The main concerns include: VILLAGE SEVERANCE, CAR PARKING, LOSS OF TREES, GREENERY & HABITAT, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, CYCLEWAYS, POLLUTION, DISTRUPTION AND DURATION OF THE WORKS - AND BASICALLY IF IT DOES NOT ACHIEVE GREATER TRAFFIC FLOWS, "IS IT REALLY NECESSARY"?
THE OWARA RESPONSE IS COPIED BELOW - SCC's final date for comments was Dec 31st, but they will also take comments received after that date.
So, if you haven't done so already, please click on this link firstname.lastname@example.org and let them know what you think.
Dear Surrey County Council,
I write on behalf of OWARA to express major concerns and reservations about the SCC Planning Application SCC 2021/0185 – A320 Ottershaw Roundabout (J10 of the SCC HIF scheme)
Requirements of HIF Scheme not met
The traffic scheme application published for consultation falls short of meeting the fundamental requirements if the HIF scheme and will considerably worsen life in the Ottershaw community.
Refuse: Requirements of HIF Grant not met – (No increase in capacity or free-flow of traffic is possible because A320 north and south of the scheme remain as existing bottlenecks)
Community severance worsened.
For years our village has been cut in two parts by the A320. Traffic from the ever-enlarging Woking uses this road to access the M25. That traffic, North or South-bound has no interest in Ottershaw and most of our members were expecting a significant and imaginative scheme for that traffic to ‘by-
pass’ our village all together and so reducing severance to the point our entire village community would thrive again.
The proposed scheme does the exact opposite with a system 8.5 times larger than existing and dominates the village.
Refuse: The scheme is too large and far worsens the severance of our community
The proposal makes no reference to the inevitable use of rat-runs through village residential roads (Brox Road/Slade Road in particular)
Condition required: This scheme must not commence until adequate measures are taken to stop rat-runs being established or worsened by it. On-street parking and speeding are already serious issues.
The application shows no definition of measures to be taken to permit safe village life to continue and traffic to be diverted. For instance, traffic must NOT be diverted down the residential Slade Road and Brox Roads. There are schools in these roads.
Condition required: This scheme must not commence until the com
munity agrees adequate protection is defined to deny residential side roads carrying the normal flow from A320 and/or construction traffic. We need to see a full Traffic Management Plan and details of how noise and air pollution will be limited.
No future-proofing (or even consideration for)
Almost as soon as this scheme is finished a new RBC Local Plan will be adopted – the proposed scheme is not designed to cope with the increased traffic load that will bring. It will not cope and the mess starts again. Let’s see a joined-up plan to take through traffic completely out of our village.
Tree destruction and preservation
The proposed access to rear of telephone exchange and electricity sub-station is not required. These units are seldom accessed and could continue to be so directly from A320. This will save wholesale destruction of swathes of mature trees.
No defined landscaping and tree or hedge removal plans
are included in the application.
Refuse: Until proposed new access road to telephone exchange and sub-station is removed from application
Condition required: The scheme must not commence until detailed landscaping is defined and emphasises preservation of as many mature trees and hedgerows as possible and use of mature trees to be planted (rather than saplings) in landscaping plans.
The proposed scheme does provide a carpark close to our Village Hall – but only marginally bigger than the existing carpark – which is full most days with long-term parking.
Condition required: The scheme must not commence until SCC and RBC have published a plan to ensure the proposed car park is available only to village hall and shop users. A second, long-term carpark should be included in the application
Refuse: Until a long-term carpark is provisioned i
n the application.
Condition required: The scheme shall not commence until a scheme to manage short-term parking is agreed between SCC and RBC and that scheme is published.
In closing, OWARA would like to add its full support to the representations already filed with SCC by the Ottershaw Neighbourhood Forum (ONF) and resident Mr Mike Freshney who have articulated the many objections OWARA has to the proposal.
Finally, OWARA would like to address the Planning Committee during the meeting to consider this application. If a separate request is required, please advise.
Chair, Ottershaw and West Addlestone Residents Association