234-home residential development at Land to the east of, Eashing Lane, Godalming

“The application site is a 9.7ha parcel of arable farmland that is located on the southern boundary of Guildford borough. The site is bound to the south and west by Eashing Lane and to the north by Halfway Lane which is a public bridleway. To the south-east of the site are a number of two-storey dwellings and bungalows which are addressed to Aarons Hill.”

“In terms of the surroundings as noted above, there are residential dwellings to the east and south-east of the site which are within the settlement area of Godalming. This includes St Marks and All Saints CoE primary school on the opposite side of Eashing Lane, approximately 50 metres from the south-eastern corner of the site. On Halfway Lane (to the north of the site) is a small complex of commercial buildings which include a veterinary practice and a catering company.”

“19/P/01535 Creation of a temporary construction access, haul road and compound. Approve 04/12/2019 N/A”

“As noted above, the eastern access to the site falls outside of Guildford borough and a planning application for this element of the proposal is being considered by Waverley Borough Council. Details of the access application are provided below:”

“The Gardens Trust: The Trust's comments focus on Westbrook which is a Grade II registered park and garden. The following comments are noted: • the proposed development of 234 residential units may harm the setting of Westbrook, which is significant due to its historical and architectural value, including contributions from notable figures like Thackeray Turner and Gertrude Jekyll; • the site’s proximity to Westbrook means it is part of the park's wider setting, which is…”

“The Surrey Gardens Trust: The Surrey Gardens Trust (SGT) has raised concerns about the potential negative impact of the development on the setting and significance of Westbrook's gardens, particularly its rural character, key views, and sense of isolation. They highlight the importance of preserving the integrity of the landscape and suggest that the proposed green boundary may not sufficiently mitigate harm.”

“In debate, Members discussed at length whether the site met the definition of grey belt land. Concern was raised regarding the view that the site remained green belt rather than grey belt, arguing that it did not satisfy the relevant policy…”

“Members also discussed the site's sustainability credentials, affordable housing provision, educational infrastructure, landscape impacts and water supply capacity. Officers advised that Thames Water had identified network constraints but that conditions had been proposed to ensure that development could not be occupied until suitable infrastructure capacity was available.”

“Following debate, Councillor Hives moved an alternative motion to refuse the application on the basis that the site did not meet the definition of grey belt land and that the proposal would therefore constitute inappropriate development within the green belt, resulting in harm which was not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. The motion was seconded by Councillor Bigmore and was carried.”

“RESOLVED: That application 25/P/01474 be REFUSED on the grounds that the Committee did not consider the site to constitute grey belt land and concluded that the proposal represented inappropriate development within the green belt, resulting in harm that was not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.”