The Chair, or his nominee, to answer any questions raised by members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 40.
Note: the deadline for questions to be considered at this meeting is 5pm on Tuesday, 19 April 2022.
At the time of publication of this agenda two questions were received. As the number of questions to be asked is limited to two per agenda item, any further questions received will receive a written response.
Question 1 from Mr. Alan Doyle
“With regard to the ‘Visioning’ process, can you please advise:
1. How many planning consultants were asked to bid for the task of facilitating the ‘Visioning’ process for our Local Plan?
2. How much money was spent by the Council on the ‘Visioning’ process for our Local Plan?"
Question 2 from Mr. Alan Doyle
“How much has been budgeted for the development of an alternative Local Plan to present to the Planning Inspectorate (which has been the subject of much discussion in Council forums), and in which it is proposed that the housing target set by the Whitehall department would not be met in full."
Minutes:
Two questions were received from members of the public:
Question 1 – Mr. Alan Doyle
“With regard to the “Visioning” process, can you please advise:
Response from the Chair, Cllr. Ian Beardsmore:
“In response to the first part of your question, this process was led and undertaken by the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council – strategic planning officers were not involved in the appointment, the workshops, or the compilation of the report. The Leader and Deputy Leader directly appointed Catriona Riddell Associates (which the Chief Executive confirmed to the Leader) and no other consultants were asked to bid for the task.
I need to clarify that I played no role in this either. As Chair of the Local Plan Task Group and the councillor who as such actually 'carries the can' for the Local Plan It would have been both courtesy and common sense to let me see the brief. Neither courtesy nor common sense were forthcoming and to this day I have never seen the brief.
For clarification the idea to proceed with this consultation was agreed by the whole committee with at least some understanding that there may only be one candidate. However, the proper process for such things is that officers prepare the brief trying to capture what the promoters want, whilst obviously protecting the legal position of the Council. This was done. What later transpired is that this professional brief, without any consultation, was rejected totally! Crucially had members realised at the time this sleight of hand was to be played on them, I do not think it would have got the level support it did. I, for one, would have opposed it had I known this was going to happen.”
In answer to the second part of your question; the total cost including VAT was £4,200.00 for facilitation and preparation for three workshops and drafting of the Vision and Objectives,”
Question 2 – Mr. Alan Doyle
“How much has been budgeted for the development of an alternative Local Plan to present to the Planning Inspectorate (which has been the subject of much discussion in Council forums), and in which it is proposed that the housing target set by the Whitehall department would not be met in full."
Response from the Chairman, Cllr. Ian Beardsmore:
“There is no money budgeted for to produce an alternative Local Plan strategy. Current budget forecasts are on the basis of the strategy agreed by Environment & Sustainability Committee on 13 July 2021, to include completion of evidence and the examination costs, such as legal representation and the fee to the Planning Inspectorate. The cost for the financial year 21/22 (not all the bills are in yet) will be around £435k. Next year the costs are likely to be in the order of £125,000 to £200,000 for the financial year 2022/23, during which we are anticipating the draft Local Plan to be submitted and examined.
Aside from the extensive delay most of the costs incurred this year would have to be repeated if we went in a new direction at this very late stage.
Much of the technical evidence has now been completed by expert consultants and factored into remaining costs. To consider an alternative plan would require the production of new evidence to support a different direction, which would include housing market assessment, viability work, transport modelling, strategic flood risk assessment etc, as it’s not as simple as lifting sites out of the Plan to reach a lower housing figure. All strategies need to be evidenced and should an alternative plan be rejected by the Planning Inspectorate, which we anticipate would be the case if we are not meeting our housing need, it is likely that some of the evidence produced to support the original plan would by then need to be updated. It is difficult to put a figure on all this but it would run into hundreds of thousands of pounds and add at least 12- 18 months to the Local Plan timetable.
I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify the position should the government change our housing numbers. In that event some of the costs and delays outlined here in respect of new infrastructure reports would still be incurred. What, would depend on the precise nature of the changes. The big difference is we would not incur those costs and delays associated with the extensive difficulties of trying to cobble together some sort of new evidence base that attempted to justify the change of direction because the new figure would have come from the government.“