"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when once we practise to deceive.
Read more here: We must talk about that Milford Golf Course covenant and that challenge by Mr House of the Local Plan!
But here’s where The Centre For Cities believes development should go.http://www.centreforcities.org/blog/consensus-green-belt-reform-growing-pressure-government-act/
Editor’s Note: Protect our Little Corner claims to represent ‘a very large and continually growing number of concerned Waverley residents whose interest is in sustainable, balanced and appropriate development. We are seeking development to be led by a robust Local Plan and sustainable developments that meet local need as encouraged under the NPPF.’
Ah! well, that is the price we pay for democracy – another shedload of taxpayers’ money on its way to the legal beavers!
But then she revved up the rhetoric, saying: ” I am appalled I am absolutely horrified that these groups want to waste taxpayers money by trying to sabotage the Local Plan – it is despicable.”
She said both POW (a limited company) and the CPRE had ticked the box on the legal papers marked AARHUS (The Arthur’s convention which set a limit on costs of £5,000 for individuals and £10,000 for companies) – thereby limiting their individual costs to just £10,000 whilst the cost to the borough would be huge.
But she warned, all challenges would be defended robustly, with no stone unturned, all those involved in the Judicial Review had been given ample opportunity to have their say since 2013, and their concerns had been heard, listened to, and debated upon. The Local Plan was approved and would be fiercely defended.
Cranleigh Councillor Mary Foryszewski shared her “anger” and asked would the courts allow the challengers to risk so little of their money after forcing the Council to, “Spend, spend, spend.”
Councillor Jed Hall said – “the armchair pressure groups” should not be allowed to undermine local, and national planning decisions.
… However, not everyone agreed.
Farnham Residents’ Councillor Jerry Hyman side-swiped the leader Julia Potts for her inexcusable use of the word “despicable” saying to describe Waverley residents as “despicable” was taking too harsh a line. “We should respect our residents’ and their right to challenge – if the courts decide they are wrong then so be it. But it was their right” He said there were also many other residents of the borough who believed it was wrong that Waverley should be forced to take part of Woking’s unmet housing need.
Councillor Wyatt Ramsdale – admitted he ‘wasn’t a massive fan of the LP,’ but, “this plan is better than no plan. Our residents have every right to criticise but the NIMBY approach here is just for their particular area!”
Planning Portfolio Holder Councillor Christopher Storey stressed that the Local Plan meant Waverley was no longer Developer-led, but Plan lead, and it carried full weight and would be defended. Any attempt to question its entirety would destroy the council’s credibility.
The mathematicians in one small part of the borough – but an area most affected by not having an up-to-date blueprint for development, has had the abacus out! And Cranleigh Civic Society’s findings make grim reading, they are quite simply – staggering! Particularly if these figures are extrapolated across all the major towns.
At last, we have a LOCAL PLAN, but even that is now the subject of three separate Judicial Reviews to be heard in the High Court shortly!
An agreed LOCAL PLAN gives Waverley Planners power to control future housing development; they can plan for the development of new infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, hospitals etc. More important it enables the Borough Council to charge house builders a COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY known as CIL for short.
What is CIL?
CIL raises monies towards the cost of the new Infrastructure needed for developments to go ahead. What a wonderful step forward we all exclaim!! and so it is. But what of the housing already approved? 2,000 houses and growing every day throughout the borough.
Unfortunately, CIL is not retrospective.
How much will Waverley charge? www.waverley.gov.uk/CIL
Waverley’s draft proposal sets a CIL rate of £395/ Sq Metre of floor area for all new housing, (about £40,000 on an average 3-bed house), except quite reasonably for “Affordable Housing” where there is no charge. So taking the 35% of Affordable Housing the Borough is committed to building away from the approximately 2,000 houses so far approved, there will be a loss of CIL to the tune of a minimum £60 MILLION pounds. £60 MILLION pounds that will NOT be available to improve our ROADS, our SCHOOLS, our HOSPITALS, our BOROUGH!!
How could this have happened we may ask? It happened because our planning officers at Waverley failed to come up with a plan that satisfied the Government’s criteria for a LOCAL PLAN.
How a Local Plan is developed by the Borough Planners
The basic criteria affecting us as council tax payers was to identify suitable sites for new housing. This has to satisfy the Central Government’s housing policy, a requirement that was for about 350 houses a year until 2032. Woking BC have had an agreed Local Plan for some years that has now proved inadequate, so the inspector added a further 150 or so houses per year to WBC’s to cover their shortfall! So WBC’s Yearly requirement rose to 509 houses until 2032 (a total of 7,126 houses) 35% of which must be “Affordable”. Plus a further rise to 590 was deemed necessary by the inspector recently to take account of some of Woking’s unmet need.
What of democracy?
Of these 7,126 houses, a minimum of 4,300, rising to perhaps 5,000 are planned for CRANLEIGH and DUNSFOLD, with the balance spread around the rest of the Borough; We have to ask – just how democratic is that?
Improvements to our Local Roads and Rail?
Perhaps we could have a new road to rescue us from the A281 Blight? Unfortunately not: there will, however, there will be a new roundabout at Shalford. The Elmbridge Road and Bramley crossroads junctions will be reconfigured, There will also be a new Canal bridge at Elmbridge but no new bridge over the old Railway.
What of the Railway?
No plans whatsoever have been considered since SCC’s last feasibility study found not enough demand and not affordable. However, Waverley is stipulating in the Draft Local PPlan {Part 2)
So if anyone comes along with a cunning plan for introducing a new railway line – “the movement corridor’ is protected! So watch out By-Pass Byham you may get what you wished for!
What of DUNSFOLD AERODROME?
There is a plan for 1,800 homes, plus businesses,, shops, a school, a medical centre approved by the Government. The adopted Local Plan, now being challenged also includes increasing this to £2,600.
Dunsfold, due to its approval when 106 agreements were applicable and due to the limitation CIL would have on this major development there will be NO CIL. However, the Dunsfold developer will be contributing well over £50m towards a whole series of infrastructure improvements, not just the five included in CIL contributions.
And that is just the East of the Borough. Maybe, someone over here in Farnham will do the maths here?
The very thorough Bea at the Haslemere Herald featured the issue of Mr House’s Covenant on Milford Golf Course, which is now the subject of a legal challenge to the Local Plan.According to the Herald’s busy little Bea, in the Local Plan part one, surplus land at Milford Golf Club was allocated as a ‘strategic’ site for 180 houses, although it is in the green belt. Government Inspector Jonathon Bore has requested it’s GB status be removed to help meet Waverley’s and some of Woking’s housing targets.
However, the land is the subject of a restrictive covenant owned by adjoining householders who are determined to prevent a major development on their doorstep.
The historic covenant allows some development, but not on such a large scale. It stipulates “one detached dwelling house to the acre with one lodge and one cottage suitable for and intended for occupation by a gardener, chauffeur or other employees of the occupier of the said dwelling house”.
Let’s all hark back to the ‘good old days’ when we all had housekeepers, gardeners and indeed the new must-have – a chauffeur.
Mr House seems to be relying on this very old-fashioned covenant, in a document he is yet to disclose to the Council or the Planning Inspector. The Covenant doesn’t save the site from development, in fact, it actually encourages development!
As the ‘Houses’ (very apt name for a lawyer attempting to prevent just that) but acknowledges, the total number of units which could be built consistent with the covenant is 81: 27 main dwelling houses together with up to two units of staff accommodation on each plot (see §29 of counsel’s opinion).
Whether 27 or 81 is used as the number of units that could be built consistent with the covenant, any additional disruption would not be sufficiently substantial to satisfy the test.
The existing house is well set back from the boundary line and shielded by a mature boundary of trees and hedgerow. The house cannot be seen from the development land. In addition, there is no good evidence (indeed any evidence) to show that any reduction in value to the House’s land would be significantly affected regardless of whether the development was 27, 81 or 180 units.
Waverley’s detailed response to the Local Plan inspector about the covenant – [link] with some excerpts highlighted below:
Haslemere Herald report of Local Plan February 2018
No doubt the High Court will be viewing those conveyancing documents soon?!