Fringe Box



Letter: I Have Analysed The 2014 Local Plan Consultation Figures

Published on: 31 May, 2016
Updated on: 31 May, 2016

Local Plan Consultation logoFrom Adrian Atkinson

I have analysed the 2014 Local Plan consultation data relating to Policy 10 on the green belt.

Just six individuals, out of the c. 7,000 of those who took part in the consultation, supported the policy. Another 20 comments of support were from organisations such as: the University of Surrey, local councils (including Guildford), consultants (e.g. Savills) or landowners. An additional 13 comments were potentially supportive.

But of the 1,371 who commented on the green belt policy 1,332 (97%) were against.

Just 3% support from the last consultation does not give the council a mandate to do what they are proposing, especially when they are going back on their election pledges.

The green belt policy is practically the same this time round: around 6-7% of the borough’s green belt is to be removed (if the village insetting is included); around 70% of new housing is to be built on current green belt land; and there is an annual housing target (increased from 652 in the last draft to 693 this time round, even though all quarters of the borough agreed that the last figure of 625 was too high).

Cllr Spooner talks of mandates from on high. The Conservatives, nationally, stood on the platform of protecting the green belt, they wouldn’t have been as successful if they had been honest.

It is about time Cllr Spooner and the Tory group faced up to what the last consultation really showed. It’s about time he admitted the facts.

Share This Post

Responses to Letter: I Have Analysed The 2014 Local Plan Consultation Figures

  1. Neville Bryan Reply

    June 1, 2016 at 9:19 pm

    And this is probably why we never saw a proper full analysis of the previous Regulation 18 draft local plan responses. Or am I being a little cynical?

    One thing is for sure is that we all need to be looking at how previous GBC responses were replied to in the Regulation 19 consultation were are now about to start.

    Remember everybody, it you feel your issues first time around were not addressed, say so in your responses this time… But please respond. No silent majorities here!

  2. Jules Cranwell Reply

    June 2, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    I think we know by now that the Tories at GBC do not give a fig for what the residents of the borough think.

    Time for a devolution revolution. We can join Elmbridge, where the greenbelt is held to be of value, or we can go it alone.

    Before you say it can’t be done, I was recently in Boston at a re-enaction of the Tea Party.

  3. Neil Langridge Reply

    June 3, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    Excellent work, and shows how Guildford Borough Council have no mandate and support for what they are doing (let alone how the numbers they are basing housing on are wrong).

    Yet another embarrassment for Guildford, yet the Tories seem teflon coated in their ability to get voted back in despite continued incompetence and a lack of ambition for their community beyond increased building and self interest.

  4. Garry Walton Reply

    June 6, 2016 at 11:32 am

    I totally agree with Mr Atkinson. To lie to to electorate both nationally and locally is appalling.

    There is no mandate for decimating the green belt and as Mr Atkinson points out the overwhelming number of responses were to leave it alone. Where has our democracy gone?

  5. John Perkins Reply

    June 8, 2016 at 11:34 am

    The reason the Tories can do whatever they want here is that the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system favours them in this borough.

    They gained 72% of the seats with only 47% of the vote and thus have complete control.

    All other parties gained fewer seats than might be expected proportionally.

    In many other places in the country the majority party dominates in the same disproportionate way.

    Unless FPTP is replaced by something more democratic, parties will continue to enjoy a measure of success that does not reflect their true popularity.

  6. Valerie Thompson Reply

    June 10, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    We voted the Conservatives in, because we foolishly believed what they said, about preserving the greenbelt. I suppose we only have ourselves to blame.

  7. Tony Edwards Reply

    June 11, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    Under Cameron’s leadership, the Tory party has proved beyond all doubt that it is unable to keep its promises and pledges – not least with regard to the green belt.

    And the duplicity is clearly apparent in Guildford where we were assured that the green belt was safe with the Conservatives.

    But even when it is clear that public opinion is massively opposed to Guildford’s proposals, our local politicians think they know best and proceed down the concrete path towards making our borough a London over-spill.

    I’ve spoken to a growing army of Tories, locally and nationally, who will be turning their backs on the Conservatives. They have become a disgrace to democracy.

  8. Nick Axten Reply

    June 15, 2016 at 8:52 pm

    Is there any procedure available for removing councillors like Cllr Rooth mid-term?

  9. Roland McKinney Reply

    June 23, 2016 at 9:31 pm

    A poll in the Guardian newspaper UK housing crisis: poll reveals city v country split on who to blame found that only 9% of those polled supported building new houses in the green belt, even though 69% of those surveyed agreed that Britain was in the throes of a housing crisis. The poll was structured so that it was representative of the adult population of the UK.

    Perhaps Guildford’s councillors do not read the Guardian – but they should read this article, and when they have finished ask themselves how it is that they believe a majority of Guildford residents are likely to be supportive of their proposals to put 70% of Guildford’s future housing on green belt and the removal of at least 6% of existing green belt.

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *