15/04/2026
Thank you Councillors Furniss and Barker for speaking against McDonald's highly inappropriate proposals at the planning appeal today.
Appeal Hearing for Tongham MacDonalds Planning Appeal
Today at 10am the Appeal Hearing for a MacDonalds Drive Thru and Restaurant started following the refusal by Guildford Borough Council.
Sallie and I were there as the local councillors to make representations on behalf of residents about their concerns, particularly on litter. The decision will not be made today but the Inspector had visited the site to view the points raised prior to the Hearing.
We will continue to work on your behalf locally to get the best for local residents.
If you have any questions or comments please let us know at [email protected]
Here is what we said:
Sir,
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today at this hearing. I am speaking on behalf of myself and Sallie Barker as the two elected representatives for the area and on behalf of the many residents who have submitted their views to this application and appeal and who have raised and their concerns with us.
We strongly support this Council's recommendation to refuse this application, for reasons set out in the decison. These are not minor concerns—they are fundamental and go to the heart of protecting our countryside, biodiversity and local communities.
Firstly, on the impact to the countryside: this proposal is a significant and unjustified incursion into open land. It would replace an undeveloped, green area with extensive hardstanding, a large building, a drive-thru, lighting and constant activity. The officer’s report is clear—this would erode the rural character of the site and, critically, weaken the strategic gap that prevents the coalescence of Ash, Tongham and Aldershot. There is no demonstrated need for this development to be in the countryside, and its scale is wholly disproportionate. It is a clear conflict with Policy P3.
Secondly, the biodiversity harm is both substantial and unacceptable. This site lies within a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and a wider Biodiversity Opportunity Area. The proposal would result in the loss of land and a narrowing of a vital wildlife corridor between key habitats. The report is also clear that the applicant has failed to properly apply the mitigation hierarchy—there is no robust evidence of avoidance, mitigation or compensation, and no serious consideration of alternative sites. This is precisely the type of harm our policies are designed to prevent.
Concerns have also been raised by Surrey Wildlife Trust and local residents about the recreational impact on the SNCI, particularly through increased litter. The officer’s report confirms that litter is already present within the SNCI from the existing service station, raising serious doubts about whether any proposed mitigation would be effective.
This is not a theoretical issue—it is a real and growing problem. It currently costs Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council just under £500,000 a year to clear litter from the A31 and A331, with clean-ups taking place four times a year and around 1,000 kilograms, that's a ton of litter collected from each road on every occasion. That is a significant burden on the public purse.
While the applicant has attempted to address litter within their site, they have failed to address the wider impacts of their potential customers’ behaviour, and their duty to mitigate this behaviour —particularly on these high-speed strategic roads and the surrounding natural environment.
The taxpayer should not be left to pick up the cost of clearing litter generated by this development, especially when there are already five restaurants within 10 kilometres of the site. This further underlines that this is simply the wrong development in the wrong location.
Thirdly, on protected species, the position is clear. The presence of species such as water voles, bats and great crested newts is identified or highly likely, yet the application does not provide sufficient information to assess or mitigate impacts. That is a fundamental failing. We cannot responsibly grant permission where there is uncertainty over harm to protected species.
In summary, this proposal would cause clear harm to the countryside, unacceptable damage to a designated ecological site, increased pressure on already stretched public resources, and potential harm to protected species. The limited benefits put forward do not come close to outweighing these impacts.
For all of those reasons, we request refusal of this appeal.
