To respond to any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.1.
The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 6 December 2022.
(i) Question from Councillor George Hesse:
“Many local authorities have designated Conservation Areas which are protected from inappropriate development by use of Article 4 directives that remove permitted development rights, thus requiring planning applications to be submitted. This ensures that choice of suitable materials, size, bulk, mass, design, overlooking issues etc. are carefully scrutinised, and neighbours have the opportunity to object - currently denied under permitted development.
This does not currently apply in the Borough of Waverley and therefore our Conservation Areas are very vulnerable to unsuitable development.
Would Waverley Borough Council consider applying for Article 4 provisions to apply in all its designated Conservation Areas to provide this additional protection that these areas require?”
(ii) Question from Councillor Robert Knowles:
"Was this Council consulted or informed of the decision by Surrey Heartlands with the support of RSCH to create an elective surgery hub for all Surrey at Ashford Middlesex, a location just outside the London Borough of Hounslow and no transport connections to most of Surrey and if not does the Executive have any confidence in Surrey Heartlands as this shows again a lack of consideration for residents in the south of the County."
Minutes:
61.1 The following questions from Councillors had been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.
i) Cllr George
Hesse had asked the following
question:
“Many local authorities have designated conservation areas
which are protected from inappropriate development by use of
Article 4 directives that remove permitted development rights, thus
requiring planning applications to be submitted. This ensures that
choice of suitable materials, size, bulk, mass, design, overlooking
issues, Etc are carefully scrutinised and neighbours have the
opportunity to object currently denied under permitted development.
This does not currently apply in the Borough of Waverly and
therefore our Conservation Areas are very vulnerable to unsuitable
development. Would Waverly Borough Council consider applying for
Article 4 Provisions to apply in all its designated Conservation
Areas to provide this additional protection that these areas
require.”
The Portfolio Holder
for Planning and Economic Development, Cllr Liz Townsend, gave the
following response:
“Waverley Borough Council has 43 conservations areas, ranging
in size and character. Permitted Development (PD) rights are
restricted within Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings are
subject to additional controls.
Although Article 4 directions can be made to withdraw additional PD rights, the NPPF advises that such directions should be applied in a measured and targeted way. They should be limited to situations where necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of that area, based on robust evidence including the potential harm that the article 4 direction is intended to address. They should apply to the smallest geographical area possible. Compensation may be payable to property owners, although this is limited to loss or damage directly attributable to the withdrawal of PD rights.
There is only one article 4 direction in place directly relating to a Conservation Area (affecting 13 properties in Chiddingfold). This reflects the extent of existing planning controls within Conservations Areas and the significant resource implications entailed in making article 4 directions (including surveys and consultation) and in dealing with the additional planning applications and enforcement matters arising from the removal of PD rights (albeit an application fee is now required).
In view of these factors, it is not considered that a blanket approach to applying article 4 directions to all Conservation Areas in Waverley would be justified or feasible. The gathering of the evidence base requires extensive investigation and is a lengthy process, including an assessment of all buildings in each conservation area to establish a prioritised list and to establish the impact that each specific permitted development right has had on the amenity and well-being of the area. A full and extensive public consultation would also be required, and representations considered before an article 4 direction if appropriate could be confirmed.
The Council could consider the measured and targeted use of an article 4 direction if presented with full and robust evidence for each conservation area of the potential harm to local amenity or well-being resulting from specific PD rights bearing in mind that this should be targeted to the smallest possible geographic areas and not seeking a blanket ban. Based on this evidence the resource implications of preparing and implementing a direction would then need to be assessed so that this workstream could be considered and prioritised in line with other service plan priorities and the council’s resources.”
ii) Cllr Keen asked the following question
on behalf of Cllr Knowles, who had given his apologies for
absence:
“Was this Council consulted or informed of the decision by
Surrey Heartlands with the support of the RSCH to create an
elective surgery hub for all Surrey at Ashford Middlesex, a
location just outside the London Borough of Hounslow and no
transport connections to most of Surrey and if not, does the
executive have any confidence in the Surrey heartlands as this
shows again a lack of consideration for residents in the south of
the county.”
Response from Cllr Mirylees, Portfolio Holder for
Health, Wellbeing, Parks and Leisure
“I would like to thank Cllr Knowles for his question, and Cllr Keen who has also raised this issue with me.
I have checked with all those officers involved with interactions with Surrey Heartlands and none had been made aware of the proposal to create an elective hub in Ashford Middlesex. I have been advised that for clinical matters such as these, this lack of consultation with the Council is unfortunately not unusual.
Although it is likely that patient transport would be available if a resident has issues attending an appointment due to travel requirements, this is clearly less than ideal for residents in the south of the County and the Executive shares those concerns. Therefore, the Leader of the Council will be writing to the Chief Executive of Surrey Heartlands to set out our concerns and seek assurances that residents of Waverley will not be disadvantaged by this move.
Having said that, contact was made subsequently by Terry Willows, Chief of Staff at NHS Sussex, and only after councillors and officers pressed for a response, and these are some of the assurances he gives: to the extent that there is any impact this technical change would only impact residents and patients who live in the Chichester District Council area. There is no impact for residents who live in the Waverley Borough Council area, neither their GPs not their access to NHS services would change and all of the health services they receive would continue to be commissioned and funded by Surrey Heartlands ICB. The GP practices in Waverley in question would see no change to the funding they receive which is based on registered patient list size. The only change foreseen would be in relation to continuing health care and s117 mental health after-care where funding responsibility would pass from Surrey Heartlands to Sussex ICB . The change would also mean that both Surrey and West Sussex County Councils would be able to produce more accurate population Health Data without the need for manual adjustments to their data to reflect the current misaligned border. This will ultimately mean better population health data to support better commissioning of services to reflect population need.
We recognise that there are many concerns that have been left unanswered and therefore despite this we will be taking this issue up officially.”
iii) The following question had been received from Cllr David Beaman:
“Given that WBC has recognised the need to take action to achieve its Climate Change objectives why does this Council continue to offer free Christmas car parking resulting in lost revenue rather than funding free travel on bus services given that encouraging greater use of public transport is more sustainable rather than encouraging use of private cars through the provision of free car parking?”
Response from Cllr Andy MacLeod, Portfolio Holder for Enforcement, Operations and Brightwells
"Thank you, Cllr Beaman, for your question, which made some good points and a good suggestion which we will follow up on. Your point on climate change is certainly one we as the Executive are aligned with. The free Christmas Parking in Waverley offer, aligns with our corporate commitment to invigorate our high streets and to work closely with our Chambers of Commerce. The intention is to reduce travel by encouraging local buying in Waverley's shops. Any reduction in online purchasing will also reduce the associated journeys by delivery vehicles.
We like your suggestion for a free bus service at Christmas and have noted your link to a successful and popular scheme run by Swansea Council. Bus services are Surrey County Council's responsibility, and we will be contacting Surrey to encourage the introduction of such a scheme next Christmas. If this happens, we might well review our own free Christmas parking scheme. I hope that answers your question and we look forward with working with you to encourage the county council to support future initiatives to support our climate change objectives and our high streets."
iv) The following question has been received from Councillor Steve Cosser:
Can members please be informed of the density of Waverley owned housing per head of population in each of the following areas:-
1. The Town Council area of Farnham
2. The Town Council area of Godalming
3. The Town Council area of Haslemere
4. The Parish Council area of Cranleigh
5. The remainder of Waverley (i.e. the area not included in 1-4 above)
Response from Councillor Nick Palmer, Co-Portfolio Holder for Housing (Delivery):
“I would like to thank Cllr Cosser for his question:
The numbers of Waverley owned properties in the areas mentioned are as follows:
1. The Town Council area of Farnham 1256
2. The Town Council area of Godalming 1072
3. The Town Council area of Haslemere 698
4. The Parish Council area of Cranleigh 398
5. The remainder of Waverley (i.e., the area not included in 1-4 above) 1322
It might be helpful also to highlight the total number of affordable homes in each area
1. The Town Council area of Farnham 2278
2. The Town Council area of Godalming 1525
3. The Town Council area of Haslemere 728
4. The Parish Council area of Cranleigh 942
5. The remainder of Waverley (i.e. the area not included in 1-4 above) 1831
The Council’s Housing Register indicates numbers of households who have expressed a preference for they wish to live:
1. The Town Council area of Farnham 280
2. The Town Council area of Godalming 259
3. The Town Council area of Haslemere 78
4. The Parish Council area of Cranleigh 99
5. The remainder of Waverley (i.e. the area not included in 1-4 above) 469
A very comprehensive study on housing need in the Borough was a carried out to inform the Affordable Housing Delivery Strategy that was adopted by Council in April 2022. I would point Cllr Cosser to that study which can be found on the Council’s website. I will ask officers to forward a link.”
Cllr Cosser asked the Mayor to note that the response given had not addressed his question, which had asked for the density of Waverley owned housing per head of population in each area. The Mayor assured Cllr Cosser that a corrected response would be provided in writing.