Letter: Those Who Objected to Cathedral Housing Proposal Are Not Nimbys

Published on: 24 Feb, 2017
Updated on: 24 Feb, 2017

From Howard Moss

I write in response to Christopher Dalby’s letter: The Attitude To New Housing Proposals Is Selfish and Disgraceful. He has completely missed the point of the objections.

Many of the people who objected, myself included, as a parent of school age children, did so for not only reasons of congestion, but also due to the over burden on local schools, poor drainage at the site, over building by some 34 houses and the fact that as set out very clearly by nearly all the planning committee members, this application was in contravention of many planning regulations and guidelines, including those on affordable housing for sale and rent.

It was objected to because it was the wrong application in the wrong location and for the wrong reasons as claimed by Guildford Cathedral. Mr Dalby may care to look and see that very close to the cathedral Guildford Borough Council have just approved the building of 164 homes and there are almost 1,000 either going up or at planning in and around the station.

We are not Nimbys, quite the contrary. Those who objected to this scheme did so to preserve a historic building from being swamped by unsuitable housing, on land donated to honour the fallen and to preserve views from focal points across Guildford. These actions are intended to preserve Guildford and its environs for future generations.

Responses to Letter: Those Who Objected to Cathedral Housing Proposal Are Not Nimbys

E Parry Reply

February 24, 2017 at 8:09 pm

Well said.
- C Barker Reply
  
  February 24, 2017 at 8:22 pm
  
  Agreed
Christopher Dalby Reply

February 24, 2017 at 9:51 pm

Yes, our infrastructure needs modernising and improvement, of that there is no doubt and it is all part of the Local Plan, of course, but I see time and time again people objecting to building proposals such as this and the reasons are just not good enough.

Howard Moss speaks of preserving our town for future generations, well those future generations you speak of are not just your own families but others that have the right to live and work in Guildford too.

My suggestion that people that object to these proposals should come up with alternative ideas is a fair one that I don’t see taken up.

Things have to change and our town needs to modernise and offer young people the opportunities that those of yesteryear had and seem intent on blocking at all costs.
- C Barker Reply
  
  February 25, 2017 at 9:32 am
  
  The objections are justified, that’s why the plan was rejected.
  
  It’s simple, the area simply cannot cope with a development of that size. As already mentioned, the local roads, schools and services are already at capacity.
  
  I agree the town needs to modernise but squeezing hundreds of houses on land that really isn’t suitable is not the answer.
Jim Allen Reply

February 25, 2017 at 2:03 am

No one has the right to live here in Guildford or anywhere. If I wanted to live in Mayfair I would need to be able to afford the purchase price, or the rent, of a property there. Simply wanting to live somewhere is not enough.

In respect to other suggestions it is very simple; move the jobs to where the people are living.
Bernard Parke Reply

February 25, 2017 at 7:42 am

Those of us of “yesteryear” are only to aware of the problem.

Many of us are struggling not only to help our children but also our grandchildren.

However, the Stag Hill development would do nothing to solve our problems but it would have caused considerable unrest.
Michael John Davis Reply

February 25, 2017 at 2:16 pm

Totally agree with this letter.