Letter: Guildford’s Heritage: Questions That Now Need Answers

Published on: 16 Apr, 2026
Updated on: 16 Apr, 2026

Guidford’s iconic Guildhall with its clock on the High Street.

From Gavin Morgan

founder of the Guildford History Forum

As local elections approach, an important question risks being overlooked: will Guildford’s local identity survive the move to a strategic authority?

Within a year, Guildford Borough Council will cease to exist and the town will be governed as part of a much larger authority covering West Surrey. Without a town council, and with only 10 Guildford representatives in an authority of 90 councillors, the town will have a much smaller voice.

Major regional services like housing, waste and planning will rightly dominate. But what will happen to the things that are uniquely Guildford — the flowers in the Castle Grounds, the Guildhall, Guildford House, the museum, and its art collections?

These are not trivial details. They are part of what makes Guildford Guildford. Many residents may rarely visit these places, but they value the character they create — and would notice if they were lost.

So this raises a simple but important question for candidates in the upcoming elections:

What is their plan for Guildford’s local heritage — and who will take responsibility for it?

With the abolition of the borough council, there will be no Guildford Mayor and no obvious ongoing role for civic traditions tied to the Guildhall. Could key buildings be sold? Will investment in things like the Castle Grounds be seen as a “luxury” in a wider authority balancing competing demands across the region? More fundamentally, how do distinctly local assets survive in a system designed to think strategically?

These are not theoretical concerns. They go to the heart of what local government is for.

It is also reasonable to ask what the current administration at Guildford Borough Council will do in its final year. This is a crucial window in which the future of these assets can either be secured — or left uncertain.

Unfortunately, the current approach gives some cause for concern. A report into the heritage service has been in progress for two years, but has yet to be published. I am grateful to the officers and councillors involved, who have put time into this work and invited input from local groups, including myself. However, the delay inevitably raises questions about whether heritage is being given the priority it now requires.

There are practical steps that could be taken now. The costs of heritage are often cited as a reason for reducing services — but what are those costs exactly? At present, this is not clear. Greater transparency would allow for better decisions and reduce the risk of valuable assets being treated as liabilities on the basis of incomplete or unclear figures.

At the same time, there are opportunities that appear under-explored. Guildford House occupies a prime High Street position — could it generate more income? It connects directly to the library site, which is itself under consideration for change. Parts of the museum could potentially be let as office space, as is already done in nearby buildings. Even Guildford Castle could be better used with relatively modest investment.

None of this requires radical change — but it does require focus.

On paper, the opportunities are there. The question is whether there is the will to act on them.

So as elections approach, residents are entitled to clear answers. Not general commitments, but specific plans.

Those seeking to represent Guildford — and those currently responsible for its governance — have an opportunity to show that they understand what makes the town distinctive, and that they are prepared to argue for it.

Because if Guildford does not define and defend its heritage now, it will be much harder to do so later.