Guildford Residents Associations
Guildford Residents Associations

GRA Member feedback

GRA members are invited to share their views on the Local Plan

Comments

Please enter the code
* Required fields
  • J Nwabueze (Wednesday, January 13 16 04:01 pm GMT)

    Though not a member, I just wished to share with fellow residents something I happened across which does appear a "place" oddity. I have just read a Winter 2015 edition of 'Royal Supporter' (a
    periodical produced by the RSCH) where on page 21, whilst pleased to read a "pre-planning application" has just been submitted to GBC for a long-needed 800 space multi-storey car park, was taken
    aback to see it intended for the "main visitors' car park". Is it just me or would it be difficult to imagine a more unimaginative site on which to construct a tower block? This would be nothing
    short of an eyesore. Surely the screamingly obvious siting would be on lower, flatter ground, to the more industrial rear of the hospital, adjacent to the railway and just off the smaller Egerton
    Road roundabout. This might even serve a future 'Park Barn' railway station for the greater Local Plan too.

  • Paul Kassell (Tuesday, October 29 13 01:09 pm GMT)

    Fairlands and the Local Plan

    The Fairlands, Liddington Hall and Gravetts Lane Community Association opposes the methodology for land selection in the issues and options document as part of the Local Plan Consultation.
    Land at Fairlands inside the current green belt has been selected as potential for development, without any evidence of the number of dwellings being presented. This land, like the Fairlands estate,
    has been subjected to flooding three times in the recent past.
    The whole area is within 5km of an SPA (Whitmoor Common) which will require Suitable Alternative Green Space mitigation; and the estate has been subjected to frequent power supply problems, water
    pressure and sewage systems failures.
    It will take a substantial amount of money to put this infrastructure right, and whilst it seems fair that the developer should carry these costs, the NPPF states:
    To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements
    should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be
    deliverable.

    This can be read one of two ways, either to ensure that the development is viable, the developer will not be made to carry all the costs or else the development is not viable.

    If it is the former, we, the taxpayers of Guildford will inevitably foot the costs for this development.

  • Martin Robinson Dowland (Wednesday, October 23 13 04:10 pm BST)

    I would like to see emphasis given to the
    particualr qualities of life in Guildford (quality of vernacular architecture, feeling of being in the countryside via views of working farms, woodland, yet easy access to London and the coast)
    Our enlightened value put on valuable farmland and our carbon footprint ( tunnel, AONB, AGLV, sustainable housing, regeneration of the town centre as a place to live)
    The iconic image of the town
    A place where peopel come to live and stay and in my case, want to come back.

Must See GRA Documents

Press Release:

GRA United in Opposition to Local Plan Across Town and Country (7 June 2016)

You can see the latest press release here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Print Print | Sitemap
© Graham Hibbert