Letter: The Draft Local Plan Has Not Been Abandoned

Published on: 14 May, 2015
Updated on: 14 May, 2015

From Sue Sturgeon

Managing Director of Guildford Borough Council

I would like to correct some factual inaccuracies about the Local Plan in Valerie Thompson’s letter.

Firstly the Draft Local Plan has not been abandoned. We consulted on the draft plan and continue to work on further studies into transport implications, as well as considering the many representations. The transport studies are particularly complex and involve working with our partners at Surrey County Council and Highways England.

The Planning Committee has not allocated “vast housing estates” to West Horsley, the Draft Local Plan was a draft and was a consultation document. The housing figure and the location of the housing has yet to be determined.

The Draft Local Plan clearly set out that any development sites that were brownfield would be allocated first. However, in some cases there are flooding and other constraints which need to be overcome.

Responses to Letter: The Draft Local Plan Has Not Been Abandoned

Lisa Wright Reply

May 14, 2015 at 8:15 pm

Ms Sturgeon doesn’t really say enough to put anyone’s mind at rest.

‘Vast housing estates’ are also proposed for Worplesdon, Burpham, Wisley, Blackwell Farm, Ash and Tongham, Normandy, Jacobs Well and The Horsleys.

This Draft Local Plan is all back to front. Let’s have a housing figure that stands up to scrutiny and then start looking for sites.
Jim Allen Reply

May 14, 2015 at 8:48 pm

That would be, for example: the Slyfield link road being pushed through the green belt and the centre of the Bourne onto Clay lane Zone 3b flood plain then would it?

Funny how these obvious facts are being ignored as this project progress. It should be noted that all the political parties claim, in one way or another, to be against this ‘on going’ project.

The vast housing estate was actually allocated next to Burpham with a one sided junction, onto the A3, forcing traffic heading north through Burpham (in 1984 a four way was described as minimum requirement by GBC) then we wait to see just what Highways England and Surrey Highways come up with. I hope it is better than the current offering from GBC’s ‘New Roads Department’.
Tony Edwards Reply

May 15, 2015 at 9:10 am

Does anyone have any confidence in the Local Plan consultation process after the Fred Karno’s circus we’ve all witnessed at Millmead during the past year?

I’d bet Paddy Power would offer fairly low odds on any substantial change to the green belt vandalism policy presented to us before the postponement of activity – delayed until after the election. And that says it all really.
Jules Cranwell Reply

May 15, 2015 at 10:35 am

The daft Local Plan most definitely should be abandoned, given its chief architect is now known to be a criminal, who’s claims of expertise of planning law were false. Plus, given her improperly garnered ‘expertise’, according to her references read out in court, was largely in negotiating S106 payments, in return for granting development permissions, the daft local plan will forever tainted, unless it is indeed abandoned, and is re-started, with a clean sheet.

As to vast housing estates in the Horsleys, I would say that 7,000 new homes in and adjacent to the Horsleys, including Wisley, Clandon, Effingham etc, does indeed constitute vast housing estates.

I would suggest that, as a highly paid public servant, Ms. Sturgeon should be somewhat more impartial in her pronouncements.
Ben Paton Reply

May 21, 2015 at 1:07 pm

Who is Sue Sturgeon? Why should we believe her untested self-serving statements?

She is none other than the managing director of GBC?

What has she done to uphold the Nolan Principles? How has she sought to uphold the council’s code of conduct?

What role did she have in the Hooper ‘investigation’ – which appears to have been a whitewash?

The council’s reputation is tarnished by the fact that its Local Plan has been led by a person who has been demonstrably untrustworthy. How has Sue Sturgeon’s management contributed to this situation?

Is she a permanent employee of the council? Or is she on a short term quasi temporary contract?

Is she really independent of Mr Mansbridge and the Executive or does she dance to their tune?

Why did a civil servant who is supposed to be impartial go to the Old Bailey to give a character reference for a confessed forger?

Isn’t there more to being the managing director of GBC than ‘being a good soldier’ and carrying out the directions of the great leader?