INTRODUCTION

  1.  This note comes from three Guildford Liberal Democrats. These are Fiona White, a Guildford borough councillor and currently Leader of Guildford Borough Council, David Goodwin, also a Guildford borough councillor and currently chairman of the Guildford constituency party, and Tom Sharp, a Surrey county councillor. It is submitted just after Surrey's "Deposit Draft Structure Plan 2002" was made known to us and, for that reason, is necessarily incomplete and subject to further thought and discussion.

THE VIEWS TAKEN

  2.  We believe that the SERPLAN suggested allocation of 22,400 dwellings for Surrey over the period 2001-16, with a Guildford share of 2,150, was reasonable in relation to the allocation for neighbouring counties, to need and to capacity. (This view is without prejudice to a view some have that there could, on the part of Government, be a "steer" towards development in the north and west through encouragement of regional and local, as well as national, initiatives in these less pressured areas and through some discouragement of major infrastructure development in the south east).

  3.  We share the view Surrey County Council and MPs have (unsuccessfully) pressed on the Government that the increased allocation for the 15 year period of 13,000 (making 35,400 in all) is excessive, being essentially an extrapolation from past figures grounded neither in assessed need nor capacity to provide the housing. We believe that insufficient account has been taken of the fact that most of the land area of Surrey which is not urban is in the green belt, much of it protected as having a special value of some kind (as an AONB, AGLV or SSSI). Surrey's green belt acts, of course, as a lung not just for Surrey's urban dwellers but also for London's.

  4.  Surrey's draft spatial strategy, published in June 2002, suggested that of the 13,000 additional housing units, 7,000 should be allocated to an "urban reserve" (to be allocated following further work by boroughs and districts) and the remaining 6,000 should be spread between green belt sites northeast of Guildford, northwest of Guildford and south of Woking. We contested the view that any green belt allocation was necessary; supported certain locally-based arguments against the particular sites specified; and argued that Guildford and Woking were being expected to take too many housing units.

  5.  The draft structure plan now published has as features:

(a)  acceptance of the 13,000 extra units imposed on Surrey;

(b)  an increase of 2,000 in the amount allocated following past plan decisions and allocations achieved through an increase of about 10% made in all allocations (with Guildford's, for example, going from 2,150 to 2,350) and with the number for Horley (in Reigate and Banstead) being (quite reasonably) highlighted;

(c)  an allocation of 1,000 units for higher density development in Woking town centre (but nothing for the Woking green belt);

(d)  2,500 in the Guildford urban area if a "comprehensive urban strategy" suggests this is feasible, or else, following a stocktake in 2006, in new communities in the green belt to the north east and north west of Guildford;

(e)  7,500 units as an "additional housing requirement" to be allocated to boroughs/districts following further capacity studies;

(f)  some 40% of the new housing provision to be affordable.

  6.  From our standpoint, as councillors elected to represent the people of Guildford, this is not acceptable:

(a)  No reasoning has been presented to justify a total of 4,850 units in the Guildford borough area (in addition to some 3,000 units of student accommodation at the university and a possible allocation for Ash following further work on the needs of the Blackwater Valley area).

(b)  If 7,500 is to be allocated to borough/district areas following further capacity studies, should not the whole 11,000 (the 7,500 plus Woking's 1,000 and Guildford's 2,500) be allocated in this way? And if the threat to the two identified green belt areas adjacent to the Guildford urban area is to depend on capacity studies somewhere should it not be on capacity studies over the whole of brown field Surrey and not just capacity studies in Guildford alone?

(c)  The aimed-for proportion of affordable/key worker housing—40%—is inadequate. The especial need is for single person accommodation, as demographic projections show, and for housing for those beginning their working lives. It should be, say, 60%. This should be achievable through higher urban densities, with local planning committees given discretion over how to achieve this while preserving the character of individual towns, villages and neighbourhoods (but see footnote at end); through use of public sector land for affordable/key worker housing (whether alone or in conjunction with commercial or industrial use) (which requires, from public authorities, a willingness to forego, on occasions, capital receipts, and, from Government, a willingness in such cases to permit authorities to do so); and finally through some mechanism other than (or supplementary to) the present planning gain provisions to ensure that new developments both provide for a high proportion of moderately priced housing and for necessary infrastructure improvements.

FORWARD ACTION

  In the light of the foregoing we would expect to plead to the County's Executive and the full Council that Surrey should:

(a)  continue with its representations to Government (along with Surrey MPs) to reduce Surrey's extra allocation of housing of 13,000 to some much smaller figure;

(b)  urge that towns to the east of London and on the south coast, rather than the Guildford area, should be the focus for future growth in the south east;

(c)  make it an objective that at least 60% of the Surrey's extra housing in the coming period should be "affordable" or of a kind affordable by those starting careers;

(d)  seek agreement from the Government and all other public authorities in Surrey that any brown field sites they own which are surplus to their requirements should predominantly be used for small housing units; and,

(e)  in the light of (a) to (d) above, seek agreement of the boroughs/districts of Surrey to an allocation of the whole of the outstanding 11,000 housing units to brown field sites within the eleven Surrey boroughs and districts with the aim of avoiding any further use of green belt land.

  We seek the understanding of the Select Committee for this position.

Fiona White

David Goodwin

Tom Sharp

19 November 2002

FOOTNOTE

  A careful look is needed at the mechanism by which the government proposes to achieve higher densities while also protecting the variety of individual townscapes and villagescapes to be found in counties such as Surrey. The "call in" power has a place provided that the main responsibility for achieving equally the overall density sought, a high proportion of housing affordable by those starting employment, and the protection of the character of individual areas, remains with the boroughs, districts and unitary authorities who have direct accountability to local opinion. These need, of course, to work closely, as appropriate, with parish councils and residents associations.