Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Martin and Councillor Lyons who was attending as Portfolio Holder of Planning.

  (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 Head of Transformation, Digital and Customer Services, 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.

There were no Declarations of Interests received.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 September 2024 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee held on 5 September 2024 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

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

There were no items of Urgent Business under Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

To review the Committee’s work programme, the draft Executive forward plan, and the recommendations and actions tracker.

Reporting Person: Cllr John Morley

The St Johns footbridge item, which was first suggested at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 29 January 2024, was still on going.  Councillor Rob Leach, St Johns Ward Councillor believed there was uncertainty as to whether construction of the footbridge would start in December 2024.  It was suggested for Network Rail to attend  the March committee meeting to provide an update to members on the proposed works of the footbridge replacement in the area.

To consider holding an additional meeting on 28 January 2025.

Reporting Person: Cllr John Morley

An additional meeting of the Committee was proposed and agreed for 28 January 2025, for the Committee to scrutinise the Joint Waste proposal contract arrangement before it was presented to Executive in February 2025.

To meet with Thames Water and discuss the Borough’s sewage capacity.

Reporting Person: Alice Keeping, Thames Water

Yvette De Garis, Head of Environmental Engagement and Alice Keeping, Local Engagement Manager from Thames Water attended the meeting and presented committee members with a brief update on local operations, sustainability and developments at Thames Water.

A local operational update was provided on sewage treatment works operations at the Chobham, Woking and Wisley locations. The Chobham site was undergoing a £12 million upgrade to improve effluent quality and sewage treatment capacity.  The Woking treatment centre was implementing upgrades to increase the storm tank capacity and improve the quality of final effluent, while  Wisley exceeded one effluent quality parameter and requires longer term interventions which will be funded through the price review process.

Discussions ensued on flooding risks in specific areas,  However, Thames Water made it clear that surface water flooding was managed by them, whereas fluvial flooding fell under the Environment Agency's jurisdiction. Thames Water's primary concern was sewage flooding, particularly in the area where the company owned the surface water pipes.

A query was raised on the surface water flooding, resulting from poor road drainage around Woking.  Thames Water confirmed that road drainage clearing was the responsibility of Surrey County Council Highways, stating that this was not in their jurisdiction.

It was highlighted that the statutory duty of water companies was to produce a 25 year drainage and wastewater plan for its area.  The plan was necessary for strategic collaboration with all risk management authorities on flooding. If Thames Water identifies an area as being at risk, they have planned investments to mitigate that risk and would need to consider the timing of these investments when addressing planning applications.

Thames Water explained their role in the planning application process, noting they were not statutory consultees for third-party planning applications. They worked together with Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to advise on relevant applications in particular for developments over 10 units, but could not influence the LPA decisions. Thames Water also requires to be consulted on major planning applications as determined by the Town and County Planning Act.  

A question was raised about Thames Water's consultation on the current Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD) and future plans. The Planning Policy Manager, explained that it was likely that Thames Water were consulted on the SADPD.

In relation to Thames Water's role in the planning process, members were informed that the issue arose due to concerns regarding the surge capacity in developments in Woking.

The Director of Place cautioned members on discussing any live planning applications, stating it could impact decisions made at the planning committee.

Joint Waste Solutions will present on household waste recycling performance.

Reporting Person: Jo Chauhan, Joint Waste Solutions

Jo Chauhan, Head of Operations and Sarah Beck, Operations Manager (West) both from Joint Waste Solutions. Attended the meeting and gave a presentation to members of the Committee regarding Joint Waste Services (JWS) provided to the Council.

JWS are responsible for carrying out a range of activities for the Council, these   include monitoring services, delivering improvement projects, and investigating and responding to complaints regarding these services. The wider JWS team also plays a crucial role in delivering services in Woking by supporting the team on projects across the contract area.  

Updates were provided on current performance, factors impacting the recycling rate, strategies for improvement, and future considerations.

There are several policy changes coming into effect which will impact on waste management and household collection services.  Some changes had been planned since the 2018 "Recycling and Waste Strategy," but factors like the pandemic caused delays. These policies are now being finalized and are gaining clarity regarding the final requirements.

It was highlighted that the Borough’s annual recycling rate for 2024/25 was 54.1% compared to 56.4% in 2023/24.

It was noted that the recycling rate was influenced by a variety of factors and it was evident that the quantities of different waste types collected also varied.

JWS would continue to monitor the trends in all waste types and identify where they could make the most significant improvements. Communication and campaigns to residents will focus on these essential areas.  Furthermore, they would identify low-performing areas, either geographically or by property type, and target these areas.

It was reported that there were numerous efforts to improve public participation in recycling, including the major operational issues that needed to be addressed in order to maintain public trust and effectiveness.

Following discussion and raised concerns about the service provider Amey, JWS recognized the importance of examining its own operations and those of Amey.  Issues such as the discontinuation and renewal of green bins, improper handling of electrical items, and the overall reliability of the renewal system were critical. These operational challenges would directly impact recycling rates and public trust.  JWS has raised these concerns with Amey and is working to address them, ensuring that residents' efforts to recycle are supported by effective and reliable services to maintain and improve recycling rates.

Please refer to your electronic copy of the most recent Performance Management Report.

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge levied by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) on a new development which will contribute towards infrastructure deliver.  A portion of the money received  is allocated to Wards or Neighbourhood Areas where the development occurred, to be used on for local community projects.

Following a query raised by Councillor Leach in regard to using CIL monies for the upkeep of the Basingstoke Canal Society. Officers explained that what was being proposed was beyond the bounds of what CIL monies were actually used for.  It was noted that CIL funds were used only for capital spending on community projects. 

A query was raised regarding the effectiveness of CCTV on fly tipping, the Strategic Director for Place mentioned that the effectiveness of CCTV cameras on fly tipping had been evaluated and while they offered a slight deterrent, there was no substantial evidence of a significant impact. 

Reporting Person: Bev Kuchar, Strategic Director of Place

Members received an update on the New Local Plan Project Timescales report.  The  report aimed to establish the timetable for creating a new local plan for the Council.  Regulations require for the timetable to be created, monitored, and updated as required. Once this is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the local plan must pass several legal tests before proceeding to hearing sessions. A key test is whether the plan complies with the Local Development Scheme (LDS). The LDS was a key document, and members were required to understand and support it, as it guided the Council on how to deliver the new local plan.  The current development plan expires in 2027/28.  It was noted that without an up-to-date local plan, the borough was vulnerable to speculative development, i.e. development on unallocated land.  This was reported to be  both expensive, time-consuming and difficult for communities and developers as it would lead to uncertainty.

            RESOLVED

            That the reported be noted and supported.