Minutes:
Cllr White introduced the Notes of the Strategy & Resources Working Group held on 17th October at Appendix D to the agenda. It had been a long meeting but this reflected the amount of business being considered.
I Finances
i) Council noted the six-month finance reports had been considered in detail and in the Notes were answers to a series of questions particularly around income. Council noted some areas such as sponsorship and ticket sales were below expectation, others such as interest and dividends were significantly above budget as a result of rising interest rates. Overall expenditure was running at 46% whilst income (once the second tranche of the precept was included was at 95%.
ii) Council received the External Auditors unqualified audit and audit letter, at Annex 1 to Appendix D, following the completion of the 2022-23 accounts and the Annual Governance and Accountability Return review by PKF Littlejohn LLP.
It was RESOLVED unanimously to welcome the Unqualified Audit for the 2022-23 Accounts.
iii) The Working Group had considered a request for an additional grant for Space2grow towards its parenting classes. Exceptionally it was agreed to recommend that this grant be approved and that Space2grow be added to the list of organisations supported with a Service Level Agreement
It was RESOLVED unanimously that
a) a grant of £2,000 be made to the Talking teens parenting classes with the funding to be met from the Younger People’s budget; and
b) Space2grow be added to the organisations in receipt of a Service Level Agreement grant for the work carried out by them.
iv) Council noted the position with the Christmas Lights and that a tender for the 2014 scheme would take place in 2023. The scheme had lasted well but failing elements were renewed annually. Any additional investment for replacements this year would be separately identified for retention and could be used in other parts of the town. Council noted the outturn in 2022-23 was nearer to £80,000 and discussions were taking place to minimise any extra costs in 2023.
v) Council considered the issue of two Lombardy poplars which had had detailed resistograph tests and were shown to be over mature and failing. In order to minimise risk it was RESOLVED unanimously that the remaining lombardy poplar in Gostrey Meadow and the lombardy poplar in Haren Gardens be removed and replacement trees be planted nearby.
vi) Cllr White advised that the approved contractor (Jacksons) had visited Wrecclesham Community Centre prior to installing the new fence and advised that the end of the fence was tied into a retaining wall and required additional work which, with material increases, would increase the costs to over £7,000.
It was RESOLVED unanimously that the revised quotation by Jackson’s fencing be approved.
2 Farnham Infrastructure Programme
i) Cllr Beaman provided an update on the Farnham Infrastructure Programme. He reported that it was now a very difficult stage with the Infrastructure Programme and he was preparing a briefing note ahead of the Strategy Day. There was now detailed design work being prepared for the Town Centre. A diagram had just been circulated on a confidential basis that would be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Group (IPG) as part of wider consultation on the detailed design. The Town Clerk advised that Cllr Beaman, he and Jenny de Quervain had met with the Programme officer to go through papers, already discussed with the County Councillors, ahead of the IPG meeting which would then feed into the December Council meeting. There were some elements that may require an earlier response, and it was suggested that, pending a report to Council, the joint leaders and Town Clerk be delegated to respond to the latest proposals once it had been considered by the Infrastructure Planning Group, to avoid missing the opportunity to comment in-between Council meetings.
Council debated the merits of a response under the Scheme of Delegation versus calling an extraordinary council meeting. Cllr Beaman clarified that the intention was that all councillors would be invited the IPG and would have the chance to comment on the detailed design proposals put forward by Surrey CC and there would also be a public consultation. Cllr Jackman felt that the debate at the previous council about street furniture in Castle Street showed there was clearly considerable interest in the detail. The Town Clerk advised that there were elements that could not be changed (ie those that were signed off at the September Farnham Infrastructure Board meeting) but there would be elements of detail where views were being sought. Cllr Martin advised that the options had been discussed previously by FTC and a preference made.
Cllr White suggested councillors review drawings and list their comments and questions ahead of an IPG meeting which could be collated by Cllr Beaman. Cllr Murray asked for the drawings to be circulated ahead of the IPG meeting, and the Town Clerk confirmed this would happen. Cllr Dickson raised concern over the bus stop outside the Queen’s Head and Cllr Beaman advised there would be a meeting with the Stagecoach Commercial Director the following week and their views would be shared.
Cllr Jackman asked if there could be a briefing by Surrey County Councillors on what was proposed. Cllr Martin said that the County Councillors would be willing to do this. The Town Clerk suggested that the Surrey Lead Officer, Elaine Martin could be invited to explain the proposals and enable the town councillors to come to their own collective view on what was best for the town.
Cllr Woodhouse felt the Infrastructure Planning Group was the biggest thing to happen over the next few years and there needed to be collective visibility.
On a proposal by Cllr Beaman, it was RESOLVED, with Cllr Dickson against and Cllr Martin abstaining, that a response on the detailed design should be sent by the Town Clerk in conjunction with the Mayor and co-leaders after a meeting of the Infrastructure Planning Group to which all councillors were invited. The Town Clerk confirmed the Scheme of Delegation would not be used if time allowed for the draft response to be considered by Council first.
3 Infrastructure Planning Group
i) Council noted the timescale and Scope for the Local Plan which had been set out in a report to the Waverley Executive and circulated to all councillors. A meeting had taken place between FTC and Waverley officers which amplified some of the programme. A Call for Sites was scheduled from November to January, and ideally this would be done in collaboration with the Town Council so the methodology and results could be incorporated in the Review of the Neighbourhood Plan. Cllr White advised an initial meeting with community groups was set for 23rd November.
Cllr White also advised of the Waverley briefing for town and parish councils on the Local Plan Review on 1st November.
ii) Cllr Dickson asked that a regular slot be found, ideally in the evening, to discuss the Farnham Infrastructure Programme and Neighbourhood Plan. In response, Cllr White said this was a matter for the Strategy Workshop in terms of times of timekeeping, meeting times and volumes of meetings given the enthusiasm of councillors and to make things change and get the best results.
iii) Council noted that the Conservation Areas Advisory Group had met and reviewed its terms of reference.
iv) Cllr White advised that a comprehensive and robust response to the Farnborough Airspace Consultation drafted by Cllr Beaman had been submitted by the Town Clerk.
4 Brightwells Bridge
Having declared a pecuniary interest as a portfolio holder for Brightwells at Waverley Borough Council, Cllr Fairclough left the Chamber and did not take part in this item.
Cllr Beaman introduced the item suggesting that it may be helpful to clarify whether the Council’s policy agreed by the last administration that FTC wished to see a 4m wide bridge as a pedestrian and cycle route was still the case.
Cllr Murray asked if cyclists were not allowed in Brightwells why did it need a 4m wide bridge. Cllr Hesse advised there was a cycle route to the East of the development. The Town Clerk added that there was a proposal to widen the Riverside path to accommodate cycles to Kimbers Lane and also along Borelli Walk and a cycle crossing was required and the modern standard for a shared surface was for 4m. Whilst the approved planning application was for a 2.5 bridge it was to be subject to a detailed application. Unfortunately, Crest had come very late with their detailed design, despite many Farnham representations at Brightwells Board meetings over several years for an early design. Surrey Highways had submitted an objection to the 2.5 bridge. Crest did not wish to submit a new application as it was outside the ‘red line’ of the development site and delay further the scheme. The concept of the new application going in parallel would help resolve the perception that the Environment Agency would object one way or the other, and overcome the impasse. Surrey officers said they would welcome it as they are concerned over the liability that would apply if there was an accident between cyclists and others with a bridge that was not to standard.
Cllr White said this was what was the best result for Farnham. One of the things that had been ignored was the bridge by 40Degreez that had been condemned by Surrey County Council and only remained open because of the representations by Farnham Town Council. There could be a situation where a 2.5m bridge would go in and at some point Waverley would have to submit a new bridge across to Dogflud Way. He suggested funds should be put together to build a 4m bridge and link the pathways.
Cllr Ward asked for clarification of the purpose of the recommendation and whether FTC would build the bridge if permission was granted and whether the landowner had been approached; whether SCC had been approached; and what in parallel with Crest meant. In response, the Town Clerk confirmed that it was not the intention for FTC to build it; both WBC and SCC had been approached (and were currently evaluating the detailed costs of a 4m bridge); and the application would be in parallel with the conditions discharge application resubmitted by Crest after it had been refused. The reason for the recommendation from Strategy & Resources seeking permission to submit a planning application was to break the impasse that had appeared and deliver a bridge to the current standard.
Cllr Dickson felt that Waverley should be required to renew the bridge by 40Degreez and the two items should not be brought together.
Cllr Hesse commended the recommendation as a really good innovative proposal from Farnham Town Council to find a way forward with an alternative bridge scheme for others to pick up. The opportunity to make this happen was now or Farnham would be stuck with an inadequate bridge.
Cllr Ward said that Crest had a planning permission and therefore would be unlikely put any extra money into the bridge so someone else would be required to fund it Surrey, Waverley or FTC. It was unlikely the planning application would make Crest change their mind. If Surrey are doing the detailed costings and if it is a Surrey highways health and safety issue because of new standards then they should submit the application.
On a vote, the recommendation that FTC submits a planning application for a 4m bridge subject to the agreement of, and documentation provided by, Crest Nicholson to resolve the latest requirement and standards for a shared pedestrian and cycling bridge was LOST by 8 votes to 3 with 3 abstentions.