Former Wisley Airfield – change to plans – sample letter

EFFRA LOGO

Only three weeks to comment on amended plans leaves residents bewildered

wisley_airfield_town_plans

A split in the former Wisley airfield planning application means we all have to write in again. In the following link Planners at Guildford Borough announced the amendment and provided just 21 days to respond to a complicated and long winded amendment on aspects of the Wisley application. Please write in with your comments…

One resident’s letter is reproduced below from StreetLife

Ben Paton

Sample letter of objection provides a useful view from George B Paton (pictured)

Ben writes:

I have today received an email inviting me to comment on the new documents submitted by the applicant.

1. Inadequate to consider the new information

The GBC planning website shows that some 57 new documents have been added. The applicant took pre application advice before this application was submitted – over a period of at least 18mths. It was then granted a further 12 months to amend its application.

By contrast members of the public are now invited to comment within 21 days!.

The contrast is stark and demonstrates the planning authority’s clear bias in favour of the applicant. It would appear that there are no Chinese walls in the GBC planning dept such that those giving pre-application advice are the same people opining on the application. In other words they are both the judge and the jury and suffer a profound conflict of interest.

2. Reservation of matters fundamental to the proposal is anomalous, contrary to logic and natural justice and is not acceptable.

The application is for permission to change the road network around the application site. The other matters are reserved. This is to stand the decision making priorities on their head! The other reserved matters are of a wholly different order of magnitude – involving the creation of a whole new town within the parish of Ockham.

It is apparent that the desire to see prior approval of the road network changes is a clear attempt to divide the decision in to different parts such that the overall impact is not analysed in an integrated manner. In other words the division of the process into two parts, the first being the relatively smaller issue of road access and the second being the major matter of whether a new town is sustainable in this location and whether a single meaningful exceptional circumstance has been presented is a blatant attempt to settle the road access first to try to predetermine the second decision as to whether there should be a new town at all.

The logically prior question is whether there should be a new town at all. To decide on a road network first is to put the cart before the horse – and the horse in this case is a mere conjectural horse not a real one.

3. Claimed access to the A3 is misleading.

It is misleading and a misrepresentation for the applicant to state that it has permissioned accessed to the A3. That access was for a project which the applicant now states will not be built. So it is wholly irrelevant in any case. But if, for the sake of argument, we must consider it, it should be noted that that permission was granted explicitly subject to a list of conditions which restricted the traffic movements to a small number of lorries in off peak periods. To seek to extrapolate from the very precise circumstances of that permission – which argued that exceptional circumstances existed for a waste plant for SCC purposes and that the size of the plant was sufficiently small that it would not have large negative impact- to imply that a whole new town could access the A3 without negative effects on the traffic throughout the region and on the protected wildlife in the SPA is just absurd.

4. Application breaches NPPF and 2003 Local Plan

The application is plainly contrary to the NPPF and to multiple elements of the 2003 Local Plan. GBC has fallen over itself to assist the developer. It is anomalous and bizarre that this application has taken 15 months to determine when it transgresses so many rules. One can only wonder what incentives or inducements have motivated GBC to do this.

Ends

See also the Guildford Dragon article

Protesters And Developers Again Make Their Cases Over Wisley Airfield Development Plans

Protesters fighting plans to build on the the former Wisley airfield site have accused the owners of making misleading statements and claims.

The Wisley Action Group (WAG) has said that the site, known as Three Farms Meadow, has been described by Wisley Property Investments (WPI) as lowest Grade 4 land, while WAG counters that the majority of it is Grade 3 prime agricultural land and was advertised as that by estate agents Knight Frank in 2014.

Helen Jefferies of WAG said: “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.”

To read more click on the link above

1 thought on “Former Wisley Airfield – change to plans – sample letter”

  1. It’s imperative everyone who wants to object, does respond to these latest amendments. Judging by the GBC planning portal, it looks like email replies to the notification mail GBC sent out are being added as formal responses on the portal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *