Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Joss Bigmore and Julia McShane..

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Joss Bigmore and Julia McShane.

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 interest.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 24 September 2019.

The Executive approved, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2019.  The Chairman signed the minutes.

The Executive approved, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2019.  The Chairman signed the minutes.

There were no announcements from the Leader.

There were no announcements from the Leader.

Decision:

(1)     To ask officers to review the parking order through the statutory Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process as soon as practicable

(2)     To agree that the existing TRO remains in place until it is replaced

(3)     To implement a parking control that safeguards the use of the car park for park users

(4)     To agree that a revised control considers the following parameters:

(a)    removal of the no return element;

(b)    one free period of 4 hours each day per visitor within the hours of control (including allowing returns at no charge within the free period) and the ability to charge for additional hours for any time in excess of the free period or for any separate parking event outside of the free period in the same day;

(c)     restrictions that apply Monday to Friday (not at weekends and bank holidays); and

(d)    enforcement times of 9am to 6pm

with the final TRO to be issued for consultation being agreed by the Director of Environment, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Countryside, Rural Life, and the Arts and the Lead Councillor for Waste, Licensing, and Parking. 

Reason:

To comply with the requirements of the Council’s adopted Petition Scheme, by approving action to be taken in response to the e-petition received in respect of this matter.

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

To cease enforcement of the No Return provision.

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

None

Councillors noted that, in January 2018, the Executive had approved a proposal to extend parking restrictions to Council-owned parks, including Kingston Meadows Car Park in East Horsley. These measures had been taken to improve access to parking for local clubs and societies, in particular the village hall, and users of the park’s facilities.

On 8 July 2019, an e-petition was launched on the Council’s website requesting the Council to immediately suspend the ‘no return same day’ restriction at Kingston Meadows Car Park. This e-petition received in excess of 500 signatures and under the Council’s adopted Petition Scheme required the Council to debate the matter raised by the e-petition and to indicate to the e-petition organiser what action, if any, the Council proposed to take in response.

The Council considered the matter at its meeting held on 8 October 2019 and, following the debate, the Council resolved that the Executive be requested to consider the following as action to be taken in response to the e-petition:

(1)     To ask officers to review the parking order through the statutory Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process as soon as practicable

(2)     To agree that the existing TRO remains in place until it is replaced

(3)     To implement a parking control that safeguards the use of the car park for park users

(4)     To agree that a revised control considers the following parameters:

(a)    removal of the no return element;

(b)    one free period of 4 hours each day per visitor within the hours of control (including allowing returns at no charge within the free period) and the ability to charge for additional hours for any time in excess of the free period or for any separate parking event outside of the free period in the same day;

(c)     restrictions that apply Monday to Friday (not at weekends and bank holidays); and

(d)    enforcement times of 9am to 6pm

with the final TRO to be issued for consultation being agreed by the Director of Environment, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Countryside, Rural Life, and the Arts and the Lead Councillor for Waste, Licensing, and Parking. 

Prior to the Executive’s consideration of this matter, the following persons addressed the meeting:

Chris Tailby, Chairman of Trustees of the East Horsley Village Hall, indicated that whilst he welcomed the introduction of the four-hour restriction for parking at the Kingston Meadows Car Park, and would like to see it retained, it was acknowledged that it was the “no return” provision which was causing difficulties locally.

Colin Carmichael, East Horsley Parish Councillor, also emphasised that it was the “no return” provision which was causing significant problems for local residents, who wished to use the car park as a community facility, many of whom made return visits to it during the course of a day.  Mr Carmichael requested that the “no return” provision should be suspended pending the review.

In response to the e-petitioners’ request to immediately suspend the ‘no return same day’ restriction, the Executive was advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX46

Decision:

(1)         That the current Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) at Sutherland Memorial Park Car Park be reviewed through the statutory TRO making, modification, and revocation process, such review:

(a)   to include a consideration of the removal of the “No Return” element; and  

(b)   to take place concurrently with the review of the TRO at Kingston Meadows Car Park, East Horsley.

(2)         That a separate review of the policy around the use of the car park at Sutherland Memorial Park be undertaken and reported back to the Executive.

Reason:

To comply with the requirements of the Council’s adopted Petition Scheme, by approving action to be taken in response to the e-petition received in respect of this matter.

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

To temporarily cease enforcement of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) at Sutherland Memorial Park Car Park and undertake a review as part of the annual parking business plan as per the motion approved by the Council on 8 October 2019.

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

None

Councillors noted that. in January 2018, the Executive had approved a proposal to extend parking restrictions to Council-owned parks, including Sutherland Memorial Park car park in Burpham. These measures had been taken to improve access to parking for local clubs and societies and users of the park’s facilities.

On 22 July 2019, an e-petition was launched on the Council’s website requesting the Council to remove the new parking charges and restrictions at Sutherland Memorial Park car park. This petition received in excess of 500 signatures and under the Council’s adopted Petition Scheme required the Council to debate the matter raised by the e-petition and to indicate to the e-petition organiser what action, if any, the Council proposes to take in response.

The Council considered the matter at its meeting held on 8 October 2019 and, following the debate, the Council resolved that the Executive be requested to consider the following as action to be taken in response to the e-petition:

“To temporarily cease enforcement of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) at Sutherland Memorial Park Car Park and undertake a review as part of the annual parking business plan, such review to include consideration of options based upon the following:

            Maintaining the car park for park visitors:

(a)     Maintain the restrictions in the current TRO with the exception of removing the no return and replacing it with display of a valid ticket.

             Making the car park available for community use:

(b)   Revoke the Order (and return to allowing all day free parking to all), except for the enforcement of anti-social parking, through a new TRO.

(c)   Change the time the order applies from 6am to 5pm weekdays to between 10 am and 5pm, maintaining five hours free (providing time for dropping off, dog walking and additional visits later in the day), as well as unlimited visits after 5pm. The no return would be removed and changed to display of a ticket. This would still restrict motorists from parking all day prior to when the ticket machine issues tickets (10am) and charges would apply to park beyond the five-hour free period.”

Prior to the Executive’s consideration of this matter, the following persons addressed the meeting:

Richard Smee (E-Petition Organiser) indicated that when the restrictions were introduced there was concern locally that they would cause traffic disruption and increase risk to children’s safety and were a solution to a problem that residents did not consider existed in Burpham.  Mr Smee stated that the restrictions had not only had a detrimental impact on the wider community but also impacted on parks users including the bowling club.  He therefore requested that the Council suspends the parking restrictions at Sutherland Memorial Park Car Park.

Three parents of children at Burpham Primary School addressed the meeting and drew attention to the difficulties faced by parents who had cause to use the park during the day but then were unable to lawfully park in the car park in the afternoon to pick up their children from school.  They  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX47

Decision:

That the Annual Audit Letter for 2018-19 be approved.

Reason:

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 considered a report on the completed external audit for 2018-19 for which an Annual Audit Letter had been issued.  The Executive commended the overall conclusion reached by Grant Thornton that they were satisfied that the Council had put in place proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources for the year ending 31 March 2019. 

Having considered the report and noted that the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee had also considered the Annual Audit Letter at its meeting on 30 July 2019 and had commended it for formal approval, the Executive

RESOLVED: That the Annual Audit Letter for 2018-19 be approved.

Reason:

To approve the Annual Audit Report.

Decision:

(1)   That the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan (2020 – 2025), as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved for adoption and publication by the Council.

(2)   That the Director of Planning and Regeneration be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery to agree such minor alterations as proposed by the AONB Board as she may deem necessary.

Reason:

To meet our statutory obligations under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000).

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

Option 2:

To agree to adopt the reviewed Management Plan (2020 – 2025), subject to changes to the document as proposed by councillors or without the delegation of minor changes.

Option 3:

To reject the adoption of the Plan and require a substantial redraft.

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

None

The Executive considered a report which recommended the adoption of the reviewed Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Management Plan (2020 – 2025). The Management Plan contributed to setting out the policy framework for development within the Surrey Hills AONB.

The Management Plan had been reviewed as required under legislation and prepared jointly with other local authorities within the Surrey Hills AONB area. The review of the Management Plan had comprised a deliberately ‘light-touch’ process, with the main changes summarised within the report. Each local authority was required to adopt the Management Plan separately.

Accordingly, the Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)   That the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan (2020 – 2025), as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved for adoption and publication by the Council.

(2)   That the Director of Planning and Regeneration be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery to agree such minor alterations as proposed by the AONB Board as she may deem necessary.

Reason:

To meet our statutory obligations under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Decision:

(1)         That Option 1 – the proposed purchase of ten new electric Mini Buses for the Dial-A-Ride service – be approved.

(2)     That the transfer of £820,000 from the provisional to the approved capital programme, be approved.

Reasons:

To ensure an up to date and reliable fleet for this service and reduce the Council’s vehicle emissions. 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

Option 2 - replace current fleet of buses with new Diesel vehicles

Option 3 - delay replacement of the fleet for 2-3 years

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

None

The Executive was informed that the Council’s Dial a Ride (DAR) mini buses were approaching five years of age and that the Community Care Service, which operated the Dial-a-Ride service had commissioned a review of the replacement options.

The Executive considered a report which examined three possible options as follows:

1.     Replace with a new electric fleet

2.     Replace “like for like”

3.     Delay replacement of the fleet for 2-3 years

The conclusion reached following the review was that electric vehicles provided a beneficial environmental solution at an affordable financial cost.  The Executive therefore

RESOLVED:

(1)         That Option 1 – the proposed purchase of ten new electric Mini Buses for the Dial-A-Ride service, as described in the report submitted to the Executive – be approved.

(2)     That the transfer of £820,000 from the provisional to the approved capital programme, be approved.

Reasons:

To ensure an up to date and reliable fleet for this service and reduce the Council’s vehicle emissions. 

Decision:

That the sum referred to in the NOT FOR PUBLICATION Appendix 2 to the report submitted to the Executive be transferred from the General Fund Capital Programme provisional list to the approved list, subject to the scheme receiving planning permission.

Reason:

To enable the Rodboro Buildings-Electric Theatre through road and parking scheme outlined in this report to be implemented.

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

To do nothing.

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

None

The Executive was reminded that, at its meeting on 7 February 2018, the Council had approved the inclusion of the sum of £450,000 in the General Fund Capital Programme provisional listfor a scheme to improve the area around the Rodboro Buildings and the northern side of the Electric Theatre. The scheme would address pedestrian safety concerns as well as enhancing the area.

The Executive considered a report which sought approval to transfer the sum referred to in the ‘Not for Publication’ Appendix 2 to the report from the provisional to the approved Capital Programme to enable this scheme to be implemented. 

Councillors noted that Appendix 2 contained a schedule setting out the detail of the estimated cost of each element of the scheme, disclosure of which may adversely affect the tendering process so that competition would be undermined. In order to discuss this schedule, the Executive

RESOLVED: That the public be excluded from the meeting due to the likely disclosure of information exempt from publication by virtue of 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)”.

Having noted that Wetherspoons and Popworld would be making a 50% contribution towards the cost of the provision of the bin store element of the scheme, the Executive

RESOLVED: That the sum referred to in the NOT FOR PUBLICATION Appendix 2 to the report submitted to the Executive be transferred from the General Fund Capital Programme provisional list to the approved list, subject to the scheme receiving planning permission.

Reason:

To enable the Rodboro Buildings-Electric Theatre through road and parking scheme outlined in this report to be implemented.