Agenda and minutes

To confirm the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 21 May 2019 (herewith).

The Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 19 March 2019 were confirmed and signed.

The Mayor to report apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Carole Cockburn, Richard Cole, Jerome Davidson, Joan Heagin, Val Henry and Trevor Sadler.

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.

The Mayor reminded Councillors of her campaign to raise awareness of male suicides, and the difficulty of providing support for men struggling with their mental health. The Mayor related how earlier in the day she had spent time with the mother of a young man from Witley who had killed himself, which had brought home the tragic loss and lasting impact of this event.

The Mayor encouraged Members to support her charity, the Compton-based Mane Chance Sanctuary, by purchasing a ‘Rufus the Hound’ mug.

The Mayor reported that she continued to be very busy attending a wide range of engagements, and had been thrilled to attend the University of Creative Arts graduation ceremony a the Royal Festival Hall in London which had been a brilliant celebration of the achievements of the university students.

Lastly, the Mayor encouraged Councillors to follow her on Facebook.

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

The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 9 July 2019.

There were no questions from members of the public.

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

The following question has been received from Cllr Richard Seaborne:

“On 8^th June Councillor Deanus sent an email to the Leader, copied to all councillors, requesting details of how the new Executive plans to oversee developments at Dunsfold Park. I followed this up two days later with another open email to the Leader, copied to all councillors, echoing Councillor Deanus’s concern and asking for an explanation of how an Executive drawn exclusively from Farnham and Godalming members will be structured to ensure that issues relating to Cranleigh, Haslemere and the rural wards are fully covered in Executive deliberations.

In response to these two open emails Councillor Deanus has received a personal response and I have heard nothing.

Would the Leader be kind enough to outline to Members, and indeed residents, of wards containing around half of the Borough’s population, how the new Executive will ensure that Cranleigh, Haslemere and the Villages get adequate focus in Executive discussions and particularly how the major development at Dunsfold Park will get the attention it deserves as the single largest new housing development in the Borough?

Councillor Richard Seaborne

Bramley, Busbridge & Hascombe”

15.1    The following question has been received from Cllr Richard Seaborne in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.2:

“On 8^th June Councillor Deanus sent an email to the Leader, copied to all councillors, requesting details of how the new Executive plans to oversee developments at Dunsfold Park. I followed this up two days later with another open email to the Leader, copied to all councillors, echoing Councillor Deanus’s concern and asking for an explanation of how an Executive drawn exclusively from Farnham and Godalming members will be structured to ensure that issues relating to Cranleigh, Haslemere and the rural wards are fully covered in Executive deliberations.

In response to these two open emails Councillor Deanus has received a personal response and I have heard nothing.

Would the Leader be kind enough to outline to Members, and indeed residents, of wards containing around half of the Borough’s population, how the new Executive will ensure that Cranleigh, Haslemere and the Villages get adequate focus in Executive discussions and particularly how the major development at Dunsfold Park will get the attention it deserves as the single largest new housing development in the Borough?

Councillor Richard Seaborne

Bramley, Busbridge & Hascombe”

15.2     The Leader of the Council, Cllr John Ward, responded:

            “Thank you for your question. As you rightly say I did answer Cllr Deanus’s question and I had thought that my answer had also satisfied your echoing query. However as this is the third time the same question has been asked, possibly for the advantage of the members of the public, the answer will be the same; but with more detail; that the Executive team was chosen on their abilities and not their geographical location. Also it would have been impossible to include all 21 Parishes - but I shall endeavour to put some flesh on the bones of my decision. Before doing so may I correct the impression that the Executive is exclusively from Farnham and Godalming as for instance one member lives in the Frensham, Dockenfield & Tilford Ward which, I know you are well aware, is certainly not in Farnham.

            At the last election the public gave a majority of the seats to a combination of the Lib Dems and the Farnham Residents Parties, who decided to form a joint administration. I and the Leader of the Lib Dems believe in meritocracy and so, when selecting members of the Executive from the available pool, those whose talents best fitted the various portfolio roles were offered seats on the Executive. It is obvious that Farnham Residents come exclusively from Farnham and by a quirk of the election process a large number of Lib Dems and other non-Tories were elected in the Godalming area. Whilst I congratulate the last, very large, administration in managing to create a geographically balanced Executive team, I did not have the luxury of size they enjoyed and my prime concern was, as I have pointed out earlier, the skills and availability of Councillors, not where individuals lived.

I  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL15/19

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

The deadline for receipt of motions was 5pm on Thursday 4 July 2019.

No motions had been received.

To receive the Minutes of the Executive meeting held on 9 July 2019 (attached – coloured grey), and to consider the recommendations set out within.

There is one PART I recommendation to Council:

EXE 5/19         Revised Statement of Community Involvement for Planning

The Executive has considered the revised Statement of Community Involvement for Planning, annexed to the report at APPENDIX 1,  which explains how the Council will consult and interact with residents and stakeholders in relation to the preparation of local plan documents and planning applications.

The Executive RECOMMENDS to Council that the Revised Statement for Community Involvement 2019 be adopted.

Members of the Council wishing to speak on any matters in Part II of the Minutes (Matters of Report) must give notice to the Democratic Services Team by midday on Tuesday 16 July 2019.

17.1     It was moved by the Leader of the Council, duly seconded by the Deputy Leader, and

            RESOLVED    that the Minutes of the Executive held on 9 July 2019 be received and noted.

            The Leader reported that there was one Part I item recommended to Council, and there had been two requests to speak in relation to Part II of the Minutes.

17.2.1The Leader introduced the revised Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). This had last been updated in 2014, and there was a need to update it every five years. There had been no changes in circumstances since 2014 in terms of legislation, policy or guidance that warranted more than a ‘light touch’ review. The proposed amendments reflected changes in legislation, factual updates, and new consultation methods reflecting wider use of social media. The SCI set out the minimum level of consultation the council would do and was not prescriptive.

17.2.2Cllr Goodridge welcomed the ‘light touch’ review, but suggested that it would have been helpful to provide a version of the SCI with ‘tracked changes’ so that Members could see clearly the proposed amendments. He was pleased that there was no suggestion that Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1) might be re-opened, and asked when the new Executive proposed to bring forward Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2).

17.2.3A number of Members echoed the sentiments regarding showing tracked changes to documents, and Cllr Adams asked for a response on the issues that were causing a delay, which Development Management policies had not been finalised, which site allocations were still outstanding, and the planned date for adoption of LPP2.

17.2.4The Leader reported that the Executive was considering the next steps in relation to LPP1, and the work on LPP2 would follow on from that.

17.2.5Cllr Hyman advised Members that he had checked the proposed changes and confirmed that they were very minor, but there was a departure from the requirement to consult on the SCI itself, and a number of other matters that he had covered in his proposed amendments, as follows:

            “That the Revised Statement of Community Involvement 2019 be adopted as an extension to the 2014 document, subject to

(a)  the insertion of “9.16 The Tests of Soundness are:” prior to the relevant text box, and changing the reference in paragraph 9.21 from “9.15” to “9.16” as appropriate, and

(b)  delegation to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and Leader, prior to publication, of

(i)           the correction of paragraph 5.2, and

(ii)          the reinstatement of consultation upon changes to the SCI in paragraph 8.4, and

(iii)        the insertion of a paragraph clearly explaining the Council’s policy regarding the provision of advice and assistance in making and modifying Neighbourhood development Plans, if necessary to ensure compliance with s18 subsection 2 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,

and that Members instruct Officers to prepare an assessment of the effectiveness of the SCI as a priority, to inform a public consultation upon the appropriate revision and adoption of an improved SCI as soon as reasonably possible.”

            The amendment was seconded by Cllr Potts.

17.2.6Speaking the amendment, Cllr Follows, Cllr Beaman, Cllr MacLeod and Cllr Ward agreed that a tracked changes version of the revised SCI would have been helpful, but it was hard to follow the proposed amendments at such short notice. Cllr Ward commented that he would not be supporting the amendment, but if Council had concerns, he would ask that the SCI be given an early review.

17.2.7As a point of personal explanation, Cllr Hyman noted that the SCI had not been scrutinised by Overview & Scrutiny, and the formatting had been amended between the Executive and Council meetings. His amendment was fairly simple, but without it in his view the SCI would not be lawful and he would vote against it.

17.2.8The Mayor asked the Borough Solicitor to comment on the amendment. In response the Borough Solicitor, Daniel Bainbridge, commented that the formatting suggestion under (a) was acceptable; and the ‘correction’ to paragraph 5.2 was unnecessary. He would not comment on the matters in b(ii) and b(iii) without further detail, and questioned whether Council would be happy with the proposed delegation.

17.2.9Cllr Follows was concerned that Council was being ‘bounced’ into considering a detailed amendment at short notice, and Cllr Palmer suggested that a way forward would be to agree the SCI in front of Council, and to review it as soon as possible. Cllr Cosser agreed that it was disappointing the amendment had been brought forward so late, and he wanted assurance that all the matters raised in it would be considered.

17.2.10   Cllr Hyman’s amendment, seconded by Cllr Potts, was put to the vote:

                 For = 24 votes, Against = 25 votes, Abstentions = 2

                 The amendment was therefore lost.

17.2.11   Cllr Follows proposed an amendment, to delegate temporary powers to the Leader and to the Planning Portfolio Holder in order to make the necessary amendments, to draft those and to bring them to the next available Full Council for ratification by this Chamber. The amendment was seconded by Cllr Beaman. Cllr Peter Martin reminded Council that the delegation would need to be to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Leader and Planning Portfolio, which Cllr Follows accepted.

17.2.12   The Mayor reminded Members that it was important that the SCI was adopted by Council this evening, as there would not be time to bring further revisions back to Council before mid-August.

17.2.13Cllr Follows therefore agreed to amend the wording of his amendment to read,that the current recommendation to approve this document, with its known and noted inaccuracies, plus the amendment to allow that delegation to rectify that, so this document would be therefore be valid upon passing, and the recommendation to amend would then be brought back to the next Full Council in September or October, whenever it is, so that this Chamber can review it properly then.

17.2.14The Mayor put the amendment to the vote:

              For = 47 votes, Against = 1, Abstentions = 1

              The amendment was therefore carried.

17.2.15The Leader summed up by endorsing the recommendation to adopt the SCI, as amended by Cllr Follows, and it was

              RESOLVED that the Statement of Community Involvement be adopted, subject to a delegation to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Leader and the Planning Portfolio Holder to make the necessary amendments, to draft those and to bring them to the next available Full Council for ratification by this Chamber.

General Fund Financial Out-turn Report 018/19 (EXE 6/19)

Cllr Hyman noted that the Special Executive on 27 March 2019 had approved a virement from the budget for the Frensham Heathland Hub to settle the contract on the Memorial Hall, which had been justified on the basis that grant-funding had been sought to fund the Frensham Heathland Hub. The grant application had not been successful and there was now a £780, 000 budget gap on the Heathland Hub. Had any consideration been given to using the budget surplus to fund this project?

Funding bid – Alfold Sports and Social Club (EXE 8/19)

Cllr Deanus advised that he had been involved with the Alfold Sports and Social Club and Alfold Village Hall for many years, and the funding granted would enable significant improvements to be made. He thanked officers, and Cllr Beaman and the previous Finance Portfolio Holder, Ged Hall, for their work in bringing this forward, and looked forward to more of this kind of support for community facilities.

Appointments to Outside Bodies (EXE9/19)

Cllr Peter Martin welcomed the appointment of Cllrs Jack Lee and Paul Follows as Armed Forces Champions, but was disappointed to note there were still some appointments outstanding, and asked when it was expected that these would be filled?

The Leader responded that he accepted the comments about outstanding appointments, and he hoped to have appointments completed soon. He would be wanting appointees to report back on their outside bodies in due course.

To receive the Minutes of the Licensing & Regulatory Committee meeting held on 17 June 2019 (attached – coloured bright green).

There are no matters in PART I for Council decision.

Members of the Council wising to speak on any Part II matters of report must give notice to the Democratic Services Team by midday on Tuesday 16 July 2019.

18.1     It was moved by the Chairman of the Committee, Cllr Robert Knowles, duly seconded by the Deputy Chairman, Cllr Peter Clark, and

RESOLVED    that the Minutes of the Licensing & Regulatory Committee held on 17 June 2019 be received and noted.

18.2     The Chairman reported that there no matters for Council to consider in Part I, and he had received no requests from Members to speak on the matter in Part II.  

To receive the Minutes of the Standards Committee meeting held on 1 July 2019 (attached – coloured cream), and to consider the recommendations set out within.

There are four PART I recommendations to Council:

STD 7/19         Constitution and Scheme of Delegation – Proposed Amendments

The Committee considered four proposed amendments to the Constitution and Scheme of Delegation, to:

·         clarify the definition of the Principal Opposition Group within the Council.

·         reinstate the opportunity for members of the public to ask informal questions before meetings of the Executive.

·         amend the remits of the Environment and Community Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committees, to align the committee remits more closely with Head of Service responsibilities.

·         clarify the planning call-in arrangements within the Scheme of Delegation to the Head of Planning and Economic Development, in response to a report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The Committee RECOMMENDS to Council that amendments to the Constitution and Scheme of Delegation are approved to effect the following:

1.        Definition of the Principal Opposition Group, as set out on Annexe 1 to these Minutes;

2.        Reinstatement of informal questions before meetings of the Executive, as set out on Annexe 1 to these Minutes;

3.         Amendments to the remits of Environment and Community Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committees as set out in Article 6 of the Constitution, to:

o   move Licensing from Community Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee to Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee; and

o   move Parks, Countryside and Open Spaces from Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee to Community Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

4.         Clarification of councillor call-in arrangements within the Scheme of Delegation to the Head of Planning and Economic Development (as shown in italics and underlined below):

“(g) planning applications which, by the expiry of the 21 day consultation period, have received 5 or more letters of objection or 5 or more letters of support (but not a combination of both and not from the same individual or the same household) shall only be determined under delegated powers following written confirmation from the relevant ward member(s) to the Head of Planning and Economic Development (or their nominee) that they do not wish the matter to be determined by the relevant Planning Committee.”

There are no Part II matters of report.

19.1     It was moved by the Chairman of the Committee, Cllr John Robini, duly seconded by the Deputy Chairman, Cllr Michael Goodridge, and

RESOLVED    that the Minutes of the Licensing & Regulatory Committee held on 1 July 2019 be received and noted.

            The Chairman reported that there were four matters in Part I recommended to the Council.

19.2.1  The Standards Committee had reviewed the wording of the Constitution that described the Executive and the position of political groups within the Council, and recommended minor amendments as set out in the Annexe to the Minutes that clearly defined the Principal Opposition Group as the largest group not represented on the Executive.

19.2.2  It was moved by the Chairman, and duly seconded by the Deputy Chairman, and

RESOLVED that the amendments to the Constitution, Part 1 (Summary and Explanation) paragraphs 4.0 and 5.3; and Part 4 (Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules) paragraph 1, as set out in the Annexe to the Standards Committee minutes, be approved.

19.3.1  The Chairman reported that this proposal had come from the Executive, and it reflected their wish for there to be the opportunity for a greater level of engagement with residents. The proposal allowed for up to 15 minutes of informal questions prior to the start of meetings of the Executive, where members of the public can come to the Council Chamber and ask a question within having given prior notice. The detail of the amendments to the Council Procedure Rule 10, and the Executive Procedure Rule 2.9, were set out in the Annexe to the Minutes.

19.3.2  The Leader and Deputy Leader endorsed the recommendation, which was they saw as the first step of many they wished to take to make the Council more open and transparent.

19.3.3  Cllr Hyman welcomed the move, and looked forward to informal questions also being reinstated before Council meetings. Cllr Reed also welcomed the move, which would open up the opportunity for engagement to those less able to submit written questions.

19.3.4  It was moved by the Chairman, duly seconded by Cllr Follows, and

RESOLVED that informal questions be reinstated before meetings of the Executive , and the amendments to the Council Procedure Rule 10, and the Executive Procedure Rule 2.9, set out in the Annexe to the Minutes of the Standards Committee be approved.

19.4.1  The Chairman advised that the Committee had considered a proposal to amend the remits of the Environment and Community Wellbeing Overview & Scrutiny Committees. The Chairman reported that since the Standards Committee meeting, he had received feedback from Overview & Scrutiny Members about the proposed amendment. As a result, he wished to propose that the recommendation be withdrawn, and referred to the next meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Co-ordinating Board.

19.4.2  Cllr Follows seconded the amendment, that the recommendation be withdrawn, and thanked Cllr D’Arcy and Cllr Townsend for their helpful comments following the Standards Committee meeting.

19.4.3  There were no further speakers on the amendment, which was carried without opposition. It was then moved by the Chairman, duly seconded and

RESOLVED that the recommendation be withdrawn, and the matter referred to the next meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Co-ordinating Board.

19.4.1  The Chairman explained that the proposed amendment was a minor textual change that did not change the way the call-in arrangements operated for Members, but responded to a recommendation made by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in a recent report, to provide clarification about the arrangements in relation to representations received on planning applications.

19.4.2  It was moved, duly seconded by Cllr Goodridge, and

            RESOLVED that the minor amendment to the Scheme of Delegation as shown in the agenda paper, be approved.