We have until March 31 to respond to application 15/P/00012 – with its plan to build a 2,100 home new town. You will need to write your own letter/ email (see details at the end of this post), but some of the points you might want to make are..
– This is a major and unjustified encroachment on the Green belt, and a dangerous precedent. Impact on the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt and the negative impact on views to and from the Surrey Hills AONB
– The urbanisation of a rural area (2100 new dwellings, over 5,100 new residents, plus employees and visitors with a negative impact on light pollution, air pollution, traffic, infrastructure, SERVICES, roads etc
– New resident population (and number of dwellings) will be at least 14 x that of Ockham, 3.5 times that of Ripley and 2.5 times that of Send.
– New buildings will be up to five storeys high.
– Impact on the environmentally sensitive Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area, Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Site of Nature Conservation Interest resulting in loss of habitat for a number of protected and endangered species
– There has been no demonstration of very special circumstances to change green belt boundaries
– Housing need in the borough is not yet determined
– Outline planning permission provides a number of loopholes for the applicant to renege on promises which cannot be guaranteed by Section 106 agreements.
– Reliance on the motor car and non-existent public transport where there are clear alternatives in locations where access to the train or existing public transport network are feasible
– There are only two (not 9) railway stations (Horsley and Effingham Junction) within five road miles of the site and these are only reachable via narrow, unlit counry lanes and have car parking already at near capacity.
– Impact on the water table resulting in flooding of neighbouring historic properties
– No realistic account taken of general organic growth and other proposed major developments and impact on traffic and infrastructure
– Inevitable major increase in traffic to and from the site along unsuitable narrow unlit country lantes (which are, and will remain, overly dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists)
– The size and timing of construction of a proposed primary school on site, are issues not only for resident population, but existing demand in the area. There is no secondary school allocation at nearby secondary schools – no room to build on site
– Density of development misrepresented and far in excess of surrounding neighbourhoods and villages
– There is unsustainable pressures on services in neighbouring villates (doctors, dentists, schools, shops, parking) which will not be met by proposed facilities on the site.
– Includes the area safeguarded for waste under the Surrey Waste Plan 2009 which SCC refused to concede in their response to the Draft Local Plan in September
– The inclusion of onsite SANGS (Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space) in mitigation is ridiculous as it will only increase visitor numbers to the SPA rather than draw them away
– Not enough SANG allocated per Natural England response to draft local plan
– Not enough land to provide a sustainable community based on GBC’s own parameters
– Does not concur with the existing Local Plan 2003 where this site is not listed for development
Please email firstname.lastname@example.org giving your name and address – residents from outside the borough are able to register their views so letters from the wider area which will be impacted by the traffic increase, hospital capacity shortage, school places etc would be welcomed. Please copy email@example.com on your response