Letter: Is the Local Plan Driven by Politics or Planning Logic?

Published on: 3 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 3 Sep, 2017

From Ben Paton

In response to: Letter: I Am Not Against Wisley Airfield Development On Condition…

If Mr Botha looks at the planning documents he will see that the Caymans registered company, Wisley Property Investments Limited, is proposing a density of housing of 49 dwellings per hectare. The proposal is for 2,068 dwellings, a care home, two schools etc.

The net area is therefore 42ha (2,068 divided by 49.) The planned population of the new town is stated to be 5,150. That gives a population per hectare of 122 people.

That’s very high. To put that in perspective the most densely populated part of the Borough of Guildford is in Stoughton. It has 83 persons per hectare. You can look it up on http://www.surreyi.gov.uk. It is also one of the least affluent parts of the borough.

The developer is proposing a new town with a density 50% higher than in that part of Stoughton. Stoughton Ward has the highest density in the borough at 71 persons/ha. A selection of other wards shows:

• Holy Trinity (central Guildford) 12 per/ha
• Christ Church (central Guildford) 22
• Burpham 26
• Westborough 60
• Ash Wharf (highest density in Ash & Tongham) 20

There are two ways of approaching this question. The first is to apply planning principles and planning law. If you do that you find that there are much more suitable sites in the borough for urban extensions and new settlements. Plonking the third biggest town in the borough in the middle of a rural location without any facilities defies planning logic.

The second approach is to play politics and try to please the Executive of GBC. Their preference is to put development as far away from Guildford as possible. The one place they can all agree on is Ockham – because it is remote, rural, and has few inhabitants.

Is the local plan driven by politics or by planning logic? Just look at what it does to the Metropolitan Green Belt: it removes swathes of it that are closest to London. It seeks to create new green belt in Ash & Tongham – as far from London in the Borough as it is possible to get.

Has one single ‘exceptional circumstance’ been shown? No! There are plenty of sites in the urban and suburban areas of the borough that could be developed. But it is not politically expedient.

Lord Lytton tried to develop the former Wisley airfield when he won the right to repurchase it as agricultural land in 1980. The Ockham Park Estate sold it in 1942/3 for about £30,000. He bought it back for about £307,000. A company associated with Lord Lytton applied to use the land for aviation purposes. GBC refused permission on the grounds:

• Conflict with green belt policies
• Likely widespread disturbance and noise nuisance resulting in loss of local amenities
• Conflict with Surrey Structure Plan which opposes reopening of disused airfields and development or changes in aviation
• Increase in traffic on a major road
• Additional air traffic in a congested area
• Conflict with the written undertaking by the former Ministry of Aviation to restore the public rights of way across the airfield
• Loss of good quality agricultural land

There was a long planning inquiry in January 1981. The Inspector, Mr Shane Reese, concluded: “It would, in my opinion, call for the most exceptional circumstances, a clearly established national need, an exhaustive survey and subsequent rejection of all other possible alternative sites with less formidable planning barriers, before I could conceive of this site, with its surroundings containing such highly valued and vulnerable recreational areas, protected as it is by such long-standing and recently so authoritatively approved planning policies, being suitable for this use even at the very lowest conceivable lever of user.

“I do not find this to be anything like such a powerful case as that.

“…when I add to the other side of the scales the particular environmental, agricultural and highways disadvantages which would follow upon implementation of this proposal, the balance is even more heavily depressed against it.”

The Caymans company, Wisley Property Investments, is trying it on all over again. The main difference this time around is that the leader of Guildford Borough Council supports the idea of such a development.

But the company is concerned with profit, not the public good. It paid £7m for the land and is spending around £4m to change its use. But it expects to make hundreds of millions.

Share This Post