Reactions to News of GBC Asking for Reconsideration of Doubled Housing Target

Published on: 4 Oct, 2024
Updated on: 4 Oct, 2024

Green Belt protection has been a contentious issue

Reaction was sought the news that Guildford Borough Council was asking the government to reconsider its proposed doubling of the housing target for Guildford as part of a a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Various interested parties were asked: “Do you think the new proposed housing target is acheivable and desirable, and can infrastructure capacity keep pace?

Here is what they said. (The Labour Party was also invited to comment.)

Philip Brooker leader of the opposition and the Conservative Group at GBC

Cllr Philip Brooker

“In their letter, the council leader and portfolio holder [for Planning] ask the Secretary of State to reduce the number of houses Guildford must provide. Yet, in their written response to the consultation on proposed changes to the NPPF the council agrees that the previous Conservative Government’s changes in December 2023 should be reversed.

“These allow the council to amend the method of housing need assessment and allow local character to be taken into account when local planning authorities consider their ability to meet their housing needs.

“It is senseless that the Lib Dem Council would agree to removing these valuable protections for Guildford on the one hand whilst arguing for a reduced housing number on the other.

“The new proposed housing target may be achievable, but it is certainly not desirable. The current solution to providing much needed social housing by building vast numbers of shoddy market housing needs to be reviewed.”

Joss Bigmore leader of the Residents for Guildford & Villages (R4GV)

“The Labour Party seemed determined to double down on the failures of the Tory planning system. Millions of pounds of unspent S106 payments meant to deliver physical and social infrastructure have left us with 1,000’s of new homes without supporting roads, schools and health facilities, doubling the housing target will only exascerbate these issues.

“Alongside this, without measures to force developers to build out applications councils have no control over housing delivery, we need to stop landbanking by the imoposition of aggressive penalties.

“There are already plenty of dormant schemes, we don’t need more site allocations stolen from the green belt.

Ramsey Nagaty

Ramsay Nagaty, chair of the Guildford Greenbelt Group (GGG)

“Guildford needs more truly affordable and social housing

“Nothing in the proposed Govt changes convince me that they will enable supply of the right types of homes in the right places.”

“The proposals use an algorithm that produces unrealistic figures for housing allocations in Surrey.

“There is still in the new NPPF the 2014 projections that have been proved to be wrong. For Guildford I ensured ONS wrote and confirmed Guildford’s previous target per the 2019 Local Planwas overstated.

“Local authorities are tasked with delivering housing to meet these top-down central government figures for housing but local authorities can only give planning approvals, it is the developers who then can deliver.

“However, developers will not deliver to market in quantities that will destroy the market and reduce pricing instead they will often sit on approvals and land bank with councilss unable to ensure delivery.

Labour stood on “brownfield first” but it seems they are hell bent on pushing housing onto parts of the green belt. Strangely, big urban areas including London have had their targets reduced.

“Grey belt” is a misleading term that will reduce green belt protection as the NPPC is wooly on definition and, in any case, where there is insufficient “grey belt” local authorities are expected to move onto green belt.

“Surrey has green belt, AGLV [Area of Great Landscape Value] and AONB [Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty] National Landscape. Guildford still has 85 per cent green belt and National Landscape.”

Amanda Mullarkey, chair of the Guildford Residents Association.

“We would not be opposed to future housing targets being linked to current housing stock rather than the notoriously complex and inaccurate formula based on “household projections” used for our Local Plan. However, the targets need to be realistic, supported by infrastructure and take account of the need to protect wildlife and the Surrey Hills National Landscape.

Amanda Mullarkey

“We are particularly concerned that in the consultation, Guildford’s target is inflated by a multiplier intended to the reduce the price of homes. This approach won’t work because Guildford prices are affected by people moving from London where homes are more. Also, developers phase the release of new homes to keep prices higher. The approach will just result in ever more permissions being given for sensitive countryside sites and crammed tower blocks that are developed slowly over time.

“It would be far better for the delivery of homes to stay focused on achieving the ambitious targets and essential infrastructure in our current Local Plan.”

Alistair Smith

Alastair Smith chair of the Guildford Society (GSoc)

“The Guildford Society supports Guildford Borough Council questioning the proposed housing numbers for the Borough.

“How the doubling of housing numbers can be achieved without either substantial harm to our green countryside and/or the erection of tall buildings in Guildford, and elsewhere, is a mystery. We believe the ‘Standard Method’ for dwelling numbers is dangerously simplistic. Has it been sense tested by MHCLG [Ministry for Housing Communties and Local Government], that it is a practical method?

“The current local plan was approved based on infrastructure improvements, which have only been part delivered. Delivering housing on the scale demanded will require a massive uplift in the scale and speed of infrastructure (health facilities, flood alleviation schemes, sewage works etc) delivery.

“Will central government deliver?

“It must also be doubted whether the construction industry presently has the skills and capital base to achieve the output of dwellings and infrastructure required by the government.”

John Rigg

John Rigg chair of the Guildford Vision Group (GVG)

“Guildford will need to do much better to show it is delivering its considerable brownfield land holdings for housing if its pleadings to reduce further Green Belt incursion is to carry any weight. I fear we will now pay the price for inactivity in the town centre.

“Guildford’s strategic planning has been lamentable for years in delivering these eminently suitable brownfield sites in the centre for housing. North Street, where a big scheme is now getting underway, has lain fallow for nigh on thirty years. That’s disgraceful.

“The council owns large surface car parks in the town. It has failed miserably to take action to remove obstacles to their development.

“The 2019 Local Plan, much vaunted by its creators, has a threadbare town centre policy and missed the opportunity to create up to 3,000 new homes in the centre, with around 30 blighted sites that could be liberated if there was an up-to-date flood alleviation scheme.

“The last administration got a comprehensive masterplan underway called “Shaping Guildford’s Future” (SGF). Within SGF is a nascent flood alleviation scheme, drawn up under the auspices of the Environment Agency. Why has the current Lib Dem administration let the initiative stall?”