Agenda and minutes

Special, Executive - Wednesday, 22nd September, 2021 6.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, The Burys, Godalming

Contact: Louise Fleming  Democratic Services & Business Support Team Manager

No. Item

EXE 25/21


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 declarations of interest raised under this heading.


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.

EXE 26/21

Waverley Borough Council Local Plan Part 2 - Site Allocations And Development Management Policies pdf icon PDF 542 KB

The purpose of this report is to consider recommendations to carry out a further public consultation focussed on changes to the proposed housing site allocations for Haslemere in the Pre-submission version of LPP2, before it submits the plan to the Secretary of State for its examination; and the Council submits to the examination other changes to the Pre-submission version of LPP2 that are not subject to public consultation following the submission of the plan to the Secretary of State.




2.1     That the Executive considers the comments and observations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and makes the following recommendations to full Council:


1)    That Council agrees the changes to the Pre-submission version of LPP2, set out in the Addendum attached as Annexe 1 to this report concerning the proposed housing site allocations in Haslemere and that the Council undertakes a public consultation on the Addendum for a period of 6 weeks under Regulation 19 of the Local Planning Regulations.


2)    The Council agrees that the schedule of other minor changes to the pre-submission version of LPP2 that have not been the subject of public consultation, set out in Annexe 2 to this report, be submitted to the examination of LPP2.


3)    The Head of Planning and Economic Development be authorised to formally request that the Local Plan Examination Inspector recommends further main modifications to LPP2, if the Inspector considers that they are necessary to make the plan sound and/or legally compliant.


4)    The Head of Planning and Economic Development be authorised to make any other minor modifications to the Pre-Submission version of LPP2 with regard to factual updates and corrections before the Plan is submitted for its examination.

Additional documents:


Councillor Andy MacLeod, Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy, Services and Brightwells introduced the report which sought approval for a further focussed consultation on the housing site allocations in Haslemere, prior to submission to the Secretary of State.  He thanked the officers involved for their work in producing the documents before the Executive for consideration and advised that a special meeting of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee had taken place on 20th September to consider the proposals.  There had been broad support for three of the four recommendations, which proposed minor amendments and delegations to officers for procedural matters.  The focus of the debate had been on the proposed changes to the pre-submission version of the Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) regarding the housing site allocations in Haslemere. 


Councillor MacLeod advised that a change had been proposed to the site allocations in Haslemere following the consultation, to replace the Redcourt site with a site at the Royal Junior School in Hindhead.  The Redcourt site was due to deliver 50 houses, whereas the Junior School site could deliver around 90 houses.  Although there had been no overall consensus, some members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had suggested including both sites, however the Executive were of the view that the Redcourt site should not be included as it had been refused by the Western Planning Committee on 20th July.  An appeal against the decision would be considered by a planning inspector at an inquiry on 16th December. 


Councillor Mulliner spoke on the item, highlighting the need to separate sites from the applications relating to them as they were often of varying quality.  He sought clarification from the Portfolio Holder on what would happen if more objections to the Royal School site were received than to the Redcourt site. He expressed concern that if the Redcourt site was allowed at appeal, that the other part of the site would be developed in addition to the Royal School site.


In response the Portfolio Holder advised that any site included in the LPP2 would need to be deliverable and the reason for choosing the site had not been because of the number of objections received.  The Head of Planning advised that planning permission for the Redcourt site had been refused on the grounds of the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beaty and the Area of Great Landscape Value, which had brought the deliverability of the site into question.  If the Council agreed to go out to a further consultation, all comments received would be assessed and officers would bring a recommendation back to Members for consideration.


Councillor Hyman spoke on the item, seeking clarification on whether the delegated authority being recommended could be granted and whether the appropriate assessments had been carried out in respect of protected habitats and expressed concern that the approach was unlawful.


In response, the Leader advised that the Council’s Planning and Legal officers had confirmed that if a proposed plan was considered likely to  ...  view the full minutes text for item EXE 26/21

EXE 27/21

Parking Charging Strategy Review pdf icon PDF 807 KB

The purpose of this report is to review the current parking-charging regime following the strategic review of car parking carried out in 2019/20 and make recommendations for the future charging strategy. 




2.1       That the Executive note the report and.


                 I.       Recommend the proposed strategic tariff structure set out in Annexe C to the Council.

                II.       Recommend the proposed 50% discount in pay and display charges to incentivise the move to ultra-low and zero emission vehicles in 6.4 below.

               III.       Acknowledge the need to review the tariff structure on an annual basis to assess.

a.    general patterns of use across car parks to assess whether the charging strategy has achieved its desired objectives and whether the tariff structures need to be modified

b.    patterns of use in the Brightwell’s Yard car park and any changes required to charging regimes, (e.g., Evening and Sunday charges?)

c.     the uptake of discounted charges for Ultra Low Emission (ULEV) and Zero Emission (ZEV) vehicles, its impact on income levels and whether the level of discount needs to change.





Councillor Nick Palmer, Portfolio Holder for Operational and Enforcement Services introduced the report which set out a review of the current parking-charging regime following the strategic review of car parking carried out in 2019/20 and recommendations for the future charging strategy.  He proposed the following minor amendments:


·         That the 3 hour charge on Saturdays in Weydown Road be £3.20 and not £6.00 in order to offer a cheaper alternative to the station car park, as set out in Annexe C.

·         To defer the proposed changes to the Station Lane Milford car park pending further discussion with ward and parish councillors and community representatives, in recognition of concerns raised by Milford Councillors.

·         That the discount for electric vehicles be 50% and the discount for hybrid vehicles be 25%, to address the comments raised by the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee that electric and hybrid vehicles should not be treated the same due to hybrid vehicles use of fuel.

Councillor Palmer addressed some of the consultation responses received which had not been raised at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and advised that the registration process for RingGo was simple and required no extra effort on the part of users.  There had been a misunderstanding that there was a minimum charge of 50p for RingGo, however this was not the case.  There was a flat flee of 10p and optional text message notifications which cost 20p each.  He corrected the statement he had made at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and clarified that RingGo was in fact available at all car parks.  31 of the 78 car parks also had the facility to swipe a debit or credit card and this option would be added as machines were scheduled for refurbishment. 


The discounts proposed for electric and hybrid vehicles were not proposed to be permanent as at some point all cars would be electric and a discount would no longer be appropriate.  However it was intended to be an incentive to move towards climate friendly vehicles sooner rather than later.  It was also not considered to be appropriate for the Council to offer free electric vehicle charging points.  Appropriate signage would be installed for users of electric vehicles regarding the charges.  A question had been raised over whether the Council should be subsidising those who are able to afford expensive electric vehicles, however it was felt that this was an opportunity to take action to reduce the climate emergency, particularly as the Government had determined that no new fossil fuel cars would be sold after 2030.


Councillor Ward spoke on the item and asked whether reductions in payments for key workers would be considered.  In response, Councillor Palmer advised that this would be considered in more detail and come back to the Executive for consideration at a later stage as appropriate, in recognition of the role key workers play and their ability to pay parking charges in some locations.


The Leader thanked Councillors Gale and Baker for raising the issues in Milford,  ...  view the full minutes text for item EXE 27/21


There were no matters falling within this category.