Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Liz Hogger and Andrew Gomm.  Councillors Caroline Reeves and Tony Rooth attended as substitutes for Councillors Hogger and Gomm respectively.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the Executive Advisory Board meeting held on 16 October 2017.

The minutes of the Board held on 16 October 2017 were approved and signed by the Chairman.

To consider the co-ordination of the LEP and how to maximise funding opportunities to support Guildford as a smart growth hub.  More specifically to look at the structure of the LEP, how it operates, as well as funding streams and accountability.

Chris Burchell – Local Economy Manager for Guildford Borough Council, Kathy Slack – Executive Director and Kevin Travers – Transport Lead for Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership will be in attendance to facilitate a discussion.

https://www.enterprisem3.org.uk/

The Board received a presentation on Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership from its Executive Director, Kathy Slack and heard the following:

·         The LEP’s job was to facilitate the conditions that would foster growth within companies.  The LEP could not create the wealth but worked with other groups and organisations to create conditions that supported businesses and local workforces.

·         The LEP would not survive without its partnership with Local Authorities and  politicians.

·         Enterprise M3 started with only £4,000 in funds compared to current funds of £250 million pounds.

·         Enterprise M3 was one of the biggest LEP’s in the country covering areas such as Spelthorne, Guildford, Woking, Winchester through to the New Forest.  This area had a high concentration of very successful small and large businesses.

·         The LEP had influential Board Members including Dr Mike Short who was the current Chairman and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for International Trade as well as the Vice-President of Telefonica.

·         The LEP listened to stakeholders who informed the production of the LEP Strategic Economic Plan.  The Government had asked the LEP to lead on local industry strategies and therefore did a lot of research around local business needs and bid for funds more generally. 

·         Guildford was a high performing economy and housed one in five of the digital tech employers in the LEP area.

·         Enterprise M3 focused on five key themes; work apprenticeships, Higher Education Review, Innovation, Guildford Local Plan, particularly in relation to housing and affordability for the workforce and the Growth Hub in Guildford.

·         Enterprise M3 had four key funding pots: 1. £219 million of Local Growth Funds, which was capital and could be a disadvantage as you needed revenue funds to make the capital funds work for you.  The LEP had tried to lobby government on getting more revenue funding but had proven to be difficult.  A significant part of those monies would contribute towards improving Guildford’s infrastructure such as roads and sustainable forms of transport such as cycle routes and walkways.

·         2. £22 million in a growing enterprise loan fund, which was open call and the projects, were taken on as they came forward.

·         3. £40 million in European Funds that were dependent upon the interest rates and currency rates in relation to the Euro, managed on behalf of the government. 

·         4. £5 million in an equity and escalator fund, which businesses had to bid for.     

·         The Enterprise M3 Board was comprised of twenty members in total, eight from the private sector, six from Local Authorities, and two from Further Education/Higher Education, not-for-profit sector, MOD, and two from business support.  The Board met every six weeks and had a series of sub-groups that supported their work.  In addition, there was a Joint Leaders Board.

·         Enterprise M3 LEP was Mary Ney compliant and was viewed as one of the best LEP’s in the country.  The objectives of the Mary Ney Review was to assess whether the current system provided sufficient assurance to the Accounting Officer and Ministers that LEPs fully implemented  ...  view the full minutes text for item BEI24

A broad discussion on what can be done to speed up housing delivery in Guildford.

Some briefing papers have been attached for the Board’s information and background reading.

Tim Dawes, Planning Development Manager and Nick Molyneux Housing Development Manager will be in attendance to facilitate the discussion.

The Lead Councillor for Housing and Environment explained that he wished the Board to consider what steps could be taken to speed up housing delivery in Guildford.  The Local Plan for Guildford had been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and if approved, this Council would have to deliver some 650 dwellings annually for the foresee-able future.  Last year, this Council only achieved delivery of 158 dwellings and had granted more permissions than had actually been built out.  1653 permissions remained outstanding in 2016/17.  It was crucial to understand what barriers the Council had inadvertently put up to stop development.  Potential solutions suggested included:

·         To lobby developers;

·         Hold meetings with developers to understand what might be restricting them from building out permitted developments;

·         This Council sometimes lost appeals on larger developments.  Additional training to planning committee members could therefore address this.

·         Streamline the pre-application process;

·         Review conditions applied to planning approvals.  We currently state that developments had to be built out within three years.  Why not reduce this to one or two years?

·         A condition was also applied to planning approvals that stated that no work was to be carried out until the materials were agreed with the Planning Authority.  This could be changed to state that no work above ground could start until the materials had been agreed.

·         Consider the roll-out of more pre-fabricated housing in the mix of developments being offered;

·         Improve Guildford’s infrastructure to accommodate more housing.

The Board heard from the Lead Councillor for Housing and Environment that he wanted to form a small Task Group to establish what we as a Council could do to speed up housing delivery in Guildford.  Quick wins were sought that could be achieved through small changes to our current procedures.

The Planning Development Manager endorsed the setting up of a Task Group and agreed that there were areas, which could be reviewed within the planning process that would have positive outcomes.  Areas of note were:

·         The length of time it took to deal with and consider appeals, especially for larger applications;

·         To speed up the implementation of permissions so that developers were not able to land bank and stall developments for periods of 6-8 years.

·         The Government was planning on stopping the use of pre-commencement conditions at the planning application approval stage.  Rather, they wished to facilitate discussions between the developer and planning authority during the application phase. 

The Board heard that this Council’s validation performance results were good as was its performance in turning around applications.  The monies sought as part of S106 Agreements was not perceived to hold up the planning process unnecessarily. 

The Housing Development Manager reported that his main priority was to ensure the Council provided affordable housing with the right mix.  If the Council could secure early agreement with a developer that, they would provide a compliant scheme that incorporated all of the affordable housing of the size and type required, was there a way we could speed up the planning process for such developers?  ...  view the full minutes text for item BEI25

To consider the progress with items previously considered by the EAB.

The Board requested an update on the Bike Share Scheme that had last been considered by the Borough EAB at its meeting on 13 September 2017.

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

The Board noted their work programme and agreed that ‘The Future of Guildford Museum’ item scheduled for the meeting on 9 April 2018 may need to be re-scheduled to a later date so that a full update was provided.