‘Disconnect’ between planning policy and reality, survey finds

‘Disconnect’ between planning policy and reality, survey finds

Over three quarters of planning committee members surveyed said the government’s 1.5 million homes target is “unachievable,” according to the results of a survey published recently.

The top reason given for the expected failure to hit the target was skills shortages within the construction industry (33%), followed by land banking by developers. Just 3% of respondents said the planning system itself “cannot cope”.

This is the fifth year that SEC Newgate has surveyed planning committee members about barriers to building and government policy and 485 took part in this year’s survey.

Respondents also raised concerns about the return to mandatory housing targets, with 63% opposed to this move and 73% objecting to how targets were calculated using existing housing stock.

The report concluded there is a “significant disconnect between national policy ambitions and the realities faced by those on the front lines of planning and delivery”.

Over 90% said the housing crisis has worsened, with 77% categorising it as “severe”.

Perry Miller, head of advocacy local at SEC Newgate, said: “Councillors are very clear that addressing the root causes of the failure to build enough homes is essential if the housing crisis is to be meaningfully addressed and the government is to achieve its ambitious housing target”.

What are the biggest challenges to housing delivery in our area?

Developers claiming lack of viability for delivery of affordable housing
68%
Slow build-out by developers
58%
Lack of funding for affordable housing
55%
Community opposition to schemes
47%
Lack of suitable sites in local area
45%
Resourcing issues in the planning team
29%
Submitted schemes do not align with the character of local area
27%
Policy constraints .e.g. Green Belt
23%
Lack of up-to-date Local Plan
23%
Slow response from statutory consultees
19%
Submitted schemes are not in the Local Plan
18%
Insufficient communication between key parties in the planning policy
18%
Lack of schemes coming forward
17%
Submitted schemes are not compliant with planning policy
16%
Other
3%
Not applicable: housing delivery is on target in my authority area
2%

Godalming wants to secure its assets beforeLGR kicks in.

Andy Jeffery, Clerk of Godalming Town Council, has put Waverley on the spot regarding its tardiness in dealing with requests for the transfer of some of the borough’s community assets.

 

Perhaps this might help. Guildord & Waverley getting closer every day.

In a written question, he asked :

Given the apparent difficulties in responding to the relatively modest requests made to date, the Town Council wanted confirmation that Waverley can manage multiple requests likely to be submitted for Community Asset Transfers across the existing borough within the shortened timeframes predicted by Surrey’s Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).

If WBC is lacking capacity, what support, if any, would WBC require from GTC to expedite the process?

Responding, Cllr Mark Merryweather wrote:

The CAT policy is in place to provide a transparent, fair, and consistent framework for considering the appropriateness of applications for asset transfers between the Council and organisations and groups.

Waverley is obliged to fully consider the implications of CATs as part of its robust corporate asset management processes, ensuring it protects the interests of the existing Council (and its successor Council) as the long-term custodian of its assets.

A thorough assessment of risks and sustainable business cases is an essential step to undertake before any transfer can be recommended for approval, together with the financial implications for the Council (and its successor). The Council must ensure that any transfer provides value for money and offers the best consideration for land and building transfers.

The CAT policy outlines the detailed requirements for applying, as well as the information that the business case must contain. Godalming Town Council can therefore aid the process by providing complete, detailed information that demonstrates how their application meets all the requirements set out in the policy.

At this point, although we haven’t seen a significant increase in applications, we are aware that this is a possibility. If so, in the first instance, it will be most resource-intensive for the applicant to prepare the appropriate submissions. We are aware of this, and not only will it be a demand on our limited resources, but also that the timeframe for processing them may be curtailed by an unreasonable deadline. The Council will keep resources under review to ensure that applications can be considered within reasonable timescales.

Mr Jeffery added that one issue, having seen the response from WBC, is that the fees and legal fees are met by the applicant, which Godalming Town Council understands. However, in the policy, there is no indication of what those legal fees may be, and therefore, the clerk can’t seek agreement to pay fees as he is unable to “write an open cheque”.

Please, therefore, indicate what those legal fees may be.

This information will be provided.

 

Objections grow to development in Wrecclesham

 

Farnham residents are piling in to object to a developer’s bid to build on a treasured area of woodland known as Burnt Hill Wood West.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16JVpRjvnF/

WA/2025/00971

Here’s what the areas Conservation Group says:

Although the vast majority of the work of The Bourne Conservation Group is of a practical nature it does occasionally comment on planning applications which are considered likely to damage the local environment.
This proposal to build 7 houses on open spaces adjacent to a choke point in The Bourne Valley comes within this category.
It is a site that we are very familiar with because we have worked many times for Waverley Borough Council in the nearby patch of woodland known as Burnt Hill Wood West and also for Surrey County Council on local footpaths such as Celery Lane.
The opposition of The Bourne Conservation Group to this application 
  • It will  affect the biodiversity of the immediate area
  • Obstruct the existing vital green corridor across South Farnham
  • Increase traffic congestion at a difficult point on Burnt Hill Road.
We also draw attention to a literary connection with the site that confirms its longer term biodiversity content.
*These objections will now be addressed in more detail.
Adverse Effect on Biodiversity
In The Bourne valley the mix of steep wooded slopes and open spaces supports a significant population of plant and animal species which are dismissed in this application as “common,” a description that misses the point that, at a time of a Climate Emergency, all species are of importance. Moreover, whatever species thatare present here contribute to the overall rich biodiversity of Farnham as a whole because of the wide variety of habitats that are present.
The application also describes the site as of “limited ecological value.” This view is likely to have been influenced by the fact that the Ecological Survey was carried out in December 2024, a time hardly likely to produce optimum results. We also believe it is a wrong assessment because the grassland open spaces in the valley are essential to aerial and land species for foraging away from the wooded slopes.
There is historical evidence of the value of these two fields in the writing of noted naturalist, Brian Vesey-Fitzgerald who describes in his book of 1977, “Town Fox Country Fox”, how he was able to observe wildlife in the Valley from the very slopes which form part of this application. He subsequently purchased and lived in the neighbouring property called Little Twynax
because of its attractive position in the valley.
Obstruction of South Farnham Green Corridor.
Farnham is now a growing town of well over 40,000 people which represents a potential barrier to the passage of wildlife. Fortunately, however, there are many green spaces both within its boundary and around it which, together with a number of natural corridors, provide support for wildlife and facilitate movement. In a study carried out by the Surrey Wildlife Trust in 2018 The Bourne Valley was recognised as a vital corridor through the urban environment of South Farnham. This is still the case today and strenuous efforts are being made by Councils and volunteer groups to conserve the trees, hedgerows and green spaces to maintain this corridor which is a link between the Surrey Hills in the East and Alice Holt Forest in the West.
Increased Traffic Congestion
Access to the proposed seven properties is from Lodge Hill Road at a point constricted to a single vehicle lane by the combination of a tight corner and the
bridge over the stream. It is already a choke point even though only two properties access the road here.
We believe it is an unsuitable point at which to add the additional traffic generated by the householders of the 7 new properties and their associated service traffic which will inevitably include some large vehicles.
Conclusion
Because of the combination of adverse environmental and traffic factors noted above we lodge a strong objection to this application.
Noel Moss
Chairman
Another resident says:
Just saw this recently, really shocking. If this goes ahead not only is the loss of this little valley huge, but this will be extremely dangerous for kids walking to Weydon.
The bottom of Burnt Hill road near the bridge is *already* extremely dangerous for these kids, but the combination of no pavements plus giant construction trucks (probably rolling down the hill at 8am, same time as the kids) for what, the next 2-3+ years is genuinely concerning.

Will fossil fuel exploration ever happen in Dunsfold?

In just a few days, the deadline for UCOG (UK Oil & Gas) to drill for fossil fuels at the Loxley Well in Dunsfold expires.

The exploration company’s drilling licence, which has cost Surrey, Waverley Council, and protestors millions in past attempts to stop the oil giants’ bid to ‘drill, drill, drill’, runs out soon.

As the June 30, 2025, deadline approaches, it appears that UCOG suspended its shares in April due to a lack of audited accounts. However, it still maintains that its “Prized assets ” are the Loxley Well in Dunsfold and Horsehill, both located in Surrey.

So, where exactly does that leave  Alfold farmer, Ashley Ward, in his Ewing-type bid to get rich quick on his farm? Not that he needed UCOG’s help – he duped Waverley planners into giving him planning consent for a cattle finishing unit on part of the farm. And, of course, a new farmhouse so he could watch over his  enterprise. Have the cattle appeared yet? Locals have seen a few sheep grazing there.

Neither Waverley nor Surrey supported the UKOG planning application, which was subsequently approved on Appeal. Work at Lower Loxley has not started yet; it was contingent on a traffic management plan being submitted first. This was to overcome the dangers of traffic at a dangerous junction.

UKOG has suspended its shares since April due to a lack of Audited Accounts.
Their deadline to start work is June 30, 2025.

Background:

“Your Waverley’s fight with others to stop exploratory drilling on the Loxley Site in Dunsfold suffered a punishing setback when an appeal court judge refused permission to take the case further.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith said an appeal had no prospect of success. The Court of Appeal’s decision was final and could not be reviewed or appealed. He said:

“ The planning permission will now remain in full force and effect for its full term”, 

Pictured: MP Sir Jeremy Hunt who opposed drilling near his home in Hascombe and then went silent on the subject.

Following the decidion UKOG chief executive Stephen Sanderson was jubilant:

“We are pleased that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has once again dismissed the legal challenge to our Loxley project and has confirmed that its planning consent is entirely lawful, as the Company and its counsel have maintained.

“We believe that a successful project will be beneficial to local and national level energy and economic interests and is fully in keeping with the government’s Hydrogen, Energy Security and Net Zero strategies.”

 

Is a Waverley Health Centre refusing patients vital blood tests

A Ewhurst patient claims he has been refused a blood test for prostate cancer.

While others, including both The King & Sir Chris Hoy, are urging men to seek regular testing.

We are protecting the name of the individual and the specific Health Centre where the request was made for the sake of fairness and confidentiality.

The patient reached out and asked on a local Facebook page if anyone had experienced the following issue.
“I was refused a prostate cancer blood test this morning. -Given how many men die from this disease, I’m absolutely gobsmacked they’ve refused!!
Has anyone else been told no? I had been having one every two years. I have to have it done privately now.
Edit: booked to have it done privately this Sunday – £25. I’m guessing this is what my surgery wanted as they want to cut costs
In Summary, Roly Staples wrote the following response.
This, from a medical practice, is outrageous. The same thing happened to our ex-son-in-law, a Cranleigh Taxis driver. About two or so years ago, he asked for a PSA test to check. He was told, without noticeable symptoms, he didn’t need one. 
This, from a medical practice, is outrageous. The same thing happened to our ex-son-in-law, a local taxi driver, two or three years ago.
 
He also asked for a PSA test as a precaution and was told that “without any noticeable symptoms he didn’t need one.!
Later, he began passing blood, and he died in January from Stage 4 aggressive
terminal prostate and bladder cancer.  He endured six months of the most awful treatment, but he subsequently died. 
Before his death, he urged me (aged 78) to seek a test, though I had experienced no noticeable symptoms. I saw the same doctor, who didn’t quibble and booked me a test.
It turned out I have stage 3 metastasised aggressive prostate cancer, yet I had no noticeable symptoms.  Incredibly, his pernicious disease can progress so rapidly without any noticeable symptoms.
I now urge every male I know to DEMAND a PSA and not to be fobbed off.
Others responded, saying that they too had experienced the same problems.
Said one. This is awful. I have regular breast cancer screening as a woman of a certain age. Men should have the same entitlement.

This site explains steps to take if you are refused  a PSA test: