Plans For 191 Upmarket Apartments In Walnut Tree Close – Available For Rent

Published on: 29 Dec, 2017
Updated on: 30 Dec, 2017

A plan to build 191 apartments for rent, close to Guildford railway station, has been submitted to Guildford Borough Council’s planners.

An artist’s impression of what the development may look like. The River Wey is to the right and in the foreground. Note the railway bridge to the top right for orientation. Click on all pictures to enlarge.

Developers Peveril Securities and Sladen Estates are aiming to build on a site in Walnut Tree Close near the ‘seven-arch’ railway bridge and backing on to the river. Part of the site is the current Bishops Nissan motor garage. The other part is the former Walnut Tree Park trading estate, currently an open space piled with rubble, and which planning permission was granted in 2012 for commercial premises.

Part of the site earmarked for the new development. It was more recently the Walnut Tree Park trading estate. Note the posters on the fence that relate to a planning application for offices on the site that was granted in 2012. Go back over 40 years and the site was the storage yard for building supply business Dragon Plant Hire.

The developers of the new plan state on their website that they “….intend to bring forward exciting plans for a PRS (private rented sector) residential scheme in a sustainable location,” adding: “The brownfield land is mostly derelict…. the planned development, which is the first of its kind in Guildford, will deliver up to 191 new homes, offering one- and two-bedroom apartments.”

The developers also say: “Property prices are too high in the town for many to afford, and the shortage of purpose-built rental accommodation in Guildford is stifling employment opportunities. This development will provide the high-quality, affordable apartments for rent that Guildford’s local economy needs. All properties will be fully managed and maintained, and will offer a variety of services and facilities to tenants.”

A view of the site from the footbridge alongside the seven-arch railway bridge.

With the site close to the river and a potential risk of flooding, the developers state: “Following discussions with the Environmental Agency their comments have been taken on board to ensure the scheme has been designed so that the buildings won’t flood.”

A further artist’s impression of the proposed development of apartments.

There are no hints as to what the rents on the apartments will be, but the planned development appears to be ‘up market’ as the proposals for the site to include a concierge, residents’ gym, lounge, cinema and 102 car parking spaces.

The plans were submitted in early December and the developers have, on their website, been asking for people’s views of the proposal during a public consultation that closed in November.

Another view of what the development may look like. This time with the river in the background and the railway arch to the left.

Artist’s impressions of the development show a number of blocks of several stories high, with one block of around 10 stories.

With the current Trinity Quarter development on the sharp bend of Walnut Tree Close well under way, and with other recent developments on the opposite side of the road, plus those adjacent to the railway line and station car park, the area is undergoing some considerable change; and some may say accommodation that is ideal for commuters.

To view the documents and drawings associated with the plan, click here on Guildford Borough Council’s website.

The Trinity Quarter development in progress in Walnut Tree Close. The motor garage would relocate if plans for the 191 apartments gets the go ahead.

Responses to Plans For 191 Upmarket Apartments In Walnut Tree Close – Available For Rent

Dave Middleton Reply

December 29, 2017 at 1:06 pm

Excellent idea and sensible use of a large, close to town centre, site.

It’s time the council started kicking the owners of the former National Grid / Burymead House development site on the Portsmouth Road good and hard to get on with using that for housing too.
- S Saunders Reply
  
  December 30, 2017 at 10:34 am
  
  I think you’ll find there are plans for housing for seniors on that site. They call it a community.
  
  As for the above: Affordable? As expensive as they can get away with more like.
  - Dave Middleton Reply
    
    December 31, 2017 at 11:30 am
    
    Yes, I knew that there were plans for some form of retirement housing on the Burymead site, but it’s been a good few years since those plans were put forward and nothing’s been done.
    
    It smacks of “Land Banking” to me and the owners / developers should be told to get on with it, or face compulsory purchase of the site for home building by the council or someone else who’s prepared to get on with it.
Bernard Parke Reply

December 29, 2017 at 1:14 pm

‘Affordable’- this is good news!

No doubt the congested traffic problem will also be resolved before too long.
Jules Cranwell Reply

December 29, 2017 at 2:03 pm

I sicerely doubt that these ‘up market’ homes will be affordable.

What Guildford needs is social housing, so another own goal for GBC.
Jim Allen Reply

December 29, 2017 at 2:23 pm

Are these more ‘affordable’ ‘Country Life’ ‘low-cost homes’ available for all the destitute millionaires from London?

Concierge, gym, and cinema – clearly for our local young people looking for housing.

I’m sure the installation of a second entrance will be provided for the 40% of housing association homes!
Colin Checkley Reply

December 29, 2017 at 3:04 pm

Great. Where do I sign?
Vanessa Sewell Reply

December 30, 2017 at 9:28 am

Affordable? Not for someone with kids and a combined income of £22k a year I bet!

Where are all the extra parked cars going? 191 homes and only 102 parking spaces.

It’s going to mimic the overspill of cars from limited parking in other recent multi-occupancy builds and leave more (paying) residents without parking on the road.

As for the extra traffic, has anyone else been stuck in rush hour queues on Walnut Tree Close?

More homes equates to more people; more people equates to more need for emergency services.

Try getting an ambulance (for example) down Walnut Tree Close in a hurry in rush hour or be the person that explains a heart attack has proven fatal purely because (often inconsiderate) motorists on a hugely over subscribed road held the emergency services up by say eight minutes more than necessary on the road.

I truly fear that a major emergency will be the moment someone decides “it wasn’t a great idea to jam so many residents into such a small, congested space”.

Use the land for homes, great, but for so many?

With too few parking spaces?

Filling the flood plain with structures that could create a knock-on effect for homes already there or risk owners’ storage/vehicles?

In a hugely busy location? In my opinion, it’s not so great.
Ros McMillan Reply

December 30, 2017 at 5:42 pm

Pedestrian access to the [railway] station and to the town from this site would be so good that maybe fewer cars would be needed by the tenants.

The site would be ideal for housing once account has been taken of the flooding risk.

While much of the site has been lying neglected for so long I had hoped that it might one day be used for residential rather than commercial development, so I am pleased to see this planning application.

The design doesn’t look as if it would win any prizes, though, unfortunately.
Harry Elson Reply

December 30, 2017 at 9:32 pm

Well, well, what a surprise. Do you really think that this development will be for the use of the ordinary people who badly need homes?

The Answer is No. The clever developers will say it’s just unaffordable to house poorer individuals. They need wealthy clients, so defeating the council policy to house the needy.

The council need to face up to the task ahead. All new developments should stipulate for the use of the needy for the next two years so we can see a fairer Britian in action.

But alas the council will walk over all the electorate.

Remember: we all have a vote and things need to change. I am a conservative and waiting for the green belt grab to happen.

We all have a voice let’s use it. The council is there to serve Guildford residents, not developers.
David Smith Reply

December 31, 2017 at 8:57 am

I attended the public consultation earlier this year. By affordable, the developer simply means that renting is ‘more affordable’ than buying. They don’t mean affordable rents – these will be premium rents which are high and which do absolutely nothing to address Guildford’s housing need.

Furthermore, the height of the main tower is eleven stories. This is higher than the Solum scheme planned at the railway station and I think higher than any other building in Guildford other than Bishops and Mount Court – the two ugly towers at the base of The Mount.

The scheme as proposed will completely dwarf the Dapdune Wharf conservation area and block the river with a mass wall of development.

As it stands this is not a development I will be supporting and I don’t even live on Walnut Tree Close – you’ll see this tower for miles.
David Roberts Reply

December 31, 2017 at 3:02 pm

Better if they trimmed three or four storeys off the tower and spread them among the other buildings.

Quite right to restrict car parking spaces to encourage people to do without cars and make public transport commercially more viable in this very central location.
- Jim Allen Reply
  
  January 2, 2018 at 8:50 am
  
  If public transport is available then absolutely great, but there isn’t.
  
  And not even providing places for one car per accommodation ‘node’ is perpetrating a false dream.
  
  It is now accepted by central government that restricting parking places to force people to change their ability to travel in the UK does not work.
  
  It is a false premise, which like mitigation is not a solution.
  
  Public transport is only viable if it goes where people want to go.
  
  This simple fact has not been accepted in the Local Plan and there is no provision within the plan to actually make it viable.
  
  Our Burpham survey identified workers living in Burpham were employed at more than 50 locations averaging 14 miles away as places of work. Could you schedule viable public transport to get them to work on time?
Pete Knight Reply

December 31, 2017 at 4:59 pm

In reply to Dave Middleton.

The site has been occupied by Japanese knotweed which can take months or years to eradicate.

Plans went to planning committee in the last two months and the planning committee wanted to see one floor removed from the building.

The committee therefore asked the developer to go and make changes and re submit. I’d say that this would be expected at the next committee meeting.

So this isn’t land banking, there are things going on.
Paul Bishop Reply

January 2, 2018 at 1:02 pm

I suppose it’s a better use than more offices. But it looks like they are trying to cram more flats in than they should.

Limit the height of the main building and provide some waterfront retail units and I think it could be a real positive addition to the area.

Is the idea of doing rental only so that they do not need to comply with the 40% ‘affordable homes’ requirement as none of the units will ever sell?
- Dave Middleton Reply
  
  January 4, 2018 at 10:51 am
  
  Waterfront retail units would not work here. It’s too far away from the town centre. Although maybe a single newsagent / convenience store to serve the development and nearby houses and student accommodation on that end of Walnut Tree Close could work.
Susan Jones Reply

January 2, 2018 at 5:02 pm

What a sadly shocking development – this looks worse than those built at Woking station.

I strongly hope the plan is rejected until something appropriate for Guildford, and opposite the historic boat house [Dapdune Wharf] is acceptable.

There is no valid reason for such poor design, car parking on site should be maximised and the ground/lower floor used for this, making it suitable as a flood defence too.
Gordon Bridger Reply

January 2, 2018 at 11:56 pm

Congratulations for putting these plans in The Guildford Dragon NEWS. An excellent presentation.

The proposed development is in a sensible location but quite out of scale and even higher than the appalling Solum railway station scheme which one prays will be rejected.

Guildford, not only for historic and aesthetic reasons but also economic ones, needs to preserve its unique qualities. Why should anyone want to come into a town centre which is already badly congested to live in skyscrapers which will turn it into another Woking?

We need buildings “in scale and character”. Unfortunately, the current policies on heights are far too vague and subjective. We need to establish a fixed maximum building heights.

Cllr Spooner rightly stated we do not want these “Soviet-type buildings”. Our Planners should give them no encouragement.

Gordon Bridger is a hon alderman at GBC and a former Mayor of Guildford.
David Scotland Reply

January 3, 2018 at 3:49 pm

The council should not be fooled by these “Build to Rent” developments. Developers try to avoid CIL or 106 agreements as nothing is sold. Then there’s a clause that 20+ years later they can be sold, thus avoiding payments to infrastructure.
Brian Creese Reply

January 4, 2018 at 9:26 am

Personally, I think this is a sensible and appropriate development. The key issue will be how “affordable” the rents are, but an increase in purpose-built rented accommodation should help the overall level of rents in the town. We simply need more innovative developments like this.

Brian Creese is a spokesperson for the Guildford Labour Party