Fears are growing that a proposed Haslemere development on Scotland Lane could set a dangerous precedent for building on the UK’s protected countryside. Below, Conservative Cllr Phoebe Sullivan shares her concerns about the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its potential risk to green spaces.

Labour has proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As a Councillor sitting on a Planning Committee in our Borough, which is 61 per cent Green Belt, in my opinion, this will totally reshape our countryside.

The NPPF sets out the government’s planning policies for England, guiding local authorities in making development decisions. It should promote sustainable development, ensuring a balance between housing delivery, economic growth, and environmental protection.

The NPPF requires councils to maintain a five-year housing land supply, support infrastructure improvements, and encourage biodiversity net gain. While it includes safeguards for Green Belt land and our National Landscapes, recent changes have raised concerns about increased development pressure on rural areas like Waverley. By shaping local plans and planning applications, the NPPF plays a crucial role in how towns, cities, and the countryside evolve, and I’m not entirely sure these proposed changes are good for South West Surrey.

Recent proposed changes to the framework have sparked debate among communities, planners, and developers, raising key questions about the future of our countryside. While the revisions aim to address housing shortages and support economic growth, there are also potentially far-reaching consequences for communities in our rural heartland.

Firstly, development in protected areas. Loosening restrictions in areas like the Green Belt or National Landscapes could lead to increased urban encroachment, an altering of ecosystems, and the diminishing of the character of rural spaces.

Secondly, the age-old debate: sustainability vs. speed. The push to streamline housing delivery may prioritise rapid approvals over environmentally sensitive planning. Many members of our community believe this will put biodiversity and local heritage at risk, especially for our borough, which is struggling to show a five-year housing supply as “exceptional circumstances” on the Green Belt now include where a council cannot meet its identified development needs. Waverley cannot meet its development needs, as its current housing supply is only 1.28 years.

Thirdly, and in my opinion most importantly, community impact. Rural communities may face challenges as infrastructure cannot keep pace with development, while losing green spaces that contribute to their identity and well-being. This is, of course, covered in the “golden rules,” but we wait to see further details of implementation.

That said, there are opportunities here too. With the right focus, these changes could encourage sustainable development, greener building practices, and better integration of renewable energy solutions, to name a few. Incentivising brownfield redevelopment over greenfield construction could help preserve untouched countryside. However, this will always remain difficult for boroughs with high National Landscapes ratios.

As we await clarity on how these changes will be implemented, it is key for our communities to stay abreast of developments and opportunities, keep up to date on speculative applications, and ensure our communications are clear, as ultimately the need to engage remains.

By WBC Cllr Phoebe Sullivan