Letter: Democracy in Guildford Seems To Be Something from the Past

Published on: 28 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 28 Sep, 2017

From Fiona Curtis

I too watched the webcast of the complaints hearing with Cllr David Reeve as the “subject member” and wondered whether I had slipped through some sort of time portal where the accusers, safe by position and absence, could make such a petty claim sound serious and the accused would be guilty if he survived the ordeal and innocent if he didn’t!

As David Roberts in his letter, The Complaint Case Against Cllr Reeve Was Political Ineptitude predicted before the “trial”, Cllr. Reeve’s reputation was not tarnished, far from it.

I am beginning to believe that democracy in Guildford is something from the past. We were asked to give our opinions

We were asked to give our opinions at the last couple of consultations on the Local Plan based on information that was given to us by GBC. In places, the information was misleading.

In an attempt to clarify the information so as to make an informed submission (as a member of the Local Plan Committee for my village as well as for myself) I asked a number of questions.

Unfortunately, most were not answered and I had to make requests under the Freedom of Information in order to gain a reply. All refrained from giving any additional information.

One response suggested that all questions should be made via the Parish Council, a suggestion I still find quite extraordinary and in answer to a request for traffic data the following was received: “We do not propose to enter into correspondence by responding to the comments and questions in your email at this time. We do not consider that this would represent the best use of the council’s resources.”

I wonder whether anyone else received such equally unhelpful responses and who directed councillors and council officers to respond in this way and indeed why?

Like Mr. Stokoe, in his article Local Democracy and Local Leadership I wonder how many people will be willing to take on community responsibility if the reward is to be treated in this way? It seems to me that “localism” is dead in the water in Guildford and the Local Plan procedure, with its pre-determined starting point, a maximum growth strategy that stems from Guildford’s “nomination as a growth hub”, is fundamentally dishonest.

Unlike some other regions, we were not given growth options from which to decide and hence the trajectory was already set. This is not democracy and is not in the spirit of localism.

Responses to Letter: Democracy in Guildford Seems To Be Something from the Past

Karen Stevens Reply

September 29, 2017 at 10:05 am

Like Fiona Curtis, questions I have put to council officers about the Local Plan have remained unanswered or been met with the stock answer of “it’s not a good use of my time”. This has meant that I, too, have had to pursue these through Freedom of Information requests, which is surely less efficient and ultimately a greater waste of time for all concerned.

If answering questions from parish councils (and their representatives) so that they can respond to the Local Plan from an informed position is not a good use of council time, what is?
Ramsey Nagaty Reply

September 29, 2017 at 3:26 pm

Quite right Fiona, well said.
Adele Potter Reply

September 30, 2017 at 12:40 am

I too have experienced a lack of democracy and a sense that agendas have already been set and local opinoins are being kicked into the long grass.

The council has been in breach of its statutory requirements on a number of points in local residential planning yet they have edited the facts and suggested that local affected residents should not ‘garner’ support. The council officer I dealt with seems to think the definition of ‘property’ is just the dwelling, ignoring land. My letters of objections have been ignored until replies are requested and the council put on public record that they have sent letters to certain addressees and yet these very same write back and say they never recieved their letters.

Poor judgement based on a lack of local knowledge and a planning department that just follows the minimum statutory requirement. They miss basic information at junior level (e.g. that a property development is next to a listed building), they post statutory notices inside residential property instead on public property (e.g. a lamp post) and do not check that these ill-placed notices are maintained for the statutory 21 days. They make a delegated decision where a councillor is able to sign off on behalf of other councillors prior to a decision being made.

Moreover, planning applications are signed off prior to the advised deadline, and councillors mislead a resident on basic information regarding the number of letters required to trigger a planning committee review and made no attempt to take up the invitation to visit the effected neighbours site to see things from a different perspective.

In my opinion, the current process is not fit for purpose and the people responsible for making these decisions are now morally broke. They think by fudging the issues and ignoring the full picture they can mitigate their poor judgements and justify their decision making.

They neither possess empathy or aesthetic sensitivity to the setting their decisions impact on.
Valerie Thompson Reply

September 30, 2017 at 1:58 pm

In GBC’s Local Plan, there is a proposal to impose 40 houses in West Horsley in the green belt, which is also a designated conservation area and within 300 metres of five listed houses. Respect for the historic value of these properties is non-existent. Requesting information on what exactly the designation “conservation area” meant, the GBC officer merely stated the policy meant it would be considered, not that there was any special reason to preserve it.