To hear questions (if any) from councillors of which due notice has been given.
Minutes:
Councillor Tony Rooth asked the Lead Councillor for Regeneration, Councillor John Rigg, the question below. Councillor Rigg’s response to each element of the question is set out in red type below.
“Following the discussion at the North Street presentation for councillors on 14 November 2022, I have now looked again at the consultants’ reports on the proposed North Street development (22/P/01336) and in particular the transport /bus station.
I notice that the latest Motion report filed on 15th November is shown as “gbc corporate highways review” and appears commissioned by “GBC Corporate projects”.
“Corporate” is surely a separate and distinct part of GBC from “Planning”, which acts in a semi judicial capacity required to, inter alia, “approach each application with an open mind, avoid pre-conceived opinions” and “avoid undue contact with interested parties”.
There must be lines drawn, Chinese walls erected between Corporate and Planning within GBC.
Therefore,
(a) Why did “Corporate” involve itself with this Planning application at all?
The GBC Corporate team have provided the Council as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) with relevant information in respect of various matters when requested, based on knowledge of the site. For example, matters where the developer has obligations to the Council under the terms of the Sales and Purchase Agreement, the provision of a refurbished bus interchange, highways alterations, the pedestrianisation of North Street and the provision of new public space between the Friary and Black Sheep Coffee.
The GBC Corporate team is tasked with regeneration and managing the Council’s assets. Progressing the North Street regeneration project involves selling a parcel of GBC owned land representing about 17% of the site.
The negotiation enables the Council to secure benefits from the transaction, consistent with the Council’s ambitions in the Council’s Strategic Framework, 2021 to 2025. The strategic priorities are to bring forward Homes and Jobs. Specifically, this is stated in full at the beginning of every council and committee agenda and includes:
· Revive Guildford town centre to unlock its full potential
· Provide and facilitate housing people can afford
· Create employment opportunities through regeneration
· Support high quality development of strategic sites
· Support our business community and attract new inward investment.
(b) What are the established, documented lines drawn, Chinese walls etc between the various parts of GBC?
The land transaction was managed by the Corporate Programmes team under a designated Head of Service. The LPA has been dealing with the planning application under a separate Head of Service. There is no requirement for a Handling Arrangement in this instance as GBC Corporate is not the applicant.
The LPA receives, scrutinises, and processes the planning application independently. All negotiations between the developer and the LPA have been conducted without members or representatives of the corporate body being present.
(c) Does GBC, “corporate” or otherwise, have interests, financial or otherwise in a favourable (or indeed negative) outcome of this application?
The developer is purchasing the Council’s land for a capital sum and is contracted to refurbish Guildford bus station and undertake the pedestrianisation of North Street. This is subject, amongst other things, to the developer obtaining planning consent.
This financial transaction was considered and approved by the Council’s Executive. Any corporate approval gave no indication or certainty of receiving planning consent.
It should be noted the “ethical wall” or strict separation of “Corporate Projects” and “Development Management” teams at GBC, and the referral of the application to the Planning Committee for determination ensures financial interests do not impact on planning judgement.
See also response to part (b) of the question above.
(d) In particular, I recall GBC sold its land on the site to the applicants and reached agreement with them about aspects of the bus station – again, does GBC have any financial or other interest in a favourable outcome?
See response to part (c) of the question above
(e) Does GBC generally and “Corporate” in particular have “an open mind, without pre-conceived opinions” without “undue contact with interested parties” on this application?
Yes, officers are MRTPI, RICS or otherwise appropriately qualified and experienced and fully understand the importance of an open-minded approach required by law. If there is any evidence to the contrary that can be provided this will be further considered and investigated.
(f) Has GBC “Corporate” overstepped the line, climbed the Chinese wall etc by becoming actively involved in such a large, controversial planning application?
There is no evidence we are aware of to suggest this is the case. If Councillor Rooth has evidence to the contrary, we would be grateful if this could be provided for consideration and investigation.
(g) Has GBC “Corporate” compromised the impartiality of GBC Planning in deciding this application?
We do not believe so and there is no evidence we are aware of to suggest this is the case. If Councillor Rooth has evidence to the contrary, we would be grateful if this could be provided for consideration and investigation.
I am sure we would all appreciate confirmation that GBC is moving appropriately on all tracks.”
Councillor Rooth referred to the detailed written supplementary question that he had submitted to all councillors prior the meeting, and indicated that he did not expect a written response from the Lead Councillor at the meeting.
(Post meeting note: the written response to Councillor Rooth’s supplementary question was circulated to all councillors on 16 December 2022, and is appended to these minutes for information)