Objection Comment: Planning Application Refers to Class E - Commercial, Business and Service Use so the exact commercial use will not be known until the Commercial premises are occupied. This means an unspecified number of extra vehicles (Cars or HGVs- for delivery) will be added to the total vehicles using the A22 and surrounding roads. For Information: Class E Details: Class E encompasses a variety of commercial, business, and service activities. Among these, certain types of businesses are known to generate higher volumes of traffic due to their nature and customer engagement. Types of Class E Businesses The following Class E businesses typically create the greatest volume of traffic: Business Type Description Retail Shops Frequently visited by customers for shopping. Restaurants Attract diners for meals, leading to high foot traffic. Cafés Popular for casual visits, especially for coffee and snacks. Fitness Centers Draw in members for regular workouts and classes. Professional Services Offices for services like estate agents and employment agencies, which may see steady client visits. Key Factors Influencing Traffic • Customer Visits: Businesses like retail shops and restaurants rely on frequent customer visits, contributing significantly to overall traffic. • Service Variety: Offering diverse services or products can attract a broader customer base, leading to increased visits. In summary, retail shops, restaurants, and cafés are among the Class E businesses that generate the greatest volume of traffic due to their frequent customer interactions and high footfall.

The planning application refers to commercial activity without specifying the nature, scale, or operational characteristics of that use. This lack of clarity raises the legitimate concern that a change of use could be applied for and agreed and the site could be used for high‑intensity activities such as a distribution or logistics hub, which would generate frequent HGV movements throughout the day and night. Such uses typically involve dozens of large goods vehicles entering and leaving the site, significantly increasing noise, air pollution, and traffic on the A22 and surrounding local roads. The A22 already accommodates a high proportion of HGV traffic and is operating under considerable pressure; any further increase in heavy‑vehicle movements would exacerbate congestion, heighten safety risks, and worsen environmental conditions for nearby residents. Without clear restrictions on the type and scale of commercial operations permitted, the proposal fails to demonstrate that it would not result in unacceptable impacts on highway safety, residential amenity, or the local environment, contrary to Local Plan policies and the NPPF.

Most vehicles on the A22 which are not driven by South Godstone villagers completely ignore the 30 mph sign, lorries particularly, as they know it is only a short stretch of 30 mph and at the northern end of the village there is the concrete central reservation and then 50 mph again. To meet a lorry coming north at say 40 mph if you are a young mother walking small children back from St Stephens School would be an extremely frightening experience. So why would you not just use the car to pick the children up. This is exactly against the requirement to lessen the reliance on car use More Planning Focused Comment: The A22 through South Godstone experiences widespread non‑compliance with the 30mph speed limit, particularly from HGVs and vehicles passing through the village rather than local residents. Drivers are aware that the restricted section is short and that the speed limit increases to 50mph immediately north of the village, resulting in consistently high approach speeds. This creates a hazardous environment for pedestrians, especially vulnerable users such as parents walking young children to and from St Stephen’s School. Meeting an HGV travelling at 40mph on a narrow footway is an intimidating and unsafe experience, discouraging walking and forcing residents to rely on car travel for short local journeys. This directly undermines national and local policy objectives to reduce car dependency and promote active travel. The application fails to demonstrate how these existing safety issues will be mitigated or how safe and suitable access for all users will be achieved, contrary to the NPPF.

The A22 is already a heavily trafficked route operating at or close to capacity, particularly during peak hours. Introducing the additional vehicle movements associated with the proposed development—potentially up to 1,000 cars—would significantly worsen existing congestion. Any increase in queuing on this section of the A22 has negative economic consequences and would compromise highway safety by increasing driver frustration, risky manoeuvres, and conflict points. Congestion of this scale also has the potential to obstruct emergency vehicles, delaying response times and putting public safety at risk. Furthermore, the A22 functions as a strategic route feeding into the M25, and increased congestion would undermine its ability to operate effectively. The application fails to demonstrate that the additional traffic can be safely or sustainably accommodated, contrary to the NPPF requirement to ensure safe and suitable access for all users

The A22 is already operating at or beyond its effective capacity, with continuous high traffic volumes throughout the day. The pedestrian‑crossing island has been struck and demolished numerous times in recent years by heavy vehicles and speeding traffic, demonstrating an ongoing and well‑documented safety problem. This repeated damage indicates that current traffic conditions are already unsafe for pedestrians and that large vehicles struggle to navigate this section of the road without encroaching into pedestrian space. Any additional traffic generated by the proposed development would further increase these risks, exacerbating an already hazardous environment. The application does not provide evidence that these existing safety issues have been assessed or that appropriate mitigation will be delivered. As such, the proposal fails to meet the NPPF requirement to ensure safe and suitable access for all users

The A22 is a heavily trafficked route operating at high volumes throughout the day and night, with a significant proportion of large HGVs and articulated lorries. These vehicles generate substantial noise, vibration, and air pollution, making walking along the adjacent footways unpleasant and, at times, unsafe due to their size, speed, and proximity to pedestrians. Existing driver behaviour demonstrates poor compliance with speed limits, and extending the 30mph zone is unlikely to be effective without active enforcement measures, none of which are proposed in the application. There are already instances of vehicles mounting the pavement to bypass delays—particularly northbound after the bridge when vehicles turn right into Lagham Road, and where HGVs squeeze through the traffic island between Lagham Road and the Shell garage. These behaviours present clear safety hazards for pedestrians and vulnerable road users. The development would add further traffic to an already constrained and hazardous section of the A22, exacerbating risks and worsening environmental conditions. The application fails to demonstrate that these impacts have been properly assessed or mitigated, contrary to the NPPF requirement to ensure safe and suitable access for all users.

The construction phase would introduce a significant number of HGVs, construction lorries, and plant vehicles onto an already busy section of the A22 and surrounding local roads. These routes are not designed to accommodate sustained heavy‑vehicle movements, and the additional construction traffic would exacerbate congestion, increase noise and air pollution, and heighten safety risks for other road users. The cumulative impact during the construction period has not been adequately assessed, and no credible Construction Management Plan has been provided to demonstrate how these impacts will be mitigated. Without clear evidence that construction traffic can be safely and sustainably managed, the proposal fails to comply with the NPPF requirement to minimise adverse impacts on the local area.

National Highways has confirmed to the Principal Planner of Tandridge District Council [ Planning Policy Committee Thursday, 20th November 2025 ] that there are no plans to fund further development of J6 of the M25 , an issue which was highlighted by the Planning Inspector and was one of the reasons for rejection of the Local Plan in respect of the Garden Village. National Highways has expressed concern with proposals that have the potential to impact on the safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network, especially the M25 J6.

The development is likely to increase the use of local roads as rat‑runs, diverting additional traffic onto narrow, unsuitable lanes in an attempt to avoid congestion on the A22. These roads were not designed to accommodate high traffic volumes and already experience issues with speeding, conflict between vehicles, and limited passing opportunities. Increased rat‑running would heighten safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and vulnerable road users, while also accelerating wear and deterioration of the road surface and verges. The cumulative impact on these constrained routes has not been assessed or mitigated within the application, contrary to the NPPF requirement to ensure safe and suitable access for all users.