Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Liz Hogger.  No substitute was in attendance.

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 disclosures of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the Executive Advisory Board meeting held on 23 September 2019.

The minutes of the Executive Advisory Board held on 23 September 2019 were not accepted as a correct record owing to amendments required to PMI14 – Bedford Wharf – Plaza Landscaping, Forward Plan and EAB Work Programme.  The changes are detailed below in italics:

·         It was confirmed that as part of the S106 agreement the Council was obliged   a restorative landscaping scheme.  The Executive had expressed concern at its meeting in January that the public were consulted on what they would like to see and have.  Without a scheme the Council was unable to move forward and could not start taking contributions which would help facilitate future development and mould the Guildford townscape around Bedford Wharf.  The entrance to the station was opposite Walnut Bridge and with high footfall the Council wished to create a safer and more pleasant route for pedestrians.  The Council wanted to work with Solum so that their development fitted with Walnut Bridge. It was confirmed that as part of Walnut Bridge Planning condition (not S106) the council was obliged to deliver a restorative landscaping scheme. 

·         The Board noted that Solum was moving forward, the planning conditions were being discharged and works would start next year.  The landscaping works had to be in place within 6 months of the completion of the consent of the proposed bridge. 

·         The masterplan was in response to a planning application whereby the Council was trying to engage with the public to identify what should be in the public realm.  It was confirmed that the Council had secured £1 million pounds of funding towards public art at Guildford Station.  It was therefore an opportunity to influence the project with Solum as we had not yet discharged those conditions. 

·         The Board considered it was of great concern a shame that if the scheme would not be completed until June 2022 that the Council was not using that time to look at a broader masterplan which encompassed all of Bedford Wharf. 

The Board strongly recommended that the Strategic Town Centre Masterplan was included in the Forward Plan and was actioned as soon as possible.

The Board noted that the Stoke Park Masterplan was due for consideration by Executive at its meeting on 24 September 2019 and the Place Making and Innovation EAB on 21 October 2019.  [post-meeting note: The Stoke Park Masterplan was no longer on the agenda for the Place-Making and Innovation EAB meeting on 21 October]. 

The Board also noted that the Guildford Crowdfunding Proposal was no longer on the agenda for Executive at its meeting on 24 September 2019.

The Board noted its work programme and recommended that a briefing on the Town Centre Masterplan was included as well as it ultimately being considered by the Executive.

The Board also noted that the Special Planning Documents (SPDs) to support the Guildford Local Plan should now be in development and, in light of its role in placemaking and the Council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item BEI21

The EAB received an update and presentation on the project to deliver a public bike share scheme in Guildford.  Donald Yell, the Council’s Principal Transport Planner, introduced the item. A public bike share scheme for Guildford was identified in the current Council’s Corporate Plan.  This EAB’s predecessor, the Borough, Economy and Infrastructure EAB had previously considered the project and the potential for a public bike share scheme in September 2017, which was prior to a feasibility study being undertaken.  The Executive also considered a report in July 2018 which gave interim findings from the feasibility study.  Subsequent work carried out included a route assessment study which looked at the cycle routes that bike share users would be most likely to use.  Progress with commissioning the scheme had been complicated by the pre-existing scheme at the University of Surrey.  Discussions with the university and operator of the scheme were continuing but that information was commercially sensitive.  On that basis, a special and private meeting of the Place-Making and Innovation EAB had been scheduled on Thursday 5 December 2019 to discuss these issues further.  [Post-meeting note: This item has been rescheduled for the Joint EAB meeting on Thursday 9 January 2020, where it will be considered in private.]

The Board received a presentation from Mark Strong, Managing Consultant for ‘Transport Initiatives’ who [with consultancy Urban Movement] had undertaken the feasibility study work and also the route assessment study.  Transport Initiatives had worked on cycling and walking initiatives across the country as well as on a number of bike share schemes including Guildford.  A public bike share scheme is open to the public and could be used for a variety of journey purposes.  There were numerous elements to consider in setting up a bike share scheme system including the fleet of bikes, the membership, the back office to deal with the membership, the maintenance and redistribution of the bikes, as well as a payment system.  The first large-scale and the largest bike share scheme in the country was launched by Transport for London in 2010 in London.  There have recently been a number of changes in the market and there are different models of schemes, albeit this is somewhat fluid. There are docked systems, dockless systems, hybrid systems, location-based systems and workplace-based systems. The bikes can be pedal bikes or electrically assisted bikes (e-bikes). In docked and hybrid systems with docking stations, these can be physical docks or alternatively virtual hubs.  There were generally two types of membership; a pay as you go option and a membership option with say an annual fee which usually includes a given period of time for using the bikes at no extra cost allowed each day.

Smart bikes could be hired through dedicated bike share apps. Geo-fencing can be used to restrict where bike share cycles can and cannot be parked in dockless or hybrid schemes, which can reduce the risk of street clutter and obstructions and can also be used to define the area in which  ...  view the full minutes text for item BEI22

The Board queried why the Bike Share Scheme was scheduled for consideration by the Executive at its meeting on 22 October.  This was the day after this meeting and left no time for the Boards comments to be fed back to the Executive.  Officers explained that it had been anticipated that the item would be considered at this meeting but had in fact since been re-scheduled for consideration by the Executive at their meeting in January 2020. 

To consider and approve the EAB’s draft work programme. 

The Board noted that the EAB and Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme meeting had been cancelled and would be re-scheduled shortly.  [post-meeting note: The EAB and Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme meeting had now been rescheduled to Monday 11 November 2019]. 

The Board also noted that the Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) to support the Guildford Local Plan should now be in development and, in the light of its role in placemaking and the Council’s commitment to openness and transparency, strongly requested sight of, and involvement in, these at early drafting stage, rather than once completed and put out to consultation.