Agenda item

To receive the Minutes of the Executive meeting held on 8 October 2019 [attached, coloured grey], and to consider the recommendations set out within.

There is one Part I matters recommended for Council decision.

EXE 23/19    Statement of Community Involvement – Review of proposed amendments

The Executive considered a report reviewing 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.

Having considered the proposed amendments, the Executive RECOMMENDS to Council that no further changes are required to the Statement of Community Involvement, for the reasons set out in the report at Annexe 1, attached.

Members of the Council wishing to speak on any Part II matters of report must give notice to the Democratic Services Team by midday on Tuesday 22 October 2019.

31.1     It was moved by the Leader of the Council, Cllr John ward, duly seconded by the Deputy Leader Cllr Paul Follows, and

RESOLVED    that the Minutes of the Executive held on 8 October 2019 be received and noted.

There was one Part I matter for the Council’s consideration.

CNL 31.2/19    Statement of Community Involvement (EXE 23/19)

31.2.1  Cllr Hyman opened the discussion by reminding Members that the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) had been brought back to Council for Members to ensure that is was lawful, and to consider whether the public should be consulted on the changes to the SCI. The key issue was whether the SCI was lawful, and he referred Members to paragraph 2.18 of the Officer’s report which stated “The Council does not have a specific policy as such to deal with neighbourhood planning.” Cllr Hyman then referred to S18 (2B) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which he maintained the Council was not complying with in the published SCI.

31.2.2  Cllr Hyman asked for a response to three questions: that the Constitution did require Members to act within the law? That the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Section 18 (2B) required that the council have an SCI which sets out the policies for giving advice or assistance on modification of Neighbourhood Plans? And, that the council did not have that policy? Cllr Hyman concluded that he could not support the recommendation as proposed.

31.2.3  Cllr MacLeod advised Members that officers had spent a lot of time considering the amendments Cllr Hyman had proposed in July, and he and officers had met with Cllr Hyman to explain the approach now recommended. Officers’ advice was that the approach was lawful, and he was content with this.

31.2.4  Cllr Cockburn referred to her experience of working on the modification to the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, and commended Waverley’s Planning Officers, especially Matthew Ellis and Alice Knowles, for all they had done to assist the Town Council in the run up to, and at the Examination. She was content with the words of the SCI, and pleased to have the opportunity to offer her own, and Farnham’s, thanks to Waverley officers for providing such excellent support.

31.2.5  Cllr Hyman made a point of personal explanation, to confirm that he had attended the meeting with officers, and he had been disappointed that officers had refused to put up on a screen the law and show how the SCI was lawful. He asked again for his questions (in 31.2.2) to be answered.

31.2.6  The Leader referred Members to paragraph 2.17 of the report which referred to the statutory functions of the council in relation to Neighbourhood Plans, and he confirmed that the council’s approach was not unlawful. Cllr Hyman raised a point of order to ask the Mayor if he was going to receive a response to his questions. The Mayor advised that she was content with the advice given, and if Cllr Hyman still had concerns he should raise them with the Monitoring Officer after the meeting.

31.2.7  The Mayor moved the recommendation that no further changes were required to the Statement of Community Involvement, for the reasons set out in the report.

As previously agreed, a recorded vote was taken using the electronic voting.

For the motion: 43

            Cllrs Brian Adams, Christine Baker, David Beaman, Roger Blishen, Peter Clark, Carole Cockburn, Richard Cole, Steve Cosser, Martin D’Arcy, Jerome Davidson, Kevin Deanus, Simon Dear, Patricia Ellis, David Else, Jenny Else, Jan Floyd-Douglas, Paul Follows, Michael Goodridge, John Gray, Michaela Gray, Joan Heagin, Val Henry, Dan Hunt, Anna James, Jackie Keen, Robert Knowles, Jack Lee, Andy MacLeod, Michaela Martin, Peter Martin, Mark Merryweather, Kika Mirylees, John Neale, Peter Nicholson, Julia Potts, Ruth Reed, John Robini, Anne-Marie Rosoman, Richard Seaborne, Liz Townsend, John Ward, Steve Williams, George Wilson.

            Against the motion: 1

            Cllr George Hesse

            Abstentions: 6

            Cllrs Mary Foryszewski, Chris Howard, Jerry Hyman, Penny Marriott, Peter Marriott, Trevor Sadler,

            The motion was carried.

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

31.3     Part II Matters of Report

Dunsfold Park Garden Village – Governance Arrangements (EXE24/19)

31.3.1  Cllr Follows made a statement to clarify the Executive’s intentions in relation to the governance arrangements for the Dunsfold Park Garden Village, which he knew had been a concern for a number of Members from the eastern wards. He confirmed that the Executive considered the following to be binding, and part of the decision made by the Executive:

·         With regard to the Strategic Governance Board, this would have no direct decision-making powers and would make recommendations to the Executive. “Local Members” were the Members from any of the wards within the Eastern planning area, and four of these Members would be appointed by the Leader in consultation with the Group Leaders whose groups were represented in that area (Conservative, Green, and Liberal Democrat). There would be a maximum of three relevant Executive Members, appointed by the Leader. Surrey County Council representatives would be appointed as required by the Leader in consultation with officers.

·         With regard to Advisory Group, Local Members would be defined in the same way as for the Strategic Governance Board.

·         There would be formal terms of reference for each of the groups.

Cllr Follows concluded by assuring Members that he was happy to discuss any other issues they had with the arrangements.

31.3.2  Cllr Liz Townsend advised that she had several concerns about the governance arrangements, and she welcomed the clarification provided by Cllr Follows. She had three additional points:

·         Cllr Townsend was concerned at the lack of transparency and accountability of the having the Leader chairing the Strategic Governance Board, and effectively making recommendations to himself as chairman of the Executive. She would prefer an experienced non-Executive Member as chairman, but suggested that the Deputy Leader as a compromise.

·         The officer’s report had stated that the arrangements proposed reflected good practice established by other local authorities with similar major planning developments; but Cllr Townsend had not been able to find a similar model to that agreed by the Executive. She was also concerned that the structure would be very time-consuming for officers and asked whether any of the £150k from Homes England would be used to cover the costs.

·         Finally, Cllr Townsend was disappointed that no climate change implications had been identified arising from the governance arrangements, such as the carbon footprint of the additional meetings. There were several on-line resources that would enable an estimate of the environmental impact of an average meeting. The Council had committed to being carbon neutral by 2030 and business as usual was not an option. She asked that this be a standard element on all reports.

31.3.3  Cllr Kevin Deanus advised that he had emailed the Leader some time ago to suggest that the Executive portfolios had ignored Dunsfold Park, the largest and most complex development in Waverley’s history. The Leader had responded that he was not intending to appoint a portfolio holder, but reserved the right to become involved if necessary. Cllr Deanus felt this was dismissive and ignored the risk to every ward if the housing at Dunsfold Park was not delivered with the necessary infrastructure. He was therefore pleased to see the governance arrangements put in place. However, he was disappointed that ward councillors had not been consulted in developing the proposals, and they had been presented to Members without recognising and valuing the important role of ward members in their local communities. He reminded Members of the Council’s corporate strategy passed in September, which made a commitment to open, democratic, and participative governance, and to a more open and inclusive approach to communication and decision-making. Cllr Deanus was disappointed ward members were not consulted on the governance arrangements, and that the parish and community had also been ignored. It was important that the Council practised what it preached.

31.3.4  Cllr Richard Seaborne asked the Leader, as chairman designate of the new Dunsfold Park Strategic Governance Board, for some assurance around the implementation of the governance arrangements, and shared an example of why this was a concern. Cllr Seaborne referred to the recent invitation from the National Planning Inspectorate to the council to indicate, as statutory consultee, what information it considered should be provided in the environmental statement for the conversion of the emergency runway at Gatwick into a conventional second runway. The impact of this change would see a significant increase in the number of daily flights, increased noise pollution affecting the east of the borough, and increased traffic on the already inadequate road network; as well as the negative impact on the carbon footprint of the south east. Local Members were not alerted to the consultation, and only found out about it through local noise campaign groups. Cllr Seaborne was pleased that Waverley had provided a thorough response to the consultation, but asked if the Executive had been consulted, as local Members had not. Cllr Seaborne suggested there might be a need for a policy in relation to expansion at Gatwick because of its impact on the east of the borough, and reiterated his request for assurance from the Leader that through the Dunsfold Park governance arrangements local Members would have better involvement in matters relevant to Dunsfold Park and its future residents than had been the case in relation to the recent consultation.

Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan 2020-25 (EXE25/19)

31.3.5  Cllr Adams reported that following his comments at the Executive meeting on 8 October, he had met with Cllr MacLeod and they had agreed that there was a need for the Management Plan to have supplementary information to provide more detail on the rather open statements in the body of the document. This would help ensure consistency across the planning authorities across the AONB, and provide guidance to planning inspectors on appeals, particularly with regard to design criteria and densities of sites. Cllr Adams wished the Portfolio Holder success in achieving these important clarifications.

Property Investment Advisory Board (EXE 26/19)

31.3.6  Cllr John Gray noted that the changes to the terms of reference of the Property Investment Advisory Board had not been brought to Council for approval, as they had been previously. Under the previous council the property investment strategy had been robustly scrutinised by Overview and Scrutiny and the Audit Committee, and the membership of the Board had been carefully considered to provide balance and independence in the advice of the Board to the Executive, whist preserving the independence of Audit and Overview and Scrutiny. Cllr Gray asked for assurance that future changes to the Property Investment Advisory Board terms of reference would be scrutinised and brought to Full Council for endorsement.

            [Cllr John Neale left the Council Chamber.]

Asset Transfer to Town and Parish Councils (EXE 27/19)          

31.3.7  Cllr Jerry Hyman noted that this was an important matter for towns and parishes and hoped that they had the resources to undertake the necessary scrutiny of proposals. He had some concern about the resolution added at the Executive referring to further possible freehold transfers, although there was no detail in the papers about what these might be or on what terms other than the clarification that the liabilities would transfer with the assets. He supported the principle of asset transfers, but asked that the Mayor and Leader ensured Members were kept informed about future transfers agreed.

            [Cllr John Neale left the Council Chamber.]

31.3.8 In response to the statements from Members, the Leader and relevant Portfolio Holders commented:

-        Towns and Parishes had been invited to tell the council if they wished to take on responsibility for the maintenance of green spaces. Farnham Town Council had been asking for the freehold transfer of Gostrey Meadow for a long time and the council had been pleased to agree terms and conditions. Any further asset transfers, whether freehold or leasehold, would be driven by requests from the towns and parishes.

-        With regard to the Property Investment Advisory Board, Cllr Merryweather advised that the newly agreed membership was between the original membership and that agreed latterly by the previous council. He was satisfied that the new membership had the right skill set, geographical representation, political philosophy and understanding of the need for confidentiality, and was of a size that would enable it to respond quickly to opportunities. The updated  legal advice received related to borrowing and the type and location of property investment, and had clarified that a property company was not required to invest in residential property within Waverley.

-        Cllr MacLeod thanked Cllr Adams for his time and thoughts on the AONB Management Plan. He had also spoken with Cllr Ruth Reed, who was the Waverley representative on the AONB Board.

-        The Leader thanked Cllr Townsend for her comments on the Dunsfold Park governance arrangements. He looked forward to local members playing an important role in these arrangements.

-        Cllr Steve Williams thanked Cllr Seaborne for drawing his attention to the Gatwick consultation response; the Executive had not seen it, and arrangements had now been put in place to ensure that such consultations were referred to the Portfolio Holder in future. The Council’s response to the consultation would be reframed to ensure it reflected the administrations policies, especially on the climate emergency.