Council Agrees to Seek Second Opinion on Local Plan JR Defence

Published on: 25 Jul, 2019
Updated on: 26 Jul, 2019

By Martin Giles

GBC is to seek a second legal opinion of its intended defence of the Local Plan process. The process is to be subjected to judicial review, expected in October or November.

The agenda item had been expected to be controversial. Indications were that the Liberal Democrats were going to resist the call from the Guildford Greenbelt Group and Residents for Guildford and Villages. But after what appears to have been a last-minute change of heart and increased cross-party co-operation, the Lib Dem Group voted to support the motion.

The motion proposed by the leaders of GGG, Cllr Susan Parker, and R4GV, Cllr Joss Bigmore, requires the council’s solicitor “to commission a fresh opinion of the council’s defence and position in the statutory challenges by a different QC to be completed forthwith and prior to the submission of detailed grounds [of the defence to the High Court] …

“Where that review discloses error or weaknesses in the council’s position, to request that the second QC advises the Executive who will then determine what steps the council will, if any, take in relation to the statutory challenge including whether to seek before the court to: not take an active part in proceedings; concede particular points, and/or agree a form of order with other parties to proceedings to present to the court.”

A review of brownfield capacity will also be required and all the results referred back to the full council.

The debate on the motion was emotional at times. Cllr Parker (GGG, Send), as proposer of the motion, said: “The Local Plan is an environmental disaster. It will put about 70 per cent of new homes on green fields even though we have substantial unused brownfield capacity.

Cllr Susan Parker

“The judicial reviews are only questioning allocation of sites in the green belt, and the previous Tory council’s failure to consider the brownfield land in the urban area. The plan can be partially quashed; Guildford’s QC has confirmed that in his written advice.

“The judicial reviews are the last chance for the green field sites in the plan. We do not yet know what the High Court will decide. That’s in the hands of the lawyers and the judges.

“But if the High Court decides to quash the site allocations on green belt land, we need to reconsider brownfield capacity in the urban area. Let’s start to do that now, so we are ready if the plan is quashed.

“We can then start properly sustainable regeneration, including building social housing for local people. We can protect our environment. The judicial reviews offer us a fantastic opportunity to put right a few of the errors made by the last Tory council.

“We can show Guildford’s community that this council recognises that there is a need for change and that we want to deliver this. We know the community wanted change at the last election.

“Thirty-five Conservatives were elected in 2015, which fell to nine in 2019. That’s a resounding verdict on Conservative local government. The community rejected what the Conservatives offered, including the Local Plan. We need, as a new council, to offer something different. The people voted for change, let’s give them change.”

Cllr Nigel Manning

But Cllr Nigel Manning (Con, Ash Vale) said the motion was “purely about trying to get the Local Plan which was determined by the planning inspector, overturned by the back door.”

In the face of what appeared to be widespread support for the motion on the floor of the chamber, he continued: “This original motion is purely one pursuing an ideological viewpoint pursued by certain members of this council and is not for the benefit of Guildford Borough as a whole.

“Contrary to the motion, one cannot consider whole site allocations without setting aside the Local Plan. This has been explained time and time again… The motion talks about spending perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds defending against the JR.

“It does not talk about the £3.5 million-plus that would have to be spent again in going through the Local Plan process… Which services will need to be reduced or stopped to meet this extra cost?

“I have no problem with going to a second QC to ensure that everything was right.” Cllr Manning said he was concerned there were “a number of people within this council, perhaps on the Executive, who are looking to deliberately bring in a report that undermines the Local Plan”.

He concluded that any second QC should be of equal or greater experience than the present one and the instructions to the QC should be made public because, he added: “He will answer the precise question that you give him.”

Cllr Fiona White

Fiona White (Lib Dem, Westborough), deputy council leader, said the debate had digressed from the motion and reminded the council that the High Court, in hearing the applications, will be examining the process of the adoption of Guildford’s Local Plan. She agreed with the requests from Conservative speakers that the second QC should be of equal eminence to the first.

She added: “I think there have been a lot of red herrings in assuming that somehow a lot of the bits of the Local Plan will no longer happen. That is not what this motion says.”

Cllr Caroline Reeves

The council leader, Cllr Caroline Reeves (Lib Dem, Friary & St Nicolas), said: “If there is one thing we can be absolutely 100 per cent certain about it’s that we can’t all agree on the Local Plan.

“We know from our own election results what our supporters think and we know we need to have a Local Plan that builds houses but we are never, ever going to agree on exactly where those houses will go.”

She believed there had been a “basic misunderstanding of many aspects of the Local Plan and the JRs” and wondered if the answers coming from the second opinion were not acceptable to some would there be a request for another, and so on.

She said having a second opinion would honour a party commitment but it should be agreed that should be the end of it.

Cllr Joss Bigmore

Bringing the debate to a close, the seconder of the motion, Cllr Joss Bigmore (R4GV, Christchurch), thanked those who had helped with the motion including the council leader, the lead councillor for planning, Jan Harwood (Lib Dem, Merrow), and Cllr Tom Hunt (Lib Dem, Friary & St Nicolas) for their advice and willingness to compromise and the council’s solicitor, Robert Parkin, who had been a “very good referee”.

Then, acknowledging a change of style which had been evident for most of the evening, he said: “Hopefully, this motion will be the first example of a new style of politics in the chamber; parties working together to shape decisions that reflect the majority wishes of all residents of the borough.

“No side has everything they wanted in this motion but we have a motion that has a good chance of passing and that is testament to the co-operation shown by all parties.

“This motion was never about one QC being better than another. This motion is not veiled criticism of officers who worked so hard to turn political choice into a Plan, found sound by the planning inspector.”

A second opinion was advisable, he said, as it would be if a serious diagnosis was given by a doctor. The election had proved how unpopular this Local Plan was with the residents so a second opinion would be prudent because of the gravity of the possible outcomes.

There were many, he claimed, who felt disenfranchised by the council. The motion, he felt, could be the start in rebuilding trust with the residents.

The motion was passed by 37 votes to eight. The council voted along party lines, Lib Dems, R4GV (including one Green member) and GGG voting for the motion, Conservatives and Labour against.