Hustings – Lib Dem Candidate Complains About Empty Foreign Owned Flats

Published on: 2 Apr, 2015
Updated on: 11 Apr, 2015

Lib Dem candidate Ted Mayne (right) chats to Conservative candidate Matt Furniss just before the meeting got underway. To the right in the green top is David Reed, GGG candidate.

A Lib Dem borough councillor has complained that foreign owned flats are lying empty while there are homeless people on the streets.

Speaking at a borough council election hustings meeting, Ted Mayne the Lib Dem candidate for the Burpham borough council ward said: “What upsets me most, we have blocks of flats in my ward where a large number of the flats are empty. We have a block of flats in Burpham that was built by Poles and most of them seem to be owned by Russians. And when I try to deliver material all the letter boxes are crammed full and one cannot deliver leaflets.”

The meeting on Tuesday evening (March 31) had been arranged by the East Guildford Residents Association (EGRA). Candidates from the Guildford Greenbelt Group (GGG), the Liberal Democrats and UKIP were also present facing an audience which included Anne Milton, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Guildford, several other council candidates and a sizeable contingent of GGG members.

Meeting organiser and EGRA chairman Graham Hibbert said that the Labour and Peace parties had also been invited but had not sent any representatives and were not standing in the East Guildford wards.

The agenda for the meeting was based on an “Election Plea”, with a headline “Stop plans to expand Guildford by a third!” issued by the Guildford Residents Association (GRA). The leaflet asks all election candidates to support their objectives when it came to planning Guildford’s development.

The Guildford Residents Association “Election Plea”.

Protected countryside designated as AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), AGLV (Area of Great Landscape Value) and SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest), will not be considered for development by a Conservative borough council said Matt Furniss, a Conservative candidate for Christchurch ward in the forthcoming Guildford Borough Council (GBC) election and the lead councillor for infrastructure and traffic in the last council.

But he noticeably did not include green belt land in his list and refused to commit to opposing Surrey University’s Blackwell Farm proposal to build 3,000 houses on, or next to, the slopes of the Hog’s Back – despite statements of intent to do so by other Conservative candidates, standing in Onslow ward, and published in a Conservative newsletter. Nor did he answer directly whether he would support an annual new housing figure of 300-345 proposed by the GRA.

About 30 people atteded the EGRA hustings meeting in the Holy Trinity centre, including a sizeable GGG contingent.

About 30 people attended the EGRA hustings meeting in the Holy Trinity centre, including a sizeable GGG contingent.

Little appeared to separate the candidates on most of the questions. All were in favour of a proper recognition of the constraints to development in the town and borough and all voiced strong objections against high rise development, including that proposed for the railway station. All voiced reluctance or opposition to green belt development, all wanted the university to provide more on campus student accommodation and all agreed that infrastructure improvements were essential to support any planned growth, especially to tackle traffic problems.

Henry Gilbert a UKIP candidate for Burpham ward in the GBC election, said he would support anything that would ease Guildford’s traffic problems.

Commenting on the planning process more generally, David Reed, a GGG borough council candidate, said that the town did not have full control over local planning. He said: “The way in which planning is done under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) means that the council does not have full licence to do exactly as we want. … I have a fairly clear view that there is a growth agenda here. … There is a drive for increased housing in this area and that drive appears to be greater than that which exists from migration and growth.”

He continued by asking why the Conservative led council had allowed a very poorly drafted Local Plan, based on questionable or out of date data to go forward.

Niels Laub, chairman of the Abbotswood Residents Association – Central Crescent, provoked a debate on what was the real driver for further housing when, he said: “According to the latest figures from the ONS, in the 20 year period from 2012 to 2031 the population of Guildford is projected to grow by some 21,000. However, [without international migration] the combination of natural growth and internal UK migration is projected to lead to a reduction in the population by about 2000. Therefore the entire population growth is due to projected international migration.”

The subject of student accommodation also touched a nerve. The chairman asked the candidates whether the university was behaving as a good citizen within the town or was it only considering its own strategic goals irrespective of their impact?

Matt Furniss replied: “We are trying to get the university to build 1,000 extra student accommodation units as well as fulfilling their current planning obligations [for 2,000 units]. The planning permission they have goes up to 2020 so they still have a bit of time to build out the accommodation they currently have permission for. It is going off track at the moment. They admit that. We want them to come back to the table with a plan to deliver what they have promised.”

At one point, following a discussion on what might be considered “predetermination” (declared views on specific developments which could bar councillors from considering relevant planning applications), the Guildford Greenbelt Group leader, Susan Parker, a member of the audience, was challenged by Gerald Bland, a lawyer and director of the Guildford Vision Group. He asked Ms Parker to state the group’s view on development in the green belt. She replied that it was the same as the government’s, that it should only be allowed in “exceptional circumstances”.

Responses to Hustings – Lib Dem Candidate Complains About Empty Foreign Owned Flats

Jules Cranwell Reply

April 3, 2015 at 8:25 am

This nonsense over “predetermination” is red herring perpetrated by the Tories. It is nonsense.

If this were an issue, it would have precluded the Tories from participating in any planning decisions, or voting on the “daft” local plan, given their cynically broken pledge to protect the green belt in their 2011 manifesto.
Bernard Parke Reply

April 3, 2015 at 10:12 am

It appears that the Conservative candidates for Onslow Ward seem to have a different perspective from the main body at Millmead for the development at Blackwell Farm, and as such perhaps their latest “intouch” newsletter tends to raise hopes too high on this subject of development, not only there but in the green belt in general.

Surely, this difference must be resolved before the May election.
Graham Hibbert Reply

April 3, 2015 at 10:52 am

The full text of the GRA Election Plea to all candidates in the Guildford borough local election can be seen on the GRA website (http://www.guildfordresidents.co.uk/).
Niels Laub Reply

April 3, 2015 at 12:17 pm

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), published last summer, states that the majority of the international migration in the Guildford borough is thought to be foreign students attending the University of Surrey.

Are we really expected to believe that all these foreign students will settle in Guildford at the end of their studies? Is it sensible to base a large portion of the “objectively assessed housing need” on providing accommodation for foreign students?
John Robson Reply

April 3, 2015 at 12:54 pm

“We are trying to get the university to build 1,000 extra student accommodation units as well as fulfilling their current planning obligations [for 2,000 units].”

“Trying”? Who runs this town the University of Surrey or Guildford Borough Council (GBC)? It’s a rhetorical question.

Who failed to put enough conditions in the planning permission? Or maybe they knew exactly what they were doing? It’s a rhetorical question.

Would GBC’s planning department adopt such a lackadaisical attitude to the man in the street’s planning application? For anyone who’s have the privilege of dealing with GBC’s planning department, it’s definitely a rhet….

I’ve sat in the meetings, the university pleads poverty when it comes to meeting its obligations for building student accommodation, notwithstanding the £9,000 (minimum) per year it extracts from each student. But, 3-4,000 homes on the slopes of the Hogs back, urban corridor from Guildford to Ash… no problem. When can we start to extract hundreds of millions of pounds in profit from your green belt?

The impact of the university building out this accommodation is immense, vast swathes of the town centre is now buytoletsville, with the subsequent issues, including the once affordable housing stock swallowed up by out of town landlords. Don’t blame the students, they are just students. This is not of their making, this is just all part of the university’s masterplan.

GBC’s executive members sit and watch the pieces fall into place, the bigger the problems caused by their own ineptitude, or maybe not, the easier the sell when it comes to auctioning off your greenbelt, it’s your choice. They expect you to do nothing, trudge up to the ballot box and vote along the traditional party lines you’ve been conditioned to do.

It’s up to you, do nothing, vote for more of the same and you wake up next to Aldershot.
Jim Allen Reply

April 3, 2015 at 4:45 pm

Empty flats can be dealt with under current legislation. Any property unoccupied for a period can ‘simply’ be brought back into use.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5926/2073102.pdf is the guidance how to do it –

If you have the tools to do the job get on and do it but don’t rely on council officers to know what tools they have in their tool kit – that would mean taking notice of Government policy and guidelines.
Sue Fox Reply

April 4, 2015 at 12:29 pm

As this is the season when the political parties are on the streets of Guildford, they could do a complete survey of the number of seemingly un-occupied houses/flats in each ward whilst canvassing or delivering.

I am aware of two I walk past with the dogs and they are not for sale nor have been for over a year.

The results could be presented to the council who might just do something about it. (Always an optimist.)
Niels Laub Reply

April 5, 2015 at 12:35 pm

The full text of my question to the Conservative councillor was:

“According to the latest figures from the ONS, in the 20 year period from 2012 to 2031 the population of Guildford is projected to grow by some 21,000. However, the combination of natural growth and internal UK migration is projected to lead to a reduction in the population by about 2000. Therefore the entire population growth is due to projected international migration. The SHMA published last summer states that the majority of the international migration in the Guildford borough is thought to be foreign students attending the University of Surrey.

Are we really expected to believe that all these foreign students will settle in Guildford at the end of their studies? Is it sensible to base a large portion of the “objectively assessed housing need” on providing accommodation for foreign students?”
Niels Laub Reply

April 5, 2015 at 12:38 pm

Hear is another question I put to our prospective Conservative councillor:

“Can you explain why the Conservatives granted planning permission for a supermarket with a large surface car-park on the Bellerby site in the town centre when it had been designated for affordable housing in the Local Plan? Do you have any idea how many affordable homes you could have built on that site?”
Niels Laub Reply

April 5, 2015 at 12:41 pm

Here is another question I put to our prospective Tory councillor:

“The SHMA states that there are currently 13,700 students at the University of Surrey. According to their Accommodation Officer they have space for only 5,100 students on campus. Therefore 8,700 students have to find accommodation in or around Guildford. That equates to nearly 3000 affordable houses in Guildford borough which are occupied by students for only nine months of the year.

According to the University, they currently have planning permission for student accommodation to house 2120 students which they have chosen not to build.

Will you ensure that there is a requirement in the local plan that the university builds all the student accommodation it currently has planning permission for and that, in future, the University should aim to accommodate at least 60% of all its full time residential students on campus to relieve housing pressure on the town and bring more affordable housing back into circulation?”
Neville Bryan Reply

April 7, 2015 at 4:57 pm

Did Cllr Matt Furniss really confirm they were looking at 1000 houses in addition to the 2000 promised?* I find this odd on two levels.

First there only 1000 student houses being proposed now, not 2000, or 1000 + 2000. The 2003 promises are still not being met. This has been confirmed by GBC planning officers.

Second. Why is this only coming up as an attempt now to persuade the University of Surrey to build student accommodation. GBC and its officers have known about this for 12 years and even approved a £47 million vet school development on the same university land in November 2013.

The 2003 accommodation, and other commitments should have been met before that approval. What chance now, when the univeristy told the council last year that did not want to build all the accommodation.

Clearly it is a university finance issue when £47m could be found for a prestige development, while Guildford houses the students in 1200 houses not paying council tax, and university lays of staff from other courses.

Something does not add up.

*Yes Cllr Furniss stressed the figures several times. Ed.