Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Caulfield, Councillor Jordan, Councillor Morley and Councillor Roberts.

(i)         To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary and other interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.

(ii)        In accordance with the Officer Employment Procedure Rules, the Strategic Director - Corporate Resources, Kevin Foster declares a disclosable personal interest (non-pecuniary) in any items concerning the companies of which he is a Council-appointed director. The companies are listed in the attached schedule. The interests are such that Mr Foster may advise on those items.

(iii)      In accordance with the Officer Employment Procedure Rules, the Strategic Director - Communities, Louise Strongitharm, declares a disclosable personal interest (non-pecuniary) in any items concerning the companies of which she is a Council-appointed director. The companies are listed in the attached schedule. The interests are such that Mrs Strongitharm may advise on those items.

(iv)      In accordance with the Officer Employment Procedure Rules, the Head of Transformation, Digital and Customer, Adam Walther, declares a disclosable personal interest (non-pecuniary) in any items concerning the companies of which he is a Council-appointed director. The companies are listed in the attached schedule. The interests are such that Mr Walther may advise on those items.

In accordance with the Officer Employment Procedure Rules, the Strategic Director - Corporate Resources, Kevin Foster declared a disclosable personal interest (non-pecuniary) in any items concerning the companies of which he was a Council-appointed director.  The companies were listed in an attached schedule.  The interests were such that Mr Foster could advise on those items.

In accordance with the Officer Employment Procedure Rules, the Strategic Director - Communities, Louise Strongitharm, declared a disclosable personal interest (non-pecuniary) in any items concerning the companies of which she was a Council-appointed director.  The companies were listed in an attached schedule.  The interests were such that Mrs Strongitharm could advise on those items.

In accordance with the Officer Employment Procedure Rules, the Head of Transformation, Digital and Customer, Adam Walther, declared a disclosable personal interest (non-pecuniary) in any items concerning the companies of which he was a Council-appointed director.  The companies were listed in an attached schedule.  The interests were such that Mr Walther could advise on those items.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillor I Johnson declared an interest in items 5 – Questions from Members of Public, 7 – General Fund Budget and Council Tax Setting 2024/25 and 9b – Notices of Motion – Councillor Hussain in respect of the reference to Citizens Advice Woking arising from his wife’s employment by the charity.  The interest in items 7 and 9b was such that Councillor Johnson would leave the Council Chamber at point item 7 was reached and would not return to the meeting.

The Mayor had attended numerous functions following the previous meeting of the Council.  These had included an event for young performers and an invitation by the Horsham Hospital Welfare Trust.  The annual charity pancake race organised by Woking ShopMobility had been held in Jubilee Square and there had been a celebration of the Chinese New Year in Woking Town Centre.

Future engagements included the Mayor’s Ball on 27 April and the Mayor’s bowling tournament on 5 May 2024.

To consider any business which the Chairman rules may be dealt with under Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

No items of Urgent Business were considered.

To receive questions from Members of the Public of which due notice has been given.

Six questions had been received from members of public.  The questions, submitted by Ellie George and Kay Riley, together with the replies from the Leader of the Council and the Deputy Leader of the Council, were presented as follows.  The Mayor welcomed Ellie George to the meeting and advised that Kay Riley had been unable to attend.

Question 1 – Ellie George, Citizens Advice Woking

“A huge amount of my work at CAW goes towards preventing and dealing with homelessness. We help clients with housing benefit applications, negotiate repayments for rent arrears to avoid evictions and navigate those facing or experiencing homelessness through the process of securing new accommodation.  This includes a large number of vulnerable clients who struggle to engage with their landlord and relevant authorities.  How will the council deal with increased demand for housing and homelessness support with the likely reduction in the services CAW will be able to offer?”

Supporting Statement

“From November 23rd, 2023, to February 15th, 2024, Citizens Advice Woking helped 146 clients either threatened with homelessness or experiencing actual homelessness and 46 clients going through the Local Authority Homelessness process. Furthermore, we advised 65 clients on dealing with rent arrears.  We also assisted 54 clients with Housing Benefit issues and applications, with 35 of those cases specifically related to Local Authority housing.”

Reply from Councillor Will Forster

“Firstly, I’d like to thank volunteers from Citizens Advice Woking (CAW) for their questions. The Council has worked in partnership with CAW for many years and value the important services that their staff and volunteers provide.

I want to begin my response by reiterating Woking Borough Council’s (WBC) financial position and the reasons why we’ve needed to review funding to CAW.

The Council is in an extremely vulnerable financial situation which is so significant that it will need substantial and ongoing support from the Government in 2024/25 and for the foreseeable future. It is in this context that the Council has had to agree significant service savings for 2024/25 of over £8.5m.

Going forward, the Council will only be able to provide non-statutory services (discretionary services) where they can be provided without any subsidy from the Council. Unfortunately, grant funding to voluntary organisations is a non-statutory service.

The Council has been working with CAW since September 2023 to understand the potential impact of its proposed funding reductions and to discuss what mitigations could be put in place. This has included support to find alternative funding streams, with WBC brokering a meeting between CAW and the National Lottery.

Whilst the Council is no longer able to provide core funding to CAW, through these discussions, we have been able to agree several areas where we will continue to work in partnership and provide alternative funding streams. They include:

•      £10,000 funding to provide the Court Desk Service from the Government’s Homelessness Prevention Grant.

•      £24,500 funding for the Ukrainian Hub and Syrian and Afghan Refugee Support.

•      £30,000 funding from UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UK SPF) to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

In accordance with Standing Orders, the Council to receive any announcements from the Leader of the Council (or their nominated spokesperson), Committee Chairmen and/or the Chief Executive.

The Leader of the Council provided an update on a number of issues affected by the Council’s financial situation.  This included land at Brookwood Lye, on which the Leader had recently chaired a public meeting for the residents of Brookwood and Knaphill.  The long-standing intention had been to provide Traveller pitches and new homes with a high proportion of affordable homes.  Enforcement action had now been taken against those illegally living on the traveller site, ensuring that only those legally entitled to live on the site were there.  In addition, Thameswey Housing had presented plans for 65 homes on the site, half of which would be affordable with the potential to add more homes in future if land became available.

A further development was proposed at West Hall in West Byfleet.  It had been agreed that the site would be removed from the Green Belt and developed to meet local housing need.  Developers were now proposing the construction of 461 homes at West Byfleet, with half being affordable, and fifteen Traveller pitches.  In recognition of residents’ concerns over traffic levels and the infrastructure necessary for developments of such a size, an infrastructure study had been carried out with a focus on the east of Woking.  In addition, Surrey County Council had a project for active travel improvements which would seek to make improvements to safety and congestion.  Though the project had not progressed for a number of years, the Leader advised that she would encourage them to move the scheme up their priority list.

In regard to Sheerwater, the Government had enabled the Council to borrow money to complete the phases of the development that were currently underway.  In addition, around 100 homes which had been due to be demolished were now to be brought back into use following refurbishment.

Other areas covered included the review being undertaken by Grant Thornton which was currently being finalised in advance of being published.  The cladding repairs to the Victoria Square Hotel development were due to be completed in the summer, and 98% of the apartments in The Marches had now been rented.  Finally, it was reiterated that the Pool in the Park would remain open.

Following the statement by the Leader, the Chief Executive made a statement in respect of the business appearing later on the agenda to ensure the debate led to decisions that had due consideration of the legal and financial implications.  In preparation of the debate, Members had been invited to submit any proposed amendments in advance of the meeting to enable the statutory officers to fully consider the implications and risks.

The Chief Executive emphasised that the budget proposed later in the evening had only been balanced with the Government’s package of support which came with an expectation of a 10% increase in Council Tax.  The Council was under a legal obligation to set a lawful, balanced budget and failure to do so would have significant financial, legal, reputational and operational impacts on the Council and its residents,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Councillor Forster, Deputy Leader of the Council, introduced the report on the General Fund Budget and Council Tax for the coming years, noting that the Portfolio for Finance, Councillor Roberts, who had led on the work, had unfortunately been unable to attend.  The exceptional support recently confirmed by the Government, without which the Authority would not have been able to achieve a balanced budget,  was highlighted.  The support represented a package of up to £785million for the following year. 

Attention was drawn to a recent letter from the Minister for the Department of Housing, Levelling Up and Communities (DHLUC) which provided additional context around the proposals before the Council.  A copy of the letter had been published on the Council website.  It was clear that the Council’s assets were not worth more than the debts held by the Authority.

In regard to Council Tax, the budget proposed an increase of 10% on the Borough Council’s element of Council Tax bill for residents, a level that was to be expected of a Council under Government intervention.  Efforts to negotiate a lower increase had been made with the Government but the Council’s arguments had not been supported.  Although the Borough Council’s element of Council Tax would increase by 10%, the impact on the overall Council Tax level would be 1%, representing approximately 50p per week increase for a Band D property. 

Support would be provided to residents hardest hit and the sum of £50,000 had been set aside to provide hardship advice in the community.  A further £25,000 would be available through the household support fund.

Reference was made to second and empty homes.  Within the report, it was noted that, under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, from 1 April 2024 the Council would be able to apply a 100% premium (i.e. double charge) on unoccupied and unfurnished (empty) properties after one year, updated from two years.  This was estimated to generate an additional £42,000 in the coming year.  The same Bill, from 1 April 2025, would allow the Council to apply a 100% premium to unoccupied and furnished properties second homes, generating an additional £68,000 each year.

The Housing Infrastructure Fund project, which would have required additional borrowing of £55m, had been ended, and the Sheerwater Regeneration Scheme had been revised and would be aimed at delivering what the residents wanted.

The Mayor thanked the Deputy Leader for his introduction and invited comments from Members of the Council.  Although it was noted that efforts had been made to negotiate a lower increase in Council Tax, concern was expressed over the impact the increase would have on local residents.  However, the Council was advised that the support package from the Government hinged upon the Council agreeing a 10% increase in Council Tax.  Despite this, a number of Councillors advised that they would not be able to support the proposed Council Tax increase. 

The Leader of the Council took the opportunity of the Right to Reply to thank the Councillors for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Deputy Leader of the Council introduced the report on the Capital, Investment and Treasury Management Strategies and MRP Statement.  The Council was advised that local authorities were required by statutory guidance and under the CIPFA Prudential and Treasury Management codes to produce a series of reports as part of their annual budget approval.  The reports included a Capital Strategy setting out the overall strategy for capital expenditure and finance for the coming year, an Investment Strategy for all investments other than those held for treasury management purposes, a Treasury Management Strategy on borrowing needs, and a Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Policy Statement.

The reports provided a comprehensive picture of the Council’s capital, borrowing and investment position and included the prudential indicators, limits and investment indicators required under the respective codes and guidance.

The Leader of the Council summed up the proposals following a brief debate before the Council unanimously agreed to support the recommendations outlined in the paper.

RESOLVED

That (i)     the Capital, Investment and Treasury Management Strategies for 2024/25, including the prudential indicators, be approved;

          (ii)   the 2024/25 MRP policy statement set out in Appendix A to the Treasury Management Strategy be approved;

          (iii)  the 2023/24 MRP policy be amended to align it with the MRP approach for 2024/25 in order to comply with MRP guidance in the current financial year (i.e. 2023/24); and

          (iv)  the Debt Reduction Plan Principles set out in Appendix E to the Treasury Management Strategy be approved.

To deal with any motions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Standing Orders.

“The motion is being raised to consider and update the current licensing practice for service providers that facilitate the taxi sector.

These companies provide licensed taxis that are maintained and insured and are ready to be driven by licensed taxi drivers to rent or as replacement courtesy vehicles.  The public hire vehicle license is usually issued in the company name, which then assigns a licensed taxi driver to that vehicle, which is then informed to the council.  This practice helps taxi drivers and the taxi business/trade.

Over the last few years, the council (Local Licensing team) has been insisting that only a licensed taxi driver can hold the vehicle license, which is causing multiple issues for drivers and service providers.

This practice is not well thought out and is limiting the options for our local drivers to work.  We host a large number of taxi drivers who live in our borough and work in the neighbouring borough.

I propose the council to look into some of the highlighted issues created due to this practice and consider this matter from all angles and conclude a workable solution for service providers by letting them have the licenses in the company name (Service Provider).  This update will make the process practical for such operators/service providers.”

The following motion had been submitted by Councillor Javaid.

“The motion is being raised to consider and update the current licensing practice for service providers that facilitate the taxi sector.

These companies provide licensed taxis that are maintained and insured and are ready to be driven by licensed taxi drivers to rent or as replacement courtesy vehicles. The public hire vehicle license is usually issued in the company name, which then assigns a licensed taxi driver to that vehicle, which is then informed to the council. This practice helps taxi drivers and the taxi business/trade.

Over the last few years, the council (Local Licensing team) has been insisting that only a licensed taxi driver can hold the vehicle license, which is causing multiple issues for drivers and service providers.

This practice is not well thought out and is limiting the options for our local drivers to work. We host a large number of taxi drivers who live in our borough and work in the neighbouring borough.

I propose the council to look into some of the highlighted issues created due to this practice and consider this matter from all angles and conclude a workable solution for service providers by letting them have the licenses in the company name (Service Provider). This update will make the process practical for such operators/service providers.”

The Mayor advised the Council that Councillor Javaid and Officers had discussed the motion and, in view of the technical nature of the motion, it had been agreed that the issue would benefit from further discussions with Officers.  If any reconsideration of the Council’s current Licensing Policy was considered appropriate, a meeting of the Licensing Committee would be convened.  Councillor Javaid had therefore agreed to withdraw the motion.

RESOLVED

That the motion be withdrawn.

“Council urges the commissioners to negotiate with The Public Works Loans Board or such bodies that the interest payments on WBC repayment be deferred for one week, together with the drastic cuts already achieved this will enable Woking Borough Council to continue to provide much needed funding to the Non-statutory services to our residents such as Citizen Advice Woking, Community Transport and other essential community organisations which support the most vulnerable residents of Woking, the deferment will also give those organisations breathing space to plan for the future.”

The following motion had been submitted by Councillor Hussain.

“Council urges the commissioners to negotiate with The Public Works Loans Board or such bodies that the interest payments on WBC repayment be deferred for one week, together with the drastic cuts already achieved this will enable Woking Borough Council to continue to provide much needed funding to the Non-statutory services to our residents such as Citizen Advice Woking, Community Transport and other essential community organisations which support the most vulnerable residents of Woking, the deferment will also give those organisations breathing space to plan for the future.”

Councillor Hussain moved and Councillor Akberali seconded the motion.  Councillor Hussain spoke in support of the motion, advising that he was seeking to protect the most vulnerable residents in the local community.

Concern was expressed that the motion would give false hope to voluntary organisations, recognising that the Council had earlier in the meeting set a legal and robust budget.  It was explained that the Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) did not enter into negotiations with Authorities, and that all discussions to-date had taken place with the Department for Housing, Levelling Up and Communities (DHLUC).  DHLUC would not allow the Council to renegotiate the arrangements.  At the request of the Mayor, the Council’s Section 151 Officer confirmed that the Council’s negotiations had been with DHLUC and that it would not be realistic to open discussions with the PWLB. 

Several Councillors suggested that the motion had some merit in seeking to identify ways in which non-statutory services could be funded going forward, supporting both charities and residents.

Following the debate, Councillor Hussain responded to the points raised and urged the Council to support the motion, simply to explore the potential of the proposal outlined in the first instance.

In accordance with Standing Order 10.8, the motion was put to a vote.  The names of Members voting for and against the motion were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                Councillors H Akberali, T Aziz, A Boote, J Brown, S Dorsett, S Hussain, A Javaid and S Mukherjee.

Total in favour:                       8

Against:                                  Councillors A-M Barker, G Cosnahan, W Forster, P Graves, S Greentree, A Kirby, R Leach, L Lyons, C Martin, L Morales, E Nicholson, L Rice, T Spenser and M Sullivan.

Total against:                         14

Present not voting:                 The Mayor and Councillors K Davis and S Oades.

Total present not voting:        3

The motion was therefore lost by 8 votes in favour and 14 votes against.

RESOLVED

That the motion be not supported.

The Leader of the Council announced that Councillor Amanda Boote had been nominated for the position of Deputy Mayor for the coming year.  The appointment would be confirmed by Council on 20 May 2024.