Letter: County and Borough Councils Should Consider Alternative Schemes

Published on: 21 Nov, 2017
Updated on: 21 Nov, 2017

From Bibhas Neogi

Nearly a year after the application Solum Regeneration’s appeal against Guildford Borough Council’s rejection has been heard by a planning inspector. The Inspector’s verdict is awaited but we are not aware whether the councils (Guildford Borough Council (GBC) and Surrey County Council (SCC)) are investigating the options to achieve a pedestrian friendly town centre.

An attractive town centre can only be designed when the gyratory traffic is removed and relocated away from it. I have outlined my idea in my comments above as an alternative to Guildford Vision Group’s (GVG) proposal which requires Network Rail’s active participation in developing the area west side of the tracks and demolishing existing buildings to make way for a new Farnham Road Bridge.

Farnham Road Bridge is going to be strengthened in December 2018 by Network Rail with contribution from SCC and today, (November 20), is the deadline for SCC to agree to funding some £3.5m towards upgrading the bridge to 40/44 tonnes above Network Rail’s historical obligation of 24 tonnes.

I am not aware what kind of traffic management would be put in place during the strengthening work but it is not hard to imagine that there would be considerable disruption to east west traffic.

I would suggest that instead of spending this money now, SCC explore the feasibility of a new crossing at the northern edge of Solum’s site and safeguard such a route. In the mean time a 7.5 tonnes weight restriction on Farnham Road Bridge could be placed. A small percentage of traffic that are heavier than 7.5 tonnes would have a detour but that I think should be acceptable on environmental grounds anyway.

SCC should consider not replacing Walnut Footbridge at this time and could divert this fund of £4m (of course with M3 LEP’s agreement) towards the cost of construction of such a bridge. There is some indication that the central government would fund improvements of infrastructure where congestion is acute for the movement of traffic into main towns and cities.

Such investments have a return often not readily recognised. These come from reduced loss of working hours for many thousands and environmental improvements from reduced pollution.

I consider GBC consultant’s view that putting only one of the converging roads to Guildford into a tunnel or a bridge is flawed as they have not considered the option, or were asked not to, of both the A281 in a tunnel or a tunnel-like structure and a new bridge over the tracks. I strongly believe that together these would achieve a pedestrian friendly town centre and attract more visitors needed to retain and enhance Guildford’s business sector.

I hope the councils would explore both mine and GVG’s suggestions if not already doing so.

GVG masterplan re-routeing.

Bill Stokoe of Guildford Vision Group responded:

We have long argued for our crossing and for a revised routeing of traffic in the centre so as to free up the bottom of town for pedestrians and to allow the riverside to be a rich, reinvigorated public realm along with other green spaces and public squares. Such a development also provides a much better opportunity for meaningful cycle routes rather than the current disjointed pattern.

Our town centre plan has been costed (pre fit-out level) and we believe represents viable development. It includes substantially more much-needed town centre housing than that proposed in the council’s Local Plan.

Our scheme also saves at least one of the proposed incursions into the green belt. The infrastructure cost of the route should be fundable and would include a new Farnham Road Bridge. The town’s commerce and daily life is too valuable to be held to ransom by just one, tired and failing bridge.

The Solum appeal was an unappealing spectacle, with just one substantial argument put forward by the council’s counsel. That was around the impact of the 10 storey, 287 metre wall on the setting of the Cathedral. It was also hard to believe that the county council saw no reason to challenge the transport and safety impact on the gyratory of 438 new homes with 200 additional car parking spaces, let alone more pedestrians, cyclists and delivery vehicles.

I’m glad Bibhas agrees that proposals like ours should be properly considered.