Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

21/P/00428 | Reserved matters application pursuant to outline permission 14/P/02109 approved on 21/03/2018, to consider appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in respect of the erection of 99 dwellings. | Howard Of Effingham School, Lower Road, Effingham, Leatherhead, KT24 5JR
  • Total Consulted: 75
  • Comments Received: 16
  • Objections: 15
  • Supporting: 1
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

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

Mr William Bond (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Mon 12 Jul 2021

Not Available

Christopher Bell (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 28 Jun 2021

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Miss Claire Nightingale (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 16 Apr 2021

As a resident of Effingham I object to the additional 99 dwellings to the Howard of Effingham site for a number of reasons. The residents of Effingham voted unanimously in the local referendum for the original site of 295 homes, which was overturned by Westminster. In the 2011 Cenus the village had a total of 676 homes with 2711 residents.



The infastrucure is already at it limits, traffic in the morning along The Street is very congested, as is the Effingham Common Road/ Forest Road junction. Effingham Junction Station Carpark is always full and there is no option to extend it. The path to the station is very uneven narrow and steep in places and only on on side of the road and no street lighting along the whole route. There is no regular bus service either as alternative.



The Health Centres in East Horsley and The Bookhams are already full to capacity and struggle to see their patients.



I strongly believe the village will loose it's semi-rural feel and status. It is such a lovely tranquil village to live in just the right amenities to suit. This was the reason we chose to move here as I'm sure most other residents did too. I also feel it will have a detrimental effect on some of the local businesses here too.



The type of people this site will draw are mainly families, who live in larger towns already whose expectations will be very different to a village way of life.



There is also the effect this will all have on the natural habit, where we are so close to an ancient woodland where we have an amazing variety of wildlife including bats, badgers, foxes, deer, hedgehogs, slowworms and birds of prey including Kites many of which are endangered.



The graveyard is a beautiful and tranqil setting, which is so important for those visiting their lost loved ones final resting place. Building homes so close and overlooking it will have an extreme effect.



The whole village will already be overdeveloped with 295 homes. It is Berkeley Homes should have done their calculations correctly in the first place. Perhaps they should approach central government for the shortfall to build as they should be paying for the building of the school anyway.

Mrs Joanna Tyerman (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 16 Apr 2021

I object to the 99 additional homes proposed by Berkeley Homes. I believe the development (even without this additional application) will have a hugely negative impact on the provision of services (e.g. health and primary school places), infrastructure and traffic congestion within the village. It represents over development.



Air and noise pollution will be increased throughout the village, and the traffic jams already experienced at peak times up Effingham Common Road to the station will significantly worsen - it is clear the majority of people will drive to the station given distance and the lack of street lighting. In addition, parking at Effingham Junction is already limited in "normal times", and with very limited ability to do anything about this (and nothing proposed). This is without even considering the further impact that from any approval of the Wisley Airfield development.



The currently undisturbed woodland habitat and wildlife corridor will also be disrupted. The privacy of my home and garden will be adversely affected (we back onto Thornet Wood). The circle of greenbelt around Effingham will be further diminished.



Finally, Berkeley Homes have not given due consideration to the additional pressure on existing sewage systems which are not designed for the extra waste.



I strongly object to this proposal.

Dr Roger Adams (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 15 Apr 2021

Concerning this development, I wish to lodge an objection in my capacity as District Councillor for Bookham North, a ward which adjoins Effingham.



I would make the following points:





1. The basis for a decision on where to build includes



1.1 Local employment opportunities

1.2 Local facilities such as GP and dental surgeries, shops and supermarkets, schools, etc.

1.3 Infrastructure - water supplies and sewerage, electricity

1.4 Transport - major roads, bus and train services

1.5 Green Belt restrictions





2. The situation in Effingham and Bookham is as follows:



2.1 There are no significant employment opportunities in the area. People have to commute to work and will do so using the car and train. From the employment point of view, no further housing is needed here.

2.2 The local GP surgeries are over-subscribed.

2.3 The Howard of Effingham state secondary school oversubscribed and some local children who could otherwise walk or cycle to school have to be bused to schools in Leatherhead. The new development will simply exacerbate the problem.

2.4 There is one small supermarket and a number of shops. The nearest bank and major supermarkets, etc. are in Leatherhead, some four miles away.

2.5 The sewerage system for the proposed development is already overloaded with reports of overflowing foul water. The recently built care home at Preston Cross has been asked not to flush wet wipes for fear of further blocking the sewers.

2.6 Electricity cuts occur several times a year, suggesting that this system may be overloaded.

2.7 There are no major roads in or near Effingham and Bookham. The M25 is some 10 minutes away by car (outside of rush hour) and is reached via Leatherhead. The A3 is also some 10 minutes by car (again outside of rush hour) and reached via Ockham or Cobham. As the current local roads cannot be enlarged, any increase in commuter traffic would lead to substantial congestion in the village, especially at rush hour.

2.8 The bus services serving the area are infrequent.

2.9 During the working day trains run every quarter of an hour from Effingham Junction and every half hour from Bookham to Waterloo in one direction and Guildford in the other. In the evening and on a Sunday the frequency drops by half. This is not particularly convenient for commuters, especially as the stations are far from this proposed development and the great majority of people will have to drive to the station. Any increase in the number of commuters would overload the station car park and lead to parking on nearby residential roads.

2.10 Effingham and Bookham are surrounded by Green Belt. Any major new housing schemes would involve eating into the Green Belt to the detriment of the current residents. Green belt becomes increasingly important the nearer it is to populated areas; many people do not wish to travel miles to enjoy the countryside, preferring to be able have the green fields and trees on their doorstep.

2.11 With the new development at Effingham and any sites in Bookham that may be included in the Mole Valley District Local Plan, there would be a substantial increased demand for services that are currently unavailable and a significant increase in traffic through the villages, especially in the morning and evening. This would lead to a significant degradation in the quality of life for the current residents.





In view of the points above, it is unfortunate that the Government overrode the GBC decision to reject the application to build on this site. However, we are where we are. I would therefore propose that the new development is restricted to housing that puts only a modest extra burden on the local infrastructure. This could be done by specifying that these 99 dwellings are one bedroom starter homes suitable for single people of childless couples. This would also address the problem of not enough school places available to local children and insufficient low cost homes available for local people.

Mrs Andrea Lightfoot (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 15 Apr 2021

I object to this proposal due to the material planning considerations below.



This site is bordered on three sides by Little Bookham and Effingham Conservation Areas (which everyone has a duty to protect). The developer has incorporated its preference for unnecessarily huge bulky roofs, disproportionate designs and a lack of variation in the dwelling mix into this site, which makes the dwellings look bulky overbearing and out of scale and character with the historic village of Effingham, more sympathetic varied designs than the stock cookie cutters proposed should be sought.



The height and bulk of the school buildings currently on this site are being traded onto the Green Belt opposite, and therefore the height or bulk of the current buildings should not be used as a precedent or mitigation for the planning on this site.



The Lodge (main house listed EH 1029338) originally owned and now neighbours this site, and the (small chalet) Lodge Gate House is on site, therefore sensitivity to their design should be reflected in the surrounding dwellings, i.e., slate roofing tiles, buff brick, pane casement windows mullioned frames, stucco and flint walls. I believe this was the case in the original concept. Berkeley homes achieved this on another Effingham site, Effingham Grove House, the architects integrated the vernacular style of the original Grove house building i.e. buff brick and white porticos with the new dwellings around it, with plenty of green space, making for a pleasing aesthetic.



However, on such a large site a varied design code could be applied, (further away from the Lodge) dwellings could have a nod towards some of the many and varied architectural styles found in Effingham, it may also be more interesting to have a few modern contemporary dwellings (as long as they enhance the neighbouring Conservation area) in the mix, as it is important to avoid the look and feel of a suburban estate.



Proposing 3 story buildings around the central green space and looming over the little Lodge Gate House is overbearing and counter-intuitive, as it visually closes off the green space to the rest of the development, further the 3 story apartments next to the open green space between Effingham and Little Bookham are contradictory to the general openness of the setting and should be 2 story dwelling height so the development does not appear overbearing in scale from the public rights of way.



To improve the overbearing bulky mass nature of the proposal the ridge heights of all the dwellings need to be reduced and have a more varied roof line, mansards reduced (where proposed) and roofs hipped.

Smaller dwellings would be improved with first floor half dormers into roofs reducing the overall height and would appear less overbearing.

3 story buildings are overbearing and disproportionate and out of character.

All garage roofs should be hipped to reduce scale.

Some dwellings have a disproportionate height first floor, therefore appear aesthetically awkward.

More varied designed dwellings with interesting details should be introduced.

Dwellings with the buff brick should have slate tile roofs to fit with the vernacular (nearer to the Lodge vicinity and a greater percentage of the site)

All hard landscape and road surfaces should be porous, as Effingham already has issues with drainage.

The proposals lack sufficient parking for visitors.

The public right of way on the border of this land should be accessible for residents to access the footpaths and create an open community.

The open green space proposed seems disproportionately low for 99 dwellings.

It is not clear what enclosure material is being proposed around the back and side site curtilage and gardens, local design code comprises brick and flint walls (especially where it is bordering the Conservation Areas) and natural hedging, not fencing.

Any and all lighting proposals should only be timed to movement and inline with Effingham's Dark skies policy.



There is a lack of information on whether this development has low impact carbon emissions, as all new homes need to be zero-carbon rated by 2025.



In conclusion, I object to the development proposals submitted for the dwelling's overbearing scale and mass and unvaried unimaginative designs which would adversely affect the setting of listed buildings, does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Effingham and its Conservation Area or the openness of the green belt.

Mr Chris and Jenny Peers (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 15 Apr 2021

Our objection relates to the siting of dense affordable housing on the eastern boundary of the development, and also incidentally on the boundary with Mole Valley. This will back on to the glebe land of All Saints church which is designated for an extension of the graveyard. It is absolutely inappropriate to have dense housing with very little green space overlooking a graveyard which will be visited by people seeking a quiet place for reflection.

Mrs. Diane Poole (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 14 Apr 2021

To view this comment please refer to the Documents list.

Mr Richard Beddoe (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 14 Apr 2021

This is just another development in the area which will totally change two small villages into a huge inappropriate housing estate on the edge of Guildford borough and Mole Valley. The resulting "Bookingham" metropolis will totally swamp the infrastructure and ruin the area for all. Add the 99 homes to the 280 homes of Bookham, plus the 500 odd homes proposed to pay for the new school. it's crazy!



Dreadful!

Mrs Joanna Eaton (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 14 Apr 2021

I have just read the letter sent to you yesterday from EFFRA. It clearly and comprehensively expresses the concerns of myself , my husband and many other Effingham residents, plus other issues that had not occurred to me. I hope that you will give their reasonable comments due consideration.

Showing 1-10 of 16|1|2|

an Idox solution

© - Guildford Borough Council