Letter: Cllr Parker’s Interview Responses Were Misleading

Published on: 6 Dec, 2018
Updated on: 6 Dec, 2018

From Paul Spooner

GBC council leader and Conservative borough councillor for Ash South & Tongham

In response to: Dragon Interview: Susan Parker, Leader of the Guildford Greenbelt Group

Having watched and listened to Cllr Parker’s interview, it is sad that a councillor who appears highly intelligent and articulate could be so misleading during the interview, particularly given that she has been a borough councillor for three and a half years out of a four-year term and should know the real picture.

Some examples:

1. Cllr Parker states: “The plan is back up for grabs.”

My response:

• The scale of change that can be expected to happen to the current draft of the plan is being grossly exaggerated by Cllr Parker.
• The inspector has already concluded that the spatial strategy and submitted site allocations are sound. Whilst additional hearing sessions are being scheduled these will focus on new matters such as the OAN, housing requirement and potentially the new sites added at the inspector’s request.

The inspector has made it clear he will not re-open discussions on the submitted sites that have already been subject to hearing discussions. Given that Cllr Parker, like me, was present for the majority of the hearing sessions, it is disappointing that she misleads in this way.

2. Cllr Parker states: “Council is hugely dominated by planning – with a little bit of licensing and libraries.”

My response:

Apart from planning and licensing we provide a wide range of vital services that our communities rely on – including:

• caring for families, the homeless and providing transport, meals, activities and support to help older and vulnerable people;
• collecting recycling, rubbish and garden waste;
• safeguarding and showcasing our heritage and local attractions;
• making sure our beautiful parks and countryside can be enjoyed by everyone;
• looking after public health and making sure our taxis and food outlets are safe;
• enabling a variety of sports, leisure and entertainment opportunities for all ages and abilities;
• supporting and developing our local economy and encouraging tourism.

To be fair, Cllr Parker has shown little interest in council operations since 2015 and can be forgiven for not understanding what the council is responsible for. Libraries are not currently a GBC function.

3. Cllr Parker states “ONS data demonstrates a need for only 301 homes per year” and links this to the OAN.

My response:

• Household projections are a starting point only. They are trend based projections and do not provide an assessment of objectively assessed housing need (OAN).
• The plan is being examined under the previous NPPF utilising the transitional arrangements – our analysis of the data using the previous housing need guidance indicates a need of 562 (see document: GBC-LPSS-033b).
• If we do not proceed with the plan under the transitional arrangements, we would be required to use the standard method for calculating housing need as set out in the updated NPPF 2018. Whilst this method currently indicates an OAN of 431 for Guildford, based on the household projections recently released by ONS, and following the release of projections, the Government (MHCLG) is currently urgently consulting on amendments to this method to uplift again. If the method were to be updated in the way the Government is indicating it should be, the OAN for Guildford would be 752 going forward.

4. Cllr Parker seems to misunderstand the process for making further main modifications to the plan, but our position is set out below:

• Should the council succeed in arguing that the OAN should be 562 and that there is no unmet need arising from Woking then, as set out in document GBC-LPSS-033a, we consider that the new Main Modifications Green Belt allocations should be removed. We still require all the remaining sites that were included in the Submission Local Plan.
• The inspector required additional early delivery sites to meet needs – the strategic sites are necessary to meet this early delivery so could not be removed from the plan. These sites are also necessary for meeting employment and infrastructure needs.

5. Cllr Parker continues to query our position of utilising brownfield town centre sites instead of the green belt.

My response:

• We have always had a ‘brownfield first’ approach to developing our Local Plan.
• It was acknowledged by all participants during the previous hearing sessions that there were no additional brownfield sites that could be delivered within the first five years of the plan.

6. Whilst it is good to hear that Cllr Parker and GGG believes in supporting Guildford’s economy, specific references in a derogatory way to named companies apparently not wanted by GGG and industrial warehousing, in general, was extremely disappointing.

My response in relation to the local plan:

• The plan seeks to meet employment needs only. It places an emphasis on high-value employment growth and does not propose any large Amazon warehouses. It does, however, seek to meet the industrial needs of the borough.

7. Cllr Parker states that it is “Not appropriate to pass Electric Theatre on…”

My response:

• The thorough bidding and evaluation process was a positive step, secured the future of the venue and reduced ongoing costs to the Council.
• The long-term lease signed by ACM ensures the venue is a performing arts space with community use – and removes the operating subsidy funded by the taxpayer. This is a win-win for Guildford.

8. Cllr Parker comments on the size and type of homes.

My response:

• The Local Plan requires a mix of homes that meets identified needs as set out in the SHMA. This differs for market and affordable homes. Sites will be expected to demonstrate how they contribute to meeting the identified mix. This includes smaller and family homes. It is not correct therefore to say that the plan will deliver only “Executive homes”. This is grossly misleading, to say the least.

I trust this provides some balance to Cllr Parker’s misrepresentations.

Share This Post