Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence and note substitutions.

Members who are unable to attend this meeting must submit apologies by the end of Tuesday 19 March 2024 to enable a substitute to be arranged, if applicable.

Apologies were received from Cllrs George Hesse, Jacquie Keen and John Robini.

Cllr Graham White attended remotely via Zoom.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee - Services held on Tuesday 23 January 2024 and published on the Council’s website. 

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 23 January 2024 were agreed as a correct record.

To receive members’ declarations of interests in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting, in accordance with Waverley’s Code of Local Government.

None received.

The Chairman to respond to any questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.

The deadline for submission of written questions for this meeting is Tuesday 19 March 2024.

None received.

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from Members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11. The deadline for submission of written questions for this meeting is Tuesday 19 March 2024.

The following two questions from Cllr Hesse are included here. Cllr White has agreed to put these questions to the committee, as Cllr Hesse has given his apologies for this meeting.

1.     “Will the Head of Planning and Economic Development take steps to ensure that planning drawings that are submitted, either by owners, developers or agents, that have inadequate detail, missing elevations, no title bar with drawing number, date and issuers details and no information such as notes or flags or hatching to show removal of heritage features, eg the door on the front elevation of The Bishops Table Hotel, West Street, Farnham, which is a listed Heritage building of note, are NOT validated but returned for further details or information?

(This will hopefully avoid plans being approved due to plans lacking detail being submitted by opportunistic applicants).

2.     Would the Head of Planning and Economic Development also provide information to the committee as to what steps are being considered or have been taken to strengthen the Waverley Conservation and Historic buildings team? 

The lack of resource in this department was flagged up at the O&S November meeting.”

51.1     Two questions were submitted by Cllr George Hesse and read at the meeting:

“Will the Head of Planning and Economic Development take steps to ensure that planning drawings that are submitted, either by owners, developers or agents, that have inadequate detail, missing elevations, no title bar with drawing number, date and issuers details and no information such as notes or flags or hatching to show removal of heritage features, e.g. the door on the front elevation of The Bishops Table Hotel, West Street, Farnham, which is a listed Heritage building of note, are NOT validated but returned for further details or information?

(This will hopefully avoid plans being approved due to plans lacking detail being submitted by opportunistic applicants).

Would the Head of Planning and Economic Development also provide information to the committee as to what steps are being considered or have been taken to strengthen the Waverley Conservation and Historic buildings team?

The lack of resource in this department was flagged up at the O&S November meeting”

51.2     The Executive Head of Planning Development stated that the Planning team were attending to this and that a Service Improvement Group is being established to consider technical and admin support.  This is intended to ensure that the team’s reports maintain the highest degree of accuracy and make any identifiable improvements where required.

51.3     The Executive Head of Planning Development clarified the importance of adequate staff resourcing, as well as that of supporting conservation objectives through  providing suitable advice.

51.4     Members queried whether policy was enforced with sufficient rigidity[JC1] , citing examples such as the borough’s shopfront guides. Officers noted that the upcoming Local Plan update will provide an opportunity to review the wording of certain policies, and that Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) will soon be replaced by work on Design Codes[JC2] , under which some of these areas will now fall.

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee – Services is responsible for managing its work programme.

The current work programme (attached) includes agreed items and takes account of items identified on the latest Executive Forward Plan (Annexe 2) as due to come forward for decision.

Members are invited to consider their work programme and make any comments and/or amendments they consider necessary, as well as make suggestions for any additional topics that the Committee may wish to consider.

52.1     Members were asked to note the current Committee Forward Work Programme and make any comments or amendments they consider necessary.

52.2     The Chair asked that the Committee are updated regards the Call for Sites and Dunsfold Park, as these will inform the authority’s Spatial Strategy.  It was noted that there were only two items scheduled for the June 2024 meeting - members were therefore asked to suggest to officers any items that they should wish to see discussed.

The Committee are to review and scrutinise the work of the Safer Waverley Partnership (SWP), the Draft SWP Plan 2024-27, and the activities of its partners. This fulfils the requirements of Section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006.

53.1     The Executive Head of Community Services gave a brief introduction to the work Safer Waverley Partnership (SWP), noting the end-of-year status and action plan also attached, in addition to the financial and staffing challenges faced by partner agencies that impact delivery of the plan’s objectives. Officers gave a brief overview of the multi-agency groups in the partnership such as the Community Harm and Risk Management Meeting (CHaRMM) and the Joint Action Group (JAG).

53.2     Cllr Munro enquired about the renaming of ‘Community Triggers’ to ‘Antisocial Behaviour Case Review’ and how this work is publicised. Officers clarified that the name change was determined by legislation, and that publicity – headed by the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office - has led to increased uptake, though there are still challenges around complex cases, many of which can be addressed through another, more appropriate mechanism.

53.3     Cllr Busby referred to the difficulty of knowing when residents should be referred and when they meet the criteria. The Community Services Manager encouraged any member with concerns to email herself or the ASB Officer whenever they would like assistance. The ASB Officer concurred and encouraged the earliest intervention.

53.4     The Vice-chair stated that he found locating webpage detailing the work of the Partnership on the Waverley Borough Council website difficult. Officers confirmed that they would review its online visibility with the Communications team.

53.5     Cllr Munro referred to ASB issues on Thursley Common in the area leading to The Punch Bowl, a recent visit to the area with Commander Rob Brian and Constable Archie Ridley, and the local parish council’s desire for a JAG for the area. The Community Services Manager stated that a JAG task-and-finish groups are the medium by which specific areas such as these can be addressed, but first need to be nominated and meet certain criteria. The Borough Commander added that work can be undertaken outside of this forum.

53.6     The ASB Officer noted that the solution being sought for the Thursley Common concerns would involve National Trust and other partners, so will be more bespoke. The Executive Head of Community Services noted that some community issues may not be amenable to any solution and partners will understandably prioritise achievability and expediency, while Cllr Munro and officers noted the success of employing different mechanisms at Frensham Common.

53.7     Cllr Austin praised the work of officers, requested member training on the work of the partnership and enquired as to liaisons with the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. The Executive Head of Community Services noted that the council has never had such a dedicated officer, that she was herself the former liaison officer at Guildford Borough Council, and that Surrey County Council (SCC) have such a unit, adding that unauthorised encampments established on Waverley land are contacted through the Enforcement Team, alongside advocacy groups such as Friends, Family and Travellers and the Surrey Gypsy, Traveller Communities Forum.

53.8     Cllr Munro asked about the retirement of Neighbourhood Dispute Action Groups (NDAGs). Rob Brian  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The Corporate Performance Report provides an analysis of the Council’s performance for the third quarter of 2023-24. The report, set out at Annexe 1, is being presented to each of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees for comment and any recommendations they may wish to make to the Executive.

The Policy and Performance Officer and Heads of Service are to highlight areas relating to this Committee’s remit (pages to note are pages 3-11 and 61-89 of the agenda papers).

54.1     The Chair asked how repairs to street furniture in car parks were reported and monitored. Officers stated that they would seek a response from the Executive Head of Commercial Services. Officers clarified to Cllr Munro that there appeared to have been no complaints as yet relating to the publicised increase in parking charges soon to take effect.

54.2     The Interim Head of Environmental Services noted the red key performance indicators (KPIs) under his section of the report, that he would later give a presentation on recycling, and improvement in the collection of missed bins. He and members concurred that the target of no more than 40 per quarter was very difficult, and that a performance clause in the contract with Biffa would soon be reactivated to compound improvements likely to materialise from new bin lorry InCab technology.

54.3     The Executive Head of Environmental Services noted that such performance targets are typically set by members, and that they may wish to review any that they feel are unrealistic. The Policy and Performance Officer informed the committee of the upcoming KPI review and the possibility of the committee making a recommendation regarding this.

54.4     The Executive Head of Planning Development noted the significant progress that the Planning team have made to reducing the backlog of planning applications, reducing with ~300 of these in the previous 12 months. She noted the level of agency staff in the team, that these were working together very well, and that interviews for multiple permanent roles would be taking place in April.

54.5     Cllr Austin enquired about ideal staffing levels for the Planning department. The Executive Head of Planning Development noted that the industry standard was 20 full-time planners and that there was only a small amount of vacancy in the team.

54.6     Cllr Busby asked if the news that the council would not be receive formal designation by the Secretary of State had impacted recruitment campaigns. The Executive Head of Planning Development stated that it is difficult to quantify this, but a recent campaign at Guildford Borough Council has been successful in recruiting several agency staff.

54.7     Cllr Austin asked when the final planning applications submitted in 2021-22 would be completed. The Executive Head of Planning Development stated that she would correspond with Cllr Austin regarding this later, but had that evening completed more of these, and that only a very small number remained.

The Committee RESOLVED to recommend that the Executive support the upcoming Key Performance Indicator Review, with attention given to indicators that are felt to be punitively difficult, such as, for example, E3a and E3b.

The Committee also RESOLVED to recommend that the Executive take any appropriate measures to ensure that the Planning department is adequately resourced, and so capable of giving optimum service to the borough.

The Committee are to receive a report on the borough’s Public Space Protection Order No.3, and its proposed three year extension, from the Antisocial Behaviour Officer.

The Committee are asked to offer feedback, comments and any recommendations that the feel are appropriate.

55.1     The Antisocial Behaviour Officer introduced the report.

55.2     Cllr Busby stated that he agreed with extending the PSPO and asked if they displace ASB into neighbouring areas. The ASB Officer replied that there as little evidence of this and it would be difficult to demonstrate, though it was possible. Officers also noted that Police sergeants have liaised with Cllr Gale and Witley & Milford Parish Council, which has mitigated some issues.

55.3     Cllr Austin referred to incidences of unauthorised barbeques and fires and asked for figures as to the positive outcomes. The ASB Officer stated that very few Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) have been issued, as education and encouragement often give better results in changing behaviour, and added that Farncombe had seen a drop of 24% in reported incidences of ASB across 3 years, equalling a fall of ~60 to ~40-45 per year.

55.4     Cllr Busby asked why behaviour was changing if so few FPNs were being issued. The ASB Officer stated that it was likely due to the preventative quality of the PSPO as a deterrent – the issuing of more FPNs would indicate less success in altering behaviour. The Community Services Manager reiterated the importance of a gradual, stepped approach with those under 16 years of age.

The Committee noted the report and agreed their support for the extension of the Waverley Public Space Protection Order.

The Committee are to receive a presentation from the Interim Head of Environmental Services on the work of the Surrey Environment Partnership.

56. 1    The Interim Head of Environmental Services gave a presentation on the Surrey Environment Partnership, taking members through the different kinds of material recycling offered in the borough, some of the sources of contamination, and the work of the SEP. Member feedback and recommendations for how to engage with residents was welcomed.

56.2     Cllr Austin queried what educational efforts are being pursued to reduce contamination of other recycling types by food waste. The Interim Head of Environmental Services noted that residents with contaminated recycling receiving a letter from the materials recycling facility (MRF) worker that sorts their rubbish has been suggested.

56.3     Cllr Long asked if there were new means of recycling Tetra Pak products. The Interim Head of Environmental Services clarified that these can be processed at the Surrey County Council (SCC) Community Recycling Centre, and noted that now may be an ideal time to lobby SCC to begin accepting these as they are currently seeking planning permission for a new MRF site.

56.4     The Chair stated that she felt previous sticker campaigns had had beneficial educational effects for recycling campaigns in the borough, while the Vice-chair advocated renewed work to ensure that all residents possess all necessary different bin types.

56.5     The Interim Head of Environmental Services clarified to members that contamination problems can have very significant process and financial implications for the council, such as when a small contamination forces a company being supplied with the recycled goods as raw material to reject loads many tons in size.

56.6     Cllr Munro enquired as to the processing procedure for residual waste in the borough. The Interim Head of Environmental Services confirmed that very little now goes into landfill from household waste sources, with most being sent for incineration and gasification after transfer via Slyfield Waste Transfer Station.

56.7     Cllr Busby asked whether officers had data as to why some residents do not use food waste caddies. The Interim Head of Environmental Services noted that he would request and circulate the latest research into this carried out by the SEP.

56.8     Cllr Munro asked if any work was being done by the SEP to encourage residents to reduce and reuse potential waste, before considering recycling.

56.9     Cllr White noted that he felt some residents did not appear to like food waste caddies, and asked whether the provision of compostable liners could increase uptake. The Interim Head of Environmental Services noted that research has shown that this does increase participation, though many authorities no longer provide them for free.

The Committee are to receive a verbal update from the Executive Head of Planning Development on the topic of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) land with respect to its relevance to planning policy and any impact on brownfield site construction in the borough.

57.1     The Chair noted the necessity of requiring a supply of SANG land for housebuilding in Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The Executive Head of Planning Development clarified that there remained 237 dwellings-worth of SANG land at Farnham Park, as well as some expected private sites. She updated members about means of obtaining SANG land through organisations that market to developers, biodiversity net gain projects, and the inclusion of SANG as a criterion in the Call for Sites.

57.2     The Chair was concerned that some of the 237 dwellings-worth of SANG land awarded by Farnham Park may have been allocated since that figure was reported, and the impacts that SANG limitation is expected to have on the regeneration efforts in Farnham.

57.3     The Executive Head of Planning Development assured Committee members that she has been engaged in conversations with the Interim Head of Environmental Services and the Section 151 Officer in attempts to devise remedies for this problem, include a potential Spend to Save arrangement.

57.4     Cllr Long asked whether training could be arranged to help members better understand the rules around SANG land. Officers stated that they would be happy to help arrange this.

57.5     Cllr Busby mentioned the proposed SANG land in Chiddingfold and potential sites found within the village, asked how the size relative to the development was set and whether other developments could also use such a piece of SANG land. The Executive Head of Planning Development stated that any site where over-provision occurs may have a condition written into the legal agreement which allows such a transfer.

57.6     Cllr White asked what mechanisms are available for the council to get assistance with purchasing SANG land. The Executive Head of Planning Development noted that there is no central government assistance at present, so a business case has to be presented to the Section 151 Officer.

To consider, if necessary, the following recommendation on the motion of the Chairman:

Recommendation

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 the following items on the grounds that it is likely in view of the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) to be identified at the meeting.

There were no items for discussion in exempt session so the Chair closed the meeting.