Who will fund SANG in the future?

Would a proposed ‘bespoke’ SANG of 10 ha be enough for 264 dogs during wet and wintry months, whereas the TBHSPA is dry during the winter.

GBC state, ‘In allocating developer infrastructure contributions, we will prioritise the TBHSPA mitigation and avoidance in order to ensure that we meet our legal responsibilities’.

The TBHSPA’s SANG Avoidance Strategy is about to expire (2016). A new one is not available. Sites proposed in 2004-2009 previous Avoidance Strategy, were not delivered because GBC could not fund their management plans. There is a ‘bespoke’ SANG on A46 but there is no guarantee the SANG will be delivered by the developer. Houses can be built but no SANG will be provided.

Russell Place Farm, Wood Street has been proposed as SANG so developers can build on Flexford Normandy. Natural England has not approved the change of use, from a valuable working farm to SANG, lost because of a developer led proposal ( a travesty).

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) set by GBC (2015) developers to build on prime greenfield sites but the infrastructure and services are much more costly. Any funding, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) secured from this site, will be spent within the whole Borough not on the area affected by development. (New government rules are looming).

Policy 14 states, ‘permission would not be granted for proposals that are likely to materially harm the nature conservation interest of local sites unless clear justification is proved that the need for development clearly outweighs the impact on biodiversity’. If there was no ‘alleged’ need for a Secondary School in the West of the Borough the THBSPA and SSSI would not allow this site to be taken out of Green Belt.

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