Letter: It Is Right to Question the Council’s Policy on SANGs

Published on: 30 Jul, 2017
Updated on: 30 Jul, 2017

From David Croft

In response to: Surely Executive’s Decision To Extend Protection Programme Is A Joke?

I fully agree that developers should contribute to infrastructure but feel that the £7,000 per dwelling, developers have to contribute towards SANG contribution, would be far better spent going into a council housing pot so that the council can build more genuine affordable houses.

Quite why someone on the Executive can’t grasp this is beyond comprehension. This is not the first time Alderman Gordon Bridger has pointed it out.

Sadly, he has been shot down by those who relate his comments to being pro development. If what he says about this policy not being obligatory under EU law then I hope that the scrutiny committee seriously looks at this and challenge the sense of this policy.

These birds are important but the policy needs to be subject to an independent review to ascertain whether this £64 million would be better spent elsewhere.

I am a small developer and I really don’t mind making infrastructure contributions but would much prefer the money to be spent on sensible infrastructure projects to improve communities.

Back in 2007 when this policy was first introduced there was a sigh of relief that development could continue again, however, we are ten years on from that and this policy needs a serious independent review.

The council are not independent in this because they are the ones promoting their SANGS and blocking private SANGS. Someone needs to take this on and I congratulate Gordon Bridger for bringing it again to our attention. It would certainly be appreciated if a councillor could advise whether this policy is not obligatory as Gordon Bridger claims.

Responses to Letter: It Is Right to Question the Council’s Policy on SANGs

Paul Spooner Reply

July 30, 2017 at 9:31 pm

Perhaps an editor’s note linking to the relevant GBC Executive webcast would be helpful?

The webcast can be found at: https://guildford.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/297187

Paul Spooner is the leader of Guildford Borough Council and Conservative borough councillor for Ash South & Tongham. Ed.
Gordon Bridger Reply

July 31, 2017 at 10:12 am

I am thankful for David Croft’s support. Not only is this policy undermining our housing policy but it is undermining the private sector, which has been key to our success over the last four decades, by taxing it to fund a pointless public sector function (there are only two Dartford warbler nests, no woodlark nests and at best four nightjars on Whitmoor Common).

Unfortunately, these facts were not put to councillors in the report (which actually increased GBC commitment to the programme to an astonishing 125 years).

Could they have rejected these proposals? Here is what that policy says: “The council is the competent authority – must consider whether developments will have a significant effect on a SPA – planning permission for development can be given if the effect is avoided”.

Clearly the council has to determine what, “a significant effect is” but with a few facts before them the conclusion is obvious. This being the case the whole purpose of this massive allocation of private funds should have been questioned.
Ben Paton Reply

July 31, 2017 at 7:01 pm

Mr Bridger ascribes super human powers to this policy. He says it is “undermining our housing policy”!

One might think this policy was single-handedly responsible for making housing expensive.
He says it is, “undermining the private sector”. Wow, a bigger threat than communism perhaps?
Funnily enough, house builders are making extraordinary profits despite this policy.

One of the many factors Mr Bridger does not explain is why the cost of a SANG is so high. The reason is that funds must be set aside to provide for future running costs – in perpetuity. So these costs are not being compared with other council expenditure on a like for like basis.
Gordon Bridger Reply

August 2, 2017 at 4:30 pm

I thought Cllr Spooner’s suggestion to look at the webcast of the Executive meeting was a novel idea and the Editors facilitating it very helpful. I had not seen a webcast before and was very impressed. Is this a first? If one clicks on Agenda Item 9 one gets a pretty good view. Well done Cllr Spooner.

I was apprehensive that my three minutes would come out badly but it was a reasonable effort though I had not the time to tell the full story.

I was disappointed that no one asked any questions such as, “How can you claim that the bids were wiped out by bad weather when our reports say it was the fault, “urbanisation resulting from recreational use by local people” (a bit rude). And why did no councillor pick up the statement in para 3.2 that the council can agree planning developments if they think they have “no significant effect on a SPA”? Why were they not told that there were only two Dartford warbler nests, no woodlark nests and maybe four nightjars on Whitmoor Common? And why was my criticism, carefully spelled out, dismissed in an annexe – page 158, three paras, which without stating its nature or any detail saying the policy, “purpose was not to increase in bird numbers”. It’s there in writing. A travesty of my response.

It is scarcely surprising that I am annoyed at the way my careful, and hitherto polite and my early helpful response has been treated in this way. How to lose friends and annoy people.

Ed: No first can be claimed. We have been linking to council webcasts, occasionally, since they have been available.
David Croft Reply

August 2, 2017 at 11:30 pm

Mr Paton should know that infrastructure costs including SANGS contributions will be deducted from the land value rather than the developer’s profit margins and consequently have no bearing on developers extraordinary profits.

Developers don’t really care about this policy because there is a way around it, just charge the landowner, hand over the money to the council and get your permission to start letter.

The only time developers do care is when there is no available SANG with capacity nearby to contribute to and this is when this SANG policy seriously undermines the council’s housing policy. This is not about green belt protection, this is not about extraordinary profits, this is not even about communism. This is about a policy that is about to commit around £64 million of landowners money into creating and maintaining, for 125 years, alternative dog walking areas to protect three species of birds that no one has any useful data on.

In the ten years this policy has been in force has anyone come along and said our surveys show that the birds are thriving and that is due to this mitigation strategy? Surely the scrutiny committee should ask these basic questions.

Landowners, set to make millions from the sale of their land would much prefer their infrastructure contributions to be spent on social housing or schools and roads rather than a policy that no one seems to be able to monitor. The SANG mitigation policy needs a serious independent review.