Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Matt Furniss and Iseult Roche.

In accordance with the revised local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must notparticipate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, the councillor must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 27 September 2016.

The Executive approved the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2016.  The Chairman signed the minutes.

Decision:

(1)    That the principles set out in bold in the draft parking strategy attached as Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

(2)     That, subject to (1) above, the Director of Environment be requested to consult with the Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance on a process for conducting a wider public consultation on the strategy.

(3)     That the Director of Environment be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance and the Chairman of the Guildford Local Committee, to make such changes to the detail within the strategy as he may consider appropriate.

Reasons for Decision:

To provide a strategic framework for parking to guide and to assist decisions and help meet the wider policy aims of Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council.  

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

The Executive considered a report on a draft parking strategy, which had been written to support other strategies and plans and to assist in the development of Guildford town centre.  The draft strategy had restated the need to promote access by means other than the car; had set out ways of developing and encouraging greater use of park and ride and proposed to rearrange the car parks in the town centre to reduce traffic in the centre and encourage a “drive to, not through” policy.  

Having considered the contents of the draft strategy and the strategic principles therein, the Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)    That the principles set out in bold in the draft parking strategy attached as Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

(2)     That, subject to (1) above, the Director of Environment be requested to consult with the Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance on a process for conducting a wider public consultation on the strategy.

(3)     That the Director of Environment be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance and the Chairman of the Guildford Local Committee, to make such changes to the detail within the strategy as he may consider appropriate.

Reasons for Decision:

To provide a strategic framework for parking to guide and to assist decisions and help meet the wider policy aims of Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council.  

Decision:

That the Annual Audit Letter for 2015-16 be approved.

Reason for Decision:

To approve the Annual Audit Report

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

The Executive noted that the external audit for 2015-16 had been completed and the independent auditor had now issued their Annual Audit Letter, a copy of which was appended to the report submitted to the Executive.  The Annual Audit Letter included updated findings to recommendations that had been raised in the Audit Findings Report presented to Corporate Governance and Standards Committee on 22 September 2016.

Having noted that the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee had also considered Annual Audit Letter at its meeting on 24 November 2016, the Executive

RESOLVED: That the Annual Audit Letter for 2015-16 be approved.

Reason for Decision:

To approve the Annual Audit Report

Recommendation to Council: (6 December 2016)

(1)     That the current Local Council Tax Support Scheme be adopted as the Council’s approved scheme for 2017-18, with effect from 1 April 2017.

(2)     That the Council maintains a discretionary hardship fund of £40,000 in 2017-18

Reasons for Recommendation:

(1)     To ensure that the Council complies with government legislation to implement a Local Council Tax Support Scheme from 1 April 2017.

(2)     To maintain a discretionary fund to help applicants suffering from severe financial hardship.

Prior to the consideration of this matter by the Executive, Joan O’Byrne, Chief Officer at Citizens Advice Guildford addressed the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Public Speaking Procedure Rule 3.

The Executive considered a report on the outcome of the recent public consultation on the Council’s Local Council Tax Support Scheme (LCTSS).  The Council had a statutory duty to consider annually whether to revise its LCTSS, replace it with another or make no changes.  The Council was also obliged to consult with interested parties if it wished to revise or replace the scheme.  The Council must approve a scheme for the 2017-18 financial year by 31 January 2017. 

Following receipt of written representations from Citizens Advice Guildford on 24 November 2016, the Executive noted that  a number of amendments to Section 10 of the report (Stakeholder Consultation) had been made, details of which, including the representations from Citizens Advice, were set out in the Supplementary Information sheet circulated at the meeting.

At its meeting on 8 September 2016, the Society, Environment, and Council Development Executive Advisory Board (EAB) considered the current LCTS scheme and the level of hardship relief available for residents.  The EAB had recommended that no changes be made to the current scheme, subject to any feedback from stakeholder consultation carried out between 9 September 2016 and 7 October 2016.  The results of that consultation were set out in the report submitted to the Executive. The results were not sufficiently conclusive to suggest the Council should make changes to the current scheme (a summary of which was included on the Council’s website).

The Executive acknowledged that the Council continued to operate in a tough financial climate and the medium term financial plan position remained challenging.  However, councillors recognised that passing on further savings via our LCTS scheme in 2017-18 would place additional financial pressure on vulnerable households.  A discretionary hardship fund would continue to provide support to residents suffering adversely from the consequences of ongoing savings in welfare support.

Having considered the proposals, the Executive

RECOMMEND:

(1)     That the current Local Council Tax Support Scheme be adopted as the Council’s approved scheme for 2017-18, with effect from 1 April 2017.

(2)     That the Council maintains a discretionary hardship fund of £40,000 in 2017-18

Reasons for Recommendation:

(1)     To ensure that the Council complies with government legislation to implement a Local Council Tax Support Scheme from 1 April 2017.

(2)     To maintain a discretionary fund to help applicants suffering from severe financial hardship.

Decision:

(1)     That the budget for Concurrent Functions Grant Aid for 2017-18 be set at £106,000, subject to final confirmation at the budget Council meeting in February 2017.

(2)     That the estimated overspend of £1,073 be funded from the Parish Councils Urgent Schemes reserve.

(3)     That the parish council requests for grant aid for 2017-18, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

(4)     That the scheme be amended for 2018-19 onwards to require an estimate to be provided for allapplications, rather than just those over £2,000, and that a total scheme limit of £50,000 be set for any individual parish council.

(5)     That the budget for 2018-19 onwards be reduced to £100,000.

Reasons for Decision:

·        To assist parish councils with expenditure on concurrent function schemes in 2017-18.

·        To enable parish councils to take account of financial assistance from Guildford Borough Council when calculating their precept requirements for 2017-18.

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

The Executive considered a report setting out details of the applications received from parish councils for financial assistance through the Concurrent Functions Grant Aid Scheme for 2017-18, for which a base budget of £106,000 had been recommended.

The Executive had been asked to approve the budget for 2017-18 at this time because the parish councils needed to be aware of the level of grant aid available to them so that they could build the sums into their budget calculations for the coming year.  They would fix their budgets and precept requirements for 2017-18 in December and early January, enabling this information to be included in the Borough Council’s final budget approval process in February 2017.

Parish councils had been were asked to complete a detailed application form for each project, provide written estimates for projects costing over £2,000 and identify how the project meets at least one of the five fundamental themes within the Council’s corporate plan.  A total of 53 requests had been received from 18 of the 23 parish councils and a panel of officers had evaluated each of the bids.  The panel had referred any queries raised back to the parish council concerned and had obtained satisfactory responses in all cases. After an initial review, a further bid had been rejected, and another four had been either deferred, or funded via an alternative source. The remaining bids totalled £107,073, which was £1,073 over the base budget of £106,000. 

Having considered the report, the Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)     That the budget for Concurrent Functions Grant Aid for 2017-18 be set at £106,000, subject to final confirmation at the budget Council meeting in February 2017.

(2)     That the estimated overspend of £1,073 be funded from the Parish Councils Urgent Schemes reserve.

(3)     That the parish council requests for grant aid for 2017-18, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

(4)     That the scheme be amended for 2018-19 onwards to require an estimate to be provided for allapplications, rather than just those over £2,000, and that a total scheme limit of £50,000 be set for any individual parish council.

(5)     That the budget for 2018-19 onwards be reduced to £100,000.

Reasons for Decision:

·        To assist parish councils with expenditure on concurrent function schemes in 2017-18.

·        To enable parish councils to take account of financial assistance from Guildford Borough Council when calculating their precept requirements for 2017-18.

Decision:

(1)         That the revised Medium Term Financial Strategy, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

(2)         That the current position on the outline budget for 2017-18, be noted.

(3)         That the proposals to achieve a balanced budget as set out in the report be approved.

(4)         That the proposed use of new homes bonus and other reserves to fund specific bids in line with policy, be approved.

(5)         That the growth and savings bids be approved for consideration by Council at its meeting on 8 February 2017.

Reason for Decision:

To assist the Executive in the preparation of the General Fund estimates for 2017-18.

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

The Executive considered an update report on the current position with regard to the preparation of the Outline Budget for 2017-18. The report had covered the following areas:

(a)         Parameters within which the outline budget had been prepared

(b)         Assumptions on the level of Government grant

(c)         Council Tax, tax base and collection fund

(d)         Capital expenditure and minimum revenue provision

(e)         Reserves and interest earnings

(f)           Projected outturn for 2016-17

(g)         Business planning for the period 2017-18 to 2020-21

(h)         Draft outline budget for 2017-18

The Joint EAB Budget Working Group had considered the outline budget, in particular the suggested growth and proposals for savings and additional income, and its comments were included the report.

The report explained that government grant had been included at a level based on the 4-year local government finance settlement issued by the government in February 2016, but that the amount of grant would not be known for certain until central government released the draft local government finance settlement in December.  Officers had assumed a £5 (3.19%) increase in Council Tax and had proposed an update to the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy, which was set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

The Head of Financial Services and the Lead Councillor for Finance had approved the Council Tax base for 2017-18 as 56,634, which was 1.9% higher than 2016-17.  This had increased the resources available by approximately £178,000.  At present, the figures had assumed no surplus or deficit on the collection fund for the current financial year.

The financial monitoring report for the first six months of 2016-17, which had been reported to the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee on 24 November 2016, had covered the projected net expenditure on the General Fund for the current financial year.  This was estimated to be £1.78 million less than the original estimate.  The major reasons for this were lower than expected expenditure on services, lower than expected debt charges and an increase in interest income. 

The current position on the 2017-18 outline budget had indicated that, taking account of the proposed growth bids, savings and additional income proposals, there was a shortfall of £145,000 between the likely resources and the proposed net expenditure.  The major reasons for movements between 2016-17 and 2017-18 by expenditure type were set out in the report including the variances at service level.  An analysis of movements between the 2017-18 outline budget and the amounts projected for 2017-18 in the medium term financial plan approved by Council in February 2016 were also set out in the report, together with a summary of the growth bids and proposals for savings and additional income and proposed fees and charges.

As it was still early in the budget process, the report had also set out the areas of uncertainty that would influence the final position, and how a balanced budget could be achieved.

Having considered the report, the Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)         That the  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX52

In accordance with Regulation 5 (2) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the Council published on 1 November 2016 notice of intention to hold this meeting in private to consider Items 10 and 11 below.  The notice included a statement setting out the reasons for these matters to be dealt with in private and inviting anyone wishing to make representations in relation to holding the meeting in private for this purpose to do so by 12 noon on 21 November 2016.  No representations were received. 

The reason for considering this matter in private is due to the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, which is information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

The Executive is therefore asked to consider passing the following resolution:

         "That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and Regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.”

Decision:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and Regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

The Executive

RESOLVED:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and Regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

Decision:

(1)         That the rebuilding of Guildford Crematorium be approved on the basis of Option 1 ‘Courtyards’ (as detailed in the Haverstock Feasibility Study) referred to in the report submitted to the Executive for taking forward to the next RIBA stages (stage 2 onwards) and through to delivery.

(2)         That the sum referred to in the report submitted to the Executive be transferred from the provisional capital programme to the approved capital programme.

(3)     That the Director of Environment be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance and the Lead Councillor for Finance, to take such decisions as may be required:

(a)     for the delivery of RIBA stages 2-7 in relation to this project, including decisions in respect of design, project programme, procurement and appointment of contractors, construction, commissioning and handover and bringing the building in to use; and

(b)     in relation to the capital cost of the project (within the overall budget referred to in the report submitted to the Executive) and the business case.

Recommendation to Council (6 December 2016):

That a supplementary capital estimate referred to in the report submitted to the Executive be approved.

Reasons for Decision/Recommendation:

To allow for the process of developing a detailed design, tendering for a construction contractor and cremator supplier to commence, and to agree the preferred option for rebuilding of the Guildford Crematorium, meeting the objectives of the Bereavement Services Fundamental Service Review and the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy.

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

Option 2:  Alternate Courtyards using existing Chapel during project

Option 3:  New Build with full closure

Option 4:  Maintain/refurbish existing facility

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

The Executive considered a report setting out details of the feasibility work undertaken to inform the decision as to whether the Council should rebuild or refurbish Guildford Crematorium.  The Executive was requested to consider the revised capital cost and business case to enable the project to proceed.

The Council’s appointed architect and design team (Haverstock LLP) and Project Managers and Quantity Surveyors (Press and Starkey) had delivered the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) stages 0 and 1 by completing the feasibility work required for a scheme at Guildford Crematorium. This had included developing designs, analysing how the scheme would need to be phased to keep the crematorium operational and evaluating the capital cost.  This work had enabled officers to review and develop the business case, as detailed in the report.  This work had been guided by an internal project board and an Executive workshop to inform the recommendations contained in the report.

Five options were detailed in the report, including three new build schemes, one refurbishment and a proposal to ‘do nothing’ with a recommendation to rebuild the facility (option 1) and utilise temporary facilities to ensure that services could continue at the site whilst the works took place.  The Executive noted that it was essential that an option was chosen now in order to develop the project through the remaining RIBA stages to delivery with the aim of commencing construction in early 2018.

The report had also sought approval from full Council of a supplementary capital estimate in the sum referred to in the report. The Executive was asked to agree to the transfer monies from the provisional to the approved capital programme, to enable the feasibility work to be undertaken, accounting for the site constraints, phasing of the project, construction market conditions, assessment of previous crematorium construction costs with an element of inflation for when the scheme was tendered and delivered. 

It was anticipated that there would be further detailed decisions to agree in relation to design, phasing, capital cost (within the overall budget) and business case as the project developed.

Having considered the report, the Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)         That the rebuilding of Guildford Crematorium be approved on the basis of Option 1 ‘Courtyards’ (as detailed in the Haverstock Feasibility Study) referred to in the report submitted to the Executive for taking forward to the next RIBA stages (stage 2 onwards) and through to delivery.

(2)         That the sum referred to in the report submitted to the Executive be transferred from the provisional capital programme to the approved capital programme.

(3)     That the Director of Environment be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance and the Lead Councillor for Finance, to take such decisions as may be required:

(a)   for the delivery of RIBA stages 2-7 in relation to this project, including decisions in respect of design, project programme, procurement and appointment of contractors, construction, commissioning and handover and bringing the building in to use; and

(b)   in relation to the capital cost  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX54

Recommendation to Council: (6 December 2016)

(1)     That a capital virement of the sum referred to in the report submitted to the Executive from the Capital Contingency Fund to purchase the leasehold interest of 9 Midleton Industrial Estate, Guildford from Sherwin & Oliver Ltd., be approved.

(2)     That the Director of Community Services be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Asset Management, to complete the transaction.

Reasons for Recommendation:

·        To improve the investment value of the Council’s asset and increase the short-term income

·        To consolidate its land holdings at Midleton Industrial Estate to enable future redevelopment.

The Executive was reminded that the Council owned the freehold interest of Midleton Industrial Estate. Historically, the properties had been let on long leaseholds to individual occupiers. The Estate was now ageing and did not meet the demands of current occupiers. The Council’s strategy in recent years had been to buy back the long leaseholds as they became available with a view to redeveloping the Estate to reflect more modern industrial requirements.

The Executive was informed that, following an approach by the leaseholder of 9 Midleton Industrial Estate, the Council had been offered (subject to contract) the balance of the lease, the value of which was detailed in the report submitted to the Executive. 

This purchase would unlock the site to enable future re-development of Midleton Industrial Estate and, in the shorter-term, increase the Council’s income and the capital value of its interest, details of which were also set out in the report.

The Executive

RECOMMEND:

(1)     That a capital virement in the sum referred to in the report submitted to the Executive from the Capital Contingency Fund, to purchase the leasehold interest of 9 Midleton Industrial Estate, Guildford from Sherwin & Oliver Ltd., be approved.

(2)     That the Director of Community Services be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Asset Management, to complete the transaction.

Reasons for Recommendation:

·        To improve the investment value of the Council’s asset and increase the short-term income

·        To consolidate its land holdings at Midleton Industrial Estate to enable future redevelopment.