S 

TANDRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN

Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Project Title: Tandridge District Council Local Plan

Document Title: Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Client Reference:

Date: 12th November 2015

Prepared By: Print William Bryans

Authorised By: Print

All maps contained in this document are licensed © Crown copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey 100019613

Amendment List Iss. / Rev. Iss. / Rev Remove Insert Date Page Iss. / Rev. Page Iss. / Rev. 2 13/10 3 12/11

0201SF10 07/08/02 Filename: S:\Project-Current\3613\53613T37_Tandridge Local Plan\05 Reports\Doc01_Strategichighwayassessmentreport_V5.Doc

Issue No. 03 Page 2 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 6 1.1 Overview 6 1.2 Objectives 6 2 STRATEGIC TRANSPORT MODEL 7 2.1 Model and Scope 7 2.2 Base Year 8 2.3 Modes of Transport 8 2.4 Time Periods 8 2.5 Study Area and Zones 8 3 MODEL FORECASTING, TRIP GENERATION AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION10 3.1 Forecast Year 10 3.2 Forecast Scenarios 10 3.3 Development Sites and Pro-Forma 13 3.4 Vehicle Trip Generation 13 3.5 External and Background Traffic Growth 18 3.6 Vehicle Trip Distribution 18 3.7 Forecast Network 19 3.8 Assignment 19 4 MODEL RESULTS AND ANALYSES 20 4.1 Overview 20 4.2 Network Statistics 22 4.3 Level of Service (LOS) 24 4.4 Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) 24 4.5 Increase in Flow 25 4.6 Changes in Capacity and Level of Service 33 4.7 Motorways & Trunk Roads 35 4.8 Increase in Junction Delay 36 4.9 Journey Times along Key Routes 46 4.10 Cross Boundary Impacts 50 5 SUMMARY 53 APPENDICES 55

Issue No. 03 Page 3 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Surrey County Council was commissioned by Tandridge District Council to undertake highway modelling to assist in the provision of an evidence base for the emerging Local Plan. The Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment is a strategic transport modelling study that aims to inform the decision making surrounding the suitability of potential development sites. It should be noted that the scenarios tested and analysed for this report were generated from statistics that at the time were still being identified from the council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) and may not reflect the final findings of the HELAA.

This document sets out details of the transport model (SINTRAM), the forecasting methodology, as well as the results and analysis of the traffic impacts of the potential development sites. The main objectives were to:

 calculate the number and distribution of vehicle trips based on the quantum and locations of additional commercial and residential development in various growth scenarios from the data provided by Tandridge District Council;  forecast the traffic impacts of various development scenarios;  act as a starting point for identifying the locations that may require further investigation regarding traffic impacts; and  report the main traffic impacts.

This report does not go onto identify and recommend potential mitigation. This would need to be done at a later stage, but in advance of any Examination in Public. However, this report would act as a useful starting point for undertaking this work.

A future year do-minimum reference and five do-something scenarios were tested:  2031 do-minimum scenario 1 includes all commercial and residential development sites that have received planning permission within the district of Tandridge since 2009;  2031 do-something scenario 2a contains all of the sites in scenario 1 with the addition of all the most likely Local Plan development sites;  2031 do-something scenario 2b is the same as scenario 2a, but the Local Plan development sites are assumed to be of higher density;  2031 do-something scenario 3 contains all of the sites in scenario 2a with additional commercial development and additional residential development focused on Caterham (including Caterham hill and Caterham Valley), Whyteleafe, Warlingham Oxted (including Limpsfield), Smallfield, Lingfield and Godstone;  2031 do-something scenario 4 contains all of the sites in scenario 2a with additional commercial development (as in scenario 3) and additional residential development focused on Bletchingley, Woldingham, South Nutfield, Dormansland, South Godstone, Tatsfield, Blindley Heath, Limpsfield Chart, Nutfield, Felbridge, Old Oxted; and

 2031 do-something scenario 5 contains all of the sites in scenario 2a with additional commercial development (as in scenarios 3 and 4) and the additional residential development that is also in scenarios 3 and 4.

Of the five do-something scenarios, scenario 2b is projected to generate the smallest traffic impacts on the highway network in Tandridge. Although this scenario represents an

Issue No. 03 Page 4 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report intensification of the development proposed in Scenario 2a (an additional 175 dwellings and the same amount of commercial development), the proposed residential development consists of a greater number of flats. However, the total number of new vehicle trips generated in scenario 2b is lower than in scenario 2a because the trip rate associated with flats is lower when compared with that for houses.

Scenarios 2a and 2b are forecast to generate similar impacts on the district’s highway network when considering general network traffic statistics. Scenario 4 is also forecast to have relatively moderate effects on the network. In all of these scenarios, the impacts are most marked in the north of the district, including Oxted and Hurst Green, Godstone, Caterham and Warlingham.

Scenarios 3 and 5 are forecast to have the greatest impacts, both in the south and north of the district, including Smallfield, Caterham. In some locations effects are expected to be experienced some distance from proposed development locations reflecting the potential cumulative impacts on existing roads and junctions. This includes some impacts across the boundary, especially to in the north east and in the south and south-west of the district.

There are forecast to be limited numbers of trips added to the motorway network, although re-routing as a result of additional trips on the network does affect motorway flows. However, parts of the motorway network in the area are forecast to be either approaching or already operating overcapacity by 2031 so any additional trips may have more of a significant effect.

Issue No. 03 Page 5 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 Tandridge District Council is currently in the process of developing their Local Plan to ensure future growth is facilitated within the district. To assist with the review of the district’s development scenarios Surrey County Council has been commissioned by the district council to undertake highway modelling to aid the evidence base of their Local Plan. The Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment is a strategic transport modelling study that aims to inform the decision making surrounding the suitability of development sites which have been identified.

1.1.2 The assessment made use of Surrey County Council’s strategic transport model, SINTRAM.

1.1.3 This document sets out details of the transport model, the forecasting methodology, as well as the results and analysis of the traffic impacts of the potential development sites.

1.1.4 This study does not consider aspects such as:  accessibility to facilities and services by either car or non-car modes from the potential development sites;  the impact on existing public transport services such as passenger over- crowding and possible delays to services as a result of increased traffic congestion;  what opportunities there might be for reducing the number of car trips to and from the potential new developments by the enhancement of sustainable transport facilities and services;  what highway mitigation might be required to address the identified impacts. Accessibility issues and impacts on public transport services might have to be considered in separate pieces of work. The consideration of increasing sustainable travel and identifying highway mitigation would need to be done at a later stage, potentially to support a Regulation 19 submission to the Secretary of State and certainly in advance of any Examination in Public. However, this report acts as a useful starting point for undertaking such work.

1.2 Objectives

1.2.1 The purpose of this study was to evaluate the highway impacts of the developments contained within the forecast scenarios as developed by Tandridge District Council.

1.2.2 The main objectives of the study were to:

 calculate the number and distribution of vehicle trips based on the quantum and locations of additional commercial and residential development in various growth scenarios from the data provided by Tandridge District Council;  forecast the traffic impacts of various development scenarios;  act as a starting point for identifying the locations that may require further investigation regarding traffic impacts; and  report the main traffic impacts.

Issue No. 03 Page 6 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

2 STRATEGIC TRANSPORT MODEL

2.1 Model and Scope

2.1.1 Surrey County Council’s strategic transport model, SINTRAM version 6 (SINTRAM6_0_22_Tandridge_040915) was used for the assessment, with OmniTRANS modelling program, version 6.0.22.

2.1.2 SINTRAM is a strategic highway model for the county of Surrey. The model encapsulates the road network of Surrey and surrounding local authorities. Figure 2.1 presents the entire model area.

Figure 2.1: Model extent

2.1.3 All motorways, A and B roads, together with most local roads are represented within SINTRAM. Where traffic junctions and traffic signals have a significant effect in terms of delay or route choice, details of their layout and/or timing of the signals have been included in the model.

2.1.4 Strategic models, such as SINTRAM, use aggregate descriptions of traffic such as flow, density, speed and the relationships between them. The model is unable to answer detailed questions regarding traffic interactions, such as queuing and individual driver behaviour. It can however, provide approximate answers to transport problems across a vast geographical area, including the level of vehicle demand, junctions and stretches of road which will be operating above their theoretical capacity, and highlighting areas where some form of mitigation is likely to be required to reduce the impact of development sites. This makes SINTRAM a suitable tool for assessing the potential traffic impacts of the land allocation sites at this initial review stage.

Issue No. 03 Page 7 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

2.2 Base Year

2.2.1 The model base year is 2009. The model was last updated in 2011, and at the time the reference base year was updated from 2005 to 2009. The model is currently being updated to 2014, but this model will not be available until 2016.

2.3 Modes of Transport

2.3.1 Vehicle classes that are represented in the model are: car; light goods vehicles (LGV); and heavy good vehicles (HGV).

2.4 Time Periods

2.4.1 The model represents an average twelve-hour weekday (0700 – 1900), broken down into the following time periods:

 Weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000);  Weekday average inter peak hour (1000 – 1600); and  Weekday average PM peak hour (1600 – 1900).

2.4.2 Only the weekday average AM peak hour has been assessed in this study. This is because the model showed very similar effects in both the AM and PM peak. As a result, it was considered it would be clearer and aid decision making if the data and analysis for just a single time period was presented.

2.5 Study Area and Zones

2.5.1 A zone represents a geographical area where vehicle trips are generated by the land uses contained within.

2.5.2 The district of Tandridge is split into 20 zones, listed below and shown in Figure 2.2.

- 342: Bletchingley & South Nutfield - 352: Lingfield - 343: Godstone - 353: Hurst Green - 344: Oxted - 354: Caterham – South - 345: Dormansland - 355: Warlingham - 346: Smallfield - 356: Caterham – Chaldon - 347: Limpsfield - 357: Caterham – West - 348: Woldingham - 358: Caterham – Town Centre - 349: Tatsfield - 359: Caterham – Station - 350: Chelsham - 360: Caterham – North - 351: Elbridge - 361: Whyteleafe

2.5.1 The zones were reviewed to ensure that they were suitable for the assessment of the relevant potential development sites.

Issue No. 03 Page 8 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Figure 2.2: Zone plan

Issue No. 03 Page 9 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

3 MODEL FORECASTING, TRIP GENERATION AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION

3.1 Forecast Year

3.1.1 The model forecast year is 2031. Although the Tandridge Local Plan plan period is to 2033, SINTRAM has set forecast years, including 2026 and 2031. The use of the forecast year 2031 modelling purposes is consistent with work either being done or undertaken recently for other Surrey planning authorities. When modelling to 2031, it is assumed that the development proposed in the Tandridge Local Plan is all built, occupied and operational by 2031.

3.2 Forecast Scenarios

3.2.1 To identify the traffic impacts of potential development sites, Tandridge District Council have requested five different do-something scenarios to be assessed along with a do-minimum reference scenario and these are described below. It is important to note that scenarios were generated from emerging statistics from Tandridge District Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) as submitted to Surrey County Council on 23/07/2015. These figures may not reflect the final findings of the HELAA:

 2031 do-minimum scenario 1 includes all commercial and residential development sites that have received planning permission within the district of Tandridge since 2009;  2031 do-something scenario 2a contains all of the sites in scenario 1 with the addition of all the most likely Local Plan development sites;  2031 do-something scenario 2b is the same as scenario 2a, but the Local Plan development sites are assumed to be of higher density;  2031 do-something scenario 3 contains all of the sites in scenario 2a with additional commercial development and additional residential development focused on Caterham (including Caterham hill and Caterham Valley), Whyteleafe, Warlingham Oxted (including Limpsfield), Smallfield, Lingfield and Godstone;  2031 do-something scenario 4 contains all of the sites in scenario 2a with additional commercial development (as in scenario 3) and additional residential development focused on Bletchingley, Woldingham, South Nutfield, Dormansland, South Godstone, Tatsfield, Blindley Heath, Limpsfield Chart, Nutfield, Felbridge, Old Oxted; and

 2031 do-something scenario 5 contains all of the sites in scenario 2a with additional commercial development (as in scenarios 3 and 4) and the additional residential development that is also in scenarios 3 and 4.

3.2.2 Originally, Tandridge District Council identified a Scenario 6 that focussed potential residential development on South Godstone in relation to a possible expansion of Gatwick airport. However, Tandridge asked subsequently for this to be excluded from the assessment as it was considered too detailed following the publication of the Davies Commission report on airport expansion in the South-East.

3.2.3 Scenario 1 acts as the reference case for all five of the do-something forecast scenarios. This is because this do-minimum forecast contains all development permitted by planning permission, whereas the do-something forecasts contain planning options for growth in the district of Tandridge within the Local Plan timescales.

Issue No. 03 Page 10 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

3.2.4 A diagrammatic view of the scenarios is shown in Figure 3.1.

Issue No. 03 Page 11 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

2009 Base All developments to 2009  2031 Do-Nothing All developments between 2009 to 2031, excluding Tandridge (obtained from TEMPRO) Background growth (changes in demographics and car ownership) between 2009 to 2031 in Tandridge (obtained from TEMPRO)  2031 Do-Minimum Scenario 1 Commitments (developments granted planning permission only) in Tandridge Completions in Tandridge

 2031 Do-Something Scenario 2a 2031 Do-Something Scenario 2b Scenario 1 plus Local Plan most likely development sites Scenario 1 plus higher density of most likely urban sites

Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 2a plus additional commercial, Scenario 2a plus additional commercial, Scenario 2a plus additional commercial, (same as scenarios 4 and 5), and residential (same as scenarios 3 and 5), and residential (same as scenarios 3 and 4), and the development focused on Caterham development focused on Bletchingley, residential development that is in both (including Caterham hill and Caterham Woldingham, South Nutfield, Dormansland, scenarios 3 and 4 Valley), Whyteleafe, Warlingham Oxted South Godstone, Tatsfield, Blindley Heath, (including Limpsfield), Smallfield, Lingfield Limpsfield Chart, Nutfield, Felbridge, Old and Godstone. Oxted.

Figure 3.1: Outline of scenarios

Issue No. 03 Page 12 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

3.2.5 The do-minimum, scenario 1, only contains committed developments identified from the base year of 2009 to the forecast of 2031 within the district of Tandridge. This comprises developments which have already been built, are in the process of construction, or have planning permission. .

3.2.6 The potential future development sites that are under review have been captured in scenarios 2a to 5.

3.3 Development Sites and Pro-Forma

3.3.1 Information regarding the composition of residential development sites to be considered in the assessment was provided by Tandridge District Council in the form of the county council’s pro-forma. The pro-forma was finalised on 23/07/15, and therefore these figures may not reflect the final findings of the HELAA.

3.3.2 Each residential and commercial development site listed in the pro-forma was matched to a model zone by Tandridge District Council. The appropriateness of these zone choices was checked by the county council. See Appendix A for an overview of the pro-forma provided to Surrey County Council from Tandridge District Council.

3.3.3 Figures 3.2 - 3.7 Maps presenting geographically all of the committed and proposed residential development sites that have been set out in the pro-forma are shown in Appendix B.

3.3.4 The quantum of development for each do-something scenario is shown in Table 3.1. This shows that the scenarios with the most proposed developments are scenarios 3 and 5. The net total number of units in scenarios 2a and 2b is similar, 3,350 and 3,581 respectively, with scenario 2b representing a higher proportion of flats.

Amount of Development Scenario Commercial Floor Area Residential Units (square metres) 2a 3,350 8,283 2b 3,581 8,283 3 9,875 45,732 4 5,056 45,732 5 11,582 45,732 Note: these figures are derived from the information supplied by Tandridge District Council to Surrey on 23/07/2015 when TDC were still generating statistics from the Housing & Economic Land Availability Assessment, and therefore may not reflect the final findings of the HELAA. Table 3.1: Amount of net development assumed in each scenario

3.4 Vehicle Trip Generation

3.4.1 Vehicle trips generated by each committed and potential development site were calculated using the information contained within the pro-forma and the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) version 2012(b) 6.10.2.

3.4.2 TRICS is the national standard database system of trip generation and analysis used in the planning application process. The database holds thousands of trip rate surveys generated by different land uses and location type.

Issue No. 03 Page 13 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

3.4.3 For potential developments within Tandridge, the database was interrogated for sites of a similar geographical location and land use in line with guidance from the 2012 Good Practice Guide. The database produces trip rates per 100m² gross floor area (GFA) or by residential unit. The resulting trip rates were applied to the size and composition of each development to calculate the trip generation for each site. Consideration was also made of the previous or existing land use of the development sites and the trips these would have generated. These trips were deducted from those generated by the new development to prevent double counting.

3.4.4 The trip generation was calculated separately for vehicles arriving and departing at each development site. This was also split into the vehicle types: car, LGV and HGV, similarly informed by the information contained within the TRICS database.

3.4.5 At this concept stage, all development related trips have been assumed to be new trips. No allowance has been made for linked, pass-by, diverted or transferred trips.

3.4.6 The resulting trip generation for the do-minimum and each of the four do- something scenarios for the Tandridge district zones is shown in Tables 3.3 to 3.8 for the weekday average AM peak hour.

3.4.7 The trip generation provided in Tables 3.3 to 3.8 details the cumulative amount of additional trips generated from the district’s development sites for each respective scenario. For example trips shown for the do-minimum scenario 1 in Table 3.3 relate to additional trip generation from committed developments (between 2009 and 2031) only, whereas the trip generation detailed for the do-something scenario 2a in Table 3.4 relates to the committed developments in the do-minimum as well as the proposed developments contained in scenario 2a.

3.4.8 Any negative values are due to a greater number of vehicle trips being generated by the previous development than the new site being proposed. It should also be noted that any differences between the total column and the addition of the individual vehicle numbers in Tables 3.3 to 3.8 is due to rounding errors.

3.4.9 A summary of all scenarios for the whole Tandridge district has also been provided in Table 3.9.

Issue No. 03 Page 14 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Zone Vehicle Arrival Trips Vehicle Departure Trips Zone Name No. Total Car LGV HGV Total Car LGV HGV 342 Bletchingley & South Nutfield 1 0 -0 1 12 11 1 1 343 Godstone 24 21 3 0 42 37 4 0 344 Oxted -10 -5 -4 -1 13 13 -0 -0 345 Dormansland 3 3 0 -1 24 22 2 0 346 Smallfield 1 1 -1 -0 7 7 0 -0 347 Limpsfield -9 -6 -1 -3 2 3 0 -1 348 Woldingham 1 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 349 Tatsfield -15 -14 -1 -1 -6 -6 0 -1 350 Chelsham -1 -1 -0 -0 16 14 2 0 351 Felbridge 7 6 1 0 10 9 1 0 352 Lingfield -28 -8 -18 -2 10 16 -5 -1 353 Hurst Green 22 21 1 -1 59 53 5 0 354 Caterham - South -9 -8 -1 -0 13 12 1 0 355 Warlingham 7 7 1 0 20 18 2 0 356 Caterham - Chaldon 1 1 0 -0 3 2 0 0 357 Caterham - West 18 16 2 0 44 40 4 0 358 Caterham - Town Centre -14 -12 -2 -0 3 3 0 -0 359 Caterham - Station -15 -10 -4 -1 18 18 0 -1 360 Caterham - North 6 5 1 0 11 10 1 0 361 Whyteleafe 6 4 2 0 113 100 12 1 TOTAL -4 23 -20 -7 417 384 32 1 Table 3.3: 2031 do-minimum scenario 1 trip generation for Tandridge district committed development sites for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Zone Vehicle Arrival Trips Vehicle Departure Trips Zone Name No. Total Car LGV HGV Total Car LGV HGV 342 Bletchingley & South Nutfield 1 0 -0 1 12 11 1 1 343 Godstone 24 21 3 0 42 37 4 0 344 Oxted -9 -8 -2 -0 10 8 2 0 345 Dormansland 3 3 0 -1 24 22 2 0 346 Smallfield 6 6 0 -0 20 18 2 0 347 Limpsfield -8 -5 -1 -3 5 5 0 -1 348 Woldingham 1 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 349 Tatsfield -15 -14 -1 -1 -6 -6 0 -1 350 Chelsham -1 -1 0 -0 18 16 2 0 351 Felbridge 7 6 1 0 10 9 1 0 352 Lingfield -28 -8 -18 -2 10 16 -5 -1 353 Hurst Green 57 52 5 -0 152 136 15 1 354 Caterham - South -4 -3 -0 -0 39 35 4 0 355 Warlingham 7 7 1 0 20 18 2 0 356 Caterham - Chaldon 3 2 0 0 8 7 1 0 357 Caterham - West 42 37 4 0 92 81 9 1 358 Caterham - Town Centre -14 -14 0 0 -7 -7 0 0 359 Caterham - Station -7 -1 -4 -1 57 54 3 -0 360 Caterham - North 3 3 0 -0 20 18 2 0 361 Whyteleafe -6 -8 2 0 103 90 12 1 TOTAL 63 78 -10 -5 633 571 57 4 Table 3.4: 2031 do-something scenario 2a trip generation for Tandridge district proposed development sites for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Issue No. 03 Page 15 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Zone Vehicle Arrival Trips Vehicle Departure Trips Zone Name No. Total Car LGV HGV Total Car LGV HGV 342 Bletchingley & South Nutfield 1 0 -0 1 12 11 1 1 343 Godstone 24 21 3 0 42 37 4 0 344 Oxted -17 -14 -2 -0 1 -0 1 0 345 Dormansland 3 3 0 -1 24 22 2 0 346 Smallfield 19 18 1 -0 46 41 4 0 347 Limpsfield -5 -2 -1 -2 11 11 1 -1 348 Woldingham 1 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 349 Tatsfield -15 -14 -1 -1 -6 -6 0 -1 350 Chelsham 2 2 0 0 23 21 2 0 351 Felbridge 7 6 1 0 10 9 1 0 352 Lingfield -28 -8 -18 -2 10 16 -5 -1 353 Hurst Green 34 32 3 -0 103 93 10 1 354 Caterham - South -8 -7 -1 -0 33 30 3 0 355 Warlingham 7 7 1 0 20 18 2 0 356 Caterham - Chaldon 7 6 1 0 17 15 2 0 357 Caterham - West 26 23 3 0 78 69 8 1 358 Caterham - Town Centre -14 -15 0 0 -7 -7 0 -0 359 Caterham - Station -9 -3 -5 -1 53 51 3 -0 360 Caterham - North 3 2 0 -0 16 15 2 0 361 Whyteleafe -4 -6 2 0 107 93 12 1 TOTAL 34 52 -12 -6 598 540 54 4 Table 3.5: 2031 do-something scenario 2b trip generation for Tandridge district proposed development sites for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Zone Vehicle Arrival Trips Vehicle Departure Trips Zone Name No. Total Car LGV HGV Total Car LGV HGV 342 Bletchingley & South Nutfield 176 76 95 6 85 42 40 2 343 Godstone 82 56 16 9 114 97 14 4 344 Oxted 50 45 4 0 159 141 17 2 345 Dormansland 5 4 1 -0 25 22 3 0 346 Smallfield 349 265 75 9 671 578 83 10 347 Limpsfield 8 9 1 -2 44 40 4 -0 348 Woldingham 1 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 349 Tatsfield -8 -11 1 2 -4 -5 1 1 350 Chelsham 104 93 10 1 269 240 27 3 351 Felbridge 212 93 64 55 -9 -3 -2 -4 352 Lingfield 11 27 -14 -2 100 96 4 0 353 Hurst Green 118 106 11 1 301 268 30 3 354 Caterham - South 5 5 0 0 63 55 6 1 355 Warlingham 47 42 5 1 100 89 10 1 356 Caterham - Chaldon 155 137 16 2 428 380 43 5 357 Caterham - West 42 37 4 0 92 81 9 1 358 Caterham - Town Centre -7 -8 1 0 6 4 2 0 359 Caterham - Station -7 -1 -4 -1 57 54 3 -0 360 Caterham - North 21 19 2 0 58 51 6 1 361 Whyteleafe 17 12 4 1 135 118 15 2 TOTAL 1,382 1,008 293 81 2,696 2,352 313 31 Table 3.6: 2031 do-something scenario 3 trip generation for Tandridge district proposed development sites for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Issue No. 03 Page 16 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Zone Vehicle Arrival Trips Vehicle Departure Trips Zone Name No. Total Car LGV HGV Total Car LGV HGV 342 Bletchingley & South Nutfield 192 89 96 6 116 70 43 3 343 Godstone 193 158 25 10 335 295 34 6 344 Oxted -9 -8 -2 -0 10 8 2 0 345 Dormansland 5 4 1 -0 25 22 3 0 346 Smallfield 96 40 50 6 60 35 23 3 347 Limpsfield -8 -5 -1 -3 5 5 0 -1 348 Woldingham 1 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 349 Tatsfield -4 -8 1 2 3 1 1 1 350 Chelsham -1 -1 0 -0 18 16 2 0 351 Felbridge 220 101 65 55 12 15 0 -4 352 Lingfield -28 -8 -18 -2 10 16 -5 -1 353 Hurst Green 58 53 5 0 154 137 15 2 354 Caterham - South -4 -3 -0 -0 39 35 4 0 355 Warlingham 7 7 1 0 20 18 2 0 356 Caterham - Chaldon 3 2 0 0 8 7 1 0 357 Caterham - West 42 37 4 0 92 81 9 1 358 Caterham - Town Centre -14 -14 0 0 -7 -7 0 0 359 Caterham - Station -7 -1 -4 -1 57 54 3 -0 360 Caterham - North 3 3 0 -0 20 18 2 0 361 Whyteleafe 3 -0 3 0 105 92 12 1 TOTAL 747 446 228 73 1,085 920 152 13 Table 3.7: 2031 do-something scenario 4 trip generation for Tandridge district proposed development sites for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Zone Vehicle Arrival Trips Vehicle Departure Trips Zone Name No. Total Car LGV HGV Total Car LGV HGV 342 Bletchingley & South Nutfield 206 102 98 6 143 94 46 3 343 Godstone 222 184 28 10 397 350 40 6 344 Oxted 37 33 3 0 125 111 13 1 345 Dormansland 5 4 1 -0 25 22 3 0 346 Smallfield 346 262 75 9 666 574 83 10 347 Limpsfield 8 9 1 -2 44 40 4 -0 348 Woldingham 1 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 349 Tatsfield -8 -11 1 2 -4 -5 1 1 350 Chelsham 102 90 10 1 264 235 26 3 351 Felbridge 220 101 65 55 12 15 0 -4 352 Lingfield 10 26 -14 -2 98 95 4 0 353 Hurst Green 113 102 11 1 289 257 28 3 354 Caterham - South 5 5 0 0 63 55 6 1 355 Warlingham 47 42 5 1 100 89 10 1 356 Caterham - Chaldon 97 85 10 1 284 252 28 3 357 Caterham - West 42 37 4 0 92 81 9 1 358 Caterham - Town Centre -7 -8 1 0 6 4 2 0 359 Caterham - Station -7 -1 -4 -1 57 54 3 -0 360 Caterham - North 21 19 2 0 58 51 6 1 361 Whyteleafe 17 12 4 1 135 118 15 2 TOTAL 1,478 1,095 301 81 2,856 2,495 328 33 Table 3.8: 2031 do-something scenario 5 trip generation for Tandridge district proposed development sites for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Issue No. 03 Page 17 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Vehicle Departure Scenario Vehicle Arrival Trips Vehicle Trips Total Trips Weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000) 2031 Scenario 1 -4 417 413 2031 Scenario 2a 63 633 696 2031 Scenario 2b 34 598 632 2031 Scenario 3 1,382 2,696 4,078 2031 Scenario 4 747 1,085 1,832 2031 Scenario 5 1,478 2,856 4,333 Table 3.9: Trip generation summary for all Tandridge district development sites

3.5 External and Background Traffic Growth

3.5.1 Traffic growth forecasts have been based on both TEMPRO and the development trip generation calculated from TRICS set out above. TEMPRO, supplied by the Department for Transport, is based on the National Trip End Model (NTEM) used to derive forecast trip ends.

3.5.2 Outside the study area of Tandridge district, standard TEMPRO factors have been used to growth trips to the forecast year of 2031.

3.5.3 In Tandridge district, only background growth from TEMPRO has been applied, using alternative planning assumptions whereby jobs and houses were changed to remain the same as the base year 2009. This provided growth factors which only represent changes in demographics and car ownership. This created a 2031 do- nothing forecast.

3.5.4 Since the pro-forma supplied up to date estimates of housing and commercial developments at a finer geographical scale than TEMPRO, the residential and commercial trip rates calculated from TRICS have been added to the background growth for the district (2031 do-nothing forecast). Together these have provided the optimum estimates of demand in all the model scenarios.

3.5.5 Reference should be made to Figure 3.1 for an illustration of how all scenarios have been developed.

3.6 Vehicle Trip Distribution

3.6.1 The origin and destinations of trips travelling to and from the development sites, known as trip distribution, were derived from the 2001 Census journey to work dataset.

3.6.2 The district of Tandridge was split into five areas based on land use characteristics. A generalisation of the five areas is provided below:

 North;  South;  East;  West; and  Central.

3.6.3 Separate distributions were developed for each of these areas using the journey to work dataset. Additional development related trips forecast to occur within each of the five areas then had the average distribution of the relevant area applied. Therefore the distributions applied to any future development sites included in this

Issue No. 03 Page 18 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

study are based on the average existing observed trip patterns for the five general areas of the district. Since the majority of travel from home to work occurs in the AM peak, it was assumed that the home end of the trip is the origin, and the work place the destination.

3.6.4 The Census journey to work dataset was also used to inform the trip distribution in the same way for the five large external developments to Tandridge district.

3.6.5 Table 3.10 details the modelled zones that formed the five distributions.

Distribution Zone No. North 348, 350, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 and 361 South 345, 346, 351 and 352 East 347, 349 and 353 West 342 Central 343 and 344 Table 3.10: Modelled zone areas that informed the five observed trip distributions

3.7 Forecast Network

3.7.1 The forecast network is an exact copy of the base but with the following changes listed below included. These are committed or completed highway schemes of strategic importance.

 A3 Hindhead tunnel and associated local junction alternations;  M25 junctions 16 to 23 widening of the carriageway from dual 3 lane to dual 4 lanes;  M25 junction 27 to 30 widening of the carriageway from dual 3 lanes to dual 4 lanes;  M25 new Cobham services that can be accessed from both sides of the carriageway and permits u-turns between junctions 9 and 10;  Conversion of the former roundabout junction of Egerton Road with Gill Avenue, Guildford, to signals;  Sheerwater link road, Woking; and  Improvements to the signalised junction of the A243 Leatherhead Road with B280 Fair Oak Lane/Rushett Lane, Malden Rushett.

3.8 Assignment

3.8.1 The trip end totals within the forecast matrices have been fixed when assigned to the network, using the method of successive averages (MSA) for 700 assignment iterations. In comparison to a variable demand approach, this represents a worst case scenario and makes the impact of the development sites more transparent to simplify the decision making process.

Issue No. 03 Page 19 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

4 MODEL RESULTS AND ANALYSES

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 All results presented within this report represent modelled traffic impacts projected to occur in the district of Tandridge only. In this section of the report the results are presented for all modelled forecast scenarios, comprising the do-minimum and the five do-something scenarios. The potential impacts of each do-something scenario can be identified by comparing each of the five do-something scenarios with the do-minimum (Scenario 1).

4.1.2 Although both the AM and PM peak hours were modelled (using an average peak period approach), on the AM period has been assessed. This is because initial results appeared similar and would double the amount of data presented. In this instance it was considered that a clearer picture of potential impacts and locations of possible mitigation would be obtained from just analysing the results for the AM peak.

4.1.3 An initial assessment of the potential impact of the proposals has been undertaken by assigning the worst case scenario, Scenario 5, to an uncongested network, and this is shown in Figure 4.1. This allows the trips arising from the potential developments to route via the shortest routes. The advantage of this assessment is that it shows the impact on preferred routes of travel.

4.1.4 In Figure 4.1, the routes taken by the trips through the model are shown in green, with the line thickness indicating the number of trips: the thicker the line, the more trips use this route through the model. The data is by direction, so the thickness of the line will vary on either side of the link. For example, in this excerpt from Figure 4.1 (Tillburstow Hill Road, South Godstone) more trips use this route northbound through the model.

Issue No. 03 Page 20 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Figure 4.1: Initial assessment

Issue No. 03 Page 21 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

4.1.5 This initial assessment indicates that that the two areas likely to be affected most are Godstone and Smallfield. In particular, the following junctions and roads could be affected by the proposed development: - A22/M25 Junction 6; - Godstone village; - Tilburstow Hill Road; - Smallfield and the roads between Smallfield and the A22; - A22 / Byers Lane junction, Blindley Heath; - the junction of Plough Road with Redehall Road and Chapel Road, Smallfield; - Keeper’s Corner; - A264 / A2220 Copthorne Roundabout; - B2028 / Bones Lane junction, Newchapel; - A22 / B2028 roundabout, Newchapel;

The results show that drivers might prefer to use Tilburstow Hill Road and the routes through Godstone village as opposed to the A22. Consequently, traffic restraint measures may need to be considered to encourage drivers to use the main roads.

4.2 Network Statistics

4.2.1 Table 4.1 shows the network summary statistics for the study area of Tandridge district only, for the weekday average AM peak hour, broken down by road type for each model scenario. The potential traffic impacts are reflected in changes in vehicle kilometres travelled, vehicle hours and average speed.

4.2.2 Of the five do-something scenarios, scenario 2b is projected to generate the smallest changes in network summary statistics when compared to the 2031 do- minimum during the weekday average AM peak hour. Although this scenario represents an intensification of the development proposed in Scenario 2a (an additional 175 dwellings and the same amount of commercial development), the proposed residential development consists of a greater number of flats. However, the total number of new vehicle trips generated in scenario 2b is lower than in scenario 2a because the trip rate associated with flats is lower when compared with that for houses.

4.2.3 In contrast, scenario 5 is forecast to have the largest impact as this assumes the combined development of both scenarios 3 and 4. In this scenario, vehicle kilometres are estimated to increase by 6% and vehicle hours by 9%, resulting in a 3% (2 kph) reduction in average speed.

4.2.4 Scenario 3 on its own also has a considerable effect on the network, the impact being only slightly less than in scenario 5. In both scenarios 3 and 5 the effects are mainly seen on the B and Minor roads, reflecting the locations of the potential developments. Moreover, compared with scenario 5, further analysis of the model outputs indicates that scenario 3 can be expected to have slightly less impact on Godstone, but more of an impact in the Caterham area.

Issue No. 03 Page 22 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Statistic Road Type Scenario 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031 2031 Scenario 1 Scenario 2a Scenario 2b Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Mw ay / Trunk 303,239 303,437 303,523 306,033 304,546 307,203 A Principal 61,348 61,631 61,524 64,606 63,302 65,486 Vehicle B Road 38,623 39,012 38,951 43,574 40,426 43,829 Kilometres Minor 66,418 67,334 67,212 78,986 70,336 79,770 Total 469,628 471,451 471,210 493,199 478,611 496,288

Mw ay / Trunk 3,357 3,361 3,361 3,401 3,378 3,421 A Principal 1,172 1,180 1,178 1,265 1,219 1,282 Vehicle B Road 734 746 743 868 780 873 Hours Minor 1,116 1,133 1,131 1,363 1,192 1,374 Total 6,380 6,419 6,413 6,897 6,569 6,950

Mw ay / Trunk 90.3 90.3 90.3 90.0 90.2 89.8 Average A Principal 52.3 52.2 52.2 51.1 51.9 51.1 Speed B Road 52.6 52.3 52.4 50.2 51.8 50.2 (kmph) Minor 59.5 59.4 59.4 57.9 59.0 58.0 Average 73.6 73.4 73.5 71.5 72.9 71.4 Absolute difference from 2031 Do-Minimum Mw ay / Trunk 198 284 2,794 1,307 3,964 A Principal 283 176 3,258 1,954 4,138 Vehicle B Road 389 328 4,951 1,803 5,206 Kilometres Minor 916 794 12,568 3,918 13,352 Total 1,823 1,582 23,571 8,983 26,660

Mw ay / Trunk 4 4 44 21 64 A Principal 8 6 93 47 110 Vehicle B Road 12 9 134 46 139 Hours Minor 17 15 247 76 258 Total 39 33 517 189 570

Mw ay / Trunk 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -0.1 -0.5 Average A Principal -0.1 -0.1 -1.2 -0.4 -1.2 Speed B Road -0.3 -0.2 -2.4 -0.8 -2.4 (kmph) Minor -0.1 -0.1 -1.6 -0.5 -1.5 Average -0.2 -0.1 -2.1 -0.7 -2.2 Percentage difference from 2031 Do-Minimum Mw ay / Trunk 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% A Principal 0% 0% 5% 3% 7% Vehicle B Road 1% 1% 13% 5% 13% Kilometres Minor 1% 1% 19% 6% 20% Total 0% 0% 5% 2% 6%

Mw ay / Trunk 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% A Principal 1% 1% 8% 4% 9% Vehicle B Road 2% 1% 18% 6% 19% Hours Minor 2% 1% 22% 7% 23% Total 1% 1% 8% 3% 9%

Mw ay / Trunk 0% 0% 0% 0% -1% Average A Principal 0% 0% -2% -1% -2% Speed B Road -1% 0% -5% -2% -5% (kmph) Minor 0% 0% -3% -1% -3% Average 0% 0% -3% -1% -3% Table 4.1: Network summary statistics for Tandridge district, weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Issue No. 03 Page 23 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

4.3 Level of Service (LOS)

4.3.1 Level of service (LOS) is a term used to qualitatively describe the operating conditions of a section of road or turning movement at a junction based on factors such as speed, travel and time delay. The level of service is designated with a letter A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions and F the worst. Table 4.2 describes the performance rating of each letter A to F.

Traffic flows at or above the posted speed limit and motorists have A Free flow complete mobility between lanes. LOS A speeds are maintained, manoeuvrability within the traffic Reasonable B stream is slightly restricted. Motorists still have a high level of free flow physical and psychological comfort. Ability to manoeuvre through lanes is noticeably restricted and lane changes require more driver awareness. Most experienced drivers C Stable flow are comfortable, roads remain safely below but efficiently close to capacity, and posted speed is maintained. This is the target LOS for some urban and most rural roads. Speeds slightly decrease as traffic volume slightly increases. Approaching D Freedom to manoeuvre within the traffic stream is much more limited unstable flow and driver comfort levels decrease. Flow becomes irregular and speed varies rapidly because there are Unstable flow virtually no useable gaps to manoeuvre in the traffic stream and E operating at speeds rarely reach the posted limit. Any disruption to traffic flow capacity such as merging or lane changes will create a shock wave affecting traffic upstream. Drivers’ level of comfort becomes poor. Forced or Every vehicle moves in lockstep with the vehicle in front of it, with F breakdown of frequent slowing required. Travel time cannot be predicted, with flow generally more demand than capacity. Table 4.2: A to F level of service (LOS) categories

4.3.2 The methodology for calculating the LOS is set out in The Highway Capacity Manual (1994) and has been applied to the analysis of both link flow and junction delay to aid the interpretation of the model results. The calculated LOS has been colour coded using the traffic light colours: green; amber; and red in Tables 4.3 to 4.13.

4.4 Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC)

4.4.1 Another tool for assessing the performance of a stretch of road or a turning movement at a junction is the ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) measure.

4.4.2 An RFC value greater than 1 means that the stretch of road or turning movement has a higher level of traffic flow than its theoretical capacity. As a result flow breakdown and extensive queues can be expected.

4.4.3 With the exception of signalised junctions, an RFC below 0.85 is considered acceptable as there is still scope to accommodate future growth. For signalled junctions the threshold is higher at 0.90. A value between 0.85 and 1, or 0.90 and 1 for signalled junctions, suggests the stretch of road or junction is beginning to struggle with the weight of traffic causing delay, queues and driver stress.

4.4.4 As with LOS, RFC has been applied to the analysis of both link flow and junction delay to aid the interpretations of the model results. All presented RFC values between 0.85 and 1, or 0.90 and 1 for signalled junctions, have been highlighted in orange, and in red for RFC values greater than 1.

Issue No. 03 Page 24 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

4.5 Increase in Flow

4.5.1 Tables 4.3 to 4.7 present the top ten links in each of the five do-something scenarios which have the greatest increase in flow when compared to the do- minimum in the weekday average AM peak hour, as well as RFC and LOS values.

4.5.2 Corresponding tables giving the top 10 links ranked by RFC for each of the scenarios are given in Appendix C (Tables C1 – C5). However, as these just tend to show those highway links already suffering congestion, Tables D1 - D5 in Appendix D show those links forecast to experience the worst deterioration in the level of service (LOS) as a result of potential development.

Issue No. 03 Page 25 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentag 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario e Increase Minimum Scenario in Flow Level of 2a Level of Flow (vph) 2a (vph) in Flow RFC 2a RFC (vph) Service Service

1 D424 Hurst Green Road 19836, 2 252 326 73 29% 0.24 0.30 B C 2 D424 Hurst Green Road 19822, 1 236 279 43 18% 0.22 0.25 B B 3 D428 Greenhurst Lane 19812, 2 188 217 29 16% 0.16 0.19 B B 4 D428 Rockfield Road 19855, 1 188 217 29 16% 0.16 0.19 B B 5 B2030 Godstone Road 19720, 1 478 507 29 6% 0.63 0.67 D E 6 A22 Godstone Road 19717, 1 477 506 29 6% 0.36 0.38 C C 7 D421 Southlands Lane 19820, 2 121 149 29 24% 0.10 0.13 A A 8 D423 Tanhouse Lane 19823, 2 121 149 29 24% 0.10 0.13 A A 9 B269 Croydon Road 8987, 1 683 709 27 4% 0.58 0.61 D D 10 A25 Westerham Road 8980, 2 439 465 27 6% 0.38 0.41 C C Table 4.3: Top ten links with the highest increase in absolute flow between the do-minimum (scenario 1) and scenario 2a during the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentag 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario e Increase Minimum Scenario in Flow Level of 2b Level Flow (vph) 2b (vph) in Flow RFC 2b RFC (vph) Service of Service

1 D424 Hurst Green Road 19836, 2 252 287 35 14% 0.24 0.27 B B 2 M25 Jnt 6-7 11966, 2 5,512 5,537 25 0% 0.80 0.81 E E 3 A22 Godstone Road 19717, 1 477 500 23 5% 0.36 0.38 C C 4 B2030 Godstone Road 19720, 1 478 501 23 5% 0.63 0.66 D E 5 D424 Hurst Green Road 19822, 1 236 258 22 9% 0.22 0.24 B B 6 M25 J6 Slip On E 12444, 2 1,451 1,472 21 1% 0.41 0.41 C C 7 B269 Croydon Road 8987, 1 683 703 21 3% 0.58 0.60 D D 8 C71 Smallfield Rd 17672, 2 236 256 20 8% 0.22 0.24 B B 9 C71 Byers Lane 17662, 1 236 256 20 8% 0.22 0.24 B B 10 A22 Godstone Hill 10130, 1 1,475 1,494 19 1% 0.45 0.46 D D Table 4.4: Top ten links with the highest increase in absolute flow between the do-minimum (scenario 1) and scenario 2b during the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Issue No. 03 Page 26 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentag 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario 3 Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario 3 e Increase Minimum Scenario 3 in Flow Level of Level of Flow (vph) (vph) in Flow RFC RFC (vph) Service Service

1 C71 Smallfield Rd 17672, 2 236 616 380 161% 0.22 0.55 B D 2 C71 Byers Lane 17662, 1 236 584 348 148% 0.22 0.52 B D 3 B2030 Townend 19753, 1 416 688 273 66% 0.52 0.87 D E 4 B2028 West Park Road 17663, 2 493 763 270 55% 0.43 0.68 D E 5 B2030 Townend 19752, 2 288 528 240 83% 0.36 0.67 C E 6 D424 Hurst Green Road 19836, 2 252 472 219 87% 0.24 0.42 B C 7 C66 Plough Road 17673, 2 306 525 219 72% 0.26 0.45 B D 8 B269 Limpsfield Road 19711, 2 612 814 202 33% 0.80 1.05 E F 9 A25 East Hill 19862, 2 252 444 192 76% 0.23 0.39 B C 10 C66 Bones Lane 17669, 2 105 292 186 177% 0.09 0.25 A B Table 4.5: Top ten links with the highest increase in absolute flow between the do-minimum (scenario 1) and scenario 3 during the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentag 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario 4 Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario 4 e Increase Minimum Scenario 4 in Flow Level of Level of Flow (vph) (vph) in Flow RFC RFC (vph) Service Service

1 A22 Eastbourne Road 9026, 1 537 685 148 27% 0.45 0.61 D D 2 A25 Godstone Green 11910, 2 1,105 1,234 129 12% 0.98 1.09 E F 3 C86 Miles Lane 19815, 2 148 247 100 68% 0.14 0.23 A B 4 B2028 West Park Road 17663, 2 493 592 99 20% 0.43 0.53 D D 5 A25 Godstone Road 19793, 2 1,005 1,100 95 9% 0.85 0.93 E E 6 A22 Godstone Hill 10130, 1 1,475 1,567 93 6% 0.45 0.48 D D 7 C70 Outwood Lane 8960, 1 483 576 93 19% 0.42 0.50 C D 8 D424 Hurst Green Road 19836, 2 252 344 92 37% 0.24 0.32 B C 9 A22 Godstone By-Pass 9038, 2 620 710 90 15% 0.47 0.54 D D 10 A22 Eastbourne Road 19771, 1 980 1,069 89 9% 0.60 0.65 D E Table 4.6: Top ten links with the highest increase in absolute flow between the do-minimum and scenario 4 during the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Issue No. 03 Page 27 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Flow (vph) Increase in % Increase RFC LOS Rank Name Scen. 1 Scen. 5 Flow (vph) in Flow Scen. 1 Scen. 5 Scen. 1 Scen. 5 1 C71 Smallfield Rd 236 631 396 168% 0.22 0.56 B D 2 C71 Byers Lane 236 586 350 149% 0.22 0.52 B D 3 B2028 West Park Road 493 763 270 55% 0.43 0.68 D E 4 B2030 Townend 416 664 249 60% 0.52 0.84 D E 5 B2030 Townend 288 518 230 80% 0.36 0.65 C E 6 C66 Plough Road 306 529 223 73% 0.26 0.45 B D 7 A25 Godstone Road 1,005 1,226 221 22% 0.85 1.04 E F 8 D424 Hurst Green Road 252 470 218 86% 0.24 0.42 B C 9 B2029 Ray Lane 354 571 217 61% 0.45 0.73 D E 10 A22 Eastbourne Road 980 1,192 212 22% 0.60 0.72 D E Table 4.7: Top ten links with the highest increase in absolute flow between the do-minimum (scenario 1) and scenario 5 during the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

4.5.1 Figures 4.2 to 4.6 on the following pages present the changes in flow between the 2031 do-minimum scenario 1 and do-something forecast scenarios for the entire study area of Tandridge district for the weekday average AM peak hour. Therefore the Figures 4.2 to 4.6 are graphical representations of Tables 4.3 to 4.7, but for all model links within the district of Tandridge.

4.5.2 Bandwidths coloured blue show an increase in flow, whereas those coloured red present a decrease in flow, with their size being proportional to the increase or decrease.

Issue No. 03 Page 28 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Scenario 2a 4.5.3 All the local links shown in Table 4.3 are located in the north of the district, in the vicinity of Caterham, Warlingham and Old Oxted / Hurst Green. This is consistent with the main locations of the proposed development.

4.5.4 Most of the vehicle increases on the links are modest and are under 30 vehicles per hour, the highest numbers being 73 and 43 affecting Hurst Green Road. However, there are some changes in the level of service, with some slight deterioration expected on Hurst Green Road and more of an impact on B2030 Godstone Road at Caterham. Croydon Road in Warlingham will already be experiencing some unstable flow operating over-capacity, although the increases in vehicles forecast is not significant.

4.5.5 As the flows reported are average peak period flows (i.e. the average flows per experienced over the 3 hour peak period), flows can be expected to be slightly higher in the peak hour. There is likely to be slight negative effects on the operation of local junctions, especially in Old Oxted and Hurst Green as well as in Caterham and to a certain extent in Warlingham. However, the main impact is likely to be at the junctions on the A25 where local roads in Old Oxted join this main road.

Key Increase in flow Decrease in flow

Bandwidth proportionate to flow Approx. 150 vph Figure 4.2: Flow difference plot between 2031 do-minimum scenario 1 and scenario 2a for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Scenario 2b 4.5.6 The absolute vehicle increases on the road links are lower when compared with scenario 2a. The highest increase is only forecast to be 35 vehicles on Hurst Green Road. The increases are not as high because this scenario assumes the proposed residential development consists of a higher proportion of flats that have a lower trips rate and results in a smaller total increase in new vehicle trips when compared with scenario 2a.

Issue No. 03 Page 29 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

4.5.7 Table 4.4 shows that the M25 is within the top ten road links for flow increases. However, the increases (25 and 21 respectively) are very small compared with the flow already forecast to occur on these links. The table also shows that the M25 section J6-7 will be approaching capacity by 2031 (0.80 RFC) without any additional Local Plan related development in Tandridge.

Key Increase in flow Decrease in flow

Bandwidth proportionate to flow Approx. 150 vph

Figure 4.3: Flow difference plot between 2031 do-minimum scenario 1 and scenario 2b for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Scenario 3 4.5.8 By contrast with scenarios 2a and 2b, Table 4.5 shows that in scenario 3 some of the absolute increases in flows are significant, with increases of over 300 vehicles. All the roads in the top ten are local, with some of them forecast to experience increases of well over 100%.

4.5.9 As with the previous scenarios, the majority of the flow increases are seen in areas where the proposed development is to be located. The exception is the roads in Newchapel as these are on the route between Smallfield and the A22. This indicates that there will be an effect on Newchapel and that there may have to be improvements made to junctions of Bones Lane with B2028 Park Road and the A22 Newchapel roundabout.

4.5.10 Due to the large increases in flow, all the top ten links are forecast to experience a deterioration in the level of service. The most marked is the B2030 Townend Road in Caterham as it moves from operating well below to above capacity (a change from 0.52 to 0.87 RFC), followed by the B269 Limspfield Road at Warlingham as this moves from 0.80 to 1.05 RFC. However, as indicated above, such large increases are likely to have an impact on the operation of local junctions, especially those in Smallfield, Oxted and Hurst Green (particularly those with the A25) and in the Caterham and Warlingham areas.

Issue No. 03 Page 30 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

4.5.11 The two signalled junctions of B2037 / Redehall Road (Keeper’s Corner) and A22 / A264 at Felbridge currently are a source of delay to drivers and are forecast to be operating close to or over capacity in the do-minimum. The development proposed in scenario 3 indicates that the Felbridge junction in particular will operate significantly over-capacity.

Key Increase in flow Decrease in flow

Bandwidth proportionate to flow Approx. 500 vph Figure 4.4: Flow difference plot between 2031 do-minimum scenario 1 and scenario 3 for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Scenario 4 4.5.12 As inferred from the location and amount of development proposed, the increases in vehicle flows are significantly less than in scenario 3. The highest increase is 148, with most of the links in the top ten experiencing flow increases of around 90 vehicles an hour (average peak hour flows). The main areas seeing these increases are around Newchapel and in the vicinity of Godstone. There are increases on the A22 both north and south of the A22 / M25 junction, and therefore there would be an effect on this junction.

4.5.13 The A25 in the Godstone area is forecast to be operating over-capacity in the Do- Minimum and the additional development results in a deterioration on these links. On the lower class roads falling into the top ten links showing the largest increase in flow, Outwood Lane in Bletchingley is forecast to experience a deteriorating level of service as does Hurst Green Road. Combined with flows on the A25, it is possible that improvements will be required at the A25 / Outwood Lane / Church Lane junction.

Issue No. 03 Page 31 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Key Increase in flow Decrease in flow

Bandwidth proportionate to flow Approx. 250 vph

Figure 4.5: Flow difference plot between 2031 do-minimum scenario 1 and scenario 4 for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Scenario 5 4.5.14 This scenario depicting the highest level of potential development shows the greatest impact on the highway network. All the links most affected by vehicle increases all show rises of over 200 vehicles an hour in the morning peak period, with some of the links in the Smallfield area showing increases of 350 or above. However, the highest increase is partly a function of where the trips join the network in the model. Should development be progressed in the Smallfield area, much will depend upon how many and where development access roads will be located.

4.5.15 Nevertheless, the vehicle increases in the area would be significant and would have an impact on the A22, B2028 and B2029 in the Blindley Heath, Newchapel and Felbridge areas.

4.5.16 Other locations forecast to be affected are Caterham, Godstone and Oxted south of the A25.

4.5.17 Due to the high increases in vehicle flow, all the links show significant deterioration in the level of service and the A25 shows a marked increase in the ratio of flow to capacity. In particular, those links badly affected are the C71 between Smallfield and the A22, the B2028 in the Newchapel area and the A22 between Newchapel and Felbridge.

Issue No. 03 Page 32 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Key Increase in flow Decrease in flow

Bandwidth proportionate to flow Approx. 500 vph Figure 4.6: Flow difference plot between 2031 do-minimum scenario 1 and scenario 5 for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

4.6 Changes in Capacity and Level of Service

4.6.1 Apart from the A22 at Felbridge and the A264 approaching the M23, all the local (non-motorway) roads experiencing capacity issues in the 2031 do-minimum are in the north of the district. These include the A25, the A22 at Godstone and Warlingham and more local roads in both Caterham and Warlingham, as shown in Figure 4.7.

Key RFC 0.85 – 1.0 RFC 1.0 – 2.0 RFC > 2.0 Bandwidth proportionate to flow Figure 4.7: Flow to Capacity ratios (RFC), 2031 do-minimum (scenario 1), based on morning average peak hour flows

Issue No. 03 Page 33 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

4.6.2 While there is not much change in the scenarios 2a, 2b and 4, all these links suffering capacity issues in the do-minimum are forecast to experience worsening capacity problems in scenarios 3 and 5, as indicated in Figure 4.8.

Key RFC 0.85 – 1.0 RFC 1.0 – 2.0 RFC > 2.0 Bandwidth proportionate to flow Figure 4.8: Flow to Capacity ratios (RFC), 2031 scenario 5, based on morning average peak hour flows

4.6.3 This information reflects average peak hour conditions, not peak hour congestion that many drivers encounter currently. While peak hour congestion does need to be taken into account, it is the change in capacity that can help to inform decision making. Congestion can be better depicted by considering the level of service (LOS), whereby any links experiencing an LOS score of D – F can suffer flow breakdown, especially in peak hour conditions.

4.6.4 Table 4.8 shows those links suffering the highest deterioration in LOS for scenario 5, representing the worse case scenario. This indicates that the main areas likely to suffer increased congestion are Caterham, Smallfield and those locations affected by the increase in development proposed in Smallfield, Lingfield and Blindley Heath. The LOS score relates to link performance, but as Table 4.8 shows all these links are forecast to suffer relatively high increases in flow when compared with the do-minimum. Consequently, the performance of junctions in these locations is likely to deteriorate as well.

Issue No. 03 Page 34 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentag Increase Minimum Scenario 5 Rank Name Link Ref. Location Minimum Scenario 5 e Increase in Flow Level of Level of Flow (vph) (vph) in Flow (vph) Service Service

1 B2030, Townend 19752, 2 Caterham 288 518 230 80% C E 2 C71, Smallfield Rd 17672, 2 Smallfield 236 631 396 168% B D 3 C71, Byers Lane 17662, 1 Smallfield 236 586 350 149% B D 4 C66, Plough Road 17673, 2 Smallfield 306 529 223 73% B D 5 B2029, Ray Lane 9033, 2 Blindley Heath 354 571 217 61% D E 6 B2030, Townend 19753, 1 Caterham 416 664 249 60% D E 7 B2028, West Park Road 17663, 2 Newchapel 493 763 270 55% D E 8 B2030, Church Hill 19724, 1 Caterham 461 617 156 34% D E 9 C67, Redehall Road 16148, 2 Smallfield 483 643 159 33% D E 10 B2030, Godstone Road 19720, 1 Caterham 478 626 148 31% D E Table 4.8: Links showing the highest deterioration in level of service between the do-minimum (scenario 1) and scenario 5 during the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

4.7 Motorways & Trunk Roads

4.7.1 The analysis reported in sections 4.2 and 4.5 shows that scenarios 3 and 5 have the greatest impact on the motorway network in the area. In scenario 5, the clockwise section M25 J6 (Godstone) to J7 (junction with the M23) shows the highest increase in trips with 187 vehicles added to this part of the network in the average morning peak hour. This increase continues on the clockwise carriageway with the increase reducing by approximately half at the M25 J8 (A217) clockwise off-slip.

4.7.2 This increase consists not just of additional development trips but also existing trips re-routing as a result of the additional development related trips. It is this re- routing that accounts for much of the increases on the anti-clockwise section M25 J8-J7 and on the southbound M23 motorway.

4.7.3 This compares to Scenarios 2a, 2b and 4 when the changes in flow on the motorways are much less, as can be seen in Table 4.9. However, the flow increases for scenario 3 are similar to those seen in scenario 5.

4.7.4 The increases in the do-something scenarios are not particularly high given the flow forecasts for scenario 1 (2031 do-minimum). For example, the highest increase in scenario 5 of 187 vehicles on the clockwise section of the M25 J6-J7 amounts to just 3%. However, these increases could be significant because the motorways already would be operating either approaching capacity or overcapacity and with a poor level of service.

Issue No. 03 Page 35 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Motorw ay Average AM peak hour flows (vph) link Scenario M25 1 2a 2b 3 4 5 J5-J6 4,750 4,749 4,751 4,759 4,754 4,757 J6-J7 5,512 5,536 5,537 5,689 5,575 5,699 J7-J6 4,469 4,468 4,472 4,512 4,499 4,545 J5-J5 4,109 4,113 4,115 4,141 4,130 4,144 M23 J9-J10 3,377 3,380 3,379 3,482 3,420 3,515 J10-J10a 3,740 3,741 3,741 3,815 3,775 3,825 J10a-J10 5,090 5,092 5,090 5,130 5,128 5,133 J10-J9 3,966 3,968 3,969 4,035 3,972 4,050

Absolute differences M25 1 2a 2b 3 4 5 J5-J6 -1 1 9 4 7 J6-J7 24 25 177 63 187 J7-J6 -1 3 43 30 76 J5-J5 4 6 32 21 35 M23 J9-J10 3 2 105 43 138 J10-J10a 1 1 75 35 85 J10a-J10 2 0 40 38 43 J10-J9 2 3 69 6 84

Table 4.9: Motorway flows in 2031 for the different scenarios

4.7.5 Overall the impact of the potential development on motorway related junctions is relatively low. At the M25 / A22 J6 interchange at Godstone, the changes in delay are modest even in scenario 5. The delay for drivers where the slips join the roundabout remain unchanged, although the delays increase at the intersections of the A22 northbound and the B2235 Godstone Hill with the roundabout increasing by 6 and 9 seconds per vehicle respectively.

4.7.6 However, it should be noted that the data represents the average peak hour and the highway model does not reflect behaviours at merges. Given that the motorways are forecast to be operating either approaching capacity or over- capacity by 2031, even modest increases in the number of vehicles joining the motorway or weaving to exit the motorway are likely to add to flow-breakdown.

4.8 Increase in Junction Delay

4.8.1 In addition to the comments made about junction delay in Section 4.5 above in relation to the increase in traffic flow, specific information from the model has been extracted. Figure 4.9 illustrates those junctions experiencing junction delay in the 2031 do-minimum scenario 1. The diagram presents a graphical representation of the average junction delay for all modelled junctions in the district of Tandridge for the do-minimum (scenario 1) scenario during the weekday average AM peak hour.

4.8.2 By comparison, Figure 4.10 displays similar information for scenario 5. In both diagrams the size of the circles are proportional to the average delay forecast at each model junction, thus allowing proportional comparisons to be made between the plots.

Issue No. 03 Page 36 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Key Average junction delay in seconds per vehicle Figure 4.9: 2031 do-minimum average junction delay for the weekday average AM peak hour

Key Average junction delay in seconds per vehicle Figure 4.10: 2031 Scenario 5 average junction delay for the weekday average AM peak hour

Issue No. 03 Page 37 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

4.8.3 Plots for only scenarios 1 and 5 have been presented as the differences between scenario 1 and the other scenarios are smaller. To complement these diagrams, Tables 4.10 to 4.14 show the change in average junction delay as well as the projected ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) and level of service (LOS) values for each stated junction. Values for the do-minimum are also presented as a reference case for each of the do-something forecasts.

4.8.4 For most types of junction an RFC below 0.85 is considered acceptable as there is still scope to accommodate daily variations and some future growth. For signalled junctions the threshold is higher at 0.90. A value between 0.85 and 1, or 0.90 and 1 for signalled junctions, suggests the stretch of road or junction is beginning to struggle with the weight of traffic causing delay, queues and driver stress. As for highway links, an RFC value greater than 1 means that a junction has a higher level of traffic flow than its theoretical capacity. As a result flow breakdown and extensive queues can be expected.

Issue No. 03 Page 38 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Location Delay in seconds per vehicle Performance

Node id Name Do-Minimum Scenario 2a Difference Do-Minimum Scenario 2a Do-Minimum Scenario 2a AM pk AM pk RFC RFC LOS LOS 13332 B269 / Slines Oak Road Woldingham 14 18 3 0.32 0.32 B C 16480 A22 / B2208 Wapses Lodge roundabout Caterham 24 25 1 0.67 0.67 C D Table 4.10: Scenario 2a – those junctions with an increase in delay from the do-minimum of more than 1 second per vehicle in the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Location Delay in seconds per vehicle Performance

Node id Name Do-Minimum Scenario 2b Difference Do-Minimum Scenario 2b Do-Minimum Scenario 2b AM pk AM pk RFC RFC LOS LOS 13332 B269 / Slines Oak Road Woldingham 14 17 3 0.32 0.32 B C 16480 A22 / B2208 Wapses Lodge roundabout Caterham 24 25 1 0.67 0.67 C D Table 4.11: Scenario 2b – those junctions with an increase in delay from the do-minimum of more than 1 second per vehicle in the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Issue No. 03 Page 39 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Location Delay in seconds per vehicle Performance

Node id Name Do-Minimum Scenario 3 Difference Do-Minimum Scenario 3 Do-Minimum Scenario 3 AM pk AM pk RFC RFC LOS LOS 16480 A22 / B2208 Wapses Lodge roundabout Caterham 24 43 19 0.67 0.75 C E 13332 B269 / Slines Oak Road Woldingham 14 29 15 0.32 0.34 B D 13346 A22 / A264 Felbridge junction Felbridge 41 54 13 0.86 0.94 D D 16504 A22 / Harts Lane / Miles Lane South Godstone 4 15 11 0.32 0.31 A C 16482 A22 / Woldingham Road Wapses Lodge roundabout Caterham 40 50 9 0.54 0.55 E E 14605 B2235 Godstone Hill / A22 / M25 J6 Godstone 35 44 8 0.94 0.97 D D 16481 A22 northern arm, Wapses Lodge roundabout Caterham 8 15 7 0.54 0.60 A B 13097 B2031 / Hilltop Lane Chaldon 5 12 7 0.35 0.39 A B 13323 A25 / Outw ood Lane Bletchingley 13 19 7 0.46 0.48 B C 13350 A22 / Byers Lane Blindley Heath 4 10 6 0.39 0.41 A B 14618 A22 southern arm / M25 J6 Godstone 42 48 5 0.89 0.92 D D 13340 B2037 / Redehall Road Burstow 29 34 5 0.84 0.85 C C 16487 B2030 / Burntw ood Ln / Buxton Ln Caterham 4 7 4 0.24 0.32 A A 13349 A22 / B2029 Blindley Heath 31 34 3 0.84 0.84 C C 15767 B2030 Church Rd / Standsetad Rd Caterham 2 5 3 0.23 0.29 A A 15790 Croydon Barn Lane / Bones Lane Smallfield 4 6 2 0.12 0.27 A A 16505 A25 / Tandridge Rd / Barrow Green Rd Oxted 14 16 2 0.45 0.64 B C 16471 Northdow n Rd / Gangers Hill / The Ridge Woldingham 4 5 2 0.04 0.09 A A 13747 B2029 / Tandridge Lane Blindley Heath 2 4 1 0.13 0.18 A A 13512 A22 / A25 roundabout Godstone 16 17 1 0.56 0.66 C C Table 4.12: Scenario 3 – the top 20 junctions with an increase in delay from the do-minimum of more than 1 second per vehicle in the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Issue No. 03 Page 40 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Location Delay in seconds per vehicle Performance Node id Name Do-Minimum Scenario 4 Do-Minimum Scenario 4 Do-Minimum Scenario 4 Difference AM pk AM pk RFC RFC LOS LOS 13346 A22 / A264 Felbridge junction Felbridge 41 48 7 0.86 0.91 D D 16504 A22 / Harts Lane / Miles Lane South Godstone 4 11 7 0.32 0.33 A B 13323 A25 / Outw ood Lane Bletchingley 13 19 6 0.46 0.47 B C 16480 A22 / B2208 Wapses Lodge roundabout Caterham 24 30 6 0.67 0.70 C D 13332 B269 / Slines Oak Road Woldingham 14 18 3 0.32 0.33 B C 14605 B2235 Godstone Hill / A22 / M25 J6 Godstone 35 39 3 0.94 0.96 D D 14618 A22 southern arm / M25 J6 Godstone 42 44 2 0.89 0.90 D D 13349 A22 / B2029 Blindley Heath 31 32 1 0.84 0.84 C C 13340 B2037 / Redehall Road Burstow 29 30 1 0.84 0.85 C C 13097 B2031 / Hilltop Lane Chaldon 5 7 1 0.35 0.37 A A 15788 Court Hill / Church Road / Byers Lane Horne, Smallfield 4 6 1 0.04 0.05 A A 16510 A25 / Woodhurst Lane / tc car park Oxted 24 25 1 0.71 0.72 C C 16482 A22 / Woldingham Road Wapses Lodge roundabout Caterham 40 42 1 0.54 0.54 E E 13350 A22 / Byers Lane Blindley Heath 4 5 1 0.39 0.40 A A Table 4.13: Scenario 4 – those junctions with an increase in delay from the do-minimum of more than 1 second per vehicle in the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Issue No. 03 Page 41 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Location Delay in seconds per vehicle Performance

Node id Name Junction Type Do-Minimum Scenario 5 Difference Do-Minimum Scenario 5 Do-Minimum Scenario 5 AM pk AM pk RFC RFC LOS LOS 16480 A22 / B2208 Wapses Lodge roundabout Caterham Priority 24 47 22 0.67 0.75 C E 13346 A22 / A264 Felbridge junction Felbridge Signal 41 55 14 0.86 0.94 D E 13332 B269 / Slines Oak Road Woldingham Priority 14 26 12 0.32 0.33 B D 16504 A22 / Harts Lane / Miles Lane South Godstone Priority 4 15 10 0.32 0.34 A B 13323 A25 / Outw ood Lane Bletchingley Priority 13 21 9 0.46 0.47 B C 14605 B2235 Godstone Hill / A22 / M25 J6 Godstone Signal 35 44 8 0.94 0.97 D D 16482 A22 / Woldingham Road Wapses Lodge roundabout Caterham Priority 40 48 8 0.54 0.55 E E 13097 B2031 / Hilltop Lane Chaldon Priority 5 13 8 0.35 0.39 A B 16481 A22 northern arm, Wapses Lodge roundabout Caterham Priority 8 14 6 0.54 0.60 A B 13350 A22 / Byers Lane Blindley Heath Priority 4 10 6 0.39 0.42 A B 13340 B2037 / Redehall Road Burstow Signal 29 35 6 0.84 0.85 C D 14618 A22 southern arm / M25 J6 Godstone Signal 42 48 6 0.89 0.93 D D 13349 A22 / B2029 Blindley Heath Signal 31 35 5 0.84 0.84 C D 16505 A25 / Tandridge Rd / Barrow Green Rd Oxted Roundabout 14 17 4 0.45 0.69 B C 13512 A22 / A25 roundabout Godstone Roundabout 16 19 3 0.56 0.72 C C 15767 B2030 Church Rd / Standsetad Rd Caterham Priority 2 5 3 0.23 0.30 A A 16487 B2030 / Burntw ood Ln / Buxton Ln Caterham Priority 4 7 3 0.24 0.32 A A 15790 Croydon Barn Lane / Bones Lane Smallfield Priority 4 6 2 0.12 0.27 A A 14438 B2028 / B2037 roundabout Burstow Roundabout 19 21 2 0.45 0.56 C C 13747 B2029 / Tandridge Lane Blindley Heath Priority 2 4 2 0.13 0.20 A A Table 4.14: Scenario 5 – the top 20 junctions with an increase in delay from the do-minimum of more than 1 second per vehicle in the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Issue No. 03 Page 42 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Scenarios 2a and 2b 4.8.5 Tables 4.10 and 4.11 indicates that there will be few significant changes to vehicle delay, when junctions would see a marked deterioration in the level of service (LOS). However, as noted in section 4.5, it is likely that there will slight negative effects on the operation of local junctions, especially in Old Oxted and Hurst Green as well as in Caterham and to a certain extent in Warlingham. However, the main impact is likely to be at the junctions on the A25 where local roads in Old Oxted join this main road.

Scenario 3 4.8.6 Table 4.12 presents the twenty junctions which have the greatest increase in average delay in scenario 3 when compared to the do-minimum. Therefore such increases in average delay are a result of additional trips generated from developments in scenario 2a plus the additional development proposed in scenario 3.

4.8.7 The results indicate that a number of major junctions will experience a significant increase in delay indicated by a marked change in the LOS. These include:

 A22 Wapses Lodge roundabout in Caterham, particularly the Croydon Road arm;  A22 / A264 signalled junction at Felbridge.  A22 / M25 J6 interchange at Godstone; and  A22 / A25 roundabout at the southern end of the Godstone bypass.

4.8.8 More local junctions are forecast also to experience an increase in delay, especially in the Caterham area and in the southern half of the district. As well as those listed in Table 4.12, increases in traffic flows indicate that there may have to be improvements made to junctions of Bones Lane with B2028 Park Road and the A22 Newchapel roundabout. Other large increases in flow are likely to have an impact on the operation of local junctions, especially those in Smallfield, Oxted and Hurst Green (particularly those with the A25) and Warlingham area

Scenario 4 4.8.9 Table 4.13 again highlights A22/ A264 Felbridge traffic signals, the Wapses Lodge roundabout and the A22 / M25 J6 interchange, all junctions that are forecast to be operating approaching theoretical capacity in the 2031 do-minimum. However, compared with Scenarios 3 and 5, the increase in delay at most junctions is not expected to be as great.

Scenario 5 4.8.10 This is a worst case scenario when compared with scenario 1, and Table 4.14 indicates that the largest increases in delay are forecast out of all the do- something scenarios. The table indicates that as a result of increases in trips from and to the Smallfield area, junction performance is forecast to deteriorate in the Smallfield, Blindley Heath, Newchapel and Felbridge areas. Increases in junction delay in the Caterham, Godstone and Oxted areas are also consistent with large increases in traffic flow arising from potential development. In particular, the B2028 junction with Wapses Lodge roundabout and the A22 / A264 signals at Felbridge are forecast to experience increases in delay of over 90% and 30% respectively with corresponding changes in the level of service.

4.8.11 Some local junctions are also forecast to see increases in delay, and these include where roads join the main routes such as the Outwood Lane / A25 junction at

Issue No. 03 Page 43 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Bletchingley, Tandridge Lane / A5 junction at Oxted and a number of junctions on the A22 at Godstone / South Godstone and Blindley Heath.

Effect on worst performing junctions 4.8.12 Table 4.15 ranks the junctions by Level of Service according to their performance forecast in Do-Minimum Scenario 1, with the worst performing ranked highest. Consequently, this table highlights junctions that are currently experiencing issues, and indicates whether the potential developments in the do-something scenarios might have an impact on these locations.

4.8.13 Therefore, this table also assists in identifying where potential mitigation might be required, and draws attention to both the A22 / A264 Felbridge signals and the A22 Wapses Lodge roundabout.

Issue No. 03 Page 44 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Performance

Node id Name Junction Type Do-Minimum Scenario 2a Scenario 2b Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS 13925 B269 Limpsfield Rd / Beech Farm Rd Priority F F F F F F 16482 A22 / Woldingham Road Wapses Lodge roundabout Roundabout E E E E E E 14605 B2235 Godstone Hill / A22 / M25 J6 Signal D D D D D D 14618 A22 southern arm / M25 J6 Signal D D D D D D 13346 A22 / A264 Felbridge junction Signal D D D D D E 14615 M25 J6 / A22 rbt, clockw ise off-slip Signal C C C C C C 14614 M25 J6 / A22 rbt, anti-clockw ise off-slip Signal C C C C C C 13107 A22 Caterham Bypass / B2030 Godstone Rd Signal C C C C C C 13349 A22 / B2029 Signal C C C C C D 13340 B2037 / Redehall Road Signal C C C C C D 13329 A25 / B269 Limpsfield High Street Signal C C C C C C 16510 A25 / Woodhurst Lane / tc car park Signal C C C C C C 16480 A22 / B2208 Wapses Lodge roundabout Roundabout C D D E D E 13512 A22 / A25 roundabout Roundabout C C C C C C 14438 B2028 / B2037 roundabout Roundabout C C C C C C 13347 A22 / B2028 New chapel rbt Roundabout C C C C C C 14518 M25 J6 / A22 rbt, A22 Godstone Hill Signal B B B B B B

Table 4.15: The worst performing junctions in the Do-Minimum Scenario 1 and the effect of the potential Do-Something development scenarios on the Level of Service

Issue No. 03 Page 45 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

4.9 Journey Times along Key Routes

4.9.1 Journey times along the key traffic routes of the A22 and A25 within the district of Tandridge boundary have been compared between the do-minimum and all do- something forecast scenarios, and displayed in Table 4.16. Any journey time increases greater than a minute have been highlighted in orange.

4.9.2 Scenarios 2a and 2b have minimal impact on journey times, while scenario 4 results in journey times increasing by around 30 seconds on all routes.

4.9.3 Both scenarios 3 and 5 result in journey time increases of over a minute on the A22 in both directions, with scenario 5 having the largest impact on journey times. For the A25, the effect of the development assumed in scenario 5 is forecast to increase journey times westbound by over a minute.

4.9.4 To understand better where the delays occur, the journey times for the do- minimum and scenario 5 are shown in Figures 4.11 to 4.14. These show: - travelling north on the A22 northbound additional delays would be experienced at the A22/A25 roundabout, the A22/M25 interchange and at Caterham and Warlingham approaching the county boundary; - southbound on the A22, additional delays would be incurred at the A22/M25 interchange and then at Felbridge; - travelling east towards Kent on the A25, additional delays would be seen at the two junctions at Godstone and then at the signals at Oxted with Woodhurst Lane and the main car park and supermarket; - westbound on the A25 additional delays would be incurred at the A22 / A25 roundabout and through Godstone

Issue No. 03 Page 46 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

2031 Do- Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Route Start point End point Minimum 2a 2b 3 4 5 A22 northbound County boundary, Felbridge County boundary, Whyteleafe 27:25 27:29 27:28 28:55 27:58 29:08 A22 southbound County boundary, Whyteleafe County boundary, Felbridge 25:19 25:20 25:20 26:22 25:45 26:30 A25 eastbound County boundary, Limpsfield District boundary, Nutfield 17:29 17:33 17:32 18:07 17:53 18:14 A25 w estbound District boundary, Nutfield County boundary, Limpsfield 19:07 19:11 19:10 19:52 19:40 20:12

Table 4.16: Journey time comparison on key routes for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

Issue No. 03 Page 47 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Journey Time: A22 northbound 35

30 County boundary 25

20 A22/A25 roundabout A22 / M25 J6 interchange

15 Do-Minimum Time (mins) Time Scenario 5 10

5 Newchapel roundabout 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Distance (kms)

Figure 4.11: Comparison of journey times on the A22 northbound, weekday average morning peak

Journey Time: A22 southbound 30 County boundary, Felbridge 25

20 Newchapel roundabout 15 Do-Minimum

10 A22 / M25 J6 Scenario 5

Journey time(mins) A22 / A25

5 Wapses Lodge 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Distance (Kms)

Figure 4.12: Comparison of journey times on the A22 northbound, weekday average morning peak

Issue No. 03 Page 48 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Journey Time: A25 Eastbound 20 County boundary 18 Limpsfield High Street signals 16 Oxted signals 14

12 A22 / A25 roundabout 10 Do-Minimum

Time (mins) Time 8 Scenario 5 6 Needles Bank, Godstone 4

2

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Distance (kms)

Figure 4.13: Comparison of journey times on the A25 eastbound, weekday average morning peak

Journey Times: A25 Westbound 25 District boundary 20

15 Godstone Green

Do-Minimum

Time (mins) Time 10 Scenario 5 A22 / A25 Oxted signals roundabout 5

Limpsfield High Street signals 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Distance (kms)

Figure 4.14: Comparison of journey times on the A25 westbound, weekday average morning peak

Issue No. 03 Page 49 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

4.10 Cross Boundary Impacts

4.10.1 As well as considering the potential traffic impacts generated from the district’s Local Plan within Tandridge’s boundary, potential flow increases on neighbouring authority roads have been identified to assist with Duty to Cooperate discussions.

4.10.2 As such, proposed increases in flow on links crossing Tandridge’s boundary have been specifically assessed in comparison to the do-minimum, but only in the do- something scenarios 3 and 5 containing the largest quantities of additional developments and trips, providing a worst case situation. In the other scenarios, the cross boundary impacts are minimal.

4.10.3 Table 4.17 displays the projected flows in scenario 3 and scenario 5 for specific links located at the district boundary that facilitate vehicles travelling from Tandridge into, and through, neighbouring authorities. Figure 4.15 illustrates the locations of cross boundary links presented in Table 4.17.

Difference from Do- Flow (vph) Direction Local Authority Minimum (vph) Link Ref Name of Travel affected 2031 Do- 2031 2031 20131 2031 Minimum Scenario 3 Scenario 5 Scenario 3 Scenario 5 1979, 2 A22 Godstone Road Northbound Croydon 917 948 950 31 33 1971, 2 B269 Limpsfield Road Northbound Croydon 614 664 668 50 54 16270, 1 A25 Westerham Road Eastbound Sevenoaks 439 578 590 139 151 16271, 2 B269 Kent Hatch Road Eastbound Sevenoaks 170 191 194 21 24 16295, 1 C85 Haxted Road Eastbound Sevenoaks 183 199 200 16 17 9051, 1 B2028 Moor Lane Eastbound Sevenoaks 84 92 94 8 10 19762, 1 A22 London Road Southbound Mid Sussex 1,211 1,238 1,236 27 25 9019, 2 B2028 West Park Road Southbound Mid Sussex 292 331 504 39 212 8882, 2 B2037 Antlands Lane Westbound Craw ley 558 632 685 74 127 8838, 2 C66 Weatherhill Road Westbound Reigate & Banstead 526 600 608 74 82 8927, 1 A25 Nutfield Road Westbound Reigate & Banstead 525 513 480 -12 -45 8320, 1 B2031 Dean Lane Westbound Reigate & Banstead 545 622 596 77 51 1960, 1 B2030 Coulsdon Road Northbound Croydon 504 530 530 26 26

Table 4.17: Cross boundary impacts generated from development in scenario 3 and 5, weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000), out-bound flows

N.B. Comparisons in cross boundary flows have not been investigated in scenarios 2a, 2b and 4 as these do- something scenarios do not contain the largest amounts of planned development. It is thought most appropriate to gain an insight to a worst case scenario of potential cross boundary flows which relates to scenarios 3 and 5.

Issue No. 03 Page 50 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

Figure 4.15: Location of cross boundary links from Tandridge to neighbouring local authorities

4.10.4 Table 4.16 indicates that scenario 5 has the potential to generate marginally higher cross boundary flows travelling from Tandridge to a destination in a neighbouring local authority, or travelling via the highway network in the neighbouring local authority, when compared to scenario 3 in the weekday average AM peak hour.

4.10.5 In both the do-something scenarios, the main effects are seen on the A25 travelling east into Westerham (a 34% increase) and then on the cross boundary routes in the south and south west of the area leading into Mid-Sussex, Crawley and the southern part of Reigate & Banstead. The A25 is of concern in that the

Issue No. 03 Page 51 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

approach into Westerham from Tandridge is narrow and the centre of Westerham, a busy and popular heritage village, is already affected by through traffic.

4.10.6 In the south and south-west, the A22 heading into East Grinstead is already a busy road with development in Mid-Sussex likely to affect it as well. By 2031 in the do- minimum, this stretch of road is forecast to operate with ratio of flow to capacity of up to 1.74 in the morning peak period. The A22 / A264 junction is a source of delay currently, although there is a project considering how this can be improved to address additional movement demand resulting from development in East Grinstead. This work, undertaken by the Atkins consultancy on behalf of Mid- Sussex District Council and West Sussex County Council, will need to be taken into account when considering the possible impacts of potential development in Tandridge under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidelines. In addition, the study undertaken by Jubb Consulting Engineers to inform the East Grinstead Neighbourhood Plan should also be taken into account.

4.10.7 In the south-west, the draw is access to jobs and facilities in Crawley, Gatwick and Horley. The potential increases in vehicles using these routes as a result of development in Tandridge is likely to be significant, especially given that these locations are also subject to development growth by Crawley and Reigate & Banstead planning authorities and increased airport related activity demand at Gatwick.

4.10.8 However, trips are also attracted into Tandridge to proposed new commercial activities. Table 4.18 shows that with the exception of the B2031 Dean Lane most of the roads showing increases are in the southern half of the district.

Difference from Do- Flow (vph) Direction Local Authority Minimum (vph) Link Ref Name of Travel affected 2031 Do- 2031 2031 20131 2031 Minimum Scenario 3 Scenario 5 Scenario 3 Scenario 5 1979, 1 A22 Godstone Road Northbound Croydon 845 851 852 6 7 1971, 1 B269 Limpsfield Road Northbound Croydon 762 787 788 25 26 16270, 2 A25 Westerham Road Eastbound Sevenoaks 530 516 517 -14 -13 16271, 1 B269 Kent Hatch Road Eastbound Sevenoaks 172 181 183 9 11 16295, 2 C85 Haxted Road Eastbound Sevenoaks 251 269 270 18 19 9051, 2 B2028 Moor Lane Eastbound Sevenoaks 173 247 253 74 80 19762, 2 A22 London Road Southbound Mid Sussex 1,326 1,385 1,388 59 62 9019, 1 B2028 West Park Road Southbound Mid Sussex 420 507 504 87 84 8882, 1 B2037 Antlands Lane Westbound Craw ley 399 427 426 28 27 8838, 1 C66 Weatherhill Road Westbound Reigate & Banstead 247 294 295 47 48 8927, 2 A25 Nutfield Road Westbound Reigate & Banstead 461 487 466 26 5 8320, 2 B2031 Dean Lane Westbound Reigate & Banstead 293 367 383 74 90 1960, 2 B2030 Coulsdon Road Northbound Croydon 577 575 569 -2 -8

Table 4.18: Cross boundary impacts generated from development in scenarios 3 and 5, weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000), in-bound flows

4.10.9 Specifically, Moor Lane and West Park Road are forecast to experience increases of 46% (80 vehicles an hour) and 20% (84 vehicles an hour) respectively, with Weatherhill Road in the west also forecast to experience a 19% increase (48 vehicles an hour) in the number of trips coming into Tandridge. This means that there could be additional pressures in those areas adjoining Tandridge. In particular, the combination of increases in both out-going and in-coming flows

Issue No. 03 Page 52 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

could raise issues at the A264/B2028 Duke’s Head roundabout and on the A264 towards the junction with the M23 as well at junctions with Balcombe Road

5 SUMMARY

5.1.1 The traffic impacts of potential development scenarios identified from Tandridge’s Local Plan have been assessed using Surrey County Council’s strategic highway transport model for the forecast year of 2031.

5.1.2 Only the weekday average AM peak hour has been assessed in this study. This is because the model showed very similar effects in both the AM and PM peak. As a result, it was considered it would be clearer and aid decision making if the data and analysis for just a single time period was presented.

5.1.3 A do-minimum as well as five do-something forecast scenarios were created and tested. The do-minimum included all residential development sites that have received planning permission to date, as well as jobs forecast until 2013. The four do-something scenarios were tested as alternative scenarios for providing growth in the district within the Local Plan’s timescales. The details of the five do- something scenarios that were assessed are as follows, but it should be recognised that these were generated from emerging statistics produced from the Housing & Land Availability assessment and the figures may not reflect the final findings of the HELAA:

 2031 do-minimum scenario 1 includes all commercial and residential development sites that have received planning permission within the district of Tandridge since 2009;  2031 do-something scenario 2a contains all of the sites in scenario 1 with the addition of all the most likely Local Plan development sites;  2031 do-something scenario 2b is the same as scenario 2a, but the Local Plan development sites are assumed to be of higher density;  2031 do-something scenario 3 contains all of the sites in scenario 2a with additional commercial development and additional residential development focused on Caterham (including Caterham hill and Caterham Valley), Whyteleafe, Warlingham Oxted (including Limpsfield), Smallfield, Lingfield and Godstone;  2031 do-something scenario 4 contains all of the sites in scenario 2a with additional commercial development (as in scenario 3) and additional residential development focused on Bletchingley, Woldingham, South Nutfield, Dormansland, South Godstone, Tatsfield, Blindley Heath, Limpsfield Chart, Nutfield, Felbridge, Old Oxted; and

 2031 do-something scenario 5 contains all of the sites in scenario 2a with additional commercial development (as in scenarios 3 and 4) and the additional residential development that is also in scenarios 3 and 4.

5.1.4 Scenarios 3 and 5 contain the greatest amounts of planned development and therefore also have the largest amount of forecast additional trips.

5.1.5 A number of links and junctions within the district have been identified as likely to require mitigation to reduce the impact of development in the area. The location of these varies according to the development scenario in question. Although traffic

Issue No. 03 Page 53 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01 Tandridge District Council Local Plan Strategic Highway Assessment Report

impacts are projected to occur on links and junctions located in close proximity to the development sites in question, a number are forecast to occur some distance from proposed development sites reflecting potential cumulative impacts.

5.1.6 Of the five do-something scenarios, scenario 2b is projected to generate the smallest traffic impacts on the highway network in Tandridge. Although this scenario represents an intensification of the development proposed in Scenario 2a (an additional 175 dwellings and the same amount of commercial development), the proposed residential development consists of a greater number of flats. However, the total number of new vehicle trips generated in scenario 2b is lower than in scenario 2a because the trip rate associated with flats is lower when compared with that for houses.

5.1.7 Scenarios 2a and 2b are forecast to generate similar impacts on the district’s highway network when considering general network traffic statistics. Scenario 4 is also forecast to have relatively moderate effects on the network. In all of these scenarios, the impacts are most marked in the north of the district, including Oxted and Hurst Green, Godstone, Caterham and Warlingham.

5.1.8 Scenarios 3 and 5 are forecast to have the greatest impacts, both in the south and north of the district. In some locations effects are expected to be experienced some distance from proposed development locations reflecting the potential cumulative impacts on existing roads and junctions. These include links and junctions in such areas as Blindley Heath and Newchapel.

5.1.9 There are forecast to be some impacts across the boundary, especially to in the north east and in the south and south-west of the district including on the A25 towards Westerham and B2028 Moor Lane, the A22 at Felbridge and B2028 West Park Road respectively. The possible cross-boundary issues are as a result of both Tandridge residents travelling out of the district and commuters travelling in to take up employment opportunities arising from potential commercial development. As a result there could be issues at junctions outside the district such as the A264/B2028 Duke’s Head roundabout and those on the B2036 Balcombe.

5.1.10 There are forecast to be limited numbers of trips added to the motorway network, although re-routing as a result of additional trips on the network does affect motorway flows. However, parts of the motorway network in the area are forecast to be either approaching or already operating overcapacity by 2031 so any additional trips may have more of a significant effect.

5.1.11 This study was undertaken at a strategic scale and consequently not all impacts of developments have been identified. Developments of and above a certain quantum will require individual transport assessments to be commissioned allowing finer details regarding impacts to be analysed at a more local level.

Issue No. 03 Page 54 Document No. 53613TS37 / 01

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:

Data provided by Tandridge District Council for the purposes of the Highway assessment. The figures were derived from the emerging statistics produced from the Housing & Economic Land Availability assessment and may not reflect the final findings of the HELAA.

Pro-forma Scenario 1 - Commercial

Existing Gross Planning Existing Existing Total Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Received Planning Floor Existing Existing Entry Zone Application Existing Landuse - Use Landuse GFA for Existing Landuse Landuse GFA lane GFA lane Permission yet? Area land no. of no. of ID Number Number / Class 1 - Use land use Number - Use - Use use 1 use 2 use 1 Houses Flats Reference Class 2 1(100m2) of Units Class 1 Class 2 (m²) (m²) Non- (GFA) Approved (m²) approved 1 346 2003/1485 B1 N/A 152 1.52 0 0 0 B1 N/A 124 N/A completed N/A Petrol filling station - this was 2 343 2004/1415 relocated in 2004 (prior to N/A 0 0 0 0 0 B1 N/A 202 N/A completed N/A the traffic survey in 2009) 3 346 2009/998 Vacant part of site N/A 0 0 0 0 0 B8 N/A 124 N/A completed N/A 4 351 2007/514 C3 (Unoccupied) N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 B1 N/A 463 N/A completed N/A 5 347 2010/1277 Agricultural N/A 147 1.47 0 0 0 B1 N/A 147 N/A completed N/A 6 346 2009/397 B2 N/A 154 1.54 0 0 0 B2 N/A 148 N/A completed N/A 7 344 2011/1431 B2 N/A 85 0.85 0 0 0 B1 N/A 51 N/A completed N/A 8 349 2011/1257 Agricultural N/A 364 3.64 0 0 0 B8 N/A 364 N/A completed N/A 9 343 2010/27 B1 ( c ) N/A 246 2.46 0 0 0 B1 B8 80 142 completed N/A 10 353 2011/1070 Agricultural (Vacant) N/A 430 4.3 0 0 0 B1c B8 330 100 completed N/A 11 344 2012/758 Vacant N/A 0 0 0 0 0 B1 N/A 61 N/A completed N/A 12 352 2013/1169 B1 N/A 84 0.84 0 0 0 A2 N/A 91 N/A completed N/A 13 343 2013/228 A1 N/A 353 3.53 0 0 0 A1 N/A 427 N/A approved N/A 14 343 2014/674 Agricultural N/A 428 4.28 0 0 0 B1 N/A 434 N/A approved N/A B8 - open 15 342 2014/767 Agricultural N/A 5963 59.63 0 0 0 N/A 5963 N/A approved N/A storage Sui Generis - scaffolding 16 351 2012/839 N/A 906 9.06 0 0 0 B8 N/A 906 N/A approved N/A depot 17 343 2012/1250 B8 N/A 2609 26.09 0 0 0 B8 N/A 2377 N/A approved N/A 18 344 2013/124 Vacant N/A 0 0 0 0 0 B1 N/A 326 N/A approved N/A 19 350 2014/1874 A1 N/A 1759 17.59 0 0 0 A3 N/A 2118 N/A approved N/A

Pro-forma Scenario 1 – Residential (Supply)

Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Gross Gross Total Proposed Total Permission yet? Existing Proposed Entry Zone Application Existing Landuse - Use Landuse Floor Floor Existing Existing Number Proposed no. of Number ID Number Number / Class 1 - Use Area use Area use no. of Flats Number of Number Non- Houses of Flats Approved Reference Class 2 1 (GFA) 2 (GFA) of Units Houses of Units approved (m²) (m²) 1 350 2012/1663 vacant N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 7 0 7 PP N/A 2 342 2013/1687 Vacant N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 0 4 PP N/A 3 345 2013/495 A1 N/A 113 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 4 346 2012/589 A1 N/A 76 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 5 354 2014/404 A1 N/A 151 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 4 4 PP N/A 6 358 2012/697 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 1 0 14 14 PP N/A

Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Gross Gross Total Proposed Total Permission yet? Existing Proposed Entry Zone Application Existing Landuse - Use Landuse Floor Floor Existing Existing Number Proposed no. of Number ID Number Number / Class 1 - Use Area use Area use no. of Flats Number of Number Non- Houses of Flats Approved Reference Class 2 1 (GFA) 2 (GFA) of Units Houses of Units approved (m²) (m²) 7 358 2013/1668 A1 N/A 106 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 1 1 PP N/A 8 358 2013/761 A1 N/A 178 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 14 14 PP N/A 9 344 2011/89 vacant N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 9 9 UC N/A 10 347 2013/1779 vacant N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 0 3 UC N/A 11 359 2012/505 A2 B8 100 871 N/A N/A 0 0 35 35 UC N/A 12 343 2012/188 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 PP N/A 13 343 2013/1569 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 14 343 2014/189 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 15 345 2012/1647 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 16 345 2012/668 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 3 0 3 PP N/A 17 346 2012/1071 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 18 346 2012/1496 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 19 346 2012/622 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 PP N/A 20 346 2013/979 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 21 350 2012/1009 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 22 351 2014/415 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 23 353 2013/1391 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 24 353 2013/1726 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 PP N/A 25 356 2011/1668 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 26 342 2010/1546 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 27 342 2012/723 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 28 351 2013/1005 Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 UC N/A 29 342 2012/576 Agricultural Land N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 30 346 2013/1870 Agricultural Land N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 10 10 PP N/A 31 342 2014/388 B1 N/A 164 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 4 4 PP N/A 32 344 2013/1533 B1 N/A 203 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 33 355 2014/1681 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 2 1 0 1 PP N/A 34 359 2014/491/NC B1 N/A 274 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 19 19 PP N/A 35 361 2013/1880/NC B1 N/A 2644 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 47 47 uc N/A 36 343 2011/750 B1 N/A 155.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 37 343 2013/815 B1 N/A 320 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 15 15 UC N/A 38 345 2010/19 vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 44 44 UC N/A 39 345 2014/1879/NC B1 N/A 508 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6 6 uc N/A 40 345 2015/157/NC B1 N/A 365 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6 6 uc N/A 41 358 2012/641 B1 N/A 71 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 0 3 UC N/A 42 361 2008/423 vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 167 167 UC N/A 43 346 2013/165 B2 N/A 140 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 44 346 2013/1818 B2 N/A 492 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 0 4 PP N/A 45 355 2014/221 vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4 0 4 PP N/A 46 353 2012/200 B2 N/A 600 N/A N/A N/A 0 109 56 165 UC N/A 47 361 2006/312 vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 118 118 UC N/A 48 343 2013/43 vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 PP N/A

Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Gross Gross Total Proposed Total Permission yet? Existing Proposed Entry Zone Application Existing Landuse - Use Landuse Floor Floor Existing Existing Number Proposed no. of Number ID Number Number / Class 1 - Use Area use Area use no. of Flats Number of Number Non- Houses of Flats Approved Reference Class 2 1 (GFA) 2 (GFA) of Units Houses of Units approved (m²) (m²) 49 345 2013/977 B8 N/A 72 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 50 359 2014/1206 B8 N/A 72 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 51 343 2010/1015 vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 UC N/A 52 344 2013/1641 C2/care home N/A 460 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 53 347 2014/4 C2 (care home) N/A 767 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 8 8 PP N/A 54 357 2011/1117 vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 54 0 54 PP N/A 55 357 2012/1168 C2 (care home) N/A 325 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6 6 PP N/A 56 354 2014/384 C2 (hospice) N/A 716 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 24 28 UC N/A 57 356 2013/885 C2 (care home) N/A 1017 N/A N/A N/A 0 5 0 5 UC N/A 58 358 2012/1477 C2 (nursing home) N/A 500 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 12 12 UC N/A 59 342 2013/394 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 60 342 2014/1372 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 61 343 2014/1552 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 62 343 2014/1844 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 3 2 5 PP N/A 63 343 2014/910 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 64 344 2012/673 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 65 344 2012/710 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 2 0 2 PP N/A 66 344 2013/1890 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 67 344 2013/600 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 68 344 2014/1042 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 69 344 2014/1654 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 70 344 2014/1697 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 6 0 6 PP N/A 71 344 2014/170 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 1 0 1 PP N/A 72 345 2012/832 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 73 345 2013/1594 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 74 345 2013/233 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 75 345 2013/816 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 76 345 2014/107 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 77 345 2014/230 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 78 345 2014/69 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 79 346 2012/1344 C3 N/A N/A N/A 3 0 3 0 5 5 PP N/A 80 346 2014/1157 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 2 2 PP N/A 81 346 2014/946 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 82 347 2012/229 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 83 347 2012/895 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 84 347 2014/1272 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 85 347 2014/290 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 4 0 4 PP N/A 86 348 2011/1377 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 87 348 2014/117 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 88 349 2013/1041 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 89 349 2014/980 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 90 350 2012/140 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 2 2 PP N/A

Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Gross Gross Total Proposed Total Permission yet? Existing Proposed Entry Zone Application Existing Landuse - Use Landuse Floor Floor Existing Existing Number Proposed no. of Number ID Number Number / Class 1 - Use Area use Area use no. of Flats Number of Number Non- Houses of Flats Approved Reference Class 2 1 (GFA) 2 (GFA) of Units Houses of Units approved (m²) (m²) 91 350 2013/100 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 92 350 2013/784 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 2 2 PP N/A 93 351 2012/1179 C3 N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 12 0 12 PP N/A 94 352 2012/1678 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 5 0 5 PP N/A 95 352 2013/14 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 96 352 2013/21 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 97 353 2012/1426 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 98 353 2012/693 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 99 353 2013/1288 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 100 353 2013/624 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 101 353 2014/485 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 102 353 2014/679 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 3 0 3 PP N/A 103 353 2014/998 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 104 355 2012/422 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 105 355 2013/1037 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 106 355 2014/10 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 107 355 2014/1343 C3 N/A N/A N/A 4 0 4 4 0 4 PP N/A 108 355 2014/1378 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 109 355 2014/1481 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 110 355 2014/1565 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 111 355 2014/264 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 112 355 2014/529 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 113 355 2014/924 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 3 0 3 PP N/A 114 355 2014/999 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 115 356 2014/1507 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 3 0 3 PP N/A 116 356 2014/249 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 1 0 1 PP N/A 117 356 2014/292 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 4 0 4 PP N/A 118 356 2014/665 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 119 357 2014/938 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 1 1 PP N/A 120 358 2011/1272 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 3 3 PP N/A 121 358 2013/1344 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 122 358 2013/33 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 123 358 2014/541 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 4 0 4 PP N/A 124 360 2014/1687 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 PP N/A 125 361 2014/939 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 5 5 PP N/A 126 342 2013/1231 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 UC N/A 127 342 2014/424 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 UC N/A 128 343 2010/1479 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 129 343 2012/796 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 130 344 2012/1668 C3 N/A N/A N/A 5 0 5 6 0 6 UC N/A 131 345 2012/1085 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 uc N/A 132 345 2013/1497 C3 N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 1 0 1 UC N/A

Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Gross Gross Total Proposed Total Permission yet? Existing Proposed Entry Zone Application Existing Landuse - Use Landuse Floor Floor Existing Existing Number Proposed no. of Number ID Number Number / Class 1 - Use Area use Area use no. of Flats Number of Number Non- Houses of Flats Approved Reference Class 2 1 (GFA) 2 (GFA) of Units Houses of Units approved (m²) (m²) 133 345 2013/307 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 134 345 2014/154 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 135 345 2014/295 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 136 345 2014/802 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 137 347 2012/1519 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 uc N/A 138 347 2013/1236 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 1 0 1 UC N/A 139 349 2014/325 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 4 0 4 UC N/A 140 350 2011/934 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 141 350 2013/1293 C3 N/A N/A N/A 4 0 4 0 36 36 UC N/A 142 351 2013/275 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 5 0 5 UC N/A 143 351 2013/507 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 4 0 4 UC N/A 144 352 2013/14 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 UC N/A 145 353 2012/444 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 146 353 2013/1204 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 147 353 2013/1386 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 148 354 2012/666 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 149 354 2013/1196 C3 N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 14 0 14 UC N/A 150 354 2013/1380 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 UC N/A 151 354 2013/1783 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 152 354 2013/764 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 4 0 4 UC N/A 153 355 2012/16 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 154 359 2013/1001 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 155 360 2011/508 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 uc N/A 156 361 2011/835 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 157 361 2014/618 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 2 2 UC N/A 158 347 2014/361 A1 C3 133.7 N/A 0 1 1 0 3 3 UC N/A 159 350 2014/511 C3/Agricultural Buildings N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 160 348 2014/838 A3 C3 132 N/A 0 2 2 0 9 9 PP N/A 161 347 2014/473 D1 (church) N/A 31 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 PP N/A 162 355 2014/519 C2 (care home) N/A 366 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 10 10 PP N/A 163 361 2014/1451 D1 (church) N/A 436 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 10 10 PP N/A 164 346 2012/1523 D1 - campsite N/A 662 N/A N/A N/A 0 3 0 3 UC N/A 165 349 2013/931 D1 N/A 675 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 UC N/A 166 359 2013/72 vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 26 12 38 UC N/A 167 361 2012/191 D2 (British Legion)/C3 N/A 560 N/A 0 1 1 0 10 10 UC N/A 168 359 2013/1504 A3 N/A 265 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 9 9 UC N/A 169 353 2014/248 Forestry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 17 5 22 PP N/A 170 355 2013/1805 Forestry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 5 0 5 PP N/A 171 355 2013/1810 Forestry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 3 0 3 PP N/A 172 346 2014/1316 Minerals and Landfill N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 6 0 6 PP N/A 173 343 2011/1073 Transport and Utilities N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 12 12 pp N/A

Pro-forma Scenario 1 – Residential (Com>11)

Existing Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Existing Gross Gross Gross Total Total Permission yet? Existing Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Entry Zone Application Landuse - Landuse - Floor Area Floor Area Floor Area Existing Proposed Landuse - Use no. of no. of Number of Number of ID Number Number / Use Class Use Class use 1 use 2 use 3 Number of Number of Non- Class 1 Houses Flats Houses Flats Approved Reference 2 3 (GFA) (GFA) (GFA) Units Units approved (m²) (m²) (m²) 1 342 2013/23 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 2 353 2013/415 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 3 347 2013/B/624 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 4 342 2003/1112 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 5 342 2004/757 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4 0 4 completed N/A 6 342 2005/1303 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6 6 completed N/A 7 342 2011/1103 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 8 342 2012/182 B2 N/A N/A 920 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4 0 4 completed N/A 9 342 2012/313 B1 N/A N/A 160 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 3 3 completed N/A C3 but all trips 10 342 2012/669 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A additional C2- existing use remains 11 342 2013/243 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 1 1 completed N/A and all trips are additional Agricultural 12 342 92/418 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 13 343 2003/490 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 14 343 2007/1096 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 8 0 8 completed N/A C3 but all trips 15 343 2007/1886 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A additional 16 343 2009/1516 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 21 24 45 completed N/A 17 343 2010/1015 B8 N/A N/A 151.45 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed

18 343 2010/15 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed

19 343 2011/750 B1 N/A N/A 155.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed

Agricultural 20 343 2011/80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings Transport and 21 343 2013/469 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 7 0 7 completed N/A Utilities 22 344 2007/45 A1 B2 N/A 167 67 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 4 4 completed N/A 23 344 2007/471 B1 N/A N/A 517 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 22 22 completed N/A 24 344 2008/1509 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 25 344 2009/1205 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 14 14 completed N/A 26 344 2009/889 B2 N/A N/A 1184 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 9 0 9 completed N/A 27 344 2010/103 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 28 344 2010/432 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 29 344 2010/975 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 3 0 3 completed N/A 30 344 2011/118 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 3 0 3 completed N/A 31 344 2011/1233 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 4 0 4 completed N/A 32 344 2011/134 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A Agricultural 33 344 2011/159 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings

Existing Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Existing Gross Gross Gross Total Total Permission yet? Existing Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Entry Zone Application Landuse - Landuse - Floor Area Floor Area Floor Area Existing Proposed Landuse - Use no. of no. of Number of Number of ID Number Number / Use Class Use Class use 1 use 2 use 3 Number of Number of Non- Class 1 Houses Flats Houses Flats Approved Reference 2 3 (GFA) (GFA) (GFA) Units Units approved (m²) (m²) (m²) 34 344 2011/173 A1 N/A N/A 43.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 35 344 2011/205 A1 N/A N/A 36 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 1 1 completed N/A 36 344 2011/535 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4 0 4 completed N/A 37 344 2012/333 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 38 344 2012/386 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Agricultural 39 345 2003/1268 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 40 345 2005/1847 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 41 345 2005/810 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 42 345 2007/321 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A Agricultural 43 345 2008/1491 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings Agricultural 44 345 2009/264 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A Buildings 45 345 2009/557 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 46 345 2010/1165 A1 B1 B2 60 100 120 1 0 1 9 0 9 completed N/A C3 but all trips 47 345 2010/1199 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A additional 48 345 2010/1429 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 49 345 2010/19 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 33 33 completed N/A 50 345 2010/264 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 51 345 2010/284 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 52 345 2011/136 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 4 4 completed N/A 53 345 2011/407 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 11 0 11 completed N/A 54 345 2011/500 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A Agricultural 55 345 2011/520 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Land 56 345 2011/616 B1 N/A N/A 90 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 57 345 2011/634 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 58 345 2011/707 B8 N/A N/A 74 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 59 345 2012/1346 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 60 345 2012/214 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 61 345 2012/535 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 62 345 2012/612 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 63 345 2012/731 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 64 345 2013/536 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A Agricultural 65 346 2007/1443 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 66 346 2007/482 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 67 346 2008/1317 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 4 0 4 completed N/A Agricultural 68 346 2008/802/L1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 69 346 2011/736 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A C3- but all 70 347 2007/1420 trips are N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A additional 71 347 2009/682 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 1 completed N/A

Existing Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Existing Gross Gross Gross Total Total Permission yet? Existing Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Entry Zone Application Landuse - Landuse - Floor Area Floor Area Floor Area Existing Proposed Landuse - Use no. of no. of Number of Number of ID Number Number / Use Class Use Class use 1 use 2 use 3 Number of Number of Non- Class 1 Houses Flats Houses Flats Approved Reference 2 3 (GFA) (GFA) (GFA) Units Units approved (m²) (m²) (m²) 72 347 2010/1346 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 73 347 2011/249 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 1 6 0 6 completed N/A Agricultural 74 347 2011/746 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 75 347 2011/749 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 76 347 2012/351 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 77 347 2012/762 B1(b) C3 N/A 4487 N/A N/A 8 1 9 3 6 9 completed N/A 78 347 2013/1226 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A C3- but all 79 348 2009/1439 trips are N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A additional C3- but all 80 348 2012/763 trips are N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A additional 81 349 2007/1080 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 82 349 2007/1954 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A C3- but all 83 349 2008/537 trips are N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A additional 84 349 2011/1213 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 7 0 7 completed N/A Agricultural 85 349 2011/434 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 6 4 10 completed N/A Land 86 349 2011/55 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 87 349 2012/296 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 88 349 2013/931 D1 N/A N/A 675 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 89 349 2014/2019 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 90 350 2007/1601 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 91 350 2009/1147 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 92 350 2009/1519 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 93 350 2010/256 D1 N/A N/A 385 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 94 350 2011/177 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 0 12 12 completed N/A 95 350 2012/44 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 96 350 2012/670 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 97 350 2012/676 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 98 351 2010/1126 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 99 351 2010/1272 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 3 3 completed N/A 100 351 2011/371 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 101 351 2012/115 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 5 0 5 completed N/A 102 351 2013/999 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NN N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 103 352 2007/1144 B2 N/A N/A 6267 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 13 3 16 completed N/A Agricultural 104 352 2007/243 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings Forestry/open 105 352 2009/1469 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 12 6 18 completed N/A land A1/Garden 106 352 2010/1083 N/A N/A 1951 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 10 0 10 completed N/A Centre 107 352 2011/1369 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 108 352 2012/1055 Agricultural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A

Existing Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Existing Gross Gross Gross Total Total Permission yet? Existing Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Entry Zone Application Landuse - Landuse - Floor Area Floor Area Floor Area Existing Proposed Landuse - Use no. of no. of Number of Number of ID Number Number / Use Class Use Class use 1 use 2 use 3 Number of Number of Non- Class 1 Houses Flats Houses Flats Approved Reference 2 3 (GFA) (GFA) (GFA) Units Units approved (m²) (m²) (m²) Buildings Transport and 109 352 2012/1198 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4 0 4 completed N/A Utilities Transport and 110 352 2013/79 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Utilities 111 353 2005/1807 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 112 353 2009/387 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 113 353 2010/1089 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 114 353 2011/1309 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 115 353 2011/1510 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 116 353 2011/760 B1 N/A N/A 48 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 1 1 completed N/A 117 353 2012/200 B2 N/A N/A 600 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 7 7 completed N/A 118 353 2012/879 B8 N/A N/A 2583 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 119 354 2007/1124 B1 N/A N/A 90 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6 6 completed N/A 120 354 2007/1322 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 7 7 14 completed N/A 121 354 2007/1738 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 3 3 completed N/A 122 354 2007/1937 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 123 354 2008/1363 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 124 354 2008/1753 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4 0 4 completed N/A 125 354 2008/682 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 0 14 14 completed N/A 126 354 2009/348 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 127 354 2010/1197 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4 0 4 completed N/A 128 354 2010/196 B1 N/A N/A 200 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 8 8 completed N/A 129 354 2010/685 B1 N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 130 354 2011/1022 B1 N/A N/A 76 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 131 354 2011/298 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 132 354 2011/561 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 6 0 6 completed N/A 133 354 2011/670 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 134 355 2006/1485 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 14 14 completed N/A 135 355 2006/1864 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 136 355 2007/1808 C2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 137 355 2008/1204 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 138 355 2008/945 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 4 4 completed N/A 139 355 2009/1049 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 5 0 5 completed N/A 140 355 2009/1131 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 141 355 2011/1024 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 5 5 completed N/A 142 355 2011/19 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 143 355 2011/248 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 144 355 2011/799 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 145 355 2012/176 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 3 0 3 completed N/A 146 355 2012/37 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 147 356 2010/940 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 148 357 2008/1114 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 1 1 completed N/A

Existing Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Existing Gross Gross Gross Total Total Permission yet? Existing Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Entry Zone Application Landuse - Landuse - Floor Area Floor Area Floor Area Existing Proposed Landuse - Use no. of no. of Number of Number of ID Number Number / Use Class Use Class use 1 use 2 use 3 Number of Number of Non- Class 1 Houses Flats Houses Flats Approved Reference 2 3 (GFA) (GFA) (GFA) Units Units approved (m²) (m²) (m²) 149 357 2008/224 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 10 10 completed N/A 150 357 2010/1159 B8 N/A N/A 150 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 4 4 completed N/A 151 357 2011/1117 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 78 29 107 completed N/A 152 357 2012/1655 A3/C3 N/A N/A 137.5 N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 4 4 completed N/A 153 357 2013/1335 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 1 1 completed N/A C2 (care 154 357 2013/1741 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 7 7 completed N/A home) 155 358 2006/1460 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 0 3 13 11 24 completed N/A 156 358 2008/242 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 157 358 2009/49 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 8 3 11 completed N/A 158 358 2010/1403 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 159 358 2010/841 B1 N/A N/A 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 1 1 completed N/A 160 358 2011/730 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 6 6 completed N/A C2 (shared residential 161 358 2013/1507 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 0 4 completed N/A accommodatio n) 162 359 2004/400 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 163 359 2006/530 B1 B2 N/A 545 545 N/A N/A N/A 0 2 21 23 completed N/A 164 359 2008/466 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 20 20 completed N/A 165 359 2009/1452 B1 N/A N/A 156 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2 2 completed N/A 166 359 2009/1510 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 2 2 completed N/A 167 359 2010/1153 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 4 4 completed N/A 168 359 2010/1175 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 11 11 completed N/A 169 359 2011/822 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 6 0 6 completed N/A 170 360 2007/1070 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 171 360 2009/1454 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 172 360 2010/1447 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 173 360 2010/1514 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 10 0 10 completed N/A 174 361 2006/1456 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 0 7 0 54 54 completed N/A 175 361 2006/1484 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 0 4 11 12 23 completed N/A 176 361 2009/790 B1 N/A N/A 185 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 11 11 completed N/A 177 361 2011/1566 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 4 0 4 completed N/A 178 361 2011/364 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 179 361 2011/417 A2 N/A N/A 40 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 180 361 2011/757 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 181 361 2012/718 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4 0 4 completed N/A 182 361 2012/932 B2 N/A N/A 170 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6 6 completed N/A 183 361 2013/230 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A

Pro-forma Scenario 1 – Residential (Com<11)

Entry Zone Planning Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Total Proposed Proposed Total Received Planning ID Number Application Landuse - Use Landuse Gross Gross no. of no. of Existing Number Number Proposed Permission yet?

Number / Class 1 - Use Floor Floor Houses Flats Number of of Flats Number Reference Class 2 Area use Area use of Units Houses of Units Non- Approved 1 (GFA) 2 (GFA) approved (m²) (m²) 1 342 2001/554 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 3 0 3 completed N/A 2 355 2002/1501 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A Agricultural 3 342 2003/230 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Land Agricultural 4 352 2004/1185 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Land Agricultural 5 342 2004/1362 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 6 346 2004/144 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Agricultural 7 342 2004/1597 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 8 354 2004/980 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 9 9 completed N/A 9 351 2005/1208 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 10 344 2005/1301 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 11 352 2005/1330 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 12 350 2005/1421 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 13 350 2005/1485 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Agricultural 14 346 2005/1763 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings Agricultural 15 351 2005/1831 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Land 16 351 2005/1868 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Agricultural 17 352 2005/1900 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 18 347 2005/34 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 19 342 2005/584 B1 N/A 190 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 9 9 completed N/A 20 359 2005/681/D B1 C3 280 N/A 3 0 3 0 13 13 completed N/A 21 355 2005/994 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 3 0 3 completed N/A 22 342 2006/106 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 23 360 2006/1106/D2 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 4 0 4 completed N/A 24 344 2006/1129 C3 N/A N/A N/A 3 0 3 0 10 10 completed N/A 25 358 2006/1184 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 6 6 completed N/A 26 344 2006/1191 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 27 360 2006/1214/D C3 N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 15 0 15 completed N/A 28 360 2006/1214/D C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 29 351 2006/1285 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 3 0 3 completed N/A 30 347 2006/1297 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 31 350 2006/1326 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 1 1 completed N/A 32 344 2006/139 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 9 9 completed N/A Agricultural 33 342 2006/1536 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 34 351 2006/1550 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 15 0 15 completed N/A 35 343 2006/1602 A2 N/A 106 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 36 361 2006/1605 Vacant/C3 N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 0 9 9 completed N/A 37 351 2006/1611 C3 N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 6 7 13 completed N/A 38 348 2006/359 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 39 354 2007/1213/D C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 1 9 10 completed N/A 40 349 2007/1253 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 5 0 5 completed N/A

Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Gross Gross Total Proposed Total Permission yet? Existing Existing Existing Proposed Entry Zone Application Landuse Floor Floor Existing Number Proposed Landuse - Use no. of no. of Number ID Number Number / - Use Area use Area use Number of Number Non- Class 1 Houses Flats of Flats Approved Reference Class 2 1 (GFA) 2 (GFA) of Units Houses of Units approved (m²) (m²) 41 355 2007/1278 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 42 351 2007/1302 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 43 343 2007/1310 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 4 0 4 completed N/A 44 354 2007/1322 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 45 351 2007/1403 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 46 353 2007/1408 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 47 358 2007/143 Vacant/C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 4 4 completed N/A 48 345 2007/1434 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 49 345 2007/1602 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 50 352 2007/1604 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 51 360 2007/1647 C3 N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 8 0 8 completed N/A 52 345 2007/1662 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 53 359 2007/1704 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 2 2 completed N/A 54 358 2007/1754 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 8 8 completed N/A 55 351 2007/1825 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 56 353 2007/1992 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 57 361 2007/2025 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 1 1 completed N/A 58 355 2007/241 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 8 0 8 completed N/A 59 355 2007/412 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Agricultural 60 353 2007/628 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 61 344 2007/654 A1 C3 21.2 N/A 0 1 1 0 3 3 completed N/A 62 342 2007/659 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 63 350 2007/708 C3 N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 8 0 8 completed N/A 64 343 2007/821 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 2 2 completed N/A 65 342 2007/851 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 66 356 2007/951 C3 N/A N/A N/A 3 0 3 11 0 11 completed N/A 67 350 2007/963 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 4 4 completed N/A 68 355 2008/1006 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A Agricultural 69 342 2008/1214 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 0 2 completed N/A Buildings 70 345 2008/132 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 71 353 2008/1420 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 6 8 completed N/A 72 358 2008/1530 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 73 349 2008/1699 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A Agricultural 74 345 2008/200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 75 354 2008/282 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 10 10 completed N/A 76 361 2008/319 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 2 2 completed N/A 77 359 2008/358 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 2 0 2 completed N/A 78 354 2008/443 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 11 0 11 completed N/A 79 352 2008/452 C3 N/A N/A N/A 3 0 3 0 17 17 completed N/A 80 359 2008/466 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 12 12 completed N/A

Existing Existing Received Planning Planning Existing Gross Gross Total Proposed Total Permission yet? Existing Existing Existing Proposed Entry Zone Application Landuse Floor Floor Existing Number Proposed Landuse - Use no. of no. of Number ID Number Number / - Use Area use Area use Number of Number Non- Class 1 Houses Flats of Flats Approved Reference Class 2 1 (GFA) 2 (GFA) of Units Houses of Units approved (m²) (m²) 81 353 2008/563 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4 6 10 completed N/A 82 348 2008/623 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 83 352 2008/66 B1 N/A 53.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 4 4 completed N/A 84 342 2008/79 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 85 343 2008/922 Vacant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 86 345 2008/97 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A Agricultural 87 346 2008/B/1205 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 88 359 2009/1137 C3 N/A N/A N/A 2 0 2 3 0 3 completed N/A 89 354 2009/1173 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 2 0 2 completed N/A 90 360 2009/1256 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 3 3 completed N/A Agricultural 91 350 2009/168 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 0 1 completed N/A Buildings 92 356 2009/795 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A 93 351 2009/904 C3 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 1 0 1 completed N/A

Pro-forma Scenario 2a – Commercial

Planning Proposed Proposed Proposed Received Planning Proposed Proposed Proposed Entry Zone Application Landuse Landuse Landuse Permission yet? GFA lane GFA lane GFA lane ID Number Number / - Use - Use - Use use 1 (m²) use 2(m²) use 3(m²) Reference Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Non- Approved approved Non- 1 358 CAT 051 B1 N/A N/A 3600 N/A N/A N/A approved 107 Non- 2 359 CAT 001 C1 A1 A5 583 492 N/A bedrooms approved Non- 3 344 OXT 16A B1 N/A N/A 3000 N/A N/A N/A approved

Pro-forma Scenario 2a – Residential

Existing Existing Existing Planning Existing Existing Gross Gross Gross Total Proposed Total Existing Existing Existing Proposed Entry Zone Application Landuse Landuse Floor Floor Floor Existing Number Proposed Received Planning Landuse - Use no. of no. of Number ID Number Number / - Use - Use Area use Area use Area use Number of Number Permission yet? Class 1 Houses Flats of Flats Reference Class 2 Class 3 1 (GFA) 2 (GFA) 3 (GFA) of Units Houses of Units (m²) (m²) (m²) 1 CAT 005 B8 N/A N/A 700 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 46 46 n/a 2 359 CAT 007 agricultural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 70 0 70 n/a 3 354 CAT 013 C3 D1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 10 0 10 n/a 4 360 CAT 026 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 20 20 0 35 35 n/a C2 elderly care 5 360 CAT 034 N/A N/A 579 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 52 52 n/a accommodation 6 354 CAT 041 B1 N/A N/A 635 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 40 40 n/a 7 354 CAT 043 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 12 0 12 n/a C3 - residential 8 354 CAT 044 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 7 0 7 n/a garage blocks C2 elderly care 9 356 CAT 045 N/A N/A 300 N/A N/A 0 0 0 11 0 11 n/a accommodation C3 - residential 10 CAT 046 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 6 0 6 n/a garage blocks 11 359 CAT 047 A1 B1 N/A N/A 4274 N/A 0 0 0 0 72 72 12 344 OXT 005 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 12 0 12 n/a 13 353 OXT 013 open space N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 7 0 7 n/a car park (160 14 344 OXT 016 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 50 0 50 n/a spaces) 15 361 WAR 016 C3 amenity land N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 7 7 n/a 16 WAR 020 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 17 0 17 n/a 17 350 WAR 022 B1 B8 N/A 152 152 N/A 0 0 0 5 0 5 n/a 18 WHY 008 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 12 12 n/a 19 361 WAR 026 Sui Generis N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 10 0 10 n/a 20 358 CAT 055 D1 N/A N/A 400 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 6 6 n/a 21 357 CAT 056 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 13 13 n/a 22 354 CAT 052 D2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 13 13 n/a 23 347 OXT 050 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 0 9 22 0 22 n/a 24 354 CAT 053 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 12 12 20 49 69 n/a 25 353 OXT 051 D1 D2 N/A 600 N/A N/A 0 0 0 239 0 239 n/a 26 350 WAR 027 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 8 0 8 n/a 27 357 CAT 054 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 157 0 157 n/a 28 353 OXT 052 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 60 0 60 n/a 29 346 SMA 015 B1 B2 B8 N/A 110.19 388.01 0 0 0 18 0 18 n/a 30 346 SMA 005 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 49 0 49 n/a 31 356 CAT 036 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 0 3 14 0 14 n/a

Pro-forma Scenario 2b – Commercial

Existing Planning Existing Total Proposed Proposed Proposed Gross Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Proposed Received Planning Permission Entry Zone Application Landuse - Existing Landuse - Landuse - Landuse - Floor Area no. of no. of GFA lane GFA lane GFA lane yet? ID Number Number / Use Class Number of Use Class Use Class Use Class land use 1 Houses Flats use 1 (m²) use 2(m²) use 3(m²) Reference 1 Units 1 2 3 (GFA) (m²) Approved Non-approved Sui 1 358 CAT 051 N/A 0 0 0 B1 N/A N/A 3600 N/A N/A N/A Non-approved Generis 107 2 359 CAT 001 Vacant 0 0 0 0 C1 A1 A5 583 492 N/A Non-approved bedrooms 3 344 OXT 16A Vacant N/A 0 0 0 B1 N/A N/A 3000 N/A N/A N/A Non-approved

Pro-forma Scenario 2b – Residential

Existing Existing Existing Gross Gross Gross Planning Existing Existing Total Total Existing Floor Floor Floor Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Received Entry Zone Application Landuse Landuse Existing Proposed Landuse - Use Area Area Area no. of no. of Number of Number of Planning ID Number Number / - Use - Use Number Number Class 1 use 1 use 2 use 3 Houses Flats Houses Flats Permission yet? Reference Class 2 Class 3 of Units of Units (GFA) (GFA) (GFA) (m²) (m²) (m²) 1 CAT 005 B8 N/A N/A 700 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 27 27 n/a 2 359 CAT 007 agricultural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 144 144 n/a 3 354 CAT 013 C3 D1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 40 40 n/a 4 360 CAT 026 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 20 20 0 40 40 n/a C2 elderly care 5 360 CAT 034 N/A N/A 579 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 30 30 n/a accommodation 6 354 CAT 041 B1 N/A N/A 635 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 20 20 n/a 7 354 CAT 043 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 20 20 n/a C3 - residential 8 354 CAT 044 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 13 13 n/a garage blocks C2 elderly care 9 356 CAT 045 N/A N/A 300 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 20 20 n/a accommodation C3 - residential 10 CAT 046 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 10 10 n/a garage blocks 11 359 CAT 047 A1 B1 N/A N/A 4274 N/A 0 0 0 0 72 72 12 344 OXT 005 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 27 27 n/a 13 353 OXT 013 open space N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 13 13 n/a car park (160 14 344 OXT 016 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 29 29 n/a spaces) 15 361 WAR 016 C3 amenity land N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 6 6 n/a 16 WAR 020 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 24 24 n/a 17 350 WAR 022 B1 B8 N/A 152 152 N/A 0 0 0 0 8 8 n/a 18 WHY 008 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 0 8 8 n/a 19 361 WAR 026 Sui Generis N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 17 17 n/a 20 358 CAT 055 D1 N/A N/A 400 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 4 4 n/a 21 357 CAT 056 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 9 9 n/a 22 354 CAT 052 D2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 9 9 n/a 23 347 OXT 050 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 0 9 0 32 32 n/a 24 354 CAT 053 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 12 12 0 57 57 n/a 25 353 OXT 051 D1 D2 N/A 600 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 261 261 n/a 26 350 WAR 027 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 15 15 n/a

Entry Zone Planning Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Total Proposed Proposed Total Received ID Number Application Landuse - Use Landuse Landuse Gross Gross Gross no. of no. of Existing Number of Number of Proposed Planning 27 357 CATNumber 054 / ClassC3 1 - N/AUse - N/AUse FloorN/A FloorN/A FloorN/A Houses0 Flats0 Number0 Houses0 Flats172 Number172 Permissionn/a yet? 28 353 OXTReference 052 C3 ClassN/A 2 ClassN/A 3 AreaN/A AreaN/A AreaN/A 0 0 of Units0 0 86 of Units86 n/a use 1 use 2 use 3 29 346 SMA 015 B1 B2 B8 (GFA)N/A 110.19(GFA) 388.01(GFA) 0 0 0 0 31 31 n/a 30 346 SMA 005 Greenfield N/A N/A (m²)N/A (m²)N/A (m²)N/A 0 0 0 0 86 86 n/a 31 356 CAT 036 C3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 0 3 0 38 38 n/a

Pro-forma Scenario 3 & 4 – Commercial

Existing Existing Existing Planning Permission? Gross Gross Gross Planning Existing Existing Existing Total Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Floor Floor Floor Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Entry Zone Application Landuse Landuse Landuse Existing Landuse GFA lane Landuse Landuse Landuse GFA lane Area land Area land Area land no. of no. of GFA lane GFA lane ID Number Number / - Use - Use - Use Number - Use use 1 - Use - Use - Use use 4 Non- use 1 use 2 use Houses Flats use 2(m²) use 3(m²) Approved Reference Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 of Units Class 1 (m²) Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 (m²) approved (GFA) (GFA) 3(GFA) (m²) (m²) (m²) OXT 043; Non- 1 349 B8 N/A N/A 11512 N/A N/A 0 0 0 B8 20938 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2015/1217 approved Non- 2 342 ENA 10 Vacant N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 B2 1600 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A approved Non- 3 342 ENA 11 B8 N/A N/A 26000 N/A N/A 0 0 0 B2 32400 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A approved Data Non- 4 343 ENA 12 B1 B2 B8 190 4945 10700 1 0 1 B1 410 B2 3667 B8 2176 21568 N/A Centre approved Non- 5 346 ENA 14 Vacant N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 B2 17200 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A approved Non- 6 343 ENA 20 B2 N/A N/A 1320 N/A N/A 0 0 0 B2 1684 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A approved Non- 7 351 ENA 22 B1 B2 B8 9166 54996 27498 0 0 0 B1 33120 B2 34328 B8 4416 N/A N/A N/A approved Non- 8 342 ENA 30 B1 B2 N/A 1678 1678 N/A 0 0 0 B1 6155 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A approved Non- 9 353 ENA 07 B8 N/A N/A 1830 N/A N/A 0 0 0 B8 4080 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A approved Non- 10 346 ENA 18 B1 N/A N/A 1175 N/A N/A 0 0 0 B1 2113 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A approved Non- 11 345 ENA 23 B2 N/A N/A 1585 N/A N/A 0 0 0 B2 1865 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A approved Non- 12 361 ENA 31 B1 N/A N/A 2582 N/A N/A 0 0 0 B1 4682 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A approved Non- 13 343 ENA 34 B8 N/A N/A 2300 N/A N/A 0 0 0 B8 3400 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A approved Car Non- 14 351 DOM 003 B2 N/A 439 N/A N/A 0 0 0 B2 1240 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Parking approved

Pro-forma Scenario 3 – Residential

Existing Existing Planning Existing Total Total Gross Gross Proposed Proposed Received Entry Zone Application Existing Landuse Landuse - Existing no. Existing Existing Proposed Floor Area Floor Area Number of Number of Planning ID Number Number / - Use Class 1 Use Class of Houses no. of Flats Number of Number of use 1 use 2 Houses Flats Permission yet? Reference 2 Units Units (GFA) (m²) (GFA) (m²) 1 360 CAT 004 Vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 43 0 43 Non-approved 2 CAT 010 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 32 0 32 Non-approved 3 358 CAT 011 C3 N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 11 0 11 Non-approved 4 354 CAT 016 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 74 0 74 Non-approved 5 361 CAT 029 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 53 0 53 Non-approved

Entry Zone Planning Existing Landuse Existing Existing Existing Existing no. Existing Total Proposed Proposed Total Received ID Number Application - Use Class 1 Landuse - Gross Gross of Houses no. of Flats Existing Number of Number of Proposed Planning 6 358 NumberCAT 038 / Greenfield UseN/A Class FloorN/A Area FloorN/A Area 0 0 Number0 of Houses39 Flats0 Number39 of PermissionNon-appro vedyet? 7 360 ReferenceCAT 040 Vacant N/A2 useN/A 1 useN/A 2 0 0 Units0 83 0 Units83 Non-approved (GFA) (m²) (GFA) (m²) 8 356 CAT 042 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 239 0 239 Non-approved 9 344 OXT 006 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 150 0 150 Non-approved 10 344 OXT 007 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 250 0 250 Non-approved 11 353 OXT 018 Residential N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 39 0 39 Non-approved 12 347 OXT 020 Agricultural N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 50 0 50 Non-approved 13 353 OXT 021 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 33 0 33 Non-approved 14 347 OXT 022 Vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 36 0 36 Non-approved 15 347 OXT 024 Vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 38 0 38 Non-approved 16 353 OXT 025 Agricultural N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 165 0 165 Non-approved 17 353 OXT 028 B8 / residential N/A 154 N/A 2 0 2 51 0 51 Non-approved 18 344 OXT 034 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 12 0 12 Non-approved 19 353 OXT 040 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 22 0 22 Non-approved 20 353 OXT 046 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 95 0 95 Non-approved 21 353 OXT 048 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 27 0 27 Non-approved 22 353 OXT 053 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 40 0 40 Non-approved Recreation 23 355 WAR 005 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 129 0 129 Non-approved Ground 24 350 WAR 008 Field N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 622 0 622 Non-approved 25 355 WAR 010 Residential / Field N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 26 0 26 Non-approved 26 350 WAR 011 Field N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 60 0 60 Non-approved 27 350 WAR 012 Paddock N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 32 0 32 Non-approved 28 350 WAR 018 Field N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 42 0 42 Non-approved Recreation 29 355 WAR 019 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 119 0 119 Non-approved Ground 30 350 WAR 023 Paddock / Stables N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 35 0 35 Non-approved 31 350 WAR 025 Paddock / Stables N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 42 0 42 Non-approved 32 361 WHY 001 Paddock / Stables N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 47 0 47 Non-approved 33 346 SMA 008 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 40 0 40 Non-approved 34 346 SMA 009 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 259 0 259 Non-approved 35 346 SMA 013 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 300 0 300 Non-approved 36 346 SMA 014 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 563 0 563 Non-approved Farm / 37 346 SMA 019 B1 / C3 150 N/A 1 0 1 232 0 232 Non-approved greenfield 38 346 SMA 020 Farm/Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 423 0 423 Non-approved 39 346 SMA 021 Greenfield/house N/A N/A N/A 1 0 1 165 0 165 Non-approved 40 346 SMA 027 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 107 0 107 Non-approved 41 352 LIN 003 Field N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 21 0 21 Non-approved 42 352 LIN 005 Field N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 42 0 42 Non-approved 43 352 LIN 012 Field N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 129 0 129 Non-approved 44 352 LIN 018 Garden Land N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 6 0 6 Non-approved 45 352 LIN 020 Field N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 99 0 99 Non-approved 46 352 LIN 021 Agriculture N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 39 0 39 Non-approved 47 343 GOD 004 Allotments N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 6 0 6 Non-approved 48 343 GOD 008 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 7 0 7 Non-approved 49 343 GOD 010 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 167 0 167 Non-approved

Entry Zone Planning Existing Landuse Existing Existing Existing Existing no. Existing Total Proposed Proposed Total Received ID Number Application - Use Class 1 Landuse - Gross Gross of Houses no. of Flats Existing Number of Number of Proposed Planning 50 343 GODNumber 011 / A1 Nursery UseB8 Class Floor1905.4 Area Floor118 Area 0 0 Number0 of Houses32 Flats0 Number32 of PermissionNon-approved yet? 51 343 ReferenceGOD 012 Greenfield N/A2 useN/A 1 useN/A 2 0 0 Units0 20 0 Units20 Non-approved (GFA) (m²) (GFA) (m²) 52 356 CAT 019 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 27 0 27 Non-approved 80.93 53 356 CAT 039 Recreation N/A N/A 0 0 0 1076 0 1076 Non-approved hectares 54 344 OXT 036 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 30 0 30 Non-approved 55 344 OXT 037 Greenfield N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 30 0 30 Non-approved Recreation space with limited 56 352 LIN 023 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 10 0 10 Non-approved recreational buildings

Pro-forma Scenario 4 – Residential

Existing Planning Gross Total Proposed Total Existing Existing Proposed Entry Zone Application Existing Landuse Floor Existing Number Proposed Received Planning no. of no. of Number ID Number Number / - Use Class 1 Area use Number of Number Permission yet? Houses Flats of Flats Reference 1 (GFA) of Units Houses of Units (m²) 1 343 BHE 007 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 918 0 918 Non-approved 2 343 BHE 008 B2 1900 0 0 0 26 0 26 Non-approved 3 342 NUT 003 Tennis Courts N/A 0 0 0 41 0 41 Non-approved residential use 4 342 NUT 005 related to the 20 units 0 0 0 37 0 37 Non-approved college. 5 NUT 010 Field N/A 0 0 0 133 0 133 Non-approved 6 NUT 011 Paddock /Stables N/A 0 0 0 21 0 21 Non-approved 7 342 NUT 008 Paddock /Stables N/A 0 0 0 44 0 44 Non-approved 8 351 FEL 004 Greenfield 0 0 0 0 55 0 55 Non-approved 9 351 FEL 008 Greenfield 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 Non-approved 10 343 SGOD 005 Field N/A 0 0 0 526 0 526 Non-approved 11 SGOD 006 Woodland N/A 0 0 0 26 0 26 Non-approved 12 SGOD 007 Field N/A 0 0 0 61 0 61 Non-approved 13 349 TAT001 Woodland N/A 0 0 0 9 0 9 Non-approved 14 349 TAT 003 Field N/A 0 0 0 11 0 11 Non-approved 15 349 TAT 005 Garden Land N/A 0 0 0 11 0 11 Non-approved 16 342 BLE 016 Garden Land N/A 0 0 0 18 0 18 Non-approved

Appendix B Figure B1: Committed commercial and residential development sites in the district of Tandridge (Scenario 1, do-minimum)

Figure B2: Proposed commercial and residential development sites in the district of Tandridge, scenario 2a

Figure B3: Proposed commercial and residential development sites in the district of Tandridge, scenario 2b

Figure B4: Proposed commercial and residential development sites in the district of Tandridge, scenario 3

Figure B5: Proposed commercial and residential development sites in the district of Tandridge, scenario 4

Figure B6: Proposed commercial and residential development sites in the district of Tandridge, scenario 5

Appendix C

Tables showing the top ten links for each scenario ranked by the worst Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) and Level of Service (LOS) scores.

Please note: The RFC and LOS are calculated by direction, so some road links will be shown twice in the table

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentage 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario Increase in Minimum Scenario in Flow Level of 2a Level of Flow (vph) 2a (vph) Flow RFC 2a RFC (vph) Service Service

1 A22, London Road 19762, 2 1,326 1,327 2 0% 1.74 1.74 F F 2 A22, London Road 19762, 1 1,211 1,213 2 0% 1.58 1.58 F F 3 B270, The Green 19712, 1 956 961 6 1% 1.24 1.25 F F 4 A22, Godstone Road 1979, 2 917 918 1 0% 1.19 1.19 F F 5 A22, Godstone Road 8366, 1 917 918 1 0% 1.19 1.19 F F 6 M25, J6 Slip Off to A22 12304, 2 2,586 2,604 18 1% 1.14 1.15 F F 7 B2030, Church Hill 19723, 1 859 876 17 2% 1.11 1.13 F F 8 B2030, Church Hill 19724, 2 827 853 26 3% 1.07 1.10 F F 9 M25, J6 Slip Off to A22 12279, 1 2,432 2,445 13 1% 1.07 1.07 F F 10 A25, Godstone Road 8959, 2 1,214 1,221 7 1% 1.06 1.06 F F

Table C1: Scenario 2a – top 10 worst performing links (ranked by RFC and LOS) and compared with Scenario 1

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentag 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario e Increase Minimum Scenario in Flow Level of 2b Level Flow (vph) 2b (vph) in Flow RFC 2b RFC (vph) Service of Service

1 A22, London Road 19762, 2 1,326 1,327 2 0% 1.74 1.74 F F 2 A22, London Road 19762, 1 1,211 1,214 3 0% 1.58 1.58 F F 3 B270, The Green 19712, 1 956 959 4 0% 1.24 1.25 F F 4 A22, Godstone Road 1979, 2 917 918 2 0% 1.19 1.19 F F 5 A22, Godstone Road 8366, 1 917 918 2 0% 1.19 1.19 F F 6 M25, J6 Slip Off to A22 12304, 2 2,586 2,598 12 0% 1.14 1.14 F F 7 B2030, Church Hill 19723, 1 859 870 10 1% 1.11 1.13 F F 8 B2030, Church Hill 19724, 2 827 845 19 2% 1.07 1.09 F F 9 M25, J6 Slip Off to A22 12279, 1 2,432 2,440 9 0% 1.07 1.07 F F 10 D388, Warwick Wold Road 19758, 1 827 836 9 1% 1.05 1.06 F F

Table C2: Scenario 2b – top 10 worst performing links (ranked by RFC and LOS) and compared with Scenario 1

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentag 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario 3 Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario 3 e Increase Minimum Scenario 3 in Flow Level of Level of Flow (vph) (vph) in Flow RFC RFC (vph) Service Service

1 A22, London Road 19762, 2 1,326 1,385 59 4% 1.74 1.82 F F 2 A22, London Road 19762, 1 1,211 1,238 28 2% 1.58 1.61 F F 3 B270, The Green 19712, 1 956 1,047 91 10% 1.24 1.36 F F 4 B2030, Church Hill 19723, 1 859 988 128 15% 1.11 1.28 F F 5 B2030, Church Hill 19724, 2 827 959 133 16% 1.07 1.24 F F 6 B22, Godstone Road 1979, 2 917 948 31 3% 1.19 1.22 F F 7 B22, Godstone Road 8366, 1 917 948 31 3% 1.19 1.22 F F 8 M25, J6 Slip Off to A22 12304, 2 2,586 2,711 125 5% 1.14 1.19 F F 9 D388, Warwick Wold Road 19758, 1 827 923 96 12% 1.05 1.17 F F 10 A25, Godstone Road 8959, 2 1,214 1,291 77 6% 1.06 1.12 F F

Table C3: Scenario 3 – top 10 worst performing links (ranked by RFC and LOS) and compared with Scenario 1

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentag 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario 4 Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario 4 e Increase Minimum Scenario 4 in Flow Level of Level of Flow (vph) (vph) in Flow RFC RFC (vph) Service Service

1 A22, London Road 19762, 2 1,326 1,373 47 4% 1.74 1.81 F F 2 A22, London Road 19762, 1 1,211 1,206 -5 0% 1.58 1.57 F F 3 B270, The Green 19712, 1 956 991 35 4% 1.24 1.29 F F 4 A22, Godstone Road 1979, 2 917 920 3 0% 1.19 1.19 F F 5 A22, Godstone Road 8366, 1 917 920 3 0% 1.19 1.19 F F 6 B2030, Church Hill 19723, 1 859 903 43 5% 1.11 1.17 F F 7 M25, J6 Slip Off to A22 12304, 2 2,586 2,601 15 1% 1.14 1.15 F F 8 B2030, Church Hill 19724, 2 827 875 48 6% 1.07 1.13 F F 9 A25, Godstone Road 8959, 2 1,214 1,277 63 5% 1.06 1.11 F F 10 A25, Godstone Green 11910, 2 1,105 1,234 129 12% 0.98 1.09 E F

Table C4: Scenario 4 – top 10 worst performing links (ranked by RFC and LOS) and compared with Scenario 1

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentag 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario 5 Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario 5 e Increase Minimum Scenario 5 in Flow Level of Level of Flow (vph) (vph) in Flow RFC RFC (vph) Service Service

1 A22, London Road 19762, 2 1,326 1,388 62 5% 1.74 1.82 F F 2 A22, London Road 19762, 1 1,211 1,236 25 2% 1.58 1.61 F F 3 A270, The Green 19712, 1 956 1,048 92 10% 1.24 1.36 F F 4 B2030, Church Hill 19723, 1 859 997 137 16% 1.11 1.29 F F 5 B2030, Church Hill 19724, 2 827 961 134 16% 1.07 1.24 F F 6 A22, Godstone Road 1979, 2 917 950 33 4% 1.19 1.23 F F 7 A22, Godstone Road 8366, 1 917 950 33 4% 1.19 1.23 F F 8 M25, J6 Slip Off to A22 12304, 2 2,586 2,661 74 3% 1.14 1.17 F F 9 D388, Warwick Wold Road 19758, 1 827 900 72 9% 1.05 1.14 F F 10 A25, Godstone Road 8959, 2 1,214 1,310 96 8% 1.06 1.14 F F

Table C5: Scenario 5 – top 10 worst performing links (ranked by RFC and LOS) and compared with Scenario 1

Appendix D

Tables showing those highway links forecast to experience the largest deteriorations in Level of Service

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentage 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario Increase in Minimum Scenario in Flow Level of 2a Level of Flow (vph) 2a (vph) Flow RFC 2a RFC (vph) Service Service

1 B2030, Godstone Road 19720, 1 478 507 29 6% 0.63 0.67 D E 2 B2030, High Street 19727, 2 470 496 26 6% 0.64 0.67 D E 3 B2030, Church Hill 19724, 1 461 480 19 4% 0.62 0.65 D E 4 D424, Hurst Green Road 19836, 2 252 326 73 29% 0.24 0.30 B C 5 A25, Westerham Road 8978, 1 426 440 15 3% 0.26 0.27 B C 6 B269, Titsey Road 8996, 2 322 335 14 4% 0.27 0.29 B C 7 B2208, Croydon Road 8339, 1 305 316 10 3% 0.27 0.28 B C 8 C66, Plough Road 17673, 2 306 315 9 3% 0.26 0.27 B C 9 c81, Chalkpit Lane 8983, 1 316 323 7 2% 0.26 0.27 B C

Table D1: Scenario 2a – highway links forecast to experience the worst deterioration in the Level Service compared with Scenario 1

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentage 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario Increase in Minimum Scenario in Flow Level of 2b Level Flow (vph) 2b (vph) Flow RFC 2b RFC (vph) Service of Service

1 B2030, Godstone Road 19720, 1 478 501 23 5% 0.63 0.66 D E 2 B2030, High Street 19727, 2 470 488 18 4% 0.64 0.66 D E 3 C66, Plough Rd 17673, 2 306 321 15 5% 0.26 0.28 B C 4 B2208, Croydon Road 8339, 1 305 313 8 3% 0.27 0.27 B C 5 B269, Titsey Road 8996, 2 322 326 5 1% 0.27 0.28 B C

Table D2: Scenario 2b – highway links forecast to experience the worst deterioration in the Level Service compared with Scenario 1

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentage 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario 3 Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario 3 Increase in Minimum Scenario 3 in Flow Level of Level of Flow (vph) (vph) Flow RFC RFC (vph) Service Service

1 B2030, Townend 19753, 1 416 688 273 66% 0.52 0.87 D E 2 C2028, West Park Road 17663, 2 493 763 270 55% 0.43 0.68 D E 3 A22, Eastbourne Road 19771, 1 980 1,163 183 19% 0.60 0.71 D E 4 B2029, Ray Lane 9033, 2 354 519 165 47% 0.45 0.66 D E 5 B2030, Church Hill 19724, 1 461 622 161 35% 0.62 0.83 D E 6 C67, Redehall Road 16148, 2 483 631 148 31% 0.62 0.81 D E 7 B269, Croydon Road 8987, 1 683 828 145 21% 0.58 0.70 D E 8 B2030, Godstone Road 19720, 1 478 617 138 29% 0.63 0.81 D E 9 B2030, Godstone Road 19721, 2 478 617 138 29% 0.63 0.81 D E 10 B2030, High Street 19727, 2 470 605 135 29% 0.64 0.81 D E 11 D387, Rockshaw Road 19759, 2 458 568 109 24% 0.58 0.72 D E 12 B2030, High Street 19727, 1 454 562 107 24% 0.59 0.73 D E 13 A22, Eastbourne Road 10122, 1 715 819 103 14% 0.62 0.70 D E 14 A22, Eastbourne Road 19772, 2 715 819 103 14% 0.62 0.70 D E 15 M25, J6 Slip Off to A22 12301, 2 1,370 1,460 90 7% 0.61 0.65 D E 16 B2037, Effingham Road 9005, 2 685 760 74 11% 0.59 0.66 D E 17 A264, Copthorne Road 9025, 2 705 754 48 7% 0.63 0.67 D E 18 B2030, Townend 19752, 2 288 528 240 83% 0.36 0.67 C E 19 C71, Smallfield Rd 17672, 2 236 616 380 161% 0.22 0.55 B D 20 D424, Hurst Green Road 19836, 2 252 472 219 87% 0.24 0.42 B C 21 C66, Plough Road 17673, 2 306 525 219 72% 0.26 0.45 B D 22 A25, East Hill 19862, 2 252 444 192 76% 0.23 0.39 B C 23 A25, Westerham Road 8978, 1 426 590 164 39% 0.26 0.36 B C 24 C71, Byers Lane 16156, 2 179 325 146 82% 0.18 0.30 B C 25 C83, Tandridge Lane 19840, 2 223 367 144 65% 0.19 0.31 B C 26 A25, West Hill 19803, 2 238 381 143 60% 0.21 0.34 B C 27 C83, Tandridge Lane 19814, 2 167 297 130 78% 0.16 0.28 B C 28 C83, Tandridge Lane 19816, 2 218 348 130 60% 0.19 0.30 B C 29 A25, Westerham Rd 8975, 2 216 344 128 59% 0.19 0.30 B C 30 C83, Tandridge Lane 19839, 1 198 326 128 64% 0.17 0.27 B C

Table D3: Scenario 3 – highway links forecast to experience the worst deterioration in the Level Service compared with Scenario 1

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentage 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario 4 Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Scenario 4 Increase in Minimum Scenario 4 in Flow Level of Level of Flow (vph) (vph) Flow RFC RFC (vph) Service Service

1 A22, Eastbourne Road 19771, 1 980 1,069 89 9% 0.60 0.65 D E 2 B2030, Godstone Road 19720, 1 478 566 87 18% 0.63 0.74 D E 3 B2030, Godstone Road 19721, 2 478 566 87 18% 0.63 0.74 D E 4 A22, Eastbourne Road 19790, 1 644 719 75 12% 0.57 0.64 D E 5 B2030, Church Hill 19724, 1 461 531 70 15% 0.62 0.71 D E 6 A22, Eastbourne Road 10122, 1 715 770 55 8% 0.62 0.66 D E 7 C67, Redehall Road 16148, 2 483 516 33 7% 0.62 0.67 D E 8 B2030, High Street 19727, 2 470 496 26 6% 0.64 0.67 D E 9 A264, Copthorne Road 9025, 2 705 730 24 3% 0.63 0.65 D E 10 A264, Copthorne Road 9528, 1 705 730 24 3% 0.63 0.65 D E 11 D424, Hurst Green Road 19836, 2 252 344 92 37% 0.24 0.32 B C 12 A25, Oxted Road 8967, 2 296 356 60 20% 0.25 0.30 B C 13 C69, Little Common Lane 8957, 1 295 346 51 17% 0.25 0.29 B C 14 C69, Pendall Road 10124, 1 295 346 51 17% 0.25 0.29 B C 15 C83, Tandridge Lane 19816, 1 297 344 47 16% 0.25 0.29 B C 16 D429, New Road 19857, 2 290 335 44 15% 0.25 0.29 B C 17 B2031, Dean Lane 8320, 2 288 323 34 12% 0.25 0.28 B C 18 B2031, Shepherds Hill 17601, 2 288 323 34 12% 0.25 0.28 B C 19 D408, Crowhurst Road 19847, 1 269 303 34 13% 0.24 0.27 B C 20 C66, Plough Road 17673, 2 306 335 30 10% 0.26 0.29 B C 21 A25, Westerham Road 8978, 1 426 453 27 6% 0.26 0.28 B C 22 B2030, High Street 19726, 2 189 215 26 14% 0.24 0.28 B C 23 B269, Titsey Road 8996, 2 322 347 26 8% 0.27 0.30 B C 24 C81, Chalkpit Lane 8983, 1 316 337 21 7% 0.26 0.28 B C 25 C74, Barrow Green Road 19824, 1 312 327 15 5% 0.26 0.28 B C 26 B2208, Croydon Road 8339, 1 305 320 15 5% 0.27 0.28 B C 27 C70, Scotts Hill 19766, 1 311 318 7 2% 0.27 0.27 B C

Table D4: Scenario 4 – highway links forecast to experience the worst deterioration in the Level Service compared with Scenario 1

Absolute 2031 Do- 2031 2031 Do- 2031 Percentage 2031 Do- 2031 Increase Minimum Scenario 5 Rank Name Link Ref. Minimum Flow Scenario 5 Increase in Minimum Scenario 5 in Flow Level of Level of (vph) (vph) Flow RFC RFC (vph) Service Service

1 B2030, Townend 19752, 2 288 518 230 80% 0.36 0.65 C E 2 C71, Smallfield Rd 17672, 2 236 631 396 168% 0.22 0.56 B D 3 C71, Byers Lane 17662, 1 236 586 350 149% 0.22 0.52 B D 4 C66, Plough Road 17673, 2 306 529 223 73% 0.26 0.45 B D 5 B2028, West Park Road 17663, 2 493 763 270 55% 0.43 0.68 D E 6 B2030, Townend 19753, 1 416 664 249 60% 0.52 0.84 D E 7 B2029, Ray Lane 9033, 2 354 571 217 61% 0.45 0.73 D E 8 a22, Eastbourne Road 19771, 1 980 1,192 212 22% 0.60 0.72 D E 9 C67, Redehall Road 16148, 2 483 643 159 33% 0.62 0.83 D E 10 B2030, Church Hill 19724, 1 461 617 156 34% 0.62 0.82 D E 11 B2030, Godstone Road 19720, 1 478 626 148 31% 0.63 0.82 D E 12 b2030, Godstone Road 19721, 2 478 626 148 31% 0.63 0.82 D E 13 b269, Croydon Road 8987, 1 683 824 142 21% 0.58 0.70 D E 14 , Rockshaw Road 19759, 2 458 584 126 27% 0.58 0.74 D E 15 a22, Eastbourne Road 10122, 1 715 840 125 17% 0.62 0.72 D E 16 a22, Eastbourne Road 19772, 2 715 840 125 17% 0.62 0.72 D E 17 b2037, Effingham Road 9005, 2 685 795 109 16% 0.59 0.69 D E 18 , Warwick Wold Road 19757, 1 422 530 108 26% 0.53 0.67 D E 19 b2030, High Street 19727, 2 470 578 107 23% 0.64 0.77 D E 20 a22, Eastbourne Road 19790, 1 644 729 85 13% 0.57 0.65 D E 21 b2030, High Street 19727, 1 454 518 64 14% 0.59 0.67 D E 22 a264, Copthorne Road 9025, 2 705 758 53 7% 0.63 0.67 D E 23 d424, Hurst Green Road19836, 2 252 470 218 86% 0.24 0.42 B C 24 a25, East Hill 19862, 2 252 458 206 81% 0.23 0.40 B C 25 c83, Tandridge Lane 19814, 2 167 355 188 113% 0.16 0.32 B C 26 a25, Westerham Road 8978, 1 426 598 173 41% 0.26 0.37 B C 27 c83, Tandridge Lane 19840, 2 223 382 159 71% 0.19 0.33 B C 28 c71, Byers Lane 17674, 1 167 315 148 88% 0.16 0.28 B C 29 a25, West Hill 19803, 2 238 383 145 61% 0.21 0.34 B C 30 a25, Westerham Rd 8975, 2 216 350 133 62% 0.19 0.31 B C

Table D5: Scenario 5 – highway links forecast to experience the worst deterioration in the Level Service compared with Scenario 1