News

Council's 'severe impact' fear over homes plan

By Elena Cresci
January 09, 2013

RUSHMOOR Borough Council has joined the chorus of Ash and Tongham residents objecting to a plan for 400 new homes in the area.

In total, 266 residents have written to Guildford Borough Council in opposition to the proposed development on land to the south of Ash Lodge Drive.

Neighbouring authority Rushmoor has also formally objected to the plans, submitted by developers Bewley Homes and A2Dominion, raising concerns about the effects such a large development between Ash and Tongham could have on infrastructure in Aldershot and Farnborough.

Head of planning at Rushmoor, Keith Holland, said: “The proposal involves development that cannot be reconciled with the National Planning Policy Framework in that it has not been demonstrated that the significant movements generated could not be accommodated adequately on the existing local and strategic transport network within Hampshire and Surrey.”

He added: “It would result in a severe impact on the road safety and operation of the local transport network.”

Rushmoor has also requested that Guildford Borough Council conduct an assessment of the potential impact and demand from the development on existing health and education facilities, as well as any effects the development could have on bats living in the area.

Waverley Borough Council has also been consulted on the application, but is yet to submit a response.

Residents objecting to the proposed development, which is the largest of its kind in Ash, have raised concerns about the increase in traffic, the loss of green space in the town and the impact the development could have on local schools, doctors and other services.

John Ferns, of Manor Road, who also spoke at the planning committee’s meeting to consider a now-accepted proposal to build 60 homes near Ash Manor School, expressed concerns about the number of homes recently approved or under consideration by Guildford Borough Council.

“Although each application has to be examined on its own facts and evidence presented, it has not gone unnoticed that within one mile of this new application, another four applications have either recently been approved or are under consideration by Guildford Borough Council, totalling 160 dwellings,” he said.

“All have been vigorously contested by the people who live in the local area.”

Mr Ferns added: “It is heartening to see that Rushmoor and Waverley councils have been included in the current list of consultees, but as they were not consulted about the 160 dwellings under sanction in the four earlier applications, they will be unaware of the whole picture.”

According to the latest application, developers hope to phase the building work over four years, with 100 homes being built per year.

Guildford Borough Council officials have said on several occasions when dealing with planning applications in Ash that there is a real need for homes and affordable housing in the borough.

Additionally, an application for a village green, which could affect the proposed development, is currently being considered by Surrey County Council.

Submitted by Graham Eyre, chairman of Ash Residents’ Association, the application argues this part of the land is used regularly by residents and therefore should be given village green status.

If the land is registered as a village green, it will subsequently be protected from development by the Enclosure Act 1857.

Ash Parish Council will hold a special planning meeting dedicated to discussing the proposed development on January 10 at the Ash Centre in Ash Hill Road. The meeting begins at 7pm and the plans can be viewed from 6pm.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (57)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 57

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

Developer contributions towards health will be sorted out as part of the process. I expect that people from the NHS and/or the Clinical Commissioning Groups are looking at the planning application, etc now.

County Councillor John Wall - Farnborough South Division (@CllrJohnWall), Farnborough, Hampshire
28/01/2013 at 19:28

Manor Road Dormouse,

The problem is it isn’t just the planned building in Ash that is worrying some people but the wider building plans for the catchment area for FPH which on some reported figures would add around 10k properties.

And in Aldershot it isn’t just FPH which is the issue but also GP Surgery and NHS Dental Practice availability as well. As you will have seen if you have followed some of the debates on this site, there have been many personal reports from people reporting difficulties in getting appointments after the unplanned arrival of several thousand Nepalese (many of whom are elderly and will need to consume more of these services) in a relatively short period of time.

In his last post County Councillor John Wall has said “All the necessary facilities are being addressed. Bits of local government, etc may look stupid but we're not.”, which gives some comfort, however I think it would have given more reassurance to people to have been given more details, particularly for the AUE in the planning documents where they cover utility services such as roads, drainage and schools (but no mention of the health service provision).

Dawi, Aldershot
24/01/2013 at 09:44

Wow... 54 contributions on this item! The majority have centred on the capacity of Frimley Park hospital, one aspect of the issues affecting two small communities (Ash and Tongham) on the Surrey/Hampshire borders.

As of now, 636 representations have been made, in addition a petition of 1,500 signatories has been submitted to Guildford Borough Council.

A significant representation has recently been submitted by Ash Residents Association (ASHRA) and readers may be interested in reading a well presented 'case against' the development proposal. It is in two parts... a 28 page report on the very real flooding and the drainage issues identified and a further 28 page report on all the other environmental and sustainability issues. It makes powerful reading and I would suggest a model for future 'community based' objections against unwelcome planning applications.

Well done also to Surrey Highways authority for spotting flaws in the developer's transport submission and to Rushmoor Borough for their common sense contribution to the debate.

From observing recent GBC planning committee meetings, I do wonder what weight they will all have, as their 'drive' to build houses on even the most unsuitable land seems to override all common sense objections that the infrastructure in this area just will not stand more. They already have approved 162 new homes on Green Field land, when they have an untapped potential of 1,312 empty dwellings in Guildford (the fifth highest out of the 11 local government districts in the county) made up of local Council Owned 111, Housing Association owned 23, Privately owned 1,176, others 2. Empty more than 6 months 587. There are probably enough empty homes in the Borough now to meet any existing shortfall in housing. The link to ASHRA's submission can be found here.... http://www2.guildford.gov.uk/4Interface/Acollate_docs/48917_43.pdf

Manor Road Dormouse
23/01/2013 at 23:45

All the necessary facilities are being addressed. Bits of local government, etc may look stupid but we're not.

I can see no chance of getting another hospital in this area although the new Clinical Commissioning Groups will make the decisions as to where particular types of care will be delivered - not everything now requires going into a hospital. Hospital Governors are not on the "board" - we're on the Council of Governors which holds the board to account ! I'm there as a stakeholder governor on behalf of Hampshire County Council. The Governors come from a wide range of areas; stakeholder, patients, public, staff, etc.

County Councillor John Wall - Farnborough South Division (@CllrJohnWall), Farnborough, Hampshire
23/01/2013 at 14:38

County Councillor John Wall “Once again some aren't reading what's actually been written.”

That may be true, however it does seem to cut both ways. You stated ‘The AUE will not result in "a sudden large increase in population"’, which I agreed with HOWEVER as I pointed out the AUE is not the only major housing development in the catchment area, AND the provision of additional facilities to cope would also not happen overnight but would take considerable time to plan, fund, build, equip and staff, which seems to have been completely ignored in the reply.

While I find it positive to be able to engage with a Councilor in this sort of medium (and I wish that more would) it is beholden on BOTH sides to be able to understand what is being said by the other side of the conversation.

Dawi, Aldershot
23/01/2013 at 09:17

I'm a governor at Frimley Park and know that the management team there are working hard to deal with the issues. Look at the reports that, for example, Dr Foster give them. There is demand for school places across the country - including Rushmoor - and I've identified some of the measures being taken to deal with that.

County Councillor John Wall - Farnborough South Division (@CllrJohnWall), Farnborough, Hampshire

As you have stated above you are a govenor at Frimley Park Hospital and many feel that councilliors should not be on the board with a conflict of interest comes into mind?,

Many would prefer members of the board to be netural and not Councilliors and MP 's because of the conflict of interest that may occur.

But I am sorry to say that Frimley Park Hospital are short of beds with the amount of people in their area - because this is the very reason why patients get shipped off to other areas around the country because their isn't the room, passing patients to other areas around the country only adds to that area and their own problems sorry but it is a FACT!!

We defiantly need a new hosptial but we are unlikely to get one because we have councilliors that seem to think different!!

especially when they stand on a board or two!!

Aldershot use to have a few hospitals in this town, now we have nothing at all, all the hospitals we use to have - have had housing built on them and cambridge will be no different, yet then we have councilliors stating we are not building with amount of people moving into the area - thats a joke!!

Members of my family are being made redundant from armed services and will need a home due to having a few children but will they get a home in their home town? I doubt it very much because we have not got enough homes apparently? it is a disgrace considering members of my family have served their country for many years yet cannot get a home in their own home town?

Where do you expect them to move to???

PJA
22/01/2013 at 13:17

Once again some aren't reading what's actually been written.

The AUE will not result in "a sudden large increase in population". There will, making a few assumptions, start to be extra people from about 2015.

If planning permission is granted later this year the developer will have to hand over loadsamoney up front. If the County Council was given the money - as they'll have to be - for education I have little doubt that a new primary school could be ready for September 2015.

There are lots ofother things that can be done in a similar time period - particularly when the developer is paying:-)

I think I'm wasting my time here. I've repeatedly identified what's being done, etc, etc but nobody seems to read it. They just repeat a tired old, long-refuted, mantra like a stuck gramophone.

Personally, I'm very relaxed about the AUE as I know all the preparatory work, etc that's been done by Rushmoor and Hampshire. With the support of the voters I could still be a councillor when the AUE is finished. However, if things aren't sorted out I'll get it in the neck.

County Councillor John Wall - Farnborough South Division (@CllrJohnWall), Farnborough, Hampshire
17/01/2013 at 17:32

County Councillor John Wall “The Nepalese are irrelevant to things like the AUE as the latter is known, planned development”

Which just goes to show that you have missed the point that I was making, which was that with a sudden large increase in population existing services will need to be increased and that takes time, and as we have already seen from many reports from the public about the difficulties of getting doctors’ appointments now, we have seen nothing about additional surgery, dental or hospital provision, only a new primary/junior school.

As you point out the first part of the development will not be completed and ready for people to be able to move in until at least 2015, HOWEVER at that point how overloaded will our existing facilities be, and how long will it take to plan, build, equip and staff new facilities, and by the time that is done how much more of the AUE will have been completed and populated?

The stage we are at now is we have the ability to make sure that provision of extra services could be planned and brought on stream before or at least at the same time as the increased demand.

It seems to me that the current thinking from yourself on this matter is reactive rather than proactive and in so doing misses the opportunity of have all or at least some of the cost paid for by the developer.

Dawi, Aldershot
17/01/2013 at 15:02

The Nepalese are irrelevant to things like the AUE as the latter is known, planned development. It could well get planning permission late in 2013 so the first new house might be completed late in 2014 or early 2015. At that time there starts to be extra people needing education, healthcare, etc and that number will slowly increase as houses are built/occupied. It will be possible to estimate how the number of people will increase over time but there probably aren't going to be very many by the end of 2015 or early 2016. The planning permission will define what the developer has to provide or fund and when that has to be done. There isn't even going to be very much extra traffic for a while after houses start being occupied. However, it's important to get some of the extra roads and changes to existing roads sorted out early to accommodate the construction traffic.

County Councillor John Wall - Farnborough South Division (@CllrJohnWall), Farnborough, Hampshire
17/01/2013 at 11:25

County Councillor John Wall “It's very important to remember that the AUE won't suddenly appear like a rabbit out of a hat”

Agreed, but it is also true that the same applies to the provisions of services for the catchment area, and if the potential expansion of the population for that catchment area isn’t taken in to account NOW then things are only going to get worse.

From some of the stories here and from personal knowledge, Services and Facilities are not always what they SHOULD BE.

We also know that that AUE will add 3850 new homes, the Ash plans add a further 400 homes, someone else posted figures in another article for proposed major home building programs in other parts of the catchment area which would bring the total number of proposed new homes up to at least the 10k mark.

It is clear from peoples experience with local surgeries that with the sudden influx of Nepalese in to Aldershot over the last couple of years (and which by all accounts is set to continue) the strain that has been put on the local surgeries even with the Aldershot Centre for Health that there are already difficulties for people accessing health services, what sort of effect will this level of building have.

As you pointed out this isn’t going to happen overnight, but as I pointed out nor will the provision of new/extra services. How long did it take to get the Aldershot Centre for Health built from beginning (and I mean from the start of the planning process) to the doors opening. How long would it take on the same basis for a new hospital (even if it was a small one).

Dawi, Aldershot
17/01/2013 at 10:00

The planning application for the AUE has now been received and, as part of that, the developer will be funding new schools, transport links, etc. Contrary to what some might think, or want to think, local government isn't stupid. Discussions, planning, etc for the effect of things like the AUE have been ongoing for years. There is a pretty good idea of what the developer needs to provide and, as importantly, when it needs to be provided.

County Councillor John Wall - Farnborough South Division (@CllrJohnWall), Farnborough, Hampshire
17/01/2013 at 09:26

i think some should read the responses on the following page of aldershot news on line:-

http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/2127095_public_to_have_say_on_3850_aldershot_homes

PJA
17/01/2013 at 09:03

its just not patients sent to local hospitals but are pushed to other areas outside the area, placing problems for patients that live in those areas.

Sorry to say we are allready struggling with hospital spaces - doctor appointments and school places especially when county council close westend school!!

Thousands of people will move in locally over the next 15 years but where are our new hospitals to cope with all these people?.

my grandchildren go to local secondary school and councillior wall states that their school will expand?, my grandchildren ask where will they play sports if you expand their school????

PJA
17/01/2013 at 09:01

Cllr Wall, apologies for adding to the barrage of negative comments heading your way (I think it's very generous of you to spare your time engaging with citizens in this way) but it's all very well saying the AUE won't suddenly appear, we all know that. We're concerned that despite there being a 10+ year gap before anyone actually moves in, we've yet to see any serious contingency plans from the powers that be to deal with the sheer number of new people.

I'm not against the principle of 1000s moving to the area, in fact I welcome them as fresh talent and new ideas / ways of thinking, but there has to be the appropriate level of infrastructure and jobs. This area has barely enough school places, hospital beds, transport links, jobs and the like for the people that already live here. How can it be expected to take another huge population influx in its current situation?