Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document
Meeting of the Council held on 12/12/2006
To: All Members of the Council
When calling please ask for:
1st December 2006
COUNCIL MEETING – TUESDAY, 12TH DECEMBER 2006
A Meeting of the WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, COUNCIL OFFICES, THE BURYS, GODALMING on
TUESDAY, 12TH DECEMBER 2006 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 Joanne Wetherall.
* This meeting will be webcast and can be viewed by visiting
be preceded by an open public question time at 6.30 p.m.
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Council held on 7th November 2006 (herewith).
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Mayor to report apologies for absence.
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.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
To answer the following questions received from members of the public in accordance with Procedure Rule 10:-
from Mr J Hyman of Farnham
“Mr Mayor. Included within Committee Papers is my Formal Question and WBC's Response from the ELOS Meeting of 31st October. Unfortunately, I must query all four sentences of that response.
Firstly, the response states that "the enhancements within the miniplan are the same as those proposed in the Farnham Park Historic Restoration Management Plan January 2004...". Analysis of the new miniplan costing schedule clearly shows this to be inaccurate, and the evidence - comparisons between the new miniplan, the Restoration Plan and the 2004 Management Plan - show that there are indeed conflicts, particularly regarding the future biodiversity of Farnham Park and who pays for it. Does the Council still contest your own evidence?
Secondly, WBC states "There are no plans to increase the area of car parking within the Park". Can WBC confirm whether that is a commitment in perpetuity, perhaps due to covenants on the Park, or whether it is merely current Council policy?
Thirdly, WBC state that Natural England agrees the Park has potential as SANGS. So do the other 40 or so tracts of land identified as potential SANGS. Natural England have agreed that there are not the 130 hectares available that the previous miniplan claimed. Members may have noticed that paragraph 53 of the Appropriate Assessment before us states, "As there is some degree of uncertainty about the delivery of the mitigation, it is appropriate to consider the possibility of alternative solutions to the Core Strategy". Para 59 immediately contradicts this by stating, "Looking at the miniplan it is
that mitigation can be provided and the consideration of alternatives is not required further." Upon what evidence?
The 85 hectares of the Park that is not Private, a castle, playing fields, golf course or play/amenity areas are in fact either currently grazed, or most would be (in rotation) if one or all of the 'Plans' were effected. It contains ponds hosting protected species, deer breeding in spring and, according to the WBC "Farnham Park - Its Wildlife" brochure, "Warblers are common in spring and summer, nesting in the thick scrub".
Natural England have not yet decided how much of Farnham Park, if any, is suitable as 'mitigation'. The miniplan provides little evidence to work on. The recently-reported 'DCLG / Peer Group Review' of Natural England's Standards sets a high requirement of survey-based evidence. Limited surveys of Park Users carried out in November by a party that has a considerable financial interest in the survey outcome, and that is proposing a miniplan and Appropriate Assessment that clearly predetermine that outcome, cannot reasonably satisfy the Peer Group standards. Does the Council agree that the third sentence is misleading, and the "uncertainty about the delivery of the mitigation" makes
miniplan fall short of stisfying the Habitats Directive (s48)?
Fourthly, WBC's statement that "dogs are currently allowed off the lead within the park and no change is required" conflicts with the currently-available WBC "Farnham Park -Its Wildlife" brochure which states "Dogs must be on leads in adventure playground. £500 fine for failure to comply". Incidentally it adds, "Please do not let your dog chase the deer" and "Help us to keep Farnham Park safe and beautiful by... keeping your dog under close control."
Is WBC's stance self-conflicting?
The miniplan costings (that CNS have accepted) make no allowance for land value. The purchase of replacement mitigation land for preparation as SANGS in advance of 'use' by future development would land upon the Council Tax payer. Were the AA and Miniplan agreed, some development could take place that would almost certainly be contested in the European Court. Permissions granted could be overturned and developers could demand compensation of the Competent Authority.
Does the Council agree that the WBC response to ELOS was misinformed and that adopting the current Appropriate Assessment and Miniplan would place the public at enormous risk?”.
from Mr C Kiley, Waverley Borough Tenant
“Waverley tenants receive customer satisfaction surveys on the services that they receive, they show extremely high tenant satisfaction levels. Tenants have never been consulted with a customer satisfaction surveys on their Tenant Panel or this new Tenant Panel Constitution. Do members think that they should? Bearing in mind the comments made in the 6 May 2003 Inspection reports - Programmed and Cyclical Maintenance Service, Responsive Repairs - with regards to the Tenants’ Panel. That they are not wholly representative of tenants, are one of many comments and issues raised.”
To answer any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.2.
NOTICE OF MOTION
To receive any notices of motion received in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.1.
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE AND COMMITTEES
(a) To receive the minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on:-
(i) 31st October 2006 (
– coloured grey);
(ii) 9th November 2006 (
– coloured grey); and
(iii) 5th December 2006 (
(b) To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 6th November 2006 (
- coloured buff); and
(c) To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee held on 21st November 2006 (
- coloured aqua); and
(d) To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 28th November 2006 (
- coloured lavender).
ANNUAL REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES
To receive the Annual Reports from each of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees, endorsed by the Committees at their meetings in November 2006:-
(a) Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee (
- coloured gold);
(b) Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee (
- coloured green); and
(c) Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee (
- coloured blue).
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).