Letter: Planning Inspector’s Comments Are Food For Thought

Published on: 10 Jul, 2018
Updated on: 10 Jul, 2018

From Gordon Bridger

hon alderman and former Mayor of Guildford

I attended, as an observer, the review of the Guildford Borough Council’s town centre proposals, as part of the planning inquiry into the proposed Local Plan. In the absence of any public reports, Guildford Dragon readers may find the following very forthright comments by Inspector Bore, who carried out the review very thoroughly and fairly, of interest.

He said that he had walked around the town and, “while impressed by the town’s historic core” he was appalled at the quality of the rest of the town centre, “the pedestrian environment was dreadful”.

He did not think the council had, “… a well thought out plan for the town and there were no clear plans, as required by government, for mixed town centre structure”. He thought it, “needed innovative designs and considered that there could be a new ‘Opportunity Areas’ – as in London”. He also thought that the proposed 42,000 sq metres of retail development (a 40% increase on the present) should be reduced.

His comments on retail development were most apposite. In fact, two years ago, an analysis by Guildford Society professionals pointed out to the council that even then that their forecasts were out of date, and were based on national data which ignored Guildford’s access problems and existing retail facilities, and the huge impact of internet sales.

But it gets worse. The council’s defence at the inquiry was that this was what retailers said “they needed”. It is certainly not what Guildford needs. We need more housing and workspace for highly skilled workers.

Retail, which employs low skilled workers, has a high import content and has thus a very low “gross value added” (gva). What is the point of a planning department if it prioritises commercial needs and public sector requirements are either rejected or not understood?

The Guildford Society and the Guildford Vision Group have proposed imaginative solutions and offered to collaborate in planning (both are staffed by some of Britain’s most competent professionals who have given freely of their time), but planning staff have been forbidden to meet with them to discuss ideas for a better town – a subject on which they have great practical experience.

A pioneering model for helping planners quantify benefits on major developments, something hitherto never used which was submitted to the planners for consideration, was not even acknowledged. Why are these helpful ideas not considered? When John Nightingale and John Davey were responsible for planning we had nearly a decade of fruitful collaboration.

Like many who are concerned about the future of the town, and are not against its development, we wish to ensure are that plans reflect long-term public needs and not just commercial interests.

One hopes that the inspector’s comments will lead to reconsideration by the council on proposals for the vital town centre area, which needs far more housing – but not high rise. This must be our top community priority. Let us also hope that the council will willingly utilise the huge amount of expertise which is being freely offered.

Share This Post