Planners Reject Guildford Industrial Buildings That Would ‘Dominate The Landscape’

Published on: 12 Oct, 2025
Updated on: 13 Oct, 2025

The old Dennis plant in Guildford. Closure was announced in 2020.

By Emily Dalton

local democracy reporting service

And David Reading

Guildford Dragon reporter

Plans to build eight new industrial and storage units on the Slyfield Industrial Estate have been rejected by Guildford Borough Council’s planning committee – following a 90-minute meeting in which one councillor was ejected from the proceedings and some members expressed deep frustration, saying they had received inadequate information about the project.

Had the application been granted, the new buildings would have replaced the old Alexander Dennis depot, which has remained vacant since 2022. The project was said by the applicants to be a boon for the local economy.

But local people protested that the scale of the buildings – up to 16.18 metres high – would have a serious detrimental visual impact on their lives. Objectors included Worplesdon Parish Council.

Cllr Vanessa King: chair of planning

Some committee members pushed strongly for a site visit so they could witness for themselves what impact the proposed industrial buildings would have on the local environment.  But the chair, Cllr Vanessa King (Lib Dem, Stoke), had decided against a site visit before the meeting – arguing that there was already sufficient information for members in the officers’ documents and plans.

Clearly some councillors were frustrated by this.

It was the scale of the development – particularly the bulk and height of the buildings – that caused consternation among some committee members when they debated the application on Wednesday (October 8).

They feared that the development would dominate the landscape including nearby green belt land.

They argued that the buildings would tower over surrounding warehouses, most of which are around 8-10m high, and that the development would have an “unacceptable” visual impact when viewed from Jacobs Well Road and nearby open countryside.

Councillors who pushed for a site visit expressed annoyance that – in their view – they needed to witness what impact the scheme would have on the local environment and the nearby homes, rather than relying on official plans and documents. There were, they said, too many uncertainties.

Cllr Bilal Akhtar: ejected from the meeting

Cllr Bilal Akhtar (Conservative, Worplesdon) was one member who pressed hard for a site visit in an impassioned speech, worrying about the visual effect the buildings would have locally.

Cllr Akhtar was then ejected from the meeting after Cllr George Potter (Lib Dem, Burpham) told members that Cllr Akhtar had read from a pre-written speech, which was against the council’s procedural rules. The chair, Cllr King, said she was “genuinely sorry” but had to bar Cllr Akhtar from the rest of the meeting.

A vote was put to members on whether there should be a site visit. The result was 7-7. With Cllr Akhtar removed from the meeting, that left a decision to be made based on Cllr King’s casting vote. She voted against a site visit.

A major part of the argument by the applicants, Aviva Investors, was that the project could support up to 400 local jobs and deliver a “vital upgrade” to one of Guildford’s main employment zones.

Supporting the application, Charles Everest, a director at Aviva, said the scheme was not just replacement but a “modern, sustainable hub” designed to support local business growth. He said the height was important to allow more efficient storage in a limited space.

Worplesdon parish councillor Nigel Mitchell spoke against the application, citing the proximity to the green belt and the visual impact on local people.

This was echoed by local residents Ryan Batchelor and Richard Williams, whose homes are close to the development.

Mr Batchelor said: “Sixteen metres is twice the height of almost everything else on Slyfield. You cannot call this ‘in keeping’ with the rest of the estate.”

Mr Williams spoke of the “substantial loss of amenity” for local people – citing the height of the buildings and the possibility of light and noise pollution.

Cllr Sue Wyeth-Price: proposed that the application be refused

After almost 90 minutes of debate, as irritation began to show, the application was put to the vote. Members were reminded that refusal could lead to a costly appeal.

Cllr Sue Wyeth-Price (R4GV, Ash South) tabled a motion recommending  refusal, citing visual impact on the nearby green belt and the overall height and bulk of the proposed buildings. Cllr Stephen Hives (Lib Dem, Stoke) seconded the motion.

The result was nine votes against the application, three in favour, with one abstention.

Share This Post