To hear questions from councillors of which due notice has been given.
Minutes:
Councillors noted that, at the 25 July meeting, the Council noted that six additional questions had been received by the deadline for submission of questions for that meeting, but unfortunately, they had not been forwarded to the Leader/relevant Lead Councillors until the afternoon of the meeting. Therefore, no written response to the questions could be prepared for inclusion on the Order Paper for that meeting, and Council was informed that a formal response from the Leader/relevant Lead Councillor to each of the questions would be circulated to all councillors after the meeting. That response was sent, by email, to all councillors on 2 August 2023.
As there had been no opportunity for the questioners to ask a supplementary question, the Mayor had agreed to allow this at this meeting.
(a) Councillor Richard Mills asked the Leader of the Council the following question:
“Will the Leader of the Council indicate whether she will urgently bring forward proposals for a restriction on the maximum height for new buildings in the town, in the light of:
- the continuing development pressures that have driven a steady increase in permitted building height in particular in the Town Centre
- the evidence from recent years that the Council’s planning procedures have not proved sufficient to control these pressures in line with the wishes of residents, and
- the evidence from the recent election campaign of wide support among residents from across the political spectrum for commitment to a maximum permitted building height, including from her executive portfolio holder for planning at election hustings?”.
The Leader’s Response:
“We recognise that the height of proposed new buildings (alongside other aspects of their design and form) can give rise to harm, including potentially in relation to:
· important views to and from areas, including of significant landmarks, landscapes, and heritage assets;
· the character of areas in which they are located;
· the significance of proximate heritage assets and their settings;
· other localised impacts such as overshadowing and impacts on microclimate.
We have a range of local policy and guidance that seeks to avoid or minimise any of these harms arising from new development, including the recently adopted Development Management Policies and Guildford Town Centre Views SPD.
Applicants must respond to our local policy and guidance as part of their planning applications by providing relevant detail reflecting how views, local character, and heritage aspects have been considered in the design of the proposal.
The Council also expects Accurate Visual Representations to be produced to assist in assessing the likely impact of development on the townscape/ landscape setting or nearby heritage asset. This includes for any visually prominent proposals or proposals for additional storeys in the town centre and other significant development proposals elsewhere in our borough with a special focus on major development in Conservation Areas and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Importantly, the Council also ensures expert independent professional inputs on significant development proposals via its Design Review Panel, often prior to applications being submitted.
With this information, the decision-maker would carry out assessment of whether and to what extent harm arises from proposals, including in relation to their height as part of the planning process.
That said, I recognise that there is great strength of feeling regarding recent development proposals within the town centre and a perceived lack of ability to limit the heights of buildings being proposed. We can all agree that we wish to see high quality development that respects its local context, helps to make Guildford a vibrant town centre, and yet makes efficient use of brownfield land to minimise future development pressures on greenfield sites.
As Councillors are aware, Cllr George Potter, Lead Councillor responsible for Planning Policy, is in the process of reconvening a reformed Local Plan Panel which will now be called the Planning Policy Board. Cllr Potter will be exploring/ continuing to explore options for informing the height of development sites in particular within the town centre with the Planning Policy team. We will then bring these options to the Planning Policy Board for further debate and discussion.
The timescales for bringing forward additional policy or guidance in relation to heights will vary depending on what option is chosen. Local Plan policy will take a number of years to produce whereas a design code/guidance may be quicker to implement. I hope we can reach a cross party consensus on how best and most efficiently to bring forward additional measure to help shape development proposals.”
In response to a supplementary question asking the Leader to look again at this reply and pursue the specific issues raised, the Lead Councillor for Planning, Environment and Climate Change responded on the Leader’s behalf by stating that at the inaugural meeting of the Planning Policy Board, he had mentioned that the issue of heights and density and character in the town centre was something that the Board would be looking at in the near future.
(b) Councillor David Bilbé asked the Leader of the Council the following question:
“Will the Leader of the Council advise when will this Council see a fully costed plan for restoring the planning department to an improved level of competence with measurable timescales, targets and specific objectives?
Will the plan include a comprehensive set of proposals and staffing increases to improve the effectiveness of enforcement action, particularly to resolve significant planning infringements on Wanborough fields?”
The Leader’s Response:
“The Council has already received a fully costed plan for a restructured Planning Development Service. This formed part of the submission to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) to make our case against the threat of designation which was accompanied by a detailed action plan and draft structure. The cost of the new structure, £700,000, was included in the finance report that went to Council on 25 July. As councillors will be aware, the performance targets for determining planning applications are set by Government and this is what we are measured against. As has been well reported to councillors we continue to struggle to retain planning staff, this is a national problem exacerbated in the south, and are heavily reliant on agency staff. The Executive Head of Planning Development is working with colleagues to develop a recruitment and retention strategy for the service.
There are no plans to increase staff in the Planning Enforcement team at this time”.
In response to a supplementary question asking the Leader to clarify:
(a) whether the £700,000 referred to in the answer was before or after the budget squeeze that would be debated later in the meeting; and
(b) whether the reference to no plans to increase staff in planning enforcementincluded the replacement of the two current vacancies in the team, or whether it was from a base level; and
(c) the reasons why no information was available in respect of Wanborough Fields
the Lead Councillor for Planning, Environment and Climate Change responded on the Leader’s behalf by stating that the £700,000 represented the additional resource provided in the current year, and that planning would continue to be resourced appropriately to maintain improved performance. The current vacancies in the enforcement team were affected by the temporary recruitment freeze, but it was intended to maintain the team to its full staff compliment. In relation to Wanborough Fields, the Lead Councillor was happy to update Councillor Bilbé as appropriate.
(c) Councillor Bob Hughes asked the Lead Councillor for Community and Organisational Development the following question:
“What measures are being taken by the Council to attract job applications from people with disabilities, and to sustain them in the workplace?
What input has the Council sought from organisations representative of people with lived experience of disabilities in order to take their advice to help the Council improve their recruitment and retention procedures and policies?”
The Lead Councillor’s Response:
“Attracting job applicants
The Council advertises externally on the Council’s website and the JobsGoPublic platform.
We currently hold ‘Disability Confident’ (or similar ‘Disability Positive’) bronze status as an Employer, and include this in our advertising, so prospective employees know they will not be disadvantaged, and we are positive about including people with disabilities in our workforce.
Our adverts include a link to Information for Candidates which sets out the Council’s commitment to Equalities and states that:
‘The Council is positive about people with disabilities and an applicant with a disability is guaranteed an interview if they meet the essential criteria of the person specification.
If you have a disability and require the job information in an alternative format such as large print, audiocassette, electronic/diskette or Braille please phone HR on 01483 444017.
Should you have any queries regarding the working environment, work place visits can be arranged prior to interview.
If you are disabled or for any other reason have any special requirements in respect of the interview arrangements, please call Human Resources (in confidence) on the above number.’
Job seekers can access a link to the equalities information on the web site https://www.guildford.gov.uk/equalities. Our commitment to equalities and diversity is set out in the EDI Policy which was reviewed along with the Action Plan by Corporate Governance and Standards Committee on 27 July. The link is waiting to be updated with latest EDI Policy and Action Plan.
Job seekers can also access the Staff Information Booklet which sets out our commitment to equalities on page 8.
Accessibility issues can be responded to, dealt with or reported at the link provided on our website https://www.guildford.gov.uk/accessibility. Staff guidance to ensuring that access to our services is available to all without discrimination is provided on the intranet Disability-and-reasonable-adjustments-guidance.
Sustaining employees in the workplace
Reasonable adjustments would of course be considered by the HR Business Partners, with regards to sustaining people in the workplace. We regularly manage cases and situations where adjustments are required by employees and work with our Occupational Health Service to provide support.
The document attached (see Appendix 1 to this Order Paper) is an extract from our Sickness Absence Management Handbook which has a Section on disability for guidance to our managers.
The input from external agencies is extremely useful from a recruitment perspective and seeking information about the lived experience of current employees is useful with a view to retention, as employees know what is affecting them as members of our organisation.
The EDI group can accomplish this in various ways (involvement of community groups, charity groups, targeted surveys, focus groups; examination of exit interview data). The EDI group is led by Ian Doyle, Strategic Director: Transformation and Governance and Robin Taylor, Executive Head of Organisational Development and supported by Ali Holman, HR Specialist (Equalities Lead). The group is creating a joint EDI group across Guildford and Waverley Borough Councils and I will ask them to review this issue”.
In response to a supplementary question which invited the Lead Councillor to answer the second part of the written question, the Lead Councillor acknowledged that this had not been answered and indicated that a written response to the unanswered part of the question would be sent.
(d) Councillor Matt Furniss asked the Leader of the Council the following question:
“Can the Leader of the Council confirm what is the valuation of the Council’s commercial asset holdings in each year since 2019 to 2023?
In each year how much income was forecast to be generated and how much was actually generated?
The Leader’s Response:
Annual asset valuations of the Council’s commercial asset holdings:
|
Year |
Valuation |
|
2018/19 |
£161,244,000 |
|
2019/20 |
£153,413,000 |
|
2020/21 |
£159,429,000 |
|
2021/22 |
£173,936,000 |
|
2022/23 |
£178,198,000 |
Rental income – forecast versus actuals
|
Year |
Forecast |
Actuals |
|
2018/19 |
£9,316M |
£8,903M |
|
2019/20 |
£8,702M |
£8,382M |
|
2020/21 |
£7,804M |
£7,769M |
|
2021/22 |
£8,154M |
£8,169M |
|
2022/23 |
£8,789M |
£9,158M |
In response to a supplementary question from Councillor Furniss, the Leader agreed to provide a breakdown of all the assets with valuations.
(e) Councillor Matt Furniss asked the Leader of the Council the following question:
“In December 2020 Guildford, as one of the districts that commissioned a report by KPMG to look at opportunities for collaboration. Can the Leader confirm:
a) The cost to GBC for producing the report?
b) An update as to what is the status of the KPMG report within GBC?
c) How many of its recommendations have been accepted and implemented?
d) Of the recommendations not accepted, why not?”
The Leader’s Response:
“I thank Cllr Furniss for his question about the 2020 KPMG report, which was commissioned by the eleven district councils of Surrey in response to Surrey County Council’s proposal to replace the district, borough and county councils with a single unitary council for the whole county. GBC’s contribution towards the KPMG study was £15,000. At the time, Surrey County Council declined to contribute to this project, having commissioned its own consultants (PwC) in support of its single-unitary council bid at a reported cost to SCC of £107,000.
Later in the year, the Government decided not to proceed with the County Council’s request. The KPMG report was discussed by the Executive meeting in public on 16 February 2021 and is available to view online (see agenda item 6):
Agenda for Executive on Tuesday, 16th February, 2021, 7.00 pm - Guildford Borough Council
As many of KPMG’s recommendations addressed the question of what the councils could do if SCC’s request were accepted by the Government, they were shelved when the Government declined. If the Government or Surrey County Council were to revive the proposal of abolishing district, borough and county councils, the KPMG report will have useful information to contribute to that discussion. However, it is worth recalling that KPMG’s independent view was that three, not one, unitary councils would be the preferred option for Surrey, were reorganisation to be pursued. The report stated, “The eleven Surrey District and Borough Councils were mindful of the potential democratic deficit residents might experience as a result of the reduction in number of representatives in a single County unitary solution. They, also, recognise the potential loss of ‘place’ and ‘belonging’ for local residents in such a model. They wished, therefore, to be ready to progress an alternative proposal if/when the time comes.”
The report also recommended that the district and borough councils
could do more to collaborate, regardless of formal reorganisation.
As a result, the-then Leaders and Executives of Guildford and
Waverley Borough Councils held discussions on how these two
councils could work together more effectively. Both councils are of
similar scale, serve similar populations, are neighbours and
– unusually – each own around 5,000 homes. These
discussions continued during 2021 and both councils agreed to share
a single senior management team in their Full Council meetings in
July and August 2021. The joint management team was created in
2022, saving the partnership over £860,000 annually.
The KPMG report included options for service collaboration across councils, such as in waste collection, procurement, ICT, Building Control, and Revenues and Benefits. This Administration at Guildford is prioritising our partnership with Waverley as the main way for exploring these options. Proposals for further projects to build on our success with Waverley will be coming forward for discussion later this year. We remain open to other willing partners in Surrey and elsewhere who wish to work together in good faith”.
In response to a supplementary question which invited the Leader to answer parts c) and d) of the written question, the Leader acknowledged that these had not been answered and indicated that a written response to the unanswered parts of the question would be sent.
(f) Councillor Bilal Akhtar asked the Leader of the Council the following question:
“Can the Leader confirm the precise reasons for the three-year delay in opening the SANG and the car park in Frog Grove Lane in Wood Street, Worplesdon? The Car Park and Fences have been in place for over two years now.
According to the Officers, there is a delay in resolving an agreement with the landowner and the Council. What measures can be put in place to ensure that this matter can be resolved at the earliest possible time and what is the anticipated opening date?”
The Leader’s Response:
“This land is not a SANG, it is private land with permission to be a public open space. This land status does not mean the land is the Council’s or under the control of the Council. This status is often a precursor for the preparation of a private SANG or potentially a Council controlled SANG and we believe the owner of the land has, or had, the intention of creating a private SANG.
As far as we understand it, the owner has not yet met the financial and legal conditions for it to be a SANG. This is a matter for the landowner alone to resolve.
The landowner has approached officers to see if the Council is interested in purchasing some or all of the land. Officers are looking at this to consider if the land is of interest to the Council as a SANG at this time and, if so, that it is affordable and represents best value for the Council.
Considering the above there is no current timescale the Council can give as to when it may be open as we are unable to answer questions about the current or future intentions of the landowner.”
Councillor Akhtar commented that the Land Trust had agreed a contract with the landowner of the Wood Street SANG approximately two years ago to manage the SANG, but it was subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement. As a supplementary question, Councillor Akhtar asked the Leader for an explanation as to the delay in completing the Section 106 Agreement. On behalf of the Leader, the Lead Councillor for Planning, Environment, and Climate Change responded by stating that he would be happy to discuss the matter with Councillor Akhtar to see if the process could be expedited, or he could speak to the relevant Planning Team Leader for an update.
Further Questions from Councillors:
(g) Councillor Sue Wyeth-Price asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Environment, and Climate Change, Councillor George Potter the following question:
“GBC’s Statement of Case for the North Street Planning Appeal clearly states that 6 out of the 8 reasons given by the Planning Committee when refusing the application have been negotiated away or simply conceded. Were any Councillors involved in these decisions? I am particularly concerned with the decision whereby the refusal on the grounds of viability is not to be pursued. I quote: "In addition a decision was taken after careful consideration and independent advice that the LPA would not pursue reason 6 (viability/ affordable housing provision - e-mail of 24th August 2023 to PINS from GBC Kate Little).”
Given the members of the Planning Committee were clearly advised that there were no grounds for refusal on this potential reason during the debate, yet still decided to include it, I would like to know by whose authority the decision was taken to ignore that democratic decision? The process is opaque and in clear contrast to the open decision-making of the Planning Committee, and I am sure this will be a shock to many residents who were assured the appeal would be ‘vigorously defended’.
The Lead Councillor’s Response:
“Under the Council’s Constitution, delegated power is afforded to the Executive Head of Planning Development to exercise the Council’s powers and duties in relation to Planning Inspectorate appeals in consultation with the Lead Specialist – Legal, Chief Finance Officer, and the relevant lead councillor with portfolio responsibility for planning development. This includes the negotiation and settlement of awards of costs against the Council up to a maximum level of £50,000, and the negotiation and settlement of such costs when they are awarded in the Council’s favour.
Given the level of public interest in the North Street appeal, the Planning Committee were briefed in private at the end of the Planning Committee meeting held on 19 July 2023. The Committee was advised that the viability assessment had been reviewed by a second Viability consultant employed to advise the Council. The consultant had confirmed that the Council would have no evidential viability basis from which to defend a reason for refusal concerning affordable housing provision on a current day appraisal basis. The consultant further confirmed that they would be unable to act as expert witness for the Council given the conclusions on the viability assessment.
The Committee were verbally advised that the Council would not be able to defend this reason for refusal in light of this advice and in the absence of being able to provide an expert witness at the Inquiry. Further, in the absence of an expert witness to defend this reason for refusal, the Council would be opening itself to a potential award of costs for unreasonable behaviour.
The matter was further discussed with the Portfolio Holder in a briefing session on 7 August 2023. At this time, it was confirmed that the reason for refusal would not be defended. Legal were consulted. Counsel, working on behalf of the Council on the appeal, were made aware.
The issue of the ability of the Executive Head of Planning Development to negotiate and make decisions around the case that the Council sought to defend at appeal was discussed at some length during the Planning Committee meeting of 10 July 2023 relating to Wisley Airfield appeal against non-determination. The Legal Advisor at the meeting clearly advised the Planning Committee on the power delegated to the Executive Head and the reasons for that delegation.”
Councillor Wyeth-Price commented that the Lead Councillor’s response had only dealt with one of the six reasons for refusal that the Council had conceded at appeal. Further, in relation to the viability assessment, the Council had conceded three grounds relating to transport issues and the bus station, and that it was now understood that these issues were due to potential changes to the application before the Inspector which, at the time the decision was made none of the documents were available to councillors, the public or the Planning Committee. As a supplementary question, the Lead Councillor was asked whether he agreed that this was far from satisfactory in respect of an application that had drawn such considerable amounts of public interest, and would this be addressed by his planning improvement activities?
In response, the Lead Councillor did not agree and explained that was a very complicated application, and it was normal practice for the planning team to exercise their own expert judgement upon seeking the advice of relevant experts, and particularly legal experts, to decide how best to go about defending a case. In this case, following receipt of expert opinion from two sources, it was felt that the viability grounds were not sufficiently robust to defend at appeal. The applicant was entitled to request changes to the application at appeal, and it was up to the Planning Inspector to determine them. The Lead Councillor was also satisfied that communication procedures had been followed correctly, and no Planning Committee member had asked any questions in response to the update they received. The Lead Councillor offered to address any concerns at the Planning Improvement Board.
In response to a further supplementary question asking why the briefing about a second opinion about viability was held in private, and the decision to concede was then communicated in private, when the original planning committee was held in public and had received advice from consultants about viability, the Lead Councillor stated that the reason why the Committee was updated in private was because, as with any planning appeal, there were legal issues raised, which if discussed in public, might adversely affect the Council’s case.
(h) Councillor Dawn Bennett asked the Lead Councillor for Commercial Services, Councillor Catherine Houston the following question:
Could you please give more detail (in layman’s terms!) of the issue that has been discovered, how long works are expected to take, what is the estimated cost, and who is paying for the repairs?
If GBC are liable for the repairs, will you guarantee, considering the financial situation, that there are funds to carry the works out?
It is also frustrating that the pool was shut immediately, with only a few days’ notice on Facebook, and members have still not received any communication about this from either Freedom Leisure or GBC. Although works haven't yet started, is there a risk that using the pool could make the issue worse, or was the closure premature and the pool can reopen until the works are tendered and ready to start?”
The Lead Councillors’ Response:
“Thank you for your question on the Lido Councillor Bennett, I have received several other questions from residents on this matter, so it is good to be able to respond formally.
Whilst the work was carried out to refurbish the changing rooms and drainage beneath over the winter last year it was noted that a significant amount of water was leaking from the pool. We were aware of historic leaks, but the team were surprised at the amount that was being lost. Investigations had been carried out previously but had not conclusively identified where the leaks were. We were extremely conscious of ensuring the pool opened in time for the 2023 summer season with the newly refurbished changing rooms. Therefore, the decision was made to open the pool with the knowledge that there were leaks and further investigation needed to take place throughout the summer season to identify the exact problem.
Detailed surveys were carried out by Freedom Leisure over the summer which identified several issues, not least that the pool tank itself was leaking not just surrounding pipework. As this was an operator responsibility, Freedom began planning for the repairs, something that Guildford Borough Council had been pushing for a period of time. The length of the works is difficult to define as the works must take place in stages, ruling out one element before moving to the next. The first step will involve the pool tank and ensuring it is leak proof, then the contractor can focus on leaks to the pipework supplying the pool. In an ideal scenario these will be in easy to reach places; however, it is possible that repairing the leaks around poolside will involve digging to enable the repairs to take place. To ensure the repairs are carried out in time for the summer Guildford Borough Council supported the proposal, albeit late in the season, from Freedom Leisure to close over the winter. Guildford Borough Council does not hold swimmers’ or gym members’ contact details so all communications regarding the closure was covered by Freedom Leisure via social media which went out on Monday 25 September. To assist with common points Guildford Borough Council produced a frequently asked questions list and shared with Freedom to go on their website.
These repairs are part of Freedom’s contractual responsibility, not the Council’s, and £350,000 has been set aside to complete the work. These works are vital to ensure the Lido reopens and can continue to operate for years to come. Once these works are finished, fingers crossed with all leaks identified, we will be able to open on time for the 2024 summer season.
We feel it is important to give as much time to the contractor to carry out the work to ensure we open for the summer. Once completed this will mean that the 90-year-old Lido has had the most significant investment, around £2.5m, ever in its life! Coupled, with the annual subsidy paid for by Guildford Borough Council we can show no greater support for the facilities than we are. The Lido is a ‘gem’ for Guildford and this investment, and our continued commitment will ensure it remains so for the generations to come.”
In response to a supplementary question, asking for a response to the last part of the written question and also to a request for a commitment to reopen the Lido as soon as the works were completed, the Lead Councillor informed the Council that work had started on the Lido, but it might not yet be visible. The Lead Councillor also indicated that the intention was to re-open the Lido as quickly as possible, which was why in the work was going to take a number of months in time for the scheduled re-opening next April.
In response to a further question asking whether there would be an opportunity for councillors to have a look at the works that were being undertaken at the Lido so they could better inform the residents who were concerned, the Lead Councillor indicated that she would discuss this with officers after the meeting and inform councillors accordingly.