TONY WALKER and MICHAEL Salmonrobert Cottrill

REPORT OF: DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND ENVIRONMENT AUTHOR: ROBERT COTTRILL TELEPHONE: 01737 276200 E-MAIL: [email protected] TO: EXECUTIVE DATE: 3RD FEBRUARY, 2005 EXECUTIVE MEMBER: COUNCILLOR M. H. C. BUTTERY

AGENDA ITEM NO: 3 KEY DECISION REQUIRED: YES WARD(S) AFFECTED: ALL

SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN (PROPOSED FIRST ALTERATION REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT JULY 2000). PURPOSE OF THE REPORT: To consider the representations in respect of the proposed modifications into objections, and to identify the appropriate course of action. RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. To recommend the adoption of the Borough Local Plan Proposed First Alteration, as proposed to be modified, to Full Council.

2. Subject to the decision of the Council in relation to the above recommendation, the Director of Policy and Environment, in consultation with the Leader, be authorised to publish the notice for adoption and agree the subsequent publication of the combined Borough Local Plan 2005, including any necessary minor updating and editorial changes.

Executive has authority to determine the above recommendations. Council has authority to adopt the Borough Local Plan

Background

1. The Proposed Modifications are the Council’s response to the report of the Inspector into objections to the Borough Local Plan. This report gives details of the responses to the modifications following public consultation and identifies the options available for progressing the Local Plan. This will be the culmination of a long process, set out in legislation and including well-defined arrangements for public consultation.

2. Although a number of Borough wide policies have been updated to take into account recent national policy guidance, this report concentrates on the modifications and responses relating to the Horley Master Plan. The Local Plan should be considered in the wider context of the different stages in the Master Plan process:

 The Local Plan stage deals with the principle of new development by setting out the planning policies and areas for allocations. This takes

of 31 into account the adopted Surrey Structure Plan (1994), which first confirmed the strategic allocation to Horley, and, amongst other matters, the Horley Flood Study (2004), Horley Transportation Studies 2004 and associated independent scrutiny advice.

 The next stage is the consideration and determination of the planning applications. It is at this stage that, amongst other matters, design, layout, and much more detailed flooding and transportation information is assessed. This is the point at which the associated infrastructure, such as new roads, schools, public transport, leisure and community facilities set out in the Local Plan policies are secured by legal agreements.  The final stage is implementation. If stages 1 & 2 are completed and approved it is only then that the construction of the new homes can start. This will be accompanied by the provision of the associated infrastructure secured by the legal agreements. 3.

5. The Proposed Modifications were subject to public consultation from 25th August 2004 to 5th October 2004. 637 representations, including 595 objections and 42 comments in support, from 243 respondents were received. Accompanying this report is a separate schedule summarising the representations together with an officer comment on each. Members have been provided with copies and it is also available electronically on the Council’s website. In addition, copies of the main technical submissions are included in an annex to the schedule, which is available on request. Copies of all representations including the technical submissions received have been available for public inspection since November 2004 at Horley Help Shop, Reigate Town Hall Reception and in the Members’ Room.

6. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered a report on the Proposed Modifications on 1st September 2004. The Committee expressed concerns related to the Town Park, open space provision and the transportation studies. These matters are dealt with in the body of the report. They also expressed support for the Inspector’s comments regarding the Green Belt and undertook to examine issues regarding density and flats in future, as part of their scrutiny of the emerging Local Development Framework (LDF). The relevant minutes are attached at Appendix 3.

7. The Planning Committee considered a similar report on 6th October 2004. The Committee was satisfied with the proposed modifications subject to consideration of its comments by Executive. The main points raised by the Committee relate to open space and the possible impact of flooding on the new developments and elsewhere. These matters are dealt with in the body of the report. The relevant minutes are attached at Appendix 4.

of 31 Consideration of Representations Received 9. The Council is required to consider each of the representations and must take a view on whether there are new issues raised or other reasons which would indicate that a second public inquiry should be held. It is at the Council’s discretion whether to hold such an inquiry. The main issues raised by the objections relate, as previously, to the flooding and transportation studies and the confidence the Council can have in them in order to confirm the housing allocations.

10. This section considers whether the representations merit any further modifications to the Plan. The key issues raised and responses to them are set out below. These complement the details in the separate schedule of representations.

Borough-wide Policies

Major Existing Developed Sites (MDS) in the Green Belt – Co 6 11. One objection has been received, on behalf of the owner of the site, advocating that Legal & General at Kingswood be an MDS with Kingswood Residents Association supporting the proposed modification. Officer Comment 12. The Inspector made recommendations on the criteria for selection and the policy wording, agreed to the designation of the East Surrey Hospital as an MDS but not to the Legal and General at Kingswood, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at Banstead and Redhill Aerodrome. Therefore, the Inspector specifically considered this site and found that it was not appropriate to be designated as an MDS. It is proposed that his recommendations be followed.

New Density Policy – Ho 9A

13. The policy has attracted eight objections. Most, including from the Reigate Society and English Heritage requested that more account be taken of character issues. However, GOSE has raised an objection because, in its view, the policy goes beyond PPG 3 in restricting density by not applying it to sites of less than 0.4 Ha, which could restrict the potential housing capacity coming forward from such sites. Officer Comment 14. The modification that introduced Policy Ho 9A, takes its lead from PPG3 and draws on established practice from other Local Plans in Surrey. This policy is essential to ensuring the Council has a more up-to-date Plan that has taken account of advice in PPG 3. It is evident from the relatively few objections received and the nature of them that this policy has struck the right balance. Whilst GOSE’s objection has been considered, the Plan’s proposed housing supply is not reliant upon windfall sites to deliver its Structure Plan allocation. Therefore, as a result of this and the view that the policy does have regard to the advice in PPG 3, no change to the policy is recommended.

of 31 Horley Policies & Issues

Flooding

15. All objections that raised concerns regarding flood risk have been considered and addressed by the Environment Agency (EA) and separately by the Council’s appointed consultants. The Council’s consultants have also examined the Environment Agency’s responses to assess whether they satisfactorily address the objector’s concerns. The responses from the EA and the Council’s consultants have been taken into account in formulating the officer comments on the representations made.

New National Flood Map 16. Since the publication of the Proposed Modifications the Environment Agency produced a new national flood map, known as “Flood Zones”. This includes flood zone 3, which purports to be a 1:100 year flood line, but without taking account of any man made structures or defences. This flood line is different from the Horley Flood Study (2004) indicative 1:100 year flood event. The Environment Agency has confirmed that because the Horley Flood Study (2004) represents a more detailed flood model then this is the one that should be used in the preparation of this Plan.

(a) Which Line to Take

(i) The 1968 event 17. Ninety-four objections have been received proposing the use of the 1968 event and interpretations of its extent, as the basis for making the housing allocations. Additional submissions have been received from Messrs Cox and Kent and the Meath Green Protection Society, some of which was not considered at the public inquiry.

15. Horley Town Council commissioned consultants, Black & Veatch, to review the Horley Flood Study, its subsequent scrutiny by the Council’s consultants Jacobs and new information by Messrs Cox & Kent. (The Black & Veatch report is the same information circulated by Horley Town Council attached to their letter of 13th January 2005 to all Borough Council Members). One section of the Black & Veatch Report addresses the issue of the 1968 event and concludes with the following observations on the matter:

“The 1968 flooding observations continue to raise questions as to the flooding mechanisms on the Mole and Burstow Stream. BV note that:

 When the reliable evidence of 1968 flood levels is compared with the HFS levels, the 1968 flood levels are considerably higher throughout Horley.  The HFS estimates 1968 to be an 80-year flood, whilst Atkins comment that the extent of flooding due to the 1968 flood would be similar if had occurred today.

There remains a mismatch between the reliable observed data from 1968 summarised in this report, and the modelling carried out in the HFS. It is Page 4 of 31 apparent that this modelling has been carried out to a high standard. Nevertheless it is not in agreement with the observed data. It is suggested that this mismatch needs explanation before the HFS envelope is used to define development within Horley.”

Officer Comment 18. This matter was debated at the 2001 Local Plan Inquiry. The Inspector and the specialist Flood Assessor appointed by the Secretary of State, concluded that the evidence provided by objectors, regarding the 1968 flood, was unreliable and although a great deal of information was based on personal experience, this was not persuasive. The Inspector also commented that, given the changes that have occurred within the catchment since 1968, the Environment Agency was prudent in attempting to provide an up to date model.

19. The Inspector concluded that the 1 in 100 year event flood plain should define the extent of the allocations. The Inspector also commented that many objectors continued to prefer the Circular 30/92 advice that the highest known flood event should be the basis for the definition of the floodplain, but that that advice had been superseded by PPG 25, which prefers the use of up to date modelling. This is the approach the Council has taken.

20. It should also be noted that the Horley Flood Study contains a comparison of previous flood events, including 1968, with the extent of the modelled flood lines. In the Flood Study, the Environment Agency comment that in many parts of the study area there has been substantial development since 1968, and quote Gatwick Airport as an example, which make historical comparisons inappropriate. The Agency comments that where there has been less development, for example, near Horley, perhaps a more realistic comparison can be made and that the results compare well to verifiable observed data. The flood model was also calibrated against two flood events in 1992 and one in 2000, and validated against events in 1994 and 2000.

21. The Environment Agency has considered the new information about the extent of the 1968 flood event and has advised the Council that it can continue to have confidence in the Horley Flood Study. While objectors continue to dispute the significance of the information about the 1968 flood with the Environment Agency, they have not persuaded the Agency that it is verifiable. Therefore, the Agency has not altered its view. Further, the independent consultant appointed by the Council confirm that the Agency’s assessment is thorough and adequately addresses the queries and concerns raised in the new information.

23. The Environment Agency is the statutory body with responsibility for providing advice on flooding matters to Local Planning Authorities. It states that the Horley Flood Study is best available information on fluvial flood risk. Its view is clear in stating that the Council should rely on the Horley Flood Study for the purposes of preparing this Plan.

24. Therefore, while the Council has considered the objectors’ concerns it is, as the Inspector concluded, prudent to use a credible

of 31 up to date model of potential flooding. Following the further work carried out by the Environment Agency and the subsequent scrutiny process, the Council can be confident in the robustness of the Flood Study. This satisfies the Inspector’s requirement for undertaking the additional work and reaching a conclusion on the issues. Therefore, no change to the Plan is recommended.

(ii) The 1:100 year +20% flood line. 25. Forty eight objections, 46 relating to the NW sector, advocate the use of this line for making the allocations in order to take a precautionary approach to take account of climate change. Many of these objections advocate going 100 metres further for the same reason, which in the case of the NW Sector would be similar to the objectors’ interpretation of the 1968 event line. Officer Comment

26. The Inspector was asked to clarify which flood line should be adopted for the purposes of making housing allocations in Horley. His response, which forms part of his report, was that the 1 in 100 year event flood plain should define the extent of the allocations. He went on to say that further detailed work to take into account such matters, as climate change should be a matter for the planning applications. This approach is in accordance with Government guidance, PPG 25 – Development and Flood Risk, and advice from the Environment Agency. There is no reference to additional national guidance or further evidence provided by objectors to justify the requested change.

27. Furthermore, Policies Ut 4 and Hr 2A on Flooding and on Local Flooding and Transportation Models, as proposed to be modified, require precautionary measures (defined in a Flood Risk Development Brief) to be provided by the developers for any housing built in the new neighbourhoods and specifically between the 1 in 100 and 1 in 100 + 20% year event lines. These details will be dealt with by the Planning Committee when they consider the planning applications. Therefore, no further change to the Plan is recommended.

(iii) Flexibility

28. Objections from the development industry have been made which request allowing flood plain compensation to facilitate development, such as in Smallfield Road (former Hr 7 site). Objections from the North East consortium have been made requesting flexibility in allowing the flood line to be moved back once local modelling shows greater housing land is available which does not flood. Officer Comment 29. The Inspector was clear in stating that flood plain compensation works should be avoided. Further, such works are unnecessary as the required amount of housing can be accommodated without them. In terms of flexibility the Plan cannot be altered after its adoption without going through a formal review under the new LDF system. The objectors have provided no evidence that would substantiate changing the indicative 1:100 year flood line from that proposed in the Horley Flood Study, which as Page 6 of 31 recommended by the Inspector, is to be the boundary for the housing development. Therefore, no further change to the Plan is recommended.

(b) Reliability of the Horley Flood Study

30. Objections have been made, notably from Horley Town Council, questioning the reliability of the Horley Flood Study (2004) in particular how the information from 1968 was taken into account by the Agency. The issues regarding the 1968 event are detailed above. Black & Veatch, the consultants appointed by the Town Council, address the issue of what they describe as the variability of the Inidicative Flood Map. Having carried this out, their report concludes with the following observations in addition to the observations on the 1968 event detailed in paragraph 15:

 “The HFS is a detailed and comprehensive study, and its modelling work is a significant improvement over that described in the earlier RMFS.  Jacobs Scrutiny of the HFS is a robust document, and has actually found only minor errors in the HFS. The review is, however, commissioned by RBC with the apparent hope of reducing the flood envelope and providing more development area for housing, and should be read in that light.

of 31 Officer Comment 31. The Horley Flood Study (July 2003), carried out by the Environment Agency, has been the subject of independent scrutiny. Our consultants confirmed that following the carrying out of minor revisions to the hydraulic model, the latest flood maps (January 2004) are sufficiently robust as a basis for making the housing allocations in Horley. They concluded that the hydrology was thorough and that the study is a good basis for the further detailed site-specific Flood Risk Assessments needed to support future planning decisions.

32. The Black & Veatch report states that Horley Flood Study is detailed, comprehensive and an improvement over the earlier Upper River Mole Flood Study (2000). It also concludes that the subsequent scrutiny carried out by the Council’s consultants is a robust document and has found only minor errors in the Flood Study. The conclusion that the scrutiny was commissioned with the “apparent hope of reducing the flood envelope and providing more development for housing” is quoted out of context and misrepresents the Council’s brief to its consultants. This is clear in reading the Executive summary of Jacobs’ report (2003) which states:

“RBBC then appointed Jacobs, in August 2003, as an independent reviewer to scrutinise and comment on the HFS to RBBC regarding the robustness of the assumptions, methodology, validation and use for confirming the proposed allocations.”

Given this unambiguous description of the brief and other comments in Jacobs’ report it is clear that the observations regarding this matter in the Black & Veatch report are incorrect.

33. Having considered the issues raised by objectors, Jacobs conclude that the Horley Flood Study and the Flood Risk Development Brief, still provide the best available information to assist with development related flood risk assessment. The Horley Flood Study has been through a robust and objective scrutiny process. The result is that the Council can have confidence that it can rely on the Study for the purpose of confirming the housing allocations in this Plan.

Transportation

34. Sixty-five objections have been received relating to Movement policies (Hr 2A, Hr 21 and Hr 24). Some objectors, such as Horley Town Council and Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council, included supporting information. These and the three responses made to the further transport information consultation, (see paragraph below), are contained in the Annexes to the separate schedule as background documents.

35. Since the publication of the Proposed Modifications further information has been received in respect of the Transportation Study, consisting of the response by the developers’ consultants to the observations by the Council’s consultants (Jacobs), following their scrutiny of the original study. All respondents to the proposed modifications were consulted on this and three further responses were received. These are commented on below. Page 8 of 31 36. The County Council, as Highway Authority, has considered and addressed all objections that raised concerns regarding transportation. Their responses have again been taken into account in formulating the officer comments on representations made on this issue.

(a) Reliability of Transportation Studies

(i) Increased Traffic Congestion & Impact on Junctions North of Horley

37. Thirty-two objections have been received concerning increased traffic congestion. The majority were general comments with some concerned about specific junctions. The Council’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee expressed concern that the proposed housing developments had not resulted in improvements to the road network to accommodate the increase in traffic.

Officer Comment 38. The Inspector recommended that confirmation of the housing allocations be delayed until the Council is confident that development will not have an adverse impact on highways junctions, including particularly those at Woodhatch and Three Arch Road. It is also clear from the various comments made by the Inspector in his report that it is not a question of whether the Council had to be satisfied that there would be no impact on the junctions that will be affected from traffic generated by from the housing allocations, as advocated by some objectors, but rather that the impact has to be acceptable.

39. Further work on traffic modelling and junctions was commissioned by County Council, carried out by the Developers’ consultants and verified by the Borough Council’s independent advisors.

40. This work, combined with some additional enhancements to improve key junctions at the planning application stage, enabled both the County Council (as Highway Authority) and the Borough Council’s independent advisors, Jacobs, to advise the Borough Council that they could confirm the housing allocations in the Plan for the purposes of consultation on the Proposed Modifications in July 2004.

41. The conclusions of Jacobs recent scrutiny of the additional information submitted following the publication of the Proposed Modifications are:

“We are satisfied that the model provides the basis for the Local Plan Housing Allocations, although there are a number of issues which need to be explored in more detail at the planning application stage.

The Council and the Highway Authority will also need to ensure that all necessary off-site highway improvements are identified, agreed & funded through the planning applications and Section 106 agreements.”

of 31 42. Surrey County Council has also considered the new information together with Jacobs’ exhaustive scrutiny of the model, and is satisfied that enough evidence has now been presented to confirm that the Transport Assessment is sufficiently robust for the Local Plan to be confirmed. This is subject to the achievement a satisfactory package of mitigation measures through the planning application process.

43. Surrey County Council has also considered the three responses to the non-statutory consultation on the additional information and advise that the transport assessment has been carried out in line with Government Guidance and has been subjected to an exhaustive scrutiny by independent consultants acting for the Borough Council. The independent scrutiny has considered the detailed methodology which encompasses the points raised by two objectors and concludes that the model is fit for purpose. The third objector’s concern about the junction of the new access road and Cross Oak Lane, any traffic calming or management measures for Wheatfield Way are matters to be dealt with at the planning application stage.

44. The comments made by the Council’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee regarding junction improvements are covered by policies in the Local Plan which seek improvements to key junctions in the study area. However, as the County Council and Jacobs confirm this a matter to be resolved at planning application stage.

(ii) The need for Further Studies (ii) 45. Twenty-six objections expressed the view that further transport study work needed to be carried out. In many cases these objections were integral to objections about traffic congestion. Some made reference to the concerns raised by Jacobs on the transport studies. Officer Comment 46. As stated above, further study work has been carried out in order to refine the traffic modelling. The resulting technical report has been subject to consultation, as described in paragraph 32. As stated above, the County Council and the Borough Council’s independent advisors, Jacobs have reiterated that the allocations can be confirmed, subject to further detailed work at the planning application stage. Therefore no change is recommended.

(b) Other issues

Implications of Fastway 47. Eighteen objections relate to the Fastway bus service. Some relate to Meath Green Lane (see paragraph 45 below). Others contend that Fastway would not solve the congestion problem. Officer Comment

of 31 48. The Inspector shared the Council’s confidence that the service can produce benefits. The Fastway bus service is integral to the new developments to encourage a reduction in car usage and congestion, as well as serving other parts of the town. In order to provide faster journey times, care has been taken to route the buses as directly as possible. Where achievable there will be a separate route to be used by Fastway from the main traffic access routes to the development sites from the principal road network. Therefore no change is recommended.

Meath Green Lane 49. Twelve objections expressed a range of concerns regarding Meath Green Lane. These include congestion, also that the Fastway bus will also contribute to congestion, the effective severance of the lane north from south by the development, the inadequate protection of the lane from development traffic, and that the lane should not have any closures. Officer Comment 50. The Inspector said that concerns regarding the details of traffic control measures are not matters for the Plan, but are something that will be subject to detailed proposals and consultation in due course. The County Council proposes to protect Meath Green Lane by limiting through traffic, both by design and traffic management. Thus there will be encouragement of traffic to use the Link Roads to the NW sector for car access, rather than Meath Green Lane. Fastway will reach the development from the southern end of the Lane, thereby serving the development directly without major conflict with the Link Road traffic. Therefore no change is recommended.

3 To be completed following receipt of SCC’s comments.

Horley Housing Allocations and Numbers

Structure Plan housing numbers 51. Linden Homes and George Wimpey & Co. have made objections stating that the Plan will not deliver sufficient numbers and then promoting their own site for housing. Officer Comment 52. The Inspector’s approach was that the two large sites would provide the requisite housing numbers unless the Flood Study limited the areas available for housing to such an extent that further sites would be required. The area of the two main allocations has been reduced as a result of the latest flood maps. However, the numbers recommended by the Inspector in each case can still be achieved without difficulty, being at the lower end of the density range (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare) encouraged in PPG 3 (Housing) to make more efficient use of land.

53. Updating the figures to take account of development completed or committed since the Revised Deposit Draft 2000 and the consideration of the Inspector’s other recommendations shows that the remaining allocations (i.e. The Grove, Whitmore Way, Victoria Road, The Drive, and other outstanding planning permissions) could produce 2,634 units. This is almost the outstanding requirement of 2,653 from the 1994 Structure Page 11 of 31 Plan from 1991 to post 2006. This means it is not necessary to make any further allocations or to reconsider the relative merits of allocating land at Bonehurst Road and Fishers/Bayhorne Farm.

Wilgers Farm – Hr 13 54. 45 objections, mainly standard in format, have been made promoting the reinstatement and even expansion of this site for housing. Many of these objections are accompanied by an objection to the town park site, which is also promoted for housing. Most of the objectors live in North West Horley. Officer Comment 55. The objectors’ proposals would be contrary to the Local Plan Inspector’s recommendations to delete Wilgers Farm (Hr 13) as a housing site and to support the Town Park proposal. The objections made have been considered and it has been concluded that they do not justify disagreeing with the Inspector’s recommendations.

Horley North West Sector Allocation – Hr 14.

56. 143 objections were made in respect of the principle of the allocation. Forty-four objections request that it be reduced in scale i.e. to avoid their interpretation of the 1968 flood line. These concerns are mainly in respect of flooding and transportation. These matters have been described above. Additionally concerns regarding the loss of countryside and farmland have been raised. Officer Comment 57. The further work done in response to the Inspector’s recommendations in respect of flooding and transportation has been outlined above. The objections regarding the principle of the allocation, loss of countryside and farmland were debated at the Local Plan Inquiry in 2001. Further, the Horley strategic allocation has been reaffirmed in the new Structure Plan. Therefore, no change is recommended.

Horley North East Sector Allocation – Hr 16

58. Two objections were made in respect of the principle of the allocation. Three objections have been made requesting that it be reduced in scale. These concerns are mainly in respect of flooding and transportation. These matters are dealt with above. Additionally, concerns regarding the loss of countryside and increase in density of the allocation have been raised. Officer Comment 59. Again, the further work done in response to the Inspector’s recommendations in respect of flooding and transportation has been outlined above. The objections regarding the principle of the allocation and the loss of countryside were debated at the Local Plan Inquiry in 2001. Further, the Horley strategic allocation has been reaffirmed in the new Structure Plan. The overall density is about 37 dpha, within the range advocated by PPG3. Therefore, no change is recommended.

of 31 5

Public Open Space – Hr 33

(a) Horley Town Park

60. Seventy-two responses, mainly standard, have been made requesting the deletion or relocation of the Town Park to alternative locations, such as Bonehurst Road. These have been mainly because of concerns about the accessibility of the site, and impact on local residents and appear mainly to be made to promote the development of the proposed town park site for housing. The Council’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee also sought reassurance that the Town Park would still be able to progress. Officer Comment 61. The principle of the Town Park and its location was debated at the Local Plan Inquiry and supported by the Inspector. The Inspector concluded that there were clear advantages in providing combined facilities with access to a wide catchment at Smallfield Road and, in the context of the comprehensive development of Horley, the provision of playing fields there has overriding benefits. He also recommended that the housing site at Wilgers Farm (Hr 13), included to help facilitate the purchase of the Town Park site, be deleted. The County Council, as highway authority, has confirmed that the use of the town park would have a minimal impact on peak hour traffic using Smallfield Road.

62. The alternative sites promoted by objectors, but not by any landowner of those sites, have been considered but do not warrant disagreeing with the Inspector’s recommendation. For example, Bonehurst Road site is promoted by a number of objectors, but this site is not as close to the town centre and transport links, as well as the proposed cycling and pedestrian networks as Wilgers Farm. No change is recommended.

63. The Local Plan secures the allocation of the appropriate site for the Town Park. The legal agreements associated with the planning applications will provide the necessary acquisition, layout and maintenance costs for the Park. Consequently options for its implementation will assessed following this stage and no change is recommended.

(b) Open Space Provision in the New Neighbourhoods

64. Seven objections have been received in respect of the reduction in site size of the proposed public open space provision and the relocation of some of the proposed sites for open space in the two new neighbourhoods. The Planning Committee also commented on the perceived reduction. The Council’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee also requested that a Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP) is included as part of the overall development. Officer Comment 65. There will be no overall reduction in Public Open Space (POS) provision, as Policy Re 6 of this Plan relating to the National Playing Fields Association’s (NPFA) Six Acre Standard will still apply. Policy Hr 33 only shows some of the larger areas of potential POS. Some of the Page 13 of 31 locations have changed in accordance with the Inspector’s recommendations. One additional change of location was proposed to the North East Sector NEAP area to facilitate the delivery of the housing numbers in this allocation. Consequently a NEAP is still included in the development. No change is recommended.

Horley Primary School Sites – Hr 39 66. Three objections have been received in respect of the reduction in site size of the proposed two primary schools. Officer Comment 67. This Plan can only seek to ensure that sufficient land is made available to meet the County’s requirements. The original size of the school sites proposed in the Plan was larger than required for their development. The reduction in the site size of the proposed schools was recognised by the Inspector as something that was to be subject to further assessment by the County Council. This work has been undertaken and a smaller site size has been identified as being necessary to accommodate the schools. No change is recommended.

of 31 Other Representations

Human Rights Act

68. Forty-eight respondents, following a standard format, have suggested that the Borough Council would be liable if insurance costs rise because of increased flood risk in Horley. 700 similar pro-formas were also received after 5th October 2004 from Horley West Action for the Environment. This Group subsequently confirmed that they were not objections to the modifications as such, but represented a general concern, which needed to be addressed by the Council. Therefore, this concern is being reported here and to the Planning Committee when it considers the planning applications for the two sectors in Horley. Officer Comment 69. As the issue of Human Rights has been raised it is necessary to carry out an assessment under the Human Rights Act 2000 as this should be taken into account before a decision is reached. The assessment is set out in Appendix 2, which also deals with one family whose home will be potentially lost due to the new development.

Independence of Consultants 70. Three respondents, including Horley Town Council, have stated that the Council’s consultants, Jacobs, have not provided independent advice because of their recent merger with Babtie, the Environment Agency’s consultants.

71. Horley Town Council’s consultants, Black & Veatch, state that the advice by Jacobs was designed to expand the area available for housing development. They comment, while their (Jacobs) findings are robust they should be read in the light of the above comment.

Officer Comment

72. No evidence has been submitted to substantiate the assertion that Jacobs did not provide the Council with independent advice. Jacobs were first appointed in July 2003. They have confirmed that they had completed all the reviews of the studies (May 2004) before the merger was announced (23rd June 2004); and that, since then, the work undertaken by the firm for the EA and the Council has been carried out in different offices. Further, they have been robust in their review of the work produced. Therefore, the Council can be confident that it has received independent advice.

73. The allegations by Black & Veatch are without foundation and demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the Inspector’s report and the process that has been clearly followed by the Borough Council in considering flooding information about Horley. The Local Plan Inspector agreed with the Borough Council’s view that it was important that fundamental information about the flood plain is seen to be validated independently of

of 31 development interests. This is the process that the Borough Council has adhered to, as set out above.

Surrey County Council’s Land Ownership

74. Five representations, including Horley Town Council, have also been received alleging that the transportation study cannot be relied upon because the County Council has a landowner interest in the Plan. Similar comments have also been made in respect of the reduction of the size of the proposed school sites (see also paragraphs 62 and 63).

Officer Comment

75. These concerns were raised at the 2001 public inquiry. The Inspector commented that the Borough Council has the opportunity to scrutinise all the work done and is responsible for making the final decision on the Plan. Independent scrutiny of the Transportation Study has been carried out and the associated issues are detailed earlier in this report. Further, no respondent has provided any evidence to substantiate their assertion.

76. The County Council has confirmed that there is a clear separation of estate disposal and transportation, planning and education functions with staff able to act independently and be advised by different legal staff.

Options 77. Government guidance requires the Council to maintain an up to date development plan (PPG 12 Para 2.23). The Council now has to consider the following options:  Adopt the Plan now as it stands  Requesting a second Public Inquiry  Doing nothing  Adopting the Plan with selected amendments  Abandoning the Plan.

78. The Council has received legal advice from Counsel about the approach it should follow in deciding whether to hold a further Public Inquiry, and that it is open to the Council, acting reasonably, to decide not to do so. The issues associated with this, i.e. independent scrutiny of new information, practical implications, delay and fairness are detailed in Appendix 1.

79. The options of doing nothing and adopting the Plan with selected amendments would lead to further delay in having a more up to date Local Plan. The implications of this would be to further delay the delivery of the Structure Plan housing allocation at Horley and hold back the preparation of the Council’s Local Development Framework. These two options, together with abandoning the Plan, would also result in the Council in not having adopted planning policies against which to consider planning applications and could lead to the Council losing control of the timing and detail of the development of the Horley allocations.

of 31 Resource Implications 80. The Local Plan has existing funding in the Capital Programme of £110,000 per annum for three years. This comprises £30,000 for production, public consultation, professional and consultancy fees and £80,000 to fund two posts to deal with the major outline and detailed planning applications associated with the Horley NE & NW Sectors. The cost of the Local Plan process to the Council since 1999 is £790,400. The implementation of the Horley Master Plan will have a wider impact on service delivery, and the Council will need capacity to ensure the proper provision of the infrastructure. A further report will be submitted to the Executive on this matter in due course.

81. In addition, the Council is unique among Surrey authorities in continuing with the Local Plan preparation, but also embarking on the production of a new Local Development Framework.

Conclusions

82. The Inspector’s Report (2001) concluded that the two main housing allocations at Horley should be confirmed only when further work to validate the Flooding and Transportation models had been carried out.

Flooding

83. The Inspector recommended that the Council must be confident that the Horley flooding model and the 1 in 100 year floodplain are validated.

84. The Inspector commented that many objectors continued to prefer the Circular 30/92 advice that the highest known flood event should be the basis for the definition of the floodplain, but that that advice had been superseded by PPG 25 which prefers the use of up to date modelling. This is the approach the Council has taken.

85. The Council agreed in November 2001 that further work should be carried out and be the subject of independent scrutiny to meet the Inspector’s recommendations. The Environment Agency was requested to commission further modelling work which resulted in the Horley Flood Study.

86. The Flood Study was completed and scrutinised in 2003. Following the Council’s independent scrutiny minor amendments were made by the Environment Agency to the model which resulted in the revised Horley Flood Study in 2004.

87. New information about the extent of the 1968 flood event was subsequently received from local residents and considered by the Agency. Having considered this information, the Agency advised the Council that it could continue to have confidence in the Horley Flood Study.

88. The Agency and the Council’s consultants, Jacobs, have also examined the responses to the Proposed Modifications. The Agency and Jacobs are satisfied that the Council can confirm the allocations on the basis of the Flood Study.

of 31 89. Jacobs also confirm that the Flood Study, and the Flood Risk Development Brief which will be dealt with at planning application stage, still provide the best available information to assist with development related flood risk assessment. Transport 90. The Inspector recommended that confirmation of the housing allocations be delayed until the Council is confident that development will not have an unacceptably adverse impact on highways junctions in Horley and those at Woodhatch and Three Arch Road.

91. The Transportation Study was completed and scrutinised in 2004. In July 2004 Surrey County Council (as Highways Authority) and the Council’s scrutiny consultants advised that the Council can have confidence in the Transport Study for the purpose of confirming the allocations, subject to recommendations for further work to be carried out at the planning application stage.

92. Information from the developers’ consultants addressing Jacobs’ recommendations has since been received and consulted upon following publication of the Proposed Modifications. Surrey County Council and Jacobs have assessed this further information. Both continue to advise the Borough Council that we can proceed with the Local Plan, subject to further more detailed work to be carried out at the planning application stage.

6 In conclusion, t

93. he following matters have been considered:-  The Inspector’s recommendations;  The representations received on the proposed modifications;  The need for a second inquiry in the light of the five main factors set out by the Courts;  The Horley Flood Study (2004), the Horley Transportation Studies (2004) and the advice from the Council’s scrutiny consultants; and  Advice from the Environment Agency and the County Council as the Highway Authority.

94. Having considered all the representations, it is recommended that it is unnecessary to hold a further inquiry into the objections to the Proposed Modifications to the Local Plan. The Local Plan Inspector’s recommendations in relation to the confirmation of the housing allocations at Horley have been met after a great deal of further work and evaluation. It is therefore recommended that Full Council be asked to adopt the Proposed First Alteration to the Borough Local Plan, as proposed to be modified.

95. Subject to the decision of the Council, it will also be necessary to issue the Notice to Adopt and to authorise the preparation of the necessary documentation for the subsequent incorporation and publication of the First Alteration into a combined Borough Local Plan 2005.

of 31 Background Papers: Environment Agency  Correspondence in respect of consideration of representations and attached information on the proposed modifications.  Correspondence between the Environment Agency & Messrs Simpson, Cox & Kent.  Letter to the Council regarding flood zones and the Horley Flood Study.

Flooding Jacobs  Letter of 20 October 2004 re- Jacobs – Babtie merger  Correspondence in respect of consideration of representations and attached on the proposed modifications.  Correspondence in respect of consideration of the Environment Agency’s responses on representations to the proposed modifications.

Transport  Independent Scrutiny of Transport Studies Report; August 2004  Stage 2 – Independent Scrutiny of Transport Studies Report; January 2005

Surrey County Council  Correspondence in respect of consideration of representations and attached information on the proposed modifications.  Correspondence in respect of consideration of information attached to representations to the further transport information

D:\Docs\2018-01-02\0cb564df93adc445cfabceb9f1dfebfa.doc

of 31 Appendix 1

Consideration of Whether to Hold a Second Local Plan Inquiry

7 The Council has the discretion whether or not to hold a second Local Public Inquiry at this stage. A number of Court decisions have helped to clarify the limits of a local authority’s discretion in relation to taking such a decision. The Courts have recognised that the development plan process involves many interests and conflicting considerations.

8 In considering whether to hold a new inquiry the following considerations are relevant: (i) Whether or not the issue raised has been previously subject to independent scrutiny by an Inspector, so as to provide independent evaluation of the opposing contentions; (ii) Government advice that it would not be normally necessary to hold a further inquiry into matters already considered; (iii) The practical implications of a second inquiry and, in particular, whether it would potentially be of material benefit to the decision making process; (iv) Delay and the desirability of securing an up to date adopted development plan; and (v) Fairness to the objector and to other parties; as with all decisions of this kind, the determination whether or not to hold a further inquiry should seek to achieve fairness, balancing the interests of all of the relevant parties.

(i) Whether or not the issue raised had been previously subject to independent scrutiny.

9 The existence of new information or even new issues being raised does not automatically lead to another public inquiry; rather, the Council needs to consider the implications of the new information or issue.

10 The representations received have not raised any fundamentally new issues that have not been previously subject to independent scrutiny by the Local Plan Inspector. In terms of the Borough wide elements of the Plan the new density policy stems from the Inspector’s consideration of the Council’s proposed response to PPG 3. Following consideration of objections to this new policy the matters raised are not considered to warrant a second public inquiry.

11 In the Horley context 39 objections have been made requesting a second public inquiry, mainly to debate the reliability of the flooding, including the significance of the 1968 flood line, (19 requests) and transportation (17 requests) studies,. Further information on these requests is contained in the report and within the separate schedule of representations.

12 These issues were fully debated at the Local Plan inquiry. Whilst the revised Horley Flood Study and Transportation Study are new information that was not considered at the Inquiry, these relate to the issues that were debated at it and were the direct result of compliance with the Local Plan Inspector’s recommendations. The new studies have been subject to scrutiny not by an Inspector but by consultants appointed by the Council as well as the Environment Agency and Surrey County Council officers.

of 31 13 The Inspector’s recommendations in respect of flooding and transportation were to delay confirmation of the allocations until the Council was confident that the indicative 1:100 year flood event definition had been validated, and that development at Horley will not have an unacceptably adverse impact on highway junctions. It is clear from the terms of his Report that the Inspector anticipated that the Borough Council would be the decision maker in relation to whether the further work which he considered should be done would enable the allocations to be confirmed. The Inspector also endorsed the Council’s proposed process of independent scrutiny of the further work, which has been carried out. The new studies have been subject to independent scrutiny. Additionally, the revised Flood Study (2004) was publicised and further consultation has recently been carried out in respect of the Transportation Study.

14 As a result of the publicity regarding the Flood Study, new information was submitted in May last year regarding flooding from Messrs Cox & Kent and Meath Green Protection Society. These were subject to consideration before the publication of the Proposed Modifications. The additional technical submissions, which have been submitted in response to the Modifications, have also been scrutinised by the Environment Agency and the Council’s independent consultants.

15 With regard to flooding, the Officers’ responses, contained in the separate schedule to this report, take into account the advice from the Environment Agency and the Council’s flooding scrutiny consultants. To a large extent the new material received relates to objectors’ contention that their interpretation of the 1968 flood event should be used instead of the Horley Flood Study (2004) in making the housing allocations. This was a major issue that was subject to scrutiny and recommendations from the Local Plan Inspector and the Specialist Flood Assessor appointed by the Secretary of State. The Inspector recommended a review of the flood plain. This matter is discussed further in detail in the report and the conclusion reached that the Council can have confidence in the Horley Flood Study and that no further change to the Plan is justified by the representations received.

16 With regard to transport, the Officers’ responses, contained in the separate schedule to this report, take into account the advice from Surrey County Council (as Highway Authority) and the Council’s transport scrutiny consultants. Further scrutiny has been recently been carried out by the Council’s consultants on information submitted in response to the original transport scrutiny. This has also been subject to non-statutory consultation. The responses to this consultation have been considered. This matter is discussed further in detail in the report and the conclusion reached that the Council can have confidence in the Horley Transportation Study and that no further change to the Plan is justified by the representations received.

(ii) Government advice. 17 Government guidance in PPG 12 is that, in view of the revised procedures prior to the inquiry (i.e. first and second deposit stages), it is less likely that there will be new issues raised by objections to the modifications that were not covered at the first public inquiry, thereby reducing the likelihood of a need for a modifications inquiry. This advice is however general in nature and is of little direct relevance to the circumstances here.

of 31 (iii) Practical Implications of a Second Inquiry. 18 Holding a second public inquiry would delay the adoption of the Local Plan, the implications of which are discussed below. .

19 One benefit of the Inquiry would be to provide an opportunity for objectors to have their concerns heard, and the additional work undertaken since the Local Plan Inspector’s Report examined, by a second Inspector. Although, in the light of the outcome of that further work, this is considered to be an unlikely outcome, the possibility cannot be dismissed that an Inspector could recommend that the housing allocations should still not be confirmed.

20 The key question is whether an Inquiry would be likely to be of material benefit to the decision making process. In this instance the main issues concern flooding and transportation, which have been previously subject to consideration and recommendations by the Local Plan Inspector. Those recommendations, which have now been followed, are further discussed in the report.

21 Objectors have therefore had the opportunity to provide new information to the Council and to comment on the new studies. Having considered all the new information, advice from the Council’s independent consultants and representations received, it is recommended that the Borough Council can now be confident that

 the indicative 1 in 100 year flood event definition has been validated

 development at Horley will not have an adverse impact on relevant highway junctions

15. The Council can therefore confirm the allocations, in accordance with the Inspector’s recommendations. Whilst another inquiry would allow objectors to seek to persuade a different Inspector to reach a different conclusion, in the circumstances its benefit to the decision making process is likely to be limited.

(iv) Delay 16 Holding a second public inquiry is likely to result in a delay to the adoption of the Plan of at least 6-12 months. Officers have provisionally advised the Planning Inspectorate that an Inquiry could be requested and the Council has been provided with a potential date in August 2005.

17 The existing adopted Local Plan dates back to 1994. Government guidance, PPG 12, stresses the importance of Plans being prepared and reviewed at least every 5 years. Members may be aware that this Authority has been criticised by applicants at appeal and by the Audit Commission in its CPA report because of parts the current adopted Plan being perceived as being out of date. This perception will only be reinforced by any further delay to an already delayed Plan. As a responsible Local Planning Authority it is very important that we have a more up to date Local Plan.

18 In order to meet the Structure Plan requirement of 2600 additional dwellings in Horley, housing completions should have started from 2001. The delay in Plan preparation has led to this not being achieved. The Local Plan Inspector

of 31 recognised this and removed the phasing requirement (1300 houses by 2006), and this is reflected in the Structure Plan 2004, which requires the Horley allocation to be delivered between 2001–2016. The Council is already under special scrutiny by the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) because of the under provision of housing, caused by the delay in bring forward housing at Horley. While it is considered that this Borough has an excellent track record in delivering housing, emphasised by the completion of the Structure Plan housing requirement in the Rest of the Borough 2-years ahead of schedule, any further delay in the adoption of the Plan will obviously also further delay the delivery of housing, including affordable housing, at Horley.

19 A consequence of such a delay could be to hold back the preparation of the Council’s new Local Development Framework. The new development plan system is a key element in the delivery of community and corporate objectives, such as the regeneration of Redhill Town centre and setting out the spatial vision for the future of the Borough.

20 Furthermore, planning applications have been submitted for the two main housing allocations at Horley. Therefore, it is a distinct possibility that a further delay in the Local Plan process could result in appeals being made and determined in advance of the adoption of the Plan. The applicants could argue that the Plan process had become so extended that decisions which would enable the Structure Plan housing requirements to be met could no longer await the final outcome of that process. In this way, the Council could lose control over the timing and detail of the development of these sites.

(v) Fairness 21 Since the Local Plan Inspector’s Report, the Borough Council has undertaken a thorough process of consultation and scrutiny, including the instruction of independent consultants, to review the further work on flooding and transportation issues carried out by the EA, Surrey County Council and their consultants. While the desire of objectors to have a second inquiry in order for their views to be heard is understood, they have in fact had ample opportunity to express their views, which have been fully considered and taken into account.

22 It is therefore considered that the interests of fairness to the objectors do not require a further inquiry to be held.

Conclusion

23 In the circumstances, it is considered that it is unnecessary to hold a further inquiry into the objections to the Proposed Modifications to the First Alteration to the Local Plan. The Local Plan Inspector’s recommendations in relation to the key issues of flooding and traffic impact were (in short) that confirmation of the housing allocations at Horley should be delayed until the Council had sufficient confidence in the Flooding and Transportation models. That position, after a great deal of further work and evaluation, has now been reached.

of 31 Appendix 2

Assessment under the Human Rights Act 1998

Under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) a duty is placed on Local Authorities to consider the impact of a decision they are to take on the human rights of individuals affected by that decision. Although no specific arguments have been raised in the representations received to the proposed modifications, it is prudent to undertake an assessment of the likely affects on those objectors as failure to do so can give rise to a right to challenge the Council’s decision. The issues to be considered are-

1. What are the human rights issues raised?

1.1.1 Objectors made reference to the HRA at the Local Plan Inquiry on the basis that

1.1.2 Development will lead to flooded properties which may be uninsurable or lead to increased premiums; and

1.1.3 In the case of one family, the policies will lead to the loss of their agricultural home by the termination of their tenancy by their landlord.

Whilst no legal submissions were made on these concerns either at that time, or indeed now, objectors have again raised these general points in response to the proposed modifications.

2. Identifying whether, and if so which, human rights article under the Act may be engaged,

2.1 Articles 6, 8 and 1 of the first protocol are those that may be engaged, that is, the concerns of objectors indicate that making the modifications may breach one of these articles.

2.2 However, as regards the flooding issue, it is unlikely that any of these articles will be engaged since the potential development if the plan policies are adopted is very unlikely to increase the risk of flooding to existing properties and there is no evidence that they will be uninsurable or more expensive to insure. In addition they do not have a " right" that can be infringed if it relates to property they do not own, that is properties that may be built.

2.3 It can also be argued that there is no infringement of human rights at the stage of determining the content of the local plan policies as the concerns turn on a perceived potential infringement and not an actual breach of human rights. The issue should instead be addressed at the detailed planning application stage when an actual rather than the perceived infringement may occur.

of 31 2.3 Nevertheless, the following assessments address the issues on the assumption that such an infringement is considered to occur at this stage.

3. Whether the breach is in accordance with the law, complies with any justification required under the individual articles, is proportionate (namely ‘no greater than is necessary’), and therefore fair in terms of Section 14 of the Act.

3.1 Article 6 states, inter alia,

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law…"

3.2 Article 6 must be complied with in all circumstances, that is, an individual whose rights may be infringed must be given the opportunity for a fair and public hearing by an independent tribunal.

3.3 The objectors concerns under the HRA in relation to both flooding and loss of property were raised at the Local Plan Public Inquiry and no new potential infringements have now been raised. That Inquiry was an impartial tribunal established by law. Its’ proceedings were carried out in public and the concerns of the objectors were put forward to and properly considered by the Inspector. The Inspector also gave them every opportunity to have them considered. He drew conclusions at paragraph 11.109 in relation to the loss of the family home.

3.4 The objectors have also been given the opportunity to raise these concerns again through the modifications procedure and these have been fully considered in the report. The Courts provide a further impartial tribunal should the objectors believe the Council’s decision on these issues is flawed, and there is therefore no breach of this Article at this time.

3.5 Article 8 states:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence."

3.6 Article 8 is a “restrictive” article. This means that even if there is a recognised breach of it, if it can be argued that one of the exceptions set out in the paragraph 2 of the article applies, the breach can be considered to be justified.

3.7 A public authority may interfere with the right set out in article 8 where that interference is lawful and necessary in a democratic society that includes protecting the rights and freedoms of others

of 31 3.8 The planning legislation is designed to balance the interests of the general public with those of both the wider public who may benefit from the development and those of potential applicants to develop.

3.9 In this case the concerns as to the flooding of the area and the loss of a home have been fully considered at the Local Plan Inquiry and as regards flooding, by way of the further work undertaken subsequently and independently scrutinised. In addition the concerns as to flooding have been raised in the context of potential occupants of the affected land. The rights of the wider community and potential developers, have been considered and balanced against those of others in the area who are affected namely the objectors. Interference with the objectors’ rights, if any, is justifiable as being lawful and necessary for the reason stated above, and particularly having taken into account the full circumstances set out in the report.

3.10 A further part of the assessment is to determine whether the interference of an individual’s rights by reliance on a reason in the Article is ‘proportionate’. This means that any interference must be no greater than is necessary, that is, it is reasonable and fair. As regard flooding, interference is in accord with this principle given, the detailed analysis of the issues by the local plan Inspector, the further work and scrutiny by both the relevant agencies and the Council’s independent consultants, and the fact that further controls can be imposed at the detailed planning application stage to ensure risk of flooding is appropriately minimised.

3.11 When considering the loss of the home, those factors are also relevant. It is also relevant that the loss of the home is a matter between the Landlord and Tenant, is not certain to occur since the alternative accommodation could be agreed, and there is a statutory right to compensation and the ability to negotiate fair compensation under separate legislation. All these additional factors are outside the control of the council, and confirmation of the modified Local Plan policies will not necessarily result in an adverse interference with this objector’s Article 8 rights.

3.12 Article 1 of the First Protocol states:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law".

3.13 This article is also “restrictive” and Paragraph 2 sets out the cases where breach of the article can be justified. The preceding provisions, shall not, in any way impair the right of the State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary where control of the use of property is in accordance with the general interest.

3.14 The planning legislation, and particularly the Local Plan process, is specifically designed to weigh the interests of individual residents against those of the wider general interest. Both the concerns as to flooding in the

of 31 area and the loss of the home were issues that have been weighed at all stages of the preparations of the Local Plan.

3.15 Again the rights of the community and potential applicants to develop the land have been considered and balanced against those of others who may be affected. It is felt that any interference with the objectors’ rights is justifiable as being lawful and necessary for the reason stated above, and having taken into account the full circumstances again set out in the report.

3.16 The comments on the whether the breach of these rights is ‘proportionate’ as discussed under Article 8, equally apply to Article 1.

4. Conclusion

4.1 Whilst no specific human right has been identified, the above assessment considers those that appear to be affected. If any such right is likely to infringed, for all the reasons set out above it is considered that such interference would be lawful, justified, proportionate and fair.

of 31 Appendix 3

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

1 September 2004

Extract from Minutes of the Meeting

26. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN (PROPOSED FIRST ALTERATION REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT JULY 2000

The Executive on 15 July 2004 approved the Proposed Modifications to the Borough Local Plan (Proposed First Alteration Revised Deposit Draft July 2000) for public consultation purposes. The following documents that formed the basis of the consultation had been circulated to all Members of the Council:  Schedule of Inspector’s Recommendations, the Council’s Response and Proposed Modifications  Current working version incorporating Proposed Modifications The Borough Local Plan was a Policy Framework document and the Executive was required by the Constitution to consult the Committee on its proposals. Once adopted the Plan would form a key element of the Council’s documents that support the decision making process for developments within the Borough.

RESOLVED that the Executive be informed of the following comments on the proposed modifications to the Borough Local Plan, that:

(i) there was general concern about issues relating to the overall density of developments in the Borough and requested that the Committee examine this issue in more detail at the appropriate time;

(ii) the Local Plan was silent in relation to the development of flats and that, at the appropriate time, it requested that it consider the establishment of a draft policy for this matter;

(iii) there was general concern about whether the proposed Town Park in Horley would proceed and reassurance was sought that the proposed modifications would allow this to be developed;

(iv) reassurance be sought as to whether developers would be able to include a Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP) as part of the overall developments in Horley;

(v) the conclusions of the transport study remained of concern particularly as the proposed housing developments in Horley had not resulted in proposed improvements to the road network to

of 31 accommodate the increased volume of traffic resulting from the anticipated housing developments in the area; and

(vi) the Inspector’s proposals to protect the Green Belt from development be welcomed.

of 31 Appendix 4

Planning Committee

6th October 2004

Extract from Minutes of the Meeting

88. Proposed Modifications to the Borough Local Plan (Proposed First Alteration Revised Deposit Draft July 2000) The Committee considered a report which gave details of the decision of the Executive on 15th July, 2004 to approve the proposed modifications to the Borough Local Plan for public consultation purposes. The report to the Executive with relevant appendices was attached to the submitted report, and Members also had before them a copy of the Schedule of the Inspector’s Recommendations, the Council’s Response and Proposed Modifications, which had formed part of the documentation considered by the Executive. As part of the consultation process the Planning Committee had been invited to comment to the Executive on the proposed modifications to the Local Plan.

The document containing the Schedule of Inspector’s Recommendations, the Council’s Response and the Proposed Modifications was considered page by page by the Committee, and with reference to Modification No. 68 it was suggested that the reference to a “…10-15 minute cycle ride or walk to local facilities ...” was ambiguous and should be amended.

A Member explained that the Horley Ward Members had considered all of the relevant documents and issues in great detail with the officers, and an assurance was requested that all comments made would be taken into account. Officers confirmed that all comments would be submitted to the Executive for consideration in December, and any recommendations made by the Executive would be subject to approval by full Council.

Particular reference was made to a possible reduction in recreation/public open space allocation and the location of Air Quality Contours. With regard to the former, a request was made that the original areas allocated for recreational use should be reinstated. Officers were not aware of any significant reduction in the proposed amount of public open space but suggested that there might have been a change in status or category. The position would be checked and reported to the Executive.

Reference was also made to Modification No. 87 which had suggested an amendment to read, “The developers should also demonstrate that their new developments would not increase the risk of flooding at the

of 31 site or elsewhere.” Members were concerned at how this could be demonstrated and suggested that it could be controlled by conditions on planning consents. It was explained that there was a two-stage process, i.e. the validation of the 100-year flood plain, and the more detailed consideration at the planning application stage. It was noted that residents in Horley were sceptical about the 100 year flood plain as a number of versions had been proposed at various times. A query was also raised concerning the status of the Council’s scrutineers in this respect.

RESOLVED that:

(i) the above comments on the proposed modifications to the Borough Local Plan (Proposed First Alteration Revised Deposit Draft July 2000) be submitted to the Executive for consideration; and

(ii) subject to those comments, the Committee was satisfied with the proposed modifications as printed.

(NOTE: The Chairman, Councillor M.J. Miller, and Councillors J.B. Kendall and J.A. Meech declared a personal interest in this item).