Letter: New Ash Railway Bridge – Issues Remain

Published on: 22 Jun, 2019
Updated on: 22 Jun, 2019

Ash level crossing

From: John Ferns

In response to: Ash Residents Express Doubts and Fears Over New Rail Bridge Plan

Thank you to Dragon reporter David Reading for bringing these matters to the attention of the wider public. A fair and balanced approach met with a “dead bat” by GBC, whose underlying message seems to be, “Local residents, stay calm, your concerns will all be addressed when the planning applications are published.”

Of concern is that the traffic modelling has still to be sorted out. When will it be? Is this not an acknowledgement that the Transport Assessment “approved by the Government Inspector” was deeply flawed, as pointed out by Harry Eve in his letter to The Dragon two months ago https://guildford-dragon.com/2019/04/28/letter-we-still-have-very-much-to-fear-over-the-local-plan-transport-assessment/?

And the affordable homes issue seems to have been ducked. 35% may well have been the quota in 2017 when the Copperwood Estate was first introduced to the GBC Planning Committee, but the figure under the adopted Local Plan is now an eye-watering 40%, which may well be an issue with any future planning applications in the immediate area, especially when the developer is also facing swingeing s106 levies to fund the bridge project.

And finally, why is it that I am left with the feeling that finance could possibly be an issue? Does the quoted £7-8m shortfall include payments under compulsory purchase order obligations to compensate landowners for land required by GBC to build the bridge? And how do GBC/developers hope to square the circle on s106 contributions and the 40% affordability quota? What compromises will have to be made?

I found the air photograph illuminating as it shows the footprint of the bridge; The photo clearly shows developments already sanctioned (those fields washed over in mauve and orange), but what it does not show is that the other green fields (to the south and east) surrounding the bridge, are all known to be under threat of development too. If these fields are developed would that not compromise Policy P3 of the approved Local Plan, i.e. that any development “does not lead to greater physical or visual coalescence between the (i) Ash and Tongham urban area and (ii) either Aldershot or Ash Green village”?

These are just some of the issues that will need critical examination when the anticipated planning applications are raised.