Responses to Widespread Discontent Over Local Plan – Say Parish Councils

1. Jim Allen Reply

   September 8, 2014 at 8:37 pm

   I can but agree with this forum’s survey findings. As the song says ‘there are more questions than answers’.

   Most of the councillors don’t understand what they were voting for and if they read all the polices they would never have agreed to go to public consultation, especially if they had read and understood the full text of policy 17.
2. Clare McCann Reply

   September 8, 2014 at 8:57 pm

   I certainly agree with those who are unhappy about the process.

   The consultation I went to at Lancaster Hall, Send felt like a farce. The impression was that it was all a done deal and that they were going through the motions. I have heard nothing from our councillors.
3. Graham Moore Reply

   September 9, 2014 at 11:01 am

   This is a very valuable survey and reflects the frustration which many residents feel for the draft plan and so-called “consultation” process.

   The key question is not whether we should build more houses, but how many should be built. The Draft Local Plan has arrived at a figure which is double the figure in the last plan. It claims that this is “evidence based”, but refuses to disclose what this evidence is, even after a Freedom of Information request. It alleges that “we” need 650 new homes per annum to be built over the next 20 years, but fails to define who “we” are. How much is for local “need”? How much for the need of people outside the borough? The latter is of course an infinite number depending on the supply and price of the homes to be built.

   Moreover there is no acceptance in the plan that the number of houses that should be built must take into account the constraints imposed by geography and the practicalities of developing the local infrastructure.

   One cannot avoid the impression that the plan has been launched on a trajectory, which ignores the principles of “localism” and the requirement for genuine consultation.
4. Ben Paton Reply

   September 9, 2014 at 12:45 pm

   Cllr Gunning’s comments are so out of touch she must have a response:

   1. How truly representative of residents’ opinion is this survey? Parish Councils have been with us for a thousand years. Their members are elected. They live in the places they represent.

   Instead of taking them at their word, Cllr Gunning appears to prefer the opinion of here-today-and-gone-tomorrow ‘consultants’ – the sort of people Chancellor Lawson once derided as ‘teenage scribblers’. What do these consultants know? Have they any local knowledge? Not to judge by the superficial and error prone descriptions they set out in the Settlement Hierarchy.

   2. Cllr Gunning writes that ‘the evidence base has to be comprehensive’ as if that were some sort of excuse. Yes it has to be comprehensive and it is not. The Sustainability Assessment was not produced before the consultation began. A first draft has been produced part way through the process. It is wholly inadequate as evidence. It even states that there is not much story to tell – because GBC has done next to nothing on this issue.

   The Heritage Assessments have not been completed. I could cite other examples. What about infrastructure such as schools and roads? Where are the road transport studies? Has Cllr Gunning seen something we haven’t?

   ‘Comprehensive’? She must be joking. And apart from comprehensive it should be intelligible, fair and disinterested. It is blatantly none of these things. No “exceptional circumstances” for building on the green belt have been set out, for example. The Draft local Plan therefore advocates a course of action which it has not justified with legal argument or relevant evidence and as such will be contrary to the NPPF and illegal.

   How extremely disappointing that Cllrs have such a poor grasp of the technical details of the draft plan, of the evidence base and of the views of the people who live here.

   3. Perhaps Cllr Gunning can explain why GBC has not responded to my FOI request to receive a copy of its GL Hearn population projections? How accountable, open and honest is that? This is a basic piece of work and GBC has no business keeping it a secret.

   Cllr Gunning should be demanding that she can see it. It is after all basic and essential evidence. And if it is good enough for her to see then all of her constituents should be able to see it too. The NPPF says that the plan should be evidence based. Let’s see the evidence please.

   Ben Paton is the Conservative candidate for Lovelace ward in the forthcoming borough council by-election.
5. Jim Allen Reply

   September 9, 2014 at 7:02 pm

   Unhappy? Of course they and we are.

   We have a Draft Local Plan with:

   1/ No Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
   2/ No Sustainability Assessment (SA)
   3/ No Infrastructure Document
   4/ A draft definitions appendix – i.e. definitions liable to change
   6/ Reference documents with factual and numeric errors
   7/ Calculations where only half the workings are known
   8/ Policy 17 para 7 (which implies just ignore any additional requirements and build)

   As for the silent majority – that’s those working so hard to meet their mortgage payments they don’t have time to read the 4000 pages.

   So as no one else is unhappy (according to reports from Millmead) I guess I must be the most miserable noisiest guy in town.

   Please note: To read all the documents, approximately 5586 pages, any one responding would have to read approx 66.5 pages per day for the 84 days of public consultation! Some ‘home work’ after working as many do a 12 hour day including travel.
6. Colin Cross Reply

   September 10, 2014 at 9:04 pm

   Clare McCann is spot on with her observations.

   I went to a similar consultation forum for parish councils but walked out after 30 minutes as it was a charade and I was getting too angry for my own good.

   The parish councils are much closer to local opinion in rural Guildford than Labour could ever hope to be, as proved by their leader’s ill-judged support for the plan.

   Colin Cross is the Liberal Democrat candidate for Lovelace ward in the forthcoming borough council by-election.
7. Fiona Curtis Reply

   September 11, 2014 at 2:29 pm

   There are a number of Guildford based groups with a high percentage of members living in urban parts of Guildford. Until the advent of the Guildford Parish Forum, there was no equivalent for parish based councils and residents associations that I was aware of. The survey was conducted to see whether there was a need for such a forum. The answer was yes.

   I note with interest that one area where dissatisfaction was unanimous was connected to the borough council’s handling of public opinion. 100 per cent felt that GBC does not respond well. The comments from councillors on this thread have rather confirmed this.

   I am not sure of the relevance of the size of Ash unless Cllr Spooner feels that their views trump those of smaller parishes? If this is so, then he may be interested to know that there was in fact representation from this area, although I am not willing to get into a debate about who responded or whether their opinion is more or less valuable than anyone else’s.

   Parish councils and residents associations (RAs) deal with local matters and rely on their borough councillors to represent their views at a wider level, when necessary. The benefits and consequences of the Local Plan cannot just be seen from a micro perspective and a forum such as this enables representatives (many of whom are elected) to share views and support one another.

   If 89 per cent of the majority of parish councils and RAs cannot see any benefit for their area in the plan, wouldn’t it be more helpful to acknowledge this and look at how this can be addressed rather than trying to dismiss this as negative and un-representative?

   The perceived benefit of the plan, or lack of it, may vary. It is not inconceivable that urban areas may see benefits not seen in rural areas, as regeneration is beneficial and reduction in traffic and design improvements are all for the better.

   In contrast however there is the very real potential that huge areas of open farmland will be developed and pressures on existing services and roads in particular, will increase.

   Whether we live in an urban area or a parish or an area that is both, there will be recognition that there is no gain without some pain, but pain without gain is a tough one to swallow!

   Policy 2 relates to ‘borough wide strategy’ and policy 6 to ‘making better places’. I would suggest that in order to fulfil these from a rural perspective it might be helpful to consider the findings in the spirit with which they were presented, which is to highlight some very clear issues held by the majority of parishes.

   Fiona Curtis is the organiser of the Guildford Parish Forum.
8. Caroline Reeves Reply

   September 11, 2014 at 5:02 pm

   None of the residents associations where we have councillors in the urban areas have a parish to represent them and I have yet to hear of one that was asked to contribute to this survey.

   I am trying to establish the difference in total population between all the villages and the urban areas. Many in my town-centre ward share the worries of the villages about infrastructure. In fact, in the drop in sessions we have held in our wards every week throughout the consultation period the most frequent comment is: “Where’s the information on the infrastructure?”

   As I have said in the council chamber, the proposed housing number just for Friary & St Nicolas ward is higher than that of any of the villages, so do we tell new residents that not only should they not have a car, but they should not have children? Because even now, there are no school places.

   Caroline Reeves is the Lib Dem ward councillor for Friary & St Nicolas
   • Julian Lyon Reply

     September 15, 2014 at 3:55 pm

     Here are some sources of data:
     http://www.surreyi.gov.uk/ where the census page gives a link to the settlement populations in Guildford town and villages as per the 2011 census.

     My own analysis from various 2011 census sources shows:

     Guildford Urban Area – by whole MSOAs [Middle Layer Super Output Areas]:
     The Guildford urban area comprises a little more than half of the population of the Borough (70,407 people in 28,522 households) on just under 11% of the land area (29,661,840 square metres)

     Areas Beyond the Green Belt
     The area beyond the green belt comprises the majority of land in three of the eighteen MSOAs in the Borough Covering Ash, Ash Vale and Tongham. It comprises 14.2% of the population of the borough (19,480 people in 8,479 homes – 15.082% of the borough’s households) and on 4.808% of the borough’s land area.

     Green Belt Villages and Parishes
     The green belt overall comprises 240.4 milion square metres of land. The remaining six MSOAs include 228,242,730 square metres (95% of the entire green belt designation in the borough). The six MSOAs account for 34.477% of the population of the borough (47,296 people in 19,219 homes – 34.185% of the borough’s households) on 84.264% of the borough’s land area – all of it within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

     I hope this helps.

     Julian Lyon is a spokesman for the Guildford Society and the Guildford Vision Group on the Local Plan
9. Peta Malthouse Reply

   September 14, 2014 at 11:40 am

   I am afraid that our Councillor Diana Lockyer-Nibbs has now told us that she worked hard to ensure that the Draft Local Plan proposal for Normandy were framed as she suggested.

   She didn’t ask us before she did this. She has not attended one Village Meeting or Parish Council meeting to ask our views before she made representations on our behalf and can be heard on the Guildford Borough Council webcast saying words to the effect of what should she care as she will not be on the council after the next election.

   Last year she spent all her time telling Normandy she could not be involved in political issues because she was the Mayor. So at the most important time for the village she has said nothing and done nothing to assist debate or understanding.

   She has been made well aware of the Parish Council’s concerns and interests and has not bothered to suggest we meet. So everyone here is your anecdotal evidence for Normandy.
   • Diana Lockyer-Nibbs Reply

     September 14, 2014 at 11:45 am

     Cllr Lockyer Nibbs Is the borough councillor for Normandy

     I am writing in response to [the comment] from Peta Malthouse re her concerns about my support for the village of Normandy, and would like to say I strongly disagree.

     I have been to many meetings in the parish and spoken. If they clash with borough ones, I obviously must attend the latter.

     This draft plan is very different to the first one, where we had seven sites, one being on the now ‘safeguarded land’. If this is developed now, then in my opinion the rest of that area will be in the next Local Plan.

     While I was Mayor I had a meeting with members of the Parish to discuss my objections to the first draft, which were mainly about the boundary changes and 90% of my suggestion was taken into account on this Local Plan. Keeping to the curtilage of properties and not sprawling towards Ash, therefore cutting down the potential scattering of sites. This plan should mean we have no more houses for 20 years.

     I would like to say that Peta also attended a meeting at the council offices with myself, Monika Juneja and Stephen Mansbridge to discuss the sites.

     It is a fact that I will not be standing for re-election, but this does not stop me actively representing Normandy. I have lived in Normandy for over 50 years and been a councillor for 16 years and have continually worked hard for the village. Supporting residents in their planning applications, getting trains to stop at Wanborough on Sundays, fighting against all the gypsy sites and getting them refused, only to have these accepted on appeal, which I have no control over.

     Nobody wants any more houses to be built in their village; it is not just the village of Normandy that has been put under these constraints. Government pressure and exceptional circumstances have put forward these housing needs. The SHMA has not been settled yet, so let’s hope the consultations between Woking, Waverley and Guildford will bring the numbers down. I have tried to put forward the best option for us, however I know this will not please everyone.
     • Robert Burch Reply

       September 14, 2014 at 9:30 pm

       I would be interested to hear from Cllr Lockyer-Nibbs her views on what constitutes the “exceptional circumstances [that] have put forward these housing needs”.
     • Adrian Atkinson Reply

       September 16, 2014 at 8:31 pm

       Cllr Lockyer Nibbs’ silence, following my response and challenge to her statements in which she mentions government pressure and “exceptional circumstances”, is deafening.

       I would like her to supply the residents with tangible facts to support this stance, if it is, as she claims, so central to the shape and scale of the plan being put in front of us, rather than throw-away, worthless spin.

       We are at a collective loss in this regard.
10. Adrian Atkinson Reply

    September 14, 2014 at 9:52 pm

    To Cllr Lockyer-Nibbs and all other councillors and officers. Based upon the above response I have two questions:

    1. Once again “government pressure” is being used as an excuse. Localism is key. Let’s test it and do what we think is right for the borough and not what people say the government is pressuring us to do. Communication with MPs indicates that it is down to local councils and not governmental pressure. What are the explicit details of this central government pressure (including emails, policies which trump established law to only change green belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances)?

    2. “Exceptional circumstances” – not that old chestnut. How can councillors continue to spurt this statement out when this needs to be proved? It hasn’t even been described in the Draft Local Plan. People have had to resort to Freedom of Information requests to obtain this judgement. It hasn’t been communicated to the public who paid for it and who’s elected representatives continue to claim it is a justification for their actions and support for a local plan to build c.9,000 out of 13,000 houses on the green belt yet hide behind legal privilege as to why the proposals in the draft local plan will be lawful.
    • Adrian Atkinson Reply

      September 19, 2014 at 1:20 pm

      Cllr Lockyer-Nibbs, has not responded to my questions prompted by her specific statement regarding “government pressure” and “exceptional circumstances” which she says are forcing the shape of the Draft Local Plan, laid before the residents of the borough of Guildford.

      Once again councillors put their collective hands to their ears and chant “lalalala”. Her comments were very easy to say but, despite my two comments on her statement, months of informal and formal Freedom of Information requests, endless trawling through the evidence base and the draft plan these questions still remain unanswered. It is very poor indeed.

      As the consultation comes to a close the only conclusion I can reach is that neither government pressure or exceptional circumstances exist. After receiving millions of pounds of tax payers money, the council can’t even provide the residents with some of the basics. The plan is designed for the developers and not for the borough.

      What do we say to kids when they are in trouble? “Tell me the truth now or…” I’d think more highly of the council if they put their hands up and admitted the outside pressures don’t exist instead of the continued unaccountable spin masquerading as fact. If they are facts please lets see the evidence.
11. Neville Bryan Reply

    September 15, 2014 at 8:49 pm

    Let’s be clear (and I see there are many elected GBC councillors who, for reasons they are keeping to themselves, do not want to be clear), we have two ministerial letters supported by a House of Commons Library Circular (Number SN/SC/934 – June 2014) saying that giving up our green belt is the decision of the local councils not central government. There is no mandate to “roll back the green belt” by anybody other than GBC.

    There might be a lot of double talk but GBC solicitors were on webcast when this last came up and talked distastefully of what they referred to as the “Boles letters”, and that they they had referred to the House of Commons Library. Now you have that guidance too – page 4 confirming that it is a local choice.

    Councillors it is your choice. This is a constraint GBC can use and but have chosen not to.

    Your electorate, and I am seeing many hundreds during the public meetings process, are pretty clear what they are telling you – give up the green belt at your peril.

    It is down to you to stand up and support your electorate.
12. Roland McKinney Reply

    September 16, 2014 at 11:59 am

    If Cllr Gunning wished to answer her own question “I wonder how truly representative of overall residents’ opinion this survey is?” she (and all other councillors) could have organised a survey of their residents, much as Effingham Residents Association did. Survey results have been reported in The Dragon, but to repeat some highlights:

    97 per cent against taking Effingham out of the Green Belt
    93 per cent against 310 new houses to enable a new school to be built
    97 per cent against a car park on Effingham Common.

    In other words, there is very little support for GBC plans for Effingham, in Effingham. Is that unequivocal enough for Cllr Gunning? This is the “silent majority” speaking, so I hope Cllr Gunning and her colleagues in GBC are listening.
13. Valerie Thompson Reply

    September 18, 2014 at 9:24 am

    This is the letter I have sent to the Guildford Plan office. It is very personal, but I implore anyone who knows anyone else who has not yet written to object to the GBC proposals to do so now – before the 22nd Sept.

    Sirs
    I object to the proposal to remove the green belt status from most the villages surrounding Guildford. It goes against government planning guidelines to arbitrarily remove green belt designation unless there are exceptional circumstances. There is no policy for describing housing as an “exceptional circumstance”. Nick Boles stated in his letter to Sir Paul Beresford on 18 June 2014 that such circumstances are required before any changes are made to the green belt boundaries, and that unmet housing need is not such a circumstance.

    Paragraphs 14, 17 and 83 of the NPPF are all concerned with protecting green belt. Para. 89 allows for development of previous brownfield sites within the green belt provided that it does not have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt, than its former use.

    Para. 80 is concerned with checking unrestricted urban sprawl. The whole is aiming to prevent towns merging one into another and assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

    Note, that the word ‘safeguarding’ is the correct usage, rather than GBC’s use which implies the absolute opposite. GBC is intending to keep back land for future development not keeping it safe from development !

    The NPPF documents makes it clear that most development in the green belt is inappropriate.

    I will now refer to particular sites and proposals that directly affect me, and the area I live in, and have lived in for 44 years.

    1. I object to 600+ houses being planned for the two Horsleys.The station car park is full, the schools are full, the surgery is full, the roads are clogged up. There is nothing in the plan to improve any of these facilities. There is no ‘joined-up’ thinking to provide infrastructure for this massive development.

    2. I object to West Horsley being divided into North and South. It is, and has been for hundreds of years, one village, quite separate from East Horsley.

    3. I object to West Horsley being attached to East Horsley and being called a semi-urban area. West Horsley is a rural village and cannot accommodate more than 400 extra houses when the existing village comprises only about 1,200 houses.

    4. I object to the site at Ripley Lane, which is at present a large field, being designated for 185 houses. It should not be built on at all. This site was selected because it was within five minutes walking distance of a school, a Catholic private school! None of your ‘consultants’ knew this. The site was chosen when someone looked at a map! How many of the children in the 45 per cent of affordable homes, that are meant to be provided are going to be able to go to this school? There is no pavement from this site along Ripley Lane and the land each side is mostly privately owned.

    5. I object to the proposal to put traveller pitches on the old post office sorting site in East Horsley. It is an inappropriate place opposite an ancient church, close to old people’s homes and among a residential area, where young children live, apart from the damage it will do to property prices. These pitches should be in isolated areas, not near people who want to keep their homes and areas clean, unaffected by human waste, rubbish heaps, dangerous dogs and the detritus that travellers leave behind.

    6. I object to the plans for other areas of West Horsley that are on green belt sites. Hundreds of houses at Manor Farm and Waterloo Farm will add to the burden on the local roads, surgery and primary school. Plans for Bell and Colville Garage and the adjoining fields will lead to massive problems in the mornings when the residents attempt to leave on the A246, which is totally blocked in both directions for about half a mile with cars bringing children to Cranmore School.

    7. I object to the enlargement of the village settlement areas. There is no need for this. Everyone acknowledges that some development has to be done. This should be firstly on brownfield sites. Planning applications for any other building can, as before, be looked at on its own merit and decisions made on individual applications. Mass development in small villages should not be allowed, let alone promoted by GBC. Applications for green belt sites can also be looked at on their own merits, and approval given if those sites meet the government requirements.

    Research has shown that as few as 20 houses per year are actually needed in West Horsley. There will always be a demand for housing in attractive areas, which of course, will quickly become unattractive when covered with houses in the density that GBC proposes.

    8. All the large-scale developments in the Guildford area will add to congestion on the roads, the hospital, which is over-subscribed at the moment, the town parking facilities and shops.

    9. There has been little research into flooding. Ripley Lane in West Horsley is impassable every year after heavy rain.

    10. No provision has been made in the plans for primary school children except on the Wisley site. All the primary schools in the area are full.

    11. Even if a new secondary school is built at Clandon and The Howard of Effingham school extended, there is no guarantee that there will be places available for the Horsley children as the former Effingham site will have extra houses on it, while the Wisley site and the vast site at Burpham will feed children into the Clandon School.

    12. No sensible plans have been put in place for the thousand of extra commuters from Burpham and Wisley to use the existing stations. The consultants even, laughably, suggested that they would provide buses every 10 minutes to Woking , Horsley and Effingham stations. (What will happen when they discover this is uneconomical?)

    They had no idea that it would take as long on the small roads through Send or Ripley to get to Woking as it would take on the train from Woking to Waterloo. Only a new station at Burpham/Merrow, where the small trading estate is sited, would make it possible for this number of new commuters to use any of the existing stations as all of their car parks are full already.

    None of the ‘consultants’ I talked to at the meetings regarding the Horsleys or Wisley, had ever been to the area, or actually looked at any of the sites. This is a disgrace as they were putting forward plans of which they had no understanding; only giving out the GBC views as if they were all a ‘done-deal’.
14. Colin Cross Reply

    September 22, 2014 at 9:26 am

    Hopefully, by now there will be thousands of objections to the plan lodged with GBC.

    But will they make a difference? Not according to Mr Mansbridge and his ‘trajectory’.

    I fear the only way to dump this plan will be for the good citizens of Guildford to march to the council chamber in their droves and demand it be dropped.

    I can assure you that feelings in Ripley are running very high from my canvassing.

    We are unhappy being ignored and not about to stand by and let our village be ruined.

    Just wait until you see that emotion expressed at the ballot box on Thursday.