To hear questions from councillors of which due notice has been given.
Minutes:
(a) Councillor Ramsey Nagaty asked the Lead Councillor for Finance and Planning Policy, Councillor Joss Bigmore, the following question:
· “Proposed changes to the Planning System were recently announced by the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP.
· There is a consultation on changes to the NPPF.
· GBC has declared a Climate Change emergency.
· The ONS have confirmed that the housing need in the GBC Local Plan is greatly exaggerated.
In view of the above, can the Lead Councillor for Planning Policy confirm that all necessary evidence (not merely infrastructure, economy, incorporation of the TCMP) is being gathered, specifically including a review of the Green Belt and Countryside study and an updated Brownfield Register?”
The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:
“The Council will have regard to all relevant factors when undertaking the Local Plan review in the context of National guidance on the matter. To support this, we will continue with preparatory work including gathering a proportionate and relevant evidence base to understand any changed circumstances affecting the borough.
At this stage, we are not of the view that circumstances have changed in such a way that means that undertaking an earlier review of the Local Plan would be advantageous to the borough and officers continue to work toward concluding a formal review towards the end of the statutory five-year period (i.e. by early next year) in line with the Council resolution in April 2022 (CO113).
Work will continue to be undertaken to update the relevant parts of the evidence base and this new evidence will be used to help inform the review.
A significantly greater evidence base would be required to support any updated (or new) Local Plan that is necessary following formal review. It would be premature to commission much of this work now prior to the outcome of a review, before a formal plan-making process is underway, and considering the significant uncertainty in relation to the national planning reform process and the potentially changed legal and national policy context for plan-making. Thus, following the review, an outline will be presented in terms of the extent of evidence base necessary and resources required to support a new plan-making process, and this will include consideration regarding whether our Green Belt and Countryside study remains fit for purpose.
This approach will enable us to respond flexibly to changing circumstances and avoids the risk of undertaking abortive work. That said, we are exploring if any evidence that is unlikely to become outdated can be produced jointly with Waverley Borough Council who have now carried out a review and decided to embark upon updating their evidence base.
Nevertheless, excellent progress is being made in the meantime with work toward adoption of our Local Plan Development Management Policies – I remain hopeful that we will be in a position to table the Plan before Council to consider for adoption during March following the Inspector’s consultation on his proposed main modifications that ended last week.
I am also pleased to report that in line with Council’s resolution in April of last year that ‘priority be given to the Production of a Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document’ a draft of the SPD was presented to our cross-party Local Plan panel this week. I hope that we will be in a position to consult on the document shortly.
Furthermore, we believe that the appropriate development of brownfield sites is a key means to achieve sustainable development and regeneration in our borough. To enable this, in November of last year, we published an update to our Brownfield Land Register which provides consistent information on brownfield sites that we consider to be appropriate for residential development. We will continue to keep this register current and plan on reviewing and updating it again before the end of this year”.
(b) Councillor Maddy Redpath asked the Leader of the Council, and Lead Councillor for Housing and Community, Councillor Julia McShane, the following question:
“The refusal at Planning Committee of the North Street scheme demonstrated a clear disconnect between the priorities of the Executive and the Planning Committee. This was especially apparent between members of the Liberal Democrat Group.
The Housing Service under the stewardship of Cllr McShane is driving a scheme on Guildford Park Road which has a 9-storey element on land that is significantly higher than the North Street site. I am concerned that this may raise objection similar to those regarding height and massing on the North Street scheme especially given the proximity to the Cathedral.
Can the Lead Councillor for Housing and Community please confirm that there are no ‘in principle’ objections to the parameters of this scheme from her group, and especially from the ward members of Onslow, and Friary and St Nicolas. The Council has already spent around £7mn on this scheme over the past decade and is yet to submit a Planning Application, this Council can't afford any more unnecessary surprises, and our residents can't suffer from more delays to Housing and Regeneration”.
The Leader’s response was as follows:
“The development of the Guildford Park Road site is a priority for this administration and the entire Liberal Democrat group, as we believe it represents a fantastic opportunity for high quality, sustainable, affordable housing in a central location which is adjacent to existing transport infrastructure. The Liberal Democrat group remain committed to our manifesto promise to provide much needed affordable housing, because our borough desperately needs it and without it, we will see our communities diminished as young people and those on low incomes are priced out of the area.
While there have been discussions within the Liberal Democrat group about the principles underlying the Guildford Park Road development, these discussions have been held strictly on the basis that nothing said would be binding on Planning Committee members or fetter the independence of their decision making in any way. Planning Committee members must approach any application with an open mind and avoiding preconceived opinions in order to determine the application on its own merits.
The evolving scheme for the Guildford Park Road site is being developed with consideration of the impact of the scheme both on the local community and the wider environment. The initial proposals having full regard to Planning policy and good design practice have been reviewed and refined to reflect the contributions and feedback from a range of stakeholders. We anticipate that as we continue to move forward with the scheme that there may be future revisions to the design, but it must be noted that the current proposal maintains important views across the town to the Cathedral. This development unlike other developments will provide at least 40% of the homes as social housing and with the money already invested having provided site access and put in place much needed infrastructure.
As a member of the Planning Committee, Cllr Redpath will no doubt remember her Probity in Planning Training and particularly the part where councillors who are members of the committee must not make up their minds on how to vote before formally considering the application, listening to the officer presentation, any representations and the full debate.
As she attended the meeting when the North Street scheme was considered, she will also recall that in her introduction of the application, the Chairman of the Planning Committee read out a prepared statement making it clear that GBC have contracted for the sale of land it owns within the site but that the existence of the contract was not a material planning consideration in respect of determining the application. Therefore, it should be very clear to everyone that members of the Planning Committee are not bound by the priorities of the Executive, and they should not be taking the Executive’s views into account when making a decision relating to land in which the Council has an interest.
For that reason, no pressure or influence was put by the leadership of the Liberal Democrat group on members of the Planning Committee to vote in a certain way. Cllr Redpath comments that the outcome of the Planning Committee demonstrated a clear disconnect between the priorities of the Executive and the Planning Committee. I thank her for pointing this out as there should, correctly, be a disconnect between Executive and Planning Committee”.
Councillor Redpath asked the following by way of a supplementary question:
(i) Whether there were any in-principle objections to the parameters of the Guildford Park Road scheme from her group, particularly from those representing Onslow and Friary & St Nicolas wards?
(ii) Whether the Leader was aware that Councillor Redpath was absent from the Planning Committee meeting on 11 January 2023 at which the North Street scheme was considered?
(iii) How Councillor McShane, as the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group would ensure that the disconnect between her group’s Executive members and Planning Committee members in respect of the North Street scheme would not be repeated the Guildford Park Road scheme was considered by the Planning Committee?
(iv) Whether the Leader could confirm what the height difference was between the highest building within the North Street scheme and the highest building within the Guildford Park Road scheme?
In response to (i), the Leader confirmed that she had answered the original question but clarified that there were no in-principle objections to the development, although the scheme was still being progressed and no planning application had been submitted.
In response to (ii), the Leader apologised for erroneously stating that Councillor Redpath had been present at the Planning Committee meeting on 11 January.
In response to (iii), the Leader reiterated that there was supposed to be a disconnect between what Executive members want or would like to see and Planning Committee members
In response to (iv), the Leader stated that a planning application had not yet been submitted for the Guildford Park Road scheme. The tallest building proposed in the planning application for the North Street scheme was 13 storeys, and that currently the tallest building envisaged for the Guildford Park Road was nine storeys, although that could change when the planning application was submitted.
In response to a further question which sought confirmation as to whether the planning application for Guildford Park Road would be submitted and determined this year, the Leader confirmed that the scheme was being developed, but that there was no certainty about anything.
In response to a further question which sought confirmation as to the reasons why this administration chose to redesign the Guildford Park Road scheme which included a new multi storey car park on land which could otherwise have been used for affordable housing, the Leader confirmed that the reason was that parking was not needed but more affordable housing was required on what was a brownfield site in the Council’s ownership.
In response to a further question as to why the emerging Development Management Policies did not include a height policy for the Town Centre, it was pointed out that, due to the varied topography of the town centre, the Guildford Town Centre Views Supplementary Planning Document provided the necessary clarity on this issue.
(c) Councillor Tony Rooth asked the Lead Councillor for Regeneration, Councillor John Rigg, the question set out below. (Councillor Rigg’s response to each element of the question is set out in red type below.)
“Everyone should recognise Councillor Rigg’s experience of dealing with large scale projects and major developers, including many years as a senior director with Savills. He has put in tremendous time and effort towards promoting the proposed planning application for North Street development put forward by St Edward, a joint venture between the developers, Berkeley Homes and M&G, who are represented by Savills.
May I please ask the Lead Councillor for Regeneration the following questions in relation to theNorth Street planning application:
(1) How many meetings /discussions have taken place between GBC Corporate team (headed by yourself and Director Dawn Hudd) with the developers and Savills in respect of the proposed development?
I do not believe there were any meetings with Dawn Hudd, the developers and Savills present. There have been no discussions as far as I'm aware between myself and Savills or Dawn Hudd and Savills on North Street. Details of other meetings held with the developer and advisors have already been provided to Cllr Rooth.
(2) How many meetings / discussions have taken place between the GBC Corporate team and GBC Planning in respect of the developer’s planning application and the officer’s report to the Planning Committee?
I have had no meetings with GBC Planning on North Street. I did attend with others including GBC Planning a meeting with the Design Panel South East. The Council Officer Corporate Team has had 2 or 3 informal meetings to provide general information about the development site. This was mainly general background information to help put matters into context. Equally we have both had occasional calls seeking information as any council member or the public may do.
(3) Could he please disclose detailsof presentation, minutes/notes, both formal and informal, in respect of such meetings / discussions?
Minutes available have already been provided to Cllr Rooth.
For myself as a regular bus user, may I also ask him the following questions in respect of the bus access and egress proposed bus interchange (which have been strongly objected to by Surrey County Council Transport and Highways, major bus operators and bus users’ representative):
(4) The same questions as in questions 1, 2 and 3 above to also include transport, highways and architectural advisers.
Details of meetings with the Developer and their advisers have already been provided to Cllr Rooth.
(5) Could he please also disclose the advice requested and provided in relation to continuance of the present bus access alongside the Friary Centre as layout guidance including the Bus and Coach Station Design and Operation?
Copies of all reports and advice in respect of all aspects of the bus station are publicly available on the Guildford Borough Council planning Portal.
(6) Could he please also disclose the advice that was requested and provided in relation to the possible relationship on North Street between buses and pedestrians / cyclists and other pavement users which have been satisfactorily introduced in several towns and cities?
Copies of all reports and advice in respect of all aspects of the bus station are publicly available on the Guildford Borough Council planning Portal.
(7) Could the Lead Councillor confirm that discussing the bus station appearance, facilities etc. before the issue of access/egress to the bus station itself was resolved, was raised by myself and Paul Millin of SCC Highways and described as “being the cart before the horse” at meetings of the Bus Station Review group in November /December 2021 and in subsequent email exchanges, and could those emails be disclosed?
I do not recollect that specific phrase. Perhaps Cllr Rooth can provide the emails he refers to. The redesign of the North in and North out arrangements from Leapale Road were, of course, considered in great detail over two years eventually by three firms of professional transportation consultants and found to be acceptable contrary to the Surrey County Council and bus companies’ objections which were not evidence based. Equally the capacity of the bus station following redesign was shown to be more than adequate with further expansion capacity available and that maintaining the southern entrance for buses via the gyratory and North Street was not in the interests of health and safety, including accidents and pollution and was actively against the interests of placemaking, the creation of a pocket park, pedestrianisation and community environmental and other wins.
(8) Finally, could the Lead Councillor please confirm the cost to date expended in relation to work on the proposed refurbishment of the bus station, excluding the access/egress issue, both in terms of time and money?
Scott Brownrigg were appointed to advise the Council on the refurbishment of the bus Station. Their fee was £22,750.00 plus VAT. They were on a set fee, so time was not recorded. We have no access to the developer’s additional cost information coordinating the Scott Brownrigg designs into the bigger scheme and the supporting detailed technical transportation studies or supporting film evidence of underuse of the current bus station.
My questions relate to the access and egress to the proposed bus interchange (and the projected effects on size, capacity and layout of the proposed bus interchange and bus services generally, bus routes and bus times etc.) rather than the facilities and design of the bus station itself which clearly needs total refurbishment.”
It was noted that Councillor Rooth had circulated an email prior to the meeting to all councillors which contained a list of supplementary questions arising from the response of the Lead Councillor for Regeneration. The Lead Councillor indicated that he would respond to the questions in due course.