To respond to any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.2.
The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 15 February 2022.
Question received from Councillor Brian Edmonds:
“An objection raised with the Planning Inspectorate as to their power to impose a council tax burden through planning appeal costs yielded an unsatisfactory answer. To provide the public with transparency for their liability for Planning Inspector Appeal costs resulting from alleged “unreasonable” behaviour. Please could these costs for the past 12 months be advised at the next full Council meeting?”
Minutes:
86.1 The following questions were received from Members of the Council in accordance with Procedure Rule 11:
86.2 Councillor Liz Townsend read out the question from Councillor Brian Edmonds, Farnham Wrecclesham and Rowledge Ward
“An objection raised with the Planning Inspectorate as to their power to impose a council tax burden through planning appeal costs yielded an unsatisfactory answer. To provide the public with transparency for their liability for Planning Inspector Appeal costs resulting from alleged “unreasonable” behaviour. Please could these costs for the past 12 months be advised at the next full Council meeting?”
86.3 Response from Councillor Liz Townsend, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development
“In the past 12-month period, there have been just three appeals where Planning Inspectors have adjudged the Council has behaved unreasonably and have awarded either full costs (in two cases) or partial costs (in one instance) against us. Two of the three cases related to Enforcement appeals. The total, combined, financial liability to the Council in respect of these three awards was around £16,500.
It should be noted that there were a number of significant appeals during this same 12-month period where costs awards were either not sought, or where costs claims against the Council were refused by the Inspector, notably those relating to Lower Weybourne Lane in Badshot Lea, The Woolmead in Farnham, The Heights in Haslemere, Loxwood Road in Alfold and Scotland Lane in Haslemere.”
86.4 From Councillor Steve Cosser, Godalming Charterhouse Ward
“Since the last Borough Council election, residents in Godalming have
been in the dark about the intentions and proposals of this Council in respect of Broadwater Park Golf Club and have been given no opportunity to express any views about whatever the Council may have in mind for this site. Also, since I last raised this matter in full Council over six months ago, there has been no information supplied to Council on where things now stand.
Clearly this situation is unsatisfactory and I should therefore like to ask for an assurance that a full report on the current situation be brought to the next meeting of the Council for debate, ensuring that only matters which must by law be kept confidential are included in the exempt part of the report and that other material is available in the non-confidential part of the report.”
86.5 Response from Councillor Mark Merryweather, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Commercial and Assets
“The land referred to is still under full control of the tenant, Broadwater Park Golf Club. The Council is working with the club to resolve contractual issues between the club and third parties to enable the go ahead of capping of the former landfill, reestablishment of a golf facility and bring the land back into wider community use. The council’s intention is for the land not included within the new golf facility to be brought back into public community use, and the public will be given an opportunity as soon as practicably possible to be involved in the planning for the future use of the land.
Since the Council resolution on 15th December, Members have been kept fully informed of progress through a number of all Member email briefings by the Strategic Director, on the following dates, 18 February 2021, 29 July 2021 and 11 November 2021 and a report is going to the 8th March Executive with an update.
While the pace of progress on the matter is subject to some factors outside of the Council’s control, Officers are committed to a resolution that is satisfactory to the Council and our residents. A full report will be brought to Full Council at the earliest opportunity with as much information as possible in public.”
86.6 From Councillor Steve Cosser, Godalming Charterhouse Ward
“Council officers and relevant Executive and local Godalming members received last month a letter from Godalming and Farncombe Bowling club expressing concern about the future of the club because of the parking charges members of the club and visiting players were having to pay to park in the only convenient car park for the club at Crown Court. They sought support and help from the Council in addressing this problem. To date they have received an officer response which contained no proposals to assist with the charges and suggested only that they might like to use other car parks in the town. The club have responded explaining why this suggestion is not practical.
I should like to ask the Leader of the Council (who I have already approached directly on this matter with no response to me to date) if he and other members of his administration share my view that:
1. It would be tragic if the contribution made by the presence of the Bowls Club to the character of the Phillips Memorial grounds and the surrounding area in central Godalming were to be lost; and
2. That some limited support with parking charges at Crown Court car park would not in any serious way undermine the need to maintain the significant revenue stream needing to be secured from this large car park which is so vital to the future vibrancy of the centre of Godalming.
If so, can I ask that steps be taken to agree some support for the club prior to
the start of the new bowling season in April?”
86.7 Response from Councillor Andy MacLeod, Portfolio Holder for Enforcement, Operations and Brightwells
“The Council fully recognises the contribution made by the presence of the Bowls Club to the character of the Phillips Memorial grounds and the surrounding area and agrees it would be tragic if it were lost.
We also recognise that everyone is facing difficult times with the ongoing impact of Covid and rising inflation in all areas. The Council is of course not immune from this and the increases in parking charges were necessary to ensure that the council can continue to provide parking and a wide range of environmental services to the community. Whilst parking charges have increased in Waverley, similar increases are being seen across Surrey and further afield. A wide range of other cost of living increases are also impacting on all of us and we do not feel that parking charges alone can be blamed for peoples’ decisions on whether to continue with leisure and other activities.
Whilst we always try to be supportive and sympathetic to requests for assistance we do have to be consistent and if we agree to subsidise one group there will doubtless be numerous others who will also expect similar support and this would then have a significant impact on the revenue stream.
Officers were trying to be helpful in their response by identifying other car parks within a reasonable walking distance where parking is cheaper, and indeed The Wharf where public parking at weekends is free. Officers are happy to continue to engage with club officials to try to assist but we cannot guarantee a financial subsidy as part of the solution.”
In addition to the formal response, Councillor MacLeod advised that he had discussed the issue with Councillor Cosser, and had sympathy with his situation as similar issues had been experienced by the Farnham Bowling Club. He had assured Councillor Cosser that he would do what he could to help the Godalming Bowls Club.
86.8 From Councillor Jenny Else, Elstead and Thursley Ward
“The residents of my ward and I are becoming increasingly concerned at the sorry state of our footways, kerbsides, and green spaces which fall within the responsibility of Waverley Borough Council.
This is a situation that has not been helped by the introduction of no mow May last year - a worthy initiative but which regrettably continued in some areas until October, resulting in a lack of civic pride and encouraging litter, dog fouling etc.
This is a situation about which I know other rural areas also have concerns as they do not appear to have had as much attention as the towns in our Borough.
I have repeatedly asked for an indication of when our village last had a visit from the street cleansing service which were always included in the contract but I have had no date supplied.
We are now being told to learn to live with covid which is so often the reason given for this apparent lack of civic pride. Given this advice what are Waverley Borough Council's plan's for this year?
I am tired of having to make excuses for this lack of service for which our residents receive no refund on their Council tax and I would really like to report that a better service will be provided.
With the potential for isolation rules for covid infections to be abandoned, which appears to be one of the reasons for Biffa's inability to provide this service, when will the street cleansing programme, exactly as described within the contract, be reinstated?
If this is not going to be possible this Council has a right to know - what are the terms of the penalty clause attached to the contract?”
86.9 Response from Councillor Steve Williams, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability
“Thank you for your question regarding street cleansing and grass cutting.
I will take the grass cutting element first, you are correct we supported No Mow May last year to boost biodiversity throughout the Borough. The success of this scheme is subjective; however we believe the benefits of this campaign have outweighed the issues that materialised, future campaigns will reflect the lessons of last year’s adoption. However, I would like to correct your assertion that rural areas did not receive cuts in line with the contract until October favouring work within the towns, this is simply not true. The cutting regime returned to normal from July for all areas of the Borough, I can only assume the areas that you have referred to looking untidy in October is land not under Waverley’s control.
On street cleansing, I would like to put things into context. The waste and cleansing contract with Biffa has been running for 27 months, of which 23 months have, like all other services, been affected by the covid pandemic. This has led directly to the following challenges:
· massive driver and crew absences due to direct covid impacts - personal illness, self-isolation, bereavement
· subsequent impact of HGV driver losses from early 2021, with up to 25% of driver posts being vacant at any time since then
· around 15% more household waste arisings due to more people at home, so roughly 1 days’ worth more waste every week for Biffa to collect
· a 27% rise in flytipping cases, in the first year of the covid pandemic
In that time Biffa have, over and above the normal work
· completed the planned collection round optimisation, which has reduced the contract cost and reduced our carbon footprint due to reduced mileage and the use of more fuel efficient vehicles.
· taken on over 1800 new garden waste customers
· provided an additional street sweeping truck for our contract at no extra cost
· spent over an additional quarter of a million pounds in the current financial year, to keep the collection rounds operational in the face of the HGV driver crisis. This was to cover
o the well-publicised, unanticipated driver salary costs
o additional vehicles to allow lower qualified drivers maintain the collection rounds
During this time, Officers have met with Biffa almost daily and members have been kept well informed of any issues and changes to services as they arose.
Those contract discussions have always centred on maintaining the waste and recycling collection rounds as a priority over street cleansing and maintaining our statutory collections of refuse, food waste and dry recyclables over garden waste. Therefore we agreed that street cleansing operations could be reduced over the pandemic period and the normal schedules permitted to slip, with the suspension of any default penalties, as long as necessary responsive work was then carried out where required. In turn, this has allowed street cleansing staff to cover the agreed priority, of refuse collection rounds, when crews have not been available.
However, in agreeing those priorities, Biffa have been responding to requests for one off, and additional street cleansing operations. These have typically been where there was significant littering in specific areas and high levels of leafing, or where safety has become an issue.
In relation to Elstead specifically, there are 26 roads in Elstead that are on Biffa's Mechanical Sweeper schedule which vary in frequency between 4 and 13 weeks. There is no doubt that these have been lower over the last year, since we moved to a much reduced proactive sweeping programme but a far more responsive work pattern as streets crews were utilised on waste collection duties.
I understand that officers met with you and the Parish Clerk at Elstead in late January, and following that meeting 8 roads were completed immediately and another 6 roads are in progress for this week. This is clear evidence that Biffa are continuing to observe and maintain the revised sweeper response service.
At the present time, and for the foreseeable future, we anticipate the service will continue with those priorities, as Biffa - like all HGV reliant businesses - still has driver vacancies amounting to around 20% of their requirements.
I would finally like to take this opportunity to thank both our officers and Biffa's staff, for their unstinting efforts in maintaining services for our residents during these very difficult and unprecedented times.”