Three Farms Meadows filming appeal thrown out

WAG is pleased that the Inspector has thrown out the appeal on the temporary use of the site for filming.  The Inspector concludes:

“On balance, I consider that the identified benefits of the proposal individually or in combination do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and the other identified harm. Consequently, very special circumstances do not exist and the proposal runs contrary to Section 9 of the Framework.”

see the full decision here 3133032 – Appeal Decision (3)

Misleading information from Wisley ‘new town’ company

Local campaigners accuse Cayman Island developers of ignoring fundamental facts

The following media statement was issued by the Wisley Action Group on Jan 4, 2016

Local campaigners have accused the owners of the former Wisley airfield of making misleading statements and claims connected with their proposals to build a ‘new town’ on the green belt at Ockham.

‘Three Farms Meadows’ has been described by Wisley Property Investments [WPI] as lowest Grade 4 land when, in reality, the majority is Grade 3 prime agricultural land – as advertised by Knight Frank in 2014. And it has not “been removed from the Green Belt within the emerging GBC Local Plan” as WPI has repeatedly claimed.

“WPI has specifically stated that the land has been taken out of the Green Belt as part of the Guildford Greenbelt Review and this is simply not so,” says Helen Jefferies of WAG, the Wisley Action Group.

And WAG maintains that this fundamentally misleading statement is only one of many regularly presented by this Cayman Island-based company – including claims to already have direct access onto the A3 at Ockham Interchange; an existing daily bus service; areas of land which it does not own and which are unavailable to them; and a statement that it is the only assembled site available for development now as part of the 5 year housing supply.”

All of this, and more, is untrue and ignores fundamental facts, according to WAG.

“It is well documented that the approval for the access route was only for a waste composting facility with limited truck movements,” says Mrs Jefferies. “As this development will not now take place, the approval for the spur road will lapse and a new application must be approved.

“The claim of a daily bus service is false as there exists no service other than a school bus. Equally WPI’s application is based on an assumption of utilising land which they don’t own and which has been expressly excluded by local land owners. And the notion that this land would be available to contribute to the 5 year housing supply is contradicted by the fact that the site is subject to up to 3 years work by Thames Water – subject to funding – and Natural England agreeing a SANGS area of 10 ha per 1,000 population.“

Pollution levels in the area have also been misrepresented, according to WAG. Referring to nitrogen oxides [NOx] levels at Wisley, WPI representatives have stated that; “new residents will not be negatively affected due to predicted concentrations of these pollutants being below the relevant air quality objectives as set out in the UK Air Quality Strategy, which WAG says is untrue.

“Current data available suggests that NO2 levels should not exceed 40. The NO2 level at Wisley has been recorded as 44 in both 2011 and 2012 and nearly 45 in 2013. And levels are rising.”

WAG also points to WPI’s web site which claims the site has 70 acres of hard standing or the equivalent of 70 football pitches.

“This is a typically flagrant exaggeration of reality since 70 acres represents just 35 football pitches – exactly half,” says Mrs Jefferies. “But WPI seems unconcerned about allowing the facts to interfere with their ambitions.”

And WPI claims to have undertaken a comprehensive consultation programme, which included engagement with stakeholders, is blatantly untrue, says WAG.

“One of the key heritage properties, adjacent to the site has objected and stated that they have never been consulted at any time. And neither WAG nor Ockham Parish Council or the Ockham & Hatchford Residents Association has any record of an invitation to discuss the project.”

ends.

Response to letters / emails from Guildford council

Many of you will have received an email from Guildford Borough Council yesterday/today advising of some amended information for the planning application for a new town.  GBC must consult with EVERYONE who has already written on this application. (your email should have this attachment )
 WAG has a committee meeting next week and we plan to issue guidance either in the form of a template or a letter for your response.
I understand that we have been given three weeks to respond. If you can wait before writing again it is probably advisable to use our guidance as we are expecting some further anomalies in the new paperwork. It is likely that it will take us 10 days to formulate a plan of action.
We shall be in touch again shortly thanks for your continuing support

WAG Update – 16 Nov

Ockham Parish Council have now had verbal confirmation that the application will now NOT be heard this year.  It seems that the applicant is submitting additional “evidence” to support his case.  It appears that it may be some months into the new year before we have any action.
WAG remains vigilant and continues to work on the community’s behalf – when I can provide additional information I will let you know.
If you get the opportunity to lobby your elected politicians on this, please do so.  It is clear to most of us that the infrastructure cannot cope with today’s inhabitants, never mind the many thousands of additional residents that our borough council is planning.  Please remember to take photographs of creaking infrastructure (be it flooded roads or pavements, fields etc).
There continues to be lively debate on www.guildford-dragon.com and GBC continue to feature in Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs column.

Highway Authority recommends refusing proposal for the new town..

The Surrey Councy Council Highways Authority has submitted its initial response to the proposal to build 2,100 homes in the middle of the green belt. I’ll quote the introduction.

The proposed development has been considered by Surrey County Council (SCC) as County Highway Authority and it is recommended that the proposal is REFUSED on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that the development is in a location which is or can be made sustainable from a transportation point of view, or that the residual traffic generated by the development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the surrounding network.

And here’s the coverage from this week’s Surrey Advertiser

Screen Shot 2015-05-17 at 22.11.37

It’s worth a skim of the full report. It’s clear that the traffic assessment carried out by Wisley Property Investments is riddled with dodgy assumptions, such as the idea that a high proportion of those living there will work on site, and/or home work…(rejected by SCC).

Surrey Wildlife Trust objects to the proposal to build 2,100 homes on the Greenbelt

From last week’s Surrey Advertiser, the Surrey Wildlife Trust gives its view on the proposed development

 

“The trust believes that the proposed development will have an unacceptable impact on the biodiversity on this highly sensitive area, which cannot be mitigated for despite the strategy outlined in the applicant’s environmental statement,” wrote Mike Waite, living landscapes manager.

“This comes down largely to the proposed scale of the development at 2,100 houses, including its location and internal layout.”

Mr Waite highlighted that to the immediate north of the application site is Ockham Common and Chatley Heath, the majority of which is statutorily protected land within the Ockham and Wisley Commons Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), part of a designated protection area for three heathland breeding birds.

Mr Waite continued: “Much of the land south of the SSSI, including a large area within the application site, has been selected and adopted by yourselves, Guildford Borough Council, as non-statutory Sites of Nature Conservation Importance for protection through planning policy.”