Letter: GBC Should Not Ignore ‘Shaping Guildford’s Future’

Published on: 16 Jul, 2024
Updated on: 16 Jul, 2024

From: John Rigg

chair of the Guildford Vision Group (GVG)

In response to: The Planned Flood Alleviation Scheme Will Achieve Very Little

In reply to Bibhas Neogi’s comments, the master plan ‘Shaping Guildford’s Future’ (SGF) was produced by a team of national and international master planning experts working together with the Environment Agency. I am reasonably confident they know what they’re doing.

The flood alleviation scheme (FAS) does not and would not seek to resolve flooding up or downstream of Guildford. It is quite challenging enough to resolve this town‘s problems. However, the Agency requires any scheme not to worsen the situation up or downstream, which is logical and accepted.

The evidence base for the 2019 Local Plan considered 1,000 sites to increase the supply of housing which have to be deliverable or developable. Of these, 30 to 50 sites were excluded from allocation due to conservation/flood risk.

Whatever the number of sites, I do not think it is a secret that Guildford town centre suffers from serious flooding and climate change is materially increasing the risk as well as blighting development. Neither is it a secret that the council own prime development sites which dominate the heart of the town and are currently used for surface car parking.

The road investigations in the plan identified options only and commits to none. When it comes to traffic, the investigation acknowledges, as you would expect, the impossible task of squeezing a quart into a pint pot.

No traffic solution is possible without a degree of pain. This may only be accepted when we encounter total log jam, with the expected 30,000 more residents in the borough and possibly that number again in surrounding towns also wishing to pass through our gyratory.

However the different elements of SGF are deliverable individually. It is not a single “take it or leave it” plan but a menu to be delivered in parts over the next few decades.

GVG shares Mr Neogi’s’s view that a cross-Guildford road or tunnel would be attractive. But a reality check means we know GBC and SCC have no funds for tunnels and major road building, and central government resists road building where they believe it will facilitate and encourage more traffic.

Modal shift, ie increased use of walking, cycling and buses, is therefore envisaged by the SGF masterplan. Other options were also identified by the consultants to reduce the domination and environmental impact of the motor car and the concrete collar that is our gyratory. The ideas are all open for scrutiny and debate, but the visionary plan and integrated FAS represent a huge step forward for the town, if embraced.

The £2.5 million spent to date on SGF and integrated FAS outlines a plan to open up the riverside, deliver 2,500 to 3,000 riverside homes and new employment space. It is only wasted, as Bibhas claims, if the council does not urgently advance the FAS so that, with updated evidence, it is ready to incorporate in the Local Plan update.

This work is an essential prerequisite, and will take two to three years to prepare. Then we will be able to show the planning inspector flood free sustainable homes can be delivered in the town centre, not only on green belt.

Assuming there is no change to the planning legislation, ie that all plans must be based on evidence, what’s obviously missing now is work to urgently update the Local Plan evidence base. This the council has deferred this essential workand, it has even deferred preparing a budget to do so.

The excuse given, that there might be new legislation and things might change, is not new. But understanding what Guildford really needs can be established now, ready for any procedural changes. Aftyer decades of delay, the “wait and see” approach just loses more time, and reflects again on the effectiveness and quality of the council’s strategic planning . This lack of direction is visible in our town centre every day.

I note Bibhas’s implication that the Environment Agency (EA), consultants or officers are often happy to incur expenditure on reports and plans yet far less interested in following it up with actions to capitalise on both work undertaken and expenditure incurred . This is another reason why we need action now.

Guildford was in this position previously after the 2003 Local Plan was adopted. The planners then had from 2003 to 2019 to do the necessary work so that town centre sites could provide flood free homes and the open riverside we long for. Because they failed the 2019 plan had to push development onto green field and into villages. Now, we are losing time again.

Rather than the current planning vacuum, and with community intersts in mind, the council could, at no cost, at least acknowledge the plan as a preferred direction of travel. This would show that when it comes to the built environment the council is open for business, that it is listening and has a plan. The Local Plan Update Report by officers made no mention of the £2.5 million Shaping Guildford’s Future produced by leading experts. Does this mean the”the writing on the wall” says “not invented here”?

The new government’s commitment to reinstate mandatory housing targets will mean far higher allocations. We must use the two or three years available to progress the FAS, secure planning consents and adopt the masterplan route map.

If we miss this preparation window again nothing will happen in the town centre other than ad-hoc, opportunistic and disjointing development in a town that still floods. This will do nothing to enhance the town and transfer development pressures again to greenbelt.

Delivering a vision for Guildford cannot happen by accident. It takes hard sustained work to generate momentum – we need to build on the work carried out rather than the easier approach of kicking difficult projects into the long grass and quietly writing off the cost .