Transcript

Transcript

Good evening. I would like to welcome councillors and members of the public to this council meeting. This is a meeting in public rather than a public meeting and members of the public are very welcome to listen to the debate this evening. Please be seated. This meeting is being live streamed and a recording will be available on the council website after the meeting. I would like to welcome councillor Lisa Webster to her first council meeting following her election. A note that you will be moving an amendment this evening, so I will take the opportunity to congratulate you in advance on your maiden speech. I think we've already done. The group representatives have met and I have agreed to take motions in an order different to that set out in the agenda. I will introduce each motion as we get there. Moving to apologies. I have received apologies from councillor Hicks, Nanda, Lindsay Charlton, Green and Pearce. Are there any other apologies? Thank you. Moving on to the minutes. The first item of business concerns minutes of the previous meeting. Can we agree the minutes of the annual meeting held on the 19th of May, 2025? Thank you. Mayor's announcements. Mayor's announcements. I'm sorry to advise councillors that Lynn Gleeson passed away recently. Lynn was first elected as a councillor in 1986. She was elected over the years as the ward boundaries changed in Sutton West, Cheen West, and then in Sutton North Ward from 2006 to 2010. Lynn was chair of planning committee. She then became lead member of strategic planning and economic growth. She was also deputy mayor from 2004 to 2005. She was a nurse and spent most of her career working at the Royal Marsden where she helped thousands of patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment. She will be sadly missed. Please, please, would those able to join me in standing to observe a one-minute silence. I was honoured to attend the incredibly moving memorial service at St. Paul's Cathedral to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the 7-7 bombings. To help raise awareness of Armed Forces Day on the 28th of June, 2025, the Armed Forces flag raised in ceremony was held on the 23rd of June, 2025, near Trinity Square and Sutton High Street. Representatives of a local cadet unit and members from local branches of the Royal British Legion attended. The Armed Forces flag was raised by Sutton Sea Cadet O.C. Ryan Lovelock. This was a national occasion to show support for our Armed Forces and the outstanding work they do. We also reflected on significant anniversaries that highlight the enduring importance of our military and the pursuit of peace. This year marks the 80th anniversary of VE Day, victory in Europe, and VJ Day, victory in Japan, marking the conclusive end of the Second World War globally, bringing an end to the conflict's unimaginable suffering and loss. Myself and my deputy mayor have already been incredibly busy attending many wonderful events through the borough. There's too many to mention, but you can check out what we've been up to on the new mayor's Facebook page and in Sutton Sea. I was privileged to represent the borough at the London Mayor's Association Civic Service, which was recently held at St. Paul's Cathedral. I know that some of you have also attended. Now, I'm delighted to announce that the mayor's two chosen charities for 2025 to 2026 are the Sutton Women's Centre and Sutton Kingston Epsom Parkinson's UK. The Sutton Women's Centre is a registered local charity that provides a safe, woman-only space to support local women of every age, race, religion, religious belief, and sexual orientation. Sutton Women's Centre has supported women in the London Borough of Sutton for nearly 40 years, specialising in assisting survivors of domestic abuse and sexual abuse. Run entirely by women, the centre helps over 600 women weekly through various services. They collaborate with local female GPs on women's health issues, are part of a borough's commissioned domestic abuse service, and conduct community-based domestic abuse training. Additionally, they have expanded outreach to young people, running empowerment events, and building relationships with schools and colleges to help identify harmful relationships. Sutton Kingston Epsom Parkinson's UK. Parkinson's is the fastest-growing neurological condition in the world, with over 40 symptoms. There is currently no cure for Parkinson's. The Sutton Kingston and Epsom branch is run by a group of proactive volunteers with a single-minded objective of improving the lives of people affected by Parkinson's locally. With around 450 members, they are one of the biggest in the UK, offering a wide range of events, trips, talks, exercise classes, to people living with Parkinson's, their family, friends, and carers. More details will be available on the Mayor's Charity Leaflet. The Mayor's Charity Fundraising Committee will be organising many fundraising events throughout the my mayoral term. Your help in supporting these charity events to raise as much money for my two charities would be very much appreciated. I'm very much looking forward to continuing to meet various community groups in the London Borough of Sutton during my mayoral term. Moving on, are there any declarations of interest from any councillors? No, thank you. Moving to questions. There are no public questions. We will now move on to councillor questions, for which there is one hour available, or the maximum of nine questions, whichever is reached first. I will take the questions as read and ask the relevant committee chair or lead member to respond. The questioner will then have an opportunity to ask a supplementary question. After that, a councillor may also ask a supplementary question. Supplementary questions should be relevant to the original question. If questions have not been reached within the time available, the questioner will receive a written answer as soon as possible after the meeting. These questions have been circulated on yellow paper. The first question comes from councillor Tim Crowley. Councillor Jake Short, please respond. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, councillor Crowley, for the question, which is on the state of Sutton Housing Partnerships repairs service. It should be worth clarifying at this point that there are a load of metrics that SHP is compared against. These are consumer standards that the regulator for social housing prescribes. And in pretty much all of those areas, SHP performs very strongly compared to its peers. And that reflects a service that is on a journey to continually improve. So, for instance, emergency repairs, 99.9% were responded to within target over the past year. Appointment reliability is very strong at 98.8%. And our average turnaround time of empty properties to get them back into use is at 27 days, which is half the London average. Now, those overall strategic metrics don't sort of get to the whole issue. That doesn't mean there aren't issues. And that's where our role as ward councillors comes in, where there are issues. It's incumbent on us all, really, to work with SHP, to work with the housing managers and our residents to try to get those issues addressed. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, councillor Short. Councillor Crowley, do you have a supplementary question? I do, Your Worship. Thank you for the response, councillor Short. However, I must raise concerns that your optimistic assessment does not reflect the lived experience of many residents within the estate, the SHP estate, particularly those in Clock House. Numerous complaints have highlighted serious issues with the Responsive Repair Service, including poor workmanship, lack of oversight and unacceptable delays in basic repairs. Could the lead member explain how resident feedback from Clock House and other parts of the SHP estate has been incorporated into their assessment of the service's effectiveness? And what specific actions are being taken to address the recurring problems reported in that area, especially in the light of the local committee meeting that you were at last week? And we heard from many residents there who were desperately unhappy about the time it was taking to do stuff like that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, councillor Crowley, and you're quite right. What I would say is where there are cases like this, again, it is exceptionally important to not just look at the statistics because every resident matters. In terms of how we incorporate feedback, there is an evolving picture on this. There is a feedback system in place at the moment on what SHP are looking at, whether it's through their texting service, is to find ways to help better incorporate that going forward. So it's very much a moving piece, as it were. We are looking to make improvements in that area and continue to make sure that residents' feedback is at the heart of everything SHP does. Thank you. Is there a supplementary question from a councillor? Councillor McCoy, I saw your hand first. Thank you. I'm aware that as part of the response service, SHP are looking to, and in response to, AWOB's law, SHP is looking to deal with damp and mould in a particular way. Can you tell us a bit more about that? Thank you, madam. Thank you, councillor McCoy. So there is a dedicated fund within the management of SHP's finances to look at damp and mould. That's a specific task force, and that's a specific team within the repair service that has a dedicated sort of grant for it to go forward. Damp and mould cases are regularly sort of featuring in performance committee reports at SHP, and they are part of our oversight over SHP, how they respond to those cases. Thank you. Thank you. The second question comes from councillor Tim Foster, councillor Isabella Azzurio, please respond. Thank you, and thank you, councillor, for your question. First of all, I'm so sorry to hear about disruption for local businesses caused by TfL works in the Beddington area. These works are being undertaken as part of TfL electric charge point programme to install rapid charge points on the parts of Transport for London Road network, Red Roots, which TfL has control over. All preparatory works, permissions, surveys, and local engagement, therefore, will be responsibility of TfL as highway authority. There was engagement with council as part of the planning application process, which was granted by the council. This does not include any detailed consideration of the road work required to install the charge point, as this is a matter for TfL as the highway authority. Thank you. Should a business wish to claim for lost revenue as a result of the works, they should contact TfL, and they can do so via their website. TfL have advised, however, that the council, that there were parking spaces provided, which were available to use throughout the construction works, and therefore compensation will not be available. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Foster, do you have a supplementary question? I do, Madam Mayor. It has been said locally that the only people who will be able to afford charging at that particular station, which, by the way, is not yet open and has a cover over it, will be councils or utility vehicles. Who will set the charge and who will receive the revenues? Councillor, I'll have to get details for you at the later stage. My understanding is that works will be finished within a month. All the other questions, I'll have to come back to you later, if that's okay. Thank you. Is there a supplementary question for any other Councillor? Councillor Metty, I see your hand first. Will the council be doing anything to try and improve the charging points that they've got Shell to install, as these are very low of output, and the cars have to wait for hours and hours to get any form of charge? When will the council start fitting some charging posts that actually charge vehicles rather than just ornaments? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I can come back with the details later on, but as my understanding, in the next six months, we'll have a bigger rollout of the electric vehicle charge points across all boroughs. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The third question comes from Councillor Colin Steers. Councillor Barry Lewis, please respond. Thank you, Councillor Steers, for your question. And welcome back to, well, from the dais to join us mere mortals down here. So great, great to see you on the benches. I agree. It was a really disappointing and unnecessary decision. Healthwatch has done some really important work on understanding patients' needs, advocating for improved services. They've been an important part of our local community and have played a key role at the Health and Wellbeing Board, which I chair. The Secretary of State, in making the announcements, the Secretary of State said that councillors can represent patients and advocate for services. And whilst I think it's true, we can stand up for our residents, not only on community issues, but on health as well. I don't think we're a total replacement for what that really valuable resource of Healthwatch. So it's really disappointing that the government have said that they are to be no more. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Steers, do you have a supplementary question? Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. Would the Leader agree with me that locally, particularly the reports that they have produced over many years from our local Healthwatch, have really changed the way that health and care providers have delivered to our community, particularly the recent report from the GP services and the access to them. Thank you. And I think one reason is that our local GPs are really good, and they did take Healthwatch seriously. When Healthwatch spoke, our GPs listened. And you've given the great example. If you recall the last council meeting, we brought a motion commending their work and talking about access to GP surgeries. And I still had to get in touch with the local GPs and urging them to take up Healthwatch's recommendations. In fact, I wrote a letter recently, co-signed with our two local MPs to encourage our GP surgeries to listen to Healthwatch. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Is there a supplementary question from a Councillor? Councillor? Councillor, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Mayor. With the cuts to the NHS, is there any likelihood that the hospital that's been promised is ever going to get built? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. It's not in our gift, is it? We're waiting to hear. I mean, it was promised by the former government. They promised half a million, then they promised a billion. No money ever materialised. We're still waiting for our hospital building. Currently, it looks it's going to be 2032, 2033 or beyond. We will, as Liberal Democrats, we will keep lobbying for repairs to that crumbling hospital building at St. Helier and for a new hospital building that our residents deserve. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The fourth question is from Councillor James McDermott-Hill. Councillor Ed Parsley, please respond. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Councillor McDermott-Hill, for the question. So, first of all, I just want to say that I think we're all delighted that the former Victoria House is no longer standing on that site. It was a terrible eyesore, and I think whatever's there at the moment, however minor, might be an improvement. The current owners have made attempts to bring forward a workable scheme on the site, and the Council remains in communication with them about the best way to do this. Now, whilst I understand the frustration that drives this particular question, both of the routes that you suggest are potentially lengthy and expensive with no actual guarantee of success, or that the Council would recoup the costs, and we believe it's far better and probably quicker in the long term to work with a willing landowner to achieve a viable solution. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor McDermott-Hill, do you have a supplementary question? I do. Thank you, Councillor Parsley. It was Councillor Shorty who was meant to be answering me, but I'll take your response anyway. My question is actually very simple, but I would urge Councillor Parsley to be very careful in how he answers this question. Are the Council in discussions with Homegroup about purchasing the Victoria House site? Yes or no? Councillor McDermott-Hill is well aware that if any such negotiations were like that, if we were to admit it in a public forum, it would affect the price that would be asked. But let's just say that if the circumstances aligned and we had the resources and means to do so, it's certainly something we would consider. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Is there a supplementary question from a Councillor? Councillor Allen, I saw your hand first. Thank you, Mayor. Back in 2013, we actually got planning permission on this building for the developers at that time, which was Stonegate. And immediately after the planning permission was a great committee, Stonegate pulled out because they were being hit with very high one or six public funds, which made the development of the site unprofitable. Following that, we had in 2014 election, the party opposite were campaigning on the basis that they were going to have the old Victoria House demolished by August of 2014. It took another six years before any action was done. And that's disgraceful when this party opposite was stalling the redevelopment of a very important basically site on the approach into Sutton. So can you please confirm that going forward, you will not stand in the way of the future development of that site by imposing unrealistic charges on the developers? Thank you very much for that speech. So all I'll say is that should we ever move forward with purchasing, we will, of course, follow all due process, as you would expect from a well-run council. Thank you. Thank you. The fifth question is from Councillor Nick Matty. Councillor Christopher Woolmer, please respond. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you Councillor Matty for the question, really important question. The Council produces an annual report on greenhouse gas emissions, which is published on the Council's website. The Council has continued to reduce the greenhouse gases it produces. The total net greenhouse gas emissions from our own operations in 2022 was 7,774 tonnes of CO equivalent, which is 55% lower than the 2008 base year emissions. Data is also published on the Council's website for wider emissions within the borough. Further data on emissions from the Council and the wider borough, along with steps to reduce this, can be found in the Council's net zero carbon roadmap analysis. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Matty, do you have a supplementary question? Firstly, an observation, it's hardly relevant that the Council has reduced carbon emissions by three and a half thousand. Can we keep it to the question, please? Well, it has made a statement, so I should really respond. Because obviously, in the context, it is infinitesimally small. What my question is, now that the recycling rate has slumped from 51% to 43%, and I know you will say so as all the other London boroughs. What is the actual impact in carbon emissions as a result of this Council's total failure to do anything with recycling? Thank you. I'm not sure this is exactly related to carbon dioxide, but there are several reasons for reduction in recycling. Don't forget, we've also had a reduction in the weight of packaging, which affects the figures as well. So, we've covered recycling before. In terms of carbon dioxide, I'm going to say that we have done an awful lot of things to reduce carbon dioxide. I thought you were going to ask something about the ERF, so perhaps I will just remind everybody that the carbon dioxide emissions from the ERF are just like aviation and that it's not included in borough-wide emissions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor. Is there a supplementary question from a Councillor? Councillor Chill, I saw your hand. I'll ask a question about CO2 in the ERF. Sorry, incinerator. So, I was at a community liaison group meeting hosted by Viridor just the other day, and we were talking about their downtimes. That's when the incinerator stops working, goes cold, they have to boost it back up again. They use 50 tonnes of high sulfur diesel for that purpose. And this year already, it's happened a huge number of times. In addition to that, their AI technology that we were all supposed to be so confident about, which would reduce these terrible gas bottles for going into the system, has now been stopped. It's made redundant. It doesn't work. How comfortable does the Chair feel that 50 tonnes of high sulfur diesel, almost equivalent to 50 tonnes of carbon dioxide, is released every time it's restarted? The percentage of high sulfur diesel is a very small percentage. It's only used when it's restarted. 50 tonnes, I think you'll find that's the total capacity rather than the amount used each time the thing is restarted. The reason that AI was stopped is because it wasn't very effective. You also need the machinery to pick out the gas bottles, and it was found that using AI wasn't particularly helpful, so that's why it was stopped. Thank you. The sixth question comes from our newest councillor, Councillor Lisa Webster. Councillor Marion James, please respond. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you, Councillor Webster. I'm absolutely delighted that you've actually read the State of the Sector report, and I would encourage all members in the Chamber, if you haven't had an opportunity to read it, then I would encourage you to do so. So your question is about how the Council supports the charity community and faith sector in challenging times. So there's a whole range of activities that the Council does to support the sector, and I'll just read out some of them for you. So the Council permissions a range of enabling services to support the sector and the different groups to help them to grow and to recruit volunteers and secure funding. And that's currently done by our two infrastructure organisations, Community Action Sutton and Volunteer Centre Sutton. We also fund the sector to deliver services via Council contracts. One of them is the information and advice contract together for Sutton, and that supports lots of different organisations, including Citizens Advice Sutton. We fund an annual grants programme known as the Sutton Community Fund. And that helps some of the smaller community groups to deliver projects that benefit our residents. We also provide 40k of funding through Council's local committees, and many of you in the Chamber will be aware of that. We make available Council-owned premises for organisations to deliver their services. So a good example is Hill House in St. Elliot, and spaces in the St. Nicholas Centre for, for example, Sutton Community Works. And we work collaboratively with the faith charity and community sector to deliver all different strategies. So recently we had the dementia strategy, we had the carers strategy, we had a learning disability conference. And then finally, the Council is meeting on a bi-monthly basis with all of the charities so that we have open discussions about local challenges and opportunities for us to work together. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Webster, do you have a supplementary question? I do. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Councillor James, for your response. I am a volunteer with Refugee and Migrant Network Sutton, and I serve as a trustee of that charity. I understand, therefore, the difficulties that we have in recruiting volunteers and trustees across the sector, and I'm asking what the Council does specifically to assist the charities, community and faith group sector in this area of recruitment of volunteers. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Webster. Thank you, Councillor Webster. Thank you, Councillor Webster. And yes, you're correct, just stating the report that volunteer recruitment can be quite difficult. So, as I've said, we do commission a range of services, which includes volunteer centres Sutton, and they specifically are commissioned to support the whole of the sector in recruitment of the volunteers. But also as a council, so that staff who work at the council, we have a policy whereby they can have a couple of days each year where they can be involved in voluntary activity. And just for example, last year, the chief exec or director of children's services held a webinar, and I think it's about, I think it was about 160 staff attended it. And that was all about the MAPS mentoring service, which is run by Volunteer Centre Sutton, and the chief exec, Anita Moreland, was able to talk to staff about the opportunities there is in mentoring some of our children and young people. So that's just some of the ways that the council is supporting that volunteer recruitment activity. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor. Is there a supplementary question from Councillor? Councillor Sadiq, I saw your hand first. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could the lead member tell us what her role is, and how she supports the sector? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Sadiq. So, yes, I'm the lead member for the sector. And I suppose really my role is to support the sector, to act as a bridge between the sector and the council. And so some of the things that I do, I meet with the CEO of Community Action Sutton on a monthly basis. And then I meet with some of the bigger charities on a regular basis to obviously check out how they're doing and the challenges that they're facing. Some of the smaller charities know that they can contact me if they've got issues that they want to raise with me. And again, as I said, I can act as that bridge between the sector and the council. And I'm also involved in the bi-monthly meetings that I mentioned in my answer to Councillor Webster. And as I said, that's an opportunity for us to work together and look at the challenges that there are and also the opportunities, because ultimately we want the best for our residents. Thank you. Thank you. The seventh question comes from Councillor Tony Shields. Councillor Jake Short, please respond. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Shields, for the question, which is on resident participation in the planning process through comments on planning applications. Now, since January 2024, the Council's had an updated notification procedure for planning applications that was approved by head committee, which moves to a more digital approach. That's with email notifications, site notices and social media being made available to advertise planning applications. A site notice is still displayed at each planning application, but letters are no longer posted to neighbours. So, during the period from the 1st of January 2024 to the 31st of March, which is the period covered in the question, the planning service received a total of 1,013, 1,013 comments via the website and postal letters. This was an increase of 354 when compared to the same period the last year, and that relates to 119 unique applications. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor. Councillor Shields, do you have a supplementary question? Thank you. Is there a supplementary question from a Councillor? Councillor? Councillor Taylor. Thank you very much. The question does raise fairly sensible concerns around engagement of people who are otherwise digitally excluded. Can you outline some of the ways that the Council is trying to engage with those who might not normally be receiving email notifications or may not be signed up for the notification service so that they can still maintain an active part in the planning process? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for that really excellent question there. So, I'm going to answer it in two parts if that's okay, because there is something that the Council can do and there is something that us as ward councillors can do. In terms of what the Council can do, there are currently a litany of options to sign up for notifications. We've already talked about the online ones. But there is also the option for a postal service for a mobile residence that don't have immediate internet or email access upon request. I will endeavour to make sure that you've got the details so that you can help sign up residents if they need it. In terms of what we can do as councillors, I think we have an obligation to inform our residents ourselves about applications that come up. I certainly do whenever there are applications in my area. I know many members on this side of the Chamber spend a very long time speaking to residents about individual applications, even if it's just to help them get their comments in. I would urge others to do the same. Thank you. The eighth question is from Councillor Gillian Green. As she is not in attendance, she will receive a written response. Moving on to the ninth question, which is from Councillor Chris Mensah. Councillor Jake Short, please respond. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thank you to Councilor America, who's right behind me, for the question, which is on welfare reforms and the government's seemingly partial U-turn a few weeks ago. As members will be aware that the government has now kindly committed to not remove or change the entitlement to personal independence payments for those that are currently receiving that entitlement. That's after a very protracted public debate with their own MPs. I'm very glad that they have very finally at the last minute made that change. That means that current entitlement holders assessed as currently having limited capability for work or limited capability for work and work related activity, because the DWP loves acronyms, will now not see any changes. The Council welcomes this move, which the Council has lobbied the government for over the summer, including the leader and every Liberal Democrat MP in London writing to the Minister very recently. There will still be changes to come into effect for new claimants after November 2026. At this point, however, we can't say how many of those claimants will be adversely affected by a new assessment regime and payments. But on average, at the moment, certainty is an average of around 64 new PIP claimants a month. And there are also on average 60 new claimants assessed as having limited capability for work. So all of those potential future claimants could be affected. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Minster, do you have a supplementary question? Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. Can the need member confirm what engagement has been done with the local charity, faith and community sector to coordinate responses to the government consultations? And will we be helping these groups to be able to engage with the TIMS review? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Patsa Menaka. So I've had quite lengthy discussions, whether it's via the Burris Anti-Poverty Forum, or directly with the Citizens Advice Bureau, as well as Sutton Mental Health Foundation, who've had sessions with service users to try to get to grips with what was previously planned. And they are looking to have further discussions amongst their service users going forward. I was very pleased to see that attendees from both our member of Parliament's offices were at those meetings to help make sure that our MPs are listening to our residents on this really important issue to actually get the experiences of service users, which I would add is something that the government was not doing in its previous consultation. In terms of the TIMS review, we're going to help facilitate them as much as we can, but I think the feeling is that it would be more for disability groups themselves to respond, but we're still waiting for some of the detail. Thank you, Councillor. Is there a supplementary question from a Councillor? Councillor Richard Choi. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's great to see the Council is consulting on taking steps to improve the standard in private rent, etc. Sorry. I'm sorry. I mean, the Conservative leader, he intend to force them to vote to show their support. Retaining the growth to child benefit cap. Will the Council oppose this group push from the Conservative to demolish those on benefits? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I believe the question is referring to a vote later on this week, where the Conservatives will be trying to force the government to retain the two child benefit cap. Now, I want to be really clear, that is a cruel cap that has absolutely no place in a modern society. My personal view is that I hope our MPs will vote against it when it comes to a vote, and that they vote to scrap the two child benefit cap immediately. All I would say is I think the Conservative Party are failing to learn the lessons of their thumping defeat of the general election if they're continuing to trivialise and demonise the poor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The tenth question comes from Councillor Bryony Lindsay Charlton, who is not in attendance this evening and will receive a written response. Question 11 is from Councillor Ruth Dombey. Okay. Councillor Barry Lewis, please respond. Just a point of order. How many questions are we asking? Isn't it nine questions or one hour, whichever is reached first? Nine questions, but we've had two that are not here this evening in attendance, so they will receive a written response. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Dombey. And yes, at the end of June, I received a letter from Minister McMahon saying that they were proposing or proposing to legislate to get rid of the committee system in local councils. And I don't normally respond. I mean, probably the best answer is to read the email that I wrote and sent to Jim McMahon. And it was, of all the things that must be in your entry, I find it odd that you are flagging this as a priority. And then in Trump style capital letters, if it ain't bust, don't fix it. The committee system works well in Sutton, I said. Our recent LGA corporate peer challenge praised Sutton as a well performing council with a good record of delivery. And they described it as having a deliberative and collaborative decision making process. I continued. I said, the committee system allows collaborative cross party decision making and full scrutiny of decisions before they are made. This is much more sensible than scrutinizing after the event, which is what the system allows, by which time it's often too late. This is not pushing power out of Whitehall, I said. This is not pushing power out of Whitehall into the hands of local leaders. It is an unhelpful top-down approach, which will impose costs and provide zero benefits to the public. I urge you to rethink. I am still waiting for a response. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Dombey, do you have a supplementary question? Thank you, Madam Mayor, and my supplementary question. Very neatly from that response, Councillor Lewis. So would you agree with me that with all the problems that this government is facing, the cost of living crisis, the financial chaos after years of Tories mismanagement, wars and the climate emergency, would he agree that the Labour government should stop trying to micromanage local government and focus on what really matters to people who are struggling to get by? Very simple one-word answer to that, and the answer is yes. I totally agree with you, Councillor Dombey. Thank you, Councillor. Is there a supplementary question from a councillor? Councillor Tony Shields, I saw your hand first. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a question to our leader. Can you give any examples of excellently run Labour councils where they have the leader cabinet system? Because I can't think of one. Maybe you can. And obviously I struggle to think of many Tory councillors as well. And that's why I'm so glad we've got a Lib Dem run council in Sutton, which runs an effective and listening committee decision system. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes questions from councillors this evening. Item five concerns presentation of petitions. No petitions have been submitted by members of the public. I have not been notified of any petitions from councillors. Are there any petitions to be presented? No. Moving on. Moving on. The first motion to be considered is protection of Greenbelt and metropolitan open land as set out on page 11 of the main agenda pack. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'd be delighted to move the motion. So the question, the question really at the heart of this motion is, are we elected to stand up for the people who voted for us, the people that we represent? Or are we elected just to follow a process which leads wherever it may lead and then try and blame the result on somebody else? That's really, that's really what the question is here. A bit of background. So the Sutton plan has to conform with the London plan and there is a new London plan in the works. And the first salvo that Mayor Kahn has fired in the new London plan is that he wants, let me quote, opportunities for large scale developments in London's Greenbelt. There's a whole section in his preliminary pre consultation consultation. He loves his consultations with Mayor Kahn. There's a whole section entitled large scale opportunities for large scale developments in London's Greenbelt. And just in case you're not quite sure what that is, it spells out what that is. It's 10,000 homes per development. So this is where the Labour administration in London is entirely in line with the Labour administration in Westminster, both of whom believe that large scale developments are necessary, are required and frankly are going to happen if they get their way on the Greenbelt in London and elsewhere. This is the plan. This motion is about saying no, we don't believe that the Greenbelt in Sutton should have large scale developments of 10,000 plus homes on it. That's not what we think should happen. That's not what we think is necessary. And we want to say no to the Labour administration in City Hall and no to the Labour administration in Downing Street. So the motion, let me quote here, the motion seemed to be quite clearly worded. The council will ensure that Sutton's local plan does not include, allow or require any use of our local Greenbelt. Seems quite clear to me. The Liberal Democrat, let's call it a weasel amendment, replaces that very clear language with a whole lot of waffle about following the process. Now, I'm sure we're going to hear in a moment a very plausible sounding, very serious speech about the importance of following the rules. OK, now I'm not going to advocate that you should break the rules, but what I'm going to suggest is that it is possible to follow the rules or to push back against the planning rules in such a way as to get the best deal, the right deal for people in Sutton. Let me give an example from a neighbouring borough you may be familiar with, which is Croydon. Recently, there was a large planning application in Pearlie to replace the pool. The Mayor of London, in his guise as the Transport Authority, TfL, and in his guise as the Regional Planning Authority, the GLA, submitted multiple responses to the consultation on that planning response that said there should be no parking, zero parking in that development. In fact, net negative parking. So the consultation response said, oh, look, there's some other parking elsewhere in Pearlie that's not part of this planning application. You should get rid of that as well. Not only should they get rid of a multi-storey car park, they should also get rid of all of some of the other parking that wasn't even part of our planning application. This is Labour's approach to outer London, which two Labour people have managed to find their way here this evening. Well done. But I think in general, Labour seem to have very little comprehension of how life is in our part of London. What happened, rather than simply going, oh, well, the GLA rules say we can't have parking, the Conservative administration in Croydon pushed back. There will now be 76 parking spaces. That application currently rests where the London men could veto it. But in principle, they've agreed that that planning application can have more spaces, more than zero, a lot more than zero, in order for people to actually be able to get to the pool and the leisure centre and the flats and actually make it a viable development. What I'm suggesting, and I think what the Lib Dem amendment is not suggesting, is that we should adopt that approach, not just saying, well, the rules say we can't have any parking, so let's just give up there. The rules say we should adopt Labour's planning policy, which is to concrete over the Greenbelt large scale developments of 10,000 homes in the Greenbelt. That is what the national policy is going to end up saying. That is what the London policy is going to end up saying. So if the Sutton Lib Dem policy is let's just follow that, which is what the amendment suggests, that's what will happen in Sutton. What I am suggesting is that we don't need to do that. We don't need to comply with these people. We don't need to adopt the Labour policy. It's stupid policy. I don't agree with it. I don't think you really agree with it either. The question is whether you're going to adopt this sort of Lib Dem process of, well, there's something written down here. We must comply with it and follow the process or whether you actually will stand up for people in Sutton, whether you actually will push back against this large scale Greenbelt development when the new London plan arrives. And that is the choice, I think, that voters in Sutton will have. Conservatives are very clear, as we are in Croydon and in Sutton, that we do not support large scale development in the Greenbelt. The Lib Dems seem to be on the fence. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Tom Drummond, a seconder. Do you wish to speak now or reserve your right until later in the debate? shadow indemnity. Jane And that's the ה The seconder is. Councillor passoley Moira, would you like to speak now or reserve your right until later in the debate? I'll reserve your right until later in the debate. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. I'd like to second now and also speak. As Carlshelton South and Clock House, my ward, has significant areas of open land and Greenville, which was created to prevent urban sprawl. We have sheep and horses grazing, thriving lavender fields, golf clubs, etc., etc. Why would we want to lose these? And our parks are fantastic, all so different. We owe it to our residents to protect their free quality leisure times in these areas of parks, etc. This consultation was so important, it ran for six weeks. Six whole weeks. In the Towards a New London Plan consultation document, it mentions large-scale urban extensions into the Greenville, focused on creating affordable, well-planned, well-connected neighbourhoods with densities that support transport and local economy. I'm well aware we need more homes, but the expense of our Greenbelt, I don't think so. Also, metropolitan open land is at risk too, which essentially has the same status as Greenbelt, but is protected from inappropriate development. Who is to say what is considered as inappropriate when the time comes? We in Sutton have been asking for better transport links, for example, the tram. Did we put enough pressure on, I ask, to get the tram to come to Sutton? But this always falls on deaf ears, so promises can easily be broken. So please, please watch out for these Trojan horses' promises. Say no to unwanted land grab of Sutton's Greenbelt. Let's work with other boroughs to oppose development on our Greenbelt. We need to leave future generations a Greenborough that is worth living in. I was born in Sutton and have seen the changes. Not all been great. Our young people don't have the freedom to roam safely like I did. With less Greenbelt areas, this will be curtailed further. So please vote with me and let us take the reasonable steps set out in our motion to do all possible to stop this from happening. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. Sorry about the confusion. There is one amendment. Councillor Short, please will you move the amendment? You have up to five minutes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And to colleagues for bringing this motion, despite the initial introduction. I'm proposing what I had hoped would be seen by colleagues opposite as a relatively small tweaking amendment to clarify the role that the Council plays, because we are all in agreement around the core substance of the motion, and that's why we'll be voting, once we amend it, to agree it. We are all, rightly, concerned about protecting our Greenbelt as much as we possibly can, despite the very real pressures that the housing crisis places on land use across our borough. Members of our cross-party members advisory group will know that we have already had some discussions about this consultation, and including what that means for Sutton, but also the wider pressures to limit the urban sprawl coming from central government. Although at this point, I think it would be fair to be clear that there are no identified sites in this document yet, but if that changes, we will have the evidence base to challenge it. And in recent years, we have, frankly, seen governments of both parties denigrate and dismiss the proper role of local decision-making in the planning process, whether it's through committees of councillors or even local authorities at all to decide certain types of applications, so there's no disagreement, certainly, on that element of the motion. Now, while this motion isn't strictly on the minutiae of planning, I do think it is worth us featuring that and being clear that that is part of the background here. And we're also pressured about how the government's planning inspectorate deals with local plans. They want to spend less time, quote-unquote, fixing deficient plans and simply failing those that don't adequately show why they haven't met some arbitrary targets. Now, failing in that context, we would essentially remove all local protections against inappropriate development anywhere in the borough. And now we have this additional hurdle coming at us through the mayor's new London plan, slightly distantly on the horizon. So despite all of those pressures, whether it's from City Hall or from Whitehall, this council is going to do everything within its power to try to prevent unnecessary release of Greenbelt land in Sutton. And I'm hoping, by passing this amendment tonight, I hope our colleagues will reconsider not supporting it. We can send it, because through this amendment, we can send a clear, joint message that, yes, we do need to tackle the housing crisis, but we won't do so by carving over the Greenbelt. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Webster, will you speak now as seconder or reserve your right until later in the debate? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I reserve my right to speak later. Thank you. Thank you. The groups have kindly provided a list of speakers, which I will work through. Councillor Gray, you have up to five minutes. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. I rise today to speak strongly in support of the unamended motion proposed by Councillor Neil Garrett to protect Sutton's Greenbelt and metropolitan open land from the growing threat posed by overdevelopment. We are facing a coordinated attack on our green spaces. The Labour Mayor of London, supported by the current Labour government, is proposing nothing short of a redefinition of what protected land means. Under their new grey belt label, previously safeguarded areas of our Greenbelt are being targeted for massive developments. Let us be clear, this is Greenbelt by another name. And once the planning floodgates open, there is no going back. This is not brownfield regeneration. This is not urban renewal. This is sprawl, plain and simple, at the expense of biodiversity, air quality, and our residents' access to green space. These plans would turn green edges into grey margins, and it's simply unacceptable. And let me be crystal clear. Once this land is built on, it's gone for good. We cannot replant a lost field or rebuild a vanished ecosystem. These green spaces are not empty, they're essential. But we must also look closer to home. Because while Labour drives this policy from City Hall and White Hall, the Liberal Democrats here in Sutton are far from innocent bystanders. They talk the talk on green spaces, but when it comes to action, their record tells a different story. Just look at their amendment to this motion. They don't want to rule out Sutton Greenbelt development at all. Under Lib Dem leadership, Sutton's planning decisions have too often favoured volume over vision. Overdevelopment is creeping into suburban streets and intensifying around local town centres, all while lip services pay to protecting the Greenbelt. Their silence on Labour's greybelt proposals have been deafening. Where is the public opposition? Where is the challenge to City Hall? In the same vein, dare I ask, where we currently are on the delivery of the Beddington farmlands. And while the Lib Dems claim to champion local voices, they're frequently out of step with the communities they represent. Whether it's approving unpopular developments or failing to stand up to the Mayor's housing agenda. The reality is, their position is muddled, reactive and shaped more by political convenience than principle. Although not directly Greenbelt related, a recent example of Liberal Democrat Sutton allowing convenience to override principle was when the Outline Planning Commission was granted for the redevelopment of Elm Grove estate in Sutton. With a net increase of 272 residential units within the site allocation boundary, plus an additional 10 units adjacent to the site, the indicative number of 47 net additional units anticipated in the original site allocation was exceeded considerably. While councillors raised, rightly raised serious concerns about the additional pressure this development would place on already overstretched local infrastructure, including but not limited to school places, health care services and utilities, officers dismissed these issues, claiming no undue strain was expected. Such a statement reveals a staggering level of detachment from the lived reality of our residents, many of whom are already unable to find a place for their child at the nearest school, book a face-to-face GP appointment or register with an NHS dentist. To downplay these very real struggles is not only misleading, but shows a troubling disregard for the community this council is meant to serve. This sadly fills me with no confidence whatsoever that Lib Dem Run Sutton will do the right thing by the borough to protect the Greenbelt and metropolitan open land. This motion puts Sutton first. It draws a line in the sand, saying clearly that we will not surrender our borough's green boundaries to top-down planning mandates. It commits us to lobbying the mayor and central government to protect our local plan from unwanted incursion and defend the long-term sustainability of our environment. And for the avoidance of doubt, I would also like to confirm that by supporting this motion, it does not mean we have to ignore the housing crisis. We need homes, but we need them in the right places with the right infrastructure and the right protections for nature and neighbourhoods. We need to revitalise brownfield sites, improve urban density where appropriate and ensure affordability and accessibility are built into every plan. What we do not need to do is dismantle the Greenbelt under political pressure and certainly not with a pass of approval of those who claim to represent environmental policies. So tonight, let's send in a united and unambiguous message to Labour at City Hall and to the Liberal Democrats here in Sutton. Our Greenbelt is not for sale. I urge you all to support this motion, unamended. Stand out for our communities and defend the green spaces that make Sutton a place we are all proud to call home. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Tony Shields, you have up to two minutes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. This will be the shortest speech of the night. This Lib Dem amendment proves that the Greenbelt and the Borough's parks are not safe with the Lib Dems. Don't vote for the amendment, please. Thank you, Councillor Lisa Webster. You have up to five minutes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I was very privileged to grow up in North Yorkshire in a national park. I know and value green spaces and the benefits that they bring to residents. When I moved to Sutton 20 years ago, I thought I would be trying to persuade my husband to come back to North Yorkshire with me to get away from living in the city. Sutton is not the city. I found myself in a community that felt like a village and our green spaces, whether it's parks or open spaces, the beautiful green belt that we have, the small holdings, the lavender fields, Banstead Common in our neighbouring Surrey. They are all places that are precious to me. And many of my colleagues here have fought for a number of years to protect those spaces and they are not under threat with the Lib Dems. We do have a housing crisis and this council has taken responsibility to try to meet the needs of our residents over a thousand of whom are on waiting lists for affordable homes. By intensifying the building that we have done in the town centre in Sutton on Beddington Lane, we are looking at all available brownfield sites. what we're seeking to do with this amendment is just to make it really clear that we support the party opposite. We wish to protect the green belt but we know that it may be required of us to release some small portions of land for small developments on the edge of our beautiful spaces. And as the newly elected representative for Carl Shelton South and Clock House, I find it completely astonishing that we would risk having the ability to have control over those planning decisions. If we do not have a local plan that we control, if that control is taken away from us in Sutton and we are not able to influence any of the planning decisions that are made, we will have things imposed on us that will prevent us from protecting our green belt. So, I urge you to support the amendment because we want to support the proposal that is being put forward with this small change. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor, and congratulations on completing your maiden speech. Councillor Crowley, you've indicated you wish to speak. I do, Madam Mayor. You have up to two minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Our rise to speak in support of protecting our green belt. But I've got to call out here that hypocrisy now surrounds this debate. We've heard strong words tonight, Deming the Mayor of London's proposals, rightly so, to build on green belt land. But let's not forget that it was this very council just eight years ago that attempted to de-designate the green belt adjacent to Wellfield Gardens. It was only thanks to pressure from local residents, Councillor Buck, and myself, the council, back down. So when I hear passionate speeches about defending green spaces, I ask, what's changed? Well, more to the point, what hasn't been disclosed? Are there secret plans, which maybe Councillor Webster has just alluded to, to de-designate other green belt areas? I was once called in this chamber a semantic pedant, I think Councillor Dombey would remember that, by the chief executive, I'm not saying you did, but somebody else did, for picking on words within motions and saying that, oh, they're only words. Words are quite strong, aren't they? And when you take out words that are quite descriptive, which says, does not include, allow, or require any use of local green belt and replace it with a load of waffly, gobbledygook that gives you some wriggle room to do what you want, that sends up warning signs to me. I hope, Councillor Webster, that your speech tonight does not come back to haunt you because, basically, trying to de-designate green belt, as the great Graham Tote once said, it's part of the live rail of local politics and if you touch that, you may well get electrocuted. So, thank you very much, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Vestey, you've indicated you wish to speak. You have up to five minutes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, I might have an unpopular opinion tonight. I'll be speaking against both the original motion and the amendment. Thank you very much for the boos there. I've heard really great points from people and I commend some of you for bringing this up. But we have a housing crisis. We have social housing waiting lists that are now approaching a decade. We have limited land that we can build on and we have skyrocketing housing prices. So, what's the alternative? We go denser and denser, less amenities and facilities. We've got residents crying out due to this already. I mean, we've all had a look at what's going on in central Sutton. We know that not all residents are happy and they're wondering why does it have to be denser? Why can't we build elsewhere? We say we don't want to be Croydon, we don't want to be a borough of tower blocks, but we won't look at other land. May that make sense? House builder donations, of course, are very palatable to political parties and the more houses you build, the lower those profits go and the less of those donations that come forwards. Speaking in my own personal circle, I'm the only person in my friend group of my age to have property in London and have children and that's not unique. We've got primary school places that are closing. Is that what we want? People that can't, young people that can't afford housing? It's not what I'm thinking. So why don't we build on green spaces? Why don't we connect these spaces? Why does it have to be overall negative? Why can't we have parks? Why can't we have tree-lined streets? Why can't we have community spaces? Why can't we have walking and cycling by default? Why can't we look at green spaces and build something new but build something with good design and think about it? Ensure we have holistic planning, require solar and heat pumps. Hell, why not go further? Why not build on golf courses? They're ecologically dead sites. They could better serve the next generation. I think we're sitting here thinking we need to say that we can't build on green spaces but we can. We should. We just need to do it well. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Matty, you've indicated you wish to speak. You have up to five minutes. Thank you. I just wanted to talk about selective memory loss that seems to have afflicted this area over here. Was it not the Liberal Democrats who decided to grab a piece of land in Hackbridge to build the Hackbridge school and said oh it was a brownfield site and then they remembered it actually wasn't but it was actually metropolitan open land and then they built a school there or was this the same council that found another large chunk of land which was metropolitan open land and Beddington Lane and suddenly that became industrial land so the council could make some profits selling that off and then of course we've got the Beddington farmlands where the council has refused to do anything to rectify the 140 breaches of planning permission on what was going to be a massive country park enjoyed by everyone so that they could indulge in the flora and fauna that is Beddington but we've done nothing and we've got no wardens we've got no access to the land and this is the council that describes itself as the greener smarter fairer borough in fact it's just hypocrisy they will do anything and the idea that just let's give a little bit it's like it's like Dane once you let the Vikings in and try and buy them off that's just the start soon there won't be any greenbelt land it will just be one massive development and you will be the people responsible for allowing it to happen thank you thank you that concludes the speakers I will now invite councillor Garrett to close the debate I would like to remind members that this is an opportunity to respond to points being made during the debate this is not an opportunity to raise new points which other members do not have the opportunity to respond to councillor Garrett do you wish to close the debate once councillor Garrett has closed the debate there will be no further opportunity to speak councillor Garrett I've got a magical microphone that's self-turning off I've been delighted to respond to the debate so I'm just going through the various speeches that we heard first councillor short who thought that we would agree but if the liberal democrats agree with what we're saying then they should vote for our motion and should not water it down with an amendment that inserts a load of weasel words in place of some very clear language I thought I said that quite clearly at the beginning councillor Butt explained very clearly why green belt and metropolitan open land really matter in Sutton and elsewhere councillor grey reminded us of the reality of liberal democrats planning decisions versus rhetoric which is why it's a bit worrying that we're still at the rhetoric stage here and we're already seeing the watering down and the weasel words coming in so that doesn't really bode well for later on in this process councillor shields pithy and to the point I'm in danger of making my response longer than his speech councillor Webster who made an excellent and eloquent making speech congratulations on your speech spoke very poetically about Yorkshire fine county and Sutton's green spaces but then did explain why she might subsequently agree to build on the green belt that she'd just so poetically spoken about which was unfortunate councillor Crowley reminded us yet again of Lib Dem hypocrisy of seemingly opposing green belt developments and the well-filled gardens farrago let's call it that the kite flying attempt a few years ago again reminding us of Lib Dem words versus Lib Dem actions and then councillor Vesty I wasn't sure we were going to hear from Labour but I will commend councillor Vesty with the honesty of giving it to us good and proper what is the Labour position on green belt just so we're all absolutely clear this is why we must be absolutely clear in our response which is to say no he also mentioned the challenge of housing in Sutton I know some people in Sutton struggle so much with their housing they end up moving out of the borough or maybe even out of the country this is a challenge that some people find councillor Matty reminded us of the selective memory and Liberal Democrat words versus action on planning there's a bit of a theme here in responses and again we are still at the word stage this is still some words on a page and some words that people are speaking and already the Liberal Democrat instinct is to water down some very clear words which say we will not build on the green belt we will not support building on the green belt we will not produce a local plan that requires building on the green belt and they're going I need to sort of rub that out and put in some language that talks about how it might be necessary at some point possibly maybe maybe the Labour government bulldozers will roll into Sutton and we will have literally no option short of lying down in front of them but right now we do have options our option is to produce a Sutton plan and to commit ourselves today to produce a Sutton plan that is absolutely clear that we will stand up against building on the green belt and it is disappointing therefore that the Liberal Democrats have produced an amendment and a series of speeches which explain why they are not willing to do that I think that is very disappointing thank you thank you I will now move to the vote on the amendment by via show of hands those in favour those against any any abstentions thank you that motion is clearly carried the amendment sorry the amendment is clearly carried thank you so we will now vote on the motion as amended those in favour any against any abstentions thank you that is carried the next motion or the second motion to be considered is helping residents through hard times as set out on page nine of the main agenda pack councillor mccoy please will you move the motion you have up to five minutes thank you there are two messages that I want to get across through this motion to our residents we know that many of you are struggling but help is available if you're not sure where to turn try the council because if the council can't help then it will be able to direct you to organisations that can and to the government stop dithering and deliver the reforms to social care welfare and housing that we all know are necessary in the longer term these reforms will save money I'm saying this because I'm seeing worrying changes in my councillor case work as I'm sure is the same for all my colleagues in this chamber I had a flurry of residents contacting me because they were facing homelessness a block of 30 privately rented flats in my ward had a new owner who had immediately served section 21 notices on everyone and once those tenants started looking for somewhere else to live they realised how impossibly expensive it was to rent something comparable cheaper options were out of town which was problematic because their lives were based in this area one tenant was told that if he wanted to stay his rent would be triple what he's playing currently I provided advice directed them to the council's homelessness prevention team unfortunately most eventually found a new home without having to face the bailiffs but it was an extremely stressful and worrying experience for them and guess what the new owner has turned their old flats into temporary accommodation units rented to councils to house people who found themselves homeless often as a result of section 21 evictions how is that even legal so so I also find myself helping more residents to navigate the digital world because if you don't have a smartphone you are at a disadvantage things like uploading documents or photographs prove a barrier to even those that know how to use a computer and so I become an expert form filler particularly specialising in blue badge applications and nowadays if you can't google it it's increasingly difficult to find information those unable to navigate the online world find themselves losing their independence relying on others to do things that they once were able to manage themselves can also be isolating and yet there are so many activities in the borough that they could participate in we cannot only promote those activities via online channels we have a number of community notice boards across the borough that the council could make better use of and we also need to promote our libraries leisure and community centres information hubs that provide printed leaflets and contact telephone numbers and it's also why it is so important that the council continues to offer telephone and in-person contact to be able to signpost people to the help and support that they need now as an example of just one of the ways the council is offering support to the community I want to tell you about the slow cooker club that I visited at the sessions the early years team showed families how to use less energy and create healthy meals aimed at families on low income or with disabilities or special needs those who participated took home a free slow cooker they also got to interact with other parents and share a meal together I saw how enjoyable the parents found learning new skills together they also shared how everyday expenses like school trips were simply unaffordable and it was clear that many of those parents were denying themselves food so their children could eat there are many such activities run by the council and others and we're blessed in Sutton having a strong and active range of charity community and faith organisations many offering advice and support as well as social activities so if you're a Sutton resident finding yourself struggling for whatever reason do reach out to find the support that you need and we will do our best to promote that support in every way that we can and ensure that it can be accessed whether you're online or not thank you thank you councillor san martin will you speak now to second motion or reserve your right until later in the debate i will reserve my right to speak thank you thank you there is one amendment councillor garrett please will you move the amendment you have up to five minutes thank you very much so i don't think there's very much in this motion that i would disagree with and having listened to councillor mccoy's very eloquent speech in favour of it i don't think there's very much in that that i would disagree with but there is an element that is missing from the liberal democrat motion and in fact from councillor mccoy's speech which is that all the nice things that we would like to do have to be paid for and so i would like you to have a little visual effect of a time warp back to a time long ago in a galaxy far away when the liberal democrats were in government for a decade ago now i suppose and back at that time liberal democrats knew that governments have to balance their books and all of the things that you wish to do and fund and pay for have to fit into that balanced budget you can either raise taxes or you can move spending from somewhere else or you can borrow money which means you eventually have to pay for it later with interest and liberal democrats knew this for five years and then for some reason in 2015 forgot all about it so i've had the last nearly a decade on this council listening to speeches from many of the members who are still opposite including uh councillor mccoy implying that there is something morally defective about conservatives who recognize that budgets have to be balanced not everything that we would wish to do can be done uh but of course the liberal democrats were not the first party to get there with that idea labor have been there for a long time um and have spent the whole period in opposition telling themselves telling us telling anyone who will listen that the answer to every single problem is more spending every single problem is caused by austerity which is their word for attempting to balance the books and the solution therefore according to labor to every problem is to spend more money and then of course something happened last july i don't mean the fact that the tour de france ended in nice for the first time in its entire history something possibly even more uh earth-shattering than that the labor party won an election and suddenly what they discovered was that they had to make the numbers add up and it has been one continuous slow motion car crash of it turns out labor mps who were listening to their own rhetoric their own what would be the polite term for it the campaign messages would that be the nice word that i probably won't use the word that begins with b that people might be thinking uh they believed their own campaign messages and suddenly their entire labor government with a huge majority becomes ungovernable because they have they have failed to understand that all these things that they would like to do all the things that we would all like to do cannot all be done you have to make difficult choices between all of those things and by making this approach in opposition as the lib dems are now of course we as conservatives are but we try to remember in opposition that everything has to be paid for labor by taking that approach in opposition completely undermined their ability to govern when they eventually won and so there isn't anything really in this motion that i wouldn't agree with or wish to do the amendment that we have inserted is simply to remind us that not everything is possible there is only so much money as labor have just discovered i think some labor mps actually haven't yet discovered that but they probably are going to shortly not everything that we would wish to do can be done not everything that we wish to pay for can be paid for and the books ultimately have to be balanced and so the amendment that we have inserted reminding people of that i think is just a reminder that we really should as people represented parties in opposition here and nationally it's very easy to fall into the trap of assuming there is a simple problem to all of these solutions which is to wave your hand and imagine that somehow due to some kind of moral defect or unwillingness or possibly even i've heard this an enthusiasm to make people's lives harder i've heard that from some people i think in this council in my time but none of that is true what is true is that the books have to be balanced all of the nice things that we would wish to do have to be paid for and either through taxation or by cutting something else or by borrowing all of which are difficult and so i'm just concerned that we don't spend our time at this council convincing ourselves that somehow it's the government's fault for not giving us an infinite amount of money to pay for all of the things that we would like to do if i could say a nice word for labour they work in the same world of constrained finances that the conservatives were in they are facing some of the same problems as an element of schadenfreude i will admit but nevertheless that is the reality and we must not as a council pretend that that reality doesn't exist and so that was my concern with the motion so i'm sure you will support the amendment which brings some much needed conservative common sense to an otherwise perfectly fine motion thank you thank you councillor councillor drummond as this is the motion you are actually second in do you wish to speak now or reserve your right to the end of the debate i mean with the excitement of seconding it i think i'll reserve my right if that's fair enough thank you the groups have kindly provided their list of speakers which i will now work through councillor jemma monday you have up to five minutes thank you i always say one of my favorite parts of being a councillor is sitting on corporate parent forum where i sit with members on both sides of the chamber um so it basically brings together services from across the council so we've got housing that sit on there um we've got health and actually young people come themselves and kind of take part in the meetings um and recently we first welcomed the first ofsted report for willow rise residential services and inspectors actually praised the high quality individualized care offered at the homes and our stable and dedicated staff team who they said created a family atmosphere which is obviously kind of the gold standard that you want um in a children's home and when i met craig who's this fantastic um housing manager willow rise um if you haven't met him i would encourage you to go and meet him go and have a look around um the homes but he told me his ethos is all about making the um children's homes really feel like a home for the young person and not that they're just living in someone else's house um and you can really feel that kind of energy and passion um coming off him also willow rise is saving us around 500 000 pounds a year where we're not kind of outsourcing that to um more expensive sort of external placement costs but our commitment doesn't stop there certain's one of the first london boroughs to actually make care leavers a protected characteristic and that's not just symbolic so we're actually um kind of breaking down barriers we're opening doors for young people some of these examples is having them um we've ring fenced social housing for them and we've also um exempted them from care leavers from council tax until they reach 25 um well the list is huge i had to just pick a couple of examples there um but you can kind of see how we're really living that um value and actually this christmas just gone i went down to um our care leavers christmas day christmas lunch um which was amazing it was so well decorated the room and amazing delicious and roast dinner as you would expect on christmas day um where those young people might have just kind of been sitting at home alone which is no place for a young person to be on christmas um so really it's a reminder that the service is delivering real measurable impact and it's just one example of how we're having to innovate at the moment um to deliver the best for some of our most vulnerable residents but having brilliant outcomes as a result of it um so even though funds from central government they're not what they used to be this is just yeah an example i'm proud of of how we're really helping um residents through hard times as the motion sets out um and just a final reminder each one of us councillors we are corporate parents so where a young person might not have that we are there to provide that duty of care um so really incredibly important which is why i'm so passionate about it and wanted to speak about it today thanks thanks thank you councillor nick matty you have up to five minutes oh sorry better put them on madam mayor um fellow councillors members of the public all three of you thank you very much for coming here today um first of all i'd like to congratulate councillor mccoy um not actually on the relevance or objectivity of emotion or indeed the relevance of what she's actually speaking about but on her new promotion as chair of the planning committee it means a bigger allowance and a fresh climb up the greasy pole towards possibly becoming deputy leader once again but what councillor mccoy fails to acknowledge is this that this liberal democrat uh group over here have actually run this borough for 39 years which which which is three times longer than a dictatorship that took power in 1933 anyway this failure but the trump the the trouble is that their failures have they've miserably failed to help residents struggling with the cost of living while uh doing really relatively nothing about this at all this council has piled even greater financial burdens onto residents it lurches from one costly blunder beech tree place to another never admitting its mistakes councillor mccoy talks about wanting to help people through hard times but is this really believable when she authorised paying consultants 600 pounds a day to produce false reports about a heat network how could this possibly be considered as helping people well apart from the consultants of course is spending tens of thousands of pounds on barristers to hide these reports a way of helping people with the cost of living crisis meanwhile we've got this ever-growing bureaucracy under this liberal democrat council every count household pays more council tax but the real question is are people getting value for money or are the liberal democrats simply maneuvering to work fewer hours for the same pay i think we need really to look at liberal democrat controlled south cambridgeshire district council which is widely celebrated in liberal democrat circles for publicly declaring it work is working a four-day week a policy that will probably existed in sutton for years it can only be a matter of time before the council comes off the fence for hard-working people who juggle jobs and overtime just to pay the bills the idea of a council staff working just 178 days a year out 365 is an insult council mccoy in her motion talks about high energy costs eating into household budgets well look at the new mill quarter these people have incredibly high energy costs for their hot water and who is the supplier none other than esten the council's own very own heat network and despite claims touted that the incinerator would provide electricity for around 50 000 homes there has been not one kilowatt hour of cheap energy supplied to the borough all profits find their way to a new york-based investment fund and the liberal democrats console themselves well who cares about cheap electricity because we've got a new roof on holy trinity church after 39 years or that's three times 13 of control do we think see that do we think see thousands of sutton homes covered in solar panels to help our energy bills no we don't have we seen large-scale programs to improve home energy efficiency no we haven't what have the uh liberal democrats done for people in the street beside lining their own pockets they're never to blame for anything yet their financial competence is legendary people have to work harder and struggle harder just to keep up with them people councillor mccoy blames inflation for eroding people's ability to pay their bills but look at the year-on-year increases in council allowances look at how many council officers now earn over 100 000 pounds a year yes this council does make effort and i credit councillor mccoy for at least using the word effort to build more housing thank you councillor your five minutes is now on oh thank you thank you councillor sam martin you have up to five minutes thank you madam mayor so i'm very pleased to second this important motion uh so many of our residents are feeling the pressure of the cost of living crisis and it's right that we stand up and speak out about it so of course some of this crisis is due to global events but let's be clear a series of poor decisions coming from westminster have made life even harder for ordinary people trying to get by and they've made it harder for local governments to support those in need now on the conservative rule yeah we saw wage stagnation housing crisis millions relying on food banks the nhs was allowed to decline to the point where many people are out of work not because they don't want a job because their health is suffering and they can't get the care they need to return to work and when they left office just consider that low-income families in britain were over two thousand pounds a year worse off than low-income families in germany so now just after a year in office labor has not given us much reason to feel hopeful uh and today the news reported it's harder to find a job now than any time since the pandemic uh labor's rise in national insurance for employers is making it worse and they would tell dealt a terrible hand but they are playing it very badly so on the conservative amendment and yet it rightly points out all governments operate under constraints but most of the decline we've seen in the past decade was not inevitable it was a result of bad political decisions hello there's trust mini budget and government neglect of the real problems like social care to take but one people are paying the price for this in local government we don't have the same tools of flexibility that central government has we can't borrow like central government can can't raise taxes in the same way but we are still expected to deliver essential services since 2010 our costs have increased by 45 percent while our spending power has only gone up by around 25 and then when crisis come like during covid its councils are expected to step up so within the constraints placed on us by central government by funding cuts by a broken system we are doing everything we can support those facing hard times we've kept the libraries open for everyone providing meals and wheels for the elderly free school meals during the holidays and much more but we can only do so much and that lasting change has to come from national reform until then councils like ours will continue to be expected to more with less for too long what has been missing from national government is any sense of long-term thinking if we tackle the housing crisis when it emerged if we properly invest in adult social care when we were warned to we might not be in the situation we face today luckily here in sutton we are thinking long term and we are leading much through service delivery through partnerships working with charities to reach those who most need help transform our services with a focus on prevention not just crisis response and we're planning for economic growth the jobs of tomorrow through investment in our town centres and the london canter hub so yet times are hard today but there is a better future ahead here in sutton with the liberal democrats we're working to build it thank you thank you councillor tom drummond do you have up to five minutes thank you madam mayor let me start by saying we understand that budgets are tight that's true for families for councils and for national government so yes we recognize the pressures residents are under and we share the desire to see them supported but this motion this isn't a plan it isn't a strategy it's a gesture we've tabled a simple amendment something basic but important that governments must balance the books whether you're running a household a council or a country the principle holds you cannot keep promising more and more without first getting your finances in order otherwise the burden falls on future generations and that's not fairness that's failure now to the motion itself it reads like a long list of complaints with no practical steps it calls on the government to do more spend more deliver more but offers nothing about how no route to implementation no funding mechanism no join up thinking just vague demands and yet what's most striking isn't what the motion says it's who's voting on it two members of parliament are here today councillor taylor and councillor dean they're sat in this chamber tonight and they'll be raising their hands to call on the government yet both of them sit in the house of commons they have the platform they have the ability to apply for german debates and bring debates to westminster hall and challenge ministers if they were genuinely serious about the issues listed in this motion i would have expected at least one of them at least one of them to have done that instead they'd come here using a local council motion to say that they could and should already be saying nationally because it's easier to issue statements in sutton than do the hard work in westminster easier to posture here than act there we're not asking be impossible just the mps do their job they are elected to do if you have a seat in parliament and believe these issues matter then bring the debate to parliament use the platform and show up where it counts i also note with interest when the conservatives were in government we all remember how different those motions looked the liberal democrats were loud aggressive and unrelenting in their criticism but now now the political wind has changed we get something that's barely a whisper because it's no longer convenient to criticize too strongly and that's the problem with this administration they want to look busy but they're not effective meanwhile the challenges listed in this motion are all very real but they have been made worse by the very people proposing it send delays and overstretched services to name it too these haven't just happened to sutton they've grown under this administration our amendment is simple but important it grounds the debate in reality it reminds us that spending comes with responsibility and that leadership means making tough choices and not just bleating from the sidelines if our amendment passes it adds a small dose of accountability because let's be clear this isn't real leadership it's theatre political posturing from a tired administration sutton deserves better our residents need solutions not statements and they are not getting that from the liberal democrats in sutton thank you councillor ed parsley you've indicated you wish to speak you have up to five minutes thank you madam mayor now i'll just um i'll just i put my hand up before councillor drummond's um speech just then but some of what he said is quite pertinent and the amendment has given is sort of like saying in order to bake a cake you have to turn the oven on and that is so sort of blindingly obvious to certainly this side of the chamber that i think we're likely to accept it but i will just ask if as councillor garrett mentioned that this is conservative common sense and all good things why these certain conservatives have failed for nearly 40 years to produce a budget at local level what that says about them and the leadership they offer and the theatre that they provide in this chamber and if they want to if they want to talk about that we're very willing to have a discussion but um yes we fully agree that it's important to balance your budgets to make sure you don't spend too much and we welcome your contribution at the next budget meeting for the first time since you spin me right round like a record was number one in the charts so uh thank you thank you councillor andrew jenner you indicated you wish to speak you have up to two minutes thanks i won't be long it's just um i just want to come back on um councillor gareth and councillor drummond i think um of course we have to balance the books that is crucial uh and this side we are painfully aware that we have to be pragmatic about that every autumn when we start discussing the budget so it's it's very frustrating to us that governments have more levers so it's about choices so whether you call it obscurity or balancing the books we still have to do it but government have more options um both tory and labour governments say they want growth in the economy that's that makes sense um but just to remind you that it wasn't the coalition that advocated a hard brexit in fact we didn't want the referendum at all and let's say the obr the bank of england the ifs and golden sacks have all reported that we are losing four to five percent of growth so i would ask you why when so many lib dems were against it so many labour mps were against it so many tories very brave tories that stood up to the government were against it why can we not all be pragmatic and say at the very least some of this might be resolved by joining the single market that's the very least that you could do if you're being pragmatic and want to balance the books where does that what's the problem with that i mean you've got brexit but a lot of a lot of people didn't want it and this is the cost so of this obscurity ah but but they didn't ask for a hard brexit did they council shared did they i don't know that's my point thank you councillor councillor councillor neil garrett you indicated you wish to make a one minute intervention again so councillor parsley not for the first time has repeated the false and misleading claim that we haven't presented an alternative budget at some point that qualifies as an outright lie because this is not the first time that i've corrected that so by this point councillor parsley must know that it isn't true and yet it keeps being repeated it keeps being repeated 26 no no this is secondly secondly tim tim thanks tim secondly we've just heard a quite extraordinary speech about rejoining the eu that's not even the liberal democrat policy so let me correct a second piece of misinformation liberal democrat members of parliament voted to have a referendum on the eu in fact it was a liberal democrat policy prior to that you signed up to it quite enthusiastically i really think that we don't need to go back to the political arguments of a decade ago in order to try to take the country and our council forward thank you thank you councillor tony shields you indicated you wish to speak you have up to two minutes just just a few words of advice for councillor parsley really thank you madam mayor um some advice was given some time ago the opposition should never offer a budget because vital financial secrets are not available to them who gave that advice lord taupe and he's a lord so he must know thank you that concludes the speakers i will now invite councillor jane mccoy to close the debate i have already explained oh sure okay councillor chill i apologize that's fine i didn't see your hand um you have up to two minutes thank you i'll be very brief um a good motion and a actually reasonable point to amend it with it should be prudent it should be sensible and cautious however one word i would describe totally different here would be different difficult choices i think that we could be in a better place to see wealth taxes for the most wealthy in this country the top one percent should be paying an awful lot more for what else to achieve things you put in your motion and for us to be able to have more to play with to uh to be prudent with and sensible that's my position thank you thank you i just checked there is no more speakers before i close uh that does conclude the speakers um i will now invite councillor jane mccoy to close the debate i've already explained my expectations on the closing remarks councillor mccoy thank you um thank you to everyone that's smoking on this motion tonight um we've had some examples of hardship we've had some examples of the support that's available and we've had some different views um councillor mundi provided examples of the council's excellent care service children's care service um councillor matty has given his views on his relative um councillor martin's set out um some thoughts on what the government could and i would say needs to be done to enable councils to better support those who need help and indeed to reduce the burdens that people are facing across the country um we've also made the case that we need to ensure that residents are not isolated from society or from accessing help due to digital exclusion and how the council has a key role in promoting its services and activities um councillor drummond um sadly i wanted to i wanted to hope that we would get against arguing between ourselves um um it talks about empty words and um uh yeah making promises but a lot of the solutions are in our national liberal democrat manifesto we're proposing solutions and they are being brought up in parliament um uh and i can get councillor parsi tried to counter that uh and councillor jenner thank you for for talking about um alternative ways forward um that we're discussing um thank you to councillor garrett and councillor drummond for their amendment which we are happy to accept because of course the government like the council has to live within its means and difficult choices in light of competing demands are part of that responsibility and as we had pointed out we've had 39 years in sutton of making difficult decisions uh in light of competing demands and competing demands and we've been seen as a very fiscally responsible council but it's those competing demands which are the key point here our political differences and thank you councillor chill because i think you've highlighted this it's our political differences that come stem from our views on how and by who these competing demands are born so that's where our political differences are but i think that in light of the debate fight we can agree that the current situation is unsustainable it's hurting our residents and that we can be united in our call on this government to do better so i hope we can all support this motion tonight thank you very much thank you i will now move to the vote on the amendment those in favor i will now move to vote on the emotional We will now move to vote on the motion as amended. Those in favour? Those against? Any abstentions? Thank you. That is clearly carried. The third motion to be considered is to address the deterioration of Mill Green-Micham Common as set out on page 7 of the main agenda pack. Councillor Dave Cheel, please will you move the motion? You have up to five minutes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, some years ago, I was sitting in a Strategy and Resources Committee meeting, and Councillor Garrett generously offered me the opportunity to be a Mill-Micham Common conservator. That is the closest I will be to his brand, but I am grateful for his opportunity that he gave me. Thank you. I have been attending those meetings regularly, and I found it really fascinating to be part of conserving a piece of land that has a bit of history to it, that was apparently once a dump and has been reshaped over the years to become a common. That is a bit of history I am still learning. There is plenty of it there. There is a portion of land that London and Sutton are the custodians of, in the sense that it is within our borough boundaries, and Packbridge has the luck and the fortune of having the, within their wards, and therefore Sheldon and I are pleased to support its improvement, its maintenance, and make sure that it is well looked after. Within that patch of Mill Green, that portion of land, there are portions of it which are London Borough of Sutton Ome, so there are portions of it that are Sutton over and above the outline that is the common. Anyway, there's people out there that know more detail about that, and you will, I'm sure, hopefully speak to them if we pass this motion here. So, there's no doubt, as we've said earlier before, with conversations about Greenbelt and metropolitan open land, that common space is beneficial to residents for the reasons which we all know. There's no doubt about it. But the deterioration of green spaces is because there is significant underfunding. And over the years, as defined in the motion, from 2016 onwards, the small portion of grant that was given to the Michigan Common Conservatives to look after that land was reduced down and whittled down. I'm not going to make a big point about why that was, but it certainly wasn't the Labour councillors that are within that locality. It wasn't Sheldon and I did that. But we are here now advocating for a return of some investment to the maintenance of that land for its improvement, for its safety. For example, the safety concerns are fires that are occurring, people living rough in areas that are overgrown and in a sorry state. dangerous entry and exit points for pedestrians, which walk out into a relatively busy road, which is 30 miles per hour road when it has pretty much a single track down it. That's another conversation for another day. In addition to that, grass overgrows and blind corners. It is dangerous and I'm very concerned about that. And because we don't fund it, because decisions are taken to cut funding there, we are failing to see its maintenance. Now, what have I been doing to tackle that rather than come out here with a begging bowl? Well, I've been on to the Conservatives to insist that they undertake works and they have to some extent. I've been on to council officers who have, to some extent, helped out in emergency situations. Residents and volunteers themselves go out there and litter pick regularly to keep their place clean and indeed have gone out and removed overgrowth as well. I've even managed to get the probation team down there with their lads to have a crack at doing a job there. The quality was not great. So, we're in a position here whereby we can't seem to maintain it by volunteers or by getting others in to try and maintain it. We need some money back into there. And it's a very easy line of communication for the local authority with councillors to speak to Mitchum Common Conservatives to find out our routes to doing so. The motion lays out what I've plainly asked for. I don't think it's a very unreasonable thing. I noticed there's no amendments, which is a good sign. It's a good opportunity for Dave Child to finally get an agreement from his colleagues around the table. And I won't be timed out today. So, what I'm appealing for you to do is to consider the motion, perhaps share your comments, and let's work out a solution to return some investment to there, to maintain it, to make it safe, accessible, amenable and enjoyable for everyone. And to ensure that we, as custodians, are improving our portion of the comment within our boundaries. Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Vestee, as seconder, do you wish to speak now or reserve your right until later in the debate? I'll reserve my right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. The groups have kindly provided the list of speakers, which I'll now work through. Councillor Richard Clifton, you have up to five minutes. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. Now, the motion says the current state of parts of Mill Green is unacceptable. And that's a matter we must take seriously. Parts of Mill Green belong to Sutton Council and are maintained by ID Verdi under their contract to care for our parks and open spaces. So, they're well looked after. This motion concerns parts of Mill Green that are part of Mitchum Common. So, and let's be absolutely 100% clear about this, they are owned by the Mitchum Common conservators, who are the sole body responsible for their upkeep. No one has the legal right to do work in these areas other than the conservators. So, the motion is dealing with the business of conservators and comments on the way the conservators discharge their duties. Now, I have to say that what astonished me about this motion is that Councillor Chill and myself are the two councillors nominated by the council to sit on the board of the conservators. Dave, you sat next to me at the meetings of the board. And this motion concerns the responsibilities of the conservators. You've never, never raised the issues you raise in this motion at a meeting of the board of conservators. Instead, you table a motion to Sutton Council. It's like an aircraft making a heavy landing at entirely the wrong airport. Nothing can be done about these issues without a discussion by and with the conservators to discover their view and what they're prepared to do. That's what you and I should be promoting as the board members. Now, all right, if such a discussion takes place and then, let's hope, a list is drawn up of things that might be done by the conservators on Mill Green to meet concerns about its upkeep, such as, you know, points about dangerous entry and exit points, etc. And these things would have to be done by the conservators. They're the only people who have the right to do that. There's then scope for an entirely separate discussion about who should pay for such a work. Somewhat confused in this motion, I feel. Well, who should pay for it? The responsibility rests with the conservators. Now, it is true that there was a time in the past, going back eight years, when the council made a small annual grant to the Ministry of Common Conservators. Now, I say small in relation to the very significant financial resources available to the conservators. Now, that grant had no contractual basis. It was not a payment for services. It was not paid with any stipulation as to what it should be spent on. It was, contrary to what it said in its motion, it was a dollop of money taken out of the pockets of our council taxpayers and paid into the coffers of the conservators. And then, eight years ago, at one of the many times that the council was desperately seeking economies to balance its books, a legal obligation, as government support was cut back further and further, the council discontinued grants it had previously made to a number of bodies, including the conservators. And I could say to Dave and Sheldon that the election of a Labour government has not led to any of these financial pressures on local authorities diminishing at all. Perhaps as Labour councillors, you can join the campaign, which I know exists in your party, for more financial support for local authorities. The motion then goes on to raise the suggestion that we should reinstate this grant. Indeed, much of the motion is about the council funding the conservators. Well, the Mitchell Common Conservators is a wealthy organisation. It's set up in Victorian times. The last set of accounts that I saw as a board member valued its reserves at £1.7 million. It has financial investments that contributed over £60,000 annual income to the balance sheet in interest payments and dividends. Dave will know that a regular item at the board meeting is a report by the financial advisor on the progress of their investments. Their investments are doing very well, actually. And there's a golf course on Mitchum Common. You know that? There's a golf course. That's a golf club that pays approaching £80,000 of rent annually to the conservators. So if there is work to be done on Mill Green, then Mill Green's fair share of the investment income and the golf income and other income should fund any such work without Sutton's council taxpayers having to put their hands in their pockets to shell out a sub. Now, I have to say, I'm reluctant to vote against this motion. We tried to draft an amendment, but the monetary officer wouldn't take it. But the motion is misleading on the financial history of previous support. It confuses the responsibility of the Conservators and the council. It invites us to make a financial contribution, which is unnecessary. And I feel this is the key point. Because the key point to me is we care about Mill Green. We do care about Mill Green. And the way forward is that we should be putting pressure on the Conservators to discharge their responsibility. And I feel the motion doesn't do that. We should be doing that rather than dangling more money. Thank you, Councillor Clifton. Thank you. I have to just say that I can't recommend to my colleagues to support the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Snita Gordon, you have up to five minutes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Now, we all like a good motion about green spaces. But let's not kid ourselves. Mill Green isn't being neglected by Sutton, as this motion suggests. Yes, it sits within the borough boundary. But Sutton only owns two small sections of it. The vast majority of Mill Green is actually owned and managed by the Mitchum Common Conservators. Now, for the part we do own, Sutton does its bit on Mill Green, we carry out litter picking and trimming back along the road edges. Go through our borough-wide contractor with ID Verdi. And when it comes to the trees, our tree officers inspect them and arrange any work that's needed. This area that the council owns is either wooded or meadow. It's largely in a natural state, which is good for biodiversity. Historically, Sutton Council paid a grant of around $13,900 to the Mitchum Common Conservators. This was reduced to $7,700 in 2016 and then removed entirely from April 2017 as part of the council's wider savings. The grant had no conditions attached, meaning that the Mitchum Common Conservators could use the money for general maintenance or any costs related to Mitchum Common. It was never specifically designed for Mill Green. So let's be honest. We stopped the non-ring fence grant back in 2017 during Tory austerity. And now, with Labour running the country, what do we get? Austerity 2.0. Unless Councillor Chill's party is planning to reverse those cuts, this motion is effectively asking Sutton to reinstate a grant we couldn't afford in 2017, which is not possible now. Madam Mayor, this motion belongs firmly in the nice idea, wrong decade pile. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Sheldon-Vestey, you have up to two minutes. Thank you. I'd like to respond just directly to Councillor Clifton, because it was quite an illuminating speech that he gave there. It was nice to know that he also sits on the panel and he's aware of the issues. He's aware of the fire risks and he's aware of the impact on the Sutton-owned land. Yet, by his own admission in his speech, he's not done anything. He's not raised this there. It would have been a great opportunity for you to mention your attempts there, especially in light of all the problems that you've got. You did take some time, of course, to dig into the financial position of the Conservatives. And just while I was sitting here, I did have a brief look at it, got this up on my phone and noted that the budget as approved by their auditors is run extremely frugally and they have over half of their budget now is allocated to equipment replacement and capital funds. So I do call into question slightly the aspects that you've mentioned there, saying that they're clearly well-funded, when actually the accounts that you yourself should be aware of do state to the contrary and do have a series of large liabilities coming soon. And in light of that, I found it slightly unfair and perhaps very unreasonable for you to go down the line of attack that you did on, Councillor Chill. This could have been a fantastic opportunity to put forward something. And I know that you didn't do that. We do often sit here and we do often condemn one another for talking about national things, things that, say, our council can't directly control. And whilst this might be hyper-local, I'm sure my colleagues in other wards have a great deal of spaces and areas that they'd like to improve and they'd like to bring things forward. This is a great platform for that. It's something we can directly impact. I would encourage my colleagues, instead of just looking at this and saying, there's nothing we can do here, to actually put forward their own ideas when they dismiss others. Thank you. Thank you. As no one else is in Councillor Clifton. Can I just say, respond by saying, I agree with you. It was a great opportunity. If Dave had talked to me about this motion before he put it forward, as the two board members, I think we could have sorted out something that we could have agreed on. Thanks. Thank you. As nobody else has indicated to speak, that will conclude the speakers for this motion. I will now invite Councillor Chille to close the debate. My previous guidance on closing the debate applies. Councillor Chille, do you wish to close the debate? Yes, please. Once Councillor Chille has spoken, there will be no further opportunity for members to speak. Councillor Chille. Councillor Clifton, when you said those words, those last words, I did go like this. Because it was the best thing you said. Because if you remember, my friend, when we went on a walk around Mitchum Common with the Conservatives, just a few months ago, we took your arm and we had a little walk around. And I said to you, Councillor Clifton, I'm going to make a right emotion about funding for the Common. I believe X, Y, Z, we should do these things. And you went, oh, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, Dave, yes, Dave. And you forgot about it. Because my friends, you're very quiet. You fall asleep at those meetings, at least. Right? So that's the issue at hand. It is reasonable for me to ask for a small amount of funding back into the ward of Hackbridge. Again, I wasn't going to make it party political, so I'm really tempted not to hold back. But a decision was taken to defund Hackbridge all those years ago when it was seen as an easy target to do so. You can't do that anymore. You won't do that anymore. Because we don't sit here and just let it happen and nod it through. We challenge every opportunity. And so we're doing it now. So I can go back to my neighbours and friends in Hackbridge and say that you don't apparently, or appear to as yet, maybe, want to write a report to talk through the impacts of the funding loss, prioritise what reinstating resources can give. And you can choose what those resources might be at this stage. You have the power to do that. You don't want to help develop that maintenance plan, which Councillor Alden so wisely mentioned that the commissioners didn't ring-fence the grant, didn't define the objectives, didn't define the outcomes. Well, I would have done that if I was a commission doing that role. We can still do it now with a couple of thousand pounds to help oil the wheels or cut the grass. Just lastly, I've shown support for your motion around maintaining green spaces, metropolitan open land and Greenbelt in a reasonable way. I think it's very reasonable to support with a small grant back the historic and important part of Mitchum Common that is within our boundary. And those parts of the Mitchum Common that are London Borough of Sun-owned and maintained, I'm more than happy to walk around there with you at any time. You can see how overgrown and kind of litter-filled, et cetera, they are. It would be useful for us to work together. And despite me being relatively strong at this point, I still want to work with you. I still would like you to vote in favour of my motion so we can find a small funding source to help facilitate the portion and parcel of that that is within the London Borough of Sutton. Thanks. Thank you. I will now move to the vote. Those in favour? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Those against? Any abstentions? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That motion is clearly lost. The fourth motion to be considered is Parkinson's awareness date, as set out on page 13 of the main agenda pack. Councillor Tom Drummond, please, will you move the motion? You have up to five minutes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. The origins of this motion began, like many good things do, over a cup of coffee. I was sitting with Arthur Hookway, a former councillor and former mayor of Sutton. Many in this chamber will know Arthur and the years of dedicated public service he has given to this borough. What struck me most in that conversation wasn't just Arthur's reflection on his time in public life, but his honesty and passion in speaking about something far more personal, and that's his diagnosis of Parkinson's. Arthur hasn't just accepted the condition. He's embraced the opportunity to raise awareness, support others, and give back in a new way. As chair of the Sutton Kingston Epsom branch of Parkinson's UK, he's become a leading voice in our local community. He continues to inspire and encourage people living with Parkinson's every single day. And I'd like to take this moment to thank Arthur for the incredible contribution he makes. Arthur, your example is truly inspiring, and I offer you my thanks. Parkinson's is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. One in 37 of us will be diagnosed in our lifetime. It can impact movement, speech, and mental health, and there is currently no cure. But with support, understanding, and the right services, people can continue to live full and meaningful lives. This motion is about doing our part as a local council to raise awareness and bring our community together. It proposes that we partner with Parkinson's UK and host a public awareness event here. That event will offer residents the chance to learn more, hear directly from those with lived experiences, and connect with support. It's a small step, but an important one. Because behind every statistic, there is a story, a family, a neighbour, a friend, colleague, and of course, a person. A person like Arthur, who reminds us that a diagnosis isn't the end of the road. It can be the beginning of something truly remarkable. A chance to reach out, support others, and make a lasting difference. I'm pleased that this motion has cross-party support, and I'd like to thank Councillor Lewis for seconding it. Parkinson's is not an issue for political point scoring. It's a shared human concern. This is a chance, at the end of the night, for us to come together as a council, stand together, and do something meaningful. I urge you to support the motion. Thank you. Councillor Barry Lewis, I understand you wish to second. Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor. You've got five minutes. I won't take that long, but thank you, Madam Mayor, and congratulations on your first full council meeting. I want to say thank you to Councillor Drummond for bringing this motion. And Parkinson's is a pernicious illness that's affecting an increasing number of people in our borough. And we've already heard about Councillor Arthur Hookway, former mayor, who a lot of us see regularly at various events and functions that we know suffers from Parkinson's, and is a great stalwart, a great stand-up for Parkinson's. My father-in-law died with Parkinson's in 2019. My aunt is also, and I love this phrase, is also a Parkinson's mover and shaker. You know, it's an illness that we have to take seriously, but this is a term that Parkinson's sufferers use about themselves. We have both Colin Steers in his term as mayor and the current mayor both have or had Parkinson's as one of their two charities. And Colin told me how on one of the previous Parkinson's days we changed the lights in the subway to purple Parkinson's colours as a high street store. So I think we can take those ideas and move and work them. And I look forward to standing up for Parkinson's on the 11th of April next year. Now, it's around one-third of those with Parkinson's eventually developed dementia. And it would be remiss of me now not to remind all that Sutton is a dementia-friendly borough. And indeed, later this week, we're going to see the launch of our Borough Dementia Hub, a new dementia strategy. So do look out for that information. So look, it's coming to the end of the evening. I'm going to wrap up. I thought Arthur might be in the audience tonight, but he's not. But a nod to Arthur. And thank him for all the work that he's doing to, it's not promote Parkinson's, but to tell people about Parkinson's, to help raise funding for Parkinson's, to help raise awareness for Parkinson's. It's just so important. And like Councillor Drummond, I urge you all to support this motion. Thank you. As no one else has indicated, they wish to speak. Is that agreed? We have a show of hands. That is definitely agreed. Moving on to the scrutiny annual report. I understand that the groups are content that we move through the remaining items promptly. Councillor Joyce, will you therefore formally move the draft minute? Yeah. Agreed. Move this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Members, is that agreed? Thank you. Finance and performance quarter four outrun. 20, 24, 20, 25. Councillor Lewis, will you therefore formally move the draft minute? Noting that only one recommendation requires council approval. Thank you. Members, is that agreed? Thank you. Outcome of the by-election. As an officer report, this is not required to be moved. Do members note the report? Thank you. That concludes the meeting this evening. The next council meeting is scheduled for the 3rd of November. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you.