Agenda and minutes

The Committee was advised of apologies for absence from Councillors Tom Hunt and Fiona White.

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.

The Chairman declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6, Guildford Crematorium Redevelopment Post Project Review, due to his past association with the project while Leader of the Council.  He indicated that this past association would not affect his judgment and participation or chairing.

To confirm the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 2 February 2021.

The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 2 February 2021 were agreed.

An update from the Managing Director.

The Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Service Delivery introduced the item. He spoke of the optimism around falling infection rates and plans to re-open facilities and resume holding events. The Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Service Delivery advised the Committee of a drive through COVID testing facility at Onslow Park and Ride for keyworkers.  He praised the progress of the vaccination programme regionally and in local Primary Care Networks, and thanked residents who had volunteered to help the process.  He noted that the Borough’s boundaries did not align with those of the health service and acknowledged that this meant there was a need to co-ordinate and improve communications for residents across the whole Borough. 

TheManaging Directorgave a presentation onthe current COVID-19situation and theCouncil’s response,beginning with an update onlocal cases. The Committee was advised thatthe COVID-19 infection rate in Surreywas 46.8 per 100,000, lower than the nationalrate of 88.6 per 100,000, while Guildford’srate had decreased to 32.9 per 100,000.  The ManagingDirector advised thatin the previousweek there had been560 new casesin Surrey, ofwhich 49 were inGuildford.  Themeeting was informedthat asat 1 March there were 2,605registered COVID-related deathsin Surrey, with 211 in Guildford.

TheManaging Directoradvised the meeting of keyCOVID-19 issues: the Government road map to a phased easing of COVID restrictions; support and servicesfor themost vulnerable, such as food parcels and community meal deliveries;business support, including the Local Restrictions Support Grant (for closed businesses);Council services; staff sickness;vaccination and testing, and communications strategy.  The Committee heard that as part of the Council’s duty to warn and inform during crises, 33,000 emails and 30,000 printed postcards were sent to residents advising of key information.  The Managing Director informed the meeting that although the emails and postcards sent out included a link to information on the Surrey Heartlands Clinical Commissioning Group website he was aware that parts of the Borough were covered by other Clinical Commissioning Groups.  He indicated that as the vaccination programme progressed information from all relevant CCGs would be included in the Council’s communications.

In response to a question, the Community Wellbeing Manager outlined measures by Council staff to communicate and engage with clinically vulnerable people to increase the vaccination uptake. 

In reply to a suggestion from a member of the Committee, the Managing Director indicated the value in discussing the post-pandemic recovery at a subsequent Committee meeting. 

The Committee agreed to continue the COVID-19 response updates at its meetings.

A question session with the Lead Councillor for Regeneration.  Councillor John Rigg’s areas of responsibility:

• Town Centre MasterPlan
• Infrastructure
• Major Projects
• Strategic Asset Management

The Chairman welcomed the Lead Councillor for Regeneration and reminded the meeting of Councillor Rigg’s main areas of responsibility: the town centre master plan; infrastructure; major projects; and strategic asset management.  The Chairman indicated that due to the number of questions likely and the length of the evening’s agenda it might be necessary to invite Councillor Rigg for a further question session in the summer.  The Chairman advised the meeting that Councillor Rigg had requested to make an opening statement.

The Lead Councillor for Regeneration stated that he had two portfolios: major projects and regeneration.  He confirmed that many questions from the Committee had been shared with him in advance of the meeting.

The Lead Councillor for Regeneration outlined the role and responsibilities of the Major Projects Portfolio Board.  The meeting heard that the extensive requirements of the Board were not being met and as a consequence the Lead Councillor for Regeneration had formed six sub-programme boards to cover the detail of active projects; namely, Weyside, North Street, Ash Projects, the Town Centre Master Plan, Housing Development, and Other Projects. 

The Lead Councillor for Regeneration stated that the Council’s Major Projects included Weyside Urban Village, Slyfield internal estate road, Guildford Council new Depot, the Town Centre Master Plan, the Sustainable Movement Corridor, the flood alleviation study, the Guildford West railway station and (soon also) Guildford East railway station, the Public Realm improvement, The Guildford Museum, the Walnut Bridge replacement, the town centre approaches, the A31/A331 and A323/A324 Hotspots project, the Ash Road Bridge project, Guildford Park housing scheme, Bright Hill, Blackwell farm, Guildford community bike share, Guildford Crematorium, and  Millbrook Weir.  The meeting heard that the Lead Councillor for Regeneration no longer had responsibility for the Spectrum project. 

The Lead Councillor for Regeneration referred to his past difficulties obtaining key information on major projects.  He suggested that the results of major projects undertaken by the Council had been mixed and identified a lack of relevant project experience within the Council together with a failure to obtain appropriate input from external experts.  The Lead Councillor for Regeneration stated that he had to take advice from the Local Government Association and seek assistance from the Council’s solicitor to try and get access to project meetings taking place with external advisors.  He informed the Committee that he had been unhappy with both the management and reporting of projects at the Council. 

With reference to the North Street project, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration informed the Committee of a past lack of information available to him.  He indicated that progress had been made on the North Street project in 2020 and that the Council would be updated shortly.

The Lead Councillor for Regeneration indicated that the Ash Road Bridge was an infrastructure project and suggested that as such it was the responsibility of Surrey County Council and should not have been embarked upon by the Council.  The Committee heard about the Lead Councillor for Regeneration’s concerns with the project and he advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item OS62

The Lead Councillor for Environment introduced the report submitted to the Committee.  He advised the meeting that the Guildford Crematorium redevelopment project had addressed shortcomings with the previous crematorium building and had been underpinned by a sound business case which had been delivered.  He suggested the report provided a balanced account of successes and learning points from the project.

The Parks and Landscape Manager confirmed that the quantity surveyor on the project, the architect, the main contractor, and the cremator supplier were at the meeting to support the Committee’s review.  He summarised the background and results of the project and gave a presentation on the redevelopment of the site and facilities.  The Committee was advised of issues that arose, including an error in calculating the stack discharge height. 

The Parks and Landscape Manager informed the meeting that the stack discharge height error was identified by a member of the public and had now been remedied.  The Parks and Landscape Manager indicated that an internal investigation into the error had been completed and that an external audit of the issue was being undertaken.  The meeting was informed that the investigation of the stack height error would be considered by the Committee at a later date.  In addition, the Parks and Landscape Manager summarised the learning from the post project review.

Next, the meeting heard from Mr Peter Coleman from Guildford Society.  Mr Coleman referred to the Guildford Crematorium winning the Society’s design awards in two categories and praised the qualities of the design and architecture and the achievements of the project. 

In response to a question, the Planning Development Manager confirmed that an air quality impact assessment was not a requirement at the time of the planning application in 2017 and was not requested as the new crematorium would be replacing an existing one on the same land.

With reference to the value of an air quality impact assessment, a member of the Committee suggested the Council should not necessarily be content with legal minimum standards.  In his reply, the Parks and Landscape Manager referred to the cost implications of such an assessment.

A member of the Committee suggested that the scope of all Council projects should be specified clearly to avoid adding changes and costs later.  The meeting heard that a well-defined scope would enable a more accurate projection of project costs and assessment of project viability.

In reply to a question, the Parks and Landscape Manager indicated that a final breakdown of the cost overruns for the project was not yet available.  The Lead Specialist (Finance) summarised the discounted cash flow analysis within section 3.5.5 of the report submitted to the Committee and indicated she could provide further details if requested.  A member of the Committee suggested the value of clearer financial explanations within reports.

The Parks and Landscape Manager advised the Committee of the merit in a project manager and project support dedicated to project delivery, rather than combining responsibility for a major project with another full-time role.  ...  view the full minutes text for item OS63

The Community Wellbeing Manager introduced the item and advised that there were two strands to the report submitted to the Committee:the Council’s procedure for unauthorised encampments on Council land and the Surrey Leaders Group’s proposal for a transit site to help alleviate the pressures surrounding unauthorised encampments on local communities. 

In response to questions, the Community Wellbeing Manager advised that the Surrey Leaders Group had acknowledged the need for further transit sites across the county.  She indicated that the transit site was the first step in a process.  The Community Wellbeing Manager indicated that she was not aware of the design and facilities planned for the transit site.

The Community Wellbeing Manager advised the Committee that the Council’s communications with travellers visiting the Borough regularly was excellent.  She advised that both support and a protocol to establish communications were in place for travellers that might be new to the Borough.

In reply to a question from a Committee member, the meeting heard that the Council had a duty to assess the welfare needs of travellers at unauthorised encampments.  The Community Wellbeing Manager indicated that based on experience of enforcement against unauthorised encampments the welfare needs of travellers were seldom judged to take priority over the issue of any trespass being committed.

In response to questions about the provision of COVID vaccinations for travellers, the Community Wellbeing Manager advised the Committee that across the country travellers had been targeted by NHS outreach services.  She informed the Committee that travellers in priority vaccination groups had been offered support to access vaccine bookings online.

In response to calls for a plan from Surrey Leaders Group for further transit sites in the county, the Deputy Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Housing and Development Control advised the meeting that Surrey Leaders Group recognised further transit site provision was necessary.  The Chairman noted the value in receiving an update on the matter from the Leader of the Council.

The Lead Councillor for Environment introduced the item.  He advised the meeting that the report submitted to the Committee provided a summary overview of Freedom Leisure’s performance in operating the Council’s leisure facilities for the ninth contract year (from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020).  He stated that the preparation of the annual report by Freedom Leisure was delayed due to the furloughing of staff during the pandemic.  In addition, the meeting heard that Freedom Leisure had been unable to provide all the information that would normally be included within the annual report, including a separate catering profit and loss account. 

The Lead Councillor for Environment stated that the reported year’s figures for 2019/20 showed a reported deficit of £43,667 and that consequently no additional payment was due to the Council.  He confirmed that the overview and scrutiny working group members were generally happy with the day to day operation of the facilities, but had expressed concern over the level of investment, the rise in customer complaints, and the long term strategy to address energy consumption.

A member of the Committee asked whether Freedom Leisure and the Council intended to produce an assessment in 6-9 months’ time of the likely future demand for leisure facilities post-pandemic.  In response, the Leisure Services Manager indicated after a successful vaccination rollout he expected people’s leisure choices and behaviour to revert to those preceding the pandemic.  In addition, he highlighted the possible adverse impact of social distancing restrictions on leisure facilities and leisure businesses and noted the changing nature of the leisure sector.

In reply to a question, the Leisure Services Manager indicated that Freedom Leisure’s analysis of its customer complaints and its information sharing with the Council could be improved.

In response to questions, the Leisure Services Manager advised the Committee that enabling works for a major project to renew the drainage at the lido had been completed and that the main works should start at the end of the 2021 season.  He informed the Committee that a new toilet block and changing cubicles would be provided as part of the project.

To agree the draft Overview and Scrutiny work programme.

The Chairman advised the meeting that since the publication of the report submitted to the Committee the Safer Guildford Partnership Annual Report had been rescheduled from July to September.  

In response to a question from a Committee member, the Chairman confirmed that an update report on unauthorised gypsy and traveller encampments and Surrey’s transit site would be scheduled for six months’ time.

RESOLVED:  That, subject to the amendments above, the work plan as presented in the report submitted to the Committee be approved.