Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Christopher Barrass, Richard Billington, Liz Hogger, Steven Lee, Ann McShee, and Cait Taylor, and also from Honorary Freemen Andrew Hodges and David Watts, and Honorary Aldermen Tamsy Baker, Catherine Cobley, Sarah Creedy, Vas Kapsalis, Jayne Marks, Terence Patrick, Tony Phillips, Lynda Strudwick, Keith Taylor, and Jenny Wicks.

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 disclosable pecuniary interests.

Councillor Fiona White and Councillor Keith Witham each declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Item 15 on the agenda – Notice of Motion Dated 24 March 2022: Surrey Police and Crime Panel (see Minute No. CO120 below).  Councillor White was the Borough Council’s representative on the Surrey Police and Crime Panel and Councillor Witham represented Surrey County Council on the Surrey Police and Crime Panel.

To confirm the minutes of the budget meeting of the Council held on 9 February 2022.

The Council confirmed, as a correct record, the minutes of the budget meeting held on 9 February 2022. The Mayor signed the minutes.

To receive any communications or announcements from the Mayor.

The Mayor thanked the Circle 8 Film Group for the wonderful film show and Greyfriars Vineyard who generously sponsored the Mayor’s charity Film & Fizz Night, together with those councillors who came along to support the event, which raised just over £1000 for the Mayor’s chosen charities.

The Mayor reminded councillors that her Charity Ball would be taking place on Saturday 23 April, and that there were still some spaces available.

The Mayor had recently hosted a reception to thank the Town Centre Guides for the exceptional work they did in promoting the heritage of the town centre which in turn supported the local economy of the town.

Earlier in the month, the Mayor had attended the Inspiring Women Concert at Guildford Cathedral, which had been staged by Hennessy Brown Music as part of the Cathedral’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations.  The event had also celebrated the International Women’ Day weekend.

Last month, the Mayor had attended the installation of the new High Sheriff for Surrey, His Honour Christopher Critchlow DL, who was the Council’s Honorary Recorder from 2010 until he retired as the Resident Judge at Guildford Crown Court in 2016. The Mayor congratulated the new High Sheriff and wished him well for the coming year.

The Mayor referred to the shocking and horrifying situation in Ukraine and informed the Council that she had attended St Mary’s Church in Quarry Street for their Friday Night vigil, lighting a candle for hope and praying for an early end to the unnecessary bloodshed.

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

The Leader commented on the information on the Council’s website on supporting those affected by the war in Ukraine.  The Council had registered its interest in the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship programme, which allowed individuals, charities, community groups, and businesses to bring Ukrainians to safety, including those with no family ties to the UK.  The Council was currently working with Surrey County Council and Waverley Borough Council on a detailed process for the accommodation and criminal checks required.  

The Leader was pleased to report that the planning permission granted by the Planning Committee last year in respect of the Weyside Urban Village had been issued on 31 March 2022, following completion of the work by the project team and officers from Surrey County Council and National Highways to comply with the various conditions and outstanding highways issues. This would allow the next phase of the work to progress including the submission of a planning application for a new Council Depot later this year.

The Leader was also pleased to report that Surrey County Council had approved the Council’s bids to the Empty Homes Fund which had secured £696,000 revenue support for various projects. 

The Leader reported that the Council had entered into a temporary lease of the unused kitchen at Millmead House with Neat2Eat, which was a social enterprise set up to employ and train young adults in the age range of 18 to 24 who were not currently in education or employment.   Millmead House would become a cloud kitchen to train apprentices in the catering industry and to support young entrepreneurs at the start of their business journeys.  The food produced at Millmead would supply several cafes and outlets operated by Need2Eat and support its Holiday Hunger and other food programmes for those in need.  

Finally, the Leader took the opportunity of thanking the Mayor and Councillor Manning for their outstanding commitment to the Guildford Mayoralty over the past year.  

To receive questions or statements from the public.

No members of the public had indicated a wish to ask a question or make a statement to the Council.

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

(a)       Councillor Paul Spoonerasked the Lead Councillor for Environment, Councillor James Steel, the question set out below.

“Central Government Changing Places Fund (first round) outcomes were announced on 24 March making up to £30m available to local authorities to boost the provision of Changing Places (accessible) toilets in existing buildings. The announcement on 24 March will deliver over 500 new Changing Places toilets.

Every local authority that submitted an eligible expression of interest has received at least £40,000 in funding. Guildford Borough Council did not receive funding as they did not submit a formal expression of interest.

I would like to ask the Lead Councillor, at a time that the Executive are closing public toilets and affecting some of our most vulnerable residents in a significant way, why the opportunity for funding was not progressed, particularly given the fund prospectus stated a commitment that all local authorities who submitted bids would receive at least £40,000. Does the Lead Councillor agree that this is a double blow for the elderly, disabled and for those who need toilets?”

The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:

“We are very proud that within the current administration we were able to help facilitate, and part fund the provision of the first two public Changing Places toilets within the borough. The first opened in the Friary Centre on 22 January 2020 and the second within Guildford Baptist Church on 10 October 2020, for which the Council contributed funding of £10,000 and £3,500 respectively.

Of course, it would have been better for our finances had government grant funding been available sooner, but the opportunity to help some of the most vulnerable in our society came sooner than the grant. We recognised the value of supporting these improvements and did so without hesitation. Unfortunately, there were no mechanisms within the grant funding to support recently completed projects and the process only realistically allowed for applications for relatively advanced proposals that happened to be near ready in the short two-month period between the announcement of the funding and the closing of the fund.

To be clear, this fund is not directly relevant to the current public toilets in Guildford borough that are being proposed for closure as they are not of sufficient size.

We have had to make changes to the number of our public toilets we provide in order to make some savings; however, we have carried out a careful review and undertaken an extensive consultation which has materially altered the outcomes. Whilst a number of toilets will close there is still extensive Council and other provision, especially in the town centre and all our current operational toilets in our parks remain untouched”.

In response to a supplementary question enquiring as to what other operational toilets across the borough could have, or should have, been considered in relation to possible grant funding, the Lead Councillor stated that the short time frame of the consultation hampered our ability to look at other sites.  The Lead Councillor also confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO112

The Council considered a report which outlined the Council’s approach to the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2019 (LPSS) review and potential update process in light of the expert independent legal opinion that had recently been provided by Mary Cook.  The report had concluded that in line with the external advice provided and given the high degree of uncertainty, including in relation to the government’s intended changes to the way in which housing need was to be calculated and to the plan making system as a whole, it was considered prudent to not undertake an early Formal Review of the LPSS but instead carry out the Formal Review towards the end of the statutory 5-year period within which the plan must be formally reviewed. 

The report had also confirmed ongoing work in progressing and adopting the emerging Local Plan: Development Management Policies (LPDMP) and progressing a Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).  These documents would play a vital role in securing good quality development within the borough over the plan period. It also noted the ongoing work to support the Shaping Guildford’s Future programme and its evidence base, including for this work to inform the preparation of a formal planning document. 

Before proceeding to the debate, the Council

RESOLVED: That a recorded vote be taken in respect of each paragraph of the motion.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmoreproposed, and the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, seconded the adoption of the following motion:

“(1) That the Council notes the independent expert legal advice of a potential Local Plan Review at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council.

(2)     That the Council endorses the approach proposed to not conclude a Formal Review of the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (LPSS) at this stage but instead undertake it towards the end of the statutory five-year period unless circumstances change in such a way that means that undertaking an earlier review would be advantageous to the Council.

(3)     That the Executive be updated on the outcomes of the review of the transport evidence base currently underway and any other significant changes in circumstance that may impact on considerations regarding the timing of the Formal Review of the LPSS. 

(4)     That priority be given to the production of a Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document alongside the emerging Local Plan: Development Management Policies.

Reason:

To update Council on progress on the Council resolution [see minute CO102] which was agreed on 13 April 2021”.

Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor Bigmore 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 “Borough” in place of “Council” at the end of paragraph (2)

(b)   Substitute “Full Council” in place of “Executive” in paragraph (3)

The motion, as altered, would read as follows:

“(1) That the Council notes the independent expert legal advice of a potential Local Plan Review at  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO113

At full Council meetings of both Guildford and Waverley in July last year, both councils had agreed to greater partnership working including the creation of a Joint Chief Executive and a single management team as a first step towards recommending business cases for further collaboration, on a service-by-service basis.

In a Vision Statement drawn up by the Executives of both councils and presented to those meetings, collaboration was seen as being driven by more than the serious financial challenges that face all councils. There was an ambition to “protect, improve, and expand discretionary services, and explore new services”. The Executives wished to enhance both councils’ ambitions for carbon neutrality, “use the best of both councils” and “protect/create local jobs”. Their stated focus was on “better outcomes for residents and communities” that might arise from collaboration, potentially “go[ing] beyond shared management and shared services and be[ing] strategic in intent … to secure a longer-term sustainable future”. Specific savings targets were then included in both councils’ Budgets and Medium-Term Financial Plans.

The councils agreed to establish a Joint Appointments Committee to conduct the recruitment and selection process in respect of the proposed Joint Chief Executive and the single management team.  In November 2021, both councils formally appointed Tom Horwood as the Joint Chief Executive and he commenced in this role in December. 

It was agreed that an important early step in the partnership would be for both councils to approve Heads of Terms of an Inter-Authority Agreement (IAA), which would set out the formal governance arrangements for joint working, including cost and risk-sharing, dispute resolution and exit clauses.

A joint working group of six councillors (three from each council) was established in January 2022, which had met regularly to discuss the themes for inclusion in the Heads of Terms, together with a Risk Assessment in relation to key aspects of the collaboration.

The joint working group had completed its work and officers had drafted the Heads of Terms for approval by both Councils in April, which were appended to the report now before the Council for approval. 

A copy of the collaboration Risk Assessment recommended by the joint working group was also attached to the report.

One of the discussion themes considered by the joint working group was to examine possible models of governance for managing the collaboration in the future. The joint working group had recommended that the existing Joint Appointments Committee should be retained with another joint committee being established to consider other governance related issues including the review of both the IAA and the Risk Assessment, recognising that, as the collaboration progressed, a greater degree of formal joint governance arrangements might be required.  The joint working group had recommended, for adoption by both councils, the creation of a new Joint Governance Committee and draft terms of reference, which were attached to the report.

Following approval of the Heads of Terms by both councils, the Joint Chief Executive would commence the formal process for the appointment of the Joint Management  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO114

The Council noted that neighbourhood plans were development plans produced by parish/town councils or neighbourhood forums. West Clandon Parish Council had produced the West Clandon Neighbourhood Plan (“the Plan”) covering the West Clandon Neighbourhood Area (West Clandon Parish).

To meet the requirements of The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) (“the Regulations”), the Council held a six-week consultation and arranged for an examination of the Plan. The Plan was then amended in line with the examiner’s recommendations and was the subject of a referendum of qualifying voters within the neighbourhood area on 17 March 2022. 

In response to the referendum question “Do you want Guildford Borough Council to use the Neighbourhood Plan for the West Clandon Neighbourhood Area to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?”, the majority of voters in the referendum voted ‘Yes’. The vote was 313 for and 20 against, with a turnout of 30.1%.

By virtue of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) (“the Act”) and the Regulations, the Council must ‘make’ (adopt) the Plan as soon as reasonably practicable after the referendum is held and, in any event, not later than the last day of the period of 8 weeks from the day after the referendum. The Council did not need to make a neighbourhood plan if it considered that the making of it would be a breach, or would otherwise be incompatible with, any retained EU obligations (as incorporated into UK law) or human rights obligations.  Officers were of the view that making the Plan would not breach these obligations. The Council must therefore decide whether or not to make the Plan.

As a result of amendments to The Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 (Commencement No. 1) Regulations 2017, neighbourhood plans now formed part of the statutory Development Plan and carried full weight in planning decisions as soon as they were approved at a referendum, rather than when they are made by the Council at the final stage of the process. Applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, seconded by the Lead Councillor for Resources, Councillor Tim Anderson, the Council

RESOLVED: To ‘make’ (adopt) the West Clandon Neighbourhood Plan.

Reason:

To meet the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

Councillors noted that the Pre-Election Period was the period prior to an election from the date of the notice of the election to the close of polls on polling day. There were statutory restrictions that applied to council publicity during the Pre-Election Period.

The Pre-Election Period Publicity Policy sought to ensure that the Council acted lawfully in relation to the use of Council resources in the lead up to an election, to provide guidance to Councillors and Officers and to limit Council and Committee meetings and other decision-making which took place during the Pre-Election Period to those which were strictly necessary and business as usual.

At its meeting held on 22 March 2022, the Executive had considered this matter and endorsed the recommendation to adopt the Policy.

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, the Council

RESOLVED: That the Pre-Election Period Publicity Policy, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council, be approved with immediate effect.

Reasons:

To protect the interests of the Council, and to provide guidance to Councillors and Officers on publicity and the use of Council resources during the Pre-Election Period.

As Councillor Blow was in attendance, the Council agreed to withdraw this item.

The Council was reminded that the pay award for all staff in the salary bands below Director level was agreed each year by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council.  Separate approval from full Council was required for this pay award to be applied to the Director posts.

The Council noted that the pay award for the Joint Chief Executive was determined by the Joint Appointments Committee.

Councillors noted that the report on this matter had also been considered by the Employment Committee at its meeting on 25 March 2022.  The Committee had endorsed the recommendation to approve the pay award.

Upon the motion of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmore, seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, the Council

RESOLVED: That a pay award of 3.75% be approved for the Director posts with effect from 1 April 2022 in accordance with the Council’s adopted Pay Policy Statement, following last year’s pay freeze.

Reason:

To apply a pay award to the Director posts that is in line with the general staff pay award for 2022-23, following last year’s pay freeze and noting the current higher rate of cost-of-living inflation.

To receive and note the attached minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 25 January and 24 February 2022.

The Council received and noted the minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on 25 January and 24 February 2022. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Paul Spooner to propose, and Councillor Keith Witham to second the following motion:

“In recent weeks, a sub-committee of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel, which is majority male, voted to discipline the Police and Crime Commissioner for supporting the view that biologically male rapists were not female.

This is a disgraceful decision by the sub-committee which has caused anger and hurt for women in Surrey, as it sets a precedent that men should police the language of women about an emotive subject.

This Council condemns the decision made by the Surrey Police and Crime Panel sub-committee and calls on the Joint Chief Executive of this Council to send a letter of concern to the Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel”.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Paul Spooner proposed, and Councillor Keith Witham seconded, the following motion:

“In recent weeks, a sub-committee of the Surrey Police and Crime Panel, which is majority male, voted to discipline the Police and Crime Commissioner for supporting the view that biologically male rapists were not female.

This is a disgraceful decision by the sub-committee which has caused anger and hurt for women in Surrey, as it sets a precedent that men should police the language of women about an emotive subject.

This Council condemns the decision made by the Surrey Police and Crime Panel sub-committee and calls on the Joint Chief Executive of this Council to send a letter of concern to the Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel”.

Following the debate on the motion, the Council

RESOLVED: That the motion be not supported.

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

“Council notes that:

i.   Sexual violence, sexual harassment, and domestic abuse remain endemic in our society:

a.  In 2019/20, 4.9 million women were victims of sexual assault in England and Wales, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

b.  A third of 16-18-year-old girls report experiencing unwanted sexual touching at school, according to End Violence Against Women.

ii.   The pandemic has made the situation worse:

a.  The ONS report into Domestic abuse during the pandemic in November 2020 found increased demand for victim services and indicators that severity of abuse has increased.

b.  Plan International UK found that since lockdown began, 1 in 5 girls aged 14-21 experienced public sexual harassment.

c.  By 2030, 2 million more girls are now at risk of undergoing Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) due to the pandemic according to Plan International.

iii.    The justice system is failing many victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence:

a.  Out of 139,000 rapes estimated by the ONS in the year ending March 2020, only 58,845 were reported to police. Of those, just 2.4% ended in convictions.

b.  Three in four domestic abuse cases in England and Wales end without charge, according to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services.

iv.   Those from minority backgrounds experience domestic abuse disproportionately:

a.  ONS figures for 2019 show that disabled women were more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse than non-disabled women.

b.  LGBT+ people are significantly more likely to experience domestic abuse, with 13 per cent of bisexual women facing intimate partner abuse in 2019/20, according to Stonewall.

c.  In 2019, 60 per cent of UK police forces admitted referring victims of crime to the Home Office for immigration purposes, harming migrant women.

v.   The Domestic Abuse Act 2021, whilst very welcome, still contains policy gaps, including failure to provide equal protection for migrant women.

vi.   The funding for domestic abuse services in the 2021 Budget falls short of the figure that Women's Aid says is needed by over £200 million per year.

vii.   The UK has failed to ratify the Istanbul Convention, a treaty creating a global framework for protecting women from violence.

Council believes that:

I.        Everyone, regardless of identity, has the right to live a life free from fear and violence.

II.       Current systems and services do not properly tackle continuing violence against women and girls in our society due to underfunding, ingrained culture of victim blaming and lack of available education and training.

III.     Investing in raising awareness, education, and policies aimed at prevention is vital and prevents greater costs long-term.

IV.     An intersectional approach to violence against women and girls is imperative to provide high level care and support to the most vulnerable victims.

V.      Disclosures of abuse must be made easier and always taken seriously by authorities who offer a trauma-informed response.

VI.     Perpetrators of serious violence usually  ...  view the full agenda text for item CO121

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor George Potter proposed, and Councillor Pauline Searle seconded, the following motion:

“Council notes that:

i.   Sexual violence, sexual harassment, and domestic abuse remain endemic in our society:

a.  In 2019/20, 4.9 million women were victims of sexual assault in England and Wales, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

b.  A third of 16-18-year-old girls report experiencing unwanted sexual touching at school, according to End Violence Against Women.

ii.   The pandemic has made the situation worse:

a.  The ONS report into Domestic abuse during the pandemic in November 2020 found increased demand for victim services and indicators that severity of abuse has increased.

b.  Plan International UK found that since lockdown began, 1 in 5 girls aged 14-21 experienced public sexual harassment.

c.  By 2030, 2 million more girls are now at risk of undergoing Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) due to the pandemic according to Plan International.

iii.    The justice system is failing many victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence:

a.  Out of 139,000 rapes estimated by the ONS in the year ending March 2020, only 58,845 were reported to police. Of those, just 2.4% ended in convictions.

b.  Three in four domestic abuse cases in England and Wales end without charge, according to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services.

iv.   Those from minority backgrounds experience domestic abuse disproportionately:

a.  ONS figures for 2019 show that disabled women were more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse than non-disabled women.

b.  LGBT+ people are significantly more likely to experience domestic abuse, with 13 per cent of bisexual women facing intimate partner abuse in 2019/20, according to Stonewall.

c.  In 2019, 60 per cent of UK police forces admitted referring victims of crime to the Home Office for immigration purposes, harming migrant women.

v.   The Domestic Abuse Act 2021, whilst very welcome, still contains policy gaps, including failure to provide equal protection for migrant women.

vi.   The funding for domestic abuse services in the 2021 Budget falls short of the figure that Women's Aid says is needed by over £200 million per year.

vii.   The UK has failed to ratify the Istanbul Convention, a treaty creating a global framework for protecting women from violence.

Council believes that:

I.        Everyone, regardless of identity, has the right to live a life free from fear and violence.

II.       Current systems and services do not properly tackle continuing violence against women and girls in our society due to underfunding, ingrained culture of victim blaming and lack of available education and training.

III.     Investing in raising awareness, education, and policies aimed at prevention is vital and prevents greater costs long-term.

IV.     An intersectional approach to violence against women and girls is imperative to provide high level care and support to the most vulnerable victims.

V.      Disclosures of abuse must be made easier and always taken seriously by authorities who offer a trauma-informed response.

VI.     Perpetrators of serious violence usually have  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO121

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.