A government Inspector has dropped a bit of a bombshell on the heads of “Your Waverley” but its Planning Experts,” say it ain’t complaining…Yet!
You can read it here on the Waverley Web Post: Another kick in that Appeal decision’s tail?
A question from Ewhurst Parish Councillor Ian Davies prompted this response from a Waverley planning “expert.”
“Members will have all seen the inspector’s decision on the Hewitts Industrial Estate in Cranleigh in which he states we do not have a five-year housing supply.” as the decision letter had only just been received , “we are looking at it intently with our lawyers but are confident we do have a five-year supply of housing.”
A few days later at a meeting of the Council’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee Chief Planning Officer Liz Sims said she hoped the Local Plan Inspector would take a different view to the Inspector of the Hewitts’ appeal. She said , that appeal , had been held well before a number of developments had been approved and which had now bolstered the housing supply. ” So we are maintaining our position – nothing has changed, for the time being, and it is – business as usual.”
Councillor Davies was objecting to an application for two houses on land at Pennings, Plough Lane, Ewhurst, but commented he had been left “confused” both by the Inspector’s housing supply comments, and a Waverley planning officers’ recommendation to approve the application before the eastern committee for development in the countryside in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
He believed : When the Inspector overturned the council’s refusal of the Hewitts development he had thrown the `Local Plan – (soon to be examined by another Government Inspector in public ) into, “absolute confusion.” Saying he believed this would be a “very important principle” when new local Plan was examined.
After lengthy debate and a dire warning from Ewhurst resident Michael Fanya, that if allowed, the proposed development could open the floodgates to many similar sites all over the Waverley borough – the application by Katie Boyd – was refused by majority vote. However, most councillors believed if the application had contained details on the type and design of houses, rather than being in outline only, they may have a very different view.
Mr Fanya told the committee, nearby residents may not have a right to a view – but they did have the right to their privacy.
This is the Hewitts’ Inspector’s view: