As a purely local party, R4GV are not directly involved in the national elections. That doesn’t mean that we are not interested as individuals! Different members have supported the campaigns of the four main candidates. This does put us in a unique position to be able to take an objective view of the manifestos of those parties.
We will look at a number of issues, over the remaining few weeks of the campaign, but in the wake of the recent decision to approve building at Wisley airfield, we will start with what the parties are saying about house building. The current system is clearly broken.
- Wrong size houses – Instead of building the smaller, affordable homes that people need, the developers build only the most profitable large homes
- Lack of infrastructure – Promises of more health facilities, schools, public transport and even proper drainage are not met
- Too expensive – even “affordable homes” are too expensive for our children. to afford to live here. Houses now being built are more suited to city bankers moving out of London than people who work in the area. to afford to live in the area.
- Lack of respect for local input – Councillors rejected the development at Wisley, only for it to be overturned by the government.
Everyone accepts that because of an aging population and changing lifestyles more houses need to be built. But how do they plan to fix the broken system and where will new houses be built?
Green Party - Sam Peters
The Green Party plan to change the planning system to ensure that house building is focussed on smaller properties (on brownfield land). They would end the loopholes that enable developers to gain the system to only build the most profitable homes on the simplest of (Greenfield) sites. This is clearly good, but the Developers are already claiming that house building is only barely profitable. No company will build at a loss, so this policy will only work with government subsidies. Is the public prepared to pay for this?
Unlike the other parties, the Greens do accept that development is required locally. All the other manifestos suggest building “somewhere else”.
Liberal Democrats - Zoe Franklin
The Lib Dems would concentrate home building into 10 new “Garden Cities”. The location for these cities is not specified, presumably because giving a location would alienate local voters for no benefit. One interesting proposal is that authorities would have the power to buy land at “current use cost”, which should mean that land for development would be cheaper (especially current farmland). The wording of such a bill could be a legal minefield though. How can you force people to sell land at a fraction of what is currently considered its value? Why not hang on to it and wait for a change of government?
Conservative - Angela Richardson
The Conservative manifesto suggests that house building will take place primarily in inner cities (in safe Labour seats in other words). It was a Conservative council local council that introduced the current Local Plan that has led to hugely unpopular developments in Wisley, Ash, Horsley and the town centre, A Conservative government has been in power for 14 years to make the necessary changes. This policy (even if you agree with it) therefore seems too little too late to be convincing.
Labour - Sarah Gillinson
Which brings us to Labour. Some of the policies seem similar to the Lib Dems – new towns (again, location not specified) and land purchase reform. The manifesto also talks about grey-belt land – low quality greenbelt where there is no available brownfield. This sounds good, but the candidate couldn’t give specific examples of what additional grey-belt land was available in Guildford. Labour also promise a reform of planning law to make decisions easier and quicker. Again, although seemingly a good thing, the concern would be whether this would remove the few powers of local scrutiny that currently exist.
