By David Reading
Faced with the rapid population growth in Ash and Tongham, local campaigners are anxious to ensure that money provided by developers to support the community will actually materialise and be spent where it is most needed.
The new Ash Lodge Park estate south of Ash Lodge Drive – a total of 481 homes – has inevitably put pressure on infrastructure including healthcare services, schools and transport.
The estate developers, Bewley Homes, are under a legal obligation – termed Section 106 – to support the community financially.
One person who has been closely watching the S.106 commitments that housing developers are obliged to fulfil is borough councillor Sue Wyeth-Price (R4GV, Ash South).
She said: “Residents were promised that the impact of major housing development would be met with real investment in our local infrastructure — yet far too many of those commitments remain undelivered.
“Section 106 agreements are legal obligations, not wish lists, and I expect both the developer and the councils to be fully accountable. We need urgent clarity at every stage on what is spent, what hasn’t been spent, and exactly when any remaining commitments will be fulfilled.
“Otherwise local people will be right to feel let down, and I’ll continue pushing for full transparency and delivery.”
The Guildford Dragon NEWS has asked Guildford borough and Surrey County Council for an update on Bewley Homes’ Section 106 commitments.
In response to our enquiry, both councils released statements on some of the projects that Bewley’s contributions are funding.
The new Chester Bridge
Contributions from Bewley amounting to £824,631 were made towards the new road bridge over the railway line near Ash Station.
Highways and transport
Guildford Borough Council said £947,332 in contributions had been handed over to Surrey County Council.
Surrey County Council told The Dragon: “We are using the Section 106 funding from Bewley Homes to deliver a series of bus stop improvements in Ash. These will improve accessibility for passengers, make safety improvements for passengers, children and pedestrians, provide new upgraded bus shelters with real time journey information, lighting and seating, and enhance green space around some of the bus stops.
“It has also funded traffic calming works in Ash and road safety improvements in Tongham including the introduction of speed reduction measures and upgrades to existing crossing points.”
Education
GBC said it has given SCC £1,072,065 for secondary education, to provide education and/or recreational facilities at Ash Manor School.
Surrey County Council said: “The £1,072,065 received from Guildford Borough Council as part of the S106 agreement was used by Surrey County Council in 2023 to expand Ash Manor School to create 150 additional school places.”
GBC says further discussions are yet to take place regarding further support for local schools:
Police enforcement
GBC said £6,910 of the police contribution (£9,000) had been spent on ANPR cameras (Automated Number Plate Recognition). The exact location of these cameras is to be agreed.
Ash Library
GBC said £23,938 of the Ash Library contribution (£111,705.18) had been spent on IT equipment. The rest has not yet been agreed.
Primary healthcare
Under their S.106 obligations, Bewley Homes in 2019 set aside a plot of land off Hammersley Drive for healthcare purposes. There was an assumption that the land might be the site of a new GPs’ surgery. However, the NHS rejected that suggestion, insisting that the best way to meet the area’s increase in population will be to invest in the existing GP services rather than by building a new surgery. As we have just reported, a project in which a care home would be built on the site is currently under discussion.
See: Ash Care Home Proposal For Vacant Bewley Site Moves To Next Stage
Allotments
Bewley’s Section 106 commitments included a pledge to deliver allotments for the community.
In mid-June Tongham resident John Ferns wrote to The Guildford Dragon expressing dismay that GBC appeared to have relieved the developer of this obligation. The application had expired, he said, due to “developer inaction”.
GBC told The Dragon: “The current Section 106 agreement requires the developer to provide an allotment on this site. However, due to difficulties with accessing utilities and providing an access to the site, we are aware that the developer is exploring potential alternative uses.
“Any change to the terms of the legal agreement will require a Deed of Variation, and a planning application will be required if a change of use is proposed.
“We are yet to approve any changes to the provision of the allotment. Given the difficulties, we are working with the developer to find a solution to the issues, or if this is not possible, find a suitable alternative use for this part of the site.
“If the developer decides to deliver something other than the allotments, any required planning application for an alternative use will be advertised and available for residents to view in the usual way.”
This website is published by The Guildford Dragon NEWS
Contact: Martin Giles mgilesdragon@gmail.com
Log in- Posts - Add New - Powered by WordPress - Designed by Gabfire Themes
John Ferns
July 19, 2025 at 7:54 pm
It’s welcome that The Dragon is spotlighting developer obligations, but some of the real-world outcomes still beg questions — especially where public safety and joined-up thinking are concerned.
Take the ANPR camera funding. It’s noted here that £6,910 of the police contribution has been spent, however, the exact location of the cameras is still to be agreed. Meanwhile, Surrey County Council has gone ahead and installed five raised speed platforms along Manor Road — arguably the only road in Ash/Tongham where speeding is even feasible, given how congested most others have become.
Wouldn’t it have made more sense to coordinate ANPR enforcement and speed-calming measures, rather than spend from two pots of money without a unified strategy? It suggests very little joined-up thinking between GBC, SCC, and Surrey Police — and yet another missed opportunity to deliver infrastructure with real community benefit.
And on primary and early years education, residents are still waiting for clarity. There’s mention of funds earmarked for Ash Grange — but how many parents have already endured convoluted drop-off routines due to siblings being split between schools, including placements outside the local area? These issues go well beyond feasibility studies.