Parish council secures quashing order in judicial review of village development

A parish council has successfully challenged Guildford Borough Council's decision to approve a five-home development after arguing it conflicted with a local development plan policy aimed at protecting a river conservation area.

The development included five detached homes, alongside access and landscaping on a site inset from the green belt within Send village.

The application was a revision from a previously refused scheme for 29 dwellings, which had been dismissed by a planning inspector on the grounds of impact on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the River Wey Conservation Area.

The borough council gave planning permission to the revised development in June 2024, following a discussion of a planning officer's report, which recommended approval.

The report noted that the site was approximately 133 metres away from the River Wey Conservation Area, adding that the homes would be "slightly visible" from the conservation area, "but the reduction in units [from 29 to 5] opens a more spacious form of development in keeping with the character of the area".

However, the parish council argued the development sat within the 'Corridor of the River Wey Navigations' and would damage the view from the 'Navigations' and a footpath that runs along the site.

The Corridor of the River Wey Navigations is a concept defined in the council's local plan management development policies as: "An area defined by the natural course of the River Wey, the canalised 2 navigations, associated towpaths and verges, adjoining water meadows, pastures and recreational sites, as well as development and structures within its immediate setting that has a physical and/or visual relationship with the River Wey and Godalming Navigations."

In its judicial review application, the parish council said the development went against policy D13 in the area's 'Local Plan: Development Management Policies', which sets out provisions for the conservation of the Navigations.

At a hearing last month (3 December), Dan Kolinsky KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, accepted all grounds of the parish council's challenge.

Following the hearing, the borough council approached the parish council to sign a Consent Order to quash the planning permission.

In a statement, the parish council said Guildford had "accepted it had not taken into consideration Policy D13 relating to the Corridor of the River Wey when determining the application".

A consent order was approved by Dan Kolinsky KC last week (13 January) quashing the planning permission and ordering the development be remitted for reconsideration.

It also ordered that Guildford pay the parish council's legal costs and make an interim payment in respect of the parish council's costs in the sum of £10,000 within 21 days of the order.

A spokesperson for Send Parish Council said: "We hope that in having made this challenge on behalf of our residents, planning officers and planning committee members will recognise the strength of feeling of residents of the importance of Send's landscape settings and our collective determination as a village to have our voice heard and be prepared to challenge the ongoing deluge of planning approvals in every corner of our village.

They added: "A Local Plan is designed to bring forward housing and meet 'need', but a Local Plan should also 'protect' other areas due to their special features. The GBC Local Plan (adopted in 2019) is failing to give this planning balance when meeting housing targets is given more consideration than any of these other policies.

"This is an issue that an Update of the GBC Local Plan needs to address – and with urgency."

A spokesperson for Guildford Borough Council said: "Send Parish Council applied to the High Court to Judicial Review our decision to grant planning permission 22/P/01966 at 94 Potters Lane on the grounds that we did not consider Policy D13 in full. A Judicial Review looks at the way a decision is made, not whether a planning application should be approved or rejected. We agreed to a consenting order, which the High Court has confirmed. This cancels the decision but makes no judgement on the planning merits of this case. The applicant can resubmit the same planning application for us to review and determine..

Adam Carey