Unit 11 Bridge Wharf 156 Caledonian Road

London N1 9UU

Tel: 0845 481 8136 Fax: 020 7147 1374

www.sarahyouren.com

Sarah Youren Planning Solicitors Limited is registered in England No. 06866594. Registered office: Unit 11 Bridge Wharf, 156 Caledonian Road, London N19UU. Director: Sarah Youren LLB Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority – authorised number: 511854.

Planning Department Mole Valley District Council Pippbrook Dorking Surrey RH4 1SJ 30 May 2011 Dear Sirs, Planning Application Reference MO/2011/0528 Development of land at Springfield Road, Westcott, Surrey We act for the Westcott Meadow Action Group (“WMAG”) which represents 757 members who are residents of the village of Westcott. 44 of those members are on the committee of WMAG and the names of the committee members are listed on a document appended to this letter. We trust this illustrates the breadth of objection to the proposed development throughout the village and that the views of local residents will be given significant weight in the determination of this application. The proposed development Taylor Wimpey have submitted an application for planning permission to construct 14 dwellings (including affordable housing) together with vehicle and pedestrian access from Westcott Street, associated parking, landscaping and public open space. The application proposes 2 x 3 bed houses and 8 x 4 bed houses plus 4 affordable units however the submitted plans do not show this mix of dwellings rather they show 5 x 5 bed houses, 5 x 4 bed houses and 2 x 2 bed affordable houses and 2 x 3 bed affordable houses. The exact mix and size of houses should be clarified.

1. Prematurity based on overall housing target

One of the fundamental flaws with this application is that it would be premature to grant planning permission for this site at this time. The site remains a reserve housing site. It has not been released for development for housing and should not be developed until other more suitable sites identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (“SHLAA”) as being currently available for development for housing have been exhausted. Only then should the Council consider releasing the reserve housing sites in the order required by policy HSG6 as set out in the Mole Valley District Local Plan 2000 which is the adopted local plan for the area within

which the application site is located. We set out below a more detailed explanation of why this is the case as it is important that committee members are very clear about the actual current status of this site which has been misrepresented in the supporting statement submitted with the planning application. Policy HSG 6 in the Mole Valley District Local Plan 2000 Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the policies of the current development plan and any other material considerations (section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). The current development plan for the application site is the Mole Valley District Local Plan 2000 (“the Local Plan”) which prevails until such time as the replacement policies in the Local Development Documents have been adopted. When the Local Plan was adopted the housing policies were based on the housing targets set out in the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 (“the Structure Plan”). Policy DP4 of the Structure Plan required that provision was made for a net increase in the dwelling stock of Mole Valley of about 1,900 units in the fifteen years between 1991 and 2006 and it highlighted the need to provide smaller dwellings in the 1 or 2 bedroom range. The Local Plan therefore aimed to identify sufficient land to allow for a net increase in dwelling stock in the period to 2006 in line with the requirements of the Surrey Structure Plan. To safeguard the land supply position in case identified housing requirements could not be met from land within the built up areas, Policy HSG6 in the Local Plan identifies five reserve housing sites of which the application site is one. Policy HSG6 states that the District Council will continue to monitor housing land supply on an annual basis. If, as a result of this process, the Council is satisfied that land is required in addition to that allocated in Policy HSG5 to meet the identified housing requirements of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994 for the period between 1991 and 2006, one or more of the reserve housing sites will be released: the plan lists five sites of which the application site is the fifth. It goes on to say that if, as a result of monitoring, a deficit is anticipated then the sites will be released so far as possible in proportion to that deficit but with a safety margin in favour of exceeding the requirement as follows: Anticipated deficit sites to be released 25-50 site 1 50-75 sites 1 and 2 75-100 sites 1, 2 and 3 100-150 sites 1, 2, 3 and 4 Over 150 All sites (ie including site 5) Therefore site 5, which is the application site, should only be released for housing if there is a deficit of over 150 dwellings in the Plan period against the numbers required by the Structure Plan. Paragraph 6.32 in the Local Plan explained that the order for release of the sites has been arrived at by taking account of their locational characteristics and respective relationships to the District’s major urban centres as

well as their size and potential contribution to affordable and other identified housing needs. In other words, the application site was to be released last as it was considered that sites1-4 were preferable housing sites in planning terms. The supporting statement submitted by the developer with the planning application is disingenuous as it states that the site is one of 5 reserve housing sites which are to be released if based on the results of monitoring housing delivery there is likely to be a deficit. The applicant fails to mention that Policy HSG6 relates strictly to the housing target of provision of 1900 dwellings in Mole Valley as set out in the Structure Plan and that in fact on those figures there is no deficit. The 2009 SHLAA was finalised on 20 October 2009 and identified that if the housing figures in the Structure Plan were used, there would be no shortfall of available housing land for the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2014. As there is no shortfall of housing land over the five year plan period to 2014 any release of the application site for development would be contrary to Policy HSG6. It is therefore premature to even consider the release of any of the reserve housing sites for development. MVDC Statement March 2010 The supporting statement submitted with the planning application is misleading in that it states that the MVDC statement dated March 2010 justifies the release of the application site, confirming the principle of providing for the development of the site as a result of its long standing allocation as a housing site is well established. It is important that committee members are made aware that the statement referred to was based on a decision by the Council in October 2009 to release the reserve housing sites because the Executive had received a report that based on the housing targets in the South East Plan the Council could not show a five year supply of housing land sufficient to meet this target. However, that decision was then rescinded in June 2010 because the housing targets in the South East Plan have been revoked by central Government using their powers under section 79(6) of the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The Government expressly stated in a letter dated 6 July 2010 from the Department for Communities and Local Government to all local planning authorities in England that, with immediate effect, regional plans no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Whilst the Courts subsequently decided that the Government could not abolish the South East Plan without enacting primary legislation, that primary legislation is the current Localism Bill which is expected to become law toward the end of this year. In the meantime the Government issued a statement in November 2010 to all planning authorities to say that RSSs including the South East Plan are re-established as part of the development plan at present but that the Government expects local planning authorities to have regard to the Government’s intention to abolish RSSs in the Localism Bill. This statement of intent is a material planning consideration that must be taken into account in planning decisions being taken now. The Courts ruled that this is entirely appropriate and the Government’s statement of intention is a material planning consideration. In addition, in line with the desire to see housing targets set by local people rather than central Government Mole Valley District Council is in the process of revising the housing targets in the Core Strategy to reflect what local

people in the area want and need rather than the current target which simply states the central Government housing target for the area. Committee members must therefore take into account and give weight to the fact that the Core Strategy is based on central Government housing targets set out in the South East Plan, by the end of 2011 the South East Plan will be abolished and with that in mind the Council is currently revising the housing targets in the Core Strategy to reflect the needs and wants of local people. It would be premature to release land for housing at this point based on a housing target figure which the Council itself is in the process of revising and the revision of which has the full support of the Government. Core Strategy October 2009 In the Core Strategy adopted on 1 October 2009 in paragraph 6.1.6 it states that “the indicative housing trajectory in appendix C of the Core Strategy illustrates the forecast supply of housing land over the period to 2026 based on the 2008 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. It shows that there is sufficient land to meet the five year housing requirements for the period to 2014. It also demonstrates that there is potentially sufficient previously developed land in the built up areas to meet the District’s housing requirements until 2015-2016.” This is a greenfield site and it ought not therefore to be released for housing development at a time when it is clear that there is sufficient brownfield land to accommodate housing development until 2016. Setting new housing targets for the District Paragraph 10 of the letter of 6 June 2010 from central Government is absolutely clear that it is now the Council’s responsibility to set their own housing targets to establish the right level of local housing provision for their area without the burden of regional housing targets. The Council is now undertaking a review to decide what level of housing would be appropriate in Mole Valley and justify that decision with evidence to support it. This will then reflect local people’s aspirations. Once that work has been done by the Council to decide on the new housing target for Mole Valley, the Council may in fact be able to show a five year supply of housing land if their new housing target is lower than that in the former South East Plan.. If so then there is no justification to release the site for housing development at the present time. The planning statement submitted by the applicant is fundamentally flawed, if the Council does not yet know what its housing target is then the developer cannot assert that it is self evident that MVDC cannot demonstrate an up to date 5 year supply of deliverable housing and accordingly applications for housing should be considered favourably. In fact it is premature to consider releasing any of the reserve housing sites until such time as the Council has decided on an overall target for housing provision which it considers is suitable for its area, supported by evidence and reflecting the aspirations of local people in line with the new Government agenda. Once that target has been decided then it will be formalised through the Land Allocations Development Plan Document and then those policies will replace Policy HSG6. Until

that time, Policy HSG6 stands and under that policy there is no housing deficit and therefore none of the reserve housing sites can be released including the application site. We consider that the above argument is so compelling that the application must for this reason alone be refused. Should the Council decide to grant permission there would be clear grounds for legal challenge. However, for completeness we have also assessed the application against the existing development plan policies below.

2. Location of development Whilst the application site is within the defined settlement boundary for Westcott, as a result of its reserved housing status, it is nonetheless a green field site. Policy CS1 in the adopted Core Strategy states that development should take place on previously developed land within the built up areas of the most sustainable locations within the district. It goes on to specifically identify the most sustainable locations in the district as being Leatherhead, Dorking, Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham. It explains that they have been identified as being the most sustainable locations in planning terms due to the level of community services and facilities available, access to public transport and supporting infrastructure. It is clear therefore that new development should first be located towards these locations as they are more sustainable than the application site. Policy CS1 then goes on to say that limited development and infilling will take place on previously developed land within the identified larger rural villages of which Westcott is one. As explained, the application site is a green field site and does not constitute previously developed land. It would clearly be contrary to policy CS1 to grant permission for housing development on the application site when there are more sustainable sites available in Leatherhead, Dorking, Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham which should be brought forward first. Even when such sites are exhausted, policy CS1 requires the use of previously developed land within the larger rural villages so development of a green field site would still be contrary to policy CS1. The supporting statement that accompanied the planning application is misleading when it states that policy CS2 states that the Council must make provision for at least 3,760 dwellings in the period 2006-2026. The supporting statement fails to mention that policy CS2 specifically states that this target was set purely to accord with the South East Plan which is soon to be be revoked and the target is currently under review by the Council. As explained above, it is entirely possible that when the Council complete their review of housing targets for their area they may in fact impose a lower housing target for Mole Valley than the target imposed through the South East Plan. Policy CS2 also states that “the Council’s indicative housing trajectory shows that the District’s housing requirement can be met without the need to use green belt/ green field land until around 2016-2017”. As the application site is a green field site, it is clear that, even if the Council were to choose to continue to require the same number of additional new dwellings as in the South East Plan when they set their own housing targets for Mole Valley, the current application is still 6-7

years premature as there are sufficient previously developed sites which should be brought forward before green field land is used. The text that accompanies policies CS1 and CS2 makes it clear at paragraph 6.1.7 that the Land Allocations Development Plan Document will allocate sufficient land to meet the housing needs of the District and will include a policy mechanism to manage the release of land so that priority is given to previously developed land in the built up areas in accordance with policy CS1. Paragraph 6.1.10 in the Core Strategy says that “in accordance with the principles of sustainability, the Settlement Hierarchy (October 2008), and the results of the Sustainability Appraisal, it is proposed that development will be focused on the defined built-up areas of Leatherhead and Dorking (including North Holmwood) followed by Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham, where there is the greatest potential for the re-use of previously developed land and access to services and facilities”. The use of the application site for housing is not therefore considered to accord with Policy HSG6 in the local plan nor with Policies CS1 and CS2 in the Core Strategy at this time and any grant of permission for residential use would, at present, be premature.

3. Density of development The developer is proposing to construct 14 dwellings on the application site. Only 1.75 hectares of the application site is developable as the remainder is unavailable due to flood zoning. We object to the proposal as it attempts to construct too many houses on the site in disregard of the unique constraints that restrict the application site. Whilst the number of dwellings has been reduced from the previous application for 34 dwellings, the amount of built floorspace remains remarkably similar as the individual dwellings are considerably larger. In addition, several two storey garages are proposed which would not strictly count as dwellings yet they are similar in size to a two bed house and indeed could easily be converted to such accommodation given that they have toilets, sinks and in some cases showers shown on the submitted plans. The development therefore remains crowded and committee members should make enquiries as to how much of a reduction in built floorspace this revised proposal actually achieves.

Dorking Area Local Plan 1982

In considering the original designation of the site as a reserve housing site as part of the Dorking Area Plan in 1982 it was envisaged that it could accommodate up to 20 houses which would consist of 1 and 2 bedroom units. This would have been likely to result in about 30 residents on the site.

At this time the Chief Planning Officer of the Mole Valley District Council indicated that “the location and nature of the site is such that it would be suitable for about 20 small dwellings which is the type of development most needed. It is not anticipated that about 20 one and two bedroom dwellings will make an appreciable difference to any existing problems as it will only constitute a marginal increase in traffic

generation. In the Council’s view the need for more small dwellings in the Westcott area during the 1990’s outweighs any net traffic problems that might arise from this small proposal.”

The current proposals are for 5 x 5 bed houses, 5 x 4 bed houses plus 2 x 2 bed affordable houses and 2 x 3 bed affordable houses. If all properties are full occupied this would result in approximately 55 residents. However when one looks closely at the submitted plans it is clear that the 4 bed unit on plot 11 has a study with shower room that is separate to the remainder of the living accommodation at ground floor so would easily be converted to a 5 bed dwelling. In addition, 4 double height double garages are proposed with accommodation over which is labeled as a work shop but would easily accommodate a bedroom and living room and the plans already show shower rooms on the first floor of the garages. Each garage is the size of a two bedroom house. This has the potential to add a further 5 residents to the site bringing the total number of residents to approximately 60 which is twice the number of residents originally anticipated by the Dorking Plan and therefore twice the number of traffic movements. It should be noted that the size of dwellings proposed differ on the submitted plans to those presented elsewhere in the application documents and this should be clarified with the applicant. Mole Valley Local Plan 2000 The local plan Inspector’s report relating to the allocation of the Springfield Road site as a reserve housing site from the Local Plan 2000 inquiry states at paragraph 7.176 that the site is not suitable for high density development. Paragraph 7.195 acknowledges the difficulties posed by the traffic and highways context, in particular the limited width of both Westcott Street and Springfield Road. Paragraph 7.197 states the Inspector’s view that development of the site should be modest in view of the locational, highways and policy context of the site and whilst he does not suggest an appropriate density, he does note that the objector’s suggestion of about 26 dwellings may prove appropriate albeit that such a limit cannot be binding. This is considerably less than the 34 dwellings now proposed. In addition, in the Local Plan stated at paragraph 6.5 that there was a need for small 1 and 2 bed dwellings at this time. As above, this would generate approximately half the number of residents and therefore traffic movements compared to the current proposals. Core Strategy

Paragraph 6.1.12 in the Core Strategy does allow for limited development within the boundaries of Beare Green, Brockham, Capel, Charlwood and Westcott (as shown in the Local Plan 2000) providing that the proposed development is at an appropriate scale in relation to the size and character of the village. As explained in this statement we believe that 14 dwellings is an inappropriately large number of units for this site and does not constitute limited development which would be an appropriate scale in relation to the size and character of Westcott. As such it does not accord with the Core Strategy.

In terms of the appropriate housing mix, Policy CS3 in the Core Strategy is very clear that “in seeking to provide a balanced housing market, the Council will require housing proposals to take into account and reflect local housing needs in terms of the tenure, size and type of dwellings. The Council will particularly seek the provision of two and three bedroom dwellings suitable for occupation for all sectors of the community including newly forming households, young couples and expanding families”.

In fact the applicant is proposing 5 x 5 bed houses and 5 x 4 bed houses which are too large to meet the Council’s stated requirements and which significantly increase the likely number of residents on the site and the cost of the housing on the site making it unsuitable for many existing residents of Westcott.

Policy ENV24 in the Core Strategy also addresses density of development stating that “development will not be permitted where it would result in a cramped appearance having regard to the general space around buildings in the locality.” Paragraph 4.118 notes in particular that “the larger the property the larger the space that there should be around it.” It notes that larger detached houses should have at least 2m between them. Whilst the current proposal reduces the number of dwellings in the same space as the previous proposal, the dwellings themselves are far larger and together with the double height double garages proposed leave little space between each plot which is undeveloped resulting in a cramped layout.

Strategic Housing Market Assessment

The applicant has proposed that the market housing should be 5 x 5 bed houses and 5 x 4 bed houses. It is not in accordance with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment which recommends that the Council should encourage a mix of market housing of 10% 1 bed, 20% 2 bed, 50% 3 beds and 20% 4 beds. If the Council were minded to allow 14 dwellings on the application site, which we would argue is in fact too many, then on this calculation the appropriate sizes of dwelling would be 1 x 1 bed house, 2 x 2 bed house, 5 x 3 bed house and 2 x 4 bed house with no 5 bed houses at all. Making this change to bring the proposed scheme in line with SHMA recommendations would result in a more appropriate mix of housing on the site to bring it in line with the SHMA, reduce the number of occupants and allow for provision of small market starter homes to allow the young people in the village the opportunity to purchase their first home and stay within the village rather than catering predominantly to large family homes which are simply not affordable for the majority of people on the open market. It would not however overcome the insurmountable problems regarding flooding, harm to a listed building, highways safety, harm to bats and badgers, development on a Greenfield site, insufficient availability of public transport and the premature release of a reserve housing site associated with the proposal for residential development of this site.

Mole Valley Housing Needs Study 2007

The Mole Valley Housing Needs Study 2007 confirmed that the largest demand for market housing is for two and three bedroom homes. It also confirmed that the

largest need for dwellings by type is for flats and semi-detached homes. The proposed mix and type of housing (all market housing is proposed to be detached) in this application is not reflective of market needs and as such is contrary to Core Strategy policy CS3.

In summary therefore, we object to the size of the proposed development at Springfield Road. The whole site was originally designated in 1982 for 20 x 1 and 2 bed houses and then 26 x 1 and 2 bed houses when the site was increased in size in 2000. The number of dwellings now proposed is 14 dwellings but such large dwellings that the resulting numbers of occupants are more than this site can comfortably sustain and twice what it was originally intended to house.

The original scheme proposed in 2010 for 34 houses which was refused permission by the Council would have contained about 90 bedrooms on site compared to about 30 bedrooms envisaged when the original designation was made. The existing scheme significantly reduces the number of dwellings on site but they are so large that the number of bedrooms only falls to approximately 60 which is still twice the number of occupants originally envisaged. The Council want to see 2 and 3 bed houses. This scheme proposed 4 and 5 bed market houses which are larger than those required by the Council therefore increasing the number of occupants on site. If the need now is for 2 and 3 bed houses rather than 1 and 2 beds as originally proposed when the site was allocated then the number of properties proposed should decrease in order that the number of occupants on site and affecting the highway network remains similar.

4. Transport Sustainable development and public transport The Core Strategy notes at paragraph 2.40 that Surrey has the highest level of car ownership and the most congested roads in the country outside London. Nearly half of Mole Valley's households own two or more cars compared to the national average of 29.5%. Emissions from car use contribute toward green house gas emissions which in turn accelerate climate change. As a result one of the key goals of the Core Strategy is to create sustainable development which minimises the need to use the private motor car. Paragraph 2.56 of the Core Strategy states that “the impact of climate change on the global environment is recognised as a serious threat to communities. The Government expects local authorities to play an important part in reducing emissions that contribute to climate change and reducing the consumption of natural resources to limit climate change. For example, the impact of new development on climate change can be reduced by locating it in places where it is not entirely necessary to rely on having access to a car”. It then goes on to say at paragraph 4.9 that “the private car is the principal means for getting about the District. This is not sustainable in the long term. Alternative transport modes will be supported and new development provided in sustainable locations where access is not solely dependent on use of the private car.”

In addition, paragraph 6.1.2 of the Core Strategy explains that “within the context of national and regional guidance and based on the principles of Core Strategy Policy CS 1 'Where Development will be Directed' (A Spatial Strategy), the Council will seek to provide the majority of new homes within the most sustainable locations of the District. By adopting an 'urban focus' this approach will contribute towards the South East Plan's objective of an urban renaissance and will foster accessibility to employment, retail and other services, thereby avoiding unnecessary travel”.

The planning statement submitted by the developer claims that the site is accessible

to public transport links to Dorking and beyond and the developer states that the site

is ‘sustainable’ because it has access to non-car modes. In fact the centre of the

proposed housing area is 600m from the nearest bus stop, walking either via

Westcott Street or from the eastern end of the site and alongside the recreation

ground. This exceeds the recommended (Surrey County Council) maximum walk

distance of 400m to a bus stop. The developer quotes figures from the edge of the

site, which is not where the housing is located and those figures are therefore

misleading.

The proposed development of the application site is contrary to these important policies in the Core Strategy. There is virtually no employment in Westcott, so all these new residents will have to travel to Dorking, Guildford or Gatwick to work. In addition there arelimited retail facilities, the school and the doctors surgery are approaching maximum capacity and any increased demand would impose unreasonable demands on Westcott’s amenities. This means that occupants of the proposed new scheme will have to travel to service even their basic needs. There is limited opportunity for them to do so by public transport because there is no train station in Westcott, one must first travel to Dorking or Guildford before being able to catch the train. There is a bus service to both Dorking and Guildford however the bus service from Guildford stops at 17.55 in the evening having left Guildford at 17.20 on a weekday. The last bus service from Dorking goes at 18.14 for route 21 and 18.48 for route 32 in the evening on a weekday. This means that future occupiers of the development could only realistically use public transport if they finish work either in Dorking or Guildford sufficiently early to catch the last bus or if they work further afield, that they can then finish early enough to travel to Guildford or Dorking to then catch the last bus. It would be impossible for anyone who worked in London for example to catch the train to Guildford or Dorking and then the bus to Westcott to get home after work in the evenings unless they finished work well before the last connecting train from London at 17.29 to Dorking or 16.30 to Guildford.

Reference is made repeatedly throughout the application to Westcott lying on the

Sustrans/National Cycle Route 22 linking Westcott to Dorking. However committee

members should be made aware that this is misleading as it is not yet a continuous

route and stops in Westcott. It is necessary to cycle along the A25 to reach Dorking.

There is no indication as to when works to complete the cycle way will be completed

and the development makes no improvements whatsoever to the cycle facilities of

the area.

Capacity of local highway network The planning statement and traffic statement try to argue that it is not necessary to consider the capacity of the local highway network in the context of the proposed development. This is fundamentally wrong as serious concerns were raised about the capacity of the local highway network when the site was originally designated as a reserve housing site and again when it was expanded so this clearly was a material consideration at the time that the site became a reserve housing site and it is important to note that the number of occupants that the site was considered to be able to accommodate was based primarily on the capacity of the local highway network. It is important therefore for committee members to be fully aware of the significantly larger size of houses and therefore number of occupants that are now proposed for the site as compared to those envisaged and assessed when policy HSG6 was conceived.

In fact, during the public inquiry into the Dorking Area Local Plan in 1982 it was considered that about twenty 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings should not “make an appreciable difference to any existing problems as it will only constitute a marginal increase in traffic generation”. During the public inquiry into the Local Plan in 2000 the inspector acknowledged the difficulties posed by the traffic and highways context, in particular the limited width of both Westcott Street and Springfield Road. Paragraph 7.197 of the Inspector’s report stated that development of the site should be modest in view of the locational, highways and policy context of the site and whilst he does not suggest an appropriate density, he does note that the objector’s suggestion of about 26 x 1 and 2 bed dwellings may prove appropriate.

At the public inquiry in 2000 when considering the enlargement of the reserve housing site at Springfield Road, Jack Straw gave evidence for the Council to the inspector and clearly states at paragraph 5.2 that “the Council considers its capacity is between 17-20 dwellings depending on the layout of the site and the type and size of dwellings”. Mr Straw then went on to explain at paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 the constraints presented by the width of Westcott Street, the presence of parked vehicles and the risk that the development posed to highway safety concluding at paragraph 5.7 that “it is clear that an enlargement of the site is likely to result in a level of development in excess of that which the local road network can reasonably and safely accommodate”.

Our estimate that the proposal could result in up to 60 occupiers on site rather than the approximately 30 originally envisaged when the application site was first allocated and then expanded as a reserve housing site will mean a potential twofold increase in traffic movements over those actually considered to be the amount that the local highway network could accommodate in 1982 and 2000. The applicant acknowledges that they have made provision for 43 parking spaces on the site with additional parking available on the estate road. In addition, in recent years additional housing has been built in Westcott at Springfield Farm (3 dwellings), Rokefield (20 dwellings), Pinehurst in Springfield

Road (6 dwellings), the Old Dairy (20 dwellings), The Paddock (2 dwellings), Chapel Lane (4 dwellings) and The Pound (currently under construction 7 dwellings) increasing the number of residents in the village, adding to the traffic on the local highway network and reducing the already limited capacity that was considered to be available in 1982 and 2000. It is clear therefore that the local highway network cannot possibly support 14 new dwellings with 60 new occupants on the site. The planning inspector considered there to be sufficient capacity to accommodate 26 new 1 and 2 bed dwellings in 1982 and the Council considered the site’s capacity to be 17-20 1 and 2 bed dwellings in 2000 however given that an additional 62 new dwellings have been built in Westcott in recent years the capacity that was available in the local highway network in 1982 and 2000 has long since been used and surpassed. In particular we would point out that the 20 dwellings at Rokefield have been built after 2000 so after Mr Straw’s comments on behalf of the Council indicating that any more than 17-20 dwellings would result in unsafe levels of traffic on the local highway network. In addition to concerns regarding the highway network within and immediately adjacent to Westcott there are also problems with the A25 to Dorking which is the principal road leading to and from Westcott and the road on which the future occupiers of the development would need to commute to work and local services. The A25 is already suffering from serious traffic congestion on the approach to Dorking. In the evening peak times this regularly results in a solid line of traffic stretching from Dorking all the way back to Westcott. The access onto the A25 on both sides of the village green is potentially dangerous as there are places where the sight lines are poor, in particular on the east side of the village green and by the entrance to Cradhurst Close. It is abundantly clear that the local highway network is already at saturation point with long traffic queues at times and there simply is no way to accommodate additional car movements from new housing development. Westcott Street The developer has said in their planning statement and in their traffic statement that “the very small number of additional cars will have no perceptible impact on local streets”. We believe this to be a potentially dangerous attempt to gloss over a very serious issue. As we have demonstrated it will not be possible for people to commute to jobs some distance from Westcott by public transport so the vast majority of people entering and leaving the site are likely to do so by private car. There are essentially two major concerns regarding the location of the development in terms of using Westcott Street to access it. The first is the width of Westcott Street and the second is the location of the junction of the access road with Westcott Street. Westcott Street is a narrow village lane. There are nine existing dwellings along the 250m section of Westcott Street between Springfield Road and the village green that have no off-street parking. Some are able to park outside their houses but others have to park in Springfield Road. Others have narrow off-street parking areas in

their front gardens. Consequently there are always a number of vehicles parked on Westcott Street, which effectively reduces it to a single-width carriageway, with cars and delivery vans having to weave their way through, avoiding any pedestrians. The presence of a large lorry or the weekly refuse vehicle has the effect of bringing everything to a halt. At weekends the parking is even worse, because Westcott is an attractive base for the many mountain bikers who cycle in the Surrey Hills. These day visitors do not always appreciate the difficulties caused by their sometimes indiscriminate on-street parking on Westcott Street, sometimes at narrow points, sometimes part parked on the footway. No account has been taken by WSP in the transport statement of the additional cars parked on Westcott Street at the weekends as the majority of their parking surveys were carried out on weekdays when people are at work. This does not give a full and accurate picture of the real situation.

No thought has been given to construction vehicles as large lorries carrying building

materials will not be able to weave past the parked cars in Westcott Street. The

consequence of two lorries meeting is unimaginable. Balchins Lane is even less

suitable as it; a) has no footway at all, b) is even more narrow, c) twists and turns

so the forward visibility is less and d) has a very sub-standard junction onto a

40mph section of the A25. The damage construction vehicles from The Pound

development are causing to The Green is evidence of what effect contractors

vehicles are likely to have. Whilst the developer has submitted a construction

management statement but this does not overcome the need to get a certain number

of lorries to and from the site along roads that are not suitable for this.

The emergency services must be consulted as the additional risk from an extra 14

dwellings is not insignificant with fire engines trying to negotiate along Westcott

Street.

In January / February 2010, Westcott Street was impassable for 4/5 days due to

snow and ice and the inability for the Council to access with gritting vehicles and

snowploughs.

The narrow width of Westcott Street and the existing parked vehicles mean that even with the existing level of residents in Westcott there are often queues of cars waiting to pass each other along Westcott Street. When an additional 43-60 car movements are added to this at peak times going to work and school in the morning and returning home in the evening, it is likely to result in extreme difficulties for both vehicles travelling along Westcott Street and for future occupiers of the development trying to enter or leave the site.

Notwithstanding our objection to the whole development, we are extremely

disappointed that the development of 14 houses does nothing to enhance our village

or address some of the existing problems. There are no proposals to improve or

extend pedestrian facilities or to try and reduce the existing conflicts on our roads.

The developers argue (unsuccessfully in our view) that the 14 houses would ‘have

no perceptible impact on the local streets’. They have tried to argue that the addition

of 8 or 8 extra vehicles (an unrealistically low estimate given the likely car ownership

in this area) in the two peak hours on Westcott Street will have no impact. This

completely misses the point as they have ignored the existing conflicts along this

road, most notably by pedestrians. Most of Westcott Street and all of Balchins Lane

have no footways, so all pedestrians have to walk in the carriageway, so within a

road that is less than 4m wide in places there is the juxtaposition of cars, vans,

cyclists, parked cars and pedestrians. It is always the pedestrians who have to

move.

We consider the proposed development unacceptable on highway and transport

grounds alone, as there is no solution to providing a satisfactory means of access.

The proposal to feed all vehicles onto the northern end of Westcott Street, adding to

the conflict between cars, delivery vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and parked vehicles

is unacceptable. We note the developer concludes ‘no alterations are proposed or

needed on Westcott Street ... ’ which is merely an acknowledgement that they are

unable to offer any improvement or enhancement on this section as it wholly outside

their control. Instead they try and minimize the problem by stating ‘there is no

perceptible impact on Westcott Street’. Similarly there is no acknowledgement that

Westcott Street (south of Springfield Road) lies within a Conservation Area, and that

the additional traffic and conflict between opposing vehicles will harm this area,

which is supposed to be protected, preserved and enhanced by the Council. The

impact on the conservation area was not addressed by the committee when they

considered the previous application for 34 dwellings yet this is an important part of

the role of the Council to protect the conservation area and it must be taken into

account during the decision making process.

We note that in the submitted Transport Statement, which extends to 246 pages yet

contains no information whatsoever on pedestrian counts or usage.

It should also be noted that the doctors surgery is on Westcott Street. The entrance to the surgery is only a few metres north of the access road to the proposed development on a shared access drive with Rokefield. Existing residents of Westcott walk along Westcott Street to go to and from the surgery and dispensary. There is no pavement along a long stretch of Westcott Street nor is there room to provide one. This means patients including elderly people with mobility issues and mothers with small children and pushchairs have no choice but to walk in the road itself. This adds to the obstacles that vehicles driving along Westcott Street must navigate and presents a highways safety risk to pedestrians. The surgery sees approximately 200-300 patients per week of whom the doctor estimates about 60% walk to the surgery. While traffic speeds along Westcott Street are likely to be very low due to the sheer volume of traffic we are nonetheless extremely concerned that this will inevitably result in road traffic accidents.

An additional concern in terms of highways safety for both drivers and pedestrians using Westcott Street is that the junction of the proposed access road with Westcott Street is extremely close to the junction of the access to Rokefield with Westcott Street and the junction with Hole Hill. In addition there is a blind bend on Balchins Lane immediately before the junction with Hole Hill which has caused numerous vehicles to nearly collide on the bend and the concern is that a large increase in vehicles using this road would greatly increase the chances of a collision. Westcott Street is the natural route to and from Westcott from the A25 and as such it already has a significant amount of traffic travelling along it. We note that the Transport Survey states that traffic levels along Westcott Street are low however that may well be as a result of the timing of their traffic counting which was done at the start of February 2010 when the extreme adverse conditions meant that far fewer people were on the roads than normal and immediately prior to the Easter break when again many people are away on holiday reducing the normal amount of traffic.

The Transport Statement refers to a document called “Manual for Streets” but

ignores the advice in the same document that a carriageway width of 4.8m with a

separate footway is required to enable a car to pass a lorry. This is not available over

most of Westcott Street between the A25 and Springfield Road. Even the narrower

width of 4.1m would only permit a car to pass another car, assuming any pedestrians

get out of the way.

In addition the construction phase is likely to produce more traffic in peak hours as

operatives arrive on site between 07.30 and 08.00 and try to get down Westcott

Street against the flow of residents trying to leave for work and school. This should

be accounted for within the transport statement but is completely ignored.

Westcott Street is substandard at present so it is inherently unacceptable to add any

additional traffic to an already sub-standard road.

Width of the access road The developer has stated in their application that the existing access from Westcott Street is to be retained with only nominal widening proposed. This is a concern because there is a pinch point by the Old Buttery and the Dairy along the access road where it is proposed to keep this as a single lane. This pinch point means that if there are several vehicles trying to enter and exit the site at the same time there is a risk that vehicles trying to enter the site may have to reverse out onto Westcott Street. This would be very dangerous given the nearby junctions with Rokefield, Hole Hill and the blind bend on Balchins Lane and the number of pedestrians that are also using Westcott Street. Parking The developer has proposed 43 parking spaces and additional parking available on the estate roads. Given the type of dwellings on the site with the high number of larger 4 bed and 5 bed dwellings and the difficulties in taking public transport from

the site there is concern that future occupiers of the proposed development may in fact own more than 3 vehicles per dwelling and may therefore try to park elsewhere on the street in Westcott. Given the existing number of dwellings in Westcott that do not have off road parking, the on street parking in the village is already at saturation point. Transport Statement The developer has submitted a transport statement on the basis that less than 50 dwellings are proposed. However, this is only one of the criteria that determines whether a transport statement is sufficient or whether in fact a transport assessment is required. In fact the Department for Transport advise that in certain circumstances a more thorough degree of assessment of the traffic impact of a proposed development is required through the production of a transport assessment or a travel plan. This development meets three of the Department for Transport criteria, namely that (1) the development is not in conformity with the development plan, (2) the development is likely to increase accidents or conflicts amongst motorized users and non motorized users, particularly vulnerable users such as children, disabled and elderly people and (3) the location is one where the local transport infrastructure is inadequate, for example, substandard roads, poor pedestrian/cycle facilities and inadequate public transport facilities. This means that at the very least a transport assessment should have been done as the transport statement submitted is insufficiently detailed to enable the Council to have adequate information in front of them when determining the application.

We have also been informed, by those who advise us, that there are a number of

technical deficiencies in the Transport Statement accompanying the application.

The proposed access into the site is sub-standard as it has reduced visibility out of

the access along Westcott Street and lies within 20m of an adjoining access into

Riverbank (a private access serving some 26 flats and houses). The proposed

access will only be 3.5m wide (ie single –vehicle width) , yet will serve 19 dwellings

(5 existing and 14 proposed). This access is also a much-used Public Footpath,

which seems to have been largely ignored by the developer with a simple statement

that there will be no conflict between walkers and vehicles due to the low number of

traffic movements, however this only holds true if the number of traffic movements

predicted are accurate which we doubt as 8 vehicular movements are unrealistic in

peak times when there are 43 parking spaces and 60 residents on site. The impact

on adjoining properties (particularly the Lower Springfield Farm House, which is a

Listed Building) of vehicles stopping and starting to give way to other vehicles seems

to have been ignored.

The pre-application discussion with the highway authority resulted in the advice that

the Transport Statement should address, inter alia, ‘the suitability of Westcott Street

and Balchins Lane to accommodate additional traffic given their restricted width’.

We note the Transport Statement makes no mentioned whatsoever of Balchins

Lane, which is less than 3m wide in places and has a very unsatisfactory junction

with the A25. As set out above, Balchins Lane is even less suitable to accommodate

additional traffic than Westcott Street. There are only two routes out of the proposed

development. One is along Balchins Lane and the other along Westcott Street. In the

Council’s consideration of the previous application they recognised in reasons for

refusal 1 and 2 that a significant increase in traffic along Westcott Street would be

detrimental to amenity. The additional traffic levels that the current development

proposes would be equally unacceptable as the true number of predicted traffic

movements would be only slightly less than those predicted for the previous scheme.

This additional traffic would have an unacceptable impact on the Conservation Area,

on the current amenity experienced by existing users of the street, both vehicular

and pedestrian and by the users of Balchins Lane.

The traffic diagrams in the Transport Statement concentrate on the traditional peak

hours (8am-9am and 5pm and 6pm) but the traffic counts reveal Westcott Street is

busier at other times (namely 9am-10am and 4pm-5pm). At its peak the existing

flows exceed 100 vehicles per hour on the narrowest section of Westcott Street

between Springfield Road and the village green.

The traffic generation estimates from the new houses are unrealistically low as they

are based on data taken from sites in Durham, Great Yarmouth amongst others,

where car ownership is likely to be lower than in Westcott. In addition the consultants

WSP have incorrectly applied the TRICS figures and used the same figures as they

did before without taking into account the house sizes in the current scheme

becoming much larger and therefore the number of residents on site per house

increasing. The current WSP estimate is now 8 extra vehicles in the AM peak and 9

in the PM peak. These figures are low for the proposed amount of parking and

should be 11-12 for this size of development. The estimates by WSP for the 34

dwelling scheme were 15 and 17 and it would appear that WSP have simply worked

backwards to reduce the number of traffic movements to approximately half as

suggested by SCC rather than assessing the current proposal from scratch. In

addition the transport statement is flawed as it fails to take account of new traffic

from The Pound which was under construction when their surveys were carried out.

Hence traffic flows will be higher than the transport statement suggests.

The Transport statement includes the comment that SCC would accept about half

the previous additional traffic however in the committee report for the previous

application for 34 dwellings in 2010 SCC are quoted as saying that unless there is a

substantial reduction in traffic we are likely to recommend refusal. The current

proposal does not represent a significant reduction. The larger sized dwellings and

increased number of parking spaces per dwelling mean that vehicular movements

will not be substantially reduced. The previous scheme would have resulted in

approximately 90 residents whereas the current scheme would result in

approximately 60 residents which is only a 1/3rd reduction in traffic movements. The

previous scheme proposed 77 parking spaces whereas the current scheme

proposes 43 parking spaces which would be 56% of what was originally rejected by

SCC however this scheme also provides informal parking on the estate road so

given the size of the dwellings car ownership is likely to be higher and vehicular

movements correspondingly higher than the 43 parking spaces would suggest.

The transport statement fails to undertake any pedestrian surveys along Westcott

Street hence WSP are unable to make any judgement on the effect of additional

traffic on existing pedestrian flows. At para 4.6.2 the transport statement says that

the increase in traffic represents a change from one vehicle every 37 seconds to one

every 35 seconds. This misrepresents and tries to minimise the effect on

pedestrians. As there is no footway wide enough to accommodate a mother and

child or a mother and buggy all pedestrian movement along Westcott Street from

The Pound to the site entrance will be in the carriageway. As the length of road

between The Pound and the site entrance is about 400m, a pedestrian walking at the

standard speed of 4.8km per hour (ie 3mph) will take 5 minutes to walk this length of

road. This suggests that every pedestrian walking along Westcott Street from the site

to The Pound (where the footway is a bit wider) will be passed by 8 cars. Parents

with small children will take longer and be passed by 10-12 cars. This is totally

unacceptable.

In addition, the effect of construction vehicles on pedestrians will be considerable yet

this has not been considered in the transport statement.

The proposed design of the site is poor for pedestrians and this is an issue which

committee members must give serious consideration to. The site is not sustainable

as it is remote from a low frequency bus service. The bus stop is quoted ‘as 450m

south of the site ‘but this misses the point that the pedestrian route is circuitous and

over 650m from a bus stop. SCC guidance is that all housing sites should be within

400m of a bus stop so this is non-compliant with current highways guidance.

Construction traffic

The developer has submitted an environmental Management Plan to address the

impact of construction however this does not provide sufficient information to allow

committee members to fully assess the impacts of the proposal. For example, it says

that a dedicated construction traffic route has been identified but does not say where

so it is impossible to assess whether there is actually a feasible route available or

not. It says that they will specify permitted delivery times but does not say what those

are so it is impossible to assess what impact these deliveries will have on residents

trying to use Westcott Street and Balchins Lane. It says that they will use a

banksman near Westcott Village Green and on Westcott Street to control traffic but

this will not prevent traffic jams for local people. It says that the size of delivery trucks

will be agreed with the Council but gives no indication as to the minimum size of

truck that could be used so it is impossible to assess the true impact of the

construction traffic.

Right of Way

We note that one of the reasons for refusal on the previous scheme for 34 dwellings on this site was that the development if permitted would have led to an increase in traffic along an alleged public right of way impacting the safety of vulnerable users – contrary to policies MOV2 and PPG13. Public footpath No.602 was recently confirmed on 26th January 2011, and follows the track leading from Westcott Street through the northern part of the site to join with the Greensand Way further west. The proposed scheme would lead to a substantial increase in vehicular traffic along this recognised right of way as we anticipate that there will be up to 60 residents living on the site and the applicant proposes creating 43 parking spaces. This will inevitably lead to conflict from vehicular traffic with the vulnerable users walking and riding along this right of way therefore this proposed development should not be permitted. Local Plan Policy Policy MOV2 in the Local Plan states that development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it is or can be made compatible with the transport infrastructure and the environmental character in the area having regard to all forms of traffic generated by that development. In particular there must be appropriate provision for off street vehicular parking, vehicular access, capacity on the transport network and in the vicinity of the development, public transport services and pedestrians and cyclists. It notes that the cumulative effects of existing and committed development on the operational capacity and environmental character of congested areas as a whole will be taken into account in the determination of development proposals. We believe that the level of development proposed on the site would result in potential traffic levels which would exacerbate the already dangerous situation along Westcott Street for the reasons set out above and therefore that the proposed development does not accord with policy MOV2. The proposed level of traffic is also contrary to Policy RUD4 – new housing in villages as the traffic generated is incompatible with the environmental character of the village and in particular the conservation area and cannot be adequately accommodated on the surrounding road network.

5. Flooding

We would also draw committee members attention to the following issues and policy considerations.

PPS25:Development and Flood Risk is a material planning consideration when local planning authorities are deciding whether to grant planning permission for new development. Paragraph 1 of PPS25 reminds us that flooding threatens life and causes substantial damage to property. PPS25 requires local authorities to manage flood risk by only permitting development in areas of flood risk where there are no reasonably available sites in areas of lower flood risk and the benefits of the development outweigh the risks from flooding. The site is a sensitive location with regard to the protection of controlled waters. Paragraph 16 of PPS25 states that when Councils are allocating land in local development documents for development they should “apply the sequential test to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate to the type of development or land use proposed”. The same approach should be taken here, in that the Council should not be releasing a reserve housing site which is susceptible to flooding unless they can demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites for housing with a lower probability of flooding. No evidence has been supplied to show that all of the potential housing land sites identified as available in the SHLAA 2009 have a higher probability of flooding than the application site. In the absence of such evidence the Council should not grant planning permission for housing for this site as to do so would be contrary to PPS25. We are most concerned that the sequential test does not appear to have been carried out correctly as the Council appears to have done the assessment on the basis that the application site cannot be compared with other sites and that it must be compared on its own. This makes a nonsense of the sequential test. It is not a case of simply comparing the site to the Environment Agency flood risk boundaries. The Council’s assessment is deficient as it fails to take into account all possible sources of flooding. The Environment Agency’s flood map only maps model fluvial flooding. It does not map model groundwater flooding. The first question asked in the sequential test is “can development be allocated in zone 1? (other sources of flooding need to be considered in Flood Zone 1)”. It is clear therefore that all sources of flooding need to be considered not just the fluvial flooding shown on the Environment Agency’s map. The site is at high risk of groundwater flooding as stated by the British Geological Survey. Taylor Wimpey/WSP’s own initial test results show groundwater rising by over 1m in 3 weeks under proposed dwelling number 12 (borehole WS101) and also groundwater only 0.76 m below ground level in some areas of the site. It should also be noted that the access route into the proposed housing site and other infrastructure will be in flood zone 3b (1 in 20 year flood risk) and the proposed escape route runs adjacent to the Pipp Brook on the boundary of the flood zone 3b. The model which sets the boundary of the flood zones can never precisely determine exactly where the flooding would reach and therefore Councillors should themselves attend the site to see for themselves the fragility of this proposed escape route. PPS25 section 4.59 states that “4.59: PPS25 requires that, where important to the overall safety of a proposed development, safe access and escape is available to and from new developments in flood risk areas (paragraph 8 of PPS25). This is likely to be part of a requirement to pass the Exception Test. Where access and egress is

a potential issue this should be discussed with the LPA and Environment Agency at the earliest stage, as this can affect the overall design of the development. It can be difficult to ‘design in’ satisfactory access routes retrospectively. Access considerations should include the voluntary and free movement of people during a design flood, as well as the potential for evacuation before a more extreme flood.” A further concern that arises from this application is that in order to avoid disturbing wildlife and in particular bats along the buffer zone adjacent to the Pipp Brook the applicant proposing not to light the open area in order to lessen the impact to wildlife however this would need to be lit as it forms part of the escape route with flood waters on either side so from a safety point of view lighting must be provided.

The Core Strategy is clear at paragraph 2.57 and goal 7 of the Core Strategy that local authorities have a role to play in addressing the effects of climate change through, for example, minimising flood risk to people and property. It is therefore vitally important that the Council satisfy themselves that this development will not pose a flood risk to people and property. If they cannot do so then the development cannot be permitted as it would be contrary to policy. The application site lies immediately adjacent to the Pipp Brook and is within the Environment Agency flood zones 1, 2, 3a and 3b. In addition there is sewer pipe which runs through the site which has been leaking sewage onto the site. The flood report submitted by the developer states that there has been no recorded incident of flooding outside of the areas noted as being within the flood zones and gives an overall indication that flooding is not an issue suggesting that it only has a 1 in 100 chance of happening. We attach photographic evidence within the report provided by WMAG members showing that the site flooded only last year. They have confirmed from their own personal knowledge that the site floods regularly, this is by no means a 1 in 100 occurence. The developer has designed the site so that the houses are only in flood zone 1 however the access road and the open space are in zones 2 and 3 and are therefore liable to flood. We would remind committee members that the Environment Agency flood risk modelling only takes account of surface water flooding, in other words the flooding you get from the stream overflowing or excessive rainfall events causing a flash flood. It does not model the application site when it is developed and covered in hardstanding and buildings. This would clearly exacerbate the flood risk greatly as the water could not then soak away naturally. In addition, even when the site is in its natural state, the geology does not encourage the water to naturally soak away quickly as beneath the top 20-80 cm of topsoil is approximately 1m of clay. Instead water discharges into the Pipp Brook. In addition there is significant flooding on the application site on a regular basis from groundwater. This occurs because the application site is underlain by a major aquifer only approximately 2m below the surface and perched water tables are also most likely to occur over the site. Please see the attached photographs showing the site when flooded by groundwater. Please also note that the British Geological Survey confirms that the application site is at significant risk of flooding from groundwater.

We would also mention that other flood risk assessment companies focus their flood risk analysis on smaller rivers such as the Pipp Brook and their analysis shows a far more severe risk of flooding than the Environment Agency analysis. This data suggests a 1 in 75 year likelihood of flooding. Paragraph 8 of PPS25 requires that when determining planning applications Councils must ensure that all new development in flood risk areas is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes. The developer’s flood risk assessment acknowledges that the access track from Westcott Street is subject to flooding in extreme events. If this occurs then future residents could potentially be trapped on site. Members of WMAG confirm that the track does indeed flood and we attach a photograph showing the area flooded last year at figure 4. We would also mention that if the track is flooded then the site of the proposed evacuation route will almost certainly be flooded too as it is only 1-2 m from the edge of the Pipp Brook at summer levels endangering future residents should they try to use this route to escape a flooded site. The flood risk assessment then goes on to propose that pedestrians could evacuate the site via the pedestrian footway but acknowledges that emergency vehicular access may not be possible for a time. We would draw the attention of committee members to the proposed pedestrian evacuation route and highlight that it involves people having to walk from the housing at the far west of the site to the exit point at the far east of the site. This may not be feasible for elderly people or young children and makes access by emergency service staff if needed very difficult. The escape route itself is right on the edge of the flood zone and we attach photographic evidence at figure 1 in the attached report to show that it flooded last year, again this is a regular occurrence. There is a residual risk of flooding from sewers in storm events. This does not appear to have been explored in any depth in the application submission. We would suggest that this is an important issue on which committee members should have full information before reaching any decision on the planning application. The flood risk assessment submitted by the developer acknowledges that "from a recent site visit there was evidence of minor foul effluent water logging within the lowest point on site attributed to a section of on-site public foul water sewer between TWUL manholes MH0001 and MH1904. It is thought that was due to the ingress of tree routes. The report then says that this issue has been resolved by TWUL. Members of WMAG have observed sewage escaping into the meadow on regular occasions which would suggest that there is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed in respect of the existing sewage pipe that crosses the application site. If that pipe is already overloaded such that it is causing foul water to flood the meadow then the applicant should be submitting proposals to address this as part of their scheme and to explain how they intend to connect to the sewage system if it is already dangerously over capacity. We would draw the committee members attention to the fact that the Victorian sewers in Westcott Street have been blocked on two occasions over the last eight years. In terms of the sewers on the application site, at present the report simply proposes that if these should fail then overland flow routes will be used to avoid the new houses flooding. The additional houses would however have substantially increased the amount of sewage that would flood the

meadow and then flow straight into the Pipp Brook. This is unacceptable. Given the close proximity to Pipp Brook this matter needs to be addressed urgently. We would in particular draw committee members’ attention to Policy ENV 65 in the Local Plan which provides that development will not normally be permitted unless there is adequate capacity in the sewerage network or it will be provided in time to serve the development. If there is not sufficient capacity in the existing sewerage network then it would be contrary to local plan policy to grant permission for the development until this is resolved. The developer proposes to create an area of public open space at the eastern end of the site and to use part of it as grassland for informal amenity use. However it is within the flood plain envelope and the flood risk assessment confirmed that it is said to be damp at certain times of the year. In fact WMAG members have confirmed that this area of the meadow often floods. As such the land is not suitable for use as amenity and recreational land. Policy ENV66 in the Local Plan states that “development that would result in an increased risk of flooding or have an adverse impact on the water environment as a result of additional surface water run-off will only be permitted where appropriate attenuation or mitigation measures are proposed”. The application site is at present a grassy meadow. Once it is developed, a significant amount of the site will be covered by hard standing for roads and buildings. This will increase the amount of surface water that cannot be absorbed by the land and which will run off the site into the Pipp Brook. We would draw the committee members attention to the fact that the area of the Pipp Brook beyond the application site to the east is at significant risk of flooding according the Environment Agency analysis as it is within flood zone 3. Policy ENV67 in the Local Plan states that development will not be permitted which in the opinion of the Council, after consultation with the Environment Agency, may have an adverse impact on the quality of groundwater. The application site falls within a groundwater protection zone. We trust therefore that the impact of the proposed development on the quality of groundwater will be thoroughly explored with the Environment Agency prior to any determination of the planning application in order to ensure that the proposed scheme is in accordance with Policy ENV67. The developer is proposing to create a pond on site to collect the surface water run-off from the hard standing areas before releasing it into the Pipp Brook. There is concern about whether this system will in fact be adequate in times of extreme rainfall. Once the pond is full it discharges straight into the Pipp Brook so when there is very heavy rain, both the pond itself and the Pipp Brook may overflow. In addition, we would want to see a condition imposed on any planning permission requiring the developer to pay for the long term maintenance of the pond so that this does not ultimately fall on the tax payers as paragraph 22 of PPS25 requires land owners to demonstrate that any flood risk management measures are sufficiently funded to ensure that the site can be safely occupied throughout the lifetime of the development.

Para 1.2.1 of the Flood Risk Assessment states that the principle of developing the site for housing has been accepted by the LPA through the determination of an

earlier application for the development of the site for 34 dwellings. That is incorrect as that application was refused by the Council.

The EA commented in 27 August 2010 that the Council must decide whether the proposed access route is considered safe taking account of all relevant considerations and in consultation with their emergency planners. If they are not satisfied that the proposed measures adequately address the identified flood hazard then permission should be refused on that basis advises the EA. The EA notes that the main vehicular access point to the site lies within flood zone 3b which has a 1 in 20 annual average probability of flooding. The EA pointed out that for the emergency services to be unable to access the site during extreme rainfalls is contrary to para 4.60 of the Practice Guide to PPS25 which states that vehicular access to allow the emergency services to safely reach the development during flood conditions will normally be required. The EA also point out that the secondary access route requires the residents to travel between the surface water attenuation pond and an area that is likely to be flooded and the entrance to this footpath may be restricted due to floodwater during an extreme event. It is abundantly clear therefore that the access route is not safe and as such permission should not be granted for this development.

6. Protected Areas

Paragraph 4.7 of the Core Strategy states that “the District's natural, built and historic environment and biodiversity and green infrastructure will be safeguarded and enhanced and new development will be accommodated to avoid prejudicing these attributes in a way that is sustainable, safe and accessible”.

Paragraph 6.4.1 of the Core Strategy goes on to explain that “the landscape of Mole Valley is one of its greatest assets, appreciated by residents and visitors alike and the source of inspiration for writers, composers and artists throughout history. Safeguarding and enhancing the highly attractive and diverse environment is therefore a key objective of both the LDF (including Sustainability Appraisal) and the Mole Valley Community Plan and is strongly supported by the community as a whole”.

Paragraph 6.4.4 of the Core Strategy states that “the Surrey Hills is a landscape of national importance. It is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and therefore has the highest level of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. Planning Policy Statement 7 (2004) states that 'The conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions in these areas. The conservation of wildlife and the cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas.' The area is covered by the Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan which guides the future management and enhancement of the area. It is also a consideration in the determination of planning applications in and around that area.” Policy CS13 in the Core Strategy states that

“1. All new development must respect and where appropriate enhance the character and distinctiveness of the landscape character area in which it is proposed. Landscape enhancement works may be required to avoid adverse impacts associated with new developments.

2. The Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is of national

significance, and as such, the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape will be a priority in this area. The AONB will be protected in accordance with the objectives in PPS7 and the Surrey Hills Management Plan, with a particular focus on the impact of development on ridgelines, significant views, peace, tranquility and levels of artificial light.”

We consider that this large extension of the built environment on a green field site, immediately adjacent to the Green Belt clearly visible from views from Ranmore Common which is a nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest and from the Surrey Hills AONB of which the application site forms part is contrary to Policy CS13 in the Core Strategy as it has an adverse impact on views from and across the SSSI, AONB and the Green Belt and cannot in any way be said to respect or enhance these protected areas. Whilst the number of dwellings have been reduced from the previous scheme the size of those dwellings have been increased and large two storey garages of a similar size to a 2 bedroom house have been included in the current proposed development. The amount of built development proposed therefore remains incongruous in this setting and has an adverse impact on the protected areas. The Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan The Surrey Hills was one of the first landscapes in the country to be designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in 1958 and it has equal status in planning terms to a National Park. The Surrey Hills Management Plan was adopted by Mole Valley District Council on 10 February 2009. Visitors to the Surrey Hills seek to enjoy the remarkable range of changing scenery and diversity of landscape through the panoramic views obtained from the many vantage points spread throughout the AONB. This is why the Surrey Hills has views that may be considered amongst the best and most diverse in England. The quality of views are often diminished by major highway corridors, masts and developments outside the AONB. Policy LU2 in the Surrey Hills Management Plan is very clear that “in balancing different considerations associated with determining planning applications, substantial weight will be attached to any adverse impact that the proposal would have on the character of the AONB”. Members of WMAG are very concerned about the adverse impact which the proposed development would have, as a large extension of the built environment on a green field site which is immediately adjacent to the Green Belt, on the views from and across the AONB and we trust that the Council will, in accordance with policy LU2, accord substantial weight to the adverse impact of the proposed development on the AONB in considering the application. Policy LU3 in the Surrey Hills Management Plan requires development to “respect the special landscape character, giving particular attention to potential impacts on ridgelines, significant views, tranquility and light pollution”. As explained above, the

proposed development will be clearly visible from view points within the AONB creating views of a substantial number of new houses, roads, parked vehicles and domestic clutter in place of a green field. The local topography makes it impossible to properly screen the proposed development from view. We consider that the proposed development is therefore contrary to policy LU3 in that it does not respect the special landscape character of the AONB nor significant views from and across it.

7. Urban Design PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable development states that design which is inappropriate in its context will not be accepted. Applicants for planning permission therefore have to show that they have considered the wider setting of the development proposed and ensure that it respects and enhances local character. Policy LU4 in the Surrey Hills Management Plan requires that “development will be of a high quality in design, respecting local distinctiveness and use of materials and be complementary in form, setting and scale with its surroundings. Design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the landscape setting and the way it functions will not be accepted”. Policy CS14 in the Core Strategy requires all new development to respect and enhance the area in which it is proposed and says that the Council will resist development of a poor quality of design. Policies ENV22, ENV 23, ENV 24 and ENV25 in the Local Plan require a design and layout which is appropriate to the site in terms of its scale, form and appearance and external building materials, does not significantly harm the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking, respects the character and appearance of the locality, provides any necessary screening and landscaping suitable to the character of the locality, provides safe access to the site and a satisfactory environment for occupiers of the new development, takes account of public views warranting protection, the views of the development conspicuous from the Green Belt. The proposed development is not in accordance with these policies in particular in terms of the overcramped density caused by trying to fit too many very large houses into one part of the site, due to the standard style of housing proposed, the impact of the site on the adjacent Green Belt on the other side of Pipp Brook as it does not have a rural feel unlike the converted farm buildings nearby, overlooking into adjacent properties on Springfield Road, the inability to screen views of the site from the AONB which is a public view warranting protection, the lack of safe access to the site both in highways terms and as a result of flooding as set in more detail elsewhere in this letter. Page 12 of the Design and Access Statement submitted by the developer suggests that the housing on site will be of different forms and styles to reflect the varied local housing styles. However, the proposed elevations submitted by the developer show very run of the mill dwellings which appear to be standard Taylor Wimpey designs. They do not respect the style of housing in Westcott and are not complementary in form with their surroundings and the rural feel of Westcott. As such we consider that the proposed designs do not accord with PPS1, Policy LU4 in the Surrey Hills

Management Plan or with Policy CS14 in the Core Strategy. If planning permission were to be granted we would expect the Council to impose a condition requiring submission of appropriately designed dwellings for approval in order to control the visual appearance of the development as an estate of very similar looking dwellings albeit of different sizes would be out of keeping with the existing housing in the village which is a mix of ages, styles and sizes and would therefore be contrary to PPS1, Policy LU4 and Policy CS14. Page 13 of the Design and Access Statement submitted by the developer states that 30% of all dwellings are affordable units (ie 4 out of 14 dwellings). If planning permission were to be granted then a condition should be imposed to ensure that the affordable housing is indistinguishable from the market housing. A high quality of design would be required for the affordable housing in order for the scheme to be compliant with PPS1 and Policy CS14. We note however that the proposal is to locate all of the affordable housing on the boundary with the existing dwellings. This is contrary to both national and local policy which requires that affordable housing must be located amongst the market housing and not grouped together in one area of the site.

8. Ecology and biodiversity We would also draw committee members attention to the following issues and policy considerations. PPS 9 states that “Where a planning decision would result in significant harm to biodiversity Nwhich cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensation measures should be sought. If that significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.” Paragraph 6.4.20 in the Core Strategy states that “all watercourses, mature hedges and trees within development sites across the District should be, as far as practicable, retained, protected and enhanced, particularly where they link areas of existing green infrastructure.....The use of native species as part of planting schemes is particularly important alongside watercourses due to the potential for non-native seeds to be carried downstream.” Policy CS15 in the Core Strategy states that biodiversity will be protected and enhanced in accordance with European and National legislation and guidance. It states that all water courses, mature hedges and trees within development sites should be, as far as practicable, retained. The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal (para 98, ODPM circular 06/2005). It is essential that the presence or otherwise of a protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision (para 99, ODPM circular 06/2005).

Further more we note, following the advice of Natural England (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/east_of_england/ourwork/standingadvice/protectedspecies/badger.aspx), that while badger pathways and foraging areas are not protected under the Badgers Act, the retention of such features will be required if any mitigation proposal is to succeed, and should therefore be viewed as a material consideration under Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation). The applicant has carried out a protected species survey which found the following Bats We note that five species of bat have been recorded on site – all are European protected species. Bat activity is concentrated along the brook corridor with trees and shrubs along the brook corridor providing a good foraging resource. The brook corridor is also considered to provide a dark flightline which bats are using for dispersal from roost sites to foraging areas further afield. The survey also found that bats are likely to be roosting close by to the site. The survey concluded that the proposed development of 14 residential units will not result in significant impacts to bats as no significant disturbance (i.e. disturbance at a level that would affect the ability of bats to survive, breed, rear young or hibernate or that would affect the local distribution or abundance of the species) is anticipated. The consultants state that the modest number of additional night time traffic movements along the access road will not have an impact on this roost location at the dairy. Any existing influence from car headlights does not appear to cause disturbance to this roost and one would not expect the tiny increase in traffic movements after dark to alter this. It is difficult to see how it could be concluded that there would only be a tiny increase in traffic movements given the 43 parking spaces to be provided on site and the potential 60 residents. In the winter particularly all vehicles returning to the site after normal school and/or work hours will be using their headlights and may disturb the bats. The survey goes on to say that the existing hedge and trees along the western boundary of the site will be retained, wildlife corridors (designed to aid badger dispersal) will be provided along the western and southern margins of the development area and a species rich native hedgerow will also be planted all the way along the southern boundary of the site to further strengthen this boundary. These measures should ensure that bat flight lines and foraging opportunities are retained and enhanced along these margins of the site, which the consultants say will be bordered by new back gardens and associated planting. In fact the consultants have said that the main dark flight line for the bats is along the brook corridor and here the gardens of the dwellings along the Pipp Brook face away from the brook and the road and it is the front of the houses that face onto the brook so there will be disturbance to the bats both from lights within the houses and car headlights as people arrive home. The survey states that the existing access track and any new access roads through the new development will remain under private ownership and there are no plans for these roads to be adopted by the Local Authority. As roads will be under private

ownership there is no requirement to provide new external lighting within the development, and therefore no disturbance impacts to bats using the site or adjacent areas are anticipated with regards to new external lighting provision. It is acknowledged that new home owners may want to provide their own external lighting. However, it is suggested that private external lighting be provided by the developer with detailed designed of such lighting being provided to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing. Any such lighting scheme should be developed in close consultation with a suitably experienced bat ecologist. This section of the report is very muddled and it is unclear whether there will be lighting adjacent to the Pipp Brook or not. It is entirely likely that home owners will want to install exterior lights to assist them when they return home after dark, the emergency access track needs to be lit in order that it can be used safely in the event of a flood and there will inevitably be light pollution both from lights left on inside houses adjacent to the brook and from car headlights on the estate road. It is clear therefore that the bats will be disturbed by new light sources from the proposed development unless the scheme is re-designed to move all housing further away from the brook and to move the emergency access well away from the brook. Badgers The survey states that no badger setts were identified within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development site during any of the survey visits undertaken. However, some evidence of badgers crossing and foraging within the site was noted and badgers continue to use the well established badger setts located within woodland on the other side of Pipp Brook and to the south within woodland associated with the Recreation Ground. Mammal paths (some likely to be badger trails) being noted primarily along the southern boundary of the proposed development site, and the eastern boundary along the margin of Pipp Brook. There is also some evidence to suggest that badgers are moving onto the site from the sett to the south, entering the site under the fence in the south-western corner. However, it is not clear if the same badger clan is using the setts to the north and south of the site or not. The survey concluded that badgers from a nearby sett are likely to cross Springfield Road and pass into the proposed development site at its south–western corner (between 62 Springfield Road and 1 Westcott Street). Badger paths running eastwards from the setts link up to the public footpath which passes along the eastern margin of the recreation ground, across Springfield Road and onto land adjacent to the eastern end of the proposed development site. It is presumed that this also provides a route for badgers to disperse from the recreation ground setts to land to the north and east of the proposed development site. The survey concluded that whilst grassland within the proposed development area would appear to form part of the home range of at least one badger clan it is not considered that the loss of the 0.8ha of grassland under the proposed development footprint will result in a significant impact to the local badger population as significant areas of other suitable foraging habitat, comprising pasture, woodland and local residents gardens, are available to them. The footprint of the new dwellings proposed on the site will result in the loss of around 0.8ha of rough grassland, with the remainder of the 1.9ha site being retained (e.g. brook corridor) or landscaped to provide new grassland and wetland habitats (e.g. POS at the eastern end of the site), thus retaining some opportunities for badger foraging within these areas. The

loss of this quantum of foraging habitat is not considered to be significant to this population. Whilst there are plenty of opportunities for badgers to disperse from the setts to the south to grassland used at the eastern end of the site and beyond (e.g. through existing gardens along Springfield Road and via the footpath No.’s 26 and 24 Springfield Road), badger dispersal corridors will be provided along the western and southern margins of the new development area to allow badgers to use existing dispersal routes from the south-western corner of the site to the north and east. These badger dispersal corridors will be c.3m wide and planted up with a mix of native thorny species to provide suitable cover and a new foraging resource on the form of windfall fruit / berries. The boundaries of the site will not be subject to any external lighting and will be fenced off from new gardens to avoid any disturbance impacts. The dispersal corridors will provide access from the southwestern corner of the site to the brook corridor to the north and grassland habitat to the east of the new development. We would point out that in fact the emergency exit track will have to be lit in order that residents can use if safely in the event of a flood and therefore there will be light disturbance to the badgers that currently use this site. Reptiles The protected species survey found that no reptiles were observed during any of the survey visits undertaken, either under or on top of the artificial refugia, or basking in the open. The surveys were undertaken in suitable conditions for reptile surveying and the number of visits employed is considered to be appropriate to confirm the presence / absence of reptiles on the site. However, it is likely, as indicated by the new records, that reptiles will be present in close proximity to the site and could therefore disperse onto / across the site from time to time. Whilst it is considered that the proposed development would be unlikely to have any impacts on local reptile populations, it is recommended that a precautionary approach to clearance of the site be undertaken to avoid any potential direct impacts to reptiles which could result in an infringement of the law. The adoption of this approach assumes that current survey evidence (<2 years old) exists which indicates that reptiles remain absent from this area. In other words, should development be delayed a new reptile survey at the site would become appropriate in 2012. This should be secured by condition should planning permission be granted.

Conditions for ecology and biodiversity We note that the developer is proposing a 10 metre habitat buffer between the new access road and the Pipp Brook. If the Council was minded to grant planning permission we would request the imposition of a condition securing the developer’s long term commitment to the ongoing management of the public open areas including the habitat buffer and area alongside the Pipp Brook for the lifetime of the development.

The Ecology Study proposes provision of bird and bat boxes and the creation of log piles for mammals and invertebrates. If the Council was minded to grant planning permission we would request the imposition of a condition securing the provision of a sufficient number of these replacement habitat together with an obligation to require the developer to maintain them for the lifetime of the development. The developer is proposing to install a fence along the access road to discourage public access to the habitat buffer. If the Council was minded to grant planning permission WMAG would want a condition to be imposed controlling the type of fencing used as residents of Westcott have enjoyed views of the Pipp Brook for many generations and will still want to be able to see and enjoy the brook should the site be developed. We also note that the Ecology Study submitted by the developer states that the wooded brook corridor is a strong landscape/habitat feature which foraging and commuting bats could exploit. If the Council was minded to grant planning permission therefore we would expect to see a condition requiring the retention of all of the trees on the south side of Pipp Brook as they are important for wildlife including bats. We note that the Ecology Study found that there is Japanese knotweed in the north west corner of the site. This can be a very difficult weed to remove from a site and frequently strong chemicals are used in order to kill the plant. Given the very close proximity to the Pipp Brook, if the Council was minded to grant planning permission we would request a condition requiring the developer to submit a method statement to remove the Japanese Knotweed to be agreed with the Council and then followed to avoid any potential contamination of the Pipp Brook by pesticides. In light of the habitat environments proposed immediately to the east of the development footprint, and along the Pipp Brook corridor, we would expect to see an Ecology and Landscape Management Plan agreed with the Council, with its implementation secured by condition, with an agreement to manage in perpetuity should the Council feel minded to grant planning permission for the development.

9. Public Right of Way The Design and Access Statement submitted by the developer claims that the track that crosses the site is a private track with a third party right of way along it. It is important that committee members are aware that this is not correct. In fact the Council determined in June 2010 that both the track that crosses the application site and the access road joining the site to Westcott Street are public rights of way and the definitive map and statement have now been amended to include them.

The developer has proposed a raised footpath through the site to Springfield Road. It would appear that this is intended to replace the existing public footpath. If so the developer cannot simply construct this without first going through a formal application process to divert the public right of way. We would ask members of the planning committee to bear this in mind when considering the planning application as

we understand this raised footpath would form an essential part of the planning application given that it constitutes the emergency access route in times of flood. In addition, it should be noted that the public right of way which runs through the application site is also used regularly by horses as there are stables at Bushy Platt Farm housing 30-40 horses who regularly ride along this route. If the proposed development is granted permission they will no longer be able to do so as the public right of way will be turned into a combination of a raised walkway to the eastern end of the application site and estate roads at the western end of the application site.

10. Open space and recreation Policy CS 16 in the Core Strategy requires the provision of open space, sports and recreation. Paragraphs 5.48 – 5.50 in the supporting statement submitted by the developer states that sufficient recreational space has been provided however this is misleading as it does not consider whether that space is likely to be useable, for example, if it floods regularly. Also the developer’s calculation is stated to be based on an assumption of 2.4 people per dwelling on average but given that the majority of the market housing is in fact 4 or 5 bed houses in fact the average number of occupiers is likely to be higher. In addition we would note that, the application argues that the ‘green space’ will be an enhancement for biodiversity, but if used for recreation, this will cause disturbance, limiting the benefit derived for local biodiversity contrary to Policy Env 14.

11. Listed building Lower Springfield Farm House is grade II listed and is situated immediately adjacent to the access road to Westcott Street. The applicant claims that the limited traffic flows generated by the scheme is such that the development will not have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed farm house. In fact we are extremely concerned about this protected historic building as in common with many buildings of that age it does not have foundations making the structure extremely susceptible to damage from both construction traffic and then 43-60 private cars driving past it on a daily basis. We are also concerned that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building and its curtilage. In addition, we consider that the construction of housing immediately behind the farm house will affect its setting. The Council refused a previous scheme for 34 dwellings on this site in 2010 stating “The proposed development, by reason of the location of its access, would lead to a significant increase in vehicular movements and associated disturbance between the Grade II listed Lower Springfield Farmhouse and its former outbuildings, which are within the historic curtilage. The relationship between the main farmhouse and its

historic outbuildings forms a positive contribution towards, and an integral part of, the setting of the heritage asset. The increased levels of traffic through the curtilage would adversely impact upon the setting of the Grade II listed building, contrary to Policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy and advice contained within PPS5; Planning for the Historic Environment.” The Council officer concluded that the relationship between the farmhouse, and its former agricultural outbuildings and the informal character of the access drive which runs between them “form a significant element of the setting of this heritage asset”. In particular the Council’s Historic Environment Officer explained that the farm track between the listed farmhouse and the now converted outbuildings had been deliberately kept rough and unengineered in order to protect the character of the farmyard group. He considered that it would be impossible to retain the simple relationship between the farmhouse and its former outbuildings if the access was required to serve 34 new houses. The Council concluded that the use of the access between the farmhouse and the former outbuildings and therefore through the curtilage of the listed farmhouse would cause harm to the setting of the listed building. We fully support the view of the Council’s officer and would point out that a similar level of harm would be caused by the proposed development for 14 dwellings on site. The number of dwellings has been reduced but the size of those dwellings has been substantially increased which will result in 43-60 vehicles on site rather than 77-90 on site in the previous application. This still equates to a significant number of vehicle movements which are inappropriate in this location as they will have an adverse impact on both the setting of the listed building and its structural integrity. The applicant tries to argue in para 4.7 of its heritage statement that the use of the site for housing is an appropriate use of the site and the impact of the proposed scheme is negligible on the heritage asset. That is simply not correct. The use of the site for housing is not appropriate due to the constraints posed by its green field status, poor transport connections, impact on residential amenity, highways safety, flooding, presence of bats and badgers and views from the AONB. In addition to those constraints the impact of the proposed development on the listed building and its setting would be to destroy the rural setting of the farm track and potentially to cause the destruction of the listed building through vibration from construction vehicles and then residents vehicles and other vehicles serving the development such as rubbish trucks. This is clearly not a suitable site for residential development. The applicant also tries to argue at para 4.13 that the reduction of the present scheme to 14 houses means that the development would not result in harm to the heritage asset that would mean a loss of significance. This is wrong, the same design of access road is proposed and required for 14 dwellings as it was for 34 dwellings, construction vehicles will still be required to use the access track to build the development so the threat to the stability of the listed building remains and the number of vehicle movements are not significantly reduced because of the increase in size of dwellings proposed. Due to concerns regarding the impact that the proposed development pursuant to planning application MO/2011/0528 would have on Springfield Farmhouse which is a

listed building the owner of Springfield Farmhouse commissioned the attached report prepared by The Morton Partnership dated May 2011. The report stated the following:

• It is to be noted that a previous planning application for 34 houses on the same application site using the same proposed access road running past Springfield Farmhouse was refused in 2010 by the Council and one of the reasons for refusal was that “the proposed development by reason of the location of its access would lead to a significant increase in vehicular movements and associated disturbance between the Grade II listed Lower Springfield Farmhouse and its former outbuildings, which are within the historic curtilage. This relationship between the main Farmhouse and its historic outbuildings forms a positive contribution towards, and an integral part of the setting of the heritage asset. The increased levels of traffic through the curtilage would adversely impact upon the setting of the Grade II listed building, contrary to Policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy and advice contained within PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment”.

• The report clearly concludes that Springfield Farmhouse is a building which is extremely vulnerable to any movement from traffic vibration, be it construction traffic, the excavation and formation of the road surface and, most importantly, the increased general traffic accessing the proposed development of 14 houses and thus should not be put at risk by a roadway to the new development.

• The report was particularly concerned about the vibration that would be caused by the rubbish collection vehicles that will come down the access road if the proposed scheme is built.

• The report also concluded that the changes that would be necessary to create the access to the proposed new development would destroy the rural atmosphere and setting to the listed building by virtue of the hard edged traffic splays at the edge of the site and the pavements and kerbs that would be necessary to make the roadway safe.

• The report also considered that the installation of street lights and the headlights of vehicles turning into the new road using the new traffic splays will impinge on the Farmhouse and curtilage buildings, further damaging the heritage asset.

S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is very clear that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development that affects a listed building or its setting the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting”.

Policy HE10.1 of PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment states “When considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the

significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval. “ Policy HE9 of PPS5 states that “Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.” Policy CS14 in the Mole Valley Core Strategy states that “Areas and sites of historic or architectural importance will be protected and, where appropriate enhanced in accordance with the legislation, national and regional guidance.” The threat that this proposed development makes to both the listed building itself and its setting makes it clear that this scheme is contrary to Policy CS14. It is clear therefore that planning permission for this proposed development cannot be granted due to the severe damage that this will cause to the setting of the listed building and ultimately may cause to the structure of the listed building and that to do so would be contrary to the Listed Buildings Act, PPS5 and the Core Strategy as stated above.

12. Overlooking and Privacy The gardens of the houses on Springfield Road are fairly open to the application site and on an elevated position so the amenity of the residents of those properties will be affected by views of the new houses along their boundary. As such, if the Council were minded to grant planning permission for the development we would expect to see a condition requiring the developer to screen the new development from view in order to protect the privacy and amenity of both the existing dwellings on Springfield Road, particularly when residents are using their gardens and the occupiers of the new housing which are close to the boundary. As set out above this would be contrary to Local Plan Policy ENV 22. Summary

Goal 1 of the Core Strategy is to “safeguard and enhance the highly attractive and diverse natural, built and historic environment of the District”. The vision of the Core Strategy is set out at paragraph 4.2 and states that “Mole Valley will make provision for its share of the regions growth of homes and jobs but in a way that is sustainable, minimises significant harmful change to its distinctive character, environment and feel, and mitigates its impact on the causes of climate change. The District’s natural, built and historic environment will be safeguarded and enhanced and communities will have safe, convenient and sustainable access to the services and facilities they require”.

As we have set out above, we have grave concerns that any grant of permission for this site would be premature as it remains a reserve housing site and ought not to be brought forward for development until such time as there is a deficit in available housing land to meet the new housing targets that will be set in time by the Council. However, should the Council be minded to grant planning permission for the development then we consider that this particular scheme is fundamentally flawed as it is contrary to national and local planning policy in that, as set out above, it is a green field site and policy is clear that previously developed land should be built on first; there are more sustainable sites available in Leatherhead, Dorking, Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham which should be brought forward first; the developer is attempting to construct too many houses of too large a size on the site in setting of the listed farm house; and there will be an adverse impact on the privacy and amenity on the adjacent residents in Springfield Road who back on to the site, disregard of the unique constraints that restrict the application site; the development is not sustainable due to the poor public transport connections; the number of proposed occupiers in the development will have an adverse impact on highways safety for both vehicles and pedestrians along Westcott Street; the width of the access road is insufficient for a development of this size; the proposed number of occupiers on site is likely to lead to more on street parking on Westcott Street; a large part of the site including the access road is in a flood zone and the sequential test has not been applied to develop sites at lower risk of flooding before this site; the recreation space on site will be unusable for at least part of the year due to flooding; there is no satisfactory emergency evacuation route if the site floods; there will be an adverse impact on biodiversity and local wildlife by the introduction of built development and large numbers of residents to the site and the introduction of light pollution after dark; views of the site will have an adverse impact on the AONB and on the western end of the application site. We trust that this scheme will be determined by planning committee in due course. Please can you confirm in writing to us the date of the committee meeting when it has been timetabled. Please take this as a formal request for Mr Alex Segal, the chairman of WMAG, to have a speaking slot at the committee meeting as he will wish to address the committee regarding WMAG’s concerns about the proposed development. Thank you for your assistance. Yours sincerely

Sarah Youren Planning Solicitors Limited Enc: List of WMAG committee members

Photographs of flooding on application site contained within the attached report on flood risk

Report of The Morton Partnership regarding impact on the listed building