Letter: Why Do We Need the Threat of An Additional 4,000 Houses?

Published on: 18 Feb, 2019
Updated on: 18 Feb, 2019

From Jenny Grove

In response to: Lib Dems Say: Problems Threaten Local Plan Tory ‘Victory’

If the planning inspector is happy to accept Guildford Borough Council’s proposal for a reduced requirement of 10,678 dwellings over the plan period, then why on earth is the council proposing to retain all its allocations allowing for a build of an extra 4,000 dwellings. Large tracts of green belt are included in these allocations. It might all be green belt land – I do not know exactly.

The council is being completely disingenuous in this proposal. It blights the lives of many residents of the borough and I don’t think we should have a big black cloud hanging over our heads in this way. 10,678 is 10,678, not 14,602 and the council should concentrate its mind on brownfield development rather than the easy pickings of our green belt.

Responses to Letter: Why Do We Need the Threat of An Additional 4,000 Houses?

Pete Knight Reply

February 18, 2019 at 5:37 pm

I sometimes wonder if people simply read what they want to see (or don’t want to in this case).

1. The council has been very clear on its brownfield first policy;
2. The council does not own a lot of the land to be approved for development so there is no financial gain for them;
3. I’m not sure developing on green belt is the easiest thing to do – the infrastructure in many areas needs major upgrading;
4. Then there is simply the issue of demand – if there is no demand for this level of housing then it won’t be built. Surely this is obvious?
- Lisa Wright Reply
  
  February 20, 2019 at 2:25 pm
  
  In response to Pete Knight:
  
  1. The council only submitted it’s Brownfield Sites just before the Examination, it was a short-list and stated that hardly any of it could be built on. This should have been done in 2014 when there was a call for sites, then, we may have seen a great deal of effort put into town regeneration.
  
  2. The council stands to gain significantly from the governments “new homes bonus”.
  
  3. There is some truth here. If properties were built in town centres there would already be sufficient public transport. However, GBC expects developers to pay a significant amount towards infrastructure upgrades but no one seems to know who will look after these new roads, street lights and playgrounds once the houses are sold.
  
  4. I agree, the whole things a sham. Developers decide what and when to build, not the council. If the housing market continues to flatten, will anyone build anything and if they don’t, does that mean our council has just wasted millions of taxpayer pounds over the last five years developing a white elephant?
Ramsey Nagaty Reply

February 19, 2019 at 3:41 pm

Very true. I concur.