Letter: There Is More to the Send Planning Permission Story

Published on: 8 Apr, 2025
Updated on: 7 Apr, 2025

CGI/drawing of proposed houses on Potters Lane.

From Dai Williams

In response to: View of Parish Council Overruled by GBC’s Planning Committee

There is much more to this story. It involves two applications. The first 22/P/01966 was approved January 2024, quashed by Judicial Review for not considering Wey Valley Corridor landscape impact objections.

It was resubmitted unchanged and approved by a Decision Notice on 18 March pre-empting the Planning Committee meeting on 26 March.

Your report did not mention the GBC Planning Committee meeting on 26/3 was closed to the public for 45 minutes while this serious procedural error was considered. The Planning Committee had to withdraw 22/P/01966 and request High Court approval to quash the apparently unlawful Decision Notice published in error, suggesting bias for the development.

How did this happen? Who was responsible? What will it cost?

Your ‘see GBC report’ link refers to this old application which was struck off on 26 March. Please delete/update this.

The Planning Committee then considered a duplicate application 24/P/01457 with minor amendments and missing any public visual impact images, questioned by one councillor. 24/P/01457 was submitted autumn 2024 when it was known the first would be challenged at Judicial Review, and has over 40 objections.

After application 22/P/01966 was taken off the agenda the Planning Committee considered the backup application 24/P/01457. The amended application omitted any image of the visual impact of this site from the river or Footpath 55.

The Planning Officer omitted to report objections to the lack of a public visual impact image and requesting one. In the meeting he offered a poor image from the quashed application that residents and Parish Council had objected to.

The development offers 70m x 50m of overlapping two-storey buildings on the skyline overlooking the River Wey Valley.

As approved this creates a precedent for similar developments on adjacent land up to 200 metres along the skyline destroying the Wey Valley Corridor landscape policy. Imagine approving a supermarket proposal on St Martha’s or Stag Hill with no visual image?

Send is already contributing hundreds of new dwellings to Guildford housing stock, with no extra infrastructure. There must be fair assessment of applications and limits to development.

Editor’s response: “Thank you for highlighting these issues and apologies for the incorrect link (now corrected). Our reporters try to encapsulate the full story in their writing, but reports necessarily summarise information and some details may be left out.