Front Page >> Planning Planning Please submit your views on any planning issue using this form. To find out about HTAG's involvement in Local Planning, visit the Features Pages. To access the Planning section on Guildford Borough Council's website click here. Planning Updates December 2006 from Bob Bromham, Planning Secretary The Year's Work. We looked at 250 applications and made representations on about one third of these. Usually our comments are carefully considered by the Case Officer - but of course not always accepted. When our criticisms accord with theirs we hope that this gives them encouragement to stand up to developers. Effort has been put onto the cumbersome consultation process for the new planning policies, with some success, but much still remains to be done. We are offered the chance to have a say in the way in which our area develops, and we must do so. We thank our Councillors for the support that they have given us. The Bright Hill View - Vote for it! The Saga continues. We received some reassurance that the full public view would be retained when the new development is made. However identification of the view has a habit of disappearing from the various policy maps. As part of consultation on the draft Guildford Landscape Character Assessment we have the opportunity to press our case. Guildford must not throw away these features that make the town special. Everybody is being asked to tell the Council about their favourite viewpoint. We hope that lots of our members will choose Bright Hill as their favourite; contact Environmental Policy and Design Services at Millmead - if you wish you can use the special cards that we have been given for this purpose. Privatisation of the Town Centre. There has recently been widespread coverage in the national media of the concern about privatisation of town streets and spaces that were previously public. We, and others, protested about this in the new Westfield Development, without success. We shall oppose any further such privatisation of Guildford. Shopping in the Upper High Street. Our facilities for "day to day", convenience shopping continue to decline, despite the problem being highlighted in a "Retail Study" which gave Guildford an index for this amenity of only 20, compared to the national average of 100. We have strongly opposed the loss of retail use in the Upper High Street, which should provide for our basic shopping needs. We consider that the Officers have sometimes interpreted the existing rules in a way that favoured change of use from retail to something else - usually restaurants or estate agents. The good news is that some of the Upper High Street is proposed to be "upgraded" so that a minimum of two thirds of the frontage has to be retail rather than the present one third. Appeal on 8, Oxford Road (conversion of small Victorian house into two flats). We were pleased that the appeal was rejected, but disappointed that the Inspector did not consider that the effect on the Conservation Area was a valid reason for rejection. This sort of conversion benefits nobody. The space is less effectively used, and no more persons are accommodated. Unfortunately it does increase the number of housing "units" provided, helping Guildford to reach its targets - a good example of targets producing a different effect to that intended. Our request for there to be a presumption in planning policy against such developments in the Conservation Areas has so far been rejected, but we intend to pursue this. Trinity Gate and Planning Gain. There is general disappointment that this development did not provide the planning gain expected. In place of useful shops we have Estate Agents. The stone frieze that was to have been incorporated in the faade has disappeared, and we have only a plaster cast inside the building. The environmental improvement to the pavement area was downgraded to reduce costs, and we have the entirely inappropriate glued down yellow gravel instead of the real stone paving slabs that were expected. We shall press for improvements to the pavement area, including a bus shelter with a seat, and for more effective exploitation of planning gain on future developments. Parish Hall: An application has been submitted to renovate the Parish Hall. If granted the immediate vicinity will become a temporary building site, but when the work is finished Holy Trinity Church will have some splendid rooms in an attractive Grade II listed building. The only external change will be a new door with a short ramp for disabled access. Planning Updates June 2006 from Bob Bromham, Planning Secretary Pavement Area outside Trinity Gate (ex. Odeon). It is disappointing that it is taking so long to provide the promised improvements, and that the scheme has been downgraded to reduce costs. We shall continue to press for a quality scheme for this important area and for a speedy conclusion. We objected to an application to install a large pavement caf in the area. While we are supportive of having more pavement cafes in the town centre we felt that this one would have been much too large and too great a distance from the restaurant. A new problem is that this pedestrian area is now being used for parking at the weekends. Sponsorship signs on Bright Hill traffic islands. This is not the right place for these signs which worsen areas already over-cluttered with signs. There are better ways to acknowledge business sponsorship of Guildford's flower displays. We hope that these can be removed. We have been told that there are no plans to erect any more such signs in the Town Centre Conservation Area. Possible Sale of Tyting Farm. As a result of strong public opposition the Executive has decided to keep the farm in Council ownership. We hope that the proposal for Surrey Wildlife Trust to manage the land will be adopted; this would greatly enhance the area for those of us who enjoy walking there. However bids are to be invited from anyone who wants to lease it. We hope that the amenity value to the community of countryside that is on our doorstep is now better appreciated and that all such land in Council ownership will be cherished as vital "green infrastructure" for our expanding population. Temporary car park on reservoir at top of Pewley Hill. This was made, without planning permission, to accommodate the cars of workers on the Semaphore Road Site. We have objected to the retrospective planning application. Any essential parking ought to be accommodated on the building site itself, and construction workers must be subject to the same parking limitations imposed on other town centre workers and on local residents. There is too much disturbance from sites themselves without the additional creation of off-site car parks. Proposed Town Centre Boundary. We submitted our proposal for the location of the boundary which in general follows the obvious present boundary along Sydenham Road. A second meeting was held with our Councillors and Council Officers and we were encouraged that many of our arguments appeared to have been accepted. There will be another opportunity for public consultation on this important issue. Town Centre Convenience Shopping. Council Policies are under review and a "retail needs" study is being carried out for the Council. We must take the opportunity to press for improvements to the everyday shopping provision for local residents. Apart from the useful monthly Farmers Markets food shopping seems to be getting worse. Parking and Infrastructure Draft Council Policies. We are examining these to see how they might affect our area, and will submit comments on them. Mobile phone masts. Orange eventually answered most of our questions. Their detail figures for predicted transmission energy are a fraction of the figure set as a limit level by the International Body. However it is recognised that there might remain at least a perception that the transmissions could be a health problem. HTAG will continue to vigorously oppose any application for a mast on Pewley Down. Applications for small (microcell) masts will be considered on their merits; we expect every effort to be made to optimise their siting so that the visual impact of the mast and cubicles is minimised (particularly in the conservation areas) and to keep them as far away from dwellings as possible. If you have comments on these or any other local planning matters please contact you Road Rep or the Planning Secretary, Bob Bromham on 505960. Planning Updates March 2006 from Bob Bromham, Planning Secretary General Some proposals for residential developments may be put on hold, as English Nature now want to review applications within 5km of designated 'special areas' (in our case a rare bird habitat near Worplesdon). This might give us time to catch up on outstanding matters, particularly development of the new Guildford planning policies. The Friary Development. We have objected to some aspects of the recent, and disappointing, detail planning application. We continue to press for improvements to amenity aspects, including pedestrian routes and the new bus station, and for more 'basic' shops to meet our everyday needs. At the Public Enquiry we had asked for the new pedestrian streets to be made 'highways' to give them the same legal status as the other town streets, and to make them subject to the same controls. The Inspector judged that our request was not important enough to stop the whole development. However we shall continue to pursue this. Private streets can never truly be the 'public realm' that the developer claims them to be. Proposed Town Centre Boundary. A useful meeting was held with the Officers, and was attended by some of the Road Reps. from roads that would be affected. We presented our arguments that the, apparently favoured, 'option 1' was entirely unreasonable, and that the town centre should not be expanded into the HTAG area beyond its present limits. We are hopeful that these arguments will be accepted. We are submitting our proposal of exactly where the boundary should run. A draft map mark-up has been prepared - with the boundary basically running along Sydenham Road. We would like comments on this before we submit it - particularly from Residents in the areas most affected. This is very important for the future of this area, and we must ensure that our views are properly considered. Shops in the Upper High Street. We have objected to a number of applications for change of use away from retail, with little success. Of the original seven units in the new Trinity Gate development four have now been converted to non-retail use (yet more Estate Agents). We fear that the Friary development will result in a decline in retail use, and vitality, of this area. We will argue to have planning policies strengthened to avoid this happening. Charlotteville Conservation Area Appraisal. After two years delay this has at last been issued. It is an attractive publication and will be of interest for the information that it gives about the area, as well as for its planning guidance. Cost is 3.50 from the Council Offices. The planners should now give it due weight when considering planning applications. Mobile phone masts. Our meeting with Orange was not of great help. We are still awaiting answers to some questions. We intend to write to Orange to set out the HTAG position. We shall confirm our total opposition to any large mast on Pewley Down; a larger number of smaller masts would be preferable and we would not oppose applications for these if they were carefully sited. We could give some general guidance on what might make a location tolerable, but we cannot suggest actual locations. Possible GBC Sale of Tyting Farm. Along with other organisations we have objected to the sale. The land is important as a countryside amenity close to our own area, and its value will increase as the local population increases. We believe that it, and other Council owned land close to the urban area, should be kept in public ownership to ensure that its amenity value is fully realised. As always help and comments are welcome. Contact your Road Rep or the Planning Secretary - Bob Bromham, 505960. Planning Updates December 2005 from Bob Bromham, Planning Secretary General A review of the year's activities was presented at the AGM; copies are available. 284 applications were examined. We objected to or commented on 96, of which 38 were refused or withdrawn. The numbers are slightly less than last year. So far we have not suffered the wholesale redevelopment that was feared, but we cannot be complacent. Representations were made to all documents already issued for the new planning policy system (the Local Development Framework). These are important as they will shape the future of our area. As always we need your views and suggestions. We also participated in three appeals and various meetings. Pedistrian routes in the new Friary Development The Planning Secretary attended the Public Enquiry into the two road closure orders required for the development. He presented our case that the proposed, replacement, pedestrian streets should have an element of public control and a right of public use, rather than being entirely private streets as appears to be the intention. The Inspectors judgement is awaited. Telephone Masts Five "small" (microcell) masts were proposed by Orange to replace the refused single large mast on Pewley Down, to which there had again been great opposition. We objected to the 4 in our area. The current situation is as follows: The one outside our area - withdrawn. At junction Harvey Rd./Pewley Way - refused in accordance with the Officers recommendation. At end Pewley Hill - refused at Committee following the argument of our Councillor that a better site could be found. At junction of Austen and Warren Rds (adjacent the Spike) - refused at Committee. At junction of Harvey and Warren Rds - still pending (the only one left). There is some concern that if Orange are not allowed the 5 small masts they might try again for the Pewley Down mast. We shall however continue to press for the promised co-ordination of the schemes of all 5 operators, and more convincing evidence for Orange's 5 applications. If they are unavoidable then we believe that less intrusive locations could be found. Town Centre Policies The intent regarding extension of the town centre boundary into residential parts of our area remains unclear. We will continue to oppose this, and are seeking more clarification. The second draft of the Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisal has added some of our suggestions, including extended pedestrianisation hours and a 20mph limit. Community Involvement We welcome the intent to increase public involvement in planning matters. However we have some concerns about the current proposals. They may: not be cost or time effective, still involve secret pre-application discussions, marginalise the role of our Councillors, and of organisations like ours, compromise fairness by allowing the applicant himself to carry out pre-application public consultation. High Street Shops We have objected to some applications to combine shops into larger units, and to change of use away from retail. We hope to arrange a meeting with Sainsburys to express our concerns about their service to local residents, and to learn about their future plans. 4 Addison Road The latest application for 4 dwellings was refused at Committee on the basis that some further improvements (some as suggested by HTAG), could be obtained. The Conservation Area Appraisal raised expectations that some planning gain would be obtained from this site (the only identified development site in the area) to use to alleviate some of the problems of the area. We continue to ask for this. 8 Oxford Road The latest application to convert this small Victorian semi into two flats was refused at Committee. We are asking that the CA Appraisal contains a presumption against this sort of development which would spoil the character of the area. 62 Epsom Road The latest application was refused, on the grounds of overdevelopment, poor design and lack of any parking provision. Sanford Garage, Epsom Road We had objected to the second scheme. Although improved, some problems remained, particularly the lack of any parking. However the appeal against refusal has been allowed with conditions. We shall press for a more satisfactory planning policy on parking provision in areas that have on-street parking problems. As always help and comments are welcome. Contact your Road Rep or the Planning Secretary - Bob Bromham, 505960. Updates September 2005 from Bob Bromham PLANNING Town Centre Plans We commented on the drafts of the Town Centre Action Plan, and the Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisal. We continue to press for more open space, extended pedestrianisation, reduced speed limits, restoration of a full range of shops providing for basic everyday needs (particularly food), children's playgrounds, more trees, effective care of the Conservation Area, and preservation and enhancement of public views. If we want to influence the future of our area we must try to shape these basic policy documents. If you have particular views or ideas on this (or any other planning matter) please give them to your Road Rep or the Planning Secretary - Bob Bromham on 505960. Street Corner Developments The extra flats added to the terrace end at 2, Warren Road are nearly complete, and it can now be seen how bad this development is. We made a forceful objection to the "copy-cat" development at 5, Portland Terrace and were pleased that this was refused by a large majority at the Planning Committee. We thank our Councillors for their efforts in achieving this result. It should end this unacceptable form of crammed in street corner development. HTAG will continue to oppose the addition of any more dwellings to Charlotteville and similar parts of the HTAG area that have small Victorian houses at an already high density. Telephone Masts The new application for a mast on the highest point of Pewley Down was refused, in accordance with the Planning Officers recommendation. This must surely be the last attempt to place a mast in this sensitive and prominent position. Thanks to all those who objected, particularly to Tim Harold (CPRE) and Geoff Skelt (Warren Rd.), for their considerable contribution. We also objected to the 4 smaller masts on pavements that were offered as an alternative. The reasons Orange gave why mast sharing, or better alternative sites, could not be used, were unconvincing. Sandford Garage and Street Parking We our grateful to our Councillor for bringing this latest application to Committee, even though there were less than ten objections. The scheme had been considerably improved. However it still had no parking provision; this became the main reason for our renewed objection. It was refused at Committee by a large majority, for this reason alone. The applicant has lodged an appeal; we hope that the inspector will confirm our view that the promotion of residential developments with zero parking is contrary to planning guidelines. A demand for even more street parking would clearly aggravate an already serious problem in this and similar areas. It is important that the new application to replace 62, Epsom Road with 12 flats, this time with zero parking, is also refused. Turret House, Jenner Road We had objected to the previous scheme, which was withdrawn following criticism by the Officers. The new scheme is improved, and we have not objected. The existing attractive Victorian house would be retained, but converted into flats, with an extension to give a total of 12 flats, and a small office block would be added. Westfield Developments. The detail planning application for the Friary is still awaited. We continue to press for the proposed new pedestrian streets to be made rights of way, to ensure the right of public use at all times. We objected to the proposal to relocate some of the North Street market stalls to provide bus stops for the duration of the construction of the new Friary Centre. We believe that there are less disruptive alternatives. Trinity Gate Pavement. We examined the plans for the proposed pavement improvements. The Council Conservation Dept have treated this as an important project. We made some minor comments, and are asking for an unobtrusive bus shelter to be added. Hopefully the work will soon be carried out. The cobbles in the High Street are being dug up so new gas pipes can be laid. The e-mail I have just received from the Dept of Culture, Media and Sport is therefore timely. The file has been sent to English Heritage and the deadline for its return is 17/10/05. Shortly afterwards the Secretary of State is due to make his or her decision. Updates 04 July 2005 from Bob Bromham Draft of letter to Guildford Borough Council Dear Sir, Guildford LDF, Town Centre Action Plan, Sustainability Appraisal Progress Report. Comments by Holy Trinity Amenity Group. We found both the summary and the full 119 page report difficult to assimilate, and lacking in helpful background information, particularly quantified predictions. We hope there will be a further opportunity to consider more fully the environmental impact of the recommendations. We comment as best we can as follows: 1. Boundary. We disagree with the statement that option 4 (retain present boundary) is "..the least likely to be able to deliver the sustainability benefits associated with mixed use". We consider the contrary to be the case. We similarly disagree with the statement that options 2 and 3 (expansion of the town centre area) "offer the greatest potential, particularly in delivering biodiversity benefits and mixed use development and give greater scope to avoid development on the edge of the urban areas or in the open countryside." We presume that the argument for mixed use is that it would include residential use, and that the resulting close proximity to other uses would reduce the need for car travel. However, the main contributor to meeting this objective will always be from comparatively high density residential areas within and close to the town centre . This is exactly what already exists in the residential streets close to the town centre, such as Oxford Rd., Oxford Terrace, Cheseldon Rd., Brodie Rd.etc. To redevelop these roads to provide mixed use development would be contrary to all the principles of sustainable development as follows: (a) It would create a large and unnecessary waste of materials and energy. (b) It would deny future generations the opportunity to live in attractive historic housing in a Conservation Area. (c) The introduction of commercial use will always increase vehicle movements in the area, not reduce it. (d) The introduction of commercial use creates more jobs and in itself therefore creates a need for even more housing. (e) It could not provide more dwellings than currently exist, and would not therefore reduce development pressure elsewhere. We consider the existing density of around 80dph to be the limit for this area. If commercial development were mixed into the area the dwelling density would logically have to be reduced. (f) There would be a biodiversity loss, not gain. The traditional small gardens would be lost. These provide a vital urban biodiversity resource. 2. Housing. We are unclear why the recommendation of Option 1 appears to be based on the provision of affordable housing. This seems to suggest that affordable housing would be concentrated in the town centre. We believe there is no benefit in doing this, and that it should be spread across the Borough, including the town centre, in accordance with government guidelines that require residential developments to have a mix of housing types. We do not agree with the assertion that Option 5 (Provide housing as part of mixed use schemes in the Town Centre) would assist reduction of traffic congestion. Addition of more retail and commercial premises will simply increase traffic - and the demand for more housing. 3. Town Centre Facilities. We do not agree that "mixed use" redevelopment would in itself assist Town Centre safety. We presume the consideration is to have more public activity in the evenings. This has to be achieved by additional town centre housing and a better balance of evening leisure activities - not by introducing more offices and shops. The over dominance of the club culture for young people needs to be corrected. There may be a case for a wider distribution of restaurants and bars - to include the High Street - to make the whole of the centre more used in the evening, and to cater for all age ranges. 4. Environment. We disagree with the conclusion that sub-option 4 alone would achieve the "greater protection of the environment" of the recommended option 1. This has a part to play, but so do all the other sub-options (3 to 8). Developments must be controlled as well as co-ordinated. We strongly support the use of CHP, but this is most likely to be obtained through clear planning requirements for substantial areas, rather than attempted co-ordination of planning applications after they have been made. We believe that further developments additional to the large number already committed to must be limited and carefully planned through the policies of the Action Plan and additional detail policies such as Development Briefs. It is not sufficient to merely "Ensure co-ordination of developments". We contest what appears to be an underlying assumption that "efficient use of land" means cramming buildings onto it, and that green space will only be obtained as part of new developments. "Efficient use of land" surely means any use that brings a worthwhile public benefit. In terms of quality of the environment, and its sustainability, open space and green space may often make a greater contribution than built on land; this argument is supported by government guidelines. 5. Offices. We agree that Option 3 is the preferred "sustainable" option. However we again question the implied assumption that affordable housing should be mainly located in the town centre. 6. Movement. No comment. 7. Shopping. We disagree with the assumption that option 7 - "Encourage more independent small shops" - can only be achieved through new and additional retail space, and that this would represent "efficient use of land" and would "strengthen the local economy". We believe that the objective of encouraging more small shops, which we support, should be achieved within the existing and already approved retail area. 8. Tourism. We do not understand the conclusion given in relation to sub-option 3. We consider that this option would be contrary to environmental / sustainability requirements. Yours sincerely, (on behalf of HTAG). HTAG. Planning.243 Updates 01 June 2005 from Bob Bromham Long Term Planning If we really want to influence the future of our area we all need to make an input to the new long term plans. We have already submitted comments on the South-East Plan, and the "Core Strategy" of the LDF (Local Development Framework - the new plan for Guildford), pursuing those issues that we listed in the last newsletter. A particular issue is the extent to which Guildford is allowed, or encouraged, to expand. We believe that most members accept a natural growth in line with the national average but do not want a disproportionate expansion to give Guildford a more dominating role in the SE. This would spoil the character and quality of the town. Currently we are considering the Town Centre Action plan. This is important to us as it will include some of the HTAG area, and the town centre provides most of our amenities - including our "local" shopping. Semaphore Road Reservoir. HTAG participated in the Public Enquiry on this application. We were extremely disappointed that the Inspector has allowed the Appeal, as we believed that there was a strong case for refusal. Unfortunately GBC did not contest the size of the development (only its design), and this was formally agreed as "common ground" with the developer. This compromised our own arguments relating to overdevelopment. The Inspector can only consider the evidence and arguments presented to him at the Enquiry. We therefore do not consider the result to be a clear judgement on whether or not such high density developments are appropriate for our area. We will continue to present our arguments against developments at more than 50 dwelling per hectare irrespective of this decision, and try to get more positive guidance on housing density in the new planning guidelines. Developments in Conservation Areas. We remain concerned at the attempts to cram more housing into areas that already have a housing density above government targets, and which are suffering problems because of this. Two alternative proposals have now been approved for extending the terrace at 2, Warren Road, one as a single dwelling, and one as maisonette and flat. A third proposal for arranging the extension plus the existing end house as six flats was refused. A similar application made for the nearby 5, Portland Terrace (Harvey Road) was refused. However the GBC Officer specifically stated that the density of 128 dwellings per hectare, in an area already at 80dph, was itself acceptable. This is grossly beyond government policy, which is to raise the density of new developments from 20-25 to 30-50dph. Now another similar application has been made. We need at least 10 objections - if you feel able to make an objection the number is 05/P/00916. We will continue to oppose such applications and will lobby to have a presumption against any further development, in our high density Conservation Areas, incorporated in the new planning guidelines. Instead we would like to see a positive policy to obtain additional open space and parking provision. Mount Alvernia Hospital. We understand that it has been sold. We intend to contact the new owners to reiterate our opposition to any significant further extension. A meeting with local residents will be arranged at which we shall be able to question the Administrator about the future of the Hospital. It is expected that this will take place in the next few weeks. Guildford Hotel (ex White Horse). An application has been made to replace the modern part of the hotel. We welcome plans to rejuvenate the Hotel, which could become a more useful local amenity. However we did consider the replacement building to be too high and encroaching too much over the street. We have been invited to discuss our comments with the Hotel management. Westfield Friary Development. Local Residents Associations have been invited separately to meet with the developers to discuss the detail planning application which is expected soon. The issues we have been concerned about included pedestrian facilities, open space, green areas, taking the shopping focus away from the High Street and provision of everyday shopping facilities. If you have any views, or particular interests, in any planning issue or application please let your road rep know, or contact the Planning Sec - Bob Bromham on 505960. Plans and other information on applications are now available on the GBC web site, and there is a direct link on the Planning pages of the website. Anyone who would like to join our Planning Group would be most welcome. Updates 23 February 2005 from Bob Bromham Long Term Planning Two planning documents are in preparation by our Borough Council that will be particularly important for our area - the Local Development Framework (which will replace the Borough Plan) and the Town Centre Action Plan. HTAG will make representations to these in the hope that they will reflect the improvements that members want to see. Many have already been discussed. They include: 1 limit the density of new developments to the government target range of 30-50 dwellings per hectare (except for special cases very close to the town centre). 2 retain both large and small houses that contribute to the character of an area. 3 provide more open space in the area to cater for the needs of an expanding population, including childrens' playgrounds. 4 avoid the insertion of any extra dwellings in the already high density areas of small Victorian houses that are in the Conservation Areas. 5 ensure that the special provisions for our Conservation Areas are properly observed. 6 encourage more tree planting. 7 improve pedestrian facilities. 8 improve basic shopping facilities in the town centre to serve the local community. 9 preserve and enhance the public views. 10 obtain additional town centre pedestrian areas. If you disagree with any of these objectives, or if you feel there are others that HTAG should be working for, please contact your road rep., or the Secretary of the Planning Group - Bob Bromham on 505960. 62, Epsom Road Replacement of house by 8 flats. HTAG participated in the appeal against refusal of the application. The appeal was dismissed. This was an important decision that will help us in opposing similar schemes that are too big and cramped. Bright Hill HTAG representatives spoke at a meeting of the Council Executive Committee to press our arguments that the proposed number of houses would have to be further reduced from the 50 now proposed if there was to be any hope of keeping the public view and providing worthwhile public open space. However no further concessions have been made. No work will start until the Civic car park is operating again, but design work may start this year. We shall continue to work for a better quality scheme for this special site. Sanford Garage Following refusal of the first scheme a slightly scaled down version has now been submitted. We consider that it is still too large. Turret House As a result of HTAG and residents' criticism of the design the application was withdrawn. It is hoped that the house itself will continue to be retained in any future scheme. Semaphore Road Reservoir The public enquiry into the refusal of this application by the Council will be at Millmead, on the 22nd and 23rd March. Come along and join in - or just to support the objectors. Decking in Tunsgate The application to install a decking structure across the road for Restaurant outdoor seating was refused. HTAG supports the "pavement caf culture", but felt that this particular proposal would create serious problems. 2 Warren Road Two new applications have been made additional to the one that has been approved. 5 Portland Terrace A very similar application has now been made. We consider that these attempts to squeeze an extra building onto precious street corner open space is wrong in principle. If you agree please object and lobby your Councillors. End of Update for 23 February 2005 The frenetic pace of new development in our area continues. In the last 3 months there were about 50 applications in our area. We try to ensure that planning rules are applied fairly, and that the views of Residents are heard. We are grateful to our Councillors for the support they have provided. As always we need help from members in assessing proposals and feeding in ideas - Contact your road rep. or the planning secretary (Bob Bromham, tel.505960). Holy Trinity School Flats We are disappointed that the School has appealed against the unanimous refusal of the application by the Council. HTAG will support the Council in defending their decision. If allowed this development would create a precedent for the whole of our area for demolition of even small houses for replacement by super high density flats, and for locating such developments right against the green belt boundary. We consider that this would be contrary to the Borough Plan. Sanford Garage and The Turrets (Epsom Road) While we are sympathetic to the need for some redevelopment of these sites we consider that both schemes were too big, and we have objected to them. Land at rear of 34, Fort Road The applicant has been told that the site must accommodate at least 5 dwellings, and has withdrawn his proposal for a single house. This is a very sensitive site, adjacent to the Downs. We feel that it would be right to invoke the Borough Plan exception that allows lower density developments on special sites like this. 2, Warren Road We were disappointed that the application to add an extra house to the end of the 1960s terrace was approved. This would bring the building right up to Harvey Road, ignoring the building line for the road. It could set a precedent for squeezing extra buildings onto any area around houses that has been deliberately left to give some open space - even where there are already problems due to high density. A new application has now been made to change the proposed new building and the adjacent house into 6 flats. 62, Epsom Road The appeal against refusal of the "super high" density proposal will be on the 7th Dec. at 10am at Millmead. This will be an informal hearing. Many of the issues that we are concerned about will be raised. Come along and join in to support the refusal decision. Caf Decking in Tunsgate The application by Olivetto, which we objected to, was refused by the Council. It has been suggested that part of Tunsgate might be pedestrianised. What do you think? The Spike An application has been made for conversion to provide community facilities. HTAG supports this scheme. 8, Oxford Road A proposal for conversion of this small Victorian semi into two flats is pending. We consider that this would inevitably change the character of the building, and create a precedent for similar conversions of the many small Victorian houses in our area. We intend object to it. Bright Hill A Development Brief is being produced for the site. We are continuing to press for a lower density development to allow for some open space and an attractive viewpoint. This is a unique opportunity to enhance this area adjacent to the town centre. It deserves a special development that could be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. The Foresters Pub The Foresters Pub in Cline Road has applied for an Entertainment Licence. On behalf of local residents Gina has requested that the licence should be granted for only 4 evenings a month, the entertainment to finish at 11.00 pm. Consultations HTAG representatives have participated in various consultations, particularly in relation to local highways matters. General This is a period of great change for our area. We need more help to cope with the planning load. If you can help, please let us know. If you have particular views or concerns please raise them through your Road Rep. If they relate to specific applications contact the Planning Secretary. High Density Developments High Density Developments: There continue to be many proposals in and around our area. The Planning Group is working to try to keep density levels below 50 dwellings per hectare (dph), so that the quality of the area will not be unduly spoilt. The Council have produced additional planning guidance (an SPG) for new housing development. HTAG, together with the other residents associations, provided input for this, much of which was incorporated. However it includes a guide that "super high" density developments could be considered within 800m "easy walking" distance of the Guildhall. Much of our area would fall within this distance, but we shall be arguing that the hills prevent this being "easy" walking. The Planning Secretary spoke at a Council Meeting to outline our particular concerns. We were relieved that the application to build flats on the site of Holy Trinity School Caretaker's bungalow, at a density of 140 dwellings per hectare, was refused. This would have been contrary to planning guidelines. It would have created a precedent, not only for similar super high density developments anywhere in our area, but also for locating such developments right against the Green Belt and AONB. Appeals have been lodged against the refusals of the applications for flats on Semaphore Road reservoir (70dph) and 62, Epsom Road (96dph). These will be a test of interpretation of planning guidelines. The Inspectors' decisions will be important for the future of our area. HTAG will participate in the hearings. Usually anyone with an interest can take part, and it would help if as many residents as possible came along. (Dates not yet known). The second application on 4, Addison Road (60dph) was refused, and we are grateful to our Councillors for their efforts in achieving this result. However an appeal has been made, which will be handled by written representations. Please write if you can. Bright Hill HTAG feel that any development proposal for this important site must be of a high quality. We are arguing that the proposed density of 170dph is too high to allow this, and that the original Borough Plan proposal for 33 dwellings (70dph) should be adhered to. Some reduction might now be made, but not as much as we would wish. The expected funding for the affordable homes component is not forthcoming, and the timescale has moved back. HTAG's request for a Development Brief to be prepared has been accepted, and this will allow more careful consideration to be made, with public input. Holy Trinity School Second Hall Holy Trinity School Second Hall: HTAG did not object to this application. It has been approved. Guildford Local Committee We have followed up the various "highways" concerns that we have. Action on most of these appears to be constrained by lack of funds. We intend to keep trying. The next meeting in Guildford is 9 September, 2.00 pm at Millmead. For the first half hour questions can be raised from the floor - anything to do with County Council Services and particularly highways. Come along and join in the democratic process, but don't expect immediate results. Pewley West Reservoir An appeal has been lodged against the refusal of planning permission for 14 flats on Pewley West Reservoir. If you wish to give your views to the Inspector send 3 copies to: The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/26 Hawk Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, BRISTOL, BS1 6PN, quoting reference APP/Y3615/A/04/115461. Submissions should arrive no later than Thursday, 19 August. High Density Developments The threat of replacement of existing houses by large blocks of flats continues. It is hoped that the Council will apply more sensible planning control. We consider that the extra dwellings needed in Guildford can be obtained without recourse to the degree of "cramming" currently being pursued. The application for 14 flats on Semaphore reservoir has been refused but an appeal is likely. The application for 8 flats at 62 Epsom Road, was refused but the applicant has appealed, and we expect to participate in the hearing to help to defend the decision. Minor changes are still being made to the application for 6 houses at 4 Addison Road, which we have opposed. Holy Trinity School have made a new application for 7 dwellings on the site of the caretaker's bungalow. HTAG are objecting on the grounds that this is a "super high" density development which we do not consider acceptable anywhere in our area. 24, Epsom Road Casino HTAG participated in the Appeal hearing. We were pleased that the Casino application was refused; this would have created a serious precedent for the area. The restaurant application was allowed. Bright Hill proposals Studies have been made for 3 options with various car parking provisions, but all providing 70 to 80 dwellings. This is a large increase over the 33 proposed in the Borough Plan, and would make the density very high, about 165 dwellings per ha. The view from the Hill would be almost completely lost, and the pedestrian route to the town would be spoilt. We ask that the number of dwellings be kept to 33 or less. Guildford Local Committee The written answers to our questions about local highways matters were disappointing. However, we are very grateful to the Chairman of the Committee, Bill Barker, and our County Councillor, Tom Sharp, who joined us for a walk about. This allowed us to point out the problems that concerned us. Some follow up is now planned. Let us know any particular concerns that you have (e.g. speed limits, parking). The High Street We continue to comment on the many applications. Usually the objective is to ensure that the rules for preserving the historic character are adhered to. Bright Hill Car Park Proposals for the development of the Bright Hill car park have been published. All 3 options entail a housing density of 70 dwellings per hectare or more. This will have a major impact on our area and HTAG will comment. But please acquaint yourselves with the plans; Stephen Wright has a copy, as does the Library and the Council offices. If you prefer visit the Guildford Borough Council website. Holy Trinity Junior School Holy Trinity Junior School has submitted a planning application (04/P/01048) for the building of six flats and a maisonette where the school keeper's bungalow presently stands. The proceeds from the sale of the flats will be used to pay for a new school hall; the one entails the other. The school has a model which can be viewed by prior arrangement. Casino at 24 Epsom Road Ian Dale and Bob Bromham spoke very well at the Appeal against the refusal of permission to build a Casino at 24 Epsom Road. The decision is expected sometime in April. Pewley West Reservoir A new plan to build flats on Pewley West Reservoir has been lodged with GBC (04/P/00382). The pavement has been widened on the south side and the proposed building is now split in two, but the density is still 70 dwellings per hectare. Objections are due by 19 March. David Stokes has a detailed description of the proposals by Thames Water. Those involved in the previous meetings arranged by the road rep Mary Bowers, will be contacted so HTAG can make a good case. The photocopying along cost HTAG about £20 which is one of the reasons why we shall consider raising the HTAG subscription at the Road Reps meeting on 16 March. High Density Developments The threat to our area from new "super high" density developments remains. We were encouraged by the refusal of the appeal on the 4, Addison Road development (7 dwellings), which acknowledged some of our arguments against these developments. We consider the new and pending proposal for 6 dwellings to be still too many. The original application for 62, Epsom Road was withdrawn. It is disappointing that a barely changed new application, still for 8 flats, has been made. It is vital that this is rejected, as it would set a precedent for the demolition of many modest sized houses on small plots, for replacement by high density crammed in flats. The application for 14 flats on the West Semaphore reservoir has been withdrawn, but a new application is likely. A new application is also expected for the Holy Trinity School site (7 dwellings). It appears that areas deemed to be "close" to the town centre are being specifically targeted to take a large proportion of the extra dwellings that are being imposed on Guildford. We are convinced that our share can be achieved by developments that are within the Government guidelines of 30-50 dwellings per ha, without recourse to the densities of 70 to 125 now being applied, and without spoiling the quality of our residential area. Other Residents Associations are also now fighting this policy. Please support our campaign against these "super high" density developments by adding your objections, and lobbying our Councillors for a proper and fair application of planning policies. The Friary Development We consider that the new proposal, although much improved, is still too large, and will take the town centre focus away from the High Street. Kings Head Marquee With the help of our Councillors the application for the Marquee in the pub yard was refused. We considered that if approved this would have set a precedent allowing commercial temporary structures to be erected anywhere for a large part of the year. There is of course no objection in principle to the erection of marquees for special events and short periods. Sadly the marquee is still in place. Ex. Farnham Road Bus Station The proposal is for the prominent area which is now a car park adjacent to the river. We are asking that the proposed building be moved further away from the river, to increase the spaciousness of this important open space bordering the river. Appeal against refusal of the Casino development for 24, Epsom Road This will be at 10.00 am on the 3 and 4 March at Millmead. The participation of the public in these appeals does help. Come if you can. Bright Hill Development We are concerned that an increase in number of dwellings is being considered above the 33 set in the Borough Plan, and that there are no plans to produce a planning brief for this important site. Guildford Local Committee Meeting. 2.00 pm, 11 March, Millmead We are intending to raise local issues at this meeting. Questions are allowed from the floor. Come along and take this opportunity to highlight our concerns with Officers and Councillors. Questions on any matters to do with SCC responsibilities are invited, but Highways is the main matter dealt with by this Committee. High Density Development We believe our area is under serious threat from a proliferation of "super high density" developments. Currently 5 such developments are under consideration with densities (dwellings per one hectare area) varying from 70 to 125. The government target for new developments is 30 to 50. This itself is higher than the present density over much of our area. Exemption is allowed for lower densities in special circumstances. These would apply for many for sites in the HTAG area. The schemes are typically flats in a high, intrusive, building, crammed onto its site with little surrounding open and green space, and inadequate provision for car parking. It is felt that this type of development can only be tolerated as a special case, and must not be regarded as the norm, as appears to be happening. It is accepted that some increase in density is required in the current situation if more developments on the green belt are to be avoided. However, it is clear that this can be done without resort to "super high" densities. The present situation appears to have resulted from a misinterpretation of the planning guidelines, and is obviously being driven by developers because of the high return that can be obtained. If you have views on this please let us know (tel. 505960). If you feel strongly please submit your own objections to the current schemes. 62 Epsom Road We have objected to this "super high" density development, which would be 8 flats on a small but prominent corner site, following demolition of the existing house. West Semaphore Reservoir Another "super high" density proposal to which we have objected. It is for 14 flats on the redundant reservoir adjacent to Semaphore Road, Semaphore House, and Pewley Down School. This proposal was unexpected, as most of us were unaware that the proposed designation of the whole reservoir area as protected open space had been dropped. Holy Trinity School The proposal to build seven dwellings on the site of the caretaker's bungalow, at a density of 125/ha has been withdrawn. It is understood that a revised application may be made. High Street Builders Enclosures and Temporary Signs A meeting was held, which included the Planning Director and the Local Transportation Manager, to discuss how these could be better controlled. No action has yet resulted, but we shall pursue this. We are particularly concerned at the recent rash of prominent and unsightly "To Let" signs. General We commented on the Council's draft guidelines for masts, and the Parking Strategy. This is a busy time for the Planning Group, and extra help would be most welcome. The developers have large resources to present their case, and we can only influence planning decisions if we are equally well informed on the issues. Please let us know if you are able to help. (tel. 505960). Planning Updates For a quick update of planning matters discusssed at the last HTAG Road Reps Meeting click here and go to December 2003, Planning section. 36 Pewley Way New Planning Application 03/P/02569 for part demolition and extensions to 36 Pewley Way. Demolition of existing garage and building of two storey extension in its place, plus single storey extension on the other side, plus dormer windows/bay windows/porch. The two storey extension may make the 2 houses look overcrowded - they will be only a few feet apart at the front and may look out of sync with the spacing of the housing on the rest of that side of Pewley Way. Sydney Road The request for planning for a conservatory extension to a house in a lovely Victorian Terrace in Sydney road has been withdrawn. Charlotteville and Warren Road Conservation Area Appraisal Bob now has a copy of the Charlotteville Appraisal. It makes interesting reading and anyone wanting to borrow it was welcome, and any comments appreciated. St James' Group (acting for Thames Water) Bob has been approached by this group who wish to develop the smaller of the two reservoirs, ie the piece of land between Semaphore House and Pewley Down School, for housing. Bob understands that this was designated an Open Space by the Council and that the land could perhaps be used for a Children's Playground? He has asked the company for further details. Occupation of Areas of the High Street by Contractors Bob has a meeting with Derek Lake, Guildford Local Transportation Manager, Surrey County Council, regarding the enclosures in the High Street. Any suggestions to improve and control and present totally unsatisfactory situation would be welcome. Perhaps this could be on the Agenda for the next Guildford Local Committee. 24 Epsom Road Appeals have been lodged against refusal of both the Casino scheme and the latest application, which was very similar but without the Casino. HTAG will participate in both hearings to pursue our opposition to the proposals. 4 Addison Road (funeral parlour site) An appeal has been made against refusal of the 7-house proposal. HTAG will pursue its opposition to this scheme. A somewhat improved scheme has now been submitted, with only 6 houses, and parking spaces in place of garages. This is currently being reviewed by the group. A reduction to 5 houses, and provision of small gardens, would be desirable. This would still give an equivalent housing density of 50 per hectare, which is the top of the current government target. Pewley Down Mobile Phone Mast The appeal by Orange against refusal of the "Dead Tree" mast has been withdrawn. We presume this was at least partly because of the large number of letters of objection that were written. Our thanks go to those who worked so hard to raise public awareness of the proposal. Draft Council guidelines on telecom masts has been issued for consultation. We will see how these would effect any future proposal for Pewley Down. Any comments would be welcome. We must remain vigilant. Temporary Signs in the High Street There has recently been a proliferation of these - mainly "To Let" signs. Permanent signs are quite strictly regulated, but response to our enquiries so far has been that there is little that can be done to control "temporary" signs. We shall pursue this issue. The Friary Development We limit our input to those issues that are to do with amenities - such as shopping and pedestrian facilities. We generally welcomed the new Planning Brief for the site, but objected to extending the 5-year planning permission for "Dominic Square" by a further 2 years. However the Council considered that approval had to be given. Draft revised SPG "Residential Extensions" We submitted some comments asking for clarification and more specific guidance. We have seen some inconsistent decisions made on extension applications. Draft SPG "Planning Obligations and Infrastructure" This is to do with the need for a developer to make some form of contribution to offset the demands that his development will make. It is particularly relevant to developments like St. Luke's. We expressed concern at the lack of any opportunity for public involvement. Draft SPG "Residential Design" This document should be issued in October. It is expected to give guidelines for the conditions that would allow exemption of developments of less than 0.4 hectares from the government targets of 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare. In our area we have the contrast between housing at about 10 per hectare, and Charlotteville which is typically 45. Your views are sought. Pewley Hill - Pewley Bank - Pewley Way footpaths An application is being made by Sarah Creedy to have these paths added to the definitive map as rights of way. This would safeguard their future and ensure some maintenance, bringing them into line with most of the other footpaths in our area. Evidence of 20 years uninterupted use is needed. If you can help please get an evidence form from Sarah or Bob Bromham. Holy Trinity Churchyard At the GBC Planning Committee meeting on 16 September, the application to build parish rooms in Holy Trinity churchyard was rejected. There were only 7 votes in favour. Menu Front Page About Us News Archive Road Reps Newsletters Planning Minutes Clubs Societies Business Features Photo Gallery Adverts Links Contact Us