Planning Matters #16 of 2025 

4 December 2025 

In this edition:  

•           Normandy says 'NO' to Taylor Wimpey 
•           GBC responds to TW's EIA Scoping Request
•           Shortlands Farm planning application
•           Retrospective application in Wanborough Fields 
•           Farnborough Airport Consultation   

 Normandy says 'NO' to Taylor Wimpey   

On Sunday, 30 November, Normandy Parish Council (NPC) presented the results of its household survey to understand local views on potential major housing development in the village. Roughly 25% of the total population of Normandy responded, a high proportion for a survey of this kind. With the principal focus being the Taylor Wimpey (TW) proposal for 950 dwellings, closing up the green space between Normandy and Flexford, unsurprisingly 95.6 per cent were either against the proposal (13.1 per cent) or strongly against (82.5 per cent). 

The detailed figures, together with the latest position statement from NPC, can be seen on the Parish Council website here. The meeting was also covered in a report in the Guildford Dragon, including a quote from Normandy’s MP, Dr Alastair Pinkerton, in which he expressed incredulity that such a site could be considered ‘Grey Belt’ and suggested the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government might like to come and see it for himself. 

GBC responds to TW's EIA Scoping Request 

Although, as speakers at the meeting made clear, the Government’s recent changes to the planning rules make it much harder for local planning authorities such as Guildford Borough Council (GBC) to turn down speculative planning applications such as the TW one, there are still many grounds on which the application can be resisted. 

The most obvious one is that anything on this scale should form part of the Local Plan process, when it can be assessed strategically against the suitability of other sites, the availability of sufficient infrastructure to support it, and so on. This is a point we have recently made in a letter to the Housing Minister; we shall let you know what response we get. 

We made additional arguments in our submission in response to TW’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Request (see Planning Matters #13 of 23 October). We were therefore encouraged by GBC’s reply to the Request, which was published on 26 November (available here, under the ‘documents’ tab). This reflected many of our points, and made clear that TW would need to address them in the Environmental Statement that would be part of its eventual planning application. 

We were particularly pleased that GBC endorsed the view of the Surrey County Council Archaeological Officer that there was potential for highly significant remains of the Roman Road between London and Winchester to be present on the Site, and that a geophysical survey and archaeological investigations would therefore be required. 

This is a good example of the detailed arguments that will need to be made if this development, which we continue to regard as disproportionate, opportunistic, and inappropriate, is to be avoided. 

Shortlands Farm planning application   

Meanwhile the anticipated application, 25/P/01521, by Gleeson Land for permission to build 200 dwellings at Shortlands Farm, just inside Normandy Parish on the main road to Ash, has now been made. GBC’s delay in posting it on their website since it was validated on 6 November means we now have to respond over the busy Christmas period, with a deadline of 2 January; we know this matter is being raised with them. 

It is striking that there were 471 responses to the online consultation organised by the developer, and that close to 95% were either ‘opposed’ or ‘strongly opposed’ (the application doesn’t give exact percentages, but the bar charts are in the ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ behind the ‘documents’ tab). 

Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposal, our view is that, again, it is too big to be considered outside of the Local Plan process, especially given the TW proposal for 400 dwellings in Tongham (Planning Matters #15 of 20 November) alongside their one in Normandy; 1550 new builds in such a small area is not something that should be allowed to happen in an unplanned way. It would, as we have said before, lead to the eradication of the openness between Tongham, Ash, and Normandy, and the effective end of any sense we might have of living in a village. 

We will revert with more detailed comments on this application once we have had a chance to study it in detail.

Retrospective application in Wanborough Fields   

An application, 25/P/01338, has been lodged for a “retrospective change of use of land to a mixed agricultural use, comprising the siting of a static caravan for gypsy and traveller occupancy, erection of a stable block, chicken coop, paddock, fencing, and associated landscaping”. This relates to the plot nearest the gate from Westwood Lane into the smaller field at the bend in the road, which is subject to one or more Enforcement Notices (Planning Matters #8 of 17 August). The Design and Access Statement contains the surprising statement that “There is no relevant planning history available”! The consultation period runs to 20 December. 

Farnborough Airport consultation  

Rushmoor Borough Council has invited public comments regarding a new planning application for Farnborough Airport, 25/00615/REV. As its website makes clear, this is a new application, and is substantially different from previous ones, including one from 2023 that has yet to be determined. It seeks to increase the number of flights at weekends, and the permitted maximum weight of aircraft using the airport. The deadline for comments is 30 December.