“Outraged" parish council launches judicial review challenge over decision by planning inspector to approve 114-dwelling development

A parish council is to launch a judicial review challenge over a planning inspector's decision to approve a 114-dwelling development in a Surrey village which will be built on Green Belt land.

In a statement announcing the legal challenge, Effingham Parish Council said it was "confounded and outraged", claiming that the inspector's approval of the development was "both irrational and unlawful" and went against national and local policies and plans.

The developer Berkeley Homes had already received permission to replace an existing school in the village with a new school. Replacing the school would be paid for by the construction of 295 new homes, which were included in the planning application.

In April of this year, the developer made a new planning application for a further 114 dwellings and the construction of offices for a multi-academy trust which runs 13 schools in the region.

However, Guildford Borough Council refused permission for the 114-dwelling scheme in April of this year, noting that it "represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt which is harmful by definition".

According to the refusal letter, Guildford concluded that the development was contrary to the Guildford Borough Local Plan Strategy and Sites, the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan and chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which concerns the protection of Green Belt land.

The developer then appealed Guildford's decision to the Planning Inspectorate, which concluded with a planning inspector accepting the appeal and granting planning permission for the scheme.

Detailing the decision, inspector GD Jones said: "While there are other lesser benefits at play, including biodiversity net gain associated with the […] development, it is the benefits associated with the delivery of the much needed approved new school and the provision of new housing, as previously approved and as supplemented by the current proposal, that when taken together would clearly outweigh the totality of harm, including to the Green Belt, heritage, character and appearance, and the associated development plan conflict, so that very special circumstances exist."

The parish council set out a number of concerns in a statement on its legal challenge. These involve school places, traffic considerations and local and neighbourhood plan compliance.

"The jobs of administrative staff from 13 schools across Surrey and Middlesex will be relocated to Effingham, adding further to residents' fears about excess traffic in a small village which has notoriously narrow streets," the parish council noted.

"Parents and parish councillors are also concerned about plans to expand the school by 400 pupils making the school one of the largest in the UK."

This is despite the fact that there is a surplus of places in the local planning area and over 95% of children attending state secondary schools and living in the surrounding villages already attend the school, the parish council added.

Furthermore, Guildford, with a seven-year housing land supply, "has one of the strongest commitments to build houses in the country", the parish council argued.

It continued: "Parish councillors believe the inspector at the appeal failed to take account of this evidence and ignored the adopted local plan, infrastructure delivery plan and a neighbourhood plan which was one of the first in the country to allocate sites for housing development to meet local needs."

Cllr Ian Symes, Chair of the parish council, commented: "It is beyond belief that a decision such as this could be reached when there was clear evidence that the costs were inaccurate and the need unsubstantiated."

He added: "The requirement to include a centralised corporate headquarters for The Howard Partnership Trust at the expense of Green Belt land is in clear conflict with national and local policies and plans. It is both irrational and unlawful. Car parks and corporate headquarters do not meet the very strict criteria required for very special circumstances necessary to allow building in the greenbelt."

Berkeley Homes has been approached for comment.

The Planning Inspectorate declined to comment.

Adam Carey