Agenda and minutes

The Committee was advised of an apology for absence from Councillor Chris Blow.

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 18 January 2022.

The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 18 January 2022 were agreed.

The Chair indicated at the outset of the item that the Committee would receive an update on the response to COVID-19 at its next meeting.

The Senior Specialist Public Health gave a presentation on the current COVID-19 situation and the Council’s response, beginning with an update on local cases.  She advised that the COVID-19 infection rate in Surrey was falling rapidly but remained high and higher than the rates for England and for the South East.  The meeting was informed that for the week ending 25 February the rate for Surrey was 521.7 per 100,000, the national rate was 374.5 per 100,000, and the South East rate was 491.5 per 100,000.  The Senior Specialist Public Health stated that Guildford’s rate was currently 453.6 per 100,000, while England’s rate was 303.7 per 100,000.  The presentation provided to the meeting indicated that as at 25 February there were 293 registered COVID-related deaths in Guildford. 

The Senior Specialist Public Health advised that vaccination rates in Guildford were in line with the average across Surrey and higher than the average rate for England.  The meeting was informed of efforts to increase vaccinations locally and changes to the distribution of lateral flow tests, including the door-to-door supply of test kits in Ash and in Stoke.

The meeting was advised of the four key principles of the government’s Living with COVID plan: removing any domestic restrictions; protecting the most vulnerable through targeted vaccination and testing; maintaining resilience, through ongoing surveillance and contingency planning; and securing innovations and opportunities from the COVID-19 response.  The meeting was advised of a return to the office for Council staff in line with the Council’s agile working policy and the return of services such as intergenerational activities in Community Services. 

In response to a question, the Senior Specialist Public Health advised that the ability to scale back up the response to COVID-19 would be maintained.  The Regulatory Services Manager indicated that councils would manage outbreaks under the Living with COVID plan.

In reply to questions from Committee members, the Senior Specialist Public Health confirmed that the vaccination rates for Guildford were the average for Surrey.  She advised the meeting of possible popup vaccination sites, including a nightclub in Guildford town centre, and undertook to continue providing information updates to Councillors.

The Chair thanked the officers for attending.

The Joint Chief Executive of Guildford and Waverley Councils updated the Committee on the collaboration programme, including progress with both the Inter-Authority Agreement (IAA) and a shared joint management team.  The meeting was informed that the heads of terms of the IAA should be submitted to both Councils for agreement in April.  The Joint Chief Executive advised that the options for the joint shared management team, including a timetable for implementation, would be presented to him at the end of March and then communicated more widely. 

In addition, the Joint Chief Executive informed the Committee that he was working with the executives of both councils to summarise the partnership’s joint vision statement agreed the previous summer and advised of his involvement in monitoring the milestones of the collaboration project.  The Joint Chief Executive indicated that opportunities for shared services and improved use of properties were being identified as the collaboration programme progressed.

There were no questions from Councillors and the Chair thanked the Joint Chief Executive for his update.

Councillor John Rigg’s areas of responsibility include: Town Centre MasterPlan; Infrastructure; Major Projects; and Strategic Asset Management.

The Chair introduced the Lead Councillor for Regeneration and reminded the meeting of Councillor Rigg’s areas of responsibility: the Town Centre Master Plan; infrastructure; major projects; and strategic asset management.

The following information, clarifications, and responses were provided during the ensuing discussion with the Lead Councillor for Regeneration.

·        A member of the Committee asked for a summary of the current projects that the Lead Councillor for Regeneration was most worried about and those he was most pleased with.  In response, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration indicated he was worried about several major projects: Ash Road Bridge at £37.7million; Weyside Urban Village Development at £350 million; Guildford Park Road at £100 million; Guildford West and Guildford East railway stations; North Street redevelopment at £250 million; and Walnut Bridge at £5 million.  He stated that his worries related to outside agencies, internal resources, budgets, construction cost inflation, planning policies, and opposition to change.  In addition, he advised the meeting he was concerned about the St Mary’s Wharf Development.

·        With reference to Ash Road Bridge, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration informed the meeting of concerns and cost price inflation due to a delay in Network Rail approving a bridge design.  The Lead Councillor for Regeneration stated that delivery of the Weyside Urban Village project was being affected by Surrey County Council’s delay in approving road improvements.  With reference to the Guildford Park Road project as an example, he advised of difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff to project manage the Council’s major projects and questioned whether the Council should be acting as the housing developer of the site.

·        The Lead Councillor for Regeneration advised that the current two-week delay to the Walnut Bridge project would increase, and he expected the project to be over-budget at £5.5 million and completed in July 2022.  North Street development was put forward by the Lead Councillor for Regeneration as an example of a project he was pleased with.

·        In reply to a question, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration updated the meeting on the flood alleviation scheme in Guildford town centre.  He emphasized the importance of flood alleviation to Guildford town centre to protect existing homes and businesses and to release for development land that was currently used for surface car parking.  The Lead Councillor for Regeneration praised the assistance of the Environment Agency and advised the Committee of a grant application to Surrey County Council for £480,000 from the empty homes fund towards modelling options.  He indicated that the scheme would consist of upstream storage and flood defence walls, implemented in a zoned approach. 

·        A member of the Committee referred to the flooding responsibilities of Surrey County Council and asked which resources the County Council was targeting to Guildford.  The Lead Councillor for Regeneration indicated that the Council was funding the flood alleviation plan in anticipation that Surrey County Council would contribute to its implementation costs. 

·        In reply to a question, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration undertook to provide Committee members with the Council’s expenditure on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item OS63

Councillor Tom Hunt’s areas of responsibility are Development Control and Enforcement.

The Chair welcomed the Lead Councillor for Development Management and reminded the meeting that Councillor Hunt’s areas of responsibility were Development Control and Enforcement.  The Chair advised the meeting that Councillor Hunt had requested to make an opening statement.

The Lead Councillor for Development Management referred to the high number of planning applications facing Local Planning Authorities, including Guildford.  He indicated that when he had taken on his executive portfolio in March 2021, he had been warned by officers that the backlog in applications would not be remedied quickly.  He advised the meeting that recruitment of planners was challenging and the Council’s team of 18 planners was supplemented by contract resources.  He announced that the pre-application service suspended in April 2021 would be reinstated for all categories of applications from 1 March 2022. 

The Lead Councillor for Development Management advised the meeting of the introduction of significant management information concerning planning applications, although he stated that such information was not yet in report form.  He advised that the monthly average of applications received each month over the previous year was 228, with an average of 217 validated and 175 determined each month.  The Lead Councillor for Development Management indicated that in January 2022 the backlog of planning applications was 918, compared with 514 in January 2021.  He suggested the Council should consider increasing the size of the planning team.  In addition, the Lead Councillor for Development Management indicated that resourcing challenges had affected the planning application validation process and the publishing of applications on the Council’s planning portal.

The Lead Councillor for Development Management advised the meeting of the increase in the planning enforcement team because of the Future Guildford transformation programme.  He stated that the number of new planning enforcement cases had increased from an average of 35 each month in 2020 to 43 each month in 2021.

During the following discussion a number of points were made and clarifications offered:

·        In response to a request from a Committee member, the Lead Councillor for Development Management indicated he would see if he could prepare an update summarising his opening statement to share with Councillors and members of the public. 

·        In reply to a question, the Lead Councillor for Development Management stated that non-determination appeals were not recorded specifically within the overall numbers of appeals.  The Chair suggested the value of obtaining such information.

·        A member of the Committee asked for details of the availability and sharing of information on section 106 agreements and monies.  In reply, the Lead Councillor for Development Management advised that a report on section 106 contributions was scheduled for consideration by the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee in April 2022.  He agreed to consider the cadence and content of reporting section 106 information.

·        With reference to planning enforcement, the Regulatory Services Manager advised of actions to lessen the caseloads of officers, including a review of older cases.

·        A member of the Committee noted that the monthly summary reports of planning enforcement cases had limited information  ...  view the full minutes text for item OS64

The Lead Councillor for Environment introduced the item and provided a brief overview of the tenth contract year.  The Committee was advised that due to the pandemic the G Live venue had been operational for less than six weeks of the contract year; the Lead Councillor for Environment confirmed that G Live was used as a vaccination centre for the remainder of the contract year to deliver 175,000 jabs.

The Lead Councillor for Environment referred to the Key Performance Indicators within the report submitted to the Committee and indicated that the restricted operation of the venue due to COVID-19 had affected performance significantly.  The meeting was advised of the acquisition of HQ Theatres by Trafalgar Entertainment and the extension of the current contract for a three-year period at a reduced yearly management fee of £275,000. 

The Lead Councillor for Entertainment advised that 2020-21 had resulted in a loss of almost £200,000 to the operator.  In addition, the Lead Councillor for Environment advised that the builder of G Live had undertaken remedial works during the year, including correcting defects discovered during a routine inspection.

The Head of Culture, Heritage and Leisure Services advised the meeting that due to restrictions on G Live operating it was inappropriate to compare the tenth contract year with previous years. 

In response to questions from a Committee member, the Head of Culture, Heritage and Leisure Services advised the meeting that HQ Theatres received a grant payment of £20,000 a month for hosting the vaccination centre and he indicated that the cloakroom had now re-opened.

In reply to a question, the Head of Culture, Heritage and Leisure Services informed the Committee of the reasons that the contract had been extended for a three-year period, including the uncertainty created by the pandemic and the need for confidence to return to the marketplace before the operation of the venue was re-tendered.  The Head of Culture, Heritage and Leisure Services advised that the baseline subsidy for running G Live in the extended three-year period was £275,000 per annum.

The Head of Culture, Heritage and Leisure Services was asked about improving the catering performance at G Live and the potential impact of higher fuel costs.  He stated that HQ Theatres had proposed expanding the catering at G Live, including the installation of a finishing kitchen and increasing restaurant capacity, and that higher energy costs would be met by the operator. 

The Head of Culture, Heritage and Leisure Services informed the Committee that hospitality income did have a direct impact on the surplus that was divided between the operator and the Council.

In response to a question, the Head of Culture, Heritage and Leisure Services advised that he was not aware of any customer complaints about changes in car parking charges.

The Chair thanked the Lead Councillor for Environment and the Head of Culture, Heritage and Leisure Services.

RESOLVED:  That the report submitted to the Committee be commended.

To agree the draft Overview and Scrutiny work programme.

The Chair advised the meeting that the Committee members had discussed potential items for the overview and scrutiny work programme at its pre-meet.

Members of the Committee suggested the management of community assets, older people’s services, and the visibility and transparency of asset disposals, including open spaces, as suitable topics for the overview and scrutiny work programme.

RESOLVED:  (I)  That the overview and scrutiny work programme attached at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Committee be approved.

(II)  That the viability of scrutinising the issues of management of community assets, older people’s services, and the visibility and transparency of asset disposals, including open spaces, be progressed.