Agenda and minutes

The Deputy Mayor, Cllr John Robini, welcomed Members and members of the public to the Extraordinary meeting of the Council, and introduced the officers present at the meeting.

Cllr Robini advised that the Mayor had given her apologies, and he was chairing the meeting as Deputy Mayor. With the agreement of the Members present, the Deputy Mayor confirmed that the requirement to stand to speak was suspended for the evening.

The Mayor to report apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from the Mayor, Cllr Penny Marriott, and Cllrs Jan Floyd-Douglass, Michaela Gray, Anna James, Michaela Martin, and Peter Marriott.

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.

36.1     The Leader gave a brief update on the activity relating to Surrey County Council’s bid for a single Surrey unitary council. As discussed at the previous Council meeting, this had not been positively received by the Leaders of the eleven Districts and Boroughs, who had written to the Minister to ask that they be allowed to submit an alternative proposal. The Leaders of the eleven Districts and Boroughs had now confirmed the common approach they would be taking in developing their proposal, including sharing of baseline data with Surrey County Council, and appointing consultants to assist in developing the bid. Also, as instructed by Council, the Leader had written to Leaders of neighbouring boroughs in Hampshire and West Sussex to invite them to explore cross-border opportunities for alternative local government structures.

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

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

·         The Council had published its unaudited year-end report and accounts for the 2019/20 year ending 31 March 2020. These showed negligible impact from Covid, and due to the sound financial management throughout the year the Council had again maintained service delivery without cuts and with an overall surplus of £325,000 or 2% of the approved net budget of £13.2m.

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

·         The public Climate Emergency survey was live on Waverley’s website, and residents were asked to participate and have their say on what the council should be doing to become a greener borough.

·         Surrey County Council Planning & Regulatory Committee would be reconsidering the planning application by UK Oil and Gas and the their plans to drill for fossil fuels near Dunsfold, and Waverley had reiterated the objection previously submitted.

·         Waverley would be submitting an objection to Hampshire County Council in relation to the planning application from Veolia for an ‘advanced energy recovery facility’ – or incinerator – near Alton, due to the impact on the environment and on Farnham.

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

·         Inspector Samantha Adcock would be taking up the role of Borough Commander in September, and it was hoped to arrange a Member Briefing with Inspector Adcock and Supt. Tom Budd who was the new Neighbourhood Superintendent for West Surrey.

36.6     Cllr Andy MacLeod, Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy and Brightwells:

·         There were two very important government consultations in progress about potential changes to the planning system, to which the Council would be responding. He directed Members to recent emails from the Head of Planning that set out the detail of the consultations.

36.7     Cllr Nick Palmer, Portfolio Holder for Operational and Enforcement Services:

·         Car parking usage varied greatly from week to week, but was still between one- and two-thirds below the same period last year. The boost expected from the ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ scheme had not been seen, but the overall trend was gradually upwards.

36.8     Cllr Liz Townsend, Portfolio  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL36/20

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 4 August 2020.

There were none.

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

The deadline for receipt of motions was 5pm on Thursday 30 July 2020.

There were none.

To receive the Minutes of the Executive meeting held on 28 July 2020.

There is one Part I matter for Council consideration, at Agenda Item 6.1, 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 (PR 14.14).

39.1     The Leader of the Council presented the Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive held on 28 September. There was one Part I matter for Council consideration. It was moved by the Leader, duly seconded by the Deputy Leader, and

            RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Executive meeting held on 28 July 2020 be noted.

The Executive RECOMMENDS to Council:

1.    That Council acknowledges the forecast variations from the 2020/21 general fund budget listed in Annexe 1 and approves the mitigation measures set out in Annexe 2 including revisions to approved budgets, the cancellation of approved contributions to reserves and the drawing down of earmarked reserves.

2.    That in the event of additional government grant being secured and/or the overall projection set out in Annexe 1 being more favourable than forecast, the net budget surplus arising from this accrues to the business rate equalisation fund, property investment fund and working balance.

3.    That a full revision of the approved Medium Term Financial Plan is undertaken which will assess the adequacy of the contingency budget, consider the other options identified but not included at value at this stage, and the wider economic factors – to be reported to Council no later than its December meeting.

4.    That in relation to the Leisure Centre issues, the recommendations included in the Exempt Annexe be approved.

40.1     Cllr Mark Merryweather gave a brief presentation to Members setting out the already challenging financial situation of the Council, and the impact of the Covid pandemic on the 2020/21 finances and the Medium Term Financial Plan. The revised budget projections set out in the agenda report showed a £6.6m adverse impact through a combination of direct costs, and loss of income, and consequential costs. The single biggest element was from the closure of the leisure centres, followed by loss of car park income. Taking account of confirmed government grants, £5.2m of budget mitigation was being proposed for Council approval comprising a number of revenue and capital cost savings measures and a package of reserve movements. The risks and impacts arising from these measures were set out in the report.

40.2     Cllr Merryweather concluded his presentation by thanking the Council’s officers who had tackled the serious challenge of re-balancing the budget alongside their normal duties and additional responsibilities including administering the business grant schemes that had done so much to support businesses in Waverley. He also thanked other Members, including those on the Value for Money Overview & Scrutiny Committee, for the valuable and constructive contributions throughout this period.

40.3     Cllr Peter Martin responded to confirm that the Value for Money Overview & Scrutiny Committee had scrutinised the contingency budget very carefully at their meeting on 13 July, and recognised the very difficult circumstances and large number of uncertainties that make it hard for the Executive to plan going forward. The Committee was broadly satisfied that within the context described by the Portfolio Holder, a good job had been done thus far. Cllr Martin was pleased to see that a number of the recommendations and observations made by the Committee had been accepted and incorporated into the plan, including getting the leisure centres open as quickly as possible and protecting the balance sheet going forward. The Conservative Group were also in broad support of the approach, and Cllr Martin confirmed that he would be voting in favour of the recommendations.

40.4     Cllr Hyman also stated his support for the recommendations, but noted that many businesses in a similar situation were cutting costs to the bare minimum and he was concerned that residents might perceive the council’s approach as putting off difficult decisions. Cllr Foryszewski broadly supported the recommendations, but voiced concerns about the recommendation in the Exempt Annexe relating to the financial support for Places Leisure going forward. She was concerned about the future viability of the leisure centres under the new operating arrangements. This was especially so for Cranleigh leisure centre which was no long fit for purpose and needed significant long-term investment. Without investment, the cost of re-opening could be for nothing in the long term.

40.5     Cllr Follows responded to Cllr Hyman’s observations about whether the council should be cutting costs more radically, to point out that Waverley was a service provider, and services were provided by staff. Reducing staff would impact directly on services provided to residents; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item CNL40/20

41.1    Cllr Robert Knowles spoke in relation to Minute EXE 18/20, Recovery & Devolution White Paper – Local Government in Surrey, and thanked the Leader for his update at the beginning of the meeting. He encouraged the Leader to progress this issue with haste, and referred to reporting about the similar circumstances in North Yorkshire and the reports of the preferred maximum size of a unitary authority being 600,000 population. This was an opportunity to abolish the county of Surrey, that had already lost half its area and population to London, and create councils for the natural communities that existed today.

41.2    Cllr Jerry Hyman also spoke in relation to the same matter, and asked for clarification that the comment at EXE18.7/20 reflected fairly the Leader’s comments regarding the consultation by Cllr Oliver. The Leader confirmed that whilst he understood there were some officer contacts and discussions about the possibility of some sort of unitary bid from Surrey, none of the eleven Borough and District Leaders were informed or consulted before the letter went to the Minister.

41.3    Cllr Steve Cosser asked the following question in relation to Minute EXE 21/20, The Burys Project Initiations Document: ''Given that this matter has never been considered by any Committee of  Godalming Town Council, and that the only comments I have seen on it from Godalming members  are those from the Deputy Leader of this Council on social media can he please identify and supply to me the 'feedback' it is stated was received from the Town Council  and set out clearly  the ways in which this has 'been reflected' in the PID. Does he share my view that it is unacceptable that it should be stated that views have been received from another Council when this is not the case and agree to remove this reference from the Executive minute? Or is it the intention that formal Council business should now be conducted through social media ?''

41.4    In response, Cllr Follows agreed that he did mis-speak at the Executive meeting, and referred to Godalming Town Council when he had meant Councillors, and he was happy for the Executive Minutes to be corrected before being approved by the Executive at their next meeting. The Portfolio Holder had reached out to the Ward councillors about the proposals and listened to feedback on the general points about the desirability of keeping Waverley Borough Council within Godalming, and being mindful of the car parking needs of the town. When firmer proposals had been developed there would be proper consultation.

To receive the Minutes of the Licensing & Regulatory Committee meeting held on 30 July 2020.

There is one Part I matter for Council consideration, at Agenda Item 7.1, below.

42.1     It was moved by Cllr Robert Knowles, the Chairman of the Committee, duly seconded and RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee held on 30 July 2020 be received and noted.

42.2     There was one Part I matter for the Council to consider.

The Licensing & Regulatory Committee RECOMMENDS that Council:

     i.        Adopts the policy set out in Annexe A.

    ii.        Sets the fee for a pavement licence at £100.

  iii.        Delegates authority to the Head of Environmental and Regulatory Services to issue pavement licences and/or authority to refuse or amend pavement licences in consultation with the Chairman of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee.

  iv.        Delegates authority to the Head of Environmental and Regulatory Services in relation to enforcement powers under the new legislation (The Business and Planning Act 2020).

    v.        Delegates authority to the Head of Environmental and Regulatory Services to make minor or consequential amendments to the Policy and Licence conditions in the event of any amendments/ updating statutory instruments and/or government guidance in consultation with the Chairman of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee.

43.1     Cllr Knowles introduced the matter for Council decision, which was the Policy for responding to legislation within the Business and Planning Act 2020 to streamline the process for food businesses to apply for a “Pavement Licence”. This temporary authorisation provided a shortcut to the usual suite of consents required under the Highways Act and planning law. The purpose of the new licence was to help the struggling hospitality sector in a time of social distancing by creating outdoor seating areas. The report also reported on changes to the licensing laws which would  allow businesses with a premises licence for on-sales of alcohol to sell off-sales without the need to apply for a formal variation to their licence.

43.2    The Policy was based on a standard template developed by the Surrey Boroughs and Districts to ensure consistency of approach. A number of corrections had been made to the report and attachments during the discussion at Licensing Committee, and changes had been made to clarify matters raised by the Committee. It was recommended that Council adopt the policy and conditions set out in the Annexe to the report, set a pavement licence fee of £100, and agree the proposed delegation as set out in the report so that the legislation could be implemented efficiently.

43.3    Cllr Townsend welcomed the introduction of this new temporary pavement license aimed helping the hospitality sector to manage social distancing. She thanked Officers for responding quickly to bring forward the Policy and the Licensing Committee for meeting at short notice after the House of Lords had amended the Licensing provisions in the Act to be non-Executive functions.

43.4    Cllr Hyman thanked Officers for making the typographical corrections to the Policy that he had highlighted at great length during the Licensing Committee. He was fully supportive of the Policy and the recommendations before Council. Cllr Carole Cockburn also spoke in support of the Policy, but asked that Waverley take a robust approach with Surrey County Council in order to help local businesses and kick-start life in the town centres.

43.5    Council RESOLVED (nem con) to:

                      i.        Adopt the policy set out in Annexe A.

                     ii.        Set the fee for a pavement licence at £100.

                    iii.        Delegate authority to the Head of Environmental and Regulatory Services to issue pavement licences and/or authority to refuse or amend pavement licences in consultation with the Chairman of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee.

                    iv.        Delegate authority to Head of Environmental and Regulatory Services in relation to enforcement powers under the new legislation (The Business and Planning Act 2020).

                     v.         Delegate authority to the Head of Environmental and Regulatory Services to make minor or consequential amendments to the Policy and Licence conditions in the event of any amendments/ updating statutory instruments and/or government guidance in consultation with the Chairman of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee.

(Cllr Keen abstained from voting as she had lost her internet connection during the course of the item.)

To receive the Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 20 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, by email, or by phone, by noon on the day of the meeting of a statement or question, and give details of any question (PR 14.14).

44.1     It was moved by the Cllr Jerome Davidson, Vice-Chairman of the Committee, duly seconded and RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Audit Committee held on 20 July 2020 be received and noted. There were no matters in Part I for Council decision.

44.2    Cllr Jerry Hyman spoke in relation to the Internal Audit Plan, and his request to see a copy of the report relating to lessons learned from the Brightwells and Memorial Hall projects. He had been sent a report but not the one requested, so he had still not been able to carry out scrutiny of these projects and find out about the lessons learned and what investigations were being carried out in respect of the matters that were still outstanding with Brightwells. Cllr Davidson suggested that Cllr Hyman take this matter up with the Strategic Director.

If necessary, to consider the following motion, to be moved by the Mayor:

That, pursuant to Procedure Rule 20 and in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of any matter on this agenda on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the item(s), there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) of the description specified in the appropriate paragraph(s) of the revised Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (to be identified at the meeting).

There were no matters to be considered in Exempt session.