Infrastructure Delivery Plan

INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

January 2020

EVIDENCE BASE DOCUMENT CONSULTATION DRAFT LOCAL PLAN 2018-2033 (Regulation 18) All maps reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright & Database Right 2019. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. All Rights Reserved. 100021846.

Contents Introduction ...... 5

Policy Background ...... 5 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) ...... 5 Purpose and Scope of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan ...... 5 Allocation of CIL funds ...... 6 Types of Infrastructure ...... 7 Methodology ...... 8 Monitoring the Infrastructure Delivery Plan ...... 8 Planned Development in Mole Valley ...... 9

Population ...... 9 Housing ...... 10 Economic Development ...... 10 Monitoring ...... 10 Infrastructure Requirements and Evidence ...... 12

Transport ...... 12

Road Network ...... 12 Rail ...... 15 Bus ...... 18 Parking ...... 20 Cycling and Walking ...... 21 Education ...... 23

Pre-school Education ...... 23 Primary Education ...... 24 Secondary Education ...... 27 Post 16 Education ...... 30 Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Schools ...... 31 Health ...... 32

Primary Care ...... 32 Hospitals and Community Health ...... 35 Communities ...... 38

Sport and Leisure facilities ...... 38

Libraries ...... 39 Community Centres ...... 39 Green Infrastructure ...... 41

Public Parks Gardens and Amenity Space ...... 41 Natural and Semi-Natural Green Space and Green Corridors ...... 42 Provision for Children and Young People ...... 45 Civic Space and Public Realm ...... 47 Emergency Services ...... 49

Utilities ...... 51

Energy Supply (Gas and Electricity) ...... 51 Waste Water...... 51 Water Supply ...... 53 Flood Infrastructure ...... 55

Waste and Recycling ...... 58

Digital Access ...... 60

Appendix 1: Schedule of Schemes ...... 61

TRANSPORT ...... 61

EDUCATION ...... 92

HEALTH...... 96

COMMUNITIES ...... 97

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 102

UTILITIES ...... 113

FLOOD PREVENTION ...... 117

COMMUNICATIONS...... 120

This page has been left intentionally blank

Introduction 1. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) sets out what infrastructure is needed to support development identified in the Mole Valley District Council Local Plan (Future Mole Valley 2018-2033). It includes a range of infrastructure from transport improvements and school places to green infrastructure, such as open spaces and green corridors.

2. The IDP includes identification of infrastructure requirements for site allocations. As sites allocated as part of Future Mole Valley could take several years to be developed the IDP will be reviewed and modified as required throughout the plan period as further information becomes available in order to ensure that it remains up to date.

Policy Background

3. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was revised in 2019. The updated framework places significant weight on the importance of infrastructure. In contributing to the achievement of sustainable development the planning system is described as having a key role in coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure.

4. Cooperation and joint working are advocated on strategic matters, including in respect of determining infrastructure requirements.

5. The planning practice guidance emphasises the importance of engaging with key infrastructure providers as part of the plan development, and emphasises that planning authorities and infrastructure providers can, ‘work collaboratively to ensure that the infrastructure requirements are not beyond what could reasonably be considered to be achievable within the planned timescales.’

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 6. The Community Infrastructure Levy is paid by developers to the Council according to the Charging Schedule adopted in 2016. The money received from the levy is used to support and manage the impacts of development by funding infrastructure, e.g. road improvement schemes, open space improvements or new schools. CIL came into force in April 2010 through the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations.

7. This IDP will help determine spending priorities for CIL monies throughout the plan period.

Purpose and Scope of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan 8. Local infrastructure provision is a key element of the spatial planning approach and plays a key role in co-ordinating the level of infrastructure and services in a local area to ensure that it meets current needs and future requirements established Future Mole Valley 2018-2033.

9. To achieve this Local Planning Authorities are required to set out in their plans the infrastructure needed to support the level of development being proposed. This includes an estimated cost of delivery.

10. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) identifies key infrastructure needed to support development during the plan period and, where possible, identifies the gap between existing identifiable sources of funding and infrastructure that is needed as a consequence of planned development. It will identify the likely infrastructure requirements of proposed development within Mole Valley, how essential it is to the delivery of development, how it might be provided, likely cost, by whom and by when. The IDP is intended to be a ‘living’ document and will be updated when new infrastructure and/or funding sources have been identified.

11. This Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) has been prepared to cover all Mole Valley. It also identifies potential cross border issues arising as a consequence of new development in adjacent local authority areas.

Allocation of CIL funds 12. The Community Infrastructure Levy can be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals and other health and social care facilities. The levy may not be used to fund affordable housing.

13. The levy must be spent on infrastructure needed to support development. The focus is on new infrastructure and it should not be used to remedy pre-existing deficiencies in infrastructure provision unless these deficiencies will be made more severe by new development.

14. A proportion of the levy is allocated to the local community in areas where development is taking place. This is at least 15%, although in areas which have an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) this increases to 25%. In Mole Valley four NDPs were adopted in 2017 (Ashtead, Bookham, Westcott and Capel, Beare Green and Coldharbour). Ockley were in the process of preparing an NDP but have stalled. The table below sets out the relationship between the levy and NDPs.

Parish Council No Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan 25% uncapped, paid to Parish 25% uncapped, local authority consults with community No Neighbourhood Plan 15% capped at £100/dwelling 15% capped at £100/dwelling, paid to Parish local authority consults with community

15. For those communities who do not have a Parish Council the Charging Authority (MVDC) will retain the levy receipts and engage with the communities and ward councillors where development has taken place and agree with them how best to spend the neighbourhood funding.

16. The neighbourhood proportion of the levy can be spent on a wider range of things than the rest of the levy, provided that it meets the requirements to ‘support the development of the area’. For example the pot could be used to fund affordable housing where it would support the development of the area by addressing the demands that development places on the area.

Types of Infrastructure

17. The IDP assesses a range of infrastructure requirements.  Transport  Telecommunications  Flood Risk Management  Education  Health Care  Community Services and Facilities 7

 Utilities  Waste  Emergency Services  Green Infrastructure

Methodology 18. Mole Valley District Council has been working with partners to update the last IDP which was published in July 2015.

19. Evidence has been collected from two main sources, internal partners from within Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council and external partners such as Thames Water, Surrey Heartlands Health and Care Partnership, the Environment Agency and South Downs Clinical Commissioning Group. It has been collated through a variety of different methods including gathering data from partner websites and available business plans and documents, as well as engaging with partners through face to face meetings.

20. This document identifies the existing level of provision and identifies any future infrastructure requirements. The specific details of projects and schemes of infrastructure are then listed in the ‘Schedule of Schemes’. The Schedule of Schemes is organised into different types of infrastructure and then split by area. See Appendix 1.

Monitoring the Infrastructure Delivery Plan 21. The IDP is a living document as the supply, demand, planning and timing of infrastructure changes frequently. It will be regularly updated and monitored in order to maintain its accuracy, role and function. It will also be periodically updated to support the Council’s Capital Budget.

Planned Development in Mole Valley 22. Mole Valley lies in the heart of Surrey, midway between London and the Sussex coast. It covers 258 square kilometres and is predominantly rural in character. The built up areas of Ashtead, Bookham, Fetcham and Leatherhead are in the north of the District with Leatherhead as the main commercial centre. Dorking is a traditional market town in the centre of the District. There are also a number of villages and other small settlements. Some 74% of the population live in the built up areas.

23. The District is bisected by the North Downs which runs east – west across the district. About 76% of the District is within the Metropolitan Green Belt and some 36% within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Population 24. NOMIS 2017 mid-year population estimates that the population figure for Mole Valley is 87,100 persons living in some 35,828 households. Most of the District’s population (51,500) is aged 16-64, but a significant proportion (20,000) is over 65 and 15,600 of the population is 15 and under. Between 2011 and 2017 the population of Mole Valley is estimated to have increased from 85,400 to 87,100.

Housing 25. Future Mole Valley identifies a requirement for 6,735 net additional dwellings over the 2018-2033 plan period, which equates to an average of 449 dwellings per annum. The preferred strategic development options are:

Brownfield Options  Town centre redevelopment  Limited reallocation of commercial and retail land  Mixed use redevelopment  Targeted increases in suburban densities

Greenfield Options  Urban extensions  Expansion of one or more rural village  Modest additions to rural villages

Economic Development 26. Mole Valley District Council prepared an Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) in 2017. The EDNA was updated in 2018 and 2020.

27. The EDNA identified that there is likely to be a small surplus of retail space in the short term before changing to a demand towards the end of the Local Plan period

28. The commercial floorspace forecast showed that there was also likely to be a surplus to requirement by the end of the Plan period. Because of uncertainties in forecast economic growth, long term commercial predictions need to be treated with caution.

29. The Council’s Economic Prosperity Strategy was adopted on 27th March 2018. Whilst a nonstatutory document it identifies the Council's strategic approach to guide and support economic growth in the District. It identifies that Economic Development will work closely with those in Planning Policy to ensure that employment land benefiting from good public transport accessibility as well as proximity to local shops and services is retained and safeguarded in the next Local Plan.

Monitoring

30. Future Mole Valley includes a monitoring framework to track the delivery of development to meet the District’s identified needs. The Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) records the progress of the development management process and reviews the effects of existing policies in Future Mole Valley and other planning policy documents. The AMR is published annually and includes data for the preceding financial year.

31. As noted above, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan is also intended to be a live document that can be updated through active monitoring to inform decisions. It may therefore be updated to draw upon the annual monitoring and review process to provide more accurate costs, priorities and needs, and take account of the infrastructure that has been provided as the implementation of Future Mole Valley takes place.

Infrastructure Requirements and Evidence

Transport Road Network Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Highways Agency  Surrey County Council

Sources of Information/Evidence  Department for Transport’s Road Investment Strategy: for the 2015/16-2019/20  Surrey County Council Infrastructure Plan 2017  Mole Valley Local Transport Strategy 2014 and Forward Programme 2019  Mole Valley District Council Local Plan Strategic Highways Assessment 2019 Parts 1 & 2.

Existing Provision There are three main roads running through Mole Valley. The M25, which is part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN), and includes Junction 9 at Leatherhead. The A24 London to Worthing road which runs north to south, and the A25 which follows the foot of the North Downs from Maidstone in Kent to Guildford, running from east to west are Primary A Roads.

In addition there are two non-primary A roads. The A29 (Bognor Regis to Beare Green) and the A246 (Leatherhead from junction with A24 to Guildford).

Surrey has the highest level of car ownership and the most trafficked roads in the country outside London, including its rural roads. Nearly half of Mole Valley's households own two or more cars compared to the national average of 32% and over half of Mole Valley residents travel to work by car.

The following map shows the main road network in Mole Valley and its relationship to the main settlements

Subject Evidence

In 2019 Surrey County Council (SCC) has assessed the likely impacts that future housing growth in Mole Valley may have on the local highway network. This assessment has been informed by SCC’s strategic transport model.

Five different scenarios were used to model forecast traffic impacts on highways up to 2033. These were:  Scenario A – “Do Nothing”. This scenario provides a baseline of future housing growth comprised of committed developments. It does not include any of the prospective Local Plan site allocations.  Scenario B – Growth Option 1. This scenario includes all of the potential site allocations.  Scenario C – Growth Option 2. This scenario includes all of the potential site allocations apart from Barnett Wood Lane and Erymn Way. The purpose of this scenario is to examine the effect of these sites, particularly on M25 Junction 9a/Knoll roundabout/Ermyn Way junctions.

Subject Evidence  Scenario D – Growth Option 3. The scenario includes all of the potential site allocations apart from Milton Court Lane and Sondes Place Farm. The purpose of this scenario is to examine the effect of these sites near the A25 on the west side of Dorking.  Scenario E – Growth Option 4. The scenario includes all of the potential site allocations apart from Preston Farm and North of Guildford Road. The purpose of this scenario is to focus on localised impacts of reducing sites on the west side of Bookham.

To determine the highway impacts of future growth Scenarios B to E are compared with Scenario A.

The traffic impacts identified in the report are identified as ‘hotspots’. These are junctions and sections of roads which experience large vehicle delays and are operating above capacity. Most of the hotspots are existing and provide a preparatory list of where potential mitigation should be focused. The hotspots are included in the Schedule of Schemes (appendix 1) as areas where mitigation measures should be focused.

The report concludes that none of the impacts predicted from each of the scenarios are considered sufficiently severe to eliminate a scenario solely on highway impacts. However the report advises that further analysis relating to development sites and their potential mitigation measures should be focused on areas where the highway network is already under pressure as it is in these locations which highway conditions are exacerbated the most by development.

Future Requirements The tables in Appendix 1 show outline transport solutions or packages of solutions that will help support growth across the district. These schemes do not generally provide additional network capacity but seek to manage the existing network and provide more sustainable transport choices. These include ‘hotspots’ identified by the Surrey County Council Traffic Modelling 2019 and packages identified by the Mole Valley Draft Updated Local Transport Strategy Forward Programme 2019: Cross Boundary Issues A number of Mole Valley’s neighbours, including Guildford and Horsham have allocated housing sites along some of the main routes into the District. Mole Valley took account of known growth plans of other local authorities when modelling traffic impact of 14

Subject Evidence strategic options for development, focusing on areas where the strategic and local road network crosses administrative boundaries.

Improvements on the A24 would adjoin West Sussex and fall under a different County Highway Authority.

Gatwick Airport is in Crawley Borough Council to the south east of Mole Valley. Delays at the airport can impact on the surrounding road network, including those within Mole Valley.

Sources of funding  Highways Agency  Surrey County Council  CIL

Rail Subject Evidence Lead Organisations  Network Rail  Govia Thameslink (Southern)  First Great Western  South Western Trains

Sources of information/evidence  The Surrey Rail Strategy 2013 (Surrey County Council)  Sussex Network Rail Route Study 2015  Wessex Network Rail Route Study 2015  Dorking Transport Package (Phase 1)  Consultation on Control Period 6 (check dates)

Existing provision Network Rail is responsible for rail infrastructure in the District.

From 24th June 2019 there will be five Network Rail Regions within the country. Mole Valley is within the new Southern Region and includes:

 The Wessex Route (including the North Downs Line) which runs parallel to the A25, the North Downs Line connects Gatwick Airport to Guildford and Reading, passing through Reigate/Redhill and stopping at stations at Betchworth and Dorking as they traverse Mole Valley.  The Sussex Route which includes the London- Horsham railway line which travels north to south through the Mole Gap, connecting Leatherhead and Dorking and reaching beyond the District boundaries to Epsom, Kingston and 15

Subject Evidence London in the north and Horsham and Worthing to the south. The railway stations at Ashtead, Leatherhead, Boxhill and Westhumble, Dorking, Holmwood (station at Beare Green) and Ockley provide a regular service to London and Horsham.

South Western Trains, Govia Thameslink (Southern) and First Great Western operate rail services in Mole Valley.

In late 2015 Network Rail published Area Route Studies for both the Sussex and Wessex areas. These studies consider growth forecasts for each route and outline what infrastructure improvements will be required to accommodate growth in the next control period. The latest studies are focused on Control Period 6 which covers 2019-2024.

A need to increase capacity on the London routes was identified for Control Period 5 (2014-2019). Platform extensions have therefore been completed at the majority of stations and 10-car trains can now be accommodated at most stations. Network Rail intends to continue monitoring capacity on services towards London and there may be a case for moving to 12-car trains beyond CP6.

The Surrey Rail Strategy (2013) identified the North Downs Line (NDL) as a priority. One of the major aspirations is electrification of the whole route, this would improve journey times and reliability of services. Further to this are upgrades to the stations and rolling stock on the line.

The district contains the following train stations:  Ashtead Station  Bookham Station  Leatherhead Station  Boxhill and Westhumble Station  Dorking Main Station  Dorking Deepdene Station  Dorking West Station  Betchworth Station  Holmwood Station (Beare Green)  Ockley Station

Govia Thameslink (Southern) manages Ashtead, Boxhill and Westhumble, Dorking Main, Leatherhead, Holmwood, Ockley. First Great Western manages,

Subject Evidence Betchworth Dorking West and Dorking Deepdene. South West Trains manage Bookham.

Dorking Deepdene Station is in need of improvements in terms of both station facilities and access to the station. Improvements have been carried out to the station following the completion of the Dorking Sustainable Transport Package Phase 1. These included the creation of a shared footway/cycle way between Dorking Main and Dorking Deepdene Stations, a raised table at the junction of Station Approach and Lincoln Road, Real Time Passenger Information at Bus Stops close to the Train Stations, New ticket vending machines and a new cycle shelter and Dorking Deepedene.

However the only means of access to Dorking Deepdene is still currently via steep steps which are not accessible by those with limited mobility or people with pushchairs or heavy luggage. This is something that is to be addressed as part of Phase 2, however this is currently aspirational and as yet unfunded.

It is also noted that Holmwood Station (Beare Green) has no trains after 6.30pm on Saturdays and Sundays.

Future requirements Network Rail is responsible for the rail routes in Mole Valley and their funding is allocated by central government. Surrey County Council have established the ‘Dorking Transport Package’ which is a phased programme of improvements centred on Dorking Deepdene (phases 2 and 3 are currently unfunded):

Phase 2 (unfunded) – installation of lifts to each platform and changes to the two access paths and stairs to provide DDA compliant access to the station, exploration of new walking route between the two stations.

Phase 3 (unfunded) – delivery of station building with full customer facilities. The entrance path to the westbound platform would be closed and all access would be through the new station building on the northern side.

In addition it would be beneficial to passenger journey times if Dorking Deepdene and Dorking Main stations could be linked to avoid using the ticket barriers and leaving both stations when changing trains.

Subject Evidence Mole Valley would like to encourage train travel as an alternative to the car to help ease congestion on the roads and promote the use of a more sustainable mode of travel. However, increasing car parking at railway stations can result in increased traffic flows to those stations and cause additional congestion as people will drive to these stations from further afield rather than using local public transport.

Following the disruption faced by passengers in summer 2018, the Secretary of State for Transport announced that Govia Thameslink would contribute £15m towards a passenger benefit fund which would be used to provide “tangible improvements for passengers”. Stations in Mole Valley, including Dorking and Leatherhead are in Tier 3 which allocates 30,000 per station. Users of the stations were encouraged to contact Govia Thameslink direct by 31st July to submit proposals for improvements to the eligible stations and all submitted ideas are currently being reviewed. Cross Boundary Issues No specific cross boundary issues have been identified. However the Stations in Mole Valley are part of the wider rail network and Network Rail infrastructure improvements are planned on network basis and not constrained by local authority boundaries.

Longer term (expected 2020) a third fast train per hour is proposed on the North Downs Line however this will be dependent on suitable measures being carried out to make effected level crossing safe. It is likely that this service will stop at Dorking Deepdene.

Many residents use train services in Mole Valley to travel to and from Gatwick Airport.

Sources of funding  CIL  Private Operators

Bus

Subject Evidence Lead Organisations  Surrey County Council  Private Bus Operators

Sources of information/evidence  Surrey Transport Plan: Passenger Transport Strategy: Part 1 – Local Bus (2014)

Subject Evidence  Surrey Transport Plan: Mole Valley Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme (September 2019)  Existing Transport Trends March 2017 (Evidence Document for Future Mole Valley Issues and Options Consultation.

Existing provision The local bus service is an important part of the transport system. Buses across the district provide access to local centres and surrounding towns and villages for shopping and leisure activities and to schools for young people.

Dorking and Leatherhead are serviced most frequently with connections within and external to the district. Bus routes beginning and passing through the district allow passengers to travel between the key nearby destinations of Guildford, Gatwick, Horsham, Crawley, Epsom and Kingston-upon-Thames. Mole Valley benefits from relatively good coverage of bus routes and services in the urban areas of the district. Rural areas of the district do not have as great provision of scheduled bus services and therefore there are known gaps in the existing bus service in Mole Valley.

Buses 4U provides a Mole Valley Demand Response Service which has helped address the shortage of conventional services in rural areas. These buses operate anywhere within Mole Valley and also travel to destinations including, Epsom Hospital, East Surrey Hospital, Horley, Reigate and Redhill.

The WASP Community Transport Service is volunteer run and provides transport for people in the rural south west of the District.

Bus service operators in Mole Valley include Arriva, Buses 4U (East Surrey Rural Transport Partnership) and Metro Bus.

A key priority for Surrey County Council is to improve Passenger Transport Information across the County (as identified in the Surrey Transport Plan and Passenger Transport Information Strategy). This would ensure up to date information on the services is available.

Future requirements Bus services are generally run by commercial operators, although many routes receive public subsidy. This process is managed by Surrey County Council. 19

Subject Evidence

Bus services in Mole Valley at evenings and weekends are often non-existent making it an unviable option for residents at these times.

The key issue facing bus services on the local road network within Mole Valley is reliability. Key contributing factors as to why bus services may not be running to schedule are congestion on the highway network, as well as vehicles parking illegally on narrow sections of carriageways and in bus stops. Options for prioritising bus routes, such as bus lanes and traffic signals prioritising buses, could be considered as methods for providing a more reliable bus service within the District.

Cross Boundary Issues No specific cross boundary issues have been identified. However the bus services throughout the district are joined with Epsom Borough, Reigate and Banstead Borough, Guildford Borough and Horsham District and services are not constrained within local authority boundaries.

Sources of funding  Private Operators  Developer Contributions

Parking Subject Evidence Lead Organisations  Surrey County Council  Mole Valley District Council

Sources of information/evidence  Surrey Transport Plan: Parking Strategy (2011) and updated Parking Guidance for Development 2018.  Mole Valley Car Parking Strategy 2018-2033

Existing provision The Council provides over 2,000 car parking spaces across 22 car parks in Ashtead, Bookham, Dorking and Leatherhead. The provision, as at February 2018 and includes the provision of short stay, long stay, 30 minutes free bays and disabled spaces.

The primary purposes of the District’s car parks are to provide access to town and village centres, to provide a good service for commuters and to enable access to the many retail, leisure and recreational facilities and sites in the District.

Subject Evidence The Council also currently enforces the management of on-street parking on behalf of Surrey County Council.

There are also car parks operated by other organisations in Mole Valley, such as rail operators.

Future requirements Mole Valley’s Car Parking Strategy sets out a number of initiatives to improve existing car parks which are outlined in the schedule of schemes (Appendix 1).

In addition the Forward Programme 2019 identifies the delivery of a strategy to support the Surrey-wide emergence of an Electrical Vehicle charging points.

Cross Boundary Issues No cross boundary issues have been identified.

Sources of funding  Surrey County Council  CIL

Cycling and Walking

Subject Evidence Lead Organisations  Surrey County Council  Mole Valley District Council  Mole Valley Cycling Forum

Sources of information/evidence  Surrey Cycling Strategy 2014-2026 (2014)  Mole Valley Cycling Plan  Mole Valley Cycling Forum – Cycle Route Priorities 2018.  Mole Valley Draft Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme 2019

Existing provision The Mole Valley Cycle Forum (MVCF) contributes to the coordination of cycle improvements in Mole Valley. The group is supported by officers from Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council.

There is an existing skeletal cycle network. The MVCF aims to update this to provide a strategic cycle network with routes between villages and towns, as well as link to towns beyond the District boundary.

The MVCF has identified routes in the District which will make an important contribution to the Surrey Safe Route to Schools (SSRS) initiative. This aims to improve cycle and pedestrian links to school, as well as improve key commuting links to train stations etc. 21

Subject Evidence

An aim of the Surrey Cycling Strategy is to develop Local Cycling Plans for each Surrey district. The Mole Valley Cycling Plan was adopted in October 2014.

Future requirements The key routes the MVCF are looking to develop are:  Howard of Effingham Approaches  Leatherhead Town Centre and Fetcham  A24 Southbound  Dorking Town Centre  Beare Green-Capel  Deepdene Roundabout-Spook Hill  Leatherhead- Dorking A24  Brockham –Betchworth  Bookham Common  Polseden Lacey Routes  Charlwood – Hookwood/Horley/Gatwick  Hookwood-Reigate (A217)  Trig Street, Newdigate.

These routes are linked to the wider Safe Routes to School initiative and have been included in the Schedule of Schemes (see Appendix 1).

Surrey County Council have a list of outstanding improvement projects to public rights of way within the District. Discussions with the SCC public Rights of Way Officer are ongoing. There will also be capacity to carry out improvements to the footpath and cycle path networks through the development of strategic sites brought forward through Future Mole Valley Local Plan.

Cross Boundary Issues Some of the key routes identified above cross administrative boundaries (for example in the vicinity of Howard of Effingham School and the Hookwood/Horley/Gatwick area.)

Sources of funding  Surrey County Council  CIL

Education Pre-school Education

Subject Evidence Lead Organisations  Surrey County Council  Charitable and private sector providers

Sources of information/evidence  Surrey County Council Childcare Sufficiency Assessment update 2015

Existing provision The 2006 Childcare Act places a duty on Local Authorities to make sure there are enough childcare places of high quality for parents that need them to allow them to work or train. There also needs to be enough services for parents of eligible children to take up their offer of free early education, including for parents who are not working or training.

Pre-school education and childcare is provided in a wide range of settings, including day nurseries, childminders, playgroups, pre-schools and nursery classes within primary schools. The majority of Early Years education in Mole Valley is provided by the private, voluntary or independent sector. In addition there are a number of maintained nursery schools and some primary schools with early years’ facilities on site.

There is currently a Children’s Centre in Goodwyn’s Road Dorking. On 29 January 2019 Surrey County Council members agreed to remodel other Children's Centres in the District to create Family Centres as part of a wider Family Service to support families with children aged 0 to 11 that are the most vulnerable.

Future requirements The SCC Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2015 (CSA) analyses the need for free early education places across Surrey.

Holmwoods, Leatherhead, Dorking and Beare Green are identified as areas in Mole Valley where the need for free early education will not be met.

The CSA also identifies areas that might not be able to meet future demand. These are:  Ashtead Common, Ashtead Village and Ashtead Park wards;  Brockham, Betchworth and Buckland wards;  Fetcham East, and Fetcham West wards Westcott, and Leith Hill wards.

Subject Evidence The CSA does not quantify how many additional places may be required in these Wards and at the time of writing Mole Valley District Council is not aware of any specific schemes to address the identified need. However, provision within school settings can be mutually beneficial by helping to support schools and attract families while children are still young. Mole Valley are currently in discussion with Surrey County Council regarding the potential for early years provision on strategic sites where a new school may be provided.

Cross Boundary Issues None identified

Sources of funding  CIL

Primary Education Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey County Council

Sources of information/Evidence  Surrey School Organisation Plan 2018-2027

Existing Provision There are 24 primary age schools in Mole Valley. Four Primary Schools have specialist centres that support students with a range of special educational needs.

Dorking:  Powell Corderoy Primary School  St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School  St Martin’s C of E (Controlled) Primary School  St Paul’s C of E (Aided) Primary School  St John’s C of E Primary School

Leatherhead:  Leatherhead Trinity School  Woodlands School (pupils with additional learning needs)

Ashtead:  Barnett Wood Lane Infants School  St Giles C of E (Aided) Infant School  St Peter’s Catholic Primary School  The Greville Primary School  West Ashtead Primary School

Fetcham:  Fetcham Village Infant School  Oakfield Junior School 24

Subject Evidence

Bookham:  Eastwick Infant School  Eastwick Junior School  Polesden Lacey Infant School  The Dawnay School

Rural Areas:  St Michael’s C of E (Aided) Infant School (Mickleham)  The Weald C of E (Aided) Primary School (Beare Green)  Charlwood Primary School  North Downs Primary School (sites at Brockham, Betchworth and Leigh)  Scott-Broadwood C of E (Aided) Infant School (Capel)  Newdigate C of E Endowed (Aided) Infant School  Surrey Hills Church of England Primary School (Abinger and Westcott)

Subject Evidence Future Requirements For purposes of SCC’s education planning, Mole Valley is made up of 6 individual primary planning areas.  Ashtead  Leatherhead  Fetcham and Bookham  Brockham  Dorking  South Mole Valley

Each primary age school is allocated to one of these areas.

Projections of need for primary school places are made based on the number of births in each planning area compared to the number of reception year pupils 4 years later, with additional allowance being made for migration factors (based on historic trends) and projected housing development.

The Surrey School Organisation Plan 2018-2027 forecasts that there will be sufficient places in Mole Valley for the foreseeable future, but stipulates that future housing development across the area could impact this.

Further discussions with SCC regarding demand for school places based on potential housing sites being considered for inclusion in Mole Valley’s Local Plan (Future Mole Valley) identifies a future shortfall in primary education places across 5 of the primary planning areas. Forecasts for Ashtead and Leatherhead, and Dorking and Brockham were combined as pupil movements between these areas were to be expected. Particular pressure on the combined Ashtead and Leatherhead area was identified.

There is no additional need forecast for Fetcham and Bookham at this time.

SCC indicate that meeting this increased demand could be met through the expansion of existing schools and through discussions with the schools themselves. There is also potential for the provision of primary schools on strategic housing sites in Leatherhead (Barnett Wood Lane) and Beare Green.

Cross Boundary Issues No significant cross boundary issues are identified at present. Surrey County Council is monitoring the plans of neighbouring local authorities that have the potential to impact on provision in this area. 26

Subject Evidence

Sources of funding  Surrey County Council  CIL  Section 106 agreements

Secondary Education Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey County Council

Sources of information/Evidence  Surrey School Organisation Plan 2018-2027

Existing Provision There are 4 state-funded mainstream secondary schools in the District:  The Ashcombe School (Dorking)  The Priory School C of E School (Dorking)  Therfield School (Leatherhead)  St Andrew’s Catholic School (Ashtead)

In addition, a significant number of Bookham residents attend the Howard of Effingham School, in the neighbouring Borough of Guildford. All five schools have post-16 provision.

Subject Evidence Therfield and The Ashcombe School are both Academy Convertors. Howard of Effingham is an Academy. St Andrew’s and The Priory are Voluntary Aided church schools whose Governors determine admissions. In the case of St Andrew’s, the admissions criteria give preference to children attending feeder primaries, which include a number of schools outside the District boundaries.

The total number of state-funded secondary school (11-16) places in the District (Based on the Published Admissions Number for Therfield, Ashcombe, St Andrew’s and The Priory) is 840. There are also a number of independent secondary and senior schools in the District.

Future Requirements The need for secondary school places is based on the local population of secondary age children and incorporate the number of children in local primary schools factoring in the historic patterns of children taking up secondary places. SCC’s forecasts incorporate the number of children in local primary schools and factor in the historic patterns of children taking up secondary places. Forecasts also take into account children joining secondary schools from outside of the local area. Overall there are usually fewer pupils starting secondary schools in Mole Valley than there are in the last year of primary schools in the District. However, the increase in applications to primary sector has now begun to impact the secondary sector.

Secondary places are tight in the Dorking area and, after a dip in numbers, a shortage is projected. There is also pressure in the Leatherhead area, although historically a number of residents apply for places at Howard of Effingham. It is noted that pressure on places at Howard of Effingham is predicted to increase from 2019 to 2023 before reaching a plateau.

Discussions with Surrey County Council regarding potential site allocations in Future Mole Valley Local Plan predict the need for an additional 4 Forms of Entry in the Leatherhead secondary planning area (which include Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham), and 3 Forms of Entry in the Dorking secondary planning area (Dorking and the rural south of the District).

Cross Boundary Issues There is only one secondary school in Horley. Cross boundary issues may arise as a result of housing growth in both Mole Valley and Reigate and Banstead

Subject Evidence Borough Council as the school may reach capacity. However, SCC advice that this does not prevent potential growth in Hookwood, provided this is phased towards the end of the plan period, to allow time for cross boundary education planning.

There are cross boundary issues in the Ashtead, Bookham and Effingham areas, as outlined above. The admissions policy at St Andrews School in Ashtead favours children attending feeder primary schools, several of which are outside Mole Valley. Students in Bookham are likely to favour Effingham as their preferred location for secondary education.

Sources of Funding  Surrey County Council  CIL  Section 106 agreements

Post 16 Education

Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey County Council

Sources of information/Evidence  Surrey 14-19 Plan (Surrey County Council)

Existing Provision The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 places Local Authorities as the lead strategic commissioners of 14-19 education and training. Surrey County Council therefore has a duty to ensure that sufficient and appropriate education and training opportunities are accessible to this age group.

All four main stream secondary schools provide sixth form education.

There are no HE/FE colleges within the District boundaries. College-based post-16 education is available in adjacent districts/boroughs, notably at Reigate College (sixth form college, Reigate), North East Surrey College of Technology (FE college, Ewell), East Surrey College (FE college, Redhill) and the Guildford College Group. There is also a specialist art and design college with a site in Epsom (University for the Creative Arts).

JACE Training offer a range of vocational courses to school-leavers and young adults. They operate from a number of centres in South East England, including 56 Dene Street, Dorking.

Adult Education services for Mole Valley are provided by East Surrey College. Courses operate from a number of venues including various school and church premises within Mole Valley. The Workers’ Educational Association (WEA) and University of the Third Age (U3A) are also active within Mole Valley.

Future Requirements Surrey County Council’s 14-19 Plan set out how further education was to be managed in the period 2010-15. It also set some strategic priorities looking ahead to 2020. Further data is provided in the 14-19 (25) Needs Analysis for Mole Valley, also published 2010. The focus is on tackling inequalities and improving participation and progression. At the time of writing, no specific projects are identified for the expansion of post-secondary infrastructure to serve Mole Valley.

Cross boundary issues There are no dedicated Sixth Form Colleges or FE Colleges within the District boundaries, so students seeking this form of provision travel outside the District. 30

Subject Evidence However, appropriate facilities are available in adjacent Districts.

Sources of funding  Surrey County Council  Skills Funding Agency  Private sector/charitable providers (e.g. JACE)  CIL

Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Schools Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey County Council

Sources of information/Evidence  Surrey School Organisation Plan 2018-2027  Surrey Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND) Partnership Strategy 2019-2022

Existing Provision In Surrey, the majority of pupils with special educational needs or disability are educated in one of the 355 mainstream primary or secondary schools. However, on occasions, a child's needs may require specialist educational provision, either in a special school or in a specialist centre attached to a mainstream school.

The following schools within the District make specialist provision for children with special learning needs.

Primary  Woodlands Lower School 2-11 (Leatherhead) Severe Learning and Developmental Difficulties.  Eastwick Infant and Junior School (Bookham) Special Needs Support  Trinity Primary School (Leatherhead) Speech, Language and Communication needs  Oakfield Junior School (Fetcham) Learning Difficulties  West Hill School (Leatherhead) Learning and Additional Needs  Chart Wood School (Dorking) (from 9 years old)

Secondary  Therfield School (Leatherhead) Speech, Language and Communication needs.  Woodlands Upper School 11-19 (Leatherhead) Severe Learning and Developmental Difficulties.  Chart Wood School (Dorking) 31

Subject Evidence

In order to plan effectively for pressures in demand, Surrey County Council are currently considering data to develop new and additional provision. They will aim to have localised discussions with head teachers and governing bodies at the identified schools at the appropriate time. Mole Valley District Council are in continuing contact with Surrey County Council regarding the Future Mole Valley Local Plan and how potential site allocations may impact on the supply and demand of SEND school places within the District.

The Portage early education support service covers offers support for children aged up to three and a half years if they have significant developmental or other needs. This support includes a positive play programme, specialist groups and developmental opportunities for children with Down Syndrome.

The main office for the South East Area Team which covers Mole Valley is in Redhill.

There are also special independent schools in Surrey which offer education to pupils who need additional support not offered in mainstream education. Within Mole Valley Wemms Education Centre offers alternative provision for pupils with SEND, pupils who have school phobia and those with social, emotional and mental health issues.

Future Requirements In early 2019 Surrey County Council helped develop a SEND strategy into a jointly owned Surrey special educational needs and disabilities. This includes a long term action plan. This strategy looks to improve and strengthen education for children and young people with SEND. Whilst no specific schemes in Mole Valley have been identified at the time of writing discussions with Surrey County Council are ongoing.

Funding Sources  Surrey County Council  CIL  Developer Contributions through site Section 106 agreements and Site Allocations Health

Primary Care Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  NHS England Surrey and Sussex Area Team  Surrey Downs Clinical Commissioning Group

Subject Evidence Sources of information/Evidence  Surrey’s Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy (2018 refresh)  Joint Strategic Needs Assessment  Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment 2018 NHS Five Year Forward View  Advice from representatives of NHS Area Team and Surrey Downs CCG

Existing Provision From April 2015 overall responsibility for commissioning primary care rests with the Primary Care Group of Surrey Downs CCG.

Nine practices provide NHS GP services on 16 sites in the District:  Brockwood Medical Practice  Dorking Medical Practice  Medwyn Medical Practice  Leith Hill Practice  Ashlea Medical Practice  Eastwick Park Medical Practice  Fairfield Medical Practice  St Stephen’s Medical Practice  The Molebridge Practice

GP surgeries no longer operate in isolation but have been formed into Primary Care Networks (PCN) which incorporate about six practices in a single area. Therefore there is an identified need to expand networks rather than a single practice.

Private GP services are available at Ashtead Hospital. There are no NHS Walk-In Centres in the District. Other primary care services are distributed as follows:  12 Dentist Practices; five in Dorking, three in Leatherhead and two each in Ashtead and Fetcham.  14 Pharmacists; five in Dorking, three in Leatherhead and Ashtead, two in Fetcham and one each in Hookwood and Bookham.  13 Opticians: five in Dorking, four in Leatherhead, two in Ashtead and one each in Bookham and Hookwood

A variety of private practices provide a range of other health and therapeutic services throughout the District.

Future Requirements Consultation with the CCG shows that GP practices are operating at close to capacity. The forecast in population increase, including that from proposed housing developments in Surrey, will result in a future

Subject Evidence deficit in GP floor space across the District. There is already particular stress on the Leatherhead PCN.

Some sites are physically constrained so can only extend upwards. GP practises outgrowing their existing buildings could lead to the closure of patient lists and Ashlea Medical Practise closed its list for six months in May 2019, but is now accepting new patients again. The Molebridge Practise had applied to close its Fetcham Surgery but the contract holder has now withdrawn their application.

It is expected that GP Practices will be working closely with their partner agencies (ie community teams and social services), to provide more joined up care for people, with an emphasis on providing health services in the community rather than in acute hospital care. The CCG’s preferred way forward is for joined up multidisciplinary teams working together from buildings to provide care. It is expected that such services would be provided through buildings that can support multidisciplinary teams or through federated practices, rather than increasing the number of sites for small GP practices. This preferred approach is still at plan stage and at present it is not yet possible to identify specific local infrastructure requirements in terms of new buildings.

There is also a need to maximise the use of buildings, for example rural branch services that are not in use for all days of the week.

Any significant local pressures arising from housing growth will be kept under review on a case by case basis. In addition opportunities to provide locations for the expansion of PCNs may arise through the allocation of strategic sites in the Future Mole Valley Local Plan.

The Surrey Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment 2018 did not identify any specific needs for new Pharmacy provision in Mole Valley, beyond identifying the area has a high percentage of over 65s living alone.

NHS dental and optician services are frequently commissioned within practices that also provide private care and it is expected that the market will respond to demand.

Cross Boundary Issues The boundaries of areas served by individual GP practices do not coincide with District boundaries.

Subject Evidence Furthermore, from January 2015, all GP practices in England have been free to register new patients who live outside their practice boundary area. Therefore cross-boundary issues arise where a GP surgery lies close to the District boundary, particularly if significant new development is proposed in the adjoining District or Borough.

In some cases the GP practises in Mole Valley can form part of a PCN with other practises outside the District boundary (St Stephen’s Practise is linked to Epsom).

Residents in the Charlwood and Hookwood area are served by primary care providers in Crawley and Horsham, which lie in adjacent Districts.

Sources of Funding  NHS funding, including Primary Care Infrastructure Fund  Private therapists and healthcare providers  CIL

Hospitals and Community Health Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey Downs Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) NHS England Surrey and Sussex Area Team Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board  Central Surrey Health

Sources of information/Evidence  Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy for Surrey (2018 refresh)  Surrey Joint Strategic Needs Assessment  Advice from NHS Area Team and Surrey Downs CCG  NHS Five Year Forward View

Existing Provision There are no hospitals providing A&E services within the District boundaries. The nearest acute hospitals are at Epsom General Hospital (Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust) and East Surrey Hospital, Redhill (Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust).

Commissioning of Community Hospital services falls within the remit of Surrey Downs CCG. Within Mole Valley, Central Surrey Health is a major service provider, delivering an extensive range of therapy and

Subject Evidence community nursing services within a range of settings, including clinics and community hospitals.

NHS Community Health Services are provided at Dorking Community Hospital and Leatherhead Community Hospital. Inpatient beds are available at Dorking Community Hospital. There are also two private hospitals, in Ashtead and Hookwood, providing a range of services to both private and NHS patients (through the NHS Choices scheme). Inpatient beds and operating theatres are available at both locations.

Future Provision The NHS Five Year Forward View emphasises the need for new ways of working to break down barriers between primary and community care and place significantly greater emphasis on prevention and public health and integration of services at a local level. Future requirements for community health and hospital services need to be understood in that context.

Surrey Downs CCG has published a five year Integrated Commissioning Plan which brings together everything the CCG wants to deliver to meet local healthcare needs over the next five years. Key challenges identified in the Plan include:  meeting rising demands for healthcare, and in particular the healthcare needs of our ageing population;  reducing health inequalities, particularly within the more hard to reach communities (including Gypsy, Roma and travellers and carers); and  delivering and sustaining improvements in quality of care within the financial resources available.

Six health priorities are set:  Integration between community and primary care;  Providing planned and non-urgent care closer to home and increasing patient choice;  Improving urgent care;  Enhancing end of life care;  Improving children’s and maternity care;  Improving patient experience and parity of esteem for people with mental health issues and learning disabilities.

The CCG Integrated Commissioning Plan 2014-19 includes an extensive list of projects to deliver these six priorities. Very few of the projects have a land use 36

Subject Evidence dimension; the majority propose different models of service delivery, in order to meet priorities while making savings so that the CCG can deliver services within budget.

Services (like maternity care) are being moved out of hospitals and into the primary care networks (see section on Primary Care). The CCG are ideally looking for hubs in each PCN were these services can be located.

Cross Boundary Issues Acute hospital services are not available within Mole Valley, so residents are reliant on services in adjacent Boroughs (principally Epsom and Ewell, Guildford and Reigate and Banstead).

Patients in the Leith Hill Practise can also be referred to Horsham Hospital which does have a walk in clinic.

Sources of Funding  NHS funding, including Better Care Fund Private Healthcare Providers.  CIL

Communities

Sport and Leisure facilities Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey County Council  Mole Valley District Council

Sources of information/Evidence  MVDC Partnerships Team  Mole Valley Local Football Facilities Plan 2019  MVDC Green Infrastructure and Play Space Strategy 2020

Existing Provision There are two public Leisure Centres in Mole Valley, the Leatherhead Leisure Centre and Dorking Sports Centre. In addition there are facilities in local schools (both public and private) which are available for wider public use, as well as various community centres which also accommodate small sports pitches such as Badminton Courts.

A new contract was awarded for the running of Dorking Sports Centre in Summer 2013. The winning bid included a commitment to a rolling programme of benefits and improvements to the sports centre. The contract is for an initial 10 year period.

Leatherhead Leisure Centre has undergone comprehensive refurbishment and been extended. It is operated by Fusion Lifestyle, on behalf of Mole Valley District Council In 2018 the Meadowbank Football Ground opened in Dorking. The site is the home of Surrey FA and Dorking Wanderers. The site includes 3G artificial grass football pitch changing facilities, club houses spectator stands and floodlighting.

Future Requirements Mole Valley operates a funding programme for community groups. The maximum amount of funding available per project is £20,000. The project costs are often much higher than this and there is therefore a significant funding gap, particularly where the project involves new buildings etc.

A Local Football Facilities Plan (LFFP) has been prepared by Knight, Kavanagh and Page (KKP) for Mole Valley District Council. This identified a priority projects list which is included in the Schedule of Schemes (Appendix 1). The LFFP identified a shortfall of 3 full sized 3G Football Turf Pitches (FTP), the need to improve 6 exiting grass pitch sites, and an opportunity for a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) in Kingston Road Recreation Ground Leatherhead. 38

Subject Evidence Correspondence with Dorking Netball Club has highlighted the need for improved facilities to respond to the demand of their growing numbers and the ability to provide venues that cater for the entire age- range/ability of their players.

MVDC is aware of a number of other individual sports clubs who are seeking to expand their facilities. These are highlighted in Appendix 1.

Cross Boundary Issues Sports clubs in the District share facilities with clubs from the surrounding area.

Funding Sources  CIL

Libraries Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey County Council

Sources of information/Evidence  Surrey County Council

Existing Provision Surrey County Council is responsible for libraries in the district. There are currently libraries in the following Mole Valley settlements:  Ashtead  Bookham  Dorking  Leatherhead

Future Requirements There are no specific proposals for increasing the number of libraries in the district of which MVDC is aware.

The library service is likely to be affected by the wider cuts to public sector funding and there may therefore be funding shortfalls to the service and an increased role of the voluntary sector.

Cross Boundary Issues None identified.

Sources of Funding  Surrey County Council

Community Centres Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Mole Valley District Council  Parish Councils / Community Organisations

Subject Evidence

Sources of information/Evidence  MVDC Partnerships Team  Surrey Community Action

Existing Provision Community Centres provide multipurpose facilities for a variety of diverse functions such as entertainment, concerts, shows, clinics, education, sports, polling stations and public meetings.

Mole Valley directly operates The Fairfield Centre in Leatherhead, which provides programmes for older people to socialise and take part in various organised activities.

There is also the Dorking Christian Centre which is a church owned community centre which offers a range of community services and facilities. Further to this, the Point Centre in Dorking brings together the Voluntary, Community and Faith sector. The North Leatherhead Community Centre serves and supports the Leatherhead community and provides a meeting venue for local residents, groups, classes and other local organisations.

In addition there are a wide range of community centres, village halls, church halls etc. which are managed by Parish Councils and a variety local community groups.

Future Requirements Community Centres can apply for funding from the Surrey Community Buildings Grant Scheme. This is a partnership scheme jointly funded by MVDC and Surrey County Council and administered by Surrey Community Action. The scheme offers capital grants to village halls, community centres and voluntary youth buildings subject to them meeting certain specified criteria.

The Bookham Youth Centre is closed on 24th July 2019. It is understood that youth services are currently being run from hired premises but feasibility of a replacement facility is being explored.

Cross Boundary Issues No cross boundary issues have been identified

Funding Sources  Mole Valley District Council  Surrey Community Buildings Grant Scheme

Green Infrastructure A large proportion of Mole Valley is set within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value. The District includes areas of national and international significance for nature conservation. The wider network of Green Infrastructure promotes health and wellbeing as well as making a major contribution to the highly attractive natural, built and historic environment of the District.

There are several categories of Green Infrastructure. In the tables which follow, current provision and future needs are considered under the following headings:

 Public Parks and Gardens and Amenity Greenspace

 Natural and Semi-Natural Greenspace and Green Corridors

 Provision for Children and Young People

 Civic Space and Public Realm

There is a degree of overlap between different categories. Care has been taken to avoid double-counting sites which serve different functions in one location.

Public Parks Gardens and Amenity Space

Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey County Council  Mole Valley District Council

Sources of  Green Infrastructure and Play Space Strategy information/Evidence 2020  Play Strategy 2007 (Making Play Matter) - updated in 2014  Engagement with the National Trust.

Existing Provision Public Parks and Gardens - This category covers urban parks, country parks and formal gardens.

Sites vary widely in size from the smallest at 0.29ha (Ridgeway Gardens) to the largest at 21ha (Polesden Lacey). In some cases, public parks and gardens also include specific facilities for children and young people. But the land occupied by those facilities has been deducted from the total land area, to avoid double counting. The Deepdene Trail project ran until March 2018 and repaired key architectural and landscape features of the Deepdene Estate.

Amenity Greenspace - This type of open space is found most commonly, but not exclusively in housing areas or as part of town centres and employment areas. Its primary purpose is to provide opportunities for informal activities

Subject Evidence close to home or work, or enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas.

Amenity Green Space includes some large sites such as Cotmandene in Dorking at 4.58ha and the Big Field in Brockham at 6.6ha). About half also include other types of Green Infrastructure (e.g. children’s play areas) and the areas have been adjusted to avoid double-counting.

Future Requirements Public Parks and Gardens – There are fewer parks and gardens in Ashtead, Fetcham, Bookham, South Dorking and North Holmwood than in other parts of the built up areas of the District. There are also larger numbers of people who are not within easy walking distance of a park or garden in Ashtead, Fetcham, Bookham and parts of Dorking.

There are also several rural wards where there are no public parks or gardens, although in these areas, there is often good accessibility to other types of Green Infrastructure.

Amenity Green Space - Mole Valley District Council will seek to address needs arising from development and provision of equipped play spaces or contributions to improving existing play space will be required as set out in the policies of the Local Plan.

In many areas, particularly rural parts of the District, natural and semi-natural greenspaces may provide much of the amenity greenspace needed by residents, but this is only the case where it can provide for informal activities close to home and where this would not prejudice other objectives e.g. nature conservation.

Cross Boundary Issues Polesden Lacey is a nationally-significant site within this category, which draws visitors from well beyond the boundaries of Mole Valley, as well as being a popular destination for local residents.

Funding Sources  Mole Valley District Council  Heritage Lottery Fund  Charitable sector (e.g. National Trust)  CIL

Natural and Semi-Natural Green Space and Green Corridors Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey County Council  Mole Valley District Council 42

Subject Evidence  Surrey Hills AONB Board  Surrey Wildlife Trust  National Trust

Sources of  Green Infrastructure and Play Space Strategy information/Evidence 2020  Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan 2014-2019  Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2014  Play Strategy 2007 (Making Play Matter) - updated in 2014  River Mole Catchment Management Plan  Lower Mole Project Business Plan  Gatwick Greenspace Partnership Business Plan

Existing Provision Natural & Semi-Natural Greenspace – There is 2,718ha of land classified as natural and semi-natural greenspace within the district. The majority is owned and managed by public sector or charitable organisations, including Surrey County Council, City of London Corporation, the National Trust, Woodlands Trust and Surrey Wildlife Trust. A significant proportion is subject to nature conservation or landscape protection designations (e.g. Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and National Nature Reserves). Sites range in size from under 1ha to several hundred hectares (e.g. Box Hill, Norbury Park, Holmwood Common, Leith Hill).

The Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment Special Area of Conservation (SAC) stretches for eight miles between Leatherhead and Reigate and includes land in the District.

Green Corridors – Green Corridors are linear features which provide opportunities for walking, cycling or horse riding and routes which facilitate the movement of wildlife. The Public Rights of Way (PROW) network is a key piece of infrastructure under this heading and there is an extensive network of public footpaths, bridleways and other rights of way in the District, including sections of the Greensand Way and North Downs Way long distance footpaths.

The Lower Mole Countryside Project also promotes local walking routes, including the three mile circular Leatherhead Common Walk and the Thames Down Link Walk from Kingston to Westhumble.

The River Mole and other watercourses also provide Green Corridors, particularly where they are combined with public access routes and/or help to maintain a route

Subject Evidence for the movement of wildlife through more developed areas.

Future Requirements Natural and Semi-Natural Greenspace - There is a significant level of Natural and Semi-Natural Greenspace across the District, although there is a greater concentration to the north, much of which relates to the Surrey Hills AONB and land owned by the National Trust. The quality of all land in this category is considered to be good and/or improving.

Mole Valley is in the process of drafting management plans for parks and gardens within the District. These may highlight further infrastructure projects which will be included in the Schedule of Schemes.

There may be opportunities to use CIL money to fund the enhancement of natural and semi-natural greenspaces, to support growth in recreational pressure, ensuring that green spaces remain of a good or improving standard and that accessibility is good. There are a number of organisations working to care for and enhance natural and semi-natural greenspaces in the District, including large national bodies such as the National Trust and smaller local partnerships such as the Gatwick Greenspace Partnership and Lower Mole Projects. The schedule of projects attached to this IDP includes a number of projects to care for and enhance greenspace through partnership with these bodies.

The Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment SAC is an extremely important and well-loved area for recreation, as well as being of European importance for nature conservation. It attracts visitors from far afield, as well as many local residents. The already considerable visitor pressure requires high levels of management.

Further development within the local area and beyond the District boundary may increase the number of visitors particularly to the north of Mole Valley around Boxhill. Visitor management is the responsibility of the National Trust and Surrey Wildlife Trust (who manage land owned by Surrey County Council which lies within the SAC). The National Trust is at the beginning of a project, initially considering Boxhill, which will reassess how they approach visitor management and raise awareness of the biodiversity that make their sites valuable.

Green Corridors- At County level, the Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2014 (ROWIP) identifies that severance is one of the main threats to the rights of way

Subject Evidence network and that improving connectivity is essential to improving the quality of the network. It also sets five main objectives for improving rights of way across the County:  to improve accessibility to services, facilities and the wider countryside along rights of way  to improve connectivity of rights of way and to reduce severance  to improve the quality of the rights of way network  to increase recreational enjoyment  to secure coordinated implementation of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan within resources available.

The ROWIP highlights that securing resources for improvements is currently very challenging in the current financial climate. This limits the ability to programme specific improvement projects in advance. Improvements have to be achieved in partnership with others and usually by responding to opportunities as they arise. Nevertheless, the ROWIP includes an Action Plan setting out tasks which are proposed under each of the five objectives and an update of relevant projects are included in the schedule in this IDP.

Cross Boundary Issues The Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment Special Area of Conservation also includes land within Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s boundaries.

Green corridors frequently cross administrative boundaries. This particularly applies to long distance paths and river corridors, of which there are several within the District. MVDC also engages in cross-boundary working through the Gatwick Greenspace Partnership, operating between Dorking and the south east of Mole Valley and the Lower Mole Partnership, operating in the north of the District.

Boxhill is also a popular destination for local residents although 50% of its visitors travel to the site from London.

Funding Sources  Mole Valley District Council  Heritage Lottery Fund  Charitable sector (e.g. National Trust)  CIL

Provision for Children and Young People Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Mole Valley District Council

Subject Evidence  Parish Councils

Sources of  Green Infrastructure and Play Space Strategy information/Evidence 2020  PPG17 Assessment of Open Space, Sports and Recreation 2007  Play Strategy 2007 (Making Play Matter) - updated in 2014

Existing Provision Mole Valley has 55 facilities whose primary purpose is to provide play and social interaction involving children and young people. This includes some locations where there are two or three separate facilities (e.g. playground, skate park and basketball net). This includes the new facilities at Meadowbank in Dorking opened 2018, which includes a soft play area in the same building as the football clubs.

The National Trust has established a natural play trail at Box Hill. Also in the Box Hill area, Surrey County Council owns and manages the High Ashurst Outdoor Education Centre, which provides instructor-led outdoor and adventure activities including high ropes, mountain biking and orienteering. The Nower Wood Educational Nature Reserve, Leatherhead, is an education facility run by Surrey Wildlife Trust for schools and adult learners.

These facilities are on land included under the heading “Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace”, but also provide specific recreational facilities for children and young people.

The Green Infrastructure and Play Space Strategy 2020 assessed the location of the existing play space provision within the District and identified particular locations where the local population are not within reasonable walking distance from an equipped play space.

The following deficiencies were identified:  Western side of Dorking  Pixham Area  The corners of the Built Up Area of Ashtead  The South and East of the Built Up Areas of Fetcham  Betchworth  Boxhill  North Brockham  Buckland  South Capel  Westhumble

Subject Evidence

Future Requirements Policy EN11 Green Infrastructure and Play Space in Mole Valley’s emerging Local Plan will seek to deliver new equipped play provision on development sites of 50 net new dwellings or more. Through this requirement, it is anticipated that new residential development will not have a negative effect on any existing areas of play and that demand for these areas will not increase unsustainably.

New provision on development sites will also cater to the needs of the existing population in a number of areas where there are no children’s play areas within easy walking distance.

Neighbourhood CIL can also potentially be used where the community wishes to deliver equipped areas for play in an area of identified deficiency.

Cross Boundary Issues None identified.

Sources of funding  Mole Valley District Council  CIL

Civic Space and Public Realm Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Mole Valley District Council  Surrey County Council  Sources of  Green Infrastructure and Play Space Strategy information/Evidence 2020  Dorking Conservation Area Management Plan  Leatherhead Conservation Area Management Plan  Existing Provision This type of open space includes civic and market squares, and other areas of the public realm. Civic spaces include the High Street and War Memorial in Leatherhead and St Martin’s Walk, St Martin’s Square and the South Street Gardens and War Memorial in Dorking. These are in addition to the wider public realm, including town and village centres throughout the District.

Future Requirements No need has been identified to increase the quantity of civic spaces. Issues relating to quality have been identified and the Council has a programme of environmental enhancements to meet objectives identified in evidence such as the Dorking and Leatherhead Conservation Area Management Plans, in order to ensure 47

Subject Evidence that the more public areas of the Districts towns and village. A full list of these schemes is outlined in Appendix 1.

Cross Boundary Issues None identified

Sources of funding  Mole Valley District Council  Surrey County Council (e.g. Highway Works)  Heritage Lottery Fund  CIL

Emergency Services

Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey Police  South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust  Surrey County Council – Surrey Fire and Rescue Service

Sources of  Police and Crime Plan for Surrey 2016-2020 information/Evidence  Making Surrey Safer Fire and Rescue Plan 2020- 2023

Existing Provision Surrey Police

Police services are currently located in offices shared with the District Council at Pippbrook, Dorking.

Surrey Police plan to relocate their headquarters from Guildford to new premises proposed on the former Electrical Research Association Site in Cleeve Road, Leatherhead.

South East Coast Ambulance Service

Existing ambulance stations are located in Dorking and Leatherhead.

These form part of wider network of ambulance stations, response posts, make ready depots and control centres across Surrey, Sussex and Kent. Ambulance services in the District are also provided from sites in neighbouring areas including Redhill, Crawley, Horley, Epsom and Horsham.

Surrey Fire and Rescue

Existing fire stations are located at Spook Hill, North Holmwood and Cobham Road, Fetcham.

These two stations form part of a County-wide network of stations. South eastern parts of the District are covered by the fire station in Reigate.

Future Requirements No future infrastructure requirements have been identified; however Surrey County Council are currently carrying out a review of the Fire and Rescue Service. The consultation for this closed in May 2019 and an update is expected in September 2019.

Discussions will be on-going when specific sites for development have been identified. This will include 49

Subject Evidence consulting with Surrey Police and measures for designing out crime.

Cross Boundary Issues Emergency services are operated as a network across the Surrey area. There are therefore clear links to the surrounding area. Sources of funding  NHS  Surrey Police  Surrey County Council  CIL

Utilities

Energy Supply (Gas and Electricity) Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  UK Power Networks  Southern Gas Network

Sources of  UK Power Networks Information/Evidence  Southern Gas  Ofgem  Existing Provisions Electricity UK Power Networks provides the energy transmission network in the Mole Valley Area.

Gas The Southern Gas Network is responsible for transmission and distribution of gas in Mole Valley.

Future Requirements No future infrastructure requirements have been identified. The companies that are responsible for electricity and gas supplies are normally able to provide the required infrastructure to serve new development through exercising their statutory powers and by agreement with the relevant parties. However, SGN are currently preparing their new price control period for 2021- 2026.

The degeneration of services as existing equipment wears out can lead to power cuts in parts of the District. Although it is not expected that new development will resolve existing stresses on infrastructure there may be scope to upgrade existing equipment to support new development where sites are allocated in the local plan.

Cross Boundary Issues No cross boundary issues have been identified.

Sources of Funding Energy companies secure funding for infrastructure as a proportion of receipts from customers, regulated by Ofgem, in accordance with agreed investment cycles.

Waste Water Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Thames Water  Southern Water

Sources of  Thames Water information/Evidence  Southern Water  Ofwat 51

Subject Evidence  Existing Provision Thames Water is the largest statutory Sewerage undertaker for Mole Valley. Southern Water is the waste water undertaker for three catchments in the south of Mole Valley (Ockley, Forest Green and Coldharbour).

Both companies have a duty to provide, improve and extend the public sewerage system, to cleanse and maintain public sewers and to ensure that their areas are effectually drained.

Future Requirements Thames Water highlight a requirement for upgrades to their sewage treatment works in Dorking, Holmwood, Leatherhead and Headley resulting from potential housing development during the Future Mole Valley Local Plan period. Upgrades are considered to be achievable, with ongoing engagement between MVDC, Thames Water and prospective developers about the phasing of planned development.

Southern Water have highlighted that upgrades may be needed around Ockley during the Future Mole Valley Local Plan period. This would not be a constraint to new development.

Boundary Issues Depending on which developments are brought forward sewage treatment works that serve multiple authorities may receive additional flows. The statutory undertakers’ duties extend across administrative boundaries.

Sources of funding Sewerage infrastructure is funded through the Asset Management Planning process whereby companies are funded in five yearly periods, through approval of a business plan submission to Ofwat. The funding process determines the level at which customer bills need to be set and/or increased to pay for the infrastructure to be provided during the relevant funding period.

Developer contributions are required on new housing developments, which are paid direct to statutory undertakers to support necessary infrastructure improvements.

Thames Water have ring fenced £150k per local authority for SuDS/SWM measures for the first 2 years of Asset Management Period 7 (2021-2025).

Water Supply Subject Evidence Lead Organisations  Sutton and East Surrey Water  Thames Water

Sources of  Sutton and East Surrey Water Information/Evidence  Thames Water  Ofwat

Existing Provision The provision of water supply is through two different water suppliers: Thames Water and Sutton and East Surrey. The South East of England is an area the Environment Agency have described as having ‘serious water stress’, which occurs when the demand for water is greater than the supply. This does not necessarily mean that the availability of water supplies are depleted, but the gap is small, leaving a minimal amount of water left over for the environment.

Thames Water and Sutton and East Surrey Water must make a plan to manage demand for water effectively. Save Water South East titled Water Efficiency in New Homes (2018) outlines that water efficient fixtures and fittings are often perceived to be more costly than non- efficient products, whilst the reality is that they are practically the same cost as inefficient ones. Additionally, water efficient fittings and fixtures can also help to reduce overall energy costs.

Future Requirements Both companies are regulated by Ofwat, and submit investment plans for each five year control period. Sutton and East Surrey Water have the most ambitious investment plans, required to overcome a forecast deficit in the Sutton area and to increase resilience. This involves two upgrades to water treatment works, and the installation of additional water mains which are still ongoing.

Sutton and East Surrey Water have highlighted potential need for localised upgrades throughout Mole Valley, linked to potential housing development sites in the Future Mole Valley Local Plan period. Beare Green, Leatherhead and Ashtead may require significant upgrades. Conversations regarding the size of relevant schemes and their phasing are ongoing.

Cross Boundary Issues None identified at the time of writing.

Sources of funding Water supply infrastructure is funded through customer receipts, regulated by Ofwat through five year Asset Management Planning process. 53

Subject Evidence

Additional funding is secured through payments by developers for new connections to the water supply network.

Flood Infrastructure

Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Environment Agency  Surrey County Council (Lead Local Flood Authority)  Mole Valley District Council (Risk Management Authority)

Sources of  Surrey Flood Risk Management Strategy 2017 information/Evidence  Mole Valley District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 1 2016  Mole Valley District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 2019

Existing Provision The River Mole is the main river running through the District and the majority of Mole Valley is within its catchment. The other river catchments within the District are small in comparison, they are generally at the heads of the rivers and as a result they consist of mostly small tributaries, streams and brooks.

The worst ever recorded incident of fluvial flooding on the River Mole occurred in 1968. More recently areas of Mole Valley were severely impacted during the flooding in winter 2013/14. 55

Subject Evidence

The Environment Agency (EA) is responsible for fluvial flood risk and Surrey County Council, as the Lead Local Food Authority (LLFA), is responsible for drainage.

The LLFA are responsible for local flood risk management, this includes ordinary water courses, surface water and groundwater.

Future Requirements District Wide A “Natural Flood Management” approach is being piloted along the Pipp Brook west of Dorking and in the Westcott area. This involves measures to hold back flood water through natural means (e.g. permeable dams, reprofiling), to benefit pinch points downstream. If successful, a similar approach may be rolled out to tributaries of the River Mole in the rural areas of Mole Valley – e.g. Gad Brook, Leigh Brook, Tanners Brook and Dean Oak Brook.

Leatherhead and Fetcham The Environment Agency have been working to identify and implement options to reduce flood risk in Leatherhead and Fetcham from river and surface water flooding.

These options have been identified in partnership with Surrey County Council, Mole Valley District Council and Thames Water. The preferred way forward was to reduce the impacts of both river and surface water flooding in this area is a property level flood resilience scheme. Property level flood resilience offers more benefits to properties than the other options considered and had the highest scoring cost benefit ratio.

A variety of measures can be used to manage flood risk. Resistance measures help stop flood water getting into a property. These include permanent flood doors, removable flood barriers and airbrick covers. Resilience measures help minimise the damage flood water can cause, these include tiled floors and raised plug sockets.

Eligible residents were invited to apply to the Environment Agency for a survey appointment to be arranged in August and September 2019, during which trained surveyors will visit the properties to carry out a detailed survey, identifying the recommended measures for each property. 88 of 144 properties contacted have signed up and the first phase (survey) is likely to start in November.

The second stage (installation) is expected to take place between February and June 2020.

Subject Evidence Ashtead The Environment Agency is investigating re-profiling the Rye Brook. This is currently scheduled to be in the roll out of programmes for 2021 and has potential to include a balancing pond.

Crawley Villages (previously Gatwick Streams) An Environment Agency project will potentially come forward as part of the 2021 roll out and could include works that may be proposed in conjunction with Gatwick Airport.

In addition to the above Surrey County Council are running projects that cover Bookham, and Brockham and Strood Green.

The Environment Agency has produced an updated economic assessment to aid planning for flood and coastal risk management over the next 50 years. It considers a full range of climate change scenarios. The long term investment scenarios show that without increased investment, flood damage to properties and infrastructure in England will significantly increase.

Cross Boundary Issues In the south east corner of the District the River Mole and Gatwick Stream converge. There are a number of smaller tributaries, not all of which lie within Mole Valley that contribute to fluvial flooding in the villages of Charlwood and Hookwood. The discharge of water from the runways at Gatwick Airport can also have an impact on the river levels and fluvial flooding in this area.

Sources of Funding  Environment Agency Grants  Surrey County Council  Community Infrastructure Levy

Waste and Recycling Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey County Council  Mole Valley District Council

Sources of  Draft Surrey Waste Plan 2019-2033 information/Evidence  Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS)

Existing Provision Surrey County Council is the waste planning and disposal authority for Mole Valley. In 2017 the Joint Waste Collection and Street Cleaning Contract was started between Mole Valley, Surrey Heath, Elmbridge and Woking with contractor Amey. The initiative aims to increase recycling and reduce the cost of collecting and disposing of the county's waste. The Dorking Town Partnership are in the process of setting up a commercial waste collection service for its members.

The contract covers all aspects of waste collection including household rubbish, recycling, garden waste, recycling banks, clinical waste, replacement bins and the opportunity to introduce a commercial waste service. It will also include street cleaning and associated activities including street sweeping, bin emptying, weed control, graffiti removal, and fly-tipping and fly-posting clearance. The contract will last for 10 years, with the option to extend.

The overarching strategy is the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS), produced by Surrey County Council in partnership with the 11 borough and district authorities. Mole Valley is producing an action plan which is specific to the District and reflects the aims of the Surrey strategy.

The Surrey Waste Plan 2008 allocates 3 sites in Mole Valley for waste disposal.

Two of the waste and recycling facilities in the District are managed by Surrey County Council:  Randalls Road, Leatherhead  Ranmore Road, Dorking

There is an additional waste management site at Reigate Road Quarry, Betchworth which is used for private commercial waste only.

Future Requirements A revision of the emerging Surrey Waste Plan went to examination in September 2019. The Plan has not yet

Subject Evidence been adopted but will set out how and where waste will be managed in Surrey in the future.

The Surrey Waste Plan 2019-2033 identifies Land adjoining Leatherhead Sewage Treatment Works, Randalls Road, Leatherhead (west of the existing facility) as a site suitable for a range of potential waste management facilities. Land near Dorking West Station, Curtis Road was identified an Industrial Land Area of Search (ILAS).

Mole Valley District Council responded to the Surrey Waste Plan consultation and discussions with Surrey are ongoing regarding the type of facilities that may be considered suitable on these sites.

Provision can continue to be provided through the Council’s income budget from Council Tax.

Cross Boundary Issues None identified

Sources of Funding  Surrey County Council  Mole Valley District Council  CIL

Digital Access Subject Evidence Lead Organisation  Surrey County Council  British Telecom (BT)  Openreach (BT’s Local Network Division)  BDUK (Building Digital, UK)

Sources of  Surrey County Council information/Evidence  Superfast Surrey (www.superfastsurrey.org.uk)

Existing Provision Surrey County Council is leading the ‘Superfast Surrey’ broadband scheme. This scheme is funded by Surrey County Council, BT and BDUK.

The scheme builds on the existing commercial roll-out of fibre broadband networks across Surrey and extends the fibre network to 86,000 Surrey homes and businesses which were not included in existing commercial plans.

In March 2015, on completion of the main phase of the scheme, it was announced that Surrey is currently the best connected county in Great Britain.

Future Requirements Following County Council Cabinet approval in December 2016 for further fibre infrastructure deployment (called Gainshare Deployment), SCC requested BT to model solutions to connect as many of the 15,300 premises to fibre broadband as possible. The Superfast Surrey Gainshare roll-out is now underway. An up to date list of postcodes for eligible premises is posted on the Superfast Surrey website.

Cross Boundary Issues None identified

Sources of Funding No additional funding requirements have been identified.

Appendix 1: Schedule of Schemes

TRANSPORT Transport: Road Network

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency funding available Gap

Leatherhead Leatherhead Improvements to Gyratory Transform Ongoing Surrey Scheme LEP/CIL/Developer Unknown System to improve Leatherhead County being Contributions operational efficiency of Council developed the road network as part of Mole Valley District through Transform Leatherhead. Council Local Plan traffic Strategic Highway modelling- Assessment 2019 Managed by specifically MVDC TL identified the team. B2450 Leret Way signalised Junctions with B2122 Epsom Road and B2450 B2450 The Crescent signalised junction with Church Street with the potential for mitigation.  Undertake Leatherhead M25 Junction 9/Knoll feasibility work Mole Valley Local Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer/MRN/ Unknown roundabout/A24 Grange to determine Transport Strategy County Highways England Road junction necessary 2014 and Forward Council / improvements to Programme 2019 Highways facilitate Local England Plan growth.  Provide improvements to

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency funding available Gap congestion and safety. Mole Valley District Council Local Plan  Widen entrance Strategic Highway to Grange Road Assessment 2019 to better facilitate larger vehicles

 Improvements to signals and signage.

Leatherhead A244 Oxshott Road Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer Unknown roundabout with mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions Oaklawn Road. developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

A245 Randalls Road Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer Unknown signalised junctions with mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions Cleeve Road, Station developed through further Strategic Highway Council Approach and Waterway strategic highway Assessment 2019 Road assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Leatherhead Beaverbrook Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer Unknown Roundabout mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions (A24/B2033) developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019

Leatherhead Givons Grove Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer Unknown Roundabout (A24 with mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions A246 and B2450) developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Leatherhead Knoll Roundabout (A24 Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer Unknown with A243 and B12122) mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions developed through further Strategic Highway Council / strategic highway Assessment 2019 Highways assessment as the Local England Plan progresses.

Leatherhead B2430 Kingston Road Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer Unknown roundabout with Cleeve mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions Road and Dilston Road developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Ashtead A24 Leatherhead Road Potential opportunity for Mole Valley Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer Unknown signalised junction with mitigation measures to be District Council County Contributions Grange Road and Ermyn developed through further Local Plan Strategic Council Way strategic highway Highway assessment as the Local Assessment 2019 Plan progresses.

Ashtead Farm Lane Junction with Potential opportunity for Mole Valley Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer Unknown Downs Road, Headley mitigation measures to be District Council County Contributions developed through further Local Plan Strategic Council 63

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency funding available Gap strategic highway Highway assessment as the Local Assessment 2019 Plan progresses.

Bookham A246 Leatherhead Road Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown signalised Junction with mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions Eastwick Road and developed through further Strategic Highway Council Crabtree Lane. strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Dorking A24 London Road Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown roundabout with B2038 mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions Pixham Lane developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Dorking A24 London Road Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown signalised junction with mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions A003 Ashcombe Road developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Dorking A24 Deepdene Avenue Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown roundabout with A25 mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions Reigate Road/High developed through further Strategic Highway Council Street strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency funding available Gap

Dorking A24 Deepdene Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown Avenue/Horsham Road mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions roundabout with A2003 developed through further Strategic Highway Council Flint Hill strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Dorking A25 signalised junctions Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown with West Street and mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions Junction Road. developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Dorking A25 Signalised Junction Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown with London Road mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Dorking A25 Westcott Road with Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown signalised junction of mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions Vincent Lane developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Rural Areas Betchworth Red Lane and Mole Valley Local Ongoing Surrey £5,000 CIL/SCC funding Unknown Brockhamhurst Road, Transport Strategy County Betchworth, signing 2014 and Forward Council improvements (including Programme 2019 enhanced bend signing) 65

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency funding available Gap

Rural Areas Betchworth Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions (A25 Reigate Road developed through further Strategic Highway Council roundabout with B2032 strategic highway Assessment 2019 Station Road) assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Rural Areas Charlwood/Hookwood, Traffic calming measures Mole Valley Local Ongoing Surrey £300k CIL/SCC funding Unknown Brockham, Capel Transport Strategy County (£100k per 2014 and Forward Council scheme) Programme 2019

Rural Areas Hookwood (A23 Brighton Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown Road roundabout with mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions A217 Reigate Road and developed through further Strategic Highway Council Povey Cross) strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Rural Areas Capel (Clark’s Green Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown Roundabout A24 with mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions Horsham Road and developed through further Strategic Highway Council Rusper Road) strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Rural Areas Ockley (A29 Stane Street Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown priority junction with mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions B12126 Forest Green developed through further Strategic Highway Council Road) strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses. 66

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency funding available Gap

Rural Areas Ockley (Horsham Lane Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown with Froggetts Lane) mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Rural Areas Ockley (Horsham Road Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown with Okewood Road) mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Rural Areas Ockley (Okewood Hill Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown Priority Junction with mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions Ruckmans Lane) developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Rural Areas Beare Green Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown Roundabout (A24/A29) mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions developed through further Strategic Highway Council strategic highway Assessment 2019 assessment as the Local Plan progresses.

Rural Areas Wotton (A25 Junctions Potential opportunity for Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey TBC CIL/Developer unknown with Hollow Lane, and mitigation measures to be Council Local Plan County Contributions Raikes Lane and White developed through further Strategic Highway Council Down Lane) strategic highway Assessment 2019

Total Estimated Costs: £305,000

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: Unknown

Total Estimated Funding Gap: Unknown

Transport: Cycling /Bridleway/ Pedestrian Schemes

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap

District A24 Horsham Road  provision of Mole Valley Cycle Forum Ongoing Mole £40k Developer Unknow Wide south bound – shared path – Priorities for Cycle Valley/Surrey n Spook Hill to Beare for Routes 2018: Epsom- County Green Cycle Route pedestrians Horsham North-South Council and cyclists link between Spook Hill and Mole Valley Local Beare Green Transport Strategy 2014  uses existing and Forward Programme footways and 2019 subways along the A24  Phase 1 and 2 have been delivered at the northern end of the overall route.  Phase 3 is to extend the scheme from Old Horsham Road(norther n arm) to subway at Henfold Drive

District Leatherhead-  East Side: Mole Valley Cycle Forum Ongoing Mole TBC Developer/LEP/CIL Unknow Wide Dorking A24 maintenance – Priorities for Cycle Valley/Surrey n Routes 2018: Epsom- 69

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap  West side Horsham North-South County improvements link Council : sightlines, dropped Mole Valley Local kerbs, Transport Strategy 2014 continuous and Forward Programme right-of-way 2019 (give way markings as side accesses contravene standards)  Burford Bridge and Denbies – Chichester Road: narrow, vegetation encroaching.  Off-road facility south of Givons Grove Roundabout to Ashcombe Road, Dorking, although very narrow.  Improve crossing points for cyclists at junctions, 70

District Dorking to Reigate  Cycle facility Mole Valley Local Ongoing Mole TBC LEP/CIL/Developer Unknow Wide and Banstead A25 along the A25 Transport Strategy 2014 Valley/Surrey n between the and Forward Programme County Dorking 2019 Council Cockerel Roundabout and the land boundary with Reigate & Banstead Borough:  Off-road facility from Dorking Cockerel Roundabout to Betchworth Place although usable is very narrow in places. To make the facility more attractive to cyclists, widen the facility 71

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap where practical retaining a strip of verge.  Beyond Betchworth Place, extend shared pedestrian/cy cle path.  Improve/provi de crossing points for cyclists at junctions.

Dorking Dorking Town Improvements to cycle Mole Valley Cycle Forum 5-10 years MVDC/SCC/ £400K C2C LEP/SCC /CIL £100K Centre routes; locations – Priorities for Cycle landowners include: Routes 2018: Improve connectivity across town  Extend Safe Routes to Dorking Brockham – Schools Dorking route towards Mole Valley Local Dorking Halls Transport Strategy 2014 and Forward Programme  Upgrade 2019 paths by Dorking football ground to shared use

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap

 Re-designate suitable town paths for shared use (eg. Near Dorking Station)

 Cycling Quiet route between North Holmwood and Dorking Town Centre

Dorking Deepdene Additional street Mole Valley Local £85k CIL/Developer Unknow lighting along A24 Transport Strategy 2014 n Deepdene Avenue to and Forward Programme improve road safety 2019

Dorking Deepdene  Provision of Mole Valley Cycle Forum £1,200,00 LEP/CIL/Developer Unknow Roundabout/Dorki off-road cycle – Priorities for Cycle 0 n ng Halls-Spook Hill facility Routes 2018: between Dorking Halls Commuter rail links, on A25 Epsom-Horsham North- Reigate Road, South link Cockerel Roundabout Mole Valley Local and A24/Flint Transport Strategy 2014 Hill/Spook Hill 73

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap roundabout and Forward Programme South of 2019 Dorking  Signed advisory route along Spook Hill to join existing facility on A24 south of Spook Hill.  Provide crossing points for cyclists at junctions Dorking Dorking Public Footpath 78 Following the new Tesco From Surrey £3-4K SCC (Countryside Access £3.5K Will being built on the concept to County (assume Area Budget) /CIL require Reigate Road, the steps completio Council £3.5K) landowner on the Footpath behind n could be permission could benefit from being 3 to 4 . converted to a slope to weeks allow prams and wheelchairs access. Dorking Dorking Public Footpath 68 A well used off road From Surrey £5K SCC Countryside Access £2500 alternative to having to concept to County Area budget/CIL walk up Ranmore Road. completio Council The bottom half has n could be never been surfaced and 3 to 4 can get very muddy and weeks slippery in winter. Dorking Dorking Public Bridleway 24 An extremely well used From Surrey £8K SCC Countryside Access £8K Width will Bridleway between Concept to County Area budget/CIL be Polesden Lacy and competitio Council dependant 74

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap Norbury Park. The n could be on Bridleway is in desperate 3 to 4 negotiatio need of widening and weeks ns with the surfacing to reduce landowner conflicts between users. s. This Bridleway is also used by numerous cycling events. Dorking Chalkpit Lane, Controlled Pedestrian Pupils from both St Surrey Unknown SCC/CIL Unknow Dorking Crossing Martin’s School and The County n (at the end of the Ashcombe School cross Council path from the road at this point. Meadowbank to Triangle Stores) The introduction of the controlled crossing would meet two major criteria: it will create a safe walking route to two schools and it will reduce congestion at peak times as cars will be removed from the road in the rush hour as more children will walk to school.

Dorking Pixham Lane Traffic Calming Pixham Residents Unknown CIL/SCC Unknow measures Association have n highlighted the need to reduce the speed of vehicles travelling through the village at peak times.

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap Dorking London Road, Controlled Crossing This would enable the Unknown CIL/SCC Unknow Dorking, near Esso dual use cycle path on n Garage the eastern side of Deepdene Avenue from the Deepdene Roundabout to the Railway Bridge to be moved to the western side of Deepdene Avenue.

This project will improve the safe cycle route from Brockham to The Ashcombe School and improves road safety as it will reduce the need for cars leaving residential properties to pull out across the dual use cycle path on the eastern side of Deepdene Avenue.

Leatherhea Leatherhead Public Footpath 20 This path has two stiles From Surrey £2500 SCC Countryside Access £2500 Will d and and a large metal barrier. concept to County Area budget/CIL require Fetcham There has been a request completio Council landowner from those with mobility n could be consent. scooters wishing to use 2 to 3 the path. Funding is weeks required to put in Mobility kissing gates 76

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap

Leatherhea Leatherhead Town  Shared use of Mole Valley Cycle Forum MVDC/SCC/ TBC LEP /CIL/Developer TBC d and Centre and High Street, – Priorities for Cycle landowners Fetcham Fetcham completing Routes 2018: Support of southern end STP proposals to Improve of connectivity across town, Leatherhead- Epsom – Horsham, Ashtead north/south link,  Waterways commuter and rail links, Road – better access to Business Randalls Road Parks, safer routes to - Cleve Road- Leatherhead Schools. Springfield Drive Mole Valley Local  Fetcham Transport Strategy 2014 Village-River and Forward Programme Lane (surface 2019 issues) Randalls Road- Springfield Drive Business Park.  Kingston Road/Barnett Wood Lane improvements  Riverside Route  Fetcham and Leatherhead Leisure Centre

Leatherhea North Leatherhead Environmental / street Mole Valley Local MVDC TBC LEP/CIL/Developer TBC d and scene improvements in Transport Strategy 2014 Fetcham north Leatherhead, and Forward Programme especially along B2430 2019 Kingston Road, and shared footway/cycleway improvements on B2340 Kingston Road.

Leatherhea Approaches to Safety improvements Mole Valley Local Surrey TBC CIL Unknow d and Therfield School and cycling facilities. Transport Schemes County n Fetcham November 2019 Council

Leatherhea A264 Young Street Pedestrian crossing Mole Valley Local Surrey TBC CIL Unknow d and Young Street/Guildford Transport Schemes County n Fetcham Road roundabout. November 2019 Council

Bookham Rectory Lane, Footway Mole Valley Local 2016/2020 Surrey £75K CIL/Developer Unknow Bookham extension/widening Transport Strategy 2014 County n and Forward Programme Council 2019

Bookham Guildford Road, Toucan crossing Evidence from MVDC Ongoing Surrey £40K SCC /CIL £20K Bookham – Lower adjacent to Hawkwood Environment County Shott to Rise Enhancements Officer: Council Hawkwood Rise Improve cycle and Provide a new cycle pedestrian accessibility path through wide and safety

Bookham High Remodelling of junction Mole Valley Local Surrey TBC Developer/CIL Unknow Street/Guildford to link with re- Transport Schemes County n Road/Lower development. November 2019 Council Shott/Dorking Road

Bookham Guildford Road – The north side of the Evidence from MVDC Ongoing Surrey £10,000 SCC /CIL £5K Hawkwood Rise to pavement should Environment County Effingham widened and converted Enhancements Officer: Council to dual Improve cycle and cyclist/pedestrian use pedestrian accessibility Drainage Bookham Howard of  Improve existing Mole Valley Cycle Forum Ongoing Surrey £300k LEP/Developer/CIL Unknow issues: Effingham route along Lower – Priorities for Cycle County n localised approaches Road, width not up Routes 2018: Council flooding to standard for dual Leatherhead- arising use. Horsley/Wisley/A3 from Commuter and rail links. spring line  Create off road Safer routes to Bookham can be a route for Little and Effingham Schools. major issue Bookham from and would Bookham Station to Mole Valley Local have to be HoE Transport Strategy 2014 resolved at and Forward Programme the same  Upgrade path 2019 time. alongside A246 from Bookham to Manor house Lane, Effingham

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap

Bookham Bookham Common  Improvements to Mole Valley Cycle Forum Ongoing Mole Valley £200k CIL Unknow circular route – Priorities for Cycle Cycle Forum n Routes 2018:  Improvements to Banks Lane Leatherhead- Horsley/Wisley/A3, Commuter and rail links. Bookham Bookham Signing and bridleway Mole Valley Cycle Forum Ongoing Polesden TBC CIL TBC Polesden Station/Polesden improvements to – Priorities for Cycle Lacey Routes Lacey Lacey improve greenway Routes 2018 Routes route between Mole Valley Local Bookham Railway Transport Strategy 2014 Station and Polesden and Forward Programme Lacey through Howard 2019 of Effingham Bookham Leatherhead FP79. Little Bookham Improvements to Advice from Surrey Ongoing Surrey 10-15K CIL 10-15K surface which is County Council Public County unsealed and gets wet Rights of Way Officer. Council in the winter. It’s a well-used cut through between Sole Farm Avenue and Childs Hall Road Ashtead Epsom Road (near Pedestrian Puffin Mole Valley Local Ongoing Surrey £200,000 Developer £200,00 Bramley Way) crossing Transport Strategy 2014 County 0 and Forward Programme Council 2019 Ashtead City of London Traffic calming Mole Valley Local Surrey TBC CIL Unknow Freemans School measures and zebra Transport Plan Schemes County n crossing to support – November 2019. Council 20mph speed limit.

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap

Rural Areas Charlwood Development of cycle Mole Valley Local Ongoing Surrey TBC Gatwick Airport TBC route from Charlwood Transport Strategy 2014 County funding/CIL/LEP/Develo to Gatwick Airport and Forward Programme Council per (sections within Mole 2019 Valley). Mole Valley Cycle Forum – Priorities for Cycle Routes 2018:

Charlwood- Hookwood/Horley/Gatwi ck, Access to schools, commuter links

Rural Areas Charlwood A217 pedestrian/cycle Mole Valley Cycle Forum Ongoing Surrey £1, Gatwick Airport Surface Unknow facility through – Priorities for Cycle County 200,000 Access funding/ LEP/ DfT n Hookwood: Routes 2018: Council /Safer Roads funding/CIL/ Developer • Provision of an off- Charlwood- road shared Hookwood/Horley/Gatwi pedestrian/cycle facility ck, Access to schools, along the A217 commuter links between Crutchfield Land and Longbridge Mole Valley Local roundabout (1.7km Transport Strategy 2014 distance). and Forward Programme 2019 • Scheme would form phase 1 of a pedestrian/cycle facility along the A217

Rural Areas Charlwood Public Byway 324- Know This lane has never been From Surrey £7K SCC Countryside Access £7K as Pudding Lane surfaced, and has got concept to County Area budget/CIL very rutted as a result. completio Council Should it be resurfaced it n could be would create a circular 3 to 4 route from one end of weeks Charlwood to another.

Rural Areas Hookwood Improvements to cycle Mole Valley Cycle Forum Ongoing Mole Valley £100k- CIL Unknow route – Priorities for Cycle Cycle Forum 500k n Routes 2018:

Hookwood-Reigate (A217) commuter links

Rural Areas Newdigate Improvements to Trig Newdigate Parish Council Ongoing Mole Valley TBC CIL Unknow Street Cycle Forum n Mole Valley Cycle Forum – Priorities for Cycle Routes 2018:

Access to schools

Rural Areas Brockham – Upgrade public Mole Valley Cycle Forum Ongoing Mole Valley £175k CIL/Developer Unknow Difficult Betchworth footpaths FP51, FP457 – Priorities for Cycle District n Access for and FP9a to bridleway / Routes 2018: Safe Routes Council/Surr machinery. Cycle Track to create to North Downs Schools ey County Land off-road cycle route –Part of Dorking – Council owner between Brockham and Reigate route. permission Betchworth, utilising s. Weather 82

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap existing bridleway dependant (BW52). Mole Valley Local – needs to Transport Strategy 2014 be done and Forward Programme during 2019 drier months.

Evidence from SCC Rights Rural Areas Brockham Public Footpath 46 of Way Officer: A handy Unknown Surrey £6.8k SCC (Countryside Access £6.8k shortcut between County Area Budget)/CIL Brockham Lane and the Council A25. The path is often busy during the Brockham Fireworks. The path is getting lost due to lack of revetments.

Rural Areas Betchworth Public Footpath 460 & Evidence from SCC Rights Unknown Surrey £23K SCC (Countryside Access £23K Difficult (Dorking 44) of Way Officer: Part of County Area Budget)/CIL Access for the North Downs Way Council machinery known as the Red Road. A useful link between Betchworth Station and Boxhill. But currently rutted from water erosion. Not been surfaced before. Rural Areas Ockley Public Bridleway 162 This scheme would Unknown Surrey £28- Countryside Access Area £29K Landowner provide a safe off road County 30,000 Budget permission cycle route between Council (assume s. Ockley and Ockley Train £29K) Station. The current

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap route is not surfaced and the alternative the B2126, is a fast and busy road. The improved surface would encourage people to walk and cycle to the train station rather than using their cars. Rural Areas Capel Public Footpath 218, This route is currently a Surfacing Surrey £40-50K £40-50K This route 601 and Newdigate Footpath, but the local and major County is currently 218- Trig Street equestrian community tree works Council a would like it upgraded to would take Footpath, Bridleway and to make it 2/4 weeks. but the an important off road Legal local route, taking all users off processes equestrian the fast Trig Street Road. would take community 6 months would like it upgraded to Bridleway and to make it an important off road route, taking all users off the fast Trig Street Road.

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimate Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated d Constraints funding available Funding Gap Rural Areas Buckland Pedestrian island and Mole Valley Local Surrey TBC CIL/SCC Unknow hardstanding dropped Transport Plan Schemes County n kerb next to bus stop November 2019. Council. outside garden centre.

Total Estimated Costs: £4,574,800

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: £4,158,000

Total Estimated Funding Gap: £416,800

Transport: Rail

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost sources/Estimated funding Funding Constraints available Gap

District North Downs GWR franchise Mole Valley Local 2019/20 Network Rail TBC DFT Access for All TBC Wide Line commitment for Transport funding/Network Rail/Train additional train per Strategy 2014 operators hour and Forward Programme 2019 Performance Study to identify improvements required at level crossings to support increased train frequency

District Railway Stations Accessibility Mole Valley Local Network Rail TBC DFT Access for All TBC Wide District Wide improvements to Transport funding/Network Rail/Train railway stations. Strategy 2014 operators/Bus (See also and Forward operators/CIL/LEP/Developer Leatherhead Station Programme 2019 contributions below).

Leatherhead Leatherhead Accessibility Mole Valley Local Work Network Rail TBC DFT Access for All TBC Station Improvements Transport completed funding/Network Rail/Train Strategy 2014 by 2024 operators and Forward Programme 2019

Department for Transport Inclusive Transport Study 2018 86

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost sources/Estimated funding Funding Constraints available Gap

Dorking Deepdene Phase 2 (unfunded) Dorking Unknown Surrey County TBC CIL/Network Rail/Train TBC Station – installation of lifts Transport Council/Mole operators to each platform Package Valley District and changes to the Council/Network two access paths Rail and stairs to provide DDA compliant access to the station, exploration of new walking route between the two stations

Dorking Dorking Linking Dorking The scheme Unknown Surrey County TBC Network Rail/Train TBC The change Main/Deepdene Deepdene and would encourage Council/Mole operators/Developer of level station Dorking main train travel as an Valley District contributions between stations allowing alternative to the Council/Network the customers to travel car to help ease Rail stations. between them congestion on without going the roads and 87

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost sources/Estimated funding Funding Constraints available Gap through ticket promote the use barriers would of a more improve passenger sustainable journey times. mode of travel between the two stations and District Wide.

Total Estimated Costs: Unknown

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: Unknown

Total Estimated Funding Gap: Unknown

Transport: Buses

Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Cost Potential Funding Estimated Funding Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Resources/Estimated Gap Constraints Funding Available

Improvements  Real Time Bus Mole Valley Local Transport Surrey County TBC C2CLEP/Local TBC to District Wide Information (RTPI) Strategy 2014 and Forward Council Transport Plan capital bus network Programme 2019 funding/CIL  Bus stop accessibility and passenger waiting Dorking Sustainable improvements Transport Package

 Intelligent bus priority Leatherhead Sustainable Transport Package  Smart cards

Total Estimated Costs: Unknown

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: Unknown

Total Estimated Funding Gap: Unknown

Transport: Parking

Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Phasing Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Funding Delivery Justification Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Gap Constraints Agency Funding Available

District Provide adequate short Mole Valley Ongoing MVDC TBC MVDC/CIL £0 (due to wide stay parking for town and Parking Strategy insufficient village centres 2018-2033 information re costs)

District Upgrade car parking Mole Valley 2018-2033 MVDC TBC MVDC/CIL £0 (due to wide machines to offer Parking Strategy insufficient customers the ability to 2018-2033 Trials ongoing in Church information re pay by cash, card, apps etc Street, Leatherhead. costs)

New machines to be installed in Swan Centre as part of the refurbishment works TBC MVDC/CIL £0 (due to District Provision of electric Mole Valley Ongoing MVDC insufficient Wide charging points within Parking Strategy First points to be installed as information re council owned car parks 2018-2033 part of the Swan Centre costs) capital programme.

Total Estimated Costs: Unknown

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: Unknown

Total Estimated Funding Gap: Unknown

Grand Total Estimated Costs for Transport Schemes: £4,879,800 90

Grand Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available for Transport Schemes: £4,463,000

Grand Total Estimated Funding Gap for Transport Schemes: £416,800

EDUCATION Settlement Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency Funding Available Gap

District District Wide SEND school Surrey School 2019- Surrey Unknown – SCC Education budget/CIL £0 Wide facilities to meet the Organisation Plan 2033 County no specific needs of residents in 2018-2027 and Council project at Mole Valley and the further discussions time of wider area. with Surrey County writing Council

Dorking Dorking / Brockham Create an additional Surrey School 2019- Surrey Unknown – SCC Education budget/CIL £0 1FE worth of Organisation Plan 2033 County no specific Primary provision. 2018-2027 Council project at time of Further forecasting writing by SCC based on anticipated Future Mole Valley growth

Dorking Dorking Create an additional Surrey School 2019- Surrey Unknown – SCC Education budget/CIL £0 3FE worth of Organisation Plan 2033 County no specific Secondary provision. 2018-2027 Council project at time of writing

Dorking Holmwoods and Identified as areas Childcare Unknown Surrey Unknown – Private/charitable £0 Dorking Wards where there is an Sufficiency County no specific sector/SCC (e.g. Early urgent need for free Assessment 2015 Council project at Years and Childcare early education. time of Service grants) Further forecasting writing by SCC based on anticipated Future Mole Valley growth

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency Funding Available Gap 2019- Surrey Unknown SCC Education £0 Leatherhead Leatherhead/Ashtead Create an additional Surrey School 2033 County budget/CIL/Developer 3FE worth of Organisation Plan Council Contribution Primary provision. 2018-2027

There is opportunity Further forecasting for this to be by SCC based on provided through anticipated Future Future Mole Valley Mole Valley growth Local Plan strategic site allocations.

2019- Surrey Unknown SCC Education £0 Leatherhead Leatherhead Create an additional Surrey School 2033 County budget/CIL/Developer 4FE worth of Organisation Plan Council Contribution secondary provision. 2018-2027 Further forecasting by SCC based on anticipated Future Mole Valley growth Childcare Unknown Surrey Unknown – Private/charitable sector/ £0 No scheme Leatherhead Leatherhead and Identified as areas Sufficiency County no specific SCC (e.g. Early Years and identified at Ashtead Wards where there is an Assessment 2015 Council project at Childcare Service grants) time of urgent need for free Further forecasting time of writing early education. by SCC based on writing anticipated Future Mole Valley growth 2019- Surrey Unknown – SCC Education budget/CIL £0 Rural Areas South Mole Valley Create an additional Surrey School 2033 County no specific 1FE worth of Organisation Plan Council project at Primary provision. 2018-2027 time of writing

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency Funding Available Gap

Further forecasting by SCC based on anticipated Future Mole Valley growth

Rural Areas Beare Green Ward Identified as an area Childcare Unknown Surrey Unknown – Private/charitable sector/ £0 No scheme where need for free Sufficiency County no specific SCC (e.g. Early Years and identified at early education will Assessment 2015 Council project at Childcare Service grants) time of not be met. time of writing Further forecasting writing There is opportunity by SCC based on for this to be anticipated Future provided through Mole Valley growth Future Mole Valley Local Plan strategic site allocations. Unknown Surrey Unknown – Private/charitable sector/ £0 No scheme Rural Areas Wards in rural areas. Potential Childcare County no specific SCC (e.g. Early Years and identified at requirement for Sufficiency Council project at Childcare Service grants) time of additional early Assessment 2015 time of writing education places to writing meet growth in Further forecasting demand. by SCC based on anticipated Future Mole Valley growth

Grand Total Estimated Costs for Education Schemes: Unknown

Grand Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available for Education Schemes: Unknown

Grand Total Estimated Funding Gap for Education Schemes: Unknown

HEALTH Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Cost Potential Funding Estimated Funding Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Sources/Estimated Gap Constraints Funding Available

Leatherhead Community Hub to provide Advice from Surrey Downs 2019-2033 Surrey Downs TBC CIL/Developer and/or Dorking services out sourced from CCG based on an ongoing CCG Contributions hospitals (maternity care review of GP capacity in etc) Surrey.

District Wide Expansion/refurbishment to Advice from Surrey Downs 2019-2033 Surrey Downs TBC CIL/Developer existing GP practices within CCG based on an ongoing CCG Contributions Mole Valley District. review of GP capacity in Surrey.

NHS Five Year Forward View (Next Steps)

Grand Total Estimated Costs for Health Schemes: Unknown

Grand Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available for Health Schemes: Unknown

Grand Total Estimated Funding Gap for Health Schemes: Unknown

COMMUNITIES Sports and Leisure Facilities

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Gap Constraints Funding Available Dorking Dorking and £500K Local fundraising/ £250K There is difficulty Dorking Dorking and Partnerships Mole Valley Sponsorship/Charitable finding an Mole Valley team – Sports Athletics Club sector/MVDC adequate/available Athletics Club and grants/CIL site for the An Athletics Communities scheme. Track is Officer needed in Mole Valley; the nearest track currently is in Guildford. The club often have to use a track in Sussex. Dorking Pippbrook, Mole Valley Local fundraising/ £65K Dorking Dorking Partnerships District The Sponsorship/Charitable Netball Club team – Sports Council approximate sector/MVDC and cost for a grants/CIL The current Communities Multi Use court size is Officer Games Area is not fit for £130K purpose for competitive games, they need to be made bigger – 30.5 x 15.15 m, with a 3m run off. 97

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Gap Constraints Funding Available The lighting columns are also in the wrong place. Dorking Dorking A site is Dorking Mole Valley £15,000 for Local fundraising/ Unknown There is difficulty Netball Club needed that Netball Club District refurbishing Sponsorship/Charitable finding an can hold 6- 8 Council existing sector/MVDC adequate/available netball courts courts, grants/CIL site for the with the £30,000 for scheme. potential to clearing a put up court. floodlights Floodlights and an indoor will cost netball court. £70,000. Presuming 6 new outdoor courts with floodlights the estimated cost would be £600,000 Dorking Meadowbank, Dorking Mole Valley Mole Valley TBC Local fundraising/ unknown Dorking Recreation Local Football District Sponsorship/Charitable Ground - Facility Plan Council sector/MVDC opportunity to 2019 grants/CIL update grass pitch facilities as part of the wider Meadowbank Stadium site. Dorking Dorking Construction Partnerships Mole Valley £27,000 Local fundraising/ Unknown of new Padel team – Sports District Sponsorship/Charitable Tennis Court and Council sector/MVDC in Dorking grants/CIL 98

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Gap Constraints Funding Available Communities Officer Dorking The priory Mole Valley Mole Valley TBC Local fundraising/ Unknown Further feasibility The Priory school has Local Football District Sponsorship/Charitable works are required School, been Facility Plan Council sector/MVDC to identify Dorking identified as a 2019 grants/CIL whether this is the potential site most appropriate within the location. The site geographical may require area of additional ancillary Dorking, provision, should a where there is 3G FTP be a shortfall of developed. one 3G FTP. Leatherhead Leatherhead The club need Partnerships Mole Valley TBC Local fundraising/ Unknown There is difficulty Hockey Club their own all team – Sports District Sponsorship/Charitable finding an weather pitch and Council sector/MVDC adequate/available as they Communities grants/CIL site for the currently use Officer scheme. Therfield School as its home pitch and Oxshott Village Sports Club as their clubhouse. Leatherhead Mole Valley Looking for Partnerships Mole Valley TBC Local fundraising/ Unknown Boxing Club opportunities team – Sports District Sponsorship/Charitable to expand in and Council sector/MVDC order to Communities grants/CIL provide Officer additional junior classes.

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Gap Constraints Funding Available Leatherhead Kingston Road The tarmac Mole Valley Mole Valley The There may be scope to Unknown Recreation Multi-use Local Football District approximate fund improvements Ground Games Area is Facility Plan Council cost for a through allocation of of poor 2019 Multi Use draft Local Plan sites. quality. Games Area is £130K Leatherhead Leatherhead New 11v11 Mole Valley Mole Valley TBC Local fundraising/ Unknown Further feasibility Leisure Centre Floodlit 3G Local Football District Sponsorship/Charitable works are required FTP and Facility Plan Council sector/MVDC to identify changing 2019 grants/CIL whether these are pavilion. the most appropriate locations. The site may require additional ancillary provision, should a 3G FTP be developed at this site. Ashtead Ashtead New 9v9 Mole Valley Mole Valley TBC Local fundraising/ Unknown Recreation Floodlit 3G Local Football District Sponsorship/Charitable Ground FTP Facility Plan Council sector/MVDC 2019 grants/CIL

Total Estimated Costs: £1,387,000

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: £1,072,000

Total Estimated Funding Gap: £315,000

100

Community Facilities

Local Delivery Delivery Location Scheme Evidence/Justification Scheme Agency Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Constraints Phasing Cost Resources/Estimated Funding Funding Available Gap

Ashtead 2 new buildings to store equipment Applications for Mole Ongoing £43,440 £38,640 £4,800 for 1st Ashtead (Pelham) Scout Valley Funding 2018/19 Group

Fetcham Replacement scout hut for 1st Applications for Mole Ongoing £639, 000 £76,850 £562,150 Fetcham Scouts Valley Funding 2018/19 Bookham Opportunity to facilitate a Closure of current youth Ongoing Surrey County unknown CIL contributions unknown Identifying a replacement youth centre subject centre facility in Council/Mole suitable site to a viable opportunity coming Bookham. Valley District forward through potential Local C0uncil Plan site allocations in Bookham.

Total Estimated Costs: £682,440

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: £115,490

Total Estimated Funding Gap: £566,950

Grand Total Estimated Costs for Communities Schemes: £2,069,440

Grand Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available for Communities Schemes: £1,187,490

Grand Total Estimated Funding Gap for Communities Schemes: £881,950

101

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Green Infrastructure: Natural and Semi-Natural Greenspace and Green Corridors

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Funding Available Gap

Dorking Pippbrook: Pippbrook: Ecological River Mole 2-15 MVDC, £200K DEFRA Catchment Unknown Landownership, Dorking to improvements and de- Catchment years Landowners, Partnership Action technical Pixham canalisation Management Environment Fund, Local problems, Plan, Water Agency, South Business, SCC, flooding issues Framework East Rivers MVDC Directive/CaBA Trust, SWT, Delivery, EA River Mole Phase 1 funded and data Catchment due to be Partnership completed in current financial year.

Leatherhead Rye Brook: Various locations for habitat and River Mole 1-5 years MVDC, £20K DEFRA Catchment £10K Landowner and Ashtead Leatherhead water quality improvements; Catchment Landowners, Partnership Action agreements to Ashtead possible access improvements Management Environment Fund, Local Plan, Water Agency, South Business, SCC, Framework East Rivers MVDC Directive/CaBA Trust, SWT, Delivery, EA River Mole data Catchment Partnership

102

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Funding Available Gap

Leatherhead Leatherhead Riverside Park improvements to Leatherhead 2-5 years MVDC £30K Developer £15K Subject to and Ashtead Town Centre maximise the River Mole as an Health Check contributions /CIL agreement on environmental feature and asset and Transform the vision for for the town. Leatherhead Leatherhead Masterplan. Town Centre.

Phase 1 subject to current planning application for Claire and James House

District River Mole: Various locations for habitat and River Mole 1-5 years MVDC, £150K DEFRA Catchment £50K Landowner Wide Leatherhead water quality improvements; Catchment Landowners, Partnership Action agreements to Horley possible access improvements Management Environment Fund, Local Plan, Water Agency, South Business, SCC, East Rivers MVDC Trust, SWT, River Mole Catchment Partnership

District Countryside Various projects in the Business Plan 2-5 years MVDC, SWT, £15K Gatwick Airport £7500 Wide Management Charlwood/Newdigate/Capel for Gatwick GGP Private, Ltd/other Projects: area to upgrade rights of way and Greenspace commercial Gatwick manage ancient woodlands, Partnership sponsorship/CIL Greenspace nature reserves and wetland Partnership sites

103

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Funding Available Gap

District Countryside Various projects in the Business Plan 2-5 years MVDC/Lower £20K Private sector £10K Wide Management Leatherhead, Fetcham, Bookham for Lower Mole Mole funding/Lower Projects: and Ashtead areas to upgrade Project Project/various Mole Countryside Lower Mole rights of way and manage ancient partners Trust/CIL Project woodland and other woodland, nature reserves and wetland sites

District Surrey Hills A variety of projects to support Emerging Surrey 1-5 years Surrey Hills Unit TBC Potentially Surrey Unknown Wide Area of the objectives of this nationally Hills and various Hills Trust Fund. Outstanding designated landscape Management partners Grant aid and other Natural Plan development Beauty funding/ CIL

Rural Areas Boxhill Schemes identified as a result of Engagement As and National Trust TBC Grant aid and other Unknown Lack of funding/ evidence gathering for a Master with officers when development grant aid to Plan focusing on improvements from the funding funding/ CIL deliver to raising conservation National Trust is improvements. awareness and re-directing as part of available visitor footfall. Boxhill is the consultations on primary focus of this project, but Future mole it will also look at Partnership Valley Local working with land owners of the Plan. surrounding landscape.

Total Estimated Costs: £435,000

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: £342,500 104

Total Estimated Funding Gap: £92,500

105

Green Infrastructure: Provision for Children and Young People

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency Funding Available Gap

District New play Contributions and Future Mole Valley 2019- Mole TBC Developer TBC Subject to Local Wide spaces/Improvements new on-site play 2033 Valley Contributions Plan Process to existing play space. facilities resulting District and subsequent from allocation and Council granting of delivery of Future planning Mole Valley permissions Strategic Sites

Leatherhead Leatherhead Leisure Refurbish and Evidence from MVDC Ongoing Mole £87K MVDC/CIL Unknown Centre Skate Park improve skate park Parks team: Current site Valley is approaching the end District of its useable life. It is Council heavily used by local children and is a key part of providing play provision for older children in the area.

Total Estimated Costs: £87,000

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: Unknown 106

Total Estimated Funding Gap: Unknown

107

Green Infrastructure: Civic Space and Public Realm

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Agency Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Funding Available Gap

Dorking Dorking Passages and Dorking 2- 5 years MVDC £20K MVDC/Landowners/CIL £20K On SCC or Town Centre Alleys Conservation private land Area Management Plan

Dorking Dorking St Martin's Dorking 2-5 years PCC/MVDC £50K MVDC/Church/CIL £50K Faculty Town Centre Churchyard Conservation approval Area Management Plan

Dorking Dorking Footpath from the Dorking Town Unknown – MVDC Unknown – MVDC/Landowners/CIL £0 Town Centre High Street to St. AAP scope of scope of Martin’s Church Infrastructure project not project not (adjacent to Delivery Plan: fully fully Barclay’s Bank) 2012: Improve determined determined pedestrian accessibility in the town centre.

Dorking Dorking South Street Dorking 2-5 years MVDC £100K MVDC revenue budget/ £25K No significant Town Centre Gardens Conservation CIL constraints Area Management Plan

108

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Agency Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Funding Available Gap

Dorking Dorking Adjacent 217 High Scheme 5-10 years MVDC/Landowner/SCC £80K MVDC/CIL £80K Private land Town Centre Street prepared by Chris Blanford Associates

Dorking Dorking Resurfacing of Dorking 2-15 years MVDC/SCC £800K MVDC/CIL £800K Nothing Town Centre sections of South Environmental significant if Street and High Enhancement funding can Street in natural Strategy 1998 be found stone paving

Dorking Dorking Urban De- Work 1-5 years SCC/MVDC/ Private £40K MVDC/CIL £40K Town Centre cluttering Projects proceeding on landowners/ Amenity – programme of the basis of DoT Societies or Residents’ reducing and Traffic Advisory Associations rationalising Leaflet 01/13 highway signage within the towns and villages of Mole Valley Repairs and Dorking Dorking accessibility works Mole Valley Ongoing £127,721 Donations/fundraising/CIL £63,861 United as the next phase Funding Reform of a long term Programme Church project to 2018/19 improve community facilities, and renovate the fabric of the Church buildings.

109

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Agency Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Funding Available Gap 1. To create an accessible passage between the front lobby and the Oasis courtyard

Leatherhead Leatherhead Sign upgrading Leatherhead 1-2 years SCC/MVDC £15K MVDC/PIC developer £5K No particular Town Centre and de-cluttering Conservation contributions/ SCC issues Area Management Plan

Leatherhead Leatherhead High Street: Leatherhead 1-2 years SCC/MVDC £10K MVDC/PIC developer £5K No particular Town Centre Upgrade street Conservation contributions/CIL/s278 issues furniture Area Management Plan

Leatherhead Leatherhead Public realm Mole Valley MVDC TBC LEP/CIL/Developer TBC Town Centre improvements in Local Transport Leatherhead High Strategy 2014 Street to enhance and Forward the economic Programme viability of the 2019 town centre, improve safety, and support the Swan Centre

110

Ashtead The Street, Footway MVDC internal 4-6 years MVDC/SCC £150K MVDC/CIL £150K Would Ashtead Resurfacing strategy for achieve enhancement of repairs to the Ashtead existing surfaces but using enhanced materials appropriate to a principal commercial street.

Ashtead Craddocks Upgrading of MVDC internal 2-5 years MVDC/SCC £50K MVDC/CIL £50K Parade, street furniture strategy for Ashtead and decluttering enhancement of Ashtead

Ashtead Woodfield Repair and MVDC internal 2-5 years MVDC/SCC £15K MVDC/CIL £15K Lane, renewal of post strategy for Ashtead and rail between enhancement of service road and Ashtead Woodfield Lane

Total Estimated Costs: £1,457,721

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: £153,860

111

Total Estimated Funding Gap: £1,303,861

Grand Total Estimated Costs for Green Infrastructure Schemes: £1,979,721

Grand Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available for Green Infrastructure Schemes: £583,360

Grand Total Estimated Funding Gap for Green Infrastructure Schemes: £1,396,361

112

UTILITIES Utilities: Sewerage

Settlement Location Scheme Evidence/ Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Justification Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency Funding Available Gap

Dorking Dorking Anticipated Correspondence with Thames Water Ongoing Thames Unknown customer £0 Sewerage upgrades resulting regarding draft Local Plan. Mole Water revenues/developer Treatment from new Valley need to make Thames Water contributions; Works development aware of phasing of any new investment agreed with development to ensure upgrades are Ofwat in place.

Dorking Holmwood Anticipated Correspondence with Thames Water Ongoing Thames Unknown customer Sewerage upgrades resulting regarding draft Local Plan. Mole Water revenues/developer Treatment from new Valley need to make Thames Water contributions; Works development aware of phasing of any new investment agreed with development to ensure upgrades are Ofwat in place. Anticipated Correspondence with Thames Water Leatherhead Leatherhead upgrades resulting regarding draft Local Plan. Mole Ongoing Thames Unknown customer £0 Sewerage from new Valley need to make Thames Water Water revenues/developer Treatment development aware of phasing of any new contributions; Works development to ensure upgrades are investment agreed with in place. Ofwat Further Correspondence with Thames Water Headley Headley investigation regarding draft Local Plan. Mole Ongoing Thames Unknown customer £0 Sewerage needed regarding Valley need to make Thames Water Water revenues/developer Treatment options available to aware of phasing of any new contributions; Works accommodate development to ensure upgrades are investment agreed with development. in place. It may be that any Ofwat development at Headley may be better served by the Sewerage Treatment Works at Leatherhead.

113

Total Estimated Costs: Unknown

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: Unknown

Total Estimated Funding Gap: Unknown

114

Utilities: Water Capacity

Location Scheme Evidence/Justification Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Cost Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Phasing Agency Sources/Estimated Funding Gap Constraints Funding Available District wide Localised upgrades Correspondence with Ongoing Sutton and East Unknown customer £0 needed to network. Southern and Sutton and East Surrey Water revenues/developer Surrey Water. contributions; investment Communications are agreed with Ofwat continuing re the phasing of any development. Leatherhead and Significant upgrade Correspondence with Ongoing Sutton and East Unknown customer £0 Ashtead needed to network. Southern and Sutton and East Surrey Water revenues/developer Surrey Water. contributions; investment Communications are agreed with Ofwat continuing re the phasing of any development. Beare Green Significant upgrade Correspondence with Ongoing Southern Unknown customer £0 needed to network Southern and Sutton and East Water/Sutton and revenues/developer Surrey Water. East Surrey Water contributions; investment Communications are agreed with Ofwat continuing re the phasing of any development.

Total Estimated Costs: Unknown

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: Unknown

Total Estimated Funding Gap: Unknown

115

Utilities: Gas and electricity

Location Scheme Evidence/Justification Scheme Lead Estimated Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Phasing Delivery Cost Sources/Estimated Funding Funding Gap Constraints Agency Available District Upgrades to systems needed Correspondence with SGN Ongoing SGN/UK Unknown Receipts from customers, £0 Wide following further discussions and UK Power Networks Power regulated by Ofgem, in regarding the phasing of Networks accordance with agreed proposed development. investment cycles.

Total Estimated Costs: Unknown

Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available: Unknown

Total Estimated Funding Gap: Unknown

Grand Total Estimated Costs for Utilities Schemes: Unknown

Grand Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available for Utilities Schemes: Unknown

Grand Total Estimated Funding Gap for Utilities Schemes: Unknown

116

FLOOD PREVENTION Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Cost1 Potential Funding Estimated Funding Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Sources/Estimated Gap Constraints Funding Available

Fetcham and Following investigations by  Environment Agency Environment £750K EA/CIL £0 Leatherhead Environment Agency SuDs Agency (dependent on retrofitting of individual how many properties proposed. properties come Property level protection. forward) Funding has been made available for this.  Environment Ashtead Investigations into re- Agency Environment TBC EA/CIL TBC profiling the Rye Brook. Agency Scheduled to be in the roll out of programmes for 2021. Has potential to include a balancing pond.

Bookham Storage and conveyance  Surrey County Council SCC £1 -1.6 million EA/CIL £650K improvements  There are three historic (assume £1.3m) flood events in Bookham, 1968, 2000 and 2001 each with properties in several locations suffering from internal and external flooding. Additionally, 85 properties have been identified at significant risk of surface water flooding.

1 All costs are indicative and subject to revision and refinement 117

Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Cost1 Potential Funding Estimated Funding Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Sources/Estimated Gap Constraints Funding Available

Brockham and Brockham and Strood  Surrey County Council Surrey County Unknown EA/CIL Unknown Funding Strood Green Green Flood Alleviation Integrated Capital Council/EA phased and Scheme Work Programme only to be progressed if  The villages of viable Brockham and Strood scheme Green have identified. experienced surface water flooding events in 2007, 2012 and 2013. Approximately 130 properties are identified at risk from surface and fluvial flooding. During the recent flooding, which occurred on December 23 and 24th 2013, approximately 90 properties experienced internal flooding EA/CIL/Gatwick Hookwood and Hookwood, Charlwood and  Environment Agency Environment ~ £1 million Airport Limited. £500K Charlwood Horley- Now Crawley Agency Villages.  The EA web site flood Will come forward as part maps indicate Medium of the 2021 rollout of fluvial flood risk and schemes and may include the Flood Maps for works proposed in Surface water indicate conjunction with Gatwick High risk of surface Airport. flooding too. Approximately 51 properties are 118

Location Scheme Evidence Scheme Lead Delivery Estimated Cost1 Potential Funding Estimated Funding Delivery Justification Phasing Agency Sources/Estimated Gap Constraints Funding Available identified at risk from surface and fluvial flooding.

Grand Total Estimated Costs for Flood Prevention Schemes: £3,050,000

Grand Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available for Flood Prevention Schemes: £1,900,000

Grand Total Estimated Funding Gap for Flood Prevention Schemes: £1,150,000

119

COMMUNICATIONS Location Scheme Evidence/Justification Scheme Local Estimated Cost Potential Funding Estimated Delivery Phasing Delivery Sources/Estimated Funding Constraints Agency Funding Available Gap District Superfast Surrey Surrey County Council Ongoing Surrey Unknown Surrey County £0 Wide County Council/BT Joint scheme with BT and the Council Department for Culture Media and Sport that runs a number of schemes to connect residents in Surrey to better broadband. Currently in the second phase of deployment. District Initiatives to provide digital connectivity Mole Valley District Ongoing Surrey Unknown – no Surrey County £0 Wide to Mole Valley residents in rural areas. Council Rural Strategy County specific scheme Council/CIL/LEP (rural 2017 Council identified at time areas) Mole of writing/ Valley District Council

Grand Total Estimated Costs for Communication Schemes: Unknown

Grand Total Potential Funding Sources / Estimated Funding Available for Communication Schemes: Unknown

Grand Total Estimated Funding Gap for Communication Schemes: Unknown

120

Total Estimated Costs Estimated Cost Estimated funding Estimated Funding TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS BY CATEGORY from existing sources Gap

Transport £4,879,800 £4,463,000 £416,800

Education Unknown Unknown Unknown

Health Unknown Unknown Unknown

Community Facilities And Leisure £2,069,440 £1,187,490 £881,950

Green Infrastructure £1,979,721 £583,360 £1,396,361

Utilities Unknown Unknown Unknown

Flood Prevention £3,050,000 £1,900,000 £1,150,000

Communications Unknown Unknown Unknown

TOTAL £11,978,961 £8,133,850 £3,845,111

121

This page has been left intentionally blank