Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Council held on 16/10/2007

Executive 65


(To be read in conjunction with the Agenda for the Meeting)
*Cllr R J Gates (Chairman)*Cllr D J Munro
*Cllr Mrs P M Frost (Vice-Chairman)*Cllr S N Reynolds
Cllr M H W Band*Cllr J R Sandy
*Cllr B A Ellis*Cllr R J Steel
*Cllr D C Inman *Cllr A E B Taylor-Smith
* Present

Cllrs K T Reed and K Webster were also in attendance

78. MINUTES (Agenda Item 2)

The Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive held on 4th September 2007 were confirmed and signed.

79. APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 3)

An apology for absence was received from Cllr M H W Band.


The following members declared personal interests at the meeting:-

81. QUESTIONS (Agenda Item 5)

In accordance with Procedure Rule 10, the following questions were asked:-

i. from Mr David Wylde of Farnham

"A planning application, WA/2007/1967, for the development of riverside has been submitted by CNS on behalf of Waverley. The sole reason for this application is to act as an enabling development for the whole East Street development. Will WBC give the community a positive assurance that the riverside development will be included in the East Street development environmental impact assessment?"

The Leader of the Council responded:- ii. From Mr J Hyman of Farnham

The Leader of the Council replied:


82.1 Legislation allows local authorities to grant discretionary rate relief on the rates payable by the following organisations: i) charities
ii) non-profit making organisations whose objects are charitable, philanthropic or religious or concerned with education, social welfare, science, literature or the fine arts
iii) non-profit making clubs, societies or other organisations using premises for the purpose of recreation
iv) village stores, post offices in rural settlements and other businesses in rural settlements that exist to benefit the local community.

82.2 The Council’s current policy is to review the guidelines used by the Council for the granting of discretionary relief on a four-yearly cycle, following the election of a new Council. In accordance with this policy, notice was given in March 2007 to all organisations currently receiving discretionary rate relief to terminate the existing relief with effect from 31 March 2008. All organisations will need to reapply under the new policy guidelines. Once the Council has approved its policy, Waverley’s Scheme of Delegation allows the Director of Finance to agree applications from organisations that are eligible under the Policy. Only when an organisation applies for hardship relief or if they object to the Director of Finance’s decision will an application come to the Executive for a decision.

82.3 There are two elements of rate relief under the legislation. The first is mandatory relief that attracts relief at the rate of either 50% or 80%. The second, discretionary relief permits the billing authority to offer relief of up to 100%. (This report does not cover the discretionary relief provisions under Section 49 of the Act covering ‘hardship’, which is an issue considered by the Executive on a case-by-case basis).

82.4 Mandatory relief relates either to charities or trustees of a charity, which receive 80% relief, or to those properties covered by the regulations which are more commonly known as the ‘rural rate relief’, where the relief is granted at 50%. Where mandatory relief applies, the full amount of the relief given is borne by the NNDR Pool, and no cost of the mandatory relief falls upon the billing authority’s General Fund.

82.5 This report is concerned with the granting of the discretionary relief under Section 47 of the 1988 Act. The Office of the Communities and Local Government has issued a guidance note ‘Non-domestic rates: Guidance on rate relief for charities and other non-profit making organisations’. A copy of the latest edition of this Guidance Note has been placed in the Members’ room and can be downloaded at http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/busrats/nndr.pdf

82.6 Waverley’s existing policy for the granting of discretionary rate relief was last reviewed in January 2004. The current policy guidelines adopted by the Council are described below. These guidelines indicate both the level of relief to be given and the type of organisation, and are used when considering applications for relief, to ensure that consistent decisions are made in line with Council policy.

82.7 Paragraph 82.1 above identifies the various types organisations that a local authority can grant discretionary rate relief to on the rates payable under the legislation. A billing authority has the discretion to grant up to 100% relief. Waverley’s current policy for the period 2004 to 2008 is to grant discretionary rate relief as follows:

i) Charities receiving 80% mandatory relief will not normally receive any additional discretionary relief, except for those organisations specifically referred to below and individual cases that have previously been approved by the Council.

ii) 80% discretionary relief is granted for non-profit making organisations whose objects are charitable, philanthropic or religious or concerned with education, social welfare, science, or for the purpose of recreation and who are not in receipt of mandatory relief (currently there is one case falling under the category of premises used as a ‘community centre’ and one under the category ‘for the advancement of religion’ although in this case the relief was only granted for 50%). The amount of WBC discretionary relief given in 2007-08 under this category is 2,014, with 504 of this being met by the General Fund.

iii) Where a sports club within Waverley is not allowed to register with the Inland Revenue as a Community Amateur Sports Club (CASC), 50% discretionary relief has been awarded (currently 5 in Waverley). From 1 April 2004, the Local Government Act 2003 amended the 1988 Act by granting 80% mandatory relief to those sports clubs that have registered with the Inland revenue as (CASCs). 25 sports and recreational organisations now receive mandatory relief in accordance with the new legislation and the cost of this relief is met entirely by the NNDR pool. The amount of WBC discretionary relief given in 2007-08 under this category is 11,477, with 2,869 of this being met by the General Fund.

iv) Discretionary rate relief for properties in rural settlements is considered only for sole general stores, post offices or chemist shops. Since the Council first agreed this policy in 1998, applications from a number of other businesses in rural settlements have been considered by Members, but no relief has been granted. There are currently 12 village stores and post offices and 2 chemists in rural settlements within Waverley that are receiving relief. The amount of WBC discretionary relief given in 2007-08 under this category is 11,165, with 5,997 of this being met by the General Fund.

v) As an exception to (i) above, a number of specific organisations currently receive discretionary rate relief in addition to their mandatory relief. 50 organisations currently receive 20% discretionary relief granted in addition to the 80% mandatory relief whilst one organisation receives 10% discretionary relief in addition to the 80% mandatory relief. The amount of WBC discretionary relief given in 2007-08 under this category is 31,908, with 23,929 of this being met by the General Fund.

82.8 A full list of the organisations currently receiving discretionary rate relief is included at Annexe 1. The total amount of relief granted in 2007-2008 is 56,561. As a general rule, 75% of the discretionary relief granted is offset against the contributions made by Waverley to the National Non-Domestic Rates Pool with the balance of 25% being borne locally and met from the authority’s General Fund. However, for those charitable organisations that receive mandatory relief, any discretionary relief top-up granted is apportioned 25% to the Pool and 75% locally. As a result of this apportionment, the cost to Waverley of granting discretionary relief in 2007/2008 is 33,300 which is included in the approved budget.

82.9 In July 2007, the Council approved the Strategy for the operation of the Council’s 5 leisure facilities over the next 15 years. Currently a private operator runs these facilities with SERCO running Cranleigh Leisure Centre and DC Leisure running the others. The operator occupies the buildings and pays the non-domestic rates. This cost is, in effect, charged back to Waverley as part of the management fee that the Council pays the operator to run the service.

82.10 In July, the Council agreed that the new contract with DC Leisure, starting 1st July 2008, should be on the basis of a community trust model. This method of operating the leisure facilities helps the operator to focus on the community-based facilities by separating the profit-making part of the business. A financial benefit of the trust status model over the commercial arrangement is that NNDR rules allow for different treatment of business rate costs. A commercial operation is not eligible for NNDR relief whereas a trust is. It is known that this approach is followed in a number of neighbouring authorities. When Council agreed to a number of changes to the Leisure Strategy in July it agreed that the review of discretionary rate relief should consider applying relief to the community trust which is proposed for the Council’s five leisure facilities. Officers have examined DCL’s community trust model and are satisfied that it meets the legislative requirements and Waverley’s policy objectives required to qualify for discretionary NNDR relief.

82.11 The current level of NNDR for the five centres is 349,000 per annum, which the leisure operator currently pays and passes on to the Council as part of the management fee. If discretionary rate relief was granted for all five of Waverley’s leisure facilities at 80%, the Council could save up to 200,000 per annum. This figure is 80% of the total rates payable, less the 25% that falls to the Council and less the annual cost of DCL operating this model.

82.12 As more local authorities adopt this model, there is a potential risk that the Government could change the NNDR rules in the future to prevent local authorities, albeit through a community trust, from benefiting from these savings. Therefore the Council whilst being satisfied that the application of discretionary relief to a community trust is entirely legitimate, faces the risks of a dependency being created in Waverley’s budget which would require savings to offset the possible loss of the arrangement. If this arrangement is withdrawn at any future point, the Council would revert to paying DCL the higher management fee to cover the full NNDR cost.

82.13 The Council could award up to 100% discretionary relief but officers have included an example based on 80% as this is consistent with the maximum relief given to other organisations.

82.14 There are a number of options available to the authority:

a) To continue with the current policy; b) To extend the current policy to include the leisure facilities, operated by DC Leisure under the Commercial Trust Leisure Community Partnership model at a rate of 80%; c) To withdraw all discretionary rate relief - this would save Waverley, on the current years costs, 33,300; d) To withdraw the discretionary rate relief to those organisations receiving a top-up to mandatory relief they receive – this would save Waverley 28,739;

e) to encourage those organisations that do not currently receive any mandatory relief to apply for charitable status so that they are entitled to mandatory relief and the other benefits of having charitable status.

82.15 In considering the options, Members are asked to consider a number of factors: - Other financial and service pressures
- Consistency of application of the Council’s discretion across organisations
- The need for clear and robust policy guidelines that enable the Director of Finance to fulfil his delegated authority to consider applications for relief, minimising the risk of challenge and objection
- Waverley’s aims, objectives and priorities

82.16 The Executive considered the options for granting discretionary rate relief, for the period from1 April 2008 to 31 March 2012 and now


83.1 The Executive, on 4th September 2007, agreed to authorise the Chief Executive to carry out a review of all polling districts and polling places as the Council is required to do under the Electoral Administration Act 2006. The initial conclusions of that review, and the outcome of the consultation are included below.

83.2 As explained in the report to the September meeting, the Council had already carried out a thorough review as part of the Borough Electoral Review which was implemented for the 2003 Waverley elections. The Chief Executive has also kept suitability of polling districts and places under continuous review, and at every election Presiding Officers have been given a feedback form for their polling station to identify any difficulties, and polling station supervisors have checked the suitability of polling arrangements on polling day.

83.3 The Council has always been aware of the need to provide access for people with any sort of mobility problem, and previously had a large stock of ramps that were custom-built for particular polling stations. Only a few now have to be used because of increasing awareness of the needs of people with mobility problems and because owners of schools or other buildings have carried out access improvements themselves.

83.4 The full consultation process set out on 4th September has been carried out and seven representations have been received. The Chief Executive has also consulted with the Director of Planning and Development and, apart from proposals by the developer of Dunsfold Park, there are no very large residential developments proposed in the Borough which could produce distortions to polling districts or the need for new polling places.

83.5 Other relatively large residential developments such as the East Street proposals or Milford Hospital development proposals can be accommodated within the existing pattern of polling districts and places.

83.6 The Chief Executive has also been aware that most of Waverley’s polling places are very long-established and the public are familiar with them. In one or two cases where there have been issues, for example, of access, changes have been made over the last five years and this has actually sometimes provoked some adverse comments from members of the public who are used to the well-established polling places. Accordingly, the Chief Executive has felt that there has to be a very good case for change to outweigh any possible adverse effects on turnout. All proposals made have been investigated in detail and alternative polling stations visited.

83.7 Polling Districts - there have been no observations from members of the public or political parties or Councillors on the current division of wards into polling districts. The Elections Team have, however, re-examined the divisions of wards into polling districts and concluded that apart from the Godalming Holloway ward where officers propose combining two polling districts, there is no need for any change at present. Where changes are proposed for polling places (polling stations) these can be accommodated within the existing polling district boundaries.

83.8 Polling Places (Polling Stations) - the current list of polling places is attached at Annexe 2. To explain the distinction, a polling place might be the whole of the particular campus of a school for example, where sometimes a particular or a different room is used or allocated by the school and this allows for this level of flexibility. To summarise, following detailed investigation, changes are proposed for the following polling places:-

Borough Ward
      Polling District
Godalming - Holloway
Change from Busbridge Infant School to combine with polling district AG at the Sports Pavilion, Holloway Hill Recreation Ground.
Farnham Castle
Move from Potters Gate School to a new location at Farnham Memorial Hall - Community Room at The Chantrys looked at, but some issues with access

83.9 As far as the Busbridge School proposal is concerned, there have been problems with voters finding this polling station and also access, and the Holloway Hill Sports Pavilion has become a well-established station and has excellent access and parking facilities and facilities for staff. As far as Potters Gate School goes, there have been some minor access issues for people with mobility problems and the Memorial Hall is fully accessible, a well-known prominent building in Farnham, and has good car parking. The complications in the Shamley Green area are the result of the Borough Ward Boundary review. There is no alternative available, but the Chief Executive will ensure that signing is improved for future elections.

83.10 Unfortunately, this still leaves three polling places where there are continual issues of suitability, but no practical alternative has been found. All of these three are long established polling places and generally do not give any major problems. These are:-

Borough Ward
Polling District
Godalming - Charterhouse
Worries about suitability of Charterhouse Scout Hut – no alternative available.
Farnham - Shortheath and Boundstone
Worried about St Peter’s School being too far from Boundstone voters – no obvious alternative found.
Haslemere Hindhead
Worried about parking issues for Beacon Hill Primary School – alternative of Beacon Hill British Legion explored but not suitable because of access problems for people with mobility difficulties.

83.11 The proposed changes to these two polling places have been publicised and comments invited from the public, Ward Councillors and political agents. Agents have also been invited to a meeting to discuss any worries they might have about these changes.

83.12 The review has been carried out within existing staffing resources and budgets. There will be a small budget implication for future elections as part of the cost to the Elections Service of using the Farnham Memorial Hall, but this should be accommodated within existing budgets.

83.13 The Executive


Background Papers (CEx)

Letters or emails of observations from Councillors and political parties.


84.1 Since the last set of amendments to Contract Procedure Rules (CPRs) and Financial Regulations (FRs), there have been some further changes in circumstances and developments that warrant further changes. This includes the re-designation of the post of Chief Executive, the appointment of a Chief Executive and the issue of a new Code of Practice for Internal Auditors in Local Government by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).

84.2 With the recent re-designation of the post of Managing Director to Chief Executive, any references to the former within CPRs now need to be amended. Following the appointment of the Chief Executive, the temporary amendments to CPRs concerning the arrangements to obtain a waiver under the situation where the four directors were fulfilling the role of Managing Director on a rotational basis need to be removed. It is proposed that the provisions that existed previously be re-instated.

84.3 The amendments to CPRs are set out in the attached Annexe 3. Deleted text is shown scored-through, and inserted text is underlined. For the sake of clarity, any reference to “Managing Director” that is not shown in the Annexe will be also amended to “Chief Executive”.

84.4 The CIPFA Code of Practice for Internal Auditors 2006 (replacing the 2003 Code) has strengthened expectations regarding the reporting of suspected or proven cases of fraud, corruption or impropriety. It has also placed greater emphasis on partnerships, governance and risk management, specifying this as one of the considerations that the Head of Internal Audit (at Waverley, the Audit Manager) should take into account when preparing the Internal Audit Plan. The proposed changes to Financial Regulations are set out at Annexe 4. Once again, deleted text is shown scored-through, and inserted text is underlined.

84.5 The Executive


Background Papers (DoF)

There are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report.


85.1 In 2002, the Borough Council agreed a programme of conservation area appraisals for the Borough. The timetable for the work was prioritised using a scoring system, so that the conservation areas with the most problems, such as traffic or pressure for development would be done first. Consequently, the first three to be carried out have been Wrecclesham, Bramley and Farnham. The next one on the list was Chiddingfold, and work began in July 2006.

85.2 In February 2006, English Heritage produced two documents providing guidance to organisations doing appraisals: “Guidance on Conservation Area Appraisals” and “Guidance on the Management of Conservation Area”. These documents have been used to produce the conservation area appraisal for Chiddingfold. The Executive Summary of the document is attached as Annexe 5 to this report. The full appraisal document has previously been circulated to members and is available in the Members’ Room and on the Waverley website.

85.3 The approach adopted has been the same for Chiddingfold as for the other appraisals. It is very important that the community should take an active part in carrying out surveys and writing chapters of the document and not just be consulted on the document, after it has been written by the Borough Council. A team of local people in Chiddingfold, referred to as the Chiddingfold Conservation Area Appraisal Group, worked together with the Borough Council and produced the appraisal, in close partnership. The chapters on historical development, the character studies, and the transport chapter have been written by members of the Group. The Group did surveys, research and consultations with other people in the village, and helped staff the exhibition. It is likely that this involvement will produce a degree of ownership, which is very important if the appraisal is to be applied to future proposals in the village.

85.4 Consultation on the document has taken place in the following ways:

a public exhibition was held in the Banking House, the Green, Chiddingfold from 2nd June to 16th July 2007. Approximately 110 people attended; at the exhibition the public were invited to give their views on a comment sheet; posters were erected around the village advertising the exhibition; a letter was sent to all the residents in the proposed additions to the conservation area advising them of the proposals; a copy of the document was put on the website; a copy of the document was placed in the Haslemere Library and the Haslemere Locality Office, the Godalming Library and the Godalming Council Offices. articles appeared in the Haslemere Herald and the Surrey Advertiser. the appraisal was discussed at the Annual Parish Meeting of the Parish Council on 12th April 2007; a copy of the document was sent to English Heritage, Surrey County Highways, the County Historic Buildings Officer, and the Chiddingfold Parish Council.

85.5 A schedule of responses was compiled. The small number of comments is to be expected because the document is not controversial. Alterations to reflect the editing points and amendments to dating of buildings have been made. The main issues that have arisen are:

The Crown car park is used as a cut through and right turn is a blind cornerSCC Further investigation required to establish potential for remedial action
Lengthening the grass verge outside the Crown will mean some car parking spaces lost – need to work with Highways.SCC To be reviewed as part of the transport package
Traffic layout changes to the Green may cause accidents, suggest temporary trial layouts.SCC aim to design correctly first time
Traffic layout at the north end of the Green may deter people from shopping at the Londis store.SCC There are alternative turning options in the immediate vicinity
The traffic scheme for the south end of the Green would not have a sight line to the northSCC There is potential for carriageway alignment to improve visibility
The proposed pedestrian island near the Forge wont be usedSCC Further investigation required to establish potential for remedial action
Extension of the boundary to include Nuthurst, Pickhurst Road not appropriateAgreed
Widen the verge to allow more parking in front of the shops.Would be detrimental to the character of the green
Include Brittens Yard, Northbridge in the proposed extension to the conservation area boundaryDoes not make a contribution to the character of the conservation area
The fields included in proposed extension area 4 should not be included, and areas 4, 6and 7 should not be in the conservation area as they are covered by the AONBAgreed

85.6 The traffic aspects are being dealt with by the Highway Authority and their response is included above. The other main aspect is the question of the proposed new boundary for the conservation area. The report to the Executive in May 2007 proposed that the preferred boundary of the Chiddingfold Conservation Area Appraisal Group be included in the document which was to go out for public consultation, even though the following reservations were expressed in the committee report as follows:

No on planExtension proposed by the GroupOfficer assessment
1 Ethel Cottage, NorthbridgePartly supported
2Granthams Chiddingfold Supported
3 North of Cricket GroundSupported
4 Sadlers, east of the Cricket GroundSupported
5Crabhams, Pockford LaneNot supported
6Oaklands Park, Pickhurst RoadNot supported
7 Nuthurst, Pickhurst RoadNot supported

“The proposed areas, which are not supported at this stage, are those which comprise open spaces or are a large house separated from the built up area on the periphery of the existing conservation area. The open spaces are protected by the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and by the Green Belt and conservation area designation would not add any additional protection to this agricultural land. The large houses: Northbridge House, Crabhams and Nuthurst are largely hidden from the road and do not make any significant visual contribution to the character of the conservation area. They are separated from the conservation area by open space and trees. However, all the houses are of local interest and could be added to the Local List of buildings of architectural or historic interest. “

85.7 The Group has queried the point made that although the open spaces are protected by the AONB, the open land to the west of the Green was included in an extension to the boundary made in 1981. The reason given at the time for this was that “the extension takes in the hillside of Ballsdown which, with its trees, forms a backcloth to the central view of Chiddingfold – the village green.” (Main Planning Committee September 1981). 85.8 It is the officers’ view that the other open spaces proposed for inclusion in the conservation area: Areas 1, part of 4, 5 and 6 (see Plan 1), do not contribute to the scene in the way that Ballsdown does. Even if the hedgerows bordering the fields were cut right down, the impact of these open spaces would be limited, and in the case of Area 4 this field is hidden from the Green by trees. 85.9 Planning Policy Guidance Note15 Planning and Historic Environment, states: 85.10 It is not considered that these fields form an “integral” part of the built environment, because there are few significant views of them. Therefore not all the areas proposed by the Group are put forward, and the proposed new boundary is shown on the map at Plan 2. It was made clear to the Group at the beginning of the process that the Borough Council was the designating authority for conservation area boundaries and that the decision of the Council on the proposed boundaries would be final as there is no mechanism for appeal. This position was understood by the Group. 85.11 The Chairman of the Parish Council was a member of the Group and made a considerable contribution to the project. The Parish Council as a whole was consulted formally during the consultation period. The response was that the Parish Council praised the Appraisal. “The thoroughness of the work and the thoughtfulness of its compilation and recommendation are excellent examples of a measured thesis.” The main comments related to the enhancements, the funding and the section on “The Way Forward”. 85.12 The Parish Council would like to see some of the enhancement schemes being carried out in parallel. They are especially interested in the undergrounding of overhead wires, though it has to be said that undergrounding is a very expensive operation. 85.13 The Parish Council notes that there are no costs for the enhancement schemes and only the main sources of funding have been referred to, that is Surrey County Council, Waverley Borough Council and the Parish Council. This is because it was felt best to leave these details to the implementation stage to allow for flexibility. 85.14 The Parish Council believes that education and information aimed at landowners would move forward the enhancements and suggests a leaflet be devised. This can be looked at by the Group, working with the Parish Council. A blue plaque type scheme is suggested and this could be added to the enhancement schemes. The Parish Council raises the issue of rural industries, but this is not actually a topic for a conservation area appraisal, but funding to help repair of the blacksmith’s forge can be investigated. 85.15 The Borough Council has allocated 15,000 a year for the enhancement programme devised by each appraisal. Therefore 15,000 is available for enhancements in Chiddingfold for the year 2007-2008. The intention is to select some schemes from the list in Chapter 23 of the document. The County Council may fund the traffic schemes over a period of time, and the Parish Council are looking at the projects at present. The Waverley contribution to enhancement could be repair of the surfaces in front of the shops, by the Green. This would be a continuation of the work done to provide a new path on the verge to the south of the Green, that was carried out in 2000. It is intended to carry out this capital project in this financial year. 85.16 The production of the Chiddingfold Conservation Areas Appraisal has resulted in a document that is a comprehensive analysis of the character of the conservation area, written in partnership with local people. The Group was not unanimous over the proposed conservation area boundaries and the officers did not support them all. The public hardly responded one way or the other. It is important to maintain a consistent approach to designation, in line with Government guidance. Therefore the officer assessment of the proposed conservation area extensions is recommended as the preferred approach. 85.17 The Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee thanked Chiddingfold Parish Council and all those involved in the appraisal. Members asked that the Executive look closely at the boundary aspect and letter from Chiddingfold Parish Council and review if the proposed new housing allocation for the South East Region could affect the village.

85.18 The Executive noted the observations of the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee and requested that thanks be expressed to the Parish Council and Geraldine Molony and


Background Papers (DoPD)

There are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report.

Background Papers

Part II – Matters Reported in Detail for the Information of the Council

There were no matters falling within this category.

Part III – Brief Summaries of Other Matters Dealt With


1. the addition of the following items:-

87. EAST STREET UPDATE (Agenda Item 7)

The Leader informed the Executive of the results of the public consultation about the revised East Street scheme. 1,197 responses had been returned, of which 1,174 had voted. 754 had voted in favour (70.2%) and 320 voted against (29.8%). The Leader thanked Farnham residents for taking the time to respond and the Chief Executive informed the Executive that the results were currently being independently signed off by Internal Audit staff.





2. a Housing SIG of Councillors Mrs P M Frost, Mrs E Cable, Mrs P Ellis, K Webster, K T Reed, V Duckett and two further members to be agreed by the Chief Executive, one from Godalming and one from Haslemere, be created to consider the legal and financial implications of creating a new SPV to develop new affordable homes, with draft terms of reference as set out at Annexe 2 to the report; and


[Note pursuant to Section 100B(5) of the Local Government Act 1972: this item contains exempt information by virtue of which the public is likely to be excluded. The information is as specified in paragraph 3 of the revised Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, namely:-

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

RESOLVED not to grant rate relief, as set out in the recommendation in (Exempt) Annexe 2 to the report.




RESOLVED that the changes to the progress report be noted, and that Members re-affirm their earlier support for implementation of the Code, with a revised target date of 1st April 2008.

93. COMMUNICATIONS REVIEW (Agenda Item 14; Appendix H)

RESOLVED that the impact of the communications review on the residents of Waverley be noted and communications be kept under review in the future.




96. COMPLAINTS HANDLING IN WAVERLEY IN 2006/2007 (Agenda Item 18; Appendix L)

97. OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION INTO COMPLAINTS 2006/2007 (Agenda Item 19; Appendix M)


2. the report be noted.

98. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REPORT, QUARTER 1 (APRIL - JUNE) 2007/2008 (Agenda Item 20; Appendix N)




100. DISPOSAL OF A PROPERTY IN BRAMLEY (Agenda Item 22; Appendix P)

[Note pursuant to Section 100B(5) of the Local Government Act 1972: this item contains exempt information by virtue of which the public is likely to be excluded. The information is as specified in paragraph 3 of the revised Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, namely:-

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



[Note pursuant to Section 100B(5) of the Local Government Act 1972: this item contains exempt information by virtue of which the public is likely to be excluded. The information is as specified in paragraph 3 of the revised Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, namely:-

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



2. the Council delegates the responsibility of preparing the AONB Management Plan to the new Surrey Hill Board.


At 8.14 p.m, it was

104. STAFFING ISSUE (Agenda Item 29; (Exempt) Appendix U)
The meeting commenced at 6.45 p.m. and concluded at 8.19 p.m.