Residents ‘Shocked and Concerned’ at AONB Planning Decision

Published on: 31 Aug, 2016
Updated on: 1 Sep, 2016

Local residents have written a collective letter to express their “shock and concern” at a recent decision to allow development that will harm the entry to the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

A planning proposal to demolish a house and garage at 1 Little Warren Close and replace them with two new dwellings is according to objectors “garden grabbing”. Fifty letters of objection were received by GBC and none in support of the application.

Map showing location of site within Guildford

Guildford Borough Council (GBC) planning officers said in their report: “Whilst the site is within the AONB it must be considered in the context of its surroundings. The plot is within the designated urban area of Guildford and is surrounded by existing residential development on all sides.”

The officers concluded: “The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle and would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the site and surrounding area, the AONB, neighbouring amenity or highway safety… Furthermore it is acknowledged that the council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites,” and recommended approval.

Site outlined in thicker black line as it is currently, containing one dwelling.

But in the letter addressed to the leader of GBC, Cllr Paul Spooner (Con, Ash South & Tongham) and the chairman of the Surrey Hills Board, Cllr David Wright OBE, residents have described their shock at the way AONB protection has been set aside in favour of development.

Closer view of site with the two new proposed dwellings shown.

In a press release from the residents of Little Warren Close, One Tree Hill Road and Downside they state AONB is: “a national designation to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape and the boundaries are approved by a minister on the advice of Natural England.

“Currently, development thins and a hedge-lined garden marks the entry into the AONB along One Tree Hill Road which is on the route to St Martha’s in South East Guildford. As a result of the recent planning decision, two large, new five bedroom houses facing onto One Tree Hill Road will mark the start of the Surrey Hills AONB.”

Michael Conoley spoke in favour of the application

Michael Conoley, the applicant’s agent, of Michael Conoley Associates, spoke at the planning meeting in favour of the application. He said: “There is reference in the officer’s report to this site sitting within the AONB but it is not covered by the designation at all. The building to be demolished has no redeeming features and it can only detract from its landscape setting.

“The two buildings that are proposed take their design pointers from a pattern of development in the area which reflects Edwardian, 19th century [sic] quality buildings and will be an improvement to the site… This scheme will form a great gateway to the AONB by providing quality dwellings.”

Rosemary Morgan

Rosemary Morgan, chair of Downsedge Residents Association, disagreed. Saying after the meeting that the decision to approve the application: “…flies in the face of the duty to give the AONB the highest status of landscape protection, the same as a National Park.

“Residents came away from the recent Planning Committee meeting at which this application was decided deeply shocked by the way the proposal was presented by the case officer, alarmed that misleading comments were not corrected, and troubled by the manner of the debate and by the behaviour of several Councillors.”

Cllr Nils Christiansen

Nils Christiansen, one of three Conservative ward councillor for Holy Trinity, in which Little Warren Close sits, said: “I was surprised and disappointed by the outcome of this particular planning application. In my view greater weight should have been afforded to the fact that the plot is in the AONB, and the application should have been rejected.

“It is important to understand however, that planning decisions are rarely clear-cut and this was no exception. The officers and committee sought to apply a series of conflicting rules, and to weigh these appropriately, in accordance with the law. We can legitimately disagree about the ‘correct’ weighting of each rule, without the decision process necessarily being flawed.

“Regrettably, this application was heard whilst I was away on holiday and I was therefore unable to express my opinions in person. I do think more consideration could be given to ensuring that local councillors have an opportunity to speak on applications in their ward whenever possible – if necessary by deferring an application. After all, they have the best understanding of the local context to explain to other committee members.”

Tim Harrold CPRE

Tim Harrold of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) commented: “The Surrey Hills AONB should be given great weight in planning decisions and I do not feel that this happened in this case.

“It is small wonder that residents came away with the impression that AONB ‘counts for nothing’. Failure to respond to the assessment by the Surrey Hills AONB Planning Adviser that the proposal would ‘harm the edge, setting or gateway to the AONB’ was quite shocking.

“The incorrect comment by the applicant’s agent that although the site was in the AONB, it was ‘not covered by this designation at all’ remained uncorrected leaving a very misleading impression.”

One local resident Stephen Hofmeyr said: “I am troubled by the precedent that will be set by allowing garden grabbing development within the AONB at a popular gateway to the Surrey Hills. Surely we can do better than this in terms of the quality of advice, the decision making process and the decisions made.

“The impression was given that the council had already decided which applications it would approve before the meeting and that members would not be influenced by any arguments.”

The application was approved by a large majority of councillors at the GBC Planning Committee meeting on August 10.

The council leader and lead councillor for planning, Paul Spooner, who proposed the motion for approval, declined to comment.

Responses to Residents ‘Shocked and Concerned’ at AONB Planning Decision

Jim Allen Reply

September 1, 2016 at 7:54 am

It is a shame that the area did not opt for a neighbourhood plan several years ago – this could have gone some way to prevent this occurring. The officers’ interpretation and SCC Highways “observations” do not always seem follow common sense or rational thought patterns.
Susan Parker Reply

September 1, 2016 at 5:25 pm

The comments provided by CPRE, the Surrey Hills AONB planning adviser, the Guildford Society and residents were all persuasive and should have been heeded, on planning grounds. I share the concern of the Resident’s association that these were not fully recognised at the planning committee.

Personally I found the arguments compelling. As a result I was happy to second the proposal to refuse this planning application. Unfortunately, the refusal was overturned. As a result, this application was approved, for development within the boundaries of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Garden grabbing, which is in contravention of NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) guidelines, should have no place in local planning policy.

Susan Parker is the GGG ward councillor for Send.
Dominic Crolla Reply

September 1, 2016 at 11:21 pm

Seems to me that the Planning Department and the majority of the councillors present at the Planning Committee meeting failed to see that the proposal neither conserves nor enhances the AONB, within which the site lies.

They also failed to see that the proposed buildings overshoot the building line by over 20 feet. Readers can click on the link to this submission and scroll down to the slide and judge for themselves.

The question is how did that happen and why should a decision based on incorrect facts stand?
David Smith Reply

September 2, 2016 at 1:04 pm

To my mind Michael Conoley’s comments were correct about this development and it’s a shame that only the negative comments have been featured in this article. There were some very valid points made by councillors at the Planning Committee meeting and it was quickly established that this development would not represent overdevelopment as it is in line with other development and plot spacing in the immediate area.

I also don’t believe this is the gateway to the Surrey Hills at all – signage starts at Little Warren Farm / Barn which is some distance past this property.

It is obvious to everybody that this property has serious scope for development and if left as it is, it would probably have been enlarged on either side (as other houses in the road have done) in the same drab 1960s style as when it was built. This would look worse.

So I think it should be said that some residents came away shocked and disappointed but not all. There are about 31 houses in Downside Road and a further 21 in Little Warren Close. So based on those numbers and the fact that there are a number of properties on One Tree Hill Road itself there must have been many silent supporters of this scheme especially as there were multiple objectors from the same households.

Having grown up in the area and with parents living meters from this site I think these groups and objectors should be more concerned with the development of mega mansions in White Lane which bear no resemblance to the existing architecture and are in most cases highly prominent forming a wall of development on what is truly the AONB. Compared to neighbouring houses the approved properties are relatively modest in size and are a lot more in keeping in a more discreet position than the existing house which let’s face it, is an eyesore.
Dominic Crolla Reply

September 16, 2016 at 12:12 pm

David Smith, writes that he used to live metres away from the site, well hundreds of metres maybe, but I do live only metres away.

I repeat, Michael Conoley’s comments were incorrect and misleading. Sue Sturgeon has already acknowledged in her letter to me, part of which is discussed elsewhere in The Dragon, that he got one of this three points wrong, and she has chosen to remain silent on the other two.

So again I ask readers to look at this slide and judge for themselves. [Slide referred to appears to be iaccessible on GBC website. Ed]

It is not difficult. The proposal just does not fit in the area. What does the council get out of this? One extra 5 bedroom house to help it with its housing stock? But look at the recent strategic housing assessment and see what the demand is for 5 bedroom houses, it is zero, so why run with this?

Can I please clarify that the letter I sent was signed by me on behalf of 21 different households in close proximity of the site in question, many of whom attended said planning committee meeting, and all of whom agreed to the points raised in the letter. So please do not think that this is a one person crusade, it is a whole community that feels short changed.