Insights: Time is Running Out for the Masterplan

Published on: 15 Mar, 2026
Updated on: 17 Mar, 2026

By Bernard Quoroll

former local authority CEO

The recent exchange between Cllr George Potter and former Cllr John Rigg, deserves some unpicking. It followed publication of John Rigg’s opinion piece: Guildford Cannot Afford to Delay Decisions on Flood Alleviation and letter Where Is the Evidence of GBC Action To Progress Flood Alleviation Scheme?

Guildford Borough Council has already spent £2.5 million on commissioning a Masterplan for Guildford. It is a non-statutory plan and there is more work to do, but it still has value if formally adopted by the borough as work in progress and in several ways.

Firstly it is a clear signal to developers and investors that a council has the ambition to invest in and shape the future of its town. Developers want to know that they are investing in a town whose civic leaders have ambition and because quality adds value.

They also want to benefit from hard-earned local knowledge. Even though it is not adopted as a statutory plan, most developers will take note of it in early discussions, during which they can often be persuaded to include features which enhance their development and its surroundings or exclude features which offend local vernacular.

Those features can even extend to the form of the development itself. (I know this from personal experience, having played a part professionally, in four local plans, four town centre schemes and a similar vision exercise).

Even as an informal plan, it can be introduced in planning appeals, if carefully presented, though with very much less weight. Secondly, it makes the early case for a flood alleviation scheme which is vital to unlock many new development opportunities and protect existing buildings in support of the vision. These two issues are inextricably linked.

In his enthusiasm to score points, Cllr Potter has failed to understand the dynamics in play between Guildford Borough Council, the Environment Agency and the Government. The Agency has to bid to Government to be allocated the funds for such an expensive scheme. In doing so it is competing with many other bids up and down the land.

If successful, the vast majority of the cost will be paid from central funds. In order to be successful, the Agency has to provide formal evidence to Government that the council is behind the scheme. That means carefully drafted formal council resolutions on the record and soon. Weasel words like “the officers are working on it” and “the leader supports it” just don’t cut it.

Time is rapidly running out. Without formal statements on the record, the council’s chances of drawing down much needed investment in the town’s infrastructure are very much reduced in what is likely to be a fierce battle with many other communities for scheme approval. If the council is unsure how to do that, legally compliant examples of the forms of resolution required, can be provided. One thing is a near certainty.

The imminent absorption of Guildford into a future West Surrey Council will have a chilling effect on momentum, as a successor council struggles to understand the unique features and history of so many constituent (and competing) communities. (I can also say this from personal experience, having worked in or through the aftermath of four previous local government reorganisations).

The resolutions mentioned above could be this council’s last best chance to leave a legacy on behalf of its citizens and show that they have learned the lessons of previous planning failures.

In summary, a resolution to adopt the Masterplan in its current state of development as an indication of direction and intent, has no cost implications and creates no conflicts with the statutory plan process. It prevents £2.5 million of public money already spent, being wasted by giving a clear signal of ambition for the town with enough detail to give direction to discussions with would-be developers and investors.

A resolution to contribute to the flood alleviation scheme would be modest in comparison with the massive amount of funds which could be drawn down from government sources. In combination, they represent the best opportunity to prevent years of blood and treasure being lost in transition.

And finally, Cllr Potter’s enthusiasm for and commitment to, public service is admirable. His willingness to reach for a gun when someone (who it seems to me does know better), appears to offend you, is less so.

Local politics in my view, is best conducted by attacking the ball not the man. Behaving otherwise in respect of such an important issue, simply lacks dignity.