STADIUM INQUIRY- RESIDENTS CLOSING SPEECH

Dr Graham Hibbert - Closing Speech to Stadium Inquiry (1 June 2006)

Sir, as has been stated in this Inquiry, Guildford is a forward-looking and prosperous town but it also has many problems concerning:
Alcohol related crime
Traffic congestion - we have no ring road
The environment including noise, waste and water issues
Housing - pressure by developers on residents never ceases.

Against this backdrop of serious issues, and when I reflect on the 5 days we have spent in this Appeal Hearing, the Applicant’s case reminds me increasingly of a book by another eminent Guildford resident, namely one Lewis Carroll. Just like Alice in Wonderland, we seem to have fallen down a rabbit hole and wasted immense amounts of public time and money on considering a Stadium:
· That nobody wants
· That is to be built on land that the Applicant has no chance of owning
· The business case for which isn’t there
· The purpose of which get less and less clear as the Inquiry continues

Let me be clear.

We have seen that the Stadium application has little support in the Borough as:
Objections to this proposal at the application stage, in the form of individual letters, e-mails and pro-forma letters, were over 1200 and from right across Guildford against 169 in favour
When the Appeal was announced, the Inspector received a further 198 letters of which 195 were against the application with only 3 in favour
The local Football Club was not present at nor made formal representation to the Inquiry and has now distanced itself from the proposal, as quoted in the Surrey Advertiser on 26 May
About 20 visitors have attended the Inquiry each day and nearly all, if not all, have been visibly against this application
Many Residents’ Associations from across Guildford, plus the Campaign for Rural England, the Surrey Wildlife Trust and the Borough and County Council have addressed the Inquiry and stated their opposition to the application
The only evidence of support for the Stadium is a survey made by Mr Harper which did not indicate on the cards filled in by residents, the location or size of his proposed stadium.

On the evidence presented to this Inquiry, it is misleading of the Applicant’s barrister to insist on describing the proposed Stadium as a football stadium. The local team does not wish to play there and there is no contract in place with the Applicant to allow it to do so, even if it could afford it. The Applicant’s intention, as stated to the Inquiry, is for a multipurpose stadium including various sporting and non-sporting events. Beyond this, the exact purpose of the stadium is not clear and no local rugby or other sports teams, or entertainment promoters are directly supporting the application.

Let me assure the Inspector that Guildford is a town in which democracy works. I may not agree with all the Council’s decisions but residents’ points are listened to if they approach the Council in a proper way. Relevant to this Appeal and as reported in the Surrey Advertiser on 26, the Council will shortly have upgraded its football facilities at Spectrum to a level which allows the local team to play there in their current and higher leagues. However, the Applicant has chosen to pursue his application and this Appeal without any prior discussion with the Council or with local residents. Considering the impact of this Application on Guildford, this is not an acceptable way to proceed.

The heavy development costs of the proposed Stadium have been shown to require heavy use, probably more than once a week, to ensure that it made an adequate financial return, unlike the loss-making stadium in Woking. In the view of Surrey County Council’s Highways representative, such usage would bring chaos to local roads.

Missing from the Applicant’s case is any indication of investment in players in order to bring the team up to a standard to play in higher league football and to meet their ongoing wage costs. So the “prospect of bringing top level non-league football to Guildford” does not just depend upon the decision of an Inspector - as stated in the Surrey Advertiser (26 May). In fact it depends upon:
- whether any local team wants to and can afford to play in Mr. Harper’s proposed Stadium
- whether anyone can raise the millions required to build such a stadium
- whether anyone will put in the money to fund a team of the appropriate skill.

So it’s all up in the air. In the view of the residents at this Inquiry, this is not a visionary proposal, as stated by Mr. Harper’s barrister; it is a delusion which is against the interests of residents across the borough. Also, Guildford in not the largest town without a league football team as the Applicant frequently states. None of the towns listed below* have such teams and all are larger than Guildford Borough with its 130,000 population:

Dudley - population 310,000
Salford - population 216,000
Warrington - population 191,000
Basingstoke - population 152,000

In summary, it is clear that the site is unsuitable for a stadium in addition to and in competition with the Spectrum. The local football team has a ground to play on already at Spectrum and the degree of local support for the application is low. The land which is Council owned is not for sale. The land is already well used to the benefit of all residents for travelling circuses and fairgrounds and provides temporary, but essential, overspill parking for Guilfest, Spectrum events and the Country Show; also residents enjoy the open aspect it brings to the whole of Stoke Park. It is used by schools in Guildford who do not have their own playing fields and is available for new outdoor participant sports in the future.

What is also clear is that the financial costs to Guildford tax payers in mounting a defence against this appeal are increasing. In addition, the emotional stress Guilford residents are enduring because of the uncertainty as to their future quality of life continues to mount, and all because a private company wants to further its business interests. I ask on behalf of the residents who have attended this Inquiry that the Inspector rejects the appeal just as firmly as the Council rejected the original application and that is In Principle as well because of Siting and Access, so that Stoke Park and other precious urban green open spaces in Guildford will be preserved for ever from similar future applications.

Finally, can I thank the Inspector for the way he has made this Appeal accessible to members of the public and for the way he has allowed all parties to the Appeal to have their fair say. I know this comment is endorsed by many other attendees.

Dr Graham Hibbert

* Information taken from “The National Obsession” written by John Motson OBE published 2004