Letter: SANG Levy Will Be Passed On To Homebuyers

Published on: 19 Aug, 2017
Updated on: 19 Aug, 2017

Nightjar on Whitmoor Common – Photo Malcolm Fincham.

From John Rigg

Gordon Bridger is, of course, right to highlight this policy which is another worthy of the BBC’s Yes Prime Minister.

The SANG objectives for Guildford certainly appear mistaken. The heavy bureaucratic process to protect imaginary birds, the waste of officer resources, the SANG financial levy, or tax, on developers, all appear counter productive.

The ultimate impact is on the cost of local homes and passed straight on to homebuyers who already struggle with affordability.

The practical results are nonsensical as it is difficult to show benefit to birds on Whitmoor Common. Then look at the proposed Tyting Farm council designated SANG where dog walkers are supposed to transfer to from Whitmoor.

Tyting is a GBC owned farm in the heart of the North Downs miles away. Through its fields are already existing footpaths and bridle paths with walkers’ car parks at either end.

So now we take agricultural farmland to designate as a SANG and create new artificial circular footpaths across farmland metres from the existing ones which no one wants or needs with pastures made difficult to use for either livestock or arable farming because of attracted dog walkers.

This site’s designation as “an area of great landscape value” (AGLV) is, of course, as agricultural landscape but the value will be undermined and what of the real birds that nest there already with additional dogs given free range?

This SANG allocation will allow GBC to take millions from developers at the cost of home buyers. However a council can snaffle this money away legally, so it is attractive for councils.

At Tyting Farm, GBC’s latest SANG, local residents have sought transparency on these funds to check they are spent on the intended site now that both farmer and the Surrey Wildlife Trust have lost the farm.

But an estimated £11 million to fund unnecessary footpaths and car parks on a farm, which is already council-owned and surrounded by paths, how sensible is that? And are there also funds accumulated for the Chantries, again an area covered in existing footpaths for dog walkers?

It is difficult to know if the SANG levy is a legal requirement or a convenient choice but it is possible to reach a judgement on whether it is costly and pointless and if it makes homes even more unaffordable in the borough.

Who knows, perhaps there are other motives for its introduction unrelated to either birds or footpaths?

Responses to Letter: SANG Levy Will Be Passed On To Homebuyers

A Atkinson Reply

August 21, 2017 at 10:26 pm

The needless SANG approved on Long Reach in West Horsley is already awash with bridleways, woods, National Trust walkways (free for locals). The there is Sheepleas, Bens Wood, Newlands corner and so on.

Good agricultural land needlessly converted to contrived recreational space. More needless rural development to serve an unproven, over inflated housing number, conjured up behind closed doors by companies whose paymasters and owners are set to benefit as they are, in fact, developers who want excessive development to take place. How is this objective?
David Croft Reply

August 22, 2017 at 6:52 pm

There is no doubt that SANGs are now seen as money spinners for the council and this will be detrimental to affordability. Developers will not shoulder this burden, they will negotiate down their affordable percentage contributions arguing viability and leave it with the planning inspector to decide.

After ten years of this farce, affected councils should get together and review different options. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if Guildford Borough Council took the lead on this?
Gordon Bridger Reply

August 28, 2017 at 9:35 am

The amount of money being collected to carry out “improvements” to make them more “attractive” is quite staggering and the Tyting Society should be aware of the consequences referred to above. I was told that they accepted this massive £12m as it would stop new housing within 400 metres. If so they are mistaken, that only applies to SPAs which their area is not.

Those who think that all this money will be beneficial to the environment are in for a big surprise as extra car parking is made a condition and more “attractions” are included.

According to bird nest data, wrested reluctantly from staff, the current number of bird nests in all the SPAs is only 891, almost identical to the number in 1998/9 when it was 879, before the “crisis”.

Since I have been assured by the chair of the Scrutiny Committee and the lead councillor for parks that the report it will be called in for review, there will be an opportunity to put some of these facts to councillors.