The Dragon Says: Who Cares What the Residents Think?

Published on: 20 Aug, 2019
Updated on: 23 Aug, 2019

A Twitter complaint that democracy is dead in Guildford Borough from the former Conservative leader Paul Spooner found an echo in the council’s public gallery at Millmead last week.

Cllr Spooner complained because his appointment as GBC’s representative on the Royal Surrey County Hospital’s board was switched to a Lib Dem colleague by the new council leader Caroline Reeves without, originally, referring to the full council. This was unlikely to attract much public sympathy.

But the echo, unusually, might have greater volume. This time the complaint, from a lady in the gallery, was about the much more important democratic representation of public views in our planning process.

GBC’s Planning Committee was considering an application for 75 houses on a new site, previously designated green belt, in Send (click here to see the webcast of the meeting – item 5).

The May election results clearly showed support for the Conservative’s Local Plan is scant in Indeed it is scant throughout the whole eastern rural half of the borough where only one Tory, Richard Billington, hung on to his seat.

But the Local Plan was adopted, albeit as the dying act of a council that knew thousands in the borough deeply disapproved of the Plan and the way the Tory dominated council was operating. Although legal advice was that process was completely proper.

Dissenting voices have now challenged that process and there will be a Judicial Review. Probably, the odds are against the adoption being overturned.

Whatever the outcome, many might agree with the vocal lady complainant on Wednesday (August 14) that the planning process is now undemocratic. Councillors were told by the Planning Committee chair Marsh Moseley (Con, Ash Vale) that as the application was in line with the Local Plan the objections, at least on the grounds presented, were pointless and would leave the council liable to costs if the application were allowed on appeal.

Even the 25% (from 60 to 75) increase in the number of units from the Local Plan allocation and resulting parking restrictions that will deny existing residents parking places near their homes were brushed aside.

The fact is the government has tilted the playing field so much in favour of development and has taken such tight control of Guildford’s planning, with the willing collaboration of the previous council, that there are few decisions on large developments the council has the power or confidence to take. It might be viewed that it GBC approval is just cosmetic fig leaf hiding the lack of local planning control.

If the legal status of the Local Plan is clear the moral case is questionable. Although, in 2015, some were already challenging the Conservative’s Local Plan proposals, the party campaigned highlighting their traditional role as green-belt protectors. In fact, they were planning for several large-scale building developments, and went on to largely ignore the thousands of objections. Additionally, for reasons still unclear, they refused to use available constraints under the National Planning Policy Framework to limit the housing number.

The unpopularity of the Local Plan caused support for the Conservatives to plummet. For the Tories to push through the plan only days before the election, despite all the objections, was morally wrong.

Planning is one of the most important functions of our borough council but if the council can no longer represent the majority view of its constituents perhaps democracy is dead, maimed or at least seriously wounded.

And it is not just the authors of the Local Plan who should take note. Similar house-building targets in other parts of the Tory’s South-east heartland are causing similar rebellions. That disaffected Tory voters will all return to support Conservative candidates at the next borough council election is unlikely. And it could affect their support in a General Election if voters now realise that Tory national planning policy is responsible.

Our Guildford, Tory MP Anne Milton must already be concerned that her pro-Brexit but anti-no deal stance will be unpopular with both her no-deal backing party membership and Remainers. Added disaffection over the Local Plan is the last thing she needs.

Responses to The Dragon Says: Who Cares What the Residents Think?

Harry Eve Reply

August 20, 2019 at 7:26 pm

In the same planning meeting, we also heard the Conservative chair, Cllr Moseley, say that “Climate Emergency is not relevant” in response to a councillor attempting to raise the issue. My understanding is that the government, Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council have all declared a Climate Change Emergency – so is planning exempt ?
Gordon Bridger Reply

August 21, 2019 at 9:38 am

A very helpful analysis.

I did not attend the debate about the development in Send which the chair pushed through claiming that it was policy that council officers were not allowed to advise councillors on reasons for refusal and that the council would be liable for costs if it went to an appeal and was lost.

While it may be policy, and development on the area in Send is allowed, there could be perfectly good reasons for objecting on density and councillors are entitled to assistance from officers in putting forwards reasons for refusal. Officers have a duty to help councillors and ensure they do not put forward which can be dismissed as “frivolous” and thus entail costs to the council. As I understand it, the reasons were not frivolous and should and could have been put forward as objections.

Arguments about incurring costs are used to frighten councillors into supporting officers proposals and should be ignored if objections relating to planning guidelines are used. They are seldom awarded as most objections have a reasoned basis. Officers have a duty to give advice and in my time were always willing to do so.
David Roberts Reply

August 21, 2019 at 12:03 pm

Remember when the Tories, for all their faults, were seen as the steady hand of competent administration, both nationally and locally? A bit dull but suitably risk-averse? Far off days indeed.

When I worked in central government a policy did not become official until Ministers approved it. It remained just someone’s proposal – a mere draft.

In the topsy-turvy world of Guildford local government, the Local Plan was already Holy Writ the moment it was signed off by former councillor Monika Juneja in 2013. Disguised as an innocent-sounding “Issues and Options” paper it soon mutated into “the emerging Local Plan”, identical in all important respects, to which, according to planners, “considerable weight should be attached.” All long before anything was approved by Councillors.

In central government, any incoming government can reverse the policy of its predecessor. This is democratic and right. In Guildford, however, the new council is apparently unable to revoke a Local Plan approved through Tory abuse of process during electoral purdah. Ordinary residents must first fork out for judicial reviews and prove it is illegal.

I am optimistic that the JRs will succeed. But having to resort to the courts only shows how unfit for purpose our 1940s planning system now is, encrusted with layers of rules, exceptions and qualifications until only a tiny priesthood of specialist developers and planners call all the shots, manipulating it for their own professional gain. The alphabet soup of NPLFs, AONBs and SANGs, made deliberately impenetrable to ordinary residents, shows how sclerotic and corrupt it now is. The whole thing needs scrapping and re-working from first principles.