Letter: I Am Not Optimistic for the Local Plan Judicial Review

Published on: 9 Nov, 2019
Updated on: 9 Nov, 2019

From Gordon Bridger

hon alderman and former Mayor of Guildford

In response to: Guildford Local Plan Judicial Review Judgement Expected to Take Weeks

What an amazing coverage from The Guildford Dragon NEWS. How do you do it? Professional and free to the community.

What was being examined at the Judicial Review was not really a Plan at all, just a housing target with housing forecasts not explained and without a plan for the town centre, which is critical to the development of the borough.

The way to determining housing need should have been a labour survey to determine social and economic requirements.

But what the government wants, not unreasonably, is more housing and, due to bad planning, GBC is dumping far too many houses in the far more profitable (for developers) green belt.

They only have to provide SANGS (bits of land to attract visitors away from Whitmoor Common where they are supposed to be killing off Dartford warblers, exterminated by a cold spell 10 years ago), but who cares as long as developers get more housing?

This will add about a further £70m to housing costs and tens of £millions to council coffers, money which must be used for the next 125 years to maintain these new unnecessary SANGs. Amazing? Yes.

You would think those worried about green belt development such as CPRE would challenge this hugely expensive nonsense policy but no sign.

As for the JR, I am not optimistic

Responses to Letter: I Am Not Optimistic for the Local Plan Judicial Review

Julian Cranwell Reply

November 10, 2019 at 7:21 am

CPRE was fully supportive of the JRs, and were present throughout the hearing, in the form of Tim Harrold.

Unfortunately, GBC appears to hold CPRE, along with all objectors, in contempt.
Peter Elliott Reply

November 10, 2019 at 12:53 pm

A few years ago, the eminent planning expert, Alan Wenban-Smith gave a talk in Guildford, in which he said that it was ‘hugely more expensive overall’ to build on greenfield sites, rather than brownfield, because the cost of putting in all the infrastructure was so great, whereas, on brownfield sites, some, or all of it would be there already.

The cost of putting in the roads, the street lighting, the water supply, the sewerage, the electricity, the gas, the telephone, and the broadband, must indeed be enormous, yet it is clearly still a widely held belief that it is more profitable for developers to build on greenfield sites. Why is this? Is it that they are able to pass on most of the cost to the local authorities and others, or what?
Gordon Bridger Reply

November 13, 2019 at 9:16 am

Peter Elliot has made an interesting point.

My argument would be that the land on green belt areas is usually obtained at agricultural prices and with no encumbrances. Local Authorities are supposed to ensure that the community gain results. But they have not the skilled staff, and the requirement by government, that they have to to show abnormal profits are secured, is an impossible one as it entails challenging costs and income forecasts which, on the income side at least, are highly speculative. It is easy for a developer to claim that providing subsidised housing is not viable. The evaluations are made for GBC by consultants funded by developers.
Julian Cranwell Reply

November 14, 2019 at 4:44 pm

Gordon Bridger is spot on.

It is clear that developers are running the development strategy, even those based in the Cayman Islands, with anonymous investors.

We deserve to be told why, by the new Lib Dem incumbents, who have slavishly followed the Tory ‘trajectory’ on the Local Plan.