Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor James Steel.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor James Steel.

Councillors Angela Gunning, Dennis Booth,  John Redpath, Maddie Redpath, Deborah Seabrook, and Patrick Sheard were also in attendance.

In accordance with the 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.

Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.

There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest.

Councillors Fiona White and Pauline Searle disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in that they both live in parished areas (Agenda item 6).

There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest.

Councillors Fiona White and Pauline Searle disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in that they both lived in parished areas (Agenda item 6).

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 22 October 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2019 were confirmed as a true record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2019 were confirmed as a correct record.

The Leader of the Council announced that the consultation responses received regarding Chantry Wood campsite would be given full consideration and there would be a further review.

The Leader of the Council announced that the consultation responses received regarding Chantry Wood campsite would be given full consideration and there would be a further review.

The Executive agreed the following recommendations to Council (3 December 2019)

(1)        That the Basic Allowance payable to all members of Guildford Borough Council be £7,405 per annum.

(2)        That no councillor shall be entitled to receive at any given time more than one Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA), except in circumstances where a councillor in receipt of an SRA is also entitled to receive the Group Leader’s SRA, and that this ‘One SRA Only Rule’ be adopted into the Scheme of Allowances.

(3)        That the maximum number of recipients of Special Responsibility Allowances at any one time does not exceed 50% of Council Members (24 Members) 

(4)        That the Leader of the Council continues to receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of 200% of the basic allowance, £14,810 per annum.

(5)        That the Deputy Leader receives a Special Responsibility Allowance of 50% of the Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance, £7,405 per annum.

(6)        That the Members of the Executive, the Chair of the Planning Committee, the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Mayor receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of 40% of the Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance, £5,924 per annum.

(7)        That the Shadow Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance be withdrawn.

(8)        That the Chairman of the Licensing Committee, the Deputy Mayor, the Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee, the Chairs of the Executive Advisory Boards and the Guildford Joint Committee Chair each receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of 25% of the Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance, £3,703 per annum.

(9)        That the Vice Chair of the Guildford Joint Committee receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of 10% of the Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance, £1,481 per annum.

(10)     That the Chairs of the Licensing Sub-Committees continue to be eligible to receive a Special Responsibility Allowance on a per meeting basis, currently £280 per meeting

(11)     That Political Group Leaders continue to receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of 1% of the Basic Allowance per group member (£74 per councillor per annum).

(12)     That the role of Deputy Lead Councillor should not be awarded a Special Responsibility Allowance.

(13)     That co-optees continue to receive an allowance of 2.5% of the Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance, £370 per annum.

(14)     That Travelling and Subsistence Allowance should continue to be payable to councillors and co-opted members in connection with any approved duties. 

(15)     That the amounts payable in respect of Travelling and Subsistence Allowance should continue to be the amounts which are payable to officers of the Council for travelling and subsistence undertaken in the course of their duties.

(16)     That Councillors should also be permitted to claim for reimbursement of any reasonable parking charges incurred whilst on approved duties.

(17)     That the Dependants’ Carers’ Allowance should be based on two rates. Rate one for general care be at a rate of £10.58 per hour, with no monthly maximum claim.  Rate two should be for specialist care based at cost upon production of receipts and requiring medical evidence that this type of care is required.  ...  view the full decision text for item EX56

The Chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) introduced the IRP’s report and set out the Panel’s main recommendations. Credit was given to the previous IRP report submitted in 2016, which was described as a comprehensive review with sound recommendations. For this reason, the new report submitted to the Executive built on that previous formula and approach for setting the Basic Allowance.

With regard to the Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs), the IRP had built upon the 2016 framework with the Leader’s Allowance represented as a percentage of the Basic Allowance and subsequent SRA’s presented as a percentage of the Leader’s Allowance. The changes from 2016 were described as limited. There were two new SRAs proposed in the report in recognition of the new roles of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Guildford Joint Committee. In adherence to good practice set by Government it was proposed that no more than fifty per cent of councillors should be in receipt of an SRA and that no councillor should be in receipt of more than one SRA at one time.

It was also proposed that the Dependant’s Carer’s Allowance should be split to recognise specialist care requirements and a recommendation for support for a parental leave policy so that a councillor might continue to receive a basic allowance for up to six months (with adherence to the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of attendance at meetings) enabling the allowance scheme to act as an incentive to councillors and prospective councillors and not a barrier.

Having considered the report, and having regard to the IRP’s recommendations, the Executive

RECOMMEND: That the Council be requested to consider the following recommendations:

(1)        That the Basic Allowance payable to all members of Guildford Borough Council be £7,405 per annum.

(2)        That no councillor shall be entitled to receive at any given time more than one Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA), except in circumstances where a councillor in receipt of an SRA is also entitled to receive the Group Leader’s SRA, and that this ‘One SRA Only Rule’ be adopted into the Scheme of Allowances.

(3)        That the maximum number of recipients of SRAs at any one time does not exceed 50% of Council Members (24 Members) 

(4)        That the Leader of the Council continues to receive an SRA of 200% of the basic allowance, £14,810 per annum.

(5)        That the Deputy Leader receives an SRA of 50% of the Leader’s SRA, £7,405 per annum.

(6)        That the Members of the Executive, the Chair of the Planning Committee, the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Mayor receive an SR A of 40% of the Leader’s SRA, £5,924 per annum.

(7)        That the Shadow Leader’s SRA be withdrawn.

(8)        That the Chairman of the Licensing Committee, the Deputy Mayor, the Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee, the Chairs of the Executive Advisory Boards and the Guildford Joint Committee Chair each receive an S RA of 25% of the Leader’s SRA, £3,703 per  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX56

The Executive agreed:

(1)  That the grant budget for 2020-21 be approved at £90,000, subject to final confirmation by the Council at its budget meeting in February 2020.

(2)  That the parish council requests for grant aid for 2020-21, as set out in Appendix 2 to the committee report, be approved.

(3)  That the remaining balance of £1,889 be met from the Parish Council Urgent Schemes Reserve.

Reasons for Recommendations: 

(1)  To assist parish councils with expenditure on concurrent function schemes in 2020-21.

(2)  To enable parish councils to take account of financial assistance from Guildford Borough Council when calculating their precept requirements for 2020-21. 

Options considered:

The Executive was requested to approve the budget for 2020-21 at this time because the parish councils need to be aware of the level of grant aid available to them so that they can build the sums into their budget calculations for the coming year. Any delay in approving the budget would affect the parish councils’ ability to fix their budget and precept requirement for 2020-21 at the appropriate time to be included in Guildford Borough Council’s final budget approval process in February 2020.

Conflicts of interest:

None.

The Lead Councillor for Finance, Assets and Customer Service introduced the report.

The Executive was asked to approve the budget for 2020-21 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. 

Parishes had been asked to complete a detailed application form and written estimate for each project and identify how the project met with at least one of the three fundamental themes within the Council’s corporate plan.  There had been 27 requests received from 14 of the 23 parish councils totalling £91,889.  A panel of officers had evaluated the bids.  The panel had referred any queries raised back to the parish council concerned and obtained satisfactory responses in all cases.  Bids brought forward for approval totalled £91,889 which was £1,889 over the base budget of £90,000. It was recommended that the residual balance of £1,889 be met from the Parish Council Urgent Schemes Reserve.

The Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)  That the Concurrent Functions grant aid budget for 2020-21 be approved at £90,000, subject to final confirmation by the Council at its budget meeting in February 2020.

(2)  That the parish council requests for grant aid for 2020-21, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

(3)  That the remaining balance of £1,889 be met from the Parish Council Urgent Schemes Reserve.

Reasons:

(1)  To assist parish councils with expenditure on concurrent function schemes in 2020-21.

(2)  To enable parish councils to take account of financial assistance from Guildford Borough Council when calculating their precept requirements for 2020-21. 

The Executive agreed to recommend to Council (meeting 3 December 2019):

(1)  That the current LCTS scheme (a summary of which is on the council website), be amended for 2020-21, as set out in detail in Appendix 2 to the committee report, with effect from 1 April 2020.

(2)  That the Council maintains a discretionary hardship fund of £40,000 in 2020-21.

Reasons for Recommendation: 

(1)  To ensure that the Council complies with legislation to implement a LCTS scheme from 1 April 2020.

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

(3)  To ensure that the Council complies with legislation to implement a LCTS scheme from 1 April 2020.

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

Options considered:

(1)  The Council is in the position to implement some relatively small changes to the scheme to: 

·      address the impact of increases in the cost of living, 

·      reflect changes to HB and Pension Age LCTS regulations with regards to the treatment of income and capital from “the Windrush Compensation Scheme”.  

We can make these amendments within the existing revenue budget.

(2)  There is also a statutory requirement for the Council to amend the definition of pension and working age within it’s working age scheme in accordance with anticipated changes to the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2012 from 1 April 2020

(3)  Creating a Local Council Tax Support Scheme is not without risk:

·         Officers have concluded that the hardship fund helps minimise the risk by providing help for those facing financial hardship because of our scheme rules.  

·         An unstable financial outlook post Brexit puts further financial pressure on vulnerable families and leads to an imbalance between a prudent local welfare arrangement and significant hardship for claimants.  On this basis, officers are recommending only minor changes to our current scheme. 

·         The impact of Universal Credit remains uncertain, and therefore a further risk.  A more radical review of our scheme is being undertaken to try and mitigate any problems, but due to the complexity of the work involved this is more than a one-year project.

(4)  To continue with the momentum of the past six years, the Executive is asked to recommend to Council that an appropriate hardship fund be maintained in 202021, to enable us to continue to support families affected by our local scheme.  Officers suggest retaining a £40,000 pot.

Conflicts of interest:

None.

The Council had a statutory duty to consider annually whether to revise its Local Council Tax Support (LCTS) scheme (otherwise known as Council Tax Reduction (CTR)), replace it with another or make no changes at all.  The Council was obliged to consult with interested parties if it should wish to revise or replace the scheme.  The Council must approve a scheme for the 2020-21 financial year by 31 January 2020, to enable annual bills to be calculated correctly.

The Lead Councillor for Housing, Access and Disability introduced the report. It was noted that the existing scheme was working well, but there was an associated piece of work being undertaken to review the impact of the roll-out of Universal Credit. Any changes made by the Council to the scheme could be supplemented by the Discretionary Hardship Fund, but it was stressed that this was not a general fund. The recommended changes made in the report were within the existing revenue budget. Two of the proposed changes were associated with an increase in the cost of living, another concerned the ‘Windrush’ Compensation Scheme and finally impacts associated with changes to the National Pension Age Scheme. It was noted that Police and Surrey County Council supported the proposed changes. The Lead Councillor for Housing, Access and Disability gave some examples of the implementation of the Scheme and the Hardship Fund.

It was further noted that there would a forthcoming fundamental review of the way in which the consultation process for the Scheme was conducted to ensure that as wide a representation of views as was possible was captured.

 Having considered the report, the Executive

RECOMMEND:

(1)  That the current LCTS scheme  be amended for 2020-21, as set out in detail in Appendix 2 to the report submitted to the Executive, with effect from 1 April 2020.

(2)  That the Council maintains a discretionary hardship fund of £40,000 in 2020-21.

Reasons: 

(1)  To ensure that the Council complies with legislation to implement a LCTS scheme from 1 April 2020.

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

The Executive agreed:

(1)  That the budget assumptions used in the preparation of the 2020-21 outline budget and three year forward projections, be approved. 

(2)  That a supplementary estimate of £125,000 to cover the forecasted budget shortfall in respect of planning appeal fees, be approved.

(3)  That a supplementary estimate of £120,000 to cover enforcement costs at Stoney Castle in Pirbright, be approved.

(4)  That the current position on the outline budget for 2020-21 be noted.

(5)  That the proposal to use the Council’s various earmarked reserves for specific projects, as set out in section 10 of the report, be approved.

(6)  That the pilot 100% council tax reduction for Surrey County Council care leavers for 2020-21 only, be approved.

Reason for Recommendation: 

To assist the Executive in the preparation of the General Fund estimates for 2020-21.

Options considered:

None.

Conflicts of interest:

None

The Executive considered an update report on the current position with regard to the preparation of the Outline Budget for 2020-21. The report had covered the following areas:

• Budget assumptions

·         Revenue Support Grant and Business Rate Retention Scheme

·         Council Tax, tax base and collection fund

·         Care Leavers council tax reduction pilot

·         New Homes Bonus

·         capital expenditure and minimum revenue provision

·         use of reserves and interest earnings

·         draft outline budget for 2020-21

·         Forecasted outturn position for 2019-20

The Joint EAB Budget Task Group and the Joint EAB had considered the outline budget at their meetings held respectively on 8 and 20 November 2019, and a summary of their comments had been circulated to the Executive on the Supplementary Information Sheet.

The report explained that government grant had been included at a level based on the information contained in the 2020-21 Local Government technical consultation document issued on 3 October 2019 but that the amount of grant would not be known for certain until central government released the local government finance settlement which the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had provisionally indicated would be in December 2019.  Officers had assumed a £5 (3.0%) increase in Council Tax.

The draft Council Tax base was 57,645.76, which was 1.5% higher than 2019-20.  This had increased the resources available by approximately £146,100. 

The financial monitoring report for the first six months of 2019-20 had been reported to the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee on 19 November 2019.  The projected net expenditure on the General Fund for the current financial year was estimated to be £0.57 million more than the original estimate.   One of the factors contributing to the forecasted position in 2019-20 was the costs incurred in respect of planning appeals. The report had requested approval of a supplementary estimate to cover these costs and a supplementary estimate to cover the costs of enforcement action at Stoney Castle, Pirbright.

Having considered the report, the Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)  That the budget assumptions used in the preparation of the 2020-21 outline budget and three year forward projections, be approved. 

(2)  That a supplementary estimate of £125,000 to cover the forecasted budget shortfall in respect of planning appeal fees, be approved.

(3)  That a supplementary estimate of £120,000 to cover enforcement costs at Stoney Castle in Pirbright, be approved.

(4)  That the current position on the outline budget for 2020-21 be noted.

(5)  That the proposal to use the Council’s various earmarked reserves for specific projects, as set out in section 10 of the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

(6)  That the pilot 100% council tax reduction for Surrey County Council care leavers for 2020-21 only, be approved.

Reason: 

To assist the Executive in the preparation of the General Fund estimates for 2020-21.

The Executive agreed:

(1)  That Option 2 be approved and that the project be progressed to detailed design and construction.

(2)  That the Director of Environment be authorised to proceed with the detailed designs in respect of the preferred option, and the Director of Finance be authorised to approve a virement from the Capital Contingency Fund up to £367,000 for this purpose.

(3)  That the full capital cost of the preferred option be funded from the Council’s New Homes Bonus Reserve 

(4)  To give further consideration to road layout and design at the junction of South Hill, Sydenham Road and Castle Street to reduce traffic speeds and ease crossing by pedestrians.

Reason for recommendation:

To support the Council’s strategic priority of increasing Guildford town centre’s economic success, increasing accessibility and improving links between the High Street and Cultural Quarter.

Options considered:

Options 1 and 2 as set out in the committee report

Conflicts of interests

None.

Prior to the formal consideration of this matter, the following persons addressed the Executive:

• Bob Bromham (Holy Trinity Amenity Group)
• Matthew Bayliss (South Hill Steering Group)

Both speakers welcomed the review and the proposals but stressed the importance of the safety and priority of pedestrians with Mr Bayliss mentioning in particular the proposals for the area including Sydenham Road, Pewley Hill and South Hill.

Mr Bromham welcomed the pedestrianisation of Chapel Street but felt the levelling of the setts should not be a priority. He was in support of proposed changes to Castle Street but opposed the new road layout at the bottom of South Hill. He asked the Executive to note that pedestrianisation should be a priority following the declaration of a climate emergency.

At its meeting on 8 April 2019, the Executive had agreed to proceed with a public engagement exercise for Guildford town centre public realm improvements from which high-level feasibility design options would be developed.  The Executive was asked to consider the outcome of this work and the available options.

The scheme had focused on delivering public realm improvements to the following:

1.    Chapel Street 

2.    Castle Street

3.    Swan Lane

4.    Pedestrian safety by upgrading existing facilities and introducing new vehicle restrictions to the High Street

5.    Signage and Wayfinding to better connect the historic town centre and promote businesses and the cultural offer of Guildford.

The total budget available was £1.3 million which comprised £1.248 million approved capital budget, £49,300 of revenue budget and a £10,000 contribution from Experience Guildford.

The Executive noted that Swan Lane had been included within the scope of the scheme due to the offer of a financial contribution from a group of Swan Lane landlords.  AECOM, the Council’s Principal Design consultants, had developed a range of costed options, based on feasibility study, but informed by the consultation with residents, businesses, visitors, councillors and council officers.  The two options presented were a core scheme that was within budget and an option that captured the broader scope derived from the consultation feedback which included improvements and bespoke public realm enhancements (architectural lighting and other furniture), along with more complex interventions to address Castle Street traffic issues. 

The options proposed were as follows:

Option 1: The core scheme (including Chapel Street, Castle Street) plus Swan Lane.  This option excluded architectural lighting, signage and wayfinding enhancements but addresses the core elements of road surface treatments, street lighting, traffic control interventions.  This could be delivered for £1.3million which was within budget.

Option 2:  An enhanced scheme which would significantly improve the ‘look and feel’ of the public realm through integration of architectural lighting, street furniture, wayfinding, signage and a major transformation of Tunsgate junction with a large raised table that replicated the lost historic ‘square’. This would cost £1.67 million.  Additional funding of £367,000 would be required through a virement from the capital contingency fund.

Officers also proposed that the full capital cost of the project be funded from the New Homes Bonus (NHB)  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX60

The Executive agreed:

(1)  That the sum of £5.5 million be transferred from the provisional capital programme to the approved capital programme to enable the continuation and completion of the design and construction of phase two and three of the Midleton Industrial Estate redevelopment, as detailed in the committee report. 

(2)  That the Corporate Property Manager, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Finance and Assets, be authorised to progress the design and construction of phase two and three. 

Reason for Recommendation:

To progress the next phases of redevelopment of Midleton Industrial Estate to enhance both the capital value and rental income of the Council’s property holding.

Options considered:

(1)  There is the option to do nothing in which case the existing units continue to deteriorate costing the Council further money to comply with lease terms and statutory requirements.  The units are reaching the end of their economic life and will require significant investment if the Council wishes to re-let the vacant properties.  The current outdated units are not attractive to prospective tenants and should the Council wish to re-let them, the level of rent to be expected will be very low. 

(2)  The only other option is to demolish the existing buildings and simply sell off the sites. This would provide a capital receipt for the Council rather than much needed income. It is also unlikely to attract a better return than developing the site internally.

(3)  A sale would also mean a loss of control of the site. A private developer may not choose to provide much needed small industrial units. In addition, their design may not be as sustainable/energy efficient as the Council has planned.  

Conflicts of interest:

None.

The Executive had approved a business case for the redevelopment of the Midleton Industrial Estate on 24 January 2017, as part of the 2017-18 capital programme. The Executive considered a further report which outlined progress with the delivery of the project, including the current spend and the works completed as well as the remaining scope of works to be delivered during 2019-20 and 2020-21.  The Executive was asked to approve the transfer of £5,500,000 from the provisional capital programme to the approved capital programme in order to complete phases two and three of the redevelopment.

The Executive RESOLVED:

(1)  That the sum of £5.5 million be transferred from the provisional capital programme to the approved capital programme to enable the continuation and completion of the design and construction of phase two and three of the Midleton Industrial Estate redevelopment, as detailed in the  report submitted to the Executive. 

(2)  That the Corporate Property Manager, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Finance and Assets, be authorised to progress the design and construction of phase two and three. 

Reason:

To progress the next phases of redevelopment of Midleton Industrial Estate to enhance both the capital value and rental income of the Council’s property holding.

The Executive agreed:

(1)  That a supplementary estimate of £25,000 (including on-costs) be approved in addition to the existing budget to cover the staff resource. 

(2)  That a contribution of £217,000 be made from the Council’s invest to save reserve into the Salix reserve in 2019-20 to be matched funded by Salix.

Reasons for Recommendation:

To provide the essential staff resources and funding to deliver and support the Council’s Corporate Climate Change strategy and targets. 

Options considered:

(1)  Do nothing           

If the current funding remains at £20,000 the existing staff resource is not sustainable, and the Council will be unable to deliver its current Climate Change and Energy Management targets.  We may not be able to accept the match funding from Salix which would impact the ability to invest in energy saving measures.

(2)  Provide supplementary funding and agree Salix match funding

An additional amount of £25,000 to supplement the current salary budget will ensure that the current resource is retained to deliver the Council’s Climate Change and Energy mandates. The additional match funding into the Salix fund will allow the Council to maximise energy saving opportunities.

Conflicts of interest:

None.

On 23 July 2019, the Council had adopted a motion to declare a Climate Emergency, along with urgent actions, including to reach a target goal of net zero emissions by 2030, working with partners towards a carbon-free borough and establishing a local Climate Change Partnership.

The Executive was asked to consider a supplementary estimate to cover the costs of the staff resource and a contribution to the Salix reserve fund to deliver the Council’s corporate climate change objectives and energy management of its property assets. To support this work during 2019-20, funding for the current staff resources was required in addition to the existing budget allocation.  

The Executive noted that, if approved, the proposals would be the first step in the Council working towards meeting its ambition.

The Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)  That a supplementary estimate of £25,000 (including on-costs) be approved in addition to the existing budget to cover the staff resource. 

(2)  That a contribution of £217,000 be made from the Council’s Invest to Save reserve into the Salix reserve in 2019-20 to be match funded by Salix.

Reason:

To provide the essential staff resources and funding to deliver and support the Council’s Corporate Climate Change strategy and targets. 

The Executive agreed the following recommendation to Council (3 December 2019):

That the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley be nominated for the Mayoralty of the Borough for the municipal year 2020-21.

There were no nominations for Deputy Mayor for the Mayoralty of the Borough for the municipal year 2020-21.

The Executive considered a report on nominations received for election of Mayor and appointment of Deputy Mayor for the municipal year 2020-21.  The constitutional changes adopted by the Council as part of the review of the Civic function in April 2014 in respect of the Mayoralty provided that the Council would normally elect the Deputy Mayor appointed at the annual meeting of the Council as Mayor at the next succeeding annual meeting. 

The Executive noted that, although political group leaders had been asked to submit nominations in respect of the Deputy Mayoralty for 2020-21, none had been received.

It was suggested that an informal gathering for councillors interested in becoming Mayor could be held where the experiences and advice of past Mayors could be shared with potential candidates.

The Executive therefore

RECOMMEND: That the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley be nominated for the Mayoralty of the Borough for the municipal year 2020-21.

The Executive further

RESOLVED: That, in the absence of any nominations for the Deputy Mayoralty for the municipal year 2020-21, further consideration be given to the matter at the Council meeting on 5 February 2020.

Reason:

To make early preparations for the selection of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the municipal year 2020-21.

In accordance with Regulation 5 (2) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the Council published on 29 October 2019 notice of intention to hold part of this meeting in private to discuss Item 14 below: Proposed disposal of Council-owned property in Guildford.

The notice included a statement setting out the reasons for this matter to be discussed in private and inviting anyone wishing to make representations in relation to holding part of the meeting in private for this purpose to do so by 12 noon on 18 November 2019.  As at that date, 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).

In relation to Item 15 below, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee has acknowledged that, in relation to the making of the key decision therein, it is impracticable to comply with the requirement to give 28 days’ notice of intention to deal with this matter in private at this meeting of the Executive; and has agreed that the taking of the key decision is urgent and cannot reasonably be deferred.

In order to consider these matters in private, the Executive is 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.”

Following approval of the resolution to exclude the public, the chairman will ask members of the public to leave the chamber to enable the Executive to consider these matters.  The webcast will also be suspended whilst any such discussion takes place. 

The Executive agreed 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.”

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.”

The Executive agreed with the recommendations of the committee report.

The Executive considered a report on the proposed disposal of a Council owned property in Guildford.  The report had set out details of the property, including its location, and its recent letting. 

The report had also referred to an Options Appraisal in respect of the potential future uses of the site.  The site had also been though a full marketing campaign on an ‘any offer’ basis and details of the bids received were appended to the report.  In order to ensure that the Council was able to meet its best value obligations, the Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)  That the Corporate Property Manager be authorised to take such actions as are required to improve the bids received in terms of price and deliverability and to negotiate detailed terms for the disposal of the Council-owned property in Guildford referred to in this report submitted to the Executive in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Finance and Asset Management, the Managing Director, the Director of Community Services and Chief Finance Officer to ensure that the Council meets its best value obligations.

(2)  That the ring-fencing of the sale proceeds within the provisional capital programme for future re-investment in a better investment property, be approved.

Reasons:

Disposing of the property would allow the Council to reinvest the capital receipts in better property investments and remove the current difficulties and the potential future risks associated with this property whilst capturing the best consideration available in today’s market.

The Executive agreed with the recommendations of the committee report.

The Executive considered a report on the proposed lease of a Council owned property in Guildford town centre.  Councillors noted the principal terms of the proposed lease, which would not only improve the building (by way of refurbishment) and its immediate environment, but also provide an increased financial return on investment.

The transaction would involve the Council contributing a sum towards the cost of the refurbishment, which would be recovered through an enhanced rental stream.  This contribution would be made by way of a virement from the capital contingency fund.

The Executive

RESOLVED: That the principal terms of the proposed lease, as set out in paragraph 3.2 of the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

The Executive further

RECOMMEND:

(1)  That the sum of £2.5 million be vired from the capital contingency fund to enable the lease to be completed.

(2)  That the sum of £36,000 be vired from the budget pressures reserve to cover the associated purchaser costs.

Reasons:

To secure a longer-term income stream and assist with the regeneration of this part of the town centre.