Details of any questions from councillors (including a written response to them) will be set out in the Order Paper which will be published on the day of the meeting. As this is an extraordinary meeting, questions must relate only to the business for which the meeting has been convened.
Minutes:
(a) Councillor Joss Bigmoreasked the Deputy Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Regeneration, Councillor Tom Hunt, the following question:
“The Local Plan contains a number of large strategic sites which are yet to deliver homes. The allocation at Blackwell Farm can’t be delivered without the addition of a piece of land owned by GBC. Can the lead councillor please give an update as to the negotiations between the University of Surrey and GBC as regards this ransom strip.”
The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:
“Blackwell Park Limited (BPL), the wholly owned subsidiary of the University of Surrey charged with the development of Blackwell Park, has entered into Heads of Terms for an Option Agreement with the Council to purchase from the Council a small parcel of land necessary for the development. We are confident that the transaction meets our best value requirement and as the Local Planning Authority have reserved all rights and powers to determine or refuse any future planning application.
The Council has commissioned a S123 valuation to confirm that the best value requirement is being met and Legal are finalising documentation for completion.
The Council in its role as Local Planning Authority (LPA) is now working with BPL to establish a Planning Performance Agreement and BPL is committed to lodging a planning application that meets the high expectations that the Guildford community is calling for and deserves.”
As a supplementary question, Councillor Bigmore asked the Lead Councillor to review whether it was appropriate for the matter in question, given the public interest in the site and the potential value to the Council,to be dealt with as an officer delegated decision thus avoiding formal scrutiny by a Committee of the Council. In response, the Lead Councillor stated that the key challenge with this site was that its value was not yet known and that there was an option agreement using the Stokes and Cambridge method which would depend on the value of the sale of the Blackwall Farm site. It would therefore be difficult to determine how it would navigate any governance procedure other than delegated authority. The Lead Councillor indicated that he would discuss this with officers but did undertake to give councillors a briefing on the option agreement once the matter was a little closer to being finalised.
(b) Councillor Catherine Young asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Councillor Fiona White the following question:
“The NPPF at paragraph 61 states the following:
‘To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance. The outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting-point for establishing a housing requirement for the area (see paragraph 67 below). There may be exceptional circumstances, including relating to the particular demographic characteristics of an area which justify an alternative approach to assessing housing need; in which case the alternative approach should also reflect current and future demographic trends and market signals’.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the officer’s report implies that we are likely to be working towards an increased housing figure based on the standard method of 771 houses per annum, versus our current figure of 562.
To me, the NPPF clearly states the standard method is advisory.
Will the Lead Councillor ensure that the significant constraints that did not appear to be given due weight during the previous Local Plan examination be fought for with more vigour? This would include greater protection for our Green Belt, the Surrey Hills National Landscape, our countryside and all our open green spaces.
Additionally, can she also confirm her intention to fully investigate and evidence the challenges that have been made over recent years to the ONS figures, which indicate a significant inflation of migratory student numbers, which clearly indicate our housing need is lower?
Once this evidence is considered, if it points to a significantly lower housing number for Guildford, can she commit to the reinstatement of Green Belt to those villages that were removed from the Green Belt by the Local Plan in 2019?”
The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:
“These questions all relate to work and evidence collecting that will need to take place as part of the update process, should this be agreed by the Council tonight. As part of understanding the timetable and budgetary requirements associated with the update (see Recommendation 2), the Planning Policy team will be considering the breadth of evidence that will be necessary to support a new plan. The updated plan and associated evidence base will be prepared in accordance with the national policy and guidance that is in place at that time.”
(c) Councillor Catherine Young asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Councillor Fiona White the following question:
“There is already established a Planning Policy Board made up of cross-party membership. Would the Lead Councillor for Planning please provide details as to how this group will be involved in the update of the Local Plan, should the recommendation to Full Council be agreed tonight?
Whilst there is understandable reliance on the Planning Policy Board members to keep their respective groups informed, if approved, this is a critical process affecting every aspect of our Borough, our residents, our places, and our environment. Can the Lead Councillor agree to ensure that there are at least formal quarterly updates provided to all Councillors?”
The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:
“I am sure that Councillor Young will remember that there was previously a Local Plan Panel to provide a sounding board in relation to the putting together of the current local plan. Once part 2 of the local plan was complete, that changed to become the Planning Policy Board. In anticipation of the council’s agreement to update the local plan, I am proposing to disband the Planning Policy Board and to revive the Local Plan Panel. Each of the opposition groups on the council will be invited to nominate a member to serve on the panel. It is important that those members discuss the issues raised with their own groups as I want to encourage as much involvement from all parties on this council. If a nominated member can’t attend, I hope that they will send a substitute so that nothing gets missed. I will be chairing the Panel and I have asked Councillors Vanessa King and Dominique Williams to join as well. The Panel will meet as and when necessary. I think that the workload will be fairly light at the beginning but will increase as the update evolves.
I will also try to ensure that all councillors are kept informed on our progress, but I am not willing to commit to providing updates on a specific basis. The process of updating the local plan is not linear and, in fact, can be quite “lumpy”. There will be times when so much detailed work is being done behind the scenes that there is little to report, and I don’t believe that I can commit to the regular updates you have asked for. However, I will commit to share as and when we have something to share, which is the purpose of the Local Plan Panel.”