Letter: Claim That Planning Committee is ‘Not Fit for Purpose’ Is Absurd

Published on: 7 Dec, 2021
Updated on: 7 Dec, 2021

From: Howard Moss

In response to: Urnfield Planning Decision Shows Planning Committee Is Not Fit For Purpose

I wonder, after reading Howard Smith’s letter, what he intends to do?

Did he actually watch the planning committee? I did. His assertion that the committee is not fit for purpose is absurd.

In this particular application councillors from all parties including his own Labour party spoke out and voted against the application. In fact, not a single councillor voted to approve; the chair could not even get a seconder to the motion.

The claim that this was solely because of its proximity to the Downs is inaccurate.

It doesn’t matter what my view is of the decision and I will not offer that, the facts are that numerous reasons were put forward for councillors not supporting it, including that Guildford already has a number of quality sporting facilities, including those at County School, Spectrum and Surrey Sports Park.

In fact, Tormead school says so on its own webpage. This together with high-level floodlighting, interference with protected bat species, the removal of a hectare of grassland to install a plastic pitch, parking for 50 vehicles and contravention of dark sky policy were the reasons for councillors not supporting the proposal. It was not because the planning committee didn’t listen or is not fit for purpose.