Letter: Rate of Building Development Needs To Match Infrastructure Capacity

Published on: 10 Sep, 2022
Updated on: 10 Sep, 2022

From: Jim Allen

In response to: GBC Should Commission a Survey on the Issue of Building Height

Bill Stokoe says: “I believe people do want homes above all else” and there lies the problem according to the majority of commentators in Guildford.

They don’t say: “We need the homes compatible with available jobs and proposed jobs and thus the ‘right’ commercial buildings with the ‘right access’ now and in the future.”

Or: “…the number of homes compatible with available water and electrical supply capabilities”.

Or “We need homes to match the birth to death rate ratio and projected population figures”.

Nor do they say: “We should not build all these excess houses and flats because, simply put, the infrastructure is not and will not be available and it is better to build where the infrastructure already exists in other less densely populated locations across the country.

A considered logical approach would stop all this speculative political rush in line with a perceived “need” for housing. Town planners should first set about refurbishing and renewing our infrastructure until 2030 because with electric cars taking greater than four times, some say up to 50 times, peak loading to charge in normal homes.

Our electrical infrastructure in Guildford will have serious problems similar to those already appearing in the Californian electrical grid. People there have been told: “Turn up your air conditioning to 78 degrees and don’t charge your electric car because the electrical grid will fail/ is failing.”