- Stay Connected
Socialize
Abraham Lincoln
If given the truth, the people can be depended upon to meet any national crisis...
Guildford news...
for Guildford people, brought to you by Guildford reporters - Guildford's own news service
Letter: GBC’s Approach Does Not Include Genuine Consultation or Listening to Residents
Published on: 21 Aug, 2018
Updated on: 22 Aug, 2018
From Ben Paton
In response to: We Would Welcome Meaningful Discussions with GBC
Meaningful discussions? Wouldn’t it be nice for the public to be simply given the same access to Guildford Borough Council (GBC) as property developers?
The developer of Three Farms Meadow in Ockham, Wisley Property Investments Ltd (WIPL), has been given unusual access to the council and paid the council for pre-application advice.
The minutes of the meetings between WIPL and the council (taken by Savills) reveal that that consultation extended to advice on the progress of the Local Plan, advice not to engage in consultation in Ockham, what slogans to use and when to time the submission of the application.
The managing director of WIPL was formerly responsible for the Local Plan in Oxfordshire’s Vale of White Horse. How much of Guildford’s Local Plan was influenced by WIPL? And how was any influence obtained balanced against that given to local residents?
The same MD is still the Vale of the White Horse District Council’s cabinet member for regeneration and development. Does being a member of the Conservative Councillors’ Association give access privileges to Guildford Borough Council to “club” members?
It looks like the public is excluded from the cosy insider relationships between the different unaccountable “public” bodies and quangos.
The council has a record of sucking up to the University of Surrey, one of the largest landowners in Guildford. It looks like the university has managed to influence the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the Objectively Assessed Need for housing.
Certainly the inclusion of students in the demographic projections has been just plain wrong. This was pointed out the council years ago in the consultation for the Issues and Options paper.
As usual, the public was ignored. But the issue has come back at the Examination in Public of the Local Plan and the demographic housing figures have been shown to be exaggerated.
The council has had an agenda for years. Unfortunately, it has not been properly thought out. And it does not include genuine consultation or listening to residents.
Local government is, as George Bernard Shaw put it, “a conspiracy against the laity”. It seems to be more based on political back-scratching rather than objective evidence.
Share This Post
Responses to Letter: GBC’s Approach Does Not Include Genuine Consultation or Listening to Residents
Leave a Comment Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear. Full names, or at least initial and surname, must be given.
"Found any?" - "Nope, it all looks green to me!" (See Opinion: The Future is Congested, the Future is Grey)
Helena Townsend
August 22, 2018 at 1:08 pm
Quite worrying really – has there been a breach here by Savills? Should they be disclosing information to any Tom, Dick or Harry?
Or are those behind these non-elected pressure groups obtaining information they really shouldn’t be privy to.
The minutes, taken by Savills, referred to in Ben Paton’s letter were obtained following a FoI request. Ed
Jules Cranwell
August 22, 2018 at 8:56 pm
So Helena Townsend is saying that the public should not be privy to the minutes of a secret meeting and these should be denied to residents, residents who will suffer the immense harm caused by this ruinous Local Plan.
Transparency, openness, and integrity are anathema to the GBC executive, so the only option open to us is the Freedom of Information route.
Harry Eve
August 22, 2018 at 9:01 pm
I cannot speak for Tom & Dick but I note that Ben Paton is a concerned individual adversely affected by the Local Plan process.
I think the non-elected pressure group that Helena Townsend refers to could be the M3 LEP – an unelected pressure group that appears to carry great weight in the planning process.
Ben Paton
August 24, 2018 at 10:00 am
There are many aspects of our local government that Ms Townsend ought to be worried about.
It might, for example, trouble her that the council has not, it seems, taken any minutes of its meetings with Wisley Property Investments Ltd, which would be in direct contravention of its own Probity in Planning Code.
She might even consider that Wisley Property Investments Ltd (WPIL) is a “non-elected pressure group” that has been busy gathering information about the evidence base for the Local Plan and the expected timetable for its passage through the borough council. Should WIPL have been privy to that knowledge?
Is Ms Townsend aware that WIPL is incorporated in the Cayman Islands so we cannot tell who has interests in the company? Does it worry her that the council has refused to exercise its right to know who the beneficial owners are?
Perhaps Ms Townsend is a shareholder in WIPL herself? Does she have a political interest in this matter? Anyway, I prefer the company of Tom, Dick and Harry.
Jules Cranwell
August 22, 2018 at 4:50 pm
Spot on Mr Paton.
They only pay lip service to consultation with the public and are far too cosy with developers.
The vast numbers of objections to the plan give the lie to ‘consultation’.
Valerie Thompson
August 24, 2018 at 1:55 pm
How did the Guildford Borough Council manage to convince the examiner that the Local Plan was sound when so many rules and regulations have been ignored, such as being “open and transparent” about the true housing need in the borough, or demonstrating any special circumstances, with regard to removing villages from the green belt?
Martin Elliott
August 26, 2018 at 5:54 pm
Did they? Well yes if you read the press releases from Paul Spooner/GBC.
I’d suggest Valerie Thompson downloads and reads the examiner’s report with its many rejections of arguments, justification and statement.