To receive questions or statements from the public. Details of any questions (including a written response to them) or requests to make statements received from the public will be set out in the Supplementary Agenda Pack which will be published on the day before the meeting.
Minutes:
The following statement had been received from a member of the public (Mr John Rigg):
“What is this council doing with Guildford?
Where is the transparency for the people of Guildford to know what is happening when the following circumstances are evident?
The Solace report on the Housing Revenue Account scandal described
an overspend with a particular contractor and over three years
of around £17.5m according to the council website. Two
officers were summarily suspended and two out of three senior
directors in place at the time were effectively suspended. All four
I understand has subsequently resigned or had their employment
terminated with payoffs.
An investigation was commenced by the police and an economy drive announced yet there has been no public statement on where exactly is the public's £17.5 million (also reported as £18.5 million). Where has it gone and how much has been incurred terminating contracts and replacing officers. We do not know if this was appropriate or not, but it will have caused huge upset to their lives There are no legal reasons why the council cannot report on where this money is and the costs incurred to date in connection with this financial scandal presumably impacting our housing stock and some tenants.
By May 2023 for the first time ever the town centre at last, had a vision for the future to deliver a better town and prosperity and on brownfield land currently blighted by flooding - Shaping Guildford‘s Future (SGF). Prepared by internationally renowned consultants, it was a route map to deliver benefits including riverside housing, employment land, parks and riverside walk and cycleways.
An integrated enabling flood alleviation scheme negotiated with the Environment Agency was included in the plan which cost, up to its suspension, £2.5 million. A lot of the heavy work was already done but to progress this plan so the private sector can deliver it requires the council to endorse the vision, not in detail but as a general direction of travel.
There is a need to support an application from the Environment Agency for the Flood Alleviation Scheme (FAS) proposals, once agreed. This must alleviate flooding blight and the sequential test from the key and mostly council owned sites. The sites are required to deliver planning gain, contribute to the cost of the flood alleviation works and deliver essential brownfield development.
Unless the council shows initiative and creates momentum either nothing will happen, or development will take place piecemeal without any of the community benefits of the holistic SGF plan or FAS. Where are the statements endorsing the plan - even as ‘a vision only‘ to provide some planning weight so SGF and sites can be included in the updated Local Plan and help save greenbelt, or rejecting it?
Transparency has always been inadequate at the council. Developers rightly have to publish the section 106 payments they make to the council but incredibly the council does not have to be transparent on what is happening with the money.
On the biggest windfall payment, the council might ever achieve, measured perhaps in tens of millions of pounds, the ransom strip payment at Blackwell farm has a developer backed by the university who has been able to conceal the transaction. There cannot be a rule applying to all developers except one. Will the agreement be made public now?
Cost overruns at Ash Road Bridge were last noted at 200% and hidden on Walnut Bridge at 300%. Weyside Urban Village costs escalated by c. £50m overnight due to a GBC Treasury omission to put an interest rate cap in place. Where are the statements giving transparency on a cost overrun of this magnitude and where do we stand today?
The council is failing to meet its obligations and commitments to be transparent on all these important issues. We do not want Guildford taking the Post Office approach to transparency but with radio silence on these issues what else can we infer?”
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane responded to the statement as follows:
“Thank you for your statement on issues of interest to you as a former elected member of this Council and Executive Member for Regeneration where you had responsibility for four years for many of the things that you have mentioned.
You had the support of your R4GV Executive colleagues who had responsibility for finance and governance as well as the leadership of the Council for two years from September 2020 to September 2022.
Like you, I agree that transparency and accountability are of the utmost importance, and I am pleased that our recently adopted 10-year vision
for a greener, fairer, thriving Guildford publicly commits us to continuing to deliver both.
One of our five new priorities is to ensure Guildford Borough Council is a resilient and well-managed council. We've made a commitment to strengthening our governance and decision-making processes,
ensuring public money and resources are used wisely.
We've also made a commitment to ensuring residents feel informed, heard and able to influence what the council does. The council's corporate improvement plan commits Guildford Borough Council to 12 specific actions in respect to better governance, including transparency. All of those actions are on track or are completed.
It is clear to me that we are making real progress on our journey of improvement and I'm grateful to all members and officers of this council who are working with me to drive those improvements forward. Our housing improvement plan is comprehensive, and the team are making excellent progress with the recommendations. That progress is reported monthly to members and the Tenant Engagement Group,
and to committees, including the new Housing Operations Board
which has cross-party representation.
So it's not only the Council's recognition that things need to improve, that is open and transparent, so too is our reporting on the work
we are doing to make those improvements. The town centre will continue to play a key role in delivering housing and working alongside the team involved in progressing Shaping Guildford's Future.
The Council's planning team are considering how to shape development within the town centre as the new local plan is being prepared. This is in parallel to our continued work with the environment agency to progress
a flood alleviation scheme, which is a critical part to enabling development.
You referred to the council's financial management of capital projects, including Ash Road Bridge and Weyside Urban Village. Reports have been presented to this council for both update and decision over the past couple of years, providing transparency around the decision-making required. This is alongside the internal council board structure
that exists.
Ash Road Bridge is on site and being delivered at present within the approved capital budget. Weyside Urban Village has been impacted significantly by several factors, all of which are detailed in the most recent annual Weyside Financial Update report of May 2024.
The council do publish what happens to Section 106 monies in its annual infrastructure funding statement. Developers are not required to publish land transactions as they are commercially sensitive matters. Therefore, I simply cannot agree with you that there is a rule applying to all developers, except one.
Finally, as part of our transparency commitment, you will know that the council has appointed an independent assurance panel. They will be providing their independent view of our progress on the improvement plan publicly to full council every six months, and the first update will be in December 2024, so please put that in your diary”.