Public Consultation 12 May 2015 to 22 June 2015.
To date we have received responses from 553 residents. Of these 474 agreed with all the policies (over 87%) and 79 disagreed with at least one policy. The lowest level of agreement for any policy (OS5) was around 96.9% and the average level of agreement per policy was over 98%.
The detailed results per policy were:-
|No. not Agreed
As well as agreeing or disagreeing with the policies 188 responders added comments. The relationship between responders with comments and with all Agrees or otherwise is summarised in the following table.
Comments No Comments Total
All Agrees 138 336 474
Not all Agree 50 29 79
Total 188 365 553
It is important to recognise that the number of comments on any particular policy was relatively small by comparison to the total number of responses (553). Such comments should therefore not be taken as representative of the overall response, particularly given the very high level of agreement with the policies, but rather an indication of specific areas of concern.
For those respondents that did not agree with all policies and also included comments, the comments have been examined to see how they relate to the policies that were either given a “Disagree” or blank entry.
15 respondents included comments that did not relate to the policies not getting an “Agree” response. Comments related to policies that received “Disagree” or blank responses were as follows:-
1 suggesting that no. of units requiring a full infrastructure survey should be reduced from 10.
1 (also applied to VI2) not supporting any development in any circumstances.
1 not agreeing or disagreeing to VI1, VI2, or VI3 as it was felt that the meaning of “development” was not clear.
VI2 (see above in VI1)
VI3 2 stating that there should be no building on the flood plain. However this could be a misinterpretation of VI3 which referred to developments impacting on the flood plain, not necessarily on the flood plain.
Overall the few comments on Village Infrastructure were not opposing the policies but rather suggesting that they were not “strong enough”.
Village Built Environment
2 disagreeing this restriction on the basis that modern development not in keeping with existing styles can be attractive.
4 disagreeing with this restriction on the basis that the need for new housing should have priority (1 also applied to BE3).
3 not agreeing with design in keeping with Townsend Cottages.
1 suggesting better use of existing parking and more waking/cycling would alleviate the parking situation.
1 against a requirement for onsite visitor parking.
1 requiring onsite parking not to be visually intrusive or impacting on drainage.
BE3 (see BE1 above).
Village Open Spaces
1 stating that we need more housing somewhere and suggesting opposite Pyrford Common.
1 (also applied to OS2, OS3, OS4, and OS5) stating that we need more housing and hence need flexibility in planning.
1 (also applied to OS2, OS3, and OS4) suggesting no development that affects environment even with mitigation and questioning the need for new housing in our area.
See OS1 above.
2 requiring absolutely no development in these sites (particularly cricket ground).
1 suggesting use of verge on Coldharbour Road to alleviate parking problems.
1 (also applied to OS4 and OS5) not accepting qualification of restriction by mitigation or very special circumstances.
See OS1 and OS2 above.
1 stating no development on farmland.
1 (also applied to OS5) suggesting that trees can be removed if replaced within 5 miles).
See OS1, OS2, and OS4 above.
1 suggesting need for housing should take priority over preservation of trees.
1 suggesting variety of trees rather than local species.
1 suggesting there are too many trees in Pyrford.
1 wanting to remove trees to improve view of St Nicholas Church.
Village Social & Community Structure
1 requiring safeguarding of private farmland.
1 not accepting development on community asset land.
1 querying what additional services.
1 expressing concern about development of Primary School.
3 opposing additional recreational space (particularly Teggs Lane) and other facilities on the grounds of additional noise and nuisance.
3 suggesting that facilities at Pyrford Common meet needs and could be developed.
1 opposing development on these sites that would increase traffic.
1 (also applied to SCS3) suggesting that additional faciilties should be provided other than by developer led incentives.
1 suggesting new development should cater for all residents, not just the elderly.
1 opposing developments that will increase traffic.
1 suggesting that any major development will require roads, a new school, and new doctor’s surgery.
1 not agreeing that this is a reasonable requirement to place on developers.
Comments from Responders Agreeing to All Policies
Although the proportion of responders including comments was lower than for those with some disagreement, 188 of these responders included comments as opposed to only 50 from those with some disagreement. For completeness the comments from those respondents that did not agree with all policies are also included.
The comments have been grouped into the main 4 categories of the report (Village Infrastructure, Built Environment, Open Space, and Village Social & Community Structure. Each main group has then been subdivided further to facilitate this analysis. As some responders commented on more than one policy, the total number of comments is significantly higher than the number of responders with comments. Where there are a significant number of comments in one sub-group, that can be further sub-divided, a tabular form has been used for clarity.
Village Infrastructure (and local facilities).
This group has been extended to include provision of schools, medical services, and bus services, and also deals with cycling/pedestrians, parking, and traffic. Although many of the comments were entered under either Built Environment or Social and community, it was felt that they were better included as part of the overall requirement for infrastructure and other facilities. There were 152 comments on this section.
There were 11 responses raising concerns about water supply, sewage, and drainage.
|Drainage against to much onus on developers
|Water supply and sewage
1 response required high speed telecoms, 1 required this for existing properties s well, and 1 qualified this with as long as no impact on tree roots or house foundations.
7 responses expressed concern about ensuring that developments had no detrimental affect on Pyrford Primary School or the ability to gain places there.
1 response expressed concern about the impact of any expansion on the already difficult parking situation.
7 responses expressed concern about the ability of the current overstretched facilities to cope with any further increase in load.
3 responses expressed these concerns about both medical and school capability.
Shops and Pub
There were 3 responses wanting to see a pub in the village and 1 for a modernisation of the shopping facilities of Marshal Parade.
There were 11 responses about overall infrastructure summarised in the following table.
|Baseline current services/upfront infrastructure study
|New development requires additional infrastructure
|Against any major development
|Specific requirement for older residents
|Query about what services or meaning of full infrastructure survey
16 responses included concerns about the existing poor service in Pyrford with particular concern about the future of the 437 service.
8 responses related to the need for improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians to access facilities around Pyrford given the increasing level of traffic.
There were 42 responses about parking summarised in the following sub-groups.
|New developments required to provide adequate on-site parking (free)
|Against requirement on developers for provision of on-site parking
|Any additional parking not visually intrusive of impact on drainage
|Lower provision of on-site parking
There were 5 responses specifically about Marshall Parade, 4 suggesting that the green area around Marshall Parade could be better used to provide additional parking, and 1 suggesting that the existing parking was adequate.
There were 7 responses about problems related to parking at Pyrford Primary School, 5 of which expressed particular concern about the proposed development of the school. 1 was accompanied by a copy of a letter to a local councillor about the impact of the development on Peatmore Avenue.
2 responses were against any parking or encroachment on the grass verges, particularly Coldharbour Road, whereas 1 suggested that some of the verges on Coldharbour Road could be converted to lay byes.
There were 14 other responses about parking including the need for a parking strategy, concerns about commercial vehicles, CPZ scheme, requirement to be free of cost, and other miscellaneous concerns.
There were 37 responses about traffic summarised in the following sub-groups.
Concerns about Increase
There were 17 responses expressing strong concerns about any increase in traffic in and through Pyrford given that the existing roads are not adequate for the current levels.
There were 2 Responses supporting traffic calming and 1 against as this could lead to more congestion.
There were 6 responses about traffic passing through Pyrford on roads not designed for this level of traffic with specific reference to traffic coming off the A3 (M25) and problems on Old Woking Road, Pyford Road, Pyrford Common Road, Upshot Lane, Engliff Lane and Coldharbour Road.
1 comment pointed out the increase in traffic caused by children from other parts of Woking coming to Pyrford Primary School.
There were 6 other miscellaneous responses on traffic, 3 of which expressed concerns about Old Woking Road and in particular the junctions with Pyrford Common Road and Norfolk Farm Road.
4 responses while supporting the policies wanted to see them strengthened by removing qualifiers such as “significant”.
There were 55 responses about Building Environment summarised in the following sub-groups.
There were 8 responses about Marshall Parade of which 5 opposed policy BE1b for new development to be in keeping with Townsend Cottages and 1 supported it.
3 responses concerned the need not to have an adverse effect on drainage.
Conform to Surroundings
There were 12 responses summarised in the following table.
|For requirement to conform to surroundings
|Against requirement to conform to surroundings
|Just require quality of design & materials
|No phone masts in existing buildings
|Complaint about weakness of existing restrictions
There were 3 responses about the importance of street features such as lamp posts as well as bridges.
3 responses were against any increase in the housing density given that Pyrford is viewed as a “green” area rather than urban.
10 Residential Units
There were 5 responses about policy VI1a expressing concern that this restriction is too relaxed. 1 is also against any development outside the existing boundaries.
Need for (Affordable) Housing
10 responses recognised the need for new housing and in some cases for affordable housing and smaller units for older people to downsize. They therefore did not want overly restrictive controls. 1 response was a query about what was meant by “development”.
No More Building
4 responses were against any more building or at least no major developments.
1 response referred to The Old House, Lees farm, and Warren farm to be designated as conservation areas, and 1 to St Nicholas Church and Old School.
4 responses while supporting the policies wanted to see them strengthened by removing qualifiers such as “in very special circumstances” or replacing “should” with “must”.
There were 89 responses about Open Spaces summarised in the following sub-groups.
There were 23 responses summarised in the following table.
|For preservation and replacement of trees (and wooded areas)
|State that trees should be removed or trimmed in certain circumstances
|Comments on mix of tree species
|Lack of tree policy in recent developments
|Removal of trees from Lincoln Drive without replacement
|Overgrown right of way
Need for New Houses
2 responses recognise that the need for new houses may take precedence.
13 responses stress the importance of Pyrford’s open spaces. Reference is made to the fileds by Dodds Lane, the field by Teggs Lane, Old Pyrford Green, Pyrford Common on both side of Pyrford Common Road, and the field by footpath by Henry VII cottage.
There are 11 responses opposing any building of the (Rever Wey) flood plain.
6 responses stress the need to protect biodiversity, with some mentioning the importance of trees and hedges for this. 1 of these also advised against green energy solutions such as solar panels on fields. Specific mention is made of bats and bees. 2 responses expressed reservations about policy OS4b re swift bricks.
5 responses expressed the importance of preserving the farmland in our area.
No new Development
7 responses were totally against any development on our green areas.
20 responses while supporting the policies wanted to see them strengthened by removing qualifiers such as “will not normally be permitted” or “except in very special circumstances”.
Social & Community
There were 31 responses about Social & Community summarised in the following sub-groups. Note that a significant number of responses that were added under Social & Community in the survey responses have been included in the infrastructure section above particularly in the schools, medical, and bus service groups.
4 responses stress the importance of Pyrford Common as a community asset and recreational area
Pyrford Cricket Club
1 response talks of a joint development of the Cricket Club and Arbor, 1 says it must never be developed, and 1 would like to see a small area converted to a play area.
Need for New Facilities
8 responses refer to the need for additional recreational facilities, 1 of which does not want this to be a pretext for building on green belt land. 1 response expresses concern about keeping dogs off recreational areas.
Impact on Neighbouring properties
5 responses express concern about the impact on surrounding houses of having recreational areas nearby. Of these 2 make specific reference to the field by Teggs Lane.
There are 10 other varied responses that do not fit into any of the above categories.
There were 50 responses not specifically referencing any of the main 4 categories summarised in the following sub-groups.
16 responders expressed their appreciation of the work done by the Forum or felt that there was nothing to add to the current policies.
11 responses criticise the consultation document. Of these 5 believe that the questionnaire is badly designed with comments including poor English, leading questions, or the different order between online and hard copy versions, 4 doubt that the policies will have any real impact, 1 seeks for better definition of “significant” in SC2 and doubts that the plan can have influence on healthcare or public transport, and 1 is irrelevant.
11 responses question the impact of the plan. Of these 7 doubt that it will have enough influence to overcome local or national planning priorities, 1 questions Woking Borough Council’s (WBC) planning decisions, 1 believes the policies are too in line with WBC planning regulations, and 2 just question why “historic” Pyrford should be compromised by the need for more housing.
8 responses are just questions about references to things that can be found in the main report.
3 responses deal with more than one category. These include traffic, population density, healthcare, trees, and pavements.
4 responses do not obviously fit into any of the above categories. Of these 1, while agreeing with all the polices, recognises the need for new housing may overrule them, 1 objects to any new development that would to additional noise, 1 addresses healthcare in the wider sense including places to walk, cycle etc., and 1 is irrelevant.