Letter: No One Has Asked For These Nonsensical SANGs

Published on: 19 Jan, 2018
Updated on: 20 Jan, 2018

From Gordon Bridger

hon alderman and former Mayor of Guildford

In response to: It Might Be Bird-brained But It Helps Protect Green Space

This letter has been corrected. Please see Cllr Spooner’s comment below.

So Council Leader Spooner does not deny that for the next 125 years all new homes will have to pay a tax to distract visitors from two large areas of common land where there are only 22 bird nests in order “to provide additional green space”.

Can anyone understand how the magical claim can be fulfilled? By the way, only bad weather, not human activity, prevented the bird numbers being two or three times higher.

What is actually happening is existing green belt space is being used to create a SANGs (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces) which no one has requested which then is “improved” by building car parking space and other “attractions”.

It is claimed that the Chantries and Tyting Farm have become SANGS but they are not as an “essential” element is an additional parking facility which thanks to strong residents opposition has not been constructed.

And it gets crazier. The GBC Planning Committee ignored council officers advice in November 2016 and rejected a 25-hectare piece of agricultural land as a SANG in West Horsley. It’s true, I promise you.

However, a planning inspector agreed with officers, no doubt to their delight, and overturned their decision. But the council leader and the councillors were not told that the area they were protecting, Ockley and Wisley Common (325 hectares) only had 16 bird nests on it (ie 20 hectares per nest) and the decreased number was due to bad weather, not disturbance from residents and walkers.

Neither were councillors told that if, ”they decide that a planning application has no significant effect on a SPA [Special Protection Area] it can be approved under normal planning guidelines”, which they would have done, unless they had totally taken leave of their senses, and it could have all been avoided. Yes, all that councillors had to do was to say that because there were so few birds on this huge site a SANG was not justified.

Cllr Spooner is creating new areas in green belt areas, which his prime minister stated could only be breached in “exceptional circumstances” to protect birds which do not need protecting. Unbelievable.

I went out of my way to warn Cllr Spooner in November 2016 about this nonsensical programme, which he, at a meeting we had, agreed it was, but he then embarked on a huge expansion. In the report, approved by the Executive in June last year, my comments were rubbished, in an appendix, as against policy. I had requested officers to include data of bird numbers and costs in the report but they were deliberately omitted

No wonder the council leader and the officers are opposed to it going to the Scrutiny Committee for review; facts, which officers have withheld from council reports would be revealed.

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee advised me she would call it in but I am still waiting.

This has now become a national issue and Guildford is being rightly ridiculed. Quite unnecessarily we are going against national green belt policy.

While I agree we need more housing to add SANGs as well is quite unjustified. Truly this is Lewis Carroll country.

Responses to Letter: No One Has Asked For These Nonsensical SANGs

Peter Shaw Reply

January 19, 2018 at 6:22 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong, but by declaring a SANG site within green belt boundaries allows developers to build (within a certain distance of the SANG site but not on it) new houses. These new houses can even then be built on green belt land when normally they wouldn’t be able to be built due to current green belt protections.

Presumably this is why some planners and developers love to designate areas as SANG. Although SANG sounds like a good idea on the face of it, it is actually a way developers can build houses that they normally wouldn’t be allowed too on green belt.

Just like green belt “insetting”, it’s another sneaky way to bend the rules.
- Paul Spooner Reply
  
  January 20, 2018 at 5:44 pm
  
  Mr Shaw’s comment is completely incorrect. Owners of sites may make planning applications for designation of SANGS but even if granted it does not provide any shortcut to planning approval for housing.
  
  Insetting of villages does not allow for housing outside the planning system either but does make it easier for those wishing to extend their housing within the inset area. Unfortunately, this very positive planning advantage is not publicised as the benefit of insetting.
  
  Paul Spooner is the leader of Guildford Borough Council
  - John Perkins Reply
    
    January 22, 2018 at 10:01 am
    
    Cllr Spooner is wrong. Peter Shaw does not claim that SANG designation is a shortcut of any kind, nor that insetting allows development outside of the planning system.
    
    The point he makes is that SANGs can be used to weaken green belt protection and insetting removes it completely.
    
    Weakening of protection is not a “very positive planning advantage” – it is a development advantage.
Paul Spooner Reply

January 19, 2018 at 9:14 pm

Factual inaccuracy: I did NOT vote against the SANG application in West Horsley as stated, however the Planning Committee did overturn the officer recommendation by majority and it was subsequently granted on appeal.

Paul Spooner is the leader of Guildford Borough Council

The letter has now been edited accordingly. We apologise for any factual inaccuracy. Ed.
Valerie Thompson Reply

January 20, 2018 at 7:51 am

The Horsley SANG was ostensibly to offset development in Effingham, which has huge tracts of land suitable for exercise, dog-walking etc. This, GBC claims, is the reason for providing SANGS.

Actually what this one, down Long Reach, will offset many of the building sites in West Horsley which GBC has proposed in their newly “inset” village, ie when West Horsley is removed from the green belt. Developers will have a field-day putting in applications for every bit of farmland in the vicinity.
- Paul Spooner Reply
  
  January 20, 2018 at 5:48 pm
  
  Ms Thompson’s comment in relation to connecting insetting to SANGS is completely incorrect. GBC have spent considerable time ensuring that defendable boundaries are in place to protect against unwanted development outside of village built areas, and insetting instead of washing over built areas is as per NPPF. Focus on boundaries rather than the principle of insetting.
  
  Paul Spooner is the leader of Guildford Borough Council
Janet Ashton Reply

January 22, 2018 at 9:43 am

Mr Spooner’s comment in relation to GBC ensuring defendable boundaries are in place is incorrect. This is not the experience of residents in Perry Hill, where several applications recently permitted will be outside the settlement boundary.

Please GBC, do focus on boundaries and protect our green belt against unwanted development as you claim. What is more, in Perry Hill, the homes built won’t be affordable. It is indefensible.
Gordon Bridger Reply

January 22, 2018 at 7:25 pm

But why do we need SANGs at all since there are only around 22 bird nests on our two main Commons, and as Natural England has said birds are recovering as result of warm weather? Why have officials and councillors who know this not said so?

But it gets more muddled. Around 45% of new homes, which will be mainly the three large areas decreed for housing development, will not be charged the levy the rest pay but will be allowed to provide “bespoke” SANGs. They will have to work out schemes which provide attractive alternative sites and more parking. They will have to find suitable areas, buy the land, put in facilities and be responsible for it for 125 years.

There is no guarantee that having met this vague guideline (eg how many acres are proposed?) that planning permission will be granted. This gives huge unclear power to officers, uncertainty to investors, and greater pressure on green belt land. Not only will there be housing on green belt land, but SANGs will make further incursions into it.

Muddle? And how! Maybe this is why there is so much resistance to a review of the programme?