Planning Application 1
Application Number MO/2020/0185 (Outline Major) and Registration Date 29-Jan-2020
Applicant c/o Agent
Case Officer Catherine Miller-Bassi
Amendments /amplifications
Committee Date 01-Jul-2020
Ward(s) Box Hill & Headley Leatherhead South Within 20m of Box Hill & Headley Ward Within 20m of Leatherhead South Ward
Proposal Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access, for the consideration of the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to comprise up to 70 residential units (Use Class C3), landscaping, car parking, access routes and other associated works
Site Description Headley Court, Headley Road, Headley, KT18 6JW
DM 1 RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions
1. Summary
The application is to be decided by the Planning Committee because it exceeds the threshold set within the consitution.
The application is in outline only with all matters reserved except for access.
The reserved matters for consideration in principle only at this stage include the demolition of existing buildings and areas of hardstanding, and the redevelopment of the site comprising the erection of up to 70no. new dwellings, landscaping, car parking, access routes and other associated works.
The key drawings under consideration include the Access Parameters Plan and the Land Use Parameters Plan, which has been submitted to inform the assessment of the principle of the erection of the proposed new dwellings and the site redevelopment, particularly with regard to Green Belt policy. The Illustrative Site Layout Plan is not for approval in this case as the detailed layout falls under reserved matters.
The application site, of approx. 7ha., lies to the north and south sides of The Drive, on the west of Headley Road, adjacent the Grade II Listed Headley Court house and grounds, and 0.7miles to the north-east of Headley Village. The Headley Court mansion house site to the east of Headley Road lies beyond the application site and does not form part of the current application under consideration.
The site lies entirely within the Green Belt and comprises buildings, hardstanding, grassed areas and woodland, including some Ancient Woodland. The site was formerly occupied by the Ministry of Defence and is currently vacant. For clarification, the buildings currently in use as temporary field hospitals for the Coronavirus pandemic are located beyond the application site, within the grounds of the mansion house, to the east.
The representations received during the two consultation periods raised concerns including: lack of a masterplan for the wider Headley Court site; inappropriate development within the Green Belt; that existing buildings with personal or temporary consent should not be included within previously developed land (PDL) calculations for Green Belt purposes; adverse impact on openness; overdevelopment of the site; proposed housing out of character with the appearance and density of the rural area or setting of listed buildings; local transport and social infrastructure inadequate for new residents; and adverse impact on biodiversity and the neighbouring amenity.
In response to officer and neighbour concerns, amendments and a revised description have been secured during the course of this application, comprising the following changes: A reduction in the number of new dwellings for consideration in principle from a maximum of 100no. to a maximum of 70no. Alterations to the proposed land use zones, removing the previously proposed residential zone to the northern part of the site (currently open playing fields) and reducing the proposed density throughout the remaining residential zones proposed.
DM 2 Off-site road, footpath, cycle path and bridle way improvements now to include improvements to A24/Headley Road junction A Section 106 Heads of Terms has been submitted setting out the agreement between the applicant and SCC Highways in respect of sustainable transport measures (mini bus, cycle vouchers, A24 junction improvements)
Subsequently, a re-consultation was undertaken from 6-28 May 2020 in which all of the consultees and neighbours originally contacted were re- contacted, together with all those who had made comments during the initial consultation period (14 Feb-6 Mar 2020). A further site notice was also displayed.
The site has been designated for residential development since at least 2000 and is listed under Local Plan policy RUD21 as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt, a policy which was saved in the Local Plan Review of 2012 and which was also included in the Brownfield Land Availability Assessment of 2017.
The proposed development comprises 3no. access points leading off The Drive, which would replace the existing 6no. vehicular access points. The spur roads leading off these 3no. access points are illustrative only and comprise reserved matters. The proposed access is considered an improvement over the existing situation both in terms of highways safety and in terms of character and ecology, allowing the reintroduction of soft landscaping at the site of the existing access points along the northern and southern sides of The Drive. No objections to the proposed access points have been received from the Highways Authority on highways safety grounds. Any residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be mitigated by the raft of proposed highways improvements detailed below.
In terms of the proposed residential land use zones, these have been assessed as 2 elements: 1. Area 1: the residential land use zones sited within the previously developed land (PDL) with approx. 63no. new dwellings and representing 90% of the outline scheme; and 2. Area 2: the residential land use zones sited beyond the previously developed land (PDL) with approx. 7no. new dwellings and representing 10% of the residential zone.
The proposed development within Area 1 is considered to comply with the NPPF exceptions list for inappropriate development in the Green Belt under paragraph 145 g) by reason that it would: comprise the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, (excluding temporary buildings); and result in no greater harm to the openness of the Green Belt than that existing.
The proposed development within Area 2 is not considered to comply with the NPPF Green Belt exceptions list and, therefore, to comprise inappropriate development, which would, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt. However, it is concluded that there are very special circumstances (VSC) which, in this case, outweigh the harm by reason of
DM 3 inappropriateness and to the openness of the Green Belt and to justify its approval, namely: Restoration of extensive existing hardstanding/car parks as open green space; Creation of publicly accessible open space for recreation; Contribution to need for affordable housing which could not be achieved without allowing a small proportion of development outside of land identified as PDL; and Reduction of existing harm to Green Belt openness due to proposed decrease in previously high level of activity as military rehabilitation centre and visual impact of extensive car parking, secure boundary treatment and lighting.
The proposal is considered to result in less than substantial harm to the setting of nearby heritage assets or the rural character of the area which is outweighed by the public benefits. SCC Highways has agreed a series of highways, footways and bridlepath improvements which result in an acceptable scheme. Following amendments, the original concerns of SWT regarding ecology have been overcome.
The scheme delivers the following benefits to the district: 70no. new dwellings against a local housing land supply shortfall of 2 years 6no. on-site affordable housing, which represents 50% of the net additional floor space, and is over and above the policy requirement of 40% Reduction in harm to Green Belt in terms of the visual impact and effect of proposed activity levels on openness including restoration to open green space of extensive car park along north of The Drive Retention of 2.4ha open space against the 2.5ha. of existing open space, which represents 96% 10% increase in green space Nearly 25% reduction in developed area (on footprint) Publicly accessible open space (where the open space was previously private) Publicly accessible children’s play area Highways improvements including a raft of foot/cycle paths & bridleways proposals Travel plan to include a mini-bus, cycle vouchers and a member of staff to encourage alternative forms of travel to the private car Provision of electric vehicle charging point to every new dwelling Improved buffer to Ancient Woodland of 15m including remediation of existing hardstanding Retention of 70% of existing trees including 100% of trees of significant amenity value and replacement of an equivalent number or more than those to be removed. Biodiversity net gains at nearly 10% Reduction in pressure on greenfield land to deliver housing in the district Efficient use of vacant brownfield land
On balance the recommendation is for approval, subject to conditions and a s106 agreement to secure highway improvements and a mini-bus service.
DM 4
2. Development Plan
Development Affecting Ancient Woodland/within 500m Landscape Character Area – Box Hill Metropolitan Green Belt (CS1) Allocated Site for Housing (RUD21)
3. Relevant Planning History
The site has a long planning history; as such, only the more recent applications for development within the red site outline are listed in the table below.
Ref. Description Decision MO/77/0936 Junior Ranks Dining Room, 2250 sqft NO OBJECTION MO/83/0158 Proposed block of 8 garages NO OBJECTION MO/84/0631 Control kiosk for sewage pumping station APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS MO/84/0751 MT Section Extension NO OBJECTION MO/84/0812 NAAFI Extension NO OBJECTION MO/85/1111 Proposed stores extension NO OBJECTION MO/88/1538 Proposed Addition at RAF Headley NO OBJECTION MO/2002/0021 Two storey mess annexe OBJECTION MO/2003/0633 Single storey extension to rear of existing NO OBJECTION NAAFI building to provide additional toilet facilities. MO/2004/0036 Anti -intruder securtiy fence around the NO OBJECTION Sergeant's mess complex.
MO/2005/2070 Metal safety railings (900m high) to top of APPROVED WITH basement light well and alongside disabled CONDITIONS ramp, all to north of main entrance. MO/2007/1958 Temporary two storey 58-bed single living APPROVED WITH accommodation block, adjacent to CONDITIONS sergeants' mess.
MO/2010/0211 Erection of a two storey building to provide APPROVED WITH 29-bed ward accommodation. CONDITIONS MO/2012/0075 New / refurbishment of existing car park APPROVED WITH and new access pathway CONDITIONS MO/2012/1318 Amendment to approved planning APPROVED WITH permission MO/2012/0075 for car park CONDITIONS refurbishment and new access pathway to allow replacement of concrete bins with additional parking spaces MO/2012/1747 Renewal of temporary planning consent APPROVED WITH MO/2007/1958 for a two storey 58 bed CONDITIONS single living accommodation block adjacent to the sergeant's mess. MO/2015/0680 Variation of Condition1 of approved APPROVED WITH planning permission MO/2012/1747 for a CONDITIONS two storey 58 bed single living accommodation block adjacent to the
DM 5 sergeant's mess to allow use for a further 3 years MO/2019/2101 Environmental Impact Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL Screening Opinion STATEMENT NOT REQUIRED
4. Description of Development
4.1. Site Description
4.1.1. The application site lies within the Green Belt, on the west side of Headley Road, adjacent to the Grade II Headley Court house and grounds, and is divided by The Drive, which runs east-west through the site, (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Existing Site Plan
The site, measuring approx. 7ha., lies in a rural area, predominantly surrounded by woodland and agricultural fields, (Figure 2), with some scattered groups of housing nearby. The land slopes down substantially towards the north-west of the site.
DM 6
Figure 2. Aerial photo of site (Google Earth)
Now vacant, the site was formerly occupied by the Ministry of Defence from the 1950s to 2018 and comprises buildings (see Figure 3) and hardstanding, together with grassed and treed areas. As such, the site can be considered to include areas of both brownfield (previously developed land or PDL) and greenfield land.
Figure 3. Aerial photo of southern part of site looking northwards
DM 7 Also encompassed within the site is an area of Ancient Woodland to the north-west, (part of Hambleton Wood), which is partially covered by an existing area of car parking, (Figure 4 – dark green, hatched areas). There is a further area of Ancient Woodland beyond the site, to the south west, (Pignut Wood). Adjacent to the northern site boundary, Hambleton Wood comprises a Site of Archaeological Potential, however, this lies beyond the application site.
Figure 4. Plan showing Ancient Woodland (shaded in green)
4.1.2. To the south of The Drive is a triangular parcel of land located immediately west of the listed buildings. This is the most intensely developed area of the application site and is where the majority of the accommodation blocks are located. The existing buildings are substantial in size and are rectangular in form with pitched roofs. A car park is located to the south west of the existing buildings but is well screened from the road by mature planting. The existing buildings in this segment tend to be focussed in the central part of the parcel and benefit from swathes of soft landscaping including trees on their northern, western and eastern sides.
To the north of The Drive lies a large L-shaped car park set behind a hedge. To the west of the car park are a number of modest single storey buildings that are used for ancillary storage, offices and garaging. A further car park occupies the north western end of this parcel of land, with mature trees on the western boundary. The eastern part of this site, alongside Headley Road is currently laid out as a grassed sports pitch bordered by dense woodland to the north west and groups of trees to the south west.
4.1.3. The application site previously comprised part of a wider area, the Headley Court estate, as shown in Figure 5, which has since been sub-divided. The application site subject of this report is shown here as Lots 4 and 5, (Lot 4 being the area to the south of The Drive and the area to the north of The Drive, Lot 5). The area labelled Lots 1, 2 and 3, immediately to the east of the application site, on the opposite side of Headley Road, comprises 11no. Grade II structures including Headley Court house. The applicants have stated that this site will be subject to a future planning application later this
DM 8 year and some of the submitted documents, such as the transport assessments, include both of these sites.
For information, the buildings on Dale View and Cunliffe Close, to the east and south-east of the Headley Court mansion house site, (shown on the right hand side of Figure 5, labelled Lots 6 and 7), were formerly part of the MoD wider site. In 2018, these dwellings received approval under a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use application, MO/2018/1890, for use as single family dwelling houses, (Use Class C3), and have subsequently been for sale on the private market.
Figure 5. Plan extract of wider Headley Court site as existing showing application site to left hand side, labelled Lot 4 and Lot 5
4.2. Proposal
4.2.1. The application is in outline only with all matters reserved except for access. The reserved matters for consideration in principle only at this stage include the demolition of existing buildings and areas of hardstanding, and the redevelopment of the site comprising the erection of up to 70no. new dwellings. An indicative layout has been submitted in drawing no. A11454- C0702, Rev.P4, Proposed Layout Lot 04 & Lot 05 Option 1B, as shown in Figure 6.
DM 9
Figure 6. Illustrative Layout
The proposed erection of up to 70no. new dwellings would, in principle, include 6no. affordable housing units. The details of the housing mix, layout and design are reserved matters, as are the details of the proposed landscaping, car parking, access routes and other associated works.
The proposal to be assessed here is for the land use parameters as shown in Figure 14, and the access arrangements for up to 70no. new dwellings.
For clarity, the submitted Revised Proposals Letter dated 29 April 2020, outlines which of the application documents are indicative and which are for consideration under this application, as shown in the table below.
Application Documents Drawing Number Status Site Location Plan F0100-P1 For Approval Access Parameters Plan D1002-P2 For Approval Land Use Parameters Plan D1001-P2 For Approval Illustrative Site Layout Plan C0702-P4 Illustrative Only Open Space Analysis C0900-P1 Illustrative Only Comparison Schedule - Existing v n/a Illustrative Only 100 Unit Scheme v 70 Unit Scheme (Schedule 1)
DM 10 A11454 Area Schedule Summary n/a Illustrative Only 28.04.2020 (Schedule 2) A11454_Proposed Unit & Floor Area - n/a Illustrative Only 70 Units (Schedule 3) Highway Works Headley Road/A24 Junction MBSK200305-02 For Approval Improvements Improvements to: The Drive, Headley MBSK200430- 01-P1, For Approval Road, Lee Green Lane, Clay Lane 02-P1, 03-P1, 04-P1, and Tiley Lane 05-P1 & 06-P1 Table 1 - List of application documents following amendments submitted May 2020
5. Consultations
Consultee Comments Notes Crime Comments received following re-consultation This will be Reduction/ started 6 May 2020 assessed at Prevention In many respects, this is an outline proposal, reserved Design although I can see that consideration has matters Advisor been given to the location and orientation of the proposed dwellings. There would appear to be a good level of natural surveillance in the plan, which is a positive thing. Ideally, I would like the development to consider applying for Secured by Design status, as this would enable me to have a much greater involvement in the development process at all stages. Areas about which I would like more detail relate to exterior lighting, access control and the physical materials used for door and window sets and accompanying lock mechanisms. Pedestrian and vehicular access control also needs to be looked at in more detail, due to the inevitable increase in footfall and vehicles on the road into the future.
Environment No objection subject to conditions Conditions 13, Agency 14, 15, 16 New comments received following re- consultation started 6 May 2020: Our previous comments are still applicable to this amended planning application
MVDC Policy CS4 of the Council's 2009 adopted This would be Affordable Core Strategy applies to this application for conditioned at Housing 100 homes and requires 40% (40) on site Reserved Officer affordable housing. The site contains a Matters stage. significant number of existing vacant buildings and the Vacant Building Credit (VBC) applies. The applicant has provided a
DM 11 calculation for the VBC that the Council is satisfied with. This results in 11 affordable homes that should be provided on the site and the applicant is offering to provide 14 on-site affordable homes, which is acceptable.
New comments received following re- consultation started 6 May 2020: Policy CS4 of the Council's 2009 adopted Core Strategy applies to this application for 70 homes and requires 40% (28) on-site affordable housing units. The site contains a significant number of existing vacant buildings and the Vacant Building Credit (VBC) applies. The applicant has provided a calculation for the VBC that results in an 82% credit (23). The Council is satisfied with the calculation that requires 5 on-site affordable homes and the applicant is offering to provide 6 on-site affordable homes. This result is acceptable and compliant with policy CS4. In keeping with the requirements of policy CS3 and the Council's Approved Supplementary Planning Document (as amended) the applicant is required to provide affordable homes that are predominantly a mix of two and three bedroom properties and the tenure be 50% for affordable rent and 50% for affordable home ownership. The homes should be of the same appearance to the open market homes and be preferably distributed throughout the site.
MVDC There are indeed two areas of designated Condition 12 Arboricultural ancient woodland which impinge of the red Officer outline site to a small degree. The scheme however avoids construction directly on those areas which have been ‘set by’ to some extent. Therefore development might not be precluded nearby.
New comments received following re- consultation started 6 May 2020: On balance, given the scale of the proposed development, the number of tree losses could be considered reasonable and the level of replacement adequate in the context of acceptable development. A landscaping plan with tree specific details should be required and that should deal mainly with replacement tree planting as
DM 12 there seems to be enough indicative soft landscaping on other overview plans and the ecological report. All that should be sought are the tree species, their size and position and should include native trees. Larger tree species near to homes should be avoided at less than 6m distance to avoid shade problems etc. There is sufficient information in the tree documents to show what trees are to remain and that the retained trees can be afforded a good degree of physical protection during the construction phases.
MVDC Comments received following re-consultation Drainage started 6 May 2020: Consultant The submitted reports are acceptable and contain sufficient information for an outline application. I would recommend that a full design be submitted prior to commencement on site.
MVDC We would have no particular concerns in Condition 17 Environmental relation to this site. Noise to be Health Noise levels are slightly elevated due to the conditioned at presence of the motorway, but we are Reserved satisfied that conditions can be applied to Matters stage. mitigate the impacts of noise and to reduce the need to open windows for ventilation purposes We would therefore propose the following conditions: Internal Noise levels (including aircraft noise) Contamination
New comments received following re- consultation started 6 May 2020: No change to original advice
MVDC Historic I do have some reservations over the proximity This would be Environment of the proposed dwellings that are located conditioned at Officer nearest the stable court entrance to Headley Reserved Court, but feel this can be addressed at Matters stage. Reserved Matters stage/and a landscaping condition, and does not result in harm to the setting of this listed building that would justify refusal on heritage grounds.
New comments received following re- consultation started 6 May 2020: I still have no objection to this application because the revisions do not materially change the comments I made on 26th
DM 13 March 2020. These comments remain relevant. The reduction in the number of units fronting the stretch of Headley Road opposite the stable yard entrance to Headley Court is a positive change from the original scheme, opening the grain and giving more opportunity for structural planting along this boundary. Should this application be approved, I suggest a landscaping condition as originally recommended for the 100 unit scheme. MVDC I've reviewed the submitted Outline Energy This would be Sustainability Statement and can see that the applicant conditioned at Consultant intends to install solar PV to meet the 10% Reserved requirement. This should be sufficient but if Matters stage. permission is granted SAP reports or similar evidence will be required to quantify the baseline and associated savings.
New comments received following re- consultation started 6 May 2020: No change to previous comments.
MVDC Waste 1. Access: I see no issues with vehicle access, This would be Officer but I see no detail of road width. The conditioned at minimum must be 4 metres wide. Reserved 2. Bin Store: I cannot find any comments Matters stage. regarding the waste collections and can only assume that there will be individual bins presented to the front of the properties. The developer should refer to our guidance when considering the space for the storage of waste containers in the collection enclosure. Properties will require sufficient room to house containers for refuse, recycling, and food waste. Where applicable garden waste bins may also be needed. There may not be room for all these containers in the designated refuse store area. 3. Internal storage: All units should have sufficient space in the kitchen to segregate recyclable and non-recyclable waste and store it until it is taken out to the bins.
New comments received following re- consultation started 6 May 2020: No additional comments received.
Natural Comments received following re-consultation England started 6 May 2020: Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse
DM 14 impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes.
SCC Comments received following re-consultation Condition 5 Archaeology started 6 May 2020: Given that some areas of the site may have been previously impacted, I do not recommend that it is necessary for the archaeological work to be undertaken in advance of determination of the Outline application. However, given the moderate to high potential for archaeological Heritage Assets relating to the Bronze Age, as denoted by the adjacent AHAP, the results of the required Geophysical Survey and Evaluation will need to be submitted with any subsequent Reserved Matters application. The methodology for the conduct of the Geophysical Survey and Evaluation will need to be set out in a Written Scheme(s) of Investigation that has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Condition recommended for any Outline permission that may be granted.
SCC Flood We are satisfied that the proposed drainage This would be Risk & scheme meets the requirements set out in the conditioned at Network submitted documents and are content with the Reserved Resilience development proposed, subject to conditions. Matters stage. Specialist New comments received following re- consultation started 6 May 2020: As there is no change to the drainage strategy or Surface Water drainage system we would have no further comments, please refer back to our letter dated 19/02/2020 reference LLFA/MO/20/0112.
SCC No objections subject to conditions and s106 Conditions 6, 7 Highways agreement to be secured prior to granting & 8 plus s106 permission.
New comments received following re- consultation started 6 May 2020: Please apply the same conditions as previous for this application. Even though there is a reduction in units, the Highway Authority still believe that all the conditions and contributions are necessary.
SES Water No comments received
DM 15 Southern No comments received Water Surrey Wildlife New comments received following re- Conditions 9, 10 Trust consultation started 6 May 2020: & 11 SWT had raised a number of concerns in relation to the indicative layout for 100 units Biodiversity net and the original ecology report . Those gains would be concerns were passed to the applicants. conditioned at Following the reduction in the total number of Reserved units, the change to the indicative layout and Matters stage the submission of further ecological information, SWT is satisfied the outline application is acceptable subject to conditions.
6. Representations
6.1. Public
Two consultations were carried out in this case, from 14 February to 6 March 2020 from 7 to 28 May 2020, due to amendments received during the course of this application.
133 representations were received during the original consultation from separate addresses, including the Parish Council and societies, of which all are objections. 159 objections and 5 neutral comments were received during the re-consultation.
The comments and concerns raised by individuals during both the original and subsequent consultations are summarised in the following table:
Comments Officer Comment & Report Section Having taken part in many fundraisers for This concern is not a material Help for Heroes which supported Headley planning consideration in this case. Court and the MOD it is unthinkable that a developer should be allowed to profit from this. It is also unacceptable that veterans of the British Army are not able to benefit from such profit. I have lived in headley for over 20 years The proposal was subject to a public and my parents have lived in headley for consultation process prior to its over 35 years and neither of us were submission led by the applicants and invited to either community meetings. This the planning application process is the first time I have been allowed to included two public consultations express an opinion. undertaken by MVDC. I have not received an official letter from The Council has fulfilled its statutory MVDC relating to this proposed duty in notifying those individual development properties most likely to be affected by the proposals, displaying a site notice and advertising the application in the Dorking edition of the ‘Surrey Advertiser’ newspaper on 6.5.20. It is understood that when planning Land ownership and business finance approval has been received Angle will sell are not material planning concerns in
DM 16 the site on. The more houses the more this case, however, a planning profit and this comes through in every application would be required for aspect of the proposals. additional housing on the site. This application is for a max. of 70no. new dwellings in outline only. The headline wording is less than Only the submitted documents can be straightforward and our comments assessed in terms of the current therefore assume the demolition of the planning application. existing buildings and redevelopment to Should any planning application be comprise 100 residential units (Use Class received at a future date for a site C3), landscaping, car parking, access adjacent or near to this application routes and other associated works. site, then it will be assessed on its However, our comments are also made in own merits and in terms of its the absence of any adopted plan for cumulative impacts taken together Element 2 which includes the Mansion with any approved or proposed and the heritage assets which places development provided a planning MVDC, the general public and ourselves application has been received such as at a significant disadvantage. this application. There seems to be a general lack of The application has been assessed robust supporting evidence in the against national planning policy and Application in relation to sustainability, development plan policies. See : 1 green belt, transport, ecology, landscape, heritage, massing and density, consultation and utility services. This area is covered by poor phone This concern lies beyond the remit of reception and internet speeds. As more the current application, however, a people will start to work from home due to CIL contribution would be secured COVID-19, internet and coverage is even from the development if approved, more important than it was before. which would be used to pay for local infrastructure. See 8.18 An assessment showing what the This concern lies beyond the remit of contribution to the local economy of this the current application, however, there development site should be carried out. would be a contribution to the economy resulting from the house building project, if approved following the reserved matters application. Leatherhead Living reported on 10 See 8.17 Affordable Housing October 2018 that MVDC Councillors representing wards near Headley Court said “the site was not sustainable for affordable housing because there were few amenities nearby and no public transport”. This situation still persists. This comment was made when a planning proposal was under consideration as to whether the 56 houses at Dale View should be put into use as affordable housing with the Charity Commission being asked to consider “community value”. In the event, Headley Court was sold on the open market. Insufficient Affordable Housing proposed; See 8.17 should be actually affordable (not a
DM 17 certain percentage under local values which are extremely high) and for local people The affordable housing element at 14% See 8.17 should be 30% We would also like to challenge the See 8.17 and 8.12 provision of social housing on the site given its remote location, lack of local amenities (only Headley stores and the Cock Inn neither of which are reachable safely on foot) and lack of public transport. This proposal is seriously lacking in credibility and social responsibility. We are also concerned to see that the See 8.14 Open Space, Sports and application is to develop the sports field. Recreation Facilities We believe this sort of amenity should be preserved for the benefit of the community. Increased traffic on The Drive will cause See 8.11 and 8.12 light pollution to neighbouring dwellings Any tree removal would be unusually See 8.11 and 8.12 and 8.13 destructive and end the effective noise reduction they help with from the M25, (1/2 mile distant) We have an open view from the windows There is no right to a private view, on the front of our house. The proposed however, loss of outlook is considered development of two-story buildings will under 8.11 obstruct this openness at the western end of zone 2. The proposed buildings will be much See Impact on amenity of closer to our property than those existing neighbouring properties and future – we will be overlooked and lose privacy occupiers Although a short section of the Amenity for future occupants will be development boundary adjacent to fully assessed under reserved Hambleton Wood is being provided with matters. additional protection, the remaining See 8.10, 8.11 and 8.13 boundaries appear to have little or no enhanced screening with the gardens, which in general are no deeper than the houses themselves, running up to the site boundary. As there are no garages there will be This will be fully assessed under many cars parked on the street and reserved matters, however, see 8.12 nowhere to store wheely bins, bikes or garden equipment other than in sheds in the tiny gardens. Boring, uniform estate housing This will be fully assessed under reserved matters I have been to see this developer’s This will be fully assessed under dwellings in Sycamore Gardens at the reserved matters, however, see 8.10 Nescot site and although I agree that within that urban setting they are reasonably acceptable, within Headley
DM 18 they would be an eyesore and certainly not in keeping with the existing character of this important village structure. It will be visually intrusive; presently is This will be fully assessed under single storey behind garages (by sewage reserved matters, however, see treatment works) which allows visual Sections 8.2 to 8.5 and 8.10 clearance of the green belt land beyond, two storey properties will block this completely. The massing and density proposed bears This will be fully assessed under no relationship with the immediate reserved matters, however, see 8.10 neighbourhood or indeed anywhere in and 8.12 Headley. The proposed streetscape would be dominated by cars and hard surfaces with virtually no front gardens and little space between houses. The proposed development being This will be fully assessed under overbearing and out of scale compared to reserved matters, however, see 8.10 existing developments in this area The proposed houses are nothing like the This will be fully assessed under existing ones in Headley. Existing reserved matters, however, see 8.10 dwelling resemble village like cottages, and village living. These houses represent a more urban area. The Site Assessment presented with the This will be fully assessed under planning application states that there is a reserved matters, however, see highly visible parking area adjacent to The Impact on the character of the Drive which should not be at the "heart of surrounding rural area and Highways, the development". However the density of parking and refuse the proposed houses and small plot sizes will result in a highly visible parking area in front of all the houses, which have no garages, and on the adjacent roads for visitors. The proposed development replaces one area of unacceptable highly visible parking by another. The suggestion that the playing field is Since this comment was received, the developed is worrying. It appears that the proposals have been amended to housing is of a density out of keeping with remove the originally proposed the area as well as infilling a piece of dwellings from the existing open green land which helps preserve the space to the north/north-east of the feeling of space in the village. site. See 8.10 A plan that had 10-20 homes with lower This will be fully assessed under density, front and rear gardens, garaging reserved matters, however, see and parking would be more appropriate. Impact on the character of the surrounding rural area and Highways, parking and refuse Farley Barns recently built in Banstead This site is allocated as a larger would be a more suitable fit for this area. housing development opportunity They have recently built 7 barn style under policy RUD21 - see 8.2 and houses on the former Hengest Farm 8.10 buildings. These are larger houses with more outside space, this would be more
DM 19 consistent with the existing properties in Headley. Headley is a rural village of 250 houses See 8.10 spread over a large area with few footpaths, no street lighting and open green views – proposal is radically out of character in density and appearance Headley only has about 250 houses in See 8.10 30,000 acres, any permission granted should take account of the change in character; Most houses in Headley both large and small have a rural feel of space, views and character Housing should be attractive, eco and See 8.10 and 8.15 have a lot of green space I believe a majority of the buildings are to See 8.10 be 1 meter apart - this is at a level of urban density and in no way fits in with the current rural surrounding Lack of front gardens make it look urban Should not include semi-detached – too dense The average plot size in Tyrrells Wood is 1 acre. Headley, with about 250 houses, covers an area of about 247 acres, which is also about 1 acre per house. (The size of Headley is estimated based on most of the properties appearing to fall in a square about 1km on each side). The Angle proposal is for 100 houses on a total of 7 hectares, or 17.5 acres. A housing density of 6 houses per acre. Taking into account that a large proportion of the area is left open, the actual density is nearer 10 per acre. The current proposals go against even the Mole Valley’s own Character Assessment policy The development should be only 1/5 or ¼ of this size to be in keeping with surrounding densities Too dense; cramped; out of keeping with rural area; appearance of an estate in a town, not a rural community; The proposed development is completely out of proportion with the existing area, which by Mole Valley’s own classification comes under the smallest category of “Other rural communities”. We would support a very small See 8.2, 8.3, 8.10, 8.12 and 8.17 development of perhaps 20 -30 houses built each side of The Drive, this then not to impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Such low density development
DM 20 should allow houses with broad outlooks, large gardens, ample outside parking and some low cost housing for local, first time buyers and the re-establishment of hitherto built on Green Belt land According to magic.defra.gov.uk there are See 8.8 eleven Grade II listed buildings located north east of the Site as part of Headley Court grounds and a Roman Road which is registered as a scheduled monument situated approximately 500 m west - there are too many heritage assets in the vicinity that should prevent further building work. As a brownfield site, clearly some There are no Listed Buildings or development ought to be undertaken Scheduled Monuments within the within the existing site and to keep the application site. heritage of the buildings in the site. See 8.8 Headley Court House is a listed Building There are no Listed Buildings or and the proposed development is the Scheduled Monuments within the most unsympathetic development application site. imaginable. The planners have the See 8.8 opportunity to encourage a development that enhances Headley Court House that will leave a legacy for all wishing to visit the area On the British Archaeological and Historic See 8.8 sites database are quoted 2 sites of Roman aggers and buildings and Romano-British buildings located just to the East of the garages at the Southern corner of the sports field. Any building/disturbance of this area should be undertaken only after a fully comprehensive archaeological assessment/dig of the area has been completed. The proposed development site is situated near a Roman heritage site. The development may unearth some ruins and destroy the current ones nearby. Under the existing car park there are Roman remains, the MOD took care to protect these when the car park was laid down. Surely this should be protected and houses not erected on such a historical site. When the mansion house was originally See 8.8 and 8.10 built it would have been set in beautiful open parkland so shouldn’t we be trying to preserve the heritage that once existed?
DM 21 Breaking up the site into separate Every application is assessed on its applications makes the scale seem own merits so any future application smaller for adjacent sites will be assessed in terms of cumulative impact MVDC’s own Green Belt assessment See 8.10 describes the area as having “very loose knit character” with pockets of houses in a countryside setting and “ribbon development”. Proposal forms overdevelopment Headley is not even a village but a rural settlement We should be preserving Headley as a peaceful serene setting, keeping it green; it will irreparably damage the unique character of Headley as a rural village Gas main should be installed in the This concern lies beyond the remit of existing village to enable residents to the current application, however, a access gas without the need for the CIL contribution would be secured existing lorry loads of calor gas and from the development if approved, oil that circulate through the village. which would be used to pay for local infrastructure. See 8.18 No new infrastructure proposed eg This concern lies beyond the remit of nurseries, schools, doctors the current application, however, a CIL contribution would be secured from the development if approved, which would be used to pay for local infrastructure. See 8.18 The drainage and power supplies in this This concern lies beyond the remit of rural area would not cope with the the current application, however, increased housing drainage within the site and subsequent flood risk is assessed in Section 8.16 although this is subject to reserved matters. Climate change this year sent rainwater See 8.12 and 8.16 running in a river across the field in front of Headley Court which abuts my garden. It surged under the fence and flooded my orchard. It then flowed down my drive and Cunliffe Close, to pool across Lee Green Lane. This relatively low spot frequently has a ford across the road, for the months between September to March. Headley trees prevent soil erosion, but they also cause a build-up of leaves and deposit twigs which block existing drains. Tree roots cause drains to collapse. Houses in Cunliffe Close learned this year that their foul water drains are badly broken by tree roots. Headley needs better drainage, regular road clearance and careful placing of minimal where essential, non-porous
DM 22 surfaces - that being roads and house foundations. The impassability of Headley roads’ footpaths, where existing, has been brought up at Parish Council meetings in the recent past. It has been noted that two council funded road clearances a year is insufficient with existing road usage and will obviously get worse with climate change and vehicular road usage. Could increase flooding elsewhere See 8.16 Surface water run off will be a problem with the increase in hardstanding/built area – may increase flooding elsewhere The increase in buildings and materials used will increase the amount of water running off the site, flooding areas and roads which are already liable to flooding. No mains drainage – sewerage will be a See 8.12 and 8.16 problem as it has been in the past at that site – more lorry trips to empty septic tanks All temporary facilities should be removed The site is allocated as a larger and returned to green belt, as should car housing opportunity site in the Local parking and other used areas. This area Plan. is more suitable for an expansion of See 8.2,8.3-8.5 and 8.13 woodland in line with national aims to plant 30 million trees a year, than it is for housing development. Extending and joining small parcels of woodland, including the areas of designated ancient woodland in the immediate vicinity of this area is surely a more appropriate use of the land. Wildlife present at the site include See 8.13 Bechstein’s bats, buzzards etc Does not preserve the ancient woodland 15 metre buffer thereby conflicting with Natural England guidance. Headley Court is next to Nower Wood, very close Headley Heath and is near to much ancient woodland. Need to protect more existing trees and plant more new trees to assist in carbon capture Building so many houses will block the natural wildlife corridor between Surrey Wildlife Nower Woods, Tyrrels Wood and Hambledon Woods. Increase in road traffic will endanger See 8.12 and 8.13 environment and wildlife including protected orchids Need to install ponds, hedgehog This is subject to reserved matters. highways, native trees/hedges etc See 8.13
DM 23 The amount of new dwellings will also Lighting falls under reserved matters. increase the light pollution at night time. See 8.13 There are many nocturnal animals in this area, such as protected bats and badgers, which the light can have effect on their habitat. Wildlife, in particular bats, would be Lighting falls under reserved matters. seriously impacted by the light pollution; See 8.13 Light pollution, presently Headley Court area is one of very few places where we can see the night sky because of the minimal street and property illuminations , another proposed 100 properties and associated street lighting will reduce our area to that of a small town for light pollution. There are also protected orchids in the See 8.13 area. and I understand that such plant life is sensitive to the disruption of soil so Angle’s proposals for “translocation” must receive thorough evaluation to ensure they are viable and that there are proper, funded mechanisms in place for their onward, future evaluation. Dormice are present in this site so a licence is required; the survey was not carried out correctly – eg boxes were not horizontal Headley Court at an altitude of 130 meters (425ft.) AMSL suffers from wind storm damage; removing any trees which filter the wind, and substituting hard landscaping will be detrimental in this instance and increase the severity of any damage. Removal of any mature and beautiful trees should be resisted, and I feel that MVDC should insist upon a Tree Management plan. A scaled measurement and calculation of Volumetric assessment would fall the current gross footprint of buildings on under reserved matters. Zones 1,2 and 3 (excluding those with a See 8.3 - 8.5 ‘Strictly Personal Consent’) produces a volumetric (Gross Internal Area) figure that equates to only 25 new detached family houses (with garages). This level of massing and density on Zones 1,2 and 3 would be far more appropriate and would maintain the site’s openness. As I understand it, redevelopment and See 8.3 - 8.5 and 8.14 change of use of previously developed land is permitted provided there is no impact on the ‘openness of the Green Belt’? Angle propose to build on the
DM 24 playing fields, clearly regardless of the type of home this is not in line with the above Replacement of buildings on Zone 3 See 8.3 - 8.5 and 8.14 should recognise the existing single-story structures and openness of the area. Two story housing on Zone 3 should therefore be built on only half the footprint of the current single-story buildings in order to retain openness. The open look of the Green Belt on the site will be destroyed if so many houses are built, including two storey houses where there are single story buildings at present. The volume of building that is being Since this comment was received, the proposed exceeds by some margin the proposals have been amended to existing volume, particularly on the north remove the originally proposed side of The Drive. It is this extra volume dwellings from the existing open that threatens the openness of the site. space to the north/north-east of the site.
See 8.3 - 8.5 There are loads of examples of very Householder extensions are assessed minor requests to extend houses in under a different clause of NPPF Headley (eg small extensions paragraph 145 – that is c) ‘the /conservatories etc) that have been extension or alteration of a building refused on the basis that they inhibit the provided that it does not result in openness of the Green Belt. How can the disproportionate additions over and Council even consider giving permission above the size of the original building’. for a development of this size and density This assessment is different due to when comparing with its own planning the nature of the current case, which precedents? Any decision to approve the has been assessed in the main under plans would surely be unlawful? NPPF paragraph 145 g). See See 8.3 There is no rational case or Very Special See 8.3 - 8.5 Circumstance to justify building on these open spaces and none has been offered in the application. We live to the South of Zone 2 and the See 8.3 - 8.5 and 8.10 current openness of the Western end of Zone 2 is clear from our property. The proposed development would impact upon this openness and would introduce a continuous run of closely spaced housing with fenced rear gardens offering very little permeability. Will lead to further encroachment on See 8.3 - 8.5 Green Belt; will set a precedent Zone 3 currently has single-story See 8.3 - 8.5 and 8.14 buildings and is highly permeable with far reaching views from The Drive to fields beyond. Zone 4 is an open car park subject to a personal planning consent
DM 25 but maintains a high degree of openness. Zone 5 is adjacent to ancient woodland and is a valued open green space previously used as a football field by local clubs (the only football pitch in Headley). The developer wants to build on some This will be further assessed under land that is completely flat – the car park reserved matters. that was built to temporarily allow the See 8.3 - 8.5 and 8.13 hospital to expand when there was an influx of wounded soldiers. Because it’s just a flat surface that doesn’t inhibit the openness of the Green Belt like houses would and it also doesn’t stop bats and other animals moving between the ancient woodland Green Belt land should be returned to See 8.3 - 8.5 original use following vacation by veterans Not brownfield site See 8.3 - 8.5 The MOD gave personal permission to construct some of the current buildings for the rehabilitation of military personnel. These should surely not be permitted for redevelopment. They were granted on grounds of very special circumstances and new housing is not what I would call “very special circumstances.” The MOD permissions were temporary and personal – should not be considered permanent to be replaced with new buildings; The buildings were constructed for war heroes and now they are not in use as such, should be removed and not redeveloped which was never the intention. A developer should not be allowed to calculate footprint based on temporary planning permission. There may be a legal way to circumvent the personal/temporary permissions but there is no moral authority for what was granted on compassionate grounds This site is not a brownfield site in the normal use of the term. It was a military site and as such was Crown Land. Crown Land falls outside the normal planning boundaries. It should therefore revert back to the state that existed prior to DMRC days No account is taken of a future access to This will be assessed at such a time element 2 close by. that a planning application is received for that site. Air pollution will be much higher than See 8.12 suggested during rush hours when traffic is at a standstill
DM 26 Headley’s open rural areas provide a serious environmental function for a large area that falls well beyond the Parish. It is part of the lungs of London. Increase in traffic from occupants and construction will increase air pollution – they will not all be using electric cars Surrounding areas are also vulnerable to The outline application has been crime, as many vehicles have been stolen reviewed by the Crime Reduction/ then set alight in Headley. Prevention Design Advisor who recommends the applicants apply for Secured by Design status, however, crime in the surrounding areas is not a material planning consideration of the current application. A hopper bus is not sustainable if Angle See 8.12 pull out; welcome but not affordable, reliable, frequent, long-term; existing bus service is too expensive and infrequent COVID-19 will mean that more and more See 8.12 people will start to use cars over public transport, to reduce the spread of the virus. This will mean more cars will be on the roads, increasing congestion. I know there is a bus that is very infrequent and even if this is improved there will always be difficulties with the people that need the bus, the elderly and disabled, getting to the actual bus stop in this country location. My elderly parents don’t have a car and once used the local Headley bus. They struggled with the relatively long walk to the bus stop and found that the bus itself was quite empty. The existing bus service already causes many congestion and safety issues, any attempt to increase the bus service can only make this worse. The hopper merely demonstrates that the transportation is inadequate; Such schemes have failed to work in other Surrey Locations such as Runnymede and do nothing to improve sustainability. The proposed service is also infrequent, meaning schoolchildren sometimes could be left waiting several hours for the next service. The service does not have capacity for the amount of new residents. There was a daily bus collecting the service personnel school children which reduced traffic going to schools. I do not see any provision for a dedicated school bus to the primary schools as part of this
DM 27 proposal. The schools referred to as being covered by the Headley Hopper are not the local primary schools which children in the area would attend. This will mean parents have no choice but to drive their children to school, thus increasing the amount of cars on the road. Headley Road is ‘unsuitable for HGVs’ so construction traffic will be dangerous I am also concerned with the construction traffic which will try to access the site via the B2033 Roads are far too narrow for large vehicles to pass one another. One incident included a bus and lorry, leaving to hours in delays and congestion. This raises air pollution too. When the development is in the construction stage, large construction vehicles would pose a further risk to the narrow roads, and increase the likelihood of an accident and congestion. I have cycled to and from work, this is possible but requires a good level of fitness and a strong nerve on the lanes. 5. There are footpaths in the area but they are indirect (more for leisure) and besides the nearest centres such as Ashtead are not in practical walking distance. It is a difficult uphill cycle ride back from Leatherhead. I would not attempt to cycle in the dark or wet conditions as the roads are simply too dangerous. It would be reckless to encourage anyone to do so. More people will also start to cycle after COVID-19; which also increases the risk of them being in an accident, especially as this area was voted the best place to cycle in the world after the 2012 Olympic games. The area is extremely busy especially at weekends with cyclists and horse riders alike, because of the Olympic Games and the route through Boxhill the area has been inundated with cyclists sometimes riding 2 abreast Since the 2012 Olympics Headley has the most popular cycle route in Europe. There are within a 2 mile radius of Headley court 850 stables. Bus stops are difficult for the elderly and disabled to use as access on foot or with
DM 28 mobility aids is challenging and unsafe in this rural environment Footpaths should be provided between Lee Green Lane/Headley Rd bus stop and Headley Rd/village shop & pub if new housing is to be built I am visually impaired. It is challenging for me to walk around Headley safely, as it is, and I fear this will only get worse with more houses being built. The proposals would cause problems in this regard for people with disabilities more generally I ask the Council to use its powers to ensure the road is widened at this point, with the provision of a proper public highway pavement and not to entertain Angle Properties hidden cycle track as being in anyway a comparable appropriate alternative If the houses are designed for young families, there are no safe paths to walk with prams or pushchairs or for children to cycle. Many existing footpaths impassable for pedestrians due to deep mud Occupants of dwellings to north and south of The Drive will frequently cross the road for socialisation and use of recreation facilities. Angle Properties say they will make available to the public, the footpath that currently runs behind the beech hedge parallel to Headley Court at this road crossing point. This they propose as a cycle track as well as a footpath. It will become part of the recreation facilities. In my mind it is not only hidden from the road but will also be used by Angles new residents as a cycle track. It will be dangerous to pedestrians. The applicant should have ensured this section of the footway/cycleway is planned to be constructed entirely on the applicant’s land, not the verges that are part of The Drive and therefore owned by TWEA. Again, the construction and access point on the north side will also require TWEA permission. It is inappropriate to widen the footpath The outline application has been adjacent Tyrell’s Wood from Headley reviewed by the Crime Reduction/ Court to Stane Street since there is Prevention Design Advisor who already a problem here with stolen cars recommends the applicants apply for being burnt out and left here and will also Secured by Design status, however, create a circuit for 4x4 vehicle, quadbikes crime in the surrounding areas is not a and motor cross bikes (reported to
DM 29 police), which already cause noise material planning consideration of the disturbance and anti-social behaviour current application. including removing the MVDC barrier to See Section 8.12 Highways the byway; this will also encroach on privately owned land (land-grab) Headley has the largest density of horse See 8.12 population in the country, their health and well-being must be taken into account to allow them to safely travel around without hindrance and harm. The footpath to the south of the site should be upgraded to a bridle way Future Mole Valley Local Plan recognises that “equestrian businesses and suppliers contribute to the local rural economy”. But it also recognises that horses and vehicles do not readily mix together. The number of accidents involving horses on the roads is increasing, with the British Horse Society (BHS) reporting 87 horse deaths and 4 ride deaths in the last year. Nearly 1000 incidents on roads are reported to the BHS each year. This will affect the safety of horse riders in this area. If any permission granted then request for horse margins or bridleways along the particularly narrow area of roadway between Oyster Hill and the roundabout at the entrance to the housing blocks opposite Headley court, which are currently deadly (see my comments above on walking) and will become more so with any development permitted 10 visitor park spaces insufficient Lack of garages and parking for 2 cars The “senior Citizens” flats of 2 beds would result in an extreme number of car parking plots as nowadays it is normal for both partners to have a vehicle, plus visitors, plus care workers etc [This comment relates to east side of Headley Road, beyond the application site] Many of the roads surround the development do not have pavements alongside them. This makes either the pedestrian walk in the busy, dangerous road, or walk along the country footpaths. These footpaths are usually muddy, wet and dark, making some feel unsafe and prone to crime during dark periods. The section of road around the Tyrrells Wood Golf Club sometimes has cars
DM 30 parked alongside it, if cars from the development were to travel down this section of road, it will be dangerous for pedestrians. Drivers routinely fail to stop at existing zebra crossing 200 additional cars will likely lead to a fatal accident Access to The Drive itself for this new access point and its presumed removal of a tree and paring back of hedges will depend on permission being granted by the landowner, TWEA Condition of local roads is unsatisfactory and this scheme will worsen the road surface Developer says there will be no increase in traffic as compared to when Headley Court was in full use, so why then do they say Headley Road needs widening? Headley Road today struggles with the traffic flow, especially large vehicles, I fail to see how it would cope with a ‘new village’ even with the widening proposals High numbers of walkers, cyclists and horse riders – increased traffic will put them at increased danger I am a horse rider and will not be able to The Drive is not included within the pass safely along that part of The Drive red outlined application site – see which is a bridleway. The Drive is a Fig.1 above. Land ownership issues private road, the ownership of which is fall beyond the material planning held by individual resident Trustees under considerations in this application. a trust, of which I am one of 40 or so See 8.12 beneficiaries. I have a lawful right of uninterrupted passage along The Drive and have every right to object to the proposed usage for a housing development. Increase in road traffic will endanger See 8.12 horse riders and cyclists Junction of Tilley Lane with Lee Green Lane and Headley Lane – fast traffic, limited visibility – needs improvement Roads need widening if new housing is to be built Rural lanes too narrow for increased traffic The development would increase the traffic though the centre of Headley which already becomes log jammed when large vehicles pass through or when the M25 is shut. The Drive is a PRIVATE ROAD and not The Drive is not included within the for use red outlined application site – see
DM 31 Fig.1 above. Land ownership issues fall beyond the material planning considerations in this application. See 8.12
The junction of the A24 with Headley See 8.12 Road is already at capacity and waiting times recently have exceeded 5 minutes and this would only increase during rush hour. The rural nature of the area makes it popular with walkers, cyclists and horse riders. The development would make the roads more dangerous for these users by increasing the traffic on these country lanes. There are no sensible speed limits on many roads which are also used by horse riders and cyclists Two MVDC Planning Officers (Development Management and Policy) who have given public presentations at Headley Parish Hall. Both speakers made clear their own concerns about how inadequate the country lanes are serving Headley. Vehicles did not routinely use The Drive The Drive is not included within the from the entrance at the bottom of red outlined application site – see Headley Road to access the car park. I Figure 1. doubt anyone using GPS to find the site Land ownership issues fall beyond the would have been directed via The Drive. material planning considerations in Permanent personnel were aware that this application. The Drive was a private road and See 8.12 respected the good relationship we had with our neighbours, including using the road as an access road. We don’t want wide roads, footpaths or street lighting, that’s why we live in the See 8.10 and 8.12 countryside The narrow roads mean that it is difficult The application has been assessed by for emergency vehicles, fire, ambulance SCC Highways who have raised no etc. to pass along. Nearest fire and concerns on highways safety grounds ambulance, stations are around 2.5 miles subject to conditions and a s106 away. This will increase the amount of agreement. time to get there. Building on open land See 8.12 will also hinder where the air ambulance can land. Junction of Headley Road with A24 is already very congested and dangerous See 8.12 especially when turning right (50mph) Because of the brow in the road and obscurities, joining the A24 is dangerous as you cannot see cars coming along the 50mph stretch. Increase in car numbers
DM 32 will only increase this risk of having an accident. I dispute how 100 extra houses with at least 2 cars would be less traffic, in addition to service vehicles and deliveries accessing the area The majority of cars would not move all week as there is no need to, people lived where they worked and had onsite provisions in the form of catering, entertainment (cinema and bars), coffee shop and shop, so there was little need to come and go each day, hence why the cars were stationary most of the week. Traffic increases considerably if M25 is closed - recently it took half an hour to get from the top of Headley Common Road down to BeaverBrook roundabout. Angle’s traffic survey and projections are flawed – new residents will travel to work Angle’s traffic survey is not credible – does not take into account general increase in traffic since Headley Court was in full use previously and increase in cycling popularity since Olympics In the Applicant’s Transport Assessment Para 3.30 – it is not reasonable to ‘assume that there are no material safety concerns related to increased traffic on rural country roads.’ In the Applicants Transport Assessment para 5.25 – I would ask ‘how can “off-site” public rights of way improvements reduce the impact of increased traffic?’ Inaccurate assessments are the time estimates to get to Leatherhead and Epsom train stations, which are unachievable without breaching speed limits; The nearest station, Leatherhead, is 2.7 miles away, Ashtead is 3.4 miles. Parking at both stations is already insufficient with parking after 9am usually impossible (on a number of occasions I have had to return home and call a taxi to go back to the station). The Mayer Brown report gives a figure of 8 minutes to reach Leatherhead station by car. In practice between 8-9am I have found it essential to allow 20-25 minutes due to traffic at the Headley Road/A24 junction, at the A24 “Downsend” roundabout and in the ring road behind the Swan Centre.
DM 33 No account in the Applicant’s traffic modelling is taken of home deliveries or school runs The survey which was conducted for Dale Amended documents were received View appears to have been undertaken at during the course of this planning a time when the site is unoccupied (Oct application which included the impact 19). This is therefore not indicative of the of Dale View. usual traffic flow when this development See 8.12 was/will be fully occupied. The surveys were conducted in Sept See 8.12 2019. I have concerns that this has not taken into account the impact of the recently closed Reigate Road off Beaverbrook Roundabout which resulted in traffic diverted past Headley Court and substantial queues along Headley Road to the A24 Junction. The same is true at the minute with the closure of roads into Headley Village. Traffic is being diverted past Headley Court to the A24 Junction and then up Reigate Road. Timings to the stations are not indicative of rush hour traffic, particularly to Leatherhead station. You can at times sit for 8 mins to exit the junction at the bottom of Headley Road. Transport Assessment is flawed: Whilst the car parks were large holding circa 355 cars, for the most part the volume of traffic was centralised to one day, namely Monday. From Monday morning to Friday afternoon, 60%-70% of vehicles were static as they belonged to living in military personnel (not on Dale View or Cunliffe) or those attending residential courses. Most cars vacated by Friday afternoon and not return until Sunday evening or Monday morning. There were minimal cars parked at the weekend, more often than not only duty staff. The remaining 30-40% of car park capacity was made up of civilian staff working onsite or day visitors and those would leave the site each day at similar times. I notice that Angle refers to the opportunity for new residents to take taxi rides. MVDC should be aware that a one- way taxi fee to any of Ashtead, Leatherhead or Tattenham Corner stations is in the order of £15, which would be prohibitive for most people, certainly as part of a regular travel plan.
DM 34 Parking at local stations is already stretched If the care homes on the east site do not See 8.12 and 8.18 sell they will be repurposed as private housing which will increase traffic, pollution, demand for doctors etc Angle has now proposed 70 dwellings, See 8.2 which is still too many for this area. The public would like to see a much smaller number, around 20. Change of use from military buildings to See 8.10 residential homes does seem reasonable, but it must be proportionate to the rural surroundings. Conflicts with Local Plan policy H1.3 – See 8.2 Site in rural villages from 1-55 dwellings – this exceeds number Exceeds number of homes considered See 8.2 appropriate by MVDC I would like to acknowledge that the current site at Headley Court will require some development now that it is no longer required as military premises Lack of local infrastructure eg doctors, See 8.12 and 8.18 schools etc; I fail to see how the existing schools could cope with this when they at times struggled to accommodate serving personnel’s children on Dale View. There is also a lack of shops, post offices See 8.12 and 8.18 and other essential business. Mole Valley has said that they will not See 8.10 increase the amount of dwellings in rural areas by 5%, this development is near 40%. No demand for further housing in Headley See 8.2 – only 6 houses have sold in Dale View; At Dale View, 2-3 bed semi-detached properties were put on the open market asking between £375,000- £450,000 each. A further 9 months have passed and as at March 2020 only 4 of the 56 houses have occupants Represents 44% additional houses See 8.2 The development should be considered Only the application that is in front of within an overall masterplan for the whole us can be assessed at this stage. of the Headley Court site, not piecemeal, Any subsequent application for so as to assess inter-relationships adjacent or nearby land parcels would be assessed on the cumulative impacts of any development approved, commenced or existing. The Strategic Housing Market See 8.2 Assessment 2016 accepted by Mole Valley calculates a need for 7814 houses in MV in a 20 year period to 2035 i.e. 284
DM 35 per annum for the whole of Mole Valley. It would be utterly unreasonable of the council to expect Headley, probably your smallest community, to provide a third of that in one development in thee green belt.
This in conjunction with the November The emerging Local Plan has no 2018 Vision Document by Countryside weight attached and policies from the Properties and Wates Developments for NPPF, Core Strategy and current further residential development of the Local Plan have been applied in this Land South of Ashtead and Land East of assessment. Leatherhead which foresees significant See 8.2 development up Headley Road, close to Headley Court will completely change the fundamental architecture of Headley today. Whilst that development is still only at vision stage I believe, I would urge Mole Valley to consider this in conjunction with the Future of Mole Valley Local Plan, as this planning proposal will cause further loss to the area. We need more housing to keep up with growing demand/population This development will mean that the See 8.2 population of Headley will rise by around 74%. This will create two separate communities See 8.12 in Headley – it is essential that they are connected by footpath to the village amenities and feel part of the community; not connected with Headley village; no social cohesion Average income families have clearly See 8.2 decided Headley is not the location for them since they have not been buying houses for sale at Dale View which have more open space and green play areas; Angle Properties must surely know of Clerkenwell Properties’ situation, yet their planning application proposes houses with a smaller footprint and smaller gardens. If Angle Properties wish to recoup its investment of +£30,000,000 for this site, I would suggest it is best advised to apply for permission for what is in short supply. Supported by empirical information from estate agents, permission should be given to build fewer but larger houses with larger gardens. Why two bed care homes when the These comments refer to the site east second bedroom will in the vast majority of Headley Court beyond the red line of cases be for visitors staying over night, boundary of this application site.
DM 36 which in most care homes is catered for Only the application that is in front of by providing bedrooms that can be rented us can be assessed at this stage. over night? Two bed homes will be far Any subsequent application for more easily sold on the open market than adjacent or nearby land parcels would one bed homes if the care home be assessed on the cumulative development proves not to be financially impacts of any development viable. It would appear that the company approved, commenced or existing. who will develop the care facilities may have had problems elsewhere and have therefore prepared for that eventuality. FMVDLP EN4 discusses what an The emerging Local Plan currently acceptable development would look like. has no weight attached and policies The sketches submitted by Angle from the NPPF, Core Strategy and Properties clearly do not meet these current Local Plan have been applied requirements and should not be accepted. in this assessment. FMVDLP EN8 states that development See 8.2 proposals in Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will need to demonstrate they result in protection and enhancement of its special landscape qualities and scenic beauty. Angle Property proposals do not do that. I believe that there is in process a Mole See 8.2 Valley District Local Plan, I’m not convinced that the application by Angle fits with any overall vision for the area in and around Headley I believe the plan submitted is not in Policies from the NPPF, Core Strategy conformity with the existing development and current Local Plan have been plan - what is the point of having a applied in this assessment. development plan if it is to be ignored. I object to the notion of using Government A balance must be achieved through housing targets to destroy Green belt. the application of current national and local policy to meet housing need while protecting other planning issues such as the Green Belt or ecology. MVDC have already assessed the entire See 8.2 82-acre site in the Site Allocations section of the Draft Local Plan as suitable for an Comment has been made that the additional 90 homes. This is mirrored in Council’s Brownfield Land Availability the MVDC 2017 Brownfield Land Assessment (2017) suggests a Availability Assessment and the Strategic number of possible dwellings on the Housing and Economic Land Availability site that is lower than that now Assessment (January 2020). To exceed a proposed. figure reached as a result of expert and diligent assessment by MVDC would It should be acknowledged that the make a mockery of its own policies. Assessment is very clear about its purpose and states:
“3.1.2 - Site allocations will be informed by further community and stakeholder engagement, research and consideration of outstanding issues as Local Plan preparation
DM 37 progresses. In a number of cases, there are significant issues which would have to be addressed before a final decision could be made on the suitability of the site. At this stage, the following assessment – including the estimated potential capacity – is presented without prejudice to any subsequent decision on any planning application which may be submitted.”
The Developer’s Assessment of the site was:
Developer’s Assessment “260-347 (gross) through redevelopment of existing buildings, plus 35 additional units through conversion of Headley Court mansion house, subject to more detailed architectural advice”
And the Council’s was:
“This is a complex site and best way forward, including scope for residential redevelopment, is subject to ongoing discussion. At this stage, it would be reasonable to assume a capacity in the order of 150 dwellings gross. This figure may be reviewed as discussions progress. Since the existing developed areas include 63 existing service dwellings, this would suggest a minimum capacity of approx. 90 dwellings net”
It is not unreasonable to suggest that, following an application the capacity of the site could be identified as somewhere between the two estimates as is the case in this instance. However, returning to 3.12 it is clear that the estimated number of dwellings in this document (and the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (2020) which is based on the data) is not meant to be prescriptive.
The place for this proposal and any See 8.2 relating to Headley Court is in the Local Plan. The two sites should be considered Only the application that is in front of together – holistically, as a whole, not us can be assessed at this stage.
DM 38 piecemeal; in total, it appears that with the Any subsequent application for retirement flats, the Mansion house flats, adjacent or nearby land parcels would 100 new houses, Dale View and Cunliffe be assessed on the cumulative Close the total figure is nearly 350 units impacts of any development approved, commenced or existing. As a resident of Headley and fully appreciating the need for more housing particularly in the South East I have no objection to new homes in the area Not a sustainable location See 8.2, 8.12, and 8.20
Putting housing delivery ahead of A balance must be achieved through sustainability concerns would be the application of current national and misguided and unreasonable in my local policy to meet housing need opinion. while protecting other planning issues such as the Green Belt or ecology. The proposed scheme is a village See 8.10 development in its own right, with a density which is more appropriate to urban living and without any of the necessary facilities. There is no local school; apart from a very See 8.2 and 8.12 small shop in Headley there are no local services so if the development was permitted all the residents would have to use their cars for any journeys.
Incompatible with Government and MVDC A balance must be achieved through declaration of Climate Emergency and the application of current national and commitment to net zero carbon emissions local policy to deliver sustainable by 2050 development while considering other planning issues such as carbon reduction. See 8.15 Lack of public transport – contributing to See 8.12 carbon footprint Proposed increase in 2 storey buildings See Sections 8.3 - 8.5 and built form on existing large areas of open space do not comply with Green Belt policy Consent should be given to convert We can only assess the planning existing buildings which would application in front of us. dramatically reduced embedded carbon and be far less impactful. Demolition waste should be recycled See 8.15 within development New houses should be water efficient and eco / carbon neutral No consideration of centralised heating and waste disposal to improve carbon rating and decrease lorry traffic We will need new housing regulations for houses & housing developments to achieve this. The energy efficiency of
DM 39 homes will need to be assessed on how each built house actually performs in reality rather than on how a model of that type of house performs as is currently the case.
6.2. Societies/groups
The comments and concerns raised by the Parish Council and other societies during both the original and subsequent consultations are summarised in the following tables.
6.2.1. Headley Parish Council
Officer comment & Comments Conditions Report Section Lack of masterplan: application should cover the proposed scale of development across the entire Headley Court Estate in line with the requirement expressed by MVDC to prospective purchasers in the pre-purchase advice. The Indigo letter [pre- MVDC offered advice in purchase advice] foresees the good faith, however, the problems that may arise LPA does not have powers without an agreed Masterplan to force an applicant to and states: apply for planning “MVDC will expect detailed permission for specific land pre-application discussions to parcels nor to provide a take place with the end masterplan. As such, only purchaser or purchasers prior the application that is in to a planning application front of us can be assessed being prepared and submitted at this stage. on the site. Any subsequent application “If the site is sold in separate for adjacent or nearby land lots, developers will be parcels would be assessed required to work together with on the cumulative impacts MVDC to agree a plan for the of any development whole site so the impact of approved, commenced or development proposals can existing. be considered comprehensively.” The intent is clear, that a plan for the entire site – including the current application site, the Mansion House element and the Dale View/Cunliffe Close residential area – should be approved first so that the overall impact of
DM 40 redevelopment can be considered on a comprehensive basis rather than piecemeal. The ‘Response to Representations Submitted by Headley Parish Council, Tyrrells Woods Residents Moreover the details of these Association and Markides revised traffic assessments Associates’ was published were not published before the online on 11.5.20, however, consultation period was re- I am unsure which opened, so have not been document is referred to in scrutinised or validated. this comment. We have endeavoured to publish all documents as quickly as possible. HPC believes that the Affordable Housing obligation associated with development of the Headley Court site should be delivered in the first instance via a financial contribution to enable the See 8.17 delivery of a Rural Exception site on a more sustainable location in the village and that any surplus should be used to provide affordable housing in a more sustainable location elsewhere in Mole Valley. We understand the Housing Density may be a Reserved Matter as it depends on the layout proposed for the site. However even at this stage HPC objects to the massing See 8.10 and housing density described in the documents supporting the Application on the grounds that it conflicts with the character of the area HPC objects to the scale of development and number of houses proposed in this application. It notes that the proposed floor area exceeds See 8.3, 8.5 and 8.10 the permissible replacement of existing buildings in the Green Belt and that no Very Special Circumstances have been put forward to justify this inappropriate development.
DM 41 HPC objects to any proposal which brings increased urbanisation which is out of character with the local area as described in the Landscape SPD. We are looking for a detailed application which minimises this. We believe that increasing adoption of urban highway design features is inappropriate as a means of See 8.10 trying to resolve Highways safety issues. Indeed we would prefer to see proposals which remove many of the urban features historically introduced to support the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre (DMRC) and restore this part of Headley to the rural character enjoyed by the rest of the village. The Parish Council would prefer a housing development which minuses external Lighting conditioned at Reserved lighting and would welcome See 8.13 the reinstatement of the Matters stage wildlife corridor between Ecology – cond.10 Hambleton Wood and Tyrrells Wood. HPC objects to any housing development in Zones 4 or 5 which would constitute unacceptable loss of open- ness in the Green Belt. We believe new development in See section 8.4 Green Belt Zone 3 should be restricted to openness the area previously- designated as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt (MDS) in order to retain the Openness of the Green Belt Buildings granted Personal permission solely to the Minister of Defence should not be counted as permanent buildings which can be See section 8.3 PDL replaced; counting these as permanent would contradict MVDC advice in the Indigo letter which states:
DM 42 “A number of structures and buildings on site have been granted temporary and personal planning permission. MVDC requires these to be removed before the MOD lease expires. If this is not achieved, removal of these buildings will be a condition of the granting of planning permission for new development.” We note MVDC’s requirement in the Indigo letter: “A number of structures and buildings on site have been granted temporary and personal planning permission. MVDC requires these to be See section 8.3 PDL removed before the MOD lease expires. If this is not achieved, removal of these buildings will be a condition of the granting of planning permission for new development.” The building approved under MO/2007/1958 had temporary and personal permission ➢ the building approved under MO/20210/0211 (the Mallard Building) had personal permission; we note that the applicant claims that this building’s footprint can be replaced elsewhere without reducing the open-ness of the Green Belt. As explained in Appendix A we challenge this interpretation of Personal See section 8.3 PDL Permissions. ➢ moreover, the Mallard Building’s permission was granted on the argument that its location within a courtyard meant that its impact on the open-ness of the Green Belt was minimal; in this case its replacement by buildings that are not similarly enclosed would by definition reduce the open-ness of the Green Belt and constitute inappropriate development.
DM 43 We believe the calculations of replacement buildings should be based on total floorspace rather than footprint. This would be reasonable as many of the buildings being replaced are single-storey. See 8.3 The applicant’s own data The proposed floorspace shows that the revised falls under reserved matters proposal for 70 houses still constitutes a 22% increase in Gross External Floor Area even including Mallard House which we believe does not have valid permission. Any buildings on this zone [north-west of The Drive and north-west corner of site] will per se reduce the openness See 8.4 and 8.5 of the Green Belt and constitute inappropriate development Highways – Travel Plan (information on sustainable transport modes) HPC objects to the proposed – cond.6 Access for this number of Construction houses on the grounds that it traffic & parking has not been demonstrated (Construction that the increased traffic and Transport inadequate parking could be Management safely handled at the junction Plan) – cond.7 of Headley Road and The See 8.12 Highways Drive. We further recommend improvements that any such permission be (including hopper withheld until a MasterPlan bus, cycle has been approved covering vouchers & the proposed Access Travel Plan Co- arrangements for Elements 2 ordinator) - S106 & 3 of the Headley Court Agreement estate Visibility improvements at Tilley Lane/Clay Lane junction - cond.8 Local roads are unable to Travel Plan safely accommodate the likely (information on traffic that the proposed scale sustainable See 8.12 of development would transport modes) – generate. We have no cond.6 confidence that the Transport
Plan will lead to an
DM 44 appreciable reduction in the dependency of this development on cars as the primary mode of transport We note that their report [SCC Highways] confirms our view that the location is unsustainable from a transport perspective, but we See 8.12 are disappointed that they have failed to ensure that some of the concerns we raised about traffic modelling have not been addressed. We note that the applicant’s Transport Assessment recognises this dependency by including traffic estimates from their currently proposed Element 2 development in their model. We are concerned that these See 8.12 proposals are currently informal. Following our initial submission, this Transport Assessment has been further updated to make some allowance for traffic from Dale View & Cunliffe Close. Whilst the SCC Highways consultation report refers to changes in the traffic modelling that address one of these assumptions (the See 8.12 omission of increased traffic from Dale View and Cunliffe Close), this change alone fails to meet the concerns we identified. The recognition that additional parking is needed Parking would be demonstrates that the See 8.12 conditioned under assumptions on number of reserved matters trips per day are invalid The revised proposals reduce the number of dwellings from 100 to 70 but increase the total number of parking Parking would be spaces from 210 to 211 with See 8.12 conditioned under the addition of car ports for reserved matters many dwellings. Whilst this acknowledges the unrealistically low parking provision in the original
DM 45 proposal, it is unlikely to meet the residents’ likely need for parking in this unsustainable location. It will not remove the likely need for overspill parking. Safety of horse-riders The Drive is designated as a bridleway, which continues across the Tyrrells Wood Golf Course to Mill Way and on to Stane Street. The only way to Highways access this section of improvements bridleway is from the mini- (including hopper roundabout on Headley Road. bus, cycle vouchers See 8.12 We propose elsewhere that & Travel Plan Co- footpath 513 (South of Zone ordinator) - S106 2) be upgraded to a bridleway Agreement to provide a safer route for horse-riders to reach The Drive. Without this alleviation, the safety of horses and their riders will be put at risk by a significant increase in traffic using the junction. We understand that the applicant intends for the main entrance to Element 2 to be at the “Ambulance Gate” a short distance North of this junction; taken together with the See See 8.12 entrance from The Drive on Element 2 will be Headley Road, this will create considered once an two significant junctions on application is received; at Headley Road within 100 this time it is only possible yards. This has not been to assess the information included in any of the traffic submitted with the current modelling work we have seen. application We believe it would be unsafe to approve a significant increase in traffic accessing Headley Road without this additional junction being considered. We are disappointed that their Report [SCC Highways] has See See 8.12 ignored some of the serious concerns we raised with Surrey Highways We note that the SCC Travel Plan Highways Report concludes (information on that the bus is unlikely to be See 8.12 sustainable viable in the long-term, transport modes) leaving the site with no – cond.6
DM 46 options other than the private Highways car. improvements (including hopper bus, cycle vouchers & Travel Plan Co- ordinator) - S106 Agreement
Travel Plan (information on sustainable transport modes) – cond.6 Construction traffic & parking (Construction Transport Management Narrow lanes unsuitable for Plan) – cond.7 large vehicles, often blocked, Highways unsafe for pedestrians, See 8.12 improvements cyclists, horses; proposal will (including hopper exacerbate this bus, cycle vouchers & Travel Plan Co- ordinator) - S106 Agreement Visibility improvements at Tilley Lane/Clay Lane junction - cond.8
HPC notes the proposals for changes at the A24 junction: o The marking of 2 lanes for traffic exiting from Headley will formalise the current informal arrangement and slightly increase capacity; o The resurfacing with high friction material is a recognition of the dangerous See 8.12 nature of the right-hand turn out of Headley Road; however enabling cars to stop more quickly is a treatment of the symptoms than the cause of the problem; o The proposed works on the exit slip-road from the A24 will have little impact since this part of the junction works
DM 47 reasonably satisfactorily at present. Overall we conclude that these changes will not resolve the safety risks of additional rush-hour traffic using this junction. This junction is beyond the HPC is concerned at the extent of the highways knock-on effect on junction at improvements requested by top of Pebble Hill SCC Highways in respect of this application The current layout of the Lee Green Lane mini-roundabout causes problems due in part to the slightly-staggered junction of the lane leading to the properties around Court Farm; this can lead to confusion over who has right of way. The removal of the pinch-point might improve things somewhat with better visibility of traffic approaching the junction from Headley Lane. However the doming of See 8.12 this mini-roundabout would introduce significant problems for longer vehicles, especially the bus, given the limited space around the junction. We note that the Swept-Path analysis for this junction shows that buses in both directions will have to cross the dome of the junction. This is a special problem for long vehicles turning right out of Lee Green Lane. We note the applicant’s offer to improve the sight-lines at the Clay Lane/Tilley Lane See 8.12 junction, although we note Land ownership is not a that the trees concerned are planning matter in this case no longer owned by the Applicant. We are particularly concerned at the Lee Green Lane/Tilley Visibility Lane junction which has improvements at notoriously poor visibility due See 8.12 Tilley Lane/Clay to the curves and steep banks Lane junction - to the North of the junction cond.8 and the slope of the hill to the South. We note that this was
DM 48 the location of the serious cyclist injury. The application proposes a number of “improvements” to paths in the immediate vicinity of the Headley Court site. Whilst these may improve See 8.12 mobility within the application site, they will do nothing to improve the connectivity (and hence sustainability) of the application site. We also note that no mention has been made of restoring the public right of way running between Elements 1 & 2 of the Headley Court estate; this right of way was suspended in light of possible security threats to DMRC as a potential military target. These risks no longer apply and re- See 8.12 opening the path and Land ownership is not a restoring it as a public right of planning matter in this way would contribute case, however, the existing positively to the PROWs on the site are footpath/bridleway network proposed to be retained within the village. We have and improved been told that the ownership of a small section of this footpath has been transferred to the new owner of the Pigeon Loft House; we are very disappointed that the opportunity to re-open a traditional right of way has been made more difficult. We are unconvinced that the Transport Plan provides a credible way to significantly reduce the dependency on car transport as the primary See 8.12 means of access to the proposed development and we note that the Surrey Highways report reaches the same conclusion. HPC does not oppose the principle of limited new See 8.2 housing forming part of the redevelopment of the full Headley Court estate Proposed development 8.20 cannot be considered
DM 49 sustainable on any of the three aspects – environmental, social or economic. We have no confidence that the proposals in the Transport Plan and Sustainability Assessment will effectively tackle this issue. Growth of 80% in the number of dwellings in Headley is excessive for a small village which is not even recognised See 8.2 as a Rural Village where development is permitted in the current Local Plan or in the Draft new Local Plan We note that this [existing Open space & playing fields] is also the recreation location of the only football (including public pitch in Headley which was See 8.14 access & equipped fairly well-used by local teams children’s play before the DMRC closed. We area) – Section 106 believe the loss of this Agreement sporting facility should be
opposed.
6.2.2. Headley Heath Riders Association (HHHRA)
HHHRA Comments Report Conditions Section/ Officer Note We live in a rural community and want to retain the See 8.10 natural beauty of our area so that we can all enjoy what nature has to offer, including all our local wildlife habitats. People come to Headley especially to escape urbanisation, relax and enjoy their recreational activities of riding, walking, hiking and cycling in a natural beautiful environment that our area offers. There are 850 hard-built stables within two miles of See 8.12 Headley, not including grass kept horses, a lot of local businesses are livery yards – horses have the right to be legally on the road, respected and kept safe. We have one of the highest density equine areas in the country and we are considered a vulnerable road user group. All personal planning permissions that were issued to See 8.3 the MOD should be removed and not taken into consideration in this planned development. As a group we don’t have any objection to development See 8.3 to 8.5 taking place at Headley Court, but we do object to this and 8.10 current plan which has no bearing on the green belt policy and the proposed density is totally inappropriate for the rural area and community in which we all reside.
DM 50 As a village we don’t have the infrastructure or roads to See 8.12 Highways – handle this amount of traffic/people. Travel Plan When the MOD were present, they did have a lot of (information people on site, however, there wasn’t a lot of people on movement as most of the residents, patients and staff sustainable were in residential employ. Also, residents, visitors or transport suppliers would travel straight out onto the A24 and not modes) – come through the village, so we had very little traffic cond.6 impact by their presence. Construction We would ask that the current footpath that exists on traffic & the left hand side of Clay Lane/Headley Road junction parking and runs around the boundary of the Headley Court (Construction buildings on that side of the site, be made into a joint Transport bridleway/and footpath to allow riders to get off road to Management get to Tyrrells Wood Drive. It does have the width Plan) – between the boundaries to allow for this. cond.7 We do endorse in the application to change the current Highways footpath to a joint footpath/bridleway from the Drive at improvements Tyrrells Wood down to the Staine Street bridleway, (including again it has the width to achieve this process with very hopper bus, little alteration cycle Although we have created many off road bridleways vouchers & over the years, there are still many areas that we Travel Plan cannot get off road, and therefore must use the local Co-ordinator) roads alongside cars and cyclists. - S106 The British Horse Society safety department has carried Agreement out a road safety survey, which has been passed to Visibility Highways so hopefully their recommendations will be improvements implemented. at Tilley The proposed road widening by the wall is dangerous Lane/Clay as it will only speed up drivers Lane junction - cond.8
Increased air pollution from additional traffic will affect See 8.12 Construction people and wildlife And 8.13 Environmental Management Plan (including Air Quality) – cond.9 Landscape Ecological Management Plan including 15m buffer to Ancient Woodland and protection of SNCI – cond.10 Protected species – cond.11
DM 51
6.2.3. Headley Residents Action Group (HRAG)
Report Section/ Officer HRAG Comments Conditions Note Angle has failed to engage The proposal was subject to properly with local and key a public consultation stakeholders; insufficient process prior to its community engagement submission. The application has been assessed against national planning guidance and development plan policies. See below under heading of ‘Main Planning Issues’ Angle has represented This case has been certain people including an assessed against national MP and Councillor as and local planning policies supporting the development so this assertion would have when in fact they object to it no bearing on the Officer’s recommendation The working relationship This case has been fully between Angle and MVDC assessed against national appears too close as if the and local planning policies planning decision was a so this assertion would have ‘done deal’ no bearing on the officer’s recommendation; The Officer’s assessment will be presented to the Development Management Committee who will determine the application. The developer has assumed See: EIA Screening Opinion, that no Environmental Impact MO/2019/2101 Assessment will be required Decision date: 10.6.20 and there is no opportunity Decision: No Environmental for public consultation in Statement required. relation to the screening See Appendix to this report. opinion – this gave the Note: the Screening Opinion impression of a preconceived process does not involve decision by MVDC public consultation.
It was disingenuous and This case has been misleading to reduce the assessed on the basis of number of housing from 250 documents submitted in to 100 without clarifying that relation to the current the development area would application only. be similarly reduced Angle’s materials focussed This case has been on a pleasant appearance, assessed on the basis of however, they will not be documents submitted in building the houses so this is relation to the current irrelevant and confusing; the application only. The public did not understand the reserved matters application
DM 52 application would be in will undergo a public outline only consultation process so opportunity to submit representations on building appearance will be available. The questionnaire responses The representations show an overwhelming lack received during the 2no. of support for the consultations on the current development application have been taken into consideration in this case. Most people did not As above. complete a questionnaire due to data protection issues Many elderly residents are The consultation process is unrepresented in the the same for all applications consultation due to lack of and complies with both internet access Statute and the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement. We are not aware of a single The representations resident who supports this received during the 2no. application consultations on the current application have been taken into consideration in this case. MVDC should refuse this This case has been fully application assessed against national and local planning policies in order to justify the Officer’s recommendation. The application will be determined by the Development Management Committee There is a general The Planning Performance expectation that, where a Agreement relates to the Planning Performance number of pre- and post- Agreement is in place, the application meetings the resultant application that is applicant may request from put to the public for comment the LPA and the estimated is one that is deemed likely timescale in which the to be acceptable from a application should be planning and community determined. perspective. All advice provided to the applicant is given in good faith and on the basis of national and local planning policy. The application has undergone a public consultation process and the representations received
DM 53 have been duly considered by the Case Officer. The application will be determined at Planning Committee. It is particularly disappointing The amended proposal is that MVDC have now considered acceptable in allowed an amendment to go planning terms by the Case forward that remains Officer who has manifestly objectionable to recommended the the community on so many application be approved, fronts. however, the application will be determined at Planning Committee. Given the current Covid-19 The original consultation crisis, coupled with the short period was carried out prior time period for response to to the national Coronavirus this amendment, we have lockdown measures and the been unable to carry out any representations received at face to face engagement that that time have been duly assisted many residents in considered. their original responses. We The Council offers the public anticipate that many the opportunity to submit residents will be struggling at representations via the this difficult time with health, MVDC website, via email or work and childcare issues by post. As such, it is and it is most unfortunate considered that the that they are having to add to lockdown situation would not their stress by, yet again, have hindered this process. taking the time to object to the continued plans for overdevelopment at Headley Court. It is not possible for us to All of the points raised in the reach each and every original consultation together affected party who may wish with any new points raised in to object to this application the re-consultation have and, hence, MVDC should been taken into bear in mind that the consideration in the following incorrect and assessment of this misleading statement from application. Montagu Evans may have deterred some from objecting on the mistaken assumption that the amendment is bound to be accepted : “all consultation responses have now been received and there are no in-principle objections to the original proposal.” Proposal forms See 8.10 overdevelopment and appears crammed
DM 54 We would like a scheme which remembers the sacrifice of our war heroes, not dense, soulless housing The location is unsuitable due to its rural community nature The development would See 8.12 Highways – impact the safety, enjoyment Travel Plan and everyday countryside (information on living of our community sustainable transport modes) – cond.6 Construction traffic & parking (Construction Transport Management Plan) – cond.7 Highways improvements (including hopper bus, cycle vouchers & Travel Plan Co- ordinator) - S106 Agreement Visibility improvements at Tilley Lane/Clay Lane junction - cond.8
HRAG organised a petition The representations objecting to received during the 2no. overdevelopment of this site consultations on the current which has 86 signatures application have been taken into consideration in this case. Assessment should be of a The LPA does not have holistic masterplan powers to force an applicant to apply for planning permission for specific land parcels nor to provide a masterplan. As such, only the application that is in front of us can be assessed at this stage. Any subsequent application for adjacent or nearby land parcels would be assessed on the cumulative impacts of any development approved, commenced or existing.
DM 55 The proposed retirement Only the application that is in village on the east side will front of us can be assessed likely become residential, at this stage. Any posing an even greater risk subsequent application for of overdevelopment adjacent or nearby land parcels would be assessed on the cumulative impacts of any development approved, commenced or existing. Proposed number and See 8.10 density is out of keeping with rural surrounds The development would See 8.10 have an urban new town feel (abundance of concrete, tightly packed, small homes) out of keeping with MVDC character assessment as rural Car ports have been The car ports are shown in included in the latest the indicative drawings and application to supposedly fall under reserved matters. deal with the issue of inadequate parking provision but are not in keeping with a rural setting or the character of the area The parkland setting and See 8.8 relationship to the mansion house have not been fully considered – should be refused The Ancient Woodland and See EIA Screening Opinion, Landscape prevalence of wildlife make MO/2019/2101, appended to Ecological this a sensitive area – this report. Management Plan residents want to see a full See 8.13 including 15m Environmental Impact buffer to Ancient Assessment Woodland and protection of SNCI – cond.10
Housing in a non-sustainable See 8.2 to 8.7 location is not a special circumstance in the Green Belt The existing car park does See 8.4 and 8.5 not impede the openness of the Green Belt but building on it would Green Belt impact is not a The open space is proposed desktop calculation which to be reduced from 2.5ha to relies upon self serving 2.4ha which is considered parameters of footprint and acceptable in this case. floorspace but a matter for See 8.3 to 8.7
DM 56 the the human eye and commonsense. If one simply looks at the indicative plans for the development there is less open space than before. MVDC must appreciate that The figures provided for where previously unbuilt land open space do not include becomes garden it has been gardens. In addition, note turned into developed land that the application site was and Green Belt has been not open to public access irrevocably destroyed. This is under its previous significant because a garden ownership, however, the is not open land for proposal includes a large appreciation by the public area of publicly accessible and can be subjected to green space to include further destruction by further restoration of existing areas householder extensions and of hardstanding. permitted developments, See 8.3 to 8.7 particularly sheds and outbuildings. The proposed car ports are The car ports are shown in no doubt left out of Angles’s the indicative drawings and calculations of built form, fall under reserved matters. although, as mentioned, the figures are impossible for the lay person to fully understand. Car ports still have a negative impact upon Green Belt and are built form. They readily lend themselves to further devopment and further impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. Many residents have Householder extensions are reported to us cases where assessed under a different applications for modest clause of NPPF paragraph householder development 145 – that is c) ‘the have been refused on extension or alteration of a grounds of detrimental harm building provided that it does to the openness of the Green not result in disproportionate Belt. additions over and above the size of the original building’. This assessment is different due to the nature of the current case, which has been assessed in the main under NPPF paragraph 145 g). See 8.3 Two storey buildings See 8.3 to 8.7 replacing single storey, with tiny gardens and no front
DM 57 garden will be detrimental to Green Belt openness and have a greater impact than previous MOD use Local people report having See 8.2 and 8.3 planning applications for modest householder development such as a wooden gate refused on Green Belt grounds; there is no justification for Angle to be treated differently. All temporary and personal No temporary structures structures should be taken have been included in the down forthwith and should PDL calculations. not be relied on by a See 8.3 developer. HRAG requested that MVDC so do prior to any planning application for the site for environmental reasons and to avoid confusion over the lawful redevelopment of the site Local horse riders oppose See 8.12 Highways – the development due to Travel Plan increased traffic (information on Angle’s proposed bus sustainable service is uncertain in transport modes) viability, uptake and funding – cond.6 and roads are narrow and Construction unsuitable for the bus traffic & parking Development will encourage (Construction private cars which Transport contravenes Council’s Management Climate Emergency Motion Plan) – cond.7 18.6.19 Highways Current traffic levels are improvements unacceptable; this will (including hopper increase trafffic which nearby bus, cycle junctions cannot vouchers & accommodate Travel Plan Co- Increase in traffic increases ordinator) - S106 risk of accident, injury or Agreement death to road users Visibility Headley is a uniquely equine improvements at area with 857 stables within Tilley Lane/Clay 2 mile radius – there are a Lane junction - large number of horses in the cond.8 area which are ridden on roads on a daily basis while there are high numbers of horse-related incidents on roads each year in UK
DM 58 Proposed highways works The works are largely Highways – may increase traffic speeds designed to improve visibility Travel Plan and exacerbate dangers for on nearby roads and (information on horse riders enhance safety for all road sustainable users as well as providing transport modes) upgraded bridleways. – cond.6 See 8.12 Construction traffic & parking (Construction Transport Management Plan) – cond.7 Highways improvements (including hopper bus, cycle vouchers & Travel Plan Co- ordinator) - S106 Agreement Visibility improvements at Tilley Lane/Clay Lane junction - cond.8
The Drive is private and Land ownership is not a permission required for material planning development there consideration in this case See 8.12
Number of visitor parking See 8.12 This will be spaces is inadequate and will conditioned at lead to overspill in reserved matters neighbouring roads We appreciate the need for See 8.2 housing MVDC has assessed the whole of the 82 acre Headley Court site as being able capable of supporting 90 additional dwellings; this is reinforced in the emerging Local Plan The proposed housing density and type does not match demand as evidenced by lack of sales at Dale View Headley is not a sustainable The emerging Local Plan location (neither well has no weight attached and connected nor readily policies from the NPPF, accessible to services) and Core Strategy and current this is evidenced by its Local Plan have been applied in this assessment.
DM 59 absence from emerging See 8.2 and 8.12 Local Plan policy CS1 Whilst retirement living is a Only the application that is in use that tends to attract more front of us can be assessed public sympathy and support, at this stage. Any many residents, including subsequent application for some with direct, personal adjacent or nearby land experience in the care parcels would be assessed sector, fear that such a on the cumulative impacts of model lacks financial any development approved, viability. Given the current commenced or existing. pandemic the future of the See Section 8.8, Heritage care home model looks even more uncertain. Turning care home use into residential is thus commonplace and poses an even greater risk of overdevelopment.
6.2.4. Surrey Dormouse Group (SDG)
Report Section/ SDG Comments Conditions Officer Note There will likely be disturbance See Section 8.13 Ecology to dormice and to their habitat Ecology Construction during and post construction. Environmental Not all nest tubes were A series of surveys has Management Plan installed correctly, being at or will be undertaken (including Air such an angle that they were such that the evidence is Quality) – cond.9 unusable by a dormouse; the not taken from one Landscape survey effort is therefore survey alone. Evidence Ecological considered to be insufficient to of dormouse presence Management Plan meet the requirements, as laid near the site including 15m out in the government demonstrates that the buffer to Ancient guidelines, in order to prove nest tubes have been Woodland and presence or likely absence of usable by dormice at protection of SNCI dormice. some point. – cond.10 In order to ensure that any See Section 8.13 Protected species development on this site is Ecology – cond.11 carried out within the law with regards to dormice, a NE EPSML is required A reduction in the size of the See Section 8.13 development is recommended, Ecology along with substantial mitigation measures and suitable habitat enhancements, to ensure that the impact on dormice and other protected species, both during and after development, is reduced. We recommend that the See Section 8.13 Biodiversity Net Gain metric is Ecology
DM 60 applied and that a gain of above the minimum 10% is achieved. We would recommend See Section 8.13 appropriate mitigation and Ecology enhancements be provided in relation to hazel dormice, other protected species and their habitats. Widening of roads and public footpaths is likely to have a significant impact on the connectivity around and across the site and any loss of habitat must be kept to a minimum, whether temporary or permanent. Given that dormice are confirmed as present on the western boundary of the site and on the East Site, it is reasonable to assume for the purpose of licensing that dormice are present right across the site. Any works to suitable dormouse habitat on this site must therefore be carried out under a Natural England European Protected Species Mitigation Licence.
6.2.5. Tyrrells Wood Estate Association (TWEA)
Report Section/ Officer TWEA Comments Conditions Note Having carefully assessed the The application has been planning application with the assessed against national independent advice of a planning guidance and number of technical experts, development plan policies. whose reports are included with See below under heading this submission, there are very of ‘Main Planning Issues’ clear reasons for refusing the application. There are equally clear reasons for a judicial review if the application is granted planning permission; our client is prepared to take any necessary legal steps to ensure that a wholly inappropriate development of the site does not take place. A number of the supporting The submitted documents Ecology documents submitted with the have been reviewed by Construction planning application have been the Council’s expert Environmental
DM 61 independently assessed by our consultees, including Management team of independent technical Surrey Wildlife Trust and Plan (including experts to contain flaws and Natural England, who Air Quality) – factual inaccuracies. This have found the proposals cond.9 includes key ecological issues acceptable subject to Landscape and heritage – where there is a conditions. Ecological need for the decision maker to Management apply section 66 of the See 8.8, 8.10 and 8.13 Plan including Planning (Listed Buildings and 15m buffer to Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Ancient We therefore urge the Council Woodland and to carefully consider all protection of elements of the application in SNCI – cond.10 detail and to seek specialist Protected advice on these matters where species – appropriate. cond.11
The proposed development See 8.3 to 8.5 would increase the spread of development across the site. The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it would have a detrimental impact on the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. The applicant has not identified any very special circumstances which could possibly outweigh the harm that this development would cause to the Green Belt in this location. In summary we ask the Council See 8.2 to refuse this application and to continue to work positively with the applicant to ensure a more appropriate approach to the redevelopment of the site as a whole, with the site masterplanned in its entirety to ensure that the impacts of any development on the Green Belt, as well as in terms of (for example) infrastructure, services, ecology and transport are properly assessed. We highly recommend that this takes place through the Local Plan review, given that the planning system remains ‘plan- led’ and that this process is transparent in terms of its
DM 62 integral stages of evidence preparation, public consultation and independent assessment by a Planning Inspector. TWEA would accept and See Sections 8.2 on Landscape support an appropriate small- Housing Supply & Ecological scale and sustainable Location, 8.10 on Management Plan development of the site which Character & 8.13 on including 15m would result in about 20 Ecology buffer to Ancient dwellings being built. We have Woodland and reduced our assessment of the See 8.2, 8.10 and 8.13 protection of SNCI potential of the site for – cond.10 accommodating development due to the outcomes of the technical work that we have carried out, for example, the requirement for appropriate Ancient Woodland buffering. The proposal cannot possibly See 8.2, 8.12 and 8.20 Highways – be described as sustainable Travel Plan development, which is the key (information on principle of the planning sustainable system. The proposal in its transport modes) – current form conflicts with each cond.6 of the three strands of Construction traffic sustainability set out within the & parking NPPF. (Construction The development is not Transport compliant with the NPPF or the Management Plan) development plan by simple – cond.7 virtue of its location, where the Highways overwhelming majority of trips improvements would be reliant on the use of (including hopper the private car. The bus, cycle vouchers development should be refused & Travel Plan Co- as it is clearly contrary to the ordinator) - S106 development plan. Agreement Visibility improvements at Tilley Lane/Clay Lane junction - cond.8
This proposal would constitute See 8.2 and 8.10 a high density redevelopment which would be a 40% increase to the number of dwellings in Headley, defined by the Council itself as an unsustainable location, unsuitable for any quantum of development. Natural England – a key Natural England was statutory consultee on an consulted on this application of this nature – has application and their
DM 63 not been consulted, despite response was received on raising concerns regarding the 26 May & published on screening opinion request MVDC website on 1 June due to delays resulting from national Coronavirus lockdown situation. See 8.13 The application scheme is See 8.13 Landscape highly likely to result in the Ecological deterioration of the adjacent Management Plan Ancient Woodland, which would including 15m conflict with the NPPF and buffer to Ancient Natural England Standing Woodland and Advice protection of SNCI – cond.10
The EcIA submitted in support Ecology of the application does not Construction include sufficient information to Environmental screen out any likely significant Management effect on the Mole Gap to Plan (including Reigate Escarpment SAC, Air Quality) – specifically effects on air quality cond.9 and effects on Bechstein’s Bat Landscape Ecological Management Plan including 15m buffer to Ancient Woodland and protection of SNCI – cond.10 Protected species – cond.11
Deficiencies in terms of the See 8.13 Ecology protected species Construction assessments: Environmental No survey or assessment of Management the effects of tree removal Plan (including on roosting bats Air Quality) – No survey or meaningful cond.9 assessment of the effects of Landscape the proposed development Ecological on foraging or commuting Management bats Plan including Inadequate survey on Great 15m buffer to Crested Newts, meaning Ancient that the conclusions in the Woodland and EcIA cannot be evidenced. protection of Whilst Dormice have been SNCI – cond.10 confirmed in habitat immediately adjacent to the
DM 64 site, the EcIA scopes Protected Dormice out of the species – assessment and only a cond.11 precautionary approach to site clearance is proposed. Several planning applications Householder extensions have been refused by MVDC are assessed under a on Green Belt grounds but different clause of NPPF decision-making should be paragraph 145 – that is c) clear and consistent; for ‘the extension or alteration example: of a building provided that MO/2018/1001 it does not result in MO/2020/0444 disproportionate additions MO/2019/1895 over and above the size of MO/2019/0907 the original building’. This assessment is different due to the nature of the current case, which has been assessed in the main under NPPF paragraph 145 g). In the case of MO/2019/0907, the proposal did not comply with the exemptions within paragraphs 145 or 146 of the NPPF, therefore the proposal was considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and no VSC were considered to justify the harm. See 8.3 to 8.7
The proposed development is The emerging Local Plan contrary to both existing and has no weight attached emerging policy. It continues to and policies from the extend well beyond the area of NPPF, Core Strategy and the site which is identified in current Local Plan have adopted policy RUD21 as been applied in this appropriate for limited infill and assessment. redevelopment in the Green In relation to Local Plan Belt. The existing buildings on policy RUD21, this has the site are shown in brown been applied in relation to hatching on the plan below – the principle of housing and any redevelopment and land supply (see 8.2) as limited infilling is restricted to allocated land for housing, these parts of the site however, in terms of any assessment of its impact on the Green Belt, the more recent NPPF (2019) policies have been applied, (see 8.3 to 8.7).
DM 65 In terms of emerging policy - The emerging Local Plan the emerging Local Plan policy has no weight attached for Headley Court (SA41) also and policies from the excludes both temporary NPPF, Core Strategy and buildings and buildings subject current Local Plan have to a personal permission from been applied in this ‘existing development. assessment. However, these are largely Temporary buildings have included in what the applicant been excluded from PDL has defined as the ‘footprint’ of calculations. the existing development. See 8.3 Submitted figures do not A full assessment of measure the volume which is a building volume and cubic measurement. The height will be undertaken increase in volume tends to be at reserved matters. used as a starting point for measuring the impact of a development on the openness of the Green Belt. The measurements submitted This element falls under are based on the dwellings only reserved matters and is and do not include the contained within proposed car ports, which have illustrative plans only. been introduced into the proposal. Whilst there are different styles This element falls under of car ports, some of which are reserved matters and is more enclosed than others, we contained within would assume that these would illustrative plans only. be of a permanent construction and that this new element of the proposal will therefore add a considerable additional bulk of built form which will clearly have additional impacts on the openness of the Green Belt. Several appeals dismissed on: This application is in volume causing harm to outline only and the matter openness of Green Belt of volume and building despite significant housing heights will be assessed land supply shortfall under reserved matters. greater spread of Every case is assessed development than existing on its own merits and in non-sustainable location this case, the Case Officer despite acceptance by SCC has concluded that the of financial contribution to proposal would not result bus service in more than substantial introduction of buildings on harm to the openness of existing hardstanding/areas the Green Belt in the area devoid of buildings so would of PDL and that VSC have greater harm to outweigh any harm openness and volume of resulting from the buildings difficult to ascertain encroachment of buildings beyond the PDL, not least
DM 66 due to outline nature of by the compensation proposal provided by the proposed restoration to green space of existing areas of hardstanding. See 8.3 to 8.5 Notwithstanding the Officer recommendation to approve, the application is to be determined by Planning Committee.
7. Main Planning Policies
7.1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) Section 2: Achieving Sustainable Development Section 5: Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Section 11: Making effective use of land Section 12: Achieving well-designed places Section 13: Protecting Green Belt land Section 14: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 16: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
7.2. Mole Valley Core Strategy (2009) CS1: Where Development will be directed CS2: Housing Provision and Location CS3: Balancing Housing Provision CS4: Affordable Housing CS13: Landscape Character CS14: Townscape, Urban Design and the Historic Environment CS16: Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities CS15: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation CS18: Transport Options and Accessibility CS19: Sustainable Construction, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation CS20: Flood Risk Management
7.3. Mole Valley Local Plan – Saved Policies (2012) ENV4: Landscape Character ENV12: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance ENV22: General Development Control Criteria ENV23: Respect for setting ENV24: Density of Development and Space About Buildings ENV25: Landscape Design of New Developments ENV49: Areas of High Archaeological Potential ENV50: Unidentified Archaeological Sites ENV67: Groundwater Quality ENV69: Contaminated Land MOV2: The Movement Implications of Development MOV5: Parking Standards MOV15: Provision for Cyclists in Development Proposals RUD21: Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt
DM 67
7.4. Other documents MVDC Affordable Housing SPD (2018) Affordable Housing SPD Addendum - June 2019 MVDC Landscape SPD (2013): Box Hill Landscape Character Area MVDC Brownfield Land Availability Assessment (2017) National Design Guide (2019) SCC Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance (2018) Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Green Belt (July 2019)
8. Main Planning Issues
8.1. The main planning issues for consideration are: Housing supply and location Previously developed land within the Green Belt The effect on the openness of the Green Belt of Area 1 The effect on the openness of the Green Belt of Area 2 Whether very special circumstances justify Area 2 Green Belt conclusion Impact on the setting of nearby Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments Impact on the Site of Archaeological Potential Impact on the character of the surrounding rural area Effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties and future occupiers Highways and parking Ecology and trees including Ancient Woodland Sustainability Drainage, flood risk and contaminated land Affordable Housing CIL Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities Section 106 Agreement The Planning Balance
8.2. Housing supply and location
8.2.1. Policy context:
At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that, in terms of the decision-making process, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, and, where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless: i. ‘the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance [habitats or designated sites including land designated as Green Belt]; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.’
Paragraph 118 states:
DM 68 ‘Planning policies and decisions should: […] c.) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes […] d.) promote and support the development of under-utilised land and buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained and available sites could be used more effectively’.
Core Strategy policy CS1, Where Development will be Directed (A Spatial Strategy), states that: 1. ‘New development will be directed towards previously developed land within the built-up areas of Leatherhead, Dorking (including North Holmwood), Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham. These settlements have been identified as the most sustainable locations within the District in terms of the level of community services and facilities available, access to public transport and supporting infrastructure. 2. Limited development (including redevelopment) and infilling will take place on previously developed land within the identified larger rural villages and infilling only on previously developed land within the small rural villages of the District. 3. In the countryside, development will be considered in the light of other policies within the Core Strategy and the provisions of PPG2 'Green Belts', PPS7 'Sustainable Development in Rural Areas' and Policy C4 'Landscape and Countryside Management' of the South East Plan. [The national and regional policy guidance has been replaced by the NPPF] 4. The Council will review the existing Green Belt boundary through the Land Allocations Development Plan Document to ensure that there is sufficient land available to meet development requirements throughout the Plan period.’
Core Strategy policy CS2, Housing Provision and Location, states: ‘The Council will make provision for at least 3,760 net dwellings within the District between the period 2006 and 2026 […] The Council's indicative Housing Trajectory shows that the District's housing requirement can be met without the need to use Green Belt / greenfield land until around 2016-2017.’
Core Strategy policy CS3, Balancing Housing Provision, encourages the provision of 2 and 3 bedroomed units.
Local Plan Policy RUD21, Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt, states: ‘The Council has identified the following major developed sites in the Green Belt: - Brockham Park The site has now been developed for housing - RAF Headley Court [see Figure 7] - Queen Elizabeth Training College, Leatherhead
Within these sites defined on the Proposals Map, limited infilling and redevelopment will be allowed subject to the following criteria: 1. Infilling should: (a) have no greater impact on the purposes of including land in the Green Belt than the existing development; (b) not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and
DM 69 (c) not lead to a major increase in the developed proportion of the site. 2 . Redevelopment should: (a) have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less; (b) contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the use of land in Green Belts; (c) not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and (d) not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity).’
Figure 7. Local Plan policy RUD21 Proposals Map extract
DM 70 The application site is included in the Council’s Brownfield Land Availability Assessment (2017) as part of the wider Headley Court site, HD001, on the policy basis that: ‘Saved Local Plan policy RUD21 identifies Headley Court as a major developed site in the Green Belt and states that limited infilling and redevelopment may be appropriate. The NPPF does not carry forward the “Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt” designation, however the Local Plan policy reflects the fact that there is a substantial amount of built development on the site already. The NPPF allows for redevelopment of previously developed land in the Green Belt, subject to an assessment of impact on openness and no conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.’
The assessment outlines the issues to be resolved in terms of bringing forward the site for residential development, such as transport, rural character and the impact on the openness of the Green Belt, summarising: ‘This is a complex site and best way forward, including scope for residential redevelopment, is subject to ongoing discussion’.
It should be acknowledged that the Assessment is very clear about its purpose and states: ‘3.1.2 - Site allocations will be informed by further community and stakeholder engagement, research and consideration of outstanding issues as Local Plan preparation progresses. In a number of cases, there are significant issues which would have to be addressed before a final decision could be made on the suitability of the site. At this stage, the following assessment – including the estimated potential capacity – is presented without prejudice to any subsequent decision on any planning application which may be submitted.’
The developers indicated that the (whole) site was capable of accommodating between 260-347 dwellings gross. The Council’s assessment concluded an assumed capacity in the order of 150 dwellings gross.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that, following an application the capacity of the site could be identified as somewhere between the two estimates as is the case in this instance. However, returning to 3.12 it is clear that the estimated number of dwellings in this document (and the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (2020) which is based on the data) is not meant to be prescriptive.
The Council can currently only demonstrate 3 years of Housing Land Supply and as such, the policies in the Development Plan relating to housing land supply are to be regarded as out of date. As such, the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development at para.11, the ‘tilted balance’, is engaged in this case unless the application of policy, such as that relating to the Green Belt, provides a clear reason for refusal.
In assessing the benefits in terms of Housing Land Supply, the proposals would contribute a net increase of up to 70no. new residential units to the housing market and the district’s wider housing supply.
8.2.2. Location: The site lies in a rural area within the Parish of Headley of which local amenities include a pub, a village shop and a church, (see Figure 8).
DM 71 The site lies approx. 0.7 miles or a 16min walk along country lanes to the local pub. The site is served by the route 21 bus which runs between Crawley and Epsom via Dorking and Leatherhead. The nearest rail station is Leatherhead, a 3 mile drive or bus ride to the north-west. There are several primary schools within a 3 mile radius of the site and several secondary schools within a 3 to 6 mile radius.
Figure 8. Extract of Headley Parish map with application site top left in approx. location marked ‘Tyrrell’s Wood’ (www.headleysurrey.org.uk)
In terms of the proposed location and housing provision, the submitted Response Note, dated 27.3.20, states: One of the main over-arching principles of sustainable development is to re-use and regenerate brownfield and previously developed land. This should be done as a priority and preferred option to greenfield development. (p.3) Hence the site and its redevelopment are sustainable as it is providing regeneration and reuse of previously developed brownfield land to meet a housing need that would otherwise require the development of greenfield land.
The addition of up to 70no. new dwellings would be likely to result in increased footfall for the local amenities, although these are limited, which would be consistent with the social and economic role of sustainable development and attracts weight.
8.2.3. Housing type:
While the current application is in outline only with the detailed housing design and layout for reserved matters, an indication of the number of each
DM 72 housing type proposed is provided in Schedule 2, Unit Floor Area, dated 28.4.20, as shown in the table below:
Unit type Quantum 2 bed 11 3 bed 30 4 bed 24 5 bed 5 TOTAL 70
Table 2 - indicative number per housing type
Given the large percentage of 2 and 3 bedroomed units (59%), the indicative housing mix would be considered to comply with policy CS3 in principle.
8.2.4. Principle of residential development at this site:
Given the countryside location of the proposal, in line with Core Strategy policy CS1 point 3, the development will be assessed against other relevant local and national policies. By reason that: the ‘tilted balance’ (NPPF para.11 presumption in favour of sustainable development) is engaged; the application site is included in Local Plan policy RUD21; and the site is included in the Council’s Brownfield Land Availability Assessment of 2017 for residential development; the site is, therefore, considered acceptable in principle as a location for residential development, subject to the following application of relevant national and local policy.
8.3. Redevelopment of previously developed land in the Green Belt
8.3.1. Policy context:
The application site lies entirely within land designated as Green Belt as referred to in paragraph 11. d) i). As such, an assessment of the application against the NPPF Green Belt policies is required.
Paragraph 141 states: ‘Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.’
Paragraph 143 states: ‘Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.’
Paragraph 144 states: ‘When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.’
DM 73 Paragraph 145 states: ‘A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: a) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in buildings for agriculture and forestry; b) the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use) for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments; as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; c) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; d) the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; e) limited infilling in villages; f) limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the development plan (including policies for rural exception sites); and g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would: - not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or - not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.’
8.3.2. NPPF exceptions:
In this case, the application has been submitted on the basis that the proposal would comply with paragraph 145 point g). As such, an assessment of the application against these points is required.
The definition provided in Annex 2: Glossary of the NPPF (2019) for previously developed land is as follows:
‘Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures; land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape.’
A recent appeal decision, ref. APP/P0119/X/17/3177336, dated 22.02.2018, defines the term ‘curtilage’ as follows:
DM 74 5. ‘In the absence of any statutory or authoritative definition of the term ‘curtilage’, the Court of Appeal [Dyer v Dorset CC (1988) 3 WLR 213] has held that the term bears its restricted and established meaning connoting a small area forming part and parcel with the house or building which it contained, or to which it was attached. […] 6. The relevant authorities were later reviewed by the High Court [McAlpine v SSE(1995) JPLE B43], and three identifiable characteristics of curtilage defined: firstly, it is confined to a small area about a building; secondly, it must be intimately associated with land that is undoubtedly within the curtilage; and thirdly, physical enclosure is not necessary, but the land needs to be regarded in law as part of one enclosure with the house.’
A number of existing buildings are present on the application site, as shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10
Figure 9. Map extract showing existing buildings in section of site to north of The Drive
DM 75
Figure 10. Map extract showing existing buildings in section of site to north of The Drive
The part single, part two storey building, numbered 4.3 in Figure 10, together with the single storey buildings numbered 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 are visible in the map extract in Figure 11, which shows these buildings to date from 1955 or earlier.
Figure 11. Map extract from Ordnance Survey 1955
DM 76
The single storey buildings numbered 5.2 and 5.3 on Fig.9 above are visible in the map extract in Figure 12, which shows these buildings may date from 1961 or earlier.
Figure 12. Map extract from Ordnance Survey 1961
It seems clear that those buildings listed above as shown on the historic maps fall within the NPPF definition of Previously Developed Land (PDL) cited above. In terms of the remainder of the existing buildings within the application site, it needs to be established which of these can be considered as PDL for the purpose of this planning application. A number of buildings across the wider Headley Court area were granted planning permission with conditions attached regarding a personal benefit to the applicant, the Secretary of State for Defence.
8.3.3. Para.145 policy application:
DM 77 The site’s Green Belt location is acknowledged above and the applicant has provided Counsel’s opinion with regard to the appropriateness of redevelopment. The applicant states: ‘Paragraph 145g confirms that the complete redevelopment and limited infilling of previously developed land within the Green Belt would not be ‘inappropriate’ where there would be no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than existing. Furthermore, redevelopment of previously developed land that would deliver affordable housing on land within the Green Belt which would contribute to meeting an identified need is regarded as ‘appropriate’ where the harm would not be ‘substantial’’.
It is sensible to first consider Government’s advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (NPPF) relating to such schemes. Generally new buildings in the Green Belt are to be regarded as inappropriate development; the importance of this will be considered later. However, para.145 is the subject of a closed list of exceptions with the most relevant being para.145(g): g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land [1], whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would: - not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development [2]; or - not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt [3], where the development would re-use previously developed land [4] and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority. [5]’.
The Courts have confirmed that the interpretation of policy is a matter of law whereas the application of policy is a matter of planning judgement. I have inserted numbers in bold above to indicate where planning judgements have been made. The numbers are generally cumulative save the two limbs indicated by bullet points which are alternatives. The first question is, therefore, whether the land is previously developed land (as defined). If not, the exception does not apply.
8.3.4. Permanent and temporary permissions:
It is important to note the distinction in para.145(g) between permanent and temporary buildings. A number of the buildings at Headley Court were granted either a temporary and/or a personal consent and such permissions have an impact on whether the building in question fits within para.145(g).
Any planning permissions pertaining to existing buildings within the application site that include a specific planning condition requiring the removal of the structure at the end of a designated period constitute temporary structures in accordance with the NPPF definition of PDL and should, therefore, be discounted from any PDL calculations. However, legal advice provided to the Council confirms that whether or not a structure is permanent is a matter of planning judgement for the Council. The Council could lawfully conclude in these circumstances that the planning permissions that do not include specific conditions requiring the removal of buildings are permanent and also included within those deemed to be PDL. Finally there are those buildings that were given planning permission for the Secretary of State for Defence. The advice remains that in the absence of any conditions expressly requiring the removal or restoration of a building by
DM 78 a specific date (or on the cessation of use by the beneficiary of the original planning permission) the building can be treated as PDL for the purposes of this application.
I have reviewed the planning history of the site and my findings are summarised in Table 3 below.
Previously Developed Land No. Planning Building (in sqm) Personal/Temporary Permission * Ref. Use Foot Floor print Area (GEA) 4.1 MO/2007 Temporary See MO/2015/0680 0.0 0.0 /1958 two storey MO/2012 accomm- See MO/2015/0680 /1747 odation MO/2015 Personal: This permission shall enure /0680 solely for the benefit of the applicant, The Secretary of State for Defence. Reason: A strictly personal permission is granted in this case having regard to the special circumstances appertaining thereto. Temporary: The building hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 30th July 2018 in accordance with a scheme of work to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: Permission is given in this case, having regard to the circumstances appertaining to the property in question, but only on a strictly limited basis so that the position may be reviewed in the light of circumstances prevailing at the expiry of the permission. Enforceable (within 10 years) 4.2 MO/2010 Two storey Personal: This permission shall enure 577.45 1154.90 /0211 accommod solely for the benefit of the applicant, ation The Secretary of State for Defence. Reason: A strictly personal permission is granted in this case having regard to the special circumstances appertaining thereto. Temporary: The temporary site offices, storage building and access road hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition within 60 days of the completion of the ward accommodation building hereby permitted in accordance with a scheme of work to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of work shall include details of a landscaping scheme to replace the vegetation removed/damaged on and adjacent to
DM 79 the site of these temporary buildings and access road. Reason Permission is given in this case, having regard to the circumstances appertaining to the site in question, but only on the basis that vegetation which is removed or damaged during the construction period is to be satisfactorily reinstated following completion. Removal/restoration condition does not refer to the two storey accommodation building 4.3 None Sergeants’ No planning history 1724.10 3448.2 available Mess, Constructed prior to 1955 NAAFI Recreation Facility, (2 storeys) 4.4 MO/88/1 Kitchen No personal condition 671.82 671.82 538 single No removal/ restoration condition storey More than 10 years ago extension to west MO/77/0 Single No personal condition 936 storey No removal/ restoration condition extension More than 10 years ago to north - Junior Ranks Dining Room None Original No planning history available part of this Constructed prior to 1955 building 4.5 None Ration No planning history 111.10 111.10 available Store Constructed prior to 1955 MO/88/1 Ration No personal condition 538 Store No removal/ restoration condition Extension More than 10 years ago 4.6 None North-west No planning history 201.77 201.77 available section of Constructed prior to 1955 NAAFI Recreation Facility 4.7 MO/84/0 Toilet No personal condition 124.14 124.14 812 extension No removal/ restoration condition to dining More than 10 years ago MO/2003 area of No personal condition /0633 NAAFI No removal/ restoration condition Recreation Facility 4.8 None Building No planning history 25.54 25.54 available north-east of NAAFI Recreation Facility (not on QGIS) TOTAL: 3435.92 5737.47
DM 80 5.1 None Mechanical No planning history 359.85 359.85 available Transport Buildings no.1 5.2 None Mechanical No planning history 343.17 343.17 available Transport Possibly constructed prior to 1961 Buildings no.2 5.3 None Stores No planning history 613.29 613.29 available Possibly constructed prior to 1961 MO/85/1 Stores No planning conditions 111 Extension 5.4 None Buildings No planning history 109.24 109.24 available to north (south of larger carpark MO/2012/0 075 & MO/2012/1 318) 5.5 ? Electricity 32.41 32.41 substation 5.6 MO/83/0 Garages No personal condition 212.26 212.26 158 No removal/ restoration condition TOTAL: 1670.22 1670.22
GRAND 5106.14 7407.69 TOTAL: * Numbers relate to those denoting existing buildings in Figs 9 and 10 above
Table 3 – Planning History
Taking into account the research undertaken and the lawful position explained above, I am of the opinion that only the two-storey accommodation block (no. 4.1) cannot be included in the PDL calculations. The position for buildings 4.3 to 5.2 is clear. Building 4.2 has no condition requiring its removal, contrary to the model conditions. Also, it does have conditions requiring the removal of structures where that was intended. In my opinion the better view is that building 4.2 is permanent.
8.3.5. PDL assessment:
A calculation has been undertaken to quantify how much land can be considered as PDL. It is important to note that there is no exact, precise mechanism for doing so, as can be seen from the definition above. It is not necessary to demonstrate that the land is 100% PDL to make a planning judgement that it is, substantially, PDL. Clearly if, for example, a percentage approach shows that a significant proportion is not PDL, then a conclusion that the relevant land is PDL may become harder to sustain. Therefore, the respective proportions of PDL and open space are valuable and discussed below.
The fact that some land proposed to be redeveloped within the application site may not fulfil 145(g) simply means that, in relation to that proportion of the land, it can reasonably be tested against the guidance that applies to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
DM 81
Table 4 below shows the areas of existing built footprint, hardstanding and green space, as surveyed by the applicant. Using these figures, the existing area of PDL (including built footprint and hardstanding) would equate to 23,100 sqm of a total site area of 67,660 sqm, or 34%. On this basis, the application site cannot be considered to substantially constitute PDL as a whole.
Notwithstanding this assessment, the outline proposal, following amendments, would actually decrease the area of developed land from 34% to 27% in terms of built footprint and hardstanding. This is due to the following: 14% proposed reduction in built footprint; 28% reduction in hardstanding; and 10% increase in green space.
Building Permanent Green Space Footprint sqm Hardstanding sqm sqm Existing 5106 17994 44569 Proposed 4487 14075 49108 Difference -619 -3919 +4539
Table 4 - Comparative areas, (Area Schedule Summary, ref. A11454, dated 28.04.2020)
As such, where any of the proposed development would be sited beyond the extent of existing PDL, then this would comprise inappropriate development, which would, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt and would be subject to assessment in accordance with the NPPF and PPG.
8.3.6. Development in the Green Belt beyond previously developed land:
Where the development clearly uses open space beyond the PDL, para. 145(g) does not apply to that land, even if the parts of the scheme on PDL land would otherwise comply with para 145(g). Therefore, further consideration of planning harm to the openness of the Green Belt need only be applied to that area that is outside of the PDL, together with other planning harms, being weighed to see whether the benefits overall clearly outweigh the harms and so indicate that Very Special Circumstances exist.
The indicative layout (see Figure 13) shows that there could be up to 7no. new dwellings erected in a central location of the northern-most part of the site, (to the north of building 5.4 and to the east of the north-western car park), which would be beyond the extent of PDL, (marked ‘A’ in a red oval). There could also be approx. 4no. new dwellings in the far south-eastern corner of the site, closest to the Headley Road/Clay Lane/Lee Green Lane junction, which would be considered to lie beyond the existing built envelope, (marked ‘B’ in a red oval), however, this area is considered to form part of the curtilage of the existing buildings in accordance with the definition of ‘curtilage’ above. The area of land surrounding building 4.1 is clearly intimately and physically associated with the barracks, as well as being further defined by military fencing. As such, segment B is considered to be sited within PDL for the purposes of the Green Belt assessment.
DM 82
1.3.
1.1.
Figure 13. Extract from indicative drawing, C0900, Rev.P1, Open Space Analysis, showing site as proposed (areas beyond existing built envelope shown by red ovals added by Officer)
While the majority of the proposed residential zones would be sited on PDL, a small proportion of the proposed residential development would lie beyond the existing built envelope as shown in Figure 13. As such, we can conclude that there are two parts to the proposed residential development in terms of Green Belt policy:
1. that which lies within the PDL, (we will call this ‘Area 1’), which comprises the majority of the proposed residential land use (approx. 63 proposed dwellings or 90%) in principle; and 2. that which lies beyond the PDL, (we will call this ‘Area 2’), which comprises the minority (7 proposed dwellings or 10%) of the proposed residential land use in principle.
8.3.7. Officer conclusion on whether or not the proposed development lies within previously developed land:
The proposed dwellings within the PDL, (Area 1), will need to be further assessed against the requirements of NPPF paragraph 145 g) to determine whether they comply (in principle) with the exceptions list for appropriate development in the Green Belt. This assessment is contained in Sections 8.4 and 8.5 below.
The area of proposed development beyond the PDL, (Area 2 – marked ‘A’ in Figure 13), comprises inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. As such, this element will be further assessed in Sections 8.6 and 8.7 below.
8.4. Area 1: Effect on the openness of the Green Belt
DM 83
8.4.1. Policy context:
NPPF paragraph 133 states that: ‘The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.’
The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) for Green Belt land states: ‘Assessing the impact of a proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, where it is relevant to do so, requires a judgment based on the circumstances of the case. By way of example, the courts have identified a number of matters which may need to be taken into account in making this assessment. These include, but are not limited to: openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects – in other words, the visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as could its volume; the duration of the development, and its remediability – taking into account any provisions to return land to its original state or to an equivalent (or improved) state of openness; and the degree of activity likely to be generated, such as traffic generation.’
Local Plan policy RUD21, states that: ‘Redevelopment should: a) have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less; b) contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the use of land in Green Belts c) have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less; d) contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the use of land in Green Belts; e) not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and f) not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity).’
8.4.2. Case law:
The Supreme Court gave guidance very recently regarding the correct approach to question of planning judgement in R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and others) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3; [2020] PTSR. The central guidance provided by this case should be borne in mind by the Planning Committee.
At [22] Lord Carnwath noted: ‘The concept of ‘openness’ in paragraph 90 of the NPPF seems to me a good example of such a broad policy concept. It is naturally read as referring back to the underlying aim of Green Belt policy, stated at the beginning of this section: ‘to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open …’ Openness is the counterpart of urban sprawl and is also linked to the purposes to be served by the Green Belt. As PPG2 [Officer Note: previous Government Policy now replaced by the NPPF] made clear, it is not
DM 84 necessarily a statement about the visual qualities of the land, though in some cases this may be an aspect of the planning judgement involved in applying this broad policy concept. Nor does it imply freedom from any form of development. Paragraph 90 shows that some forms of development, including mineral extraction, may in principle be appropriate, and compatible with the concept of openness. A large quarry may not be visually attractive while it lasts, but the minerals can only be extracted where they are found, and the impact is temporary and subject to restoration. Further, as a barrier to urban sprawl a quarry may be regarded in Green Belt policy terms as no less effective than a stretch of agricultural land’.
At [25] he made the key point that: ‘[Openness] is a matter not of legal principle, but of planning judgement for the planning authority or the inspector’.
8.4.3. Openness:
With regard to Area 1 only, the second question arising from NPPF para. 145 described above is whether that part of the proposed residential development contained within the PDL would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing (permanent) development. If this test is also satisfied, then Area 1 of the development will not be inappropriate development.
While the detailed design of the dwellings and layout is for reserved matters, drawing no. D1001, Rev.P2, Proposed Land Use Parameters Plan, (Figure 14), has been submitted for consideration.
DM 85
Figure 14. Extract from Proposed Land Use Parameters Plan, D1001, Rev.P2
These proposed land use zones can be compared with the existing areas of development shown in Figure 15 below.
DM 86
Figure 15. Extract from Existing Layout […] Land Uses, F1001
In terms of the proposed envelope of development, the residential zones (Figure 14) in Area 1 would be contained within the existing area of built form and hardstanding.
As Table 4 above shows, there would be a reduction in hardstanding (from 17,994sqm to 14,075sqm) across the whole site and a reduction in the built footprint (from 5,106sqm to 4,038sqm (at 90% of the total for Area 1 only)), and a corresponding increase in open space, (from 44,569sqm to 49,108sqm). In addition, when compared with the existing built form, which is fairly dense, the proposal would have a more spacious layout, with smaller individual units of built form, more widely spread across the proposed residential zones.
As per the PPG, harm to the openness of the Green Belt is assessed in terms of: spatial or volumetric considerations, the visual impact, the duration or remediability of the development, and the activity level generated. These considerations are discussed below.
8.4.4. Spatial or volumetric impact:
The proposed residential zones in Area 1 would comprise two storey, pitched-roofed dwellings with driveways to the front and private gardens to the rear, (subject to reserved matters). The proposal would have a domestic scale and a spacious layout interspersed with private gardens and driveways, according to the indicative drawings and the Planning Statement, although the detailed design is subject to reserved matters. A large area of
DM 87 open green space would be retained to the north-east of the site, in an area of existing playing fields and car parking.
In terms of the quantum of development, the proposed Gross External Floor Area (GEA) for Area 1 (at 90% of the total) would be 8,130.6sqm, which represents an increase of 9.8% over the existing (7,408sqm). This is due to the two storey nature of all of the proposed units, whereas some of the existing built form is of single storey, predominantly sited to the north of The Drive. However, much of the existing built form to the south of The Drive is relatively tall and bulky, owing to its utilitarian design.
While the residential zones in Area 1 proposed to replace areas of existing hardstanding would have a greater volumetric impact over the existing situation, the more dispersed spread of development and smaller scale of the buildings, due to the domestic nature of the proposal, as compared with the institutional nature of the existing buildings, is considered to have a lesser impact on the spatial openness of the Green Belt, overall, than the existing military buildings, which have a higher density and mass.
Volumetric calculations in terms of comparing the existing and proposed built form would be subject to reserved matters and will be assessed fully at that stage.
8.4.5. Visual aspect:
The majority of the proposal would be sited within the existing parameters of PDL, which includes both built form and hardstanding. In some areas, where existing hardstanding would be replaced by residential zones, there would be some impact on the visual openness of the Green Belt, namely in the north-western corner of the site. However, this section is well-screened by mature vegetation and woodland along the western and northern site boundaries and is separated by a substantial distance from public views from The Drive and Headley Road, which would be predominantly screened by the rising ground levels and retained trees and vegetation, (subject to reserved matters).
The proposed housing, given the relatively low heights proposed (two storeys) would be substantially screened from views westwards by retained and proposed trees and hedging along the site boundaries (subject to reserved matters), together with screening provided by localised topography. The impact on the visual openness of the Green Belt from the south of the site is also considered negligible due to the proposed units being lower in height than the existing buildings in the southern portion of the application site (see Figure 16 below).
DM 88
Figure 16. Photos of existing buildings to south of The Drive
The existing lawful use of the site comprises large areas of car parking, accommodating approx. 313 cars, as shown in Figure 17, Figure 18, Figure 19 and Figure 20. It is considered that the visual impact of the existing car park on the northern side of The Drive, which has an overall length of over 137m, results in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt as existing. The proposed development includes the reinstatement of this car park and hardstanding to open green space. As such, it is considered that the existing substantial harm to the visual openness would be removed.
Figure 17. Photo showing existing car park on northern side of The Drive, (Google Street View 2009)
Figure 18. Photo showing existing car park on northern side of The Drive, (Google Street View 2009)
DM 89
Figure 19. Photo showing existing car park on northern side of The Drive, (Google Street View 2009)
Figure 20. Aerial photos (2006) of existing lawful use for car parks on northern side of The Drive (left image) and north-west corner of site (right hand image)
The following aspects of the proposal are considered to result in a less harmful visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt in comparision with the existing built form and hardstanding: the proposed development in Area 1 of approx. 63no. dwellings, by reason of their two storey nature and spacious layout, (subject to reserved matters), would be of a lower scale and density as compared with the existing built form sited to the south of The Drive, which has a prominent position and is visually dominant from views southwards from The Drive, and westwards from Headley Road, particularly adjacent to the main entrance to Headley Court mansion site and the nearby listed structures, (as discussed further in 8.8 and 8.1092); the proposed reduction in car parking spaces from 313 to an indicative number of 190 (at 90% of 211), which would, in principle, be spread across the built envelope, (to the front of each dwelling), rather than substantially aligning The Drive, a site which is visually prominent from public views along Headley Road and The Drive; the proposed screening provided by the land use zoning and soft landscaping; and the removal of the north-western car park and reinstatement of some of this area to green space forming the 15m buffer to the Ancient Woodland; and
DM 90 the removal and reinstatement to open green space of the larger car park aligning The Drive; and the replacement of the existing hard boundary treatments comprising some military-style, metal, mesh fencing, with open soft landscaping (excluding the Ancient Woodland buffer zones which would comprise fencing in parts).
As such, the proposed residential development in Area 1 is considered, in principle, to result in an improvement over the existing situation in terms of visual harm to the openness of the Green Belt.
8.4.6. Duration and remediability:
The impact on the openness of Area 1 of the proposal in terms of duration and potential remediation would be equivalent to that of the existing buildings and hardstanding which have been included in the PDL calculations above: the proposed erection of approx. 63no. new dwellings, in principle, would also result in buildings and access roads of a permanent nature. As such, there would be no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing (permanent) development in terms of permanence.
8.4.7. Activity levels:
The impact on the openness of Area 1 of the proposal in terms of the activity generated onsite by the proposed residential development would be considered less harmful than that of the existing lawful use. Table 9 below divides the baseline traffic data for the whole site (including the Headley Court mansion house site) on a 50/50 basis. Evidence indicates that the traffic generated by the former military/hospital use at 50% of the total amounts to 96 trips per day at peak times, whereas the proposed residential use (at 90% of the total only for Area 1) would generate 102 trips. While this results in an increase over that existing, it must be acknowledged that the majority of the car parking provision for the whole site (including the Headley Court mansion house site) is located within the application site. As such, it can be assumed that the level of vehicular activity generated by the former military/hospital use of the application site would have been greater than that reflected in Table 9.
In regard to the proposed car parking, this would represent an overall reduction from 282 (at 90% of the site total) to an indicative number of 190 (at 90% of the total for Area 1 only). Given the increase in home working during the recent Coronavirus lockdown situation, it is possible that these trips may decrease, although this has not been factored into the traffic modelling.
On balance, the projected activity levels, with a projected 6.25% increase in trip generation (at 90% of the total for Area 1 only) and 33% decrease in parking (at 90% of the total for Area 1 only) is considered to result in an equivalent level of harm to the openness of the Green Belt through activity as compared with the existing lawful use.
8.4.8. Purpose of the Green Belt:
DM 91 NPPF para.133 states that the purpose of Green Belt policy is ‘to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open’. As such, the proposed residential land uses contained within the PDL (Area 1) are considered not to result in harm to this purpose by reason that they do not extend the existing built envelope. Furthermore, the redevelopment of a site containing PDL to provide up to 70no. new homes would make best use of a partially brownfield site, precluding further release of Green Belt land elsewhere in the district to fulfill the housing land supply shortfall, and is also mitigated by the compensatory area of land to be removed from the existing PDL and restored to open green space.
8.4.9. Officer conclusion on the effect on the openness of the Green Belt of Area 1:
Form of harm from Level Aspect of inappropriate Assessment of openness development harm Spatial Elements of two storey This is mitigated by the No built form would be overall reduction in greater introduced into some density and percentage than areas where there is of built form and existing hardstanding or single hardstanding across the storey built form, or site, together with the grassed areas overall increase in green contained within the space, as well as the established curtilage of decrease in bulk and the PDL mass of the existing built form to the south of the site Visual Elements of two storey This is mitigated by No built form would be siting these dwellings on greater introduced into some land of relatively lower than areas where there is ground level (in the existing hardstanding or single northern parts of the storey built form, or site) and which would be grassed areas screened by built form contained within the by retained and established curtilage of proposed soft the PDL landscaping. Significant weight should also be afforded the removal of the large existing car parks and the reinstatement of that on the northern side of The Drive Fig. 20 above) to open green space Duration The development This is considered No would be of a equivalent to that greater permanent nature existing in terms of than permanence and is existing considered to be mitigated by the compensatory area of land to be removed from
DM 92 the existing PDL and restored to open green space Activity 211no. car parking This is considered No spaces and an minimal given the greater increase in vehicle reduction in car parking than trips is projected in Area 1 of 39% and existing minimal increase in traffic projected Purpose Elements of two storey The redevelopment of a No built form would be site containing PDL to greater introduced into some provide approx. 63no. than areas where there is new homes in Area 1 existing hardstanding or single would make best use of storey built form, or partially brownfield site, grassed areas precluding further contained within the release of Green Belt established curtilage of land elsewhere to fulfill the PDL within a housing land supply Green Belt location shortfall, and is mitigated intended to prevent by the compensatory urban sprawl and area of land to be preserve openness removed from the existing PDL and restored to open green space
Table 5 – Assessment of level of harm to openness of Green Belt arising from development in Area 1
The openness test is a quintessential matter of planning judgement and it is the view of the officer that the element of the proposal referred to in this report as Area 1 does not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development.
As such, referring back to the sequential approach to assessing compliance with NPPF para.145 g) in 8.3.3, it is clear that Area 1 accords with the first two questions: g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land [1], whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would: - not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development [2]; or - not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt [3], where the development would re-use previously developed land [4] and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority. [5]’.
As a result of the above assessments, there is no requirement to assess the subsequent questions, 3, 4 and 5.
8.5. Area 2: Effect on the openness of the Green Belt
8.5.1. Openness:
DM 93 As shown in Figure 13 above, there would be one proposed area of development sited beyond the extent of PDL, (Area 2), to the far north of the site (‘A’) ,which would introduce built form into a currently open part of the site. As such, this element of the proposal is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt by reason that it does not comply with any of the listed exceptions in the NPPF. In this case, the next step is to assess the harm arising from the proposed development in Area 2 on the openness of the Green Belt followed by a consideration of the benefits arising from the scheme.
The harm to the openness of the Green Belt resulting from Area 2 will be assessed in terms of: spatial or volumetric considerations, the visual impact, the duration or remediability of the development, and the activity level generated. These considerations are discussed below.
8.5.2. Spatial or volumetric impact:
The proposed residential zone in Area 2 would comprise approx. 7no. two storey, pitched-roofed dwellings with driveways to the front and private gardens to the rear, (subject to reserved matters). The proposal would have a domestic scale and a spacious layout interspersed with private gardens and driveways, according to the indicative drawings and the Planning Statement, although the detailed design is subject to reserved matters.
As Table 4 above shows, there would be an increase in the built footprint in the undeveloped part of the site of approx. 449sqm (for Area 2 only, at 10% of the total). However, a large area of open green space would be retained to the north-east of the site, in an area of existing playing fields and car parking.
DM 94 Figure 21. Extract from drawing, C0900, Rev.P1, Open Space Analysis, showing site as existing (PDL to be reinstated as green space shown by red oval and letter ‘C’ added by Officer)
Area 2, shown as ‘A’ in Figure 21, encroaches beyond the existing PDL, and extends the built envelope. While this group of approx. 7no units would introduce built form into an existing area of open space, the proposal is considered proportionate when considered in the context of the site as a whole, since the space around these buildings would be significantly greater than that existing. This residential zone would have a length of approx. 96m, however, it would effectively be compensated by the removal of the area of PDL (marked ‘C’ in Figure 21) along the north side of The Drive, which extends over 100m from south-west to north-east.
While there would be an increase in built footprint in Area 2, which would be harmful by reason of inappropriateness, there would be a corresponding decrease in existing hardstanding. As such, this encroachment (Area 2) is considered, on balance, to result in less than substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.
Volumetric calculations in terms of comparing the existing and proposed built form would be subject to reserved matters and will be assessed fully at that stage.
8.5.3. Visual aspect:
In terms of the visual impact on the openness of Area 2, this area has a significantly lower ground level than the adjacent sections of the site to the east and south, as discussed in more detail in 8.108.5 below. The difference in ground levels from this area to the higher ground to the east is approx. 2m and, to the south, approx. 4m. As such, this element would be substantially screened from views from the south and east by the topography. In addition, according to the indicative layout, this section would also be substantially screened by retained trees (subject to landscaping details under reserved matters) along the northern and eastern boundaries, as well as a wooded area immediately to the south, and proposed new trees on the northern side of The Drive, adjacent to the proposed access.
The area of proposed new development in the western section of the land north of The Drive and the land to the south of The Drive (Area 2) would have minimal impact on the visual openness of the Green Belt as compared with the existing situation.
The proposed housing, given the relatively low heights proposed (two storeys) would be substantially screened from views westwards by retained and proposed trees and hedging along the site boundaries (subject to reserved matters), together with screening provided by localised topography. The impact on the visual openness of the Green Belt from the south of the site is also considered negligible due to the proposed units being lower in height than the existing buildings in the southern portion of the application site.
The existing lawful use of the site comprises large areas of car parking, accommodating approx. 313 cars, as shown in 8.4.5 above. It is considered
DM 95 that the visual impact of the existing car park on the northern side of The Drive, which has an overall length of over 137m, results in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt as existing. The proposed development includes the reinstatement of this car park and hardstanding to open green space. As such, it is considered that the existing substantial harm to the visual openness would be removed.
The following aspects of the proposal are considered to counter-balance the visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt of Area 2: the proposed screening provided by the land use zoning and soft landscaping including the retention of 70% of existing trees; the removal and reinstatement to open green space of the larger car park aligning The Drive; and the lower ground level of Area 2 which would afford a substantial degree of visual screening to the proposed dwellings.
As such, the proposed residential development in Area 2 is considered, in principle, to result in only moderate harm in terms of visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
8.5.4. Duration and remediability:
The impact on the openness of the Area 2 in terms of duration and potential remediation would be would result in approx.7 buildings and one spur road (in principle) of a permanent nature. However, the harm resulting from Area 2 is considered to be mitigated by the compensatory area of land to be removed from the existing PDL and restored to open green space. As such, there would be an equivalent impact on the openness of the Green Belt as compared with the the existing (permanent) situation in terms of permanence.
8.5.5. Activity levels:
The impact on the openness of Area 2 of the proposal in terms of the activity generated onsite by the proposed residential development would be considered less harmful than that of the existing lawful use. As discussed above, Table 9 divides the baseline traffic data for the whole site (including the Headley Court mansion house site) on a 50/50 basis. As such, it can be assumed that the level of vehicular activity generated by the former military/hospital use of the application site would have been greater than that reflected in Table 9.
Evidence indicates that the traffic generated by the former military/hospital use at 50% of the total would amount to 9.6 trips per day at peak times (pro rata’d for Area 2 at 10%), whereas the proposed residential use for Area 2 only would generate 1.13 trips (at 10% of the whole proposal). While this results in an increase over that existing, this increase is considered negligible.
In regard to the proposed car parking, this would represent an overall reduction from 31 (at 10% of the total) to an indicative number of 21 (at 10%). Given the increase in home working during the recent Coronavirus lockdown situation, it is possible that these trips may decrease, although this has not been factored into the traffic modelling.
DM 96
On balance, the projected activity levels, with a projected 88% decrease in trip generation and 32% decrease in parking for Area 2, are considered to result in a reduced level of harm to the openness of the Green Belt through activity as compared with the existing lawful use.
8.5.6. Purpose of the Green Belt:
NPPF para.133 states that the purpose of Green Belt policy is ‘to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open’.
The proposed residential use beyond the existing PDL, (Area 2), is considered, on balance, to result in less than substantial harm to the purpose of the Green Belt by reason that it would be counter-balanced by the reinstatement of the existing car park to the north of The Drive as green space. In addition, the retention of 96% of the existing open space both within the areas of PDL and areas beyond the PDL is also considered to provide compensation.
8.5.7. Officer conclusion on the effect on the openness of the Green Belt of Area 2
The harm resulting from Area 2 to the openness of the Green Belt is summarised as follows:
Aspect of Form of harm Assessment Level of openness from harm inappropriate development Spatial Built form would This is mitigated by the Minimal be introduced into overall reduction in density an area, and percentage of built form (segment A in and hardstanding across Figure 1), beyond the site, together with the PDL overall increase in green space, and compensated for by the reinstatement to green space of the existing car park aligning the northern side of The Drive to a similar extent (at approx. 100m in length) Visual Built form would This is mitigated by siting Minimal be introduced into these dwellings on land of an area, beyond relatively lower ground level PDL and which would be screened by built form within the PDL envelope (Area 1) and by soft landscaping. Duration Built form would This is considered Moderate be introduced into equivalent to that existing in an area, beyond terms of permanence and is PDL considered to be mitigated by the compensatory area
DM 97 of land to be removed from the existing PDL and restored to open green space Activity Built form would Area 2 represents 10% of Negligible be introduced into the projected traffic. As an area, beyond such, this is considered PDL, with approx. minimal given the overall 14 car parking reduction in car parking spaces. across the whole site. Purpose Built form would This area is considered to Minimal be introduced into be mitigated by the an area, beyond compensatory area of land PDL, intended to to be removed from the prevent urban existing PDL and restored sprawl to open green space
Table 6 – Assessment of level of harm to openness of Green Belt resulting from development in Area 2
In view of the assessment above, the cumulative impact of the harm to the openness arising from Area 2 is considered, in the view of the case officer, to be minimal overall in light of the compensation provided by various factors such as the restoration of an extensive car park to green space and the screening provided by soft landscaping and natural topography. Therefore, the next step with regard to Area 2 is to consider the potential very special circumstances which were submitted by the applicants in the event that the Council were to consider the proposal, or part thereof, as inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
8.6. Area 2: Very Special Circumstances
8.6.1. Policy Context:
NPPF paragraph 143 states: ‘Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.’
Paragraph 141 states: ‘Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance their beneficial use, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.’
Paragraph 144 states: ‘When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.’
Paragraph 118 states: ‘Planning policies and decisions should: c.) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes’.
DM 98 As discussed above, if a development is deemed inappropriate development, an assessment of other considerations must be undertaken to determine whether there are very special circumstances to justify the development.
8.6.2. Inappropriate development:
As discussed in 8.3.78.3.7 above, the residential areas contained within the existing envelope of built form (Area 1) are considered to comply with NPPF para. 145 g) and, therefore, to comprise appropriate development in the Green Belt. However, the proposed residential land use zone beyond the existing PDL (Area 2) does not comply with the NPPF exceptions list and comprises inappropriate development, which, by definition, is harmful to the Green Belt. As such, a balancing exercise is required to determine whether ‘very special circumstances’ (VSC) exist, which clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, in line with NPPF para.144.
8.6.3. Assessment:
The applicants have posited several considerations within the Planning Statement as very special circumstances to justify the development should the LPA determine that the scheme (or part of it) constitutes inappropriate development, which are listed in Table 7.
Figure 21 above shows that the existing car park on the northern side of The Drive, (in the red oval marked ‘C’), together with the north-eastern side of another existing car park, (in the red oval marked ‘D’), would be reinstated as green space. In the case of ‘D’, this would form part of the 15m buffer to the Ancient Woodland. In the1.5. case of area ‘A’, the reinstatement of the existing car park on the northern side of The Drive, (marked as ‘C’ in Figure 21), as open green space, is considered to compensate for the increased spread of built form.
1.7. In addition, the proposed open space to the north-east of the site, is identified as available for use by the general public, whereas, under the previous situation (when the site was used by the MOD), this section of the site was used for car parking and private playing fields for the occupants. The proposed reinstatement of the car park to green space and the opening up of this part of the site to the public, would comply with the aims of Local Plan policy RUD21 b) and NPPF para.142. ‘to provide access [to the Green Belt]; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.’
In this case, as discussed in Section 8.178.17 below, the proposal would include: 6no. on-site units of Affordable Housing within the scheme; this would equate to 50% of the additional floor space after the VBC; and is in excess of the 40% policy requirement. Council policy encourages affordable housing to be ‘pepper potted’ throughout a development rather than being concentrated in one location. The applicant has confirmed that would be the case in this instance. The
DM 99 applicant has also indicated that this affordable housing could not be brought forward in the absence of the approx. 7no. proposed dwellings beyond the PDL in Area 2, for reasons of the VBC and viability.
8.6.4. Balancing:
Potential Harm Potential VSC Weighting (to column 2) Openness: Applicant notes in Planning Significant weight should spatial – introduction Statement that car park on be afforded to this. of built form into area northern side of The Drive free of existing (Area C) to be removed and development; reinstated as open green permanence – these space with environmental 7no. dwellings would benefits be permanent Applicant notes in Planning Significant weight should Statement that the car park be afforded to this since on northern side of The Drive this is considered to to be reinstated as open compensate for Area 2 in green space, together with terms of impact to the the retained green space openness of the Green immediately to the north, Belt. would be publicly accessible for recreation Applicant notes in Planning Limited weight should be Statement that proposal afforded to this since only addresses MVDC shortfall in approx. 7no. new housing land supply and the dwellings would be sited proposal would contribute to within Area 2. addressing this shortfall by up to 70no. new dwellings [as amended]. Applicant notes in Planning Providing affordable Statement that proposal housing is a requirement would contribute to meeting of the NPPF and the Mole MVDC need for affordable Valley Core Strategy. housing by allocating 50% of the net increase in existing While this is a public floorspace. benefit, it is a policy requirement at 40%.
The proposed provision here would be over and above the requirement (at 50%).
In addition, the agent has confirmed that due to viability and the VBC, the 6no. affordable housing units could not be included within the scheme in the absence of Area 2.
DM 100 As such, significant weight should be afforded to this.
Applicant notes in Planning Limited weight should be Statement that proposal afforded to this since Area would enable housing delivery 2 lies beyond the PDL. on a site containing previously developed land Applicant notes in VSC Table Limited weight should be ME dated 5.6.20 that proposal afforded to this since it is would reduce pressure on not the role of planning other Green Belt land for decisions to define the housing purposes Green Belt boundary or site allocations. Applicant notes in VSC Table Limited weight should be ME dated 5.6.20 that proposal afforded to this since Area would make efficient use of 2 lies beyond the PDL. land and optimise the site potential for housing Applicant notes in VSC Table Some weight should be ME dated 5.6.20 that the site afforded to the allocation is ‘identified as one of the and the extent of the proposed allocations that is opportunity, but it is suitable in principle for important not to double housing development due to count the PDL point. its status as PDL in the Green Belt. It is one the larger housing opportunity sites that can be brought forward ahead of the Local Plan’. Applicant notes in VSC Table Moderate weight should ME dated 5.6.20 that proposal be afforded the activity would reduce existing harm to levels which apply to the Green Belt openness in due whole site while significant to proposed reduction in weight should be afforded previously high level of to the restoration of the activity as military hardstanding as rehabilitation centre and compensation for Area 2. visual impact of extensive car parking, secure boundary treatment and lighting
Table 7 – Balancing assessment of harm versus VSC’s of proposed development in the Green Belt
Table 7 above results in 4 instances of suggested VSC’s given substantial weight and 1 instance of moderate weight, including: the reinstatement of the car park along The Drive as green space for environmental purposes; the reinstatement of the car park along The Drive and retention of a substantial area of existing green space as publicly accessible open space for recreation purposes; the facilitation of the affordable housing delivery; and
DM 101 the reduction in existing harm to Green Belt openness in due to proposed reduction in previously high level of of activity and visual impact resulting from extensive car parking; the reduction in existing harm to Green Belt openness in due to proposed reduction in previously high level of activity as military rehabilitation centre and visual impact of secure boundary treatment and lighting (moderate weight). There are also 5 instances of limited weight being afforded to the potential VSC. Therefore, cumulatively, the 5 reasons posited with the greatest weight attributed to them are considered to be VSC. These are considered by the Case Officer, on balance, to justify the proposed development in Area 2 and to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt arising from inappropriateness and the impact on openness.
8.6.5. Officer conclusion on whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development:
While the proposed Area 2 clearly results in harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, which attracts substantial weight, the above assessment concludes, in the officer’s opinion, that a cumulatively less than substantial harm to the Green Belt would result. This harm has been considered against the benefits arising from the scheme.
It is the officer’s view that, in this case, the benefits outweigh the harms, and, therefore, that there are very special circumstances (VSC) which justify the approval of the proposed development in Area 2.
8.7. Green Belt conclusion
The applicants had submitted their proposal on the basis that the application site as a whole was to be considered as substantially previously developed land (PDL) and that the proposed development, by reason that it would comprise an element of affordable housing, would comply with NPPF paragraph 145 g) on the second point, subject to a test that the development as a whole would comprise ‘less than substantial harm’ to the openness of the Green Belt.
However, the application site has been assessed in terms of the proportion of PDL contained therein and is not considered to substantially comprise PDL. As such, the proposal has been considered in two parts: Area 1 – the element of the proposed development within PDL (at 90%) Area 2 – the proposed development beyond the extend of the PDL (at 10%) On this basis, the proposal is not considered to comply with paragraph 145 g) on the second point, given that an element of the development would lie beyond the extent of the PDL.
In this case, Area 1 is considered, for the reasons above, to comply with the NPPF exception under paragraph 145 g) on the first point; that is to say that Area 1 would comprise the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use
DM 102 (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development.
Area 2 clearly results in harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and this harm has been evaluated in terms of the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. In this case, the officer concludes that there are very special circumstances (VSC) which are considered to clearly outweigh the overall harm caused by the proposal and to justify its approval.
Overall, both Areas 1 and 2 of the outline proposal for up to 70no. new dwellings, subject to reserved matters, are considered compliant with the policies of the NPPF with regard to the Green Belt.
8.8. Impact on the setting of the Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments
8.8.1. Policy context:
Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. As a consequence the desirability of preservation must be given considerable importance and weight in the decision making process.
Paragraph 190 of the NPPF states: ‘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 expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal’.
Paragraph 192 of the NPPF states: ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality’
Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states: ‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.’
Paragraph 194 of the NPPF states: ‘Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.’
DM 103 Paragraph 196 of the NPPF states: ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.’
Core Strategy policy CS14, Townscape, Urban Design and the Historic Environment, states that: 4) ‘Areas and sites of historic or architectural importance will be protected and, where appropriate enhanced in accordance with the legislation, national and regional guidance.’
8.8.2. Policy application:
It is important to be aware of how the Local Planning Authority should proceed where there is harm, or potential harm, to a heritage asset or its setting.
In the case of Catesby Estates Ltd and SSCLG v Steer [2018] EWCA Civ 1697 the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the setting of heritage assets ‘is not necessarily confined to visual or physical impact’ but that other considerations are potentially relevant.
The Court of Appeal identified three general points which apply in setting cases: Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act 1990 requires the decision maker to understand what the setting of the asset is – even if its extent is difficult or impossible to delineate exactly – and whether the site of the proposed development will be within it or in some way related to it. Although the exercise is not purely subjective, there is not (and could not be) a single approach to identifying the extent of a heritage asset’s setting. The decision-maker must apply planning judgement, having regard to relevant policy, guidance and advice. It is necessary to concentrate on the ‘surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced’, keeping in mind that those ‘surroundings’ may change over time, and also that the way in which a heritage asset can be ‘‘experienced’ is not limited only to the sense of sight. ‘The effect of a particular development on the setting of a heritage asset – where, when and how that effect is likely to be perceived, whether or not it will preserve the setting of the listed building, whether, under government policy in the NPPF, it will harm the ‘significance’ of the listed building as a heritage asset, and how it bears on the planning balance – are all matters for the planning decision-maker’, subject to the requirement to give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of a heritage asset. Unless there has been some clear error of law in the decision-maker’s approach, the court should not intervene.
8.8.3. Heritage Assets:
The application site does not comprise any Listing Buildings/Structures or Scheduled Monuments within the red line boundary, however, the following heritage assets (see Figure 22) lie near the site:
DM 104 11no. Grade II Listed buildings or structures lie within the Headley Court manor house grounds to the east of Headley Road, which include: o Headley Court and attached Former Stables o Sundial Gnomon on the South-Western Lawn o Sundial in the North Garden o Pillar Sundial in the North Garden o Retaining Walls to North Terraced Garden o Formal Lily Pond to the East of RAF Headley Court o Winged Lion Seat to the North of RAF Headley Court o South Garden Retaining Walls, Steps and Columns Sarcophagus Flower Trough to Right of Main Entrance at Headley Court o Garden Walls, Bothy and Bridge o Former Swimming Pool and Fountain in the North Garden; and Stane Street Roman Road, which is a Scheduled Monument to the north-west of the site, at a distance of approx. 370m.
The closest heritage assets, ‘Headley Court and attached Former Stables’ and part of the ‘Garden Walls, Bothy and Bridge’, lie at a separation distance from the eastern site boundary of approx. 6m.
Figure 22. Map showing nearby Grade II Listed Buildings (pink dots) and Scheduled Monuments (Roman Road – top left in green)
The Headley Court and attached Former Stables (see Figure 23) is listed at Grade II (list entry number 1389265) and was originally designated on 18 July 2001. Historic England describes these buildings as built in the grounds of an 1880s’ farmhouse and completed in 1899 in the Jacobethan Style, of ‘Red brick with stone dressings. Tiled roofs with Flemish gables, dormers and tall brick chimney stacks’.
DM 105
Figure 23. Photo of Headley Court and attached Former Stables (Google Street View)
The ‘Garden Walls, Bothy and Bridge’ is listed at Grade II (list entry number 1389266) and was originally designated on 18 July 2001. The Bothy and Bridge do not lie in the vicinity of the application site, however, a section of the Garden Wall along the east side of Headley Road, (see Figure 24), lies within approx. 6m of the application site. Some further sections of wall are visible to the north of The Drive along the east side of Headley Road, as shown in Figure 25 and Figure 26. The Historic England listing details east sections of the Headley Court Garden Walls as late C19/early C20 and of ‘brick and flint with brick arcading and ball-capped columns’ and containing a ‘cast iron gate’.
Figure 24. Photo of a southern section of Garden Wall along the west boundary of Headley Court (Google Street View)
DM 106
Figure 25. Photo of a section of Garden Wall along the west boundary of Headley Court to the north of The Drive (Google Street View)
Figure 26. Photo of a section of Garden Wall along the west boundary of Headley Court at the junction with The Drive (Google Street View)
Given the proximity of the application site to the two above-mentioned heritage assets, the proposed development is considered to result in a level of impact to their setting which must be assessed.
8.8.4. Consultee:
The Council’s Historic Environment Officer (HEO) has been consulted on this application and has made the following comments: ‘I have no objection to this application, but do have some reservations, which are set out below. The application site is to the east of Headley Court, its formal gardens and associated listed structures. It is also beyond the area that was recognised as parkland associated with the house during its early C20th heyday, with Headley Road separating the site from the area of historic parkland (..). Headley Court is listed at Grade II and has within its gardens a further 10 structures, each individually listed at Grade II. The site lies west of Headley Road and is split into two sections, The Drive creating a northern and southern divide. The northern section is mainly a recreational field, with several buildings/garages and car
DM 107 parking. Beyond the north and west boundary is dense woodland, including some Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland. The northeastern boundary is defined by a line of mature trees, with a low growing hedgerow beneath, providing a boundary between the site and Headley Road. To the south of The Drive are a number of former MOD buildings and to the east, on the opposite site of Headley Road is the entrance to the former stable yard of Headley Court. A Heritage Statement has been submitted, setting out the significance of the house and its landscaped gardens and features. It also assesses the impact of the proposed development on the significance of these heritage assets. I largely agree with the conclusions of this assessment insofar as the house, its gardens and surrounding landscape fall outside the site and are separated by Headley Road with its tree and hedge lined boundaries. The settings of the house and listed garden features are relatively well contained. The house is disposed to take advantage of views both to the north and to the south. The northerly aspect takes in a strong north:south axis which is enclosed to the west by buildings, dense hedging, residual areas of parkland and beyond this, Headley Road and its treed boundaries. Views to the south, over landscaped gardens, are contained by further vegetation and a tall evergreen hedge above an attractive brick and flint boundary wall. Simultaneous views of the house and the site are possible from Headley Road and from Clay Lane. However these views of the site are screened by a band of trees and vegetation in the summer and filtered when not in leaf. Concerns were raised at pre-app stage over the potential impact of development in the area to the south of The Drive, opposite the stable yard entrance. Whilst the development has been set back a little from this part of the site, I still have some reservations over the proximity and prominence of development to this entrance to the house. Having said this, I anticipate these concerns can be addressed, either through omitting those nearest this part of the boundary or moving them further in to the application site, and thereby enabling additional structural landscaping to the boundary at this point. It would be preferable for revisions to the indicative layout to be made prior to any outline approval, but if not, it should be possible for this issue to be dealt with at Reserved Matters stage. The proposed scheme will inevitably alter the character of the area; from a group of large institutional accommodation buildings and open recreational field located either side of The Drive, to a more dispersed residential development and smaller open area, described in the application as a ‘village green’. I do have some reservations over the proximity of the proposed dwellings that are located nearest the stable court entrance to Headley Court, but feel this can be addressed at Reserved Matters stage/and a landscaping condition, and does not result in harm to the setting of this listed building that would justify refusal on heritage grounds.’
Following amendments, the HEO has commented: ‘I still have no objection to this application because the revisions do not materially change the comments I made on 26th March 2020. These comments remain relevant. The reduction in the number of units fronting the stretch of Headley Road opposite the stable yard entrance to Headley Court is a positive change from the original
DM 108 scheme, opening the grain and giving more opportunity for structural planting along this boundary.’
8.8.5. Assessment:
The amended drawings received on 01.05.20 which show a decrease in the maximum number of new dwellings proposed in outline from 100no. to 70no., also show a redistribution of new dwellings within the site at a lower proposed density. These amendments, (see Figure 27), show that the area of concern highlighted by the HEO, the north-eastern boundary of the site lying to the south of The Drive in the south-east segment, has been decreased from 8no. to 5no. new dwellings in the indicative illustration. According to the amended Land Use Parameters Plan, the separation distance from the proposed residential zone to the boundary at this part (south-eastern corner) of the site, would range from approx. 5m to 30m, while according to the indicative Tree Protection Plan (which falls under reserved matters), the majority of existing tree screening along this north- eastern site edge would be retained. While the issue of trees is discussed at 8.13, the agent has confirmed in an email dated 5.6.20, that the indicative planting scheme includes 239no. existing trees (70%) are to be retained; 103no. trees to be removed, (of which none are category A and the majority are category U and C); and replacement tree planting is to be ‘the same or more than’.
Figure 27. Extracts from original Illustrative Layout, D 0100, Rev.P1 (left) and from amended Illustrative Layout, C 0702, Rev.P4 (right)
8.8.6. Balancing:
Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the NPPF indicates that this
DM 109 harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. However, this is not a straight balancing exercise. Recent court decisions have indicated that considerable importance and weight should be given to any harm to the significance of the heritage asset, even where the impact is less than substantial. In light of this, I have undertaken the following balancing exercise to ascertain the level of impact to the setting of the heritage assets (Headley Court and attached Former Stables and sections of the Garden Wall along the western boundary) that would result from the proposed development in principle:
Potential Harm to Potential Benefit Impact on Heritage Assets Heritage Assets The area of proposed Applicant notes in The proposed retention of development lies in Heritage Statement: significant trees and soft close proximity ‘Site is separated from landscaping along the eastern (approx. 6m) to the Headley Court (grade II) edge of the application site (as nearest heritage by the linear route of shown in Figure 27) would assets (Headley Court Headley Road, which is provide visual screening and and attached Former lined with vegetation and Headley Road provides a Stables and sections mature trees, limiting physical separation thus of the Garden Wall intervisibility’. limiting potential harm to the adjoining the eastern setting of the heritage assets. site boundary) and the As such the impact would be proposal would considered neutral and limited therefore have an weight should be afforded to impact on their setting. this. Indicative drawings Applicant notes in Proposed (in principle) show 5no. new Heritage Statement: dwellings would be of two dwellings in south- ‘The new houses, of two storeys and of a domestic east segment of site storeys, would be a scale as opposed to the following demolition of sensitive, subservient existing partly three-storey the existing buildings. element in the setting of military buildings which have a the listed building, which higher density and greater would be a less mass and bulk due to their intensive use of the land utilitarian design. than the existing military buildings. The height The lower height and density and scale would provide than that existing and would a sympathetic transition afford views over and between to the land to the west.’ the units. The proposed set back from the site boundaries would limit potential harm to the setting of the heritage assets.
This impact would be considered beneficial and moderate weight should be afforded to this. Applicant notes in These dwellings would be Heritage Statement: sited substantially further ‘The plots north of The away from the heritage assets Drive are carefully and would be separated by spaced, and focussed the proposed large open
DM 110 on a ‘village green’ space, however, they would arrangement, which is a replace largely single storey quintessential English buildings and typology appropriate to hardstanding/parked cars with the setting of the listed two storey buildings. building.’ As such the impact would be considered neutral and limited weight should be afforded to this. Applicant notes in The removal of high fencing Heritage Statement: around the southern section of ‘The hostile, segregated the site where existing would character of the former have a positive impact on the military site, defined by setting of the heritage assets fencing, would be although the lower density replaced with a housing would increase the welcoming, permeable spread. development, accessible for the first time.’ As such the impact would be considered neutral and limited weight should be afforded to this. Applicant notes in The existing car park is Planning Statement that visually prominent in views to the car park on northern the heritage assets (see side of The Drive to be Figure 28), so the removal of removed and reinstated the parked cars (existing as open green space lawful use) and replacement of the hardstanding with open green space would be a significant benefit to the setting of the heritage assets
This impact would be considered beneficial and moderate weight should be afforded to this. Applicant notes in The existing open space to the Planning Statement that north of this car park is not the car park on northern publicly accessible. side of The Drive to be reinstated as open This impact would be green space, together considered beneficial and with the retained green moderate weight should be space immediately to afforded to this. the north, would be publicly accessible for recreation Applicant notes in Both the NPPF and policies of Planning Statement that the Core Strategy and the proposal addresses Local Plan require high quality MVDC shortfall in developments that make the housing land supply and most efficient use of the land.
DM 111 the proposal would It is therefore a requirement of contribute to addressing policy to deliver such this shortfall by up to development. The site could 70no. new dwellings [as have been redeveloped at a amended]. smaller scale and still delivered housing.
It is however recognised that MVDC are substantially below providing a five year housing land supply.
Limited weight should be afforded to this. Applicant notes in Providing affordable housing Planning Statement that is a requirement of the NPPF proposal would and the Mole Valley Core contribute to meeting Strategy. MVDC need for affordable housing by While this is a public benefit, it allocating 50% of the net is a policy requirement at increase in existing 40%. As the proposed floorspace. provision here would be over and above the requirement (at 50%), limited weight should be afforded to this. Applicant notes in The site could have been Planning Statement that redeveloped at a smaller scale the site has been and still delivered housing. identified in MDVC policy documents as a It is however recognised that larger housing MVDC are substantially below opportunity site. providing a five year housing land supply.
Limited weight should be afforded to this. Applicant notes in Both the NPPF and policies of Planning Statement that the Core Strategy and the proposal would enable Local Plan require high quality housing delivery on a developments that make the site comprising most efficient use of the land. previously developed It is therefore a requirement of land, precluding the policy to deliver such need to release further development. The question of Green Belt land for releasing Green Belt land is housing which would be not determined by planning a public benefit application. Limited weight should be afforded to this. Table 8 – Assessment of harm and public benefits of proposed development to heritage assets
DM 112
Figure 28. Photo looking south along Headley Road showing heritage assets to left and centre of image and application site to right (Google Street View, April 2018)
8.8.7. Officer conclusion on the impact on the setting of the Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments:
The proposed erection of up to 70no. new dwellings in principle and the formation of 3no. access points off The Drive would be considered to result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the heritage assets, namely ‘Headley Court and Attached Former Stables’ and sections of the ‘Garden Walls’ along the west boundary of Headley Court, by reason that the proposal would result in some level of impact.
The public benefits have been weighed against this less than substantial harm in the above table and, when taken together in the round, there are a number of public benefits which would be provided by the proposal, in particular, reducing the height and density of the built form closest to the heritage assets (in principle) and removing the extensive car park aligning the north side of The Drive, reinstating this as open green space and allowing public access to this area. Whilst the technical details of the proposed new housing and landscaping fall under reserved matters, it is considered that the public benefits listed would outweigh any harm that this outline proposal would cause to the heritage assets.
8.9. Impact on the Site of Archaeological Potential
8.9.1. Policy context:
Local Plan policy ENV49, Areas of High Archaeological Potential, states: ‘Where significant development proposals fall within an Area of High Archaeological Potential the developer will be required to provide an initial assessment of the archaeological value of the site preferably before, or otherwise as part of, any planning application. If as a result of that assessment important archaeological remains are considered to exist: 1. The developer may be required to arrange for an archaeological field survey to be carried out before the determination of the planning application and
DM 113 2. Where important archaeological remains are found to exist and can justifiably be left in situ, provision will be made by planning condition or agreement to minimise or avoid damage to the remains. Alternatively, where there is good reason to believe archaeological remains exist but preservation of known remains in situ is not justified, a planning condition will normally be imposed requiring a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a scheme approved by the Council to take place before any development commences and the results and any finds should be published and made available for public display.’
Local Plan policy ENV50, Unidentified Archaeological Sites, states: ‘Outside Areas of High Archaeological Potential the Council will require that the results of desk-based archaeological assessment are submitted with any development proposals for a site larger than 0.4ha. If the results of any deskbased assessment are inconclusive, or if they produce evidence of significant archaeological remains, then the numbered paragraphs in Policy ENV49 will be applicable.’
8.9.2. Site:
The application site lies adjacent to a Site of Archaeological Potential, which is shaded in a peach colour in Figure 29, and which abuts the northern site boundary. (Officer Note: HER is the acronym for Historic Environment Records).
Figure 29. Extract from HER Plot drawing (Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment) [Officer note: red outline not exact]
DM 114
Figure 30. Legend for map extract above
8.9.3. Consultee comments:
SCC Archaeology has been consulted and has commented as follows: The proposed development at approximately 7.0ha is above the 0.4ha threshold at which archaeological assessment is required under Local Plan policy ENV50. It is also located immediately adjacent to an Area of High Archaeological Potential (AHAP) defined around the location of possible ring ditches indicating the presence of a Bronze Age round barrow cemetery. Given this, I am pleased to note that the applicant has considered the archaeological impacts of the proposed development and has submitted an archaeological Desk Based Assessment (DBA) produced by their consultants RPS and dated 4 December 2019. The Assessment ascribes a moderate to high potential for the presence of Heritage Assets of Bronze Age date and an unknown potential for the Roman period. It is noted that no site visit was conducted which may have helped better inform whether any unknown Heritage Assets of archaeological significance may be present and that would have allowed a better assessment of the extent of previous impacts across the development site to have been considered. It is likely that some parts of the site may have been impacted in archaeological terms as a consequence of previous developments, however, given the extent of the proposed development and the identified archaeological potential, there is the need for further archaeological work to ensure that the proposed development does not destroy any Heritage Assets of archaeological significance within areas that may have escaped any archaeologically destructive groundworks I agree with the recommendations in the DBA that the first stage of that work should be a Geophysical Survey of the proposed development site, to be followed by a programme of archaeological Trial Trench Evaluation (comprising the excavation of a number of trenches) across the development site. The Evaluation will allow the
DM 115 presence and significance of any Heritage Assets of archaeological interest that may survive to be properly understood. The results of the Geophysical Survey, together with the results of the Evaluation, will allow the determination of what, if any, further mitigation may be necessary. The area of the car park in the north west of the site can be excluded from any further work as it has previously been archaeologically excavated. The footprint of the existing buildings can be excluded from the Geophysical Survey and the Evaluation phase, however, should archaeologically significant Heritage Assets be revealed within the areas around the existing buildings, the removal of the building foundations may require archaeological monitoring to ensure any Heritage Assets are adequately preserved by record before they are destroyed. For this reason, the Evaluation will need to be conducted in advance of demolition. If the Evaluation reveals Heritage Assets of archaeological significance, further mitigation may entail a programme of targeted archaeological excavation to ensure they are adequately preserved by record before they are destroyed by the development, and/or a programme of archaeological monitoring during any groundworks that have the potential to impact any archaeological Heritage Assets that may be present.
8.9.4. Assessment:
The site does not contain any designated archaeological assets, however, the northern boundary abuts the southern edge of an Area of High Archaeological Potential (AHAP) as designated by SCC. As such, there is potential for archaeological assets to be present on site. The applicant has submitted an initial assessment of the archaeological value of the site as part of this planning application. The recommendation of the SCC Archaeology Officer and the submitted Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, dated 4.12.19, is for further surveys and evaluation and, should assets be found, a monitoring programme to be undertaken prior to development, including demolition.
8.9.5. Officer conclusion on the impact on the Site of Archaeological Potential:
For the reasons above, the current outline application for access only is considered acceptable, subject to conditions, in terms of its impact on the Site of Archaeological Potential and to comply with Local Plan policies ENV49 and ENV50 and the NPPF.
8.10. Impact on the character of the surrounding rural area
8.10.1. Policy context:
Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) ‘will function well and add to the overall quality of an area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping;
DM 116 c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks’
At paragraph 130 of the NPPF, it is stated that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way in functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents.
Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states: ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital’
Core Strategy policy CS14, Townscape, Urban Design and the Historic Environment, states that: 1) ‘All new development must respect and enhance the character of the area in which it is proposed whilst making the best possible use of the land available. This will be assisted through the work on Built-Up Area Character Appraisals. 2) The Council will resist development of a poor quality of design and will expect to see sufficient detail set out in the Design and Access Statements, where required, to enable planning applications to be properly determined. 3) Development must incorporate appropriate landscaping with particular attention to the use of trees and hedges native to the locality.’
Local Plan policy ENV4, Landscape Character, states: The Council will seek to ensure that development proposals and forestry schemes in the countryside and rural settlements conserve and will not detract from the character of the local landscape. In determining planning applications account will be taken of the visual impact of the proposed development on the landscape, the extent to which the impact of new buildings has been softened and integrated in to the landscape by careful consideration of siting, design, colour and associated planting and whether any existing landscape features such as trees and hedgerows should be retained.
Local Plan policy ENV22, General Development Control Criteria, states: Development should be appropriate to the site in terms of its scale, form and appearance. Development should respect the character and appearance of the locality.
Local Plan policy ENV23, Respect for Setting, requires that:
DM 117 Development should take account of: The scale, character, bulk and proportions and materials of the surrounding built environment, and that it should not constitute overdevelopment of the site by reason of scale, height or bulk or in relation to the boundaries of the site and/or surrounding developments Opportunities will be sought to create attractive new views or vistas. Townscape features such as street patterns, familiar landmark buildings, and the space about buildings The impact of the development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt on the rural amenities of the Green Belt by reason of its siting, materials or design The impact on the landscape of the proposed siting and appearance of new agricultural buildings or works or any other appropriate/ exceptional development in the countryside Development should have regard to established townscape features, including the space around buildings
Local Plan policy ENV24, Density of Development and the Space about Buildings, advises that: ‘Development will not be permitted where it would result in a cramped appearance having regard to the general spacing around buildings in the locality.’
Local Plan policy ENV25, Landscape design of new developments, states: ‘Proposals for development should demonstrate that particular care has been taken in the provision, use and design of spaces between buildings and that the hard and soft landscape design is suitable for the site and form of development. Sufficient space should be allowed to enable existing trees of significant public amenity value to be retained.’
Local Plan Policy RUD21, Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt, states: ‘Redevelopment should: (c) not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and (d) not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity).’
The site lies within the Box Hill Landscape Character Area, which is defined as having the following key characteristics: ‘Extensive species rich ancient woodland, beech woodland, shaws and coppice. Areas of high-quality unimproved chalk grassland. Tracts of open downland, heathland, wood pasture and commons. Far reaching expansive views from scarp viewpoints across the Greensand Hills and the Weald. Woodland belts, shaws and thick hedges divide fields. Small settlements scattered across the Downs. Isolated farms occur on hill tops and in valleys. Areas of peace and tranquillity, with dark skies and little disturbance from traffic noise. Roads located in the intersecting valleys are enclosed. Rail corridor through the lower land, south of the Box Hill escarpment. High levels of recreational use, especially around Box Hill Visitor Centre and Headley Heath.
DM 118 North Downs Way long distance footpath provides an important route for recreational access. Isolated expanses of open heathland in the west of the area.’
8.10.2. Submitted documents:
The submitted Response Note, dated 27.3.20, states: The footway, bridleway and cycleway improvements in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development have been requested by and agreed with SCC and constitute appropriate improvements to the local rural right of way network in the immediate vicinity of the development. The development and its associated off-site improvements will be sensitive to the rural character of the area. The comment documents refer to an issue of ‘urbanisation’ of the character of the area. AP has no desire to see the area urbanised and aspires to reduce the current urbanised feel of certain elements of the site and local area. Whilst the scheme design and the detailed design of the off-site works is not being considered at this stage, AP are committed to ensuring the feel of the development becomes less urban by: o Removing the extensive lengths of military security fencing, gates and barbed wire; o Seeking to minimise the level of street lighting and reducing the extensive amount of external and car parking lighting currently on-site; o Keeping street furniture and signage to an absolute minimum; o Using appropriate materials and sensitive design principles in the public realm areas; o Reviewing existing highways features (traffic calming measures, zebra crossings, etc.) as part of the design of the off-site works under a S278 Agreement. (pp.5-6)
The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, dated Nov.19, states that: The introduction of new dwellings into an area of grassland and former Ministry of Defence (MOD) buildings will result in a change to the landscape character and it has been assessed there will be a minor impact on the landscape character. (p.1) The proposed development is only visible from locations that are in close proximity to the site, including the site boundary. For receptors located further away no changes would be appreciated due to a combination of topography, existing vegetation and built form. The proposals would result in a change to the landscape character of the site from a former MOD site including buildings and grassland to a residential development with associated open space. (p.2) Residual impacts would be limited to close range visual receptors, those being users of the Public Right of Way running along the south- west and south of the site, The Drive and Headley Road.
Detailed topographical surveys of the existing site have been submitted in drawings IR.APHEADLEY2.21_01, Detailed Topographical Survey (5) and (6). These show that the higher ground lies to the southern portion of the site, with measurements of 143m on the southern site boundary, with the ground falling away to the north-west part of the site, and with a significant
DM 119 dip to the east of the existing northern car park. At the northern part of the site, the ground levels are shown, as 128m at the north-west corner of the site, with the land rising eastwards to 136m and then falling away again towards Headley Road at 134m. The level at the western end of The Drive (within the application site) is shown as 138m.
The outline application does not include external lighting. This would be considered under reserved matters in relation to the impact on the character of the surrounding area, neighbouring amenity and on ecology.
8.10.3. Rural area:
In terms of the rural character of the surrounding area, the application site is set in a countryside location, surrounded by woodland and agricultural fields to the north, west and south. Although it must be acknowledged that it is an identified major site for residential development in the Green Belt that will undoubtedly have an effect on its character. The site is bounded by Headley Road along its north-east boundary, with the Headley Court mansion house site on the eastern side of this road. Much of the adjacent site is screened from views from Headley Road by trees and shrubs, (see Figure 31), however, at the main entrance, the red brick side elevations of the Victorian stable buildings abut the road, (Figure 32), and, further to the south, the flint and brick Headley Court garden walls run along a section of the road opposite the southern part of the application site.
Figure 31. Extract from Existing Landscape Components (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) showing public views into developed areas of application site (as existing) from adjacent roads and footpaths
DM 120
Figure 32. Photo of Headley Road looking north with application site to left and Headley Court and attached stables and garden wall to right (Google Street View)
Much of the existing site is well-screened by trees and hedging along the boundaries although some parts of the site are clearly visible from the highway, as shown in Figure 33 and Figure 34.
Figure 33. Photo of application site looking north-west with The Drive (west- bound) centre-left and Headley Road (north-bound) to the right of image (Google Street View)
DM 121
Figure 34. Photo of application site (to right of image) with Headley Road (south-bound) to left (Google Street View)
The Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) lies to the south of the application site, at a min. separation distance of approx. 1km, while an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) also lies to the south, at a min. separation distance of approx. 610m.
8.10.4. Existing development:
The existing site is partially covered with built form and hard standing, predominantly to the southern and western areas of the site, and there is a large open space, previously used as playing fields, to the north-eastern corner of the site. The existing built form comprises single to two and a half storey brick buildings with pitched and flat roofs, of a utilitarian appearance. Military-style, metal mesh fencing is also publicly visible, along with extensive tracts of parked cars (under the existing lawful use), which are prominent from nearby roads and footpaths, (see Figure 35, Figure 36 and Figure 37).
DM 122
Figure 35. Photo of existing buildings and car parking, looking west along The Drive from the eastern side of the site (Google Street View)
Figure 36. Photo of existing buildings looking north from The Drive at the western side of the site (Google Street View)
Figure 37. Photo of existing buildings looking south-west from Headley Road
8.10.5. Proposed development:
DM 123
The current application is in outline for consideration of access only. The design and appearance of the proposed max. 70no. new dwellings, together with the layout and landscaping, are reserved matters, however, the Proposed Land Use Parameters Plan, D1001, Rev.P2, (shown in Figure 14), is for approval as part of the current outline application. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has also been submitted to support this application.
The proposed layout would focus the new residential development predominantly in the areas of existing built form and hardstanding, (see Figure 38 and Figure 39), and would retain an area of open space in the north-east segment. The proposed open space would amount to 2.4ha, which would be marginally lower than the existing 2.5ha of open space following amendments. The existing car park on the northern side of The Drive would be reinstated as green space and a section of the car park at the north-west corner of the site would also be reinstated as green space, to form the 15m buffer to the Hambleton Wood Ancient Woodland. The indicative drawings show that the majority of the existing screening provided by trees along the boundaries would be retained, while some additional trees would be planted to increase screening along the boundary at the north-west corner, the southern site boundary and along the northern side of The Drive.
While the issue of trees is discussed under Section 8.13 and falls under reserved matters, 70% of the existing trees would be retained and replacement tree planting would be ‘the same or more than’.
Figure 38. Extract from indicative drawing, C0900, Rev.P1, Open Space Analysis, showing site as existing (open space shown in light blue hatching)
DM 124
Figure 39. Extract from indicative drawing, C0900, Rev.P1, Open Space Analysis, showing site as proposed (open space shown in light blue hatching)
Some of the proposed new two storey dwellings would replace areas of hardstanding or single storey, flat-roofed buildings, and in the northern part of the site, would replace an area of existing green space. However, the layout has been designed to minimise the impact of the development on the visual amenity of the immediate area by retaining areas of green space (comprising both open space and private gardens) adjacent to Headley Road and The Drive, with the exception of the 3no. access points. As stated in the LVIA, ‘The heights of the proposed buildings have been carefully considered to ensure that the existing landscape setting is not impacted by the proposed residential development.’ The topographical surveys show the north-western segment of the site has a substantially lower ground level than The Drive and Headley Road. As such, the new two storey dwellings proposed to the centre of the northern segment within this ‘dip’, would not appear overly prominent in this location in public views from the highway, notwithstanding any screening provided by trees or vegetation along the site boundaries.
In terms of the impact on the AONB and the AGLV, which lie beyond the site, by reason of the nature of the development of two storey residential units of a domestic scale, the proposed boundary treatments and the substantial separation distances between the application site and these areas, no adverse impact would be considered to result from the proposals.
With regard to the 3no. new access points leading off The Drive, these are considered an improvement over the existing 6no. vehicular access points from The Drive, given that the site would have a more cohesive boundary treatment, subject to the detailed landscaping design.
8.10.6. Density:
In terms of density, the submitted layout drawing is indicative only. Detailed design and layout of the proposed new housing and landscaping strategy are reserved matters. However, following amendments reducing the
DM 125 quantum from a max. of 100no. to a max. of 70no. new dwellings, and removing the north-eastern section of the proposed residential zones, the development would, as set out in the Revised Proposals Letter, ‘give rise to a gross density of 10.6 dwellings per hectare and a net development density of 16.6 dwellings per hectare (i.e. excluding the 2.4ha of Open Space from the site area of 6.6ha)’, (p.4).
Given the unique circumstances of this major developed site within the Green Belt, together with the outline nature of the current proposal, the issue of proposed density can only be assessed at this stage in terms of the overall impact of the development on the character of the rural area, subject to reserved matters. However, the illustrative plans would suggest that sufficient space around the buildings could be achieved and a substantial amount of open space is incorporated within the Proposed Land Use Parameters Plan to ensure that the outline proposal would not result in overdevelopment of the site in compliance with policies ENV23 and ENV24. The proposed erection of up to 70no. new dwellings at a net density of 16.6 dwellings per hectare would, in principle, make the best possible use of the land available whilst taking into account the rural character of the area beyond the existing military development, the Green Belt setting and the retention of trees and soft landscaping of significant public amenity value. As such, the proposal would, in principle, comply with NPPF paragraph 127 c) and Core Strategy policy CS14 point 1), in particular, in terms of density.
8.10.7. Officer conclusion on the impact on the character of the surrounding rural area:
Overall, the following features are considered to improve the appearance of the existing site: the reinstatement of the car park on the northern side of The Drive to open green space; the reduction in the bulk and density of built form as compared with that existing to the south of The Drive and its replacement with smaller units with a greater spread across this segment of the site; the reduction in vehicular access points from The Drive and more cohesive site boundary; the proposed retention of trees and green space around the edges and within the site; the indicative spread of the new dwellings which, (according to the illustrative plans), would be set along curvilinear spur roads, with an ample set back and good sized rear gardens; the careful siting of proposed new built form (beyond the existing built envelope) within an area of lower ground levels (a dip) to reduce the visual impact from public vantage points; the removal of the existing large car parks, military style buildings and fencing; reduction in vehicular access points from The Drive from 6no. to 3no. and more cohesive boundary treatment, subject to the detailed landscaping design; the introduction of village-scale, two-storey, pitched roof, domestic buildings; the reduction in built footprint of 14% and hardstanding of 28%; the retention of 2.4ha of open green space which represents 96% of the existing open space; and
DM 126 the increase in green space of 10%.
For these reasons, the outline proposal and indicative plans are considered to integrate well with the rural character of the wider area and to improve the appearance of the existing major developed site.
The outline proposal for up to 70no. new dwellings following demolition of existing buildings, with all matters reserved except for access, is considered to respect the character and appearance of the locality and to accord with the advice of the National Design Guide, Section 12 of the NPPF, policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy and policies ENV4, ENV22, ENV23, ENV24, ENV25 and RUD21 of the Mole Valley Local Plan.
8.11. Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties and future occupiers
8.11.1. Policy context:
Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.’
Local Plan policy ENV22, General Development Control Criteria, states: The proposal should not significantly harm the amenities of neighbouring occupiers by reason of overlooking or its overshadowing or overpowering effect. Development should provide a satisfactory environment for occupiers of the new development.
8.11.2. Submitted documents relating to neighbouring amenity and future occupants:
These include: Noise Impact Assessment Report, ref. 20160.NIA.01, dated 19.12.19
8.11.3. Consultees:
MVDC Environmental Health has been consulted on this application and has commented as follows: We would have no particular concerns in relation to this site. Noise levels are slightly elevated due to the presence of the motorway, but we are satisfied that conditions can be applied to mitigate the impacts of noise and to reduce the need to open windows for ventilation purposes We would therefore propose the following condition: Internal Noise levels (including aircraft noise)
8.11.4. Assessment:
The closest neighbouring residential properties to the south of the site, (Headley Court Barn, The Old House, Court Farm), are separated by a distance of over 76m while those to the west of the site, (Tyrrells Corner,
DM 127 White Rose, Georgian Lodge, Tyrrells Wood House), are separated by a distance of over 170m. Given that these dwellings are separated from the application site by a considerable stretch of woodland and/or fields, no unacceptable impact would result in respect of the neighbouring amenity of the occupants of these properties.
The closest neighbouring residential properties to the east of the site, at Pigeon House and along Cunliffe Close and Dale View, are separated by a distance of over 120m, and are screened from the site by the Headley Court mansion house site, with its mature vegetation, substantial buildings and boundary treatments. As such, no undue impact would arise in respect of the neighbouring amenity of the occupants of these properties.
The closest neighbouring buildings to the site comprise the Headley Court mansion house estate immediately to the east, at a min. separation distance from the site boundary of 6m, which is currently vacant. While it is understood that the applicants intend to submit a future planning application for the redevelopment of that site as a retirement village, no details are currently available for assessment. However, the separation distances between the proposed new dwellings (as shown in the indicative plans) and the existing buildings to the east of the site (former Stables), together with the area shown in the Land Use Parameters Plan as retained for soft landscaping, are considered to result in a satisfactory relationship between the proposed respective residential units. A more detailed assessment will be undertaken at the reserved matters stage.
8.11.5. Officer conclusion on the impact on amenity of neighbouring properties and future occupiers:
The proposed amenity for future occupants of the proposed new dwellings cannot be assessed at this stage and falls under reserved matters.
For these reasons, the outline proposal would accord with Local Plan policy ENV22 and paragraph 127 of the NPPF.
8.12. Highways, parking and refuse
8.12.1. Policy context:
Core Strategy Policy CS18, Transport Options and Accessibility, states: ‘The availability of travel options and access will be given significant weight in allocating land for development and in considering development proposals.’
Local Plan policy MOV2 seeks to ensure that new development makes appropriate provision for off-street vehicular parking, servicing and vehicular access and egress and movement within development sites as well as for pedestrians and cyclists. Policy MOV5 requires development proposals make appropriate provision for the parking of cars whilst policy MOV15 encourages new developments to provide for the needs of cyclists including the provision of secure cycle parking facilities.
In paragraph 109 of the NPPF, it is advised that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable
DM 128 impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
8.12.2. Consultees:
SCC Highways has not raised any objections nor any other highway safety concerns regarding the proposed development subject to suitable conditions and informatives. SCC Highways has commented in response to the original application for up to 100no. new dwellings as follows: ‘The proposed development has been considered by THE COUNTY HIGHWAY AUTHORITY who recommends an appropriate S106 agreement should be secured before the grant of permission. Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) Bus Service: To secure £80,000 per year (indexed linked to RPIx, from date of signing the S106) from 20th occupation for a period of 7 years (maximum contribution of £560,000). Demand Responsive Bus Monitoring: The Demand Responsive Transport will be monitored and reviewed by Surrey County Council annually. Service provision may be reviewed subject to this. Travel Plan: To secure the Travel Plan auditing fee of £6,150 (indexed linked to RPIx, from date of signing the S106). Sustainable Cycle Travel Voucher: To provide one Cycle Voucher to one Occupier of each Dwelling no later than 28 (twenty-eight) days following the First Occupation of that Dwelling. The Cycle Voucher shall be valid for only one claim to be made only during the period of 18 (eighteen) months commencing on the date of provision of the Cycle Voucher to the Occupier. Once an occupier makes a claim on the cycle voucher to the owners by the submission of valid receipts for the purchase of cycles and/or cycling equipment, within 10 working days of such submission the owners shall reimburse the said occupier to the value of the said receipts up to a maximum of £50.00. The permitted existing site uses of the site previously generated a significant level of vehicle traffic activity. It also has the potential to do so in the future, if the existing buildings were brought back into use, for their current permitted uses. It is accepted that the direction of traffic movements is different between the MOD use and the proposed use, but it is important to note that the junction modelling assessment does not make any allowances for the base case, current legal use of the site and/or its historic traffic flows generated by the site when assessing traffic impact. It is clear that the MOD site use generated significant traffic movement on the local roads, and that the traffic impact of the proposed development is both minor and acceptable. Based on the comments from the residents of Headley, the Transport Consultants have updated their Modelling data to include the properties of Dale View and Cunliffe Close, which were unoccupied when the original surveys took place. A Modelling Scenario was run to see the impact if they were 100% occupied. Over the course of the AM Peak hour, the reoccupation of these dwellings has the potential to generate up to 22 vehicle movements over the A24 junction (approximately 1 movement every 3 minutes), and up to 21 vehicle
DM 129 movements over the PM Peak hour. This is a negligible increase. The updated modelling shows that the junction will operate within capacity now, and provides a more robust assessment. Highway Improvements: The modelling results show that there is an increase in capacity at the Headley Road/A24 junction. One of the main safety issues with the junction is drivers from Headley Road wishing to turn right onto the A24, and selecting a suitable gap due to the speed of the road and volume of traffic already on the A24. The improvements proposed at this junction therefore involve high friction surfacing on the A24 approaches to the junction, which would reduce braking distances and skidding, especially in wet conditions. Other capacity improvements involve widening Headley Road on approach to the junction, meaning it has a dedicated right turn lane. This should ease congestion for vehicles wishing to turn left. The slip road will also be improved by reinstating the verge and footway, introducing a large formalised layby, and introducing road markings to encourage drivers to use this slip road instead of turning at the junction. This should reduce the number of vehicles utilising the junction, providing capacity benefits. The final approved schemes will need to go through stage 1 and 2 Road Safety Audits. Due to the Covid-19 outbreak it has not been possible for Surrey County Council to conduct the Road Safety Audit at this time, but this should be done post planning. Subject to the outcomes of these, the schemes may need to be amended accordingly. The works should then be undertaken through Mini S278, or full S278 agreements with Surrey County Council. The other highway improvements involve the doming of the two mini roundabouts at the Headley Road/The drive mini roundabout and the Headley Road/Lee Green Lane/clay Lane mini roundabout, which should help to encourage reduced speeds. The pinch point on Headley Road will also be removed, by widening the road just before the Headley Road/Lee Green Lane/clay Lane mini roundabout. The final approved schemes will need to go through stage 1 and 2 Road Safety Audits. Due to the Covid-19 outbreak it has not been possible for Surrey County Council to conduct the Road Safety Audit at this time, but this should be done post planning. Subject to the outcomes of these, the schemes may need to be amended accordingly. The works should then be undertaken through Mini S278, or full S278 agreements with Surrey County Council. Footpath 55 will be upgraded and new footway/cycleway/bridleway links will be provided connecting BW512, FP55 and FP513 to BW514. The footway, bridleway and cycleway improvements in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development have been requested by and agreed with our Rights of Way Team. Demand Responsive Transport Service: The Headley Hopper bus service will mainly stop at Leatherhead Railway Station, Headley Court, and the Crossroads (the most southernly bus stop in Headley Village) if there is demand for it. It could also stop at other destinations along the way, such as local schools, if there is a demand. The final details of this will be finalised post planning. Travel Plan Comments: 1. Para 5.3 states SCC requires the use of TRICS SAM, but doesn’t
DM 130 commit to using this survey methodology. Confirmation of whether this method will be used is required. 2. Para 3.1 states that the appointment of a TPC will be agreed with SCC in advance of submission of the final TP. However, it is important to establish who will fund this role, at this stage. 3. Looking at the travel questionnaire: It might be more useful to ask for the address of respondents, rather than their names; this will help to record which dwellings have responded; The questionnaire is still aimed at commuters, and needs to be amended so that it covers all reasons for travel. Sustainability: The County Highway Authority acknowledges that the proposed residential development will overall have less of an impact than the existing use of the site, but still considers that the site is unsustainable in transport terms for a new residential development. The site is not easily accessible by modes of transport other than the private car, particularly given the lack of footways surrounding the site. For these reasons, it is considered that occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be heavily dependent upon the private car for access to normal day-to- day services and facilities, hence the development would not comply with the sustainable transport objectives of the NPPF (2019). The introduction of the DRT service does provide an alternative option to the private car, but the funding for this will run out within 7 years after the 20th occupation. It is unlikely that it will become financially viable after this date, and then the site could be left with no options other than the private car. Notwithstanding this advice, however, the CHA acknowledges that there are three dimensions to sustainable development - economic, social and environmental - hence the sustainability of the site should not be assessed purely in terms of transport mode and distance. Therefore, it is for the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to weigh up the CHA's sustainable transport advice against the other policies in the NPPF, Local Plan, and Core Strategy, to determine whether the proposed development is sustainable in its wider sense, and whether the benefits of the proposed development would outweigh the locational difficulties.
Further to amendments reducing the scheme to up to 70no. new dwellings, SCC Highways considers that their original comments and recommendations still apply.
8.12.3. Submitted documents:
The applicant has submitted several documents relating to transport as follows: Transport Assessment, dated January 2020, including: o Appendix C: Proposed Highways Improvement Plans o Appendix K: Surveys and modelling for Junction 8 of A24/Headley Road Advanced Transport Research, dated 26 & 28 September 2019, (including surveys of The Drive, Headley Road/A24 junction, Headley Road/The Drive junction, Headley Road/Lee Green Lane junction, Lee Green Lane/Cunliffe Close junction, Lee Green Lane/Dale View
DM 131 junction, Lee Green Lane/Tilley Lane junction, Tilley Lane/Clay Lane junction, Headley Road/Pebble Lane junction) Framework Travel Plan, dated January 2020 Air Quality Assessment, dated November 2019
Amended documents were submitted on 1 May 2020 as follows: A11454-D1002, Rev.P2, Proposed Access Parameter Plan Lot 04 & Lot 05 MBSK200305-02, Rev.P2, Proposed Highway Improvements to A24/Headley Road Junction MBSK200430-01, Rev.P1, Swept Path Analysis: Large Refuse Vehicle Servicing Site MBSK200430-02, Rev.P1, Swept Path Analysis: Two 10.8m Buses Passing On Roundabout MBSK200430-03, Rev.P1, Swept Path Analysis: Two 10.8m Buses Passing On Roundabout MBSK200430-04, Rev.P1, Proposed Footway/Bridleway Improvements MBSK200430-05, Rev.P1, Proposed Highway Improvements MBSK200430-06, Rev.P1, Proposed Highway Improvements and Visibility Splays at Clay Lane/Tilley Lane Junction Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms, The West Site, Headley Court, dated 27 March 2020 Response to Representations Submitted by Headley Parish Council, Tyrrells Woods Residents Association and Markides Associates, dated 27 March 2020
The transport assessments have been carried out for the wider Headley Court site, including the current application site together with the mansion house site to the east, for which the applicants intend to submit a planning application later this year. The assessments are based on the original outline application for up to 100no. new dwellings on the application site.
The main findings of the applicant’s assessments are that: The roads adjacent to Headley Court are typically rural in nature with narrow carriageways in some locations local to the site and with limited footway provision, which will be improved as part of the proposals. (TA, p.59) The Drive, dividing Lots 4 and 5, is a private road currently with no footway provision – although as indicated in Figure 3.2, traffic is sufficiently scarce on this road that it has been designated a bridleway (BW512), and pre-application discussions with SCC have indicated it continues to be suitable for this designation. (TA, p.16) The development proposals supported by this Transport Assessment comprises a residential development of 30x 2-bed units, 30x 3-bed units and 40x 4-bed units, supported by parking, internal highways, landscaping, pedestrian footways and off-site public rights of way improvements. (TA, p.59) An extensive highways and transportation pre-application process has been conducted with Surrey County Council (SCC) in order to inform the scheme proposals and the scope of this Transport Assessment. The permitted existing site uses previously generated a significant level of vehicle traffic activity and has the potential to do so in the
DM 132 future, if the existing buildings were brought back into use for their current permitted uses (TA, p.60) the site will be accessible by non-car modes of transport and the development represents a significant improvement in the accessibility of the site, particularly with the proposed introduction of the Headley Hopper bus service (TA, p.60) the highways improvements associated with the development are extensive, represent a benefit to the local community, and mitigate against the likely traffic impact of the development (TA, p.60) the road network and junctions local to the site will remain within operational capacity (TA, p.60) the development represents an improvement on peak hour traffic compared to the previous site use and its consented use (TA, p.60)
The table below shows the peak hour trips generated by the existing and proposed site use. The existing lawful use figures are only available for the entire site including both the application site and the Headley Court mansion house site to the east. In order to split the baseline traffic survey figures, the Council has divided the figures 50/50 as there is no clear methodology for extricating the figures pertaining to the application site in isolation.
Weekday AM Peak Weekday PM Peak (08:00-09:00) (17:00-18:00) Previous Application Site 56 40 Use (as 50% of total Headley Court site) Proposed Development – 52 61 70 Residential Units Impact -4 +21 Table 9 - Existing and Proposed Trip Generation (confirmed by email dated 4.6.20)
The figures in Table 9 above indicate an 18% increase in trip generation on the application site under the proposals. However, as stated above, this baseline figure, which has been calculated arbitrarily at 50%, takes no account of the greater number of traffic movements understood to have taken place on the application site under the existing lawful use, due it containing larger numbers of car parking spaces for use by visitors to either site. These projected figures have been reviewed by SCC Highways and found acceptable.
The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms, covers the sustainable transport requirements agreed with SCC, including: Demand Responsive Bus Service (Headley Hopper) – max. contribution of £490,000 Cycle Vouchers – £50 cycle voucher per dwelling Travel Plan – final Travel Plan to be approved and implemented prior to first occupation
The submitted Response Note, dated 27 March 2020, details the following changes since the original application and additional information: The off-site highways works supporting the development proposals now additionally includes improvements to the A24 / Headley Road junction (p.2)
DM 133 A revised junction model of the A24 / Headley Road junction has been produced, to reflect the updated layout and to address items in the comment documents [representations] Further details on the Headley Hopper bus service have been agreed with SCC, including commitment from the developer to fund the service for 7 years, during which time the Headley Hopper service will be free to all users [including residents beyond the application site] Providing free use for 7 years is expected to yield high take-up levels, in turn producing a well-utilised and consistent service - on this basis the service is likely to become sustainable after the 7 years with the introduction of a modest charge. This is an acceptable way to improve the accessibility of a rural site and has been accepted in other areas of Surrey as well as by the Planning Inspectorate at appeal on a rural Surrey site in 2020. (p.4) An indicative bus service plan and route have been provided in the TA, but the exact details cannot be determined until the development is operational and routes and timings will be set once the demand is understood. SCC’s Passenger Transport Team and other stakeholders will have a significant input into the bus service details, in terms of routes (including schools) to serve, and route frequency, among other details. The road widening near the mini-roundabouts has been discussed and agreed with SCC to remove a ‘pinch-point’. This widening is limited in distance and will not increase vehicle speeds or increase safety risks. (p.5)
Representations received during the initial consultation period comment on a lack of robust evidence to substantiate the submitted transport assessments. In this regard, the Response Note, dated 27.3.20, states that: The scope of the Transport Assessment was agreed with SCC and concentrates on agreed key junctions. Traffic data for the MOD’s historic use of the site is based on the following empirical data: o MOD Surveys (demonstrates significant traffic generation associated with the previous use at the site) o MOD Travel Plan 2011 – Car Park Surveys (evidences daily demand for car parking at the site at 355 vehicles per day) Google satellite imagery (aerial photos over many years shows the car parks at Headley Court utilised extensively with highly limited spare capacity) The Response Note confirms that the transport assessments have included trips generated from the adjacent Headley Court manor house site which is proposed to be redeveloped as a care home use, subject to a future, separate planning application. The Response Note also provides an additional assessment to include the existing dwellings at Dale View and Cunliffe Close which were unoccupied at the time of the original surveys. The result of this is described as a ‘negligible increase’ in peak hour trips. Updated modelling is also provided on the basis of the amended proposal to include improvements to the A24/Headley Road junction. The Note concludes that the proposals: Do not detrimentally impact the road network (p.13) Reduce the overall amount of traffic movements on the network when compared with both the previous site occupier and the site’s lawful existing use
DM 134 Provide improvements to the existing highway network both adjacent to the site and at the A24 junction Improve the local rights of way network Will provide an accessibility benefit to the site and the existing local residents through the introduction of the Headley Hopper bus service Provide a financial contribution to each household to encourage and promote cycling
8.12.4. Accessibility:
The application site is located 3.4km south-east of Leatherhead and 1.1km north-west of Headley village. There is an existing bus stop per direction on Headley Road adjacent to the Headley Court (Lots 1, 2 and 3) main entrance and a zebra crossing in close proximity. The bus service is route 21 which serves Crawley, Dorking, Leatherhead and Epsom and provides between 5-7 services 7 days a week. The Transport Assessment states that the bus service between Headley Court and Leatherhead rail station (the closest bus stop being 715m or a 9mins walk to the station) normally takes 8-9mins, such that the site is located approx. 20mins from its nearest rail station by public transport. The nearest rail stations to the site and services are set out below.
Figure 40. Table of nearest rail stations from Transport Assessment, p.22
8.12.5. Access proposals:
The current application is in outline only with all matters reserved except for access. The proposed development comprises 3no. access points to the application site, of which one would be sited centrally on the northern side of The Drive and the remaining two would be sited to the south-west and north- east of this, on the south-western side of The Drive, as shown in Figure 41.
DM 135 The spur roads leading off these 3no. access points are illustrative only and comprise reserved matters.
The proposed access is considered an improvement over the existing situation whereby there are 6no. vehicular access points leading to the northern and southern parts of the site from The Drive. The proposed reduction in vehicular access points would allow sections of soft landscaping to be reintroduced at these points along the northern and southern sides of The Drive, as discussed above in the section on Character and below in the section on Ecology and Trees. Although the landscaping details are reserved matters, the land use parameters plan and indicative landscaping documents show that the former access points would be greened, which would be welcomed.
No objections to the proposed access points have been received from the Highways Authority on highways safety grounds. Any residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be mitigated by the raft of proposed highways improvements detailed below. As such, the 3no. proposed access points are considered acceptable in line with paragraph 109 of the NPPF.
Figure 41 - Extract from Proposed Access Parameter Plan, D1002, Rev.P2 .
The submitted Revised Proposals Letter, dated 29 April 2020, states: Surrey County Council as Highway Authority has confirmed that the detailed access proposals are acceptable. SCC has also confirmed that the scale of development (i.e. up to 100 units) would be acceptable in relation to traffic impact considerations and that associated improvements to the highway network and local transport provision would be beneficial. This analysis takes into account the potential of the main Headley Court site east of Headley Road to be redeveloped for residential care home purposes (Class C2). A package of off-site highway works and local transport improvements
DM 136 to be secured within a Section 106/278 agreement have now been agreed as follows: Headley Road/A24 Leatherhead Bypass Junction - improvements to junction The Drive/Headley Road Junction- doming on the existing roundabout Headley Road/Lee Green Lane/Clay Lane Junction - widening of Headley Road, improvements to the existing roundabout and formation of footpaths/crossing points. Lee Green Lane/Tiley Lane Junction – improvements to visibility splays Bus Stop Improvements – upgrading of bus stops of Headley Road Demand Responsive Transport Service – funding of Headley Hopper bus service
A series of improvements to the local transport infrastructure are proposed within the scheme. The table below shows the proposed works together with the associated figure numbers for the relevant drawings included within the report:
Location Proposed works Transport Figure Type no. Headley Road junction Mini-roundabout central Vehicles Figure with The Drive island to be domed 42 Along north-western New 3m wide shared Pedestrians/ Figure side of The Drive, to footway/cycleway cyclists 42 the north-east of the proposed access point Along north-western New 2m wide shared Pedestrians/ Figure side of The Drive, to footway cyclists 42 the south-west of the proposed access point Along south-western Existing 2m wide Pedestrians/ Figure site boundary to north footway (FP55) to be cyclists/ 42 of The Drive (Existing widened to 3m and horses Figure footpath No. 55) reconstructed to SCC 45 design specification (to bridleway standards) At south-east end of Bridleway no.512 to be Pedestrians/ Figure The Drive (extent retained cyclists/ 42 within application site) horses Figure 45
Along southern Footpath no.513 to be Pedestrians Figure boundary of retained 42 application site Figure 45
Within application site New 3m wide off road Pedestrians/ Figure along western side of shared cyclists 42 Headley Road from footway/cycleway - Figure roundabout at Clay linking FP55, FP513 and 45 Lane towards The BW512 to BW514 Drive, linking with bus (These proposals will stop link to an upgraded
DM 137 bridleway/footway alongside Headley Road, which in turn will link to new/improved facilities on Lee Green Lane and Clay Lane) Northern and southern Proposed 2m wide Pedestrians/ Figure sides of Lee Green shared cyclists 42 Lane footway/cycleway, Figure linking the facilities at 45 the mini-roundabout to bridleways BW514, BW114a and BW51 The Lee Green Lane footpaths will also be improved with lighting and brought into Highways ownership On both sides of Improved bus stop Pedestrians Figure Headley Road to north facilities 42 of Headley Court manor house entrance (south of junction with The Drive) Headley Road Road widened to 8m at Vehicles Figure between junction with approach to roundabout 42 The Drive and Clay and pinch point removed Lane (6.5m wide adjacent to Headley Court manor house entrance) Headley Road junction Mini-roundabout central Vehicles Figure with Clay Lane and island to be domed 42 Lee Green Lane Lee Green Lane Road widened to 7.6m Vehicles Figure at approach to Headley 42 Road/Clay Lane roundabout North side of Lee New verge Vehicles Figure Green Lane 42 Clay Lane/Tilley Lane Proposed Highway Vehicles Figure Junction Improvements and 43 Visibility Splays A24/Headley Road Highway Improvements Vehicles Figure Junction to Junction including 44 visibility improvements by cutting back vegetation Table 10 – Proposed Transport Infrastructure Improvements
DM 138
Figure 42 - Extract from MBSK200430-05, Rev.P2, Proposed Highway Improvements
DM 139
Figure 43 - Extract from MBSK200430-06, Rev.P1, Proposed Highway Improvements and Visibility Splays at Clay Lane/Tilley Lane Junction
DM 140
Figure 44. Extract from MBSK200305-02, Rev.P2, Proposed Highway Improvements to A24/Headley Road Junction (direction of north pointing to top left corner of image and direction of application site leading off road at top right of image)
With regard to the proposed improvements to the A24 Leatherhead Bypass/Headley Road Junction shown in Fig.43 above, this would involve widening the westbound approach of Headley Road towards the A24 to create 2no. lanes dedicated to traffic turning left (south) or right (north) onto the A24. A new layby and kerb would be installed on the sliproad leading off the A24 onto Headley Road eastbound to prevent parked vehicles. The A24 would be re-surfaced at the junction with Headley Road (shown in red in Figure 44) with high friction surfacing (HFS) for anti-skid purposes. Visibility would also be improved by cutting back vegetation around the junction, (as stated in Response Note, p.6).
DM 141
Figure 45 - Public Rights of Way map from Framework Travel Plan
In terms of construction traffic and HGV trips, the Response Note of 27.03.20, states: A Construction Vehicle Management Plan will be submitted and approved by SCC covering the construction of the development scheme. It is recognised that some rural roads in the local area are narrow and that passing HGV traffic can result in some localised congestion, however the proposals are not industrial in nature and will not generate additional HGV movements. This is an existing highways HGV issue that is unrelated to the development and will not be exacerbated by the development. Indeed, the previous MOD use on the site would have generated a greater level of large vehicle and HGV trips than the proposed development will. As such, a condition will be added requiring a Construction Transport Management Plan to be approved and implemented, as recommended by SCC Highways.
8.12.6. Travel plan:
The submitted Framework Travel Plan (FTP), dated January 2020, states: [This plan] is a long term strategy which aims to reduce dependence on private car use by residents [… by increasing] the awareness of residents and visitors on sustainable travel, including generating enthusiasm and assistance through introducing of a range of measures and incentives (pp.1-2)
DM 142 The proposals therefore include a comprehensive set of pedestrian footway/cycleway improvements, which have been discussed and agreed with SCC. These proposals will tie into existing infrastructure and are designed to be in-keeping with the rural nature of the area. (p.4) [The proposed improvements detailed in the FTP are listed in the table at Sub-Section 8.5.9 above.] To supplement the existing bus service, it is proposed to provide a new community bus service, the ‘Headley Hopper’, as part of the Headley Court Travel Plan. It is envisaged that the main route will travel between Headley village and Leatherhead Rail Station, passing by Headley Court. The three crucial bus stops are therefore: - Leatherhead Railway Station - Headley Court - Crossroads (the most southernly bus stop in Headley Village) Additionally, the bus route could, subject to demand, serve Therfield School and St Andrew’s Catholic School around school pick-up/drop- off times, the two state secondary schools in the area. These schools are also located nearby to other state and private schools, enabling the route to additionally serve these destinations without rerouting. The Headley Hopper would also be able to serve other destinations and schools, and the exact details of the routes will be determined once the demand is established through the Travel Plan travel surveys. The bus service is proposed to run for the following hours, subject to detailed discussions and agreement with SCC: - Weekday: 06:45 – 20:30 - Saturday: 08:30 – 19:30 - Sunday: 09:00 – 17:30 It is envisioned that the bus would operate as a Demand Responsive Transit service outside of peak times. This bus service will be secured through a section 106 planning agreement. (pp.7-8) A Travel Plan Co-ordinator will be appointed, who will implement and administer the Plan [.. and] will be agreed with Surrey County Council (SCC) in advance of submission of the finalised Travel Plan in advance of the first occupation of the development. (p.10) Where it is not possible for residents to make work-based journeys either on foot, cycle, or public transport, car sharing will be promoted as the next most sustainable alternative. (p.13) Working from home will be promoted in the Travel Plan Welcome Pack. (p.15) Upon occupation of their dwelling, each new resident will be provided with a Travel Plan Welcome Pack. This pack will contain all the information an individual will need in order to make an informed choice on the mode of travel to be used for their journeys.
This element of the proposal falls under reserved matters and is for consideration in principle only at this stage. A finalised Travel Plan will be required to be approved and implemented prior to occupation of the development.
8.12.7. Parking:
DM 143 The Surrey County Council Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance, together with the parking and electric vehicle (EV) charging socket provision proposed is shown in the table below:
As proposed SCC Guidance (indicative only) Village/ Cycle Fast Fast Car rural Car Cycle parking charge charge parkin locatio Parking Parking socket socket* g n s 1 & 2 1.5 2 bed houses 1 fast Garage 3 bed 2 plus charge 2 or shed 1 per No socket per provided house 4 or 2 plus requiremen house 2 per unit more t for houses bed with Visitor No garages or No 10 Sheffield None spaces requiremen gardens requiremen Stands t t in key, highly visible location s *Charge point specification of 7kw Mode 3 with Type 2 Connector and a 230v AC 32 Amp Single Phase dedicated supply for electric vehicles Table 11 – Parking Provision compared with Surrey CC Guidance
The submitted Response Note states that: ‘Historically the site has been a major traffic generator in the area as evidenced by previous MOD traffic surveys, MOD Travel Plans (including car parking surveys), and Google satellite imagery showing very substantial car parking on the site [over 313 car parking spaces] over a prolonged period of time and use.’
While parking and EV charging provision are reserved matters, the indicative levels proposed meet the guidance and would be acceptable in principle.
8.12.8. Air Quality:
The submitted Air Quality Assessment, (AQA), dated November 2019, which is premised on the original outline proposal for up to 100no. new dwellings, states that: Any emissions associated with the proposed energy strategy should be reviewed and assessed, if required, at the appropriate stage, when all the required detailed plant technical information is confirmed. (p.10) No Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) have been declared [in Mole Valley District.., however,] to the north east of the development site lies the M25 AQMA which is located within Reigate and Banstead Borough Council [at a distance of over 1km]. (p.15) There are a number of human receptors within 350m of the site boundary therefore a dust assessment has been undertaken [resulting from construction activities] (p.18)
DM 144 Any likely pollutant impacts [from construction traffic] should be addressed through Best Available Techniques (BAT) mitigation measures [see pp.20-23],. (p.18) The table [see section 8.12.4 above] demonstrates that a net reduction of vehicle trips is anticipated following the completion of the proposed development. [Officer Note: this assumption which has been accepted by SCC Highways is based on an assessment of previous and proposed trips at both the east and west sites treated as a whole.] Therefore, it has not been considered necessary to quantify traffic related air quality impacts as a result of the operation of the proposed development. (p.19) The mitigation measures outlined [pp.20-23], should make up part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) that should be implemented to minimise the potential adverse construction dust impacts throughout all the relevant construction stages. (p.20)
While the sub-division of the baseline traffic data on the basis of floor area results in a slight increase in projected trip generation for the application site, the car parking proposed represents a 32% reduction on that existing. As such, the Council is satisfied, on the basis of the information provided, that the proposed development of up to 70no. new dwellings following demolition of existing buildings would, in principle and subject to reserved matters, be acceptable in terms of air pollution. It is considered reasonable, in relation to the outline application for access, to condition the implementation of a CEMP and mitigation measures detailed in the submitted AQA.
8.12.9. Refuse and recycling: Joint Waste Solutions has been consulted and has commented as follows: ‘Access: I see no issues with vehicle access, but I see no detail of road width. The minimum must be 4 metres wide. Bin Store: I cannot find any comments regarding the waste collections and can only assume that there will be individual bins presented to the front of the properties. The developer should refer to our guidance when considering the space for the storage of waste containers in the collection enclosure. Properties will require sufficient room to house containers for refuse, recycling, and food waste. Where applicable garden waste bins may also be needed. There may not be room for all these containers in the designated refuse store area. Internal storage: All units should have sufficient space in the kitchen to segregate recyclable and non-recyclable waste and store it until it is taken out to the bins.’
Details of internal and external bin storage relating to the proposed new dwellings, together with the spur roads leading off the 3no. access points from The Drive, are reserved matters. However, drawing no. MBSK200430- 01, Rev.P1, Swept Path Analysis: Large Refuse Vehicle Servicing Site, shows that the 3no. access points leading off The Drive into the proposed residential areas would be in excess of 4m wide. Given that the above- mentioned drawing would be listed under Condition 2, there is no reason to add any further conditions in this regard.
8.12.10. Officer conclusion on the impact on highways, parking and refuse:
DM 145 The outline proposal for the consideration in principle of 70no. new dwellings with waste and recycling facilities, together with cycle parking facilities, EVC points and 211no. car parking spaces, alongside the proposed Framework Travel Plan, which encompass an enhanced bus service, Travel Plan Co- ordinator and sustainable travel promotion, is considered acceptable, subject to approval of details under reserved matters.
The proposed 3no. vehicular access points leading off The Drive to the proposed residential development, together with associated local highway, footway, cycle path and bridleway improvements are considered satisfactory and to comply with the relevant policies, subject to conditions and a s106 agreement.
It is acknowledged that the Council has declared a Climate Emergency, as referred to in Section 6. Clearly, this application must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless other material considerations dictate to the contrary. While there have been no changes to the Development Plan as a result of the Council’s declaration, it is reasonable to suggest that the highway improvements, including provision of a community transport mechanism, along with the requirement for all dwellings to have ECV charging points, respond to the Council’s declaration.
8.13. Ecology and Trees, including Ancient Woodland
8.13.1. Policy context:
The NPPF states: Para.170. ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by; minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures’ Para.175. ‘‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.’ Para.180. states that planning policies and decisions should ‘limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on […] dark landscapes and nature conservation’.
Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS15, Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, states: ‘All water course, mature hedges and trees within development sites should be, as far as practicable, retained. Only where no realistic alternatives are available or replacement of such features elsewhere in the site would result in biodiversity enhancements above what already exists, will removal of such features be permitted. In these cases the replacement will be expected to result in biodiversity enhancements to what previously existed and where possible should seek to contribute to a network of green infrastructure and the objectives of the Surrey Biodiversity Action Plan.
DM 146 Planting and other schemes that promote biodiversity will be expected as part of all development schemes, focussing on native species from the locality and particularly trees, a key feature of the environment across Surrey.’
Core Strategy policy CS16, Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities, states: 5. ‘All development, except for the most minor, will be expected to contribute to the continued greening of the Districts towns and villages and the provision of, or connections to, the network of green infrastructure e.g. through the use of landscaping, retention of important mature trees, hedges, use of some forms of SUDs for example.’
Local Plan policy ENV12, Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, states: Development and land use change likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Nature Conservation Importance identified on the Proposals Map will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there are reasons for the proposal which outweigh the need to safeguard the nature conservation value of the site. In all cases where development or land use change is permitted which would damage the nature conservation value of the site, such damage will be kept to a minimum. Where appropriate, the Council will consider the use of conditions and/or planning obligations to provide appropriate suitable measures. In considering development proposals and land use change that are likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of a potential Site of Nature Conservation Importance identified on the Proposals Map, the Council will consult and have regard to the views of the Surrey Wildlife Trust on the impact of the proposal and any nature conservation value of the site.
Local Plan policy ENV15, Species Protection, states: ‘Where it is evident that a proposed development would be likely to result in harm to a protected species or its habitat, a thorough site investigation will be necessary by the applicant and the relevant nature conservation bodies will be consulted. Development that would materially harm a protected species or its habitat will not be permitted.’
8.13.2. Submitted documents relating to ecology and trees:
These include: Protected Species Checklist Ecological Impact Assessment, ref. PRI21579 EcIA DR, dated 22.01.2020 Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Method Statement, dated 05.12.19 Tree Protection Plan – Lot 4, ref. ANG22507-03 Tree Protection Plan – Lot 5, ref. ANG22507-03 Landscape Masterplan, ref. ANG22507 Rev.A, dated 15.01.20 (Appendix 1)
The Ecological Impact Assessment states that:
DM 147 ‘An Ecological Walkover & Update was carried out by Delta-Simons Environmental Consultants (report dated November 2018). This has been followed by ecological inputs by ACD Environmental Ltd in 2019. An Extended Phase 1 Survey has been carried out, which was combined with a visual survey for badger and a visual assessment of buildings and trees for roosting bats. Based on the results of an initial site appraisal, a suite of Phase 2 surveys has been carried as follows: o Bats - emergence/re-entry surveys for buildings (both sites); o Great crested newt - Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Assessment and eDNA analysis for the two ponds within the East Site (there no ponds within the Application Site); o Hazel dormouse - presence/absence surveys (both sites); and o Reptiles - presence/absence surveys (both sites). (pp.1-2) The buildings and hardstanding are of negligible intrinsic ecological value whilst the grassland is primarily of low ecological value, except for a small area of higher value noted for the presence of orchids. Furthermore, a ribbon of woodland and species-poor hedgerows along The Drive are of higher ecological value. (p.2) The buildings and hardstanding are of negligible intrinsic ecological value whilst the grassland is primarily of low ecological value, except for a small area of higher value noted for the presence of orchids. Furthermore, a ribbon of woodland and species-poor hedgerows along The Drive are of higher ecological value. The northern boundary to Lot 5 is immediately adjacent to Hambleton Wood and a section of the southern boundary to Lot 4 is immediately adjacent to Pignut Wood. A section of Hambleton Wood to the north- west and Pignut Wood are designated Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland. Furthermore, Pignut Wood forms part of Nower Wood Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). There is inherent mitigation embedded within the masterplan through a 15m buffer of green provision to the canopy edge of the adjacent Ancient Semi-Natural Woodlands; open space provision that retains grassland; new areas of species-rich grassland including an area dedicated for orchids with translocation/new planting; and retained/new tree planting that maintains a woodland ribbon and promotes a diverse understorey. The subsequent detailed soft landscape proposals must show enhancement of the retained sections of the woodland and must achieve a net gain in grassland (comprising open space provision and private gardens), hedgerows and scattered trees/shrubs. The proposed development is therefore capable of achieving net biodiversity gains overall in terms of habitats. (p.3) There is currently a car park within the 15m buffer of green provision to the canopy edge of the adjacent woodland section of Hambleton Wood. The proposed works will change this built environment to green provision, which includes the area dedicated for orchids with translocation/new planting, and therefore delivers a significant ecological benefit. The Application Site is c.1.2km south from the nearest point of Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment Special Area for Conservation (SAC) [.. beyond] the 800m buffer Proposed impacts on the integrity of the adjacent ancient woodland sections of Hambleton Wood or Pignut Wood (as part of Nower Wood
DM 148 SNCI) are also scoped-out for a range of reasons, including the 15m buffer. No evidence of badger was found by ACD Environmental Ltd within the Application Site or East Site; however, there is potential for dense vegetation to preclude field signs and this species is highly mobile with potential to utilise the woodland ribbon and grassland within the Application Site. An updated badger walkover is therefore recommended prior to the commencement of works and a precautionary approach to groundworks is detailed within this report. (p.4) The bat surveys have confirmed the presence of bat roosts within the former barracks. […] As the proposed works will require demolition of the former barracks, a European Protected Species (EPS) licence from Natural England will be required for the proposed works to commence lawfully. The mitigation principles are included within this report [..including] bat tubes/boxes [..] (some delivered as mitigation and some delivered as enhancements). No hazel dormouse were found within the Application Site; however, an individual adult male hazel dormouse was found during the November 2019 check along the eastern boundary of the East Site with an associated nest. A precautionary approach is recommended for hazel dormouse rather than an EPS licence given that presence has not been confirmed onsite (but has been confirmed offsite), the woodland has no understorey with limited potential; a 15m buffer is already shown to the adjacent ancient woodlands; and the hedgerows with higher potential are retained with new sections proposed in any case. No great crested newt (eDNA) or reptiles have been found during surveys. A precautionary approach to these species is detailed within this report and enhancements for these species are provided.’
Ecology Consultation Response and Position Statement Rev A, (15.05.20), p.11-12 ‘It is important to note that there is currently a hardstanding car park within the 15m buffer of green provision to the canopy edge of the adjacent woodland section of Hambleton Wood - so the area within the 15m buffer currently contains built environment contrary to Standing Advice. Furthermore, this car park is currently illuminated by streetlighting - so there are existing impacts on lighting within the 15m buffer. The car park with associated streetlighting is shown in […Fig.38 below] The proposed works will change the existing car park within the 15m buffer to grassland, which includes orchid translocation/new planting, and therefore delivers a significant ecological benefit. The area will not require streetlighting and will be maintained as a dark sheltered corridor as detailed below. The associated 15m buffer has an area of 0.1829 hectares and the total area of the existing hardstanding is 0.0722 hectares. As such the removal of this hardstanding and replacement with grassland represents a 39% improvement of this area rather than a loss or deterioration.’
DM 149
Figure 46 - The car park with streetlighting currently within the 15m buffer to the canopy edge of the ancient woodland at Hambleton Wood (p.12, Ecology Consultation Response and Position Statement Rev A)
Ecology Consultation Response and Position Statement Rev A, (15.05.20), p.21-22 ‘The grassland was surveyed by an experience botanist who carries out National Vegetation Classification (NVC) surveys and was assessed as being largely amenity species-poor grassland, which are the main areas of grassland forming the playing fields and around the former barracks. However, two distinct ‘patches’ of grassland were noted as being species-rich and of higher value, namely an area north- west of the playing field and a separate area around the ancillary buildings; The area of grassland to the north-west of the playing fields orchids is noted for the presence of orchids, namely bee orchid Ophrys apifera, common twayblade Neottia ovata and pyramidal orchid Anacamptis pyramidalis Other species include bird’s foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus, crested dog’s tail Cynosurus cristatus, perforate St John's-wort Hypericum perforatum, selfheal and Timothy Phleum pratense. This area of grassland is of higher quality than the remaining areas of grassland and for the purposes of BIC will be classified as calcareous grassland. However, the new areas of grassland, which will include orchid translocation/new planting within the 15m buffer to Hambleton Wood, will be a larger area of calcareous grassland than that currently present. Furthermore, the removal of existing hardstanding and replacement with grassland within the 15m buffer to Hambleton Wood represents a 39% improvement of this area rather than a loss or deterioration A suite of species enhancements (above what is required for mitigation) is detailed within the EcIA and comprises the following: o 2x Schwegler 1FE Bat Access Panel (with rear back plate)/ Ibstock Enclosed Bat Box ‘B’ or ‘C’ - small versions (depending upon construction);
DM 150 o 2x WoodStone Build-in House Sparrow Nest Box (each box has two brood chambers); o 8x WoodStone Build-in Swift Nest Box B (installed with two boxes next to each other in four locations); and o 2x vegetation piles with a composite of logs, clippings and leaves to provide opportunities for a range of fauna including amphibians, hedgehog, invertebrates and reptiles. These must be located within the two 15m buffers to the offsite ancient woodlands, namely the section of Hambleton Wood and Pignut Wood.’
The Landscape Masterplan (ANG22507 Rev.A), (Figure 47), details the following measures: 1. Northern end of eastern boundary: proposed native understorey and tre planting to privide visual barrier and enhance biodiversity 2. Open space, north-east of site: proposed larger growing ornamental tree planting around open space to replicate similar specimens at Headley Court and diversify age of tree stock and providing screening; proposed path to meander around space including seating and cycle parking 3. Open space, north-east of site: margins around open space to be over-seeded with native grass and wildflower mix plus additional native orchid plug plants to give rural appearance and increase diversity 4. Northern side of The Drive: existing car park on north of The Drive to be removed and repaced with grass 5. Eastern boundary, north of The Drive: existing lime tree avenue along Headley Road and hedgerow to be retained ‘allowing glimpsed views’ of site from Headley Road 6. Southern side of The Drive: existing hedgerow to be retained with infill planting at existing gpas to provide continuous hedgerow along the road at similar height and structure to existing 7. Residential areas: proposed publicly accessible paths to be set within landscape structure providing seasonal interest and maintained to high standard; planting beds in front gardens to have mix of shrubs and herbaceous varieties to included wildlife friendly species 8. Site edges: proposed pockets of informal open space providing high- quality amenity and retention of existing trees and proposed trees of similar species to those existing 9. Eastern boundary south of The Drive: existing trees and vegetation along Headley Road and footpath to be retained; ground reinstated with shade tolerant native grass and wildflower mix; proposed hedgerow along (widened/improved) footpath to define edge of gardens/public open space 10. Southern boundary: proposed infill native hedgerow planting to enhance dense screening; existing hedgerow along offsite public right of way retained 11. Play area: see Section 8.14 12. West corner of site south of The Drive: existing trees and grassland beneath tree canopies retained to form woodland glade providing screening to dwellings 13. Far west corner of site south of The Drive: existing trees retained – 15m buffer to Ancient Woodland [Following amendments, no private gardens within buffer]
DM 151 14. Northern side of The Drive, western section: proposed avenue of trees to form continuation of Tyrrells Wood using local species 15. New bridleway along existing public right of way: see sub-section 8.12.5 above 16. Rear gardens: smaller decorative and fruiting trees for privacy screening 17. Western boundary: hedgerows to rear of gardens – proposed native tree and shrub planting to increase wildlife/habitat connectivity 18. Site/property boundaries: hedgerow planting to delineate public/private realm 19. North-west corner: 15m buffer to Ancient Woodland [as amended] – proposed native wildflower and grassland including native orchids 20. Northern boundary: proposed rear garden boundaries adjacent Ancient Woodland to be defined by native hedgerows allowing wildlife egress 21. Northern area of woodland: retention of all category A and majority of category B trees as landscape feature; site layout designed around root protection zones; existing grassland retained and maintained as taller wildflower area [Note: amendments remove all originally proposed dwellings to east of this woodland area)
Figure 47 - Indicative Landscape Masterplan prior to amendments relating to dwelling numbers and layout [numbers added by Officer]
8.13.3. Consultees:
Natural England has been consulted and has commented as follows:
DM 152 ‘Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes.’
Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) has been consulted and their comments (in response to the original application) are summarised in the table below. The applicant’s response to these points contained within the Ecology Consultation Response and Position Statement Rev A,(ECR), submitted on 15.05.20), SWT’s subsequent comments, together with officer comments are also shown.
SWT SWT comments Applicant’s response comments Officer Comments dated 17.04.20 15.05.20 dated 28.05.20 Protected habitat - 15m buffer Provision of a 15m buffer zone to Ancient Woodland, The layout amended to 15m buffer of Ancient Woodland is Habitat of Principle ensure 15m buffer from semi-natural shown in Figure 48 - Importance, Site of the adjacent ancient habitat can be a condition will be Nature woodland section of achieved added to secure this. Conservation Hambleton Wood, which adjacent to the Importance – Nower is allocated entirely as ancient Details will be Wood open space, and does woodland addressed at the not contain any private present to the reserved matters Proposal does not gardens. The proposed north west and stage including provide a 15m turning head to the south west of mitigation and buffer of semi- southeast is outside the the betterment measures natural habitat, 15m buffer from Pignut development in LEMP. excluding private Wood. site. I gardens, between welcome the the development LEMP to include detailed removal of and the areas of mitigation at reserved private gardens Ancient Woodland matters stage from within at Hambleton Wood 15m of the and Pignut Wood. Biodiversity net gain ancient Northern buffer woodlands It has not been reinstates carpark to demonstrated that green space – 39% LEMP should the proposal will not improvement provide full cause loss or details of the deterioration to the Air pollution Ancient adjacent Ancient Reduced traffic Woodland Woodland contrary movements predicted to buffer zone to the Standing decrease air pollution landscaping Advice and the regarding Ancient and NPPF as a result of Woodland management potential regimes disturbance to Construction wildlife from Environmental The LEMP full additional traffic and Management Plan details of visitors; increasing (CEMP) to be prepared provisions to be light or air pollution; at reserved matters re. made to and increasing light/air pollution and prevent likely damaging activities waste/fly tipping adverse effect like fly-tipping and on the adjacent the impact of External Lighting Nower Wood domestic pets. Lighting is a reserved SNCI. The matter, however, no above No clear information external lighting will be referenced on mitigation of placed in the vicinity of Position
DM 153 adverse impacts mitigation/enhancements Statement from significant for fauna and the 15m provides an resident buffers to the ancient indication of development woodland, will be measures immediately maintained as sheltered proposed for adjacent to Pignut dark corridors to implementation Wood/Nower Wood maintain opportunities to avoid SNCI to comply with for nocturnal animals; adverse effect - ENV12. lighting for H&S reasons that public will be kept to minimum rights of way The development as adjacent to the proposed appears Fly-tipping development to result in direct Outline Energy Strategy site will be loss of all or some details waste promoted for of the Habitats of management measures use by new Principle Importance to mitigate against fly- residents; site on the site such as tipping; Management boundaries will species rich Company appointed by be clearly grassland and trees, the Developer will further demarcated including suitable manage this; property with habitat for a range deeds of the new houses appropriate of protected species prohibiting fly-tipping fencing; and which are known to would provide a legal that direct to be present locally mechanism to ensure the SNCI will (bats, reptiles and compliance by new not be enabled. dormice) but the homeowners avoidance/mitigation The LEMP measures are Domestic pets should provide unquantified/ Dense/thorny vegetation full details of unclear. along boundaries these (existing & proposed) measures, and proposed fencing including how will deter entry measures will be implemented, monitored and retained as effective for the long term Measurable net gain The proposed Comments Calculations of for biodiversity works will make a dated 12.6.20 proposed biodiversity commitment to deliver Applicant has net gains have been The applicant does mitigation/enhancements provided a submitted, which not clearly at a ratio of 1:4 (i.e. one biodiversity demonstrate that the demonstrate that feature per every four impact development is measurable houses). This is in calculator capable of policy biodiversity net addition to two Version A compliance. gains will be vegetation piles. based on the secured as a result DEFRA V2.0 This will be fully of the proposed In the absence of Biodiversity assessed under development. suitable avoidance / Metric, author reserved matters. mitigation /compensation ACD the proposed Environmental, development would have dated 5th June adverse ecological 2020. The impacts; however, with calculator suitable avoidance / makes use of mitigation / the DEFRA compensation the metric and proposed development is therefore uses
DM 154 capable of achieving the an appropriate requirements of the methodology. NPPF with regard to The calculator ecology. notes a net biodiversity Biodiversity Impact gain as a result Calculator (BIC) of development calculations using of 9.49%. This DEFRA Biodiversity is close to the Metric 2.0, submitted on recommended 5.6.20, states that 10% net gain habitat units will be recommended increased by 1.39% and with the draft hedgerow units will be Environment increased by 8.1% in Bill. It is terms of on-site habitat therefore retention and creation. demonstrated that on the basis of current proposals, that the development will result in a net gain for biodiversity and is therefore in line with the policy objectives of the NPPF to achieve a net gain. Protected species – ACD Environmental Ltd Full suite of This will be dormice have been instructed to surveys as addressed at the The Council does carry out monthly checks proposed and reserved matters not have sufficient for April, May, June and appropriately stage. information to July 2020. This means detailed ascertain that the that between 2019 and information on favourable condition 2020 there will be a full measures to be status of the local season of survey data implemented population of (April to November). for avoid killing, dormice will injuring or maintained as a During the surveys in disturbance of result of the 2019, no hazel the animals, to proposed dormouse (individuals, be submitted at development – this nests and/or reserved is required to feedingremains) were matters stage assess the outline found within the application. Application Site. The monthly check for April 2020 (carried out in arrears so the check itself is at thebeginning of May 2020) has already been carried out and no hazel dormouse were found within the Application Site or Mansion Site.
DM 155 The EcIA recommended a precautionary approach for hazel dormouse rather than an EPS licence given that presence had not been confirmed within the Application Site (but has been confirmed offsite), the woodland has no understorey with limited potential; a 15m buffer is already shown to the adjacent ancient woodlands; and there will be retained/new hedgerows in any case. However, this position will be reassessed when the 2020 survey data is available.
Detailed mitigation is provided pp34-36 of ECR for construction and operation phases Protected species – Bat surveys carried out No further This will be bats in 2019, confirmed the comment addressed at the Active bat roosts presence of small bat reserved matters have been identified roosts; an EPS licence stage. within buildings from Natural England will scheduled for be required for the demolition. As proposed works to such, the applicant commence lawfully should be required to: A third survey has been obtain a European instructed with ACD Protected Species Environmental Ltd and (EPS) licence booked-in for May/June from Natural 2020 (survey split over England following two evenings) the receipt of planning The mitigation strategy is permission and outlined within the EcIA, prior to any works which comprises bat which may affect tubes/boxes suitable for bats the roosts currently undertake all the present. actions which will be detailed in the If the survey in 2020 Method Statement requires additional (based on the roosting provision as mitigation, mitigation then this will compensation and be included in the EPS enhancement licence application actions presented within the above ACD Environmental Ltd referenced have been instructed to Ecological Impact visit the Application Site Assessment and accurately map all
DM 156 report), which trees with Potential must support an Roost Features (PRFs); EPS licence the first of these site application. visits has already been carried out in May 2020; if bats are confirmed as roosting within any of the trees for proposed removal, an EPS licence will be required for the proposed works to commence lawfully.
A total of 24 surveyor visits will have taken place once the surveys have been completed across 2019 and 2020 in line with best practice. Protected species – As stated in the EcIA at No further This will be Badger Paragraph 5.57. The comment addressed at the Clarification is updated badger reserved matters required at reserved walkover is stage. matters stage as to recommended prior to how the disturbance the commencement of of badgers will be works, which can be avoided during both secured through construction and condition occupation of the development site. EcIA details measures to prevent harm to badgers during construction phase
ECR pp26-27 details measures to protect badgers and their habitats during operational phase including green corridors Other protected A precautionary This will be species approach will be addressed at the No comments undertaken reserved matters stage. Landscape and LEMP to be This will be Ecological submitted at addressed at the Management Plan reserved reserved matters An appropriately matters stage stage. detailed landscape to include and ecological Sensitive management plan Lighting (LEMP) should be Management submitted to and Plan and no approved in writing net increase in by the Council at external reserved matters artificial lighting stage and should be at important based on the foraging and proposed impact commuting avoidance, paths for
DM 157 mitigation and nocturnal enhancement species measures identified with the quantified net gain assessment and the Ecological Impact Assessment report.
Table 12 – Ecology Matters
Figure 48. Extract from Illustrative Site Layout Plan, C0702-P4, showing 15m buffer zone hatched in black (Hambleton Wood at top of left image & Pignut Wood at bottom left of right hand image)
The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has been consulted and has commented (in response to the amended application for up to 70no. new dwellings) as follows: ‘Located south-west of the old Headley Court Manor House the proposed development includes two large areas bisected by The Drive. The northern area comprises mainly open space with utility type buildings and extensive car parking. This area is bounded beyond the site to the north and west by mature woodland with a small area of designated ancient semi-natural woodland (ASNW) in the northern part. The area also includes some mixed mature trees, along the Headley Road border and two groups in the middle of the site. The southern area is more densely developed with modern hospital buildings and is also bounded by mixed mature roadside trees north and east. Although the wider area is rural the trees make a notable contribution to visually break-up the appearance of the built setting. The retention of the mature trees would therefore be important to that setting and integral to the scheme as a whole. There are no statutory tree constraints on or about the site. It is important that good accurate tree information is included at an early stage as trees can be a significant constraint on a site layout. The submitted tree information provides no tree survey or tree schedule and an assessment of the quality and health of those trees is therefore not available
DM 158 The proposals would appear to preserve a number of existing mature trees and the small northern area of ancient woodland which falls within the site is set aside. The the ancient woodland would most likely not be affected. Some 87 mixed tree losses are indicated in the northern area to accommodate access and road infrastructure integral to the development. Although some of the trees are relatively small this unfortunately equates to a 40% loss. (See Figure 49) Fortunately, because of the wooded backdrop the visual impact of the trees losses would be less harmful in such a rural area. Replacement trees appear to be indicated with some 100 new trees proposed. The southern site seems to be laid out somewhat more conducive to tree retention as a result of the volume of existing buildings and thus more brownfield space. As such 21 less significant trees would be removed with the most notable trees remaining. Similarly, around 50 new trees are indicated. (See Figure 50) I further note that the building separation distances between trees appear reasonable although a considerable number of new homes will be east of and in the shade of some substantial mature trees. This may well lead to pressures to prune a high number of retained trees. On the whole, an 8m distance is usually considered acceptable and most of the newly proposed dwellings seem to accord. On balance, given the scale of the proposed development, the number of tree losses could be considered reasonable and the level of replacement adequate in the context of acceptable development. A landscaping plan with tree specific details should be required and that should deal mainly with replacement tree planting as there seems to be enough indicative soft landscaping on other overview plans and the ecological report. All that should be sought are the tree species, their size and position and should include native trees. Larger tree species near to homes should be avoided at less than 6m distance to avoid shade problems etc. There is sufficient information in the tree documents to show what trees are to remain and that the retained trees can be afforded a good degree of physical protection during the construction phases. No tree pruning works are proposed other than the removals. It is highly likely that weaker trees have been selected for removal. Tree pruning can be agreed if otherwise agreed in writing. As such, the tree information can be conditioned.’
DM 159
Figure 49. MVDC Arboricultural Officer – Plan 1
Figure 50. MVDC Arboricultural Officer – Plan 2
8.13.4. Site:
The site lies partially within a section of Hambleton Wood to the north-west, designated as Ancient Woodland, and adjacent to Pignut Wood to the south- west, which forms part of the Nower Wood Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and also comprises Ancient Woodland. The Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment Special Area of Conservation (SAC) lies to the south of the application site at a separation distance of over 1.18km (0.73 miles).
DM 160 There are no trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on the site, however, there are a number of significant trees or wooded areas contained within the application site.
8.13.5. Proposal:
The amended proposals submitted on 1 May 2020 remove the residential zone to the north-east of the site and decrease the overall density. As such, the proposed open space retained would measure 2.4ha rather than the 1.8ha proposed originally, which represents a slight decrease as compared with that existing, at 2.5ha. The amended proposal would also reduce the existing area of hardstanding from 17,994sqm to 14,075sqm. The Revised Proposals Letter states: ‘The revised proposals demonstrate how the 15m buffer to the Ancient Woodland can be restored and protected in conjunction with a housing development of the quantum proposed. The existing layout significantly encroaches into this buffer zone and the proposed reinstatement of this by removing the car parking hardstanding encroachment provides a 39% improvement to the buffer zone. The reduced density and development zone together to improvements to the woodland buffer zone all enhance ecology and biodiversity.’
8.13.6. Ecology:
In response to officer and SWT concerns, the applicant has provided an amended land use parameter design and additional ecological information. The programme of surveys and mitigation in relation to protected species and habitats outlined in the table under sub-section 8.13.4 above, including the LEMP, are considered acceptable and demonstrate that the proposal is capable of policy compliance with regard to ecology, subject to conditions.
In terms of the Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is a European Site Designation, by reason of the significant separation distance between the application site and the SAC, together with the nature of the proposals, it is considered that no significant effect is likely.
8.13.7. Biodiversity:
In response to officer and SWT concerns, the applicant has provided Biodiversity Impact Calculator (BIC) calculations to demonstrate that the proposal is capable of delivering measurable biodiversity net gains. While the technical detail of this falls under reserved matters, the proposal is considered acceptable in regard to biodiversity. This would be conditioned at Reserved Matters stage.
8.13.8. Trees:
Confirmation has been received in an email from the agent dated 5.6.20 that, in principle and subject to reserved matters, 239no. existing trees are to be retained, 103no. existing trees are to be removed (of which none would be category A) and an equivalent or greater number of new trees are proposed, (see table below).
DM 161 Surveyed tree Groups to stems Trees to be be removed BS Cat. Retained Removed (groups and removed (Individual individuals) stems) U 14 6 0 (0) 57% 43% A 48 0 0 (0) 100% 0% B 79 5 0 (0) 94% 6% C 127 18 13 (74) 31% 69% TOTALS 268 103 70.5% 29.5%
Table 13 – Showing trees proposed for retention/removal (subject to Reserved Matters)
In terms of the proposed visibility splay improvements at the Tilley Lane/Clay Lane junction (Figure 43), the trees involved lie within adopted SCC Highways land. These works are considered necessary on highways safety grounds and any impact on trees would be assessed by SCC Tree Officers. While it is likely that there would be some impact on trees in this location, given the existing dense tree cover and rural character of the area, it is considered that there would be no discernible impact on the character of the wider area.
While the technical details relating to trees falls under reserved matters, the documents submitted with the outline application as amended demonstrate that the proposal is capable of protecting existing trees of significant public amenity and soft landscaping to a satisfactory degree. In addition, the proposal is considered acceptable, in principle, in terms of providing sufficient additional planting of native and ornamental trees, hedgerows, grassland and wildflowers, including native orchids, to provide adequate visual and privacy screening between the public and private realm, to enhance the buffer to the Ancient Woodland and SNCI, and to deliver biodiversity enhancements. This would be conditioned at Reserved Matters stage.
8.13.9. Officer conclusion on the impact on ecology and trees, including the Ancient Woodland:
Given that the detailed design of the proposed housing layout and landscaping falls under reserved matters, the above material planning considerations cannot be fully assessed until receipt of the technical details application. However, the proposed erection of up to 70no. new dwellings is in principle considered capable of policy compliance for the following reasons: satisfactory mitigation, including the LEMP, would be provided in respect of protected species, habitats, the Ancient Woodland and the SNCI; the proposed retention of 70% of existing trees and vegetation and proposed new planting at an equivalent or greater level is considered satisfactory; and the BIC demonstrates that the scheme is capable of delivering measurable biodiversity net gains.
DM 162 As such, the proposed access and land use parameters are considered acceptable, subject to suitable conditions, and to accord with the relevant policies of the Mole Valley Core Strategy, Local plan and the NPPF.
8.14. Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities
8.14.1. Policy context:
Core Strategy policy CS16, Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities, states: 1. ‘Open space, sports and recreation facilities will be safeguarded from development. If development of a site is proposed, the scheme will be assessed against Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (Planning for Open Space, Sports and Recreation). In particular evidence will have to be presented that either the existing use is no longer required and that no other open space, sports or recreation provision is required or appropriate in that area, or that suitable alternative provision can be made.’ 2. To address needs as a result of development: a. developer contributions (in accordance with Policy CS17) will be used to fund improvements to existing sites and facilities in order to allow more intensive use; and b. the provision of appropriate facilities will be required on site as part of any development scheme of around 50 dwellings or more […] 4. The Council will encourage the provision of new open space, sports and recreation facilities’
8.14.2. Submitted documents:
The Landscape Masterplan states: Proposed play area so children can play close to where they live. Wooden play equipment will be set within area of landscape to blend in with surroundings.
8.14.3. Assessment:
The existing Sports Field was previously for the use of the MoD. While comments have been received that this was the only football pitch in Headley, it was not publicly accessible and, therefore, cannot be considered under CS16 1.) for retention. The current application shows this area of the site as open green space, with some children’s play equipment, which would be accessible to the general public. As such, this would be considered an improvement over the existing situation in terms of public access to the Green Belt and recreation facilities for future occupants and the local community.
8.14.4. Officer conclusion on the issue of open space, sports and recreation:
The proposal is, in principle, considered to comply with policy CS16 in terms of open space and recreation facilities.
8.15. Sustainable construction
8.15.1. Policy context:
DM 163
Policy CS19, Sustainable Construction, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation, states: 1. In order to support the Core Strategy's overarching aim of achieving sustainable development, and to reduce the causes of and effects of climate change, new buildings and the redevelopment and refurbishment of the existing building stock will be required to: a. minimise energy use through its design, layout and orientation; b. maximise on-site recycling facilities and the re-use and recycling of materials used in construction; c. meet at least Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes for housing, or BREEAM 'Very Good' construction standards for all other development, or higher as dictated by future legislation and guidance (Code Level 4 from 2013 and Code 6 by 2016). This must include a 10% reduction in total carbon emissions through the on-site installation and implementation of decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources. 2. Applicants will be required to submit evidence to demonstrate how these requirements have been met unless it can be demonstrated that compliance is not technically or financially achievable having regard to the type of development involved and its design.
8.15.2. Submitted documents:
The Outline Sustainability Statement, dated 27.11.19, sets out some measures proposed to comply with policy CS19 as follows: Photovoltaic panels are the preferred method to deliver renewable energy to the development. A 10% CO2 reduction target would equate to 18,700 kgCO2 which could be met with a PV array with a peak output capacity of 45kW(p) installed under ideal conditions. An array of this capacity would equate to an installation of on average two photovoltaic panels on the roof of each dwelling. Due to roof pitch and orientation of the dwellings this number may increase on some dwellings, however, it is anticipated that sufficient roof space will continue to be made available to accommodate installations of suitable capacity.
Further to this, the applicant has submitted confirmation via email dated 15.6.20 that the detailed design at the reserved matters stage will include a variety of measures to reduce CO2 emissions as alternatives to solar panels, which may not be acceptable in some areas of the site due to potential impact on the setting of the listed buildings.
8.15.3. Consultee:
The Council’s Sustainable Construction Consultant has been consulted on this application and has commented as follows: I've now reviewed the submitted Outline Energy Statement and can see that the applicant intends to install solar PV to meet the 10% requirement. This should be sufficient but if permission is granted SAP reports or similar evidence will be required to quantify the baseline and associated savings.
8.15.4. Officer conclusion on the issue of sustainability:
DM 164
Given that the proposal is in outline only, with the design and layout of the proposed housing and landscaping as reserved matters, the technical details of sustainable construction, renewable energy and energy conservation measures would be required as part of the reserved matters application.
8.16. Drainage, Flood Risk and Contaminated Land
8.16.1. Policy context:
Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS20, Flood Risk Management, states: ‘The Council will expect to see the use of appropriate sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) as part of any development proposals. A Flood Risk Assessment will be required for sites within or adjacent to areas at risk of surface water flooding as identified in the SFRA. To further reduce the risk from surface water flooding all development should works towards mimicking greenfield run-off situations.’
Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV67, Groundwater Quality, states: Development will not be permitted which in the opinion of the Council, after consultation with the Environment Agency, may have an adverse impact on the quality of groundwater.
Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV69, Contaminated Land, states: Where the Council as local planning authority is aware that land is or may be contaminated, permission will only be granted where the Council, after consultation with relevant experts and the pollution control authorities, is satisfied that there would be no risk to health or the environment or remedial measures are proposed which would satisfactorily mitigate the effects of any contamination and ensure the site is suitable for use.
8.16.2. Submitted documents relating to drainage and flood risk:
These include: Below Ground Drainage Strategy, ref. 2372-MHT-CV-REP-001, dated 12.12.19 Drawing no. DW2020-283, Rev.A, Existing Drainage Layout (pp.1-4) Copies of correspondence with Thames Water, dated 4.10.19- 20.11.19 SCC Surface Water Drainage Summary Pro-forma, dated 16.12.19 Infiltration Testing Statement, ref. 18-0936.03, dated Nov.2019 Flood Risk Assessment, ref. 2372-MHT-CV-REP-002, dated 12.12.19 Preliminary Geo-Environmental Risk Assessment, ref.18-0936.04, dated January 2020
The Preliminary Geo-Environmental Risk Assessment states: The ground conditions revealed through the previous preliminary investigations have confirmed the anticipated geology and the soil sampling and testing completed, have not revealed any significant contamination concerns in respect of soil, groundwater or ground gas conditions and therefore the Site should represent an overall Low risk with respect to potential in ground contamination concerns.
DM 165 Additional ground investigation will be required as part of normal development protocols […] It is recommended a Remediation and Verification Plan should be prepared […].
8.16.3. Site:
The site lies within a Drinking water safeguard zone (surface water) and Source Protection Zones (Zone III). The site is not in a designated flood zone, however, the current application is classified as a major application which triggers a consultation to Surrey County Council as Lead Flood Authority.
8.16.4. Consultees:
SCC has commented as follows: We are satisfied that the proposed drainage scheme meets the requirements set out in the aforementioned documents and are content with the development proposed, subject to our advice below. Our advice would be that, should planning permission be granted, suitably worded conditions are applied to ensure that the SuDS Scheme is properly implemented and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development.
The Environment Agency has been consulted on this application and has commented as follows: We have no objection to the planning application as submitted, subject to the following conditions being imposed on any planning permission granted. Without these conditions, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would wish to object to the planning application. Groundwater and Contaminated Land: We have reviewed the document ‘Preliminary Geo-Environmental Risk Assessment’ (Preliminary Risk Assessment, PRA) by Deltasimmons (reference 18- 0936.04 Issue 2; dated 23rd January 2020). The investigation did not reveal any ground contamination concentrations that would currently represent a significant risk to Controlled Waters. However, the PRA mentions records of two decommissioned hydrocarbon storage tanks and a further possible 55,000 litre capacity tank. The report indicates that additional ground investigation will be required to inform a remedial programme.
The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has been consulted and has no objections subject to a recommended condition in relation to contaminated land.
The Council’s Drainage Officer has been consulted and has commented as follows: The submitted reports are acceptable and contain sufficient information for an outline application. I would recommend that a full design be submitted prior to commencement on site.
8.16.5. Assessment:
DM 166 The application is in outline for the consideration of access only, with all other matters reserved, for the redevelopment of an area comprising some existing built form and hardstanding. Information regarding drainage and flood risk has been submitted which recommends further surveys and mitigation and is considered acceptable at this stage.
8.16.6. Officer conclusion in the issue of drainage, flood risk and contaminated land:
Subject to conditions as recommended by the statutory consultees, the outline proposal is considered to comply with policy CS20 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy, policies ENV67 and ENV69 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.
8.17. Affordable Housing
8.17.1. Policy context:
Core Strategy policy CS4, The Provision of Affordable Housing, states: 1. In order to increase the provision of affordable homes the Council will aim to secure a minimum of 950 net affordable units within the District between the period 2006 and 2026 (contributing towards the sub- regional target of 40% of all new homes being affordable). 2. In order to achieve this target the District Council will require where viable: c. that on all housing developments of 15 gross dwellings or more, 40% of the total number of dwellings are affordable. 3. On sites of 10 or more gross dwellings, on-site provision should be made and must incorporate a mix of dwelling types and sizes which reflect the site's characteristics, the development as a whole and the type of need identified in the most up-to-date Housing Needs Study and Strategic Housing Market Assessment. 4. Affordable housing provision must also incorporate a mix of tenures. The Council will negotiate the exact tenure split on each site. However, the presumption is that at least 50% of the total number of affordable homes provided on site will be for social rented accommodation. Where the Council considers it is appropriate, a higher level of social rented accommodation may be sought.
In June 2019, the above policy was updated as per the table below:
Units Urban Rural* 1-5 None None 6-9 None Financial contribution equivalent to providing 20% of the total number of dwellings as affordable 10-14 30% of units on-site 30% of units on-site 15+ 40% of units on-site 40% of units on-site * 'Rural' is defined as the civil parishes of Abinger, Betchworth, Buckland, Charlwood, Headley, Holmwood, Leigh, Mickleham, Newdigate and Ockley, and any land within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The table above does not apply to rural exception sites. Table 14 – Policy CS4 (June 2019)
The Affordable Housing SPD Addendum (2019) states:
DM 167 The Written Ministerial Statement November 2014 introduced the Vacant Building Credit, which is now incorporated in the National Planning Policy Framework February 2019 Where a vacant building is brought back into lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building, the developer is entitled to a 'credit' equivalent to the existing Gross External Area of the relevant vacant buildings, which is offset against the affordable housing contribution for the development.
8.17.2. Consultees:
The Council’s Affordable Housing Officer has been consulted on this application and has commented as follows:
Policy CS4 of the Council's 2009 adopted Core Strategy applies to this application for 100 homes and requires 40% (40) on site affordable housing. The site contains a significant number of existing vacant buildings and the Vacant Building Credit (VBC) applies. The applicant has provided a calculation for the VBC that the Council is satisfied with. This results in 11 affordable homes that should be provided on the site and the applicant is offering to provide 14 on-site affordable homes, which is acceptable.
Following the applicant’s submission of a revised description and amended drawings for up to 70no. new dwellings, the Council’s Affordable Housing Officer has provided further comments as follows: Policy CS4 of the Council's 2009 adopted Core Strategy applies to this application for 70 homes and requires 40% (28) on-site affordable housing units. The site contains a significant number of existing vacant buildings and the Vacant Building Credit (VBC) applies. The applicant has provided a calculation for the VBC that results in an 82% credit (23). The Council is satisfied with the calculation that requires 5 on-site affordable homes and the applicant is offering to provide 6 on-site affordable homes. This result is acceptable and compliant with policy CS4. In keeping with the requirements of policy CS3 and the Council's Approved Supplementary Planning Document (as amended) the applicant is required to provide affordable homes that are predominantly a mix of two and three bedroom properties and the tenure be 50% for affordable rent and 50% for affordable home ownership. The homes should be of the same appearance to the open market homes and be preferably distributed throughout the site.
8.17.3. Assessment:
The Vacant Building Credit (VBC) is calculated in accordance with section 5.2 of the Affordable Housing SPD and section 1.12 of the addendum. As such, the percentage of Gross External Floor Area (GEA) is subtracted from the Affordable Housing liability of the proposed development.
Appendix 4 of the submitted Planning Statement dated January 2020, states that the GEA of the existing buildings is 7,408sqm. The submitted Revised Proposals Letter, dated 29 April 2020, states that the revised GEA of the proposed 70no. proposed dwellings would be 9,034. As such, the the VBC equates to 82%.
DM 168
In this case, the Affordable Housing requirement for 70no. new dwellings at 40% would be 28no. However, after applying the VBC, this would equate to 5no. Affordable Housing units.
The applicant’s Revised Proposals Letter, dated 29 April 2020, states that: The original proposal included provision of 14 affordable housing units which comprised 50% of the net increase in floor area at the site further to calculation of Vacant Building Credit. This is in excess of the 40% policy requirement. The reduced development will clearly support a lower proportion of affordable housing once the existing floorspace is discounted. In applying the same approach to the revised proposals for consistency, 50% of the additional Gross External Area would relate to 812sqm of affordable housing. In applying an average unit size of 129sqm the revised proposal would incorporate 6 affordable housing units which equates to 9% of the development (see enclosed Schedule 1.
The wider Headley Court site, including both the application site and the mansion house site to the east, has been offered to the NHS as an emergency field hospital during the Coronavirus pandemic. The Council understands that, although the application site is available for NHS use, none of the buildings therein are currently occupied by the NHS. As such, for the purposes of this application, the buildings within the application site remain vacant, as they were at the time of submission. It is understood that the temporary use of the land by the NHS is likely to comply with the GPDO (2020) as amended under Part 12A, however, this is not the subject of the current application and cannot be considered further.
8.17.4. Officer conclusion on the issue of Affordable Housing:
While this element of the outline application is for consideration in principle only at this stage, it is considered that 6no. on-site affordable homes representing 50% of the net increase in floor area would be acceptable in accordance with Core Strategy policies CS3 and CS4.
8.18. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
8.18.1. Policy context:
Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy states that development should make provision for new infrastructure where necessary. However, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has now been introduced, which places a mandatory charge on new residential and retail developments. The Council will publish an annual infrastructure list detailing the infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure which the Council intends will be or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL.
8.18.2. Submitted documents:
The submitted Planning Statement notes: The Site falls within the defined ‘Rural Area’ where a charge of £250 / sqm is levied on new residential development (subject to indexation). This is calculated on the basis of new additional floorspace and therefore relief is
DM 169 applied to existing floorspace to be demolished where it has been in lawful occupation for a continuous period of 6 months of the 3 years preceding the grant of detailed planning permission. Affordable housing is also subject to CIL relief. (p.50)
8.18.3. Consultee:
This development is CIL liable and the Council’s CIL Officer has been consulted; comments as follows: ‘Without floorplans I am unable to confirm the figures so it could change once reserved matters are proposed. Demolition has been taken into account to reduce the charge; affordable housing relief doesn’t get taken into account at this stage.’
8.19. Section 106 Agreement
The Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms, covers the sustainable transport requirements agreed with SCC, including: Demand Responsive Bus Service (Headley Hopper); Cycle Vouchers – £50 cycle voucher per dwelling; and Travel Plan – including a Travel Plan Co-ordinator.
In addition to these three points, the Council is undertaking, in line with the statutory consultees’ recommendations, to include within the s106 agreement further aspects of the outline proposal such as: highways improvements including: o Headley Road junction with The Drive: Mini-roundabout central island to be domed o Along north-western side of The Drive, to the north-east of the proposed access point: New 3m wide shared footway/cycleway o Along north-western side of The Drive, to the south-west of the proposed access point: New 2m wide shared footway o Along south-western site boundary to north of The Drive (Existing footpath No. 55): Existing 2m wide footway (FP55) to be widened to 3m and reconstructed to SCC design specification (to bridleway standards) o At south-east end of The Drive (extent within application site): Bridleway no.512 to be retained o Along southern boundary of application site: Footpath no.513 to be retained: o Within application site along western side of Headley Road from roundabout at Clay Lane towards The Drive, linking with bus stop: New 3m wide off road shared footway/cycleway - linking FP55, FP513 and BW512 to BW514 (These proposals will link to an upgraded bridleway/footway alongside Headley Road, which in turn will link to new/improved facilities on Lee Green Lane and Clay Lane) o Northern and southern sides of Lee Green Lane: Proposed 2m wide shared footway/cycleway, linking the facilities at the mini- roundabout to bridleways BW514, BW114a and BW51 o Northern and southern sides of Lee Green Lane: The Lee Green Lane footpaths will also be improved with lighting and brought into Highways ownership
DM 170 o On both sides of Headley Road to north of Headley Court manor house entrance (south of junction with The Drive): Improved bus stop facilities o Headley Road between junction with The Drive and Clay Lane: Road widened to 8m at approach to roundabout and pinch point removed (6.5m wide adjacent to Headley Court manor house entrance) o Headley Road junction with Clay Lane and Lee Green Lane: Mini-roundabout central island to be domed o Lee Green Lane: Road widened to 7.6m at approach to Headley Road/Clay Lane roundabout o North side of Lee Green Lane: New verge o Clay Lane/Tilley Lane Junction: Proposed Highway Improvements and Visibility Splays o A24/Headley Road Junction: Highway Improvements to Junction including visibility improvements by cutting back vegetation on-site affordable housing; on-site public open space; programme of biodiversity net gains; 15m buffer and boundary treatments to protect Ancient Woodland and SNCI; and on-site play area including the provision of children’s play equipment.
This has been agreed in principle with the applicant.
8.20. Planning Balance
8.20.1. The starting point for decision making is the development plan. The National Planning Policy Framework is an important material consideration. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
Paragraph 11 states that in terms of the decision-taking process this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting planning permission unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
The policies referred to in (i) are those in the NPPF (rather than those in development plans) and include land designated as Green Belt or Local Green Space.
In this case, the site is within the Green Belt and so policies within the NPPF relating to Green Belt must be considered.
The Council can currently demonstrate 3 years of Housing Land Supply and as such the ‘tilted balance’ in paragraph 11 is engaged. This means
DM 171 granting permission unless (i) the application of policies relating to Green Belt provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or (ii) the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of doing so, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole and specifically the Green Belt. This ‘tilted balance’ is a material consideration.
In assessing the benefits, the proposals would contribute residential units to the local housing market and the District’s wider housing supply. The density, type and size of the housing is considered to be acceptable and appropriate for this location although it must be noted this is an outline application and specific detail will be forthcoming at the reserved matters stage. The provision of much needed affordable housing is welcomed.
These elements of the proposals would be consistent with the social and economic role of sustainable development and attract significant weight.
The potential harm has been assessed and is considered acceptable in this accessible location. The impacts would not be severe and would not justify refusal of planning permission. There would be no unacceptable impacts on the amenities of neighbouring properties and no other issues that could not be addressed by appropriate conditions.
When assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, I consider that the development would simultaneously achieve the social, economic and environmental dimensions necessary to be considered as sustainable development as defined and sought by the NPPF. The adverse impacts identified above would be limited and would not either (i) provide a clear reason why, in Green Belt terms, the proposal should be refused or (ii) significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of these proposals, which benefit from the ‘tilted balance’ of paragraph 11 of the NPPF.
Notwithstanding the ‘tilted balance’, I have also assessed the application against the policies included within the Development Plan and I have concluded that the proposal accords with the Development Plan proposals as well.
Taking all of these factors into account, I conclude that planning permission should be granted.
9. Conclusion
Following amendments, the outline proposal for consideration comprises the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to comprise up to 70 residential units (Use Class C3), landscaping, car parking, access routes and other associated works, with all matters reserved except for access.
The proposal is considered to comply with Green Belt policy under the NPPF and the site is allocated as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt under Local Plan policy RUD21.
Amendments and further documentation submitted during the course of this application have satisfied the original concerns of statutory consultees, particularly in regard to ecology and highways matters. A Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms has been accepted by SCC Highways which
DM 172 includes road improvements including the A24/Headley Road junction and a mini-bus service for 7 years, while other road, footpath and bridleway improvements have been included within the submitted planning documents and will be also be covered by the S106 or by conditions.
The scheme is considered to deliver benefits in line with local and national planning policy, subject to reserved matters, as follows: 70no. new dwellings against a local housing land supply shortfall of 2 years 6no. on-site affordable housing which represents 50% of the net additional floor space, which is over and above the policy requirement of 40% Reduction in harm to Green Belt in terms of the visual impact and effect of proposed activity levels on openness including restoration to open green space of extensive car park along north of The Drive Retention of 2.4ha open space against the 2.5ha. of existing open space, which represents 96% 10% increase in green space Nearly 25% reduction in developed area (on footprint) Publicly accessible open space (where the open space was previously private) Publicly accessible children’s play area Highways improvements including a raft of foot/cycle paths & bridleways proposals Travel plan to include a mini-bus, cycle vouchers and a member of staff to encourage alternative forms of travel to the private car Provision of electric vehicle charging point to every new dwelling Improved buffer to Ancient Woodland of 15m including remediation of existing hardstanding Retention of 70% of existing trees including 100% of trees of significant amenity value and replacement of an equivalent number or more than those to be removed. Biodiversity net gains at nearly 10% Reduction in pressure on greenfield land to deliver housing in the district Efficient use of vacant brownfield land
As such, the outline proposal for 3no. new access points is not considered to cause significant harm in terms of highway safety and the principle of the proposed max. 70no. new dwellings following demolition of existing buildings, with all matters reserved except for access, is considered acceptable.
10. Recommendation
Subject to completion of a suitable S106 Agreement to secure:
1. The highway improvements listed under sub-section 8.12.5 above 2. The provision of 6no. affordable residential units 3. Public access to the area of green open space 4. The provision of an equipped area of play 5. The 15m buffer to the Ancient Woodland 6. Biodiversity net gains
DM 173 permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions/reasons:
1. Approval of details of the layout, scale, external appearance of the buildings, car parking and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the 'reserved matters') shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced and carried out as approved. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to above, shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: To comply with Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed in all respects strictly in accordance with the submitted documents and plan numbers:
F0100, Rev.P1, Site Location Plan D1002, Rev.P2, Access Parameters Plan D1001, Rev.P2, Land Use Parameters Plan
contained within the application and no variations shall take place.
Reason: To accord with the terms of the submitted application and to ensure minimal impact on local amenity and the environment in accordance with Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS14 and Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22.
3. Prior to commencement of above ground works (excluding demolition), details of the materials to be used for the accesses into the site including kerbs, edges, unit paving, steps and if applicable any synthetic surfaces, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area in accordance with Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22 and policies CS14 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.
4. Prior to the commencement of above ground works (excluding demolition) a plan indicating the position, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected/retained shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter permanently retained as such.
Reason To preserve the visual amenity of the area and protect neighbouring residential amenities in accordance with Mole Valley
DM 174 Local Plan policy ENV22 and policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy.
5. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: The Local Planning Authority is satisfied that it is fundamental to the development permitted to address this issue before development commences and that without this safeguard planning permission should not be granted, and the site covers a large surface area in which it is considered necessary to preserve as a record any archaeological information before it is destroyed by the development in accordance with Mole Valley Local Plan policies ENV49 and ENV50, policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Core Strategy and the NPPF.
6. A Travel Plan - broadly in line with the Travel Plan dated January 2020 and incorporating details of an information pack to be provided to all initial residents regarding the availability of and whereabouts of local public transport / walking / cycling / car sharing clubs / car clubs, shall be submitted for approval, and implemented upon first occupation. The applicant shall implement and monitor the approved Travel Plan in accordance with Surrey County Council’s Travel Plan guidance, and for each subsequent occupation of the development thereafter maintain and develop the Travel Plan to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To achieve the sustainability objectives of the NPPF and to ensure the development will not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with the NPPF and policies MOV2 and MOV5 of the Mole Valley Local Plan.
7. No development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management Plan, to include details of: (a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials (c) storage of plant and materials (d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management) (e) provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones (f) HGV deliveries and hours of operation (g) vehicle routing (i) before and after construction condition surveys of the highway and a commitment to fund the repair of any damage caused (j) no HGV movements to or from the site shall take place between the hours of 8.30 and 9.15 am and 3.15 and 4.00 pm nor shall the contractor permit any HGVs associated with the development at the site to be laid up, waiting, in The Drive, Headley Road, Tilley Lane or Clay Lane during these times (k) on-site turning for construction vehicles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction of the development.
DM 175 Reason: The above condition is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and saved polices MOV2 and MOV5 of the Mole Valley Local Plan.
8. No part of the development shall be first occupied unless and until the proposed improvements to the visibility zones at the Clay Lane/Tilley Lane junction have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction over 1.05m high.
Reason: To achieve the sustainability objectives of the NPPF and to ensure the development will not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users in accordance with the NPPF and policies MOV2 and MOV5 of the Mole Valley Local Plan.
9. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted a Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and shall include the air quality mitigation measures detailed in the Air Quality Assessment, (AQA), dated November 2019.
Reason: To safeguard the ecological interest of the site and ensure compliance with Core Strategy policy CS15, Local Plan policy ENV15, Regulation 9(3) of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the NPPF.
10. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and shall provide details of: a) the min. 15m Ancient Woodland buffer zone landscaping and management regimes b) measures to prevent likely adverse effect on the adjacent Nower Wood SNCI c) how a) and b) will be implemented, monitored and retained as effective for the long term.
Reason: To safeguard the ecological interest of the site and ensure compliance with Core Strategy policy CS15, Local Plan policy ENV15, Regulation 9(3) of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the NPPF.
11. The recommendations set out within the applicant's ecological surveys, Ecological Impact Assessment, ref. PRI21579 EcIA DR, dated 22.01.2020, submitted in support of the application, shall be carried out in full before the development is occupied. A precautionary approach to all works pertaining to the development hereby permitted shall be implemented with regard to bats, badgers, dormice, reptiles, amphibians and breeding birds; should any protected species be identified during construction, work must stop immediately and an ecologist contacted to determine an appropriate course of action.
DM 176 Reason: To safeguard the ecological interest of the site and ensure compliance with Core Strategy policy CS15, Local Plan policy ENV15, Regulation 9(3) of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the NPPF.
12. The approved ACD December 2019 Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statements ANG22507aia_ams and Tree Protection Plans ANG22507-03 Lot 4 and Lot 5 [submitted in support of the application] shall be adhered to in full in accordance with the approved plans subject to the pre-arranged supervision of any works within the root protection areas of retained trees by a suitably qualified and pre- appointed tree specialist.
No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of the occupation of the buildings for their permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars.
This tree condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development subject to satisfactory written evidence of contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection at all significant stages by the suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist being submitted during the construction process.
Reason: In accordance with Mole Valley Local Plan Policies ENV22, ENV25 and ENV53, Core Strategy policy CS15 and the current British Standard 5837 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations), which collectively seek to ensure the retention of trees which enhance the existing character of the locality in the interests of wider public visual amenity.
13. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: 1. An additional site investigation scheme, based on the Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA), to provide further information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 2. The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (1) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 3. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
DM 177
Reason: For the protection of Controlled Waters. The site is located over a Principal Aquifer & within SPZ3 and it is understood that the site may be affected by historic contamination (e.g. hydrocarbon storage tanks).
14. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved, verified and reported to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: There is always the potential for unexpected contamination to be identified during development groundworks. We should be consulted should any contamination be identified that could present an unacceptable risk to Controlled Waters.
15. Prior to occupation of the development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a "long-term monitoring and maintenance plan") for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, if appropriate, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority. Any long- term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: Should remediation be deemed necessary, the applicant should demonstrate that any remedial measures have been undertaken as agreed and the environmental risks have been satisfactorily managed so that the site is deemed suitable for use.
16. Whilst the principles and installation of sustainable drainage schemes are to be encouraged, no drainage systems for the infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground are permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to Controlled Waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.
Reason: To protect the underlying groundwater from the risk of pollution. Infiltrating water has the potential to cause remobilisation of contaminants present in shallow soil/made ground which could ultimately cause pollution of groundwater.
17. At least 28 days before the development hereby permitted commences (other than demolition) a soil survey shall be undertaken,
DM 178 including consideration of asbestos risks, and the results provided to the planning authority. The survey shall be taken at such points and to such depth as the planning authority may stipulate and shall be in accordance with the processes detailed in the Environment Agency's Land Contamination Risk Management guidance located on the gov.uk web pages. The results of the survey shall then be used to produce a risk assessment and scheme for decontamination which shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority and the scheme as approved shall be implemented before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied.
Reasons: The Local Planning Authority is satisfied that it is fundamental to the development permitted to address this issue before development commences and that without this safeguard planning permission should not be granted and that it is necessary to protect future occupiers of the development from the possible presence of ground contamination arising in connection with the previous industrial and commercial use in accordance with the NPPF.
Informatives
1. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway or any works that may affect a drainage channel/culvert or water course. The applicant is advised that a permit and, potentially, a Section 278 agreement must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. All works on the highway will require a permit and an application will need to submitted to the County Council's Street Works Team up to 3 months in advance of the intended start date, depending on the scale of the works proposed and the classification of the road. Please see: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transp ort/road, Rev.Permits-and-licences/the-traffic-management, Rev.Permit-scheme. The applicant is also advised that Consent may be required underSection 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Please see: www.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and-community/emergency, Rev.Planning-and-community-safety/flooding-advice.
2. The developer is advised that as part of the detailed design of the highway works required by the above condition(s), the County Highway Authority may require necessaryaccommodation works to street lights, road signs, road markings, highway drainage, surface covers, street trees, highway verges, highway surfaces, surface edge restraints and any other street furniture/equipment.
3. The developer is reminded that it is an offence to allow materials to be carried from the site and deposited on or damage the highway from uncleaned wheels or badly loaded vehicles. The Highway Authority will seek, wherever possible, to recover any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfaces and prosecutes persistent offenders. (Highways Act 1980 Sections 131, 148, 149).
4. Notwithstanding any permission granted under the Planning Acts, no signs, devices or other apparatus may be erected within the limits of the highway without the express approval of the Highway Authority. It
DM 179 is not the policy of the Highway Authority to approve the erection of signs or other devices of a non-statutory nature within the limits of the highway.
5. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to obstruct the public highway by the erection of scaffolding, hoarding or any other device or apparatus for which a licence must be sought from the Highway Authority Local Highways Service.
6. The developer is advised that a standard fee may be charged for input to, and future monitoring of, any Travel Plan.
7. Section 59 of the Highways Act permits the Highway Authority to charge developers for damage caused by excessive weight and movements of vehicles to and from a site. The Highway Authority will pass on the cost of any excess repairs compared to normal maintenance costs to the applicant/organisation responsible for the damage.
8. The developer would be expected to agree a programme of implementation of all necessary statutory utility works associated with the development, including liaison between Surrey County Council Streetworks Team, the relevant utility companies and the developer to ensure that where possible the works take the route of least disruption and occurs at least disruptive times to highway users.
9. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that the electricity supply is sufficient to meet future demands and that any power balancing technology is in place if required. Please refer to: http://www.beama.org.uk/resourceLibrary/beama-guide-to-electric- vehicle-infrastructure.html for guidance and further information on charging modes and connector types.
10. If proposed site works affect an Ordinary Watercourse, Surrey County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority should be contacted to obtain prior written Consent. More details are available on our website. If proposed works result in infiltration of surface water to ground within a Source Protection Zone the Environment Agency will require proof of surface water treatment to achieve water quality standards. If there are any further queries please contact the Flood Risk Asset, Planning, and Programming team via [email protected]. Please use our reference number in any future correspondence.
11. The application has been considered by the Council's Crime Prevention Design Adviser. The applicant is encouraged to apply for the Full Secured by Design accreditation. It is recommended that contact is made with the following person for further information/advice: Neil Clarke, Crime Reduction Advisor & Designing Out Crime Officer. Tel: 101 ext 30803; Mobile: 0746733783; email: [email protected]
12. At Reserved Matters stage, the applicant will be encouraged to ensure that all new residential properties are provided with a fast charge socket (current minimum requirements - 7 kw Mode 3 with Type 2 connector - 230v AC 32 Amp single phase dedicated supply)
DM 180
13. Details of the sustainable travel pack for future residents shall be included within the Travel Plan document referred to under Condition 6
DM 181 Illustrations
Figure 1. Existing Site Plan 5
Figure 2. Aerial photo of site (Google Earth) 6
Figure 3. Aerial photo of southern part of site looking northwards 6
Figure 4. Plan showing Ancient Woodland (shaded in green) 7
Figure 5. Plan extract of wider Headley Court site as existing showing application site to left hand side, labelled Lot 4 and Lot 5 8
Figure 6. Illustrative Layout 9
Figure 7. Local Plan policy RUD21 Proposals Map extract 69
Figure 8. Extract of Headley Parish map with application site top left in approx. location marked ‘Tyrrell’s Wood’ (www.headleysurrey.org.uk) 71
Figure 9. Map extract showing existing buildings in section of site to north of The Drive 74
Figure 10. Map extract showing existing buildings in section of site to north of The Drive 75
Figure 11. Map extract from Ordnance Survey 1955 75
Figure 12. Map extract from Ordnance Survey 1961 76
Figure 13. Extract from indicative drawing, C0900, Rev.P1, Open Space Analysis, showing site as proposed (areas beyond existing built envelope shown by red ovals added by Officer) 82
Figure 14. Extract from Proposed Land Use Parameters Plan, D1001, Rev.P2 85
Figure 15. Extract from Existing Layout […] Land Uses, F1001 86
Figure 16. Photos of existing buildings to south of The Drive 88
Figure 17. Photo showing existing car park on northern side of The Drive, (Google Street View 2009) 88
Figure 18. Photo showing existing car park on northern side of The Drive, (Google Street View 2009) 88
Figure 19. Photo showing existing car park on northern side of The Drive, (Google Street View 2009) 89
Figure 20. Aerial photos (2006) of existing lawful use for car parks on northern side of The Drive (left image) and north-west corner of site (right hand image) 89
Figure 21. Extract from drawing, C0900, Rev.P1, Open Space Analysis, showing site as existing (PDL to be reinstated as green space shown by red oval and letter ‘C’ added by Officer) 94
DM 182 Figure 22. Map showing nearby Grade II Listed Buildings (pink dots) and Scheduled Monuments (Roman Road – top left in green) 104
Figure 23. Photo of Headley Court and attached Former Stables (Google Street View) 105
Figure 24. Photo of a southern section of Garden Wall along the west boundary of Headley Court (Google Street View) 105
Figure 25. Photo of a section of Garden Wall along the west boundary of Headley Court to the north of The Drive (Google Street View) 106
Figure 26. Photo of a section of Garden Wall along the west boundary of Headley Court at the junction with The Drive (Google Street View) 106
Figure 27. Extracts from original Illustrative Layout, D 0100, Rev.P1 (left) and from amended Illustrative Layout, C 0702, Rev.P4 (right) 108
Figure 28. Photo looking south along Headley Road showing heritage assets to left and centre of image and application site to right (Google Street View, April 2018) 112
Figure 29. Extract from HER Plot drawing (Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment) [Officer note: red outline not exact] 113
Figure 30. Legend for map extract above 114
Figure 31. Extract from Existing Landscape Components (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) showing public views into developed areas of application site (as existing) from adjacent roads and footpaths 119
Figure 32. Photo of Headley Road looking north with application site to left and Headley Court and attached stables and garden wall to right (Google Street View) 120
Figure 33. Photo of application site looking north-west with The Drive (west- bound) centre-left and Headley Road (north-bound) to the right of image (Google Street View) 120
Figure 34. Photo of application site (to right of image) with Headley Road (south-bound) to left (Google Street View) 121
Figure 35. Photo of existing buildings and car parking, looking west along The Drive from the eastern side of the site (Google Street View) 122
Figure 36. Photo of existing buildings looking north from The Drive at the western side of the site (Google Street View) 122
Figure 37. Photo of existing buildings looking south-west from Headley Road 122
Figure 38. Extract from indicative drawing, C0900, Rev.P1, Open Space Analysis, showing site as existing (open space shown in light blue hatching) 123
DM 183 Figure 39. Extract from indicative drawing, C0900, Rev.P1, Open Space Analysis, showing site as proposed (open space shown in light blue hatching) 124
Figure 40. Table of nearest rail stations from Transport Assessment, p.22 134
Figure 41 - Extract from Proposed Access Parameter Plan, D1002, Rev.P2 135
Figure 42 - Extract from MBSK200430-05, Rev.P2, Proposed Highway Improvements 138
Figure 43 - Extract from MBSK200430-06, Rev.P1, Proposed Highway Improvements and Visibility Splays at Clay Lane/Tilley Lane Junction 139
Figure 44. Extract from MBSK200305-02, Rev.P2, Proposed Highway Improvements to A24/Headley Road Junction (direction of north pointing to top left corner of image and direction of application site leading off road at top right of image) 140
Figure 45 - Public Rights of Way map from Framework Travel Plan 141
Figure 46 - The car park with streetlighting currently within the 15m buffer to the canopy edge of the ancient woodland at Hambleton Wood (p.12, Ecology Consultation Response and Position Statement Rev A) 149
Figure 47 - Indicative Landscape Masterplan prior to amendments relating to dwelling numbers and layout [numbers added by Officer] 151
Figure 48. Extract from Illustrative Site Layout Plan, C0702-P4, showing 15m buffer zone hatched in black (Hambleton Wood at top of left image & Pignut Wood at bottom left of right hand image) 157
Figure 49. MVDC Arboricultural Officer – Plan 1 159
Figure 50. MVDC Arboricultural Officer – Plan 2 159
Figure 51. A11454-F0001, Rev.P1, Site Location Plan, 186
DM 184 Tables
Table 1 - List of application documents following amendments submitted May 2020 10
Table 2 - indicative number per housing type 72
Table 3 – Planning History 80
Table 4 - Comparative areas, (Area Schedule Summary, ref. A11454, dated 28.04.2020) 81
Table 5 – Assessment of level of harm to openness of Green Belt arising from development in Area 1 92
Table 6 – Assessment of level of harm to openness of Green Belt resulting from development in Area 2 97
Table 7 – Balancing assessment of harm versus VSC’s of proposed development in the Green Belt 100
Table 8 – Assessment of harm and public benefits of proposed development to heritage assets 111
Table 9 - Existing and Proposed Trip Generation (confirmed by email dated 4.6.20) 132
Table 10 – Proposed Transport Infrastructure Improvements 137
Table 11 – Parking Provision compared with Surrey CC Guidance 143
Table 12 – Ecology Matters 157
Table 13 – Showing trees proposed for retention/removal (subject to Reserved Matters) 161
Table 14 – Policy CS4 (June 2019) 166
DM 185 11. APPENDIX: EIA Screening Opinion
DM 186 Pippbrook, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1SJ Tel: 01306 885001 Fax: 01306 876821 Minicom: 01372 819094 DX 57306 Dorking www.molevalley.gov.uk email:[email protected]
Edward Ledwidge Case Officer: Montagu Evans LLP, Catherine Miller-Bassi 5 Bolton Street, Tel. No. 01306 879140 London, W1J 8BA 8 June 2020
Dear Mr Ledwidge
Application Reference: MO/2019/2101 Location: Headley Court, Headley Road, Headley, Epsom, Surrey, KT18 6JN Proposal: Request for a screening opinion
I write further to your request for a screening opinion under Regulations 5 and 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended 2018).
I refer to your letter and supporting information dated 22 November 2019. As you are aware, the Screening Opinion has been held in abeyance owing to the requirement for additional information to enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impacts of the proposed development. This outstanding information was submitted under the outline planning application, ref. MO/2020/0185, which is currently under consideration with all matters reserved except for access. The outline application was amended during its course from a maximum of 100 units to a maximum of 70. Nevertheless, the Screening Opinion has been carried out in accordance with the original letter of enquiry, which related to a development of 100 residential units. The highway and ecology information pertaining to the outline application has been updated on a number of occasions in response to officer and consultee concerns.
Figure 51. A11454-F0001, Rev.P1, Site Location Plan,
DM 187
The application site, (see Fig.1 above), lies within the Green Belt, on the west side of Headley Road, adjacent to the Grade II Headley Court house and grounds, and is divided by The Drive, which runs east-west through the site. The site, measuring approx. 7ha., lies in a rural area, predominantly surrounded by woodland and agricultural fields, with some scattered groups of housing nearby. Now vacant, the site was formerly occupied by the Ministry of Defence from the 1950s to 2018 and comprises some buildings and hardstanding, together with grassed and treed areas, including an area of Ancient Woodland at the north-west of the site, (part of Hambleton Wood), which is partially covered by an existing area of hardstanding for car parking. Hambleton Wood also comprises a Site of Archaeological Potential, however, this lies beyond the application site. There is a further area of Ancient Woodland beyond the site, to the south west, at Pignut Wood, part of Nower Wood, which is designated a Site of Nature Conservation Importance.
To the south of The Drive is a triangular parcel of land located immediately west of the listed buildings. This is the most intensely developed area of the application site and is where the majority of the accommodation blocks are located. The existing buildings are substantial in size and are rectangular in form with pitched roofs. A car park is located to the south west of the existing buildings but is well screened from the road by mature planting. The existing buildings in this segment tend to be focussed in the central part of the parcel and benefit from swathes of soft landscaping including trees on their northern, western and eastern sides.
To the north of The Drive lies a large L-shaped car park set behind a hedge. To the west of the car park are a number of modest single storey buildings that are used for ancillary storage, offices and garaging. A further car park occupies the north western end of this parcel of land, with mature trees on the western boundary. The eastern part of this site, alongside Headley Road is currently laid out as a grassed sports pitch bordered by dense woodland to the north-west and groups of trees to the south-west.
Public footpath 55 runs along the western boundary, within the site; public footpath 513 runs along the southern boundary, beyond the site; and pubic bridleway 512 runs along The Drive, beyond the site. Ground levels rise across the site from the north-west to the south- east, with a significant dip at a central point within the northern section of the site.
The proposed development is described in your letter as follows: ‘The proposed development comprises the demolition of existing buildings and structures on the Site and the delivery of 100 residential units, up to two storeys in height, along with associated landscaping, car parking, access routes and other associated works. The indicative unit mix comprises 30 two bed, 30 three bed and 40 four bed units. An illustrative layout is shown at Enclosure 2.
The proposals include the delivery of 14 affordable residential units, comprising 6 two bed units, 6 three bed and 2 four bed units.
The footprint of the proposed buildings (5,146sqm) is similar to that of the existing permanent structures (5,106sqm). It is anticipated that proposed floorspace will be around 2,837sqm greater than existing and that 50% of the increase will be in the form of affordable housing units. The proposal would result in a 19% reduction of hardstanding and 8% increase in green space across the site.’
As such, the proposed development does not fall within the developments identified as Schedule 1 development. However, given that the proposal comprises urban development and the site area measurement provided in the Request for Screening Opinion letter is
DM 188 6.77ha, the proposal would be above the threshold of 0.5 ha. as specified in Column 2 of Schedule 2. 10.(b) (iii) of the EIA Regulations, as follows: 10. Infrastructure projects (b) Urban development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks, sports stadiums, leisure centres and multiplex cinemas; (iii) the overall area of the development exceeds 5 hectares.
Therefore, the proposal comprises Schedule 2 development and a screening opinion is required.
A screening opinion, taking into account the criteria of Schedule 3 to the 2017 Regulations, in the form of the attached ‘The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 Screening Matrix’ has been undertaken. This is summarised below:
Natural resources The impact of the proposed development on natural resources was considered through the Outline Sustainability Statement dated Nov 2019, Ecology Consultation Response and Position Statement Rev A dated May 2020 and Proposed Land Use Parameters Plan, A11454-D1001, Rev.P2, submitted in support of the planning application, which detail that the development would not incorporate significant changes to ground levels; would prioritise materials with low energy impact; and would implement a 15m buffer of green space to the Ancient Woodland and SNCI. It is anticipated from the submitted documents that neither the construction nor operational phase of the development would give rise to a significant impact in terms of the topography or natural resources on or near the site.
Waste The impact of the proposed development on waste was considered through the Outline Sustainability Statement and the Ecology Consultation Response and Position Statement Rev A, submitted in support of the planning application, which detail that a Waste Management Plan and Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be implemented. It is anticipated from the submitted documents that neither the construction nor operational phase of the development would give rise to a significant impact in terms of the production and management of waste.
Pollution and nuisances The impact of the proposed development on pollution was considered through the Air Quality Assessment (AQA) dated Nov 2019, the Air Quality Assessment (AQA) dated Nov 2019 and the Preliminary Geo-Environmental Risk Assessment, dated Jan 2020, submitted in support of the planning application, which detail various mitigation measures including a Construction Environmental Management Plan, a Travel Plan (which incorporates a raft of sustainable transport measures such as the Headley Hopper bus service, cycling initiative and Travel Plan Coordinator) and construction methods such as sound insulation. It is anticipated from the submitted documents that neither the construction nor operational phase of the development would give rise to a significant impact in terms of pollution and nuisances.
Population and human health The impact of the proposed development on human health was considered through the Air Quality Assessment (AQA) dated Nov 2019 and the Preliminary Geo-Environmental Risk Assessment, dated Jan 2020, submitted in support of the planning application, which detail various mitigation measures including a Construction Environmental Management Plan and a Remediation and Verification Plan. It is anticipated from the submitted documents that neither the construction nor operational phase of the development would give rise to a significant impact in terms of population and human health.
DM 189
Water resources The impact of the proposed development on water resources was considered through a GIS mapping search of the site and its vicinity, together with the Proposed Land Use Parameters Plan, A11454-D1001, Rev.P2, Below Ground Drainage Strategy, ref. 2372-MHT-CV-REP- 001, dated 12.12.19, Drawing no. DW2020-283, Rev.A, Existing Drainage Layout (pp.1-4), Copies of correspondence with Thames Water, dated 4.10.19-20.11.19, SCC Surface Water Drainage Summary Pro-forma, dated 16.12.19, Infiltration Testing Statement, ref. 18- 0936.03, dated Nov.2019, Flood Risk Assessment, ref. 2372-MHT-CV-REP-002, dated 12.12.19 and the Preliminary Geo-Environmental Risk Assessment, ref.18-0936.04, dated January 2020, submitted in support of the planning application, which detail a programme of existing and proposed surveys and mitigation measures. It is anticipated from the submitted documents that neither the construction nor operational phase of the development would give rise to a significant impact on nearby water resources in terms of volume, flood risk or contamination.
Biodiversity (species and habitats) The impact of the proposed development on biodiversity was considered through the Ecology Consultation Response and Position Statement Rev A dated May 2020, Biodiversity Impact Calculator (BIC) calculations, dated 5 June 2020, and Proposed Land Use Parameters Plan, A11454-D1001, Rev.P2, submitted in support of the planning application, which detail a programme of surveys undertaken and proposed, together with mitigation measures, including a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) and the CEMP. It is anticipated from the submitted documents that neither the construction nor operational phase of the development would give rise to a significant impact on biodiversity and that net gains would be secured.
Landscape and visual The impact of the proposed development on the landscape and visual amenity was considered through the Tree Protection Plans, Landscape Value Impact Assessment, the Ecology Consultation Response and Position Statement Rev A and Proposed Land Use Parameters Plan, A11454-D1001, Rev.P2, submitted in support of the planning application, which detail that there would be a 15m buffer to the Ancient Woodland and SNCI. It is anticipated from the submitted documents that neither the construction nor operational phase of the development would give rise to a significant impact on the landscape and visual amenity.
Cultural heritage/archaeology The impact of the proposed development on the cultural heritage/archaeology was considered through the Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, dated 4.12.19 and Heritage Statement, dated January 2020, submitted in support of the planning application, which detail that there would be a continuing programme of archaeological surveys and mitigation measures. The site abuts an Area of High Archaeological Potential, is sited at a distance of approx. 364m to Stane Street Roman Road Scheduled Monument and adjacent to the Headley Court manor house and gardens site, which contains 11no. Grade II Listed Buildings. It is anticipated from the submitted documents that neither the construction nor operational phase of the development would give rise to a significant impact on the cultural heritage/archaeology within or near the site.
Transport and access The impact of the proposed development on the cultural heritage/archaeology was considered through the Transport Assessment, dated Jan 2020 and additional documents submitted in May 2020, in support of the planning application, which detail that there would be a programme of footpath, cycle path, bridleway and highways improvements, including A24/Headley Rd junction works, that would be covered by a s106 agreement and planning
DM 190 conditions. It is anticipated from the submitted documents that neither the construction nor operational phase of the development would give rise to a significant impact on the transport or access within or near the site.
Land use The impact of the proposed development on land use within and near the site was considered through the Proposed Land Use Parameters Plan, A11454-D1001, Rev.P2 and Transport Assessment, dated Jan 2020 and additional documents submitted in May 2020, in support of the planning application, which detail that there would be a programme of footpath, cycle path, bridleway and highways improvements, including A24/Headley Rd junction works, that would be covered by a s106 agreement and planning conditions. It is anticipated from the submitted documents that neither the construction nor operational phase of the development would give rise to a significant impact on land use within or near the site.
Land stability and climate The site is not susceptible to earthquakes etc so this impact does not require further assessment.
Cumulative effect While the Council understands that the applicants intend to submit a future planning application in regard to the adjacent Headley Court mansion house and gardens site to the east which is proposed for redevelopment as a retirement village, no formal planning application has been received. As such, any cumulative effects would need to be fully assessed once the Council is in receipt of a planning application and accompanying information relating to the adjacent site, as part of the material planning issues for consideration in determining that application.
Transboundary effects The proposal would not transgress any national boundaries so this impact does not require further assessment.
Any environmental impact of the proposed development will be fully assessed once the reserved matters planning application and relevant accompanying information is received by Mole Valley District Council.
For the reasons set out above, the proposed development of 100 residential units, (Note: the outline application has since been amended to a maximum of 70 residential units), set within extensive areas of amenity and open space at the application site does comprise Schedule 2 development, however, the proposal has been assessed as not likely to have significant effects on the environment and, therefore, does not require an Environmental Statement.
Yours sincerely
Piers Mason Executive Head of Service (Planning and Regulation)
DM 191 THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2017 SCREENING MATRIX
Case Details Case Brief Demolition of existing buildings and structures MO/2019/2101 Reference descripti and erection of 100 residential units, up to two on of the storeys in height, along with associated Applicant Montagu Evans LLP project / landscaping, car parking, access routes and develop other associated works within site measuring LPA Mole Valley District Council ment 6.77ha. EIA Details Is the project Schedule 1 development according to No Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations? If YES, which description of development (THEN GO TO
Q4) Is the project Schedule 2 development under the EIA Yes Regulations? 10. Infrastructure projects (b) Urban development projects, including the If YES, under which description of development in construction of shopping centres and car parks, sports stadiums, leisure centres and multiplex Column 1 and Column 2? cinemas; (iii) the overall area of the development exceeds 5 hectares. Is the development within, partly within, or near a ‘sensitive area’ as defined by Regulation 2 of the EIA No Regulations? If YES, which area? Are the applicable thresholds/criteria in Column 2 Yes exceeded/met? (iii) the overall area of the development exceeds If yes, which applicable threshold/criteria? 5 hectares LPA/SOS SCREENING Has the LPA or SoS issued a Screening Opinion (SO) or Screening Direction (SD)? (In the case of Enforcement No appeals, has a Regulation 37 notice been issued) If yes, is a copy of the SO/SD on the file? N/A If yes, is the SO/SD positive? N/A Environmental Statement Has the appellant supplied an ES for the current or previous (if reserved matters or conditions) No application?
WHEN COMPLETING THIS DOCUMENT IN RELATION TO AN ENFORCEMENT APPEAL, THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICER HAS HAD REGARD TO THE PROJECT AS ALLEGED IN THE RELEVANT ENFORCEMENT NOTICE WHEN REFERING TO THE PROJECT / DEVELOPMENT.
DM 192 DM 193
Question (Part 2a) / (Part 2b) – Answer to the question and (Part 3a) / (Part 3b) (only if Yes in part 2a) – Is a explanation of reasons Significant Effect Likely? (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) Briefly explain answer to Part 2a and, if applicable and/or Is a significant effect likely, having regard particularly to known, include name of feature and proximity to site the magnitude and spatial extent (including population (If answer in Part 2a / 2b is ‘No’, the answer to Part 3a size affected), nature, intensity and complexity, / 3b is ‘N/A’) probability, expected onset, duration, frequency and reversibility of the impact and the possibility to effectively reduce the impact? If the finding of no significant effect is reliant on specific features or measures of the project envisaged to avoid, or prevent what might otherwise have been, significant adverse effects on the environment these should be identified in bold. Natural resources Will construction, operation or Yes Some changes will occur due to removal of No No significant changes in ground levels proposed decommissioning of the project involve existing buildings and construction of new within site actions which will cause physical changes dwellings, roads, hardstanding, gardens, in the topography of the area? infrastructure etc. Will construction or operation of the ? A range of materials will be used in construction No Outline Sustainability Statement dated Nov 2019 project use natural resources above or of development confirms that proposed materials shall prioritise below ground such as land, soil, water, renewable or sustainable sources with low energy materials/minerals or energy which are impact including recycled materials and will be non-renewable or in short supply? locally sourced where available and all life cycle greenhouse gas emissions would be taken into account in the design. Are there any areas on/around the Yes Ancient woodland adjacent to site (south west, No Ecology Consultation Response and Position location which contain important, high Pignut Wood) and within site (north west, Statement Rev A dated May 2020 and Proposed quality or scarce resources which could Hambleton Wood); site lies within 200m buffer Land Use Parameters Plan, A11454-D1001, be affected by the project, e.g. forestry, zone of Pignut Wood SNCI; agriculture beyond Rev.P2, confirms 15m buffer of green space agriculture, water/coastal, fisheries, site to north, woodland to south west beyond site. proposed to each area of Ancient Woodland, minerals? including SNCI, with adequate boundary protection so, therefore, unaffected. Existing agricultural land beyond site unaffected. Waste
DM 194
Question (Part 2a) / (Part 2b) – Answer to the question and (Part 3a) / (Part 3b) (only if Yes in part 2a) – Is a explanation of reasons Significant Effect Likely? (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) Will the project produce solid wastes Yes Demolition of existing buildings and ground works No Outline Sustainability Statement and the Ecology during construction or operation or for new development plus construction of Consultation Response and Position Statement decommissioning? dwellings will produce construction waste and Rev A, (ECR), confirm that a Waste Management occupants of future dwellings will produce Plan and Construction Environmental domestic waste Management Plan (CEMP) shall be implemented during construction to maximise recycling and minimise waste, and the operation phase will also maximise domestic waste recycling through internal and external recycling and waste storage facilities to support government landfill reduction targets POLLUTION AND NUISANCES Will the project release pollutants or any Yes Dust and construction traffic exhaust emissions No Air Quality Assessment (AQA) dated Nov 2019 hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to may be released during construction phase and (which includes construction dust assessment) air? domestic traffic exhaust emissions may be confirms that any likely pollutant impacts from released during operational phase construction phase should be addressed through Best Available Techniques (BAT) mitigation measures (pp20-23 of AQA) to be set out in Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); operational traffic impact is considered equivalent to that of existing lawful use, therefore, no mitigation required (although each dwelling would be equipped with electric vehicle charging point and proposed Travel Plan incorporates raft of sustainable transport measures including Headley Hopper bus service, cycling initiative and Travel Plan Coordinator) Will the project cause noise and vibration Yes Demolition of existing buildings and construction No No significant impact is likely during construction or release of light, heat, energy or of proposed development may cause noise, light, phase due to temporary and limited magnitude of electromagnetic radiation? heat and vibration works. Outline Sustainability Statement confirms that construction methods including sound insulation standards would ensure acceptable noise climate for future occupants during operational phase.
DM 195
Question (Part 2a) / (Part 2b) – Answer to the question and (Part 3a) / (Part 3b) (only if Yes in part 2a) – Is a explanation of reasons Significant Effect Likely? (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) Will the project lead to risks of ? No acquifer, however, the site comprises a No Preliminary Geo-Environmental Risk Assessment, contamination of land or water from surface water safeguarded area for drinking water dated Jan 2020, states testing confirms that the releases of pollutants onto the ground or and is adjacent to a high pesticide risk site represents an overall Low risk with respect to into surface waters, groundwater, coastal potential in ground contamination concerns and waters or the sea? that additional investigation and a Remediation and Verification Plan should be prepared; this would be covered by planning conditions Are there any areas on or around the Yes There is an area to the west/south-west of the site No It is not likely that the project would have a location which are already subject to which is a nitrate vulnerable and phosphate risk significant impact due to the distance from the pollution or environmental damage, e.g. zone at a min. distance of 44m. nitrate and phosphate risk area and the nature of where existing legal environmental the development which is residential and not standards are exceeded, which could be agricultural. affected by the project? population and human health Will there be any risk of major accidents Yes Construction and demolition projects come with a No Subject to standard health and safety procedures (including those caused by climate risk to human health and life with regard to including a Construction Environmental change, in accordance with scientific construction workers. Management Plan no significant impact is likely knowledge) during construction, operation with regard to operatives or local residents. or decommissioning? Will the project present a risk to the Yes Construction and demolition projects come with a No Subject to standard health and safety procedures population (having regard to population risk to human health and life with regard to such as fencing and a Construction density) and their human health during construction workers and general public. Environmental Management Plan, no significant construction, operation or Ground water contamination may be possible – see impact is likely with regard to operatives or local decommissioning? (for example due to 3.3 above. residents. water contamination or air pollution) The significance of any impacts re. ground water contamination are assessed in 3.3 above as not significant. water resources Are there any water resources including Yes The site lies within a Drinking water safeguard No A GIS mapping search of the site and its vicinity, surface waters, e.g. rivers, lakes/ponds, zone (surface water) and Source Protection together with the Proposed Land Use Parameters coastal or underground waters on or Zones (Zone III). The site is not in a designated Plan, A11454-D1001, Rev.P2, Below Ground around the location which could be flood zone. There are 2no. water features at Drainage Strategy, ref. 2372-MHT-CV-REP-001, dated 12.12.19, Drawing no. DW2020-283,
DM 196
Question (Part 2a) / (Part 2b) – Answer to the question and (Part 3a) / (Part 3b) (only if Yes in part 2a) – Is a explanation of reasons Significant Effect Likely? (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) affected by the project, particularly in adjacent Headley Court and a series of ponds to Rev.A, Existing Drainage Layout (pp.1-4), Copies terms of their volume and flood risk? south of Headley Court Farm Cottages. of correspondence with Thames Water, dated 4.10.19-20.11.19, SCC Surface Water Drainage Summary Pro-forma, dated 16.12.19, Infiltration Testing Statement, ref. 18-0936.03, dated Nov.2019, Flood Risk Assessment, ref. 2372- MHT-CV-REP-002, dated 12.12.19 and the Preliminary Geo-Environmental Risk Assessment, ref.18-0936.04, dated January 2020, outline a programme of surveys and mitigation measures such that no significant impact is likely. BIODIVERSITY (SPECIES AND HABITATS) Are there any protected areas which are Yes Woodland, Ancient Woodland & Nower Wood No Ecology Consultation Response and Position designated or classified for their terrestrial, SNCI [Ancient Woodland is protected by NPPF Statement Rev A dated May 2020 and Proposed avian and marine ecological value, or any para.175 (c) development resulting in the loss or Land Use Parameters Plan, A11454-D1001, non-designated / non-classified areas deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as Rev.P2, confirms 15m buffer to these areas so no which are important or sensitive for ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) significant impact reasons of their terrestrial, avian and should be refused, unless there are wholly marine ecological value, located on or exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation around the location and which could be strategy exists] affected by the project? (e.g. wetlands, watercourses or other water-bodies, the coastal zone, mountains, forests or woodlands, undesignated nature reserves or parks. (Where designated indicate level of designation (international, national, regional or local))). Could any protected, important or Yes Any number of protected species could be No Ecological Impact Assessment dated Jan 2020 sensitive species of flora or fauna which present or transient within site and adjacent. and Ecology Consultation Response and Position use areas on or around the site, e.g. for Statement Rev A dated May 2020, set out a breeding, nesting, foraging, resting, over- programme of surveys undertaken and proposed, wintering, or migration, be affected by the together with mitigation measures, including a project? Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) and the CEMP to ensure that no
DM 197
Question (Part 2a) / (Part 2b) – Answer to the question and (Part 3a) / (Part 3b) (only if Yes in part 2a) – Is a explanation of reasons Significant Effect Likely? (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) significant impact would result in relation to protected flora or fauna, which would be covered by planning conditions; Biodiversity Impact Calculator (BIC) calculations, dated 5 June 2020, confirms that net gains would be achieved in terms of biodiversity on site. landscape and visual Are there any areas or features Yes Site is wholly within Green Belt, however, not No 15m buffer to Ancient Woodland and SNCI on or around the location which are AONB, AGLV; site includes and is adjacent to proposed; Tree Protection Plans and Landscape protected for their landscape and scenic woodlands including Ancient Woodland and Value Impact Assessment submitted confirming value, and/or any non-designated / non- Nower Wood SNCI no significant impact classified areas or features of high landscape or scenic value on or around the location which could be affected by the project?1 Where designated indicate level of designation (international, national, regional or local). Is the project in a location No Site is predominantly screened by trees from N/A where it is likely to be highly visible to settlements to south west and south, and Headley many people? (If so, from where, what Court to north east is currently vacant – direction, and what distance?) separation distances to settlements south and south west min. 90m; development proposes buildings no higher than existing CULTURAL HERITAGE/ARCHAEOLOGY Are there any areas or features which are Yes Headley Court, adjacent to east, contains no.11 No Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, dated protected for their cultural heritage or Grade II listed buildings (min. separation distance 4.12.19 and Heritage Statement, dated January archaeological value, or any non- 6.9m); 1no. Grade II Listed Building to south 2020, have been submitted, which consider this designated / classified areas and/or beyond site at The Old House, Headley Court impact and outline a raft of surveys and features of cultural heritage or Farm, (min. separation distance approx.. 119m); mitigation. archaeological importance on or around site abuts Area of High Archaeological Potential
1.1. 1 See question 8.1 for consideration of impacts on heritage designations and receptors, including on views to, within and from designated areas.
DM 198
Question (Part 2a) / (Part 2b) – Answer to the question and (Part 3a) / (Part 3b) (only if Yes in part 2a) – Is a explanation of reasons Significant Effect Likely? (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) the location which could be affected by the (AHAP) to north/north west including Hambleton There will be an impact on views to/from and project (including potential impacts on Wood and Stane Street Roman Road which is a setting of listed buildings at Headley Court but setting, and views to, from and within)? Scheduled Monument (min. separation distance this has been assessed as having less than Where designated indicate level of 364m) - national designations substantial harm outweighed by public benefit of designation (international, national, proposal and will also be covered by planning regional or local). conditions; other heritage assets considered to be separated by substantial separation distance and thus not affected eg Roman Road. Transport and Access Are there any routes on or around the Yes Footpaths 55 & 513, Byway 512 and highways No Transport Assessment, dated Jan 2020 and location which are used by the public for including The Drive and Headley Road additional documents submitted in May 2020 access to recreation or other facilities, within/adjacent to site including footpath and bridleway improvements, which could be affected by the project? confirm that no significant effect is likely in terms of transport in light of a raft of highways improvements proposed, to be covered by planning conditions and s106 agreement. Are there any transport routes on or Yes Junction of Headley Road with A24 to the west of No Transport Assessment, dated Jan 2020 and around the location which are susceptible the site additional documents submitted in May 2020 to congestion or which cause including A24/Headley Rd junction works, confirm environmental problems, which could be that no significant effect is likely in terms of affected by the project? transport in light of a raft of highways improvements proposed, to be covered by planning conditions and s106 agreement. land use Are there existing land uses or community Yes Nearby housing, farms, No Proposed Land Use Parameters Plan, A11454- facilities on or around the location which footpaths/byways/bridleways for leisure/recreation D1001, Rev.P2 and Transport Assessment, dated could be affected by the project? E.g. use Jan 2020 and additional documents submitted in housing, densely populated areas, May 2020 including A24/Headley Rd junction industry / commerce, farm/agricultural works, confirm that no significant effect is likely on holdings, forestry, tourism, mining, land uses on or around the site due to proposed quarrying, facilities relating to health, residential use of domestic scale and in light of a education, places of worship, leisure raft of highways/ footpaths/byways/bridleways /sports / recreation.
DM 199
Question (Part 2a) / (Part 2b) – Answer to the question and (Part 3a) / (Part 3b) (only if Yes in part 2a) – Is a explanation of reasons Significant Effect Likely? (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) (Yes/No or Not Known (?) or N/A) improvements proposed, to be covered by planning conditions and s106 agreement. Are there any plans for future land uses on Yes Headley Court eastern site redevelopment as No No significant effect likely or around the location which could be older persons retirement village affected by the project? land stability and climate Is the location susceptible to earthquakes, No N/A subsidence, landslides, erosion, or extreme /adverse climatic conditions, e.g. temperature inversions, fogs, severe winds, which could cause the project to present environmental problems? cumulative effects Could this project together with existing No Phased development of entire site to include N/A and/or approved development result in north-east area, however, not yet approved – this cumulation of impacts together during the will need to be assessed in terms of south-west construction/operation phase? portion when submitted Transboundary effects Is the project likely to lead to No N/A transboundary effects?2
1.1. 2 The Regulations require consideration of the transboundary nature of the impact. Due to the England’s geographical location the vast majority of TCPA cases are unlikely to result in transboundary impacts.
DM 200
CONCLUSIONS – ACCORDING TO EIA REGULATIONS SCHEDULE 3 No significant impact likely screening decision If a SO/SD has been provided do N/A you agree with it? Is it necessary to issue a SD? Yes Is an ES required? No Assessment (EIA regs schedule 2 OUTCOME development) Is likely to have significant effects ES required on the environment Not likely to have significant effects ES not required on the environment More information is required to Request further info inform direction
NAME Catherine Miller-Bassi DATE 08 June 2020
DM 201