Transcript

Good evening and welcome to this evening's meeting of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee. Before we begin, I have a few housekeeping comments to make. May I ask everyone to switch your mobile phones and handheld devices to silent for the duration of this meeting. If the fire alarm sounds at any time during the meeting, we are not expecting it to go off. Everyone in the Council Chamber should leave immediately through the nearest fire exits, and proceed calmly to the assembly point in Milnead on the paved area adjacent to the river as you exit the site. Before we consider the business on tonight's agenda, I would like to remind everyone that by participating in the meeting, you are consenting to being filmed and recorded, and the possible use of those images and some recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. The recording will be made available for repeated viewings afterwards and on the Council's website. In addition, the public gallery area is being monitored by CCTV for safety purposes. While the meeting is being webcast, anyone is permitted to record the proceedings using their own devices. For example, for social media purposes, provided they did not disrupt the meeting in doing so. If you are attending remotely, may I ask that you have your cameras and microphones turned off at all times during the meeting, and only switch them on when I invite you to speak. For your own privacy, camera backgrounds should be set to blurred. Any non-Committee members or officers who are attending remotely, and who wish to speak on any item, indicate this by leaving a request in the meeting chat box. Now, before we get to the business on the agenda, given the date today being the 6th of June, and the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings, I'd like the Committee to join me in a minute's silence to recognise this, please. You can stand if you wish, but it's not compulsory. Starting from now. [Silence] [Silence] [Silence] Thank you, committee. So item 1 is apologies for absence and notifications of Substitute Members. John, do we have any, please. Yes, thank you, Chairman. Apologies this evening from Councillor Potter, who indicated he may be arriving late, or if he's delayed at the event he's attending, to the extent that he's unable to attend, and he sends his apologies. And also from two of our parish members, Simon Scofield and Tim Wolfondon. Thank you. Thank you very much. So item 2 is disclosures of interest. Can I remind councillors of the need to declare any disclosure of pecuniary interest in respect of any items of business on the agenda, and the requirement to withdraw from the meeting before the item is discussed. I also invite councillors to disclose in the interests of transparency in non-pecuniary interests which may be relevant to any matter on the agenda, and to confirm it will not affect their objectivity in relation to their consideration of the matter. Are there any disclosures of interest? Not seeing any, so moving on. So item 3 is the minutes. I have been notified that the draft minutes of the meeting on the 11th of April do not show that Mr Litvak gave his apologies, so with that a very mime amendment, which we will correct. Is the committee having to confirm the minutes of the meeting held on the 11th of April 2024 as a correct record? Is that agreed? Thank you. I'll just sign the minutes. Thank you. So item 4 is the decision and action tracker. The purpose of the tracker is to monitor progress against the decisions and actions that the committee has agreed, which will be kept up to date for each committee meeting. When decisions and actions are reported as being completed, the committee will be asked to agree to remove these items from the tracker. Does anyone wish to comment on the tracker? Mr Larry Levack Thank you Mr Chairman. Yes, it's in regard to the 18th of January note, and it says update on implementation. It might be my interpretation of it, but it would appear that meetings were offered to a couple of Councillors in September 2023, and my reading is that possibly the meeting hasn't taken place, but again the note isn't very well written, so I don't really understand it particularly. Perhaps someone could clarify it. John, can we get an update on that? A bit more clarity around it. Well, Robin is here. I wonder if Robin might be able to shed any light on it? This is on page 23, Robin. Bottom of page 23, the update on revised joint equality diversity and inclusion policy and the associated action plan. So I do expect it to be coming forward probably in July or August. That's when I'm expecting it to come back through to committee. Is that what you were looking for, or was it something else, Councillor? No, that doesn't really answer the question. I got that impression. The question was, my reading of the note indicates a meeting was offered to a couple of Councillors in September 2023 in Teams, in personal email. I could interpret it that that meeting hasn't taken place, but I'm not sure how the note has been written. I can understand what you're saying. Sorry, Councillor Hughes. Thanks very much, Chairman. I'm the Councillor mentioned in this, and I think describing it as a meeting offered is a little over the top. However, I think there is a meeting that needs to be had. I think the information that's come to this committee on EDI has, frankly, not been adequate in my view, and I will talk to them about what I think is adequate. They may take a different view, the committee may take a different view, but that will happen. But as I say, there wasn't actually a civic meeting offered, but I will make sure one is. Chairman, from my point of view, the policy itself needs to go through to the Executive. I'll take advice from Democratic Services colleagues as to the role of this committee en route to doing so. Some of that predates my involvement in it, but from my perspective, the policy is yet to come through. If there's input that's needed from this committee, then obviously we'll get that at the time. I'm simply making the point that I think we can have a better EDI policy, and I think that whichever committee it has to go through, and of course things have to go to the Executive and the Executive member, I just think we can do better. I know that the offices are working on the policy, so I know it's nearing its conclusion. What I'm not clear about is whether it has to come via this committee en route to the Executive, but as I say, I'll seek advice from that, and I agree, the policy can be improved, it needs improvement, and that's being done. I wasn't expecting it to come via this committee en route, but clearly that note's there, so there's probably confusion on my part.

• Thank you both, and just to come back to Mr. Litvak, yes, I do understand what you're saying in relation to it, because the way it reads is this meeting was offered, but it doesn't clarify whether that happened, and it's a case of did it happen, did it not happen, so I think we need some clarity on that to take away, and it's obviously to come back through here as well. I'll make sure that's updated following this as well for you. Did anyone else have any questions around the tracker? So, following on from that point, is the committee happy to note that the decision and action tracker and agree that the actions reported as being completed are removed from the table? Is that agreed? Thank you. So, moving on to item five, which is the Q1 and Q2 internal audit plan 2024-25, could I now ask Iona Bond, Assistant Head of Southern Internal Audit Partnership to introduce this item, please? Thank you, Chair, and good evening to all members of this committee. The paper in front of you this evening is the Southern Internal Audit Partnership's proposal to move the audit planning process from an annual to a quarterly planning process. The paper sets out for you all our reasoning and rationale for moving towards that approach. In summary, for you it's a very volatile and changing audit environment at the moment. You'll have seen from the progress reports that came through the committee last year, there was a lot of change in the audits that were undertaken. The annual process for planning has served well, but as I say with the increasing change and views on the audit plan, we're looking to move towards a quarterly process and that way we should be able to utilise more efficiently both our own resources and in assigning and carrying out the audits, as well as actually reducing the impact on resourcing from the council side, because as you can imagine, we come in, we have a discussion about an audit that we've got on the plan, we do that just at the beginning of each quarter, we might then find the timing's wrong, the audit's wrong, we want it to be brought in, that affects our capacity to plan, it then affects the resources on the council side because it will be different offices involved for a separate audit who didn't know at the time that they were going to be subject to audit. It should also mean that when the audits or the results of the audits themselves come to you as a committee via the progress report, that they become more timely in the sense of hopefully a lot fresher off the press than sometimes they currently are. And again, I think the main two reasons for moving towards that process is it will optimise capacity and will negate the change, multiple changes, to the audit plan. As a committee, your frequency and your schedules of meetings are conducive to you still getting in advance of each quarter the proposed plan for the quarter, so there shouldn't be any impact on yourselves. In a way, again, it will be an even more robust planning process because we'll sit down four times a year and do it, rather than sit down once a year which will sometimes be up to fourteen, fifteen months in advance of a scheduled audit being undertaken, so it should be a much, much more agile and dynamic process. So with your approval, I'd move on to just taking you through what we're proposing. Obviously, this has come retrospective because we had the annual plan in March and we've made that change subsequently. So you've got basically a six month plan in front of you, so it's reflective of retrospective for quarter one, and looking ahead into quarter two. This would be a transitional year, so so far not too many changes have been made to the plan. For quarter one, I think the only change we've brought in to have more of a focus this year, on the revenues side, we've brought in council tax, that wasn't initially forecast to be covered this year, but that's been brought in, which makes sense because we're also doing the business side for taxation as well, and national non-domestic rates. So proposed in quarter one, that's the only audit that wasn't in the original annual plan for the year. And then for the quarter two plan, we're proposing again on the back of the Solace reports, both in terms of housing and the main governance peer review. Council has implemented a significant improvement plan, so our intention is to undertake an audit of the governance framework around that improvement plan, and I dare say in subsequent periods, audit plans, we will begin when the timing is right, and then look at the delivery of some of the actions on that improvement plan, but again we'll look at that and monitor that each quarter, when we sit down with the senior management team to discuss what the current issues are, where the big risks are and what needs to be in that audit plan for the year. That said, there will always be some systems that are key in terms of audit assurance, that will always remain on a cycle of audit, again key financial systems, your creditors' payments, your accounts receivable, your council tax, NNDR, those big key systems will always have a place in an audit plan at some stage. So all of that said about it being dynamic and agile, and you're not going to have too many changes, the quarter one audit for the annual governance statement will now actually technically be a quarter two audit, we've had initial conversations with Richard and his team to do the scoping for that review, but the council's timeline again on the back of the Solace report, and needing to bring in that reflect that within the annual governance statement, actually the production of that statement itself is delayed and I think Richard you're scheduled for August to have that document ready, and at that point we'll come in and do the audit of that statement for yourselves. But apart from that, I'm hoping that actually there won't be too many changes on a quarterly plan once we get into the throes of that process with senior management and yourselves. So I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Iona. Can I ask the Lead Councillor for Finance and Property, Councillor Richard Lucas, whether he wants to make any comments? Yes, I do. I have spent my career in new product development in high-tech industries. I'm not intending to give you my CV for the hell of it, but I will explain the relevance of that comment. I've had a lot of experience of moving big, large, lumpy, sporadic projects to shorter, more repeatable, on a regular roster basis deliverables, and there are a number of significant benefits. First and foremost, you stop thinking about this as a project to manage and move it to a process to manage. You get many more cycles of learning which result in the organisation learning how to do this faster, with less hassle, less cost and to a better quality. I think the generic concept of moving from an annual audit basis to a more repeatable, smaller chunk, smaller cycle, quarterly basis is profoundly beneficial. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. So normally, we don't have any non-members here, do we, or online is there? There are, normally. Would any non-members of the committee wish to ask a comment or question? Does any member of this committee have a comment or wish to ask a question? Councillor Hughes. Thank you very much. I don't want to shock the executive member for finance, but I agree absolutely with what he's just said. Sorry about that. I think quarterly is an excellent idea for the reasons that Richard has put forward. One question. One of the areas that we've gone into in some detail when the previous audits, and the auditors were commenting on those, recommendations that have simply not been acted on, will they be reported in the quarterly? I think that will be helpful to the committee, certainly, because some of them were quite key that hadn't happened. And I'm interested on page 37, the Guilford Waverley collaboration, the council risks not meeting its objectives. I'm not sure I'm clear what the objectives are, but I understand that a business plan at long last is going to be written. Presumably that will come into the risk register when it is. Thank you. Ayanna, did you want to respond? So on the first point, the management actions, yes, we will continue to track the progress on all outstanding actions. That information comes to you as a committee within the progress reports rather than the planning document. I think the next progress report for you will be coming to the September audit committee, because the July audit committee, for audit purposes, will be bringing you your annual report for 23/24. But yes, we do every month send out emails to officers on progress. You're not obliged to answer the last point. I was making a point. Thank you. Sorry, Robin? Did you have your hand up there? OK, my mistake. Never mind. If there's a question I'm happy to answer it. No, it's fine. Just seeing how you're doing. Does any other member of this committee have a comment or question? Not seeing any. Thank you, Ayanna. Obviously, anything that gives this committee better engagement, I'm all for as well. So the recommendation for this item is set out on page 27 of the agenda, and is that the committee approves the approach to quarterly internal audit planning and proposed quarter 1 and quarter 2 plans for 2024/25. Is that agreed? Thank you. So moving on to item 6, which is the planning appeals monitoring report. May I now ask Claire Upton-Brown, assistant director for planning and development, to introduce this item, please. Thank you, chair. Firstly, members, I'd just like to do a verbal update because the report refers to two appeals, the Whistley appeal and the Cathedral appeal. While writing the report, we've now received decisions from the inspectorate on both, with Whistley being allowed and the Cathedral being dismissed, so that's one in terms of our success rate. The report sets out the performance on appeals. One table at paragraph 7.1 relates to the committee performance in terms of overturned recommendations and how that is then translated itself into appeals and allowed and dismissed. I think the conclusion from that table that you may draw is that we are getting less overturns year on year. The committee, which maybe suggests that the committee are absorbing the training that's being provided and making quality decisions as measured by DLAC. The overview of performance for appeal decisions in 2023 is set out at paragraph 7.2. Again, you'll see that there is a slight decrease in the percentage of appeals dismissed. In 2023, we've compared, in 2022, 73% of our appeals were dismissed and in 2023, 61% were dismissed. Members, we can probably draw some conclusions from that, but given that it's historic data, because some of those applications will have been determined the year before in 2022, I think it's difficult to come to any conclusions about the quality of decision making based purely on those appeal success rates. Moving on to paragraph 7.6, as members are aware, we are measured by DLAC in terms of our quality of decisions and that's done on a two-year rolling programme. The last published figures were in March 2023. Again, we are looking quite a long way back in the history of decision making for the council in those figures. In my earlier report to this committee, I highlighted that we believe our performance at that point on a two-year rolling programme for majors was only 7.5%. The published figures show it at 9.6%. So, members, clearly that's something that we need to be aware of. We have had no correspondence from DLAC to say that they have an eye on that. And there are quite a number of authorities that are performing significantly worst with no intervention. So, members, that is something that we clearly need to keep monitoring performance. On non-majors, our quality of decisions is, as a percentage, again, in the published figures is 1.8%. You'll see that the total non-major decisions that we make are over 3,000 decisions a year. So, we are one of the largest decision making authorities outside London. So, just as a sort of final summary, whilst, members, these figures obviously give you a snapshot of how we have performed over quite a long period in the past, obviously they don't give you an accurate picture of how we are now performing because of the time delays in people making appeals. Because, members, as you are aware, applicants have up to six months to appeal against refusal. And also because of some of the lengthy, sometimes lengthy time between making an appeal and appeal starting, and then PINs making a decision on appeal, which can sometimes be sort of up to 12 months. So, the data is somewhat skewed because of those long lead-in times and those long periods of time that the inspector may take to come to a decision. Thank you. Thank you. May I now ask the lead Councillor for Planning, Councillor Fiona White, whether she wishes to make a comment? Thank you very much Chairman. Just very briefly, this issue of planning and planning appeals and decisions is always a bit of a thorny one. As Claire has said, you know, it is important that decisions are always based on planning, policy and are sound, because there is a cost to every appeal, whether or not it's dismissed or whether it's upheld, you know, there is a cost to the Council. Claire's been through all the reporting details, so I won't do that again. With reference to paragraph 9 and the financial implications, I think this is always a little bit difficult because obviously we have to be careful with the public purse, but not to the extent that we fetter the decision-making because of the potential costs. And it's that balance that has to be reached. Because obviously to make bad planning decisions simply to avoid a risk of cost would be very bad for the borough as a whole. And obviously also we do, both officers when they're making delegated decisions and members of the planning committee have to be aware of all of the risks that are involved. But as I said, it's very important that nobody should feel pressure to avoid refusing a planning application simply because of the risks involved, so long as those decisions are made on sound planning reasons. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor. So to start off, does any non-member of this committee wish to comment or ask a question? Does any member of this committee wish to comment or ask a question? Councillor King? Thank you very much, Chair. I do have a question about the table in 7.2. I learn a lot from reading the appeal decisions and I've noticed that there's some duplication of an application number and I wonder if I could please ask for some clarity on that one. If I could please draw your attention to the top of page 43, application number 22P01151-20 Pit Farm Road. I looked up 22P1151 and that one was allowed subject to conditions and then I'm wondering if that is a duplicate of line 1 on the page before. Are you with me on that? So on page 43, there is also Pit Farm Guildford on the first line and then on the top of page 44 it's the same. I can't tell if it's the same one or not because in 43 it says no appeal, but on page 44 it says the appeal was allowed and when I looked at the actual application, the appeal was allowed with conditions, so I'm wondering if that first one is an error. The other thing I noticed was the one immediately below, 21P01151 which jumped at me because it's the same number but on a different year. That number, 12 Oak Hill on Wood Street Village, is actually a different application number altogether. 21P1151 is Willow Cottage in Peaslake and that application was approved. Sorry to be really nerdy about this, but I do think we do need to get the application, make sure the application numbers are correct. I think that's not something for right now, but perhaps this might be looked into and come back to the committee or come back via email. Perhaps might be the most efficient way of doing things. Following on from that, I have a comment perhaps with my Planning Committee Chair hat on for a moment if you don't mind me doing that for a moment. I've learned such a lot from the appeals and I'm also hoping that the committee is learning from the appeals as well. When we get a note at the end to say what appeals were dismissed, allowed and so forth, we do try to learn from them and there is an intention in the committee to continue to learn from them. Because it's really wonderful to see that our decisions are improving. They're not perfect. There's an ongoing learning that's happening and I have certainly learned a huge amount from my predecessor, Councillor White. It is concerning that so much in terms of the money seems to be out of our control. But I do feel quite confident that we are making decisions without thinking about the cost of a potential refusal of an application. We do work very hard to make decisions on sound planning, with sound planning reasons. And I just want to thank all the officer support that the committee receives because it's invaluable and really it's been a privilege and continues to be a privilege to work with them. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you. And to come back on your point, you're not being nerdy at all. When you do diligence on things and check these things, you'd expect them to be correct. And that's what part of this committee is here for. Claire, did you want to come back on any in regards to the admin points there? I will check those numbers because it does look rather odd that we've got the same number at 22 and 21, and unlikely. So I'll check that and just come back via email on those points. I would just like to say on the cost point, we are and I think collectively as officers we've learned a lot through the Wisley appeal. So we are using some of that learning to make sure that we don't overuse the experts that we are buying in, and to over-engage, if not appropriate, to actually keep some control of costs. Because you can quite easily run away with a lot of money talking to Council because they choose to, or them coming down for a meeting when you could have a meeting online and that sort of thing. And to reassure members that whilst it is critical that we have the right both legal and expert support at appeal, we are ensuring that we are actually managing those relationships and minimising the cost, whilst obviously trying to defend our position robustly at appeal. Thank you Claire. I heard Councillor Broughill next. Thank you Chair, and may I also thank my colleague Councillor White for her words. I sat on the planning committee under her chairmanship, so I had some experience of the constant mantra that all members had about cost of appeals. It's a very, very difficult subject for members because it is probably far and away of the issue that is of biggest concern to our residents, our planning, local planning, and the effect on our environment. And given that it is, it is therefore probably one of the biggest activities that members are involved in with their residents, so it is difficult from that point of view. It is also pertinent I think to realise that what really concerns residents is the infrastructure issues, rather than the actual development or house building or whatever it might be. And we receive reports which often cause the overturning or the refusal of the planning permission. We receive reports from Surrey County Council who say, particularly with regard to roads and traffic and perhaps health provision, that everything will be okay, and certainly in my experience in the planning committee itself, that was always like greeted with fast intakes of breath. There's an item here in paragraph 7.4 which talks about the recent Whisli appeal and inquiry and how the cost of delivering the defence cannot be underestimated. That is true, but I also know that a vast amount of time on the Whisli appeal was spent looking at infrastructure, whether that was at parish council level and then taken up into the main inquiry. Is it possible for this committee to ask Guildford Borough Council to make some formal appeal to Surrey County Council to inform them that the infrastructure issues are of serious concern to our residents and are costing this borough council as a result of that? Because I fully agree that the costs are really worrying to this council, but it is because we feel, and residents feel, that we are getting very poorly treated by our Surrey County Council on the infrastructure issues. And I just wonder if it's time, under the financial problems that we're having, that we actually make some formal representation to Surrey to talk to us about the infrastructure and some of the decisions that they're coming up with, which, forgive me, are patently ridiculous. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. So that question moves more into the wider aspect. Claire, are you able to come back on any of those points? Yes, in terms of infrastructure, we certainly did spend, I'd say hundreds of hours, getting into very fine detail about infrastructure improvements to infrastructure and how we can deliver those in a way that's acceptable within the environment within Whistler. So it was a very, very intense period of time in the lead up and through that public inquiry to ensure that we did achieve the best possible outcome on an allocated site. I think in the more general question around the relationship between the county as highway and education authority and as lead local flood authority, and it may be something that we discuss at the next committee, this committee when I bring the section 106 report to you, there is some considerable work going on around the relationship between the county and the borough and the way we look at the infrastructure requirements resulting from development and ensuring that we are achieving what is necessary to mitigate the impact of development on the environment and ensure that appropriate infrastructure is not only identified as part of the planning permission and secured through the 106 but is also delivered. So maybe that's something that we'll pick up again at the following committee that we discuss at section 106. But quite happy to take any action the committee might want to give to me this evening in terms of dialogue with the county on the question of infrastructure and also the ICB around healthcare provision. Thank you Claire. So did the lead council want to come back at all? No, I think Claire has covered it far better than I could. Thank you chairman. Thank you. I'm conscious I didn't ask you before. Thank you. I'm sorry, I had Councillor Walsh next. Thank you. Thank you chair. Just very regarding section line of financial implications. I've talked about this, but I've seen this before in previous reports in previous years about the budget provision for appeals being low when it's regularly exceeded. Is it worth this committee recommending that we look into that? Or the resources O&S looks into that, the mind of making recommendation to the executive based on evidence? I don't see why not. In all fairness, it's a fair point. Claire, did you want to come back on that point at all? I'm certainly happy to work with Richard and his team to look into the matter. The challenge is always with planning as you don't know what's going to happen next. As Richard knows, because it's difficult to predict who's going to appeal, what form of the appeal and therefore the cost. Or indeed what we're going to approve or refuse. So it is a little bit difficult to predict. Which is why historically there isn't a budget provision specifically for appeals. And then it's done by case basis based on a specific report identifying the likely cost. But I'm sure Richard and I could take that away and look at that. Is there a base number where over the last 10 years, for example, this much has been spent on appeals? We can say that 100 grand is definitely going to be spent on this every year because it always is. Or is it literally that much of a move-able piece that it changes? So there are two costs. There would be the costs of public enquiries which we would be able to do an audit trail back over 10 years. But then it's almost the hidden cost of the rest of the appeals that is absorbed through current staffing resource that would be very difficult to actually measure. Thank you. But I'll make sure that's noted. We can follow that up, come back to it. Julia Roswell, had you next. Thank you. So I've got two points, actually, I wish to make. I've got a first point on the Wiesli inquiry and then a second point I want to come onto on the report. Regarding the Wiesli inquiry, as Claire will know, I was heavily involved in that. And I would be extremely interested to know, in the fullness of time, the cost of the Wiesli appeal. I hope that might come to this committee in report next year in full detail. Ultimately, the council obviously chose to concede in the closing statement. I think there was a case that could have still been made for supporting the residents and supporting the parish councils with the infrastructure, so I think we need to bear that in mind. Now, just coming onto the report, I have with me my notes from last year when I spoke on this item, planning appeals monitoring. And I actually feel that I could be speaking from the same notes again, because I feel rather disappointingly the point I made last year was not heeded. Now, I don't consider this a fault of Claire. I think I remember speaking to you through the teams and I think you acknowledged my point and you recognised the reasons I made this request. Unfortunately, though, I don't feel the executive quite took it on board at the time. I'll make the point again. This report we have before us looks at the quality of planning decisions as measured by overturns at appeal. What this report lacks is the second reason that we could be designated, a section or a table on the speed at which planning decisions are being made. Again, we have to achieve a 70 per cent target for non-major and major applications on speed of determination. As members will recall, in April 2023, Guilford Borough Council received a letter from the Secretary of State, raising that we were at risk of designation, because we were not meeting the statutory time periods, the speed of determination for non-major applications. Now, at that meeting in last year, Claire was able to assure me that improvement had been made for those quarters. However, at the end of Mr Gove's letter, it stated the following, I expect the performance of your planning services to exceed our performance thresholds and to stay above it consistently. I hope that Claire can give me a verbal answer in a moment as to whether we have stayed above our 70 per cent target for the speed of decision-making throughout the quarters of the past year for major and non-major applications. However, members are not able to scrutinise this because we do not have this in the report before us this evening, and I really hope that members of this committee take this point on board and that, as the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee, this information will be forthcoming in this report next year. That will be two years after I made this original request. The speed of decisions is important for three reasons. It matters to members of the public who are waiting to get a planning application. It matters to developers, and that's why we have seen these non-determination applications. And the third reason it matters, I understand that if an application is not decided within 26 weeks, then an applicant can apply for a full refund of cost of the fees for the application. Again, I would be interested to know if that has happened at all. So finally, I conclude. I really urge members to take on board these points that I'm making, and possibly to put forward a recommendation this evening that when we have the planning and monitoring report next year, we look at both the quality of decisions and also we can monitor the speed at which decisions are being made across the year. Thank you. Thank you. Claire, would you like to come back? Yes, certainly. So I won't comment on the Whitsley Appeal, and I'm sure the cost of that appeal and certainly some feedback to the planning committee will happen in advance of the annual report this time next year. In terms of the question of designation and speed of decision-making, I am pleased to say that we weren't designated. Members will be aware that when the two-year rolling programme figures came out, we also received a further letter from Michael Gove in late December and wrote back identifying our improved performance and continued to improve performance over an extended period. And it was confirmed that because we were making not only improvement and continuing to maintain that performance in excess of the national targets of 60% for majors, 70% for non-majors, we were not going to be designated on the two-year rolling programme measure. Our performance continues to be maintained well in excess of the national targets, and I'm quite happy to do an email round to share with you all the maintained performance, which is a real achievement to the staff that work within what is a very, very demanding planning service in a complex borough. So I'm quite happy to share that with you, but I can assure you that we're not only achieving the performance required, we are exceeding it, and have continued to do that quarter on quarter. Thank you, Claire. As it's such an excellent picture, again, I think there's nothing to lose by capturing that in this report, even if we have a table that comes with it to the report next year. Thank you. And I agree with the idea of sending that round, because again, that's another positive story for the Council also. Sorry, Councillor White, thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you, Councillor Osborne, for the interest in the planning performance. The delegation is one of those things that we very much want to avoid. But could I just point out, this is a report on planning appeals monitoring. So, therefore, it is not a report on the performance of decision-making from the point of view of speed of decisions. We do actually get regular reports to this committee on performance, and the speed of planning decision-making is a part of those reports on a regular basis. And they will confirm the figures that Claire has given them, which she will confirm by email. So, I don't think it's necessarily an omission from this report, because actually the speed of decision-making is not actually part of the appeals monitoring, which is why I don't think it should have been in this report. It is reported regularly to the Council so that councillors, and I believe it comes to this committee as well, so that councillors are aware and have those figures. Sorry, thank you, Councillor. I believe also the report does go through review and scrutiny. Just to finally respond, I recognize that, but it is also the second reason for designation. This is a report, as you were saying, that looks at planning appeals monitoring, which we could be designated for if we're not meeting that 70% target. But equally, if we don't meet that target, and it seems that we're doing extremely well, but if we were not meeting that target for the speed at which decisions were being made, that's the second reason, under the Town and Country Planning Act, that we could be designated. And that's why I just feel it actually fits with this item in the report, and that it would be helpful to come not to the Council, but to the Corporate Governance Committee. I feel this is the right committee that it should come to. Anyway, I've made my point, and I just kindly say that maybe just take it away and consider that point. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else on the committee have a comment or question? Oh, Councillor Bothwell. Thank you, Chair. Only really perhaps a point of clarification, but to fully support Councillor Osborne, and to thank Councillor White for her comments. Are we saying that these figures are usually reported to Council or to this committee? Because this committee's obviously new, certainly I'm new, and I can't remember ever seeing it. Maybe I've overlooked it if it's been on a Council report that I should have paid more attention to. I am aware, as an ex-Planning Committee member, of how important it was, and how important of a residence it was, and the huge amount of questioning and changes to the system, and the special days that Planning Offices dropped everything, had all leave cancelled, and really went for it to get the numbers up to speed. So, to know that everything is fine is good, and I welcome from Claire's offer of the email, which I would certainly personally welcome. I do think this committee would value that sort of report. Thank you. John, do you want to comment? Just to confirm, this committee used to receive reports on the quarterly corporate performance monitoring. That has now been transferred to overuse and scrutiny. So, whilst it gets reported, it gets reported to another committee, in terms of all the other performance indicators. Does any member of this committee have a question or comment? Moving to the recommendation on this item, and taking into account the comments that have been made tonight, which we will take away and look into. Obviously the feedback going forward. Is the committee happy to note the contents of this revised report and data? Is that agreed? Moving on to Item 7, which is the Risk Management and Corporate Risk Register. I now ask Luke Harvey, Corporate Strategy and Performance Manager, to introduce this item, please. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to make some introductory remarks to this committee. Before I do so, and this is my first time at this committee, I'd like to take the opportunity, if I may, to introduce myself to those I haven't yet had the opportunity to meet. I joined the Council as Corporate Strategy and Performance Manager in late April, and I'm very much looking forward to working with members of this committee in the municipal year ahead. The report before the committee this evening provides members with an update on risk management. As the report notes, an update on the corporate risk register was due to be brought to this evening's meeting of the committee. However, the recently published review undertaken by SOLIS has highlighted the need for improvements to be made to the Council's approach to risk management. In light of this report, and indeed on the back of previous comments made by this committee, officers are working at pace to implement these improvements. The first such improvement will be an updated corporate risk register in a new and easy-to-use format, which will be brought to the July meeting of this committee. The July report will also provide the committee with additional detail concerning the implementation of a new risk management strategy and methodology for the Council. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to introduce the report, and I'd be very happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. Thank you. Thank you, Luke, and welcome. Can I ask the Lead Councillor for Community and Organisational Development, Councillor Carla Morrison, whether she wishes to make any comment on this item? I don't, thank you, Chair. I think Luke's covered everything. Now, does any non-member of this committee wish to comment or ask a question? No. Does any member of this committee wish to comment or ask a question? Councillor Hughes. Thank you very much, Chair, and welcome to the Council. I think there's a problem when you have a risk register, which you've seen before, that has every single risk you could possibly think of under the sun. And in my view, certainly the businesses I've run, it ceases to be a risk register. And I'm delighted you're going to be reformatting it and changing it, and I hope very much we'll have something that will be showing us the real risks, even if it lists other ones lower down. But I think that's really important. Just as an aside, it may just be me, but I hate rag-rating. Thank you, Councillor. Did you want to come back at all? Thank you, Councillor Hughes. Yes, I would agree from a methodological and strategic perspective, particularly for the purpose of this committee, and indeed to Council and the Executive. Risk registers ought to be focused on what we're actually concerned about and we're actively managing to bring within our risk appetite. So they ought to be targeted and focused and action-oriented, so we can see how we're moving the dial and bringing the risk within the appetite that the Council is happy with. Clearly, we need to articulate what the appetite is as well. So the intention for the risk register is indeed to streamline and to focus on areas of greatest concern. But what I'm particularly keen not to lose is inherent risk that we face and we deal with as a matter, of course, but what the committee, thinking with other internal services and also internal audit as well, is to focus on where the controls, mitigations are, are they adequate against our appetite, and make sure that assessment is ongoing. Because I think to coin a very well-worn phrase, we don't know what we don't know, so there are known knowns and known unknowns, etc. So indeed, as the new strategy develops, that is certainly our intention. Thank you. Thank you, I'm very pleased with that. Thank you, Luke. Councillor Hives. Thank you, Chair. With some conversations earlier on, in the week about KPIs, and the relative validity or the value of each individual KPI, some being more important than others, do you anticipate that the risks that we are identifying here will relate correspondingly to the relative value of the KPIs, so if you've got a very important KPI, then the impact of that risk, the failure to address it, is therefore equated to the relative importance of that KPI. Do you understand? Yeah, okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councillor Hives, for the question. Yes, it's, so the risks that this committee ought to receive should be strategic in nature. So the big ticket issues linked to usually how it's presented would be risks that threaten the delivery of the council's corporate strategy, or indeed the medium-term financial plan, so they should be sufficiently high level in order to focus attention, as you've described, where attention ought to lie. In a similar vein to KPIs, actually, so risks relate to threats to our objectives, and KPIs help us know are we achieving our objectives, and why do organisational health, so there's a clear linkage between the two, and that would partly explain my role, in the sense that I've got, in my team, we've got both areas there. So what you often see is, for instance, if a KPI's reporting is read, that may indicate that there's a potential risk, or indeed an issue that needs to be addressed, and there should be a clear read across to the corporate risk register, or indeed service risk registers, and I think for the members and officers to have a clear view what the hierarchy of risk is particularly important, as we set the budget, MTFP, and indeed undertake service planning as well, and that's what the strategy will reflect. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of this committee have a comment or question? So the recommendation, which is set up on page 50 of the agenda, invites the committee to note this report, and the deferment of the updates to the corporate risk register to the committee's next meeting on the 25th of July 2024. Is that agreed? Okay. So item 8 is the freedom of information compliance annual report, 2023-24, I'm going to ask Kieran Ward, Information Governance Officer, to present his report please. Thank you, Chair. So this is the FOI report for the financial year 2023-24, during which time we received a total of 844 requests, that being freedom of information, FOI, as well as environmental information, EIR requests. And this accounted for a 22% increase in the volume of requests since the previous year, so we received 691 during 2023 compared with 844 in the previous year, and 90.5% of these were responded to within the statutory 20 working day time limit. So despite a relatively difficult year for the Council, as well as a considerable increase in the volume of requests, we still managed to exceed the target set by management team of 90%. So it's also commendable to note that a total of 45.5% of all requests were responded to, were answered within 10 or fewer working days, so isn't half the statutory time limit. And in terms of service areas, planning received the most requests which came to a total of 151, and this accounted for almost 18% of the total requests received across the board. So moving on to categories of requesters, the majority of requests came either from members of the public or from private companies. And these two categories accounted for almost three quarters of the total requests. The remainder of requests were received by various other categories, which includes academics, journalists, charities and various lobby groups. So in terms of internal reviews where the requester, if they're not happy with the outcome of a response, so for example if the information has been withheld for whatever reason, for example if it encompasses third party personal information, or if it's deemed to be commercially sensitive, or if there's a risk of crime, then we can exempt the information. Or if the requester feels that we haven't provided all the information that's available regarding a certain request, the council is entitled to submit an internal review which is then allocated to an officer who had no involvement in the original request. So a total of five internal reviews were received during the 2023-24 year. This is slightly up on the previous year's total of four. And of these five internal reviews, in two cases the council's original decision was upheld, while in the other three cases the council's original decision was overturned. So just to conclude on that, yeah we have surpassed the target, but as always there is always room for improvement and we will continue to strive towards the nearest possible, well 400% of requests achieved within the 20 working day target date, so what we request will continue to be monitored, so we can improve that in so far as is reasonably possible. So I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, just a note as well, I went back to my old notes when we had this report last year, and I'll be correct, there was 691 last year and at 92%, and this year we had, from the this period is 844 and still over 90%, which for companies I've worked for would be a dream to look at, plus there's a lot of 100% on there which is very encouraging. Does any non-member of this committee have a question or comment? Does any member of this committee have a question or comment? Councillor Walsh. Just a quick one, what are data subject access requests and why have they gone up 300%? Yes, this is, so when an individual is entitled to request information about themselves, so for example someone who's, if you're a local council taxpayer you can request all records of council tax payments, for example during the last 5 years, or if you're a housing tenant you can request copies of your tenancy file and any related correspondence. I think that the main reason why they've gone up so much in the past year is mostly because we've had an upsurge of requests from, so solicitor is asking on behalf of clients who have submitted requests for information on housing, so mostly related to repairs, so this is generally connected with compensation claims, which has been a bit of a rise in recent times. Thank you Mr Chairman, excuse me, this relates to page 62 under the third service area, bereavement, and I fully appreciate the figures are very small and it does skew every figure. Were there particular issues in the bereavement service area such that they could only manage to answer one in the time scales? Yes, the department has historically been under-resourced pretty particularly during the last year, and we have a manager who has been sort of facing an increasing volume of work, and also due to the fact that many of the requests related to bereavement require precise figures, and tend to be quite complex in nature in that they're multifaceted requests which inquire of a number of cremations, burials and other financial information which require a considerable amount of effort to compile these figures. It's funny you made that, but I actually picked that up myself on the pre-meeting, and I think it was a similar thing last year as well. Does any other member of this committee have a question or comment? Yeah, just a quick comment, on page 58 where you've got categories of requests, I'm just curious why you don't include the category councillor, because if councillors are having to make FOI requests and I understand some have, I think that's a particular issue that we need to be looking into and why that's happening. On the system we use for recording requests we do have a political category which will include councillors, but also MPs, or researchers acting on behalf of MPs, or political parties, but it's not included in that particular pie chart simply because of the small numbers, so it's listed under the category of other, so it's within the 7.5% of the pie chart. I think it would be just helpful to have that other category maybe broken down a little bit so we can understand that further. Your point is noted councillor. Everyone, thank you. Any other members of this committee have a comment or question on this item? So moving to the recommendation which is set out on page 55 of the agenda, is asking the committee to note the response rates and officer actions and to agree to continue receiving regular updates. Is that agreed? Moving on to item 9 which is the annual report of the monitoring officers regarding misconduct allegations. May I ask Janet McGarry, joint senior governance officer, to present this report on behalf of the monitoring officer please. Thank you. So the monitoring officer is required to review all code of conduct complaints received in respect of allegations concerning the conduct of borough and parish councillors. And I'm pleased to report that we've received zero complaints about borough councillors. We did receive five complaints in total, one of those concerned a member of staff, so that's not actually counted within this area. They were referred to the corporate complaints policy and they were supported to make their complaint. Four other complaints were against parish councillors and they weren't progressed beyond stage one. And I'm open to answering any questions that members may have. It's an annual report. We do maintain a register of code of conduct complaints and I would hope that you would like to receive an annual report this time next year as well. Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask Leigh Councillor for regulatory and democratic services, Councillor Mary Hall-Smith, whether she wishes to make any comment at all. Thank you. I'm okay at this point. Any non-member of this committee wish to comment or ask a question? Any member of this committee wish to comment or ask a question? Judith Osborne. Thank you. Well as the parish member, I feel I should ask the question about the parish councillors. I know you can't obviously give away too much detail, but was this relating to one specific council? Was it a reoccurring complaint or was it about lots of different parish councillors? That I can't really answer in this meeting, but I'm sure the monitoring officer would share that to a degree with you outside of this meeting and I can take that back to Susan Sale. Any members of this committee have any questions or comments on this item? Thank you. So the recommendation for this item, which is set out on page 66 of the agenda, is ask the committee to, one, review the contents of the annual report in order to satisfy ourselves that the governance arrangements are operating effectively. So first is the committee happy to confirm this? Is that agreed? And two, make any recommendations for improvement? Are there any recommendations we wish to make apart from comments? No other recommendations. And three, to continue to review the code of conduct matters on an annual basis. Is that agreed? Thank you. Moving to item 10, which is the annual whistle-blowing report, 2023-24. First may I ask the committee to note a copy of this report which has been marked to follow when the agenda was published is attached to the supplementary information sheet, together with an update in respect of two of the ongoing investigations. Can I ask Jeanette McGarry to present this report, please? Thank you. So, again, this is an annual report, and we do maintain a register of all whistle-blowing complaints that we've received. And just building on the comment made by the chair, we're actually in discussions with Iona Bond and her team in relation to just one of those complaints. We need assistance from audit, internal audit, in relation to fleet services. The housing matter, the housing maintenance matter, is being investigated. And we don't believe that we need support from audit with that particular matter, so just to make that absolutely clear. So there are nine whistle-blowing matters contained within the appendix. Many of those have been closed, and I'm working with colleagues, particularly in housing, and Julian Hickson, the strategic director, is with us this evening, as is Liz Mockridge, who has investigated some of the complaints. And I would just add that I think it's a really healthy indication of the culture that people feel able to come forward with whistle-blowing complaints, and believe that their complaints will be taken seriously. So I welcome that, and I'm really pleased to be presenting this report to you this evening, members. Thank you. Does any non-member of the committee wish to make a comment or question? Does any member of this committee have a comment or question? Councillor Highs. Thank you, Chair. Good to hear that people feel comfortable knowing that they can use that facility. Has that, over the years, improved, and do you feel as though there is still further room for improvement, or are we satisfied with the structure that we have to allow that to happen? I think the structure that we have does allow that to happen, and I do think that, certainly since the whistle-blowing complaints that have been reviewed during 2023 and 24, there is increased trust and confidence in the process. And I think that is an indication of a very healthy culture. It's a good thing, and all councils, all organisations really should welcome those whistle-blowing complaints, or any complaints, in fact, so that it helps us to learn from those complaints and helps us to improve the way we do things and what we do. Thank you. Any other members of this committee have a question? Councillor Hughes. Thanks very much. The item you just referred to in relation to the housing maintenance, there has been concerns expressed about the delay between the whistle-blower making an allegation and that being acted on, but it's not reflected in this report. What is the policy? The policy was criticised by the previous auditors, so how do we know that a whistle-blowing report of this magnitude is going to be investigated quickly? Because plainly it wasn't to start with. I think one area of comfort for this committee is that you, as members of this committee, will receive a report concerning every individual whistle-blowing matter, and I know that I came to you in April with the matter and I'm due to come to you again in July. So I can't really comment too much on the past. I think that there were some delays, you're quite right, Councillor, and in fact, I think, at the April meeting of this committee, there was one whistle-blowing matter in particular that you asked me to, and Susan Sayles, Monitoring Officer, to contact the, for example, to contact the Borough Commander, which we did. And there was, in fact, a three-year gap, so you're quite right. But I think that culture has long gone. I'm confident that members of the public and members of staff and others and our partners, in fact, feel far more confident in the process and they do believe that things will be reported to elected members as they are being this evening. The process has improved. I think there was a lot of room for improvement, you're quite right, because there were significant and undue time lags in the past. If I might come back, I mean, but it isn't in the distant past, we're talking about the things that were criticised in the Solis report of whistle-blowing matters not being reported, not being acted on for five months in the first case. That's not in the distant past. I think I'd want to be reassured that, actually, these things will be acted on quickly and also be promised to know who knew what and when. Will that be in future reports? That certainly will and in terms of each individual whistle-blowing matter, there is a requirement that the detailed investigation is firstly reported to the Corporate Management Board and then to this committee. Absolutely. And in terms of housing... Which it wasn't in those cases, of course, reported to this committee. No, but no, you're right, and we have the Strategic Director here with us. I'm sure he will give you even more reassurance than I have. Thank you, Judy. Thank you, Chair. Councillors will remember probably from the most recent meeting of this committee when we discussed the Solis reports and Pedro obviously gave the commitment that once the investigation that is going on into who knew what and when has concluded, then that will be reported. Any learning from that we will certainly learn from. I do know at the moment, certainly since I've joined, that any whistle-blowing allegations have gone direct to Susan Sale and that she is absolutely swiftly investigating any whistle-blowing investigations, no matter how small. As is reflected hopefully in this report, but there is an absolute, I think, recognition that what went on in the past with that particular whistle-blowing allegation should not happen again, and we would not want it to do so. Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Hunt, do you want to come in? Just to echo what Julian's just said, and to assure Councillor Hughes, I also think that the fact that a whistle-blower's actions were not acted upon is wholly unacceptable, and the action, the improvement plan that's been put in place is putting that right and making sure it will never happen again because it should never happen again. Thank you. Any other members of this committee have a comment or question? Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. It does feel like there are more whistle-blowing reports coming through this committee, even in the short time that we've been sat this year, so as long as that process continues, then that can only be a good thing. So moving to the recommendation, which is set out on page 71 of the agenda, is asking the committee to, one, review the contents of the annual whistle-blowing report in order to satisfy ourselves that the governance arrangements are operating effectively. Is the committee happy to confirm this? Agree? And two, make any recommendations for improvement? I don't believe I have any specific ones, only to just make sure these reports keep coming in a timely fashion. Is that agreed? So moving on to item 11, which is review of task groups reporting to the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee. First, may I ask the committee to note the additional nominations for appointments to the two task groups and the revised recommendation, which are set out in the supplementary information sheet. May I ask John Armstrong, Democratic Services and Elections Manager, to present his report, please. Yes, thank you, Chair. So the task groups reporting to this committee are the Councillor Development Steering Group, which, as the name suggests, coordinates and directs Dido's training and development. And the Joint Constitutions Review Group, which was established last year in partnership with Waverley Borough Council's Standards and General Purposes Committee, to examine, review and report back initially to this committee and to Waverley's committee on any matter relating to the constitution arrangements of both councils or either council. This report asks the committee to review the work carried out by the two task groups over the past 12 months and the work they are likely to undertake over the next 12 months, details of which are appended to the report. We're recommending that both groups should continue with their important work and we're asking the committee to agree the appointment of councillors to them for the 2024-2025 municipal year. The political groups have been invited to submit nominations in accordance with the current numerical allocations, details of which are set out in the report and on the supplementary information sheet. And finally, in relation to the Joint Constitutions Review Group, the committee is also asked to appoint a co-chair from the appointed members. Thank you, chair. Thank you, John. Can I ask the Councillor for Regulatory and Democratic Services, Councillor Mary Hill-Smith, whether she wishes to make any comments at all. Thank you. Does any non-member of this committee wish to comment or ask a question? Does any member of this committee wish to comment or ask a question? So moving to the vote, the revised recommendation is set out on the supplementary information sheet. Is the committee happy to approve recommendations one to four? Is that agreed? After which, in relation to recommendation five, can I ask the committee for a nomination in respect to the appointment of a co-chair to the Joint Constitutions Review Group from among the four appointed members to that group? Let's continue with the vote. So the members are recommended for appointment of Councillors Bigmore, Houston, Jones and Mills, and this committee is asked to approve or agree a co-chair from any of those four. Just to let you know, Councillor Jones was the co-chair in 2023-24. Councillor King. Could I just ask John if you could just repeat the nominations for the Joint Constitutions Review Group. Did you say Sally Barker? No, because she's on the list on the page that I'm looking at. So on the supplementary information sheet, the nominations received were, each council has four councillors appointed to the Joint Constitutions Review Group. So the nominated councillors are Councillors Bigmore, Houston, Jones and Mills, and so Councillor Jones was the co-chair last year. I can second Councillor Jones again. Sorry, Councillor Hughes. Could I just ask who is the other co-chair? That is Councillor Andy McLeod. Oh, I see what you mean. With most of our joint committee arrangements, we tend to alternate between Millmead and the Berries and whoever is the host council, their chair, or usually in relation to our joint committees, it's the leaders who alternate the chairs. And in this review group, it's the approved co-chairs from each authority, so Andy McLeod was Waverley's last year and Councillor Jones was Guildford's. I seem to remember Councillor Potter, I think, sort of volunteered Councillor Jones last year. Since Councillor Jones was co-chair last year, I'm happy to nominate Councillor Jones. Does anyone want to second? Second. Okay, so is the committee happy to agree that Councillor Jones will be appointed as co-chair to the joint constitutions review group? Is that agreed? We'll let him know. Item 12, the committee's work programme. The committee's rolling work programme for the next 12 months has set out an appendix 1 to the report, pages 99 to 106 of the agenda. You will note the proposal to hold a special meeting of this committee on Monday the 1st of July to be held simultaneously with Waverley's standards and general purposes committee to consider a number of reports and recommendations from the joint constitutions review group in respect of the ongoing review of our constitutions. Does anyone have any comments on this or the work programme itself? So the recommendation is that the committee approves its updated 12-month rolling work programme as detailed in appendix 1 to this report including the proposed addition of a special meeting of the committee on the Monday the 1st of July, 22.4 at 6pm to be held simultaneously with a special meeting of Waverley's standards and general purposes committee in the council chamber at Waverley Borough Council. Is that agreed? Thank you. And as there are no other items of business on the agenda, I'm now closing the meeting, so can we terminate the webcast?