FOI Questions SCC Answers

1.1.1.2 ‘Locally led’

Mr Hodge writes that the garden village scheme is ‘to be considered
locally led’.
Please disclose whether SCC/Mr Hodge had consulted any of:
a. The thirteen Parish Councils that are nearest to the proposed garden No record of David Hodge consulting any of the 13 parish councils
village site that each objected to the application to develop a new town
on this site (15/P/00012, the subject of a Public Inquiry at Appeal), in
particular Ockham Parish Council, Ripley Parish Council, East and West
Horsley Parish Councils, Bookham Parish Council and Pyrford Parish
Council
b. The three Borough Councils that are nearest to the proposed garden
No record of David Hodge consulting any of the three borough councils
village site objected to 15/p/00012 ie Woking, Elmbridge and Mole Valley
BCs

1.1.2.1 ‘improvements to strategic road network’

Mr Hodge writes that :

‘The delivery of the Garden Village will deliver and fund improvements
to strategic road network, which will relieve existing congestion at other
nearby junctions and the impact of this congestion on surrounding local
communities.’

Please disclose the evidence that justifies Mr Hodge’s statement.

a. Please disclose whether Mr Hodge/SCC consulted Highways England No record of David Hodge consulting Highways England
about this Garden Village bid
b. Please disclose whether Mr Hodge/SCC read the Secretary of State’s
decision to refuse the appeal of 15/p/00012 and to approve the No record of whether David Hodge read the report
 Inspector’s justifications for refusing the appeal. Relevant paragraphs are
reproduced at Appendix 3 for your reference.
c. Please disclose whether Mr Hodge/SCC has studied the GBC Transport
Strategy 2017 that shows that the proposed garden village scheme is not No record of whether David Hodge read the GBC Transport Strategy
part of GBC’s proposed sustainable transport corridor.
d. Please disclose whether Mr Hodge had regard to the fact that the
Unable to confirm
‘improvements to the strategic road network’ are in large part mitigation
for the harm caused by the development to the Strategic Road Network,
that that mitigation is a necessary condition precedent and that any
resulting ‘improvement’ is not a net public benefit.
e. Please disclose the evidence that supports the statement that the
‘improvements’ in the SRN will ‘relieve existing congestion’. (This was No evidence to provide
not an argument advanced by the applicant at the Public Inquiry.)
f. Please disclose whether SCC/Mr Hodge has studied the AECOM
Sustainability Appraisal of the GBC submission local plan: No evidence of whether David Hodge studied the AECOM Sustainability
Appraisal
a.

1.1.3 ‘important sustainable transport schemes

Mr Hodge writes that :

The proposals include the delivery of important sustainable transport

schemes including bus services and new and improved cycle links.
The proposals also support the aims and objectives of the Council
relating to sustainable movement in the County.

1. Please disclose the evidence that justifies Mr Hodge’s statement with We have no record of what evidence Mr Hodge used to make this
regard to bus services and cycle networks. statement.
2. Please disclose whether Mr Hodge has read the Planning Inspector’s
findings on the bus services and new and improved cycle links and No record of whether David Hodge read the Planning Inspector’s findings.
why he has a different opinion.
1.1.4.1 ‘this submission is strongly supported by Surrey County Council’
Mr Hodge writes that :

Surrey County Council’s Corporate Leadership Team and Cabinet

Members are working with Guildford Borough Council in support of this
imaginative and beneficial scheme. I can confirm that this submission is
strongly supported by Surrey County Council.

1. Please disclose the evidence (apart from Mr Hodge’s letter of support)

supporting the statement that this submission is strongly supported by No further evidence to supply
SCC.
2. Please disclose the communications between Mr Hodge and the
Corporate Leadership Team and Cabinet Members that express their Nil return
opinion about development at this site.

2. Metropolitan Green Belt

Mr Hodge makes no reference to the London Metropolitan Green Belt in
his letter of support.

1. Please disclose whether SCC and Mr Hodge are aware that this site is
entirely within the Metropolitan Green Belt No record of whether David Hodge is aware that the site is entirely within
2. Please disclose if Mr Hodge is aware that in March 2013, SCC passed a the Metropolitan Green Belt
unanimous motion to protect Surrey’s green belt:
Mr Hodge was present at the meeting in March 2013
‘Council believes: Surrey’s green belt, Countryside Estate, SSSIs and other
green spaces are vital, not only for the county’s environment but also for
maintaining a “green lung” around London.
Council resolves: 1. To use its power to protect Surrey’s green belt….’
3. Please disclose how supporting this garden village bid is consistent with SCC concedes that it is a tough balancing act between supporting district
honouring this commitment to ‘protect Surrey’s Green Belt’. and borough colleagues in hitting their housing targets in order to help give
 our younger generations the opportunity to own their own home and
understanding the needs of local residents.
4. Please disclose the exceptional circumstances that SCC and Mr Hodge
believe justify removal of this site from the Green Belt No record
5. Please disclose whether SCC /Mr Hodge is aware of the Secretary of
No record of whether David Hodge is aware of the SoS’s decision
State’s decision regarding the Green Belt at Weylands House in Walton
on Thames1:

3. Appropriate Assessment (AA) under Habitats Regulations

Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)

The Regulations state that:

“A competent authority, before deciding to … give any consent for a plan

or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site
… shall make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site
in view of that sites conservation objectives… The authority shall agree
to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not
adversely affect the integrity of the European site”.

Development on the garden village site will have an effect on the Ockham
& Wisley Common SPA

1. Please disclose whether SCC has received or been referred by GBC to

any AA relating to site allocation A35. SCC has not received or been referred by GBC to any AA relating to site
allocation A35

1 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/710746/18-05-24_DL_IR_Weylands_House_3172429.pdf
 2. Please disclose whether SCC has received or been referred by GBC to SCC has not received or been referred by GBC to ‘any screening opinion’
any ‘screening opinion’ relating to site allocation A35. relating to site allocation A35

3.2 Natural England (NE)

Natural England is the body responsible for protecting the SPA

1. Please disclose any communications between SCC and NE regarding

site allocation A35 and any associated or ancillary development. Nil return
2. Please disclose whether SCC has seen any environmental justification
SCC has not seen any of this
by NE of i) the proposed SANG and SAMM ii) any screening exercise
carried out by NE in respect of site allocation A35, HE’s J10 works, or
development across the rest of Waverley, Woking and Guildford
3. Please disclose whether SCC has prepared or received a copy of any
Appropriate Assessment that states that a new town on this site will SCC has not prepared or received a copy of any Appropriate Assessment
have no adverse effects on the Special Protection Area, as required by etc
the Regulations (cited above).

3.3 Biodiversity

1. Please disclose whether SCC/Mr Hodge has considered the three No record of whether David Hodge has received the three dimensions of
dimensions of sustainable development set out in the National Planning sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy
Policy Framework (NPPF), in particular the Environmental Framework
SCC holds no information in relation to this question
2. Please disclose how building a new town on Wisley Field SNCI and BOA
TBH06 is consistent with protecting biodiversity in Surrey
3. Please disclose the communications between SCC/Mr Hodge and Surrey Nil return
Nature Partnership regarding Wisley Field SNCI or planning application
15/P/00012 or the garden village bid
4. Please disclose the communications between SCC/Mr Hodge and Surrey Nil return
Wildlife Trust regarding Wisley Field SNCI or planning application
15/P/00012 or site allocation A35, or the garden village bid
5. Please disclose whether SCC/Mr Hodge has reviewed the submission of
No record of whether David Hodge reviewed this submission.
SCC’s County Planning Officer to the 1981 Public Inquiry, available on this
link:
https://www.scribd.com/document/384364154/1981-SCC-Proof-of-
Evidence-for-Public-Inquiry

6. Please disclose why Mr Hodge/SCC has decided to support this garden See response 2.3
village in direct contradiction of the policy SCC has pursued consistently
since 1936.

4. Surrey County Council Design Principles

SCC has published a Design Guide for new development. For your
reference I have reproduced the Principles from the Design Guide in
Appendix 2.
1. Please disclose whether SCC/Mr Hodge has considered whether a new
town in the proposed location is consistent with SCC’s Design Principles
(see Appendix 2)
2. Please disclose how SCC considers that the garden village makes the
best use of the land2.
No record of whether David Hodge has considered whether a new town in
the proposed location is consistent with SCC’s Design Principles
It is not for SCC to consider this as SCC are not the Planning authority in the
context of this application/appeal. The Surrey Design Guide was produced
primarily for Development Management decisions by the District Planning
Authorities.

2 The site contains 46ha of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land and is an SNCI
 3. Principle 2.1 and Principle 3.1 Please disclose how SCC considers that It is not for SCC to consider this as SCC are not the Planning authority in the
the garden village is consistent with the existing character of Ockham3. context of this application/appeal. The Surrey Design Guide was produced
primarily for Development Management decisions by the District Planning
Authorities.
4. Principle 4.1 Please disclose how SCC considers that the garden village
SCC are of the view that the masterplan proposals to the very limited
is consistent with the principles of sustainability including sustainable
degree to which they were progressed in the 2015 Planning Application
transport4. demonstrated that there was the opportunity to provide an element of
sustainability in the transport proposals. The County took the view that the
impacts were not sufficiently enough to be deemed severe [sic], and so
could not maintain an objection.
5. Principle 4.3 Please disclose how SCC considers that the garden village
No information held by SCC
is consistent with retaining ‘existing landscape and habitats’.
6. Principle 7.1: Please disclose how putting 2000 dwellings on a gross site
Not an SCC matter
area of 93 ha ie a gross dw/ha of 215 (8 dw per acre) is appropriate for
an isolated rural location
7. Principle 7.1: Please disclose how putting 2,000 dwelling at J10 of the These concerns have been overcome so in the event that a future
M25 is consistent with maintaining the efficient operation nationally application were to be submitted it is less likely there would be an
and internationally strategic infrastructure linking the UK’s two busiest objection on these grounds. [HE do not agree.]
airports.
8. Principle 7.1: Please disclose how a site with a gross area of 93ha, short
of the 110ha criterion for the minimum efficient scale of a new As Surrey are not the planning authority, this is not a matter for SCC.
settlement, is suitable for a new garden village6.

3 GBC has not carried out a Conservation Character Appraisal for the Ockham Conservation Area
4 Location: the proposed new town is 10 miles from Guildford 8 miles from Woking and Esher and 9 miles from Leatherhead. It has no sustainable /direct transport links with any urban or
employment centre.
5 A higher equivalent density than in Holy Trinity ward in the centre of Guildford
6 The site is also ‘landlocked’ ie has no available space for expansion north (M25), west (A3), east (Elmbridge Green Belt) or south (Ockham Conservation Area.