Oh wow! I had no idea. Can’t believe I was conned into voting for R4GV in 2019. I even exchanged a few friendly words with ‘Joss’ Bigmore outside the polling station at Boxgrove. Thanks for raising awareness of this con!
Hi Robin, Thanks for bringing this to a wider audience I remember seeing plans regarding North St Redevelopment but don't remember 13 storey blocks being mentioned in fact I still wonder how Bishops & Mount CTs ever got planning permission in the early 60s, I'm all for progress and we certainly need a lot more housing in the borough but not this and not in this location, Anyway keep up the good fight and I for one will be keeping a closer eye on proceedings! Cheers
Interesting parallels going on in nearby Epsom. It has been put to residents that lots of housing must be built, and built on greenbelt land. Obviously people have and will object to this. So the solution offered, somewhat contrived, is therefore you have to accept ..instead...six storey buildings being built in the town centre... Which will be flats not suitable for families. I wonder who is behind all this scheming?
Thank goodness those tower blocks were refused permission. Not what I thought I was voting for with R4GV last time round! Doing 'something' is not an argument for doing this. I think people overestimate how many read the local paper or local websites - not all of which seem to be keen to challenge it anyway, mentioning no names ;-) - and many had no idea until folk started to raise their concerns on Facebook feeds. Very grateful to those people speaking up despite the obvious protests from those who hoped it would sail through.
Thanks for raising awareness on this Issue Robin. but sadly it comes as no surprise, to learn of more deceitful politicians saying one thing and doing the opposite. Good for the 2 Conservative MPs, voting against the scheme, but sadly they are affiliated with a party which has proven itself to be consistently untrustworthy. Perhaps these individuals should stand as truly independent candidates, that is what we really need, people with integrity, free of moral and financial corruption, not compromised by party interests, but who actually have the best interests of the local community at heart.
I am a guildford resident of 40 years, who has actually bothered to go and look at plans and comment on them over the years. I was not aware of this proposal, and am grateful that fiona white did vote against. I will now follow this much more carefully. I am also a resident who didn't even get a letter when my next door neighbour got permission to do a major extension, and by neighbour I mean the other half of our semi detached house. So I am very wary of the councils claims about widespread consultation. I also wonder with another x homes feeding traffic onto Woodbridge road, how will access to the station be further fouled up with the closure of walnut tree close. There is a site that has been empty for years on the Portsmouth road, why not get that sorted out first?
All development should be commensurate with and sympathetic to its surroundings. This proposal was clearly neither. Is this yet another case of developers putting forward ridiculous proposals so that when they propose something a little less awful it gets passed by the council? I wouldn't be at all surprised. Thanks for raising awareness of this issue. 👍
This is a horrible plan, nobody wants to be in London because of these Tower houses and they want to do this in Guildford, it is a shame and pitiful. Thank you for raising this
Don't believe everything you see Simon - as a local business owner in the area, I had an interest and can tell you these plans have been kicking around for literally decades. I was aware of all of this ten years ago (and virtually nothing has changed since then). If you actually want to know, the information is all available, just don't expect to be spoon fed.
@Simon Foster Just not the bit about how the public are not made aware, which was what I commented on. All that information is available, if you want it.
Wow. An excellent hard hitting video, well researched. I am a frequent visitor to Guildford. Thank God this development was stopped. This guy has done a huge service to Guildford. Thank you. More can be said for Guildford Dragon, that acts as their propaganda outlet. What a surprise, a former director of a crooked Swiss bank and an estate agent forcing an unwanted development onto Guildford. Their party should be trashed at the local elections. The irony. Local Conservatives acting for affordable housing, opposing a party that is little more than a front for property developers. Also in bed with the party pushing this scheme, Guildford Big Mouth, who does nothing for Guildford.
So. "Residents for Guildford and Villages" (independent) are corrupt. "The Guildford Dragon" - a local newspaper - (independent) is a propaganda outlet. "Guildford Big Mouth" - a community group partly associated with local homeless scheme - (independent) does nothing for Guildford. But, a social media campaigner with clear previous political affiliations (and previous paid-for campaigning experience) alongside two long standing conservative politicians, are the way forward. Right you are.
its sad to see whats happening to my home town. looking at pictures from 100 or so years ago, it was so beautiful, but year after year it gets more and more bastardised
I really do not understand where the pictures of the future development in your video come from? They are nothing like the pictures shown in the developers video? How can this be and which pictures are correct?
The developers video is a selling tool - unfortunately that's how it is - a sort of Elysium view of a development with shining sun, trees and children playing ball.. The photo I used is of the developers model of the development which is at GBC offices - or was. R
I can see from the pictures that this development does look cramped and overcrowded, so I can see there are issues. I agree it's important to get the right developments with enough affordable housing. I'm not sure why parking is a problem when you're right in the town centre and a few minutes walk from the station? In general though this is how the problem evolves as I see it: 1. Have a housing review which recommends more housing and also state people are strongly against building on greenbelt land. 2. Reason through that if you can't build wide on green belt then you have to build tall in the centre. 3. Have the plans for the towers in the town centre drawn up and have people react in horror and block them for being ghettos. The same thing has happened in Woking, they recently rejected a tower block proposal of 224 affordable homes because ... and it's kind of funny ... there were too many affordable homes all in one place. So you can block a development for having both too many and too few affordable homes. There is no perfect answer. Either we build on the green belt or we build tall, pick one. We need more housing. It has to go somewhere. Maybe your argument is that you are in favour of high density development but not this specific scheme? But that doesn't come across in your video. I feel so sad for the young and vulnerable people in all this who are forced into cramped and poor quality accommodation. No one seems to care about them at all.
Actually..the consultation on both these was widespread and welcomed. I responded and I don't live in the centre of Guildford. The reality is that the Local Plan the Tories pushed through just before the last election set the parameters for these applications for Planning Permission.The opportunity ( ie to set in place policies that limited the height of buildings) was missed at that time They pushed it through using figures of expected population increase which have since been trashed,committing the Borough to granting planning permission for far higher level of population increase. Plus the Tory Govt mandates that the Borough Council MUST discuss proposed applications with developers. 40% affordable housing was a desire which was never likely to be achievable as has been throughout the country.. Developers have taken this issue to court elsewhere and the borough are left on very weak ground to defend the policy. Dont try and tell me everything would have been good under the Tories..because they gave away our Greenbelt and identified areas for development for residential and retail and commerce... All that has happened since is trying to make the best of a very bad job indeed. I am surprised at Mr Horsley...because both developments were given very wide coverage in the press.
Clearly the consultation was not widespread or people would not be complaining about not knowing. Not everyone is glued to the gbc planning pages. And one wonders if the contentiousness of the design may have led to the consultation strategy being less than comprehensive. Fortunately people acted quickly once it went mainstream on social media.
Remember that someone approved the first Sydenham Road multi storey. The world's most ugly building. Guildford is turning into similar. Look at the German twin town of Freiburg, one of the best reconstructions in Germany.
Robin Horsley. I dont believe you are giving us either the full picture or an accurate picture. You are using carefully chosen language to create a false sense of disaster. The proposed buildings are not really much higher than several other existing buildings around the town. Secondly, a few strategically positioned blocks saves sprawl and we are surrounded by beauty in Guildford so sprawl is to be avoided. Thirdly, the world is changing and I am not convinced that people will want to move out to large houses. Fourthly, we need to advance the town. It is tired and lacking in energy compared to many towns. If you kill advancement then you choke the town. Fifth, by adding more shops and restaurants we entice people out of London to visit this amazing town and this supports the businesses and local services. Sixth, by putting blocks in the centre we remove the need for people to drive in - they can walk directly to the restaurants and shops and reduce pollution in doing so. I note, too, that you propose nothing. Give us a solution that shows you are not simply one of those that sits on the benches and complains. I think you should be ashamed for trying to sway innocent people into believing this was a 'siege' and that the town would be 'devastated forever'. I am one of the many residents that understands that this town needs to move forward and support all of the little businesses that bring life to the town: the bakers, the accountants, the restaurants and so on. The proposal would have transformed a dreary North street into something much more vibrant. In all of the years where you could have proposed a solution for North Street, what have you done?
Thanks for your input Shane. You obviously look at it very differently. That's fine. I think it's unfair to say I have not presented an accurate picture - but I will let others be the judge of that rather than arguing it out with you. Best wishes. R P.S. I am not an architect but very happy to participate in a Council engagement process to help determine a solution - unfortunately they haven't done one - which really was why the scheme failed. Suggest read the refusal notice and read all the 8 major reasons for refusal. And even that wasn't exhaustive.
'not really much higher' ... 'strategically positioned blocks'... not selling it well imho! We all want it developed but this was crazy height, crazy town.
Who is left to vote for then? Who is up for election that can put our villages back into the Green belt? Surely there are people that do not feed from the political power trough.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | กลุ่มสีเหลืองวันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I_FdxGT3WV4/mqdefault.jpg)
Well done, indeed. Superb video. Informative and extremely objective focus.
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
Oh wow! I had no idea. Can’t believe I was conned into voting for R4GV in 2019. I even exchanged a few friendly words with ‘Joss’ Bigmore outside the polling station at Boxgrove. Thanks for raising awareness of this con!
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
Hi Robin, Thanks for bringing this to a wider audience I remember seeing plans regarding North St Redevelopment but don't remember 13 storey blocks being mentioned in fact I still wonder how Bishops & Mount CTs ever got planning permission in the early 60s, I'm all for progress and we certainly need a lot more housing in the borough but not this and not in this location, Anyway keep up the good fight and I for one will be keeping a closer eye on proceedings! Cheers
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
Interesting parallels going on in nearby Epsom. It has been put to residents that lots of housing must be built, and built on greenbelt land. Obviously people have and will object to this. So the solution offered, somewhat contrived, is therefore you have to accept ..instead...six storey buildings being built in the town centre... Which will be flats not suitable for families. I wonder who is behind all this scheming?
Thank goodness those tower blocks were refused permission. Not what I thought I was voting for with R4GV last time round! Doing 'something' is not an argument for doing this. I think people overestimate how many read the local paper or local websites - not all of which seem to be keen to challenge it anyway, mentioning no names ;-) - and many had no idea until folk started to raise their concerns on Facebook feeds. Very grateful to those people speaking up despite the obvious protests from those who hoped it would sail through.
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
Thanks for raising awareness on this Issue Robin. but sadly it comes as no surprise, to learn of more deceitful politicians saying one thing and doing the opposite. Good for the 2 Conservative MPs, voting against the scheme, but sadly they are affiliated with a party which has proven itself to be consistently untrustworthy. Perhaps these individuals should stand as truly independent candidates, that is what we really need, people with integrity, free of moral and financial corruption, not compromised by party interests, but who actually have the best interests of the local community at heart.
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
Thank you, Robin, very informative. It changed my mind about R4GV.
Please do join the emailing list at GuildfordExaminer.com
If we let 13 storey buildings go up, then what next? 20? 40? Look at what a blight on the landscape Woking has become.
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
I am a guildford resident of 40 years, who has actually bothered to go and look at plans and comment on them over the years. I was not aware of this proposal, and am grateful that fiona white did vote against. I will now follow this much more carefully. I am also a resident who didn't even get a letter when my next door neighbour got permission to do a major extension, and by neighbour I mean the other half of our semi detached house. So I am very wary of the councils claims about widespread consultation. I also wonder with another x homes feeding traffic onto Woodbridge road, how will access to the station be further fouled up with the closure of walnut tree close. There is a site that has been empty for years on the Portsmouth road, why not get that sorted out first?
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
All development should be commensurate with and sympathetic to its surroundings. This proposal was clearly neither. Is this yet another case of developers putting forward ridiculous proposals so that when they propose something a little less awful it gets passed by the council? I wouldn't be at all surprised. Thanks for raising awareness of this issue. 👍
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
This is a horrible plan, nobody wants to be in London because of these Tower houses and they want to do this in Guildford, it is a shame and pitiful. Thank you for raising this
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
It is mad how the public are not made aware of all the facts and the historic past of elected members gets buried. Great film
Don't believe everything you see Simon - as a local business owner in the area, I had an interest and can tell you these plans have been kicking around for literally decades. I was aware of all of this ten years ago (and virtually nothing has changed since then). If you actually want to know, the information is all available, just don't expect to be spoon fed.
@@Robonord427 it is interesting what you say. However, I like this film and I have fact checked some of the points made.
@Simon Foster Just not the bit about how the public are not made aware, which was what I commented on. All that information is available, if you want it.
Excellent
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
Wow. An excellent hard hitting video, well researched.
I am a frequent visitor to Guildford. Thank God this development was stopped.
This guy has done a huge service to Guildford. Thank you. More can be said for Guildford Dragon, that acts as their propaganda outlet.
What a surprise, a former director of a crooked Swiss bank and an estate agent forcing an unwanted development onto Guildford.
Their party should be trashed at the local elections.
The irony. Local Conservatives acting for affordable housing, opposing a party that is little more than a front for property developers.
Also in bed with the party pushing this scheme, Guildford Big Mouth, who does nothing for Guildford.
So.
"Residents for Guildford and Villages" (independent) are corrupt.
"The Guildford Dragon" - a local newspaper - (independent) is a propaganda outlet.
"Guildford Big Mouth" - a community group partly associated with local homeless scheme - (independent) does nothing for Guildford.
But, a social media campaigner with clear previous political affiliations (and previous paid-for campaigning experience) alongside two long standing conservative politicians, are the way forward.
Right you are.
Nope. Not paid.
its sad to see whats happening to my home town.
looking at pictures from 100 or so years ago, it was so beautiful, but year after year it gets more and more bastardised
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
I really do not understand where the pictures of the future development in your video come from? They are nothing like the pictures shown in the developers video? How can this be and which pictures are correct?
The developers video is a selling tool - unfortunately that's how it is - a sort of Elysium view of a development with shining sun, trees and children playing ball.. The photo I used is of the developers model of the development which is at GBC offices - or was. R
Please do join the emailing list at GuildfordExaminer.com
The Sneaky Bastards should be Jailed
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
This is very informative, I was going to vote for the Greenbelt party but if they are in favour of this I will vote for someone else.
I can see from the pictures that this development does look cramped and overcrowded, so I can see there are issues. I agree it's important to get the right developments with enough affordable housing.
I'm not sure why parking is a problem when you're right in the town centre and a few minutes walk from the station?
In general though this is how the problem evolves as I see it:
1. Have a housing review which recommends more housing and also state people are strongly against building on greenbelt land.
2. Reason through that if you can't build wide on green belt then you have to build tall in the centre.
3. Have the plans for the towers in the town centre drawn up and have people react in horror and block them for being ghettos.
The same thing has happened in Woking, they recently rejected a tower block proposal of 224 affordable homes because ... and it's kind of funny ... there were too many affordable homes all in one place. So you can block a development for having both too many and too few affordable homes.
There is no perfect answer. Either we build on the green belt or we build tall, pick one. We need more housing. It has to go somewhere.
Maybe your argument is that you are in favour of high density development but not this specific scheme? But that doesn't come across in your video.
I feel so sad for the young and vulnerable people in all this who are forced into cramped and poor quality accommodation. No one seems to care about them at all.
Well done that man 100 percent agree
@@VoteR4GV The council should do what the people want
The council works for the people
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
Oh dear. This guy does not know that Guildford is not the County town of Surrey. Kingston on Thames is, even though it's not actually in Surrey.
Actually..the consultation on both these was widespread and welcomed. I responded and I don't live in the centre of Guildford. The reality is that the Local Plan the Tories pushed through just before the last election set the parameters for these applications for Planning Permission.The opportunity ( ie to set in place policies that limited the height of buildings) was missed at that time They pushed it through using figures of expected population increase which have since been trashed,committing the Borough to granting planning permission for far higher level of population increase. Plus the Tory Govt mandates that the Borough Council MUST discuss proposed applications with developers. 40% affordable housing was a desire which was never likely to be achievable as has been throughout the country.. Developers have taken this issue to court elsewhere and the borough are left on very weak ground to defend the policy. Dont try and tell me everything would have been good under the Tories..because they gave away our Greenbelt and identified areas for development for residential and retail and commerce... All that has happened since is trying to make the best of a very bad job indeed. I am surprised at Mr Horsley...because both developments were given very wide coverage in the press.
Clearly the consultation was not widespread or people would not be complaining about not knowing. Not everyone is glued to the gbc planning pages. And one wonders if the contentiousness of the design may have led to the consultation strategy being less than comprehensive. Fortunately people acted quickly once it went mainstream on social media.
@@poppyland74 GBC have precedent in not consulting properly. Look at the current London Road cycle lane debacle.
Remember that someone approved the first Sydenham Road multi storey. The world's most ugly building. Guildford is turning into similar. Look at the German twin town of Freiburg, one of the best reconstructions in Germany.
People have a lot of faith in the council, pigs in the trough as always
It gives country folk a rental flat with a good return
The opening scene features an individual who threatened a local business for opposing the local BID, ie Experience Guildford.
Which business?
What John Redpath? - surely not. Seems quite a good guy to me. Just got in with the wrong crowd.
Omg no
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
Robin Horsley. I dont believe you are giving us either the full picture or an accurate picture. You are using carefully chosen language to create a false sense of disaster. The proposed buildings are not really much higher than several other existing buildings around the town. Secondly, a few strategically positioned blocks saves sprawl and we are surrounded by beauty in Guildford so sprawl is to be avoided. Thirdly, the world is changing and I am not convinced that people will want to move out to large houses. Fourthly, we need to advance the town. It is tired and lacking in energy compared to many towns. If you kill advancement then you choke the town. Fifth, by adding more shops and restaurants we entice people out of London to visit this amazing town and this supports the businesses and local services. Sixth, by putting blocks in the centre we remove the need for people to drive in - they can walk directly to the restaurants and shops and reduce pollution in doing so. I note, too, that you propose nothing. Give us a solution that shows you are not simply one of those that sits on the benches and complains. I think you should be ashamed for trying to sway innocent people into believing this was a 'siege' and that the town would be 'devastated forever'. I am one of the many residents that understands that this town needs to move forward and support all of the little businesses that bring life to the town: the bakers, the accountants, the restaurants and so on. The proposal would have transformed a dreary North street into something much more vibrant.
In all of the years where you could have proposed a solution for North Street, what have you done?
Thanks for your input Shane. You obviously look at it very differently. That's fine. I think it's unfair to say I have not presented an accurate picture - but I will let others be the judge of that rather than arguing it out with you. Best wishes. R P.S. I am not an architect but very happy to participate in a Council engagement process to help determine a solution - unfortunately they haven't done one - which really was why the scheme failed. Suggest read the refusal notice and read all the 8 major reasons for refusal. And even that wasn't exhaustive.
Look at the mess this council made of the consultation for the bike lane along London Road! They are a shambles.
this guy is just a NIMBY
'not really much higher' ... 'strategically positioned blocks'... not selling it well imho! We all want it developed but this was crazy height, crazy town.
Guildford is a city not a town if you where born there you should know
Money talks,
This is it.... that's impossible to hold....
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
But please don’t vote for the conservatives… it’s not the right option either.
Please do join the emailing list for updates at GuildfordExaminer.com
Who is left to vote for then? Who is up for election that can put our villages back into the Green belt? Surely there are people that do not feed from the political power trough.
@@richardz2800 this is exactly my question, who’s left we can vote for that is not part of this crazy plan?