Venue: Council Chamber, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB. View directions
Contact: James Dearling Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Apologies for Absence and Notification of Substitute Members
The Committee was advised of apologies from Councillors David Goodwin and Jenny Wicks. The Committee was advised of a substitute as detailed above.
The meeting was advised of a change in the Committee membership since the publication of the agenda, with Councillor Colin Cross joining and Councillor Richard Billington leaving.
Local Code of Conduct and Declaration of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests
In accordance with the 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 not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must 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.
Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.
There were no declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
To confirm the minutes of the Committee meetings held on 15 January 2019 and 6 February 2019.
The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings held on 15 January 2019 and 6 February 2019 were approved.
Lead Councillor Question Session
A question session with the Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Partnerships, Planning and Regeneration. Councillor Paul Spooner’s areas of responsibility:
Overarching responsibility for Strategic Vision, Partnerships, Planning Policy and Regeneration
o Political and Corporate Vision
o Delivery of Political Priorities
o Corporate Plan
o Economic Strategy
o Budget Strategy
o Human Resources
o Council Performance
o Planning Policy and Local Plan
o S106 and Community Infrastructure Levy
o Assets of Community Value
o Neighbourhood and Parish Plans
o Town Centre Master Plan
oSlyfield Area Regeneration Project
o North Street Partnership
o Bedford Wharf
o Spectrum Regeneration
o Heritage Strategy
o Rural Heritage
o Key Stakeholder Engagement
o Local Enterprise Partnerships
o Government Funding
o Local Government Association
o Guildford-Surrey Board
o Special Events and Competitions in the Borough
o Guildford Corporate Citizens Charter
o Honours Committee
Communications and Engagement:
o Liaison with Parish Councils and Residents’ Associations
o Media and Social Media
o Public Relations
o Web presence
The Chair welcomed the Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Strategic Vision, Partnerships, Planning Policy and Regeneration, and the Managing Director of the Council to the meeting.
Four question areas were provided to the Leader of the Council in advance of the meeting: regeneration, with particular reference to North Street; rough sleeping in the town; Spectrum 2.0; and the heritage strategy. In responding to these issues and other questions put at the meeting, a number of clarifications and responses were offered:
· Proposals for a majority retail-led scheme for North Street had been changed to a residential-led scheme, which was expected to be at a formal planning stage by October-November 2019. The Leader of the Council indicated that a viable scheme was expected to be shared with the Council within weeks. He informed the Committee that he could share outline information with interested Councillors.
· The Committee was reminded that the Council owned approximately 20 per cent of the land involved in the North Street scheme led by M&G, and the Council was not the majority landowner.
· The number of units within the scheme depended on the height of the development, varying between perhaps 500 units for 5-8 storeys and 800 units for up to 12 storeys.
· In some instances, the underlying issues behind the rough sleepers in the town could be complex.
· With reference to the proposed replacement of Guildford Spectrum Leisure Centre, the Leader of the Council confirmed that undertaking a feasibility study into the provision of a new facility was a Corporate Plan objective.
· A report on the replacement of Spectrum would be considered at the meeting of the Executive on 19 March. The Committee was informed that this report would expand on the work presented at the February Community Executive Advisory Board and compare a refurbishment of Spectrum with a new build Spectrum 2.0 and the impact of each on the community.
· The Committee was advised that a full refurbishment of Spectrum with no additional facilities was likely to be broadly similar in cost to a similar size new build. In addition, the Committee was informed that a new building would likely be less disruptive for users if it could be built on a different area of the site.
· The project to replace the Spectrum was in its early stages and more time would be spent evaluating options, including engagement with the market and public consultation. The Committee was advised that any implications of Brexit for the project to replace Spectrum would be assessed as for any other capital projects planned by the Council.
· The Leader of the Council indicated that there would be additional opportunities provided by a larger replacement leisure centre.
· In response to questioning, the Leader of the Council confirmed that the experience and learning of recent leisure centre developments elsewhere would be evaluated.
· With reference to the suggestion that Guildford’s heritage strategy could be improved with more involvement from community heritage partners and residents, the Leader of the Council ... view the full minutes text for item OS52
The Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Strategic Vision, Partnerships, Planning Policy and Regeneration introduced the item and congratulated the Policy and Partnerships Manager for progressing the initiative.
The Policy and Partnerships Manager summarised the progress with the establishment and development of the Guildford Community Lottery. He indicated that performance after 20 weeks of operation had exceeded the 52 week targets. Members questioned whether fresh 52 week targets would be introduced. In reply, the meeting was advised that results were heading towards the two year targets, but were expected to plateau.
The meeting was advised that the lottery was free for eligible organisations to join. In response to a question, the Policy and Partnerships Manager confirmed that schools were not eligible to join the lottery, but PTAs were as registered charities.
With reference to Table 4.4. within the report submitted to the Committee, the meeting was advised that the financial figures relating to 20 weeks showed a 52 week predicted figure based on income after 20 weeks.
The Chairman thanked the Leader of the Council and the Policy and Partnerships Manager for attending to provide an update.
The Chairman welcomed the Public Health Coordinator, Nick Moon from Applied Resilience, and the Lead Councillor for Licensing, Environmental Health, and Community Safety to the meeting. The meeting was advised that the Council contracts Applied Resilience to support its emergency planning service.
Nick Moon gave a presentation outlining the historical context and development of emergency planning, legislation relating to emergency planning, the Council’s responsibilities, key elements of an emergency response, and the role of Councillors. The presentation detailed the Council’s statutory duties and the role of the Borough Emergency Centre (BEC).
The Committee members were advised that an information pack on emergency planning was being produced for circulation to Councillors in late May.
In response to questions, the Lead Councillor for Licensing, Environmental Health, and Community Safety confirmed the importance of keeping local councillors informed of events and able to spread key messages. The Public Health Coordinator indicated that Councillor training on emergency planning would be held soon.
The Committee was informed of the role of Incident Liaison Officers (ILOs) and Emergency Assistance Centres (EACs). The Public Health Coordinator indicated that details of local EACs would be provided to Councillors.
Members asked about measures the Council and its partners had taken to identify vulnerable residents and the accessibility of such information if an emergency incident occurred. In reply, the Public Health Coordinator informed the Committee of links with adult social care at Surrey County Council. In addition, the Committee was advised of the Vulnerable People Reporting System for professionals working with vulnerable adults.
Committee members requested contact details for ILOs and additional information for Brexit-related incidents. In response, the Lead Councillor for Licensing, Environmental Health, and Community Safety suggested that Brexit would not cause shortages of food, fuel, and pharmaceutical products. He indicated that planning for the impact of Brexit was precautionary.
A member of the Committee questioned the location of the primary BEC and was advised that a different and more central site was being considered.
The value of Councillors being involved in an emergency planning simulation was suggested.
Members were advised that details of the contract with Applied Resilience were commercially confidential.
The Chairman summarised the discussion, noting that Councillors had requested further information. She thanked the Public Health Coordinator, Nick Moon from Applied Resilience, and the Lead Councillor for Licensing, Environmental Health, and Community Safety for attending the meeting.
The Lead Councillor for Community Health, Wellbeing and Project Aspire introduced the item. She advised the Committee of three proposed measures to embed health and wellbeing in the Council’s decision-making:
· Strategic leadership would be provided through a Board whose members would include the Managing Director, the Leader of the Council, the relevant Lead Councillor, the Director of Community Services, and the Community Wellbeing Manager.
· Delivery teams would be created within the Council and with partnership agencies (such as the NHS, faith groups, the voluntary sector, and adult social services), and would report to the Board.
· Health and wellbeing implications would be included explicitly in all Council reports.
Members questioned the lack of information about Project Aspire within the report and suggested this made it difficult to form a view about its aims, effectiveness, costs, coherence, and viability. In response, the Lead Councillor for Community Health, Wellbeing and Project Aspire advised that Project Aspire was not restricted to particular wards but was Borough-wide. The Community Wellbeing Manager suggested that Project Aspire was an identifiable brand that demonstrated the Council’s concern for the less advantaged. The meeting was advised that quantifying the outcomes of health and wellbeing interventions such as Project Aspire was difficult. The meeting was advised of events funded by Project Aspire.
The Committee indicated the need for further information on the costs of Project Aspire, the organisations involved and the number of people helped. In reply to questioning about ward councillors being informed of local Project Aspire events, the meeting was advised that monthly Project Aspire newsletters were being prepared for councillors.
Committee members suggested the value in defining the remit of the Health and Wellbeing Board and having a wider membership then proposed.
Committee members suggested there was a lack of evidence to substantiate statements within the report. In reply, the meeting was advised that the purpose of the report was to show the proposals to embed health and wellbeing in the Council’s decision-making.
Committee members noted that Project Aspire was central to the proposals to embed health and wellbeing and questioned how they could comment on the proposals to use the Project Aspire brand without greater information or knowledge and awareness of the Project. In response, the Community Wellbeing Manager suggested that Project Aspire was emblematic of the Council’s commitment to improve health and wellbeing across the Borough.
The meeting was advised that the purpose of the report was to set out the proposals for embedding health and wellbeing in the Council’s decision-making. The Director of Community Services indicated that a report detailing Project Aspire could be provided to the Committee, but informed the meeting that the remit of the proposed Health and Wellbeing Board was strategic and wider than Project Aspire.
The Chair thanked officers and the Lead Councillor for Community Health, Wellbeing and Project Aspire for attending.
RESOLVED: (I) That the Committee supports embedding health and wellbeing in the Council’s decision-making.
(II) That a report evaluating the Council’s Project Aspire be submitted to a subsequent ... view the full minutes text for item OS55
To agree the Overview and Scrutiny work programme.
The Committee considered a report setting out the Overview and Scrutiny work programme for 2019.
The Committee was updated on the special meeting arranged for 26 March to consider the final report of the Food Poverty task group.
In addition, the Committee noted the need to examine the Council’s support for care leavers under the age of 25 living in the Borough and make recommendations to the Executive [Council meeting, 26 February 2019, minute CO85 refers].
The Chair confirmed that the report of the Innovation Strategy Board’s Climate Change group would be considered by the Committee.