GBC Will Not Seek a JR Of Its Own Local Plan Process But Divisive Choice Still Looms

Published on: 1 Jun, 2019
Updated on: 1 Jun, 2019

By Martin Giles

Guildford Borough Council (GBC) will not seek a judicial review (JR) of its own Local Plan process, The Guildford Dragon was told by councillors yesterday (May 31, 2019).

Although it would have been possible for an indemnified councillor to apply for such a review, council officers decided, following legal advice, that such a review was inadvisable.

However, applications for up to three separate judicial reviews of Guildford’s Local Plan process are, it is understood, underway.

If any of the applications are successful the council will then need to decide whether or not to mount a defence at the JR hearings. A decision to use public funds to pay lawyers to defend the council might be unacceptable to those councillors who objected to the Local Plan and voted against its adoption.

As the eight Conservative (excluding the mayor) and two Labour councillors are likely to be in favour of mounting a defence and the 16 R4GV/Green Group are likely to be against, it would rest on how the traditionally “unwhipped” Lib Dems, 17 of them, vote.

For some to be voting with the Conservatives in favour of an unpopular Local Plan might be unattractive, especially at a time when they will be hoping to encourage as much local support as possible for their parliamentary candidate Zoe Franklin, should a general election be called.

Meanwhile, Residents for Guildford and Villages (R4GV) leader Joss Bigmore (Christchurch) has been trying to confirm the claim made by Conservative Mole Valley MP, Sir Paul Beresford, that a revision of the plan is possible through a motion passed by a meeting of the full GBC council.

Cllr Bigmore said: “We have written to Sir Paul Beresford in an attempt to clarify his suggested approach. If he is suggesting an early review of the Plan – each Local Plan has to be reviewed every five years, but we could choose to start one tomorrow – this would mean acceptance that the Plan is lawful and our villages and strategic sites would remain out of the green belt and we would need to show exceptional circumstances to return them.”

Such review such as this may take years, and whilst it is being conducted the Local Plan would be in force and sites could be developed.

Cllr Joss Bigmore

Cllr Bigmore continued: “But if he is, in fact, describing a different type of review, we have not yet found a precedent to back up his suggestion and have asked for more guidance. We have also asked whether the Commons library contains evidence that the decision to hold the EGM [Extraordinary General Meeting] during the pre-election purdah was unlawful, it was certainly irregular and obviously undemocratic but we are yet to find evidence it was unlawful.”

Regarding the decision that the council will not consider a Judicial Review of its own Plan, the R4GV leader said: “This is hardly surprising given the relevant advice was given by the same legal team that supported the development and adoption of the Local Plan.

“R4GV was keen to instruct new counsel to look over the process but sadly this was resisted. This was a potential opportunity to amend the Plan and it has been lost.

“We would hope that the council will be more open-minded when it comes to the approach to any external JRs, these may give an opportunity through mediation or even through concession to make this Plan work for many more residents than it does currently.

Then in an apparent warning to the new council leader, Caroline Reeves, Cllr Bigmore concludes: “R4GV is currently supportive of Cllr Reeves leadership, we assume she will not fight to defend the indefensible.

“When we see the details of any external Judicial Review we must be tireless in exploiting any opportunity to make sure we are building the right number of homes in the most appropriate places, rather than the situation we have today with the wrong numbers of homes in the wrong places.”

“R4GV lost the selection vote for council leadership to a coalition of Plan advocates and we are in a minority on the Executive, our power is limited but what power we have we commit to trying to honour our manifesto pledges.”

Cllr Susan Parker

Susan Parker leader of the four Guildford Greenbelt Group (GGG) councillors at GBC was also sceptical about Sir Paul Beresford’s advice. She said: “I think Sir Paul is probably mistaken that the plan can just be changed by a decision from the full council.  Legal advice has been given to us that any proposed revision agreed by the full council will be subject to full consultation, and this could take years (Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 consultations, and an Inspector’s review).

“All the GGG councillors voted against the Local Plan when it was approved one week prior to the election, so an effective partial change to reduce the plan’s environmental impact, imposed swiftly by judicial review, does seem very attractive.

“I had thought that GBC might support a judicial review of its own Local Plan, by the new council. This could have been done, apparently, by GBC supporting a councillor who would personally challenge the plan on behalf of the council. I have offered to do this personally.  However, it has been decided not to proceed with this.

“There remains the decision as to how GBC will respond to the proposed judicial reviews from third parties.  GBC  can defend the Local Plan, or the newly elected council can decide that it will choose not to oppose the claims. These are choices for a full council meeting, which the new council still has to take.”

Share This Post