Wisley Planning Inquiry Proceeds While Late Evidence Is Reviewed

Published on: 25 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 26 Sep, 2017

The planning inquiry hearing at the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre with the planning inspector and involved parties on the stage.

Wisley Action Group (WAG) have been given nine working days to review evidence put forward the day before the appeal commenced by Wisley Property Investment’s (WPI) who are appealing against the refusal of their planning application to build over 2,000 houses on the former Wisley Airfield site.

The evidence relates to the possible re-arrangement of slip roads onto and off the A3, near to the proposed development site to help deal with the extra traffic generated and the effects on air quality.

Clive Hughes, the planning inspector hearing the appeal, decided against two other options, refusing the new evidence, an option Richard Harwood, WAG’s QC appeared to argue for, and an adjournment of the appeal, an option no party was seeking.

Richard Harwood QC representing Wisley Action Group

In an email circulated by WAG it was stated: “… the Appellant produced 161 pages of new evidence on Monday night [the day before the hearing commenced] – they have tried to lay the blame for this on Highways England but this is not accepted by various rule 6 parties [the parties objecting to the appeal].”

But in a procedural note from WPI it is stated that their submitted evidence: “…was being requested by HE [Highways England].”

James Maurici, the QC presenting the WPI case, also said: “The appellant has absolutely not been playing any kind of “tactical” game; its team of expert consultants have been working round the clock to produce the information HE is seeking.”

James Maurici QC representing the apellants Wisley Property Investments can be seen on the far left.

On Thursday, (September 21) Paul Sherman a planning officer from GBC was questioned by Maurici. Other parties objecting to the appeal have questioned why GBC’s case has been reduced to just two areas of objection from the 14 given at the time the proposal was refused, in April 2016.

The two remaining areas are: the effect of the proposed plan on the character and appearance of the area, and whether it had been demonstrated that “very special circumstances” exist to justify such development with the green belt.

On Tuesday, in response to a question from another objecting party, Ben Paton, the inspector made it clear that the objecting parties would not be allowed to cross-examine each other.

The appeal recommences tomorrow, Tuesday, September 26, in the council chamber at GBC, Millmead. It is expected to run until October 20.

Documents relating to the appeal can be viewed here.