Surrey’s Annual Housing Target Now at 10,981 – Council Pleas Ignored

Published on: 18 Dec, 2024
Updated on: 18 Dec, 2024

How much more green belt will be developed?

By Chris Caulfield

local democracy reporter

It is not just in Guildford that the housing target has been hiked; targets across Surrey are set to skyrocket under new Government plans.

On December 12 the long-awaited update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published.

It set out what councils and developers can and cannot do – and it has left boroughs and districts “disappointed” and “deeply concerned”.

Across Surrey the number of new homes expected to be delivered each year has been set at 10,981, a rise of 4,635 – with some boroughs and districts bearing a significantly heavier load than others.

Worst affected will be Elmbridge Borough Council which faces the double whammy of not only having its housing targets more than doubled, from 653 to 1,562, but also the prospect of having no Local Plan meaning developers have a much freer hand over where and what to build.

A spokesperson for  Elmbridge Borough Council said they were “reviewing  the new NPPF and its implications for Elmbridge’s Local Plan.”

The council was told in November that its plan, which sets out where and the type of development allowed in a borough, needs to be withdrawn and started over again or will be found  “unsound”, or unviable.

It will decide its next steps in February 2025.

Other boroughs facing huge surges in housing targets are Waverley, up from 710 to 1,481 a year and Reigate and Banstead – from 644 to 1,306.

The massive increase is largely in line with the July consultation targets, with  Woking the only council to see its figure drop.  Hopes that this might temper the skyscrapering of the town centre and preserve the green belt however must wait as the bankrupt borough’s final target,  only dropped by one on its July consultation figure – meaning it too faces a huge increase from 436 a year to 794.

Housing figures for Surrey. On the left the targets formulated under the previous standard method (not included in existing Local Plans) and what they have changed to under the new NPPF.

In October, reacting to publication of new proposed housing targets, then 1,102, GBC council leader Julia McShane and lead councillor for Planning Fiona White wrote a requesting a reduction but their plea was ignored by the Secretary of State for Housing, Angela Rayner and a slightly higher figure of 1,170.

See: GBC Asks Housing Minister to Reconsider Guildford’s Housing Target

Other councils in Surrey are in a similar position. Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s lead member for planning, Rich Michalowski said they had made what he described as a robust response to the Government’s planning consultation in July – when it was given a housing target of 1,264.

He described the Government’s decision not to heed the council’s feedback as  “disappointing”.

He said: “The council responded robustly to the Government’s consultation on the draft NPPF to make clear our concerns and the potential impacts for our borough.

“We are disappointed that our feedback has not been heeded.

“The borough’s housing target in the new NPPF of 1,306 homes per year is even higher than anticipated from the draft document (1,264).

“It is nearly three times higher than our current Local Plan target of 460 and more than double the target of 644 homes per year required by the previous NPPF.

“We have been working hard to succeed in delivering our Local Plan housing target, but these new targets will be extremely challenging.

“These changes alone would have severe implications for Reigate and Banstead’s green belt and the character of our towns and villages.

“We believe the standard methodology for calculating housing is flawed as it does not reflect the environmental and infrastructure constraints of our area.

“It will inevitably be a struggle to meet the new housing target from urban sites. If we can’t find sufficient sites in developed areas or other rural areas, we would be expected to undertake a Green Belt Review to find sites to meet the revised housing target.

“As part of our new Local Plan we will be undertaking an urban capacity study, leaving no stone unturned in order to maximise development in urban areas.”

Their concern is shared by Waverley Borough Council  – and in particular over changes to how the targets were calculated and its impact on green belt.

Cllr Liz Townsend, Waverley Borough Council’s  portfolio holder for planning, said the borough did support some of the changes being made to the planning system, but that the more than two-fold increase in housing was both unrealistic and uncalled for.

She said: “We are extremely disappointed that it has ignored the evidence we provided to their consultation, which clearly shows that its proposed ‘standard method’ for assessing housing need is entirely unrealistic for Waverley.

“The identified need for 1,481 new homes each year is two and a half times the current requirement in our local plan and would result in the borough’s population increasing by around 50 per cent  over the next 20 years.

“There is simply no evidence that there is this level of demand, or that building this number of homes in Waverley would necessarily make them more affordable.

“More importantly, we just don’t think that the target is realistic given the significant environmental and infrastructure constraints that affect the borough.”

She called for sustainable growth with environmental protections to nationally important landscapes and habitats.

Cllr Townsend said: “Our residents already face water supply disruptions and sewage overspills, the rural road network is crumbling, health services are overstretched, there is a shortage of secondary school places in Farnham, and some new developments have stalled due to power shortages.

“We need a clear national plan to address these issues before we can support large-scale development in Waverley.”

All councils must now face up to the new reality as their starting points for planning new homes.

Each borough will have to demonstrate to independent planning inspectors that they have explored all possible avenues for delivering new homes.

Share This Post