The Chairman to respond to the following questions received from members of the public for which notice has been given in accordance with Procedure Rule 10:-
i. From Mr Bob Lees, Chairman of the POW Campaign
“Having read the draft Local Plan, and attended the O and S meeting on Monday 27th June, there would appear to be a number of contradictions and very basic errors of fact which are not obviously coming to light.
Examples of contradictions would include claims variously that 61% and 63% of Waverley is part of the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB), 71% and 78% is AONB and AGLV, 31% and 28% is Countryside Beyond the Green Belt and so on.
Examples of errors would include; in RE3 para (ii) gives AGLV the same status as AONB, at least until the revised AONB is designated in 2018, yet section 18.12 claims that none of the Dunsfold Aerodrome is in the AONB, factually correct, yet parts of it are in the AGLV which according to RE3(ii) should have the same status as AONB. 18.12 also claims 86% of the 249 hectare site is Brownfield, yet the, still disputed, 86% applies to the original application area which when extrapolated to the current 249 hectares only gives some 74 to 75% as Brownfield. In addition Appendix A at page 195 has a key of AONB/AGLV which on the actual map has large areas of this designation missing at both the Cranleigh and Farnham ends of the Borough.
The above is not an exhaustive list and these types of error would indicate a lack of basic proof reading and Quality Assurance checking and is not the image I am sure Waverley would want to project. Indeed Councillor Hesse, at the O and S meeting, asked what Quality Assurance had been undertaken and was assured that full checking had been carried out and that all claims in the document could be fully substantiated.
Can the Executive ensure that the draft Local Plan is at least basically factually correct and thoroughly proof read, by officers, to make it at least self consistent, especially in such key exhibits as Appendix A, before it is presented to the whole Council?”
ii. From Mr Charles Orange, Chairman of Hascombe Parish Council
“I note that a key piece of evidence presented for the inclusion of Dunsfold Airfield in the draft Local Plan is the flawed 2014 Consultation. The response to this was less than 4% of the population of Waverley Borough which had 80% “in favour” of Dunsfold Airfield. In contrast the current public consultation on the application for 1800 houses on Dunsfold Airfield has 84% of respondents objecting to the development. Will the Executive confirm that the more recent consultation data will be included in the plan to show a balanced and more current view?”
iii. from Mr Chris Britton of Cranleigh
“What changes to the Draft Local Plan will the Executive make to ensure that the cumulative impacts of adopting the proposed, very large, housing target figure are not disproportionately placed in the South East of the Borough, where infrastructure and especially transport links are known and acknowledged to be poor and no major strategic plans are set out for funded improvements necessary to make such development sustainable?”
[NB. Questions from members of the public express personal views of the questioners and Waverley does not endorse any statements in any way and they do not reflect the views of Waverley Borough Council].
Minutes:
The Executive received the following questions in accordance with Procedure Rule 10:
i. from Mr Bob Lees, Chairman of the POW Campaign
“Having read the draft Local Plan, and attended the O and S meeting on Monday 27th June, there would appear to be a number of contradictions and very basic errors of fact which are not obviously coming to light.
Examples of contradictions would include claims variously that 61% and 63% of Waverley is part of the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB), 71% and 78% is AONB and AGLV, 31% and 28% is Countryside Beyond the Green Belt and so on.
Examples of errors would include; in RE3 para (ii) gives AGLV the same status as AONB, at least until the revised AONB is designated in 2018, yet section 18.12 claims that none of the Dunsfold Aerodrome is in the AONB, factually correct, yet parts of it are in the AGLV which according to RE3(ii) should have the same status as AONB. 18.12 also claims 86% of the 249 hectare site is Brownfield, yet the, still disputed, 86% applies to the original application area which when extrapolated to the current 249 hectares only gives some 74 to 75% as Brownfield. In addition Appendix A at page 195 has a key of AONB/AGLV which on the actual map has large areas of this designation missing at both the Cranleigh and Farnham ends of the Borough.
The above is not an exhaustive list and these types of error would indicate a lack of basic proof reading and Quality Assurance checking and is not the image I am sure Waverley would want to project. Indeed Councillor Hesse, at the O and S meeting, asked what Quality Assurance had been undertaken and was assured that full checking had been carried out and that all claims in the document could be fully substantiated.
Can the Executive ensure that the draft Local Plan is at least basically factually correct and thoroughly proof read, by officers, to make it at least self consistent, especially in such key exhibits as Appendix A, before it is presented to the whole Council?”
The Leader of the Council responded as follows:-
“A thorough proof reading of the draft Local Plan will be made before it is published to rectify errors and inconsistencies. You have referred particularly to the status of the AGLV and the AONB. We are not arguing that the AGLV has the same status as the AONB. We recognise the value of the AONB as a national landscape designation, but Policy RE3 (ii) only states that the same principles will apply in the AGLV. However, one of the changes we are proposing before the Plan is published is to amend the text to clarify that the AGLV designation does not carry as much weight as the AONB.”
ii. From Mr Charles Orange, Chairman of Hascombe Parish Council
“I note that a key piece of evidence presented for the inclusion of Dunsfold Airfield in the draft Local Plan is the flawed 2014 Consultation. The response to this was less than 4% of the population of Waverley Borough which had 80% “in favour” of Dunsfold Airfield. In contrast the current public consultation on the application for 1800 houses on Dunsfold Airfield has 84% of respondents objecting to the development. Will the Executive confirm that the more recent consultation data will be included in the plan to show a balanced and more current view?”
The Leader of the Council responded as follows:-
“The Council fully appreciates that the planning application for the Dunsfold Aerodrome site has attracted a considerable amount of local interest. These comments will be taken into account in the consideration of the planning application. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Local Plan to refer to such comments, for two reasons. First, the comments relate to a particular development proposal and which are not made in the context of the Borough-wide Local Plan. Secondly, many other planning applications in Waverley have also attracted a lot of local interest. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to single out the responses made to this specific application.”
iii. from Mr Chris Britton of Cranleigh
“What changes to the Draft Local Plan will the Executive make to ensure that the cumulative impacts of adopting the proposed, very large, housing target figure are not disproportionately placed in the South East of the Borough, where infrastructure and especially transport links are known and acknowledged to be poor and no major strategic plans are set out for funded improvements necessary to make such development sustainable?”
The Leader of the Council responded as follows:-
“The justification for the proposed distribution of development across the Borough is set out in the Spatial Strategy chapter of the Plan. Before the Plan is published, and in response to the comments of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee on this same matter, further explanation will be added.
As far as infrastructure is concerned, we fully acknowledge the importance of securing improvements, including to the highway network, in order to mitigate the impacts of new development. As you may be aware, for example, the Council has secured infrastructure contributions from the developers of the large sites around Cranleigh that have received planning permission. When the Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule is adopted, this can be used to direct funds to meet the cumulative infrastructure needs of developments.
The Council will also still be able to secure contributions through Section 106 agreements on individual developments that generate a need for new or improved infrastructure, such as at Dunsfold Aerodrome. Where appropriate, the plan will seek to ensure that larger strategic sites are developed in a phased manner, with appropriate levels of infrastructure delivered at each stage.”