Greenhouse Gas Assessment

Historic environment assessment ©MOLA 2019 Historic environment assessment ©MOLA 2019

the site the site

Fig 3 John Norden's 250 years of map making in the County of Surrey, sheet no. 3b, 1594. Fig 5 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 6”:mile map of 1873 (not to scale).

the site the site

Fig 4 John Roque's map of Surrey, 1768. Fig 6 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 6”:mile map of 1896 (not to scale).

SURR2016HEA19#03&04_Egley Road SURR2016HEA19#05&06_Egley Road Historic environment assessment ©MOLA 2019 Egley Road

APPENDIX E: Information for Inclusion within an ES – Way Finding

the site

Fig 7 Ordnance Survey 25”:mile map of 1935/6 (not to scale).

SURR2016HEA19#07_Egley Road Egley Road Egley Road

Information for Inclusion in Environmental Statements, How the EIA will address the Information Information for Inclusion in Environmental Statements, How the EIA will address the Information as Specified in Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2017 Specifications as Specified in Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2017 Specifications

1. A description of the development, including in particular: Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction; (a) ES Volume 1: 2. A description of the reasonable alternatives (for example in ES Volume 1: a description of the location of the development; terms of development design, technology, location, size Chapter 3: Alternatives and Design Evolution; Chapter 1: Introduction; and scale) studied by the developer, which are relevant to (b) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole ES Volume 1: the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen development, including, where relevant, requisite Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; demolition works, and the land-use requirements during option, including a comparison of the environmental the construction and operational phases; Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction; effects. (c) a description of the main characteristics of the operational ES Volume 1: 3. ES Volume 1: A description of the relevant aspects of the current state of phase of the development (in particular any production Chapter 2: EIA Methodology; Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; the environment (baseline scenario) … process), for instance, energy demand and energy used, Technical Chapters 6 – 7; …nature and quantity of the materials and natural ES Volume 1: …and an outline of the likely evolution thereof without ES Volume 1: resources (including water, land, soil and biodiversity) Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; implementation of the development as far as natural Chapter 2: EIA Methodology; used; and Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction; changes from the baseline scenario can be assessed with reasonable effort on the basis of the availability of Technical Chapters 6 – 7; (d) ES Volume 1: environmental information and scientific knowledge. Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics 4. ES Volume 1: an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues Scoped Out From EIA); Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics and emissions (such as water, … ES Volume 2: A description of the factors specified in regulation 4(2) Scoped Out From EIA); EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics likely to be significantly affected by the development: Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; Scoped Out From EIA)). population, human health, … ES Volume 2: ES Volume 1: EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics Chapter 6: Air Quality; Scoped Out From EIA)); …air, … ES Volume 2: ES Volume 1: Air Quality; Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics ES Volume 1: Scoped Out From EIA); Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; Scoped Out From EIA); Chapter 7: Ecology; ES Volume 2: ES Volume 2: …biodiversity (for example fauna and flora), … …soil and subsoil pollution,… EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics Scoped Out From EIA)); Scoped Out From EIA)); Preliminary Risk Assessment (Scoping Report – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Scoping Report - Appendix); Appendix A); Standalone Documents ES Volume 1: Light Pollution Report; Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics ES Volume 1: Scoped Out From EIA); …noise, vibration, … Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics ES Volume 2: Scoped Out From EIA); EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics ES Volume 2: Scoped Out From EIA)); …land (for example land take), …. EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics ES Volume 1: Scoped Out From EIA)); Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics Preliminary Risk Assessment (Scoping Report - Scoped Out From EIA); Appendix); ES Volume 2: …light, … EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics ES Volume 1: Scoped Out From EIA)); Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics Standalone Documents Scoped Out Form EIA); Light Pollution Report; …soil (for example organic matter, erosion, compaction, ES Volume 2: EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics ES Volume 1: sealing), … Scoped Out From EIA)); Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics Scoped Out From EIA); Preliminary Risk Assessment (Scoping Report - …heat, radiation and … ES Volume 2: Appendix);

EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics ES Volume 1: Scoped Out From EIA)); Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics …water (for example hydromorphological changes, ES Volume 1: Scoped Out From EIA); …quantities and types of waste produced during the quantity and quality), … construction and operation phases; Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; ES Volume 2: EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics Egley Road Egley Road

Scoped Out From EIA)); (c) ES Volume 1: Standalone Documents Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics Flood Risk Assessment Scoped Out From EIA); Surface Water and Foul Drainage Strategy; Chapter 6: Air Quality; the emission of pollutants, … ES Volume 1: ES Volume 2: Chapter 6: Air Quality; EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics …air, … Scoped Out From EIA)); ES Volume 2: Air Quality; Air Quality ES Volume 1: ES Volume 1: Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics …climate (for example greenhouse gas emissions, Chapter 4: Proposed Development Scoped Out From EIA); impacts relevant to adaptation), … …noise, vibration,… ES Volume 2: ES Volume 2: Greenhouse Gas Assessment; EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics ES Volume 1: Scoped Out From EIA)); Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics ES Volume 1: Scoped Out From EIA); Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics ES Volume 2: Scoped Out From EIA); …material assets, cultural heritage, including architectural EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics ES Volume 2: …light, … and archaeological aspects, and landscape… Scoped Out From EIA)); EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics Historic Environment Assessment (Scoping Report - Scoped Out From EIA)); Appendix); Standalone Documents Standalone Documents Light Pollution Report Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal ES Volume 1: 5. A description of the likely significant effects of the Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics development on the environment resulting from, inter alia: Scoped Out From EIA); …heat and radiation, … (a) the construction and existence of the development, ES Volume 1: ES Volume 2: including, where relevant, demolition works. Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction; EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics Scoped Out From EIA)); (b) ES Volume 1: the use of natural resources, in particular land, soil, … Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; ES Volume 1: Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction; Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of Topics Scoped Out From EIA); …the creation of nuisances, … ES Volume 1: ES Volume 2: Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics Scoped Out Form EIA); Scoped Out From EIA)); ES Volume 2: ES Volume 1: …water and … EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics Scoped Out From EIA)); Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of Topics …and the disposal and recovery of waste; Scoped out from EIA); Standalone Documents Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; Flood Risk Assessment; Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction; Surface Water and Foul Drainage Strategy; (d) ES Volume 1: ES Volume 1: Chapter 2: EIA Methodology (Summary of ‘Topics Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; Scoped Out From EIA); Chapter 7: Ecology; Technical Chapters 6 – 7; ES Volume 2: the risks to human health, cultural heritage or the ES Volume 2: Ecology environment (for example due to accidents or disasters); …biodiversity, … EIA Scoping Report (refer Scoping Report (Topics Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Scoping Report - Scoped Out From EIA)); Appendix); Standalone Documents Flood Risk Assessment; Standalone Documents Surface Water and Foul Drainage Strategy; Light Pollution Report; (e) the cumulation of effects with other existing and/or ES Volume 1 ES Volume 1: approved projects, taking into account any existing Technical Chapters 6 – 7; environmental problems relating to areas of particular …considering as far as possible the sustainable availability Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; environmental importance likely to be affected or the use ES Volume 2: of these resources; Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction; of natural resources; Air Quality; Technical Chapters 6 – 7;

Egley Road

Information for Inclusion in Environmental Statements, How the EIA will address the Information as Specified in Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2017 Specifications Trium Environmental Consulting LLP Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Scoping Report - Appendix); 69-85 Tabernacle Street London (f) ES Volume 1: EC2A 4BD the impact of the project on climate (for example the Chapter 4: The Proposed Development nature and magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions) and +44 (0) 20 3887 7118 the vulnerability of the project to climate change; and ES Volume 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions; [email protected] (g) ES Volume 1: www.triumenvironmental.co.uk Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; the technologies and the substances used. Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction; Project Reference: TEC00081 Technical Chapters 6 – 7; 6. A description of the forecasting methods or evidence, used ES Volume 1: to identify and assess the significant effects on the Chapter 2: EIA Methodology; environment, including details of difficulties (for example technical deficiencies or lack of knowledge) encountered Technical Chapters 6 – 7; compiling the required information and the main uncertainties involved. 7. A description of the measures envisaged to avoid, prevent, ES Volume 1: reduce or, if possible, offset any identified significant Chapter 4: The Proposed Development; adverse effects on the environment and, where appropriate, of any proposed monitoring arrangements (for Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction; example the preparation of a post-project analysis). That Technical Chapters 6 – 7; description should explain the extent, to which significant Chapter 10: Mitigation & Monitoring; adverse effects on the environment are avoided, prevented, reduced or offset, and should cover both the construction and operational phases. 8. A description of the expected significant adverse effects of See section ‘EIA And The Scoping Process – Project the development on the environment deriving from the Vulnerability’ of this report; vulnerability of the development to risks of major accidents and/or disasters which are relevant to the project concerned. Relevant information available and obtained through risk assessments pursuant to EU legislation such as Directive 2012/18/EU(c) of the European Parliament and of the Council or Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom(d) or UK environmental assessments may be used for this purpose provided that the requirements of this Directive are met. Where appropriate, this description should include measures envisaged to prevent or mitigate the significant adverse effects of such events on the environment and details of the preparedness for and proposed response to such emergencies. 9. non-technical summary of the information provided under ES Non-Technical Summary; paragraphs 1 to 8.

10. A reference list detailing the sources used for the ES Volume 1: descriptions and assessments included in the Chapter 2: EIA Methodology; environmental statement. Technical Chapters 6 – 7.

Environmental Statement Volume 2, Appendix: EIA Methodology

Annex 4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

Document Control

Client Woking Football Club Principal Contact Tsz Kan Woo (Trium Environmental Consulting LLP)

Job Number J3654

Report Prepared By: David Bailey and Pauline Jezequel Greenhouse Gas Assessment: Egley Road, Woking Document Status and Review Schedule

November 2019 Report No. Date Status Reviewed by J3654A/4/F4 20 November 2019 Final Laurence Caird (Associate Director)

This report has been prepared by Air Quality Consultants Ltd on behalf of the Client, taking into account the agreed scope of works. Unless otherwise agreed, this document and all other Intellectual Property Rights remain the property of Air Quality Consultants Ltd.

In preparing this report, Air Quality Consultants Ltd has exercised all reasonable skill and care, taking into account the objectives and the agreed scope of works. Air Quality Consultants Ltd does not accept any liability in negligence for any matters arising outside of the agreed scope of works. The Company operates a formal Quality Management System, which is certified to ISO 9001:2008, and a formal Environmental Management System, certified to ISO 14001:2015. R15.

When issued in electronic format, Air Quality Consultants Ltd does not accept any responsibility for any unauthorised changes made by others.

When printed by Air Quality Consultants Ltd, this report will be on Evolve Office, 100% Recycled paper.

Air Quality Consultants Ltd 23 Coldharbour Road, Bristol BS6 7JT Tel: 0117 974 1086 119 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5PU Tel: 020 3873 4780 [email protected]

Registered Office: 23 Coldharbour Road, Bristol BS6 7JT Companies House Registration No: 2814570 Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

1 Introduction 2 Policy Background

1.1 This report provides a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) assessment for the Proposed Development which 2.1 In preparing this GHG assessment, consideration has been given to the requirements of national, comprises of the redevelopment of the site, following the demolition of the existing building, to regional and local planning policies. provide a health club building (Class D2) incorporating an external swimming pool and tennis/sports courts, the provision of 36 dwelling houses (Class C3) up to a maximum of 3 storeys National Planning Policy in height, associated landscaping and car parking and new vehicular access from an existing road National Planning Policy Framework serving Hoe Valley School. GHGs are gases which contribute to climate change and are defined further in Section 3. 2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)1 sets out planning policy for England. It states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable 1.2 The Proposed Development will lead to the direct and indirect release of GHGs, both during the development, and that the planning system has three overarching objectives, one of which is an demolition and construction phase, and throughout the lifetime of the development. This environmental objective: assessment estimates the GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Development taking a lifecycle approach and presents the mitigation provided by the scheme to minimise its GHG “to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including footprint. making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy”.

2.3 Part 14 of the framework is entitled “Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change” and sets out the strategy for minimising the climate change effects of new development.

2.4 Paragraph 150 states that “New development should be planned for in ways that […] can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as through its location, orientation and design. Any local requirements for the sustainability of buildings should reflect the Government’s policy for national technical standards.”

2.5 Paragraph 151 describes further that “ to help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy and heat, plans should: a) provide a positive strategy for energy from these sources, that maximises the potential for suitable development, while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily (including cumulative landscape and visual impacts); b) consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure their development; and c) identify opportunities for development to draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers” .

2.6 In determining planning applications, the NPFF request that planning authorities should expect new development to:

1 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019) National Planning Policy Framework, Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf.

J3654 2 of 30 November 2019 J3654 3 of 30 November 2019 Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

x comply with any development plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy The National Adaptation Programme and the Third Strategy for Climate Adaptation supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of Reporting7 development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable; and 2.13 The National Adaptation Programme sets out government’s response to the second Climate x take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise Change Risk Assessment, showing the actions government is, and will be, taking to address the energy consumption. risks and opportunities posed by a changing climate. It forms part of the five-yearly cycle of requirements laid down in the Climate Change Act 2008 to drive a dynamic and adaptive approach 2 Climate Change Act (2008) to building our resilience to climate change.

17.2.7 The overarching Act in relation to climate is the Climate Change Act 2008. It provides for a The Clean Growth Strategy8 Committee on Climate Change (CCC) with power to set out carbon budgets binding on the Government for 5 year periods. 2.14 The Clean Growth Strategy sets out a comprehensive set of policies and proposals that aim to accelerate the pace of “clean growth”, i.e. deliver increased economic growth and decreased 17.2.8 In the 2009 budget, the first three carbon budgets were announced which set out a binding 34% emissions. In the context of the UK’s legal requirements under the Climate Change Act, the UK’s 3 CO2e reduction by 2020; and the Government has since adopted the fourth and fifth carbon approach to reducing emissions has two guiding objectives: budgets to reduce CO2e by 50% by 2025 and 57% by 2030. 1. To meet our domestic commitments at the lowest possible net cost to UK taxpayers, 17.2.9 The CCC also produces annual reports to monitor the progress in meeting these carbon budgets. consumers and businesses; and, Consequent upon the enactment of the Climate Change Act, a raft of policy at national and local level has been developed aimed at reducing carbon emissions. 2. To maximise the social and economic benefits for the UK from this transition.

Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 20194 2.15 The Strategy contains policies relating to the delivery of clean, smart and flexible power, including reducing power costs for homes and businesses and more transparent carbon pricing. It effectively 2.10 In June 2019, the Government passed an order to amend the 2050 carbon emissions target in the replaces the “The Carbon Plan: delivering our Low Carbon Future” published in 2011. Climate Change Act 2008 from 80 % below 1990 levels to zero net carbon (i.e. 100 % below 1990 levels). This new target will essentially end the UK’s contribution to climate change by 2050. Local Policies

Energy Act (2013)5 Woking Core Strategy9

2.11 The Energy Act makes a provision for the setting of a decarbonisation target range, duties in 2.16 The Woking Borough Council’s Core Strategy is the Council’s growth strategy for the borough. relation to it and for the reforming of the electricity market for the purposes of encouraging low Spatial vision objective 6 relates to Climate Change and states Woking will; “lead the way in high carbon electricity generation. quality sustainable development that minimises the adverse impacts of climate change. This will be achieved through maximising opportunities for implementing renewable energy technologies, 6 Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act (2006) maximising the efficient use of energy and water in buildings and managing waste effectively”.

2.12 The Climate Change and Sustainability Act enhances the contribution of the UK to combating 2.17 Policy CS22 within the Core Strategy relates to sustainable construction. Further details of the climate change and securing a diverse and viable long-term energy supply by boosting the number policy are found within the Woking Climate Change SPD, detailed below. of heat and electricity microgeneration installations in the United Kingdom.

2 Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2008. Climate Change Act 2008. 3 Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a term for describing different greenhouse gases in a common unit. For any quantity and type of greenhouse gas, CO2e signifies the amount of CO2 which would have the equivalent global warming impact. 4 Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2019. The Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 7 Defra (2018) The National Adaptation Programme and the Third Strategy for Climate Adaptation Reporting 5 Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2013. Energy Act 2013. 8 HM Government (2017) The Clean Growth Strategy 6 Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2006. Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006. 9 Woking Borough Council, 2012, Woking Local Development Document (Woking Core Strategy)

J3654 4 of 30 November 2019 J3654 5 of 30 November 2019 Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

Woking Climate Change SPD10 The Council will encourage proposals for residential extensions…to incorporate energy and water efficiency measures.” 2.18 Woking Borough Council is committed to addressing climate change locally. It aims to establish high standards of energy efficiency and renewable energy in all new developments and promote a 2.21 It uses a coded system to rank new developments on overall sustainability performance. One star ‘climate neutral’ approach to development, encompassing both carbon reduction and adaptation to is entry level above building regulations, with six stars being the highest performance, reflecting changes in climate. exemplar development in terms of sustainability. Depending on the sustainability ranking more

stringent mandatory minimum standards for Energy and CO2 emissions, and water will apply, as 2.19 The SPD states; “consideration of sustainability and climate change should be considered in all shown in the Table 1 below. developments, not just those which have to meet the standards set out in policy CS22. Several

key issues should be considered: Table 1: Code levels for mandatory minimum standards

Minimum % Improvement in Dwelling x the potential environmental impacts of the development, including those incurred during Maximum Indoor Water Consumption Code Level Emission Rate over 2010 Target in Litres per Person per Day the construction of the development as well as unnecessary carbon emissions as a Emission Rate

consequence of the development; 0% (compliance with Part L 2010 only is Level 1 (*) 120 required) x making the best use of natural resources such as energy, water and waste; 0% (compliance with Part L 2010 only is Level 2 (**) 120 required) x ensuring buildings are designed in such as way that carbon dioxide emissions are 0% (compliance with Part L 2010 only is Level 3 (***) 105 mitigated; and required)

x designing buildings and places so that they are adapted to climate change risks such as Level 4 (****) 25% 105 high temperatures, flooding and ground conditions.” Level 5 (*****) 100% 80 2.20 Policy CS22 states that: Level 6 (******) Net Zero CO2 Emissions 80 “New residential development on previously developed land will be required to meet the energy 2.22 Policy CS23 relates within the SPD relates to renewable and low carbon energy generation, and and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and water components of the Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 (or states; “The Council recognises significant progress needs to be made if national targets for the any future national requirement) from now until 31 March 2013, the energy and CO2 and water generation of renewable energy are to be met and encourages the development of stand-alone components of at least Code level 4 from 1 April 2013 and the energy and CO2 and water components of Code level 5 from 1 April 2016. New residential development is encouraged to renewable energy installations in the Borough. All proposals will be considered on their individual meet the full requirements of each Code level, with particular encouragement for the material and merits with regard to scale, location, technology type and cumulative impact on the surrounding ecology elements. Where the scale, nature and location of a development would justify a higher area”.

Code level, the Council will negotiate with developers to achieve that because of the lower cost of 2.23 Further details for the ranking system as part of CS22, and all other climate change related policies developing such sites. can be found with the Climate Change SPD10.

New residential development on greenfield sites will be required to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes level 5 (or any future national requirement) from now because of the relatively lower cost of developing such sites.

The Council will consider a case based on evidence of viability if an applicant can demonstrate that the requirement for code level 5 cannot be met. This will be considered on a case by case basis.

10 Woking Borough Council, 2013, Climate Change Supplement Planning Document

J3654 6 of 30 November 2019 J3654 7 of 30 November 2019 Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

3 Scope of Assessment 4 Assessment Methodology

3.1 The EIA Directive 201411 sets out the rationale for incorporating climate change into the EIA 4.1 The GHG assessment has taken a whole life approach to develop a GHG footprint for the process. It states: Proposed Development. The footprint sources considered include:

“Climate change will continue to cause damage to the environment and compromise economic x Embedded GHGs from the material used in the construction of the Proposed Development; development. In this regard, it is appropriate to assess the impact of projects on climate (for x GHGs from traffic movements during construction of the Proposed Development; example greenhouse gas emissions) and their vulnerability to climate change.” x GHGs from energy consumed by the operation of the Proposed Development; and 3.2 The requirements of the EIA Directive 2014 have been adopted within UK EIA Regulations 201712 x GHGs from transport associated with the operation of the Proposed Development. and require that the assessment provides: 4.2 Table 2 sets out the baseline and scenarios adopted by the assessment, key sources of data and “A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment resulting from, methodologies used. inter alia:

(f) the impact of the project on climate (for example the nature and magnitude of greenhouse gas Table 2: GHG Assessment Scenarios emissions) and the vulnerability of the project to climate change”. Development Methods and Data Baseline Proposed Development Reference Phase Sources

3.3 This assessment only covers the impact of the project on climate through the quantification of GHG calculation GHGs resulting from the Proposed Development. The impact of future climate change on the Construction: The baseline The completed development based on RICS GHG Embedded is assumed to as defined in Chapter 4 of factors per GIA m2 of ES Chapter 4. resilience of the Proposed Development has not been addressed in this report and is examined in Carbon be zero. the ES. development (see Figure 1). ES Chapter 1 of the Environment Statement Volume 1 and subsequent technical chapters where Application of BRE relevant. The baseline Traffic generated by the factors for Construction: is assumed to construction of the Proposed construction transport n/a Transport be zero. Development. GHG relating to project value.

Application of 2021 GHG factors to km ES Chapter 7 The baseline and the Operation: Opening year (2021) travelled by mode is assumed to Transport Transport transport GHG emissions. from transport be zero. assessment (see Assessment (Vectos) Table 4).

Proposed Development CO2 The Proposed Development from energy use for The baseline Energy Operation: including proposals to meet the proposed is assumed to Strategy Energy Level 04 of the Code for Development taking be zero. (Elementa) Sustainable Homes into account savings from the Energy Assessment.

4.3 The metric for assessing the climate change impacts of GHG emissions in this assessment is

Global Warming Potential (GWP). This is expressed in units of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) over 100

years. This allows for the emissions of the six key GHG: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),

11 Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of effects of certain public nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur and private projects on the environment. 12 See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/environmental-impact-assessment#Preparing-an-Environmental-Statement1.

J3654 8 of 30 November 2019 J3654 9 of 30 November 2019

Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

hexafluoride (SF6) expressed in terms of their equivalent global warming potential in mass of

CO2e.

4.4 The assessment (using the methodologies referenced in Table 1 above) determines the baseline GHG emissions and the GHG emissions from the Proposed Development in the year of opening (first occupation) of the site (assumed to be 2021). The ‘net emissions’ are the change in the GHG emissions between the baseline and the Proposed Development, taking account of GHG reduction measures and offsetting.

Construction

Embedded Carbon

4.5 Embedded GHG emission factors for construction are presented in Figure 1. The factors have been obtained from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) publication on a methodology to calculate embodied carbon of materials13.

2 4.6 The factors are provided as kilograms of CO2 equivalent per m of Gross Internal Area (GIA) for different development types and provide a method of calculating the embedded carbon in the development by multiplying the GIA area information for the Proposed Development by the appropriate carbon factors detailed in Figure 1.

4.7 The derivation of the carbon factor used in the calculation of the embedded carbon emissions in this assessment is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Selected Embedded Carbon Factors

Land Use RICS Carbon Factor Use 2 RICS Category Category (kgCO2e/m )

C3 Residential 435 Maisonettes 4 storey

D2 Leisure Centre 985 Leisure centre including swimming pool

Figure 1: GHG Emission Factors for Materials used in Construction

Figure reproduced from RICS, “Methodology to calculate embodied carbon of materials” RICS information paper, IP 32/2012. 13 RICS, 2012. Methodology to calculate embodied carbon of materials. RICS information paper, IP 32/2012.

J3654 10 of 30 November 2019 J3654 11 of 30 November 2019

Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

Construction Traffic Table 4: 2019 and 2021 Transport GHG Factors by Mode (selected modes) 2019 BEIS factor Calculated 2021 Activity Type Unit 4.8 The assessment considers GHG emissions from construction traffic. This is based on guidance (kg CO2e) factor (kg CO2e) 14 from the Building Research Establishment (BRE) that indicates 1,400 kg of CO2e from Car Travel Average car km 0.17710 0.16633 construction traffic per £100,000 of project value. Motorcycle Average km 0.11551 0.10834 travel motorcycle Operation Taxis Regular taxi km 0.31764 0.19746 Transport Bus Local bus passenger.km 0.12076 0.11854 4.9 GHG emission factors for transport have been obtained from the Department of Business, Energy Rail National rail passenger.km 0.04115 0.03782 and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) publication on GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting15 which sets out GHG emissions factors for a range of modes of transport valid for 2019. 4.11 The calculation of transportation GHG emissions is carried out by multiplying the transport GHG 4.10 Factors for 2021 (the year of first occupation) were determined by applying engine and fuel factors detailed in Table 4 above by km travelled by mode, as provided by the Transport efficiency factors (sourced from the WebTAG data book16) to the 2019 BEIS factors, for different Consultants, Vectos. types of fuel/energy source, and vehicle size/type. A summary of the 2019 and 2021 GHG emission factors for selected modes of transport used in this GHG assessment are provided in Energy Consumption

Table 4. 4.12 In terms of the baseline setting for energy use, the IEMA guidance acknowledges that baseline energy use for an existing building can be very difficult to calculate and recommends that baseline energy use either be considered to be zero, or an alternative baseline can be considered, whereby GHG emissions from an alternative development or building design are considered. In this case, as there is only a small building currently on the Site, the baseline energy consumption has been assumed to be zero. This will provide a conservative assessment.

4.13 CO2 emissions that will be emitted as a result of the running of the energy systems employed by the Proposed Development have been obtained from the energy strategy (submitted as a separate supporting document to the planning application). These are based on the energy demand of the Development and published GHG emission factors for gas and electricity use. Further detail on the 17 18 CO2 factors and CO2 emissions from energy consumption is provided in the Energy Strategies .

Significance of Effects

4.14 For GHG emissions there are no recognised significance criteria.

4.15 In terms of defining significance, guidance from IEMA19 has been adopted, which has identified three underlying principles to inform the assessment of significance, as follows:

1. the GHG emissions from all projects will contribute to climate change; the largest

14 Building Research Establishment, 2015. Meeting Construction 2025 Targets The positive impact of BRE Group interrelated cumulative environmental effect; products and services. 15 BEIS, 2019: UK Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. 17 Elementa, 2019, Egley Road Woking, Energy Strategy Report 16 Department for Transport (2019) TAG data book May 2019 v1.12, Available: 18 Hulley & Kirkwood Consulting Engineers Ltd, 2019. DLL Woking, Energy Strategy. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tag-data-book 19 IEMA, 2017, “Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Evaluating their Significance”.

J3654 12 of 30 November 2019 J3654 13 of 30 November 2019

Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

2. the consequences of a changing climate have the potential to lead to significant environmental effects on all topics in the EIA Directive – e.g. population, fauna, soil, etc.; 5 Baseline Conditions and Construction 3. GHG emissions have a combined environmental effect that is approaching a scientifically defined environmental limit, as such any GHG emissions or reductions from a project might 5.1 The baseline embedded carbon for construction relates to the existing buildings on the site. There be considered to be significant. is one small existing building on the site, which will be demolished. Any embedded carbon in the demolition materials is not additional to this project and a worst case assumption is taken that none 4.16 Based on these principles, IEMA conclude that: of the materials are recycled or reused and therefore the baseline embedded carbon is assumed 1. all projects create GHG emissions that contribute to climate change; as zero.

2. climate change has the potential to lead to significant environmental effects; and Operation 3. there is a GHG emission budget that defines a level of dangerous climate change whereby 5.2 In terms of the baseline setting, the IEMA guidance acknowledges that baseline energy use and any GHG emission within that budget can be considered as significant. transport data for an existing building can be very difficult to calculate and recommends that 4.17 Therefore, in the absence of any significance criteria or a defined threshold, IEMA recommends baseline either be considered to be zero, or an alternative baseline can be considered, whereby that all GHG emissions are significant and that the EIA should ensure the project addresses their GHG emissions from an alternative development or building design are considered. In this case, occurrence by taking mitigating action. are no data available on the existing transport and energy use of the Site, although it is expected that the baseline transport and energy emissions are minor given the size of the existing building 4.18 In terms of mitigation, IEMA recommends that mitigation should in the first instance seek to avoid on site. In order to provide a realistic but yet conservative assessment, a baseline value of zero GHG emissions. Where GHG emissions cannot be avoided, the development should aim to reduce for transport and energy emissions has been used. the residual significance of a project’s emissions at all stages. Where GHG emissions remain significant, but cannot be farther reduced approaches should be considered that compensate the 5.3 A summary of the estimated baseline GHG emissions is provided in Table 5. project’s remaining emissions. Table 5: Summary of Baseline GHG Emissions

Baseline CO2e Development Phase Emissions Comment/Rationale (tonnes/annum) Assumes that no materials in existing Construction 0 buildings are recycled or reused.

The baseline transport emissions are Transport 0 assumed to be zero (conservative assumption).

Operation The baseline energy emissions are Energy 0 assumed to be zero (conservative assumption).

Total 0 Construction + Operation

5.4 The total assumed baseline GHG emissions are 0 tonnes/annum CO2e.

J3654 14 of 30 November 2019 J3654 15 of 30 November 2019 Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

Operation – Transport 6 Likely Significant Effects 6.6 The assessment of transport related GHG emissions for the Proposed Development in the opening Calculation of GHG Footprint year are presented in Table 10. The transport data used in the assessment has been provided by Vectos, and has been split into work, education, leisure, and David Lloyd’s Leisure Centre trips. Construction – Embedded Carbon 6.7 The assessment of transport-related GHG emissions multiplies GHG emission factors published by 6.1 The GIA for the residential element of the Proposed Development is 5,670 m2, and the GIA for the BEIS15 and adjusted to the year 2021 for each mode of travel (see Table 4) by the distance David Lloyd’s Leisure Centre is 5,188 m2. To calculate the embedded carbon from construction, travelled (obtained from the Transport Consultant), as reproduced in Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, this total GIA is multiplied by the carbon factor obtained from RICS (Figure 1) that is judged to be Table 9, and the total GHG emissions presented in Table 10 below. most appropriate, as presented in Table 3. The calculation of the embedded carbon in the development is therefore: Table 6: Assessment of Proposed Development GHG Emissions from Workplace Transport

Workplace Travel GHG Emissions Residential GIA (5,670 m²) x Carbon Factor (435 kgCO2e/m²) = 2,467 tonnes CO2e.

a Mode Distance Travelled per Annum (km) CO2e Tonnes (per annum) David Lloyd’s Leisure Centre GIA (5,188 m²) x Carbon Factor (985 kgCO2e/m²) = 5,110 tonnes

CO2e. 2021 2021

Total = 7,577 tonnes CO2e. National Rail 55,237 2.1

6.2 The total embedded CO2e emissions for the Proposed Development are 7,577 tonnes. Bus 6,304 0.7

6.3 The Development is to be constructed on land that is partially developed, although most of the Site Taxi / Other 1,566 0.3 classifies as ‘greenfield’. However, the woodland situated in the south east corner of the Site will be Car 186,090 31.0 retained, and the Proposed Development does therefore not lead to a significant loss in habitat. As 20 such, no land use change GHG emissions are assumed to occur. Motorcycle 1,627 0.2

Construction – Transport Cycle 3,486 0.0

6.4 In addition to the embedded carbon in the materials used for construction, GHG emissions will be Walk 2,638 0.0 created by transportation of materials to site and operation of onsite plant and machinery. These Total 256,949 34.3 emissions are typically materially smaller than embedded GHG emissions. Guidance from the a CO2e emissions are calculated by multiplying distance travelled by CO2e factors by mode from Table 4. Building Research Establishment (BRE) indicates 1,400 kg of CO2e per £100,000 of project value.

6.5 The project value for the Proposed Development has been provided by the Applicant. To reflect uncertainty in this figure given the current stage of design and pre-planning submission, a worst- case value has been assumed, which would result in construction transport GHG emissions of 280

tonnes of CO2e.

20 Land use change can result in GHG emissions for example by the removal of habitats (e.g. trees) that act as carbon sinks.

J3654 16 of 30 November 2019 J3654 17 of 30 November 2019

Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

Table 7: Assessment of Proposed Development GHG Emissions from Education Transport Table 9: Assessment of Proposed Development GHG Emissions from David Lloyd’s Leisure Centre Transport Education Travel GHG Emissions David Lloyd’s Leisure Centre Travel GHG Emissions a Mode Distance Travelled per Annum (km) CO2e Tonnes (per annum) a Mode Distance Travelled per Annum (km) CO2e Tonnes (per annum) 2021 2021 2021 2021 National Rail 5,289 0.2 National Rail 0 0.0 Bus 5,671 0.7 Bus 0 0.0 Taxi / Other 0 0.0 Taxi / Other 0 0.0 Car 16,311 2.7 Car 316,059 52.6 Motorcycle 0 0.0 Motorcycle 0 0.0 Cycle 488 0.0 Cycle 0 0.0 Walk 4,854 0.0 Walk 11,879 0.0 Total 32,612 3.6 Total 327,938 52.6 a CO2e emissions are calculated by multiplying distance travelled by CO2e factors by mode from Table 4. a CO2e emissions are calculated by multiplying distance travelled by CO2e factors by mode from Table 4.

Table 8: Assessment of Proposed Development GHG Emissions from Leisure Transport Table 10: Overall Assessment of GHG Emissions from Transport Leisure Travel GHG Emissions Distance Travelled per Annum a CO2e Tonnes (per annum) a (km) Mode Distance Travelled per Annum (km) CO2e Tonnes (per annum) Proposed Proposed Mode Baseline Baseline Development Development 2021 2021 Net Emissions 2019 2021 2019 2021 National Rail 48,716 1.8 National Rail 0 109,242 0 4.1 4.1 Bus 15,836 1.9 Bus 0 27,810 0 3.3 3.3 Taxi / Other 6,340 1.3 Taxi / Other 0 7,907 0 1.6 1.6 Car 316,061 52.6 Car 0 834,520 0 138.8 138.8 Motorcycle 2,418 0.3 Motorcycle 0 4,046 0 0.4 0.4 Cycle 5,101 0.0 Cycle 0 9,076 0 0.0 0.0 Walk 11,878 0.0 Walk 0 31,249 0 0.0 0.0 Total 406,350 57.8

a Total 0 1,023,849 0 148.2 148.2 CO2e emissions are calculated by multiplying distance travelled by CO2e factors by mode from Table 4. a CO2e emissions are calculated by multiplying distance travelled by CO2e factors by mode from Table 4.

J3654 18 of 30 November 2019 J3654 19 of 30 November 2019

Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

a Operation – Energy Consumption Table 12: GHG Footprint for Proposed Development for Opening Year

Tonnes of CO2e/annum 6.8 The CO2 emissions from energy consumption of the Proposed Development are described in the Development Footprint 17 18 Phase Element residential Energy Strategy and David Lloyd’s Leisure Centre Energy Strategy which Baseline Opening Year Net Emissions accompanies the planning application. Embedded 0 126 b 126 6.9 The Energy Assessment compares the Proposed Development to a notional “baseline” of Construction Transport 0 5 c 5 compliance with Part L Building Regulations.

Transport 0 148 148 6.10 Table 11 summarises the improvement in performance for the Proposed Development for Operation regulated CO2 emissions, taking into account measures to address Part L1A and Part L2A of the Energy 0 712 712 building regulations21 22 which requires a minimum improvement of 19% in the Dwelling Emission Total 0 991 991 Rate over the Target Emission Rate for the residential section, and the non-residential section must comply with BREEAM standards. a All figures are rounded b Total embedded emissions from construction (7,577 tonnes – see paragraph 6.2) divided by 60 year. Table 11: Assessment of CO Emissions from Energy Consumption 2 c Total transport emissions from construction (280 tonnes – see paragraph 6.5) divided by 60 year lifetime. Regulated and Regulated Unregulated non- Site-wide residential Regulated Emissions residential (Tonnes CO2 per (Tonnes CO2 per a (Tonnes CO2 per annum) annum) annum) No energy strategy assuming Part 75 959 1,034 L compliance

% Improvement 39.8% 30.4% 31.1%

With Energy Strategy 45 667 712

a Based on unrounded values presented in the energy strategy17.

6.11 Table 11 shows that the Development will achieve a 31.1% improvement in carbon emissions over Part L 2013 compliance and therefore exceeds the improvement criteria set out in Part L1A and L2A of the building regulations. The residential section will achieve the minimum standards to comply with a Level 4 development within the policy CS22 in the Woking Climate Change SPD10.

Total GHG Emission Footprint

6.12 Table 12 and Figure 2 summarise the GHG emissions for the Proposed Development in the

opening year for each footprint element. The GHG emissions from embedded materials used in

construction are annualised assuming a 60 year life. Annualising the embedded GHG emissions Figure 2: Change in GHG Emissions for the Proposed Development in the Opening Year allows them to be compared on a like-for-like basis to the operational GHG emissions which are reported on a per annum basis. Assessment of Significant Effects

6.13 IEMA guidance recommends any increase should be considered significant with a focus on mitigation through the following principles: 21 HM Government, 2010. The Building Regulations. Conservation of fuel and power L1A 22 HM Government, 2010. The Building Regulations. Conservation of fuel and power L2A

J3654 20 of 30 November 2019 J3654 21 of 30 November 2019

Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

a. seeking to avoid any increases at source and putting in place measures to reduce any residual emissions; and 7 Mitigation

b. compensating for any remaining emissions as far as possible. 7.1 Mitigation adopted by the Proposed Development is described in this section for each element of 6.14 IEMA guidance23 makes clear that any increase in GHG emissions should be considered to be the GHG footprint. significant and therefore the GHG emissions from the Proposed Development are considered Construction significant. 7.2 Reducing GHG emissions from the construction phase should be focussed on procurement of sustainable materials, with consideration to the carbon footprint of the material from the extraction of raw materials, to production of construction products and the transport of products from factory to site. ES Volume 1, Chapter 15: Mitigation and Monitoring presents the environmental management and mitigation measures that the Applicant is committed to implementing throughout the demolition and construction works to, either eliminate, or reduce the significant of any likely environmental effects.

Construction Activities

7.3 A Site Waste Management Plan (SWWP) will be developed prior to construction, outlining waste management plans for excavation and construction onsite. Opportunities to retain and reuse material generated by the site enabling works will be explored and exploited where available.

7.4 The selection of sustainable material with a low environmental impact and their sustainable procurement are to be a key parameter in the specification of material, together with their end-of- life disposal. Consideration will be given to materials specified, with the BRE’s Green Guide to Specification and Environmental Product Declaration (EPDs) as methods available to guide this process.

7.5 Materials are to be locally sourced, and from recycled sources where viable and in line with the proposed design intent. Full consideration of the sites environmental context when specifying external materials will be given, providing long-lasting robust landscape. The design team will investigate various constructability techniques, including pre-fabrication and end-of-life disassembly.

Operation

Transport

7.6 A Workplace Travel Plan24 (WTP) has been developed for the Proposed Development which sets out an overarching objective; “to put in place the management tools deemed necessary to enable employees and visitors of the David Lloyd Club to make more informed decisions about their

23 IEMA, 2017, “Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Evaluating their Significance”. 24 Vectos, 2019, Residential Travel Plan

J3654 22 of 30 November 2019 J3654 23 of 30 November 2019 Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

travel, which minimises the adverse effects of their travel on the environment. This is achieved by are proposed to minimise energy consumption, as set out in the residential Energy Strategy17 and setting out a strategy for eliminating the barriers keeping employees and visitors from using Sustainability Statement25: sustainable modes which in effect self manages single-occupancy vehicle use.” x The proposed building fabric is designed to exceed the minimum fabric requirements of 7.7 In order to achieve this aim, this Travel Plan has a number of sub-objectives: Building Regulations Part L, where possible and feasible. Building fenestration balances the need of good daylight, without leading to excessive summer time solar gain; x Ensure that classes are carefully scheduled so as to manage demand for travel and car parking; x the project is designed for natural ventilation, when climate allows, with mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) systems providing ventilation when natural x to maximise travel choices; ventilation is not appropriate; and

x to increase the awareness of choice of travel modes and promote social inclusion; x a range of low and zero carbon technologies will be implemented including Air Source Heat Pumps and photovoltaics. x to promote the health, wealth, social, community and environment benefits of walking, cycling, car sharing and public transport use; and 7.11 Further measures set out within the David Lloyd’s Leisure Centre Energy Strategy18 are as follows:

x to provide clear information to all employees and visitors on the alternative modes of x Improve the U-values beyond the NCM valves required by Building Regulations in order to transport available at the site. reduce heat loss from the building;

7.8 To achieve the objectives a number of measures will be introduced, including: x solar shading to windows will reduce the solar gains to the building, which can reduce or potentially eliminate the requirement for comfort cooling; x Sustainable Travel Packs will be given issued to staff and members electronically; x use of LED lighting to increase efficiency in the lighting of the building; x employees will be provided with information and advice concerning safe pedestrian routes to the site; x a CHP plant will be installed to generate usable heat and power for the leisure centre. CHP typically achieves a 35% reduction in primary energy usage compared with power stations x showering and changing facilities will be available within the building and cycle parking will and heat only boilers; and be provided; x Air Source Heat Pumps will be installed to reduce the heating requirements from the x up-to-date details of rail, bus and taxi services, including route information and service proposed boiler plant. frequencies, will be permanently on display in prominent locations, as well as in welcome packs. National Rail and Journey Planner websites and enquiry phone numbers will also 7.1 Facilities throughout the development will be provided with recycling facilities that will allow for be promoted through all relevant means; and source separation of waste within dwellings and non-residential buildings. This will cause indirect reductions in GHG emissions through reduced GHG emissions within the manufacturing process x the TPC will set up and promote a car pooling spreadsheet, to encourage employees who of goods. need to drive to share lifts with other employees of the site. 7.2 The Sustainability Statement provides further details in respect of these mitigation measures. Energy Consumption Mitigation Summary 7.9 The design team have worked extensively on the energy strategy of the Development using the ‘Be 17 Lean’, ‘Be Clean’, and ‘Be Green’ hierarchy to improve energy efficiency where possible . 7.3 Table 13 sets out an assessment of the Proposed Development’s approach to mitigation against the mitigation principles described in IEMA guidance (as discussed in paragraph 6.13), to avoid 7.10 The Development achieves an overall total on-site carbon reduction of 31.1% relative to Part L of and reduce GHGs where practicable. the Building Regulations, with a 39.8% improvement for the residential section, which complies with the Part L1A and L2A building regulations. To achieve to reductions, the following measures

25 Elementa, 2019, Egley Road: Sustainability Strategy Report

J3654 24 of 30 November 2019 J3654 25 of 30 November 2019 Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

Table 13: Proposed Development Approach to Mitigation in Accordance with IEMA Mitigation Principles

Development Phase Avoid and Reduce GHGs 8 Residual Effects

Reuse of material on site where possible. Minimising waste to landfill. Construction 8.1 The mitigation measures described in Section 7 will be implemented to minimise the GHG Good practice measures to minimise energy use from construction activities. emissions during construction and throughout the lifetime of the Proposed Development, however, Cycle and pedestrian access to the site including cycle parking for leisure centre. Operation: Transport Promotion of sustainable travel uses to staff and members of the leisure centre. a net increase in GHG emissions against the baseline GHG emissions, as summarised in Table 12 Suite of measures to ensure highly energy efficient buildings. On-site measures and Figure 2, will remain. It is expected that GHG emissions from transport will reduce throughout Operation: Energy to be lean, be clean and be green will lead to a 31.1% reduction in GHG the Proposed Development’s lifetime due to decarbonisation of the electricity grid and increase in emissions compared to the Part L Baseline energy consumption. low and zero-carbon emission vehicles.

8.2 IEMA guidance makes clear that any increase in GHG emissions should be considered significant; however, the mitigation provided follows best practice and is in accordance with relevant local, regional and national policy on climate change. It is therefore judged that although the residual effects are described as significant these have been minimised through an appropriate degree of mitigation consistent with best practice and IEMA guidance.

9 Summary

9.1 The GHG assessment has identified that the Proposed Development will lead to GHG emissions, which are described as significant in accordance with IEMA best practice guidance on the assessment of GHGs for EIA. Mitigation is provided to avoid and reduce the GHG emissions, which follows the key principles of GHG mitigation in the IEMA guidance and is consistent with the requirements of relevant policy.

J3654 26 of 30 November 2019 J3654 27 of 30 November 2019 Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

10 Glossary 11 Appendices

AQC Air Quality Consultants A1 Professional Experience ...... 30

BRE Building Research Establishment

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EST Energy Saving Trust

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIA Gross Internal Area

IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment

LZC Low and Zero Carbon

PIR Passive Infrared Sensor

RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

RTP Residential Travel Plan

J3654 29 of 30

J3654 28 of 30 November 2019 November 2019 Egley Road, Woking Greenhouse Gas Assessment

A1 Professional Experience

Laurence Caird, MEarthSci CSci MIEnvSc MIAQM

Mr Caird is an Associate Director at Air Quality Consultants Ltd with over 13 years’ experience in the field of air quality and greenhouse gas assessment and management. He has been responsible for the production of air quality assessments for a wide range of projects and has produced carbon footprints and greenhouse gas assessments for a number of projects including EIA residential, commercial and mixed-use developments, industrial facilities and airports. Mr Caird is a member of the Institute of Air Quality Management and the Institution of Environmental Sciences, and is a Chartered Scientist.

Pauline Jezequel, MSc MIEnvSc MIAQM

Miss Jezequel is a Principal Consultant with AQC with nine years’ relevant experience. Prior to joining AQC she worked as an air quality consultant at AECOM. She has also worked as an air quality controller at Bureau Veritas in France, undertaking a wide range of ambient and indoor air quality measurements for audit purposes. She now works in the field of air quality assessment, undertaking air quality impact assessments for a wide range of development projects in the UK and abroad, including for residential and commercial developments, transport schemes (rail, road and airport), waste facilities and industrial sites. Miss Jezequel has also undertaken a number of odour surveys and assessments in the context of planning applications. She has experience in monitoring construction dust, as well as indoor pollutant levels for BREEAM purposes.

David Bailey, BSc (Hons)

Mr Bailey is an Assistant Consultant with AQC, having joined the Company in 2018. Prior to joining AQC he gained a degree in Environmental Science from the University of Brighton, where his studies included modules focused on Air Quality Management. He is now gaining experience in the field of air quality monitoring and assessment.

Full CVs are available at www.aqconsultants.co.uk.

J3654 30 of 30

November 2019 Environmental Statement Volume 2, Appendix: EIA Methodology

Annex 5: Trium’s Climate Change Note Contents Contents ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 3 Climate Projections ...... 3 Emission Scenarios ...... 3 Adopted Emissions Scenario: RCP6.0 ...... 4 2. Approach to Assessment ...... 5 Step 1: Define the Future Climate Condition ...... 5 Step 2: Define Receptor Vulnerability ...... 5 Step 3: Magnitude of Impact, Nature and Scale of Effects and Effect Significance...... 6 Step 4: Identify any Mitigation Needed ...... 6 3. The Future Climate Condition for EIA ...... 7 Future London Climate Condition ...... 7 Summary ...... 8 Appendix A: Future Climate Projection Data ...... 9 Appendix B: Examples of Defining Effect ‘Scale within an EIA ...... 11 Example 1 ...... 11 Example 2 ...... 11 Example 3 ...... 11 Example 4 ...... 12 Climate Change Appendix C: Policy and Guidance ...... 13 Policy and Guidance ...... 13 Technical Note 1.11 More information on the RCPs can be found in the UKCP18 Guidance: Representative 1. Introduction Concentration Pathways2. 1.1 This technical note describes a future climate scenario which has been developed using the Adopted Emissions Scenario: RCP6.0 future climate projections data published by the Met Office (UKCP18) in November 2018. UKCP18 projections consider the climate effects arising from a series of ‘Representative 1.12 RCP6.0 has been used in the climate projections presented in this technical note as it represents Concentration Pathways’ (RCP) emissions scenarios. the most reasonable emissions scenario with regards to climate policy, land use, and technological development. 1.2 The purpose of this technical note is to present projection data for the future climate and to provide guidance to the EIA technical team on how to consider whether the effects of the 1.13 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)3 reports between 2.0 and 3.7°C Proposed Development (defined under the current climate conditions) may alter under the future increase in temperature by 2100 for RCP6.0. Considering that current climate policies indicate climate scenario. In the context of the future climate condition, consideration needs to be given 3.4°C of warming by 21004, and global trends are moving towards better climate mitigation, policy to: and technology, this RCP has been identified as the most reasonable emission scenario for identifying future climate change projections. x the change in the magnitude of impact of the Proposed Development; x receptor vulnerability; x vulnerability of the Proposed Development; and x resilience of the Proposed Development. Climate Projections 1.3 UKCP18 gives probabilistic projections1 for a number of atmospheric variables, with different temporal and spatial averaging, for several future time periods, under four different future RCP emissions scenarios. 1.4 In general, the longer the lifetime of a development, the greater the uncertainty about the impact of climate change over time. Uncertainty is dealt with by presenting projections which are probabilistic in nature, and which give the probability of different climate outcomes. 1.5 To make use of the probabilistic projections, an emissions scenario and percentile outcome (i.e. the likelihood of the change in climate occurring) needs to be identified. 1.6 Once the emissions scenario and probabilistic projection have been identified, then this future climate projection should be used by all technical disciplines contributing to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), to ensure consistency in approach. 1.7 The emissions scenario and climate projection utilized for this EIA are detailed within this document. Emission Scenarios 1.8 The RCP emission scenarios represent four distinct pathways (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5) developed for long-term and near-term climate modelling and provide time-dependant projections of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. These pathways were developed based on a literature review of current climate modelling research and have been chosen to represent the full range of climate outcomes presented within the literature. 1.9 The emission scenarios represent assumptions in terms of climate policy, land use and technological development, with RCP2.6 representing the ‘optimum’ emission scenario (i.e. measures aimed at achieving the maximum reduction in GHG emissions). 1.10 At the other end of the scale, RCP8.5 assumes the highest emission scenario. It assumes that technological development will slow and that there will be little to no decarbonization of world power from new technology. It also assumes that no further climate mitigation or regulations to reduce climate change or air pollution will be implemented. Whilst this is possible, it is unlikely considering current global trends towards more rigorous climate policy and regulation and the progress in technological innovation and efficiency. RCP8.5 assumes that several long-term trends reverse or change significantly, for this reason RCP8.5 is not considered a reasonable scenario.

2 UKCP18 Guidance: Representative Concentration Pathways https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/ukcp18/ukcp18-guidance-rcp.pdf 3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR5 WG1 1 Probabilistic projections give a range of possible climate change outcomes and their relative likelihoods i.e. unlikely, likely or http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf very likely ranging across 10th to 90th percentiles. 4 CAT warming projections https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/ 2. Approach to Assessment 1.14 These steps provide a guide to assessing climate change within the EIA. More information and Table 1. Summary of Receptor Sensitivity and Vulnerability for Assessment guidance can be found in references listed in appendix C. Resource / Receptor Sensitivity Vulnerability Step 1: Define the Future Climate Condition (include as groups or as individual receptors (as per standard EIA (as per the criteria cited as relevant) criteria) above) 1.15 Within the ES chapter template, towards the end of the chapter you will see a section titled ‘Climate Change’. Within this section of the chapter, firstly identify the climate variables that are relevant to your assessment. So, for example, the variables of relevance might be ‘wind’, Step 3: Magnitude of Impact, Nature and Scale of Effects and Effect ‘temperature’, ‘humidity’ etc. Significance 1.16 The next stage is to determine how these variables change under the future climate scenario based on the information presented in appendix A. The future climate condition should be 1.21 Consider whether the magnitude of impact and resultant nature and scale of the effects of the discussed in terms of the 50% probability level, but also acknowledge the predicted extremes at Proposed Development (as defined earlier on in your chapter) during the operational phase will the 10% and 90% probability levels. be worse or improved under the future climate conditions, and whether the changes alter the overall significance of effects identified for the Proposed Development, without climate change. 1.17 This stage defines the future climate condition that is relevant to your assessment. 1.22 In most cases, there is likely to be an absence of published, accepted quantifiable methods for Step 2: Define Receptor Vulnerability considering climate change effects for technical topics. 1.18 Receptors that have been identified for inclusion within the technical assessment need to be 1.23 As such, this ‘assessment’ is likely to be qualitative and based on professional opinion which considered in terms of their vulnerability5 (i.e. susceptibility or resilience to change) to changes draws on the information available and acknowledges the level of uncertainty surrounding climate in the future climate. The vulnerability of the resource / receptors (including identifying individual change projections. receptors / sub-groups) should be defined using the definitions provided below. 1.24 Present your assessment as a narrative. Tables and supporting figures can be presented if 1.19 Vulnerability of a receptor should generally be defined as follows and presented in tabular format: helpful but are not essential. Appendix B gives examples of calculating the effect. x High vulnerability: the receptor is directly dependent on existing and/or prevailing Step 4: Identify any Mitigation Needed climatic factors, and reliant on these specific existing climate conditions continuing in 1.25 If you identify any adverse significant effects (as a result of the impact of climate change), you future (e.g. river flows and groundwater level); or only able to tolerate a very limited will then need to identify appropriate mitigation. variation in climate conditions. 1.26 When considering the adoption of mitigation to address any significant effects arising from x Moderate vulnerability: the receptor is dependent on some climatic factors, but able to changes in climate, consideration should be given to when the mitigation might be most usefully tolerate a range of conditions (e.g. a species which has a wide geographic range across implemented over the duration of the scheme. the entire UK). 1.27 Mitigation measures include identifying appropriate resilience and adaptive management x Low vulnerability: climatic factors have little influence on receptors. measures. 1.20 Table 1 provides an example of receptor sensitivity and vulnerability presented within a table. 1.28 Resilience measures include design features (e.g. habitable rooms within residential units located above the flood level which accounts for climate change) and construction materials (e.g. materials resistant to increases in temperature), to provide an appropriate resilience to changes in the existing climatic conditions, as well as occurrences of extreme weather. 1.29 Adaptive management measures allow for the uncertainty surrounding climate change and its impact to be accounted for. Consideration should be given as to whether there are opportunities to introduce mitigation measures later into the project when there is more certainty over future 5 Please note that ‘receptor sensitivity’ is different to the consideration of ‘vulnerability’. Reference to sensitivity of a resource / climate projections. These measures could be secured through a commitment to prepare a receptor in the EIA assessment reflects the receptor’s value in terms of its quality or condition, and expresses its proneness to management plan / strategy (or equivalent) which would periodically review the need for such being potentially impacted through a change in the existing environment (i.e. existing climate conditions) in which is resides, as a result of the implementation of a Proposed Development. measures and their integration into the scheme if / when required. Vulnerability is defined as a receptor’s susceptibility or resilience to a change in climate (i.e. change in the existing 1.30 Where mitigation is proposed, consideration of the effectiveness of the measures should be taken environment). By way of an example to highlight this difference, a highly sensitive receptor does not mean that it is highly vulnerable to into account, with reference to the resulting magnitude of impact and the resulting residual effect climate change, while conversely a low sensitive receptor may be highly vulnerable to climate change. and its significance. Taking account of receptor vulnerability within the assessment requires consideration of whether climate change will alter the existing environment (i.e. existing climate conditions) within which the resource / receptor resides, and as a result, making a judgement as to whether climate change will alter the magnitude of the impact (defined under the current climate conditions) experienced by the resource / receptor (based on its vulnerability) because of the implementation of the Proposed Development. The higher the vulnerability of an individual resource / receptor to climate change, the greater the change in the magnitude of the impact. For example, climate change alters the environment and for a high vulnerability receptor, results in amplifying the impact (of the Proposed Development) experienced by the receptor. Conversely, an individual resource / receptor with a greater resilience (low vulnerability) to changes in the existing climate conditions is not likely to experience a change in the impact experienced as a result of the Proposed Development (i.e. no change in the magnitude of impact). Please also note that there may be instances when a broad description of a resource / receptor group may comprise of sub- groups which may vary in their vulnerability to climate change. Where relevant, individual resource / receptors may need to be identified and considered as part of the climate change assessment.

3. The Future Climate Condition for EIA 1.37 Year to year, a high level of variability in precipitation has been observed, with a slight overall increase in UK winter precipitation over the last few decades. 1.31 A summary of the future climate projections based on RCP6.0 is presented in appendix A and described below for the climatic variables temperature, precipitation, and total cloud cover. Table 1.38 Probabilistic projections show that while the probability of dry summers increases, the probability 2 provides a breakdown of the data provided for each climatic variable in appendix A. UKCP18 of wet summers reduces only slightly. Trends indicate drier summers, with reductions in rainfall data for wind is not yet available, so UKCP09 data has been presented. largest in the south of England. 8 Table 2. Climatic variables for which future climate projection data is provided Wind 1.39 Wind data is not available for RCP6.0, nor probabilistic projections for any of the RCP emissions Climatic Climate Variable Temporal Average scenarios. UKCP09 A1B data has been presented in appendix A. Variable Projection 1.40 UKCP18 guidance reports no significant trends in ‘storminess’, which is determined by maximum Annual Mean gust speeds, from the UK over the last four decades. Global projections over the UK suggest an Seasonal increase in near surface wind speeds for the half of the 21st century during the winter. An increase in frequency of winter storms is also predicted. It should be noted that the increase in wind speed UKCP18 Annual Temperature Mean Daily Max is modest compared to the variability observed. RCP6.0 Seasonal Annual Summary Mean Daily Min Seasonal 1.41 This note provides a future climate condition for the technical assessment of the Proposed Development in relation to climate change. It has been developed to ensure consistency across UKCP18 Annual Precipitation Mean the technical topics covered in the EIA. RCP6.0 Seasonal 1.42 The data provided within this technical note is up to date to 5th December 2018. It is UKCP09 Annual acknowledged that more information will become available on the UKCP18 interface, and Wind* Mean A1B Seasonal revision of this note shall be provided as appropriate.

UKCP18 Annual Total Cloud Mean RCP6.0 Seasonal

*Note: UKCP18 probabilistic data for wind is not available, nor any RCP6.0 data for wind through alternative projections. For this reason, UKCP09 wind data has been presented for the A1B scenario, as it is comparable to RCP6.0.

Future London Climate Condition

1.32 The following description provides a high level overview of the future climate in London in 2100 under the UKCP18 using RCP6.0. Appendix A provides the data underlying this description. Temperature6 1.33 Changes in temperature can have implications for the built and natural environment, built infrastructure, and human health. Increases in temperature can lead to impacts on human health, especially in urban areas such as London, where buildings can retain heat, leading to increased night-time temperatures. This is of particular interest when assessing developments within London, with its urbanised character and high population density. 1.34 The projected trends of climate changes in the 21st century indicate a move towards warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers. Probabilistic projections show that there will be more warming in the summer than in the winter. 1.35 In summer, there is a pronounced north / south contrast when considering temperature changes, with greater increases in maximum summer temperatures over the southern UK compared to northern Scotland. Precipitation7 1.36 Precipitation can have significant socioeconomic impacts on various timescales, and can have implications related to pluvial or surface flooding as surface run-off inundates the urban landscape. Flooding is one of the most socially and economically disruptive hazards within the UK, and has impacts on energy supply, transport and infrastructure.

6 UKCP18 Factsheet: Temperature (2018) https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/ukcp18/ukcp18- factsheet-temperature.pdf 7 UKCP18 Factsheet: Precipitation (2018) https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/ukcp18/ukcp18- 8 UKCP18 Factsheet: Wind https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/ukcp18/ukcp18-factsheet- factsheet-precipitation.pdf wind.pdf

Appendix A: Future Climate Projection Data Table 4. UKCP09 Future Climate Projections for Wind: A1B Emissions Scenario Table 3. UKCP18 Future Climate Projections: RCP6.0 Emissions Scenario Predicted Change from Baseline 2080s Absolute Values 2080s

Predicted Change from Baseline 2080s Absolute Values 2080s Climate Variable 10th 50th 90th 10th 50th Climate Variable 90th Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile 10th 50th 90th 10th 50th 90th Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Wind n/a M s-12 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mean Air Annual Average n/a -0.065 n/a n/a n/a n/a °C °C °C °C °C °C Temperature Winter Average n/a -0.052 n/a n/a n/a n/a Annual Average 1.51 2.94 4.53 11.96 13.39 14.98 Spring Average n/a -0.154 n/a n/a n/a n/a Winter Average 0.91 2.48 4.2 5.53 7.10 8.82 Summer n/a n/a n/a n/a -0.01 n/a Spring Average 0.75 2.13 3.52 9.94 11.32 12.71 Average Summer Average 1.48 3.9 6.43 18.16 20.58 23.11 Autumn n/a n/a n/a n/a -0.044 n/a Average Autumn Average 1.32 3.11 5.01 12.53 14.32 16.22 Maximum Air °C °C °C °C °C °C Temperature Annual Average 1.34 3.1 5 15.45 17.21 19.11 Winter Average 0.91 2.41 3.98 8.23 9.73 11.30 Spring Average 0.64 2.43 4.21 13.83 15.62 17.40 Summer Average 1.32 4.45 7.84 22.50 25.63 29.02 Autumn Average 0.85 3.21 5.89 15.69 18.05 20.73 Minimum Air °C °C °C °C °C °C Temperature Annual Average 1.22 2.89 4.77 7.84 9.51 11.39 Winter Average 0.76 2.58 4.62 2.58 4.40 6.44 Spring Average 0.67 2.26 4.05 5.72 7.31 9.10 Summer Average 1.5 3.6 5.88 13.43 15.53 17.81 Autumn Average 1.03 3.19 5.53 8.60 10.76 13.10 Precipitation % % % mm / day mm / day mm / day Annual Average -6.21 -0.53 5.21 1.64 1.74 1.84 Winter Average -2.51 16.23 36.76 1.69 2.02 2.37 Spring Average -13.82 -5.95 2.61 1.41 1.54 1.68 Summer Average -56.46 -26.31 5.52 0.74 1.26 1.80 Autumn Average -1.97 6.69 15.83 1.88 2.04 2.22 Total Cloud Anomaly % % % (0-1) (0-1) (0-1) Annual Average -12.43 -6.22 0.04 0.60 0.64 0.68 Winter Average -2.21 0.93 4.06 0.71 0.74 0.76 Spring Average -11.24 -5.1 1.17 0.60 0.64 0.69 Summer Average -32.67 -15.21 2.12 0.44 0.55 0.6 Autumn Average -12.3 -5.25 1.31 0.58 0.63 0.67

Appendix B: Examples of Defining Effect ‘Scale within an EIA Example 4 ‘Normal EIA’ Climate Change Receptor Magnitude of Impact Receptor A = Low Sensitive Receptor A = Low Sensitive Sensitivity High Medium Low Very Low Magnitude of Impact = Low Vulnerability = High Resultant Effect = Negligible (receptor directly dependent on existing environment High Major Major Moderate Minor / climate, so change is likely to alter the magnitude of Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible impact, i.e. change in the environment as a result of Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible the Proposed Development) Magnitude of Impact = High Very Low Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible (qualitative judgement) Resultant Effect = Moderate

Example 1 ‘Normal EIA’ Climate Change Receptor A = High Sensitive Receptor A = High Sensitive Magnitude of Impact = Low Vulnerability = Low Resultant Effect = Moderate (climate change has little influence on receptor as resilient to changes in existing environment / climate, so climate change unlikely to alter the magnitude of impact) Magnitude of Impact = Low Resultant Effect = Moderate

Example 2 ‘Normal EIA’ Climate Change Receptor A = High Sensitive Receptor A = High Sensitive Magnitude of Impact = Low Vulnerability = High Resultant Effect = Moderate (receptor directly dependent on existing environment / climate, so change is likely to alter the magnitude of impact, i.e. change in the environment as a result of the Proposed Development) Magnitude of Impact = High (qualitative judgement) Resultant Effect = Major

Example 3 ‘Normal EIA’ Climate Change Receptor A = Low Sensitive Receptor A = Low Sensitive Magnitude of Impact = Low Vulnerability = Low Resultant Effect = Negligible (climate change has little influence on receptor as resilient to changes in existing environment / climate, so climate change unlikely to alter the magnitude of impact) Magnitude of Impact = Low Resultant Effect = Negligible

Appendix C: Policy and Guidance Policy and Guidance x EU Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into the Environmental Impact Assessment (2013)9 x IEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation (Nov 2015)10 x UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Evidence Report (2017)11 x 2017 EIA Regulations12

9 EU Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessments http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/EIA%20Guidance.pdf 10 IEMA EIA Guide to Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation https://www.iema.net/assets/templates/documents/iema_guidance_documents_eia_climate_change_resilience_and_adaptati on%20(1).pdf 11 UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (2017) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584281/uk-climatechange-risk-assess-2017.pdf 12 EIA 2017 Regulations http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/571/introduction/made Environmental Statement Volume 2, Appendix: EIA Methodology

Annex 6: Residential Planning Noise and Vibration Report SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

Version Date Comments Author Reviewer A 1 Nov 19 Philip Owen Edward Farrer 19108-R04-A

1 November 2019

Egley Road, Woking

Residential planning noise and vibration report

55 Charterhouse Street, London EC1M 6HA T: +44 (0)20 7549 3500 68 Sackville Street, Manchester M1 3NJ T: +44 (0)161 771 2020 2 Walker Street, Edinburgh EH3 7LA T: +44 (0)131 235 2020 [email protected] 87 Caroline Street, Birmingham B3 1UP T: +44 (0)121 227 5020 www.sandybrown.com

Sandy Brown Associates LLP Registered in England & Wales No. OC 307504 Registered Office: 55 Charterhouse Street, London EC1M 6HA

Page 2 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

Summary Contents Sandy Brown has been appointed to provide acoustic advice in relation to the proposed development at Egley Road, Woking. 1 Introduction ...... 5 The proposed scheme incorporates residential and commercial elements (David Lloyd Club). 2 Site descriptions...... 5 An environmental noise survey was performed at the site between 14 May 2019 and 23 May 2019 to establish ambient and background noise levels. 3 Survey method...... 7 In addition, a noise survey was completed at an existing David Lloyd Club (Westfield Avenue, 4 Measurement results...... 13 Woking) between 6 April 2019 and 13 April 2019, to establish the noise level generated by 5 Assessment criteria...... 23 typical activities. The results of the surveys have been used to provide an assessment of noise egress to the 6 Plant noise limits – noise egress ...... 29 existing residential receptors and ingress to the proposed residential receptors. The ingress to 7 David Lloyd Club - noise egress...... 30 the residential elements of the proposed development has been assessed in line with the guidance set out within the ProPG: Planning & Noise for New Residential Development 8 Residential acoustic design statement...... 31 (ProPG). 9 Vibration assessment...... 34 The Stage 1 ProPG assessment finds that the external noise climate around the site would 10 Conclusion...... 34 present a low risk of adverse noise effects on occupants. The Stage 2 ProPG assessment has been used to formulate an acoustic design statement which Appendix A ...... 35 concludes that no objection needs to be made on noise grounds and that consent could be Survey details ...... 35 granted without the need for conditions associated with noise ingress to the proposed residences. Appendix B ...... 39 The assessment of noise egress from the proposed David Lloyd Club indicates there will not be Results of unattended measurements at Locations A and B ...... 39 a discernible increase in ambient noise level at the existing residential receptors. On this basis a negligible noise impact would result. Appendix C ...... 42 Limits for noise egress associated with operation of the proposed development have also been BS 4142 corrections for attention catching features ...... 42 established, in line with the Local Authority’s standard requirements. All plant will need to be designed such that noise egress is in line with these limits. The maximum VDV measured in the vibration survey was 0.017 m/s1.75, which is significantly below the threshold of minor adverse comment in BS 6472. As such, vibration from trains will not adversely affect the Proposed Development.

Page 3 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 4 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

1Introduction Sandy Brown has been appointed to provide acoustic advice in relation to the proposed development at Egley Road, Woking. The proposed scheme incorporates residential and commercial elements (David Lloyd Club). As part of this, environmental noise surveys have been completed, the purpose of which is to establish the existing background and ambient sound levels as well as vibration from the adjacent railway track. The results from the surveys have been used to assess potential noise impacts from the proposed development site and establish the baseline conditions of the site. Reference has been made to the Local Authority’s requirements in respect of noise egress and also to the guidance set out within the ProPG: Planning & Noise for New Residential Development (ProPG), published in May 2017 by Acoustic & Noise Consultants (ANC).

2 Site descriptions

2.1 The site and its surroundings The site location in relation to its surroundings is shown in Figure 1 (highlighted in green). Hook Hill Lane runs by the south west corner of the site. Along the west perimeter of the site are train tracks which run between Worplesdon station and Woking station. To the north of the site is Hoe Valley School (blue) and Woking Athletic Club (purple). To the east of the site are Wyevale Garden Centre (orange) and Anglian Home Improvements (yellow). Egley Road runs near the east of the site.

Figure 1 Site map (courtesy of Google Earth Pro)

2.2 Adjacent noise sensitive premises The nearest noise sensitive premises, highlighted in Figure 1, are: Hoe Valley School (blue) Residential properties along Hook Hill Lane, Chiltern Close, Egley Drive and Mayford Green (pink).

Page 5 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 6 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

3 Survey method Details of the equipment used, the noise indices and the weather conditions during the survey are provided in Appendix A. Further information on the specific survey method is provided in this section. The survey comprised measurements at the site (Egley Road) to assess the existing baseline conditions and measurements at an operational David Lloyd Club (Westfield Avenue, Woking).

3.1 Egley Road measurements

3.1.1 Unattended measurements Unattended noise monitoring was undertaken at the site over 9 days to determine the existing background sound levels in the vicinity of nearby noise sensitive premises. The unattended measurements were performed over 5 minute periods between 17:20 on 15 May 2019 and 10:15 on 23 May 2019. The equipment was installed and collected by Matthew Elliott. The measurement position used during the survey is indicated in Figure 1, denoted by the letter ‘A’. This location was chosen to be reasonably representative of the noise levels experienced by the nearest noise sensitive premises, and also noise levels at the site from Figure 2 Photograph of measurement position 1 Hook Hill Lane and the train line.

3.1.2 Attended measurements Attended sample measurements were performed by Matthew Elliott at a number of locations around the site. These are indicated in Figure 1 as positions 1, 2 and 3. The attended measurements were carried out on 14 May 2019 and 23 May 2019, over 5 minute periods, with the purpose of determining the existing noise levels from the train line, school, athletics club, Egley Road, Wyevale Garden Centre and Anglian Home improvements. The locations of the measurements are indicated in Figure 2 to Figure 4. In each case the microphone was mounted on a tripod approximately 1.5 m above the ground level and at least 3 m from any other reflective surface.

Figure 3 Photograph of measurement position 2

Page 7 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 8 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

Figure 4 Photograph of measurement position 3 Figure 5 Vibration measurement location (courtesy of Google Earth Pro) 3.1.3 Vibration survey A 300 mm deep hole was dug in the ground. The accelerometer was placed at the bottom of Vibration measurements were performed near the south west corner of the site in order to the hole and buried. A photograph of the setup is shown in Figure 6. determine the maximum vibration levels for the passage of trains on the railway tracks adjacent to the site. The vibration measurement location is indicated in Figure 5, denoted by V. For the vibration measurements, 30 second vibration dose values (VDVs) were measured. These measurements were performed from 10:01 to 11:54 on 14 May 2019.

Figure 6 Vibration meter setup

The measurements were conducted in three axes as follows: X axis – Horizontal vibration approximately perpendicular to the railway tracks; Y axis – Horizontal vibration approximately parallel to the railway tracks; Z axis – Vertical vibration.

Page 9 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 10 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

3.1.4 Weather conditions Weather conditions during the survey are described in Appendix A.

3.2 David Lloyd Club measurements

3.2.1 Unattended measurements Unattended noise monitoring was undertaken at the site over 8 days to determine the existing background sound levels and ambient sound levels in the vicinity of nearby noise sensitive premises. The unattended measurements were performed over 5 minute periods between 12:10 on 6 April 2019 and 17:55 on 13 April 2019. The equipment was installed by Philip Owen and Nicolas Lum, and collected by Philip Owen and Vynn Keane Lim. The measurement position used during the survey is indicated in Figure 7, denoted by the letter ‘B’. Photograph of the measurement location is indicated in Figure 8. The measurements were completed approximately 12 m from the nearest tennis court baseline and at least 3 m from any vertically reflective surface. This location was chosen to establish likely noise levels from the operation of the tennis courts.

Figure 8 Unattended noise measurements at Location B

3.2.2 Attended measurements Attended sample measurements were performed by Nicolas Lum and Vynn Keane Lim in the carpark of the existing David Lloyd Club on 6 April 2019 and 13 April 2019, over 5 minute periods. The measurement position is are indicated in Figure 7 as position 4.

Figure 7 David Lloyd Club, Westfield Avenue Woking, measurement positions

Page 11 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 12 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

A photograph of the measurement location is indicated in Figure 9. The microphone was 4 Measurement results mounted on a tripod approximately 1.5 m above the ground level and at least 3 m from any other reflective surface. 4.1 Egley Road results The measurements were taken to establish the noise generated within the carpark of the existing David Lloyd Club. 4.1.1 Observations The dominant noise sources observed at the site during the unattended measurements consisted of trains and road traffic. Secondary noise sources observed were: Forklift truck noise from Anglian Home Improvements School children from Hoe Valley School Propeller planes flying overhead Helicopters flying towards London Planes from Heathrow Airport Small jet aircraft in and out of Farnborough Airport.

4.1.2 Unattended measurement results The results of the unattended noise measurements are summarised in the following tables. A graph showing the results of the unattended measurements is provided in Appendix B. The day and night time ambient noise levels measured during the unattended survey are presented in Table 1. Measurements were taken in free field conditions.

Figure 9 Photograph of measurement position 4

Page 13 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 14 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

Table 1 Ambient noise levels measured during the survey In line with BS 4142:2014, for the purpose of analysis and establishing representative background sound levels, day and night time typical levels have been quantified using Date Daytime (07:00 – 23:00) Night (23:00 – 07:00) statistical analysis from the continuous logging measurements.

LAeq,16h (dB) LAeq,8h (dB) Daytime and night time statistical analysis of representative values are given in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Wednesday 15 May 2019 - 53 Thursday 16 May 2019 57 54 Friday 17 May 2019 57 51 Saturday 18 May 2019 57 49 Sunday 19 May 2019 54 53 Monday 20 May 2019 57 53 Tuesday 21 May 2019 57 53 Wednesday 22 May 2019 57 53 Average 57 52

The minimum background sound levels measured during the unattended survey are given in Table 2.

Table 2 Minimum background sound levels measured during the survey

Date Daytime (07:00 – 23:00) Night (23:00 – 07:00) Figure 10 Daytime statistical analysis of representative values LA90,5min (dB) LA90,5min (dB) Wednesday 15 May 2019 37 * 30 Thursday 16 May 2019 38 30 Friday 17 May 2019 36 28 Saturday 18 May 2019 34 30 Sunday 19 May 2019 32 28 Monday 20 May 2019 33 29 Tuesday 21 May 2019 37 29 Wednesday 22 May 2019 35 26 Thursday 23 May 2019 37 * -

* Measurement not made over full period due to logger start and end time

The lowest background sound levels measured during the survey were LA90,5min 32 dB during the daytime and LA90,5min 26 dB at night.

Page 15 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 16 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

Date Start time Sound pressure levels (dB) Sources (dominant, other)

LAeq,5min LAFmax,5min LA90,5min 14 May 2019 13:48 58 76 45 Train school kids 23 May 2019 09:57 45 62 38 Propeller plane, distant traffic 23 May 2019 10:03 41 55 36 Propeller plane, distant traffic 23 May 2019 10:08 58 76 37 Train, distant traffic Position 2 14 May 2019 12:29 51 60 47 Traffic 14 May 2019 12:34 50 56 47 Traffic 14 May 2019 12:39 51 65 47 Traffic 14 May 2019 13:18 51 70 48 Traffic 14 May 2019 13:23 51 64 47 Traffic 14 May 2019 13:29 52 63 49 Traffic, helicopter 23 May 2019 9:21 47 55 42 Traffic, small jet planes Figure 11 Night time statistical analysis of representative values 23 May 2019 9:26 50 64 45 Traffic, helicopter From this analysis, the representative background sound levels measured during the survey 23 May 2019 9:32 52 67 42 Traffic, small jet plane were LA90,5min 40 dB during the daytime and LA90,5min 31 dB at night. Position 3 4.1.3 Attended measurement results 14 May 2019 12:45 50 58 47 Traffic, planes The sound pressure levels recorded during the attended measurements are summarised in Table 3. The noise sources are also listed in the table. 14 May 2019 12:51 48 62 45 Traffic, planes Measurements were taken in free field conditions. 14 May 2019 12:56 52 68 46 Traffic, planes, train 14 May 2019 13:01 60 72 52 Forklift truck, traffic Table 3 Sound pressure levels from attended measurements 14 May 2019 13:06 57 72 49 Forklift truck, traffic Date Start time Sound pressure levels (dB) Sources (dominant, other) 14 May 2019 13:12 50 59 47 Traffic, planes, train L L L Aeq,5min AFmax,5min A90,5min 23 May 2019 9:38 42 56 38 Traffic, planes Position 1 23 May 2019 9:44 53 69 40 Traffic, helicopter 14 May 2019 12:10 52 66 46 Plane, distant traffic 23 May 2019 9:49 42 52 38 Traffic, planes 14 May 2019 12:15 49 65 45 Plane, distant traffic 14 May 2019 12:20 57 73 45 Trains, distant traffic 14 May 2019 13:37 60 77 48 Train, school kids 14 May 2019 13:42 52 66 47 Train, helicopter

Page 17 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 18 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

4.1.4 Vibration survey results Table 5 Ambient noise levels measured during the survey at Location B Tactile vibration associated with trains passing by was not perceived during the events. Date Daytime (07:00 – 23:00) Night (23:00 – 07:00) From the measurements taken the three maximum 30 second measurement Vibration Dose L (dB) L (dB) Values (VDVs) have been presented in Table 4. Aeq,16h Aeq,8h Saturday 6 April 2019 - 45 Table 4 Measured VDVs for individual train passbys Sunday 7 April 2019 49 45 1.75 Time Vibration Dose Value (m/s ) Monday 8 April 2019 50 47 XYZ Tuesday 9 April 2019 52 48 10:24 0.002 0.002 0.015 Wednesday 10 April 2019 50 49 10:59 0.002 0.002 0.015 Thursday 11 April 2019 50 48 11:27 0.002 0.002 0.017 Friday 12 April 2019 51 48 These levels indicate that vibration transmission from the railway track will not be an issue for Average 50 47 this development as they are significantly below the minor adverse comment rating in BS 6472. The minimum background sound levels measured during the unattended survey are given in Table 6.

4.2 David Lloyd Club Table 6 Minimum background sound levels measured during the survey at Location B

4.2.1 Observations Date Daytime (07:00 – 23:00) Night (23:00 – 07:00) The dominant noise sources observed at Location B during setting up and collection consisted L (dB) L (dB) of building services plant noise associated with the club. A90,5min A90,5min Saturday 6 April 2019 43 * 41 Less significant noise sources included club members using the tennis courts. Sunday 7 April 2019 41 41 4.2.2 Unattended measurement results Monday 8 April 2019 42 42 The results of the unattended noise measurements are summarised in the following tables. A Tuesday 9 April 2019 44 43 graph showing the results of the unattended measurements is provided in Appendix B. Wednesday 10 April 2019 42 42 The day and night time ambient noise levels measured during the unattended survey are presented in Table 1. Thursday 11 April 2019 42 43 Measurements were taken in free field conditions. Friday 12 April 2019 43 41 Saturday 13 April 2019 43 * - * Measurement not made over full period due to logger start and end time

The lowest background sound levels measured during the survey were LA90,5min 41 dB during the daytime and LA90,5min 41 dB at night. Daytime and night time statistical analysis of representative values for Location B are given in Figure 12 and Figure 13.

Page 19 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 20 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

4.2.3 Attended measurement results The sound pressure levels recorded during the attended measurements and the sources are summarised in Table 7. Measurements were taken in free field conditions.

Table 7 Sound pressure levels from attended measurements

Date Start time Sound pressure levels (dB) Sources (dominant, other)

LAeq,5min LAFmax,5min LA90,5min Position 4 6 April 2019 15:35 58 73 54 Football stadium (match day), cars driving into the carpark, 6 April 2019 15:40 55 65 48 leaf blower nearby 6 April 2019 15:45 54 68 46 13 April 2019 15:20 48 64 41 Football stadium (non-match day), traffic from the 13 April 2019 15:25 49 65 41 Figure 12 Statistical analysis of day time background sound level at Location B surrounding roads, car park 13 April 2019 15:30 49 66 43 activity, aircraft flyovers and 13 April 2019 16:05 48 66 41 birdsong. 13 April 2019 16:10 43 57 40 13 April 2019 16:15 54 68 40

Figure 13 Statistical analysis of night time background sound level at Location B

From this analysis, the representative background sound levels measured for Location B during the survey were LA90,5min 44 dB during the daytime and LA90,5min 43 dB at night.

Page 21 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 22 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

5 Assessment criteria As such, neither document sets out specific acoustic criteria for new residential developments, but they require consideration of the effect of existing noise on the new development and the 5.1 NPPF and NPSE effect of noise from the development on the surroundings. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government planning 5.2 ProPG requirements, and supersedes previous guidance notes such as PPG24. No specific noise ProPG Planning & Noise (Professional Practice Guidance on Planning & Noise), New Residential criteria are set out in the NPPF, or in the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) to which it Development, 2017 provides guidance to the management of noise within the planning system refers. in England. It is restricted to consideration of new residential developments that will be The NPPF states: exposed predominantly to airborne noise from transport sources. ‘The NPPF states: The two stages of the approach are given below ‘Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate Stage 1 – Initial noise risk assessment of the proposed development site for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of Stage 2 – Systematic consideration of four key elements pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the - Element 1 – Demonstrating a ”Good Acoustic Design Process” potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the - Element 2 – Observing internal “Noise Level Guidelines” development. In doing so they should: - Element 3 – Undertaking an “External Amenity Area Noise Assessment” mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from - Element 4 – Consideration of “Other Relevant Issues”. noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse Following this approach, there are four possible recommendations, the choice of impacts on health and the quality of life. recommendation is as follows: identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed Grant without conditions by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.‘ Grant with conditions and Avoid ‘Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated Prevent. effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have Guidance provided in ProPG has been used to assess the proposed development site and unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise levels. they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes 5.2.1 Stage 1 of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide The first stage incorporates an initial site noise risk assessment. It provides an indication of the suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.’ likely risk of adverse noise effects should no subsequent mitigation be included in the The NPSE states that its aims are as follows: development proposal. ‘Through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and The risk assessment is set around the noise levels indicated in Figure 14. neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development: Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life and Where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life.’

Page 23 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 24 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

5.2.2 Stage 2 Stage 2 constitutes a full assessment of the following four key elements: 1. Good acoustic design process 2. Internal noise level guidelines 3. External amenity area noise assessment 4. Assessment of other relevant issues. Element 1 – good acoustic design process Guidance is provided within the ProPG Supplementary Document covering various considerations which could demonstrate a good acoustic design process and essentially these are focused around high-level principles at an early design stage, including: Checking feasibility of relocating or reducing noise from external sources Consideration of options for site orientation and building layout The selection of construction types and methods in order to meet performance requirements Consideration of effects of noise control measures on other important building requirements such as ventilation, fire regulation, health and safety etc. Assessing the viability of alternative options. Element 2 – internal noise level guidelines The ProPG makes reference to the guidance within BS 8233:2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings (BS 8233). This is also in line with the local authority’s standard requirements. The relevant criteria as set out within the ProPG are summarised in Table 8.

Table 8 ProPG internal noise level criteria for residences

Activity Location 07:00 – 23:00 hours 23:00 – 07:00 hours

Resting Living room LAeq,16h 35 dB -

Dining Dining room/area LAeq,16h 40 dB -

Sleeping (daytime Bedroom LAeq,16h 35 dB LAeq,8h 30 dB resting) LAFmax 45 dB

Figure 14 Excerpt from ProPG. Stage 1 initial site noise risk assessment

Page 25 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 26 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

Element 3 – external amenity area noise assessment Table 9 BS 6472-1: 2008 tactile vibration assessment criteria Where external amenity spaces are an intrinsic part of the overall design, the ProPG suggests 1.75 that noise levels should ideally not be above L 50-55 dB. VDV (m/s ) above which might result in various probabilities of adverse comment within Aeq,16hr residential buildings. However, reference is made to the guidance within BS 8233 which states that these guideline Low probability of Adverse comment Adverse comment values may not be achievable in all circumstances where development might be desirable. In Place such a situation, development should be designed to achieve the lowest practicable noise adverse comment possible probable levels in these external amenity spaces but should not be prohibited. Residential buildings 0.2 – 0.4 0.4 – 0.8 0.8 – 1.6 Should, despite following the principles of good acoustic design, it not be possible to provide a 16 hr day suitable noise environment in all external amenity areas it is appropriate to consider other Residential building 0.1 – 0.2 0.2 – 0.4 0.4 – 0.8 mitigating circumstances. These include the provision of : 8 hr night A relatively quiet facade with openable windows to habitable rooms A relatively quiet alternative or additional external amenity space for sole use by a It is important to note that people exhibit wide variations of vibration tolerance. Specific household values are dependent upon social and cultural factors, psychological attitudes and expected A relatively quiet nearby external amenity spaces for sole use by a limited group or degree of intrusion. residents A relatively quiet publicly accessible external amenity spaces (ie a park) that is nearby 5.2 External noise levels – building services noise egress (eg within a 5 minute walking distance). 5.2.1 Standard guidance Element 4 – other relevant issues Guidance for noise emission from proposed new items of building services plant is given in These could include: BS 4142:2014 ‘Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound’. Compliance with relevant national and local policy BS 4142 provides a method for assessing noise from items such as building services plant Magnitude and extent of compliance with ProPG against the existing background sound levels at the nearest noise sensitive. Likely occupants of the development Acoustic design versus unintended adverse consequences BS 4142 suggests that if the noise level is 10 dB or more higher than the existing background Acoustic design versus wider planning objectives. sound level, it is likely to be an indication of a significant adverse impact. If the level is 5 dB above the existing background sound level, it is likely to be an indication of an adverse impact. 5.1 Tactile vibration criteria If the level does not exceed the background level, it is an indication of having a low impact. If the noise contains ‘attention catching features’ such as tones, bangs etc, a penalty, based on 5.1.1 Standard guidance the type and impact of those features, is applied. Tactile vibration is that which is perceived as mechanical motion. BS 6472-1:2008 Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings Part 1: Vibration Sources Other Than 5.2.2 Local Authority criteria Blasting provides procedures for assessing the potential human response to vibration. It is understood that the Local Authorities preference is for building services plant to be Vibration is assessed in terms of the equivalent vibration dose value (VDV). This relates the designed to be 10 dB below the background noise level. level and duration of vibration. The BS 6472-1:2008 assessment criteria are presented in Table 9.

Page 27 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 28 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

5.3 External noise levels –noise egress from the David Lloyd Club Table 11 Plant noise limits at 1 m from the nearest noise sensitive premises

Noise levels from tennis courts and carparks associated with the completed and operational Time of day Maximum sound pressure level at 1 m from noise sensitive premises Proposed Development would need to be controlled to ensure that it would not negatively (LAeq,15min dB) affect the nearby existing noise sensitive receptors. Daytime 43 Criteria for the assessment are set in accordance with the Institute of Acoustics (IOA) / (07:00-23:00) Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) ‘Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment’, which assesses the magnitude of impact relative to increases in ambient noise Night time 34 level. (23:00-07:00)

Table 10 Classification of noise effect with respect to predicted increases in ambient noise level The limits set out in Table 11 do not include any attention catching features. The penalty corrections for attention catching features may be significant, and will need to be considered Effect Change in Description of effect Acceptability as the building services design progresses. This is discussed in Appendix C. description noise level (dBA) 6.1.1 Assessment Negligible <1.0 Noise increase is unlikely to be discernible Yes At this stage, no information is available in relation to the proposed installation of building services plant, and this will need to be assessed in detail as the design progresses. However, all Minor 1.0-2.9 Non-intrusive, can be heard but does not cause Yes plant items will be designed to achieve the plant noise limits set out above, including any any change in behaviour or attitude. Can slightly corrections for attention catching features. affect the character of an area but not such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life. 7 David Lloyd Club - noise egress Moderate 3.0-4.9 Intrusive, noise can be heard and causes small No changes in behaviour and/or attitude. Potential Figure 15 illustrates the Proposed Development relative to the surroundings and position of for non-awakening sleep disturbance. Affects the noise monitoring positions. The tennis courts are highlighted in blue, carparks in yellow, the character of an area such that there is a David Lloyd Club building in green and the proposed residential properties in red. perceived change in the quality of life. Major >5.0 Disruptive, causes a material change in No behaviour and/or attitude. Potential for sleep disturbance. Quality of life diminished due to change in character of the area.

Either negligible or minor increase in ambient noise level is considered acceptable.

6 Plant noise limits – noise egress

6.1 Basic limits Based on the guidance set out in Section 5.2.1 and the measurement results, the cumulative noise level resulting from the operation of all new plant at 1 m from the worst affected windows of the nearest noise sensitive premises should not exceed the limits set out in Table 11.

Page 29 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 30 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

The carparks are located over 100 m from the existing residential receptors. On this basis, the

carpark noise level contribution has been predicted to be no higher than LAeq,5min 43 dB at the closest receptors.

7.1.3 Building services plant

The building services plant will be designed to meet the limits within Table 11, ie LAeq,T 43 dB during the daytime.

7.2 Assessment of noise impact The noise generated by the tennis courts, carparks and building services plant have been assessed cumulatively at the closest residential property to the proposed David Lloyd Club, namely Lisa. The assessment indicates that the cumulative sound pressure level is

LAeq,16hr 52 dB, 1 m from the facade. The lowest existing daytime free-field ambient noise level measured (position A) is

LAeq,16hr 54 dB. The equivalent existing facade ambient noise level is therefore LAeq,16hr 57 dB. On the above basis, the increase in ambient noise level due to the operation of the David Lloyd Club has been calculated to be 1.2 dB. This corresponds with a Minor effect, as the increase will be just noticeable, though not intrusive. The increase in ambient noise level is therefore considered acceptable. Figure 15 Proposed Development relative the surroundings and illustrating baseline measurement positions 7.3 Recommended mitigation measures 7.1 Assessment of noise egress from David Lloyd Club While the assessment indicates a Minor effect it is recommended that the operation of the 7.1.1 Tennis court noise contribution David Lloyd Club considers the following mitigation measures to reduce noise at the existing receptors: The David Lloyd Club will operate during the daytime only, with the expected operation to be the same as those measured at Westfield Avenue, Woking. Prioritise the use of the courts furthest away from the existing properties Select perimeter fences that cushion balls and do not generate noise, eg nets rather Measurements were completed approximately 12 m from the baseline of the tennis courts at than chain metal the existing David Lloyd Club. The measurements, as summarised in Table 5, indicate that the Install signs reminding the club members to consider and reduce noise while playing, tennis courts operate with noise levels up to L 52 dB. Aeq,16hr ie, no shouting. The closest existing receptor (Lisa, Hook Hill Lane) to the proposed tennis courts is approximately 20 m from the closest court baseline. On this basis, the tennis noise level at the closest receptor is predicted to be LAeq,16hr 51 dB, 1 m from the facade of the property.

7.1.2 Carpark noise contribution The noise levels measured in the existing David Lloyd Club carpark were influenced by noise sources other than cars using the facilities. Nevertheless, the ambient noise levels measured at the perimeter of the existing carpark were between LAeq,5min 43-54 dB and have been used as a basis of assessment.

Page 31 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 32 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

8 Residential acoustic design statement 8.2.2 Sound pressure levels in the vicinity of the residential development The measurements at positions 2 and 3 are most representative of the daytime ambient noise 8.1 Stage 1 assessment levels experienced at the proposed residential properties. The time averaged free-field ambient noise levels were measured at position 2 and 3 were L 51 dB and L 54 dB The measured external ambient noise levels, as detailed in Section 3, would suggest that the Aeq,T Aeq,T respectively. site would be exposed to a low risk of adverse noise effects. The noise predictions presented in the Hoe Valley School and Leisure Centre planning 8.2 Stage 2 assessment application indicate that the proposed residential properties will be exposed to noise levels between L 47- 57 dB when the athletics track is in use. This section discusses the assessed external noise levels at the facades of the Proposed Aeq Development and consequentially the good acoustic design processes adopted so that The outside football pitches are over 160 m from the proposed residential properties. The appropriate conditions for a residential development (internal noise levels and external noise predictions presented in the Hoe Valley School and Leisure Centre planning application report levels in amenity areas) are provided. indicate that football pitch noise contribution at the proposed residential properties will be LAeq 47 dB. 8.2.1 External noise level evaluation The David Lloyd Club tennis courts contribution has been calculated to be LAeq 40 dB and would The existing environmental noise sources in the vicinity of the Proposed Development not contribute to the existing ambient noise levels experienced. comprise: The David Lloyd Club carparks are adjacent to the proposed residential properties. The noise Railway noise level contribution from the carpark is expected to be similar to those measured at position 4, Road traffic noise from Egley Road ie LAeq,T 50 dB. Commercial noise from Anglian Improvements and Woking Garden Centre On the above basis, the cumulative free-field daytime ambient noise level at the residential Operational noise from leisure centre (use of MUGA’s, 5-a-side football pitches and properties is expected to be between LAeq,16hr 50-60 dB. athletics track). The notable noise sources in the vicinity of the proposed residential properties will only be In addition, the development itself has the potential to increase noise through the activities operational during the daytime. On this basis, the night time criteria will be achieved when the associated with the proposed David Lloyd Club. daytime criteria is complied with. The railway, road and commercial noise sources have been appraised using existing survey data collected on the site, as presented in Section 4. As illustrated in Figure 15, the 8.2.3 Element 1 – Good Acoustic Design measurements taken at positions 2 and 3 are the most appropriate for the assessment. As part of the development, there will be continuous fences around the residential properties The operational noise from the leisure centre noise contribution has been taken from the to provide privacy to the gardens. The fences will be constructed from materials that achieve a 2 assessments presented in Environmental Statement Addendum – Hoe Valley School and Leisure mass of at least 15 kg/m . The adoption of fences around the gardens is expected to reduce Centre (August 2015), along with noise data collected on the site. noise level incident on the ground level facades and in the resident’s gardens by 5-10 dB. The noise sources associated with the operation of the David Lloyd Club include building 8.2.4 Element 2 – internal noise levels services plant, carpark traffic and use of the outside tennis courts. Survey data from an existing Based on the measured and assessed external noise levels and internal noise criteria David Lloyd Club, as described in Section 3.2, has been used to assess the potential carpark presented in Table 8, the facade sound insulation requirements can be determined. traffic and tennis court contributions. The building services plant will be designed to meet the Compliance with Table 8 criteria will meet Element 2 requirements of the Stage 2 assessment. limits in Table 11.

Page 33 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 34 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

It is expected that road traffic (Egley Road and David Lloyd Club carpark) will be the dominant 10 Conclusion noise source. Road traffic noise is dominated by low frequency noise and, as such, use of the spectrum adaptation term Ctr in combination with the Weighted Sound Reduction Index, Rw is Sandy Brown has undertaken an environmental survey at the site in order to establish existing considered the most applicable performance rating for specification purposes. These ambient and background noise levels. performance ratings are defined in BS EN ISO 717-1:2013 Acoustics – Rating of sound The results of the survey have been used to undertake an assessment of noise egress from the insulation in buildings and of building elements Part 1: Airborne sound insulation. proposed David Lloyd Club and noise ingress to the residential elements of the proposed The highest facade sound insulation performances required for the development development in line with the guidance set out within the ProPG. is Rw +Ctr 28 dB. This performance can be achieved with 6.8 mm glass/16 mm cavity/6 mm The noise egress assessment indicates there will be negligible increase in existing ambient glass and acoustically attenuated passive ventilation. noise level at the existing residential receptors due to the operation of the David Lloyd Club. 8.2.5 Element 3 – External amenity area noise levels The Stage 1 ProPG assessment finds that the external noise climate around the site would present a low risk of adverse noise effects on occupants. Without the adoption of the continuous fences around the gardens, the free-field ambient noise levels has been assessed to be in the region of LAeq 50-60 dB. With the adoption of the The Stage 2 ProPG assessment has been used to formulate an acoustic design statement, continuous fences, the noise levels within all gardens will be 5-10 dB lower, ie LAeq 40-55 dB. presented herein, which concludes that no objection need to be made on noise grounds and The ambient noises in the garden would be expected to be in line with the guidance criteria set that consent could be granted without the need for conditions associated with noise ingress to out within ProPG. As such, noise in any external amenity areas is acceptable. the proposed residences. Limits for noise egress associated with operation of the proposed development have also been 8.2.6 Element 4 – Assessment of other relevant issues established, in line with the Local Authority’s standard requirements. All plant will need to be The low existing external noise levels coupled with the good acoustic design principles which designed such that noise egress is in line with these limits. have been followed mean that the proposed development is in general compliance with the principles of the ProPG. The proposed facade sound insulation performances mean that internal noise levels when windows are closed will be in line with the ProPG internal noise criteria. Noise levels in external amenity areas are compliant with those set out within the ProPG.

8.2.7 Recommendation to the decision maker When considering the good acoustic design process that has been followed and demonstrated within this statement, along with the pre-existing ambient noise levels which present a low risk of adverse noise effects at the site, it is considered that no objection need to be made on noise grounds. It is recommended that consent be granted without the need for conditions associated with noise ingress to the proposed residences, as long as the measures outlined within the report are adopted.

9 Vibration assessment The vibration results for individual train passby events presented in Section 3.1.3 are significantly below the assessment criteria. As such, vibration from trains will not adversely affect the Proposed Development.

Page 35 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 36 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

Equipment Appendix A The calibration details for the equipment used during the survey are provided in Table A1.

Table A1 Equipment calibration data Survey details Equipment Type/serial Manufacturer Calibratio Calibration description number n expiry certification number Egley Road Sound level meter CUBE/11128 01dB 3 Jul 19 TCRT17/1425 Microphone CUBE/1610371 01dB 3 Jul 19 TCRT17/1425 Pre-amp 40CD/260775 GRAS 3 Jul 19 TCRT17/1425 Calibrator Cal 21/34375239 01dB 3 Jul 19 TCRT17/1420 Vibration meter SVAN948/11517 Svantek 06 Aug 20 TCRT18/1659 Accelerometer 3233A/221 Dytran 03 Aug 20 TCRT18/1658 Sound level meter 2250/3011195 Brüel & Kjær 21 Mar 21 UCRT19/1358, UCRT19/1356 Microphone 4189/3086746 Brüel & Kjær 21 Mar 21 UCRT19/1358, UCRT19/1356 Pre-amp ZC0032/25565 Brüel & Kjær 21 Mar 21 UCRT19/1358, UCRT19/1356 Calibrator 4231/3017676 Brüel & Kjær 21 Mar 21 UCRT19/1355 David Lloyd Club Sound level meter NL-52/00242702 Rion 30 Jan 21 TCRT19/1091 Microphone UC-59/06185 Rion 30 Jan 21 TCRT19/1091 Pre-amp NH-25/32730 Rion 30 Jan 21 TCRT19/1091 Calibrator CAL200/4499 Larson Davis 30 Jan 21 TCRT19/1090 Sound level meter 2250/3011195 Brüel & Kjær 21 Mar 21 UCRT19/1358, UCRT19/1356 Microphone 4189/3086746 Brüel & Kjær 21 Mar 21 UCRT19/1358, UCRT19/1356 Pre-amp ZC0032/25565 Brüel & Kjær 21 Mar 21 UCRT19/1358, UCRT19/1356

Page 37 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 38 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

During the attended measurements carried out on 13 April 2019, the weather was generally Calibrator 4231/3017676 Brüel & Kjær 21 Mar 21 UCRT19/1355 clear and dry and no rain occurred. Wind speeds varied between approximately 6 m/s and Calibration of the sound level meters used for the tests is traceable to national standards. The 1 m/s. calibration certificates for the sound level meters used in this survey are available upon These weather conditions are considered suitable for obtaining representative measurements. request. The sound level meters and microphones were calibrated at the beginning and end of the measurements using their respective sound level calibrators. No significant deviation in calibration occurred.

Noise indices The equipment was set to record a continuous series of broadband sound pressure levels. Noise indices recorded included the following:

LAeq,T The A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level over a period of time, T.

LAFmax,T The A-weighted maximum sound pressure level that occurred during a given period with a fast time weighting.

LA90,T The A-weighted sound pressure level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period. Indicative of the background sound level.

The LA90 is considered most representative of the background sound level for the purposes of complying with any local authority requirements. Sound pressure level measurements are normally taken with an A-weighting (denoted by a subscript ‘A’, eg LA90) to approximate the frequency response of the human ear. A more detailed explanation of these quantities can be found in BS7445: Part 1: 2003 Description and measurement of environmental noise, Part 1. Guide to quantities and procedures.

Weather conditions Egley Road During the attended noise measurements, the weather was generally clear and dry and no rain occurred. Wind speeds were measured at each position and varied between 1 m/s and 6 m/s. During the unattended noise measurements, weather reports for the area indicated that temperatures varied between 6C at night and 24C during the day, and the wind speed was less than 6 m/s. These weather conditions are considered suitable for obtaining representative measurements. David Lloyd

Page 39 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 40 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

Appendix B

Results of unattended measurements at Locations A and B

Page 41 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 42 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

Appendix C

BS 4142 corrections for attention catching features

Page 43 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Page 44 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD SANDY BROWN Consultants in Acoustics, Noise & Vibration

The following applies where plant noise is assessed in accordance with BS 4142:2014+A1:2019. If the proposed plant noise contains attention catching features (such as tonal elements, whines, whistles, bangs etc), penalty corrections should be applied based on the type and impact of the features. If appropriate, a subjective assessment of the plant features can be adopted. Where the plant noise contains tonal elements, the following corrections can be made depending on how perceptible the tone is at the noise receptor: 0 dB where the tone is not perceptible 2 dB where the tone is just perceptible 4 dB where the tone is clearly perceptible 6 dB where the tone is highly perceptible. Where the plant noise is impulsive, the following corrections can be made depending on how perceptible the impulsivity is at the noise receptor: 0 dB where the impulse is not perceptible 3 dB where the impulse is just perceptible 6 dB where the impulse is clearly perceptible 9 dB where the impulse is highly perceptible. For noise which is equally both impulsive and tonal, then both features can be accounted for by linearly summing the corrections for both characteristics. If the plant has other distinctive characteristics, such as intermittency, then a 3 dB correction can be made. If a subjective assessment of tonality is not appropriate, an objective assessment can be made by analysis of time-averaged, third-octave band sound pressure levels. A noise source is deemed to be tonal if the level in a third-octave band exceeds the level in adjacent third- octave bands by the level differences given below: 15 dB in the low frequency third-octave bands (25 Hz to 125 Hz) 8 dB in the mid frequency third-octave bands (160 Hz to 400 Hz) 5 dB in the high frequency third-octave bands (500 Hz to 10000 Hz). If an objective assessment identifies the plant noise to be tonal then a 6 dB correction must be made.

Page 45 of 45 19108-R03-A NOISE AND VIBRATION REPORT FOR EGLEY ROAD Environmental Statement Volume 2, Appendix: EIA Methodology

Annex 7: Updated Historic Environment Assessment EGLEY ROAD Woking GU22 0NJ

Historic environment assessment

NGR 499453 156415

LAND ADJACENT TO EGLEY ROAD Historic Environment Record search reference: 046/19 Woking Surrey GU22 Sign-off history issue Issue date Prepared by Reviewed by Project Manager Notes no. County of Surrey 1 22/05/2019 Andrew Francis Rupert Featherby Christina Holloway Issue to client (Archaeology) Lead Consultant Juan Jose Fuldain Archaeology Historic environment assessment (Graphics) 2 11/11/2019 Andrew Francis - - Change of client name, (Archaeology) revised description of Juan Jose Fuldain proposals incorporated November 2019 (Graphics) 3 20/11/2019 Andrew Francis - - Revised description of (Archaeology) proposals incorporated

MOLA code: P19-074

www.mola.org.uk MOLA Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED tel 0207 410 2200 email: [email protected] © Museum of London Archaeology 2019 Museum of London Archaeology Museum of London Archaeology is a company limited by guarantee Mortimer Wheeler House 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED Registered in England and Wales tel 020 7410 2200 | fax 020 410 2201 Company registration number 07751831 Charity registration number 1143574 https://www.mola.org.uk Registered office Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED general enquiries: [email protected] Figures Contents Cover: John Rocque's map of Surrey, 1768 Executive summary 1 Fig 1 Site location 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Origin and scope of the report 2 Fig 2 Historic environment features map 1.2 Designated heritage assets 2 Fig 3 John Norden's 250 years of map making in the County of Surrey, sheet no. 3b, 1594 1.3 Aims and objectives 2 Fig 4 John Rocque's map of Surrey, 1768 2 Methodology and sources consulted 4 Fig 5 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 6”:mile map of 1873 (not to scale) 2.1 Sources 4 Fig 6 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 6”:mile map of 1896 (not to scale) 2.2 Methodology 4 Fig 7 Ordnance Survey 25”:mile map of 1935/6 (not to scale) 3 The site: topography, geology and modern impacts 6 Fig 8 Proposed Site/Ground Floor Plan (Leach Rhodes Walker, drg no. 7884-L(00)103N, 1:500 @ A1, 05/11/19) 3.1 Site location 6 3.2 Topography 6 Fig 9 Residential Street Elevations (Leach Rhodes Walker, drg no. 7884-L(00)304C, 1:200 @ A1, 3.3 Geology 6 05/11/19)

4 Archaeological and historical background 7 Note: site outlines may appear differently on some figures owing to distortions in historic maps. North is 4.1 Overview of past investigations 7 approximate on early maps. 4.2 Chronological summary 7

5 Statement of significance 11 5.1 Introduction 11 5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival 11 5.3 Archaeological potential and significance 11

6 Impact of proposals 13 6.1 Proposals 13 6.2 Implications 13

7 Conclusion and recommendations 15

8 Gazetteer of known historic environment assets 16

9 Planning framework 18 9.1 National Planning Policy Framework 18 9.2 Local planning policy 20

10 Determining significance 21

11 Non-archaeological constraints 22

12 Glossary 23

13 Bibliography 25 13.1 Published and documentary sources 25 13.2 Other Sources 25 13.3 Cartographic sources 26 13.4 Available site survey information checklist 26

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 i Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 ii Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Executive summary 1 Introduction

Woking Football Club has commissioned MOLA to carry out a historic environment assessment in 1.1 Origin and scope of the report advance of proposed development at Egley Road, Woking, GU22 in the County of Surrey. The scheme comprises the redevelopment of the site, following the demolition of the existing building, to provide a 1.1.1 Woking Football Club has commissioned MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) to carry out health club building (Class D2) incorporating an external swimming pool and tennis/sports courts, the a historic environment assessment in advance of proposed development at Egley Road, provision of 36 dwelling houses (Class C3) up to a maximum of 3 storeys in height, associated Woking, GU22 0NJ; National Grid Reference (NGR) 499453 156415: Fig 1. The scheme landscaping and car parking and new vehicular access from an existing road serving Hoe Valley comprises the redevelopment of the site, following the demolition of the existing building, to School. provide a health club building (Class D2) incorporating an external swimming pool and This desk-based study assesses the impact of the scheme on buried heritage assets (archaeological tennis/sports courts, the provision of 36 dwelling houses (Class C3) up to a maximum of 3 remains). Above ground heritage assets (historic structures) are not discussed in detail, but they have storeys in height, associated landscaping and car parking and new vehicular access from an been noted where they assist in the archaeological interpretation of the site. Buried heritage assets that existing road serving Hoe Valley School. may be affected by the proposals comprise: 1.1.2 This desk-based study assesses the impact of the scheme on buried heritage assets x Remains of the post-medieval nursery. There is a moderate potential for remains relating to (archaeological remains). It forms an initial stage of investigation of the area of proposed the 19th/20th century nursery which would comprise deeply cut features such as tree-boles, development (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’) and may be required in relation to the planning planting areas or agricultural such as field boundary ditches. Such remains would be of low process in order that the local planning authority (LPA) (in this case, Woking Borough Council heritage significance. (WBC)) can formulate an appropriate response in the light of the impact on any known or There is a low potential for remains from all other periods. The site was located in open fields some possible heritage assets. These are parts of the historic environment which are considered to distance from the main area of settlement around Old Woking 2.4km to the north-east. A garden be significant because of their historic, evidential, aesthetic and/or communal interest. nursery was present in the eastern part of the site since the end of the 19th century until the mid 1950s 1.1.3 This report deals solely with the archaeological implications of the development and does not when it had become vacant land, prior to which it was pastureland. The western part of the site has cover possible built heritage issues, except where buried parts of historic fabric are likely to be remained undeveloped. Any foundations relating to the garden nursery in the eastern part of the site affected. Above ground assets (i.e. designated and undesignated historic structures and would have truncated any potentially surviving archaeological remains based on the shallow depth of conservation areas) on the site or in the vicinity that are relevant to the archaeological any underlying natural Bagshot Sand. interpretation of the site are discussed. Whilst the significance of above ground assets is not Based on the evidence, no archaeological remains of high significance are expected within the site. assessed in this archaeological report, direct physical impacts upon such assets arising from Further, in the light of the low archaeological potential of the site and despite the size and nature of the the development proposals are noted. The report does not assess issues in relation to the excavation for the proposed development it is unlikely that the local authority would require further setting of above ground assets (e.g., visible changes to historic character and views). investigation prior to determination. However, given the limited archaeological investigation within the 1.1.4 The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the National site it is likely that Woking Borough Council (WBC) would require investigation as part of a condition to Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (MHCLG 2019; see section 9 of this report) and to ensure that no previously unidentified remains are lost without record. Such an investigation could take standards specified by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA 2014, 2017), Historic the form of a watching brief during ground works to determine the presence, nature and extent of the England (EH 2008, HE 2015). Under the ‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act’ 1988 MOLA underlying geology and significance of any archaeological remains. Any archaeological work would retains the copyright to this document. need to be undertaken in accordance with an approved Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) and 1.1.5 Note: within the limitations imposed by dealing with historical material and maps, the could be carried out under the terms of a standard archaeological planning condition set out under the information in this document is, to the best knowledge of the author and MOLA, correct at the granting of planning consent. time of writing. Further archaeological investigation, more information about the nature of the present buildings, and/or more detailed proposals for redevelopment may require changes to all or parts of the document.

1.2 Designated heritage assets

1.2.1 Historic England’s National Heritage List for England (NHL) is a register of all nationally designated (protected) historic buildings and sites in England, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings and registered parks and gardens. The List does not include any nationally designated heritage assets within the site. 1.2.2 The site is not within an Area of High Archaeological Potential or a Conservation Area. 1.3 Aims and objectives

1.3.1 The aim of the assessment is to: x identify the presence of any known or potential buried heritage assets that may be affected by the proposals; x describe the significance of such assets, as required by national planning policy (see section 9 for planning framework and section 10 for methodology used to determine significance);

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 1 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 2 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 x assess the likely impacts upon the significance of the assets arising from the proposals; and 2 Methodology and sources consulted x provide recommendations for further assessment where necessary of the historic assets affected, and/or mitigation aimed at reducing or removing completely any adverse impacts upon buried heritage assets and/or their setting. 2.1 Sources

2.1.1 For the purposes of this report, documentary and cartographic sources including results from any archaeological investigations in the site and the area around it were examined in order to determine the likely nature, extent, preservation and significance of any buried heritage assets that may be present within the site or its immediate vicinity. This information has been used to determine the potential for previously unrecorded heritage assets of any specific chronological period to be present within the site. 2.1.2 In order to set the site into its full archaeological and historical context, information was collected on the known historic environment features within a 1km-radius study area around it, as held by the primary repositories of such information within Surrey which comprises the Surrey Historic Environment Record (HER). The HER is managed by Surrey County Council and includes information from past investigations, local knowledge, find spots, and documentary and cartographic sources. The study area was considered through professional judgement to be appropriate to characterise the historic environment of the site. Occasionally there may be reference to assets beyond this, where appropriate, e.g., where such assets are particularly significant and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the historic environment. 2.1.3 The extent of investigations as shown on Fig 2 may represent the site outline boundary for planning purposes, rather than the actual area archaeologically investigated. Where it has not been possible from archive records to determine the extent of an archaeological investigation (as is sometimes the case with early work), a site is represented on Fig 2 only by a centrepoint. 2.1.4 In addition, the following sources were consulted: x MOLA – in-house Geographical Information System (GIS) with statutory designations GIS data, the locations of all ‘key indicators’ of known prehistoric and Roman activity across Surrey, past investigation locations, projected Roman roads; burial grounds from the Holmes burial ground survey of 1896; georeferenced published historic maps; Defence of Britain survey data, in-house archaeological deposit survival archive and archaeological publications; x Historic England – information on statutory designations including scheduled monuments and listed buildings, along with identified Heritage at Risk; x Surrey History Centre – historic maps and published histories; x Groundsure – historic Ordnance Survey maps from the first edition (1860–70s) to the present day, x British Geological Survey (BGS) – solid and drift geology digital map; online BGS geological borehole record data; x Woking Football Club – Proposed Site/Ground Floor Plan, drg no. 7884-L(00)103N, 1:500 @ A1, (Leach Rhodes Walker, 05/11/19); Residential Street Elevations, drg no. 7884-L(00)304C, 1:200 @ A1 (Leach Rhodes Walker, 05/11/19); Preliminary Risk Assessment and Holes Logs for Egley Road, Woking, GU22 0NJ (Jomas Associates Limited, 2018a and b); and Existing Site Survey (Woods Hardwick, 2018); and x Internet – web-published material including the Woking Borough Council’s Local Plan, and information on conservation areas and locally listed buildings. 2.1.5 The assessment included a site visit carried out on the 20th February 2019 in order to determine the topography of the site and existing land use/the nature of the existing buildings on the site, and to provide further information on areas of possible past ground disturbance and general historic environment potential. Observations made on the site visit have been incorporated into this report.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 3 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 4 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 2.2 Methodology 3 The site: topography and geology 2.2.1 Fig 2 shows the location of known historic environment features within the study area. These have been allocated a unique historic environment assessment reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in a gazetteer at the back of this report and is referred to in the text. Where 3.1 Site location there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (i.e. within 50m) are included, unless their inclusion is considered relevant to 3.1.1 The site is located on land adjacent to Egley Road, Woking, GU22 0NJ (NGR 499453 156415: the study. Buildings and other features such as clay pits and lime kilns shown on historic maps Fig 1). The site area is approximately 4.1 hectares (ha) and is bounded by Hoe Valley School are not listed but are discussed where they are considered relevant to the study. Conservation and Woking Athletics Club to the north; commercial premises to the east with Egley Road areas and archaeological priority areas are not shown. All distances quoted in the text are further beyond; the rear gardens to residential properties on Hook Hill Lane to the south; and approximate (within 5m) and unless otherwise stated are measured from the approximate railway tracks and open fields to the west. The site falls within the historic parish of Woking, centre of the site. within the county of Surrey. 2.2.2 Section 10 sets out the criteria used to determine the significance of heritage assets. This is 3.1.2 The Hoe Stream is 240m to the east of the site. based on four values set out in Historic England’s Conservation principles, policies and guidance (EH 2008), and comprise evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal value. The 3.2 Topography report assesses the likely presence of such assets within (and beyond) the site, factors which may have compromised buried asset survival (i.e. present and previous land use), as well as possible significance. 3.2.1 Topography can provide an indication of suitability for settlement, and ground levels can indicate whether the ground has been built up or truncated, which can have implications for 2.2.3 Section 11 includes non-archaeological constraints. Section 12 contains a glossary of technical archaeological survival (see section 5.2). terms. A full bibliography and list of sources consulted may be found in section 13 with a list of existing site survey data obtained as part of the assessment. 3.2.2 The site lies within a gently undulating landscape. 3.2.3 A levelled site survey undertaken in 2018 shows that the site rises gradually from east to west with a low point of point of 28.2m OD in the north-east corner of the site to a high point of 32.7m OD in the north-west corner of the site (Woods Hardwick, 2018). 3.3 Geology

3.3.1 Geology can provide an indication of suitability for early settlement, and potential depth of remains. 3.3.2 The geology recorded on the site by the British Geological Service (BGS) shows that the site lies on the solid sand deposits of the Bagshot Formation. The nearest superficial deposits, Alluvium comprising of sand and gravel, are recorded 154m to the east (Jomas 2018, 16a). 3.3.3 A geotechnical survey was undertaken by Jomas Associates Limited (Jomas Associates Limited, 2018a and b). Three boreholes (BH) were sunk: BH 1 in the central part of the site; BH 2 in the north-western corner of the site; and BH 3 in the south-west of the site. In BH 1 ground level was recorded at 30.1m OD. A 0.5m thick layer of made ground comprising of dark brown sandy slightly gravelly clay overlay Bagshot Sand at 29.6m OD. 3.3.4 BHs 2 and 3 recorded similar sequences, although in both the layer of made ground level was only 0.4m thick. Ground level was recorded at 32.7m OD and 31.9m OD respectively. 3.3.5 It is therefore expected that the underlying natural would be recorded immediately below any made ground, and as high as 0.4mbgl in the north-west and south-west of the site.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 5 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 6 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 stones and burnt wood was also found. The pottery was dated to 43–120 and analysis of the iron found in the ditch suggests that the samples represented an unsuccessful attempt at iron- 4 Archaeological and historical background making due to an inability to reach a sufficiently high temperature. 4.2.6 The nearest potential Roman road is the proposed extension to Margary’s 151 (1967, 66) 4.1 Overview of past investigations known as Lacuna 151, which is 465m to the south-west of the site. In Surrey, roads were usually surfaced with gravel, often on a flint coble base which has made tracing their alignment 4.1.1 There have been two investigations within the site. In 2015, Wessex Archaeology completed on the ground problematical except for in towns where there were regularly resurfaced Bird an evaluation (HEA 1a) which comprised of 37 trenches each measuring 50m by 1.8m, the 1987, 166). area investigated was for the most part adjacent to and north of the site but a small section 4.2.7 Beyond the study area, archaeological investigation has identified Romanised native overlaps the northern boundary and north-east corner of the site. Thirty-six of the 37 trenches farmsteads at Woking Park Farm south of Old Woking (Crosby 2003, 4) and reused Romano- were archaeologically sterile but one, trench 36, in the far north-east corner of the site British material is notable in the fabric of the extant church at Old Woking. The known Roman recorded residual Mesolithic and Neolithic finds, and Medieval pottery. roads are 11.3km to the north (Margary 4a) and 21km to the south (Margary 15). However, 4.1.2 Wessex Archaeology conducted a watching brief the following year in 2016 (HEA 1b)to within the study area only a single find of Roman date has been made; a single Sestertius coin of Hadrian dating to the 2nd century (HEA 8) was found at Smarts Heath in 1962, 925m to the monitor the construction of a haul road running across the site. A single undated ditch was recorded, interpreted as being a former field boundary. south-west of the site. 4.1.3 Within the study area there have been only two further investigations: one watching brief (HEA 4.2.8 Throughout this period, the site was located within proximity of a potential road and some 2) which recorded a single struck flint; and one evaluation (HEA 3) which recorded three 19th distance from areas of settlement and probably lay within open fields being used for agricultural purposes. century pits and a single prehistoric flint tool. The area is therefore not very well understood archaeologically. Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 410–1066) 4.1.4 The results of these investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below. The date ranges given are approximate. 4.2.9 Following the withdrawal of the Roman army from England in the early 5th century AD, Germanic (‘Saxon’) settlers arrived from mainland Europe, with occupation in the form of small 4.2 Chronological summary villages and an economy initially based on agriculture. By the end of the 6th century a number of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had emerged, and as the ruling families adopted Christianity, endowments of land were made to the church. Landed estates (manors) can be identified from Prehistoric period (800,000 BC–AD 43) the 7th century onwards; some, as Christianity was widely adopted, with a main ‘minster’ 4.2.1 The Lower (800,000–250,000 BC) and Middle (250,000–40,000 BC) Palaeolithic saw church and other subsidiary churches or chapels. In the 9th and 10th centuries, the Saxon alternating warm and cold phases and intermittent perhaps seasonal occupation. During the Minster system began to be replaced by local parochial organisation, with formal areas of land Upper Palaeolithic (40,000–10,000 BC), after the last glacial maximum, and in particular after centred on settlements served by a parish church. around 13,000 BC, further climate warming took place and the environment changed from 4.2.10 Saxon settlement was situated at Old Woking south-east of the modern town and 2.4km north- steppe-tundra to birch and pine woodland. It is probably at this time that Britain first saw east of the site. The placename is likely to derive from the name ‘Wocc’ or ‘Wocca’ and continuous occupation. Erosion has removed much of the Palaeolithic land surfaces and finds translates as ‘people of Wocca’ suggesting an early pre-Christian settlement at the location are typically residual. A residual flint tool (HEA 3) was found during an evaluation in 2006 at (Palmer 1991). Early variations of the name include ‘Woccingas’ and ‘Uuocchingas’. The pre- the Freemantle School development, 350m to the south of the site. Christian ‘Ingas’ in a place name meaning ‘people of’ often came to refer to settlements where 4.2.2 The Mesolithic hunter-gatherer communities of the postglacial period (10,000–4000 BC) there was a religious centre in Christian times (Smith 2005, 84) which was the case with inhabited a still largely wooded environment. The river valleys would have been favoured in Woking. providing a dependable source of food (from hunting and fishing) and water, as well as a 4.2.11 Mayford has been translated as ‘The Fort of the Mayweed’ (Crosby 2003, 5) or alternatively as means of transport and communication. Evidence of activity is characterised by flint tools ‘Meaga’s Ford (English Place Names Society 1934, 158). The settlement has been known rather than structural remains. During an evaluation in 2015 by Wessex Archaeology at the variously as ‘Mayeford’ (121–12); ‘Mainford’ (1250); and ‘Meyford’ (1255)(ibid). Hoe Valley School and Leisure Development (HEA 1a) within the northern part of the site a 4.2.12 Egley is first mentioned in 1005 in the Red Book of Thorney as ‘Egceanlaea’, it was known as residual Mesolithic or Neolithic flint blade was found in a tree-throw hollow. In 1957, at Eynsham (Eggele) in 1354 and ‘Egly’ in 1604. The name is likely to be a derivative of ‘Ecga’s Jackman’s Nursery, 580m to the north-east of the site (HEA 4), there was the chance find of a Clearing’ (English Place Names Society 1934, 157). mottled grey unpatinated Mesolithic flint axe. 4.2.13 The earliest written reference to Woking comes from a letter from Pope Constantine to 4.2.3 The Neolithic (4000–2000 BC), Bronze Age (2000–600 BC) and Iron Age (600 BC–AD 43) are Cuthbald’s Abbey at Petersborough (Medchamstead) around 710. It related to two other traditionally seen as the time of technological change, settled communities and the monasteries dependent upon Peterborough at Verundesi (Bermondsey) and Wocchingas construction of communal monuments. Farming was established and forest cleared for (Woking; Crosby 2003, 7). In 780 a land grant of King Offa of Mercia confirms 20 hides of land cultivation. An expanding population put pressure on available resources and necessitated the to the church at Woking ‘in which place the monastery is situated’. The monastery was almost utilisation of previously marginal land. certainly at the site of the present St Peters Church, outside the study area, 2.6km to the north- 4.2.4 In all likelihood, the area may have been farmed with low density activity (e.g., occasional field east of the site (Crosby 2003, 7 and Briggs 2011). There are no recorded early medieval ditches) or was woodland. remains within the study area. 4.2.14 Throughout this period the site was located to the north-west of the main area of settlement Roman period (AD 43–410) and probably lay within open fields being used for agricultural purposes. 4.2.5 There has been little evidence for fully Romanised settlement in the Woking area to date. Within the study area a possible Romano-British occupation site (HEA 6) was found at Later medieval period (AD 1066–1485) Mayford, 580m to the south-east of the site where a U-shaped ditch containing rim sherds of 4.2.15 Following the Norman Conquest, William the Conqueror gave the church and manor of Woking hand-made storage jars in Alice Holt/Farnham ware were found during trial excavations. Along to the Norman Osbern and Mayford to William Malet. There is one confirmed entry for Woking with the pottery a small amount of possible building material and a number of blackened

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 7 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 8 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 in the Domesday Book undertaken in 1086. At this time Woking comprised 33 villagers, 9 4.2.26 The Ordnance Survey 25”:mile map of 1935/6 (Fig 7) shows that within the site, the eastern smallholders with 20 ploughs and a church held by Osbern also included was a meadow, 32 part was used as a garden nursery and the western part of the site is shown as open land. acres and woodland at 133 pigs (Palmer 1991). Mayford is returned as containing 90 acres Semi-detached houses adjoining the eastern and southern boundary of the site have been and containing ‘nothing accessible’. built by this time. 4.2.16 The parish of Woking was initially divided into 9 tithings. Mayford is not mentioned in 4.2.27 More recent mapping (which has not been reproduced due to being of poor quality) shows that association with Woking until the early 13th century when Geoffrey de Pourton held Mayford in the land use within the eastern part of the site has become vacant and that the western part of chief of the king (Survey of Woking 1280–1)(www.mayfordvs.co.uk/mayford-history, first the site remains undeveloped. accessed 9th May 2019). 4.2.17 Residual Medieval pottery was found in Trench 36 in the north-eastern corner of the site during an evaluation by Wessex Archaeology in 2015 (HEA 1a).

Post-medieval period (AD 1485–present) 4.2.18 John Norden’s map of 1594 (Fig 3) is small scale which depicts the site area as open fields to the north of the River Wey. 4.2.19 The Manor of Mayfield is speculated from post-medieval cartographic evidence to have been situated on the east side of Mayford Bridge, 430m to the south-east of the site where an unnamed farm complex is shown on John Rocque’s map of 1768 (Fig 4). Further evidence for the location of the manor is based on late medieval pottery sherds (HEA 7) being found during the construction of the Mayford Green Roundabout in 1973 and a number of roads converging at the bridge suggesting that it has been a crossing point from early times. 4.2.20 Rocque’s map shows that the site as undeveloped being under pasture at the base of the ridge defining the heathland to the north and west. A number of settlements and farms are shown within the immediate locality of the site. Egley Farm to the north of the site is first mentioned in 1280 which now only survives as a Victorian building known as Egley Cottages fronting onto the east side of Egley Road and Hook Hill, also first mentioned in 1280,and still extant, is to the west of the site (www.mayfordvs.co.uk/mayford-history, first accessed 9th May 2019). 4.2.21 Due to Mayford’s relative historic isolation from Woking, the village retained its rural aspect throughout the post-medieval period and indeed well into the 20th century. Historically, it has represented one of the most rural parts of the parish. In the Woking parish registers dating from 1698–1726, over 80% of the population of Mayford was involved in agriculture. This contrasts with the statistics for Woking itself where the figure is only 17% (Crosby 2003, 2). 4.2.22 Many of the medieval farmsteads noted earlier remained in use through-out this period as is shown by their inclusion on historic mapping. In addition to this, localised settlements expanded with additional farms and dwellings dispersed across the landscape many of which are still extant and in use today. 4.2.23 The London and Southampton railway (now known as the London and South Western Railway) which defines the western boundary of the site was sanctioned in 1834 and opened as far as Woking in 1837. The Woking to Southampton extension was opened on 11th May 1840 (Palmer 1991) and served by a station on open heathland around which the modern town of Woking developed. Following the opening of the railway, Mayford Road became heavily congested as a result of traffic travelling to and from the station. In spite of this, most of Mayford and its farming estates stayed intact until the 1920s. 4.2.24 The Ordnance Survey (OS) 1st edition 6”:mile map of 1873 (Fig 5) is the first to show the area in greater detail, confirming Rocque’s indication of open pasture. Two field boundaries, generally aligned north-south, are shown running through the site. The fields in which the site is located may have once been joined to the fields on the other side of the railway as some of the boundaries appear to correspond to each other. 4.2.25 The Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 6”:mile map of 1896 (Fig 6) shows a change of land use within the site with the eastern part being used as a garden nursery. At the end of the 19th century garden nurseries in the Woking area became popular, making use of the sandy soils, which were better suited to horticultural rather than agricultural uses. This was stimulated by the Arts and Crafts movement, suburbanisation and standards of living which resulted in an increased demand for ornamental garden species. Railway development meant that nurseries formally based in London were able to relocate to open countryside while retaining their trade links with the city. By the 1850s, the Woking area was one of the most important nursery centres in Western Europe.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 9 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 10 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 5.3.4 The site has a low potential to contain Saxon remains. The site was located outside the main area of settlement which was concentrated at Old Woking, 2.4km to the north-east, probably in 5 Statement of significance open fields. No archaeological finds from this period have been identified within the study area. 5.3.5 The site has a low potential to contain medieval remains. The settlement of Old Woking was 5.1 Introduction concentrated around the Manor of Woking/Woking Palace, 2.4km to the north-east of the site and did not extend to within the study area. The site would have been in open fields. No 5.1.1 The following section discusses historic impacts on the site which may have compromised archaeological finds from this period have been identified within the study area. archaeological survival from earlier periods, identified primarily from historic maps, and 5.3.6 The site has a moderate potential to contain post-medieval remains of the nursery. Available information on the likely depth of deposits. historic mapping shows that a garden nursery has occupied the eastern two-thirds of the site 5.1.2 In accordance with the NPPF, this is followed by a statement on the likely potential and since the late 19th century, with the western third remaining open, undeveloped fields. Post- medieval remains are likely to comprise deeply cut features relating to the use of the site as a significance of buried heritage assets within the site, derived from current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement. nursery, e.g., tree-boles, planting areas, or agricultural, such as field boundary ditches, etc., which would be of low heritage significance as derived from their historical and evidential 5.2 Factors affecting archaeological survival value.

Natural geology 5.2.1 Current ground level is at 28.2m OD in the north-eastern part of the site, rising gradually to 32.7m OD in the north-west. Based on data from a geotechnical survey within the site (Jomas Associates 2018 and b) and archaeological evaluation trenches in the north-eastern corner of the site (HEA 1a), the level of natural geology within the site is: x The top of truncated Bagshot Sand is at 27.7–32.3m OD (0.5–0.4mbgl). 5.2.2 Between the top of the natural and the current ground level is undated made ground. The latter may potentially contain remains of archaeological interest.

Past impacts 5.2.3 Historic mapping shows that the area of the site has remained undeveloped being open fields until the late 19th century when the eastern two-thirds of the site was used as a garden nursery. The western third of the site has remained undeveloped. The type and extent of any impacts associated with the garden nursery are not known, however, given the shallow depth of the underlying natural any deeply cut features such as pits or ditches will have cut into the natural sand and truncated or removed completely any archaeological remains within their extent.

Likely depth/thickness of archaeological remains 5.2.4 Archaeological remains, if present on the site, are likely to be found immediately below the made ground with any cut features extending into the natural geology to an unknown depth.

5.3 Archaeological potential and significance

5.3.1 The nature of possible archaeological survival in the area of the proposed development is summarised here, taking into account the levels of natural geology and the level and nature of later disturbance and truncation discussed above. 5.3.2 The site has an uncertain but probably low potential to contain prehistoric remains. The site’s location on sand close to a reliable source of water would have made it an attractive area for settlement and faming. However, archaeological investigations undertaken directly to the north of the site (within the study area) recorded only three residual pieces of worked flint, a flint blade of possible Mesolithic or Neolithic date, an axe of Mesolithic date and a piece of worked flint of Palaeolithic date. There is no evidence of settlement only limited activity possibly hunting, remains are unlikely to be in-situ. Residual flint flakes would be of low heritage significance. 5.3.3 The site has a low potential to contain Roman remains. The site was located 465m to the north-east of a projected Roman road and 580m to the north-west of a possible Romano- British occupation site. A single 2nd century Sestertius coin of Hadrian was found within the study area. There is therefore potential that there may be some Roman activity within the site. Such remains would be of low heritage significance.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 11 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 12 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 each pile. Pile caps and ground beams would have a similar impact as standard strip and pad 6 Impact of proposals foundations but their impact would depend on the presence of any basements. Service / utilities trenches/ drains and planting 6.1 Proposals 6.2.7 The excavation of any new service trenches and drains would extend to a depth of 1.0– 1.5mbgl as assumed for the purposes of this assessment. Ground intrusion from any tree 6.1.1 The scheme comprises the redevelopment of the site, following the demolition of the existing planting and subsequent root action would potentially reach a similar depth. This would entirely building, to provide a health club building (Class D2) incorporating an external swimming pool remove any archaeological remains within the trench footprint or tree-root extent. and tennis/sports courts, the provision of 36 dwelling houses (Class C3) up to a maximum of 3 storeys in height, associated landscaping and car parking and new vehicular access from an existing road serving Hoe Valley School (Figs 8 and 9). 6.1.2 The type and size of foundations are unknown, however, for the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the houses will have standard strip and pad foundations and the David Lloyd leisure centre will have a single level basement (Tsz Kan Woo pers comm, 21/05/19). 6.2 Implications

6.2.1 The identification of physical impacts on buried heritage assets within a site takes into account any activity which would entail ground disturbance, for example site set up works, remediation, landscaping and the construction of new basements and foundations. As it is assumed that the operational (completed development) phase would not entail any ground disturbance there would be no additional archaeological impact and this is not considered further. 6.2.2 It is outside the scope of this archaeological report to consider the impact of the proposed development on upstanding structures of historic interest, in the form of physical impacts which would remove, alter, or otherwise change the building fabric, or predicted changes to the historic character and setting of historic buildings and structures within the site or outside it. 6.2.3 The site has a moderate potential for the remains relating to the garden nursery such as deeply cut features e.g., tree-boles, planting areas and agricultural e.g., field boundary ditches. There is a low potential for remains from all other periods.

Topsoil removal 6.2.4 It is assumed for the purposes of this assessment that topsoil would be removed across the eastern part of the site as part of the preliminary site works. Removal of topsoil is a potential impact as (in addition to the loss of any residual evidence it contains) it exposes any archaeological remains that may be present immediately beneath the topsoil. These may then be affected by movement of vehicles and plant involved in construction activities, for example through rutting and compaction. In addition, it is possible that topsoil removal without archaeological supervision may result in overstripping, which would have an impact upon archaeological remains located beneath the topsoil, or understripping, where archaeological features are concealed beneath a thin layer of topsoil but are then exposed and unprotected from subsequent construction activities.

Hardstanding construction 6.2.5 Excavations for the construction for the hardstanding areas for the parking are likely to cause ground disturbance up to 1.0m below the ground surface, and deeper where there is levelling. Shallow archaeological remains within these areas would be severely truncated or removed completely but the bases of deeply cut features, such as boundary ditches etc. would survive although their context would be lost.

Building foundations 6.2.6 The detail of the foundations for the proposed buildings is not known. Excavation for standard strip and pad foundations would remove archaeological remains within the footprint of the foundation to a typical depth of 1.0–1.5mbgl as assumed for the purposes of this assessment. It is possible that the bases of deeply cut archaeological features such as pits, ditches, wells would remain intact beneath these impact levels, but their context would be lost. Piling for larger buildings would entirely remove any archaeological remains from within the footprint of

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 13 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 14 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 7 Conclusion and recommendations 8 Gazetteer of known historic environment assets

7.1.1 There are no designated heritage assets within the site and it does not lie within an 8.1.1 The gazetteer lists known historic environment sites and finds within the 1km-radius study area Archaeological Priority Area, as designated by Woking Borough Council. around the site. The gazetteer should be read in conjunction with Fig 2. 7.1.2 Archaeological survival potential across the majority of the site is expected to be moderate to 8.1.2 The Surrey HER data contained within this gazetteer was obtained on 08/03/2019 and is the high reflecting the largely undeveloped nature of the site. The site has remained undeveloped copyright of Surrey County Council 2019. being open fields until the late 19th century when the eastern part of the site was used as a 8.1.3 Historic England statutory designations data © Historic England 2018. Contains Ordnance garden nursery. The western part of the site has remained undeveloped. The works associated Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2019. The Historic England GIS Data with the garden nursey, car parking, access routes and hard landscaping will have truncated contained in this material was obtained in September 2018. The most publicly available up to any archaeological remains given the shallow depth of any underlying natural Bagshot Sand. date Historic England GIS Data can be obtained from http://www.historicengland.org.uk. 7.1.3 The site has seen little development until the eastern half was used as a nursery from the 1890s onwards. Given the shallow nature of the topsoil archaeological remains within that area Abbreviations may have been severely truncated or completely removed within the footprints of plantings, ESE – Surrey County Council unique Event identifier seedbeds etc. HER – Historic Environment Record MSE – Surrey County Council unique Monument identifier 7.1.4 The scheme comprises the redevelopment of the site, following the demolition of the existing NHL – National Heritage List for England (Historic England) building, to provide a health club building (Class D2) incorporating an external swimming pool SCAU – Surrey County Archaeological Unit and tennis/sports courts, the provision of 36 dwelling houses (Class C3) up to a maximum of 3 WA – Wessex Archaeology storeys in height, associated landscaping and car parking and new vehicular access from an existing road serving Hoe Valley School. Given the shallow nature of the underlying geology, any ground disturbance within the site would potentially impact archaeological remains, albeit HEA Description Site code/ remains of low significance. No. HER/NHL 7.1.5 Table 1 summarises the known or likely buried assets within the site, their significance, and the No. 1a Hoe Valley School and Leisure Development, Woking ESE15868 impact of the proposed scheme on asset significance. Evaluation. WA, 2015 MSE22888 An archaeological evaluation on land to the west of Egley Road ahead of redevelopment MSE22889 Table 1: Impact upon heritage assets (prior to mitigation) and construction of the Hoe Valley School & Leisure Development. A total of 37 MSE22890 Asset Asset Impact of proposed scheme trenches, each measuring 50 metres in length and 1.8 metres in width, were excavated Significance to assess the archaeological potential of the site. Archaeological finds or features were Evidence for post-medieval remains of the Low Excavation of foundations for new found to be present in only three of the trenches. In Trench 11, a tree-throw hollow was 19th/20th century nursery such as deeply cut residential housing and basement found (context 1104) containing a residual Mesolithic or early Neolithic flint blade. features e.g., tree-boles, planting areas or for David Lloyd leisure centre; Another tree-throw hollow (context 3604) was found in Trench 36: residual burnt flint and agricultural e.g., field boundary ditches access road; hard landscaping. a sherd of Medieval pottery were recovered from the fill of this feature, which also (moderate potential). contained undated flecks of charcoal. In the same trench was a modern land drain that Significance of asset reduced to partly truncated the tree throw, and an pit with charcoal flecks but no dateable material in negligible or nil. its deliberate backfill (context 3609). An east west aligned ditch was found in Trench 16, ascribed a Modern origin because of the glass and plastic present in its fill, along with a 7.1.6 Based on the evidence, no archaeological remains of high significance are expected within the piece of burnt flint. Disturbance in Trench 34 was deemed to be consistent with the site. Further, in the light of the low archaeological potential of the site and despite the size and removal of an east-west aligned hedgerow. Features such as the infilled ditch and nature of the excavation for the proposed development it is unlikely that the local authority grubbed-out hedgerow indicated that the landscape had been altered in the recent past. The fact that the majority of trenches contained no archaeological finds or features was would require further investigation prior to determination. However, given the limited concluded to bear out the cartographic evidence that no previous settlement had been archaeological investigation within the site it is likely that Woking Borough Council (WBC) located within the site boundary. The sparse post-Prehistoric archaeological remains that would require investigation as part of a condition to ensure that no previously unidentified were found were limited to the south-east of the site, and possibly derived from satellite remains are lost without record. Such an investigation could take the form of a watching brief agricultural activities associated with the nearby Medieval and later settlement of during ground works to determine the presence, nature and extent of the underlying geology Mayford. and significance of any archaeological remains. Any archaeological work would need to be 1b Land at Egley Road, Woking ESE16102 undertaken in accordance with an approved Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) and could Watching brief. WA, 2016 MSE23061 be carried out under the terms of a standard archaeological planning condition set out under A watching brief following on from the previous evaluation of the site in 2015 (see 1a the granting of planning consent. above). It entailed the monitoring of a haul road running through the site and took place intermittently between the 1st and 21st July 2016. The watching brief was carried out during the reduction of the existing ground surface. The archaeological monitoring identified a single undated ditch, interpreted as most likely a former field boundary. 2 Sutton Green Golf Course, Woking ESE2358 Watching brief. SCAU, 1993 Monitoring of soil stripping for golf course construction. Only one struck flint was found.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 15 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 16 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 HEA Description Site code/ No. HER/NHL No. 9 Planning framework 3 Freemantle School development, Mayford Green, Woking ESE246 Evaluation. SCAU, 2006 A trial trench evaluation was undertaken on the site of the proposed Freemantle School, 9.1 National Planning Policy Framework Mayford Green, Woking in order to satisfy a condition placed on the planning permission or the development. Five trenches were machine excavated, but apart from three 19th century pits and a single prehistoric flint tool, none of the trenches revealed anything of 9.1.1 The Government issued the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012 archaeological interest. Consequently no further archaeological investigation is (DCLG 2012) and supporting Planning Practice Guidance in 2014 (DCLG 2014). The 2012 recommended in relation to this development scheme. NPPF was revised and a new NPPF published in July 2018, with minor revisions in February 4 Jackman’s Nursey, Woking MSE2762 2019 (MHCLG 2019). Findspot – Mesolithic flint axe Mesolithic flint axe found in 1957 in the old Jackman's Nursery. The axe is of mottled Conserving and enhancing the historic environment grey unpatinated flint. One face has been dressed fairly flat and the other has a median ridge formed by the removal of a few large flakes. Cutting edge of tranchet type is 9.1.2 The NPPF section concerning “Conserving and enhancing the historic environment” (section chipped. Found some quarter mile from Hoe stream, a tributary of the River Wey on the 12 of the NPPF 2012) has been replaced by NPPF 2018 Section 16 (unchanged in February Lower Bagshot Sand. In Guildford Museum (Acc no. RB 1781). 2019), reproduced in full below: 5 Beech Hill, Woking MSE14128 Para 184. Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the Monument – Linear features highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be A small cluster of linear features of short length on the flat top of Beech Hill can be seen of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be on aerial photographs, 100m south of a large house in whose grounds the features conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their originally lay. On the slopes of the hill 70m to the south-west is a field that in the 1840s contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. was called “Old House Field” on the Woking Tithe map, but this is not necessarily Para 185. Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the associated with the aerial photo features on the hilltop. Numerous undulations were historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other observed in the central area of the field but were not forming a comprehensive pattern. threats. This strategy should take into account: The field contained numerous mole hills which produced several brick and tile fragments. 6 Mayford, Woking MSE1986 x a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and Monument – Romano-British occupation site putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; Early Romano-British building. Trial excavations in a field called Black Close to the west x b) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of of Beech Hill have uncovered a 'U' - shaped ditch filled with dark soil. The ditch the historic environment can bring; contained a number of large rim and other sherds of different types of Romano-British x c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character ware. A small amount of possible building material and a number of blackened stones and distinctiveness; and and burnt wood were found. The bulk of the pottery found came from the ditch and the majority of the assemblage was from the Alice Holt/Farnham complex. The assemblage x d) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the also included a large number of hand-made storage jars. The material dated from AD43- character of a place. 120. Analysis of the iron found in the ditch suggests that the sample represents an Para 186. When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities unsuccessful attempt at iron-making, due to inability to reach a sufficiently high should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic temperature to cause separation of metallic iron and slag. The site does not appear to interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas have been occupied after the 1st/2nd centuries. The surface banks are clearly later, but that lack special interest. remain undated. Para 187. Local planning authorities should maintain or have access to a historic environment 7 Mayford Green, Woking MSE2107 record. This should contain up-to-date evidence about the historic environment in their area Findspot – Medieval pottery and be used to: During construction of the Mayford Green Roundabout in 1973 the handle of a pipkin was found. In adjacent field along proposed course of the A320 two rim sherds of late x a) assess the significance of heritage assets and the contribution they make to their medieval pottery were discovered during topsoil stripping by road contractors environment; and 8 Smart’s Heath Road, Woking MSE1827 x b) predict the likelihood that currently unidentified heritage assets, particularly sites of Findspot – Coin of Hadrian historic and archaeological interest, will be discovered in the future. Sestertius of Hadrian dating to the 2nd century found in 1962 at Smarts Heath. Para 188. Local planning authorities should make information about the historic environment, gathered as part of policy-making or development management, publicly accessible.

Proposals affecting heritage assets Para 189. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. Para 190. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 17 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 18 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a Para 201. Not all elements of a Conservation Area or World Heritage Site will necessarily heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive any aspect of the proposal. contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be Para 191. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 195 or less than substantial harm under deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision. paragraph 196, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Para 192. In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: Site as a whole. x a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and Para 202. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would x b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and those policies. x c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 9.2 Local planning policy

Considering potential impacts 9.2.1 Following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Planning Authorities have Para 193. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a replaced their Unitary Development Plans (UDPs), Local Plans and Supplementary Planning designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the Guidance with a new system of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). UDP policies have more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any been either ‘saved’ or ‘deleted’. In most cases archaeology policies are likely to be ‘saved’ potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its because there have been no significant changes in legislation or advice at a national level. significance. 9.2.2 Woking Borough Council’s Core Strategy was adopted in October 2012. It covers the period to Para 194. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its 2027 and provides a clear vision of what the area will look by then and the means to achieve it. alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of: The Policy relevant to buried heritage assets is: x a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional; CS20: Heritage and conservation x b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck New development must respect and enhance the character and appearance of the area in sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered which it is proposed whilst making the best use of the land available. New development should parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. also make a positive contribution to the character, distinctiveness and significance of the Para 195. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of historic environment, including heritage assets at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, The heritage assets of the Borough will be protected and enhanced in accordance with unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve relevant legislation and national guidance as set out in the National Planning Policy substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: Framework. The definition of what comprises the heritage assets of the Borough is included in the Glossary and also where relevant identified on the Proposals Map. x a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and There will be a presumption against any development that will be harmful to a listed building. x b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through Alterations and extensions to listed buildings must respect the host building in terms of scale, appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and design, use of materials, retention of the structure and any features of special historic or x c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public architectural importance. Planning applications will be refused for any alteration or extension to ownership is demonstrably not possible; and a listed building that will not preserve the building or its setting. A listed building consent will be x d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. required for any development that will affect a statutory listed building. Para 196. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the On all development sites over 0.4 hectares an archaeological evaluation and investigation will significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public be necessary if, in the opinion of the County Archaeologist, an archaeological assessment benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. demonstrates that the site has archaeological potential. Para 197. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset Within Areas of High Archaeological Potential (as illustrated on the Proposals Map), should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that development will not be permitted unless the following are satisfied: directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be x Submission of an archaeological assessment of the site. required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage x Where archaeological importance of the site has been identified, a programme setting asset. out a full archaeological survey of the site has been submitted and agreed with the Para 198. Local planning authorities should not permit the loss of the whole or part of a Council. heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed The Council will work proactively with all stakeholders to ensure the conservation, after the loss has occurred. enhancement and enjoyment of the historic environment, including identifying opportunities to Para 199. Local planning authorities should require developers to record and advance mitigate and adapt to climate change where that will not harm the integrity of the heritage understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a asset. manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted. Para 200. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 19 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 20 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 10 Determining significance 11 Non-archaeological constraints

10.1.1 ‘Significance’ lies in the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its 11.1.1 The purpose of this section is to highlight to decision makers any relevant non-archaeological heritage interest, which may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Archaeological constraints identified during the study, that might affect future archaeological field investigation interest includes an interest in carrying out an expert investigation at some point in the future on the site (should this be recommended). The information has been assembled using only into the evidence a heritage asset may hold of past human activity, and may apply to standing those sources as identified in section 2 and section 13.4, in order to assist forward planning for buildings or structures as well as buried remains. Known and potential heritage assets within the project designs, working schemes of investigation and risk assessments that would be the site and its vicinity have been identified from national and local designations, HER data needed prior to any such field work. MOLA has used its best endeavours to ensure that the and expert opinion. The determination of the significance of these assets is based on statutory sources used are appropriate for this task but has not independently verified any details. Under designation and/or professional judgement against four values (EH 2008): the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and subsequent regulations, all organisations are x Evidential value: the potential of the physical remains to yield evidence of past required to protect their employees as far as is reasonably practicable by addressing health human activity. This might take into account date; rarity; state of preservation; and safety risks. The contents of this section are intended only to support organisations diversity/complexity; contribution to published priorities; supporting documentation; operating on this site in fulfilling this obligation and do not comprise a comprehensive risk collective value and comparative potential. assessment. x Aesthetic value: this derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and 11.1.2 It is anticipated that live services will be present on the site, the locations of which have not intellectual stimulation from the heritage asset, taking into account what other people been identified by this archaeological report. Other than this, no other non-archaeological have said or written; constraints to any archaeological fieldwork have been identified within the site. x Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through heritage asset to the present, such a connection often being illustrative or associative; x Communal value: this derives from the meanings of a heritage asset for the people who know about it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory; communal values are closely bound up with historical, particularly associative, and aesthetic values, along with and educational, social or economic values. 10.1.2 Consultation on draft revisions to the original Conservation Principles document which set out the four values was open from November 2017 until February 2018. The revisions aim to make them more closely aligned with the terms used in the NPPF (which are also used in designation and planning legislation): i.e. as archaeological, architectural, artistic and historic interest. This is in the interests of consistency, and to support the use of the Conservation Principles in more technical decision-making (HE 2017). 10.1.3 Table 2 gives examples of the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

Table 2: Significance of heritage assets Heritage asset description Significance World heritage sites Very high Scheduled monuments (International/ Grade I and II* listed buildings national) Historic England Grade I and II* registered parks and gardens Protected Wrecks Heritage assets of national importance Historic England Grade II registered parks and gardens High Conservation areas (national/ Designated historic battlefields regional/ Grade II listed buildings county) Burial grounds Protected heritage landscapes (e.g., ancient woodland or historic hedgerows) Heritage assets of regional or county importance Heritage assets with a district value or interest for education or cultural appreciation Medium Locally listed buildings (District) Heritage assets with a local (i.e. parish) value or interest for education or cultural Low appreciation (Local) Historic environment resource with no significant value or interest Negligible Heritage assets that have a clear potential, but for which current knowledge is Uncertain insufficient to allow significance to be determined

10.1.4 Unless the nature and exact extent of buried archaeological remains within any given area has been determined through prior investigation, significance is often uncertain.

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 21 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 22 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Later medieval AD 1066 – 1500 Last Glacial Characterised by the expansion of the last ice sheet to affect the British Isles (around 12 Glossary Maximum 18,000 years ago), which at its maximum extent covered over two-thirds of the present land area of the country. Alluvium Sediment laid down by a river. Can range from sands and gravels deposited by fast Locally listed A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not flowing water and clays that settle out of suspension during overbank flooding. Other building included in the Secretary of State’s Listing but are considered by the local authority to deposits found on a valley floor are usually included in the term alluvium (e.g., peat). have architectural and/or historical merit Archaeological Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or other title, often designated by Listed building A structure of architectural and/or historical interest. These are included on the Secretary Priority Area/Zone the local authority. of State's list, which affords statutory protection. These are subdivided into Grades I, II* and II (in descending importance). Brickearth A fine-grained silt believed to have accumulated by a mixture of processes (e.g., wind, slope and freeze-thaw) mostly since the Last Glacial Maximum around 17,000BP. Made Ground Artificial deposit. An archaeologist would differentiate between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete (but not brick or tile), and B.P. Before Present, conventionally taken to be 1950 undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest. Bronze Age 2,000–600 BC Mesolithic 12,000 – 4,000 BC Building recording Recording of historic buildings (by a competent archaeological organisation) is undertaken National Record for National database of archaeological sites, finds and events as maintained by Historic ‘to document buildings, or parts of buildings, which may be lost as a result of demolition, the Historic England in Swindon. Generally not as comprehensive as the country HER. alteration or neglect’, amongst other reasons. Four levels of recording are defined by Environment Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) and Historic (NRHE) England. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record) Neolithic 4,000 – 2,000 BC Built heritage Upstanding structure of historic interest. Ordnance Datum A vertical datum used by Ordnance Survey as the basis for deriving altitudes on maps. (OD) Colluvium A natural deposit accumulated through the action of rainwash or gravity at the base of a slope. Palaeo- Related to past environments, i.e. during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains environmental can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and Conservation area An area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. is desirable to preserve or enhance. Designation by the local authority often includes controls over the demolition of buildings; strengthened controls over minor development; Palaeolithic 700,000–12,000 BC and special provision for the protection of trees. Palaeochannel A former/ancient watercourse Cropmarks Marks visible from the air in growing crops, caused by moisture variation due to Peat A build-up of organic material in waterlogged areas, producing marshes, fens, mires, subsurface features of possible archaeological origin (i.e. ditches or buried walls). blanket and raised bogs. Accumulation is due to inhibited decay in anaerobic conditions. Cut-and-cover Method of construction in which a trench is excavated down from existing ground level Pleistocene Geological period pre-dating the Holocene. [trench] and which is subsequently covered over and/or backfilled. Post-medieval AD 1500–present Cut feature Archaeological feature such as a pit, ditch or well, which has been cut into the then- Preservation by Archaeological mitigation strategy where archaeological remains are fully excavated and existing ground surface. record recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, Devensian The most recent cold stage (glacial) of the Pleistocene. Spanning the period from c 70,000 preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. years ago until the start of the Holocene (10,000 years ago). Climate fluctuated within the Preservation in situ Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether Scheduled or not) Devensian, as it did in other glacials and interglacials. It is associated with the demise of archaeological remains are preserved in situ for future generations, typically through the Neanderthals and the expansion of modern humans. modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains. Early medieval AD 410–1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. Registered Historic A site may lie within or contain a registered historic park or garden. The register of these Evaluation A limited programme of non–intrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the Parks and Gardens in England is compiled and maintained by Historic England. (archaeological) presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts Residual When used to describe archaeological artefacts, this means not in situ, i.e. Found outside within a specified area. the context in which it was originally deposited. Excavation A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which Roman AD 43–410 (archaeological) examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied Scheduled An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. Monument a ‘Scheduled Ancient Monument’ and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. Findspot Chance find/antiquarian discovery of artefact. The artefact has no known context, is either Site The area of proposed development residual or indicates an area of archaeological activity. Site codes Unique identifying codes allocated to archaeological fieldwork sites, e.g., evaluation, excavation, or watching brief sites. Geotechnical Ground investigation, typically in the form of boreholes and/or trial/test pits, carried out for engineering purposes to determine the nature of the subsurface deposits. Study area Defined area surrounding the proposed development in which archaeological data is collected and analysed in order to set the site into its archaeological and historical context. Head Weathered/soliflucted periglacial deposit (i.e. moved downslope through natural processes). Solifluction, Creeping of soil down a slope during periods of freeze and thaw in periglacial Soliflucted environments. Such material can seal and protect earlier landsurfaces and archaeological Heritage asset A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a deposits which might otherwise not survive later erosion. degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the historic environment. They include designated heritage Stratigraphy A term used to define a sequence of visually distinct horizontal layers (strata), one above assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). another, which form the material remains of past cultures. Historic environment A written document whose purpose is to determine, as far as is reasonably possible from Truncate Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by assessment existing records, the nature of the historic environment resource/heritage assets within a previous construction activity. specified area. Watching brief A formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation Historic Environment Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. (archaeological) carried out for non-archaeological reasons. Record (HER) Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record Holocene The most recent epoch (part) of the Quaternary, covering the past 10,000 years during which time a warm interglacial climate has existed. Also referred to as the ‘Postglacial’ and (in Britain) as the ‘Flandrian’. Iron Age 600 BC–AD 43

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 23 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 24 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 13.3 Cartographic sources 13 Bibliography John Norden's 250 years of map making in the County of Surrey, sheet no. 3b, 1594 John Rocque's map of Surrey, 1768 13.1 Published and documentary sources Ordnance Survey maps Arnold P, 2009 Woking Palace: Henry VIII’s Royal Palace. The official guide to the Palace, fourth Ordnance Survey 1st edition 6” map (1873) edition Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25” map (1896) Bird D G The Romano-British Period in Surrey in Bird J and Bird D G 1987, The Archaeology of Surrey Ordnance Survey 25” maps (1935/6) to 1540. Surrey Archaeological Society, 165–196 Briggs R J S, 2011 Woking Hundred: Testing Baxter’s model of land tenure and royal patronage in the Engineering/Architects drawings early English kingdom, http://surreymedieval.wordpress.com Leach Rhodes Walker, Proposed Site/ Ground Floor Plan, drg no. 7884-L(00)103N, 1:500 @ A1, CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] 2014a, Standards and guidance for commissioning work or 05/11/2019 providing consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment, Published December Leach Rhodes Walker, Residential Street Elevations, drg no. 7884-L(00)304C, 1:200 @ A1, 05/11/2019 2014, Reading. Woods Hardwick; Egley Road, Woking Topographic Survey sheet 1 of 4, drg no. 0189-7-854A, 1:200 at CIfA [Chartered Institute for Archaeologists] 2017, Standards and guidance for historic environment A0, 05/10/2018 desk-based assessment, Published December 2014, updated January 2017, Reading Woods Hardwick; Egley Road, Woking Topographic Survey sheet 2 of 4, drg no. 0189-7-854A, 1:200 at Crosby, A. 2003 A History of Woking. West Sussex A0, 05/10/2018 DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], March 2012 National Planning Policy Woods Hardwick; Egley Road, Woking Topographic Survey sheet 3 of 4, drg no. 0189-7-854A, 1:200 at Framework A0, 05/10/2018 DCLG [Department of Communities and Local Government], March 2014 Conserving and Enhancing Woods Hardwick; Egley Road, Woking Topographic Survey sheet 4 of 4, drg no. 0189-7-854A, 1:200 at the Historic Environment: Planning Practice Guide A0, 05/10/2018 Domesday Book, A Complete Translation, eds Williams, A. and Martin, G.H. 1992, 2002. London: Penguin Books EH [English Heritage], 2008 Conservation principles, policies and guidance. Swindon 13.4 Available site survey information checklist English Place Names Society 1934, Placenames of Surrey. Surrey HE [Historic England] 2015a, The Setting of Heritage Assets – Historic Environment Good Practice Information from client Available Format Obtained Advice in Planning: 3. Historic England in collaboration with the Historic Environment Forum, Plan of existing site services (overhead/buried) not known - N second edition, Historic England July 2015 Levelled site survey as existing (ground and Y pdf Y HE [Historic England] 2015b Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment – buildings) Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 2. Historic England in collaboration with Contamination survey data ground and buildings (inc. not known - N the Historic Environment Forum, second edition, Historic England July 2015 asbestos) HE [Historic England] 2017 Conservation Principles for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Geotechnical report Y pdf Y Environment, Consultation Draft, 10th November 2017 Envirocheck report not known - N Information obtained from non-client source Carried out Internal inspection of buildings https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/guidance/conservation-principles-consultation- Site inspection Y N draft.pdf Humphery-Smith C, 1984 The Phillimore Atlas and Index of Parish Registers Jomas Associates Limited 2018a Desk Study/Preliminary Risk Assessment for Land Adjacent to Egley Road, Woking Jomas Associates Limited 2018b Preliminary Exploratory Hole Logs (BH1 – BH3) for Egley Road, Woking MHCLG [Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government], 2019 National Planning Policy Framework, revised February 2019 'Parishes: Woking', in A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 3, ed. H E Malden (London, 1911), pp. 381-390. British History Online http://www.britishhistoryac.uk/vch/surrey/vol3/pp381-390 [accessed 15 April 2019] Palmer, M 1991 Surrey Investigations – Woking. Surrey County Council Smith, G 2005 Surrey Placenames. Loughborough Woking Borough Council 2012 Woking Core Strategy, October 2012

13.2 Other Sources

British Geological Survey online historic geology borehole data and digital drift and solid geology data Historic England designation data Internet sources: www.mayfordvs.co.uk/mayford-history The History of Mayford Village Groundsure historic Ordnance Survey mapping Surrey County Council Historic Environment Record

Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 25 Historic Environment Assessment © MOLA 2019 26 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Egley Road Woking HEA v3 20/11/2019 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2019 Historic environment assessment © MOLA 2019

498500 499000 499500 500000

Maidenhead Slough 157500 Windsor Reading Staines London Bracknell Esher Weybridge Camberley Epsom the site Woking Farnborough Leatherhead Basingstoke Aldershot Reigate Guildford Dorking

Farnham Godalming 4 157000 (!

Crawley

Horsham010km Surrey 0500m

499100 499200 499300 499400 499500 499600 499700 499800 156800

1 156500 156700

156600 (!7 )"3 (!8 156000 (!6 the site 156500 )"2 (!5 156400 155500

Tr 32

156300 Tr 33 1

Tr 34 Tr 36 Tr 35

156200 KEY 155000 WA evaluation trench Tr 37

past archaeological investigation (area)

)" past archaeological investigation 156100 (! arcaheological feature/findspot

study area

site outline 154500 Archaeological Priority and 156000 Conservation Areas not shown

Contains Ordnance© Crown CopyrightSurvey data 2019. All rights reserved. 0250m Contains Ordnance Survey data 0500m © Crown copyrightLicence and database Number right 100047514 2014 scale 1:5,000 @ A4 © Crown copyright and database right 2019 scale 1:14,000 @ A4

Fig 1 Site location Fig 2 Historic environment features map

SURR2016HEA19#01_Egley Road SURR2016HEA19#02_Egley Road Historic environment assessment ©MOLA 2019 Historic environment assessment ©MOLA 2019

the site the site

Fig 3 John Norden's 250 years of map making in the County of Surrey, sheet no. 3b, 1594. Fig 5 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 6”:mile map of 1873 (not to scale).

the site the site

Fig 4 John Rocque's map of Surrey, 1768. Fig 6 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 6”:mile map of 1896 (not to scale).

the site

Historic environment assessment MOLA 2019

331.95m1.95m ODOD

229.08m9.08m ODOD

228.45m8.45m ODOD

330.05m0.05m ODOD

331.95m1.95m ODOD

Fig 7 Ordnance Survey 25”:mile map of 1935/6 (not to scale).

330.64m0.64m ODOD

Fig 8 Proposed Site/Ground Floor Plan (Leach Rhodes Walker, drg no. 7884-L(00)103N, 1:500 @ A1, 05/11/19)

SURR2016HEA19#08_Egley Road

SURR2016HEA19#07_Egley Road Historic environment assessment MOLA 2019

Fig 9 Residential Street Elevations (Leach Rhodes Walker, drg no. 7884-L(00)304C, 1:200 @ A1, 05/11/19)

SURR2016HEA19#09_Egley Road