- Stay Connected
Socialize
Abraham Lincoln
If given the truth, the people can be depended upon to meet any national crisis...
Guildford news...
for Guildford people, brought to you by Guildford reporters - Guildford's own news service
Council Delays Local Plan In Wake Of Brexit And Announces Another Public Consultation
Published on: 27 Oct, 2016
Updated on: 28 Oct, 2016
Guildford Borough Council is to delay filing its Local Plan and will conduct yet another public consultation next summer.
Guildford Borough Council has announced that there will be a new public consultation on the Draft Local Plan.
It means the Tory-led council’s proposals for the planning needs of the borough until 2033 will not now be submitted to a planning inspector at the end of this year.
The council has said it is doing this to make sure that when it is submitted the evidence is robust, up to date, will take into account any Brexit implications and the publication of the 2014-based population and household projections.
It adds that it continues to read and consider the many responses to this summer’s consultation to which more than 6,000 residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders responded, some 900 fewer than the previous public consultation in 2014.
However, next time the council will only be asking for comments about proposed changes to the plan, but added that all comments received in this summer’s consultation about any unchanged aspects of the plan will remain valid, and will not be subject to further consultation.
The council has promised to submit those earlier comments and those in next year’s consultation to the independent planning inspector and will publish them publicly.
The leader of the council, Paul Spooner, who is also the lead member for planning and regeneration, said today (October 27): “This year’s consultation was an important and vital stage in preparing our new plan. Next year’s consultation focussing on proposed changes to the Draft Local Plan will be another opportunity for feedback.
“It’s crucial to make sure the plan we submit for inspection tackles local issues as well as balancing community needs across the borough.
“Working together is the right way to protect our borough and help our communities and economy thrive alongside the existing comments we already have. This is another major step forward in supporting future homes, jobs and leisure opportunities for local people.”
Page from Guildford Borough Council’s website featuring the Draft Local Plan.
The council will publish an outline of the revised timetable for the Local Plan. It will also revisit the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), the Employment Land Needs Assessment (ELNA) and the Retail and Leisure Needs Study update.
Find out more about the Local Plan on ther council’s website www.guildford.gov.uk/
The leader of Guildford’s Liberal Democrats, Cllr Caroline Reeves, said: “We welcome the proposal to reconsult on some parts of the Local Plan, in line with the Lib Dem amendment agreed by council back in May. As we said then, the council must genuinely listen to the views of residents.
The vice-chairman of the Guildford Labour Party, George Dokimakis, said: “We are glad that the council will be reviewing the SHMA and ELNA figures. We ask again that they go a step further and they release them for public scrutiny.
“We hope that Cllr Spooner and the Executive will incorporate ours and the public’s feedback to the next version of the Draft Local Plan so that we finally get a viable plan that delivers for our borough and our residents.
“Full transparency is the best disinfectant and the only way to get the public’s support.”
Share This Post
Responses to Council Delays Local Plan In Wake Of Brexit And Announces Another Public Consultation
Leave a Comment Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear. Full names, or at least initial and surname, must be given.
See: Tumbling Bay Footbridge: National Trust Says It Is ‘Committed to Finding a Resolution’
>
Lisa Wright
October 27, 2016 at 11:15 pm
I’m glad GBC have realised they’ll need to rework the numbers, allocations and sites.
But, have they listened and reacted to the public’s requests?
Has GBC finally worked out that residents live here for the countryside that benefits all of our lives through clean air, leisure, picturesque views and so on?
Will they be giving great weight to housing that meets the needs of our young, old and key workers who need excellent transport links, close to town facilities and leisure offering?
We can look forward to another round of consultation on a huge document.
I’m sure they hope we’ll all eventually get consultation sour and keep quiet – no such luck here!
Jim Allen
October 28, 2016 at 11:04 am
No surprise there then.
But if you quote statistics it should read ‘only’ 900 fewer than last time.
A drop of 50% is nothing unusual with often repeated questions, so many responses is a clear sign of discontent.
Lisa Wright
October 28, 2016 at 3:56 pm
Jim, there were 50% more responses
Jim Allen
October 28, 2016 at 11:43 pm
In second serveys, a drop of 50% in response is nothing unusual.
“Only” a drop of 900 in some 20,000-plus responses is a remarkable display of discontent by those who responded.
Adrian Atkinson
October 28, 2016 at 11:18 am
What does Guildford GBC expect when they keep on asking essentially the same questions time and time again? Different answers?
There is a saying about there isn’t there? Can’t recall it right now.
Andrew Birt
October 28, 2016 at 4:01 pm
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein.
Penny Panman
October 28, 2016 at 11:53 am
I wonder what ‘revisiting’ the SHMA means? It sounds a bit non-committal.
Tony Edwards
October 28, 2016 at 2:06 pm
Cllr Spooner appears to be taking a lead from the Scottish National Party and its independence referendum… keep asking the same questions until you get the answer you want.
GBC has received, loud and clear, the message from residents – twice. But it still refuses to accept the will of the people and persists with a third attempt – wasting further time and money.
Guildford residents don’t want an erosion of the green belt. They’ve said it enough times but Cllr Spooner isn’t listening.
Helen Jefferies
October 28, 2016 at 4:02 pm
Looking forward to seeing robust evidence on fixing infrastructure deficit and what the plan is to improve air quality through the borough.
From what we’ve seen so far the transport figures presented by developers are in la la land – if GBC/SCC takes them as read there will be trouble ahead at any inquiry.
Stuart Barnes
October 28, 2016 at 4:03 pm
I trust that one of the benefits of a clean Brexit (aka hard) is presumably a dramatic reduction in immigration and thus the claimed need for quite as much concreting over our green and pleasant land in the future.
Bibhas Neogi
October 29, 2016 at 1:21 pm
Since the Office of National Statistics (ONS) data is based on past trends and future predictions are extrapolated from these, the ONS would have to revise their figures for future population growth after Brexit.
No matter what number of houses are needed to be built in the Local Plan targets, the infrastructure deficit, in particular for roads, has to be addressed. The councils want to see a pedestrian friendly town centre but I believe the options they have in mind do not provide the solutions for the benefit of all.
A new east-west link between Woodbridge Road and Guildford Park Road is essential through Network Rail’s site at the station in reducing traffic through the gyratory and the Millbrook to York Road stretch of the A281 would have to find a new route so that the town centre becomes free of traffic except for the buses, emergency vehicles, taxis and cycles.
Possibly the least disruptive option to achieve that would be to put this stretch underground following more or less the existing alignment. This does not require expensive tunneling.
I invite the readers who have yet to visit my website to see the option that I have proposed. These are addressed to resolve the traffic issues, to make pedestrian routes safer and to enable access to the town centre by cyclists from all directions. Also included is the relocation of the bus station and splitting of the bus routes to connect the railway station and the town centre mini hubs.
It is vitally important that the councils explore these ideas and the readers who agree in principle to urge the councils to do so.
Monica Jones
October 29, 2016 at 3:15 pm
When the council revises the Plan will it take into account the Government’s recent proposal? That is that in future it will be the responsibility of local councils to provide accommodation to all who present themselves as homeless.
Surely this will have a massive impact on the plan regarding future housing?
Where will the funding for this increase in the already stretched service come from? More staff will be required also.
Is this likely to mean massive increase in council tax?
We need to know.
Valerie Thompson
October 29, 2016 at 6:26 pm
What more verbiage from GBC and no intention to change their minds about any previous decision, no doubt?
So we’ve got to go through the same old arguments, read a load of twaddle, bother to write, yet again, and know we will be ignored.
Obviously GBC wants to wear us down with their failures to actually listen to the electorate. They should be brave enough to do something sensible.
I think the majority of people have ready said:
Build houses on brownfield sites.
Insists the University of Surrey builds student accommodation, for which it was given land and permission, and releases small properties in Guildford, at present occupied by students, for key workers the low-waged and the homeless.
Rethink the whole idea of removing villages from the green belt.
Rethink the large and unwelcome development sites at Blackwell Farm and Wisley as they are unsuitable, as agreed by the bus-load of councillors who turned down the last application for Wisley, unanimously.
Do we really have to repeat these opinions?
And have the courage to make the research for the SHMA available to the councillors and public.
The continued refusal of the Executive to make this information known to all does not follow their own intention to be open and transparent.
We all know that the authors of this document have interests in development and have almost certainly inflated the numbers ostensibly needed for housing in the borough.
Patrick Haveron
October 29, 2016 at 10:48 pm
Guildford, and Craven Distrct Council’s Plan delay was featured in Planning Magazine last week. Here is what was written:
“An assumption that a post-Brexit UK that accepts fewer immigrants will therefore need to build fewer houses is given short shrift by planning professionals. This is partly because no Brexit deal has been struck, meaning there is no basis on which to make new predictions; but the main reason is that existing housing projections already factor in a 45 per cent reduction in net immigration to 185,000 per annum by 2021.
“With half of immigration coming from outside the EU, even a dramatic drop in EU migration would not reduce household growth assumptions. ‘A significant reduction in migration is already factored in,’ said Matthew Spry, senior director at planning consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners. ‘There is no alternative nationally consistent statistical basis for arriving at a different conclusion.’
“Roger Hepher, founder of consultant Hepher Grincell, puts it more strongly still. ‘This smacks a little of desperation and is really rather disreputable,’ he said.”
“Although developers are confident they can fight off calls for reviews based on declining future immigration levels, the issue is not totally cut and dried. This is because government guidance says councils’ assessment of objectively assessed housing need (OAN) must consider the additional requirement for homes driven by predicted local job growth, as well as demographic and migration factors. In many areas, this economic requirement for homes is a large proportion of the OAN.
Guildford Council said its review would include “the latest post-Brexit economic forecasts … to make sure the evidence base is robust, up to date and accurate”. Likewise, the delay in Craven’s plan process, according to the council’s spatial planning manager, Sian Watson, is down to evidence of a “significant reduction in job growth”, meaning up to 45 homes a year, out of a current proposed total of 290, may now not be needed.
Given this uncertainty and debate, some are calling for government action to stop councils being tempted to use Brexit as an excuse for delay. Planning minister Gavin Barwell did refer in Parliament last week to the fact that a fall in migration was already factored into household projections, but has not set out a detailed view. Hepher said: “It would be helpful if the secretary of state could nip this in the bud, perhaps with a chief planner’s letter, making it clear there is no basis for local authorities doing this.” Without action, the debate is likely to continue.
So the Government may have to intervene if more Councils cite this..
David Roberts
November 2, 2016 at 12:00 pm
It is a myth to say that Brexit makes it easier for the Government to control immigration. If immigration does come down in the medium term, it will only be as a result of a slump in the economy, which is quite likely when we leave the EU.
David Scotland
November 2, 2016 at 11:51 pm
What hasn’t, I’m sure, been factored in to demand for housing is the changing family dynamic.
In simple terms, as incomes fail to keep pace with inflation across all the generations, we’ll find children unable to afford to fly the family nest, coupled with grandparents unable to meet the increasing cost of care, leading to them moving back into the family nest.
A single, enlarged family home will therefore be necessary for this melting pot of all ages where resources are pooled for common benefit.
Where once the family was spread over say three households, there will now be just the one and so must inevitably reduce the need for a gazillion homes to be built every 10 minutes.
Paul Bishop
November 3, 2016 at 11:32 am
I’d love to see how David Scotland proposes to factor in this completely flawed approach of his. Yes, let’s just build great big houses instead of affordable homes, because Guildford is short on big houses at the moment and it seems to be working so well.
Did it maybe not occur to him that the reason this is happening is because of the shortage of housing? The only real solution is to provide more housing, built at a rate at least close to our population growth.
The Brexit outcome is irrelevant, there is no information on what it will mean on immigration figures and so nothing meaningful can be done with it within the Local Plan timescale.
I’m just waiting for the first political party to come out with a child limit proposal for all Guildford residents. That would seem to be the next step in the ridiculous desire to stump population growth rather than embrace it.
Peter Elliott
November 3, 2016 at 12:33 pm
I see Cllr Spooner is complaining about having to read through the thousands of comments about the local plan, and how this is contributing to the delay. May I remind him that he was elected on a mandate to protect the green belt. “Conservatives Say Green Belt to Stay’. Remember?
If he then chooses to do the opposite to what he was elected for, and try to build thousands of houses on the green belt, it’s hardly surprising he finds himself in difficulties. As the old saying has it, “If it isn’t ethical, it isn’t expedient either.”