Letter: Rational Objection to the Local Plan is Not Nimbyism

Published on: 12 Jun, 2019
Updated on: 12 Jun, 2019

From Jim Allen

I reply to Danial Pascoe’s comment on the article Three Separate Applications for Judicial Review of Guildford’s Local Plan Underway, as one of the first people to be accused of being a Nimby in connection with the appeal by Consortium Developments plan for five new villages plans around London of the early 1980’s and the burning the effigy of Nicholas Ridley at Bramshill.

It is sad such accusations of Nimbyism should be made; very few are true Nimbies. The majority have rationally objected to Guildford’s Local Plan and have actually studied the effect it will have on the community and our ability to provide “low cost” housing. Increasing the number of house in an area does nothing to lower the purchase price it simple raises the share price of the developer.

If Daniel Pascoe doubts the following numbers I would ask him to do his research and then please retract his inappropriate comment. There will be 47,500 additional cars in the HMA [Housing Market Area], a requirement of an extra 4.5 million cubic metres of drinking water per year required (but no current source identified), and a need to renew the majority of the sewer pipes of the borough (most are pre-1920).

Despite planned widening, the A3 will in 15 years time have a capacity shortage of some 750 cars per hour at peak times.

To have sewer treatment work up and running somewhere will take somewhere between five and ten years, that is why people are objection to the plan.

In any case, more reliable than GBC’s inflated OAN [objectively assessed need] of 520 houses per annum is that of 350 pa, as calculated by Neil McDonald, a former civil service expert for the Guildford Residents Association.

Responses to Letter: Rational Objection to the Local Plan is Not Nimbyism

Paul Bishop Reply

June 12, 2019 at 8:35 pm

Whilst they are all seemingly valid points, they are somewhat irrelevant to the case for not developing Wisley and some green belt areas.

The issues regarding traffic flow, drinking water and sewage Mr Allen raises still exist regardless of where the development happens. In fact, arguably they are all made worse by increasing housing density around the town centre as options for changing the infrastructure are much more limited.

And finally, provision for services is usually dealt with at the planning stage rather than detailed in Local Plans. The Plan doesn’t guarantee development in any of the sites, the planning and building control requirements still need to be met before anything can be done.
Lachlan Brown Reply

June 12, 2019 at 9:29 pm

This is a bit rich from someone who objected to the Slyfield link road to Clay Lane. The link is an example of providing infrastructure to support development. Very hard to see this as anything other than Nimbyism.

Like it or not, we are all guilty of Nimbyism – I for one don’t want any more housing crammed in the town centre whilst those in the north-east of the borough have none.

Also, the writer should have a look at the various flatted developments sitting empty – oversupply has lowered the prices.

Many of the smaller units at Newcourt Residential’s Cranley Road scheme, for example, have been reduced by £75k per plot. Similar discounts are being made across the board due to supply. This shows that increasing the can supply lower prices. But Guildford doesn’t need any more flats, it needs houses and these can’t be built on brownfield sites as there are few large enough.