Frame work Agreement. • Continue to expand the amount of food safety information available to businesses and the general public on the Council’s new website. • Continue to promote the FSA FHRS across the Borough and seek to increase the number of eligible business achieving rating of at least 3 and over.

25 Appendix 'C’

Corporate Business Continuity Policy

Appendix 'C'

26 July 2016 Table of Contents

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….…………3 1.1 Scope……………………………………………………………………………….………4 1.2 Aims…………………………………………………………………………………………4 1.3 Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………..4

2. Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………….…5 2.1 Service continuity risks: overview………………………………………………………...5 2.2.1 In hours/out of hours……………………………………………………………....5 2.2 Service continuity risks: detail…………………………………………………………….6 2.2.1 Onsite - Internal……………………………………………………………………...6 2.2.2 Onsite - External …………………………………………………………………….6 2.2.3 Offsite………………………………………………………………………………....8 2.3 Business Impact Analyses (BIAs) and Council functions……………………………..11 2.4 Red priority functions (mission critical) ……………………………………………...….12 2.5 Amber priority functions……………………………………………………………….…..13 2.6 Green priority functions………………………………………………………………..…..14

3. Design…………………………………………………………………………………………...16 3.1 Structure and approach …………………………………………………………………..16 3.2 Communications …………………………………………………………………………..17 3.2.1 Internal communications……………………………………………………………17 3.2.2 Communicating with the public ……………………………………………………17 3.3 Offsite arrangements……………………………………………………………………....18

4. Implementation………………………………………………………………………………...18 4.1 Roles and responsibilities…………………………………………………………………18 4.1.1 Incident Management Team (IMT)………………………………………………..19 4.1.2 Recovery Team (RT)………………………………………………………………..19 4.1.3 Heads of Service/Senior Managers…………………………………………….....19 4.1.4 Staff…………………………………………………………………….……………..19 4.2 Application…………………………………………………………………………………..20 4.3 Invocation …………………………………………………………………………………..20 4.3.1 Loss of ICT invocation…………………………………………………………….....20 4.3.2 Loss of utility invocation……………………………………………………………..22 4.3.3 Loss or denial of access to the Civic Centre Invocation……………………...….22

5. Validation and embedding……………………………………………………………………23 5.1 Training ………………………………………………………………………………….....23 5.2 Reviews and exercising ………………………………………………………………….23 5.3 Governance…………………………………………………………………………………24

27 1. Introduction

This policy document, and associated plans, strive to adhere to the ISO: 22301 International Standards, and the Business Continuity Institute’s (BCI) Good Practice Guidelines for the planning and delivery of Runnymede Borough Council’s business continuity activities.

Business continuity planning is defined by the BCI as “the process of developing prior arrangements and procedures that enable an organization to respond to an event in such a manner that critical business functions can continue within planned levels of disruption.”

There are six distinct but intrinsically linked phases of business continuity planning; analysis, design, implementation, validation, embedding and management. These phases are not a once-off exercise, but rather repeated and reviewed with the intention of improving resilience within an organisation. As such, this policy document will reflect this process, and how it applies to Runnymede Borough Council’s business continuity activities.

Figure 1: The BCM Lifecycle (BCI)

An effective business continuity planning process for Runnymede Borough Council is vital, in order to mitigate against:

• failure to deliver services to residents; • reputational damage; • financial losses; • human resource issues; and • legal and regulatory penalties

Past experience has demonstrated that business continuity planning is a vital exercise for local authorities. The 2015 arson attack on South Oxfordshire District Council’s offices,

28 carried out by a disgruntled resident, highlighted the importance of robust contingency plans for local authorities, as well as vigorous and clear eyed risk assessment.

1.1 Scope

The Civil Contingencies Act (2004) establishes a statutory duty on local authorities to ensure that they are prepared to provide unperturbed critical functions in the event of an emergency or disruption. This policy provides reasoning, guidance, and statutory context for the operational Corporate Business Continuity Plan.

1.2 Aims

Runnymede Borough Council’s Corporate Business Continuity Policy, Corporate Business Continuity Operational Plan and Service Level Business Continuity Plans collectively aim to:

1. Comply with the duties under the Civil Contingencies Act (2004). 2. Provide clear policy guidance for the Business Continuity Planning process. 3. Guide services to deliver effective recovery processes, based on a pre-determined plans. N.B. These documents do not intend to detail the Council’s emergency response procedures which are explained in detail in Runnymede Borough Council’s Emergency Plan.

1.3 Objectives

In order to deliver the stated aims, the objectives are to:

• To establish the potential causes and impact that a disruption would have on the Council services.

• To identify the critical functions within the Council through conducting Business Impact Analyses (BIAs) with Heads of Service and senior managers. This will inform the prioritisation of available resources during a period of significant disruption. • To complete a Corporate Business Continuity Operational Plan to provide a framework for maintaining the Council’s mission critical functions in the event of serious disruption and to detail effective communication channels between staff, partners, suppliers and the public during a business continuity event. • To complete Service Level Business Continuity Plans to mitigate the risks and consequences of disruption and to help facilitate the return to normal levels of service as promptly as is reasonably possible. • To ensure that staff understand the importance of business continuity. planning, and a culture of Business Centre Planning (BCP) is embedded throughout the Council. • To review each of plans as per the frequency stated below;

29 Table 1: Assessment Type & Frequency Plan

2. Analysis

In terms of business continuity, analysis is a technical practice which is carried out in order to determine the nature of an organisation, including its objectives, functions, resources and constraints to functionality.

Two primary methods should be employed to carry out a thorough and detailed analysis of the Council and its operational environment. A risk assessment, taking into consideration the onsite and offsite risks to the Council, which is detailed below and Business Impact Analyses (BIAs), should aim to understand each service and their associated functions, and the impact that a disruption would have. In this way, risk assessments and BIAs should be separate but closely linked activities within the analysis stage of business continuity (BC).

2.1 Service continuity risks: overview

Effective business continuity planning does not attempt to anticipate every conceivable disruption an organisation may face. To do so would undermine the flexibility of contingencies should an unprecedented event occur, as well as overcomplicate arrangements and potentially decrease the effectiveness of response plans. Instead, the planning should heavily focus on ‘consequence management’, particularly a number of over- arching outcomes that hazards may manifest as. These are:

• loss or denial of access to the Civic Centre; • loss of ICT; • loss or shortage of council staff; and/or • loss of utilities at the Civic Centre

Table 2 (page 6) details these outcomes in greater detail, examining the possible disruption consequences of each, as well as their associated risks.

2.1.1 In-hours/out of hours

Risks can manifest at any time of the day or night, and are not confined to office hours. As such, the Corporate BC Plan and Service Level BC Plans must reflect this reality and make provisions for both in hours and out of hours’ recovery arrangements.

Differing complexities as well as advantages present at different times of the day and year. For example, in hours, whilst it is easier to communicate with staff, there is also consequently a greater number of people to evacuate and muster in the early stages of recovery and vice versa. Similarly, out of hours can mean more time to put

30 recovery actions into place, but it may be difficult to implement some actions straight away as staff, key suppliers and external support services will also be more difficult to access. Loss or DenialLoss or of Loss of Utilities Access to the to Access Loss of Staff Civic Centre Civic Loss of ICT Outcomes Potential plan may be necessary. from hoursranging Relocation days. to and invocation of the offsite are interrupted, services cut offor altogether a for of period time, invocation of theinvocation offsite plan may be necessary. accessible not (or be altogether).may Relocation lost and rangingtime, from hours permanently.to Files and equipment are beStaff may prevented from entering the building a for of period necessary. and Relocation ofservices. invocation offsite the plan may be access oflack internet would or telephony severely Council hamper disruption of staff’s abilitiesto carry out to A effectively. functions and Information Critical TechnologyCommunication leading is lost, added pressures. Remainingconsequences. may staff be at risk of out” “burn due to and potentially residents reputationalhigh and legal financial, out functionscarry at an level, leadingacceptable to disgruntled levels drop,Staff not services potentially leading being able to to essential whichUtilities are the normal to running of the Consequence Disruption C ouncil’s to water supply. to o w disruption, t Flu, Pandemic Regional d Fire, a Virus, ransport utage, amage ttack, Example Risks Example eather b m omb threat physical d alicious isruption p ower s evere

31 Table 2: Potential Service Disruptions

2.2 Service continuity risks: detail

Despite it being unwise to attempt to pre-empt every conceivable risk that may threaten Council functions, it is still useful for users of this document to consider the most pertinent risks and outcomes faced by the organisation, which may lead to a BC event in order to inform the associated plans. The nature of the outcomes that could occur (and their associated risks), can be placed into one of the following three categories;

• Onsite – Internal (where an internal resource issue causes and incident)

• Onsite – External (where an external issue causes an onsite incident or issue)

• Offsite

2.2.1 Onsite – Internal (where an internal resource issue causes the incident)

Onsite (Internal) would generally relate to the loss or denial of access to the Civic Centre, and/or the loss of ICT. These are risks that the Council have direct control over addressing and/or mitigating, as they stem from a source that is internal to the Council (both in terms of people and/or premises).

To most organisations, the loss of their primary premises is (often rightly) considered the most obvious and serious risk to the delivery of services and overall long term impact on the organisation. In the case of the Civic Centre, there are a number of risks that could lead to access being lost or denied, caused by risks that are internal to the Council.

All buildings are at risk of fire, to varying degrees depending on the nature of the building. The Civic Centre has a number of internal fire hazards, including a canteen and a number of kitchenettes throughout the building, and like most offices, a high volume of electrical equipment. A number of measures should be taken by the Council in order to ensure compliance with fire safety regulations, including the regular testing of electrical equipment, and several fire wardens on each floor of the building, one in each section.

Another internal cause of a loss of premises which could occur in the Civic Centre is water damage, which can arise from burst water pipes, or issues relating to overflow in bathrooms.

An additional internal risk faced by the Council is a violent workplace attack perpetrated by a member of staff, possibly caused by severe disgruntlement. While this is rare it could lead to a denial of access to the Civic Centre for a period of time, to facilitate criminal investigation. The emotional and psychological impact of such acts of aggression, particularly in severe cases, can often result in staff absence and departures. Similarly, there have been occasions where staff or former staff have used their internal knowledge, particularly in relation to ICT to cause that organisation damage.

2.2.2 Onsite – External (where an external issue causes an onsite incident or consequence)

Onsite (External) relates to risks which are from outside the Council itself, but whose consequences directly impact the organisations people and/ or premises.

32 Violence towards staff is a very real threat, to Runnymede staff, to Surrey County Council Officers and Surrey Police staff who share our premises. Motivation could be ideological, or disgruntlement, as evidenced by events in South Oxfordshire in 2015, when council offices were subject to an arson attack by a member of the public who was involved in a planning dispute. In this sense, the public-facing nature of the Council could potentially render it a target. The permanent presence of police officers and vehicles onsite also exacerbates the risks of a malicious attack on the Civic Centre, with Safer Runnymede occupying the lower floor of the building. While the Council takes steps to foster and maintain a ‘challenge culture’ regarding access to restricted areas of the building and controlling to some extent who may enter and leave, Front of House can be freely accessed, and there is only one controlled door preventing public access to designated “staff only” areas on both floors.

It is not always the case that the building itself may be the issue, but rather the equipment and utilities that are necessary for the building to be habitable and fit-for-purpose. This could arise through the loss of ICT, or the the loss of utilities.

A current major concern surrounding the Council’s ICT resilience is that the servers are all contained on-site, meaning a loss of power would necessitate their shut down. Damage from fire or water is also possible, as a water leak in the server room in December 2013 demonstrated. A key element of built in resilience is that the Council’s website is hosted externally, and therefore maintaining communication to the public and staff via the website in the face of a server disruption is far more likely (though not guaranteed).

Aside from physical damage, malicious cyber attacks are also a possibility. According to the UK’s National Risk Register (2015 edition), “Some 81% of large corporations and 60% of small businesses reported a cyber breach in 2013.” Arrangements are in place for RBC’s ICT team to partially relocate to Basingstoke, should the need arise.

The loss of essential utilities particularly power and water is of significant concern. Surrey’s Community Risk Register (SCRR) rates the risk of a technical failure of the regional electricity network as “medium” (medium likelihood of minor impacts - assessed by SCC). A prolonged loss of power to the Council would cause a severe disruption to service. Similarly, a prolonged loss of water supply could necessitate relocation on grounds of staff welfare and health and safety. This could be caused by an extreme heatwave (rated as a high risk on the SCRR), or a major pollution of uncontrolled water (SCRR: high risk - medium high likelihood of moderate impact - assessed by NHS England).

Disruption to fuel supply is also a real threat. The SCRR indicates that there is a “medium” risk of a regional fuel shortage, primarily as a result of protests and blockades.

The Civic Centre is also at risk of damage from severe weather events, particularly storms involving high winds. Such storms are a high risk in the region according to SCRR, and could cause damage to the building.

Whilst due concern has to be afforded to situations whereby the Civic Centre and/or critical equipment and utilities are the focal point of a disruption of service, careful consideration must also be afforded to the potential for a loss of staff (either temporarily or permanently). There are a number of external risks that could result in such an outcome, including the aforementioned violent workplace attack (which could also be internal), and through an epidemic or pandemic outbreak of an infectious disease.

The SCRR assigns an overall “very high” risk rating (medium/high likelihood of catastrophic impact - assessed by Public Health England) to both a worldwide pandemic of an infectious influenza-like disease, and a more localised epidemic which could affect the County. The

33 reasonable worst case scenario suggests that half of the population could be affected. Many of the Council’s staff are frontline and public facing, putting them at a greater risk.

Onsite(External) risks represent a particular challenge for the authority, as it is highly likely that an emergency civil contingencies response will also be required, putting severe strain on the resources of the Council as well as partners and suppliers.

2.2.3 Offsite (that causes an impact on part or all of the councils functions)

There are a number of events that could potentially occur offsite, whose associated risks would all be external to the direct control of the Council, but which could still affect the provision of service. It is useful here to assess the area surrounding the Civic Centre (see Fig. 2). A typical police cordon area for an incident can be 250 meters, with a 500 meter cordon not being unheard of. This means that an offsite event could restrict the ability of staff to enter the premises. The main features of the surrounding area within the cordon zones are:

• One Primary School • Police Station • One Day Care Centre • Tesco Extra • A significant number of other retail/food/amenity stores • Addlestone Train Station • Victory Park • Library • A large concentration of residential properties

There are also a number of other features to be aware of that lie just outside the cordon zone: • Aviator Park (large office blocks) • Crockford Bridge Farm • One Primary Shool

34 Figure 2: Cordon Zones

35 The most obvious and substantial risk within this zone is that until October 2017 (estimated), the Civic Centre will be surrounded on three sides by a major construction site, as the Addlestone One regeneration project is completed. Any significant accident/incident on this site could have both onsite and offsite implications for the Council, and structural damage to the Civic Centre may be a reality. Again, it is also possible that this would see both a business continuity event and a major incident being declared simultaneously. Once the project is completed, the Civic Centre will be surrounded by an increased number of residential properties andretail/food spaces, heightening the risk of potential evacuation due to the Civic Centre being within a cordon area of this project.

Away from cordons and a loss of premises, extreme weather could also have impacts offsite with the potential to disrupt the Council’s services, especially in terms of the availability of staff to get to work.

Issues with access and egress to the Civic Centre may also arise – severe traffic congestion and road closures are not infrequent and there is a risk of burst water mains or other road incursions that given the already limited access/egress to the Civic Centre can have an impact.

2.3 BIAs and Council functions

Business Impact Analyses meetings should be carried out with all Heads of Service/Senior Managers. An in-depth assessment of all the functions that each service carries out should be undertaken, with the aim of deciphering the critical activities; those which will be afforded the largest proportion of the resources/most detailed recovery planning in order to protect the interests of the council and residents in times of disruption. A number of factors should be examined during the BIA process:

• maximum tolerable period of disruption of function; • financial Impact/ Corporate Liability of function loss; • whether or not it as a function loss could have “life and limb” consequences; and • whether the services were a statutory requirement

This information should then be used to assign a RAG (Red, Amber, Green) rating to each function (See Fig. 3).

Figure 3: BIA template including RAG rating

36 A resource analysis (see Fig.4) should also be simultaneously undertaken to understand what resources (such as staff, office equipment, telephony and IT functions) were required to maintain an acceptable level of service.

Figure 4: BIA Resource Analysis template

For the purposes of BCP, the functions of the Council can be placed into three distinct categories, with certain services also being involved in the overall response and recovery:

• RED: Mission critical (High Priority) • AMBER: Medium Priority • GREEN: Lower Priority

2.4 Red priority functions (mission critical)

RED functions are mission critical to the working of the Council. These functions must be treated as a priority during recovery, and afforded appropriate resources in order to bring the function back to an acceptable level of service as quickly as possible. The ‘RED’ functions are detailed below;

Function Service Community Transport (Depot Based) Community Development Community Meals (Depot Based) Community Development Payroll Finance Debt Recovery/Invoice Processing Finance Cash Allocation Finance Treasury Finance BACSTEL-IP Finance Purchasing Finance Income Finance Insurance Finance Homelessness Housing Collection of Rent (Direct Debit) Housing Collection of Rent (General) Housing Anti Social Behavior Housing Housing Maintenance Housing Council Tax Billing Revenue Services Collection of Council Tax (1st of Month) Revenue Services Benefits Payments Revenue Services

37 Careline Monitoring and Response Safer Runnymede Emergency Notification Safer Runnymede Lone Worker Monitoring Safer Runnymede GPS Monitoring Safer Runnymede Emergency Planning/Response Corporate Office Internal Communications Corporate Office External Communications Corporate Office Waste: Residual Depot Waste: Food Depot Waste: Trade Depot Client Team: Refuse (RRGW) Complaints Customer Services Community Team: Front of House Customer Services Community Team: Housing: Maintenance Customer Services Corporate Properties: Reactive Building Services Maintenance Flood Risk Management: Council Engineering Response Food Alerts Environmental Health Infectious Disease Environmental Health H&S: Accidents or Dangerous Environmental Health Occurrences Licensing HMOs: Unlicensed Environmental Health Dangerous Structures Planning

Table 2: RBC RED functions

2.5 Amber priority functions

AMBER functions are classed as medium priority, which may be suspended for a short period of time, or scaled back in order to assist in bringing RED functions back online. The AMBER functions are listed below;

Function Service Community Alarms (installation and Community Development support) Day Centres Community Development Payment to Suppliers Finance Accountancy Finance Payments Finance Temporary Accommodation Housing Housing Advice Housing Allocations Housing Estate Management Housing Tenant Support Housing Management of Council Tax Enforcement Revenue Services Council Tax Enquiries Revenue Services Benefits: Issuing Applications Revenue Services Benefits: Receiving Revenue Services Benefits: Processing Revenue Services CCTV Monitoring Safer Runnymede Building Alarm Monitoring Safer Runnymede

38 Policy Development and Approval Corporate Office Corporate Risk Monitoring and Evaluation Corporate Office Business Continuity Planning (from Corporate Office Applied Resilience) Corporate Transformation Corporate Office Waste: Recycling Depot Street Cleansing: Litter Picking Depot Street Cleansing: Street Sweeping Depot Emergency Stores Depot Client Team: Planning Applications Customer Services Client Team: Building Control Registration Customer Services Applications Client Team: Licensing Applications Customer Services Client Team: Environmental Health Customer Services Complaints Client Team: Building Maintenance Calls Customer Services (Spelthorne Contract) Community Team: Switchboard Customer Services Community Team: Housing: Tenancy Customer Services Management Community Team: Council Tax Customer Services Civic Centre: Maintenance and Running Building Services Ability to receive calls from the public Environmental Health Consultations Environmental Health Welfare Burials Environmental Health Building regulation Applications Planning GIS Planning Business Partnerships: School Buses Planning Table 3: RBC Amber functions

2.5 Green priority functions

GREEN functions are identified as lower priority, which, depending on the scale and context of a disruption, can be suspended for a longer period of time, with staff and resources being diverted to RED and AMBER functions, where appropriate. The following table detail all the Council’s functions in terms of a Green RAG rating.

Function Service Procurement Finance Caretakers (Surrey Towers) Housing Recruitment Human Resources Disciplinary Human Resources Payroll: New Staff Human Resources Payroll: Leavers Human Resources Payroll: Changes Human Resources Training: H&S Human Resources Training: Staff Human Resources Training: Premises Human Resources Corporate Fraud Function Revenue Services Tracking System for Depot Vehicles Safer Runnymede Corporate Strategy Business Planning Corporate Office

39 and Performance Management Economic Development Corporate Office Airport Representative Work Corporate Office Community Transport: Vehicle Servicing Depot Salt Spreading Depot Highway Verge Maintenance Depot Client Team: Parking Penalty Notices Customer Services Client Team: Issuing of Parking Permits Customer Services Client Team: Abandoned Vehicles Customer Services Client Team: Admin Support for Business Customer Services Partnership Client Team: Bookings Customer Services Client Team: Flyer Notice Boards Customer Services Corporate Properties: Planned Building Services Maintenance Energy Efficiency Monitoring of Council Building Services Buildings Advising the Public on Energy Efficiency Building Services Land Drainage Maintenance Engineering Municipal Engineering Works Engineering Flood Risk Management: Planning Engineering Applications Engineering Advice for the Council Engineering Street Naming and Numbering Engineering

Food Inspections Environmental Health Public Health Environmental Health Health and Safety Environmental Health Air quality and contaminated land Environmental Health Statutory Nuisance Environmental Health Licensing Environmental Health Licensing (Taxis, events etc.) Environmental Health Private Rented Tenants Environmental Health Licensing HMOs: Licensed Environmental Health Environmental Crime Environmental Health Maintenance of Car Parks Parking Services Car Parks: Parking Regulations Parking Services Enforcement On Street Parking Enforcement Parking Services Statistical Monitoring Parking Services Enforcement of Building Regulation Planning Breaches Demolitions Planning Processing of Planning Applications and Planning pre-application enquiries Prior notices Planning Processing planning appeals Planning Investigating breaches of planning control Planning Planning policy and strategy Planning Business partnerships Planning Table 4: RBC Green functions

40 3. Design

During the business continuity process cycle, design is a technical practice which sets out particular tactics and strategies for how to respond and recover to a business continuity event. In the Council’s case, this includes the Corporate BC Policy and associated plans, as well as the integral role that communications play in the business continuity strategy in Runnymede Borough Council.

3.1 Structure and approach

There are three primary written components of Runnymede Borough Council’s business continuity process; the Corporate BC Policy, the Corporate Operational BC Plan, and the underlying Service Level BC Plans. These are based on thorough Business Impact Analyses (BIAs).

Figure 5: RBC BCP Planning Structure

RBC’s Corporate BC Policy (this document), provides clear policy guidance for the BCP process. (. It outlines the Council’s approach to Business Continuity Management, the different nature of threats and hazards, highlights the critical functions (as identified through the BIAs), which serve as a planning template for the corporate and service level BC Plans.

RBC Corporate Operational BC Plan: This is an operational document which sets out the plans and procedures of the Council as a whole for responding to, and recovering from, a disruption. The document aims to be as user-friendly in an incident as possible, utilising flow charts and action cards to enhance clarity during times of high-stress.

41 The Corporate Operational BC Plan informs the formulation of Service Level Business Continuity Plans through allocating resource based on the priority of the service. It should also describe the key processes for Council-wide support services such as ICT, Customer Services and Building Services.

RBC Service-Level BC Plans: Each function/service within the Council should have a bespoke business continuity plan, for which senior managers are responsible for formulating and keeping up to date. These plans should detail the actions and use of resources on an individual basis. Some disruptive events may be isolated to one service, and may not necessitate the invoking of the Corporate Operational BC Plan. If an isolated event is deemed likely to have a knock-on effect onto other functions, it is the responsibility of the manager to inform the Incident Management Team (IMT).

3.2 Communications

Communications is a central component in Runnymede’s BC Plans. Internal communications, including to staff and Members, are integral to the effective continuity of services during a disruption. Communicating with the public is intrinsically linked to Runnymede Borough Council’s Mission : “To deliver services, enhance our environment, and improve the economy by working with local people and partners for the greater good of the community.”

With thorough planning, there is no reason that an acceptable level of communication cannot be maintained with residents, businesses and other stakeholders during a disruption in service. It is imperative from a reputational point of view, as residents, businesses and other stakeholders rightly expect, that the community be made aware of any temporary changes to services, and kept up to date on developments that may arise.

3.2.1 Internal communications

Maintaining communication to staff and members during a business continuity event needs to be carefully considered throughout the planning process. There should be a process for diverting phones at short notice should the need arise.

Where required, recovery mobile telephone will be pre-identified and stored off site. These mobile phones will be pre-programmed with essential contact numbers, and stored off-site. An emergency contacts directory, which contains key contact numbers should also be available. It is important to ensure that all managers have up-to-date contact numbers for their staff, in order to ensure that key messages about changes in circumstances are easily communicated.

3.2.2 Communicating with the public

Communicating with the public will remain as essential during a disruption as during normal service, arguably more so. The importance of remaining a public-facing organisation, even during a BC event, is underpinned by RBC’s corporate values and goals;

Corporate Value: “ Customer-focussed – we will put our customers at the heart of what we do and they will be able to interact with us easily in the way they want.”

Corporate Goals: “We will have very satisfied customers.”

42 A number of measures need to be put in place in order to maintain a public-facing service. Customer Services and the Communications Team will be among the first staff mobilised when the Corporate BC Plan is invoked, and will be provided with the necessary resources to get back up and running within one hour.

The BIAs should recognise the need for a Front of House facility for each of the Council’s functions, and be catered for accordingly. The Council’s website should also be recognised as a major source of information for stakeholders, building resilience into the system.

3.3 Offsite arrangements

As described above, there are a number of disruption scenarios that would necessitate vacating the Civic Centre for a period of time, including a fire, water damage, or a malicious threat to the premises, among others. The length of time that the Council has to deal with a loss or denial of access to the Civic Centre could vary dramatically, from a number of hours, to permanently. The BC Plans make contingencies for a relocation in the initial stages of a disruption (i.e. the initial fortnight), however, longer term recovery is out of scope of this process, although many of the enacted procedures and protocols will endure for longer than three weeks where a long term disruption occurs.

The Hythe Centre should be designated as the primary remote relocation site for Runnymede Borough Council. A plan for relocation should be put in place, on a time- phased basis. This plan should sit within the Corporate Operational BC Plan. It should consider who will need to relocate, at what point, and what resources they will need to carry out their functions.

It will not be possible for all staff to be relocated to the Hythe Centre, and therefore a number of staff will be asked to work from home, and contingencies should be put in place to ensure that staff working from home have the relevant access they require. It is also important to note that, in times of disruption, staff may be required to divert their efforts onto critical functions, in so far is is practicably and reasonably possible.

4. Implementation

Implementation is a technical practice within the BCM lifecycle concerned with executing the agreed tactics and strategies by means of the BC plans. The roles and responsibilities of those tasked with responding to a BC event are detailed in this section, as well as an overview of the methods of invoking the plans.

4.1 Roles and responsibilities

In an over-arching sense, as stakeholders in Runnymede Borough Council, all staff and Members have certain responsibilities to ensure that the business continuity process is embedded within their activities. On a more detailed level, there are also a number of defined roles and responsibilities in the event of a business continuity event. Early identification of clearly defined roles and responsibilities is imperative to the success of the business continuity process, in order to avoid confusion and potential conflict under pressure.

43 4.1.1 Incident Management Team (IMT)

The Incident Management Team (IMT) consists of the following;

• Chief Executive • Corporate Heads of Service Corporate Leadership Team • Head of Strategy • Customer Service representative • Building services representative • Communications representative • Applied Resilience representative

The IMT is responsible for invocation of the Corporate BC Plan, in consultation with the Recovery Team (see below). The role of the IMT is to determine and take responsibility for, clear strategic aims and objectives, and to review them regularly in the context of the disruption. The IMT will listen to the needs and requests of the Recovery Team, and prioritise in line with the best interest of the Council and the wider Runnymede community.

4.1.2 Recovery Team (RT)

The RT consists of the following:

• ICT • Customer Services • Building Services • Applied Resilience

The RT is responsible for the overall tactical recovery of the Council’s functions during a period of disruption. The primary role of the RT will be to gather information pertaining to the situation of the Council, and pass this information on to the IMT in order for the strategic decisions to be made. The RT will make hands-on decisions based on the strategic objectives set out by the IMT.

4.1.3 Heads of Service/ Senior Managers

Heads of Service and Senior Managers are responsible for maintaining their own Service- lLevel BC Plans, and invoking them should the need arise. In the event that the Corporate BC Plan has been invoked by IMT, these staff are responsible for supporting the overall recovery by ensuring that their services are being maintained, and raising any issues with the Recovery Team in a timely manner

4.1.4 Staff

It is the responsibility of all staff to ensure that they are familiar with the BC arrangements for their services, as well as the Council-wide plans. Without staff, there is no business continuity response. Circumstances may dictate that some staff will be diverted away from their usual duties in order to assist in the restoration of critical functions. It is also possible that some staff will not be required to carry out any functions until later on in the recovery process, or until the Council returns to a situation of “business as usual”.

44 4.2 Application

Every effort has been made to cover the most likely risks to service disruption facing the Council. It is acknowledged however that sometimes unforeseen hazards manifest into risks that are unprecedented. As such, these BC Plans are intended to be flexible in nature, and be applied in the best interests of the Council and the wider Runnymede Community which it serves.

Officers involved in a business continuity response are empowered to use their skills and experience in a pragmatic manner to fulfil their duties following an incident, as long as;

• Officers discharge their duties within legal frameworks; and

• probity is by ensured by maintaining audit trials of their actions and decision making.

4.3 Invocation

The process for invoking the BC Plans in the Council will remain largely similar, regardless of the incident at hand, however there will be slight differences depending on the circumstances. The following sections will give an overview of this process.

4.3.1 Loss of ICT

Figure 6: Loss of ICT Invocation

• Upon the discovery of a loss of ICT, the RT will convene (either in person or by teleconference) to assess the potential impact on service to the Council, and assess the options available with the information available.

45 • Heads of Service (HoS) and Senior Managers will prepare for the potential invocation of the BC Plans, including their own Service Level BC Plans and carry on delivering services where able to as normal.

• Applied Resilience will liaise between both the RT and HoS/ Senior Managers during this initial consultation period, in order to facilitate the flow of timely and accurate information to aid in the decision making process.

• The information gathered during this period of consultation will be used to initiate an IMT meeting, if this is deemed necessary. This meeting will determine whether the BC Plans are to be invoked, or whether no further action is required at that time.

4.3.2 Loss of utility

Figure 7: Loss of utility invocation

• Upon the discovery of a loss of utility, the RT will convene (either in person or through a teleconference) to assess the potential impact on service to the council, and assess the options available with the information available.

• At the same time as the RT, Heads of Service and Senior Managers will assess the impact (over a 24-hour period), on their service and prepare for the potential invocation of the BC Plans, including their own Service Level BC Plans. In hours, all staff are to be accounted for and asked to await further instructions.

• Applied Resilience will liaise between both the RT and HoS/ Senior Managers during this initial consultation period, in order to facilitate the flow of timely and accurate information to aid in the decision making process.

46 • The information gathered during this period of consultation will be used by Applied Resilience (in consultation) to initiate an IMT meeting, if this is deemed necessary. This meeting will determine whether the BC Plans are to be invoked, or whether no further action is required at that time.

4.3.3 Loss or denial of access to the Civic Centre

Figure 9: Loss or denial of access to Council Offices invocation (in hours)

• Following the evacuation of the Civic Centre, the RT will convene (in hours at the alternative location) to assess the potential impact on service to the council, and assess the options available with the information available.

• Heads of Service and Senior Managers will assess the impact on their service, and prepare for the potential invocation of the BC Plans, including their own Service Level BC Plans.

• Applied Resilience will liaise between both the RT and HoS/ Senior Managers during this initial consultation period, in order to facilitate the flow of timely and accurate information to aid in the decision making process.

• The information gathered during this period of consultation will be used by Applied Resilience (in consultation) to initiate an IMT meeting, if this is deemed necessary. This meeting will determine whether the BC Plans are to be invoked, or whether no further action is required at that time. If this meeting takes place in hours, then it will take place in the Leisure Centre.

47 5. Validation and embedding

Validation is the technical practice concerned with confirming that the BC arrangements within an organisation are fit for purpose, and satisfy the objectives of the plans and the organisation itself. Embedding is a management practice and involves concerted efforts to integrate business continuity into the organisational culture, at all levels. The most effective way of achieving validation and embedding is to engage in systematic training and exercising, and make this available throughout the Council.

5.1 Training

In order for all stakeholders to understand the plans and their roles, as well as the procedures and protocols identified training must take place.

Staff at all levels will be trained on the BC Plans no less than every 18 months and more frequently where required or desired.

5.2 Reviews and exercising

Regular reviews and exercising is an integral part of validating and ensuring that Runnymede Borough Council’s business continuity process is consistently fulfilling its stated objectives. This should involve all levels of the response, from CLT to those responsible for carrying out individual functions, by testing both the Corporate BC Plan and the Service Level BC Plans. This will aid in efforts to fully embed a culture of business continuity in the Council.

A combination of table-top and live exercises should be carried out at with additional exercising scheduled in the event of a change in circumstances (e.g. large numbers of new staff or changes in plans or procedures). Service level business continuity plans contain two types of exercises that services can use, a tabletop scenario based exercise to exercise their overall plan and a call out exercise to test the robustness of this key element.

The comprehensive review process will include detailed channels of submitting feedback, both written forms and oral debriefs. Reports will be compiled based on feedback, in order to enhance and refine the BC processes within the Council.

A summary of the exercising and review timetable and method required is shown below:

48 5.3 Governance

This Corporate BC Policy was produced by Applied Resilience on behalf of Runnymede Borough Council, in close consultation with key services such as ICT, Customer Services and the Corporate Office. It has been approved by Runnymede Borough Council’s Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) and Corporate Management Committee.

49 APPENDIX 'D'

DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY FUNCTION – 2015/16

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Overview and Scrutiny function in Runnymede is undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee. The Committee's Terms of Reference are set out in Article 6 of the Council’s Constitution, which is attached at Appendix ‘1’.

1.2 This report summarises the areas of the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee's activities for the Municipal Year 2015/16.

2. SURREY PENSION FUND DEFICIT

2.1 At its meeting on 1 October 2015, the Committee considered the response of Surrey Pension Fund Officers to a request to explain the reason for the increase in the deficit on the Runnymede element of the Surrey Pension Fund.

2.2 At its meeting on 25 June 2015, while considering the foreword to the Statement of Accounts for 2014/15, the Corporate Management Committee had noted the position on the deficit for the Runnymede element of the Surrey Pension Fund. The Council was a contributor to the Surrey Pension Fund, a statutory pension fund administered by Surrey County Council. The fund actuary (Hymans Robinson) calculated the position for each contributing body separately and undertook a statutory valuation of the Surrey Pension Fund every three years. The latest valuation (with a valuation date of 31 March 2013) disclosed that Runnymede’s element of the Pension Fund had a funding level of 80% (72% for the Surrey Fund overall). The deficit meant that the assets (mainly investments in shares, property and bonds) in the Pension Fund were not sufficient to meet liabilities (the pensions payable). Pension costs in these accounts were based on the accounting standard IAS19 Employee Benefits. The Corporate Management Committee noted that under IAS19, the position of the Runnymede element of the fund as at 31 March 2015 was a deficit of £35.460m, an increase of £8.138m on the deficit at March 2014 of £27.322m. In view of the substantial nature of this increase, the Corporate Management Committee had agreed that a report on this matter should be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee.

2.3 Surrey Pension Fund Officers had been asked to explain the reasons for the increase in the deficit on the Runnymede element of the Surrey Pension Fund as referred to above and the explanation given by the Surrey Pension Fund Officers was noted by the Committee. Surrey Pension Fund Officers had responded that the first point to note was that the deficit of £35.460m was an accounting deficit, not the actuarial funding deficit. The accounting deficit would be quite a bit higher than the actuarial funding deficit as a result of the accounting method prescribing the use of corporate bond yields. This meant that the Fund’s investment strategy could not be taken into account in deriving the discount rate. Surrey Pension Fund Officers had also stated that the second point to note was that the accounting deficit calculation did not impact on the employer contributions to be paid to the Fund. The increase in the deficit from 31 March 2014 to 31 March 2015 could be attributed to the reduction in the corporate bond yield from 4.3% at 31 March 2014 to 3.2% at 31 March 2015. A lower discount rate would lead to a higher liability calculation and therefore a higher deficit. The Surrey Pension Fund returns had been better than expected and this partially offsetted the increase in liability valuation. This situation would have impacted all employers in the Fund. For Runnymede Borough Council, the real discount rate had fallen from 1.5% as at 31 March 2014 to 0.8% as at 31 March 2015, which had led to an increase in liabilities of about £14m as shown in the change in financial assumptions item in the IAS19 report. This increase in liabilities had however been partially offset by strong asset returns above what was assumed for the Fund over the year. These additional returns had led to an asset gain for Runnymede Borough Council of about £6m as shown under the return on assets excluding amounts included in net interest in the IAS19 report. Overall,

50 the combined effect of the increase in the liabilities of about £14m due to the change in financial assumptions and the strong asset returns of about £6m above what was assumed had led to the increase in the deficit of about £8m.

2.4 The Committee noted that Runnymede Borough Council was statutorily required to make a particular minimum level of annual employer contribution to the Surrey Pension Fund and the Council made the minimum annual contribution required. The ongoing trend was that assets were not growing as fast as liabilities and this was having a detrimental effect on the Surrey Pension Fund. In view of this, the Corporate Head of Resources had built in another £800,000 Council contribution to the Surrey Pension Fund into the Council’s budget from 2019/20 onwards. However, a positive aspect of this ongoing trend was that the cost of borrowing had reduced and this had had beneficial effects for the Council in terms of the borrowing that it was undertaking to finance the Council’s Addlestone regeneration programme.

2.5 It was noted that the Surrey Pension Fund had revised its officer structure with a view to improving performance two years ago. It was agreed that an assessment of the performance of the Surrey Pension Fund when compared to other local government Pension Funds would be of interest to Members and that the Corporate Head of Resources would advise Members of any information provided on the performance of the Surrey Pension Fund when the Fund’s Annual Report was published.

3. MAGNA CARTA PROGRAMME 2014-2015 EVALUATION REPORT

3.1 At its meeting on 1 October 2015, the Committee noted a report evaluating the Magna Carta 2015 celebrations which summarised the main projects. Photographs of some of the events were noted.

3.2 In June 1215, the sealing of the Magna Carta in Runnymede was an important event marking the road to individual freedom, parliamentary democracy and to the supremacy of law. June 2015 therefore marked the 800th anniversary of this momentous occasion which had worldwide interest.

3.3 In recognition of the significance of the anniversary, the Council’s Corporate Management Committee had approved a broad range of local projects in June 2014 which sought to provide something that could appeal to everyone and aimed to benefit Runnymede economically, showcase the Borough at an historically important moment in time, provide opportunities for local residents and businesses, highlight the attractions of the area, provide a fitting celebration of such a significant anniversary, and contribute to a legacy through raising awareness of the importance of Magna Carta locally, and internationally.

3.4 The outline projects intended to deliver these aims were a River Pageant (this later became a River Relay and a land Pageant), a Pop-up Visitor Centre, Egham Town Centre Volunteers Week Project, a Music Festival, a Food and Drink Festival (as part of Magna Carta Day), Magna Carta Street Theatre, a Sports Festival, a Flower Festival and Magna Carta talks. It had not proved possible to proceed with two other projects, a Spread the Word competition and a Magna Carta Scroll Chain relay, for various reasons. However, two additional projects had been able to be added – embroidery framing and a souvenir Borough guide.

3.5 Following consultation feedback from the community that a Pageant would be the most desirable way to locally commemorate the anniversary, Runnymede Borough Council had commissioned Past Pleasures to deliver a re-enactment of the events 800 years ago on the land at Runnymede Pleasure Ground. Other land based activities organised by the Council were added to the day. The morning also saw Runnymede Magna Carta Legacy Limited unveil a statue of HM Queen as part of their commemorations. In partnership with Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Spelthorne Borough

51 Council, the Council had also commissioned Thames Alive (organisers of the rowed and paddled section of Her Majesty the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Pageant) to produce a two-day River Relay, led by the Gloriana. The River Relay route had commenced in Hurley, Berkshire on Saturday 13 June 2015 with a finale at Runnymede Pleasure Grounds on Sunday 14 June 2015. The Past Pleasures actors had recounted the Magna Carta story along the way at each of the identified Handover Points, along with Relay Bearers (representatives of the local communities) passing on a facsimile of Magna Carta and other additional activities for spectators to enjoy. The final section of the River Relay was an impressive assembly of craft escorting the facsimile to Runnymede Pleasure Ground which culminated in the re-enactment. The two events of the River Relay and land Pageant were therefore interlinked.

3.6 Although there had been a ticket/wristband system employed for the land activities of the Pageant, which was based on 6,000 attending, it was difficult to confirm the final attendance number with great accuracy. This was because a scanned ticket system had not been used in view of its cost. It was noted that the maximum number of tickets that a person had been allowed to apply for was six. Officers believed that less people had attended than planned as there had been rain in the morning. However, later on in the afternoon, a decision had been collectively made by the Event Management Team to let people in without a ticket. Officers estimated that around 4,000 people had attended the land Pageant event in Runnymede Pleasure Ground over the course of the day. The attendance of the River Relay was even more difficult to estimate as it was an open event all along the river route and people did not need to pre-book. These events, along with the Great Charter Festival and Magna Carta Day, were the main local celebration events provided for the general public.

3.7 The Committee discussed whether the Council might have charged for the land activities of the Pageant or perhaps charged and given a partial refund of some of the charge to those that had attended the land activities. It was noted that Officers considered that the goodwill that the Council had obtained by not charging had outweighed the benefit of charging on this occasion.

3.8 General feedback about the Pageant and River Relay had been very complimentary. A selection of the very positive comments the Council received was noted. Officers had underestimated the popularity of the tickets for the Pageant event which had sold out within 24 hours. The sheer scale of organisation and co-ordinating the various events meant that additional staff assistance had been brought in from April 2015. If an event of the same scale was delivered in the future Officers considered that it would be beneficial to bring in the additional resource around six months before the event date. The Committee suggested that, while commending the work of Officers, for future events of this scale, the Council should consider using a professional organiser, provided that the cost could be contained within reasonable limits. 3.9 A three month pop-up Magna Carta exhibition which had been held at the United Church in Egham had been designed to serve as an additional hub of interpretation and to showcase community engagement with the anniversary. The event had been open for six days a week from June to August and had been staffed by volunteers. 4,061 people had visited the exhibition. The visitor book showed that there was a good mix of visitors from inside and outside the borough, as well as international visitors. A very positive letter about the Exhibition had been received from Egham Chamber of Commerce which was noted. General feedback on the exhibition had been overwhelmingly positive including praise from the British Library. Over 370 people left glowing comments in the visitor book. A selection of those comments was noted.

3.10 The volunteers week project and associated activities included various local area improvements to improve the local street scene in Egham and Englefield Green and included a Magna Carta community mosaic and a Community Celebration Event with local school children, businesses, residents and Councillors. A Magna Carta community

52 project booklet was in the process of being created which would cover all the local Magna Carta projects delivered. 3,000 copies would shortly be distributed in community venues around the Borough. This project had been very successful in promoting cohesion and bringing together a range of people across all ages to collectively improve their local area and increase local pride in order to showcase the Borough at an historically important time.

3.11 The Runnymede Music Festival 2015, organised by a festival coordinator employed by Royal Holloway, consisted of eight events across Egham, Chertsey and Addlestone. Although some of the attendances at the events had been quite low, these performances had provided a way to engage local people who might not have otherwise taken part in the Magna Carta commemorations. Royal Holloway now hoped to continue the festival annually.

3.12 The Magna Carta Day celebration was an annual event held in Egham High Street in June which was organised by the Magna Carta Day Committee. In 2015 it had been possible to widen the scope of the day to include a Food and Drink Festival in Station Road North, covered performance stages with performers, and a fireworks display at Strode’s College. The Magna Carta Giants, who had played a highly prominent part in the celebrations at a number of events, had joined in the opening procession with the Mayor of Runnymede. There were over 80 stalls at the 2015 event. Audience numbers during the day had increased greatly (an estimated increase of about 5 times the number that had attended the previous year). The event had become a highly popular event in the Egham calendar. Over 1,000 people had attended the fireworks display in the evening. The people of Egham enjoyed the community spirit engendered and many had expressed their enjoyment of the day on social media. It was hoped that the Giants would continue to be a part of the Magna Carta Day event in future years as a legacy. The Magna Carta Day Committee had received nothing but positive feedback. Some quotes received from the general public, shops, restaurants and performers were noted.

3.13 Street theatre was a joint project between Runnymede Borough Council, Surrey Arts and Royal Holloway which developed a range of community performances that explored the stories of eight significant people – one from each century since the sealing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede. A total of 18 theatre and dance performance groups, made up of young people predominantly from Runnymede, had performed throughout the Magna Carta anniversary weekend. A number of local schools had engaged in an in-school print making project. DAiSY (Disability Arts in Surrey) groups had been integrated throughout the Great Charter Festival Programme organised by Royal Holloway and offered a varied and vibrant programme of dance and drama performances and visual arts workshops. Hundreds of participants had benefited from the educational experience of workshops and performances while thousands of spectators benefited from the educational experience as well as enjoying the performances.

3.14 In view of a good take up from infant and primary schools, the Sports Festival was tailored to those age groups. To emphasise the Magna Carta theme some of the infant school activities were linked to the event, for example, Kings and Barons, which was a tag game, and each group had a shield of one of the barons. At the primary schools event a number of sports were available. The festival provided a way to engage young people in the Magna Carta commemorations, whilst taking part in healthy activities that they also enjoyed. Positive feedback had been received from schools and it was hoped that the event would continue annually. Teachers had responded saying they would be interested in attending a similar event next year and 90% of schools felt that a charge of between £1 and £5 per person would be acceptable.

3.15 The Flower Festival was a joint project between Runnymede Borough Council, Royal Holloway, and the National Association of Flower Arranging Societies at the Chapel in Royal Holloway. The Committee thanked Councillor Cotty for his work on this project. 41 flower arranging groups had taken part, each nominating one or two arrangers to create

53 either a representation of one of the Barons’ shields or a symbolic reflection on the character of one of the Charter towns. Over 1,000 people had visited the Flower Festival, predominantly consisting of coach parties who had never been to the University before. The project raised awareness of Magna Carta through engaging a predominantly older section of the community to spectate/take part in an activity that they enjoyed with a Magna Carta theme.

3.16 Egham Museum had been commissioned by Runnymede Borough Council to organise a series of community talks exploring various aspects of Magna Carta, its legacy and relevance today. A series of excellent speakers were booked. The talks were very well received and were being edited to be archived on the museum website. Some positive feedback received about the talks was noted by the Committee. Some talks had not been particularly well attended and it appeared that the local Magna Carta talks market had become too saturated which led to two of the talks being cancelled because of poor take up and the Committee suggested that some of the talks could have been more widely publicised. In addition to the Council sponsored talks, many local community groups and Chertsey Museum had arranged speakers. June and July were difficult months in which to attract school or college audiences because of examinations.

3.17 Following the original project proposals, there were two additional Magna Carta–related projects which were able to be funded by the Council: embroidery framing and a Borough Guide. The Committee thanked Councillor Cotty for his work on the embroidery framing initiative. Rhoda Nevins, a member of the Royal School of Needlework had designed and embroidered tapestry panels to mark the 800th anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta. The panels had various themes including the historical events that led up to the sealing of the Magna Carta, how Magna Carta influenced the spread of law and order throughout the world and the shields of the 25 barons who were present at the sealing. The panels had been displayed at a number of exhibitions and events throughout the celebratory year. There had been considerable interest in this project, including from ITV News, BBC radio and national and local press. The media coverage and display events had raised awareness of Magna Carta and the anniversary. The panels could be used as an educational tool for teaching many different subjects and would be a lasting legacy to the nation.

3.18 An A5 size, 46 page special edition Magna Carta Borough Guide had been produced to promote the Borough, provide details of local Magna Carta activities, and to act as a souvenir for residents. 50,000 hard copies had been produced to cover every household in the Borough as well as a range of other stakeholders. The publication was also available online. A digital page turning version of the guide was available online. Many positive comments had been received about the quality of the Guide and its usefulness. The Council now had an up to date publication which could be used to promote the Borough. Readers now had an increased awareness of Magna Carta, the history of local towns and villages, leisure opportunities, business opportunities and the services the Council provided and a souvenir with which to remember the anniversary.

3.19 There were some roads in the Borough that had not received a hard copy of the Guide. This had been followed up with the distribution company, but an independent audit found they did meet the required percentage of confirmed deliveries and the Council was therefore unable to claim any compensation. As it would not have been good value for money to audit every household to discover who had and hadn’t received the Guide or to redistribute to every household again, the decision was made to help rectify the problem by leaving thousands of extra copies in over 30 community venues throughout the Borough and redelivering down the roads where there were a number of non- deliveries reported. Therefore, although significantly more expensive, it would be worth reconsidering Royal Mail to distribute any borough-wide mailouts in the future. There were still a number of copies of the Borough Guide special edition available. It was suggested by the Committee that these could be handed out at the Civic Reception or on other similar occasions.

54 3.20 It was agreed that Members present at the Committee would be advised of the number of Magna Carta 800th anniversary related hits on the Council’s website. It was also agreed that it would be appropriate for an abbreviated version of the evaluation report on the celebrations that had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee to be sent to the Magna Carta 800th Committee to be included in the archive of the celebrations that the Magna Carta 800th Committee was compiling.

3.21 It was a key strategic goal within the Council’s Sustainable Community Strategy, and therefore the Corporate Business Plan, that the Council supported the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, and so these projects had now achieved this goal for the Council. The budget for the celebrations had been approved by the Corporate Management Committee. It had been necessary to supplement this with other budgets. It was noted that overall spending on the Magna Carta celebrations was scheduled to be on target.

3.22 Although Officers had always known that it would be impossible to quantify in financial terms the economic impact of the above projects, it was clear from the number of people the events/activities attracted, coupled with the feedback received from businesses, that the projects had resulted in significant economic benefits locally. When this was considered with the achievement of all the other aims listed above, Officers believed that these projects had collectively achieved good value for money considering the level of expenditure.

3.23 The Committee expressed its appreciation of the work undertaken by the Council’s Head of Strategy for the Magna Carta celebrations.

4. MAYOR AND DEPUTY MAYOR – ALLOWANCES AND OFFICER SUPPORT

4.1 At its meeting on 1 October 2015, the Committee considered information obtained from other Surrey District Councils on allowances and Officer Support in respect of their Mayors/Deputy Mayors or Chairmen/Vice-Chairmen of their Council and details of the Runnymede Mayor’s allowance and costs for 2014/15. In accordance with the Committee’s wishes, Officers had requested other District Councils in Surrey to provide information on allowances paid to their Mayors/Deputy Mayors (or in the case of Tandridge District Council, the Chairmen/Vice-Chairmen) of their Council and also to indicate the nature of the Officer support that was provided. The results of this exercise were noted by the Committee. Replies had been received from seven of the other ten Surrey District Councils. Details of the Runnymede Mayor’s allowances and costs for 2014/15 were noted. The Runnymede Deputy Mayor did not have a separate allowance. If the Deputy Mayor covered for the Mayor, any costs were charged to the Mayor’s allowance.

4.2 Former Mayors of Runnymede that were current Members of the Council and the current Mayor had been asked for their views in writing on the level of Officer support that should be provided to the Mayor and in particular if there was any other support that could have been provided to them when they were Mayor that would have assisted them in the carrying out of their Mayoral duties. The written responses that had been received by five Members were noted. Former Mayors of the Council that were present at the meeting and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor at that time made various comments and expressed various opinions on the operation of the Mayoralty in Runnymede.

4.3 The Committee agreed that an advisory panel/Member Working Group be set up, including the last four Mayors of the borough, to review the Mayor’s role and to make recommendations on future Officer support and allowances for the Mayor.

4.4 The Committee considered the issue of Officer support for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor again at its meeting on 3 December 2015 when it noted that at its meeting on 8 December 2015, the Corporate Management Committee would be considering an

55 exempt report in Part II of the Agenda for that meeting on Council Officer Reorganisation which contained various proposals for Officer restructuring. This report contained proposals for future Officer support for the Mayor as part of an overall package. While there would be cost implications arising from the proposals for future Officer support for the Mayor, the savings resulting from the posts proposed to be deleted in the report on Council Officer Reorganisation would be greater than the combined costs associated with the posts proposed to be created and the posts proposed to be redesignated and/or upgraded. Therefore the overall package being put forward to the Corporate Management Committee made a net saving of approximately £88,000.

4.5 The Secretary to the Chief Executive and Mayor had retired in May 2015. This full time dual role had supported the Chief Executive and the Mayor and the time allocation for each of those two roles had been in the ratio 50:50. Following the retirement of the Secretary to the Chief Executive and Mayor, on an interim basis, the Executive Assistant had carried out the duties of Secretary to the Mayor and had managed the Word Processing Manager (now retired), the Office Assistant (in post) and the Secretary/Receptionist (in post), along with other duties. During this interim period, the Secretary/Receptionist had provided administrative and secretarial support to the Chief Executive, along with other duties. The Executive Assistant would retire in December 2015.

4.6 As this interim structure had been tested and found to be robust, in his report to the Corporate Management Committee on 8 December 2015, the Chief Executive had recommended that the full time role of Assistant to the Chief Executive and Mayor be deleted and replaced with a new part time role of Mayoral Secretary. The post of Mayoral Secretary would be for 25 hours per week with a requirement for the successful candidate to work Monday to Friday for 5 hours each day. Given the time allocation of the previous post of Secretary to the Chief Executive and Mayor as referred to above, this represented an increase in the weekly hours of Officer support to the Mayor. The post of Secretary/Receptionist would be reassigned and upgraded to the new post of Personal Assistant (PA) to the Chief Executive. This new post would be sufficiently close to the duties of the current postholder’s job to allow for the assimilation of the current postholder.

4.7 In addition, within the Law and Governance Business Centre, the post of Office Assistant would be upgraded to Legal and Governance Services Administrator and a new post of Administrative Assistant would be created. All four of these posts (i.e. the Mayor’s Secretary, the PA to the Chief Executive, the Legal and Governance Services Administrator and the Administrative Assistant) would support each other especially at times of peak workload (e.g. Mayor Making, Civic Reception).

4.8 The Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee was pleased to note that the new Mayor’s Secretary would work for five days a week as it would be advantageous for the Mayor to be able to contact a support Officer on each working day. The Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee supported the Chief Executive’s proposals for future Officer support for the Mayor which were agreed by full Council on 17 December 2015 as part of a Council Officer Reorganisation.

4.9 A Member who was present at the 3 December 2015 Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee meeting who was not a Member of the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee noted that at its last meeting the Committee had decided that an advisory panel/Member Working Group including the last four Mayors of the borough would be set up to review the Mayor’s role and to make recommendations on future Officer support and allowances for the Mayor. That Member asked about the proposed arrangements for this Member Working Group. It was noted that the Chief Executive would be consulting the Chairman of the Committee to agree items for this Member Working Group which had not yet met. There were no financial implications associated

56 with this Member Working Group which would have no decision making powers and could only make recommendations. Any Member could attend this Member Working Group if they wished to do so. All Members would be kept informed of the work of the Member Working Group. The arrangements for the appointment of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor were set out in the Council’s Constitution and the Member Working Group would have no role to play in making those appointments. It was noted that a Member did not have to serve as a Councillor for any particular length of time or satisfy any qualification criteria apart from being a Councillor before they could be nominated for the office of Mayor or Deputy Mayor.

4.10 A Mayoral protocol/handbook had been drawn up by the Council’s Executive Assistant in consultation with the current Mayor which the Committee agreed would be circulated to all Members of the Council. This protocol, which would be updated regularly and would evolve continually, set out the role of the Mayor and included what to do and what not to do in particular circumstances, e.g. when attending funerals or meeting royalty. It was suggested that the Member Working Group referred to above could augment the guidance provided in the protocol by putting forward suggestions on issues relating to the work of the Mayor.

5. TREASURY MANAGEMENT

5.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee is the Council body responsible for scrutinising the Council’s treasury management and has considered various reports on treasury management throughout the year. The Corporate Management Committee makes recommendations to the Council on this subject.

5.2 At its meeting on 2 July 2015, the Committee considered the annual report on treasury management and performance for the 2014/15 financial year. The Committee commended the economic background to the Annual Report which had been provided by the Council's treasury management advisers. In its borrowing programme, the Council sought to match loan profiles and utilise as secure a borrowing method as possible. Although the Council's longer term investments in the CCLA Property Fund and the Funding Circle had been successful, it was necessary, in order to reduce risk, for the majority of the Council's investments to be short term.

5.3 At its meeting on 3 December 2015, the Committee considered a report on the Council’s treasury activity for the first six months of the 2015/16 financial year. It was noted that there had been two departures from the Council’s approved investments strategy during the first six months of the 2015/16 financial year. In August 2015 investments exceeding £5m had been placed with the Government’s Debt Management Office (DMO) which was in contravention to paragraph 16 of the strategy which stated that no investment with any one provider/organisation would exceed £5m in total and paragraph 17 which stated that no one individual term deposit would exceed £2.5m in total. These departures were necessary in order to ensure investments matured on certain days to pay for the first instalment of the Council’s Addlestone One development and investment in Egham Town Centre properties. These investments had all been placed with the Debt Management Office (DMO) which represented the lowest risk to the Council because all of the Council’s call accounts at that time were full and there were no available counterparties for 1 to 2 month money. Whilst there was no indication that the circumstances described above would reoccur in the future, it was prudent to allow such investments with the DMO going forwards and amendments to paragraphs 16 and 17 have been made to the 2016/17 Strategy accordingly.

5.4 The £15m new borrowing undertaken in August 2015 for the impending first set of Payments for the Addlestone One development had been undertaken swiftly following a sharp drop in Public Works Loan Board rates following concerns in the Asian market and rates had been locked into with the DMO of 1.97% for 5 years (£5m) and 2.56% for 10 years (£10m). For comparative purposes, the Public Works Loan Board certainty

57 rates for 1 April 2015 to 30 September 2015 were noted. The Committee was informed that, on the advice of the Council’s treasury advisers, the Council had that day arranged to borrow a further £15m on 4 December 2015 for a period of 15 years (at a rate of 2.76%). This was because the rates had dropped considerably following some worse than expected data coming from the USA. This money would be used to fund the next six months of the Addlestone development payments and it was anticipated that by borrowing in advance, the Council would save approximately £30,000 a year in interest payments going forward.

5.5 At its meeting on 18 February 2016, the Committee considered a report on the 2016/17 Treasury Management Strategy, Annual Investment Strategy, Property Investment Strategy, Prudential and Treasury Management Indicators, authorised limit for external borrowing and Minimum Revenue Provision Statement.

5.6 The Committee noted that the current economic outlook and structure of market interest rates and Government debt yields had several key treasury management implications. Investment returns were likely to remain relatively low during 2016/17 and beyond. Borrowing interest rates had been highly volatile during 2015 as alternating bouts of good and bad news had promoted optimism, and then pessimism, in financial markets. Gilt yields had continued to remain at historically extremely low levels.

5.7 The potential for a prolonging of the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis, and its impact on banks, prompted a low risk and short term treasury management strategy for the Council. Investment rates available in the market had been broadly stable during the year and had continued at historically low levels as a result of the ultra-low Bank Rate and other extraordinary measures such as the Government’s Funding for Lending Scheme. The effect on interest rates if the UK were to leave the EU in the future could not be predicted with any certainty.

5.8 The Corporate Head of Resources would monitor interest rates in financial markets and adopt a pragmatic approach to changing circumstances. If it was felt that there was a significant risk of a sharp fall in long and short term rates (e.g. due to a marked increase of risks around relapse into recession or of risks of deflation), then long term borrowings would be postponed and short term borrowing would be considered. If it was felt that there was a significant risk of a much sharper rise in long and short term rates than that currently forecast, perhaps arising from an acceleration in the start date and in the rate of increase in central rates in the USA and UK, an increase in world economic activity, or a sudden increase in inflation risks, then the portfolio position would be re-appraised with the likely action that fixed rate funding would be drawn whilst interest rates were still lower than they would be in the next few years.

5.9 The Committee noted the Council’s strategies in respect of borrowing and debt restructuring. The Committee commended Officers on the favourable rates that had been agreed for loans. Both the CIPFA Code and the DCLG Guidance required the Council to invest its funds prudently and to have regard to the security and liquidity of its investments before seeking the highest rate of return, or yield. This approach was inherent in the Council’s treasury management strategy. In addition to its cash investment funds the Council also owned a significant investment property portfolio. The Council has taken a proactive stance in investing in property and property development to achieve a number of aims including diversification of assets, potential capital appreciation and higher rental returns than can be achieved through cash investments.

5.10 The Council was required to pay off an element of the accumulated General Fund capital spend each year (the Capital Financing Requirement - CFR) through minimum revenue provision (MRP) which was a charge to revenue each year in order to have sufficient monies set aside to meet the future repayment of principal on any borrowing undertaken. The Council had adopted the asset life method under which repayment took place over the useful life of the asset on an asset life basis. There were no plans to amend this at the

58 present time. It was noted that the Council had set aside MRP at a rate of 4% and that there could also be a provision made within the Medium Term Financial Strategy for additional voluntary payments should this be required – this was known as voluntary revenue provision (VRP). Revising the MRP or the VRP would both be possible options going forward. The Committee suggested that Officers keep under review the extent of MRP and VRP provision made and consider whether to recommend an increase in MRP or VRP to the Corporate Management Committee in the future.

5.11 The Council employed external providers of treasury management services, Capita Asset Services, in order to acquire access to specialist skills and resources. The quality of this service was controlled by the Corporate Head of Resources. The needs of the Council’s treasury management staff for training in investment management were assessed every year as part of the staff appraisal process, and additionally when the responsibilities of individual members of staff changed. Relevant training courses, seminars and conferences were provided by a range of organisations including Capita and CIPFA.

5.12 The Annual Investment Strategy provided that the management of counterparty risk was the treasury management priority. The investment environment was very difficult. Whilst counterparty risk appeared to have eased, market sentiment had still been subject to bouts of, sometimes, extreme volatility and economic forecasts abounded with uncertainty. As a result, the Bank Base Rate had remained at 0.5% and was forecast to do so until March 2017. As a consequence, returns on deposits were limited. The estimate for investment returns in 2016/17 was now based on achieving an overall return on investments of 0.6%. This had been reduced from 0.9% following revised forecasts and advice after the turmoil in the financial markets at the end of January 2016. This meant that the investment income shown in the budget recently approved by full Council for 2016/17 was highly unlikely to be met with an anticipated shortfall of £76,000 for the General Fund and £40,000 for the HRA. Officers would review the position in the coming months and would report back in the new financial year, once markets had settled, with any mitigating measures to reduce these potential losses.

6. FUTURE ITEMS FOR THE COMMITTEE

6.1 At its meeting on 18 February 2016, the Committee considered items for discussion in future meetings. The Committee was pleased to note that a new Planning Enforcement Charter would come into effect on 1 April 2016 and the regular reviews that the Committee had undertaken on Planning Enforcement had contributed to this good outcome which was to the benefit of the public. Planning Enforcement is now reviewed by a Member Working Group appointed by the Planning Committee.

6.2 The Committee agreed to receive reports in the future on ways of increasing recycling, on progress on the review of the Council’s Customer Services function, on the latest Surrey Pension Fund Actuary’s report and, in the autumn of 2016, on new IT arrangements for Members.

7. CALL –IN OF DECISION – BOURNE CAR PARK SITE, VIRGINIA WATER

7.1 At its meeting on 21 March 2016 the Committee considered a call-in of the Corporate Management Committee’s decision of 25 February 2016 relating to the Bourne Car Park site, Virginia Water. This car park is located close to Virginia Water station.

7.2 Call-in of a decision is a procedure available to the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee which prevents implementation of a decision of a Committee until it has been considered further by the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee. A call-in request had been received from Councillor Miss Heath and it had been supported by two Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee, Councillor Butterfield and

59 Councillor Chaudhri. The call-in was in respect of the decision of the Corporate Management Committee which at its meeting on 25 February 2016 had resolved that –

“The offer in the sum reported made by the developer to delete the Parking Pre- Condition requiring the reprovision of 35 off street pay and display parking spaces relating to the Agreement for Sale in respect of The Bourne Car Park site, Virginia Water, be accepted.”

7.3 The Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee noted the terms of the call-in, further comments made by Councillor Miss Heath on her reasons for seeking a call-in and the views of Carol Menduca, the Secretary of the Wentworth Residents Association, who spoke to the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee to express the opinions of the Association.

7.4 The Corporate Management Committee had given authority at its meeting on 29 May 2014 for a developer to be granted an initial exclusivity period to complete an Agreement for Sale of the Bourne Car Park site. The Committee had resolved at that meeting, inter alia, that the Chief Executive, the Corporate Head of Resources and the Corporate Head of Law and Governance in consultation with the Chairman and Vice – Chairman of the Corporate Management Committee, be authorised to approve arrangements for the provision of a minimum of 35 replacement off street pay and display parking spaces.

7.5 Since May 2014, Agreement had been reached with the developer and an Agreement for Sale to redevelop the site had been executed. The Agreement for Sale included a number of Pre-Conditions that had to be satisfied by the purchaser to complete the purchase. These included the requirement to secure Planning Permission and to reprovide 35 car parking spaces at or near Virginia Water station after the sale and for such spaces to be available during and after the completion of the development. The developer had approached the Council to enquire if the Parking Pre-Condition could be bought out of the Agreement for Sale. Negotiations had resulted in an offer from the developer to pay the Council a further sum as referred to in the Part II confidential report to the Corporate Management Committee on 25 February 2016, provided that the Parking Pre-Condition was deleted. If the Council decided to accept the developer’s offer, this would increase the total capital receipt for the sale of the Bourne Car Park site to a sum referred to in the Part II confidential report to the Corporate Management Committee on 25 February 2016. The options available were either to retain the current Parking Pre - Condition and require the supply by the developer of 35 replacement car parking spaces and forgo the additional capital receipt or to accept the additional capital receipt and delete the Parking Pre-Condition which would mean that no car parking spaces would be provided rather than 35 spaces.

7.6 The Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee noted that the latest parking survey results showed an increase in demand for parking at Virginia Water station and an increase in spaces taken up within the Bourne car park, suggesting as many as 60-70 commuters could be displaced if there were no alternative provision. One factor could be increases in charges at nearby Sunningdale station.

7.7 A minority of Members of the Corporate Management Committee on 25 February 2016 had considered that the Council had an obligation to its residents to ensure that the 35 spaces were provided by the developer in view of the level of demand for parking in the area, the potential for displacement of parkers on to surrounding roads and (as they considered that people might drive to another area to park or might drive to London if the spaces were not provided), to encourage people to use the roads less frequently and reduce the length of their journeys.

7.8 It had been suggested at the Corporate Management Committee meeting on 25 February 2016 that there should be sufficient capacity for Network Rail/South West

60 Trains to increase the number of parking spaces in the Station Car Park, Virginia Water. However, no timescale for any increase in the number of spaces in the Station Car Park could be predicted with any certainty. The view had been expressed at Corporate Management Committee that the primary responsibility for providing commuter parking lay with Network Rail/South West Trains and that view was supported by the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee. At some stage in the near future, Network Rail/South West Trains had indicated that some improvements would be made to Virginia Water station. However, there was no indication that increased parking capacity was proposed currently, even though most of the spaces currently available in the Station car park were taken during peak periods. 7.9 The Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee noted an estimate of income that might be lost by the Council if the 35 spaces were not provided compared to the increased capital receipt that would result if the parking Pre – Condition were to be deleted. The Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee noted that it would take a considerable length of time to match the capital receipt being offered by the developer to delete the Parking Pre-Condition with an equivalent amount of income from 35 spaces. It was also noted that despite the developer’s best endeavours, the developer had not secured 35 spaces in the vicinity of Virginia Water station as yet through any agreement to use land for parking in the area.

7.10 A majority of Members of the Corporate Management Committee on 25 February 2016 had considered that the benefit to the borough which would arise from the deletion of the Parking Pre-Condition and the increased capital receipt which would result outweighed the benefit which would be provided by the developer providing 35 parking spaces. The Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee concurred with that view and recommended to Corporate Management Committee accordingly that the Parking Pre-Condition be deleted as the Council needed capital if it was to meet the needs of the 2016-20 capital programme which included a number of projects which would require capital investment. There were few opportunities to sell assets and historically this had been an under used asset. However, the latest data suggested an increase in demand for parking in the vicinity of Virginia Water station. Therefore the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee also agreed to make two other recommendations to the Corporate Management Committee.

7.11 The Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee recommended that Officers use their best endeavours to find up to 35 additional parking spaces at reasonable cost in the vicinity of Virginia Water station in order to meet the recognised demand for parking in the area. This would entail assessing whether there were any other areas in the vicinity that could be used for parking and also looking at existing parking areas to see whether extra spaces could be obtained through realignment, repainting or bays or other means. It was suggested at the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee that land in the vicinity of the station might be available for parking via a local estate agent.

7.12 The Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee also recommended that Officers make representations to Network Rail/South West Trains seeking additional parking for the Station Car Park, Virginia Water as soon as possible in view of the recognised demand. If it did not appear that Network Rail/South West Trains would make extra parking available in the Station Car Park within a reasonable timescale, it recommended that a representative of Network Rail/South West Trains be invited to attend the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee to explain the policy of Network Rail/South West Trains regarding the provision of parking in that car park.

7.13 At its meeting on 31 March 2016, the Corporate Management Committee concurred with the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Select Committee.

61 62 63