Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Richard Billington, and Councillors Philip Brooker, Murray Grubb Jnr., Liz Hogger, Mike Hurdle, and Nigel Kearse, from Honorary Freeman Jen Powell, and from Honorary Aldermen K Childs, Mrs C F Cobley, Mrs C F P Griffin, J Marks, B Parke, and L Strudwick.

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.

Councillor Christian Holliday disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in relation to Item 15 on the agenda (see Minute CO86 below), as Councillor Holliday was chairman of the Burpham Neighbourhood Forum.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 4 December 2018.

The Council confirmed, as a correct record, the minutes of the Council Meeting held on 4 December 2018. The Mayor signed the minutes.

To receive any communications or announcements from the Mayor.

Honorary Alderman Bernard Parke

The Mayor informed the Council that Honorary Alderman Bernard Parke was currently undergoing treatment for cancer, which had been diagnosed recently.  Councillors joined the Mayor in sending their best wishes to him for a successful outcome and full recovery.

Forthcoming event in aid of the Mayor’s charities

The Mayor informed councillors that Guildford Fringe Theatre were presenting Live at the Arnaud on Mother’s Day, Sunday 31 March 2019 in aid of his chosen charities and the Guildford Young Carers Fund.  

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

The Leader commented that, following the Local Plan hearing recently, the Inspector had made it clear that he had found the Local Plan to be substantially sound, and did not require any further major modifications.  The Inspector would be sending the report to the Council for fact checking and then issuing the final report as quickly as possible thereafter. Subject to this, it was still intended to present the Plan to the Council for consideration of formal adoption as quickly as possible, which could mean before 2 May 2019.

In response to a question from Councillor Parker regarding decision-making during the pre-election ‘purdah’ period, the Council Solicitor and Monitoring Officer explained that the purdah imposed special restrictions on the Council in terms of publicity but did not extend the convention that Central Government applied to itself in relation to decision-making.  Local authority business continued during purdah, although special care was taken to ensure that decisions of any magnitude were  brought forward with detailed advice around how they can be considered appropriately.

To receive questions or statements from the public.

Mr Ivor Thomas addressed the Council in respect of agenda item 9: Capital and Investment Strategy 2019-29 to 2023-24 (Minute No. CO80), and specifically the capital bid entitled: "Shalford Common - Regularising Car Parking and Reduction of Encroachments".

The Lead Councillor for Enterprise and Economic Development, Councillor David Bilbé responded to Mr Thomas’ statement.

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

(1)         Councillor Jenny Wicks asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Paul Spooner, the following question:

“In view of the likely rush of planning applications when the Local Plan is adopted, may I ask the Leader of the Council the following questions:

(a)     For some time there has been talk of a Borough-wide Design Guide which would strengthen the hand of planning officers in requiring good design in development in the Borough and preventing mundane ‘anywhere’ architecture, could the Leader please confirm when this Design Guide is going to be available and implemented?

 (b)    The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will bring financial benefits to accompany development and will particularly benefit neighbourhoods with an adopted Neighbourhood Plan, could the Leader please confirm when will the implementation of CIL take place?

 (c)   When will our new Development Management policies be ready for implementation?”

The Leader of the Council’s response was as follows:

“In response to part (a) of Councillor Wicks’ question, it is important to note that a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) can only supplement policy – not create it. Emerging Policy D1, which was amended and strengthened as part of the examination process, requires high quality urban design. Any applications coming forward will be subject to the requirements of this policy together with the NPPF (2019), which contains a greater emphasis on achieving well-designed places compared to the previous NPPF (2012). Importantly, Policy D1 now requires the use of the Design Review Panel for strategic sites.

Assessment by the Design Review Panel is also expected for other large schemes. This provides the mechanism to ensure applicants give design considerations sufficient thought and priority early on in the process, thereby avoiding mundane ‘anywhere’ architecture. The Council is currently preparing a Strategic Development Framework (SDF) SPD which will set the general design principles and high level masterplanning framework for the strategic sites. Whilst this SPD relates to the strategic sites only, the general design principles will be applicable to all sites and will eventually be incorporated within the Borough-wide Design Guide. In the meantime, their inclusion within the SDF SPD will serve as useful context for what constitutes good design.

In addition to the SDF SPD, the Council has recently adopted a Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD and is in the process of preparing, for consultation, a Guildford Town Centre Views SPD, which identifies important views into and out of the town centre. Work has begun on the Borough-wide Design Guide; however, the priority to date has been in preparing the other documents to which I have referred. However, as set out above, the absence of the Borough-wide Design Guide does not prejudice our ability to secure high quality development.

In response to part (b) of the question, the CIL process is intended to follow the adoption of the Local Plan. It will require its own consultation process as well as submission for independent examination, which is anticipated to occur in 2020, with approval of the CIL charging schedule to follow.   

In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO78

Under Section 39 of the Localism Act 2011, the Council was required to consider and approve a pay policy statement for the financial year ahead.  The Council therefore considered the Pay Policy Statement covering 2019-20.

The Pay Policy Statement reflected the current Senior Management structure, which comprised of four Directors reporting to the Managing Director and Service Leaders reporting to either the Managing Director or Directors.  The request for the approval of the 2019 pay award for the Managing Director and the Directors had been removed as the cost-of-living pay award date had been changed to 1 July 2019 and had not yet been determined.  A further report would need to be brought to Council to consider the pay award before it could be approved.

Councillors noted that the Council would continue to pay at the Real Living Wage for outside London, which was currently £9 per hour, at the bottom of the pay scale. This would aid recruitment difficulties in attracting and retaining key staff. 

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Paul Spooner, seconded by the Lead Councillor for Finance and Asset Management, Councillor Nigel Manning, the Council

RESOLVED: That the Pay Policy Statement for the 2019-20 financial year, attached at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council, be approved.

Reason:

To comply with the Localism Act 2011 (Section 39).

The Council considered a report on the Council’s capital and investment strategy, including the capital programme new bids plus the requirements of the Prudential Code and the investment strategy covering treasury management investments, commercial investments, the Treasury Management Code, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) Statutory Guidance.

In relation to the Capital Strategy, the Council sought to demonstrate that capital expenditure and investment decisions were taken in line with service objectives and properly took account of stewardship, value for money, prudence, sustainability and affordability. The Council also needed to demonstrate that it sets out the long-term context in which capital expenditure and investment decisions were made and gave due consideration to both risk and reward and the impact on the achievement of priority outcomes.

The strategy was intended to give an overview of how capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity contributed to the provision of services along with an overview of how associated risk was managed and the implications for future financial sustainability. 

Councillors noted that in order to achieve the ambitious targets within the Corporate Plan, the Council needed to invest in its assets, via capital expenditure.

The Council had a current underlying need to borrow for the general fund capital programme of £324 million. Officers had put forward bids, with a net cost to the Council of £6.4 million, increasing the underlying need to borrow to £330 million should the proposals be approved for inclusion in the programme.

Some capital receipts or revenue streams could arise as a result of investment in particular schemes, but in most cases were currently uncertain and it was too early to make assumptions.  Some information had been included in the capital vision highlighting the potential income.  It was likely that there were cash-flow implications of the development schemes, where income would come in after the five-year time horizon and the expenditure would be incurred earlier in the programme.

All projects would be funded by general fund capital receipts, grants and contributions, reserves and, finally, borrowing.  It was not currently known how each scheme would be funded and, in the case of development projects, what the delivery model would be.  To ensure the Council demonstrated that its capital expenditure plans were affordable, sustainable and prudent, Prudential Indicators were set that had to be monitored each year.

The capital programme included a number of significant regeneration schemes which, it was assumed, would be financed from General Fund resources.  However, subject to detailed design of the schemes, there might be scope to fund them from HRA resources rather than General Fund resources in due course.  Detailed funding proposals for each scheme would be considered when the Outline Business Case for each scheme was presented to the Executive for approval.

The report included a summary of the new bids submitted, the position and profiling of the current capital programme (2018-19 to 2022-23) and the capital vision schemes.

Bids totalling £34.58 million had also been submitted for the HRA, a  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO80

The Council considered a detailed report on the draft Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget and Housing Capital Investment Programme for 2019-20.

The 2019-20 estimates had been predicated on the assumptions, ambitions and priorities contained in the updated HRA business plan, a copy of which was appended to the report. Since the 2018-19 HRA budget report, there had been three key Government announcements that improved the Council’s ability to deliver on its ambitions to increase and improve social housing in the borough. These were to:

·        Remove the HRA borrowing restriction - The Limits on Indebtedness (Revocation) Determination 2018

·        Revert to an index-linked rent setting policy from 1 April 2020 - The Direction on the Rent Standard 2018

·        Not implement the enforced sale of higher value council houses - A new deal for social housing August 2018 (Green Paper)

The prevailing social rent policy set out in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 required social housing providers in England to reduce social rents by 1% per annum for the four years from 1 April 2016. Rents for 2019-20 would therefore be reduced by 1%.

The report had proposed a 3.4% increase in garage rents from April 2019, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus 1%.

The report had set out details of progress with the new build programme together with the proposed investment programme in tenants’ homes.

The estimates continued to be informed by the business plan, which attached a lower priority to the repayment of debt principal inherited as part of the self-financing HRA settlement.  The Council noted that 2019-20 would be a 53-week rent year. There was some doubt around how this should be charged but recent advice received from the Local Government Association was that the Council should follow usual procedures and charge for each week within the year. The revised budget set out in Appendix 2 to the report reflected the impact of the 53 week rent year.

At its meeting held on 22 January 2019, the Executive had, subject to Council approving the budget at this meeting, approved the projects forming the HRA major repair and improvement programme, as set out in Appendix 4 to the report and had authorised the Director of Community Services to reallocate funding between approved schemes to make best use of the available resources, and to set rents for new developments.

Upon the motion of the Lead Councillor for Finance and Asset Management, Councillor Nigel Manning, seconded by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Paul Spooner, the Council

RESOLVED:

(1)     That the HRA revenue budget 2019-20, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report submitted to the Council, be approved.

(2)     That the 1% rent reduction required by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 be implemented.

(3)     That the fees and charges for HRA services for 2019-20, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report, be approved.

(4)     That a 3.4% increase in garage rents be approved.

(5)     That the  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO81

The Council considered the Managing Director’s report setting out the proposal, called Future Guildford, to reorganise the whole Council.  Despite achieved savings, wise investments and effective financial management, the Council still faced significant funding challenges.  To help meet these challenges, the Council needed to reorganise and transform the way it works and provides services to residents. 

The Council had previously delivered transformation through Fundamental Service Reviews, Lean Reviews and service redesign. These reviews had mainly been concentrated on one specific service area and had not looked at the synergies and opportunities across the whole organisation.   Whilst these approaches had delivered significant savings, it was clear that financial challenges, customer expectations, the limitations of the Council’s ICT systems and infrastructure and the need to be more efficient, were demanding a new approach. 

Future Guildford had been informed through the work of Ignite (management consultants) and was based on investing in ICT infrastructure, increasing customer self-service, better focus on commissioning and commercial opportunities, addressing issues of duplication and redesigning services to improve service delivery and being more efficient. 

To achieve this, there would be a need to invest in the replacement of ICT systems, potential redundancy costs (where, subject to consultation, redundancies take place), and implementation costs.   The savings from this exercise, which would address the financial challenges faced by this Council, were set out in the report.

The Council noted that whilst Ignite had provided the model and expertise to inform the approach, the implementation of Future Guildford would be managed through the Project Board using local knowledge of the Council and borough, to ensure a measured, balanced and appropriate approach.  Corporate Management Team would also monitor the project on a weekly basis and updates provided to the Executive.  It was also proposed to ask the Overview and Scrutiny Committeeto monitor progress of each stage of the implementation of the Blueprint (Future Guildford programme).

The report, including the Blueprint, had also been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its special meeting held on 6 February 2019, and by the Executive at its meeting held on 19 February 2019. Details of the matters raised at those meetings were set out in the report now before the Council and on the Order Paper circulated at the meeting.

Councillors acknowledged that the decision to proceed with implementation of Future Guildford was necessary and that the process would be very challenging.  It was also noted that the manner in which staff had engaged in the work with Ignite had been encouraging. Continuing open and honest communication with staff, and also with residents, would be crucial. 

Emphasis was placed on the need for a supportive and collaborative approach to the implementation of Future Guildford by both staff and councillors, including comprehensive training for staff and councillors.

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Paul Spooner, seconded by the Deputy Leader, Councillor Matt Furniss, the Council:

RESOLVED:

(1)  That Option 1 be adopted, as described in the body of the report  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO82

The Council considered a detailed report on the draft General Fund Revenue budget for 2019-20, which included a Council Tax requirement of £9,758,577 (excluding parish precepts) and a Council Tax increase of £5 per year (3%), resulting in a Band D charge of £171.82. 

The provisional Local Government Finance Settlement (LGFS) for 2019-20 had been received on 13 December 2018.  The figures included in the outline budget presented to the Executive on 27 November 2018 had been based on the 4-year local government finance settlement issued by Government in February 2017. 

The Settlement Funding Assessment (SFA) comprising the local share of business rates, and revenue support grant, was set out in the provisional LGFS.  The settlement had been in line with expectations and the multi-year settlement, which enabled the Council to retain £2.88 million of business rates in 2019-20, an increase of 2.3% on 2018-19. 

The outline budget presented to Executive in November included a working assumption that the Council would be subject to ‘negative RSG’ (additional business rates levy) for 2019-20 consistent with the multi-year settlement.  However, the Government had indicated that it would “directly eliminate” negative RSG for 2019-20, meeting the cost through business rates which it had retained centrally. 

In addition, the Government had returned £180 million of business rates growth nationally to local government, with this Council’s share of that growth being £44,208.

In determining that the Council’s Core Spending Power had increased by 2.9%, the Government had assumed that the Council would raise the Council Tax by the maximum amount (£5 or 3% whichever was the higher).   

The provisional award of New Homes Bonus (NHB) for 2019-20 totalling £1,039,201, was lower than the £1,200,000 included in the outline budget reported to the Executive.  Although 322 new homes had been added to the Council Tax base in 2018-19, which represented a 0.48% increase in tax base, the deadweight for qualifying new homes bonus had been set at 0.4%, which was the minimum expectation Government had for the development of new housing.

The Council’s NHB allocation had also been suppressed by an increase in long-term empty homes in the borough.  In response to the increase in empty properties, officers had recommended that, the Council varies the determination regarding empty property discount and long term empty levy made in December 2012 as detailed in Appendix 5 to the report.  This change should bring more dwellings back into occupation, and in the short term would raise additional council tax revenue.

The Joint EAB Budget Task Group (JEABBTG) and Joint Executive Advisory Board (JEAB) had considered the outline budget at their meetings on 8 and 21 November 2018 respectively. 

The Chief Finance Officer’s statutory report, appended to the main report, provided information about the strategic context within which the budget had been prepared, the medium term financial plan, the robustness of the estimates, adequacy of reserves and budget risks. 

The financial monitoring report for the first eight months of 2018-19 had been reported to the Corporate Governance and Standards  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO83

Councillors were reminded that, at its meeting on 9 October 2018, the Council had considered a report concerning a review of the structure of the Executive Advisory Boards (EABs), which contained the following three options:

1.       To disband the existing EABs and establish one overarching EAB making greater use of existing powers to establish  task groups to look at specific issues and projects relating to the delivery of the nine strategic Corporate Plan priorities.

2.       To disband the existing EABs and establish topic based advisory boards to be commissioned directly by the Executive as and when required.

3.       To make no change to the current arrangements.

The Council resolved that, before any decision was taken in respect of the future of the EABs, a cross party task and finish group be established to consider the matter and report its findings to the Council. 

Accordingly, the EAB Review Task and Finish Group was established and met on 20 November 2018 when it considered the future structure of the EABs. 

The Task and Finish Group’s principal finding was that the Forward Plan process was currently insufficiently robust to facilitate and inform EAB or Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) input as many proposed decisions were entered late which hampered work programming and early involvement.  However, officers had sought to strengthen this process and issues with forward planning and updating the Forward Plan were being tackled through educating senior leaders and others to plan ahead and programme their work in a more timely fashion.

It was suggested that resolving issues with the Forward Plan could possibly resolve the issues associated with the perceived lack of effectiveness of the EABs.

The Council considered a report setting out the Task and Finish Group’s findings and recommendations to the Council, which had also been considered by both EABs at their February meetings and both had commended their adoption by the Council.

Upon the motion of the Deputy Leader, Councillor Matt Furniss, seconded by Councillor Nils Christiansen, the Council

RESOLVED:

(1)     That Option 2: “To disband the existing EABs and establish topic based advisory boards to be commissioned directly by the Executive as and when required” be not supported and discounted as a possible future EAB governance structure.

(2)     That the existing arrangement of the two EABs be retained for the time being whilst the Forward Plan process is strengthened pending review following the Borough Council Elections in May 2019 to ascertain whether changes to the Forward Plan process and/or EAB structure are required.

(3)     That the review referred to in paragraph (2) above be carried out within 12 months of the Borough Council Elections.

(4)     That the Forward Plan be included on future EAB agendas as part of the standing item on the Work Programme to facilitate better agenda planning.

(5)     That lead councillors do not play a part in determining the Overview and Scrutiny Committee work programme at work programme meetings.

Reason:

To introduce a more efficient and effective EAB configuration.  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO84

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Angela Goodwin to propose, and Councillor Pauline Searleto second, the following motion:

"Care leavers have had their childhoods punctuated by instability and trauma, they leave home earlier and have less support than other young people.  As a result, care leavers have some of the worst life chances in the country.

A 2016 report by the Children's Society found that when care leavers move into independent accommodation, they find managing their own finances extremely challenging.  With no family to support them and insufficient financial education, care leavers are falling into debt and financial difficulty.  The Children's Society recommends that care leavers should be taken out of Council Tax until they turn 25.

The Children and Social Work Act 2017 places corporate parenting responsibilities on borough and district councils for the first time, requiring them to have regard to children in care and care leavers when carrying out their functions.

To ensure that transition from care to adult life is as smooth as possible and to mitigate the chances of care leavers falling into debt as they begin to manage their own finances, this Council

RESOLVES:

(1)   That care leavers under the age of 25 living in Guildford Borough be exempt from payment of any Council Tax with effect from April 2019.

(2)   That the Council also agrees to look at ways of supporting care leavers further to ensure they fulfil their potential.”  

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Angela Goodwin proposed, and Councillor Pauline Searle seconded, the adoption of the following motion:

“Care leavers have had their childhoods punctuated by instability and trauma, they leave home earlier and have less support than other young people. As a result, care leavers have some of the worst life chances in the country.

A 2016 report by the Children's Society found that when care leavers move into independent accommodation, they find managing their own finances extremely challenging. With no family to support them and insufficient financial education, care leavers are falling into debt and financial difficulty. The Children's Society recommends that care leavers should be taken out of Council Tax until they turn 25.

The Children and Social Work Act 2017 places corporate parenting responsibilities on borough and district councils for the first time, requiring them to have regard to children in care and care leavers when carrying out their functions.

To ensure that transition from care to adult life is as smooth as possible and to mitigate the chances of care leavers falling into debt as they begin to manage their own finances, this Council

RESOLVES:

(1)     That care leavers under the age of 25 living in Guildford Borough be exempt from payment of any Council Tax with effect from April 2019.

(2)     That the Council also agrees to look at ways of supporting care leavers further to ensure they fulfil their potential.”

Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor Angela Goodwin, as the mover of the original motion, had indicated that, with the consent of her seconder and of the meeting, she wished to alter her motion in accordance with the Amendment below.

Amendment:

Proposed by Councillor James Walsh and seconded by Councillor Angela Gunning:

(1)     In the second paragraph, delete "The Children's Society recommends that care leavers should be taken out of Council Tax until they turn 25".

(2)     Delete paragraph (1) of the proposed resolution: “That care leavers under the age of 25 living in Guildford Borough be exempt from payment of any Council Tax with effect from April 2019".

(3)     Insert new paragraph (1) of the proposed resolution as follows:

"(1)   That the financial, social and emotional needs of care leavers under the age of 25 living in Guildford Borough, and the attendant services and help provided by this Council, be examined by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its earliest convenience, and recommendations to the Executive made as appropriate."

The Council agreed to accept the alteration to the original motion, as proposed in the Amendment above. The substantive motion for debate, to which further amendments could be put, was therefore as follows:

“Care leavers have had their childhoods punctuated by instability and trauma, they leave home earlier and have less support than other young people. As a result, care leavers have some of the worst life chances in the country.

A 2016 report by the Children's Society found that when care leavers  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO85

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Christian Hollidayto propose, and Councillor Mike Piperto second, the following motion:

“This Council welcomes the contribution made to local communities by Neighbourhood Forums, a flagship innovation of the Localism Act 2011, which gives local people the opportunity to shape their communities through the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans.  Guildford Borough currently has nine Forum areas and four adopted Neighbourhood Plans.

Forums in Parished Areas are led by elected Parish Councils, whilst Forums in non-Parished areas must seek designation as a body in their own right under separate procedures.

This differentiation can lead to non-Parished Forums being at a disadvantage when Town Planning consultation events (such as consultation events connected to the Local Plan, SPD’s etc) are organised by the Borough Council for Parish members only, regardless of whether a Parish is undertaking a Neighbourhood Plan or not.

This Council therefore resolves that all current and future Neighbourhood Forums  in non-Parished areas of the Borough be regarded as equivalent to Parish Councils for the purposes of consultation on all Local Plan and other planning matters, ensuring equality of access and participation in such events for all Parishes and Neighbourhood Forums.”

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Christian Holliday proposed, and Councillor Mike Piper seconded, the adoption of the following motion:

“This Council welcomes the contribution made to local communities by Neighbourhood Forums, a flagship innovation of the Localism Act 2011, which gives local people the opportunity to shape their communities through the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans. Guildford Borough currently has nine Forum areas and four adopted Neighbourhood Plans.

Forums in Parished Areas are led by elected Parish Councils, whilst Forums in non-Parished areas must seek designation as a body in their own right under separate procedures. This differentiation can lead to non-Parished Forums being at a disadvantage when Town Planning consultation events (such as consultation events connected to the Local Plan, SPDs etc.) are organised by the Borough Council for Parish members only, regardless of whether a Parish is undertaking a Neighbourhood Plan or not.

This Council therefore

RESOLVES: That all current and future Neighbourhood Forums in non-Parished areas of the Borough be regarded as equivalent to Parish Councils for the purposes of consultation on all Local Plan and other planning matters, ensuring equality of access and participation in such events for all Parishes and Neighbourhood Forums.”

Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor Christian Holliday, as the mover of the original motion, had indicated that, with the consent of his seconder and of the meeting, he wished to alter his motion in accordance with the Amendment below.

Amendment:

Proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Matt Furniss and seconded by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Paul Spooner:

(1)   In the second paragraph of the motion, delete:

“This differentiation can lead to non-Parished Forums being at a disadvantage when Town Planning consultation events (such as consultation events connected to the Local Plan, SPDs etc.) are organised by the Borough Council for Parish members only, regardless of whether a Parish is undertaking a Neighbourhood Plan or not.

 and replace with:

“Once designated as a Neighbourhood Forum they are entitled to the same statutory consultation in both plan-making activity, and in relation to specific planning applications as Parishes, and Parish Forums.”

(2)   Substitute the following in place of the final paragraph of the motion:

“This Council resolves that it shall continue to engage Parish Councils, Neighbourhood Forums and residents in the local plan process, and planning applications, to help shape the borough of Guildford, ensuring equality of access and participation for all.”

The Council agreed to accept the alteration to the original motion, as proposed in the Amendment above. The substantive motion for debate, to which further amendments could be put, was therefore as follows:

“This Council welcomes the contribution made to local communities by Neighbourhood Forums, a flagship innovation of the Localism Act 2011, which gives local people the opportunity to shape their communities through the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans. Guildford Borough currently has nine Forum areas and four adopted Neighbourhood Plans.

Forums in Parished Areas are led by elected  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO86

To receive and note the attached minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 8 and 22 January 2019.

The Council received and noted the minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 8 and 22 January 2019. 

The Council received the report of the proper officer (Democratic Services Manager) on the review of the allocation of seats on committees consequent upon Councillor Nils Christiansen’s resignation from the Conservative Group on 22 February 2019.  On 25 February 2019, the proper officer received notice in writing from Councillor Christiansen of his wish to join the Independent Alliance.  

The political balance on the Council was now:

Conservatives: 31                    

Liberal Democrats: 8                

Independent Alliance: 4            

Guildford Greenbelt Group: 3   

Labour: 2                                    

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.

Upon the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Matt Furniss, seconded by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Paul Spooner, the Council

RESOLVED: That the Council approves the calculation of numerical allocation of seats on committees to each political group for the remainder of the 2018-19 municipal year, as set out Appendix 3 to the report submitted to the Council, and summarised below:

Reasons:

·        To comply with Council Procedure Rule 23 of the Constitution in respect of the appointment of committees

·        To enable the Council to comply with its obligations under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of the political proportionality on its committees.

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.