Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Station Road East, Oxted. View directions

Contact: Vince Sharp 

Media

Items
No. Item

235.

Minutes of the meeting held on the 5th January 2022 pdf icon PDF 513 KB

To confirm as a correct record

Additional documents:

Minutes:

These were approved as a correct record.

236.

Planning Policy Committee - 22/23 draft budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy pdf icon PDF 336 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A proposed draft 2022/23 revenue budget and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) capital programme was presented. This explained that, due to current capacity constraints, a pragmatic approach had been taken regarding the distribution of pressures and savings to achieve a balanced budget position for 2022/23, namely:

 

Tranche 1 – savings and pressures which were straightforward to allocate (no Tranche 1 savings had been allocated to the Planning Policy Committee – Appendix A refers).

 

Tranche 2 – those requiring more time to allocate correctly to each committee, including £367k of pressures (£193k of staffing increments and £174k of contract inflation). These were being held as ‘corporate items’ pending consideration during the next cycle of committee meetings.

 

Tranche 3 – the more complex cross-cutting savings not currently allocated would be distributed following the June cycle of committee meetings, although none applied to the Planning Policy Committee.

 

It was also recommended that responsibility for CIL matters be transferred to this Committee from Strategy & Resources. At present, while the Strategy & Resources Committee was responsible for the CIL allocation process, the CIL budget remained with Planning Policy. The recommendation was intended to streamline arrangements more effectively. It was confirmed that the role of the CIL Working Group would not be affected by this change of committee ownership.

 

In response to Members’ questions, officers advised that:

 

·      the digital transformation of the land charges function was nearing completion and clarification would be sought about whether the process had been fully funded by a government grant;

 

·      the £40,000 budget for planning appeals was intended to provide for the cost of both:

 

-     engaging barristers to represent the Council at public inquiries; and

 

-     any costs awarded against the Council (the application for costs arising from the successful appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the development at Coulsdon Road, Caterham – TA/2019/1538 – had not been submitted to date);

 

·      the charges for pre-application fees, relative to those levied by other authorities, would be reviewed (the question was raised in the context of the charge for small businesses);

 

·      the Government’s funding settlement for local authorities would only be for one year and the outlook thereafter was uncertain, given that significant reforms of local government finance (i.e. the ‘fair funding review’ and a business rates reset) were anticipated for 2023/24;

 

·      the only element of Tranche 2 savings applicable to this Committee would be staffing increments (including the 1.25% increase in National Insurance costs) directly relating to planning staff.

 

            R E S O L V E D that

 

A.     the Committee’s draft revenue budget for 2022/23 in the sum of £1.19m (as shown at Appendix A) be agreed, taking account of pressures allocated as part of

Tranche 1;

 

B.     the Committee’s Community Infrastructure Levy Final Capital Programme for 2022/23 in the sum of £1.7m (as shown in Appendix B) be agreed;

 

C.     it be noted that, due to timing and capacity constraints across the Council, c£0.4m of pressures could not be allocated in time for January and February committee cycle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 236.

237.

Local Plan progress options: Inspector response - ID16 and ID19 pdf icon PDF 459 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A report was considered with options regarding the Local Plan. This was in light of the Inspector’s correspondence ID16 and ID19 and the fact that key information arising from DHA’s Junction 6 (M25) capacity study and mitigation opportunities was now available. As agreed at the previous meeting on the 5th January 2022, DHA’s traffic modelling analysis had been sent to the Inspector.

 

Regarding the paragraph in the report titled “Consultation”, Councillor Duck requested that the second sentence be removed or qualified. It was qualified to state that the meeting referred to had taken place on the 7th December 2021 and had concentrated on DHA Transport’s report on junction 6 (M25).

 

The options presented within the report were:

 

1.      Withdraw the draft Local Plan and prepare a new plan

 

            This option would result in the withdrawal of the Plan and commence the preparation of a new Plan as per current national planning policy. This option was raised by the Inspector in paragraph 63 of ID16 and at paragraph 22 of ID19. For the benefit of context, the same details and workplan etc applicable to this option would also apply if the Plan were found unsound.

 

2.      Continue with the current plan and modifications process

 

The examination would be paused, and the Council would be required to undertake further work on matters to an agreed timescale, including the provision of strategic infrastructure, Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAN); housing requirement and supply (including the Garden Village proposal); and provision for gypsies and travellers. The Inspector had identified several tasks in ID16 requiring completion before he could continue with the examination.

 

3.      Continue with the current Local Plan and modifications process securing a 5-year Plan

 

As per Option 2, except that the Council would focus on a shorter adoption period in the knowledge that the Local Plan would need to be substantively reviewed after 5 years. It would continue to be prepared with the Local Plan period being 2013 to 2033 unless, at the point of review, it was determined the Plan should change.

 

4.      Continue with a plan as set out in TED48

 

            This option was originally presented to the Inspector as a “without prejudice”, alternative approach to progressing the Plan as set out in TED48. The intention of the option is different to Option 3 in that it changes the Plan period to fifteen years from 2013-2028 in accordance with paragraph 157 of the NPPF 2012, under which this Local Plan is being prepared. As with Option 3, it includes a 5-year review policy. However, where Option 3 would still consider the Garden Community as part of the Plan, Option 4 places no reliance on the Garden Community and would potentially require a new spatial strategy to be determined.  The Local Plan would be focused on the allocated sites and would make best use of the remaining capacity of Junction 6 of M25.

 

For each option, the report contained indicative timescales and an analysis of risks, opportunities and caveats. 

 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 237.

238.

Revised response to Mid Sussex District Council's consultation on modifications to its Site Allocations Development Plan Document pdf icon PDF 412 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A suggested response to this consultation was proposed to the Committee on the 5th January 2022. At that meeting, it was agreed that an alternative response be prepared by local Members and Officers for consideration on the 20th January 2022. A revised response had been drafted accordingly and was presented to the Committee for consideration. This was agreed, together with a proposal from Councillor Dennis that a copy be sent to the Planning Inspector examining the Tandridge Local Plan.

 

            R E S O L V E D – that:

 

A.    the Council’s response to Mid Sussex District Council’s consultation be as per Appendix D; and

 

B.    a copy of the response be sent to the Planning Inspector examining the Tandridge Local Plan.