Meeting documents

• (Attachment: 1)Minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 15th September 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed.

Executive Members: Councillors M.A. Brunt and Mrs R. Mill.
Non-Executive Members: Councillors M. Blacker and N.D. Harrison.
 

None.

• (Attachment: 2)Item 4: Nork Way Parking Petition Report (541K/bytes)

The Executive Member for Enforcement, Councillor J. Durrant presented a report in relation to a petition that had been submitted for improved parking facilities in Nork Way.

The Executive noted that Full Council on 28 July 2016 referred to it a petition requesting the provision of a small chargeable car parking area for businesses and residents in the Nork Way area.

The report included the comments from local ward Members which emphasised the parking issues in the area. The petitioners had identified a parcel of land between Fir Tree Road and Eastgate, which the Council owned and had suggested it for development as a car park. It was noted that there were planning constraints for this location due to its green belt designation.

The Executive noted that, if planning permission could be obtained, the development of the land to a car park would be at significant cost as detailed in the report which had been based on the costs and income derived from recent developments/activity. If the development was to proceed it would take a significant period of time before the investment could be repaid from parking income.

The Executive Member thanked the petitioners and the Ward Members, particularly Councillor Stead, for bringing this matter to the Executive’s attention. Councillor Durrant emphasised that although there were constraints and complications on this site the proposal, not to proceed with this request at this time, was based on the need to approach the Borough’s parking requirements at a strategic level rather than on a case by case basis.

Councillor Durrant indicated that he was aware of the pressures that residents, commuters, local employees, retail customers and visitors across the Borough endured in relation to the availability of parking spaces. The Executive further recognised the complexity of the issues between the provision of suitable off street parking facilities and the pressures for on-street parking, which would no doubt present further challenges in the future. The Executive Member indicated therefore that the Nork Way petition had helpfully highlighted one such area in the Borough.

The Executive acknowledged the importance of this area to local residents of Nork (as emphasised by Councillor Stead), but considered it more appropriate to review the Borough wide priorities rather than take isolated decisions on individual locations. This would allow the strategic parking requirements to be identified and the Executive to prioritise resources for any such investments.

Having given the matter further consideration the Executive Member for Enforcement moved the following revised Recommendations:

(i) That the Executive recognises the significance of the parking issues affecting residents in the Nork area and that they be thanked for bringing forward their concerns about parking difficulties and associated pressures;

(ii) That the Head of Corporate Policy and Performance be authorised, in consultation with Portfolio Holder for Enforcement, to scope out a strategic review of off-street parking provision across the Borough, including financial implications, with the objective of identifying co-ordinated priority provision of Borough wide off-street parking requirements for the future;

(iii) That the Head of Corporate Policy and Performance be authorised to apply for Corporate Plan Delivery Fund resources to support the costs of undertaking a strategic review of parking as outlined in (ii) above;

(iv) That the Portfolio Holder for Enforcement consults Surrey County Council, and Ward Members, as appropriate, to assist with the identification of parking issues to be considered as part of the off-street strategic review; and

(v) That, subject to the above recommendations being agreed, the proposal to develop a new car park at Nork Way, as requested in the petition presented to Council on 28 July, be not supported at this time but the details of the petition be included as one of the parking pressures to be taken into account through the strategic review of off-street parking.

Note: The meeting was adjourned between 7.45pm to 7.53pm to allow copies of the revised recommendations to be circulated.

The debate on the proposed recommendations highlighted the complexity of parking issues and associated problems within the Borough, some of which were local issues and others were a consequence of general society pressures. The need to obtain the right balance between on-street and off-street parking provision; related charging strategies and the linkage with the Development Management Plan were also highlighted. Members also emphasised that the key principles behind a parking strategy needed to be presented in a way that users of the service would understand for both on-street and off-street parking provision.

The Leader emphasised that the first stage of the proposal was to allocate resources to scope out a review of the parking needs for the Borough taking account of all the issues and for further reports and consultation to take place in a measured way to achieve the strategic goal.

On conclusion of the debate and, taking into account the above adjustments to the proposals (accepted by the Portfolio Holder), it was therefore

RESOLVED that:

(i) the significance of the parking issues affecting residents in the Nork area be recognised and that they be thanked for bringing forward their concerns about parking difficulties and associated pressures to the Executive;

(ii) the Head of Corporate Policy and Performance be authorised, in consultation with Portfolio Holder for Enforcement, to scope out a strategic review of on-street/off-street parking provision across the Borough, including financial implications, with the objective of identifying co-ordinated priority provision of Borough wide parking requirements for the future that attract their take up by users;

(iii) the Head of Corporate Policy and Performance be authorised to apply for Corporate Plan Delivery Fund resources to support the costs of undertaking a strategic review of parking as outlined in (ii) above;

(iv) the Portfolio Holder for Enforcement consults Surrey County Council, and Ward Members, as appropriate, to assist with the identification of parking issues to be considered as part of the strategic parking review; and

(v) the proposal to develop a new car park at Nork Way, as requested in the petition presented to Council on 28 July, be not supported at this time but the details of the petition be included as one of the parking pressures to be taken into account through the strategic review of off-street parking.

Reasons for decision:
The costs of a new car park at this location were prohibitive when compared to the estimated income.

Alternative options:
Support the petition and request further work be undertaken to develop proposals for a new car park or to consider an alternative proposal.
 

• (Attachment: 3)Item 5: Building Control Shared Services Report (266K/bytes)
• | (Attachment: 4)Item 5: Background Papers - Building Control Business Plan and IAA (2M/bytes)

The Executive Member for Enforcement, Councillor J. Durrant, reported on the proposals to establish a shared building control service, involving Reigate and Banstead, Mole Valley and Tandridge Councils.

The Council faced a number of challenges within the building control service in delivering a high quality services whilst competing in a competitive market. As a result the Council struggled to attract staff, which was recognised to be a national challenge, it was considered to be more difficult in the south east due to higher levels of competition.

Councillor Durrant informed the Executive that it was proposed to formally launch the shared service in February 2017, with four aims:

• Improved value for customers;
• Great place to work;
• Efficient ways of working;
• Income generation.

The Reigate and Banstead building control staff would, under the proposals, transfer to Tandridge District Council employment which required formal and approval through the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) consultation processes. It was noted that the new service would offer a wider range of roles, with opportunities to develop and specialise, as well as a number of trainee / apprenticeship roles.

The shared service financial model had been developed by the Section 151 financial officers from all three councils to achieve the overriding financial principle of ‘no authority being worse off’. It was anticipated that once the shared service was established, delivering quality services, it would progress to operating in the company model, as soon as was practicable, in order to allow the shared service to expand its services beyond its area.
The governance arrangements for the shared service would see the establishment of a Joint Partnership Board that would involve elected Members from each Council. Decisions regarding future budgets or changes to the direction of the service would remain with the constituent councils.

RECOMMENDED that

(i) the Head of Legal Services be authorised to implement any actions necessary to reflect the changes arising from this report, including changes to the Council’s constitution;

(ii) the functions of the Council, within the remit of the Building Control service, be transferred to Tandridge District Council as Host Authority under the Agreement and be overseen by a newly constituted Joint Partnership Board to be established with Tandridge District Council, Mole Valley District Council and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council with effect from the date of the Agreement; and

(iii) once the Joint Partnership Board was constituted, the Executive Member for Enforcement be appointed as the Council’s representative for the remainder of the 2016/17 Municipal Year, and that this appointment be incorporated into the appointments made at the Annual Council meeting for the future.

RESOLVED that:

(i) the proposal to create a new shared Building Control service with Tandridge District Council, Mole Valley District Council and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council be approved;

(ii) the Head of Corporate Policy & Performance be authorised to agree the detail of, and enter into, an Inter Authority Agreement under section 101 Local Government Act 1972 (and Regulations made thereunder) for the joint provision of a Building Control service with Tandridge District Council, Mole Valley District Council and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council;

(iii) the Head of Corporate Policy & Performance be authorised to agree other related issues for the shared service, including the detailed business plan; and

(iv) staff currently employed by Reigate & Banstead Borough Council, wholly or mainly in the delivery of the Building Control service, transfer to the employment of Tandridge District Council at the start of the new shared service in accordance with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (as amended) (TUPE) with effect from such date as the Agreement to carry out those service is entered into and that formal consultation pursuant to TUPE commence immediately.

Reasons for decision:
The creation of a new shared service would provide greater resilience to enable the services of three councils to better compete with private sector competition. It would position the service better to maintain and increase market share as well as provide enhanced staff development opportunities. It would enable the shared service to position itself for the potential creation of a future company model.

Alternative options:
Maintain the existing Building Control service within Reigate & Banstead or request that further work be undertaken on the proposals.
 

• (Attachment: 5)Item 6: Street Naming and Numbering Report inc. Annexes (390K/bytes)
• | (Attachment: 6)Item 6: Background Paper - 2006 Street Naming and Numbering Policy (184K/bytes)

Councillor T. Schofield, Executive Member for Planning Policy and Finance, introduced a proposal to replace the existing outdated Street Naming and Numbering (SNN) Policy.

The Executive noted that the proposed new policy was based on national guidelines and good practice and would provide a sound framework for the consideration of all future SNN applications.

The new policy supported the Council’s priorities in delivering a quality service that provided value for money. An example of that was how the corporate gazetteer was linked to many internal corporate systems, such as refuse collection and council tax, and was a key building block throughout the organisation. It was noted that the local gazetteer was also the basis of the National Land and Property Gazetteer, used by other local authorities, emergency services and private business.

The Executive Member emphasised that the adoption of the updated policy would confirm existing processes, avoid unnecessary confusion and delays to implement the complexities of the SNN function, providing a definitive guide for councillors and the public to utilise.

The Executive noted that GeoPlace (the public sector partnership that oversee national street naming and numbering) supported the new policy.

RECOMMENDED that the Scheme of Delegation within the Constitution be amended to provide for minor amendments of the Street Naming and Numbering Policy being delegated to the appropriate Head of Service in consultation with the Executive Member responsible for Planning Policy.

RESOLVED that the Street Naming and Numbering Policy set out at Annex 1 of the report presented by adopted.

Reasons for decision:
The existing Street Naming and Numbering (SNN) Policy was outdated and required additional operational guidelines to make it more useable by the public in terms of legality and guidance.

Alternative options:
To maintain the existing SNN policy or alter the proposed policy.
 

None.

None.