SPRING 2010 | News from the Surrey Branch of CPRE

Sir David Rowlands, Chairman of Gatwick Airport Ltd, said he

was ruling out a second runway “in the foreseeable future” and

insisted that the new owners of the airport, Global Infrastructure

Partners, which took over Gatwick last year from BAA, had “not

a shred of interest” in such a development.

“It’s not Government policy and it’s not our policy,” said Sir David.

“Even if the Government started to look more favourably at the

prospect, we would have to think very hard about spending

£100 to £200 million on a planning application with an

uncertain decision.”

Leading campaigner against airport expansion, Brendon Sewill

– Chairman of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC)

and a former Vice-Chairman of CPRE Surrey – said: “This firm

statement will kill off some silly speculation, and will remove a

lot of uncertainty and anxiety.

“Many bodies, including the Competition Commission, the

Transport Select Committee, The Times newspaper, a number

of airlines and local business groups, had all expressed the

hope that the new owners of Gatwick would immediately

declare themselves in favour of a new runway. We are delighted

that their knavish hopes are dashed.”

He added, however, that Sir David’s statement, whilst extremely

welcome, did not mean a permanent lifting of the threat. “We

have learnt not to trust those responsible for airport development.

“In 1953, when Gatwick was built, the Government White Paper

stated that its main use would be for fog diversions. In 1985 the

Government gave an ‘unequivocal assurance’ that no new runway

would be built at Stansted, only for a subsequent Government

to make such a runway the top priority of its 2003 White Paper.

And during the T5 Inquiry, BAA promised that they would never

need a third runway at Heathrow. Six months after the end of

the Inquiry they produced plans for a third runway.”

GACC and its allied organisations, including CPRE, would “stand

ready, if need be, to launch a massive campaign to defeat any

new runway plan, as we have defeated such plans in the past,”

Brendon vowed. “But for the next few years, thank goodness,

the subject is defunct.”

For further details on GACC, please contact 01293 863 369,

email gacc@btconnect.com or visit the website:

www.gacc.org.uk

How does Surrey rate alongside otherEnglish counties? See page 3 for theresults of the Country Life survey

SPEAKING UP FOR SURREY'SCOUNTRYSIDE AND TOWNS

After years of campaigning by CPRE and other local environmental groups against airport expansion, the shadow of a second

runway being built at Gatwick Airport has at last been lifted – at least for the time being!

“NO NEW RUNWAY”– PLEDGE BY GATWICK’S NEW OWNER PUTS END TO YEARS OF UNCERTAINTY

Inside this issue:

Page:

2 From the Chair3 Minerals Plan & LDFs

4- 5 District Reports6- 7 Green Belt

8 Aviation Update9-12 Annual Report

However, our success should not be measured only by the

things we stop. There is much that we do that is positive in

nature – for example the work of the Surrey Hills Partnership

Board, on which we are represented. Recently, we have

worked with Surrey County Council to look at ways to make

street lighting more environmentally-friendly and energy-

efficient throughout the county. This led to a successful bid

for national funding – a major victory for CPRE’s “night blight”

campaign. We have also been working to improve the design

of the new Walton Bridge and the proposed gantries along the

M25 in the east of the county.

All of us in CPRE Surrey should be looking for opportunities

for our organisation to improve our beautiful countryside and

to get others to commit to this aim. The Branch will be asking

all General Election candidates, and those standing in local

elections this coming May, to sign up to our “Manifesto for

Surrey”, which, among other things, promotes new affordable

homes that primarily meet local needs and are designed to

the highest environmental standards. The Manifesto

champions neighbourhood identity, character and setting

through the protection of open spaces and gardens and by

the use of local materials.

One other commitment in the Manifesto is to actively support

Surrey’s farmers and the consumption of local produce. We

are hoping to launch a Surrey Local Food Awards scheme

which would include various categories such as “Best Farmers’

Market”, “Best Local Food Producer” etc. There would be an

opportunity for Surrey residents to vote. Getting lots of people

involved would help to raise awareness and interest in local

food and farming. Plans are moving ahead but have yet to be

finalised. If in the meantime you would like further information

on the proposed Awards scheme, please contact Richard

Bass on 01293-862402, email rj.bass@btinternet.com.

Look out for our next CPRE Surrey Branch Bulletin for more

on this exciting new initiative.

Please do get in touch with us if you have any ideas as to

how CPRE Surrey could do more of a positive nature to

enhance our countryside. Also, please make every effort to

come to our Branch AGM on Friday 23rd April when there will

be an opportunity for you to air your views.

■ Tim Murphy

CPRE is supporting local farmers through initiatives such as our newSurrey Local Food Awards

CPRE is a campaigning organisation and the Surrey Branch has a proud track record over the

years in opposing, together with others, inappropriate developments. Most recently, the Branch

played a key role in defeating Dunsfold Park New Town and fighting the threat of incinerators in

the countryside and a second runway at Gatwick. Many such proposals, which would done

appalling damage to Surrey’s countryside, have now either been abandoned or have been put

on the back-burner as a result of CPRE's work.

From the Chair

2

QUALITY OF LIFEOf the 40 English counties, according to the Country Life “England’s Best County”

report, Surrey is rated 14th, way below Devon, Hampshire, and Kent, which

achieved the top three places, but up on its previous rating of 27th in 2003.

The 2009 survey criteria have been made

much more sophisticated than in the past,

with a wide range of new categories. Using

CPRE’s own maps, Surrey was placed

almost at the bottom of the list in the

tranquillity category (39th), which is

scarcely surprising as ours is the most

over-flown county in England. Surrey also

did badly with its high percentage of

houses in flood plains (38th) and therefore

at risk. We also had poor “green”

credentials (39th), measured by the rates of

recycling and composting, as well as an

assessment of each county’s “ecological

footprint”, which is the space needed to

support the average resident’s lifestyle.

On the positive side, good scores were

achieved for wildlife (4th), health (6th) and

landscape (9th). And even if the recent

winter weather seems to disprove this

claim, Surrey actually came in 9th in terms

of the average hours of sunshine per year.

CPRE’s light pollution maps put Surrey in

15th spot, a figure that should improve

significantly with Surrey County Council’s

plans to replace 70,000 orange streetlights

by downward directional white lighting over

the next 10 years. However, the overall

verdict appears to be “could do better”!

■ Tim Harrold

True tranquillity is increasingly rare in Surrey

We have objected to an application for

gravel extraction at Milton Hall Farm in

Runnymede. There are major

environmental, traffic and hydrological

arguments against this proposal. The

decision will be made by the Minerals

Authority, which is Surrey County

Council, but in the meantime

Runnymede Borough Council has

lodged strong objections.

We have also objected to an application

to extract silica sand at Pendell Farm in

Tandridge. This site is partly in the Area

of Outstanding Natural Beauty and

partly in the Area of Great Landscape

Value. We recognise that there is a

need, albeit declining, for high grade

silica sands which are used for industrial

purposes. However, because supplies

are considered to be a national resource,

we consider that the sources should be

looked at nationally, taking into account

the environmental implications of

developing individual sites. Most of the

industrial demand is in the northern part

of the country and so remote from the

Surrey deposits.

Meanwhile, CPRE member Catherine

Sayer and her colleagues in the Oxted

Residents Association have managed to

obtain a significant amount of local and

national media coverage – including BBC

TV and radio news – highlighting their

concerns about heavy traffic generated

by a chalk quarry near Oxted, which will

be further aggravated if proposals in the

draft Minerals Plan are approved for an

extension to a nearby sand pit and

possible use of the site for aggregates

recycling. Local residents, including

CPRE members, have also achieved

publicity and widespread local interest

over a sand extraction proposal at

Mercers Farm, Nutfield.

■ Gillian Hein

Core Strategies, which set out the planning framework for the next 20 years, have now been adopted in Epsom & Ewell,

Mole Valley, Spelthorne and Tandridge, with the remainder being in various stages of preparation and consultation.

3

BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE:QUARRYING IN SURREY

YOU’VE BEEN FRAMED!The latest on the LDF (Local Development Framework) process

The quarrying of sands and gravels continues to be highly controversial. CPRE

Surrey objects strongly to the fact that planning applications are being submitted

for new sites in sensitive Green Belt locations and are programmed to be

determined before Surrey County Council’s Core Strategy and Primary Aggregates

proposals have been considered by an independent Inspector later this year. We

consider that their determination is premature and should await the outcome of the

Inspector’s report. Perhaps fortuitously, it appears that two quarrying proposals,

due to be considered by the County Council in March, may now be delayed.

Mineral extraction is yet another threat to theSurrey Hills

The only one that has been the subject of a recent

Examination-in-Public (when an independent Inspector hears

evidence and then decides whether or not a draft plan is

“sound”) is the Core Strategy prepared by Reigate & Banstead

Council. This had a false start a year ago, when the EIP was

postponed in order to prepare more evidence, but it eventually

took place in January and February of this year.

CPRE Surrey supported Reigate & Banstead on its housing

policies. We considered that the council had made a good case

in justifying the location and timing of its 10,000 new dwellings

allocation within the existing settlements and on land to the

north of Horley. Unfortunately, several landowners and

developers disputed the deliverability of some of the sites and

made the case for a Green Belt review. It now appears that the

Inspector is likely to find the Core Strategy unsound. His report

is expected before Easter, when we will know his reasoning.

This would be bad news for the Borough Council as a

considerable amount of work went into producing evidence to

support the Strategy. We don’t yet know if only parts are

unsound or if the whole document will need review.

It is worth noting that, so far, neither Woking nor Guildford

– the other two “Hub” districts (alongside Reigate & Banstead) –

has yet produced a final Core Strategy. In Mole Valley the

district council is undertaking an initial consultation on its Site

Allocations document, and Elmbridge Council, which is about

to submit its draft Strategy to the Secretary of State, is

attempting to reach its housing requirement without any

change to Green Belt boundaries. Waverley is undertaking an

important consultation on various options where it may be

possible to locate the substantial amount of housing that

cannot be located within the existing urban areas; and in

Runnymede the council is consulting on whether to change the

Green Belt boundaries at the DERA site near Ottershaw and

Chobham (the location identified in the South East Plan for a

new mixed use development after 2016).

■ Gillian Hein and Keith Tothill

4

DISTRICT REPORTS

ElmbridgeElmbridge is immediately adjacent to Londonand therefore experiences great developmentpressures. For over 30 years, since the detailedboundaries of the Metropolitan Green Belt wereestablished in this area, the Green Belt hasperformed a vital function in separatingcommunities. We hope this will continue, but weknow there are threats to some Green Belt landin the near future.

The proposals for a new Walton Bridge acrossthe River Thames have almost reached finalapproval. Partly due to CPRE pressure theoriginal plans by the County Council were foundunacceptable. Improvements have come forwardand enhanced cycle facilities, open space andlandscaping are also part of the package.

CPRE opposed the building of a new motorwayservice area on the M25 south of Downside andCobham, in the rural part of the borough, butunfortunately we lost this battle. Permissionshave now been granted for details concernedwith the car parking areas, lighting, buildingsincluding a hotel and landscaping.

A large replacement hotel has been approved atSandown Park, Esher, which although in an areaadjacent to the High Street and within a carparking area, is Green Belt. There is likely to bean application, later this year, for a new hotel onpart of the Hersham Golf course.

The long running saga of the Jolly Boatman sitein East Molesey, directly opposite HamptonCourt Palace, has reached an unwelcome stagewhere a major hotel, and a considerable amountof dwellings have been given approval in whatmany believe is a complex out of scale with itssurroundings.

The Elmbridge Core Strategy has undergone aperiod of public consultation ahead of itssubmission to the Government. The stance ofthe Council is to protect all its Green Belt areasand provide all housing requirements fromwithin urban areas. Only time will tell if they aresuccessful in this aim.

■ Keith Tothill

Epsom & EwellEpsom & Ewell has seen relatively fewdevelopment proposals over the past twelvemonths that directly threaten our countryside,probably as a consequence of the economicdownturn. Work has begun on the fourth of thefive housing developments in the so-calledHospitals Cluster site on the north western edgeof Epsom, and plans have been submitted forthe last of the hospital sites – West Park.However, all the major decisions on thesedevelopments were made a number of yearsago with the consequence that they are lessenergy efficient and have fewer affordablehouses than we would have ideally liked.

The local authority published its StrategicHousing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)last summer. This opened up the possibility thatin 10 or 15 years time, sizeable parts of theGreen Belt around Epsom & Ewell, and otheropen sites such as parts of allotments and parks,

could be swallowed up for housing, despite thefact that the approved Core Strategy for theborough states that its housing allocation canbe met by building on brownfield sites alone.The Epsom & Ewell local CPRE group will be incontinuing dialogue with the local planners andothers to ensure that this does not in fact occur.

■ Tim Murphy

GuildfordGuildford residents, visitors and businessescontinue to battle with the town’s unresolvedtraffic problems. Now the news is that thefunding available under the Surrey TransportPlan for 2010 has to be cut from £28m to £19m,and that there will be no budget at all for roadimprovements this year. Analysis of the way todeal with the prospect of further A3 congestionin the years ahead is still being worked on bythe Highways Agency with Guildford Boroughand Surrey County Council input. The HighwaysAgency maintains that the opening of theHindhead Tunnel in 2011 will have little or noimpact on traffic at Guildford. It is hard to findanyone who believes this.

Looking ahead, the prospect of a new “eco-town” at Borden Whitehill, further expansion atFarnborough (now under Appeal), and adistribution centre for HGVs at Pyestock nearFleet (approved by the Secretary of State) canonly mean more traffic on the A31 along theHog’s Back to where it joins the A3, which isalready congested every day during peak hours.

Extra housing as envisaged by the South EastPlan for Farnham, Godalming and Woking wouldfurther harm the traffic environment for Guildford,in addition to the excessive housing figures forthe town itself, which is seen as a key “RegionalHub” and “Centre of Significant Change”.Change certainly, but not, it appears, for thebetter, as the promised road infrastructure is notin place for expansion on this scale. No wonderthat CPRE became so heavily involved in the“Don’t Wreck Guildford” campaign during thepast year, as well as running our own “HandsOff the Green Belt” initiative.

No wonder, too, that the Borough Councildecided to mount a legal challenge to the SEPlan on the grounds of sustainability. Thechallenge succeeded – a major victory forGuildford – but the Government has yet toproduce an answer to this.

■ Tim Harrold

Mole ValleyOur local group in Mole Valley has been muchinvolved in the evolving Local DevelopmentFramework, generally supporting the Council inits efforts to save green spaces from thepressure exerted by unrealistic Governmenthousing targets. Work continues.

The group organised a highly successful publicmeeting last summer on Housing Developmentand the Green Belt. Representatives of theGovernment Office for the South East and theConservative and Liberal Democrat parties set

out their positions on the Green Belt, and CPREmembers and friends had enough good questionsto fire at them to ensure a lively evening.

A famous victory was achieved by the CapelResidents Action Group, strongly supported byCPRE (see Surrey Voice, Spring 2009). A plan fora waste incinerator, inappropriate on numerousgrounds, was finally quashed in the High Court.It was to have been built on the site of the oldCapel Brickworks, a previous industrial use ofthe land. The clinching argument was that theoriginal application for the brickworks stipulatedthe restoration of the site to its original state.

The big issue at the moment is an applicationfor exploratory drilling for oil at Coldharbour, inthe very heart of the Surrey Hills AONB. Thirtylorries a day are to bring heavy equipment upColdharbour Lane. Mole Valley CPRE group hasprotested vigorously, and the County Council'sdecision is awaited.

■ Richard Bass

Reigate and BansteadThere have been a number of successes inrecent months.

Members may be aware that the builder of ahouse concealed by bales of straw lost his caseat the High Court recently. He argued that bythe time the bales of straw were removed, thehouse had been completed for the required 4-year period. The Inspector, at the appeal stage,dismissed the case, saying that the constructionof the new dwelling included the erection andremoval of the straw bales and tarpaulin thathad been used deliberately to conceal theconstruction, and so the 4-year time limit for theCouncil to take action had not expired. The Judgesupported the Inspector’s decision. Although thisis an excellent victory, a rather similar case inHertfordshire has been lost, so it is essential forresidents to be alert to the possibility of deceptionand inform local councils of any suspicions.

Reigate & Banstead Council has been successfulin two cases where owners wished to developland which is designated as urban open land inthe Local Plan. CPRE and local residents’associations supported the Council regarding asite which adjoins an important Green Beltstrategic gap between Kingswood and Banstead.This is particularly important as it forms part ofan estate owned by off-shore developers.

CPRE objected strongly to a proposed golfcourse on Green Belt land between Reigateand Horley. Some four years after submission,the application has now finally been refused. Amajor concern was that the developer wantedto profit by importing large quantities of fill ontothe site – rather than actually building the golfcourse for which there appears to be limiteddemand at present.

■ Gillian Hein

RunnymedeRunnymede has been under particular pressurewith half of the mineral extraction sites identifiedfor Surrey being within our Borough. Airtrack willbring many problems for road users where theincreased number of trains using the local lineswill mean barriers down for longer periods,increasing air pollution in Egham and in Addlestone.

5

There is still concern over the large number ofnew homes and commercial buildings plannedfor the DERA site, which will also add to alreadycongested roads within our Borough and inneighbouring Surrey Heath. The large increasein residents will add further pressure onChobham Common and its wildlife.

Throughout the Borough, there are a largenumber of new housing developments plannedor currently under construction. Many are withintown centres such as Addlestone but the increasein residents will mean added pressure on allservices, including our green spaces. Locally,developers are identifying small areas of greenspace owned by Runnymede Borough Councilin order to add more new homes. A small parkin Row Town, which is built on an area previouslyused for landfill, is being considered for newhousing. Many of our historic and beautiful oldhomes are also being targeted by developersfor redevelopment into smaller units, meaningthe loss of gardens and green space for wildlife.

One piece of good news for Runnymederesidents was the announcement that there willno incinerator at Trumps Farm, near VirginiaWater, which would have added to trafficproblems as well as making an unacceptableintrusion into the Green Belt.

■ Annie Wade

SpelthorneThe past year has seen the usual problems.AirTrack is still being examined on many fronts,particularly the effect on the numbers of trainsthat might or might not be feasibly run on theexisting track, and the dilemma of the delays thatmight be inflicted at level crossings. SpelthorneBorough Council produced an excellentdocument covering every aspect of the proposaland the potentially damaging effect on Staines.

There have been several very large planningapplications submitted for approval andgranted. All of these will increase traffic and areout of scale with the town, and are oftencontrary to the Borough Plan and the LocalDevelopment Framework. Heathrow is of coursean ongoing issue locally. There are more planes,flying lower and therefore causing considerabledisturbance. We will be urging theConservatives, if elected, to stand by theirpromise not to permit a third runway.

The present financial climate will make meaningfulimprovements hard to achieve in the short term,but we are going to push hard for the EnvironmentAgency’s flood relief proposals as we feel thatpreventing serious flooding will save vast sumsof money for the insurance industry and thelocal council as well as private individuals.

■ Claudette Curtis Jenkins

Surrey HeathWhat do you do with redundant MilitaryEstablishments? We will be affected by theclosure of two large camps – one at Deepcut,where there is a proposal for around 1,000houses, and another at the DERA site (justacross the district boundary in Runnymede)where there is a scheme for 2,500 homes and alarge office development.

The Ministry of Defence has a long-term plan to

close most of its extensive operations in theSouth of England and to move northwards. Thisprocess is expected to create cost savings andreduce pressure on the armed forces budget byexploiting to the full all planning developmentpotential and selling the sites to large developers.

The local CPRE group has been activelymonitoring these situations. We have respondedto the development proposals for the DERA site,highlighting the potential impact on SurreyHeath, and have supported our local Council inseeking to keep development at Deepcut withinthe current boundaries of the site.

■ Richard Roads

TandridgeAfter the adoption of the Core Strategy it wasexpected that the SHLAA (Strategic HousingLand Availability Assessment) would follow soonafter. In June 2009 we submitted our views on themethodology of this very important part of theLDF (Local Development Framework) process,emphasising the sites. However, the SHLAA list isfull of greenbelt sites, and much depends on howmany brownfield sites become available.

CPRE supported local residents in theirendeavour to recalculate house completions inTandridge. As a result a higher figure wasarrived at by the Council. The housing figureshave important implications for back gardensand Green Belt – the more that are counted in,the less pressure there is for building elsewhere.

Much protest has surrounded the Oxted Sandpitand the problems caused by lorries going to andfrom the sandpit. This culminated in February ina report on the BBC Politics Show. The quarryissue has also been covered by BBC local radionews and in our local newspaper, the SurreyMirror. Four of the 14 sites identified lie withinTandridge district, so we are in for a rough ridehere! The huge amount of expansion plannedcould see devastation of Green Belt and AONBblight. CPRE has submitted comments forconsultation. It needs to be remembered thatexpansion targets have been set and imposed bycentral Government, not by the County Council.

The first two meetings of the new Tandridgelocal CPRE group took place in November andFebruary. Future meetings will be quarterly. A wide range of issues have come underdiscussion at these meetings and our viewspublicised locally, for instance on M25widening, the Minerals Plan, Local DevelopmentFrameworks, and back garden development.

■ Amanda Papadopoulos

WaverleyWaverley is blessed with a high proportion ofland which is subject to planning constraints ofone sort or another. Some 70% of Waverley iswithin the Green Belt, AONB or Areas of GreatLandscape Value (AGLV) which Surrey CountyCouncil has announced should be regarded ashaving the same restrictions on development asthe AONB. We welcome the initiative of theSurrey Hills Partnership to secure the assimilationof most of the AGLV within the boundaries of theAONB. In particular, Waverley’s local CPRE groupis very pleased that its representations wereinfluential in securing a decision that EashingFarm should not be included in the list of

preferred sites for the extraction of soft sand.

Waverley’s Core Strategy with regard to housingoptions is out for consultation and we will bemaking vigorous representations to seek tomaintain policies for the protection of both theAONB/AGLV and Green Belts whilst recognisingthe need for primarily low-cost or social housing.

Other current issues include the renewal ofproposals to develop the Cranleigh Brick & Tilesite (previously defeated on appeal with CPRE’ssupport) and the future of Dunsfold (followingour success in defeating the New Town scheme).We had a major victory recently with the rejectionof the proposal for a huge block of flats – ninestoreys high – at the Godalming Key site, with nota single affordable home among them. This, inCPRE’s view, is a site crying out for sympatheticdesign with a high proportion of affordable housing.Thankfully, following our representations, andthose of other conservation bodies, the localauthority has taken the same view.

■ Anthony Isaacs

WokingOf ongoing concern in Woking, as in the rest ofthe county, is the ever-present threat to theGreen Belt, from both small and largedevelopments. The SE Plan has given Wokingan extra allocation of 292 dwellings per yearuntil 2026 and the council is in process ofconducting an Options and Suggestionsexercise for its Core Strategy. We havesubmitted a response to the initial questionnaireand now await the preferred options document,to which we will respond more formally.

We objected to several planning applicationswhere we believed that the proposals weredetrimental to the Green Belt, most notably:

• McLaren International, Horsell, wherepermission was given to go ahead with anexpanded facility at the site, despite objectionsfrom various official bodies and residents;

• Five Acres, Brookwood, where an applicationto construct an additional seven plots on thisprivate gypsy site was refused;

• Greenbays Park, Horsell, where CPRE fullysupports the proposal currently underconsideration to provide approximately 80allotments but objects to the increase inbuilding footprint on the Green Belt thatwould result from moving the Butts Roadstarter units onto the site.

We continue to be vigilant. Whilst an incineratorat Heather Farm, Horsell, now seems unlikely,we await developments relating to proposedhousing sites at Moor Lane, Westfield and theformer Westfield Tip; the Hoe Valley FloodScheme; and the proposed WWF Headquartersbuilding on the Brewery Road Car Park.

The past year saw a change of chairmanship forour district group, following Ted Haywood’sretirement in May after giving nearly seven yearsof sterling service. We are extremely grateful tohim for all he has done for CPRE in that time.

In June, we provided a CPRE stall at the HorsellVillage Show where our display, in particular theitems concerning the Hands off the Green Beltcampaign, attracted an encouraging amount ofinterest, raising our profile locally.

■ Barbara Beck

Pioneers of the Green Belt

Ever since CPRE was founded in 1926, we have been

in the forefront of the campaign against urban sprawl.

In the 1930s we secured legislation to

restrict ribbon development. In the 1940s

we helped to map out the new system of

town and country planning, including

Green Belts and National Parks.

Then in 1955 we achieved one of our greatest

successes - the Government circular which

established a national Green Belt policy.

Since then, CPRE branches in every English

county have worked tirelessly to protect and

enhance our Green Belts and to oppose

development that would undermine them.

Surrey's Green Belt forms part of

the Metropolitan Green Belt and

was initially defined in

the early 1950s as part of the

Development Plan for Surrey.

A proposal to extend the Metropolitan

Green Belt was submitted in 1959, and

Green Belt policy has been applied to this

wider area since then. The extension was

approved in 1974 and the general extent

of the Green Belt has

been confirmed in

approvals of Regional

Planning Guidance.

CPRE Surrey is

strongly committed to

the defence of the

Green Belt in Surrey.

Surrey’s countryside is a vital asset

Green Belt

Urban Areas

6

Surrey’s countryside agreen spaces under threa

housebuilding and quarr

We need to protect the characterof our villages

Surrey’s Green Belt - worth defending

7

England’s Green Belts - A Short History

■ In 1933, CPRE endorsed the

idea of a “green girdle” of open

spaces around London. This

proposal was adopted by the

Greater London Regional

Planning Committee in 1935

■ The Green Belts around London,

Birmingham and Sheffield were

among the first to be established

with active support from CPRE

■ In 1947, the Town and Country

Planning Act allowed local

authorities to include Green Belt

proposals in their development

plans

■ In 1955, in response to CPRE

pressure, the Government issued

an historic circular proposing a

national system of Green Belts

■ Today there are 14 separate

Green Belts, ranging in size from

1.2 million acres around London

to just 1,700 acres at Burton-on-

Trent. They protect 4.1 million

acres of countryside, or about

13% of England.

and at fromrying

JOIN CPRE SURREY and takepart in our campaign to defendthe Green Belt.

Visit our website www.cpresurrey.org.uk or

call 01372 362720 for membership details.

8

AVIATION UPDATEDunsfoldHaving lost the appeal in September last yearagainst a refused application to build 2,601houses at Dunsfold (see the front page storyof the last CPRE Surrey Branch Bulletin), theowner has instead spoken of expandingaviation activity on the site. The Secretary ofState had ruled that the housing developmentproposal would not only have beenunsustainable in transport terms but was alsoagainst national, regional and local policy forthis rural area. He also stated that theapplication was premature and would pre-emptthe consideration of alternatives in theWaverley Local Development Frameworkprocess now underway. The aerodrome, whichwas formerly owned by BAE, has permanentplanning permission for aircraft maintenance,flight testing, and aircraft repair, and is alloweda maximum of 5,000 flights per year.

FarnboroughCPRE’s Hampshire and Surrey Branches haveworked closely with the Farnborough AreaResidents Association (FARA) in objecting tothe Farnborough Airport Master Plan. Thisaims at the expansion of flights atFarnborough from 28,000 to 50,000 per year,with increased weekend flying as well. Despiteextensive public opposition, the airport’sowners submitted an application along theselines with officer support from RushmoorBorough Council. The application was refusedat a well-attended Council Meeting at whichnumerous objectors spoke including officersfrom Hart and Surrey Heath borough councils.The application has now gone forward toappeal. Rushmoor Council based its refusalon grounds of noise disturbance and safety.

HeathrowThe outdated Aviation White Paper will at lastbe replaced by a new National PolicyStatement prepared by the Department forTransport, which will be published shortly andwill cover Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted.No decisions on this will be taken until afterthe General Election. Conservative Partypolicy statements make clear that the party isopposed to a third runway at Heathrow andthey will, if elected, halt plans for expansion atGatwick and Stansted. Both Labour andConservative policy proposals call for newhigh-speed rail links between London and theNorth, which could involve a station atHeathrow. Proposals for the AirTrack rail linkfrom Heathrow via Staines to Reading andGuildford will be the subject of a public inquiryin May. Surrey County Council is opposingthis development. Meanwhile, the Heathrowcampaign group HACAN is launching a newcampaign on night flights. “Nightmare” will becalling for a ban before 6am and for areduction of flights between 6 and 7am. Therewill also be a Heathrow manifesto shortly,which HACAN will be urging all parliamentarycandidates to endorse.

■ Tim Harrold

BOOK REVIEWSLouis de Bernieres: Notwithstanding Published by Harvill Secker ISBN 978-1-846-55330-1 £12.99

This enchanting book by the author of Captain Corelli's Mandolin paints a golden picture of Surreychildhood in a rural village filled with engaging eccentrics whose amusing antics are chronicled withaffection and nostalgia. This was a time when the countryside was still intact and everyone in thevillage knew everybody else. Newcomers from the town had not yet overwhelmed a sense of place,belonging and identity in the community. There was still room for individuality, character, andtoleration although the threat of a tougher more materialistic approach to life was on the horizon.Can Hambledon really have been like this? One would hope so.

Jane Garrett: A Portrait of the Surrey HillsPublished by Robert Hale ISBN 978-0-7090-8561-4 £12.99

This highly readable book, written by local journalist Jane Garrett, pays tribute to some of the mostlovely countryside in England in celebration of its 50 glorious years as an Area of OutstandngNatural Beauty. She knows the Surrey Hills like the back of her hand and has walked, cycled andridden across this unique, diverse world of woods, downs and farmland from her childhood. Heraffection for its enchanting landscape pervades this portrait with its fascinating examination ofgeography and archaeology, history and architecture, wildlife and local industry. Here is afascinating personal account of something so special that it must not ever be undervalued or lost.Long may its magical appeal be reinforced in this way!

Green Belts: a greener future Published by the Campaign to Protect Rural England and Natural England ISBN 978-1-84754-195-6

This report is a unique cooperative effort that reviews the history, purposes and objectives of theGreen Belt and outlines the success of this planning policy which has done so much to protect bothour towns and countryside. A PDF of this document is available from www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications and from the CPRE website at www.cpre.org.uk. Full of fascinating facts and figureswhich are laid out in an easy to read manner, the report goes on to outline what more can be donefor the future to make the Green Belt even more effective. Anyone who is interested in protectingthe environment and enhancing the countryside should obtain a copy of this publication. It is nowonder that the Green Belt is so valued by the public in England and admired worldwide for itsplanning achievement. The summary report is 16 pages long and well illustrated with photographs,diagrams and maps.

100 CLUB– prize money increasedYou may remember that we contacted you alllast year inviting you to subscribe to the CPRESurrey 100 Club. We are pleased to report thata number of you took out new or additionalsubscriptions and some members now havemany chances of winning – as you can seebelow. As a result, we can announce that wehave increased prize money to £30 for the firstprize and £15 for the second prize. If more ofyou join the 100 Club we hope to be able toraise the prizes further in the future. If you havenot yet joined, please do so.

Application forms are available from Ann Murphy,email: cpre.surrey@btconnect.comtel: 01372 362720

Winners: November 2009£30 Mrs B Brock, West Molesey £15 Mr G Lee-Steere, Ockley

December 2009£30 Mr R Benson, Woking £15 Mr W Callingham, Albury

January 2010£30 Mr W Callingham, Albury £15 Mr C Stuart, Earnshaw

February 2010£30 Mr R Roads, Chobham £15 Mr J Gooderham, Ottershaw

March 2010£30 Mr C Thomas, Limpsfield £15 Mr W Callingham, Albury

Congratulations to all our winners!

DATES FOR YOUR DIARY

Friday 23rd April, 7.30pm– CPRE Surrey Branch Annual Meeting,

Abraham Dixon Hall, The Institute, HighStreet, Leatherhead.

Bank Holiday Monday 3rd May– Open Day at Cherkeley Court, Leatherhead

(Last chance to visit this glorious garden).

Saturday 12th June– Ashtead Village Day.

Saturday 26th - Sunday 27th June– Celebrating Surrey Festival.

Loseley Park, Guildford.

Trustees’ Annual Report

Introduction

The Surrey Branch of the Campaign to Protect

Rural England (known as CPRE Surrey) is a

company limited by guarantee registered in

England no 4551761, and is also a registered

Charity no 1106245. This report and abbreviated

accounts are extracted from the full Financial

Statements which meet the requirements of the

Companies Act 2006, and of the Charity

Commission SORP 2005 which governs the

accounting and reporting statements for charities.

Copies of the full accounts and a list of the “100

Club” winners are available on request from the

CPRE Surrey Leatherhead Office.

Reference & Administrative Details of the

Charity, its Trustees and Advisers

The headquarters and registered office is Room 1,

The Institute, 67 High Street, Leatherhead, Surrey

KT22 8AH. The members of the Board of Trustees

(who are also Directors) who served in 2009 are

shown overleaf. Malcolm AHM Williamson of

7 Finns Business Park, Mill Lane, Crondall,

Farnham, Surrey GU10 5RX is the Company’s

Solicitor. For the 2009 accounts the Charity

Commission require an Independent Examination

of the accounts to be made, and this will be

carried out and a report will be presented at the

Annual General Meeting. Our bankers are CAF

Bank Ltd, 29 King’s Hill Avenue, Kings Hill,

West Malling, Kent ME19 4JQ. We have a small

investment in COIF Charities Investment Income

Units. The Company has no investment adviser.

Structure, Governance & Management

The structure of CPRE Surrey calls for 11 District

Committees whose areas of responsibility

correspond with the Local Authorities within the

County. Each District committee is represented on

the CPRE Surrey Planning & Campaign Committee

(P&CC), which meets up to six times per annum.

At the Annual General Meeting each year officers

and trustees are elected to form the Board of CPRE

Surrey, which meets two to three times per annum.

CPRE Surrey is a member of the CPRE South East

Regional Group and the South East Forum for

Sustainability (SEFS).

Objectives & Activities

CPRE Surrey exists to promote the beauty,

tranquility and diversity of rural England by

encouraging the sustainable use of land and other

natural resources in town and country. We are

actively involved in the land use planning process

and in consultation on national, regional, county,

and district policy formulation and implementation

in this context. CPRE Surrey is represented on the

Board of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty (AONB), we appear at a number of

Public Inquiries each year and comment on

planning applications in all districts. We campaign

strongly for the protection and enhancement of the

countryside throughout the county, and for the

improvement of environmental quality. The

trustees are mindful of the need to demonstrate

public benefit. We publish a newsletter 3 – 4 times

per year giving details of our activities and

campaigns. Our newsletters are distributed to our

members and supporters, and also to members of

Local Authorities (County, District/Borough, and

Parish Councillors) throughout Surrey.

CPRE SURREY

Annual Report 2009Trustees’ Annual Report & Financial Statement for the year ended 31 December 2009

9

10

Achievements & Performance

CPRE Surrey's year was marked by the publicationof the final version of the South East Plan, whichincluded housing figures considerably above thosethat we consider sustainable for a county that isalready seriously overcrowded and under-resourced in terms of infrastructure. If and whenthe Plan is revised in the near future, still higherhousing targets could be set for the county.

The consequence of this is that, as CPRE Surreycontinues to engage with the Local DevelopmentFramework process in various district councilareas, it is becoming still clearer that the housingnumbers that we have been set are likely to requireat least some loss of Surrey's countryside. Most ofthese sites lie within the Green Belt. It is sad thatthe planning triumph that is the LondonMetropolitan Green Belt, which has successfullyworked to protect our countryside from urbansprawl for the past half a century, could beundermined over the next few years. All membersof CPRE Surrey have their part to play in resistingsuch proposals.

However, we have plenty of good news, too. Our"Hands off the Green Belt" campaign hassuccessfully raised the profile of Surrey’s GreenBelt with politicians, officials and the general public- we have received considerable publicity for thislocally and nationally, including major articles in abroadsheet Sunday newspaper in November 2009.Guildford Borough Council, with the active supportof CPRE Surrey and, in particular, our local group inGuildford, has made a successful challenge to theSouth East Plan regarding proposals for massive newhousing in the Green Belt north-east of the town. Weheld a lively and well-attended debate on housingand the Green Belt near Dorking in June - manythanks to our Mole Valley group for organising this.

Other successes include our opposition, togetherwith the Stop Dunsfold New Town campaign, to alarge number of new houses being built on a totallyinappropriate site in the countryside in Waverley.The recent news that the new owners of Gatwickairport will not be applying for permission to build asecond runway in the foreseeable future is also inpart down to the campaigning work of CPRESurrey and its collaborators. The Surreycountryside will be more tranquil as a result of thisdecision, although there are still plans to increase

significantly the number of passengers using the

airport. Another decision for which we campaigned

throughout the public examination of the Surrey

Waste Plan is Surrey County Council's abandonment

of its plans to build waste incinerators at two

locations in the Surrey countryside.

CPRE Surrey and its constituent district groups

have continued throughout 2009 to deal with

proposals for mineral extraction (for instance the

successful campaign to exclude the Eashing site

from the Surrey Minerals Plan) and oil and gas-

related developments in many parts of the county;

transport proposals, including AirTrack; the use of

hard shoulders on the M25; and airport expansions

both major and minor; and on development

proposals within the Thames corridor.

On the personnel front Tim Murphy replaced

our highly respected and hard-working Chair,

Tim Harrold, who stood down at the 2009 AGM.

Tim Harrold continues to be our representative on

the Surrey Hills AONB Board, and remains Chair of

our local Guildford group and our Aviation Group.

Our heartfelt thanks go to Tim for all the work he

has put in over the years for CPRE Surrey.

Andy Smith, who has worked for us for a number

of years on publicity and communications, agreed

to become our first Branch Director in August.

We have been seeking to broaden our Board of

Trustees by appointing non-executive members

who are not involved in the day to day running of

our charity. Induction and training is available for

all members of the Board.

Future Plans

CPRE Surrey will continue to engage fully with the

Local Development Framework process in each of

the county’s districts. We will examine and, where

appropriate, oppose developments that conflict with

our objectives whilst supporting proposals that

enhance Surrey’s countryside. In addition, we will

increasingly seek to identify opportunities to

promote the appropriate use of our countryside for

food production, recreation and other purposes.

We will seek ways of increasing our membership

and income and, in particular, we will attempt to

identify how those audiences, particularly younger

people, who have not traditionally been heavily

involved with CPRE, can work with us in the future.

CPRE Surrey Officers and TrusteesPresidentSarah Goad JP, Lord Lieutenant of Surrey

Vice-PresidentsCommander T K Evans RN

Tim Harrold

Richard Ingle

Gordon Lee-Steere DL

Board of Trustees

Chair, CPRE Surrey (and Chair, Epsom & Ewell District)Tim Murphy 3 Walnut Close, Epsom KT18 5JLTel: 01372 741393 e-mail: timmurphy4@btinternet.com

Immediate Past-Chair, CPRE Surrey(and Chair, Guildford District)Tim Harrold 2 Longdown Road, Guildford GU4 8PPTel: 01483 451543 e-mail: tim.harrold@btinternet.com

Vice-Chair, CPRE Surrey(and Acting Chair, Reigate & Banstead District)Gillian Hein 15 Copley Way, Tadworth KT20 5QSTel: 01737 355206 e-mail: gillian.hein@freeuk.com

Secretary to the Board of TrusteesPeter Edwards 2 Hales Oak, Great Bookham KT23 4EATel: 01372 451607 e-mail: peteraedwards@hotmail.co.uk

TreasurerNick Russell-Davis Lake Cottage, The Green, Shamley Green, Guildford GU5 0UJTel: 01483 890719 e-mail: nrusselldavis@compuserve.com

Chair, Spelthorne DistrictClaudette Curtis-Jenkins Hazelwood House, 38 Richmond Road,Staines TW18 2ABTel: 01784 455518

Ted Haywood 6 Sanway Road, Byfleet, Surrey KT14 7SFTel & Fax: 01932 344335

DirectorAndy Smith CPRE Surrey, The Institute, 67 High Street, Leatherhead KT22 8AHTel: 01372 362720 / Mobile 07737 271676 e-mail: cpre.surrey@btconnect.com

Other District Contacts

Elmbridge | Keith TothillPeleleza, Merrylands Road, Great Bookham KT23 3HPTel: 01372 452623 e-mail: keithtothill@hotmail.com

Mole Valley | Richard BassThe Greenings, Dean Oak Lane, Leigh RH2 8PZTel: 01293 862402 e-mail: rj.bass@btinternet.com

Runnymede | Annie Wade26 Franklands Drive, Addlestone KT15 1EQTel: 01932 851137 e-mail: 1954annie@tiscali.co.uk

Surrey Heath | Richard RoadsBrooklands House, Philpot Lane, Chobham, GU24 8HETel: 01276 858313 e-mail: rkroadschobhamuk@aol.com

Tandridge | Amanda PapadopoulosLittle Hammer, Wilderness Road, Oxted RH8 9HSTel: 01883 713910 e-mail: mandy.h@inbox.com

Waverley | Anthony IsaacsJordans, Eashing, Godalming GU7 2QA Tel: 01483 416457 e-mail: aandji@talktalk.net

Woking | Barbara Beck8 Horsell Park Close, Woking GU26 4LZTel: 01483 768155 e-mail: barbarab008@hotmail.com

Financial Review

The Trustees are responsible for identifying themajor risks to which the charitable company isexposed and ensuring that steps are taken tomanage these risks.

Risk

The Trustees are responsible for identifying themajor risks to which the charitable company isexposed and ensuring that steps are taken tomanage these risks.

Statement of Trustees’ Responsibilities

The Trustees are responsible for the preparation ofthe Annual Report and the financial statements inaccordance with applicable law and regulations.Company law requires the Trustees to preparefinancial statements for each financial period thatgive a true and fair view of the state of affairs of thecharitable company for that period. In preparing thosefinancial statements, the Trustees are required to:

- select suitable accounting policies and applythem consistently

- make judgments and estimates that arereasonable and prudent

- prepare the financial statements on the goingconcern basis unless it is inappropriate topresume that the charity will continueoperations.

The Trustees are responsible for keeping properaccounting records which disclose with reasonableaccuracy at any time the financial position of thecharitable company and to enable them to ensurethat the accounts comply with the Companies Act2006. They are also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the charitable company and hence for taking reasonable steps for the prevention anddetection of fraud and other irregularities.

The Trustees are responsible for the maintenance andintegrity of the corporate and financial informationincluded on the charitable company's website.Legislation in the UK governing the preparation anddissemination of financial statements may differfrom legislation in other jurisdictions.

11

The Surrey Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England

Statement of Financial Activities for theyear ended 31 December 2009

Restricted Unrestricted Total Total Funds Funds Funds Funds

2009 2009 2009 2008

Incoming Resources £ £ £ £

Share of income from members - 27,064 27,064 28,912Grant from CPRE National Office - 0 0 5,000Donations 33,396 7,070 40,466 9,214Fundraising events (inc 100 Club) - 1,948 1,948 2,071Investment income 0 1,005 1,005 3,717

Total incoming resources 33,396 37,087 70,483 48,914

Resources expended

Cost of generating fundsDirect costs of fundraising - 1,488 1,488 1,673Shows and publicity - 445 445 1,107Indirect costs - 2,797 2,797 2,898

Charitable expenditure in furtheranceof the charity's objects

Campaign costs 34,407 23,778 58,185 24,630Members newsletters - 5,105 5,105 5,066

Governance - 3,650 3,650 3,738

34,407 37,263 71,670 39,112

Net incoming resources and movement in funds – 1,011 – 176 – 1,187 9,802Fund balances at 31 December 2008 5,239 79,923 85,162 75,360

Fund balances at 31 December 2009 4,228 79,747 83,975 85,162

Balance Sheet at 31 December 2009

Current assets

Debtors & prepayments - 10,136 10,136 3,987Investment (at transfer value on 31.12.04) - 11,915 11,915 11,915

(Market value 31.12.08 £11,524)(Market value 31.12.07 £15,512)

Cash at bank 4,228 61,694 65,922 75,2824,228 83,745 87,973 91,184

Creditors and accruals(amounts falling due in one year) - – 3,998 – 3,998 – 6,022

Net current assets 4,228 79,747 83,975 85,162

Total assets less current liabilities 4,228 79,747 83,975 85,162

Total fundsRestricted 4,228 5,239Unrestricted 79,747 79,923

83,975 85,162

Restricted funds are funds that are subject to special conditions imposed by the donor.

The above figures are extracted from the full trustees' report and financial statementswhich will be filed with the Charity Commission and Companies House following the AGMof the company.

These summarised financial statements may not contain sufficient information to gain acomplete understanding of the affairs of CPRE Surrey. The full trustees' report and financialstatements may be obtained from CPRE Surrey.

CPRE Surrey. The Institute, 67 High Street,Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 8AH.

Tel: 01372 362720email: cpresurrey@btconnect.comwebsite: www.cpresurrey.org.ukCompany No.4551761 Reg. Charity No. 1106245

12