Inspector’s Decision Saves Open Land in Ash Green From Development

Published on: 8 Aug, 2024
Updated on: 9 Aug, 2024

Middleton – the chalet bungalow site in White Lane that developers wished to demolish.

By David Reading

A controversial housing scheme for Ash Green – which drew heavy criticism against Guildford Borough Council – has been turned down on appeal by the Government’s Planning Inspectorate.

Runnymede Homes Ltd had applied to demolish “Middleton”, a house in White Lane, and build nine new houses. Residents living nearby strongly opposed the application.

Criticism was levelled at the council planners because they failed to decide on the application within an eight-week statutory period – thus triggering the appeal – and subsequently failed to publish two key documents connected with the appeal for the public to see. The issue was highlighted in June by local resident John Ferns and featured in The Guildford Dragon NEWS.

See: Resident’s Investigation Reveals GBC Failings over Ash Green Homes Application

At the time it was feared that the council’s failure might have sabotaged the residents’ case and indeed the inspector referred to the applicant’s complaint about the time taken by the council to reach a decision. But the inspector’s statement added: “Whilst this must have caused the appellant some distress, this does not materially affect my consideration of the planning merits of the appeal proposals.”

A key reason for the decision was the threat to open space. The inspector noted that the site comprises open land laid to grass as well as woodland and that the Guildford Borough Local Plan identifies open space as particularly important in protecting the character of settlements.

The area of land behind Middleton from which trees have already been removed.

The inspector said: “The existing open space is in private ownership and public access is limited. However, the site forms part of a wider open space and is visible from some parts of adjoining private land, particularly land to the north as well as glimpsed views between buildings from public vantage points on White Lane.

“This existing section of open space contributes cumulatively toward a wider character of broadly open space behind the dwellings in this part of White Lane and this open space generates a positive sense of visual openness with amenity value.”

The inspector added: “While I have found that the development would successfully integrate into the existing built form, subject to conditions, the proposed development would nonetheless have a negative effect on the designated open space and the overall character and appearance of the area.”

The appeal decision raised the crucial issue of the pressure that new housing puts on existing services.

The inspector said: “There is local concern that utilities, schools, public transport providers and healthcare would be inadequate to serve the new residents. Inevitably these new residents will need medical care from time to time and some families could have school-age children. Furthermore, new housing would place additional demand on existing utilities and services.”

But the inspector did note that “there have been no representations from the relevant bodies objecting to the scheme or indicating an issue with capacity”.

The inspector also noted: “Following the submission of the appeal against non-determination, the Council failed to provide a Statement of Case within the deadlines.”

The issues raised by resident John Ferns were also being investigated by Cllr Sue Wyeth-Price (R4GV), who represents Ash South. She was so concerned by what she perceived as council failures that she put in an official complaint.

Runnymede homes had submitted its application in May 2023. GBC was required to make a decision by August 4 but failed to do so.

On November 30, 2023, the developer gave notice of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate based on non-determination within the statutory eight-week period.

Mr Ferns grew even more concerned when, as time passed, he realised that no statement of the developer’s case had appeared on the GBC online planning portal, and the council’s case was also absent.

The Planning Inspectorate’s deadline for comment was March 8, 2024. This deadline came and went. Local people who opposed the application needed to know the council’s stance and – even more importantly – the case that the developer was putting forward.

It wasn’t until June 10 this year that GBC published the developer’s statement of case, and it wasn’t until the following day that it published its own response, in which it opposed the development – largely on the grounds of threat to open space.

Mr Ferns concluded that GBC planners had probably compromised the position of Ash Green residents.

Although his fears on this point were unfounded, questions are still unanswered about what are perceived to be the council’s failures.

Cllr Wyeth Price’s complaint centred on the fact that the council failed to decide on the application within the statutory period, failed to publish two key documents and compromised the efforts of Ash Green residents who opposed the application.

She sought an explanation on why her e-mails to the planning team were repeatedly ignored. She said she wanted to see process improvements put in place.

At the time of our original article, the Chief Executive of Guildford and Waverley Borough Councils, Pedro Wrobel, told TheDragon: “We are carrying out an investigation into a formal complaint that the council has received. It is inappropriate to comment further until this investigation has been completed.”

The Dragon understands that the investigation has been concluded but this week GBC said it had no further comment to make.

Mr Ferns said: “I think GBC has got away very lightly. Was this just human error, or is the council using duff software? Or both? And how many other planning applications are ‘beyond their determination date’? Is this yet another thing that the Oversight & Scrutiny Committee should be monitoring?”

Cllr Wyeth-Price said: “I know that many local residents share my delight in the appeal decision. Several people sent objections directly to the inspector as GBC had failed to submit a Statement of Case. We are grateful that the inspector gave us an extension to the response time once we discovered that the developer had submitted their Statement of Case but it had not been published.

“The inspector followed the local plan and NPPF protection (National Planning Policy Framework) as his primary reason for refusal, which we hope will continue to secure the open space in the village in the future.”