Letter: Gordon Bridger Is Right – SANG Policy Needs Reviewing

Published on: 8 Aug, 2017
Updated on: 8 Aug, 2017

From David Croft

I would love to know whether the creation of “Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces” (SANGs) are Natural England’s brain child or Guildford Borough Council’s.

I suspect what happened back in 2007 (when councils had to refuse planning applications lest they fall foul of the new European Directive) these “alternative dog walking areas” were conceived jointly and in a hurry between Natural England and all local councils affected.

It got around the house building blockage and as long as money was handed over to effectively “buy your slot” on a SANG you could start building again.

I also suspect that what has happened in the intervening ten years is that the mitigation policy has been allowed to rumble on because no one (neither developers or councils) have had the appetite to review whether the policy is actually working or not. Why should they? Developers can move on by paying £7,000 to “pass ‘Go'” and the council are able to sell slots on land they own or control.

Nobody has stopped to ask for proof that these alternative dog walking areas are actually working to save the three species of birds they were set up for until recently, by Hon Alderman Gordon Bridger.

It has been unjust to see him automatically dismissed by many correspondents to The Dragon who will have a go at him for previous comments made about green belt release because this is an entirely different issue and deserves serious consideration.

I make no bones about the fact that I am a small developer. I do not mind paying infrastructure levies as I deduct it from the cost I pay for the land. I don’t like paying for the SANG levy because I believe the policy is flawed and would much prefer to give the same amount to the council to be put towards social housing.

I believe the reason this policy should be reviewed now is because soon £64 million pounds is going to be thrown at it and that could equate to 500 social homes.

Looking into the future when the local plan is adopted and the big house builders and their expensive consultants sit down at the negotiating table with the planners and viability is discussed, argued over and appealed, it is going to be the “affordable” percentages that are going to be adjusted first, not the SANG contributions because SANG contributions take priority over everything.

Guildford is already looking to charge an unprecedented high rate of construction infrastructure levy (CIL), outside of central London (£300-500 per sq metre or £100K for a typical four-bed house of 200sq metres). This together with the £7,000 SANG charge and the 40% “affordable” requirement will make for some very interesting viability arguments.

This SANG policy might not seem important now with everything else that is going on but as previously stated this policy will have a strong bearing on viability arguments later on and that is another reason why it needs re-examining now.

Responses to Letter: Gordon Bridger Is Right – SANG Policy Needs Reviewing

Valerie Thompson Reply

August 10, 2017 at 3:50 pm

After all the adverse local comments about turning a piece of farmland beside Long Reach in West Horsley into a SANG, Guildford has given the go-ahead.

For which development is this SANG to be allocated? The answer is, five miles away in Effingham, where there is already a great deal of common land for people to dog-walk, take exercise or sit and stare.

So the real reason it was applied for was to justify further excessive development in West Horsley; the nearby Manor Farm proposal will be covered by Ben’s Wood, when it is re-designated as a SANG.
Jules Cranwell Reply

August 10, 2017 at 10:09 pm

We already have the vast tracts of land around Hatchlands, and Ben’s Wood. Why is a further SANG needed in West Horsley?

Is it just a device to clear the way for Three Farms Meadows/Wisley?
- David Croft Reply
  
  August 12, 2017 at 10:38 am
  
  Wisley property investments propose their own dedicated SANG between the houses and Wisley Common. The Horsleys have several large sites proposed in the draft Local Plan, Manor Farm, which has its own SANG (Ben’s Wood), Waterloo Farm and the site for 100 houses by the railway line, so presumably these last two will contribute to the new Long Reach SANG.
  
  The whole policy is a farce, especially in rural villages with an abundance of good country footpaths and walks. Who is going to get into a car and drive to pretty plain farmland off Long Reach to walk their dogs?