Agenda and minutes

The Committee was advised of apologies from Councillors Sallie Barker, James Jones, Steven Lee, and Sandy Lowry.

To receive from Members, declarations of interest in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting in accordance with the Councillor Code of Conduct.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 3 February 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2025 were approved.

A question session with Councillor Fiona White, Lead Councillor for Planning. Councillor White’s areas of responsibility: Planning Applications, Planning Enforcement, Planning Integration and Improvement, Planning Policy.

The Chair introduced the item and invited the Lead Councillor for Planning to make some introductory remarks about her portfolio before the commencement of the question and answer session.

The Lead Councillor for Planning stated the importance of planning to the local authority and the lasting impact of planning decisions for the local area.  She spoke of the importance of the Local Plan update and praised the work of the Assistant Director of Planning Development and her staff.

During the ensuing discussion a number of issues were explored and clarifications offered:

·       In response to a question about the benefits and challenges of government reforms to the planning system for Guildford in future years, the Lead Councillor for Planning suggested the difficulty of knowing the impact as the government’s reforms were beginning.  She referred to changes to the way planning committees operated in the national scheme of delegation, changes in national development management policies, changes in the preparation of Local Plans, and a possibly improved focus of resources in the decision-making process.  The Assistant Director of Planning Development confirmed the uncertainty associated with government’s planning reforms and advised that there would be consequences for the cost of delivering the planning service and the recruitment and retention of experienced planning staff. 

·       A member of the Committee asked about possible changes to Local Plan areas because of Local Government Reorganisation and was advised that as up-to-date Local Plans had to prepared within thirty months then the current boundaries would apply. 

·       In reply to a question, the Lead Councillor for Planning and the Assistant Director of Planning Development indicated that a draft Heights Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) should be reported to the Executive over the summer following internal consultation.

·       The Lead Councillor for Planning was asked how best to defend inappropriate development in the Borough when the five year housing land supply ran out later in 2025.  In reply, the Committee was reminded of the relevant policy background and informed that what was considered inappropriate development would change at the point when the Council ceased to have a five-year housing land supply.  The Assistant Director of Planning Development indicated that the consequences of not having a five-year housing land supply would need to be factored into decision-making at planning committee.

·       The Lead Councillor for Planning suggested that any targets for planning officers to respond to emails from the public needed to be realistic because different planning officers had different priorities or competing pressures.  She acknowledged that sometimes the wait for a response was too long but indicated she did not support the introduction of a forty-eight hour target to respond to emails from members of the public as it would be unachievable. 

·       The Assistant Director of Planning Development informed the meeting that a national survey by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had shown that ninety-one percent of planning authorities reported difficulty in recruitment, seventy-two percent reported difficulty in retaining staff, ninety-seven percent reported skills gaps in planning, and half procured external  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSS37

The Assistant Director of Community Services introduced the report submitted to the Committee and praised the work of the Joint Family Support/Refugee Resettlement Team Leader and the Community Wellbeing Team Leader in its preparation.  She advised the meeting that the proposed safeguarding policy and procedure aligned the policy approach with Waverley Borough Council.  The Assistant Director of Community Services stated that the purpose of the report was to request the views and comments of the Committee prior to asking the Executive to approve the new safeguarding policy and procedure for the Council.  She outlined to Councillors the respective safeguarding responsibilities of the Council and Surrey County Council.  The Assistant Director of Community Services indicated that Councillor training on safeguarding was to be arranged and she suggested the value in reports to the Committee on safeguarding trends and illustrative case studies.  The Chair and other Committee members welcomed the suggestion of safeguarding training for Councillors.

The Strategic Director for Housing, Communities, and Environment praised the new safeguarding policy and the efforts of the Joint Family Support/Refugee Resettlement Team Leader and the Community Wellbeing Team Leader in preparing the documents submitted to the Committee.

In response to a question, the Assistant Director of Community Services advised that safeguarding referral mechanisms would change with Local Government Reorganisation and the move to a unitary council. 

The Assistant Director of Community Services confirmed that there was not specific reference to asylum seekers within the new safeguarding policy and that everyone would be treated equally.

In reply to a query from the Chair, the Assistant Director of Community Services suggested that an annual report to the Committee on safeguarding at the Council would show trends and improvements.  The Committee agreed to add such a report to its work plan.

The Chair thanked officers for attending.

The Lead Councillor for Commercial Services introduced the report submitted to the Committee.  She indicated that the report gave an overview of the Council’s leisure facilities for the thirteenth contract year, from April 2023 to March 2024, and advised that the current contract expired in October 2025.

The Lead Councillor for Commercial Services stated that during 2023-24 the operator of the leisure facilities, Freedom Leisure, declared a surplus of just under £250,000 and that as this was under the operator’s bid no surplus was due to the Council.  She advised that the Council’s management fee for the operation of the contract was approximately £1.04m.  The Lead Councillor for Commercial Services highlighted the healthy communities section of Appendix 1 of the report submitted to the Committee and the importance of such inclusivity to the Council.

The Leisure Contracts Officer noted the importance of the Spectrum leisure centre as a venue and tourist destination and the works completed on the Lido to safeguard its future and make it more accessible and environmentally friendly.  She indicated the importance of customer feedback and the positive nature of the customer views received. 

With reference to information within the report demonstrating the geographic reach of the Spectrum as a tourist destination, a member of the Committee questioned if the ice rink was the main attraction.  In reply, the Lead Councillor for Commercial Services spoke of the variety of clubs and activities taking place at the Spectrum, and the pull of the Guildford Flames ice hockey club.  She confirmed that one of the Council’s corporate priorities was to be a prosperous borough, and that the Spectrum was very much a part of this.  The Leisure Contracts Officer suggested that the Spectrum's unique selling point was the number of complementing facilities all under one roof, with the ice-rink, leisure pool, and bowling perhaps the main attractions. 

In answer to a question from a Committee member, the Lead Councillor for Commercial Services suggested that Surrey Sports Park was more a complementary offer to the Spectrum, than a competing one.  The Leisure Contracts Officer indicated that the Spectrum was more family-focused than Surrey Sports Park.

The Leisure Contracts Officer confirmed that the operator had declared a surplus of £247,728 for 2023-24, whereas they had bid a forecast surplus of £288,514 for 2023-24.

With reference to her own family’s experiences, a member of the Committee commended the social and wellbeing value of the Spectrum centre. 

In response to a request for increased opportunities for smaller swim clubs and for winter swimming at the Lido, the Lead Councillor referred to the terms of the current contract and the specification put out to bidders for the new contract that would begin in November 2025.

The Chair suggested that, notwithstanding its refurbishment, cleanliness and maintenance were continuing issues at the Lido, particularly during busy periods, and in changing rooms at the gym at the Spectrum.  The Lead Councillor for Commercial Services indicated the feedback would be relayed to the operator.

The Chair requested that  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSS39

To consider and agree the Committee’s work plan.

With reference to matters outstanding from previous meetings, the Senior Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny) informed the meeting that Thames Water had provided a further update.  He advised the meeting that the visit to the Ladymead water treatment works was to be timed around upgrades that were taking place.  In addition, he stated that Thames Water had indicated the proposed Councillor Surgery would be best arranged following the Final Determination so information about investment plans could be shared with Councillors.

There were no questions from Committee members.

The Chair thanked everyone and closed the meeting.