Agenda and minutes

The Committee was advised of apologies for absence from Councillors Guida Esteves, Will Salmon, and Deborah Seabrook and substitutions as detailed above.

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 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 declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.

To confirm the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 17 January 2023.

The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 17 January 2023 were agreed.

To consider an update on the EWMH services, Mindworks Surrey.

The Executive Director for Children’s Community Services, Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SABP), the Director of Children and Young People’s Services, SABP, and the Children’s Emotional Health Alliance Programme Director, SABP, updated the Committee on Mindworks Surrey.

With the aid of presentation slides circulated in advance with the agenda papers, the Committee was advised that Mindworks Surrey was an alliance of national and local partners commissioned to deliver services for children and young people across the county.  The Committee was reminded of the range of services offered through Mindworks Surrey.

The Children’s Emotional Health Alliance Programme Director, SABP, advised the Committee that the Amplify participation group had organised the Wellbeing Festival for children, young people, and families to be held on 4 March 2023 at Guildford County School.  The Committee was informed of increasing engagement with schools and plans to introduce an Independent Schools Reference Group in 2022/23.

The Children’s Emotional Health Alliance Programme Director, SABP, indicated the importance of improving transitions for children and young people, as they moved both from primary to secondary school and for 16-25 year olds moving into adulthood.  The Committee was advised of the work of Community Wellbeing Teams, School-based Needs Teams, Mental Health Support Teams, and the Reaching Out service.  In addition, the Children’s Emotional Health Alliance Programme Director, SABP, highlighted the themes and strategies for improvement identified from the Woking and the Guildford & Waverley Mindworks Protype projects. 

The Director of Children and Young People’s Services, SABP, indicated that during January 2023 demand for Mindworks Surrey services was forty percent higher than contracted for; the Executive Director for Children’s Community Services, SABP, advised that such a level was in line with regional and national demand.

During the ensuing discussion a number of questions were asked, and clarifications offered:

• Members of the Committee questioned the transition between services for children and young people as they moved from primary to secondary school and then onto adulthood.  The Director of Children and Young People’s Services, SABP, confirmed that the Community Wellbeing Teams, Scholl-based Needs Teams, and Mental Health Support Teams operated together as a single, virtual team. She indicated that Mindworks Surrey partners sought to work jointly in both service delivery and governance.  The Committee was advised of the Reaching Out service for 16-25 year olds who were difficult to engage.  In addition, the Committee was informed of the New Leaf service for children and young people affected by developmental trauma and who were in care, care leavers, or unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. 

• The Executive Director for Children’s Community Services, SABP, advised the Committee of the implementation of a digital tool to help Mindworks Surrey partners share information relating to the transition of children and young people from primary to secondary school and then onto adulthood.

• In reply to a question, the Committee was advised that New Leaf services were funded by several funding streams, including Surrey County Council, the NHS, and Surrey Police.  The Director of Children and Young People’s Services, SABP, offered to  ...  view the full minutes text for item OS48

The Joint Chief Executive of Guildford and Waverley Councils advised the meeting of two developments since his last attendance at the Committee.  He indicated that the amount of savings achieved as a result of the creation of the Joint Management Team had exceeded the annualised target of £300k, with the new management structure costing the Council £420k less than the previous one.  In addition, the Joint Chief Executive advised the meeting that the Joint Executive Head of Planning Development would start in post in March and the Joint Executive Head of Legal and Democratic Services commence in April.

There were no questions or comments from Councillors.

The Chairman thanked the Joint Chief Executive for attending and updating the Committee.

A question session with the Lead Councillor for Lead Councillor for Planning Development, Legal & Democratic Services.  Councillor Tom Hunt’s specific areas of responsibility: Planning applications; Planning enforcement; Planning integration and improvement; Democratic and committee services; Elections; Executive and civic support; GDPR; Information security, governance; Legal; and Overview & Scrutiny support.

The Chairman introduced the question session with Councillor Tom Hunt, the Lead Councillor for Lead Councillor for Planning Development, Legal & Democratic Services.  The meeting was reminded of Councillor Hunt’s specific areas of responsibility: Planning applications; Planning enforcement; Planning integration and improvement; Democratic and committee services; Elections; Executive and civic support; GDPR; Information security, governance; Legal; and Overview & Scrutiny support.

During the ensuing discussion several points were made, and clarifications offered:

• In response to a question alluding to the possible designation of the Council for special measures by the government because of its poor performance in determining planning applications on time, the Lead Councillor for Planning Development, Legal & Democratic Services, advised the meeting that there had been no response to date from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities (DLUHC) to the Council’s letter of 2 February 2023.  He suggested a response was expected within 4-6 weeks’ time. 

• The Lead Councillor for Planning Development, Legal & Democratic Services, was asked to provide an update on the plan outlined by the Interim Executive Head of Planning Development in an email sent to Councillors on 25 January 2023.  The Interim Executive Head of Planning Development advised that the action plan sent to DLUHC was constantly being reviewed and added to, and that many actions had been enacted, for example, the approval by Council of the changes to the Member Referral process.  She indicated that eight temporary members of staff had been recruited since mid-January 2023 to help deal with planning applications, and two further temporary members of staff would begin in the major development applications team soon.  The Interim Executive Head of Planning Development informed the meeting that an Improvement Board for Planning Development was to be established, as an Executive working group, to oversee the improvements.

• In response to a question about the need to prioritise the oldest planning applications, the Lead Councillor for Planning Development, Legal & Democratic Services, advised the Committee of measures taken to help tackle the backlog in planning applications, including the recruitment of additional staff.  He noted that the backlog of planning applications was partly due to the turnover of planning officers at the Council.  The Interim Executive Head of Planning Development advised that a recruitment drive for planning officers would commence soon. 

• The meeting was advised of a Councillor comment praising the success of the planning enforcement team in reducing the number of enforcement cases and dealing with new cases more swiftly.

• In reply to a question, the Lead Councillor for Planning Development, Legal & Democratic Services, stated that he viewed the rise in planning applications after the Covid pandemic and the reductions and changes in the planning team as a result of the Council’s Future Guildford transformation programme as the point at which the backlog in applications started.  He referred to staffing difficulties in the Council’s planning service, including the departure of seven full time planners and fourteen temporary members of planning staff in the period between September 2020 and September 2022.  The Lead Councillor for  ...  view the full minutes text for item OS50

A question session with the Lead Councillor for Lead Councillor for Regeneration.  Councillor John Rigg’s specific areas of responsibility: Corporate capital projects; Housing delivery; Transport; and Regeneration.

The Chairman introduced the question session with Councillor John Rigg, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration.  The meeting was informed of Councillor Rigg’s specific areas of responsibility: Corporate capital projects; Housing delivery; Transport; and Regeneration. 

A member of the Committee asked how the Council was future-proofing Shaping Guildford’s Future (SGF) and the Town Centre Master Plan to ensure that the work was not undone should there be a dramatic change to control of the Council following the elections in May 2023.  The Lead Councillor for Regeneration suggested that the solutions SGF proposed to address infrastructure, transportation, homes delivery, and flooding, would not change fundamentally due to political control at the Council.  He suggested that issues addressed by SGF should be apolitical.  The Chairman suggested that many of the Council’s projects progressed during the past four years were continuations of ones begun previously.

In response to questions about the costs of SGF, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration stated that approximately £2million had been spent on the project and for the next stage of SGF a further £3million was in the capital budget for September 2023.  He indicated that SGF was a long-term project, and that the role of the Council was largely one of facilitating the involvement of the private sector. 

In reply to a question, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration stated that the Council wanted to find a solution for the repair of the Tumbling Bay Weir and had met the National Trust that afternoon. 

In response to a question, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration spoke of the frustrations of his portfolio over the previous four years, including public opposition to the specifics of regeneration proposals. 

In response to a query, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration explained his support for a building height policy to alleviate public concern and progress regeneration in Guildford.

In reply to questions about the North Street development and the proposed bus station, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration indicated that he did not understand the objections of Surrey County Council.  In addition, he suggested that the developer had not raised the issue of the bus station until very recently.

The Lead Councillor for Regeneration explained the division of Executive portfolio responsibilities in relation to housing and housing delivery.

In response to a question on car parking charges, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration indicated that as the May elections approached then members of the Executive could be expected to express different views on some issues. 

The Chairman thanked the Lead Councillor for Regeneration for attending and answering questions.

To agree the draft Overview and Scrutiny work programme.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny) indicated that it had not been possible to complete the work of the Affordable Housing task group for submission to the Committee in the current municipal year.  He advised the meeting that the Affordable Housing task group would meet once more to capture its findings and recommendations and then after the May election the Committee could determine how to proceed.

RESOLVED:  That the work programme attached at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Committee be approved.