Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tim Anderson, Lead Councillor for Assets and Property and James Steel, Lead Councillor for Environment and Regulatory Services.

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 notparticipate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also 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 declarations of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the special Executive held on 22 February 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2023 were agreed as correct. The Chairman signed the minutes.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2023 were agreed as correct. The Chairman signed the minutes.

The Leader deferred her announcements to the meeting of full Council.

The Leader deferred her announcements to the meeting of full Council.

There were no new recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider. The paper was noted.

There were no new recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider. The paper was noted.

Decision:

1.    To approve the Strategic Outline Business Case for the Guildford Park Road Redevelopment, attached as Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, and to endorse the recommended delivery strategy outlined within.

2.    To endorse the revised planning strategy for the project.

3.    To approve commencement of the procurement of a development partner to support the delivery of the Guildford Park Road housing project.

4.    To approve the spend of up to £700,000, already allocated for the scheme within the Housing Revenue Account approved capital programme, to deliver the procurement activity.

5.    To delegate to the Strategic Director of Place, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Housing and Community and Lead Councillor for Regeneration, authority to enter into such other contracts and legal agreements connected with the Guildford Park Road housing project as may be necessary in compliance with Procurement Procedure Rules and within the approved budget.

Reason(s):

1.    The Guildford Park Road redevelopment is a key scheme within the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan that will deliver a significant number of additional homes in the town centre. Officers currently have no authority to initiate the delivery phase of the scheme, and this authority is now sought from the Executive.

2.    The recommendation will support the delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan (2021-2025) priorities by providing and facilitating housing that people can afford.

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

1.     Do Minimum – Sell the site with no conditions attached

3.    Do Most – The Council builds out the scheme directly and takes on all development risks

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None.

The report sat within the lead councillor portfolios for Communities and Housing and Regeneration. The Leader of the Council began the introduction of the report as she held the Communities and Housing portfolio.

For many years, the Council had aspired to redevelop the surface car park at Guildford Park Road to make better use of the asset. Various schemes had been considered, but in 2021 a new Mandate and Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) were considered and approved by the Executive. This enabled the Council to re-initiate the project, to develop a new detailed planning application for the site and develop a wider business case for the post-planning delivery of the scheme.

The Executive considered the report that set out an updated SOBC including a proposed delivery strategy. The report sought Executive authorisation to commence implementation of the recommended delivery strategy and, specifically, to initiate a procurement exercise to select a Development Partner to deliver the scheme on behalf of the Council. The provision of new homes, particularly for those on the housing waiting list, was a priority for the Council.

The Lead Councillor for Regeneration endorsed the Leader’s introduction and further explained that the recommendations in the report would reduce the Council’s exposure by allowing a commercial private sector partner to undertake the risks involved in the development of the site. This was expected to be an agreeable arrangement for both parties since the majority of the development would be sold on the open market and the Council would buy back its allocation of Affordable stock. It was expected that there would still be a degree of risk with regard to the eventual price of the Affordable stock given the wider prevailing economic uncertainties.

The Executive noted a further risk in that the project may not attract a suitable Development Partner whilst it was in the pre-planning stages, however it was explained that pre-application advice had been received and that a dedicated Planning Officer had been employed. It was expected that a ‘pre-app note’ would be finalised within the coming two weeks.

It was emphasised that the Council desired 40% of the development to be designated Affordable and that construction and design should exceed the sustainability requirements necessary for Planning approval. In terms of massing and height, it was suggested that the ward councillors for Onslow be actively involved with consultation to be alert to any issues arising well before Planning Committee stage. When appointed, the Development Partner would be contractually obliged to undertake extensive consultation with the local community and matters of height and massing should be discussed and resolved at this stage.

It was argued that the current design for Guildford Park Road included heights on a par with the North Street application that had recently been refused planning permission. Whilst some members felt that the Planning Committee should be free to judge each application on its merits, others suggested that it was imperative the Council have clear policy guidance on what it considered acceptable in  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX99

Decision:

1.     To recommend that Full Council (at its extraordinary meeting on 16 March 2023) approves the budget and funding strategy as set out in Exempt Appendices 2 and 3 to the report, subject to the revisions to Appendix 3 as set out in the exempt Appendix 1 to the Supplementary Information Sheet circulated at this meeting.

2.     To approve the transfer of the sum referred to in Paragraph 1 (Recommendations (Budget)) of the Exempt Appendix 2 to the report.

3.     To delegate to the Strategic Director for Place, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Regeneration, and Lead Councillor for Finance and Planning Policy, authority to enter into such other contracts and legal agreements connected with the Ash Road Bridge Scheme as may be necessary in compliance with Procurement Procedure Rules and within the approved budget.

Reason(s):

This is a unique opportunity to utilise £23.9 million of central government funding towards the Ash Road Bridge Scheme to deliver an alternative road crossing of the North Downs railway line in close proximity to the Ash level crossing.  The Ash Road Bridge Scheme forms a requirement of Policy A31 of the Council's Local Plan which allocates land for housing in Ash. Delivery of this scheme will also enable the closure of Ash level crossing to motor vehicles, which will improve safety for highway and rail users and significantly reduce traffic congestion on the A323 and the use of alternative local roads to avoid the Ash level crossing in Ash.

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

Option 2, to not proceed with the recommendations set out in the report.

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None.

The Leader of the Council explained that the report before the Executive contained a significant amount of material that had been designated as exempt. To give full consideration to the matter would necessitate discussion in private. It was proposed that the Lead Councillor for Regeneration introduce the report in general terms, without reference to the exempt content. A public speaker would then address the meeting. Thereafter the Leader would propose the meeting be closed to the public for the duration of the discussion of the exempt material.

The Ash Road Bridge (ARB) scheme comprised a long-term infrastructure solution to the current and future issues posed by the Ash level crossing, including increased usage associated with housing growth in the Ash and Tongham area and greater barrier downtime resulting from enhanced rail use of the North Downs Line.

The Scheme was being delivered in two Stages. Stage 1 was the delivery of the road bridge over the railway line (and closure of the level crossing to motorised vehicles). Stage 2 was the delivery of the footbridge in the vicinity of Ash level crossing enabling the Ash level crossing to be closed permanently to all users.

The approved budget for the Scheme was £38.91 million, being £33.89 million for the road bridge (Stage 1) and £5.02 million for the footbridge (Stage 2) (excluding borrowing costs.) The road bridge budget was slightly higher than that which was approved by the Council in April 2021 (£38.79million) as the budget was subsequently combined with a separate approved budget for land acquisition costs for the Ash Road Bridge Scheme equivalent to £0.12 million.

The revised budget was £44.5 million, being £44.0 million for the road bridge and £0.5 million for the footbridge (excluding borrowing costs.) The increase to the budget was therefore £5.59 million.

The scheme had secured £23.9 million from Homes England (HIF) funding and recently a further £5 million from Surrey County Council (SCC) as set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet. In addition, the scheme had incurred substantial funding from the Council itself in the form of reserves, funds and borrowing. As with the Weyside Urban Village (WUV) scheme, ARB was an inherited commitment from the previous administration and was an integral part of Policy A31 in the adopted Local Plan to mitigate against existing and planned development to include the delivery of 1,750 new homes. It was argued that the current administration might consider not proceeding with the scheme due to the economic situation and because it was solely infrastructure and not within the Council’s duty to provide with little financial return for taxpayers.

The Lead Councillor for Regeneration described both WUV and ARB as worthy schemes and because they were both already underway, needed to be completed. Although the financial commitment and liabilities were significant, the costs to the residents of the borough of not proceeding, it was argued, would also have a significant impact. The loss to the Council of pre-development costs already committed to ARB and not recoverable should  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX100