To receive any questions received from members of the public for which notice has been given in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.
The deadline for submission of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 22 November 2016.
Minutes:
The Executive received the following questions in accordance with Procedure Rule 10 and the answers given by the Leader of the Council are set out below each question:
1. from Mr Alasdair Denton-Miller and Betty Ames
Given that there is a Complaint regarding the Council’s due process in approving the Dunsfold Park Commercial Application (WA/2015/0695).
And that this complaint has been through the full process of Waverley’s Complaints Procedure culminating with review by Paul Wenham who recommended passing it to the Local Government Ombudsman if Waverley’s response to the complaint was considered to not have been correctly dealt with.
And that this complaint is now with the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO Ref: 16 010 388) who have assigned an Investigation Team as they have concluded that further consideration is required.
Given that this ongoing complaint considers Waverley’s failure to follow due process for matters related to Dunsfold Park, including traffic and other matters.
And that Surrey County Council Highways object to further development at Dunsfold Park on grounds of sustainability
Can the Executive explain how considering WA/2015/2395 before the outcome of the Ombudsman’s finding and the Examination in Public of the Local Plan is anything but premature?
Proposed Answer:
As acknowledged in the question submitted by Mr Denton-Miller and Mrs Betty Ames, earlier this year the Council considered a complaint about the due process followed in approving application WA/2015/0695 for the erection of six buildings on Dunsfold Park.
In July this year, the complaint was reviewed by the Executive Director, Paul Wenham, under Level 3 of the Council’s complaints procedure. When Members weighed this objection against policies in the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, they agreed that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm identified by the Highway Authority. Mr Wenham concluded that the application had been dealt with in accordance with the Council’s normal procedures for determining planning applications, and that there had been no errors in this process.
The planning permission granted in respect of WA/2015/0695 was not the subject of a judicial review and remains a sound, valid and extant planning permission.
In accordance with the Planning Act, the determination of planning applications by the Joint Planning Committee, including any decision to delay making a decision, must be taken in the light of the Development Plan and any other material considerations. The current process complaint regarding WA/2015/0695 is not considered to be a material consideration.
Furthermore, the Council considers that application WA/2015/2395 is a completely separate application to WA/2015/0695 and the fact that there is currently a process complaint relating to the earlier application, has no bearing on the determination of application WA/2015/2395. This view is supported by National Planning Policy Guidance.
Finally, the Executive has no power to make decisions regarding planning applications; this is the role of the Joint Planning Committee.
The Council is aware that the complainants have now raised their concerns about the determination of application WA/2015/0965 with the Local Government Ombudsman. However it is understood that the Ombudsman’s office has yet to decide whether the complaint requires further investigation. The Council stands ready to respond if and when the Ombudsman decides to make further enquiries regarding the matters raised by the complainants.
2. from Chris Britton of the POW Campaign
Given comments and statements made by Members and Officers at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 21st November 2016 in relation to the Local Plan Part 1;
· The housing target which is driving many aspects of the Local Plan has been based upon an OAN figure that has been challenged by a very large number of Parish Councils and individuals and backed by a professional report, yet this challenge has been dismissed by Officers who conflate the OAN with separate requests to increase/decrease the housing target.
· The Head of Planning explained that there is a strong link between the Local Plan and the pending Application for Dunsfold Aerodrome (WA/2015/2395), which reinforces the point made by many residents that it would be premature to consider this application before completing the Examination in public of the Local Plan.
· Heritage aspects of Dunsfold Aerodrome, raised by Historic England and which is the subject of a Conservation Area request for the site, are now acknowledged by Officers.
· Concerns about the level and extent of infrastructure needed to support the Plan have been expressed by a huge number of consultees, as well as Members at the O & S Committee Meeting on 21st November, yet these again have been summarily dismissed by Officers.
I therefore ask; is the Executive content that the Officers’ Summary of the Key Issues following consultation on the Local Plan is a proper, detailed, adequate and impartial reflection of local opinion and that due process would be being followed if key planning applications such as Dunsfold Aerodrome are determined in advance of the Local Plan being examined and adopted?
Answer:
The Executive is satisfied that the officers have given full consideration to the issues raised in the consultation and their comments in response will help members in making the decision on whether to submit the plan for examination. Members had the opportunity at the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 21st November to debate these matters and comments arising from that meeting will be considered by both the Executive and Council at their respective meetings on 29th November.
With regard to the specific point concerning the Dunsfold Aerodrome planning application, the Executive is satisfied that due process would be followed if the Dunsfold planning application is determined in advance of the Local Plan being examined and adopted.
3. From Mr Charles Orange of Hascombe Parish Council
The officer report on comments and responses to the draft Local Plan was considered at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on November 21st. The report includes the implied surprising and unpublished response by GL Hearn that, despite having considered the report on the OAN by NMSS for the 11 Joint Parish Councils, Hearn considers that the SHMA remains a sound basis for planning.
The NMSS report stated that if the 2012 based projection used in
the Hearn SHMA report, is updated to be based on 2014 statistics,
then the number of new homes required would reduce from 519 pa to
around 400 pa and if updated for the latest mid 2015
statistics, to around 372 pa. It seems
very likely that during the EIP the Inspector will question the
basis of the OAN and why the NMSS report has not been acted
upon.
The Executive are asked whether Waverley Borough Council have considered amending the SHMA and the required strategic sites to allow for the reduction from 519pa to c.400 pa in the likely number of new homes needed in the Plan period and, if this has been considered, why this course of action has been rejected.
Answer
A number of the representations on the Local Plan challenged aspects of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, including the NMSS report. As a result, the Council’s consultants, GL Hearn undertook a review of these representations. The Council is very concerned to ensure that its evidence on matters such as this is robust given that it is likely to be one of the issues that the Inspector will examine quite closely in the forthcoming Examination.
As a result of this review, the Executive is satisfied that the GL Hearn work is robust and a sound basis for planning. In particular it took account of the most up-to-date information available at the time using the 2012-based projections that were published in February 2015.
The Neil McDonald review that was submitted to the Council in September 2016 had the opportunity to use the 2014-based projections that were published in July 2016. Although these 2014-based projections are the latest population projections available now, they were not available for the SHMA to use them and when the Council agreed to publish the Local Plan for consultation in August this year.
National Planning Practice Guidance clearly states that official projections are statistically robust and are based on nationally consistent assumptions. GL Hearn state that the rationale in the Neil McDonald review for moving away from the official projections at the time of the SHMA is not clearly justified.
If the Council were to review the SHMA in the light
of the latest projections it would result in a delay in submitting
the Local Plan for its examination as a result of updating the
assessment and then consequently testing any new figure of
objectively assessed need.