Wisley Airfield proposals – WAG objections

Wisley Action Group have published a list of possible objections to the Wisley Airfield development.

If you wish to object to this, do feel free to use this list as a prompt for any objections.

WAG’s note is here:

Please OBJECT now – DEADLINE 31st March 2015
The proposed development on Three Farms Meadows, the former Wisley airfield is for 2,100 houses, a primary school, public green space and a local community centre.
If approved by Guildford Borough Council the development would effectively double the population of East and West Horsley to say nothing of the additional 4,000 or more cars on our overstretched local roads.
To clarify, unless you have written since January 2015 you must write again now. Any previous objections (e.g. to the consultations run by GBC) will not be considered as part of this process.
You can cut and paste from the list below but if possible please alter the list or make additional comments. You must say “I object”. Please ask your neighbours to write too. We need hundreds more letters.

YOU NEED TO EMAIL planningenquiries@guildford.gov.uk , please copy wisleyactiongroup@gmail.com
Guildford Borough Council, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, GU2 4BB

I write to OBJECT to planning application 15/P/00012 for the following reasons:
Green Belt:
– This is a massive encroachment of the Metropolitan Green Belt
– the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by the NPPF paras 88 and 89
– the site is clearly visible from the Surrey Hill AONB and it will therefore have a negative impact on views to and from the AONB
– development of this site will result in harm to rural landscape character of the area and the openness of the green belt
– The protection of the green belt is this generation’s responsibility.
Thames Basin Heath SPA/SSSI/SNCI
– The impact of 2,100 houses on the environmentally sensitive TBHSPA cannot be mitigated. Damage will occur to the habitats of the protected and endangered rare species in contravention of the EU Birds Directives and Habitats Regulations
– The siting of the proposed Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space adjacent to the SPA will only increase visitor numbers causing further damage to the protected area
– Para 119 of the NPPF “presumption in favour of sustainable development” does not apply where development requires assessment under the Birds or Habitat Directives and this fact has been totally ignored by the applicant
Impact on the local area
– The additional 5,000 residents is the equivalent of doubling the population of East and West Horsley combined
– The proposed housing density is completely out of keeping with the surrounding rural area – five storey buildings are not appropriate in a rural environment
– The resulting impact on light pollution, traffic and infrastructure has been gravely underestimated and proposed mitigation measures are totally inadequate
– The cumulative impact of development in the borough and in the neighbouring boroughs of Woking, Waverley and Elmbridge has not been taken into account
– There is no provision for secondary school places – the Howard of Effingham is full and the headteacher has noted that even if the Howard is expanded, there will be no places for children of this development
– The air quality surrounding the site gives grave cause for concern as levels of NO2 already exceed the EU limit
– There is insufficient information on the impact on the water table and flooding in the area
– Additional traffic will have a negative impact and cause irreparable damage to historic houses and other buildings in Ockham, Ripley, Downside and further afield.
– The development will impact the listed buildings adjacent to it such as Yarne, Bridge End House and Upton Farm
– The closure of a number of local roads coupled with a massive increase in traffic will impact a large number of road users from Cranleigh to Cobham and everywhere in between
– Any site that is dependent on the use of private motor car cannot be considered sustainable
– The proposed public transport provision is unrealistic given the nature of the roads in question and the level of congestion in the neighbourhood
– The thought that residents will walk or cycle to a rail station on narrow, winding, unlit roads without pavements or cycle lanes is frankly ridiculous
– Parking at the nearest two stations is at capacity

Inaccuracy of the documentation
– There are a number of factual errors in the documentation – for example Natural England has not agreed SANG provision
– There are a number of misrepresentations in the paperwork e.g. nine stations within 5 miles – this is however “as the crow” flies – only Horsley and Effingham Junction are within 5 miles by usable road from the middle of the development
– The housing need in the borough is yet to be determined
– This site is not deliverable within 5 years due to problems with sewerage and water capacity as outlined by Thames Water and the OCK DVOR air traffic control beacon situated onsite which limits development and is still operating
– No very special or exceptional circumstances exist
– Alternative sites exist
– The proposal includes the site safeguarded for waste under the Surrey Waste Plan which Surrey County Council refused to give up in their response to the Draft Local Plan in September
– The site is not listed for development under the existing 2003 Local Plan
– There is not enough land to provide a sustainable community based on GBC’s own parameters
– Surrey Police have concerns on their ability to manage the proposed population density

Please leave a reply- we value your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s