To hear questions (if any) from councillors of which due notice has been given.
Minutes:
(1) Councillor Chris Blow asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:
“Following the last election, when the community clearly showed their disquiet at the Local Plan, may I please ask the Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning to explain the decision making process that has taken place so far in determining the response to the Court with regard to the three judicial reviews, given that there has apparently been no formal decision in Full Council or the Executive?”
The Lead Councillor’s written response was as follows:
The current status of the applications for statutory challenge is that the court has granted permission for the claims to be considered at a full hearing.
Following the receipt of the claims the Council sought advice from leading Counsel, and a response was prepared in order to assist the court in its decision as to whether to give leave for the claims to proceed to appeal.
The advice was, and remains, that the plan was lawfully adopted and that there are no grounds that would justify the Council in not defending the claims. Members of the Executive were consulted, and the Council submitted a response to the court.
The advice to the Council is endorsed by the fact that the Secretary of State has confirmed that he considers that the judicial review claims are effectively without merit and, as such, that he will be taking an active role in contesting the proceedings.
The Executive will be provided with further and updated advice (noting the submissions of various parties to proceedings), and will be consulted on the detailed submission prior to it being issued.
Councillor Jan Harwood
Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning
(2) Councillor Ramsey Nagaty asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:
“Could the Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Deliverythrough Planning, please supply the number of homes already built since the start of the [backdated] local plan period, and the number of planning applications already granted, together with the number of consented student units and the consequential impact on the housing number?”
The Lead Councillor’s written response was as follows:
The number of outstanding permissions as at 1 April 2018 is 2,695 dwellings.
The number of student accommodation permissions as at 1 April 2018 is 1,153 bedspaces. These are all located on the University of Surrey campus. A change in planning guidance published after this date now clarifies how student accommodation can be counted towards the housing requirement based on the amount of accommodation it releases in the housing market. This is calculated using the ratio of average number of students living in student only households. For Guildford, this will be calculated as one dwelling being released for every three student accommodation bedspaces. It should be noted that the on-campus student accommodation will not be counted as releasing market housing. Instead this accommodation is and will be catering for the growth in student numbers projected to occur at the University of Surrey. When 2018-19 planning data is published later this year, any newly permitted off campus student accommodation will be counted using this ratio.
It is important to note that there is currently a significant deficit since the start of the plan period (the Council has only completed approximately 60% of the annualised Local Plan housing target of 562 dwellings between 2015 and 2018). Any additional supply that is delivered therefore within the next few years is necessary to addressing this deficit. The Housing Trajectory included within the Local Plan (Appendix 1) indicates that development rates will need to increase significantly if a rolling five-year housing land supply is to be maintained (over 900 dwellings need to be completed in 2021/22, rising to over 1,000 dwellings per annum in 2022/23 – 2023/24).”
Councillor Jan Harwood
Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning
Arising from a supplementary question, the Lead Councillor agreed to circulate to all councillors more up to date figures including clarification of the number of consented student units.
(3) Councillor Angela Gunning asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:
“My question relates to the Guildford Town Centre Master Plan. Our current Corporate Plan [2018-2023] has vague mention under Place-Making of such an aspiration; on page 7 of the Corporate Plan, it talks of ‘implementing a vision’. On page 16 under the Action Plan, there are various dates up to 2023.
All Councillors - newly elected ones in particular - are keen to know when this Master Plan will cease to be work-in-progress and become an adopted reality. At the most recent Place-making and Innovation EAB meeting on 1 July 2019 – the message from councillors at that meeting was that a Town Centre Masterplan is urgently needed.
There have been many versions of this plan over the past 10 years; in fact, there was a fifth draft of a version on the Agenda for the former Customer and Community Scrutiny Committee on 8 September 2015.
My questions are:
1 What progress and activity is being made to bring this plan forward for adoption?
2 Are there any problems causing delay?
3 What is the timetable?”
The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:
1. What progress and activity is being made to bring this plan forward for adoption?
Introduction
There has been a great deal of confusion in relation to the type of document a town centre master plan actually is. A number of ‘master plans’ have been produced in the past but they have not sought to carry any planning weight. The document referred to in this response is assumed to be a development plan document relating to the Guildford town centre. Such a document would need to go through the statutory process required of such documents. This includes the preparation of an evidence base, an issues and options consultation (regulation 18), a regulation 19 consultation on the draft plan and following submission an Examination in Public held by an independent government Inspector.
The Evidence base
Work has commenced on producing an evidence base that would be used to help shape any future documents. Early engagement is underway in relation to seeking a wide variety of views to establish if the vision for the town centre is the correct one. This will involve engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, local amenity groups, town centre businesses and the general public. This initial work is being undertaken on the Council’s behalf by ‘People & Places’ who have extensive experience of conducting research and a proven track-record in evidence based, collaborative working for the revitalisation of town and city centres. Their work is also to include a review of existing material and culminate in a vision for the town centre that is both influenced through, and shared, by our community.
The above work will feed in to and guide the development of an updated Town Centre Regeneration Strategy by the Major Projects Team, which will replace the adopted 2017 strategy. The document will seek to unlock sites for potential sustainable development within the town centre and is anticipated to be consulted on prior to adoption in 2020.
Other evidence base documents/studies likely to be required will include transport and parking assessments, retail needs assessment update, Employment Land needs assessment update, supporting infrastructure requirements (e.g. school, health provision) and its impact on viability. In terms of the Town Centre Views SPD, this work needs to be finalised and adopted.
In addition to this work, Guildford is playing a lead role on work in relation to flood alleviation on the River Wey with other boroughs and the Environment Agency. The impacts of this work are highly significant as many potential redevelopment sites are presently covered by flood zone 3b and considered to be unsuitable for any residential development. If the flood alleviation study is able to significantly reduce this risk then further development opportunities may become available.
Plan making is an iterative process but it is evidence based. Only once the evidence base is significantly progressed could consideration be given to the quantum of development the town centre could sustainably accommodate. This, in turn, will require other parts of the evidence base to be produced.
Towards a DPD
The results of the work referred to above will help inform and determine the need for and the scope of a town centre DPD. The DPD would need to meet the test of soundness required by the plan making system and any allocated sites and proposals will need to be deliverable over the plan period.
2. Are there any problems causing delay?
There is no delay. A plan needs to be evidence based. It is simply not possible to embark upon a DPD without an understanding of the scale of development needed to meet identified needs, an understanding of the constraints within which the plan is being produced and a clear vision for the ‘place’ one is setting out to create.
Work is underway on aspects of the town centre evidence base but the formal process of producing a regulation 18 consultation document is some way off.
The planning policy team are producing part 2 of the Local Plan – the Development Management Policies DPD and numerous Supplementary Planning Documents. Resources would need to be put to the production of a further DPD if and when the evidence base was sufficiently advanced to justify the document.
3. What is the timetable?
Inception meeting end of July 2019
Stakeholder engagement - TBC
Review of Regeneration Strategy 2020
Consideration of the scope and need for a town centre DPD in light of the emerging evidence base – post 2020.”
Councillor Jan Harwood
Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning
Arising from a supplementary question, the Lead Councillor agreed to meet with Councillor Gunning (and circulate a note to all councillors subsequently) to provide clarification as to when a regulation 18 consultation document is likely to be produced and a better indication as to the timetable for consideration of the scope and need for a town centre DPD.
(4) Councillor Christopher Barrass asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:
“The new settlement boundaries for villages, and the new insetting arrangements for villages within the Guildford Local Plan, have led to a surge in planning applications outside the policy sites and areas designated in the Local Plan.
These do not seem to have been anticipated or allowed for by the Council or the Inspector in the Local Plan.
Could the Lead Councillor please let us know:
(a) the total number of dwellings in non-policy areas of the Local Plan currently with planning permission already granted and in the pipeline,
(b) what impact this additional housing has on the Local Plan housing numbers and sites, given that we already have a substantial ‘buffer’ of some 37% of additional housing above need in the Local Plan, and
(c) the total number of consented planning permissions and completions for the Local Plan period, to date?”
The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:
For information, the plan only allocates those larger LAA sites that are considered key to the delivery of our strategy. Many of these smaller LAA sites are identified as early delivery sites that were dependent upon the Local Plan being adopted before they could come forward.
In addition to this, the supply includes a windfall element of 750 dwellings. A windfall site is a site that has not been specifically identified through the plan-making process. The total supply identified in the plan is considered necessary to ensure that the total housing requirement of 10,678 is capable of being delivered across the plan period and in order to demonstrate a robust, rolling five-year land supply from the date of adoption.
In being able to demonstrate a five-year land supply, it is necessary to address the backlog that has accrued since the start of the plan period (the Council has only completed approximately 60% of the annualised Local Plan housing target of 562 dwellings between 2015 and 2018). It should also be understood that circumstances can change and not all sites will come forward in the time frame anticipated. Without a five-year supply of housing, the plan risks becoming out of date which diminishes the Council’s ability to refuse inappropriate non-planned development. So, in conclusion the plan anticipates and requires additional sites that are not specifically allocated in the plan to come forward.”
Councillor Jan Harwood
Lead Councillor for Planning, Planning Policy, and Housing Delivery through Planning
Arising from a supplementary question, the Lead Councillor agreed to provide further clarification and more up to date details of the number of planning applications received and determined and which sites were included in the Local Plan and which were not, and were therefore windfall sites.