Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record

These minutes were approved and signed as a correct record.

The Chair responded to questions from Councillor O’Driscoll (1) and Cooper (2).

Details of the questions and responses are provided at Appendix A to these minutes.

To receive a presentation from representatives of the AONB board

Heather Kerswell (Surrey Hills Independent Chair) and Rob Fairbanks (Surrey Hills Director) gave a presentation regarding the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) expansion project. This informed Members about:

·           the unique character of the Surrey Hills landscape

·           the current boundaries of the AONB, Greenbelt and Areas of Great Landscape Value within Surrey 

·           the objectives of AONB management

·           the demographic pressures upon the Surrey Hills and associated threats

·           the basis of the Surrey Hills boundary review and the community engagement strategy aimed at contributing informed evidence to support the proposed expansion.

The presentation explained the intention to use a participative ‘technology-based citizen science approach’ to gathering evidence of the need for additional areas to be included within the AONB. This process would be launched shortly and would be followed by a review of the evidence and engagement on the ‘candidate areas’.

The presenters responded to Members’ questions and referred to a best-case scenario whereby the boundary expansion could be approved by the Secretary of State without the need for a public inquiry. The community engagement strategy had been designed to enable such an outcome by seeking to generate a suitably robust evidence base.

The Chair thanked Heather and Rob for their informative presentation.      

A report was presented with details of a proposed staffing restructure for the Development Management service which sought to achieve greater efficiencies by:

• streamlining the delivery of the service by grouping officers by function

• providing capacity to deal more effectively with fluctuations in demand without having to rely on temporary staff

• reducing the number of direct reports to the Head of Development Management and the Validation and Business Support Team Leader

• creating additional posts in areas where statistics have demonstrated a current lack of resilience

The estimated net increase in staffing costs amounted to £75,932 per annum. The report envisaged that £114,000 would be drawn down from the flexible use of capital receipts which would fund the cost of new structure for the first 18 months. Thereafter, the investment would need to be absorbed into the base budget. It was hoped that the re-introduction of the full-time pre-application service would create additional revenue to help offset the increased staffing costs.   

The report also informed Members about staff training and development initiatives; systems and process changes; and actions to enhance engagement with Members.  

During the debate, Members referred to the need to recruit and develop staff with good ‘people management’ and leadership skills. The importance of planning officers taking due regard of neighbourhood plans and the need for effective, timely community engagement on applications was also raised.

Arising from a discussion about the role of IT, the Chair commented that Members would appreciate the reinstatement of a system to provide early notification of planning applications for developments in their wards.   

            R E S O L V E D – that the proposed re-structure of the Development Management service, together with the additional staffing, as shown in the organisation chart at Appendix B to these minutes, be approved.

A Quarter 2 summary of performance against various indicators for the Development Management service had been published as a supplement to the main agenda pack. The interim Chief Planning Officer explained the challenges associated with producing quality and timely performance data. He confirmed his intention to review the current performance management regime and to present proposals for achieving a more effective / transparent recording and reporting process. 

            R E S O L V E D – that the Quarter 2 performance information be noted.  

Gatwick Airport Limited’s (GAL) Section 42 (Planning Act 2008) public consultation on its preferred masterplan for the future use of the northern runway (currently used only for emergencies) was due to close on the 1^st December 2021. This was the first stage in the process of GAL’s pursuit of a Development Control Order (DCO) to bring the runway into routine operation.      

A proposed consultation response from the Council (Appendix A to the report) had been produced following input from the Gatwick DCO Working Group which had been established to support the ongoing process. The response highlighted various concerns identified during the review of the consultation material, including:

·         whether the extensive ancillary development being proposed was legitimate associated development or whether separate planning applications should be submitted to the relevant authorities

·         GAL’s commitment to mitigating climate change and whether local impacts had been given sufficient consideration

·         lack of detail regarding wider environmental mitigation measures

·         doubts regarding the credibility of GAL’s ‘pre-pandemic’ baseline data

·         insufficient regard to the Future Airspace Strategy Implementation (FASI) and the Surrey Hills AONB review

·         the adverse impact on road and rail networks

·         timescales for road improvements

·         false assumptions that housing for workers will be subsumed by the neighbouring Local Authorities

·         shortcomings in the consultation process, including a lack of preliminary technical information to Local Authorities and issues with the mobile project office.   

The Committee was recommended to approve the draft response, together with suggested terms of reference for the Working Group.  

During the debate, Members reiterated the concerns identified by officers and argued that the consultation failed to fully acknowledge the likely impact of GAL’s proposals upon Tandridge communities. It was agreed that the text concerning Chapter 14 (Noise and Vibration) would be amended to add ‘Lingfield and Dormansland’ (i.e. in addition to Burstow and Smallfield) to communities most likely to be adversely affected by the northern runway proposals.        

            R E S O L V E D – that

A.    subject to the text regarding Chapter 14 (Noise and Vibration) being extended to add ‘Lingfield and Dormansland’ to the villages that would be particularly impacted, the proposed response to Gatwick Airport Limited’s Section 42 consultation be agreed; and

B.    the Terms of Reference for the for the Gatwick DCO Member and Officer Working Group, attached at Appendix C to these minutes, be agreed.

National Highways (formerly Highways England) was consulting on route strategies for the Strategic Road Network which, in turn, would inform the development of the National Road Investment Strategy. A report was presented with a proposed response to the consultation which included issues associated with the capacity of Junction 6 of the M25 and the fact that, without investment, the junction would become a major infrastructure constraint.

The report acknowledged that the consultation provided an opportunity for the Council to contribute to the route strategy development process to help raise the profile of the Junction 6 issues.

During the debate, Officers undertook to liaise with Councillor O’Driscoll in due course regarding DHA Transport’s latest analysis of the Junction 6 upgrade requirements for the westbound diverge / eastbound merge links. It was also agreed that the section of the draft consultation response entitled, “M23 and relationship with the M25” be extended regarding the potential impact of Gatwick Airport’s northern runway projects, and reference to the A22.

            R E S O L V E D – that, subject to amended text for the penultimate section, “M23 and relationship with the M25” (to expand upon the potential impact of Gatwick Airport’s northern runway project and to refer to the A22) the proposed response to the National Highways route strategy consultation be agreed.

To receive an oral report on the latest position regarding the Local Plan process

The Chair reminded Members that the Local Plan Inspector was awaiting the Council’s formal response regarding its next steps following his correspondence ID16 and ID 19. 

She referred to the briefing to Members by DHA transport consultants regarding the capacity of Junction 6 (M25) on 11^th November, and that fact that DHA’s findings were expected by mid-December, subject to National Highways and SCC Highways sign off. In light of this, she proposed that a special meeting of the Committee be scheduled for either the 4^th or 5^th January 2022 to discuss and agree the Council’s formal response. This would be based on an officer report setting out the Council’s options and the further information from DHA. The Committee supported this approach, provided that the required information from DHA was received in time.    

The Committee received a verbal update regarding the Environment Act which came into force on the 9^th November 2021. This confirmed that Part 6 of the Act (Nature and Biodiversity) would have significant implications for planning authorities, including:

·           a 10% biodiversity gain as a condition of planning permission (to be governed by subsequent regulations)

·           requirements for nature recovery / species conservation / protected site strategies

·           a general duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity

An officer briefing paper would be circulated to Members within the next few days.