Following our post of 23 February on the two new planning applications submitted by Berkeley Homes for the Effingham Lodge Farm site, further documents have been submitted. Berkeley Homes is now saying the scheme is not financially viable and is seeking approval:-
a. to increase the number of sold and occupied homes in advance of the practical completion and transfer of the new school. It wants 258 instead of the 100 agreed for both the sites north of Lower Road (see below).
b. not to build any affordable homes rather than the 20% previously agreed.
Both these proposals will increase the profitability of the development for Berkeley Homes but there is a potential risk that Berkeley Homes will not deliver the new school once it has sold most of the 258 houses.
Scheme currently agreed
Guildford Borough Council twice rejected major planning applications for Berkeley Homes but on both occasions the company was given permission to proceed at Appeal as follows:
a. In March 2018 for 295 homes as enabling development for a new 2,000 pupil Howard School and separate Cullum Centre for children on the autistic spectrum on their land at Effingham Lodge Farm.
b. In November 2022 for a further 110 dwellings on a different piece of land at Effingham Lodge Farm and four self-build dwellings on grounds that the scheme was no longer financially viable .
In August 2025 Berkeley Homes applied for a simplified school design for 1,600 pupils without a separate Cullum Centre – again on the grounds that the modified scheme was not financially viable. This is still under consideration by Guildford Borough Council.
Berkeley Homes’ latest proposals
Berkeley Homes has submitted a Financial Viability Report supporting its case that the scheme is not financially viable and will still be challenging even with the removal of the affordable homes. In EFFRA’s view, this raises questions about whether the scheme was ever financially viable.
EFFRA is particularly concerned about the proposal for 258 homes to be sold before completion of the school. Berkeley Homes says it expects to start work on the residential homes in the summer of 2027 with the school planned to be completed and open in September 2030. In the Financial Viability Report it is estimated that 4 homes would be sold “off plan” per month. It would therefore take 64.5 months or 5 years 5 months to sell the 258 homes. If the school was not completed until the homes were occupied, its opening date would be pushed out to 2032/33. Therefore, if the 258 homes are allowed, EFFRA believes there is a risk Berkeley Homes might not build the school.
Situation if new applications are not agreed by Guildford Borough Council
At the recent meeting with Berkeley Homes on 18th February, Berkeley Homes made it clear that if the amendments to the scheme are not approved, it is likely to apply for housing on Lodge Farm as a ‘grey belt’ site without a new school so that some return on its investment is achieved. This is also referenced in the application cover letters.
In this situation there would be no “special circumstances” (which applied to the enabling development) and any application would be subject to the normal planning constraints e.g. on design and density and likely 40% affordable homes requirement. New planning applications meeting these requirements would have to be submitted.
It is not clear what type of development, and how many houses, would be approved. But because any development would not be financing a school, less densely concentrated housing more in keeping with our rural village and Conservation Area might be approved. However, the numbers might remain similar to those currently agreed. “Grey belt” policy is still being developed and so it is difficult to anticipate the outcome of any such application.
Under the current scheme, money will be made available towards rebuilding the KGV Hall under what is called a Section 106 Agreement which ensures community benefits are delivered. Any alternative scheme would similarly have to provide community benefits.
EFFRA WOULD LIKE RESIDENTS’ VIEWS
EFFRA remains frustrated at how this scheme has been handled by Berkeley Homes – there has been a lack of transparency and consultation as well as continuing substantial changes to the agreed proposals. To repeat, under these new proposals, EFFRA believes there is a risk that the school is not built and no money is made available for the school’s urgently needed refurbishment. Nor does EFFRA like the threat by Berkeley Homes to change tack and develop the land as grey belt if it does not get its way. EFFRA is minded to object strongly and ask that if these applications are agreed, a watertight legal arrangement is put in place to ensure the school is completed.
Guildford Borough Council’s consultation on these applications is now open and the current closing date is 21st March although EFFRA will seek an extension.
EFFRA needs to hear residents’ views. This can be done either by commenting on this post or by email to info@effinghamresidents.org.uk Emails will be kept private.
You can read and comment on these applications on Guildford Borough Council’s website at 26/P/00146 and 26/P/00147
EFFRA and Guildford BC need to find a solution with Berkeley Homes so this school gets built for our surrounding village and housing that will enable Berkeley to make a profit.
Berkeley Homes is a business and will always look to make money from any of their developments. I know EFFRA have meant well but their handling of this whole process over the last x years has been poor and cost our village deeply. We will probably now end up with many more homes being developed on our green and grey belt land and maybe no school at the end of this process. How is that a good result for Effingham. It’s now water under the bridge but I believe if EFFRA had started from a point of collaboration rather than opposition we would already have a new school and fewer new homes being built on the villages land.
Well there a surprise Berkeley homes uplifting their proposals and of course profits with no guarantee of a new school build. This must not be allowed to happen. The school must be built before any new housing development. And houses that are affordable must be part of that project. This land is in any event subject to flooding can we trust them to properly control the flow of surface water and control floods or are we going to just risk it. Another issue is with increased dwellings on site what are they and or the council going to do to guarantee that there will be adequate local services to cope like doctors and parking?? Trying to get an appointment with local surgeries is becoming more difficult how much worse it might be? I note the idea of less car use and the promotion of walking and cycling l wonder how a mum with two kids one of them needing to see a doctor will cope on a bicycle or the long walk down lower road?
Unless these issues are fixed and guaranteed this plan must be rejected
Thank you Nigel for your comment.
In my view it would be quite inappropriate for EFFRA to get involved in collaborating with developers on schemes in this village. EFFRA is here (like other residents associations) to represent the views of residents. Decisions on planning are taken by Guildford Borough Council.
Residents were overwhelmingly against the scheme proposed by Berkeley Homes in 2014 as evidenced by two surveys we undertook and by the hundreds of objections they have submitted to the different applications. With circumstances changing EFFRA is again seeking residents’ views.
I agree & support the EFFRA view – I would be very worried that the new school would never be built.
Thanks, Vivien. I strongly consider that EFFRA should object and encourage residents to do so as well.
It would be most helpful if EFFRA would publish bullet points of objection to help residents write their objection letters.
I agree that the owner of land should be able to do what they want on their land, up to a point. That point comes when their activities will have a detrimental affect to those living nearby.
That point was passed long ago with the destruction of Green Belt (I cannot understand how it could be Grey Belt) and food production land (providing us all with food security). Developers are supposed to provide the facilities (schools, health care, utilities etc.) that are required by the housing that they create, not just expect it to be provided for them free of charge.
It just seems ridiculous that Berkeley Homes have the opportunity to wriggle out of every concession that has been legally agreed.
The planning system seems very wrong if it allows for any application to be concluded (at great cost) then appealed repeatedly until the applicant has it all their own way.
Berkeley Homes must be made to comply with the current plan and denied any possibility of changing it.
This is another cynical attempt to wear down the district council and residents but Effra’s points are well made and we are further away than ever with regard getting the school our residents children deserve. Local Government should remove all planning permission, sever relationships with this property developer and take on their responsibility to undertake the educational requirements for which we pay our rates. The planning costs already spent by the council would have been better spent on the school. National Government might want to build houses but they also want to provide better education for the next generation. Here’s their chance!