Land east of Eashing Lane, Godalming where developers want to build 234 homes Google

By Chris Caulfield

local democracy reporter

Plans for 234 homes that would have “sprawled into the essential boundary between Godalming, Milford and Eashing” have been rejected despite warnings Guildford Borough Council lose a costly appeal.

Developers Ashill Land had hoped to build the new project, that would have included 117 affordable homes and a children’s play space on land east of Eashing Lane in Godalming.

The plans had proven unpopular with residents who submitted more than 80 letters of objection – with none in support.

The plan for the new homes rejected by GBC’s Planning Committee.

Primary concerns were the cumulative impact the proposals would have on the area as it is earmarked to be next to the huge Ockford Park development across the border in Waverley.

They said it could overload road and water networks.

This was only heightened by Thames Water saying it lacked sufficient capacity and would need to invest in the area in order to maintain supply.

The site lies within green belt and within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) but outside Surrey Hills designated land.

Officers said that changes to planning rules meant it was now classifiable as grey belt and, because the council lacked enough deliverable sites to meet its housing targets, the proposals should be approved.

The argument hinged on whether the site was grey belt and suitable for development, or protected green belt.

Planning officers said the site should be approved, councillors voted against it.

Objecting to the plans was Kate Moody who questioned the land’s controversial designation as it was open arable farmland.

She said: “This open farmland site directly joins (Godalming’s) edge.

“If approved, development would sprawl westwards into the countryside that currently provides an essential  boundary between Godalming, Milford and Eashing.

She added: “The need for housing, including affordable housing, is real but that does not remove the duty to test whether this is the right site.”

Isabel Pearce told the meeting the plans would cause irreversible harm and,  when added to other recently approved schemes,  would put almost 1,000 new homes into the rural area  – without a coherent plan for how the area would cope.

She said: “This application attracted 84 letters of objection and not a single letter of support.

“That reflects genuine alarm about the cumulative and irreversible impact this proposal would have.

She said: “Our roads are already failing. Residents experience severe congestion at the Milford end of Eashing, with peak hour queues regularly taking 20 minutes or more.

“Adding hundreds more homes without strategic transport improvements will inevitably worsen congestion, increase pollution and further undermine road safety.

“Once countryside like this is urbanised, once settlements begin merging together, and once protected openness is chipped away, piece by piece, there is no meaningful route back.

Tracy Puttock speaking on behalf of the application said the land had been identified as suitable for development as part of wider scheme in Ockford Park.

She added that the council has failed in its housing delivery, falling below its five year housing supply.

“We appreciate that this application has generated strong local feeling and we are confident that through the planning process involving many months of pre-application work, those concerts have been properly and religiously examined.”

She noted that no statutory consultees objected.

She said the site was a place where people could live sustainably – something encouraged in planning.

There will be access provided to the schools and funding for digital demand bus services.

She added: “We are proud of what this scheme delivers, much needed housing, including affordable homes, highly sustainable new homes, keeping household bills down,”

Sustainability comes through its proximity to town centre and access to the  train station with lines into London and Portsmouth, the meeting heard.

Risk of successful appeal

Before voting to refuse the application, on the basis that they felt the grey belt test had been met – and that development on the green belt constituted harm, officers warned of the potential costly consequences.

They said: “I would have to advise you at this point, I think there is very little chance of you sustaining that reason for refusal.

“We’re dealing with a scheme that will, no doubt, if it is refused, be the subject of a public inquiry that will involve a significant amount of time, resources and council money.

“Before you take a vote to refuse, my advice is that this is not a sustainable reason for refusal and you will not be able to defend this position if it’s going to appeal.”

Councillors refused the plans by five votes to two with one abstention.