Agenda and minutes

The Committee was advised of apologies from Councillors Geoff Davis, Sandy Lowry, Katie Steel, James Walsh, and Catherine Young.  Councillors Vanessa King and Howard Smith substituted for Councillors Katie Steel and James Walsh respectively.

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 not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must 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 interests.

To confirm the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 10 July.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2024 were approved.

To consider Thames Water’s planning for the Guildford area.

The Chair welcomed representatives from Thames Water: Tess Fayers, Waste and Bioresources Director, Simon Moore, Head of Planning, and Alice Keeping, Local Engagement Manager, South West London and Surrey.  He advised the meeting that the item followed on from an earlier Committee discussion in January 2024 that had considered the outages of November 2023, the management of the crisis, and the measures being put in place to avoid such outages in the future.

The Waste and Bioresources Director, Thames Water, and the Head of Planning, Thames Water, gave a presentation titled ‘Guildford Resilience’, which updated on the November 2023 water supply interruption and advised of improvements to Guildford’s water supply.  The Committee was advised of progress achieved in addressing the feedback relating to the November outages, including visits to 1,479 customers.  In addition, the Waste and Bioresources Director, Thames Water, informed the meeting that additional goodwill payments of £30 had been paid to all customers affected by the November outages and that 95% of customers were satisfied with the response and resolution to their feedback.  She indicated that a small number of customers remained unsatisfied, and that Thames Water was working with the Consumer Council for Water to resolve these cases.

The Waste and Bioresources Director, Thames Water, informed the meeting that the November outages in Guildford had led to a reconsideration of the compensation practice for customers in challenging topographic areas where variations in water pressure could impact localities and communities differently.

The Head of Planning, Thames Water, advised the Committee on aspects of water supply and resilience in the Guildford area.  He explained Guildford’s water resource zone and outlined Thames Water’s strategy for improving the area’s resilience and preparing for future growth.  The Committee was informed that Guildford was an island zone, with no connectivity with other water companies or other parts of the Thames Water area.  The Head of Planning, Thames Water, indicated that there was sufficient groundwater within the Guildford area and that the aquifers in the area were considered by the Environment Agency to be low risk. 

The Head of Planning, Thames Water, indicated that typical demand for the Guildford area was up to 67 megalitres per day, a volume equivalent to thirty Olympic size swimming pools.  He advised that Thames Water had six treatment works and fourteen service reservoirs in the Guildford water resource zone.

The Committee was informed of efforts by Thames Water to improve water availability, through focusing on reducing both leaks and consumption.  The Head of Planning, Thames Water said that approximately one third of reported leaks were losses from customers’ own networks.  He advised that Thames Water had a target of reducing leakage by 1.6 - 1.7 megalitres per day by 2030 and its smart metering programme had already resulted in approximately ten-thousand meters installed across the area, with a meter-coverage target of 80-85% of all properties by 2030.

The Committee was informed of AMP 7 and AMP 8 investment for the Guildford area, including two new transfer  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSS12

The Private Sector Housing Manager introduced the report submitted to the Committee.  He confirmed that the Assistant Director, Planning Development, had co-authored the report.  The Committee was advised of the background to the report and informed that the two most common measures to control and further regulate Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) were additional HMO licensing and an Article 4 Direction.  The Private Sector Housing Manager reminded the meeting that Guildford Borough had mandatory HMO licensing only and that HMOs of 3-4 persons did not require a licence to operate lawfully. 

The Private Sector Housing Manager informed the Committee that the data within the report did not support the introduction of additional HMO licensing or justify an Article 4 Direction in Guildford at the current time.

During the ensuing discussion a number of issues were raised and responded to:

·       A member of the Committee questioned why the report had been prepared without any consultation with residents.  He suggested that the views of residents be added into the report. 

·       In addition, the same Committee member advised the meeting that the ward he represented had numerous HMOs due to its proximity to the University of Surrey and the Royal Surrey County Hospital and he suggested the data presented in the report underplayed the number and density of HMOs.  As an example, the Committee member contrasted the HMO figures in the report for Beckingham Road and the Ashenden estate with student residency information for the same areas provided to him by the University of Surrey and suggested that there were many HMOs not captured by the data used for the report. 

·       In reply, the Private Sector Housing Manager stated that the information within the report reflected HMOs that were known to exist.  He suggested that perhaps the information provided to the Committee member by the University of Surrey was less reliable and could reflect students living with parents rather than an additional HMO.  He stated that if there was a re-writing of the report in future then new data sources could be considered. 

·       The Assistant Director, Planning Development acknowledged that the report was a snapshot pulled together from various sources and was not the definitive position on the concentration of HMOs across the Borough.  She suggested that if controls were to be explored further then a completely reliable source of data to identify HMOs would need to be established and maintained going forward. 

·       With reference to section 12.1 (iv) of the report, entitled ‘HMO Decline (2022-2023)’, members of the Committee questioned why a slowing of applications for new HMOs had been presented within the report as a decline, especially since the overall number of licensed HMOs had continued to increase.  In response, the Private Sector Housing Manager indicated that the report was intending to show that the annual rate of HMO applications was returning to pre-2018 levels.  He advised that Figure 4 within the report was intended to show that the potential impact of an Article 4 Directive had become less significant over  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSS13

To approve the Committee’s work plan, including the establishment of an overview and scrutiny task and finish group to review the Council’s Heritage Service and Tourist Information Centre.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny) advised of changes to the draft work plan attached as Appendix One to the report submitted to the Committee; namely, a request to defer consideration of the Safer Guildford Partnership Annual Report, 2023-24 and the Safeguarding Children and Adults at Risk Policy to the February 2025 meeting of the Committee.  The Committee indicated its agreement to re-schedule the items as requested. 

The Lead Councillor for Commercial Services outlined a request for the Committee to establish a task and finish group to review the Heritage Service and Tourist Information Centre.  She advised that a range of reports had been considered by various committees over the years, but the Council’s Heritage Service had remained static.  The Lead Councillor for Commercial Services reminded the meeting of funding constraints facing for all local authorities in England and noted that the Heritage Service was not a statutory service.  She suggested the value in developing proposals for the service that did not need additional resources.  The Lead Councillor for Commercial Services noted that the proposed review was to consider a strategy for the Council's Heritage Service, rather than the wider heritage offering of the Borough.

In response to queries from a member of the Committee about updating assets such as the museum and a previous bid to the National Lottery Heritage Fund, the Heritage Lead indicated the merit in developing a strategy and allocating resources in a manner that freed up capacity to explore funding options not reliant solely on Council funding. 

The Council’s Historic Environment and Design Champion welcomed the proposed review and indicated the financial benefit of the heritage offer, as well as its social and cultural benefits to Guildford.  In addition, he praised the consultation outlined within the proposed review.

A member of the Committee indicated the importance of exploring and developing the Heritage Service’s engagement with schools and children. 

The Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Housing suggested the importance of the review considering the accessibility of the Heritage Service, particularly whether some buildings were accessible to the whole community.  She indicated the value in obtaining views on the Heritage Service from stakeholders.

RESOLVED:  (I)  That the Committee’s work programme as attached at Appendix 1 of the report submitted to the Committee and updated in the meeting be approved.

(II)  That the establishment of a task and finish group to review the Council’s Heritage Service and Tourist Information Centre be approved.