1

2

Contents 1. Document Purpose ...... 5 1.1 What are spatial approaches ...... 5 2. Introduction ...... 6 3. Methodology ...... 7 Overview ...... 7 Division of District into areas...... 12 Identification of constraints ...... 13 Tier 1 Constraints ...... 13 Table 1 Tier 1 Constraints ...... 15 Tier 2 Constraints ...... 17 Table 2 Tier 2 Constraints ...... 18 Use of Settlement Hierarchy ...... 25 Settlement Hierarchy ...... 25 Table 3 – Settlement Hierarchy ...... 26 Use of the Settlement Hierarchy in Determining Spatial Approaches ...... 28 Table 4 – Settlements by Area ...... 29 The Broad Areas of Search ...... 31 4. Establishment of Approaches ...... 33 Approach 1 ...... 34 Approach 2A ...... 34 Approach 2B ...... 35 Approach 3 ...... 35 Approach 4 ...... 36 Approach 5 ...... 36 Approach 6 ...... 37 5. Approach 6 Discussion ...... 37 6. Potential development delivery of the approaches ...... 38 Approach 1 ...... 40 Approach 2A and 2B ...... 41 Approach 3 ...... 42 Approach 4 ...... 44 Approach 5 ...... 44 Objectively Assessed Needs ...... 45 Table 5 – Cumulative development delivery ...... 46 Graph 1 – Cumulative Development Delivery ...... 47

3

Housing Employment Balance ...... 47 7. Reasons for looking at several approaches ...... 48 8. Next Steps ...... 49 Appendix 1 ...... 50 Map 1 - Spatial Approaches Areas ...... 51 Map 2 – Tier 1 Constraints ...... 52 Map 3 – Tier 2 Constraints ...... 53 Map 4 – Tier 1 and Tier 2 Constraints ...... 54 Appendix 2 ...... 55 Appendix 3 ...... 60 Tier 1, 2 and 3 Constraints by Area ...... 61 Tier 1 Constraints by Area ...... 61 Tier 2 Constraints by Area ...... 67 Tier 3 Constraints by Area ...... 81 Appendix 4 ...... 88 Map 5 - Broad Areas of Search ...... 89 Appendix 5 ...... 90 Map 6 – Development Clusters Approaches 2A and 2B ...... 91 Map 7 – Development Clusters Approach 3 ...... 92 Map 8 – Development Clusters Approach 4 ...... 93 Map 9 – Development Clusters Approach 5 ...... 94

4

What does this document What this document does do? not do?

Identifies broad areas of search Does not identify specific sites to for meeting the development be made available for housing and needs of the District employment Shows where land use is less Does not allocate any land for constrained and could be development or say where considered available for development would go development Does not take account of the Green Considers a number of Belt policy constraint and does not approaches for the delivery of the change or suggest changing the development needs of the District boundaries to our towns and villages Sets out how many houses and how much employment land could be Does not say that one approach is delivered under different better than another approaches Uses a number of evidence bases that could be the subject of further refinement

?

1.2 This paper explores spatial approaches for the delivery of development needs. Development needs can simply be thought of as the needs for housing of all types and the need for land for employment use, of all types. An approach is a way of seeking to address those needs. This paper looks at a number of approaches. As the approaches are land use based an important part of the approach is where that land may be located in the district, or in other words, the spatial areas.

1.3 The approaches are explored through this paper and the following consultation to look at what strategy should be used to deliver an agreed level of development needs once the plan is in its final form. There are a large number of documents contributing to the Council’s thinking in terms of a Local Plan and spatial approaches are often referred within them. However, in some cases they can be referred to differently. Spatial approaches, spatial strategies, delivery strategies and approaches to the distribution of housing and employment are all referring to the same thing.

5

2.1 The purpose of this topic paper is to support the spatial approaches that the Council is consulting on under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)(England) Regulations 2012. This topic paper allows consultees and the Council to consider the reasonable alternatives for the Local Plan – Issues and Approaches for the district so that it can eventually make an informed decision about the approach preferred to deliver the Council’s vision and objectives. This topic paper therefore sets out an account of how the spatial approaches were arrived at, how each currently relates to the delivery requirements for housing and employment. In order to understand the sustainability of each approach the Sustainability Appraisal 2015 should be looked at.

2.2 This topic paper has been prepared in accordance with the latest evidence available to the Council at the date of publication. It is possible that the evidence may change and the planning situation may develop as the Local Plan progresses. In particular there is a real possibility that evidence in respect of housing, infrastructure and land availability will develop during the course of the Plan making process. Further, this topic paper is not designed to produce a preferred approach for the delivery strategy but instead to allow strategic approaches for the spatial distribution of development to be examined and consulted upon.

2.3 This document should be read in conjunction with the Regulation 18 Consultation Local Plan – Issues and Approaches, and associated evidences bases. It does not form and should not be interpreted as suggesting that the Council prefers or indeed accepts any of the approaches set out in this paper as being appropriate individually or collectively. The examination of the delivery strategies is to allow the Council to understand the types of choices that may be available in the delivery of a Local Plan, the development needs of the District, the National Planning Policy Framework and the legislative framework for plan making.

6

3.1 The approaches used in this paper stem from the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which is a document that sets out the Government’s planning policies for England, and how these are expected to be applied. The NPPF is supported by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which is an online library of detailed guidance that can be frequently updated, to reflect the latest Government stance. Paragraph 6 of the NPPF states that the “purposes of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development’. Guidance in the NPPF, when read as a whole, constitutes the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice for the planning system.

3.2 A Local Plan should make the most significant contribution to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF identifies three dimensions to sustainable development; economic, social and environmental and defines these as :

“An economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

A social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being;

And,

An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment, and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”.

The methodologies employed in arriving at potential delivery strategies have employed these principles of sustainable development whilst adopting an evidence led approach as required by paragraph 158 of the NPPF.

3.3 The NPPF also requires Local Planning Authorities to “boost significantly the supply of housing” in order to “ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period”. Further, beyond the provision of housing the

7

NPPF requires Local Plans to set a clear economic vision and strategy for their area. As such this spatial approaches topic paper reflects the objectives for the Local Plan agreed by the Council.

These are:

Economy and Tourism

1 Offer choice to provide employment and economic opportunities.

2 Support and retain businesses, whilst encouraging diversification.

Provide an opportunity for people to have skills necessary to stay within 3 the district and reduce the amount of out-commuting. 4 Support the development of tourism without damaging the quality of life for local residents.

Housing

5 Balance the supply of homes for mixed communities, which would provide both affordable units and opportunities to downsize. 6 Recognise and respond to the accommodation needs of the traveller community. Town Centres / Retail and Leisure

7 Support our town centres to be vital and viable through encouraging wider diverse retail and leisure opportunities as well as regeneration. Health and Wellbeing Assist in improving health and wellbeing through designing places and 8 spaces that give positive experiences with access to appropriate facilities and services. Design and Safety / Climate Change

9 Promote development that is accessible and safe, limiting the opportunity for crime. 10 Continue to support high quality design and consider higher densities where appropriate. 11 Mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change where possible. Natural Environment / Heritage

12 Maintain and enhance our mixed and diverse natural and historic environment, mitigating and discouraging negative use.

Flooding Ensure that any areas prone to flooding are suitably responded to and 13 minimised where possible, and that development minimises and mitigates flood risk in the district, incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) where possible.

8

Infrastructure

14 Support and encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport; considering the economic impact this may have on the district. Work with partners and service providers to maximise funding that will 15 assist in the delivery and improve accessibility of infrastructure, services and facilities necessary for the district.

3.4 The NPPF confirms the need to protect and therefore restrict development in areas of flooding :

“Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.” (NPPF paragraph 100).

3.5 The need to protect areas of high quality landscape and biodiversity;

“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

 protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

 recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

 minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

 preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and

 remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.” (NPPF paragraph 109)

“In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.” (NPPF paragraph 110)

3.6 The need to protect heritage assets;

“Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account:

9

 the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

 the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;

 the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and

 opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.” (NPPF paragraph 126)

3.7 The NPPF also places importance on the availability of land to deal with waste and for mineral extraction. These are matters dealt with by the County Council the waste and minerals authority. There are also other designations that restrict the availability of land, particularly in relation to significant transport infrastructure that create noise, danger or both. The Council has considered all the above (paragraph 3.4-3.7) as constraints on the availability of land and grouped them into three tiers. The methodology and rationale for this approach is set out below. These are not policy restrictions on land availability but are in the majority of cases physical or environmental restrictions. Policy designations, such as the Green Belt, are not considered to represent spatial constraints in respect of the delivery strategies set out in this paper where further consideration would be necessary following preference for a strategic approach.

3.8 Tandridge is a predominantly rural district and like many Surrey, Sussex and Kent authorities, has a variety of environmental constraints which may impact upon the ability to meet the development needs. Development need includes all form of development requirements but for the purposes of the delivery strategies this can be read to refer to housing and employment floor space requirements. Factors which are most prevalent in terms of physical/environmental constraint to the District include two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, large swathes of Ancient Woodlands and over 250 Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCIs). The Metropolitan Green Belt covers approximately 94% of the District and is a constraint derived from policy decisions rather than an environmental or physical constraint.

3.9 The PPG (ID:004-20140306) makes it clear that whilst the establishment of development needs should be unbiased, how an authority meets that need must consider relevant constraints including environmental constraints. This paper seeks to identify potential broad areas of search where development could take place, taking into account relevant constraints.

3.10 In order to determine the delivery strategies for consideration, this topic paper will run through the process used to derive those strategies out in the Local Plan. This paper shows how the District has been divided into areas so that a more focused understanding of the important elements within each can be explored. The division of the District into the areas has no meaning other than to provide a geographic grid within which the whole District can be considered for the purpose of this paper. This will assist in further more detailed consideration of a delivery strategy by having used the areas through this paper to describe some of the main

10 features of these smaller areas of land. This work could help inform refinement of the approaches by allowing the strengths and weakness of the areas to be considered.

3.11 The paper will then establish two tiers of constraint. These tiers of constraint are considered to be those that are of a significant extent to preclude the ability to deliver development needs strategically within them. This means that whilst small amounts of development (piecemeal and non-strategic) may still come forward in these areas of constraint they are not capable of providing for the strategic needs of the District over the period of the Plan. As such they are discounted as areas where it would be appropriate at this stage to consider strategic land requirements.

3.12 Having established areas where it would not be possible, due to high level constraints, to provide land for strategic levels of development it is then considered appropriate to look at whether the remainder of the District could deliver development needs. It is appropriate to undertake this without initially having regard to land availability as this paper is examining all approaches that might be available and through consultation seeking to subsequently develop a preferred approach.

3.13 The identification of broad areas of search for the delivery of development needs is undertaken in this paper by seeking to identify less constrained areas that are close to and contiguous with existing settlements identified within the settlement hierarchy. It also ensures, through use of the settlement hierarchy, that broad areas of search are examined in areas where there is a potential for sustainability objectives to be best met. It is, however, acknowledged that this will need to be properly tested through the sustainability appraisal at Regulation 19 stage. It is also important not to discount potential broad areas of search based on the current understanding of land availability. This is because the HELAA will be updated throughout the plan making process and therefore it is inappropriate at this stage, when only considering broad areas in the context of a number of approaches, to weigh favour on broad areas that at this stage indicate land availability.

3.14 Taking account of the settlement hierarchy, and thereby the broad areas of search that may be identified adjacent to them, this paper will set out the potential development delivery from a range of approaches. This will then be set against the HELAA information to give a potential delivery rate, again, as it is understood at the present time. As stated above this will change over time as the HELAA is updated.

3.15 It will be clear from the identification of the broad areas of search that there are areas of the District that are not constrained but are not near to existing settlements, or are near to existing settlements but those settlements are small and considered in their current form to be unsustainable. In order to ensure that all approaches for development delivery have been examined this paper will also look at large scale urban extensions and new settlements. This approach could include a new settlement where none currently exists and/or large scale settlement expansion beyond that which could be sustainably supported by the current settlement size and position within the hierarchy. This may be more appropriate later in the plan period.

11

3.16 The conclusion of this paper will show the possible spatial approaches and the level of development that could be delivered from them given the current understanding of land supply.

3.17 This paper does not set out any consideration of exceptional circumstances in relation to the Green Belt or draw any conclusions as to the potential for changes to the Green Belt boundary. It is not the purpose of this paper to set out whether there are or are not exceptional circumstances that necessitate amendments to the Green Belt boundary. That consideration is for the Local Plan taking account of all the evidence. As such the broad areas of search within this document do not take account of the policy restriction that the Green Belt boundary applies. Consideration of boundaries could only be made at a time when the delivery approach, or range of approaches, or hybrid approach for development delivery are clear. Only then can any consideration be given to whether there are exceptional circumstances that necessitate change to the Green Belt boundary. Such a decision is a policy decision.

3.18 Similarly the broad areas of search rely on settlement hierarchy and not the status of the settlement as part of the Green Belt policy context. This paper makes no comment nor gives any direction as to whether settlements are or are not inset from the Green Belt. As such it is considered that the delivery of broad areas of search located within the Green Belt will rely, if they are to be delivered, on the establishment of exceptional circumstances necessitating a boundary change and the insetting of the settlement to which they are adjoined.

3.19 This topic paper and the spatial approaches derived from it does not seek to make policy judgements in respect of the Green Belt as it is not making assumptions and judgements about what would amount to a policy decision, the green belt being a policy restriction with a number of aims rather than a land use designation. This can only occur in the Local Plan.

3.20 The District has been divided into spatial areas to allow areas of land, smaller than the District as a whole, to be considered in light of the constraints. The purpose of producing smaller areas for study was to enable an assessment of the land so that broad areas of search for potential development could be identified.

3.21 Eighteen land areas have been identified. These have been established by placing a simple grid over the District and making adjustments to ensure that conurbations are contained within a single area as far as is possible. The objective of splitting up the District in this way is to ensure that all areas are considered and that any approaches identified within them can be considered in greater detail based on the strengths and weaknesses of each area. Sustainability appraisal of any approaches would cover the cross area interactions. Appendix 1 shows the areas.

12

3.22 The Council’s approach in developing spatial approaches has been to first consider and understand the barriers to development taking account of the land designations, existing uses and constraints set out in the NPPF and those of a more local nature. In order to understand the distribution and spatial impact of these constraints the Council has split them into three separate tiers. The first two tiers set out the significant barriers to development being national designations or existing land uses. The third tier acts not so much as a barrier but as a descriptor for geographical locations and other land use categorisations that do not fall within tiers 1 or 2. This is to establish an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of areas. The constraints identified only relate to those relevant to Tandridge District.

3.23 The Council undertook a consultation on the technical validity of the tiered constraints (tiers 1 and 2) under its Duty to Cooperate Framework. The consultation representations and the Council’s responses are set out at appendix 2. None of the responses disagreed with the approach to grouping constraints or, in the majority of cases, to the tiers of constraints identified. The Council’s position in respect of those consultation responses is also set out in appendix 2. The Council also considered a tier 3 strengths and weaknesses assessment to help establish a descriptor of areas to better understand their relative merits for delivery of development needs, and if taken forward, could be used to form policy requirements that must be considered before development can be built.

3.24 Tier 1 constraints are those that the Council consider to be a significant barrier to the delivery of development. This will be either because they are major constraints for which it is not possible to identify mitigation, land use allocations within other plans, hazardous installations or nationally established protection designations. The considerations that led to their inclusion within this tier and the pragmatic approach that may be needed when considering the impact on the spatial approaches are set out in Table 1. These are weighted as the highest level of constraint to the delivery of development needs.

3.25 As set out above the meeting of development needs must take account of environmental constraints. The NPPF seeks to restrict development in certain areas as set out in paragraph 3.4 to 3.7 and as such it is very much considered to be an appropriate first stage sifting of land suitability approaches on a district wide strategic level.

3.26 This is a high level process and will identify those areas which the Council will then interrogate further in line with other evidence based studies and information. A pragmatic approach was taken on reflection of the size of area being considered and the extent to which the constraint applied, e.g. a small mineral area within a much larger expanse, could not reasonably be considered as an overwhelming constraint. However, if the area was significantly affected by floodzone 3b, then the prospect of

13 development would be negligible and therefore it is not reasonable to consider it further.

14

Tier 1 (‘Red’ Constraint) – This tier is categorised by constraints deemed to be a significant risk/barrier to the prospect and delivery of development. If an area were to be impacted by this constraint it is highly unlikely to be considered as an approach at this time. Constraints identified under this tier are generally large in scale.

Constraint Consideration Aspects where a pragmatic approach/consideration may be needed. Floodzone 3 Areas affected by Flood Whilst in policy terms there is zone 3 will be discounted more weight attributed to the on the basis that as areas avoidance of development in of notable flooding, flood zone 3b (1 in 20 year), development in these the Council feel that there are areas should be avoided. significant risks with 3a also. Furthermore, discounting However, the exclusion of these areas responds to areas at this time does not the threats of climate preclude the prospect of small change for the longer scale development where term, whilst negating the appropriate and justified. increased risks of difficulties with financial viability of sites.

The Council recognise that areas affected by flood zone 3a are within urbanised locations and those in 3b are predominantly greenfield.

Landfill/Minerals Site allocations for Surrey It is recognised that where are set out in the Surrey sites may be coming to the Waste and Minerals end of their life could be Development Framework considered for development in (Surrey Minerals Plan the later years of the plan 2011 and Waste Plan period. However, the 2008). These plans form information available at this part of the wider time is not clear in this regard Development Plan for the and it is therefore less ‘risky’ Council and must to discount it as a potential therefore take account of area than make assumptions the allocations and over deliverability. policies held within them. However, those areas where Therefore, where a site only small allocations or part has been identified or is in of the sites are located, when active use and is of a considered in the context of notable scale, the Council the wider area will be will discount that area as considered pragmatically and

15

one which could be not automatically considered considered for as a clear ‘red’ constraint as development. they could be accommodated through design etc.

Significant These are sites where Hazardous hazardous substances are Installations present in sufficient quantities to warrant the need for consent from the county council, as the planning authority, such as nuclear/large scale power stations etc. The Health and Safety Executive have established consultation zones in respect of these installations to identify areas where particular types of development should normally be precluded.

No sites under this category exist within, or on the edge of the district that need to be considered.

Area of Both the High Weald and The Council acknowledge that Outstanding Surrey Hills AONB cover there are caveats to Natural Beauty areas of the District and development within the AONB (AONB) as a national designation as set out at Paragraph 116 of and there is a national the NPPF. However, it is likely presumption against that should these caveats be major development in applicable, we would have these areas. As such, the needed to demonstrate that AONB would be other approaches had failed in considered a ‘red’ arriving at an alternative. As constraint, and discounted such, this will be reviewed as as a location for the plan making process development in the Local evolves. Plan. Area of There has been Same as the Area of Outstanding commitment from Natural Outstanding Natural Beauty Natural Beauty England to review the comment above. Review Candidate boundaries of the Surrey Areas Hills AONB boundary and this is anticipated to take place in 2017. As such, the Council recognise the work of officers and Surrey County in defining

16

potential areas to be included within the AONB which have been assessed to share the characteristics of the current designated areas. Therefore, for this exercise, the AONB candidate areas will carry the same weight as the existing Surrey Hills to ensure that the Local Plan does not conflict with this in the long term.

Ancient Woodland Ancient woodlands are an A pragmatic approach will be irreplaceable asset and as taken on reflection of the such, no mitigation could scale of the ancient woodland legitimately offset the in the wider area, given that it impact of development may be possible to design should it take place. around small sections of the Therefore, the Council woodland. However, large would not consider an areas would be excluded from area which contains consideration. ancient woodland, as a potential location for development.

3.27 Map 2 in appendix 1 sets out the spatial distribution of tier 1 constraints. These constraints are highlighted in red and cover 35.3% of the District. As can be seen they cover significant portions of the northern third of the district, particularly along the east to west M25 corridor and stretching north into the Woldingham valley. There is also a wide distribution of these constraints across the remaining two thirds of the district but in a more sporadic and pocketed fashion. There are two main exceptions to this description in the form of flood risk across some of the centre of the district and the area of the High Weald AONB in the south east corner. The constraint areas are shown in red.

3.28 Tier 2 constraints are those that the Council consider to be a significant barrier to the delivery of development but where there is a more reasonable chance of mitigation, although that mitigation may be at a significant cost or could likely only be delivered over a significant timescale. The considerations that led to their inclusion within this tier and the pragmatic approach that may be needed when considering the impact on the spatial approaches are set out in Table 2. These are weighted as the second level of constraint to the delivery of development needs.

17

3.29 It is considered that for the purposes of establishing broad areas of search in order to allow the consideration and assessment of spatial approaches these constraints should be considered a significant impediment to the selection of those broad areas of search. They represent areas that whilst not in the same category as tier 1 do nevertheless in essence preclude the consideration of areas covered by these designations for development in the context of the plan period.

3.30 The tier 1 and tier 2 constraints have however been kept separate and distinct for a number of reasons. Firstly to ensure it is entirely transparent how the constraints maps have been constructed. Secondly to ensure it is possible to disaggregate levels of barriers to development should it be necessary to consider more radical approaches (should they be deemed reasonable alternatives) and thirdly to acknowledge that there is a difference between large scale strategic constraints and spatially smaller constraints. The constraint areas are shown in orange.

Tier 2 (‘Orange’ constraint) - This tier is categorised by constraints associated with legitimate designations and that may prohibit development or may make it difficult to overcome/mitigate but do not automatically prevent it from taking place and in some cases could be incorporated and/or avoided. Constraints under this tier are generally small, but more sporadic in nature and/or concentrated to a specific location.

Constraint Consideration Aspects where a pragmatic approach/consideration may be needed.

Sites of Special SSSI’s are nationally Further consideration of Scientific Interest designated sites which SSSI’s and the application of (SSSI) protect areas for their the 500m buffer1 would take environmental significance place through the narrowing in terms of biodiversity, and development of wildlife and geology. As approaches. such, development is prohibited from taking place within a designated SSSI, and the impact of surrounding development to the SSSI is a material consideration in the planning process. Therefore, at the strategic level of approaches development, SSSIs will not discount an area from

1 (Environment Impact Regulations, 2011 (as amended))

18

further consideration unless they are significant enough in size and in a location which would result in an unsustainable pattern of development and/or result in a wider area being ruled out.

Scheduled Scheduled monuments are Any site that contains a Monuments structures of special scheduled monument would interest or significance, have to take the monument and range from earthworks and its setting into account if to ruins to buried remains. development were allocated. However, these This would be noted as a monuments are constraint on a site appraisal. predominantly located in sporadic locations and when considered in the wider strategic context, are relatively small in scale. The presence of this constraint will, at the strategic level of approaches development, not discount an area from further consideration unless they are significant enough in size and in a location which would result in an unsustainable pattern of development and/or result in a wider area being ruled out.

Sites of Nature SNCIs are designated in The Council will utilise the Conservation response to their most up to date information on Interest (SNCI) environmental value legitimate SNCI’s which are including biodiversity and either designated or other nature conservation. recommended to be There are currently over designated through the 150 designated SNCI’s ongoing works being within Tandridge District conducted on behalf of the and work is ongoing to Council. identify whether others exist. SNCI’s are generally small in size and sporadically located. The

19

presence of this constraint will, at the strategic level of approaches development, not discount an area from further consideration unless they are significant enough in size and in a location which would result in an unsustainable pattern of development and/or result in a wider area being ruled out.

Regionally Locally designated for their Any site that contains RIGs Important geological value, limited would have to take this into Geological Sites RIGS are identified in the account if development were (RIGS) District. However, RIGS allocated. This would be noted that exist are limited in size as a constraint on a site and sporadically located. appraisal. The presence of this constraint will, at the strategic level of approaches development, not discount an area from further consideration unless they are significant enough in size and in a location which would result in an unsustainable pattern of development and/or result in a wider area being ruled out.

Surface Water Surface water flooding is a Any site that contains surface Flooding legitimate consideration for water flooding would have to all Districts and Boroughs take this into account if and therefore must be development were allocated. considered in approaches This would be noted as a development in terms of constraint on a site appraisal. where existing issues could be exacerbated. However, by its nature surface water flooding relates to areas which already have a built form and is unlikely to be a constraint which would rule out consideration in its own

20

right, unless it were a notable area with existing severe flood issues that would be significantly impacted upon by development. Even then, mitigation measures could be employed should development take place.

Local Nature LNRs are locally Any site that contains a LNR Reserve (LNR) designated areas of land would have to take this into under Section 21 of the account if development were National Parks and Access allocated. This would be noted to the Countryside Act as a constraint on a site 1949. LNRs are appraisal. designated for the contribution they make to local wildlife preservation. The presence of this constraint will, at the strategic level of approaches development, not discount an area from further consideration unless they are significant enough in size and in a location which would result in an unsustainable pattern of development and/or result in a wider area being ruled out.

Gatwick Public Public Safety Zones are Safety Zone areas of land at the end of runways established at the busiest airports in the UK, within which certain planning restrictions apply. These aim to control the number of people on the ground at risk in the unlikely event of an aircraft accident on take-off or landing. The PSZ in Tandridge is located in the South West of the District and due to

21

the safety exclusions is unlikely to be considered a legitimate area for development in a strategic context and would need to be determined in accordance with guidance and policy issued by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department for Transport.

Historic Parks and There are numerous Any site that contains historic Gardens historic parks and gardens park and garden would have in this District and these to take this into account if are included on the development were allocated. National register with This would be noted as a Historic England and constraint on a site appraisal. include a variety of national Trust sites. Therefore, they need to be protected for their historic value and development is prohibited on them. The presence of this constraint will, at the strategic level of approaches development, not discount an area from further consideration unless they are significant enough in size and in a location which would result in an unsustainable pattern of development and/or result in a wider area being ruled out.

Local Green Whilst there are no Any site that contains local Spaces identified Neighbourhood Plans green spaces would have to through adopted in the District at take this into account if Neigbourhood present, a number are development were allocated. Plans continuing with momentum This would be noted as a and could be a constraint on a site appraisal. consideration in the development of approaches. However, the presence of this constraint will, at the strategic level of

22

approaches development, not discount an area from further consideration unless they are significant enough in size and in a location which would result in an unsustainable pattern of development and/or result in a wider area being ruled out.

LEQ noise Whilst noise mitigation is Any site that contains LEQ contours (over 60 predominantly dealt with noise coutours would have to decibels) through design and take this into account if decision-taking, the South development were allocated. Western area of the District This would be noted as a is in proximity to Gatwick constraint on a site appraisal. and on the direct flight path. As such, it is prudent to have regard to the area most fundamentally impacted by noise within the vicinity and which would be much harder to mitigate against should development take place. In accordance with paragraph 123 of the NPPF, the Council would consider anything over 60decibels as a legitimate constraint in considering areas during approaches development. However, due to the abilities of design, noise, in its own right, will not be used as a constraint to discount an area from further consideration.

Common Land Common land and village Any site that contains common and Village greens are predominantly land and village greens would Greens covenanted for their have to take this into account protection and therefore if development were allocated. would not be a viable This would be noted as a consideration in constraint on a site appraisal. approaches development due to the unlikely event

23

that development would be delivered. However, the presence of this constraint will, at the strategic level of approaches development, not discount an area from further consideration unless they are significant enough in size and in a location which would result in an unsustainable pattern of development and/or result in a wider area being ruled out.

3.31 Map 3 in appendix 1 sets out the spatial distribution of tier 2 constraints. These constraints are highlighted in orange and cover 23.7% of the District. As can be seen they cover more contiguous and less fragmented areas than tier 1.

3.32 Map 4 in appendix 1 shows both tier 1 and tier 2 constraints plus the current 7km zone for the Ashdown Forest SPA.

24

3.33 The Council has used the tier 1 and tier 2 constraint geographic information to identify broad areas of search for meeting development needs. Given the need to ensure that development is directed to areas that either are or can be made sustainable, broad areas of search have initially been considered adjacent to existing settlements in accordance with the settlement hierarchy as directed by the tier 1 and 2 constraints. The work on the settlement hierarchy has set out the current position in respect of the functioning of the settlements, although this does not take account of the enhancement that may be necessary or be derived from development in those areas. As such in considering the locations of the broad areas of search the Council has given consideration to land availability derived from the tier 1 and tier 2 constraints and the settlement hierarchy.

3.34 This section should be considered in conjunction with the paper “Tandridge District Settlement Hierarchy 2015” as that paper deals in detail with the policy background and methodology employed for determining the settlement hierarchy.

3.35 One piece of evidence that is key to preparing the Local Plan and understanding the District is a Settlement Hierarchy. The importance of a Settlement Hierarchy or review of settlement2 function is essential for Local Authorities to demonstrate that proper thought and reflection has been given the role played by settlements in an area. This is important for the consideration of the spatial approaches as it helps inform the Council about those settlements that can service additional development needs, those that could better serve development needs subject to appropriate planning of development needs and those that could support better infrastructure subject to meeting development needs.

3.36 The success and sustainability of a settlement is a ‘two-way’ process and whilst the primary understanding of a settlement is its need to offer services and facilities to communities and businesses, settlements must also be supported in return. This may be by regular use of the shops that are located there to keep retail active and viable, to properly and notably utilise the public transport that is provided to ensure it remains, to install the right infrastructure, such as road improvements and broadband, and to sustain their function so that they remain attractive places to live and do business..

3.37 In considering the spatial approaches this topic paper has considered the settlement hierarchy as proposed in the Settlement Hierarchy 2015 paper. The evidence proposes a hierarchy of settlement function as set out in Table 3.

2 For clarity and consistency, prior to reaching any conclusions of a hierarchy, this document will refer to all areas as settlements.

25

Category Name Settlement 1 Urban settlements Caterham on the Hill Caterham Valley Hurst Green Limpsfield Oxted Warlingham Whyteleafe

2 Semi-rural service Godstone settlements Lingfield Smallfield

3 Rural settlements Bletchingley Blindley Heath Dormansland Felbridge Old Oxted South Godstone South Nutfield Tatsfield Woldingham

4 Limited and unserviced All other settlements settlements

Settlement Hierarchy Description 3.38 The settlement hierarchy has been established by examining the services provided in each settlement, the links to other settlements together with sensitivity testing for population. Below for information are the category descriptions from the settlement hierarchy. Although none of the settlements in the District can be considered ‘urban’ when compared against those such as Croydon or Bromley, Tandridge does have settlements which are large enough and sufficiently developed to be considered urban in the local context. The word ‘urban’ is therefore used in this context.

Urban Settlements

These settlements provide access to the highest concentration of services and employment within Tandridge and are considered to be the most sustainable.

Urban settlements provide homes for the majority of residents in the District and contain a good range community facilities.

People travel to these areas from other settlements within the District and from over the borders to make use of the greater retail offer, leisure facilities, education and health provisions that are located here. These areas are connected to Strategic Road Networks and have good access to a wide range of public transport including rail stations with links to London.

26

Semi-rural Service Settlements

Whilst smaller than urban settlements, these stand-alone areas cater comfortably for day to day local needs of the community and provide access to a range of other facilities including community, recreational, education and health facilities.

These settlements are characterised as semi-rural in nature due to their size, character and population which is generally higher than the majority of settlements in the District but notably lower than the urban settlements.

Settlements under this category are connected to a Strategic Road Network and a range of public transport which enable those from the more rural and unserviced settlements, to access provisions as needed.

Rural Settlements

Rural settlements vary in size and character but all share a basic level of day to day services for residents. Neither of these settlements has their own health care facilities but does have a notable and often specialised, retail offer.

Community facilities and public house provision is particularly good in these areas. However, the majority of services and facilities are gained from other settlements and there is more of a reliance on the need to travel than those settlements listed as semi-rural and urban.

Although there is variable access to public transport and the Strategic Road Network across these settlements, this is considered to be a necessity for residents to access other areas. Further, where rail stations exist, this can place pressure on limited provisions due to the influx of commuters.

Limited and Unserviced Settlements

These settlements have very little or no service provision. In most cases these settlements are remotely located and take the form of a very small cluster of homes, or a sporadic dispersal of properties across a wider rural area.

Services in these areas are so limited that day to day needs must be met from elsewhere.

Access to public transport and even the Strategic Road Network is such that there is overt reliance on private transport and travel to meet needs is generated by necessity rather than choice.

These settlements are not considered to be sustainable.

27

3.39 The settlement hierarchy indicates the existing settlements where there is an underlying level of sustainability that could enable, with or without settlement enhancement, delivery of development needs. It is recognised that the enhancement of settlements’ services and function could be viewed as an opportunity though this would be balanced against other factors such as settlement identity and character.

3.40 The identified broad areas of search are restricted to those settlements classes as category 3 and above to ensure that development need is considered on the edge of settlements considered to hold sustainable credentials as identified in the settlement hierarchy. It is understood that there is a wide variety of service provision available in individual settlements but it is important to consider all potentially viable options at this stage so that deliverability issues can be explored through the sustainability appraisal and further work on infrastructure provision. There is an exception to this approach. Godstone falls within category 2 of the proposed settlement hierarchy, which is a departure from the hierarchy established in the 2008 Core Strategy, Policy CSP1. However, in terms of delivery of development needs within the settlement boundary it has not been included in approaches 2A and 2B, as described below. This is because Godstone is not currently inset from the Green Belt and as such it is premature to use it within approaches that consider development delivery in non-green belt locations.

3.50 Table 4 below sets out the areas and it focuses on the position within the settlement hierarchy of the main settlements within each of the 18 areas that the district was split into for the purpose of this paper. It also lists any secondary settlement also within the area. The descriptor allows for an understanding of other settlements outside the area, or indeed outside the District, that contribute services to the area. The contribution of settlements outside the district can be seen in Appendix 3 of the “Tandridge District Settlement Hierarchy 2015”.

28

Area Primary Centre Main Other Additional Description within Settlement Centres within Hierarchy Settlement Hierarchy (if any) 1 Category 1 - Urban Category 4 – The main urban centres of Caterham Settlements Limited and Hill, Valley and Whyteleafe located (Caterham on the Unserviced here. Services are also gained from the Hill, Caterham Settlements close proximity to areas outside of the Valley, Whyteleafe) (Chaldon) district such as Croydon. All settlements inset from the green belt. Availability of the widest range of services.

2 Category 1 - Urban Category 4 – Main urban area of Warlingham. Use Settlements Limited and of services at Hamsey Green, Caterham (Warlingham) Unserviced and Croydon. The settlement is inset Settlements from the green belt. (Chelsham and Farleigh)

3 Category 3 - Rural Category 1 - Urban Woldingham is at the centre of this Settlements Settlements area with a small part of Warlingham (Woldingham) (Warlingham) urban area to the north. The central area of Woldingham is inset from the green belt. Woldingham likely reliant on services provided in several nearby centres, Warlingham, Oxted and Caterham 4 Category 3 -Rural None Tatsfield is located in this area. Settlements Immediately adjacent to the settlement (Tatsfield) of Biggin Hill to the north, which is a designated Local Centre in the Bromley UDP. 5 Category 3 - Rural Category 3 – Rural South Nutfield and the lesser served Settlements (South Settlements Nutfield are located in this area in the Nutfield) (Nutfield) far west of the district. The northern part of this area is adjacent to the settlement of Merstham within Reigate and Banstead Borough

6 Category 3 - Rural None Bletchingley is located in this area in Settlements this area. (Bletchingley)

29

7 Category 2 – Semi- Category 4 – Godstone is located in this area. It is a Rural Service Limited and similar distance from Oxted and Settlements Unserviced Caterham. (Godstone) Settlements (Tandridge)

8 Category 1 - Urban Category 3 - Rural The main urban conurbation of Oxted Settlements (Oxted) Settlements (Old (including Limpsfield and Hurst Green) Oxted) Other settlements in this area are Limpsfield Chart and Old Oxted which Category 4 - have lesser services and therefore likely Limited and use Oxted for most facilities. Unserviced Settlements (Limpsfield Chart)

9 Category 4 - Limited None Outwood is the only settlement located and Unserviced in this area with closest centre with Settlements services being Smallfield to the south. (Outwood)

10 Category 3 - Rural None The rural settlement of South Godstone Settlements (South is in this area. Being located on the A22 Godstone) corridor it has good access to a number of other centres. 11 Category 3 – Rural None The rural settlement of Blindley Heath Settlements is in this area. Being located on the A22 (Blindley Heath) corridor it has good access to a number of other centres.

12 Category 4 - Limited Category 4 - Crowhurst Lane End and Crowhurst are and Unserviced Limited and both located in this area. It is likely that Settlements Unserviced they draw services from Oxted and (Crowhurst Lane Settlements Lingfield. End) (Crowhurst)

13 None None Sporadic very small hamlets likely to be served by Lingfield or Edenbridge, located within Sevenoaks District Council.

30

14 Category 2 – Semi- Category 4 - Smallfield located to the west of this rural Service Limited and area in close proximity to Horley Settlements Unserviced located within Reigate and Banstead (Smallfield) Settlements Borough. A number of hamlets, (Burstow) including Horne, within the remainder of the area. 15 Category 2 – Semi- None Lingfield located to the east of this Rural Service area. A number of hamlets within the Settlements remainder of the area. Edenbridge in (Lingfield) Sevenoaks District Council. 16 Category 4 - Limited None Domewood unserviced settlement with and Unserviced a number of hamlets including Burstow Settlements and Shipley Bridge in the vicinity. (Domewood) Copthorne within Mid Sussex District lies to the south. It is classed a Category 2 ‘Larger Villages’ in their pre- submission District Plan. Access to the A264 provides road access to Felbridge and East Grinstead in Mid Sussex District and to the west Crawley. 17 Category 4 - Limited None Felbridge is located in this area and is and Unserviced likely significantly serviced by East Settlements Grinstead in Mid Sussex District (Felbridge) 18 Category 3 - Rural Category 4 - Dormansland rural serviced settlement. settlements Limited and Proximity to Lingfield means sharing of (Dormansland) Unserviced services. Dormans Park and hamlet of Settlements Felcourt have proximity to both (Dormans Park) Lingfield and East Grinstead.

3.51 In order to assess the relative merits of delivering development needs through a number of potential approaches, it is necessary to identify the broad areas of search to be considered for meeting development needs. The identification of broad areas of search does not imply that land in those locations is appropriate for meeting development needs or that it would be allocated as part of a Local Plan. The broad areas of search are identified to enable the Council to consider a number of reasonable alternatives for the delivery of development needs in the context of settlement hierarchy and significant constraint. This will allow the Council to consider all the reasonable alternatives3 before determining the preferred approach for development need delivery. It must also be acknowledged that a number of the

3 For a Local Plan to be “sound” it has to be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. To meet the “justified” test the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. (NPPF paragraph 182)

31 approaches are not mutually exclusive and therefore this paper will assist in considering whether a Local Plan should use a hybrid of approaches for development needs delivery.

3.52 Map 5 in appendix 5 shows the distribution of broad areas of search. The identified broad areas of search are shown with stars. These stars do not indicate a geographical extent and merely give an indication of a broad area where development needs may be met. The stars determine broad areas rather than specific sites of areas of land. The centre point of a star does not represent any spatial preference. The methodology for generating current expected development needs delivery from these areas of search is set out in more detail below, however, as a general point it looks at deliverable sites within the general vicinity of the broad area of search and then any site contiguous or with the potential to be contiguous with those identified sites from the HELAA. The existing HELAA has not been an influence on the location of the broad areas of search.

3.53 Map 5 only seeks to identify those areas where there is a minimum of substantive constraint and a proximity to a settlement listed as category 1 to 3 inclusive in the settlement hierarchy.

3.54 The tier 3 constraints were derived from examining all the constraints considered by planning applications, constraints to land use that would require amendments to the location of infrastructure (such as sewage treatment works, high pressure gas/oil mains and high voltage electricity lines) and agricultural land classifications. This tier also includes consideration of the settlement hierarchy, which will be dealt with further below.

3.55 The constraints therefore considered within tier 3 are as follows:

 Special Protection Area 7km buffer4

 Sites of Special Scientific Interest 500m buffer

 Listed buildings

 Potential Sites of Nature Conservation Interest

 Sewerage Treatment Works

 Sewerage Treatment Works 400m buffer

 Agricultural Land Grade

 Conservation Areas

 440kv Overhead Electricity Lines

4 The 7km zone around the Ashdown Forest SPA is the current zone of influence supported by Natural England. This support continues despite the Court of Appeal deciding that W ealdon District Council had, in applying the 7km zone in a policy, failed to give sufficient consideration of alternative strategies to protect the forest from visitor disturbance.

32

 Floodzone 2

 High pressure piplines (Gas/Oil)

 Historic Landfill

3.56 The assessment of each area against the tier 3 constraints identified above is set out in appendix 3. The consideration is in the form of a descriptor giving a qualitative indication of the performance of the area against the constraint. The performance of the area in respect of tier 3 constraints takes no account of the tier 1 and 2 constraints.

3.57 By analysing the areas in this way it is then possible to consider the land not impacted by the tier 1 and 2 constraints against the overall descriptor. This allows an understanding of how the area performs as a whole irrespective of facilities and infrastructure available from existing settlements within the settlement hierarchy.

3.58 The descriptor analysis of the areas under tier 3 constraints show that in all areas there are constraints that will impact on the delivery of development needs and/or the specific locations reasonably available to meet such needs. No area, in terms of tier 3, is devoid of development related issues. This analysis feeds into the consideration of the broad areas of search and so assists in later consideration of the delivery potential of approaches once selected later in the plan making process.

3.59 The assessment against tier 3 constraints has had no impact on the identification of the broad areas of search because they are all capable of mitigation. Tier 3 does provide context to the broad areas of search to inform future work.

4.1 In the absence of a regional or county level strategic planning strategy for the delivery of development needs the method of determining approaches has been to put together a hierarchy of approaches that allows, in essence, the consideration of contribution from both urban and rural areas. The stepping and cumulative nature of the suggested approaches allows the issues raised by each approach to be examined.

4.2 Notwithstanding the lack of a regional planning strategy the district does lie within the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership area (C2C). It falls within the Gatwick Diamond sub-region of the C2C. C2C has published their strategic economic plan (SEP) in March 20145. The SEP supports growth in a limited number of targeted strategic locations. The spatial priorities set out in the SEP seek to identify the areas where C2C expect there to be the most current growth or where there is potential for the creation of the most capacity for future growth.

5 http://www.coast2capital.org.uk/images/Coast_to_Capital_SEP_FINAL_for_March_v14_without_Anne xes.pdf

33

4.3 The C2C SEP identifies the East Surrey M25 Corridor as one of the targeted strategic locations for delivering existing, albeit latent growth, or building increased capacity for future growth. The SEP identifies Caterham and Oxted as being capable, with targeted intervention, to deliver 17,000sqm of commercial floor space and thereby 1300 new jobs.

4.4 In the absence of an existing planning led strategy the Council relies on the requirements of the NPPF as set out in section 3.2, essentially to ensure sustainable patterns of development, to significantly boost the supply of housing and make sufficient provision for economic growth. The approaches that have been developed are a method of testing the overall ability to meet development needs and specifically to give the opportunity to understand the development need delivery that covers incremental strategies. It is important to understand and have examined all these approaches to underpin future decisions on the approach or hybrid approach that the Council may determine for the Local Plan. In other words it would not be possible to reject an approach that has not been considered and understood.

4.5 The approaches are set out below with a description of each. Approach 6 is discussed separately in section 5 as it is not part of the central set of approaches and it is being considered to give the plan flexibility. The ability of each approach to meet development needs is set out in section 6.

4.6 These approaches are not just for the delivery of housing but also take account of economic development needs. In each case the approach is to intensify existing employment sites. The differences in this regard in respect of the approaches below is where spatially the intensification would take place; approach 2a and 2b see employment land use intensified in the inset settlements whereas the remainder of the approaches see existing employment land intensified in all settlements within the settlement hierarchy. This is essentially because the Economic Needs Assessment shows that commercial land needs can be accommodated with in the District without the needs for additional land subject to existing site use intensification.

This is less an approach and more a baseline position against which to compare the other approaches and to ensure that the current delivery is taken into account. It includes all development that has been granted planning permission and is considered deliverable at the time of the publication of the most recent Housing Supply Statement in April 2015 and includes provision since 2013. It is not a realistic approach as it does not plan to meet development needs through the plan period. It does however ensure that all the other approaches include all the development already in the system from 2013, which is the start of the plan period. Essentially this means that all deliverable development with planning permission since 2013 is included in the supply for this plan.

This approach is closely related to the existing Local Plan approach. It sees delivery as occurring from sites within the Category 1 and 2 settlements albeit as now

34

Godstone is not included because it is not inset from the Green Belt. This approach does not consider any potential changes to the policy position in this respect.

The delivery rate has been established on a site by site basis having considered actual yields as part of the work on the HELAA.

The overall housing delivery from this approach includes the delivery derived from approach 1.

In respect of commercial land this approach is for the intensification of use on existing employment sites within the Core Strategy category 1 and 2 settlements.

Approach 2B This approach is also closely related to the existing Local Plan approach. It sees delivery as occurring at average rate of 70 dwellings per hectare (dph) on sites within the existing Category 1 and 2 settlements as now identified in the Settlement Hierarchy 2015, with the exclusion of Godstone (Caterham, Oxted, Warlingham, Whyteleafe, Woldingham, Lingfield and Smallfield). Godstone is not included because it is not inset from the Green Belt. This approach does not consider any potential changes to the policy position in this respect.

The 70 dph delivery rate, for the purposes of calculating potential housing delivery, is an assumption based on the current policy position as set out in Policy CSP19 of the Core Strategy 2008. Policy CSP19 splits development density into 3 categories; (a) Rural Area, which includes Woldingham, Lingfield and Smallfield, (b) built up areas, Caterham, Oxted, Warlingham and Whyteleafe, and (c) the defined town centres of Caterham and Oxted. This approach assumes a change in policy approach to boost the supply of housing by pushing the densities to the upper end of the town centre levels set out in CSP19, (a) 30 to 40 dph, (b) 30 to 55 dph, and (c) 40 to 75 dph. It is acknowledged that in some cases, on individual sites, densities in excess or below these figures have been delivered in the category 1 and 2 settlements. However, at this stage, when we are considering approaches it is considered appropriate to test a density that would potentially indicate a development comprising flats and housing, acknowledging that an all housing site is likely to fall below 70 dph and an all flatted scheme may well exceed 70 dph. It is considered that 70dph is an effective balance between the two. This is maximising the inset areas whilst not making any changes to settlement boundaries.

The overall housing delivery from this approach includes the delivery derived from approach 1.

In respect of commercial land this approach is for the intensification of use on existing employment sites within the category 1 and 2 settlements.

Approach 3 This approach includes development needs delivery from approaches 1 and 2A. To these approaches it adds delivery from sites identified in the HELAA that fall within the broad areas of search that have been identified on the edge of the category 1 and 2 settlements as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy 2015.

35 the broad areas of search that have been identified on the edge of the category 1 and 2 settlements as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy 2015.

The additional potential development in this approach, additional to that identified in approach 1 and 2A, is derived from sites that have been submitted as part of the HELAA and have been established as being deliverable and developable. The HELAA has identified the likely development yield from these sites. In this approach the potential housing supply is made up of sites within the identified broad areas of search around these settlements where the site is adjacent to the settlement or is a site that is contiguous/adjacent to a site that is adjacent to the settlement.

In respect of commercial land this approach is for the intensification of use on existing employment sites throughout the whole district.

This approach includes development needs delivery from approaches 1 and 2A. To these approaches it adds delivery from sites identified in the HELAA that fall within the broad areas of search that have been identified on the edge of the category 3 settlements as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy 2015.

The additional potential development in this approach, additional to that identified in approach 1 and 2A, is derived from sites that have been submitted as part of the HELAA and have been established as being deliverable and developable. The HELAA has identified the likely development yield from these sites. In this approach the potential housing supply is made up of sites within the identified broad areas of search around these settlements where the site is adjacent to the settlement or is a site that is contiguous/adjacent to a site that is adjacent to the settlement.

In respect of commercial land this approach is for the intensification of use on existing employment sites throughout the whole district.

This approach includes development needs delivery from approaches 1, 2A, 3 and 4. This could be classed as a maximum capacity approach because it includes site within the existing inset settlements plus development on the edges of all settlements that have been established as providing some degree of service provision as set out in the settlement hierarchy.

The additional potential development in this approach is derived from sites that have been submitted as part of the HELAA and have been established as being deliverable and developable. The HELAA has identified the likely development yield from these sites. In this approach the potential housing supply is made up of sites within the identified broad areas of search around all settlements considered to have some degree of sustainability where the site is adjacent to the settlement or is a site that is contiguous/adjacent to a site that is adjacent to the settlement.

36

In respect of commercial land this approach is for the intensification of use on existing employment sites throughout the whole district.

This approach looks at the planning of a larger scale development, such as a new settlement or extensions to existing villages and towns on Garden City principles. This approach is advocated within the NPPF (paragraph 52) as sometimes being the best way of achieving a supply of new homes. The NPPF suggests looking at whether this option provides an opportunity as the best way of providing sustainable development. As such it is included as part of the plan making considerations at this early stage.

5.1 Approach 6 sits separate from the other approaches described in this paper. Approach 6 does not build on the position identified in approach 5. The purpose of examining this approach is twofold; first to consider an approach that does not rely on the existing settlement hierarchy and secondly, by doing so, to examine an approach that could be delivered later in the plan period because it requires either a new settlement or significant settlement enhancement. This approach would therefore be suitable for giving the plan additional flexibility should development needs change significantly within the plan period, such as due to decisions in respect of Gatwick. It could also be used, if considered appropriate, as part of a hybrid approach to meeting development needs in conjunction with other approaches set out in this paper.

5.2 Approach 6 merely raises the potential for a new town or sustainable large urban extension to meet development needs. As such this approach does not propose a location, set out a potential development yield or rely on the progression of the settlement hierarchy.

5.3 Spatial options for this approach would require significant infrastructure investment and provision to be viable. It is for this reason that this approach is only relevant to later periods in the plan and cannot be used as a central approach to delivery of development needs without the support of other approaches. It would therefore have to form part of a hybrid approach if it was considered appropriate. It is currently considered that the delivery of this approach is restricted to beyond year 10 of the plan period, i.e.2023.

5.4 The NPPF allows plans to consider broad strategic locations for such an approach to be delivered in the later periods of a plan. This is different from the identification of specific developable sites as set out in paragraph 47 bullet point 3 of the NPPF.

37

5.5 In this paper we are referring to ‘sustainable/super’ urban extensions (SUE) to differentiate from the settlement additions that would form some of the spatial options set out in the other approaches (3, 4 and 5).

6.1 The assessment of all approaches assumes a 20 year plan period commencing in 2013 and running until 2033.

6.2 This section does not replace nor repeat the Sustainability Appraisal (SA). This paper sets out the broard spatial locations for delivering development needs and it then assesses the ability of those broad spatial locations to deliver development needs in accordance with a number of approaches. The SA, which is ongoing and developing throughout the local plan making process, looks at this context at the performance of the approaches against the sustainability framework. It is the SA that looks at the likely effects of the approaches set out in this paper and gives consideration to mitigating adverse effects and maximising beneficial effects. Whilst the SA report is not required until the publication of a draft version of the Local Plan it is constantly updated in accordance with thinking on the development of the local plan to ensure that at-every-step sustainability is considered and reasonable alternatives explored.

6.3 The work in the SA means that this paper does not look in detail at the very likely impacts and requirements of existing settlements if a particular approach is pursued. It is not the function of this paper or indeed this stage of the plan making process to seek to address those matters.

6.4 As has already been stated the Economic Needs Assessment does not envisage any need for additional land for employment uses to be designated through the plan for the plan period. This is provided that existing employment sites can be intensified through the Plan. There are a number of factors that could prevent this being achieved either through policy objection or due to the nature of the current permitted development regime. As such if intensification cannot be achieved as required it is possible that employment land could be needed and this would impact on the delivery of residential development needs. This has not been factored into the calculations as this stage.

6.5 Also not factored into the development needs delivery calculations at this stage is consideration of the green belt. As has been previously set out it is not the purpose of this paper to make judgements or recommendations in respect of the green belt. That is the remit of other work and is subject to consultation. What is important is that the approaches in this paper serve to present information that would be essential in making decisions about the green belt in the future particularly in respect of whether any exceptional circumstances exist to make any changes to green belt boundaries as informed by an assessment. This paper therefore does not pre-judge the outcome of the green belt assessment and nor does it present any consideration of the circumstances that might necessitate a change.

6.6 A further factor in respect of the green belt is that in approaches 3, 4 and 5 not only would it be necessary to consider the green belt boundary to achieve the

38 delivery calculations set out below (including the employment land delivery) it would also be necessary to give consideration to insetting the adjacent settlement from the green belt. As with paragraph 6.5 this is beyond the scope of this paper as similarly it requires a consideration of exceptional circumstances and necessity. Again, decisions on these matters could have a significant impact on the delivery of the development set out in this paper under the approaches.

6.7 As previously referred to, the delivery calculations are based on current understanding of deliverable sites as assessed through the HELAA. The HELAA can change either by sites being removed or further sites being put forward for assessment. As such the precise sites and development delivery is less important than considering the potential for the broad areas of search to deliver development as part of the range of approaches being considered.

6.8 As can be seen there is clearly a significant amount of refinement to be undertaken in moving the development of this Plan from this stage to one that sets out the preferred delivery approach and works up all the implications and solutions that are needed to deliver that approach.

6.9 Transport modelling has been undertaken to see at this stage whether there is a road network capacity issues that would rule out any of the approaches. This modelling can be seen in the paper Strategic Highway Assessment Report, which has been prepared by Surrey County Council, who is the Highway Authority for the district. The modelling has looked at all the approaches set out in this paper. Whilst it is a high level strategic examination and would still require individual larger sites to have specific transport assessments undertaken it has not identified impediments to delivery that undermine the quantum of development derived from the approaches in this paper. Indeed the transport modelling used higher development figures than contained in the current approaches in this paper due to refinement of the HELAA since the modelling started. The transport modelling is therefore a worst case approach. The development shown in the approaches examined in this paper is lower than that used for the modelling but has a very similar spatial distribution. As such the conclusions of this modelling remain relevant. The end result is that none of the approaches are curtailed in terms of potential development need delivery by unacceptable impacts on the highway network.

6.10 The transport modelling identifies a number of areas where effects would be experienced and in some cases this effects would be some distance from the source reflecting the cumulative effects of development. This is the case for approaches 3 and 5 based on peek weekday morning flows. It is important in the future consideration of these approaches and the respective merits of each to understand that transport impacts are different for each approach. For example, the transport modelling shows approaches 3 and 5 have a greater impact on rural roads and B- roads than other approaches with approach 3 having a less impact on Godstone but a greater impact on Caterham. This detailed consideration is part of the iterative process picked up within the SA, but will also be considered more when the Local Plan moves to the next stage and more detailed information can be assessed and transport modelled, and consideration can be given to potential mitigation measures.

39

6.11 The information below, set out against each approach, shows how the potential development needs delivery has been derived and the amount of development that could come forward. To recap this paper has considered tier 1 and tier 2 constraints together with the settlement hierarchy to identify broad areas of search. The work below takes those broad areas of search and groups the sites from the HELAA that are considered deliverable and developable into clusters. These clusters then form an overall potential development need delivery total based on the assessments set out in the HELAA. The location of the clusters on the maps is indicative and does not represent a precise location or extent of a cluster of HELAA sites.

6.12 The purpose is to look at how each approach performs in meeting the development needs so that informed decisions can be made in selected an approach for the local plan as it moves forward.

6.13 Development needs delivery is expressed in numbers of dwellings. There is no conclusion possible in respect of the types, size or appearance of these dwellings. The figures do not include development that would be derived from development not derived from the HELAA sites, i.e. windfall sites. It is considered that at the present time it is not possible to determine the amount of development that could come forward from windfall sites.

6.14 The cluster maps show three development types, residential, commercial and mixed.

This approach relates to existing development commitments and is not a spatial approach. The delivery number is derived from the published Housing Supply Statement in April 2015 and therefore includes provision since 2013. There is no cluster map for this approach.

In accordance with the Housing Supply Statement this approach delivers 1531 dwellings as follows:

40

Approach 2A and 2B The clusters are shown on the Map 6 in Appendix 5. These are clusters within the existing urban areas that are inset from the Green Belt. The development derived from having looked at these two approaches is 805 dwellings and 3.2ha of employment land in the case of Approach 2A and 1872 dwellings and the same 3.2ha of employment land (as the employment land does not change between the approaches) in Approach 2B.

These delivery figures have to be added to the delivery set out in approach 1 giving a total of 2336 dwellings and 3.2ha of employment land for approach 2A and 3403 dwellings and the same 3.2ha of employment land for approach 2B.

These two closely related approaches look at the same clusters twice to derive the delivery rates at the different densities. The delivery against the clusters is set out below.

Approach 2A

41

Approach 2B

Approach 3 The clusters are shown on the Map 7 in Appendix 5. These clusters are those previously shown under approach 2A with additional clusters for land identified by the HELAA on the edge of the category 1 and 2 settlements from the Settlement Hierarchy 2015. The development derived from this approach is 7038 dwellings and 87.4ha of employment land. To this it is necessary to add the delivery set out in approach 1 giving a total of 8569 dwellings and 87.4ha of employment land. The cluster numbers are not consistent between the approaches.

42

43

The clusters are shown on the Map 8 in Appendix 5. These clusters are those previously shown under approach 2A with additional clusters for land identified by the HELAA on the edge of the category 3 settlements from the Settlement Hierarchy 2015. The development derived from this approach is 2364 dwellings and 87.4ha of employment land. To this it is necessary to add the delivery set out in approach 1 giving a total of 3895 dwellings and 87.4ha of employment land. The cluster numbers are not consistent between the approaches.

The clusters are shown on the Map 9 in Appendix 5. These clusters are those previously shown under approaches 2A, 3 and 4. This approach shows the maximum delivery level as currently understood. The development derived from this approach is 8597 dwellings and 87.4ha of employment land. To this it is necessary to add the delivery set out in approach 1 giving a total of 10,128 dwellings and 87.4ha of employment land. The cluster numbers are not consistent between the approaches.

44

6.15 As previously stated the NPPF requires councils to plan to “boost significantly the supply of housing” in order to “ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period”. It is therefore important, even at this early stage of the plan making process to equate how each of the approaches set out above performs in respect of the meeting the aspirations of the NPPF for housing delivery. Clearly in considering the approaches further as the plan develops it is necessary to ensure that the plan seeks to meeting the objectively assessed housing need as far as is possible yet still consistent with the other policies in the NPPF. So whilst the approaches in this paper take account of significant land use constraints, and makes no presumptions in respect of policy constraints, it is considered that it remains appropriate to understand the extent of the housing delivery challenge in respect of each approach. This can be done by comparing the notional delivery against the current understanding of the objectively assessed needs for housing.

6.16 The objective assessed need for housing is dealt with in depth in the paper, “Objectively Assessed Housing Need”. This recommends, at this stage in the plan making process, that the Council considers a total housing need for the period 2013

45 to 2033 as being 9400 houses. This is OAN figure is subject to refinement through the plan making process.

6.17 This does not assume that the deliver strategy for the plan will be capable of meeting the OAN. Indeed given the green belt location it would be wholly surprising if a delivery strategy could be found to meet full needs, however, it is necessary to ensure that consideration has been given through this consultation as to the difference in delivery from different approaches. This will allow an informed decision to be made as to the delivery strategy and if necessary the mitigation for under delivery through, where possible, duty to cooperate opportunities.

6.18 Table 5 sets out the performance of each approach against the OAN. The same information is presented in graph 1 below the table. The graph shows the OAN as a 100% need of 9400 dwellings and plots that against the potential delivery from the approaches (shown in blue). What this indicates is that currently only approach 5 meets (indeed exceeds) the full objectively assessed need. The use of sites within the category 1 and 2 settlements, at higher than the prevailing densities, could provide between 20% and 30% of the identified need. Approach 3, which uses land within the broad areas of search on the edges of the category 1 and 2 settlements provides near 90% of the identified needs by focusing additional development to the most sustainable locations within the district. Approach 4 provides slight more dwellings than approach 2B and not quite twice that produced from approach 2A by looking at land on the edges of the category 3 settlements. Approach 5 combines all the approaches to give a total cumulative delivery figure that exceeds the OAN. The addition of a windfall sites allowance, i.e. an allowance for sites that could not be predicted to come forward, would potentially alter these figures.

Approach Cumulative Unmet OAN OAN without windfall (9,400 (470pa)) 1 1132 -8268 9400 2A 2336 -7064 9400 2B 3403 -5997 9400 3 8569 -831 9400 4 3895 -5505 9400 5 10128 +728 9400

46

100% 90% 80% 70%

60% Unmet OAN without 50% windfall (9,400 (470pa)) 40% Cumulative 30% 20% 10% 0% S1 S2A S2B S3 S4 S5

6.19 It is acknowledged that at this time none of these approaches take account of the green belt or the potential to deliver timely infrastructure to support them. As such it is the potential variations in delivery of development needs that are important across the approaches rather than the actual numbers at this stage. It is necessary when giving consideration to these approaches to take account of all their relevant merits. This will allow full consideration of preferred approach(es) and to give proper policy consideration to the green belt test of exceptional circumstances when giving consideration to a delivery strategy.

6.20 Housing and economic growth are closely linked, with housing necessary to support job growth whilst making use of or improving sustainable patterns of transport. The SEP, when considering the East Surrey M25 Corridor does not seek to set out housing delivery but it is clear that in seeking to achieve the job growth aims there is a need for balanced housing delivery. The SEP sets out a number of the issues to be addressed in delivering growth within the M25 Corridor, namely:

 Transport connections within and between key business locations

 Congestion at key junctions and at intersections with the national motorway network, including the M25 and M23

 Improvements to the strategic rail network, including the North Downs and Brighton Main Lines

47

 The renewal of the main town centres which host significant clusters of businesses many of which host regional, national and international Headquarters

 Unlocking specific sites for new housing and employment space and the intensification of existing sites.

6.21 The SEP strategy within Tandridge is directed to Oxted and Caterham and seeks to assist the renewal of those town centres so they can once again host clusters of businesses and jobs capable of being service by the immediate surrounds. This highlights the importance of consideration a range of delivery approaches particularly in relation to these 2 main settlements within the District. The SEP is not a statutory planning document but is a material consideration in plan making.

6.22 It is of course necessary to ensure that there is a balanced approach to housing and employment. Any imbalance has the potential to fail to provide workforce and/or to form new unsustainable patterns of travel. As such whilst the work on establishing an objective assessment of need and the strategic housing market assessment looks at scenarios that include employment need and the impact on housing needs, a separate paper will be needed looking specifically at the delivery of appropriate balance.

7.1 This paper has shown how the Council has used three broad criteria to establish broad area of land search for delivering development needs and the potential development delivery from these areas based on the existing understanding of land availability and delivery. This paper has used exclusionary factors comprising constraints that have been grouped together in tiers. The paper has then set out discretionary criteria in the form of the descriptors of the tier 3 constraints. The proposed settlement hierarchy has been used to identify broad areas of search.

7.2 This approach of understanding broad areas of search for land to meet development needs has allowed, at this early stage, the analysis of the delivery potential of a Local Plan by matching broad areas of search with the potential delivery derived from the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment.

7.3 As explained at paragraph 3.17 this approach has not considered the Green Belt, at this stage, as a delivery constraint. This approach allows an understanding of total potential capacity in advance of drawing conclusions in respect of the Green Belt Assessment. To do otherwise would be premature and would fail to demonstrate that the plan making process had looked at all potential approaches. There is little doubt however that in determining a preferred or hybrid approach and delivery strategy that there will be further constraints to delivery once consideration is given on a spatial basis to the existence or otherwise of exceptional circumstances that would necessitate amendments to green belt boundaries.

48

7.4 The testing of six approaches, plus a further one to account for changes in circumstances, seeks examine and consult on the future opportunities and challenges associated with the vision and objectives of this emerging plan. The approaches also allow later consideration of the phasing of any preferred approach over the life of the plan.

8.1 The approaches set out within this paper should be tested through consultation. There are a number of questions to answer through initial consultation and these are set out in the Plan. The responses will need to be considered before a delivery strategy in the form of a preferred approach can be selected. This must be done bearing in mind that it may be that no single option or approach is appropriate and a hybrid of approaches may be necessary.

8.2 Some of the appropriate questions when considering approaches and their deliverability are:

 How deliverable is the approach?  Is there the commitment of the delivery partners needed to make it happen?  Is there time within the plan period to implement the approach?  Is it likely that the approach will not be fully implemented for one reason or another?  What might go wrong with this approach’?  Is the approach flexible enough to accommodate changing circumstances such as revisions to housing needs and site viability?  Does the approach give rise to any cross-boundary issues that will need to be considered early on?  Should these approaches be considered stand-alone, should they be considered as hybrids, should they be considered as phased approaches and if so in what order of priority?  Do the exceptional circumstances exist for the delivery of approaches that rely on green belt land and does that land still serve a green belt purpose effectively?

8.3 Once the Council has considered all of the consultation responses it will need to work on a Plan. The spatial approach to the plan will be informed by the approaches set out in this document together with other evidence as it develops. The next version of the Plan would need to turn the approach to meeting development needs into a policy framework that delivers development need and is clear about how, when and where that will occur.

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Respondent Comment Tier Council’s Proposed Response Changes Environment “We support the inclusion 1 Noted None Agency of flood risk and in particular of floodzone 3 as being a tier 1 constraint” “We would endorse the 1 Noted None approach advocated within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that all development is prioritised away from flood risk areas, the aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding.” “Where there are no 1 Noted None reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 1, local planning authorities allocating land in local plans or determining planning applications for development at any particular location should take into account the flood risk vulnerability of land uses and consider reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 2, applying the Exception Test if required. Only where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zones 1 or 2 should the suitability of sites in Flood Zone 3 be considered, taking into account the flood risk vulnerability of land uses and applying the Exception Test if required.” “We note that the Not The approach None constraints of Attributable set out has a development do not to a Tier number of highlight river and stream biodiversity corridors, and that (Tier 1 – designations essential minimum buffers Ancient placed within to watercourses, as green Woodland) tier 2 and tier

56 corridors for wildlife, are 3. It is not agreed that in mentioned. Habitat buffers the majority of along watercourses are cases the important for the edges of conservation and many improvement to water watercourses framework directive water will be bodies and biodiversity covered by within the district. Whilst flood risk the flood risk constraint constraint. will help to protect many Smaller watercourse corridors, watercourses, ensuring that greenfield and therefore development is set back smaller areas from the edge of the river, of potential some smaller biodiversity watercourses may not be are unlikely to covered by flood risk be a mapping. We would like to significant see the importance of consideration watercourse corridors for in looking at wildlife given a higher strategic profile. This is particularly approaches. the case where there is ancient woodland and wet woodland also along the river.” “We consider the WFD Not Noted None could also be a constraint Attributable to development. WFD to a Tier dictates that there should be no deterioration of water bodies, and modifying water bodies through development could cause a deterioration in status. An example of this could be re-sectioning a river or building concrete walls along the banks, where there is currently a natural bank. Aspects where a pragmatic approach/consideration may be needed’ could consider the exemptions in the legislation.  All practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on

57

the status of the body of water;  The reasons for those modifications or alterations are specifically set out and explained in the river basin management plan required under Article 13 and the objectives are reviewed every six years;  The reasons for those modifications or alterations are of overriding public interest and/or the benefits to the environment and to society of achieving the objectives set out in paragraph 1.” “We note that the majority Not Noted. Can None of the Source Protection Attributable be mitigated. Zones lie to the north of to a Tier the district as well as Principal Aquifers. More to the south there are secondary aquifers. These could be constraints to certain types of development particularly those that might be potentially polluting. We would recommend that developers follow our guidance, Groundwater protection: Principles and practice (GP3). “

“Lack of adequate Not Noted. Can None Sewerage Infrastructure Attributable be mitigated. can be a major constraint to a Tier that can result in pollution incidents particularly to watercourses. The local planning authority needs to ensure that adequate infrastructure in place to cope with the additional volumes of foul and waste waters from new developments in

58

consultation with sewerage undertakers (Thames Water and Southern Water)” “Water is one of our most Not Noted. None precious natural Attributable resources, and the South to a Tier East of England is “Water Stressed”, so we are keen to ensure water is used wisely. As such, water conservation techniques should be incorporated into the design of all new development. If domestic appliances are to be provided in the new property(ies), the applicant is asked to consider installing water and energy efficient models/devices.” Natural “We are however 2 It is agreed that None England concerned that the SSSIs SSSIs represent an important in your Local Authority designation area are only deemed to resulting in the be “orange” or second tier potential constraints. We strongly restriction of believe that the SSSIs development in them or in close within your area should be proximity to identified as “red” them. However, constraints in this each SSSI is Constraints paper. The different in terms National Planning Policy of its ecology and therefore Framework (NPPF) there is the emphasises the possibility that importance of SSSIs at mitigation or paragraph 118 as follows: inclusion within “proposed development development is or possible. As on land within outside a such it is SSSI likely to have an considered that adverse effect on a SSSI they should (either individually or in remain a tier 2 combination with other constraint. developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the

59 impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of SSSI” (highlighting added).”

60

Area Flood 3a Flood 3b Landfill/Minera Ancient Current AONB ls Woodland AONB candidate 1 There are There are There is one Ancient The area There are no flood no flood historic landfill Woodland is contains a two AONB zones in zones in site adjacent to scattered in substantial candidate this area. this area. Caterham significant portion of areas Reservoir, close concentration the Surrey within this to the urban s throughout Hills AONB. area. One area in the this area, This is located centre of the including stretches to the area. large areas along the west, and around southern the other Gravelly Hill in part of the to the east the south area around west. primarily but Gravelly also extends Hill. inwards adjacent to the urban area of Caterham in the east of the area. 2 There are There are There are a few There is a There is no An AONB no flood no flood historic landfill significant AONB in this candidate zones in zones in sites located in amount of area. area is this area. this area. the far south Ancient present in east of the area Woodland in the south around Worm's this area, eastern Heath and Nore particularly in corner of Hill. the north the area, around extending Farleigh Golf north to Course and in Chelsham the centre Court around Holt Road. Wood.

61

3 There are There are There are Ancient The AONB There are no flood no flood several landfill Woodland is covers a no AONB zones in zones in site scattered located in substantial candidate this area. this area. around this moderate part of this areas here area, including concentration area, as much of a substantial s across this stretching the area is site at area. The north already Tillingdown largest areas between AONB. farm. A quarry are located Caterham is located in the west of and far south of the Woldingham Woldingham area below the train station and along Surrey Hills and around the south of ridge. Lumberdine the Surrey Wood and Hills. Pitchers Wood. 4 There are There are There is a small Ancient Over half of There are no flood no flood area of historic Woodland is this area is no AONB zones in zones in landfill located prevalent in covered by candidate this area. this area. north of Rag the south of the Surrey areas here Hill. this area with Hills AONB. as much of another large The the area is concentration remainder is already at Park Wood. mostly taken AONB. up by the settlement of Tatsfield. 5 Much of The North of the There is a The Surrey An AONB the area is southern A25 the area is small amount Hills AONB candidate covered and almost totally of Ancient covers a area covers by northern covered by Woodland in small area to the area Floodzone areas have waste and this area the north, north of 3b, substantial mineral mostly extending South however Floodzone designations located west over the Nutfield where the 3b relation to both of Nutfield nature stretching floodzone coverage. historic and and east of reserve. to the west crosses In the existing usage. South south of into south this Nutfield. Bletchingle Nutfield mostly y. there is covers some Redhill parts Aerodrom covered e, to the by 3a. north, this is the area around Mercers Lake and Nutfield Marsh.

62

6 There is There is a There is an Ancient The Surrey A large no flood small area active sand Woodland is Hills AONB AONB zone 3a in of extraction pit located in this covers a candidate this area. Floodzone located in the area in moderate area covers 3b located north eastern moderate portion of much of in the area south of concentration the north of the southern the M25. in the s, the area southern area north west predominantl stretching part of the around corner of the y in Kitchen down south area, Nutfield area there is a Copse and of the M25. closely Brook. large area south east of following relating to Bletchingley. the historic landfill settlement / minerals boundary extraction. of Bletchingle y. 7 A small Some There are There are A small area An AONB area of parts of several areas several of AONB candidate Floodzone this area here relating to designated covers the area covers 3a is contain historic mineral Ancient very north much of present Floodzeon extraction or Woodlands western tip the across the 3b across waste disposal. throughout of this area southern south of the fields This includes this area, just north of portion of Godstone. to the the Oxted including Godstone. the area, south east sandpit and two significant south of of large areas concentration the A25 Godstone. adjacent to the s in the very stretching south. north east west. and south west. 8 A Part of this There is a large There is a The Surrey The area Floodzone area is sand extraction large area of Hills AONB contains 3a covers covered by pit at the Ancient covers much two small a small a Moorhouse Tile Woodland of the north AONB part of the Floodzone works and a cover the eastern candidate north of 3b. This is historic High Chart corner area, areas, one Oxted mostly in designation and several stretching to the west stretching the area covering part of smaller areas down past of Old southwar west of Tandridge Golf scattered the town of Oxted, and ds. Hurst Course. throughout. Oxted. another Green Another large small area running area is south east south, present in the of although south at Limpsfield there is Staffhurst Chart. also a Woods and small part Honesland surroundin Wood. g the Crooked River west of Staffhurst Woods.

63

9 There is A small There is only There is a There is no There are no flood area in the two small areas scattering of AONB in this no AONB zone 3a in north is relating to Ancient area. candidate this area. covered by historic Woodland areas here. a minerals prevalent Floodzone extraction or throughout 3b around waste disposal this area, Salfords located in the including Stream. Timber Yard at significant Green Lane. concentration s at Outwood Common and Hangdog Wood. 10 There is A flood Lamb's Business Ancient There is no An AONB no flood zone 3b Park was Wooodland is AONB in this candidate zone 3a in area runs previously the present area. area covers this area. north to site of historic throughout a small part east, and landfill. There this area in of this area there is are some moderate in the also a historic areas of concentration north. narrow landfill around s. area Postern Gate running farm. south from South Godstone. 11 There is Nearly half There are two There is a There is no There are no flood this area Is small areas small amount AONB in this no AONB zone 3a in taken up west of Blindley of ancient area. candidate this area. by Heath woodland areas in floodzone associated with present this area. 3b. This is historic waste dotted a narrow disposal or around this strip mineral area, for heading extraction. example at south Moat adjacent Coppice, to Blindley Buyers Wood Heath that and Blue expands Anchor into a wide Wood. area north of Lingfield.

64

12 There is A narrow There are two There is There is no There are no flood strip of small areas Ancient AONB in this no AONB zone 3a in Flood Zone associated with Woodland area. candidate this area. 3b is waste disposal dotted areas in present and minerals around this this area. around extraction, one area, the Crowhurst being the largest Stream former Brick concentration running works and the s located in south and other a small the north west. site south of west around Crowhurst Lane Brick Maker's and the Railway Wood. Line. 13 There is A There are two There is a The High There are no flood substantial areas relating sporadic Weald no AONB zone 3a in Flood zone to waste amount of AONB candidate this area. 3b splits disposal, one Ancient covers a areas in this area in south of the Woodland small area in this area. half former located the south around the Crowhurst mainly in the below Moor River Eden Brickworks and south and Lane. running the other a north of the west to small area area, with East north of Haxted small towards Mead farm. amounts in Edenbridg the centre. e. 14 Flood Flood Zone There are two Ancient There is no There are Zone 3a 3b is small areas Woodland is AONB in this no AONB covers present in related to scattered area. candidate part of the the very waste disposal throughout areas in settlemen south or mineral this area in this area. t of western extraction in the north, Smallfield. corner and the west and east and to the east of the south. south area. around the stream near Croydon Barn Lane 15 There is There is a There are three There is a There is no There are no flood significant small sites small amount AONB in this no AONB zone 3a in amount of relating to of Ancient area. candidate this area. Flood zone historic landfill Woodland in areas in 3b areas / minerals this area with this area. here, located in the the most which north and north significant stretch west of this concentration around area. in the south. Lingfield from the north, east and south.

65

16 There is There is a There are 5 Baker's Wood There is no There are no flood small areas relating is a large area AONB in this no AONB zone 3a in amount of to historic of Ancient area. candidate this area. Flood Zone landfill / Woodland in areas in 3b south minerals this area. this area. of located in this Other smaller Burstow. area in the areas are centre and west dotted and east. throughout. 17 There is A narrow A large sewage An area of There is no There are no flood amount of treatment Ancient AONB in this no AONB zone 3a in Flood Zone facility is Woodland is area. candidate this area. 3b splits located south located at areas in most of of Hobbs Beaver Farm this area. the Industrial within the eastern Estate. There is industrial half of this also another estate. There area. area adjacent are also to Laylands additional Farm. areas around Park Wood and The Gills to the south. 18 There is A narrow There are two Ancient The High There are no flood strip of small areas of Woodland is Weald no AONB zone 3a in Flood Zone waste disposal prevalent AONB candidate this area. 3b is here, one being throughout covers areas in present the sewage this area, with nearly half this area. here treatment plant large of this area running and the other a concentration stretching south from small area to s in the south west as far Lingfield the east. and south as the towards east. outskirts of Dormans Dormanslan Park. d.

66

Area SSSI Scheduled SNCI Surface Water Local Gatwick Biodiversity RIGS Historic Local Green LEQ noise Common land Monuments Flooding Nature Public Opportunity Parks and Spaces in contours and village (30yrs) Reserve Safety Areas Gardens Neighbourhood (66db) greens Zone Plans

1 Quarry War Coppice Manor Park, Eight Surface water No No Opportunity No No There are no No Kenley Common Hangers Camp and Acre Wood, flooding is areas have current adopted is located on the SSSI exists Fosterdown Foxburrow Fields, predominantly been neighbourhood border with south of Fort are both Black Bushes, associated and identified plans for this Croydon. Chaldon located in the Fosterdown Wood located in along the area. Westway and the south of the and Tupwood Scrubs existing built eastern edge Common and North area either forms and of the area Town End Downs side of settlements. As into Recreation Way. Gravelly Hill. such, this would Warlingham Ground are need to be a and in the far located in close consideration south eastern proximity to one should any area section of the another in the be identified for area main urban area future associated of Caterham on development with the the Hill. and AONB. subsequently built out.

2 No. Earthworks in In the far Northern Surface water Blanchmans No Opportunity No No There are no No School Common both Holts section of the area on flooding is Farm LNR is areas have current adopted and Mill Common Wood and the district border; predominantly directly been neighbourhood are most closely near Puplet Wood; Frith associated and adjacent to identified plans for this located to the Chelsham Wood, Crab Wood located in southern along the area. urban area of Place Farm. and Coldblows, existing built Warlingham. southern Warlingham. Frylands Wood & forms and edge of the Chelsham Chapel Hill. At the settlements. As area in Common, Little centre of the area and such, this would proximity to Farleigh Green, closest to Warlingham need to be a Warlingham. Slines Green and is Great Farleigh consideration Worms Green are Green, Little Park should any area also located in Wood and Greatpark be identified for this area in more Woods and the future rural locations. Gripes. On the far development eastern edge of the and

67

area is Owls Wood. In subsequently the far south of this built out. area are Slines Oak and Highlands Farm.

3 A variety of The Bronze Lunberdene and Surface water No No A large BOA A small Titsey Park is There are no No Old Common is SSSI's are Age Ashen Hill, Nore Hill flooding is has been area of the located on current adopted located in the located in enclosure at and Long Hill are all predominantly identified in Oxted the boundary neighbourhood south of the area this area all Nore Hill is located in the north of associated and this area Downs in of area 3 and plans for this and north of the of which are located north the area and North of located in called North the south area 4 area. M25. related to east of Woldingham. The existing built Downs Scarp of the area between Oxted and Woldingham. Titsey Plantation, forms and and extends is Woldingham Woldingham Pitchers Wood and settlements. As from the north considered and Tatsfield Downs. Greenhill Shaw and such, this would of to be of to the east. There is a located out to the east need to be a Woldingham geological small area of the area and consideration Garden importance. of the SSSI towards Tatsfield. should any area Village and directly Chalet Field and The be identified for wraps around adjacent to Rookery are in the future the western the built west of the area and development edge of the form of towards Caterham. and settlement Woldingham subsequently and then on the built out. continues eastern east along edge. The the northern rest are in edge of the the south of M25. the area in proximity to the North Downs and the Pilgrim Way.

68

4 Titsey No Titsey Plantation is Surface water Hill Park No A large BOA No Titsey Park is There are no No Westmore Green Woods runs located in the West of flooding is Estate has been located to the current adopted is located in south adjacent to the area which predominantly which runs identified in west of this neighbourhood Tatsfield, with an area of continues westward associated and to the A233 this area area and plans for this Tatsfield Green, the M25 in into area 3. Clarks located in around called North shared with area. King Edward VIII the South of Lane to White Lane is existing built Pilgrims Downs Scarp area 3. Memorial Ground, the area. located in the mid forms and Way. and extends Ashen Shaw to southern area, within settlements. As from the West of the AONB, along with such, this would Woldingham Tatsfield. Hill Park Estate and need to be a and continues Rowetye Wood in the consideration along the East. Park Wood sits should any area North Downs north of the current be identified for up to the AONB boundary and future Pilgrims Way South east of development area and then Tatsfield. and out of the subsequently District to the built out. East. This BOA covers a large central swathe of this area and generally corresponds with the AONB.

5 No. No A significant part of Surface water No No A significant No No There are no No Nutfield Marsh is land north of Nutfield flooding is part of the current adopted located to the is covered by the predominantly land north of neighbourhood North of Nutfield Holmethorpe associated and Nutfield is plans for this and South of Sandpits Complex located in included area. Mercers Lake. SNCI existing built within the forms and Holmethorpe settlements. As and Bay such, this would Pond BOA. need to be a Further South consideration and south of should any area South be identified for Nutfield, the future River Mole development (and and Tributaries)

69

subsequently BOA is built out. located.

6 No. Bletchingley Kitchen Copse is Surface water No No Holmethorpe No No There are no No Tilgate Common Castle is located in the far flooding is and Bay current adopted is located within located to the North of the area predominantly Pond BOA neighbourhood the main built South of adjacent to the M25. associated and stretches plans for this settlement of Castle Street, Place Pond is also in located in right across area. Bletchingley. Bletchingley. the north. Crookefield existing built this area Shaw SNCI is south forms and north of of the main settlements. As Bletchingley settlement. such, this would and covers need to be a the vast consideration majority of should any area land in that be identified for area. future development and subsequently built out.

70

7 Godstone The Ironage There are several Surface water No No Continuing No No There are no No Godstone Green Ponds SSSI Fort at SNCI's in this area flooding is from the far current adopted at the centre of is located to Castlehill including: To the west predominantly west of the neighbourhood the settlement the East of Woods is and in central associated and District and plans for this and Tillburstow Godstone. located Godstone - Hilley located in Nutfield, the area. Common are the equidistant Field, Godstone existing built Holmethorpe largest Common between the Cricket Field and forms and and Bay Lands and Village southern Graheme Hendry settlements. As Bond BOA Greens in this point of Wood. Near the such, this would extends into area. A small Godstone Oxted Roundabout for need to be a area 7, area is also and the A22 is Glebe consideration wrapping located north of Tandridge. Water and Moores should any area around, all Tandridge at the The Medieval Shawes, and finally be identified for but the far apex of Tandridge moated site Robins Grove and future North Eastern Lane and land with Rye Wood in the far development corner of adjoining St associated North Eastern corner and Godstone. Peters Church. fishponds at of area 7. subsequently The A22 acts Flower Lane built out. as the is also eastern edge located in this of this area North expansive East of BOA. The Godstone in River Eden proximity to BOA is Junction 6 of located in this the M25. area originating at the A22 and and follows its course south.

71

8 Titsey No This area has many Surface water Staffhurst No The River No No There are no No Staffhurst Wood Woods runs areas classified as flooding is Wood is Eden BOA current adopted and Merle adjacent to SNCI which are predominantly located in follows its neighbourhood Common are an area of sporadically located. associated and the south of course and plans for this located in the the M25 in Robins Grove and located in this area. tributaries area. south of the area the far north Rye Wood extend into existing built across the and south of of the area this area from area 7 forms and western side Hurst Green. near Pains in the far north settlements. As of Oxted and Itchingwood Hill. western corner where such, this would round to the Common, Staffhust the railway line and need to be a east crossing Broadham Green Wood in the the M25 meet. At the consideration the district and Hurst Green South of same location, Five should any area boundary. are identified in area 8 is Acre Shaw and Lodge be identified for Limpsfield the southern also Wood, Armitage future Common and areas of the main classified as Wood and Hamfield development Heaths are built conurbation an SSSI. Shaw are also located and also BOAs. with Bushey Corft and runs adjacent to subsequently located in Old the built edge of built out. Oxted. On the Oxted. Chalkpit Wood east of Limpsfield is also here and and around follows much of the Limpsfield Chart, built form and the a range of lands AONB boundary. and greens are Southlands and seen at; Reddings Wood are Limpsfield in the South West and Common and Great Earls Wood, Morr House Bank Little Earls Wood and Common. Merle Common, Butcherswood Bank and Honesland Wood are near Staffhurst Wood. To the eastern side of the conurbation Limpsfield Common and Grubstreet Copse sit between Limpsfield and Limpsfield Chart where a variety of SNCI's wrap around the eastern side of the built form

72 including Cronklands, Moorhouse Bank Common and the High Chart. Wet Wood is in the far north eastern corner of the area where the A25 and the district boundary meet.

73

9 No. A Medieval This area contains Surface water No. No The River No. No. There are no No Outwood moated site many areas classified flooding is Mole BOA current adopted Common with a as SNCI. To the far predominantly and neighbourhood stretches North paddock lays North Eastern corner associated and tributaries plans for this Westerly through near Lodge of the area lies Maple located in extend into area. the village of Farm to the Wood, which extends existing built area 9 across Outwood and into East of the into areas 6 and 10. forms and the North the surrounding area. It is Also in the North of settlements. As Westerly areas. approximately the area, are such, this would border with 2 miles drive Harewoods Fields need to be a area 5. The East to the and Hare Wood Farm consideration BOA is not centre of and Lodge Farm should any area vast but Blindley Shaw, of which the be identified for spreads Heath which latter extends future horizontally lies just Southerly into the development approximately outside of centre of the area. and two thirds area 9. Also located within subsequently across area the centre of area 9 built out. 9. are Outwood Common, wrapped in and around the village of the same name, with the sites Cobblers Gill, Stonehouse Field and East Southwood extending to the North, West, and East respectively. Lying to the South East of the village of Outwood, and located near the Southern border of area 9 is Hornecourt Wood; Axeland Croft Shaw, Bannister Shaw and Gayhouse Furze lies slightly further to the East. To the far west of area 9, and to the west of the M23 lays Furzefield Wood.

74

10 No. To the south Southlands Wood Surface water No. No Holmethorpe No. No. There are no No The very of South extends southerly into flooding is and Bay current adopted southerly tip of Godstone is the North East corner predominantly Pond BOA neighbourhood Tilburstow Lagham of the area. Also associated and dips into area plans for this Common extends Manor, a site found in the North located in 10 across the area. briefly into the with a East of area 10 is existing built Northern area over the medieval Piper's Wood to the forms and boundary. northern moat. North East of South settlements. As The River boundary. Godstone. Dodds such, this would Eden and Coppice extends need to be a tributaries westerly into the East consideration BOA extends of the area along the should any area North North of the be identified for Westerly East/West railway future through the route. Cloverhouse development eastern Meadow sits South of and boundary to the railway line in subsequently the north South Godstone; built out. boundary. It Maple Woods also flows extends into area 10 Northerly surrounding the through the railway line tunnel to Southern the West of South border Godstone. Lying running directly to the North of parallel on Maple Woods is the East hand Furze Wood and side of the Hawksnest Ghyull. A22.

11 Blindley No. Blue Anchor Wood is Surface water Blindley No The River No. No. There are no No Blindley Heath Heath SSSI located on the flooding is Heath Eden and current adopted village green and extends western boundary to predominantly nature tributaries neighbourhood commons land across the the west of Blindley associated and reserve BOA is plans for this extends across Southern Heath. located in extends extensive area. the southern border into existing built across the within this border into the the south of forms and Southern area. It south of the the village. settlements. As border into encompasses village. such, this would the south of the vast need to be a the village. majority of consideration the southern should any area half of the be identified for area, with two future arms development branching

75

and north; one, subsequently smaller, built out. through Blindley Heath and; one, larger, diverting east around Blindley Heath and then re- joining the village at the Northern border.

12 No. No. No. Surface water No. No The River No. No. There are no No No. flooding is Eden and current adopted predominantly tributaries neighbourhood associated and BOA flows plans for this located in through the area. existing built area; it forms and stretches settlements. As horizontally such, this would from the need to be a eastern consideration border, south should any area of Crowhurst, be identified for and splits into future town arms development east of the and North/South subsequently railway line. built out. The northerly arm passes through the northern border; the southern arm through the south and eastern border.

76

13 Lingfield Starborough Swelly Swamp is Surface water No. No The River No. No. There are no No No. Cernes is Castle is located in the centre flooding is Eden and current adopted located in located in the of Area 13, to the predominantly tributaries neighbourhood the south south east of West of Haxted. associated and BOA are plans for this east of the area 13. located in substantial in area. area, north existing built area 13, east of forms and especially in Lingfield. settlements. As the south and such, this would centre. Two need to be a arms branch consideration southerly; should any area one towards be identified for an easterly future outreach of development Lingfield; and and another subsequently towards the built out. eastern boundary of the area and district. An area of BOA stretches along the majority of the eastern boundary of the area and district.

14 No. No. Ten Acre Wood is Surface water No. No The River No. No. There are no Yes. Smallfield located in the north of flooding is Eden and current adopted Approximately Recreation the area, east of the predominantly tributaries neighbourhood 1/3 in the Ground is located M23 and north of associated and BOA flows plans for this South of the to the east of Smallfield. located in across the area. borough is Smallfield and is existing built eastern covered. the largest forms and boundary of common land in settlements. As the area in the area. such, this would the north; the Weatherhill need to be a River Mole Common is consideration and situated either should any area tributaries side of the M23 to be identified for BOA is the west of future extensive Smallfield. Drivers

77

development along the Green is in the and western north of the area subsequently boundary of to the east of the built out. the area and M23. the District, especially adjacent to the M23 junction with Gatwick and to the north west of Smallfield.

15 Blindley No. Lingfield Common Surface water Blindley No The River No. No. There are no Yes. A large Blindley Heath Heath SSSI Meadow and Tom's flooding is Heath Eden and current adopted portion of the village green and extends Field are to the North predominantly nature tributaries neighbourhood south of the commons land across the of Lingfield, near to associated and reserve BOA is plans for this area is extends across Northern the North of the located in extends extensive on area. covered. the Northern border. boundary. existing built across the the Northern border. forms and Northern boundary of Newchapel Green settlements. As border. the area. It and Frogit Heath such, this would Centenary also exists are situated in the need to be a Fields, and through the South West consideration directly village of corner of the area should any area adjacent to Lingfield and near to the village be identified for the east, across the of Newchapel. future Lingfield South of the development Wildlife area. and Area, lie to subsequently the west of built out. Lingfield.

16 Hedgecourt No. Cooper Coin Pond Surface water No. The The River No. No. There are no Yes. A Effingham Quarry SSSI, in the and Cooper Coin flooding is Gatwick Mole and current adopted significant commons land is south east Paddocks are both predominantly Public tributaries neighbourhood portion of the located in the of the area, situated in the North associated and Safety BOA is plans for this north and south of the area is situated of the area to the located in Zone extensive in area. west of the near to to the east west of Keepers existing built covers a the west of area is Domewood and of Corner; to the North forms and narrow the area; covered. Snowhill. Domewood of Copthorne and the settlements. As area Burstow, South of Smallfield. such, this would across Shipley need to be a Burstow. Bridge and consideration adjacent to

78

should any area the M23 is be identified for covered. The future River Eden development and and tributaries subsequently BOA briefly built out. enters area 16 in the south eastern corner.

17 Hedgecourt No. Wire Mill Lake and Surface water No. No The River No. No. There are no Yes. The Frogit Heath SSSI, in the Wood is situated in flooding is Eden and current adopted upper west commons land is south west the centre of the area, predominantly tributaries neighbourhood corner of the located in the of the area, just off the A22, to the associated and BOA runs plans for this area is north west corner is mainly north of Felbridge. located in diagonally area. covered. along the B2028 located to existing built from north near Newchapel. the west of forms and east to south Land in Mill Lane Felbridge; it settlements. As west across is located at the also such, this would the area. northern tip of Mill spreads need to be a Lane in Felbridge. over the consideration Felbridge Green north of should any area is situated at the Felbridge at be identified for south of the area Mill Lane. future in Felbridge along development the north of the and Crawley Down subsequently Road. The Pond built out. is also located in Felbridge, along the A22.

18 No. Dry Hill Camp Chartham Park is Surface water No. No The River No. Greathed There are no No No. is situated on situated in the south flooding is Eden and Manor current adopted the eastern west of the area, to predominantly tributaries parkland is neighbourhood boundary of the north of East associated and BOA extends located in the plans for this the area. Grinstead. Swite's located in into area 18 centre of the area. Wood is located in the existing built from the area to the south of the area; forms and northern east of north of East settlements. As boundary Dormansland. Grinstead and south such, this would southerly to of Dormans Park. need to be a the west of Lord's Wood is consideration Dormans situated in the South should any area Park. It also

79 west of the area, to be identified for extends the north west of future briefly from Hammerwood. development the northern and boundary to subsequently the north built out. west of Felcourt.

80

Area SPA Buffer SSSI buffer Listed PSNCI Sewerage Sewerage Agricultural Conservation Areas 440kv Floodzone 2 High pressure piplines Historic Landfill 7k 500m buildings Treatment Works Treatement Works Grade Land Overhead (Gas/Oil) Buffer 400m Electricity Lines 1 No Yes, Quarry A selection of Yes, a variety No No The area is 1) Kenley Airfield No Floodzone 2 Gas and oil piplines run Former landfill site at Hangers Listed of areas predominantly Conservation Area follows the through the south Tillingdown Farm sits properties considered as urban with some 2) Caterham route of the western section of the of the far edge of exist (20+) PSNCI are grade 3 land to Barracks A22/Caterham area near the M25 and Caterham and the predominantly included. As the west and the Conservation Area bypass, then also in the north eastern area. The majority of within the such north. Grade 4 is 3) Chaldon along the area running adjacent to this sits within area 3. existing urban awareness to the south. Conservation Area B2208, De Stafford school and area. However, must be had associated through the urban area. Court Farm to but further with the run the north west study would off from the sits outside of be needed to urban form the urban identify and road form. whether this is infrastructure. an actual SNCI.

2 No No A range of Yes, a variety No No Majority of the 1) Fickleshole, 2) No No Gas/oil piplines go Worms Heath tip and listed building of areas land in this area Farleigh Green, diagonal across the area, Broom Bank Quarry sporadically considered as is grade 3 with a both of which are carrying on from those in the southern edge located across PSNCI are limited amount remotely located in located in area 1 and then of the area. area 2 with included. As of urban and the Central and continuing out of the area clusters in such Grade 4, eastern parts of in the north eastern tip Warlingham awareness sporadically the area. towards Biggin Hill itself. There must be had located. airport. are 20+ listed but further buildings in study would this area. be needed to identify whether this is an actual SNCI. 3 No Located in A selection of Yes, a variety No No Majority of the Woldingham Green No No Gas pipline follows the A large area of three areas listed buildings of areas land in this area conservation area northern edge of the main historic landfill at relating to exist, considered as is grade 3 with a is located in the area of Woldingham. An Tillingdown farm on the sporadically PSNCI are limited amount central area of oil pipeline runs in the the far western edge Woldingham located across included. As of Grade 4, Woldingham. southern area. of the area. Norehill and Oxted the area such sporadically and Oxted Graystone Downs, the including the awareness located and a Quarry, Slines Oak one to the Church of St must be had small section of Road, Warren Barn south west Paul. but further urban relating to Farm, Quarry Farm, is adjacent study would Warlingham. Fortunon Farm and to the AONB be needed to Cheverells Farm. and then identify one located whether this is in the an actual SNCI. eastern central area

81

is in proximity to the candidate area of the AONB.

4 No Titsey Wood A number of Yes, a variety No No Tatsfield and the No No No Gas pipline stretches Rag Hill Road and SSSI and listed buildings of areas land stretching to through the centre of the Land adjacent to buffer. exist across considered as the north to area south of Tatsfield Rose Cottage, west of the area with a PSNCI are Bromley is all and out of the district to Tatsfield. small cluster in included. As considered to be Rag Hill. An oil pipeline Titsey and the such urban grade land. follows the path of the Church of St awareness The majority of M25 running north of James the must be had the rest of the Clackett Lane Services and Greater in but further area is graded as out of the District. Tatsfield. study would 3 with a small be needed to swathe south of identify Tatsfield Court whether this is Farm is Grade 2. an actual SNCI. 5 No No Numerous Yes, a variety No No The majority of The Pendell No A notable area An oil pipeline runs Pendell Sandpit, listed buildings of areas the area is conservation area of floodzone 2 diagonally across the area Beechfield Quarry, are located in considered as covered by grade straddles the north is found both originating from North Cockley the area of PSNCI are 4 land, with of this area close to in the north Whitebushes and Quarry, the Nutfield particular note included. As sporadic patches the M23 and into and south of extending across the M23 Priory, Park is the cluster such of grade 3 and a area 6. this area and towards Warwick Wold. A works/Park Quarry. at Nutfield and awareness small area of is related to gas pipeline enters the then other must be had non-agricultural the areas also district just north of the sporadic but further lad covering affected by railway line in the West of properties study would Nutfield itself floodzone 3 the area and then follows across South be needed to which then (tier 1). adjacent to the railway Nutfield. 20+ identify stretches west across the area. Listed whether this is into Redhill. buildings are an actual SNCI. located in this area. 6 No No The historic Yes, a variety No No The majority of Bletchingley No A small area Gas pipelines sweep over Pendell Sandpit, core of of areas the area is historic core is just at the south of a very small part of this Bletchingley Sandpit, Bletchingly is considered as effected by grade one of many the area is area adjacent to the M25 Northpark Farm, dominated by PSNCI are 3 and 4 classified conservation areas. affected by in the north of the area. Godstone Wast and listed included. As land. Bletchingley Also located in the Floodzone 2 Oil Pipeline stretches West Reservoirs. buildings. such itself, is area are Pendell, and a further from Warwick Wold in the There are also awareness considered to be Southpark, Place small area north western corner, a scattering of must be had predominantly Farm and Brewer stretching in through Brewer Street other listed but further grade 4. Street. from the east and out of the area at buildings study would from Waterhouse Farm. across the be needed to Godstone.

82

area, identify particularly to whether this is the north and an actual SNCI. in the Pendell area.

7 No Godstone Godstone Yes, a variety South of the area Yes The vast majority Church Town and No A pathway for Two oil pipelines 'criss- Godstone Wast and Ponds historic core is of areas and east of of this area is Godstone (The Floodzone 2 cross' the area at the West Reservoirs, scattered with considered as Tilburstow Hill classified as Green) flows through sewerage works close to Godstone Reservoir, listed PSNCI are Grade 3, with the centre of Tilburstow Common in Millcell Quarry, Old buildings. A included. As areas of grade 4 the area to the south of the area and tip site at Ivy Mill further cluster such land on the Tandridge. run, north-south and east Lane, Coney Hill tip, of listed awareness south, east and to west, meeting at this Taylors Hill Sandpit buildings are must be had western edges. location. A small high and The Ghyll. located at but further pressure gas pipeline is Chrurch Town. study would located in central A limited be needed to Godstone. number can identify also be found whether this is in Tandridge. an actual SNCI. 8 No Titsey Wood A large Yes, a variety Coltsford Mill Yes The majority of Old Oxted, No Floodzone 2 Gaslines can be located Land at Thrift Wood, SSSI . number of of areas the area is Limpsfield, predominantly running between Grasshopper Pit, Staffhurst listed buildings considered as considered grade Broadham Green & located in the Limpsfield and Limpsfield Brills Farm Wood. exist within PSNCI are 3, however, the Spring Lane western side Chart and also in the the area, included. As conurbation of of the district southern part of Oxted amounting to such Oxted is and flow up and in the North of Hurst over 50. Large awareness classified as through Oxted green. An oil pipeline runs clusters of the must be had Urban. Non- and across to east to west across the listed but further agricultural land Limpsfield. An area stretching from properties can study would stretches from area also is Tillburstow Hill in area 7, be found in be needed to Limpsfield located to the all the way out of the Old Oxted and identify Common through south east of district in the east. An Limpsfield whether this is to Limpsfield hurst green at additional oil pipeline is where the an actual SNCI. Chart. There are Stockenden located south of Hurst majority are also several Farm. Green also found, with a swathes of land smaller cluster classified as in Limpsfield Grade 4. Chart and further sporadic properties identified throughout the area including at Painshill.

83

9 No No A selection of Yes, a variety No No The majority of Outwood No An area An oil pipeline crosses this Woolborough listed buildings of areas this area is affected by area crossing close to the brickworks. can be found considered as classified as floodzone 2 to windmill and continues in this area PSNCI are grade 4 the north east north east out of this area and they are included. As agricultural land, of this area is to Godstone. sporadically such and this covers identified. distributed awareness Outwood with no areas must be had settlement. that contain a but further Grade 4 land is cluster of study would also identified in listed be needed to patches further properties. identify north of the area whether this is towards the an actual SNCI. railway line. The rest of the area is classified as Grade 3 10 No No 13 listed Yes, a variety No No The majority of No No Small area to Esso fuel pipeline running Immediately to the buildings of areas this area is grade north east east to west across the east of settlement located on considered as 3. There are corner of north west corner of the and north of railway outlying areas PSNCI are some fingers of area. Area area. Historic record of line SCC ref TA/31, away from the included. As grade 4 that running north non-notifiable high S19, TA/33/24 development such enter the area to south along pressure gas line running of South awareness from the east side A22 south for a short distance south Godstone must be had and from the of railway line of Water Lane but further south. There is study would also a patch of be needed to grade 4 in the identify north east whether this is corner. an actual SNCI. 11 No Yes, south 7 listed Yes, a variety No No The majority of No No Large area of No Nessledown Kennels central area building, of areas this area is grade flood zone 2 SCC ref TA/29/LLC, Blindley spread across considered as 3. There are across 10/473, 279, TA/28, Heath SSSI area, slight PSNCI are some swathes of southern and S/337, B3600 - Heath concentration included. As grade 4 that eastern part Farm SCC ref S/321, to Blindley such enter the area of the area TA/77/L40, TA/69 Heath awareness from the south must be had east and stretch but further across the area study would to the north west be needed to corner and to the identify south west whether this is corner. an actual SNCI.

84

12 No No 7 listed Yes, a variety No No The majority of No No Tributary to No Crowhurst Lane End buildings, main of areas the area is grade River Eden SCC ref S/227 very concentration considered as 3. There is a running west small just to south of in Crowhurst PSNCI are swath of grade 4 to east railway line including the included. As that goes from through church such the south east centre of area awareness corner to the must be had north east corner but further of the area, study would which is to the be needed to east of railway identify line. whether this is an actual SNCI. 13 No Yes, Pockets of Yes, a variety No No The majority of No No Wide tract of High pressure gas line Crowhurst brickworks Lingfield listed buildings of areas the area is grade flood zone 2 (GM10) running north to to the west of the Cernes within the considered as 3. There are running east south some 2.3km west of area, partial located hamlets PSNCI are swaths of grade 4 to west as Edenbridge centre. redevelopment with centrally included. As that extend from Eden Brook. remediation scheme within the such Lingfield in the Further flood area awareness south west of the zone 2 must be had area around St running from but further Piers School and north to Eden study would along the Eden Brook in two be needed to Brook to the east parts, Kent identify of the area. The Brook and whether this is grade 4 also River Eden. an actual SNCI. extends from the Significant Eden Brook in constraint. the middle of the area to the north of the area along the River Eden, stretching out to the north west corner. There is also a patch of grade 4 to the north east corner.

85

14 No No 22 listed Yes, a variety No No There is a fairly No No Flood zone 2 Esso fuel pipeline running Small area East Park buildings of areas even spread of covers the east to west across the Farm SCC ref TA/68, spread across considered as grade 3 and majority of very north of the area S/319, TA/76/L40 the area with PSNCI are grade 4 in this the built up small included. As area. Grade 4 area of concentration such stretches from Smallfield in Horne awareness Burstow in the must be had south west of the but further area across study would Smallfield to the be needed to east of the area identify through White whether this is House Farm and an actual SNCI. from Smallfield to the north through Hollesley Farm and Old Hall Farm to Hornecourt Manor. 15 No Yes, north 49 listed Yes, a variety No No The majority of Yes, Lingfield No Crescent of No Homelea, Lingfield west coner buildings of areas the area is grade historic central flood zone 2 Common Road (north Blindley through the considered as 3. There are core running from side) SCC ref S/300, Heath SSSI area, highest PSNCI are some small A22 Stanton TA/62 - Land at Garth concentration included. As swaths of grade 4 Hall round the Farm SCC ref TA/51, within 2 areas such to the east of the north of S/228, TA/58/L40 - of Lingfield awareness area along the Lingfield Land Adj Cockers must be had railway line settlement, Lane S/160, but further (north to south) round the east TA/46/L40, TA/39 - all study would and through side of small areas be needed to Lingfield. There is Lingfield and identify also some grade running whether this is 4 that stretches around the an actual SNCI. along the south through northern edge of the the area and racecourse to fingers out to Jacksbridge Stanton's Hall Farm and Hays Bridge Farms.

86

16 No Yes, south 6 listed Yes, a variety No No The eastern part yes, Burstow No Significant No Land west of east corner buildings of areas of the area is Conservation Area area of the Copthorne Bank SCC as part of spread across considered as grade 3 covering west half of ref S/18, TA/32, Hedgecourt the area PSNCI are Domewood, the area TA/30, TA/32/LU - Lake SSSI included. As Beechfield and covered by The Oaks Shiply such Newhouse Farm. flood zone 2 Bridge TA/68, S/319, awareness The western part TA/76/L40 must be had of the area is but further grade 4 and this study would stretches from be needed to Copthorne in the identify south across whether this is Burstow and an actual SNCI. then out to the north west of the area. 17 Yes, covering Yes, 8 listed Yes, a variety No No The entire area is No No Swathe of No Park Farm SCC ref a small area Hedgecourt. buildings set of areas grade 3. flood zone 2 TA/56, S/269, SH3, around the Located in sporadically considered as running north TA/64/LL10, Bakers junction two parts across the PSNCI are east to south Wood SCC ref S/310, between the forming part southern half included. As west along the TA/65, Stubpond A22 and of the of the area such line of the Lane SCC ref TA/65, A264 Hedgecourt awareness Eden Brook, lake. must be had Wiremill Lake but further and study would Hedgecourt be needed to Lake identify whether this is an actual SNCI. 18 Yes, covering No A range of Yes, a variety Yes - Eden Vale Yes The majority of No No Area of flood High pressure gas line Yes - Eden Vale the southern listed building of areas sewage the area is grade zone 2 to the (GM10) running north to sewage treatment half of the sporadically considered as treatment works. 3. There is a west of south some 1.7km east of works site area located across PSNCI are East Surrey swath of grade 4 Dormans Park the centre of including area with included. As Water ref S/17, that curved running north Dormansland. High two thirds of clusters such TA/31/L4, TA/29 alongside the to south along pressure gas line (GM10) Dormans around awareness railway line the line of running east to west Park. Does Dormansland must be had through Dormans Cromwell Hall some 2km south of the not cover railway station but further park and bends Lakes centre of Dormansland. Dormansland and within the study would to include the centre of be needed to sewerage works. Dormansland. identify There is another 28 listed whether this is grade 4 that buildings. an actual SNCI. covers Lower Stonehurst Farm and Upper Stonehurst Farm in the south east corner of the area.

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94