 |
Tyting Farm
TYTING FARM UPDATE - Council bow to public pressure and defer sale of Tyting Farm
(Update 11 April 2006)
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.
SAVE TYTING FARM (6 February 2006)
Tyting Farm is an absolutely crucial part of the landscape of the North Downs.
It forms the setting for St Martha's Hill and is an integral part of the swathe of agricultural landscape which stretches from
Pewley Downs, Guildford to Newlands Corner and beyond to the east.
It is arguably the most walked and visited open space in Surrey and is Guildford's premier open space.
Guildford Borough Council is 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 to urban owners the
landscape is likely to be destroyed.
Farming is struggling. Farmers cannot buy the farm at speculators prices. Neither home owners nor developers can be relied
on to have the knowledge or will to protect the agricultural nature of the landscape.
The more the land deteriorates the more alternative uses become acceptable to the planners, in fact the Guilford Borough
Council are proposing clauses in any sale to share in development value.
The officers and politicians pay lip service to protecting green belt but press ahead with what may be a catastrophic disposal
for what is classified as an "area of outstanding natural beauty" and an "area of
great landscape value".
Do the residents of Guildford and Surrey really want this to happen?
Is South Warren Farm next?
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 South Warren Farm. And if the Council 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. There are several local
farmers willing to do this.
3. The surplus farm buildings, if they are to be sold, can contribute to repairing the deterioration of the land caused
whilst in the ownership of the Guildford Borough Council.
What can I do?
The 'Save Tyting Farm' group would like anyone who walks, rides or just visits the area and values the Green Belt and Surrey
Hills to write and protest to Guildford Borough Council, your local councillor,
your MP and the Surrey Advertiser.
The farm should be kept in Council ownership and in agricultural use to protect the landscape as it is.
It should not be fragmented and sold off.
Write, email and telephone TODAY.
Time is short.
Tell your friends and neighbours!
And if you would like more information or if you would like to help -
please contact us.
Check our
websites
and also
or write to:
Barbara Winkworth
Southernway Cottage
Halfpenny Lane
Guildford GU4 8PZ
tel: 01483 536461 mobile: 07747 068086
email: savetytingfarm@btinternet.com
Local Residents' Letter
THE SAVE TYTING FARM CAMPAIGN
WORKING TO PROTECT GUILDFORD'S GREEN BELT
websites
and also
email: savetytingfarm@btinternet.com
Secretary: Barbara Winkworth,
c/o Southernway Cottage,
Halfpenny Lane,
Guildford,
Surrey GU4 8PZ
tel: 01483 536461
mobile: 07747 068086
12th January 2005
Dear Resident
TYTING FARM
We are writing to you on a matter of very serious concern.
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 farms 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 some 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 is to protect the Green
Belt particularly Area's of Outstanding Natural Beauty and specifically the Surrey Hill.
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'.
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', ie inviting an urban solution with large vehicle movements, parking areas, lighting, noise and intensification of use.
The Council has drafted restrictive covenants to stop development that purchasers will have to agree that aim to limit the 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, CPRE and other interested groups are being ignored by firstly this Council's actions to sell something which should
be treated as the birth right of the people of Guildford and Surrey who daily 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 or 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 and the Surrey
Advertiser. The farm should be kept in Council ownership to protect the landscape as it is for farming and not be fragmented and
sold off. Time is short.
Barbara Winkworth
Secretary
John Rigg
RESPONSE TO PRESS RELEASE OF GBC OF 24TH JANUARY 2006
Firstly to correct some inaccuracies in the Press Release the farm is incorrectly stated as "no longer viable for farming purposes".
If farmed with adjoining farms it is viable something GBC choose to ignore.
Secondly it is claimed that Tyting Society and Surrey Wildlife Trust raised no fundamental objection. This is absolutely inaccurate
as can be seen from the letter from Surrey Wildlife Trust and through checking with committee members of the Tyting Society. The
writer attended the relevant meeting and it was made absolutely clear and in no uncertain terms that the Council's plans were not
supported on any basis. It could not have been clearer.
The current situation remains:
i) The best way to protect this agricultural landscape is firstly through ownership and secondly through keeping it in agricultural
use - the Council still continue to dismiss both.
ii) If they proceed with a sale but believe in protecting the Green Belt for future generations then they should put some real
restrictions against development in place. If by 'special restrictions' they mean the current ones drafted by their legal
department these can be rendered void by a new planning application as part of a development agreement (which can include payments
to the Council) from a developer to permit development.
iii) So far the Council have refused to agree effective special restrictions, i.e. true restrictive covenants where others in the
community can take action to enforce restrictions and stop development on this Green Belt. This is because they know it may put off
developers and reduce some bids. Furthermore in their guidelines the Council requirement "to share in 30% of any development value
uplift" sends the opposite signal and gives a very encouraging signal regarding future development.
Either the Council make a real commitment in perpetuity to protect this landscape for future generations or they try and hedge their
bets which is exactly what they are doing at the moment.
Marketing Update:
i) The recent marketing campaign to property developers across the South East is suggesting that bids might reach circa 3m on the
basis probably that the farm buildings are converted to residential use. It is uncertain whether this is for converting the farm
buildings to one or two or forty two residential units, plus of course presumably a developer 'land banking' the fields.
ii) The farmland may well not be necessary for any successful residential conversion of the farm buildings. GBC say they are
committed to protecting the landscape and as it could be kept in farming this would be a better outcome. However we suspect they
would still rather sell off each field to various buyers as this will get the best price and thereby probably totally exclude the
possibility of farming by making it sufficiently difficult for any farmer to agree terms.
In which case please press your Council that if they insist in going ahead with a sale that only the farm buildings and farmyards
are sold for residential development and for only a small development.
GBC SHOULD THEN RETAIN THE LAND FOR FARMING BY OTHERS.
Not including the fields in any sale may not materially effect any bid (and if it did one could justifiably be suspicious that a
bidder is land banking). The residents of Guildford could then take some comfort from the outcome of this 'fire sale'.
iii) A small note under Guildford's Note to editors. Councillor Rooth says a sale is necessary because "Tyting Farm did not
perform well". If offers are received for 2.5m to 3m it will be one of Guildford's best performing assets and accordingly on
valuation uplift alone should easily defeat government criticism if it is based on the poor performance of this asset. This is
particularly so if combined with the importance of this open space to Guildford which like schools or parks should not have
strictly financial criteria applied, and where we expect our politicians not solely to work on a principle of 'knowing the
price of everything and value of nothing'.
In actual fact it is uncertain whether or not Surrey County Council and Greater London Authority will be entitled to recover a
share of the sale proceeds due to their having contributed to the purchase price in 1942 to protect this Green Belt against
development. If Guildford only receive a small proportion, say 1m, what expenditure is currently so important as to carry
on with this sale ? One supporter suggested redecoration of Council offices maybe costing about the same sum (we will try to
find out !).
This is a wake up call for the residents of Guildford if we are not going to become part of the London sprawl we need a policy
for the next farms under threat where this might happen. Hopefully the people of Guildford will let their views be known on
whether or not they place a value on the North Downs.
| | | |
Menu
Front Page
About Us
News Archive
Road Reps
Newsletters
Planning
Minutes
Clubs
Societies
Business
Features
Photo Gallery
Adverts
Links
Contact Us
Tyting Farm Information
Tyting Farm
Tyting Map
Tyting Flier
| |
