Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record

These were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

As explained during the previous cycle of meetings, the following approach had been taken to the allocation of pressures and savings to the respective policy committees as part of the 2022/23 budget setting process:

Tranche 1 – savings and pressures which were straightforward to allocate (these had been agreed by the respective policy committees during the previous cycle of meetings) 

Tranche 2 – pressures regarding inflation (£174k), salary increments / National Insurance staffing costs (£193k) which were being held as ‘corporate items’, pending allocation to policy committees during the March / April 2022 cycle of meetings 

Tranche 3 – the more complex cross-cutting savings (also being held as ‘corporate items’) which would require service reviews and business cases to ensure accurate distribution to policy committees during the June 2022 cycle of meetings.

A report was submitted which proposed that this Committee’s:

·         share of Tranche 2 pressures be £14k as per Appendix A; and

·      fees and charges be as per Appendix B.

The recommended fees and charges had, where appropriate, been uplifted by inflation. However, greater increases were applied in situations where previous charges had been below market rates.

The report also explained that the Council’s approach to charging for pre-application (non-householder) fees was to be reviewed with reference to fees charged by other authorities, including the fee structure, charging method and price, to ensure that appropriate costs were recovered. For these fees to be in place as soon as possible, the report recommended that authority be delegated to officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair, to resolve the final charges. 

During the debate, the Chief Planning Officer confirmed that:

·           the charge for developers to make formal (pre-application) presentations to the Planning Committee would be included in the above-mentioned review (the review would also include the potential for planning performance agreements with developers which, among other things, would enable the cost of applicable officer time to be recouped)

·           the charges for street naming and numbering would also be reviewed

·           annual adjustments of CIL fees are set according to a national formula and the Council has no discretion to apply greater annual increases  

·           once fees had been agreed for the financial year ahead, the relevant Committees had discretion to further amend them during the financial year if considered appropriate to do so. 

Clarification was sought regarding the following sentence in the ‘legal implications’ section of the report:

       “ … In particular, Members must satisfy themselves that sufficient mechanisms are in place to ensure both that savings are delivered and that new expenditure is contained within the available resources.”

The Chief Planning Officer would ask the Head of Legal to advise Councillor Steeds how individual Members should be expected to fulfil this responsibility. 

          R E S O L V E D – that:

A.      subject to further consideration by the Strategy & Resources Committee on the 7th April 2022 regarding the overall allocation of Tranche 2 pressures and savings, the revised 2022/23 net budget for the Planning Policy Committee at Appendix  ...  view the full minutes text for item 275.

In accordance with the Committee’s resolutions of the 5^th and 20^th January 2022, correspondence (TED50 and TED51) had been issued to the Planning Inspector to:

·           provide information about the capacity of Junction 6 of the M25 and mitigation of capacity issues; and

·           seek a response on the options before the Council in terms of how to progress its Plan.

A response from the Inspector (ID20) had been received on the 11^th February 2022. A report was presented with an officer assessment of the further information which the Inspector required (as specified within ID20) to “determine whether and/or how the examination should progress...”. This covered the following matters:

(i)         Junction 6 M25 mitigation

(ii)        the deliverability / developability of Strategic Policy SGC01: South Godstone Garden Community, including an Action Area Plan and land assembly

(iii)      recalculating the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAN)

(iv)      Housing Land Supply (HLS), to include calculation of the 5-year HLS

(v)       provision for education facilities

(vi)      provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople.

ID20 advised that the Council would be expected to adhere to a strict timetable for undertaking the necessary work, evidenced by monthly reports to the Inspector if the Plan was to progress. 

A detailed project plan was being prepared to ensure that the Council could fully consider the resourcing implications of the Inspector’s requirements. The report concluded with the following proposed ‘next steps’:

·           Officers, via the Chief Executive and Programme Officer, to seek clarification from the Inspector on matters identified in the report, as well as any others which arise.

·           Following receipt of clarification from the Inspector, a formal response to ID20 be prepared and issued via the Chief Executive and Programme Officer, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair and finance regarding the budget for the work. There is merit to move this on and not to postpone it until the next Committee meeting on 23^rd June 2022. It is noted that the Council will be in the ‘period of sensitivity’ (what has often been referred to in the past as ‘purdah’) shortly and particular care should be taken in the three weeks before polling day. However, the main purpose of the Council’s response is to equip the Inspector with the information he has requested at the earliest opportunity. It is unlikely that such information would be construed as being party political or otherwise controversial in the context of the local election.

The Chief Planning Officer advised that:

·           ‘fall back positions’ (in the event that the Local Plan does not proceed to adoption) would include a review of local planning policies to ensure they remained fit for purpose in protecting the District from inappropriate development in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework;

·           once the required clarification had been received from the Inspector, a critical path analysis would be produced to help identify what resources were needed to fulfil the requirements of ID20 (and no more) and whether they would be provided directly by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 276.

Surrey County Council (SCC), as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority (SMWPA), was responsible for preparing and maintaining an up-to-date local development plan. Surrey’s current development plan documents for minerals and waste management had been adopted in 2011 (Surrey Minerals Plan 2011) and 2020 (Surrey Waste Local Plan 2019-2033). In line with Government policy, SCC had resolved to move away from preparing separate documents and to replace them with Surrey’s first joint Minerals and Waste Local Plan (SMWLP) which would be:

• used to guide decisions about future minerals and waste management planning applications;
• a material consideration for Surrey Districts and Boroughs in preparing their local development plans and making their planning decisions.

The SMWLP was at the ‘Issues and Options stage’ and SCC had consulted relevant stakeholders, including Tandridge, under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The Council would have subsequent opportunities to comment on and feed into the emerging SMWLP document.

The Committee considered a report which highlighted:

(i)         significant concerns regarding the carrying forward of the adopted SMWLP allocation for a ‘waste to energy’ facility at Lambs Business Park and the need for SCC to clarify the amount of waste required to support it and how that waste would be delivered to the site (road or rail) – this could significantly impact on the available capacity of Junction 6 (M25) and the A22 to sustain other essential development in the District; and

(ii)        issues raised with respect to mineral safeguarding, primarily to address what are economically important mineral resources and the need to differentiate those of national importance (e.g. silica sand) from ubiquitous minerals such as chalk which lay in highly constrained areas of Tandridge, including the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which was likely to be expanded.

The report concluded that these matters should be subject to further discussion with the SMWPA before the Council submits its initial consultation response. An extended submission deadline of 21^st March 2022 had been granted for this purpose.

Debate focused on the Lambs Business Park issue at (i) above and the view that this site allocation (for a ‘waste to energy’ facility) should be considered afresh

            R E S O L V E D – that a response to the consultation be delegated to the Interim Chief Planning Officer, in consultation with the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the Committee.

Surrey Futures, working in partnership with the County Council, Surrey Districts / Boroughs and other key stakeholders, were consulting on this strategy which sought to identify collective objectives over the next 30 years in terms of ‘good growth’.

The strategy was based on the following priorities:

1:    Improve connectivity both within Surrey and between strategic hubs

2:    Enhance the place offer of Surrey’s towns

3:    Maximise the potential of our Strategic Opportunity Areas; and

4:    Invest in natural capital and deliver nature recovery.

It also identified eight Strategic Opportunity Areas, including two which were relevant to the District, namely the M23 Gatwick Corridor (SOA7) and the M25 J6/A22 South Godstone (SOA8).

The Place Ambition did not replace any local proposals and priorities but sought to promote a long term, co-ordinated and cross boundary approach to planning and managing the impacts of growth. It would be used to help shape projects and to seek the support of the county’s wider sub-national partners and Government, particularly in relation to accessing additional funding and investment opportunities for infrastructure and to support a zero-carbon future.

Officers had submitted draft comments as a holding response to meet Surrey Future’s 4^th March deadline. This proposed that greater emphasis should be placed on infrastructure requirements and that the District’s challenges regarding the A22/A264 and M25 should be reasserted. The response also captured the need to place more onus on Surrey County Council, as the upper tier authority with responsibility for infrastructure, and for SCC to be more proactive in its engagement with neighbouring authorities to defend against border developments which further exhaust our struggling infrastructure. Other comments advocated a better definition of ‘good growth’ to reflect something more than just housebuilding and to include further detail on how rural communities could benefit from the Place Ambition.

It had been agreed that final comments could be submitted following consideration by the Committee to reflect Members’ views. In this respect, Councillor Blackwell, seconded by Councillor Farr, moved an amendment for text to be added to the initial response which covered:

·      the limitations of growth in the green belt

·      the need to acknowledge the varying characteristics of the different Surrey Districts / Boroughs and the impact of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

·      the need to address the implications of the Government’s ‘levelling up’ initiative and  environmental / climate change issues.

Councillor Blackwell’s amendment for incorporating the additional text (shown by underlining in Appendix C) was agreed. It was also agreed that a copy of the Council’s response to Surrey Futures be sent to the Planning Inspector.

            R E S O L V E D – that the response to the Surrey 2050: Place Ambition consultation at Appendix C be agreed.

A verbal update will be given at the meeting

The Committee received a verbal update from the Chief Planning Officer. He confirmed that the Planning Protocol Working Group had met to review the existing version and had concluded that the new protocol should be considerably shorter. A draft of the revised version would be reviewed by the Group at its next meeting with a view a final draft being submitted to the Committee on the 23^rd June 2022.

A Member request that the protocol include a mechanism for implementing paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework at the pre-application stage was noted.