Agenda item

Name ofCouncillor askingQuestion

Name ofCabinet Member Responding

Councillor Crow to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Development

I thank the Deputy Leader for providing the update on the announcement of the Supreme Court overturning the Court of Appeal decision regarding the future 3^rd runway at Heathrow. The statement had been provided in relation to the Local Plan. My question is what his thoughts are to what this now means for Gatwick and its future aspirations to expand, either within the existing footprint or indeed outside of that footprint? Aviation has suffered this year and we hope numbers return but I’m interested in the Cabinet Member’s thoughts on the implications of the decision for the future of Gatwick airport and its potential expansion.

I recognise this is a significant announcement and officers will need to be looking at it carefully. I think we are keen to support Gatwick in its current position in terms of its operating capacity and number of passengers and wish Gatwick a much more successful 2021..

Councillor P Smith

Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Development

Going through the courts there are various environmental groups challenging government policy and when you then factor in the unknowns relating to post-Covid, at the moment it appears we are faced with the status quo. We have received no updates from Gatwick. The last update from them was that they were planning to proceed with the DCO process for the northern emergency runway.  They key thing to do is to make sure we can cover the current situation as comprehensively as we can based on the best advice in the Local Plan to protect the interest of our residents and the airport itself.

Councillor Millar-Smith to the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services and Sustainability

I am aware that the Police, shop security officers and businesses have and use “walkie talkie” radios to communicate to each other regarding incidents.   The council’s Community Wardens do not have these they only have mobile phones so if they need to make officers aware they need to phone or borrow the units to convey the message.  I believe they used to have radios, I wondered what the rationale was why the Community Wardens did not have radios and could they have so the communication could be joined up?

Councillor Jhans

Cabinet Member for Environmental Services and Sustainability

Thank you for the question. The Community Wardens do work very closely with the police officers in the local area.  On the main point on the “walkie talkie” radios I will look into that point and get back to you.

Councillor Brenda Burgess to the Cabinet Member for Wellbeing

I’m sure you will join with me in saying how regrettable it is that some adventure playgrounds may need to close due to financial constraint.  Thankfully some will remain open and some will be refurbished to comply with needs for unsupervised play. However regarding those which may need to close, how were other options explored and considered for example bringing in external providers?

Councillor Mullins

Cabinet Member for Wellbeing

We are in a situation as you’re aware from the budgets and Covid and unable to look at the markets.  There are limits as to business.  There is no scope to privatise the adventure playgrounds as the principle was always ‘free play’ but that was years ago and figures have changed. Sadly there is an investment need. There will be some public reaction but we are forced into that reaction but we are looking into alternative unsupervised provision in Bewbush and Broadfield.  Need to look at the provision available.  There has been some successful street play recently and looking at how best to provide play opportunities in the future.

Councillor Bob Burgess to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Development

At the Full Council meeting of 21 October 2020, the council unanimously passed a motion on the Planning White Paper that had been published by the Government.  One of the things the council resolved to do was to instruct the Chief Executive to write a letter expressing the council’s concern about the proposal and seek revised proposals that better served planning in Crawley. Has any response been received yet if so what was the response, and if not, what has been done (or what can be done) to encourage a speedier response?

Councillor P Smith

Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Development

The Chief Executive sent a letter to the MHCLG as per the Motion.  There has been no response received. Apparently this is no surprise as it is assumed that the council’s letter went in to the normal response of proposals by the government.  I’m sure you have heard a new set of reforms will be coming in the new year so I think that could be the answer.

Councillor Burrett to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Development

6.            In his response to the amendment (to item 6, Submission Crawley Local Plan 2021-2037 – Cabinet – 25 November 2020 (Recommendation 2)Councillor Peter Smith said there would be an extensive 6 week consultation that would enable residents, businesses and ward councillors to have their say and I very much welcome that. If the strength of opinion that comes back as a result of the consultation is that people in the Fernhill area are opposed to the Gatwick green employment area will they be listened to, or will they simply be told sorry we have to do this or the Local Plan will be found ‘unsound’?

If this is the case, what is the point of consultation?

Councillor P Smith

Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Development

It is a fair point, which can be deployed to many scenarios. How do you weigh up one set of views against another?  The whole Local Plan is a balancing act. I can assure you and your residents, in fact all residents, that we will take and review all responses and they will be taken into account and the response will be published. People may be in favour of it as they may want to have jobs, people may not be in favour of it. They will all be taken seriously. 

Councillor Lanzer to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Development

I refer him to the Planning Committee of 3 November 2020 and the application for the Longley House development which delivers 121 residential units. There was a clause in there which states ‘It was confirmed that the bedroom windows facing the Arora Hotel would have a panel of obscure glass in the centre in order to mitigate overlooking’. We all recognise the need for additional housing but the idea of adding obscure glazing in the bedroom in the first instance might disturb some people. I wondered how far he saw the policy going in the first instance and allow obscure glass to support a planning application in which otherwise would clearly be compromised.

In policy terms, where do you draw the line? If the line isn’t drawn for obscure glazing in the bedroom, would you draw the line in the living room?

Councillor P Smith

Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Development

I don’t remember the specific circumstances of those windows but I understand your point and I will answer in the general sense. Development control is very much a balancing act where members have to listen to officers’ technical assessment against the various rules, regulations and Local Plan policy. Something that is not ideal is actually acceptable in the context of the overall application and justified on all other grounds. Discussions occur regularly on these matters and on balance seemed reasonable. 

My personal opinion is irrelevant as it’s all laid down in the Local Plan. You have to take a balanced view on the specifics of the case.