Letter: Bernard Quoroll ‘s Insight Should Be Heard

Published on: 23 Apr, 2024
Updated on: 23 Apr, 2024

From: Ben Paton

In response to: Lead from the Front on Values

There’s much common sense uttered in this piece.

This comment about the Weyside Urban Village stood out for me: “I am running out of space. But I will just mention one potential car crash in the form of GBC’s agreement to fund Thames Water’s sewerage works at Slyfield. It is a transaction fraught with financial risk and likely to lead to tears.

“I hope I am wrong about that.”

I’ve pointed out several red flags concerning WUV in The Dragon in the past.

Most obviously how does it make sense to build houses in a floodplain right next to a river that is known to flood? Given global warming it is foreseeable that the underlying flood risk will only get worse.

To date, the council has spent some £80 million of our money on a site to build about 1,600 houses. That’s over £50k per dwelling before a single brick has been laid. What exactly have Guildford’s Council Tax payers got for this £80 million? Presumably, there’s much more in the pipeline.

Does the public know about this? How does this make sense?

What has the council agreed with Thames Water? Can we read the contract? Or is it cloaked by the GBC’s usual excuse: “commercial sensitivity”?

What is the likely total cost of moving the entire sewage works? What expertise does the council have in commissioning huge infrastructure projects? Is it predictable that Thames Water will have got the better part of the bargain? Is this like a council buying futures contracts from Goldman Sachs? Will this be Guildford’s “Woking moment”?

Councillors have doubled down on groupthink. The only dissident voice was former Cllr Susan Parker. For her pains, all the other parties lampooned her for speaking truth to power.

The Lib Dems voted for this all the way through, I believe. Now that they are in exclusive charge of the council, will they give us the full story?