One photograph from a recent X post shows a huge swathe of excavated grass, topsoil and chalk, filled in with construction materials and tarmac, sitting on top of the North Downs within the Surrey Hills NL.
Note the topography: a clear slope to the right of this picture, downhill across the common land of Merrow Downs towards the residential area at the bottom (off screen).
The first plan to manage surface water drainage (rain) submitted by Tormead’s consultants included an impermeable layer of hardcore material beneath the hockey pitch. You don’t need to be a civil engineer to understand the potential consequences of that in an era of increasingly heavy and unpredictable rainfall. Where would the water go, when the little drainage channel at the side of the pitch overflows? To the right, down the hill.
Fortunately, members of MDRG are civil engineers, and pointed out this significant flood risk. Through our legal challenge we were able to elicit a revised plan with different material beneath the pitch which should now allow the flow of water into the ground rather than down the hill over Merrow Downs.
Then there are the badgers. Tormead’s ecologists originally identified only 2 setts locally; residents found 8 setts. We pointed out that the approved construction plans were incompatible with the ecology plan, Planning Enforcement agreed, and Tormead had to write a new ecology plan (yet again).
It’s still flawed, as you can see in Surrey Wildlife Trust’s critique of it (SWT is the formal ecological adviser to Guildford planning). Tormead’s plan cannot demonstrate adequate protection of wildlife on Merrow Downs. They haven’t even implemented what was in the original plan: where are the badger gaps in the fencing that were promised all around the site to enable continued foraging??
Despite this new ecology plan being unapproved, Tormead keeps building and GBC just looks on.
The school has also had to apply for a new licence to disturb badger setts because the information they provided to Natural England for the original licence misrepresented the nature of construction works close to a large sett.
Why couldn’t (or wouldn’t) they describe their own works correctly?
As an “eco school ” (!) you might think the responsibility of environmental stewardship would be taken seriously by Tormead. But we have long since learnt that this developer’s interests stop at the school gate, and the promise to parents to get this facility built appears to override the longer term societal needs of nature, climate and local people.
Any tactic seems to be acceptable, even prolonged “catfishing” activity by someone closely connected to the school. That’s the use of fake email addresses and multiple online aliases across Instagram, Twitter/X, Nextdoor and Mumsnet. Their digital footprint shows how this person has acted as a proxy PR for Tormead and has tried to deflect and sometimes intimidate any opponents to the Urnfield project. They once even offered to donate to our campaign, in exchange for information. Yet our letter to the Chair of Governors about this activity was readily dismissed.
So, who do you trust?
Who do you trust to do their job properly whilst managing this site over the next 30 years? Who do you trust to think long term about broader societal issues, or simply just to behave well?
