Development Concerns in Ash Increase As Various Impact Figures Are Put Forward

Published on: 28 Jan, 2018
Updated on: 30 Jan, 2018

Ash residents, in the west of Guildford Borough, are expressing increasing concern about the amount of development that is underway or planned for their area.

In the debate, three different figures for the percentage of land to be developed in Ash & Tongham have been put forward in recent days.

Map showing Ash Vale, Ash, Tongham and Ash Green, villages of Guildford borough outside the designated green belt area.

First Sue Wyeth-Price, chair of AGRA (Ash Green Residents Association) said she had calculated that Ash makes up five percent of the area of the borough and yet 38% of the housing planned for the borough, outside the Guildford urban area is likely to be in the Ash area.”

The Guildford Dragon asked Tracey Coleman, director of planning at Guildford Borough Council, whether she agreed with those figures. Eventually, she replied to say: “The wards of Ash Vale, Ash Wharf, and Ash and Tongham make up 3.6% of the borough.

“Over the plan period, this area is accounting for 22% of the planned housing development outside of the currently defined Guildford urban area, which is 16% of the total planned growth.”

And most recently, Ash resident John Ferns has written in saying: “On a land area of 2% of Guildford borough, we have been allocated almost 17% of the borough’s overall housing commitment, second only to the Wisley airfield site.”

Responses to Development Concerns in Ash Increase As Various Impact Figures Are Put Forward

Sue Wyeth-Price Reply

January 28, 2018 at 5:39 pm

I disagree with Tracey Coleman’s figure of 22%.

My figures were taken from the submitted Local Plan which shows the Ash area being allocated 1,870 homes, with the total in the plan (for the plan period) of 11,288. The town centre (1,285) and the urban area (5,104) together is 6,389, leaving 4,899 houses outside the town and surrounding urban area. 38% of those houses are planned for Ash.

I agree with Tracey Coleman’s figure regarding the total area of the three wards she mentioned, it is somewhat smaller than the figure I used of about 4%. The vast majority of those house planned for the west of the borough will be in Ash South and Tongham, as John Ferns has stated, about 2% of the total land in the borough. This is a disproportionate volume, especially with the limited infrastructure to support it.
Ben Paton Reply

January 28, 2018 at 5:41 pm

It would be helpful if the council, The Dragon or a contributor would summarise the figures to show where the Local Plan proposes to build the new houses.

My understanding is that the plan calls for 12,426 houses in total.

How many of these are planned for the Town Centre and the Guildford Urban Area? 1,221? Is Blackwell Farm considered to be part of the ‘urban area’? Is Gosden Hill part of the ‘urban area’?
- Jim Allen Reply
  
  January 29, 2018 at 1:21 am
  
  Gosden Hill is green belt in its “hardest” form, it protects the urban development line. The removal of this hard line along the rear of Gosden Hill Road, protected by the ancient woodland tree protection order of the late 1940’s and common land would be disastrous.
  
  The proposed Gosden Hill development was deemed unsustainable in the 1980s. The development jumps to an undefended line in fields but is claimed to be an “urban extension” when in reality it is a separate development in the green belt. At no point does it meet the urban development line of Burpham ward. It also prevents ribbon development along the A3 which, in the current proposal will link with Burnt Common. The reality of ‘The Plan’ is it is “unsustainable” by its purest definition.
- Sue Wyeth-Price Reply
  
  January 29, 2018 at 2:54 pm
  
  In reply to Ben Paton’s comment, The submitted Local Plan has a summary table of sites on pages 133 – 135. This groups the policy sites (A1 to A57) sites into 6 categories and provides the anticipated number of houses in each location as follows:
  Guildford Town Centre 1,285
  Guildford Urban Area 5,104
  Ash and Tongham 1,870
  Previously Developed Green Belt 116
  New Settlement 2,000
  Villages 913
  Total 11,288
  
  There are an additional 1,100 homes mentioned which are not included in the plan period, together with some student accommodation, care homes and Traveller pitches. Slyfield Regeneration Area, Gosden Hill Farm and Blackwell Farm are all included in the Guildford Urban Area. Wisley is the only location in the New Settlement group, whilst the total decimation of Ash South and Tongham is clearly demonstrated by the fact that they are the only wards to be called out into their own grouping.
  
  In terms of council wards, 10 of the 22 wards do not have a single house allocated to them.
John Ferns Reply

January 28, 2018 at 6:39 pm

My figures for the overall housing commitment for the borough were based on the two wards of ‘Ash South’ and ‘Tongham’ and included Ash Green. I would not disagree with GBC’s planning director; the figure is actually 16.4%, based on 1,860 houses out of a total of 11,288 for the whole of GBC, as set out in the local plan. I said “almost 17%”.

As for the percentage of borough land area, GBC’s planning director is quoting for the four wards in the western part of GBC, which included Ash Vale and Ash Wharf. These are already totally developed and have had no housing commitment heaped on them.

Therefore Ms Coleman’s 3.6% scaled up, equates with my 2% on the two southern wards which are bearing the brunt of the planned development.

When we say planned development, this is actually real development that has already received approval, either at GBC or on appeal (I gave fuller detail in my letter: There Is Not Much More ‘They’ Can Do To Ruin Ash & Tongham)

I cannot comment on Sue Wyeth-Price’s (chair of AGRA – Ash Green Residents Association) figures.