Tandridge Local Plan

GVA Logo

A Local Plan is a requirement under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and is about the needs of the community and how sustainable development can be encouraged. Paragraph 153 of the NPPF states, ‘Each local planning authority should produce a Local Plan for its area.’ The NPPF goes on to explain, (in some detail), the requirements of a Local Plan, that it must be realistic, that the local planning authority must engage in ‘early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses’, that the ‘strategic priorities’ should be set out.

Tandridge District Council have been working on their Local Plan for some time now. Early in 2016 they entered a period of consultation (called a Regulation 18 consultation) on the first set of documents. The principal document was called the ‘Local Plan: Issues and Approaches Document’ and was supported by a suite of other documents. In total there were over 3,000 pages of documents to be read. The GVA recognised that most residents would not have the time, nor the inclination, to read over 3,000 pages and so produced a summary and a response which was circulated to residents of the village so that they might submit their own response. (The first response can be seen here).

During the summer of 2016 Tandridge District Council issued further documents in relation to the draft Local Plan.  In particular, on the 30th July, Tandridge District Council issued the ‘Detailed Policies 2014-2029‘. This is part 2 of the Tandridge Local Plan and is the detailed policies that sit behind the Core Strategy that has already been adopted. The detailed policies cover all aspects of planning, not just housing, including infrastructure, traffic, telecoms and many other aspects of our environment. They can be found here.

The Local Plan continued to be developed. Tandridge District Council subsequently issued their ‘Sites Consultation‘ document which had some surprising information in it. The document is a 440 page document and includes a number of the sites, both Green Belt and non Green Belt, that have been considered and can be found here, (it takes some time to load because of its size). Some had been ruled out, (although the Council allowed itself the possibility to revisit these under ‘exceptional circumstances’), however many remained under serious consideration.

Tandridge District Council abandoned the 7 strategic approaches that were listed in the Local Plan: Issues and Approaches Document and made a decision that a ‘Garden Village’ was the way forward.  They propose to build at least 4,000 houses in South Godstone, in addition to many other sites across the district.

The last ‘Regulation 18’ consultation began on the 14th August and ran until the 9th October 2017 on the proposed ‘New Garden Village’. Tandridge District Council have not made public the number of responses in favour of the development, or those against. They have kept a very close guard on the results of the consultation.

They claimed that they would not be making a decision about the location of any ‘garden village’ (they have subsequently changed the name to a ‘garden community) until they had analysed the results of the consultation. They lied! In a document called ‘APPENDIX Infrastructure Baseline Plan: Part 2’ published in November 2015, it is clear that (on page 30) Surrey County Council have already been informed of the intent to build “A large urban extension of 4,000 homes in South Godstone”. No other locations were talked about. The decision had already been made.

The draft Local Plan was published by Tandridge District Council in July of 2018. The full plan is over 5,000 pages but, surprisingly, lacks detail. The most salient points for Godstone are that Tandridge District Council intend to take the whole of Godstone out of the Green Belt, they intend to move Pond Tail Surgery to their new development of at least 4,000 houses in South Godstone and they make claims that they have no ability and no way of delivering, including promising an upgrade to Junction 6 of the M25 that they have no funding to deliver and no remit to deliver and an upgrade to Godstone station (in South Godstone) which again they have no way of delivering and which the owners of the station, Network Rail, say they have no intention of doing.

The latest (and last consultation) on the Tandridge District Council draft Local Plan concluded with Tandridge District Council choosing to ignore negative comments and, instead, publishing those from more favourable feedback. Called a ‘Regulation 19’ consultation it was supposed to be a test of whether the draft plan is legally complaint and whether it was fit for purpose (‘sound’ in planning terms).

There are five tests that the plan must fulfil. If it doesn’t, it is ‘unsound’.

  1. Has Tandridge District Council fulfilled it’s ‘duty to cooperate’? They didn’t. They have not been honest as to when the decision was made to build 4,000 houses in South Godstone. Their own documents show it was made in 2015, not in 2018 as they claimed.
  2. Is the plan ‘positively prepared’? It isn’t. It does not address the issues that they identified in their document Local Plan: Issues and Approaches.
  3. Is the plan ‘justified’. It isn’t. Building 4,000 houses in South Godstone and taking Godstone out of the Green Belt is not justified and the plan lacks detail to justify it. There are other ways and Tandridge District Council have chosen to ignore them.
  4. Is the plan ‘effective’? It isn’t. Network Rail, who own Godstone station, have said that they have no plans to upgrade it. Tandridge District Council cannot promise that it will be. The upgrade to Junction 6 of the M25 has not been costed properly and cannot be delivered within the life of the plan.
  5. Is the plan in line with ‘National Policy’? It isn’t. National Policy says that “unmet housing need is not sufficient justification for release of the Green Belt” and that the plan should “recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”.

Subsequent to Tandridge District Council’s submission of their disastrous Local Plan, a Public Inquiry was held in late 2019. The Government appointed Inspector presided over the inquiry during which officers from Tandridge District Council were content to continue to lie and avoid the truth. The Inspector’s initial report, published in December 2020 questioned Tandridge District Council on a number of matters including their ability to upgrade Junction 6 of the M25, the ability to deliver any housing in the South Godstone Garden Community amongst a number of other concerns.

The Inspector suggested that there were two broad choices for Tandridge District Council to make:

  • Pause the examination and continue to attempt to resolve the issue of the provision of strategic infrastructure, the OAN, housing requirement and supply, including the Garden Community proposal and provision for Gypsies and Travellers to an agreed timescale along with changes made to the Plan as necessary arising through addressing my soundness comments [above]; or
  • Withdraw the plan and commence preparation of a new Plan as per the current National Planning Policy.

Having wasted millions of local tax payer’s money already, Tandridge District Council decided to spend another £75,000 on consultants to tell them whether the idea of upgrading Junction 6 of the M25 was feasible. They chose to ignore all of the other concerns that the Inspector raised and concentrated on this one issue.

Tandridge District Council have subsequently issued a number of very vague responses to the Inspector but nothing substantial has yet been submitted. In August 2021 the concerns initially raised by the Inspector about the ‘soundness’ of the plan have not been addressed and, three Chief Executives after the initial submission of the plan, Tandridge District Council is no nearer to delivering a legally ‘sound’ plan.