The Chairman to respond to any questions received from Members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.
The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 1 February 2022.
The following question had been received prior to publication from Councillor David Beaman:
Minutes:
The Executive received the following questions in accordance with Procedure Rule 11:
1) From Councillor David Beaman,
I. “The Boundary Commission for England is currently undertaking a review of Parliamentary Constituencies that is due to report by July 2023. A first round of consultation was launched in June 2021 and lasted 8 weeks ending in August 2021 during which over 33,000 responses were received. Did WBC submit any submission during this first period of consultation?
II. Following this first round of consultation the Boundary Commission's initial proposals are to replace the current South West Surrey constituency being split with Farnham, Haslemere and Hindhead forming part of a new Farnham and Bordon constituency whilst Cranleigh and Godalming will form part of a new Godalming and Ash constituency. If these initial proposals are implemented unchanged is any work being undertaken to assess the possible consequences and implications for Waverley?
III. A secondary period of consultation commences on 22nd February lasting 6 weeks and will close on 4th April. This second round of consultation includes 32 public hearings at which evidence can be presented with the nearest hearing to Waverley being held in Reading on Monday 21st and Tuesday 22nd March. Bookings for 10 minute speaking slots are already open (I have already booked my own personal speaking slot for Monday 21st March between 1400 and 1410 hours). Given that the initial proposals are now known does WBC now intend to submit any written evidence and / or appear at the public hearing?”
Reply from the Leader of the Council:
I. “Waverley BC did not submit a response to the initial consultation. During the initial consultation, Officers informed interested parties of the consultation to raise awareness. Similar communications will be promoted during the second consultation period. A number of the stakeholders within Waverley were informed; and political parties were aware of it and indeed many made comment.
II. The Borough area is currently split between two constituencies: South West Surrey and Guildford meaning that Cranleigh and surrounding areas are ‘given away’ to the Guildford Constituency. The proposals seek to keep the Borough split between two constituencies however, it seems likely that Waverley will ‘take in’ electors from East Hampshire and Guildford as the majority of electors in the new constituencies reside within this Borough. This means that Farnham and Bordon Constituency will ‘take in’ Bordon from East Hampshire and Godalming and Ash Constituency will ‘take in’ the south of the current Guildford Borough Council area. As the Borough already has two constituencies within it, and the Electoral Registration Officer is experienced with sharing information between electoral services teams for parliamentary elections, it is anticipated that the consequences of the proposals will be minimal.
This parliamentary boundary review is one of three reviews taking place within our Borough at the moment. The other two are the Local Government Boundary Commission’s review and the Community Governance Review.
The Local Government Boundary Commission review is in its final stages and the final recommendations are expected on 29 March. This review identifies new ward boundaries throughout Waverley and the new wards will be in place for the May elections next year.
There is also a Borough-wide Community Governance Review underway. This was approved to commence at Full Council on 14 December 2021 and the initial consultation has started. Residents and interested parties are invited to submit a response before the deadline of 25 February. This review is undertaken by this Council and identifies changes needed to town and parish councils within the Borough.
III. Due to the Council’s limited resources, a submission will not be made to the Parliamentary Constituency consultation from the Council, unless the Council requests it. Individual councillors or groups may wish to make their own representations. I know they have done and for your reassurance Councillor Beaman, I am also taking part in some of the consultation effort on that. From my point of view, it is difficult for the Council to separate political commentary from commentary regarding the actual process and therefore we did not choose to put a submission in. However if this Council chooses to make that point, we will abide by Council’s wishes.”
2) From Councillor Joan Heagin
I. “Assuming the budget is approved, how much will each organisation receive from the Thriving Communities fund?
II. What criteria will be used to allocate the additional £49k included within the list of Growth Items (Note C of the Budget pack)?”
Reply from the Councillor Kika Mirylees, Portfolio Holder for Health, Wellbeing, Parks and Leisure:
I. “The overall budget for the Thriving Communities Commissioning Fund is being consider tonight by the Executive as part of the Council’s Budget Setting process the decision will be considered for approval at the full budget council meeting on 22 February after which we will publish the amounts allocated to the successful organisations.
II. The additional £49k for is for 1 year and is being allocated to specific organisations to support them through this transitional funding year.”
3) From Councillor Jerry Hyman
“Given that the 2018 People Over Wind & Sweetman Ruling overturned the 'established' 'Hart' (Dilly Lane) practice adopted by Natural England and many UK planning authorities since 2008, whereby the need to conduct full Art.6(3) Appropriate Assessments has been evaded by unlawfully assuming the effectiveness of mitigation measures at Screening, does the Leader accept that the internal and external legal advice given to Members which sustained Waverley's errant interpretation has always been wrong and misleading?”
Reply from the Councillor Liz Townsend, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development:
“Our planning officers do undertake appropriate assessments where these are required to comply with the applicable regulations and these are published on the Council’s planning applications portal. In view of concerns raised previously, since the 2018 ruling, we have sought independent opinions from counsel on this matter and I do not accept the Councillor’s suggestion that the internal and external advice given to Members has been either wrong or misleading. Should anyone believe the Council has erred in law in our decision making it would be open to them to seek leave to challenge this in the High Court.”
Councillor Townsend added that she had received a further email from Councill Hyman and she would be responding following the receipt of some additional information.