Wisley Planning Appeal Commences But Soon Stalls Over Evidence Admissibility Issue

Published on: 19 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 20 Sep, 2017

Ockham residents objecting to the proposal to build at the former Wisley airfield gather outside the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre waiting for the appealing hearing to commence.

The planning appeal hearing for the Wisley Property Investments’ (WPI) application to build over 2,000 homes on the former airfield site at Wisley commenced today (September 19) but soon stalled over a dispute regarding the late submission of evidence by the appellants.

A public gallery of over 100 was in attendance at the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre where the hearing is initially being held.

There were over 100 members of the public in attendance.

The hearing, is being chaired by Planning Inspector Clive Hughes who emphasised that he had already walked and driven extensively in the area started with opening statements from the various parties.

Planning Inspector Clive Hughes

Facing the appellants, WPI, there were ranged the various parties opposing the appeal: Guildford Borough Council; Wisley Action Group; Effingham Parish Council; Highways England; Ripley Parish Council; the local vicar speaking on behalf of his parish and local resident and campaigner, Ben Paton.

Amongst those in attendance were Sir Paul Beresford MP for Mole Valley, Julie Iles, Conservative county councillor for The Horsleys, Paul Kennedy, Lib Dem district councillor and Tim Harald of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE).

In attendance, Liberal Democrat councillors Paul Kennedy and Colin Cross. Cllr Cross was representing Ripley Parish Council.

Although the public gallery was overwhelmingly made up of Wisley area residents, opposing the application, and despite the fact that the participants were on stage amidst the set for the Yvonne Arnaud’s current production Strictly Murder, the hearing was conducted in an orderly way, no blood was spilt and all parties were listened to respectfully.

Only once, in the morning session, did the inspector feel the need to remind members of the public to keep order when they applauded a detailed and powerful critique of the appellant’s case presented by Mr Paton, whose property adjoins the former airfield.

James Maurici QC said that WPI are basing their appeal on 12 issues, including: the Wisley site is the largest area of previously developed land with the Metropolitan green belt; that the site has been included in successive version of Guildford’s emerging Local Plan; that the need for more housing in Guildford is acute; that the council has accepted that some release of green belt land is necessary and that housing shortage can be considered an “exceptional circumstance” necessary to justify this.

Highlighting the housing shortage in Guildford, a press release issued in support of the WPI appeal stated: “Wisley airfield is the obvious place to deliver new homes as part of a new community. It’s been disused for decades and contains over 70 acres of crumbling concrete runway and hard standing area.”

Simon Bird QC introducing the Guildford Borough Council’s case against allowing the appeal said the 14 areas of objection given at the time of refusal had now been whittled down to just two. These were: the effect of the proposed plan on the character and appearance of the area and whether it had been demonstrated that “very special circumstances” existed to justify such development with the green belt.

It had earlier been clarified that despite some objector’s dissatisfaction with GBC’s stance and the reduction of their case the council could not be cross examined by other parties supporting refusal of the appeal.

Wisley Action Group’s case was presented by leading planning QC Richard Harwood. He said that the group’s case rested on three principal reasons: It is harmful development in the green belt, not justified by very special reasons; it would have an adverse effect, by air pollution, on the Special Protection Area at Wisley; and that scheme did not have any coherent, assessed highways proposals, in particular for the nearby A3 and M25.

Revd Hugh Grear

Further opening speeches were made on behalf of Effingham Parish Council, Ripley Parish Council, Cobham Conservation Heritage Trust and by Ben Paton and the Rector of Ockham Hugh Grear who said, ” Please don’t think that our opposition is NIMBYISM. Our community is wonderfully welcoming… The simple fact is we are opposed to this proposed development because it is the wrong plan, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.”

Sir Paul Beresford concluded the opening statements by saying: “This site is isolated and could only produce an isolated development. In the opinion of a previous, senior, competent Guildford borough council planner there would be high risk of it becoming an isolated ghetto.”

There were several references throughout the morning session to the late submission of evidence, by the WPI appellants, regarding mitigation of the impact on local highways.

After lunch the issue was brought to a head when the inspector decided he wanted expert opinion on its admissibility. The hearing adjourned slightly early and was ordered to re-convene tomorrow (September 20) at a delayed start time of 11pm to allow expert consideration of the admissibility issue.

County Cllr Julie lles commented: “Along with many other residents I attended the start of the planning inquiry in to the proposed development at the former Wisley airfield. With more than a hundred of us there this surely sends a strong message of opposition to the plans.

“At times, when the appellants QC was presenting their case, I felt like I had strayed in to a fantasy world. The mitigation they put forward surely cannot be sufficient to outweigh the inappropriate and harmful development in the green belt.

“Air quality issues and resultant pollution bother me and I share Highways England’s concerns at the failure to agree coherent proposals that might mitigate the impact that traffic from the proposed development would have on the Strategic Road Network around the A3 and the M25, not to mention the local roads and the lack of sustainable transport links.”

Share This Post