Letter: Upstream Reservoirs and Gyratory Removal Are Essential for Shaping Guildford’s Future

Published on: 19 Jul, 2024
Updated on: 19 Jul, 2024

From: Bibhas Neogi

In response to: GBC Should Not Ignore ‘Shaping Guildford’s Future’

I fail to understand what John Rigg means by: “The flood alleviation scheme (FAS) does not and would not seek to resolve flooding up or downstream of Guildford.” Measures upstream would be necessary to control floodwater arriving at Guildford town centre. If not, flooding has to be contained within walls.

The proposals show walls along the west of the river (where the ground is generally at a higher level) but on the east it would be allowed to inundate the shore up to a wall further away from the river. What is the point then of losing valuable land other than to create a “pleasant” riverside that although desirable would be very expensive? The riverbank would have to be cleaned every time after flooding takes place.

“However, the Environment Agency requires any scheme not to worsen the situation up or downstream, which is logical and accepted,” says John Rigg. What does worsening the situation mean? Upstream flood plains could be lowered to increase their capacities to hold floodwater but the EA is not proposing to do that.

The Shaping Guildford’s Future papers show Woodbridge Meadows development that would require a wall containing floodwater from inundating Walnut Tree Close. I have not come across any proposal to deal with flood plains south of Clay Lane. Relocation of Thames Water Sewage Treatment Plant and the development of Slyfield Weyside Village would also require protection from flooding.

“The road investigations in the plan identified options only and commits to none.” – an “option” has to be a working solution of some sort. It is not an “option” if it does not resolve the problem. So quoting John Rigg again: “the investigation acknowledges, as you would expect, the impossible task of squeezing a quart into a pint pot,” is exactly the issue.

The “Y-Option”

There is inconsistency between the video and the sketch for Town Bridge. The video shows the existing Town Bridge whereas the sketch shows a new realigned bridge both one lane only each way. The Y-Option and the C-Option for traffic movements replacing the gyratory are both unworkable due to sheer volume of traffic.

In the C-Option, traffic from Farnham Road and the railway station would have to cross the river three times to go to Millbrook! From Portsmouth Road if a right turn towards Town Bridge is not allowed, (most likely to keep the traffic phases to a minimum) traffic wanting to go to Millbrook would also have to cross the river three times.

“But a reality check means we know GBC and SCC have no funds for tunnels and major road building, and central government resists road building where they believe it will facilitate and encourage more traffic,” a popular but unrealistic approach to dealing with increasing traffic. I remember it well when it used to take three to four hours of driving from Guildford to Dover before the M25 and the M20 were built. Following this line of argument the UK should not have built any of the motorway network at all.

Should a new east-west route over the river and the railway in Guildford have taken precedence over Ash Bridge costing £45 million and Walnut Footbridge costing £5 million? I think so. There is funding available after the HS2 curtailment for building roads to relieve congestion. Guildford is a prime example where improvements to road network is necessary to deal with the congestion and facilitate provision of dedicated cycle lanes and better pedestrian environment in the town centre and its riverside areas by removing the gyratory and making Friary Bridge for pedestrians only.

“We need to build on the work carried out rather than the easier approach of kicking difficult projects into the long grass and quietly writing off the cost, ” says John Rigg. But for example, judging by the number of reports prepared by consultants for possible relocation of the bus station, ultimately nothing has changed.

The bus station is staying where it is and North Street development would be adding to the congestion on Leapale Road and Onslow Street. The idea of creating a transport hub has been lost forever together with better cycle lane provisions in the area. I have illustrated the possibilities on my keepandshare websites.

An active flood control with upstream reservoirs and improving the road network by removing the gyratory are both essential for shaping Guildford’s future. I rest my case.

Share This Post