Letter: What Is Going On In Guildford’s Planning Committee?

Published on: 22 Aug, 2019
Updated on: 22 Aug, 2019

Cllr Patrick Sheard, GGG, opposing the application for 75 houses in Send.

From Susan Parker

leader of the Guildford Greenbelt Group

In response to: The Dragon Says: Who Cares What the Residents Think?

With regard to the recent GBC Planning Committee (August 14) consideration of an application for 75 new houses at Send, the normal process, if the officer’s recommendation has not been accepted by the Committee, is for the meeting to be adjourned. A proposer and seconder for the alternative motion are then sought and these two councillors, together with officers and the chair, convene a subcommittee to determine the relevant grounds for dissent.

I’d like to understand why on earth this didn’t happen in this case, and why the chair diverged from the normal practice of neutrality, at least theoretically.

My fellow GGG ward member in Send, Patrick Sheard, put forward objections to this application which I think could have been tested. I believe they should not have been challenged either by the chair or the officers, or at least a sub-committee should have been formed, as normal. Naive and inexperienced councillors were misled by an aggressive piece of advice.

What is going on in Guildford? Who makes decisions in the council, the officers or the elected members?

When the Local Plan was voted through, in the “purdah” period, under dubious circumstances, councillors were assured that the evident and egregious oversupply within the plan was not a concern, because all prospective sites would be subject to the planning process.

We were told, clearly incorrectly, that they could all be rejected by the planning committee. So much for that assurance!

We are required to supply just over 10,000 homes but have earmarked sites for more than 14,600 homes. Now we are being told that none of those sites can be excluded; that the planning committee does not have the right to decide not to allocate the sites, and each site can be increased by 25% or more and objections won’t be countenanced.

How many homes will Guildford be forced to approve? 16,000? 20,000? Like Cllr Tim Anderson [R4GV, Send], I feel that democratic debate should be allowed more scope.

It’s not unusual for officers, including senior planning officers, to assert in committee that we would lose on appeal, together with various dire warnings about costs and the impossibility of defending a decision. This warning has not always been borne out in practice; it is not unusual for the planning committee to dissent from the officer’s recommendation and when they do, to find any appeal from the developer dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

Committee members need to be more confident in their own judgment. They aren’t there to do as they are told. Reviewing appeals, there are many officer decisions which are overturned; and many dissenting committee decisions which aren’t. Officers are not omniscient and they aren’t always right.

Committee members have been elected to use their judgment, wisdom and sense. They have the right to do so. Frankly, they have a duty to do so. Any attempt to fetter this is indeed an abuse of the democratic process.

Responses to Letter: What Is Going On In Guildford’s Planning Committee?

Jim Allen Reply

August 22, 2019 at 8:55 pm

As Cllr Parker has some experience in this matter one must ask, has there been a policy put before the full council to change the planning process of the Planning Committee? If not, why not?
Ben Paton Reply

August 22, 2019 at 9:02 pm

To borrow someone’s metaphor, planning in Guildford is an ‘inverted pyramid of piffle’. The inverted apex of the pyramid is the “trajectory” put in place by the now-departed Cllrs Juneja and Mansbridge and zealously promoted by their successors Cllrs Furniss and Spooner.

Officer opinion is venerated as sacerdotal law when it conforms with the “trajectory” and conveniently ignored whenever it differs.
Peter Grimble Reply

August 23, 2019 at 9:31 am

They should stop all building in Surrey as it is already over-developed. Ther is plenty of space in the North of England so they should build there.
John Perkins Reply

August 23, 2019 at 3:15 pm

Committee appointment allocations should also be reconsidered.

Seats on council committees have been allocated proportionally and according to law. Unfortunately, the number of chairmanships each party or group is given is not governed and it is not obvious how the positions are divided amongst the groups.

The Liberal Democrats and R4GV have the chair of two committees, which is reasonable. But so too do the Conservatives with only half as many members. Labour chair one committee despite having only two elected members.

Vice-chair positions are: four Lib Dem, which more than compensates them for the slightly low number of chairmen; one R4GV, which leaves them two short of a fair proportion; two Conservative, again more than double a proportionate number; and one Labour which is one more than their “share”.

It’s understandable that it would be difficult to apportion these positions especially if previous experience should be taken into account. However, it’s hard not to conclude that the old guard has retained an element of control above its standing.
Peta Malthouse Reply

August 27, 2019 at 7:53 pm

If the councillors have not followed the usual procedure then I question the validity of the decision. Furthermore, there must be some means of referring it to the full council. Why is the decision of the Planning Committee final at this Local Authority? Normally a Committee decision has to be approved by Full Council. What is the procedure for this at Guildford?

I have to say that the only time I appeared before the Planning Committee was not a good experience for me. You have three minutes to put your objection. The matter was introduced incorrectly as a different type of application so I corrected it. The chairwoman decided that my time spent in correcting it should be taken against the three minutes allocated so I was not able to make my case. Sadly this sort of problem is often down to the chairperson concerned.

A GBC spokesperson responded: “It is not the case that a Planning Committee decision is normally referred to full Council for approval. However, there is provision under the council’s Constitution, for a planning application to be referred to the full council for determination.

“A councillor must propose (and another councillor second) in writing that a planning application be referred to the full council for determination in detailing the rationale for the request.

“All councillors are then informed of the request, including the rationale provided for that request. The matter would then be placed as an agenda item for consideration at the next Planning Committee meeting. The proposer and seconder would each be given three minutes to state their case.

“The decision to refer a planning application to the full council will be decided by a majority vote of the Planning Committee.”