Letter: Local Plan? The Tories Don’t Understand

Published on: 3 Jan, 2018
Updated on: 3 Jan, 2018

Sir Paul Beresford, MP for Mole Valley who
raised the Guildford Local Plan
at prime minster’s questions.

From Caroline Reeves

leader of the Liberal Democrat Group at Guildford Borough Council

In response to: Mole Valley MP Raises Guildford’s Local Plan at Prime Minister’s Question Time

The Conservative government simply doesn’t understand the situation. There is no easy answer to the Local Plan issues, and one MP raising the issue at PMQs doesn’t help anyone.

The Tories at Westminster continue to let local authorities take the flak for situations which are entirely of the government’s doing. How dare Sir Paul Beresford suggest that the answer to the problem in his constituency is to put the additional housing in the already overfilled, overstretched urban area and create a total meltdown of infrastructure?

The answer has to be even-handed with support from the government in all areas. At the moment we just hear the mantra for more homes conflicting with the protection of the green belt. In the South East you cannot possibly do both, and the Conservative government then add fuel to the fire by suggesting that any authority without a plan at submission early next year will then have to use a new methodology which will create an even higher number of homes and they will decide where the homes will be built.

Councillors who voted for the Local Plan to go through to consultation did so through gritted teeth because the threat of even worse scenarios was very real. Add to this the inability of the borough to produce a five-year housing land supply and the threat of taking the unmet housing need of neighbouring boroughs you end up with an impossible situation.

Brownfield sites do not necessarily help because by their very nature they cannot be built on immediately and so do not solve the five-year issue, something which some choose to forget.

Responses to Letter: Local Plan? The Tories Don’t Understand

Jim Allen Reply

January 4, 2018 at 12:50 am

I think we have to be very careful in blaming central government for housing numbers increase. The white paper, which is not a statute or policy, suggests that increasing housing numbers will lower house prices. This is a total misconception.

Not only that, but no consideration of any technical details has been put forward. For example staffing. Over 5,000 trained house builders will need to be housed and fed in each borough. Or supply problems. How can sufficient supplies, eg timber, bricks and tiles, be arranged to build the house numbers within the time frame? Millions of gallons of water will need to be found and will need to be sourced for each build.

The requirements are that the plan is sustainable and, in general terms, able to be completed within the time frame. With a minimum of five years for Blackwell, Gosden and Wisley the time frame will have slipped over five years before the plan has started because that is the soonest the sewers and water supply can be introduced.

The road ‘improvements’ on the A3 will not start until J10 is sorted and that won’t be until the M25 becomes a “smarted up” motorway. So no road improvements will start well into the ten-year time period. It simply does not matter what the inspector says – the plan is unsustainable in practical terms because none of the planners has read the small print of each aspect of each site.

For example, making a statement in the Local Plan that ‘the developer will provide the infrastructure if required is clearly incorrect. There can be no “if” and the requirement within the wording should be “when required” for it is known now that it is needed.

I fear for the sanity of the planners if they don’t read and understand the small print. Like the housing numbers, the ability to actually complete within the time frame is in serious doubt.
Sylvia Evans Reply

January 4, 2018 at 10:38 am

I agree brownfield sites do not help. Even given that the definition of what constitutes a brownfield site is so vague, there is still not enough of them in the South East given also that businesses need land.(see: DCLG ‘brownfield (previously developed land)'(Annex 2, NPPF)

In addition, NPPF states that green belt boundaries can only be amended “in exceptional circumstances” – but no definition is given, except we are told it will vary between locations, in which event the need for housing might of itself ensure qualification.
Jules Cranwell Reply

January 4, 2018 at 2:53 pm

Quite right, the Tories do not understand; the GBC Tories that is. They do not understand that this ruinous Local Plan is not wanted by the majority of residents. You only need to look for proof at the overwhelming comments of objection throughout the so-called consultations.

The slavish support by the Lib-Dems is making matters worse.

Contrastingly, there is no proof of the statement “threat of even worse scenarios was very real”. Where is the evidence? This is mere scaremongering, perpetrated by the Tory elite.

Lastly, what is “even-handed” about 57% of new homes in the green belt? It’s actually more like 75% is the weasel words “insetting of villages from the green belt” are understood!
Tony Edwards Reply

January 4, 2018 at 6:07 pm

The councillors who voted for acceptance of the Local Plan did so without the benefit of a Brownfield Register and so could not have made a reasoned or valid assessment of the available options – with or without gritted teeth.
Valerie Thompson Reply

January 5, 2018 at 2:17 pm

Open air car parks were not included in the register. These are not difficult, dirty sites to build on. Underground, multi-story car parks can be constructed with flats above. Town dwellers do not all need several cars if they live and work locally or commute by bus or train elsewhere. Guildford has several of these easily developed sites. It just takes money and vision.

If Ms Reeves thinks the Guildford urban area is overstretched and overfilled with infrastructure problems, then she should look more carefully at the rural roads, packed surgeries and schools in the villages and realise that thousands of houses, families and their cars cannot be accommodated there. The reason people like villages are that they are not crammed with excessive numbers of houses, but have open spaces and green fields around them.
David King Reply

January 5, 2018 at 5:16 pm

Well said, Valerie Thompson.

Guildford Borough Council — TAKE NOTE
Sylvia Evans Reply

January 11, 2018 at 5:07 pm

Contaminated land was originally described as brownfield in a White Paper to distinguish it from uncontaminated ‘green’ land.

Now, the former’s description as ‘previously developed’ land includes windfall sites, which could be in greenfield land, thus giving unlimited scope for development.

Of the 53 sites listed for development in Part 1 of the Brownfield Land Register, only four, as far as I can see, might qualify under contaminated.

For instance, the former Tyrrell site in Okham is next to an old brickyard. (BFLR2017_029).

Part 2 of the register might be overlooked as a mere subset to Part 1, but it does clarify intentions.

Item 24 explains permission in principle (PIP) ‘offers an alternative route for providing early certainty on in-principle matters – use, location and amount of development.’

Item 22 explains it can only be granted for ‘housing-led developments’ although item 23 cites the legislation to allow permission in principle to be granted by ‘application for minor developments later in the year, and through future (NB unspecified) development plans in due course.’