Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record

Councillor Prew, seconded by Councillor Duck, moved that the Item 43 of these minutes be amended in accordance with Appendix A. Upon being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

The minutes (without any amendment) were therefore confirmed and signed by the Chair. 

The Chair responded to questions from Councillors Elias and Flower. The questions and responses are set out at Appendix B.

R E S O L V E D – that members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) on the grounds that:

(i)         they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the

            paragraph detailed below of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act; and

(ii)        for the items the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the

            public interest in disclosing the information.

            Items               Nature of Exempt Information (as defined by the Act)

            6 & 7                Paragraph 3    (Information relating to the financial or business                                                       affairs of any particular person, including the                                                            authority holding that information).  

The Committee considered a motion to exclude the press and public from agenda items 6 (‘Planning Service Transformation’) and 7 (‘Local Plan update – response to the Planning Inspector) on the grounds that:

(i)      they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information); and

(ii)      for the items, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the

          public interest in disclosing the information.

Following the debate, this matter was put to two separate votes, one regarding agenda item 6 and another for agenda item 7. The Committee voted in favour of both items being debated in public via the webcasting system. (At this point, the reports for both agenda items were made available for public view on the Council’s website).    

A report was presented regarding the findings of separate reviews undertaken by Gillian Macinnes of the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) concerning the Council’s Development Management function and the Planning Committee. The report outlined the recommendations arising from both reviews and confirmed that a business case to support service improvements was being developed, based on the following four workstreams:

·           structure

·           resource

·           systems and processes

·           Member/Officer relations (to consider the PAS recommendations from the planning review)

Members were advised about temporary additional staffing resources which, in the meantime, had been put in place to deal with the current backlog of planning applications and to maintain services levels. 

Gillian Macinnes addressed the Committee to explain the context of the reviews. She remained in the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.  

During the debate, Members highlighted the need for: 

·           Councillors to see the change programme and associated timelines and resourcing requirements;

·           planning staff to be involved in the programme;

·           IT issues to be addressed, including restoration of the e-mail notification system (this would be a high priority aspect of the first phase of the change programme);

·           a peer review process to establish the case for permanent additional staffing resources for the development management function;

·           restoration of a pre-application advice service; and

·           the role of non-Committee members at Planning Committee meetings to be clarified.

The adequacy of the current Councillor call-in process for planning applications was discussed, together with the merits of establishing a forum where planning officers could brief Members about current applications and respond to questions.

The Committee thanked Gillian Macinnes for conducting the reviews and her subsequent reports and recommendations.

            R E S O L V E D – that the update on the implementation of the findings from        the Planning Advisory Service reviews be noted.     

The Council had been due to update the Planning Inspector before the end of the month on progress made in response to his preliminary conclusions and advice (ID16) following the examination hearings in 2019. A report was submitted which:

(i)         explained that, for reasons beyond the Council’s control, the required transport modelling reports for Junction 6 of the M25 would not be ready until later in the year; 

(ii)        identified a (without prejudice) further option for the Inspector to consider; and

(iii)      appended a letter to be sent to the Inspector on the 27^th August 2021 regarding (i) and (ii) above. 

A revised version of the letter was tabled, including updated timescales for the transport modelling following a meeting on the 25th August 2021 between Officers and the Council’s transport consultants and representatives of Highways England and Surrey County Council.

During the debate, Members discussed issues regarding allocated housing site yields with particular reference to TED 17 (response to the Inspector in October 2019 following his request for the Council to clarify its approach).   

Councillor Botten proposed that the second bullet point under the ‘Alternative Option’

sub-heading of the letter be amended to read:

            [The alternative option would] ...“Include amended site policies that would make as many of the allocated sites as possible sound in accordance with your comments.   We envisage that modifications might be made to  site policies, addressing your comments in ID-16 paragraph 50-65, and including other site policy amendments agreed at the Examination Hearings. This would allow the allocated sites to come forward as soon as practically possible.”

Councillor Prew, seconded by Councillor Black, proposed that two separate letters be sent to the Inspector, one regarding the update on transport modelling, and the other concerning the alternative option to incorporate Councillor Botten’s revised wording above. Upon being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

Councillor Farr seconded Councillor Botten’s motion for a single letter to be sent to the Inspector with revised wording (as per the italicised text above) for the second bullet point under the ‘Alternative Option’ sub-heading. Upon being put to the vote, this was agreed.    

R E S O L V E D – that the letter attached at Appendix C be sent to the Planning Inspector on the 27^th August 2021.