Agenda and minutes

46.1     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.

46.2    The Mayor reminded Members of the protocols for Zoom meetings, and confirmed that she was waiving Council Procedure Rule 21.1, the requirement for Members to stand to speak.

To confirm the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 22 July 2020 and the Extraordinary meeting held on 11 August 2020 (herewith).

The Minutes of the Meetings of the Council held on 22 July and 11 August 2020 were confirmed. The Mayor would sign these at a later date.

The Mayor to report apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Val Henry, Dan Hunt, and Stephen Mulliner.

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.

50.1     The Mayor gave a brief report on her engagements since the previous Council meeting. Whilst she had not attended any events in person, The Mayor had attended a number of events via Zoom including a lecture on Muhammed, hosted by the Ahmadiyya. Muslim Association.

50.2     The Mayor reported that she had been contacted by a young resident who had asked what steps the council was taking to address inequality and injustice in the borough, in response to the council’s statement on Black Lives Matter, issued in May 2020. The council had many anti-discrimination measures in place, and the Corporate Equality Working Group had recently been refreshed in the light of the changing times. The focus of the Working Group was to foster an inclusive culture at Waverley and to support management and staff to meet their responsibilities related to equality, diversity and inclusion in delivering services. The Mayor had joined a sub-group that was looking at breaking down issues about racism in Waverley, and looked forward to learning more about what the council was doing.

50.3     The Mayor went on to introduce an new scheme, Reconnnections, being launched in Guildford and Waverley by Age UK Surrey following a successful pilot in Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Age UK would be working in partnership with local organisations to reduce loneliness especially in those above 65 years, by bringing together skills and experience in the community to provide a mutually supportive and person-centred service for older people, helping until individuals gained enough confidence to stand alone. The new scheme would be launched towards the end of October, or early November, with an outside event, which the Mayor was looking forward to attending.

51.1     The Leader reminded Members that Cllr David Beaman had recently stood down from the Executive, and he reiterated his thanks to Cllr David Beaman for his hard work as an member of the Executive since the elections in May 2019. Cllr Beaman had been replaced on the Executive by Cllr Michaela Martin, who had taken over the same portfolio as previously held by Cllr Beaman.

51.2     With regard to Covid, the Leader was concerned that Waverley could be following Elmbridge and moving into the Tier 2 category of restrictions. It was not clear what the escalation triggers were, or the critical thresholds, and officers were trying to find out more information about how these decisions were made, and by whom.

51.3     With regard to local government reorganisation, the government’s recent announcement that Surrey was not one of the three counties invited to put forward proposal had removed some of the urgency from the preparatory work. However, it appeared that Surrey would be in the second was of invitations and whilst the timing of this was unknown, it was understood that Surrey County Council was continuing to develop its proposal for a single Surrey Unitary. All the Surrey Districts and Boroughs had opposed this option, and work was continuing with KPMG to produce evidence to support alternative unitary proposals at the appropriate time, and opportunities for closer working between councils.

51.4     Whilst the council’s consultation response on the Planning White Paper Planning for the Future was still being finalised, Jeremy Hunt had been fully briefed on the council’s concerns which he had fully taken on board.

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

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

·         When Council last met, in August, it had agreed a contingency revised General Fund budget to address the £6.6m gap arising due to Covid. Whilst the position regarding government funding was clearer now than in August, it seemed likely that only around 50% of the council’s Covid costs and losses would be covered by grants.

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

·         The Climate Emergency Action Plan remained on track to come to Overview & Scrutiny in November, and Executive on 1 December. The public consultation had closed at the weekend and generated a very good response that was very supportive of the council’s direction of travel on climate change.

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

·         Inspector Sam Adcock had now taken up her new post as Waverley Borough Commander, and would be attending the meeting of the Safer Waverley Partnership Executive later in the week.

·         Despite the Covid pandemic, the development of Site A on Ockford Ridge had been completed and Cllr Rosoman had visited some of the finished properties. Tenants who had already moved in were really happy with their new homes and the last handover was scheduled for early November.

·         Housing Officers continued to provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL51/20

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 13 October 2020.

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

            Question received from Prof. Tom Oliver on behalf of Haslemere South Residents Association:

“How is the proposed development on AONB and AONB-candidate AGLV land in Planning Application WA/2020/1213 commensurate with a recent national pledge to safeguard biodiversity and the Waverley Council policy declaration on Climate Emergency?”

Response from Cllr Nick Palmer, Portfolio Holder for Operational and Enforcement Service:

“In the same way any other application would be, planning application WA/2020/1213 for housing at Red Court will be assessed on its own relative planning merits against the provisions of the development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and all other material considerations,  This will include due consideration of matters of sustainability and biodiversity.  The Council has consulted with Natural England and Surrey Wildlife Trust and their views, together with responses from other statutory and non-statutory consultees, and representations received from third parties, will be taken into account in reaching a decision on this application.”

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

The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 13 October 2020.

The following questions had been received from Members:

53.1    From Cllr Jerry Hyman:

“Madam Mayor,

In respect of the conservation of the biodiversity and endangered species of Special Protection Areas, will you please confirm to Members and the public that the approach taken by Natural England and Waverley Borough Council since 2008, i.e. of evading any ‘appropriate assessment’ of proposed mitigation strategies, has been determined by the Courts to be unlawful, and indeed confirm that in considering planning applications and Local Plans where there is a possibility that in-combination effects of residential development within the visitor catchment areas pose a risk to the protected species populations, we are firmly bound by the judgements of the European and domestic courts in the ‘People Over Wind & Sweetman (2018) and ‘Crondall’ (2019) cases such that in the absence of a risk assessment detailing the extent to which mitigation is effective, to adopt or grant consent to an affected plan or project is unlawful?”

Response from the Mayor, Cllr Penny Marriott:

“I can confirm that the Council continues to apply the Habitats Regulations lawfully in respect of plans and projects that are likely to have a significant effect on the special protection areas. The Council has taken external legal advice which has confirmed that its approach is lawful. The Council will continue to monitor this area closely to ensure its approach remains legally compliant. “

53.2    From Cllr George Wilson:

“Does the council feel that the attempt by SCC to stop councillors discussion of the changes to the fire cover in Surrey is valid as our remit is to protect our residents?”

Response from the Leader, Cllr John Ward:

                   “There seem to be two issues here: firstly, the actual disagreement between the Fire Brigade Union and Surrey County Council; and secondly, the attempt which you have just reported to prevent councillors from discussing or speaking about certain items. To deal with the first issue, the actual recommendation for the future of the fire service, for which we are not responsible, but we can debate it; and I am sure it will be debated at the forthcoming Community Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee which will be reviewing the Community Safety Partnership. On the other, the report that you have brought to us of officers from another council, however senior it might feel itself to be, attempting to issue instructions to our councillors not to discuss items of importance with other parties, is of course totally unacceptable as we remain committed to openness and transparency; and would like to hear from any of our residents whatever their views so that we may have a clear picture of what is going on, and not just be guided by what another council tells us.”

The deadline for receipt of motions in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.1 was 5pm on Thursday 8 October 2020. No Motions have been received.

There had been none received.

To receive the Minutes of the Executive meetings held on 8 September and 6 October 2020, and to consider the recommendations set out within.

There are three Part I matters for Council consideration, set out in the following agenda items.

There shall be no debate on any item contained in Part II of the Minutes but Members may give notice in writing, by email, or by phone, by noon on the day of the meeting of a statement or question, and give details of any question (PR14.14).

55.1    It was moved by the Leader, duly seconded and RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Executive meeting on 8 September and 6 October 2020 be received and noted.

55.2    There were three matters in Part I, for Council consideration. There were no requests to speak in relation to Part II matters.

This report recommends to Council that it approves the Pre-Submission version of Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) for consultation under Regulation 19 of the Local Planning Regulations.  This report focuses on the areas that have generated a high degree of public interest as a result of the representations the Council received from the previous consultation on the Preferred Options version of LPP2 in May – July 2018.  It also considers the feedback to the proposed Pre-Submission version of LPP2 that was considered by the Environment O&S in October 2018.   In response to this, Officers have been able to make a number of changes to the draft Plan which address most of the concerns raised at that meeting.  This report also considers the observations made at the recent meeting of the Environment O&S Committee on 22^nd September 2020 and the resultant changes to LPP2 that the Executive recommended can be made when they met on 6^th October 2020.  It also sets out any additional recommended changes to LPP2 that resulted from that Executive meeting. 

Recommendation

That Council agrees that:

a)     the Pre-Submission version of Local Plan Part 2 which includes the amendments to the Plan made following the recommendations of the meeting of the Executive on 6^th October 2020, attached as Annexe 2 to this report, be approved for consultation under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012;

b)     the Head of Planning and Economic Development be given the authority to make any further typographical or formatting changes to the pre-submission version of Local Plan Part 2 that are deemed necessary for its consultation. 

56.1     The Leader introduced the draft Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2), which was presented to Council for approval as the pre-submission version for consultation under Regulation 19 of the Local Planning Regulations. Progress of LPP2 had been delayed due to difficulties in finding site allocations that were agreeable to people in Haslemere and Witley; and to address site allocations for gypsies and travellers. There had been an additional call for sites in Haslemere, but the council was caught between meeting government housing targets, and objections to development by Natural England due environmental constraints. The Executive hoped that during the course of the Regulation 19 consultation, there would be progress made in discussions with Natural England with regard to sites in Haslemere, and all consultation responses would be carefully considered.

56.2     Cllr MacLeod, Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy and Brightwells, thanked the Head of Planning & Economic Development and his Planning Policy Team for their work over the last three years to produce the draft LPP2 document. They had worked painstakingly to try and satisfy all stakeholders and to come up with the best plan for Waverley. Cllr MacLeod also thanked Cllr Mulliner for his scrutiny of housing numbers in Haslemere, and the LPP2 had been updated accordingly, although it was not sufficient to allow any sites to be removed from the allocations. Concerns expressed by Cllr Knowles regarding the water supply problems in Haslemere had been heard, and LPP2 included a policy requiring infrastructure to be provided ahead of housing development. However, the council was not able to reject housing based on a perceived problem, and Thames Water were obliged to provide a water supply. Cllr MacLeod also confirmed that whilst the Regulation 19 consultation would be taking place amid the Covid restrictions, every effort would be made to ensure that it was widely accessible including for those with no internet.

56.3     Cllr Follows reiterated the Executive’s commitment to pass LPP2, for the benefit of those communities who were impacted directly because of its absence; but also to continue to work with colleagues in Haslemere during the consultation period, to try and resolve the disagreement over site allocations and identify a viable alternative to the Red Court site.

56.4     A number of councillors from all Groups spoke in support of progressing LPP2, and the need to get LPP2 adopted in order to protect all of the borough; whilst the progress on site allocations in Witley was pleasing, and there was sympathy for the situation in Haslemere, it was also recognised that the absence of site allocations to meet the housing target put the council at a disadvantage at planning appeals. Only Cllr Hyman spoke against the LPP2, on the basis that in his view it was not compliant with Regulation 9 of the Habitats Regulations.

56.5     The Leader thanked Members for their contribution to the debate, and requested a recorded vote on the recommendation, which was supported by Cllrs Hyman, Follows, Williams, Townsend and Palmer.

56.6    Council RESOLVED to  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL56/20

This report provides feedback from the consultation process to make amendments to The Waverley Borough Council (Off-Street Parking Places) Order 2017 and the proposed timetable for the making of the Waverley Borough Council (Off-Street Parking Places) Order 2020.

Recommendation

That Council approve the making the Waverley Borough Council (Off-Street Parking Places) Order 2020.

57.1     Cllr Nick Palmer, Portfolio for Operational and Enforcement Services, introduced the report which provided feedback on the consultation process to make amendments to The Waverley Borough Council (Off-Street Parking Places) Order 2017 and proposed that Council approved making The Waverley Borough Council (Off-Street Parking Places) Order 2020.

57.2     The review was solely related to the rules of usage in car parks, and did not propose any changes to the current car park tariffs. There had been no objections or comments in relation to the proposed Order during the consultation period.

57.3     Council RESOLVED (nem con) to approve the making of the Waverley Borough Council (Off-Street Parking Places) Order 2020.

The phasing out of the use of pesticides on Council-owned land is an objective within the council’s draft Climate Emergency Action Plan.  The draft Pesticides Policy and action plan (attached as Annexe 1) aims to start the process of reducing pesticide usage by the council wherever possible with the ambition of being pesticide free in three years.

Recommendation

That Council adopts the Pesticides Policy and Action Plan.

58.1     Cllr Liz Townsend, Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, Leisure and Countryside, and Dunsfold Park, introduced the Pesticides Policy and Action Plan which aimed to being the process of reducing pesticide use by the council wherever possible with the ambition of being pesticide free in three years. The Policy responded to growing concerns locally, nationally and globally about the impact of widespread pesticide use on health and biodiversity.  

58.2     A number of Members spoke to express support for the principle of reducing pesticide use; but concern for the way that this was articulated in the Policy and Action Plan. It was felt that the Policy made judgements that weren’t supported by evidence, was too vague about how the policy aspirations would be achieved, and lacked information about the cost of reducing pesticides and employing alternative methods of pest control.

58.3     In response, other Members highlighted the need to take action, as well as supporting the principle; and where evidence may not be conclusive, to take a precautionary approach. The Policy would be a living document and would be amended and updated to reflect ongoing changes in legislation, industry practices and availability of alternative treatments. The Policy only affected pesticide use on council-owned land.

58.4     The Leader thanked Members for their contributions to the debate, but since it was clear that there would not be a unanimous decision he requested a recorded vote on the recommendation, which was supported by Cllrs Edmonds, Follows, Blishen, Townsend and Palmer.

58.5     Council RESOLVED to adopt the Pesticide Policy and Action Plan.

For  39

Cllrs Christine Baker, David Beaman, Roger Blishen, Peter Clark, Carole Cockburn, Richard Cole, Martin D’Arcy, Jerome Davidson, Sally Dickson, Brian Edmonds, Patricia Ellis, Jan Floyd-Douglass, Paul Follows, Mary Foryszewski, Maxine Gale, Michaela Gray, Joan Heagin, George Hesse, Chris Howard, Jerry Hyman, Peter Isherwood, Jacquie Keen, Andy MacLeod, Penny Marriott, Peter Marriott, Michaela Martin, Mark Merryweather, Kika Mirylees, John Neale, Nick Palmer, Ruth Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Anne-Marie Rosoman, Liz Townsend, John Ward, Steve Williams, George Wilson

Abstentions  11

Cllrs Steve Cosser, Kevin Deanus, David Else, Jenny Else, Michael Goodridge, John Gray, Robert Knowles, Anna James, Peter Martin, Trevor Sadler, Richard Seaborne

Against  2

Cllrs Brian Adams, Simon Dear

To receive the Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 14 September 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, by email, or by phone, by noon on the day of the meeting of a statement or question, and give details of any question (PR14.14).

59.1     It was moved by the Chairman of the Committee, duly seconded and RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Audit Committee held on 14 September 2020 be received and noted.  

59.2     There were no matters in Part I for Council approval, and no speakers registered on Part II matters.

To receive the Minutes of the Standards Committee meeting held on 5 October 2020, and to consider the recommendations set out within.

There is one Part I matter for Council consideration, as set out below.

There shall be no debate on any item contained in Part II of the Minutes but Members may give notice in writing, by email, or by phone, by noon on the day of the meeting of a statement or question, and give details of any question (PR14.14).

60.1     It was moved by the Chairman of the Committee, duly seconded and RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Standards Committee held on 5 October 2020 be received and noted. 

60.2     There was one matter in Part I for Council approval.

On 9 June 2020, the Council adopted Virtual Meeting Procedure Rules in line with the Regulations for remote attendance at meetings which came into effect on 4 April 2020. At its meeting on 21 May 2020, the Standards Committee agreed to review the experience of holding virtual committee meetings with remote attendance by Members and Officers, and to make recommendations on changes to the Virtual Meeting Procedure Rules, if necessary, in the light of experience.  The Standards  Committee also agreed to review the temporary arrangements for the planning committees, introduced to simplify the committee arrangements whilst holding virtual meetings.

Recommendation

The Standards Committee recommends to Council that, in view of the latest Government guidance on use of council buildings and general tightening of Covid-19 precautions until March 2021, the current arrangements for the EASTERN and WESTERN Planning Committees continue to the end of the council year on 7 May 2021.

61.1     Cllr John Robini, Chairman of the Standards Committee, moved the recommendation that, in view of the latest guidance on use of council buildings and general tightening of Covid-19 precautions until March 2021, the current arrangements for the Eastern and Western Planning Committees continue to the end of the council year on 7 May 2021.

61.2     Cllr David Beaman made a statement in his capacity as Chairman of the Western Planning Committee, to correct what he felt were inaccurate and misleading statements made by Cllr Hyman as a member of the Standards Committee at the meeting on 5 October. Cllr Beaman had attended the Standards Committee meeting on 5 October to comment on his experience as chairman of the Western Planning Committee:

“The debate included discussion of the use of break out rooms in meetings of Planning Committees to draft alternative recommendations when Committees do not support the recommendations of WBC Planning officers. During this debate Cllr Jerry Hyman made statements which I consider to be both inaccurate and misleading. Since these are formally recorded on the webcast I would like to use this opportunity to correct the record.

When debating a protocol for the use of break out rooms Cllr Hyman requested that any protocol needed to be brought back to The Standards Committee for agreement stating “I don’t think that the Chairmen will particularly care if it is lawful or proper what is done there going by what they have done so far”. When Cllr John Robini as Chair of The Standards Committee (and also Vice Chair of the Western Area Planning Committee) responded that he had faith in the two Planning Committee Chairmen (myself and Cllr Richard Cole) Cllr Hyman stated “History proves otherwise, History proves otherwise We represent the residents”. (Minutes 63 to 65 of the webcast).

Not being a member of The Standards Committee I was unable to correct this misrepresentation at the time but as Chair of the Western Area Planning Committee I am very concerned that Cllr Hyman knowingly made statements that totally misrepresent my views and opinions on the use of break out rooms.

I can assure everybody (Councillors, Officers Residents) that I personally do not regard the use of break out rooms as being proper. I made my views and opinions quite clear at the only meeting of The Western Area Planning Committee held on Tuesday 1st September at which an attempt was made to use a break out room at the request of Planning Officers regarding WA/2020/0784 which ended in a technical breakdown that I did not personally believe that break out rooms should ever be used. I also gave a personal undertaking that so long as I remained Chair break out rooms would never again be used at meetings of the Western Area Planning Committee. Cllr Hyman was present at this meeting as an observer and did personally intervene (even though being only an observer he had no right to do so).

I believe that Cllr Hyman, who  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL61/20