Back to list M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement

Representation by Cobham Conservation & Heritage Trust (Cobham Conservation & Heritage Trust)

Date submitted
6 September 2019
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. Generally, it is of concern that there is insufficient planning gain from the proposals. 2. There is concern that Highways England are only responsible for the Strategic Road Network and not the Local Road Network (which here becomes the responsibility of Surrey Highways as part of Surrey County Council). Easing of traffic through Junction 10 is likely to increase traffic generally and, with that, waiting time on local roads. Accordingly, Surrey County Council need to be given more financial support, 3. There are other locations along the A3 that need upgrading. There is insufficient consideration of the Guildford Local Plan and of strategic sites put forward in that and of the junctions on the A3 at Burnt Common and in the Guildford area. 4 There is concern about directions given to RHS Wisley traffic and the effect of that and of traffic that may be generated from any proposed development on the Former Wisley Airfield which require adequate controls and/or south facing slip roads at the Ockham Park roundabout to relieve Ripley from an increase in traffic. 5. There is concern that the Highways England proposals on Painshill Park, our local Grade 1 listed 18th century landscape garden, will have land taken very close to the Gothic Tower and that there are trees of historical and horticultural significance together with associated flora and fauna. 6. There is local concern that any expansion of Junction 10 raises the prospect of significant increases in light, air and noise pollution. These will impact local communities and on land that is SPA (in the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area), SSSI and common land on Ockham and Wisley Commons and on flora and fauna there. Cobham (which has an AQMA) is in the path of the prevailing south westerly wind. 7. For the purpose of ensuring conservation of the flora and fauna for the area, there is concern that replacement land is not comparable to the land lost and that sufficient quiet road surfaces are not being provided on both the M25 and the A3. 8. There is concern that the Highways England proposals have insufficient provision to accommodate public transport. 9. There is concern that there is not sufficient provision for use by equestrians, cyclists and walkers (NMUs), particularly during the period of the work being carried out. There is a lack of detail about how conflict between NMUs and vehicles will be avoided at some bridges and other locations.