Agenda and minutes

Councillors Philip Brooker, Angela Goodwin and Julia McShane submitted apologies for absence.

In accordance with procedure rule 23(j), Councillor Jennifer Jordon attended as a substitute on behalf of Councillor Philip Brooker and Councillor Caroline Reeves attended as a substitute on behalf of Councillor Angela Goodwin.

Councillors Matt Furniss (Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance), Geoff Davis (Lead Councillor for Asset Management) and Michael Illman (Lead Councillor for Finance) were 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.

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.

To confirm the minutes of the Executive Advisory Board meeting held on 9 January 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 January 2017 were confirmed as a true record and were signed by the Chairman.

The Design and Conservation team and its Principal Urban Designer are setting out to create a new Guildford Design Guide, as set out in the Corporate Plan.

The item was presented by the Urban Design Officer. The Design and Conservation Team Leader was in attendance.

Councillor Paul Spooner, the Leader of the Council and the Lead Councillor for Planning and Regeneration sent apologies for absence.

The Board heard that the existing Design Guide was published in 2004 and had a number of shortcomings such as being limited to residential buildings, being out of date in terms of policy and having poor readability. For this reason, the existing guide was rarely used by developers. Consequently, a new Guildford Borough Council Design Guide would be drafted and a proposed format was presented to the Board. Design guides from other councils were also presented and it was suggested ideas from elsewhere might provide useful new ways to set out good and bad design using graphics, images and checklists.

The Chairman pointed out that the new guide would be a key document and would have influence on future developments in the Borough. The Board was asked to consider and comment on the proposed new format and approach, and on the proposal to form a working group to support the ongoing work.

The Board made the following comments:

1.    The new guide should be readable and accessible to all.

2.    Although the new guide would not cover non-residential buildings in great detail, it was noted some aspects of the guide would apply to both residential and non-residential alike and that buildings regulations also covered context and character.

3.    On the question of influence over internal aspects of design such as room size, the Board heard that nationally prescribed internal space standards was already under consideration. It was possible that this aspect would be included as a policy document in D4 Local Plan policies.

4.    It was suggested the new guide might consider providing guidance on the appropriate height of buildings according to context, although it was acknowledged this might prove challenging to apply borough-wide.

5.    It was proposed that the use of lighting and light pollution could be included in the new guide. Officers attending felt this was a possibility and look into further.

6.    The new guide should have clear reference and relevance to development in rural areas as well as the town centre. Indeed, care should be taken to align guidance and Guildford Borough Council policy with Neighbourhood Plans. Villages should be treated as entities in their own right.

7.    It was noted that requesting electric charging points for vehicles as standard would be a general policy matter and not for the guide.

The initiative was generally welcomed.

RESOLVED:

At first draft stage the Board would consider if a task group should be convened.

The aim of the SMC is to provide a priority pathway through the town for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.  This report outlines the SMC route as it is currently envisaged, and the various proposals that have been made to date.

The item was presented by the Major Projects Portfolio Manager.

It was explained that the concept of a Sustainable Movement Corridor (SMC) was initially proposed by consultants ARUP within the Guildford Town and Approaches Movement Study (GTAMS) which was prepared for the Council in 2015. The objective of the SMC was to provide a clear pathway for different modes of transport to move between key points in the town centre and from one side of the town to the other. There was a priority for sustainable modes of transport which would encourage modal shift and reduce reliance on the private car, improve air quality, road safety, journey times and predictability. The idea of the SMC was accepted by the Council as an ambition to work towards. For assessment and delivery purposes the SMC had been broken into six segments geographically as east, west, north south and central sections. It was planned that the majority of the SMC would be funded by the developments proposed in the draft Local Plan and from New Homes Bonus and would be further designed in anticipation of that growth.

Indicative timescales to achieve the entire SMC ran up to 2025, however an economic case had successfully been put to EM3 Local Enterprise Partnership resulting in some funding being made available through the Local Growth Fund (LGF) round 3 towards the delivery of the western section.  The LGF grant funding would need to be spent by 2021. It was noted that should the development at Blackwell Farm go ahead then further work to the western section would be required.

The sections of the SMC remained largely conceptual, but once properly planned, a programme of stakeholder and public consultation was proposed.

There was an officer resource working on the SMC who was shared with Surrey County Council.

The Board were asked to comment on the SMC. The Board made the following comments:

1.    The Board unanimously welcomed the idea of the SMC.

2.    There was a risk of the SMC not being achieved if the developments proposed in the draft Local Plan did not go ahead. As an important, strategic piece of work there should be other funding proposals in place.

3.    It would be important to ensure that the SMC consultation was not lost amid a raft of other pieces of consultation being launched by the Council. It was felt to be too important.

4.    Traffic modelling would be undertaken to anticipate the influence on traffic flow once the sections of the SMC began to impact, but it seemed likely there would be a period of time when congestion could get worse before it would get better.

5.    The bus bay on Egerton Road should be looked at as a part of the western section work as there was a risk to other road users and pedestrians.

6.    Are there some ‘quick wins’? Could cycle routes be looked at sooner and linked up by using quieter, residential streets. Cycling to the Horsleys was  ...  view the full minutes text for item BEI59

The update paper was noted.

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

The work programme was noted.