i) The best way to protect this agricultural landscape is through ownership and through keeping it in agricultural use; the Council still continue to dismiss both options.

ii) If they proceed with a sale but believe in protecting the Green Belt for future generations then they should put some real restrictions against development in place. The 'special restrictions' drawn up by their legal department can be rendered void by a new planning application as part of a development agreement (which can include payments to the Council) with a developer.

iii) So far the Council have refused to impose effective restrictions, i.e. ones where others in the community can take action to stop illegal development. This is because they know it may put off developers and reduce some bids. Furthermore in their guidelines the Council requirement 'to share in 30% of any development value uplift' sends a signal which we believe may not give the impression development is encouraged.

Either the Council make a real commitment in perpetuity to protect this landscape for future generations by putting unbreakable restrictions in place or they try and hedge their bets which is exactly what they are doing at the moment.

i) The recent marketing campaign to property developers across the South East is suggesting that bids might reach circa £3m - £5m on the basis probably that the farm buildings are converted to residential use. It is uncertain whether this is for converting the farm buildings to one, two or forty two residential units, plus of course presumably a developer 'land banking' the remaining land.

ii) The farm land is not necessary for any successful residential conversion of the farm buildings. GBC say they are committed to protecting the landscape. If the land could be kept in farming this would be a better outcome. However we suspect they would still rather sell off each field to various buyers as this will get the best price. This will probably totally exclude the possibility of farming by making it sufficiently difficult for any farmer to agree terms.

In which case please please press GBC that if they insist in going ahead with a sale that only the farm buildings and farmyards are sold for residential development and in fact that it should be for only a small development.

GBC SHOULD THEN RETAIN THE LAND FOR FARMING BY OTHERS.

Not including the fields in any sale may not materially effect any bid (and if it did one could justifiably be suspicious that a bidder is land banking). The residents of Guildford could then take some comfort from the outcome of this 'fire sale'.

iii) A small note under Guildford's Note to editors. Councillor Rooth says a sale is necessary because 'Tyting Farm did not perform well'. If offers are received for £2.5m to £3m it will be one of GuildfordÍs best performing assets. Accordingly on valuation uplift alone this should easily defeat government criticism based on the poor performance of this asset. This argument fails also if combined with the importance of this open space to Guildford which like schools or parks should not have strictly financial criteria applied. We expect our politicians not to work on a principle of 'knowing the price of everything and value of nothing'.

In actual fact it is uncertain whether or not Surrey County Council and Greater London Authority will be entitled to recover a share of the sale proceeds due to their having contributed to the purchase price in 1942 to protect this Green Belt against development. If Guildford only receive a small proportion of the net proceeds (say £1m) what expenditure is currently so important as to carry on with this sale ? One supporter suggested redecoration of Council offices maybe costing about the same sum (we will try to find out !).

1. The history of the farm is not happy…repairing and rental obligations were not honoured.

2. The farm is too small to be a viable agricultural enterprise even if considerable sums were spent on it.

3. The sale is the “appropriate” way of securing its long term future.

4. All possible legal and planning safeguards have been put in place.

5. Central government obliges GBC to review its ownership of “uneconomic” assets.

6. The Council is not obliged to accept the highest offer.

1. GBC has presided over the demolition of historic buildings and failed to enforce its tenants obligations. It has allowed the farmland and buildings to fall into their present dilapidated state. It has mismanaged its ownership of this precious landscape and now seeks to walk away from its moral duty to safeguard and preserve it.

2. GBC has not fully reviewed all the options to ensure the continued agricultural use of the farmland. No discussions have been held with local farmers, at least two of whom have expressed an interest in farming this land. A full open and public debate should take place about securing the farmland’s future before it is sold.

3. GBC is breaking up the farmland and selling it in lots in order to secure the best price. It is looking for “hope” value for the farmland rather than agricultural value. This excludes some bidders who may put forward a more sympathetic use of the land. The contract includes a “clawback” clause entitling GBC to a share in the increase in value in the event of redevelopment.

We do not think that this sounds like the “appropriate” way of securing its long term future.

Why is a conservative council so keen to do what they describe as Central Government’s (John Prescott’s) bidding?

4. GBC propose to impose planning obligations restricting the use of the farmland.

• GBC’s history of enforcing planning breaches is not good.
• Any planning obligations imposed by a council can also be released by them.
• If central government changes planning policy to permit development of green belt adjoining built up areas the planning obligations will be of little value.

If the land is owned by GBC or by a charitable organisation ‘A Landscape Trust’ then there is another additional layer of protection that will not exist if it is owned by a property developer.

5. GBC suggests that farm buildings be used as light industrial or small offices. This could provide office accommodation for over 100 people. There is no public transport and so up to 100 cars could be parked on site generating up to 200 extra vehicle movements a day as well as associated trade traffic. A business park on the farm will not add to its landscape value or enhance its natural beauty. For residential one Councillor suggested 10/12 units creating 10/20 cars, i.e. urbanisation (Guardian newspaper 8th February 2006).

6. GBC also owns the Chantries, which are certainly not “economic”, as well as other small farms in the area. Indeed until recently its policy was to acquire potential development sites recognising the need to protect them.

7. Agriculture in this country is in a perilous state. Many farms can only be worked economically with the aid of substantial subsidies which this government, sees no votes in protecting rural interests, wishes to see abolished or greatly reduced.

At this difficult time we need more than ever to protect the farmland that makes Guildford such an attractive place to live and work. Tyting Farm sits as a ‘jewel in the crown’ of the valley that runs from Pewley Down to Shere, past the Chantries and St Martha’s, with The Ridgeway on one side and the North Downs Way on the other. It especially needs a proper joined-up solution. Otherwise the greenbelt will slowly be eaten away and we will end up surrounded by office parks, golf courses and increasing suburbanisation.

Tyting Farm is the thin end of a very large wedge. It needs to be protected and our elected councillors need to understand the depth of feeling on this issue.

1. A full public consultation with ample time to consider all the options. Final bids are due on February 13th: this historic decision is being rushed through without proper consultation.

2. Discussions with local farmers and country bodies to secure continued agricultural use of the farmland as one lot.

3. STFC has received support from the CPRE Surrey Hills, the Guildford Society and The Ramblers Association EGRA, The Tyting Society, as well as many concerned individuals.