The Ash Aspect: Developers Told To Rethink Housing On Ash Lodge Meadows

Published on: 17 Aug, 2018
Updated on: 20 Aug, 2018

By David Reading

The battle to halt plans for a new housing estate on Ash Lodge Meadows was lost well over a year ago, but a fierce campaign is continuing aimed at damage limitation.

On Wednesday, August 15, Guildford borough planners acknowledged local strength of feeling when they deferred the developer’s plans to increase the number of homes to be built on the site from 400 to 482.

Work is under way building homes at Ash Lodge Meadows.

Approval for 400 homes had been granted early in 2017. Effectively this latest decision means that although work on the site is well under way, having triggered weeks of chaos for people living in Ash Lodge Drive, the developers must now go back to the drawing board and look again at the detail.

A key reason for the deferral was a concern about layout. Importantly, the revised plans show three-storey blocks of flats on the north side of the spine road serving the new estate.

Residents are deeply concerned that these will be clearly visible from homes in Ash Lodge Drive and neighbouring roads. As one memo from residents group ASHRA stated: “They will tower above everything. Every house in Ash Lodge Drive etc, will look out on to one of these monstrosities. Any flats should at least be on the south side of the spine road. These flats are not in keeping with the rest of the housing in the area and will be an eyesore.”

Guildford Borough Council has the developer’s plans to increase the number of homes to be built on the site from 400 to 482.

The council decision to defer the latest plans, against the wishes of its own officers, would seem to show sympathy for people’s concerns. One suggestion is that the flats could be built south of the spine road rather than the north. Whether the developers, Bewley Homes, can make this work in its overall scheme remains to be seen.

There are numerous other issues causing intense concern for Ash residents. Not least of these is the pressure that the new estate will place on local health services.

Last year Bewley announced that land had been set aside for a new health centre to serve the new estate. In the light of the revised plans I asked Bewley where this proposal now stood.

Andrew Morris, the company’s strategic land director, replied saying: “Originally, provision was made for a 1,200 square metre plot of land to enable the provision of a new healthcare facility. However, following discussions with the Bartlett Group Practice, it was evident that the provision of a bigger plot of land would enable a larger, modern, multi-disciplinary practice, capable of providing space for 12 GPs, to be built. Therefore, as part of our 482 unit application, we have set aside 2,700 square metres of land to be provided.”

But he acknowledged that this remained subject to planning consent for the revised proposals being granted by Guildford Borough Council.

“The smaller parcel of land will remain available under the current planning consent but Bewley Homes would like to help facilitate the doctors’ ideal plans by providing the larger plot,” Mr Morris said.

A further major issue is the pressure that the new estate will have on local schools.

Victoria Groves, Bewley’s planning manager, said in a statement: “Bewley and A2Dominion are already committed to making a financial contribution towards both primary and secondary school education as part of our existing permission.

“Should the planning committee approve our latest application, a revised education contribution will be secured in the Section 106, with the money used to fund additional spaces at the local schools which the children from the development are most likely to attend. This contribution is calculated by Surrey County Council, who are the education authority for the area, and is based on the estimated number of additional school places which will be required as a result of the development.”

Cllr Paul Spooner.

Bewley’s stance on both of the above issues – health and education – is now subject to what happens next in the council chamber. But overall, residents are likely to be pleased with the planning committee’s deferral, which was proposed by Cllr Paul Spooner (Con, Ash South & Tongham).

After the meeting, ASHRA issued a statement saying: “Despite the best efforts of GBC officers to get the application approved, the councillors voted for deferment with only one councillor voting to approve the application. A common sense result. Well done Paul Spooner for addressing these issues.”