Keeping Wisley Settlement in the Local Plan ‘Would Not Be Sound’, Claim Campaigners

Published on: 9 Aug, 2018
Updated on: 10 Aug, 2018

A local campaign group says allocating green belt land at the former Wisley airfield in Guildford’s Local Plan would involve overturning the considered views of the Secretary of State and “would not be sound”.

Richard Harwood QC

The claim from the Wisley Action Group (WAG) follows the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government James Brokenshire’s decision in June to refuse a planning appeal by Cayman Island-based developers Wisley Property Investments Ltd (WIPL) and further legal advice it has received from their QC.

A leading WAG member also claims that: “…government assurances of protecting the green belt are misleading and all but meaningless…”

The area at Wisley earmarked for development. Picture from the Wisley Action group’s website.

In a press release, WAG spokesman Tony Edwards said: “Allocating green belt land at the former Wisley airfield in Guildford’s Local Plan would involve overturning the considered views of the Secretary of State who, after months of consideration, recently dismissed plans for a 2,000 house development by a Cayman Island company at its appeal hearing.

“The Wisley Action Group [WAG] has, accordingly, been advised that the allocation of the Wisley land in the Local Plan is not sound.”

Helen Jefferies

WAG committee member Helen Jefferies said: “Leaving a settlement at ‘Three Farms Meadows’, the former Wisley airfield, in the Local Plan – despite the Secretary of State’s forthright rejection of the recent planning application and in spite of attempts to increase the land allocation with other surrounding farms – would not just reverse the appeal decision, it would also undermine the decisive role of the SoS in the planning process.

“The Secretary of State’s views would be seen to be overridden by a council which has pursued a Wisley settlement in the face of objections articulated by him.”

In the advice given to WAG, its QC said that the appeal was dismissed by the Secretary of State because of “very considerable” harm to the green belt’s openness and the purpose of protecting the countryside and urban regeneration, a severe impact on the strategic road network – the site being in an unsustainable location – substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area, and heritage impacts.

Rt Hon James Brokenshire

SoS Brokenshire had also agreed with the appeal inspector that the proposals “do not constitute sustainable development’ and are in conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

In June, the developer’s project manager Mike Murray said: “…it is worth noting that the decision on this application does not prejudice the allocation of the site in the draft Local Plan which is currently undergoing examination in public.”

However, continuing her argument, Mrs Jefferies, said: “Exceptional circumstances to extract land from the green belt should not include housing. But, in addition to Guildford Borough Council apparently ignoring the SoS’s views, we now seem to be faced with the highly illogical scenario of our borough having to absorb another borough’s housing shortfall and being required to take that unmet housing need out of its own green belt.

“GBC told the Local Plan examination that it would still meet its housing requirement – which includes meeting around 25% of Woking’s unmet need – without a strategic site for 2,000 homes so that the council does not need the Wisley land to meet housing requirements.”

“But a situation where unmet need of another borough can drive a coach and horses through green belt protection means that government assurances of protecting the green belt are misleading and all but meaningless – the government’s own version of Fake News.”

Guildford Borough Council and the Planning Inspectorate were invited to comment.