Local Plan Work Has Cost £3.1 Million So Far – Nearly £1 Million For Consultancy

Published on: 10 Sep, 2015
Updated on: 13 Sep, 2015

Guildford’s Local Plan has cost £3.1 million to date and is expected to cost a further £850,000 over the next 18 months.

Nearly £1 million pounds of the total has been spent on consultancy fees and over £1.8 million on “employee expenses”, this is understood to include salaries, national insurance and pensions costs, overtime and agency staff costs for those staff allocated to the local plan.

Guildford Borough Council (GBC) confirmed the amounts in a response to a Freedom of Information request submitted by Wisley Action Group supporter Ben Paton, a former Conservative candidate for Lovelace ward, who lives in Ockham and objects to proposals that were contained in last year’s Draft Local Plan for a large settlement to be built on the former airfield at Wisley.

Ben Paton

Mr Paton said: “Sending out the previous draft of the Local Plan for public consultation despite it being unsound was a gross waste of public money.

“The draft local plan cost £3.1m to the end of 2014. The budget to March 2017 approaches £1m; that’s a total of nearly £4million and if the new draft follows the trend set by the first draft there will be cost overruns. And for that the public do not even get to see the housing model which the council paid a consultant to produce on behalf of the public.

“Before sending out a new draft wouldn’t be logical to start with a proper estimate of housing needs and the constraints on house building in the borough?

“By any standards the first draft was a failure. Yet the person who boasts he set its trajectory, appointed Monika Juneja to run it and then took personal responsibility after she stood down is still in charge [council leader Stephen Mansbridge].

“But that’s okay because the council has decided that she did not breach its Code of Conduct. No wonder GBC appears in the Rotten Boroughs columns [of Private Eye].”

Cllr Paul Spooner

The lead councillor for planning at GBC, Paul Spooner (Con, Ash South and Tongham) said: “In relation to the Local Plan to date, the extensive work undertaken internally and by external consultants shaped the documentation that went out for comprehensive consultation and enabled the significant level of feedback that has ensured the planning policy team are fully aware of local opinion. From that perspective the exercise to date has provided value in my opinion.

“The process of preparing Local Plans in generic terms is not acceptable to a local planning authority in terms of resources, time or costs, in my opinion. Personally, I would favour a fluid local plan that can be updated based on changes on a regular basis, perhaps annually, without the need for a completely new evidence base as part of the formulation of Local Plans.”

Cllr Caroline Reeves

The leader of the opposition at GBC Cllr Caroline Reeves (Lib Dem, Friary & St Nicolas) said: “As Lib Dem councillors pointed out at the time, the Draft Local Plan that went to public consultation in 2014 simply wasn’t ready, and it would undoubtedly have been more cost-effective to have delayed until the infrastructure issues and housing number doubts were sorted out.

“The key tests for the next draft Local Plan will be:

1. Can the housing target be thoroughly justified?

2. Can our infrastructure cope – is there enough investment in improving roads to avoid congestion and in providing enough school places in the right locations?

3. Does the plan protect our environment, both green belt countryside and urban green spaces?

“If the next draft passes those tests, then council tax-payers may finally have got their money’s worth.”

Responses to Local Plan Work Has Cost £3.1 Million So Far – Nearly £1 Million For Consultancy

Jim Allen Reply

September 10, 2015 at 5:45 pm

Compare that with the £1,500 spent on the Burpham Neighbourhood Plan to get it through examination.

The key tests for a Local Plan are:

1: Have you consulted with the local people?

2: Have you asked non-leading questions of the community, such that the questions do not suggest the answers?

3: Will the plan provide in all aspects for the needs of the community?

That’s before any other considerations.

Cost effective would have been to follow the legislation, reference, consultation then drafting – not providing the community with fait accompli plan which no one from any branch of the community could accept.
- Paul Spooner Reply
  
  September 15, 2015 at 4:54 pm
  
  I am afraid Mr Allen’s £1,500 does not appear to take into account the time and cost of GBC in supporting the process.
  
  Government support includes £5,000 after designating a neighbourhood area, £5,000 after designating a neighbourhood forum, £5,000 after a neighbourhood plan is publicised prior to examination, and £20,000 on successful completion of examination. So actual costs are far in excess of Mr Allen’s £1,500.
  
  I should also add that with the Burpham Neighbourhood plan (going in front of a scrutiny committee this evening) extensive amendments to the draft have been made by the planning inspector during examination and these need to be applied to the plan should it proceed to a local referendum. I very much hope that GBC supports the plan progressing to referendum, subject to modifications.
  
  Paul Spooner is a Conservative borough councillor for Ash South & Tongham and the lead councillor for planning.
Adrian Atkinson Reply

September 10, 2015 at 9:19 pm

I thought the Liberal Democrats were very clear on their policy re the local plan:

1 Brownfield first
2 Infrastructure must be improved
3 Proportionate to the area it is being proposed.

Housing target is a need minus constraints (green belt, flooding, SSSI, SPA, ANOB etc) and not a “justified” number.

As the council are proposing a Regulation 19 consultation next, it seems they will be proposing, by definition, a plan which will not be materially or significantly different from the one even the Liberals voted against at the last minute. I wonder how Cllr Reeves will vote if councillors ever get a chance to debate the regulation 19 decision?
Jules Cranwell Reply

September 12, 2015 at 8:08 am

The Tory executive has failed the public in all respects over this flawed Local Plan. They will only regain public trust if they have the courage to scrap the extant plan and begin again.