Ripley Parish Council Office, 4 Rio House, High Street, Ripley, Surrey, GU23 6AE
12th January 2021
To: All Ripley Parish Councillors
You are hereby summoned to attend the meeting of RIPLEY PARISH COUNCIL to be held at The Ripley Parish Council Office on Thursday 18 February 2021 at 1930hrs for the purpose of transacting the following business. Members of the public and press have a right and are cordially invited to be present at the meeting. There will be an opportunity to address the Council under item 3 of the Agenda. In accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, the meeting will be held remotely via the Zoom application. Please contact the Parish Clerk for details of how to join the meeting.
Jim Morris, BSc (Hons), PSLCC Clerk to the Council
AGENDA
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To RECEIVE any apologies for absence from Ripley Parish Council members
2. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
To RECEIVE any disclosure by members of non-pecuniary interests in agenda items To RECEIVE any written requests for new disclosable pecuniary interests dispensations Without a dispensation a member may neither participate in any discussion on the matter nor vote
3. PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To RECEIVE and CONSIDER questions from members of the public
4. MINUTES
To RECEIVE and SIGN as a correct record the Minutes of the Ripley Parish Council meeting held on Thursday 21st January 2021 (Appendix A)
5. MATTERS ARISING
To RECEIVE and CONSIDER a list of the parish council’s current actions and matters arising (Appendix B)
1
6. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
To RECEIVE and CONSIDER a report from the parish council Chairman
7. REPRESENTATIVES’ REPORTS
To RECEIVE and CONSIDER reports from the representatives for the Lovelace Ward of Guildford Borough Council and the Horsleys Division of Surrey County Council
8. CLERK’S REPORT
To RECEIVE and CONSIDER a report from the parish council Clerk (Appendix C)
9. FINANCE
i) To RECEIVE and APPROVE the schedule of accounts received and paid for the period 01/01/21 – 31/01/21 totalling £2,481.33 (Appendix D) ii) To RECEIVE and APPROVE any invoices presented for payment by the Parish Clerk iii) To APPROVE first payment of grant funding to Ripley Village Hall CIO rebuild project
10. CLIMATE ACTION
To RECEIVE and CONSIDER a report on Ripley Parish Council’s climate action strategy (Appendix E)
11. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT
To RECEIVE and CONSIDER Planning & Environment matters: i) Minutes of Planning & Environment Committee meeting held 11.01.2021 (Appendix F) ii) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation on ward boundaries for Guildford (Appendix G) iii) Report on M25 J10 / A3 Wisley Interchange improvement scheme & Ockham Interchange, including Joint Committee response to Ripley Parish Council letter (Appendix H) iv) Planning Application ref 20/P/00232 The Paddocks v) Meeting with SCC Highways vi) Parking on verges adjacent to the High Street
12. LEISURE & FACILITIES
To RECEIVE and CONSIDER Leisure & Facilities matters: i) Ripley Village Hall ii) Nature Reserve – misuse of the site iii) Nature Reserve – scope and remit of the Nature Reserve Working Group iv) Councillor responsibilities – playground, tracks, community amenities (Appendix I) v) Oak processionary moth Statutory Notice under the Official Controls (Plant Health and Genetically Modified Organisms) Regulations 2019 (Appendix J) vi) Management objectives on The Green – chain harrow meadow area
13. COMMUNICATION & LIAISON
To RECEIVE and CONSIDER Communication & Liaison matters: i) Report on recent meetings of the Ripley Business Association ii) Response to Council Meeting Minutes (Appendix K) iii) Ripley & Send Calendar 2022 (Appendix L) iv) Antisocial behaviour in Guildford (Appendix M)
2
14. ITEMS FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA OF A FUTURE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING
To RECEIVE from members any items for inclusion on the Agenda of a future meeting
15. DATE OF THE NEXT PARISH COUNCIL MEETING
To NOTE the date of the next Parish Council Meeting: Thursday 18th March 2021
16. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC & PRESS
To EXCLUDE members of the public & press ahead of discussion at Agenda item 17, in accordance with Ripley Parish Council Standing Order 10.1t
17. PERSONNEL
To RECEIVE and CONSIDER matters relating to council personnel, including: • Remuneration 2021-22 • Pension 2021-22 • Health & safety at work (preferred optician)
3
APPENDIX A
MINUTES of RIPLEY PARISH COUNCIL MEETING held on THURSDAY 21st JANUARY 2021 at 1930HRS via the ZOOM PLATFORM in accordance with THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND POLICE AND CRIME PANELS (CORONAVIRUS) (FLEXIBILITY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY AND POLICE AND CRIME PANEL MEETINGS) (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 2020
Present: Cllr Richard Ayears (Chairman) Cllr Rowland Cornell Cllr Lisanne Mealing Cllr Simon Moxon Cllr Powell-Cullingford Cllr Peter Shoesmith Horsleys Division Cllr Julie Iles Lovelace Ward Cllr Colin Cross Jonathan Wade, Highways England Catherine Jenkins, Balfour Beatty Atkins Howard Williams, Balfour Beatty Atkins Seven members of the public Jim Morris, Clerk of the Council
108/20 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Cllr Vernon Wood.
109/20 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
Cllr Powell-Cullingford disclosed an interest in any Agenda items potentially covering the proposed Garlick’s Arch development. Cllr Powell-Cullingford owned property adjacent to the Garlick’s Arch site.
110/20 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
i) Local residents requested clarification on whether the picnic tables added to The Green would be moved to alternative locations. Concerns were raised over some visitors displaying a disregard for social distancing measures during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown. Speaking on behalf of a number of local residents, it was stressed that the work of local businesses in trying to remain viable was entirely supported and highly commended. Response: Members noted that a large number of positive comments had also been received, and that the siting of the picnic tables would be reviewed at a future meeting.
111/20 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 14th January 2021 were received, confirmed, and signed as a true and correct record by the Chairman.
112/20 MATTERS ARISING (copy attached to record Minutes)
Members received and considered a list of matters arising from the Minutes of recent meetings: Cllr Powell- Cullingford was assessing tree surgery quotes as they were being entered; the council’s precept requirement 671
APPENDIX A
had been entered; and all candidates for the council’s casual vacancy had been contacted. A working party to clear the car park was still to be arranged; and the revision of the council’s Standing Orders was being evaluated by the Clerk. It was RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
113/20 CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Cllr Ayears provided a brief report to the meeting. The five candidates for the council’s casual vacancy were thanked for their interest in the position. Rowland Cornell had been successfully selected by the existing members and would remain a councillor until the election due in May 2023. The unsuccessful candidates were gratefully thanked for taking the time to enter the selection process. It had not been an easy decision due to the high quality of the applicants and it was hoped that interested parties could be found roles within the council’s Committees and Working Groups, and that the future election would be contested. It was RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
114/20 REPRESENTATIVES’ REPORTS
Lovelace Ward Councillor Colin Cross gave a report to the meeting. Cllr Cross welcomed Cllr Cornell to the parish council. A review of Guildford Borough Council’s Local Plan was to be undertaken, with a draft scheduled for early in 2022 and a full review completed before the 2023 scheduled election. The Garlick’s Arch proposal was yet to be resolved, with sticking points over the provision of community facilities. The expected decision from the Secretary of State regarding the M25 J10 / A3 Wisley Interchange Improvement Scheme had been delayed for four months, which would necessarily defer the beginning of the project until after the nesting season. it was doubtful that the Former Wisley Airfield project would begin before 2024, and additional large numbers of HGV movements could be likely if Wisley Golf Club received planning approval for a scheme to remodel the links, which would also entail rerouting the course of sections of the River Wey. It was RESOLVED: That the report be noted. A question was raised over the status of current planning applications while the Local Plan was under review. Cllr Cross noted that the review would likely focus on housing numbers and site allocations.
in accordance with Ripley Parish Council Standing Order 10.1.f, Agenda item 9ii: M25 J10 / A3 Wisley Interchange improvement scheme update was brought forward.
Jonathan Wade (Highways England), Catherine Jenkins (Balfour Beatty Atkins), and Howard Williams (Balfour Beatty Atkins) gave a presentation and report to the meeting. The scheme objectives were to improve journey times, safety, and crossing facilities, whilst minimising impacts on the local road network and supporting projected population and economic growth. The Secretary of State was expected to resolve whether to grant a Development Consent Order in May 2021, following further consultation. If granted, enabling works would begin in June 2021, with full construction beginning in September 2021 and a completion date of February 2024. Significant discussions had been held on the impacts on Ripley village, and a draft Requirement had been resolved between Highways England and Surrey County Council. The B2215 through Ripley could benefit from the installation of gateway features, puffin crossings, speed cushions, and speed tables, although it would be up to the Secretary of State whether to accept, redraft, or forgo any additional Requirement. A site compound was being planned for Nutberry Fruit Farm, with its own entrance from the Ockham interchange roundabout. A great deal of liaison with local landowners and stakeholders had taken place, and, due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, future community communications would likely take place via online platforms. Parish councillors discussed and raised questions over the apparent lack of information on mitigation measures for Newark Lane; measures to ameliorate extra traffic caused by development at Former Wisley Airfield and expansion at RHS Wisley; “sense of place” measures for the village; the provision of south-facing slip roads at Ockham Interchange; the impact the works would have on the local community; potential traffic problems at the planned site compound; and the possibility of the scheme creating local job opportunities. Jonathan Wade indicated that “sense of place” initiatives to improve the gateway entrances to the village would also encourage southbound drivers to use the A3 northbound from RHS Wisley and utilise the roundabout rather than travel along the B2215. Mitigation measures at Newark Lane would be the responsibility of the County Highways Department. Modelling of expected traffic flows would be submitted as part of the Examination process. Ockham Interchange had been removed from the wider area to be
672
APPENDIX A
considered under the scheme by a previous Minister of State at the Department for Transport. Effectively, a ‘red line’ had been drawn around the area to be considered as part of the scheme and further detail could not be provided. Highways England had no objection in principle to the provision of south-facing slip roads at Ockham Interchange, although it was not thought that communities laying to the south of the Ockham Interchange would welcome the addition. Howard Williams answered points raised regarding the site compound. The proximity to an already busy roundabout was acknowledged, and the organisation was used to putting in place traffic management measures. Construction traffic during the duration of the scheme would be instructed to use A and M roads, away from Ripley and surrounding villages. Any job opportunities at the site would be advertised locally. Horsleys Division Cllr Iles discussed the joint response given by Surrey County Council (SCC) and Guildford Borough Council (GBC) to WSP Global’s Ripley South Study. In a joint-stakeholder response, the councils had raised concerns that both the concept of south-facing slip roads at Ockham and the planned north-facing slip roads at Burnt Common were in the danger that neither Highways England nor the Former Wisley Airfield developer Taylor Wimpey would proceed with adequate mitigation schemes. SCC was continuing to have dialogue with both Highways England and Taylor Wimpey, and Cllr Iles suggested that local parish councils should have significant input. It was RESOLVED: That the report be noted. Jonathan Wade, Catherine Jenkins, and Howard Williams were thanked for their attendance, presentation, and the opportunity for a robust Q&A session. A further meeting would be scheduled for summer 2021.
Horsleys Division Councillor Julie Iles provided a report to the meeting. The County had seen some improvement in Covid case numbers since the beginning of January, particularly in Guildford and Mole Valley. A predicted collapse of the healthcare system by 18th January had thankfully not materialised, meaning that a Major Incident had been averted. Headley Court had been dealing with long-Covid recuperation, and a new vaccination centre had opened at G Live. Surrey would have capacity to carry out 38,000 vaccinations per week, rising to 55,000 once national supply chains had been resolved. There was confidence that priority vaccination groups will have had the opportunity to have a vaccine by the target date of 15th February. Cllr Iles had been making the case for vaccination of people involved in education. Having seen the contents of free meal packages, Cllr Iles had been satisfied that the reality was different to that which had been portrayed on social media channels. Mobile testing operations were due to be rolled out. Locally, Cllr Iles’ members’ allocation had been used towards two new trees for the High Street, and there may be funds for new benches. Local planning applications were being assessed at county level, and Cllr Iles would support Ripley’s efforts, if possible, to liaise with the Joint Committee on traffic mitigation measures. The parish council was asked to continue to publicise the Your Fund Surrey scheme, and to keep pressing for Section 106 monies from developers. Recent school place modelling had indicated it to be unlikely that there was a need for Ripley Primary School to reopen in the near future. Members raised questions regarding the replacement of Pigeon House Bridge; and help with funding repairs to the strip car park on The Green was requested, due to recent increases in visitor numbers. To date in 2020- 21, over £33,000 had been spent on improving and maintaining The Green. Cllr Iles had not seen any information that the Pigeon House Bridge project was to be deferred. A request for funding would be forwarded on to an appropriate department at SCC. Match-funded requests would likely be considered favourably. It was RESOLVED: That the report be noted. Members thanked Cllr Iles for attending the meeting.
115/20 FINANCE
Members received and considered matters ongoing under the auspices of parish council finance: i) Schedule of accounts received and paid for the period 01/11/20 – 31/12/20 totalling £519,582.02 (attached to record Minutes) It was RESOLVED: That the schedule of accounts received and paid for the period 01/11/20 to 31/12/20, totalling £519,582.02 be approved. Transactions totalling £490,050 had been internal transfers between accounts. ii) Members received and considered invoices presented by the Clerk, which had been circulated via email ahead of the meeting. It was RESOLVED: That the invoices be approved. iii) Members received and considered a report on recent meetings of the Finance Working Group. Expected expenditure and predicted year-end figures had been discussed, and members had been sanguine regarding the projected outgoings for the rest of the financial year. The budget for 2021-22 had been resolved before Christmas. Tree works were expected, but urgent grant funding had been agreed with Guildford Borough
673
APPENDIX A
Council. The cost of maintaining The Green had been high in recent years, and ideas to increase sponsorship and other income streams had been discussed. It was RESOLVED: That the report be noted. iv) Christmas lights donations. Members of the Finance Working Group had resolved to recommend that any figure over and above what would been needed to cover costs would be earmarked in future budgets solely for use towards providing or improving the display in future. A discussion had been held regarding the council’s approved CFGA project to add extra festoons, and the uncertainty regarding the outcome of the Covid-19 pandemic had raised concerns whether 2021-22 would be the ideal time to action the scheme. It was RESOLVED: That donations over and above that needed to cover costs would be ringfenced in earmarked reserves for future festive lights.
116/20 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT
Members received and considered matters under the auspices of parish council Planning & Environment: i) Minutes of Planning & Environment Committee meetings held 02/11/2020, 23/11/2020 & 14/12/2020 (attached to record Minutes) It was RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the recent meetings be approved. ii) WSP Global Ripley South Study – Stakeholder Engagement. Members were encouraged to review the documents and return comments the following week for collation and entering ahead of the deadline. It was RESOLVED: That the Stakeholder Engagement be noted.
117/20 LEISURE & FACILITIES
Members received and considered matters under the auspices of parish council Leisure & Facilities: i) Ripley Village Hall. Cllr Powell-Cullingford reported that tender documents had been sent to seven potential contractors, five of whom were hoping to enter bids. It was likely that a successful contractor would be chosen by the end of February and that demolition works would begin soon thereafter. A request to use the Hall as a Covid-19 testing centre had been turned down. With regards to the Garlick’s Arch development site, Ripley Village Hall CIO held the position that a new Hall in Ripley would be ideally placed to serve the new community and would help new residents assimilate into the community. The CIO was pursuing a Section 106 agreement and there was concern that the provision of significant community facilities at the Garlick’s Arch site would undermine efforts to secure funding. Cllr Powell-Cullingford sought the council’s consent to draft a letter to such an effect. It was RESOLVED: That the report be noted. The council resolved that a letter be drafted to reflect the position that Ripley Village Hall should be rebuilt as part of any agreement for development at Garlick’s Arch. ii) Tree works at White Hart car park, Burial Ground, and The Green. Two full quotes had been received and a final part of a third quote was due. In the meantime, urgent CFGA funding of 50% up to £10,000 and 20% thereafter had been agreed with GBC. It was RESOLVED: That Cllr Powell-Cullingford appoint an approved contractor once the outstanding quote had been finalised. Any extra funding would be put towards replacing the crab apple and cockspur thorn trees.
118/20 COMMUNICATION & LIAISON
Members received and considered matters under the auspices of parish council Communication & Liaison: i) Correspondence regarding benches on The Green (attached to record Minutes). Members again discussed the picnic benches, and potentially resiting them to alternative locations. Signage reminding visitors of Covid- 19 lockdown rules had resulted in positive effects, but the benches’ unpopularity with some local residents merited their resiting to alternative locations. It was RESOLVED: That the picnic benches be resited in spring 2021, in line with Covid-19 guidelines published at the time. New guidelines were expected toward the end of February 2021. ii) Report on recent meetings of the Ripley Business Association. Cllr Mealing reported that a recent meeting had noted that local businesses were eating into their loans and zero-hours contracted staff had been left without furlough income. A forthcoming meeting would welcome council members. Members discussed the addition of banners and signs being placed around the village after the end of lockdown to encourage local residents and visitors to shop locally. It was RESOLVED: That the report be noted. The Business Association would continue to discuss the possibility of promoting local shopping, eating and drinking. 674 APPENDIX A
iii) Correspondence: Memorial Tree (attached to record Minutes). A request to plant a tree had been received. It was RESOLVED: That, given further information, the offer of a tree, be accepted. A new tree would need to have species agreed and a guard installed. iv) Correspondence regarding overseas study (attached to record Minutes). A letter had been received from a Brazilian student requesting help with overseas study. It was RESOLVED: That the letter be noted but not responded to.
119/20 ITEMS TO NOTE FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA OF A FUTURE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING
Misuse of the Nature Reserve; Climate action, net zero, and local parish councils Climate Group; alterations to the scope of the Nature Reserve Working Group; and Councillor responsibilities were suggested. SSALC Vision Meeting was outstanding from the meeting held in November 2020.
120/20 DATE OF THE NEXT PARISH COUNCIL MEETING
The next meeting of the parish council was scheduled to take place on Thursday 18th February 2021, at the Parish Council Office and/or via the Zoom platform, at 1930hrs.
The meeting closed at 2145hrs Date: Chairman
675 APPENDIX B
MATTERS ARISING from the MINUTES of RIPLEY PARISH COUNCIL MEETING held on THURSDAY 21st JANUARY 2021 at 1930HRS via the ZOOM PLATFORM in accordance with THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND POLICE AND CRIME PANELS (CORONAVIRUS) (FLEXIBILITY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY AND POLICE AND CRIME PANEL MEETINGS) (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 2020
088/20 LEISURE & FACILITIES
ACTION ARISING: Parish Clerk to arrange clean-up working party for the car park. ACTION ARISING: Cllr Powell-Cullingford to assess tree works quotes when received.
099/20 POLICY REVIEW
ACTION ARISING: Parish Clerk to seek clarification on new model Standing Orders.
117/20 LEISURE & FACILITIES
ACTION ARISING: Letter to GBC regarding Garlick’s Arch S106 receipts. Appendix C
Clerk’s Report 18/02/2021
Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC)
GBC’s Communications Team has issued this:
The Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) for England is asking for our residents’ views on an electoral review of our Council. The Commission is the independent body that draws these boundaries. They have decided that the number of councillors in Guildford should be 48, the same as now.
It is reviewing Guildford Borough Council to make sure that each councillor represents the same number of electors, and that ward arrangements help the Council work effectively. It wants to be sure that its proposals reflect community ties and identities. The outcomes of the review will agree new ward boundaries across the council.
Please find attached a press release and posters issued by the LGBC. They would like to hear residents’ views on topics such as: • Shared leisure facilities (for example, across one or more wards) • Issues that neighbouring communities face • Roads, rivers or railways that residents feel create strong boundaries
Please visit https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/24724 to find out more and submit your comments or upload a document with your comments.
People can also give their views by e-mail at [email protected], and by post to: The Review Officer (Guildford) LGBCE PO Box 133 Blyth NE24 9FE
On the page you will find plenty of information to help you make a submission in the 'Related Links' section on the right of the page.
This stage of the consultation closes on Monday 5 April 2021.
Please find contact details for the LGBC here: https://www.lgbce.org.uk/about-us/contact- us
I attended the Teams meeting held on 08.02.2021 regarding proposed boundary changes within the Borough.
Statistically, each of GBC’s 48 members should represent 2,422 electors. The map below is based upon the 2019 electoral figures. There are no boundary changes proposed. Most Wards have the correct number of representatives, but Onslow and Send, coloured pink, technically have too many and Normandy, in green, does not have enough. Appendix C
The five-year forecast for Lovelace takes its electorate from 1,944 to 3,818, no doubt due to the strategic site that is planned at Former Wisley Airfield, so there could be a case for increasing local representation to two Ward Councillors.
The last review was carried out in 1998, and the LGBC is approaching the Review with an open mind. All comments will be taken into account and LGBC expects a greater response once its findings are published.
A draft response is proposed at Agenda item 11ii (Appendix E)
Date: 03/0212021 Ripley Parish Council Page 1
Time: 11 :27 Cashbook 4 Appendix D Unity Current Payments made between 01/01/2021 and 31/01/2021
Nominal Ledger Analysis
Date Efil(ee Name Reference £ Total Arnot £ Creditors £VAT Ale Centre £ Amount Transac;liP□ Details 04/01/2021 Lloyds Bank Commercial Card CD2040 3.00 4043 104 3.00 Card fee 20/01/2021 Jim Morris 2020119 165.00 4280 210 165.00 Locki, 20/01/2021 Matthew Cliff 2020120 20.00 4303 105 20.00 Raise beds 20/01/2021 Univar Consumables Ltd 2020121 22.72 3.79 4150 202 18.93 Paint 20/01/2021 Amazon EU Sari, UK 2020122 9.99 1.66 4150 202 8.33 Paint 20/01/2021 Surrey County Playing Fields 2020124 10.00 4021 102 10.00 2021 subscription 20/01/2021 fresh mail CD2038 122.40 4180 102 122.40 E-Newsletter 20/01/2021 Ap le Distribution Lid C02039 0.79 4175 103 0.79 iCloud 50GB 20/01/2021 Brifl ish Telecom DOST 174.82 29.13 4177 103 145.69 Phone 20/01/2021 Yu Energy Retail Ltd DDYU 60.55 2.88 4173 103 57.67 Electricity 31/01/2021 Jim Morris 2020123 4000 101 January 2021 31/01/2021 Standard life Assurance LTO STDLF 4009 101 Employee contribution - 4002 101 Employer contribution
Total Payments: 2,481.33 0.00 37.46 2,443.87 Appendix E Local councils’ powers to address or reduce climate change: existing powers and future opportunities
As a contribution to NALC’s work on climate change, the following is a brief commentary on the powers which local councils possess to tackle climate change. Its purpose is encourage thinking within our sector: both about what local councils may do to make effective use of existing powers, and also to recommend changes to current laws and policies, for consideration and adoption as NALC policy.
From the list of powers that are available to local councils, in NALC’s publication ‘The Good Councillors Guide’
1) Allotments and markets: [Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908, ss 23, 26 and 42] (Food Act 1984, s. 50) - This allows the promotion of local produce and healthy eating - This can help to reduce food-miles - Allotments powers also enable the provision of communal food-growing sites and initiatives, run by associations and co- operatives. 2) Burials etc: [Open Spaces Act 1906, ss 9 &10; Local Government Act 197, s.214; Parish Councils & Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 s.1] - This can allow practices such as green burials, eco-friendly management etc 3) Commons, ponds, open spaces, recreation etc (Open Spaces Act 1906, s.15; Highways Act 1980, ss 47] - Scope to practise good environmental management, accommodate recycling facilities etc on the council’s land - Scope to plant trees on, and maintain, highway verges 4) Community centres and other public buildings (Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, s.19. (Local Government Act 1972, s. 133) - Scope to embrace/include on-site green energy, energy-conservation, electric car charging-points etc 5) Community energy (s20 of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006)): - Councils can encourage or promote the local production and use of renewable energy, and also energy conservation, subject to the section 137 of the LG Act 1972 annual spending limit - However, restrictions currently on the ability to ‘sell’ the energy directly to local consumers. - Also, the ‘s 137 expenditure limit’ is a severe constraint on making capital investments in energy schemes Appendix E
:
6) Highways and sustainable transport (Highways Act, ss 43, 50, Parish Councils Act 1957, s.1; Local Government Rating Act, 1997, s.25, 28 & 29; Transport Act, 1985, s.106A) - Scope to promote rights of way routes, walking and cycling - Scope to use ‘car park’ powers, to provide useful facilities such as on-site electric vehicle-charging points - Scope to make more use of powers to support community bus services, and to run or support car- sharing 7) Litter and environmental crime ([Litter Act 1983, ss 5.6, Cleaner Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, 2005] - Scope to provide refuse and waste receptacles and publicity, including recycling - Scope to discourage and prosecute littering and dumping - Currently there is no specific power to promote or run waste-recycling or resource re-use activities 8) Neighbourhood planning [Localism Act, 2011; Neighbourhood Planning Act, 2017 and National Planning Policy Framework,) - Scope to include environmentally-friendly planning policies re design, routes, landscaping etc - There is a continuing need to ensure that Neighbourhood Plans have ‘teeth’, and that they can be more than just land-use allocation policies. 9) Newsletters and websites: (Local Government Act 1972, s.142) - Scope to use to promote good environmental practices, resource-sharing etc 10) Community support and engagement (Local Government Act 1972 ss. 111, 140 etc) - Scope to encourage and support volunteers and the wider community with grants, loans, insurance protection, publicity, surveys, good-practice advice etc 11) Tourism Local Government Act, 1972, s.144 - Scope to encourage and promote eco-tourism 12) General powers (Local Government Act 1972, s 137; Localism Act 2011, ss 1–8; ) - Scope to spend money and/or undertake work on a wide range of beneficial activities which are not prescribed in other legislation - However, s 137 annual spending level is limited, and the General Power of Competence is exercisable by relatively few councils. 13) Subsidiary powers (LG Act 1972 s111): - A very useful enabling power, for a council to do anything (that are not constrained by other legislation).which is calculated to facilitate or is conducive or incidental to the discharge of any of its functions. 14) Permitted development rights (Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, part 12): Appendix E
- Councils may erect and operate, without the need to seek planning permission, a wide variety of small buildings, equipment and other structures on their land, for the purposes of any of their functions or public services. This can include a range of small ‘green’ developments
Recommendations for NALC policies and services:
a) As part of its range of ‘good-practice’ publications, NALC is recommended to produce one or a number of Climate Change related material, which includes ‘legal advice’ on the creative use of the powers already available to local councils, as summarised in this document
b) Local councils should be given a direct power to undertake tree planting and other eco-friendly activities on a much wider range of land, beyond just their own recreational spaces and highway verges.
c) The ‘section 137’ expenditure limit on community energy facilities and activities should be removed
d) Local councils should be given the power to promote and operate facilities and services to recycle waste and re-use resources.
e) The role and effectiveness of neighbourhood plans in relation to Climate Change should be protected and given more weight in decision-making.
f) Local councils should be given a power to promote and run facilities for their local community which make effective use of ICT (Information and Communications Technology), such as community broadband systems.
NALC Sept 2020 Appendix F Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H
GUILDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL AND SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL
GUILDFORD JOINT COMMITTEE
Councillor Richard Ayears Chairman Ripley Parish Council Ripley Parish Council Office 4 Rio House High Street Ripley Surrey GU23 6AE
January 21st 2021
Dear Councillor Ayears, Traffic in Ripley Thank you for your letter dated 16 December 2020. I apologise for the delay in responding. We welcome your support for the scheme to provide north-facing slip roads at Burnt Common. These were identified through the plan-making process from 2012 undertaken by Guildford BC (GBC), working with prescribed bodies including Surrey CC (SCC) as the Local Highway Authority and Highways England as the highway authority for strategic roads. The Local Plan’s spatial strategy – including allocations for the former Wisley airfield, at Garlick’s Arch, Burnt Common and in Send – and key infrastructure schemes – including the new north-facing slip roads at Burnt Common – were planned together and are interdependent in various ways. In short, the spatial strategy as proposed is dependent on the key infrastructure schemes as proposed. Technical work undertaken for the plan preparation:
• Demonstrated the case for new north-facing slip roads at Burnt Common to address highway impacts on Ripley High Street and surrounding rural roads of the allocation of the former Wisley airfield. • Did not find a case on such grounds for new south-facing slip roads at the Ockham interchange. We consider that the provision of the new slip roads at Burnt Common, together with the other elements of the transport strategies required by the Local Plan to be delivered by future developments at the former Wisley airfield, Garlick’s Arch and in Send, are capable of addressing development-related traffic impacts in Ripley and in this area. The requirements for mitigation related to the Development Consent Order for Highways England’s M25 Junction 10 scheme remain, at present, under consideration by the Secretary of State and a decision is due by 12 May 2021.
1 Appendix H
We, as the Guildford Joint Committee, will work in support of the delivery of the new slip roads at Burnt Common and other transport strategy requirements, as set out in the adopted Local Plan, in order to protect Ripley and the surrounding areas. With regards to the Taylor Wimpey Stakeholder Engagement event held on 8 January, we understand that this was suggested by Highways England as a way that Taylor Wimpey, as site promoter of the former Wisley airfield site, engage with Statutory and non-Statutory stakeholders to understand local highway and transport issues in the Ripley area and hear their views. To be clear, SCC and GBC did not request that Taylor Wimpey undertake this engagement process. Finally, you request that members of the Parish Council meet with members of the Joint Committee to discuss the significant concerns that you have regarding traffic in Ripley currently and in the near future. Rather than meeting with the Joint Committee are this stage I hope that the information provided in this letter helps to address the concerns raised in your letter and that perhaps exchange of correspondence is more informative at this stage than a meeting with the Joint Committee. I can reassure you that the Joint Committee are kept informed of the issues in this area through its Infrastructure Delivery & Transportation working group, which includes the Divisional members covering Ripley and Burnt Common. I trust that the above information is of use and I can assure you that Officers at SCC and GBC continue to work with HE to deliver the appropriate mitigation for Ripley. Yours sincerely,
Councillor John Rigg Chairman, Guildford Joint Committee cc Cllr Keith Taylor, Vice-chairman Guildford Joint Committee, Divisional member for Shere Cllr Julie Iles, Divisional member for Horsleys Cllr Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Transport Frank Apicella (SCC) Michael Green (SCC) David Stempfer (SCC) Donald Yell (GBC) Gregory Yeoman (committee officer, Joint Committee, [email protected])
2 Appendix I
Cllr Moxon
The Green – Playground
Visit 12/01/2021: No main issues to report but likely that annual inspection will highlight some issues such as wear and tear to equipment e.g. seats on swings and whirl. Some safety surfaces possibly due for attention after next annual inspection. Recommend wooden elements/ equipment be stripped back and re-varnished in spring. Also, jet-wash of equipment would spruce up the area in general. Cllr Ayears is due to patch the surface beneath the seesaw. Bench in playground needs attention.
Sponsorship of dog bag dispensers
In progress
Parish Council managed tracks – maintenance Milk Rd, West End Cottages, Island Cottages, etc.
Visit 12/01/2021: No issues identified at West End Cottages, although ditch could use a clear-out. Recent tree survey has identified some issues with trees adjacent 5 West End Cottages. Nature Reserve Working Group could tackle overgrown vegetation at entrance to site.
Community amenities – benches, bus shelters (renewal, maintenance, sponsorship), grit bins, SCC joint-funded projects
Visit 12/01/2021: Bus shelters at Georgelands and Avonmoor both ‘poor’. 50% funding towards replacing both is available but unlikely to be used until 2022-23. Sponsorship opportunities will be available once shelters are replaced. Jet- wash would spruce up both shelters. Sponsorship opportunities available at shelters at Grandis and High Street, to be actioned once High Street northside shelter is installed. Grandis shelter needs seat rubbed back and re-varnished in spring.
No extra grit needed in bins.
Parish Clerk to liaise with GBC over potential jet washing of items/ equipment. Appendix J Appendix J Appendix J Appendix J Appendix J Appendix J
?nnclbgv I From: kim keenan Subject: Response to Counc Meet ng M nutes - P cn c Tab es Date: 9 February 2021 at 13:43 To: rpc c erk@r p eypar shcounc .gov.uk Cc: Georg na G bbs Anne Turra C arke , Ju e Debney
Dear Jim
Thank you for providing early visibility of the January Minutes (draft). As always with this sorry saga, it forces us to respond in more detail and with some salient points.
We have always been clear that we support local businesses and have a vested interest in their success and we sincerely hope that the new website will bring benefits to all local businesses. However, we must re-iterate that we were totally blindsided by this ‘trial’ and have found ourselves in the very uncomfortable position ever since of being at odds with Parish because of it. We feel that we have been very unfairly treated, a precedent has been set and over time we have increasing doubts as to whether the Picnic Tables should have ever been set up at all.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to find any reference to the ‘trial’ or new Picnic Tables in the Minutes preceding November when the Picnic Tables appeared. This has led to a great sense of nervousness and sadly a loss of trust. We do not want to find ourselves in this position again and so can Parish please provide some assurances that any ‘trial/scheme/project, etc.,” that may impact residents, is discussed publicly at Council Meetings, in advance and before being given the go- ahead. We do understand that residents do not always attend Council Meetings, and so perhaps a little note through the door – or something of that nature would be advisable in the future. Given that this ‘trial’ was always going to impact residents living close by, had all of the local residents been given the opportunity to understand and contribute in the first place – a lot of pain could have been avoided. If we are mistaken regarding the lack of transparency – then please do let us know and we will stand corrected.
We complained when the Picnic Area was first erected and felt extremely un-fairly treated from the outset. Given what Parish/Business Association was trying to achieve, there were closer and more pleasant areas to site the tables and for patrons to use that would not compromise our privacy, sense of security and cause a minimal level of nuisance/disturbance. A site visit then took place and an idea conceived to ‘thin out’ the area. It was very clear to us on 2nd December, as the “thinning out” was attempted – that longer standing residents on the other side of the path put up a vociferous halt to that idea. They won the day and this just compounded our feelings of being treated unfairly and served to confirm to us, that it was precisely for this reason that the tables were placed directly outside our properties in the first place and without prior warning. Usually, forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission and sadly we have been left in no doubt that this was the intention.
When the ‘thinning out’ plan was thwarted, we do appreciate that you fell back into another plan and moved 2 of them over to The Copse, however we have still been left dealing with the same and in fact increasing issues due to the way that patrons of the outlet and the general public are using the Picnic Tables and ‘stretching the rules on social distancing” - this is all taking place during the winter months and as tightening of the rules increased from Tier 2 / Tier 3 and eventually another Lockdown. Given the complaints that we had made, it was inflammatory to also expect us to be COVID marshals – “Should you have any concerns that people are contravening the restrictions imposed through the Covid-19 Tier system then this should be reported to the Police who are the relevant authority to deal with such breaches of rules”. For the Parish to sanction facilities that beg to be used and then pass the buck to residents to report rule breaking to an over stretched Police Force is beyond words. Any other permanent Picnic Table on The Green is well distanced from the Residents – it is well known that not all people follow the rules and this may well be going on in that location (Children’s Play Park) – but they are not in plain sight of residents.
We were surprised to hear and read in the January minutes, that Parish had received a “large number of positive comments”. In addition to raising our initial complaint, the November minutes also reflect that ‘individual councilors had also been approached by residents regarding the benches”. We are yet to speak with any resident of Ripley, let alone residents living close-by who have anything positive to say. It may well be that patrons of the food & beverage outlet(s) Appendix K g g ( ) appreciate new facilities being provided in a Public Space that are not legally permitted on the premises and so it is all a matter of perspective. It is generally accepted that people are 5 times more likely to complain than praise and so would Parish care to provide any insights into the comments (positive & negative) they have received please?
POTENTIAL RE-SITING TO ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS We appreciate that Parish has agreed to re-site the Picnic Tables. As you consider a suitable site for re-location, can you please bear in mind the Chairman’s Report in June 2020 – “Ripley Cricket Club had taken measures to limit the large numbers of people gathering on The Green adjacent to the clubhouse. The Committee of the club had not wanted to be associated with causing unintentional stretching of the rules on social distancing”. Ripley Cricket Club de-commissioned their Picnic Tables, they have remained stacked up and recently been made more secure with chains to stop the anti-social behaviour that was taking place.
CONDITION TO RE-SITING: IN LINE WITH COVID 19 GUIDELINES PUBLISHED AT THE TIME We understand the rules as they apply to us and have really struggled to understand precisely which Government COVID Guidelines / Regulations Parish is following and which one they are referring to as a condition to re-siting. We thought that you may be following “Coronavirus (COVID 19): Safer Public Places – urban centres and green space” – this would seem to be the most applicable to the Parish in terms of its management of The Green.
This guidance talks a lot about risk (as they all do) and how to minimise it – and so it goes without saying that we were very surprised that it took the best part of 8 weeks and then only at a request from Guildford Borough Council before any signage/note was placed on the Picnic Tables, reminding users to observe Social Distancing rules. The question must be asked that if you have gathered evidence that demonstrates the signage has had a ‘positive effect’ then you must have known that rule breaking was a problem going on prior to signage– so can you please explain why measures were not taken sooner or better still from the outset?
It is well known and right that The Green attracts a lot of visitors. It is impossible to know where they come from, but they drive here from somewhere and the Car Parks are full – more so at weekends and when the weather is good. We welcome the fact that there is now a regular Police presence in the Car Parks (Police seen moving people off the Picnic Tables) along with vans showing very clear signage reminding people on The Green what the outside social distancing rules are.
We trust that Parish and/or Business Association conducted a Risk Assessment before placing the new Picnic Tables on The Green. Does Parish or Business Association think that the risks have reduced since November, particularly considering that the new and far more contagious Kent variant was the game changer and the reason why we went into the current lockdown. Additionally, and more recently the SA variant has been found very close to home and people in those areas are being asked to Stay at Home and think twice about going outside.
We have come to realise that the Guidelines as they relate to Pubs / Cafes / Restaurants is more likely to be the one that you are following in relation to the condition you are placing on the potential re-siting. In plain speak – when the food & beverage outlets are able to fully open and welcome customers - inside and out. If we are wrong – then please let us know so that we can be on the same page as you and avoid any further confusion/mis-understandings.
Given Pinnocks location, outside seating and their decision to remain closed during the current lockdown – it is doubtful that they have or could receive any benefit from the new Picnic Tables. Both The Bakery and Nest have remained open for Take Away during this current lockdown. The Bakery has a limited amount of outside seating and has always offered Take- Away. Nest has lost all of its outside seating.
We know that the Government is going to be extremely cautious as they take us out of lockdown and nobody knows if / when rules will lessen or tighten again – it can go either way until the vaccination program has reached a critical mass and vaccinations can manage the variants And Appendix K Appendix L From: Gill Subject: R p ey and Send Ca endar 2022 Date: 3 February 2021 at 13:17 To: c erk@r p eypar shcounc .gov.uk
Good afternoon Jim
The Rotary Club of Ripley and Send are collaborating with Send Help to produce a Ripley and Send Calendar for 2022. All printing costs are kindly being funded by Ewbank's auctioneers.
In the calendar we want to promote community services, societies, clubs, charities and organisations in our villages.
Ripley and Send Rotary Club have been very limited in their fundraising as no events have taken place due to Covid. This calendar is going to be their primary source of fundraising this year. The Santa sleigh run did sadly not happen in 2020 which is a significant loss to their funds.
If would like your charity/organisation included in the calendar, please see the article in the next copy of Ripley and Send Matters due out in March or contact me for further details.
Gill Colbeck President Rotary Club of Ripley & Send Appendix M From: Community Safety
Dear Parish Clerks,
I would be very grateful if you could forward the below message onto your Parish Councillors.
As I’m sure you are aware, the current pandemic has had an impact on the level and type of antisocial behaviour across the Borough. It has also had an understandable effect on the public’s resilience and tolerance of these issues.
As Parish Councillors, you are an important source of reassurance and advice for the public and I therefore thought it may be useful to provide the following information.
Reporting
Members of the public can sometimes be reluctant to report antisocial behaviour, as they don’t always see an immediate response or benefit, however the reporting of antisocial behaviour and in fact any crime, is vital. Reporting makes agencies aware of an issue and not only helps them to respond appropriately and offer support to victims but can assist with gathering vital evidence, which can lead to legal action being taken.
•Please encourage residents to report all antisocial behaviour to Police via 101 (999 in an emergency) or report ASB online. •COVID breaches should be reported to Police, via 101 or report a COVID breach online. •Noise issues should be reported to Guildford Borough Council Environmental Health on 01483 505050 or report a noise nuisance online. •Various other issues can also be reported to Guildford Borough Council, including; graffiti, litter, fly tipping and dog issues. Residents can phone 01483 505050 or report to Guildford Borough Council. •If you are receiving a lot of reports regarding a specific antisocial behaviour issue or area, please contact myself or Councillor McShane to submit a referral to the Guildford JAG (Joint Action Group). •Residents who are experiencing an ongoing antisocial behaviour issue, which continues despite reports to agencies, can apply for a Community Trigger. If the threshold is met, this will activate a multiagency problem solving approach to work towards a resolution.
Support
Antisocial behaviour can have an overwhelming impact on its victims Appendix M and a cumulative effect on communities. The current pandemic and lockdown conditions has, in many cases, intensified this impact and effected the public’s resilience.
•There are various avenues of support for those experiencing antisocial behaviour. •Mediation Surrey provide free community mediation and one to one emotional support for those experiencing antisocial behaviour in their community. •The ASB Victim Support Service provides support for victims of antisocial behaviour - online form or 08 08 16 89 111. •Other useful advice regarding antisocial behaviour is available from the Healthy Surrey and ASB Help websites.
I hope this is useful but please let me know if you would like any further information or have any questions.
Kind regards,
Gill Paddington Policy Officer 01483 444856 www.guildford.gov.uk Strategy and Communications Guildford Borough Council Millmead House Guildford Surrey GU2 4BB
Follow us on Twitter @GuildfordBC
Guildford Borough Council has arrangements for handling sensitive emails. For more information on how you may be affected please go to www.guildford.gov.uk/SecureEmail. If you have received this message in error, please (a) notify the sender immediately, (b) destroy this email and any attachments, and (c) do not use, copy, and/or disclose this email or any attachments to any person. Guildford Borough Council regularly updates virus software to ensure as far as possible that its networks are free of viruses. However, you will need to check this message and any attachments for viruses as Guildford Borough Council can take no responsibility for any computer virus that might be transferred by this email. The contents of this email may not reflect Guildford Borough Council policy. We store and monitor all emails and attachments sent and received by Guildford Borough Council employees in our Cryoserver system for up to 2 years to prevent misuse of the Council's networks.