Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

15/P/02436 | Construction of a car port and log store to replace the existing double garage, together with the provision of a new a vehicular access onto Guildford road | Mill Stream House, Fox Corner, Worplesdon, Guildford, GU3 3PP
  • Total Consulted: 23
  • Comments Received: 16
  • Objections: 7
  • Supporting: 9
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 16|1|2|

Mr Cornelius Mitchell (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Tue 02 Jan 2018

Dear Planning Officer,

In my opinion Mr and Mrs Lytton made this application for sound and common sense reasons. Heath Mill Lane is difficult to access for all needed services due to severe lack of maintenance. That aside, Mill Stream House almost straddles Guildford Road. To access from Guildford Road in this case would "Helpfully" reduce traffic impact on Heath Mill Lane.



BRAEMAR Fully supports this current application.



Yours sincerely,

Cornelius Mitchell

Mr Roy Johnson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 11 Jan 2016

Objection

I would like to dispel the incorrect "Background" given by the agents for Dr. Lytton, Messrs Kiely Planning Ltd.



When Dr. Lytton purchased the property called Millstream House, in 1972, the site had already been subject to 2 appeals and the Government Minister had, on both occasions, denied permanent access to the Guildford Road.



In 1968, the MoD, the owners of Pirbright Common, gave temporary licence for building materials deliveries to cross the common at this point, which would be in force only until the dwelling was completed.



To satisfy the overall planning consent, Dr. Lytton took on the obligatory responsibility to block-off any vehicular access to the Guildford Road from his property and installed a permanent fence with just the provision of a pedestrian gate.



The agreed vehicular access to the property was to be via Heathmill Lane and this route has been satisfactorily used for over 43 years, and continues so.



The conditions of the 1970s were complied with until February 2012 when the pedestrian gate was replaced, without discussion, with a vehicle width five-bar gate. Just prior to the change of gates and through to 2013 Dr. Lytton made a number of irresponsible manoeuvres between the restrictive safety bollards; which had been installed in 1973 to prevent such vehicle movements to and from the Guildford Road. Because of these dangerous activities, Surrey County Council, Highways, installed extra bollards to stop this as correctly recorded by Messrs Kiely Planning Ltd.



Objections:

1. Quoting from the Minister's Report and still relevant: "such an access would adversely affect the amenity value of the land forming part of Bullswater Common to the detriment of the visual amenities of the existing rural appearance of the locality."



2. The second point from the Minister's Report ..."access as positioned on the inside of a bend in the highway would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the highway particularly when vehicles leaving and entering the access had to cross approaching traffic streams."

This comment is now of further significance due to the already increased traffic density and that of projected traffic due to the Pirbright Institute development.



3. Bullswater Common is designated as an SSSI and any private access proposal would need to be viewed by Natural England whose local tree thinning permission was recently abused with the knowledge of Guildford Borough Council, in this exact location.



4. This corner of Bullswater Common constitutes part of the highway drainage with an active ditch system forming part of the flood defence reservoir immediately prior to the pinch point of three converging water courses at the adjacent Bullswater Bridge.



5. There is no need to dispoil our Common Land with an additional access to this private house which has a perfectly good vehicle access to Heathmill Lane which has been used satisfactorily by cars, lorries, ambulances etc for over 40 years.



6. Alarm bells should ring because of the weak attitude of Guildford Borough Council who took over the "stewardship" of our Commons from the MoD in 1983. The MoD were adamant that there should be no private crossing by vehicles at this very point.



Regards

Comment submitted date: Fri 05 Feb 2016

To view this comment please refer to the documents' list.

Comment submitted date: Fri 09 Sep 2016

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Comment submitted date: Thu 15 Sep 2016

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Comment submitted date: Mon 23 Jan 2017

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Comment submitted date: Tue 09 May 2017

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Comment submitted date: Tue 09 May 2017

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Mr Chris White (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 31 Jan 2017

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Mr & Mrs Ransom (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Thu 19 Jan 2017

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Mr Brian Davies (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Mon 25 Jan 2016

I would like to stress my strong support for the proposed access from Guildford Rd to Millstream house. I am a regular visitor to Millstream House and have no doubt that this access would be safe, and it would avoid having to park on the layby on the Guildford Rd.

I really cannot understand the basis of any objection.

Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Jan 2017

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Mr Gordon Tripp (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 20 Sep 2016

There is access to the public roads already, and this has been in use for many years. The proposed access would be at a busy junction close to a sharp bend in the road. The roads carry a large number of lorries giving tuition to lorry drivers. A significant amount of common land would be lost for the benefit of very few when adequate, if less than ideal, access is already available.

Comment submitted date: Sat 07 Jan 2017

The latest version of this application hardly differs from its predecessor, as confirmed by Mrs Lytton. Therefore the objections I raised before remain; they concern the preservation of the environment and road safety.



I fully support the use of tracts of local land for house building - this is essential. However, its further increases pressure for the preservation of smaller areas such as that involved here. Its SSSI status underlines this requirement. The roadway proposed duplicates the current access via Heath Mill Lane which has been used for many years and is suitable for vehicles including those of the emergency services.



The roads twisting through Fox Corner are very busy. HGVs, learner HGVs, cars, motorbikes and cyclists are increasingly using this route. The development of the Pirbright Institute has made a further impact. As Co-ordinator of the Fox Corner Neighbourhood Watch Scheme I have been made very aware of the real concern of residents about the safety of this stretch of road. We have been in contact with SCC about the matter. To add a further entry/exit point, especially one on a near blind curve opposite Ash Road would be inviting serious trouble.



I can therefore see over-riding reasons why this application should be rejected.

Mr andrew hitchmough (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Sun 24 Jan 2016

24th January 2016



Dear Mrs Sakina Khanbhai

Case Officer for planning application 15/P/02436



I am writing in support of Dr. Lyttons application for a new car port to replace the old garage and for the new access from his property across to the Guildford Road.



Reading the objections made me so incensed that I felt the need to write as I am a frequent visitor to Millstream House.

,

Why have the objectors, taken it upon themselves to err their personal grievances?:-



- A weak Guldford Council (I am sure they will enjoy that)

- -trees being taken down illegally by GBC ( I am no authority on trees but I am convinced trees are not take down without a reason by the council)

- Planning decisions over 40 years ago before the property being built -

and applying them to a new access which has not been applied for before.

- Traffic driving too fast along the Road, (take that up with the council direct)

- The bend at the Bullswater Bridge being dangerous (take that up with the council direct)

- Etc etc etc

-

All irrelevant to this planning application



Dr Lytton has appointed a Planning Consultant who I am sure would have sought and addressed the highways, the SSSI , drainage plus all the other relevant parties views long before the plans have been put forward.



And as for informing the police:-, the time taken in the administration for time wasting should be a criminal offence.



At the moment, Dr Lytton does not have a legal vehicle access to his property so I hope these plans are accepted by GBC and Dr Lytton will have a safe access to his property from the Guildford Road because I am sure those objectors have a vehicle access in place, most likely on the same Road



And then I read the comments by Mrs Ransom, although I have never met the lady agree with her entirely and it has now restored my faith in human nature,



Regards

A P Hitchmough

Comment submitted date: Sun 24 Jan 2016

24th January 2016



Dear Mrs Sakina Khanbhai



Case Officer for planning application 15/P/02436



I am writing in support of Dr. Lyttons application for a new car port to replace the old garage and for the new access from his property across to the Guildford Road.



Reading the objections made me so incensed that I felt the need to write as I am a frequent visitor to Millstream House.,



Why have the objectors, taken it upon themselves to err their grievances?:-

- A weak Guildford Council (I am sure GBC will enjoy that comment)

- -trees being taken down illegally by GBC ( I am no authority on trees but I am convinced trees are not taken down without a reason by the council)

- Planning decisions over 40 years ago before the property being built- and then applying them to a new access which has not been applied for before?

- Traffic driving too fast along the Road, (take that up with the council direct)

- The bend at the Bullswater Bridge being dangerous (take that up with the council direct)

- Etc etc etc

-

All irrelevant to this planning application



Dr Lytton has appointed a Planning Consultant who I am sure would have sought and addressed the highways, the SSSI , drainage plus all the other relevant parties views long before the plans have been put forward.



And as for informing the police:-, the time taken in the administration for time wasting should be a criminal offence.



At the moment, Dr Lytton does not have a legal vehicle access to his property so I hope these plans are accepted by GBC and Dr Lytton will have a safe access to his property

from the Guildford Road because I am sure those objectors have a vehicle access in place, most likely on the same Road



And then I read the comments by Mrs Ransom, although I have never met the lady agree with her entirely and it has now restored my faith in human nature,



Regards

A P Hitchmough

Comment submitted date: Thu 05 Jan 2017

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Christine Nancarrow (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Fri 22 Jan 2016

Totally suppport plans and especially new vehicle access. Current rough track with large potholes and water is not practical for standard cars. Access is difficult and a new access out to the front is very much needed.

Comment submitted date: Thu 05 Jan 2017

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Ken Spiers (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Thu 04 Feb 2016

To view this comment please refer to the documents' list.

Mr Ramon Peyre (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Thu 28 Jan 2016

I have no objection to the above planning application.

Showing 1-10 of 16|1|2|

an Idox solution

© Guildford Borough Council