Council Leader Denies The Local Plan is in ‘Deep Trouble’

Published on: 17 Aug, 2016
Updated on: 22 Aug, 2016

Cllr Paul Spooner the leader of Guildford Borough Council.

Paul Spooner, the council leader at Guildford Borough Council has denied that the Local Plan “may be in deep trouble” as claimed in a letter to The Guildford Dragon by the Lib Dem leader of the opposition, Caroline Reeves.

Responding to the letter Cllr Spooner (Con, Ash South & Tongham) said: “Work continues to check and input the many letters and emails, alongside the online responses to the latest Local Plan consultation. It is vital that each of the thousands of comments is properly analysed to see what they say and how they might affect the draft Local Plan.

“Taking the time to do this is not a sign of trouble, but the right way to understand feedback from the many statutory consultees, residents, businesses and other organisations who took part.

“Proper analysis also helps identify the possible consequences and impact of any potential changes. It’s crucial to make sure the draft Local Plan tackles local issues as well as balancing community needs, and it’s too early to draw any overall or specific conclusions.

“Ensuring suitable infrastructure, particularly transport, is a critical aspect of developing the new Local Plan. We have made it clear from the start that we can only deliver the plan in full if the necessary transport improvements are achieved. Partners such as Highways England must complete their significant infrastructure projects to enable this.

“We published the supporting evidence for transport as part of the consultation and I would like to clarify any mention of a potential ‘Transport and Infrastructure’ study. We published the Infrastructure Schedule as Appendix C in the draft Local Plan, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan as part of the evidence base, a Transport topic paper and a Transport Strategy.

“No other supporting studies are required, so there is no associated publication date. You can view the infrastructure documents under Evidence Base on our website at www.guildford.gov.uk/newlocalplan I hope that helps clarify any confusion.

“We will continue to make progress and work on the important task of analysing the responses. That way we can ensure we protect our borough and help local people and businesses prosper.”

Cllr Susan Parker leader of the Guildford Greenbelt Group

But Cllr Susan Parker, (GGG, Send) leader of the Guildford Greenbelt Group was less sanguine and called for a “full revision” of the plan. She said: “Guildford’s infrastructure is inadequate. Work is needed. The Local Plan needs full revision and the consultation should lead to recognition of public concern.

“It was always fundamentally wrongheaded to think that improvements warranted a huge increase in population so as to get a little public money. That is the basic problem with the Local Plan. GGG and its supporters have been saying so since 2014 which is why we voted against the rubber stamp Regulation 19 consultation on the Local Plan this summer.

“The Local Plan was then supported by Cllr Caroline Reeves. The Executive have threatened our local environment and our quality of life merely to attract relatively tiny sums from the New Homes bonus, which is being phased out, Local Enterprise Partnership which is uncertain, and largely an EU rebate anyway, and central government – where would they find the money?

“The cost of new infrastructure dwarfs the small subsidies that might be provided; the new money wouldn’t cover a quarter of the cost of the proposed solutions to existing problems, much less meet the needs of the increased future population.

“It is welcome that Caroline Reeves has begun to heed GGG’s concerns. I am glad she is starting to review historic Lib Dem support for the Tory plan. Cllr Colin Cross [Lib Dem, Lovelace] is an honourable exception who has always realised its inadequacies.

“Guildford’s Local Plan needs to be changed now. We should use existing brownfield land to build housing, restrict housing increases to our actual population growth, and protect all our countryside and environment. Anything less is selling us down the river.”

Responses to Council Leader Denies The Local Plan is in ‘Deep Trouble’

Jim Allen Reply

August 17, 2016 at 4:54 pm

Let’s explain this simply – no one comments, “That’s excellent!” because, fair or not, that’s the way of the world.

If you get 10% return when you ask a question that is significant. If you get this response ‘twice’ with two different versions, then it indicates the first version should have been modified in light of the concerns expressed.

GBC just didn’t get it, did they?

It should be back to the drawing board. They ran it up the flag pole and nobody saluted.
Jules Cranwell Reply

August 19, 2016 at 12:05 am

Of course the local plan is not in trouble.

Let’s face the facts, the plan is in deep, deep, doo-doo!
Liz Hogger Reply

August 19, 2016 at 9:47 am

To be quite clear, neither Caroline Reeves, nor any other member of the Lib Dem group at GBC, have ever voted in support of the draft Local Plan. What we have done is support the consultation on the draft, which has given its many critics the chance to express their views. This is called democracy.

Furthermore, it’s actually thanks to the Lib Dem amendment back in May that the council committed to making changes to the Local Plan and to reconsulting if the responses to the consultation make that necessary. Our amendment also insisted that development on the major strategic sites could not go ahead if the infrastructure couldn’t cope. It seems GGG are now belatedly playing catch-up with the Lib Dem opposition.

Liz Hogger is the Lib Dem deputy group leader and ward councillor for Effingham
- Ben Paton Reply
  
  August 21, 2016 at 7:15 pm
  
  A more accurate description of the approach of most Lib Dems and almost all of the Conservative borough councillors is that they have been ‘kicking the can down the road’. Like the careless passer by who can’t be bothered to pick the can up and put it in the bin they just give it another kick and leave it to someone else to deal with the problem.
  
  Voting to send the plan out to consultation – as in the Issues and Options Paper, the draft Local Plan and now the Reg 19 consultation- is actually worse than voting it down. It simultaneously expresses the opinion that the plan is sufficiently good to merit consideration by the public and, if it is not good enough, it passes responsibility for examining it critically to the public.
  
  Councillors should have grasped the nettle themselves. If councillors are not there to provide critical scrutiny then what purpose does this extra layer of government actually serve? Rather than do this they have gone along with the charade. That’s not a costless exercise or an exercise in ‘democracy’. It’s a real waste of public resources and the imposition of costs onto members of the public whose lives are more than sufficiently busy already.
  
  Sitting on the fence is not doing the public a service. It is not having the guts to put a lame duck project out of its misery. Passing the buck to thousands of people requiring the miserable task of writing 20,000 odd letters is nothing of which to be proud. If an planning inspector finds that the Reg 19 version of the local plan is wanting then all it will prove is that the Guildford Conservatives and their accomplices the Lib Dems should never have sent it out for consultation in the first place and wasted the public’s time and money.
Lisa Wright Reply

August 21, 2016 at 12:21 pm

I can’t wait to get started on the data analysis this Autumn to see exactly how many people have asked the council to protect our green fields. It would seem there’s going to be a lot to get through.
Adrian Atkinson Reply

August 21, 2016 at 2:46 pm

I wonder if Cllrs Hogger and Reeves will offer clarification? Does 70-80% of responses in objection to the green belt boundary changes and to building 70% of new housing on current green belt land, without exceptional circumstances, and criticizing the excessive growth in housing numbers, constitute sufficient reason to trigger their amendment which, they say, committed the council to changing the Local Plan in such circumstances?
Adam Aaronson Reply

August 22, 2016 at 7:22 am

“It is vital that each of the thousands of comments is properly analysed to see what they say and how they might affect the draft Local Plan”

It must be very taxing to “properly analyse” all these comments. Sorting the ones that start “I object” from the others will need tremendous skill.
Ben Paton Reply

August 23, 2016 at 9:43 am

Consulting the public is a waste of money if the council consistently ignores what the public says. It asked the public what it thought of the Issues and Options Paper. Massive objections resulted in few changes and a substantially identical draft local plan was issued for public consultation. Again massive objection, little of which resulted in any significant changes.

Unabashed, the council has tried again with a Reg 19 Plan which is demonstrably built on the same foundations as the Issues and Options Paper.

This is the opposite of democracy. It is going through the expensive charade of consultation with a predetermined intention to ignore the responses.
Gordon Adam Reply

August 23, 2016 at 9:49 am

To keep with the time scales set by Government, I believe GBC will leave it to the planning inspector to sort out the comments as there is no time for a further round of consultation on another draft plan.

I hope the inspector will be up to it. If not the Local Plan could be imposed on Guildford by the government.
John Perkins Reply

August 23, 2016 at 12:25 pm

GBC uses software to identify duplicates which will, I believe, be part of the analysis.