Letter: Calling a Plan ‘Sound’ is One Thing…

Published on: 6 Sep, 2018
Updated on: 6 Sep, 2018

From Jim Allen

In response to: Requirement to Accept 20% of Woking’s Housing Need is ‘Atrocious’ Says Councillor

As I have said many times, calling a plan “sound” and compliant with government policy does not ensure a good Local Plan. Sadly, the planners have failed catastrophically to listen to the people, the numbers and the reality.

There is still no sign of the big three, Surrey County Council, Highways England, and Thames Water, providing finance for the infrastructure. To make this plan work several hundreds of millions of pounds are required to get the traffic moving and provide adequate water and sewage. None of which is in control of GBC but it is all most certainly required.

GBC planning should refuse all new housing applications until central government get control of infrastructure.

Responses to Letter: Calling a Plan ‘Sound’ is One Thing…

Janet Ashton Reply

September 6, 2018 at 8:05 pm

I couldn’t agree more with Jim Allen.

Also, GBC is fully aware we already exceed legal air pollution limits. The situation is mind-boggling.
Paul Spooner Reply

September 7, 2018 at 9:36 am

Jim Allen’s idea has a fundamental flaw. If we refused all planning permissions they would simply be overturned by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal with costs against the council. Perhaps not a strategy for best value or realistic development management.

Paul Spooner is the leader of Guildford Borough Council
- Jim Allen Reply
  
  September 7, 2018 at 10:31 am
  
  The announcement alone would make sufficient publicity to actually get some action. Simply planning a five or 20-year “land supply” without water supply and vehicles road space means it is only one-third of a completed plan. The current plan is missing two thirds to make it a reality. It’s like making an omelette with no chickens and no frying pan.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

September 7, 2018 at 12:52 pm

I recall Councillor Spooner saying that developments without adequate infrastructure would not be promoted nor would they be accepted.

I think Jim Allen was referring to Slyfield Area Regeneration Project and other big developments. We are aware that the planning process looks at the requirements of developments that are likely to impact adversely on the existing infrastructure and would not withhold approval without a sound reason.

Even when new developments do not cater for house owners owning cars, like for example Solum’s development at Guildford railway station of 438 apartments, the number of service vehicles – refuse collection, postal deliveries, online shopping deliveries, service providers’ vehicles and visitors all add up to a sizeable increase on just commuter traffic. My personal view on this one is that Solum has not catered for the likely increase and that Surrey County Council has not either of its impact on Walnut Tree Close.

A joined-up process between Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government and the Department for Transport appears to be lacking in many Local Plans.