1.  I am the spokesman for the Gravetts Lane Action Group and also on this occasion for nine other local action groups in the Worplesdon area. Most were formed in response to Surrey County Council's proposals to build 2,000 houses in the Green Belt in Worplesdon.

OUR FEELINGS OVERALL

  2.  Someone has to get a grip on the problems of the South East. We are choking with traffic, short of key workers, and our Green Belt is threatened, yet nearly all the latest housing developments are an urban sprawl of mostly "executive" houses. We believe:

—  The aim should be the "continental model", with high density, well-designed apartment blocks, with plenty of amenity space and near to work places.

—  For this to be achieved, local planners need much more power.

—  District councils should be entirely responsible for what goes on in their districts. County councils and regional government bodies should restrict themselves to broad guidance and direction.

—  As a nation we must do all we can to encourage growth in the North and restrain further growth in the South East.

—  In terms of our local interest, we believe that the proposed allocations for Guildford Borough are much too high a proportion of the County's overall allotment. The County's specification of North West Guildford (ie Worplesdon) for 2,000 houses displays a remarkable ignorance of local factors. Particularly this latter point is evidence of the need for higher councils to keep to their areas of expertise (para 12 below).

  These points are elaborated under your suggested "Matters of Interest", as follows:

OVERALL SCALE OF HOUSE-BUILDING REQUIRED

  3.  It is difficult for a local group to comment on the national need. We do have views on the areas selected (see below).

HOUSE PRICES

  4.  The number of houses planned, though seemingly quite large, will not increase the overall housing stock by many per cent. So it is not likely to lower house prices significantly. That will only be achieved by lowering demand which is far from easy. Evening out demand across the country seems to be the best hope (see below).

  5.  The only other factor is house size. Smaller houses cost less. We reluctantly support the drive for higher density housing (elaborated below).

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

  6.  Looking nationally, we must not keep looking to the South East. The demand for houses in the region can never be satisfied—just as the number of lanes on the M25 will never be enough. Directing economic growth to the North is difficult but encouraging further growth in the South East serves no purpose. Traffic congestion is the unanswerable argument for restraint in the South East; the region is choking on itself and all the proffered solutions are merely palliatives. Public transport is bad and in many cases just as incurable.

  7.  As far as specific locations are concerned, we cannot comment on the four areas particularly put forward. Of course we think the allocations for Surrey are onerous. Even with increased housing densities and a more even spread across the County, it will be difficult to fulfil the targets without trespassing on Green Belt, which would be tragic.

HIGH QUALITY SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES WHILST AVOIDING URBAN SPRAWL

  8.  This is the key problem. Many members of our group have knowledge of Europe and are impressed by their solutions. I myself have lived in Helsinki which is probably the epitome of attractive high density housing. We all know the key factors:

—  high density apartment blocks;

—  an insistence on architectural quality;

—  plenty of amenity space between the blocks; and

—  as close as possible to places of work.

  9.  I have twice lived in such locations with my family and can vouch for how pleasant they are. We have no faith in developers doing this sort of thing on their own. Planning guidance needs to be strong and planning committees much more empowered.

MILLENNIUM VILLAGES

  10.  No comment.

HOUSING FOR SALE AND SOCIAL HOUSING

  11.  Given the difficulties of building in the South East, we cannot afford to allow our stock of subsidised housing to diminish. It is now clear that the sale of council houses has had serious adverse effects, whatever the benefits of so doing. We support the provision of "affordable" housing if, and only if, it remains so in perpetuity and, as far as possible, remains restricted to those who need it. Given this, there should be as high a proportion of such houses as can be funded, at least until the current deficiencies are remedied.

DECISIONS ON HOUSING

  12.  This is the factor on which we feel most strongly, suffering as we do from an inappropriately zealous County Council. Surrey County Council's Draft Spatial Strategy effectively seeks to impose 2,000 houses on the parish of Worplesdon. In so doing it demonstrates an astonishing lack of awareness of local factors. It is evidence for what happens if a superior authority takes it upon itself to make local decisions:

—  Serious cyanide and heavy metal contaminations on the proposed site were either misunderstood or ignored.

—  "Annexe 1" ground nesting birds on the immediately adjacent Special Protection Area went unmentioned (the land was said to be "not constrained by environmental designations").

—  Serious transport problems in the area were acknowledged but, in spite of contrary evidence, assumed to be capable of solution. (None have yet been put forward).

—  The proposed site is Green Belt. This, of course, was known to Surrey County Council but they seemed to have no knowledge of the nature of that Green Belt (for example the 200 ft high Rydes Hill Ridge included in the building plans).

  13.  Residents of Guildford feel they are being "dumped on" by people they don't know and don't elect. To an extent this is unfair—we are represented in the County Council but our members are in a minority both in numbers and politically. Our local council, Guildford Borough, has simply not been involved whilst the essence of the Strategy is laid down.

  14.  The complaints are two-fold. Firstly, the proportion of the County's housing allocated to the Borough is thought to be excessive. This appears to have come about because of the curious designation of Guildford as a "growth pole" by SEERA—a body in whom we have the deepest distrust. Secondly, Surrey County Council has gone beyond their powers in effectively specifying a site in Worplesdon for 2,000 of the houses. This is disguised as "North West Guildford" but everyone knows the precise site intended.

  15.  The role of Planning Guidance is not denied. We accept the need for RPGs and PPGs and, indeed, their content. Overall numbers, together with policies on tenure and density, should be set by government. But, if public acceptance is to be achieved, the role of the local district councils has to be strong. Bodies such as SEEDA and SEERA should see themselves as directors and leave the management to the district councils, advised by the parish councils. Similarly, county councils should "keep their noses out".

Rod Wild