Prior to the adoption by the Council of its new Council Procedure Rules on 16 April 2024, a number of enquiries regarding public speaking were made and the members of the public concerned were informed that this meeting of the Council would be the next opportunity for them to address the Council on general matters either related to the powers, duties or functions of the Council or matters which affect the borough.
The new Procedure Rules do not provide for public participation at the Annual Meeting (of which this meeting is the second part, following the ‘Mayor Making’ meeting on 8 May 2024).
It will therefore be necessary for the Council to agree to suspend Council Procedure Rule 2.2 (Business at the Annual Meeting) in order to receive questions or statements from the public on this occasion.
Minutes:
Prior to the adoption by the Council of its new Council Procedure Rules on 16 April 2024, a number of enquiries regarding public speaking had been made and the members of the public concerned had been informed that this meeting of the Council would be the next opportunity for them to address the Council on general matters either related to the powers, duties or functions of the Council or matters which affected the borough.
The new Procedure Rules did not provide for public participation at the Annual Meeting (of which this meeting was the second part, following the ‘Mayor Making’ meeting on 8 May 2024). Therefore, upon the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor George Potter, the Council
RESOLVED: That Council Procedure Rule 2.2 (Business at the Annual Meeting) be suspended in order to receive questions and statements from the public on this occasion.
PUBLIC SPEAKER – MONICA LILLEY:
“Good evening, Councillors, so I am Monica Lilley and myself and Liz Willis at the back here, my friend and colleague, we are representing, and we are volunteers for the plant-based Treaty Campaign and Animal Rising which is one and the same - it is an amalgamation, so to pitch straight in. We're in a climate emergency and it's almost five years since the Council declared a climate emergency and committed to carbon neutrality. During this time, the Council has taken a number of steps, especially as relates to transport and the built environment, and this is to be commended; however, one notable absence from the Council's extensive planning around climate change is the issue of food.
Globally, agriculture accounts for about one quarter of carbon emissions. In the UK, the figure is about 12%. Overwhelmingly, these emissions occur in the production of food. Food miles are a tiny fraction of the overall impact, and the evidence is clear. Animal products have a vastly greater climate impact than plant-based foods. As the BBC phrased it in a recent report: ‘The very worst plant-based food , i.e., the most heavily processed, is better than the “very best” animal products’.
Raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all the world's vehicles combined. That's from a United Nations report Livestock’s Long Shadow 2006, and that still stands. Recent research conducted at the University of Oxford states that a plant-based diet has only one quarter the environmental impact of a diet containing an average amount of animal products. It is clear, therefore, that combating climate change must involve a shift towards a plant-based food system and the government at all levels must play a part in encouraging this shift. If Guildford Council is committed to reducing the climate impact of both its own services and all activity in the district, then it must work to enable this transition. This is about the Council promoting a shift in how people eat, the beacon is always plant-based.
There are many ways this can be achieved. I don't think internal catering applies, does it? You don't have that if, if not so, the Council can promote plant-based menu options across all spaces in which it has influence, for example, schools, public cafes, leisure centre, hospitals, etc. It can also use its voice to inform residents of the district.”
Response from the Lead Councillor for Environment & Climate Change, Councillor George Potter:
“Thank you, Ms Lilley, for your comments. You are completely correct in identifying that trying to promote more plant-based diets is certainly part of how we can try to achieve a shift towards decarbonisation and mitigating the impacts of the climate emergency. As you've identified, we don't have any active internal catering at the Council with the exception, of course, when we have civic events, so it may potentially be something that the Mayor's office may wish to consider whether there might be worth considering some changes to the catering for various civic events. Beyond that, as you identify, we do have potential influence over menu options in, for instance, leisure centres or community buildings where the Council is involved in its management. However, the extent to which it might be possible to make those changes, is likely to require some investigation on our part.
It occurs to me that it might potentially be something that, if they were interested, perhaps one of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees might be interested in taking a look at to seek to explore this option further to see what tools we might have at our disposal for influencing the promotion of more plant-based eating at these various venues. If not then I'm sure we can try to take it away as an Executive but I suggest that might be the best first port of call”.
PUBLIC SPEAKER - GAVIN MORGAN:
“My name is Gavin Morgan. I was one of the organisers of last year's Heritage Open Days and I want to talk about the Castle. Now when it comes to heritage, the Council has a problem. It owns the most important sites, collections and artworks relating to the town's history, but for over 20 years has struggled to do much with them. There is no money to develop heritage and it's hard to get grants, but the council can't get rid of heritage either. No one is selling the Castle or the Guildhall and people have to be paid to maintain all those museum and art collections. So what's the answer? Well perhaps to succeed in the future, the town needs to do something now that will capture the imagination of grant bodies, tourists and sponsors in the future.
And the Castle seems the key. It's there already, has great stories to tell about medieval monarchs, Magna Carter and King Arthur. Of all our heritage, it's the one most likely to attract tourists. The displays could be improved for little cost and there is potential to increase footfall. And we know we can use community groups, re-enactors and musicians to stage events and promote the Castle, but most significantly, the Castle could become a focus for bringing the community and the Heritage Service together, and it's that community value that grant bodies and sponsors are looking for. So, if that sounds like a good idea, we should talk further. The good news is that we demonstrated at last year's Heritage Open Days that we have the resources, experience and people to do this and it's a low cost, low risk, low effort, idea.
The concern is that if the Council does not do something like this, people may lose interest; pressure will build to sell off things like Guildford House, and the Council will still end up paying for buildings like the Castle and the Guildhall that perhaps few visit and collections no one sees. It's up to you to decide what to do but with heritage we either get on and use it, or we may lose it, thank you”.
Response from the Lead Councillor for Commercial Services, Councillor Catherine Houston:
“Thank you, Mr Morgan, for coming along and speaking to us tonight. You are right in that we have a borough, not just a town, but a borough that is rich in culture and heritage, which brings a lot of community value. I thank you for all the work you do with organising the Heritage Open Day weekend which is really enjoyed by many across the borough. As it happens, I have been speaking with our Leader about setting up a working group to within the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee to look at the whole heritage service, with, hopefully input from interested parties like yourself with all your knowledge and background in this area which goes back many years. We are getting a lot of ideas coming from both inside and outside the Council, and it would be really good to harness all this goodwill so that we do have a plan for the future so thank you very much for coming along this evening and sharing your thoughts on that.”
PUBLIC SPEAKER – DALE ASKEW:
“Good evening councillors, I’m Dale Askew and I speak as secretary of the Wodehouse Place Residents' Association. We know you'll be looking at the solace housing governance report in detail and the 70 plus recommendations. We want you to hear the details of how we have been affected as tenants and leaseholders in your borough. Housing is a service that hasn't worked for residents over many years, something which took this fraud investigation to be recognised. As a council, you haven't listened to us when we have repeatedly reported problems with our homes. You haven't listened to us when we have questioned works sprung upon us, which we were told were urgent for safety. You haven't listened to our dedicated Councillor Maddy Redpath, who has repeatedly escalated issues to officers and the Executive. The Lead Councillor for Housing has continually assured us that residents' safety and wellbeing are its priority. We know compliance and safety standards were not being adhered to within our block. This is not just a case of financial mismanagement, it is safety standards neglected, residents being exposed financially to questionable works, and regulatory standards set for the sector by central government flagrantly ignored. In all of this, the people living in the Council's homes appear not to have mattered and have suffered. We welcome the recommendations as an opportunity to now move forward.
But before this happens, reparations need to be made. At Wodehouse Place, electrical and fire safety works are still waiting to be finished. When can we expect a timescale for completion? Can we have assurance that leaseholders will not be charged where there was no evidence for the necessity of the works. Our guttering is defective in many parts of the building, and it overflows and floods and simply does not work. We now have excessive bright lights burning 24 hours a day in our corridors, bringing unwelcome light pollution into homes and racking up our electric bill. Leaks to the roof, water seeping into residents’ homes, contractors repeatedly attending to the same areas of the roof, costs mounting up for us as leaseholders. Windows that continually fail and need repairing incurring residents thousands of pounds in repairs annually. Residents reporting damp and mould and being told that it is fine. Would you be happy with this situation in your homes? If the Council can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on reports, investigations and lawyers, then why can it not repair and fix the homes we pay for to a decent standard? We were happy to have met Julian and Pedro, which was a good start to putting things right. We need officers and councillors to have all the information and be on the same page. We ask for councillors' commitment that the issues at Wodehouse Place will finally be put right with decent repairs and resident involvement. Many of our issues have been ongoing for 20 years. Actions, not words, are now needed.”
Response from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane:
“Thank you, Mr Askew. I thank you for the commitment and the contributions that you've made to the Tenants Engagement Group, which I've obviously been attending over a period of time. I absolutely acknowledge and appreciate that what's happened is not OK and I'm devastated about what's happened and sorry for what's happened, and I appreciate that trust has been broken and that it's very important that we work incredibly hard with the information and the recommendations that we've got in the report and through our action plan to rebuild that trust and to listen and act accordingly.
I'm very pleased that Pedro and Julian came to Wodehouse. Thank you for showing them round and I understand that they will be going back on a further visit to talk to you and to listen to you again and to provide you with more information about providing a single point of contact for tenants and leaseholders at Wodehouse Place and obviously, as part of our overall journey to make improvements for all tenants. We have over 5,000 homes across our borough, it's absolutely important to us that we make all the improvements that are necessary to be able to provide tenants with an excellent service so that everybody has a safe and comfortable home to live in, because that has always been our priority, but clearly there have been issues that we now are fully aware of along the way that have prevented that from happening.
I'm absolutely committed to making sure that, working with officers and councillors, we absolutely do that for residents at Wodehouse and for residents across the borough, so thank you for coming.”
Question 1: from David Allison
To the Lead Councillor for Planning, Councillor Fiona White
“Last July Merrow Downs Residents’ Group launched a legal challenge of the deemed discharge of a number of planning conditions related to the development of the Urnfield Sports Ground by Tormead School planning application reference 20/P/00825. This challenge was subsequently uncontested by both the Council and the School, who acknowledged it had been unlawful. The Judicial Review process centred on the problems created when information that should be in the public domain is not published in a timely manner. Had it been, the legal challenge may not have been necessary because the errors made could have been spotted earlier and remedied.
As part of the resolution to this Judicial Review, the Council in the shape of its Legal Adviser agreed to publish all new application material related to the Urnfield case within three days. This the Council has failed to do to the extent that important documentation that was available over 12 weeks ago has still not been published. Can the Lead Councillor for Planning please explain why the Planning Department has failed to meet this clear commitment?”
Response from the Lead Councillor for Planning
“The Merrow Downs Residents Group challenged the Council’s decision to discharge conditions attached to the grant of planning permission 20/P/00825 the conditions being:
· Condition 3 (construction transport management plan)
· Condition 4 (landscape and ecology management plan LEMP)
· Condition 6 (surface water drainage scheme)
· Condition 7 (hard and soft landscaping details)
The challenge rested on the fact that the Statutory Procedure for the deemed discharge of planning conditions set out in Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 (“the 2015 Order”) had not been followed. It is specifically required under Article 29 that a deemed discharge notice is given to the local planning authority, which must include the following:
(a) details of the application submitted under Article 27 and identifying the planning condition to which it relates,
(b) where the period referred to in Article 27 has elapsed, confirmation that no appeal has been made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning 1990 Act, and
(c) the date on which deemed discharge is to take effect.
In accordance with the 2015 Order, the agent for the applicants wrote to the Council confirming that the letter should be taken as ‘formal activation of deemed discharge’ for discharge of conditions 3, 4 and 7. In accordance with the Article 29 (3) (b), the deemed discharge notice letter must confirm that no appeal has been made. The letter did not state this and therefore the statutory requirement was not met.
It should be noted that whilst information is published on the Planning Portal, there may be a timelapse between receipt and publication; this, in part, is due to the multiple routes that correspondence enters the Council.
Therefore, the Judicial Review process rested on the fact that a statutory requirement under Part 5 of the 2015 Order was not met. The Council agreed that the decisions on conditions 3, 4 and 7 should be quashed but not the decision on condition 6. In agreeing this position, the Council agreed to publish any new applications on the Council’s Planning Portal and to allow a 21-day consultation period from the published date. The Council confirmed the publication would take place within 3 working days of receipt of such application. It was made clear that this is not a statutory requirement and the Council confirmed that it was making an exception only on the basis of the specific circumstances of this case.
The Council did not agree to publish all new application material related to the Urnfield case within three days. Notwithstanding this point, the Council did publish all information received relating to the subsequent discharge of conditions applications for the period, other than sensitive material. However, the volume of correspondence made this unmanageable and material was published at a much slower rate over the past months”.
Supplementary question:“Would the Lead Councillor agree that deemed discharge in any planning application is unsatisfactory, let alone going through unnoticed, and so the Planning Department should be given every resource and support to implement processes, data management and appropriate publication of documents for public interaction in order to avoid this happening again for any application?”
Response to supplementary question from the Lead Councillor for Planning
“I can't agree with you that deemed discharge is always unsatisfactory; it has its place in the process. Whether this was the right place, and the right process is another question, and I think there has been an acceptance that things didn't go the way that we would all have wanted them to in the way that this was handled.
Nevertheless, I think the response to your question shows that some new processes have been put in place for this particular application. I must stress this is for this particular application and not a blanket change for all situations; so I think, accepting that we didn't actually follow the process in the way that we should have in the first place, everything possible has been done now to rectify the situation, and we will, as a Council, endeavour to communicate better with your residents in future”.
Question 2: from Katherine Atkinson
To the Lead Councillor for Planning, Councillor Fiona White
“In the middle of February someone posing as a local resident emailed Merrow Downs Residents’ Group (“MDRG”) to suggest that the final outstanding pre-commencement planning condition related to the Urnfield development planning application reference 20/P/00825 had been approved through what is known as a “deemed discharge” process. This planning condition related to the management of wildlife and ecology on the site which lies within the Surrey Hills National Landscape.
We asked Cllr Jo Shaw if she could find out from the Planning Department the current status (at that time) of this pre-commencement condition. Cllr Shaw forwarded to us an email from a senior planning officer dated 29 February in which he explained that a report related to the discharge of condition 4 was about to be prepared by the case officer for consideration by the Head of Planning. The condition was, according to this information, outstanding and still subject to approval by the Council.
On 8 April, MDRG was informed by an Enforcement Officer that in fact a deemed discharge had taken place, and the condition had been discharged without the usual scrutiny or approvals process, on 15 February.
The result of this failed process is that a critical pre-commencement condition that was designed by the Planning Inspector to protect the wildlife and ecology on and around this site has been discharged once again without proper and sufficient scrutiny, and based on earlier plans that the Council did not judge good enough to be given approval. This is having very significant consequences for this part of the Surrey Hills National Landscape and in particular for protected species on and around the site, namely Hazel Dormice and Badgers. Can the Lead Councillor for Planning please explain why Councillor Shaw was misled so spectacularly?”
Response from the Lead Councillor for Planning
“The landscape and ecology management plan (LEMP) condition was discharged through Deemed Consent. However, it is not the case that this condition was discharged without proper and sufficient scrutiny. The case officer had received extensive correspondence from residents on this matter and, more importantly, had received confirmation from Surrey Wildlife Trust that there was no reason to not discharge the condition acknowledging that badger activity will vary over the course of a year and through the different seasons. It further commented that in the review of badger survey information and mitigation strategies there must be an understanding that badger ecology, and badger territory ecology is not static and is not simple. Surrey Wildlife Trust advised that no work should commence on setts, or that could disturb a sett, or that could breach the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, or start before a badger mitigation licence is granted. The Surrey Wildlife Trust emphasised that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that there is no breach of the Protection of Badgers Act and that any licence works carried out adhere to the badger mitigation licence, if granted by Natural England.
Councillor Shaw was not misled, at the time the information was given the case officer had not been aware that a Deemed Consent Notice had been served on 31 January 2024. It later came to light that this was the case and hence the difference in the dates.”
Supplementary question: “Can Councillor White indicate what the Planning Department will do as a matter of urgency to ensure the errors made here are not repeated in any future applications, and what we, as residents, can do to support that improvement process?”
Response to supplementary question from the Lead Councillor for Planning
“I think it's important for all of us to remember that this is a situation where, on appeal, planning permission was granted for this development and therefore it is likely that the development will take place, so while I acknowledge as I did in response to the earlier question that the processes that were followed were not as they should have been and certainly I have asked the Head of Planning to have a look at the process and see what we can do to tighten things up and improve them.
Nevertheless, I think that it is important to understand that this is a development that does have consent and we are talking about conditions and the compliance with conditions, and although I fully understand that the deemed consent notice, et cetera, were not apparent to the officer who dealt with Councillor Shaw’s question, nevertheless Surrey Wildlife Trust had confirmed that the work could carry on and therefore there was no reason not to discharge the condition in this case.”
Question 3: from Keith Meldrum
To the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane
“We are asking these questions as a last resort, because emails from our residents’ group, and from us as individuals, to senior officers, including the new Chief Executive elicit no response. Can the Leader please explain the lack of response and how this refusal to engage with local residents voicing legitimate concerns about the Planning Department’s performance can be reconciled with the Council’s Corporate Customer Charter, let alone the expectations of common courtesy?”
Response from the Lead Councillor for Planning
“There has been extensive correspondence between the residents’ group and officers within different services across the Council. It may sometimes take time to respond to questions asked given the extensive history and volume of correspondence that has come into the Council and quite correctly officers need to furnish themselves with all the necessary information before responding to correspondence. I am aware that an enormous amount of time has been spent on this matter to ensure that the technical information submitted to discharge conditions is fully understood and scrutinised by officers and external consultees”.