Agreement Reached To Move Forward With Regeneration Of North Street

Published on: 4 Oct, 2016
Updated on: 4 Oct, 2016

The transformation of North Street in Guildford has been given a boost with the borough council entering an agreement with property investors M&G Real Estates.

North Street, Guildford.

The 12-month agreement announced by the council’s Executive at a meeting last week is aimed at providing homes, retail and leisure outlets.

Of the almost 96,000 sqm provisionally outlined in the proposed redevelopment, approximately 49% is for retail outlets, 46% for residential use with, 5% for food and drink outlets.

According to a statement issued by Guildford Borough Council, M&G Real Estate anticipates being able to submit a planning application between June and September 2017.

Following planning approval, M&G Real Estate (that also owns the Friary Centre) estimates that detailed design, site testing, procurement and mobilisation could take a further two years. Work on site is therefore likely to start during 2019 with anticipated scheme completion in 2022.

Cllr Paul Spooner.

The leader of Guildford Borough Council, Cllr Paul Spooner, said: “We are committed to delivering a high-quality and balanced mix of places to live, work, shop and enjoy our thriving town centre.

“Feedback from local people and businesses during last year’s extensive consultation on the Town Centre Master Plan clearly supported regenerating North Street and the Friary.

“To stay ahead Guildford must attract retailers and visitors, which is also vital for local jobs and our economy. Combining strong brands with our unique character and heritage provides the attractive shopping, eating and entertainment opportunities the town needs to remain a key centre in our area.

“Working exclusively now with M&G Real Estate, as significant property owners, to develop a suitable scheme is the most effective and commercial way forward. It also makes the most of this important brownfield site linking in to our bold vision for Guildford’s future.”

John Rigg.

At the council meeting, John Rigg spoke on behalf of the Guildford Vision Group. Among his comments, he said: “Guildford has three issues: an infrastructure deficit going back decades with poor design and planning, the choice to bring forward development with joined-up proposals not self defeating ad hoc development, and the opportunity to deliver a superb town centre or not, whilst fixing infrastructure so it works, or not.

“Is there a fourth issue? A reluctance to collaborate fully with the community even where groups are trying hard to be constructive and supportive.

“We recognise much work is being undertaken to help bring difficult projects to fruition. We look forward to good planning and design but we have no feeling of consultation or collaboration on key issues. How many experts are there in the council on large retail projects, on major infrastructure projects or large scale development fundings?

“We see little or no public debate on what should happen with the great sites of North Street, Bedford Road, Portsmouth Road car park, the station and the new Civic Quarter. This view might be seen as premature but we consider it is not considering the great disappointment with the poor design and vision for Guildford Park Road.

“Perhaps the answer generates a fear of openness, yet the town has many resident professionals willing to be helpful in addressing the challenges. We sense the council prefer to exclude whilst selecting an external consultant. We fear this may be in some cases to confirm a predetermined conclusion.

“These projects are good but this request is for a more collaborative approach so we can judge if projects are high quality or an easy way out.”

The council says that during the period of the 12-month agreement, M&G Real Estate and the council will use all reasonable endeavours to: agree a scheme format, which is in keeping with the character and appearance of the historic town centre; agree detailed heads of terms; and exchange a development agreement.

The council, along with Surrey County Council, M&G Real Estate, Arup, the bus operators and stakeholders, will also work together to agree a suitable design for an on-street solution to Guildford bus station.

Responses to Agreement Reached To Move Forward With Regeneration Of North Street

Jim Allen Reply

October 4, 2016 at 9:03 am

While Mr Rigg’s comments are damming on GBC approach to planning, I find myself agreeing with him.

We have ex-ministerial advisors, captains of industry, highly qualified ‘extras’ within our community – all ignored in favour of ‘safe space’ and ‘commercial confidentiality’.

I am a cynic in respect of ‘team players’ (someone who needs a second person to finish the job) but in the case of planning for the future of our community – it is simply too complex and too conflicting in purpose to say ‘we will ignore the experts free advice’ in favour of ‘confidentiality’ and ‘pre-decision of the end result’.

It is very wrong to have the answer ‘set in stone’ then ask the question how to reach it? That is why the GBC Local Plan has failed in its preparation.

It is time GBC accepted the gracious free offer of help from the residents of Guildford and admitted it is in reality beyond their expertise to complete the task without their help.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

October 4, 2016 at 10:14 am

Good news now that North Street development is at last back on the tracks after years of delay and difficulties.

As John Rigg has said: “We look forward to good planning and design but we have no feeling of consultation or collaboration on key issues.”

Is it not a bit of pre-determination when the council says that the council, along with Surrey County Council, M&G Real Estate, Arup, the bus operators and stakeholders, will also work together to agree a suitable design for an on-street solution to Guildford bus station?

Why is the on-street solution the only option on the table for discussion? Aren’t there other options for the relocation of the bus station?

The relocation of the bus station has been looked at before by a consultant appointed by the council and the study concluded that Bedford Road car park was a possible location. We know that subsequently the site was considered too close to the river and that it should be used for other appropriate development and also the problem of access from Onslow Street was an issue.

The point I have raised in these columns in the past were that the consultant looked at the issues solely in the context of existing road network and did not or were not asked to explore improvements of the network to facilitate such a relocation.

I have suggested that Mary Road car park site would be a more suitable alternative when access to it is improved and diversified along with the improvements to the gyratory traffic. Elsewhere I have described my suggestions for a tunnel-like structure for Millbrook that creates a pedestrian friendly town centre and for the east west traffic taken over the tracks between Guildford Park Road and Woodbridge Road. I have also suggested other improvements and alterations to traffic flow directions that I consider provide a holistic approach to the solution of Guildford traffic.

I consider a bus station under cover is a much better facility considering the weather conditions most of the time of the year are not favourable for an open-air facility. Also buses on the approach to the town centre through Onslow Street would totally spoil its character.

My proposals on the other hand include a satellite bus hub either integrated with the Friary extension or built close to it on Leapale Road together with the relocated site on Mary Road and bus routes split to serve the town centre and the railway station using the upgraded and modified road network not only maintain all the facilities but provide improved access to all locations.

My website and an associated website that holds the sketches describe my ideas that I hope the councils and other parties would give serious consideration and explore them further.
Ben Darnton Reply

October 4, 2016 at 3:36 pm

This is really good news as North Street has been left to deterioate for far too long.

As a cycling commuter the road surface is appalling so this regeneration of this part of town can’t come too soon.
Paul Bishop Reply

October 6, 2016 at 6:56 am

Can’t say that I really blame the council for making the decisions and moving forward based on the professional advice and guidance.

Anything that gets put to the public of Guildford has the same small groups of wannabe planners rejecting everything, costing both money and time in getting these much needed improvements through.

No doubt we’ll have ‘Save Our North Street’ group set up in due course for the Guildford residents with a love of the current architecture!
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  October 7, 2016 at 12:00 pm
  
  In reply to Paul Bishop:
  
  Maybe one of the reasons why Guildford’s traffic situation is so dire is due to people like you allowing the councils to do what is not necessary and not demanding councils do what is necessary to keep up with the evolving situation.
  
  Yes, councils do engage professionals but how often do they engage them to properly evaluate solutions with freedom to explore ideas or are they engaged to merely support councils’ pre-determinations so that they can claim legitimacy?
  
  Councils’ current options for the gyratory, experimental closure of Walnut Tree Close and proposed replacement of Walnut Footbrige and other non-urgent work instead of tackling the real issues of pedestrian safety on Bridge Street and congestion on the gyratory are examples of their approach to solutions that do not exactly inspire confidence.
  
  There are professionals, for example, within Guildford Vision Group and The Guildford Society, who freely give their time and energy to assist the councils in re-thinking their proposals and opening up wider avenues of doing things perhaps a little better and maybe sometimes urge them to be even bolder in finding innovative solutions.
  
  Please do not brand them as ‘wannabe planners rejecting everything’ because they do nothing of the sort without proper appraisal of the proposals.
Brian Holt Reply

October 6, 2016 at 7:01 pm

I believe the on-street solution to Guildford Bus station is a silly suggestion.

Firstly, what is going to happen on a wet day or a very cold day to passengers who after getting off one bus will have to walk in the rain to find say another bus to the hospital?

Passengers who are changing buses to carry on the journey do not want to wait out in the cold during winter months.

Some older people may need toilets or a hot drink while waiting for another bus, passengers want to get off a bus and wait in the warm for their next bus.

What are bus drivers going to do for toilets when arriving in Guildford after a long journey, say from Horsham?

A bus station, even a underground one, in the town centre is very important for shoppers, and people who use buses to get to work in the town.

Nearly all large towns have a central bus station, some even have a few bays for tourist coaches coming to their town.

I hope that all the local bus companies have a large part to play in designing the future bus station. Both they and the bus drivers are the experience ones, not people who have never driven buses, and never had to listen to complaints from passengers.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

October 7, 2016 at 11:09 am

Inconveniences of on-street solution to Guildford bus station have been amply highlighted by Brian Holt.

I have raised similar issues a number of times way back when the subject was under discussion in these columns.

One such example, I recall, appears under my comments following Martin Giles article ‘North Street Development Decision – Vision Group Reaction and Proposal Summaries’, –

https://guildford-dragon.com/2013/03/30/lend-lease-developed/#comments

Strangely though the site of Mary Road car park is absent from the list of sites in the Local Plan for redevelopment. I would appreciate it if anyone knows the reason behind its exclusion.
Mary Redgwell Reply

October 8, 2016 at 1:04 pm

A covered bus station with cafe and toilet facilities is surely an essential part of the redevelopment. As an elderly person I do not welcome the idea of waiting in the rain for a bus.
Brian Holt Reply

October 9, 2016 at 4:57 pm

Eastbourne has a temporary on-street solution to a bus station while waiting for a new bus station to be built.

It’s a main shopping road in the town centre. Local residents now call it Diesel Alley, because of the film of motor oil on the road surface which is slippery when wet.

The bus drivers all meet, smoking and chattering on the pavement, which annoys shoppers. And when it is raining they shelter by the shops.

People do not want to inhale diesel fumes when shopping, qnd why cause more traffic congestion by using roads for parking buses?

There would then have to be bus shelters installed on the pavements of all roads used.
Peter Knight Reply

October 11, 2016 at 9:27 am

Individuals with professional experience should be restricted to making their comments and views made when public consultations take place.

With the local plan I believe the council has given ample opportunity for the public to express their views.

Volunteers no matter what their experience, have absolutely no accountability if incorrect advice is given and in the event it is, the council has no recourse or legal contract to work to.

In some instances (and I am not suggesting the groups mentioned in this article) volunteers often have personal motivations to bring about developments which may provide a sole benefit to them.

It is for these reasons the council is right to consult externally and as a taxpayer I expect this to happen.
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  October 11, 2016 at 5:08 pm
  
  In response to Peter Knight:
  
  This is an electronic newspaper and its readers are free to comment irrespective of whether they are professionals or lay people.
  
  Comments or views expressed here by the readers in no way should be considered ‘advice’ to the councils and they are not legally binding. It is up to the councils to act upon these or completely ignore them as they think fit.
  
  If a suggested idea makes sense to the councils, they would surely consult externally if they do not have in-house expertise to properly evaluate its benefits. Of course I expect the councils to dismiss any suggestion that is of sole benefit to the proposer of any development and not for the benefit of all.
Peter knight Reply

October 13, 2016 at 10:37 am

Bibhas

I’m not suggesting people lay or otherwise should not make comments or provide their opinions. I make many of my own on this website and it truly is an excellent source of information. My point was that the council is right to engage external companies and not accept the free help offered by local residents (no matter how well meaning) for the reasons I made above.
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  October 15, 2016 at 10:39 pm
  
  Consultation by councils gives them an opportunity to gather views and opinions on their proposals and, occasionally, alternatives that may introduce novel and pioneering ideas. When these are given freely, it is up to the councils to analyse them and, if deemed useful, they may explore them further, either in-house or by bringing in independent consultants.
  
  Once the councils agree to explore ideas, that have originated outside of their offices, they assume full ownership and responsibility of the ideas and their proposers are in no way legally implicated.
  
  I agree that councils cannot accept unpaid help from outsiders but they could form advisory committees to which outsiders can participate provided they have no financial interest or they do not stand to gain in any way. And again the key word is ‘advisory’, the Executive of the councils retain the sole power to advise councilors.
Bibhas Neogi Reply

December 11, 2017 at 10:05 pm

All quiet on the North Street Front. Anyone knows how this is progressing? There was talk about consultation by the council with stakeholders and as I am not one of them, I do not know if this has taken place.

A year has gone by, Guildford Village has come and gone, and no action has been taken so far to improve the traffic situation. An exhibition was held some two years or so ago on redesigning the gyratory and as per normal nothing has been heard since.

Meanwhile, an experimental closure of Walnut Tree Close is planned that would surely cause even more congestion on Woodbridge Road and the gyratory.

Next December has been year-marked by Network Rail to strengthen Farnham Road Bridge. To strengthen it from its current assessed capacity of 7.5T to 40T, I would imagine lane closures would most probably be required and in that case, massive queues would build up during peak periods.

Guildford Borough Council would leave the traffic issues with Surrey County Council as they are the Highway Authority but has sufficient consultation taken place of the impact of these? Do SCC even know what traffic management Network Rail is going to propose? I have searched for Network Rail’s planning application for the works but found nothing so far.

I would appreciate an update please on these if someone knows something.
Valerie Thompson Reply

December 12, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Why move the bus station elsewhere? It is central as it is. Some buses could go to the station but not every bus should end its run there.

If the present bus station was rebuilt as a covered area, with seating, lavatories, and a decent café it would be best. However, some employees should be charged with keeping the area clean, which it is not at present, repaired and re-painted when necessary. As it is, the place is dirty and unappealing,
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  December 17, 2017 at 5:42 pm
  
  According to reports elsewhere, GBC has come to an agreement with the owners of the Friary, M & G Real Estate, that the area of the bus station would form part of the Friary extension. There had been a long hiatus in developing the North Street area until this agreement was reached. So the bus station has to be vacated.
  
  It appears that the current GBC thinking is to have on-street bus bays and no relocated bus station. Many have pointed out that a bus station with a decent waiting area, cafes and toilets are preferable to open air windy shelters dotted around the town centre.
  
  I have outlined my ideas in my comments above of October 4 2016. On-street bus bays would not be conducive to attaining a pedestrian-friendly town centre unless gyratory traffic is diverted away from, or relocated under Onslow Street together with a new east-west route.
  
  My understanding is that GBC has no plans to divert traffic away but plans to make Friary Bridge two-way, Onslow Street two-way throughout and close Bridge Street to traffic. Such an arrangement would not make the town centre pedestrian friendly and on-street bus bays would make matters even worse.