Waverley Borough Council met on 15 July 2025, and addressed concerns about Community Infrastructure Levy ¹ (CIL) enforcement, approved a shared People & Organisational Development service with Guildford Borough Council, and voted to bring grounds maintenance services in-house. Councillors also approved revisions to the council's constitution and allocated funds for a new skate park in Cranleigh.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

A member of the public, Steve Dally, raised concerns about the council's CIL enforcement practices, describing demand notices as threatening and highlighting the distress caused to residents. He referenced the Post Office scandal investigation and recounted instances of residents suffering nervous breakdowns or being forced to sell their homes due to CIL demands.

Councillor Liz Townsend, Executive Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development, responded that the demand notices were accompanied by information about the legislation and requirements, and that the council had not taken possession of any homes. She encouraged residents to apply for a discretionary review if they believed the council had made an error.

Councillor Jane Austin, Conservative Group Leader, proposed a motion calling for an independent review of the council's CIL administration and enforcement since 1 March 2019. The motion aimed to assess whether the council's practices met tests of reasonableness, proportionality, and best practice, as well as to review how residents were supported and informed throughout the CIL process.

Councillor Tony Fairclough, Deputy Leader of the Council, proposed postponing consideration of the motion until the council had seen the results of the discretionary review process approved by the Waverley Executive on 1 July 2025, suggesting a reconsideration at the full council meeting on 26 January 2026.

Arguments for delaying the motion included avoiding duplication of effort, establishing an evidence-based position, and allowing officers to focus on the discretionary review process. Arguments against delaying the motion centred on the distress caused to those affected, the lack of urgency from the council, and the need for transparency and an independent investigation.

Ultimately, the council voted to postpone consideration of Councillor Austin's motion, with 23 in favour and 14 against.

Shared People & Organisational Development Service

Councillor Victoria Kiehl, Executive Portfolio Holder for Organisational Development and Governance, presented a report recommending the delegation of the People & Organisational Development function from Guildford Borough Council to Waverley Borough Council to enable a shared service.

The proposal aimed to improve performance in both authorities. Questions of clarification were raised and answered, including:

• A business case was being developed regarding savings for the HR system.
• The restructure would enable a team of three to lead on payroll and benefits across both councils.
• The plan was to have one system, the one currently used at Waverley, as it reduced the need for manual intervention.
• There were no identified costs associated with the transfer of staff from Guildford to Waverley.
• The costs associated with the restructure were purely to build resilience and increase the skill and expertise in the joint team.

Some councillors expressed concern over increased costs and the timing of the merger prior to the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). They felt that mergers should save money rather than increase spending.

In response, it was requested that members consider the transitional arrangements of the LGR and the functions following the structural change orders. Officers advised that the costs to Guildford and Waverley were described in section 6.10 of the agenda report and the cost for the proposed joint team was described in section 12.1.1 of the agenda report.

The council voted to accept the delegation of the People & Organisational Development functions to Waverley Borough Council, with 24 in favour, 9 against, and 5 abstentions.

Grounds Maintenance

Councillor Steve Williams, Executive Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change, introduced a report examining four options for grounds maintenance services and recommending insourcing the service to be provided by the council.

The report considered financial costs, non-financial benefits, other best value considerations, and the ability to help meet the council's net zero carbon target of 2030.

The following points were raised and clarified:

• The decision was considered favourable to the council's Land Transfer Policy because variations would be easier to implement with an in-house service.
• Senior officers had met with the Managing Director of Krinkels ².
• Officers had effectively shown a five-year cost comparison, including all relevant revenue and capital costs.
• Officers had modelled a comparable basis, including depreciation.
• There was considered to be plenty of funding left in the medium term risk reserve.
• Union representatives were involved in the TUPE ³ process, and there was low staff turnover.
• Every authority locally had an in-house service other than Surrey Heath and Woking.
• The council were seeking to achieve a service with zero emissions vehicles.

Some councillors expressed concerns about the accuracy of the reports, the financial viability of the proposal, the fairness to the current contractor, the lack of cost savings, and the exclusion of management costs.

Other councillors felt that the decision would benefit residents and facilitate land asset transfers, with economies of scale achieved due to joint arrangement with Guildford.

In response, it was stated that the proposal met the test of best value, not just in pounds and pence, but in service, resilience, responsiveness, and long-term public benefit. The report had been completely rewritten and was comprehensive and accurate. The figures showed it was financially viable, and Waverley would be in a much better position after LGR to provide ground maintenance to town and parish councils.

The council voted to approve a one-off capital allocation of £1,000,000 for the purchase of vehicles and equipment required to provide in-house grounds maintenance services, to be funded from existing capital receipts, with 27 in favour, 10 against, and 1 abstention.

Access to Information Procedure Rules

Councillor Andy Macleod, Chair of the Standards Committee, introduced a report setting out suggested amendments to Waverley Borough Council's existing 'Access to Information Procedure Rules' as set out in Part 4 of the Council's Constitution.

The proposal was to replace the existing rules with a new set of rules, as set out in Appendix 2 of the agenda. The same set of revised rules would be considered by Guildford Borough Council on 29 July 2025.

The simultaneous Standards Committee on 7 July also agreed to revise the terms of reference to the Joint Constitutional Review Group (JCRG) so that the members of the JCRG and any substitutes would now be appointed only from the members of the Standards Committees.

Some councillors felt the papers could have set out the proposed changes more clearly. It was explained that the report was very comprehensive and there was a debate on tracking previously; however, many of the rules around access to information were prescribed statutes and the council were legally obliged to follow them.

The council voted to adopt the revised 'Access to Information Procedure Rules', with 34 in favour, 1 against, and 2 abstentions.

Articles of the Constitution

Councillor Andy Macleod, Chair of the Standards Committee, introduced a report setting out suggested amendments to the council's existing Articles as set out in Part 2 of the Councils' Constitution.

The articles set out the basic rules governing the council's business, and the amendments and additions aimed to support decision making, improve clarity, and achieve alignment between Waverley and Guildford Councils' Constitutions.

An alteration to the recommendations in Article 2.2 was proposed, including the insertion of a new sub-paragraph (b) outlining the circumstances under which a councillor's term of office may be shorter than a four-year term.

The council voted to approve the amendments to Part 3 of the Constitution (Responsibility for Functions) as set out in Appendix 2 of the agenda report, with 35 in favour, 0 against, and 1 abstention.

Revisions to Part 3 of the Constitution - Responsibility for Functions

Councillor Andy Macleod, Chair of the Standards Committee, introduced a report setting out suggested amendments to Part 3 of the Constitution - Responsibility for Functions.

The amendments and additions aimed to support greater transparency in decision making, improve clarity, and achieve alignment between the two sets of rules, as well as ensuring that the Constitution remained up to date with changes to reflect any altered circumstances.

The council voted to approve the amendments to Part 3 of the Constitution (Responsibility for Functions) as set out in Appendix 2 to this report, with 23 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.

Cranleigh Skate Park Development Project

Councillor Liz Townsend, Executive Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development, introduced a report providing an update on progress made to provide a new skate park in Cranleigh.

The report presented an Outline Business Case for the project and demonstrated a viable project for progression to completion. Cranleigh Parish Council had been involved in the consultation.

The project was fully funded by both secured Section 106 funding and already allocated CIL.

Some councillors expressed support for the project and requested that Pickleball courts also be added to the site.

The council voted to agree to a budget of £647,125 for the purposes of progressing the Cranleigh skate park option and accepted the delegation of authority to complete all necessary contracts to purchase the land and to procure, award, and enter into the main construction works contract.