Waverley Borough Council (WBC) have recently issued notice
of a consultation on “Issues and Options” for a proposed update to the Waverley
Local Plan. I am responding to this, first, as a resident of Waverley (near Charterhouse
School). And second, as campaign manager for the Godalming and Ash branch of
Reform UK.
For those not already aware of this
consultation, the notice is here: [[1]]. The issues and options document is at [[2]]. And responses can be submitted via [[3]]. The closing date for responses is Monday
December 8th.
Context
The reason given for the update is “to ensure conformity
with national planning policy following advice from the Planning Advisory
Service.” So, this is top-down policy, being dictated to local councils by
central government. The relevant legislation is the Planning and Infrastructure
Bill, first introduced by Labour just eight months ago. It cleared its last
stage in the House of Lords on 25th November: [[4]]. One
headline is “a national target of building an additional 1.5 million homes [in
England] by 2029.”
WBC is due to be abolished in 2027, and subsumed with five
other councils (Guildford, Surrey Heath, Woking, Runnymede, Spelthorne) into a
West Surrey unitary authority. Because of this, it seems rather odd that this
is being done now, to come into effect in 2028. If all six councils must
conform to national planning policies, why not pool their resources into a
single plan for West Surrey, rather than doing the same thing six times over?
It looks as if Labour are in a huge hurry over this, just as the Tories were
over getting the May 2025 Surrey local elections postponed. The cynic in me asks
why.
As to the characteristics of Waverley as a borough, the
document refers to it, rightly, as “a predominantly rural area.” In which “over
70% of residents own their homes.” And it is “challenging for residents on
lower incomes to afford to buy or rent a home.” Moreover, there is “a reliance
on the use of the private car as the main means of transport by residents.” Unsurprising,
because Waverley has a low population density compared to the rest of Surrey;
indeed, slightly below the average for England.
Overview of my response
First, I’ll make some general comments on the following
issues:
1) The
home building target.
2) The
objectives the document sets. It appears to put something it calls “environmental
wellbeing” before the well-being of the people of Waverley.
3) The
emphasis on green policies, that are not in the interests of the people.
Following the general comments, I’ll address the specific
consultation questions.
The new housing target
Warning to the mathematically challenged: there are numbers
in this section!
In Waverley
Waverley’s estimated population at mid-2024 was 134,284 [[5]]. Its
area is 345 square kilometres, and the 2024 population density was 389
residents per km2. The average number of people per household is
2.44 [[6]], meaning
there are about 55,000 residential properties.
The new housing target is 29,160 over 20 years, or 1,458 per
year. This represents an increase of 53% in both number of homes and
population.
About 80% of Waverley land is protected from development, either
as Green Belt or National Landscape. So, the great majority of these 29,160 new
homes need to be built on 20% of the land: just 69 km2. The
population density in those places would have to go up by more than 1,000 per
km2! I agree with Waverley Council that the target is not a
realistic one.
In the UK as a whole
If replicated across the whole UK, this 53% increase would
make the population 106 million by 2044. But national estimates currently
project a UK population of 76 million in 2044. So, it looks as if Waverley is
being singled out for something of a “stuffing.” Or that the government is
misleading us, and its real intentions are nearer 100+ million than 76.
A few months ago, I wrote about the UK population increase
since 2000: [[7]].
I related it to the number of immigrants needed to keep the “potential support ratio”
– of retired people to people of working age – constant. (136 million by 2050, say
the UN). I concluded that successive governments since 2000 have been aiming
for this extreme scenario, or as near as they can get. They don’t want the
welfare state to go bankrupt on their watch.
This explains why whenever a government, Tory or Labour,
promises to rein in immigration, it never happens. Immigration rates always go
up, not down. This is a political time-bomb.
Objectives and Priorities
The document shows, on page 10, a list of draft objectives.
It is divided into three parts: environmental, economic and social well-being.
In that order.
We see some typical green mantras. Investment “to support
and enhance nature recovery.” New housing with “access to jobs and services by
non-car modes of travel.” “Delivering a net zero future.” And structures
“resilient to the changing climate.” Lower down, we see: Premises in
“sustainable locations.” “Small clusters of green businesses.” “Active and
healthy lifestyles.” “Energy efficient new homes.” And “Walking, cycling and
public transport are genuine choices for most residents.” I find myself asking,
why are mantras like “sustainable locations” and “non-car modes of travel” seen
as more important than the convenience and quality of life of the people of
Waverley?
Now, I’m not against wildlife; my view is that, if it
doesn’t bother me, I won’t bother it. But why should “stakeholders” (a word I
detest) put the interests of wildlife or plants above the interests of people, by
expecting us to pay for “biodiversity” or “nature recovery?”
My views on green policies
I take the Enlightenment view that to be lawful, any
government must act for the benefit of the people. So, everything it does must
be a nett positive to the people. Not just in aggregate, but to every
individual among those it is tasked to serve. Thus, no government, at any
level, may ever set policies that impose on anyone costs that exceed the nett benefits
each of them gets. Everyone who has paid taxes must receive commensurable
benefits.
My approach to political policy is objective and
evidence-based. And I find cost versus benefit analysis, from the point of view
of the people affected, to be of vital importance. When I apply this to green
policies and arguments for them, I find them very seriously wanting. Virtually
all green policies are a major nett negative to large numbers of people, including
me.
Sustainability
When I was young, the word “sustainability” meant “ability
to endure into the future.” Over the last half century, though, the UN and its
fellow-travellers have perverted this into something more like “giving up
prosperity today for the sake of future generations.”
This is obviously nonsense. We do not know who these future
generations will be, or how close to us in spirit. Further, we have paid taxes,
and they have not. So, government ought to be satisfying our needs, not those
of unknowns in some unclear future.
It is also my view that centrally planned “sustainable
development” can never be sustainable. That isn’t the way we work as a species.
By our nature, we do what we can to make our environment of maximum benefit to us.
Then, we fix any resulting problems as we find them.
Climate change and “net zero”
The climate does change, and CO2 from human
activities can cause some global warming. But I’ve never seen any hard evidence
that this has led to actual problems. I’ve shown at [[8]] that
there is no climate crisis, that could objectively justify any political action
at all.
I regard net zero policies as not only unachievable and
unaffordable, but also unnecessary. The arguments for these policies are not based
on evidence, but on scares and hype that have been broadcast for years by
organizations such as the Met Office, the BBC and a lot of the mainstream
media. Not to mention the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), which since 1990 has again and again presented the situation in a far more
alarmist way than is warranted by the scientific facts.
As to objective cost-benefit analysis for these policies, a
couple of years ago I told, in some detail, the back-story of how the UK
government, over decades, has gone out of its way to make sure that no such analysis
has ever been done. It’s here: [[9]].
Biodiversity and “nature recovery”
The word “biodiversity” did not even exist before the 1980s.
Though a “Convention on Biological Diversity” was one of the agreements at the
1992 Rio “Earth Summit,” the word did not become widely used until the Tories
released their “25 Year Environment Plan” in 2018. They subsequently embedded the
mantras of “biodiversity net gain” and “nature recovery” in the Environment Act
2021.
The UN has its own counterpart to the IPCC in this area.
This is IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services). IPBES issued a 2019 report claiming that impacts of human
activities were threatening a million species with extinction. But the facts say
otherwise: [[10]].
Further, I myself have several times asked environmentalists to name one
species to whose extinction I have contributed, and to say what I did, and
roughly when, towards that extinction. I’ve never received an answer.
Moreover, it seems to me that the talk of “biodiversity net
gain” and “nature recovery” is no more than a switch in the direction of the propaganda;
from making unfounded accusations, towards declaiming sound-good mantras. Where
is the hard evidence, that proves that these measures are objectively necessary?
Until I see evidence that shows, beyond reasonable doubt,
that my own acts have contributed to extinguishing species or in some objective
way damaging nature, I refuse to accept any guilt. Nor will I accept any cost
to “fix” anything I’m not responsible for!
Air pollution and “clean air”
In the past, air pollution was a real problem. That was exemplified
by the Great London Smog of 1952. But, as with climate change, I am not satisfied
that the arguments claiming to show that air pollution is a major problem today
are either honest or scientific. I wrote about this here: [[11]].
Moreover, I know of no air pollution problems on any road I regularly drive,
except perhaps a very short stretch of the A3100 just west of Godalming centre.
There are further similarities with what has happened over biodiversity
and climate change. There is a UN agency involved: the World Health
Organization (WHO). It has presided over a re-direction of the propaganda, from
“air pollution,” via “air quality,” to good-sounding, but ultimately
destructive, “clean air” policies.
Moreover, the WHO has been primarily responsible for the
culture of arbitrary, collective, ever-tightening and ultimately infeasible limits
on what we may do, that has been forced on us over the last 30 years and more.
Not only over air pollution, for which the Waverley document quotes the WHO’s
latest “guidelines” with almost religious fervour. But also, in its “vision
zero” road safety strategy, that has brought ever-reducing speed limits all
over our area, particularly on country roads.
Responses to the consultation questions
For those questions to be answered from the perspective of
individual settlements, I can speak only for Godalming and Farncombe.
Q5: pros and cons of development approaches?
1)
Development in the 4 main settlements.
a)
Godalming already has a higher population
density (2,252 per km2) than Cranleigh, Haslemere or Farnham. It
should not be singled out for even more crowding!
b)
Scope for further development close enough to
the town centre to allow “more use of sustainable modes of transport” is very
limited. The low-hanging fruit – Prime Place, the Atrium, Magna Apartments – is
already taken. And such places do nothing to ease housing difficulties for less
well-off residents.
c)
Catteshall Lane and The Mill developments have only
been achieved by converting office/industrial space to residential use. It
would not be sustainable to repeat this.
d)
Significant additions to the Godalming
population would put extra pressure on its railway station, and on parking both
for it and for shopping and supermarkets.
2)
Development on brownfield sites throughout the
borough. This looks to be the least bad of the five options.
3)
Expanding larger centres into the countryside. For
Godalming and Farncombe, this has all the drawbacks of approach 1.
4)
Growing smaller villages.
a)
Likely to face significant local opposition.
b)
The council will have to admit that away from
the main public transport routes, a car is an essential to live in Waverley.
5)
New settlement. Dunsfold Park is a possible, to
combine with approach 2. But why not (tongue firmly in cheek) simply build one high-rise
city, to hold 70,000 people? Milton Keynes without cars, perhaps? Of course,
you would need to sell the idea to both developers and potential residents.
Good luck with that.
Q8: further comment on development?
Quart into pint pot doesn’t go.
Q17: how important is the environment to you?
This whole exercise makes me think that the council is
putting something it calls “the environment” up on a pedestal, like some deity
to be worshipped. One that makes wildlife and plants more important than human
beings. But wildlife and plants don’t pay taxes! So, governments should always
put human needs and desires ahead of green nonsense.
As to specifics, places like the Wey canal towpath,
Broadwater Park, and the hills surrounding Godalming are surely worth
preserving, because of their value to human beings. As is quick, easy,
convenient access to wherever each of us needs or wants to go.
Q36: main transport challenges locally?
Context: I used to be a cyclist – I once rode
coast-to-coast across North America! But cycling is not practical for someone
aged 72, who lives at the top of a steep hill. So, now I am primarily a driver
and pedestrian. Though I do ride in a taxi once or twice a week.
1)
As driver:
a)
Far too much parking on through routes, making
what should be a two-way traffic flow into alternating one-way (e.g. Chalk Rd, Farncombe
end of Nightingale Rd). Worse when the roads have speed-bumps (e.g. Green Lane).
b)
Far too many road works, which far too often
close vital roads altogether.
c)
Delays at Farncombe level crossings, even after
you have gone over them.
d)
Potholes – though not as bad recently as a
couple of years ago.
e)
The sourpusses that want 20mph speed limits, or
more chicanes or speed-bumps.
2)
As pedestrian:
a)
Lack of pedestrian crossing(s) on Charterhouse
Rd.
b)
Steep hills.
Q38: effectiveness of public transport?
Local public transport has never met, and still fails to meet,
my requirements.
1)
At various times, I worked in Shalford, Crawley,
Bracknell and Tongham. None of these is accessible time-efficiently by public
transport to or from Charterhouse.
2)
Bus 46 is the only public transport that goes
within half a mile of my home, or anywhere near its altitude. It’s at best an
hourly service, is very slow, is often late, and doesn’t run in the evenings or
on Sundays.
3)
To use bus 70/71/72 requires 20 minutes’ walk
to/from the nearest bus stop, with a steep climb on the way back.
4)
To use the train without driving to the station requires
walking to Farncombe (15 minutes) or Godalming (25 minutes). Both have very
steep climbs on the way back.
5)
Public transport is of no use when I have a load
to carry. (I play the tuba in a brass band!)
Recently, far from “improving public transport links”
around Godalming, the trend has been in the opposite direction. E.G. withdrawal
of buses 503 and 523, and re-routing of bus 72 away from Catteshall. And I do
not expect any significant improvements in public transport around Godalming in
the future, since they could not be commercially justified.
Q39: groups whose transport needs are not adequately met?
Public transport around Godalming does not adequately meet
the needs of anyone who:
1)
Lives away from (including above) the major
public transport routes, or
2)
Needs to make cross-country journeys, or
3)
Needs to carry loads (including supermarket shopping),
or
4)
Is old enough to be no longer able to do “active
travel.”
If they (we) couldn’t afford to run a car, they (we) would lose
mobility entirely, except for taxis. Which are too expensive to use every day.
So, the stated objective of “reducing social isolation and loneliness” isn’t
going to happen, if older people in Waverley can no longer afford to drive
cars!
Q40: barriers to walking or cycling for daily journeys?
Age and hilliness.
Q52/56: do town and local centre boundaries need to be changed?
For Godalming and Farncombe, no.
Q66/67: climate change and “net zero?”
Since human-caused climate change has never been proven to
be a real problem, mitigation and resilience are irrelevant. As to adaptation
to weather events, I’d suggest one rule: don’t build on flood plains! (I
remember the floods of 1988…)
Q70: allocate sites for renewable energy projects?
No. Windmills are ugly, cause noise that can damage
people’s health, kill birds, and can lose blades. How can anyone rational support
both biodiversity and on-shore wind power?
Moreover, solar energy doesn’t work at scale in this
latitude. Besides which, the intermittency of renewable energy sources causes
serious issues for grid reliability, with associated costs. And this, contrary
to government narratives, is why electricity prices have gone up and up as the
penetration of renewables has increased.
I think this may be a good moment to stop.
[[1]] https://www.waverley.gov.uk/council-updates/read-our-latest-news/have-your-say-on-the-future-of-waverley-by-helping-to-shape-a-new-local-plan
[[2]] https://waverley.inconsult.uk/gf2.ti/-/1793410/265422181.1/PDF/-/Waverley%20Local%20Plan%20Consultation%20Document%20_Issues%20and%20Options%202025_.pdf
[[3]] https://www.waverley.gov.uk/services/planning-and-building/planning-strategies-and-policies/local-plan/new-local-plan
[[4]] https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1940955/planning-infrastructure-bill-clears-house-lords-set-gain-royal-assent
[[7]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/replacement-migration-is-it-a-solution-to-declining-and-ageing-populations-by-neil-lock/
No comments:
Post a Comment