- Stay Connected
Socialize
Abraham Lincoln
If given the truth, the people can be depended upon to meet any national crisis...
Guildford news...
for Guildford people, brought to you by Guildford reporters - Guildford's own news service
Application to Convert Farmland into a Nature SANG Approved Despite Reservations
Published on: 4 Mar, 2019
Updated on: 6 Mar, 2019
Eashing Lane SANG – Image Guildford Borough Council
By Rebecca Curley
local democracy reporter
Councillors “reluctantly” voted through an application to turn farmland into a nature reserve in order to provide dog walkers at a Godalming development somewhere to exercise their pets.
The SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace) in Eashing Lane, Godalming will be established to support existing residents as well as new families who will move into Ockford Park once the homes are built.
Cllr Marsha Moseley, chairman of GBC’s planning committee
Chairman of Guildford Borough Council planning committee said members felt “quite badly” about the decision to grant permission for the SANG but that they had lost appeals on applications refused in the past which had left them feeling “quite sore”.
Waverley Borough Council voted to allow the 262 housing estate in Aarons Hill, but the development was tied up with the decision by Guildford over the SANG site in Eashing Lane which would support green space for the new residents.
A SANG is an area of green belt land designated for leisure and recreational use for residents living in a certain area as an alternative to them using or walking dogs at a special protection area.
More than 100 residents signed a petition against the change of use of the land with 38 letters of objection also sent to GBC.
Speaking at the planning meeting on Wednesday, February 27 residents and councillors from Guildford and Waverley said the location of the SANG meant it would be difficult for residents to walk to the site as the road was “hazardous”.
But Tracy Puttock from Ockford Park developers Ashill Land Ltd said the site would divert people away from using nearby Special Protection Areas (SPA) to walk their dogs.
She said: “This will be one option for dog walkers. Ockford Park will have a site for dog walkers as well.”
An 18-space car park will be built at the site and there will be a circular pedestrian path.
Surrey County Council Highway Authority said they felt access to the reserve was “acceptable” and Natural England had no objections.
Councillors said they sympathised with residents’ concerns, but had lost three appeals after refusing decisions on previous SANG applications.
Committee chairman, Cllr Marsha Moseley, said: “I think we all feel quite badly about this type of application but we have lost a few and we feel quite sore about it.”
The SANG will serve residents in a 4km radius to the site and means it has met a condition set out attached to the Ockford Park development.
Share This Post
Responses to Application to Convert Farmland into a Nature SANG Approved Despite Reservations
Leave a Comment Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear. Full names, or at least initial and surname, must be given.
See: Tumbling Bay Footbridge: National Trust Says It Is ‘Committed to Finding a Resolution’
>
John Perkins
March 4, 2019 at 4:52 pm
I well understand why Cllr. Moseley might think it’s pointless to oppose an application that will be overturned by the Inspector on appeal. However, she ought to take heart from the fact that it would at least highlight that it is not the fault of GBC, but the “independent” Planning Inspectorate.
David Carter
March 8, 2019 at 11:47 am
I would like to point out to John Perkins that as a council tax payer I do not wish to fund an expensive appeal and, potentially, an expensive costs award if, at the end of the day, the application ticked all the planning policy boxes.
The Planning Committee is there to make considered decisions advised by the planning professionals at the council and I am grateful that they take this seriously rather than just try and appease those in opposing applications. If Mr Perkins wants to have a go at the council I would suggest he turns your anger towards the nonsensical SANG policy and lobby the council to review the mitigation strategy, because as long as this crazy strategy remains it will not only continue to ruin open countryside but also the added cost to development will block affordable homes being delivered.
I would also like to point out two things to Lisa Wright.
Firstly, I presume it was the farmer who sold his land off as a SANG and so you can bet that he is not too fussed about having to take his prize-winning cattle off to market. He is probably going to sell them off to a breeder anyway if they are “prize-winning” and go off on a cruise with all his winnings. Good luck to him.
Secondly, it is not just developments on green belt that force developers to provide or contribute to the cost of SANGS, it is developments within 5km of a Special Protection Area which include the centre of Guildford like the Solum Development. It is a crazy mitigation policy.
The Guildford Greenbelt Group need to concentrate their anger on the policy, not its application.
Jules Cranwell
March 5, 2019 at 2:00 pm
Frankly, we expect our councillors, who enjoy significant sums from us taxpayers, in ‘allowances’, to do a bit more than sit around having reservations.
We pay them to defend the interests of residents, and protect our environment.
Susan Parker
March 6, 2019 at 5:59 pm
Some of us did oppose this development, like me. I argued there were legitimate objections to the SANG, and reasons why we could seek to refuse this application but was outvoted.
Susan Parker is the leader of the Guildford Greenbelt Group and borough councillor for Send
Lisa Wright
March 6, 2019 at 6:38 pm
Meanwhile, in Wood Street Village, the farmer has taken the next batch of prize-winning cattle for slaughter as the builders move in to start the car park for the new SANG.
It is the second time he has had to slaughter his whole herd but this time for the benefit of housing developers and the blame lays squarely with Guildford Conservatives for including so many new homes on green belt.
Ditto Waverley Conservatives, they put housing on green fields and a SANG has to be provided.
Let’s not get mixed up with planning inspectors, it was Conservative councillors who voted for the destruction of the Surrey countryside.
John Perkins
March 7, 2019 at 1:17 pm
What a tragedy. And how ironic that “Natural Greenspace” must have a car park.
I agree that the fault lies squarely with the Conservatives, though I’ve two quibbles: firstly, SANG must be provided whether or not the development is on green belt; secondly, inspectors have shown they are willing to apply circular and self-serving arguments in order to push SANGs through and so must be regarded as part of the problem.
One truly absurd thing about the SANG policy is that it is less profitable to turn a brownfield site into a SANG, so the SANG itself will likely always be on green belt land. When the development is there too there’s a double-whammy. All thanks to the “Protect the Greenbelt” Conservatives.
It’s not even as though local residents benefit. The SANG “capacity” at Wood Street is made available by its offshore owner without a penny going to the SPA or GBC, who have to content themselves with not having to designate some other site in their care.
Colin Cross
March 8, 2019 at 12:07 am
Show me a bunch of Tory councillors and candidates at the 2015 election, brandishing their “The Greenbelt to Stay!” promise and I will show you a GBC Tory Local Plan now that makes a complete and utter mockery of that empty and despicable false promise. They should be held accountable for such perfidy.
Colin Cross is the Independent borough councillor for Lovelace (Ripley, Wisley and Ockham)