A question session with the Lead Councillor for Regeneration. Councillor John Rigg’s areas of responsibility:
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed the Lead Councillor for Regeneration and reminded the meeting of Councillor Rigg’s main areas of responsibility: the town centre master plan; infrastructure; major projects; and strategic asset management. The Chairman indicated that due to the number of questions likely and the length of the evening’s agenda it might be necessary to invite Councillor Rigg for a further question session in the summer. The Chairman advised the meeting that Councillor Rigg had requested to make an opening statement.
The Lead Councillor for Regeneration stated that he had two portfolios: major projects and regeneration. He confirmed that many questions from the Committee had been shared with him in advance of the meeting.
The Lead Councillor for Regeneration outlined the role and responsibilities of the Major Projects Portfolio Board. The meeting heard that the extensive requirements of the Board were not being met and as a consequence the Lead Councillor for Regeneration had formed six sub-programme boards to cover the detail of active projects; namely, Weyside, North Street, Ash Projects, the Town Centre Master Plan, Housing Development, and Other Projects.
The Lead Councillor for Regeneration stated that the Council’s Major Projects included Weyside Urban Village, Slyfield internal estate road, Guildford Council new Depot, the Town Centre Master Plan, the Sustainable Movement Corridor, the flood alleviation study, the Guildford West railway station and (soon also) Guildford East railway station, the Public Realm improvement, The Guildford Museum, the Walnut Bridge replacement, the town centre approaches, the A31/A331 and A323/A324 Hotspots project, the Ash Road Bridge project, Guildford Park housing scheme, Bright Hill, Blackwell farm, Guildford community bike share, Guildford Crematorium, and Millbrook Weir. The meeting heard that the Lead Councillor for Regeneration no longer had responsibility for the Spectrum project.
The Lead Councillor for Regeneration referred to his past difficulties obtaining key information on major projects. He suggested that the results of major projects undertaken by the Council had been mixed and identified a lack of relevant project experience within the Council together with a failure to obtain appropriate input from external experts. The Lead Councillor for Regeneration stated that he had to take advice from the Local Government Association and seek assistance from the Council’s solicitor to try and get access to project meetings taking place with external advisors. He informed the Committee that he had been unhappy with both the management and reporting of projects at the Council.
With reference to the North Street project, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration informed the Committee of a past lack of information available to him. He indicated that progress had been made on the North Street project in 2020 and that the Council would be updated shortly.
The Lead Councillor for Regeneration indicated that the Ash Road Bridge was an infrastructure project and suggested that as such it was the responsibility of Surrey County Council and should not have been embarked upon by the Council. The Committee heard about the Lead Councillor for Regeneration’s concerns with the project and he advised that that information on the Ash Road Bridge, including costs and funding, would be available to Councillors at the March 2021 meeting of the Executive. In addition, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration indicated he had concerns with other projects, including the Walnut Bridge, the Guildford Crematorium, and the Guildford Museum.
With reference to a review of the Council’s major projects, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration advised the meeting that a number of repeated shortcomings had been identified, including a lack of clear project mandates, absence of a robust business case, a want of appropriate expertise, no audit trail for decision-making, no strategic consensus, and no standardised methodology. In addition, he suggested this approach had led to an acceptance within the Council to approve increasing project costs.
The Lead Councillor for Regeneration suggested that many major infrastructure projects taken on by the Council should have been undertaken by Surrey County Council. While referring to the A31 Hotspots project, the Sustainable Movement Corridor, and Ash Road Bridge as examples of such projects, he indicated he supported their aims.
The Lead Councillor for Regeneration referred to the
Council’s new project governance and noted the importance of
appointing qualified and experienced project managers. He advised the meeting of the failure to deliver
the Guildford Park Road housing project.
The Lead Councillor for Regeneration outlined the challenges for
Guildford and its town centre and referred to the town centre
master plan project. He indicated that
in a few weeks’ time there would be presentations on progress
made to the Executive, full Council, and officers, and then
briefings to community and resident groups. The meeting was advised of the importance of
strategic asset management and the Council’s existing
landholdings to deliver projects.
The Chairman thanked the Lead Councillor for Regeneration for his statement and started with questions from Committee members.
In reply to a question about the working relationship with Surrey County Council (SCC), particularly, Surrey Highways, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration indicated that the relationship was developing. He informed the meeting that he was reluctant for the Council to take on further road projects.
The Lead Councillor for Regeneration advised the Committee of progress relating to the proposed Guildford East and Guildford West railway stations.
In response to questions, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration indicated that pulling together housing delivery would be a task for the Council’s new Director of Housing.
The meeting heard that there would be a series of three consultations on the North Street redevelopment prior to final submission by the developer. The Lead Councillor for Regeneration indicated that a similar consultation process would be followed for the St Mary’s Wharf site.
In response to a question on the progress of the Sustainable Movement Corridor project, the Lead Councillor for Regeneration indicated that the University of Surrey had not confirmed its agreement to the current phase of the project. He advised the meeting that funding for the current phase was in place and indicated that a ransom strip relating to the University’s development of Blackwell Farm was a separate issue.
The Chairman thanked the Lead Councillor for Regeneration for his attendance and statement.