Alan and VictoriaYoung, two former Surrey County Councillors for the Ewhurst Cranleigh patch, have joined the other droves of Waverley appellants looking for Gove’s Inspectors to overturn local opinion.
Tory Councillors – The Young duo – bang in another planning application.
The Two Conservative former councillors must have thought that the – ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ adage comfortably fitted their aspirations for the future.
Kerching! They bought up a backland field behind Mapledrakes Road, sent in the bulldozers to trash the trees and hedges and banged in a planning application for 20 two-storey homes through Crownhall Estate.
They didn’t wait for Waverley Planners to knock the scheme on the head but forged ahead with an appeal to the Government on the grounds of ‘non-determination.’
Now Waverley, forced into a corner, has supplied the Inspectorate with its view after receiving hundreds of objectors from Ewhurst villagers for a forthcoming Appeal by written representation.
Val Henry Ewhurst’s Tory Borough Councillor has already indicated she won’t stand in this May’s election. Can anyone blame her? She must feel she has been wasting her breath for four years.
Ewhust resident MP Angela Richardson, once a bag carrier in Minister Gove’s Levelling Down Brigade and friend of the Youngs – has remained silent!
Here’s Waverley’s view:
Had it been within the Council’s power to determine the application on 11 October 2022, the decision would have been to refuse for six reasons:
The proposal, by its backland, an effective, awkward and contrived form of development relating poorly to the existing settlement, fails to preserve the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and harms the area’s spatial character.
It would be contrary to Policies RE1, SP2 and TD1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018, retained Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002 and the NPPF. 2. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not harm protected species.
It has not been demonstrated that any adverse impacts would be avoided or mitigated, so it fails to comply with Policy NE1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018 and the NPPF 2021. In relation to the adjacent SNCI and Ancient Woodland, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in the loss of deterioration of ancient woodland or not have a likely adverse effect on either Westland Farm or Cobbler’s Brook Site of Nature Conservation Importance in conflict with Policy NE1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018 and the NPPF.
4. Or demonstrated that the proposal would not result in loss or fragmentation of the best or most versatile agricultural land. Therefore it conflicts with Policy RD9 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the guidance contained in the NPPF.
5. The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure the provision of on-site open space, including a LAP and LEAP and the management of open space. The proposal, therefore, conflicts with Policies LRC1 and ICS1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018 and the NPPF.
6. The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure affordable housing within the meaning of the NPPF, appropriate to meet Waverly Borough Council’s housing needs. The proposal would therefore fail to create a sustainable, inclusive and mixed community, contrary to the requirements of Policy AHN1 of the Local Plan (Part 1) 2018 and the NPPF.
A layout plan submitted with the application shows that the residential dwellings would predominantly be sited in an ‘L’ shape, with some dwellings sited perpendicular to the road and the rest parallel to it, forming a cul-de-sac. An open space area would be to the east, adjacent to the site access. Several garages are proposed. Of the 20 proposed units,14 would be market housing, and six would be affordable housing units (30% affordable housing).
The developer’s lengthy document can be found on the link above, together with objections from villagers.
None determination is the big problem here. Waverley needs to get it’s house in order and get the planning department back under one roof. The current situation can only get worse if urgent remedial action is not undertaken. Waverley needs to admit that working from home and an efficient planning operation are incompatible.
Sadly the whole country is now working from home, and efficiency in banks, utilities, and services generally has gone to pot. However, much of the problem at Waverley stems from the lack of professional planning staff. Is it any wonder, with house prices so high? Why would a planning officer want to work in Waverley when he or she could live comfortably in cheaper parts of the country? We know where we would be – somewhere in the beautiful Welsh valleys!
I agree. Waverley is the least affordable location in the country outside of London. Planners are not paid anywhere near enough (and indeed there simply are not enough planners in the UK anyway) so solving this issue is going to require a real shift in approach