Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

14/P/00779 | Outline application for residential development to deliver 90 units comprising a mix of 1 & 2 bedroom flats, 2, 3 & 4 bedroom houses and 3 shop units. | North Wyke Farm, Guildford Road, Normandy, Guildford, GU3 2AN
  • Total Consulted: 81
  • Comments Received: 37
  • Objections: 36
  • Supporting: 0
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 37|1|2|3|4|

Mrs Kelly Spooner (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 21 Sep 2014

I am writing on behalf of my grandmother, Mrs Sylvia Clark of 27 Walden Cottages who has lived there for 40 years. She is quite sad to imagine the local area being ruined by a rather large development on a piece of green belt land. It also seems crazy to think of the local infrastructure being able to cope with the people that would be moving into the area. Traffic would also become a nightmare on roads that are already busy enough at rush hour, even more so should any thing happen on the hogs back when it then becomes gridlocked! Having also witnessed how wet and flooded the fields can become during the winter months it worries her where the water will be going should the fields be developed..... It is understandable that more houses are needed in the area but feel that this development is way to far over the top!

Yours faithfully Mrs k spooner

Mrs Julie Brown (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 16 Sep 2014

I strongly object to this development as it is on green belt land outside of the settlement boundary. The Infrastructure of the village is not able to support such large scale development. The primary school is already full, and it is difficult now to get an appointment at the doctors surgery in the village. The A323 is already heavily congested at peak times and the junction with Westwood Lane is dangerous. The land is subject to flooding and the electricity supply in the area is prone to failing.

The green belt land in the area should be protected to prevent urban sprawl between aldershot and Guildford.

Mr Alastair Lawson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 20 May 2014

My objection to this proposal is about the over-development of an area that is an open field and one that is Green Belt land.

Adding 90 dwellings and shops in this area is disproportionate for the area and its unsustainable.

It?s unsustainable for a number of reasons. A walkable-to primary school, which is full. A walkable-to Doctors, which is over subscribed. A number of walkable-to amenities?which are great and no argument against that. A walkable-to rail station, which is very much a second-rate transport node. A walkable-to bus service, which is surprisingly expensive to use. A walkable-to Church, which would welcome more members.

That is it. There is nothing else. No pub, no restaurant, no secondary school, no useful shops, no viable high volume employment opportunities.

Additionally this disproportionate development will have significant impact on the area. The farm is a well known to locals as an area that acts as a flood plain. The current owners spent a great deal of time and much effort in creating a drainage solution for their field to make it habitable for their horses. The ramification of this is flooding on the edge of Westwood Lane where it joins Guildford Road.

The volume of water is now pushed under the road towards the houses on the Guildford Road has meant a greater increase of flooding risk and where the culvert between the last house in the block and the Normandy Garage is regularly flooded. The aged owner of this house has my sympathy as she is the one that gets the worst deal with the extra water flowing past our houses.

Increased road usage would be a certainty as all inhabitants would have to drive to anything significant. It?s a busy road and the junction at North Wyke Farm is a nasty one. Despite a 30mph limit, cars exceed this and it?s not possible for any parent to allow their child to cross the road on their own to school. It?s an important transport link from Aldershot to Guildford. When the Hogs Back has an issue the cars flood down this route.

I believe there should be some development?but it should be proportionate, in the right location and infrastructure improvements must be in place beforehand. Some chance.

Comment submitted date: Fri 12 Sep 2014

To view this comment please refer to the documents list.

Occupier/Owner (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 02 Sep 2014

Please see comments under documents list

Mr & Mrs Saxby (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 05 Jun 2014

To view this comment please refer to the document list.

Comment submitted date: Thu 28 Aug 2014

To view this comment please refer to the document list.

Susan Parker (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 27 Aug 2014

To view this comment please refer to the document list.

Gordon Holliday (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 02 Jun 2014

To view this comment please refer to the document list.

Comment submitted date: Tue 03 Jun 2014

To view this comment please refer to the document list.

Comment submitted date: Sun 24 Aug 2014

To view this comment please refer to the document list.

Comment submitted date: Tue 26 Aug 2014

To view this comment please refer to the document list.

Mr Nick Norton (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 02 Jun 2014

I object to the application as follows:

1. The proposed development is outside the current settlement boundary

2. The site is in the Green Belt and represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This land (part of parcel H12 GBCS Vol 3) fulfills 3 of the 5 purposes of the Green Belt as per NPPF Para 80

3. There is no plan for the provision of SANG in the application. The site lies in the 400m - 5km buffer zone around the SSSI of Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). The applicant must prove there is suitable mitigation by identifying an available source of land to divert leisure use away from the TBHSPA. A Section 106 agreement is no substitute. No consultation with Natural England has been carried out. Natural England objected to planning application 14/P/00135 that is no different in principle to this application. Planning application 13/P/01453 has yet to be approved and Natural England state in their letter of consultation "Due to these concerns the site cannot at this time be considered as a measure to avoid recreational pressure impacts on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and until such time as these concerns are fully addressed Natural England is likely to object to any applications for new housing which propose to make use of capacity at this site."

4. Road safety in the vicinity of Wyke School - the application provides for 178 vehicle spaces and three retail units with access onto the bottom of Westwood Lane. At peak times of pupil drop off and pick up the junction of School Lane and Westwood Lane is an area of high risk for pedestrians. Any additional traffic movements generated by this site will exacerbate the risk. No suitable risk assessment has been carried out.

5. Flood risk - the land is a well-known water meadow that is often under water and acts as a SUDS for surrounding land - where will the water go when its concreted and asphalted over. There has been failure to apply rigorously the Sequential Test set out in the GBC SFRA 2007 and advised by NPPF Para 100 -104 and PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide

Comment submitted date: Mon 25 Aug 2014

In response to the two additional documents submitted by the applicant:

The content analysis is helpful to illustrate the focus of residents' concerns. The email to the case officer and its attached document contains no substantive rebuttal of the key points made by residents that the applicant must address.

1. The application is being made for land outside the settlement boundary and is subject to the constraints of current Green Belt policy. To develop the site to create 90 new homes is contrary to the purposes of the Green Belt and would damage the openness of the area which is in contravention of NPPF 79, 83, 89 and 90.

2. The land fulfills three of the key requirements of the Green Belt and these are set out in the assessment of the land parcel H16 containing this land in the GBC Green Belt & Countryside Study of the draft Local Plan evidence base

3. The land is within 5km of the TBHSPA and must provide evidence of the provision of SANG within a 5 km radius. Quoting the availability of SANG at Ash Lodge Drive is unsafe as that planning decision and the process by which it was reached is currently subject to Judicial Review initiated by Ash Parish Council. Land at Russell Pace Farm subject of a separate planning application for SANG has been criticised by Natural England as inadequately specified; this application has yet to be considered by GBC Planning Committee and cannot be used as reference; the claim that this site is within a 5km radius of the SANG land at Ash Lodge Drive is questionable and no substantive evidence has been produced by the applicant that it is.

4. Current case law points out that the lack of a Local Plan provides no 'exceptional circumstance'. The applicant has proved no 'exceptional circumstances' for this application.

The Travel Plan is simply a simulation using a database of information that bears no direct observations of the traffic flows within the immediate vicinity of the site. The traffic flow simulations only tend to confirm that the junction design is appropriate for the current level of traffic and a modest increase. No contemporaneous traffic counts on Guildford-Aldershot Road or turn-in rates from Westwood Lane to Guildford-Aldershot Road have been offered as evidence, especially during school term periods that account for approximately 36 weeks out of 52 weeks (i.e. 70% of the year); this is a significant failure of evidence gathering by the applicant and calls into question the basis for the Travel Plan. The junction is subject to heavy congestion at peak drop-off and pick-up times during term time a Wyke School. The applicant has failed to submit a risk assessment of the impact on road and pedestrian safety of the ingress and egress of vehicles at the entry/exit points and on the traversing of the Westwood Lane/School Lane off-set junction by vehicular and pedestrian traffic at such peak times.

For these reasons I object to this new evidence and to the application as a whole.

Philippa Mitchell (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 27 May 2014

I feel that 90 dwellings is far to many for the site and for the road infrastructure. I would grudgingly support a development of half the size along with some improvements to the Westwood Lane/Guildford Road/School Lane intersection to allow a safe walk to a Wyke School. Improved parking along Westwood Lane outside the church would help too. I would support a convenience shop in the development, but would object to a pub, betting shop etc.

Comment submitted date: Tue 27 May 2014

To view this comment please refer to the document list.

Comment submitted date: Sun 24 Aug 2014

To view this comment please refer to the document list.

Mr Chris Kelland (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 03 Jun 2014

GBC Ref: 14/P/00779 North Wyke Farm Guildford Road Normandy


Outline Application for Residential Development to deliver 90 Units comprising a mix of 1 & 2 bedroom flats, 2,3 & 4 bedroom houses and 3 shop units

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I object to the above Planning Application for the following reasons:

1.) Natural England have not been consulted.

2.) This is Green Belt Land and should not be used for development of any kind. The Government and Local Authorities should focus on the huge stock of empty underused residential space. There are vast numbers of empty properties in London and, as Guildford is a commuter area for the capital, those buildings and empty properties in Guildford Town should be made available first. There are also many ?brown field? sites which are far more suitable for development than our precious and fast disappearing green belt land.

3.) GBC are well aware of the problems of flooding in Beech Lane and the devastating effect that has had on my property, ?Meadow View? when it has been flooded internally by contaminated flood water. The drainage system from Beech Lane (surface and foul water) disperses across the proposed development area and any further over-load of the existing inadequate system will cause untold damage to Beech Lane properties when the system overloads.

4.) This creeping of urban sprawl will eventually mean that Aldershot and Guildford will become one huge developed area. Our countryside destroyed for ever!

5.) This area is within the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area which should protect it from any development.

6.) There is already an unacceptable lack of infrastructure in Normandy. This development will exacerbate that situation.

7.) The highways around Normandy are already highly congested, especially when there are diversions from the Hog?s Back following accidents on the

A 31. This development will also exacerbate that situation to an unacceptable degree.

8.) The proposed development is adjacent to a very busy and dangerous junction and within a few metres of an over-suscribed school.

9.) Wyke has been designated a hamlet where further development should not be allowed.

Yours faithfully,

Chris Kelland

Meadow View, Beech Lane, Normandy, GU3 2JH.

Comment submitted date: Tue 19 Aug 2014

To view this comment please refer to the document list.

Showing 1-10 of 37|1|2|3|4|

an Idox solution

© Guildford Borough Council