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.

Share This Post