Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ann McShee and Pauline Searle and from Honorary Freeman Jen Powell and Honorary Aldermen Keith Childs, Catherine Cobley, Clare Griffin, Jayne Marks, Terence Patrick, 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 meeting of the Council held on 23 July 2019 and the adjourned meeting held on 31 July 2019.

The Council confirmed, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2019 and the adjourned meeting held on 31 July 2019. The Mayor signed the minutes.

To receive any communications or announcements from the Mayor.

Visit to Guildford of the Oberbergermeister of Freiburg

The Mayor reported that, in early September he and other council colleagues welcomed to Guildford the new Lord Mayor of Freiburg, Martin Horn and a delegation of councillors from our twin town.  The visit, celebrating 40 years of twinning, provided an opportunity to showcase some of Guildford’s most historic sites and prominent local businesses, share ideas regarding common challenges, and to strengthen our special partnership.  Freiburg would be celebrating its 900^th Anniversary in 2020 and arrangements were being made for Guildford to be represented in a number of planned projects to commemorate this special anniversary.

Charitable work

The Mayor reported that he had already received fantastic support from local groups and organisations, for his charities, particularly those who had confirmed their attendance at his first organised event, the charity night at The Shahin Tandoori Restaurant on Monday 14 October.  The Mayor asked that anyone wishing to donate a prize for the raffle, should let Kate Foxton know.

Remembrance

The Mayor asked councillors to inform Kate Foxton if they would be able to spare some time for poppy selling on Friday 8 or Saturday 9 November, as there were still some time slots available.

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

Wisley Garden Village application

The Leader commented that the Managing Director had circulated to all councillors his summary and conclusions in relation to the Wisley Garden Village application, which had been prepared in consultation with the Leader, Councillor Bigmore and Councillor Anderson. The Leader was pleased that the outcome of the review had indicated that there had been no wrongdoing in this case and that the Managing Director would fully implement any actions following on from the lessons learned.  The Leader also reported that Garden Village status had not been granted in this case and so the matter was now closed.

The Leader was asked to expand a little more on the Wisley letter matter and to ask whether she was comfortable that Savill's had written the letter on behalf of the Council in respect of advice that the Council was providing.  The Leader indicated that she did not have anything to add to the Managing Director’s statement.

The Managing Director stated that although they had provided that template but in his conclusions he had accepted that the relationship with Savill’s and the information they provided should have been made clearer.  He reiterated the point that no wrongdoing had been found in respect of this matter, but there were some lessons to be learnt including being clearer about where we get information from.

Changes to the Executive

The Leader reported on recent changes to the Executive, both in terms of membership and portfolio responsibilities. The Leader also reported on how the Council intended to improve communication and awareness of Climate Change initiatives being developed by the Council and others in the Borough.

To receive questions or statements from the public.

The following persons addressed the Council meeting in respect of the matters indicated below:

(1)         Gavin Morgan, on behalf of Guildford Heritage Forum, in respect of Agenda Item 11 Guildford Museum Development Project – Update

(2)         David Burnett in respect of the Council’s decision to sell the plot of land at Wharf Lane Garages

The relevant lead councillors responded to the statements.

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

(1)         Councillor Bob McShee asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, the following question:

“Now that Highways England (HE) have commenced the A3 improvements near the University interchange, I would ask the Leader of the Council if Guildford Borough Council can put pressure on HE to remove ‘Deadly Junction’ the Beechcroft Drive/A3 Junction

I recently went on a tour of the University of Surrey and asked a member of their staff about this junction and was told that the University had agreed some years ago to join Beechcroft Drive to an access road on the University’s land.

As the University is willing to co-operate to remove this unsafe junction, I enquire if the Council can liaise with HE and the University to resolve this long outstanding safety issue.”

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

“The Council has been liaising with Highways England, its predecessor the Highways Agency, Surrey County Council, Anne Milton MP, the University of Surrey and the Beechcroft Drive Residents Association over a number of years with respect to the potential closure of the Beechcroft Drive junction with the A3 and the provision of an alternative access for vehicles.

In 2015, Guildford Borough Council commissioned consultants to prepare outline highway design options and cost estimates for providing an alternative access to Beechcroft Drive (a private road). The options involved the improvement and/or diversion of the farm track which links Beechcroft Drive to the private network of roads on the University of Surrey’s Manor Park campus. This would then allow onward motorised vehicle travel to Egerton Road (a road forming part of Surrey County Council’s Local Road Network) via Gill Avenue (also a private road, which is controlled by the Royal Surrey County Hospital). These options would, if realised, have allowed for the closure of the Beechcroft Drive junction to the A3 Guildford bypass.

These highway design options have been considered in a number of meetings and conversations over several years with representatives of Highways England, Surrey County Council, the MP, the University, and the Beechcroft Drive Residents Association.

As of March 2019, Highways England has advised that it will not be providing an alternative access. We understand that Highways England would, however, consider options for facilitating a joint project.

The key stumbling block at the present time is the significant funding that would be required to provide for the alternative access and a commuted sum for its future maintenance.”

Councillor Caroline Reeves

Leader of the Council

Arising from a supplementary question, the Leader indicated that she could not give the actual figure in respect of the significant funding referred to in her answer, but agreed that this junction was particularly dangerous.  Considerable time had been spent trying to resolve the issue but unfortunately funding from Highways England and Surrey County Highways had been withdrawn. The Leader indicated that the Council should try to ensure that any planning applications that might come forward could find a way of creating this much needed road  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO65

Councillors noted that, in January 2018, the Executive had approved a proposal to extend parking restrictions to Council-owned parks, including Kingston Meadows Car Park in East Horsley. These measures had been taken to improve access to parking for local clubs and societies, in particular the village hall, and users of the park’s facilities.

On 8 July 2019, an e-petition was launched on the Council’s website requesting the Council to immediately suspend the ‘no return same day’ restriction at Kingston Meadows Car Park. This e-petition received in excess of 500 signatures and under the Council’s adopted Petition Scheme required the Council to debate the matter raised by the e-petition and to indicate to the e-petition organiser what action, if any, the Council proposed to take in response.

In accordance with the Council’s petition scheme, the e-petition organiser Susan Murray, made a statement to the Council in support of the e-petition. 

The petition had stated the following:

“We the undersigned petition Guildford Borough Council to immediately suspend the Kingston Meadows Car Park 'no return same day' restriction, which is unfairly restricting genuine users of the Medical Practice, East Horsley Village Hall and Kingston Meadows Park from using these facilities in the manner for which they were intended. These new restrictions are causing unnecessary hardship to individuals, young families, surgery patients, U3A, Wheel of Care and other local interest groups.”

In her supporting statement accompanying the e-petition, the e-petition organiser had stated:

“We believe that further consultation is needed between GBC, EHPC, WHPC and local interest groups to determine a suitable and proportionate parking order that prevents commuters from using the car park, whilst simultaneously ensuring that the needs and interests of local residents are met.”

The Lead Councillor for Waste, Licensing, and Parking, Councillor David Goodwin proposed and the Lead Councillor for Finance and Asset Management, Customer Service, Councillor Joss Bigmore seconded the following motion for the purpose of the Council’s formal response to the e-petition:

“That the Council’s response to the e-petition is as follows:

That the Executive be requested to consider the following:

(1)     To ask officers to review the parking order through the statutory Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process as soon as practicable

(2)     To agree that the existing TRO remains in place until it is replaced

(3)     To implement a parking control that safeguards the use of the car park for park users

(4)     To agree that a revised control considers the following parameters:

(a)     Removal of the no return element

(b)     One free period of 4 hours each day per visitor within the hours of control (including allowing returns at no charge within the free period) and the ability to charge for additional hours for any time in excess of the free period or for any separate parking event outside of the free period in the same day

(c)     Restrictions that apply Monday to Friday (not at weekends and bank holidays)

(d)     Enforcement times of 9am to 6pm

with the final TRO to be issued for consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO66

Councillors noted that, in January 2018, the Executive had approved a proposal to extend parking restrictions to Council-owned parks, including Sutherland Memorial Park car park in Burpham. These measures had been taken to improve access to parking for local clubs and societies and users of the park’s facilities.

On 22 July 2019, an e-petition was launched on the Council’s website requesting the Council to remove the new parking charges and restrictions at Sutherland Memorial Park car park. This petition received in excess of 500 signatures and under the Council’s adopted Petition Scheme required the Council to debate the matter raised by the e-petition and to indicate to the e-petition organiser what action, if any, the Council proposed to take in response.

In accordance with the Council’s petition scheme, the e-petition organiser Richard Smee, made a statement to the Council in support of the e-petition. 

The petition had stated the following:

“We the undersigned, petition Guildford Borough Council to remove the newly introduced parking charges and "no return same day" restrictions at Sutherland Memorial Park, Burpham.”

In his supporting statement accompanying the e-petition, the e-petition organiser had stated:

“The parking at Sutherland Memorial Park has been used for many years by parents of the local primary school as a parking area to enable them to drop off and collect their children without having to use the heavily congested Burpham Lane.

Following the introduction of the "no return same day" parking restrictions at the car park, it is no longer possible to use the car park for both drop-offs and pick-ups without paying the full £9 parking fee.

The restrictions are therefore expected to lead to an increase in the volume of cars driving down Burpham Lane directly to the school as people seek to avoid these charges. This increase in traffic is expected to pose a much higher risk of injury to those children that cycle or walk to the school, as well as cause a decrease in air quality in the immediate area.

Additionally, the parking has also historically been used by the staff at Burpham Primary School due to there being limited onsite parking, and the newly introduced restrictions will therefore lead to an increased financial burden on some of the staff that work there. The school currently enjoys an “Outstanding” overall Ofsted grade, and anything that impacts upon the school’s ability to attract or retain staff could potentially jeopardise this achievement.

It is feared that the impact of the newly introduced parking restrictions will therefore be detrimental to the Burpham community and will adversely affect the younger members of the community the most.

This petition has been created with the aim of requesting that the Council consider the wider impact of the current restrictions on the Burpham community and remove the newly introduced restrictions and charges.”

The Lead Councillor for Waste, Licensing, and Parking, Councillor David Goodwin proposed and the Lead Councillor for Finance and Asset Management, Customer Service, Councillor Joss Bigmore seconded the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO67

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 Gordon Jackson’s resignation from the Conservative Group on 16 September 2019.  The political balance on the Council was now:

Guildford Liberal Democrats: 17

Residents for Guildford and Villages: 16

Conservatives: 8

Guildford Greenbelt Group: 4

Labour: 2 

Independent: 1

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 Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Fiona White, the Council

RESOLVED: That the Council approves the calculation of numerical allocation of seats on committees to each political group and to the independent member for the remainder of the 2019-20 municipal year, as set out in the table below:

Reason:

To enable the Council to comply with Council Procedure Rule 23 in respect of the appointment of committees and with its obligations under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of the political proportionality on its committees.

The Council noted that the development of a new museum was a transformational project of substantial cultural impact and influence aimed at making a significant positive contribution to Guildford’s attraction as a place to live, work, play, and be creative.

Since March 2019 when this matter had previously been reported to the Executive, work had continued to refine the project scope, reduce risk and cost uncertainty, and develop a funding strategy to deliver the scheme.

The project was currently at RIBA stage 2 with considerably more technical input required and a detailed design to be developed in order to move to RIBA stage 4 which would provide greater cost certainty.  These factors were reflected in the current high cost estimate that included a £3million contingency allocation.

The Council had approved £1.2 million to progress the project to RIBA Stage 4 and there remained a further £5.4 million in the provisional budget as a contribution to the total estimated cost of £18 million. 

An ‘Expression of Interest’ for funding of up to £4 million had been made to the National Lottery Heritage Fund (NLHF) in August 2019. If the NLHF’s criteria were met, the Council would be invited to submit a full funding application and be notified of the result in March 2020.  It was then intended to seek additional external funding during 2020-21 and to begin implementing the organisational structures to optimise the fundraising efforts.  This would include setting up a charitable entity to apply for and manage other funds and the establishment of a Fundraising campaign team.

To facilitate the project, the museum would need to retain its accredited status by applying to Arts Council England. The Museum Accreditation Scheme was the UK industry standard for museums and galleries.  The standard demonstrated that the museum complied with best practice to protect the collection for the future.

As part of the process, the Council needed to submit adopted up-to-date policies and plans. To date Officers had updated the Museum’s Forward Plan, Collections Development Policy, Documentation Policy and Access Policy to ensure that they met the accreditation requirements and were aligned with the aspirations of the new museum.

Building new partnerships and collaborations was a key part of this project and, to date, had included the University of Surrey, Surrey Archaeological Society, Surrey Infantry Museum Regiment, Friends of Guildford Museum, Guildford Heritage Forum, other local heritage attractions, the Carrollian Wonderland Trust and local satellite/gaming companies.

At its meeting held on 24 September 2019, the Executive had considered this matter and had:

(1)   Approved the revised scope of the project

(2)   Approved the Funding Strategy and appointment of fundraisers to implement the strategy

(3)   Delegated authority to adopt policies required for the Museum Accreditation to the Director of Environment in consultation with the Lead Councillor. 

(4)   Confirmed its support for the applications to National Lottery Heritage Fund (NLHF) and other funding bodies as they arise.

(5)   Authorised the Director of Environment to prepare an asset disposal strategy for Castle Cottage and 39  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO69

The Council considered a report on a number of recommendations arising from the recent review of polling districts and polling places undertaken by the Electoral Services Manager.  This statutory review, which was based on polling districts and polling places for parliamentary elections, had to be carried out during the 16-month period commencing 1 October 2013 and every fifth year thereafter. 

The consultation period commenced on 14 January and ended on 5 April 2019.  A screening Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) had been carried out but a full EIA was not considered to be appropriate.

Although no changes had been recommended to any of the polling districts, a number of changes had been proposed in respect of designated polling places, as described in the report.

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Fiona White, the Council

RESOLVED:

(1)     That no changes be made to polling districts, and that, subject to the changes set out in paragraphs (2) to (9) below, no changes be made to existing designated polling places.

(2)     That the designated polling place in polling district B1 Christchurch (North) within the Christchurch Ward be changed from Burchatts Farm Barn to the Urban Saints building, Stoke Park, London Road, Guildford.

(3)         That the designated polling place in polling districts C3 Friary (West) & C4 Friary (East) within the Friary & St Nicolas Ward be changed from Sandfield Primary School to the Salvation Army Hall, Woodbridge Road, Guildford.

(4)         That the designated polling place in polling district D3 Holy Trinity (North) within the Holy Trinity Ward, be changed from The Spike to St Joseph’s Church Hall, Eastgate Gardens, Guildford.

(5)         That the designated polling place in polling district H2 (Artington) within the Shalford Ward be changed from St Francis’ Church to Compton Village Hall, The Street, Compton in polling district H1.

(6)         That the designated polling place in polling district I1 Stoke (South-West) within the Stoke Ward, be changed from The Waterside Centre to The New Hope Church, Larch Avenue, Guildford.

(7)         That the designated polling place in polling district M4East Horsley (Central) within the Clandon & Horsley Ward be changed from Horsley Library to East Horsley Village Hall, Kingston Avenue, East Horsley.

(8)         That the designated polling place in polling district Q1 St Martha within the Tillingbourne Ward be changed from Chilworth Infant School to Chilworth Village Hall, New Road, Chilworth.

(9)         That, in relation to the following polling places within the Ash Wharf Ward:

(a)     the designated polling place in polling district T1 Ash (Shawfields) be changed from Shawfield County Primary School to Primrose Hall, Church View, Ash; and

(b)     the designated polling place in polling district T2 Ash (Ranges) be changed from The Ash Centre to Victoria Hall, Ash Hill Road, Ash.

Reason:

As a result of this statutory review, the new designated polling places will improve elector polling experience and further reduce the necessity for schools to close on polling  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO70

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Fiona White, the Council

RESOLVED: That the proposed timetable of Council and Committee meetings for the 2020-21 municipal year, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council, be approved.

Reason:

To assist with the preparation of individual committee work programmes.

To receive and note the attached minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 16 July and 27 August 2019.

The Council received and noted the minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 16 July and 27 August 2019. 

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

“This Council has recognised that there is a climate change crisis and has agreed that actions should be taken in order to move to a zero-carbon footprint as soon as possible.

Other councils have similarly recognised an environmental responsibility. In the cases of other councils this recognition has included a moratorium on building on green fields, such as Arun Council.

This does not mean a moratorium on all parts of the local plan, just site allocations on greenfield sites.

Guildford’s Local Plan has a target that will increase the number of homes in the borough by approximately 25%. That plan has inherent oversupply built into the model (a minimum of 14,600 to meet a target need of 10,000; with no information yet provided on the planning permissions and completions already meeting that target need). The plan proposes to site approximately 70% of new homes on green fields and it should be noted that this too is a minimum; planning applications decided since the plan’s adoption have been subject to officer advice that all sites included in the plan cannot be disputed and can be uplifted by 25% or more. 

Guildford Borough Council has not yet prepared an updated brownfield review, as agreed by this Council in July, which would have allowed us to meet our housing target in the urban area more sustainably. The Climate Change working group under the last council agreed that we should improve or enhance our environmental standards compared to Government minimum standards, but no Supplementary Planning Documents have yet been discussed to implement this agreed position. Our new housing will make the carbon crisis much worse.

Our high housing numbers are likely to exacerbate severe water stress as part of the Thames catchment area.   Our borough is also subject to air quality constraints.  Air quality across Guildford borough is poor, and it is likely that more Air Quality Management Areas will be designated across the borough in the shorter term.  All car-based unsustainable housing will increase the impact on our poor air quality and will encourage the use of fossil fuels to an unsustainable extent.

Housing on green fields will increase car use.  There is no transport option which does not involve the increased use of cars for all the green field sites in the borough.   We do not have a well-developed public transport network which is carbon neutral, and so heavy car use, usually in slow moving congested traffic, is likely to arise associated with all new greenfield development in and around our borough.  As a result, housing on green fields will worsen air quality, make it exponentially harder to achieve a zero-carbon footprint, and increase water stress.  We need to reduce our carbon footprint. Housing on green fields will worsen our carbon footprint and make it almost impossible to reduce it. 

The assessment of housing need and the allocation of housing sites  ...  view the full agenda text for item CO73

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

“This Council has recognised that there is a climate change crisis and has agreed that actions should be taken in order to move to a zero-carbon footprint as soon as possible.

Other councils have similarly recognised an environmental responsibility. In the cases of other councils this recognition has included a moratorium on building on green fields, such as Arun Council.

This does not mean a moratorium on all parts of the local plan, just site allocations on greenfield sites.

Guildford’s Local Plan has a target that will increase the number of homes in the borough by approximately 25%. That plan has inherent oversupply built into the model (a minimum of 14,600 to meet a target need of 10,000; with no information yet provided on the planning permissions and completions already meeting that target need). The plan proposes to site approximately 70% of new homes on green fields and it should be noted that this too is a minimum; planning applications decided since the plan’s adoption have been subject to officer advice that all sites included in the plan cannot be disputed and can be uplifted by 25% or more.

Guildford Borough Council has not yet prepared an updated brownfield review, as agreed by this Council in July, which would have allowed us to meet our housing target in the urban area more sustainably. The Climate Change working group under the last council agreed that we should improve or enhance our environmental standards compared to Government minimum standards, but no Supplementary Planning Documents have yet been discussed to implement this agreed position. Our new housing will make the carbon crisis much worse.

Our high housing numbers are likely to exacerbate severe water stress as part of the Thames catchment area. Our borough is also subject to air quality constraints. Air quality across Guildford borough is poor, and it is likely that more Air Quality Management Areas will be designated across the borough in the shorter term. All car-based unsustainable housing will increase the impact on our poor air quality and will encourage the use of fossil fuels to an unsustainable extent.

Housing on green fields will increase car use. There is no transport option which does not involve the increased use of cars for all the green field sites in the borough. We do not have a well-developed public transport network which is carbon neutral, and so heavy car use, usually in slow moving congested traffic, is likely to arise associated with all new greenfield development in and around our borough. As a result, housing on green fields will worsen air quality, make it exponentially harder to achieve a zero-carbon footprint, and increase water stress. We need to reduce our carbon footprint. Housing on green fields will worsen our carbon footprint and make it almost impossible to reduce it.

The assessment of housing need and the allocation of housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO73

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

“This Council believes that we are yet to make good on promises made to the Electorate to be more open and transparent in all of our actions.

By not doing so we may miss great ideas by not keeping all Councillors aware of the latest developments with their input coming too late in the creation of policy.

We must reaffirm a position where all committee reports are made public unless there are unequivocal legal or commercial reasons to the contrary.

The Council therefore resolves:

(1)   That all restricted committee reports must clearly and precisely state all of the following:

(a)   Why the content is to be treated as exempt from the Access to Information publication rules.

(b)   To whom within the Council the content is restricted

(c)   When, following a period of exemption, the exempt information can be expected to be made public.

(d)   The basis for the exemption should be made public at the point the agenda is published, together with details of how the decision to maintain the exemption may be challenged.

(2)   That all working group reports should be made available to all Councillors.  For example, information about Major Projects, the Supplementary Planning Documents needed to complete the Local Plan, and also the concrete actions to further our climate change agenda are often kept to relatively small working groups.”

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Christopher Barrass  proposed, and Councillor Jan Harwood seconded, the adoption of the following motion:

“This Council believes that we are yet to make good on promises made to the Electorate to be more open and transparent in all of our actions.

By not doing so we may miss great ideas by not keeping all Councillors aware of the latest developments with their input coming too late in the creation of policy.

We must reaffirm a position where all committee reports are made public unless there are unequivocal legal or commercial reasons to the contrary.

The Council therefore resolves:

(1)     That all restricted committee reports must clearly and precisely state all of the following:

(a)   Why the content is to be treated as exempt from the Access to Information publication rules.

(b)   To whom within the Council the content is restricted

(c)   When, following a period of exemption, the exempt information can be expected to be made public.

(d)   The basis for the exemption should be made public at the point the agenda is published, together with details of how the decision to maintain the exemption may be challenged.

(2)     That all working group reports should be made available to all Councillors. For example, information about Major Projects, the Supplementary Planning Documents needed to complete the Local Plan, and also the concrete actions to further our climate change agenda are often kept to relatively small working groups.”

Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), CouncillorBarrass 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 by incorporating amendments shown in red text indicated below:

“This Council believes that we are yet to make good on promises made to the Electorate to be more open and transparent in all of our actions.

By not doing so we may miss great ideas by not keeping all Councillors aware of the latest developments with their input coming too late in the creation of policy. For example, information about Major Projects, the Supplementary Planning Documents needed to complete the Local Plan, and also the concrete actions to further our climate change agenda are often kept to relatively small working groups.

We must reaffirm a position where all committee reports are made public unless there are unequivocal legal or commercial reasons to the contrary.

The Council therefore resolves:

(1)   To reaffirm, and adopt as best practice, the position that all committee reports are made public unless there are unequivocal legal or commercial reasons to the contrary and that where practicable, information within a report which is legally exempt from publication should be isolated from the body of the report as a restricted appendix, with the remainder of the report made available to the public.

(2) To require that all restricted committee reports clearly and precisely state at the point the agenda is published all of the following:

(a)   Why the content  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO74

The Council is asked the consider passing the following resolution:

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), the public be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that It involves the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraphs 1 and 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

Upon the motion of the Mayor, Councillor Richard Billington, seconded by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley, the Council

RESOLVED: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), the public be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the business contained in agenda item 18 on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraphs 1 and 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the 1972 Act. 

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, seconded by the Lead Councillor for Finance and Assets, Customer Service, Councillor Joss Bigmore, the Council

RESOLVED: That the proposed terms of the termination packages associated with the Voluntary Compulsory Redundancy of the postholders named in the report submitted to the Council, including the respective redundancy payments and employer pension costs, as set out in the table in paragraph 3.1 of the report, be approved.

Reason:

To enable applications for Voluntary Compulsory Redundancy to be approved as part of the Future Guildford transformation programme.

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.