“As a result of the population analysis GSoc did for its 2014 response to the Local Plan consultation, and with the help of Rt. Hon. Anne Milton MP, the director general of ONS conceded then that there were flaws in their calculations but went nowhere near far enough in their next adjustment.

“We have explained in our paper why we think the government’s statisticians are working from flawed data in university towns, and we, along with Guildford Residents Associations (GRA) who have done (and commissioned) more work on this matter, have continuously been vindicated by the reductions in official population forecasts and statements of need.

“It is hard to see how this Local Plan can stand up to these new figures. The results of sequential tests need to be reviewed to establish where development may not now be required, having particular regard to the options analysis in the Sustainability Appraisal.

“There is always a second edge to the sword, however, and that is that we will be further from being able to adopt suitable long-term infrastructure projects as a result of reductions in housing need, and the Guildford Society remains deeply concerned at the inadequacy of so much of the Guildford town and borough infrastructure, including transport, traffic, education, health, utilities and air quality, which must still be addressed.”

Bill Stokoe said from the Guildford Vision Group’s perspective the main concern: “… is the location of housing. A lower number does not diminish the need to develop town centre brownfield sites first. The council’s plan could do much, much better in that regard and reduce development of green belt sites.”

Amanda Mullarkey

Amanda Mullarkey, chair of the Guildford Residents’ Association added: “At the recent Guildford Local Plan examination hearings, the inspector was clear about three things:

• he would use the most up to date figures to decide the number of homes required;
• his proposed housing figures were provisional until the release of updated figures by the ONS which were expected to correct for some of the past errors in method;
• there would be another session of the examination to look at the new housing forecasts if required.

“Since the examination hearings, there have been two sets of data from the ONS suggesting population growth in Guildford, a crucial factor in estimating housing need, has been overestimated.

“GRA believes there is now an overwhelming case for re-opening the examination to take account of the latest official household figures.  We trust that the inspector will do this to enable a fair process and to make sure the Local Plan is sound.

“We encourage residents to respond to the Inspector’s consultation which runs until 23 October, asking him to hold one more session to ensure he can take appropriate account of the implications of the two new sets of ONS information before deciding on our housing need figure.

“The changes in the figures are not random. They are the result of corrections to systematic errors in the way household growth has been estimated in Guildford.  The previous method overestimated need by under-recording students leaving at the end of their studies.  The ONS has agreed with the analysis undertaken by GRA’s expert, Neil MacDonald, which identified how student figures were distorting and exaggerating overall need.

“Since the examination, Neil MacDonald [independent expert commissioned by GRA – not a GRA member as previously stated], as invited by the inspector, has analysed the 28 June ONS data jointly with GL Hearn. Neil has shown that the inspector’s very ambitious growth for Guildford’s economy can be achieved with about 460 homes a year.

“Neil McDonald was also able to identify why GL Hearn comes up with a much higher housing figure of 630 homes a year.  It appears that they:

• add homes for students even though they agree they are already probably allowed for in the figures;
• do not assume more people work more if there is high economic growth, which means they assume more workers have to be brought in; and
• make a staggering 47% overprovision in the hope this will bring down house prices, which is disproportionate compared with the uplift elsewhere.

“Once Neil MacDonald has analysed the September ONS data, we will share his findings with residents. It appears that the consistent case GRA and others have made, that Guildford’s housing need is overstated, is well founded. We want to ensure our case continues to be authoritative and well founded.”

Susan Parker, leader of the Guildford Greenbelt Group, which has campaigned against the development of green belt land, said: “Housing projections have fallen dramatically and that fall should be reflected in Guildford’s housing targets. This new information was not reflected in any draft of our Local Plan.

“Of course it is appropriate, if not politically expedient, to discuss this now. Everyone should include this key fact in their comments to the inspector.

“We should amend our housing target to reflect new information, and this should result in a radical reduction of projected use of green belt and countryside land.”

Brian Creese, speaking on behalf of Guildford Labour commented: “We need no outside experts to tell us that we have a long waiting list for houses, that the cost of renting is putting an enormous strain on working families in Guildford and owning a house here, without support from wealthy parents, is a pipe dream for most young people.

“There is a demonstrable under-supply of good quality affordable housing in Guildford and only the Labour Party have the policies to tackle it. As Howard Smith, our Parliamentary Spokesperson says: ‘Adjusting these figures does not put roofs over heads and this should be our priority’.”

Cllr Tony Rooth

Newly Independent Tony Rooth, borough councillor for Pilgrims, added: “The much-reduced figures don’t apparently apply to the draft Guildford Local Plan, according to Cllr Spooner. However, Guildford’s new estimated housing need figure of 431 appears based on more recent 2016 statistics than 781 in the draft Local Plan.

“Guildford needs more smaller, affordable homes but doesn’t logic say the planning inspector should take account of such a large reduction in deciding Guildford’s future especially the preservation of our green belt?

The revised figures for Woking and Waverley according to the Barton Mills website

“All our neighbouring boroughs have substantial falls in numbers including Woking (409 to 263) [and Waverley from 538 to 390] so do they still have an “unmet need” to pass onto Guildford when, in Woking, skyscrapers continue to rise whilst housing need figures fall?

“Figures raise more questions than words!”

See also: Lib Dem response in letter – It Is Time to Halt and Reconsider the Local Plan