Letter: We Are Concerned That the Local Plan May Be in Deep Trouble

Published on: 15 Aug, 2016
Updated on: 15 Aug, 2016

From Caroline Reeves

Lib Dem ward councillor for Friary & St Nicolas and leader of the opposition

Lib Dem opposition councillors are impatient for clarity on where the Local Plan goes next. Lovelace councillor Colin Cross (Local Plan – More Councillors Should Say, ‘Enough is Enough!’) has expressed the frustrations of both councillors and residents about the tortuous course of this plan over the last three years.

When the council decided back in May that this version of the Local Plan should go out to consultation, a two-part Lib Dem amendment was agreed. First, that representations on strategy and sites must be considered, and changes made if necessary with reconsultation before the plan is submitted to government. Second, that development on any big strategic sites included in the plan could only go ahead if necessary infrastructure improvements were made.

With 20,000 comments from the consultation, and the Transport and Infrastructure Study still unpublished, our concern is deepening that yet again the Local Plan may be in deep trouble. Our amendment at the council meeting may now prove decisive: the council must listen to the the 20,000 comments and the plan must be changed if the infrastructure cannot cope.

Conservative government ministers contradict each other, one instructing Local Authorities to protect the green belt and another telling us we must build as many homes as possible. The Conservative track record on Local Plans across many parts of the country is dire.

In Guildford the 2014 draft took almost no account of infrastructure and created massive public protest. The 2016 draft did try to spell out the infrastructure improvements needed and we were assured we would get confirmation of this from the Transport and Infrastructure Study.

That study will indicate what will be viable to build and where: it is key to the whole planning process. A month after the close of the Local Plan consultation, we are still waiting.

We need an urgent statement from the council leader with a date for publication of the Transport and Infrastructure Study, and a clear timetable for review of the SHMA to give us an updated housing figure. Then the council must get on and revise the draft Local Plan yet again, this time in the light of full information about infrastructure as well as all the representations made to this latest consultation.

Until this is done and we make real progress with the Local Plan, our planning system is in limbo and there is uncertainty and planning blight across the borough. Developers have almost carte blanche to put in schemes which would damage our town and countryside, with the excuse that our Local Plan is out of date and we don’t have a five year land supply for housing, we hear this as a constant refrain at our planning committee meetings.

We are seeing applications for larger developments on sites not included in the draft Local Plan and nationally we are seeing decisions to refuse by local authorities being overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. The guidance from government is unclear, we have residents fighting to protect their own corners, which in turn is likely to create a division between the countryside and the urban areas.

As the Liberal Democrats said in our original press release in 2014, what we need is to have fair and proportional development across the borough based on the deliverability of the schemes, not on the will of the developers.

Borough residents deserve better of their council. The Conservatives should get their act together.

Responses to Letter: We Are Concerned That the Local Plan May Be in Deep Trouble

Jim Allen Reply

August 15, 2016 at 10:01 am

Even nonpolitical people can see this letter makes sense.

I again ask how council officers and elected officials can proceed forward with submission at Reg 20, when the proposed changes make the plan a “Regulation 18” stage version and, therefore, another public consultation required.
Martin Giles Reply

August 17, 2016 at 9:17 am

In fact, the Transport and Infrastructure Study Report has been published. It is awaiting comment from government agencies and stakeholders.
Roland McKinney Reply

August 17, 2016 at 9:24 am

Caroline Reeve should not wait for the Transport and Infrastructure Study reaction.

I’d suggest that she takes a look at the publications of those who are needed for the delivery of infrastructure, for example, Network Rail. They published (August 2015) a comprehensive review of spending plans for the Wessex Rail route, including the London/Portsmouth line. This projects the allocation of funds for the 2019 to 2024 period, and it includes funds for a feasibility study to extend Guildford’s platforms – but nothing for the actual extension.

Nothing was included for new stations, or the infrastructure needed within new stations. Nor is anything projected for this in the outline plans for the subsequent budget period, 2024 to 2029, not even a feasibility study.

So I’d suggest that any development that is dependent on new railway stations, such as the development on Blackwell Farm, should be scrapped now.
Ben Paton Reply

August 17, 2016 at 11:50 am

Let’s not forget that most of the Lib Dem councillors voted for this plan – for the draft Local Plan before it and for the Issues and Options paper before that. And the Scrutiny Committee which is chaired by the Lib Dem leader voted not to scrutinise the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA).

The trajectory of the local plan may not look propitious now; but it never has since the trajectory was set by former Cllrs Mansbridge and Juneja. So why do councillors, including most of the Lib Dem and all of the Labour Cllrs, keep on voting for it?
Michael Bruton Reply

August 18, 2016 at 10:40 am

Mr Paton asks why the Conservatives – along with their Lib Dem willing followers – keep voting for a 25% increase in housing numbers which would involve trashing much of the borough’s green belt. Is it simply to ingratiate themselves with Conservative HQ? Possibly given that Osborne believed that building everywhere was a solution to the UK’s economic woes. But he has gone and so has Cameron.

David Cameron called green belt protection a “line in the sand” for the Tory Party and then allowed permission for 250,000 homes across the UK’s green belts. In parallel, Guildford Tories stood on a platform of green belt protection in 2010 and 2015. Like Cameron’s, their promises have proved worthless.

It will be interesting to see if Mrs May rejects her predecessor’s approach as she has in so many ways already. And given that she represents a green belt constituency in Maidenhead, will she stand up for her core vote over both the green belt and the third runway at Heathrow?

I look forward to the Public Enquiry and the Guildford Tories explaining why they voted for housing numbers based on a formula withheld from them and of which they remain ignorant and I look forward to them explaining how houses can be built when there is little money for necessary infrastructure.
Harry Eve Reply

August 19, 2016 at 8:06 am

Cllr Reeves is right to be concerned, but it is not just the SHMA that needs to be reviewed.

Among the questionable areas of evidence, the council commissioned a transport assessment that used three hour averages as a proxy for peak hour traffic flows. This automatically, and significantly, reduced the starting position for the traffic model – and that is just one of the reasons why the infrastructure requirements arising from the proposed developments are seriously understated.

There were many other things wrong with the approach used and the infrastructure needs identified are just the tip of an iceberg that will sink Guildford if this plan goes ahead.