Agenda and minutes

Council - Tuesday, 3rd December, 2024 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB. View directions

Contact: John Armstrong, Democratic Services and Elections Manager  Tel: (01483) 444102

Media

Items
No. Item

CO57

Apologies for absence

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ruth Brothwell, Richard Mills OBE, Jane Tyson, and Dominique Williams, and from Honorary Aldermen Catherine Cobley, Sarah Creedy, Jayne Marks, Tony Phillips, and Lynda Strudwick.

 

CO58

Disclosures of interest

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.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no disclosures of interest.

CO59

Mayor's Communications

To receive any communications or announcements from the Mayor.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Mayor reported that it had been a very busy couple of months visiting local charities and supporting their great work. This included:

 

·      the installation of Alex Goldberg as the new Rabbi of Guildford, the first for over 70 years; 

 

·      two fireworks events – Guildford Lions and Tongham;

 

·      our traditional moving Remembrance Service in Guildford at the beginning of November followed by a small service in the afternoon in Send; and

 

·      The Mayor’s visit to Freiburg to commemorate the 80th Anniversary of the bombing of Freiburg, which was a poignant and moving highlight.  The Mayor had addressed their Town Council, and had spoken at the commemoration service in Freiburg Cathedral, standing together with the Mayors of Freiburg and Bescannon (France) to remember the many lives lost on 27 November 1944 and to acknowledge the human suffering that impacts us all during times of conflict.

 

The Mayor had also visited North Guildford Foodbank and was given a ride on a Harley Davidson Motorbike, courtesy of the Hogsback Bikers who were there donating food.  The Mayor had participated in a sleep-out for Guildford Action with about 40 other people, and had opened Guildford panto at the Yvonne Arnaud.

 

The Mayor was very pleased to report that 300 people were due to attend the Mistletoe Ball on 12 December with the aim of raising £56,000 for 7 local charities.

 

CO60

Leader's Communications

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Ash Road Bridge project

The Leader reported that the Council was working closely with Network Rail and Surrey County Council, to ensure that Chester Bridge could be opened in the New Year as part of Phase five of the project. More information about this project was available on the Council’s website.

Social media Cost of Living campaign

As the colder weather approaches, the Leader reported that the Council had launched its social media Cost of Living campaign, which would run through to mid-January.  Councillors were asked to share this information on their social media channels.

Guildford’s markets in December

The festive market had been rescheduled to Sunday 8 December, following its recent postponement due to bad weather.There would be plenty of opportunity to buy festive treats, and other unusual Christmas presents at all the specialist markets taking place during December. Full details were available on the website.

About Guildford

The Winter edition of About Guildford would be going out to subscribers at the end of the week, which would include the latest news on our Corporate Strategy, information on changes to recycling and waste collections over Christmas and New Year, details of festive events, and top tips for a safe and sustainable Christmas. Councillors were asked to encourage residents to sign up to receive About Guildford on the website.

In response to a question in respect of the Ash Road Bridge project regarding when it was expected that HGVs would be able to use the new bridge, and whether there were any implications for diversions concerning HGVs, the Deputy Leader apologised to residents for the poor and confused communications that were issued in November.  Phase five of the project would start in the New Year, and was expected to take approximately nine weeks, during which time there would be an HGV diversion in place, the details of which were still being worked on with Surrey County Council but would be communicated to residents as soon as possible.

 

CO61

Announcements from the Statutory Officers

To receive any announcements from the Head of Paid Service, Chief Finance Officer and/or Monitoring Officer.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no announcements from the statutory officers.

CO62

Public participation

To receive questions or statements from the public.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no questions or statements from the public.

CO63

Questions from Councillors

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no questions from councillors.

CO64

Improvement Plan - 6 month progress update pdf icon PDF 134 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Mayor informed the Council that, having taken appropriate officer advice in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.1, she had agreed to waive the rules of debate referred to in Council Procedure Rule 15.2. for this item of business to allow councillors to engage with a question-and-answer session with the Chair of the Independent Assurance Panel (IAP), Mr Andrew Flockhart, in advance of the formal consideration and debate of this matter, and also to give political group leaders the opportunity of commenting first during the debate on the motion in respect of this matter.

 

Councillors were reminded that, at its meeting on 23 July 2024, the Council had endorsed the report on the SOLACE governance reviews and the Improvement Plan. The Improvement Plan aimed to address the recommendations from the reviews and achieve the principal outcome of meeting the duty of Best Value and becoming a well-managed and resilient council. One of the recommendations of the SOLACE report, agreed by Council as part of the Improvement Plan, was that Full Council should receive an update, every six months.  This was the first of those updates.  The report summarised the activities and achievements of the first six months of Council’s Improvement Plan.  The report was presented to Council alongside the first written assessment from the IAP, which was appended to the report.  The Panel had commented that the Council had made significant progress against the Improvement Plan over the last six months, with fundamental positive changes being made in a number of crucial areas and that the plans remained fit for purpose.

 

It was recognised that, whilst good progress had been made in the first six months, the Council’s aim of delivering the Improvement Plan and meeting the statutory duty to deliver Best Value required continued effort, dedication and collaboration from both Members and Officers. The Council recognised that there was still a great deal more to do to improve operations, governance and culture, and deliver the high-quality services that local communities, tenants and businesses deserved. The Improvement Plan had taken a risk-based approach, recognising that all the actions could not be delivered at once. The actions and timescales within the Improvement Plan were reviewed regularly to ensure that they reflected the Council’s priorities; and the Council had sought the support from the IAP on this prioritisation.

 

The IAP was playing a critical role in monitoring and advising on these efforts, ensuring that the Council had visibility and assurance on its journey of improvement. The Council expressed its gratitude for the support the IAP had given in the first six months of the delivery of the Improvement Plan and welcomed their independent assessment on the Council’s progress.

 

In addition to taking questions at the meeting, councillors had been invited to submit written questions to Mr Flockhart in advance of the meeting.  Councillor Philip Brooker had asked Mr Flockhart the following question:

 

“I have been assured that benchmarks and targets will be established as a means of measuring progress, and that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO64

CO65

Medium Term Financial Plan - Update pdf icon PDF 93 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered an update on the Medium-Term Financial Planning process and assumptions following the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement. The statement had created significant uncertainty, particularly around changes in National Insurance and existing grant schemes.

The Section 151 Officer informed the Council that a policy statement had recently been published by the MHCLG and members of the Overview and Scrutiny – Resources Committee had been briefed on it before their meeting on 2 December and other councillors had been briefed immediately prior to this meeting.

The provisional Local Government Finance Settlement was due in mid-December, which would provide detail of the funding settlement for Guildford for 2025-26. There was also uncertainty around recent government announcements in respect of the minimum funding guarantee.  Whereas in the past few years the Council had been guaranteed an increase of at least 3% in funding, it was understood that, for next year, that would be reduced to 0%. It was also understood that a number of grants, would be rolled into adult social care instead, which would mean that the Council would see some of its existing funding stream disappear.

On a more positive note, the Section 151 Officer informed the Council that there would be a new fair funding review and multi-year settlements from next year.

 

The Lead Councillor for Finance and Property, Councillor Richard Lucas proposed, and the Leader of the Council Councillor Julia McShane seconded a motion to note the progress on updating the Medium-Term Financial Plan position.

During the debate, the following points were made by councillors:

·      The cost of the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions for the Council was more than twice as much as the income raised by last year's 3% council tax rise.

·      Concern over the implications for parish councils.

·      Concern over the knock-on impact of the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions on the Council’s contractors resulting in increased costs of service provision.

·      Rather than cutting services or raising prices, the Council could consider ways of increasing efficiency by further embedding the collaborative relationship with Waverley.

Having debated the matter, the Council

RESOLVED: That the Council notes the progress on updating the MTFP position.

Reasons:

·     The General Fund Budget is a major decision for the Council and setting a balanced budget is a statutory requirement.

·     Scrutiny of the MTFP and Budget proposals demonstrate transparency and good governance

CO66

Review of Councillors' Allowances (including 12-month update) pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered the report and recommendations of the Council’s Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) on its review of Councillors’ Allowances, together with the separate recommendations of the Executive.  The Council had appointed the IRP for the purpose of reviewing the existing scheme of allowances, including making recommendations on the types of allowance and amounts to be paid.

 

The Lead Councillor for Regulatory and Democratic Services, Councillor Merel Rehorst-Smith proposed, and the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, seconded a motion to adopt the IRP’s recommendations, as amended by the Executive.

Having considered the report including the Executive’s recommendations and, having regard to the recommendations of the IRP, the Council  

RESOLVED: 

(1)         That the Basic Allowance payable to all members of Guildford Borough Council be £8,579 per annum.

 

(2)    That no councillor shall be entitled to receive at any time more than two Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs), and that where a councillor would otherwise be entitled to three or more SRAs, then only the two higher-valued allowancesshould be received, and that this ‘Two SRA Only Rule’ be adopted into the Scheme of Allowances.

 

(3)         That the maximum number of recipients of SRAs at any one time does not exceed 50% of Council Members (24 Members).

 

(4)         That the Leader of the Council should receive a Tier One Special Responsibility Allowance of 200% of the Basic Allowance, £17,158 per annum.

 

(5)         That the Deputy Leader should receive a Tier Two Special Responsibility Allowance of 100% of the Basic Allowance, £8,579 per annum.

 

(6)         That the Members of the Executive (excluding the Leader and Deputy Leader), the Chair of the Planning Committee, should each receive a Tier Three Special Responsibility Allowance of 75% of the Basic Allowance, £6,434 per annum.

 

(7)         That the level of the Mayor’s Special Responsibility Allowance should also be at Tier Three (75% of the Basic Allowance, £6,434 per annum) for 2025-26 and that this allowance be reviewed again by the Independent Remuneration Panel in 12 months’ time.

 

(8)         (a) That the Chairs of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee, and Political Group Leaders (of groups comprising more than 10% of members overall) should each receive a Tier Four Special Responsibility Allowance of 50% of the Basic Allowance, £4,290 per annum.

 

(b) That, subject to the Council’s approval of the proposed new committees in agenda item 11 below, a Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) be paid to each of the chairs of those committees equivalent to the level of SRA to be paid to the chair of the Corporate Governance & Standards Committee (Tier Four) with effect from the beginning of the 2025-26 municipal year, and that the Joint Independent Remuneration Panel be requested to submit further recommendations to the Council in 12 months’ time as to the appropriate levels of SRA payable in respect of the chairs of those committees.

(9)         That the Chair of the Licensing Committee, the Deputy Mayor, the Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee, and Political Group Leaders (of  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO66

CO67

Proposed Changes to the Terms of Reference of the Corporate Governance & Standards Committee pdf icon PDF 87 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered a report on the proposed establishment, with effect from the beginning of the 2025-26 municipal year, of a dedicated committee for audit purposes, in accordance with recommendation 9.5 of the Council’s improvement plan.  The report had also set out proposed changes to the terms of reference of the Corporate Governance & Standards Committee, the effect of which meant that it would revert to a Standards Committee.

As well as setting out the revised terms of reference of those committees, the report had also set out how it was proposed that the residual remit of the current Corporate Governance & Standards Committee would be distributed.

The proposals had been considered in detail by the Joint Constitutions Review Group on 2 September and again on 21 October 2024, and also by the Corporate Governance & Standards Committee at its meetings held on 26 September and 14 November 2024.

The Corporate Governance & Standards Committee had commended the proposals, as set out in the report, to the Council for adoption.

The Chair of the Corporate Governance & Standards Committee, Councillor Phil Bellamy proposed, and the Vice-Chair of that Committee, Councillor Bob Hughes seconded the adoption of the motion to approve the proposals.

 

During the debate, the following points were made:

 

·      The proposed reallocation of responsibility for monitoring the spending of Section 106 contributions to Overview & Scrutiny was welcomed, as it would strengthen scrutiny of this important matter.

·      The new Audit and Risk Committee would also be better placed to deal with, and focus on, key financial matters affecting the Council.

·      The proposal to refer matters relating to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion to Overview & Scrutiny rather than to the Executive direct was welcomed.

·      It was suggested that there should be two co-opted parish council representatives and a co-opted independent member on each of the proposed committees.

 

Having considered the matter, the Council

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)    That the terms of reference of the Corporate Governance & Standards Committee be amended and the Committee renamed the Standards Committee, with effect from the start of the 2025-26 municipal year.

 

(2)         That a new Audit & Risk Committee be established, with effect from the start of the 2025-26 municipal year.

 

(3)         That the proposed Terms of Reference of the new Audit & Risk Committee and Standards Committee, as set out respectively in Appendices 1 and 2 to the report submitted to the Council, be adopted into the Constitution, with effect from the start of the 2025-26 municipal year, subject to the amendment in Appendix 2 to indicate that the Standards Committee will co-opt one parish member and one independent member, rather than two parish members.

 

(4)         That the residual remit of the current Corporate Governance & Standards Committee be distributed as set out in Appendix 3 to the report, with effect from the start of the 2025-26 municipal year.

 

(5)         That it be noted that a further report will be submitted to the Corporate Governance & Standards Committee, by the end of the 2024-25 municipal year, on the review of the terms of reference of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO67

CO68

Proposed Changes to Council Procedure Rule 6.2 pdf icon PDF 79 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered a report which proposed an amendment to Council Procedure Rule 6.2, to ensure that there were no changes to the start times of committees, unless there was an urgent requirement.

The matter had been considered initially by the Joint Constitutions Review Group on 21 October 2024 and, more recently, by the Corporate Governance & Standards Committee at its meeting on 14 November 2024.  The Committee had recommended that Council approve the proposed change.

Upon the motion of Councillor Phil Bellamy, seconded by Councillor Bob Hughes, the Council

RESOLVED: That Council Procedure Rule 6.2 be amended to read as follows:

Should a committee or sub-Committee need to hold a meeting at a time different to that determined by the Monitoring Officer, then the Chair shall notify the Monitoring Officer via email at committeeservices@guildford.gov.uk.  The Monitoring Officer will consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which warrant the changing of the timing of the meeting, and if necessary they will make the necessary amendment to the calendar of meetings. The Monitoring Officer may only make such amendment to the time of the meeting at least 5 clear working days prior to the summons for the meeting being published.”

Reason:

The Joint Constitutions Working Group at its meeting on 21 October 2024 were concerned that changing the start time of meetings might have equalities issues, in that working members and the public might not be able to attend.

 

 

CO69

Selection of Mayor and Deputy Mayor 2025-26 pdf icon PDF 83 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered a report on nominations received for election of Mayor and appointment of Deputy Mayor for the municipal year 2025-26.  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. 

Political group leaders had been asked to submit nominations in respect of the Deputy Mayoralty for 2025-26.  Councillor Jane Tyson had been the only nomination received.

Accordingly, the Council was asked to consider the nominations of Councillors Howard Smith and Jane Tyson respectively for Mayor and Deputy Mayor in 2025-26.  Councillor Smith left the meeting during the Council’s consideration of this matter. 

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, seconded by Councillor James Walsh, the Council

RESOLVED:

(1)      That the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Howard Smith be nominated for the Mayoralty of the Borough for the 2025-26 municipal year.

(2)      That Councillor Jane Tyson be nominated for the Deputy Mayoralty of the Borough for the 2025-26 municipal year.

Reason:

To make early preparations for the selection of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the 2025-26 municipal year.

 

 

CO70

Capital, Treasury and Investment Strategy - October Refresh pdf icon PDF 372 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council noted that a capital strategy was the foundation of proper long-term planning of capital investment in assets and how it was to be delivered.  It needed to link into the Council’s overall corporate objectives and strategic priorities.

Councils needed to invest in their assets, as they were the most valuable resource and was, therefore, linked to asset planning.  Council assets had been acquired using public money, so the Council had an obligation to protect the value of those assets.  Failure to do this would mean that assets would deteriorate gradually and, in the long-term, it would put the Council’s ability to fulfil its basic responsibilities at risk.

Capital expenditure was defined as:

Money spent on acquiring or upgrading fixed assets, to increase the life of the asset or improve its productivity or efficiency to the organisation

An integral part of a capital strategy was how the programme was financed.  This was inexplicitly linked to treasury management and informed the resources available for treasury investments.

Treasury management was an important part of the overall management of the Council’s finances.  A council could borrow or invest for any purpose related to its functions, under any enactment, or for the purpose of the prudent management of its financial affairs.

CIPFA defined treasury management as:

“the management of the organisation’s borrowing, investments and cash flows, its banking, money market and capital market transactions; the effective control of the risks associated with those activities and the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks.”

The Local Government Act 2003 required local authorities to have regard to the Prudential Code.  The Prudential Code, last revised in 2021, required local authorities to determine a capital strategy, which should have regard to:

Capital expenditure

·      an overview of the governance process for the approval and monitoring of capital expenditure

·      a long-term view of capital expenditure plans

·      an overview of asset management planning

·      any restrictions around borrowing or funding of ongoing capital finance

 

Debt and borrowing and treasury management

·      a projection of external debt and use of internal borrowing to support capital expenditure

·      provision for the repayment of debt over the life of the underlying asset

·      authorised limit and operational boundary for the following year

·      the approach to treasury management including processes, due diligence and defining the risk appetite

 

Commercial activity

·      the Council’s approach to commercial activities, including processes, ensuring effective due diligence and defining the risk appetite including proportionality in respect of overall resources

 

Other long-term liabilities

·      an overview of the governance process for approval and monitoring and ongoing risk management of any other financial guarantees and other long-term liabilities.

Knowledge and skills

·      a summary of the knowledge and skills available to the Council and confirmation that these are commensurate with the risk appetite.

The Council was also required to set Prudential and Treasury Indicators for assessing the prudence, affordability and sustainability of capital expenditure and treasury management decisions.  The, then, MHCLG investment guidance had also suggested some local indicators.

The Council considered a  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO70