Letter: We Don’t Have to Fall for Conservative Propaganda

Published on: 23 Apr, 2019
Updated on: 23 Apr, 2019

From Ben Paton

GGG candidate for Effingham in the borough council elections to be held on May 2.

In response to: The Local Plan is Vital for Guildford – Vote Conservative

Mr Hughes writes: “The plan is vital for us all and will ensure that the infrastructure we need to tackle the issues we face today is in place.”

He produces no analysis or evidence to support this statement. As a matter of fact, GBC is not responsible for road, school or health infrastructure. Local roads and schools are the responsibility of Surrey County Council. The A3 belongs to Highways England. SCC is responsible for schools and the NHS for funding doctors’ surgeries. So GBC has no power to “ensure that the infrastructure we need is in place”. Mr Hughes statement amounts to no more than untested self-serving assertion.

He writes: “People might find it instructive to view … the legal advice given in the meeting by James Findlay QC.” Mr Findlay told the council that the choice before it was binary: accept this plan or start again and end up with higher housing numbers. That’s not correct. The council could, in addition, ask the Secretary of State to intervene and direct the council to reduce the housing requirement and remove unacceptable green belt sites.

Moreover, it is not true that starting the plan over would result in a higher Housing Target. Under the new rules housing “need” is determined using the “Standard Formula”. This formula relates housing need in a borough to the average level of house prices vs the average level of earnings.

If one takes the new standard formula and inserts the ONS statistics for house prices and earnings in Guildford the resultant housing need figure is 8,872 houses. That figure compares with the provision for some 14,000 houses in the Local Plan. So residents should not be taken in by Mr Hughes’ “Project Fear”. Since this Local Plan was produced the ONS has reduced its forecasts for population and household growth. Understanding the effect of university students on the demographic projections has improved.

Mr Hughes writes, “The plan, having been agreed by the inspector, is the only plan available.” This is reminiscent of negotiations with the European Commission. Well, unlike the Commission, GBC is elected by the residents and can be removed by the residents.

We’ve been bullied by GBC with contrived evidence and intellectually dishonest analysis. We don’t have to fall for Mr Hughes’ Conservative Party Propaganda. Vote them out and, funnily enough, a different Local Plan will emerge. And if this Local Plan is approved then, as in Waverley, it will not be all over. GBC’s mistakes will be exposed in the courts.

Share This Post