Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor John Rigg, Lead Councillor for Regeneration and Councillor Cait Taylor, Lead Councillor for Climate Change.

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.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore declared a non-pecuniary interest with regard to item 7 of the agenda in that he held a shareholder investment in B4SH of £3000.

There were no other declarations of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 28 April 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held 28 April 2022 were approved as a correct record. The Chairman signed the minutes.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 April 2022 were approved as a correct record. The Chairman signed the minutes.

The Council was supporting the Homes for Ukraine scheme by undertaking security checks on those offering accommodation and ensuring the accommodation was suitable for the guests. So far sponsors had been matched with around 400 Ukrainian guests and around 200 had already arrived. The Council had been busy supporting hosts and guests by processing the welcome and thank you payments. It was recognised that ongoing support was important and there had been two well received and well attended information sessions at the Hive held this week. It was noted that the system of support was evolving and that feedback from guests and hosts would be welcome to enable improvements.

There was more information about how to support those affected by the war in Ukraine on the Council’s website.

Supporting Ukraine - Guildford Borough Council

Next week was Jubilee week and there were a number of events planned in celebration including a launch at G Live where the Vivace Chorus would perform. Guildford Museum had a number of events and activities including an opportunity to meet the town crier and make a traditional tricorn hat. The town centre would be decorated with bunting and flowers. On 2 June at 2pm, outside of the Guildhall, the town crier would announce the lighting of the beacon. There would also be beacon lighting in Fairlands, Normandy, Pirbright, Wood Street and Worplesdon. The civic ceremony would be hosted by the Mayor at Guildford Cathedral. On 4 June there would be a picnic at the castle hosted by Guildford in Bloom with entertainment from the Guildford Fringe Festival. There were over fifty street parties planned across the borough. On 7 Jun there would a Platinum Jubilee-themed farmers market in the town.

Stoke Park paddling pool would reopen on Friday 27 May following refurbishment.

The failure of the city status bid was disappointing but the Leader congratulated those who had been successful . There were particular thanks to the University of Surrey, Property House Management, Surrey County Council and Angela Richardson MP who had provided support for the bid.

There would be testing of the Council’s website at Guildford library every Tuesday morning.

The Leader remembered Councillor Richard Billington who had sadly, recently passed away.

There had been no updates since the last meeting and the Executive noted the report.

There had been no updates since the last meeting and the Executive noted the report.

The Local Plan: Development Management Policies was the second part of Guildford’s Local Plan. Together with the adopted Local Plan: Strategy and Sites document (LPSS), it would fully supersede the existing Local Plan 2003 and become part of the Council’s Development Plan. The Submission Local Plan (SLP) enabled more detailed policies to be used by Development Management in the determination of planning applications, to test those applications and to ensure good development in the borough was sustainable and attractive.

The Chairman introduced a report that sought Executive approval to submit the SLP to Full Council and then subsequently to the Secretary of State for Examination by an independent Planning Inspector.

The report had been considered by the Joint Executive Advisory Board on 10 May 2022 and the comments arising from that meeting were set out in the supplementary agenda.

A ‘Regulation 19 ‘proposed submission’ consultation had been undertaken in January/February 2022, all of the comments and responses had been analysed and some ‘minor modifications’ had been made. No ‘main modifications’ were considered necessary. Of those responses it was noted that generally a two-way split could be observed of respondents who considered the proposals were too exacting and those who felt that the proposals did not go far enough. It was hoped that a balance had been presented and the Council’s own viability study showed the plan to be sound. Density levels had been a topic of many respondents and had been a feature of in-house discussions between councillors; however it had been agreed at Full Council prior to the ‘Regulation 19’ consultation that policies should not become so prescriptive as to encumber fair evaluations of individual applications.

It was explained that Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) were usually adopted by the Council itself. The Parking SPD was unusual case as it might be argued that parking standards was actually policy. The council had taken legal advice and considered that the Parking SPD should be submitted to the Inspector along with the SLP for a final decision. If the Inspector agreed that the parking standard was policy then it would be possible to turn the Parking SPD into an appendix of the SLP. If the Inspector did not agree and considered it should remain an SPD this would be preferable and be more flexible for the council in future.

The Planning Inspector would only review those comments and responses received during the ‘Regulation 19’ consultation and predominantly those responses about matters that were repeated many times and identified by the council as common concerns. The Inspector would consider if the council had fully addressed those matters or if there should be further study to reach a conclusion. If any matter had not been raised during the ‘Regulation 19’ consultation it would not be possible for the council to raise it with the Inspector following submission.

If the recommendation was approved by the Executive to submit to Full Council, it was proposed to submit the plan to the Secretary of State within two  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX6

Decision:

1.     Approved the remaining direct investment of £40,000 in shares to Broadband for Surrey Hills Ltd.

2.     Approved a virement of £60,000 from the capital contingency fund to finance the purchase of the shares and provide a budget of £20,000 to support the costs of surveys, mapping and tracer wires required to provide free wayleaves for B4SH.

Reason:

Over the last three years, B4SH has connected over 200 households to ‘hyperfast’ or 1Gbps full symmetric fibre broadband in the Surrey Hills. As we explore and adopt new ways of working due to cultural shifts brought by the pandemic, it becomes increasingly important to ensure our rural communities have access to strong and secure broadband connections. 

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:

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore declared a non-pecuniary interest with regard to item 7 of the agenda in that he held a shareholder investment in B4SH of £3000.

The Executive considered a report recommending the Council consider investing £40,000 to further support the financing of Broadband for Surrey Hills (B4SH) through the purchase of shares. The report was introduced by the Lead Councillor for Economy.

Broadband for Surrey Hills (B4SH) was a not-for-profit organisation working to deploy fibre broadband to rural communities across the Surrey Hills. In 2018, the Council had approved a proposal to invest £10,000 as a shareholder to support B4SH in initiating its rollout and agreed to grant free wayleaves where fibre crosses Council-owned land. The same report had suggested that the Council consider further investments to B4SH of up to £40,000 after its first phase of rollout.

Since 2018, B4SH had been connecting rural residents and businesses at a critical time when the pandemic demanded access to fast and reliable broadband. B4SH had recently approached. The Executive,

RESOLVED:

(1)    That the remaining direct investment of £40,000 in shares to Broadband for Surrey Hills Ltd, be approved.

(2)    That a virement of £60,000 be approved from the capital contingency fund to finance the purchase of the shares and provide a budget of £20,000 to support the costs of surveys, mapping and tracer wires required to provide free wayleaves for B4SH.

Reason:

Over the last three years, B4SH had connected over 200 households to ‘hyperfast’ or 1Gbps full symmetric fibre broadband in the Surrey Hills. As we explore and adopt new ways of working due to cultural shifts brought by the pandemic, it had become increasingly important to ensure our rural communities had access to strong and secure broadband connections. 

Decision:

1.     That, subject to the corrections set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet, the Executive approved the continuation of the following Executive working groups, with no changes to their terms of reference or membership for the municipal year 2022-23:

·         Climate Change Board

·         Guildford Community Covenant Panel

·         Housing Development Programme Board

·         Local Plan Panel

·         Major Projects Portfolio Board

·         Property Review Group

·         Shaping Guildford’s Future Programme Board

·         Weyside Urban Village Development Governance Board

2.     That the following working groups be disbanded:

·         Arts Development Strategy & Public Art Strategy

·         Aspire Health and Wellbeing Board

·         Electric Theatre Monitoring Group

·         Housing Delivery Board (HRA/RTB/Pipeline)

·         Innovation Board

·         Museum Working Group

·         Play Development Strategy & Fixed Play equipment Group

·         Sports Development Strategy Group

·         Town Twinning Working Group

3.     That the following new boards be established:

·         Capital, Transport & Infrastructure (CTI) Board

·         Community Board

·         Housing Management HRA Board

4.     That the draft terms of reference for the new boards, as set out in the report and in Appendix 1 to the Supplementary Information Sheet be approved.

5.     That the membership of the Capital, Transport & Infrastructure (CTI) Board, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report be approved.

6.     That, in respect of the Community Board and the Housing Management HRA Board, political group leaders be requested to submit nominations for consideration by the Leader of the Council in respect of the vacancies.

Reason(s):

To comply with the requirement on the part of the Executive to periodically review the continuation of the various Working Groups in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 24 (j).

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 Executive considered the annual report setting out the work carried out over the previous twelve months by the various working groups (including boards and panels) that had been established by either the Executive or the Leader/lead councillor, together with the work they were likely to undertake over the coming twelve months.

As a part of the annual review, the Executive was asked to determine whether these groups should continue as presently constituted and, if so, to make or confirm appointments to them.

The Leader of the Council introduced the report. The purpose of the Executive working groups was to support the progress and delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan. Following the restructure resulting from the Future Guildford programme and the pandemic there was a recommendation to disband a number of groups and those ongoing responsibilities would be absorbed within other existing or new groups. Thanks were given to those councillors who had served or continued to serve on the working groups.

An up-to-date list of membership of all the working groups would be circulated to all councillors.

There were some minor corrections and a revised set of the terms of reference for the Housing Management HRA Board set out on the Supplementary Information Sheet circulated at the meeting.

The Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)    That, subject to the corrections set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet, the Executive approved the continuation of the following Executive working groups, with no changes to their terms of reference or membership for the municipal year 2022-23:

·       Climate Change Board

·       Guildford Community Covenant Panel

·       Housing Development Programme Board

·       Local Plan Panel

·       Major Projects Portfolio Board

·       Property Review Group

·       Shaping Guildford’s Future Programme Board

·       Weyside Urban Village Development Governance Board

(2)  That the following working groups be disbanded:

·       Arts Development Strategy & Public Art Strategy

·       Aspire Health and Wellbeing Board

·       Electric Theatre Monitoring Group

·       Housing Delivery Board (HRA/RTB/Pipeline)

·       Innovation Board

·       Museum Working Group

·       Play Development Strategy & Fixed Play equipment Group

·       Sports Development Strategy Group

·       Town Twinning Working Group

(3)  That the following new boards be established:

·       Capital, Transport & Infrastructure (CTI) Board

·       Community Board

·       Housing Management HRA Board

(4)  That the draft terms of reference for the new boards, as set out in the report and in Appendix 1 to the Supplementary Information Sheet be approved.

(5)  That the membership of the Capital, Transport & Infrastructure (CTI) Board, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report be approved.

(6)  That, in respect of the Community Board and the Housing Management HRA Board, political group leaders be requested to submit nominations for consideration by the Leader of the Council in respect of the vacancies.

Reason:

To comply with the requirement on the part of the Executive to periodically review the continuation of the various Working Groups in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 24 (j).

Decision:

That in respect of the vacancies the following nominations be put forward to the SLG for consideration:

1.     Councillor George Potter for the Surrey Pensions Board

2.     Councillor Fiona White for the Integrated Care Partnership Board 

3.     Councillor Catherine Young for the South-East Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Association

4.     Councillor Catherine Young for the Adults and Health Select Committee should her nomination to the South-East Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Association be unsuccessful.

5.     Mayor Dennis Booth for the Surrey Civilian-Military Partnership Board

Reason(s):

To ensure that any nomination submitted by this Council is considered by the SLG.

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 Surrey Leaders' Group (SLG) was formed of the leaders of the twelve Surrey local authorities. It provided a political forum where leaders can come together to discuss strategic issues and act as a strong representative body for local government in Surrey.

Each year local authorities in Surrey were invited to nominate elected members to positions available on outside bodies to which the Surrey Leaders’ Group make appointments. The Leader of the Council introduced the report.

All members of the Council had been canvassed for the vacancies and the opportunity to be nominated. The Executive was invited to approve any expressions of interest submitted by councillors to the positions available this year as follows,

1. Adults and Health Select Committee
2. South-East Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Association
3. Surrey Civilian-Military Partnership Board
4. Integrated Care Partnership Board 

5.    Surrey Pensions Board

A total of 4 expressions of interest had been received. Councillor Young wished to be considered for the Adults and Health Select Committee should her nomination to the South-East Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Association be unsuccessful.

The deadline for submission of nominations to SLG was Monday 6 June 2022.  The Executive

RESOLVED:

That, in respect of the vacancies, the following nominations be put forward to the SLG for consideration:

1.    Councillor George Potter for the Surrey Pensions Board

2.    Councillor Fiona White for the Integrated Care Partnership Board 

3.    Councillor Catherine Young for the South-East Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Association

4.    Councillor Catherine Young for the Adults and Health Select Committee should her nomination to the South-East Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Association be unsuccessful.

5.    The Mayor, Councillor Dennis Booth for the Surrey Civilian-Military Partnership Board

Reason:

To ensure that any nomination submitted by this Council is considered by the SLG.