Frequently asked questions

The immediate impact would be felt most by adjacent residents, but the consequences extend across Dunsfold.

Alfold happened last week. Two other Surrey cases have been widely reported. There is an existing site near Dunsfold with enforcement issues. Planning has been refused twice on this field, meaning the only buyer likely to pay above asking price is one who does not intend to seek permission. These are facts. The opportunity to prevent the risk is available right now. Once the window closes, it does not reopen.

In theory, yes. In practice, enforcement is slow, under-resourced, and often ineffective once a site is established, and can even end up being permitted development. Alfold received two stop notices last week, both were ignored, and the development was completed in four days. The council is now pursuing legal action, but the site is built and occupied. The legal system simply does not move fast enough to prevent the damage.

Planning consent has been refused twice for 21 dwellings, refused at appeal, and most recently for 9 dwellings. The site is outside the settlement boundary and within the Area of Great Landscape Value. This means a legitimate developer is unlikely to get permission. But that is precisely the point: the risk is not from someone going through the planning system. It is from a buyer who ignores it entirely, as happened in Alfold. A planning refusal does not prevent anyone from purchasing the land.

It might not. But a field is for sale on the open market with no restrictions on who can buy it, there is an existing site nearby, and exactly this scenario has just played out in the village next door. The question is whether the risk justifies the cost. Compare a relatively modest contribution versus the damage done to a 10–30% or more drop in your property value.

Contributions do not have to be equal. Any structure could reflect different circumstances. Even a modest amount helps strengthen the collective position and demonstrates the breadth of community support, which matters when making a credible offer. We understand that people have different circumstances but there are different options to consider: savings, pension drawdowns, credit cards, remortgaging, or deferring a holiday. We would not dare to tell anyone what to do with their money, but we highlight that there are ways which allow a contribution in most cases if the will is there.

The primary purpose is to prevent unwanted use. Beyond that, there are options: holding it as community green space, selling interests between participants, finding an onward buyer with restrictive covenants to control future use, or subdividing to create ransom strips that make development impractical or give legal redress if it falls into the wrong hands later down the line. Ownership gives the community control and options. Without it, we have neither.

Most likely through a company or trust. Each contributor would hold a share proportional to their contribution. The governing documents would set rules on sale, transfer, land use, and decision-making. These are well-established legal structures that keep the land under a single title and give everyone a clear, tradeable stake.

The sale particulars include an overage provision: if planning consent is obtained within 10 years, the seller is entitled to a payment of £60 per square foot of gross internal floorspace. For a community purchase aimed at preventing development, this is largely irrelevant. If we do not seek planning permission, it never triggers. It does, however, make the land less attractive to speculative developers, because any profit they make would be reduced by the overage payment. That actually works in our favour when bidding.

Pre-emption rights in the company or trust articles would give existing members first refusal on any transfer. Restrictive covenants on the land title itself could limit future use. Between the two, you have far stronger protections than relying on the planning system after the fact. Nothing is set in stone. These are just considerations.

The asking price is offers over £100,000. Even allowing for a competitive offer above that, the numbers are manageable with broad participation. Across, say, 40 households that is roughly £3,000 to £4,000 each depending on the final price. Contributions do not have to be equal. Compare any of those figures to a 10 to 30% or more fall in your property value.

The land is on the market now, bids are already in, and the seller has indicated a short window for a community offer. Once it is sold, there is no mechanism to undo the sale. As Alfold showed, an unauthorised development can be fully established in days.