If you have useful information please email us.

Update & appeal for funds - July 2006

To all Supporters

It has been a month since the last update in which we announced the good news that Guildford Borough Council had finally decided not to sell Tyting Farm and had chosen instead to advertise the farm for lease and select the offer that best protected and enhanced the local environment and guaranteed the agricultural future of the farm.

A great deal has been going on in the background since then. We have continued to work with GBC to try and influence, as best we can, the terms of the proposed lease and the selection criteria they will use.  We have also been working very closely with Surrey Wildlife Trust who we still feel offers the best way forward.  Finally, we have been trying, but with only limited success, to establish a dialogue with the Halow Trust and with others who have expressed an interest in leasing the farm for farming and other activities.

This last point is disappointing and is a cause of particular concern because, with the exception of Surrey Wildlife Trust’s bid, all other bids to lease the farm will almost certainly involve commercial or residential development of the old farm buildings which, if approved, would mean that farming merely becomes a sideline activity.

Although we are still awaiting publication of the marketing and tender documents for the leasing of Tyting Farm, which we expect to see in the next few weeks, we are keen to avoid this marketing being a sale by any other name with bidders pressing for a change of use and with development of the farm buildings driving their interests.

As you are all too well aware, with increasing pressures for development on Guildford and the South East, one of the main objectives of this Campaign is to preserve this quiet upland valley so close to the city centre as a rural idyll. We have argued long and hard for landscape preservation, restoration of the dilapidated buildings, meadows, hedgerows and pond, and for continued agricultural use as the predominant activity.

To this end we whole heartedly support the initial bid of SWT which offered to undertake this project, restore the farm and use it for a livestock grazing project.  However, SWT is a charitable organisation and its offer acknowledged the need for funding. SWT have a good record of fund raising; first and foremost, it considered that sufficient funding might be available through grant aid and from charitable donations. Failing this, in whole or in part, this Campaign offered to embark on fund raising to help preserve this valley for the people of Guildford (more of this later). As a last resort SWT said it might have to look for income from some modest development of some of the farm buildings, which we would prefer to avoid if development means residential or office use and a step towards urbanisation and increased traffic generation.

With the bidding date approaching time is running short for the Campaign, its supporters and others to influence the outcome and so it is important to consider the following points very carefully.

Firstly, anyone will be able to bid and some in the Council may still favour cash over environment.  If so, and a tenant is selected who wishes to take a development approach we will campaign against such a bidder and any inappropriate development.

Secondly, if sufficient grant aid, charitable donations or public pledges are not forthcoming it is highly likely SWT may understandably need to look for alternative ways to generate capital from the farm buildings.

One proposal, mentioned in their bid, is for SWT to work with a farmer such as Laurence Matthews - whose interest and environmental credentials are excellent and which we applaud.  However, his involvement would include proposals to convert the buildings into rural offices and this will effectively overshadow farming and fundamentally change the primary use of Tyting Farm.  Laurence may also be inclined to bid in his own right although we are not sure that he intends to do so.

Another proposal is from Halow – a recently formed group that want to convert the farm buildings to a residential home for people with learning disabilities, i.e. young adults, some of whom may work on the farm and some of whom would work in Guildford.  SWT is particularly attracted to this as an option as it believes it has significant appeal and mutual charitable benefits.  However, they are still awaiting detailed proposals from Halow and have indicated to us that they would only work with Halow if we are happy with the nature and scale of their proposals.  That said, Halow may also choose to bypass SWT and bid directly for the farm - which we would not prefer.

If Laurence Matthews or Halow are involved, we would favour an agreement whereby they are a sub-tenant of SWT.  SWT is an established community based wildlife charity which is both transparent as well as accountable to the public, and will be for the full 50 years of any lease or lease extension.  This offers considerable safeguards for Tyting Farm.  Any other tenant may or may not continue in business and may or may not take into account the wishes of the community once a lease has been granted.

However, worthy or necessary for viability the above ‘development’ options might appear, we do not believe that they should be allowed on a scale that would overshadow farming and fundamentally change the primary use of Tyting Farm. The Campaign is concerned not only to discourage urban development and traffic generation, but we fear that once consent for any material change of use is granted to develop the buildings for residential or commercial use it threatens the end of the valley as we know it today.  Pressures for expansion and urbanisation will continue indefinitely and lead to ‘development creep’ over the years.

We therefore fervently hope SWT will be successful on its own.  It can deliver all that is worthy and consistent with GBC policies and it is possible that, with our support, SWT can do so without entering into ‘partnership’ with any other organisation. 

Consequently, if we want the farm restoration to be carried out without any commercial or residential use of the buildings, SWT will need public support in the way of financial pledges so that its proposals are limited to just farm restoration, farming and wildlife projects.  It will cost SWT over £500K to do all the work it proposes to carry out and we are hoping to raise a large chunk of this through pledges from our many supporters.  By helping in this way you will be ensuring that no ‘back door’ urban or commercial development takes place for at least 50 years.  Not only that, but the landscape will be restored and significantly enhanced and the farm kept in purely agricultural use.

If you are willing to make a pledge please let us know and also indicate the amount you would like to contribute ….. the money may not be needed but we would like to know it is there if necessary.

John Rigg
Chairman, Save Tyting Farm Campaign

Letter to supporters 25th April 2006

Surrey Wildlife Trust submit Proposal to Guildford Borough Council

Firstly of course a big thank you to over a hundred of you who attended the Guildford Borough Council Executive Committee meeting to decide the fate of Tyting Farm. With the help of you all and the petition signed by over two thousand concerned Guildford residents, it was brought home to Guildford Borough Council what a high value the community puts on this part of the North Downs and particularly on Tyting Farm being kept in public ownership and farmed.

Six speakers including representatives of our Campaign, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and Surrey Wildlife Trust spoke about the importance of the right solution at Tyting Farm and not a decision solely based on cash, which incidentally risks the Council contradicting their own policies for the Surrey Hills.

The Council agreed to defer the decision to enable further discussions to take place with both Surrey Wildlife Trust and interested farmers the Campaign might identify. Clearly our Campaign is not the appointed agent for the Council and we are therefore not in any position to market or negotiate a letting. In any event the Council may not be able to proceed with any new proposal with a prospective tenant without re-marketing the farm. As you can see time is of the essence, despite the hard won deferment achieved earlier this month.

However I am delighted to say that negotiations with Surrey Wildlife Trust have progressed so well that on Friday the Trust submitted a formal proposal to the Council for a fifty year lease of Tyting Farm and for full restoration of the farm and land in the interests of the landscape, wildlife, and farming with other new community benefits. The potential for very exciting things to happen after years of neglect are now a possibility and surveyors for the Campaign inspected the buildings and site on Friday with a view to preparing a preliminary report on works necessary.

This is really exciting and I suggest if any of you wish to know about the Trust’s excellent work and standing a visit to their website http://www.surreywildlifetrust.co.uk will provide you with the information you need. Surrey County Council and the Ministry of Defence have placed similar areas of land and landscape in SWT’s care and their record is enviable. They also, of course, look after St Martha’s Hill, Silent Pool and Newlands Corner.

It may well be that some monetary support may be called for from our supporters in due course to bridge any gap between the Trust’s available grant aid and the costs, but when the exciting possibilities for restoration and use become known we are sure it will be manageable and that some of you will feel sufficiently enthusiastic to help.

If the Council decide to take up the Trust’s offer then we hope to report much more fully to you as to what is planned and how you might help – but that is of course only if help is needed. The Trust hopes very much that with grants the vast majority of the restoration work can be undertaken. Their offer to the Council is not conditional on such grants being available. We are meeting the Council with Surrey Wildlife Trust this week and hope to report to you again shortly on the outcome.

One last point – we are definitely not yet home and dry. There are still real risks to the current situation. Some in the Council may still prefer a cash receipt never mind the potential problems that go with a sale of the farm as a whole or in lots, which would be left with the community and rely on covenant enforcement. We will need to stay focussed. We may well need your help again soon – but fingers crossed …… We will be in touch again after our next meeting with the Council.

Best wishes

John Rigg
Chairman Save Tyting Farm Campaign

Update letter 17th May 2006

Nearly there - come along on 25th May!

We are nearly there (we hope), but we really do need you to come to the next Council meeting on Thursday 25th May at 7.00 pm

The fantastic news is that Guildford Borough Council is seriously considering Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) taking a 50 year lease on Tyting Farm. This is extremely encouraging but it is still being balanced against the option to proceed with a sale. We therefore need your help yet again to show our commitment to preserve the rural landscape, to keep the farm in public ownership and, of course, to keep it farmed. The SWT option would secure all of this and more!

SWT has a number of ideas as to how the farm might be brought back to life. These include restoring lost meadows, cleaning up the pond, clearing up all the pollution left on the farm, taking down some of the derelict buildings and lagoon, and restoring the best of the model farm. They would then either identify the right tenant farmer to farm the land or, more likely, use the farm for their own grazing project.

They are also investigating using one or two of the buildings fronting the bridle path as an interpretive centre so that walkers passing by can understand the biodiversity of this important area. They will also of course focus on their primary objective of protecting the county’s wildlife and increasing biodiversity.

Being mindful of our aims for this quiet rural environment, SWT might also sub-let areas to other projects and may adapt some of the buildings for use by other charities - depending on who comes forward and with what ideas.

By accepting the stewardship of Tyting Farm, SWT will also be able to connect it to St Martha’s Hill and with Newlands Corner - both of which they currently look after locally.

We are still awaiting the Council report for the Executive Meeting on 25th May but we expect the officers will put forward 3 options:

1. Continue with the sale.
2. Retain the freehold and lease to SWT.
3. Deal separately with the Lodge (i.e. lease to SWT or sell).

If you came to the last Executive Committee Meeting on Thursday 6th April you will remember just how critical it was to have the Council Chambers full of supporters and what a difference it made! We really do need to fill the Chamber once again on the 25th May to keep up the pressure and do everything we can to persuade the Council to approve the SWT option.

So, put a note in your diary and please, please come along on 25th and be ready to congratulate Guildford Borough Council on their decision to grant a fifty year lease to Surrey Wildlife Trust.

Best wishes

John Rigg
Chairman Save Tyting Farm Campaign

Press Release of 10th April 2006

Council bow to public pressure and defer sale of Tyting Farm

Campaigners were delighted last Thursday 6th April by Guildford Borough Council’s Executive decision to defer the sale of Tyting Farm pending investigation into other options.

The Save Tyting Farm Campaign, which was started by a small group of local residents in January, vigorously opposes the sale. In a relatively short period of time their membership has grown to over 350 and they have managed to generate overwhelming support from the public and many environmental organisations to protect the agricultural landscape of the farm, which is in the Green Belt and in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. They say that the most effective way to do this is to keep the farm in public ownership, to keep it intact and in agricultural use.

At a lively Meeting, which was packed with over 100 campaign supporters, speakers from the Save Tyting Farm Campaign, the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), East Guildford Residents Association (EGRA) and the Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) all spoke out against the sale and urged that the farm remain in public ownership and continued to be farmed as a single unit. In addition, John Rigg, the Chairman of the Save Tyting Farm Campaign, presented a petition against the sale signed by over 2000 local residents.

At one point, Council Leader, Andrew Hodges, threatened to expel members of the public for applauding campaign speakers.

Further opposition to the sale came from the Surrey Hills Partnership, the Guildford Society and the National Farmers Union, all of whom had written to the Council voicing their concern.

The Council Executive argued that a sale was justified because the farm is an underperforming asset that is in a poor state of repair and is too small to be viable. They said that if the farm was sold the landscape would continue to be protected through stringent planning restrictions and legal covenants, and that development, if any, would be minimal and be restricted to agricultural diversification. They insisted on several occasions that the proposed sale was not financially motivated, but was necessary only because of Tyting Farm’s lack of viability as a municipal asset.

These arguments were not accepted by the campaign speakers who pointed out that the farm was being sold in up to six lots and at prices ( up to £10,000 per acre ) well in excess of local agricultural land values ( approx £2,500 per acre ). As a result, developers, rather than farmers, were most likely to be interested, particularly since the farm had been marketed as a ‘former farm with development potential’. It was also noted that the Council’s own Planning Guidance for the farm indicated that preference would be given to business development of the farm buildings which, due to their size, could be a major generator of traffic.

Campaigners said that they had been able to identify farmers who believe the farm can be viable, particularly with the new DEFRA stewardship grants, and who were prepared to take over the whole farm and restore the land to traditional Downland pasture.

Another exciting alternative put forward at the meeting was a proposal to hand over management of the farm to the Surrey Wildlife Trust who currently manages land for Surrey County Council and the Ministry of Defence.

A number of Councillors also agreed that breaking up the farm would be unwise and urged the Executive to put off making a decision to sell until the Surrey Wildlife Trust and farming options had been fully explored.

The Executive deferred making a decision until their next meeting on May 25th and agreed to work with the Save Tyting Farm Campaign and the Surrey Wildlife Trust to identify potential farmers who would be prepared to farm the land and restore the landscape.

The Save Tyting Farm Campaign said that they were pleased with the decision since it was more important to achieve the right outcome for the people of Guildford than force through an unpopular and hasty decision against the wishes of the community.

To see the full text of the speakers at the meeting, click on the following: John Rigg, Andrew Oliver, Jim Rattray, Patrick Gloyens, Jean Bundy and Paul Hannam.

GBC Executive Committee Meeting Thursday 6th April at 7.00 pm

If you read the article on page 8 of this week’s Surrey Advertiser you will no doubt have seen that we obtained some really good press about our petition and the fact that our campaign is gathering momentum. We really do believe we are getting somewhere.

However, this coming week is especially critical and we desperately need just a little more of your help to get Guildford Borough Council to revoke their previous decision to sell Tyting Farm.

The GBC Executive Committee meet next Thursday 6th April at 7.00 pm in the Council Offices in Millmead to decide on the future of Tyting Farm, and we need as many people as possible to attend the meeting to show just how much public support we have and how much this issue means to us.

Your presence at the meeting will make a huge difference, so please, please come along – bring your kids, your granny, drag along anyone you can …….. it really is that important and it might just be the straw that breaks this camel’s back!

We need some idea of numbers so if you can come, please phone me.

Many thanks for your support so far and we look forward to seeing you on Thursday.

Kind regards

Barbara Winkworth
Secretary Save Tyting Farm Campaign

The Report to the GBC Executive was published on Wednesday 29th March and may be viewed on the Council’s website:

http://www.guildford.gov.uk/GuildfordWeb/Council/Meetings/Executive/

Press Release of Tuesday 28th March

Guildford public want Tyting Farm to be saved.

From a modest start in January 2006 the Save Tyting Farm Campaign received a massive boost last Saturday 25th March when over 1700 people offered their support and backing for the Campaign.

This massive shot in the arm for the Campaign came about by consulting the people of Guildford in the High Street and asking them to sign a petition urging Guildford Borough Council to keep the 115 acre Tyting Farm in Council ownership and in agricultural use to protect the landscape as it is.

When asked about the Campaign, the responses were overwhelming.

The consensus was why stop farming, or sell the farm and risk purchasers having their own agenda in the future. Tyting Farm was bought by a far-sighted Council in 1942 to protect the rural landscape around Guildford and it is just as important to protect it now.

“It must be protected” was a frequent remark, and it reinforced the view expressed by the National Trust that “the only protection of landscape that works is through public ownership”.

Interestingly, many Tory voters said “they were staggered” (one said ‘ashamed’) of the plans to sell off this landscape so close to the town centre and so important to the quality of life and values of Guildford. “We thought John Prescott was the threat, not our own Councillors” was a comment made by more than one person.

The Mayor Councillor Tamsy Baker and Councillor Gordon Bridger visited the stand. Both expressed their concern at the current situation and hoped that a solution could be achieved that saw the farm being retained as one unit and remaining in agriculture.

Others comments were:

“We don’t want to see our farms disappear.”

“We will always support protecting the Downs.”

“Why are they selling it? What has changed?”

“We often walk there. It is criminal to sell.”

“It’s corrupt! They cannot be trusted! Well done to the campaign, keep it up!”

“I will never vote for this lot again.”

“You are wasting your time – they will have done a deal long ago.”

“I wrote to complain and had a patronising reply with puerile reasoning for a sale.”

“They told us clap trap about restrictions we all know won’t work.”

“It’s a stitch up, they will have already decided. It will go to some property developer.”

“What are we leaving for our children?”

“They will sell anything to cover up the Civic Hall mess. Where do I sign?”

“We must support farmers – they are having a hard time and it is the only way the whole of Surrey will not end up full of housing estates and paddocks.”

“If they sell in lots to local residents it will be a mess in no time. They don’t know how to look after the land and it won’t be long before it becomes overgrown and then developed.”

The Chairman of the Campaign, John Rigg, told us:

“Our petition clearly shows that many Guildford residents think that selling Tyting Farm is like selling the ‘family silver’. It is in one of the most beautiful areas in Surrey and it goes without saying that this precious open countryside, so close to Guildford town, is of enormous amenity value to Guildford and will become even more precious as the town grows.

The Council say the farm will be sold with covenants to protect against development. We know from experience that covenants never give full protection. They also need dedicated costly staff available to enforce them. Planning restrictions are no protection either. They just lead to planning appeals which cost more money and leave the decision with the Secretary of State to decide. Can we trust him to protect our environment? The simple answer is no. Whatever the Council say, the fragmentation and sale of Tyting Farm will almost inevitably lead to development in the future.

The people of Guildford deserve better. Our petition shows that there is overwhelming support to stop this sale. The people of Guildford firmly believe that Tyting Farm should be kept in the ownership of Guildford Borough Council, who in spite of recent difficulties, have looked after this land for us for the last sixty years.

ADDITIONAL NEWS SINCE PREVIOUS UPDATE
Guildford Borough Council has confirmed that they have received over 125 representations to date. CONGRATULATIONS IN GETTING YOUR VIEWS ACROSS. If you didn't get round to objecting ....then it's not too late!

LATEST UPDATE Letter to GBC Councillors – Tuesday 14th March 2006

Dear Councillor
We are writing to all Guildford Borough councillors, officers and other stakeholders as part of our campaign to protect Tyting Farm which, as you know, lies within the Green Belt and an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Great Landscape Value.
The reason for writing to you all is that we are extremely concerned that the GBC executives who are promoting the proposed sale have, no doubt unintentionally, been given or been using inaccurate, misleading or, in the light of recent developments, invalid arguments to justify the sale. Consequently, since your views on this matter are probably based on these same arguments, we feel that it is only right and proper that you should be aware of the full facts, and of recent developments, so that the situation can be reviewed and a more open debate can take place before it is too late.
In all the GBC press releases and letters relating to the sale of Tyting Farm, the justification for selling it has been based on the following main points:
• That the disposal rationale led by the Council's Corporate Asset Group follows the Governments requirement to draw up and maintain Asset Management Plans to maximise rates of return from investment in property
• That the decision to sell the farm was taken as a last resort following considerable discussion and careful consideration of alternative uses.
• That professional advice given to the Council is that the farm is too small to be a viable agricultural enterprise.
• That, although the Council has worked hard to make sure that local residents, and other groups such as the Tyting Society and the Surrey Wildlife Trust have been kept informed of progress, no fundamental objection has been raised.
Our understanding of Government policy on asset management is that it allows social and environmental rates of return to be applied and taken into account.  From its designation as an AONB and of Great Landscape Value supported by the hundred plus letters to the Council it can be seen that the community places the highest measure of social and environmental return from this holding.  As a capital asset its capital value has increased materially over the years and revaluation will evidence excellent annual capital growth and hence returns
It is difficult to understand why the decision is said to have been taken 'as a last resort' when options including sustaining agriculture were not fully and properly investigated. Neither of the adjoining farmers to the east and west of Tyting Farm had been approached by GBC and yet both express a keen interest in farming the land.  We have also approached three of the most respected farmers in this part of Surrey and each has confirmed an interest in taking on the farm. One has bid, but is not optimistic in the face of developers offers based on urbanisation.  One thing is clear however - that this was not a decision of last resort, nor were all the alternatives investigated.
Whilst it is agreed that the farm may not be viable at its current size and in the current agricultural climate, there are a number of local farmers, all with a good track record, who insist that, with available grants, they could farm the land economically alongside their existing farms. As noted above, none of them has been approached. It is also worth noting that the South East Region of the NFU have recently written to GBC and urged them to retain ownership of the farm. Their 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).
Involvement with local residents, potential users and other groups also appears to have been minimal. So-called ‘consultations’ appear to have been discussions with one or two small groups after the decision to notify the sale of the farm had already been made (at the meeting of the Executive on 26th February 2004). Many local residents have complained that they were not consulted and, where discussions did take place - e.g. with the Tyting Society, its Chairman wrote to GBC to say that it was “disingenuous to imply that we are content with the decision to sell and with the process.” He went on to say that “it was made clear to me that the council had no obligation to consult residents and was not intending to do so". Furthermore, the Tyting Society has consistently maintained in their discussions with local councillors and with GBC officers that continued ownership of the land by GBC would afford the best protection.
In support of the above points, many letters condemning a sale and supporting the campaign have been received from a massive cross section of the community as well as many residents associations and others including the Tyting Society, CPRE, EGRA, Ramblers Groups, The Surrey Hills, The Guildford Society and, of particular interest, the National Farmers Union – some of which we attach to this letter due to the crucial points made. 
As far as recent developments are concerned, you will be pleased to know that, following our discussions with them, Surrey Wildlife Trust have advised that they are indeed interested in stewardship of the farm on the same basis that they have taken on farms and land for MoD and SCC, including St. Martha’s which abuts Tyting Farm.  They recognise the importance of this farm to the North Downs and we understand that they will very shortly put forward a low cost solution for the future of Tyting Farm which will see proper stewardship as well as a continuation of farming and full protection of the landscape for the benefit of Surrey residents and visitors.  As you can see, the dream ticket could be available. 

Based on the above it is clear that the rationale for ending farming is unproven, that the reasons for a sale do not bear scrutiny, that proper consultation did not take place, either with an appropriate section of the community or with Surrey Wildlife Trust, and that the community deplores Guildford Council ending their stewardship responsibilities in the North Downs and embarking on the risks associated with disposal and redevelopment of the farm buildings. 

The above arguments alone should be sufficient justification for a review but there is now an entirely new factor which reinforces the need to reconsider the decision to sell. The Thames Basin Heath has been designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations. As you will probably be aware, the result is to severely restrict residential development within a 5km radius, which includes almost the whole of Guildford. This is likely to give GBC severe difficulties and greatly reduce the potential value of its own landholdings in the town.

However the regulations do offer the possibility of creating additional public open space in return for the ability to grant residential planning consent within the SPA. We believe that this puts an entirely new light on any proposal to let Tyting Farm to a local farmer or to Surrey Wildlife Trust, which could be on the understanding that some of the land would be used as public open space. We would urge GBC to give this urgent consideration.

Whilst it is intended that there be a public meeting to consider the proposed sale on 6th April, we gather it is principally a meeting of the architects of this policy who will undoubtedly have firmly entrenched positions! That said, we strongly believe that if the Council intends to continue with the proposal to sell Tyting Farm, then an issue of this importance should more properly be considered by the full Council at a public meeting and after a full public debate. We formally request this and trust you will take whatever action you can to facilitate this opportunity.

Finally, we continue to implore the Council to review their decision and fairly recognise the issues and their obligations, in accordance with their own policies, to continue proper stewardship of this incredibly beautiful and important landscape

Regards

The attachments are all on “Support from Local Environmental Groups”

UPDATE - 10th MARCH 2006

You will be aware now that bids have closed for the farm and that the Council are considering their options. The Save Tyting Farm Campaign still believe that the best way to protect this landscape and our heritage is to keep the farm in agricultural use with a competent farmer to look after the farm. Whilst the farm on its own may or may not be viable it is certainly viable when combined with other farms and whilst we have only had discussions with five farmers (some highly respected with sizeable holdings) they have all confirmed their interest in taking on Tyting Farm. Equally we also believe that to sell off the farm has inherent risk particularly if the farm buildings are sold off for redevelopment and urbanisation.

We believe the Council should continue with their stewardship of the North Downs and not sell the farm for other uses including development. We also continue to be concerned about their statements regarding a reliance in future on covenants although we are pleased to report that we have been successful in persuading the Council to use a stronger covenant than originally put forward and to pass the benefit to individual residents in the vicinity. (Please let us know if you wish to be included in the list we are drawing up to put to the Council via our Campaign’s lawyers Decherts.)

Accordingly we are intending to continue the campaign to secure professional farming on Tyting Farm and restoration for agricultural use of some of the buildings and demolition of others.
The matter will be considered by Council on 6th April. We wish to maintain pressure on the politicians to take into account the views of their electorate which so far have strongly supported the continued protection of this landscape in agricultural use and in Council ownership rather than a sale (in lots or as a whole) of a ‘former farm’ with ‘redevelopment potential’.

We are interested in feedback from you and have prepared a short questionnaire which we would be grateful if you could complete and return to us with your views. We also invite your support if you are willing to offer it to the campaign.
Please also visit our new improved web site www.savetytingfarm.com which is launched this weekend.

EXCERPT FROM THE UPDATE - 3RD FEBRUARY 2006

One possible suggestion which we are actively working on is the idea of a ‘Guildford Landscape Trust’ which would bid for the land (including all the fields) whilst excluding the ’more expensive’ farm buildings which could be bought by others and where we would have to rely on the Council only permitting a small sensitive development of the farmyard.

The basis of our bid would be for the land only. We would seek to agree that the price be set by independent appraisal and would argue it should be assuming agricultural value only, ie excluding hope value or special value generated by attaching the land to an existing dwelling or due to the Council encouraging offers on the basis the land has development value. This is likely to be much less than the current levels being suggested but it would require the Council to agree this course of action due to its being a worthy charitable trust. The land would be owned by the Trust in perpetuity and would be let to a farmer on current day terms (which would not generate much).

The beauty of this arrangement is that the Council will receive a substantial sum for the buildings (so they secure some millions) but the community will take control over the majority of the landscape through a Trust owning the land and letting it to a nearby farmer on an agricultural tenancy. I know some of you will not be enthusiastic about this as a solution as you would prefer to see the farm buildings demolished and removed if farming is not continued, but I hope you would recognise that unless you can organise this (which we cannot) ours might be a second best solution.

Accordingly we are writing to ask if there is support for this Trust. Our bid I suspect would be some hundreds of thousands of pounds in total rather than millions but in the context of the value of your house and the protection to your view this affords, it could be a relatively sensible sum per household. A single ‘share’ might be a contribution of £25,000 each which we may be able to structure in a way that you will receive tax relief. Accordingly you may be able to consider a number of ‘shares’. We are hoping to identify one or two sponsors who will underwrite the bid, ie enable us to offer a sizeable sum and if other residents or people in Guildford want to take up a share of course they may to keep with their title deeds

For the text of full update click here.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 12TH JANUARY 2006

1. Tyting Farm is a crucial part of the landscape of the North Downs.
   
   It forms the setting for St MarthaÍs Hill and is an integral part of the swathe of agricultural landscape which stretches from Pewley Down at Guildford to Newlands Corner and beyond in the East.
   
   It is arguably the most walked and visited open space in Surrey and is GuildfordÍs premier open space.
   
2. The Council are intending to sell a key part, Tyting Farm in six lots at prices to exclude agricultural use. The buyers and users are likely to be urban not agricultural. With the farm broken up and fragmented the landscape may be lost.
   
3. Farming is struggling. Farmers Cannot buy the farm at speculator's prices. Neither home owners nor developers can be relied on to have the knowledge or will to protect the agricultural nature of the landscape.
   
4. The more the land deteriorates the more alternative uses become acceptable to the planners, in fact GBC are proposing clauses in any sale to share in development value.
   
5. The Officers and Politicians pay lip service to protecting Green Belt but press ahead with what may be a catastrophic disposal for what is an 'Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty' and an 'Area of Great Landscape Value'.
   
6. Do the residents of Guildford and of Surrey really want this to happen?
   
7. Is South Warren Farm the next to be sold?
   
8. Tyting Farm should not be sold. It should be retained in Council ownership. There are no property assets more worth retaining in Council ownership than Tyting and Warren Farm. (If they do not have the Estate Management skills they should outsource).
   
9. The land should be let to any (responsible) farmer prepared to maintain the land and landscape.

If this gives you cause for concern please write and lodge your objection.

BRIEFING NOTE – 12TH JANUARY 2006

Tyting Farm forms the setting for St Martha's Hill and with it arguably the most important landscape close by Guildford. It is in every walker's guide and is a major amenity due to the paths which either cross, overlook or pass nearby Tyting Farm. It is currently owned by Guildford Borough Council, which has decided to dispose of the land and farm buildings. (Agents Clarke Gammon Wellers of Guildford). The Council are offering the farm as a whole or in six lots at prices which are materially above agricultural value.

The farm's importance to the landscape on the edge of Guildford and to the north of St Martha's Church is recognised in its classification as land being part of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The North Downs Way, The Ridgeway and Pilgrim's Way either pass through or close by the land.

GBC originally acquired the farm in 1942 from SCC with restrictions in place to protect the area from urban development, something so far successfully achieved. The farm is small at 115 acres and it has proved difficult to farm successfully in isolation. It could however make a useful addition to larger existing viable farms close by. Part of the problem however has been maintenance whilst it has been in the ownership of the Council which has allowed deterioration of the land.

The issue is one of protecting this outstanding landscape and the fact that the only sustainable way to protect agricultural landscape is by retaining it in agricultural use. The Council have paid lip service to this in meetings with officers and politicians but by selling it in small lots at development value rather than agricultural value they are doing everything possible to invite development and preclude agriculture. Once sold off in lots to possibly six different owners the current landscape will be lost to farming and future generations as farming ends and commercial pressures take over. The Council are encouraging this outcome by their actions. This is despite every stated policy of the Council to protect the Green Belt and particularly 'Area's of Outstanding Natural Beauty' such as the Surrey Hills.

Council To Share In Redevelopment Profits

Selling Tyting Farm will jeopardise the future of the landscape and create development pressure which the Council has recognised by including a Development Uplift Provision on the sale of Lots 1, 3 and 6 'based on 30% of any net increase in value arising from any non agricultural or equestrian development for a period of 25 years from completion'. This will encourage buyers to assume the Council want redevelopment compared to if the Council included an absolute bar which would not.

It is vital that the landscape is protected for the people of Guildford and Surrey and sustainably managed so that future generations can continue to enjoy the views from St Martha's, the surrounding lanes, and the walks from Newlands Corner open space in the east to the Chantries woodland to the west, along the bridleway which runs through Tyting Farm.

GBC's planning guidance for prospective purchasers states that 'conversion to small-scale business will take preference for the farm buildings', i.e. inviting an urban solution with large vehicle movements, parking areas, lighting, noise and intensification of use.

The Council has drafted restrictive covenants that aim to limit types of development or uses of the property but these appear drafted not for the benefit of the neighbourhood or Guildford residents, but so that they can secure further financial gain in the future by their removal.

The residents and other interested groups are being ignored:

Firstly by this Council's actions to sell something which should be treated as the birth right of the people of Guildford and Surrey who enjoy this landscape.

Secondly by a sale at highly inflated prices which will attract speculators but will exclude farmers from bidding for agricultural use.

Thirdly in not providing restrictive covenants for the benefit of residents and future generations it has failed to offer proper protection and support for the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty thereby inviting the loss of this wonderful agricultural landscape.

The 'Save Tyting Farm' group would like anyone who has walked and enjoyed the North Downs Way, Pilgrims Way or Ridgeway or values the Green Belt and Surrey Hills to write and protest to Guildford Borough Council or your Councillors or your MP. The farm should be kept in Council ownership to protect the landscape as it is, for farming, and should not be fragmented and sold off. Time is short.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

1. Tyting Farm should not be sold. It should be retained in Council ownership. There are no property assets more worth retaining in Council ownership than Tyting and Warren Farm. (If they do not have the Estate Management skills they should outsource).

2. The land should be let to any (responsible) farmer prepared to maintain the land and landscape.

COMMENTARY BY TIM HARROLD – CHAIRMAN OF THE SURREY BRANCH OF CPRE (CAMPAIGN TO PROTECT RURAL ENGLAND) – 12TH JANUARY 2006

The decision by GBC Executive to sell this land is mistaken. I think that as a result there is a real threat of inappropriate development taking place. I cannot accept the logic of selling off this landholding when GBC has been buying land in other parts of the District to prevent development (e.g. Effingham Common). It also seems to be inconsistent to be establishing Local Nature Reserves at Chantry Woods, Chinthurst Hill, and other locations to protect biodiversity and at the same time to sell off this organic farmland without even a full study of its flora and fauna value by the Surrey Wildlife Fund. When faced with a similar problem, the SCC entered into negotiations with the Surrey Wildlife Fund to handle their “open space” countryside under a long term lease. It appears that GBC is only interested in selling off land for profit (and to stop mounting cost over the years) without regard to the fiduciary trust under which this land was acquired for the enjoyment of the community. The question has to be asked as to what the GBC intends to do with other landholdings such as South Warren Farm if this sale goes through.

The Tying Society has raised these questions with GBC over a prolonged period but the Council seem intent on a sale to private buyers.

If it is still impossible to overturn this decision, then interested parties will need to prepare a campaign to oppose the farm’s break-up into smaller landholdings and to ensure that it continues to be used for agricultural use.