Responses to ‘Metropolitan Scale’ Of Railway Station Plan Shocks Meeting Hosted by The Guildford Society

1. Bernard Parke Reply

   January 27, 2015 at 9:46 am

   We who live in the borough of Guildford should thank The Guildford Society for this presentation.

   However, it is a mystery why so few county or borough councillors were present to take note of the genuine concerns of Guildfordians.
   • A W Derbyshire Reply

     February 10, 2015 at 5:55 pm

     It’s an absolute disgrace that this plan is allowed into the public domain.

     Network Rail and South West Trains want two extra platforms at Guildford which are not in the plan.

     Network Rail also want to electrify the line completely from Reading to Redhill. What about opening the line to Cranleigh either with, trams or tram-trains? The plan is out of date before it’s even considered!

     Guildford can’t take any more traffic entering the station via Walnut Tree Close. How many people have sat in a traffic jam in that area over the last few years thanks to Surrey County Council interfering with our town traffic and the borough ouncil allowing them carte blanche?

     Solum must think Guildford people are thick and stupid! And as for our council whether Conservative Lib Dem or other, where are they? Isn’t there supposed to be a master plan?
     • C Stevens Reply

       February 14, 2015 at 3:35 pm

       If Spelthorne Borough Council can turn down a similarly out if scale development in Staines

       http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/staines-high-rise-development-labelled-8646060

       so can Guildford Borough Council.
2. C Stevens Reply

   January 27, 2015 at 1:58 pm

   The station concourse and booking hall on the town side does not, I think, need to be rebuilt to improve things for passengers and ticket buyers.

   True, there are sometimes queues, but often too few of the ticket sales windows are open. You can rebuild, sorry “regenerate”, as much as you like, but if SWT don’t have enough sales people there, the consequences must follow.

   Why not use the ticket machines? Well, if you want to buy a day return ticket for, say, Thursday on Wednesday, you can’t do so before 3.00pm. And at that point the only ticket you can buy from the machine is a full-price peak ticket. So you have to go and queue up. Who’s responsible for that? Step forward SWT.

   And do we need an improved “retail offer”? There’s a WHSmith, a Costa Coffee, a baguette and coffee place, a pasty stall and a dry cleaners already. If you want more, there’s the whole of the town centre before you get on or after you get off the train.

   This is no more than a housing development. There are places in this country which do need regeneration but, unfortunately for them, they’re not in posh, commutable parts.

   Solum’s recent work has been in Christchurch, Epsom and Walthamstow and they’re starting work shortly in Redhill, Haywards Heath and Twickenham. All, as we know, desperately blighted places in desperate need of regeneration. Just like Guildford.
3. Raineee Wornham Reply

   January 28, 2015 at 8:46 am

   It’s time Guildford moved into the 21st century if it is to keep up with the world.

   We have to move forward and not stay in the past.

   Woking and Aldershot are moving forward for future generations, it’s time Guildford did so to.

   All this talk regarding size, shape, etc, holds things up and then nothing gets done for another 10 years.

   Just like moving the post office for a revamp of North street, etc. How long have their been empty shops there?

   The rate things are going Guildford will be a ghost town, taken over by betting shops, estate agents and fast food outlets.
4. Pauline Surrey Reply

   January 28, 2015 at 10:52 am

   Thank you, Doug Scott, for your insightful presentation on the visual impact of this monstrosity on views across our beautiful market town.

   The view from the Jellicoe Roof Garden across to the cathedral, as shown in your photo, as well as the view from the Castle Mound across to the cathedral, will be ruined.

   As one of the Guildford Town Guides, I know how visitors enjoy these views, and feel they need to be protected for future generations to enjoy.

   Guildford is not a suburb of London.
5. Bernard Parke Reply

   January 28, 2015 at 3:11 pm

   Who on earth wishes Guildford to look like Woking, which seems to have a town centre transplant every 20 years or so.

   In the last century it was planned that the British Army would find its vocation in the borough of Guilford, which was not well received. A small Hampshire village welcomed the British Army with open arms instead.
6. Neville Bryan Reply

   January 28, 2015 at 3:21 pm

   In replying to Raineee Wornham’s comment, I am pretty sure that Woking or Aldershot are not good examples of planning or picturesque market towns.

   I grew up in Woking, and while I have a strong emotional attachment to parts of it, I can say from some experience that the town has been a veritable planning disaster since the 1970s.

   Their recent solution is to go high, is something which blots the landscape from every direction, has not gone down well with many local residents, and is something which if brought to Guildford would be a blight here too.

   Don’t get me wrong, Guildford railway station is a project which has huge potential for good, and to be a partial solution to Guildford housing needs. But let it be a structure which would be an asset to Guildford, which Guildford can be proud of, not a concrete/glass block.

   Give it a great design and a character in keeping with the rest of Guildford, and aim for something which we can show off on those guided tours in years to come.
7. Neville Bryan Reply

   January 29, 2015 at 11:00 am

   I should add by way of another comparison, Woking in the 1970s decided it would be a great place to build town expansion though a new greenfield housing estate. Its called Goldsworth Park, built on old nursery land and fields to the west of the town.

   At the time it was the largest planned housing estate in the country, since been taken over by Lower Earley (Reading) and others.

   Less than 20 years after completion they are now building the high rises in the town anyway. It did not stop the demand for building.

   Remember this all who are promoting Blackwell Farm, Gosden Hill Farm, Wisley etc, Woking is one lesson to learn from on what to avoid.
8. Ngaire Wadman Reply

   January 29, 2015 at 11:00 am

   I think the most apposite observation of the evening, apart from the series of shocking images showing the vast size of the proposed buildings, was this:

   ‘This is primarily a huge housing and commercial development, built on railway land that will be given to the developers, with an incidental nod towards improving the railway station.’

   Vastly profitable housing with incidental railway station attached, and not even a car parking space for each flat. Parking chaos in Onslow? What about the traffic in Walnut Tree Close? Oh, er, um. Not part of their design brief.

   There were many other intelligent comments made during the meeting, and I do hope that Solum’s undertaking to delay applying for permission until they’ve had proper talks with Allies & Morrison will be honoured.
9. Kelly-Marie Blundell Reply

   January 29, 2015 at 12:56 pm

   I attended the meeting and asked about the low level of social housing in the development. This is currently set at 13%, far below the 2003 Local Plan level of 30% and far farther below the preferred level of 50%. We need homes for young people and families that don’t rely on privilege and high income.

   In response to Bernard Parke’s point, I attended with Lib Dem councillors David Goodwin and Caroline Reeves. I also heard Conservative councillor Bob McShee ask a question.

   I was also grateful to The Guildford Society for hosting the meeting and to the developers for taking the time to attend and discuss at great length proposals. Were it that every proposed developer took such care on consultation.

   I will observe, it is very difficult for green belt groups to object to proposals when they feel all Guildford’s housing needs can be accommodated on Walnut Tree Close, which would require equally high rise buildings.

   [Kelly-Marie Blundell is the Lib Dem prospective parliamentary candidate for Guildford]
   • John Robson Reply

     January 30, 2015 at 9:16 am

     Replying to the line “preferred level of 50%?” [social housing] in Kelly-Marie Blundell’s comment.

     If the draft Local Plan compiled by the Con / Lib Dem coalition only contains a wish list, do you honestly expect a hard-nosed property developer to provide affordable housing out of the goodness of their balance sheet?

     I’d like to think this is naivety and a failure to take on board lessons learned from the previous local plan, but sadly having witnessed the council at work first hand, it’s not.

     This local plan has been purposely worded to meet developer greed not the needs of Guildford. This town’s assets are being sold down the river by the Con / Lib Dem coalition.

     With regards to the green belt, If property developers are not compelled to provide affordable housing in a high density town centre, or any other development for that matter, what do you think they will do in a green belt setting?

     Will they provide “affordable housing for key workers and young people” like the glossy brochures claim, or will they build £1 million mansions overlooking the Hog’s Back complying with the dictate handed down from Westminster and thus meeting the need for London’s displaced key workers, that is the stockbrokers and bankers.

     Finally, if this council were serious about affordable housing they would have built more than 62 council houses in the last 12 months, but they’re not, there’s no profit in that.

     This council does not represent the needs of the vast majority of this town, to be honest it never did. Be careful what you vote for.
10. James McColl Reply

    January 29, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    I attended the meeting and am very grateful to The Guildford Society for raising awareness of this dreadful plan.

    Apart from the fact that Guildford would be ruined by such an uglyand high-rise (nine- and 15-storey blocks!) development, causing our beautiful town to resemble Woking, the traffic problems will be made worse by the plans, not improved.

    It was said that rail passenger volume will rise by 40% in 30 years. This being the case, the development does very little to help – only longer and more frequent trains will help that, which is a totally different solution and not addressed apart from a slightly larger booking hall and a multi-storey car park.

    If you are as horrified as me, please register your objection to the development to GBC on planningenquiries@guildford.gov.uk quoting application ref: 14/P/02168 Guildford Station Redevelopment.

    This is like a bad dream and reminds me of the incinerator plan – well, we saw that one off didn’t we!
11. Bernard Parke Reply

    January 29, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    To comment briefly on the number of councillors present at the public meeting.

    I counted three out of a possible 47 borough councillors.

    Surely that counts as ‘a few’?

    Where were all the others?
12. Susan Parker Reply

    January 30, 2015 at 10:00 am

    Within GGG we do not think that high-rise building is the solution.

    We deplore the Solum design for the railway station – it’s out of keeping, and far too high.

    We are opposed to disproportionately high-rise buildings. We think that development in the town should be at a human scale and the sightlines within the town are incredibly important.

    A benchmark for new development along the Wey might be the height of the old Victorian industrial wharf buildings which have been attractively converted into offices, and the height of new developments should be in proportion with these buildings so that they are integrated into a townscape.

    GGG’s policy would be to use brownfield sites within the town but for the number of homes that we actually need and not for an inflated number. We would want that to include a number of tied homes for key workers, and homes for younger people (so, probably, smaller and therefore slightly cheaper). We don’t see the need for more large executive homes.

    While we are in favour of organic growth for existing businesses, we do not want Guildford targeted as a growth hub for the region, nor do we want lots more warehouses and sheds around the town.

    Design is enormously important, and we welcome the involvement of Allies & Morrison for the planning of the town centre.

    We also note Solum’s commitment to wait for the results of the Allies & Morrison review before finalising their application and hope that the two will be properly integrated.

    The North Street redevelopment project, and associated areas, should also be considered at the same time as part of that town centre masterplan.

    Intelligent town planning could allow homes at relatively high density without either town cramming or creating rabbit hutches. Victorian terraced streets, Edwardian mansion blocks of four- or five-storeys and Georgian squares are the kind of high density housing we mean, and these are among the highest density areas of housing. That doesn’t mean high rise.

    We also want sensitive conversion of office buildings to homes in older buildings that are no longer suitable for commerce therefore retaining the historic fabric.

    There are a considerable number of potential brownfield sites, but among developments in our town it should be possible to build a really attractive riverside quarter along the Wey, including apartments with river views overlooking a towpath and riverside walk, affordable homes and key worker homes for affordable rent, where currently there are surface car parks, bus stations and run-down deserted factories.

    The attractive Victorian terraced houses that are already in that area would benefit from being part of a proper residential quarter rather than a commercial sector.

    We also feel that it is in the interests of all members of the community to engage in the regeneration of run down areas in the heart of our town, preferably without monolithic concrete blocks. We aren’t necessarily convinced of the need for significantly more retail as part of the renovation, which would adversely affect existing businesses and the High Street.

    There are businesses in some run-down areas, and these matter, but a surprising number of the commercial sites available are already vacant, and we believe some may in fact be owned by Guildford Borough Council (but this still needs to be clarified by GBC following our request for information).

    Moving businesses from a run-down commercial area, and freeing up that land for high quality residential development, would be very profitable for both landowner and developer.

    There should be enough profit from the residential development to compensate any relocated businesses for the inconvenience – and of course in addition those businesses will be able move to newer and better premises elsewhere.

    [Susan Parker chairs the Guildford Greenbelt Group and will be standing as its parliamentary candidate for Guildford]
13. Cllr Angela Gunning Reply

    January 30, 2015 at 10:25 am

    Bernard Parke asks why weren’t there more councillors there? Quite simple in fact – I had another engagement that evening.

    I don’t think it at all reasonable to assume that the presence or not at that meeting implies a lack of interest [or otherwise].

    I attended the Solum open day in the Guildhall, where I asked many questions of the Solum representatives.
14. Susan Hibbert Reply

    January 30, 2015 at 11:40 am

    This was an excellent meeting, hosted by The Guildford Society with support from the GRA (Guildford Residents’ Associations).

    It’s encouraging that it was attended by senior representatives from Solum who indicated their willingness to rethink the scale and design of their proposals and, indeed, to work closely with GBC, The Guildford Society and Allies & Morrison.

    This is vital if Guildford is to have a mainline station which is fit for the 21st century, but which doesn’t obliterate the character of the town.

    As for the absent councillors, I believe there was a pre-arranged meeting of Conservative councillors that night, but surely this could have been re-scheduled so that councillors could have attended this most important public meeting?

    I can only hope that all absent councillors watch and listen to any transcripts available or at least read the texts of the various presentations.
15. Roland McKinney Reply

    January 30, 2015 at 11:52 am

    I simply have to respond to Kelly-Marie Blundell’s comment about green belt groups.

    I’m a member of various green belt groups. I attended this meeting and asked a question. The Guildford Society did a great job in hosting it, and their understated opposition to the proposals was just wonderful.

    I’m as interested in what is going on in Guildford town as I am in the villages that surround the town – it’s why I was there.

    Guildford is a lovely town and I’d dearly like to keep it that way, but that should not preclude development.

    But not this development, it is simply ugly and has no merit whatsoever, a throw back to the 60s architectural style.

    I think a great chance is being missed. I’d like to see a plan for the whole area, incorporating low level building across the tracks and going underground for car parking, and the provision of some living green space with a play area for children from the new flats/apartments.

    But there is an urgent need to tackle traffic issues too and so I wonder why it would not be possible to tunnel from somewhere about the station entrance under the railway through to the university/A3 roundabout so that the town centre could be easily linked to the A3.

    The A3 still needs to be fixed too of course. This tunnel could have an exit on the other side of the tracks to service the commercial parks on that side, and the university.

    This would relieve the appalling traffic on Walnut Tree Close and help somewhat with town centre traffic, though it would create more congestion elsewhere.

    I’m sure with some underpasses at roundabouts congestion could be improved there too – but the A3 has to be changed as well.

    So the whole area needs a sensible vision, beyond even what Allies and Morrison are doing; fixing traffic congestion has got to be part of that. Allies and Morrison’s first stab at an area plan simply ignored traffic issues – not good enough!

    Our continental cousins have no fears of tunnelling, or of building underground car parks.

    When there is a new development in a town, even in towns much smaller than Guildford, the site is excavated to provide underground car parking.

    We have to do the same. Using our land more efficiently will help to keep green spaces in Guildford, and keep the green belt around our villages safe from development, for all to enjoy.
16. Fred Smith Reply

    January 30, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    Move with the times and get on and build something new and dynamic in Guildford centre.

    Apart from the High Street, the centre of the town is so 1970s and needs to be pulled down.

    This will be a great example of why someone should move and invest in Guildford, rather than the appalling sight they currently get when walking from the station to the High Street.

    Have the people who oppose this development (and normally any other development in the town) seen the state of Bridge Street, North Street and the general station area?

    It has my full support.
17. Bernard Parke Reply

    January 31, 2015 at 3:47 am

    If it helps to clarify the situation:

    Little can be done in Bridge Street because it was made a conservation area a few years ago.

    For North Street, there is a proposal to site a large department store with an underground car park for 500 cars, not to mention the development at Haydon Place with space for 200 cars plus housing and the Waitrose store currently being built.
    • Fred Smith Reply

      January 31, 2015 at 7:22 pm

      Smart move by some then. Yes let’s conserve Tesco Express and Weatherspoons. This is exactly what we want from Guildford!

      Yes, the North Street site. I have only lived in Guildford for 15 years and it’s been the same dump since I came. I guess the speed of change is truly frightening for some people.
18. Mary Bedforth Reply

    January 31, 2015 at 8:13 am

    Off topic but what is happening to the CEGB site in Portsmouth Road? It has been in the same state for decades. Trees are taking root and even the hoardings are looking tatty. What a waste of land.
19. Susan Parker, Guildford Greenbelt Group Reply

    January 31, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    I have been wondering generally what is happening in some other parts of central Guildford.

    The station proposals are really important. It is excellent that the public is being given the chance to consider them and look at the proposals. We have a chance to express our point of view, and that is good. I think everyone’s view is that the design is wrong.

    What about North Street, Leapale Road and the mess of derelict and demolished buildings there, set between temporary car parks?

    I had understood that there was a North Street or town centre forum to discuss and consider the design proposals for the North Street redevelopment, but this may be incorrect. If there is such a forum, who is on it?

    Who decides what will be happening in the heart of Guildford? The area of land covered by the North Street redevelopment is very substantial, and it is blighting areas nearby. I thought The Guildford Society were represented on that forum – can they comment on the proposed designs and use of that land, please, so we know what is going on?

    Why are old buildings being demolished before planning permission has been granted – and what will that planning permission be for?

    Who decides if we need homes or more shops here? If shops, what will be the impact on the High Street?

    If planning permission has been granted, did I miss it?
20. Bill Stokoe, director Guildford Vision Group Reply

    January 31, 2015 at 5:15 pm

    It’s heartening to see so many groups and individuals now getting behind Guildford Vision Group’s three year campaign for comprehensive town centre masterplanning and reprising GVG’s call for better pedestrianisation, through/across town traffic management and imaginative use of brownfield land adjoining the river for housing.

    It is important that any station and North Street development wait upon the outcome of the current phase of Allies’ work. At the very least it would be a lamentable waste of £300k+ of research/study (and our taxpayer money) if any scheme is passed in the meantime that blocks sensible traffic and pedestrianisation proposals emanating from Allies’ studies and those of other parties involved.
21. Susan Parker Reply

    February 1, 2015 at 11:56 am

    I think we do need to agree a Mastervision for Guildford but we need to do it soon. Then we need to build in the town, as soon as we have that Mastervision.

    Why is so much of our town centre derelict? We don’t need a blighted heart to our town. We don’t want to spend the next five years in debate and discussion. We may need to keep some areas available for future road use, but as soon as plans are made, we should build in the areas that will be available.

    Endless deliberation about the town centre is pushing development out into the countryside, making the town grow ever larger. Much of our town centre is derelict and has been for years.

    Our town centre is sprawling outward and threatening to swallow up the countryside that actually makes it a town, rather than part of the London conurbation. Build on the green fields and you will find yourself in Croydon – and try to avoid the skyscrapers then!

    If you do want to avoid that prospect, build reasonably high density housing that meets our needs (but check height and sightlines, no towers) in the town centre. Look after urban greenspaces, historic fabric and heritage, look after our town setting, and send the profiteering developers packing.
22. Susan Parker Reply

    February 20, 2015 at 10:43 am

    We were all shocked by the scale of the Solum proposals.

    But now we hear that there is also a large complex planned for the heart of the town, between Onslow Street and Bedford Place.

    The owner of the site has obtained a “lawful development certificate” so there is no requirement for further planning consent.

    Apparently this has been discussed with the managing director of Guildford Borough Council and with the leader of the council, Stephen Mansbridge.

    Given that there has been a town centre forum going on (behind closed doors) for many months, why is this the first time anyone has had a chance to see this – or have I been blind? Weren’t The Guildford Society represented on the Town Centre forum? If they knew, why didn’t they tell us?

    I think it’s important in Guildford that decisions are not taken behind closed doors and in secret, but are open to public discussion and debate, so everyone’s point of view can be considered, and decisions taken on a democratic, representative basis.

    Susan Parker
    Leader of the Guildford Greenbelt Group
    • Julian Lyon Reply

      February 23, 2015 at 6:41 pm

      Let’s not throw accusations around like confetti – anyone would think there’s an election coming up!

      There is no ‘Town Centre Forum’ as far as I am aware and there have been no ‘secret’ meetings with The Guildford Society.

      It is a great sadness that we have been unable to get the town master-planned in time to protect ourselves from some of these massive developments which will change Guildford for generations to come.

      It is a cause for gratitude that the Leader of the council and his senior officers and fellow councillors have made great strides in bringing forward master-planning for the town centre. I applaud this initiative and would be happy to join a Town Centre Forum if, as and when one is put in place.

      In the meantime, The Guildford Society will continue to champion good planning and will, as we did with Solum, continue to examine these major development proposals as publicly as we can.
      • C Stevens Reply

        February 24, 2015 at 5:47 pm

        There’s been a consultation draft Masterplan around since December 2011.

        http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=10983&p=0

        It does make quite interesting reading. Any building on the station site is subject to the constraint that it must “respect the long distance views and domestic scale buildings to the east and west of the site”. Did no-one tell Solum that?

        As to the proposals for The Quadrant the draft seems confused saying that “both of these two permissions expire 2 June 2012” but “these two permissions have been commenced so there is no time limit for their implementation”.

        It’s evident that this represents a significant amount of work. A shame it doesn’t seem to have gone anywhere.
      • Lisa Wright Reply

        February 24, 2015 at 8:20 pm

        To me, this ‘get together’ on 16th February discussing the regeneration of Guildford looks like a town centre meeting.

        http://www.guildfordvisiongroup.com/2015/02/gvg-gsoc-invite-minister-to-visit-guildford/

        Why were none of the other parties invited to attend to give a balanced view of our residents wishes?
      • Susan Parker Reply

        February 25, 2015 at 9:05 am

        I am confused by Julian Lyon’s remarks.

        My comment on January 31 referred to a “North Street or town centre forum”. I asked what this discussion group had been considering and for more public information.

        Julian Lyon is chairman of The Guildford Society and a member of the Guildford Vision Group Steering Group, and informs us that there is no “Town Centre Forum” and there have been no secret meetings with The Guildford Society.

        Maybe not. However, there is a North Street Advisory Panel to “discuss a comprehensive development scheme for the North Street site, stimulate the regeneration of neighbouring streets and maintain our position as a leading economic centre”.

        This panel includes Guildford Vision Group. Mr Lyon is a steering group member of that group.

        The North Street Advisory Panel appears to have been formed in January 2014 by Guildford Borough Council http://www.guildford.gov.uk/media/16156/North-Street-site-advisory-panel-information-and-application-form/pdf/North_Street_info_and_app_form.pdf

        On signing the North Street development agreement with Land Securities, the North Street Advisory Panel was again referred to by Cllr Stephen Mansbridge, leader of the council: “We will continue to engage with local residents, businesses and stakeholders and the North Street Advisory Panel”. http://www.guildford.gov.uk/article/12763/Major-milestone-for-North-Street-as-development-agreement-is-signed

        Guildford Vision Group in fact seems to have had some form of role in helping to select the firms involved in the North Street redevelopment – see these minutes from Guildford Borough Council: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/media/14407/Item-4—North-Street-Development-Partnerpdf/pdf/pdf15.pdf “In addition, the Guildford Vision Group (GVG) also met with the three firms separately to better understand their approach, submitting further comments on 10 April 2013.”

        The GVG website http://www.guildfordvisiongroup.com currently states “What GVG Has Been Doing: There’s been a lot of activity this year, most of it behind the scenes. GVG members have met with key players and parties involved in the North Street scheme, for instance.”

        So there is a North Street panel, and GVG’s members have been liaising on this. Would they like to tell us more?
        • Julian Lyon Reply

          February 25, 2015 at 6:33 pm

          Perhaps I could be forgiven for sensing a kind of conspiracy theory that a Machiavellian purpose lies behind the Advisory Panel for the North Street development.

          That panel is “made up of six community and stakeholder representatives with requisite skills and experience, to provide general counsel to the Council, development partner and major landowners” and it expressly does not limit the opportunities for other parties to make representations to any proposals that may come forward for consultation through planning and development process (you can read the full document by following the links Susan Parker kindly provided).

          I am neither a member of the Advisory Panel, and nor does GVG somehow have a corporate membership of it which might allow me to influence its deliberations. In any event, it cannot from its terms of reference (pointed out by Susan Parker above) be deduced to be the same as the Town Centre Forum Mrs Parker refers to in her comment (20th February).

          GVG is trying to ensure the regeneration of town centre through proper master planning.

          The Guildford Society is also keen to progress major environmental improvements in the town, supports the GVG approach and recognises the severe deficit of infrastructure which prevents the development of challenging yet sizeable brownfield sites.

          The meeting to which Lisa Wright refers above (24th February) was set up by me – with help from our MP – in my capacity of chair of The Guildford Society and as a member of the GVG steering committee to help bring decision makers and influencers (such as Anne Milton MP) together and to hear from the Minister for Town Centres (whom we were delighted to welcome to Guildford) what works well elsewhere, and what we need to do to ensure we are able to deliver a fabulous town centre.

          We were also able to ask the minister what help we may be able to obtain from the Department for Communities and Local Government. Once again, this does not make it in any sense a Town Centre Forum.

          I am, and will remain, fiercely independent – not belonging to or forming some political party. I have been working very hard for Guildford, to the extent my demanding day job will allow, and I aim to continue doing so.

          I am not paid and neither am I elected – I am one of many conscientious volunteers with a wealth of professional and personal experience and with Guildford in our hearts and minds.

          From a personal perspective, these buildings (Solum, Quadrant and North Street) are all going to be massive in Guildford terms – just as the design of G Live, Waitrose and other more recent additions to the town fail to respect our market town’s vernacular architecture and scale. This does not by itself make them bad, but they must at least help us solve many of our other problems and create a townscape of which we can be proud.

          In the meantime, I wish Susan Parker and all those who will be standing in national and local elections, whichever party they represent, the best of wishes for a good clean, positive and objective campaign that sets the borough and constituency at its heart and that leaves points scoring to the tellers after the votes have been cast.
          • Peter Shaw

            February 26, 2015 at 10:21 am

            In reply to Julian Lyons,

            You chair a very important forum at this moment in time, The Local Plan Forum. Arguably one of the most important that will advice the council and has the possibility to affect the lives of most residents in this borough.

            Such an important meeting should be transparent and accountable to the public. Yet the most simplist of things, taking official meeting minutes that can be released and scrutinised by the public, is not being conducted. Reports say it’s because you said it was not “that type of meeting”.

            I would like to know if this position of not taking minutes is your decision alone, with no outside influence, or if you were influenced by outside parties. If so who and why?

            If you wish to be on the side of normal residents and win their hearts and minds, important meetings like these that you chair need and must be accountable to those very same residents… otherwise how are we to know officially what is said, agreed or done behind closed doors with interested parties?

            I look forward to hearing back from you.

            Peter Shaw
23. Bernard Parke Reply

    February 23, 2015 at 9:22 pm

    There is indeed an election coming up which will for the first time in five long years give the people of Guildford an opportunity to express their true feelings through the ballot box.
24. Bernard Parke Reply

    February 25, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    Mr Lyons is a very able person, but what mandate does he hold?

    Would it not help his cause if he, and other such members of The Guildford Society, sought endorsement from the wider electorate by joining with the other democratic candidates in May?
25. Bernard Parke Reply

    February 25, 2015 at 8:22 pm

    I think many of us share Julian’s feelings about not being a member of any political party and I think that this a strong point in the favour of The Guildford Society.

    It is in its self an independent group but with a relatively small membership base when compared to the other players in GBC.

    I feel that actually fielding candidates solely to speak on Guildford issues would give the society a more positive response from the electorate who are tired by decisions being made for us by people that live many miles away.