Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Julia McShane, Leader of the Council; Councillor Tim Anderson, Lead Councillor for Assets and Property and Councillor Tom Hunt, Lead Councillor for Planning Development, Legal and Democratic 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 Executive held on 23 February 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held 23 February were agreed as correct. The Chairman signed the minutes.

The minutes of the meeting held 23 February 2023 were agreed as correct. The Chairman signed the minutes.

Leader’s announcements were deferred to be delivered at full Council on 22 March 2023.

The report was withdrawn prrior to the meeting as further work was required.

The report was withdrawn prior to the meeting as further work was required.

Decision:

The Executive approved the adoption of the Community Asset Transfer Policy, asset out in Appendix 1 to the report, incorporating the updated wording to page 7. subparagraph 6 as set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet.

Reason(s):

·         The Council did not currently have a policy on the transfer of assets to community groups.

·         To deliver community objectives.

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

Do nothing – Do not adopt the policy. This would not address having a consistent decision-making process and community groups and Council officers would not have a clear procedure to follow if a group wished to submit an expression of interest

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

None.

The Council functioned as trustee for the land that it held on behalf of the community and presently had no Community Asset Transfer policy.  The purpose of a Community Asset Transfer policy was to set out a transparent and consistent approach to applications and a decision-making process governing the transfer of land to a Voluntary or Community Organisation (VCO). A policy in this regard would define which VCO’s were considered suitable for consideration by the Council for a Community Asset Transfer and the types of land, buildings and circumstances that may be considered when a Community Asset Transfer application was received.

The draft policy was reviewed by the Service Delivery Executive Advisory Board (EAB) on 09 March 2023 and a minor amendment and the comments arising from the meeting were set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet.

In the absence of the Lead Councillor for Assets and Property, the Deputy Leader of the Council introduced the report.

The Executive heard that the draft policy aligned with the policy guidance adopted by Waverley Borough Council. The draft policy had been reviewed by the Lead Councillor for Assets and Property, the Property Review Group, the Council’s policy team and EAB ward councillors. The Deputy Leader endorsed the draft policy as sound guidance for communities that set out a consistent framework for the Council.

Members of the Executive welcomed the draft policy but requested there should still be a less formal route for local people to follow when appropriate, for example where a regular request for use of a room in a property was made. Sutherland Memorial Hall was used as an example. This matter had been raised at the EAB meeting and members had been reassured that such circumstances fell outside of the draft policy guidance. In this particular instance the Council was working with Burpham Community Hub to arrive at a mutually satisfactory agreement for use of the building. The draft policy guidance set out in the report was intended for long-term leasehold or freehold arrangements.

It was noted that communities expressing an interest in taking over responsibility for a property would need to attract significant funding which would not be available from the Council itself, but the draft policy did direct interested parties to ward members in the first instance who may wish to familiarise themselves with the specific property and any external funding opportunities.

Thereafter, the Executive,

RESOLVED:

The Executive approved the adoption of the Community Asset Transfer Policy, asset out in Appendix 1 to the report, incorporating the updated wording to page 7. subparagraph 6 as set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet.

Reason(s):

1.     The Council did not currently have a policy on the transfer of assets to community groups.

2.     To deliver community objectives.

Decision:

1.    Approved the progression of Guildford’s UKSPF and REPF plans, as outlined in the report.

2.    Delegated to the Strategic Director of Place, in consultation with the Leader, authority to enter into such other contracts and legal agreements connected with the UKSPF and REPF as may be necessary in compliance with Procurement Procedure Rules and within the allocated grant funding budget.

Reason(s):

The £1.4 million total funding Guildford Borough Council had been allocated from the UKSPF and REPF was a significant sum of money that could have a positive impact on the borough’s local communities and businesses.

Grounded on insights from local stakeholders, partners and GBC Councillors and Officers, the projects put forward in Guildford’s Investment Plan and REPF Addendum aligned with the borough’s local priorities and intent to leverage collaboration with the Council’s partners to maximise value for money.

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

OPTION 1: The Executive could have decided not to approve the proposed interventions (including changes) for Guildford’s UKSPF and REPF. This would make the Council unable to advance the proposed projects and make use of the £1.4 million allocated by DLUHC and DEFRA within the prescribed timescales to empower our local businesses and communities.

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

None.

The Lead Councillor for Lead Councillor for Climate Change and Organisational Development introduced the report in the absence of the Leader.

The Council was fortunate to have been awarded £1 million from the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ (DLUHC) UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) to spend on capital and revenue activities between financial years 2022-23 to 2024-25, with the aim of ‘building pride in places and increase life chances’ through investment on three investment priorities: Communities, Local Businesses and People and Skills. In addition, a further £400,000 had been awarded to the Council from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA) Rural England Prosperity Fund (REPF), and this allocation was to be spent on capital grants to support rural businesses and communities from 2023-24 to 2024-25.

To access its UKSPF and REPF allocation, the Council had submitted an investment plan and addendum, respectively, outlining the opportunities and challenges of the borough, as well as its investment priorities. The DLUHC had confirmed the validation of Guildford’s UKSPF Investment Plan and the first year’s allocation had been received. It was important that Council planned and divested the funding efficiently as any funds unspent by the 2025 deadline would have to be returned.

The report before the Executive set out detailed plans for the expenditure of both sets of funding. The REPF would target communities and micro/rural businesses particularly to stimulate growth and provide social support. Also included would be decarbonisation loans to support the climate change agenda, in some cases this would be in partnership with Surrey County Council (SCC). The UKSPF would similarly support decarbonisation schemes including support for an e-bike hire scheme for Guildford and Shalford (again in partnership with SCC) which was currently in an advanced project stage, the visitor economy (to include business support and town centre improvements), a ringfenced sum for community and neighbourhood improvements.

The report had been considered and endorsed by the Strategy and Resources Executive Advisory Board meeting on 6 February 2023 and the comments arising from that meeting were set out in the Supplementary Information Sheet.

The Executive was supportive of the recommendations and especially of the e-bike project. It was noted that Guildford’s streets were quite narrow and safety for all was emphasised. The project would work in partnership with the University of Surrey.

The Executive,

RESOLVED:

1.    Approved the progression of Guildford’s UKSPF and REPF plans, as outlined in the report.

2.     Delegated to the Strategic Director of Place, in consultation with the Leader, authority to enter into such other contracts and legal agreements connected with the UKSPF and REPF as may be necessary in compliance with Procurement Procedure Rules and within the allocated grant funding budget.

Reason(s):

1.     The £1.4 million total funding Guildford Borough Council had been allocated from the UKSPF and REPF was a significant sum of money that could have a positive impact on the borough’s local communities and businesses.

2.     Grounded on insights from local stakeholders, partners and GBC Councillors and Officers,  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX107

Decision:

1.    That subject to the adoption of the Local Plan: Development Management Policies, the Parking Standards for New Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (at Appendix 6) be adopted.

2.    That the Lead Councillor with portfolio responsibility for Planning Policy be authorised, in consultation with the Joint Strategic Director of Place, to make such minor alterations to improve the clarity of the Parking Standards for New Development SPD as they may deem necessary.

3.    To note that Executive comments will be passed to the full Council meeting on 22 March 2023 via the Order Paper.

The Executive further

RECOMMEND (to Council):

(1)   That the Local Plan: Development Management Policies (as set out in Appendix 4 to the report), which incorporates the Inspector’s Main Modifications (at Appendix 2 to the report) and the Council’s Minor Modifications (at Appendix 3 to the report), be adopted.

(2)   That the Secretary of State be requested to exercise his powers to revoke the ‘residual’ policies of the 2003 Local Plan.

(3)   That updates to the Guildford Borough Policies Map be adopted in line with the Local Plan: Development Management Policies including additions proposed at Appendix A of the Local Plan: Development Management Policies, as amended by the Inspector’s main modification 6.

(4)   That the Lead Councillor with portfolio responsibility for Planning Policy be authorised, in consultation with the Joint Strategic Director of Place, to make such minor alterations to improve the clarity of the LPDMP as they may deem necessary.

Reason(s):

1.    To enable the adoption of the Parking Standards for New Development SPD to provide further guidance regarding the implementation of LPDMP Policy ID11 [now Policy ID10]: Parking Standards for New Development.

2.    To enable minor alterations to be made to the SPD should they be necessary prior to publication

3.    To enable the adoption of the LPDMP in line with the Council’s Local Development Scheme and for the plan to become part of the Council’s development plan, carrying full weight in the determination of planning applications.

4.    To enable the revocation of the ‘residual’ Local Plan 2003 policies that are not superseded by policies contained in the LPDMP.

5.    To ensure that changes are brought about to the policies map in line with the adoption of the LPDMP.

6.    To enable minor alterations to be made to the LPDMP should they be necessary prior to publication

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None.

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

None.

The Local Plan: Development Management Policies (hereafter referred to as ‘the LPDMP’) was the second part of Guildford’s Local Plan. If adopted by full Council on 22 March 2023 it would supersede the extant Local Plan 2003 policies and become part of the Council’s Development Plan. The LPDMP provided the more detailed policies to be used by Development Management in the determination of planning applications. The Lead Council for Finance and Planning Policy introduced the report.

The intention of the policies was to provide the Council with the tools to secure good development across the borough covering a wide range of environmental, design, heritage and infrastructure matters. The policies would provide robust testing through the application process to obtain sustainable and attractive development. The policies would provide guidance to applicants for what the Council would like to see coming forward or reasons for refusal if applications did not meet the standards. The existing policies were nearly 20 years old and no longer fit for purpose.

The Executive noted the extensive consultation undertaken for the Regulation 18 and 19 process during the previous two years. Much work had been undertaken by councillors and officers to reach the point of submission to the Government appointed Planning Inspectorate in the summer of 2022. A series of public hearings had been heard with the inspector arriving at a number of recommendations for the Council concerning both minor and main modifications. The main modifications were subject to further public consultation concluding in early February 2023. The inspectors final report was received at the end of February and was published and circulated to all councillors. The final report found the Council’s policies sound, subject to the main modifications being implemented.

The main modification for biodiversity net gain was highlighted to the Executive. The Council’s draft policy set out a requirement for 20% across all developments. However, even if adopted by the Council, this could not be implemented until the Government policy of 10% was adopted. It was anticipated that would be in November 2023.

The draft polices were described by the Deputy Leader of the Council as robust having been through strenuous testing by officers, councillors and the public consultation process. It was acknowledged that not every suggestion submitted could have been included in the final drafts but that all suggestions had been considered through the consultation processes. The policies were commended to the Executive to recommend to full Council.

The Executive was also asked to consider and adopt a new Parking Policy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Whilst Policy ID10 did consider parking standards, it was considered preferable to retain a separate SPD which could be easily updated and was consequently more flexible and responsive. This had been approved by the inspector who required no main modifications to ID10 and had agreed to the split of guidance and policy. The adoption of the SPD was a matter for the Executive but that adoption remained dependent upon the overall adoption of the LPDMP by full Council because  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX108