Agenda, decisions and minutes

Executive
Tuesday, 24th January, 2017 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB. View directions

Contact: John Armstrong, Democratic Services Manager. Tel: 01483 444102  Email: john.armstrong@guildford.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

EX63

Apologies for Absence

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were submitted by Councillor Richard Billington.

 

EX64

Local Code of Conduct - Disclosable Pecuniary Interest

In accordance with the revised local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must notparticipate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

 

If that DPI has not been registered, the councillor must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

There were no disclosures of interest.

 

EX65

Minutes pdf icon PDF 227 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 3 January 2017.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Executive approved the minutes of the meeting held on 3 January 2017.  The Chairman signed the minutes.

 

EX66

Guildford Town Centre Regeneration Strategy pdf icon PDF 168 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Decision:

 

(1)     That authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and Regeneration, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any minor amendments or corrections as may be necessary to the wording of the draft Town Centre Regeneration Strategy.

 

(2)     That, subject to (1) above, the Guildford Town Centre Regeneration Strategy be approved, together with  the associated regeneration work programme, as setting the overarching strategic objectives for the ongoing work of the Major Projects Team, who will, where appropriate, present proposals in a manner that is compatible with the Local Plan and planning requirements.

 

(3)     That the Guildford Town Centre Regeneration Strategy be published and communicated with key town centre stakeholders, businesses, and residents.

 

Reasons for Decision:

 

·        To ensure the work of the Major Projects Team is taken forward in a strategic manner to enable the town to develop in a structured way to provide housing, commercial, retail and leisure opportunities with first class public realm and transport.

 

·        To demonstrate the Council’s commitment to delivering meaningful change and significant improvements within the town.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

To not adopt the Strategy and to let the existing and emerging Local Plans and planning policy be the main focus and guide for the work of the Major Projects delivery team on the basis of the planning weight that can be afforded to the relevant allocations and policies.

 

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Planning and Regeneration introduced the report. The Executive was advised that the proposed Strategy would not form part of the Development Plan for the Borough or carry any material planning weight.  It was an aspirational document, not a planning document.  The Strategy did, however, provide a narrative on several bids the Capital Programme.  It was intended that the Strategy and the work programme would be sufficiently flexible to adapt over time to take account of new opportunities, external pressures, physical constraints, and corporate priorities.

 

The meeting heard that whilst the Leader took pride in presenting the Strategy and commended the officers for their work, it was important for the Council to engage in consultation and dialogue with the public and key stakeholders with regard to the regeneration of the town centre.

 

In accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rule 3(b)(ii), Mr Julian Lyon (Chairman of the Guildford Society) addressed the meeting and set out the response of the Guildford Society and its various working groups to the Strategy. The stakeholder consultations were welcomed. There were some concerns raised regarding piecemeal development and the extent of the proposed retail presence in the town. It was noted that there would also need to be more residential units in the town centre. Overall, the Council was encouraged to be bold, to encourage modal shift, seek to remove traffic from the town centre and to make Guildford a Smart Town.

 

Non-Executive councillors present welcomed and endorsed the Strategy. The Executive was advised that any Smart Town technology implemented should be sufficiently flexible to respond to change and developments during the coming years.

 

The meeting heard that flexibility would be key in terms of the Smart Town technology and the new units that were currently earmarked for retail. The Strategy was intended to be a ’living document’ that would adapt over time to meet future needs, trends and demands. It was noted that the Strategy was an aspirational piece of work and was neither a planning document nor intended be a part of the Local Plan.

 

Having considered the report and the Strategy, the Executive

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)     That authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and Regeneration, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any minor amendments or corrections as may be necessary to the wording of the draft Town Centre Regeneration Strategy.

 

(2)     That, subject to (1) above, the Guildford Town Centre Regeneration Strategy be approved, together with  the associated regeneration work programme, as setting the overarching strategic objectives for the ongoing work of the Major Projects Team, who will, where appropriate, present proposals in a manner that is compatible with the Local Plan and planning requirements.

 

(3)     That the Guildford Town Centre Regeneration Strategy be published and communicated with key town centre stakeholders, businesses, and residents.

 

Reasons for Decision:

 

·        To ensure the work of the Major Projects Team is taken forward in a strategic manner to enable the  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX66

EX67

Parking Business Plan 2017-2020 pdf icon PDF 131 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Decision:

 

(1)     That the daytime tariff in the car parks referred to in paragraph 7.10 and 7.11 of Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive be increased from £1.20 to £1.30 per hour on Monday to Saturday between 8am and 6pm.        

 

(2)     That the cost of season tickets in York Road, Farnham Road and Bedford Road Multi Storey Car Parks, as described in paragraph 7.15 of Appendix 1 to the report be increased by 3%.

 

(3)     That garage charges be increased by 3%, as detailed in paragraph 7.17 of Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(4)     That charges for contract parking be increased by 3%, as described in paragraphs 7.20 and 7.21 of Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(5)     That the contribution to the Car Park Maintenance Reserve in 2017-18 be reduced by £100,000 as explained in paragraphs 7.24 to 7.26 of Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(6)     That the £49,103 share of the surplus from on-street parking in Waverley Borough be placed in a reserve to help meet future costs of park and ride, as described in paragraph 8.8 of Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(7)     That the Director of Environment be authorised to implement the tariff changes in car parks including placing notices and notifying the public.

 

Reason for Decision:

To meet Guildford Borough Council’s strategic aims for the parking service and to ensure efficient service delivery and value for money.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

 

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

 

Minutes:

The Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance introduced the report and the Business Plan. The meeting heard that the Business Plan should be read together with the Parking Strategy that had previously been approved by the Executive. The Plan had been circulated to the Guildford Local Committee and the Transportation Task Group for consultation and comment.

 

Councillors were reminded that surplus revenue generated from on street parking was reinvested into the Park and Ride services. Guildford car parks were part of the Safer Parking scheme and revenue was used to maintain this standard of safety.

 

Opposition Group Leaders and other councillors present welcomed the report. It was queried if the Park and Ride service could be run on a Sunday as there was a problem of visitors to the town centre parking in residential streets. The Council was in discussion with Surrey County Council regarding a new contract for the Park and Ride services and it was hoped a number of new improvements could shortly be announced.

 

It was noted that the Council had a low rental charge for garage space in comparison with private sector rates. It was further noted that many of those garages would be earmarked for housing development in any case.

 

Having considered the report, the Executive

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)     That the daytime tariff in the car parks referred to in paragraph 7.10 and 7.11 of Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive be increased from £1.20 to £1.30 per hour on Monday to Saturday between 8am and 6pm.        

 

(2)     That the cost of season tickets in York Road, Farnham Road and Bedford Road Multi Storey Car Parks, as described in paragraph 7.15 of Appendix 1 to the report be increased by 3%.

 

(3)     That garage charges be increased by 3%, as detailed in paragraph 7.17 of Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(4)     That charges for contract parking be increased by 3%, as described in paragraphs 7.20 and 7.21 of Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(5)     That the contribution to the Car Park Maintenance Reserve in 2017-18 be reduced by £100,000 as explained in paragraphs 7.24 to 7.26 of Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(6)     That the £49,103 share of the surplus from on-street parking in Waverley Borough be placed in a reserve to help meet future costs of park and ride, as described in paragraph 8.8 of Appendix 1 to the report.

 

(7)     That the Director of Environment be authorised to implement the tariff changes in car parks including placing notices and notifying the public.

 

Reason for Decision:

To meet Guildford Borough Council’s strategic aims for the parking service and to ensure efficient service delivery and value for money.

 

EX68

General Fund Capital Programme (2017-18 to 2021-22) pdf icon PDF 278 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Recommend (to Council: 8 February 2017):

 

(1)         That the Council approves the General Fund Capital Estimates, as shown in:

 

(a)     Appendices 3 and 4 to the report submitted to the Executive (current approved and provisional schemes), as amended to include the new bids set out in Appendix 1 to that report,

(b)     Appendix 6 (schemes funded from reserves)

(c)     Appendix 7 (s106 schemes), and

(d)     Appendix 8(General Fund Housing Capital Schemes),

 

(2)         That the Minimum Revenue Provision policy, as detailed in the report to the Executive, be approved.

 

(3)         That the Prudential Indicators and limits for 2017-18 to 2021-22, as detailed in the report to the Executive, be approved.

 

Decision:

 

That, subject to the Council approving the budget on 8 February 2017,

 

(1)   the new capital proposals listed as items 1 and 2 in Appendix 1to the report submitted to the Executive be added to the General Fund Capital Programme approved list and the relevant officer be authorised to implement the schemes;

 

(2)   the new capital proposals listed as items 32 and 33 in Appendix 1 to the report be added to the General Fund Capital Programme approved list, funded by reserves, and the relevant officer be authorised to implement the schemes;

 

(3)   the new capital proposals listed as items 3 to 31 in Appendix 1, to the report be added to the General Fund Capital Programme provisional list, and that these schemes, subject to the limits in Financial Procedure Rules, be subject to a further report to the Executive, before being progressed; and

 

(4)   the revenue implications of the new capital schemes referred to in recommendations (1) and (2) above be implemented in the relevant years stated in the bids.

 

Reason for Recommendation/Decision:

To enable the Council, at its budget meeting on 8 February 2017, to approve the funding required for the new capital investment proposals.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

 

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

 

 

Minutes:

The Lead Councillor for Finance introduced the report which set out the position of the current capital programme and the new capital expenditure proposals for the period. The report was a high level profile of the capital programme accompanied by capital project bids. The meeting heard that there would be no policy changes proposed and it was a prudent capital programme. The Council had an ambitious Corporate Plan and to achieve some parts of it there would be a need for capital investment.

 

In response to some concern regarding the overall level of borrowing from non-Executive members, the Managing Director informed the meeting that this was a provisional programme. Individual bids would come back before the Executive again in due course. This report was an annual opportunity to set out all provisional bids together and to look forward to the future.

 

The report was welcomed by Executive members. The impact of the lack of affordable housing in the town, especially for key workers, affecting local services, business and industry was noted.

 

It was explained that the Slyfield Area Regeneration Plan would hopefully provide at least 1,000 new homes, but there was an expectation that this could increase to 1,500.

 

Having considered the report, the Executive

 

RECOMMEND:

 

(1)         That the Council approves the General Fund Capital Estimates, as shown in:

 

(a)     Appendices 3 and 4 to the report submitted to the Executive (current approved and provisional schemes), as amended to include the new bids set out in Appendix 1 to that report,

(b)     Appendix 6 (schemes funded from reserves)

(c)     Appendix 7 (s106 schemes), and

(d)     Appendix 8(General Fund Housing Capital Schemes),

 

(2)         That the Minimum Revenue Provision policy, as detailed in the report to the Executive, be approved.

 

(3)         That the Prudential Indicators and limits for 2017-18 to 2021-22, as detailed in the report to the Executive, be approved.

 

The Executive further

 

RESOLVED:

 

That, subject to the Council approving the budget on 8 February 2017,

 

(1)   the new capital proposals listed as items 1 and 2 in Appendix 1to the report submitted to the Executive be added to the General Fund Capital Programme approved list and the relevant officer be authorised to implement the schemes;

 

(2)   the new capital proposals listed as items 32 and 33 in Appendix 1 to the report be added to the General Fund Capital Programme approved list, funded by reserves, and the relevant officer be authorised to implement the schemes;

 

(3)   the new capital proposals listed as items 3 to 31 in Appendix 1, to the report be added to the General Fund Capital Programme provisional list, and that these schemes, subject to the limits in Financial Procedure Rules, be subject to a further report to the Executive, before being progressed; and

 

(4)   the revenue implications of the new capital schemes referred to in recommendations (1) and (2) above be implemented in the relevant years stated in the bids.

 

Reason for Recommendation/Decision:

To enable the Council, at its budget  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX68

EX69

Treasury Management Annual Strategy Report 2017-18 and Prudential Indicators 2017-18 to 2021-22 pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Recommend (to Council: 8 February 2017):

 

That the Treasury Management Strategy for 2017-18, contained within Appendix 1 of the report submitted to the Executive, be approved, specifically:

 

(a)     the investment strategy contained within Appendix 1, section 4

(b)     the treasury prudential indicators and limits for 2017-18 to 2021-22 contained within Appendix 1, of the report.

 

Reason for Recommendation:

To enable the Council to approve the treasury management strategy statement, the annual investment strategy and the treasury and prudential indicators for 2017-18 to 2021-22.

 

Minutes:

The Lead Councillor for Finance introduced the report and explained that the Council had a duty to produce an annual Treasury Management Statement, prudential indicators and an investment strategy to support its investment decisions. The report set out the policy and strategic parameters applied to the Council’s borrowing and treasury position. There were no key changes from the 2016-17 report and the Council remained in a strong financial position.

 

The Executive noted current uncertain influences on the global financial markets and  acknowledged that whilst there were risks involved in financial investments it was up to councillors and officers to seek to minimise those risks to the Council.

 

Having considered the report, the Executive

 

RECOMMEND:

 

That the Treasury Management Strategy for 2017-18, contained within Appendix 1 of the report submitted to the Executive, be approved, specifically:

 

(a)    the investment strategy contained within Appendix 1, section 4; and

(b)    the treasury prudential indicators and limits for 2017-18 to 2021-22 contained within Appendix 1, of the report.

 

Reason for Recommendation:

To enable the Council to approve the treasury management strategy statement, the annual investment strategy and the treasury and prudential indicators for 2017-18 to 2021-22.

 

EX70

Housing Revenue Account Estimates 2017-18 pdf icon PDF 911 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Recommend (to Council: 8 February 2017):

 

(1)   That the HRA revenue budget for 2017-18, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

 

(2)   That the 1% rent reduction set out in the Welfare Reform and Work Act be implemented.

 

(3)   That the fees and charges for HRA services, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report, be approved.

 

(4)   That a 3% increase in garage rents be approved.

 

(5)   That the Housing investment programme as set out in Appendix 5 to the report (current approved and provisional schemes), as amended to include the new bids referred to in the report, be approved.

 

Decision:

 

Subject to Council approving the budget on 8 February 2017:

 

(1)   That the projects forming the HRA major repair and improvement programme, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

 

(2)   That the new capital proposals in respect of the new build schemes at Ladymead and the feasibility element of the Bright Hill scheme, as set out in Appendix 4 to the report, be added to the Housing Investment approved programme, and that the Director of Community Services be authorised to implement the schemes.

 

(3)   That the new capital proposals in respect of the new build scheme at Slyfield, the element of the Bright Hill scheme not transferred to the approved scheme list, and recladding works to Mount Court and Bishops Court, as set out in Appendix 4 to the report, be added to the Housing Investment provisional programme.

 

(4)   That the new build scheme at the former Apple Tree Pub site be transferred from the provisional scheme list to the approved programme.

 

(5)   That the equity share repurchase and cash incentive schemes, as set out in Appendix 5 to the report, be approved.

 

(6)   That the Director of Community Services be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Housing and Social Welfare, to reallocate funding between approved schemes to make best use of the available resources.

 

(7)   That the Head of Financial Services be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Housing and Social Welfare and Lead Councillor for Finance, to transfer to reserves the sums included in the proposed budget at Appendix 1 to the report, plus any additional transfers to or from reserves arising from variations in planned expenditure. 

 

Reasons for Recommendation/Decision:

To enable the Council to set the rent change for HRA property and associated fees and charges, along with authorising the necessary revenue and capital expenditure to implement a budget which is consistent with the objectives outlined in the HRA Business Plan approved by the Executive on 25 November 2014.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

 

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

 

Minutes:

The Lead Councillor for Housing and Social Welfare introduced the report, which set out the position statement on the 2017-18 draft Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget and made recommendations to the Executive and Council on both the HRA revenue and capital programme budget.

 

The meeting heard that there was uncertainty around the Government’s social housing policy illustrated by recent decisions and the delay of the promised white paper. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the Act) had proposed the ‘Pay to Stay’ scheme, which had now been abandoned. The Act had also proposed the enforced sale of the most valuable of the Council’s housing stock. This scheme could mean the sale of 50% of the Council’s housing stock and seriously threaten the viability of the HRA and the Council’s ability to provide new social housing. However, the Department for Communities and Local Government had announced there would be no levy raised for 2017-18.

 

It was still necessary to provide a workable budget for the HRA despite the uncertainties outlined above. A Government enforced reduction of 1% for all social housing tenants would increase pressure on budgets. The recent budget announcements from Surrey County Council could indicate a reduction or withdrawal of the Supporting People grant. The proposed investment in maintenance was less than previous years to match budgetary pressure, but there was consideration of a significant investment in two blocks of flats in the town centre to address ongoing maintenance issues.

 

It was noted that Guildford was one of the most expensive towns in the country in which to live and there was a serious need for more one, two and three bedroom properties to meet demand. There were over 2,600 people on the housing register.

 

Having considered the report, the Executive

 

RECOMMEND:

 

(1)        That the HRA revenue budget for 2017-18, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

 

(2)        That the 1% rent reduction set out in the Welfare Reform and Work Act be implemented.

 

(3)        That the fees and charges for HRA services, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report, be approved.

 

(4)        That a 3% increase in garage rents be approved.

 

(5)        That the Housing investment programme as set out in Appendix 5 to the report (current approved and provisional schemes), as amended to include the new bids referred to in the report, be approved.

 

The Executive further

 

RESOLVED:

 

Subject to Council approving the budget on 8 February 2017:

 

(1)        That the projects forming the HRA major repair and improvement programme, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

 

(2)        That the new capital proposals in respect of the new build schemes at Ladymead and the feasibility element of the Bright Hill scheme, as set out in Appendix 4 to the report, be added to the Housing Investment approved programme, and that the Director of Community Services be authorised to implement the schemes.

 

(3)        That the  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX70

EX71

Business Planning - General Fund Budget 2017-18 pdf icon PDF 310 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Decision

 

(1)         That a supplementary estimate of £380,000 for the planning appeal costs in relation to the Howard of Effingham School, Wisley Airfield and Guildford Railway Station, to be financed from the budget pressures reserve, be approved.

 

(2)         That the unspent balance on the masterplan reserve of £134,000 be transferred to the 2016-17 major projects team budget to finance ongoing work in relation to the scoping and feasibility assessment of projects that have arisen following the Allies and Morrison town centre masterplan.

 

(3)         That the transfer to reserves of the sums included in the proposed budget at Appendix 3 to the report submitted to the Executive, plus any additional transfers to or from reserves set out in section 10 of the report, be approved.

 

Recommend (to Council 8 February 2017):

 

(1)         That the proposed fees and charges for 2017-18 relating to General Fund services, and attached at Appendix 5 to the report submitted to the Executive be adopted with effect from 1 April 2017.

 

(2)         That the budget be approved, and specifically that the Council Tax requirement (excluding parish precepts) for 2017-18 be set at £9,164,601.

 

(3)         That the Band D Council Tax for 2017-18 (excluding parish precepts) be set at £161.82, an increase of £5 (3.19%).

 

Reason for Recommendation:

To enable the Council to set the Council Tax requirement and council tax for the 2017-18 financial year. 

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

 

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

 

 

Minutes:

The Lead Councillor for Finance introduced the report, which set out a proposed balanced budget for 2017-18. The report set out all of the implications for the General Fund capital programme, the Treasury Management Annual Strategy and the Parking Business Plan, which had been consideredearlier in the meeting.

 

Government changes imposed on funding arrangements including the reduction of the Settlement Funding Assessment by 19.25% for the coming year and the new requirement to achieve 0.4% growth in order to receive the New Homes Bonus was noted. The Government’s control over the Council’s ability to raise funding by assuming a level of income from business rates and Council Tax increases was a concern.  However, the Council maintained healthy reserves, had made significant savings through efficiency programmes and had robust systems in pace to monitor its budget. The budgetary pressures for Surrey County Council were highlighted as a significant concern to the Council. It was suggested that the changes to welfare, including the roll out of Universal Credit, could also have a negative impact on the Council’s work with vulnerable residents.

 

Having considered the report, the Executive

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)       That a supplementary estimate of £380,000 for the planning appeal costs in relation to the Howard of Effingham School, Wisley Airfield and Guildford Railway Station, to be financed from the budget pressures reserve, be approved.

 

(2)       That the unspent balance on the masterplan reserve of £134,000 be transferred to the 2016-17 major projects team budget to finance ongoing work in relation to the scoping and feasibility assessment of projects that have arisen following the Allies and Morrison town centre masterplan.

 

(3)       That the transfer to reserves of the sums included in the proposed budget at Appendix 3 to the report submitted to the Executive, plus any additional transfers to or from reserves set out in section 10 of the report, be approved.

 

The Executive further

 

RECOMMEND:

 

(1)       That the proposed fees and charges for 2017-18 relating to General Fund services, and attached at Appendix 5 to the report submitted to the Executive be adopted with effect from 1 April 2017.

 

(2)       That the budget be approved, and specifically that the Council Tax requirement (excluding parish precepts) for 2017-18 be set at £9,164,601.

 

(3)       That the Band D Council Tax for 2017-18 (excluding parish precepts) be set at £161.82, an increase of £5 (3.19%).

 

Reason for Decision/Recommendation:

To enable the Council to set the Council Tax requirement and council tax for the 2017-18 financial year. 

 

EX72

Review of Air Quality Monitoring - Report and recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee pdf icon PDF 256 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Decision:

 

(1)         That the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group and the recommendations submitted by Overview and Scrutiny Committee, be noted.

 

(2)         That the Executive notes that the Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance, in consultation with group leaders, will establish an executive working group to take forward the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in the context of the officer comments in the report of the Head of Health and Community Care Services, with the objective of improving air quality.

 

(3)         That the working group be requested to submit a report to Overview and Scrutiny Committee on its progress within 12 months.

 

(4)         That the sum of £10,700 be included in the draft general fund budget for 2017-18 in respect of the measures referred to in paragraph 6.1 of the report. 

 

Reason for Decision:

To respond to the evolving issues of air quality within the Borough.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

 

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance introduced the report which set out the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Committee following an in-depth investigation by an O&S Task and Finish Group.  The Lead Councillor thanked the Task and Finish Group for their hard work and indicated that it was the right time to conduct a review of this matter and the findings provided a firm basis for the Council to move forward. Attention was drawn to the copy slides Improving air quality in Surrey: working in partnership to reduce and control air pollution”, which were circulated with the Supplementary Information sheets at the meeting.  The slides had been presented to the O&S Committee in November 2016 by Elaine Walker, Public Health Lead, Surrey County Council, to inform that Committee’s deliberations and to clarify the evidence on the health impacts and costs of air pollution.

 

Funding for monitoring equipment would be taken from the reserve for the coming year and would be included in the General Fund from next year.

 

The chairman of the O&S Committee drew attention to the Government’s request for local authorities to address the matter of air quality, particularly over recent days due to weather conditions. The report to the Executive was authoritative, in-depth and evidence-based. Air pollution was described as a significant public health risk with consequential impacts for services. The Task and Finish Group had not looked at mitigation, which was a more complex task, but had decided to await the response of the Executive to the report and recommendations submitted. The chairman of the O&S Committee expressed disappointment that the Executive recommendation was for a Working Group to take forward the rest of the work rather than allow the Task and Finish Group to take this matter forward, as set out in Recommendation 7 of the O&S report.

 

The chairman of the Task and Finish Group welcomed the planned actions but considered that the Council’s strategy should go beyond this.

 

The Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance agreed that this was a serious issue, but felt a cross-party Executive working group was the correct way forward. It was noted that some councillors who had served on the Task and Finish Group would also sit on the new working group.

 

The Executive discussion acknowledged that there was an overlap for the Climate Change team which would be developed within the work programme for the Executive Advisory Boards.

 

Having considered the report and the associated recommendations, the Executive

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)       That the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group and the recommendations submitted by Overview and Scrutiny Committee, be noted.

 

(2)       That the Executive notes that the Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance, in consultation with group leaders, will establish an executive working group to take forward the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in the context of the officer comments in the report of the Head of Health and Community  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX72

EX73

Land comprising Tyting Farm Buildings - Appropriation for planning purposes pdf icon PDF 213 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Decision:

 

That the Executive:

 

(1)   agrees, in principle, that it is no longer necessary to hold the land comprising Tyting Farm buildings for the purposes for which it is currently held, and is therefore minded to appropriate the land for planning purposes as defined by section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and

 

(2)   authorises the Director of Community Services:

 

(a)   to advertise in a local newspaper the Council’s intention to appropriate the land, on a non-statutory basis, for planning purposes; and

 

(b)   in the event that no objections are received, to formalise the appropriation of  the land for such purposes

 

Reason for Decision:

To ensure that any future development and use of the land is not fettered by existing restrictive covenants, or other rights, affecting the land.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

 

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Lead Councillor for Asset Management introduced the report.  The meeting heard that the farm was no longer economically viable and the farm buildings were in a run down and dilapidated state, which appear suitable for conversion into dwellings.

 

Councillors were pleased to agree a resolution to the future of the site, which had been under discussion for many years.  Having considered the report, the Executive

 

RESOLVED:  That the Executive agrees:

 

(1)  that, in principle, it is no longer necessary to hold the land comprising Tyting Farm buildings for the purposes for which it is currently held, and is therefore minded to appropriate the land for planning purposes as defined by section 246(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and

 

(2)  to authorise the Director of Community Services:

 

(a)  to advertise in a local newspaper the Council’s intention to appropriate the land, on a non-statutory basis, for planning purposes; and

 

(b)  in the event that no objections are received, to formalise the appropriation of  the land for such purposes

 

Reason for Decision:

To ensure that any future development and use of the land is not fettered by existing restrictive covenants, or other rights, affecting the land.

 

EX74

Asset of Community Value nomination: Three Farms Meadow, Ockham (also known as Wisley Airfield) pdf icon PDF 248 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Decision:

 

That the Executive refuses the nomination and determines that the property referred to as Three Farms Meadow, Ockham, should not be added to the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value.

 

Reasons for Decision:

The application has not demonstrated an actual current or recent use of the building or other land that is not an ancillary use that furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community presently or in the recent past as prescribed in Section 88(1) of the Localism Act 2011.

 

In particular:

 

a)     There is no use of the Property as a whole that furthers the social wellbeing or interests. The local authority is to examine only the land, which has been identified by the applicant in the Nomination Form and is not to consider whether only part of the nominated land qualifies as land of community value.

 

On page 7 of the nomination form, the applicant sets out how the nominated land is used. It states that the majority of the Property (70%) is used for agriculture. This use cannot be said to further the social interests of the community because it is a private business, which does not operate for the benefit of the community as a whole.

 

b)     In addition, the application refers to the Property being used by members of the public through the Public Rights of Ways (PROWS). These PROWS do not cover the Property in its entirety and so the Property as a whole cannot be said to be in use for that purpose. The use of PROWS for walking and other recreational purposes is, in any event, considered to be subordinate/ancillary to the main use of the nominated land.

 

Further, whilst PROWS are not expressly excluded from the definition of community uses, it is officers’ view that Parliament cannot have intended for them to benefit from the protection offered by the listing process in circumstances where there are existing statutory schemes that ensure the public’s involvement where the diversion or extinguishment of existing PROWS is proposed.

 

c)     The application also submits that the site affords sightings of wildlife etc. It is officers’ view that the amenity afforded to users of the PROWS when looking over the remainder of the land is not a physical and actual use of the Property.

 

d)     The other reasons submitted on the nomination form such as identity and safeguarding are also not actual uses of the land but instead reasons why the applicant wishes the land to be run by the community. It seems the only material use of the land by the community is its use of the PROWS and, for the reasons set out above, this is not considered to satisfy the criteria for nomination.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

 

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance introduced the report. A nomination had been received by the Council to designate the property in question to be added to the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value. The Lead Councillor agreed with the recommendation that the property did not meet the statutory test in order for it to be added to the List.

 

In accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rule 3(b)(ii), Mr Charles Collins (Savills, on behalf of the landowner Wisley Property Investments) addressed the meeting. Mr Collins spoke in favour of the recommendation and said that the nomination did not meet the statutory tests required. The airfield area of the site was described as derelict, the majority of the rest of the site was privately farmed and there was no public access for vehicles. There was no public access to the land apart from the public rights of ways (PROWS). The existence of PROWS did not satisfy the statutory criteria for nomination to the List. The site was not of local community value in the ways in which the statutory test must be applied and measured.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman and in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rule 3(f), Mr Ben Paton addressed the meeting. Mr Paton had lived near the land for many years and disagreed with the recommendations in the committee report. Mr Paton drew attention to the response from the local ward councillor set out in the report, which identified the ways in which the statutory tests were, in his view, fulfilled. Mr Paton commented that the use of the property included farming and that criteria suggested a community use.

 

Having considered the report, the Executive 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the nomination for the property referred to as Three Farms Meadow, Ockham, to be added to the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value be refused .

 

Reasons for Decision:

The application has not demonstrated an actual current or recent use of the building or other land that is not an ancillary use that furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community presently or in the recent past as prescribed in Section 88(1) of the Localism Act 2011.

 

In particular:

 

a)    There is no use of the Property as a whole that furthers the social wellbeing or interests. The local authority is to examine only the land, which has been identified by the applicant in the Nomination Form and is not to consider whether only part of the nominated land qualifies as land of community value.

 

On page 7 of the nomination form, the applicant sets out how the nominated land is used. It states that the majority of the Property (70%) is used for agriculture. This use cannot be said to further the social interests of the community because it is a private business, which does not operate for the benefit of the community as a whole.

 

b)    In addition, the application refers to the Property being used  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX74