Opinion: I Am Proud of Our Decision to Adopt the Local Plan

Published on: 1 May, 2019
Updated on: 4 May, 2019

By Gordon Jackson

Conservative candidate for Pirbright in the borough council elections to be held on May 2.

It is very sad to read Mr Bigmore’s opinion piece, It is Time to Remove National Parties from Local Politics, as it introduces a new form of poison politics to the Guildford scene, which is bad for Guildford and bad for its residents.

Up until now there has been a healthy debate between members of the council from all different parties, but this has been conducted in a respectful manner by the vast majority, recognising that everybody is entitled to their view.

The suggestion that the adoption of the Local Plan is cynical, arrogant and anti-democratic is utterly false. I and those of my colleagues, who voted for the Local Plan strongly believe that this is the best Plan for Guildford in all the circumstances. It will never satisfy everybody, but it balances the need to protect the countryside and enable a reasonable amount of development in local villages with provision for housing on strategic sites that is badly needed. It provides a framework for future infrastructure and future local jobs, whilst specifically requiring that necessary transport links must be in place before houses are built – this way we can be assured that new developments will help meet the cost of the roads we require.

The objectively assessed housing need number of 562 dwellings per annum is considerably lower than the numbers that were first put forward eight years ago. A vote against the Local Plan last week would have resulted in a number in excess of 740 dwellings each year, because we would have had to adopt the government’s new standard method of calculating the need.

It is likely that the development industry would have successfully argued that the housing number should be uplifted due to the high need for affordable homes and the need to create local jobs and a flourishing economy. In short, what on earth would have been the point in playing Russian Roulette with our borough and delaying the Local Plan, when it would demonstrably result in more housing and therefore the setting aside of more sites in the green belt and greater congestion in the town?

At the last election the Local Plan was already well advanced, and residents then voted for a majority of Conservative councillors, who have since refined the Plan and ensured that a number of greenbelt sites have been removed. It has always been the case that the Local Plan had to be prepared within the constraints of a legal framework laid down by central government.

The purpose of the planning inspector’s examination was to confirm that the draft Local Plan met those constraints and it is a testament to our very professional council officers that the Plan was found to be sound.

In other areas, where the siren voices of people similar to Mr Bigmore have been heeded and local boroughs or districts have attempted to operate outside the required legal framework, the result has only been huge additional cost to no avail as the Local Plans have been resoundingly rejected by the Planning Inspectorate with significant adverse consequences in the areas concerned – it is settled law that if one cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, which without an up to date Local Plan we cannot, then developers are able to propose sites in the green belt to meet the need and the planning restrictions that can be imposed are severely reduced.

Already we have seen the impact of this in Ash, where several large developments have been permitted on appeal and the borough council has been powerless to prevent them or indeed require the additional infrastructure that is badly needed.

Contrary to Mr Bigmore’s assertion, the Guildford Local Plan does prioritise available brownfield sites and provides a framework that will enable the Town Centre Master Plan, which was commissioned by the current administration and widely welcomed by the majority of Guildfordians only two years ago, to be fully developed as a Supplementary Planning Document.

To suggest that it is anti-democratic for duly elected councillors to vote through a Plan that has been eight years in the making and had gone through four public consultations and an independent hearing by the inspector is manifest nonsense. The council has not ignored independent legal advice (if Mr Bigmore is referring to advice obtained by various dissident groups) but has been scrupulous in ensuring that it has legal advice from a leading QC into what can and cannot be done.

Those not familiar with council practice should know that officers are scrupulous in ensuring that they do not favour one political party over another and if their advice is that it is perfectly proper to conduct the business concerned in Purdah then that is good enough for me and most of my colleagues.

Completing a process that our council was elected to promote in full knowledge of the nature of the proposed Local Plan four years ago and in the best interests of the residents of Guildford Borough as a whole is absolutely the correct thing to have done. We would have been forced to revisit the Plan over a minimum three-year period with all the concomitant cost to the ratepayers and to absolutely no long-term purpose.

I am proud that councillors have not been intimidated by the scorn and bile that Mr Bigmore’s party have poured upon the process.

Responses to Opinion: I Am Proud of Our Decision to Adopt the Local Plan

Harry Eve Reply

May 1, 2019 at 11:38 am

How can Cllr Jackson be proud of a Local Plan that will stoke up climate change – ruining the lives of our younger and future generations? As for scorn and bile, that has been the main tactic of the Conservative council Executive against any opposition.
Ben Paton Reply

May 1, 2019 at 12:35 pm

Cllr Jackson clearly lives on a different planet. But then he was the Chairman of the Scrutiny Cttee that held that Cllr Juneja had not breached the Council’s Code of Conduct. It can be viewed here:

The Court took a different view. But why let the facts get in the way.

Ben Paton is a GGG candidate for Effingham in the borough council elections to be held on May 2.
- Gordon Jackson Reply
  
  May 1, 2019 at 9:04 pm
  
  Mr Paton demonstrates my point. He alleges that I was chairman of a committee that exonerated Monika Juneja. This is completely false.
  
  The speech he has selected in fact relates to the conclusion of the Corporate Governance Committee that officers had acted absolutely correctly in the light of the evidence then available (which did not include the evidence subsequently obtained by the police) and the advice of the independent third party asked to consider the situation.
  
  I have never condoned, nor would I attempt to do so, the criminal acts committed by Ms Juneja. The Local Plan is not Ms Juneja’s Plan and in truth it never was. It is a balanced document that has been developed by officers over a number of years in conjunction with the Local Plan Panel in which all the main political parties were represented.
  
  As Mr Paton says, “Why let the facts get in the way?” Just another example of the poison politics that I originally complained about.
  
  Gordon Jackson is a Conservative candidate for Pirbright in the borough council elections to be held on May 2.
Jim Allen Reply

May 1, 2019 at 4:42 pm

It is sad that Cllr Jackson believes this Local Plan is “good”. Perhaps that is because he did not sit through the Plan hearings when very relevant questions were asked and remained unanswered. Four separate informatives spread over the years – were not proper consultation. they – hardly changed anything of significance within the 600-page document from 2015 through 2019 is not amending the plan to make it better, with residents input, that’s bull-headed obstinacy.

Failing to insert into the Plan, that deemed an essential requirement in the 1980s, road transport infrastructure on strategic sites is a serious omission. Inserting railway stations which have not been included in a 30-year plan is erroneous, as is relying on “new water infrastructure” which cannot be provided in the first five years – if ever.

Claiming nothing will be built before the infrastructure is supplied is nothing short of seeing pigs feathers dropping out the sky because either there is no five-year land supply or the departing council Executive is prepared to risk flooding out the residents with sewage, as occurred in August 2017.
Colin Cross Reply

May 1, 2019 at 5:58 pm

Well there’s a surprise, another Tory councillor towing (or is it touting) the official party line of, “Take your medicine all of you, we know what’s best for everyone!”

It really does not seem to matter how many of us tell them the truth they just close their ears to it and shout, “Cynical, arrogant, undemocratic!”, when in reality, they ought to be looking into a mirror and spouting that to themselves, over and over again.

Colin Cross is a R4GV candidate for Lovelace in the borough council election on May 2.
Lisa Wright Reply

May 1, 2019 at 9:04 pm

Maybe Cllr Jackson can explain why the Council QC didn’t answer Cllr Parker’s question before the vote took place?
Ben Paton Reply

May 1, 2019 at 11:41 pm

In my brief comment above, I got Cllr Jackson’s job title wrong. I wrote that he was chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. I apologise for that mistake. Cllr Jackson was, in fact, as he states in the video, chairman of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee.

In the video, Cllr Jackson reads out a very carefully phrased statement that is typical of the sophistry deployed by the council. It is full of extenuations, exonerations and excuses.

Cllr Jackson tried to make out that Cllr Juneja’s misconduct was all historic, long predating her acceptance of the role of Lead Member for the Local Plan. That was simply not true. Whilst holding that council office Cllr Juneja publicly held herself out to be a barrister. When residents pointed out to her that she was not a barrister she threatened legal action against them for libel. Cllr Juneja made her claims whilst holding office. She herself also held the office of Lead Member for governance. What sort of example does Cllr Jackson believe that Ms Juneja’s conduct whilst holding office as chairman of the Governance Committee set? Was threatening residents with legal action consistent with the Nolan Principles? Was it calculated to maintain the public’s respect for the council?

That the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee that Cllr Jackson chaired would not acknowledge that Cllr Juneja had acted in breach of the Nolan Principles will bewilder most residents. Cllr Jackson’s prepared statement read out at ouncil was designed to distance the council’s officers and the Conservative Group from Cllr Juneja.

Instead of blaming the residents for ‘poisoning politics’ Cllr Jackson should accept responsibility for his own actions. It is the repeated failures of the council to respect the Nolan Principles or to apply them that has poisoned politics in Guildford.

This is a council whose deputy leader only last autumn invited the leader of Surrey County Council to sign a letter endorsing the council’s Garden Village Bid. That letter was drafted by the developer’s consultants, Savills. The Deputy Leader acted as the delivery boy for a speculative property developer’s letter in support of its own project.

The Public struggles to understand how such conduct is consistent with the Nolan Principles. It sees through Cllr Jackson’s clever circumlocutions. It is repeated conduct of this nature that is the cause of the Public’s loss of respect for the council. What are the standards that the Standards Committee of the council upholds?