Godalming housing inquiry opens as councils narrow case

The Godalming housing inquiry into 234 homes on the western edge of Godalming opens today, with Green Belt, landscape, ecology, flooding and transport all on the agenda.

The Godalming housing inquiry scheme by Ashill Land Ltd spans the Guildford and Waverley boundary at land east of Eashing Lane and west of Ock Way. The main application proposes 234 homes, including 50% affordable housing, while a linked Waverley application deals with vehicular and pedestrian access.

The Godalming housing inquiry is unusual because the two councils have already stepped back from key objections that helped send the scheme to the Secretary of State. The final decision will still be made through the called-in process after the Inspector has heard the evidence.

Need help with a major housing proposal, Green Belt site or called-in application? Planning Geek can review the planning position, evidence and next steps before you commit further resources.

Godalming housing inquiry opens for up to eight sitting days

For the Godalming housing inquiry, Waverley Borough Council’s inquiry page confirms that proceedings open at 10am on 6th October 2026 and are scheduled for up to eight sitting days, initially from 6th to 9th October with reserve dates from 13th to 16th October.

At the Godalming housing inquiry, the principal Guildford application is reference 25/P/01474. It seeks 234 dwellings with 50% affordable housing, access, an internal road network, parking, public open space, play space, landscaping and associated works. On a simple numerical basis, 50% would equate to 117 affordable homes if the final scheme retained the full 234-home total and the tenure package remained unchanged.

The linked Waverley application, reference WA/2026/00451, is narrower. It concerns creation of a vehicular access to Ock Way and pedestrian access routes. Because the development crosses the administrative boundary, the inquiry brings Guildford Borough Council and Waverley Borough Council into the same examination.

The case references are APP/Y3615/V/26/3378815 and APP/R3650/V/26/3378816. The “V” references reflect the Secretary of State call-in route rather than an ordinary section 78 appeal against a final refusal.

Why this is not simply a planning appeal

The distinction matters. Guildford councillors had resolved against the 234-home application, but the authority did not issue a normal refusal decision before the Secretary of State intervened. The application was referred and then called in under the Secretary of State’s powers, so the ultimate decision now sits with central government after the Inspector reports.

That means the Inspector’s role is to test the planning merits and prepare a report rather than issue the final planning permission personally. Ministers can then determine the applications having regard to the inquiry evidence, development plan and national policy.

Planning Geek’s planning appeals guide explains the different routes by which contested planning decisions can reach an Inspector. Called-in applications sit alongside appeals in the wider Inspectorate system but should not be described as if permission has already been refused and appealed in the usual way.

Green Belt evidence has shifted since the committee stage

The Green Belt position is one of the reasons this inquiry is worth watching. Guildford’s earlier committee position relied on harm to the Green Belt, but subsequent evidence has changed the context in which that objection is being examined.

The inquiry core documents include Guildford’s August 2026 Green Belt Assessment and the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework. Local reporting on the pre-inquiry position says Guildford no longer intends to defend its principal Green Belt objection after its updated assessment identified the site as grey belt.

That does not make the scheme automatically acceptable. Grey belt is not a planning permission and it does not remove the need to consider the development plan, landscape effects, access, ecology, infrastructure, design and the overall planning balance. It does, however, change the national-policy framework through which Green Belt harm is assessed.

For the underlying distinctions between Green Belt, grey belt and ordinary greenfield land, see Planning Geek’s Green Belt and grey belt guide.

Residents still have a substantial role

The councils stepping back from particular objections does not leave the inquiry without opposition. A residents’ group has submitted its own statement of case and the inquiry timetable gives interested parties an early session on the opening day.

That is important procedurally. Local planning authorities can reassess whether a reason is defensible, particularly when new evidence or national policy changes. Third parties are not automatically bound by that reassessment. Their evidence can still be heard and tested where the Inspector considers it relevant.

The opening day is scheduled to move from preliminary matters and interested parties into round-table sessions on design, neighbouring living conditions, Green Belt and landscape. The following day is due to cover heritage, ecology and nature conservation, water resources, flooding and drainage, and noise.

Transport, the sustainability of the location, highway safety and capacity are scheduled for the third day, followed by a broader planning round table. Conditions and the section 106 agreement are then due to be examined before closing submissions and any costs matters.

Ecology and the Wealden Heaths SPA are in the programme

The inquiry is not being reduced to one Green Belt argument. Waverley’s published timetable expressly includes ecology and nature conservation, including potential effects on the Wealden Heaths Phase I Special Protection Area.

The core document library contains the ecological impact assessment, biodiversity net gain metric, statutory consultee responses and separate ecology evidence for the inquiry. That gives the Inspector a substantial evidence base from which to test whether mitigation and any necessary obligations are adequate.

Flood risk and drainage are also allocated their own round-table session. The core documents include a flood risk assessment, drainage material and water-resources evidence, while transport has a separate suite of assessments, road safety audits and proposed highway measures.

This breadth is a useful reminder that major housing proposals rarely turn on a single headline issue. Even where one policy objection falls away, the remaining technical and planning evidence still has to support the development as a whole.

Section 106 obligations will be part of the final balance

A draft section 106 agreement dated 26th August is already included in the inquiry library. Planning obligations are expected to cover matters needed to make the development acceptable, alongside the proposed affordable housing package and any infrastructure or mitigation requirements.

The inquiry timetable gives conditions and the section 106 agreement their own session on 9th October. That does not mean the obligations are already agreed in final form. The Inspector will need to understand what is secured, whether the obligations meet the statutory and policy tests, and which matters remain disputed.

Planning Geek’s planning applications section covers the wider application process and the way conditions and obligations fit into decision-making.

What happens after the Godalming housing inquiry

The published timetable allows for reserve sitting days in the second week if evidence overruns. Once the inquiry closes, the Inspector will prepare a report and recommendation for the Secretary of State.

There is therefore no planning permission simply because the councils have changed parts of their case, and no outcome should be assumed from the opening of the inquiry. The live question is whether the scheme, assessed against the evidence and current policy position, should be approved through the call-in process and on what terms.

For developers, the case shows why major applications need to be reviewed continuously against changing policy and evidence rather than frozen at the date of committee. For councils, it demonstrates the risk of defending a position that later evidence no longer supports. For residents, it shows why participation can remain material even when an authority narrows its own case.

Planning Geek view

The most interesting feature is not simply that 234 homes are being examined in the Green Belt. It is that the planning case has moved between the committee stage and the inquiry.

Updated Green Belt evidence, the August NPPF and the councils’ reassessment of their positions mean the Inspector is dealing with a different evidential landscape from the one councillors faced earlier in the year. The inquiry still has to test a long list of technical and policy issues, and the Secretary of State still has to make the final decision.

That makes the Godalming housing inquiry a useful live example of how called-in applications work when policy and local evidence shift while a major scheme is still in the system.

Sources: Waverley Borough Council inquiry page and core documents; The Guildford Post, 4th September 2026.