Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document
Meeting of the Council held on 24/04/2007
Agenda
To: All Members of the Council
Fax No:
01483-523475
Your ref:
Our ref:
When calling please ask for:
Emma McQuillan
Direct line:
01483 523351
E-mail:
emcquillan@waverley.gov.uk
Date:
13th April 2007
Dear Sir/Madam
COUNCIL MEETING – TUESDAY, 24TH APRIL 2007
A Meeting of the WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, COUNCIL OFFICES, THE BURYS, GODALMING on
TUESDAY, 24TH APRIL 2007 at *7.00 pm
and you are hereby summoned to attend such meeting.
The Agenda for the Meeting is set out below.
Prior to the commencement of the meeting, prayers will be led by the Reverend Sarah Brough.
Yours faithfully
Managing Director
* This meeting will be webcast and can be viewed by visiting
http://www.waverley.ukcouncil.net/
and will
be preceded by an open public question time at 6.30 p.m.
AGENDA
1.
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Council held on 28th March 2007 (herewith).
2.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Mayor to report apologies for absence.
3.
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
To receive from Members declarations of personal and prejudicial interests in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting in accordance with the Waverley Code of Local Government Conduct.
4.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
5.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
To answer the following questions received from members of the public in accordance with Procedure Rule 10:-
i.
from Mr J Hyman of Farnham
“Mr Mayor. In his response to my Formal Public Question at the 27th March Executive meeting, the Portfolio Holder told the Chamber that I was "misleading" in claiming that the Habitats Directive seeks to avoid the extinction of species. Common sense surely dictates that the special protection extended to
endangered
(Red List) species is due to the
danger
of their extinction – the Habitats Directive is clearly not just a ‘decent homes standard’ for birds that can be manipulated to suit any agenda.
The previous administration made their intention to overdevelop Farnham perfectly clear in January 2003, though I cannot repeat the precise wording.
That overriding agenda, coupled with a clear misunderstanding of the habitats issue at the highest levels of this Executive, has already resulted in the granting of Permission for 134 homes at the Farnham Hospital site without the required Appropriate Assessment.
Does the Council appreciate that were the public to exercise their right to contest WBC’s hospital decision, so as to allow endangered wildlife (and Farnham) the protection afforded them by law, it could place Waverley Council Tax payers at risk of paying compensation against a £25 million development? Please clarify whether the public will be financially liable, or the Councillors that have failed in their duty of care. What action will the Council Leader now take to correct this injustice?”
ii.
from Mr S Cochrane of Farnham
“It is reasonable to assume that covenants or similar restrictions were applied to the 24th June 1920 FUDC purchase of Brightwell House & Gardens.
A Deed of Novation included within the Conditional Contract seeks to convey the obligations, presumably implying that the original covenants do exist.
The 'normal' protection afforded to the grassed areas of the garden (ie retain as open public space) would reasonably apply to the tennis courts, which have always been part of Brightwell's pleasure gardens. Thus unless there is evidence available to the contrary, it may be judged that it is not lawful to build upon the tennis court area either. It should also follow, certainly from the terms of the Local Plan, that the Bowling Green and associated facilities must be re-provided locally.
It is reasonable to assume that considerable protection was secured for public enjoyment of the grounds.
Will WBC please now release into the public domain all relevant documentation, covenants or other restrictions that apply to our Brightwell recreation areas, and if not, why not?”
iii.
from Janet Maines of Farnham
“The Farnham Park Miniplan agreed by Council on 20th February is largely dependent upon the existing car parking being available to additional visitors. As a regular visitor to Hale Institute and Hale Recreation Ground it appears that the ‘expert opinion’ of Waverley staff upon which Natural England and the Miniplan relied was optimistic. In terms of the ‘excess capacity’ of this site, Hale Institute is in regular use throughout the week and at weekends in the winter the recreation ground is used by both boys and adults football clubs and in the summer by the cricket club.
Other sites proposed for additional car parking are the small ‘overflow’ Rangers Car Park, the lane alongside Hale Recreation Ground and Hale Methodist Church and the old blanked off Hale Road near St. John’s Church.
Will the officers please indicate how many additional spaces would be needed to fulfil the requirements of the proposed Miniplan and exactly how this number could be provided in areas that are already fully used at certain times during the week.”
iv.
from Jane Woodyer of Farnham
“Mr Mayor, I understand that the public’s normal freedom to peruse and copy documentation pertaining to Planning Applications has been refused with respect to the East Street Outline Application (2006/2132). Most of the 4500 public objections, including the book of comments from the Farnham Locality Office, are being withheld from the public – thus prejudicing our ability to scrutinise and summarise ‘the public view’ in order to properly inform the future hearing of the Application.
However, the building heights being sought in the Outline Application far exceed those displayed in the plans and the ‘scale’ model in the council offices. With this scheme’s history also including the truncated CABE Report, the suppressed STRI Report, the extension of the longstop without the contractually-required Detailed Application, and the agreement of a dubious and incomplete ‘enabling‘ Miniplan, it is clear to the public that where East Street is concerned both main Parties are deliberately resisting both proper scrutiny and accountability, and have seemingly predetermined the Planning Application.
When objecting to the Outline Application, the public were aware that their comments would be on public display. In the spirit of ‘openness’, ‘Access to Information’ and ‘Freedom of Information’, will the Council Leader please instruct your Officers to release the public responses immediately?
”
v.
from Jo Wilcox of Farnham
“Mr Mayor. Paragraph 11 of Appendix E2 to the Agenda for the Executive & Special Council Meetings of 18th July 2006 reads as follows:-
After allowing for the funding of Schemes from other sources, there remained a balance of £3,083,953 Housing Revenue Account Schemes to be funded from Housing Capital Receipts. Housing Capital Receipts have also been used to finance Social Housing Grants (DIYSO), at £756,990 and the purchase of the former Health Centre Site at Farnham at £1,075,000. General Fund Capital Receipts have been used to finance House Renovation Grants - £153,678; The East Street and Riverside Projects - £107,409"
It would appear from the above, that in his response to an Informal Public Question at the Executive Council Meeting of 27th March, the Portfolio Holder misled the Chamber when he emphatically denied having used a million pounds of housing receipts for the Health Centre purchase.
He further assured the Chamber that the usable HRA Reserve 'cash mountain' is now actually being used to effect DHS works - and also claimed that the ongoing East Street Compulsory Purchase Order would NOT be financed from Housing Receipts.
In view of the above, can you please now tell us the total amount remaining the Useable Capital Receipts Reserve - (comprising the subsections - (i) General Fund; (ii) HRA Housing Subsidy and (iii) HRA Repairs Fund), at 31st March 2007? and further explain HOW the Council DOES INTEND to fund the East Street Compulsory Purchase Order?”
6.
QUESTION TIME
To answer any questions received from members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.2.
7.
NOTICE OF MOTION
To receive any notices of motion received in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.1.
8.
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE AND COMMITTEES
(a) To receive the minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on:-
(i) 6th March 2007 (
herewith
– coloured grey); and
(ii) 27th March 2007 (
herewith
– coloured grey); and
(iii) 24th April 2007 (
if required - to follow
);
(b) To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 21st March 2007 (
herewith
- coloured lavender);
(c) To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee held on 16th April 2007 (
to follow
); and
(d) To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 17th April 2007 (
to follow
).
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To consider the following motion, to be moved by the Mayor, where appropriate:-
That pursuant to Procedure Rule 20 and in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of any matter on this agenda on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the item(s), there would be disclosure to them of exempt information (as defined by Section 100I of the Act) of the description specified in the appropriate paragraph(s) of the revised Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (to be identified at the meeting).
comms/council/2006-07/051 46053
