View source for Parish Council Meeting 24th July 2025 Agenda

{{CPC-2025}} __NOTOC__ 
{{parish-head|<!-- 1. Clerk Name --> Dawn Lacey|<!-- 2. Clerk Title -->Parish Clerk & RFO| <!-- 3. Phone -->07741 848 719| <!-- 4. Date of Summons -->17th July 2025| <!-- 5. Meeting Title --> A Meeting of the Claygate Parish Council will be held on Thursday 24th July 2025 at 7pm in Claygate Village Hall, Small Hall, Church Road}}

#	To accept apologies for absence.
# To receive any Declarations of Interest in items on the agenda.
# To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday 22nd May 2025.
# To resolve on whether the Council will move into closed session on Item #32 to review and approve the details for the Claygate Vision Action Plan Consultation Statement to be published by EBC.
# To invite the six applicants for co-option to the Parish Council to speak to the public and Council members regarding their potential contribution to the Claygate Parish Council.  ''(Other applicants will be asked the leave the room while each individual applicant is speaking, so as not to unduly advantage or disadvantage any of the candidates.)''
# Councillors to be able to ask questions that they may have to the applicants.
# To formally vote for the two new Councillors via ballot papers supplied by the Clerk.
# To announce the two new Councillors. ''(If there is a tie, a second ballot will take place with the candidate having the lowest number of votes in the previous ballot being eliminated.)''
# Reviewing actioning of items from previous minutes and agree any further action required. (Appendix 1)
# To answer any questions from the general public.
# To appoint the two new Councillors and Cllr Moon to the following committees: 
#*a) Highways, Transportation & Environment Committee
#*b) Planning Committee
# &nbsp;
#  To review the updated Council's assets. (Appendix 2)
#  To update on the current situation with Castle Water.
# To discuss the Blue Room at the Village Hall and a potential clear-out day.
# To discuss the possibility of replacing the Village Hall noticeboard.
# To discuss the draft response to ''Consultation of the Future of Local Government'' prepared by Cllr Holt and any appropriate action. (Appendix 3).
# To discuss the draft letter to Jim McMahon about ''Devolution and Parish Councils'' and agree any appropriate action (Appendix 4)
# To approve the month-end accounts for April, May and June 2025. (Appendix 5)
# 	To approve the movement of monies to the Cambridge Building Society high interest account.
#	 To discuss the concept of 20mph speed limits and agree a Parish Council position on them. (Appendix 6)
#	To receive details of grant applications from the following:
#* a: CVA Grant Application (Appendix 7)
#* b: Air Ambulance Charity Kent Surrey Sussex Grant Application (Appendix 8)
#	Item A: "To agree that an application by Holy Trinity Church Claygate for further CIL funding for the ''Way Maker'' project should be considered, notwithstanding that an application for CIL funding by the same applicant has been made in the previous 12 months."
#	If item 21 is agreed, to receive details of a CIL application for Holy Trinity and consider whether it will be approved. Holy Trinity CIL Grant Application (Appendix 9)
#	To receive details of a CIL application from the following:
#* CRGT CIL application. (Appendix 10)
# To update on the possibilities of advertising in the ''Claygate Courier''.
# To discuss the merits of a young advisor from the Hub joining the PC on a quarterly basis to discuss and update on youth matters and provide input on such matters.
#	To discuss EBC’s announcements re. the possible closure of local Community Centres and any action required.
#  Matters for information purposes only.
# Date of next meeting:  Thursday 25th September 2025.  Claygate Village Hall, Small Hall, 7.30pm
# To close the meeting and move into closed session for Item 32.
# To review and approve the details for the ''Claygate Vision and Action Plan Consultation Statement'' to be published by EBC.




== Appendix 1: Action List from the CPC meeting held on Thursday 27th February 2025 ==
	 
{| border="1" cellpadding="3"
|-
|  align="center" width="60px" |'''Action №'''
|  align="center" |'''Description'''
|  align="center" | '''By'''
|  align="center" |'''Status'''
|-
{{C㉕009}}
{{C㉕010}}
{{C㉕011}}
{{C㉕012}}
{{C㉕013}}
{{C㉕014}}
{{C㉕015}}
{{C㉕016}}
{{C㉕017}}
{{C㉕018}}
{{C㉕019}}
{{C㉕020}}
{{C㉕021}}
{{C㉕022}}
|}

== Appendix 3a: Draft Response on Two-unitary Reorganisation of Surrey ==
'''Consultation on the Proposal from Elmbridge Borough Council, Mole Valley District Council, and Surrey County Council'''
Consultation for for unitary councils: 
#	East Surrey (Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Tandridge) 
#	West Surrey (Guildford, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Waverley, Woking) 

===Question 1: Does the proposal suggest sensible economic areas and geographies which will achieve a single tier of local government for the whole of Surrey?===

Yes.
====Please explain your answer, including any comments on whether this proposal suggests sensible economic areas (for example reflect economic geography/travel to work areas/functioning economies) for councils with an appropriate tax base that does not create an undue advantage or disadvantage for one part of the area, and a sensible geography that will help to increase housing supply and meet local needs.====

The proposal suggests sensible economic areas based on Geography. These areas are neither too large or too small unlike the three-geography model which does not have a large enough tax base and therefore does not have the requisite economies of scale to make the efficiencies required across Surrey. This model establishes a tax base that is equitable across both East and West Surrey.

===Question 2: Will the local government structures being put forward, if implemented, achieve the outcomes described?===
Yes.
====Please explain your answer, including any specific comments on the evidence and analysis to support the proposals.====

The two-geography split provides for around the correct number of per head population and a sensible economy of scale. A split into 3 areas would further increase overheads and is therefore not supported by the Claygate Parish Council. This structure has the potential to achieve the outcomes described but this council has concerns about how the new structure will address specific local issues especially with the proposal for new local area groups representing the many stakeholders in each area of which the Parish Council is one group. Unfortunately the proposal does not recognise the unique role that Parish and Town Councils hold in bridging this gap nor do these new local groups allow for precepting in areas where there is not an existing Parish or Town Council.

===Question 3: Is the proposal for unitary local government of the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks and is this supported by a rationale for the population size proposed?===

Yes.

====Please explain your answer, including any specific comments on the efficiencies identified to help improve the councils’ finances, how it will manage transition costs and any future service transformation opportunities identified.====

The proposed size of the two unitary authorities appears to be sensible with a wide enough tax base to achieve efficiencies and improve capacity unlike the proposal for 3 unitary authorities which are not going to be large enough to withstand financial shock or provide sensible economies of scale and capacity.

===Question 4: As an area covering councils in Best Value intervention and in receipt of Exceptional Financial Support, do you agree the proposal will put local government in the area as a whole on a firmer footing?<br>As of 17 June 2025, councils in Surrey in Best Value intervention are Spelthorne Borough Council and Woking Borough Council.<br>As of 17 June 2025, the council in Surrey in receipt of Exceptional Financial Support in 2025/26 is Woking Borough Council.===
Yes.

====Please explain your answer, including any specific comments on the area-specific arrangements necessary to make new structures viable.====

Yes as above the proposal for two areas - East and West Surrey is sensible. However the government needs to recognise that specific arrangements need to be implemented to ensure that the new structures have viability, particularly the proposal for West Surrey which currently has 2 borough councils in intervention. There has not been an adequate proposal from the Government for dealing with this situation and it is not appropriate for the new council of West Surrey to be saddled with the debts of Woking and Spelthorne from day one. An appropriate mechanism for managing this needs to be proposed by the Government. There also has to be a resolution to the issues in Woking and Spelthorne without burdening East Surrey with this issue. East Surrey has been managed well by the original boroughs and should not be burdened with the debt from Woking and Spelthorne.

===Question 5: Will the proposal prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to citizens, improve local government and service delivery, avoid unnecessary fragmentation of services and lead to better value for money in the delivery of these services?===

Yes.

====Please explain your answer, including any comments on the public service reform opportunities within the proposal, including social care, children’s services, SEND and homelessness, and wider public services, including public safety.====

There is hopefully an improvement to be made in the new structure due to economies of scale and merging the boroughs into unitary authorities. However we have concerns about the effectiveness of Surrey County Council and their ability to manage all of the new services. Being the only Parish Council in Elmbridge we have benefitted by being part of a well run borough (Elmbridge) with financial stability. We are not as convinced that Surrey is as able to manage this type of transition or indeed be as accountable and responsive to the electorate. The engagement model we have had with Surrey County Council was largely all channelled through our local councillor who was excellent but was somewhat of a bottleneck for issues. We welcome the idea of increased local area engagement through implementation of local area committees but these do not recognise the unique role of town and parish councils and their precepting abilities. Nor does this model recognise that there will be gaps in those areas which do not benefit from an existing town or parish council as a result.

===Question 6: Has the proposal been informed by local views, and does it consider issues of local identity and cultural and historic importance?===

No.

====Please explain your answer, including any comments on the local engagement activity undertaken on the proposal and how it is proposed that any local concerns will be addressed.====

There has been a roadshow by local borough councillors in Elmbridge to answer questions regarding the consultation however that was in the earlier stages. The current proposal of the split into two (while we agree with it broadly as a Parish Council) or three councils (which we do not agree with as a Parish Council) has not been widely consulted on due to the pace at which the Government is trying to implement the changes. The proposal is considering how communities will be consulted but does not recognise the status of Parish Councils or their precept raising powers which are different to many other community stakeholders. Claygate is unique in that it is the only Parish Council in our borough (Elmbridge) yet the borough consultation on local engagement is treating Parish Councils like any other stakeholder. The Parish Council does have a unique role in raising and addressing local concerns at present and has a large level of engagement with Elmbridge Borough through regular and dedicated quarterly meetings with local councillors and their council officers. There are concerns that we will not have the same level of engagement with the new Unitary authority. Claygate Parish Council is a key stakeholder in linking the Unitary Authority to their local electorate in Claygate and should be recognised as such with an appropriate engagement model.

===Question 7: Does the proposal support devolution arrangements?===

No.

====Do you have any comments on the proposed devolution arrangements?====

The proposal for a Mayor of Surrey is somewhat grandiose - Mayoral institutions are not known for their cost reduction capability and could actually increase overheads substantially. So it depends what the Government are trying to achieve. Are they trying to achieve real devolution of power or are they trying to cut costs. The answer to both of these objectives is possibly not a combination of Mayors and Unitary councils. We would suggest that cost reduction may not be achieved as the cost of running the Mayoral infrastructure could outweigh any reductions achieved by Unitary Councils. We are therefore not in favour of a Mayor of Surrey as part of this new structure. We are particularly concerned about how the new Unitary Authority would choose to continue with services currently run by the borough - If the new Unitary Authority decide to discontinue certain services how will those services be covered by community groups - especially those who are not supported by a Parish Council who have precept raising powers?

===Question 8: Will the proposal enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment?===

No.
====Do you have any comments on the proposed approach to community engagement?====
We are not convinced about this. Especially in Elmbridge where there are no other Parish Councils. We think that the proposals are likely to further alienate the electorate and put them at arms length. It is actually extremely difficult to get engagement with Surrey County Council at present even as a Parish Council. Everything has to be channelled through the local councillor with next to no liaison meetings. The level of borough engagement that the Parish Council had with Elmbridge was very good with regular quarterly meetings with executives and councillors so the new Surrey model we feel could place the Parish Council into a more difficult engagement model. There is also no recognition in the new model of the status of parish councils treating them in a similar way to many other community organisations - this cannot be correct given their precept raising powers and their special mandate from their local electorate.  

===Question 9: Do you have any other comments on the proposed local government reorganisation in Surrey?===

== Appendix 3b: Draft Response on Three-unitary Reorganisation of Surrey ==
'''Consultation on the Proposal from Borough Councils of Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Waverley, and Woking, and Tandridge District Council. Consultation for 3 unitary councils: 
#	East Surrey (Epsom and Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, and Tandridge) 
#	North Surrey (Elmbridge, Runnymede, and Spelthorne) 
#	West Surrey (Guildford, Surrey Heath, Waverly, and Woking).  
 
===Question 1: Does the proposal suggest sensible economic areas and geographies which will achieve a single tier of local government for the whole of Surrey?===

No

====Please explain your answer, including any comments on whether this proposal suggests sensible economic areas (for example reflect economic geography/travel to work areas/functioning economies) for councils with an appropriate tax base that does not create an undue advantage or disadvantage for one part of the area, and a sensible geography that will help to increase housing supply and meet local needs.====

The three-geography model which does not have a large enough tax base and therefore does not have the requisite economies of scale to make the efficiencies required across Surrey. Splitting Surrey into 3 areas will simply increase costs. We are not in favour of the 3 council model for this reason. It also reduces the economic viability of each council.

===Question 2: Will the local government structures being put forward, if implemented, achieve the outcomes described?===

No

====Please explain your answer, including any specific comments on the evidence and analysis to support the proposals.====

Three councils will equate to three sets of overheads and running costs and simply makes the councils less economic - nor does this proposal suggest a sensible tax base for services with less residents in each of the 3 economic areas.

===Question 3: Is the proposal for unitary local government of the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks and is this supported by a rationale for the population size proposed?===

No

====Please explain your answer, including any specific comments on the efficiencies identified to help improve the councils’ finances, how it will manage transition costs and any future service transformation opportunities identified.====

The proposed size of the two unitary councils appears to be sensible with a wide enough tax base to achieve efficiencies and improve capacity unlike the proposal for 3 unitary authorities which are not going to be large enough to withstand financial shock or provide sensible economies of scale and capacity. 

===Question 4: As an area covering councils in Best Value intervention and in receipt of Exceptional Financial Support, do you agree the proposal will put local government in the area as a whole on a firmer footing?<br>As of 17 June 2025, councils in Surrey in Best Value intervention are Spelthorne Borough Council and Woking Borough Council.<br>As of 17 June 2025, the council in Surrey in receipt of Exceptional Financial Support in 2025/26 is Woking Borough Council.===

No

====Please explain your answer, including any specific comments on the area-specific arrangements necessary to make new structures viable.====

The proposal for three areas - North, East and West Surrey is not sensible for all the reasons above. 

However whatever the Government does, it needs to recognise that specific arrangements need to be implemented to ensure that the new structures have viability, particularly the proposal for North and West Surrey which currently has 2 borough councils in intervention. There has not been an adequate proposal from the Government for dealing with this situation and it is not appropriate for the new councils of North and West Surrey to be saddled with the debts of Woking and Spelthorne from day one. An appropriate mechanism for managing this needs to be proposed by the Government. There also has to be a resolution to the issues in Woking and Spelthorne without burdening East Surrey with this issue. East Surrey has been managed well by the original boroughs and should not be burdened with the debt from Woking and Spelthorne. 

===Question 5: Will the proposal prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to citizens, improve local government and service delivery, avoid unnecessary fragmentation of services and lead to better value for money in the delivery of these services?===
No
====Please explain your answer, including any comments on the public service reform opportunities within the proposal, including social care, children’s services, SEND and homelessness, and wider public services, including public safety.====

Three sets of every structure for all of the above is simply not economically viable and should not be encouraged if the government is trying to save money. If the government is trying to tailor services locally then there is perhaps an argument for 3 unitary authorities but this proposal will certainly not reduce costs and provide economies of scale as well.

However we have concerns about the effectiveness of Surrey County Council and their ability to manage all of the new services. Being the only Parish Council in Elmbridge we have benefitted by being part of a well run borough (Elmbridge) with financial stability. We are not as convinced that Surrey is as able to manage this type of transition or indeed be as accountable and responsive to the electorate. The engagement model we have had with Surrey County Council was largely all channelled through our local councillor who was excellent but was somewhat of a bottleneck for issues. We welcome the idea of increased local area engagement through implementation of local area committees but these do not recognise the unique role of town and parish councils and their precepting abilities. Nor does this model recognise that there will be gaps in those areas which do not benefit from an existing town or parish council as a result.

===Question 6: Has the proposal been informed by local views, and does it consider issues of local identity and cultural and historic importance?===

No

====Please explain your answer, including any comments on the local engagement activity undertaken on the proposal and how it is proposed that any local concerns will be addressed.====

There has been a roadshow by local borough councillors in Elmbridge to answer questions regarding the consultation however that was in the earlier stages. The current proposal of the split into two (while we agree with it broadly as a Parish Council) or three councils (which we do not agree with as a Parish Council) has not been widely consulted on due to the pace at which the Government is trying to implement the changes. The proposal is considering how communities will be consulted but does not recognise the status of Parish Councils or their precept raising powers which are different to many other community stakeholders. Claygate is unique in that it is the only Parish Council in our borough (Elmbridge) yet the borough consultation on local engagement is treating Parish Councils like any other stakeholder. The Parish Council does have a unique role in raising and addressing local concerns at present and has a large level of engagement with Elmbridge Borough through regular and dedicated quarterly meetings with local councillors and their council officers. There are concerns that we will not have the same level of engagement with the new Unitary authority. Claygate Parish Council is a key stakeholder in linking the Unitary Authority to their local electorate in Claygate and should be recognised as such with an appropriate engagement model.

===Question 7: Does the proposal support devolution arrangements?===
No

====Do you have any comments on the proposed devolution arrangements?====
The proposal for a Mayor of Surrey is somewhat grandiose - Mayoral institutions are not known for their cost reduction capability and could actually increase overheads substantially. So it depends what the Government are trying to achieve. Are they trying to achieve real devolution of power or are they trying to cut costs. The answer to both of these objectives is possibly not a combination of Mayors and Unitary councils. We would suggest that cost reduction may not be achieved as the cost of running the Mayoral infrastructure could outweigh any reductions achieved by Unitary Councils. We are therefore not in favour of a Mayor of Surrey as part of this new structure. We are particularly concerned about how the new Unitary Authority would choose to continue with services currently run by the borough - If the new Unitary Authority decide to discontinue certain services how will those services be covered by community groups - especially those who are not supported by a Parish Council who have precept raising powers?
===Question 8: Will the proposal enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment?===
No
====Do you have any comments on the proposed approach to community engagement?====
We are not convinced about this. Especially in Elmbridge where there are no other Parish Councils. We think that the proposals are likely to further alienate the electorate and put them at arms length. It is actually extremely difficult to get engagement with Surrey County Council at present even as a Parish Council. Everything has to be channelled through the local councillor with next to no liaison meetings. The level of borough engagement that the Parish Council had with Elmbridge was very good with regular quarterly meetings with executives and councillors so the new Surrey model we feel could place the Parish Council into a more difficult engagement model. There is also no recognition in the new model of the status of parish councils treating them in a similar way to many other community organisations - this cannot be correct given their precept raising powers and their special mandate from their local electorate.  

===Question 9: Do you have any other comments on the proposed local government reorganisation in Surrey?===

== Appendix 4: Draft Letter to Monica Harding on Neighbourhood Area Committees ==
{{right|Claygate Parish Council}}
Dear Monica

'''{{center|ROLE OF PARISH/TOWN COUNCILS IN REORGANISED LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES}}'''

We refer to the recent MHCLG Policy Paper ‘Local government reorganisation: summary of feedback on interim plans’  Section “Challenges and Opportunities/Strong Community Voice” (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-government-reorganisation-summary-of-feedback-on-interim-plans/local-government-reorganisation-summary-of-feedback-on-interim-plans?#summary-of-feedback) [3 June].

While we welcome the proposal to bring Parish/Town Councils together with key local service providers in Neighbourhood Area Committees, we are concerned at the very {{hi|lukewarm attitude towards Parish/Town Councils expressed in this paper}}.  The paper states:

:“Areas considering new town or parish councils should think carefully about how they might be funded, to avoid putting further pressure on local authority finances and/or new burdens on the taxpayer. We recognise the value that town and parish councils offer to their local communities, but they are independent institutions and are not a substitute for meaningful community engagement and neighbourhood working by a local authority. We want to see every local authority hardwiring local community engagement into their own structures, preferably through neighbourhood Area Committees.”

We consider that Unitary Authorities need to be supported by the detailed local knowledge and local democratic accountability of Parish/Town Councils. We would like you to remind the Minister that Parish/Town Councils are directly elected public authorities with the power to raise funds through taxation or borrowing, whereas Neighbourhood Area Committees would appear to be largely composed of co-opted members and dependent for funding on a probably hard-pressed Unitary Authority. Many local services have been starved of funds for many years now; Parish/Town Councils have the ability to support Unitary Authorities in improving local services, which {{hi|we believe most local electors will be willing to fund through a modest Parish Precept}}.  We would suggest to the Minister that {{hi|a directly elected Parish Council is a better vehicle for “meaningful community engagement” than a largely unelected Area Committee.}}