Solum Wins Planning Appeal for Controversial Railway Station Re-development

Published on: 23 Jan, 2018
Updated on: 23 Jan, 2018

Artist’s impression of how the Solum development would look viewed from the south. (Click on images to enlarge.)

The re-development of Guildford railway station, nick-named, “The Great Wall of Guildford”, has been granted planning permission two years after it was unanimously rejected by Guildford Borough Council.

The development will be one of the biggest and most visible in the town’s history. There will be eight blocks ranging from six to 10 stories that will stand between the railway and Walnut Tree Close.

Opposition has been vociferous from many quarters. Council Leader Paul Spooner is said to have “thrown out” Solum representatives from Millmead council offices when they presented revised plans and removed himself from the subsequent planning meeting where the application was refused in June 2016.

Another impression of how the station entrance will look viewed from Walnut Tree Close.

The proposal by the Solum consortium, formed jointly by Network Rail and Keir Property, is for: 438 residential homes, station retail/financial and professional services, offices, and station improvements including a new station building with booking hall and concourse, replacement station and office car parking, new residential car parking, cycle parking, and a “Station Plaza”.

The planning inquiry was held at Millmead between November 7-10, 2017. Much was made, during the hearing, of the impact of the development on views from the town of Guildford Cathedral, but the planning inspector, David Morgan, concluded: “…although the margin is close, the proposals enable sufficient of the verdant treed hilltop to remain in view, thus allowing the cathedral to retain its isolated primacy or dominance on the skyline above the town, so preserving its setting and therefore its significance.”

Commenting on criticism of the proposal by The Guildford Society (GS) the inspector says: “The GS… go further in their criticisms of the scheme in relation to the town of Guildford, using reasoned, though at other times passionate and provocative language to describe the development as the ‘Great Wall of Guildford’ or a ‘monster’…

A “Great Wall” or a “a vigorously articulated group of architectural components set in different heights and planes to one and other”?

“When the proposed development is properly considered in the context it will be perceived (as best we can from the visual and three-dimensional material before us) [that] it is self-evident the development does not constitute a ‘wall’ but is a vigorously articulated group of architectural components set in different heights and planes to one and other.”

The Guildford Vision Group’s argument that the development will compromise its proposed re-routing of north-south traffic over a new railway bridge to the north of the station and then down to re-cross the river at Town Bridge was also addressed.

Mr Morgan said: “There is much to commend the GVG approach, both in exploring legitimate aspirational objectives for the town centre and as a vehicle for engaging local people in the strategic planning process. The real challenge for such local initiatives however, is to secure the buy-in of the local decision-making authorities and key infrastructure stakeholders, in this case, Network Rail (NR), Surrey County Council (SCC) as highway authority, and crucially, GBC as the development management decision-maker and plan-maker.”

Artist’s impression of the new development viewed from Walnut Tree Bridge.

Addressing criticisms that the proposed developments could compromise expanding the capacity and operation of the railway itself David Morgan said: “The appellant has stated that the development may proceed without prejudice to the possible future expansion of the station and this position is supported by NR in its capacity as rail network manager. I am therefore satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that this is indeed the case and no substantive objection to the proposals can be sustained on these grounds.”

Turning to the provision of new homes the inspector continued: “… this development will bring forward a significant number of new homes, some within the next five-year planning cycle. This will mean homes for people in the town where they may not otherwise have been available.

“Although the number of these defined as affordable will be less than development plan policy anticipates, [25% rather than 40%] this is justified by the independent assessment of the appellant’s viability assessment commissioned by the council.”

In his concluding paragraphs the inspector says: “In addition to avoiding harm to heritage assets and townscape quality and other harms, this proposal offers tangible benefits to the built environment around Guildford station. It also provides a significant amount of market housing and a lesser number of viability-calibrated affordable units, in addition to an enhanced station facility. These are very significant social benefits. The proposals also bring forward a major development site with a mix of uses that will create employment opportunities for those seeking work. These are clear economic benefits to the borough.

But he acknowledges his decision will not be universally popular, and he continued: “This is, however, a proposal that has polarised opinion. Some are shocked by it and its anticipated effects. Perhaps unavoidably, they may have the same reaction to this decision.

“Strong and well-presented arguments have been put before the Inquiry in support of these views and they rightly merit the fullest consideration. However, as my reasoning demonstrates, a different, structured conclusion can be arrived at, aided by the input of key expertise in the field from HE [Historic England] and SERDP [South East Regional Design Panel], the opinions of both I have given significant weight.”

Reactions to the news of the planning appeal result have been invited and we hope to publish later today. Please check back. And please have your say too using the “Leave a Reply feature below.

Responses to Solum Wins Planning Appeal for Controversial Railway Station Re-development

John Perkins Reply

January 23, 2018 at 8:23 am

I see that the proportion of “viability-calibrated affordable units” has already been reduced from 40% to 25%. What price a further reduction part way through development?

It’s also worth noting that passionate argument seems to be discounted by virtue of it being, er… passionate. Presumably the inspector would prefer that the best lack all conviction.
Stuart Barnes Reply

January 23, 2018 at 9:08 am

Utterly outrageous. So much for the facade of democracy in planning decisions (and others) when a so-called “independent” inspector can overturn any decision which the Establishment does not like.

Once again I must point out that virtually all the new building in our poor little country is not for the benefit of our own people but is because of the virtually uncontrolled immigration. Perhaps after Brexit we may be able to make some changes to the system but a lot of the damage will be irreversible.

I note that the inspector makes reference to the “experts” – I thought we had agreed that (in another context) we had had enough of them.
Jim Allen Reply

January 23, 2018 at 11:02 am

Another decision which has gone against the rational, reasonable and calculated summation. There is absolutely no mention of an integrated transport system which would provide for buses to actually meet the trains – so “modal shift” totally ignored by the decision makers shattering the Local Plan even before the hearing.

I guess refusal of Wisley will be next shattering the remaining remnants of Guildford’s planning department making it not fit for purpose. For if they had included a rational proposal for the station (without the presidential outbursts) within the Local Plan then the proposal itself would have collapsed.
Sue Fox Reply

January 23, 2018 at 12:14 pm

Whilst I too deplore the decision it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit.
Graham Richings Reply

January 23, 2018 at 1:17 pm

So much for Localism! What hope Blackwell Farm?
Harry Elson Reply

January 23, 2018 at 4:39 pm

I think this monstrosity will go the way of Bridge House. Remember that ill-conceived building of the sixties? It became dated very quickly and was consigned to the rubbish heap, don’t we learn anything?

We need great vision and architectural will to create a building that will bring joy and last at least 100 years. I am not advocating Victorian design but boy they gave us so much. Visit St Pancras and feel inspired.
Jules Cranwell Reply

January 23, 2018 at 5:24 pm

So much for “localism”.

Guildford’s infrastructure will collapse, due to this, and the outrageous level of development planned for in and around our villages.

If our council cannot prevent such a carbuncle being foisted upon us, then may I ask what is it for?

Maybe it could not prevent this development, but they will be held guilty as charged for the rape of our greenbelt and countryside resulting from their ruinous Local Plan.
Robert Burch Reply

January 23, 2018 at 6:12 pm

Saddest point about this for me is that it will do nothing to actually improve the facilities of the station itself. Platforms, disabled access, etc will be just as poor as today as you can see in the picture at the top of the article. No improvements to the busiest station in the county.
Jack Dawson Reply

January 23, 2018 at 6:25 pm

Tragic news for all those that would see the town preserved in aspic but good news for anyone that actually wants Guildford to progress as a place to live and work.

As for the reader who blames immigration for the need to build more homes, that’s ridiculous.
Peta Malthouse Reply

January 24, 2018 at 1:54 pm

I am afraid that with this and other decisions, plus the proposals for the development of the green belt in the local plan, our historic town and its greenfield setting will be trashed. Enjoy it while you can.

Those of us who love our town have been saddened to be reminded of what we have lost in the desire to redevelop since the early sixties. North Street, Friary Street and the areas around the river have become concrete jungles. Organisations such as the Guildford Vision Group are doing what our elected councillors should.

And what about our affordable housing?
Donna Collinson Reply

January 26, 2018 at 12:19 am

Contemporary gateway town buildings, as Victorian ones, necessarily must be of the highest quality architectural design and functionality, setting the precedent and expectation for the town beyond.

Solum’s proposal for Guildford Station is a modernist antithesis of St.Pancras, failing to deliver on both fronts, not considering surrounding architecture, parking or affordable housing need.

Compare it to the brilliantly designed and executed Barker Stonehouse store just opened at Stoke Crossroads, the northern and most busiest gateway to Guildford. This building succeeds considering surrounding architecture in terms of height and design, incorporating split level pitched roofs with plenty of parking enclosed by carefully considered soft landscaping.

Barker Stonehouse is a gateway building Guildford can be really proud of. It beggars belief that the Solum proposal is about to be dumped in its midst.
Alan Robertson Reply

January 26, 2018 at 4:04 pm

The obvious consequence of tolerating inept Councillors and ineffective council staff. It will continue to worsen until the electorate brings about full scale changes.