Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Cait Taylor, Lead Councillor for Climate Change and Councillor James Steel, Lead Councillor for Environment.

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.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 24 February 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 February 2022 were confirmed as a correct record. The Chairman signed the minutes.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 February 2022 were confirmed as a correct record. The Chairman signed the minutes.

The Leader of the Council referred to the war in Ukraine and confirmed that Guildford Borough Council would do its best to offer support to those in need of assistance. Further guidance about the ‘Homes for Ukraine’ scheme was expected soon. The scheme was launched by the government on 14 March and enabled individuals, businesses and charities to sponsor those who did not have family links in the UK. It was noted that residents offering to sponsor a nominated individual to safety would not have their council tax benefits and discounts affected by their participation. The council had registered to be a part of the scheme and there would be discussions with Surrey County Council about how the £10,500 fund allocated per person would be spent.

Homes for Ukraine – Homes for Ukraine – Local Sponsorship Scheme for Ukraine (campaign.gov.uk)

It was noted that Covid was again on the rise locally. The Leader urged residents to get vaccinated, ventilate rooms, wear face coverings in crowded places, stay at home and get tested if they had symptoms and wash hands regularly.

‘Build Guildford’ was a new interactive display at Guildford Museum running from 26 March to 7 May. A model of the town would be created using recycled cardboard boxes or cards. There would be facilitated workshops where visitors could make a building to add to the display.

The display 'Soldiers of Surrey: Stories from The Queen's Royal Regiment' by the Surrey Infantry Collection was also still running. Guildford Museum was open Wednesday to Saturdays from 12-4:30pm.

The Leader of the Council invited the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to comment on the new standing item on the agenda. The Chairman of the committee welcomed the report.

The members of the Executive described the report as a very useful summary and agreed and endorsed the recommendations as set out.

The Leader of the Council invited the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to comment on the new standing item on the agenda. The Chairman of the committee welcomed the report.

The members of the Executive described the report as a very useful summary and agreed and endorsed the recommendations as set out.

Decision:

(1)    That the variation of the existing town centre Public Spaces Protection Order, as set in Appendices 1 and 2 to the report submitted to the Executive, including the extension of geographical area and variation in behaviours, be approved.

(2)    That the proposed actions set out in Appendix 3 to the report, which aimed to address the outstanding actions raised during the review of the Public Spaces Protection Order, be approved.

Reasons:

(1)   The Council had demonstrated that it had undertaken the statutory process to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that:

·       activities had taken place that had a detrimental effect on the quality of life for those in the localities identified, or it was likely that activities would take place and that they would have a detrimental effect, and

·       the effect or likely effect of those activities:

o   was, or was likely to be, persistent or continuing in nature,

o   was, or was likely to be, unreasonable, and

o   justified the restrictions being imposed.

(2)   The PSPO review highlighted behaviours that were not appropriate for inclusion in a PSPO and would be better addressed with other tools or existing powers.

(3)   The PSPO review presented evidence of a lack of awareness of the existing PSPO and an absence of a robust enforcement policy to respond appropriately to breaches.

Other 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.

Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) were introduced through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and were part of a range of measures available to councils to address anti-social behaviour. PSPOs focused on identified problem behaviour in a specific location and the impact of that behaviour on communities and individuals. The Council had two PSPOs in place, one was a borough wide PSPO relating to dog fouling and the other a town centre PSPO relating to alcohol consumption. The council was required to review any PSPO at least every three years at which point they may be removed, amended, or extended by up to a further three years if there was a need for such a response to the problem.

The Executive considered a report relating to the town centre PSPO which set out the evidence and arguments to make a number of variations to the Order.  There was a recommendation to include additional behaviours including rowdy and inconsiderate behaviour and the use of ‘legal high’ substances. In addition the scope of the Order would be expanded to include The Mount, Josephs Road and Stoke Park. Enforcement would be educational and mainly targeted at repeat offenders.

Executive and ward councillors welcomed the recommendations, especially the geographical extension. It was noted that the PSPO did not include the problem of Parkour or ‘free running’ that was currently an issue for the town centre. This was resulting in damage to town centre roofs surrounding the Guildhall, especially in Market Street. The Leader of the Council would raise the matter with officers.

Officers and the members of the Joint Action Group (JAG) were commended for the report.

The Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)    That the variation of the existing town centre Public Spaces Protection Order, as set in Appendices 1 and 2 to the report submitted to the Executive, including the extension of geographical area and variation in behaviours, be approved.

(2)    That the proposed actions set out in Appendix 3 to the report, which aimed to address the outstanding actions raised during the review of the Public Spaces Protection Order, be approved.

Reasons:

(1)   The Council had demonstrated that it had undertaken the statutory process to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that:

·       activities had taken place that had a detrimental effect on the quality of life for those in the localities identified, or it was likely that activities would take place and that they would have a detrimental effect, and

·       the effect or likely effect of those activities:

o   was, or was likely to be, persistent or continuing in nature,

o   was, or was likely to be, unreasonable, and

o   justified the restrictions being imposed.

(2)   The PSPO review highlighted behaviours that were not appropriate for inclusion in a PSPO and would be better addressed with other tools or existing powers.

(3)   The PSPO review presented evidence of a lack of awareness of the existing PSPO and an absence of a robust enforcement policy to respond appropriately to breaches.  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX85

Decision:

(1)   That the provision of day care services for the elderly be consolidated at The Hive to maintain high quality service provision for all residents in the borough.

(2)   That the following recommendations from the Service Delivery EAB be actioned by the Head of Community Services:

a)     The possibility of introducing a lunch provision at Japonica Court be explored to support those residents who previously accessed the lunch club at the Shawfield Centre.

b)     A breakdown of the projected revenue savings of £170,000 be provided to the Service Delivery EAB to clarify the amount of funding expected to be saved from the Shawfield Centre closure, balanced against any rise in costs associated with an increase in the use of The Hive and community transport and any ongoing upkeep of the building including utility payments.

(3)   That the Head of Asset Management be requested to develop a project mandate in respect of the options for the future use of the Shawfield Centre site without delay to prevent a community facility falling into disuse for a length of time, one of which should consider the operation of the property by an external organisation such as a parish council, charity or local enterprise.

Reason:

To maintain or improve the quality of provision for day centre customers, whilst reducing costs as part of our savings strategy.

Other 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 Council had two purpose-built day centres providing support and care services for elderly residents, The Hive (formerly known as the Park Barn Centre) in Guildford and the Shawfield Centre in Ash. A care service for the elderly was a discretionary service for the Council. As a part of the agreed medium term savings review all discretionary services were being evaluated and new ways to deliver services explored. The Shawfield Centre had been closed for the duration of the pandemic and its existing customers had been transported to the Hive.

As a part of that review there had been public consultation with regard to the future of older people’s services, including the option of consolidating services at The Hive. The outcome of the consultation exercise and views of key health and social care partners was shared with the Service Delivery Executive Advisory Board (SDEAB) on 13 January 2022.

The Executive considered a report which set out the future of day care provision for the elderly. This included the outcome of the consultation exercise, an Equalities Impact Assessment, the views of key health and social care partners and the recommendations of the SDEAB to the Executive.

The report had concluded that the best quality of care for our elderly residents could be delivered by consolidating service provision at The Hive, whilst making significant savings for the Council.

The report was introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Council who noted that changes to discretionary services offered challenging choices and decisions. The consultation had been wide ranging and engaged stakeholders and partner agencies as well as ward councillors and the SDEAB. A key consultee was the independent chair of the Guildford and Waverley Integrated Care Partnership and Adult Social Care commissioners as well as two community volunteers who provided services to the elderly in Ash. Paramount going forward was the importance of providing the highest quality service possible and consultees felt that the provision at The Hive was more suitable due to the limitations of the Shawfield building. It was noted that even before the pandemic most social care referrals were to The Hive. The Hive offered a multigenerational space with multiple activities going on which was beneficial to users particularly those suffering from dementia and physical disability.

The Chairman of the SDEAB was in remote attendance and spoke of the sense of loss that the members of the Board perceived for Ash residents by the closure of Shawfield; however, the quality of services offered at the Hive and the cost savings were also important considerations. Overall, there was support for the multigenerational offer at The Hive and the benefits that would bring to individual service users. Officers had worked with service users and their carers to make the transition as smooth as possible. The SDEAB considered that The Hive could open its offer to more residents across the borough.

Ward councillors for Ash expressed disappointment that Shawfield would not remain open, but were appreciative of the need for savings and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX86

Decision:

To recommend that full Council (on 5 April 2022) approves the Pre-Election Period Publicity Policy, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, with immediate effect.

Reasons:

To protect the interests of the Council, and to provide guidance to Councillors and Officers on publicity and the use of Council resources during the Pre-Election Period.

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

·       To not adopt the Policy and continue with the status quo.

·       To ask for amendments to be made to the Policy and a further version to be drafted.

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

None.

The Pre-Election Period was the six week period prior to an election. There were statutory restrictions in Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 that applied to the council publicity during the Pre-Election Period.

The Pre-Election Period Publicity Policy sought to ensure that the Council acted lawfully in relation to the use of council resources in the lead up to an election, to provide guidance to councillors and officers and to limit council and committee meetings and other decision-making taking place during the Pre-Election Period to those which were strictly necessary and business as usual.

The Leader of the Council introduced the report.

It was proposed that only the Planning Committee, the Licensing Committee and Licensing Sub-Committees would be scheduled during this period. The municipal calendar for 2022-23 had already been approved by full Council with this policy in mind.

The Policy highlighted specific guidance for councillors and officers in carrying out their roles including delegated decision making. The Policy also specifically limited initiating public consultation processes during the Pre-Election Period.

The Policy also made provision for extraordinary Full Council and/or Special Committee meetings to be arranged if, in the opinion of the Joint Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer, it was considered to be in the Council’s interests to hold them for urgent items of business.

The Executive

RECOMMEND (to Council on 5 April 2022):

That the Pre-Election Period Publicity Policy, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive be approved with immediate effect.

Reasons:

To protect the interests of the Council, and to provide guidance to Councillors and Officers on publicity and the use of Council resources during the Pre-Election Period.