Agenda and minutes

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 September 2019.

18.1     The Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 September 2019 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

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.

19.1    The following declarations were made in respect of Item 11 on the agenda, Property Matters – Asset Transfer to Town and Parish Councils: 

Cllrs John Ward, David Beaman, Andy MacLeod, and Mark Merryweather declared a non-pecuniary interest as they were residents of Farnham and members of Farnham Town Council. However they had no position of authority within the Town Council. Therefore they were declaring a non-pecuniary interest which they did not feel would influence their decision making at Waverley Borough Council.

Cllr John Neale declared a non-pecuniary interest would withdraw from the meeting whilst this items was discussed. As Leader of Farnham Town Council, he wished to avoid any perception that he might have a conflict of interests that would prevent him from making an objective decision.

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from members of the public for which notice has been given in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.

The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 1 October 2019.

20.1     There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from Members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.

The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 1 October 2019.

21.1    The following question had been received from Cllr Jerry Hyman:

            “Does the Executive accept that the clarification of the April 2018 'POW' and 'Germany' Rulings of the ECJ  provided within the 22nd July 2019 'National Planning Practice Guidance on Appropriate Assessment', in respect of the requirement that Authorities "must now assess the robustness of mitigation measures", confirms beyond equivocation that the use of Natural England's strategy of evading detailed assessment of SANG and SAMM measures through the TBHSPA JSPB Delivery Framework and WBC Avoidance Strategies is and always has been an unlawful  strategy, such that the moratorium on granting consents to new housing within the visitor catchment zones of the Thames Basin and Wealden Heath SPAs (which was implemented temporarily from May last year) must now be reinstated with immediate effect, until such time as the requisite evidence and appropriate assessments can be produced?   And if not, please state the justification in full.”

21.2    Cllr Andy MacLeod, Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy & Services read the following response to the question:

“The Habitat Regulations (Reg. 63) require that a local planning authority may not grant permission for “any plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on any designated European Site (SPA) without first carrying out an “Appropriate Assessment” of the implications of that plan or project for the site in question to the extent that it is first satisfied to a standard of beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that the plan or project carried no adverse effect for that site.

It was the practice, at application stage, to consider whether proposed mitigation e.g. the securing of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) by a s106 agreement, would avoid such adverse effect, to enable to “screen out” certain planning applications so that they need not be subject to full Appropriate Assessment, regarding any possible adverse effect and  which would  be referred to in the Report  before Committee, at the stage of consideration of the  planning application.

The existing Guidance has now been amended in July to clarify that the People over Wind / Sweetman   (“POW”) judgement in April 2018 (European Court of Justice (ECJ)) meant that a planning authority cannot take into account any mitigation measures such as proposed SANG, when initially considering a planning application, in order to “screen it “out of the need for a full  Appropriate Assessment . The POW judgement drew on existing rulings such as the Germany case, which has been referred to.

Thus as a result, mitigation measures intended to avoid any adverse effect of any “plan or project”   can now only be considered as part of a full, end stage “Appropriate Assessment”.  The amended Guidance in fact indicates, in terms, (para 006) that off-site SANGS (and by extension related Site Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM)) can be acceptable mitigation following the POW case, subject to an Appropriate Assessment of the plan or project in question, together with any such proposed mitigation.

When this Authority carries out any  such Appropriate Assessment, consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item EXE 21/19

22.1     There were no updates reported.

Background Papers

Unless specified under an individual item, there are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to the reports in Part I of these minutes.

The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) was adopted at Council on 16 July 2019. During the debate, some amendments to the document were tabled. It was agreed that officers would consider if the proposed amendments should be made to the newly adopted SCI.  This report assesses the proposed amendments and makes recommendations as to whether the adopted SCI should be changed.

Recommendation

That the Executive agrees that no further changes are required to the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) for the reasons set out in the report.

.

23.1     Cllr Andy MacLeod introduced the report that reviewed the amendments to the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) that had been proposed by Cllr Hyman at the Full Council meeting on 16 July 2019. The SCI had been adopted on 16 July, but it had been agreed that Cllr Hyman’s proposals should be considered, with revisions brought back to Full Council.

23.2     In addition to some proposed formatting changes which had already been carried out to the published document, the amendments proposed: that the SCI relate to the current adopted local plan period; a need for consultation on the SCI itself; and that the SCI should include text setting out the assistance that the Council would give to neighbourhood plan groups who are modifying their neighbourhood plans. 

23.3    Cllr MacLeod reported that it was not considered necessary to change the adopted SCI with regard to these requested changes.  Firstly, the SCI related to the preparation of local plans in general rather than specifically to the adopted Waverley Local Plan.  Secondly, there was not a legal requirement to consult on the SCI itself and given that the SCI was about how the Council engages with its communities on planning issues there was no need to consult on the document.  Finally, the Council gave assistance to those towns and parishes that are preparing neighbourhood plans, and part of that assistance was to support towns and parishes that wished to modify their neighbourhood plans after they had been agreed.  An example of this was the support that this Council had given to the review of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan. The matter of supporting neighbourhood plans was set out in general in the SCI, and there was no need to be explicit in it on the help that will be given to towns and parishes modifying neighbourhood plans.

23.4     Therefore having considered the proposed amendments there was no need to amend the adopted SCI at this stage to incorporate these changes. Cllr MacLeod advised that he proposed to amend the recommendation, to ask the Executive to recommend to Council that no further changes were required to the SCI.

23.5     Cllr Jerry Hyman was disappointed that his points had not been accepted, especially with regard to the requirement for the Council to provide assistance to towns and parishes that wished to modify their neighbourhood plans. Whilst he recognised that Waverley had assisted Farnham with the modification of its Neighbourhood Plan, he maintained that the SCI was required to refer to this explicitly, and the outcome was wholly unsatisfactory.

23.6     The Executive RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to Council that no further changes were required to the Statement of Community Involvement, for the reasons set out in the report.

Reason: To enable Council to make a decision on the need for further revisions to the Statement of Community Involvement.

The background papers relating to the following items are as specified in the reports included in the original agenda papers.

To agree the Council’s internal governance arrangements to support the implementation and delivery of Dunsfold Park Garden Village (DPGV).

Recommendation

It is recommended that Executive agrees the implementation of the governance structure as set out in this report, and agrees the Councillor membership of the Waverley Strategic DPGV Governance Board and DPGV Advisory Group.

24.1    The Leader introduced the report proposing a governance structure for Waverley to support the development and delivery of Dunsfold Park Garden Village. This new settlement was a Strategic Site in Waverley’s Local Plan Part 1, with two policies – Policy SS7 and SS7A – providing a comprehensive framework for the development and delivery. A Planning Performance Agreement was now in place between the Council, Surrey County Council and Dunsfold Airport Ltd, the owners of the site.

24.2    The proposed governance structure, headed by a Strategic Governance Board, reflected recommended good practice established by other local authorities that were progressing large-scale developments.

24.3    The Executive RESOLVED to agree the implementation of the governance structure as set out in the report, and to delegate to the Leader the appointment of Members to the Waverley Strategic Dunsfold Park Garden Village Governance Board and the Dunsfold Park Garden Village Advisory Group.

Reason: The establishment of strategic governance arrangements within the Council is critical to the support, implementation, and overall success of the Garden Village project.

The adoption of an up to date AONB Management Plan is a statutory requirement for those local authorities that are covered by the AONB.  The current Management Plan is from 2014 to 2019.  This report recommends approval of the revised Surrey Hills AONB Management, 2020 – 2025, following a ‘light touch’ review. The Management Plan has been prepared by the Surrey Hills AONB Board on behalf of, and in collaboration with, the five Surrey Hills AONB districts and boroughs and Surrey County Council.

Recommendation

That the Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan 2020-2025 be adopted as the statutory AONB Management Plan for Waverley Borough Council.

25.1     Cllr Andy MacLeod introduced the report and draft Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan 2020-2025, and recommended its adoption by the Council. The revised Management Plan was the result of a ‘light touch’ review by the Surrey Hills AONB Board on behalf of and in collaboration with the five Surrey Hills AONB districts and boroughs and Surrey County Council. It was a statutory requirement that these local authorities adopted an up-to-date AONB Management Plan.

25.2     Cllr Brian Adams noted that it wasn’t a Waverley document, but it was an important document that impacted the performance of the AONB. There were a number of areas that Cllr Adams had identified where the draft Management Plan lacked details including the definition of biodiversity net gain, density of development, community transport and improvement of transport infrastructure. Cllr MacLeod thanked Cllr Adams for his thoughtful comments, which Cllr Adams agreed to share the details of for ease of follow-up.

25.3     Cllr Jerry Hyman stated that he felt the draft Management Plan was a good document, but lacked strength in certain areas and he seconded the comments made by Cllr Adams. He urged the Executive to give the AONB proper protection.

25.4     The Executive RESOLVED to adopt the Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan 2020-2025 as the statutory AONB Management Plan for Waverley Borough Council.

Reason: To ensure that there is an up to date AONB Management Plan in place, in accordance with statutory requirements.

This report proposes revised Terms of Reference of the Investment Advisory Board to clarify the objectives of the Board, and ensure that the membership supports the Council’s ambitions.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Executive approves the revised membership and Terms of Reference of the Property Investment Advisory Board.

26.1    Cllr Mark Merryweather introduced the report proposing revised Terms of Reference and Membership of the Investment Advisory Board, which would be renamed as the Property Investment Advisory Board.

26.2    The Corporate Strategy made a commitment to a financially sound Council, and to help provide housing to buy and rent for all income levels. The Property Investment Strategy was a key element of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan. Up to now it had focused entirely on investing in commercial property, and there had been an understanding that a property company would be needed to invest in residential property. More recent legal advice had countered this, and Members were interested in exploring investment in residential property that would provide an income to the Council and help meet housing needs in the borough.

26.3    The Terms of Reference of the Property Investment Advisory Board had been updated to clarify the purpose of the Council’s property investment activity and reflect the updated legal advice. The proposed Membership moved closer to the original membership of the Investment Advisory Board and Members had met informally and had agreed in principle the proposed Terms of Reference.

26.4    The Executive RESOLVED to approve the revised membership and Terms of Reference of the Property Investment Advisory Board, and confirmed the appointment of the following Members to the Board:

Cllr Mark Merryweather, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Assets & Commercial (Chairman)

Cllr John Neale, Portfolio Holder for Place Shaping, IT & Customer Services

Cllr Anne-Marie Rosoman, Portfolio Holder for Housing & Community Safety

Cllr Jack Lee

Cllr Peter Martin

Reason: to align the terms of reference of the Property Investment Advisory Board to the new Corporate Strategy.

This report seeks approval for a number of asset transfers from the Council to Town and Parish Councils to coincide with the start of the new Grounds Maintenance Contract on the 1 November 2019. 

This enables Town and Parish Councils to have full control over local green spaces in their respective areas and removes Waverley Borough Council from the responsibility and cost for grounds maintenance of those key sites.

Recommendation

It is recommended that:

1.    The leasehold transfer of assets, as detailed in Annexe 1 be approved.

2.    The tapered funding arrangement for the leasehold transfers be approved.

3.    The freehold transfer of the Gostrey Meadow, Farnham to Farnham Town Council be approved.

4.    Delegated authority is given to officers to finalise the heads of terms and complete the necessary legal document(s) with the Town and Parish Councils for the transfer of assets, with detailed terms and conditions to be agreed by the Strategic Director, in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder(s).

27.1    Cllr Mark Merryweather introduced the report proposing the transfer of certain assets from Waverley to Town and Parish Councils, to coincide with the start of the new Grounds Maintenance Contract on 1 November 2019.

27.2    As part of the procurement of the new Grounds Maintenance Contract, the previous administration had engaged with Town and Parish Councils about taking on responsibility for grounds maintenance of sites in their areas. Farnham and Haslemere Town Councils, and Witley and Wonersh Parish Councils had expressed interest, and discussions had progressed on the basis of the leasehold transfer of the assets by Waverley. The new Executive had extended to the offer include the freehold transfer, and Farnham Town Council had confirmed it wished to take the freehold of Gostrey Meadow. Since the Executive agenda had been published, Haslemere Town Council, and Witley and Wonersh Parish Councils had confirmed that they would like to discuss taking on the freehold of some sites, and there was an additional recommendation (3a) to enable these freeholds to be approved under delegated authority to the Head of Finance in consultation with Portfolio Holders, subject to an acceptable valuation and the immediate transfer of annual net running costs.

27.3    Cllr Hyman had registered to speak on this item, and expressed some concern that the transfer of the leaseholds, and freeholds, would pass costs for Grounds Maintenance to the Town and Parish Councils: there was no cap on the Council Tax precepts set by the Town and Parish Councils, so there was a risk that residents might end up paying more Council Tax and still not see any improvement in the level of upkeep of the grounds. He was also concerned that no maps showing the areas to be transferred had been provided, and that Overview & Scrutiny had not had the opportunity to comment prior to the Executive decision.

27.4    Cllr Merryweather emphasised that it would be up to the individual councils to set service level standards acceptable to their residents. Waverley and to manage the costs of that appropriately. The offer had been made to all Town and Parish Councils, and responded to interest expressed by parishes in taking on this responsibility.

27.5    Cllr Follows emphasised that as Godalming Town Council Leader, there had been an open dialogue with Waverley, and all the Town and  Parish Councils taking on responsibilities were aware of the cost element. There would be many opportunities for parish councils to work with their local communities to implement grounds maintenance strategies that met local aspirations for their area.

27.6    The Executive RESOLVED:

1.         To approve the leasehold transfer of assets, as detailed in Annexe 1 to the report.

2.         To approve the tapered funding arrangement for the leasehold transfers.

3.         To approve the freehold transfer of the Gostrey Meadow, Farnham to Farnham Town Council

3a.    To delegate authority to the Head of Finance, in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder(s), to agree and complete other transfers from the list in Annexe 1 on a freehold basis,  ...  view the full minutes text for item EXE 27/19

Holloway Hill Bowling Club has approached the Council for consent to surrender its existing lease of the Pavilion land and to take a new long lease of both the Pavilion land and the Bowling Green itself. 

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Executive agrees to the surrender of the current lease to Holloway Hill Bowling Club and the simultaneous grant of a new lease on terms and conditions set out in Exempt Annexe 2, with other terms and conditions to be negotiated by the Estates and Valuation Manager.

28.1    Cllr David Beaman was pleased to support the proposed surrender of the current lease on the Pavilion and grant of a new long lease on the Pavilion and Bowling Green to the Holloway Hill Bowling Club, in an arrangement that would benefit both the Council and the Bowling Club.

28.2    The Executive RESOLVED to approve the surrender of the current lease to Holloway Hill Bowling Club and the simultaneous grant of a new lease on terms and conditions set out in Exempt Annexe 2, with other terms and conditions to be negotiated by the Estates and Valuation Manager.

Reason: to ensure the long-term future of the bowling club facilities by transferring management of them to the Bowling Club.

Godalming and Farncombe Bowling Club has approached the Council for consent to surrender its existing lease of the Pavilion land and to take a new long lease of both the Pavilion land and the Bowling Green itself.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Executive agrees to the surrender of the current lease to Godalming and Farncombe Bowling Club and the simultaneous grant of a new lease on terms and conditions set out in Exempt Annexe 2, with other terms and conditions to be negotiated by the Estates and Valuation Manager.

29.1    Cllr David Beaman was pleased to support the proposed surrender of the current lease on the Pavilion and grant of a new long lease on the Pavilion and Bowling Green to the Godalming and Farncombe Bowling Club, in an arrangement that would benefit both the Council and the Bowling Club.

29.2    The Executive RESOLVED to approve the surrender of the current lease to Godalming and Farncombe Bowling Club and the simultaneous grant of a new lease on terms and conditions set out in Exempt Annexe 2, with other terms and conditions to be negotiated by the Estates and Valuation Manager.

Reason: to ensure the long-term future of the bowling club facilities by transferring management of them to the Bowling Club.