To hear questions (if any) from councillors of which due notice has been given.
Minutes:
(1) Councillor Steven Lee asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:
“Guildford has a huge and persistent problem with regular traffic jams and congestion. We were recently named the most congested town in England and the issue ranked as number one with our residents in a recent poll.
With the planned development for Guildford and its environs over the next ten to fifteen years, there is a unique window of opportunity to work with County Highways and Highways England to overhaul our road infrastructure and thereby reduce congestion as part of the framework of development.
Given this, can the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration and Housing Delivery tell us whether the planning department has considered creating a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to identify and safeguard potential future routes for new road infrastructure to alleviate traffic through Guildford - whether that be access points for a tunnel, a bypass route or any other practical option? If not, would they be willing to consider creating such an SPD?”
The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:
“The Council works with both Surrey County Council and Highways England, respectively the statutory highway authorities for local and strategic roads.
The now adopted Local Plan: Strategy and Sites was prepared with the active involvement of both Surrey County Council and Highways England (and its predecessor the Highways Agency) in the period from 2012. The Council worked with these and other partners to align their strategies and investments for transport with our forward planning of development patterns. As the Local Plan inspector noted in his report on the plan, the Council worked ‘through an extensive number of working groups and stakeholder meetings’ on transport matters (para 17).
It should be noted that specific requirements for junctions on the local and strategic road networks to be provided or have their capacity increased are set out in site allocation policies including for the strategic sites in the adopted Local Plan: Strategy and Sites. Highways England and Surrey County Council were statutory consultees for the public consultations on the draft versions of the plan, and their comments with respect to proposed changes to the local and strategic road networks were taken into account by Guildford Borough Council in the preparation of the plan.
Beyond those proposed changes to the local and strategic road networks described in the adopted plan, neither Highways England nor Surrey County Council requested, or has since made a request, that Guildford Borough Council further allocates or safeguards land for potential future routes for new public road infrastructure.
It is worth noting that, in agreement with Network Rail, the site allocation as Policy A7 Land west of Guildford railway station, was “allocated for a ‘Guildford platform capacity’ scheme involving additional platforms and layout changes at Guildford railway station as proposed in the Wessex Route Study”. Policy A28 allocates a site for a new rail station at Guildford West (Park Barn) on the North Downs Line adjacent to the Royal Surrey County Hospital.
In the statutory spatial planning arena, sites can only be allocated for new highway or transport infrastructure or safeguarded for potential future new highway or transport infrastructure through the preparation of a Local Plan (which is a Development Plan Document). This cannot be done through a Supplementary Planning Document. In a future review of the Local Plan, or preparation of a new Local Plan, it would be possible to explore whether further allocations or safeguarding for highway infrastructure can be justified at that time. This would need to be evidence based and be promoted/supported by the relevant highway authority.
Statutory highway authorities, including Highways England and Surrey County Council, also have bespoke statutory powers such as the power to prescribe improvement lines for widening public highways (under the Highways Act 1980 as modified) and Development Consent Orders (under the Planning Act 2008)”.
Councillor Jan Harwood
Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery
Arising from a supplementary question, which sought clarification as to whether the Lead Councillor agreed that increasing roads or tunnels would reduce urban congestion, the Lead Councillor confirmed that theoretically if there were more roads with the same number of cars there would be less congestion, but in respect of a viable approach to traffic issues, the answer was probably “no”.
(2) Councillor Tony Rooth asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, the following question:
The Leader of the Council’s response was as follows:
“While we do have a number of empty retail sites in the town, the most recent visitor numbers show an improvement from 2017, with 4.9 million tourism trips to the Borough with an improved overall spend of over £238.2 million and I believe we have worked hard to deliver an enhanced Visit Guildford brand through a new dedicated website and social media reach. The Tourist Information Centre also works hard to support town centre events and sells tickets for a number of key arts/cultural organisations. The retail sector everywhere has suffered and the issue of over inflated rents in this area will have to be addressed by the site owners or landlords. Of course, if a national chain folds then the store in Guildford will close even if it was successful. It should be noted that our independent stores have succeeded in bucking the trend.
A number of initiatives to support increased footfall have been undertaken and include:
· Five new specialist markets in the High Street this year (Vegan and antique markets) that have been really successful
· Events like Innovate Guildford and the Digital Games Festival have brought new visitors to Guildford
· We are currently discussing tailored walks with the town guides for local employers and we have sent over 100 welcome packs to local businesses that include tourism and events information covering the town centre.
· Specifically looking at the retail sector following our meeting with Experience Guildford we agreed to explore the opportunities for more training with retailers on e-commerce and digital marketing – a number of retailers have also benefited from GBC business grants. We are mapping the ownership of units to see if we can identify ways of influencing the institutional owners to be more proactive in promoting their shops and looking at whether we can put in temporary vinyls to improve the appearance of empty units and also look at opportunities for pop-up shops.
We could be proactive in promoting the Guildhall for Corporate use (businesses that attended business leaders’ dinners in the past have often asked about it). There is also an idea that the Guildhall or the Brewhouse could be used for music recitals. However, given both buildings are listed there may be additional costs incurred in being maintained as regular venues with health and safety considerations for this kind of use.
A few years ago, we set up a study group to look at the use of town centre venues, perhaps this should be reviewed through an Executive Advisory Board?”
Councillor Caroline Reeves
Leader of the Council
In response to a supplementary question, which sought the Leader’s view on
opening the Guildhall for greater use by the public, the Leader suggested that the use of town centre venues, including the Guildhall, should be reviewed through an Executive Advisory Board. The Leader also suggested that, as retail was not the only reason people visit Guildford, the Council should also be looking at promoting all the historical attractions in the town in order to attract a much broader group of visitors.
(3) Councillor John Redpath asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:
“This Council agreed unanimously in July that it wants to master plan the town centre appointing a best in class multi-disciplinary team of external experts to identify the best possible options for the town. The question about progress asked at the last council meeting received a noncommittal reply. After years of town centre deterioration and obfuscation on this subject it was assumed by many councillors the council motion required action now.
The challenges of congestion, pollution, accidents, inadequate housing delivery, missed environmental opportunities around the river and poor public realm require action.
l would like to ask will the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration and Housing Delivery confirm that he will instruct the Director of Planning and Regeneration to abide by this unanimous motion to appoint external best in class experts immediately in order to produce the best outcomes which can be identified and implemented by the most appropriate planning route?”
The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:
“The process described in the Council resolution [item CO29, 23 July 2019] has and is being progressed. In this regard, the Planning and Regeneration Department is driving this by:
(1) conducting stakeholder engagement toward developing a set of shared objectives for revitalising Guildford town centre (People and Places are appointed to assist the Council) and the draft report will be ready this month;
(2) reviewing previous work commissioned in relation to the Town Centre including previous masterplanning, with a view to informing the next steps and further work (David Lock and Associates are appointed to assist the Council). Again this initial work will be with GBC shortly; and
(3) submitting a funding bid to Council, which anticipates further work required to progress in line with the Council resolution. It is intended that this bid will be considered in February 2020 and be included in the budget for the next financial year”.
Councillor Jan Harwood
Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery
In response to a supplementary question, which asked the Lead Councillor to confirm whether he would instruct, or had instructed, the Director of Planning and Regeneration to appoint external best in class experts, the Lead Councillor confirmed that, from his written answer, he had set out to make the appointment.
(4) Councillor Deborah Seabrook asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, the following question:
“Residents are disappointed that the county council are not moving to Guildford, the county town. It feels like a missed opportunity.
I would like to ask the Leader of the Council:
(a) What efforts did the leadership make to persuade Surrey County Council to choose Guildford?
(b) What was the strategy and how and by whom was it agreed?
(c) Who led the bid team and what was its composition?
(d) Why was there no communication or consultation with the whole council about negotiations?
(e) Why was Woking chosen in preference to Guildford?
(f) What is the assessment (including but not limited to financial aspects) of the impact and lost opportunity for Guildford of SCC’s move to Woking?
(g) What has been learned and put into practice to ensure Guildford does not lose out on any future opportunities?”
The Leader of the Council’s response was as follows:
“As part of the ‘Moving Closer to Residents’ project launched by Surrey County Council (SCC) in late 2018, SCC initially advised borough and district (B&D) councils of its intention to move out of County Hall in Kingston into Surrey by the end of 2020. The programme for doing so is based on increasingly agile ways of working for most staff and the creation of a ‘Civic Heart’, based in the county, accommodating Councillors, (including Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee meetings), the Corporate Leadership Team, democratic services and aspects of other support services such as legal and finance services. The ‘Civic Heart’ was described at that stage as needing to be owned freehold by SCC and potentially comprising around 250 staff but only requiring 100 to 150 desks as staff would be working in increasingly agile ways. In order to identify a new location for the Civic Heart, SCC embarked upon a search exercise, focused on Guildford and Woking as preferred locations, in the following three stages:
(1) SCC contacted all B&D councils in the county to ask if any of them had any buildings within their asset portfolios that may be suitable for the ‘Civic Heart’,
(2) SCC employed two property agents to identify a building in Surrey to which a cohort of staff from County Hall, comprising those that work most closely in support of Members and the democratic procedures and processes of the Council (i.e. the Civic Heart) could be relocated to.
(3) SCC employed property agents to source a suitable building in Surrey large enough to provide the opportunity to move most staff from County Hall, and some other locations, into a single building.
A link to the SCC Cabinet papers for September and November detailing their ‘Closer to Residents’ project can be found on their website but for convenience the links are:
Other reports detailing the project can also be found on SCC’s website.
In late 2018, Guildford along with a number of other councils responded to SCC’s initial request with the details of a number of assets within our portfolio that we thought may be suitable, the list included Guildford Borough Council’s Millmead Offices. The reason for including the Millmead offices was that through our Future Guildford Programme and our own move towards more agile working, the Council does have over 100 desk spaces available within our own building that were offered to SCC. SCC holds its Council and Committee meetings during the day whereas GBC holds its meetings in the evening. Officers also understand that Guildford’s Council Chamber is the only Council chamber of the B&D councils in Surrey that is large enough to host a SCC full Council meeting. As such officers considered that there was significant opportunity for sharing office space between the two councils.
In response to specific questions.
(a) What efforts did the leadership make to persuade Surrey County Council to choose Guildford?
As SCC’s business case has progressed over the last 12 months, a number of meetings between officers of the two councils were held including meetings between Chief Executive / Managing Director, Directors, Property, Facilities and ICT staff. In addition, officers understand that informal conversations between the former Leader and Deputy Leader and SCC’s Leader and key members of the SCC Cabinet were also held. Guildford Officers also provided considerable information regarding the Millmead Offices to Surrey Officers and we understand a number of Surveys were undertaken at Millmead by SCC to help inform their business case. Since the May 2019 election, Officers have briefed the new Leader (GBC), Deputy Leader and Lead Councillor for Finance, Assets and Customer Service regarding the on-going discussions between the two councils about SCC sharing Guildford’s Millmead offices for the purposes of its Civic Heart.
In October 2019, we heard that SCC had identified a suitable building in Woking as the new Headquarters (HQ) for SCC. This coincided with our own situation where one of our commercial properties was now vacant and this was having a large financial impact on this Council. One of the options discussed internally at this Council was to look and see if there was scope for this council to move to that site and allow SCC to lease the Millmead site for their HQ. The MD approached SCC’s Chief Executive to gauge the level of interest there might be for SCC to lease the Millmead site, potentially fully furnished, and for us to move to our other building. SCC indicated they would wish to take freehold ownership of any building, so the proposal was revised to consider selling the freehold of the whole site to SCC, again potentially fully furnished. Please note that we had not worked up any acquisition costs or costs for us to move to another site at this time – these were simply early discussions. The SCC Council Leader and Chief Executive visited GBC offices, Managing Director and Leader in early October to again view the site. Clearly, we had not been through appropriate consultation exercises with our staff, councillors or public so could not make any decisions. We had simply wanted to test the possibilities of a proposal of this nature with a view to trying to secure the SCC HQ here at Guildford and addressing our financial challenge in relation to the other building. In view of some of the challenges raised by the whole site (e.g. Annex, partial acquisition, access, etc.) and SCC’s timeline for definitively settling matters which ran ahead of our own internal processes the proposal was not developed any further. SCC made an announcement regarding their move to Woking at the end of October 2019.
(b) What was the strategy and how and by whom was it agreed?
There was no formal strategy. Initial discussions were focussed around building a business case for SCC to share Guildford’s Millmead offices and civic suite. The reason this idea was pursued was to increase partnership/joint working, share costs of office accommodation and enable better utilisation of Council offices. Our indicative proposal in October 2019 was a reaction to hearing about the main HQ being at Woking and addressing our financial challenge with our commercial building.
(c) Who led the bid team and what was its composition?
There was no ‘bid team’ as SCC’s approach was not to invite bids but to collaboratively discuss options with B&D councils. Later in the process, SCC engaged two property agents to search the local market for suitable offices that were not already in public sector ownership. The Managing Director, Director of Finance, Facilities Manager and Corporate Property Manager were the staff most involved in discussions with SCC Chief Executive, Director of Transformation and Property Officers.
(d) Why was there no communication or consultation with the whole council about negotiations?
The former Council had previously agreed, as part of the savings proposals for its 2017-18 budget, to lease out spare office space within the Millmead offices to generate rental income. Under the Council’s Constitution, a decision to lease a part of the Council’s Millmead offices (or any of our property) is a decision that would be taken under Officer delegated authority by the Corporate Property Manager, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Finance, Assets and Customer Services. The Council already has a number of tenants within its Millmead offices and the decision to lease the vacant space to those tenants and on what terms is an operational decision.
That said, if it had become apparent that the option of sharing the Millmead offices with SCC was SCC’s preferred option then the Full Council would have been informed.
Also, the option discussed in October 2019 to potentially sell the Millmead site to SCC could only have proceeded with full consultation having taken place with staff, councillors and the public. As stated previously, aspects of the site and disposal, along with SCC’s timetable did not allow for this this option to be developed any further.
(e) Why was Woking chosen in preference to Guildford?
This is a matter for SCC and is set out in the SCC Cabinet report referenced (and link provided) above.
(f) What is the assessment (including but limited to financial aspects) of the impact and lost opportunity for Guildford of SCC’s move to Woking?
We have not carried out an assessment and do not feel it would be a valuable use of time or money to undertake one. The office space at Millmead is in the process of being leased to SCC for their ‘Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH)’ so it is not anticipated that there will be a loss of rental income Other office space at Millmead is also already leased to SCC for its Guildford Adult Social Care team and discussions are also on-going about SCC locating other teams at Millmead in the future subject to space availability.
(g) What has been learned and put into practice to ensure Guildford does not lose out on any future opportunities?
Joint working between the two councils continues as it has always done. Where opportunities to collaborate and share services or property arise Officers will continue to explore them. The fact that there is no available vacant office block large enough to accommodate SCC’s needs at a price it can afford in Guildford is somewhat outside of this Council’s control. However, the Council’s adopted local plan does make provision for the development of further employment space within the town centre.”
Councillor Caroline Reeves
Leader of the Council
In response to a supplementary question, the Leader confirmed that the key factor around the lack of consultation with councillors in respect of this matter was the lack of time allowed for the Council to go through a process of talking to Members and officers and working out how we would decant into a new building.