5 thoughts on “Waverley gets more appealing every day!”

1. PLANNING OFTEN FAILS TO RECOGNISE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND THE LEGAL OBLIGATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. A PLANNING CASE WISELY MADE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BRING CONSENSUS.

   Reference Local Government Lawyer Feb 2023

   Inspector shoots down council bid to remove local plan Green Belt allocations.
   A council’s request to delete all Green Belt site allocations from its submitted local plan in light of the Government’s proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been denied by its planning inspector.

   In her response to Mole Valley District Council, Inspector R Barrett said she will continue examining the plan under the current NPPF as the suggested reforms are yet to be implemented.

   “The Government set out its proposed reforms to the NPPF in a consultation document published in December 2022. The consultation, which is still ongoing, details numerous changes to the planning system, including a change to “make clear” that local planning authorities “are not required to review and alter Green Belt boundaries if this would be the only way of meeting [housing] need in full”.

   It also proposes a change to the NPPF to make clear that targets set by the standard method for calculating house building numbers are an “advisory starting-point” to inform plan-making and are not mandatory.”

   “Until Government policy is changed (expected in Spring 2023), the Inspector will continue to examine the submitted plan against current Government policy, contained in the NPPF 2021. She therefore cannot recommend MMs predicated on draft Government policy that may or may not come into effect in its draft form.”

   The response added that “given the circumstances”, the inspector would be receptive to a request to pause the examination until there is greater certainty around future government policy. However, she could not ensure that the examination would not be delayed as a result.

   https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/planning/401-planning-news/53060-inspector-shoots-down-council-bid-to-remove-local-plan-green-belt-allocations

   For some an unfortunate burden of democracy is the obligation to consult the public with sufficient reason to justify their planning decisions after transparently taking the product of public consultation conscientiously into account before making the decision.

   Loading...

   Reply

   1. That is a really interesting article, so whilst you cannot ask for Green Belt Applications to be removed you could potentially “request” to Pause the Examination. That will no doubt help the sites in the TOWNS of Godalming and Haslemere/Hindhead and other larger Villages that have AONB and Green Belt – But what about Cranleigh and large parts of Farnham (that only have the SPAs etc..which can be mitigated??? ) or come to that Alfold and other small semi-Rural Villages with no Designations?

      As I have said so many times (I even hate the sound of my own Rants) GreenBelt is NOT applicable to villages like ours as we have (currently) no Urban areas in which to sprawl towards …. although Horsham is getting closer! …Until GREEN FIELD or BEST AGRICULTURAL LAND carries as much weight as Green Belt then this mess will continue.

      So we will continue to enjoy paying huge food Price increases (and I don’t mean the Mediterranean stuff) but some of the most basic Crops that we are losing due to Agricultural land being sold for Housing because the farmers cannot afford to have their crops esp. Fruit & Veg picked as we don’t have enough workers willing to do the time!

      I look forward to the Elections in May!

      Loading...

      Reply

      1. Cllr Hyman claims Waverley doesn’t have an Appropriate Assessment. As Cranleigh and the eastern villagers are within 15km of the Special Protection Area and the Thames Basin, then even Alfold has protection. So why isn’t someone using it – after all, Natural England is protecting a snail in West Sussex by putting a moratorium on housing due to water neutrality issues. So why not do the same in Waverley for the Dartford Warbler? What’s good enough for Sussex should be good enough for Surrey.

         Loading...

2. Some say that our broken planning system is not fit for purpose and favours developers.
   Consecutive government ministers have attempted to introduce new planning legalisation, but so far have got nowhere. I wonder why?
   Property development has long been a major issue in British politics, and many of the biggest players in property and construction have been significant Conservative funders.
   In the year that Boris Johnson became prime minister The Conservative Party received more than £11 million from some of the UK’s richest property developers and construction businesses, an “openDemocracy” investigation found.
   Donations to the Tories from the property business have been increasing significantly, with more than 120 individuals and companies connected to the sector giving money.
   Rather than blaming the Local Planning Authority for all our woes, perhaps Councillor Cockburn should be more vocal when it comes to criticising her Conservative colleagues in Central Government for their lacklustre performance on planning (and setting unachievable housing targets) But I don’t suppose that would go down very well in the local Conservative association.

   Loading...

   Reply

3. Frankly it is a failure of both administrations. The Conservatives for putting together a plan that cannot be delivered and the rainbow coalition for failing to recognise this and getting to a position where planning in Waverley is plan-led. The people who are affected are the residents of Waverley who are living in an unplanned ‘planning by appeal’ system and the people that need the housing…

   Loading...

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.