Thank you for
this opportunity to speak. I am objecting to the proposed
design for the bridge and junction, because of the level
of irreversible damage it would do to the local
environment.
I know I’m not alone in thinking that the area around
the bridge, the Cowey Sale floodplain, is a wonderful
asset for our community. It’s an exceptional area of
green, open riverside, a place people cherish. Yes, we do
need a new bridge, but it must be one which fits in. Not
something which stands out, like a giant sore thumb.
Last year there was a brief consultation exercise. The
planners gave a very limited set of choices. The designs
were inappropriate, and I think it is revealing that in
total more votes were cast against the various bridge
designs than for them.
And now the Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment has publicly stated that the site deserves a
higher standard of design than is proposed in this
application.
In short, we need a better design, something more in
sympathy with the locality.
Now, turning to the ‘clover leaf’ junction with
Walton Lane Weybridge, a minor road: The planners predict
there will be no increase in traffic along Walton Lane and
into the rat-run past two schools. Walton Lane will remain
a minor road. So there is no need for a junction of
anything like the proposed size. It would do a lot of
damage, be very intrusive, and be potentially dangerous.
The additional link road at this junction would route
traffic along what is currently a quiet riverbank, and
would introduce dangerous new bends. There would be two
new big curved embankments, over 60% higher than the
current single embankment.
It is very difficult to see how the design can be
justified. Government guidance on compact grade-separated
junctions says that, even if there is a positive
cost-benefit analysis –- and I see no evidence of that
here -– such a junction will not be acceptable if there
are significant environmental problems -– I quote -–
regarding land take, visual intrusion, loss of existing
landscape or ecological effects.
Yet this application’s own environmental statement
says -– and again I quote -– that the landscape around
the embankments would be “dramatically and irreversibly
changed”. And the new link road would destroy a Site of
Nature Conservation Importance.
The additional link road isn’t only damaging, it’s
unnecessary. A much less destructive junction can be
designed -– one which is safe and allows smooth traffic
flow across the bridge -– a mini roundabout, for
example. The planners just don’t seem to have explored
the options far enough.
We must find a better solution for the junction and for
the bridge – because the current application is quite
simply unacceptable. It is totally out of place.
It would be an embarrassingly wrong design for a
cherished site, and would do irreversible damage. Surrey
can do better than this. We must do better. Thank
you.
"
