Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Jackson and Masuk Miah.

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 meeting of the Council held on 5 May 2020 and the Selection Meeting held on 19 May 2020.

The Council confirmed, as a correct record, the minutes of the meetings held on 5 and 19 May 2020. The Mayor signed the minutes.

To receive any communications or announcements from the Mayor.

The Mayor hoped that everyone was continuing to keep safe and well. 

The Mayor reported that he was honoured to participate in the official opening of the new Covid-19 Ward at the Royal Surrey County Hospital in the previous week and commented how quickly the project had been delivered.  The Mayor was confident that the team there would do their utmost to care for those in most need in the weeks and months ahead, and wished them well.

The local response to the pandemic had been outstanding, with communities and council staff working together to provide support to the most vulnerable residents of our borough.  None of this would have been possible without the hard work and commitment of the Council’s staff, many of whom had to adjust almost overnight to new ways of working; either from home whilst caring for families, or having been redeployed to a different team, and all of this during an unprecedented and challenging period in our lives.  The Mayor was delighted to be able to thank the team at the Spectrum hub personally in the previous week and had a number of staff visits planned in early August, to thank as many staff as possible for their hard work during this very difficult period.   

The Mayor commented that the need to support our most vulnerable residents and the local charities that do so much, was now greater than ever.  During his Mayoral year, the Mayor would be calling on councillors’ support to raise funds for two charities that would help with this: The Mayor of Guildford’s Local Support Fund,  previously known as the Distress Fund, would continue to provide small financial grants to individuals needing help during difficult times, and The Coronavirus Response Fund, which would be supporting local charities to ensure they survived the impact of the pandemic.  All donations to the Coronavirus Response Fund made via the Mayor’s fundraising page would be match funded by the Council.

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

The Leader made a statement on the Council’s ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in particular the support the Council had provided to date, and continued to provide, to our local communities and businesses.  The Leader referred to the statistical information set out in the Order Paper to remind councillors of the extent of the support provided to date, and thanked staff for their commitment and support.

To receive questions or statements from the public.

There were no questions or requests to make statements from the public.

To hear questions from councillors of which due notice has been given.

(1)    Councillor Paul Spooner asked the Lead Councillor for Environment, Councillor James Steel the following question:

“On 20 July 2020, Councillor James Steel in a Guildford Lib Dems Press Release stated that he was pleased to announce a project to decolonise Guildford Borough Council’s historic collections. He referenced a strategy timespan of 2020-2024 and stated that this was the top priority for GBC Heritage service to achieve over that period.

The stated process (apparently after discussion and agreement with the GBC leadership) is to:

1)    Look at where each item came from

2)    How each item was obtained

3)    Whether the item should be sent back to place of origin to be displayed in their museums

4)    For what remains after 3), write ups within the context of Britain’s colonial history

The reason for the decision to decolonise the collection is given as being ‘coupled’ with the Black Lives Matter movement.

I therefore ask the Lead Councillor for Environment:

(1)        why he believes that he has a mandate for decolonising the Guildford collection without any discussion within the wider Council, any motion or policy being presented at Executive or to Full Council

(2)        why no consultation has taken place to affirm that this is the will of the wider community

(3)        confirmation that the leadership at GBC are now ‘coupled’ with the Black Lives Movement and advise the Council what the partnership means, what are the desired outcomes for the whole community and whether Black Lives Matter takes precedence over All Lives Matter in this context?

(4)        An explanation as to how the Leadership team are going to define ‘colonisation’ in relation to history?”

The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:

“(1) The Heritage Service has put together an ambitious action plan ‘Heritage Forward Plan’ which is required by the Arts Council to ensure we have an accredited museum and embed best practice in managing our museum in which decolonisation is one of those action points. Decolonisation is a contemporary museum issue and one that all museums are now being asked to address.  New guidance is currently being written by sector bodies such as the Museums Association to support museums in tackling this issue.  In September 2019, a delegation was agreed by the Executive to the Director of Environment in consultation with myself to sign off the forward plan which was due to be submitted in April 2020; however, the Arts Council has delayed this by a year due to Covid. However, given the range of actions which the service wishes to conduct and my wish to have this on public display, the forward plan will be coming to the Executive for discussion and approval at some point in the Autumn as well as other matters in relation to the museum especially the NHLF withdrawing all funding bids across the country (apologies if this was not made clear in my article and has hence been corrected).

(2)     We  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO15

The Council received the report of the proper officer (Democratic Services and Elections Manager) on the review of the allocation of seats on committees, consequent upon the following:

·       the death of Councillor Patrick Sheard on 5 June 2020, which had resulted in the reduction in the membership of the Guildford Greenbelt Group on the Council to three; and

·       the constitution of a new political group on the Council (the ‘Conservative Independent Group’), with effect from 2 July 2020

The political balance on the Council was now:

Guildford Liberal Democrats: 17

Residents for Guildford and Villages: 16

Conservatives: 4

Conservative Independent Group: 4

Guildford Greenbelt Group: 3

Labour: 2 

Independent: 1

Vacancy: 1

The Council noted that, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it was not currently possible to hold a by-election in respect of the vacancy in the Send ward until 6 May 2021.

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 Council was informed that following Councillor Sheard’s death group leaders had discussed, and had informally agreed, that as it was not possible to hold a by-election, there should be no change in the Guildford Greenbelt Group’s current allocation of seats pending such by-election in May 2021.  It was possible for the Council to determine that no changes be made to the current numerical allocation of seats to the Guildford Greenbelt Group until a by-election is held, provided that no councillor voted against the proposal at this meeting.  If that were agreed, the Council would then have to agree a numerical allocation of seats on committees to accommodate the new Conservative Independent Group for the remainder of the 2020-21 Municipal Year, which could be done by way of a simple majority vote.

In that regard, the report had set out two options setting out calculations of numerical allocation of seats on committees dependent on the outcome of the vote in respect of whether any changes should be made to the allocation of seats to the Guildford Greenbelt Group.

Accordingly, the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore proposed a motion to address the above-mentioned matters, which was seconded by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves.

Following the debate on the motion, Councillor Nigel Manning proposed, and the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley seconded, the following amendment:

“To amend the proposed allocation of seats in Options 1 and 2 between the Conservative Group and Conservative Independent Group as follows:

o   on the Community EAB, so that both the Conservative Group and the Conservative Independent Group have one seat each; and

o   on the Planning Committee, so that the Conservative Group has two seats and the Conservative Independent Group has one seat”.

Following the debate on the amendment, it was put to the vote and was lost.  Under the Remote Meetings Protocol, a roll call was taken to record the  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO16

Councillors will recall that, at its Selection Meeting on 19 May 2020, the Council failed to elect a vice-chairman of the Planning Committee.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 29 (a), the Council will elect the vice-chairman of the Planning Committee for the remainder of the 2020-21 municipal year. 

The only nomination received is Councillor Colin Cross.

Upon the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, seconded by Councillor John Rigg, the Council

RESOLVED: That the nomination of Councillor Colin Cross for election as vice-chairman of the Planning Committee for the remainder of the 2020-21 municipal year, be approved.

The Council considered a report which outlined the work undertaken by overview and scrutiny during the past municipal year and, within Appendix 1 to the report, its future work programme as thus far developed in the current circumstances. 

Decisions taken during the past municipal year under the ‘urgency’ provisions and the use of ‘call-in’ were detailed within the report.  In 2019-20, four decisions had been taken under the urgency provisions of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, and there had been one call-in.

The report had also been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 7 July 2020.  The Committee had updated the scheduling of its work plan and had commended the Annual Report to Council.

Upon the motion of Councillor Paul Spooner, seconded by Councillor James Walsh, the Council

RESOLVED:

(1)     That thereport be commended as the annual report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for 2019-20.

(2)     That the current rules relating to call in or urgency provisions remain unchanged.

Reasons:

·       Article 8.2(d) of the Council’s Constitution requires the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee to report annually to Full Council on the work undertaken during the year, its future work programme, and amended working methods if appropriate. 

·       Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16(i), requires the operation of the provisions relating to call-in and urgency to be monitored annually and a report submitted to Full Council with proposals for review if necessary.

The Council was reminded that the pay award for all staff in the salary bands below Director level was agreed each year by the Managing Director in consultation with the Leader of the Council.  Separate approval from full Council was required for this pay award to be applied to the Managing Director and Director posts.

Councillors noted that the report on this matter had also been considered by the Employment Committee at its meeting on 12 June 2020.  The Committee had endorsed the recommendation.

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, the Council

RESOLVED: That a pay award of 2% be approved for the Managing Director and the Director posts with effect from 1 July 2020 in accordance with the Council’s adopted Pay Policy Statement.

Reason:

To apply a pay award to the Corporate Management Team posts for 2020-21.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Angela Gunning proposed, and Councillor James Walsh seconded, the adoption of the following motion:

“At a time of increasing financial pressure and rising unemployment, it is important that safeguards are in place to protect and support residents facing the possibility of falling into debt.

The inability to pay council tax is something that can affect us all: from residents dealing with the stress and uncertainty of not being able to pay their bills, to councils increasingly dependent on local income following a decade of central government cuts.

The Citizens’ Advice Bureau has worked with the Local Government Association to create a “Revised Collection of Council Tax Arrears Good Practice Protocol” which calls for councils to improve existing practices for offering advice, support and payment options for residents facing difficulties in paying their council tax. A copy is attached as Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council.

While Guildford Borough Council has a good record in the collection of council tax

arrears, the Labour Group believes that adopting the protocol will strengthen the process by linking debt advice to repayment schemes and enabling early intervention before a crisis point is reached. This will benefit both our residents and the council, which is under increasing pressure to collect as much income as possible to support local services.

To date, 61 councils of all political stripes across England have already adopted the

policy and the Labour Group calls on Guildford Borough Council to adopt the protocol as soon as is practical.

This Council resolves to request the Executive:

(1)     To adopt the CAB/LGA “Revised Collection of Council Tax Arrears Good Practice Protocol” as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council.

(2)     To authorise the Director of Resources to report back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the impact of the protocol on council tax collection rates and customer satisfaction one year following its implementation”.

Following the debate on the motion, Councillor George Potter proposed, and Councillor Will Salmon seconded, the following amendment:

Delete everything from the end of 'This Council resolves to request the Executive' onwards and insert:

“To authorise the Director of Resources to review the CAB/LGA “Revised Collection of Council Tax Arrears Good Practice Protocol” as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council and to report back to the relevant EAB with details as to where the Council's current approach differs from the CAB/LGA protocol in order to enable a recommendation on the protocol to be made by the EAB."

Following the debate on the amendment, it was put to the vote and was carried.  Under the Remote Meetings Protocol, a roll call was taken to record the vote on the amendment, the results of which were 32 councillors voting in favour, none against, and 12 abstentions, as follows:

To receive and note the attached minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 21 April, 26 May, and 23 June 2020.

The Council received and noted the minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 21 April, 26 May, and 23 June 2020.

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.