Skip to main content
Guildford Borough Council

Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites 2016

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

159 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Countryside Properties (UK) Lt… 18 Jul 2016

Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites 2016 - Part 2: Sites Sites - Introduction and summary Introduction

  • Comment ID: PSLPS16/7853
  • Status: Accepted
Executive Summary This set of representations are made on behalf of Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd to Guildford Borough Council's (GBC) Proposed Submission Local Plan: Strategy and Sites. The representations are made in response to the Council's decision to exclude Land South of New Pond Road Farncombe (Land Availability Assessment Ref: 2241) as a residential allocation in the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission Local Plan. The site was previously identified as part of a residential allocation (
Cora Dennis 18 Jul 2016

Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites 2016 - Part 2: Sites Sites - Introduction and summary Introduction

  • Comment ID: PSLPS16/1160
  • Status: Accepted
I object to A43 and A43A, This planning is not needed, building additional slip roads to the A3 would be a horrendous destruction of Ripley village. The traffic is already difficult and you are encouraging more cars, more pollution and more traffic. This village would no longer be a village. You can not build on the Greenbelt you even have policy's stating your protection of the Greenbelt and yet you think it is okay to suddenly put forward planning? This site has PROTECTED woodland, antient
Lewis Crane 18 Jul 2016

Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites 2016 - Part 2: Sites Sites - Introduction and summary Introduction

  • Comment ID: PSLPS16/1161
  • Status: Accepted
The scale of the A25 development is far too great and would require significant infrastructure improvements for it to be viable. I believe it would require it's own junction with the A3, doctors, rail station, dentist, primary and secondary school etc. It is likely to present significant impact to the residents of Burpham and Merrow due to it's close proximity to each of these communities. In addition, the development threatens the rural nature of this area. A35 seems to make more sense as one
E McShee 18 Jul 2016

Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites 2016 - Part 2: Sites Sites - Introduction and summary Introduction

  • Comment ID: PSLPS16/5900
  • Status: Accepted
As above I strongly object to this use of working farmland. This land has had a total of 1266 homes allocated against it – is this not predetermination? At the time of writing this objection this site has not been before the Planning Committee or decided. This application has been with the Planning Department for 3 years and is still not decided. The largest number of homes allocated to this site are in Ash/Tongham – which is a few miles from this site – people are hardly likely to travel that
Paul Morris 18 Jul 2016

Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites 2016 - Part 2: Sites Sites - Introduction and summary Introduction

  • Comment ID: PSLPS16/1231
  • Status: Accepted
I would like to object to point A46. I feel that this proposal is not sustainable for the area it is proposed, for instance the additional pressure on local roads would change the face of this semi rural location radically, potentially against the wishes of the local populace. It would seem that there is a danger of never taking on the root causes of the problems of Guildford, predicting housing need and building accordingly just becomes self fulfilling. With this mentality we will never reach
Sally Lescher 18 Jul 2016

Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites 2016 - Part 2: Sites Sites - Introduction and summary Introduction

  • Comment ID: PSLPS16/7981
  • Status: Accepted
ABSENCE OF POLICY ON RIVER WEY I object to the omission of a policy for the River Wey which was included in the previous local plan. The existing policy G11 from 2003 Local Plan should be included so that development within the River Wey corridor will only be permitted provided that: It protects or improves the special character of the River Wey and the Guildford and Godalming Navigations, in particular their visual, setting, amenities, ecological value, architectural and historic interest; T
Michael Meanley 18 Jul 2016

Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites 2016 - Part 2: Sites Sites - Introduction and summary Introduction

  • Comment ID: PSLPS16/1244
  • Status: Accepted
I wish to object to the removal of the Greenbelt status around the villages including West Horsley due to its piecemeal redevelopment nature. The sites do not properly provide for sustainable redevelopment and the removal of Greenbelt removes farm land. To remove the Horsleys from the Greenbelt exceptional circumstances need to be provided this has not been done No sound reasons have been provided to extend the boundaries. I do accept and support where it can be proved sustainable and develo
Andrew Tate 18 Jul 2016

Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites 2016 - Part 2: Sites Sites - Introduction and summary Introduction

  • Comment ID: PSLPS16/1262
  • Status: Accepted
The Hogs Back is a wonderful resource for local people and forms part of London's Green belt. Site A26 Blackwell Farm is set to change this and puts under threat the sanctity of the Hogs Back with the massive housing development threatened here. It will be so visible from the top of the Hogs Back when walking, riding, cycling or even in a car as you look north. Presently there is a green lung separating this lovely area from the development associated with Aldershot, Camberley, Woking (all visi
Natasha France 18 Jul 2016

Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites 2016 - Part 2: Sites Sites - Introduction and summary Introduction

  • Comment ID: PSLPS16/1267
  • Status: Accepted
I object to the proposed sites at A43, a43a and A35. Site A35 is totally unsustainable - it is totally car dependant, needs and relies upon outside funding for up grading of junction 10 and also requires site A43 to pay for the junction improvements at A43a so that the traffic impact that it will create is mitigated. A43 is not a good site in its own right it is proposed simply to mitigate the trafic impact of site a35. It is surley plain stupid to allow circa 5000 units to be developed with ap
Angela Otterson 18 Jul 2016

Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites 2016 - Part 2: Sites Sites - Introduction and summary Introduction

  • Comment ID: PSLPS16/8259
  • Status: Accepted
I object to ALL Green Belt sites allocated for development in the local plan I object to the identification and allocation of sites in this plan without regard to Green Belt, infrastructure or other constraints. The plan says that "allocating these sites does not grant planning permission for development, however, it does identify the principle of development and uses." This ignores the tens of thousands of detailed comments the Council have received about individual sites ever since the Issues
Next pageLast page