Keep Normandy ‘washed over’ by the Green Belt

Normandy is a dispersed community made up of 5 hamlets joined together by ribbon development.  From a planning point of view we are regarded as made up of two settlements, Flexford and Normandy.  This has been deliberately misrepresented in the GBC evidence documents as a Large Village when it is no bigger than and has almost the same services as the combined settlements of East and West Clandon.

Within the 2003 settlement boundaries there is 585 population in Normandy and 1,199 in Flexford.  Excluding mobile homes, there are 1,127 houses in Normandy overall and we are slated to receive a minimum of 724 new homes added in the next 5-10 years, nearly a two-thirds increase, 550 in Flexford settlement and the balance in Normandy settlement.  Current residents fear a loss of identity for Flexford  and Normandy.

The Sustainability evidence has factual errors (e.g. Normandy has no pub and no secondary school) and deliberately conflates the two settlements in order to ensure assessments of journeys on foot from the proposed new housing sites to essential local services fit within the time and distance criteria, whereas if the two settlements were separately and appropriately assessed, they would fail the sustainability tests.

All sites contain agricultural land (quality 3), some actively farmed for cereal crops, used for livestock fattening and grazing. No evidence has been collected of actual quality by physical soil sampling. Perfectly good farmland for now and an uncertain environmental and food security future will be lost for ever.

Propensity of areas to flood in Flexford and Willey Green has been overlooked; sewage back flush around Guildford Road is due to a high water table that was well-known to the developer of Old Hall Cottages

Redrawing the settlement boundaries will cause permanent breaches of the contribution land in Normandy makes to the key factors offered by Green Belt status

  • preventing urban sprawl
  • prevent towns merging
  • safeguard countryside from encroachment

and support the position that Normandy should remain ‘washed over’ by the Green Belt acting as a buffer to Ash growth

Normandy makes a contribution to the openness of the Green Belt according to the Planning Inspectorate, acting as a transition area between the north slopes of the Hogs Back of Surrey Hills AONB and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area [SPA] of European importance that accounts for 8% of the GB nightjar population, 10% of the GB woodlark population and 28% of the GB Dartford warbler population.

All Normandy’s eight proposed development areas are within the 400 metre-5 kilometre protection zone of the SPA.  All sites require Strategic Alternative Natural Greenspace [SANG] to be found in advance before any development can be considered.  The proximity of an increased human population and associated air pollution from predicted additional car journeys is a threat to the SPA.

Normandy’s role as a recognised part of the natural openness of the Green Belt in this context will be further and severely threatened if the unsubstantiated claims in the Sites Issues and Options document (para 9.58) are to be believed – no evidence whatsoever has been produced to illustrate how a further 2,700 homes could be accommodated by 2031.  This is an unwarranted threat that sounds more like a developer’s charter than consultation and should be withdrawn from the document.

Taking Normandy out of the Green Belt by using the expediency of “insetting” will add further threat when used in combination with the redrawing of the settlement boundaries.  All Green Belt land taken into the settlement boundary and Green Belt land already within the settlement boundary will be available for any urban-style development without redress.  This will open the door to unwarranted sprawl towards Ash and the eventual creation of a conurbation from the west Guildford approaches to Aldershot.

It is obvious that the evidence base has been collected together in a manner deliberately intended to support a pre-determined strategy already agreed by councillors and to encourage agreement to intrusive Green Belt development. The Green Belt should continue to wash over Normandy.

Advertisements

One thought on “Keep Normandy ‘washed over’ by the Green Belt

  1. A Request for Wildlife Sightings

    Local resident and wildlife expert Danial Winchester has asked if residents can let him know of any helpful sightings via his email address at either danial@surrey-arg.org.uk or danial.winchester@googlemail.com.

    Did you know that St Marks Churchyard is an SNCI (known as Wyke Churchyard)? It has green-winged orchids and is designated for it’s unimproved grassland. North Wyke Woods SNCI is known by SWT as Wyke School Woods. It is designated for it’s broadleaved woodland and remnant wet heath.

    An SNCI is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest, a site of Importance for Nature Conservation used by local authorities in England for sites of substantive local nature conservation.

    The SSSI along Pirbright Road is Ash to Brookwood Heaths and is designated due to being the largest area of dry heathland in the London Basin, together with extensive wet heath, bog and associated habitats. The Thames Basin Heaths SPA designation as part of the same SSSI is for the breeding bird populations of nightjar, Dartford warbler and woodlark. The site is also home to adders, grass snakes, common lizards and slow worms which are all reptiles protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and both smooth snakes and sand lizards which are protected under European law.

    A SSSI is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a conservation designation denoting a protected area in the United Kingdom. SSSIs are the basic building block of site-based nature conservation legislation and most other legal nature/geological conservation designations in Great Britain are based upon them.

    Pipistrelle bats are recorded in Beech Lane, Glaziers Lane and Aldershot Road. All low and zero-carbon build will have no capacity for bats (and other wildlife such as swifts) to enter roofspaces. Unless positive, proactive steps are taken, there is concern that future housing stock will hold no potential for bat roosts for several species.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s