Agenda item

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Susan Parker to propose, and Councillor Ramsey Nagaty to second, the following motion:

“This Council has recognised that there is a climate change crisis and has agreed that actions should be taken in order to move to a zero-carbon footprint as soon as possible.

Other councils have similarly recognised an environmental responsibility. In the cases of other councils this recognition has included a moratorium on building on green fields, such as Arun Council.

This does not mean a moratorium on all parts of the local plan, just site allocations on greenfield sites.

Guildford’s Local Plan has a target that will increase the number of homes in the borough by approximately 25%. That plan has inherent oversupply built into the model (a minimum of 14,600 to meet a target need of 10,000; with no information yet provided on the planning permissions and completions already meeting that target need). The plan proposes to site approximately 70% of new homes on green fields and it should be noted that this too is a minimum; planning applications decided since the plan’s adoption have been subject to officer advice that all sites included in the plan cannot be disputed and can be uplifted by 25% or more. 

Guildford Borough Council has not yet prepared an updated brownfield review, as agreed by this Council in July, which would have allowed us to meet our housing target in the urban area more sustainably. The Climate Change working group under the last council agreed that we should improve or enhance our environmental standards compared to Government minimum standards, but no Supplementary Planning Documents have yet been discussed to implement this agreed position. Our new housing will make the carbon crisis much worse.

Our high housing numbers are likely to exacerbate severe water stress as part of the Thames catchment area.   Our borough is also subject to air quality constraints.  Air quality across Guildford borough is poor, and it is likely that more Air Quality Management Areas will be designated across the borough in the shorter term.  All car-based unsustainable housing will increase the impact on our poor air quality and will encourage the use of fossil fuels to an unsustainable extent.

Housing on green fields will increase car use.  There is no transport option which does not involve the increased use of cars for all the green field sites in the borough.   We do not have a well-developed public transport network which is carbon neutral, and so heavy car use, usually in slow moving congested traffic, is likely to arise associated with all new greenfield development in and around our borough.  As a result, housing on green fields will worsen air quality, make it exponentially harder to achieve a zero-carbon footprint, and increase water stress.  We need to reduce our carbon footprint. Housing on green fields will worsen our carbon footprint and make it almost impossible to reduce it. 

The assessment of housing need and the allocation of housing sites has not been conducted with the intention of reducing our carbon footprint and therefore these need to be fundamentally reviewed in the light of a legal responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint. This was not considered by the Inspector as part of the Examination in Public, and therefore is a new and urgent obligation.

Independence is critical.  Nominations for the consultants to be appointed should be made by Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England. It is not appropriate for the planning committee or department to appoint such consultants – we cannot have the Planning team marking its own homework yet again.

This is a matter of overriding concern for the borough as a whole, and this Council has already expressed its concern about climate change in motions both in this administration and in the last administration. It is now time to take appropriate and urgent action.

This Council therefore resolves:

(1)        That an environmental audit of the impact of excessive building on green fields be conducted by independent environmental experts.

(2)        That the objectives of that environmental audit should be to consider our carbon footprint in the context of new housing, and to determine the impact of reviewing site allocations to reallocate to the urban area.

(3)        That nominations for the consultants to be appointed should be made by Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England following an all-party committee to draft the remit.

(4)        That the precise terms of that environmental audit be subject to approval by full Council.

(5)        That pending that environmental audit, all planning permissions for developments on green fields or undeveloped land be subject to a temporary moratorium and the Secretary of State will be asked to ratify the results of any environmental audit.”

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Councillor Susan Parker proposed, and Councillor Ruth Brothwell seconded, the adoption of the following motion:

“This Council has recognised that there is a climate change crisis and has agreed that actions should be taken in order to move to a zero-carbon footprint as soon as possible.

Other councils have similarly recognised an environmental responsibility. In the cases of other councils this recognition has included a moratorium on building on green fields, such as Arun Council.

This does not mean a moratorium on all parts of the local plan, just site allocations on greenfield sites.

Guildford’s Local Plan has a target that will increase the number of homes in the borough by approximately 25%. That plan has inherent oversupply built into the model (a minimum of 14,600 to meet a target need of 10,000; with no information yet provided on the planning permissions and completions already meeting that target need). The plan proposes to site approximately 70% of new homes on green fields and it should be noted that this too is a minimum; planning applications decided since the plan’s adoption have been subject to officer advice that all sites included in the plan cannot be disputed and can be uplifted by 25% or more.

Guildford Borough Council has not yet prepared an updated brownfield review, as agreed by this Council in July, which would have allowed us to meet our housing target in the urban area more sustainably. The Climate Change working group under the last council agreed that we should improve or enhance our environmental standards compared to Government minimum standards, but no Supplementary Planning Documents have yet been discussed to implement this agreed position. Our new housing will make the carbon crisis much worse.

Our high housing numbers are likely to exacerbate severe water stress as part of the Thames catchment area. Our borough is also subject to air quality constraints. Air quality across Guildford borough is poor, and it is likely that more Air Quality Management Areas will be designated across the borough in the shorter term. All car-based unsustainable housing will increase the impact on our poor air quality and will encourage the use of fossil fuels to an unsustainable extent.

Housing on green fields will increase car use. There is no transport option which does not involve the increased use of cars for all the green field sites in the borough. We do not have a well-developed public transport network which is carbon neutral, and so heavy car use, usually in slow moving congested traffic, is likely to arise associated with all new greenfield development in and around our borough. As a result, housing on green fields will worsen air quality, make it exponentially harder to achieve a zero-carbon footprint, and increase water stress. We need to reduce our carbon footprint. Housing on green fields will worsen our carbon footprint and make it almost impossible to reduce it.

The assessment of housing need and the allocation of housing sites has not been conducted with the intention of reducing our carbon footprint and therefore these need to be fundamentally reviewed in the light of a legal responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint. This was not considered by the Inspector as part of the Examination in Public, and therefore is a new and urgent obligation.

Independence is critical. Nominations for the consultants to be appointed should be made by Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England. It is not appropriate for the planning committee or department to appoint such consultants – we cannot have the Planning team marking its own homework yet again.

This is a matter of overriding concern for the borough as a whole, and this Council has already expressed its concern about climate change in motions both in this administration and in the last administration. It is now time to take appropriate and urgent action.

This Council therefore resolves:

(1)     That an environmental audit of the impact of excessive building on green fields be conducted by independent environmental experts.

(2)     That the objectives of that environmental audit should be to consider our carbon footprint in the context of new housing, and to determine the impact of reviewing site allocations to reallocate to the urban area.

(3)     That nominations for the consultants to be appointed should be made by Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England following an all-party committee to draft the remit.

(4)     That the precise terms of that environmental audit be subject to approval by full Council.

(5)     That pending that environmental audit, all planning permissions for developments on green fields or undeveloped land be subject to a temporary moratorium and the Secretary of State will be asked to ratify the results of any environmental audit.”

Under Council Procedure Rule 15 (o), Councillor 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 by incorporating amendments shown in red text indicated below:

“This Council has recognised that there is a climate change crisis and has agreed that actions should be taken in order to move to a zero-carbon footprint as soon as possible.

Other councils have similarly recognised an environmental responsibility. In the cases of other councils this recognition has included a request for a moratorium on building on green fields, such as Arun Council.

This does not mean a moratorium on all parts of the local plan, just site allocations on greenfield sites.

Guildford’s Local Plan has a target that will increase the number of homes in the borough by approximately 25%. That plan has inherent oversupply built into the model (a minimum of 14,600 to meet a target need of 10,000; with no information yet provided on the planning permissions and completions already meeting that target need). The plan proposes to site approximately 70% of new homes on green fields and it should be noted that this too is a minimum; planning applications decided since the plan’s adoption have been subject to officer advice that all sites included in the plan cannot be disputed and can be uplifted by 25% or more.

Guildford Borough Council has not yet prepared an updated brownfield review, as agreed by this Council in July, which would have allowed us to meet our housing target in the urban area more sustainably. The Climate Change working group under the last council agreed that we should improve or enhance our environmental standards compared to Government minimum standards, but no Supplementary Planning Documents have yet been discussed to implement this agreed position. Our new housing will make the carbon crisis much worse.

Our high housing numbers are likely to exacerbate severe water stress as part of the Thames catchment area. Our borough is also subject to air quality constraints. Air quality across Guildford borough is poor, and it is likely that more Air Quality Management Areas will be designated across the borough in the shorter term. All car-based unsustainable housing will increase the impact on our poor air quality and will encourage the use of fossil fuels to an unsustainable extent.

Housing on green fields will increase car use. There is no transport option which does not involve the increased use of cars for all the green field sites in the borough. We do not have a well-developed public transport network which is carbon neutral, and so heavy car use, usually in slow moving congested traffic, is likely to arise associated with all new greenfield development in and around our borough. As a result, housing on green fields will worsen air quality, make it exponentially harder to achieve a zero-carbon footprint, and increase water stress. We need to reduce our carbon footprint. Housing on green fields will worsen our carbon footprint and make it almost impossible to reduce it.

The assessment of housing need and the allocation of housing sites has not been conducted with the intention of reducing our carbon footprint and therefore these need to be fundamentally reviewed in the light of a legal responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint. This was not considered by the Inspector as part of the Examination in Public, and therefore is a new and urgent obligation.

Independence is critical. Nominations for the consultants to be appointed should be made by CPRE and Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England. It is not appropriate for the planning committee or department to appoint such consultants – we cannot have the Planning team marking its own homework yet again.

This is a matter of overriding concern for the borough as a whole, and this Council has already expressed its concern about climate change in motions both in this administration and in the last administration. It is now time to take appropriate and urgent action.

This Council therefore resolves:

(1)    That an environmental audit of the impact of excessive building on green fields be conducted by independent environmental experts.

(2)    That the objectives of that environmental audit should be to consider our carbon footprint in the context of new housing, and to determine the impact of reviewing site allocations to reallocate to the urban area.

(3)    That nominations for the consultants to be appointed should be made by CPRE and Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England following an all-party committee working group to draft the remit.

(4)    That the precise terms of that environmental audit be subject to approval by full Council.

(5)    That, pending that environmental audit, the Council will approach the Secretary of State to request all planning permissions for developments on green fields or undeveloped land be subject to a temporary moratorium on approving planning applications for developments on green fields, or undeveloped land within Guildford borough.”

The Council agreed to accept the alteration to the original motion, as indicated above. The motion, as altered, therefore became the substantive motion for debate.

During the debate, a procedural motion was proposed by Councillor Tony Rooth, seconded by Councillor Joss Bigmore, to postpone consideration of the motion until the next Council meeting.as it was felt that the Council needed to take into account the revised Brownfield Land Register, which was due to be published by December this year at the latest, and the updated Land Availability Assessment 2019.

The Council

RESOLVED: That consideration of the motion be postponed to the next Council meeting.