Another update from Woodstreet Village

Wood Street

Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Petition to GBC – we need to understand

The Chairman of WSBA  Neville Bryan writes:

Yes this familiar topic rumbles on. This one is still vitally important and we are still getting no answers.  The current SHMA says we need to build between 693 and 800 house PER YER in Guildford. The current level is 322 per year. This is a massive rise, and you would have thought that by now we would know and understand why this number is so big.  Well we don’t, and this petition is pushing GBC to explain the number. So far they have claimed they do not have the calculations….  year they are committed to clear and transparent governments, as is the contract tender document the supplier (GL Hearn) committed to. We battle on to get exposure on this issue – please sign the petition.

Ben Paton

Ben Paton (former conservative candidate, and campaigner – pictured above) has raised the latest petition in an effort to final get some focus on the secrets being kept from us.

https://www.change.org/p/mr-paul-spooner-leader-of-guildford-borough-council-councils-must-publicly-disclose-housing-need-calculations-in-guildford-and-across-england?recruiter=71487834&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive%0A%0A

We all need to understand all the assumptions made.

We all need to understand the calculations which should be derived from open and available Office of National Statistics numbers.

GBC seem to be putting up every possible obstacle to prevent us the resident finding out how this number was worked out. It is not acceptable, and in this post Mansbridge era, I am still wondering what are GBC trying to hide?

Also in the News

Clay Lane Link Road – Will wait for A3 survey as residents wanted

This is a story which many of you might have missed, but is no less important to the borough as a whole. Guildford Borough Council have been pushing for a second entry to the Slyfield Estate. No issue with that, as anybody who uses the A320 into Guildford (or out of it) will testify. The issue is that the route GBC wanted to use connected up with Clay Lane, which

a.     Would have drive up traffic levels for Jacobs Well and Burpham

b.     Would have build on the floodplain increasing the risk of flooding

Many including your Parish Council have fought for a route on stilts connecting directly up to the A3.  Well we have not got that, but at least residents have finally been listened to, and options will be looked at again.

Local Plan

Briefings within the council have already started internally on the updated local plan, which is due for step 19 (Technical Consultation) in June/July this year (2016).  The Local Plan will be similar to the Draft Local Plan we saw in June 2014, as GBC are proceeding to the next step of the local plan consultation process NOT re running step 18 (Draft Consultation).  The Local Plan therefore cannot change much otherwise GBC would have been forced to  rerun the last step 18 (Draft Consultation), and we are led to believe that there are no significant new sites!!!   We are also led to believe constraints will only be applied by SITE!

We wait to see what it says, as if you recall, 7500 people objected last time.

Editor’s Comment

There will be further articles about the Local Plan soon 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *