Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Paul Abbey, Guida Esteves, David Goodwin, Liz Hogger, Tom Hunt, Jo Randall, James Steel, Cait Taylor, James Walsh, and Catherine Young, and also from Honorary Aldermen Keith Childs, Catherine Cobley, Jayne Marks, Terence Patrick, Tony Phillips, Lynda Strudwick and Jenny Wicks.

To receive and note any disclosable pecuniary interests from councillors. 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 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 special meeting of the Council held on 1 December 2022 (to follow).

The Council confirmed, as a correct record, the minutes of the special meeting held on 1 December 2022. The Mayor signed the minutes.

To receive any communications or announcements from the Mayor.

The Mayor reported that he was delighted to help out with the annual Christmas Charity collection for Challengers, which took place on 3 December at the Tesco store in Guildford.  The collection managed to raise £435.04.

The Mayor had also visited Whizzkids where he had met some amazing young people in specially adapted wheelchairs, one of whom had six chairs because of the number of different sporting activities he took part in. 

The Mayor also reported that on 4 December, he had great pleasure in starting and handing out medals to those who had taken part in the Challengers Santa’s Run at Stoke Park.  The event had attracted a record number of runners. 

In July of this year, the Birmingham 2022 Queen’s Baton Relay briefly visited Surrey during its final journey through England in advance of the Commonwealth Games.  The Mayor had been present at Newlands Corner to witness the Baton being passed along the route.  The Mayor reported that he had received a commemorative certificate, and a model of the Baton.

To receive any communications or announcements from the Leader of the Council.

The Leader reported on the following matters to the Council:

(a)        Changes to the Executive, details of which had been appended to the Order Paper, were summarised as follows:

·       The Leader would continue to be the lead councillor for housing and community.

·       Councillor Joss Bigmore, as Deputy Leader, would become the Lead Councillor for Finance and Planning Policy.

·       Councillor Tim Anderson was the Lead Councillor for Assets and Property.

·       Councillor Tom Hunt was the Lead Councillor for Planning Development, Legal and Democratic Services.

·       Councillor George Potter was now the Lead Councillor for Climate Change and Organisational Development

·       Councillor John Redpath was the Lead Councillor for Customer and Commercial Services.

·       Councillor John Rigg was the Lead Councillor for Regeneration and

·       Councillor James Steel was the Lead Councillor for Environment and Regulatory Services.

(b)        Major Incident on 30 November and into 1 December: Water Outage affecting residents living in the GU1, GU2, GU3, GU4, and GU5 postcodes. GBC and WBC teams worked together to respond quickly and kept residents informed via our website and social media channels. Our call centre and well-being teams called almost 1,200 vulnerable residents across the affected areas.  The Leader thanked all the staff who stayed late and diverted resources to ensure that this incident was managed effectively.

(c)        Applications under the Household Support Fund scheme were now open until 31 March 2023.  The scheme provided a grant of up to £400 per household for those in need of support towards the cost of fuel, food and other essential items. Residents can apply online using a new application form on our website, which had been designed to make the application process as quick, easy, and inclusive as possible.

(d)        A Christmas Fair would be held at the Hive on Saturday 10 December between 11am to 2pm. There would be Christmas stalls, Santa's grotto, chestnuts on the fire, and music from Get Plucky Ukulele Group and Rhythm of Voice Community Choir.

(e)        Gaskin’s free Christmas lunch for the lonely, vulnerable and students in need who live within 10 miles of Guildford. Last year they cooked and delivered 382 meals. With energy costs rising and more families struggling, the organisers were anticipating even more demand this year. All the food had been donated but they still needed volunteers and drivers to deliver.

(f)         Festive family trail and competition. The Nutcracker statue trail was another free activity to help bring festive magic to our town centre this year. From 7 December, ten impressive Nutcracker statues would arrive at mystery locations around Guildford. Families and individuals had until 5 January 2023 to follow the trail map, find the Nutcracker statues hidden in shops, and businesses, and spell out the festive word. All correct entries would go into a prize draw. The Leader thanked the businesses who had agreed to host our festive visitors this year and generously donated some fantastic prizes.

(g)        This year’s White Ribbon campaign had started on 25 November. The date had  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO77

To receive questions or statements from the public.

There were no questions or statements from the public.

To hear questions (if any) from councillors of which due notice has been given.

Councillor Tony Rooth asked the Lead Councillor for Regeneration, Councillor John Rigg, the question below. Councillor Rigg’s response to each element of the question is set out in red type below.

“Following the discussion at the North Street presentation for councillors on 14 November 2022, I have now looked again at the consultants’ reports on the proposed North Street development (22/P/01336) and in particular the transport /bus station.

I notice that the latest Motion report filed on 15^th November is shown as “gbc corporate highways review” and appears commissioned by “GBC Corporate projects”.

“Corporate” is surely a separate and distinct part of GBC from “Planning”, which acts in a semi judicial capacity required to, inter alia, “approach each application with an open mind, avoid pre-conceived opinions” and “avoid undue contact with interested parties”.

There must be lines drawn, Chinese walls erected between Corporate and Planning within GBC.

Therefore,

(a)   Why did “Corporate” involve itself with this Planning application at all?

The GBC Corporate team have provided the Council as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) with relevant information in respect of various matters when requested, based on knowledge of the site. For example, matters where the developer has obligations to the Council under the terms of the Sales and Purchase Agreement, the provision of a refurbished bus interchange, highways alterations, the pedestrianisation of North Street and the provision of new public space between the Friary and Black Sheep Coffee.

The GBC Corporate team is tasked with regeneration and managing the Council’s assets. Progressing the North Street regeneration project involves selling a parcel of GBC owned land representing about 17% of the site.

The negotiation enables the Council to secure benefits from the transaction, consistent with the Council’s ambitions in the Council’s Strategic Framework, 2021 to 2025. The strategic priorities are to bring forward Homes and Jobs. Specifically, this is stated in full at the beginning of every council and committee agenda and includes:

·            Revive Guildford town centre to unlock its full potential

·            Provide and facilitate housing people can afford

·            Create employment opportunities through regeneration 

·            Support high quality development of strategic sites

·            Support our business community and attract new inward investment.

(b)   What are the established, documented lines drawn, Chinese walls etc between the various parts of GBC?

The land transaction was managed by the Corporate Programmes team under a designated Head of Service. The LPA has been dealing with the planning application under a separate Head of Service. There is no requirement for a Handling Arrangement in this instance as GBC Corporate is not the applicant.

The LPA receives, scrutinises, and processes the planning application independently. All negotiations between the developer and the LPA have been conducted without members or representatives of the corporate body being present. 

(c)   Does GBC, “corporate” or otherwise, have interests, financial or otherwise in a favourable (or indeed negative) outcome of this application?

The developer is purchasing the Council’s land for a capital sum and is contracted to refurbish Guildford bus station and undertake  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO79

The Council considered the Capital and Investment Outturn report for 2021-22, which had set out:

·       a summary of the economic factors affecting the approved strategy and counterparty updates

·       a summary of the approved strategy for 2021-22

·       a summary of the treasury management activity for 2021-22

·       compliance with the treasury and prudential indicators

·       non-treasury investments

·       capital programme

·       risks and performance

·       Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP)

·       details of external service providers

·       details of training

In total, expenditure on the General Fund capital programme had been £39.78 million against the original budget of £148.3 million, and revised budget of £141.9 million.  Details of the revised estimate and actual expenditure in the year for each scheme were set out in Appendix 3 to the report. The budget for Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) had been £1.5 million and the outturn was £1.38 million.  This was due to slippage in the capital programme in 2020-21.

The Council noted that officers had reviewed the capital programme and had determined that the following schemes were no longer required:

·       Albury closed burial grounds £57,000 in 2022-23

·       Mill Lane Flood Protection works - £16,000 2022-23 and £200,000 2023-24

·       Merrow & Burpham surface water study - £15,000 in 2022-23

At its meeting on 27 October 2022, the Executive had agreed to remove those schemes from the General Fund Capital Programme. This would reduce the Council’s underlying need to borrow for capital purposes and would generate a saving to the revenue account in respect of MRP and Interest of approximately £10,000 over the life of the schemes.

The Council’s investment property portfolio stood at £174 million at the end of the year. Rental income had been £8.75 million, and income return had been 5.3% against the benchmark of 4.7%.

The Council’s cash balances had built up over a number of years, and reflected a strong balance sheet, with considerable revenue and capital reserves.  Officers carried out the treasury function within the parameters set by the Council each year in the Capital and Investment Strategy.  As at 31 March 2022, the Council held £157 million in investments, £304 million in borrowing of which £170 million related to the HRA, and £134 million was short term borrowing resulting in net debt of £147 million.

The Council had borrowed short-term from other local authorities for cash flow purposes and aimed to minimise any cost of carry on this.  The Council had taken out three loans for Weyside Urban Village under the infrastructure rate.  This interest was capitalised against the project and not charged to the General Fund as interest payable.

The report had confirmed that the Council had complied with its prudential indicators, treasury management policy statement and treasury management practices (TMPs) for 2021-22.  The policy statement was included and approved annually as part of the Capital and Investment Strategy, and the TMPs were approved under delegated authority.

Interest paid on debt had been lower than budget, due to less long-term borrowing taken out on the general fund because of slippage in the capital programme.  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO80

The Council noted that appeals against planning decisions were a statutory provision within planning law.  An applicant could appeal any decision (or failure to make a decision). Where an appeal was lodged the local planning authority should be prepared to make a robust defence of its decision.  For most appeals this was done at officer level.  Therefore, whilst there was a time cost to this there was not a cost in terms of appointing consultants to defend the decision on behalf of the Council.

For large scale appeals on complex applications, it was usually necessary to appoint Counsel and specialist witnesses. However, in these cases there was still the expectation that Council officers would act as the planning witness.

Where an application is refused contrary to the officer’s recommendation these tended to be more controversial.  Often such overturns would be considered by either a hearing or inquiry, and this would necessitate attendance in person to defend the appeals.  Due to conflicts in respect of professional integrity Council officers who had recommended approval cannot professionally defend a refusal.  Therefore, it was necessary to appoint external consultants to defend such appeals, for which there was no budget and, therefore, supplementary budgets were required to secure funds to make such appointments.

The Council considered a report which sought a supplementary budget for three appeals which had already been considered and to agree the funding of those.  Going forward a supplementary estimate would be brought forward at the time an appeal was made to secure agreement for monies to defend the appeal.

At its meeting held on 24 November 2022, the Executive also considered this matter and had endorsed the recommendation in the report to Council.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane proposed, and Councillor Tim Anderson seconded a motion to approve a supplementary estimate of £535,000 to cover the payments required to defend three specific planning appeals.

During the debate, the following points were made:

·       recognition that the ability of the Planning Committee to refuse planning applications contrary to officer recommendations should not be fettered, provided that the reasons for refusal were robust planning reasons;

·       concerns expressed over statement in the report that alternative options for future reports could include the possible withdrawal of reasons for refusal or accepting that the Council will not defend particular matters if funding was not agreed.  The Leader confirmed, however, that it was not a statement of policy, and no recommendation in that regard had been made.

Having considered the report, the Council

RESOLVED: That a supplementary estimate for the Development Management service of £535,000 to cover the payments required to defend three significant appeals relating to Member overturn decisions which were subsequently heard at either public inquiry or as a hearing, be approved.

Reason: To ensure robust defence of planning appeals resulting from Member overturn decisions.

Following the final recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s Periodic Review of Electoral Arrangements for Guildford Borough Council in 2021-22, a review of all polling districts and polling places under the new warding patterns had been undertaken in preparation for the full Borough Council and Parish Council Elections to be held on 4 May 2023.  The Register of Electors would be re-published on 1 February 2023 reflecting the new warding patterns.

The Council considered a report which set out recommendations arising from the review, including details of the ten responses to the consultation, which had taken place between 4 October and 15 November 2022.  The report included maps of the proposed new polling districts, which had been amended in response to the consultation, and a list of the proposed Designated Polling Places for the new Polling Districts.

Upon the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore seconded by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, the Council

RESOLVED:

(1)   That the new polling districts, as shown on the maps attached as Appendices 3 - 23 to the report submitted to the Council, be approved.

(2)   That the designated polling places for each of the polling districts as shown on the maps in Appendices 3 – 23 to the report and listed by address in Appendix 24 be approved.

Reason:

As a result of this statutory review, the new designated polling places will improve elector polling experience and further reduce the necessity for schools to close on polling days.

Councillors were reminded that, in 2018, this Council and Surrey County Council agreed to replace the former Local Committee (Guildford) with a new Guildford Joint Committee, which dealt not only with the range of executive and non-executive County Council functions that the Local Committee discharged locally, but also a range of executive and non-executive Borough Council functions delegated to it.

Both councils also adopted a Constitution for the Guildford Joint Committee, which set out, amongst other things, the various functions delegated to it and standing orders under which it was proposed that the Joint Committee would operate.  

The Joint Committee comprised the ten County Councillors representing the ten County Divisions within the Borough, plus ten Borough Councillors appointed on a politically proportionate basis. 

The Council was reminded that Surrey County Council’s Cabinet had decided in February 2022 to transfer all executive highway functions (including on-street parking) from the Guildford Joint Committee, and other Joint Committees and Local Committees in Surrey, to County Officers, in consultation with relevant Divisional Members. Those changes took effect from 1 April 2022 and were part of the development of new engagement methods and tools to enable members and officers to reach out more effectively to residents.

The County Council had also agreed at its Annual Meeting on 24 May 2022 that county councillors elected as chairmen or vice-chairmen of the Local and Joint Committees across the county should hold those offices only until 31 October 2022. County partnership officers involved in supporting the Joint Committees and Local Committees across the county would end those responsibilities also with effect from 31 October 2022.

On 27 September 2022, the Leader of Surrey County Council made a decision to remove the remaining executive functions and advisory functions from all the Local Committees and Joint Committees in the county with effect from 11 October 2022.

At the County Council meeting on 11 October 2022, formal approval was given to cease all the Local Committees with effect from 31 October 2022, to serve notice of the County Council’s intention to withdraw from all of the Joint Committees (the notice to expire on or before 30 April 2023), and to transfer their non-executive functions relating to Public Rights of Way from all the Local and Joint Committees back to the County’s own local governance arrangements.

The effect of these decisions taken by Surrey County Council meant that the Guildford Joint Committee now had no County Council functions delegated to it, and its remit only comprised the very limited number of Borough Council executive and non-executive functions. In light of the decisions taken by Surrey County Council outlined above, the Executive had confirmed, at its meeting on 24 November 2022, that it wished to transfer the existing executive and advisory functions currently within the remit of the Joint Committee back to this Council with immediate effect.  The Executive had also recommended that full Council approves the transfer of existing non-executive functions relating to public rights of way back to this Council.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO83

The Council received a report on the review of the allocation of seats on committees, which had been conducted following the outcome of the Tillingbourne By-Election on 20 October 2022, which had resulted in the election of Councillor Richard Morris.  Notice in writing had been received from Councillor Morris that he wished to be treated as a member of the Guildford Liberal Democrat group on the Council.  The review had also taken into account receipt of notice in writing dated 9 November 2022 from Councillor Tony Rooth that, with immediate effect, he no longer wished to be treated as a member of the Residents for Guildford and Villages group and wished to be regarded as an independent member. 

Consequently, the political balance on the Council was now:

Guildford Liberal Democrats: 17

Residents for Guildford and Villages: 14

Conservatives: 8

Guildford Greenbelt Group: 4

Labour: 2 

Independent: 2

Green: 1

Under Council Procedure Rule 23, whenever there was a change in the political constitution of the Council, the Council must, as soon as reasonably practicable, review the allocation of seats on committees to political groups.

The report included a suggested numerical allocation of seats on committees to political groups that would best meet, as far as reasonably practicable, the requirements for political balance. 

Upon the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, seconded by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, the Council

RESOLVED: That the numerical allocation of seats on committees to each political group on the Council, and to the two independent members, and the single Green Party member, as shown in Appendix 5 to the report submitted to the Council and set out below, be approved for the remainder of the 2022-23 municipal year.

Reason:

To enable the Council to comply with Council Procedure Rule 23 in respect of its obligation under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to ensure political proportionality on its  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO84

Under the provisions of Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, if a councillor failed throughout a period of six consecutive months from the date of their last attendance to attend any meeting of the authority, they shall, unless the failure was due to some reason approved by the authority before the expiry of that period, cease to be a member of the authority.

Unfortunately, due to ongoing illness, Councillor David Goodwin had been unable to attend any meetings since 26 July 2022.  To avoid Councillor Goodwin ceasing to be a councillor should he be unable to resume attendance at meetings before 26 January 2023, the Council was asked to agree the reason for his non-attendance.

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, the Council

RESOLVED: That the Council agrees that the reason for Councillor David Goodwin’s failure to attend any meeting of the Council or any of its committees since 26 July 2022 was due to his ill health.

Reason:

To comply with the requirements of Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Council considered a report on nominations received for election of Mayor and appointment of Deputy Mayor for the municipal year 2023-24.  The constitutional changes adopted by the Council in 2014 in respect of the Mayoralty, provided that the Council would normally elect the Deputy Mayor appointed at the annual meeting of the Council as Mayor at the next succeeding annual meeting. 

Although political group leaders had been asked to submit nominations in respect of the Deputy Mayoralty for 2023-24, none had been received. 

Accordingly, the Council was asked to consider the nomination of Councillor Masuk Miah for Mayor in 2023-24, subject to Councillor Miah’s re-election to the Council on 4 May 2023.  Councillor Miah left the meeting during the Council’s consideration of this matter.

Upon the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, seconded by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, the Council

RESOLVED:

(1)    That, subject to the outcome of the Borough Council elections in May 2023, the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Masuk Miah be nominated for the Mayoralty of the Borough for the 2023-24 municipal year.

(2)    That consideration of nominations for appointment of Deputy Mayor for the 2023-24 municipal year, be deferred to the meeting of the Council to be held on 8 February 2023.

Reason:

To make early preparations for the selection of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the 2023-24 municipal year.

The Council, at its extraordinary meeting on 9 June 2022, had appointed Councillor Julia McShane as its representative to serve on the Surrey Police and Crime Panel until May 2023.

On 23 November 2022, Councillor McShane had given notice in writing that she wished to stand down from this appointment, which meant that the Council needed to appoint a councillor to represent the Council on the Panel until May 2023.

The Council considered the person specification referred to in Appendix 1 to the report and the single nomination received.

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, the Council

RESOLVED: That Councillor Richard Morris be appointed as the Council’s representative on the Surrey Police and Crime Panel for a term of office expiring in May 2023.

Reason:

To enable the Council to comply with the requirements of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

The Council considered a report on the proposed appointment of a director to Guildford Sportsground Management Company Limited, which was a company set up to run Woodbridge Road sportsground.  The Council was required to appoint three directors to the Board and for this purpose had already appointed Ian Doyle and Jonathan Sewell.  It was now proposed that Kelvin Mills, Executive Head of Commercial Services be appointed to the Board.

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, the Council

RESOLVED: That Kelvin Mills (Executive Head of Commercial Services) be appointed to the Board of Directors for Guildford Sportsground Management Company Limited.

Reason:

To comply with the Constitutional requirement for full Council to approve appointments of individuals to any office other than an office in which he or she is employed by the authority.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor George Potter to propose, and Councillor Steven Lee to second the following motion:

‘Council recognises that burning fossil fuels contributes significantly to global warming. Research demonstrates that 80% or more of the world’s fossil fuel reserves will have to remain unburnt if we are to meet targets for climate change mitigation. As four-fifths of known fossil fuels must remain in the ground investing in them now presents a substantial financial and environmental risk. Council notes the International Energy Agency has released modelling in 2021 predicting that global oil demand could peak as early as 2025, and that its Executive Director has referred to putting money into oil and gas projects as being potential ‘junk investments’.

Guildford Borough Council is a member of the Surrey Pension Fund, which currently has over £100 million invested in fossil fuel through its Local Government Pension Fund Scheme.

Council believes that this investment is both environmentally and financially irresponsible. Every indication points to renewable energies and green technologies being much safer investments for pension funds going forwards. With COP 26 having taken place in Glasgow the world’s eyes are on the UK to show leadership on climate change. Divesting from fossil fuels in our pension fund is a clear and meaningful action we can take here in Surrey.

Council recognises that fossil fuel investments should be considered part of the council’s ‘carbon footprint’ and that divesting our pension fund is one of the most impactful steps we can take to reduce our impact on our community and the world.

Council therefore commits to calling on the Surrey Pension Fund to divest from fossil fuels by requesting the Pension Fund Committee to adopt and implement responsible investment policies which:

(a)  Immediately freeze any new investment in the top 200 publicly-traded fossil fuel companies.

(b)  Divest from direct ownership and any commingled funds that include fossil fuel public equities and corporate bonds by 2030.

(c)  Set out an approach to quantify and address climate change risks affecting all other investments.

(d)  Actively seek to invest in companies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and minimise climate risk.

(e)  Ensure that the overall investment portfolio is aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

Council further instructs the Joint Chief Executive to write to the Leaders and Chief Executives of all other councils which are members of the Surrey Pension Fund to outline this Council’s position and ask for their support to adopt the same policies’.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor George Potter proposed, and Councillor Steven Lee seconded the following motion:

“Council recognises that burning fossil fuels contributes significantly to global warming. Research demonstrates that 80% or more of the world’s fossil fuel reserves will have to remain unburnt if we are to meet targets for climate change mitigation. As four-fifths of known fossil fuels must remain in the ground investing in them now presents a substantial financial and environmental risk. Council notes the International Energy Agency has released modelling in 2021 predicting that global oil demand could peak as early as 2025, and that its Executive Director has referred to putting money into oil and gas projects as being potential ‘junk investments’.

Guildford Borough Council is a member of the Surrey Pension Fund, which currently has over £100 million invested in fossil fuel through its Local Government Pension Fund Scheme.

Council believes that this investment is both environmentally and financially irresponsible. Every indication points to renewable energies and green technologies being much safer investments for pension funds going forwards. With COP 26 having taken place in Glasgow the world’s eyes are on the UK to show leadership on climate change. Divesting from fossil fuels in our pension fund is a clear and meaningful action we can take here in Surrey.

Council recognises that fossil fuel investments should be considered part of the council’s ‘carbon footprint’ and that divesting our pension fund is one of the most impactful steps we can take to reduce our impact on our community and the world.

Council therefore commits to calling on the Surrey Pension Fund to divest from fossil fuels by requesting the Pension Fund Committee to adopt and implement responsible investment policies which:

(a)  Immediately freeze any new investment in the top 200 publicly-traded fossil fuel companies.

(b)  Divest from direct ownership and any commingled funds that include fossil fuel public equities and corporate bonds by 2030.

(c)  Set out an approach to quantify and address climate change risks affecting all other investments.

(d)  Actively seek to invest in companies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and minimise climate risk.

(e)  Ensure that the overall investment portfolio is aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

Council further instructs the Joint Chief Executive to write to the Leaders and Chief Executives of all other councils which are members of the Surrey Pension Fund to outline this Council’s position and ask for their support to adopt the same policies”.

After the debate, and before proceeding to the vote, the Council agreed to take a recorded vote in respect of the motion.

Upon the recorded vote being taken, the results of which were as follows, with 13 councillors voting in favour of the motion, 13 councillors voting against the motion, and 11 abstentions:

To receive and note the attached minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 22 September and 27 October 2022.

The Council received and noted the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 22 September and 27 October 2022.

The Council noted that the Joint Appointments Committee (JAC) had met on Monday 5 December 2022 to make a recommendation to the full Council meetings of both Guildford and Waverley on the appointment to the post of Joint Executive Head of Legal & Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer, following the final interviews of the short-listed candidates.

Although the JAC had concluded the process and agreed a recommendation in respect of the appointment, councillors acknowledged that there had been insufficient time for a conditional offer to be made to, and accepted by, the successful candidate to enable the Council to formally ratify the JAC’s recommendation at this meeting.

Accordingly, the Council

RESOLVED: That this matter be deferred to an extraordinary meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 3 January 2023 at 7pm.

To order the Common Seal to be affixed to any document to give effect to any decision taken by the Council at this meeting.

The Council

RESOLVED: That the Common Seal of the Council be affixed to any documents to give effect to any decisions taken by the Council at this meeting.