Ripley and Send Parish Councils Opening Submission
Tuesday, 26th September 2023

I'm Councillor Julia Osborn and I'm Chairman of Send Parish Council. For the record, I'm also Parish Representative to the Guildford Borough Council Corporate Governance and Standards Committee. Ripley Parish Council and Send Parish Council are representing themselves, as we have already informed you. Both Parish Councils have objected to this proposal at every stage of the consultation. We noted the refusal of the application by Guildford Borough Council on the 10th of July 2023 and we supported that refusal. 
Madam, I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that I was present throughout the local plan inquiry, and I presented at that inquiry on behalf of Save Send Action Group. During that inquiry I became very familiar with the Guildford Borough Council's spatial appraisal for the local plan. In that appraisal, villages were situated at the lowest tier of the spatial hierarchy. This meant that they were not in their current form, sustainable for large settlements and development in those villages. I think it's for that reason there are so many local residents and probably people here today believed that plan should have been refused. 
However, much to our surprise, the Inspectorate approved the plan on the basis that these proposed allocated sites could be made sustainable in the future and that infrastructure could be provided at the stage of application. We question whether site A35 can be made sustainable. In our proof of evidence, we are particularly concerned about the impact on the local road network. 
Contrary to the appellant's views, we note in our parishes of Ripley and Send the very narrow roads that we have, particularly from Ripley High Street through to Newark Lane, Polesden Lane, Tannery Lane, and Tithebarns Lane which cannot be in any way, changed. Ripley High Street is also a designated emergency route for emergency vehicles and cannot accommodate segregated cycle lanes. We hope that during your visit, Madam, you had an opportunity to particularly see Ripley High Street at peak times during the rush hour and note the turning of the traffic from Ripley High Street into Newark Lane and the issue it is currently creating. We are also deeply concerned that the proposed slip roads that were central to the approval of the local plan will not now be delivered. We consider this will have a very adverse impact, particularly on the historic Ripley High Street. 
Evidence will also be provided by other witnesses, which I will not go into today about concerns about the impact on our local schools and our medical centre as it has already been referred to by another Rule Six party. 
We are also extremely concerned about the impact on the Ripley sewer treatment works and any development works that may be required to upgrade the Sewer plant that this would entail, the movement of HGVs during any development phase of upgrading the treatment plant, and the duration of any such works and the impact on the village.
Overall, though, Send Parish Council and Ripley Parish Council are extremely concerned about the cumulative impact of developments in our area, including windfield developments. My colleague will present evidence later in the inquiry about the number of windfalls and the total developments approved and pending. We calculate there to be already 843 dwellings approved or pending approval within our Parishes of Ripley and Send. 
This figure incorporates both approved strategic sites in our Parishes and additional windfall sites. The two strategic sites that have been approved, include the Clockbarn Nursery (Tannery Lane) which was originally proposed for sixty-five dwellings but was eventually approved for seventy-five. Another site, Garlick's Arch, has been approved for 550 dwellings. Additionally, there are various other windfalls that are mentioned in the appendices, which my colleague will discuss at the appropriate time. 
I also draw your attention to a very large industrial development at Burnt Common, which has also had Stage One Approval, which I believe is pending Stage Two Approval. The A3 slip roads were crucial in mitigating the impact of this development on our villages. However, despite the approval or pending approval of 843 dwellings and the industrial development, there has been no improvement to our existing infrastructure within our villages. 
As an anecdote, we had a sewer collapse within the village of Send approximately two years ago which closed the main road or created a lot of disruption for some time. I noted today there is a team out again - this may have been a repeated issue. That's just an anecdote. I think the point that we come to is thus: how can our villages accommodate a further 1730 dwellings without this impacting our beautiful environment, the history of our villages, and their existing infrastructure? 
Madam, we contend that the cumulative impact of all the developments taking place within the area is a substantial factor which we hope that you will give significant weight to with forming your conclusions. We believe that this site cannot be made sustainable, and we would request that you refuse this application.

Madam, I also have two further comments for your consideration. Firstly, on procedural matters. As Parish representative to the Guildford Borough Council Corporate Governance and Standards Committee, I put on record that S106 is extremely important for villages to receive if they are to be impacted by development. It is concerning that the planning obligation is not as yet known.
And finally, planning conditions are all too often the way that planning permission is granted. However, planning conditions can always be varied at a later date by way of a non-material amendment. All too often non-material amendments turn out to be a more substantial change than the term 'non-material amendment' implies. We saw this only recently in our Parishes of Ripley and Send when a non-material amendment was made to the approved planning permission for the development at Garlicks Arch.  A non-material amendment was submitted to move the undergrounding of the electricity pylons, from phase one to a later phase of the development, with there not being any certainty this phase will ever be built. Yet the condition to underground the pylons had been requested by Cllrs of Guildford Council's planning committee as a condition for them to agree to approve rather than refuse the development. It was not a non-material consideration. I flag this by way of example, as a point of concern regarding the use of planning conditions in general, in facilitating the approval of applications - for your consideration.

Councillor Julia Osborn