Agenda and minutes

22.1     The Mayor, Cllr Penny Marriott, welcomed Members and members of the public to the Council meeting, and introduced the Officers present: the Chief Executive, Tom Horwood; Strategic Directors, Graeme Clark and Annie Righton; Head of Policy & Governance, Robin Taylor; and Borough Solicitor, Daniel Bainbridge.

22.2     The Mayor reminded Members of the protocols for Zoom meetings, and on her recommendation Council RESOLVED to suspend Procedure Rule 21.1, the requirement fro Members to stand to speak.

To confirm the Minutes of the Annual Council meeting held on 9 June 2020 (herewith).

The Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 9 June 2020 were confirmed.

The Mayor to report apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Brian Adams, Michaela Gray, Chris Howard and Kika Mirylees.

To receive from Members, declarations of interest in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting in accordance with the Waverley Code of Local Government Conduct.

There were no interests declared under this heading.

25.1     The Mayor reported that it had been a very quiet month in terms of Mayoral engagements, but she had been able to attend the Council Offices to raise the flag for Armed Forces Day in June, when she had been accompanied by Chief Petty Officer Gemma Muggeridge from the Farnham Sea Cadets, one of Mayor’s charities for 2020/21.

25.2     The Mayor thanked Rabbi Jonathan Romain for leading the prayers before the start of the meeting, and advised that she would be inviting a different faith representative to take that role for each Council meeting, covering all faiths and denominations.

25.3     Finally, the Mayor had enjoyed a virtual tea party with the Town Mayors of Farnham, Godalming and Haslemere, and the Chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council, and had been impressed with the huge amount of work the towns and parishes had achieved in mobilising and helping to coordinate their community response to the Covid pandemic. And, she had had taken part in a congratulatory meeting, via Zoom, for the street champions in Cranleigh who had been so important to the local response in their village.

26.1     The Leader noted that there would be a discussion abut recent developments in relation to unitary councils later in the meeting, and he would not pre-empt that, but thanked Members for the cross-party co-operation that had enabled the late Motion to be added to the agenda.

26.2     The Leader also advised Members that since appointing a Portfolio Holder with responsibility for Dunsfold Park the arrangement for the Strategic Governance Board and the Advisory Group had been reviewed and updated, and would be circulated to Members imminently. He expected that this work stream would start to move forward in the near future.

The Leader then invited the Executive Portfolio Holders to give brief updates on current issues:

26.3     Cllr Mark Merryweather, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Assets and Commercial Services:

·         Further to the government announcement at the beginning of the month about additional funding for local authorities, Waverley would be receiving £145k from the £500m funding pot announced. However, there was still insufficient  detail about the second element of the funding announced, which was the formula-based compensation for lost income, to be able to estimate how much Waverley might receive.

26.4     Cllr Steve Williams, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability:

·         Not only had the Environmental Services team managed to maintain waste and recycling collections throughout the lockdown period, they had now almost completed a significant change in the bin collection routes, after which new kerbside collections of textiles and small electrical items would be introduced.

·         Whilst there had been an inevitable pause in the public engagement on the Climate Change and Sustainability Strategy, this was now resuming and commentary from the public and organisations including town and parish councils would be invited. It was important to build on the culture of putting sustainability at the heart of decision-making, and he would be writing to Jeremy Hunt MP to seek his support for the recent Private Members Bill introduced by Derek Thomas MP asking for provision of necessary powers and resources to enable all UK local authorities to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.

·         The Council had mounted a serious challenge to UK Oil and Gas and the their plans to drill for fossil fuels in Waverley, and at the end of June the Surrey County Council planning committee turned down the planning application, which was a vindication of the extensive consultation Waverley had carried out and work done to fight the application.

26.5     Cllr Anne-Marie Rosoman, Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Safety:

·         Waverley’s Housing Officers had provided invaluable support to tenants and residents, particularly the vulnerable, shielding, and homeless. As restrictions were now lifting, the Housing Service was moving forward with the recovery plan to resume repairs and capital works to the housing stock.

·         Reports of anti-social behaviour had reduced substantially during lockdown, but going forward the council would continue to work with partners in the Safer Waverley Partnership and there was a recent success in having CCTV installed at a Senior Living Scheme in Farnham where there had been reports  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL27/20

To respond to questions from members of the public, received in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.

A question has been received from Alfold Parish Council, on behalf of residents of Alfold. This is set out in the attached letter.

A question has been received from Mr Daniel Kuszel, of Godalming:

“The Deputy Leader of Waverley Borough Council has publicly acknowledged that under previous administrations Godalming did not receive a proportionate share of capital spending and improvement projects compared to other towns within the borough and certainly in comparison to the population sizes of towns within the borough. It has now been over a year since the new "rainbow coalition" took control of the council but as yet there has been no levelling or redress for Godalming or its residents.

Does the Leader believe that the Deputy Leader was mistaken when he made the statement? If he doesn't, why not, but if he does, what is being done to address the historical imbalance.”

The following questions were received from members of the public in accordance with Procedure Rule 10:

27.1      From Alfold Parish Council, and read out by Parish Councillor Penni Mayne:

“Our question is; will the Council now consider it time that local Parish representation is invited as a full participating member into the governance and decision-making process, as co-leaders in developing a positive plan for DPGV, and in accordance with national best practice as set out by the Town and Country Planning Association?”

Cllr Liz Townsend, Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, Leisure, Parks, Countryside and Dunsfold Park, responded:

“At the beginning of March I was delighted to join the Executive team, and alongside responsibilities for economic development, parks and leisure I also took on responsibility for the new Dunsfold Garden Village. After an initial meeting on the 20^th March with the planning project team leader to receive an update on the new settlement and to discuss the governance arrangements, we then had lockdown announced on 23^rd March. We then had, like all councils, to prioritize our response to the immediate Covid-19 emergency and to rapidly adapt to the considerable challenges that we faced as well as to implement the additional responsibilities assigned to us by central government. We had to quickly adopt new processes like all councils, with online meetings and temporary governance, together with a new planning committee structure. I am extremely proud of the council and our officers, that we responded so swiftly to meeting all of these demands and continued to provide all of our services without interruption to our residents.

You will not be surprised to learn that I am completely committed to providing every opportunity that I can to encourage local representation at parish level. As soon as I could at the beginning of, June I resumed regular meetings with officers on Dunsfold and with the complete support of the Executive started to look at the governance structure which was presented to the Executive on 30^th June and agreed. I am aware that the Leader has already announced the new structure earlier and I am delighted to be able to confirm that representatives from Alfold, Cranleigh, and Dunsfold Parish Councils will be formally invited to sit alongside Waverley local councillors as full participating members on the Dunsfold Park Garden Village Advisory Group. I am really looking forward to working with you to make the expectations of this new village a reality.”

27.2      From Mr Daniel Kuszel, of Godalming:

“The Deputy Leader of Waverley Borough Council has publicly acknowledged that under previous administrations Godalming did not receive a proportionate share of capital spending and improvement projects compared to other towns within the borough and certainly in comparison to the population sizes of towns within the borough. It has now been over a year since the new "rainbow coalition" took control of the council but as yet there has been no levelling or redress for Godalming or its residents.

Does the Leader believe that  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL28/20

To respond to any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.2.

The following questions have been received from Members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.2:

1.    Question from Cllr Mary Foryszewski:

With the current fiscal situation, can the Leader confirm, following the Chief Executives report that Surrey CC are applying to be a single unitary authority, that no officer time or money will be wasted on a boundary review within the Borough at this time.

2.    Question from Cllr Robert Knowles:

Can the Leader inform council whether officers or the administration were consulted on the unilateral decision by Surrey County Council to ask the Secretary of State for authority to put the case to become Europe’s largest single unitary authority?

3.    Question from Cllr Kevin Deanus:

Dunsfold Park is situated within the Ward of Alfold, whom I am proud to represent. The planning permission granted to build 1800 homes, and ultimately, 2600 homes, is the most significant approval in Waverley’s history, both in terms of size, but the disruption to local residents over many years.

On the 8^th June, 2019, some 13 months ago, I emailed the Leader, Councillor Ward, and copied all Councillors, about my concern how the executive planned to oversee the development at Dunsfold Park.

On the 16^th July 2019, when raised at Full Council, the leader stated, “Regular meetings will continue, and we are in the late stages of the process of establishing a Dunsfold Park Garden Village Board”.

On the 18^th September 2019, at Full Council, the Leader presented the new Corporate Strategy. He will recall that I spoke on the matter with both dismay and astonishment. I read from the Corporate Strategy, “We shall develop a more open, inclusive approach to communications and decision making”, and “we will be an open, democratic and participative Governance, valuing the worth of all residents”.

I reminded Councillor Ward that he had failed on all of these Corporate Priorities as I was still waiting for the decency of a discussion about how the Dunsfold Park Governance would work.

On the 8^th October 2019, a Dunsfold Governance Structure was finally presented at Council. I had not been consulted, and my extensive knowledge of the site and surrounding area was clearly not valued, or simply ignored. I pointed out the glaring and obvious omissions. The structure had failed to include the ward member (and members from surrounding wards), the Parish Council, who represent the community at ground level, and members of the public. I reminded Councillor Ward of the Corporate Strategy and how it had failed at every hurdle.

Members of the Executive looked extremely embarrassed, and the leader did offer a form of apology, stating it would be sorted.

An informal discussion took place after the meeting, and later I followed this with a further email requesting a resolution. Councillor Ward did respond and promised to send some dates to arrange a meeting. Some 9 months later I  ...  view the full agenda text for item CNL29/20

The following questions had been received from Members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.2:

28.1      Question from Cllr Mary Foryszewski:

“With the current fiscal situation, can the Leader confirm, following the Chief Executives report that Surrey CC are applying to be a single unitary authority, that no officer time or money will be wasted on a boundary review within the Borough at this time.”

            Response from the Leader, Cllr John Ward:

“As you are aware, Waverley has been notified by the Boundary Commission that it intends to do a boundary review of our borough starting next year with a view to completing this before the 2023 local elections. Waverley did not request a review but unfortunately these are at the whim of the Local Boundary Commission for England, which is the government department responsible for determining the timing of boundary reviews and for conducting them. The Commission has statutory authority to conduct its work and councils must cooperate. The costs of the commission's work are met by public funds nationally and Waverley Borough Council will not be charged by the Commission. However, Waverley would have to respond to requests by the commission for information, for example for population data, expected  planning delivery and matters of local connection; also, to publicise the Commission's work and respond to its first draft. Clearly, if Waverley Borough Council were not to exist after 2023 a boundary review would have been futile.

“Waverley officers have updated the Commission on Surrey County Council's bid for a single Surrey unitary council and we await the Commission's response.

“I must add that I totally agree with the sentiment of the question and can assure you that any unavoidable expenditure will be kept to an absolute minimum.”

28.2      Question from Cllr Robert Knowles:

“Can the Leader inform Council whether officers or the administration were consulted on the unilateral decision by Surrey County Council to ask the Secretary of State for authority to put the case to become Europe’s largest single unitary authority?”

Response from the Leader, Cllr John Ward:

“I’m tempted to say no, and just leave it there but this question does deserve a proper answer. In summary, on 28^th June, Waverley Borough Council found out about rumours of a unitary bid by Surrey County Council from the local government press and then sought to engage with Surrey County Council. On 3^rd July, Surrey County Council presented to District and Borough Chief Executives some ideas on a unitarisation bid in the context of the forthcoming Government White Paper. A preference for a single unitary within Surrey County Council was mentioned, but not agreed by districts and boroughs, and discussion among the council Leaders was urged. The Surrey Leader’s speech at his Council meeting on 7^th July did not mention bidding for a single unitary, although rumours in the press continued. Surrey County Council then published on 13^th July its letter to the Secretary of State in favour of a single unitary, without further  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL29/20

To receive any motions submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.1.

The Motion set out below is proposed by the Leader of the Council, Cllr John Ward, and seconded by the Deputy Leader, Cllr Paul Follows.

The Leader of the Principal Opposition Group, Cllr Julia Potts, has confirmed her support for the Motion, and for it being included on the agenda for Full Council.

The Mayor has agreed to accept this Motion for debate at Full Council although it was received after the deadline for receipt of Motions.

The Government has announced its intention to publish a Recovery and Devolution white paper in the autumn and the question of the shape and structure of local government in Surrey is being actively discussed by the County Council and others. 

The Motion reads as follows:

“This Council opposes a single Surrey-wide Unitary Authority;

This Council recognises principles of localism many of which are incompatible with a single unitary authority within Surrey, therefore Council, instructs the Executive to urgently investigate alternative forms of Unitary Authorities and the timing of any such reorganisation that may be more advantageous to Waverley and its residents, including any opportunities with neighbouring Counties.”

29.1    The Mayor informed Members and members of the public that the Motion to be debated had been received after the normal deadline for receipt of written Motions. However, in view of the timing of the statement from Surrey County Council, and with the agreement of the Leader of the Principal Opposition Group, she had felt it important to accept the Motion and enable a debate.

29.2    The Leader began his introduction by reading the text of the Motion:

“This Council opposes a single Surrey-wide Unitary Authority;

This Council recognises principles of localism many of which are incompatible with a single unitary authority within Surrey, therefore Council, instructs the Executive to urgently investigate alternative forms of Unitary Authorities and the timing of any such reorganisation that may be more advantageous to Waverley and its residents, including any opportunities with neighbouring Counties.”

The Motion was seconded by Cllr Paul Follows. The Leader requested that a recorded vote be taken on the Motion, which was supported by the Executive including Cllr Follows, Cllr Beaman, Cllr Clark, Cllr Merryweather, and Cllr MacLeod.

29.3    The Leader reminded Members of the backdrop to government’s launch of the biggest reorganisation of local government for 50 years – the ongoing global pandemic, imminent worldwide recession, and the UK about to leave the EU potentially without a trade deal. The recently announced White Paper on Devolution and Recovery trailed Combined Authorities and directly elected mayors as the way forward. Whilst there was some enthusiasm for streamlining by abolishing one tier of local government, replacing this with directly elected mayors with their attendant bureaucracy and costs did not seem logical. The Leader thanked the Leader of the Opposition for her co-operation in supporting this urgent Motion to Council, to give Members the opportunity to voice their views on unitary councils in general, and on the recent proposal by Surrey County Council to establish a Surrey-wide unitary council. There had been strong rumours for some time that counties would attempt to centralize power in this way, and the recent actions suggested a degree of coordination from above. There were also strong rumours that the government would attempt to abandon the county council elections due next year in order to facilitate this. It was important not to allow residents to be disenfranchised in this manner.

29.4    The Leader of Surrey County Council had written to the Secretary of State asking that Surrey be formally requested to apply to become a single mega-unitary authority by abolishing all of the current eleven boroughs and districts and seizing their powers. The letter did not refer to there being consensus on the proposal, without which the government had indicated proposals would not be pursued. In fact, all eleven Leaders of the Surrey boroughs had expressed their united opposition to the Surrey single unitary proposal. The efficient formation of unitary councils depended on three factors: their size, their location, and their quality. In other words, their ability to perform their functions efficiently and to the advantage  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL30/20

To receive the Minutes of the Executive meeting held on 8 July 2020.

There are no Part I matters for Council consideration.

There shall be no debate on any item contained in Part II of the minutes but Members may give notice in writing, email or phone, by noon on the day of the meeting, of a statement or question, and give details of any question. (PR 14.14).

30.1     It was moved by the Leader, duly seconded and RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Executive 8 July 2020 be received and noted.

There were no matters referred to Council for decision; the following Members spoke in relation to Part II Matters of Report:

30.2     Re EXE7/20, Household recycling centre issues and proposals, Cllr Carole Cockburn reported her concerns about the recent press release stating that removal of the bring sites would provide space for cycle parking or electric vehicle charging points, and apparently ignoring the fact that some of these were located within Conservation Areas. Waverley had a duty to protect Conservation Areas from inappropriate development both within the Conservation Area and also in its setting. It was vital that the Farnham Conservation Area Management Plan be consulted before anything was done in either of the two Farnham car parks in or adjacent to the Conservation Area after the bring sites were removed.

30.3     Re EXE10/20, Broadwater Park Golf Course Options Appraisal, the following Members made statements:

·         Cllr Jenny Else referred to her statement on this matter at the Executive on 8 July about how concerned she believed a large number of Waverley residents were feeling about the way in which the Broadwater Golf Club were being treated with regard to the non-renewal of their lease. This view had been expressed after receiving a number of direct communications, and not via social media as asserted by Cllr Follows at the Executive meeting and recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Cllr Else felt that his comments had attempted to devalue her view and bring into question her integrity, contrary to the rules of the code of conduct for Members. Cllr Else asked that Cllr Follows apologise in order that it could be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

·         Cllr Follows responded that he had been referring on 8 July to statements on the Godalming & Villages Community Boards which he had believed were repeated by Cllr Else. He was happy to concede that Cllr Else might have heard the comments directly, but he was also certain that the comment were almost the same as those made on social media on 8 May. Cllr Else was not satisfied with this response and again asked for an apology. After further exchanges, the Mayor called the matter to a close.

·         Cllr John Gray noted that since the Executive meeting he had received a response from the S151 Officer about some of the matters raised. Cllr Gray had further questions to raise about the legal costs incurred prior to the Executive decision but he was happy to do this through the Overview & Scrutiny Call-in process that was now in train.

To receive the Minutes of the Licensing & Regulatory Committee meeting held on 29 June 2020.

There are no Part I matters for Council consideration.

There shall be no debate on any item contained in Part II of the minutes but Members may give notice in writing, email or phone, by noon on the day of the meeting, of a statement or question, and give details of any question. (PR 14.14).

31.1     It was moved by the Chairman of the Committee, duly seconded and RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Licensing & Regulatory Committee held on 29 June 2020 be received and noted.

There were no matters referred to Council for decision, and no Members had registered to speak on Part II matters for report.