Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gordon Jackson and from Honorary Freeman Jen Powell and Honorary Aldermen Keith Childs, Catherine Cobley, Clare Griffin, Jayne Marks, and Lynda 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.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Council held on 25 April and the Selection meeting held on 15 May 2019.

The Council confirmed, as a correct record, the minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 25 April 2019 and the Selection Meeting held on 15 May 2019. The Mayor signed the minutes.

To receive any communications or announcements from the Mayor.

The Mayor reported that he was thoroughly enjoying a very busy start to his Mayoral year and was delighted to announce that he would be holding a number of fundraising events throughout the year, details of which were now available on the Mayor’s Charities section of the website.  The Mayor hoped that councillors would be able to support him in raising both awareness and much needed funds for his chosen charities, which were:

• The Prostate Project,
• Royal Surrey County Hospital Charity and
• the Mayor of Guildford’s Local Distress Fund.

Queens Award for Enterprise

The Mayor had attended two presentations of the Queens Award for Enterprise – last week to MR Solutions and on 22 July to Prime Vigilance. 

Order of Business for tonight’s meeting

The Mayor informed the Council that he had determined that the Order of Business on the agenda for this meeting would be varied by bringing forward agenda Items 19, 20, 21 and 22 (the four notices of motion) for consideration by the Council immediately following consideration of agenda item 7 – Questions from Councillors.  Once the motions had been dealt with, the Council would proceed with items 8 to18, and then items 23 to 26.

The Mayor had also agreed that if it was not possible to consider all items of business on the agenda at this meeting, it would be adjourned to Wednesday 31 July 2019 at 7pm in the Council Chamber.

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

The Leader informed the Council that it was expected that the court hearing in respect of the legal challenges to the adoption of the Local Plan would be in October or November and that the participants included the claimants who were seeking to challenge the adoption of the Local Plan, the Secretary of State and three interested parties who would be seeking to defend the decision to adopt the Local Plan.

The Leader wished to ensure that all councillors were kept aware of matters relating to the Local Plan and had asked officers to circulate details of the legal claims and defences as well as a general update note. 

To receive questions or statements from the public.

Statements

The following persons addressed the Council meeting in respect of the subject of Minute No. CO26 below – Notice of Motion - Declaring a Climate Emergency

(1)         Ben McCallan 

(2)         Rowan Todd

(3)         Victoria Thompson

(4)         David Christopherson

(5)         Josiah White

(6)         Tim Page

The Leader of the Council responded to the statements.

The following person addressed the Council meeting in respect of the subject of Minute No. CO27 below – Notice of Motion – Plastic Free Guildford

(7)             Katherine Clowser  

The Leader of the Council responded to this statement.

The following persons addressed the Council meeting in respect of the subject of Minute No. CO29 below – Notice of Motion – Town Centre Master Planning:

(8)         Bill Stokoe on behalf of Guildford Vision Group

(9)         Julian Lyon

The Leader of the Council responded to the statements.

The following person addressed the Council meeting in respect of the subject of the proposed development of Garlick’s Arch

(10)     Ben Gamble  

The Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning responded to this statement.

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

(1)         Councillor Chris Blow asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:

 “Following the last election, when the community clearly showed their disquiet at the Local Plan, may I please ask the Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning to explain the decision making process that has taken place so far in determining the response to the Court with regard to the three judicial reviews, given that there has apparently been no formal decision in Full Council or the Executive?”

The Lead Councillor’s written response was as follows:

The current status of the applications for statutory challenge is that the court has granted permission for the claims to be considered at a full hearing.

Following the receipt of the claims the Council sought advice from leading Counsel, and a response was prepared in order to assist the court in its decision as to whether to give leave for the claims to proceed to appeal.

The advice was, and remains, that the plan was lawfully adopted and that there are no grounds that would justify the Council in not defending the claims. Members of the Executive were consulted, and the Council submitted a response to the court.

The advice to the Council is endorsed by the fact that the Secretary of State has confirmed that he considers that the judicial review claims are effectively without merit and, as such, that he will be taking an active role in contesting the proceedings.

The Executive will be provided with further and updated advice (noting the submissions of various parties to proceedings), and will be consulted on the detailed submission prior to it being issued.

Councillor Jan Harwood

Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning

(2)        Councillor Ramsey Nagaty asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:

“Could the Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Deliverythrough Planning, please supply the number of homes already built since the start of the [backdated] local plan period, and the number of planning applications already granted, together with the number of consented student units and the consequential impact on the housing number?”

The Lead Councillor’s written response was as follows:

“The number of homes built since 1 April 2015 (the start of the plan period) and 31 March 2018 (the most recently published data) is 980 dwellings.

The number of outstanding permissions as at 1 April 2018 is 2,695 dwellings.

The number of student accommodation permissions as at 1 April 2018 is 1,153 bedspaces. These are all located on the University of Surrey campus. A change in planning guidance published after this date now clarifies how student accommodation can be counted towards the housing requirement based on the amount of accommodation it releases in the housing market. This is calculated using the ratio of average number of students living in student  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO25

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

“Guildford Borough Council notes:

a)     That global temperatures have already risen over 1°Celsius from pre-industrial levels and that the recent 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states that we have just 12 years to act on climate change if global temperature rises are to be kept within the recommended 1.5° Celsius in order to avoid serious, damaging and likely irreversible environmental, economic and social impacts.

b)     That all governments (national, regional and local) have a duty to act, and that, recognising this, a growing number of UK local authorities have already passed 'Climate Emergency' motions.

c)     That Guildford Borough Council passed a motion on 4 December 2018 acknowledging that “human activity has resulted in global climate change that threatens our future” and that “in our position as a local authority, we have a crucial role to play in both leading by example and influencing the way that the residents and businesses of Guildford Borough live and work”.

d)     That the Council has already been proactive in identifying and delivering projects that save energy and carbon and is currently on track to meet its stated target of 43% CO₂ emissions reductions by 2020, based on 2008/09 levels. However, it recognises that a greater level of ambition and urgency is required, in the light of the above. 

Guildford Borough Council therefore:

1. Formally declares a Climate Emergency that requires urgent action.
2. Calls on the UK government to provide the powers, resources and funding support to make local, as well as national, action against climate change possible.

3. Commits to working with partners across the Borough to evaluate and determine how and when Guildford Borough could become carbon neutral.
4. Commits to working towards making the Council’s activities net-zero carbon by 2030.
5. Commits to establishing the necessary governance structures, investment plans and officer resources in order for the Council to build a strong foundation to deliver progressively ambitious carbon reductions across our operations.        
6. Commits to establishing a borough-wide Climate Change Partnership consisting of representatives from all stakeholders across all sectors. 

7. Commits to developing, within 12 months, a clear action plan and timescale for being net-zero carbon across our Council operations, starting with a review of what has already been achieved and plans already instigated. 

8. Commits to delivering a joint Member-Officer training programme to enable a shared understanding of how to deliver the above, starting in September 2019.” 

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

“Guildford Borough Council notes:

a)     That global temperatures have already risen over 1°Celsius from pre-industrial levels and that the recent 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states that we have just 12 years to act on climate change if global temperature rises are to be kept within the recommended 1.5° Celsius in order to avoid serious, damaging and likely irreversible environmental, economic and social impacts.

b)     That all governments (national, regional and local) have a duty to act, and that, recognising this, a growing number of UK local authorities have already passed 'Climate Emergency' motions.

c)   That Guildford Borough Council passed a motion on 4 December 2018 acknowledging that “human activity has resulted in global climate change that threatens our future” and that “in our position as a local authority, we have a crucial role to play in both leading by example and influencing the way that the residents and businesses of Guildford Borough live and work”.

d)   That the Council has already been proactive in identifying and delivering projects that save energy and carbon and is currently on track to meet its stated target of 43% CO₂ emissions reductions by 2020, based on 2008/09 levels. However, it recognises that a greater level of ambition and urgency is required, in the light of the above. 

Guildford Borough Council therefore:

1.  Formally declares a Climate Emergency that requires urgent action.

2.   Calls on the UK government to provide the powers, resources and funding support to make local, as well as national, action against climate change possible.

3.  Commits to working with partners across the Borough to evaluate and determine how and when Guildford Borough could become carbon neutral.

4.  Commits to working towards making the Council’s activities net-zero carbon by 2030.

5.  Commits to establishing the necessary governance structures, investment plans and officer resources in order for the Council to build a strong foundation to deliver progressively ambitious carbon reductions across our operations.        

6.   Commits to establishing a borough-wide Climate Change Partnership consisting of representatives from all stakeholders across all sectors. 

7.   Commits to developing, within 12 months, a clear action plan and timescale for being net-zero carbon across our Council operations, starting with a review of what has already been achieved and plans already instigated. 

8.   Commits to delivering a joint Member-Officer training programme to enable a shared understanding of how to deliver the above, starting in September 2019.” 

Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor George Potter 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 in accordance with the Amendment below

Amendment

At the end of paragraph 3 add the words: “, with a target goal of 2030 for reaching net zero emissions.”

Paragraph 3, as amended, would read as follows:

”3. Commits to working  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO26

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

“This Council recognises the damage plastics can cause to the environment and commits to work with our local communities to reduce the impact we have through our use of non-recyclable, single-use plastics so far as it is reasonable to do so.

This Council also agrees with the general principles of the national ‘Plastic Free Communities’ scheme and commits to supporting, promoting and encouraging plastic free initiatives and events within the borough.

By continuing to play our part in delivering the Surrey Environment Partnership’s Single-use Plastics Strategy (2018) and 5 year action plan, we also commit to:

(a)   Avoiding the use of single-use plastics ourselves where there are suitable alternatives

(b)   Encouraging local businesses to do the same

(c)   Engaging with and supporting the Plastic Free Guildford campaign

(d)   Working with our suppliers to discourage the use of avoidable single-use plastics

(e)   Supporting our communities in their efforts to reduce the use of single-use plastics

(f)     Supporting the national water refill campaign which promotes the provision of facilities to enable people to refill reusable drinking water bottles

(g)   Working with our partners to investigate how we can provide effective and sustainable incentives for the return of single-use plastics for recycling.”

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor George Potter proposed, and Councillor Diana Jones seconded, the adoption of the following motion:

“This Council recognises the damage plastics can cause to the environment and commits to work with our local communities to reduce the impact we have through our use of non-recyclable, single-use plastics so far as it is reasonable to do so.

This Council also agrees with the general principles of the national ‘Plastic Free Communities’ scheme and commits to supporting, promoting and encouraging plastic free initiatives and events within the borough.

By continuing to play our part in delivering the Surrey Environment Partnership’s Single-use Plastics Strategy (2018) and 5 year action plan, we also commit to:

(a)   Avoiding the use of single-use plastics ourselves where there are suitable alternatives

(b)   Encouraging local businesses to do the same

(c)   Engaging with and supporting the Plastic Free Guildford campaign

(d)   Working with our suppliers to discourage the use of avoidable single-use plastics

(e)   Supporting our communities in their efforts to reduce the use of single-use plastics

(f)     Supporting the national water refill campaign which promotes the provision of facilities to enable people to refill reusable drinking water bottles

(g)   Working with our partners to investigate how we can provide effective and sustainable incentives for the return of single-use plastics for recycling.”

Following the debate on the motion, Councillor Angela Gunning proposed, and Councillor James Walsh seconded the following amendment:

Delete all text after “…and 5 year action plan”, and insert the following:

“we ask the Place-Making and Innovation EAB:

(1) to examine the means by which this Council can:

(a)   Avoid the use of single-use plastics ourselves where there are suitable alternatives

(b)   Encourage local businesses to do the same

(c)   Engage with and support the Plastic Free Guildford campaign

(d)   Work with our suppliers to discourage the use of avoidable single-use plastics

(e)   Support our communities in their efforts to reduce the use of single-use plastics

(f)     Support the national water refill campaign which promotes the provision of facilities to enable people to refill reusable drinking water bottles

(g)   Work with our partners to investigate how we can provide effective and sustainable incentives for the return of single-use plastics for recycling.

(2)   to make recommendations, as appropriate, to the Executive on each of the seven points (a) to (g) above, following detailed discussion.”

During the debate on the amendment, under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor Angela Gunning, as the mover of the amendment, had indicated that, with the consent of her seconder and of the meeting, she wished to alter her amendment so that it reads as follows:

“After point (g) in the motion, add the following:

“We ask the Place-Making and Innovation EAB to make recommendations, as appropriate, to the Executive on how to achieve each of the seven points (a) to (g) above, following detailed discussion.”

The Council agreed to accept the alteration to the amendment, as proposed above.

Following consideration of  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO27

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Susan Parker to propose, and Councillor Joss Bigmore to second, the following motion:

“At the ballot box the community expressed considerable disquiet at the Local Plan outcomes secured by the previous Council.

The High Court has determined that there is a case to be argued for all three applications for Judicial Review of the decision to adopt the Local Plan.

The Council’s own QC has advised that the Full Council is the appropriate decision-making body to determine major decisions in respect of the Local Plan. The decision as to how to respond to the Judicial Reviews is a major decision to be taken in respect of the Local Plan and, to date, no decision has been asked or provided in respect of the Judicial Reviews.

The Council’s Local Plan strategy was developed in tandem with the same QC who is advising the Council on its defence.

A second QC’s opinion will cost between £10,000 and £20,000, and the Council’s likely spend defending against the Judicial Reviews will run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Council may be committing hundreds of thousands of pounds to defending the JRs without the Council having had the ability to agree the strategy.

Furthermore, NPPF requires that a Local Plan Review takes place when there is a major change or event. There are now legally-binding commitments to move to Zero-Carbon emissions by 2050 (just 16 years after the end of the Local Plan period). A consequential London Green Belt Council paper urges councils to protect the Green Belt and greenfield sites to protect the environment and minimize carbon emissions and/or to mitigate local carbon emissions.

Given that the brownfield survey (relied upon by the Local Plan) is not comprehensive, there are both reasons and opportunity for the Council to review its options in terms of maximizing sustainability (possibly including a new Strategic Land Availability Assessment).

The Judicial Review hiatus offers a useful opportunity to reconsider both the site allocations and the Council’s JR strategy.

Any strategic decision regarding the Council’s Judicial Review Strategy is a major decision requiring agreement by the Full Council.

As a result, the Council agrees that, prior to such reconsideration including a second QC’s opinion, it will limit any defence of the approved Local Plan to matters of factual accuracy or clarification and will then come back to Full Council for a further decision, including the ability to communicate to the Court the new Council’s concerns about the perceived excesses in the Local Plan

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Susan Parker proposed, and Councillor Joss Bigmore seconded, the adoption of the following motion:

“At the ballot box the community expressed considerable disquiet at the Local Plan outcomes secured by the previous Council.

The High Court has determined that there is a case to be argued for all three applications for Judicial Review of the decision to adopt the Local Plan.

The Council’s own QC has advised that the Full Council is the appropriate decision-making body to determine major decisions in respect of the Local Plan. The decision as to how to respond to the Judicial Reviews is a major decision to be taken in respect of the Local Plan and, to date, no decision has been asked or provided in respect of the Judicial Reviews.

The Council’s Local Plan strategy was developed in tandem with the same QC who is advising the Council on its defence.

A second QC’s opinion will cost between £10,000 and £20,000, and the Council’s likely spend defending against the Judicial Reviews will run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Council may be committing hundreds of thousands of pounds to defending the JRs without the Council having had the ability to agree the strategy.

Furthermore, NPPF requires that a Local Plan Review takes place when there is a major change or event. There are now legally-binding commitments to move to Zero-Carbon emissions by 2050 (just 16 years after the end of the Local Plan period). A consequential London Green Belt Council paper urges councils to protect the Green Belt and greenfield sites to protect the environment and minimize carbon emissions and/or to mitigate local carbon emissions.

Given that the brownfield survey (relied upon by the Local Plan) is not comprehensive, there are both reasons and opportunity for the Council to review its options in terms of maximizing sustainability (possibly including a new Strategic Land Availability Assessment).

The Judicial Review hiatus offers a useful opportunity to reconsider both the site allocations and the Council’s JR strategy.

Any strategic decision regarding the Council’s Judicial Review Strategy is a major decision requiring agreement by the Full Council.

As a result, the Council agrees that, prior to such reconsideration including a second QC’s opinion, it will limit any defence of the approved Local Plan to matters of factual accuracy or clarification and will then come back to Full Council for a further decision, including the ability to communicate to the Court the new Council’s concerns about the perceived excesses in the Local Plan”.

Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor Susan Parker, as the mover of the original motion, 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

(1)   Substitute the following in place of the penultimate paragraph of the motion:

“Any strategic decision regarding a change to the Council’s Judicial Review Strategy is a major decision which should be reported to Full  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO28

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor John Rigg to propose, and Councillor Tom Hunt to second, the following motion:

“The Council has acknowledged that town centre master planning was not part of the process of preparing the Local Plan - including putting in place a full, detailed land availability assessment of brownfield sites in the town centre - because that could have compromised the Local Plan itself and its objectives. 

The majority of Councillors were elected based on an explicit pledge to master plan the town. At the informal Placemaking EAB on Monday 1st July, there was a common call for a master plan for the town centre. 

The Council therefore

RESOLVES:

That the process for bringing forward, within the term of this Council, a sustainable Town Centre Master Plan Development Plan Document be commenced immediately, and the Director of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to engage external master-planning consultancy advice to assist in this process”.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor John Riggproposed, and Councillor Tom Hunt seconded, the adoption of the following motion:

“The Council has acknowledged that town centre master planning was not part of the process of preparing the Local Plan - including putting in place a full, detailed land availability assessment of brownfield sites in the town centre - because that could have compromised the Local Plan itself and its objectives.

The majority of Councillors were elected based on an explicit pledge to master plan the town. At the informal Placemaking EAB on Monday 1^st July, there was a common call for a master plan for the town centre.

The Council therefore

RESOLVES: That the process for bringing forward, within the term of this Council, a sustainable Town Centre Master Plan Development Plan Document be commenced immediately, and the Director of Planning and Regeneration be authorised to engage external master-planning consultancy advice to assist in this process”.

Following the debate on the motion, it was put to the vote and was carried.

Councillors will recall that, at its Selection Meeting on 15 May 2019, the Council failed to elect vice-chairmen of the following EAB/committees:

·        Community Executive Advisory Board

·        Corporate Governance and Standards Committee

·        Employment Committee

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 29 (a), the Council will elect the vice-chairmen of the above EAB/committees for the remainder of the 2019-20 municipal year.  Details of nominations received by the Democratic Services Manager will be reported on the Order Paper.

The Council noted that, at the Selection Council meeting, it had not been possible to elect vice-chairmen for the Community Executive Advisory Board, the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee, and Employment Committee.  These elections had been deferred to this meeting.

Having noted the nominations received by the Democratic Services Manager, the Council

RESOLVED: That the following nominations received in respect of the election of vice-chairmen of the committees listed below for the remainder of the 2019-20 municipal year, be approved:

Although consideration of this item was adjourned to Wednesday 31 July 2019, the Council’s attention was drawn to the recent resignation of a member of the Council’s

Independent Remuneration Panel.  As the Council, by law, must have an Independent Remuneration Panel comprising of at least three members, the Council was informed that the Democratic Services Manager had approached South East Employers for assistance. 

South East Employers had indicated that they were willing to assist and had staff with a great deal of experience in supporting, and in many cases chairing, Independent Remuneration Panels in a number of councils in the South-East.  To enable a replacement to be appointed to the Panel as expeditiously as possible, the Council

RESOLVED: That the Democratic Services Manager be authorised to appoint a third member to the Council’s Independent Remuneration Panel to conduct the forthcoming review of councillors’ allowances”

The Council

RESOLVED: That the following persons be appointed as co-opted parish members to the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee for a term of office expiring in May 2023:

·       Julia Osborn (Send Parish Council)

·       Ian Symes (Effingham Parish Council)

·       Tim Wolfenden (Shalford Parish Council)

The Council

RESOLVED: That a pay award of 2% be approved for the Managing Director and the Director posts with effect from 1 July 2019 in accordance with the Council’s adopted Pay Policy Statement.

Consideration of this item was adjourned to Wednesday 31 July 2019.

Consideration of this item was adjourned to Wednesday 31 July 2019.

The Overview and Scrutiny Food Poverty report is presented for information: to share the review findings with the wider membership of the Council and the public and to provide an opportunity for debate on a matter of local concern. 

The officer’s covering report and the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s discussion on 4 June 2019 are attached as Appendices 1 and 2 respectively. 

At its August meeting, the Executive (as the decision-maker) will be required to respond formally to the recommendations and indicate agreement or otherwise.

Recommendation to Council: 

That the report and recommendations in respect of Food Poverty in the Borough be noted.

Consideration of this item was adjourned to Wednesday 31 July 2019.

Consideration of this item was adjourned to Wednesday 31 July 2019.

Consideration of this item was adjourned to Wednesday 31 July 2019.

Consideration of this item was adjourned to Wednesday 31 July 2019.

Consideration of this item was adjourned to Wednesday 31 July 2019.

To receive and note the attached minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 21 May and 18 June 2019.

Consideration of this item was adjourned to Wednesday 31 July 2019.

Consideration of this item was adjourned to Wednesday 31 July 2019.

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.