OVERALL SCALE OF HOUSE-BUILDING REQUIRED

  This authority recognises that the demand for additional housing is determined by a number of factors, including household formation, increasing longevity and a desire for independence in the elderly population, and in the Southeast particularly economic growth and commensurate population pressure. With respect to the last, therefore, Guildford welcomes the emphasis given in the Deputy Prime Minister's 18 July statement regarding addressing the problems of low demand and abandonment in the North and Midlands. This Council also recognises the necessity for Surrey to contribute to the requirement for the Southeast as a whole through delivery of Regional Planning Guidance Note 9 target as a component of its Structure Plan Proposals. That does not obviate the grave reservations which it has expressed covering the detailed allocation proposed in the current version of the Surrey Structure Plan particularly as applied to Guildford.

ARE THE PROPOSALS LIKELY TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE HOUSE PRICES?

  House price inflation is a major problem in the Southeast and in particular Guildford. With regard to the private housing sector it seems most unlikely that the numbers of new dwellings proposed for Surrey—however distributed—will make a significant difference to that problem. With respect to affordable or social housing, however defined, this Council is using its influence to maximum effect to increase supply in this sector and has a programme of 500 units between 2001-02 and 2004-05.

  In particular the planning system through negotiation of "106 Agreements" has achieved a significant proportion of affordable housing on major development sites; for example on the Queen Elizabeth Barracks, a large site in the Guildford urban area. Accommodating 525 dwellings, 25% are affordable and 10% key worker housing has been negotiated.

  The geographical distribution proposed has merit in contributing to regeneration, particularly in the east of the region and capitalising on existing infrastructure and knowledge based industrial development, notably in the Stansted and Cambridge corridor.

WHETHER THE PROPOSAL WILL PROMOTE HIGH QUALITY SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES WHILST AVOIDING POORLY DESIGNED URBAN SPRAWL?

  There is a clear distinction between the opportunity afforded by new development either of "freestanding" or edge of settlement sites for promoting high quality sustainable communities, and the challenges posed by brownfield or other development increasing existing densities within urban areas. With respect to new development the issues must be resolved if it is to have the potential to be sustainable are critical mass, access to transportation infrastructure, relationship to regional and sub-regional centres of employment, and designing for maximum energy efficiency and conservation of the natural environment. Greenfield development inevitably raises landscape questions and in much of the Southeast is constrained by existing greenbelt designation. There is clear potential for imaginative and innovative design but that ought not to override the constraints created either by landscape designations or greenbelt which is designed to restrain sprawl and contain communities within a clearly defined settlement boundary.

  With respect to the issues raised by accommodating significant new development in existing urban areas the following points are pertinent—

  1.  Guildford is achieving significant redevelopment of brownfield sites (including the Queen Elizabeth Barracks development referred to above) and approvals over the last year show that:

(a)  Average for the borough as a whole is 35 dwellings per hectare

(b)  Average density for sites of more than five units is 71 dwellings per hectare

(c)  Average density for sites of less than five units is 27 dwellings per hectare

  2.  This trend is clearly in line of the aspirations articulated by the Deputy Prime Minister on 18 July 2002. However, continuing to accommodate redevelopment in urban areas raises concerns with respect to the capacity of the existing social and physical infrastructure as well as achieving good and compatible design, which enhances rather than degrades existing urban communities and areas.

  3.  In order to ensure that such densities can continue to be accommodated it is important to achieve appropriate contribution to infrastructure provision from individual and small redevelopment as well as the more major ones.

  4.  Building regulations which help to promote better and more sustainable individual design through insulation, aspect, maximum use of solar energy and other matters should be reviewed and updated in order to complement these initiatives.

  In short while higher densities can, and are being achieved, local authorities need to be able to ensure that the aspirations for sustainable design on an individual house unit basis can be promoted and that cumulative implications of piecemeal development and redevelopment can be addressed.

PROPOSALS FOR NEW MILLENNIUM VILLAGES

  I have no comment on this proposal, as it is not pertinent to Surrey or Guildford.

THE BALANCE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN HOUSING FOR SALE AND SOCIAL HOUSING

  I have already referred to the percentage of affordable units which this authority has negotiated on one example large development and by way of further examples would refer to a redevelopment of a cinema site accommodating 72 units for sale which was accompanied by a parallel application for 26 affordable units on a related but separate site. There has also been a project implemented with an RSL to acquire an open market site in the heart of Guilford providing 44 affordable homes (at a density of 100 per hectare). In total between April 2001-02, 262 affordable units were granted permission in Guildford.

  This authority has consistently and most recently in connection with the consultation on the revision to the Use Classes Order argued that provision for affordable housing could be assisted by the establishment of a particular Use Class Order to facilitate and identify that provision. While there are obvious disadvantages, perhaps particularly in terms of stigmatising affordable or social development there are—particularly in an area of high demand for residential development such as Guildford—advantages in authorities being able to identify suitable sites or proportions of sites which make clear to potential developers or land purchasers precisely the aspirations and locations which are being promoted.

  With regard to the future this authority has already commented on the Surrey Structure Plan that if there is to be Greenbelt release that new development should be 50% affordable or key worker housing and not the 40% identified by Surrey County Council. It is important that that threshold is established at the very beginning of the planning process in order to ensure the land value (or hope value) which may be accruing already to potential sites accommodates that expectation.

THE EXTENT TO WHICH DECISIONS RELATING TO HOUSING INCLUDING NUMBERS, TENURE AND DENSITY SHOULD BE TAKEN BY CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

  While it is clear that it is a central government responsibility to assess the requirement nationally for new housing and the regional allocation of that in parallel and in relation to regional economic strategies, regional transport strategies and other pertinent national and regional plans, it is and ought to remain a matter for local government at the county and district level to consider and determine the best ways to serve their communities through individual allocations of housing numbers.

Elizabeth Mitchell

Director of Environmental and Planning Services