Letter: SANGS Are More About Income for the Council Than Sensible Planning

Published on: 21 Jan, 2018
Updated on: 21 Jan, 2018

From David Croft

It is a shame that several readers of The Dragon seem to be considering these SANGS as just another excuse for housebuilding and destroying the green belt and as part of the unpopular local plan. This is confusing.

SANGS have been around since 2007 long before the Local Plan reared its ugly head when Europe decided to designate several heaths around Surrey as areas of great importance (or Special Protection Areas SPA’s) because they were the breeding habitat of three types of protected birds.

As far back as 2007 Natural England, the national body in charge of protecting the environment, started opposing all applications for new housing within five kilometres of these special heaths (effectively blocking any new housing) as they felt that the new occupants could put more pressure on these Special Protection Areas (SPAs) by walking on them with their dogs.

Back in 2007, the local councils (not just Guildford) sat down with Natural England to see if there was anything they could do to stop the restriction blocking all new housebuilding and between them, they devised a policy of creating alternative dog walking areas and making them attractive with car parking areas and circular walks.

These they called Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces or SANGS. If the councils, developers or landowners could provide these alternative dog walking areas then Natural England would not block all development of new housing within 5km of the SPA’s.

What Gordon Bridger has tried, quite rightly, to point out to readers is that after ten years of this policy being in place there seems to have been no review of whether its main objective “to protect the bird populations and their ground-nesting habitats” is working.

Evidence would seem to suggest that it is not members of the public walking on these SPA’s but weather that determines the bird population numbers and that those numbers are so low anyway is it sensible to plough millions into this questionable policy.

So why don’t councils (again not just Guildford) get together and go back to Natural England and discuss the SANG policy and its effectiveness?

Maybe SANGS are more about money than birds these days? Housebuilders have to pay a levy per house of circa £6,000 that goes towards the council’s maintenance of these alternative dog walking areas that nobody wants or needs.

I will ask again that readers don’t confuse/cloud this issue with green belt protection or a way of halting unpopular housebuilding. This is a policy that could cost hundreds of millions across Surrey and because of that needs continual reviewing as to its effectiveness.

I believe this money could otherwise be extracted from developers and landowners to fund more genuinely affordable social homes or better infrastructure, something everybody wants and ask readers to pressure their councillors for a proper review.

Sadly SANGS have become more about income for the council than sensible planning. Gordon Bridger is quite right.

Share This Post