Agenda and minutes

54.1     The Mayor welcomed Councillor Busby to his first meeting of the Council and thanked the Democratic Services and Business Support Team Manager on her last meeting and wished her well for the future.

The Mayor to report apologies for absence.

55.1     Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Peter Clark, Brian Edmonds, Martin D’Arcy, Val Henry, Chris Howard, Dan Hunt, Robert Knowles, Peter Marriott, Michaela Martin, Mark Merryweather, Julia Potts, Anne-Marie Rosoman and George Wilson.

To confirm the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 18 October 2022 (herewith).

56.1     The Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 18 October 2022 were confirmed and signed.

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.

57.1     There were no interests declared under this heading.

58.1     The Mayor updated the Council on his activities since the last meeting of the Council.  The Mayor had unfortunately missed the Christmas Cake and Carols service due to illness and thanked all those involved.  The Mayor had raised the 999 flag in honour of those who work in the emergency services.  The service had been delayed due to the sad death of Her Majesty, the Queen.  The Mayor had also attended the Forces Day Poppy Launch at Pirbright and the Army Benevolent Fund Speaker’s Dinner at Frensham Heights School.

58.2     The Mayor had attended a Safe Drive, Stay Alive event in Reigate for young people learning to drive.  The Mayor represented the Borough at the Farnham Venison Dinner which had returned to the Bush Hotel, which was where it originally started.  The Mayor also represented the Borough at the Remembrance Day parade in Farnham, which had included an outdoor service.  The Mayor visited Moorhouse School; St Catherine’s School in Bramley; numerous church services; and had his first Christmas lunch at the Farnham Day Centre.

59.1     The Leader welcomed Cllr Busby to the Council and the Liberal Democrat Group.  Since the last Council meeting, there had been a further meeting of the Cost of Living Working Group which was carrying out important work.  The Leader thanked the Housing team for a number of recent interventions regarding heating; thanked the Finance team for their work on the recent statements from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the Democratic Services and Business Support Team Manager for her support of the Council meetings.

            The Leader then invited the Executive to make the following announcements:

59.2     Cillr MacLeod advised that parking revenue had increased in recent months which was good news for the economic health of the Borough.  Two afternoons of free parking for residents would be provided in the Christmas period.  There had been a spate of abandoned vehicles in one part of the Borough which had been dealt with.  The commercial element of Brightwells should complete in the middle of 2023, however the opening of the scheme would be determined by Surrey County Council.  Coppa Club, a high end restaurant chain, would be opening a restaurant in the development.

59.3     Cllr Penny Marriott updated the Council on the work of the Community Safety team and the Safer Waverley Partnership, which had reported to it’s participating organisations on its work over a three year period.  Cllr Marriott had also attended the Hundred Year celebration of the Muslim women’s group, which was part of the Ahmadiyya community.

59.4     Cllr Mirylees advised that tender returns had been received for the Leisure Management contract and the evaluation of these would conclude in a couple of weeks.  Bidders that met the requirements would then be invited to submit a revised tender, with the contract due to be awarded in March 2023.  The Cranleigh Leisure Centre tender specification was being finalised, with a view to appointing a design team and energy consultant in January 2023.  Consultation would take place with stakeholders would take place prior to the planning process which was expected to take approximately one year, with construction due to begin in 2024.

59.5     Cllr Palmer advised that the Housing team were providing a critical role at the moment during the cold weather.  He encouraged councillors to contact the team if they were aware of any residents in need during the winter period.

59.6     Cllr Paul Rivers updated on the work on the response to the letter from the Secretary of State asking for Registered Social Landlords to set out what systems and processes they have in place to deal with damp and mould in social housing.  He thanked all officers for their diligence and expertise.

59.7     Cllr Liz Townsend thanked the Economic Development team for organising the first joint business question time with Guildford Borough Council held at Charterhouse and thanked the panel and keynote speakers.  The team had also been working with retailers across the borough distributing top-up funding to support festive activities to attract Christmas visitors.  Cllr Townsend welcomed  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL59/22

To respond to questions from members of the public, received in accordance with Part 4.9 (Public Speaking Procedure Rules).

The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 6 December 2022.

(i)              Question received from Mrs Anne Gray:

“Would the Mayor please accept the Petition signed by some 4,000 users of Crown Court car park, organised by the Save Crown Court Action Group”

(see file attached)

The Save Crown  Court Action Group 

Co-ordinators are:

Mrs Anne Gray,

3, Netherwood Court

Filmer Grove

Godalming. GU7 3AF. 

Mr Daniel Husseini,

40, Elizabeth Court,

Elizabeth Road,

Godalming, GU7

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

i)     The first question had been received from Mrs Anne Gray of Godalming.

As Mrs Gray could not be present at the council meeting, Mr Daniel Husseini had been nominated to read the following question on her behalf:

“Would the Mayor please accept the Petition signed by 4,044 users of Crown Court car park, organised by the Save Crown Court Action Group (see file attached). The Save Crown Court Action Group Co-ordinators are: Mrs Anne Gray, 3, Netherwood Court Filmer Grove Godalming. GU7 3AF and Mr Daniel Husseini, 40, Elizabeth Court, Elizabeth Road, Godalming, GU7. The Petition reads as follows:

“Save Crown court Car park. We, the undersigned, oppose the building of houses on the main Godalming car park at Crown Court, and/or the construction of a multi-storey car park at the Waverley HQ site at The Burys. We call on the Waverley Borough Council to:

1) Oppose plans to close or partly close Crown Court car park
2) Stop plans to build houses on Crown Court car park
3) Reject proposals to build a multi-storey car park at the WBC site or at Crown Court

“Crown Court car park is Godalming’s largest car park, is used by a large number of residents and visitors and is often full. It is easy to use and conveniently situated at the heart of the town, close to shops and retail businesses in the High Street and Church Street, the Parish Church, the Bandstand, children’s play facilities, events at the Wilfred Noyce centre and Moss Lane School. A Multi Storey car park at the WBC site on the edge of the Conservation Area overlooking the Lammas lands is inappropriate for Godalming and much less easy and convenient to use”

Response from the Mayor:

“Thank you for your question. Your petition will be reviewed in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, as set out in Annexe 1 of Part 4.9 of the Council’s Constitution and a member of the Democratic Services team will be in touch with you to advise you of the next steps.”

In response to a request from Councillor Peter Martin and with the agreement of the Leader, the Mayor agreed to take Agenda Item 16.1 (Motion on the Central Godalming Regeneration Project) before item 8 (Housing Revenue Account Business Plan - Strategic Review), as members of the public in the Public Gallery had attended to hear this debate. 

Cllr Hyman raised a Point of Order, and asked the Mayor to clarify the arrangements under the Petition Scheme regarding the number of signatures a petition needed to be accepted by the Council, the Executive or the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

ii)    The following question had been submitted by Mrs Clare Weightman from Godalming:

“Does the Mayor know whether the sensitive personal data gathered for this petition was in accordance with the Data Protection Act (2018); and, in accepting this petition, can it be guaranteed  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL60/22

To respond to any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.1.

The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 6 December 2022.

(i)              Question from Councillor George Hesse:

“Many local authorities have designated Conservation Areas which are protected from inappropriate development by use of Article 4 directives that remove permitted development rights, thus requiring planning applications to be submitted. This ensures that choice of suitable materials, size, bulk, mass, design, overlooking issues etc. are carefully scrutinised, and neighbours have the opportunity to object - currently denied under permitted development. 

This does not currently apply in the Borough of Waverley and therefore our Conservation Areas are very vulnerable to unsuitable development.

Would Waverley Borough Council consider applying for Article 4 provisions to apply in all its designated Conservation Areas to provide this additional protection that these areas require?”

(ii)             Question from Councillor Robert Knowles:

"Was this Council consulted or informed of the decision by Surrey Heartlands with the support of RSCH to create an elective surgery hub for all Surrey at Ashford Middlesex, a location just outside the London Borough of Hounslow and no transport connections to most of Surrey and if not does the Executive have any confidence in Surrey Heartlands as this shows again a lack of consideration for residents in the south of the County."

61.1    The following questions from Councillors had been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.

i)     Cllr George Hesse had asked the following question:

“Many local authorities have designated conservation areas which are protected from inappropriate development by use of Article 4 directives that remove permitted development rights, thus requiring planning applications to be submitted. This ensures that choice of suitable materials, size, bulk, mass, design, overlooking issues, Etc are carefully scrutinised and neighbours have the opportunity to object currently denied under permitted development. This does not currently apply in the Borough of Waverly and therefore our Conservation Areas are very vulnerable to unsuitable development. Would Waverly Borough Council consider applying for Article 4 Provisions to apply in all its designated Conservation Areas to provide this additional protection that these areas require.”

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development, Cllr Liz Townsend, gave the following response:

“Waverley Borough Council has 43 conservations areas, ranging in size and character.  Permitted Development (PD) rights are restricted within Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings are subject to additional controls.

Although Article 4 directions can be made to withdraw additional PD rights, the NPPF advises that such directions should be applied in a measured and targeted way. They should be limited to situations where necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of that area, based on robust evidence including the potential harm that the article 4 direction is intended to address.  They should apply to the smallest geographical area possible. Compensation may be payable to property owners, although this is limited to loss or damage directly attributable to the withdrawal of PD rights.

There is only one article 4 direction in place directly relating to a Conservation Area (affecting 13 properties in Chiddingfold). This reflects the extent of existing planning controls within Conservations Areas and the significant resource implications entailed in making article 4 directions (including surveys and consultation) and in dealing with the additional planning applications and enforcement matters arising from the removal of PD rights (albeit an application fee is now required).

In view of these factors, it is not considered that a blanket approach to applying article 4 directions to all Conservation Areas in Waverley would be justified or feasible. The gathering of the evidence base requires extensive investigation and is a lengthy process, including an assessment of all buildings in each conservation area to establish a prioritised list and to establish the impact that each specific permitted development right has had on the amenity and well-being of the area. A full and extensive public consultation would also be required, and representations considered before an article 4 direction if appropriate could be confirmed.

The Council could consider the measured and targeted use of an article 4 direction if presented with full and robust evidence for each conservation area of the potential harm to local amenity or well-being resulting from specific PD rights bearing in mind that this should be targeted to the smallest possible geographic areas and not  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL61/22

62.1     At the invitation of the Mayor, Cllr Peter Martin introduced the Motion that had been submitted by himself, Cllr Steve Cosser and Cllr Michael Goodridge, the text of which had been circulated in the agenda for the meeting.

62.2     Cllr Martin stated that this motion sought an outright rejection of any proposals to build houses on Crown Court Car Park or to construct a Multi-storey Car Park at The Burys to fund the rebuilding of Waverley Borough Council’s headquarters. Cllr Martin cited the Petition received by Council from The Save Crown Court Action Group to support the Motion. He argued that constructing a multi storey car park at the Waverley Headquarters would be unethical as the site was on the edge of the Godalming Conservation Area and overlooking the Lammas Lands. Cllr Martin stated that a more appropriate example of affordable housing in Godalming was the the current housing development at Ockford Park, which would provide around 262 homes, of which 78 are deemed affordable. He urged the council to rethink these plans and find alternatives. Cllr. Martin commended the Motion to the council.

62.3     Cllr S. Cosser spoke as a seconder on the Motion. Cllr Cosser referred to a statement issued by the Local Chamber of Commerce based on a survey of their members, stating that 85% of surveyed Chambers members opposed the propositions made by the Administration. Cllr Cosser quoted the statement issued by the Chambers of Commerce, which stated that “these proposals will not benefit retail and commerce in Godalming”. Cllr Cosser also referred to the Petition received by Council to support the Motion and argued that residents and businesses of Godalming would not accept any proposals that included building on the Crown Court Car Park and constructing a multi storey car park in central Godalming. He argued that any amendment that left the possibility for this open in the future should be rejected. Cllr Cosser concluded by urging councillors to support the Motion.

62.4     The Leader of the Council, Cllr Follows, proposed an amendment, which was seconded by Cllr Andy MacLeod. Cllr Follows circulated his amendment which was set out with tracked changes to the original amendment and as a clean version of the amended motion.

62.5     In response to a Point of Order from Cllr Simon Dear, the Mayor confirmed that an amendment did not have to be a minor change and was defined as adding words, removing words, or doing both, with the only restriction being that it should not simply negate the original motion. The Mayor was therefore happy to accept the amendment.

62.6     At the request of Cllr Hyman, Cllr Cosser, and other Members, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 7:16pm for five minutes to allow Members time to read the amendment. The meeting resumed at 7.20pm. The Mayor invited Cllr Follows to introduce his amendment.

62.7     Cllr Follows thanked the Monitoring Officer for confirming the validity of his amendment in relation to the Constitution. He recalled how the previous administration  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL62/22

This report sets out the revised Housing Revenue Account Business Plan strategy following the completion of the strategic review commissioned in February 2022.

          This report contains the following Annexes:

·                 Annexe 1 – HRA Business Plan 2022/23 to 2052/53 

·                 Annexe 2 – Housing Reserves

·                 Annexe 3 – Housing New Build Summary

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Council, after consideration of the recommendations of the Executive, and after considering the comments from the Landlord Services Advisory Board and Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee, resolves:

1.     To approve the revised HRA business plan strategy set out in this report.

2.     To approve the proposed movements, restrictions and purposes of reserves as set out in annexe 2.

63.1     The Leader of the Council moved the recommendations which were duly seconded by Cllr Paul Rivers, Co-Portfolio Holder for Housing (Operations). 

63.2     A review of the 30-year HRA Business Plan had been commissioned in February 2022, with the aim of addressing the challenges in the Plan and ensuring it was on a sustainable financial footing. The HRA Business Pan was a rolling 30-year self-financing plan to deliver key long-term strategies and commitments within the Corporate Plan including managing, maintaining, and building new social and affordable housing for Waverley tenants. Since its origins in 2012 there had been a number of unforeseen challenges to the basic assumptions of the Business Plan: the government had imposed four years of rent decreases, followed by four years of capped rent increases which had impacted on income assumptions; asset management priorities like fire safety improvements and decent home standard requirements, and the Council’s commitment to decarbonization had added to planned maintenance costs; and more recent increases in inflation had impacted on cost budgets across all areas. The strategic review addressed how the Council would meet debt repayments, fund housing maintenance and development of new affordable homes, and maintain adequate levels of reserves.

63.3     Cllr Seaborne agreed in principle with the need to revise the HRA Business Plan s. raises issue with section 4.13 of the report that explained the proposed approach to fund new homes building through a combination of Right to Buy (RtB) receipts and borrowing. The level of RtB receipts was uncertain, but Cllr Seaborne wanted to understand better the assumptions that had been made in the revised Business Plan about these receipts and the corresponding amount of borrowing expected in order to make an informed decision, given the risks around potentially high levels of borrowing. Cllr Seaborne also noted that some of the figures in the annexes had changed between being considered by different committees and these changes needed to be clarified. Cllr Cosser echoed the concerns regarding variations in the details of the annexes.

63.4     At the invitation of The Mayor, the Section 151 Officer advised that the reason for variation in the details set out in the annexes was due to the borrowing rate changing in the period that these reports had been flowing though the committee process. There had been no other changes to the annexes. With this assurance, the Leader commended the recommendations to Council.

63.5     The Mayor moved to a vote and it was

RESOLVED that

1.    the revised HRA Business Plan strategy as set out in the report be approved; and

2.    the proposed movements, restrictions and purposes of the reserves as set out in Annexe 2 of the report be approved.

Purpose of this report:

·       Is to provide members with an overview of the proposed new build housing schemes which are in a position to deliver through entry into a build contract with a contractor.

·       Seek member approval to the recommendations made for each project as set out in business cases within Annexe 1 using the financial strategy as set out in the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Strategic Review Report and Annexes 1-3.

·       Seek member approval of the revised budgets as set out in Annexe 2.

Recommendation

1.     It is recommended that the Council, consider this report and information within the Annexes and approve recommendations as set out in business cases in Annexe 1 of this report and summarised Annexe 2.

·       Annexe 1a - Site C Ockford Ridge, Godalming – members previously approved budgets for the scheme in annual Budget Council Meeting for the delivery of 30 new homes and retrospective approval is sought for transparency of the total scheme cost (full cost not previously reported) supported by the viability assessment and net revenue impact in the business case

·       Annexe 1b - Aarons Hill, Godalming – members approve the delivery of 4 new homes and scheme costs

·       Annexe 1c - Hartsgrove, Chiddingfold – members approve the delivery of 5 new homes and scheme costs

·       Annexe 1d - Pathfield, Chiddingfold – members approve the delivery of 11 new homes and scheme costs

·       Annexe 1e - Queens Mead, Chiddingfold – members approve the delivery of 8 new homes and scheme costs

·       Annexe 1f -Turners Mead, Chiddingfold – members approve the delivery of 2 new homes and scheme costs

·       Annexe 1g - Riverside Court, Farnham – members approve the delivery of 2 new homes and the scheme cost

·       Annexe 1h – Woodside Park, Cattershall Lane – members approve the delivery of 12 new homes and scheme costs

2.     It is recommended that Council approve the budgets for each scheme totalling £21,252,208m as set out in Annexe 2.

64.1     The Mayor noted that there had been a considerable amount of commercially sensitive information provided to Members to support their decision-making. He did not propose to move into exempt session unless absolutely necessary, and asked Members to take care over what they referred to in their speeches.

64.2     The Leader of the Council moved the recommendations, which were duly seconded by Cllr Nick Palmer, Co-Portfolio Holder for Housing (Delivery). The report provided an overview of the Council’s proposed new build affordable housing schemes which were in a position to be delivered through entering into a build contract with a contractor. The business case for each of the eight proposed schemes, delivering a total of 74 new homes, was set out in Exempt Annexe 1, and the budgets were detailed in Annexe 2. An independent value for money review had been carried for each business case and confirmed that the Council was using robust development assumptions.

64.3     Cllr David Munro spoke to commend the proposals and the ambition of the Council in its affordable housing development programme. Cllr Richard Seaborne spoke and noted that in terms of the number of new units delivered, the number of bedrooms and the number of new occupants that would be housed, the Turners Mead, Riverside Court and Aarons Hill projects added relatively little compared to the other projects but would take the same amount of staff time and resources to progress. Given the limited resources available he wondered whether these schemes presented value for money. Cllr Seaborne also noted that the delivery cost per unit of Turners Mead and Aarons Hill were much higher than for other schemes and, when combined with the lack of materiality, he struggled to support these two particular schemes. Cllr Anna James echoed these comments in relation to Turners Mead, which was in her ward.

64.4     Cllr Stephen Mulliner welcomed the report and noted that the actual number of new homes being delivered was 56 as 18 homes had been demolished to enable the Site C development at Ockford Ridge. He echoed concerns about the materiality and value for money of some of the smaller schemes.

64.5     Cllr Palmer responded to Members’ comments and concerns, noting that there was a need to spread new homes across the borough, where there was demand, but smaller schemes would always be more expensive due to the lack of economies of scale. The independent review provided reassurance that the budgets provided value for money in the context. The Leader also noted that the next phase of the development programme was being prepared and would come forward in due course.

64.6     The Mayor moved to a vote, taking all of the sites detailed in Annexe 1 as a block, and it was

RESOLVED

1.         that the recommendations set out in the business cases in Annexe 1 to the report be approved, as follows:

·         Annexe 1a - Site C Ockford Ridge, Godalming – delivery of 30 new homes and total scheme cost (retrospective approval)

·         Annexe  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL64/22

As a consequence of the recent boundary review of the wards of Waverley Borough Council and the Community Governance Review of the Towns and Parishes within the Borough, it is necessary for the Council to review the polling districts and location of polling places to make sure they are in the right areas for the new boundaries.

The purpose of this report is to agree the outcome of the Polling District and Polling Places Review. The new polling districts and polling places will be used for elections from May 2023 onwards.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Council considers the recommendations of the Standards and General Purposes Committee and approves the proposed polling district and polling places.

65.1     Cllr John Robini introduced the Polling District and Polling Place Review and commended the recommendations to Council, which were duly seconded by Cllr Michael Goodridge.

65.2     As a consequence of the recent Boundary Review of the Wards of Waverly Borough Council and the Community Governance Review of the Towns and Parishes within the Borough it was necessary for the Council to review the polling districts and location of places to make sure they were within the new boundaries. The purpose of the report was to agree the outcome of the new Polling District and Polling Place Review as these would be used for elections from May 2023.

65.3     Council noted that there had been discussion at the Standards Committee about the suitability of the Chichester Hall in Witley as a polling place in preference to the local school. In response to a request for clarification from Cllr Follows, the Chief Executive confirmed that the Returning Officer did have the authority to vary the polling place for a particular local poll if there were particular circumstances that made a polling place not viable.

65.4     The Mayor then put the recommendation to the vote and it was

RESOLVED that the proposed Polling District and Polling Places be approved.

Officers have proposed some revisions to the Scheme of Delegation, based on their experience of using the Scheme since it was last reviewed. The Standards and General Purposes Committee considered the proposed amendments at its meeting on 30 November 2022 and recommends that the Council approves of the revised Scheme of Delegation.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Council:

1.     Notes the changes made by the Monitoring Officer under his delegated authority as set out in the table at 4.2; and

2.     Considers the recommendations of the Standards and General Purposes Committee in respect of the proposed revision to the Scheme of Delegation as set out in the table at 4.3 and approves Version 7.3 of the Scheme of Delegation, as set out in Annexe 1.

66.1     Cllr John Robini introduced the report proposing changes to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers in relation to Tree Preservation Orders and commended the recommendations to Council, which were duly seconded by Cllr Michael Goodridge. The proposals had been considered by the Standards & General Purposes Committee, which had also noted minor changes to the Scheme of Delegation that had been made by the Monitoring Officer under delegated authority, to re-allocate specific delegations to the correct Executive Head of Service.

66.2     Cllr Jerry Hyman spoke to point out that changes to the Scheme of Delegation were in effect changes to the Constitution and should be approved by Council. Cllr Hyman also noted his concern that the revised Constitution agreed by Council in October 2022 had changed the way in which the Minutes of the Executive and other Committees were presented to Council, and suggested that Members might want to revisit this. Cllr Mulliner asked that any changes to the Scheme of Delegation or the Constitution made under delegated authority be reported in writing to Council. He also agreed that arrangements for reporting to Council might be considered as part of an exercise to better align the Constitutions of Waverley and Guildford, and the Leader confirmed that this workstream was being discussed and would come forward in due course.

66.3     There being no  other speakers, the Mayor put the recommendation to the vote and it was

RESOLVED that

1.    The changes to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers made by the Monitoring Officer under his delegated authority as set out in section 4.2 of the report be noted; and,

2.    the proposed revision to the Scheme of Delegation as set out in section 4.3 of the report be approved, and Version 7.3 of the Scheme of Delegation be adopted.

To consider the recommendations of the Joint Appointments Committee taking place on 5 December 2022 (report to follow).

67.1     The Mayor advised that this item had been withdrawn and would be considered at a future meeting.

Following the creation of a Joint Chief Executive and Joint Management Team with Guildford Borough Council it is proposed to confirm the Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer arrangements.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Robin Taylor be appointed as the Returning Officer for local elections, the Electoral Registration Officer for Waverley Borough Council and the Acting Returning Officer for UK Parliamentary Elections.

68.1     The Mayor put the recommendation and it was

RESOLVED that the appointment of Robin Taylor as the Returning Officer for local elections, the Electoral Registration Officer for Waverley Borough Council, and the Acting Returning Officer for UK Parliamentary Elections be approved.

Cllr Hyman abstained from the vote and asked for this to be recorded in the minutes.

The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires local authorities, where Members are divided into political groups, to review annually the representation of the political groups on their principal committees to ensure that the seats are allocated in the same proportion as that in which the council as a whole is divided.

This report updates Council on the revised political proportionality following the recent Chiddingfold and Dunsfold by-election; the vacancy in the Farnham Bourne ward; and the resignation of Councillor Jan Floyd-Douglass from the Conservative Group; and allocates seats on principal committees to political groups represented on the Council.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Council:

i.                 Note the political balance of the Council, as set out in paragraph 4.4; and

ii.               Approve the allocation of seats, the appointment of members to those seats in accordance with Group’s nominations, as set out in Annexes 1 and 2.

69.1     The Mayor put the recommendation to Council and it was

RESOLVED that

1.    The revised political balance of the Council, following the recent by-election for the Chiddingfold & Dunsfold Ward, the vacancy arising in the Farnham Bourne Ward, and the resignation of Cllr Floyd-Douglass from the Conservative Group, be noted; and

2.    The allocation of seats and the appointment of Members to those seats in accordance with Groups’ nominations, as set out in Annexes 1 and 2 to the report, be approved.

This report provides an update to the Council on the use of the procedure for taking an urgent key decision, in accordance with the provisions of Part 4.5, Paragraph 11.4 of the Council’s Constitution.

Recommendation

That the Council note the use of the urgency procedure for the taking of a key decision on 1, 29 and 30 November 2022.

70.1     The Leader of the Council introduced the report that set out the decisions that were undertaken in the reporting period as urgent decisions. There were no speakers. The Mayor put the recommendation and it was

RESOLVED that the use of the urgency procedure for taking a key decision on 1, 29, and 30 November 2022 be noted.

70.1     At the invitation of the Mayor, the Leader introduced the Motion that had been submitted by himself and Cllr Peter Clark, and seconded by Cllrs Steve Williams, Nick Palmer and Maxine Gale. In the absence of Cllr Clark, Cllr Penny Marriott seconded the resolution set out in the Motion, which had been circulated in the agenda for the meeting.

70.2     The Leader explained that the Motion was a response to new provisions set out in the Elections Act 2022 which introduced new requirements for voter ID. Members of the administration had concerns about the need for voter ID, the justification for its introduction, the funding and implementation of the requirements, and the communication to residents about the need for ID and the acceptable forms of ID. These concerns were widely shared by councils and council leaders across the UK, and by the Local Government Association. The Leader had provided data on instances of local and national in-person electoral fraud, which showed a low number of allegations and even fewer prosecutions. The Elections Act 2022 did nothing to address the greater potential for fraud in relation to postal votes. 3.5m in the UK did not possess a form of phot ID and there were severe backlogs in the issue of passports and photo driving licences. There were no formal guidelines from the government on how the policy should be implemented and these could come too late to be effective. The list of acceptable voter ID was inconsistent and appeared to deliberately structurally disenfranchise young people or those who could not afford ID. The Motion called on the Council to take a number of steps to raise concerns about the Voter ID implementation plans with ministers and local MPs, and to communicate and engage locally to raise awareness of the need for voters to obtain suitable ID in good time for the May 2023 elections. The Leader hoped that these measures would find broad support from the Council.

70.3     Cllr Hyman spoke and highlighted the potential reputational damage to Waverley, as the local electoral administration authority, for any chaos developing at polling stations, and also the personal risk to elections staff working on polling stations. He was totally supportive of the motion.

70.4     Cllrs Mulliner and Cosser spoke and whilst they supported the principle of voter ID being introduced, they recognised that the timing of the implementation in relation to the May 2023 elections was poor, and communication about valid voter ID requirements had been inadequate. Both felt that there was probably more electoral fraud than was detected or reported, but recognised the practical issues about implementation for May 2023.

70.5     Cllrs Joan Heagin, Sally Dickson, Liz Townsend, Peter Martin, Jerome Davidson, Jacquie Keen, Penny Rivers, Steve Williams and Maxine Gale all spoke and were broadly in favour of the Motion although they expressed a range of views on the justification for introducing voter ID. In summing up, the Leader thanked councillors for their support.

70.6     The Mayor put the Motion  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL70/221

To receive and note the Minutes of the Executive meeting held on 1 November 2022.

There shall be no debate on any item contained in the minutes of the Executive or a Committee, but councillors may give notice in writing, e-mail or telephone message to the Executive Head of Legal and Democratic Services

(i)               by noon on the working day prior to the day of the meeting, of a question, and give details of any question, or

(ii)              (ii) by noon on the day of the meeting of a statement they wish to make.

(PR11.8(a))

71.1     The Leader introduced the Minutes of the Executive meeting held on 1 November 2022, for noting by Council. The Mayor invited Cllr Hyman, who had registered to speak, to make his statement.

71.2     In respect of EXE46/22, Cllr Hyman commented on the Portfolio Holder’s response to the from a member of the public. In respect of EXE50/22, Cllr Hyman noted there were some typographical errors in the policy document, and also that it should have been submitted to Full Council for approval so that all Members were aware of it. At the invitation of the Mayor, the Leader responded that the Policy had been scrutinised by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, so there had been transparency and opportunity for Members to input to the Policy.

71.3     There being no other speakers, the Mayor put the recommendations and it was

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Executive meeting held on 1 November 2022 be received and noted.