In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Susan Parker to propose, and Councillor Joss Bigmore to second, the following motion:
“At the ballot box the community expressed considerable disquiet at the Local Plan outcomes secured by the previous Council.
The High Court has determined that there is a case to be argued for all three applications for Judicial Review of the decision to adopt the Local Plan.
The Council’s own QC has advised that the Full Council is the appropriate decision-making body to determine major decisions in respect of the Local Plan. The decision as to how to respond to the Judicial Reviews is a major decision to be taken in respect of the Local Plan and, to date, no decision has been asked or provided in respect of the Judicial Reviews.
The Council’s Local Plan strategy was developed in tandem with the same QC who is advising the Council on its defence.
A second QC’s opinion will cost between £10,000 and £20,000, and the Council’s likely spend defending against the Judicial Reviews will run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Council may be committing hundreds of thousands of pounds to defending the JRs without the Council having had the ability to agree the strategy.
Furthermore, NPPF requires that a Local Plan Review takes place when there is a major change or event. There are now legally-binding commitments to move to Zero-Carbon emissions by 2050 (just 16 years after the end of the Local Plan period). A consequential London Green Belt Council paper urges councils to protect the Green Belt and greenfield sites to protect the environment and minimize carbon emissions and/or to mitigate local carbon emissions.
Given that the brownfield survey (relied upon by the Local Plan) is not comprehensive, there are both reasons and opportunity for the Council to review its options in terms of maximizing sustainability (possibly including a new Strategic Land Availability Assessment).
The Judicial Review hiatus offers a useful opportunity to reconsider both the site allocations and the Council’s JR strategy.
Any strategic decision regarding the Council’s Judicial Review Strategy is a major decision requiring agreement by the Full Council.
As a result, the Council agrees that, prior to such reconsideration including a second QC’s opinion, it will limit any defence of the approved Local Plan to matters of factual accuracy or clarification and will then come back to Full Council for a further decision, including the ability to communicate to the Court the new Council’s concerns about the perceived excesses in the Local Plan
Minutes:
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Susan Parker proposed, and Councillor Joss Bigmore seconded, the adoption of the following motion:
“At the ballot box the community expressed considerable disquiet at the Local Plan outcomes secured by the previous Council.
The High Court has determined that there is a case to be argued for all three applications for Judicial Review of the decision to adopt the Local Plan.
The Council’s own QC has advised that the Full Council is the appropriate decision-making body to determine major decisions in respect of the Local Plan. The decision as to how to respond to the Judicial Reviews is a major decision to be taken in respect of the Local Plan and, to date, no decision has been asked or provided in respect of the Judicial Reviews.
The Council’s Local Plan strategy was developed in tandem with the same QC who is advising the Council on its defence.
A second QC’s opinion will cost between £10,000 and £20,000, and the Council’s likely spend defending against the Judicial Reviews will run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Council may be committing hundreds of thousands of pounds to defending the JRs without the Council having had the ability to agree the strategy.
Furthermore, NPPF requires that a Local Plan Review takes place when there is a major change or event. There are now legally-binding commitments to move to Zero-Carbon emissions by 2050 (just 16 years after the end of the Local Plan period). A consequential London Green Belt Council paper urges councils to protect the Green Belt and greenfield sites to protect the environment and minimize carbon emissions and/or to mitigate local carbon emissions.
Given that the brownfield survey (relied upon by the Local Plan) is not comprehensive, there are both reasons and opportunity for the Council to review its options in terms of maximizing sustainability (possibly including a new Strategic Land Availability Assessment).
The Judicial Review hiatus offers a useful opportunity to reconsider both the site allocations and the Council’s JR strategy.
Any strategic decision regarding the Council’s Judicial Review Strategy is a major decision requiring agreement by the Full Council.
As a result, the Council agrees that, prior to such reconsideration including a second QC’s opinion, it will limit any defence of the approved Local Plan to matters of factual accuracy or clarification and will then come back to Full Council for a further decision, including the ability to communicate to the Court the new Council’s concerns about the perceived excesses in the Local Plan”.
Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor Susan Parker, as the mover of the original motion, indicated that, with the consent of her seconder and of the meeting, she wished to alter her motion in accordance with the Amendment below
Amendment
(1) Substitute the following in place of the penultimate paragraph of the motion:
“Any strategic decision regarding a change to the Council’s Judicial Review Strategy is a major decision which should be reported to Full Council.”
(2) Substitute the following for the final paragraph of the motion:
“The Council resolves:
(1) To ask the Council’s Executive to request the Council Solicitor to commission a fresh opinion of the Council’s defence and position in the statutory challenges by a different QC to be completed forthwith and prior to the submission of detailed grounds (the next submission to the court), to be shared with the Council’s Executive and to include answers to questions prepared by members of the cross-party Executive.
(2) Where that review discloses errors or weaknesses in the Council’s position, to request that the second QC advise the Executive who will then determine what steps the Council will, if any, take in relation to the statutory challenge – including whether to seek before the court to:
(a) not take an active part in proceedings,
(b) concede particular points, and/or
(c) agree a form of order with other parties to proceedings to present to the court.
(3) To undertake a reconsideration of the brownfield capacity of the urban area, together with an appropriate consultation
(4) Following such reconsideration, to bring this matter back to Full Council, together with advice as to whether and how the Council may communicate its concerns about the perceived excesses in the Local Plan to the court.”
The Council agreed to accept the alteration to the original motion, as proposed in the Amendment above. The motion, as amended, therefore became the substantive motion for debate.
Following the debate on the substantive motion, the Council
RESOLVED: That the following substantive motion be approved:
“At the ballot box the community expressed considerable disquiet at the Local Plan outcomes secured by the previous Council.
The High Court has determined that there is a case to be argued for all three applications for Judicial Review of the decision to adopt the Local Plan.
The Council’s own QC has advised that the Full Council is the appropriate decision-making body to determine major decisions in respect of the Local Plan. The decision as to how to respond to the Judicial Reviews is a major decision to be taken in respect of the Local Plan and, to date, no decision has been asked or provided in respect of the Judicial Reviews.
The Council’s Local Plan strategy was developed in tandem with the same QC who is advising the Council on its defence.
A second QC’s opinion will cost between £10,000 and £20,000, and the Council’s likely spend defending against the Judicial Reviews will run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Council may be committing hundreds of thousands of pounds to defending the JRs without the Council having had the ability to agree the strategy.
Furthermore, NPPF requires that a Local Plan Review takes place when there is a major change or event. There are now legally-binding commitments to move to Zero-Carbon emissions by 2050 (just 16 years after the end of the Local Plan period). A consequential London Green Belt Council paper urges councils to protect the Green Belt and greenfield sites to protect the environment and minimize carbon emissions and/or to mitigate local carbon emissions.
Given that the brownfield survey (relied upon by the Local Plan) is not comprehensive, there are both reasons and opportunity for the Council to review its options in terms of maximizing sustainability (possibly including a new Strategic Land Availability Assessment).
The Judicial Review hiatus offers a useful opportunity to reconsider both the site allocations and the Council’s JR strategy.
Any strategic decision regarding a change to the Council’s Judicial Review Strategy is a major decision which should be reported to Full Council.
The Council resolves:
(1) To ask the Council’s Executive to request the Council Solicitor to commission a fresh opinion of the Council’s defence and position in the statutory challenges by a different QC to be completed forthwith and prior to the submission of detailed grounds (the next submission to the court), to be shared with the Council’s Executive and to include answers to questions prepared by members of the cross-party Executive.
(2) Where that review discloses errors or weaknesses in the Council’s position, to request that the second QC advise the Executive who will then determine what steps the Council will, if any, take in relation to the statutory challenge – including whether to seek before the court to:
(a) not take an active part in proceedings,
(b) concede particular points, and/or
(c) agree a form of order with other parties to proceedings to present to the court.
(3) To undertake a reconsideration of the brownfield capacity of the urban area, together with an appropriate consultation
(4) Following such reconsideration, to bring this matter back to Full Council, together with advice as to whether and how the Council may communicate its concerns about the perceived excesses in the Local Plan to the court.”