They also want to dump 4,000 house in the heart of rural West Sussex. Aversane/West Chiltington is on the list for a 'new village' and the locals in the parish are greatly disturbed.
It madness!
Steve
Good post
"But we need to see Mr Cam actually delivering on those promises of localism pdq. We need to see him dismantling the instruments of state control, and handing real power back to local councils. Local communities should not be forced to accept huge irreversible changes to their lives just because of some fascistic masterplan dictated by Whitehall."
And the 'Second Coming' is when?
On the basis of having seen Mr. Cam only last Friday and learning that Housing Associations, the Tenant Standards Authorfity and the Housing & Communities Agency are both 'good things', the chance of a 'cull of quangos' is as remote as the chance of a referendum!
Don't be fooled Mr. T - you elect Cam and you get more of the same only in a different colour!
Hang on, it's not your back yard is it? Because if it was your back yard you don't have to build houses on it.
I have sympathy for your view that you don't want people telling you what you can and can't do, but now you want to tell someone what they can and can't do with land they own.
How exactly does that make you any different from the politicians you claim to distrust? I get the feeling that you don't mind politicians making decisions, you just don't like politician making decisions that you don't agree with. That makes you into a bit of a hypocrite I'm afraid.
I wouldn't get too excited about this. These local development plans, "zones of significant change" etc are not worth the (significant amounts of) paper they're printed on. Planning applications are actually decided on political whim and expediency.
I'm afraid I agree with DM Andy though.
What I found strange was, of all sentences in the post to emphasise, "the locals do not want this" is the one that does not need it.
When do the locals ever want it?
Without turning back time, what is the way to correct this problem? It's either encourage migration further north, build housing in the south east, provide incentives to leave the country or force people to leave the country. Or make do with what we've got and see what happens.
I don't pass any judgement. It's reasonable to say NIMBY. The problem is that central government has the trump cards. Can local governments, acting in their own interests, solve the housing problem? Our ministers think not.
"True, the plan for Greater Guildford isn't actually going to happen. The Scots fascists will be out soon enough, and Guildford will live to breathe another day. "
Call-Me-Dave will be faced with the same problem, though; where to house all these people...
There are two of these 'interchanges' in my area, too, one at Bearstead and one at Borough Green. Both promise to remove trucks from the road and put them on to railways, but the railways are already full to bursting with commuter services. The solution, apparently, is to cancel the commuter services.
The 'plan' has come from SEEDA and regional government and Cameron won't - and can't - do anything about it. Get used to it. He can't be anything BUT all talk and no follow-through because unless he gets out of the EU pronto he has no say in what happens.
An unelected, unaccountable quango causing misery and strife? Say it ain't so!!!
This is going on all over the South East. practically every District Council is being asked to find space, invariably green belt, to put up thousands of houses that are not wanted in the actual area. Where I live in sunny Bognor Regis, we're already developing 1500 to pay for a relief road, and a further 2500 are being attempted to be shoved down our throats. By the Church Commissioners of all people! ****ing hypocrites. SEEDA again is the source of all this, and obviously back up the line to the government. As regards the question of where to house everyone, is there no space north of Watford Gap? The political dimension is all too clear to see.
DM Andy
"Hang on, it's not your back yard is it? Because if it was your back yard you don't have to build houses on it.
I have sympathy for your view that you don't want people telling you what you can and can't do, but now you want to tell someone what they can and can't do with land they own.
How exactly does that make you any different from the politicians you claim to distrust? I get the feeling that you don't mind politicians making decisions, you just don't like politician making decisions that you don't agree with. That makes you into a bit of a hypocrite I'm afraid."
Hmm... yes...
In truth, I do accept the need for some planning retrictions.
For example, I don't think my next door neighbour should have the automatic right to build a 100 ft wind turbine towering over my house. Or suddenly to take up pig farming in his garden.
That's because he is unilaterally imposing costs on me, and I demand some protection.
Now at the end of the day, his turbine may be worth so much to him that he'd be prepared to compensate me financially. And doubtless there would be a price at which I would settle, maybe using the cash to move elsewhere. Which would be fair enough.
But that's not what's happening here. Local residents will not receive any compensation, let alone sufficent to offset the damage we'll suffer from Greater Guildford.
This is damage being inflicted on our local community by distant politicians we did not elect and cannot control.
Now I accept that I might not be any happier if it was locally elected politicos making this decision. But you see, I don't think that would happen.
Local politicos are much more accountable to me and my fellow residents - they haven't been elected by people hundreds of miles away who don't give a stuff what happens to feather-bedded Guildfordians. And in a matter like this, I can't see any local politico lasting long if he decided to plough on without listening to the local voters.
PS I don't actually live in Guildford itself, so in a sense I'm an observer. But if they get Guildford, believe me, nowhere is safe.
Kafka, it's not clear to me. There's a shortage of houses, we have a combination of increased population and less people per household as well as people moving around the country.
If there's a shortage of anything then there's more incentive for suppliers of that product to supply. That's simple market economics. These houses are wanted, if they were not wanted, they would be built, remain unoccupied and the developers would lose a fortune.
Who are you to tell a landowner that he cannot sell his land to a developer? Who are you to tell a developer that he cannot build houses on his land? Who are you to tell people who want to own their own house that they cannot?
I thought I was meant to be the evil Socialist around here but at least I'm standing up for freedom of choice.
Why don't we build all these desperately needed houses for immigrants in Scotland. There is loads of room in that sparely populated country and as it is they who have forced this immigration explosion on us, let them reap the consequences.
Let's kill several birds with one stone:
1. Abolish the CAP. So allow the bottom billion to sell us food and grow rich.
2. Compensate the farmers by allowing them to build an extra house on their land (say every five years, with the only restriction being architectural merit and paying for installing the utilities.
So:
save on these grandiose planning initiatives
save on tax to subsidise farmers
reverse declining rolls in rural schools
give people what they want (to live in the beautiful country side)
what's not to like?
Wat is right about the population boom caused by immigration being partly responsible.
However, there are other reasons. Because there is no land value tax, there is little incentive to use land efficiently. Why are new houses not routinely 3 storeys with a basement - they are /in many other European countries. Because we subsidise commuter trains, then more people choose to commute into London. London has only half the population density of Paris, so more high density housing in London is entirely feasible. High density housing is generally better housing - it makes local facilities viable because of the greater population to support them. Low density housing means car journeys to shops and facilities.
I have to side with Wat in this case. The urgent need to build houses has been brought about by massive, uncontrolled population growth be that from American, Australia, Poland or the Middle east.
However the trouble is, this great white hope of building more houses is that they're inevitably too expensive for "normal people" to afford - i.e £200,000 or more.
They are therefore bought by the government and used as social housing which, because of the simple lack of interest the individuals usually have in the property causes the area to suffer.
Considering there are whole towns where houses can be put on a credit card because of racial tension just building more houses blatantly isn't the answer.
You got the deeds to that backyard, Wat? Why doesn't the land owner have the right to build houses on it? I thought you were in favour of property rights?
"It's called my back yard because it is my back yard. It doesn't belong to some commissar to do with as he wishes."
Doesn't the land concerned belong to a farmer or somebody? How does that make it "yours"?
"... why aren't there enough houses? Well, because some idiot allowed 3 million immigrants into the country in the last 12 years, and 75% of them have settled in London and the South East."
Let's assume that to be true. What you are saying is you're happy to make a tax-free capital gain on the back of immigration, but young English people can get stuffed? They are the ones who are losing out on both sides of the equation.
Local residents will not receive any compensation, let alone sufficent to offset the damage we'll suffer from Greater Guildford.
But this isn't a pig-farm or a 100-foot tower, is it?
It's some houses, which will be sold at prices roughly on a ballpark with existing Guildford houses (ie Quite A Lot) and lived in by people who've bought them, who therefore are unlikely to be junkies/gypsies/etc. The transport links will be cars directly to the A3 and commuters directly to an upgraded Clandon station (so not a significant effect on Guildford town centre traffic, nor on rail travellers from Guildford to London).
That erm, doesn't actually cause you any damage at all.
"But that's not what's happening here. Local residents will not receive any compensation"
So should residents have to pay the developers if it actually increases the cost of their property?
Ho hum
Very well said! Richard Normington's picked up on the second half of your post to make the same point about Cambridge.
http://blog.richardnormington.co...-
guildford.html
"So should residents have to pay the developers if it actually increases the cost of their property?"
Good point. Such as olympic/jubilee line/EuroStar line passing through type of thing, benefits are taken free of charge.
"But we need to see Mr Cam actually delivering on those promises of localism pdq."
Don't hold your breath.
This is the same Dave who ostensibly wanted outsiders as parliamentary candidates yet threatened Tebbit with excommunication when he spoke out of turn. The same Dave who talks about localism then foists central office A list candidates on rural constituencies. The same Dave who gave a "cast iron guarantee" of a referendum then withdrew it.
It is all political speak to be dumped when it becomes a bit difficult.
A true "heir to Blair" but the teflon is poorer quality.
Can i suggest that you vote UKIP.
Commenting by HaloScan
