Countryside Campaigners Welcome Judicial Review of Waverley’s Local Plan

Published on: 17 Jul, 2018
Updated on: 17 Jul, 2018

Waverley Borough Council’s controversial Local Plan is to be subject to a judicial review following a decision in the High Court on July 12 (2018).

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Surrey and the Protect-Our-Waverley campaign group both challenged Waverley Borough Council’s decision to adopt a Local Plan with increased housing figures imposed on it by Planning Inspector Jonathan Bore, to meet “unmet housing need” from Woking Borough.

The additional 1,500 new houses would, it is claimed, mostly have to be built in protected countryside.

Andy Smith, Surrey Branch Director of CPRE, said: “This is a nationally important case with far-reaching consequences, so we were pleased that the High Court agreed that our application for a judicial review of the Waverley Plan should go forward.

“The key issue for CPRE is whether a borough such as Waverley, with significant constraints on growth [caused by the designation of the] Surrey Hills area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), areas of great landscape value (AGLV), metropolitan green belt and countryside beyond the green belt) should be forced to accept an arbitrary increase in its housing numbers in order to meet the ‘unmet need’ of another borough, in this case Woking.

“The 1,500+ additional houses would have nowhere to go but in ‘protected’ AONB countryside, and this is surely unacceptable. In our view, the housing targets being imposed on Waverley – and indeed Woking and Guildford too – are excessive and unsustainable and made more so by the Inspector’s decision to add these ‘uplifts’ to the borough’s housing target without considering the impact on the Surrey Hills.

“We look forward to the opportunity to present our arguments fully in court when the time comes.”

Cllr Julia Potts, Conservative leader of Waverley Council said: “We are very pleased that the judge rejected most of the challenges to Waverley’s Local Plan.

“Nevertheless, today’s judgment is disappointing as we now must go back to court on what is essentially a technical issue. Waverley had to accept the inspector’s modifications that included taking a proportion of Woking’s unmet need. The inspector’s reasoning is being called into question.

“Essentially Waverley is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It is a government requirement to have an adopted plan; to adopt a sound Local Plan we had to accept the inspector’s modifications, and these are now being called into question by POW Campaign Ltd and CPRE Surrey and Waverley has to use taxpayers’ money to defend our position in court.”

Smith responded: “Today’s statement from Waverley Council concerning the High Court’s decision is highly misleading as it describes the matter of Woking’s ‘unmet need’ as merely a ‘technical issue’.

“In fact, the housing numbers are the very crux of the matter. In both the Waverley and Guildford Local Plan examinations it was clear the inspector imposed ‘uplifts’ to the housing numbers for various matters including Woking’s so-called unmet need.

“We do not yet know if Guildford Council will accept the uplifts imposed on them, but Waverley Council did so, adopting the plan with the increased numbers, and that was one of the main reasons we needed to challenge them, as we knew that such an increase in the borough’s housing target would have grave consequences for the AONB and green belt countryside in particular.”

It is anticipated that the judicial review case will be heard in the autumn.

Reactions to this story have been invited and we hope to publish them tomorrow (July 18, 2018).

Responses to Countryside Campaigners Welcome Judicial Review of Waverley’s Local Plan

Keith Meldrum Reply

July 17, 2018 at 9:18 pm

The issue of “unmet need” from Woking is a major issue for both Guildford and Waverley and is hardly a technical issue that can be put to one side in the manner suggested.

I hope that this specific issue can be raised with our MP Anne Milton as it relates to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which is in the process of being revised. Hopefully, this “unmet need” nonsense can be removed from the system by which housing targets are set as it is grossly unfair.
Matt Thomson Reply

July 19, 2018 at 4:37 pm

Cllr Potts knows well that Waverley Borough Council may have been under an obligation to accept the inspector’s recommendation, but the costs are not the fault of POW or CPRE Surrey, they are the fault of the inspector unlawfully insisting that Waverley should have to accommodate another area’s unmet housing need in ways that will inevitably cause harm, not only to Waverley’s environment but to nationally protected landscapes and the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Cllr Potts should be knocking on the door of her friends in government nationally and demanding that they decide, once and for all, whether they can, as they consistently promise they can, provide the homes the nation needs without harm to the green belt, the countryside and the wider environment, or whether all they are interested in is building houses – any houses – whatever the cost.