• Our Normandy Village - Glaziers Lane

  • Our Normandy Village - land near Pussey\'s Copse with Ancient Woodland

  • Our Normandy Village - view to the Hog\'s Back and Surrey Hills AONB

  • Our Normandy Village - St Marks Church, Wyke, 15th c.

  • Our Normandy Village - winter sunset

  • Our Normandy Village - public view into Normandy from Hog\'s Back in Surrey Hills AONB

  • Our Normandy Village - Ancient Woodland vista

  • Our Normandy Village - Write to Fight

bdswiss erfahrungen

On 13 June 2018 the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government issued the decision to reject the appeal made by the would-be developer of the Wisley Airfield site against Guildford Borough Council's [GBC] refusal of planning application 15/P/00012. This was 2 weeks later than originally scheduled and after the Examination in Public of the Guildford Local Plan had begun on 6 June.

Key in the decision to reject the proposed development were:

  • it would cause considerable harm to the Green Belt as it would fail to prevent urban sprawl and fail to keep the land permanently open (NPPF, para 79) and that no "very special circumstances" exist to outweigh that (NPPF, para 88)
  • it would conflict with two of the five purposes of the Green Belt (NPPF para 80) as it would not assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment nor would it assist in urban regeneration by the recycling of derelict land
  • it would have a severe impact on the northbound section of the Strategic Road Network between the Ockham Interchange and J10 of the M25 and this would be harmful to highway safety and contrary to advice in the NPPF
  • a new settlement in a rural area would, inevitably, cause substantial harm to both its character and its appearance and importantly, although only about 19ha of Best and Most Versatile land [BMV] would be built on, some 44ha of BMV would no longer be available for agriculture

This was perhaps a predictable outcome in the context of an application for a substantial development within the Green Belt but outside the context of a Local Plan. On the other hand, and somewhat disturbingly, it was considered that "the proposals would provide a suitable quantity of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and that, with careful management, it should be of suitable quality (and)... the development would not have an unacceptable likely significant effect on the SPA."

Additionally, the Secretary of State concluded there was "no evidence to suggest that the proposal would harm air quality in Ripley and that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the changes in air quality, either individually or in combination with other developments, are likely to have significant effects or undermine the conservation objectives for the SPA".

This latter point flies in the face of the UK government being taken to the Supreme Court and High Court several times by environmental advocacy group Client Earth and found to have inadequate policies to deliver improved air quality across the UK.

GBC continues to include the site in the submitted Local Plan, arguing that its rejection as an individual site based on 15/P/00012 was outside the Local Plan process and, therefore, subject to the requirement to prove "very special circumstances", which the Secretary of State concluded was not met. Within the Local Plan process, the Council maintains it can support the "exceptional circumstances" required to modify the Green Belt boundary at the site and effectively remove the land from the Green Belt, making it available for housing development.

Planning expert Andrew Lainton suggests in his blog "Decisions, Decisions, Decisions" that, under the circumstances, the inspector at the Examination in Public might decide to delete the site from the Local Plan, leaving open the question of what more appropriate site might replace it at the plan's first review, a review that could occur any time after the plan's successful examination by the inspector.

  • Local Plan EiP Ponders Additional Housing Sites

    NAG attended this hearing 3 July; we were not able to speak as there had been no prior warning of a site in Normandy/Flexford’s being up for discussion. In any event the Inspector made clear he would not allow a detailed discussion of the sites Guildford Borough Council [GBC] had put forward in response to his challenge to find ways of bringing forward house-building in the early years of the plan period; he simply wanted to be able to assess whether or not they would be effective in helping to deliver this objective. CPRE Surrey, who were able to speak, said there would be objections, no doubt, from the communities affected should these sites be included in the final plan. GBC had very little to say about the Normandy/Flexford site and even struggled to show the Inspector a map giving its location.

    Read more ...  
  • Guildford Borough Council Executive votes to retain the Article 4 on Wanborough Fields indefinitely

    As residents in Wanborough had hoped, Guildford Borough Council’s Executive Committee voted at their meeting 17 July 2018 to confirm the Wanborough Fields Article 4 Direction. Eleven Wanborough residents attended the meeting to observe the vote.

    The report recommending confirmation states in clear terms the benefits of retaining the open landscape provided by Wanborough Fields.

    Read more ...  
  • Barn Development at Wanborough Fields

    You will have seen work beginning on the barn being redeveloped for residential use, with the wooden barn frame dismantled to make way for the proposed parking spaces, although no decision has been published on the planning application [18/P/00765]. The plan is to construct three 5-bedroom dwellings within the envelope of the present concrete and steel barn.

    Read more ...
Friday the 17th - Published by Normandy Action Group, 166 Glaziers Lane, Guildford GU3 2EB - with thanks to Keith Witham, Surrey County Councillor - Hostgator Coupon Template