Agenda and minutes

Resources Executive Advisory Board - Monday, 9th August, 2021 7.00 pm

Venue: This meeting will be held via MSTeams

Contact: Andrea Carr, Committee Officer Tel no: 01483 444058  Email:


No. Item


Apologies for Absence and Notification of Substitute Members

Additional documents:


Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Colin Cross, Diana Jones and Will Salmon.  Councillor Tony Rooth was present as a substitute for Councillor Diana Jones.



Local Code of Conduct and Declaration of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

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.

Additional documents:


There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests.



Minutes pdf icon PDF 339 KB

To confirm the minutes of the Executive Advisory Board meeting held on 14 June 2021.

Additional documents:


The minutes of the meeting of the Executive Advisory Board held on 14 June 2021 were confirmed as a correct record, and would be signed by the Chairman at the earliest opportunity.  In this connection, it was confirmed that the request that consideration be given to introducing a Borough wide blanket Tree Preservation Order across the Council’s entire wooded estate to protect trees would be brought to the attention of the Tree Officer.



Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) pdf icon PDF 260 KB

Additional documents:


The EAB considered a report which provided it with the opportunity to examine the process followed in reviewing the current Guildford town centre Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) and invited it to advise and comment on the adherence to, and appropriateness of, the process followed in relation to the statutory guidance and the Council’s obligations.


The report set out the context of the Council’s existing PSPOs together with the legal framework and the statutory guidance relevant to the review of a PSPO.  The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 had introduced PSPOs as a tool for councils to address anti-social behaviour in their areas.  The legislation included statutory requirements for councils to adhere to when reviewing, developing, and implementing PSPOs.  The Local Government Association (LGA) had produced guidance for councils based on the legislation and statutory requirements.


The Council had utilised the guidance to inform its approach to reviewing the current town centre PSPO.  The report set out how the Council had approached the review and adhered to the statutory guidance and provided a summary of the consultation undertaken in the process to date and concluded by setting out the next steps to be progressed in the review.  The key risks associated with this review and the mitigations were also addressed.


The Policy Officer – Community and Events gave a supporting presentation to summarise the contents of the report and to inform the related discussion.  The presentation outlined the background to the review, legal tests, process to date, impact of Covid-19, key risks, next steps, conclusion and a recommendation seeking the EAB’s related considerations and comments.


The following points arose from related questions, comments and discussion:


1.           The geographical area covered by the current PSPO was confined to Guildford town centre, however, in the event that a new PSPO was adopted or the current one amended, the associated review would consider the area to which it would relate.  Data was currently being gathered in order to identify where problem behaviours occurred to inform the area(s) to which a new or amended PSPO would apply.

2.           Anti-social behaviour by youths as a result of excess alcohol consumption was regularly experienced at Tongham Recreation Ground and other parts of the Borough.  Although Tongham Parish Council had discussed the matter with the police, minimal progress had been achieved to date and the advice received had been to continue reporting such incidents to the police, which was the case.  This type of anti-social behaviour and possible related crime appeared to occur in generational cycles.  It was confirmed that parish councils had been consulted in respect of the current review of the PSPO, in accordance with the statutory requirement.  There was awareness of these issues around the Ash and Tongham areas and the Joint Action Group (JAG) was the appropriate channel for reporting incidents of this nature.  The JAG would consider what anti-social behaviour tools were available to tackle the problems in the most appropriate manner.  PSPOs had not been suggested by any partners  ...  view the full minutes text for item SR21


Highway and Transport Schemes Critical to Local Plan Delivery pdf icon PDF 596 KB

Additional documents:


Having received a report regarding a priority list of highway and transport schemes critical to the delivery of the Guildford Borough Local Plan at its meeting held on 20 July 2021, the Executive deferred consideration of the report to its next meeting, taking place on 24 August 2021, to enable the matter to be considered by the Strategy and Resources Executive Advisory Board (EAB) in the interim.


Accordingly, the EAB considered the report at its meeting held on 9 August 2021.  As part of his presentation of the report, the Transport Planner (Consultant) highlighted the following five highway and transport schemes, in no particular order of importance, that were likely to be critical priorities to enable the Local Plan to maintain its housing trajectory and remain up to date.  The EAB was invited to support the five priority schemes in principle.


·             SRN2 - M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange ‘Road Investment Strategy’ scheme.

·             NR2 and NR3 - New railway stations at Guildford West (Park Barn) and Guildford East (Merrow).

·             SMC 1-6 - Sustainable Movement Corridor.

·             SRN7 and SRN8 - A3 northbound on and off slip roads at A247 Clandon Road (Burnt Common).

·             LRN19 – New road bridge and footbridge scheme to enable level crossing closure on A323 Guildford Road adjacent to Ash railway station.


The following points arose from related questions, comments and discussion:


1.           Although there was a long list of infrastructure projects attached to the Local Plan, many of which would be delivered by developers, the five priority schemes had been selected as they had been identified as requiring intervention at a high level by the Council and its strategic partners to facilitate implementation.

2.           In terms of the proposed new railway stations at Guildford West and Guildford East, a councillor expressed the view that the Guildford West station should be prioritised as it would serve more commuters, being in the vicinity of any new development at Blackwell Farm, the Royal Surrey County Hospital and the Guildford Business Park, thereby offering greater viability and value for money than the Guildford East station.  In response, the Strategic Services Director advised that both stations were important for different reasons and Guildford East station formed part of planning policy for the related site and the developer was obliged to make land available for the station and contribute towards its cost.  Guildford West station was included in the Capital Programme and the Council would shortly be invited to determine whether it wished to release further funding to enable the scheme to progress to the next GRIP stage.

3.           Concerns were expressed in relation to the level of engagement with highway partners and a perceived lack of project modelling, valid cost estimates, availability of funding, other infrastructure to support the schemes and related impacts on local road networks.  It was confirmed that the Council was holding discussions with representatives of Surrey County Council (SCC) as the local highway authority, Highways England (HE), the Department of Transport and Network Rail to progress the schemes.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item SR22


Executive Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 553 KB

Additional documents:


The Executive Forward Plan was noted without comment.



EAB Work Programme pdf icon PDF 209 KB

To consider and approve the EAB’s draft work programme with reference to the Executive Forward Plan. 

Additional documents:


In response to a request from a councillor, the Strategic Services Director undertook to ascertain when the responses of the Planning Policy Team to the Regulation 19 consultation in respect of the draft Local Plan: Development Management Policies document would be published and inform the EAB accordingly.