Opinion: What Will Our Descendents Make of Our Local Plan Decisions?

Published on: 22 Dec, 2017
Updated on: 30 Dec, 2017

By Colin Cross

Liberal Democrat borough councillor for Lovelace

As a borough councillor in a Guildford ward that is part of the Mole Valley parliamentary constituency, I have read with great interest Sir Paul’s questions regarding GBC’s Local Plan to build 57% of this boroughs housing needs in the Green Belt, much of it specifically in Mole Valley areas.

He is right to highlight this and take it up at the highest level and seek policy clarification on our behalf, but that is only part of the story.

Aerial photograph of the Wisley site within Cllr Cross’ ward, proposed for development under Guildford’s submitted Local Plan.

Whilst a perfect Local Plan may be a dream I believe what is on offer is the “QAD” option, ie quick and dirty, taking shortcuts and offering little long-term infrastructure planning and no sustainability appraisal to speak of.

The Guildford Tories have made a pretence of consultation and a charade of heeding the manifold comments they received. They actually set their trajectory some years back and are still going for a huge growth target with no constraints to mitigate the housing total.

On December 8, in the Surrey Advertiser, Crispin Blunt, the Reigate MP, wrote an opinion column in fervent support of the preservation of London’s green belt, much of which is now under threat.

He has recently formed the London Greenbelt All Party Parliamentary Group (along with the London Greenbelt Council and the CPRE). It appears, however, that neither Sir Paul Beresford or Anne Milton have joined this group and I urge them to do so. Actions speak louder than words.

For some years, local Liberal Democrats have supported a fairer and more proportional approach to the Local Plan and I personally consider that should be the way forward if and when the planning inspector rejects the current “Regulation 19” submission on any number of grounds.

It does not comply with the need for its content to have only minor amendments to its previous iteration. How can 400+ houses at a new Garlicks Arch site, in the green belt, be considered a minor addition and where is the application of the obvious local constraints?

A fairer and more reasonable way forward must include a significant reduction in the new housing target, related to our local needs. It must be allocated evenly across our urban and rural elements and provide much needed specific local housing opportunities for all our many villages, wherever they are located in the borough. Our local families and their offspring must be provided with the means to rent our buy locally so as to maintain our social fabric and family connections.

As urban Guildford represents about half our overall population its reduced housing target should be to achieve that proportion in the long term.

We do not have to betray our green belt heritage in the way the GBC Tories are proposing. Once it’s gone it’s lost forever, to be replaced by swathe upon swathe of suburbia stretching from the M25 via the A3 to the Hogs Back and beyond.

What will our descendants make of our decisions in 50 years from now?