Reasons For Objecting To North field, Egley Road Being Developed

 

Summary

​

• Mayford is an ancient settlement and has always had an independent identity. Mayford Village featured in the Doomsday Book and had a separate identity from Woking then, and at present this remains the case. The Northern end of Egley Road being left open is the only chance of this remaining the case.

​

• Mayford has a unique identity within the borough and its separation from the urban Woking is critical to that. The North field (GB7) South of Hillside and North of Hoe Valley School is the only option available to keep Mayford visually separate from Urban Woking.

 

• Mayford is a village with an identity separate to Woking and visual separation between the urban area and settlement area (CS6 and CS10) should be maintained.

​

• The proposal put forward by the council in the Regulation 19 submission acknowledged the loss of Green Belt function on the GB7 site caused by the usage as a school and athletics track but proposed the northern portion of the site, combined with the school’s playing grounds, could function as that separation.

 

• It proposed that the site be released from the green belt but designated as an area of Allocated Open Space under CS16.

 

• The inspector noted that this proposal would give greater protection than if it remained in the green belt and that separation distance could be maintained with development on the site using landscaping. He noted his intention to alter this policy.

 

Reasons For Objecting To This View

 

• Separation cannot be maintained between the Mayford Settlement Area and the urban area of Woking as set out in policy CS1 if the northern part of GB7 is removed from the Green Belt without protection.

 

• Development of any kind on the northern part of the GB7 site is inconsistent with the planning of the school, which placed its open spaces on the northern part of its site to blend into the field. 

 

• Establishing further residential development on even the southern part of the north of GB7 breaks this visual separation and materially harms the character of the area. Such infill would damage the visual identity of Mayford as a distinct settlement and lead to it becoming an urban extension of Woking.

 

• A more sound solution would be to retain the northern part of GB7 (currently shaded as the Allocated Open Space) within the green belt and allow the southern part to be developed. This would have the effect of allowing such development on the northern part only as permitted by council policy CS6 (Mayford Village Settlement) and the NPPF.

​

• An alternative solution would be to retain the northern part of GB7 (currently shaded as the Allocated Open Space) within the Greenbelt and to bring forward GB8 which is currently the site of Woking Garden Centre, which is already developed and provides no benefit or need to be protected by the greenbelt).GB8 is attached to the southern portion of GB7 and could provide a straight swap with the northern area, effectively bringing it forward to be released from greenbelt in 2022-2027.

 

• The green belt boundary in Mayford is already irregularly shaped and follows the Hoe Stream on one side. The impact on the green belt boundary of retaining the northern part of GB7 would be no different to GB9 being retained or the Hoe Stream contour.

​

• The Northern area should have been designated as Local Green Space before submission under Reg 19. The Inspector could not then say that the allocation as open space is more restrictive than the national policy for Green Belt and is therefore unjustified.

​

• The original plan of the hatched area should be "Local Green Space" and this is the correct time to do that as Para 99 of the NPPF

 

    The designation of land as Local Green Space through local and neighbourhood plans allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them. Designating land as Local Green Space should be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development .... Local Green Spaces should only be designated when a plan is prepared or updated, and be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.

​

   Where land has been designated as Local Green Space, the NPPF states at para 101:

​

   Policies for managing development within a Local Green Space should be consistent with those for Green Belts”.

​

• It would not be unlawful and reasonable to give the northern area of Egley Road (GB7) the same level of protection as it had under the Green Belt policy by protecting this area of open countryside provided that the policies for managing development within a Local Green Space should be consistent with those for Green Belts (NPPF 101).

​

• The Council should use the recent designation under NPPF of Local Green Space. This achieves the same result as leaving this northern area of the site within the Green Belt. Furthermore, it affords protection without compromising the building of 116 dwellings on the southern part of the site, which has been allocated for residential development.​

 

• ​It would not be appropriate that this vitally important sites fate be left to the development management process, private developers and landowners. It will be highly unlikely that appropriate open green space will be retained.

​

• The local community deserve the assurance that the northern end of the site, where the countryside is of high amenity and environmental value, will be kept open and provide more than a mere visual separation from the urban area of Woking. There is an absolute need for a physical separation as a buffer of open land separating Mayford from merging with Woking. The designation of the northern area as a Local Green Space would achieve this aim and provide residents with an area of the valued local countryside for recreation, wildlife conservation while providing an enduring physical separation between Mayford and Woking.

​

• The Northern field of Egley Road(GB7) should be designated as Local Green Space in accordance with the NPPF paras 99-101 to keep the land open and to act as a buffer, green gap, call it what you will, with no more or less than the same level of protection that it had under the Green Belt policy. We believe this would be acceptable to the Inspector, landowners and residents alike and not affect the soundness of the plan. It would serve the purpose that the council and the residents are trying to achieve.