Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Nigel Kearse, Julia McShane and Jenny Wicks.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 23(j), Councillor Caroline Reeve attended as a substitute for Councillor Julia McShane.

Councillors Geoff Davis, Matt Furniss and Susan Parker were also in attendance.

In accordance with the revised 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.

No disclosures of interest were submitted.

To confirm the minutes of the Executive Advisory Board meeting held on the 4 April and the Special Meeting on the 13 April 2016.

The minutes of the Board meeting held on 4 April, Special Meeting held on 13 April and 10 May 2016 were confirmed.

To consider an update on the work that’s currently being undertaken in Guildford to address the infrastructure issues discussed in the ‘Surrey Infrastructure Study’, including comparison with other studies concerning Guildford’s infrastructure, and the risk of funding gaps.

There will be presentations by the Interim Director of Development and the Infrastructure Programme Director about the main infrastructure issues, measures being taken to address them and funding sources. 

The Committee are invited to review the following studies undertaken for a broader overview:

Surrey Infrastructure Study 2016 (attached)

Infrastructure Baseline

Guildford Draft Local Plan: Education Review May 2016

Surrey County Council’s School Organisation Plan

The Interim Director of Development gave a presentation on the ‘Surrey Infrastructure Study’.

The Board was invited to provide views/comments on the document and raised a number of questions, including:

·         How would the biggest funding gaps be met in the provision of railways and highway infrastructure?

·         Funding for railways was provided by the train operating companies and Network Rail.  A capital shortfall was expected owing to the Guildford Station enhancement being pushed back.  Investment in the local road network was provided via a very small pot of available funds from Surrey County Council.  The rest of the funding would need to be sought from the Department for Transport, Highways England, S106, S278 or via directly delivered schemes such as Wisley, Gosden Hill, Blackwell Farm via SARP. 

·         The Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance confirmed that the data provided in the Surrey Infrastructure Plan was now out of date.  The caveats in relation to Guildford were detailed in full on page 132 of the plan.  For example, we now know that motorway investment was planned via the Road Investment Strategy 1 as part of the Guildford Transport Strategy between the M25 and South West Quadrant.

·         Queried how it was possible that 1,540 people had migrated into Guildford on an annual basis?

·         This was not a net migration figure and represented the number of overseas university students coming to Guildford.

·         Would be helpful to map the population profile onto the housing stock.

·         Queried why there was a 32% increase in demand for secondary school spaces versus only a 10% increase in demand for primary school places.  Did not understand the lower differential for primary school places?

·         The 10% increase in demand for primary school places was reflective of the overall drop in birth rates. 

·         Noted a shortfall of 15% was anticipated in provision of GP’s and health services.  Would like to understand how well Guildford was provided for?

·         The figure was based upon the time taken to get a doctor’s appointment.

·         SARP had not been mentioned in relation to infrastructure funding, was that an error?

·         The Interim Director of Development confirmed that the document was not intended to be accurate but rather a sales document to obtain funding from central government.

·         M3 LEP GVA was quoted as £45 million per annum.  How did this translate into LEP funds to invest?

·         The LEPs GVA had very little bearing on how the GVA worked.  Growth funds 1 and 2 were based on central government allocations into each LEP.  There may have been some consideration in relation to the GVA funds.  Growth fund 3 was not allocated to an individual LEP and therefore LEPs had to make bids to central government based on specific schemes.  Funding would be allocated accordingly regardless of whether the GVA funds amounted to 10 billion or 35 billion.

·         What was an opportunity area?

·         Opportunity areas, if established in your borough, can provide incentives such as cheaper borrowing, specialist consultant budgets to get development moving in a particularly  ...  view the full minutes text for item BEI7

To consider an update on the Guildford Design Guide.

The Committee are invited to review the following:

Guildford Design Awards 2015

Residential Design Guide 2004

Building for Life

By Design

The Design and Conservation Team Leader gave a presentation on the Guildford Design Guide.

The Board was invited to provide views/comments on the document and raised a number of questions, including:

·         Recognised the value and importance in the emergence of such a document.  The Guide was hoped to give weight in the consideration of planning applications by the Planning Committee in addition to the existing Residential Design Guide.

·         Anticipated that more planning applications would be submitted in the future with modern designs and therefore the Guildford Design Guide would provide a necessary benchmark. 

·         Advocated councillors visiting sites and buildings around the country that were more modern in their design.

·         Recommended that more landscaping, greenness and biodiversity should be introduced into the building designs within Guildford Town Centre. 

·         The guide would provide a level of quality assurance to ensure that materials used in any building works was of a good standard.

·         What was good design within the context of the borough?

·         Was interested to know how levels of lighting within Guildford Town could be controlled given that Guildford was located next to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 

·         Was mindful that planning policy needed to reflect and meet the distinct design needs of the different areas of Guildford.

·         The Interim Director of Development stated that the Residential Design Guide (2004) did not provide planners with a framework that outlined the design requirements of the town.  The Guildford Design Guide would therefore assist with this need.

·         The Design and Conservation Team Leader also confirmed that sustainability would be part of any design criteria and implicit to it. 

·         Welcomed the creation of additional public spaces around Guildford Town with good quality landscaping and seating.

·         Important to ensure that modern design was integrated well into the overall variety of designs within the borough.  The Guildford Design Guide would therefore provide a set of principles by which this could be achieved. 

·         The Interim Director of Development confirmed that the Town Centre Regeneration Plan would look at how different materials could be used so to respect the heritage quarter. 

·         A dark sky policy had already been adopted by Effingham’s Neighbourhood Plan and would endorse it being adopted borough wide.

·         Would support further work to be undertaken to ensure that the design of off-street parking schemes was not so intrusive on the street-scene overall. 

·         Was it possible to provide guidelines on how to make smaller homes look like larger homes so that the desire to extend was negated?

·         Advocated the need for more communal spaces and play areas.

·         The Design and Conservation Team Leader confirmed that shared spaces and parking courts would become more of an issue going forward and therefore appropriate guidance would be drafted.

·         Endorsed the creation of additional homes for the elderly in town centre locations close to essential amenities.  It was anticipated that if more older people moved to the town centre, homes would be freed up for younger families.  

The Board fully endorsed the following recommendation for the Executive to  ...  view the full minutes text for item BEI8

To consider and approve the EAB’s draft work programme.  Details of future Executive decisions are included.  

The Acting Chairman noted that the Board had reviewed a number of topics so far, some issues were at the early stages of policy development and others were close to completion.  It was important that a balance was struck in the items detailed in the work programme moving forward.  It was also imperative that the Board worked more closely with Executive members.  The original proposal was that Executive members would act as Chairperson(s) of the respective Advisory Boards, but was changed for very good reasons.  The Acting Chairperson wished to work in partnership with Executive members and invited comments from Board members on the mechanisms by which the work programme was put together. 

The Board noted that where Executive members may have a view on an issue coming forward on the work programme it would be useful for such information to be circulated to the Board in advance of the meeting.  This would ensure that a more meaningful discussion would be held by the Board in close consultation with the appropriate Executive member(s). 

In anticipation of the next meeting on 11 July 2016, it was noted that Guildford’s Parking Strategy was on the agenda, as requested by the Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance.  The Interim Director of Development stated that the draft parking strategy would be ready for circulation mid-June.

The Board also noted that plans were in place to ensure that the appropriate Executive member(s) were invited to Agenda Setting Meetings of the Executive Advisory Boards and Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings.