MP Hunt Objects Formally to Taylor Wimpey’s Housing Plan For Tongham

Published on: 16 Feb, 2026
Updated on: 17 Feb, 2026

A banner displaying local opposition

By David Reading

MP Sir Jeremy Hunt has submitted a formal objection to Taylor Wimpey’s proposal to build up to 420 homes on greenfield land at Manor Farm, Tongham.

The Conservative MP for Godalming and Ash heard about the strength of local opposition when he attended a packed public meeting on February 6 to discuss the proposals, at present the subject of an outline planning application.

Sir Jeremy Hunt attended a public meeting in Tongham to discuss the planning proposal.

In his letter of objection, written after the meeting, he told Guildford Borough Council:  “The views expressed were overwhelmingly opposed to this application with the feedback being that this proposal would tip Tongham beyond sustainable growth and cause long-term harm to the character, identity and infrastructure of the village.

“That sentiment reflects a set of substantive planning concerns, many of which are directly grounded in Guildford Borough Council’s adopted Local Plan.”

The site sits between Poyle Road and The Street, next to the Hog’s Back Brewery, and beside the A31. At the moment, it is mostly fields, trees and woodland.

The developers have insisted they will bring benefits to the area, including new walking and cycling routes; more than 24 hectares of green space, including play areas for children; a new nature area; partial relocation of the hop garden for Hogs Back Brewery; new trees, hedges and wildlife features; and drainage systems to help reduce flooding.

But the MP believes any benefits – should they materialise – would be far outweighed by the damage to the local area.

It is believed to be unusual for an MP to protest formally against a local development but Hunt said he was reflecting residents’ concerns.

Sir Jeremy Hunt MP

He wrote in his letter of objection: “Tongham’s identity is rooted in its rural character, its 19th-century history and its compact village form. A development of 420 homes is more akin to an urban extension than village scale growth. The likely result is the erosion of village identity, coalescence with surrounding settlements and the loss of cohesive community character.”

The MP pointed out that Tongham and the surrounding area has absorbed “an exceptional volume” of housing growth over recent years, notably the 481 homes at Ash Lodge Park and 254 at Admiral Park, Tongham.

“The cumulative effect of this growth has already placed schools, GP surgeries, road networks and drainage systems under real strain,” he said. “The addition of 420 homes would represent a near 50 per cent increase in Tongham’s present village population.”

He said the borough council’s policy dictated that development should take place where infrastructure already exists or could be provided in step with growth.

“At present, the evidence of the community, reflected in my casework, demonstrates that Tongham’s infrastructure is already operating beyond its reasonable capacity,” Hunt said. “The proposal therefore conflicts with the requirement that development must be genuinely sustainable and supported by appropriate infrastructure, as reinforced in the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework).”

The MP also cited harm to the character of the countryside as a reason for his objection – pointing out that the site comprises open farmland designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value forming a green buffer.

He said local policy made it clear that development outside settlement boundaries must protect the openness of the countryside, safeguard rural character and prevent settlement coalescence. A 420-home development would fundamentally transform the southern edge of Tongham and remove a key landscape buffer, “directly breaching this policy”.

The MP also cited highways and traffic concerns, pointing out that congestion on The Street, Poyle Road and the Grange Road junction was already a problem.

Citing the potential for flood risk, he said Tongham was already vulnerable to surface-water flooding. Local policy stated that development must reduce flood risk and demonstrate “clear mitigation”. He maintained that the Taylor Wimpey submission did not satisfy this requirement and presented an unacceptable risk.

On the subject of ecology, the MP said local policy required that development avoided harm to irreplaceable habitats and delivered measurable biodiversity net gain. “The proposed development does not demonstrate compliance with these policies,” he said.

Local opponents to the development have questioned whether local services such as primary healthcare and schools will be able to cope with 420 new homes, and Hunt reiterated this in his letter of objection.

“Residents consistently report difficulty securing GP appointments, shortages in school places and insufficient early years provision,” he said. “Many residents also noted that infrastructure promised as part of earlier developments has been delivered slowly or not at all.”

The MP said policy dictated that planning permission should only be granted “where infrastructure is deliverable, available at the right time and sufficient in scale to support the development”.

He added: “The level of uncertainty surrounding healthcare, education and transport mitigation means this requirement is plainly not met.”

Share This Post