Cllr Susan Parker asked about the response to climate change at GBC. She noted that the Executive Advisory board had recommended that the Climate Change working group should review the proposals for the second part of the local plan - even though this had been dismissed by Cllr Harwood, lead councillor for Climate Change in his written response. She also noted that the council’s responses to the specific questions asked, where climate change could be addressed was inadequate - see the council’s written responses to her question here:
Page 5 and ff.
It is not a sufficient response to suggest that taking steps to prevent climate change may cost developers money. Of course seeking to reduce the impact of climate change will cost money - but it will cost us all a lot more if no action is taken, both in terms of money and quality of life.
Guildford has put ONLY 6 Tree Protection Orders in place this year - that’s not enough - but it is still saying that blanket Tree Protection Orders are not viable or expedient - why on earth not? We are cutting far too many trees down across the borough, and there is just wringing of hands when it happens - why not choose to prevent it?
Hedging is effective and there is lots of evidence to prove it both filters air and addresses climate change, but GBC has rejected hedging as a strategy - where possible - for no good reason.
The fact that using higher environmental standards (like the BREEAM standards) for housing would introduce new process costs for developers is evident - but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
Is the council discussing a local plan for Guildford or a developers' charter?
You can see the supplementary questions asked by Susan here
Cllr Harwood refused to give any kind of response at all to her supplementary points