3 farms meadows fwi

3 Farms Meadows (FWI) WAGs QC quipped : This is : The Wrong - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

3 Farms Meadows (FWI) WAGs QC quipped : This is : The Wrong Development (Unsustainable) In the Wrong Location (Greenbelt, Openness, Highways, SPA, Air Quality, London Density, Transport, Heritage) We need your help to defeat it !

  1. 3 Farms Meadows (FWI) WAG’s QC quipped : This is : The Wrong Development (Unsustainable) In the Wrong Location (Greenbelt, Openness, Highways, SPA, Air Quality, London Density, Transport, Heritage) We need your help to defeat it ! www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  2. Proposal for a “New Town” on TFM • OUTLINE Access Planning Permission Sought By WPIL – 2,068 homes (5,000 people, 4000 cars?) – 2 FE Primary School and 4FE Secondary School to 16 – Health Centre – 8 Travellers pitches – Going to GBC Planning Committee April 6th Framework Thames Basin Heaths SPA Impact Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy – 3 New Road Systems – 3 New Road Closures DECEMBER 2014 www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  3. Current Site Difficulties for Cayman Island based Speculators • 114 hectares used mainly for agriculture – Within Greenbelt – Principally good quality agricultural land – Adjacent to Thames Basin Heath SPA – Part SNCI, whole site proposed for SNCI – SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) – Part (up to 17ha) safeguarded by SCC for waste on the lower section of the site included as PDL – Restrictions due to NATS VOR for Heathrow … And WAG reviewing and reporting of voracity of data

  4. Latest WPIL Phased Development Plan TBHSPA SCC Composting SANGS 400 metre Site Protected protection Zone Access to Site NATS VOR Site Sang Underwater Half of the Year SANGS 5 km Protection Zone www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  5. Objections RHS Wisley Effingham Parish Council Surrey County Council – Waste Wisley Action Group Surrey County Council – Highways Ripley Society Surrey Wildlife Trust Cobham Conservation & Heritage Trust Campaign to Protect Rural England Ockham & Hatchford Residents University of Surrey Association Elmbridge Borough Council Downside & Hatchford Community Group Mole Valley District Council Effingham Residents Association Ockham Parish Council Byfleet, West Byfleet & Pyrford Residents East Horsley Parish Council Association West Horsley Parish Council Bookham Residents Association East Clandon Parish Council Royal Society for Protection of Birds Ripley Parish Council Many hundreds of individuals Send Parish Council www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  6. Conditions and concerns have to date been lodged by amongst others: Environment Agency Thames Water Highways England Police – Crime Prevention Design Adviser (and further comments awaited) Surrey & Sussex Police Surrey County Council – Archaeology Surrey Playing Fields Association NATS GBC Environmental Health, Flood & Water Services and Housing Development However a real SHOCK Natural England have been negotiated into a ‘No Objection’ response: Ø TBHSPA issues have been adequately mitigated Ø In perpetuity Permanent Warden’ will patrol 4xROW’s Ø SANGS underwater 50% of year can be fully counted www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  7. Criteria Needed to Develop on Greenbelt • Must Comply with Rule of Law and NPPF • Very Special Circumstances – housing need alone not enough • Proportionate – 150 households in Ockham and 2068 houses proposed • Openness of Greenbelt to be Retained – Highest London Density • Previously Developed Land ie Brownfield First – 12% available • Sustainable – Needs Infrastructure: Transport, Sewage, Flood control, Secondary School, Local Employment, Access, Retail, GP – GBC calculation of min 1666 houses on this site = Sustainable • Environment and Heritage to be Protected – Ockham Village 1000 years old – Nox emissions – TBH SPA – SNCI & SSSI www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  8. Local Plan 2003 and NPPF Property not in GBC 2003 Local Plan - should not be approved NPPF ‘presumption in favour of Sustainable Development’ does not apply due to the site’s proximity to the SPA. Additionally lack of Very Special Circumstances (VSC) needed to develop within Greenbelt (N.B. Unmet Housing Need not a VSC) Largest part of Brownfield is SCC protected area for Waste and part within 400 metres of SPA so cannot be considered for development nor currently available for SANGS Remainder (old disused runway) was never built on- so no elevation existed and any building would destroy Openness www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  9. NPPF – Very Special Circumstances Proposed Greenbelt Developments must measure: Benefits Vs Harms Specific to site Housing Need not normally a VSC www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  10. Sustainability – What is it? 3 Aspects of Sustainability for any large development: • Environmental impact • Social impact • Economic impact Landscape and Heritage Infrastructure • Transportation (road and rail) • Other facilities (schools, medical etc) • Combination approach needed taking into account other development proposals. www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  11. Sustainability : Hierarchy Points > 20+ Suitable for Growth Community Facilitiespoints Total points Rank GuildfordUrban Area 49 18 1 Ash and Tongham 49 17 1 East Horsley 38 18 3 WestHorsley 19 9 13 East & West Horsley together Shalford 29 11 4 Chilworth 28 10 6 Effingham 26 11 7 Send 26 14 7 SendMarsh/Burnt Common 17 7 19 Ripley 25 12 9 Fairlands 24 12 10 Wood St Village 20 9 20 4 4 32 Ockham www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  12. So how can WPI claim that Wisley Airfield is the ‘most sustainable site in Surrey’? This is how it can be done: Sco re today Potential/pie in the sky S hops 0 2 Schools Infant 0 3 P rim ary 0 3 Community Facilities Recreation 0 3 Post Office 0 3 Doctor 0 3 Dentist 0 1 Place of worship 1 1 Open space 1 2 Children's play area 0 1 Restaurant/café/takeaway 1 1 Community hall 1 1 Transport Buses 0 3 Railway (within a mile) 0 0 Employment Local 0 2 Wider 0 0 ----- --- -------- 4 30 === == ===== www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  13. Villages in GBC Draft Local Plan for Consultation Removed from the Green Belt CPRE: 600,000 plots in hands of developers not being used !! 11 12 13 16 10 15 4 14 1 2 3 9 8 5 6 7 www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  14. Approval=Destruction of 300 Acres of Open Greenbelt in Sensitive Location • Greenbelt Around one of the Most Important Cities in the World Showed Great Vision • Wholesale Decimation of 300+ acres and • Ancient Villages Withdrawn from Greenbelt would be a travesty • The High Cost of Installing New Infrastructure for a remote new township is waste of government resources • First Time Buyers will not be able to Afford these “Affordable Properties” (£300k) www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  15. Openness of Greenbelt • View from Surrey Hills • 4 / 5 storeys on top of Hill – 780 x 48m single bed –WHY? • Not even affordable at £300k each • Super High Density Development Visible from Everywhere Surrey Hills AONB Board's Response – NO VISUAL IMPACT !! 4/5 Storeys High !! www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  16. Likely impacts on surrounding villages • 5,000 additional residents – School places – Seats on trains – Parking spaces at Effingham & Horsley station and elsewhere – Longer waiting times for hospital appointments 12 years of construction, disruption and HGV’s • • 4,000 additional cars – Air quality – Longer journeys – More accidents – No/Inadequate footpaths for school children/pedestrians www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  17. ‘Misleading Statements’ ? in Planning Application Only Assembled Site for Five Year Housing Supply “It is the only assembled site readily available for development now, to contribute • to the 5 year housing supply” Planning Statement Appendix 3 p25 of 33. The site is subject to: – Up to 3 years work by Thames Water and then subject to funding – Natural England agreed a SANGS area of approx 10 ha per 1000 population ie 49.9Ha SANGS, leaving insufficient land to build a sustainable development – Objection from SCC re Waste Site removes available land – Surrey Highways not content Removal From Greenbelt Within ‘Emerging’ GBC Local Plan Para 1.3 of the Planning Statement states that the Site “Has been removed from • the Green belt within the 'emerging GBC Local Plan' as justified by the Council’s evidence base”. Statement repeated in Appendix 6 ‘site…has been taken out (of the Green Belt) as part of the Guildford Greenbelt review . – It is clear no decisions have been made per the GBC press release on the Local Plan deferral stating every development site will be ‘reassessed’. www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk

  18. ‘Misleading Statements’? in Planning Application Removal From Greenbelt ‘Very Special Circumstances’ Statement p25 of 33 para 5.22 – “The independent GBCS by Pegasus, • on behalf of GBC, concluded the same” ie that the site can be removed from the greenbelt The Pegasus report specifically excluded consideration of ‘Exceptional • Circumstances’ para 18.3 Vol5 and assumed extra land they did not own to meet the sustainability calculations. The whole Pegasus GBCS report is based on an assumption of utilising • additional land not owned by the applicants and expressly excluded by owners at the time, para 24.82 page 50 Pegasus GB GBCS report. This weakens its relevance to this Planning Application. www.wisleyactiongroup.co.uk


More recommend