From: Sandra FacciniTo: Planning PolicySubject: Runnymede Local PlanDate: 23 June 2018 11:18:24

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to thank you for the consultation process and to make someobservations/objections. I understand the pressure to build more homes and recognize thatthey have to go somewhere. I am a resident of Ottershaw and so want to comment on thataspect

Ottershaw East

Green Belt should not be taken away if at all possible. Once lost it is gone forever.Are there really no brown field sites to use? The surrounding developments will put astrain on all green spaces. Ottershaw has had considerable in fill building and this is betterat is merges the new and old.

Significant increase in the size of Ottershaw will compromise the village community andits ability to enjoy the local green spaces and care for each other

There are inadequate traffic safety/calmimg measures in place already so are safe crossingsgoing to be added? The school drop off and pick up times cause chaos without anotherpotentially 300 cars involved.

There are inadequate facilities for school, doctors and hospital (assuming the widernumber of homes are agreed). There is a potential need for more community space too

Should this development take place could you assure the village that no more majorprojects (over 100 houses) will be agreed in Ottershaw? I think some certainty for thefuture needs to be part of the plan.

A320 corridor feasibility study

The changes suggested at the Ottershaw roundabout are incredibly destructive of ourvillage. It will completely separate one half from the other. Will tthere be an underpass orbridge for pedestrians and how will cyclists navigate the roundabout?

Village shops and the hall will be in danger causing more travel to more distant shops orvenues which is environmentally a bad idea and isolating the elderly and disabled evenmore

The loss of the village car park will seriously affect both village hall and shops andbusiness. Access looks very difficult. It is hard to see where another one could be locatedthat would provide easy access. This will penalise the disabled and elderly. It cause causeloss of employment

There is a danger that this will not provide a long term solution; There could be thousandsmore cars in the area by 2030 for the junction is affected by housing and business inRunnymede, Woking and even wider areas. I imagine that 5-10 years after the millions ofpounds are spent traffic will become just as congested and Ottershaw will have lost somuch to no long term good.

2050

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

I also imagine even more traffic bypassing the roundabout from Murray Road by goingthrough Slade Road into Brox and then up to the Guildford Road. Will anything be done toensure the safety of children walking to school along these roads? Can traffic calmingmeasures be included?

Is this really the best solution or is it a panic move? Has it been thought through? Hasproper consultation taken place? It appears inadequate to suggest things like moving a carpark or changing access for the Ambulance station without having more detailedproposals in place. Pedestrians need more consideration too

Yours faithfully

Sandra Faccini50 Slade RoadOttershawSurreyKt16 0HZ

A320

Rev Dr Sandra FacciniVicar Christchurch, Ottershaw Area Dean Runnymede

From: Angela ShawTo: Planning PolicySubject: Objection to Local Plan and Traffic ReportDate: 23 June 2018 13:11:42

From:Dr Angela Shaw14 The MaplesOttershawChertseySurreyKT16 0NU

23.06.18

Dear RBC Planning and Strategy Team

I have just received for the first time at this late stage a leaflet regarding the RunnymedeLocal Plan 2030 and the Transport Report.I had only heard of the plan for the A320 in Ottershaw via a stall at Ottershaw May Fairbut speaking to a number of my neighbours recently they had never heard of it. Yet it willhave a huge impact on all the residents of Ottershaw, and totally destroy the villagecommunity.

I understand the need to improve the A320 with or without the implementation of the Planbut I am horrified to see the map of the alterations in detail, as it seems there will be noroad access at all to the centre of Ottershaw and its shops for those living north of theA320, such as off Chobham Road like myself. This would also apply to deliveries for theshops, post vans etc unless they can all come from Addlestone.

Although I am still fit enough to walk to the shops this will not be the case for all residentsand would not be the case for me if I were ill enough to need to visit the GP practice orpharmacy. Are we all expected to go via Slade Road, which is a residential area? Turningright there would cause another bottle neck on Murray Road. And there is no suggestion asto where the car park would be moved to, so there is likely to be nowhere to park if we doreach Brox Road.

Since increased numbers of Ottershaw residents would be forced to walk to the shoppingparade the numbers using the pelican crossing on the A320 will soar. This had alreadybeen pointed out by you as a cause of delays on the road. Is a pedestrian bridge forexample being considered?

In summary I consider this part of the plan to be UNSOUND and needs to be reconsidered.

I do not wish to speak at the Public Enquiry.

Angela Shaw

2051

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

From:To: Planning PolicySubject: Unsound Objection to Local Plan Draft which is to be submitted to Secretary of StateDate: 23 June 2018 15:04:22

Dear Sir/Madam

This Plan is Unsound

As a resident of Ottershaw I have had insufficient opportunity to comment.

The decision to build a huge roundabout in Ottershaw has been done without proper consideration, consultationand debate.

The roundabout lacks any consideration for the surroundings, uses green belt land without any authority underexceptional circumstances. The plan does nothing to improve the community of Ottershaw and completely lacksany sympathy for its village surroundings.

The car park in Ottershaw cannot just be removed. Parking in any borough is vital and this plan lacks anyconsideration for the existing village community, its a if we dont exist and we are just a roundabout to theM25!

For the above reasons I consider this plan UNSOUND.

RegardsMrs Amanda Butt18 Rosefield Gardens, Ottershaw, Surrey KT160JH

2052

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

From: Hayley WottonTo: Planning PolicySubject: article/15571/TransportDate: 23 June 2018 16:19:39

To whom it may concern,I am writing to express my objection to the proposed expansion of the Otter roundabout.This is incredibly upsetting for the residents of Ottershaw village, traffic in the mornings is horrendous as it is,and trying to get out of Brox rd is extremely difficult most mornings.Have extra traffic will make my morning journey to take 3 children to school more stressful and longer.Ottershaw is a nice, quiet village but traffic along Brox rd is extremely dangerous as cars drive too fast.We as a family will definitely move out of the village and most probably the borough if the proposal goesahead, such a shame that you will be driving people out of their homes, some of which have lived her firdecades.Please seriously think about what you are proposing and how it will affect residents.The fact that us tax payers are liable for a large proportion of the improved infrastructure is absolutelydisgusting! Id like to know why RBC has removed the requirement for the new developers to have to pay forthe improvements?It sounds like RBC arent interested in the concerns and welfare of their residents?Yours sincerelyHayley Wotton

Sent from my iPhone

2053

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

From: Zara ChamberlainTo: Planning PolicyCc:Subject: Objection to local plan (ottershaw)Date: 23 June 2018 18:09:14

Lilac CottageSpratts LaneOttershawSurreyKT16 0HU

Dear RBC Policy Planning and Strategy team,

I am writing to convey my objections to the proposed plan including the junctions on the A320and in particular the Otter Roundabout including the proposed housing.

I have lived in Ottershaw for 17 years and what I feel makes the village such a special place tolive is the village community, the local shops, the green areas and the general character of thevillage. This would never be replaced, the irreversible damage would have a huge impact.With extra housing comes more cars, more pollution, more noise. The need for extra schools, GPpractices, hospitals and the list goes on.I have worked in the NHS as a nurse and midwife for 38 years, 25 years at Peters Hospital,Chertsey. I know from first-hand experience every day of my working life, that St Peters Hospitalfinds it difficult to cope at the present time with the number of patients coming and needingcare. I feel extremely concerned about how the hospital would cope with potentially thousandsof new developments and therefore thousands of potential patients. The facilities are notadequate to respond to all the extra care that would be required, we do not have adequatestaffing at the present time and waiting lists are such that the local community could expectlonger waiting times for appointments and operations. The car parking at St Peters Hospital isinadequate for the number of patients at the present time.

I feel that the proposed consequences of the existing Runnymede Draft Local Plan 2030 andA320 Corridor Final Report will be disastrous for Ottershaw and I strongly object to theproposals.The HUGE new roundabout that has been proposed will create massive upheavals which willcertainly not be required if we can maintain the green belt and allow wildlife to flourish. Thevillage of Ottershaw is special. We are a community and function well, caring for each other. Theproposals would destroy all of that, forever.

I truly believe that for the reasons I have stated, I regard the RBC Local Plan draft as UNSOUND.

Yours sincerely,Zara Chamberlain

2054

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

From: Mark ValledyTo: Planning PolicySubject: Runnymede Draft Local Plan (2030) *UNSOUND*Date: 23 June 2018 22:27:16Importance: High

This is to confirm that I believe the Runnymede Draft Local Plan (2030) is totally unsound.

Firstly, before outlining my reasons, I find it deplorable that you did not see fit to informresidents of such a monumental change and it was left up to our local residents group to informus.

Anyway, this plan is unsound for a number of reasons

Firstly, the vast numbers of houses proposed in such a small area will not only blight ourlandscape beyond repair it will also put an unnecessary and untenable strain upon localresources and infrastructure.

On top of this, the loss of the Murray Village car park will tear the heart out of Ottershaw villageand have a near fatal impact upon local business. The character of the village will also bedestroyed as it will be bulldozed into two halves.

Local Wildlife and quality of life will also be hugely affected by this development..againdestroying what we love so much about our area.

Finally there is the noise and air pollution which will become unsustainably high both during andafter construction.

Whilst I understand the necessity of additional housing and the pressure to achieve this. Toconsider such a vast range of development in such a small area is totally unsustainable and willhave an irreversible affect both on those living here and our natural environment.

It is for these reasons I consider the proposal totally UNSOUND.

Mark Valledy23 Wilson DriveOttershawSurreyKT16 0NT.

I would like to request the opportunity to speak at the upcoming public enquiry.

2055

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

From: JOHN BAKERTo: Planning PolicySubject: Objections to Draft Local PlanDate: 24 June 2018 11:34:31

Dear Sirs

We wish to object to the Draft Local Plan on the following grounds :-

1 Although we reluctantly accepted the need for limited expansion of our village to meetexpected population increase , this together with other large proposals outside ofOttershaw has now lead to the totally unacceptable A320 junction proposals at The Otterarea. This proposal is simply too large,complex and damaging to the natural environmentfor that area with its wholesale destruction of vegetation etc. If carried out it woulddevastate the village core area and is in our view an indication that the various proposalsthat require its implementation are simply too extensive and should themselves berejected, For example where would the existing village car park be relocated to - any othersite would cause yet more destruction.

2 We live opposite the Ottershaw schools and consider that there is no scope for furtherexpansion. Already the surgery and schools together cause heavy traffic congestion at thepresent levels. Surely developers who will profit from further congestion shouldthemselves fund other alternatives together with the necessary infrastructure their schemesrequire.

3 The addition of the Field Nursery site to Site SL12 seems to have no genuine planningbasis and is merely an ingenious attempt to overcome widespread justified objections tohigher density development of Brox End Nursery .

To sum up we consider the Draft Plan to be unsound and should not be approved in itspresent form.Please forward these views to the planning Inspector.

Yours Faithfully

JOHN AND PAM BAKER

52 Bousley Rise OttershawSurreyKT16 oLB

2056

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

From:To: Planning PolicySubject: Local Draft Plan A320 studyDate: 24 June 2018 14:13:35Importance: High

14 Murray RoadOttershawChertsey

Surrey KT16 0HN

24th June 2018

Planning InspectorateRBC Policy Planning & Strategy TeamRunnymede Borough CouncilStation RoadAddlestoneSurrey KT15 2AH

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for giving me the chance to put forward comments in relation to the proposedchanges to the Ottershaw Roundabout as a result of the A320 corridor study.

Please note that I am the proprietor of 14 Murray Road and have only found out about theproposal indirectly from Runnymede Borough Council i.e. the local authority did notwrite to me directly concerning the A320 corridor study highlighting the proposed changesthat would directly affect me and my family.

I trust my views will be considered very carefully before any changes are made to theexisting roundabout.

For ease of reference, I have listed my points below.

1. Firstly, I would like to point out that the latest and final report on the OttershawRoundabout dated April 2018 has come as a shock because the early interim reportswere suggesting modification to the existing roundabout. To come up with anentirely different scheme as illustrated in the April 2018 Study Report had no regardto the community involvement when suggesting a scheme. The latest study proposalis a radical change without community input and I consider it has been done in

2057

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

hesitation to simply put a scheme together for the sake of submitting it in time aspart of the new Local Plan to the Secretary of State.

2. Regrettably, the Ottershaw Roundabout plan makes reference to Brook Road ratherthan Brox Road and therefore any consideration of this proposed roundaboutscheme is already questionable. The importance of getting the name of a roadcorrect is equally just as important as when designing a proposed scheme. The factthe various interim reports have been carried out to now a final study report shouldhave already been rectified.

3. One of the key issues resulting from the proposed layout relates to the loss of the

village car park this is the only car park close to the shops, Brook Hall andresidents. The proposal does not show a replacement of the car park and this isabsurd given that the car park forms an integral part of the community, businessoccupiers and the residents. Without it, the community will not be able to functionproperly this is very likely to have an impact on the survival of businessesparticularly forming part of the village parade. Overall, by virtue of not knowingwhere the existing car park will be relocated illustrates the poor consultationprocess when designing the scheme.

4. To add further to the inconsiderate proposal, the ambulance station is currently

restricted by turning left running north onto Guildford Road meaning that onemergencies to the south, they can only take the north route and then go all theway round the roundabout and then come back down on themselves. This defeatsthe objective of the ambulance service getting to the public as quickly as possible. The proposed roundabout is also too far away from the ambulance station itself inorder to make a quick decision whether to turn left or right.

5. The new format of Brox Road will mean that the village shops will result in less

passing trade particularly from those driving because they are likely to either; notsee the shops from the new road format or feel that its too much of a bother andtherefore are very unlikely to visit the village centre especially as there will not beanywhere to park.

6. The major employer in the immediate area is Miller & Carter which sits on the

corner of Brox Road and Guildford Road. Currently Miller & Carter benefit from animmediate right turn from Guildford Road meaning cars can quickly access their carpark without difficulty but under the new format this is scuppered. The importanceof accessibility for these types of businesses is crucial and the proposed layout islikely to have a damaging impact on their business. The proposed roundabout is

likely to affect their trade and overtime that may put their business at threatpotentially losing jobs.

7. The proposed roundabout will slash the village in two which will be upsetting and

harm the community.

8. It must also be remembered that the proposed bend by Brook Hall under the new

proposed layout scheme will make it very difficult for long vehicles to use this road. Please remember that the likes of Hunts Transport, Travis Perkins, Miller & Carter aswell as school buses use this end of the road for transportation and delivery.

9. The residents between Brook Hall and 16 Murray Road will be blighted by the

proposed roundabout it is approximately 8 times the size of the existingroundabout. The landscape scene will mean that these houses will be overlooked bythe roundabout causing a harm to their lifestyles and health. At present, thelocation of the existing roundabout has less impact on the properties.

10. The pollution from vehicles will affect the health of the community.

11. Adding to the landscape scene - there is a large healthy and attractive Oak tree

directly to the front of 14 Murray Road, which according to the plans, will be thejunction of Brox Road and Murray Road. It is very upsetting to know that a treewithin Green Belt land, over 100 years of age, not reached the end of its useful life,is under threat of being removed altogether by the inconsiderate roundaboutproposals. The same applies for the rest of the trees and hedgerow along MurrayRoad affected by the roundabout proposals. The hedgerow and trees provide ascreening effect and a sound barrier.

12. I remind you that the existing roundabout has 3 silver birches and a small Oak tree

starting its life, only now to be threatened by the proposed road format.

13. No consideration whatsoever has been made in terms of providing large areas for

green space. General landscaping will be destroyed, and this will be replaced withextensive areas of tarmac and concrete - this is unacceptable.

14. If for whatever reasons a roundabout proposal is taken forward which is refuted,

there needs to be a unilateral undertaking by Surrey County Council/RunnymedeBorough Council to promote an attractive roundabout all year round. By this I

mean, the landscaping/management of plants throughout the different seasons. Inaddition, there needs to be a landscape which involves the screening of anyproposed roundabout to protect the houses along Murray Road that are affected bythe proposed roundabout whichever scheme is thought of this does not meanremoving the existing hedgerows/trees and replacing with others. A unilateralundertaking by Surrey County Council/Runnymede Borough Council is to beconsidered at an uncapped cost which they must commit to every year. Thesponsorship of a roundabout is not going to provide the same landscaping provisioncompared to a unilateral undertaking by the Councils.

15. The assumed boundary at 14 Murray Road is incorrect. The local highway does not

have ownership of the recessed area into 14 Murray Road.

16. The accessibility for the houses at 14 & 16 Murray Road are scuppered in that they

are very likely to have difficulty turning either left or right; it is not clear from theplan how these two particular houses will have access onto Brox Road and MurrayRoad. The reposition of Brox Road is strongly disapproved.

17. The tight bend where the existing roundabout is, just north of Miller & Carter on the

Guildford Road, is a blind spot. A similar blind spot is the bend in front of Brook Hall.

18. The controlled crossing which is in front of 14 Murray Road has not been thought of

correctly pedestrians have to consider three roads before crossing safely. Nocycling provision is in place as part of the scheme. Various cycling clubs particularlyfrom the Foxhill club use Murray Road as part of their route. Re-routing theroundabout would have a damaging impact on the enjoyment of cyclists of using thecurrent roundabout and local roads.

19. It is blatant to see that the proposed roundabout in April 2018 is far too complicated

looking more like a spaghetti junction which would detach from the overallsurroundings and landscape and is therefore not welcome.

20. We expect to see this type of spaghetti junction to appear at a junction of a major

motorway but not off an A or B road.

21. To immediately come off the large roundabout and turn immediately right into Brox

Road is a major collision waiting to happen. There is too short of a distance of theroad at the bend of Murray Road to the new roundabout imagine cars wanting toturn right into Brox Road from the roundabout if there is traffic preventing them

from turning in, it would only cause sever congestion back onto the roundabout please note that Brox Road is a major entry to the village and should stay in itscurrent position for the reasons mentioned above.

22. The postal sign of the Otter at Brook Hall is a monumental description of the village

and is a reference point symbolising the community. The history behind Ottershawis extensive and it is in the Councils interest to protect and serve the residents andvillage.

23. There are rumours that Brook Hall is going to be demolished - this would be acatastrophe and failure of the Government when emphasising the importance ofcommunities when promoting the draft of new Local Plans. You only need to look atthe reservations of the community hall hire to understand how important this is tothe community. The Hall provides a valuable focus for local groups, clubs, societiesand social gatherings. It enjoys the patronage of a large number of regular users andsupporters, as well as being available for private hire. It is ideal for childrens parties,amateur dramatics and as a venue for talks, classes, meetings and presentations.Brook Hall would not be able to be successful without its prominence from BroxRoad/Murray Road and the village car park opposite. It is very accessible andconvenient. The proposed roundabout scheme from the April 2018 study pluschanges to Brox Road would be very detrimental to this building which has existedpre World War II.

24. In 2014, Brook Hall was extended to the side and grant monies was spent on this

building. To see it being pulled down would put the local authority spending underthe spot light.

25. Whilst not wanting any changes, I do not believe a reposition of the existing

roundabout has been considered in the context of what developers are trying topromote in the immediate area namely St Edwards and Ashill.

26. Turning to more detailed aspects of the proposal, the proposed roundabout would

require acquisition from the Local Authority of third party land which could be a longand complex process.

27. We should all be fully aware that St. Edwards (Berkeley) are proposing a site to the

north of Murray Road which from a very indicative scheme, promotes the existingcar park to remain where it is with a new primary school and houses.

28. In addition, we should also be aware of Ashill promotion of land to the east of St.

Peters Way. They propose a roundabout to the west of the existing roundabout butstill retain the car park.

29. Please note that two major developers named above, to my knowledge have not

even suggested the idea of the proposed layout scheme as illustrated in the April2018 report. That said, the Ashill proposed roundabout under their schemeprovides a modification to the existing roundabout that would not cause an issue forSt. Edwards proposals.

30. No housing is welcomed but the Ashill roundabout proposal seems to be a sensible

option because because it retains the car park, does not alter Brox Road andprovides alternative accommodation for the ambulance station within one of theirresidential schemes. However, we do understand that a resident has suggested abypass from a different route altogether that would not involve any modification ofthe existing Ottershaw roundabout and roads and I would be interested tounderstand how this proposal would work.

31. With the changes to the roundabout, we also anticipate an increase of street lights

and are concerned that this roundabout will damage the peaceful night scene of thevillage.

32. Another concern which is really at the forefront of climate change, relates to

flooding. We anticipate an increased flood risk as a result of hard surfacedlandscaping and more cars. As we all know, flooding has become a major issue overthe years and if the Local Authority get this wrong, they may end up paying a heavyprice to rectify this situation.

33. Wildlife there is a range of wildlife within the community. They include badgers,

foxes, rabbits and a range of birds including wood peckers and I call upon the SurreyWildlife Trust to take note of the roundabout proposals unless the local authorityhave already advised them.

The consequences of acceptance and progress of the existing Runnymede Draft Local Plan2030 and A320 Corridor Final Report will be irreparable loss of character to OttershawVillage which will severely affect access into and out of the village with loss of amenities,loss of green belt, wildlife and fauna. It will cause a significant degradation of quality of lifewith additional pollution and noise to all local residents.

The Draft Local Plan and A320 Corridor Final Report are unsound. I wish to have anopportunity to speak at the Public Enquiry.

I call upon the Planning Inspectorate and Team not to make a radical decision as theexisting proposals have not been carefully considered and certainly without publicconsultation on the current scheme. It does not work and puts the village at threat on alllevels.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail.

Yours faithfully,

Mr S.Lpez-Garca

From: denise rogersTo: Planning PolicySubject: RUNNYMEDE 2030 LOCAL PLANDate: 24 June 2018 16:38:27

Dear Sirs

As a resident of Murray Road, Ottershaw, I would like to make the following comments onthe 2030 Local Plan particularly in relation to consequences for the village of Ottershawand the Otter roundabout:

1. The proposal makes dramatic changes to the heart of the village of Ottershaw andhas been produced without any consultation with local businesses, villageorganisations or residents.

2. The new roundabout consumes the existing village car park and makes no proposalabout a suitable replacement. This car park is already inadequate in size, somethingwhich the Council has failed to address.

3. This car park is essential to the viability of both the Ottershaw Village Hall and theOttershaw Village shops.

4. The loss of the Hall because it ceased to be viable would make a nonsense of thehuge investment of time and money (over 300,00) by the Village Hall ManagementCommittee over recent years.

5. It is essential that the car park is located next to the Hall and the shops, where it iscurrently sited, and not at a distance. Hirers of the Hall bring props, goods etc toevents and have to unload near to the Hall. Shoppers will only shop at their localshop if good close-by parking facilities are available.

6. The proposal makes access into Brox Road from either Chobham Road, Foxhills Roador Guildford Road extremely awkward, as it is via a complex roundabout and adifficult right turn; and which would almost certainly also lead to back-up of trafficon the roundabout itself.

7. Southbound access on the A320 is not available to the Ambulance Station.

8. It seems that a suggestion for a bypass might be a better option; however this mightaffect nature conservation and green belt land.

9. This proposed layout seems excessively large and extremely complicated in ascenario where we do not yet know exactly what housing will be built off the A320road. This raises particular concern to myself living in Murray Road.

10. In addition I am aware of other proposals being considered for even more housingwithin the village. In the more than 30 years I have lived in Ottershaw the numberof houses has increased very considerably. Capacity at Schools, doctors and hospitalmust be taken into account before any developments are started. Ottershaw trafficand surrounding roads are grid-locked on school days and this must be considered inconjunction with any further developments.

11. The Feasibility Study should only be taken forward on the basis of full consultation

2058

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

and the Council should take heed to its own comments in the Local Plan para 3.20 (page 20) which describes The Otter, local shopping parade and community facilitiesas the Heart of the community and its own Policy SD7 (page 49) The loss orchange of use of existing Social and community infrastructure facilities will beresisted......

Yours faithfullyDenise Rogers (Mrs)118 Murray Road, Ottershaw, KT16 0HR

From: Janet BurgarTo: Planning PolicySubject: Objection to Local Plan draft which is to be submitted to Secretary of StateDate: 24 June 2018 20:39:37Attachments:

From: Janet BurgarAddress: 20 Chaworth Road, Ottershaw, KT16 0PE

Sent from my iPad

2059

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

From: John DavyTo: Planning PolicySubject: Ottershaw roundaboutDate: 24 June 2018 22:22:17

To who it may concern at planning policy

Our names are Mr Roger Zammit and Mrs Sharon ZammitOur address is 30 Chaworth Road Ottershaw KT 16 0PF

We would like to strongly object to the proposal of changing the Ottershaw roundabout to 8 times its existingsize and losing the only village Car Park. Already there is limited car parking facilities in the village which willthen make it almost impossible to park and use the village shops and facilities which will have a negative effecton the local business and also the use of Brox Hall.The extra traffic using this new road will have a detrimental effect on local residents trying to exit from theirroad onto the A320 which already is bad enough because of traffic. Not to mention the effect this will have onwildlife and fauna due to pollution.We believe this plan is unsound and needs to be reconsidered and I wish to voice my objections at the upcomingpublic enquiry.RegardsRoger and Sharon Zammit

Sent from my iPad

2060

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

From: Stephen PashleyTo: Planning PolicySubject: Runnymede 2030 Local Plan ConsultationDate: 24 June 2018 23:23:35

Dear Sir,

Representation in relation to the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan

I am writing to state my objection to the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan as it relates to thevillage of Ottershaw. Whilst not a current resident, I still visit there regularly and havestrong links to the local community, and therefore understand how the proposals willimpact.

There are two elements I would like to object to.

Ottershaw East DevelopmentDespite the reduction in the number of dwellings, I still feel that this is disproportionategiven it is on Green Belt land. Alternative sites should be found which make use ofbrownfield sites prior to using more of the Green Belt.

A320 Corridor Feasability Study This new proposal makes a dramatic and significant change to the village, and appears tohave come without consultation. Specifically, the existing carpark is well used and is vitalfor both the shops and Village Hall. Neither are viable without proper parking facilitieswhich must be positioned close to them to be of use and value. This looks to be impossiblegiven the proposed layout of the new roundabout, and no alternative site has currently beenproposed.

The new proposed layout does not look well thought through. Aside from beingexcessively large and over complicated, access into Brox Road from Chobham Road,Foxhills Road and Guildford Road looks very awkward and likely to lead to more trafficjams.

I hope that the Feasability Study is only taken forward on the basis of full consultation andthat the Council considers its own comments in the Local Plan para 3.20 (page 20) whichdescribes the The Otter, local shopping parade and community facilities as the Heart ofthe community and its own Policy SD7 (page 49) The loss or change of use of existingSocial and community infrastructure facilities will be resisted

Kind regardsStephen Pashley23 Kettilstoun Grove,LinlithgowWest LothianEH49 6PP

2061

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

From: The FowlersTo: Planning PolicySubject: FW: A320 development plansDate: 21 June 2018 08:08:22Attachments: A320 Redevelopmen1, report only.docx

From: Sent: 20 June 2018 16:27To: 'planningpolicy@runnymede.gov'uk'Subject: A320 development plans

FortheattentionofSeniorTransportplanningOfficer

CommentsonthedraftRunnymede2030localPlanFollowingastudyoftheconsultantsreportontheproposalsforthedevelopmentoftheA320Imaketheattachedobservations.

WhileIapplaudtheeffortstoaddressboththeimmediateroadproblemsandfuturetransportneeds,thereseemtobetobesomeveryseriousissuesarisingfromthecurrentplan.

TheobservationsareintendedtobehelpfulandleadtoawiderroaddevelopmentbriefandsolutionsthataddressmorespecificallytheconsequencesofchangeforOttershaw,thesurroundingareaandtheneedsoftheproposednewhousingdevelopmentsinwhichIandotherresidentsclearlyhaveaninterest.

Itwillbeobviousfromtheobservationsthatwebelievetheviewsoflargebusinesses,schools,hospitalsetc,shouldbeconsultedinordertofindthebestsolutions.Itishighlylikelythat,providingpersonsofsignificancewithintheseorganisationsareconsulted/involved,thenabetterunderstandingofneedsandopportunitieswouldimmerge.

Iftherewasabetterunderstandingofwhypeoplearetravelling,wheretheyaretravellingfromandto,duringpeakhours,thenthisdatawouldbeinvaluablenthedevelopmentofanoverallplan.Infactitisunrealistictobelievethatthebestsolutionsarelikelytobearrivedatwithouttheinvolvementofthemajorcontributorstothetrafficgeneration.(egbusinesses,schools,hospitals,transporthubsetc.).(Iamawarethatourlocalschoolhasadetailedmapshowingcatchmentareaswithnumberofpupilsineacharea).

Irecognisethatitisdifficulttobesureabouttheoutcomeofabroaderconsultationbutnothingislostandmuchcouldbegained.

Welookforwardtoyourresponseaboutourlegitimateconcernsandthe

2062

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

A320 Redevelopment

OBSERVATIONS - ISSUES RAISED BY THE ARCADIS A320 CORRIDOR STUDY

1. The brief was too restrictive and did not allow a study of the overall transport needs It is not able to conclusively demonstrate its contribution to the resolution of current problems or future transport needs of the area.

2. The steering committee did not contain any members of business generally, large employers or local groups with interest in the consequences. The conclusions of the report that work needs to be done to assess measures to reduce travel demand. This assessment would clearly be aided by input from employers their employees and other groups that generate road traffic.

3. The social and other consequences of possible engineering work have not been discussed with local groups and/or organisations that are likely to be affected. An example of adverse affects that has been raised is the loss of the car park at the top of Brox Road Ottershaw. This park is a lifeline for the multiple social activities at the adjoining Brook Hall and is also used by business people car sharing.

4. The analysis is incomplete in that there is no information or analysis of start point and destinations of traffic using the route. Should it be that the destination of all traffic was either Woking or Stains on Thames improvements to the route would merely result in severe congestion at these two end points. The report suggests that an end destination would be junction 10 on the M25 that is already unable to cope.

5. If as suggested in the report, a substantial volume of traffic from Woking is using The A320 for access to the M25 at junction 10 and vice versa, then there are other routes giving access to major roads to the east and south that should form part of the study. Eg Access to the M25 and the A3/A31

6. There are no references as to how the proposed changes on the A320 would or could make directly contribute to the proposed housing developments and their anticipated needs. Eg traffic generated to and from new developments for access to schools, hospitals places of employment, at peak travel hours or any other hours of the day.

7. The scope of the report falls short of connecting or easing the flow of traffic to rail links.

8. While there is a mention of reducing travel demand there are no studies aimed on achieving this end or the contribution that alternative facilities might make. eg Park and Ride, providing buses/mini buses and maybe to specified destination and maybe at peak hours. It is almost certain that involving people with a broad range of relevant experience would come up with ideas worth consideration. Imagination ion this area could well be rewarded.

9. If as suggested in the Arcados report, problems are being created by East West traffic. (eg Chertsey Road/Monument Road/Woodham Road/A245). How serious is this problem currently? Should it not be included in a realistic traffic study? The housing developments that already have planning permission and planned will generate East West traffic.

10. While with the present restricted resources, there might be justifiable arguments for expenditure on the junctions with the greatest current problems, projection to 2036 is unrealistic and could be better classified as pure speculation.

11. The economic benefits where and if they exist are not defined or costed. There are many other routes with major problems. Where does the A320 stand in the list of priorities.

12. Should a developed A320 be taken as offering, either in the short or long term, a way of avoiding the congestion on the M25, then the increased traffic could make a mockery of current surveys or proposals. There is plenty of evidence that road improvements only result in increased traffic.

13. With a restricted brief and acknowledge and demonstrably incomplete/inadequate study, there can be no justification of approving A320 development plans or expenditure of a sum in excess of 100m. This is particular relevant when money cannot be found to fund hospitals health care or even repair potholes.

Reference Douments ARCADIS A320 Corridor Study

specificobservationsraised.

Regards

PeterFowler

10FletcherCloseOttershawKT160JT

ItisunderstoodthatthetransportplanwillbereferredtoSurreyCountyCouncilandsubsequentlybacktothepublic.Isthisso?Whatisthelikelytimescaleforprogressonthestagesoftheoverallscheme?

A320 Redevelopment OBSERVATIONS - ISSUES RAISED BY THE ARCADIS A320 CORRIDOR STUDY

1. The brief was too restrictive and did not allow a study of the overall transport needs It is not able to conclusively demonstrate its contribution to the resolution of current problems or future transport needs of the area.

2. The steering committee did not contain any members of business generally, large employers or local groups with interest in the consequences. The conclusions of the report that work needs to be done to assess measures to reduce travel demand. This assessment would clearly be aided by input from employers their employees and other groups that generate road traffic.

3. The social and other consequences of possible engineering work have not been discussed with local groups and/or organisations that are likely to be affected. An example of adverse affects that has been raised is the loss of the car park at the top of Brox Road Ottershaw. This park is a lifeline for the multiple social activities at the adjoining Brook Hall and is also used by business people car sharing.

4. The analysis is incomplete in that there is no information or analysis of start point and destinations of traffic using the route. Should it be that the destination of all traffic was either Woking or Stains on Thames improvements to the route would merely result in severe congestion at these two end points. The report suggests that an end destination would be junction 10 on the M25 that is already unable to cope.

5. If as suggested in the report, a substantial volume of traffic from Woking is using The A320 for access to the M25 at junction 10 and vice versa, then there are other routes giving access to major roads to the east and south that should form part of the study. Eg Access to the M25 and the A3/A31

6. There are no references as to how the proposed changes on the A320 would or could make directly contribute to the proposed housing developments and their anticipated needs. Eg traffic generated to and

from new developments for access to schools, hospitals places of employment, at peak travel hours or any other hours of the day.

7. The scope of the report falls short of connecting or easing the flow of traffic to rail links.

8. While there is a mention of reducing travel demand there are no studies aimed on achieving this end or the contribution that alternative facilities might make. eg Park and Ride, providing buses/mini buses and maybe to specified destination and maybe at peak hours. It is almost certain that involving people with a broad range of relevant experience would come up with ideas worth consideration. Imagination ion this area could well be rewarded.

9. If as suggested in the Arcados report, problems are being created by East West traffic. (eg Chertsey Road/Monument Road/Woodham Road/A245). How serious is this problem currently? Should it not be included in a realistic traffic study? The housing developments that already have planning permission and planned will generate East West traffic.

10. While with the present restricted resources, there might be justifiable arguments for expenditure on the junctions with the greatest current problems, projection to 2036 is unrealistic and could be better classified as pure speculation.

11. The economic benefits where and if they exist are not defined or costed. There are many other routes with major problems. Where does the A320 stand in the list of priorities.

12. Should a developed A320 be taken as offering, either in the short or long term, a way of avoiding the congestion on the M25, then the increased traffic could make a mockery of current surveys or proposals. There is plenty of evidence that road improvements only result in increased traffic.

13. With a restricted brief and acknowledge and demonstrably incomplete/inadequate study, there can be no justification of approving A320 development plans or expenditure of a sum in excess of 100m. This is particular relevant when money cannot be found to fund hospitals health care or even repair potholes.

Reference Douments ARCADIS A320 Corridor Study

From: Scott HansonTo: Planning PolicySubject: Attached LetterDate: 21 June 2018 19:06:36Attachments: RBC Correspondance June 2018.docx

Please find attached a letter in relation to the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan consultation.

2063

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

The Planning Policy and Strategy Team

Runnymede Borough Council

Civic Centre

Station Road

Addlestone

KT15 2AH

Bousley End

Bousley Rise

Ottershaw

Surrey

KT16 0LB

Land Registry Title: SY405269

Wednesday 20th June 2018

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in reference to the consultation of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan.

In reference to site Ottershaw East SLAA ref 263, we do not agree with the proposal to reduce the developable area and therefore going against Arups initial recommendation.

It is our opinion that the evidence provided by both ARUP reports which were undertaken by the Council and were accepted as robust assessments should not be disregarded in the manner that the council has.

Our land as part of the Ottershaw East proposal (SLAA 263) hit all of the previous SLAA hurdles when tested against Sustainability and Habitants Regulations Assessment.

It was considered highly developable and taking it out of the plan is at odds with RBCs original assessment and pressing need to meet Objectively Assessed housing need (OAN).

Our land still does not meet the GB criteria and should not be classified as such.

GB was introduced in 1940s following the 2ndWW with the huge development that went on and was used to separate towns, stopping them from merging into one big developed masshence the term Green Belt.

In the new proposal the land left out of the GB removal is left effectively land-locked and useless, surrounded by development when it could be put to better use hitting RBC housing targets. It certainly will not serve as a green belt of land dividing two towns.

In consideration of the land that remains within the area to be removed, it does not make sense to include Meath School. Since the purpose of the releases is to enable housing to be built, it would make more sense to include our property since releasing a school from the greenbelt is unlikely to assist with the housing numbers.

In addition, under the current proposal, our land would be surrounded by public boundaries with right of way to the public which would very much be a concern to us in terms of security which also compounds our argument to have our land included in the housing allocation.

Regards,

Scott Hanson & Sandra Hanson

The Planning Policy and Strategy Team Runnymede Borough Council Civic Centre Station Road Addlestone KT15 2AH Bousley End Bousley Rise Ottershaw Surrey KT16 0LB Land Registry Title: SY405269 Wednesday 20th June 2018 Dear Sirs, I am writing in reference to the consultation of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan. In reference to site Ottershaw East SLAA ref 263, we do not agree with the proposal to reduce the developable area and therefore going against Arups initial recommendation. It is our opinion that the evidence provided by both ARUP reports which were undertaken by the Council and were accepted as robust assessments should not be disregarded in the manner that the council has. Our land as part of the Ottershaw East proposal (SLAA 263) hit all of the previous SLAA hurdles when tested against Sustainability and Habitants Regulations Assessment. It was considered highly developable and taking it out of the plan is at odds with RBCs original assessment and pressing need to meet Objectively Assessed housing need (OAN). Our land still does not meet the GB criteria and should not be classified as such. GB was introduced in 1940s following the 2nd WW with the huge development that went on and was used to separate towns, stopping them from merging into one big developed masshence the term Green Belt. In the new proposal the land left out of the GB removal is left effectively land-locked and useless, surrounded by development when it could be put to better use hitting RBC housing targets. It certainly will not serve as a green belt of land dividing two towns. In consideration of the land that remains within the area to be removed, it does not make sense to include Meath School. Since the purpose of the releases is to enable housing to be

built, it would make more sense to include our property since releasing a school from the greenbelt is unlikely to assist with the housing numbers. In addition, under the current proposal, our land would be surrounded by public boundaries with right of way to the public which would very much be a concern to us in terms of security which also compounds our argument to have our land included in the housing allocation. Regards, Scott Hanson & Sandra Hanson

From: Anne ThompsonTo: Planning PolicySubject: Runnymede 2030 Local PlanDate: 21 June 2018 17:30:36

I am writing to express my objections to the proposed plans for Ottershaw village asoutlined in the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan.

1. Ottershaw East Development

The proposed housing development on this site will greatly increase the density of housingin the village putting yet more pressure on local services including schools and doctorssurgeries. The increase in the number of dwellings is disproportionate to the existing sizeof the village and will cause added congestion on narrow roads such as Brox Road andBousley Rise. In addition it will remove precious Green Belt land from the localcommunity.

2. Fairoaks Garden Village

The enormous housing development proposed for this rural site will inevitably yield asignificant increase in air pollution with the resulting detrimental effect to the health oflocal residents particularly babies and small children. This concern cannot be overstated.Of course many other adverse effects have already been highlighted. I wish to add myvoice to these objections.

3. A320 Corridor Feasability Study

This frightening proposal makes dramatic changes to the heart of Ottershaw village andhas been prepared without consultation with local businesses, organisations or residents.The negative impact on the quality of life for those who have lived in the village for manyyears has been completely ignored.

The removal of the existing car park, as outlined in the study, will effectively destroy theviability of the thriving local shops and businesses. It will also have a similar impact on thevillage hall, on which considerable time and expense has been spent in recent years and isthe heart of the village for many. Any replacement car park situated further away would betotally inadequate.

The proposed layout of the roundabout and feeder roads will certainly not relieve anytraffic congestion and will only serve to increase the problem. It will render access to thevillage itself almost impossible for everyday use. The proposed roundabout will effectivelysplit the village in two making journeys to schools and doctors difficult and dangerous formany.

There are many more properly based objections that could be raised regarding the aboveproposals.

I would very strongly urge you to reconsider the whole matter as the all too likely outcomeis almost too horrendous to contemplate.

Yours faithfully,

Anne Thompson 12 Murray Road

2064

mailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

Ottershaw Surrey KT16 0HN

From: PlanningTo: Planning PolicySubject: FW: Local Plan ObjectionsDate: 25 June 2018 08:29:22Attachments: Local Plan Objection Tom Barr.pdf

Sent: 23 June 2018 10:27To: PlanningCc: Subject: Local Plan Objections

DearSir/Madam(Planning)

PleasefindattachedaletterofobjectiontotheproposedlocalplanasregardsOttershaw.AsanaddendumtothisIwishthefollowingobjectionstoberegistered:

1. TheneedfortheproposednewroundaboutispredicatedonthedestructionofthelocalGreenBelt,Thismaynotoccur,particularlyatFairoaksastwoaerodromedevelopmentshaverecentlybeenturneddownbytheSecretaryofState(RedhillandWisley).

2. Thenewroundaboutwillsimplyshiftthesouthboundqueuesslightlyfurtherdowntheroadso ultimately it will have a non-material effect.WokingwillalwaysbeinthewayofgettingtoGuildfordandtheA3,ChobhamwillalwayshaveatinyTjunctiononthewaytotheM3,thelightswillstillexistattheStPetersroundaboutandIdontseeanyplanforremovingthelightsatthecrossroadsinAddlestoneorthetrafficcalminginthehighstreet,oraplantoremovethelevelcrossing.Essentiallyyouproposeputtingaturbochargeronachildsbicyclewhichwill make no overall material improvement tojourney times or congestion.Thisreasonaloneisenoughtocantheroundaboutproposition.

3. Thelightcontrolledtraffic/pedestriancrossingarrangementswillcausemore,notlesscongestion,mitigatinganybenefitoftheroundabout.

4. ThemoronthatdesignedtheroundabouthasnotconsideredthequeueingtrafficfortheA319RHturnintoFoxhillsRoadNorthblockingthetrafficgoingWestontheA320/A319fromtheroundabout,withtheaddedcomplicationoftrafficjoiningfromtheSouthboundA320sliproadturntotheA319West.RBCshouldaskforitsdesignmoneybackasthisideaiswellbeyondstupid.

5. TheRoundaboutdesignandsizeismoreappropriateforTerminalFive.Youshouldbeashamedtoevenproposeit.Itlookslikeajuniorschoolprojectimaginedbyanidiotwithtoomanypencilsandtimeontheirhands.

6. TheRoundaboutdesignwillisolatethevillagehighstreet,killingit.7. TheRoundaboutwillmaketheSouthboundA320/BroxRoad/SladeRoadresidential

cutthroughtoAddlestoneevenmoreattractive.

2066

mailto:planning@runnymede.gov.ukmailto:PlanningPolicy@runnymede.gov.uk

-

Name &

address

Date

ao n Sneg,

ti4 c{+oBi"}AH tQDc)*iiE (s+l'*r*r

-s$ a{?E\4t

I

December 2015). Residents and devebpen agreed a lower density scheme in return for access to SL2

from Brox Lane (appllcatlon RU.16/0652). RBC Officerc refused it. The late inclusion of The FieldNursery in LP was engineered to avoid public consultation on the idea. This b a failure in publicconsultation, accountabllity and does not present grounds for removing another area of land fromgreen belt.

2. The proposed density of housing in SL12 and SL2 vastly exceed the surroundirqg areas and are unaaceptablewithin the ftamework and spirit of the NPPF. Additionally, wording within the new 'Policied of the proposed

[P tras become dictatorial and undemocratic. The 'Plon' has become a'Stotement' as description of housirg

density have changed from indication/estimate to edicts such as'will antain o minimurn ol,.-'. Without fulland due consideration of a phnning application it is wrong to dictate how many houses a site MUST take.We would like the wording softened to permit the democratic process.

3. We would like to see developers paying in FULL for infrastructure improvements to support theirdevelopment plans. This policy existed in previous LP as Policy MV3. We see no reason for RBC taxpayers tofund or part-fund improvement schemec Please reinstate Policy MV3.

4. Essential transport infrastructure improvements should be fully completed before any new housing buildsare begun.

5. Aircraft noise has not been adequatefo considered in this LP. Noise from Fairoaks Airport is a major problemfor Ottershaw residents. Sites S!.2 and Sll-12 are directly under flightpath of the runway less than one mile

away. lf these sites are approved, new residents will suffer badly as the large cornmercial helicopter business

continues to expand without limit to perhaps 24x7 operation.

6. O.ttershaw has had more than enough by way of proposed housing development. We are aware of otherproposals being considered for housing within our village. We deserve hss, not more.

7. The proposed solutions to improve the tralfia flow along the A32O corridor include losing areas of FlorsellCommon (one of the most protected areas of land in Europe) and destroying the community in the village ofOttershaw - RBC themselves say they will resist upsetting the Heart of our Community and yt this roadscheme will cornpletely destroy it! And the cornrnunity was not even consulted on these changes which are

100% unacceptable and ill

Tom Barr CEO, Bio-AMD, Inc

This email and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged or contain confidential information. It isintended for the recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, distribution, printing orcopying of this email is unauthorized. This email and/or any attachment is not intended, by its transmission and receiptalone, to create legally binding commitments. Neither the sender nor the recipient shall be entitled to enforce itscontents or take any action pursuant to the contents for the recovery of any actual or alleged loss, claim, damage orliability including incurred costs, and whether or not they have acted to their detriment in reliance upon any of itscontents. If you have received this email in error please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email anddelete the email from your computer. The contents of any attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses whichcould damage your computer system. While precautions have been taken to minimize this risk, no liability is acceptedfor any damage which you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks beforeopening any attachment or hyperlink.

8. Youshouldfix(resurfaceandrepair)theroadsyouhavebeforeproposingyetmoredevelopment.TheconditionoftheA319outsidemyhouseandjustabouteverywhereelseinthecountyisshameful,weappeartoseekathirdworldstatus.EvenaMoroccanwouldbeembarrassedbyourroads-andsoshouldyou.

NotedthattheextratrafficgeneratedbytheGreenBeltdevelopmentproposalsWILLNOTbesolvedbytheseroundaboutchanges;McLarenisacaseinpoint:AnewmagicroundaboutwasbuiltatMcLarenandanew(fairlyidioticbecauseoftheproblemofFoxhillsRoad)sliproadputinatOttershaw,andMcLarenpromisedthatwasallthedevelopmentthatwasneededatMizzensfarmandmostofitsemployeeswould(incrediblyforasportscarfactory)arrivebybus.WBCbelievedthem.Noneofthiswasborneoutinreality;McLarenexpandedexponentially,theircarparkingisanightmarebecausethebusstopispredictablyempty,theA320ischokedbeyondbeliefateveryshiftchange,andnowtheywantmoreoftheGreenBeltgivenup.Developerslie.Dontblameme;ItoldWBCthatwouldhappenbeforepermissionwasgiven.Itwasignored,ofcourse.RegardsTomTomBarr46ChobhamRoadOttershawSurreyKT160NN

-

Name &

address

Date

ao n Sneg,

ti4 c{+oBi"}AH tQDc)*iiE (s+l'*r*r

-s$ a{?E\4t

I

December 2015). Residents and devebpen agreed a lower density scheme in return for access to SL2

from Brox Lane (appllcatlon RU.16/0652). RBC Officerc refused it. The late inclusion of The FieldNursery in LP was engineered to avoid public consultation on the idea. This b a failure in publicconsultation, accountabllity and does not present grounds for removing another area of land fromgreen belt.

2. The proposed density of housing in SL12 and SL2 vastly exceed the surroundirqg areas and are unaaceptablewithin the ftamework and spirit of the NPPF. Additionally, wording within the new 'Policied of the proposed

[P tras become dictatorial and undemocratic. The 'Plon' has become a'Stotement' as description of housirg

density have changed from indication/estimate to edicts such as'will antain o minimurn ol,.-'. Without fulland due consideration of a phnning application it is wrong to dictate how many houses a site MUST take.We would like the wording softened to permit the democratic process.

3. We would like to see developers paying in FULL for infrastructure improvements to support theirdevelopment plans. This policy existed in previous LP as Policy MV3. We see no reason for RBC taxpayers tofund or part-fund improvement schemec Please reinstate Policy MV3.

4. Essential transport infrastructure improvements should be fully completed before any new housing buildsare begun.

5. Aircraft noise has not been adequatefo considered in this LP. Noise from Fairoaks Airport is a major problemfor Ottershaw residents. Sites S!.2 and Sll-12 are directly under flightpath of the runway less than one mile

away. lf these sites are approved, new residents will suffer badly as the large cornmercial helicopter business

continues to expand without limit to perhaps 24x7 operation.

6. O.ttershaw has had more than enough by way of proposed housing development. We are aware of otherproposals being considered for housing within our village. We deserve hss, not more.

7. The proposed solutions to improve the tralfia flow along the A32O corridor include losing areas of FlorsellCommon (one of the most protected areas of land in Europe) and destroying the community in the village ofOttershaw - RBC themselves say they will resist upsetting the Heart of our Community and yt this roadscheme will cornpletely destroy it! And the cornrnunity was not even consulted on these changes which are

100% unacceptable and ill