Residents Associations Meet Behind Closed Doors To Discuss Link Road Plan

Published on: 17 Jan, 2016
Updated on: 21 Jan, 2016

Residents associations from across Guildford met “behind closed doors” to discuss the proposed Clay Lane link road, and organisers report the meeting was “very productive”.

It was arranged by the Jacobs Well Residents’ Association (JWRA) and the Burpham Community Association (BCA), who are protesting over plans for a road to link Clay Lane with the Slyfield Industrial Estate, among their fears that it would cross a flood plain.

One of the signs in Clay Lane saying ‘No’ to the link road plan.

The meeting followed Guildford Borough Council’s scrutiny committee’s decision to refer a petition signed by 877 people to go back before the full council on February 10. The council had previously dismised the petition in October.

The petition asked the council to delay the planning application for the proposed road until recommendations have been made by Highways England.

The meadows beside Clay Lane through which the road may be built.

JWRA committee member Steve Knight said he feels the council’s decison is “going our way”.

In a statement he said: “The Jacobs Well Residents’ Association and Burpham Community Association felt that we needed to raise our profile and ensure a wider audience were aware of the implications for Guildford and surrounding areas of a new road across a major north-east Guildford floodplain.

“An invitation only meeting was therefore held on Thursday (January 7) in Jacobs Well Village Hall where, as well as the JWRA and BCA, key people from 12 other local and relevant resident/community groups attended, plus some key experts in their field (e.g. environmental organisations, a lawyer, a social media company).

“No parish or borough councillors were specifically invited as it was felt that the meeting should be ‘non-political’ and ‘without restrictions’.”

He added that a very productive and open session took place and some very good suggestions were put forward by attendees – “often based upon real life planning/opposition experiences”.

At the meeting, Mr Knight explained details of the planned road and its implications, the actions already taken, the current position regarding the borough council, the importance of the awaited AECOM report, and need for more support.

Burpham resident Jim Allen also provided a short presentation covering flooding and noise pollution.

Mr Knight said: “I think that there was a distinct lack of awareness among the other groups regarding the implications of the new road (e.g. related to flooding, traffic, safety, pollution and the environment).

“Also the way that GBC have been ‘less than open’ with regards information surprised the meeting and, of great importance to residents, the derisory way that GBC have treated the views and concerns of the residents of Jacobs Well and Burpham (including their petition) was felt unacceptable.

“The residents associations will now discuss the implications of the road with their members and a Clay Lane Link Road action group will be set-up (with relevant sub-committees) with, as well as the JWRA and BCA, members from other resident associations as appropriate, where a strategy and plan of action will be agreed and implemented.

“I feel that we have moved into a higher gear and the real fight with GBC over this road is now beginning. Already since the session I have been contacted by several people with offers of support and monies (for a fighting fund) and been in contact with Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.”

Along with JWRA and BCA, there were representatives from: Abbotswood Residents’ Association; Fairlands, Liddington Hall and Gravetts Lane Community Association; Ganghill Residents’ Association; Merrow Residents’ Association; Normandy Action Group; Queen Elizabeth Park Residents’ Association; St Catherine’s Village Association; Westborough, Broadacres and District Residents’ Association; Wood Street Village Residents’ Association; Mayford Village Society; Sutton Green Association and Westfield Common Residents’ Association.

Click here for saveguildfordfloodplain website.

Responses to Residents Associations Meet Behind Closed Doors To Discuss Link Road Plan

Zoe Franklin Reply

January 18, 2016 at 8:34 am

Were representatives from Weyfield and Bellfields Residents’ Associations invited? They too have a keen interest in the project.

[Ed: The associations listed were those supplied by JWRA and BCA. Are the two you mention currently active?]
- Steve Knight Reply
  
  January 27, 2016 at 11:57 am
  
  In reply to Zoe Franklin,
  
  We tried to contact by e-mail all the known residents’ associations in north Guildford, west Woking and along the Wey, but I am sure our list was not exhaustive.
  
  Looking back at our notes we did not have an e-mail address for Bellfields and we did not get a response from Weyfield RA to our initial email.
  
  No RA was deliberately excluded from the initial emails sent out.
Jim Allen Reply

January 18, 2016 at 3:38 pm

I believe every known residents’ association in Guildford was invited.

Those who failed to turn up clearly believe it was not in their best interest to attend.

What is clear is that this daughter project of the Wey Valley Regeneration Project, is suffering from ‘excessive confidentiality’ ‘misleading and inaccurate misinformation’ and ‘lack of an overall understanding’ of the problems and requirements of ‘the end product’.

For example, access for 1,800 vehicles From Bellfield’s roundabout on to the housing site.

Will they be using Bellfields Road or a new spur directly off the roundabout?
Cllr Angela Gunning Reply

January 18, 2016 at 4:51 pm

I also read the attendees list with great interest, and disappointed not to see Weyfield Residents’ Association (WRA) mentioned.

WRA may be quiet at the moment, but residents (and me) are certainly interested in the Clay Lane Link Road.

Jim Allen is not correct to assume that the absence of WRA implies ‘no interest’. I will find out what the position is for WRA, and how they can get to know about these meetings.
- Steve Knight Reply
  
  January 27, 2016 at 12:04 pm
  
  In reply to Cllr Gunning,
  
  We tried to contact by email all the known residents’ associations in north Guildford, west Woking and along the Wey but I am sure our list was not exhaustive.
  
  Looking back at our notes we did email Weyfield RA using the email address given by another Guildford body but we did not get a response to our initial email so assumed no immediate interest (which from your comment was maybe incorrect).
  
  The new Clay Lane Action Group (CLAG) would be happy to discuss our concerns regarding the CLLR with any RA.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

January 19, 2016 at 8:47 am

Clay Lane Link Road scheme has not addressed the Slyfield housing that is now being talked about. Therefore the council must revise the brief for this link.

I have said in these columns before that the scheme was premature if it considered access to the industrial area only. It is now a different scheme altogether and the council should therefore redefine its objectives.

My suggestion for a direct link to the A3 looks like a better option that should be explored with Highways England as the improvements to the A3 through Guildford are now being considered by them.
- Barry Keane Reply
  
  January 19, 2016 at 5:34 pm
  
  Bibhas, CLLR is part of the wider SARP project which was included in the draft master plan and a large amount of work has gone into it.
  
  You are also right that a link straight on to the A3 would be the most sensible option, but let’s be realistic will Highways England allow three major road junctions to the A3 in the space of two miles? No they won’t.
  
  This option also be more expensive due to the increased engineering work and also cause concerns with wildlife.
  - Bibhas neogi Reply
    
    January 20, 2016 at 6:47 am
    
    As far as I remember, CLLR option considerations did not include any traffic figures from the possible housing within the SARP.
    
    Your observation about a link on to the A3 suggests that you have not visited my website that shows how such a junction could be accommodated.
    
    Basically the idea is to avoid merge/diverge conflicts by taking the traffic that would have merged on to a connecting lane running adjacent to the on-slip and bifurcating away to the next junction.
    
    I have communicated this idea to CLLR team dealing with the comments on this scheme.
Carol Brown Reply

January 19, 2016 at 2:36 pm

As secretary of the Bellfields Residents’ Association I can say we did not receive an invitation.

I would have attended if we had. I have been attending the GBC meetings so must be on the list.
- Steve Knight Reply
  
  January 27, 2016 at 12:14 pm
  
  In reply to Carol Brown,
  
  Apologies to Bellfields RA in the fact that you did not get included on the initial emails sent out.
  
  This was not deliberate but because you were not included on lists I was working from (e.g. GRA list).
  
  Following your comment placed on the Guildford Dragon I have done further investigation and research and found an email address.
  
  I can assure you that no RA was deliberately excluded from the initial emails sent out.
  
  The newly formed Clay Lane Action Group (CLAG) would be happy to meet you going forward. If we have any further RA meetings I will ensure you (and Weyfield) are included.
Barry Keane Reply

January 19, 2016 at 5:28 pm

Regarding the quote in the story: “No parish or borough councillors were specifically invited as it was felt that the meeting should be ‘non-political’ and ‘without restrictions’.” – Correct me if I’m wrong but your main spokesperson, Steve Knight, is a parish councillor!

And: “Also the way that GBC have been ‘less than open’ with regards information surprised the meeting and, of great importance to residents, the derisory way that GBC have treated the views and concerns of the residents of Jacobs Well and Burpham (including their petition) was felt unacceptable.”

I’ve been chair of the community SARP forum for nearly seven years and would say the GBC have gone above and beyond in openness and sharing information as well as taking into account residents’ views.

I also did not receive an invitation, which would suggest that this meeting was far from open!
- Steve Knight Reply
  
  January 27, 2016 at 12:28 pm
  
  In reply to Barry Keane,
  
  You are correct that I am a parish councillor but I was not chairing the meeting in that role (and made this clear at the start of the meeting). This session had nothing to do with the parish council.
  
  I chaired the session as a Jacobs Well Residents Association committee member and resident of Jacobs Well.
  
  The action points/suggestions from the meeting were taken by another JWRA committee member and a short presentation was provided by a Burpham Community Association committee member.
  
  Our objective was not to have any parish or borough councillor present (although I presume a few councillors may have been there if they wore “two hats”. Do not forget, this was not a debate about the pros and cons of SARP or the CLLR but a meeting to raise awareness and get ideas from others about how we can fight the CLLR.
  
  What I would ask of Barry Keane, as he has chaired SARP for seven years, and in a spirit of openness, that he can confirm that if the proposed CLLR is developed and the 1,100 homes built, they will not have direct access onto the CLLR now or for the foreseeable future?
  - Barry Keane Reply
    
    February 10, 2016 at 10:06 pm
    
    In reply to Steve Knight:
    
    There is a draft Master Plan in existence that had extensive consultation in all the resident group areas.
    
    One of the key concerns of all the groups raised by the SARP forum was for no direct link with any new housing development and Clay Lane, which would blight many communities and turn a residential area into a rat run.
    
    The only link would allow for a possible bus route / council amenity vehicles with automatic bollards in the road. However, this is far from being agreed by anyone yet.
Jim Allen Reply

January 19, 2016 at 11:57 pm

Firstly, I apologies for any misunderstanding in that I did not realise those supporting this 12-year-old project, which has to date got nowhere save cost money to the community, were not included in the meeting.

Not withstanding that, I think some reality should be brought to the table.

Does openness include refusing to release the strategic plans for Clay lane other than this roundabout? The straightening of clay Lane was not ‘asked for’ but it was pointed out the danger of the bends if HGVs were using them, which is misleading.

It has also concentrated ‘on the alleged benefits for Jacobs well’, but no consideration for the community of Burpham and the refusal to disclose strategic intent in Burpham even under FOI and as a requirement of the neighbourhood planning process under the Localism Act.

We also have a verbal MOU with Thames Water with no display of the actual document. Does it exist?

And furthermore stories that this road will assist traffic problems in Stoughton. It won’t and it won’t in Wisley.

We still don’t know where traffic to Slyfield comes from and goes to.

As for access into the site, there are currently three exits on to the A320 – not suitable for 2,000 cars.

Logically, one single entrance on to Bellfields will be the most reliable.

Not withstanding the fact, there is a far simpler option for the use of the Wey Valley flood plain which removes the need for the link road and flooding Bellfields with 1,800 cars.
George Potter Reply

January 26, 2016 at 9:37 am

So let’s be clear then. People opposed to the Slyfield Regeneration and the Clay Lane link road held a meeting where, based on the above comments, councillors were barred (apart from a parish councillor who opposes the projects), and community and residents associations from areas far away from Slyfield who’ll never be affected by it any way were invited.

But those community organisations and residents associations which are actually from Slyfield weren’t even invited.

If Guildford Borough Council aren’t being “open” on this issue then it seems they’re not the only ones when those opposing the projects seem determined to rig any discussions to ensure an echo chamber where no voices of disagreement with them are allowed to be present.

And isn’t it funny how it so frequently seems to be the case that residents associations from the more “leafy” areas of Guildford seem to have a habit of forgetting about the existence of residents associations from those parts of Guildford which tend to be a bit less prosperous?
- Steve Knight Reply
  
  January 27, 2016 at 1:21 pm
  
  In reply to George Potter,
  
  I am a resident of Jacobs Well and also a Jacobs Well Residents Association (JWRA) committee member and I would like to clarify a few points with regards to Mr Potter’s comments:
  
  1. The JWRA and Burpham Community Association (BCA) are opposed to the proposed CLLR and we make no secret or apologies of that fact.
  
  2. An initial email was sent out prior to Christmas by the JWRA/BCA to as many residents associations (RAs) that we could find in north Guildford, along the Wey and in west Woking (although I concede that this may not have been exhaustive) stating that we were opposed to the CLLR and wanted to have a meeting to raise awareness and air our concerns plus get new ideas for fighting the development.
  
  I can assure Mr Potter that whether the RAs were in “leafy areas” or not did not enter our minds – no RA was deliberately excluded.
  
  I must stress and reiterate that the session was not about having a debate about the pros and cons of the proposed road – we are opposed.
  
  Some RAs responded that they would like to attend and listen; a couple said that they agreed with the road so would not attend; and from others we got no response at all. No problem and that was their prerogative.
  
  3. Therefore those RAs that responded positively to the initial email got a subsequent invite to the meeting. Also invited were those RAs who had contacted us directly by email or via our website and asked to come; and those who had experience of campaigning against GBC/WBC/SCC.
  
  4. As we would be trying to get ideas for a plan of opposition action was why we did not want councillors, employees of GBC, etc., or the press involved. This is what we meant by it being open – people could say what they wanted to. The press were updated subsequently.
  
  5. Some good ideas came out of the meeting, especially from RAs who had experience of successfully opposing major GBC/WBC/SCC projects. In fact since the meeting the Clay Lane Action Group has been formed (with an interim committee) and a fighting fund setup.
  
  6. We may have a follow-up session when all opposed to the CLLR can attend – including any RAs we “missed” from the initial trawl. This will be up to CLAG!
  
  I trust this clarifies the position. Finally, I do not know Mr Potter or where he lives but I would like to say that before becoming a Jacobs Well resident I lived for over 30 years in Stoughton and never considered myself “a bit less prosperous” (than who?) – in fact, being retired, I am decidedly less prosperous now!
Bibhas Neogi Reply

January 27, 2016 at 3:44 pm

Was indeed the question of traffic that would be generated by the proposed housing for 1,000 homes in Slyfield included in the factors considered in secret for the Clay Lane Link Road?

Maybe Barry Keane can throw some light as he claims he has been chair of the community SARP forum for nearly seven years!

If a new junction on the A3 to connect Slyfield directly could be accommodated without causing merge/diverge problems, should not that option be considered now?

Highways England, I would imagine, has to work in close cooperation with the expansion of housing being promoted by the central government in so far as the road infrastructure is concerned.

Surrey County Council has recently said there is a £3 billion shortfall in infrastructure needed to go along with the expansion of the housing. So most of the money has to come from the central government funding and strategic routes like the A3 have to play their part in linking the new areas of housing and the growth in traffic generated from these.

I would think that a direct link to the Slyfield area from the A3 has to be explored even if it costs a little more but the benefits would also be higher to compensate for the additional cost and reduction in congestion at the adjacent junctions.