Fringe Box



North Street Planning Permission Finalised – Developer Withdraws First Version Appeal

Published on: 4 Dec, 2023
Updated on: 6 Dec, 2023

A CGI of how the new development will look.

In a brief statement, Guildford Borough Council has announced that planning permission provisionally granted in October has been finalised and the appeal against refusal of the first version of the developer’s plan withdrawn.

The news came following the successful completion of a Section 106, compensatory payments, negotiation.

A GBC spokesperson said: “The St Edward Homes’ plans for the mixed-use redevelopment of North Street in Guildford town centre was approved by our planning committee in October 2023. This was subject to the completion of a legal agreement.

“The legal agreement for planning application 23/P/01211 has now been completed and planning permission has been issued today, 4 December 2023.

“As a result, the planning appeal of the application refused in January 2023 (22/P/01336) has now been formally withdrawn. The public inquiry scheduled to start on 7 December 2023 has therefore been cancelled.”

The delay in the withdrawal of the appeal was not expected and has cost GBC thousands of pounds preparing for the hearing.

A spokesperson for GBC said on November 23: “Whilst St Edward originally said it would withdraw the appeal on North Street as soon as committee had agreed to grant planning permission, this has not yet happened.

“As a result, the council has begun to incur costs with defending the original decision. At this point in time, it is not possible to say how much has been spent to date on preparing for this appeal.”

See also: North Street Planning Appeal Continues Despite Expectation of Withdrawal

Share This Post

Responses to North Street Planning Permission Finalised – Developer Withdraws First Version Appeal

  1. Helena Townsend Reply

    December 4, 2023 at 7:29 pm

    Anyone who is a professional in the field should know that formal planning is not granted until the Section 106 is signed off and with a planning department under threat of special measures it’s completely understandable that St Edwards did not withdraw the appeal.

  2. Roland Dunster Reply

    December 6, 2023 at 12:32 pm

    Although I would have preferred a more traditional architectural style and still have some concerns regarding building height, my desire to see all local and national green spaces protected, enhanced, expanded and connected (for the good of nature and ourselves), makes this outcome feel like good news.

    However, having read Surrey Live’s very interesting article of the 4th of December; “Thousands of Surrey homes sitting empty or used as second houses”, is anyone able to please advise me if there are local authority (including Guildford and Waverley) and national policies to actively approach the owners of such properties to collaboratively meet housing need?

    • George Potter Reply

      December 7, 2023 at 2:20 pm

      Yes. There is a council tax premium charged on empty homes by the county council and borough/district councils in Surrey. The money raised by this council tax premium is then used as windfall funding for the areas in question. Details can be found here:

      There is definitely room for debate on whether the premium should be increased further and how quickly it should be applied, but at the moment the government doesn’t allow a premium to be charged until the home has been empty for a minimum of two years.

      At present there is no ability to charge a council tax premium on second homes. The government has said it intends to allow councils the ability to charge a premium on second homes, but this isn’t expected to be introduced until 2025.

      George Potter is a Lib Dem borough councillor for Burpham

  3. Peta Malthouse Reply

    December 6, 2023 at 7:01 pm

    As Mr Dunster is generally commenting on planning issues can I also ask if anyone on the Borough has approached the owners of the Army and Navy site to ask what they plan to do with it.

    They have seen off Fenwick and that site deserves and indeed requires a department store. Our local authorities should be allowed more powers to shape and encourage appropriate development in our towns, in my view.

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *