Blog

What about the future provision for foot and cycle traffic?

What about the future provision for foot and cycle traffic? 1920 1440 admin

I see a need to improve walking and cycling facilities too, but agree it should be framed as a question not an answer!

Mike Clements

20120908 We need to move forward from here

20120908 We need to move forward from here 1920 1440 admin

The Guildford Vision Group Steering Committee met on Friday 7th September after the Executive Committee meeting the previous evening.

It was clear that alll present still want to work with the Council to bring forward professional and visionary planning policy documents for the future and that, regrettable though it was that GVG had to resort to legal opinions once its (vindicated) objections have fallen mostly on deaf ears, it was, nevertheless, the right course of action.

GVG welcomes Councillor Palmer’s appointment a few months ago and we are optimistic that a pragmatic path can be built to achieve a Local Plan in 2014 that enables economic development, the provision of housing that local employees can actually afford and that ensures that long-term issues can be resolved during the course of the plan period.

Opinion of David Elvin QC

Opinion of David Elvin QC 1920 1440 admin

6/9/2012 A plea to delay the adoption of the ITCFD and prioritise a Master plan by Mary Alexander

6/9/2012 A plea to delay the adoption of the ITCFD and prioritise a Master plan by Mary Alexander 1920 1440 admin

Dear Councillors,

At the Executive meeting tomorrow please could you consider delaying the adoption of the ITCF?  It seems that there is not yet enough information to make a decision on it.

Perhaps you could consider the following points.

  • It is  vital that a full report on traffic in Guildford is done before any decisions on development are made.  This will not be available until      2014.
  • For businesses coming to Guildford the biggest problems are housing for staff and traffic.
  • Does Guildford actually need a huge increase in retail space?
  • Would houses be better on the site north of North Street?
  • The area considered in the ITCF should include the university, science park and cathedral.  A third of Guildford’s wealth is generated in this area.
  • There should be a better overall vision for Guildford.
  • Huge shopping centres have a negative effect on a small town centre like Guildford’s.
  • We  should concentrate on our own character, and make Guildford special.
  • An independent consultant should be engaged (not one who also works for John Lewis as the current consultant does).

This does not reflect on the hard work of our planners: it is simply that such a huge undertaking needs people who can see the bigger picture and who can concentrate on the problem full time.

This is too big a decision to be taken by the executive.  The full council should be involved.  We have to get this decision right.  We already have empty shops in the town.  Building houses would help the economy as a whole, and meanwhile we can see whether shops are really what we want.

best wishes,

Mary Alexander,

01/09/2012 Letter from GVG Supporter, Noralee Griffiths, following GVG Meeting 28th August

01/09/2012 Letter from GVG Supporter, Noralee Griffiths, following GVG Meeting 28th August 1920 1440 admin

Email to GBC Councillors, Sarah Creedy and Melanie Bright from Noralee Griffiths following GVG Public Meeting on 28th August 2012

Dear Sarah and Melanie

I am not sure if  you were at the GVG meeting  last Tuesday at Holy trinity hall, but I am sure if not you have been told about it.

I would like to add my name to those who are very concerned about these two documents being accepted with out further consideration.  I was not that reassured by the councillor who emphasised that “Interim” was the word to focus on.

The huge impact of all three of the major proposals for Guildford, Station, Waitrose, Friary, both in terms of their impact on actual development, and the long term effect on the balance of Guildford and the traffic, does not seem to have been considered collectively.  This problem has not been fully assessed and must certainly be a major part of any future plans.  It was quite shocking to hear that this traffic issue has not been part of all these other proposals.

The unfilled office and retail spaces speak for themselves

The GVG are certainly putting forward some very good ideas as to how the whole of Guildford needs to be considered, before any one bit is committed.

The Guildford Society document fully deserves very serious attention, and it was suggested that it is not at all apparent that this is the case.

I also very strongly agree with the ideas of linking the major aspects of the Town, ie University, Town and Research and business parks.

Guildford needs a careful long term rethink. Please consider our future.

Please consider what the people of Guildford are saying.

yours sincerely

Noralee Griffiths

 

University Staff member comments on GVG Meeting of 28th August

University Staff member comments on GVG Meeting of 28th August 1920 1440 admin

I was at the meeting at the Holy Trinity Centre on Tuesday and should like to make a few comments.

 

I have lived in Farley Green for 47 years but I work at the University and take part in many activities

in the town centre.

SHOPPING

The town plan must not be so dominated by SHOPS !  We were told there is an underprovision of

food retail in the town centre, but we have Tesco, Sainsbury’s, M & S, several delis and the North Street market.

Demand has apparently been identified for retail development, inexplicable when so many shops are closing.

Personally I have no desire for the Friary to be extended – that’s quite enough (with White Lion Walk and

Tunsgate Square) of the “shopping mall” style of development.  I should prefer more individual shops.

There is the current preoccupation with Waitrose.  We were told that an”anchor retail outlet”would need

to have frontage to North Street.  People would find their way to Waitrose wherever it was situated. Why

could in not go in the station development (which apparently has plans for a supermarket ) which

would cause far fewer traffic problems.  If I have a burning desire  to go to Waitrose I go to Dorking or

Godalming, not far away.  Personally I cannot see why every town has to have one of every type of

supermarket and I certainly don’t think Aldi should be allowed to come to Burpham, to the detriment

of the local shops.  And just think how on-line shopping is increasing significantly – all those delivery

vans buzzing around

TRAFFIC

Firms are reluctant to take the vacant offices in the town because of the lack of affordable housing and

traffic congestion.  One of the contributing factors is the closure of the Debenhams underpass (I believe

at their request). The pedestrian crossing causes long tailbacks and it only needs one car to break

down or one lorry to be parked on the gyratory system for the roads to be gridlocked for miles around.

PLANNING

Of course the Cathedral, the University and the Research Park should be included in the Town Plan,

as they such an important part of the economic structure of the town and of course there is general

agreement on the desirability of affordable housing and riverside open spaces – two of the most

suitable sites are currently in use as car parks.  To my mind the planners have made some very

questionable decisions in the past : one has only to go up to the high ground at either end of the

town to see what a “carbuncle ” the House of Fraser’s atrium is.  Please let us not be saddled

with an overall plan for the town until all the elements, in particular the station development,

have received careful consideration

 

Patricia Grayburn

30/08/2012 Planning documents lack essental data fo planning purposes says resident Joe Palmer

30/08/2012 Planning documents lack essental data fo planning purposes says resident Joe Palmer 1920 1440 admin

From Resient Joe Palmer, following GVG Public Meeting of 28th August 2012

This is just to congratulate you on an excellent and very well-attended meeting.  It was a coup to have Councillor Palmer (no relation, by the way!) present and contributing in a constructive way.

The main messages I took away were that the interim planning document lacks essential data for planning purposes, e.g. a proper traffic study and an economic analysis of growth opportunities for Guildford, and that it is a ‘living document’.  It is very important to hold the Council to this with regular opportunities for consultation as new data comes in and no unreasonable deadlines for responses.  I found Julian Lyon’s presentation very stimulating and clearly presented.

My only mildly critical comment is that in this day and age to hold a public meeting in a very large room without amplification and a roving microphone and with visual aids which are too small and too low down to be clearly read at the back of the hall is a bit amateurish.

I am very happy to continue to support the Group.

Joe Palmer

Briefing Meeting 28th August 2012

Briefing Meeting 28th August 2012 1920 1440 admin

Guildford Vision Group gives its views on the Interim Town Centre Framework and the North Street Development Brief ahead of the adoption of these documents by the Council’s Executive Committee on 6th September 2012.

The slides presented at that meeting are available here.

Comments are welcomed.  Please say whether you attended the session or not.

 

 

Guildford Borough Council North Street Development Brief

Guildford Borough Council North Street Development Brief 1920 1440 admin

Link to Guildford Borough Council’s North Street Development Brief

http://www.guildford.gov.uk/NorthstreetdesignanddevelopmentbriefSPD

Guildford Society Newsletter went to see John Rigg the Chairman of the newly formed Guildford Vision Group.

Guildford Society Newsletter went to see John Rigg the Chairman of the newly formed Guildford Vision Group. 1920 1440 admin

G Soc article J Rigg-D Smith  19th August 2012

Within the last few months a major activity of The Guildford Society Exec Committee and its sub-committees has been to review future plans for Guildford and whether or not the town is being well served. From recent events considerable concern has been expressed both within The Guildford Society’s membership and outside about the lack of a vision for the town and the absence of  public engagement with the residents and other stakeholders to address congestion or make real progress towards a town we can all be proud of.  

In response to the GBC (draft) Masterplan a new group encouraged by The Guildford Society has formed to really explore and consider the current plan process which will have such a big impact on the town and daily life over forthcoming decades.  This separate group has been formed to engage with a larger cross section of the town including where possible the university, business, community groups and in fact all parties with an interest in achieving the best possible built environment for our future. It includes many experienced professionals, both in law and property with one common purpose; these people are passionate about the town and want to see more progress addressing issues than they have seen in the last two or three decades.  Newsletter went to see John Rigg the Chairman of the newly formed Guildford Vision Group.

 

Guildford Vision Group   (GVG)

 

Newsletter:      John,  it’s a good title but what exactly is GVG?

John Rigg:       GVG has been set up recognising the importance of a clear vision for the town including delivering a successful transportation hub which is so important to the success of any centre. Guildford has real problems due to it being a gap town where traffic from all points of the compass are forced through a narrow river valley in the centre of the town despite often having no reason for being in Guildford other than that they are passing through. The effect of this is that a gyratory has been created which dominates the town; it creates an incredibly unpleasant traffic corridor separating the town from the river, the station and the university. The town desperately needs some really creative design to reconnect the river to the town, to create pleasant walkways and cycle paths, particularly to the station, university and cathedral, but also to open up for sustainable development a multitude of sites which have lain dormant or are merely large expanses of tarmacadam. Large areas of surface car parking cannot be the best use of our town. Furthermore, whilst we all really value the High Street and the castle and the views, the Friary extension site has lain dormant for more than two decades now. We still don’t have a town square and we fear fundamental mistakes are being made on proposed land use for the town. All of this makes the next one or two years crucially important. We need to know we are doing everything possible to identify what solutions might be out there and what is the best forGuildford and our local economy.

The Planning legislation requires the council to produce local plans. These can either be good imaginative plans which really set out a vision or, sadly, ones that don’t. The local plan cycle may not be long enough to fix long term problems – but it is certainly long enough to make it worse! What is required is a longer-term overarching idea of what Guildford should be like in 20 or 30 years; this should then inform each successive local plan and ensure that everything that can be done is done to achieve the overall objectives for the town. Due to the topographical issues in Guildford, there may well be a need for really creative or radical solutions. However, whilst traffic and transportation is fundamental, it is not the responsibility of GBC. Nonetheless, we have to take ownership of this problem and even appoint Guildford’s own traffic engineers to bring state of the art ideas which can really deliver new solutions. Our impression is that GBC takes the view that even strategic traffic planning is a matter for Surrey County Council, who have the whole of Surrey to look after and who are not generally tasked with creative thinking to provide master-planning to match a town’s future aspirations. The Guildford Vision Group believes that, however well these officers conduct the general business of Development Control and Highways Maintenance, they are not (and probably should not be) resourced for the kind of once-in-a-generation exercise that is required to redesign the town in a holistic way. That is exactly why and whenGuildford should bring in the best experts from the private sector. We believe that, as with hundreds of other councils acrossBritain with really challenging development plans and transportation issues, the best external experts need to be appointed – people who are confronted by such issues every day up and down theUnited Kingdom. Traffic is not a problem unique toGuildford. Equally, the best solutions may not be found or invented inGuildford.

Newsletter:      So how did GVG come about?

John Rigg:       The council produced its Masterplan at the end of 2011 and demanded virtually immediate response.  This document was viewed as a poor effort by many leading professionals.  It had no visionary dimension of any substance.  In January The Guildford Society responded to the Masterplan by convening a meeting (attended by c.90 people) and commissioning, from its own financial resources, Allies & Morrison, who are a specialist firm of urban practitioners and masterplanners with an outstanding CV, to help prepare a response to the plan. Their report is available through our website.

 Newsletter:      Who are you?

John Rigg:       GVG has a steering group made up of severalmembers of The Guildford Society, some from local Residents Associations and professionals in town planning and the built environment.  I am Chairman.  You can see all the names on the GVG website.  So we are predominantly local people with experience and a voice in this specialist field.

I am a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors with 40 years’ experience in property investment and development and I see what has been achieved elsewhere in towns with really serious problems. I just feel we could do better. Of course, this opinion is not always welcome for obvious reasons, and undoubtedly it does not make us popular in some quarters; but what choice is there if you can see that Guildford is going to grind to a halt and the quality of decision making on development is so disappointing.

 

Newsletter:      So what’s the problem you’re addressing?  What do you want to achieve? Or, if you like, what’s so wrong with what we’ve got?

John Rigg:       We think that Guildford fails to deliver on its true potential; it needs a solution to its traffic issues, affordable homes and proper connections from the town to the station and the university, cathedral and hospital.  It should make good use of assets now ignored: the river frontage (which is not linked to the High Street), and spaces that could provide squares and new vistas.  We must avoid squandering the few sites remaining by piecemeal development. I recommend anyone to listen to a blog by the architect Terry Farrell (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/fourthought) where he talks about the importance of spaces between buildings which really set the right agenda. It is a really important issue in making a success of a town to have town squares, walkways and long views.   But you simply cannot deliver a wonderful built environment if you do not at least engage the best masterplanners and designers to look at what can be achieved in a holistic way, which is what other towns have done.

Clearly a group against the idea will argue cost in commissioning the work or the cost in implementing any plans. In terms of the cost of masterplanning, which might be half a million or a million pounds, it pales into insignificance when one considers that to-day Guildford produces added value of goods and services of about £3.8 billion a year, and that the value of residential and commercial property in Guildford may be in hundreds of billions, which can rise or fall depending on sustainable transportation.  Equally, if the proper masterplanning of the town brings in further investment, we could see Business Rate revenues increase by enough to cover the masterplanning costs in a matter of a few days. If we get it right, it only needs to improve property values by a modest amount to produce a fantastic return.

We also believe that Guildford is not contributing as much as it could to its own local economy: companies are discouraged from staying in the town because of the traffic, and relatively expensive housing. And we believe the university, which, directly or indirectly, makes up about a third of the local economy, should be embraced more in our vision, and we in their long-term plans.

In terms of delivering the vision, it may take years or decades for the private sector and the public sector to deliver the plan but at least if you have a plan, you can take small steps every year towards its ultimate delivery. Unfortunately, the current view seems to us to be that planning is a process to meet government deadlines, and at as low a cost as possible. It is also to help the council to sell off sites along the way, having allocated uses to them that they cannot demonstrate are sustainable without the fundamental infrastructure improvement which they fail to address.

Newsletter:      Does GVG have a view on the current sites which are likely to come before the council in the near future?

John Rigg:       GVG actually would prefer not to get involved with individual sites. We are really formed to encourage the right process for securing a plan for the town at a strategic level. However, our case is well illustrated by the treatment being applied to individual sites.  For example, if you take a holistic view to planning you don’t sell off key sites on the basis of a quick deal e.g. Waitrose.   Or to take another example:  Solum could put 350 apartments, two hotels, a supermarket and other property on top of the station thus feeding into the already congested gyratory.  It would generate profits for Solum but it will not produce the best outcome for the town. This is particularly so if one of the few radical ideas for carrying traffic from the town centre may involve bridging the railway: then Solum’s proposed building could preclude this for another 100 years, if not forever.

GVG is absolutely pro-growth and is not NIMBY in approach but equally, we are against short term ‘quick buck’ planning which can move Guildford from the 9th worst-congested town the wrong way on the league table. Equally, if one of the town’s major problems is lack of homes that the average workers can afford, why isGuildford selling a superb residential site to Waitrose to put the wrong project on the wrong site with yet more surface parking? If we want the main town centre site to be developed, and viability has been the problem, surely Waitrose needs to be encouraged by GBC to work with Hermes (the owners of the Friary) to help the Friary extension to materialise? Also, wouldn’t a Waitrose frontingNorth   Street be a better solution? We try to keep an open mind on Waitrose but when the traffic engineers point out the loss of an underpass for school children to get to their school which will be replaced by a Waitrose pedestrian crossing which will lead to more accidents – all so that shoppers can access yet another surface car park at the cost of considerable congestion on York Road – it is clear to us that land-use planning in the town is going badly wrong. Waitrose traffic engineers seem able to produce evidence showing the supermarket won’t cause traffic carnage only by assuming the town centre Friary site will never be developed. If this assumption has been encouraged or allowed by GBC, or SCC, you have to wonder.

Newsletter:      So what have you achieved so far?  How far have you got?

John Rigg:       Please note we are not coming up with a masterplan ourselves. If solutions were so easy to identify, GBC would have done so already and we would not be advocating engaging specialist masterplanners to do a thorough job. Because the problems are so deep-seated and complex we need the very best experts we can appoint to help us all; and this should be through proper community engagement, to agree on a set of priorities and objectives and solutions; and then to come up with an implementation plan that all these major developments can help deliver.

We want the council to come on board with us and set about the task from a different angle.

Newsletter:      How do the councillors and planning officers take to your initiative?

John Rigg:       On 6 July we met Tony Rooth, the Leader of the Council, along with Anne Milton, our MP.   The response was disappointing.  Without wishing to be critical, there is a risk that they are likely to judge our ideas as too much out of their comfort zone.  I can fully understand that.  Councillors feel perhaps they only have a short time to make their mark.  A 30-40 year timeline means that they may believe they cannot be seen to have achieved enough.  This is a problem everywhere. The same was probably true at the other places I have mentioned. But we cannot, of course, afford to allow an inadequate plan to go forward as the masterplan; inappropriate changes on the ground made now will remain for our lifetime, and could completely spoil the future townscape. Unfortunately, nothing we have seen so far inspires me with confidence, which is why we need the community inGuildford to get behind our campaign and support this ambition for a real plan. Whether you want traffic to be addressed, or you want a better, more accountable town, or you want a town square, or to open the river to the High Street, or better connections with the university, or a safer route to the station, or better parking, or better employment opportunities for the next generation, so do we. But to deliver these things we believe we need a new approach, part of which involves real engagement with the community. We would like to think that the Councillors will recognise that it is not closed-door control, but engagement which empowers them to act for all of us.

We heard one recent report of a councillor criticising GVG as ‘they think only they can planGuildford’. This is disappointing disinformation. We are the only group that think exactly the opposite and that we cannot planGuildford. Has GBC the resources and sophisticated engineering expertise to claim exclusive ownership of any plan? We hope they will engage with us and the debate, and we have invited councillors to our GVG meetings with only very limited success so far. I can assure you: you could not hope to meet a more passionate and committed group of professionals trying to do the best for the town, in addition to all their other commitments. We are encountering disappointing tactics but nonetheless, we will continue to campaign for a betterGuildford.

We have sensed that if you try to engage with new ideas, you do risk criticism from those who wish to ridicule. For instance, an idea of one of our supporters has been for a tunnel and a bridge. We can not advocate these solutions which would need masterplanning and costing, but we do applaud someone looking for new ideas to improve our town. The most vital issue forGuildfordis a traffic plan, so if you hear criticism of GVG, ask the critic what their solution is after 20 years. If their response is to put a Waitrose and large surface car park on a town centre residential site disruptingYork Road, ask how that will help exactly.

The whole nature of retailing is changing due to the internet, with real contraction of the space required, particularly for comparison goods retailing. This, along with the recession, is increasing the number of vacant shops throughout the country, so is GBC working on growth numbers for retailing and is the need for expansion now outdated, and what might their plan do for the town and traffic? We agreeGuildfordmust remain a retailing and community hub, but without a transportation plan for traffic movement, without ready access, to parking, to walkways or cycle ways, it can be a disaster. The new development on the Friary site and on the station must be sustainable.

Newsletter:      What about Localism? Does this offer a solution?

John Rigg:       Both we and the government support Localism. We want to see much better engagement by our Council with the community and interest groups; something government policy suggests has been widely inadequate in the past. Remember, some of Britain’s greatest towns and most impressive planning were put in place decades if not centuries before the Town and Country Planning Acts existed. Cities such as Edinburgh, Bath, Oxford and Cambridge are wonderful thanks to committed, passionate residents who wanted the best civic design and planning for their community.

 And as an aside, I understand that those Councils that have already allowed Neighbourhood Forums to be set up, have supported what the Forums are doing and recognize that better outcomes are being achieved as a result. Win, win for all. These Forums are definitely not threatening to Councils:  they are extra resources and very focused.

 

GVG website is at   http://www.guildfordvisiongroup.com   I urge you spend some time looking it up, and answer our questionnaire and write in.

David Smith, with thanks to John Rigg, Vision for Guildford Limited

Guildford Borough Council Town Centre Interim Framework Document

Guildford Borough Council Town Centre Interim Framework Document 1920 1440 admin

Click here for the link to this document on Guildford Borough Council’s website

http://www.guildford.gov.uk/Guildfordinterimtowncentreframework

 

Guildford Borough Council has released its Interim Town Centre Framework document ready for adoption by the Executive Committee.  THIS DOCUMENT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SHAPE THE NEXT TEN OR MORE YEARS’ DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN CENTRE and there will be no further consultation before adoption.

Guildford Vision Group’s supporters and followers will know that the Vision Group was formed around a public meeting on 21st March 2012 that arose from the flawed Draft Town Centre Masterplan and the shared recognition that WE NEED A PROPER PROFESSIONAL MASTERPLAN WITH THE FULL ENGAGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDERS.  That is the Vision Group’s single and sole purpose.

On Tuesday 28th August at 6.00 for 6.30pm in the upper hall at the Trinity Centre (next to Holy Trinity Church in Guildford High Street) Guildford Vision Group will give you its first thoughts on the document once it has been published.

We have been promised a redrafted document with new diagrams; we are, however, concerned that there will be no public scrutiny of this Interim Town Centre Framework which, it is understood, has been prepared IN ADVANCE OF ANY TRAFFIC STUDY.

If you are unable to attend this briefing (which we aim to complete by 8.00pm) please contact your Councillor(s) and ask them to explain the document to you.  Look out for the document on the Council’s website: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/Guildfordinterimtowncentreframework.  Keep checking our website : www.guildfordvisiongroup.com during the next few weeks for critical information about the future development of Guildford.

Please be under no illusion.  WE NEED YOUR HELP to make sure that the full Council understands the extent of support for a proper master plan and the depth of concern about this piecemeal process of planning our town.

Please pass this invitation to as many people as possible; friends, family and colleagues and we look forward to welcoming you on 28th.

To help us plan this event, please let us know if you intend to come to action@guildfordvisiongroup.com

 

 

 

Letter to David Hill, Chief Executive, Guildford Borough Council

Letter to David Hill, Chief Executive, Guildford Borough Council 1920 1440 admin

Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?

Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing? 1920 1440 admin

3 August 2012

Good to see the article in today’s Surrey Advertiser, outlining objections made by Hermes, owners of the Friary Centre, about the proposed Waitrose development. Hermes, like Guildford Vision Group and the Guildford Society, maintain that it is not possible to achieve a proper assessment of the Bellerby Theatre/ North Place site without reference to the Friary 2/ North Street development. They urge Guildford Borough Council to delay the decision on Waitrose until a joined-up view of the whole area can be taken.

We, at Guildford Vision Group, feel strongly that any further development must be preceded by a full and professional survey of Guildford’s infrastructure and should be contingent on the commissioning of a proper masterplan for the town centre. Without this, there is a real possibility that Guildford’s economy may decline.

 

20120505 Press Release

20120505 Press Release 1920 1440 admin

 

Instead of Problems in Store, how about a Plan with Vision?

‘We all want Waitrose in Guildford. We can all see the benefits of their fine produce and service. But we should be urging our elected councillors to press for a more imaginative and sustainable solution for the proposed Waitrose site off York Road, and for the many other town centre sites the Council’s Executive wish to see developed.’

Thus says John Rigg, chair of Guildford Vision Group (GVG), the group of concerned Guildford residents calling for a more visionary Master Plan for the town, claiming the site off York Road is a stark example of planning short-termism of a kind that bedevils any chance to use economic development to improve Guildford’s creaking infrastructure. GVG also point to the plans for the station redevelopment, fearing that the long term implications of short termism, taken for immediate financial gain, will prohibit any future bold moves to improve, for example, Guildford’s dreadful traffic blight.

This is not to say that GVG is against substantial redevelopment be it at the station or elsewhere. What GVG is calling for is:

  • A moratorium on major development in the town centre until a comprehensive study has been carried out by independent experts into the gyratory system, its feeder roads and their respective capacities;
  • A clear strategy to re-connect Guildford – the railway divides the town and, with no new rail crossing for 100 years, adds to the pressure on the town centre;
  • The ability for pedestrians to move freely between visitor attractions, transport hubs, shops, residential areas and schools without having to fight with the traffic;
  • An appropriate gateway from the station to the Cathedral and University – the latter being a major economic contributor to Guildford – poorly served by its lack of connectedness; and
  • A long term sustainable plan where developments fit into a strategy that works towards more social and amenity space along the River Wey, encouraging visitors and business to come to Guildford; read more

Graham Hibbert (4th May 2012 – Surrey Ad)

Graham Hibbert (4th May 2012 – Surrey Ad) 1920 1440 admin

 

Traffic Implications Don’t Add Up

I attended the Waitrose presentation and fully support their entry into the Guildford market. I am, however, disappointed that the size of the site available to them does not allow them to share the site with a John Lewis store which I understand to be their preferred format.

The absence of a proper longer term plan to tackle Guildford’s chronic traffic problems also gives me serious concern about this development.  Waitrose say they have done a traffic survey and the impact of their development will be acceptable. Without knowing the details, I cannot judge if this analysis is correct. However, what alarms me is the cumulative impact of the 25 developments described in GBC’s “Masterplan”. What assurance do we have that this has been properly analysed? We set off with an infrastructure deficit before any of these developments has started.

We have to find a solution to getting through traffic out of the centre of town. We know there is no money short term; that is why we have to plan long term and stop short term decisions blocking steps to solve Guildford’s long standing problems. read more