Agenda and draft minutes

To take any questions or statements from members of the Public.

There was one statement from a member of the public which was read out by the Democratic Services Officer.

To receive declarations of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or other registrable or non-registrable interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.

Councillor Coley declared a non-pecuniary interest for items 5 and 7 as listed on the agenda in that he had a code of conduct complaint against him.

The Committee is asked to confirm as a true record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on the 19 March 2026 (attached) and to authorise the Chair to sign them.

A suggested amendment to Minute 62a) was proposed and voted on. The Minutes were amended as agreed and signed by the Chair.

Following consideration, it was resolved that:

(1)           Additional wording be added to Minute 62a which read as: ‘The Principal Solicitor also went on to say that the author of the restricted appendix would have stated reasons for why they believed it should be restricted but could not say why the public interest assessment was not included in the report.  Both the Principal Solicitor and the Chair undertook to find out and respond back to the councillor after the meeting.’

a)             A Member raised a point of order under appendix 4.4, paragraph 9, to the Constitution. It related to Item 10 on the agenda – Internal Audit Annual Conclusion and 2025/26 Plan – which had an exempt appendix attached. He stated that the appendix gave no reason for its exemption and did not state that public interest had been considered. He used an example of Strategy and Resources Committee where a paragraph about public interest was included on the agenda.

b)             The Legal Representative agreed that there should be a public interest statement and that it was good practice to also indicate if the exempt information would be released at a later date. The Assistant Director of Corporate Services explained that the report did contain the Local Government Act paragraph to which the exemption related and apologised for the omission of the public interest statement.  The Chair stated that he would withdraw the exempt appendix from the agenda. The Legal Representative stated that if an officer was present that could confirm that the public interest had been considered then the document could still be discussed to which the Assistant Director of Corporate Services reported that there were very few officers in the Council that could make the exempt decision and they were not in attendance.

Following consideration, the Chair resolved:

(1)           To remove the exempt appendix from the agenda and therefore the Committee would not discuss this tonight.

This report provides an overview of the council’s performance at the end of the financial year with respect to its ongoing annual plan 2024/25 actions, key performance indicators, corporate risks, committee risks, and annual governance statement actions.

The Committee received a report that provided an overview of the council’s performance at the end of the financial year with respect to its ongoing annual plan 2024/25 actions, key performance indicators, corporate risks, and annual governance statement actions.

There were a number of detailed member questions about the risk register items to which a response would be sought after the meeting.  The questions can be found in the appendix to these minutes.

The following matters were considered:

a)             Officers at Committee: The Assistant Director for Corporate Services explained that officers present at a committee may not be service experts so councillors’ questions may not receive an answer at committee. He therefore urged councillors where possible to provide questions in advance of the meeting to ensure an answer could be given at the meeting. A Member disagreed and stated that officers should be in attendance to answer questions and wanted assurance that his questions would receive an answer and also wanted those responses to be made public. The Assistant Director for Corporate Services stated that as issues covered the whole council it was not proportionate or reasonable to expect all heads of service to be here to answer questions which may or may not materialise. He also stated that Democratic Services had a good record of capturing questions to be responded to.

b)             Risk DST10 - failing to respond to complaints effectively: A Member pointed out that this was a red risk at 12, and the response was tolerate. The risk had not changed. In the ombudsman report later in the agenda it stated that this council was the second worst, for complaints per 100,000 capita in Surrey. Going forward, the Members stated it would be useful to understand how this will be mitigated given we are second in Surrey for upheld complaints per 100,000 capita.

c)             PCN Response Rates: A Member asked what was being done to prevent the 37% drop in response rates due to staff being deployed to end of year tasks and asked why this was treated as an unexpected reason for slippage instead of a predictable staffing bottleneck.  He asked what cross-training or temporary resourcing measures were planned to prevent this drop in Q4 next year. The Assistant Director for Corporate Services responded that this part of the Council not only deals with penalty charge notice appeals but with a lot of other things such as parking permits and garden waste renewals etcetera which happen at a particular time of the year. So, it's not unexpected. The question to ask is should we resource for that time of the year to increase capacity but with our financial pressures, we chose not to do that. What we do is to prioritise those things which have to happen, like car park renewals. He also pointed out that even at the 10 working days this considerably better than what the statutory requirement was. So, the council were far more than its statutory obligation in terms of still  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

This report provides the annual review of complaints received and decisions made by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) between April 2025 and March 2026 inclusive, including details of two complaints upheld by the LGO. This report also provides an update on data breaches and the way the council handles data complaints as a result of updated legislation.

The Committee received a report that provided the annual review of complaints received and decisions made by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) between April 2025 and March 2026 inclusive, including details of two complaints upheld by the LGO. The report also provided an update on data breaches and the way the council handles data complaints as a result of updated legislation.

The following matters were considered:

a)             Upheld Complaints: A Member had previously mentioned the high number of upheld complaints per 100,000 people in Surrey and whilst it was recognised that the numbers were low he asked if it was known why this council’s score was higher than the other 11 councils in Surrey. Another Member reiterated the same question emphasising the ‘per capita’ and was there systemic weaknesses in stage one and stage two complaints processes failing to resolve resident issues and therefore forcing them to escalate to the LGO. He spoke of the rising numbers over the last few years and asked what concrete service improvement plan has been put in place to reverse this trajectory before the transition to a new unitary authority. The Assistant Director for Corporate Services explained that when you look at the details of those upheld there was no cause for concern or systemic failure.  There had been a query about whether one of them should have been included and the other one was only partly upheld.  The council did very well with stage one and stage two complaints and had a good working relationship with the Ombudsman.

It was stated by a Member that when dealing with such small numbers there needed to be a viability threshold and thought the council number of upheld complaints was so small that they would not cross a viability threshold.

b)             Information Commissioner Office (ICO) Complaints: A Member stated that under the new Data Usage and Access Act the public’s right to go straight to the ICO had been removed making the council legally responsible for handling and resolving date protection complaints internally in the first instance. Given that he asked, if this legal change would place a significant administrative burden on the council and how would the council guarantee a transparent, objective, and unbiased internal investigation process for residents complaining about the council’s own data handling. Also, had the financial and operational impacts of this new internal complaints process been quantified and was there a clear timeline on when these metrics will be reported alongside the standard corporate complaints.

The Assistant Director for Corporate Services directed the committee to section six of the report that dealt with this change in the law.  He also explained that new complaints would go to the Business Support Team, that the complaints policy had been updated and there would still be a stage one and stage two process.  It was also stated that how this was reported into the new council was a conversation still to be had.

Following consideration, it was resolved to (5 for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Annual Governance Statement (“Statement”) is an important document which provides assurance concerning the Council’s governance arrangements, both financial and non-financial. It is prepared on an annual basis for inclusion in the Statement of Accounts.

The Committee received the Annual Governance Statement (“Statement”) as an important document which provided assurance concerning the Council’s governance arrangements, both financial and non-financial. It is prepared on an annual basis for inclusion in the Statement of Accounts.

The following matters were considered:

a)             Seven Best Value Themes: A Member questioned about the Seven Best Value Themes in the appendix to the report.  In Section 2 (Leadership), whilst he had previously raised that there was nothing in the ‘where we can improve’ column he also considered that the items listed in ‘what’s working well’ column was more to do with middle management and not the senior leadership team. In Section 1 (Continuous Improvement) and Section 6 (Service Delivery) he highlighted the slippage in the delivery of the ICT Strategy and that the council seemed not to have the skills to deliver much of the programme and that this should be captured under Section 6 as this affects service delivery.

The Member continued to Section 7 (Partnerships and Community Engagement) and thanked officers for including the Community Governance Review (CGR).  He stated that an item on charter trustees was due to be discussed at full council and that within the report it explained that charter trustees could have precepting powers and raise council tax just as a parish council would have done under CRG. The response to CGR was overwhelming as residents did not want a raise in Council Tax. There had been no consultation on chartered trusts which the member could not accept and asked that it be added to the log as an area for improvement. Also in Section 7 the Member stated that as the council were in litigation with the Rainbow Leisure Centre then there should be an item reflected in the ‘where we can improve’ to say that the council could improve how it works with partners.

Councillor Coley proposed a motion that Section 7 (Partnerships and Community Engagement) include consultation on any precepting powers. This was seconded by Councillor McCormick. The Motion was carried (4 for, 1 against and 1 abstention).

Councillor Coley also proposed a motion that Section 6 (Service Delivery) should include a reference to the slippage of the ICT Strategy.  This was seconded by Councillor Ames. The Motion was carried (3 for, 1 against and 2 abstentions).

b)             Vesting Day: A Member pointed out that vesting day dates in the report were given as 31 March 2027 and 1 April 2027.  This needed to be corrected.

c)             AGS Action Plan: A member highlighted the various dates given and date changes for the appeals related to the Local Plan and queried the RAG status as ‘on track’. The Corporate Governance & Strategy Manager undertook to amend this.

d)             Best Value Theme 3(Governance): A Member asked if there was monthly monitoring to ensure the backlog of 20 overdue audits was being undertaken to ensure these were cleared by vesting day.  The Assistant Director for Corporate Services explained that as one audit could generate 10 or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

In accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to officers, this report sets out urgent decisions taken by officers in consultation with committee Chairs for the period 3 June 2025 to 10 June 2026. This report also includes an Appendix 2, which sets out the process followed by Urgent Decision 158.

The Committee received a report in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to officers, that set out urgent decisions taken by officers in consultation with committee Chairs for the period 3 June 2025 to 10 June 2026. This report also included an Appendix 2, which sets out the process followed by Urgent Decision 158.

The following matters were considered:

a)             Criteria for Urgent Decisions: A Member raised the issue of reasons given for taking an urgent decision which he said were conflicting and were applied incorrectly to urgent decisions 157 and 159. He quoted the two reasons used for taking urgent decisions was not being able to convene a quorate committee or that a decision was needed prior to the next committee meeting and requested clarification. Another Member cited examples where other committees had convened a quorate meeting at short notice. The Democratic Services Officer explained the process for licensing sub-committees in setting meetings and that whilst it may appear to be done quickly, much time went into organising them. The Assistant Director for Corporate Services stated he was unsure If the urgent decisions cited could be changed retrospectively but going forward the reason used could be amended.

b)             Proposals for Scheme of Delegations: Councillor McCormick proposed two new recommendations. 1) that ‘Any urgent decision that commits the Council to a financial liability, capital spend or loss of revenue exceeding £50k must require an extraordinary public or unrestricted committee meeting rather than being signed off via a single officer and chair in private.’ 2) The second recommendation was for mandatory online publishing of urgent decisions and to mandate that all urgent decision forms were redacted only where legally necessary for commercial sensitivity, must be published on the Council's public website within five working days of being signed, eliminating the lag in notifying backbench members and the public.

Several Members spoke against the proposals made and Councillor Coley spoke of the motion put to full Council and the work already being undertaken.  Councillor McCormick withdrew his recommendations.

c)             Process around Urgent Decision 158: A Member asked several questions around the lack of written documentation of the urgent decision either in the form of a published urgent decision form or in the form of internal meeting notes of the Strategic Leadership Team and asked for confirmation that this was the case and if so, was it the way a council should behave. The Assistant Director for Corporate Services declined to answer repeated questions on the basis that the answer had already been given more than once, but did state that the Chief Executive authorised the exemption of Urgent Decision 158 and had agreed that going forward, her approval for exempt papers would be evidenced, although there was no requirement to do so. The Legal Advisor stated that there would not normally be written evidence of a decision for exemption but that in making the decision exempt it would need to fall under the legal categories for exemption and the public  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

(1)           Under Standing Order FCR 9 the Committee made a unanimous decision to continue with the Internal Audit Annual Conclusion report and to carry the two remaining items on the agenda over to the next meeting. These being the External Audit Transparency Report and the Work Programme.

The purpose of this paper is to present the Annual Internal Audit Conclusion for 2025-26 (Appendix 1) in accordance with the requirements of the Global Internal Audit Standards.

The Committee received a report that set out the Council’s approach to improving transparency and lessons learned from prior year external audit findings.

It was noted that the exempt appendix to this report had been withdrawn as agreed earlier in the meeting.

The following matters were considered:

a)             Parks budget and Playgrounds: A Member asked how the council could prove achievement of best value or that children’s play areas were financially stable when playground maintenance could not be separated from the general parks budget. He also asked how it was allowed that high value public/private assets remained uninsured on the building policy. The Assistant Director for Corporate Services explained the auditor process and stated that he had assurance from the Head of Service that the Playground Inspection Maintenance Policy and the Training Policy had been updated and ratified by the Environment Committee on 25 January 2026. He also explained that the Playground Strategy as recommended by Audit would not be progressed due to Local Government Reorganisation as it would not be completed in time available.

Following consideration, it was resolved to (6 for and 1 against):

(1)           Note the report.

This report sets out the Council’s approach to improving transparency and lessons learned from prior year external audit findings.

Under Standing Order FCR 9 this item was carried over to the next meeting.

This report presents the Committee with its rolling annual Work Programme.

Under Standing Order FCR 9 this item was carried over to the next meeting.