1  

89, Potters Lane Send, Surrey

GU23 7AW

28th August 2014 Local Planning Consultation 2014 Planning Policy Guildford Borough Council Millmead House Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB To Whom It May Concern: RE: Guildford Borough Council – Local Plan, with particular reference to developments in Send, Surrey SITE 74 I wish to raise a number of strong objections regarding the proposed development of Send Village in the Draft Local Plan (DLP), and specifically with regard to the proposals pertaining to site 74 in and around Burnt Common, London Road, Send. My strongest concerns are with the significantly detrimental impact the proposed development of Send will have upon existing residential amenities AND that the development is occurring on a Green Belt site. The proposed development is completely inappropriate and unacceptable for the following reasons:

• It is non-compliant with Government guidance, namely that from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012, with regard to building on Green Belt sites.

• It proposes building on Green Belt and greenfield sites, when there are options for using brownsite area (e.g. Walnut Tree Close) within the borough.

  2  

• It would be contradictory to GBC’s own stated and clearly identified considerations to NOT develop on this site.

• The rationale behind the notion of need to build on Greenfield sites within Guildford Borough is faulty – it is based on poor data and does not properly take account of current existing planning permissions.

• Even within the council itself it is recognised that the number of housing units is excessively high. For example, the above miscalculated and misconstrued total has been reviewed by the Scrutiny Committee of the council, who decided the housing number needs to be reduced. Unfortunately this has yet to happen.

• With these plans there is likely to be a 25% increase in population in Send, with commensurate increase in road congestion, road hazard, and demand on current services and amenities. This is excessive, unfair and disproportionate.

• There has been a failure to consider important factors such as the safety of villagers on the road, both as pedestrians and road-users.

• The proposal would not provide a healthy or satisfactory place to build new dwellings given its proximity to the A3. It would not allow for residents to have peaceful enjoyment of their homes, as enshrined in the Human Rights Act.

As well as the impact of these developments, I have strong reservations about the manner in which the consultation process has developed. I feel the process to date constitutes a failure on the part of GBC to “fully, appropriately and meaningfully engage with local residents and neighborhoods”. The NPPF states this should happen and, again, this intention is stated as one of GBC’s aims in the Draft Local plan. Failure to deliver on this intention is another contrary and confused aspect of the proposal.

  3  

Within this letter my concern about this inadequate consultation is specifically discussed in relation to site 74, i.e. in and around Burnt Common; however my concerns equally apply to the whole process of GBC’s suggested proposals as to how Send as a village be extended, and indeed the need to build on Greenbelt throughout Guilford Borough. Thus in my view this proposal and the process behind it is flawed, and non-compliant with both Government guidance and GBC’s own stated intentions; the process does not reflect “early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods” which is a Core Planning Principle advocated by the Government through the NPPF. Furthermore, GBC is failing to meet its full responsibilities under the Human Rights Act, both with regard to existing and potential future residents. Concerns in more detail • Large detrimental impact on existing residential

amenities I appreciate that change and development needs to be considered, but am disappointed with the magnitude of expansion suggested for our village. This degree of expansion cannot be supported by current amenities and infrastructure, its imposition upon the area is unjust, and it will have a disproportionate and detrimental impact upon current residents. Further, it is based on the use of poor logic and data. GBC’s own draft plan documentation (Policy 9, Villages and majorly previously developed sites, Draft local plan: strategy and sites 2014) states: “Development should be appropriate in scale and design”. The GBC proposal with regard to Site 74 (Burnt Common) will directly contravene this. It is suggested that the site could be used for: “Light industrial, general industrial, storage and distribution or

  4  

housing” whereas existing use is: “storage and distribution and undeveloped land”. Clearly the novel establishment and development of industrial facilities (whether light or otherwise) and housing is not appropriate to bring to an area where it does not already exist. It would not have “regard to {the} settlement’s identity, countryside setting, and local character and distinctiveness” which is stated to be part of GBC’s local draft plan. The proposed development, by reason of its size, function and increased demands on infrastructure would have an unacceptable and disproportionate impact on the community. It would be out of keeping with what currently exists, and have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area. It would not be of a sympathetic design, nor be similar in scale and proportion to the existing residences in the area. For instance, most current residences in the area would be proportionally quite distinct from what is proposed and quite different in character and appearance. Currently the area under consideration is not a high-density population area. This proposal will alter this substantially. • Non-compliance with Government guidance and

GBC’s stated aims, specifically by proposing development on Green Belt and greenfield sites

I have substantial concerns about the proposal of this development given that it involves building on Green Belt land. This is clearly not what most local voters and residents want, nor something the Government supports. This unsupported and unpopular decision seems to have been made by only some GBC councilors and the result is that the Local Plan has been compiled in a unilateral, unsubstantiated and unsupportable manner. This is apparent from the following statement: “Guildford Borough Council has disregarded the representations made to it during its initial consultation

  5  

process of the Issues and Options Consultation. The Scrutiny Committee of Guildford Borough Council has objected to the disproportionate amount of Green Belt use suggested. However, this was overruled by the Executive”. (Source: Guildford Greenbelt Group, 21 May 2014). Neither is it in keeping with Government guidance on the issue. Compelling and convincing arguments for building on Green Belt are not provided, in that no ‘special circumstances’ (NPPF) are outlined. These are required by Government guidance. This can be substantiated by comments made in a letter from Sir Paul Baresford MP Mole Valley to local resident J. Freeland dated 26 November 2013, Sir Paul says “The Government is requiring all English local planning authorities to draw up their individual local plans. As part of these they are required to find a suitable number of new housing sites. To meet this requirement Guildford Borough Council has suggested that a considerable number of Green Belt sites should be considered for development and hence removed from the present Green Belt protection. It is important for me to stress that the Government is not requiring Guildford Borough Council to re-assess its Green Belt. Guildford Borough Council alone has made the choice to consider this option (my underline). Furthermore, it is the Council that has decided on the actual number of new houses to be built, with the Government imposing only very loose guidelines.” Specifically with regard to building on the Green Belt, the proposal would lead to an inappropriate form of development in the area and be detrimental to its rural and undeveloped character. It would lead to a fragmented form of character in the locality. The proposed development would be inappropriate within the Green Belt and, in absence of any “special circumstances’” would have a harmful impact on the open, rural and undeveloped character of the green belt. GBC’s

  6  

documentation states that the land under consideration is “moderate/good agricultural land” and details the councils own concerns against utilizing this site which include that it is: “currently Green Belt and part greenfield ... a flood zone … within 400m – 5km of a Special Protection Area and … good agricultural land”. (GBC Draft Local Plan, strategy and sites 2014). In policy 10, Draft Local Plan, GBC include the quote from The NPPF, section 9, which states: “The main aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Green Belt also provides opportunities for people to access the countryside, keep land for agriculture, forestry … and for nature conservation”. Further, in Policy 10: “Green Belt and the countryside: We will continue to protect the metropolitan Green Belt against inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy to maintain its openness and open character. As required, we will use the NPPF to judge the suitability of development in the Green Belt”. GBC 2014. And section 4.76 from GBC’s draft local plan states: “The NPPF tells us that sustainable development means achieving growth while ‘ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations’. In environmental terms, this means taking into account the impact of our consumption patterns on the environment’s ability to provide both for ourselves and for future generations”.

Clearly building on Green Belt and current countryside sites cannot support these intentions, nor provide for our future generations.

Thus the suggestion that the area be developed is inconsistent with logical thinking, with good planning decisions, and is non-compliant with GBC’s stated aims. There are other options available, and brownfield site areas must be considered first if GBC is to escape the conclusion of voters and residents that the decision to

  7  

build on Green Belt is based purely on financial gain for the council. The integrity of the planning department of GBC is clearly already (rightly or wrongly) being questioned at present given recent developments. The councilors have been elected to represent us and, in my view, the proposal is a clear failure to do this. • Use of poor data and illogical thinking

The rationale behind the notion of need to build on Greenfield sites within Guildford Borough is faulty – estimates for housing units required are excessive i.e. the data used is in part obtained from the Office of National Statistics with too high a forecast; Personal communication from Guildford Green Belt, August 2014. The proposal makes use of other poor data and does not fully take account of current existing planning permissions: i.e. the existing 1,584 planning permissions in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment published in July 2014 - http://www.guildford.gov.uk/media/17349/SHLAA-July-2014/pdf/FULL_SHLAA_June_2014.pdf. An additional number of planned student properties (with agreed planning permission) would provide an extra 2,105 - you divide these by 4 to get an equivalent - 2105/4 = 526). Nor are ‘windfalls’ (i.e. unexpected sites becoming available) being taken into account. These could be legitimately included in the numbers; for instance Mole Valley is using an estimate of 50 per year. • Failure to collaborate and engage appropriately

with local people

  8  

The NPPF says that both: “local people and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive neighbourhood plans with reflect the needs and priorities of their communities”. Indeed a Core Planning Principle in it states that planning should involve … “early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods”. In my opinion the development proposal for the Burnt Common site does not reflect collaboration with our community, nor does it reflect the needs and priorities of the local community. This is obvious given;

• the objections and strength of opposition display by myself and others attending a recent meeting held in Lancaster Hall, Send on the evening of July 28th

• the e-petition submitted to Guildford Borough Council

(Petition to: reduce the proposals for additional housing on Green Belt land in the Draft Local Plan for the villages of Send and Send Marsh/Burnt Common)

• the development of the SaveSend website and

campaign, and

• the submission made by Send Parish Council in which clear and specific objections were made, and which ended: “With regard to your questionnaire ,which we consider to be inadequate for the purpose we would emphatically say NO to the following: • Question 1. Do you agree that the evidence used for the

draft Local Plan: strategy and sites is adequate, up-to-date and relevant?

• Question 2.To the best of your knowledge, do you think that the draft Local Plan: strategy and sites is consistent with national policy and guidance?

• Question 4.a) Do you think the vision of the draft local plan: strategy and sites depicts the borough that communities would want to be living and working in by 2031?”

  9  

Given these objections, GBC has not been accountable and the proposal most definitely does not reflect the needs, priorities and aspirations of Send residents. It is apparent that only developers and builders are supporting the proposals. This is an obvious conclusion to draw with only just a brief look at the comments made on GBC’s consultation portal (getinvolved.guildford.gov.uk). Such aspirations to make profit from building on local Green Belt sites will hopefully be recognized as obviously transparent and unsophisticated attempts to make money and move on. • Undesirable impact on existing infrastructure If these proposals were to be developed there would be obvious impact on existing amenities such as local schools and the GP surgery. Concerns about these are detailed in other representations made to you, including those quoted above. Sewage, drainage and other amenities to the area are already insufficient for existing needs. A simple example concerns flooding on the road around Burnt Common. This is frequently flooded, not just in winter when it has recently become impassable for a number of days, but also today, in August 2014 (see photos below of London Road and it’s junction with Vicarage Road by Burnt Common). This will only be exacerbated by the increased traffic and impact of building that would occur both in the process of development and continue in the long term.

  10  

  11  

  12  

Further the increase in traffic would not be isolated to this part of Send but would overflow into other areas. I have personal knowledge of, and specific concern about increased traffic flow on Potters Lane. Residents have long been concerned about speeding traffic along our narrow and bendy lane. Drivers frequently contravene the speed restriction; if anything they speed up along the most densely populated stretch of the road (and the part that is speed restricted to 30mph) as it straightens. A number of petitions have been submitted to the Highways department regarding this issue, with the most recent being this summer. Increased traffic flow will result in increased traffic density and congestion. Public transport is poor for the area and traffic congestion is high. Even slight increases in traffic flow impact on the village and, again with regard to Potters Lane, impact on traffic movement. This was evidenced by the recent closure of Newark Lane. On a number of occasions traffic was at a standstill for much of the lower end of Potters Lane. As well as causing personal frustration there are also monetary implications and loss of earnings resulting from this. The following is lifted directly from the GBC plan:

11. 2.15 We can accommodate higher densities in some areas, although we need to be careful that negative impacts on the character of the area are limited and that we take account of the ability of infrastructure to cope, especially in relation to roads. We need to strike the correct balance between providing much-needed homes of a suitable size and type, and protecting and enhancing the character of the borough.

Guildford borough Local Plan Strategy and Sites Issues and Options 13

The development being proposed for site 74 would NOT strike the “correct balance” being sought.

• Safety concerns

This is connected with the preceding point with increased traffic in the locality. There have been a number of fatal

  13  

accidents over the last 10 years in the vicinity around Burnt Common, namely the intersections with Potters Lane and London Road, both of which would inevitably be directly impacted by increased traffic should this development proceed.

• 21st February 2005: There was an accident resulting in 3 deaths and 3 injuries.

• March 2007: a biker died at the junction of Potters

Lane and A3

• September 2005: accident involving 5 cars resulting in a death.

• May 2007: a biker died on London Road, Send.

Source: Official data recorded by police in Great Britain between 1999 and 2010, obtained from BBC website.

Thus the existing road infrastructure is already flawed and compromised. It is widely recognized that infrastructure to date has not been supported and managed sustainably (this was openly acknowledged by Councillors at the Send local meeting). This has not been addressed in the draft Local Plan in any meaningful way. Frequently traffic is beyond the level our roads can manage. As already mentioned this was clearly evidenced following the closure of Newark Lane recently. Increased traffic density will inevitably exacerbate this and make road use in our village more hazardous. There would be an increase in private traffic, but also an increase in industrial traffic servicing the proposed industrial developments. The roads in and around Send are already severely compromised and congested. This would increase, as would numbers of unsuitable vehicles (e.g. lorries related to industrial development) around the narrow confines of Vicarage Lane, Potters Lane and all the roads directly connected to them. Such larger sized vehicles already can make the road impassable and will make it more dangerous than it already is.

  14  

• Human Rights Act

As a final note, the proposed site is totally unsuitable for domestic residences. The area abuts the A3 and will make for a noisy and polluted environment, due to the large number of vehicles on that road. Housing developments in this area will not provide a healthy situation in which people could peacefully reside. With regard to this it could be argued that GBC would be failing its responsibilities under the Human Rights Act, in particular Protocol 1, Article 1. This states that a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land. Additionally, Article 8 of the Human Rights Act states that: “…a person has the substantive right to respect for their private and family life…”. In the case of Britton vs. SOS the courts reappraised the purpose of the law and concluded that the protection of the countryside falls within the interests of Article 8. Private and family life therefore encompasses not only the home but also the surroundings. It would not be illogical to argue that the Human Rights of current Send residents and visitors would also thus be contravened. Conclusion In conclusion, there are a multitude of reasons to strongly object to GBC’s proposals to build on the Borough’s Green Belt generally, and specifically in relation to Send. The current proposal constitute a failure of considered, sound and sensible design and planning; is marked by non-compliance with regard to Government stated and published guidance; represents an inconsistent and contradictory decision-making process by GBC and its councilors; is based on poor data; would have an undesirable and detrimental impact on current infrastructure; would be detrimental to existing residents (e.g. by presenting additional safety risks to road users and impacting on their quality of life adversely) and could

  15  

be interpreted as GBC as a council failing to meet its responsibilities under the Human Rights Act. I hope that GBC takes these objections on board, and those of many other concerned Send residents who are making representation to them. I hope that GBC will now endeavor to work in a truly collaborative and considered way whilst continuing to process the Local Plan. GBC needs to rebuild confidence with the voters in Send. There is strength of feeling that GBC has failed to understand our concerns and are failing to represent our needs. To move forward with confidence, and without suspicion of ulterior motives will be to the benefit of all.

A recent report by the Campaign to Protect Rural England has reviewed the implementation of the NPPF (Community Control or Countryside Chaos? The effect of the National Planning Policy Framework two years on) and has many useful recommendations that will enable a process of collaborative decision making between residents and their elected councilors. The Plan should be just that and not serve to satisfy the desires of opportunistic builders and developers.

Yours sincerely Alison Drennan