A proposed 200-home development outside a Surrey village would have been rejected by councillors, had the decision not already been sent to appeal.

The plans for Shortlands Farm in the parish of Normandy, to the east of Ash, would see the existing buildings at the site knocked down to make way for the new homes.

But the development’s fate is currently in the hands of the Planning Inspectorate after the applicant filed an appeal “on the grounds of non-determination”.

Council officers explained that an agreement to extend planning deliberations had not been reached with the applicant, who instead opted to launch their appeal.

However, an outline application for the proposed development was considered by Guildford Borough Council’s planning committee to establish how it would have ruled.

The development, proposed by Gleeson Land, would see 200 homes – including affordable housing and plots for self-builds – set up in the site to the east of Ash.

Planning officers wrote in their report that they would have recommended refusal. 

While they argued the site would be classified as grey belt, they deemed it did not sufficiently meet the “golden rules” allowing for its release from the Green Belt.

While councillors were ultimately unanimous in their backing of the officers’ report, some pushed back against the idea the site is grey belt.

Cllr Simon Schofield, of Normandy Parish Council, told the committee: “We are not asking the planning committee to ignore planning policy or guidance, but rather to use your own planning judgement on whether this site is grey belt.”

The concept of grey belt was introduced in national planning guidelines in 2024, loosening development restrictions on land that does not adequately contribute to Green Belt purposes.

Cllr David Bilbe said: “The grey belt is supposed to demonstrate low quality scrubland. That’s not what this is. It’s not low quality scrubland at all, it’s a farm.”

He added: “I think that we should consider adding and strengthening the fact that this is not grey belt – and we should strengthen the reasons for refusal.”

However, officers reiterated their views that the site does qualify as grey belt, and warned councillors that a refusal which pushed back at this would be “opening up the council to an application for unreasonable costs”.

Cllr George Potter argued: “It does not meet those Green Belt tests, and therefore under the NPPF this is grey belt – and that is what our specialist advice is saying.”

He added: “We don’t have to like what the government has done with grey belt. We are allowed to think it is a false prospectus – but that doesn’t mean we can disagree with it when it is so black and white.”

Cllr Potter noted there is already a case for refusal, and argued it would be “grotesquely irresponsible” to go against the expert advice on a “clear cut” definition.

Planning committee chair Cllr Cait Taylor told Cllr Bilbe: “I would be putting your reason for refusal forward if I felt there was enough support from the other councillors, but I don’t feel that is the case.” 

Find out about planning applications that affect you by visiting the Public Notice Portal.

Committee members voted unanimously to back the officers’ report, declaring they would have rejected the application had they been able to make a decision.