Wisley Action Group
The following list is also available here on the Streetlife forum and also on the Wisley Action Group homepage here .
Anyone who want to object to the Wisley development should read this and respond to GBC.
The reference for this Application on the Guildford Borough Council Planning portal is 15/P/00012
If you wish to object now here is an INITIAL list of the very obvious issues:-
Major and unjustified encroachment of the Greenbelt 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 5100 new residents plus staffing for new facilities 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 times that of Ockham currently around AROUND 2 ½ TIMES THAT OF SEND, AND 3 ½ TIMES THAT OF RIPLEY.
· NEW BUILDINGS WILL BE UP TO 5 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
· INACCURATE NATURE AND CONTENT of the planning statement and other documents
· 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 2 (NOT 9) RAILWAY STATIONS (HORSLEY AND EFFINGHAM JUNCTION) WITHIN 5 ACTUAL ROAD MILES OF THE SITE AND THESE ARE ONLY REACHABLE VIA NARROW UNLIT COUNTRY 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 LANES (WHICH ARE AND WILL REMAIN OVERLY DANGEROUS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS)
· SIZE AND TIMING OF CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED PRIMARY SCHOOL ON SITE ARE ISSUES NOT ONLY FOR NEW RESIDENT POPULATION BUT EXISTING DEMAND IN THE AREA. 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
· UNSUSTAINABLE PRESSURES ON SERVICES IN NEIGHBOURING VILLAGES (MEDICAL,DENTISTRY, SHOPS, SCHOOLS, PARKING, ETC) 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 on 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 email@example.com 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. We need several hundred people to respond so that Councillors are in no doubt as to what the electorate’s view is.
Please copy the firstname.lastname@example.org on your response