Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ruth Brothwell, Ann McShee, Jo Randall, and James Steel and from Honorary Aldermen Catherine Cobley, Sarah Creedy, 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 meeting of the Council held on 8 October 2019.

The Council confirmed, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2019. The Mayor signed the minutes.

The Mayor reported on the recent deaths of Mr David Cranham, former Mayor’s Chauffeur who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, and Mr Jim Cunningham, from the Heritage Services team, who had been killed in a road accident. 

The Council observed a moment’s silence in memory of them.

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

There were no communications from the Leader of the Council.

To receive questions or statements from the public.

Mr Keith Chesterton, on behalf of the Defend our Bus Station Group, asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, the following question:

“Can the Leader of the Council, on behalf of Guildford Borough Council, please make every effort to keep the bus station in its present location, but also to make sure it is improved?

Bus passengers have made it plain on several occasions that overwhelmingly they want the bus station where it is but for it to be improved.

In 2017, the Council commissioned Systra to do consultations with stakeholders, including bus passengers, on the design and location of bus facilities in the centre of Guildford.

The summary report (GBC Ref 1056142) makes it clear that the vast majority of stakeholders, and certainly bus passengers wanted the bus station to remain where it is now but to improve it.

This confirmed what I with other members of the Defend our Bus station Group, found when in 2011/12 we spoke to hundreds of bus users at the bus station. We also collected 2,600 signatures to a petition “Don’t Move the Bus Station – Improve It”. Nothing has happened since to invalidate the results.

The primary reason for the Council wanting to move the bus station in the first place was so that John Lewis and a major shopping development with car park could be put in its place. Economic changes have now made that impossible.

Others wanted a full bus interchange at the railway station. This would always have been difficult but the Solum development has now made that impossible.

Thus the two reasons for moving it have disappeared.

The bus station is an essential part of the infrastructure of Guildford and should not be moved to suit the convenience of developers.”

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

“The Policy allocation (A5) for North Street redevelopment includes a requirement (point 8) that the ‘Bus interchange facilities presently provided at Guildford bus station on the site are to be provided in a suitable alternative arrangement to be located either partly or wholly on or off site.’ Maintaining suitable bus interchange facilities in Guildford town centre is a key consideration in relation to any forthcoming planning application for the site.

The Council are aware of issues with the current facility. In line with the Local Plan policy, we will be working with the developer at North Street to secure provision of a suitable alternative to meet passenger needs.

There will be public consultation on redevelopment proposals for the North Street site, including in relation to the Bus Station, as part of the planning process.”

Councillor Caroline Reeves

Leader of the Council

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

(1)         Councillor Steven Lee asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:

“Guildford has a huge and persistent problem with regular traffic jams and congestion. We were recently named the most congested town in England and the issue ranked as number one with our residents in a recent poll.

With the planned development for Guildford and its environs over the next ten to fifteen years, there is a unique window of opportunity to work with County Highways and Highways England to overhaul our road infrastructure and thereby reduce congestion as part of the framework of development.

Given this, can the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration and Housing Delivery tell us whether the planning department has considered creating a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to identify and safeguard potential future routes for new road infrastructure to alleviate traffic through Guildford - whether that be access points for a tunnel, a bypass route or any other practical option? If not, would they be willing to consider creating such an SPD?”

The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:

“The Council works with both Surrey County Council and Highways England, respectively the statutory highway authorities for local and strategic roads.

The now adopted Local Plan: Strategy and Sites was prepared with the active involvement of both Surrey County Council and Highways England (and its predecessor the Highways Agency) in the period from 2012. The Council worked with these and other partners to align their strategies and investments for transport with our forward planning of development patterns. As the Local Plan inspector noted in his report on the plan, the Council worked ‘through an extensive number of working groups and stakeholder meetings’ on transport matters (para 17).

It should be noted that specific requirements for junctions on the local and strategic road networks to be provided or have their capacity increased are set out in site allocation policies including for the strategic sites in the adopted Local Plan: Strategy and Sites. Highways England and Surrey County Council were statutory consultees for the public consultations on the draft versions of the plan, and their comments with respect to proposed changes to the local and strategic road networks were taken into account by Guildford Borough Council in the preparation of the plan.

Beyond those proposed changes to the local and strategic road networks described in the adopted plan, neither Highways England nor Surrey County Council requested, or has since made a request, that Guildford Borough Council further allocates or safeguards land for potential future routes for new public road infrastructure.

It is worth noting that, in agreement with Network Rail, the site allocation as Policy A7 Land west of Guildford railway station, was “allocated for a ‘Guildford platform capacity’ scheme involving additional platforms and layout changes at Guildford railway station as proposed in the Wessex Route Study”. Policy A28 allocates a site for a new rail station at Guildford West (Park Barn) on the North Downs Line adjacent to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO84

The Council received a report on its statutory duty to consider annually whether to revise its Local Council Tax Support Scheme (LCTSS), replace it with another or make no changes.  The Council was obliged to consult with interested parties if it wished to revise or replace the scheme.  In addition, the Council had to approve a scheme for the 2020-21 financial year by 31 January 2020.  

In 2019-20, a number of minor changes were made to the scheme.  For 2020-21, it was proposed to introduce the following changes, which could be met from within the existing revenue budget:

• Increase Premiums to ensure that the help given does not unduly reduce due to inflation. 
• Increase Non-Dependant Deductions to reflect an expectation that their contribution to the household expenses should increase each year.
• Update Income and Capital Disregards to include “the Windrush Compensation Scheme”.  This mirrored the government’s change to the Pension Age scheme, and ensured that recipients were not penalised for receiving compensation.  It also ensured that claimants were treated consistently across all schemes.

·       Amend the definition of pension age and working age in accordance with the government’s changes to the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2012 for 1 April 2020, once they were received.

A stakeholder consultation was held between 16 September and 13 October 2019, the results of which were set out in the report.  It was noted that although the County Council and Police and Crime Commissioner had supported the changes, the overall response did not overwhelmingly support for or against any the proposed changes for 2020-21. 

Councillors noted that the Council continued to operate in a tough financial climate and that its medium-term financial plan position remained challenging.  However, it was recognised that passing on further savings via the LCTS scheme in 2020-21 would place additional financial pressure on vulnerable households.  A discretionary hardship fund would help support any resident suffering adversely from the consequences of savings in welfare support over the past seven years, in addition to the proposed changes for 2020-21. 

The Executive had considered the report at its meeting on 26 November 2019 and had endorsed the recommendation therein.

Upon the motion of the Lead Councillor for Housing, Access and Disability, Councillor Angela Goodwin, seconded by the Lead Councillor for Finance and Assets, Customer Service, Councillor Joss Bigmore, the Council:

RESOLVED:

(1)    That the current LocalCouncil Tax Support Schemebe amended for 2020-21, as set out in detail in Appendix 2 to the report submitted to the Council, with effect from 1 April 2020.

(2)    That the Council maintains a discretionary hardship fund of £40,000 in 2020-21.

Reasons:

(1)   To ensure that the Council complies with legislation to implement a LocalCouncil Tax Support Scheme from 1 April 2020.

(2)   To maintain a discretionary fund to help applicants  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO85

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

The Lead Councillor for Finance and Assets, Customer Service, Councillor Joss Bigmore proposed, and the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, seconded a motion to adopt the IRP’s recommendations, as amended by the Executive.

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

RESOLVED: 

(1)         That the Basic Allowance payable to all members of Guildford Borough Council be £7,405 per annum.

(2)         That the maximum number of recipients of Special Responsibility Allowances at any one time does not exceed 50% of Council Members (24 Members).

(3)         That the Leader of the Council continues to receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of 200% of the basic allowance, £14,810 per annum.

(4)         That the Deputy Leader receives a Special Responsibility Allowance of 50% of the Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance, £7,405 per annum.

(5)         That the Members of the Executive, the Chair of the Planning Committee, the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Mayor receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of 40% of the Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance, £5,924 per annum.

(6)         That the Shadow Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance be withdrawn.

(7)         That the Chairman of the Licensing Committee, the Deputy Mayor, the Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee, the Chairs of the Executive Advisory Boards and the Guildford Joint Committee Chair each receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of 25% of the Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance, £3,703 per annum.

(8)         That the Vice Chair of the Guildford Joint Committee receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of 10% of the Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance, £1,481 per annum.

(9)         That the Chairs of the Licensing Sub-Committees continue to be eligible to receive a Special Responsibility Allowance on a per meeting basis, currently £280 per meeting.

(10)      That Political Group Leaders continue to receive a Special Responsibility Allowance of 1% of the Basic Allowance per group member (£74 per councillor per annum).

(11)      That the role of Deputy Lead Councillor should not be awarded a Special Responsibility Allowance.

(12)      That co-optees continue to receive an allowance of 2.5% of the Leader’s Special Responsibility Allowance, £370 per annum.

(13)      That Travelling and Subsistence Allowance should continue to be payable to councillors and co-opted members in connection with any approved duties. 

(14)      That the amounts payable in respect of Travelling and Subsistence Allowance should continue to be the amounts which are payable to officers of the Council for travelling and subsistence undertaken in the course of their duties.

(15)      That Councillors should also be permitted to claim for reimbursement of any reasonable parking charges incurred whilst on approved duties.

(16)      That the Dependants’ Carers’ Allowance  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO86

Councillors were reminded that at its meeting on 23 July 2019, the Council had approved a request from East Horsley Parish Council to conduct a community governance review (CGR) in accordance with provisions of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”) regarding the following proposals:

Proposal 1

Subject to Proposal 2 below, to alter the existing boundary between the parishes of East Horsley and Effingham in the area close to Effingham Common.

Proposal 2

To recommend to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (“LGBCE”) that it approves the change of the existing boundary between the Clandon and Horsley ward and the Effingham ward of the Borough Council so that it is coterminous with the change to the parish boundary referred to in Proposal 1 above.

Proposal 3

To increase the maximum number of councillors to be elected to East Horsley Parish Council from nine councillors to twelve councillors.

The Council considered a report setting out details of the representations received during the consultation period and the options open to the Council in making its formal response to the CGR.

Upon the motion of Councillor Liz Hogger, seconded by Councillor Catherine Young, the Council

RESOLVED: 

(1)        That, taking account of the statutory considerations, the Council agrees the outcome of the community governance review as follows:

(a)    to alter, with effect from 1 April 2023, the existing boundary between the parish of East Horsley and the North Ward of the parish of Effingham in the area close to Effingham Common along the route shown in the terms of reference of the review, subject to the further alteration described in paragraph 9.2 (b) of the report submitted to the Council;

(b)    to recommend to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England that it approves, as a consequential change, an alteration of the existing boundary between the Clandon and Horsley ward and the Effingham ward of the Borough Council so that it is coterminous with the change to the parish boundary referred to in (a) above;

(c)    to increase the number of parish councillors to be elected to East Horsley Parish Council from nine to twelve with effect from the next scheduled parish council elections in May 2023; and

(d)    to make no other changes:

                           (i)       to the parishes of East Horsley and Effingham or

                          (ii)        to the electoral arrangements for East Horsley Parish Council and Effingham Parish Council.

(2)        That the Democratic Services Manager be authorised to make a community governance reorganisation order under Sections 86 and 88 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to give effect to the decision approved in paragraph (1) above, together with all necessary incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions as may be required to give full effect to the order.

Reason:

To ensure that community governance within the area under review is:

·       reflective of the identities and interests of the community in that area; and

·       is effective and convenient

The Council considered a report which sought approval for the proposed arrangements between Surrey Licensing Authorities to introduce joint warranting for Licensing Officers to enable improved enforcement of the taxi and private hire trade across the County.

This proposal had been considered and supported by the Licensing Committee at its meeting on 25 September 2019.  The delegation of non-Executive functions to another local authority and the acceptance of any delegation of functions from another local authority were decisions that only full Council may take.

Upon the motion of the Lead Councillor for Waste, Licensing, and Parking, Councillor David Goodwin, seconded by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, the Council

RESOLVED:

(1)    That the Council’s Taxi and Private Hire enforcement powers, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council, be delegated jointly to the following licensing authorities:

·       Elmbridge Borough Council

·       Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

·       Mole Valley District Council

·       Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

·       Runnymede Borough Council

·       Spelthorne Borough Council

·       Surrey Heath Borough Council

·       Tandridge District Council

·       Waverley Borough Council

·       Woking Borough Council

without prejudice to the Council’s ability to exercise those powers itself within the Borough.

(2)    That similar delegated Taxi and Private Hire enforcement powers be accepted from the following licensing authorities:

·       Elmbridge Borough Council

·       Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

·       Mole Valley District Council

·       Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

·       Runnymede Borough Council

·       Spelthorne Borough Council

·       Surrey Heath Borough Council

·       Tandridge District Council

·       Waverley Borough Council

·       Woking Borough Council

(3)   That the Regulatory Services Manager be authorised to undertake the Taxi and Private Hire enforcement powers referred to in paragraph (2) above.

Reason:

To improve safety within the licensed hackney carriage and private hire vehicle service operating in Surrey.

The Council considered a report on nominations received for election of Mayor and appointment of Deputy Mayor for the municipal year 2020-21.  The constitutional changes adopted by the Council as part of the review of the Civic Function in April 2014 in respect of the Mayoralty, provided that the Council would normally elect the Deputy Mayor appointed at the annual meeting of the Council as Mayor at the next succeeding annual meeting. 

Although political group leaders had been asked to submit nominations in respect of the Deputy Mayoralty for 2020-21, none had been received. 

Accordingly, the Council was asked to consider the nomination of Councillor Marsha Moseley for Mayor in 2020-21.  Councillor Moseley left the meeting during the Council’s consideration of this matter.

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 the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley be nominated for the Mayoralty of the Borough for the 2020-21 municipal year.

(2)    That consideration of nominations for appointment of Deputy Mayor for the 2020-21 municipal year, be deferred to the meeting of the Council to be held on 5 February 2020.

Reason:

To make early preparations for the selection of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the 2020-21 municipal year.

To receive and note the attached minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 24 September 2019.

The Council received and noted the minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 24 September 2019. 

This motion was withdrawn in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15 (p).

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor James Walsh to propose, and Councillor Angela Gunning to second, the following motion:

“Guildford Borough Council has embedded measures to address the evils of modern slavery in its safeguarding policy and procedures and we welcome this as an essential first step to tackling exploitation in Guildford.

However, with the number of people estimated to have been coerced into modern slavery nationally increasing tenfold between 2013 and 2016 – from 13,000 to 136,000 – we believe that a more proactive approach now needs to be taken by this council, in line with the 50 others – including Surrey County Council – that have signed up to the Charter against Modern Slavery.

Collectively, councils across the UK spend £40bn per year on procuring services from hundreds of contractors and sub-contractors and they oversee large supply chains in all areas of their business. As public bodies, accountable to the public, they have a duty to ensure that those supply chains do not hide the sins and iniquities of exploitation.

The Charter against Modern Slavery

By signing the Charter against Modern Slavery, Guildford Borough Council commits to:

1.     Train its corporate procurement team to understand modern slavery through the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply’s (CIPS) online course on Ethical Procurement and Supply.

2.     Require its contractors to comply fully with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, wherever it applies, with contract termination as a potential sanction for non-compliance.

3.     Challenge any abnormally low-cost tenders to ensure they do not rely upon the potential contractor practising modern slavery.

4.     Highlight to its suppliers that contracted workers are free to join a trade union and are not to be treated unfairly for belonging to one.

5.     Publicise its whistle-blowing system for staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.

6.     Require its tendered contractors to adopt a whistle-blowing policy which enables their staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.

7.     Review its contractual spending regularly to identify any potential issues with modern slavery.

8.     Highlight for its suppliers any risks identified concerning modern slavery and refer them to the relevant agencies to be addressed.

9.     Refer for investigation via the National Crime Agency’s national referral mechanism any of its contractors identified as a cause for concern regarding modern slavery.

10.  Report publicly on the implementation of this policy annually.

Councils who sign this charter can access cost-free support through the Transparency in Supply Chains report (https://tiscreport.org/), an NGO that will monitor companies supplying the council in relation to their compliance with section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

This Council resolves:

(1)     To sign the Charter Against Modern Slavery, which encompasses points 1 to 10 above, immediately to ensure that it does not inadvertently rely on exploitation and modern slavery in its use of suppliers.

(2)     To report back on progress to Full Council on an annual basis, one year from the date the  ...  view the full agenda text for item CO92

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor James Walsh proposed, and Councillor Angela Gunning seconded, the adoption of the following motion:

“Guildford Borough Council has embedded measures to address the evils of modern slavery in its safeguarding policy and procedures and we welcome this as an essential first step to tackling exploitation in Guildford.

However, with the number of people estimated to have been coerced into modern slavery nationally increasing tenfold between 2013 and 2016 – from 13,000 to 136,000 – we believe that a more proactive approach now needs to be taken by this council, in line with the 50 others – including Surrey County Council – that have signed up to the Charter against Modern Slavery.

Collectively, councils across the UK spend £40bn per year on procuring services from hundreds of contractors and sub-contractors and they oversee large supply chains in all areas of their business. As public bodies, accountable to the public, they have a duty to ensure that those supply chains do not hide the sins and iniquities of exploitation.

The Charter against Modern Slavery

By signing the Charter against Modern Slavery, Guildford Borough Council commits to:

1.  Train its corporate procurement team to understand modern slavery through the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply’s (CIPS) online course on Ethical Procurement and Supply.

2.   Require its contractors to comply fully with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, wherever it applies, with contract termination as a potential sanction for non-compliance.

3.   Challenge any abnormally low-cost tenders to ensure they do not rely upon the potential contractor practising modern slavery.

4.   Highlight to its suppliers that contracted workers are free to join a trade union and are not to be treated unfairly for belonging to one.

5.   Publicise its whistle-blowing system for staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.

6.   Require its tendered contractors to adopt a whistle-blowing policy which enables their staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.

7.   Review its contractual spending regularly to identify any potential issues with modern slavery.

8.   Highlight for its suppliers any risks identified concerning modern slavery and refer them to the relevant agencies to be addressed.

9.   Refer for investigation via the National Crime Agency’s national referral mechanism any of its contractors identified as a cause for concern regarding modern slavery.

10. Report publicly on the implementation of this policy annually.

Councils who sign this charter can access cost-free support through the Transparency in Supply Chains report (https://tiscreport.org/), an NGO that will monitor companies supplying the council in relation to their compliance with section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

This Council resolves:

(1)  To sign the Charter Against Modern Slavery, which encompasses points 1 to 10 above, immediately to ensure that it does not inadvertently rely on exploitation and modern slavery in its use of suppliers.

(2)  To report back on progress to Full Council on an annual basis, one year from the date  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO92

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

“The Council recognises that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has recently undergone a review.

However, with the now declared Climate Emergency (subsequent to that review), and the widespread support of the principle of building on brownfield before greenfield sites wherever possible, the Council requests the Secretary of State to hold an immediate further review of the NPPF to:

1.    Better define “sustainable development” in the light of the declared Climate Emergency.

2.    Better assist with brownfield delivery by granting councils simple effective powers to bring forward currently, as well as previously, used sites. 

3.    Amend Paragraph 145 of the NPPF which is having the unintended consequences in Greenbelt areas of enabling unrestricted building of four bedroomed houses through ‘infilling’, yet at the same time preventing residents from having a simple extension or garage for their own home.”

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

“The Council recognises that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has recently undergone a review.

However, with the now declared Climate Emergency (subsequent to that review), and the widespread support of the principle of building on brownfield before greenfield sites wherever possible, the Council requests the Secretary of State to hold an immediate further review of the NPPF to:

1.    Better define “sustainable development” in the light of the declared Climate Emergency.

2.    Better assist with brownfield delivery by granting councils simple effective powers to bring forward currently, as well as previously, used sites. 

3.    Amend Paragraph 145 of the NPPF which is having the unintended consequences in Greenbelt areas of enabling unrestricted building of four bedroomed houses through ‘infilling’, yet at the same time preventing residents from having a simple extension or garage for their own home.” 

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

(a)       Substitute the following in place of the second sentence of the motion:

“However, with the now declared Climate Emergency (subsequent to that review), and the widespread support of the principle of building on brownfield before greenfield sites wherever possible, the Council asks the Executive to requestthe Secretary of State to hold an immediate further review of the NPPF and its guidanceto:”

(b)       Substitute the following in place of item (1) of the list of matters regarding the NPPF suggested for review:

“(1) Recognise the declared Climate Emergency and provide more detailed guidance on creating “sustainable development”* which takes into account the required actions on transport and development to meet Carbon Zero, for both brownfield and green field sites.”

*NPPF – Paragraph 7 states: ‘the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’

(c)       Substitute the following in place of item (3) of the list of matters regarding the NPPF suggested for review:

 “(3) Amend Paragraph 145 of the NPPF – to correct the unintended consequences in Greenbelt areas of enabling unrestricted building of inappropriate houses through ‘infilling’, yet at the same time preventing residents from having a simple extension or garage for their own home.”

The motion, as altered, therefore read as follows:

“The Council recognises that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has recently undergone a review. However, with the now declared Climate Emergency (subsequent to that review), and the widespread support of the principle of building on brownfield before greenfield sites wherever possible, the Council asks the Executive to request the Secretary of State to hold an immediate further review of the NPPF and its guidance to:

(1)        Recognise the declared Climate Emergency and provide more detailed guidance on creating “sustainable  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO93

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 paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act, which is information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)”.

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 following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Act. 

At its meeting on 26 November 2019, the Executive had considered this matter and had approved the principal terms of the proposed lease and the associated valuation fees, lettings fees and legal fees which were to be vired from the budget pressures reserve. 

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

RESOLVED: That the sum of £2.5 million be vired from the capital contingency fund in respect of the contribution towards the refurbishment and fees in respect of the town centre property referred to in the report submitted to the Council.

Reasons:

To complete the lease to secure a longer-term income stream and assist with the regeneration of this part of the town.

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.