Gosden Hill development
Gosden Hill is a development of 1800 homes now been planned for an area on the north east border of Burpham, bounded by the A3, Merrow Lane and the railway line to Clandon. Developers Martin Grant intend to submit their plans for outline planning permission early in the new year. You can find out more about their plans on their website at www.gosdenhill.co.uk.
We have met with members in the local area whose roads are most affected by the development, and with the developers themselves. We have also established a working group with representatives from local roads to respond to the consultation process. A meeting of members will review this and other new developments affecting Burpham at 7.30pm on 14 November 2024 at the Village Hall in Burpham Lane.
The Burpham Community Association has responded to their consultation as follows:
RESPONSE OF THE BURPHAM COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO THE GOSDEN HILL CONSULTATION
November 2024
Overview
The BCA supports the development of houses at Gosden Hill and at this early stage we find the plans for homes, landscaping, environment, drainage and movement inside the estate to be on track to create a pleasant community alongside our own.
We have serious concerns about the impact of traffic on Burpham during the construction phase and in the long term, and our support is contingent on that situation being resolved with partners who have responsibility for roads. Whilst we can see the benefits of a second exit from the development at the southern end, and support it, we think the roundabout as shown doesn’t work and needs to be relocated.
In this document we also seek a resolution to other aspects of the development which include the construction timeline, managing the initial pressure on overstretched Burpham services, conserving the character of Burpham’s adjacent roads, and the protection of our own heritage, lanes and green spaces. We will be pleased to work with developers who have so far proved helpful and open.
Inside the estate
We welcome the development of much-needed homes in Guildford and very much hope to see that the type of houses reflects local need, especially that they are suitable for young people who already live here and would like to own their own homes or rent larger properties for their growing families, and at prices they can afford.
We like the proposed landscaping of the site to create a countryside feel with relaxed community spaces and we think this builds on Burpham’s history of estate development. We look forward to seeing more detail about cycle and pedestrian paths across the estate, as these will be essential to encourage active travel and reduce car-dependency.
The woodland park with its criss-crossing paths is particularly welcome. We hope to see more detail at the next stage about how wildlife will be able to access the green spaces in the area, since the estate in bounded by roads. We are also keen to encourage a kerbside planting plan which protects cyclists, pedestrians and homeowners from traffic emissions such as tyre particulates and CO2, and we note the existence of global leaders in this matter at the University of Surrey.
Traffic implications for Burpham
1800 houses bring with them almost 3500 cars. We are very concerned about the impact of these extra cars on Burpham because we already have a logjam along London Road and New Inn Lane during peak hours. Adjacent roads then experience rat-running and their own exit difficulties. It is of the deepest concern to us that traffic assessments have not been made available with this outline plan, especially when one considers that previous plans were rejected because they did not secure adequate traffic routes. Today there are more cars on the road but less infrastructure in the plan. For example, there is neither a 4 way interchange on the A3 or a fast simple route into Merrow.
It is inevitable that residents of Gosden Hill will wish to go into town to shop, to bring their children to our excellent schools and nurseries, attend our churches, and to shop here at our two large supermarkets. That will bring a large volume of extra traffic up and down London Road, and both ways along New Inn Lane from the southern exit. All our important facilities are on these roads – shops, churches, nurseries, etc – and congestion spells trouble for residents and shopkeepers. Attempts to widen these roads will be compromised by immoveable pinch points, protected trees and green spaces, but more significantly, this will put at risk the ‘green lane’ character of our residential roads.
Added to this, residents of Gosden Hill will be obliged to come south down London Road to access the northbound entry to the A3. This is counter-intuitive and will bring unnecessary extra traffic into London Road and the Sainsburys area. This could be solved by a four-way interchange at the new A3 junction.
We welcome the council’s aspirations to improve Burpham’s roads and to create safe spaces for cyclists and pedestrians along the main routes. We would like to see a masterplan for the completed network of cycleways and pedestrian paths linking Gosden Hill to the rest of Guildford, and the construction timetable for it.
We are adamant that the character of Burpham’s roads should be conserved. This means that we do not welcome construction traffic on New Inn Lane, Merrow Lane or London Road adjacent to the current slip road. It is not appropriate to run construction traffic up narrow residential roads. Our lanes are precious to us and we do not wish to lose trees, green space or hedge protection from them. The celebrated cathedral arches of boughs on Merrow Lane and at the top of New Inn Lane are, for us, a heritage we must retain for both Burpham and Gosden Hill residents.
This is a large development that merits its own construction road to avoid Burpham. All construction traffic should enter the site from the A3 even in Phase 1 of building. The cost of this road does not outweigh the cost of ten years of disruption to residents. Given the scale of the project and the income it will generate, the cost of this one vital road is a fair expectation of the Burpham community.
With regard to the new A3 interchange, we think the slip roads off the A3 look short and therefore prone to fast exits followed by sudden braking, and well as being risky for traffic entering the southbound flow at peak hours. We think the slip roads should be extended.
We welcome better access to the A3 southbound for Burpham residents. It may well remove traffic from the busy Parkway and Woodbridge areas. However, it will attract traffic from Merrow, Bellfields, and Christchurch wishing to use the southbound exit, creating gridlock in Burpham at the London Road roundabouts which lie at the intersections with Clay Lane and New Inn Lane. Furthermore, we do not think the southbound A3 exit will be used by Gosden Hill residents to access the town centre because the Parkway slip is a slow and awkward exit which already logjams back onto the A3; we think drivers will try London Road first. These complex effects on traffic must be measured and published to understand how our roads will be affected before development is approved.
We have thought long and hard about the proposed second exit to the southern end of the development and agree in principle that a second exit is necessary. However, we think the proposed location is unsuitable for a number of reasons outlined below:
We have a significant concern about the closing-off of old London Road at the Great Oaks roundabout, and the new turning a few metres north of this. It would work for traffic turning left as it comes into Burpham, but traffic moving in the opposite direction would have to turn right across a fast stream of vehicles. The same is true of traffic leaving in each direction. It looks dangerous.
The stretch of London Road adjacent to the slip road is not an appropriate route for heavy construction traffic. The road is too narrow and would pose a serious risk to pedestrians, bicycles and parked cars, as well as opening up a gap in the protective screen of trees between homes and road. Families in this road are particularly concerned about the risk to their children. The photograph illustrates the problem, even today, before building starts.
New Inn Lane is not a palatable alternative. It is residential on both sides, has several pinch points, and is jammed for 100-200 metres in both directions for several hours a day as you can see in the photographs. Cyclists struggle to make their way up the lane and pedestrians take many risks getting across the exit at London Road.
In the long term, almost all the traffic added by Gosden Hill will converge onto the roundabouts in the centre of Burpham. There is very strong feeling among residents along the length of London Road that extra peak time traffic will create traffic issues on a par with the ones at Woodbridge. Improving the carriageway is needed but it will not reduce the sheer number of cars that will be added to local traffic.
Residents in Merrow Lane, Sutton Hill, Mead Way and London Rd (slip road section) do not feel they have had a clear answer to the question of access and egress from their roads and this needs to be clarified quickly, especially if 200 new houses join them to use Merrow Lane as their only exit. Residents here feel that one access route will be insufficient and put more cars into the middle of Burpham when that could be easily avoided if they could also use the New Inn Lane exit.
Finally, we need early assurance that public transport will be sufficient to reduce the need for cars. Bus services will need to be frequent and reliable. We are worried by the prevailing pessimism about the railway station. No-one – not even Network Rail, developers or local councillors - has been able to reassure us that a railway station is on the cards.
Amenities and utilities
The plans for shops, community facilities, schools and the transport hub are welcome, but the prevarication of partner services about non-estate roads, the railway station and the secondary school is more troubling. Burpham schools are full; we have no chemist; we have no surgery; we have no train station - and this leads us to worry about the unfulfilled needs of new residents competing for Burpham’s resources. We cannot overstate the need to get infrastructure in place at the earliest opportunity to avoid creating a problem for Burpham.
Having considered the outline plans for the drainage system, we seek reassurance that extra run-off from the built-over ground is taken into account, because a significant flooding risk exists further down the hill towards Great Oaks Park in Burpham. Riparian rights along that road would see individual residents picking up the bill for errors in the calculation of drainage.
Similarly, we know that our sewage and water systems are already challenged and we need to be confident that Thames Water has excellent plans in place to increase capacity. Given the location of existing pipes, we expect that the length of London Road and New Inn Lane will need to be dug up for upgrading of pipes. This must be carefully planned to avoid significant disruption to residents and businesses.
In short, planners must not depend on short-term capacity in Burpham: there’s not much of it.
Consultation
We have so far valued the helpful and open discussion we have had with the developers. They have demonstrated that they have heard our comments. They are polite, open and discursive. We are keen to work with them as the plan progresses to make it tolerable to Burpham residents.
Developers have also been clear about the issues over which they have no control. Plans have been shared which hope for the best but do not take account of the potential omissions such as the railway station and the secondary school. It is important that the utility companies, Network Rail, Highways England, Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council come clean very quickly about what amenities will and will not materialise. We lack even relative timelines to understand how the impact will unfold in Burpham and indeed wider parts of Guildford. Crucially, we need traffic assessments to be able to say honestly that the transport infrastructure can be made to work.
It is essential, in our view, to see better co-operation between Surrey County Council, Guildford Borough Council, government departments and service providers to make this site happen. These bodies do not seem to us to be co-ordinated or galvanised, and key people seem to be out of touch with local opinion.
Finally, we are aware that our sister organisations will provide feedback about their preferred arrangements, but there is no doubt that Burpham will take the brunt of the traffic, the pressure on services and the downsides of construction. Burpham residents have so far embraced the need and the design of Gosden Hill; their support should not be squandered. We expect and hope that our views are taken very seriously before decisions are taken.
We have met with members in the local area whose roads are most affected by the development, and with the developers themselves. We have also established a working group with representatives from local roads to respond to the consultation process. A meeting of members will review this and other new developments affecting Burpham at 7.30pm on 14 November 2024 at the Village Hall in Burpham Lane.
The Burpham Community Association has responded to their consultation as follows:
RESPONSE OF THE BURPHAM COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION TO THE GOSDEN HILL CONSULTATION
November 2024
Overview
The BCA supports the development of houses at Gosden Hill and at this early stage we find the plans for homes, landscaping, environment, drainage and movement inside the estate to be on track to create a pleasant community alongside our own.
We have serious concerns about the impact of traffic on Burpham during the construction phase and in the long term, and our support is contingent on that situation being resolved with partners who have responsibility for roads. Whilst we can see the benefits of a second exit from the development at the southern end, and support it, we think the roundabout as shown doesn’t work and needs to be relocated.
In this document we also seek a resolution to other aspects of the development which include the construction timeline, managing the initial pressure on overstretched Burpham services, conserving the character of Burpham’s adjacent roads, and the protection of our own heritage, lanes and green spaces. We will be pleased to work with developers who have so far proved helpful and open.
Inside the estate
We welcome the development of much-needed homes in Guildford and very much hope to see that the type of houses reflects local need, especially that they are suitable for young people who already live here and would like to own their own homes or rent larger properties for their growing families, and at prices they can afford.
We like the proposed landscaping of the site to create a countryside feel with relaxed community spaces and we think this builds on Burpham’s history of estate development. We look forward to seeing more detail about cycle and pedestrian paths across the estate, as these will be essential to encourage active travel and reduce car-dependency.
The woodland park with its criss-crossing paths is particularly welcome. We hope to see more detail at the next stage about how wildlife will be able to access the green spaces in the area, since the estate in bounded by roads. We are also keen to encourage a kerbside planting plan which protects cyclists, pedestrians and homeowners from traffic emissions such as tyre particulates and CO2, and we note the existence of global leaders in this matter at the University of Surrey.
Traffic implications for Burpham
1800 houses bring with them almost 3500 cars. We are very concerned about the impact of these extra cars on Burpham because we already have a logjam along London Road and New Inn Lane during peak hours. Adjacent roads then experience rat-running and their own exit difficulties. It is of the deepest concern to us that traffic assessments have not been made available with this outline plan, especially when one considers that previous plans were rejected because they did not secure adequate traffic routes. Today there are more cars on the road but less infrastructure in the plan. For example, there is neither a 4 way interchange on the A3 or a fast simple route into Merrow.
It is inevitable that residents of Gosden Hill will wish to go into town to shop, to bring their children to our excellent schools and nurseries, attend our churches, and to shop here at our two large supermarkets. That will bring a large volume of extra traffic up and down London Road, and both ways along New Inn Lane from the southern exit. All our important facilities are on these roads – shops, churches, nurseries, etc – and congestion spells trouble for residents and shopkeepers. Attempts to widen these roads will be compromised by immoveable pinch points, protected trees and green spaces, but more significantly, this will put at risk the ‘green lane’ character of our residential roads.
Added to this, residents of Gosden Hill will be obliged to come south down London Road to access the northbound entry to the A3. This is counter-intuitive and will bring unnecessary extra traffic into London Road and the Sainsburys area. This could be solved by a four-way interchange at the new A3 junction.
We welcome the council’s aspirations to improve Burpham’s roads and to create safe spaces for cyclists and pedestrians along the main routes. We would like to see a masterplan for the completed network of cycleways and pedestrian paths linking Gosden Hill to the rest of Guildford, and the construction timetable for it.
We are adamant that the character of Burpham’s roads should be conserved. This means that we do not welcome construction traffic on New Inn Lane, Merrow Lane or London Road adjacent to the current slip road. It is not appropriate to run construction traffic up narrow residential roads. Our lanes are precious to us and we do not wish to lose trees, green space or hedge protection from them. The celebrated cathedral arches of boughs on Merrow Lane and at the top of New Inn Lane are, for us, a heritage we must retain for both Burpham and Gosden Hill residents.
This is a large development that merits its own construction road to avoid Burpham. All construction traffic should enter the site from the A3 even in Phase 1 of building. The cost of this road does not outweigh the cost of ten years of disruption to residents. Given the scale of the project and the income it will generate, the cost of this one vital road is a fair expectation of the Burpham community.
With regard to the new A3 interchange, we think the slip roads off the A3 look short and therefore prone to fast exits followed by sudden braking, and well as being risky for traffic entering the southbound flow at peak hours. We think the slip roads should be extended.
We welcome better access to the A3 southbound for Burpham residents. It may well remove traffic from the busy Parkway and Woodbridge areas. However, it will attract traffic from Merrow, Bellfields, and Christchurch wishing to use the southbound exit, creating gridlock in Burpham at the London Road roundabouts which lie at the intersections with Clay Lane and New Inn Lane. Furthermore, we do not think the southbound A3 exit will be used by Gosden Hill residents to access the town centre because the Parkway slip is a slow and awkward exit which already logjams back onto the A3; we think drivers will try London Road first. These complex effects on traffic must be measured and published to understand how our roads will be affected before development is approved.
We have thought long and hard about the proposed second exit to the southern end of the development and agree in principle that a second exit is necessary. However, we think the proposed location is unsuitable for a number of reasons outlined below:
- It is on a tight 90 degree bend under an old railway arch followed by traffic lights to let traffic out of the industrial estate, and preceded on New Inn Lane by two shallower bends in the road. The railway bridge is regularly shut for checking when it is clipped by large vehicles and historically it is vulnerable to flooding because it lies at a low point.
- The traffic-light junction to and from the industrial estate just beyond the bridge currently causes significant queueing which will be made worse by increased traffic.
- The residents of railway cottages will be boxed in between railway, roundabout, new housing and the hoped-for new railway station. This is a very significant change to their living arrangements and quality of life.
- The current map involves the destruction of around 20% of Burpham Woods (aka Deadman’s Wood) green space which is protected in our Neighbourhood Plan and contains ancient woodland.
- The current drawing – which we are told is only indicative – tarmacs over the historic village pond. Moira MacQuaide, a local historian believes that early traction engines used it as a refill resource in the early days of steam travel. This pond is part of Burpham’s heritage and features on maps going back 200 years. We began work on planning to clear the pond last year and would prefer to open talks about how to restore it.
- avoiding the dangers of the tight roundabout outlined above;
- exiting the estate into a more appropriate location than the narrow opening into Merrow Lane;
- potentially building onto an existing roundabout with no tight exits; and
- potentially eliminating the traffic lights at the exit to the industrial estate .
We have a significant concern about the closing-off of old London Road at the Great Oaks roundabout, and the new turning a few metres north of this. It would work for traffic turning left as it comes into Burpham, but traffic moving in the opposite direction would have to turn right across a fast stream of vehicles. The same is true of traffic leaving in each direction. It looks dangerous.
The stretch of London Road adjacent to the slip road is not an appropriate route for heavy construction traffic. The road is too narrow and would pose a serious risk to pedestrians, bicycles and parked cars, as well as opening up a gap in the protective screen of trees between homes and road. Families in this road are particularly concerned about the risk to their children. The photograph illustrates the problem, even today, before building starts.
New Inn Lane is not a palatable alternative. It is residential on both sides, has several pinch points, and is jammed for 100-200 metres in both directions for several hours a day as you can see in the photographs. Cyclists struggle to make their way up the lane and pedestrians take many risks getting across the exit at London Road.
In the long term, almost all the traffic added by Gosden Hill will converge onto the roundabouts in the centre of Burpham. There is very strong feeling among residents along the length of London Road that extra peak time traffic will create traffic issues on a par with the ones at Woodbridge. Improving the carriageway is needed but it will not reduce the sheer number of cars that will be added to local traffic.
Residents in Merrow Lane, Sutton Hill, Mead Way and London Rd (slip road section) do not feel they have had a clear answer to the question of access and egress from their roads and this needs to be clarified quickly, especially if 200 new houses join them to use Merrow Lane as their only exit. Residents here feel that one access route will be insufficient and put more cars into the middle of Burpham when that could be easily avoided if they could also use the New Inn Lane exit.
Finally, we need early assurance that public transport will be sufficient to reduce the need for cars. Bus services will need to be frequent and reliable. We are worried by the prevailing pessimism about the railway station. No-one – not even Network Rail, developers or local councillors - has been able to reassure us that a railway station is on the cards.
Amenities and utilities
The plans for shops, community facilities, schools and the transport hub are welcome, but the prevarication of partner services about non-estate roads, the railway station and the secondary school is more troubling. Burpham schools are full; we have no chemist; we have no surgery; we have no train station - and this leads us to worry about the unfulfilled needs of new residents competing for Burpham’s resources. We cannot overstate the need to get infrastructure in place at the earliest opportunity to avoid creating a problem for Burpham.
Having considered the outline plans for the drainage system, we seek reassurance that extra run-off from the built-over ground is taken into account, because a significant flooding risk exists further down the hill towards Great Oaks Park in Burpham. Riparian rights along that road would see individual residents picking up the bill for errors in the calculation of drainage.
Similarly, we know that our sewage and water systems are already challenged and we need to be confident that Thames Water has excellent plans in place to increase capacity. Given the location of existing pipes, we expect that the length of London Road and New Inn Lane will need to be dug up for upgrading of pipes. This must be carefully planned to avoid significant disruption to residents and businesses.
In short, planners must not depend on short-term capacity in Burpham: there’s not much of it.
Consultation
We have so far valued the helpful and open discussion we have had with the developers. They have demonstrated that they have heard our comments. They are polite, open and discursive. We are keen to work with them as the plan progresses to make it tolerable to Burpham residents.
Developers have also been clear about the issues over which they have no control. Plans have been shared which hope for the best but do not take account of the potential omissions such as the railway station and the secondary school. It is important that the utility companies, Network Rail, Highways England, Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council come clean very quickly about what amenities will and will not materialise. We lack even relative timelines to understand how the impact will unfold in Burpham and indeed wider parts of Guildford. Crucially, we need traffic assessments to be able to say honestly that the transport infrastructure can be made to work.
It is essential, in our view, to see better co-operation between Surrey County Council, Guildford Borough Council, government departments and service providers to make this site happen. These bodies do not seem to us to be co-ordinated or galvanised, and key people seem to be out of touch with local opinion.
Finally, we are aware that our sister organisations will provide feedback about their preferred arrangements, but there is no doubt that Burpham will take the brunt of the traffic, the pressure on services and the downsides of construction. Burpham residents have so far embraced the need and the design of Gosden Hill; their support should not be squandered. We expect and hope that our views are taken very seriously before decisions are taken.
