We had been under the impression that the Government had decided to move from a "predict and provide" system of deciding housing numbers to "plan, monitor and manage" which would give local authorities a more influential role in deciding the level of housebuilding appropriate to local conditions. We deprecate the change back to tight central prescription. We will confine our comments to the effect of the Regional Planning Guidance numbers on Surrey, which we think are too high, and on our own area in particular.

  As for the effect on house prices of the imposition of the RPG 9 numbers: we think the RPG numbers will not make any significant difference. The most important factors behind the current rise in house prices appear to be low interest rates leading to affordability of higher mortgage debt, coupled with a buoyant economy and historically very low rates of unemployment. The fall in stock market prices and lack of confidence in stock market investment are also contributory factors. House prices fell when the economy was in recession and workers' confidence in their own job security was undermined, even though new house building declined at that time.

  Even at the house building rates required under RPG 9 it is unlikely that the numbers of new houses becoming available will significantly affect the market, in the absence of other factors.

  We think that the crude central prescription of numbers which are likely to require development in the Green Belt is not likely to promote high quality sustainable communities, though we are encouraged by Mr Prescott's statement at the Urban Commission Conference earlier this month, which suggests that the Government is keen to preserve the Green Belt after all. The effect of imposing additional housing in Guildford's Green Belt as may be necessary, we are told, to fulfil the housing numbers required of Surrey in RPG 9, would result in a vast increase in car journeys.

  One site suggested for Green Belt development has no satisfactory public transport links, the other is on the other side of the town from the area where most of the employment growth is taking place. The latter site, if developed, would need further transport links which could only be achieved by further scarring the Green Belt. And there is no suggestion that any significant employment would be provided on the sites of new development. It seems that development on this basis would only result in urban sprawl.

  Traffic congestion is already a serious problem in Guildford, both within the town and on the major roads in the area. And much of the infrastructure is under pressure. The Royal Surrey County Hospital, for example, has some of the longest trolley waits in the region.

  Millennium villages might appear to provide a utopian alternative, but in this crowded area of the country there do not appear to be suitable sites.

  In Guildford Borough we have a pressing shortage of affordable housing, so that not only are workers from other parts of the country deterred from moving into the area to take unfilled jobs, but the children of those already here cannot afford homes which their parents, at the same stage in their lives, were able to afford.

  And too many planning applications come forward for large executive houses, five bedroomed multi bathroomed houses, instead of the smaller units which would be more affordable and meet the needs of more local people.

  At present the Council's ability to provide social housing (for rent or shared ownership) is limited. Although we have benefited from success in bidding for Government finance for key worker housing, which is financing a small number of units, the need is much greater. We have a housing needs register of over 2,000 and a great shortage of key workers like nurses, teachers and bus drivers. And although we have substantial receipts from the sale of Council houses we are not allowed to use them to build houses to replenish the stock of low cost housing. The ability to spend some of these balances would transform the situation locally. The threat, of course, is that these balances will be diverted by the Government for use to finance housing in other areas.

  We feel strongly that decisions relating to housing numbers, tenure and density, should be taken by local government. We are particularly concerned that we should not be building in Guildford's Green Belt. We are concerned too to protect some areas of low density in the town which are of special character, but there are areas where higher density is appropriate. We feel that local government is in the best position to understand the views of residents, the character of the area and the nature of the problems facing us.

  We are currently faced by demands from the Government Office (GOSE) not only to accept higher housing densities (the PPG 3 targets of 30 to 50 per hectare are already in our emerging Local Plan for sites as low as 0.4 hectares), but to require these densities on sites as small as 0.2 hectares. If we agree to this it will remove a great deal of our discretion to have the town develop in the most sympathetic way. We feel that such interference is draconian.

November 2002