CPRE is concerned about the sale by GBC of Tyting Farm in Holy Trinity Ward.

We acknowledge that this sensitive Green Belt countryside is protected by national, regional, county, and district policy. We also understand the reasons why GBC has considered this action. We are aware as well of the controls that GBC has sought to introduce in order to prevent inappropriate development and to protect this stretch of countryside.

However, we still have the following reservations:

1. Reform is in process at all levels of government and current policy guidance is being reviewed in such a way that protection of the countryside often appears to be being weakened as a result. Documents such as the Surrey Structure Plan and the Guildford Borough Local Plan will be replaced at the end of the year. In other parts of the country there are examples of national priorities over-ruling well established local land use policies in order to allow housing development on green field sites. The future of AGLV as a countryside designation is uncertain. Ownership of Tyting Farm by GBC provides an extra level of protection.

2. GBC has acquired land in the past to protect it from the danger of development permanently. Any change in this GBC policy sends out a signal to developers that will be interpreted by them as a readiness at the Council to be more flexible in the future than previously.

3. Land on the perimeter of the town is particularly vulnerable and in need of protection and enhancement. There is concern that the sale of Tyting Farm could be an indication of a change of direction that will result in other farms owned by GBC being sold.

4. The landscape around St Martha’s Hill is sensitive and depends on both farming and woodland. Fragmentation of the landholding at Tyting Farm is likely to lead to deterioration.

5. We recognise that GBC has had an expensive and unsuccessful history as a landowner at Tyting Farm. This does not, however, preclude the possibility of leasing (or even selling) this land on a long term basis to an existing farmer with substantial acreage elsewhere (either leased or owned) who has already demonstrated a positive track record.

6. The problem is that the value asked for the land is well above agricultural levels. This will encourage purchasers who will try to “develop” the land to make a return on their investment. Our fear is that this will lead to further degradation of the land condition whilst different inappropriate applications are submitted. It is our experience that covenants are not always as robust as one would hope with the passage of time, and that the search for loopholes often leads to prolonged and costly enforcement procedures.

7. The public values Tyting Farm for recreational purposes just as much as Chantry Woods. Both cost GBC money to maintain. Both are regarded as important open green space, close in proximity to the town, to which the public can gain easy access.

8. We think that just as it is in the public interest for GBC to keep Stoke Park and Pewley Down in its control so it should consider more highly the public amenity value of Tyting Farm. We also believe that GBC should not reach decisions about the disposal of its landholdings without any open and transparent debate as to the issues involved.

We do not favour sale of the Tyting Farm unless the long term public interest can be seen to be served on a permanent basis. We are inclined to think that a leasehold arrangement should be investigated further so that the Council retains land ownership. It seems important to us that GBC develops a strategy for the future as regards its land-holdings so that they are handled in a cohesive and coherent manner rather than in a piecemeal approach.

Yours sincerely - Tim Harrold, Chairman Surrey Branch CPRE

Thank you for your letter of 8th February on Tyting Farm explaining the background to its intended sale and indicating that there will be extensive covenants that will be for the benefit of the Council as well as the adjoining neighbours.

This whole issue has become very public and you will appreciate that there is a lot of feeling about the way it appears to have been handled so far. We trust that all the issues raised will be considered in a comprehensive report that will be discussed in public by the Council, other than those issues that need to be discussed in private session.

As I mentioned in my letter of 26th January, Members of EGRA believe it is important for the rural ambience of this area to be preserved in perpetuity by the continuation of countryside uses.

Additionally, since the farm was advertised for sale there has been a change in circumstances, with the possible need to provide extensive compensatory ‘greenspace’ for amenity under the European Habitats Directive. This needs to be addressed in the report.

Of considerable importance to residents in any report are:
• The extent of the consultations with local residents. You advised that there has been close consultation, but this has been disputed by some of the consultees.
• Whilst consultation may not be a legal requirement, the public interest in this issue surely requires extensive consultation. You will appreciate that there is a wider public interest in Tyting Farm than just the adjoining residents.
• Details of the alternative uses to which the land might be put, including the possibility of an involvement by Surrey Wildlife Trust.
• Arguments for and against the retention of the freehold by the Council – with any disposal being by way of a leasehold interest. This should help in any subsequent enforcement action.
• The details of the covenants, development restrictions and profit sharing proposals, including a prohibition on the establishment of a business park.
• The precedent effect on the other Council owned farms.

We look forward to your confirmation that all these matters will be considered comprehensively in open forum by the Council.

Yours sincerely – Jim Rattray, Secretary of the East Guildford Residents Association (EGRA)

Following our discussions, I promised to outline my concerns about the proposed disposal of land at Tyting Farm and its potential impact on this important part of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The fragmentation of farmland into smaller plots is one of the key threats to the Surrey Hills AONB as this can lead to the loss of continuous traditional management of land, inappropriate management, neglect and speculative development. Even though the land is protected in planning under AONB and Green Belt designations, there is a danger that a future landowner would sell the land into smaller plots and speculative developers, like Property Spy, already target land in the AONB.

Although I appreciate that the Council would wish to dispose of such an agricultural holding, there is still an important public responsibility to uphold and maintain the integrity of Tyting Farm as part of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Indeed, the Council, under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, has a ‘duty of regard’ to the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. On this basis I would urge Guildford Borough Council to consider the use of Article 4 Directions and restricted covenants.

Although conditions of sale would reduce the commercial value of land, such action would be in line with the Council’s core values and vision to safeguard our local heritage. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council and others to achieve this, perhaps as an exemplar for other authorities and landowners.

Yours sincerely - Rob Fairbanks, Surrey Hills AONB Officer

The Guildford Society supports the objectives of the Save Tyting Farm campaign, namely to preserve the outstanding natural beauty and great landscape value of the farm.

The farm is an asset owned by the Borough, and in effect it is held in trust by the Council for the benefit of the residents of the Borough. Outright sale of land held by the Borough is to be regretted and would seem to set short term gain ahead of long term interests, and we suggest that sale as a leasehold would be in the Borough's best long term interests. Leasehold would also give the Borough a greater degree of control. We hope that this option is still open even though it is not mentioned in Clarke Gammon Weller's particulars.

We would prefer the management of the land to be entrusted to the Surrey Wildlife Trust, as suggested by EGRA. Failing this, we would advocate sale in a single lot to a person or body willing to maintain it as a single entity without exploitation of the farm buildings for development. We note that the Council does not have to accept the highest bid, and hope that the intentions of the bidders will be subject to close scrutiny and control.

If the farm is sold in lots then our major concern is with Lot 3, the farm buildings. We note that the GBC Planning Guidance for the Lot allows B1 a, b and c usage: small scale offices, R &D, and light industry. We note that residential use associated with the B1 usage could also be considered. We consider that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that no residential usage should be allowed. Appendix 3 gives the total potential floor space of the nine buildings available for B1 usage as 2,195 square metres (23,627 square feet). This is considerable and could provide office accommodation for over 100 people, based on 10 square metres per person, which I believe is the standard in open plan office space, and 50% usage, the remainder being space for facilities, meeting rooms etc. The only means of access is by car, and hence up to about 100 cars could be parked on the site. We suggest that this is entirely unacceptable and would like to know how the Council will prevent it.

We note that planning guidance commonly says that new employment should be accessible by public transport. We note that there is no local rural community to justify the creation of new employment. We note that there is ample office space available in Guildford; as an example the old Burymead House (the Guildford Plaza) has been awaiting usage for years. We consider that the proposed new employment facilities will score low on sustainability because of their isolation. We think that a business park on the farm, even a small one, will not add to the outstanding natural beauty and great landscape value of the farm.

We would therefore like assurances that any development of Lot 3 will be on a much smaller scale that indicated by the above figures. The only way we can see of achieving this is to insist that development be restricted to the buildings round the courtyard, say, and that the remaining buildings be removed. We assume that this is the kind of condition the Council might apply if a privately owned farm in a similar location applied to do the same thing. Our preference would be for the whole of Lot 3 to be removed from the sale and for any surplus buildings to be demolished. The Council would then have to forego about £750,000. We hope that this option will be considered seriously by the Council.

The reasons given for the sale are the non-viability of the farm because of its small size and the very poor state of the land and buildings because of the poor performance of the last tenant. Several people have asked what the Council's intentions are regarding the other farms that it owns. Are they all larger and of a viable size? Would the Council sell any one of them if it got a bad tenant? Can you give assurances on these very important points?

Best regards - John Baylis, Chairman Guildford Society

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman of the Tyting Society. I have been made aware that in recent correspondence about the sale of Tyting Farm, you have made reference to being ‘in very close touch with the Tyting Society’. You go on to say that the Tyting Society and Surrey Wildlife Trust raised ‘no fundamental objection once the situation (and in particular the proposed covenants) had been explained to them’. In my view this is not a fair representation of the facts as far as the Tyting Society is concerned.

The overriding concern of the members of the Tyting Society regarding the farm is the future of the landscape and environment, which means conserving its character and ensuring that it is sustainably managed. We agree that the farm is in a bad way and that the buildings cannot be left in their present state. The land needs attention and the hedges need repair or reinstatement. We have consistently maintained in our discussions with our local councillors and with GBC officers that continued ownership of the land by GBC would afford the best protection. This was stated by me most recently in an email to Councillor Sarah Creedy on 8 November 2005, and in my letter of 11 November to Councillor Gordon Bridger. We have also consistently said that if the sale had to proceed that our preference was for retaining the farm as one entity, not splitting the land into lots, which we saw as increasing the risk of development pressure.

It was made clear to me that the Council had no obligation to consult local residents and was not intending to do so. We were offered the opportunity to comment on the draft planning guidance, which we welcomed, and we see the final document as helpful.

The covenants were made available to potential purchasers on request during December and we had no advance sight of them. Indeed, on 8 December I was advised by the legal services department that there were still in draft. We agree that the covenants are appropriate. However, earlier this month I requested (in a personal capacity) that the Council give consideration to introducing a simple covenant in favour of the owners of properties adjoining the farm. This could provide further reassurance as it would enforceable by the residents, but I have been advised that this is not something that the Council will contemplate.

It therefore seems disingenuous to imply that we are content with the decision to sell and with the process. Our position can be summarised as follows:
- we would prefer the land to remain in the Council’s ownership,
- given the Council’s determination to proceed with the sale, our objective has been to seek as much protection as possible through the planning guidance, the covenants and the criteria for evaluating the bids.

The reality at this point is that the sale is proceeding, with best and final offers due by 13 February, and we remain very anxious about the outcome.

Yours sincerely - Richard Jarvis, Tyting Society

I understand that Guildford Borough Council intends to dispose of its holding at Tyting Farm, with no guarantee that the land will remain in agricultural use. The division of the holding into a number of lots for sale would indicate that development, rather than agricultural use, is the intention. Despite the present recession in farming, the NFU’s long-standing position is to urge local authorities to retain their farm estates wherever possible. We do not expect the recession to last indefinitely, and are working positively towards restoring a restructured farming industry to profitability in the wake of the recent Common Agricultural Policy reforms.

Farmers and growers remain the most effective and financially sustainable means of managing the countryside, preferably as a by-product of successful commercial farming, although under present circumstances we accept that this may require an element of supplementary income from diversified enterprises. The reform of the CAP in January 2005, breaking the link between production volumes and EU support payments and redirecting the funding to environmentally beneficial land management, can only reinforce this argument. Experience shows that when farmers leave the land, the likely result is the fragmentation of holdings, leading to the deterioration of landscapes and the spread of suburban influence into the countryside. The latter is particularly unwelcome at a time when the protection of traditional landscape character is afforded increasingly high priority by the planning system (for example, Policy C3 of the emerging South East Plan).

While the number of new entrants to farming (formerly the main source of tenants for council-owned farms) has declined as the industry has contracted, the present low levels of profitability have made economy of scale one of the principal means of beating the recession and remaining in business. It is likely that there are well-established, local farmers who would be keen to take on Tyting Farm, on either a freehold or leasehold basis, to supplement their existing agricultural land holdings. I urge the Council to make every effort to retain Tyting Farm in agricultural use, both for the future of farming and for the long-term benefit of the countryside and the local population.

I accept that I am not aware of all the circumstances surrounding the Council’s decision to sell this land, but I cannot help contemplating what might have been the outcome had the farm been in private ownership and a planning application made for a drastic change of use in such a sensitive landscape area.

Yours sincerely - John Archer, Environment & Land Use Adviser