Taylor Wimpey's agent, Savill's, has resubmitted papers for the major TW development in Normandy (Guildford Borough Council - GBC - planning reference 25/P/01725) and associated SANG (25/P/01726). The following are our headline comments on the the former; we shall shortly add comments on the latter, and we will upload the full text of our updated objections to the proposals once we have submitted them to GBC.

25/P/01725

• Scale and character of the development is alien to the local area.
  The applicant has reduced the maximum height of the development from 4 storeys to 3. However, a three-storey development remains fundamentally out of character with the prevailing single-storey and two-storey vernacular of Normandy and Flexford. In addition the proposed scale and density of the development would irreversibly urbanise a sensitive rural fringe, causing significant spatial harm to the Green Belt. 
  
  
• Transport promises are hollow, and ‘sustainable location’ claim is false.
  The applicant's discussions with the bus company have not resulted in a bus service being extended into the site. The discussions with Network Rail and South Western Railway have not resulted in any agreement to create an accessible station. The' sustainable location' claim is false - Wanborough Station is one of the least used in Britain, with no funded improvements planned for 20 years. Several of Active Travel England's own recommendations, including a vision-led multi-modal transport assessment and compliant cycle infrastructure, have been explicitly declined by the applicant. This is a significant development in a location where the number and length of journeys needed for employment, shopping, leisure, and education will not be minimised. Almost all of these destinations will remain in their existing locations (i.e., away from the proposed development). 
  
  
• Sewers can’t cope - developer confirms it.
  Thames Water has only agreed capacity for the first 100 of 950 homes; the rest is left to an unproven "Grampian Condition" in a system that already surcharges sewage into homes and water courses.
  
  
• Flood risk concerns remain unresolved.
  The applicant has not demonstrated that surface water flood risk to the development is sufficiently mitigated, so a 'sequential test' is still required. Despite claiming that a flood risk modelling addendum addresses the known issues, the developer never engages with our specific critique that their flood catchment model is too small and omits two flow paths. 
  
  
• Heritage and archaeological harm are substantially unaddressed.
  Concerns raised about the risks to listed buildings affected by the development have been unconvincingly downplayed. The Surrey County Council Archaeological Officer's comments about the potential Roman road crossing the site have been deflected: a post-planning area-limited trial trenching condition would be inadequate to protect this potentially valuable asset. 
  
  
• Biodiversity Net Gain fails - on the developer’s own figures.
  The developer's own figures show that there will be a net loss of habitats and only vague promises of "future offsetting" instead of real solutions. It has not been demonstrated that a sufficient proportion of the overall mandatory BNG habitat scores will be delivered from the land that is the subject of the main application, as opposed to the SANG. 
  
  
• Ancient Woodland buffers are inadequate.
  Ancient Woodland buffers are inadequate at 15-20 m, which ignores official advice from the Forestry Commission recommending 30m. This puts irreplaceable habitats at risk. 
  
  
• ‘Golden Rules’ for affordable housing and infrastructure are not assured.
  The requirement for 50% affordable housing is not assured - the draft S106 agreement includes a fallback allowing a financial contribution instead, which would be in breach of the Golden Rules. It would be all too easy for the developer to evade this vital commitment down the line. 
  
  
• Application is premature and should be part of ongoing Local Plan.
  A new Guildford Local Plan is in preparation. This proposed development bypasses the democratic local plan process. It is exactly the kind of "haphazard" Green Belt release the Government has condemned. A development of this size and scale on such a sensitive site should only be considered as part of a strategic plan for the wider area.