Letter: Guildford Borough Council Cannot Move AONB Boundary

Published on: 6 Sep, 2016
Updated on: 6 Sep, 2016

From Amanda Mullarkey

In response to the article: Residents ‘Shocked and Concerned’ at AONB Planning Decision and subsequent comments.

I am not aware of anyone opposing replacing the existing house at Little Warren Close. The issue is whether it is appropriate to develop in the garden as well.

David Smith’s impression that the proposed development is outside the AONB [Area of Outstanding National Beauty] is understandable. The AONB sign is a little way down the road. However, I understand that the Conservation Board has checked the official maps and confirmed the land is indeed in the Surrey Hills. So the land to be developed marks the start of the AONB on a popular route to St Martha’s.

This means that comparing this application to other development outside the AONB is less important than deciding what makes a fitting gateway inside the Surrey Hills. Given a choice between a rustic, hedged-lined garden or a large, prominent house, I know which I would choose.

This application raises wider issues. What the residents appear to have discovered is that the AONB boundary as published by Guildford Borough Council is incorrect here and elsewhere.

As the council will appreciate, it is not in its gift to remove land from the AONB. The boundary is determined by an appointed government minister and the designation is intended to provide the highest status of landscape protection, equivalent to a National Park.

Did that responsibility weigh heavily on the shoulders of our local planning authority when they decided this application?

Amanda Mullarkey is the chairman of the Guildford Residents’ Association.

Responses to Letter: Guildford Borough Council Cannot Move AONB Boundary

David Smith Reply

September 6, 2016 at 9:54 pm

Interesting letter and I have since looked at Googlemaps and it appears Little Warren Close is just inside the AONB but it also includes the tops of the Fairway, Levylsdene, the whole of White Lane, Halfpenny lane and Longdown.

So bearing in mind these roads appear to be included, you have to ask how it was acceptable to build two larger houses at 41 Levylesdene (13/P/01117), approve a new larger house at Halfpenny Lane (16/P/00191), another WAG style mansion at Chantry House, White Lane (14/P/01838) and a similar scale dwelling at Downsview House off Warren Road, directly abutting the downs.

All of these applications are visible from the countryside and unlike 1 Little Warren Close are not surrounded by houses.

The existing house at Little Warren Close is elevated and at an angle on its plot and, I am sure, whether refurbished or left as it is, provides an unwelcome vista for the houses opposite. The new houses are in line with how the pattern of development should have been and combined, are still probably smaller than some of the developments down White Lane which are truly in the AONB.

So surely it can be established that development in the green belt is not prohibited given what development has taken place in the immediate environs?
Janice Windle Reply

September 9, 2016 at 4:10 pm

What is (and has been) the environmental or social planning justification for encroaching upon the green belt without supplying smaller and more affordable houses for people of lower incomes?

I am opposed to all building on green belt land, whether by wealthy people building luxury homes for themselves, companies building properties for profit, or councils building low cost homes for first-time buyers or for rent to the low-waged.

But of these three, the third is the only option that seems to me to merit any argument in favour of it.