Sir, – There are many aspects surrounding the controversial BP Filling Station application, but the following have been on my mind for some time:
1. Most modern cars have large enough tanks, and benefit from technology, to allow many more miles to the gallon to be achieved than was the case years ago when the by-pass was first opened. We have to wonder why, after
successfully navigating the by-pass for over 40 years without the need to top up the tank, a need has been identified to
provide a facility to assist motorists traverse such a long stretch of road.
2. Generally when a facility is provided, it is available on both carriageways – the BP facility at Wisley on the A3 for example. There is of course very little suitable land
available on the northern
carriageway. Did BP think they could find some land and thereby have a station on both
carriageways?
3. Following approval by the inspector of the first application, BP were not obliged under current legislation to complete the building within a specified time frame. All that was required to maintain the validity of the application was to start work, but not complete it.
This they did by putting down the beginning of two concrete access points. Should there now be a re-appraisal of planning application law to investigate the case for
insisting that the building, or other works, must be
completed, not merely begun within a set time frame?
It would be interesting to hear the arguments for and against this proposal from Waverley council. Would they support such a move if it stopped sites such as the planned BP facility being left empty and overgrown for such a long time? Could they also confirm the position regarding business rates on this site?