Charles Wilce retweeted
Back again . . . same lighting plan, new application. Photo on the left what the Inspector approved in the plans, and on the right what would come if approved. As different as night and day!
Assurances of minimal harm from floodlights versus the reality of what is built. GBC has refused the lighting plan (v2) at Urnfield as it did not demonstrate it met the Planning Inspector's requirement of maximum 1 lux light spill. To use the lights this condition must be met.
ALT Photo montage from the original planning application material showing likely impact of floodlights. And the reality of what has been built in the Surrey Hills National Landscape.
Charles Wilce retweeted
Long awaited decision on the lighting condition for the Urnfield- refused. Little wonder when you compare what they said it would look like, with what's been built!
Assurances of minimal harm from floodlights versus the reality of what is built. GBC has refused the lighting plan (v2) at Urnfield as it did not demonstrate it met the Planning Inspector's requirement of maximum 1 lux light spill. To use the lights this condition must be met.
ALT Photo montage from the original planning application material showing likely impact of floodlights. And the reality of what has been built in the Surrey Hills National Landscape.
Charles Wilce retweeted
Assurances of minimal harm from floodlights versus the reality of what is built. GBC has refused the lighting plan (v2) at Urnfield as it did not demonstrate it met the Planning Inspector's requirement of maximum 1 lux light spill. To use the lights this condition must be met.
ALT Photo montage from the original planning application material showing likely impact of floodlights. And the reality of what has been built in the Surrey Hills National Landscape.
Charles Wilce retweeted
We all knew the photo montage presented by the developer underestimated the floodlight impacts. Guildford needs a borough-wide darker skies strategy. And the Surrey Hills will have more robust light pollution policies in its new management plan.
Charles Wilce retweeted
Yet again, even after warnings from enforcement, the owners have chosen to use the Urnfield before important environmental conditions have been discharged.
Charles Wilce retweeted
Planning permission conditions were set by the Inspector to mitigate the acknowledged harms of this sports development to the @SurreyHillsNL
Planning rules apply to all of us. No responsible developer deliberately breaches their permission @guildforddragon @GuildfordBC do they?
Charles Wilce retweeted
75 years ago this week legislation that set up protected landscapes gained royal assent. @NatLandAssoc
To mark it @DefraGovUK published new guidance to public bodies arising from LURA, passed in 2023.
It would have made permission for this build in @SurreyHillsNL inconceivable
Shame on them
This used to be a dark woodland. The decision by Tormead School to floodlight this part of @SurreyHillsNL demonstrates why the new Management Plan for the National Landscape must curb light pollution. Other protected landscapes do.
Charles Wilce retweeted
And not just any school; an "Eco School"!
What is the carbon calculation I wonder: digging up the Surrey Hills (carbon store), building artificial surfaces and still sending buses and coaches up there?
Climate change terrifies young people. We owe them responsible leadership.
This been done in recent months by a SCHOOL. Where is the care for children's futures in this? #environment #crisis
Charles Wilce retweeted
It’s not quite COP29, but tonight politicians, user groups and activists will gather to consider nature recovery and the future of @SurreyHillsNL
This before and after shows the consequences when public bodies don’t step up for nature in our protected landscapes.
Come on.
ALT Urnfield in the Surrey Hills - then and now
Charles Wilce retweeted
This week nearly a hectare of tarmac was laid over what was a grass sports field on top of the North Downs, in a protected landscape, the Surrey Hills. @NatLandAssoc Strange to feel shame on behalf of a developer, one that‘s apparently an “eco school”. But I do.@ZoeFranklinLD
Charles Wilce retweeted
Licence to disturb badgers issued to Tormead on 26/6; on 14/8 they applied for approval of a re-written ecology plan; we'd pointed out they couldn't dig the athletics track and stick to their own badger protection plan, the basis for the @NaturalEngland licence.
Charles Wilce retweeted
In excavating this bit of @SurreyHillsNL Tormead's own approved plan sets a 10m badger protection zone around all badger setts. Chalk / soil along bottom edge is within that 10m zone. No machinery allowed, or so they said. Planning breaches need @GuildfordBC action @BadgerTrust
Charles Wilce retweeted
Local communities will always keep working to protect their most cherished natural spaces with passion and determination - savemerrowdowns.org/michelle…
Charles Wilce retweeted
There are plenty of things no developer wants to find unexpectedly on their site - asbestos is one. savemerrowdowns.org/asbestos…
Charles Wilce retweeted
Always happy to discuss why many of us are fighting so hard for this landscape, whether you support the Urnfield development or oppose it.
You just need to show your face; I will no longer engage (on any platform) with anyone not brave or honest enough to do that.
Charles Wilce retweeted
Transparency is so important, whatever your perspective on a campaign. Owning your point of view, not hiding behind false IDs and aliases in a bid to deflect. I am really proud of how local residents continue to fight in their own names to protect @SurreyHillsNL at Merrow Downs.
Charles Wilce retweeted
Isn't it time for a re-think? If you can't meet a pre-commencement condition, you can't start your development - savemerrowdowns.org/1079-2/