Responses to Letter: Move Industrial Units to Slyfield and Use Walnut Tree Close for Residential

1. Jim Allen Reply

   June 6, 2019 at 9:22 am

   The flood risk has not disappeared merely the navigation which should be run at under 2 knots is being run at 8 knots with the subsequent predicted loss of 120 trees with bank erosion 30 trees have already been lost. Scouring at Bowers weir has ripped the bed out of the navigation so instead of 4 feet deep it now has a depth of 12 feet.
2. David Smith Reply

   June 6, 2019 at 8:07 pm

   People need to realise that developing town centres in real life is not like Sim City. It’s unlikely that the council owns any land in Walnut Tree Close and most of what is undeveloped has planning consents attached to it. The reason the sites on the river side of the road are not being developed is because of the lack of flood protection and it’s up to the developers to come up with a solution as the Environment Agency are sitting on their hands.

   Slyfield makes sense – for one reason the sewage works are probably outdated and Thames Water could benefit from a brand new facility. Secondly, this is a cheaper part of town and could be used to deliver much needed affordable housing and cheaper private housing compared to prime parts of town.

   It really is sad to see the same critics (not the writer of this letter) criticising yet another proposed development in the town. I mean is there anywhere we can build without someone complaining?
3. Helen Jefferies Reply

   June 7, 2019 at 9:10 am

   My point is that the council had always argued that flood risk prevented Walnut Tree Close being used for housing. The SARP Plan shows houses along the river. I don’t understand why it’s ok to build houses on the river at SARP but not at WTC. Surely the flood risk is similar? I understand it might not be exactly the same but £60-£90 million saved from not moving Thames Water’s sewage treatment centre should buy quite a bit of flood mitigation, if it’s needed.
4. Fiona Curtis Reply

   June 7, 2019 at 3:08 pm

   I have family who lives in new housing on the esplanade at Rochester. The area is subject to sea flooding but the houses are unaffected because they have basement and garage facilities below and are raised to allow for flooding. Many seafront and riverfront properties are built this way.

   Perhaps its a case of where there’s a will there’s a way?
5. George Potter Reply

   June 7, 2019 at 5:18 pm

   I don’t know for certain but I imagine one of the key differences between the SARP and Walnut Tree Close is that the former is adjacent to a natural floodplain and wildlife preserve which can absorb flooding more easily.

   Also, anyone who has taken a trip along Walnut Tree Close lately will have noticed that the light industrial units along that road are gradually being closed down one by one and being redeveloped into accommodation anyway.

   George Potter is a Lib Dem councillor for Burpham.
6. Bibhas Neogi Reply

   June 11, 2019 at 8:26 am

   I presented a document to Guildford Vision Group in May 2012 when suggestions for improvements were invited by GUildford Vision Group. It is now in GVG’s archives.

   In that document I included my ideas about how to reduce traffic congestion in Guildford, a new crossing over the railway, relocation of the bus station and alteration of the routes, a new Walnut Bridge, a high level walkway from the railway station to the Friary and possible widening of the A3 etc.

   Many other suggestions have since been added and some supersede the older ideas. However, GVG and the Guildford Society have come up with similar ideas much later.

   In the context of Helen Jefferies’ comment about whether she was the only one who suggested removing light industrial units from Walnut Tree Close to make room for residential housing, I can assure her that I mentioned this possibility (in the last paragraph of that document) as well but at that time there was no SARP or ‘Urban Village’ proposal.

   In the end it is not so important as to who aired these ideas first but whether the councils take any notice of them and act on the suggestions they find relevant and explore them further.
7. Bibhas Neogi Reply

   June 12, 2019 at 8:44 am

   For those who are interested in the document I presented to Guildford Vision Group in May 2012,it can be found in

   http://www.guildfordvisiongroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Gyratory_website_rev11.pdf

   As I said, many other suggestions have since been added and some supersede the older ideas. Please see my website http://www.spanglefish.com/revampguildfordgyratory/

   The important additions are:

   1) a tunnel taking the A281 from Shalford, with a spur connecting the A3100 at Artington, to the A25 Parkway to reduce traffic through the town centre;

   2) lowering the stretch of the A281 from Quarry Street junction to York Road roundabout into a tunnel-like structure to make the town centre pedestrian friendly and;

   3) an A3 widening idea that retains the two bridges – one carrying the slip road to Farnham and the other that carries the A31 over the A3. I believe that this would cause the least disruption to both the A3 and the A31 traffic, would be the most cost-effective and environmentally preferable widening scheme for this location.