Fringe Box



Council Promised Funding For Clay Lane Link Road

Published on: 4 Feb, 2015
Updated on: 4 Feb, 2015

Guildford Borough Council is to receive funding towards the proposed Clay Lane link road near Jacobs Well.

Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has secured capital funding as part of the multi-million pound expansion of the Government’s Growth Deals.

GBC LogoThe £29.9 million of funding is from the Government’s Local Growth Fund plus £42 million in loans from the Public Works Loan Board.

​The funding will be used to support 14 infrastructure projects across the Enterprise M3 area, including stage 2 of the proposed Clay Lane Link Road. The level of funding for the road is yet to be finalised.

​​Cllr Matt Furniss, lead councillor for transport, infrastructure and the environment, said: “We are delighted that the LEP has secured this funding for Guildford. It will enable us to continue exploring the scope for the Clay Lane Link Road, that will benefit residents by helping to aid the traffic flows around Guildford, and which is a key infrastructure project for our borough.

“We will continue to engage with local residents and businesses to establish the most effective alignment for the road and to address the issues relating to traffic movements, flooding and environmental impact. The investment recognises the importance of Guildford to both our local economy and the national economy as a whole.”​

The plan for the link road across a flood plain of the River Wey near Slyfield and Jacobs Well has come under criticism, particularly from local resident Jim Allen. Read his letter to The Guildford Dragon NEWS in December 2013.



Share This Post

Responses to Council Promised Funding For Clay Lane Link Road

  1. Jim Allen Reply

    February 5, 2015 at 11:27 am

    It is a great shame that Moorfield Road and the A320 (where the current actual problem is) are not receiving this funding. This road is a simple exercise of moving the problem to another location, without accepting where the real problem lies.

    Last night (February 4) at 5.30pm Clay lane was running at 30 to 35 cars per minute into Jacobs Well.

    There were no cars queuing at the Jacobs Well Road junction with the A320. Three cars were in Moorfield Road waiting to exit and a solid stationary stream of cars from the fuel station on Woking Road up past Jacobs Well Road, presumably up to Salt Box Road.

    It is all Local traffic at these junctions.

    This would strongly suggest ‘looking at the overall picture’ that it is the A320 which needs sorting out.

    This proposal for the intoduction of a road which will mean a longer journey of 1.3 miles from the A3 (nearest main artery route) and .75 miles longer going northbound (nearest main artery route).

    The project is thus unsustainable.

    The proposed route is across green belt land and Zone 3b flood plain and proposes to join Clay Lane at the deepest part of the Zone 3b flood plain. Perhaps build a road on stilts, or a dam holding the water back or perhaps and underwater road? who knows?

    We are told (in Burpham) “it will not make significant change to the traffic patterns” – so it is clearly not needed now or in the future.

    If the current junction at Moorfield Road is adjusted to allow free flow, and Clay Lane and Saltbox Road junctions are sorted as proposed in the 1990s, or the current road was used through the local council depot and water works, then this road plan fails on the need criteria.

    Total number of houses affected in Burpham will be 135 subject to increased traffic levels (with no compensation available for increased noise levels) while other routes at best would affect less then 30 – all could claim compensation under current legislation.

    The removal of the current weight limit of 7.5 tons (claimed to be ‘environmental’) will result in excess of 300 HGV movements per day (according to 2004 figures plus yearly increase) going right through the middle of Burpham, past a primary school and senior school routes used by children on a daily basis increasing traffic danger, noise and air pollution.

    In my opinion, the environment, green belt and active flood plain are ‘off the agenda’ in the dash for cash.

    I am extremely disappointed that the ‘bigger picture’ is not being observed and consideration for the reality on the ground is taking second place to irrational ill thought-out proposals which in 10 years have never got past the paper napkin stage.

    [Ed: it is interesting that Jim Allen makes reference to the plans from the 1990s to improve the A320 in the area that included the Moorfield Road junction through to Jacobs Well. At the time there was a very large campaign against this. A number of protesters set up camp in the woods on Stringers Common as it was proposed to ‘straighten’ the road and so trees would be felled. It was also the time when the spectre of a waste incinerator was proposed for Slyfield. Some suggested that the A320 road improvements were being done ready for the trucks that might serve the waste burner. Readers will remember there was a huge campaign against the burner – led in the first instance by people living further east (Burpham and Merrow) who feared smoke belching from it would be harmful.]

  2. Jim Allen Reply

    February 6, 2015 at 9:54 am

    While I beg to be corrected by your readers, if I remeber correctly the campaign against changes on the A320 was instigated by ‘outlanders’ not ‘locals’.

    It was simply the volume and actions of the outlanders which put a stop to to the project.

    Many people I speak to wonder why Slyfield has not been made one way. The traffic lights cause more congestion than necessary.

    [Ed: ‘Outlanders’, now that’s a word you don’t often hear. I think ‘locals’ referred to them as ‘tree people’ as they set up camp by building tree camps on Stringers Common. From memory, many local people were grateful to them for their rebel protest.]

  3. Bibhas Neogi Reply

    March 20, 2015 at 6:39 pm

    Guildford Borough Council is currently seeking views on the options they have investigated for the link to Clay Lane. The scheme concerns improving access to Slyfield Industrial Estate from the A3.

    I think it would be premature to go ahead with this link before resolving the housing scheme in Slyfield regeneration area. The access should consider not only the industrial estate but also the housing scheme that the central government has now cited as a possibility.

    The scope of the investigation should be expanded to include a possible direct link to the A3. I believe such a link would relieve pressure on existing junctions as well. It would be a much shorter link but maybe a bit more expensive. However, when benefits are taken into account, I am confident that this would prove to be a better scheme all round.

    The starting point of such a direct link would be roughly the same as for the other schemes but it would have a link to the housing area. The junction on the A3 would be approximately in between the two existing lay-bys on the A3. The layout could utilize these as part of the slip roads. The lay-bys would of course have to be relocated if this is done. The A3 improvements currently being worked up by the Highways Agency includes improving junctions. There is an opportunity to use up carriageways that could be freed up to relocate these two lay-bys.

    I have suggested that Stoke Road junction be made all directional. The layout could free up the length of the existing northbound merge on which the lay-by could be relocated. On the southbound, my suggestion for converting the emergency access next to Clay Lane Bridge into a slip road could also free up lane 1 beyond Merrow junction if this lane is dropped by making it into a dedicated off-slip and the vacated lane up to Clay Lane Bridge could house the lay-by.

    I have added a sketch on my website that shows the idea of such a link. I have sent my comments to GBC but not explained the reason behind my suggestion as I have done here.I hope GBC would consider this and expand their Options study.

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *