The Case Against These Proposals

The sites perform a critical Green Belt function in Separating Mayford and Woking (Both separate in the Doomsday book)
It safeguards the openness and character of the area and the countryside.
The proposals don't meet the very special circumstances as reiterated by the Officers pre-application response on 27/08/25 (Landscape importance)
These applications together would also directly result in the merging of villages with Woking, which Green Belt is in place to prevent. This will pave the way for sprawl of large built up areas where there is insufficient highways infrastructure to cope with even the current demands
Very Special Circumstances These sites do not meet the "very special circumstances"" as there has been sufficient land considered elsewhere within the borough to meet the housing need without the release of these parcels from the Green Belt (see Site Allocation Point below).

The proposal fails the National Planning Policy Framework's (NPPF) "grey-belt" test.
The applicant seeks to use the new NPPF "grey-belt" route, but their own evidence shows the site fails every
The sites perform a critical contribution to Mayford and the area as a whole. "Grey belt" applies only where contribution is very limited.
Mayford is an ancient Village found in the doomsday book. Mayford’s openness in this area is critical to its identity and both green belt sites perform a critical purpose.
The location is not "sensible or sustainable". Surrey County Council’s own pre-application assessment scores the location 41– 53, which is classed as poor connectivity. This means the site fails the sustainability element of the grey-belt test.

Woking is currently part-way through a new local plan to identify appropriate delivery of build land. These applications undermine that. Important community led process that is so important. This application is incredibly harmful to openness, landscape, wildlife, drainage and heritage.
The adopted development plan remains the starting point for decisions, and granting permission now would pre-judge strategic choices the Local Plan process is intended to resolve.

The sites were not allocated within the Regulation 19 draft of the Site Allocations DPD, which was subsequently adopted in October 2021 - the council have therefore determined that there is sufficient available and deliverable land within the borough to meet their housing needs without these 2 developments. This is reflected with the Council by demonstrating they have over a 5YHLS (8.1 years) in April 2023 and a HDT score of 129%.

The applicant has not done any pre-application public consultation with neighbouring residents therefore, we have no confidence that this application has been developed with the neighbours views/issues considered. The Developer's' documentation shows a lack of any active consultation.

The application does not have sufficient information provided - it is missing a Development Specification document as well as a Design Code, which would be expected alongside an Outline Planning Application.

Lacking as such, this constitutes "salami-slicing" and an ES should be provided in support of both these applications.

These applications individual or combined would dramatic swell a village population, even doubling it. Bring hundreds of extra cars to tiny inadequate roads.
The local road network is already congested, particularly during peak hours, and the addition of over 300 homes would exacerbate this issue significantly. Saunders Lane and surrounding roads are not designed to handle such a high volume of traffic, leading to increased congestion, longer commute times, and heightened risk of accidents.
The Village is not served well with infrastructure. No doctors, no shops, just one Post Office Flooding
The area is prone to surface water flooding and rising water table winter flooding. The proposal lacks a robust Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) and fails to meet the Local Plans climate adaptation goals outlined in "Tackling Climate Change".

The Case Against