This Local Plan 2017 is a clear failure of proper planning process.
Send raised a large proportion of the 32,000 objections to the 2016 plan. But, instead of making any real attempt to mitigate and amend the plan, GBC has made it worse for us. In a normal planning process a local planning authority listens carefully to the objections and alters its proposals to take account of those objections. GBC has not listened at all. Allowing for the fact that we need more houses, our part of Guildford Borough has been targeted disproportionately.
Major sites in our village have changed three times. First we had Burnt Common, then Garlick’s Arch and now both of them. GBC appear to have a predetermined agenda to build on the Green Belt and without any reasonable constraints to take account of inadequate infrastructure – roads, schools, medical facilities – as required by law. The traffic and pollution implications of the current proposals will be completely unacceptable. This cannot be allowed to happen. We need to stand up and fight for our village now.
Help Save YOUR Greenbelt
LEFT TO OBJECT!'
OBJECT - To GBC by NOON 24 July 2017.
The more objections, the better our chances.
Adults(18+) should object individually.
"Housing need alone is not adequate grounds for building on the Green Belt, this is something that we simply must work together to make the council accept.”- Sir Paul Beresford
"This time that outcry must be larger and louder if the council is to listen, so please do find the time to fully express your views to the council.”- Sir Paul Beresford
WHERE TO OBJECT
firstname.lastname@example.org and include your name, address and post code
or write to:
Local Plan Consultation, Guildford Borough Council, Millmead, GU2 4BB
HOW TO OBJECT
To avoid a re-run of comments made before, GBC are only accepting objections where they have made changes to the plan. This makes it more difficult than usual but here are some guidelines to points worth including.
Use the wording "I object” to "Policy A… because…” Where possible please use your own words and your local knowledge. The key changes for our village which we can object to in this round of consultation are as follows:
Clockbarn Nursery, Tannery Lane, Policy A42
Now 60 homes in place of 45 homes previously
I object to the Policy A42 change at Clockbarn in Tannery Lane because:
- The increase to 60 homes in place of 45 homes is 33% more and too much
- It ignores all the hundreds of previous objections made by local people
- It will worsen access and traffic problems in Tannery Lane and at the A247 junction
- It will make erosion of the Green Belt in our village worse
- It will make surface water flooding, which is already bad, even worse
- It will impact open countryside views from the River Wey Navigation
Land at Garlick’s Arch, Send Marsh, Policy A43.
Now 400 homes and 6 Travelling Showpeople plots
I object to the Policy A43 change at Garlick’s Arch because:
- It ignores all the thousands of previous objections made by local people
- There is no proven demand for Travelling Showpeople plots in this location
- It is beautiful permanent Green Belt and no "exceptional circumstances” exist
- It will cause over-development of our village and the number of homes is excessive
- It is exquisite ancient woodland that existed at the time of Elizabeth 1
- It will join up Ripley and Send and defeat the key purpose of Green Belt
- It is subject to frequent flooding and is currently a flood zone 2 allocation
- It is contaminated by lead shot accumulated over fifty years
- It will generate excessive traffic that will block up the local roads of Send and Ripley
Land at Burnt Common, London Road, Policy A58.
Now a new allocation for a minimum of 7,000 sq m of industrial or warehousing
I object to Policy A 58 at Burnt Common because:
- It was deleted from the 2014 draft because of all the objections made previously
- The word "minimum” is a change from the previous "maximum” in the 2016 plan and since that time there has been a decline in demand for industrial land
- There is no need to build industrial or warehouse development in the middle of the Green Belt when Slyfield and Guildford still have empty sites and industrial units
- The 2017 Employment Land Need Assessment shows a reduction in demand to 3.9 hectares for industrial land for the whole borough not a huge over allocation of 10 hectares at Send in the Green Belt.
- The impact on small surrounding roads will create traffic gridlock
- It will join up existing villages and defeat the purpose of the Green Belt
Green Belt, Policy 2 at paragraph 4.3.15
Send Business Park now taken out of the Green Belt altogether
I object to the proposal to inset Send Business Park from the Green Belt because:
- It is effectively an old non-conforming user in an area of outstanding countryside adjacent to the beautiful Wey Navigation
- There is highly restricted vehicular access along Tannery Lane in both directions
- Further expansion or development at this location detracts from the openness of the Green Belt and is inappropriate
The insidious inset proposal remains the same and once this land loses Greenbelt status, development will be possible there without the previous building restrictions and the developers will not be slow to take advantage!