Council Would Have Refused Development Proposal Had It Not Gone to Appeal

Published on: 26 Jun, 2026
Updated on: 26 Jun, 2026

Shortlands Farm site in Normandy.

By James Moules

local democracy reporter

A highly controversial 200-home proposed development in a Surrey village would have been rejected by Guildford councillors, had the decision not already been sent to appeal.

The plans for Shortlands Farm in the parish of Normandy, between Ash and Guildford, would see the existing buildings at the site knocked down to make way for the new homes.

But the development’s fate is currently in the hands of the Planning Inspectorate after the applicant filed an appeal “on the grounds of non-determination” because a decision had not been reached within a certain time limit..

Council officers explained that an agreement to extend planning deliberations had not been reached with the applicant, who instead opted to launch their appeal.

However, an outline application for the proposed development was considered by Guildford Borough Council’s Planning Committee to establish how it would have ruled.

The development, proposed by Gleeson Land, would see 200 homes – including affordable housing and plots for self-builds – set up in the site to the east of Ash.

Planning officers wrote in their report that they would have recommended refusal.

While they argued the site would be classified as “grey belt”, they deemed it did not sufficiently meet the “golden rules” allowing for its release from the green belt and that it should therefore have been refused.

While councillors were ultimately unanimous in their backing of the officers’ view, some disagreed that the site is should be deemed grey belt.

Cllr Simon Schofield

Cllr Simon Schofield, chair of Normandy Parish Council, told the committee: “We are not asking the Planning Committee to ignore planning policy or guidance, but rather to use your own planning judgement on whether this site is grey belt.”

The concept of grey belt was introduced in national planning guidelines in 2024, loosening development restrictions on land that is not deemed to adequately contribute to green belt purposes.

Cllr David Bilbe

Cllr David Bilbe (Con, Normandy) said: “The grey belt is supposed to demonstrate low quality scrubland. That’s not what this is. It’s not low quality scrubland at all, it’s a farm.”

He added: “I think that we should consider adding and strengthening the fact that this is not grey belt – and we should strengthen the reasons for refusal.”

However, officers reiterated their views that the site does qualify as grey belt, and warned councillors that a refusal which pushed back at this would be “opening up the council to an application for unreasonable costs”.

Cllr George Potter

Cllr George Potter (Lib Dem, Burpham) argued: “It does not meet those green belt tests, and therefore under the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework] this is grey belt – and that is what our specialist advice is saying.”

He added: “We don’t have to like what the government has done with grey belt. We are allowed to think it is a false prospectus – but that doesn’t mean we can disagree with it when it is so black and white.”

Potter noted there is already a case for refusal, and argued it would be “grotesquely irresponsible” to go against the expert advice on a “clear cut” definition.

Cllr Cait Taylor

Planning committee chair Cait Taylor (Lib Dem, Stoke) told Cllr Bilbe: “I would be putting your reason for refusal forward if I felt there was enough support from the other councillors, but I don’t feel that is the case.”

Committee members voted unanimously to back the officers’ report, declaring they would have rejected the application had they been able to make a decision.