Policy and Project Advisory Board - Wednesday, 17th September, 2025 7.00 pm - Agenda and draft minutes

The Appointments to be noted below reflect those made prior to 2nd September and the new political balance is under discussion with Group Leaders.  

To note:

i)             the appointment of Cllr Thomas Day as a Member of the Policy and Project Advisory Board in place of Cllr M.D. Smith for the remainder of the 2025/26 Municipal Year. The appointment has been made by the Leader of the Council, in consultation with the Leader of the Conservative Group, in accordance with Standing Orders and arrangements to secure political balance;

ii)            the appointment of Cllr Dhan Sarki as a Member of the Policy and Project Advisory Board in place of Cllr Rhian Jones for the remainder of the 2025/26 Municipal Year. The appointment has been made by the Leader of the Council in accordance with Standing Orders and arrangements to secure political balance;

iii)           the appointments of Cllrs Gaynor Austin and G.B. Lyon as Standing Deputies to the Policy and Project Advisory Board for the remainder of the 2025/26 Municipal Year. These appointments have been made by the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the Conservative Group in accordance with Standing Orders and arrangements to secure political balance.

The Board NOTED

i)             the appointment of Cllr Thomas Day as a member of the Board in place of Cllr M.D. Smith for the remainder of the 2025/26 Municipal Year;

ii)            the appointment of Cllr Dhan Sarki as a member of the Board in place of Cllr Rhian Jones for the remainder of the 2025/26 Municipal Year; and

iii)           the appointments of Cllrs Gaynor Austin and G.B. Lyon as Standing Deputies to the Board for the remainder of the 2025/26 Municipal Year.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 22nd July, 2025 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July, 2025 were agreed as a correct record.

To consider the responses received in respect of the Council’s recent Community Governance Review consultation exercise (report attached).

One or more of Amanda Bancroft, Interim Monitoring Officer, Karen Edwards, Executive Director and Alex Shiell, Service Manager – Policy, Strategy and Transformation will be in attendance at the meeting to provide a short presentation and to guide the discussion.

The Board welcomed Mrs Karen Edwards, Executive Director and Mr Alex Shiell, Service Manager – Policy, Strategy and Transformation, who provided an update on the recent consultation exercise that had been carried out in respect of the Community Governance Review (CGR).

The Board was advised that 412 local residents had provided an individual response to the survey. There was broad support for the view that parish councils or neighbourhood area committees in the Rushmoor area would help to make sure that local communities would have their views heard and be able to influence what happened in the local area. This view was particularly strongly held by Aldershot residents and less so by residents in Farnborough. Respondents expressed a preference for parish councils over neighbourhood area committees but concern was expressed over additional costs/precepts. The most common response in terms of what area a parish should cover was around the Boroughs two towns, Aldershot and Farnborough. Other areas were mentioned also, including North Camp/South Farnborough, Cove, Hawley and Southwood. The majority of residents only wanted this additional layer of local government if there was no increase to council tax bills. The Board was asked to express a view as to whether the Council should proceed to a second round Corporate Governance Review consultation.

In discussing the content of the presentation, the Board raised the following points:

·                    A view was expressed that, if progressing to a second round, residents should be asked what range of activities any parish council should undertake.

·                    It was confirmed that it would be for the new parish council to develop its own objectives – these could not be imposed on them.

·                    Need to make an effort to ensure residents understand how Neighbourhood Area Committees would work so that a reasonable comparison can be made between these and parish councils.

·                    We should give resident indicative figures as to what a parish council might cost.

·                    We need to protect and safeguard the assets we currently have.

·                    We should use plain english, such as ’additional cost to your council tax’ as opposed to ‘precept’.

·                    Can social media be used to get message across?

·                    How do we deal with ‘hard to reach’ groups such as young people, ethnic minorities and digitally excluded?

·                    Significant cost associated with door knock survey – considered elected members would have a role to play in this area.

·                    Could churches and Garrison Radio be good outlets for getting message out?

·                    Considered that a parish council covering the entire Aldershot and Farnborough area would be unusual.

In summarising the Board’s feedback on these matters, the Chairman made the following points:

·                    Support the recommendation to proceed to a second-round Corporate Governance Review consultation

·                    Reiterate that clear, concise and easy to understand information should be provided to residents alongside the consultation to enable them to make an informed decision, such as:

-       a comparison of the differences between parish councils and neighbourhood area committees

-       a demonstration of the cost-benefit of different combinations of precepts, assets and services

·                    Suggest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

To consider the Council’s response to a Government consultation on driverless passenger vehicles (presentation attached, full consultation here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/automated-passenger-services-permitting-scheme)

Rachael Howes, Licensing Officer, will be in attendance at the meeting to provide a short presentation and to guide the discussion.

The Board welcomed Ms Rachael Howes, Licensing Officer, who provided a presentation on the Government’s consultation on driverless passenger vehicles.

The Board was advised that the Government had passed the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, which had set the framework for self-driving vehicles to be used commercially by the late 2020s. The law would allow for licensed operators (companies not individuals) to run automated taxis and private hire services. The Department for Transport was carrying out a consultation that sought views on the proposed automated services to support the deployment of commercial self-driving pilots and the Portfolio Holder had asked the Board to gives its views to be incorporated in the Council’s response. It was proposed that these pilots would  start around spring 2026 with wider deployment from 2027. Local licensing authorities would be responsible for granting consent for taxi/private hire vehicle-like services before the Government, via the DVSA, would issue a permit for an Automated Passenger Service (APS). When deciding whether to give consent, an authority would consider local policy issues, such as local taxi licensing standards and policies, local transport integration and passenger safety and safeguarding expectations.

In discussing the content of the presentation, the Board raised the following points:

·                    Need to be aware of the danger of APS operators working over a wide area – how should the Council support its local businesses?

·                    With pilots not starting until later this year, there was no data at present on accident rates etc.

·                    How would passengers needing physical support be dealt with in this situation?

·                    How would passengers be safeguarded from being followed by unwanted parties?

·                    What would the procedure be if the vehicle was involved in an accident?

·                    Need to make sure fare information is transparent.

·                    With cameras in vehicles, where would the images and data be stored and who would have access to this – a safeguarding/GDPR concern?

·                    In administering APS in future, the Council should seek to do this on a cost-recovery basis.

·                    The view was expressed that being amongst the first to adopt APS in the Borough could bring benefits to the local economy.

In summarising the Board’s feedback on these matters, the Chairman set out the Board’s recommendations to the Portfolio Holder to facilitate the completion of the APS consultation document as follows:

In your view, what information are taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) licensing authorities likely to consider most relevant when determining whether to grant approval or authorisation?

The licensing authority already has stringent policies in place for Taxi/PHV licensing, these should be applied for any operators, drivers / anyone who will be present in the vehicle and vehicles with adaptations where necessary to account for the automation. This will ensure consistency, and fairness of operation with the conventional taxi companies already operating in our Borough. In addition, the Board would want to see:

·                    Information about how the controlling mechanisms are applied to the vehicle (to understand the likelihood of their being any issues)

·                    Information about what level of testing has taken place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To discuss the Policy and Project Advisory Board Work Plan (copy attached).

The Board noted the current Work Plan.

It was agreed that items to be included in the Plan would be discussed at the next Progress Group meeting.