Planning Objection Summary – For Village Society Website 1. Primary Argument Both proposed developments lie entirely within the Green Belt and do not meet the criteria for “Grey Belt” classification. They perform a critical Green Belt function for the ancient village of Mayford, protecting its openness, identity and separation from Woking. These two applications must be read together, as they represent a coordinated attempt to create 309 dwellings across adjacent Green Belt sites, dramatically increasing cumulative harm.   2. Why the Applications Must Be Considered Together •    The sites sit side-by-side and form a single block of Green Belt. •    Assessing them separately disguises their true combined impact on: o    Openness o    Landscape o    Traffic o    Flooding o    Community identity o    Infrastructure capacity •    Together they would merge Mayford with Woking, contrary to core Green Belt purposes.   3. Inappropriate Development in the Green Belt •    The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Woking Core Strategy (CS6) state a strong presumption against inappropriate development. •    These sites do not meet “Very Special Circumstances” for Green Belt release. •    Woking Borough Council has already shown sufficient land supply elsewhere to meet its housing need. •    These fields currently: o    Safeguard the openness and rural character of Mayford o    Prevent coalescence with Woking o    Form part of Mayford’s historic landscape (both settlements are listed separately in the Domesday Book) •    Approving these schemes would set a dangerous precedent for further Green Belt encroachment.   4. Grey Belt Claim – Why Both Sites Fail Despite the applicants seeking to use the new NPPF “Grey Belt” route, their own evidence shows the sites fail every test. Grey Belt requires the land to: •    Contain substantial built development (it does not) •    Make very little contribution to preventing towns merging (it makes a major contribution) •    Be dominated by urban land uses (it is open countryside) •    Contribute little to preserving the setting of historic towns (it contributes significantly) Additional Failings: •    Surrey County Council’s poor connectivity score (41–53) means the sites fail the sustainability requirement. •    Mayford’s openness is a core part of its identity, and both fields perform essential Green Belt purposes.   5. Local Plan Context •    Woking is currently developing a new Local Plan (due 2028). •    National guidance states safeguarded or Green Belt land should only come forward after Local Plan review, not before. •    These applications attempt to pre-empt and undermine that community-led process. •    The adopted development plan remains the starting point for decisions — granting permission now would pre-judge strategic choices not yet made.   6. Site Allocations DPD – Why These Sites Were Rejected •    Neither site was allocated in the Site Allocations DPD (Regulation 19) adopted in 2021. •    The Council judged that housing needs can be met without these Green Belt releases. •    WBC’s latest figures show: o    8.1 years of housing land supply (well above national requirement) o    129% Housing Delivery Test score → There is no planning need to release additional Green Belt.   7. Consultation Failures •    The applicant carried out no meaningful pre-application consultation with residents. •    Many villagers were unaware of the proposals until media coverage appeared. •    This falls short of the council’s expected standards for transparency and community engagement.   8. Form of the Application •    Critical documents are missing, including: o    Development Specification Document o    Design Code •    These are normally expected at outline stage for a development of this scale.   9. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Concerns •    No Environmental Statement has been provided. •    The applicant argues an EIA is unnecessary; this is strongly disputed. •    A full EIA should be required due to likely major impacts on: o    Landscape o    Biodiversity o    Hydrology and flood risk o    Traffic o    Heritage setting   10. Traffic & Infrastructure Constraints •    These developments would dramatically increase the population of Mayford — potentially doubling it. •    This would force hundreds of extra vehicles onto: o    Saunders Lane (narrow, winding, limited footways) o    Already congested arterial routes •    Mayford has: o    No doctors o    No shops o    One Post Office o    No capacity for large-scale growth Combined impact is ignored: The NE and NW proposals sit directly next to each other, and nearby major sites are also seeking approval — meaning up to four active major developments within a 1,000-yard radius.   11. Flooding Risk •    The area is prone to surface-water flooding. •    The application lacks a robust Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS). •    It fails to meet the climate-adaptation objectives in Woking’s “Tackling Climate Change” policy.   12. Green Belt Benefits – What This Land Provides These fields deliver essential environmental and social benefits: •    Preventing urban sprawl •    Maintaining separation between Mayford and Woking •    Preserving the setting of an ancient Domesday village •    Supporting biodiversity and wildlife corridors •    Mitigating climate impacts such as heat and flooding •    Providing countryside access and supporting mental/physical health •    Supporting agricultural land and local food resilience   13. Community Identity & Heritage •    Mayford is historically separate from Woking and listed in the Domesday Book. •    These fields form part of the rural edge that defines the village’s setting. •    A large suburban estate would erase that identity permanently.   14. Overall Conclusion Both proposals constitute inappropriate Green Belt development, fail the Grey Belt test, contradict the adopted Local Plan and Site Allocations DPD, and offer no exceptional circumstances to justify release. They would cause irreversible harm to: •    Mayford’s historic identity •    Openness and landscape character •    Wildlife and drainage systems •    Infrastructure capacity •    Local roads and safety The applications should be refused.   If you want, I can also provide: ✅ A shorter, public-friendly version ✅ A formal objection letter template ✅ A page layout for your website ✅ A “What is Grey Belt?” sidebar or infographic Just tell me what format you want next. You said: A page layout for your website ChatGPT said: Below is a clean, clear and professional page layout you can paste directly into a village-society website (WordPress, Wix, Squarespace, custom HTML, etc.). I’ve used simple headings, optional call-out boxes and a suggested navigation structure so the page is easy for villagers to use and simple to skim.   📄 Suggested Web Page Layout: Planning Objection – Green Belt Applications   Page Title Objection to Proposed Green Belt Developments in Mayford   Intro Section (Short, Clear Overview) Mayford Village Society is objecting to two linked planning applications proposing 309 homes on protected Green Belt land. These sites play a critical role in preserving Mayford’s rural identity, preventing merger with Woking, and protecting our environment, roads, and community services. 👉 We encourage all residents to read the information below and submit their own objections. [Button: Submit Your Objection Here]   SECTION 1 — Summary at a Glance Why These Applications Should Be Refused •    Sites lie entirely in protected Green Belt •    Both fail all Grey Belt tests •    Together they form a coordinated 309-home expansion •    Would merge Mayford with Woking •    Village infrastructure is already overstretched •    Severe traffic, safety, flood and environmental impacts •    Contradict Local Plan, Site Allocations DPD, and NPPF •    No exceptional justification has been provided [Optional graphic: “Top 7 Reasons for Objection”]   SECTION 2 — The Full Case 2.1 Primary Argument The two proposals must be assessed together. They represent a single attempt to urbanise a vital block of Green Belt that maintains Mayford’s separation, character, and landscape.   2.2 Why These Sites Are Not Grey Belt Call-out box: Grey Belt only applies where land contributes little to openness, heritage, or settlement separation. These fields contribute heavily to all three. •    No substantial built development •    Major role in preventing town merger •    Historic village setting (Domesday Book) •    SCC connectivity score: 41–53 (poor) •    Not a sustainable or logical location [Link/Button: “What is Grey Belt?”]   2.3 Green Belt Purposes These Fields Do Meet •    Preventing urban sprawl •    Preventing Mayford–Woking merger •    Safeguarding countryside from encroachment •    Preserving historic village setting •    Supporting biodiversity and climate resilience 👉 These fields fully meet all five statutory Green Belt purposes.   2.4 Local Plan & Policy Conflicts •    The new Local Plan is in progress (due 2028) •    National guidance: safeguarded/Green Belt land must not come forward early •    The sites were not allocated in the Site Allocations DPD •    Woking currently has: o    8.1 years housing land supply o    129% Housing Delivery Test result •    No planning need exists to release more Green Belt   2.5 Environmental & Heritage Impacts •    No Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) provided •    Loss of rural edge and landscape views •    Harm to wildlife corridors and habitat •    Damage to the historic setting of Mayford village   2.6 Flooding & Climate Risks •    Area prone to surface water flooding •    Insufficient Sustainable Drainage (SuDS) •    Fails Woking’s “Tackling Climate Change” standards   2.7 Traffic, Roads & Infrastructure Call-out box: Mayford’s traffic is already at breaking point. •    Saunders Lane and surrounding roads are narrow, winding and unsafe for more vehicles •    Recent developments have caused daily gridlock •    Up to hundreds of additional cars from these sites •    No doctors, no shops, one Post Office – infrastructure cannot cope •    Combined with other proposals, four major developments may operate within 1,000 yards   2.8 Consultation & Application Deficiencies •    No meaningful pre-application consultation •    Missing key documents (Design Code, Development Specification) •    Community was not properly informed   SECTION 3 — What Residents Can Do Submit Your Objection Use our guidance to send your objection to Woking Borough Council by the consultation deadline. [Button: Submit Your Planning Objection]   Tips for Writing Your Objection •    Use your own words (important) •    Focus on planning reasons •    Mention traffic, Green Belt, landscape, heritage, flooding, policy conflict [Link: “Objection Tips & Template Letter”]   SECTION 4 — Maps, Evidence & Resources •    Map of both sites •    Green Belt / Grey Belt explanation •    Local Plan timeline •    Policy extracts (NPPF, CS6, DPD) •    Photo gallery of affected areas   SECTION 5 — Stay Informed Sign up for Village Society Updates