- 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 Leader Warns White Paper Means Higher House Building Targets for Guildford
Published on: 17 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 18 Sep, 2017
The government webpage detailing the proposals
A government White Paper, Planning for the right homes in the right places, could mean that a much higher housing target is imposed on Guildford than the 654 currently included, in the controversial draft Local Plan.
Under the proposals, unveiled on Thursday (September 14, 2017) in Parliament, by Sajid Javid the Communities Secretary, the housing target could be increased by a further 40% in some areas, mainly in the South East, such as Guildford, where average homes cost more than four times average salaries.
According to Guildford Borough Council leader, Paul Spooner’s email, circulated to all GBC councillors, the White Paper: “…is only a proposal for consultation … but the steer from senior ministers is that they expect this to be successfully implemented.”
Cllr Spooner’s email, sent to all GBC councillors.
And, with a link to the government webpage Spooner tweeted: “Those that complain about GBC SHMA [Strategic Housing Market Assessment] OAN [Objectively Assessed Need] Take note!”
Cllr Spooner’s Tweet.
Proposals in the White Paper include, according to the government webpage:
- a standard method for calculating local authorities’ housing need
- how neighbourhood planning groups can have greater certainty on the level of housing need to plan for
- a statement of common ground to improve how local authorities work together to meet housing and other needs across boundaries
- making the use of viability assessments simpler, quicker and more transparent
- increased planning application fees in those areas where local planning authorities are delivering the homes their communities need.
Cllr Paul Spooner
Cllr Spooner in his email reminded his fellow councillors: “I have been stating that this standardised approach was coming and the result for Guildford would be a significant increase in the base housing number. This does not take into account any additional employment need (if any) etc.”
Spooner’s warning comes despite the new White Paper, referring to an earlier paper Fixing our broken housing market, issued in February, stating: “The White Paper… reinforced the central role of local and neighbourhood plans in the planning system, so that local planning authorities and local communities retain control of where development should and should not go. It also reiterated strong protections for the green belt and other environmental designations…”
The proposals are expected to cause further disquiet, affecting, as it does, areas of the Conservative heartlands, including the constituencies of nearly two-thirds of Cabinet ministers, according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England. At a national and local level, Conservatives have previously given election assurances that they will protect green belt land.
Share This Post
Responses to Council Leader Warns White Paper Means Higher House Building Targets for Guildford
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’
>
Jim Allen
September 17, 2017 at 2:56 pm
In respect of Cllrs Spooner’s comments, it should be emphasised that it is a white paper for discussion, not yet statute or policy.
As for the Guildford SHMA, it is the secrecy of the raw data and method of calculation that is causing concern not the actual number.
For if the formulae and data prove Cllr Spooner correct most people would accept it, all be it reluctantly. The fact there is a refusal to discuss the calculation and raw data is the cause of concern, not the number itself (all be it extremely high by everyone else’s calculations). If there is nothing to hide then the council won’t mind sharing the information.
Christopher Tailby
September 17, 2017 at 3:41 pm
I hope The Dragon won’t be the subject of a breach of confidentiality complaint by Cllr Spooner. I think enough taxpayers money has been wasted by his last one.
Given the latest turn of events with housing numbers front page news, it seems difficult to understand why the councillors who heard Cllr Reeve’s case rejected his “public interest” defence.
Jules Cranwell
September 18, 2017 at 1:51 pm
Council leader ‘warns’ or threatens?
Neville Bryan
September 18, 2017 at 8:47 pm
It seems to be a feature of current politics that threatening the electors with even worse than they have now, is an acceptable way of proceeding.
It isn’t. I think the Brexit vote is clear evidence of that, yet here we are again having to listen to an elected politician, and one whose party is partly funded by the building industry, tell us it will be alright with him.
First, this is a consultation, and one Guildford people and groups who genuinely represent the people of Guildford need to respond to. I hope those who read Cllr Spooner’s threats do just that.
Second, Cllr Spooner’s Tories have had ample time to correct that abhorrent local plan from his disgraced predecessors, but they haven’t. We still have a housing number based on hidden facts, we still have no legitimate constraints applied in a borough with so much AONB and green belt.
Cllr David Reeve is one councillor who stood up for the residents, by using his skills to expose the housing number, only to be met with more threats and intimidation from this leader, and incredibly the leader of the opposition. He stood his ground. So should we in the rest of Guildford.
Cllr Reeve suggested even without constraints applied, the housing number is 2000 houses overstated. One strategic site’s worth.
I suggest the University of Surrey meeting its 2003 promises of building student accommodation on campus (still the largest Brownfield site in Guildford, I believe) would remove 4,500 students or 1,400 houses, enough for another strategic site to be removed. Perhaps even the whole of the Blackwell Farm, which the university owns (is that a conflict of interest?) proposal.
Cllr Spooner should perhaps start thinking about what his GBC can start doing for residents, rather than threaten an even more overcrowded, traffic-clogged borough with yet more houses, and environmental destruction.
John Robson
September 19, 2017 at 11:07 am
Isn’t this approach symptomatic of the bullying culture within the Conservative party?
Didn’t we see this scaremongering approach at the outset of the Local Plan where we were told we’d be building 20k+ Houses so that the eventual figure of maybe 13k houses, feels like a win?
But again, if the diktat is going to be handed down from Westminster, why bother wasting £5m on a local plan, why bother having 48 councillors governed by an impotent Executive which has no influence within their own party?
After all, we were told a long time ago that “the trajectory has been set”.
Alan Robertson
September 19, 2017 at 6:05 pm
Councillor Spooner is not a good council leader, a matter which should be resolved at the earliest opportunity.
Reclaiming HMOs from students and providing suitable accommodation for them on campus will, as Mr Bryan says, resolve a major housing problem without compromising the environment nor enabling greedy, ruthless tax avoiding developers to spoil the quality of life of many voters.
Brian Holt
September 19, 2017 at 9:04 pm
The University of Surrey should have built sufficient student accommodation as it expanded, it seems they are trying to avoid the cost of doing so.
The residents of Guildford are losing over one thousand houses now used for students, this number will rise with greedy landlords cashing in by buying even more houses.
Shepherds Hill had the first council houses to be built under the 1919 Housing Act. Out of the 83 houses built then, only about thirty six now remain owned by the council, with students in a number of these houses.
Bernard Parke
September 20, 2017 at 7:31 am
In response to Neville Bryan’s comment, at the last count, there were 1,600 properties (mainly student lets) on which no council tax is paid.
Dave Middleton
September 22, 2017 at 5:49 pm
It concerns me that in the email from Mr Spooner, he states, “I am taking the unusual step of copying ALL Councillors instead of just my party”.
I thought he was the leader of the whole council, not just the Tory councillors? I wonder how many other matters, that should be shared with the whole council, are being kept within his own party councillors’ knowledge, leaving other members of the Council in the dark?