- Stay Connected
Socialize
Abraham Lincoln
If given the truth, the people can be depended upon to meet any national crisis...
Guildford news...
for Guildford people, brought to you by Guildford reporters - Guildford's own news service
Letter: Those Who Wish to Protect Guildford’s Green Fields Should Not Be Called Nimbys
Published on: 19 Jun, 2019
Updated on: 19 Jun, 2019
From Valerie Thompson
In response to: Three Separate Applications for Judicial Review of Guildford’s Local Plan Underway
Just because many people in the Borough of Guildford do not want to see more green fields used for housing development than is absolutely necessary it is no reason to call them “Nimbys”.
If GBC had prepared a proper plan for the town centre there would be the capacity to build many smaller houses on brownfield sites than are currently planned.
What will actually happen is that developers will claim that they are going to include affordable houses in their schemes, but when these prove to be uneconomic they will use quite legal reasons not to build them all. The Local Plan has opened the door for the big developers to make millions while people really in need of small houses will not get them.
As for Neighbourhood Plans, the only “teeth” they really have is to possibly influence the style of houses, certainly not the density, which GBC has mostly decided should be over four times that at present in the villages, in some places ten times!
Those who want to see the countryside ruined, I presume, do not live in rural areas. The villages have slowly expanded over the years but the removal of the green belt protection will result in small villages being swamped with over 33% more houses.
Of course, the legal reasons for the Judicial Reviews have not been revealed ahead of any hearings! What fools the objectors would be to give away all their legal reasons to the general public and therefore to those who will have to counter them.
Share This Post
Responses to Letter: Those Who Wish to Protect Guildford’s Green Fields Should Not Be Called Nimbys
Leave a Comment Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear.
George Potter
June 19, 2019 at 2:48 pm
“What fools the objectors would be to give away all their legal reasons to the general public and therefore to those who will have to counter them.”
I presume Ms Thompson is aware that the defendant in a judicial review does actually get to see what the legal arguments against them are prior to the case ever reaching a judge.
The groups bringing judicial reviews might very well have many good reasons to keep their arguments secret from the public. But doing so in order to stop GBC finding out about them clearly can’t be one of them.
George Potter is a Lib Dem councillor for Burpham.
Simon Mason
June 22, 2019 at 7:01 pm
Wise words from George Potter. It’s all going to come out soon anyway. If I had contributed to the costs of the JR’s I would certainly want to know on what grounds I was contributing towards. Maybe GBC can publish the plaintiffs’ claims?
Jim Allen
June 23, 2019 at 8:58 am
What! GBC officials display openness and Honesty on such subjects where they can claim ‘commercial confidentiality’? They have yet to show they have changed to open governance under the new leadership.
Robert Shatwell
June 19, 2019 at 5:31 pm
As we used to say in the army “if you are to confront the enemy then make sure your powder is dry”.
By doing as the council and developers do in keeping things secret from the objectors, the objectors are only “keeping their powder dry”.
Well done.
Oliver Stratton
June 19, 2019 at 10:22 pm
Perhaps the writer could explain where smaller houses (not flats) could be built in the town centre?
Planning has been granted for circa 160 homes on Guildford Park Avenue car park (most of these are houses). A further 400 flats are planned for Guildford Station.
There is the Leapale/ Commercial Road land – but this is not suitable for houses which would represent an inefficient use of the land.
Debenhams could lend itself to more flats as could the Law Courts which could be redesigned to free up land.
Excluding these sites what did the writer have in mind when they say, “if Guildford Borough Council prelates a proper plan”.
David Roberts
June 20, 2019 at 11:26 am
One of the puzzling and unfair things about this whole debate is how people who object to development in the countryside are routinely called Nimbys while those who object to town-centre development are not.
“Nimby” is no longer a jokey word. It is a vile and abusive insult deliberately used to delegitimise a rational point of view. It should not be used for anyone.
Simon Mason
June 20, 2019 at 12:16 pm
“Nimby”, the acronym for “not in my back yard”, should not be seen as an insult. To me, it is just an expression referring to those who partake in the planning debate and predominantly have concerns about developments happening close to them. Most people are Nimbys, myself included, but it doesn’t worry me one bit, I was called far worse at school.
Those who complain should be less sensitive or switch off from the local planning debate.
Valerie Thompson
June 20, 2019 at 2:35 pm
The reason for not telling the general public what your arguments are in advance of a legal challenge should be obvious. You do not want to give your opposition time to plan ways of scuppering your case. Of course, the opposition has to see the paperwork, but it is best to offer the information as late as is legally possible.
As to where to put “houses”, I used the word loosely, as many people just want a “home” and do not necessarily need houses. I would cover the large car park near the theatre with homes and build more underground car parks under new flats, some of which ought to be built on the derelict land formerly used for the “pop-up” village. Underground carparks should also have been part of the Waitrose development with flats above. The car park opposite the Old Town Bridge, (formerly the bus-station) is also an anomaly.
GBC has allowed huge wastage of land in central Guildford. Guildford Vision Group had many good ideas as to how to develop Guildford’s housing plans for the future, which GBC ignored.
Adam Aaronson
June 21, 2019 at 7:29 am
Nimby is a pejorative term. You can find the history of the acronynm here:
https://wordhistories.net/2018/08/02/nimby-origin/
It was first used by the promoters of nuclear waste projects to describe objecting residents who didn’t want waste dumps near their homes and it was intended as an insult.
David Roberts
June 21, 2019 at 9:12 am
Just to clarify – what matters about the term “Nimby” is not its etymology but the bullying way it is normally used. It is not being hyper-sensitive to object to racist terms, for instance, and like Mr Mason, we have all been called worse things. They are all terms designed to exclude and denigrate people, and I am sorry he thinks anyone should be excluded from the local planning debate.
Paul Bishop
June 21, 2019 at 11:20 am
I’ve still to see which brownfield sites in the town centre are suitable for building a reasonable number of family size homes on. There seems to be a constant assertion from the various campaigners that all we need to build are flats/small houses all in the town centre.
This suggestion is purely to focus development away from their backyard and so I think for many the ‘Nimby’ tag is entirely accurate.
What we need are larger family homes to bring and keep the right skills to the area to support success stories such as that seen with Hewson Consulting Engineers. Guildford needs more long term family homes not flats with sky-high service charges which are bought up by landlords.
David Roberts
June 23, 2019 at 11:23 am
Why can’t flats be “family homes”? Only the British seem to think this is impossible. The entire riverside area, Debenhams included, would be suitable.
John Perkins
June 21, 2019 at 12:21 pm
Quite right.
Those suggesting Neighbourhood Plans are a way forward must know that they cannot legally be in opposition to the Local Plan. All they do is identify where local opposition is likely to be least vigorous.
Valerie Thompson
June 21, 2019 at 4:29 pm
What is more, GBC said they would refuse to accept the West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan if we did not conform to the emerging Local Plan (the one that has just been passed) even though our NP was submitted some months before. It should have been agreed under the earlier, established Local Plan. GBC blackmailed us.