Letter: Who Is Actually Driving This Unconstrained Local Plan?

Published on: 25 Aug, 2019
Updated on: 25 Aug, 2019

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

From Fiona Curtis

In response to: There Is No Democracy in Guildford’s Planning Process

It seems that Guildford Borough Council has made a rod for its own back. By approving an unconstrained Local Plan with a housing target that is 38% over and above housing need, including substantial growth, the council has put pressure on itself to now deliver that number or receive penalties which perversely could include a higher target and release of even more green belt land.

It is a vicious circle and one that was flagged by GGG and indeed CPRE early on in the process but to no avail.

The comparison to Alice in Wonderland is most apt. The Local Plan and the planning process are nothing short of a riddle without end. The agent for the developers for the Clockbarn Nursery site in Send read out a compliance list and simply stated that the site abided by the list. Little evidence was given or needed.

Conversely whatever reasons were given for objecting to the site and its increased size, were never good enough. Valid planning reasons were given but ignored whilst non-valid ones were seized upon. Many related to sustainability but the chairman and officers wanted policy references as well as justification and all within three minutes. New councillors received no assistance or useful advice.

Highways issues were brushed aside because SCC Highways, as the statutory body, had not objected. Cllr Moseley stated (in response to the comment that SCC Highways could not have carried out a site visit), that they would have done. I know from experience that this is not always the case.

Highways are also under a great deal of pressure to “cooperate” with GBC regards the Local Plan but not objecting is not the same as tacit support. Councillors were told that no statutory consultee had objected which was untrue as Send Parish Council had opposed the plan.

The issue of whether the development and its size were in character was also closed down on the basis that, “we can’t consider what may or may not be happening elsewhere in your village we have to consider what’s before us this evening. Similarly density per hectare, every application is judged on its own merits…”

How on earth are councillors expected to establish whether a site is “appropriate or in character” if not by placing it in some context by comparing it with its surroundings?

Reference was constantly made to the likelihood and cost of an appeal and the importance of approving the site. Councillors were told that residents views (146 out of 148 comments were objections) were not relevant! In fact, nothing short of a vote in favour was relevant or encouraged due to the strong presumption in favour of development.

And, as if that wasn’t shocking enough, the notion that Guildford’s inflated housing targets are “very conservative estimates” is a clear indication of the direction that developers pre-planning applications with officers are taking or will take and begs the question, who is actually driving this Local Plan?

Share This Post