Opinion: Guildford Deserves Better in Guildford Park Road

Published on: 31 Jan, 2026
Updated on: 3 Feb, 2026

Guildford Borough Council has developed a scheme to develop Guildford Park Road Car Park to provide 248 Dwellings (click here for more details )

Alistair Smith, chair of the Guildford Society.

By Alistair Smith

chair of The Guildford Society

The Guildford Society has lodged a formal objection to the proposed housing development at the Guildford Park Road car park, as we strongly believe that the scheme fails to meet the standards expected for such a prominent and strategically important site.

The site might be one of the first impressions rail passengers get of our town and should be an exemplar development.

If the borough council expects private developers to deliver high-quality, design-led schemes across the borough, it must demonstrate those standards itself. Otherwise, it weakens its ability to insist on quality elsewhere.

The Society is clear that it supports the need for new housing in Guildford, particularly on sustainable, well-located brownfield sites close to the town centre, station and university.

With government targets requiring Guildford to deliver significantly more homes in coming years, higher-density development is both necessary and unavoidable. The Society has reviewed Density of Development and recently produced a paper on this subject https://www.guildfordsociety.org.uk/DensityGLD.html

However, the Society believes that this makes design quality, placemaking and long-term liveability more important than ever — especially where the council itself is closely involved in promoting development.

The design quality of design doesn’t match that of other buildings completed recently in the middle section of Walnut Tree Close.

The proposed development consists of four five- and six-storey blocks, supplemented by a row of town houses.

View of site from the north west.

While the Society accepts the principle of building at this scale, it argues that the current scheme falls short in several key areas:

• Design and massing: The buildings are overly repetitive and
  monolithic, creating the impression of a continuous wall of
  development that harms townscape character and important views,
  including glimpses of Guildford Cathedral.
• Architectural quality: The Society criticises the use of bland, panelised façades and materials that are out of keeping with
  Guildford’s distinctive character and aspirations.
• Amenity space: With more than 700 future residents, the scheme provides very limited meaningful communal and public space. What open space there is largely a central access road to accommodate a bus route and cycle lane. There needs to be proper shared amenity areas, roof gardens or welcoming public spaces.
• Movement and connectivity: Pedestrian and cycle routes, particularly to the railway station, are poorly resolved and in places contrary to current guidance, undermining efforts to promote sustainable travel.

The Society also raises concerns that the scheme does not fully comply with the Council’s recently adopted Tall Buildings Supplementary Planning Document, which emphasises the need to adopt a design-led approach, protecting views and providing high-quality amenity space.

We at the Guildford Society are not about opposing development but we want all new housing to be genuinely fit for future generations. Guildford needs more homes, but these must be places where people will want to live for decades to come.

The recently published Design and Placemaking Planning Practice Guidance document by the government states that “The seven features of well- designed places are: liveability, climate, nature, movement, built form, public space and identity.

In a well-designed place, the seven features come together through an integrated process, each supporting the others to create a distinct and cohesive place that is based on a sound understanding of its context’. The Society contends that this proposed development fails to create a distinct and cohesive place.

The Guildford Society urges the council to seek significant improvements to the proposal, arguing that a revised scheme could still deliver the required housing numbers while providing better design, stronger place-making and a more positive legacy for the town.

Share This Post