Fringe Box

Socialize

Twitter

Full Borough Council Debate Clay Lane, Museum, Refugees, Governance and More…

Published on: 11 Oct, 2015
Updated on: 12 Oct, 2015

GBC Council Chamber MillmeadThis is a summary report of the full Guildford Borough Council (GBC) meeting held on Wednesday, October 7.

Clay Lane Petition

A petition of 877 signatures asking for a delay of planning decisions relating to the Clay Lane Link Road in the Jacobs Well and Burpham area, until recommendations by Highways England could be taken into account, was presented by Worplesdon parish councillor Robert Clark (Jacobs Well).

A motion in response proposed by Cllr Matt Furniss (Con, Christchurch), lead councillor for infrastructure and environment, rejected the proposed delay and said: “The council is currently in the third stage of a three-part public consultation… The consultation runs until 6 November 2015 with events in Burpham, Jacobs Well and Weyfield… A formal planning application will be submitted when we have reviewed all the comments.”

The motion was passed by a large majority, including most of the opposition councillors, 33 to 6. Dissenters were the three GGG members, Cllrs Kirkland (Con, Westborough) and Jordan (Con, Merrow) and Cllr Bob McShee (Con, Worplesdon) who spoke against the motion and said afterwards: “I think that the petitioners feel very let down by the council.” The two other Worplesdon councillors Iseult Roche and David Elms (also a parish councillor) voted for the motion rejecting the petitioners’ request.

Guildford Museum

Gavin Morgan, creator of the online Guildford Heritage Forum, addressed the council and urged members to get behind the review, currently under way. He was critical of the way the Surrey Archaeological Society (SAS) had been treated and expressed a hope that the option to link the museum to the castle grounds would find favour.

Council leader Stephen Mansbridge (Con, Ash South & Tongham), substituting for Cllr Geoff Davis (Con, Holy Trinity) lead councillor for heritage, who was absent on holiday, said that the lease enforcement action on SAS had been necessary to allow a commercial arrangement to be put in place and that: “the aim is to have a visitor centre which looks at past, present and future and probably at a new location…”.

Refugees

In a response to a written question from Cllr Caroline Reeves, Cllr Iseult Roche (Con, Worplesdon) replied that the council was pushing ahead with some initiatives while awaiting more details of government plans. One action to be taken is the creation of a register of private landlords who might have suitable accommodation to offer but the council was mindful that there are already: “… 3,000 households needing affordable homes across the borough.”

Cllr Roche also wrote: “Refugee families, adults and children who come to our area will require intensive ongoing support, with access to skills development, education and health as well as places to live.” The council are working with Guildford diocese and other faith groups to help assess the assistance required.

See also: Refugees – Council Making Preparations While Waiting To Hear More of Government Plans

Council Governance

Cllr Caroline Reeves (Lib Dem, Friary & St Nicolas) proposed a motion, seconded by Cllr Tony Rooth (Con, Pilgrims), for the adoption of a new governance arrangement at Guildford Borough Council. Under the new arrangements there will be a single “overview and scrutiny committee” supported by a dedicated council officer. In general, it was expressed, the change would allow backbenchers more input into debates on ideas before they reach a report and recommendation stage.

The new arrangements will be reviewed after 12 months.

The proposal was given almost unanimous support, the council leader being the only councillor to vote against, having expressed concern that the new arrangements would be more time consuming for Executive members who, he said, had not been consulted.

Corporate Plan

The updated Corporate Plan was adopted by the full council but only after considerable debate. Opposition speakers expressed concern that the council leader had described it as a plan representing his political group’s plan for the borough.

As a result, most opposition councillors appeared to abstain when it came to the vote.

See also: Borough’s New Corporate Plan Adopted In ‘Financially Challenging Time’

Armed Forces Day Costs and Sponsorship

In a response to a question from Cllr Angela Gunning (Lab, Stoke), Cllr Matt Furniss said that the council was still waiting for costing information relating to the event held in June where the attendance at Stoke Park was now estimated to have been 35,000. It was anticipated that a full post-event report would be submitted to the Executive in November.

The main sponsors of the event had been: Experience Guildford (£10,000), BAE Systems (£30,000), Martin Grant Homes (£30,000), Natwest/RBS Bank (£30,000), Royal British Legion (£30,000) and Vodaphone (£5,000). The Ministry of Defence had also contributed  £25,000.

The provision of entertainment acts and certain facilities had been given free of charge.

25 Swan Lane

Another question submitted by Cllr Gunning asked about the usage and costs of 25 Swan Lane, a shop that has been mainly used by the council for consultations on the Local Plan and now the Town Centre Masterplan.

Lead councillor for finance, Nigel Manning (Con, Ash Vale), replied that the total costs since the council had acquired the lease in 2013 were almost £150,000.

Managing Director Contract

It was proposed by the council leader, Stephen Mansbridge, that the provisional post of managing director (MD) for GBC, created after the previous management review, be made permanent and that the current post holder Sue Sturgeon, continues in post and remains designated head of paid service and chief finance officer.

Cllr Susan Parker (GGG, Send) expressed concern that two important roles i.e. designated head of paid service and chief finance officer were both held by the MD but the motion was passed with only Cllr Parker’s abstention.

Burpham Neighbourhood Plan

The council agreed a motion from the lead councillor for planning, Paul Spooner (Ash South & Tongham), to adopt the recommendation to make necessary modifications to the Burpham Neighbourhood Plan and authorise council officers to progress the plan to a referendum. Ros Pollock, chairman of the Burpham Neighbourhood forum, had earlier addressed the council.

New Statement of Licensing Policy

A motion to accept a new statement of GBC’s licensing policy, necessary for legal compliance was proposed by the chairman of the licensing committee Cllr David Elms (Con, Worplesdon) and agreed unanimously.

Independent Person Appointments

The appointment of the following Independent Persons (Ethical Standards) was confirmed: Roger Pett to October 2016; Vivienne Cameron and Bernard Quoroll to May 2019.

Appointment of Parish Representatives

The appointment of Gerry Reffoe (Shere Parish Council) and Charles Hope (West Horsley Parish Council) as parish council representatives to the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee until May 2019 was confirmed.

 

Share This Post

Responses to Full Borough Council Debate Clay Lane, Museum, Refugees, Governance and More…

  1. Jim Allen Reply

    October 11, 2015 at 3:37 pm

    Regarding the petition against the Clay Lane link road, so the 800 most affected by the proposal are to be ignored and treated with contempt?

    That’s the Guildford democratic process in full swing.

    The proposal to dam the flood plain and change the traffic flows, when there is no reliable statistical evidence to show that it will make a bit of difference inside or outside the industrial estate, will cause more problems than it solves.

    The traffic chaos in Burpham and on Clay lane is statistically the same as on the A320. The figures the council are using have a SD of 300 plus on numbers around 1,500. But that is of course irrelevant because they don’t or can’t admit they have got it wrong.

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear. Full names, or at least initial and surname, must be given.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *