Agenda item

The Council considered a report which outlined the Council’s approach to the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2019 (LPSS) review and potential update process in light of the expert independent legal opinion that had recently been provided by Mary Cook.  The report had concluded that in line with the external advice provided and given the high degree of uncertainty, including in relation to the government’s intended changes to the way in which housing need was to be calculated and to the plan making system as a whole, it was considered prudent to not undertake an early Formal Review of the LPSS but instead carry out the Formal Review towards the end of the statutory 5-year period within which the plan must be formally reviewed. 

 

The report had also confirmed ongoing work in progressing and adopting the emerging Local Plan: Development Management Policies (LPDMP) and progressing a Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).  These documents would play a vital role in securing good quality development within the borough over the plan period. It also noted the ongoing work to support the Shaping Guildford’s Future programme and its evidence base, including for this work to inform the preparation of a formal planning document. 

 

Before proceeding to the debate, the Council

 

RESOLVED: That a recorded vote be taken in respect of each paragraph of the motion.

 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Joss Bigmoreproposed, and the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane, seconded the adoption of the following motion:

 

“(1) That the Council notes the independent expert legal advice of a potential Local Plan Review at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council.

 

(2)     That the Council endorses the approach proposed to not conclude a Formal Review of the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (LPSS) at this stage but instead undertake it towards the end of the statutory five-year period unless circumstances change in such a way that means that undertaking an earlier review would be advantageous to the Council.

 

(3)     That the Executive be updated on the outcomes of the review of the transport evidence base currently underway and any other significant changes in circumstance that may impact on considerations regarding the timing of the Formal Review of the LPSS. 

 

(4)     That priority be given to the production of a Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document alongside the emerging Local Plan: Development Management Policies.

 

Reason:

To update Council on progress on the Council resolution [see minute CO102] which was agreed on 13 April 2021”.

 

Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor Bigmore as the mover of the original motion, indicated that, with the consent of his seconder and of the meeting, he wished to alter his motion as follows:

 

(a)   Substitute “Borough” in place of “Council” at the end of paragraph (2)

(b)   Substitute “Full Council” in place of “Executive” in paragraph (3)

 

The motion, as altered, would read as follows:

 

“(1) That the Council notes the independent expert legal advice of a potential Local Plan Review at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council.

 

(2)     That the Council endorses the approach proposed to not conclude a Formal Review of the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (LPSS) at this stage but instead undertake it towards the end of the statutory five-year period unless circumstances change in such a way that means that undertaking an earlier review would be advantageous to the Borough.

 

(3)     That the Full Council be updated on the outcomes of the review of the transport evidence base currently underway and any other significant changes in circumstance that may impact on considerations regarding the timing of the Formal Review of the LPSS. 

 

(4)     That priority be given to the production of a Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document alongside the emerging Local Plan: Development Management Policies”.

 

The Council agreed to accept the alteration to the original motion, as indicated above. The motion, as altered, therefore became the substantive motion for debate.

 

During the debate, the following points were raised by councillors:

 

·       the adverse impact of the Local Plan on the green belt and villages

·       across the country, councils had been challenging the housing numbers that had been set; powerful analysis had shown that the numbers had been distorted in university towns like Guildford because of incorrect assumptions about students staying after graduation

·       Mark Cook’s advice had provided no coherent analysis just assertion that it was not possible to put the inset villages back in the green belt and that reviewing the housing number would result in a higher number

·       Delaying the review would open Guildford to a much greater risk than the standard method; the standard method could be adjusted as Guildford had exceptional circumstances with 44% of land with AONB, 89% greenbelt, with air quality issues. The University had 40% overseas students which distorted the housing figure as the ONS had confirmed in writing. With the population on the decline, the housing numbers for Guildford were too high and should be adjusted down using local substantiated reasons and constraints.

·       The transport infrastructure had not been forthcoming as hoped in the Local Plan and was questionable at the time in ignoring the impact on the local road network.

·       Despite a climate emergency, strategic sites and infills in the villages and green fields were car-dependent with no measures in place to mitigate the effects of climate change and harm to biodiversity

·       Query whether a review using the standard method would actually result in a higher housing figure than the current Local Plan figure.

·       It was for the Council to decide what were exceptional circumstances and to provide robust evidence in support, and for the inspector to challenge it

·       The impact of the Local Plan had already caused harm to the character and heritage of villages like West Horsley, with no infrastructure being delivered to mitigate that impact, which was why the formal review of the Local Plan could not be delayed.

·       In the absence of an approved town centre master plan policy housebuilding was not happening on brownfield land where it was really needed

·       The uncertainty of government direction on housebuilding cannot be used as a reason for delay in reviewing and updating the Local Plan. The Council needed to be proactive in taking forward the review now.

·       Failure to review the Local Plan now would mean that there would be other mechanisms not addressed in Mary Cook's advice which would lead to potential presumptions in favour of development which the Council would be unable to resist

·       There was no discussion in the report as to how the housing delivery number calculation was going to be prepared

·       The Council needed to be realistic about the chances of success in proceeding with a formal review of the local plan at this stage, given the clear and decisive legal advice given by Mary Cook, in particular that the housing requirement was higher in our administrative area than the current Local Plan requirement, that the exceptional local circumstances did not exist and that any attempt to review the housing requirement figure would result in a higher figure

·       Whilst the legal advice was unpalatable for many councillors, it must be accepted as being impartial

·       Support for the proposed Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document

·       If the Council were to review and update the Local Plan now, there would be a huge risk that even more green belt would be lost.

·       We not only need a review of the Local Plan but also a review of the traffic implications for the borough that are building up week by week month by month decision by decision 

·       The national planning system was not fit for purpose as it delivered housing targets which had very little relation to the facts on the ground or to population needs or to local needs and made no proper provision for infrastructure. The legal advice had confirmed that unless the formula for calculating housing numbers was changed, undertaking a review now would only result in a higher housing target being imposed.  Similarly, that advice had confirmed that greenbelt sites, once removed from the greenbelt, could not be put back unless there were exceptional circumstances which did not exist.

·       There was no evidence that this, or any other, Council could challenge the law in relation to the standard method of assessment especially with regard to the 2021 revision to the NPPF.  All councils were suffering from inadequate infrastructure, pollution, and other failings as housing numbers were imposed by government.

·       The Council must do all it can to protect the green belt and villages against further incursions from future plans and Mary Cook had advised that the Council needed better character studies for the villages and rural areas, and better design guidance.  

·       If the Local Plan was reviewed now rather than in two years’ time the total number of additional homes required might only be in the order of 220 to 440 per annum; there is no insurance in the report that housing numbers were likely to reduce if the plan was reviewed later although there is also a risk that the housing numbers might actually be increased in two years' time resulting in the loss of further greenbelt.

·       An early review of the Local Plan was necessary in order to breathe new life into Guildford town centre.

·       The current Local Plan already had a higher housing number than the standard method would generate

·       Paragraph (2) of the motion, as altered, was vague in terms of how the Council would actually take this forward and there was no clarification as to what circumstances would need to change to enable a review to be triggered

·       Delaying a review of the plan would be unpopular but doing it earlier would be reckless risking a requirement to build more homes not fewer and putting more pressure on Green Belt not less. 

 

Having given careful consideration to the matter, the Council

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)     That the Council notes the independent expert legal advice of a potential Local Plan Review at Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Council.

 

Result of the Recorded Vote:

Paragraph (1) of the motion, as altered, was approved, with thirty-four councillors voting in favour, none voting against, and eight abstentions, as follows:

 

FOR:	AGAINST:	ABSTAIN:
Councillor Tim Anderson Councillor Jon Askew Councillor Joss Bigmore Councillor David Bilbé Councillor Chris Blow The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Dennis Booth Councillor Ruth Brothwell Councillor Colin Cross Councillor Graham Eyre Councillor Andrew Gomm Councillor Angela Goodwin Councillor David Goodwin Councillor Gillian Harwood Councillor Jan Harwood Councillor Tom Hunt Councillor Nigel Manning Councillor Ted Mayne Councillor Julia McShane Councillor Bob McShee Councillor Masuk Miah Councillor George Potter Councillor Jo Randall Councillor John Redpath Councillor Maddy Redpath Councillor John Rigg Councillor Tony Rooth Councillor Will Salmon Councillor Deborah Seabrook Councillor Pauline Searle Councillor Paul Spooner Councillor James Steel Councillor James Walsh Councillor Fiona White Councillor Keith Witham		Councillor Paul Abbey Councillor Guida Esteves Councillor Angela Gunning Councillor Diana Jones The Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley Councillor Ramsey Nagaty Councillor Susan Parker Councillor Catherine Young

 

(2)        That the Council endorses the approach proposed to not conclude a Formal Review of the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (LPSS) at this stage but instead undertake it towards the end of the statutory five-year period unless circumstances change in such a way that means that undertaking an earlier review would be advantageous to the Borough.

 

Result of the Recorded Vote:

Paragraph (2) of the motion, as altered, was approved, with twenty-three councillors voting in favour, fourteen voting against, and five abstentions, as follows:

 

FOR:	AGAINST:	ABSTAIN:
Councillor Jon Askew Councillor Joss Bigmore Councillor Chris Blow Councillor Ruth Brothwell Councillor Angela Goodwin Councillor David Goodwin Councillor Gillian Harwood Councillor Tom Hunt Councillor Diana Jones Councillor Ted Mayne Councillor Julia McShane Councillor Bob McShee Councillor Masuk Miah Councillor George Potter Councillor Maddy Redpath Councillor John Rigg Councillor Tony Rooth Councillor Will Salmon Councillor Deborah Seabrook Councillor Pauline Searle Councillor James Steel Councillor James Walsh Councillor Fiona White	Councillor Tim Anderson Councillor David Bilbé Councillor Colin Cross Councillor Guida Esteves Councillor Graham Eyre Councillor Angela Gunning Councillor Jan Harwood Councillor Nigel Manning Councillor Ramsey Nagaty Councillor Susan Parker Councillor John Redpath Councillor Paul Spooner Councillor Keith Witham Councillor Catherine Young	Councillor Paul Abbey The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Dennis Booth Councillor Andrew Gomm The Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley Councillor Jo Randall

 

(3)        That the Full Council be updated on the outcomes of the review of the transport evidence base currently underway and any other significant changes in circumstance that may impact on considerations regarding the timing of the Formal Review of the LPSS. 

 

Result of the Recorded Vote:

Paragraph (3) of the motion, as altered, was approved, with forty councillors voting in favour, none voting against, and two abstentions, as follows:

 

FOR:	AGAINST:	ABSTAIN:
Councillor Tim Anderson Councillor Jon Askew Councillor Joss Bigmore Councillor David Bilbé Councillor Chris Blow The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Dennis Booth Councillor Ruth Brothwell Councillor Colin Cross Councillor Guida Esteves Councillor Graham Eyre Councillor Andrew Gomm Councillor Angela Goodwin Councillor David Goodwin Councillor Angela Gunning Councillor Gillian Harwood Councillor Jan Harwood Councillor Tom Hunt Councillor Diana Jones Councillor Nigel Manning Councillor Ted Mayne Councillor Julia McShane Councillor Bob McShee Councillor Masuk Miah Councillor Ramsey Nagaty Councillor Susan Parker Councillor George Potter Councillor Jo Randall Councillor John Redpath Councillor Maddy Redpath Councillor John Rigg Councillor Tony Rooth Councillor Will Salmon Councillor Deborah Seabrook Councillor Pauline Searle Councillor Paul Spooner Councillor James Steel Councillor James Walsh Councillor Fiona White Councillor Keith Witham Councillor Catherine Young		Councillor Paul Abbey The Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley

 

(4)        That priority be given to the production of a Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document alongside the emerging Local Plan: Development Management Policies”.

 

Result of the Recorded Vote:

Paragraph (4) of the motion, as altered, was approved, with thirty-two councillors voting in favour, eight voting against, and two abstentions, as follows:

 

FOR:	AGAINST:	ABSTAIN:
Councillor Tim Anderson Councillor Jon Askew Councillor Joss Bigmore Councillor Chris Blow The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Dennis Booth Councillor Ruth Brothwell Councillor Colin Cross Councillor Guida Esteves Councillor Angela Goodwin Councillor David Goodwin Councillor Angela Gunning Councillor Gillian Harwood Councillor Tom Hunt Councillor Diana Jones Councillor Ted Mayne Councillor Julia McShane Councillor Bob McShee Councillor Masuk Miah Councillor Ramsey Nagaty Councillor Susan Parker Councillor George Potter Councillor John Redpath Councillor Maddy Redpath Councillor John Rigg Councillor Tony Rooth Councillor Will Salmon Councillor Deborah Seabrook Councillor Pauline Searle Councillor James Steel Councillor James Walsh Councillor Fiona White Councillor Catherine Young	Councillor David Bilbé Councillor Graham Eyre Councillor Andrew Gomm Councillor Jan Harwood Councillor Nigel Manning Councillor Jo Randall Councillor Paul Spooner Councillor Keith Witham	Councillor Paul Abbey The Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley