Developer Says Wisley Development Could Help Guildford Meet Its Housing Need

Published on: 27 Apr, 2016
Updated on: 29 Apr, 2016

Artist's impression on what the development would look like. Image from the developer's website.

Artist’s impression on what a development at Wisley could look like. Image from the developer’s website.

A housing development at Wisley could help to address the unmet need for housing in the Borough of Guildford, according to a statement from Wisley Property Management (WPI).

The statement comes in the wake of a Guildford Borough Council (GBC) decision, earlier this month (April 2016) to refuse WPI’s planning application and controversy over the continued inclusion of the Wisley site in the revised Local Plan.

The WPI statement also denies that it was anyone from their “Wisley team” who took images of the public gallery at the Planning Committee meeting at Millmead council offices.

Mike Murray, representing WPI, said: “House prices in the Guildford area are now 14 x salaries while house building in the borough is less than half of the council’s identified need of 693 homes a year.

“A sustainable new community at Wisley Airfield can help to address this huge shortfall quickly, in a location directly accessible to the A3, and with a full range of community facilities. A frequent community bus service to local railway stations and services, and a significant package of transport measures and contributions is proposed.

“The alternative could be developments of 100-200 homes on 10 or more existing villages, without any of this infrastructure delivered. A number of issues were raised at the recent planning committee and we are working with officers and consultees to address and seek to resolve them in the coming months.

“A development at Wisley Airfield will give the next generation of Guildford Borough residents the chance of owning their own home, not just the lucky few.”

Moving on to a suggestion by GBC managing director, that a person observed taking photos or film of the public gallery might have been”… one of the applicant’s (WPI) agents”, Mr Murray said: “We are aware that a complaint was raised about recording proceedings at the council planning meeting.

“The Wisley team are happy to confirm that we made no recording, which would of course be entirely unnecessary as the proceedings are published as a webcast on the council website.”

The Wisley Action Group who are campaigning against the planning proposals at Wisley have previously complained that WPI is a Cayman’s Island company, registered there “so that profits need not be subject to tax in the UK and could remain off-shore”.

Mr Murray is on record as saying in response: “Wisley Property Investments Ltd complies with all UK laws and regulations.”

Responses to Developer Says Wisley Development Could Help Guildford Meet Its Housing Need

Adrian Atkinson Reply

April 28, 2016 at 1:18 pm

Time the council looked at the webcast recordings and identify the person that took the images.
Alan Robertson Reply

April 28, 2016 at 2:09 pm

The shady characters who hide their identities in a Cayman Island Company are not developers, they are financial speculators and tax avoiders.

They have no interest in community, nor even in building; they merely wish to bully their way into obtaining planning permission and then sell the site to a builder after banking a vast, undeserved, profit. Benefit to the community is the least important item on their agenda.
John Perkins Reply

April 29, 2016 at 11:48 am

“Could help”, “can help”, “could be” – so many weasel words.

“A sustainable new community…” – in who’s opinion is it sustainable?

“… council’s identified need of 693 homes a year.” – identified by whom?

“Wisley Property Investments Ltd complies with all UK laws and regulations.” That may be so, but it does not answer the complaint.
Katie Annand Reply

April 30, 2016 at 11:10 am

A 3-bed house here will cost at least £499,000. Not affordable. These houses will help people who cannot afford to buy in London, they will not help Guildford or the local community. They also want to build on a flood plain.

This plan will make the Cayman developers very rich.

The rich get richer.
Valerie Thompson Reply

April 30, 2016 at 11:53 am

It is not the position of developers to harangue us on Guildford’s housing needs. Their representatives were at the meeting where their latest application was turned down on 14 issues. These facts are not going away, perhaps it’s time they did?
John Perkins Reply

April 30, 2016 at 12:06 pm

The managing director of Guildford Borough Council, Sue Sturgeon, has written that “the person who had taken the photos was an agent of the applicant, Wisley Property Investments”.

If the photographer was not from GBC or WPI who was he? I think the council should try and identify him and his reason for photographing the public gallery.

He was disobeying, however erroneous, the instructions given by Cllr Moseley.
Jenny Procter Reply

May 1, 2016 at 9:06 am

Building at Wisley would create huge extra pressure on all roads and services already seriously overstretched. It would not provide “affordable” housing and would use valuable farmland as well as threaten protected wildlife areas. The villages are already faced with 100 to 200 extra houses and 1000’s in some cases.

The numbers supposedly required are geared to support an ambitious growth agenda and none of the constraints GBC can legitimately apply to reduce the numbers are being considered. We have to ask why not?

It is astonishing that this development has not been taken out of the plan despite unanimous objection to it and subsequent refusal at the planning meeting. We, the public, do not have the resources or access to the planners these developers do and the GBC Executive seem determined to aid and support their efforts to continue to present us with this proposal and get around the very real obstacles and issues raised in objection.

It would be nice if those councillors who seem so bent on pushing these plans through could be mindful of the fact they were elected in good faith to honour their election pledges and work with and for us rather rather than consider us a “bloody rabble”.