Difference of Opinion – Who is the Determining Authority? SCC or GBC?
There is a very interesting situation developing. We hear that Surrey County Council (SCC) believe that they have planning permission for the proposed changes at Newlands Corner, this includes changes put forward in both Phase 1 and 2. This does not sound right to us!
Guildford Borough Council (GBC) has been approached, at a high level, for their opinion and for clarification of who should be the determining authority.
In summary, GBC is of the very strong opinion that SCC do not have a legal basis for giving their own approval for these changes. We expect that the two councils will now be having some intense discussions to resolve this major and important difference of opinion.
Below is a bullet point summary of GBC’s comments. We are sure you will find them of great interest!
- The GBC officers (both in the legal and planning departments), Leader of the Council and interested members of the Executive do not agree with Surrey County Council’s reasoning as to why SCC should deal with either phase of the proposals.
- In relation to the first phase, (play equipment, play trail and associated elements); Having taken advice, GBC are firmly of the opinion that this element and the visitor centre fall to GBC to determine at District level. The reasoning for this is set out below:
- Firstly, Newlands Corner is not owned by Surrey County Council and is owned by Albury Estate. GBC accept there is an access agreement and there is responsibility for SCC with regard to maintenance, litter picking etc. but believe the County Council would need to have a significant interest in the proposal to be able to claim jurisdiction. Whilst GBC appreciate SCC advise about Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations, this is normally associated with educational use or unitary functions and usually presents itself as the overreaching educational authority, which is clearly not the case here.
- It is GBC’s opinion in this particular case that it is unusual for the County Council to try and maintain jurisdiction over this proposal. GBC officers don’t believe that the County Council’s interest is sufficiently significant to ensure jurisdiction. SCC is not the landowner meaning that the interest is insignificant, ergo the strongly held view from the GBC perspective is that the power to determine both phases (I and 2) should remain with GBC.
- The issue of transparency also concerns GBC. It would be unusual for SCC to fund/develop and determine phase I of the proposal, when the proposal is a discretionary function that would normally be determined at District level. As everyone knows, there is a lot of heat and interest around this proposal. Members of the public, Parish Councils and Councillors simply do not understand why SCC should fund/develop this proposal and not surprisingly some have reacted badly.
- Further, it would be seen, by many, as a potential conflict of interest, given SCC’s involvement in promoting, funding and delivering the project. This opinion is strongly held at the highest level at Guildford Borough Council and by the ‘Save Newlands Corner’ team.
We will be following this with interest.
Save Newlands Corner 
March 7, 2016 at 10:13 am
A Superb Summary ..
.
It IS a very pertinent point that Newlands Corner is Private Land – part of the Albury Estate, to which the public have been given the right to access .
It seems blatantly Obvious that the local Council, Guildford Borough Council , should of been consulted, indeed in charge of ANY proposals regarding Newlands Corner, and any changes whether that be a New Café /Visitor’s Centre, whatever ..
YES, where is the transparency SCC ?
Where, when and How .. the SCC decided that Newlands Corner needed a drastic ‘Makeover ‘ ?
IT IS quite clearly a Conflict of interest ..
Absolute NO-ONE , no one had raised ANY issues about the maintenance, running of Newlands Corner – UNTIL reports started to appear in the Surrey Advertiser in the latter part of 2015 ..about SCC’s radical changes for Newlands Corner ..
‘ It was needed to make the Countryside ‘ more attractive ‘ for children .’ (Hence Play-Trails )*
they say ?
What ..!
Newlands Corner has been attracting People, families,and ( Yes.. Children!!) for the past 50 Years plus . ?
Why ? ~ Basically, and very simply it is FREE ..
( what would make less attractive.. ? drive people away from Newlands Corner ? -Fees for Car Parking … )
* Personally I think there needs to be an investigation, enquiry How SCC appointed Outside Private companies :
a) Bell/Fischer Landscape Architects , ( the detailed drawn up plans }
b) Davies White Ltd, : ( those DETESTED ‘ Play – Trails ‘ .. )
LikeLike
March 21, 2016 at 4:17 pm
Does any one have a copy of the Access agreement?????? This is most important a sit gives the powers,liabilities and dutuy which apply to SCC under the Act.
SCC have used a similar tactic over the development of the mountain bike course on Wotton common just below the NT owned Leith Hill Tower on Cockshott Hollow which is also subject to a National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 agreement.
I have a plan of the s193 Law of Property Act 1925 deed of dedication made by Alan Ian Duke of Northumberland 1928 so that all the land seen as being ripe for development by SCC has rights to air and exercise by both pedestrians and equestrians. I do not have a copy of the original deed of dedication.
Any change of use as proposed would require that the land according to the guidance by the SoS and its agent the Planning Inspectorate would need the land to be removed from the commons register and that exchange land given instead. I do not believe that this significant issue has been taken into consideration by SCC or its management contractors SWT Ltd and that the whole issue of charging for a developed car park facility and the construction of the children’s play trail with extended facilities are for only private gain by SCC whose only legal interest is in terms of management for public access under the agreement.
There was already an application in 2005 to extend the catering facilities which was granted by the SoS under s194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. In that application the applicants were SWT Ltd on behalf of SCC and the Agents on behalf of the Trustees of the Albury Estate.
It is odd that there should be an NPAC access agreement when s193 applies and the fact there is a deed was conveniently left blank by the applicant. It was also divulged that the agreement ran from 25th Dec 1991 for 20years. Has any one seen an agreement renewal? Also it states that it is only the Countryside Centre including the toilet block that is leased to SCC until 2070. A copy of the lease would not go amiss to see the plan of the leased land to compare it with the proposed trail plan.
It seems to me we have yet another case of institutionalised fraud being promulgated by SCC and its management contractors
LikeLike
March 21, 2016 at 8:00 pm
Thank you for your comment Bob. We were trying to get a copy and I will check with the others to see if we did. If we may, we will email you direct with a response.
LikeLike
March 21, 2016 at 10:07 pm
Yes, where, when and how did SCC decide that Newlands Corner needed a drastic makeover? And if GBC win this battle, does it follow that the makeover Phase 1 and 2 proposals will be dropped? Or does GBC agree with the proposals, but objects to not being in control.
I hope someone can clarify this for me.
LikeLike