Letter: There Is No Democracy in Guildford’s Planning Process

Published on: 21 Aug, 2019
Updated on: 21 Aug, 2019

Cllr Patrick Sheard, GGG, opposing the application for 75 houses in Send.

From Tim Anderson

R4GV councillor for Clandon & Horsley

Is there democracy at Guildford Borough Council? On the evidence of what happened at the Planning Committee meeting on Wednesday (August 14) last week (click here to view webcast). My answer is no.

The public gallery was packed with people from Send who opposed the building of 75 dwellings at Clockbarn Nursery on Tannery Lane, Send. The site is included in the Local Plan which was adopted one week before the borough elections in May.

No explanation was offered as to why the number of dwellings had increased by 25% from the 60 in the Plan and those in the gallery were jubilant when by one vote the development was rejected.

The opposition came from R4GV [Resident for Guildford & Villages] councillors and the Guildford Greenbelt Group’s Cllr Patrick Sheard (Send) but the chair of the meeting Cllr Marsha Moseley (Con, Ash Vale), a council lawyer and the lead planning officer refused to accept the democratic vote.

Ms Moseley said the scheme could only be turned down on planning grounds and she demanded they were produced. The lawyer warned of dire financial consequences if the application was rejected and the officer backed them both up.

Speakers pointed out that this small plot on a narrow lane was unsuitable for such dense development, but the chair and the officers would have none of it.

The pressure built up on the R4GV councillors who asserted that the developers should rethink their application and reduce the number of dwellings. Furthermore, as the officer acknowledged in the written report to the committee: “The development would change the character of the area… Would result in some limited harm to the character of the rural area.” Again, reducing the density made sense.

The chair declared that this was not a valid reason for rejection. With some condescension, she lectured the councillors on their need to better understand the planning process and demanded another reason. The lawyer produced another apocalyptic warning of the financial consequences of rejection and again the officer waded in with support. The pressure on the councillors continued to build.

Cllr Moseley demanded another vote and called one. Two councillors under the weight of the pressure capitulated and changed their vote to support the application and the scheme was approved. The howls of disappointment from the gallery were met from the chair with threats to expel the flabbergasted residents from Send. The democratic system had failed them. It appeared to everyone that bullying and intimidation had won the day.

At previous planning meetings, sticky issues were dealt with by a huddle of cross-party councillors and officers who worked out an acceptable compromise. Last week compromise was not an option: debate was pointless.

The meeting continued, as did a seeming disregard for democracy. Next up was an application to build a small house in Ripley. The planning officer’s report rejected the application. The applicant spoke in favour and pointed out that the neighbours to the site supported the application to build.

Cllr Colin Cross (R4GV, Lovelace) backed him up. The vote was taken to approve, but the chair again intervened. She rejected the vote by demanding a site visit. Is this the correct procedure? Can a democratic vote be ignored? It would seem so.

The committee hadn’t finished. Next was an application to build two five-bedroom houses on green belt in West Clandon. Several planning applications on this site in the past had been rejected by GBC and on appeal. But the planning officers have a new tool in their kit to drive through applications like this. It’s called “Limited Infilling”.

Designed for urban streets where there is a gap in an otherwise continuous row of houses, this term is defined clearly in the Local Plan. In West Clandon, the site comprises the large grounds of a substantial house which is difficult to see from the nearest house. It is clearly not a gap in an otherwise continuous row of houses, but the application was approved despite objections from councillors.

Last on the agenda was an application to build a wooden garage for two cars in the front drive of a house in East Horsley. The house is big, the front-drive likewise. The garage would be unseen from the road and next door. The officer recommended rejection as the site is in the green belt. Cllr Catherine Young (GGG, Clandon & Horsley) cited several planning reasons why it should be permitted. With scant consideration, the application was rejected.

It seems that in this Alice in Wonderland world of GBC planning it is right to build two five-bedroom houses on the green belt in an area where a previous planning inspector had described it as: “a significant countryside buffer between areas of residential development which is of importance to the character and appearance of the area,” but a resident with a substantial drive cannot erect a wooden garage. Likewise, it is okay to cram on 25% more houses than allocated in the Local Plan within a small site, on a narrow road without serious consideration of the consequences.

By the end of the evening, the contempt for the democratic process and common sense appeared staggering. Any attempt to argue against an officer’s recommendation was futile. The process of the Planning Committee was reduced to a rubber stamp as the chair and her supporters dictated the outcomes.

See also: The Dragon Says: Who Cares What the Residents Think?

Share This Post