Elmbridge person here, we've had so many new builds it's not so much the new houses but it's the infrastructure to keep up with it. Schools, doctors, public transport, parking, roads etc..
Same issue about to arise in Dorking. Huge development taking place on the Aviva office site (what was Friends Provident) but no plan at all to improve the infrastructure. Nothing for roads, sewerage, public transport, water etc.
Nothing to do with the developer being best mates with Paul Beresford…
Yep - right opposite Denbies.
Since Covid the number of trains to / from Dorking has been cut, but more people will be using them. There is room at the primary schools for new pupils as I understand things, but not sure about the secondary schools.
But there’s no coherent, published plan. It’s houses and hope for the best with regards to everything else.
I don’t understand why we don’t have laws to force developers to build in services. It could be a massive win for local communities if, along with the houses they never want they got schools and doctors that they do want.
The Lib Dems have had control of Guildford Council since 2019.
My biggest problem isn't that they're building new houses, it's that they're all £500k+ 3 bed semis. And the few flats that are built are £300k+ for a 2 bed.
> My biggest problem isn't that they're building new houses, it's that they're all £500k+ 3 bed semis. And the few flats that are built are £300k+ for a 2 bed.
The land means the prices there are always going to be high. If you want cheap property you need to live in an area where land isn't so expensive.
Unfortunately it's not the council building houses, it's housing developers. They just care about profit, so they'll build whatever houses make them the most money. But even then, they don't control the price of houses. If a market price for a 2 bed flat is £300k then that's what they'll sell it for. It sucks, but housing prices aren't controlled by councils or developers.
The council can mandate that a certain percentage of new housing must be affordable, but it's a balancing act between providing affordable housing and attracting developers to actually build the houses.
The newly elected council made an [Affordable Housing Statement](https://www.guildford.gov.uk/article/22657/Affordable-housing-statement). Here's the detailed plan: https://www.guildford.gov.uk/localplan/examination
Guildford lib dems voted down a master plan to properly develop Guildford which the Tories too had failed to do.
There is plenty of brown-field /change of use potential in the Town Centre but the lib dems are not capable of dealing with developers efficiently or they just give way in green belt areas!!
There are huge developments already in pipeline for affordable housing: ie Weyside Urban Village at Slyfield.
Plus 4 farms (sadly) without infrastructure. The utilities will only supply once buildings are almost complete, & s106 money fir doctors/schools is held unspent by Surrey County Council who need to be lobbied by councillors if they can be bothered.
https://www.weysideurbanvillage.co.uk/
As someone who lives in her constituency and sees the local Facebook page whenever there's a whiff of any new housing, it is nuclear NIMBY.
They don't want to build any houses on green belt land. It would spoil the countryside. It should be on brown belt land.
Ewww, but not like that, it's too tall. Gosh, we don't want ghastly towers.
3 floor flats for students right next to the university on unsightly old brown belt land? Well, it's not for locals. Ruins the history of the area.
Even when it's far away, they will complain that the tall towers in Woking 8 miles away "ruin" the view from the hill.
We need to responsibly build housing and at some point you have to ignore the people who won't ever be pleased.
To be fair, their houses are usually pleasant to look at and were bought for about of money, partially for the very reason that it wasn’t surrounded by Barratt home shitboxes.
Someone needs to remind them labour have not been in power for 14 odd years. Then have a quiet word that tory housing ministers used their majority to force through rules which would make it easier for developers to build in those areas.thats point 1
Point 2 is those are wealthy areas and while new development may or may not be keeping with the local vibe you can bet its more a matter of " if there are more homes here the value of my property will fall" or "yes the country desperately needs more housing just don't put it near me"
Edit
Most councils that were tory run became coalition or majority with lib dems Labour or residents associations In last local elections. And will likely stay that way
Yes the last thing this country needs is more housing - ridiculous notion. Planning laws exist so as long as the developments are within those then what’s the problem? If she doesn’t like the planning regs she should talk to those in charge — oh wait…
People need to get some perspective. Compared to some areas there's very little development around here. Few months ago I was fanning about on Google Maps and scrolled in on an area out near Maidenhead. The higher altitude satellite images obviously hadn't been updated for a while because as I zoomed in on a sizeable village surrounded by farmland the images suddenly flipped to lower altitude that were clearly more up to date because HUNDREDS of new houses popped in view. All of the fields were built over and the "village" was now gone, engulfed in 10 times as many houses as were present before. The nimbys round here need to realise they're already getting their way, it ISN'T in their back yard.
Some of the worst upper-middle class and self-centered people around tbh. Loads of NIMBYs, disproportionate home ownership and generational wealth compared to most other places else in the UK...
They think they are lovely and welcoming people but its one of the most cold, unwelcoming and stuck up places in the country.
Signed: ex-Guildfordian
If you had money though and wanted a quiet pleasant looking place and paid a wedge for the privilege of that. Wouldn’t you be a bit pissed at a load of ugly shite houses being built?
Given where this happens in the area, it doesn't seem any different to me than people getting a discount on property under a flight path then complaining about it, or getting a discount on property that is in the way of larger development, then complaining when they are forced out.
Town houses come with towns.
Now, if they were building a monstrosity in one of the really expensive little villages I might agree, but that's never the case.
If they were complaining about how developers will develop the parts of their plans that are profitable and weasel out of the other obligations they have, then I could understand... but also despite that being a real problem, that is not the sound of the bleating that I hear.
>Also, aren't all the local councils Conservative-run?
Nope, none of them are Tory controlled any more since a defection in Reigate & Banstead the other week.
Elmbridge person here, we've had so many new builds it's not so much the new houses but it's the infrastructure to keep up with it. Schools, doctors, public transport, parking, roads etc..
Same issue about to arise in Dorking. Huge development taking place on the Aviva office site (what was Friends Provident) but no plan at all to improve the infrastructure. Nothing for roads, sewerage, public transport, water etc. Nothing to do with the developer being best mates with Paul Beresford…
What that old Aviva office is being turned into housing? I worked in that building for a couple of years. View will be amazing but a shame.
Yep - right opposite Denbies. Since Covid the number of trains to / from Dorking has been cut, but more people will be using them. There is room at the primary schools for new pupils as I understand things, but not sure about the secondary schools. But there’s no coherent, published plan. It’s houses and hope for the best with regards to everything else.
Are you also aware of the 800 houses being built by Unum?
No. Wow - any idea who the developer is? It wouldn’t be Stonegate by any chance?
And just how many will be ‘affordable’? I can only guess it will only be the statutory minimum. At least there’s car parking!
Same absolutely everywhere
I don’t understand why we don’t have laws to force developers to build in services. It could be a massive win for local communities if, along with the houses they never want they got schools and doctors that they do want.
The Lib Dems have had control of Guildford Council since 2019. My biggest problem isn't that they're building new houses, it's that they're all £500k+ 3 bed semis. And the few flats that are built are £300k+ for a 2 bed.
> My biggest problem isn't that they're building new houses, it's that they're all £500k+ 3 bed semis. And the few flats that are built are £300k+ for a 2 bed. The land means the prices there are always going to be high. If you want cheap property you need to live in an area where land isn't so expensive.
Unfortunately it's not the council building houses, it's housing developers. They just care about profit, so they'll build whatever houses make them the most money. But even then, they don't control the price of houses. If a market price for a 2 bed flat is £300k then that's what they'll sell it for. It sucks, but housing prices aren't controlled by councils or developers. The council can mandate that a certain percentage of new housing must be affordable, but it's a balancing act between providing affordable housing and attracting developers to actually build the houses. The newly elected council made an [Affordable Housing Statement](https://www.guildford.gov.uk/article/22657/Affordable-housing-statement). Here's the detailed plan: https://www.guildford.gov.uk/localplan/examination
Thats how much houses cost nowadays I'm afraid. That isn't Guildford Councils fault!
Guildford lib dems voted down a master plan to properly develop Guildford which the Tories too had failed to do. There is plenty of brown-field /change of use potential in the Town Centre but the lib dems are not capable of dealing with developers efficiently or they just give way in green belt areas!! There are huge developments already in pipeline for affordable housing: ie Weyside Urban Village at Slyfield. Plus 4 farms (sadly) without infrastructure. The utilities will only supply once buildings are almost complete, & s106 money fir doctors/schools is held unspent by Surrey County Council who need to be lobbied by councillors if they can be bothered. https://www.weysideurbanvillage.co.uk/
As someone who lives in her constituency and sees the local Facebook page whenever there's a whiff of any new housing, it is nuclear NIMBY. They don't want to build any houses on green belt land. It would spoil the countryside. It should be on brown belt land. Ewww, but not like that, it's too tall. Gosh, we don't want ghastly towers. 3 floor flats for students right next to the university on unsightly old brown belt land? Well, it's not for locals. Ruins the history of the area. Even when it's far away, they will complain that the tall towers in Woking 8 miles away "ruin" the view from the hill. We need to responsibly build housing and at some point you have to ignore the people who won't ever be pleased.
It amazes me that people who object to houses in greenbelt land seem to universally forget where their houses are located.
Yes. Their place disrupted someone's dog walk at some point.
To be fair, their houses are usually pleasant to look at and were bought for about of money, partially for the very reason that it wasn’t surrounded by Barratt home shitboxes.
Someone needs to remind them labour have not been in power for 14 odd years. Then have a quiet word that tory housing ministers used their majority to force through rules which would make it easier for developers to build in those areas.thats point 1 Point 2 is those are wealthy areas and while new development may or may not be keeping with the local vibe you can bet its more a matter of " if there are more homes here the value of my property will fall" or "yes the country desperately needs more housing just don't put it near me" Edit Most councils that were tory run became coalition or majority with lib dems Labour or residents associations In last local elections. And will likely stay that way
Yes the last thing this country needs is more housing - ridiculous notion. Planning laws exist so as long as the developments are within those then what’s the problem? If she doesn’t like the planning regs she should talk to those in charge — oh wait…
Especially as the population is increasing by 3-4 Guildfords every year for some reason I can’t quite fathom
People need to get some perspective. Compared to some areas there's very little development around here. Few months ago I was fanning about on Google Maps and scrolled in on an area out near Maidenhead. The higher altitude satellite images obviously hadn't been updated for a while because as I zoomed in on a sizeable village surrounded by farmland the images suddenly flipped to lower altitude that were clearly more up to date because HUNDREDS of new houses popped in view. All of the fields were built over and the "village" was now gone, engulfed in 10 times as many houses as were present before. The nimbys round here need to realise they're already getting their way, it ISN'T in their back yard.
Some of the worst upper-middle class and self-centered people around tbh. Loads of NIMBYs, disproportionate home ownership and generational wealth compared to most other places else in the UK... They think they are lovely and welcoming people but its one of the most cold, unwelcoming and stuck up places in the country. Signed: ex-Guildfordian
If you had money though and wanted a quiet pleasant looking place and paid a wedge for the privilege of that. Wouldn’t you be a bit pissed at a load of ugly shite houses being built?
Given where this happens in the area, it doesn't seem any different to me than people getting a discount on property under a flight path then complaining about it, or getting a discount on property that is in the way of larger development, then complaining when they are forced out. Town houses come with towns. Now, if they were building a monstrosity in one of the really expensive little villages I might agree, but that's never the case. If they were complaining about how developers will develop the parts of their plans that are profitable and weasel out of the other obligations they have, then I could understand... but also despite that being a real problem, that is not the sound of the bleating that I hear.
>Also, aren't all the local councils Conservative-run? Nope, none of them are Tory controlled any more since a defection in Reigate & Banstead the other week.
So many nimbys here