Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

None received.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 February 2020 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Monday, 24 February 2020 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

To review and outstanding items from the previous minutes.

The Chairman noted an error on page 8 of the minutes, which should read “guests” not “guest”.  The Chairman then highlighted some items that had been scheduled into the 20/21 municipal year’s Work Programme, such as an update on Family Centres and mentioned the outstanding report to detail the empty homes by ward for each member, which was delayed due to COVID-19 and would be distributed when completed.

The Committee also reviewed the letter received from the Chair of the Food Standards Agency, Heather Hancock, that noted introducing the Food Hygiene Rating System as a priority and it was identified that new regulations would be required however the time frame of this was unknown due to the departure of the UK from the EU.

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

There was no urgent business to discuss.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary and other interestsfrom Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.

None.

Reporting Person: Ernest Amoako

Mr Amoako, Planning Policy Manager, provided an overview of the Community Infrastructure Levy Scheme and informed the Committee that CIL was introduced by the Council on 1 April 2015, the Government encouraged Councils to apply CIL to secure developer contributions to towards the delivery of infrastructure to support the development. Prior to the use of CIL, the main means for securing development contributions was by Section 106 agreement. Section 106 Agreement is only used in limited circumstances in accordance with Government legislation. It was noted that the key advantage of CIL was that it allowed local authorities to pull resources together to implement infrastructure priority schemes in order to benefit their communities the most and identified priorities accordingly without being tied to specific schemes under Section 106.

To ensure accountability and transparency, the Government required Charging Authorities to publish the Regulation 123 List setting out the infrastructure projects that they would use this CIL to deliver.  The requirement to publish Regulation 123 List  had since been abandoned and the Government now requires authorities to publish an “Infrastructure Funding Statement”, which would take effect from 31 December 2020.

A Viability Assessment was a key piece of study that was undertaken to inform the rates that were charged. Woking Borough Council charge CIL for the net floor space of residential and retail uses not commercial. The rates have to set to ensure the viability of development across the Borough. The Council charges 75 pounds per sq.m for residential development at the Town Centre and the Priority Places (Sheerwater and Maybury). Everywhere else is 125 pounds per sq.m. For retail development, it is 75 pound per sq.m everywhere.

Mr Amoako went on to explain that to date Woking Borough Council had received £4,543,832 from CIL funding.

The Committee reviewed the borough map, attached to the agenda, which noted how much money had been earmarked for each ward or neighbourhood areas. It was added that the Council had delegated responsibility to the Joint Committee to oversee the administration of the CIL money. At a meeting of the Joint Committee in March 2019, it was agreed that money could be drawn from the Council to deliver local community projects, and Ward Councillors should play the leading role in identifying projects and applying to the Joint Committee for the money to deliver the projects. In doing so, Ward Councillors should work in partnership with key stakeholders such as neighbourhood forums.  The Joint Committee had suggested to review the scheme t after monitoring its operation for one year.

If Councillors wanted to apply for funding, there were three main pieces of information to meet the criteria:

-       Name of Project

-       Brief description of project and the benefit to the community

-       Evidence of community support for project

The application would then be put together by Officers, and submitted to the Joint Committee for decision.

Following questions raised by Councillors, Mr Amoako confirmed that CIL money could be used on the new or enhancement of Play Areas.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Reporting Person: Councillor D Hughes

The Committee reviewed the Work Programme, and noted the changes to the Work Programme for the next committee meeting in July.

Councillor Sanderson requested the Finance Task Group conduct a comprehensive review of Council finances following COVID-19 pandemic.  Councillor Bond also requested that the Green Book for February and end of year would be reviewed at the next meeting.

Resolved

That the Work Programme be noted.

Reporting Person: Councillor D Hughes

8.         Woking Football Club & Associated Developments Task Group Report OSC20-011

9.         Chief Executive Comments on Woking Football Club Task Group Report OSC20-011A

[NOTE:  Following a reference made during the debate to Harrington Place, a project completed by Thameswey, the Chief Executive, Ray Morgan, declared a disclosable personal interest (non-pecuniary) in any items concerning Thameswey companies of which he was a Council-appointed director.  The interest was such that he could advise the Council on those items.]

The Chairman introduced the report of the Woking Football Club & Associated Developments Task Group, and it was agreed that Agenda Item 9 – Chief Executive Comments on the Report – would be taken at the same time.

The background to the Task Group’s report was summarised, including the objectives of the Task Group.  The Chairman emphasised that the Task Group had not been established to scrutinise the Football Club or the development proposals, nor to criticise Council Officers or to influence the planning application.  The objective had been to ensure due processes had been followed during the Council’s consideration of the proposed development and to provide assurance to residents.

The Task Group had concluded that there were examples of weakness in due process and had produced 16 recommendations to Council to ensure better practices were adopted for future consideration of major developments.  The Officers and Members were thanked for their hard work in supporting the work of the Task Group.

It was noted that recommendation (xv) had been withdrawn in light of the advice received by the Council through leading Counsel’s opinion, the details of which had been circulated to all Councillors on 10 March 2020, and was set out in appendix 1 to the report by the Chief Executive.  Leading Counsel had advised that neither deferral on the basis of a further Site Allocations DPD consultation nor refusal on prematurity grounds could be justified.

The Members discussed the recommendations and expressed concern over the conclusions of the Task Group that there had been a lack of due diligence and transparency.  Whilst Members acknowledged the complex nature of such commercial transaction, it was felt that some information had been kept out of the public domain.  Members emphasised their frustration that some meetings held during the development of proposals had not been minuted or documented.

The Chairman questioned the distribution date of Leading Counsel’s opinion, which appeared to have been circulated before the final version of the Task Group’s report.  The Chief Executive informed the Committee that the advice had been sought for the Members of both the Planning Committee and the Task Group, and had been circulated in the wider context to all Members.

The Chief Executive introduced his report which recommended that the Council’s Internal Auditor should be requested to undertake a review of the Governance arrangements for the developments, with the Auditor’s report to be considered by the Standards and Audit Committee.  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee would then be able to consider the Task Group’s report at a future meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Reporting Person: Ray Morgan

This item was considered in conjunction with agenda item 8 on the agenda

Reporting Person: Councillor D Hughes

The Chairman introduced the Annual Report, which included feedback from the three task groups.  Some areas had been scheduled into the 20/21 Work Programme where follow up was required including Freedom Leisure and Family Centres.

The Chairman also thanked the Chairmen of the task Groups for their reports. The Woking Football Club & Associated Developments Task Group would be discussed in further detail under agenda item 8.

Resolved

That the Annual Report be noted.

“That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of item 13 in view of the nature of the proceedings that, if members of the press and public were present during these items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A, to the Local Government Act 1972.

Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).”

PART II – PRESS AND PUBLIC EXCLUDED

Reporting Person: Councillor Hughes

The Chairman decided that as the decision was sought for items 8 and 9 in Part I, there was no requirement for further discussion under Part II.