Agenda item

To respond to questions from members of the public, received in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.

 

The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 16 April 2024, any questions received will be published in a Supplement on 17 April 2024.

 

The following questions were received from members of the public in accordance with Procedure Rule 10:

 

1.    Question from Daniel Kuszel

Could the Leader explain why the FOI Team is not responding to queries for information within the statutory 20 working day period? Is he aware that the team is still using Covid-19 as a reason for not meeting the statutory deadline? Could he explain why the completion of FOI requests continues to be affected by Covid-19 when it appears all other council services have returned to normal operation?

 

Response by Cllr Victoria Kiehl, Executive Portfolio Holder for Organisational Development and Governance:

 

Thank you Madam Mayor. Thank you to Mr Kuszel for his question which I will respond to as co-portfolio holder for Legal Services.

 

The Council takes its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 seriously; this includes responding to FOI requests within the statutory timelines of 20 working days. During COVID all public authorities in the UK including Waverley Borough Council were unable to meet the statutory timelines for responding to FOI requests, however post COVID, local authority officers, including Waverley Borough Council Officers, were able to return to their offices and this improved their compliance rate for FOI requests. Waverley Borough Council has stopped using COVID as a reason for non-compliance with FOI statutory timescales; however, it is noted that since the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council has been receiving a large amount of FOI requests, coupled with pressures due to staff absences, sickness, and resources.

 

To ensure the Council improves its FOI compliance record, the Council has recently increased the number of officers working in the FOI Team from 1 to 3 officers; the Council is also working on upscaling the knowledge of the team and officers by arranging refresher training on the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In the last 2 months, the new team have reduced the number of late responses by 80% and they hope to clear all the backlog within the next couple of months. Every member of the public can of course refer their dissatisfaction with the way the Council has handled their FOI request to the Information Commissioner's Office.

 

 

2.    Question from Katie Hobson on behalf of CranleighHighStreet.uk team

This question is in relation to the new Cranleigh Leisure Centre and the proposal to build it in the middle of the Village Way car park.

 

The minutes of the Cranleigh Parish Council AGM on 9^th March 2023, state that Councillor E Townsend spoke about the proposed new leisure centre, in her role as Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development at Waverley Borough Council.

·         When asked ‘will there be a consultation on the location of the new leisure centre?’, Cllr Townsend answered ‘once a consultant has been formerly appointed there will be more information available and a full consultation on its final location.’

·         Cllr Townsend also explained that ‘there will be disruption to parking to begin with but at the conclusion of the project there will not be any parking lost.’

·         When asked about the amount of useable parking available during the construction, Cllr Townsend explained ‘that there would be disruption, but about half of the car park should still be useable.’

The latest designs show that 68 parking spaces will be lost from Village Way car park at the end of the project, (235 spaces vs 303 now), and it appears that there will be very few parking spaces available during construction itself – significantly less than ‘half’.

Please could the Council confirm:

a)    Where in Cranleigh, will the 68 new car parking spaces be located – to ensure no loss of parking?

b)    When the full consultation on the final location of the new leisure (as referred to above) will take place.

Responses by Cllr Liz Townsend, Executive Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development:

 

Response to Question a:

 

The Council and the Project team are very aware that parking is a key consideration on the site both during construction and post build. The plans shown during the engagement stage were draft, and highlighted as indicative concept plans that are still emerging.

 

Due to the importance of the matter and impact on both residents and local businesses, a separate officer work stream has been put in place to review the challenges and to identify possible solutions including alternative transport. Officers will be investigating all village parking options, as well as identifying what changes to space sizes may be required to comply with Surrey County Council’s policies.  I would stress that we are committed to providing adequate disabled, family and EV charging point spaces in Village Way car park which are not all available at the moment. We will also be looking to maximise parking options at every stage throughout the project to minimise disruption for the local community.

 

Response to Question b:

 

The Council has taken the following consultation and project awareness steps on the New Cranleigh Leisure Centre (CLC):

 

1.    Round table meetings: September and November 2023

With nearest neighbours to discuss initial questions/concerns: Cranleigh Parish Council, Medical Centre, Market, Co-op, Cranleigh Hospital (Cranleigh League of Friends).

 

2.    Leisure Centre User Survey: 11 December 2023 to 19 Jan 2024

Leisure Centre users/membership were asked to give feedback on the facility mix. Survey carried out via MS forms shared with leisure centre users (via Everyone Active) and more widely with residents in the borough via Waverley Borough Council social media and press contacts. 810 responses received to the survey - feedback recorded and shared with project team.

3.    Project email: available since September 2023

Project email clcnewbuild@waverley.gov.uk and Waverley Borough Council website page Waverley Borough Council - New Cranleigh Leisure Centre have been available since September 2023.

4.    CLC Local Ward Councillor Meeting – held at the Council Offices 12 Jan 2024

Update on project to local Cranleigh and Ewhurst Ward Councillors.

 

5.    Commonplace Project Information Hub - Launched 6 March 2024.

Scheme details available at the hub including copies of the information boards shown at the community drop-in sessions, answers to FAQ’s and a resident survey. Survey ran from 6.3.24 – 22.3.24 with 1,200 visitors to the hub and over 50 written responses.

Survey was advertised via social media to wider borough, shared with Ward and Parish Cllrs, including neighbouring Parishes, and posters sent out and put up in Cranleigh (village hall and leisure centre). QR code on the poster linked back to the online information hub/survey.

6.    Community drop-in sessions

Held Friday 15 and Saturday 16 March 2024 in Cranleigh Village Hall and at Cranleigh Leisure Centre. Over 200 people attended across the 2 days. DPP Planning have produced a written report of all the comments received, which they are using to inform the detailed design and planning application.  

We will (in the next few weeks) update our commonplace information hub with answers to the more detailed questions asked, and we are intending to update our key stakeholders with information who live/work very close to the development. 

 

Prior to these steps we have also carried out a full feasibility assessment and location consultation stage for the new build Cranleigh Leisure Centre.

 

In 2019 the Sport, Leisure and Culture Consultancy (‘SLC’) were appointed to conduct an Options Appraisal to explore the alternative site options for development of a new leisure facility for Cranleigh. Following Covid-19 a Feasibility Update Report was undertaken by SLC in September 2021, to test the conclusions from the earlier, pre-pandemic Options Appraisal.

 

SLC’s shortlisting of options and subsequent evaluation identified the new build on Village Way car park as the preferred scheme for the following reasons:

 

a)    It avoids any loss of service to the community as the new centre can be opened before the existing centre closes.  This includes public swimming, including the swimming club and lessons (school classes), rehabilitation programmes, dementia and Parkinson’s exercise classes as well as standard exercise classes and gym sessions. The Leisure centre attracts on average 3,103 visits per week to the centre all of whom will be kept fully informed of the build stages and parking options.

b)    It provides the strongest revenue position for the Council and has no negative financial impact upon the remaining term of the existing management contract with Everyone Active.

c)    It has an optimal layout with accessibility options including wider corridors, a lift and a pod system for lowering visitors into the pool.  It provides an opportunity to contribute strongly to improvements to the wider Village Way site with additional landscaping and adequate pedestrian access.

d)    The scheme has received favourable feedback from the Planning Authority which recognises the opportunity to improve the services provided, the impact on the environment and the wider public realm.

 

The preferred location maintains all leisure centre services for the community and the employment of CLC staff.  It also maximises the opportunities for secondary visitors to the high street during the build phase.

 

 

3.    Question from Virginia Ray

 

It is proposed that the new Cranleigh Leisure Centre is to be built in the middle of Village Way car park, resulting in the likelihood of little-to-no public parking being available during the construction period (once parking for leisure centre staff, and users of the medical centre has been allocated). The current designs show that once construction is completed, there will be just 235 parking spaces, a reduction of 22% from the 303 available now - all while the footfall for the new leisure is projected to be greater than it is now, and while new houses continue to be built in Cranleigh. 

Has an impact assessment been undertaken to determine the effects on the High Street businesses, of this substantial loss of parking: 

 

1.            During the construction (which is expected to be circa two years) 

2.            Once the whole project has been completed?  

 

If an impact assessment has not been carried out, what are the Council’s expectations in respect of the impact on Cranleigh High Street businesses? 

Responses by Cllr Liz Townsend, Executive Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development:

Thank you for your question.

 

The current plans are draft, concept plans showing an indication of the design at this stage. These are currently being developed and will continue to be throughout the remainder of the detailed design phase.  Parking is a key consideration both during and post build and as such all possibilities for further parking are currently being explored in the village centre, to maximise parking in the long term and minimise disruption to residents and businesses during the construction phase.

 

The planning application once submitted will include details of the interim parking arrangements during this construction phase as well as a comprehensive Construction Traffic Management Plan.

 

Due to the importance of this matter and the potential impact on both residents and local businesses, a separate officer work stream has been put in place to review the challenges, both short and long term, and to identify possible solutions, including access to alternative transport options during the build phase. 

 

I would add that as the portfolio holder I am also in regular contact with representatives of Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce and the Business Improvement District.

 

Once this work is complete officers will be in a position to present a more detailed overview of the final parking options proposals.

 

The project team are very aware, as am I, of the complexities of the parking arrangements and particularly of access during construction and moving forward from the concept stage this does form part of the detailed work being undertaken whilst mitigating wherever possible the impact on residents and local businesses.

 

4 . Question from Daniel Husseini

 

Would the Leader please provide an update on Broadwater Park Golf Course in Godalming?   In particular:

·         I understand that the legal negotiations are now complete and that the old golf course land is now wholly in the hands of WBC.  What have been the total costs (including all legal costs) since May 2019 and what further costs to the Council are anticipated?

 

·         The Leader has talked of a facility at Broadwater Park to rival the Surrey University Sports Park.  What are the current plans of the Administration for this area and when will there be a meaningful consultation with members of the public?

·         When will the land recovery and capping commence, how long will it take and what daily lorry movements are anticipated?

Response from Cllr Paul Follows, Leader and Executive  Portfolio Holder for Policy, Governance and Communications:

Thank you for your questions. Mr Husseini.

 

The Council has spent a total of £284,653 on the project so far – which includes all legal costs and the further work to clear, assess and monitor the site and begin the process of specialist work on the site for the next phase.

 

It was a great shame that despite coming to terms on two occasions that came to council for approval that the opposing party was not able to deliver on those terms – extending the dispute for longer than we had all hoped. This was of course satisfactorily resolved last year.

 

But – let’s compare this to value of the original lease that was proposed, the one that our administration halted. The losses to the council over the almost 100 years that lease was proposed to run - at substantially less than market rate, obviously dwarfs this amount by orders of magnitude. That is also before we get to the capping of the landfill, a process that generates revenue – I’ll cover this in my response to the following question from Mr Benson.

 

·         The Leader has talked of a facility at Broadwater Park to rival the Surrey University Sports Park.  What are the current plans of the Administration for this area and when will there be a meaningful consultation with members of the public?

 

Once we have completed survey work on the site, we will then be in a better position to consider the future use of the site. Meaningful consultation is a subjective term, certainly in my opinion we have already had one round of meaningful consultation, it was actually one of the most responded to engagement exercises in the history of this borough – with very meaningful responses from the community. As I have said many times though, there will be further consultation as the project moves forward with the community at large but also with specific groups. For example, residents around the perimeter of the site but also groups such as Sport Godalming, whose AGM I spoke at a couple of weeks ago to reinforce this very point. It is our ambition that we will produce a formal vision for Broadwater Park by the end of this year, which was also go out to public consultation. It is my hope to involve such as Sport Godalming and our other partners in the development of that vision.

 

·         When will the land recovery and capping commence, how long will it take and what daily lorry movements are anticipated? 

It is worth my reminding residents that the previous leaseholder had consent from Surrey to undertake a capping of this landfill. I remind people of this because it was going to happen anyway – at least now it does so for a wider public good. Public good in terms of financial value and in terms of the wider community value the site will bring. The outputs of the survey work will inform what final details of that capping is but also what sport and leisure activities are to be undertaken on the site. For example, you wouldn’t make something totally flat if you were going to put a BMX track on it. When we have more specific details I will be reporting to council and to residents on this in greater depth.

 

5.    Question from Richard Benson

The Broadwater Golf Club site

·         The site area is approximately 80,000 square metres.

·         Based on data from the Environment Agency the cost of capping the site will be approximately £2,400,000.

·         The recommended aftercare period is at least 60 years.

 

Questions:

1.    Does the Leader agree that the cost of capping the Broadwater Golf Club site will be at least £2,400,000 ?

2.    If the Leader does not agree, what is his estimate of the cost of capping the Broadwater Golf Club site ?

3.    Where will the funds come from to pay for the cost of capping ?

4.    What is the Leader’s estimate for the annual aftercare cost?

 

Response from Cllr Paul Follows, Leader and Executive  Portfolio Holder for Policy, Governance and Communications:

Thank you for your questions. Mr Benson.

 

As to question one and two and three, I cannot comment on the amount as at present nor can the EA in full. As per my answer at the end of the previous question, it will depend on the way the land is used. I would also note the distinction of who bears any cost. Capping is often undertaken via spoil, i.e. soil and rubble from other development being deposited. This is something developers must pay for to deposit. It is one of the reasons that we have been keen for the capping to benefit the public – such things generate revenue on our side of this equation.

 

As to long-term running costs and the business cases that surround them – it again depends what exactly we do on the site. As with all Council activities it is essential that we think about the long-term running costs relating to any project – this will also be picked up within the Business Case.

 

 

 

6.    Question from Alex Page

Fairground Development Project; on 9 April, the Executive approved a budget for the procurement of services that are required for the purposes of preparation, planning, and implementation of the procurement strategy. As it seems some of the assessments have not been completed, and those that have appear to be less comprehensive than required, remembering the details of the land plan 2, and the full Council meeting means there was only a two-week gap for those assessments, let alone signing contracts for those services, so that the council can provide informed consent to this budget, 

What is the rush?

Noting the difference in how this budget was presented to the council compared to the budget for the Godalming high-street budget.

 

Response from Cllr Mark Merryweather, Executive Portfolio Holder for Finance, Assets and Property:

 

Can I thank Alex for this question which of course relates to the matter to be considered under Item 10 of this Agenda.

 

I’m afraid it's not entirely clear what assessments Alex is referring to here, but I’m sure we’d be happy to respond more fully if Alex can provide that clarity.

 

In the meantime though, I would say that the work that has been done to date has really been at the feasibility level and perhaps some of the assessments Alex has in mind are those that that can only follow in the future once we have a development partner and move into the more substantive stages.  Further Council approval will be needed to advance into the detailed design, planning and construction stage.

 

All of this work is anchored in delivering a Local Plan Part 2 commitment for Haslemere which allocates the site for a mixed-use development of residential and commercial use.  It is essential that the Council deliver its own Council owned sites that have been allocated in LPP2 and the recommendations at tonight’s Council and last week’s Executive seek to move this project into the next phase of that work. 

 

All assessments required for planning purposes will be carried out as necessary following the intended appointment of a development partner. The cost of the work to progress through procurement to appointment is captured within the Business Case.

 

7.    Question from Brian Edmonds

Why has the 2023 review of the Health and Safety Policy not taken place and by what legal authority have the Chief Executive and Leader chosen to redact their signatures. There also appears to be no rational reason for redacting the name of the elected member responsible for Health and Safety matters. Of similar significance how have the significant elected members’ obligations for health and safety been brought to their attention?

 

Response from Cllr Paul Follows, Leader and Executive  Portfolio Holder for Policy, Governance and Communications:

The Council remains committed to ensuring it meets its obligations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999; and that its health and safety management arrangements fulfil those legal obligations.

 

The Council has robust Health and Safety Governance arrangements, and these are set out in the Health and Safety Policy. These arrangements seek to embed Health and Safety across the local authority and are not reliant on a single member of staff and the council remains confident that in spite of the current vacancy, there are suitable and sufficient persons in post and that they have sufficient time and resources to fulfil their functions.

 

Whilst there has been a delay in reviewing the Health and Safety Policy due to staff vacancies, there have been no changes necessary to the policy during the 2022/2023 period. The Council has now engaged a Health and Safety Advisor and one of his priorities is to review the Health and Safety Policy to reflect the arrival of the new Chief Executive and slight changes to the Health and Safety Governance arrangements. 

 

The roles and responsibilities of council officers in respect of health and safety are detailed in the Health and Safety Policy which is published on the Council’s website at WBC Health and Safety Policy November 2022.pdf (waverley.gov.uk).

This will be replaced by the updated policy in the near future.

 

The Council retains a signed copy of the Health and Safety Policy within its records. Signatures have been redacted from the copy published on the website to prevent their fraudulent use by third parties. It is agreed that names and dates do not need to be redacted and that will be corrected when the new version of the policy is published.

 

All elected members are briefed on their health and safety responsibilities during their induction programme and the Leader and Portfolio Holder for Health and Safety are regularly briefed on any significant health and safety issues as they arise.

 

8.    Question from Peter Goodwin

With the proposed increase in car park charges the Council seems determined to inflict the most damage on Haslemere High Street shoppers, retail businesses and restaurants.  Shoppers using the High St car park were already charged more than commuters in the Weydown Rd car park for the whole charging period.  Now commuters face a mere 40p increase for staying all day, with High St shoppers having to pay incremental increases every single hour.

 

1.    The High St car park is the main car park for the High St, West St, Lower St and High Pavement - the retail and restaurant hub of Haslemere.  Many have already moved to shop out of town and in Petersfield with its wider range of shops.  So what is the reasoning behind this Council decision to impose the highest incremental charges on the main Haslemere East car park, used by shoppers and those visiting businesses, solicitors, the Banking Hub, estate agents, etc., as it shows a clear bias to the Haslemere West retailers i.e. Marks & Spencer and Tesco with their free parking? 

2.    Why have the Council imposed a very unfair £2 evening charge in the High St, which will affect all Town Hall Council and Committee meetings, and those visiting the restaurants and pubs in Haslemere East?  This can only be interpreted as a wish to stifle evening business in Haslemere East, in favour of out-of-town pubs and restaurants, so why has this been levied?

3.    The Fairground car park proposal will force not only commuters, but all those working in the Wey Hill shops to park on residential roads.  I believe that - “A car park capacity study found there are adequate spaces available elsewhere”, but where??  The 100 or so spaces on the Fairground site will all be needed by the houses and supermarket, so why has the Council totally ignored the fact that Wey Hill, from the railway bridge to the Tesco traffic lights is almost always a traffic roadblock, which these proposals will make far worse?

4.    I also question 1. What will be the cost to the taxpayer of evening traffic wardens?    2. What additional budget has Waverley set aside to monitor Borough car parks up to 10pm?

 

Response by Cllr Tony Fairclough, Executive Portfolio Holder for Enforcement and Regulatory Services:

 

I’d like to thank Mr Goodwin for his question

 

And begin by reassuring him that Waverley is committed to supporting our high streets.

 

As part of the council’s integrated, sustainable transport policy over the next three years, we will be reviewing and investing in our car parking infrastructure to make visiting our high streets as easy, enjoyable and cost effective as possible.  

 

The incremental changes to the High Street car parking tariff equates to a 10p rise per hour.

 

This is the first rise since 2021 and is broadly in line with inflation over the three years.  

 

We are sympathetic to the fact that many people are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis and the last thing we would want to do is increasing the burden on our residents at this time.

 

However,

 

Funding from central government continues to fall, while rising costs and increased demand for council services means we face a £15.2 million budget gap over the next four years.

 

Unfortunately, it falls upon Waverley to make some difficult decisions now if we are to safeguard the long-term future of our services, which are relied on by so many local people.

 

The income generated through parking charges is used to support the management and maintenance of our car parks, but it is also essential to help fund our environmental services like refuse and recycling collections, street cleaning and maintaining and protecting our wonderful parks and open spaces.

 

 

Parking charges throughout the borough are based on ‘banding’ our car park portfolio.

 

And this is broadly split between the town centre car parks and those further out of town. 

 

Out-of-town car parks, such as Weydown, are aimed at attracting the longer stay users.

 

And here charges are set accordingly to reflect and encourage these longer stays.  

 

Whilst Wey Hill has a shopping area, the High Street car park is Haslemere’s busiest.

 

The charging tariff strategy for the High Street car park aims to maximise vehicle turnover.

 

This turnover ensures that car park spaces become regularly available for new shoppers. 

 

Waverley has no influence on the charges in either the M&S or Tesco car parks

 

Mr Goodwin refers to increased charges in the High Street Car Park,

 

However, for residents wishing to shop or eat out in the vicinity of Haslemere High Street there are alternative parking options with different charges almost adjacent to it.

 

With respect to Petersfield the car park charge for one hour is higher than Waverley.

 

Petersfield also charges for parking on a Sunday.  A policy that Waverley rejected.

 

In Haslemere, evening charges are being trialled in one car park only.

 

The evening charge of £2 is a pilot scheme to understand the impact of such an initiative.

 

As with any pilot scheme, we need a comparison with ‘control’ car parks with no charges.

 

Evening charges are not uncommon as can be seen with neighbouring authorities. 

 

Car park users in the evening impact the maintenance costs of the car park as much as those during the day.  We are merely examining options for an equitable tariff structure.  

 

The existing contract with our parking enforcement team is for a certain number of hours and we can vary times of enforcement between our operating times.

 

During the pilot, evening patrols will therefore be carried out at no extra cost.

 

Should increased patrols be needed, the costs will be reviewed as part of the new tender.  

 

With respect to the Fairground car park proposal, car park usage and the number of spaces required in the Wey Hill area going forward will be an integral part of the overall project, as required by the Local Plan Part 2

 

The proposals for the Fairground site will ensure parking for all users in the Wey Hill area, with pricing designed to give priority to local residents and shoppers, rather than commutors who will be encouraged to use the station cark park. 

 

It should be noted that this project is (if you’ll excuse the pun) at the very start of its journey.

 

I would like to reassure Mr Goodwin the road traffic issues have been noted via a pre-application meeting with the County Highway Authority where no objections were raised. 

 

And I’d like to encourage the engagement of all residents as the project progresses.