Agenda and minutes

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

RESOLVED: That Councillor Paul Spooner be elected chairman for this meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from The Mayor, Councillor Richard Billington and from Councillor Gordon Jackson.

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 28 July 2020.

The Council confirmed, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2020. The chairman signed the minutes.

To receive any communications or announcements from the Mayor.

On behalf of the Mayor, the chairman reported the following communications:

Mrs Marie Watts

Councillors were reminded of the sad news that Marie Watts, wife of former Chief Executive, and Honorary Freeman, David Watts had passed away recently.  Mrs Watts had supported David throughout his career at the Council and had been a familiar, friendly face at many civic events.  The Council’s thoughts were with David and his family at this difficult time.

Covid-19

Covid continued to impact on the daily lives of our residents and continuing local support for those most in need was vital.  On 19 September 2020, Guildford Gag House held a Comedy Night in aid of one of the Mayor’s charitable causes, The Coronavirus Response Fund.  The event helped to raise the profile of this vital fund and boosted donations on the Mayor’s fundraising page, which now stood at £407. With match funding from the Council, this meant we were well on the way to raising £1,000 for the fund.  Further donations would be most welcome.  The Mayor had thanked Nick Wyschna and everyone at Guildford Fringe for making this happen.

The Mayor had also thanked the Guildford Fringe and the Community Wellbeing team for the fantastic Silver Sunday show held on 4 October 2020. The performances were still available for viewing and they had raised £300 so far for Ash Parish Dementia Action Alliance.

Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day

Following the most recent announcement by the Government with regard to the Rule of Six, plans to commemorate Remembrance Sunday had been revised.  Given the current restrictions, it was now planned to hold a private Service of Remembrance for no more than six civic and military representatives, to represent the people of Guildford and all three Services. 

The ceremony would be live streamed on corporate social media channels to capture the spirit of the day and enable our communities to participate and Remember from their homes.  However, this was an ever-changing situation, and the current plan might have to be revised, in compliance with any change to the regulations. More details would follow nearer the time for all involved.

It was also intended to hold a private ceremony to commemorate Armistice Day on Wednesday 11 November 2020.

Following the resignation of Councillor Caroline Reeves as Leader of the Council on 22 September 2020, there is a vacancy in the position of Leader.  In accordance with Article 6 of the Constitution, the new Leader will be elected at the first meeting of the Council following such vacancy for a term of office expiring on the day of the post- election annual meeting which follows his or her election.

The Council will receive the report of the Democratic Services and Elections Manager on nominations received in respect of the election of the Leader of the Council. 

Council Procedure Rule 21 (b) requires that a councillor proposing to nominate another councillor as Leader must notify the Democratic Services and Elections Manager of their nomination before the meeting at which the election is to be held.

Following the resignation of the Councillor Caroline Reeves as Leader of the Council on 22 September 2020, the Democratic Services and Elections Manager reported that Councillor John Rigg and proposed, and Councillor Maddy Redpath had seconded, the nomination of Councillor Joss Bigmore for election as the Leader of the Council.

Following comments from councillors in respect of the nomination, the Council

RESOLVED: That Councillor Joss Bigmore be elected Leader of the Council for a period ending on the day of the next post-election annual meeting of the Council.

Under the Remote Meetings Protocol, a roll call was taken to record the vote on the election of Leader, the results of which were 35 councillors voting in favour of Councillor Bigmore, 5 against, and 4 abstentions, as follows:

For Councillor Joss Bigmore (35 votes):

Against Councillor Joss Bigmore (5 votes):

Councillor David Bilbé

Councillor Graham Eyre

Councillor Angela Gunning

Councillor Paul Spooner

Councillor James Walsh

Abstentions (4 votes):

Councillor Andrew Gomm

Councillor Nigel Manning

Councillor Marsha Moseley

Councillor Jo Randall

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

The newly elected Leader of the Council announced the appointment of Councillor Caroline Reeves as Deputy Leader of the Council and confirmed that there would no other changes to the current Executive.

The Leader also summarised the main challenges faced by the Council moving forward and the key objectives of the administration.

To receive questions or statements from the public.

Katharine Paulson asked the Lead Councillor for Climate Change, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:

“In light of the recent Local Authority Green Belt: England 2019-20*, stats published on 20 September 2020, where Guildford Borough Council gets a special mention as accounting for 46 % of the changes to the greenbelt across the country and causing a 6 % loss of the country’s greenbelt, a figure that does not even take into account reallocations where timely planning enforcement action has not taken to protect unlawful sites from CLUEDs, could the Lead Councillor please confirm at what point will GBC and their planning department decide that green belt and agricultural land is a finite resource?  The boroughs adjacent to London have a duty to keep this green space, to increase biodiversity, carbon sequestration, for production of food, and for the benefit of the future generations.  Once this land is gone, it is gone forever, do the councillors really want to leave this legacy for future generations?”

*Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-commits-to-protect-30-of-uk-land-in-boost-for-biodiversity

The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:

“Guildford Borough is fortunate to be one of the greenest boroughs in the UK and as a council we are committed to protecting the biodiversity. The figures published are somewhat misleading in the absence of context. Firstly, 5.5% of the total greenbelt designation within our Borough (not the entire country, also the 6% figure is a rounding) was revoked. This has to be taken in the context that Guildford Borough was 89% greenbelt designated before the adoption of the Local Plan and is now 83.5%. To help understand the scale of this – it represents a loss of 0.09% of the country’s greenbelt. Additionally, of the total, 4% was the insetting of villages previously washed over by the greenbelt policy which was spatially defined in Guildford in the 1987 Local Plan. The only other amendment that has been made to the greenbelt since it was defined in 1987 was the removal of Manor Park at the University of Surrey in the Local Plan 2003 – this removed 63.3ha (or 0.004% of the country’s total greenbelt). This adjustment for insetting was made as those built up areas were not considered to contribute to the openness of the greenbelt and therefore no longer met the requirement for inclusion in the greenbelt as set out by national policy. This 4% was not earmarked for specific development and is subject to the same policies as other urban areas such as extensions and rebuilding. The remaining 1.5% of previous greenbelt land makes up a significant part of the housing supplyin the now adopted Local Plan.  

In other words, whilst the headline figures and accompanying pie charts may garner attention, the real takeaway from the published figures is a stark indication of just how few Boroughs are able to adopt local plans in a given year. The change (-6%) is still proportionally less than that experienced at a number of other authorities (e.g. Stevenage at -31%; Nuneaton and Bedworth at  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO30

The Council considered a report on the receipt of a joint petition and e-petition on 9 March 2020, containing a combined total of 503 signatories and e-signatories, requesting the Council to

“implement a binding citizens' assembly to formulate a plan for the council to tackle the climate emergency. This could be instructed as the first meaningful action of the Climate Change Innovation Board which has the mandate to build a borough-wide plan for tackling climate change.”

As there were in excess of 500 signatures, the Council’s Petition Scheme required the full Council to debate the matters raised by the petition/e-petition and to indicate to the petition organiser what action the Council proposed to take in response.

The report included the petition organiser’s supporting statement accompanying the petition, which had stated:

“We applaud Guildford Borough Council in telling the truth and declaring a Climate Emergency in July 2019. We now need to act without delay and involve the residents of Guildford in a citizens’ assembly. We do not need another slow moving local authority committee.

We need action.

Your initiative to have a Climate Change and Innovation Board (CCIB) has minimal public involvement and is to report to the GBC Executive within 12 months.

It is an emergency, not business as usual. 12 months is too late. The public need to be with you to formulate climate policies for the council, the area and for individuals – not be held at arm’s length while a committee deliberates.

The residents of Guildford have to be involved to drive climate policy by holding binding citizens’ assemblies on how to tackle our borough’s emissions. This will remove any party-political bias and corporate interest from the process, and sidestep decisions being made based on the short-term focus of re-election.

Expert individuals and organisations will be employed to present Guildford constituents with the most appropriate ways to mitigate the threat of climate breakdown and devise a strategy for Guildford reaching net zero, as per the council's commitment on 23rd July 2019.

This will also empower the community in their efforts in tackling the climate emergency, whilst allowing for a truly democratic decision on how we, as a community, combat the climate emergency. The council must be a leader on the crisis, and take every possible opportunity to give the public the power in deciding how our tax-payer funds are used to tackle an existential crisis which affects all of us, as well as our children and generations to come.

At least a dozen other councils have already done this. A citizens’ assembly could be convened within 4 months and report back to the council with binding recommendations with 6 months.

Camden Council is renowned as the leading London borough on climate action (Friends Of The Earth study, Sep ‘19). They initiated a binding Citizens Assembly from which a detailed and realistic 17-point action plan was drawn, and which allowed for immediate action. GBC also ranked well in the FoE study, and as such it is  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO31

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

There were no questions from councillors.

The Council considered the Capital and Investment Outturn report for 2019-20, which had set out:

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

·       a summary of the approved strategy for 2019-20

·       a summary of the treasury management activity for 2019-20

·       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 £48.1 million, which was less than the revised budget by £38.7 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 ben £1.02 million and the outturn was £926,639.  This was due to slippage in the capital programme in 2018-19.

The Council’s investment property portfolio stood at £153 million at the end of the year. Rental income had been £8.4 million, and income return had been 6% 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. 

The Council had borrowed short-term from other local authorities for cash flow purposes and ensured that there was no cost of carry on this.  No additional long-term borrowing was taken out during the year.  As at 31 March 2020, the Council held £107.6 million in investments, £44 million of short-term borrowing and £192 million of long-term borrowing resulting in net debt of £129 million.

The report had confirmed that the Council had complied with its prudential indicators, treasury management policy statement and treasury management practices (TMPs) for 2019-20.  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.

The yield returned on investments had been lower than estimated, but the interest received was higher due to more cash being available to invest in the year – a direct result of the capital programme slippage.  Officers had been reporting higher interest receivable and payable and a lower charge for MRP during the year as part of the budget monitoring when reported to councillors during the year.

The report had also been considered by the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee and Executive at their respective meetings held on 30 July and 22 September 2020, and both had endorsed the recommendation in the report. 

Upon the motion of the Lead Councillor for Resources, Councillor Tim Anderson, seconded by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, the Council

RESOLVED:

(1)     That the treasury management annual  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO33

Arising from a number of concerns raised by councillors since the 2019 elections in relation to ethical standards, communications, and transparency, the Council noted that the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee at its meeting in November 2019 had established a cross-party task group, including a co-opted parish representative and an independent member of the Committee, with a wide remit to consider, review and make recommendations in respect of these matters.

The Task Group had met on a number of occasions since it was established and had considered, reviewed, and made recommendations to the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee on 30 July 2020 on, inter alia, the following matters:

(a)   the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, including the policy on acceptance of gifts and hospitality by councillors;

(b)   the 15 Best Practice Recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life contained within its Report on Local Government Ethical Standards

The Committee supported the Task Group’s recommendations, some of which were for full Council to make the final decision, and which were the subject of the report now before the Council.

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, seconded by the Vice-Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee, Councillor Deborah Seabrook, the Council

RESOLVED:

(1)   That the draft revised Councillors’ Code of Conduct, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report, submitted to the Council be adopted and implemented with immediate effect (this incorporates CSPL Best Practice Recommendations 1 and 2).

(2)   That parish councils in the borough be invited to consider adopting at the earliest opportunity the revised Code of Conduct set out in Appendix 3 to the report, with such modifications as they deem necessary.

(3)   That the Monitoring Officer be authorised to prepare, maintain and make available for inspection at the Council’s offices and online a revised register of councillors’ interests to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and of the Council’s revised code of conduct.

(4)   That the Council agrees that the code of conduct should normally be reviewed every four years during the year following the Borough Council Elections, with any such review involving formal consultation with parish councils within the borough (CSPL Best Practice Recommendation 3 refers).

(5)   That the Council’s Arrangements for Dealing with Allegations of Misconduct by Councillors (“the Arrangements”) be amended as follows:

(a)   paragraph 7.3 (g) iii) to read: “Whether the complaint appears to be trivial, malicious, vexatious, politically motivated or ‘tit-for-tat’”

(b)   paragraph 7.4 (6) to read: “The complaint appears to be trivial, malicious, vexatious, politically motivated or ‘tit-for-tat’”

(c)   paragraph 7.10 to read: “The decision of the Monitoring Officer, or Assessment Sub-Committee (as the case may be) shall be recorded in writing, and a decision notice will be sent to the Complainant and the Subject Member within 10 working days of the decision. The Independent Person shall be given the option to review and comment on allegations which the Monitoring Officer (or Assessment Sub-Committee) is minded to dismiss as  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO34

Arising from a number of concerns raised by councillors since the 2019 elections in relation to ethical standards, communications, and transparency, the Council noted that the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee at its meeting in November 2019 had established a cross-party task group, including a co-opted parish representative and an independent member of the Committee, with a wide remit to consider, review and make recommendations in respect of these matters.

The Task Group had met on a number of occasions since it was established and had considered, reviewed, and made recommendations to the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee on 24 September 2020 in respect of the Protocol on Councillor/Officer Relations.

Councillors noted that although the Protocol was not a statutory document, its purpose was to provide guidance for councillors and officers on their respective roles and expected conduct in their relationship with one another.  The Committee had commended the Task Group’s recommendations, which were the subject of the report now before the Council.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore proposed, and the Vice-Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee, Councillor Deborah Seabrook, seconded the adoption of the following motion:

(1)       That the draft revised Protocol on Councillor/Officer Relations, attached as Appendix 2 to the report submitted to the Council, be adopted.

(2)       That the Protocol be reviewed at least every four years at the same time as the Council reviews its codes of conduct for councillors and staff.

Reasons:

·       To ensure that properly reviewed and up to date guidance is made available to councillors and officers.

·       To ensure that the Protocol is kept under review at least every four years

Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor Bigmore as the mover of the original motion, indicated that, with the consent of his seconder and of the meeting, he wished to alter his motion as follows:

Change paragraph (1) of the motion so that it reads:

“(1) That the draft revised Protocol on Councillor/Officer Relations, attached as Appendix 2 to the report submitted to the Council, be adopted subject to the following amendment to paragraph 10.1 of the Protocol:

 “10.1     All confidential information held by the Council, in whatever form, remains confidential to the Council and subject to the requirements of the Data Protection regulations, unless and until such confidentiality is waived by the Monitoring Officer. Any dispute will be determined by the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee”

The Council agreed to accept the alteration to the original motion, as indicated above. The motion, as altered, therefore became the substantive motion for debate.

Following the debate on the substantive motion, Councillor Susan Parker proposed, and Councillor Ramsey Nagaty seconded, the following amendment:

In paragraph (2) of the substantive motion, substitute “two” in place of “four”.

Paragraph (2), as amended, would read as follows:

“(2) That the Protocol be reviewed at least every two years at the same time as the Council reviews its codes of conduct for councillors and staff.”

Following  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO35

Further to an officer review of the effectiveness of Executive Advisory Boards (EABs) which took place in the latter part of 2018-19, recommendations had been made in respect of reconfiguring the EABs and introducing measures to strengthen the Forward Plan process.  In response to these recommendations, the Council had resolved to establish a councillor task and finish group to consider the recommendations and report its findings to the EABs and Council before any related decisions were made.

Having considered the group’s subsequent findings, the Council made some resolutions concerning work programming, the Forward Plan and the configuration of EABs.  The most notable resolutions were that the existing arrangement of the two EABs be retained for the time being, whilst the Forward Plan process was strengthened pending further review 12 months following the Borough Council Elections in May 2019 to ascertain whether changes to the Forward Plan process and/or EAB structure were required. 

Following the second phase of the review, the EABs combined to meet as the Joint EAB on 9 July 2020 to consider the future structure and remit of EABs.  The Joint EAB’s recommendations had also been considered by the Executive on 22 September and then by the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee on 24 September.  Both had commended the recommendations for adoption by the Council at this meeting.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, proposed, and the Chairman of the Community EAB, Councillor Angela Goodwin seconded the following motion:

“(1)  That the concept of retaining two EABs, each meeting on alternate months with the flexibility to have a balanced inter-changeable remit as appropriate to the agenda items, without the risk of losing topic continuity and expertise, and possibly ahead of Executive meetings to offer a pre-decision opportunity to make recommendations, be agreed.

(2)    That the remit of EABs be realigned to reflect the Executive portfolios and Directorates of the Council and that, accordingly, the Place-Making and Innovation EAB be renamed as the Strategy and Resources EAB and the Community EAB be renamed the Service Delivery EAB.

(3)    That the existing Joint EAB arrangement be continued and implemented when significant and wide-ranging agenda items, such as budgetary matters, are under consideration.

(4)   That closer two-way working between the Executive and EABs, including an expectation that relevant Lead Councillors (or other Executive members in the absence of the relevant Lead Councillor) proactively attend EAB meetings and EAB Chairmen and / or Vice-Chairmen attend Executive meetings to elaborate on advice given and to receive feedback, be established and adopted.

(5)   That a clear formalised procedure of reporting EAB advice and views to the Executive and EABs receiving Executive feedback be adopted.

(6)    That,in addition to exploring relevant Forward Plan items and Corporate Plan priorities, the EABs have free range to select their own review topics on which to advise the Executive, including the establishment of task groups where considered necessary (and subject to available resources).

(7)    That the EABs receive items sufficiently in advance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO36

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Tony Rooth to propose, and Councillor Christopher Barrass to second, the following motion:

“Guildford Borough Council opposes a single Unitary Authority for Surrey; and supports opposition throughout Guildford and Surrey to a single Unitary Authority for Surrey.  The Council

RESOLVES:

To instruct the Managing Director to urgently relay our opposition to a single Unitary Authority for Surrey to residents throughout Guildford and Surrey, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Surrey County Council, other Surrey borough and district councils and other appropriate bodies and organisations.”

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15 (p), the proposer and seconder of the motion had requested the withdrawal of this motion.  The Council

RESOLVED: That the motion be withdrawn.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Deborah Seabrook to propose the following motion:

“That Guildford Borough Council

(1)    acknowledges the efforts that this Council has made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote renewable energy;  

(2)    further recognises:

·       that very large financial setup and running costs involved in selling locally generated renewable electricity to local customers result in it being impossible for local renewable electricity generators to do so, 

·       that making these financial costs proportionate to the scale of a renewable electricity supplier’s operation would enable and empower new local businesses, or councils, to be providers of locally generated renewable electricity directly to local customers, and

·       that revenues received by new local renewable electricity providers could be used to help improve the local economy, local services and facilities and to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions;

(3)    accordingly resolves to support the Local Electricity Bill, supported by 187 MPs which, if made law, would establish a Right to Local Supply which would promote local renewable electricity supply companies and co-operatives by making the setup and running costs of selling renewable electricity to local customers proportionate to the size of the supply operation; and

(4)    further resolves to:  

·       inform the local media of this decision,

·       write to local MPs, asking them to support the Bill, and

·       write to the organisers of the campaign for the Bill, Power for People, (at 8 Delancey Passage, Camden, London NW1 7NN or info@powerforpeole.org.uk) expressing its support.”

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15 (p), the proposer of the motion had requested the withdrawal of this motion.  The Council

RESOLVED: That the motion be withdrawn.

To receive and note the attached minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 21 July and 25 August 2020.

The Council received and noted the minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 21 July and 25 August 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.