Click to skip to content
 
 
 
Date: Tue 20 Jul 2010 Next Previous

Sam Gyimah's letter to Surrey County Council

MR GYIMAH'S LETTER TO SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL
RE: SURREY MINERALS PLAN

Dr. Andrew Povey
Surrey County Council
Penrhyn Road
Kingston upon Thames
Surrey KT1 2DN

14th July 2010

I am writing with regard to the recently submitted Surrey Minerals Plan. Having spoken extensively with Dr Hack; the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; and considered the latest guidance; I am firmly of the opinion that the Plan should be reviewed. In practice, this would mean withdrawing the Plan until a review has taken place.

My reasons for arriving at this position are as follows:

The new legislation gives the Council the power to take full control of its mineral planning agenda

You have previously argued that the government required the Council to have a minerals plan, and that it was not within the Council's power to stop them. What this legislation does is to give the Council the power it needs, by abolishing the regional spatial strategies which you argued so constrained you before. If, as previously stated on a number of occasions, Surrey County Council are keen to reduce the level of mineral production in the county and resulting disruption to the local environment, the new regulatory framework gives them a golden opportunity to do so.

The figures used for planning purposes are now open to change

I understand that the Council has a 'responsibility for continuing to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals to support economic growth'. This does not, however, require the Council to submit the Plan in its current form without alteration. Indeed point 15 of the Secretary of State's 6th July guidance note 'Revocation of Regional Strategies' states clearly that 'planning authorities can choose to use alternative figures for their planning purposes if they have new or different information and a robust evidence base'. Surrey County Council's previous inclination to use the apportionment set out in the 'Proposed Changes' to the revision of Policy M3 (published on 19th March 2010) is no longer the only option open to the council.

Furthermore I would imagine, given the spirit of the new legislation, that a 'robust evidence base' would now be seen as one which gives due weight to local opinion. As the previous consultation on the Minerals Plan quite clearly highlights, this opposition exists. I would thus urge you to review the figures used in deciding upon the appropriate level of minerals.

The new Government legislation is primarily and explicitly focussed on increasing the voice of local residents in such planning decisions

The legislation aims to give far greater local discretion over planning matters and states that while local planning authorities should continue to develop LDF core strategies and other DPDs, these should reflect local 'aspirations'. Having reviewed previous objections during the consultation (including from my predecessor Peter Ainsworth), and on the back of a number of meetings with local residents, I am of the view that the plan does not in fact reflect local aspirations. Given that the entire essence of the new legislation is to take local views into account when making these decisions, I feel this evidence now carries greater weight.

There is now a severe disconnect between the original consultation and the subsequently submitted Plan

There is now an unfortunate chasm between the promise of a public consultation to take account of local opinion and the submission of this Plan. During the original consultation, residents rightly felt that they had, to some extent, to accept the content of the old plan because it had been handed down to the Council from the regional planning bodies. Many may have agreed not to lodge an objection to the plan based on this. Others, who raised objections, did so in the specific context of these regional targets.

These targets are no longer in place and so residents should be consulted on the Plan and its proposals again, based on the new justification for such a plan and set in a new context by the Council. To carry on without any alteration or fresh consultation is grossly unfair, and is really only 'taking account of local concerns' in a perfunctory manner.

A threat to the Green Belt and local environment

Overall, the currently submitted Plan is a threat to the Green Belt and the local environment. This is an essential part of what makes Surrey such a great place to live and work, and something which the vast majority of my constituents care deeply about, as do I. From the numerous objections seen during the consultation, and from talking to local residents in Surrey, it is clear that there is strong opposition to the Plan based on the disruption to the local environment it proposes.

Suggestions

I am fully aware that creating the current Plan has involved a great deal of time and effort, and I understand the need to provide a clear framework for the future of minerals production in Surrey. But a review makes sense. To give local people the voice that the new Government legislation explicitly calls for, and to adjust the Plan to take account of this new people-led process. I therefore recommend that you withdraw the Plan, place it under review with new justification and new context for all to comment on; transparent to all and led by the constituents we serve.


Yours sincerely,


Sam Gyimah MP


Cc: Dr. Lynne Hack, Cabinet Member for the Environment


PRESS RELEASE
from
SAM GYIMAH MP
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

For immediate release: 19TH July 2010

Gyimah calls on Council to put local opinion first and withdraw Surrey Minerals Plan

East Surrey MP, Sam Gyimah, has questioned Surrey County Council's decision to submit a Minerals Plan without allowing local people to have their say. He has urged the Council to withdraw the plan whilst a review takes place and subsequent alterations can be made to more accurately reflect local opinion.

Mr Gyimah has spoken to local residents in all the affected areas, representatives from Surrey County Council and officials in the Department for Communities and Local Government; and is firmly of the opinion that there is ample scope within the new guidelines for the Council to change the Plan now that the regional targets have been abolished.

Mr Gyimah said:

'The Secretary of State's recent guidance allows the Council to change the figures it used to construct the original Plan if they have a 'robust evidence base' for showing that the Plan would better fit local aspirations were it altered'.

'The current plan goes against the spirit of the new legislation; it is pretty clear that a 'robust evidence base' would now be seen as one which gives due weight to local opinion. As the previous consultation on the Minerals Plan quite clearly highlights, this opposition exists in the community and should be listened to'.

He continued:

'What's more, there is now a severe disconnect between the original consultation to take account of local opinion and the submission of this Plan. During the original consultation, residents rightly felt that they had, to some extent, to accept the content of the old plan because it had been handed down to the Council from the regional planning bodies. These targets are no longer in place and so residents should be consulted on the Plan and its proposals again, based on the new justification for such a plan and set in a new context by the Council'.

'To carry on without any alteration or fresh consultation is inconsistent with what the Coalition Government is trying to achieve; which is that local people should drive the planning process'.