Homes will be built on the former green belt gateway into Dorking – forever changing the character of the picturesque town.

Plans to turn more than eight hectares on the edge of the Surrey Hills into housing were approved on appeal in 2023 but details of what it would look like were only given the go-ahead last week. The decision was made despite many at the Wednesday, March 5, meeting airing concerns over traffic on the “poor” A25 and the impact of school coaches being pushed into the town’s one-way system. Councillors were hamstrung in their efforts to mitigate against the impact of the added traffic following the appeal ruling and could only vote on the plan’s layout.

Developers Taylor Wimpey, however, said the scheme, which would include 72 affordable homes, was an “exciting scheme for Dorking.” Speaking on behalf of the application was James Newton. He said the proposals bring “much-needed homes for the district” with “77 per cent of the mix being one to three-bedroom properties.” He added: “The affordable tenures include social and affordable rent, shared ownership and first homes and the mix has been agreed with the housing services team. The design has been amended over time with input from heritage officers… and takes cues from the Dorking vernacular and the wider area.” Homes, he said, will be sustainable with air source pumps and solar panels while the project as a whole would bring in more than £3million into Mole Valley District Council through community infrastructure payments. He finished: “This will be an exciting scheme for Dorking.”

The L-shaped site will take up two fields west of Dorking. The land was originally in the green belt when the decision to allow the homes was granted on appeal. Since then, it has been put into Mole Valley District Council’s local plan as a site designated for development. As well as the 144 homes, there will also be parking for ​​The Priory Secondary School, including staff and coaches. Officers told the meeting they were happy with the project and that it would not harm the character of the area – with red tiling used to help it blend in with existing homes in the town.

Speaking against the plan was Nicholas Tinker, who highlighted the 60 letters of objection. He said: “144 dwellings will create, at least, 144 additional vehicles. More realistically, double that figure, most people leave for work at the same time every morning. The congestion on the Westcott Road and around town will be totally unacceptable.” Air quality, he said, would degenerate and reach dangerous levels for schoolchildren, with the coach drop-off point creating a particular problem and forcing them to use the one-way system. He said: “It’s going to be absolute chaos.”

Cllr Abhiram Magesh (Liberal Democrat; Mickleham, Westcott and Okewood) said: “I’m generally pro-affordable housing. Housing means more people, more people means more council tax for front-line services, more customers for local business, however, I’m quite torn on this particular development because I do feel it’s lacking in a number of ways. We’ve discussed quite adequately in the past that the highways assessment is quite lacking. We all know the trouble on the A25 – especially at peak time. I’m frankly torn about this because its layout is effectively a cul-de-sac which I think is generally quite poor planning strategy. So while I laud the affordable housing commitment, I’m extremely worried for a lot of my constituents in Westcott and Abinger who have to essentially travel every single day to get any form of amenity in Dorking. The A25 is of a poor quality as it is right now, so I’m not sure how at minimum 144 extra cars – how the road is going to be able to handle that.”

The designs and layout were approved by eight votes in favour, with two against and three abstentions.

Taylor Wimpey plans for 144 homes outside Dorking (image Taylor Wimpey/ Mole Valley Planning Portal)

Plans to restore an 18th century house have been waved through. The National Trust has now revealed its designs to restore and refurbish Clandon Park House to celebrate the rich history and legacy wrapped around the building.

The Grade I listed home near Guildford was considered an architectural masterpiece when it was built 200 years ago. But Clandon Park House was tragically gutted by an accidental fire in 2015, destroying the roof and leaving most of the interior with blackened and scorched brickwork.

Illustrative designs show the trust’s ambitions for Clandon Park House to become a new national treasure and a defining cultural hub, with space for workshops and social events. Guildford Borough Council unanimously approved the plans last week.

Restoring the inside of the mansion house, the scheme will refurbish and replace windows and doors, reinstating the stairs as well as providing a new accessible lift from the basement to the roof. Generous walkways will be carved out in the mansion house and the scheme promises to conserve historic collections, redisplaying them in creative ways.

Alterations to the basement will provide a cafe, toilets and other back of house bits. The project will restore the exterior of the building to appear as it did before it was engulfed by the fire, planning documents state.

Image: The Marble Hall could be used to hold events for the community. (Credit: Allies and Morrison/ National Trust)

The iconic Surrey Hills will keep its classic English pie and mash shop after plans were approved for the takeaway in Box Hill. Posha’s Pie and Mash Shop, in the rural Box Hill Road, Tadworth, was given the go-ahead at the second time of asking despite traffic officers again recommending its refusal. Surrey Highways said in January that the shop should be refused permission over concerns of cars reversing onto the main road, and the application was deferred to allow the owners to make the needed changes.

The new plan removed the on-site parking that had caused concern, but Surrey Highways was still unimpressed, saying cars would now park in the nearby streets, clogging roads and pavements. Councillors disagreed and thought the shop should be encouraged as it would bring trade to the area as well as much-needed food options. Councillor Paul Potter (Liberal Democrat; Brockham, Betchworth, Buckland Box Hill and Headley) said the parking and traffic issues were overstated given the generally low levels of cars using Box Hill Road. He said: “(The pie and mash) is a vital part for a lot of people up there. For a lot of residents in the mobile homes, they walk there, they don’t drive – there are hundreds of mobile homes up there. It’s a vital thing for the community.”

Cllr Simon Bud (Conservative; Brockham, Betchworth, Buckland Box Hill and Headley) added: “It’s a rural business in a rural area, that’s what this is. They’re trying something quite different from what you normally see, and how good that is to see in a rural area on a rural road. How refreshing to see a car-free development. I cycle here, and if more of us did, we wouldn’t have this problem, would we? It’s really great to see a business that’s going forward and making it car-free.”

The site has been used as a pie and mash takeaway with a seating area since August 2023. The application was to formally change its use from the old dog grooming parlour. The Wednesday, March 5 meeting of Mole Valley District Council heard from one speaker against the proposal. She told the meeting that Porsha’s advertised on social media, which would draw in people from outside Box Hill. She said: “Cars park up on the pavement outside our house, which is the only pavement by the pie and mash. Indiscriminate parking narrows the road and interferes with the free flow of traffic and prohibits pedestrians from using the pavement. We also have a lot of teenagers who do their Duke of Edinburgh awards and walk along where the cars are parked with two wheels on the pavement. It is dangerous.”

The plans were ultimately passed with the unanimous backing of the committee.

Image – Credit Google Street view May 2023 the business’s food van

The Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Planning Committee has unanimously rejected a controversial proposal for a 12-unit residential development on Waterloo Road. Councillors cited concerns over poor design, excessive height, a lack of affordable housing, and the absence of parking provision.

The meeting, held on 6th March 2025, was chaired by Councillor Steven McCormick (RA Woodocte and Langley)/The application sought outline planning permission to demolish an existing two-storey building and replace it with a four-storey block containing seven two-bedroom flats and five one-bedroom flats.

However, councillors raised significant objections, particularly regarding the design and scale of the project. The Planning Officer explained that while an earlier proposal for a smaller nine-unit scheme had been approved on appeal, this new application was substantially different. “The proposal would maximise the number of units on the site to the detriment of the local character of the area,” he stated.

Councillor Bernie Muir (Conservative Horton) was critical of the lack of parking provision, arguing that the development failed to consider residents with mobility issues. “More and more homes are becoming a complete barrier to people because they need a car to actually exist,” she said.

Councillor Jan Mason (RA Ruxley) praised the planning officers’ report, calling it “one of the best” she had seen in her 20 years as a councillor. She also criticised the design, saying: “You either make something outstanding so people say ‘wow’, or you ensure it blends in so well that it is unobtrusive. This does neither.”

Another major point of contention was the failure to meet the council’s affordable housing policy. Under planning regulations, 20% of developments of this scale should be designated as affordable housing, yet the applicant had only proposed 5%. Councillor Chris Watson (RA Ewell Court) called this a “cynical application”, adding: “Anyone can pick up the policy and read it. There is no excuse for submitting something that so blatantly disregards our requirements.”

Concerns were also raised about the impact on neighbouring properties. The proposed development would result in significant overlooking, overshadowing, and loss of privacy for nearby homes. It also failed to meet national space standards for several of the proposed flats.

Following the discussion, Councillor Neil Dallen (RA Town) proposed that the application be refused, seconded by Councillor Muir. The committee then voted unanimously in favour of rejection.

Councillor Humphrey Reynolds (RA West Ewell) remarked on the pattern of previous applications for the site being refused, noting that even successful appeals had not led to development. “Clearly, the developers know this is not right,” he said.

The applicant now has the option to revise the scheme and submit a new proposal or appeal the decision.

Image: EEBC papers showing overlooking of proposed 4 storey building over neighbouring properties

A 17th century pub could be transformed into a Sainsbury’s Local. Plans have been submitted to refurbish the Grade II-listed drinking establishment, on Dorking Road in Epsom, to a convenience store.

If approved, a Sainsbury’s convenience store would take over the ground floor of the historic building and install an ATM machine outside. Plans also include resurfacing and reducing the car park to just 13 spaces, four of which will be reserved for delivery vehicles. 

The former White Horse Public House was converted into Lava Lounge, a restaurant and cocktail bar, in 2020. Lava Lounge closed in January 2024, having been on the market for at least two years according to planning documents. 

Used for centuries for drinking, the former purpose of the pub is no longer viable according to Sainsbury’s. “Given the wealth of drinking establishments in Epsom, not just in the town centre, it is unlikely that the loss of a facility which has already been closed for a year could be considered a detriment,” the application said. 

Serving a specific catchment area, the proposed Sainsbury’s is said to be conveniently located for nearby residents, visitors and employees at Epsom hospital as well as passing trade. The development will also create around 20 new jobs, a mixture of full and part-time.

“Very little appears to have survived” from the 17th-18th century on the ground floor, planning documents state, perhaps only the thick walls around the chimney breasts. The timber framed structure at first floor level appears to be correctly placed for a historic building but, the report says, the timbers appear to be modern.

Sainsbury’s heritage statement states the proposals would have a “neutral effect” on the special interest of a listed building. The report says the vast majority of the building’s internal heritage value has been lost from modern adaptations. 

Planning documents read: “The core of the building has a hipped slate roof and is of timber framed construction, some of which is evidently modern, but which may form the altered remains of the 17th or 18th century building referred to in the Listing description. The pub has a parapeted brick frontage which likely dates from the middle of the 19th century.”

The scheme proposes removing the replacement of the Victorian-style sash window, as well as reconfiguring and refurbishing the insides of the former pub. Demolishing the covered yard at the back of the site, Sainsbury’s plans to build an extension to form a ‘back of house’ for the convenience store. 

Minor modifications to the historic part of the building are needed to use the original pub building for the back office part of the shop. The application clarifies the historic part of the building is not being used for a sales area.

Neighbours can comment on the application on Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s website. No decision date has been listed yet.

View outside the Lava Lounge, and former White Horse Pub, in Epsom. (Credit: Sainsbury\’s/ Epsom and Ewell Planning Documents)

Plans for four new homes in Ewell have been refused over bats potentially living in the two bungalows. Although one survey was done, councillors could not rule out there were definitely no bats in the buildings. 

The scheme involved demolishing two semi-detached bungalows on Kirby Close, and erecting four, 3-bedroom homes in a residential Ewell suburb. The two-storey houses would have two car parking spaces per house with associated landscaping, according to the report. 

However, the applicant had not carried out a phase 2 survey establishing if there were any bats in the bungalow. Officers “could not be satisfied” the demolition of the building did not pose a risk to protected species and its habitat. Members rejected the application at an Epsom and Ewell Borough Planning Committee meeting on February 13. 

Cllr Julian Freeman (LibDem College) said: “This smacks of desperation to find some reason for turning down an application for housing that we desperately need in this borough.” An increasingly frustrated Cllr Freeman reminded the committee that the borough has a “housing crisis”. 

The Liberal Democrat member argued that you would know if bats are on the site as “you would be sweeping up the mess on a fairly regular basis”. He said: “If [the council]  is going to refuse an application because there might be bats then, surely you need some evidence of that.” 

But Cllr Steven McCormick, (RA Woodcote and Langley) chairing the meeting, explained the plans have to be turned down because there is no evidence that bats are not in the two bungalows. Councils have a legal requirement for bat surveys to ensure the mammals are not harmed in the demolition or construction of buildings.

The potential harm to protected species is the only reason why the risks would outweigh the benefits of delivering two houses, planning officers told the committee as they recommended the application for refusal.

If the applicant was to appeal the decision, members asked whether the council would be “laughed at” for refusing on the grounds there was no evidence that bats are non-existent on the site. However, officers told the committee that an application on Reigate Road, which was refused for a lack of satisfactory bat survey, was dismissed at appeal by the Planning Inspector.

Councillors questioned whether they could approve the application with the condition of a further bat survey, but officers said National England guidance is it has to be known early on if bats are in the building before approval could go ahead. The bungalows cannot be demolished until the council knows whether or not bats are there.

Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) said he was happy to approve it once the second bat survey is done as he couldn’t see “any significant or demonstrable harm that outweighs the benefit of two additional dwellings”.

A previous similar application for the ‘principle of development’ was rejected in July 2024 on the basis the housing proposal was too dense to match the character of the street. This is currently at appeal.

Image: 9-10 Kirby Close in Ewell, where the proposed development would be built. (Credit: Google Street View)

Up to 200 new homes will be built on former green belt land despite fears they could overwhelm the already strained sewage system. Mole Valley District Council’s planning committee approved developer Thakeham’s vision for the 27-hectare site off Little Bookham Street on Wednesday, February 5. As well as the 200 homes, the plans will feature a community building, Gypsy and Traveller pitches, and public open space that the developers said would also open access to nearby ponds. Forty per cent of the homes would be affordable.

The site has been identified for development by the council’s local plan, but the application had drawn more than 300 objections. Residents speaking at the meeting raised concerns about raw sewage, as well as the impact on local children being pushed out of their school’s catchment area. Thames Water, however, raised no objections. Christine Milstead said: “Our green belt is definitely not Angela Rayner’s gray belt. We think this development will cause harm to the green belt and protected habitats. All residents have objected to surface water flooding, and there are springs all over this site. For years, residents have been pumping water off their patios to prevent their houses from flooding. When you get a lot of rain, water does not drain through permeable surfaces. Will the proposed infrastructure capture water from the rear of new properties, or will it just run down to Little Bookham Street?”

Speaking on behalf of the plans, Tristan Robinson, Thakeham’s director of external affairs, said Mole Valley was the fourth least affordable place to live in the country. He highlighted young couples struggling to afford housing and the 680 households on the waiting list. Despite the plans being voted through—by eight in favour, three against, and one abstention—Councillor Joanna Slater (Conservative; Leatherhead South) cautioned against setting a precedent for developing beyond what was laid out in the council’s local plan for green belt. Cllr Paul Kennedy (Liberal Democrats: Bookham East and Eastwick Park) also urged the committee to heed residents and environmental groups calling for the protection of the “precious unspoiled countryside.”

The new homes will be net carbon zero and feature a mix of one to four-bedroom properties. The developers aim to create 45 acres of open space and a new country park accessible to the wider community. Mr Robinson said: “After undertaking a comprehensive public consultation process for Land North West of Preston Farm, we are pleased to receive backing from Mole Valley District Council. The scheme includes 40 per cent affordable housing—something urgently needed locally—and significant new public open spaces for everyone to enjoy.”

Plans for 200 homes in Little Bookham (image Thakeham)

A man who was charged £70,000 by a Surrey council said it was a “watershed moment” to be given recognition of his struggle and the right to appeal. A couple were slammed with a hefty fee for a home extension and given no opportunity to argue their case.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a legal charge designed to get developers to financially contribute towards essential infrastructure. While self-builders and home extensions are exempt from CIL payments, in Waverley applicants must first complete the necessary paperwork for this.

But with residents being unaware they need to apply for an exemption, or due to paperwork errors, some people have unexpectedly had to face extortionate CIL charges and terrifying enforcement action.

Steve and Caroline Dally were granted planning consent to demolish and replace an existing home extension that was exempt from CIL. However, after seeking permission to make some minor amendments (for which consent was granted) they suddenly and unexpectedly faced a £70,000 CIL charge, with no appeal.

Unlike in criminal cases, the paperwork and administrative processes of CIL means people could accidentally face charges between £40,000- £235,000 and have no right for their case to be reconsidered.

They pursue you relentlessly to get the money out of you,” said Steve Dally, “There’s no compassion, there’s no understanding.” He explained the council told him he had 60 days to pay the £70k or his home in Godalming was at risk of being re-possessed and he would go to prison. As this was the start of the Covid lockdown in 2020, he feared the worst.

The 65-year-old has been forced to increase the mortgage on his home by £400 per month, pending full repayment when he turns 70. He may have no choice but to sell the home he has worked his entire life for, just to settle this debt. “It’s traumatic,” Mr Dally said. “You lose sleep and end up crying your eyes out- what can you do about it?”

Fighting the council since 2020, Mr Dally had approached councillors and the local MP and the ombudsman to change the CIL charge levied against him and his wife. But none of them could ultimately remove the fee.

On Tuesday, January 28, Waverley Borough Council agreed to ensure the public have the right to appeal the CIL charges. Mr Dally described it as a “watershed” moment as it was the “first time that someone was prepared to stand up and fight for you”.

Speaking out for the victims, Councillor Lauren Atkins said the “Life-changing unintentional impacts of CIL have resulted in debt, depression and years of feeling unheard and being unanswered.” She called for the council to collaborate and seize the “opportunity to see justice for those wronged”.

But now, householders previously subject to CIL liability can request a discretionary review by Waverley Borough Council within a window from 1 June 2025 to 31 May 2026. The council agreed to have a discretionary review of CIL payments for householder applications and will consider refunds of CIL previously collected.

Mr Dally said the change did not guarantee victims were going to get their money back. “It’s a long way to go yet,” he said, arguing it depends on how “compassionate” the reviewer will be of people’s cases. “There will be a lot of people in Surrey that will be impacted by the same and will not know which way to turn.” he said.

Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), Mr Dally reeled off other people who had been found foul of the CIL charge on their residential properties. He said one man was charged £200k and a wife looking after her husband with dementia was fined £40k.

Councillor Jane Austin said: “We see the unintended consequence of this aspect of s legislation has caused great financial and emotional distress to people who have unwittingly broken rules they didn’t know existed.”

She acknowledged Waverley council is, going forward, trying to ensure householders are made aware of CIL and its exemption paperwork. Cllr Austin added: “But we need to right this wrong for those who have already had to make these huge payments.”

Leader of the council, Cllr Paul Follows, said work is already being done to investigate the CIL levy issues but welcomed the cross-party collaboration. The CIL levies will be reviewed as part of the council’s Local Plan process, according to Cllr Follows.

“I hope the poor folk who are being pestered by Waverley to pay these charges will be left alone until we have resolved this,” said Cllr Michael Goodridge. He raised concern that he has been told everyone has been looking at the issue for a while, but it could take a lot more time in the Local Plan.

The Liberal Democrat council leader also added the CIL regulations was something his party had inherited from the previous administration. Members also broadly agreed more education of the CIL process was needed, both for councillors and the public.

Emily Dalton

Steve Dally (right) and his wife Caroline. (Credit: Steve Dally)

What is the position in Epsom and Ewell?

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in Epsom and Ewell Borough

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge imposed by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council on certain types of new development. It helps fund local infrastructure, such as schools, healthcare facilities, and transport improvements.

Does CIL Apply to Single Residential Developments or Home Extensions?

When CIL is Payable

CIL applies if your project involves:

• New dwellings – Any development that creates a new residential unit is liable for CIL, regardless of size.
• Large extensions – If an extension or new build increases the gross internal floor area by 100 square meters or more, CIL applies.

When CIL is NOT Payable

You may not have to pay CIL if:

• Your project adds less than 100 square meters of additional internal floor space (unless it creates a new dwelling).
• You qualify for exemptions or reliefs (see below).

CIL Exemptions and Reliefs

Some developments may be exempt from CIL, including:

• Self-build homes – If you’re constructing your own home, you can apply for a self-build exemption.
• Residential annexes or extensions – If the work is for your own use and meets specific criteria, it may be exempt.
• Affordable housing – Developments that meet affordable housing requirements are exempt.

Important: You must apply for exemptions before starting construction. Failure to do so may result in the full CIL charge becoming payable.

How is CIL Calculated?

CIL is based on the net increase in gross internal floor area (GIA) and is subject to annual indexation.

Current Residential CIL Rate (2025): £204.50 per square meter
(Source: Epsom & Ewell Borough Council)

CIL Process & Next Steps

If your project is subject to CIL, follow these steps:

1. Submit a Planning Application – Include the required CIL forms when submitting your application.
2. Complete an Assumption of Liability Form – Before starting work, submit this to the Council.
3. Submit a Commencement Notice – Notify the Council before construction begins.
4. Receive and Pay Your CIL Charge – Once the Council issues a Demand Notice, make the payment as required.

More Information & Guidance

For full details, access CIL forms, and check the latest updates, visit:
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council CIL Guidance

Sam Jones

Hundreds of new homes could be built in Ashtead if newly submitted plans to Mole Valley District Council are approved. Wates Developments and its partners, Vistry Group, have submitted outline plans for up to 270 homes, of which about 40 per cent will be affordable.

The proposals, which still need to go through the planning process, also include a community centre that could become a children’s nursery. Nearby schools are said to be under-subscribed, with vacancy rates expected to grow in some areas, according to planning documents submitted to the council. The documents suggest that the new homes could help boost pupil numbers in local schools.

John Tarvit, director of planning for Wates Developments, said: “We have an exciting vision for this site to create a sense of place and community, with landscape-led design that incorporates a variety of green spaces. Our proposals will help encourage social interaction, provide safe and attractive streets, encourage sustainable travel choices, and maximise biodiversity. We’re proud that this will be a high-quality, net-zero development that reduces carbon emissions and enhances the resilience of the development to a changing climate. All new homes will be lean, clean, and green.”

The land, south of Ermyn Way, has been allocated for residential-led development by the council. The developers state they are “committed to creating a distinctive and responsive new neighbourhood, offering a good range of house sizes and types.

“The proposed development will enhance the existing local community and deliver a range of benefits for people in Ashtead in addition to the much-needed new homes.”

In addition to the housing scheme, the developers are proposing a community building with the potential for a children’s nursery, 30 acres of open space, and a children’s play area. At this stage, the plans are in outline format, but the developers have said that buildings will vary across the site, reaching up to a maximum of three storeys, although the majority will be two storeys.

The developers believe this approach will “create a varied roofscape, define marker buildings and add to the visual richness” of the project. They have also indicated that details such as the sizes of the homes, in terms of bedrooms, and the layout of the development are yet to be finalised.

Wates said the site currently consists of arable agricultural fields just north of the M25 and within walking and cycling distance of both Ashtead and Leatherhead. It is also already well connected to bus services. As part of the pre-planning process, Wates held meetings with nearby schools, including Trinity Primary School.

The planning statement noted: “At the meeting, the applicants were informed that the school is well below pupil capacity and referred to the same position at other local schools. It was explained to the applicants that local schools are accepting pupils who might not otherwise meet their selection criteria.” It added: “It was confirmed that Greville School currently has capacity and in the coming years will likely have greater capacity as there are significant spaces available in the reception year.”

Homes would be built on the western side of the site to create “a clear distinction between residential development and the eastern section within the retained green belt.” The final layout will be determined through discussion with the council.

Wates Development’s outline plans for up to 270 homes near the M25 in Ashstead (image Wates Development)

Precious green belt sites could be at risk of speculative developments and Waverley Borough Council could be powerless to stop them after its biggest housing project was judged to be taking too long to build.

All planning authorities must demonstrate they can provide enough land to supply housing for five years.

If they don’t they can become vulnerable to speculative applications and can lose control over where new homes are built – and may have to approve applications they would normally refuse.

Waverley Borough Council has been hit by a double whammy of increased housing targets by the Government and the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to pull the 2600-home Dunsfold Park from its projections over its “development trajectory”.

This has left the council running out of earmarked land for new homes in just two and a half years.

The situation gets even worse when the new Government’s increased housing targets are added into the fold, bringing the figure down to just one and a half years.

The figures were published in a Waverley Borough Council position statement last November following the Planning Inspector’s Dunsfold Park ruling.

It read: “The site has been discounted from the council’s five year housing land supply by Planning Inspectors in recent appeals and for this reason, the council has decided to exclude the site from the five year supply until there is more certainty about the timescales for delivery of housing on the site.”

The plan has been to redevelop the aerodrome to form a new garden village on the brownfield site.

Planning permission for the first stage of the project was originally granted by the Secretary of State in March 2018. Its infrastructure is expected to support other developments in the borough.

So far “not one home” has been built.

Councillor Jane Austin, leader of the Conservative opposition group on Waverley Borough Council, criticised the borough for not publicising the change more widely saying residents deserved to know what was happening.

She said: “These housing supply figures are utterly dire and will mean more opportunistic development in inappropriate locations.”

“We may as well just hand over the keys to opportunistic developers for any of the borough’s green fields without some kind of national planning protection over them. I am extremely concerned about what this means for Alfold and edge of town sites across the borough.”

Surrey County Councillor for Waverley Eastern Villages Kevin Deanus added: “Since Dunsfold Park gained planning consent in 2018 not one home has been constructed.

“Meanwhile local villages like Alfold have doubled in size. Major planning permissions in the local area have been granted dependent on infrastructure upgrades delivered via the Dunsfold Park permission.

“We now have raw sewage coming out of the ground in Alfold and huge pressure on local roads and infrastructure. Local people are despairing.”

Councillor Liz Townsend, Waverley Borough Council portfolio holder for planning and economic development said they remained fully committed to delivering sustainable housing that meets the needs of the community while challenging unjustified and unrealistic targets imposed by the Government.

Dunsfold Park had originally been included in the 2018 Local Plan when the council was under Conservative control and was one of several sites identified to meet housing needs.

She said: “While the council sets the framework for development, it is important to clarify that we do not have the power to compel developers to build homes once planning permissions are granted. As of now, planning permission has been granted for around 5,000 homes across Waverley.

“However, this is no longer sufficient to meet our five-year housing land supply target, primarily due to significant increases in government-mandated targets.

“Originally set at 590 homes per year, this skyrocketed to 710 homes under the previous government, and now to an extraordinary 1,481 homes per year under current government policies.

“This cumulative target amounts to a staggering 29,000 homes over the next 20 years — effectively requiring the construction of an additional Farnham and Godalming within the borough, which is entirely unfeasible.

“Waverley Borough Council has made robust representations to the Government, including direct appeals to the Deputy Prime Minister, outlining why the housing need calculations are flawed. To date, these concerns have been ignored.

“We are actively working with the promoters of Dunsfold Park and other developers to accelerate delivery.

“However, Government Planning Inspectors have questioned the certainty of delivery on the Dunsfold site within the next five years.

|As a result, the council has been forced to remove this site from its short-term housing projections, although this position will be continuously reviewed.

“The council is working urgently to develop a new Local Plan that ensures sustainable housing, job creation, and critical infrastructure.

“This is the only mechanism available to justify a more realistic housing target. Claims that the council is not fulfilling its obligations or has alternative options are factually incorrect.

“We are committed to addressing the national housing crisis while balancing the need to protect our borough’s character and environment.However, it is the Government’s disproportionate and unrealistic housing targets—not a lack of action by the council—that are placing immense pressure on local authorities across the country.

“Waverley Borough Council will continue to advocate for realistic and sustainable solutions to meet housing needs while standing firm against policies that jeopardise the future of our communities.”

Image: Waverley Borough Council (Chris Caulfield)