Policy A43 - Garlick's Arch

  1. I object to the changed policy A43 Garlick’s Arch for 400 homes and 6 travelling show people pitches
  2. It ignores all the thousands of previous objections made by local people 
  3. There is no proven demand for travelling show people plots in this location
  4. There is no need for putting houses on this site because the local plan housing target is incorrect and inflated and ignores constraints.
  5. The allocation of 28.9 ha is an excessive land grab into the Green Belt. If we take a normal density of 30 homes per ha and it is at the end of the day proven that there is a need for 400 homes in this location the land requirement is 13 ha not 28.9 ha which is more than double. This replicates a similar over land grab at Burnt Common where the factor is 7 times the land required. 
  6. This confirms the worrying impression that GBC have a pre-determined policy of building on the Green Belt at every opportunity. The arithmetic does not stack up. One would have thought that they would as custodians of the green Belt be intent on conserving it rather than exploiting it. 
  7. The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, as stated by National Planning Policy.
  8. Garlick’s Arch (A43) is in an unsustainable location. It does not benefit from railway stations within easy walking distance and bus services across rural villages are forever reducing. Residents will have few options, but to be reliant on motor vehicles. The site is unsuitable due to lack of access to sustainable transport.  Furthermore, there are no plans to improve the infrastructure for Garlick's Arch in the Infrastructure Plan. Residents will be dependent on the car for transport. Greater consideration should be given to increasing the density of development in urban areas, such as Guildford, where more practical sustainable transport options can be provided. 
  9. The A3, M25 and the roads through the villages of Ripley, Send and Clandon already suffer from congestion. Further vehicle movements will result in even more acute congestion and greater pollution. Residents and the environment will suffer as a result.
  10. I object to the proposal to remove Garlick’s Arch from the Green Belt.  National Planning Policy requires there to be an exceptional circumstance for the Green Belt boundaries to be altered, or the development on Green Belt. There are no exceptional circumstances for this land to be taken from the Green Belt.  Once taken the green belt is lost forever. There is a real danger that the loss of this Green Belt will result in urban sprawl and the neighbouring villages merging into one another. The significant development in Send, Ripley and Clandon will result in the character of these villages being lost and the countryside encroached.  
  11. I object to the development at Garlick’s Arch because of flood risk. The site at Garlick’s Arch is identified on the Environment Agency’s flood map as being in a flood Zone 3 from a river. This means that it has a 1 in 100 or greater chance of flooding each year, the highest risk category. Despite this flood risk, the site has been assessed as part of the Council’s SFRA as a Flood Zone 2 - having between a 1% and 0.1% annual probability of river flooding. Knowing the area well I am aware that this site often floods during the winter months and the flooding is made worse by the soil being heavy clay. Clearly the SFRA is not fit for purpose and it needs to be re-commissioned to accurately reflect the actual flooding risks of each site.
  12. I object to the loss of rural employment on the site. The development at Garlick’s Arch would result in the loss of four existing successful rural businesses, which have been in existence for over 30 years and another two businesses for over 9 years. These businesses employ dozens of people; none of them want to leave their premises.  
  13. I object to the potential loss of Ancient Woodland on the site. The proposed development at Garlick’s Arch will have a permanent impact on the character of the Ancient Woodland that surrounds the site on two sides and runs centrally through the site, which includes over 80 ancient oak trees that existed in the year 1600. 
  14. I object due to the congestion that development will cause to the local village roads and the lack of road infrastructure (Policy I1). Our villages are already suffering from severe congestion for much of the day, for example the Newark Road and Rose Lane junction in the centre of Ripley. The proposed development under the plan will cause greater congestion in and around our villages. The Plan does not provide an achievable strategy for improving capacity on these local roads. 
  15. Furthermore, many of the country lanes around the villages of Ripley, Send and Clandon are narrow and wide enough for only one vehicle at a time. In addition, the road surfaces are in a poor condition. I object to the development proposed in the local plan, which will result in more traffic using these narrow roads and a further deterioration in the road surfaces.
  16. Many of the affected villages, such as Send and Ripley, already suffer from parking problems. Further development around these villages will only result in more traffic and more parking problems.
  17. With some 5000 houses being proposed close to the village of Send and Ripley, the roads serving the village will become even more congested. Cycling has become a popular past time, particularly at weekends hundreds of cyclists past through the village on the way to the Surrey Hills. With no proper cycle lanes on the narrow local roads surrounding the village and with greater vehicle traffic being generated from these developments there is a real danger that there will be an increase in road accidents involving cyclists as a result of the development proposed under the local plan. 
  18. The narrow rural roads do not have proper pedestrian footpaths.  The proposed significant levels of development will result in the road becoming ever more dangerous for pedestrians. 
  19. I object to the lack of proper infrastructure planning for sites (Policy I1). Policy I1 requires the delivery of improvements to infrastructure in conjunction with development. I have grave concerns over the planning of the infrastructure requirements and that the projects identified will be implemented when required, if at all. 
  20. Despite the Garlick’s Arch site (A43) being a significant site for development, no infrastructure projects have been identified in the Infrastructure Schedule. Without improvements to the infrastructure prior to development, the existing residents’ in the locality will see their quality of life significantly deteriorate in many ways. 
  21. Many of the utilities in the Ripley and Send area are at, or very close to capacity, such as the electrical network and sewers. No plans to improve these services should mean no development of the Garlick’s Arch site.  
  22. Without proper planning and a commitment to fund new healthcare facilities, existing services such as the Villages Medical Centre, Send will have their services stretched and overwhelmed. Many of these services are already at capacity and suffering from funding cuts or freezes. Any further development without funding will place further stress upon existing health services.
  23. I object due to the congestion that development will cause to the trunk roads, A3/M25 (Policy I2). There is no certainty that either the A3 or M25 in the borough will be improved to increase capacity and reduce congestion during the Plan period. Highways England has no plans to even examine improving the A3 before 2020. I have considerable concerns that development of the large residential sites identified at Wisley Airfield (A35), Garlick’s Arch (A43) and Gosden Hill (A25), will take place before any improvements are made to the trunk road network. The A3 & M25 are already at capacity during peak hours and any development prior to improvement of these roads will only make the situations worse.
  24. I object to poor air quality concerns (Policy I3). Paragraph 4.6.27 of the Plan states that “Development must also mitigate its traffic impacts, including its environmental impacts and impacts on amenity and health.” The significant level of development being proposed, particularly in the north east of the borough will lead to considerable further congestion, despite any attempts to mitigate this through travel plans. This will be particularly acute in built up residential areas and will only lead to greater levels of air pollution, which will have a detrimental effect on local residents and their health. 
  25. I object to the inclusion of the land at Garlick’s Arch, Send Marsh/Burnt Common and Ripley (A43). Garlick’s Arch has previously been protected from development as Green Belt. Under the Plan it is proposed that the site will be developed for approximately 400 homes (C3) and up to 7,000 sq m of either or a mix of light industrial (B1c), general industrial (B2) and storage and distribution (B8).  There are no exceptional circumstances which allow for the removal of this land from the Green Belt (Policy P2).  
  26. It is clear that with this site being added at the eleventh hour and  no infrastructure planning has been undertaken. The Infrastructure Schedule makes no provision for any infrastructure improvements for this site. How will the local services such as schools and doctors cope, many of which are already at capacity? (Policy I1)


2017 Guildford Local Plan

Guildford’s NEW local Plan has just opened for consultation. PLEASE RESPOND before 24th July 2017.  GGG has published its responses to Local Plan Policies here 


GGG Latest

Catch up on the latest news, issues and events from Guildford Greenbelt Group


Useful links

Find your way to the web sites of planning commentators, local residents' groups and much more