Questions Raised Over Community Benefits Promised By House Builders

Published on: 2 Mar, 2026
Updated on: 2 Mar, 2026

The land that had been earmarked for a new GPs’ surgery in Ash. “Any uncertainties should have been clear before consent for the new estate was granted,” says John Ferns.

By David Reading

A campaigning resident has voiced his frustration at what he sees as repeated failures in the deliverability of community benefits that had been promised by developers who were granted planning permission for housing in the Ash and Tongham area.

John Ferns, a retired college finance bursar, has drawn up a record of what commitments have been made by developers in the Ash area, and the outcomes.

Those commitments, known as Section 106 agreements, help to mitigate the impact of housing developments by providing funding for local environmental projects, infrastructure, community facilities and other improvements. They are legally binding.

This whole s.106 issue will be brought into focus in the Tongham-Ash-Normandy area by new major housing schemes for which developers are hoping to receive planning permission.

Developers Taylor Wimpey have submitted an outline application to build up to 420 homes on greenfield land at Manor Farm, Tongham. They have said their development will include numerous benefits for the area, including walking and cycling routes, green space, play areas, trees, hedges, wildlife features and drainage systems.

Taylor Wimpey has also submitted an outline application for up to 950 homes between Normandy and Flexford. The company says benefits will include elderly people’s accommodation, a primary school, a Special Educational Needs school, playing fields, a neighbourhood centre, retail floorspace and a medical centre.

Having studied past s.106 “failures”, Mr Ferns believes Guildford Borough Council should tighten up its system for managing developers’ obligations by ensuring there is:

Proof of deliverability for s.106 obligations before planning consent is given.
An independent audit of what is actually delivered compared with what was agreed at council committee stage.
An automatic review or sanction where obligations are not delivered within agreed timeframes.
Greater transparency for communities on post-approval enforcement.

Mr Ferns’ researches have led him to the conclusion that there are clear examples in the Ash and Tongham area where there were s.106 obligations that led to an unsatisfactory outcome. For example:

The new Bewley Homes estate south of Ash Lodge Drive, Ash

The s.106 obligations included:

Land to be set aside by Bewley for a primary healthcare centre
New community allotments

Mr Ferns pointed out that neither the medical centre nor the allotments had been delivered more than six years after consent.

He said: “It’s clear that s.106 obligations were cited as material public benefit at GBC’s committee stage, but not enforced post approval.

“I am not alleging wrongdoing. I am arguing that a commitment that exists on paper may satisfy the ‘process’ and the bureaucrats but until that commitment becomes a reality, it means nothing. This is the issue that needs addressing.”

The council has replied that regarding the healthcare site, the NHS told Bewley they didn’t want the land. The NHS insists that the best way to meet the area’s increase in population will be to invest in existing GP services rather than by building a new surgery.

GBC’s statement continued: “Bewley were hopeful to get another healthcare provision, but no other users were found. The provision for medical purposes expired, so other options are being explored for development on the site.”

This is true. The site in question, at Hammersley Drive, is now subject to a planning application for a care home. However, Mr Ferns points out that the original intention to use the site for a GPs’ surgery was intended to meet the huge demand for healthcare among the growing population. A care home does not satisfy that need, he said.

“My point is that any uncertainty should have been clear before consent was granted,” Mr Ferns said.

On the subject of community allotments, the council responded: “Land was provided for the creation of community allotments. However, since planning permission was granted for this site, the waiting list for allotments in Ash substantially reduced.

“Ash Parish Council also decided they did not want to take responsibility for running the allotments. There is no vehicle access and no parking spaces, which would make it difficult for people to use them, and the associated running costs would impact the Parish Council and residents who pay the parish precept through Council Tax.”

Mr Ferns said: “Again, my point is that any uncertainties should have been clear from the outset. There is an urgent need for clarity and rigorous scrutiny at council committee stage.”

The new estate at Admiral Park, Tongham

Mr Ferns said the issue here concerned s.106 payments intended to support local schools.

“A £898,000 payment was mandated via s.106 to expand Farnham Heath End Secondary School,” he said. “But this is outside the immediate locality of the development. Ash Manor School is within 1,500 metres from the development and walkable. Section 106 mitigation was not locally rational, despite being presented as addressing educational impact. Families with both primary and secondary-aged children faced multiple school drop-offs at potentially widely dispersed locations.”

John Ferns has raised questions about money earmarked for Ash Grange

Mr Ferns believes there is a further issue relating to Ash Grange Primary School.

He said: “GBC have been obtaining contributions specifically for this school for years from developers and yet none of it appears to have been spent on the school even though it is close to the majority of the new residents who have moved into the area. I understand that currently these contributions – from a number of developers – stand at £3.8 million. My question is: will this money definitely be spent on Ash Grange and is there a timescale?”

GBC has replied: “Education and highways projects are led by Surrey County Council. Historically contributions have been collected for early years, primary and secondary education. As pupils can travel to schools elsewhere in the county there is no requirement for contributions for secondary education to be spent within the borough. Contributions for primary education will be site specific. There have been instances where contributions have been collected for specific improvements to early years provision, but it has not been possible to deliver these.

“Providing new early years places for additional children at Ash Grange Primary School, generated by the development in the Ash and Tongham area, is yet to be agreed. We’re holding this money, but it is up to SCC to decide how it is best to spend it. There is feasibility work underway to develop the project and release these funds.”

May and Juniper Development, Ash Green

Mr Ferns pointed out that a s.106 agreement of 40 per cent affordable housing provision was agreed when planning permission for this development was granted. However this became undeliverable in practice even though affordable housing had been cited as a decisive public benefit. Instead, Mr Ferns said, the council agreed to accept “First Homes and Discount Market Sale” units — homes sold at a 30 per cent discount but with none of the long-term safeguards of social or affordable rented housing, and no ongoing council control.

Once again, Mr Ferns’ point is that any uncertainties about s.106 promises should be clear before planning consent is granted. The process needs tightening up, he said, adding: “Any discussions at GBC might include pre-consent proof of deliverability for s.106 obligations; independent audits; and an automatic review where obligations are not delivered within agreed timeframes.

“Without such measures, public confidence in the s.106 system will continue to be seriously damaged.”

Defending its record, GBC said: ” We’ve previously released funds for enhanced bus provision, road safety and capacity improvement schemes on the roads surrounding developments in the Ash area.”

A further key question is, will s.106 obligations be affected by Local Government Reorganisation? GBC said: “Reorganisation will not affect these agreements, nor will it change how, where, or on what the collected funds are used.”