First dissimulation, now denial

Within hours of the press release announcing the publication of Volume 5 of the Green Belt and Countryside Study, the lead councillor responsible for the Guildford Borough Local Plan had to release a denial that the sites identified within the new document were definitely sites to be developed.  So much has suspicion and disbelief grown in the borough community to any new information on the Local Plan issued by this council and its paid lackeys, that such a denial was necessary is no surprise.

The first time round, during the consideration of the draft Local Plan evidence base by borough residents, the lead councillor for the Local Plan visited my community to address a resident’s meeting in an attempt to assuage anxieties about the targeting of Normandy for large scale housing development.  Ms. Juneja was very good at not letting the cat out of the bag but not convincing.  Not good enough. The cat is running loose.

Nowadays, when you listen to the radio or watch the television and see a politician under pressure who wants to avoid the truth when questioned, the first thing you notice is that they deny, deny, deny.  Well, Ms. Juneja is denying now.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “First dissimulation, now denial

  1. Quelle surprise, Ms Juneja is economical with the truth and denies everything. The truth is not her forte, she lied to the council, her constituents and those who use her business about her credentials of being a Barrister. It just shows you to what depths the Tories have sunk to in that they allow a commensurate liar to still be in a position that requires trust and integrity. I doubt any one could trust that shady lady and she along with a large number of the Tories in Guildford Borough Council including Normandy’s very own inept bumbling fool of a representative, knows the meaning of the word integrity.

    • An interesting fact from this weeks edition of Moneyweek magazine (May 2nd, page 6). There are 140 golf courses in Surrey, and more land in Surrey is devoted to golf courses than housing in the county. Perhaps we should have a Normandy Golf course, would be better than all those Barrett houses they want to throw up.

      • They tried that in 1992 – two 18 hole golf courses (one private member course, one municipal) and a floodlit driving range at the old Wanborough Farm land at the end of Flexford Road – and fortunately the developer was declared bankrupt before the project was initiated. How do you fancy a queue of 25-30 cars in Glaziers Lane and Flexford Road in front of your driveway at 5.00 am in the morning because those super-keen golfers just can’t wait for the gates to open to get in 18-holes before going to work?
        Anyway, the arguments against are the same as for housing. Most modern 18-hole golf courses occupy as much as 60 hectares (150 acres) of land, then there’s the urbanisation of the club house, changing facilities, restaurant, car parking, so that’s about the same size as the amount of land proposed for the Normandy super-village (71 hectares).
        That’s a lot of farmland that is currently commercially farmed around Normandy and a lot of wildlife habitat you’re proposing to eradicate. If you didn’t know, once farmland has a change of use to the status required by a golf course, that land effectively becomes ‘brownfield’ land because it has been commercially developed. If the club fails, guess what gets proposed for the land – that’s right, housing. No more golf courses please.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s