Agenda item

119.1   The Leader introduced the Executive’s proposed changes to the Council’s governance arrangements, which he put in the context of the experience of forming the new multi-party Executive and its objectives for a more open government. Some consideration was given to moving to a more inclusive, Committee-based system, and a cross-party Governance Review Working Group was established to look into the various ramifications of this.  It was clear from their deliberations that a continuation of the Strong Leader and Executive system would be a more efficient and workable style for Waverley and the Executive accepted that. The proposals now before Council responded to the challenges of improving the decision-making efficiency, and the unusually high number of committees Waverley had compared to councils of a similar size and profile.

119.2   With regard to Planning Committees, the Leader noted that some Members would recall that in 2007 there had been a trial of parallel, non-localised, planning committees A and B, which were universally unpopular. He was, and remain, an enthusiastic proponent of more localised planning and had supported the move away from the previous system. However, years of working with the 5 Committee system that evolved, including 6 years as Chair and Vice-Chair of two Area Committees, had convinced him that what had seemed to be a good idea at the time, had in practice been found to be wanting.

119.3   To help Officers cope with the extra demands that the Covid pandemic and home-working imposed on them, the overarching Joint Planning Committee and the pairs of Area Committees (Southern and Western, and Eastern and Central) had been replaced on a temporary basis by two wider, but still locally-based Committees, Eastern and Western. This system had worked well over a significant period and the proposal in Recommendation 1 was to remove the temporary restrictions on this arrangement. It was notable that most other councils in Surrey operated with just one planning committee.

119.4   Recommendation 2 sought agreement in principle to reduce the number of Overview and Scrutiny Committees. When the Boundary Commission briefed Members on the Electoral Review, they stated that their remit was to regularise the size of Wards so that the Councillor-Elector balance was as uniform as possible. They pointed out that if Waverley intended to propose a system that was out-of-step with similar councils around us, we needed to be able to clearly answer the question “Why is Waverley so different?” Virtually every other Council in Surrey, regardless of political control, found one Overview and Scrutiny Committee to be sufficient for their needs. The Leader suggested the lack of adverse recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committees over the last 2 years would clearly support a reduction in their number.

119.5   Waverley had previously had just two Overview and Scrutiny Committees and they had worked well, holding the then Executive to account on numerous occasions. The change-over to 4 committees was another thing that had seemed a good idea at the time, as it was hoped that Overview and Scrutiny would be helpful in evolving policy, but that had not proved to be the case. There had also been confusion over which Committee should consider particular items, resulting in some matters being considered by more than one Committee with a consequent waste of Portfolio Holders’ and Officers’ time.

119.6   The Leader noted that, having chaired the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee, he recognised that housing was a very important part of the Council’s responsibilities and so it was proposed that a Housing Landlord Services Board be established to consider aspects of housing that were not specifically Executive functions. Additionally, we propose that two O&S Committees, Corporate and Community, consisting solely of Councillors should take on the more formal scrutiny arrangements. It was hoped that this would improve the focus and quality of scrutiny which seems to have fallen away under the four-committee system.

119.7   The Leader noted that the remaining recommendations – to widen the scope of the Standards Committee, to enable the Executive to set up small working groups, and to commission the Standards Committee to undertake a thorough review of the Council’s Constitution - were  more straightforward and set out in full in the agenda report. He commended all five recommendations to Council for approval.

119.8   Cllr Follows seconded the recommendations, and reiterated the point that Waverley had a disproportionately high number of committees compared to similar district councils across the country, not just in Surrey. It was also a matter of the quality of output from the committees: having two planning committees had worked well for the past year, and councillors did not have to be a member of a planning committee in order to participate. And, having observed many Overview and Scrutiny Committees over the last two years, Cllr Follows was not persuaded by the argument that more committees meant better scrutiny outcomes.

119.9   Cllrs Mulliner, Goodridge, and Jenny Else all spoke in opposition to the proposal to reduce the number of Overview and Scrutiny Committees, whilst Cllrs Cockburn, Adams and Seaborne opposed the reduced in the number of planning committees.

119.10Cllr Seaborne suggested that the extraordinary circumstances of the last 12 months should not be the basis for making permanent changes to the planning committees, and proposed an amendment to Recommendation 1, to continue the temporary arrangements to 20 October 2021:

“The temporary WESTERN and EASTERN planning committee arrangements first incorporated into the Constitution on 22 July 2020 by Full Council and extended on 20 October 2020 by Full Council continue to operate on a temporary basis with the current Terms of Reference until such time as Full Council resolves to make any further changes to them;”

The amendment was seconded by Cllr Cockburn.

119.11Councillors debated the amendment to Recommendation 1, with speakers for and against the amendment. In summing up on his proposed amendment, Cllr Seaborne noted that the number of planning applications determined by the planning committees pre-Covid, in 2016/17, had been 160, compared with on 72 applications determined by committee in the 10 months of 2020/21. If the number of councillor call-ins returned to pre-Covid levels, there would be serious consequences if only two planning committees remained: either there would need to be more meetings, or longer meetings. Cllr Seaborne’s observation was that the quality and quantity of debate on a planning application declined the longer a meeting went on, and questioned whether this was fair to applicants. He would be happy to support an extension to the temporary arrangement until after the Covid pandemic, but could not support an arbitrary decision to embed the current arrangement for the long-term.

119.12Cllr Ward concluded the debate on the amendment by noting that all those speaking in support of the amendment were Conservatives; he also noted that much of the debate in planning committees was repetitive which made meetings lengthy. Much had been said about the 2 committee arrangement being ‘undemocratic’ without any explanation of how this was so, and he would not be supporting the amendment.

119.13The Mayor put the amendment to the vote, which was lost with 19 votes in favour, 32 against, and 1 abstention.

            For: 19

Cllrs Brian Adams, Carole Cockburn, Steve Cosser, Kevin Deanus, Patricia Ellis, David Else, Jenny Else, Mary Foryszewski, Michael Goodridge, John Gray, Val Henry, Chris Howard, Peter Isherwood, Anna James, Robert Knowles, Peter Martin, Stephen Mulliner, Trevor Sadler, Richard Seaborne

Against: 32

Cllrs Christine Baker, David Beaman, Roger Blishen, Peter Clark, Richard Cole, Martin D’Arcy, Jerome Davidson, Sally Dickson, Brian Edmonds, Paul Follows, Maxine Gale, Daniel Hunt, Jacquie Keen, Andy MacLeod, Penny Marriott, Peter Marriott, Michaela Martin, Mark Merryweather, Kika Mirylees, John Neale, Peter Nicholson, Nick Palmer, Julia Potts, Ruth Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Anne-Marie Rosoman, Liz Townsend, John Ward, Steve Williams, George Wilson

            Abstention: 1

Cllr Jerry Hyman

119.14Councillors resumed the debate on the substantive motion, and the Recommendations 1 to 5 as out in the agenda, with arguments in favour and against the proposals. In summing up for the opposition, Cllr Potts recognised the wish to look at committee structures, but change had to be for the right reason and not just to save time or money. Previous changes to the Overview and Scrutiny Committees had involved a great deal of time and consideration of good practice. She urged Council not to rush into changes without evidence or proper justification, which risked alienating backbenchers.

119.15The Mayor invited Cllr Ward to conclude the debate: he reiterated his earlier argument that no one had explained why Waverley was so different to other councils that it need five planning committees and four overview and scrutiny committees, compared with just one of each. Similarly, he had not heard an explanation of why fewer committees would be undemocratic. Cllr Ward urged councillors to focus on quality, not quantity, and being more effective in their scrutiny work.

119.16With the agreement of councillor, the Mayor proposed that Recommendations 1 to 4 be taken together by roll call, with Recommendation 5 taken by verbal assent.

·         Recommendations 1 to 4, were carried, with 31 votes in favour, 20 votes against and 1 abstention.

·         Recommendation 5 was carried by verbal assent, with no objections or abstentions.

RESOLVED that:

1.1         the temporary WESTERN and EASTERN planning committee arrangements first incorporated into the Constitution on 22 July 2020 by Full Council and extended on 20 October 2020 by Full Council be made permanent (until such time as Full Council resolves to make any further changes to them) with the current Terms of Reference; and

1.2         the Head of Policy and Governance be authorised to make the corresponding revisions to the Constitution with the Chairman of the Standards Committee. 

2.1       the principle is approved of moving to a governance structure whereby Waverley Borough Council no longer operates four overview and scrutiny committees but instead operates two overview and scrutiny committees, ‘corporate’ and ‘community’, and a new Housing Landlord Services Board whilst retaining the existing constitutional ability to establish informal OS working groups (as set out in section 4.2); and

2.2      the Standards Committee develop and recommend to Full Council for adoption the necessary proposed constitutional amendments to achieve this change, including terms of reference for the new committees.

3.1         the principle is approved of moving to a governance structure whereby Waverley Borough Council expands the remit of the existing Standards Committee to become a ‘Standards and General Purposes Committee’ which, as well as dealing with the Standards and Constitutional issues it currently does, would also take responsibility for a range of other functions and pick up issues that arise over the course of time that do not obviously sit elsewhere (as set out in section 4.3); and

3.2         the Standards Committee develop and recommend to Full Council for adoption the necessary proposed constitutional amendments to achieve this change.

4.1       the principle is approved of reintroducing the capacity for Executive Working Groups to be constituted in order to shape and drive policy development  across a range of portfolio areas (as set out in section 4.4); and

4.2       the Standards Committee develop and recommend to Full Council for adoption the necessary proposed constitutional amendments to achieve this change.

5.         the Standards Committee carry out a general and comprehensive review of the Constitution to ensure it remains fit for purpose and to bring forward to Full Council any proposed constitutional amendments arising from its review (as set out in section 4.5).

For: 31

Cllrs Christine Baker, David Beaman, Roger Blishen, Peter Clark, Richard Cole, Martin D’Arcy, Jerome Davidson, Sally Dickson, Brian Edmonds, Paul Follows, Maxine Gale, Daniel Hunt, Jacquie Keen, Andy MacLeod, Penny Marriott, Peter Marriott, Michaela Martin, Mark Merryweather, Kika Mirylees, John Neale, Peter Nicholson, Nick Palmer, Ruth Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Anne-Marie Rosoman, Liz Townsend, John Ward, Steve Williams, George Wilson

Against: 20

Cllrs Brian Adams, Carole Cockburn, Steve Cosser, Kevin Deanus, Patricia Ellis, David Else, Jenny Else, Mary Foryszewski, Michael Goodridge, John Gray, Val Henry, Chris Howard, Peter Isherwood, Anna James, Robert Knowles, Peter Martin, Stephen Mulliner, Julia Potts, Trevor Sadler, Richard Seaborne

Abstention: 1

Cllr Jerry Hyman