Please put any comments and information about proposed SANG sites near Wood Street Village in this thread.
At the moment there are two proposals that residents need to know about:-
- A proposed SANG at Russell Place Farm, off Frog Grove Lane, which is currently the subject of a planning application.
- GBC plans to designate much of Broadstreet and Backside commons as SANG areas. This appears to be currently the subject of discussion between GBC and SCC.
Here is the text of some recent correspondance from Gaynor White of the Parish Council and I concerning the Russell Place SANG.
"In answer to your questions:
SANG
1.. 'Who exactly is proposing the SANG development?'
JPC Strategic Planning Ltd were the agents who submitted the SANG application.
2.
'Is there any connection between the SANG developer and the various development plans for other Wood Street sites that have been found on the internet? In particular do they have connections with Lightwood, Chestnut Investment Group, or the site that Gaynor has identified?'
The Surrey Advertiser has confirmed that the land behind 5-43 Frog Grove Lane was owned by Lightwood Property Ltd but that this land has been sold on to Chestnut Investment Group. We now understand that there was a link between JPC Strategic Planning Ltd and Lightwood Property Ltd. We don’t know if there is any connection between JPC Strategic Planning and Chestnut Inv. Group.
3.In EXACTLY what area can new building sites be created that are offset by the Wood Street Sang?
A 5km zone.
4.In EXACTLY what area can SANG sites be created that can be offset against Wood Street developments.
A 5km zone.
For your information the Parish Council withdrew its comments of support for the SANG on the 10 November.
The last time I looked at GBC’s planning portal there were over 100 objections to the proposed SANG. The application will therefore be considered by the Borough Council’s planning committee and Natural England will also have a say in the matter."
-----------
For a more general discussion of GBC policy on SANGS and for information about Broadstreet Common its worth looking at the GBC 'Thams Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy' which you can find at this link http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guildford.gov.uk%2FCHttpHandler.ashx%3Fid%3D11294%26p%3D0&ei=lp-MUoHZPMPt0gWOsoCoBA&usg=AFQjCNHqgC9Ul5W0vITm6jShouhVvHdcqQ&sig2=vF-F0WiCfnG8rdAFfw9D_w&bvm=bv.56643336,d.d2k . (Or maybe just search on Google. )
A visit to Swan Lane today revealed the following, that I didn't know
There currently is no SANGs available within the Borough.
A SANG is needed for developments within 5km of an SPA ( Special Protection Area )
They are designed to relieve pressure from the SPA - ( Bird Protection ).
We are within 5km as the nearest SPA is the other side of the A324
Google 'thames basin heath avoidance strategy' to see where the SPAs are.
Further:
If the SANG in Wood Street is approved in February 2014; there is likely to be a flurry of planning applications on the back of it. The Guildford Plan will not be in place until after 2015 so developers will be free to put in applications whereever they like. i.e. Froggrove / White Hart Lane etc.
Its certainly worth reading the Thames Basin Heath Avoidance Strategy published by GBC, to get an idea of what areas are affected by SANGS and what the proposed sites are.
In addition there are some useful documents in the supporting material for the local plan. These are the Habitat Regulations Assessment, and the Infrastructure asessment. Both of these have a lot of detail on SANG policy and options. I'm not sure if they are available on the web, but they are on the CD which you can get from Swan Lane.
A few pertinent points that I have found are:-
A SANG can offset developments within a 5km radius. If you plot this on a map its a pretty big area. So stopping the WS SANG may not necessarily stop building in WS, if another SANG appears.
GBC are planning to designate Broadstreet and Backside common as SANGs, these surround WS.
Large developments, such as the Hogs Back development, may well be expected to include their own SANG area within the development itself. So it may not be easy to block these developments, even if no opther SANGs are developed.
But I urge you to read these documents, which are very useful.
Attached is a document sent to me by Marc Turner, Senior Adviser on SANGS at Natural England, outlining Natural England's guidelines for the creation of SANGS. It is not a new document but I understand it is up-to-date and relevant.
It is interesting to note that a SANG of a certain size does not automatically permit a certain number of dwellings to be built. A site is graded and its suitability is influenced by factors which include whether it is already well used by the public (if it is well used it does not count in full for the ratio of 8 hectares of SANG to permit 1,000 people in a new housing development).
In appendix 1 and 2 there is a list of "must haves" and "should haves" for SANGS. "Must haves" include carparks, circular walks to and from the car park, paths must be perceived as safe - they must not have tree and scrub cover along parts of the walking routes (would this rule out our commons - or would they cut down our trees?), access within SANGS must be largely unrestricted.
It seems in December 2012 Surrey cc decided to remove restrictions on SANGS as below:
That the County Council’s current Policy be altered by the removal of the requirement that proposals for SANGS are to be considered in the light of whether new housing development is being proposed on land in the Green Belt or on land covered by any other protective or environmental designation, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ancient monuments, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Areas of Great Landscape Value; such issues being left for determination by the relevant local planning authority;
Reasons for Decisions
The potential benefits of SANGS assist in the protection of the bird species which are considered to be at risk due to the ability of SANGS to influence the behaviour of heathland visitors;
As a result of the use of County Council land as SANGS capital, maintenance and management improvements can be undertaken on the land, at no cost to the County Council through developer payments, at the same time as supporting those affected local authorities in achieving their housing targets;
Use of County Council land as SANGS releases land for new development for which the County Council will receive a landowner charge in recognition of the uplift in value that the SANGS bestow on the proposed development sites.
See & comment on the latest Amended Plans for SANG on Frog Grove Lane within the next 14 days.
Reference: 13/P/01453
Location: Land at, Frog Grove Lane, Wood Street Village, Worplesdon, Guildford, GU33EZ
Proposal: Change of use from agricultural land to Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace. Associated fencing, access works, highways access and car parking (amended and additional plans received 06/09/13, 02/10/13 & 23/01/14).
Case Officer: Lisa Stevenson Phone: 01483 444324 E-mail: planningenquiries@guildford.gov.uk
I am writing to let you know that we have received amended and additional plans or information for the development described above. Viewing and commenting on the application
You can view the application by visiting our Planning Helpdesk in the council offices. This is open from 8.30am to 5pm from Monday to Thursday, and from 8.30am to 4.30pm on Friday. As an additional service you can also view the plans on the planning pages of our website at www.guildford.gov.uk. Please note that there may be a delay whilst we make the plans available online.
If you would like to comment on the proposed development, you will need to write to Planning Services or e-mail planningenquiries@guildford.gov.uk within 14 days of the date of this letter, quoting the application reference number.
From Neville Bryan earlier today - Request for URGENT action
Dear Wood Street,
As I promised, not lots of emails, but a brief update and where we need your help to be involved. We NEED your help this week.
1. ITEM 201401-2 Wood Street Village SANG – This is URGENT - Over 100 people objected before - We need your help to DO IT AGAIN. Such are the requirements of our planning process. I have gone into much more detail below. Please write in and object either by email, or other mechanism I have listed below BY close of plan THIS MONDAY 10th February
2. ITEM 201401 -1 Update on Local Plan SHMA –The response date has been pushed back until 21st Feb. We have more time so the next update will deal with this matter.
3. Please take PICTURES of the weather impact – particularly flooding !! They may be useful in future local plan discussion. Remember to write exact location and date.
Many Thanks
Neville Bryan
Resident of Wood Street Village!
Objection Details - ITEM 201401-2 Wood Street Village SANG
Planning Number 13/P/01453 RE: Land at, Frog Grove Lane, Wood Street Village, Worplesdon, Guildford, GU3 3EZ
The council have received a revised application. Through channels it has been made very clear that GBC management would like this to process as in the words of one of the staff “IT WOULD MAKE THEIR LIVES EASIER” – i.e to build houses in our area. We need to stop this, and it has to be for planning reasons. Both from email replies to my original email, through conversations, and seeing some of you at Wood Street Village Assoc meeting last Monday (3rd), we promised some ideas on how to respond. They are listed below. If you know any more please let me know. (Thanks to Robert and others for send on info so far).
Here are the words from the Council letter "However, the Council must make its decision on planning matters alone. These include relevant planning policies/Government guidance, design, privacy, traffic, access, landscaping, noise and affect on amenity. Planning considerations do not include covenants and other private property matters, effect on property values, loss of a view, matters covered by other legislation, or the character or motives of the applicant."
Some advice I received from the “other side” ”Has an ecological and recreational survey been undertaken of the land in question? The framework requires that in establishing new SANG both the existing ecological interests/value and the recreational usage and value should be taken into consideration. In other words, if the site has important habitats and/or species in its own right, it may not be suitable as SANG because those interests may be adversely affected. Likewise, if the areas already has significant recreational usage, it may not have the capacity to support much additional use and therefore would not be effective SANG”
Possible Objection Reasons
- Village - Not needed.
o The village and area has sufficient recreational Green Space and Amenities... examples to Site are the Village Green, the Cricked Club area, the Bridleways on each side and path through, Broadstreet Common, Backside Common etc... all within 750 meters of the site and the village centre
o A land change in this scale will change the character of Wood Street. It is in a high visibility area. This is something the Local Plan process seeks to AVOID.
o This will allow 1738 homes in the area, and change character of the area.
- GBC – Not Needed.
o ‘The Thames Basis Heath Special Protection Avoidance Strategy 2009 to 2014’ states ‘Once designated SANGS are in place the SANG sites will provide adequate public green space for the whole of the borough of Guildford’.
o Plenty of SANGs - Guildford Borough Council with regard to existing SANG sites stated recently ‘There is still a significant amount of SANG available in the borough’.
§ Riverside nature reserve has been extended by a further 9 hectares which will cover future development for approximately 450 dwellings.
§ Further land already in the pipeline to become SANGS. One being council owned Tyting Farm with surrounding farmland of 46 hectares. Even if only half of this farmland is converted to SANGS it would equate to further development of 1200 dwellings.
- We need all Our Farmland to Stay Farmland
o This is good quality active farmland and that is valuable to England and Great Britain. It has been used for 20 years by the current tenant, and Britain is tasked with producing more of our own food.
o We have not seen the response to the request made by GBC to JPC to ask Natural England to survey the land to clarify its status/quality. It has been used for Grazing for a number years, suggesting good quality. We would like to see that survey included in this proposal for consideration.
- Traffic.
o Increased traffic on already stretched roads.
o WSVA are planning to ask for restrictions on loading to reduce damage from existing traffic.
- Plan “Detail” Conflict –
o conflict within the application which revised detail drawing (660604) shows land for 10 car spaces and other documents which state 30 car spaces – massive difference
o No access for horses yet rid over is assumed
- Drainage issues.
o The land soil here is clay based and does not drain well. It is a bog in winter and right now! Particularly the lower parts of field 1, 3 and 5.
o Car parks are in area’s at food of hill and would be liable to flooding.
o All paths and access areas would have to be imported which is contrary to Natural England SANG Guidance, which says paths should “remain unsurfaced to prevent an urban feel”. Leaving them un surfaced would make the circular walks impassable. Health and safety implications if nothing done!
- Poor Security
o Implications of hidden “out of site” car park at evening and night.
- Facilities –
o Lack of toilets in car park
- Wildlife
o Disturbance of existing ground nesting and feeding birds
o Everything would have to be planted – these are agricultural fields today. There is nothing special to attract walkers unless imported or takes 20 years to grow.
You can object on links below Please use the words “I STRONGLY OBJECT TO” as your opening so no lack of clarity !
You will have to login or register - http://www2.guildford.gov.uk/publicaccess/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_GUILD_DCAPR_145755
You can comment in the web directly OR Write Email to planningenquiries@guildford.gov.uk
Or write a letter to Planning Services at GBC (Millmead).
