Woking councillors are the latest exponents of populist planning. Plans for a 366 flat tower of 28 storeys, approved on a second appeal has angered Cllr Ann-Marie, leader of Woking council. “I am bitterly disappointed with the outcome ……. . Local residents do not wish to see further high rise development and this appeal has overturned the decision of democratically elected local councillors ….”. Council opposition cited height, scale, massing and design, insufficient affordable housing and harm to the Thames Valley Special Protection Area.
But this is Surrey. If you cannot build upwards in an existing urban centre like Woking, well served by public transport, should the frustrated housing demand be decanted instead to Guildford?
Perish the thought! It is last place to choose. Or failing that, adopt spatial policies that direct the housing demand into the open countryside? For example should the proposed low rise, suburban scale housing project already consented in the heart of Surrey’s green belt, close to Wisley on the old private airfield be turned into a new high rise, urban and commercial centre alternative urban centre? Most of us can guess the response to this wacky but logical sequencing. So where will Surrey’s young people live, if their parents and grand-parents do not follow the example of their own parents, and insist on living longer and longer?
There is a deep, worrying trend apparent here too. Despite two appeals following a recommendation for approval by Woking’s officers long ago, in 2020 leaders attitudes and opposition remain unchanged. Neither law nor process has changed views. They, Woking’s local leaders seem to have no answers. We can utter a private prayer their children and grandchildren will not move to far away.
Once again, the way out of the dilemma is to re-invent strategic planning. Ask the question. Where will Surrey’s future housing needs be located? Most of Surrey’s exquisite countryside is protected. Quite right too. But Surrey has neighbours. And some of them have plenty of unprotected open countryside. Is it time for an overspill policy to be introduced? For example, can most of the houses and infrastructure needed to meet Surrey’s housing demand in the next 60 years be built in Hampshire? Surrey’s home owners, through their rates could pay an annual amount to subsidise Hampshire’s home owners who will not be too happy either if they are on the receiving end. Initial reactions may be explosive. If the cross-subsidy takes effect in ten or twenty years time, and the fear of unexpected local change has withered it will be different.
This is the key issue local leadership will face in the years ahead.
Ian Campbell
7 November 2022
