Agenda item

MOTION - CENTRAL GODALMING REGENERATION PROJECT

Meeting of Council, Tuesday, 13th December, 2022 6.00 pm (Item CNL62/22)

Minutes:

62.1 At the invitation of the Mayor, Cllr Peter Martin introduced the Motion that had been submitted by himself, Cllr Steve Cosser and Cllr Michael Goodridge, the text of which had been circulated in the agenda for the meeting.

62.2 Cllr Martin stated that this motion sought an outright rejection of any proposals to build houses on Crown Court Car Park or to construct a Multi-storey Car Park at The Burys to fund the rebuilding of Waverley Borough Council’s headquarters. Cllr Martin cited the Petition received by Council from The Save Crown Court Action Group to support the Motion. He argued that constructing a multi storey car park at the Waverley Headquarters would be unethical as the site was on the edge of the Godalming Conservation Area and overlooking the Lammas Lands. Cllr Martin stated that a more appropriate example of affordable housing in Godalming was the the current housing development at Ockford Park, which would provide around 262 homes, of which 78 are deemed affordable. He urged the council to rethink these plans and find alternatives. Cllr. Martin commended the Motion to the council.

62.3 Cllr S. Cosser spoke as a seconder on the Motion. Cllr Cosser referred to a statement issued by the Local Chamber of Commerce based on a survey of their members, stating that 85% of surveyed Chambers members opposed the propositions made by the Administration. Cllr Cosser quoted the statement issued by the Chambers of Commerce, which stated that “these proposals will not benefit retail and commerce in Godalming”. Cllr Cosser also referred to the Petition received by Council to support the Motion and argued that residents and businesses of Godalming would not accept any proposals that included building on the Crown Court Car Park and constructing a multi storey car park in central Godalming. He argued that any amendment that left the possibility for this open in the future should be rejected. Cllr Cosser concluded by urging councillors to support the Motion.

62.4 The Leader of the Council, Cllr Follows, proposed an amendment, which was seconded by Cllr Andy MacLeod. Cllr Follows circulated his amendment which was set out with tracked changes to the original amendment and as a clean version of the amended motion.

62.5 In response to a Point of Order from Cllr Simon Dear, the Mayor confirmed that an amendment did not have to be a minor change and was defined as adding words, removing words, or doing both, with the only restriction being that it should not simply negate the original motion. The Mayor was therefore happy to accept the amendment.

62.6 At the request of Cllr Hyman, Cllr Cosser, and other Members, the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 7:16pm for five minutes to allow Members time to read the amendment. The meeting resumed at 7.20pm. The Mayor invited Cllr Follows to introduce his amendment.

62.7 Cllr Follows thanked the Monitoring Officer for confirming the validity of his amendment in relation to the Constitution. He recalled how the previous administration had treated residents with regard to Brightwells and the current administration had sought to learn from that and engage early with the local community on concepts and options rather than pre-determined ideas. Cllr Follows had assumed that the opposition were well-meaning in their aims but just came at things from a different perspective, but he had seen a number of councillors consciously introduce misinformation on the subject of the proposals. As ward councillor for the area of Godalming affected by the proposals, these were not things he would necessarily want to do. But he had been open about why the proposal were necessary and his duty as a Waverley councillor took precedence over his personal views. Cllr Follows’ view was that the original motion was irresponsible and the simple opposition to the proposals put the entire Waverley budget at risk without any alternative proposals.

62.8 Cllr Follows explained that the amendment recognised that there was a wide range of feedback to the engagement, aimed to provide the context for the regeneration project in terms of local government funding, proposed the release of proposals commissioned by the previous administration which would provide background to the latest proposals, and proposed a cross-party working group to review all options and financial details of the project. The working group would only sit if all parties on the Council agreed to participate.

62.9 Cllrs Michael Goodridge, Peter Martin, Stephen Mulliner, Simon Dear, Steve Coser, and Richard Seaborne all spoke emphatically in opposition to the amendment, highlighting local knowledge in understanding what was acceptable in Godalming; the risk to the well-being of the town, its shops and businesses in removing parking at Crown Court; public objection to a multi-storey car park in Godalming and especially the proposed location; lack of a robust business case to support the proposals; opposition to the principle of developing Crown Court and The Burys to fund the redevelopment of the Council Offices under any circumstances; and the unrealistic timeframe for the proposed working group to report.

62.10 Cllr David Munro noted that he would be voting for the amendment but saw it as a face-saving exercise by the administration which would provide a means of back-tracking on their original proposals.

62.11 Cllr Hyman expressed concern at the proposals and the potential impact on Godalming, but did not feel that the original motion was the right approach as it was too absolute in its opposition. However, he did not feel able to support the amendment and would abstain.

62.12 Cllrs Steve Williams, Liz Townsend, Joan Heagin, Nick Palmer, Sally Dickson, John Robini, the Deputy Mayor Penny Rivers, and Kika Mirylees all spoke in support of the amendment, noting that the public engagement had identified the extent of misinformation put out by opposition members; the desire for early engagement with residents and stakeholders on proposals for the town centre; the genuine need to address the deficiencies of the Council Offices and the need to look for local solutions in the absence of adequate government funding for local government; the offer to work collaboratively with the Opposition Group to identify alternative and fiscally equivalent options; the opportunity to provide much needed affordable homes in the centre of Godalming; and that the previous administration had begun the work to identify solutions to the problem of the Council Offices by redeveloping council owned land in Godalming town centre.

62.13 Cllr Mary Foryszewski expressed her disappointment at the tone of the debate and lack of respect shown by councillors to one another, and urged the administration to listen to the objections of local residents to the proposals.

62.14 Cllr Andy MacLeod, as seconder of the amendment, highlighted the negative slant of the original motion compared with the willingness embedded in the amendment to take a collaborative approach to looking at alternative solutions to the problems. He noted the tight timeframe, but felt that the aim was to sense-check the direction of travel and to identify other options.

62.15 The Mayor invited Cllr Follows to sum-up the debate on the amendment. Cllr Follows reminded Members that the previous administration had identified that the status quo was not an option. His intention was not to rule anything out with this amendment, but to engage with the budget issues and go forward in good faith in engaging with stakeholders on concepts, learning from the experience of Brightwells.

62.16 Cllr Peter Martin requested a recorded vote on the amendment, in accordance with Procedure Rule 17.4, which was supported by five Members and it was

RESOLVED

Following the consideration of all feedback to the Central Godalming Regeneration Project Public Engagement, including, but not limited to the presentation by the Finance Portfolio Holder to the Executive on 29th November and taking account of the views expressed in a petition being presented to Full Council on 13th December and taking into account the Council’s duty to have regard for:

A) the opportunities identified since at least 2018 to save revenue expenditure on operating and maintaining the Burys (Council Office) building, and the best use of the Council’s assets for all the residents of Waverley.

B) the national macro-economic climate and the volatile condition of and uncertain prospects for local government funding settlements from central government, and

C) believing that this Council must act responsibly and with financial prudence on behalf of all our residents across the Borough and that sometimes this necessitates making difficult choices.

This Council resolves to:

· Terminate the consideration of any options to relocate some of the spaces in Crown Court Car Park in Godalming

· Stop the consideration of any options to build houses on Crown Court Car Park

· Reject any options to build a decked car park at the Waverley Borough Council HQ site

· Alternative and fiscally equivalent options can be identified and implemented to meet the serious financial constraints impacting Waverley Borough Council within the relevant and appropriate planning and financial frameworks and regulations also keeping in mind the Council objective to maximise the delivery of genuinely affordable and social housing.

To this end, the Council further resolves to:

• Appoint a dedicated, all-party, Executive Working Group (in accordance with Part 4.4 Annexe 1 of the Waverley Borough Council Constitution) with the following terms of reference, scope, and composition:

a) This Executive Working Group will be chaired by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Assets.

b) The scope of the group will be to find and further consider any alternatives to the Godalming Regeneration Project that address the financial objectives of the project and within the relevant and appropriate planning and financial frameworks and regulations.

c) The composition of the group will be 2 Liberal Democrats; 2 Farnham Residents; 2 Conservatives; 1 Green and 1 Labour member.

d) Sessions of this Executive Working Group will not be considered quorate without at least ONE representative from each of the legally constituted political groups on the council.

e) The group will meet in January and report by 15th February 2022.

• To write to and engage with Homes England regarding any housing and infrastructure assistance, funding, and guidance that they could offer.

• To release and publish to the WBC website, in the interests of transparency, the Lambert Smith Hampton report (2018) commissioned by the previous administration of WBC.

• To write to the MP for South West Surrey, the Rt Hon. Jeremy Hunt in his capacity as a cabinet minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, to request a plan for sustainable local government funding sufficient to allow this Council to deliver services without the need to consider projects such as the Central Godalming Regeneration Project.

For (25)

Cllrs Baker, Beaman, Busby, Davidson, Dickson, Follows, Gale, Heagin, Hesse, Keen, MacLeod, Penny Marriott, Mirylees, Munro, Nicholson, Palmer, Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, Robini, Spence, Liz Townsend, Phillip Townsend, Ward, Williams

Against (12)

Cllrs Cockburn, Cosser, Dear, Deanus, David Else, Jenny Else, Goodridge, James, Peter Martin, Mulliner, Sadler, Seaborne

Abstentions (4)

Cllrs Ellis, Foryszewski, Hyman, Neale

62.17 The Mayor confirmed that with the amendment having been carried, this now became the substantive motion to be debated. Cllr Follows moved that as there had already been a significant debate and Members had made clear their positions, the matter should be put to the vote. The Mayor confirmed that there were no Members wishing to speak other than Cllr Peter Martin who wished to exercise his right of reply, as proposer of the original motion, and in that case Cllr Follows withdrew his closure motion.

62.18 Cllr Martin noted that in response to the administration’s consultation on its proposals to close Crown Court Car Park to build houses, and to build a multi-storey car park, the public had voted 6 to 1 against the proposition, a petition of over 4,000 signatures had been presented to Council, and the Chamber of Commerce was deeply opposed. The administration had then ignored all that feedback with the amendment that would stop all the proposals if alternative and fiscally equivalent options could be identified and implemented to meet the financial constraints on the council and satisfy planning and other regulations. In his view, the people of Godalming had spoken and no financial justification was sufficient to do what was being proposed. Cllr Martin would be voting against the amended motion and he urged Members to do the same.

62.19 Cllr Follows requested a recorded vote on the Motion, in accordance with Procedure Rule 17.4, which was supported by five Members and it was