SURREY County Council has called on the Government to halt proposals to increase Surrey housing targets by 20 per cent and to ensure that green belt land in the county will continue to be protected from future housing developments. This follows the recent publication of the Government-appointed Inspector's report that proposed changes to the South East Plan created by the South East Regional Assembly. At a meeting of the county council, executive member for the environment Peter Martin called on the Government to safeguard all of Surrey's green belt land against development for new homes. He rejected the proposed 10 per cent increase in the number of new homes across the region and rejected the huge 20 per cent increase for Surrey. The Inspector recommended an increase in the number of homes to be built in the South East from the 28,900 proposed by the South East Regional Assembly to 32,000 every year up to 2026. The Godalming, South Milford and Witley member's motion was unanimously agreed by the council. It stated that the county council: • Opposes the 20 per cent increase – from 2,360 homes to 2,833 per year – in housing targets for Surrey recommended in the Government inspector's report on the South East Plan • Considers that the increase, and even higher increases threatened by the Government, strikes the wrong balance between the needs of current and future residents and the preservation of the unique character of the county • Supports the original more sustainable targets and proper infrastructure support • Calls on the Government to fund the infrastructure necessary to support new housing development • Calls on the government to safeguard all of Surrey's green belt land. Peter Martin said: "I am delighted this motion gained the support of every councillor from all parties. It is vital that we counter this threat from Government to thrust excessive levels of development on us. "I think it is wrong to erode our green belt. There is not much green belt today between Guildford and Woking – I would be horrified to see that be built over so that we end up with a city of Wokford, or would it be Guilding? "The Government, through its inspector, does seem intent on more growth closer to London. Is that for London's benefit or for the people of Surrey? "A further critical point is the lack of adequate infrastructure by the Government in Surrey and the South East. The size of infrastructure development that is needed is way higher than anything that individual developers might ever provide. Alongside any increased targets of more housing must come commitments to spend on infrastructure."
