Application Number MO/2020/0667 (Outline Major) and Registration Date 16-Apr-2020

Applicant Ms S Walker, on behalf of Inland Homes Ltd

Case Officer Catherine Miller-Bassi

Amendments /amplifications

Committee Date 7 October 2020

Ward(s) Okewood

Proposal Outline planning permission for a residential scheme of up to 60 dwellings, with associated landscaping, amenity space, sustainable urban drainage system (SuDS), and associated works. All matters reserved except for access.

Site Description Land south of Coles Lane, Ockley, , RH5 5HW

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

1. Summary

The application is defined as major development and is, therefore, required to be decided by the Development Management Committee.

The application site lies in the countryside beyond the Green Belt, on the south side of Coles Lane, to the west of the A24 and the village of Capel, and to the east of a railway line. The site lies beyond the boundary of Capel larger rural village and the Capel NDP Parish boundary.

The proposal comprises the erection of up to 60no. dwellings, including 40% affordable housing, with associated landscaping, amenity space, sustainable urban drainage system (SuDS), and associated works, with all matters reserved except for access.

The scheme is considered to deliver benefits in line with local and national planning policy, subject to reserved matters, as follows: • 60no. new dwellings against a local housing land supply shortfall of 1.85 years; • 24no. on-site affordable housing which represents 40% of scheme in line with the policy requirement; • Provision of electric vehicle charging point to every new dwelling; and • 15m buffer to Ancient Woodland.

The proposal is considered unacceptable for the following reasons: • The erection of 60no. new dwelllings on a greenfield site in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt is unacceptable in principle for residential development in terms of location; • The proposed 60no. new dwelllings, garages and associated hardstanding is, in principle, considered to result in unacceptable harm to the rural character of the wider area, eroding the distinctive gap between the existing rural settlements and failing to protect the countryside; • The principle of the addition of up to 60no. new dwellings at this greenfield site is not considered acceptable in terms of highways safety since the site is not in a sustainable location due to the separation from Capel village by the A24 at a section that has two-way dual carriageways with a 70mph speed limit, the lack of safe, lit walking routes to Ockley rail station or the bus stops and local amenities in Capel; • Insufficient information has been submitted to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on protected species that may be occupying the site; and • Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal is capable of delivering measurable biodiversity net gains.

The proposal conflicts with the advice set out in the NPPF and with Development Plan policies with regard to the location of new development, character and appearance issues, highway safety, protected species and biodiversity and is, therefore, recommended for refusal.

2. Development Plan

Beyond Metropolitan Green Belt (ENV3)

3. Relevant Planning History

DHR/69/476 Field on south side of , B.2126 abutting on to railway embankment west of , Capel , County of Surrey Use of site as Sun Club with associated fencing and screening, portable chemical toilets, portable swimming pool, badminton court, portable refreshment pavilions and space for tents on approximately 5 3/4 acres (2.3 ha). REFUSED 18-Feb-1970

DHR/72/779 Near , Ockley and Capel Station (Off B.2126) , Capel , in the County of Surrey Erection of 20 detached dwellings each with 4-6 habitable rooms on 5.75 acres. REFUSED 02-Mar-1973

MO/75/0796 Land south of , Coles Lane (B.2126) , and near , Ockley and Capel Station , Parish of Ockley Erection of single storey dwelling to comprise 4/5 rooms and garage of approximately 1000 sq ft (92.9 sq m) and the erection of four glass houses totalling 7000 sq ft (650.3 sq m) together with equipment shed of 250 sq ft (23.23 sq m) in connection with the establishment of a market garden on approximately 6.33 acres (2.56 ha) of land with access to Coles Lane. REFUSED 14-Oct-1975

MO/85/0537 Coles Wood , Coles Lane , Ockley , Land south of Ockley and Capel Station and Coles Lane and east of railway Two 10 habitable room dwellings each of 276 sq m (2970 sq ft) and with attached garages of 36 sq m (390 sq ft) on a site of 2.3 ha (5.6 acres). REFUSED 25-Sep-1985

4. Description of Development

4.1. Site Description

4.1.1. The application site, (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 below), lies in the countryside beyond the Green Belt, on the south side of Coles Lane, to the west of the A24 and the village of Capel, and to the east of a railway line. The site lies beyond the boundary of Capel larger rural village and the Capel NDP Parish boundary.

4.1.2. The south and east boundaries abut the Ancient Woodland at Cole’s Wood and Peter’s Wood. Weaver’s Wood/Kiln Wood (nr Ockley) Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) lies at a separation distance of 284m to the west of the site. The closest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) at Vann Lake lies at a separation distance of approx. 882m to the south-west of the site. The site also lies within an EA Aquifer Protection Zone.

Figure 1. Site Location Plan

Figure 2. Aerial photo of site (Design & Access Statement)

4.2. Proposal

4.2.1. The current application seeks planning permission for the erection of up to 60no. dwellings (see Figure 3 and Figure 4 below), with associated landscaping, amenity space, sustainable urban drainage system (SuDS), and associated works, with all matters reserved except for access. The submitted Design and Access Statement, dated February 2020, details that the scheme would involve: • Up to 60 new high quality family homes, 40% of which are affordable housing. • Vehicular and pedestrian access from Coles Lane. • The creation of a new footway along Coles Lane. • The retention of as many existing trees as possible. • The provision of a minimum 15m green buffer between the development and Ancient Woodland, and landscape buffers along the remaining boundaries. • Substantial areas of open space including informal play areas. • A SuDS strategy of swales and basins.

Figure 3. Illustrative site layout plan with red arrow marking proposed access and yellow dashed line indicating improved pedestrian access along Coles Lane

Figure 4. Extract of Illustrative Site Section A-A

4.2.2. The proposed new access would be on the northern boundary of the application site, on the south side of Coles Lane, sited at approx. 75m to the east of Station Approach, (see Figure 5 below).

Figure 5. Proposed new access from Transport Assessment, with railway line to left and Station Approach at top left of image

5. Consultations

Consultee Comments Conditions Crime No comments received. This would Reduction/Prevention be Design Advisor addressed under reserved matters Environment Agency This is a misconsultation and falls outside our remit MVDC Affordable No objections subject to conditions Housing Officer MVDC Arboricultural No objections subject to conditions Officer MVDC Concerns regarding future occupiers’ amenity due Environmental Health to high levels of noise from A24; considered capable of resolution via condition MVDC Waste Officer None received MVDC Sustainability No objections subject to conditions Consultant Network Rail No response received. SCC Archaeology No objections subject to conditions SCC Highways SCC Highways recommends the proposal be refused due to: 1) The lack of suitable pedestrian facilities for the proposed development 2) The site is located in a very unsustainable location SCC Lead Flood No objections subject to conditions Authority Concerns regarding lack of evidence to demonstrate no harm would ensue in regard to protected species that may be on site or that measurable biodiversity net gains would be delivered. Southern Water No objections subject to conditions

6. Representations

6.1. Local Residents

6.1.1. 1 letter of support and 18 letters of objection (including those of the Parish Councils) have been received with the following summarised comments or concerns:

Comments Officer Note Conditions There is duplicate usage of the The outline application for access wording ‘detail is reserved for future includes the erection of up to determination’. We trust that Mole 60no. new dwellings in principle. Valley District Council will not accept As such, all technical details this open ended proposal without would be assessed under a precise detail and further reserved matters application, investigation. should the Council be minded to approve the application. Proposed density of 60 properties is The application is outline and out of character layout is a reserved matter, Properties around Coles Lane and The application is outline and Weare Street are well spaced out and layout is a reserved matter, fit in with rural area between Green Belt and AONB – proposal is out of character With 60 dwellings and 2-3 cars per Impact on rural character is household, that would be between considered unacceptable and 120-180 cars and approx. 250 people insufficient information has been – this would be out of character and received to demonstrate detrimental to local community and compliance with policies on wildlife protected species. Construction would cause disruption Noted – this would be addressed to local residents via conditions should the Council be minded to approve the application Failure to notify neighbouring The Council has fulfilled its properties which would be affected by statutory duty in notifying those the scheme; site notice not effective individual properties most likely to during lockdown/self-isolation due to be affected by the proposals, Coronavirus displaying a site notice and advertising the application in the edition of the ‘Surrey Advertiser’ newspaper on 28.5.20. Proposal would have an adverse Impact on rural character is impact on the landscape and wildlife considered unacceptable and insufficient information has been received to demonstrate compliance with policies on protected species. The area is renowned for the Insufficient information has been existence of great created newts in received to demonstrate various local waterways. They are compliance with policies on protected species and they and their protected species. habitats should not be disturbed. The building works would have an Insufficient information has been adverse affect on the nesting areas in received to demonstrate the trees and animal burrows compliance with policies on protected species. It seems that although investigations Technical details fall under have been made into the flood risk for reserved matters, however, the the site, clearly no one doing that risk scheme is considered capable of assessment has driven along Coles policy compliance in terms of Lane in the wet winter months when surface water drainage. the water run off from the field on the northern side of Coles Lane floods the junction of Coles Lane and Station Approach on a regular basis. When looking into the field, which is the proposed development, it is clear to see that the ‘swale’ takes much of the flood water of the south, higher ground, of the field which then runs from the pond in North Lodge into the pond at Ockley Court. This is clearly shown on maps of the area. The proposed plans show that the This would be addressed under a ‘swale’ is left to run through the reserved matters application. development with new properties almost abutting it. It states ‘Substantial areas of Open Space and Play space’, and ‘Substantial amenity areas’ yet we can see only 2 areas of open space under existing trees, the rest of the communal areas are roadways and the ‘swale’. We would not want to have any children able to access such areas of land for play, one of which clearly floods regularly and could be potentially highly dangerous, and the other is surely better used for cars. The junction of Station Approach with Technical details fall under Coles Lane regularly floods near the reserved matters but this is railway bridge during the winter and addressed in Section 7.10. leads to cars having to drive on the wrong side of the road. If this development goes ahead, anti-flood measures need to be put in place. Site is much lower than Coles Lane Technical details fall under and surely properties will be at risk of reserved matters but this is flooding addressed in Section 7.10. We can only see 2 visitor parking This would be addressed under spaces for 60 dwellings. Surely this reserved matters. will result in cars being parked on Coles Lane, a most unsuitable option Weare Street and Coles Lane have Noted. The scheme is considered high numbers of cyclists and walkers unacceptable on Highways safety at weekends grounds in terms of the lack of Rail users drive to the station as it is safe walking routes to Capel or to less dangerous than walking and park Ockley rail station, however, no adjacent to the site. These parked undue harm to the residual cars would obstruct sight lines when network has been raised. emerging from the site. HGVs regularly encounter difficulties at the restricted width/height of the Ockley Station bridge. It’s not possible for them to turn round, so it’s not uncommon for them to have to reverse back down Coles Lane for a substantial distance. Large farm vehicles and trailers use Coles Lane regularly and Coles Lane cannot safely accommodate parked vehicles on the road. It is already very difficult to cross A24 from Coles Lane – extra traffic will make this worse Driving to Capel from the site is dangerous due to A24/Coles Lane junction No pedestrian route along Coles Lane The scheme involves a new footway between the site and Station Approach. This would not offer pedestrian access to Ockley or Capel. SCC Highways recommends the proposal be refused due to: 1) The lack of suitable pedestrian facilities for the proposed development 2) The site is located in a very unsustainable location No safe pedestrian route to Ockley or Noted – this is considered a Capel – it is impossible to cross A24 reason for refusal safely on foot – drivers speed at over 60mph Lack of safe pedestrian route would The site is not currently mean new occupiers driving to considered sustainable in or Dorking transport terms due to absence of controlled pedestrian crossing at A24 Coles Lane is an unlit road with no SCC Highways had advised street pavement and pedestrians walking lighting would be necessary, to/from the station are very vulnerable however, the application does not include this. The absence of street lighting is considered to exacerbate the site’s current lack of accessibility in transport terms. Is the improved pedestrian access This would be publicly accessible alongside Coles Lane inside the new as confirmed in an email of development boundary for use only 13.8.20. by the new residents or for all persons walking from Capel to the station or to the footpath from Coles Lane to Weare Street? There is no detailed plan of the safe Station Approach lies beyond the access to Station Approach crossing application site in third party Coles Lane at a blind corner, yet they ownership and no highways are keen to point out the benefits of improvements at this location can using and ‘easy’ access to the station. be agreed at this stage. Contrary to the Applicant’s Travel Noted. For clarity, a footpath is Statement, there is no footpath from proposed between the site and Coles Lane to Capel, and none are Station Approach which leads to proposed. Ockley rail station Coles Lane forms part of Surrey Residual impact on highways Cycleway so additional 60 plus network is considered acceptable vehicles would endanger cyclists in this case and SCC Highways Proposal would generate have no objections to the considerable additional traffic in a proposed access. small lane which already has problems at peak times. Access from Coles Lane onto A24 is difficult and accidents have occurred Coles Lane is used as a cut through between A29 and A24 and is unsuitable for high traffic Planned entrance/access to the site is on an extremely dangerous blind bend; exacerbated by vehicle speed and ‘corner cutting’ at this point on a very regular basis at present. Even taking into account the new road layout scheme we would suggest this needs further intense investigation. The suggestion of ‘ landscaping, priority junctions, changes in surface material, tighter corners and narrowing will reduce speed’ is a very optimistic visualisation. In reality vehicles turning off the dual carriageway into Coles Lane will be doing in excess of the 40mph limit, as they do now, and to suddenly confront a priority junction will cause a very dangerous junction This Application will without doubt Noted give support to the Government’s efforts to meet the continuous and growing call for additional housing in the , particularly as affordable housing is included in the project. New homes would create excessive Increased footfall is considered of demand on local facilities economic benefit for local shops and businesses and also for schools and other community facilities in rural areas The proposals cites constraints of the This would be addressed under sewer and easements yet no mention reserved matters. is made to the proposals for the removal or storage of waste water and sewerage. In Weare Street we all have our own private treatment plants. Has enough land been allowed for this either as individual houses or on mass for the whole development? Site is greenfield which is not shown Noted – the scheme does not for development in MVDC comply with the Development Development Plan Plan in terms of the location The proposal conflicts with the Local The site was not considered Plan by eroding the countryside and under the emerging local plan the site was not included in the when it was put forward as part of emerging local plan for consideration a larger, 200ha. plus site as a new settlement is not one of MVDC’s preferred strategic options. The proposal does not comply with the Local Plan in terms of the location for development and is unacceptable in principle. The site, positioned outside of the Noted Green Belt, is compact and unobtrusively situated against the railway embankment, and would offer to its residents the important convenience of its close proximity to Ockley railway station. Ockley Station is not served by a Noted – location is not considered main line, has a limited service, no inherently sustainable trains on Sundays, has suffered from landslips which may be exacerbated by the proposal, and insufficient parking, which leads to rail users parking along Coles Lane There are no bus stops on Coles The scheme involves the Lane to Capel, Dorking or Horsham. relocation of the nearest bus The nearest bus stops in Capel and stops 200m closer to the site but Ockley are more than 1km away from this is not considered to overcome the proposed development. the accessibility concerns. The Planning Application does not The proposal is not considered meet the NPPF. The application does sustainable development as not lead to a development that is defined by NPPF and is sustainable. It does not limit the need recommended for refusal. to travel or offer a genuine choice of transport modes because the local amenities are not within walking distance of the development. The only genuine choice of transport to access local amenities is by car. The site lies beyond the village The scheme is not acceptable in boundary and is not in the Local Plan principle as a location for new for housing housing. The carbon footprint of 60 houses This is a reserved matter and with 2-3 cars would far outweigh any conditions requiring electric eco investments the developer would vehicle charging sockets together make with biodiversity net gains and sustainable construction measures including carbon reduction could be added at that stage.

6.1.2. The following summarised comments or concerns were submitted by Capel Parish Council:

Comments Officer Note Conditions If allowed to go ahead this development will Increased footfall to local have a considerable impact on Capel businesses would be village, being only 20m from the boundary. considered an economic The developer is promoting the using of all benefit, while education and essential amenities in Capel, namely pre- health is a matter for SCC, school, school, GP surgery and recreation however, CIL contributions facilities which are unqualified and would would be required in this case have a considerable and undesirable to support local services. impact on the village. It must be noted that this site was not Noted. Insufficient information included as an option in the has been received to Local Plan. It is within the countryside demonstrate compliance with beyond the Green Belt and would be policies on protected species. unrelated to the settlements of Ockley and Capel. This is not a sustainable location and there could be nature conservation issues within the site. Coles Lane is a narrow road and the height Noted. The scheme is and width of the railway bridge over the considered unacceptable on lane would direct traffic towards the A24. Highways safety grounds The slipway/junction onto the A24 and crossover toward Capel is extremely dangerous. Traffic from this development of upward of 200 vehicle movements per day could introduce backlogs along Coles Lane onto the A24 and would increase the risk of a serious accident at the junction. Should approval for this development be The applicant has advised that contemplated, serious consideration should this would not be economically be given to the installation of an underpass viable and an underpass has, connecting both sides of Coles Lane. It is therefore, not been included in impossible for pedestrians or equestrians to the current proposal. cross this major road safely at any time. We believe the granting of planning The site has not been included permission at this time is inappropriate and in the emerging local plan as a recommend that the site be included in the new settlement and is not one Future Mole Valley plan for consideration of MVDC’s preferred strategic strategically and with full evaluation of the options. impact on the environment, traffic, school, health and travel amenities. The railway embankments in this area has Construction methods and seen numerous landslips over the past few parking fall under reserved years and a development of this size would matters and would be have an adverse impact on the newly addressed at that stage. reconstructed embankments. As Ockley railway station has limited parking, a new development could encourage commuters to use this new estate as a free parking area.

6.1.3. The following summarised comments or concerns were submitted by Ockley Parish Council:

Comments Officer Note Conditions In principle Ockley Parish Council supports Noted some development of housing within the parish, with particular reference to affordable housing. We therefore have been supportive of the housing policies set out in the Future Mole Valley plan where four sites have been identified in both Ockley and Capel with respectively 62 and 99 houses proposed. We are aware of another potential This application has been development in Ockley of 50 houses and assessed on its own merits together with this proposal for Coles Lane of and found unacceptable in 60 houses could result in an increase of nearly principle. 300 houses in two small rural villages. This not acceptable and is not in the spirit in which Ockley has supported the draft FMV plan. Ockley Parish Council is not, per se, averse to The scale of the proposal is development in Coles Lane. In fact, when considered harmful to the consulted by MV on potential sites for rural character of the area. development, we did in fact propose a smaller site off Coles Lane adjacent to the Village Greens shop (which was subsequently not accepted by MV due to it not being close enough to the village centre). However, in relation to this proposed development, it is the large scale that concerns us. The proposal should be considered in the Roads, health and overall strategic context of the south Mole education are matters for Valley area and take into account the lack of SCC, however, the adequate road infrastructure, services and application would be CIL facilities liable so contributions would be made towards local services. Coles Lane is a narrow road used as a rat-run The scheme has been for commuters from the Cranleigh area to found acceptable in terms Gatwick and is therefore very busy with fast of residual impact on the moving traffic at certain times of the day. The wider road network. junction onto the A24 is dangerous and there are times when there are queues along Coles Lane waiting to exit onto or over the A24. The fact that this development of potentially 60 houses is very close to the A24 junction would, we believe, exacerbate this problem and could pose an additional risk of a serious accident. We are also very concerned at the proposal to The scheme is considered build a footpath for pedestrians to cross the unacceptable in terms of A24 to visit Capel. The A24 is a high speed highways safety in part due dual carriageway with vehicles often travelling to the absence of a safe at more than 70mph as they pass the Coles pedestrian or cycle Lane crossing. It is inconceivable that crossing at the A24 pedestrians should be encouraged to cross junction. that road, particularly with children. The housing mix envisaged in the proposal is The emerging Local Plan not in line with the mix identified as being (Future Mole Valley) carries required in the FMV, particularly that there are very little weight at this no onebedroomed units and the four stage. bedroomed units represent some 26% of the total compared with the 9% considered appropriate in the FMV. The survey that we were hoping to have completed by now would have informed on the up-dated demand but our feeling is that there should be no more than ten 4-bedroomed houses and perhaps sixteen 2- bedroomed units. We agree that the site is probably not suitable to one bedroomed units as it is essentially designed for families. The FMV envisages that at least 70% of the The scheme is considered affordable housing will be for rent. As far as we capable of policy can see there is no reference to tenure in the compliance with regard to proposal, nor how the ownership of any Affordable Housing, subject houses that may be for rent will be organised to a reserved matters in line with the FMV Affordable homes strategy application. (which we understand has been finalised). We think that a significant proportion of houses built in the village should be held in perpetuity for rent to local people.

7. Main Planning Policies

7.1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) Section 5: Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Section 11: Making effective use of land Section 12: Achieving well-designed places Section 13: Protecting Green Belt land Section 14: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 16: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

7.2. Mole Valley Core Strategy (2009) CS1: Where Development will be directed CS2: Housing Provision and Location CS3: Balancing Housing Provision CS4: Affordable Housing CS13: Landscape Character CS14: Townscape, Urban Design and the Historic Environment CS15: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation CS16: Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities CS18: Transport Options and Accessibility CS19: Sustainable Construction, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation CS20: Flood Risk Management

7.3. Mole Valley Local Plan – Saved Policies (2012) ENV3: Development in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt ENV4: Landscape Character ENV12: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance ENV22: General Development Control Criteria ENV23: Respect for setting ENV24: Density of Development and Space About Buildings ENV25: Landscape Design of New Developments ENV50: Unidentified Archaeological Sites ENV67: Groundwater Quality ENV69: Contaminated Land MOV2: The Movement Implications of Development MOV5: Parking Standards MOV15: Provision for Cyclists in Development Proposals

7.4. Other documents MVDC Affordable Housing SPD (2018) Affordable Housing SPD Addendum - June 2019 MVDC Landscape SPD (2013): Wooded Landscape Character Area National Design Guide (2019) SCC Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance (2018)

8. Main Planning Issues

8.1. The main planning issues for consideration are: • Housing supply and location • Impact on the character of the surrounding rural area • Impact on the Site of Archaeological Potential • Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties and future occupiers • Highways, parking and refuse • Ecology and trees including Ancient Woodland • Open space, sports and recreation facilities • Sustainable construction • Drainage, flood risk and contaminated land • Affordable housing • CIL • Planning balance

8.2. Housing supply and location

8.2.1. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that, in terms of the decision-making process, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, and, where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless: i. ‘the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance [habitats or designated sites including land designated as Green Belt]; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.’

Paragraph 118 states: ‘Planning policies and decisions should: […] d.) promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively’.

Core Strategy policy CS1, Where Development will be Directed (A Spatial Strategy), states that: 1. ‘New development will be directed towards previously developed land within the built-up areas of , Dorking (including North Holmwood), , Bookham and . These settlements have been identified as the most sustainable locations within the District in terms of the level of community services and facilities available, access to public transport and supporting infrastructure. 2. Limited development (including redevelopment) and infilling will take place on previously developed land within the identified larger rural villages and infilling only on previously developed land within the small rural villages of the District. 3. In the countryside, development will be considered in the light of other policies within the Core Strategy and the provisions of PPG2 'Green Belts', PPS7 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas' and Policy C4 'Landscape and Countryside Management' of the South East Plan. [The national and regional policy guidance has been replaced by the NPPF] 4. The Council will review the existing Green Belt boundary through the Land Allocations Development Plan Document to ensure that there is sufficient land available to meet development requirements throughout the Plan period.’

Core Strategy policy CS2, Housing Provision and Location, states: ‘The Council will make provision for at least 3,760 net dwellings within the District between the period 2006 and 2026 […] The Council's indicative Housing Trajectory shows that the District's housing requirement can be met without the need to use Green Belt / greenfield land until around 2016-2017.’

Core Strategy policy CS3, Balancing Housing Provision, encourages the provision of 2 and 3 bedroomed units.

Local Plan Policy ENV3 advises the following: ‘Development within the Countryside beyond the Green Belt will only be acceptable for the reasonable needs of agriculture, and forestry or comprises essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, mineral extraction and waste disposal. Small scale development to diversify the rural economy may be permitted under Polices RUD17 and RUD19. Other development in the Countryside beyond the Green Belt including the extension and replacement of dwellings, the extension and redevelopment of industrial and commercial premises and other development appropriate to the countryside may be acceptable provided the relevant policies in the plan are satisfied.’

8.2.2. The site lies in a rural area within the Parish of Capel, outside any village boundary, and would not, therefore, comply with policy CS1. However, as the site lies within Countryside beyond the Green Belt, it would also need to be assessed under Local Plan policy ENV3.

The proposal does not comprise any of the specified types of acceptable development set out in policy ENV3. The only other permissible form of development in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt under policy ENV3 would be ‘other development appropriate to the countryside [..] provided the relevant policies in the plan are satisfied’.

By reason that the site has not been allocated for residential development within the Development Plan, and does not comprise a form of development acceptable under policy ENV3, the proposed scheme of up to 60 dwellings, with all matters reserved except for access, is not acceptable in principle.

8.2.3. In terms of accessibility, the site lies between Ockley and Capel, in close proximity to Ockley rail station at approx. 200m and the local amenites of Capel to the east, including an infant school at a distance of approx. 1.5km, together with a GP practice, church and a village store, while to the west, in Ockley, there are two pubs at a distance of approx 2.4km, (see Figure 6 below).

Figure 6. Local facilities plan from submitted Transport Assessment

It is not considered feasible to travel to the amenities in Capel by foot due to the lack of a safe pedestrian crossing over the A24 dual carriageway, which has a speed limit of 70mph. While, there is currently no footpath along Coles Lane, (which has a speed limit of 40mph at this section), between the site and Station Approach, which does have a footpath, the scheme would include a new footpath to provide a safe walking route from the site to Ockley rail station. The lack of street lighting also exacerbates this issue. This is further assessed in Section 7.6 below, however, Figure 7 and Figure 8 below show part of the existing situation.

Figure 7. Photo of existing pedestrian crossing point on A24 from submitted Transport Assessment (Google Maps)

Figure 8. Photo of existing cycle crossing point on A24 from submitted Transport Assessment (Google Maps)

The nearest bus stops are located on The Street at a distance of approx 1km, however, to reach these bus stops on foot would involve crossing the A24. The bus services include a daily service between Horsham and Dorking as shown in Table 2 under the section on Highways below.

8.2.4. In assessing the benefits in terms of Housing Land Supply, the proposals would contribute a net increase of up to 60no. new residential units to the housing market and the district’s wider housing supply, including 24no. affordable housing units, which attracts significant weight. However, for the reasons above, it is not considered that the nearby local amenities are accessible other than by car due to highway safety issues for pedestrians. The addition of up to 60no. new dwellings would be unlikely to result in increased footfall for the local amenities, contrary to the social and economic role of sustainable development, the goal of which underpins the NPPF. While the site lies in proximity to sustainable transport modes, including bus and train services, the site is not considered to be sustainable since a private car would be required to access these services.

8.2.5. While the current application is in outline only with the detailed housing design and layout for reserved matters, an indication of the quantum of each housing type proposed, as per the submitted Planning Statement is shown in Table 1 below:

Quantum Unit type Market Affordable 2 bed 2 8 3 bed 18 16 4 bed 16 0 TOTAL 60 Table 1. Indicative housing mix

Given the large percentage of 2 and 3 bedroomed units (73%), the indicative housing mix would be considered to comply with policy CS3 in principle.

8.2.6. The Council can currently only demonstrate 3 years of Housing Land Supply and as such, the policies in the Development Plan relating to housing land supply are to be regarded as out of date. As such, the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 11, the ‘tilted balance’, is engaged in this case unless the application of policy [that is contained within the NPPF] provides a clear reason for refusal.

The submitted Planning Statement refers to an appeal decision dated 24.01.20, ref. APP/G2815/W/19/3232099, for the erection of 4no. dwellings in a rural area of East Northamptonshire. The Inspector found that conflict with Development Plan policy 11, which is consistent with the NPPF, was the only adverse impact of the proposal; that the site was ‘very well connected to several facilities in the town centre [of Thrapston]’ and ‘a rigorous application of Policy 11 […] would frustrate attempts to address the Council’s current housing deficit’.

While the parallels between the above-mentioned scheme and the current application are acknowledged, in this case, the proposal conflicts with several Development Plan policies, namely Core Strategy policy CS18 and Local plan policy MOV2, and is not considered ‘well connected’ to local facilities, other than to Ockley rail station, by virtue of the proposed footpath along Coles Lane. In terms of the nearby local amenities within Capel, including the bus service, these are not considered accessible due to Highway safety concerns primarily relating to the absence of a safe crossing over the A24. Therefore, the above-referenced appeal decision is not applicable in this case.

8.2.7. In terms of the principle of residential development at this site, while the scheme would comply with policy CS3, it would not comply with policies CS1 or ENV3 and is, therefore, considered unacceptable in principle.

While the ‘tilted balance’ is engaged in this case, it is considered that the conflict with Core Strategy policies CS14 and CS18, Local plan policies ENV3, ENV4, ENV22, ENV23 and MOV2 and paragraphs 109 and 170 of the NPPF provide clear reasons for refusal. The contribution of up to 60no. new dwellings to the housing land supply, including 24no. on-site affordable housing units (40%), attracts significant weight. However, the adverse impact of the scheme in terms of highway safety is also considered significant. Accordingly, on balance, the benefits in this case fail to outweigh the harm resulting from the development and, in line with NPPF paragraph 11 (i), permission should not be granted.

For these reasons, following the application of relevant national and local policy, the proposed residential development is not considered acceptable in principle.

8.3. Impact on the character of the surrounding rural area

8.3.1. Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) ‘will function well and add to the overall quality of an area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks’

At paragraph 130 of the NPPF, it is stated that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents.

Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states: ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: f) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes g) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital’

Core Strategy policy CS14, Townscape, Urban Design and the Historic Environment, states that: 1) ‘All new development must respect and enhance the character of the area in which it is proposed whilst making the best possible use of the land available. This will be assisted through the work on Built-Up Area Character Appraisals. 2) The Council will resist development of a poor quality of design and will expect to see sufficient detail set out in the Design and Access Statements, where required, to enable planning applications to be properly determined. 3) Development must incorporate appropriate landscaping with particular attention to the use of trees and hedges native to the locality.’

Local Plan Policy ENV3, Development in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt, states: ‘Other development in the Countryside beyond the Green Belt including the extension and replacement of dwellings, the extension and redevelopment of industrial and commercial premises and other development appropriate to the countryside may be acceptable provided the relevant policies in the plan are satisfied.’

Local Plan policy ENV4, Landscape Character, states: • The Council will seek to ensure that development proposals and forestry schemes in the countryside and rural settlements conserve and will not detract from the character of the local landscape. • In determining planning applications account will be taken of the visual impact of the proposed development on the landscape, the extent to which the impact of new buildings has been softened and integrated in to the landscape by careful consideration of siting, design, colour and associated planting and whether any existing landscape features such as trees and hedgerows should be retained.

Local Plan policy ENV22, General Development Control Criteria, states: • Development should be appropriate to the site in terms of its scale, form and appearance. • Development should respect the character and appearance of the locality.

Local Plan policy ENV23, Respect for Setting, requires that: Development should take account of: • The scale, character, bulk and proportions and materials of the surrounding built environment, and that it should not constitute overdevelopment of the site by reason of scale, height or bulk or in relation to the boundaries of the site and/or surrounding developments • Opportunities will be sought to create attractive new views or vistas. • Townscape features such as street patterns, familiar landmark buildings, and the space about buildings • The impact of the development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt on the rural amenities of the Green Belt by reason of its siting, materials or design • The impact on the landscape of the proposed siting and appearance of new agricultural buildings or works or any other appropriate/ exceptional development in the countryside • Development should have regard to established townscape features, including the space around buildings

Local Plan policy ENV24, Density of Development and the Space about Buildings, advises that: ‘Development will not be permitted where it would result in a cramped appearance having regard to the general spacing around buildings in the locality.’

Local Plan policy ENV25, Landscape design of new developments, states: ‘Proposals for development should demonstrate that particular care has been taken in the provision, use and design of spaces between buildings and that the hard and soft landscape design is suitable for the site and form of development. Sufficient space should be allowed to enable existing trees of significant public amenity value to be retained.’

The site lies within the Wooded Weald Landscape Character Area, which is defined as having the following key characteristics: • ‘Woodlands are large and include substantial areas of forestry, they are sinuous and winding, extending out in long shaws and along ghylls. • Farmed land occurs predominantly as small grazed areas enclosed by woodland. • Small, irregular shaped fields are divided by tall hedgerows or shaws. • Narrow winding lanes are enclosed by tall hedgerows or hedge banks • Distinctive villages are centred on greens or commons. • Rivers wind their way through the area in deep, inaccessible wooded ghylls. • and the North Downs provide an important backdrop.’

8.3.2. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, dated September 2019, states that: • ‘The overall weighted assessment of landscape sensitivity has been assessed as high. • The magnitude of landscape impacts has been assessed as medium as there is likely to be an alteration to the site’s baseline characteristics, with the loss of the Coles Lane, Ockley Landscape and existing grassland, whilst part of this will be retained within the scheme. • The retention of the other key landscape features along the site boundaries, including the woodland, and the existing trees within the site will reduce the magnitude of change. • The introduction of new residential development may be prominent by virtue of the density, but is not considered to be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape, and when considering the residential dwellings spread throughout the sylvan landscape to the west of the railway. The proposals are considered to be out of scale and at odds with the local landscape pattern. • The overall landscape character effect is therefore assessed as major/ moderate. • In terms of visual amenity the site is visually enclosed from all views that are not immediately adjacent the site, such as along Cole’s Lane and from the adjacent property North Lodge. • Due to the sylvan nature of the local landscape views from the landscape designations are unlikely, including the Surrey Hills AONB, AGLV and Capel and Ockley Conservation Areas. • Following the implementation of the landscape strategy and mitigation planting, minor residual visual effects of the proposed development will only remain for the road users along Cole’s Lane.’

8.3.3. In terms of the rural character of the surrounding area, the application site is set in a countryside location, predominantly surrounded by woodland, to the west, south and east, with an agricultural field beyond Coles Lane to the north. The site is bounded by Coles Lane along its north boundary and a railway embankment adjacent to its west boundary.

8.3.4. The site is substantially screened from public view by existing mature trees and vegetation, although glimpses of the site are available from the existing field gate, (see Figure 9 below).

Figure 9. Photo of existing field gate (left) on southern side of Coles Lane (Google Street View)

8.3.5. The current application is in outline for consideration of access only. The design and appearance of the proposed max. 60no. new dwellings, together with the layout and landscaping, are reserved matters, however, an Illustrative site layout (see Figure 10 below) and a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) have been submitted to support this application.

The indicative layout would focus the new residential development predominantly to the south of the proposed swale with three clusters to the north of the swale. The majority of existing trees are proposed for retention, forming open space, and there would be a 15m buffer to the Ancient Woodland along the southern sections of the east and west boundaries and along the south boundary. The indicative drawings show that the majority of the existing screening provided by trees along the boundaries would be retained, while some additional trees would be planted to increase screening along the north-east boundary adjacent to North Lodge.

Figure 10. Illustrative site layout

8.3.6. While the detailed design of the proposed new housing and the landscaping strategy are reserved matters, the proposed dwelling types would be terraced, semi-detached and detached, two-storey houses, with detached single storey single and double garages, (see Figure 11 below). The indicative appearance is described as: • ‘The key materials will be locally sourced bricks, tile hanging, timber farmed gables and contrasting bricks used for details such as window headers or cills. • Roofs will be a variety of gable ended or hipped, with plain red/ orange tiles. • Garages and ancillary buildings will be brick. • Boundary treatments will include native species hedgerows and post & rail timber fencing. 1.8m high timber close boarded fences to rear gardens will be limited to back-to-back gardens where possible.’

Figure 11. Illustrative horizontal section from west (top left) to east (bottom right) across southern portion of site, showing 15m buffers to Ancient woodland at far west and far east

In terms of the indicative appearance of the proposed dwellings, this would be in keeping with the scale and materials of the residential properties in the vicinity of the site.

8.3.7. In terms of the indicative density, the development would, as set out in the submitted Design and Access Statement, give rise to a ‘density of 16.2 dwellings per hectare [gross] based on a developable area of 3.7ha..’, (which is the extent of the whole application site).

Given the outline nature of the current proposal, the issue of proposed density can only be assessed at this stage in terms of the overall impact of the development on the character of the rural area, subject to reserved matters. However, the illustrative plans would suggest that sufficient space around the buildings could be achieved and a substantial amount of open space could be incorporated to ensure that the outline proposal would not result in overdevelopment of the site and would be in keeping with that of nearby settlements along Weare Street to the south-west or Grenehurst Park to the south of the site.

8.3.8. The Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) lie to the west of the site at an approx. distance of 1,630m. As such, these areas are unlikely to be significantly harmed by the proposal. However, the application site and its immediate environs are characterised by open countryside and woodland, devoid of buildings (with the exception of North Lodge and The Gardens) in the area to the south of Coles Lane, east of the railway line and west of Capel village, (see Figure 12).

Figure 12. Aerial photo (Google Maps) with yellow outline showing vicinity of application site (marked by red arrow) characterised by absence of buildings, open countryside and woodland

It is acknowledged that the site does not lie within the Green Belt, the AONB or an AGLV, and that the majority of existing mature trees and vegetation would be retained which would predominantly screen the development from public view. However, the site does lie within a countryside location characterised by large woodlands and includes substantial areas of forestry and small grazed areas enclosed by woodland. It is, therefore, considered that a residential development of this scale would erode the existing gap between the smaller rural village of Capel to the east and the smaller settlements at Weare Street to the south-west and Grenehurst to the south. As such, the scheme would be considered to result in unacceptable harm to the rural character of the area and would fail to protect and enhance this valued landscape or recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

8.3.9. The outline application does not include external lighting. This would be considered under reserved matters in relation to the impact on the character of the surrounding area, neighbouring amenity and on ecology.

8.3.10. For these reasons, the outline proposal for up to 60no. new dwellings in this greenfield site is considered to result in unacceptable harm to the rural character of the wider area, eroding the distinctive gap between the existing rural settlements and failing to protect the countryside. Therefore, the scheme conflicts with paragraph 170 of the NPPF, policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy and policies ENV3, ENV4, ENV22 and ENV23 of the Mole Valley Local Plan.

8.4. Impact on the Site of Archaeological Potential

8.4.1. Local Plan policies ENV49, Areas of High Archaeological Potential, and ENV50, Unidentified Archaeological Sites, are relevant here.

8.4.2. The application site lies at a distance of approx. 800m to the nearest Site of Archaeological Potential, however, the site measures almost 4ha. and as such, an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, dated January 2020, has been submitted, which notes that: • ‘The site is considered likely to have a generally low archaeological potential. • Due to the size of the site, its green field location and the lack of any intrusive archaeological works either on the site or within its immediate vicinity the archaeological officers at Surrey County Council are likely to request some pre-determination survey. • The recommendation would be for a geophysical survey of the site followed by trial trenching with some of the trenches targeted on magnetic anomalies if any are recorded. On the basis of the available information there is no archaeological constraint to development.’

8.4.3. SCC Archaeology has been consulted and has commented as follows: • ‘I would recommend that the geophysical survey and the evaluation be undertaken and the results of it submitted before determination of any Reserved Matters application and that a condition of any Outline planning permission would be that any subsequent Reserved Matters application be accompanied by this supporting archaeological information.’

8.4.4. The site does not contain any designated archaeological assets, however, there is potential for archaeological assets to be present on site. The applicant has submitted an initial assessment of the archaeological value of the site as part of this planning application. The recommendation of the SCC Archaeology Officer and the submitted Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, dated January 2020, is for further surveys and evaluation to be undertaken prior to development.

For the reasons above, the current outline application is considered acceptable, subject to conditions, in terms of its impact on potential archaeological assets and to comply in principle with Local Plan policies ENV49 and ENV50 and the NPPF.

8.5. Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties and future occupiers

8.5.1. Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.’

Local Plan policy ENV22, General Development Control Criteria, states: • The proposal should not significantly harm the amenities of neighbouring occupiers by reason of overlooking or its overshadowing or overpowering effect. • Development should provide a satisfactory environment for occupiers of the new development.

8.5.2. The submitted Environmental Noise Assessment, dated 4 March 2020, states: • ‘The assessment indicates that a typical façade design will achieve the required noise levels and therefore no specific consideration to the proposed design would be required. • Suitable ventilation options have been suggested and sufficient ventilation should be incorporated to allow windows to remain closed. • Detailed calculations can be undertaken following finalisation of the Proposed Development layout, should they be required.’

8.5.3. MVDC Environmental Health has been consulted on this application and the officer was originally concerned about the elevated noise climate substantially in excess of habitable room stands with windows open.

In response to the Council’s concerns, the applicant submitted a Technical Note – Identification of Mitigation Requirements, dated 27.7.20, which notes: • ‘measures will be employed at façades overlooking Coles Lane and the Sutton & Mole Valley railway line [including] noise-sensitive rooms (bedrooms, living rooms and dining areas) would either be situated away from the identified façades or will employ sufficient ventilation to achieve the required façade reduction with closed windows. • 2m high fence [solid close-boarded timber panels ] would be required at a single amenity location, at the north-east perimeter of the site overlooking Coles Lane. • All other garden areas will achieve suitable levels with fencing at a height of 1.8m.’

For the reasons above, the Environmental Health Officer is now satisfied that sufficient details have been provided on which to formulate a detailed scheme of protection for any scheme submitted in the future for the internal bedrooms and other habitable rooms.

This aspect of the scheme is, therefore, considered capable of policy compliance, subject to a relevant condition, should the council be minded to approve the application.

8.5.4. The closest neighbouring residential properties include Wickney Holt at 65m to the east of the site, beyond the railway line; Birchacre and Roseacre, at over 56m from the site, beyond the railway line, to the south-west; and North Lodge, at 36m from the north-east corner of the site.

8.5.5. Given that Wickney Holt, Birchacre and Roseacre are separated from the application site by the railway embankment and a swathe of woodland, no unacceptable impact would result in respect of the neighbouring amenity of the occupants of these properties.

The north-east corner of the site abuts the curtilage of North Lodge, and the nearest proposed built form to the neighbouring dwelling would be at single storey double garage, sited at a separation distance of approx. 52m. The existing screening along this boundary provided by mature trees would be augmented by additional native tree and hedgerow planting, as stated in the submitted Landscape Masterplan. As such, no undue impact would arise in respect of the neighbouring amenity of the occupants of North Lodge, subject to the reserved matters application.

8.5.6. In terms of the future occupiers, the detailed design and layout of the proposed dwellings is subject to a reserved matters application. However, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised concerns regarding potential high levels of noise from the nearby A24 dual carriageway. In response to this, the applicant has submitted a Technical Note – Identification of Mitigation Requirements, dated 27.7.20, which does not identify noise from the A24 but does set out mitigation for unacceptable noise levels from the railway line and Coles Lane by means of ventilation and cooling such that opening the windows of the affected dwellings would not be required. The Environmental Health Department is now satisfied with the noise mitigation measures. As such, it is considered that the scheme is capable of policy compliance in this regard.

8.5.7. For these reasons, the outline proposal would accord with Local Plan policy ENV22 and paragraph 127 of the NPPF.

8.6. Highways, parking and refuse

8.6.1. Core Strategy Policy CS18, Transport Options and Accessibility, states: ‘The availability of travel options and access will be given significant weight in allocating land for development and in considering development proposals.’

Local Plan policy MOV2 seeks to ensure that new development makes appropriate provision for off-street vehicular parking, servicing and vehicular access and egress and movement within development sites as well as for pedestrians and cyclists.

Local Plan policy MOV5 requires development proposals make appropriate provision for the parking of cars whilst policy MOV15 encourages new developments to provide for the needs of cyclists including the provision of secure cycle parking facilities.

In paragraph 109 of the NPPF, it is advised that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

8.6.2. SCC Highways have been consulted and recommend the proposal be refused on the grounds that: 1) ‘The lack of suitable pedestrian facilities for the proposed development could potentially cause danger and inconvenience to pedestrians and other highway users, which would be contrary to the objectives of the NPPF (2019), policy MOV2 of the Mole Valley Local Plan, and objective 3 of the Surrey Transport Plan 2011-2026 'To improve road safety and the security of the travelling public in Surrey'. 2) The site is located in a very unsustainable location, without suitable access to footways, and where the only realistic means of transport would be the private car, due to the remote location from some forms of public transport, and services. This is contrary to the aims of the NPPF (2019).’ SCC Highways further comment: • ‘The site is located very close to Ockley Train Station, but safe and suitable pedestrian facilities have not been provided to access this. The proposed plans show a new section of footway, and an informal crossing point with tactile paving on one side of the road. This would lead pedestrians directly into the road, with no footway to connect to on the other side of the road, until they are further up Station Approach. This could potentially be very dangerous with pedestrians stepping out into the road, while vehicles are entering and exiting the station junction. • Further, pedestrian improvements are proposed on the A24, Capel By-Pass. This road is subject to a speed limit of 70mph, so the Highway Authority would not want to encourage any pedestrians from the development to use this unsafe crossing point. A push button facility would be required here, but it is not clear if that is even possible. It is highly unlikely that any pedestrian would risk their life to cross this road, to access some basic facilities. This therefore makes the site unsustainable and isolated. • Currently, the nearest bus stops to the site are located approximately 1000m from the site. The Highway Authority enquired whether a new bus stop could be provided closer to the site. The Transport Assessment shows a new location 800m from the site. This walking distance is unacceptable for a new development of this size. It is highly unlikely that any resident of the site would walk this distance on unlit paths, and over a 70mph road to access the bus stops. The document by CHIT ‘Buses in Urban Developments 2018’ states that a 400m distance dates from a time when bus use was less challenged by competition from the private car, and it is not consistent with the goal of shifting mode share from car to bus. The table in this states that for new developments on a less frequent route, 300 metres walking distances should be applied. The 800m proposed is clearly well above this, and cannot be considered as a suitable mitigation measure for the new development. • The Highway Authority cannot comment on the highway improvement works that are proposed without a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit being undertaken at this stage.’

8.6.3. The submitted Travel Statement, dated 22 January 2020, notes: • A Travel Statement rather than a Travel Plan is recommended by Surrey County Council’s ‘Good Practice Guide for Developers’ (July 2018) for developments of 50-80 residential units. • There is a lit footway along northbound carriageway of Station Approach. • There is a pedestrian crossing at A24/Coles Lane junction and dedicated cycle crossing point. • There is a primary school at 3.5km distance; GP practice at 900m; public house at 1.4km; farm shop at 900m; and newsagent at 1.1km. • ‘a range of amenities are located within close proximity of the development site ensuring that these trip attractors can be accessed by modes other than the private car, thereby reflecting fundamental requirements of national, regional and local planning policy for creating sustainable communities’. • ‘the site benefits from good frequent bus access to Dorking, Horsham and , which are the 3 closest towns to the development site, with Dorking and Horsham also having railway stations, which provide direct connections into .’ (see Table 2 below). • ‘The nearest railway station to the site is Ockley, located 220m to the north of the site, this being approximately a 3-minute walk. The station is served by Southern Rail, with direct services to destinations including London Victoria, Sutton, Horsham and Clapham Junction.’ (See Table 3 below). • ‘Coles Lane (B2126) is a single-carriageway, two-way road which is subject to a 40-mph speed restriction. This road provides direct access to the A24 which provides a direct route into London northbound. [and..] into Horsham southbound’. • ‘Coles Lane does not have parking restrictions in place.’ • ‘It can therefore be concluded that in terms of transport the site is sustainable.’

Weekday Bus Peak Hour Frequency Route Services No. Weekday Saturday Sunday First Last Laundry Way Northbound 93 Horsham - Dorking 1-2 per hour 1 per 5 per 06:00 19:14 hour day 522 Newdigate - Dorking 1 on Wednesdays None None 09:44 09:44 only 772 Brighton – 1 on Tuesday and None None 14:50 14:50 Broadbridge Heath – 1 on Thursday only Capel - Dorking Laundry Way Southbound 93 Dorking-Horsham 1-2 per hour 1 per 5 per 08:04 20:19 hour day 522 Dorking - Newdigate 1 on Wednesdays None None 12:54 12:54 only 772 Dorking – Capel – 1 on Tuesday and None None 09:10 09:10 Broadbridge Heath - 1 on Thursday only Brighton Table 2. Nearest bus services, from The Street, Capel

Peak Hour Frequency Approx. Journey Direct Service Destination Weekday Saturday Sunday Times Ockley London Victoria 1 per hour 1 per hour None 1 hour 9 mins 1-2 per Sutton 1 per hour None 37 minutes hour 1-2 per Horsham 1 per hour None 10-12 minutes hour Clapham Junction 1 per hour 1 per hour None 59 minutes Table 3. Rail services from Ockley station

8.6.4. The submitted Transport Assessment, dated 30 October 2019, notes: • A pre-application meeting took place in October 2019 between the applicants’ transport consultants and SCC Highways who raised concerns regarding lack of footways/street lighting/pedestrian route to Capel; distance to bus stops too great; visibility splays; parking provision • Acceptable walking distance for commuting/school outside town centres recommended by the Chartered Institue of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) is 1km and 5km for cycling • The proposal would generate 301 two-way vehicle trips across the whole day, in and out of the site, (see Table 4 below). • No junction capacity modelling has been undertaken • Mitigation measures include: o 1.2m wide footway between the site and the existing pedestrian infrastructure in Capel on Coles Lane which links to Footpath 201 (between Bennetts Wood and Cartedale Cottages). o Provision of dropped kerbs and tactile paving across any junction along the route. o The identification and provision of a new bus stop on The Street, Capel at 800m from site.

Weekday AM Peak Weekday PM Peak Daily Flows

(08:00-09:00) (17:00-18:00) (in and out) No. movements for 60no. residential 31 33 301 units Table 4. Proposed Trip Generation

Figure 13. Plan (top) showing new footway on southern side of Coles Lane opposite Station Approach and plan (bottom) showing renewal of existing footway (purple) at junction with A24 (right of plan) and new section of footway and road narrowing/priority island on northern side of Coles Lane to west of field access opposite North Lodge

Figure 14. Plan of Coles Lane from Station Approach (top left) to junction with A24 (right) for comparision with Figure 13. above; orange arrow showing approx. location of proposed new footway/priority island; yellow arrow showing approx. location of new footway opposite Station Approach

Figure 15. Extract of SCC interactive map showing existing public footpaths in yellow, including FP162a (left), FP188 (bottom right) and FP203 (top right)

8.6.5. The application site is located between the villages of Ockley and Capel, in close proximity to Ockley rail station at approx. 200m and the local amenites of Capel to the east, including an infant school at a distance of approx. 1.5km, together with a GP practice, church and a village store, while to the west, in Ockley, there are two pubs at a distance of approx 2.4km. The nearest bus stops are currently 1km away in Capel.

8.6.6. The scheme would include measures to enable pedestrians to walk from the site to Ockley rail station, although no street lighting has been proposed and the rail service is limited. While the site lies in proximity to the local amenities in Capel, including the nursery and infant school, there is currently no safe pedestrian or cycle crossing at the Coles Lane/A24 junction. Despite the proposed footway improvements at this junction, it is not considered safe for pedestrians to cross the A24 in the absence of a controlled crossing due to the 70mph speed restriction at this section. It is acknowledged that the proposal includes relocating the bus stops to a distance of 800m from the site, however, the bus service is limited, the pedestrian route to the bus stop would require crossing the A24 and this distance would be substantially in excess of the 400m max. distance advised by SCC Highways.

For these reasons, while the site is in proximity to public transport and local amenities, the site is not considered sustainable in transport terms due to the lack of a safe crossing for pedestrians or cyclists across the A24 into Capel, safe walking routes to Ockley or a walking route between the site and Ockley rail station with street lighting.

Therefore, the outline proposal for the erection of up to 60no. new dwellings is not considered, in principle, to comply with Core Strategy policy CS18, Local Plan policy MOV2 and paragraph 109 of the NPPF due to the unacceptable impact on highway safety.

8.6.7. The current application is in outline only with all matters reserved except for access. The proposed development comprises 1no. access point to the application site, on the southern side of Coles Lane, as shown in Figure 5 above, which specifies a visibility splay of 2.4m x 74m. The access would be sited approximately in the same location as the existing field gate, as shown in Figure 9 above.

No objections to the proposed new site access point have been received from the Highways Authority on highways safety grounds or in terms of the residual cumulative impact on the road network. As such, the new proposed access point would be considered acceptable.

In regard to the objections received regarding construction traffic, this could be satisfactorily addressed via a Construction Transport Management Plan condition, should the Council be minded to approve the scheme.

8.6.8. The Surrey County Council Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance in relation to the proposal is shown in Table 5 and Table 6 below:

SCC Guidance Village/ rural Car Parking Cycle Parking Fast charge socket* location 1 & 2 bed 1.5 houses 1 fast charge socket 3 bed 2 plus No requirement for houses per house 4 or more 2 plus with garages or gardens bed Visitor No No requirement spaces requirement *Charge point specification of 7kw Mode 3 with Type 2 Connector and a 230v AC 32 Amp Single Phase dedicated supply for electric vehicles Table 5 – Surrey CC Guidance on Parking Provision

Unit type Market Car Parking 2 bed 10 15 3 bed 34 68 4 bed 16 32 TOTAL 60 115 Table 6. Recommended Parking Provision for Proposal

The submitted Transport Assessment states that: • the likely car ownership for the 60 dwellings is likely to be 113 vehicles • The intention is that every dwelling will be provided with a fast charge socket for electric vehicles • cycle parking will be within the demise of any garage or garden and will be confirmed at the appropriate reserved matters application stage

Parking and EV charging provision are reserved matters and it is considered that this issue could be satisfactorily addressed by condition at the reserved matters stage.

8.6.9. Joint Waste Solutions has been consulted and has no objections.

8.6.10. Details of internal and external bin storage relating to the proposed new dwellings, together with the spur roads leading from the new site access are reserved matters. However, drawing no. 19237-01-001, Rev.A, Proposed Access, which includes a swept path analysis for a refuse vehicle, shows that the new access from Coles Lane would have a total width of 5m and would be acceptable at this stage.

8.6.11. For the reasons above, the scheme is considered capable of policy compliance with regard to car and cycle parking, electric vehicle charging, proposed residual impact on the highway in terms of projected vehicular trip generation and refuse vehicle access. However, the principle of the addition of up to 60no. new dwellings at this greenfield site is not acceptable in terms of highways safety since the site is not in a sustainable location due to the separation from Capel village by the A24 at a section that has two-way dual carriageways with a 70mph speed limit, the lack of an adequate proposal to provide safe, lit walking routes to Ockley rail station or the bus stops and local amenities in Capel. The scheme is, therefore, contrary to Core Strategy policy CS18, Local Plan policy MOV2 and paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

8.7. Ecology and Trees, including Ancient Woodland

8.7.1. The NPPF states: • Para.170. ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by; minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures’ • Para.175. ‘‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.’ • Para.180. states that planning policies and decisions should ‘limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on […] dark landscapes and nature conservation’.

Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS15, Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, states: ‘All water course, mature hedges and trees within development sites should be, as far as practicable, retained. Only where no realistic alternatives are available or replacement of such features elsewhere in the site would result in biodiversity enhancements above what already exists, will removal of such features be permitted. In these cases the replacement will be expected to result in biodiversity enhancements to what previously existed and where possible should seek to contribute to a network of green infrastructure and the objectives of the Surrey Biodiversity Action Plan. Planting and other schemes that promote biodiversity will be expected as part of all development schemes, focussing on native species from the locality and particularly trees, a key feature of the environment across Surrey.’

Core Strategy policy CS16, Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities, states: 5. ‘All development, except for the most minor, will be expected to contribute to the continued greening of the Districts towns and villages and the provision of, or connections to, the network of green infrastructure e.g. through the use of landscaping, retention of important mature trees, hedges, use of some forms of SUDs for example.’

Local Plan policy ENV12, Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, states: • Development and land use change likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Nature Conservation Importance identified on the Proposals Map will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there are reasons for the proposal which outweigh the need to safeguard the nature conservation value of the site. In all cases where development or land use change is permitted which would damage the nature conservation value of the site, such damage will be kept to a minimum. • Where appropriate, the Council will consider the use of conditions and/or planning obligations to provide appropriate suitable measures. • In considering development proposals and land use change that are likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of a potential Site of Nature Conservation Importance identified on the Proposals Map, the Council will consult and have regard to the views of the Surrey Wildlife Trust on the impact of the proposal and any nature conservation value of the site.

Local Plan policy ENV15, Species Protection, states: ‘Where it is evident that a proposed development would be likely to result in harm to a protected species or its habitat, a thorough site investigation will be necessary by the applicant and the relevant nature conservation bodies will be consulted. Development that would materially harm a protected species or its habitat will not be permitted.’

8.7.2. An Interim Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA), dated 18 February 2020 has been submitted which notes: • ‘The following Phase two surveys are yet to be completed: • Bat activity surveys (transect and automated detectors) in Spring and Summer 2020; • Tree climbing/ endoscope inspections of trees with potential bat roosting features; • Invertebrate scoping assessment; • eDNA sampling of offsite pond for great crested newts; and • Reptile presence/ likely absence surveys. • Habitats of value on-site include the woodland edge, hedgerow with trees, scattered trees, semi improved grassland and wet ditch. The proposed development will result in the loss of much of the grassland and a short section of the northern boundary hedgerow. • Key mitigation measures, which have been embedded within the proposed layout include: • Retention of the majority of the trees onsite with suitable RPA’s in areas of open space, except for four trees, which will be removed to create the new access off Coles Lane; • Retention of the wet ditch, which will be incorporated into a swale; • Provision of a 15m ecology buffer to protect the offsite Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site; and • A sensitive lighting scheme to ensure dark corridors for bats are retained around and through the development and that trees with potential roosting features are not illuminated or isolated. • If present on-site, there is capacity to translocate reptiles and great crested newts into the buffer habitats around the development perimeter and the swale. • In order to demonstrate Biodiversity Net Gain, a biodiversity impact calculator should be utilised. Depending on the quality of the grassland on-site (which will be established during the NVC survey) biodiversity offsetting may be required to achieve a net gain.’

A landscape masterplan has been included in the EcIA, as shown in Figure 16 below, which details the following: 1. A 15m buffer to the Ancient Woodland to comprise scrub, trees and rough grassland along the southern boundary and southern sections of the east and west boundaries. 2. New access road; proposed native vegetation and tree planting along entrance to maintain character. 3. Existing ditch retained to create swale with wildflower grassland. 4. Boundary with North Lodge to be supplemented with additional native tree and hedgerow planting. 5. Retained mature trees. 6. Proposed informal play situated within open spaces, with use of wood equipment, play boulders and benches. Wooden fencing where play is situated adjacent to roadway.

Figure 16. Extract of Landscape Masterplan

8.7.3. Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) have been consulted and their comments (in response to the original application) are summarised below: • if the Council is minded to grant outline panning permission, we advise that prior to the submission of any reserved matters application, further surveys are undertaken at the site and the layout of the site takes account of important commuting and foraging areas for Bats. • We advise that prior to determination of the application, the applicant’s ecologist clarifies whether any of the identified trees to be directly impacted have Bat roost suitability. • We advise that compliance with best practice guidance is secured through a Sensitive Lighting Management Plan submitted to the Council for approval prior to commencement of development. • The applicant has not submitted sufficient information relating to Great Crested Newts to the Council in order to inform all relevant material considerations. We therefore advise that prior to determination of the application, the applicant submit the further Great Crested Newt surveys (undertaken by qualified ecological professionals) to the Council for their consideration and works are undertaken in accordance with any recommendations made. This will help ensure European Protected Species Legislation is not contravened. • We would advise that, if the Council is minded to grant planning permission, prior to determination of the application, a more detailed justification for not undertaking Dormouse presence/likely absence surveys is provided. • We advise that prior to determination of the outline application, the applicant should confirm that if Reptile populations are identified, that the translocation areas identified would be suitable to accommodate such populations, taking account of good practice guidance for reptile translocation. • We advise that, should the Council be minded to grant planning permission, the applicant should ensure that construction activities on site have regard to the potential presence of Badger and other mammals to ensure that mammals do not become trapped in trenches, culverts or pipes. • We advise that the Council should ensure that the development does not impact adversely on Veteran trees. We advise that the Council should seek confirmation from the applicant that the development in this location does not have any adverse impact on the Veteran trees and that it allows for appropriate buffers from development, as set out in the above-referenced Standing Advice. • We therefore advise that prior to determination of the outline application, the Council should require the applicant to provide an appropriately detailed document to demonstrate that a measureable net gain, secure for the life time of the development, will be achieved. This document should be submitted to the Council for approval in writing.

8.7.4. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has been consulted and has commented as follows: • ‘There is no sound justification to object to the proposed scheme on tree related grounds. • There are no statutory tree constraints on the land itself although, there is an area of ancient woodland just to the east and the woodlands to the south and east are covered by the Woodland TPO/111/1/B. • The protected woodlands would not be affected and those areas are indicated to be guarded with wide buffer zones. • It is proposed to re-use the existing access which appears to provide reasonable visibility and would only affect some lower Willow shrubs and a Sycamore tree. • If granting consent, a comprehensive tree protection plan, would be required.’

8.7.5. The application site lies in the countryside beyond the Green Belt, on the south side of Coles Lane. The south and east boundaries abut the Ancient Woodland at Cole’s Wood and Peter’s Wood. Weaver’s Wood/Kiln Wood (nr Ockley) Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) lies at a separation distance of 284m to the west of the site. The closest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) at Vann Lake lies at a separation distance of approx. 882m to the south-west of the site.

8.7.6. It is acknowledged that a suite of further surveys are currently being undertaken by the applicant as recommended in the submitted EcIA, however, at the time of writing, no further survey reports have been submitted. As such, insufficient information has been submitted to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on protected species that may be occupying the site. In the absence of such information, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that protected species would not be adversely affected by the proposed development and the scheme is not considered to comply with policy CS15 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy, policy ENV15 of the Mole Valley Local Plan and the NPPF.

8.7.7. While the technical detail of the proposed biodiversity enhancements falls under reserved matters, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal is considered capable of policy compliance in regard to delivering measurable biodiversity net gains despite the recommendation of the submitted EcIA to utilise a Biodiversity Impact Calculator (BIC). In the absence of such information, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that acceptable mitigation would be feasible given the amount of proposed built form and hardstanding to be introduced at this greenfield site, contrary to paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF, Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS15 and Local Plan policy ENV15.

8.7.8. While a Landscape Design Statement, dated 24 Feburary 2020, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), dated September 2019, and Landscape Master plan, dated February 2020, have been submitted, no details have been provided regarding the number of trees to be retained, removed or replaced.

While the technical details relating to trees falls under reserved matters, the proposal is considered acceptable, in principle, in terms of trees and hedgerows, to provide adequate visual screening of the site and to create a 15m buffer to the Ancient Woodland. This would be conditioned at Reserved Matters stage when a comprehensive tree protection plan, would also be required.

8.7.9. Given that the detailed design of the proposed housing layout and landscaping falls under reserved matters, the above material planning considerations cannot be fully assessed until receipt of the technical details application. However, the proposed erection of up to 60no. new dwellings is not at this stage considered capable in principle of policy compliance for the following reasons: • insufficient information has been submitted to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on protected species that may be occupying the site; and • insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal is capable of delivering measurable biodiversity net gains.

As such, the proposed scheme is not considered acceptable and is contrary to paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF, Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS15 and Local Plan policy ENV15

8.8. Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities

8.8.1. Core Strategy policy CS16, Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities, states: 2. To address needs as a result of development: a. developer contributions (in accordance with Policy CS17) will be used to fund improvements to existing sites and facilities in order to allow more intensive use; and b. the provision of appropriate facilities will be required on site as part of any development scheme of around 50 dwellings or more […] 4. The Council will encourage the provision of new open space, sports and recreation facilities’

8.8.2. The Landscape Masterplan states: ‘Proposed informal play situated within open spaces, with use of wood equipment, play boulders and benches. Wooden fencing where play is situated adjacent to roadway.’

8.8.3. The proposal is, in principle, considered to comply with policy CS16 in terms of open space and recreation facilities, subject to a reserved matters application.

8.9. Sustainable construction

8.9.1. Policy CS19, Sustainable Construction, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation, states: 1. In order to support the Core Strategy's overarching aim of achieving sustainable development, and to reduce the causes of and effects of climate change, new buildings and the redevelopment and refurbishment of the existing building stock will be required to: a. minimise energy use through its design, layout and orientation; b. maximise on-site recycling facilities and the re-use and recycling of materials used in construction; c. meet at least Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes for housing, or BREEAM 'Very Good' construction standards for all other development, or higher as dictated by future legislation and guidance (Code Level 4 from 2013 and Code 6 by 2016). This must include a 10% reduction in total carbon emissions through the on-site installation and implementation of decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources. 2. Applicants will be required to submit evidence to demonstrate how these requirements have been met unless it can be demonstrated that compliance is not technically or financially achievable having regard to the type of development involved and its design.

8.9.2. The Sustainable Development Scorecard Analysis, dated March 2020, sets out measures proposed to comply with policy CS19 as follows: ‘Minimise energy use and associated carbon dioxide emissions through its design, layout, landscaping and orientation’.

8.9.3. The Council’s Sustainable Construction Consultant has been consulted on this application and has commented as follows: • ‘I've reviewed the submitted scorecard analysis documents and can see that the applicant states that there is potential for on-site renewable technologies to be installed, however they have not specified how/what these might be at this stage. • If permission is granted more information would be required about their chosen technology and the associated emissions reduction.’

8.9.4. Given that the proposal is in outline only, with the design and layout of the proposed housing and landscaping as reserved matters, the technical details of sustainable construction, renewable energy and energy conservation measures would be required as part of the reserved matters application.

8.10. Drainage, Flood Risk and Contaminated Land

8.10.1. Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS20, Flood Risk Management, states: ‘The Council will expect to see the use of appropriate sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) as part of any development proposals. A Flood Risk Assessment will be required for sites within or adjacent to areas at risk of surface water flooding as identified in the SFRA. To further reduce the risk from surface water flooding all development should works towards mimicking greenfield run-off situations.’

Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV67, Groundwater Quality, states: 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.

Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV69, Contaminated Land, states: Where the Council as local planning authority is aware that land is or may be contaminated, permission will only be granted where the Council, after consultation with relevant experts and the pollution control authorities, is satisfied that there would be no risk to health or the environment or remedial measures are proposed which would satisfactorily mitigate the effects of any contamination and ensure the site is suitable for use.

8.10.2. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy notes that: • Topographic levels vary by approx. 10m within the redline application boundary (which is approximately 4.27 ha). • The site is in Flood Zone 1 according to the Flood Maps for Planning. The site is mostly greenfield, and the proposal is for a residential development. As such, the site would be deemed More Vulnerable under the NPPF. • The risk from fluvial, surface water, and groundwater sources to the site could be deemed relatively low. • There is a surface water flow pathway indicated to be forming through the middle of the site. • This flow path is of medium and high risk, meaning it has an AEP between 1% and 3.3% (medium risk) and greater than 3.3% (high risk). • This flow pathway has been identified and accommodated within the proposed scheme by incorporating swales/ditches in this area. • Rainwater harvesting, permeable paving, additional swales and raised floor levels are recommended to manage surface water run off since infiltration is not possible due to clay soils.

Figure 17. Indicative layout showing proposed swale and surface water catchment areas

The submitted Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, dated February 2020, states that the existing contamination risk at the site is as follows: • ‘Low/Moderate Risk to human health • Low/Moderate Risk to controlled waters • Moderate Risk from ground gas • High Risk for foundation design requiring alternative to traditional shallow strip • High Risk for drainage strategy requiring alternative to traditional soakaways’. The report recommends the following post-permission: • ‘Completion of intrusive investigation with laboratory analyses for suite of contaminants and geotechnical testing to determine outline foundation and drainage parameters Ground gas monitoring programme’.

8.10.3. The site lies within an Environment Agency Source Protection Zone. The site is not in a designated flood zone, however, the current application is classified as a major application which triggers a consultation to Surrey County Council as Lead Flood Authority.

SCC has commented as follows: • We are satisfied that the proposed drainage scheme meets the requirements set out in the aforementioned documents and are content with the development proposed, subject to our advice below. • Our advice would be that, should planning permission be granted, suitably worded conditions are applied to ensure that the SuDS Scheme is properly implemented and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development.

8.10.4. The application is in outline for the consideration of access only, with all other matters reserved, for residential development of a greenfield site. Information regarding drainage and flood risk has been submitted which recommends further investigation following planning approval and mitigation measures and is, therefore, considered acceptable at this stage.

Subject to conditions, the outline proposal is considered to comply with policy CS20 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy, policies ENV67 and ENV69 of the Local Plan and the NPPF in terms of drainage, flood risk and contaminated land.

8.11. Affordable Housing

8.11.1. Core Strategy policy CS4, The Provision of Affordable Housing, states: 1. In order to increase the provision of affordable homes the Council will aim to secure a minimum of 950 net affordable units within the District between the period 2006 and 2026 (contributing towards the sub-regional target of 40% of all new homes being affordable). 2. In order to achieve this target the District Council will require where viable: c. that on all housing developments of 15 gross dwellings or more, 40% of the total number of dwellings are affordable. 3. On sites of 10 or more gross dwellings, on-site provision should be made and must incorporate a mix of dwelling types and sizes which reflect the site's characteristics, the development as a whole and the type of need identified in the most up-to-date Housing Needs Study and Strategic Housing Market Assessment. 4. Affordable housing provision must also incorporate a mix of tenures. The Council will negotiate the exact tenure split on each site. However, the presumption is that at least 50% of the total number of affordable homes provided on site will be for social rented accommodation. Where the Council considers it is appropriate, a higher level of social rented accommodation may be sought.

In June 2019, the above policy was updated as per Table 7 below:

Units Urban Rural* 1-5 None None 6-9 None Financial contribution equivalent to providing 20% of the total number of dwellings as affordable 10-14 30% of units on-site 30% of units on-site 15+ 40% of units on-site 40% of units on-site * 'Rural' is defined as the civil parishes of , , Buckland, , Headley, Holmwood, Leigh, Mickleham, Newdigate and Ockley, and any land within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The table above does not apply to rural exception sites. Table 7. Policy CS4 (June 2019)

The Affordable Housing SPD Addendum (2019) states: • The Written Ministerial Statement November 2014 introduced the Vacant Building Credit, which is now incorporated in the National Planning Policy Framework February 2019 • Where a vacant building is brought back into lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building, the developer is entitled to a 'credit' equivalent to the existing Gross External Area of the relevant vacant buildings, which is offset against the affordable housing contribution for the development.

8.11.2. The Council’s Affordable Housing Officer has been consulted on this application and has commented as follows: • ‘Policy CS4 of Mole Valley District Council’s adopted Core Strategy 2009, Supplementary Planning Document updated January 2018 and Affordable Housing SPD Addendum-June2019 apply to this planning application. The application is to provide up to 60 units. The site is considered to be rural in this context. As stated in Policy CS4 there is a requirement for 40% of the units to be provided as Affordable Housing on-site;24 units in this instance. In line with this requirement the submitted design and access Statement highlights 24 of the 60 units as affordable. • With reference to policy CS4 and CS3 the units should be a mix of two and three bedroom properties, as is proposed, with 8 x 2 bed properties and 16 x 3 bed properties. The tenure should be at least 50% for Social Rent and the remainder as Shared Ownership . The properties should be of the same appearance as the open market homes and be preferably distributed throughout the site. The proposed placement of the affordable properties appears to be in two distinct clusters. It would be preferable for them to be more widely distributed across the site. • In terms of the sustainability of the site, its rural nature between the villages of Capel and Ockley is noted. There is close proximity to Ockley train station, however easy access to village facilities is currently limited and the A24 would need to be crossed to access the closest bus stop for the Horsham/Dorking route. Although some improvement to the current footpath is included within the application, as well as moving the bus stop 200m closer to the site, further consideration of improvements would be beneficial.’

8.11.3. In this case, the Affordable Housing requirement for 60no. new dwellings at 40% would be 24no. While this element of the outline application is for consideration in principle only at this stage, it is considered that 24no. on-site affordable homes representing 40% of the net increase in floor area, at a tenure mix of 50% social rented and 50% intermediate housing, would be acceptable in accordance with Core Strategy policies CS3 and CS4. Affordable housing provision is normally secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement. A suitable reason for refusal referring to the lack of a Section 106 Agreement covering the provision of the 24 affordable units is, therefore, set out below.

8.12. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

8.12.1. Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy states that development should make provision for new infrastructure where necessary. However, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has now been introduced, which places a mandatory charge on new residential and retail developments. The Council will publish an annual infrastructure list detailing the infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure which the Council intends will be or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL.

8.12.2. This development is CIL liable and would be assessed at the reserved matters stage.

8.13. Planning Balance

8.13.1. The starting point for decision making is the development plan. The National Planning Policy Framework is an important material consideration. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

Paragraph 11 states that in terms of the decision-taking process this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting planning permission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

8.13.2. A Sustainable Development Scorecard Analysis, dated March 2020, has been submitted as part of this application, which notes: • ‘The Scorecard analysis of the proposed development at Coles Lane, Ockley has concluded that, when assessed against the principles of sustainable development defined by the NPPF, the site achieves a Sustainability Score of 73% and a Parity Score of 93%. • The proposed development scores well for the elements on the economic dimension, due to the extensive measures that have been incorporated to deliver the committed range of dwelling types and level of Affordable Housing that is in line with the requirement set out by Mole Valley District Council. Although no employment uses are proposed within the scheme, opportunities will be accessible to future residents within the nearby settlement of Capel via the planned pedestrian link, and also within larger settlements, such as Horsham, Dorking and Central London via Ockley station, which is located less than 0.5km north of the site. • The provision of a new pedestrian link to Ockley station and the settlement of Capel, new footpaths and cycleways within the development, and electric vehicle charging facilities for all dwellings will encourage future residents to adopt more sustainable modes of transport.’

8.13.3. The Council can currently demonstrate 3 years of Housing Land Supply and as such the ‘tilted balance’ in paragraph 11 is engaged. This means granting permission unless (i) the application of policies in the NPPF provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or (ii) the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of doing so, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole. This ‘tilted balance’ is a material consideration.

In assessing the benefits, the proposals would contribute residential units to the local housing market and the District’s wider housing supply. The density, type and size of the housing is considered to be acceptable and appropriate for this location although it must be noted this is an outline application and specific detail will be forthcoming at the reserved matters stage. The provision of much needed affordable housing is welcomed.

These elements of the proposals would be consistent with the social and economic role of sustainable development and attract significant weight.

8.13.4. The potential harm has been assessed as follows: • The proposed new access and erection of 60no. new dwelllings, garages and associated hardstanding is, in principle, considered to result in unacceptable harm to the rural character of the wider area, eroding the distinctive gap between the existing rural settlements and failing to protect the countryside, contrary to paragraph 170 of the NPPF, policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy and policies ENV3, ENV4, ENV22 and ENV23 of the Mole Valley Local Plan. • The principle of the addition of up to 60no. new dwellings at this greenfield site is not considered acceptable in terms of highways safety since the site is not in a sustainable location due to the separation from Capel village by the A24 at a section that has two-way dual carriageways with a 70mph speed limit, the lack of safe, lit walking routes to Ockley rail station or the bus stops and local amenities in Capel, contrary to Core Strategy policy CS18, Local Plan policy MOV2 and paragraph 109 of the NPPF. • Insufficient information has been submitted to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on protected species that may be occupying the site, contrary to paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF, Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS15 and Local Plan policy ENV15. • Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal is capable of delivering measurable biodiversity net gains, contrary to paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF, Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS15 and Local Plan policy ENV15.

8.13.5. While the scheme is considered capable of policy compliance in regard to other planning matters, the site is not considered to be an accessible location in terms of alternative travel modes. The adverse impacts of the outline proposal are considered severe and provide clear reasons to justify the refusal of planning permission in this case.

Notwithstanding the conclusions of the submitted Sustainable Development Scorecard Analysis, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, it is considered that the development would fail to achieve the social, economic and environmental dimensions necessary to be considered as sustainable development as defined and sought by the NPPF. The adverse impacts identified above would both (i) provide a clear reason why, in terms or paragraphs 109 and 170, the proposal should be refused, and (ii) significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of these proposals, which benefit from the ‘tilted balance’ of paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

8.13.6. In addition to the ‘tilted balance’, the application has been assessed against the policies included within the Development Plan and it has been concluded that the proposal fails to accord with the Development Plan policies, in terms of the principle of residential development in this greenfield location in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt, in particular, which is contrary to Core Strategy CS1 and Local Plan policy ENV3.

Taking all of these factors into account, it is concluded that planning permission should be refused.

9. Conclusion

The outline proposal for consideration comprises the erection of up to 60no. residential units landscaping, car parking, access routes and other associated works, with all matters reserved except for access.

The scheme is considered to deliver benefits in line with local and national planning policy, subject to reserved matters, as follows: • 60no. new dwellings against a local housing land supply shortfall of 1.85 years – this is given significant positive weight given the level of contribution that would be made to housing need. • 24no. on-site affordable housing which represents 40% of the scheme in line with the policy requirement – this is given significant positive weight given the shortage of affordable housing within the district. • Provision of electric vehicle charging point to every new dwelling – this is given moderate weight as a contribution to reducing reliance on fossil fueled vehicles. • 15m buffer to Ancient Woodland - this is given limited weight, as the buffer is only implemented to protect the woodland from the proposed development.

The proposal is considered unacceptable for the following reasons: • The proposed new access and erection of 60no. new dwelllings on a greenfield site in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt conflicts with Core Strategy policy CS1 and Local Plan policy ENV3 and is unacceptable in principle for residential development in terms of location – this is given significant weight against the proposal given the non-compliance with the development plan and locational unacceptability. • The proposed new access and erection of 60no. new dwelllings, garages and associated hardstanding is, in principle, considered to result in unacceptable harm to the rural character of the wider area, eroding the distinctive gap between the existing rural settlements and failing to protect the countryside, contrary to paragraph 170 of the NPPF, policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy and policies ENV3, ENV4, ENV22 and ENV23 of the Mole Valley Local Plan – this is given significant negative weight due to lack of policy compliance and the failure to protect the countryside. • The principle of the addition of up to 60no. new dwellings at this greenfield site is not considered acceptable in terms of highways safety since the site is not considered to be a sustainable location due to the separation from Capel village by the A24, at a section that has two-way dual carriageways with a 70mph speed limit, and the lack of safe, lit walking routes to Ockley rail station, bus stops and local amenities in Capel, contrary to Core Strategy policy CS18, Local Plan policy MOV2 and paragraph 109 of the NPPF. This is also a factor that signicantly weighs against the proposal given the importance of sustainable locations for greenfield development. • Insufficient information has been submitted to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on protected species that may be occupying the site, contrary to paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF, Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS15 and Local Plan policy ENV15. This is given limited negative weight as it is not possible to ascertain whether an acceptable position can be reached. • Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal is capable of delivering measurable biodiversity net gains, contrary to paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF, Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS15 and Local Plan policy ENV15. This is given limited negative weight as it is not possible to ascertain whether an acceptable position can be reached. • In the absence of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the provision of 24 units of affordable accommodation, the development is contrary to policy CS4 of the Core Strategy. This is given limited negative weight as it is not possible to ascertain whether an acceptable position can be reached.

9.1.1. As such, the outline proposal for 1no. new access point and the principle of the proposed max. 60no. new dwellings, with all matters reserved except for access, is considered unacceptable by reason of the principle of residential development at this location, the impact on the character of the rural area, the lack of highways safety, insufficient information regarding protected species and measurable biodiversity net gains, and lack of a section 106 Agreement to secure 40% of the total number of units as affordable. The benefits of the scheme do not clearly outweigh the negatives.

10. Recommendation

Permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed new access and erection of 60no. new dwelllings on a greenfield site in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt, by reason of its location departs from the Development Plan and is contrary to Core Strategy policy CS1 and Local Plan policy ENV3. 2. The proposed new access and erection of 60no. new dwelllings, garages and associated hardstanding is, in principle, considered to result in unacceptable harm to the rural character of the wider area, eroding the distinctive gap between the existing rural settlements and failing to protect the countryside, contrary to paragraph 170 of the NPPF, policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy and policies ENV3, ENV4, ENV22 and ENV23 of the Mole Valley Local Plan. 3. The principle of the addition of up to 60no. new dwellings at this greenfield site is not considered acceptable in terms of highways safety since the site is not in a sustainable location due to the separation from Capel village by the A24 at a section that has two- way dual carriageways with a 70mph speed limit, the lack of safe, lit walking routes to Ockley rail station or the bus stops and local amenities in Capel, and is contrary to Core Strategy policy CS18, Local Plan policy MOV2 and paragraph 109 of the NPPF. 4. Insufficient information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on protected species that may be occupying the site, contrary to paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF, Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS15 and Local Plan policy ENV15. 5. Insufficient information has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is capable of delivering measurable biodiversity net gains, contrary to paragraphs 170 and 175 of the NPPF, Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS15 and Local Plan policy ENV15. 6. In the absence of a completed legal agreement, under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the proposal fails to provide 24no. on-site affordable housing units in accordance with the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Affordable Housing’ and is therefore contrary to Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS4.

Informative

The applicant, or their successor in title, is advised that the reason for refusal above may be overcome were a satisfactory unilateral undertaking to be submitted to secure a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing.