save our green belt!...sixty glorious years this year the green belt celebrates its 60th...

Land at Blackwell Farm on the northern slope of the Hogs Back. Thislandscape will be obliterated and the fields covered in houses if

plans for an “urban extension” to Guildford are given the green light

SURREYVOICE

The newsletter of the Surrey branch ofthe Campaign to Protect Rural England

Autumn 2015

Date for your Diary >Friday 23rd October 2015 at 8pm – Annual SeminarHousing – Truths and UntruthsDorking Christian Centre, Dorking (See back page for full details)

Follow us on Twitter @CPRESurreyVisit our website www.cpresurrey.org.ukEmail: [email protected]

Belt to make way for vast, sprawling housing estates.Unfortunately, indications are that the council mightwell opt to approve the plans. Indeed, despite havinglast year scrapped its earlier proposal for a wholesale“roll-back” of Green Belt, Guildford Council is onceagain looking at removing Green Belt protection fromthousands of acres of farmland and green spacethroughout the borough. Blackwell Farm on the HogsBack is the largest of many such sites earmarkedfor destruction.

The Hogs Back scheme alone would mean the removalof 265 hectares of land from the Metropolitan GreenBelt – and thus from statutory protection. This is

... continued on Page 2

SAVE OUR GREEN BELT!

STOP PRESS >Look out for the 6-page featurearticle “Our countryside at risk”in the October issue of Surrey Lifemagazine, which is in shops now.

The Hogs Back is an iconic chalk downlandlandscape, with the ancient Pilgrims’ Way runningalong it. Its natural beauty is such that it waspraised by writers from Daniel Defoe to JaneAusten. Aldous Huxley described it as “All the worldin a few square miles” with everything from chalkpits to sloping meadows, lakes, heaths and thick,dark woods. Yet it is now threatened bydevelopment which would scar it forever. SurreyUniversity, which owns a key stretch of farmlandalong the northern slope of the Hogs Back, wants tosell off more than 600 acres of this land for housing.The university’s scheme for an “urban extension” toGuildford, comprising some 3,000 new houses,threatens to see the town sprawling out deep intothis precious and historic countryside.

The future of the Hogs Back hangs in the balance.Guildford Borough Council publishes the consultationdraft of its Local Plan in mid-2016 and by then we willknow if the Council is going to go ahead with thescheme to remove Blackwell Farm from the Green

Photo: Save Hogs Back

CPRE Surrey Branch Newsletter Autumn 2015_CPRE Surrey Branch Newsletter Autumn 2015.qxd 10/10/2015 10:52

Surrey Voice – Autumn 2015

the countryside throughout the public consultationand examination of Guildford’s Local Plan. If we cannotsave as beautiful and important a piece of countrysideas the Hogs Back, every Green Belt site in Surrey will beat risk. Our Green Belt is our “red line”!

We need your help. The developers and their alliesare well-funded and have an army of consultantsand lawyers at their beck and call. We need to raisefunds to defend the Hogs Back and other threatenedGreen Belt sites. Please consider making a donationto CPRE’s campaign to save Surrey’s countryside.Details of how you can support us are on theenclosed form. This is a “David and Goliath” battleagainst the developers – PLEASE help us!

Andy Smith

A Tribute to Andrew Telford ... Andrew was a very special member of the CPRE Surreyteam. He was Chairman of CPRE Runnymede District for five years and won the respect of everyone who cameinto contact with him because of his energy and ability. He relished a challenge and became extremelyknowledgeable about all aspects of planning. He was a determined campaigner on behalf of the countrysideand a resolute fighter. Andrew was also a good friend to those who worked closely with him. We shall all misshis support and drive. He provided an example as a dedicated volunteer and was described by someone whoknew him well as “one of the good guys”. Andrew died on 16th September. He is survived by his wife Barbaraand a son and daughter.

Tim Harrold

You will be aware of the moves to devolve taxgathering and spending powers downwards fromWhitehall to more local tiers of government,following the promises made to Scotland duringthe independence referendum. The countycouncils of Surrey, East Sussex and West Sussexhave recently submitted a devolution bid to theGovernment under the banner of “Three SouthernCounties” (3SC).

CPRE branches recognised that it was important toidentify just what devolution could mean for theEnglish countryside. A group was set up, under thechairmanship of the Surrey Branch chair, TimMurphy, bringing together representatives of variousCPRE branches from across England, to examine theopportunities and possible threats to rural areasresulting from future devolution.

The group’s report, which was presented to CPRE’sPolicy Committee in September, identified twoprincipal concerns. The first is that the implicationsof devolution for the English countryside are beingoverlooked with debate concentrated on city regionsand urban-centred “Powerhouses”. The second is that

there is the danger of a democratic deficit emerging,particularly given the importance that the Governmentis attaching to the role of Local Enterprise Partnerships(LEPs) in the evolution of devolved authorities. [LEPsare private sector-led business/local authoritypartnerships which have in many respects taken overthe function of the old Regional DevelopmentAgencies as a conduit for the allocation of centralgovernment and European funding.]

The group recommended that each devolvedauthority must have members and paid staffdedicated to the protection of the countryside andthe support of sustainable rural enterprise.It said that LEP operations need to be incorporatedwithin the remit of democratically electeddevolved authorities. It recommended that Social,Economic and Environmental Partners (SEEPs) needto have a formalised role both in determining theboundaries and functions of devolved authoritiesand in working with these authorities across arange of rural and urban issues. If you would liketo see the full text of the group’s recommendations,please email [email protected] andwe will send you a copy.

Tim Murphy

Continued from Page 1 ...something that the local authority is permitted to do ifit can demonstrate that in its judgment there are“exceptional circumstances” for a re-drawing of GreenBelt boundaries. In CPRE’s view, with developmentpressures increasing by the day, protecting our GreenBelt is more important than ever. It is vital that newdevelopment is directed towards the regeneration of thenation’s towns and cities not sacrificing what remains ofour countryside and open spaces. After all, how canproductive farmland and precious woodland that hasbeen designated as worthy of protection because of therole it plays in preventing urban sprawl suddenly beconsidered expendable?

CPRE Surrey is supporting the local action group, SaveHogs Back, and will be speaking up for local people and

FROM THE CHAIR

CPRE Surrey Branch Newsletter Autumn 2015_CPRE Surrey Branch Newsletter Autumn 2015.qxd 10/10/2015 10:52 Page 2


SIXTY GLORIOUS YEARSThis year the Green Belt celebrates its 60th anniversary. It was in 1955 that the housing minister in thethen Conservative government, Duncan Sandys, authorised the creation of green belts around Britishtowns to prevent urban sprawl. The Metropolitan Green Belt – London’s local countryside – is the largest ofall England’s green belts, and no less than 75% of Surrey’s total land area falls within this Green Belt. Infact Surrey has more Green Belt countryside than any of the other Home Counties around the capital, andmore even than Greater London itself. For six decades this has provided absolute protection for Surrey’sopen spaces and has checked the spread of urbanisation, ensuring that our county has remainedoverwhelmingly “green and pleasant”.

Now, however, there are siren voices calling for the Green Belt to be cast aside as outmoded and obsolete.Think-tanks, pressure-groups and a growing number of politicians echo the developers’ bogus assertion that the“housing crisis” can be solved by building on the Green Belt. Surrey’s countryside is now under direct threat ofdevelopment on a larger scale than ever before. In total there are plans being considered by local councils for thebuilding of more than 15,000 houses on what is currently Green Belt countryside.

No district is safe. In Guildford, not only are there plans to build on the Hogs Back (see front page) but there is alsoa scheme for a new town of over 2,000 houses on Green Belt land at Wisley, close to the RHS gardens. Here, 300acres of agricultural land, meadows and wildlife habitat will be lost if housebuilding plans go ahead. In Woking, thecouncil is currently consulting on a proposal to remove no fewer than 16 sites from the Green Belt in order to makeway for development. Guildford is linked with the neighbouring boroughs of Waverley and Woking for the purposesof calculating housing requirements through a “Strategic Housing Market Assessment” (SHMA) which will form thebasis of the Local Plans in each of these three boroughs.

On the other side of the county, in Tandridge, the district council is reviewing its existing Local Plan, which wasapproved in 2008. Over the last 20 years the district has taken a massive amount of inward migration, building morethan double its housing requirement. Some parts of the district have seen a population increase of more than a third.Accepting further inward migration would inevitably lead to major Green Belt loss (over 94% of Tandridge is currentlywithin the Green Belt) and would overwhelm infrastructure and public services in this rural area of Surrey. Reigate &Banstead has already had to accept a re-drawing of Green Belt boundaries to allow two “urban extensions” but thiswas only after long-running attempts by the council to resist any surrender of countryside to the developers. In theend a substantial amount of Green Belt land has had to be de-classified so that development can take place.

CPRE Surrey is fighting hard to protect the Green Belt in Surrey. Please support us! Andy Smith

Farmland on the Hogs Back. CPRE Surrey is fighting to protectGreen Belt countryside like this. Never before has our Green Beltbeen in such danger as it is now. Once gone, it will be lost forever.

Photo: Save Hogs Back –w

ww.savehogsback.co.uk



Assets of Community Value (ACVs) are a new conceptintroduced under the Localism Act 2011 in order toprovide communities with the opportunity tosafeguard their local shops, pubs, community halls,swimming pools, cinemas and even parks and greenspaces. An ACV gives a moratorium on the sale of aproperty or piece of land for six months while thecommunity puts together a bid. It has already beenused to save well over 100 pubs throughout thecountry, as well as some football and sports grounds.

There are three recent cases where local authorities inSurrey have considered selling off community assets forhousing development and where local people haveobtained ACV status, or are considering doing so, toprovide some degree of protection. These sorts ofsituations will inevitably arise more and morefrequently as local authorities seek alternative sourcesof funds to compensate for reductions in funding fromcentral government.

Poor’s AllotmentsBarnett Wood Lane, Leatherhead(Mole Valley district)This land was gifted in 1865 “to the churchwardens andoverseers of the poor, to be held by them and theirsuccessors in trust for the labouring poor of the parish ofLeatherhead”. To this day the allotments have beenworked to provide food together with a healthy andold-fashioned but still popular form of recreation. It hasalso become a haven for wildlife and provides a valuedgreen open space within the settlement area of the town.

In 2007 Mole Valley District Council were registered asthe freehold owners of title. In 2012 and with noindication as to how this came to be regarded as part oftheir property portfolio the council put out for tender theallotments and the adjoining field, owned by MertonCollege Oxford, which in combination total 32 acres. Thesuccessful bidder was Barratt Homes.

In August 2013 the council wrote to theallotment-holders to inform them that they had decidedto go with the winning bid for 500 houses. The councilundertook to find replacement land and to work with theallotment-holders “every step of the way”.

This year the allotment-holders asked for the BarnettWood Lane allotments to be added to the Council’s list ofAssets of Community Value. CPRE Surrey stronglysupported this move. The one and only objector to theproposal was Mole Valley Council itself! This was perhapsunsurprising as the council had already entered into anOption Agreement in June 2014 agreeing to sell the land

to Merton College and Barratt Homes for a reputed £21m. Although the allotment-holders’ ACV application wassuccessful, their right under the Localism Act to bid toacquire the site would surely be academic as a result ofthe council’s Option Agreement with Merton College andBarratt Homes. However, the Agreement can only beexercised after Merton College’s critical tranche ofadjoining Green Belt land (which prevents urban sprawland the merging of Leatherhead and Ashtead) has beenallocated for housing land. This will require either“exceptional circumstances” to alter the Green Beltboundary or “very special circumstances” to grantpermission for what we would consider inappropriatedevelopment in the Green Belt.

The listing of the allotments as an ACV serves toillustrate the strength of local feeling and may bematerial when the council comes to consider theplanning merits of change of use from productive land tobuilt development, but how much real protection does itgive? Let us hope Mole Valley council are also willing toconsider the long-term public interest in losing so muchopen space to housing.

Beryl Harvey FieldCranleigh (Waverley district)This field of about 3.5 acres was gifted to the parish ofCranleigh in 1970 in memory of Beryl Harvey, wife of thedonor. It is divided up into allotments and aConservation Area managed since 1987 by the Cranleigh& District Conservation Volunteers. This year, however,the Parish Council decided they would explore allopportunities to sell off the land for affordable housing.What they appear not to have considered, however, wasthat they hold the land in trust for the community andcannot sell it without the permission of the CharityCommission.

Furthermore, the Parish Council covenanted to use theland as a public open space and for no other purpose(other than used or let for agriculture or for allotments).It seems quite odious that the local council would evenconsider developing this land against the wishes of thecommunity and contrary to the terms of the trust – orthat the community should be expected to raise funds inorder to save it, were it granted ACV status and becomesubject to this part of the Localism Act.

CPRE has therefore suggested that since Cranleigh ParishCouncil are in the process of producing a NeighbourhoodDevelopment Plan, the Beryl Harvey Field should insteadbe designated as a Local Green Space. This may help tounderscore its unsuitability for housing – affordable or

o u d w w

S W T o th C n b in b in C

T co w of re d re T W h T vi

T w P

SAVING GREEN SPACES – CAN “ASSE



m.

d

o

t

e

h

n

h

otherwise – and the genuine interest of local people whouse and appreciate the land. They may still choose todesignate it as an Asset of Community Value and thiswould provide a six month moratorium on any disposalwhile a bid is put together, should this become necessary.

Stompond Lane Sports GroundWalton on Thames (Elmbridge district)This is another example of a local authority keen to selloff land for a housing development. At the meeting ofthe Elmbridge planning committee in June this year,CPRE Surrey spoke on behalf of objectors to the proposednew Elmbridge Sports Hub at Waterside Drive on thebanks of the River Thames and on a former landfill sitein the Green Belt. The ambitious project is to be financedby the sale of the Stompond Lane Sports Grounds andinvolves moving Walton & Hersham FC and the AthleticsClub to join a rival football club at Waterside Drive.

The sale proceeds from Stompond Lane are intended tocover the construction of the new sports stadium, whichwas estimated to be £6m in 2013. However, the Secretaryof State has recently directed that this developmentrequires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)due to the likely significant environmental effects ofremediating the toxic site before construction is possible.The estimated costs have shot up to £18m and soWaterside Drive might prove to be too expensive andhazardous to develop into a state of the art sporting hub.These projects are inextricably linked and the financialviability of the scheme critical to its success.

The Stompond Lane land was acquired in 1935 by whatwas then Walton & Weybridge Urban Council, under thePublic Health Acts 1875-1925, and financed with the

consent of the Ministry of Health, for the purposes ofproviding cricket, football or other recreations. It is adesignated Open Space in the current Elmbridge LocalPlan. The idea that this land can now be sold off forhousing development has caused anger and objectionsfrom local residents and resistance from the football club.

Furthermore, surrounding houses have the benefit ofrestrictive covenants regulating the density of housingon the site (2 per acre). The Council may be negotiatingwith local residents to release those covenants, if so thisis more expense and should be part of the viability studyfor the scheme.

Football clubs all over the country have been listed asAssets of Community Value in order to halt their land beingsold off by councils or private owners for development. It isnot just the loss of open green space but the loss ofcommunity and local identity that people cherish andvalue. We are perplexed as to why Walton & Hersham FCdid not apply for ACV status, as it would at least giveElmbridge Borough Council food for thought before theyembark on creating a new sports hub in the wrong place. Ifmoney is the key driver then they must be sure there isenough available to make a success of this project and notleave Walton on Thames in disarray.

Kristina Kenworthy

SETS OF COMMUNITY VALUE” HELP?

Leatherhead Allotments: Now an Asset of Community Value but willthis save the site and its adjacent Green Belt land from development?

NEW GROUP FORMED

IN TANDRIDGEWith fears that Tandridge district could be facedwith applications for anything up a to 9,000houses on Green Belt land and with the local councilunder financial pressure to allowlarge-scale housebuilding, a new CPRE Tandridgegroup has been formed.

County Councillor Michael Sydney told theinaugural meeting of the group that TandridgeDistrict’s shortage of funds made it more likely theCouncil would be prepared to permit large-scaledevelopment on what is currently Green Belt land.

“The Council”, he said, “is already heavily reliant onhouse building for income. For many years it hasbeen building double the number of houses it wasrequired to do, which has used up availablebrownfield sites at the rate of knots. There has beenmore housebuilding in Tandridge in the last eightyears than in the whole of the Guildford BoroughCouncil area which is very much larger.”

Photo: Save Barnett Wood Lane Allotm

ents



OIL DRILLINGON LEITH HILLAPPROVEDAfter six and a half years, two court cases and twoPublic Inquiries the efforts of Leith Hill ActionGroup (LHAG) and its many supporters have failedto prevent Europa Oil & Gas from establishing anexploratory oil well at Bury Hill Wood on Leith Hill,within the Surrey Hills AONB and the MetropolitanGreen Belt. To the bewilderment of many whoattended the second Public Inquiry, the Inspectorfound in favour of Europa’s appeal.A particular difficulty with the approved site is its accessalong Coldharbour Lane, three miles of mostly narrow,steep, winding Surrey sunken lane. This is compoundedby the huge popularity of the Lane as a “mountainstage” for cyclists. Despite criticising Surrey Highwaysfor failing to properly examine the proposed trafficmanagement scheme, and stating during the Inquiry “Icannot see how this traffic scheme can work”, theInspector was content to leave agreement of a trafficmanagement scheme to Surrey Highways and Europa.

Objectors were also not comforted to see the Inspectordismiss concerns about the impact of the 24x7 drillingoperations on the tranquillity of the surrounding area,on the grounds that “the tranquillity of the area is[already] lessened by overflying aircraft noise”. Thatnoise, of course, is the result of the recently changed,and hopefully temporary, take-off routes from GatwickAirport. It would be fair to say that Europa are still along way from putting metal to earth and still haveconsiderable hurdles to cross. So LHAG now look toSurrey County Council to ensure that, if thedevelopment proceeds, the Conditions attached to theconsent are monitored and enforced so as to minimisethe adverse impact on the AONB and to protect thesafety of all road users and residents affected.Europa have stated that they are looking to start theirexploratory drilling in Winter 2016/17. However,between now and then, they will need to obtain permitsfrom the Environment Agency. In the meantime, LHAGwill be looking to stay in close touch with this process,to ensure that the Environment Agency have all theinformation they need. If Europa are to successfullyobtain permits, it needs to be only if they can prove tothe Environment Agency that they will not becontaminating the land and water supply.The LHAG committee members are grateful to every oneof the individuals and organisations that have supportedus during this long and frustrating campaign and allowedus to be legally represented at both Public Inquiries andin the Courts. In particular we must thank Mole ValleyDistrict Council, CPRE and the Lush Foundation.

Patrick Nolan

Relieved but on guardMany thousands of people across Surrey,Sussex and Kent were relieved to learn that thethreat of a second runway at Gatwick hadreceded following the publication of the DaviesCommission’s final report on airport capacityin the South East. There was, however, norejoicing, as uncertainty and blight remain inthe Gatwick area. And if the Heathrow runwaygoes ahead, we are only too aware of themisery that would be created there.

Gatwick Airport has failed to make a convincingcase for expansion. Their brash advertising andlavish lobbying did not prevail against rationalexamination. They can now only look for apolitical fix. GACC (Gatwick Area ConservationCampaign) will remain on guard, and willcontinue to oppose a new Gatwick runwayalongside all the local MPs, and almost all thelocal councils. We are united in our concern forthe local environment and the costs of providingthe infrastructure (roads, rail, housing, schoolsetc.) that would be necessary.

A political fix in favour of Gatwick would be anenvironmental disaster for the South East – morenoise, more pollution, more climate changedamage, new flight paths, large scale inwardmigration, multiple traffic jams and a worseningof the north/south divide. Opposition at bothGatwick and Heathrow airports is now so greatthat a further option – “no new runways in theSouth East” – needs to be re-examined. It wasrejected by the Commission without properconsideration. It would make more sense to makefull use of the runways we’ve already got in theregion, which the Commission admit will not be atfull capacity until 2040, and not even then ifairlines continue to use larger aircraft.

It has been argued that the final decision willdepend on how many members of the Cabinethave constituencies near Heathrow. This is whatthe Americans call “pork barrel politics”. To take along-term decision on national airports policy onthe basis of which constituencies happen to havetheir MP in the Cabinet would be nonsensical. Infive or ten years’ time the situation may bereversed. The Cabinet Ministers concerned have aclear financial interest – whether they lose theirseat and their Ministerial salary. Therefore theyshould declare a financial interest and take nopart in the decision. If they don’t do that, it couldcreate a legal challenge of immenseconstitutional significance.Brendon Sewill



The head of the Open Spaces Society has raisedconcerns about the impact on the countryside ofcuts to national and local government services.Speaking at the annual public meeting of CPRESurrey Branch, the OSS General Secretary, KateAshbrook, was critical of Surrey County Council’sintention to make its countryside estate“self-funding” by 2021.

She told the meeting: “Surrey has a countryside to beproud of. It has many areas of registered common land,the third most commons of any English county (over400), and much public open space, bought by afar-sighted county council over the last century. It isrich in woodlands and public paths. But now all that isunder threat as Surrey County Council is forced tomake massive cuts to its budget.” The county councilhas a 50-year agreement with the Surrey Wildlife Trustto manage its land but it is cutting its finances to theTrust by £100,000 a year, more than 10 per cent. SCChas stated that it intends to “achieve a self-fundingcountryside estate” by 2021.

“This nation has always invested in our countryside”,Kate said. “Even after the Second World War whenfinances were tight, we spent money on the things thatmatter. We invested in our countryside and in people’shealth and happiness and it brought us wonderfulreturns – our National Parks and Areas of OutstandingNatural Beauty, and official maps of public paths.

“We need our open spaces and freedom and fresh airmore than ever. They are our ‘natural health service’.Now is the time to spend on these vital assets, not cutback and expect them to pay for themselves. The ideathat we must make money out of countryside isabhorrent. The risk is that we shall destroy the uniquebeauty and tranquillity that it offers. Surrey WildlifeTrust is appointing a commercial development officerwhich is a far cry from protecting and managing nature.”

Kate congratulated CPRE Surrey Branch on its“crusade to save our countryside from developers anddestroyers”, and said that the Open Spaces Society “willstand alongside you, ready to protect our rights toenjoy Surrey’s beautiful land.”

100 CLUBCongratulations to the latestCPRE Surrey 100 Club winners:

March 20151st Prize: Mr J Legate, Long Ditton2nd Prize: Mr C Stuart, Farnham

April 20151st Prize: Mrs R Gleeson, Wood Street Village

2nd Prize: Mr G Burne, Woldingham

May 20151st Prize: Mr W Callingham, Albury

2nd Prize: Lady E Toulson, Wood Street Green

June 20151st Prize: Mr W Callingham, Albury

2nd Prize: Mrs M Rolfe, ChaldonMembers of the 100 Club have the chance every

month to win cash. There are two prizes eachmonth – £40 and £20. The annual subscription isjust £12 (or a multiple of £12, depending on howmany draw numbers you would like). Half of all

subscriptions are returned as prize money, with therest going towards our campaigning work. If you

would like to join the 100 Club, please contact AnnMurphy at the Branch office in Leatherhead.

FRACKING RULESWEAKENED

After Sussex it is expected that Surrey will be nextin line for a spate of licence applications from oiland gas exploration companies for hydraulicfracturing (“fracking”). The Government hadoriginally intended strict regulations on frackingincluding a complete ban on fracking in protectedlandscapes such as National Parks and AONBs butnow it appears they have u-turned and insteadpropose to allow fracking in these landscapesbeyond a depth of 1,200m.

This puts the Surrey Hills AONB directly at riskof deep drilling. The Government have alsodecided to withdraw entirely the protection fromSites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), ofwhich there are a number spread across Surrey.In addition to the scarring of the landscapes itselfby the drilling, the associated infrastructure,noise and other disturbances would inevitablywreck the tranquillity and biodiversity of anyarea targeted for fracking. CPRE Surrey andSussex branches are therefore calling for acomplete ban on fracking in sensitive landscapessuch as National Parks, AONBs and SSSIs.

Ashbrook raises concerns over plans forSurrey countryside to be “self-funding”


Annual SeminarHousing – Truths and UntruthsFriday 23rd October 2015 at 8pm

Doors open 7pm – Drinks and nibbles 7.30pmVenue: Dorking Christian Centre, Church Street, Dorking,

Surrey RH4 1DW (adjacent to St Martin’s Church –parking in St Martins Walk Car Park, RH4 1UX)

George Osborne says the Green Beltis safe. Is it? Why is infrastructure

always neglected? Where do “housingdemand” figures come from anyway?

Speakers:Crispin Blunt MP; Chris Robertson, Mole Valley Planning;

Ian Beardsmore, Surrey County Councillor

TICKETS £5.00 including glass of wine and nibbles.Send cheque payable to “CPRE Surrey”, with your e-mail

address (for e-tickets) or SAE (for paper tickets) to: Alex Segal,Stowe Maries, Balchins Lane, Westcott RH4 3LR (Tel: 01306 876725)

Organised by the Mole Valley Committee of the Campaign to Protect Rural England


CPRE Surrey BranchThe Institute, 67 High Street, Leatherhead,Surrey KT22 8AH. Tel: 01372 362720Email: [email protected] Registered Charity No. 1106245


save our green belt!...sixty glorious years this year the green belt celebrates its 60th...

Documents