Letter: SANGS Are Being Use to Facilitate Green Belt Development

Published on: 14 Feb, 2018
Updated on: 14 Feb, 2018

From David Roberts

In response to: Worplesdon SANG Report Was Weighted In Favour of Housing Need

An inspector has also approved a SANG at Long Reach in West Horsley. These are terrible precedents.

John Perkins is right: SANGs are only supposed to be created to offset the harmful impact of new developments approved by planners. Instead, they are now being deliberately promoted to facilitate development that would otherwise be prevented by green belt restrictions.

There is a pattern to this: by their inaction, Guildford Borough Council is systematically inviting central government to overrule popular planning decisions on appeal – even to the extent of promoting developments they have supposedly rejected (such as “Wisley Airfield”) in the Local Plan.

That way, our Tory council seeks public credit for good planning decisions while simultaneously sabotaging them through weak defence at appeal hearings. Stand by for crocodile tears from the council leadership if Wisley is approved.

Responses to Letter: SANGS Are Being Use to Facilitate Green Belt Development

Janet Ashton Reply

February 14, 2018 at 3:20 pm

Frivolous directing of planning and regeneration.
Valerie Thompson Reply

February 14, 2018 at 4:31 pm

GBC has stated in the Local Plan documents, (Para 3.1,) now with the inspector, that, “A new settlement will be created at Wisley”.

They also claim that, “…extensions to existing villages, some of which are now inset from the green belt”.

Neither statement is necessarily true as no decision has been made, nor will be made on these issues until the hearing, which begins on June 5th.
John Perkins Reply

March 12, 2018 at 5:59 pm

Russell Place Farm, Wood Street is included as a SANG in great detail in the Supplementary Planning Document of GBC’s Thames Basin Heaths SPA Avoidance Strategy 2017, adopted by the Executive on 18th July 2017. This was almost a year after the refusal of the first SANG application, 6 months after the refusal of the second, only three weeks after the appeal was lodged and more than three months before it was allowed.

It is inconsistent of GBC to spend so much time and effort planning to use the site as SANG whilst refusing the applications for it to be so designated.
Lisa Wright Reply

March 13, 2018 at 7:47 am

I agree with John Perkins.

It is a ridiculous situation where GBC opposed and supported the SANG at Wood Street Village, all at the same time.

The same is happening at Wisley. GBC opposed the Wisley planning application which has now gone to appeal but supports the Wisley development through the Local Plan.

In my opinion, public opposition is being manipulated. The law allows local councils to ‘play the system’ and our council is making full use of that.
Gordon Bridger Reply

March 9, 2019 at 4:26 pm

SANGs are not justified in the Guildford District as the guideline is “if a Council concludes that a development has no significant effect on a Special Protection Areas normal planning rules apply”.

Since there are virtually no endangered species (cold weather, not humans or housing, is the major threat to those) on the two SPAs, the provision of new SANGS to allow new housing development cannot be justified.

Yet two or three inspectors reports have done so saying that housing can be allowed if a SANG is provided. Through incompetence, inspectors were not aware that on the two main SPAs the birds were not there to protect!

If I had been obliged to pay the levy I would have made a complaint to the Ombudsman and would feel very confident in winning, since this is clearly a case of maladministration. The council seem aware of this danger and payees are warned that they may not claim the payment back once paid. A dubious legal requirement.

An Ombudsman claim should not be expensive but has to be made by the payee – so many are put off. I am surprised however that CPRE or GGG have not taken this issue up.