Last night (30 March 2022), Guildford’s Planning Committee voted to reject planning application 21/P/01306, to build 110 homes on the Green Belt on the north-western part of Effingham Lodge Farm site. Berkeley Homes had argued that they needed the extra homes to pay for the replacement Howard of Effingham School in addition to the 295 homes already approved.
During 2021 the West Surrey Badger Group confirmed the presence of a well established Badger Sett in Thornet Wood (part of the ELF site), with current activity. This despite the Developers ecological report stating that there were no badgers present on the site. Under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, it is an offence to damage, destroy or block access to a badger sett, or to disturb badgers in their setts. So hopefully current activity on building the access road on the ELF site will not disturb the badgers.
The Planning Committee did however agree to planning application 21/P/01283 for variation of conditions the Planning Inspector had imposed on planning application 14/P/02109.
Details of the decisions notices will be published on the GBC website in the next few days.
Lovely to hear the skylarks from the direction of ELF the other day!
Now we need to get the AONB boundaries extended to preserve our village from predators in the future.
Hear! Hear! Bhi Twobe. It’s the best news I’ve heard in ages that the extra proposed 110 houses in Effingham won’t be going ahead.
The decision to uphold the objections to the Planning Application and to follow the Planning Officers recommendation for refusal is a very positive outcome and further protects the future habitat and well appreciated environments it was setting out to destroy. I congratulate all those whose fervent and justified objections, on their own behalf and on the behalf of visitors and many who love the Environs of Effingham and the Leatherhead area are to see the area green credentials maintained and enhanced.
In rereading this I see the Planning Officers were recommending approval. So it’s very concerning they lack the emphatic will to take the whole planning needs and considerations of the location into its fold. I support the refusal.