[Including Addendum Corrections and Changes Made by the Planning Committee on 12/03/08]

17.03.08

RU.05/0538 Date Reg: 25.05.05 Ward VIRGINIA WATER

LOCATION: FORMER DERA SITE, CHOBHAM LANE, LONGCROSS, CHERTSEY PROPOSAL: DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING UP TO 113,434 SQ.M OF BUILT

FLOORSPACE (IN TOTAL) INCLUDING: BUSINESS PREMISES (CLASS B1 USE); WITH SUPPORTING RETAIL AND CAFE/RESTAURANT FACILITIES (CLASS A1 AND A3 USE), CHILDCARE FACILITIES (CLASS D1 USE), LEISURE FACILITIES (CLASS D2 USE), AND DECKED VEHICLE PARKING. DEVELOPMENT ALSO TO INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS, REMOVAL OF HARDSTANDING; CREATION OF ECOLOGICAL HABITAT AREAS; CREATION OF GENERAL AMENITY AREAS; CREATION OF LANDSCAPED AREAS; NEW AND IMPROVED SITE ACCESS FOR VEHICLES, PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS; NEW AND IMPROVED LINKS BETWEEN THE SITE AND EXISTING PUBLIC HIGHWAYS NETWORK; VEHICLE PARKING (UP TO 3,079 SPACES); CYCLE PARKING; DRAINAGE WORKS INCLUDING A PUMPING STATION FOR FOUL DRAINAGE AND STORAGE PONDS FOR SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE; BIN STORES; ELECTRICITY SUBSTATION; AND ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING OPERATIONS. ALL SUCH DEVELOPMENT SHALL ACCORD WITH THE APPLICATION PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS CONTAINED HEREIN (REVISED DESCRIPTION AND PLANS).

TYPE: OUTLINE APPLICATION APPLICANT: CGNU Ltd & Crest Nicholson Developments

Local Plan: Saved Policies relevant to the consideration of this application are:

Second Alteration April 2001: GB1, GB10, MV3, MV4, MV5, MV6, MV7, MV9, MV12, MV13, MV14, HO4, SHO1, SHO7, TC1, GEN!, BE2, BE10, BE14, BE15, BE16, BE22, BE23, BE25, NE10, NE11, NE12, NE13, NE14, NE15, NE16, NE17, NE18, NE20, SV1, SV2, SV2A

This application should be read in conjunction with the consultation application from Surrey Heath Borough Council (RU.06/0975) which is reported elsewhere on this agenda

1. Site

1.1 The former Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) site is located either side of the M3 motorway at the western edge of the Borough adjoining Chobham Common, with a portion of the site extending into the administrative area of the Borough of Surrey Heath. The whole site extends to some 129 hectares, of which 126 hectares lie within Runnymede.

1.2 The whole site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt and in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan (2001) is shown as a ‘Major Developed Site (MDS) Within the Green Belt’. It is also identified as a major developed site in the adopted Surrey Heath Local Plan.

1.3 This application relates only to the part of the site north of the M3 (‘Chertsey North’). This covers approximately 42 hectares lying between Chobham Lane (C10) and the Reading to Waterloo railway line. The application site area within Runnymede covers approximately 39 hectares.

1.4 The whole of the northern part of the site (both Runnymede and Surrey Heath) contains the majority of the built development generally industrial in character and with a total floor area of approximately 76,885 sq m (65,872 sq m built footprint). The buildings here vary in height, design and scale, the highest being the former climatic laboratories at approximately 22 metres. The main vehicular access is from Chobham Road. Access can also be gained from Burma Road.

1.5 South of the M3 the site lies wholly within Runnymede and extends to approximately 87 hectares, lying between the motorway, Longcross Road (B386) and Kitsmead Lane. The southern site contains buildings totalling approximately 7,600 sq m. The southern part of the site lies outside the application site.

1.6 The site adjoins Chobham Common which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and part of the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive. Sites of Nature Conservation Importance also lie to the north, north west, south east and west of the application site. There are also protected species on and adjoining the application site.

1.7 There is a Grade II listed building (former Barrowhills Officers’ Mess) on the southern part of the site (outside the application site).

1.8 The site is approximately 6km from the west of Chertsey and 4.5km from Chobham. The existing shops in Virginia Water and Trumps Green Road are approximately 4km from the site. Longcross railway station is located in the north-western part of the site. Wentworth golf course lies to the north of the railway line.

1.9 There are approximately 110 existing buildings on the northern half of the site. All the existing buildings on the site would be demolished except for five – Nos. 10, 63, 64, 109 and 112). A plan of the existing buildings on the site is attached as Appendix D.

1.10 The site lies within a low risk flood zone (Zone 1). There are no public footpaths or bridleways within the application site.

2. History

2.1 It is understood that the land was acquired by the Government in 1941 and the site established in 1942 to house the Department of Tank Design (DTD) and the Fighting Vehicles Proving Establishment (FVPE). At the end of the war period the DTD absorbed the Wheeled Vehicles Experimental Establishment (WVEE) and became the Fighting Vehicles Design Establishment (FVDE).

2.2 At the same time the railway station at Longcross was being developed, with sidings at the site for the loading and unloading of vehicles, ancillary components and the import of coal for the boiler house. The station was opened in September 1942.

2.3 In 1952 FVPE and FVDE were combined to form the Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (FVRDE). In 1953 the Test Track on what is now the ‘Chertsey South’ site came into use. This organisation remained until 1970 when the FVRDE amalgamated with the Military Vehicle Engineering Establishment (MVEE).

2.4 Between 1972-1982 the site was the base for the Vehicles Branch of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME). These were subsequently reorganised to become the Vehicles and Weapons Branch from 1982-1995, and then the Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA) from 1995-2000, and finally the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) Chertsey. It is understood that the operating processes remained principally the same throughout this period.

2.5 It is understood that DLO Chertsey and its predecessors were responsible for providing technical and engineering advice, concept design, evaluation and in-service approval of vehicles, and ongoing life-cycle support to the Field Army, military and civilian workshops, contractors, Defence Procurement Agency and other DLO organisations for all Army mechanical equipment. This included all Army wheeled and tracked vehicles, engineering plant, weapons and other mechanical equipment. Throughout this period the application site was used for the testing, evaluation and certification of the full range of British Army vehicles.

2.6 Up until 7th June 2006 the Crown was effectively immune from the planning system. This immunity has now been removed with the introduction of the Town and Country Planning (Application of Subordinate Legislation to the Crown) Order 2006. Prior to 7th June 2006 there were formal arrangements by which Government Departments consulted Planning Authorities before proceeding with developments. This site has a long history of consultations under such procedures for developments on this site.

2.7 The most recent and relevant applications to the whole of the DERA site are considered to be:

2.8 RU.98/1071 Construction of radio base station comprising 25 metre high tower with equipment cabin – Refused December 1998.

2.9 RU.01/0903 Erection of 25 metre high telecommunication mast – Granted September 2001.

2.10 RU.02/1414 Certificate of existing lawful use or development for the use (CLEUD) of the majority of buildings for Class B1 (business) use, use of land and buildings as a test track for the testing of military vehicles, use of land as a golf course and use of land and buildings as a hotel (Class C1 use) – Granted September 2003.

This certificate relates only to the land within Runnymede.

2.11 RU.03/0483 Application for compliance determination under Section 302 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of 25 war period buildings – Granted September 2003. This application effectively provides for the retention of some 25 war period buildings on the site which were excluded from the certificate of existing lawfulness application RU.02/1414.

2.12 RU.04/0053 Change of use from Class B1 use to a mixed Class B1 and B8 use – withdrawn September 2004.

2.13 RU.04/1215 Change of use of up to 1299 sq m of existing land/or buildings to Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) for a temporary period of 5 years – not yet determined.

2.14 RU.04/1297 Certificate of existing lawful use or development (CLEUD) on the southern part of DERA for a mixed lawful use involving military related and non-military commercial uses - Granted May 2005.

This certificate included the testing and evaluation of tracked and wheeled vehicles, driver training courses using military and civilian vehicles, civilian commercial automotive vehicle testing, automotive club events and corporate driving events within specified hours of use.

2.15 RU.05/0495 Erection of a 20 metre high telecommunication mast – Granted July 2005.

2.16 RU.06/0975 Consultation application by Surrey Heath Borough Council for the redevelopment of the site for Class B1 use with supporting facilities – this application is reported elsewhere on this agenda.

2.17 The whole of the DERA site was unsuccessfully promoted for 150 dwellings and 5 hectares of employment land in the 2000 Local Plan Inquiry. The whole of the DERA site was also unsuccessfully promoted as a strategic housing allocation of 1,250 dwellings and 65,000 sq m of B1 business floorspace with ancillary community facilities through the Surrey Structure Plan Examination in Public in 2003.

2.18 The applicant made representations on the draft South East, both in relation to the northern and southern parts of the DERA site being designated as a Strategic Development Area providing up to 3,000 dwellings and 65,000 sq m of business (Class B1) floorspace with supporting uses. The Report of the Panel on the South East Plan in August 2007 has identified the whole of the DERA site (northern and southern parts) as a strategic mixed use site with approximately 2,500 dwellings and 65,000 sq m of business (Class B1) use for the plan period from 2006 to 2026 (Policy LF4A of the draft South East Plan).

2.19 The Secretary of State’s response on the South East Plan is not expected before the summer. This will be followed by a further period of consultation with the Plan probably being adopted in 2009.

3. Application

3.1 This outline application seeks the redevelopment of the northern part of the site for primarily offices (Class B1 use) with some ancillary uses following the demolition of the majority of the existing buildings. The only reserved matter for consideration with this proposal is the means of access. All the other reserved matters (siting, design, external appearance and landscaping) are deferred to the reserved matters stage.

3.2 The original application was submitted in May 2005 and has been amended twice, once in January 2007 and again in November 2007. The original proposal and the amended proposals are described below and summarised in Table 1 at paragraph 3.7.

3.3 The applicant has submitted an application to Surrey Heath Borough Council covering the most westerly part of the site which falls within the neighbouring borough. This Council has received a consultation application (RU.06/0975) from Surrey Heath which is reported elsewhere on this agenda. The applicant has also submitted an application and obtained approval from the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead for some off-site highway works related to this application.

3.4 The outline application is in the form of a masterplan and is the applicant’s vision for how the site could be developed in the future. All matters are reserved for consideration except for means of access. This application is seeking to demonstrate that the quantum of development proposed can be satisfactorily accommodated on this site. Overall the masterplan seeks to define the maximum total floor area and maximum built footprint for the redevelopment of this site (table at paragraph 3.7). Within these parameters different zones of redevelopment are shown and within each zone maximum built footprint and maximum heights of buildings are sought (Table 2 at paragraph 3.10). However, these plans are illustrative only and indicate one possible way the site may be redeveloped.

3.5 The original proposal sought to redevelop the site with 135,128 square metres of total built floor space comprising business premises (Class B1 use) with supporting retail and café/restaurant facilities, childcare facilities, leisure facilities and decked car parking. The original scheme included two vehicular accesses off Chobham Lane. The two accesses were to serve two separate areas of redevelopment on the site. There were six different height zones within this proposal (see Appendix E attached).

3.6 The first revision reduced the total built floorspace from 135,128 sq m to 115,712 sq m. This has subsequently been reduced to 113,434 sq m (reduction of 21,694 sq m) in a second revision in November 2007. The proposed office floorspace has been reduced from 112,812 sq m to 90,624 sq m. There have been no changes to the floor area of the proposed ancillary uses. The revised proposals also concentrate the proposed development into one enclave with one vehicular access. This reduces the spread of buildings in an eastern-western direction across the

site from approximately 725 metres to approximately 360 metres and from approximately 630 metres to approximately 592 metres in a northern-southern direction. The highest proposed buildings (up to 17.5 metres in Zone 1) in the central part of the proposed development envelope would have a maximum east to west width of 186 metres and a maximum north to south depth of 340 metres.

3.7 The indicative layout of the original scheme and revised schemes is shown on Appendices E and F respectively. The basic elements of the existing situation, the original redevelopment proposed and the revised redevelopment proposed are summarised in Table 1 below. This highlights some of the main differences between the original and the revised proposals.

Table 1 : Comparison of Main Elements of Existing Development Originally Proposed Development and Revised Proposed Development

Existing Site (Appendix D)

OriginalRedevelopment

(Appendix E)

First Revised Redevelopment

Proposal (Appendix F) –

Jan 2007

Second Revised

Reduction Proposal Nov. 2007

Existing Footprint 65,872 sq m - - -

Existing Floor Area 76,885 sq m - - -Floor Area to be Demolished

- 76,370 sq m * 74,744 sq m ** 74,744sq m **

Proposed Floor Area Including Retained Buildings & Excluding Car Parking

- 135,128 sq m 115,712 sq m 113,434sq m

Maximum Height of Buildings

22 m 17.5m 17.5m 17.5m

Maximum Built Footprint Excluding Car Parking

65,872 sq m - - 36,000sq m

Maximum Built Footprint Including Car Parking

196,600 sq m 55,000 sq m 55,000 sq m 55,000sq m

Car Parking Spaces 3250 (1 space per 23.6 sq m)

3865 (1 space per 35

sq m)

3250 (1 space per 35.6 sq m)

3079 (1 space per 36.8 sq m)

Office Floorspace (Class B1) (Maximum)

- 112,318 sq m 92,902 sq m 90,624sq m (3019 spaces

1:30) Ancillary Retail Floorspace (Class A1)

325 sq m 325 sq m 325sq m

Restaurant Floorspace (Class A3) (Maximum)

- 558 sq m 558 sq m 558sq m

Nurseries, Crèche Floorspace (Class D1) (Maximum)

- 604 sq m 604 sq m 604sq m

Leisure/Recreational Floorspace (Class D2) (Maximum)

- 2323 sq m 2323 sq m 2323sq m

Decked Car Parking (Maximum)

- 19,000 sq m 19,000 sq m 19,000sq m

Total Proposed Floorspace

- 135, 128 sq m 115,712 sq m 113, 434sq m

Note:* Two buildings (64 and 112) shown to be retained

** Five Buildings shown to be retained. Building 10 to be relocated for historical significance. Buildings 63, 64, 109 and 110 retained for ecological mitigation

3.8 The reduction in built floorspace is wholly met by a reduction in business floorspace by 21,694 sq m from 112,318 sq m to 90,624 sq m. The supporting facilities remain as retail and café/restaurant facilities (Class A1 and A3 uses), childcare facilities (Class D1 use), leisure facilities (Class D2 use) and decked vehicle parking. The proposal also includes the demolition of buildings; removal of hardstanding; creation of ecological habitat areas; creation of general amenity areas and landscaped areas; new and improved site access for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists; new and improved links between the site and existing public highways network; vehicle parking (up to 3,079 spaces); cycle parking; drainage works including a pumping station for foul drainage and storage ponds for surface water drainage; bin stores; electricity substation and associated engineering operations.

3.9 The revisions also include the following amendments:

Development has been completely removed from the eastern part of the site (nearest to Kitsmead Lane) and the western part of the land within Surrey Heath, resulting in changes to the development envelope in both of these locations and amendments to building height zones (see Appendices E and F);

Variation in the heights of the proposed buildings has been introduced in the central section of the site, resulting in a reduction in the four-storey zone, the introduction of a new three-storey zone towards the gateway area (all reflected in an amended Building Height Zones plan);

As a result, the amount of business floorspace (Class B1) proposed has been reduced from a maximum of 112,318 sq m to a maximum of 90,624 sq m;

The proposed secondary access from Chobham Lane has been deleted;

The gateway buildings zone (Building Height Zone 2) has been pushed very slightly further into the site (by about 5m);

The eastern part of the site would become an ecological park area for use by workers on the site with the intention that this additional park area helps to discourage them from going off-site and accessing the Common for recreation;

Existing buildings would be demolished on the western plateau and this area would be added to the proposed protected ecological buffer zone along the western part of the site. This area lies within Surrey Heath;

The extent of the proposed Parking Envelope area has been amended and reduced to take on board the above changes. The extent of decked parking area has also been reduced. The indicative surface level and decked car parking areas are illustrated on Appendix G.

A new application plan has been introduced – a Public Realm Envelope plan – which provides a commitment to the provision of areas of public realm around the access zone, the first junction within the site and the central landscaped zone within the main Building Height Zone; and

The number of car parking spaces proposed has dropped from 3,865 to 3,079 spaces.

3.10 The maximum built footprint including the buildings and car parking areas as a whole would not exceed 55,000 sq m. The applicant has also broken down the maximum footprint of buildings, parking and heights of buildings for each zone of the revised proposal as set out in Appendix F are summarised below.

Table 2 : Proposed Footprint, Heights and Uses for Each Proposed Zone of Development

Maximum Floorspace by Use Class

Zone Maximum Footprint

Maximum Height (from ground floor

slab to apex of roof)

Business (Class B1)

Retail (Class A1)

Restaurant (Class A3)

Crèche (Class D1)

Leisure (Class D2)

Zone 1 33,645 sq m 17.5m 90,624 sq m 325 sq m 558 sq m - -

Zone 2 9,664 sq m 13.5m 29,250sq m - - - -

Zone 3 2,946 sq m 9.5m 5,150 sq m - - - -

Zone 4 14,518 sq m 13.5m 40,000 sq m 325 sq m 558 sq m 604 sq m 2,323 sq m

Parking Zone 19,000 sq m 3m - - - - -

3.11 The area outside the proposed development envelope (Zones 1-4 and the parking zone) extends to some 18 hectares. This land outside the proposed development envelope would be used for various amenity uses. The existing trees will be retained, additional landscaping provided and ecological habitats created, 8.5 hectares of which along the western part of the site will be protected with restricted access.

3.12 The means of access is the only reserved matter for consideration with this outline application. The proposed main vehicular access to the site would be off Chobham Lane, this would be some 40 metres to the west of the existing main access onto Chobham Lane. There would be a new roundabout at the proposed main entrance to the site. This would require a realignment of Chobham Lane to accommodate the proposed roundabout. The applicant proposes to provide an access route from the main Chobham Lane entrance to the railway station prior to the first occupation of any new building for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

3.13 The proposal would have a maximum of 3,079 on-site car parking spaces with 3,019 spaces provided for the proposed office workers. These spaces would be provided on surface level or decked car parking areas. The illustrative positions of the car parking areas are shown on Appendix G. The remaining 60 spaces would be for the ancillary uses including 6 spaces for set-down and pick-up for the nursery.

3.14 This redevelopment scheme also includes a number of other off-site highway works. These include alterations and improvements to Junction 3 of the M3, alterations and signalised improvements to the Chertsey Road, Chobham Lane and Longcross Road roundabout (Surrey Heath Borough). This involves blocking off the existing vehicular access arm off this roundabout to Burma Road to allow emergency access only. A new signal junction at Trumps Green Road and Wellington Avenue junction in Virginia Water is also proposed.

3.15 The applicants have also gained planning permission from The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to improve key road junctions in Sunningdale. The junctions of London Road (A30) with Broomhall Lane (B383) and Chobham Road (B383) have permission to be upgraded to a staggered signal junction.

3.16 Burma Road, an existing public highway along the western boundary of the site (within Surrey Heath Borough), would be used as an emergency vehicular access for use by emergency vehicles only. This access will be secured in a manner which can only be used by emergency vehicles.

3.17 The existing security fencing around the site boundaries would be retained. The applicant intends there to be no access to the application site from the west for pedestrians or cyclists. The only exceptions are likely to be access to the existing telecommunications mast, access by Surrey Wildlife Trust and authorised persons for the maintenance of the ecological habitat area and emergency access.

3.18 The redevelopment also proposes an upgrading of the Longcross railway Station.

3.19 The applicant has submitted various documents with the application which are summarised below:

Planning Application Document –

3.20 This document and its contents form the outline planning application for the redevelopment of the former DERA site. The applicants refer to this planning application and its contents as the ‘Development Parameters’ for the proposed development. The Development Parameters indicate the extent of the development proposed and act as a framework against which the proposed development is assessed, both in terms of Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment. The Development Parameters also set the boundaries within which the Local Planning Authority should evaluate the proposed development alongside the Environmental Statement and the Information Towards an Appropriate Assessment.

3.21 The main function of the document is to provide a convenient source of the main planning application information, including the completed forms and certificates. A description of the proposal is also provided explaining the maximum extent of the various parameters guiding the proposed development. In addition, reference is made to other environmental considerations such as demolition, lighting, energy and the future preparation of various management plans (Construction and Environmental, Ecological and Mobility).

3.22 All the planning application plans are included in the document relating to the site itself and also in relation to the proposed off-site highway works.

Framework document which provides largely background information and illustrative details of the proposed redevelopment;

Transport Assessment :

3.23 The Transport Assessment has been amended to correspond with the various reductions in the proposed floorspace with this proposal.

3.24 Trip rates have been identified and agreed between the applicant, County Highways Authority (CHA) and the Highways Agency (HA) for the baseline traffic generation of the site based on its use in accordance with the CLEUD. Distribution of journey to work trips has been agreed with both CHA and the HA. Based on this distribution, the applicant has assigned trips onto the local highway network and capacity assessments have been carried out to determine what improvements are necessary to local junctions. In addition a separate planning application was submitted to, and permission granted by, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead for improvements to the A30/Chobham Road/Broomhall Lane junction.

3.25 As well as the local junctions, assessments have also been carried out on Junction 3 of the M3 motorway. These assessments indicate that the effect of the proposed development traffic does not compromise the safety of this junction of the motorways itself. The proposed development does result in a slight reduction in the efficiency of the junction and an improvement scheme has been identified to address this if required by the HA.

3.26 It is proposed to improve the facilities of the existing Longcross Station and to further increase the frequency of stopping services on the Reading to Waterloo line. Discussions have taken place with South West Trains on both these matters and the number of stopping trains will be further increased. The scope of improvement works has been agreed with regards to the station improvements and costings have also been discussed.

3.27 A Mobility Management Plan was submitted with the planning application and this has now been used as a basis for preparing the scope of a wider travel plan to cover the occupation of the development.

A Transport Management Association is proposed to act as a management company to oversee the implementation, delivery and monitoring of the travel plan that has been agreed with CHA.

3.28 A sustainability appraisal has been undertaken to determine how the proposed development traffic generation compares with use of the site under the terms of the CLEUD using trip rates recorded at a similar operational site (New Greenham Park, near Newbury). The applicant’s appraisal indicated that uncontrolled use of the existing buildings had the potential for significantly greater levels of traffic generation due to the type and size of occupier. It concluded that despite the additional floor area proposed in the amended development, the benefits achieved by a controlled or managed site appear to offer a much more sustainable use of the site.

Travel Plan :

3.29 The applicant has submitted a travel plan strategy for the proposed development. It is structured to encourage/reward a modal shift in travel patterns over time and to offer trip-making that is significantly more sustainable than would be the case with the existing unregulated CLEUD for the site. The travel plan strategy will include detailed targets, a reward and charging structure designed to incentivise positive and responsible travel patterns and a monitoring regime.

3.30 A Transport Management Association (TMA) would be created and pump primed/funded by the developer. A TMA is a private, not for profits company which would be set up to ensure the implementation and delivery of the travel plan strategy.

3.31 Each occupier will be required to be a Member of the TMA and will pay a membership fee on an annual basis. The TMA will co-ordinate the individual travel plans of occupiers and provide/fund the area-wide travel plan elements including the Travel Plan Co-ordinator, Steering Group, Shuttle Bus and Car Sharing arrangements. The TMA will also market the various travel plan initiatives to staff and administer fiscal incentives and disincentives which will be used to reward positive behaviour and penalise irresponsible travel patterns.

3.32 The TMA will bring the following benefits:

o Mechanism for the continuity and longevity of travel planning at the development after the developer involvement is finished;

o Equity for all occupiers in achieving travel plan objectives and targets;

o Means to reward individual success and penalise failure;

o Provision of ongoing advice to occupiers and staff;

o A membership that speaks with one voice;

o An organisation that has credibility with the local authorities;

o A means to bid for future public sector funding/grants.

Targets:

1. The principal target will be to reduce the proportion of single occupancy vehicle trips (SOV) from 89% (baseline SOV agreed with CHA) with the existing site (CLEUD) to no greater than 76.8% for each occupier within 5 years of the date of first occupation.

2. To reduce the initial parking allocated to each occupier at the end of their initial 5 year period of occupation from 1 space per 30 sq m to 1 space per 32.7sq m.

Achieved By

3.33 The combination of the proposed improvements to Longcross station, the increased number of stopping trains, the rail shuttle bus or the implementation of a Travel Plan will enable the proposed target modal shift of 12.2% to be achieved.

3.34 The Travel Plan should also be structured to leave in place a regime which will encourage employers to achieve a further progressive modal shift over time but will rely on the TMA to respond to the particular circumstances at the time to set particular annual targets for successive periods.

Car Parking Provision

3.35 The existing site has at least 3250 car parking spaces. This equates to 1 space per 23.6 sq m (76,885 sq m of existing floor area).

3.36 The required maximum car parking standard is 1 space per 30 sq m. This equate to 3019 spaces on site. The second revised proposal in November 2007 proposed a standard of 1:30 (3019 spaces for office space) and a further 60 spaces allocated to ancillary uses – a total of 3079 on-site car parking spaces.

3.37 The parking arrangements will be allocated proportionately between occupiers. In order to reinforce the achievement of the modal shift targets over time, parking will be established on the following basis:

o 5% for visitors together with disabled spaces to be located next to the buildings;

o 10% for multi-occupied vehicles (MOV). These will be priority spaces also located closest to the building;

o The balance to be unallocated and available for all classes of vehicles including Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs).

3.38 It is proposed that employees have direct access to only 85% of their parking allocation with the remainder accessed through a charge point. An occupier will be required to make a payment to the TMA every time a vehicle enters into the charged parking area. (The equivalent of 450 charged spaces across the whole site.) This charge together with the TMA subscription will constitute the future income source of the TMA. The TMA subscription will be weighted depending upon the success or otherwise of the employers’ attempts to secure the Initial Target Modal shift.

3.39 The TMA will reward employees with credits for car sharing (MOV use), bus and rail travel, bike usage and walking.

3.40 Without prejudice to what is finally agreed and for illustrative and discussion purposes only at this stage, if an occupier of 10,000 sq m used on day 1 of occupation 100% of the allocated spaces (333 spaces) then it would be charged for 50 spaces at say £4 each per day. If this continued for say 250 working days then the occupier would accrue an annual liability to the TMA of £50,000. If this was repeated across all occupiers, then the total charge revenue of the TMA arising from the 450 spaces would be £450,000.

3.41 This sum would then be available for the TMA to fund ongoing transport initiatives such as the shuttle bus, make loans and give credits to those taking up public transport and/or shifting from SOV to MOV forms of travel (ie leaving their car behind).

3.42 In effect each space not used would save the company £1,000 pa. It follows therefore that at the end of year 1 the equivalent sum of money will be available for the TMA to fund a shuttle bus, make loans/grants for public transport use and/or for MOV use. Whether loans and/or credits should be paid to the employer or employee needs to be discussed together with the related tax implications.

3.43 [Paragraph deleted]

3.44 Given the above indicative framework, the travel plan would comprise the following measures:

3.45 The main measures to be provided initially by the developer and subsequently administered by the TMA on behalf of occupiers through the TMA will be:

o Travel Centre Hub run by a Travel Plan Co-ordinator (part time in early years);

o Private Free Shuttle Bus Service to and from the site to Woking Railway Station and if applicable other destinations which the TMA subsequently agrees to target as part of its ongoing review of its objectives;

o Site wide car sharing scheme with priority parking;

o Travel web site;

o Guaranteed emergency ride home scheme administered by TMA;

o Comprehensive strategy for promoting sustainable travel – principally alternative modes, but also greener driving;

o Marketing material including travel option leaflets, travel notice boards;

o Bicycle Users Group, Dr Bike support;

o Personalised Journey Planning for Employees as required.

3.46 The cost of the TMA will be met by subscription and a car parking charge structure which will always create revenue to incentivise ongoing modal shift beyond the initial 5 years.

3.47 The TMA will be able to reinforce responsible travel behaviour by:

o Giving financial incentives/rebates to employers/employees for high modal shift and responsible MOV car usage;

o Issuing Public Transport Vouchers, discounts and interest free loans to those switching to and/or using public transport;

o Making Bike User Payment Incentives

o Monitoring will be carried out by the TMA annually for the development as a whole and for each individual occupier and will comprise:

o Comprehensive staff travel surveys examining employee travel patterns including modal share and motivations;

o Counts of SOV levels, car share, cycling and walking, bus and rail use.

3.48 A comprehensive monitoring report will be prepared on an annual basis and submitted to Surrey County Council. The report will include results of data collection and a review of initiatives/issues from the previous year eg specific events etc. The report will also set a programme of work actions for the coming year.

Implementation Programme

3.49 On the basis that the envisaged construction period for the development is 6 years and construction is planned to commence in 2008, first occupation could be mid-2009, construction completion would be late 2014.

3.50 Monitoring would commence immediately following first occupation and the initial reporting will be made one year after first occupation and be undertaken annually thereafter.

3.51 Each occupier will become a member of the TMA at first occupation. The first year’s/part year’s membership will be free to the occupier. Thereafter a subscription charge will be determined relative to the proportion of space occupied by the tenant/purchaser expressed as a proportion of total occupied new property on the site.

3.52 The applicant undertook a consultation exercise at the end of 2005. It involved the delivery of 8000 leaflets to local residents, exhibitions, meetings with local interest groups and Members, tour of the site, questionnaires and setting up a website to view the proposal and receive comments via email. The comments received have been attached as an appendix to the applicant’s Statement of Community Involvement.

3.53 There has been extensive documentation submitted by the applicant in support of this application. The applicant highlights the key benefits of the proposal which can be summarised as:

o Redevelopment in line with the existing lawful use of the site;

o Regeneration of a large brownfield employment site (a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt) which benefits from public transport links and other facilities within the immediate area;

o Environmental enhancement of the site through creation of a dedicated ecological habitat area (restricted access) creating a buffer between the development and the protected ecological area of Chobham Common and an Ecological Park for occupiers of the new business uses;

o Reduction in the developed area of the site;

o The reduction in visual impact of development on the site, particularly when viewed from the Chobham Common SSSI, SAC and SPA;

o A reduction in the development footprint on the site;

o A reduction in the maximum height of development on the site;

o The retention and reinforcement of all trees around the boundaries of the site;

o Public transport improvements, including a more regular stopping service at Longcross Station along with improvements to the station infrastructure;

o Compliance with national, regional and local planning policies;

o Removal of areas of contamination from the site;

o Generation of a significant number of jobs during construction/operation; and

o Provision of a high-quality, flexible, self-sustaining business community that will benefit the local area.

3.54 The applicant is offering the following planning obligations with this revised application:

o A financial contribution of £600,000 towards the provision of affordable housing (the payment will trigger upon occupation of more than the first 25,000 sq m of new B1 offices on the site and if not used within 3 years of receipt, re-paid to the developer);

o New station facilities at Longcross railway station (approximately £1-1.45 Million) to include new footbridge, new modular station building, resurfacing of platforms, upgrading station lighting, two new waiting shelters, upgraded station signage, upgraded CCTV cameras and phased delivery of the improved train service. (The developer would pay South West Trains £45K towards the design of new facilities within 20 working days and include specific station improvement works prior to occupation of the first 15,000 sq m of new B1 offices on the site)

o To run a peak hour shuttle bus between Woking railway station and the site (from the date of occupation of the first new B1 office on the site. Privately-run service to operate when occupancy exceeds 25,000 sq m of B1 use);

o Travel Plan Strategy;

o A financial contribution of £150,000 towards the Runnymede Travel Initiative (yellow bus service). (Payment payable upon occupation of first 25,000 sq m of new offices on the site);

o Establishment of an ecological buffer zone on the western part of the site (within Surrey Heath) to ensure appropriate habitat for the species of interest is provided and maintained. (An ecological buffer zone management plan to be agreed before first occupation of new B1 office);

o Retention, management and maintenance of Buildings 63, 64, 109 and 110;

o Relocation of Building 10.

Updated Environmental Impact Assessment :

3.55 The updated Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was submitted with the revised proposals in January 2007. The EIA comprises 6 documents including the main volume of text, two folders containing appendices, a folder containing figures, a non-technical summary and a supplementary statement incorporating the formal Regulation 19 response.

3.56 The EIA considers the environmental effects of the proposed development during construction and once completed and in operation, proposes ways to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment, known as mitigation measures.

3.57 As part of the EIA process, assessments have been made of traffic and transport; air quality and climate; noise and vibration; ecology and nature conservation; water quality and resources; soils, geology and contamination; cultural heritage; landscape and visual assessment; lighting; communities, and socio-economics and rights of way.

3.58 This assessment concludes that the Proposed Development can be accommodated on the Application Site in accordance with policy objectives and with overall beneficial residual effects upon both the Application Site and the surrounding area.

Appropriate Assessment -

3.59 The relevant European sites considered are the Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). The legal status of the sites means that appropriate assessment is required under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 which enact the Habitats Directive; the Birds Directive, PPS9 and the ODPM Circular 06/05 are also discussed in detail in the document.

3.60 The approach taken in the Information Towards an Appropriate Assessment document (AA) is to consider the likely significant effects of the proposed development on Chobham Common (a component of the SAC and SPA) associated with the development of up to 115,712 sq m of built floorspace including Class B1 business premises. Detailed ecological and visitor surveys of the Common (undertaken in 2004/5) together with available bird records, have shown that this approach to the assessment is valid, identifying the key factors associated with the qualifying species and habitats and relating this back to the potential effects from the proposed development.

3.61 The key topic areas, which in consultation with the relevant consultees, including Runnymede Council, Surrey Heath Council, Natural England and Surrey Wildlife Trust have been identified as requiring consideration in respect of the designated sites are Ecology, Dust Pollution, Noise and Vibration, Lighting, Fire, Surface and Groundwater. For each of these topics the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed development have been assessed in order to identify opportunities for changes to the design or measures to be implemented during construction and operation which will reduce or prevent potential impacts.

3.62 Details of the preventative and mitigation measures are detailed within each of the technical chapters and summarised in the Environmental Management Procedures chapter. These measures will ensure that the integrity of Chobham Common as a component of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Common SAC will not be adversely affected by the proposed development, while specific additional enhancement measures will contribute to positive changes relating to the conservation objectives of the SAC and SPA, as a direct result of the redevelopment of the former DERA site. The integrity of the component parts of the SPA and SAC, and these sites as a whole, will also remain unaffected by the proposed development. Since it is considered that the proposed scheme would have no adverse effect on its own, consequently it cannot have any in-combination effect.

4. Consultations

4.1 The application has been advertised on the weekly list and in the local paper. Four site notices were also displayed along the Chobham Lane and Burma Road site boundaries. Individual letters of notification were sent to 278 properties. There have been 16 letters of objection to the original proposal and 10 letters of objection and 12 letters of support to the revised proposal.

4.2 The objections to the original proposal include representations from The Ottershaw Society, The Chertsey Society, The Chobham Society and Runnymede Riders. The main objections to the original proposal can be summarised as:

Adverse effects on Chobham Common which is of national importance and is well used by walkers;

The site adjoins one of Surrey’s most precious assets which must be protected at all costs;

Applicants claiming to reduce amount of development on site but are including hardstandings in these calculations;

Only 3 existing buildings exceeding 24 metres and up to 18 new large office buildings up to 17.5 metres high;

As it is an outline application, the proposal could significantly change;

Any development must be within the existing built envelope;

Non-toxic demolition materials should be re-used and recycled on the site;

Heights restricted to a maximum height;

Overall heights and overall size of development should be reduced;

Green/brown roofs should be used to blend in with the surroundings;

Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) must be used;

Proposal should include southern part of the site so that it constitutes a comprehensive rather than piecemeal development;

The footpath along the northern part of the site alongside the railway line should be retained and used as public right of way; Paths should be upgraded to bridleways to improve the safety of horse riders

The old DERA when in full use did generate a lot of traffic;

The old DERA facility employed approximately 2000 staff, many of whom lived in the area and travelled to work on foot or by bicycle, by organised transport or as a member of a car pool. Consequently, fewer than 700 cars parked on site;

Proposed development allows for over 5 times this volume of vehicles on site (3750) with an estimated workforce of 5000 to 6000;

This site can only be accessed by B roads (B363 and B366) fed from the A30, A319 and A322. Traffic has significantly increased on the local roads as they have been used as rat runs to avoid Chobham, Ottershaw and other congestion points;

The number of vehicles using the site should be minimised to reduce its impact on surrounding local roads;

The traffic implications from possible developments in the area including the waste incinerator plant in Kitsmead Lane need to be considered in the overall traffic assessment;

Increase in traffic will put horse riders at ever more risk of accidents;

Object to the proposed installation of traffic lights at either end of Staple Hill as it would seriously damage the Common’s rural environment (not intended as part of this proposal);

Proposed roundabouts add urbanising effect;

Extra traffic lights required at Stonehill Road and Longcross Road junction;

Excessive speed on these local roads is the cause of many road fatalities in recent years;

40mph speed limits on local roads need to be extended especially along Holloway Hill;

Additional street lighting required especially at Longcross Road and Accommodation Road junction;

Mini roundabouts required along Trumps Green Road with its junctions to Knowle Grove and Oak Tree Close etc;

Represents an increase in floor area of some 50% and contrary to Green Belt policy;

Have a disastrous urbanising effect;

The proposed buildings at 17.5 metres high are likely to be visible from Chobham Common particularly in the winter months and when lit at night;

Sheer mass of indicative scheme creates anything but openness in the Green Belt;

Over-supply of office space in the Thames Valley area;

10 acres of land should be transferred back as common land and physically separated from the proposed development;

The proposed wildlife buffer zone must be retained and long term management agreed;

All lighting needs to be carefully controlled to avoid upward light spillage;

Cycle route network should be extended in the local area;

Ideally the whole site should be returned to open Green Belt land;

Does not bring employment opportunities;

Time to call a halt on development in the South East

Lack of water in the South East;

Increased pollution and environmental damage;

Increased demand for affordable housing;

General disruption to surrounding villages if development goes ahead;

Classic case of developers wanting to make money without thinking about the consequences for the local community;

The Council should acquire the site and lease it to a private developer to gain proper control of the site in the interests of local residents;

The business park must never be the centrepiece of a new housing development;

Disruption on roads by large lorries and long construction period;

Burma Road barrier needs to be retained to reduce flytipping and gypsy incursions.

4.3 The 13 letters of objection to the revised proposal include representations from The Chobham Society, The Ottershaw Society, Wentworth Residents’ Association, Runnymede Riders and the British Horse Society. Many of the objections repeat the points made in paragraph 4.2 above. The main additional objections to the revised scheme can be summarised as:

Concerned that the development is contravening the requirements of Chobham Common as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);

Proposed waste incinerator at Trumps Farm in Kitsmead Lane will add a large number of heavy goods vehicles on the same saturated local road network;

Noise and air and dust pollution from the M3 motorway have become a serious annoyance to those living on the western edge of Virginia Water;

There should be a definite and concrete guarantee that weekday morning and evening train services in both directions will call at Longcross Station;

No more than 1,000 car parking spaces should be provided on site;

Site should be directly connected to M3 motorway by creating new junction for the site;

Retail and restaurant uses on site will be detrimental to the viability and vitality of local villages such as Egham, Englefield Green and Virginia Water which are valuable to local communities;

Why is the Council even considering such a proposal?

Enough is enough;

Local wildlife will be at risk;

You cannot erect a conservatory or a house due to Green Belt restrictions; how can such a large proposal not be refused?

The development of the enormous floor area of this site will demand local housing, which is partially forthcoming in the proposals for the housing development on the Longcross Barrowhills site. Together they will be a huge conglomeration which, if looked on as part of Virginia Water, would completely swamp the infrastructure and services of the Virginia Water/Trumps Green village. They must be viewed together as an independent ‘New Village’ and must be developed as such. It is impossible to approve the plans for the North DERA site without proper outline plans for the Barrowhills site. Please, therefore, defer a decision on this application until there has been a proper public inquiry on the combined development.

Please ensure that the development does not detract from the public use of the access via the Burma Road to the Ship Hill part of Chobham Common. This is a well used access for residents of Virginia Water and Longcross and from further into Runnymede.

If you are so minded as to approve the application please make it conditional on the maintenance of the bridle way along the railway boundary from the Kitsmead Bridge to the Longcross station and thence to Chobham Common. Although this path does not presently enjoy R.O.W. status, it has been used by horse riders and pedestrians for very many years, and the vastly increased traffic and the additional roundabout resulting from this application will preclude the use of the Chobham Lane for any social pursuits.

To find that the applicant wishes to completely seal the site to prevent access by pedestrians and riders. This means access to Chobham Common is only possible by transport as Chertsey Lane is too dangerous to walk or ride along. An absolute disgrace, we have had permitted use of the footpath since war ended.

People should have equal rights to the protected birds to use the common.

Closure of access via Wentworth Golf Course is disgraceful.

Council has a duty to residents who pay taxes.

Traffic lights at Wellington Avenue is a further attempt to urbanise our country village.

The British Horse Society is concerned that the needs and safety of local horse riders may not have been considered when considering the application. (Paragraph 5.267 of the report addresses the original objection from Runnymede Riders on behalf of local horse riders.)

4.4 The 12 letters of support on the revised proposal raise the following points:

Revised proposal would result in fewer buildings, more employment and Chobham Common protected;

This site will attract international companies who require headquarters in prestige places;

Proposal will enhance Chobham Common;

Objections to scheme seem rather alarmist especially as the original plan has been scaled down;

Developers appear to be fully aware of the necessity to protect the wide variety of wildlife or provide alternative habitats;

Proposed ecological park will discourage workers from going off site for recreation – a major environmental plus;

Existing buildings are unattractive and take up a large area of the site;

Erecting modern buildings with smaller footprint and providing more open space on the site will be a major environmental improvement;

Revised application recognises the sensitiveness of Chobham Common far more than the Ministry of Defence did in the 1940s;

Proposal will increase distance between buildings;

The proposal will give the area long term jobs;

Will maximise job opportunities other than warehousing;

Good for the local economy;

Sensible idea to redevelop brownfield site in the countryside;

It would re-open Longcross Station and allow trains to regularly stop at the station;

Before the Second World War Longcross was a thriving village;

Would not add significantly to the local traffic;

When DERA was really active there were tanks, helicopters and army vehicles on low-loaders which travelled through Longcross and Windlesham along with the employees who travelled by car;

The B386 is now a lot quieter, under-utilised resource which should be used to provide jobs which is close to the centre of population;

Encourage local employment and reduce global warming;

Proposal has an integrated public transport system which includes a bus and train service;

Frightening how many companies have left the Runnymede area in the past 20 to 30 years. The Borough needs to attract multinational to secure jobs and this seems the ideal opportunity;

Cannot understand why this planning application has not been progressed;

The South East Plan recognises the need to increase employment in the region;

The DERA site in the 1970s and 1980s was one of Surrey’s largest employment sites and contributed massively to the local economy;

The amount of housing being built seems to be disproportionate to employment

4.5 The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) advise that the Council should grant planning permission only if it is satisfied that:

(1) The proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of the adjoining SPA and SAC at Chobham common;

(2) The proposed development accords with Green Belt guidance and complies with the objectives of Policy E3 of RGP9 and Policy CC10a of the draft South East Plan;

(3) Appropriate measures including an agreed travel plan can be secured to promote alternatives to the car and encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport;

(4) If the Council is minded to grant planning permission it should secure the following matters via a legal agreement or condition:

Phasing and delivery of community and other infrastructure appropriate to the scale of the development;

Appropriate level of car and cycle parking;

Incorporation of water and energy efficiency measures and promotion of renewable energy and sustainable construction mitigation measures in relation to flood risk, air quality, noise and impacts on groundwater and archaeological remains and measures to protect and enhance the biodiversity assets of the site.

4.6 The South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) supports the proposed development and considers that a high quality business park will attract the type of business such as multinational HQ companies that are essential to ensure the continued economic growth of the South East. This site is critical to achieving the above desire and by creating new purpose-built employment space for between 5-7,000 jobs on a well-located sustainable site.

4.7 English Heritage (EH) raise no objection to the revised application. The former defence buildings have been assessed. Buildings 64 and 121 are highly specialised structures which will not readily lend themselves to sustainable secondary use. Not strong candidates for listing.

Dismantling of building 10 and re-erection on suitable new site; Retention of building 64 if structural survey indicates good enough condition; Possible demolition of building 121 pending structural survey.

4.8 Natural England (NE) raise no objection to the revised application subject to conditions/legal agreement. Natural England consider that sufficient information has now been provided from the applicant for the Council to conclude its Appropriate Assessment.

Conditions are requested regarding dust, maintenance of fencing and security procedures to prevent the site being used as an access point to Chobham Common for both cars and rail passengers. NE can conclude not adversely affect the integrity of the European site, Thursley, Ash and Chobham SAC.

Additional mitigation measures required to secure protected species and habitats particularly the black redstarts and Deptford Pinks. NE advise that the Council has regard to conserving biodiversity pursuant to S40(1) of Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

4.9 The Environment Agency (EA) raise no objection to the revised proposal subject to conditions. The reduction in footprint and hardstandings is unlikely to result in an increased risk of flooding from surface water.

No objection on land drainage grounds but will require further work prior to any reserved matters application to make opportunities for SUDS and source control methods (paving, soakaways, rainwater harvesting etc) before considering storm water conveyance and balancing ponds. Conditions are requested which relate to further surveys or controls on protection of protected species and habitats, particularly water voles and black redstarts.

4.10 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) states that:

“A revised Transport Assessment has not been submitted to the Highway Authority but it is noted that the reduction in built form proposed is not of any material significance and the impact on the surrounding highway network will be of a similar level to the previous proposal at this site. However, the signalisation to the A30 with Broomhall Lane and Chobham Road will still be required and it is recommended that this be secured by way of a Grampian-style condition should the Local Planning Authority be minded to grant planning permission. Lastly, concern is raised in respect of the lack of any public parking facilities at the railway halt to serve the needs of local residents within the likely catchment area.”

4.11 Woking Borough Council (WBC) raise objection for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would result in a significant increase in floorspace upon the site, and associated increases in activity and movements to and from the site. This would significantly harm the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 : ‘Green Belts’ and Major Developed Sites.

2. The applicants have failed to justify the need for the proposed development. Approval of such a scheme with the level of floor space proposed could prejudice the likelihood of new B1 development coming forward in more appropriate and sustainable locations such as major town centres, including Woking, or upon sites in existing urban areas.

3. The application fails to address the requirement of Surrey Structure Plan 2004 Policy DN11. Approval of such a scheme may therefore place additional pressure for affordable housing within Woking Borough.

4. The application does not comply with Policy DN2 and Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) : ‘Transport’ in that the site is not located within an area compatible with transport infrastructure and does not enable sufficient access by walking, cycling or the use of public transport. The applicants have also not demonstrated how the scheme would address increases in traffic and congestion within the Borough of Woking.

5. The applicants have not demonstrated how the scheme would address Policy SE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004. Any scheme should incorporate Combined Heat and Power systems, in addition to other sustainable related technologies.

6. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated how the scheme would not have an adverse impact upon the SPA area.

4.12 No formal comments have been received from Surrey Heath Borough Council (SHBC). A consultation application (RU.06/0975) from Surrey Heath is reported elsewhere on this agenda.

4.13 Surrey County Council (SCC) object to the proposal. The County Council made their objection to the original application concluding that this is a large scale commercial development in an isolated Green Belt location which is unsustainable in land use and community planning policy terms. The proposal therefore runs counter to the Government’s principles for sustainable development in PPS1, the spatial parameters of the emerging draft South East Plan and the spatial strategy of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 which also seek sustainable development.

4.14 Notwithstanding the previous use of the site, the CLEUD or its status as a MDS within the Green Belt, the proposal would be for an excessive level of unsustainable development which would have an unidentified social economic impact on a wider area of north-west Surrey. There would also be significant transportation implications.

4.15 The County Council consider that the revisions to the original application affect the scale and layout of the development rather than the principle of commercial redevelopment and the principle of sustainable development. The revised application in strategic planning and transportation policy remains unchanged and an objection to the revised application is maintained.

4.16 The release of this site for a substantial amount of commercial floorspace contrary to the South East’s emerging strategy, and without appropriate recognition of, and allowance for, the socio-economic and environmental impacts within the LDF process for Runnymede and adjacent areas, can be viewed as inherently unsustainable in strategic land use and community planning terms.

4.17 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcome the current amendments to the original application. In particular:

1. The addition of a park to the east of the development site which, subject to detailed design should provide important open space for employees and further avoid the likelihood of increased recreational use of the adjacent Chobham Common SSSI and SPA to the west of the site;

2. Proposed access restrictions;

3. Consultation with independent consultant regarding provisions for black redstarts (and monitoring of demolition and construction activities and dust);

4. Ecological enhancement measures and the applicant’s commitment to provide financial contributions towards Surrey Wildlife Trust’s management of Chobham Common SSSI (under Hab Regs cannot be considered as landowner’s duty).

4.18 The RSPB is broadly satisfied that the proposed mitigation/avoidance measures if secured and implemented in full could be sufficient to offset the potential impacts on the SSSI/SPA. The RSPB did have concerns about some erroneous assertions and conclusions in the information Towards Appropriate Assessment. The RSPB believe that the Nightjars are suffering from current recreational pressure and that there is no spare capacity on SPA to absorb additional recreational pressure from new housing. The RSPB emphasises the precautionary approach and the in-combination effects of the proposal.

4.19 The Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) raise no objection to the revised application. The revised application addresses many of the Trust’s previous concerns and welcomes the inclusion of ecological area which could provide suitable habitat for key species such as black redstart and Deptford Pink.

4.20 The SWT believe that the proposed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will provide opportunity to address Trust’s outstanding concerns regarding details of the proposed development such as:

Access from the site to Chobham Common

Retained landscaping of the ecological areas

Long term management of the ecological areas

Future management of the buildings which remain in the ecological area

Mitigation for protected species such as badgers, bats, water voles and herpeto fauna

Using appropriate native species in landscaping schemes and including bat roosts

4.21 The County Archaeologist raises no objection subject to conditions.

4.22 The County Archaeologist believes that sufficient detail has been submitted with the revised application which includes a structural appraisal of WWII Blister Hangar (Building 10). This structure is in good condition and is suitable for dismantling and relocation. Protective fencing should be erected around areas of identified archaeological importance and the applicant should commence archaeological works as soon as possible.

4.23 South West Trains supports the provision of an enhanced train service at Longcross Station. This would provide a 30 minute stopping service throughout the day Mondays to Saturdays. If a service is required on Sundays then that would be investigated at a later stage.

4.24 Network Rail raise no objection subject to conditions but primarily informatives.

4.25 The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer requires a preliminary risk assessment for contaminated land, noise disturbance, lighting, air quality, dust and smoke. Conditions to prevent an overall noise level beyond the site boundary from air conditioning, refrigeration units etc. These issues have been addressed in the Appropriate Assessment and can be adequately controlled by condition.

4.26 Fairoaks Airport raise no objection to the proposal.

4.27 The Countryside Agency make no formal representation on this application.

4.28 Sport England object to the application as the proposals do not adequately meet the needs generated by the development. In addition it is unfortunate that the application does not appear to have taken the opportunity to maximise the potential use and value of the site for the development of sport and active recreation which would be of benefit to all future users.

4.29 Sport England therefore advocate that it is essential for the planning system to ensure all developments contribute to the sport and recreational needs made necessary by the subsequent increase in population of a site. This approach, which relates to all developments and not just residential, is endorsed through government guidance within Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 : ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ 2002 (PPG17) which states in paragraphs 23 and 33 that:

“Local authorities should ensure that provision is made for local sports and recreational facilities (either through an increase in the number of facilities or through improvements to existing facilities) where planning permission is granted for new developments (especially housing).

Local Authorities will be justified in seeking planning obligations where the quantity or quality of provision is inadequate or under threat, or where new development increases local needs.

4.30 Sport England therefore welcomes the commitment within this application for the promotion of walking and cycling around the site along with the development of a fitness centre. Sport England would be interested to learn more about the nature and design of the fitness centre along with the management arrangements of the proposed community use. Sport England also welcomes the significant amount of open space proposed by the application. However, it is unfortunate that the potential value of this space for sport and in particular active recreation does not appear to be maximised by the application.

4.31 It is Sport England’s opinion that users of the site, particularly future employees of the proposed business premises, will make demands upon a range of sport and recreational facilities over and above any requirement they may have for an on-site fitness facility. Sport England would like to see such developments embrace the opportunity available to offer a range of formal and informal opportunities which can allow users of the site to build sport and active recreation into their everyday lives. By providing such provision it is Sport England’s belief that the development itself will benefit by providing an enhanced attractive, active and healthy environment.

4.32 Sport England would suggest that the applicant explores the potential to develop a range of provision which could include multi-use games areas along with designated jogging, cycling and activity trails with distance markers etc. Such provision would enhance the proposals and in particular provide active and useable open space for the benefit of the development as a whole.

4.33 West Surrey Badger Group raise no objection subject to a condition requiring a protection zone around the badger sett. It could reach as far as Building 112. Tree planting to include fruit trees and shrubs that would provide food for badgers.

4.34 The Council’s lighting consultant advises that the applicant’s proposals for the control of lighting design are good and providing they are fully observed, there will be minimal light intrusion to the surrounding area. The final lighting designs must be submitted. He recommends that some basic requirements that must be complied with for the majority of the design for permanent lighting should be:

Majority of existing lights are old with quite high upward light ratios. However, many were lower outputs than would be used on newer industrial buildings. Any new lighting will have to conform to stricter guidelines.

4.35 The Highways Agency advise that after extensive discussion with the applicant, their transport consultants (WSP) and Surrey County Council, no objection is raised subject to improvement works at Junction 3 of the M3.

4.36 The County Highways Authority (CHA) raise objection on the grounds that the proposed increase in floor area of B1 offices with its high level of car parking in this remote rural location would lead to a reliance upon the private car and would therefore be contrary to Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) : ‘Transport’, Planning Policy Statement 6‘ : Planning for Town Centres’ (PPS6) and Policies LO1 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004. This is a fundamental principle objection due to the significant increase in proposed office space in an unsustainable location.

4.37 The County Highways Authority have employed consultants (Parsons Brinkerhoff) which have been funded by the applicant. It is understood that there is no technical reason for refusal in terms of traffic generation, capacity of roads, junction capacity or highway danger with the proposal.

4.38 If the application is granted permission the County Highways Authority recommend the following package of transport related measures should include:

Section 278 for off-site highway works.

Improvements to Longcross Station including ‘kiss and ride’ facility.

At least 30 minute stopping serving at Longcross Station every day except Sundays.

Shuttle bus service to Woking, fully funded by developer for 5 years from first occupation and thereafter funded by TMA.

Review car parking regime if demand, but insufficient income.

On-site employee only health and fitness facility, crèche, retail café/restaurant facility.

Network of pedestrian and cycle routes.

Regular view of off-site parking on the highway and use of the surrounding car parks on the Chobham Common etc, following first occupation.

Full funding of Traffic Regulation Orders.

A commitment to fund prior to development commencing, the microsimultation of the junction of M3/A322 and A322/New Road, with associated links; to design any necessary improvements to that part of the network arising from the additional development impact; and the full implementation of those improvements.

A commitment to fully fund prior to development, a review, design; consultation and the implementation of a traffic calming scheme that might be derived from that process to discourage development traffic from using Windlesham Village roads as a means of access to the development.

The contribution of a sum not exceeding £100,000 (indexed to September 2007 prices) towards the cost of closing Staple Hill Road in the event that a Road Closure Order is obtained.

The provision and maintenance of unfettered non site access for all modes to Longcross Station.

Travel Plan to include parking charge of 15% of the initial provision 1/30 sq.m. and the increase by 2% per year for each occupier of % of spaces charged for so by end of year 5 each occupier will be charged for using 25% of its total allocated spaces – provide greater fiscal support for TMA.

Monitoring of Travel Plan required.

Establishment and permanent maintenance of TMA.

Junction improvements at A30 junctions to be fully implemented no later than occupation of 25,000 sq.m. of floorspace.

No other means of access to Chobham Lane or Burma Road.

Provision of 3,019 car parking spaces (maximum)

Provision of at least 725 cycle spaces.

Without prejudice to the County’s formal response to the consultation on the draft South East Plan following the August 2007 Panel Report the CHA have the following comments on the Panel’s findings:

Notwithstanding the inconclusive debate as to whether or not a free standing development in the middle of Surrey’s unpopulated heathlands, straddling one of Europe’s busiest motorways, comprising 2,500 residential units and 65,000 sq.m. of B1 uses and other supporting facilities constitutes a “sustainable community” (however that might be defined), the proposed development comprising over 90,000 sq.m. of B1 with no residential is significantly worse in sustainable transport terms.

Not only is the development an uplift on the South East Plan’s proposed 65,000 sq.m. of B1 (40%) but it is also an uplift on the CLEUD of 77,320 sq.m. (17%). The siting of this significant increase in B1 development in this location with little other community facilities and none of the housing which appears to be deemed necessary by the South East Panel in their decision to override other policies within the draft plan, makes it even more unacceptable. Although the County do not necessarily agree with the Panel’s report in respect of the application site, its findings do demonstrate how unacceptable the quantum of development within the proposal therefore must be.

Notwithstanding the above comments in respect of the South East Plan’s findings that 65,000 sq.m. of B1 could be justified provided that it was part of a “community” with housing, the existence of a CLEUD for 77,320 sq.m. B1, establishes a base which we cannot diminish. For this reason, were an application to be submitted for an amount of B1 development commensurate to the CLEUD of 77,320 sq.m. with a similar transport package, although there would still be serious concerns about the sustainability of such a development, the County Council would probably reconsider its recommendation to refuse.

The review of the applicants transport assessment by Parsons Brinkerhoff, on behalf of Surrey County Council, sets out the likely impacts on relevant junctions. The important point to understand is that all modeling of the development scenario is set upon the base of the potential travel demand arising from the already granted CLEUD’s. In other words, the impact of the development of 90,626 sq.m. of B1 has been compared with the situation that would potentially prevail were the CLEUD of 77,320 sq.m. implemented.

That situation could prevail without any highway improvements, so the required junction improvements associated with the development proposals would partially mitigate that otherwise uncorrected impact. It is clear from the Parsons Brinkerhoff report that the modelled queue lengths on some junctions will be excessive. These however, are primarily a result of the established lawful development, and something that alone cannot be corrected.

5. Planning Considerations

5.1 This revised application is for the demolition of almost all the existing buildings on the northern part of the site and its redevelopment only for a new office (Class B1) business park with supporting facilities including a health and fitness centre, crèche, restaurant and café, shop and ecological park to meet the needs of the proposed workforce. Five existing buildings (Nos. 10, 63, 64, 109 and 110 as shown on Appendix F) are to be retained for either historical or ecological reasons.

5.2 This application has been submitted in outline form with all matters reserved for future consideration except for details of means of access. The applicant has submitted a set of revised development parameters (see Appendices D to G and paragraphs 3.5-3.19 above) to allow some flexibility in the final layout. This revised proposal seeks a total gross external floor area which should not exceed 113,434 sq m and with the office (Class B1) use restricted to no more than 90,624 sq m. The proposal also includes the use of decked parking and provision initially of 3079 on-site car parking spaces.

5.3 A new vehicular access would be provided from the site onto Chobham Lane to replace the existing access points. A number of off-site alterations to roundabouts and road junctions are also proposed as part of this application.

5.4 This is a major application to redevelop a site which has been associated with research, design and testing of military vehicles since 1942. This site is in a sensitive location in the Green Belt and adjacent to internationally important ecological sites and with protected species on and adjacent to this site. The size and nature of this proposal in such a location makes for a very complex set of material considerations which attract an extensive set of planning policies and a wide range of Government guidance, including emerging supplementary guidance. Before assessing these pure planning considerations it is necessary to consider the statutory requirements of European and national environmental legislation on this proposal.

Assessment of Non-planning Impacts – Environmental Impact Assessment and Appropriate Assessment

5.5 In addition to the general planning application procedures and the requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), this application has been subjected to two major legislative regimes. This has been required in respect of the assessment of likely significant impacts its approval could have on a number of environmental features. The first of these is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirement, which is derived from Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337/EC (as amended) and transposed into UK law by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

5.6 The second is the requirement to carry out Appropriate Assessment (AA) by virtue of the European Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (92/43/EEC) (Habitats Directive), and transposed into UK law by virtue of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations). The specific duty contained within the Habitats Directive requiring an AA to be carried out is a requirement for a more detailed assessment than that which is required by EIA legislation. This is due to the fact that it focuses specifically on likely significant effects on individual features.

This is not to say that similarities do not exist between both legislative regimes, as they do. Equally, there are some fundamental differences.

5.7 On the similarity side, there is a requirement within both regimes for the assessment of the likely significant effects the proposed development could initiate on its own or in combination with other plans and projects on sensitive species and sites in advance of a decision being taken. Equally, both instruments have a high data requirement and for similar data in order to carry out assessments. To such an extent that, data exchange between the AA and EIA assessments is encouraged.

5.8 However, in terms of general differences, the EIA is considered to be much more flexible that the AA. This flexibility is particularly apparent in the fact that, if an Environmental Statement (ES) cannot conclude that there will be no likely significant effects on environmental features; a development may still obtain approval. Conversely, if an AA fails to conclude no adverse affect on the integrity of a site; the development will not normally be approved. Another contrast relates to the duties of the Local Planning Authority, an AA is carried out by the Competent Authority (CA) based on information provided by the applicant. Whereas the EIA is requested, reviewed and used by the Local Planning Authority, but is carried out by the applicant. Finally, the AA procedure is still considered to be in its infancy, and therefore methodologies continue to be developed whilst the EIA is far more established.

5.9 This application has been subjected to both sets of regulations, which has been further complicated by the fact that it covers the administrative boundaries of two Local Planning Authorities - Runnymede Borough Council and Surrey Heath Borough Council. This has required both authorities to agree that Runnymede Borough Council act as ‘lead authority’, in respect of the coordination of the requirements of both EIA and AA legislative regimes. As this proposal requires the simultaneous application of both sets of regulations in its consideration. The following paragraphs will go into some detail. However, the majority of technical detail is supported within the accompanying appendices including the ES including Figures and Appendices, Information Towards an Appropriate Assessment.

5.10 It is also worth noting that information and views on impacts and considerations relating to both legislative regimes have been gained by the Local Planning Authorities from a number of meetings, discussions and communications with the applicant’s team of consultants, NE and others.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

5.11 In respect of the EIA, a scoping opinion was prepared, adopted and issued by both Local Planning Authorities on 28th April 2004 in response to an EIA Regulation 10 scoping request made by the applicants on 10th March 2004.

5.12 The scoping opinion considered a number of factors for the EIA to assess and report in its ES accompanying any application. The applicants duly prepared and submitted an ES and Non-Technical Summary in support of this application largely based on the scoping opinion issued by both Councils.

5.13 The scope of the EIA on the northern part of DERA has included the following areas of potentially significant environmental impact: transport, air quality, noise and vibration, ecology, water quality and resources, soils, geology and contamination, cultural heritage, landscape and visual effects, lighting, communities, rights of way, socio economics, waste management, sustainability and residual impacts and including interactions between them.

5.14 The EIA process undertaken for the proposed development has considered the value and importance of various key environmental receptors against the magnitude of change likely to arise from the proposal. This has enabled the identification of potentially significant impacts associated with the proposal. Where appropriate, specific measures to mitigate for potentially significant impacts have been identified. An assessment of any residual impacts has then been undertaken. The main issues within the EIA are described in the latest non-technical summary dated December 2006. A copy of the non­technical summary can be provided on request.

5.15 A planning application accompanied by an ES was submitted to the Council in May 2005 The ES was reviewed by Runnymede Borough Council and was considered on the 6th September 2005 at this stage to be incomplete due to a general lack of data.

5.16 On the 13 December 2005, in order to address ES short comings a Regulation 19 request for additional information was issued to the applicants by the Council. The outstanding EIA requirements were subsequently satisfied with the submission to the Council in December 2006 of a revised ES and non-technical summary. The additional information supplied in support of the ES has now been reviewed by officers and found to be both sound and fit for purpose (see Appendix H Updated ES Review).

5.17 As detailed within the ES, all main issues highlighted to result in likely significant effects have been assessed. A number of mitigation measures have been proposed and their residual effects have been re­assessed. For convenience, Tables 17.1 and 18.2 have been extracted from the main ES attached as Appendix I. In order to assist with locating the relevant information, the table below has been produced:

Table 3 - EIA Assessment Overview

ES Chapter

Topic Area Assessed Mitigation/ Enhancement

Negative Residual Effects

5 Traffic and Transport Yes Minor

6 Air Quality and Climate Yes None

7 Noise and Vibration Yes Minor

8 Ecology and Nature Conservation Yes Minor

9 Water Quality and Resources Yes Minor

10 Soils, Geology and Contamination None None

11 Cultural Heritage None None

12 Landscape and Visual Assessment Yes None

13 Lighting Yes None

14 Communities, Socio Economic and Rights of Way

Yes None

15 Waste Management Yes None

16 Sustainability N/A N/A

5.18 A conclusion that major residual effects following implementation of the mitigation measures proposed is not expected to occur has been based on an analysis of the information supplied within the ES. Admittedly, in order to achieve this high objective, substantial reliance is placed on the ability of the applicant’s Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to monitor, control and report progress. Condition 49 proposes to cover this issue.

5.19 In addition to the continued interests of transparency, and given the considerable burden being placed on the CEMP, it is advisable that a process of independent verification be secured by condition. This would be expected to take the form of a modification of the composition of the Environmental Management Team as detailed in the ES. This team will include the optional funded attendance to monthly review meetings of a member of staff representing the Runnymede and Surrey Heath Councils, NE, EA and SWT.

5.20 The developer correctly describes the proposed development as EIA development. In consultation with other bodies and individuals, the Council in conjunction with Surrey Heath Borough Council adopted a formal scoping opinion within which they identified the factors to be considered by the ES. These factors have been duly described, assessed and reported within the ES which supports this outline application. The ES has been found to be complete and fit for purpose. The planning authorities will now have the opportunity to consider its contents in their determination of this application.

5.21 A number of specific conditions are proposed to secure the ongoing ability of the development site in addition its SSSI Chobham Common neighbour along with the international designated sites, to provide a secure and viable ecological structure of habitats.

5.22 Both the application site itself and the adjoining Chobham Common are considered important for wildlife and biodiversity purposes. Both sites contains a number of habitats that support rare plants, badgers, bats, water voles, newts and the specially protected Badger Setts, Deptford Pinks, and Black Redstarts. Information and data relating to three of these features was provided within the ES. The developer had requested that this information should be treated as confidential. Runnymede Borough Council carried out an assessment of this data and concluded that it did not consider the data to be so sensitive as to prevent its release to the public.

Appropriate Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment

5.23 The Scoping Report also identified the requirement for the need for two AA’s, one for impacts on Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) that were classified in March 2005 and a second for impacts on Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation (SAC) that were designated in April 2005.

5.24 European Directive (79/409/EEC) on the conservation of wild birds (Birds Directive) requires Member States to maintain the populations of wild birds particularly those identified within Annex 1 (list of protected birds). Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive requires that SPAs be formed for the conservation of Annex 1 Species; the Thames Basin Heaths SPA is one such site. Article 4(2) creates a similar requirement to protect migratory species along with their wintering and breeding sites. Article 4(4) states that in these protection areas Member states must take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds insofar as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of Article 4.

5.25 The Habitats Directive is seen as being directly relevant to the requirements of the earlier Birds Directive and provides protection to all sites and species within the Natura 2000 network. The European Commission sees comments relating to the Habitats Directive applying ‘mutatis mutandis’ (applies equally) to sites classified under the Birds Directive. As such the Habitats Directive effectively extends the approach taken in the Birds Directive to other animals, plant species and natural habitat types. Its aim is to contribute towards ensuring biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna.

5.26 The provisions of the Directive 92/43/EEC have been transposed in to UK law by the Conservation (Natural Habitat &c.) Regulations 1994 (No. 2716) (as amended). These regulations place a positive statutory duty on all Competent Authorities (CA) not to agree to or issue a consent, permission or other authorisation for a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site, where the CA is unable to conclude that its issue will not adversely effect the integrity of a Natura 2000 sites within the UK.

The Habitats Regulations – Operational

5.27 As stated above, the provisions of the Directive 92/43/EEC have been transposed in to UK law by the Conservation (Natural Habitat &c.) Regulations 1994 (No. 2716) (see Appendix 1 – Habitats Regulations) (as amended). These regulations place a positive statutory duty on all Competent Authorities (CA) not to agree to or issue a consent, permission or other authorisation for a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site, where the CA is unable to conclude that issue will not adversely effect the integrity of a Natura 2000 sites within the UK.

5.28 The approach advocated particularly by Regulations 48, 49 and 54 of the Habitat Regulations to planning functions by a CA is in the main a relatively straight forward and largely sequential process. Compliance with the requirements of the legislation requires all CA’s to undertake four distinct stages which can involve the completion of a number of sub­stages. The main stages are:

Screening – this stage determines whether or not the plan will result in likely significant effect on a Natura 2000 site on its own or in combination with other plans or projects. It identifies likely effects followed by objectively determining whether or not these effects will be significant. If it can be concluded that the likely effects will not be significant with reasonable certainty, then no further action is required on the part of the CA. The authorisation process will simply refer to the ‘Finding of no significant effects report’ that details the decision making processes. Otherwise the CA will have to proceed to Stage 2;

Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment – where the screening stage concluded ‘likely significant effects’, resulting on a Natura 2000 site emanating from the proposed plan or project alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Then it is the legal duty of the CA to assemble adequate information and carry out an appropriate assessment (AA) of those likely significant effects. This requirement is to ascertain on the basis of objective information what effect the plan will have on the Natura 2000 site. It should be noted that the information requirement for this stage is high. The CA will have to have access to significant information on inter alia the following: the project - its mechanisms for effect; the Natura 2000 site - its conservation objectives, conservation status and baseline condition; and, the character of the impact(s). Assuming that the CA has been unable to ascertain no adverse affect on the integrity of the Natura 2000, but wishes the project be authorised, then prior to authorisation Stages 3 and 4 will be required;

Stage 3: Assessment of alternative solutions – avoidance and mitigation can be considered at Stage 2 – the Appropriate Assessment stage. However, where it has not been proven that measures considered will not avoid or mitigate the adverse affect on the Natura 2000 site, then an assessment of the alternatives will be required; and if none are acceptable then stage 4 is required to be considered,

Stage 4: Assessment where a plan is considered to result in adverse impact(s) on a Natura 2000 site and no alternative solutions remain – the imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) test must be met before authorisation, permission or adoption of the plan or development is agreed. This includes the agreement of compensatory measures.

5.29 Subject to regulation. 49 of the Habitats Regulations, where a CA is mindful to approve a development, it can only do so having ascertained that the development either alone or in combination with other development plans or projects ‘will not adversely’ affect the integrity of the European site. The positive duty on a CA to take appropriate steps to safeguard a Natura 2000 site from adverse effects on its integrity caused by the implementation of plans or projects as described above, is attained by subjecting consideration to the rigour of an appropriate assessment pursuant to regulation. 48(1) of the Habitats Regulations.

5.30 Regulation 48(5) is informed by regulation 48(6) in the consideration of developments that adversely affect the integrity of the site in that it states:

“…regard to the manner in which it [development proposal] is proposed to be carried out or to any conditions or restriction subject to which they propose that the consent, permission or other authorisation should be given.”

5.31 However, following from the conclusions of regulation. 48(5), and in spite of a negative assessment a CA is still minded to approve, then the strict test of ‘no alternative’ or the equally strict test of ‘imperative reason of overriding public interest’ (IROPI) in Regulation. 49(1) is triggered.

5.32 As referred to earlier determination of this development in the context of the Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive and regulation 48(5) of the Habitats Regulations, is complicated by the fact that there are two local planning authorities involved, Runnymede Borough Council and Surrey Heath Borough Council. There is an economy to be achieved in support of the co-ordination between CAs in terms of coordinating and concluding the appropriate assessment. This is accommodated procedurally by virtue of regulation 52(2) of the Habitats Regulations. Accordingly, regulation 52 Agreements have been drawn up and agreed between Runnymede and Surrey Heath Borough Councils citing Runnymede Borough Council as lead competent authority in terms of the carrying out the appropriate assessment.

5.33 Since this application was originally submitted in 2005, the applicant has submitted a significant quantity of additional data and information to address the complex environment issues of developing within this sensitive location. Various issues have resulted in protracted and extensive discussions, communications and meetings between Runnymede Borough Council, Surrey Heath Borough Council, the applicant’s team of consultants, Natural England, Surrey Wildlife Trust and English Heritage. Consequently, the satisfactory resolutions of these matters have significantly delayed the determination of this application.

5.34 Application of Article 6(3) and regulation 48 to this proposed development has consisted primarily of the first 2 stages as described above:

i) Screening; and, ii) Appropriate assessment, including consideration of ‘adverse

affect on integrity.

5.35 As stated at paragraph 5.23 above, the Scoping Report identified the requirement for the need for two AA’s, one for the impact on the SPA and a second for the impact on the SAC.

5.36 Chobham Common Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lies adjacent to the western boundary of the site and is a national and international site of nature conservation importance. Nationally, it is designated as a Natural Nature Reserve (NNR). Likely significant effects on these designations have been assessed by virtue of the ES and are considered and conclusions reached above. Internationally Chobham Common is also a component within the SPA and the SAC.

5.37 Whilst it has been possible to utilise some of the data supplied in support of the ES for the appropriate assessment. Given the level of detail required in order to describe likely impacts on specific features supported on the international designated sites, it has resulted in the submission of an individual body of data in support of the appropriate assessment. The majority of this data has been submitted under separate cover titled – Information Towards an Appropriate Assessment. This information has been supplemented by additional technical reports that must be read together.

5.38 The SPA is of ornithological interest as it includes important breeding populations of three bird species, Nightjar, Woodlark and Dartford warbler.

5.39 The SAC is important due to it being the location for a number of important and rare habitats, particularly, dry heaths, wet heathland and depressions of peat substrates.

5.40 The main predicted impacts associated with this decision relate to potentially direct and indirect effects on the SPA and the SAC such as:

Likely significant short term recreational disturbance effects on Annex 1 protected birds from construction personnel;

Likely significant long term recreational disturbance effects on Annex 1 protected birds from occupiers and visitors of the developments on site;

Likely significant short term disturbance from noise and vibration on Annex 1 protected birds from construction and development activities;

Likely significant short term impacts of dust pollution in the SAC dust and nutrient sensitive habitats during construction;

Likely significant short and long term changes in surface and groundwater quality and quantity on all SAC habitats during all phases of the development;

Likely significant short and long term changes in lighting levels will have on Annex 1 protected birds during all phases of development; and

Likely significant short and long term effects of maliciously ignited fires on the Annex 1 protected birds.

5.41 Appropriate assessments have been carried out of the above likely significant effects and both appropriate assessments reports (AARs) for the SPA and SAC have been attached to this report (see Appendices J and K respectively).

5.42 Both AARs have concluded that the development as proposed to which this outline application relates will not result in an adverse affect on the integrity of either the SPA or SAC. This conclusion has been taken pursuant to Regulation 48(6) in consideration of the means by which implementation will occur and the conditions and or restrictions of the respective AAR are subject to conditions. It must be noted that this conclusion can only be supported providing these conditions remain unaltered and are on the last page of each AARs (see Appendices J and K) and relate particularly to proposed planning conditions 21, 24, 26, 46, 49, 53, 56 and 59.

The Habitats Regulations - “in combination” assessment

5.43 The European Commission guidance, Managing Natura 2000 begins its consideration of this issue as follows.

5.44 Paragraph 4.4.3 states that:

A series of individually modest impacts may in combination produce a significant impact. Article 6(3) tries to address this by taking into account the combination of effects from other plans or projects. It remains to be determined what other plans and projects are covered. In this regard, Article 6(3) does not explicitly define which other plans or projects are within the scope of the combination provision.

5.45 This passage reflects the purpose of the provision for in combination assessment. The AARs have concluded that the project will neither on its own nor in combination with other projects result in an adverse impact on the integrity of these two sites.

Conclusion

5.46 To summarise, recalling that Reg. 48(1) provides:

A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which-is likely to have a significant effect on a European Site in Great Britain (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and,

is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of the site,

shall make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.

5.47 The proposed redevelopment has triggered the requirement for an appropriate assessment to consider a number of likely significant effects arising if planning permission is granted for this outline application and these likely significant effects are highlighted above.

5.48 Regulation 48(5) requires:

In light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 49, the authority shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.

5.49 It has been possible to conclude that the proposed development will not result in an adverse affect on the integrity of either the SPA or the SAC. Finally, the following synopsis is provided to summarise the main predicted impacts associated with this decision and the related regulation 48(6) consideration to potentially indirect effects on the SPA or the SAC such as:

i) Recreational disturbance effects on Annex 1 birds from construction personnel.

The site lies adjacent to the SPA it is proposed that the main access from the construction site will be hard closed by virtue of the retention and maintenance of the perimeter security fence.

Following the demolition phase, a further permanent impenetrable boundary will be installed to enclose the western ecological buffer zone. Coupled with the proposed closure of Burma Road, it is logically to expect recreational disturbances on the whole to reduce;

ii) Recreational disturbance effects on Annex 1 birds from occupiers and visitors of the developments on site.

Whilst the developed site will be in close proximity to the SPA there will be no permitted access from the development site. All direct access points from within the development site leading to the Chobham Common will be permanently closed by virtue of a retained perimeter security fence. An ecological buffer zone will be established on the western side of the site within Surrey Heath. This ecological buffer will be protected by a permanently maintained impenetrable security boundary fence. On site provision of open green space including an ecological park area to the eastern side of the site will negate employees desire to visit the SPA for recreational purposes. When coupled with the proposed permanent closure of Burma Road, it is again logically to expect recreational disturbances on the whole to reduce as a result of this proposal;

iii) Disturbance from noise and vibration on Annex 1 birds from construction and development activities.

The development is not expected to result in any significant overall increase in noise either during the construction or use of this proposal;

iv) Impacts of dust pollution in the SAC dust and nutrient sensitive habitats during construction

The potential for the significant fugitive dust releases during the demolition and construction phases will be controlled by a mix of adherence to best site management practice in the control of dust and the installation of real-time dust monitoring on the site boundary. Exceedences will be responded to on the basis of a set of pre-agreed actions trigger levels;

v) Changes in surface and groundwater quality and quantity on all SAC habitats during all phases of the development

A proportion of the development site has the potential to have an impact on both surface and groundwater quality and quantity. Surface water is drained from the site primarily by the Mvee stream to the east of the development zone and to a lesser extent the Burma ditch to the west. Strict adherence to the CEMP will ensure that no significant impacts will occur to either function or

quality of these components. An area of the site to its west falls within groundwater catchment area referred to as the Long Arm Groundwater Catchment. Groundwater catchment impacts will be prevented by the use of best practice construction techniques in accordance with best practice and mitigation measures committed to as part of the CEMP.

vi) Changes in lighting levels will have on Annex 1 birds during all phases of development; and

The preliminary lighting strategy demonstrates that horizontal light spill will be at zero lux at the site boundary and no light spillage onto Chobham Common which will prevent any adverse impact. This can be controlled by condition.

vii) Effects of maliciously ignited fires on the Annex 1 birds

The likelihood of fires being ignited maliciously or accidentally by persons working on the site either the construction or in the operational phases of the proposal is considered to be very low. Following additional preventative measures being proposed and agreed to, will reduce this likelihood further.

Principle of Development

5.50 It is understood that the land was sold to the Government in 1941 and the site established in 1942 to house the Department of Tank Design and the Fighting Vehicles Proving Establishment. Since this time the northern part of the DERA site (the application site) has been used for various military and non-military commercial uses. Crown Agencies set up and expanded the site which were at the time exempt under Crown Immunity from the guidance in Planning Acts. The application site benefits from two CLEUDS (one issued by Runnymede, RU.02/1414, and one issued by Surrey Heath in September 2003) and an application for compliance determination for the retention of 25 war period buildings (RU.03/0483).

5.51 The combination of these lawful certificates straddling both Borough boundaries authorised a total footprint of approximately 65,872 sq m of buildings on the northern part of DERA site with a Class B1 (business) use. The total floor area of these authorised buildings is approximately 76,885 sq m (see Table 1 at paragraph 3.7 above).

5.52 The adopted Local Plan also identifies this site as a Major Developed Site (MDS) in the Green Belt. This designation therefore establishes the principle of the potential for the redevelopment of the site in accordance with the provisions of PPG2 (see paragraphs 5.65 to 5.69 below). The possible redevelopment on this long-established existing employment and brownfield site subject to compliance with the relevant planning policies and other material planning considerations is therefore considered acceptable in principle.

5.53 The revised proposal would reduce the total footprint of buildings on this site from 65,872 sq m to 36,000 sq m. However, the proposal is seeking to increase the total floor area from the authorised 76,885 sq m to 113,434 sq m. The additional 36,549 sq m of proposed business (Class B1) floor area is in effect the element that requires a detailed assessment of its likely direct and indirect impacts with this outline proposal.

5.54 Following an Examination in Public into the draft South East Regional Plan, the Report of the Panel identified and recommended the whole of the DERA site (both northern and southern parts of the site) for a mixed use of 65,000 sq m of business (Class B1) and 2,500 dwellings for the plan period 2006 to 2026. Whilst this mixed use allocation is still a considerable way off being ratified by the Government, the additional 48,434 sq m of business (Class B1) floor area above the recommended 65,000 sq m also needs to be considered.

Existing Use of Site

5.55 The CLEUDS and compliance determination confirm the lawfulness of the use of the north of the site for Class B1 purposes generally. The result of these determinations is that any of the buildings can lawfully be used for any of the classes (a) offices; (b) research and development or (c) light industrial uses.

5.56 There is a current application (RU.04/1215) for the change of use of up to 12,900 sq m of existing land and/or buildings to Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) for a temporary period of 5 years. This application appears to have been made to cover the current unauthorised B8 uses operating from part of this site. The main outstanding issue with this proposal relates to the trip generation and impact of heavy goods vehicles on the highway network. This application remains outstanding because there has been no formal response from the County Highway Authority.

5.57 Most of the existing authorised buildings covered by the CLEUDS and compliance determination are soundly constructed and could be economically refurbished for either office or light industrial uses. Indeed, some of the existing buildings are currently being used for light industrial (B1) and warehousing (B8) uses. It is considered that the re-occupation of the existing buildings for similar B1 uses with no restrictions on parking, no requirement for a company transport plan and no means of providing or funding the package of transport measures identified with the outline proposal (see paragraphs 5.175 to 5.189 below) would be significantly more harmful to the Green Belt and the natural environment (SPA, SAC, SSSI) and would not meet current Government aims for sustainable development.

5.58 The re-occupation for light industrial uses or similar uses is likely to generate more lorries and heavy goods vehicles from the site than the proposed business park. There would also be a reasonable probability of increased car use adding to the congestion on local roads without any compensating highway improvements.

5.59 The existing buildings and security fencing are unsightly and affect the openness and the visual amenities of the Green Belt. A high quality redevelopment scheme offers an opportunity to improve the openness of the Green Belt, secure nature conservation benefits and provide a package of transport measures.

Location of Development

5.60 Government policy and adopted planning policies look to urban areas as the prime focus for new development and redevelopment to foster accessibility and avoid unnecessary travel particularly by the car. Policy Q5 of the Regional Planning Guidance 9 (RPG9) and Policy TC2 of the draft South East Plan seek to make the region’s larger town centres (for example Woking and Guildford) the focus for major office developments.

5.61 The spatial strategy for North Surrey in the Surrey Structure Plan reiterates this policy stance of directing development into the urban area, particularly the re-use of previously developed land and buildings. The strategy in the Structure Plan is to consolidate Staines and Epsom as major centres and continue with the revitalisation of Addlestone and Chertsey. The Structure Plan also acknowledges that North Surrey is the most pressurised part of the county with a fragmented Green Belt. Protection of the Green Belt is a key spatial priority.

5.62 A key planning objective is to ensure that jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling to reduce the reliance on the car and long-distance commuting by the car. Consequently, major operators of travel demand should be focussed in major centres with good public transport links. Ideally they should not be in out-of-centre locations. However, paragraph 32 of Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) : ‘Transport’ states that “local authorities should adopt a positive, plan-led approach to identifying preferred areas and sites for B1 uses which are (or will be) as far as possible highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling . . . Businesses should make every effort – for instance by adopting travel plans – to encourage car sharing and use of non-car modes of transport”.

5.63 It should also be noted that paragraph 11 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 4 : ‘Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms’ (PPG4) states “Locational policies in development plans can help to achieve the objective through reducing the need to travel and encouraging development in areas that can be served by more energy efficient modes of transport – such as rail or water. Local planning authorities should consult with British Railway Property Board to help identify potential development sites such as old goods yards and depots or other land adjacent to track . . . Their purpose is to maximise the potential use of transport infrastructure other than roads”.

5.64 This application site is located in the Green Belt outside the strategic network of town centres and outside an urban area. However, the site is designated as a major existing developed site in both the Runnymede and Surrey Heath adopted Local Plans and as such redevelopment for employment purposes on previously development employment land of an appropriate scale is considered to be acceptable in principle. It is also located adjacent to the railway line and has its own railway station which reduces the need to use the car and would be in line with paragraph 11 of PPG4. It is the various impacts from the proposed development which have to be considered and assessed as to whether any adverse effects can be mitigated against.

Green Belt

5.65 This site lies within the Green Belt, Paragraph 1.4 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 : ‘Green Belts’ (PPG2) states:

‘The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belt is their openness.”

5.66 The purposes of including land in the Green Belt are as follows:

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;

to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other land.

5.67 The construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate development unless it fits into specific categories which include limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in an adopted local plan which meets the criteria in paragraphs C4 or C4 of Annex C of PPG2.

5.68 The whole of the DERA site (northern and southern side of the M3) is identified as an existing major developed site in saved Policy GB10 of the adopted Local Plan.

5.69 The relevant criteria set out in paragraph C4 of Annex C of PPG2 states that:

“Whether they are redundant or in continuing use, the complete or partial redevelopment of major developed sites may offer the opportunity for environmental improvement without adding to their impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it.

Where this is the case, local planning authorities may in their development plans identify the site, setting out a policy for its future redevelopment. They should consider preparing a site brief. Redevelopment should:

(a) have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less;

(b) contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts;

(c) not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and

(d) not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless this would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity).”

5.70 The first four criteria of saved Policy GB10 of the Local Plan are similar but not identical to the above (a) to (d) criteria. Policy GB10 also has three additional criteria which are:

(e) ensure that the new buildings are located to have regard to the openness of the Green Belt existing landscape features and the need to integrate with the surroundings;

(f) be part of a comprehensive scheme; and

(g) not give rise to off-site infrastructure problems.

5.71 For the purposes of paragraph C4(d) of Annex C, PPG2 advises that the relevant measurement of the existing buildings is footprint excluding temporary buildings and areas of hardstanding. The character and dispersal of the proposed development will need to be considered as well as its footprint. The location of the new buildings should be decided having regard to the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it (see paragraphs 5.65 and 5.66), the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts, the main features of the landscape and the need to integrate the new development with its surroundings.

5.72 Other paragraphs in Annex C of PPG2 advise that the site should be considered as a whole, in the light of visual amenity and traffic and travel implications of the redevelopment.

5.73 The dispersal of the existing buildings is shown on the plan attached as Appendix D. There are many small and single-storey buildings on site. Many of the larger buildings vary in height between 8 to 12 metres in height. There are exceptions with four taller buildings in the central part of the site varying in height between 16.5 metres to 22 metres. However, the most prominent buildings from both Chobham Lane and Burma Road are the existing buildings located on the western escarpment. The five larger buildings on the escarpment (which lies within Surrey Heath) vary in height between 8 to 16 metres.

5.74 The proposed layout and dispersal of buildings has been reduced significantly from the original proposal (see Appendix E) to the amended proposal (see Appendix F). This amendment has reduced the development area from two enclaves to one central enclave. Within the amended single development area there would be four different height zones ranging from 9.5 metres nearest to Chobham Lane to 17.5 metres. All the existing buildings on the prominent escarpment would be demolished except for four buildings which are being retained for ecological mitigation reasons (see paragraph 5.314 below).

5.75 The developed area of the site would be reduced from approximately 28 hectares to approximately 19.4 hectares. The spread of buildings in an easterly-westerly direction would be reduced from approximately 725 metres to approximately 360 metres and from approximately 630 metres to approximately 592 metres in a northern to southern direction.

5.76 The revised layout is considered to be a more compact form of development which improves the openness of the Green Belt particularly by removing most of the existing buildings from the western escarpment and from the eastern part of the site. These two areas at the eastern and western parts of the site would provide significant new ecological habitats (see paragraphs 5.308, 5.313, 5.316 and 5.317 below). It is considered that the proposal would therefore provide a positive environmental improvement to the Green Belt and improve the openness of the Green Belt.

5.77 The proposed zonal range of heights is likely to cause some major changes to the appearance of this site. Whilst the highest proposed buildings (17.5m) would be lower than the height of two existing buildings (22 metres and 18.2 metres). There are likely to be more buildings which are higher than the average height of existing buildings. It is likely therefore that the proposal would generally provide much higher and bulkier buildings than the existing ones on the site. The higher building(s) would be located in Zone 1 (see Appendix F) covering an area 186 metres wide and 340 metres in depth with a public realm and landscape area in the middle. This revised layout is narrower than the original scheme creating greater distances to site boundaries.

5.78 The proposed buildings in Zone 1 (17.5 metres) would be set at a ground level of 64.5 AOD. The escarpment has existing ground levels ranging between 57.5 and 56.4 AOD (up to 7 metres higher). These existing prominent buildings on the escarpment, with some having heights of 8 to 16 metres, are effectively 15 to 23 metres in height when compared with the proposed ground level of Zone 1. The dispersal and topography of the existing buildings is considered to be relevant when comparing the heights and impact of the existing and proposed development on this site.

5.79 Whilst the proposal may technically comply with the policy requirement and not exceed the height of the tallest existing building on this site, it would provide for more bulkier buildings in one area to provide the

additional proposed floor area (but that is a direct consequence of improving the openness of the Green Belt which is the most important attribute of the Green Belt (see paragraph 5.65. above). The revised scheme would also remove most of the prominent buildings from the escarpment which in visual terms is considered to be beneficial from the longer distance views into the site particularly from Chobham Common to the west (see paragraphs 5.89 to 5.97 below).

5.80 This proposal is part of a comprehensive scheme on a major developed site and in Green Belt terms is considered to comply with the relevant Government advice and local plan policy requirement. The off-site infrastructure issues are dealt with in paragraphs 3.14, 3.15, 5.161 to 5.174, 5.222, 5.223 and 5.226 to 5.229 below.

5.81 The benefits to the Green Belt can be summarised in the table below.

Table 4 Comparison of the impact on the Green Belt between existing development and revised proposed development

Characteristics Existing Development

Revised Proposed

Development

Difference

Developed Area (Total) 28.05 hectares 19.4 hectares - 8.65 hectares

Spread of Buildings – north-south direction 630 metres 592 metres - 38 metres

Spread of Buildings – east-west direction (excluding retained buildings)

725 metres 360 metres - 365 metres

Extent of Built Footprint Including Hardstanding and Parking Spaces

196,600 sq m 55,000 sq m - 160,600 sq m

Extent of Built Footprint Excluding Parking Spaces

65,872 sq m 36,000 sq m - 29,872 sq m

Maximum Height of Buildings

22 metres 17.5 metres - 4.5 metres

Total Floor Area 76,885 sq m 113,434 sq m + 36,549 sq m

5.82 The proposed redevelopment, in Green Belt terms, is considered to improve the openness of the Green Belt and safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The more condensed form of development would produce generally higher and bulkier buildings but not overall produce any negative harm visually to the Green Belt. Further assessment on trees and visual impact are set out at paragraphs 5.83 to 5.97 below.

Trees

5.83 Tree belts and wooded areas are located on the northern, southern and eastern parts of the site. At the apex of the application site on the eastern side is a heavily wooded area known as Knowle Grove which is also an ancient woodland. The wooded areas are mainly coniferous,

formed from forestry plantations of Scots Pine with Birch, Oak or Sweet Chestnut on the edges. There are no tree preservation orders on this site.

5.84 Tree surveys undertaken in 2004 and 2006 have identified that all the trees of high quality and value lie outside the development envelope (see Appendix F). The trees within the development envelope are generally low quality trees with some of moderate quality.

5.85 Saved Policies NE12, NE13 and NE14 of the adopted Local Plan are relevant to this proposal. These policies seek the protection of existing trees especially where they make a significant contribution to the environment. All the existing trees outside the development envelope will be retained and protected during the demolition and construction phases. Within the development envelope some existing tree groups and individual trees may be retained and incorporated into the detailed design scheme. On this basis 13 groups of trees and 19 individual trees within the development envelope will be protected prior to any demolition works. All other trees and groups of trees within the development envelope will be removed as part of the demolition works.

5.86 The applicant states that any trees removed will be replaced within the development envelope as part of a detailed landscaping scheme. This can be controlled by condition (see proposed conditions 39, 40, 41 and 42). The evergreen tree belts and wooded areas along the northern, southern and eastern boundaries would help to screen views of the application site and ensure that these site boundaries complement the mature tree belts along the surrounding Longcross Road and Kitsmead Lane.

5.87 The applicant intends to establish a management company to maintain the landscape infrastructure and open spaces. Part of the environmental management plan will be to monitor the successful establishment of new planting and replace planting failures for up to five years until the tree and shrub areas are well established and then periodic thinning will be undertaken on the remaining trees.

5.88 The proposed tree retention and long term management plan is considered to retain the best trees on the site and to maintain the wooded character of this site and an important characteristic of the surrounding area. This proposed element is consistent with the relevant planning policies including the emerging policies in the draft South East Plan (CC12 and CC New Green Infrastructure) which seek to enhance the character and distinctiveness of landscapes through the region and provide some green corridors linking town and country areas.

5.89 Visual Impact

The applicant has undertaken a landscape character assessment. The application site itself is divided into two distinct areas created by a major change in level which runs north/south along the administrative boundary between Surrey Heath and Runnymede. The lower level (eastern part of the site) ranges in height between 40-50m AOD with the upper level to the west varying between 50-60m AOD.

5.90 Chobham Common to the west has heathland landscape with tree belts and wooded areas, the dominant landscape feature to the north, south and east (see the tree section of this report at paragraphs 5.83 to 5.88 above). The most prominent longer distance views of the existing development are from Chobham Common, particularly from Oystershell Hill and Staple Hill but there are generally obscured views of a few buildings on the upper plateau – buildings 121, 123 and chimneys of 119 to central core. These views are generally restricted due to the combination of topography and vegetation which screen long distance views of the existing development.

5.91 Views of the existing site are obtained from the bridges crossing the M3 on Longcross Road and Kitsmead Lane. The chimneys of building 119 are the only structures that can be seen from the motorway bridges.

5.92 Near distance views of the site are obtained from parts of the Wentworth Golf Course, Longcross Station, Burma Road, Chobham Lane and the M3 motorway. Existing tree belts restrict views for long sections of Burma Road, Chobham Lane and the M3. There are glimpsed views of the existing buildings on the higher ground from Burma Road.

5.93 The demolition and construction phases may have more of an impact on the views of the site than the existing scenario. However, the permanent proposed development is likely to have a long term positive impact on the views into the site. The landscape and visual impact assessment assessed existing and proposed viewpoints for summer, winter, day and night time scenarios. The study demonstrates that the proposed restriction of building heights, concentrating development onto the lower ground, removing the majority of buildings from the upper western plateau and creating a new ecological area along the western part of the site would have a positive effect on views from Chobham Common compared to what is currently visible. The central core or Zone 1 (see Appendix F) will virtually be unseen from long distance views from Chobham Common. However, minor insignificant glimpsed views may be possible from Staple Hill car park, from Burnt Hill and from Oystershell Hill during the winter months. The proposed Zone 2 (see Appendix F) may also be viewed from some middle distance views from Chobham Common during the winter. The existing retained buildings, 63, 64 and 109/110, will be visible in winter from a number of viewpoints and from two viewpoints in the summer.

5.94 The existing main vehicular entrance off Chobham Lane would be replaced with a landscaping scheme including semi-mature trees. The proposed building in Zone 3 would be set well back into the site with either existing or proposed landscaping between Zone 3 and Chobham Lane. This wedge of landscaping would be over 200 metres long, creating a substantial buffer to the proposed development where the existing belts are at their weakest. The study considers that views of the proposed development will not be seen from the Wentworth Estate, Trumps Green or Longcross.

5.95 The development proposes a number of road junction improvements. The visual and landscape impacts of these proposed highway works need to be considered. The proposed road junction improvements within Runnymede relate to the junction of Trumps Green Road and Wellington Avenue.

5.96 The junction of Trumps Green Road and Wellington Avenue is suburban in character. The installation of traffic signals and the kerb realignment should not require the removal of any significant existing vegetation. The nearby properties in Knowle Grove Close are located well below the road level and given the existing screening are unlikely to see the traffic lights. The properties on the northern side of Trumps Green Road, on the higher ground, would be able to see the junction and the traffic lights. Overall it is considered that there would be no significant harm to the visual amenity of this area.

5.97 The improvements to the Chertsey Road, Burma Road, Chobham Lane and Longcross Road roundabout (just outside the Borough boundary) would require removal of mainly gorse and birch scrub at the northern periphery of the roundabout. The close proximity of the M3 motorway bridge gives an urban feel to this stretch of road. It is considered that the realignment of the roundabout is not significant in visual terms subject to new landscaping planting which will be dependent on the detailed design of the roundabout and sightlines.

Economy

5.98 Planning Policy Guidance Note 4 ‘Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms (PPG4) identifies the importance of ensuring that sufficient land is made available for industrial and commercial development and that such land is readily capable of development and which minimises the length and number of trips made by cars. Policies RE1 and RE4 of RPG9 aim to ensure that the regional economy is supported and further developed so as to fully contribute to national growth and that it follows the principle of sustainable development. Policy RE5 of RPG9 and Policy RE2 of the draft South East Plan seek to encourage the efficient re-use of existing and under-used sites. In addition they seek the promotion of mixed use development where appropriate and locations which promote the use of public transport (see paragraphs 5.175 to 5.189 below). The Panel report on the draft South East Plan considered that there was a serious deficiency with the Plan about the lack of guidance on employment space and locational guidance in the draft Plan. The strategy in the London Fringe sub region on a more efficient use of existing employment land only (without providing additional employment sites) appeared to be supported by the Panel Report.

5.99 The whole of the DERA site has been recommended by the Panel report on the draft South East Plan as a strategic mixed use development site (65,000 sq m B1 uses and 2,500 dwellings) being brought forward during the Plan Period (2006-2026) to meet wider regional needs subject to adequate environmental mitigation (Policy LF4A of the draft South East Plan).

5.100 Policy LF6 of the draft South East Plan and Policy LO7 of the Structure Plan state that “employment related development will take place primarily on land already in employment use or available for such use”.

5.101 The health of the South East economy is of critical importance to the performance of the national economy. The Panel report for the draft South East Plan found that the region is a world player and should be developed as such. Economic policies in the regional plan are therefore recommended for amendment to include a stronger reference to international business activity and the need to encourage and support its business activity. The Panel considering the South East Plan agreed with the Polynet Study in 2005 that felt that the area between the M3 and M40 was increasingly functioning independently of London. The Polynet study stated:

“Much of the wealth generation of the region comes from the highly networked information rich knowledge economy centred in this western area and it would be dangerous to inhibit its natural growth.”

5.102 The draft South East Plan also acknowledges the availability of a skilled workforce and emphasises the strong links within the London Fringe to Heathrow and Gatwick Airports.

5.103 The Government is currently consulting on a new Planning Policy Statement 4 : ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Development‘ which appears to require more positive, flexible and proactive policies to encourage economic development. The Consultation Paper acknowledges that the planning system has a key part to play in improving the UK’s long term economic performance, the need for the economy to remain competitive in the world market and to be responsive to the needs of business whilst also considering environmental and social factors.

5.104 Employment levels on the DERA site peaked in the 1970s at around 1700 employees. (The figure of 2500 employees used by the applicant at the Councillors’ site visit on 16th February 2008 was based only on anecdotal evidence and should not be given significant weight.) Since that date employment has gradually reduced with levels dropping more quickly since its closure and the transfer of staff to other MoD facilities. Qinetiq occupied the site until late 2002 for principally office and research and development uses with about 750 workers on the whole site (both north and south of the M3). The applicant estimates that the proposed number of employees would be approximately 5,000. SEEDA believe it could attract between 5,000 to 7,000 jobs. The proposed development is seeking to provide a high quality business park. At this stage it is a speculative scheme with no known occupiers. The applicant believes that there are significant existing local occupiers who are currently seeking alternative premises such as those proposed on this site.

5.105 The key consultees on the economy and regional policies, SEERA and SEEDA, both support the proposal. The Regional Planning Committee (SEERA) concluded that the redevelopment of the site is acceptable in principle provided various criteria relating to impact on the Green Belt are met and there is no adverse affect on the integrity of the adjoining SPA and SAC at Chobham Common. Therefore, the Borough Council should satisfy itself that these requirements are met and also, given the relatively unsustainable location of the site, that an appropriate package of measures, including an agreed travel plan, can be secured to promote genuine alternatives to the car for employees travelling to work. If the Borough Council is minded to grant outline planning permission, it should impose appropriately worded conditions and/or legal agreements to comply with the objectives of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG9 and Alterations) or the draft South East Plan.

5.106 SEEDA reiterate the main points of their evidence to the South East Plan Examination in Public that:

“The sub regional strategy appears to be focused on a localised and constraining approach which doesn’t acknowledge the International status that the sub region holds within the UK economy. This approach fails to acknowledge that the key economic challenge for the London Fringe is to maintain and improve its competitive position in a changing global environment. Maintaining the status quo or seeking to manage economic growth down to significantly below past rates is not a sound economic option. Such a slow-down would result in a decline in the London Fringe’s position internationally with knock-on effects on the economy of the South East and indeed the UK.”

5.107 SEEDA is also concerned to ensure that there are sufficient strategic employment sites in the region. The objective of Smart Growth seeks to meet the needs of the region and support its competitiveness and create the climate for long-term investment through the efficient use of land resources. SEEDA sees this as critical to achieving the above statement and by creating new purpose-built employment space for between 5­7,000 jobs on a well-located, sustainable site. The proposed development will attract multinational HQ companies that are essential to ensuring the continued growth of the South East.

5.108 Surrey County Council object to the proposed development at a strategic level as they see the proposal as a large-scale commercial development in an isolated Green Belt location that is unsustainable in land use and community planning policy terms. The County Council believe that it runs counter to sustainable development, the spatial parameters of the draft South East Plan and the Structure Plan. This excessive level of unsustainable development would have an unidentified socio-economic impact on the wider area of north-west Surrey as well as significant transport implications. The County suggest that there is a need for a balance between the provision of required infrastructure to service housing and commercial needs at a regional or sub-regional level.

Seeking an alignment between employment and housing is not practicable on a Borough-wide basis. The sustainability concerns and some of the socio-economic impacts are addressed in other sections of this report below.

5.109 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 has introduced a more streamlined two-tier system where the development plan consists of regional spatial strategies prepared by regional planning bodies (SEERA) and local development documents prepared by District Councils. This new system, which is currently in transition, removes the Structure Plan (prepared by Surrey County Council) from the previous three-tier system. At this current time, the policy picture is confused because there are saved policies for both the older-style Structure and Local Plans being merged with new Government guidance but no new adopted documents either at regional or local level for this new advice to sit. However, Planning Policy Statement 12 : ‘Local Development Frameworks’ at paragraph 5.12 states that “if there is any conflict between a regional spatial strategy and a structure plan, whichever was adopted, approved or published most recently must take precedence.” In this case the draft South East Plan was published in March 2006 and had an Examination in Public between November 2006 to March 2007 (whilst not adopted) is at an advanced stage of preparation and is a much more recent document that the Structure Plan which was adopted in October 2004. Consequently it is considered that the draft South East Plan takes precedence over the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and is a material consideration.

5.110 In purely regional spatial terms the County Council’s objection appears to be out of tune with the findings of the Panel on the draft South East Plan as summarised in paragraphs 5.98 above.

5.111 The County, whilst acknowledging the existence of the CLEUDs on this site do not appear to place sufficient weight to this fact. This site is an existing major developed site, which has an established lawful Class B1 use for 76,885 sq m of floor area. In addition, the draft South East Plan recommends that the whole of the site is a strategic mixed use development site comprising 65,000 sq m of B1 use to meet the wider regional needs. The site is therefore an existing employment site and seen potentially as a strategic mixed use site at regional level. The emerging policies suggest that the emphasis for the provision of employment land in the London Fringe is on the retention of existing under-used employment land rather than the identification of additional new sites for employment use.

5.112 It is considered that the emerging policy clearly identifies existing under-used employment sites to be more efficiently used subject to environmental and traffic implications being assessed. This site clearly meets all the emerging relevant criteria as a strategic employment site. Hence it is supported by the regional agencies SEERA and SEEDA. It is considered that the objections of the County Council on these specific matters cannot be reasonably justified against the emerging economical and regional spatial policies.

5.113 The redevelopment of this site from an outdated MoD base with buildings which are not readily available or usable for modern B1 accommodation to a modern purpose-built B1 business park could have major impacts on the local office market. However, given the speculative nature of this outline application, it is not possible to properly assess the likely impacts of this proposal on the local economy or the local office market.

Affordable Housing

5.114 Policy LF1 of the draft South East Plan requires developers to contribute to the provision of infrastructure and service improvements to meet the needs arising from the additional development in the area. The affordable housing policies in the draft South East Plan (Policies LF2 and LF3, particularly paragraph 2.9 of the draft South East Plan) require employment generating developments which increase demand for labour and hence housing pressure should also make appropriate contributions to the provision of affordable housing.

5.115 The Report of the Panel on the draft South East Plan states on this issue:

“Non residential development which would generate a need for additional housing would be expected to make a contribution towards its provision . . . While this requirement is not universally welcomed by participants, we agree with those who regard it as justified where, as in this area (London Fringe), market pressures are especially strong and the need for affordable housing is acute.”

The Panel considered the provision of affordable housing a key priority if Surrey and the Thames Valley are to maintain their competitiveness. Saved Policy DN11 of the Structure Plan has a similar reference.

5.116 The Council’s emerging Housing DPP, which has reached preferred option status, also has a reference to commercial developments being expected to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing via on-site, off-site or commuted payment depending on the nature, scale and location of the scheme. The Runnymede Housing Needs Assessment conducted in 2005 estimated a need for 522 affordable housing units each year. The Council’s Housing Strategy Statement has set a challenging but realistic target of 500 affordable homes over the next five years. The cost of housing is a major barrier to continued economic growth, contributing to staff recruitment and retention issues and long distance commuting.

5.117 The applicants have offered a financial contribution of £600,000 towards the provision of affordable housing. This would be controlled by a legal agreement and paid upon completion of the first 25,000 sq m of new B1 floorspace. Given the uncertainty about when this payment will be received, it is not possible at this stage to specify which project the monies would be used for. At the current time the monies would be spent within three years of receipt on the provision of new affordable housing, the subsidisation of existing housing to make it more affordable or the improvement of existing social housing.

5.118 A commercial development of this proposed scale is likely to generate demand for housing in the area. The Panel Report on the draft South East Plan considered that the draft Plan gives insufficient weight to demographic and economic factors. In the London Fringe the proposed housing levels are inconsistent with meeting the needs of both the existing population and continued in migration which would have adverse implications for housing affordability, hence the Panel’s recommendation to increase the proposed housing levels in the London Fringe by 23%. The report is however not explicit on how and where this housing will be provided to reduce long distance commuting into and out of the region/sub regions whilst at the same time ensuring that developments are sustainable. Notions of additional productivity improvements, smart growth, home working and monitoring are proposed to reduce the imbalance between jobs, travel and homes. The dilemma with this speculative outline application is that it is almost impossible to predict the likely impacts on the local housing market without knowing whether the firm(s) likely to occupy the proposed offices are ones seeking to relocate from within the Borough or the region or are a new employer into the country.

5.119 The Panel justified the recommendation of a strategic mixed use development of 2,500 dwellings and 65,000 sq m of B1 uses on the whole of the DERA site by stating that:

“There appears to be potential for the site to make a significant and sustainable contribution to meeting housing needs.”

This proposed outline scheme seeks to provide an additional 48,434 sq m commercial development over and above this proposed allocation. Again it is not clear how the impacts of this amount of commercial development on the local housing market can be properly assessed at this stage. The applicant’s transport assessment (see paragraph 5.161) is anticipating that the established commuting patterns in the area will be maintained. The applicant is not anticipating significant numbers of employees relocating and therefore no significant demand for local housing.

Retail Facilities

5.120 Planning Policy Statement 6 ‘Planning for Town Centres’ (PPS6) focuses on the positive planning of town centres and town centre uses such as retail, leisure, offices, arts and tourism. The guidance reflects the sustainable development aims of PPS1 (to facilitate multipurpose journeys with good access) and the need to follow a sequential approach to the location of town centre uses. The most relevant paragraph of PPS6 to this proposed development is paragraph 3.30 which states that shops may be proposed as an ancillary element to other forms of development such as industrial/employment areas. Local planning authorities should ensure that in such cases the retail element is limited in scale and genuinely ancillary to the main development and should seek to control this through the use of conditions. Whether a shop is ancillary will be a matter of judgement and will depend on factors such as the scale of development involved and the range of goods sold etc.

Where the retail element is not considered to be ancillary, it should be subject to a retail impact assessment and sequential test particularly where the development would adversely affect the viability and vitality of a local centre whether in an urban or rural area.

5.121 The proposed development includes the provision of ancillary retail shops, restaurant and crèche within the application site. These ancillary uses have been proposed as part of a strategy to create a self-sustaining business park development. The proposed ancillary uses are intended to assist in limiting the need for employees within the proposed business park to travel off site to access their everyday retail needs, thereby reducing trips on the highway network. The applicant has stated that “these facilities are being proposed solely for use by those employed on the site as ancillary facilities”.

5.122 The proposed ancillary retail shops (325 sq m) restaurant (558 sq m) and crèche (604 sq m) would have a total floor area of 1487 sq m. This represents approximately 1.5% of the overall proposed floorspace (94,434 sq m) excluding decked car parking areas. The figure rises to 4% when the proposed ancillary leisure floorspace (2323 sq m) is added. The proposed ancillary retail use generates a requirement for 4 car parking spaces, the restaurant 7 spaces and crèche 26 spaces including 6 set-down and pick-up spaces for the nursery. It is anticipated that the crèche could accommodate up to 120 children. The staffing numbers will be dependent on the ages of the children as staff to child ratios are different for the various age groups. The car parking allocations have assumed 20 spaces for 26 staff at the crèche. In car parking terms, the 37 car parking spaces for these ancillary uses would represent 1.2% of the overall on-site car parking provision (3079 spaces) with this proposal.

5.123 Based on these assumptions the proposed retail, restaurant and crèche uses are considered to be genuinely ancillary to the proposed business park and there is no need for a detailed retail impact assessment or sequential test to be undertaken. These facilities are often found in high quality business parks and are essential to attract international businesses to the site. Condition 12 seeks to ensure that these uses remain ancillary uses for the benefit of employees only and do not open to the general public. If this proposed use were open to the public it is likely to generate more car journeys to an unsustainable location and affect the viability and vitality of local centres such as Virginia Water, Windlesham and Chobham etc. Consequently, restrictive conditions on these ancillary uses are proposed.

Leisure Facilities

5.124 Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 : ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ (PPG17) seeks to provide well-designed open space, sport and recreational facilities to deliver a number of Government objectives including promoting social inclusion and community cohesion, health and well-being of people and promoting sustainable development. The advice to local authorities is that existing open spaces and

recreational facilities should be maintained or enhanced and they should consider the impact of any development on biodiversity and nature conservation. More intensive recreational uses should be located in town centres.

5.125 Paragraph 23 of PPG17 also advises that local sports and recreational facilities should be provided with new developments especially housing. Where appropriate, local authorities should seek to increase or enhance the provision of open spaces and local sports and recreational facilities. Where local facilities will attract people from a wider catchment, they should not be granted planning permission unless they are well served by public transport. Paragraphs 29 and 30 advise that development in or near a SSSI for temporary or permanent sporting or recreational activities should be granted only if the permission is subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impacts on the SSSI or other material factors are sufficient to override nature conservation considerations. Proposals to establish essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation should be granted in the Green Belt where the openness to the Ground Belt is maintained. Development should be the minimum necessary and non­essential facilities (indoor leisure) should be treated as inappropriate development.

5.126 Policy S7 of the draft South East Plan seeks an increased and sustainable participation in sport, recreation and cultural activity. It specifically refers to encouraging workplace and other everyday provision for increased physical activity.

5.127 Policy DN13 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 encourages recreation and leisure development in the urban area. Opportunities for informal recreation such as improved pedestrian and cycle networks in town and between town and country should be provided in conjunction with development.

5.128 For the same reasons as set out at paragraph 5.123 above, the applicant is proposing an ancillary leisure use on the application site for the benefit of the employees only. The need for employees to access gym facilities for example can be catered for within the site, thereby preventing trips off site during the day and also extending the length of stay of employees on the site, reducing the impact on traffic on the highway network in peak periods.

5.129 The proposed indoor leisure uses (to include a gym) would have a floor area of 2323 sq m. This represents approximately 2.5% of the overall proposed floor space (94,434 sq m) excluding decked car parking areas. This figure rises to 4% when the proposed ancillary retail, restaurant and crèche (1,487 sq m) are added. The proposed ancillary leisure use has been allocated 23 on-site staff car parking spaces. In car parking terms these 23 spaces represent approximately 0.7% of the overall on-site car parking provision (3,079 spaces). The total on-site parking provision (60) for all the ancillary uses would represent 1.9% of the overall on-site car parking provision.

5.130 The proposal for an indoor leisure use(s) with a floor area of 2323 sq m would normally be considered as an inappropriate development in the Green Belt requiring very special circumstances. However, because this site is an existing major developed site in the adopted Local Plan and with CLEUD as set out in paragraphs 5.52 above, comprehensive redevelopment may be allowed subject to certain criteria being fulfilled. As set out above in the Green Belt section of this report, it is considered that these criteria have been met with this revised proposal. It is considered that provided the proposed leisure use(s) remain wholly ancillary to the proposed business park, it could be considered as appropriate development within this comprehensive redevelopment proposal.

5.131 Based on the assumption that the indoor leisure facility(ies) will not exceed 2323 sq m and are only used by employees at the proposed business park, this would comply with relevant policy guidance and assist in providing sustainable opportunities for health and well-being of the proposed workforce. Conditions 10 and 13 seek to ensure that the leisure use remains an ancillary use and its total floor area is restricted to 2323 sq m respectively.

5.132 The proposed redevelopment also provides opportunities to extend the landscaped areas of the site due to concentration development into one central area and to enhance ecological protected areas. The open landscaped and general amenity areas would provide opportunities for informal outdoor recreation, jogging, walking and cycling on site extend to some 18 hectares with 8.5 hectares having restricted access for ecological reasons.

5.133 It is considered that the proposed redevelopment does fulfil the necessary leisure and recreational requirements subject to conditions. However, Sport England objects to the proposal (see paragraphs 4.28 to 4.32 above). Sport England object essentially on two grounds : the proposed leisure use will not adequately meet the needs of the new development and secondly the proposal does not maximise the potential recreational use and value of the site.

5.134 Whilst Sport England’s comments would be fully justified in an urban area, it is not considered that they are robust objections on this specific scheme given its sensitive ecological and Green Belt location and its isolated location. The applicant has proposed a leisure use which it believes will meet the needs of the proposed workforce and would remain ancillary to the business. A larger leisure use or gym, to be viable, would presumably need to be open to the public which would then be likely to attract additional car journeys to the site. This would be unsustainable in such a location and cause difficulties for the applicant in security terms.

5.135 The provision of hard surfaces for outdoor sport would add to spread of development on the site and be likely to be visually harmful. Such hard surfaces are likely to be used for a variety of uses and more than likely would require floodlighting which would add to the visual prominence in the Green Belt. The floodlighting is also likely to cause additional visual harm and significant harm to the ecological habitats of various protected species that the redevelopment scheme overall is seeking to mitigate against such harm (see Lighting section belowat paragraphs 5.252 to 5.256). The proposed intense, multi-recreation and sporting facilities envisaged by Sport England appear to be inappropriate and excessive in such a sensitive location. Sport England’s vision for this site is most likely to result in inappropriate and harmful development in the Green Belt and damaging impacts on the SSSI, SPA and SAC for which no justified reasons for overriding the green belt or national conservation interests in a location not well served by public transport are given.

5.136 It is therefore considered that Sport England’s objection cannot reasonably be justified on this redevelopment proposal given the specific and sensitive site constraints set out above.

5.137 The recommendation for the whole of the DERA site for a mixed use development including 2,500 dwellings, if accepted, does provide a more appropriate and realistic opportunity to meet Sport England’s objectives in the future than this specific redevelopment proposal.

Transport and Impact on Highway Network

5.138 In many ways this is the biggest and most contentious part of the proposed redevelopment. How much traffic is this proposed business park likely to generate and how will this impact on the highway network? This assessment is made more difficult by the outline nature of the proposal and the speculative nature of the proposal because there are no known occupiers and therefore no reliable data on where existing employees currently reside, how they may travel to this isolated site and the absence of any substantive facts about the traffic generation associated with previous military use. In addition, there would be a significant change in traffic generation from the site given that it is currently under-utilised to the levels proposed with this development. Critically, the traffic assessment has to start from the traffic generation of a fully operational use for the lawful B1 floorspace of 76,885 sq m (see paragraph 5.51 above) not from the current levels of traffic generation from the site. This has been the subject of considerable debate between the CHA and the applicant.

5.139 It has been difficult to reconcile the highway-related issues both in terms of facts and likely traffic generations and how wide its impact will be felt on the highway network. It is these issues that caused a delay to the determination of this application and led to much correspondence between the applicant’s transport advisor (WSP), the Highway Agency and County Highway Authority who have also used a consultant (Parsons Brinkerhoff) to review the transport assessment and who has been paid for by the applicant.

5.140 The policy background is set by Planning Policy Guidance 13 : ‘Transport’ (PPG13). The three key objectives are to:

- promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight;

- promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; and

- reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

5.141 In order to deliver these objectives when considering planning applications, local authorities should, amongst other things,

- actively manage the pattern of urban growth to make the fullest use of public transport and focus major generators of travel demand in town and local centres and near to public transport interchanges;

- ensure that employment uses offer a realistic choice of safe and easy access by public transport, walking and cycling;

- use parking policies alongside other policies and measures to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce the reliance on the car for work and other journeys. Annex D of PPG13 advises that the national maximum parking standard for B1 uses over 2550 sq m (gross) is 1 space per 30 sq m; and

- ensure that the needs of disabled people are considered.

5.142 Paragraph 21 of PPG13 states that “Local planning authorities should seek to make maximum use of the most accessible sites, such as those in town centres and others which are, or will be, close to major transport interchanges.” These opportunities may be scarce. They should be pro­active in promoting intensive development in these areas and on such sites.

5.143 The applicant has prepared an extensive transport assessment to consider and assess the significant transport implications associated with this proposal in accordance with Government advice. It also includes a detailed travel plan. These issues are summarised at paragraphs 3.23 to 3.50 above.

5.144 Paragraph 32 of PPG13 advises that local authorities should be positive in identifying preferred areas and sites for B1 uses which are (or will be) as far as possible highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. Businesses should make every effort by adopting travel plans, encouraging car sharing and using non-car modes of transport. Businesses should also take full advantage of new information and communications technology to facilitate increased flexible working patterns, home-working to reduce car journeys or enable journeys to take place outside peak commuter periods.

5.145 Policy T1 of the Regional Transport Strategy (RPG9 as altered) and Policy T1 of the draft South East Plan seek to achieve a re-balancing of the transport system in favour of non-car modes as a means of access to services and facilities. Policy T10 of the RTS and Policy T5 of the draft South East Plan indicate that this should be through an integrated package of measures. Policy T12 of RPG9 (as altered) and Policy T7 of the draft South East Plan relate to parking and support maximum parking standards and the provision of sufficient cycle parking at new developments. Policy T13 of RPG9 (as altered) and Policy T8 of the draft South East Plan relate to travel plans and advice.

5.146 Policy DN2 of the Structure Plan advises that the development will only be permitted where it is, or can be made, compatible with the transport infrastructure in the area. Developments which result in the use of public transport will be supported, particularly where it is related to the priorities of the Local Transport Plan (which include rail capacity improvements) (Policy DN4). Development proposals adjacent to the motorway network will be resisted where the traffic generated would reduce its efficiency and safety (Policy DN6).

5.147 The saved Local Plan policies have similar transport-related policies. Particularly relevant to this application is Policy MV3 which states that where development schemes exacerbate existing traffic problems any necessary mitigation works required to accommodate safely development-related traffic (vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians or public transport) shall be fully funded by the developer. Policy MV9 sets out the Council’s adopted maximum parking standards in a supplementary revised parking standards note. The maximum car parking standard for a B1 use is 1 space per 30 sq m. The supplementary guidance includes reference to the Runnymede Travel Initiative (yellow school buses) and seeking financial contributions towards its funding.

5.148 Saved Policy MV4 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that the access and circulation arrangements for all developments are appropriate for the type of development proposed and that it would not aggravate traffic congestion, accident potential, environmental or amenity considerations in the vicinity.

5.149 In terms of overlapping with other policies, Policy RE2 of the draft South East Plan is also considered to be relevant to this issue, particularly given the London Fringes emphasis on making more efficient use of existing employment land. This policy has already been discussed in the Economy section above (see paragraph 5.98). Policy RE2 states that a range of employment sites and premises should be based on the following criteria:

i) locations that are accessible to the existing and proposed labour supply;

ii) efficient use of existing and under-used sites and premises;

iii) locations which intensify the use of existing sites;

iv) focus on urban areas;

v) promotion of mixed use development where appropriate and subject to replacement of land and premises lost to non-employment uses;

vi) locations that promote the use of public transport

Accessible and well-location industrial and commercial sites should be retained where there is a good prospect of employment use.

5.150 Before considering the wide range of facts and figures and different scenarios, it may be useful to provide a summary of the different positions of the main parties on this issue. The applicant believes that the existing large employment site with its traffic generation and its own railway station, offers good public transport links. Any additional traffic generation on the road network can be offset by appropriate off-site highway works to various road junctions. A travel plan would be implemented which includes on-going reduction in single occupation car trips to the site, a shuttle bus to Woking railway station and significant improvements to the Longcross railway station and increased frequency of stopping services at the station. There is also a contribution to the Council’s yellow bus scheme. The applicant believes that this integrated package of measures provides a more sustainable form of development and with financial penalties to encourage increased use of the enhanced public transport network without adversely affecting highway capacity and safety.

5.151 The Highway Agency raise no objection subject to improvements to junction 3 of the M3. There are no highway capacity or highway safety concerns from the County Highway Authority subject to various highway and junction improvements. It is therefore considered that the proposed redevelopment with its additional floorspace and subsequent traffic generation can be satisfactorily accommodated on the highway network subject to the necessary highway works.

5.152 However, objections have been received from the County Highway Authority, Surrey County Council and Woking Borough Council. The County Highway Authority are concerned at the proposed increase in office floor space (36,549 sq m) with a high level of car parking (3079 total including ancillary uses at 1 space per 36.8 sq m or 3019 spaces for B1 use only at 1 space per 30 sq m) in a remote rural location will lead to a reliance on the private car contrary to PPG13, PPS6 and Structure Plan saved Policies LO1 and DN3.

5.153 At a strategic planning level, Surrey County Council object to a large commercial development in an isolated and unsustainable location which is contrary to the principles of sustainable development and strategic spatial and transportation policy. Woking Borough Council consider that such new B1 developments should be in more sustainable locations such as Woking Town Centre or in existing urban areas which have better transport infrastructure. The likely increase in traffic and congestion in the borough of Woking has not been addressed.

Existing Situation

5.154 The State of Runnymede reports in 2004 and 2005 identified that 68.8% of Runnymede residents travel to work by car. This is 7% higher than the national average. Over 22,000 of Runnymede’s working population travel out of the Borough to work and nearly 27,000 people commute into Runnymede to work. This is the highest net inflow rate in the County. The applicant’s transport assessment is anticipating that the established commuting patterns in the area will be maintained (see paragraph 5.161).

5.155 The applicant undertook traffic surveys on the local highway network in February and March 2004. The 2004 traffic flows have been factored to reflect traffic growth from 2004 to 2007 (to incorporate construction traffic calculations) and from 2004 to 2013 (to incorporate proposed opening of development) for peak a.m. (0800-0900 hours) and p.m. (1700-1800 hours). The baseline figure also includes the traffic generation that would or could be associated with a fully operational and authorised established lawful use of the site (CLEUD) for 76,885 sq m of B1 floorspace using various recognised technical packages. The two-way trip generation figures for the CLEUD is estimated at 1253 (1113 in and 139 out) in the a.m. peak period and 1005 (874 out and 131 in) during the p.m. peak period.

5.156 The key local road junctions that have been assessed are:

Chobham Lane/Longcross Road/Chertsey Road/Burma Road roundabout (Surrey Heath)

Chertsey Road/Chobham Road/Windsor Road

Chobham Lane/Kitsmead Lane/Trumps Green Road

Trumps Green Road/Wellington Avenue

Kitsmead Lane/Longcross Road

Staple Hill Road/Longcross Road

Staple Hill Road/Windsor Road

In addition to these seven local junctions, two more strategic junctions have also been assessed which are both located outside the Borough:

A30 London Road/Chobham Road/Broomhall Lane

M3 junction 3/A322

5.157 The base figures for two-way traffic flows on the local highway based on the actual traffic counts and if the CLEUD were fully operational, have been extensively calculated. A brief summary of some of the key local stretches of road is set out below:

Table 5 Two-way traffic flows on selected local roads based on surveys for 2006 and predicted for 2013

Link Year

2006 2013 (inc. B1 CLEUD)

A.M. P.M. Daily A.M. P.M. Daily

B383 Chobham Road 1225 839 7104 1627 1149 9261

B386 Chertsey Road (Between Chobham Road & Longcross Road)

1473 1032 7889 2148 1559 11404

Staple Hill Road 390 371 2824 488 455 3408

B386 Longcross Road (Between Staple Hill Road & Chertsey Road)

997 810 5798 1327 1076 7568

B386 Longcross Road (Between Staple Hill Road & Kitsmead Lane)

915 687 5324 1177 892 6733

Trumps Green Road (Between Wellington Avenue & Kitsmead Lane)

1030 761 7043 1485 1120 9563

Kitsmead Lane 219 148 1225 364 262 1985

Chobham Lane (Between Longcross Road & Main Site Access)

962 697 5097 1823 1381 9566

M3 8029 9256 125633 8303 9476 127051

5.158 The majority of the surrounding roads have a speed limit of 60 mph although there are sections of 40 mph (eastern end of Chobham Lane, near to Kitsmead Lane junction) and 30 mph (northern part of Chobham Road, near to A30 junction). In the period between August 2003 to August 2006 there were no fatal accidents on the local highway network. There were two serious personal injury accidents (one at Longcross Road/Kitsmead Lane junction and one along Windsor Road). There were however 22 slight personal injury accidents during this three year period on the local network. All the local road junctions have accident rates higher than the expected annual rate except for the B386 Longcross Road/Kitsmead Lane junction.

5.159 Since August 2006 there have been 15 further accidents. There have been 3 serious accidents at the junction of Windsor Road and Staple Hill Road and Windsor Road and Clearmont Lane junction. Both these junctions are outside Runnymede. There have been no fatal accidents on the local highway network.

5.160 The Longcross railway station on the Reading to Waterloo line is adjacent to the site. There are 11 services from Reading stopping daily at Longcross and 12 services from Waterloo stopping daily. Woking railway station is located 11km to the south and is linked to the Waterloo to Portsmouth and Basingstoke lines. There are no bus stops within 400 metres of the site.

Proposed Development : Roads

5.161 The applicant’s Transport Assessment is based on some survey work and assumes that the existing established commuting patterns in the area will be maintained (see paragraph 5.154) and is not anticipating significant numbers of employees relocating. Based on these assumptions, 40% (approximately 2000 employees) would commute to the site from the catchment area of Runnymede, Surrey Heath, Spelthorne and Rushmoor Boroughs with 60% (approximately 3000 employees) commuting from outside the immediate catchment area.

5.162 Trip generation for the proposed development has been assessed for two scenarios. The first of these is the re-use of the site under the terms of the CLEUD, effectively the baseline against which any redevelopment is to be compared. The second scenario is the redevelopment of the site in line with the current amended proposals. The table below summarises the differences in the generation between the two scenarios.

Table 6 Differences in traffic generation to and from application site between lawful use of site (CLEUD) and proposed revised development

Time Period A.M. PEAK P.M. PEAK

Arrivals Departures Two-Way Arrivals DeparturesTwo-Way

Trip generation for CLEUD (B1 use)

1113 139 1252 131 874 1005

Trip generation for revised proposal (B1 + ancillary uses

1154 144 1298 138 920 1058

Net Increase in Vehicles 41 5 46 7 46 53

Percentage increase in vehicles at the site entrance 3.6% 5.27%

5.163 The impact of these total traffic movements on the two closest road junctions to the site have been assessed to gauge possible capacity implications and traffic movements are set out below.

5.164 Chobham Lane/Kitsmead Lane/Trumps Green Road Junction

Table 7 Differences in traffic (vehicles per hour) using this junction between lawful use of site (CLEUD) and proposed revised development in 2013

Year 2013 A.M. Year 2013 P.M.

CLEUD 1746 vph 1281 vph

Proposed Development 1763 vph 1302 vph

Net Increase + 17% vph + 21 vph

Percentage Increase 0.97% 1.64%

This junction currently works well with no material queuing. By 2013 very slight increases in queuing are envisaged, with up to 2 queuing vehicles.

5.165 Chobham Lane/Longcross Road/Chertsey Road/Burma Road Junction

Table 8 Differences in traffic (vehicles per hour) using this junction between lawful use of site (CLEUD) and proposed revised development in 2013

Year 2013 A.M. Year 2013 P.M.

CLEUD 2651 vph 2000 vph

Proposed Development 2678 vph 2034 vph

Net Increase + 27% vph + 34 vph

Percentage Increase 1.02% 1.70%

Small traffic queues (7 or 8) are predicted on Chobham Lane and Chertsey Road (west) in a.m. peak and Chertsey Road (east) in p.m. peak. No significant material impact in its operation arising from the development proposal from the CLEUD is foreseen although there are likely to be significant vehicle queues (40-50 vehicles) on Chertsey Road from the current situation. Improvements to approaches at this roundabout would allow two lanes of traffic, the introduction of traffic lights and the closure of Burma Road except for emergency vehicles.

5.166 Trumps Green Road/Wellington Avenue Junction

This priority T junction currently works well within capacity with only minor queues (1) on Wellington Avenue in the p.m. peak. In 2013, the a.m. peak of queuing vehicles for both right and left turns is estimated at 45 vehicles. The applicant proposes to alter this junction to a traffic signal-controlled junction.

5.167 Kitsmead Lane/Longcross Road

The existing priority T junction currently works well and would continue to operate well within capacity with no discernible impacts from proposed development in 2013.

5.168 Longcross Road/Staple Hill Road

This road junction is unusual and incorporates three separate junctions. Existing queue lengths do not exceed one vehicle on any approach. In 2013 there would be no discernible difference in how this junction operated with the proposed development.

5.169 Windsor Road/Staple Hill Road

This junction lies outside the Borough in Surrey Heath. The queuing of vehicles making a right turn from Windsor Road into Staple Hill Road is likely to increase from 4 in the a.m. peak to 19 in the a.m. peak in 2013. This would be an increase of 1 queuing vehicle over and above the established CLEUD level.

5.170 A30 London Road/Chobham Road/Broomhall Lane

This junction lies outside the Borough in Windsor and Maidenhead. Planning permission has been granted for a traffic-controlled improvement to this junction to ensure that it operates within capacity by 2013.

5.171 M3 Junction 3/A322 Junction

This junction also lies outside the Borough. The applicant has to satisfy the requirements of the Highway Authority for this junction in 2013 and 2028. The applicant has proposed the widening of the M3 eastbound off slip to two lanes. This reduces the queue to an average of 11 vehicles in the a.m. peak on the slip road. The Highway Agency raise no objection subject to this improvement work being undertaken.

5.172 New Roundabout at the New Site Entrance

A new roundabout is proposed outside the proposed site entrance along Chobham Lane. The roundabout is required to improve the existing priority junction and to accommodate the expected number of vehicle movements in a safe and efficient way. It would also assist to reduce traffic speeds along Chobham Lane.

5.173 Based on the assumptions of the CLEUD, there are no significant capacity issues or safety issues on the local highway network. Where some concerns or problems may occur, junction improvements are proposed. The applicant is seeking to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips (SOV) from 89% to no greater than 76.8% for each proposed occupier within 5 years of first occupation. This would be enforced by reduction in on-site parking provision and penalty payments and encouragement of non-car modes of transport or effective use of smart technology ie home working. To make more or better junction improvements would only make SOV trips more attractive and defeat the objectives of the travel plan in encouraging more sustainable transport modes or more effective working practices.

5.174 However, the County Highway Authority are concerned that the reality is that this site currently generates minimal traffic generation on the local highway network and the site has been underused for some considerable time. Due to Crown Immunity (see paragraph 5.50), the necessary improvements were not made to the highway network and key road junctions with increasing levels of built development on this site. Consequently, queue lengths on some junctions may be excessive when assessed against the current situation but not when assessed against the established CLEUD scenario. The proposed junction improvements may partially mitigate some impacts but will not wholly mitigate the previous uncorrected historical impact. It is assumed that 60% of trips would be along Chobham Lane West (Windlesham direction) and 40% trips along Chobham Lane East (Virginia Water direction).

Non Car Modes of Transport

5.175 The existing site is not very sustainable in terms of its location and has limited access to non-car modes of transport. The site has a railway station, which is a major benefit and a feature few other developments of this size can boast. However, it currently only has a limited stopping service in the morning and evening peak periods. The remote location of the site and the lack of residential properties in the area means that the potential for walking to and from the site is effectively nil and cycle trips are likely to be low.

5.176 The applicant has therefore produced a Mobility Management Plan (MMP) which is designed to improve the sustainability of the site in a number of ways. These are summarised below:

(a) Increase in frequency of trains stopping at Longcross railway station. It has been agreed with South West Trains (SWT) that the frequency will be increased to two trains an hour in each direction throughout the day, Monday to Saturday inclusive;

(b) Improvement to station facilities including a new footbridge, passenger shelters and improvements to lighting, CCTV and pedestrian signage;

(c) Provision of a new shuttle bus service between Woking railway station and the site providing accessibility from Woking railway station to the site will encourage employees/visitors to opt for rail as Woking station offers a variety of direct routes and as such travellers would no longer need to change at numerous railway stations. The shuttle bus will also link to the surrounding area, local off-site facilities and the facilities on site, providing connections with existing services and reducing the need to travel by car, not only to or from the site, but internally as well;

(d) A network of pedestrian and cycle routes within the site to link the employment to the on-site facilities including the railway station;

(e) The provision of the ancillary uses on site, including restaurant and café, shop and leisure facilities will result in a more sustainable site as staff will not need to leave the site. There will also be a network of leisure routes provided around the site to provide a place for staff to walk or run within the development. This will again help to ensure that trips off site during the day are limited;

(f) The provision of a site Travel Plan. The Travel Plan will aim to continue to promote the non car travel available to the employees/visitors on the site as well as introducing a car share scheme to reduce the number of single occupancy car trips to the site. All of the occupant businesses will sign up to the Travel Plan which will be co-ordinated by the site management company.

Further details are set out in paragraphs 3.29 to 3.50 above. It is intended that the measures set out in the MMP will be in place upon development completion thus promoting alternative means of travel and sustainability of the site from the outset. The MMP provides a moderate estimate that the measures set out could result in an 8.5-11.5% modal shift from single occupancy car use to non-car travel.

5.177 The site has an established lawful use (CLEUD) which sets the baseline against which the proposed development is assessed in highway and sustainability terms. The CLEUD allows the existing buildings on the site to be used for a B1 use (76,885 sq m) in an uncontrolled way with no requirement for a travel plan or encouragement for existing businesses to provide or use non-car modes of transport. In such a location the car would be the only realistic option, be completely unsustainable and contrary to the overarching objectives of the planning system.

5.178 The additional proposed floor area (of 36,549 sq m over and above the CLEUD limit) with the introduction of the MMA and travel plan, would help to reduce the impact on the road network to acceptable levels subject to improvement work at two local junctions within the Borough and two road junctions outside the Borough. There is no objection to these traffic flows, vehicle generation figures or highway safety issues from the Highways Agency or the County Highway Authority for this revised proposal.

5.179 The on-site car parking provision would be reduced from the existing 3250 spaces (at a ratio of 1 space per 23.6 sq m of floor area) to a total 3079 spaces for the whole development including ancillary uses (at a ratio of 1 space per 36.8 sq m of floor area). There would be 3019 spaces restricted to B1 use at a ratio of 1 space per 30 sq m of floor area. This ratio complies with national maximum car parking standards for B1 uses set out in PPG13 and the Council’s adopted maximum car parking standards.

5.180 The revised proposal reduces the number of on-site car parking spaces by 171 spaces.

5.181 The revisions to this scheme have reduced the proposed total floor space from 135,128 sq m to 113, 434 sq m (a reduction of 21,694 sq m). The total number of proposed on-site car parking spaces has been reduced from 3865 spaces to 3079 spaces (a reduction of 786 spaces). A non-profit making body (TMA) will be set up to monitor and enforce these car parking regimes and a shuttle bus service (every 30 minutes Mondays to Saturdays) and other initiatives as set out at paragraphs 3.29 to 3.48 above.

5.182 The CHA in general are comfortable with the proposed draft Travel Plan Strategy although there is still considerable work to do on the submission, agreement, implementation, maintenance, monitoring and review of the document. The CHA are suggesting that the TMA be given greater fiscal support to achieve its sustainability aims.

The applicant’s draft proposal was that 15% of a B1 occupier’s initial allocated car parking spaces (at 1 space per 30 sq m) would be subject to a parking charge. The CHA believe that the parking charge should be increased by 2% each year on the percentage of spaces charged for, so that by the end of year 5 each occupier will be charged by the TMA for using 25% of its total allocated spaces. The applicant has agreed with the 25% penalty charge after 5 years providing there is no further reduction in car parking spaces below 3079. Any method of operation which strengthens the status and longevity of the TMA and enables it to provide real and sustainable benefits should be encouraged especially given this site’s isolated location. The notion of yearly increases in parking charges has therefore been specifically added to the requirements of the legal agreement and Condition 20 set out in the recommendation below.

5.183 The proposal also includes a substantially improved stopping service and enhancements to the Longcross railway station. The station would also be opened up to the public with a drop-off/collection point only (‘kiss and ride’). There would be no public parking area at the station (this is a requirement of the CHA to prevent the station attracting its own level of traffic generation through the provision of a public car park. At weekends rail travel will be provided with access to the station but there will be no use of on-site car parks. Access to the site will be security controlled and individual car parking areas will be accessible only by employees with entry cards or similar control methods. South West Trains and Network Rail have no objections to the proposal.

5.184 The enhanced stopping service and improvements to the station provide greater opportunities to reduce traffic congestion in the area when there are major golfing competitions at Wentworth Golf Club. The golf club has its own access to the station but currently do not and not want to encourage trips by rail to the club during major tournaments. Should Wentworth Golf Club change its view, then there is a potential for a shuttle bus to be operated from the railway station and Wentworth Golf Club during major tournaments.

5.185 All of these measures, collectively as a package, make the proposed development far more sustainable than the uncontrolled use of the site under the CLEUD as described in paragraphs 5.55 to 5.59 in the existing use of the site report.

5.186 The objections received to the significant increase in proposed office space in this remote and unsustainable location are genuine concerns. They would be far stronger if the site did not have the benefit of a lawful B1 office use for a substantial amount of floor area. The proposed sustainability benefits, if they can be delivered and maintained, offset some of the locational disadvantages of this site and the additional floor area proposed.

5.187 The sustainability issues and concerns of the additional proposed B1 floor area also need to be assessed and balanced against the potential benefits to the Green Belt and the economy. There is policy guidance in paragraph 32 of PPG13 which allows B1 uses to be as far as possible highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling and there is strong policy support for re-use of under-utilised sites.

5.188 The Runnymede Travel Initiative includes the school yellow bus scheme which has been operating since 2002 in the Borough. The yellow bus scheme currently operates seven buses which carry approximately 500 students to and from four secondary schools each day. it is estimated that this scheme has replaced about 180,000 school run car trips per year. The scheme does appear to have assisted with traffic congestion particularly in the morning peak period which in turn assists the business community. This is a sustainable development project which reduces the need to travel by car.

5.189 It is considered that the package of transport measures to improve the train services and facilities at Longcross station, the rail shuttle bus service to Woking, the financial contribution to the yellow bus scheme, reduced on-site car parking provision and green travel plan do hep to offset the harm to the local highway network. These measures, if implemented, would make this redevelopment of an isolated site as sustainable as possible.

5.190 Land Contamination

Planning Policy Statement 23 : ‘Planning & Pollution Control’ (PPS23) follows the contaminated land regime set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) as amended by the Environment Act 1995, and its accompanying regulations which deal with the existing condition of land. A local authority may require remediation to be undertaken as part of the redevelopment of a site. These works usually encompass site investigation, consultation and remediation works/risk management.

5.191 Whilst the planning and pollution control systems are separate, they are complementary in that both are designed to protect the environment from potential harm caused by development and site operations, albeit with different objectives. Historic land contamination is a material planning consideration which must be taken into account at various stages in the planning process, including in preparation of proposals for the future use and redevelopment of a site. The controlling and minimising of pollution also forms part of a sustainable development.

5.192 The Government’s objectives on contaminated land are to:

Identify and remove unacceptable visits to human health and the environment;

To seek to bring damaged land back to beneficial use; and

To seek to ensure that the cost burdens faced by individual companies and society as a whole are proportionate, manageable and economically sustainable.

5.193 Paragraph 23 of PPS23 advises that in considering individual planning applications, the potential for contamination to be present must be considered in relation to the existing use and circumstances of the land, the proposed new use and the possibility of encountering contamination during development. Local authorities should satisfy themselves that the potential for contamination and any risks arising are properly assessed and that the development incorporates any necessary remediation and subsequent management measures to deal with unacceptable risks, including those covered by Part IIA of the EPA 1990. Intending developers should be able to assure local authorities they have the expertise, or access to it, to make such assessments.

5.194 Local authorities should pay particular attention to development proposals for sites where there is a reason to suspect contamination, such as the existence of former industrial uses, or other indications of potential contamination, and to those for particularly sensitive use such as housing likely to be used by families with children. The remediation of land affected by contamination through the granting of planning permission (with the attachment of the necessary conditions) should secure the removal of unacceptable risk and make the site suitable for its new use. As a minimum, after carrying out the development and commencement of its use, the land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the EPA 1990.

5.195 The applicant has undertaken detailed and extensive historical evidence gathering on site survey work to establish the likely level of contamination on this site. This work has included an evaluation of the soil, geology, hydrology, hydrogeology and contamination in and adjoining the site. A summary of the main issues are highlighted below:

There is a minor aquifer underlying the whole site and surrounding area;

The entire site is also underlain by soils which have high leading potential;

Potential presence of contaminant hot spots across the site including hydrocarbons, cadmium, volatile organic compounds and polychlorinated biphenyls although concentrations do not generally exceed unacceptable levels;

Potential for the presence of asbestos within existing buildings;

Potential contaminants associated with the landfill sites in the surrounding area including Trumps Farm which is licensed to accept household, commercial and industrial waste. No waste has been accepted since 1999 and gas and leachate control systems are in place with regular monitoring undertaken. There was also a County

Council tip located adjacent to the northern corner of the site, in Surrey Heath, that closed in 1974 and which contains mostly construction material. There is no evidence of methane, carbon dioxide or leachate migration into the surrounding area.

5.196 The applicant has prepared a wide range of possible mitigation measures all of which require further studies and investigation. The mitigation measures also depend upon the detailed design for the proposed development, for example if deep foundations are required these could have an impact on the groundwater control measures needed. Many of these mitigations are required to protect the adjoining international status of Chobham Common and have therefore been addressed in more detail in the EIA and AA sections above.

5.197 It is considered that the implementation of adequate management and control measures during construction will avoid residual impacts of the proposed development on the soils and geology of the area. Any remediation strategy for the proposed development can be addressed by planning conditions (proposed Condition 34) and require agreement in advance with the Environment agency and the local authority. The strategy will aim to reduce the contamination risk to an acceptable level for the natural environment, the proposed future users of this application site and the potential residential users of the whole site should it come forward as a strategic mixed use site in the long-term future.

5.198 Water, Flooding and Drainage

The applicant commissioned a hydrogeological assessment to establish the impact of the proposed development and the possible impacts on the nationally and internationally important ecological site (Chobham Common). This study included groundwater borehole monitoring.

5.199 Under the existing site is a minor aquifer. There are a number on-site surface water features including a balancing pond, ornamental pond, Mvee Stream (continues across Wentworth Golf Course to form a tributary of the River Bourne) and several drainage ditches. The total permeable area of the application site is approximately 54%. The majority of the surface water run-off from the impermeable areas within the site currently drain via piped networks to the existing balancing pond and then to the Mvee Stream. The majority of the existing impermeable area drains unrestricted to the Mvee Stream. Surface water run-off for a one mile stretch of the M3 also discharges into the Mvee Stream. The M3 discharges will remain unchanged with the proposed development.

5.200 All foul water drainage flows via a private network to a combination of three private pumping stations and discharge into a Thames Water sewer.

5.201 Policy NRM1 of the draft South East Plan states that:

“Water supply, ground water and river water quality will be maintained and enhanced through avoiding adverse effects of development on the water environment. A twin-track approach of demand management and water resource development will be pursued, together with development of sewerage and waste water treatment infrastructure.”

5.202 In determining planning applications local authorities should consider a range of criteria, the most relevant are listed below:

Ensure that the rate and location of development does not lead to unacceptable deterioration of water quality and is in step with current and planning provision of adequate water supply, sewerage and waste water treatment infrastructure capacity;

Require development that would use significant quantities of water to incorporate measures to achieve high levels of water efficiency and reflect current best practice including BREEAM “very good” and increasingly “excellent” standards and, where appropriate, sustainable drainage solutions where these are consistent with protection of groundwater quality;

Work with water and sewerage companies and the Environment Agency to identify infrastructure needs, allocate areas and safeguard these for infrastructure development;

Encourage winter water storage reservoirs and other sustainable farming practices which reduce summer abstraction, diffuse pollution and runoff, increase flood storage capacity and benefit wildlife and recreation;

Not permit development that presents a risk of pollution or where satisfactory pollution prevention measures are not provided in areas of high groundwater vulnerability (in consultation with the Environment Agency).

5.203 Policy NRM3 advises that:

“The sequential approach to development in flood risk areas set out in PPS25 will be followed. Inappropriate development should not be allocated or permitted in Zones 2 and 3 of the floodplain or areas with a history of groundwater flooding, or where it would increase flood risk elsewhere, unless there is overriding need and absence of suitable alternatives.”

5.204 The application site lies wholly within Zone 1 (low flood risk). The nearest fluvial floodplain associated with the River Bourne is approximately 1.5km to the north of the application site.

5.205 Planning Policy Statement 25 : ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (PPS25) deals with all forms of flooding and their impact on the natural and built environment and accommodating the impacts of climate change.

Although this site does lie outside medium (Zone 2) and high risk (Zone 3) flood zones, it must still consider the wider implications for flood risk from outside these higher risk flood areas.

5.206 Paragraph 17 of PPS25 advises that in areas at risk of river flooding, preference should be given to locating new development in Flood Zone 1 (low flood risk). Paragraph F1 states that “the sustainable management of this rainfall, described as surface water, is an essential element of reducing future flood risk to both the site and its surroundings”. PPS25 encourages the use of sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) to cover a whole range of sustainable approaches to surface water drainage management.

5.207 Saved Policies SV1, SV2A and NE16 of the adopted Local Plan are also considered to be relevant. These policies are set out below:

“SV1 Land Drainage Systems

The Council in conjunction with the EA, will seek to manage the floodplain environment and achieve appropriate flood alleviation in the borough.

SV2A Water Quality Protection

The Council will resist development which in its opinion, after consultation with the EA, could adversely affect the quality of surface water or groundwater.

NE16 Sites of International and National Nature Conservation Importance

There will be strong presumption against any development that may destroy or adversely affect, directly or indirectly, designated or proposed Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves, Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Sites. With regard to Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated as being of international importance (Ramsar Sites) or Special Protection Areas or Special Areas of conservation – the Council will have regard to the United Kingdom’s international obligations.”

5.208 There is potential for the contamination of surface and groundwater water during the demolition and construction period. Best practice techniques would be used to mitigate the identified potential problem areas. Precautions will be taken to prevent accidental spills of materials.

For example, double skinned and bunded fuel tanks will be used and run-off from areas where vehicles are washed down will be controlled to prevent discharge of contaminated water.

5.209 The existing impermeable area within the development envelope is approximately 13.83 hectares (see Appendix F). The proposed impermeable area will be reduced to 13.58 hectares, a reduction of 0.25 hectare. The majority of the proposed impermeable area will drain, or be pumped if required, to replacement storage ponds to the east of the Mvee Stream. Within the developed areas some landscaping features will provide some permeable areas and SUDS. Strategy will be fully developed and implemented on site. The proposed development will utilise existing outfalls and maintain existing flow rates to ensure that baseflows to existing watercourses are maintained.

5.210 The proposed development would increase the water storage volume on site and thereby reducing the risk of downstream flooding for severe storm events. The use of SUDS should ensure that there is no increase in surface water run off from the site.

5.211 There is likely to be an increase in water demand from approximately 200,000 litres per day to approximately 900,000 litres per day with the proposed development. This will require Three Valleys Water to reinforce their off-site network for a distance of 3.5km along Longcross Road. Three Valleys have agreed that this work will be undertaken. The proposed development can then be supplied with the necessary demand for water. Water efficiency measures such as low flush toilets and water efficient taps are proposed to reduce demand for water. Rainwater harvesting utilises run-off from roofs for non potable use such as irrigation.

5.212 Foul sewage outflow is also likely to increase. Thames Water have confirmed that there is insufficient capacity for all of the proposed development into the existing public foul sewerage system. The proposal is for the site to be drained via gravity sewers to a proposed new pumping station or treatment works at the northern part of the application site adjacent to the railway. From this point a number of outfall options are available. Three options are currently being considered by the applicant with Thames Water to ensure that flows do not exceed the available capacities of the existing public sewerage system.

5.213 The existing impermeable area within the entire application site (as opposed to the development envelope in paragraph 5.209 above) equates to 19.6 hectares, the proposed impermeable area within the entire application site will equate to 14.42 hectares. The proposed development will result in a reduction in the overall impermeable area on the application site of approximately 5.28 hectares. As a result, there will be an increase in aquifer recharge potential to the east and west of the Mvee Stream.

5.214 Of primary importance is the impact on recharge to the minor aquifer underlying the adjacent Chobham Common which feeds the ponds, bogs and wet heathland within. There are two catchments which groundwater within the aquifer flows towards. The first is the Long Arm catchment which feeds the ponds, bogs and wet heathland within the Chobham Common. The second is the catchment associated with the Mvee Stream.

5.215 Approximately 8% of the Long Arm catchment lies within the western part of the application site, whilst the remainder of the application site lies within the catchment associated with the Mvee Stream.

5.216 The proposed development involves removing approximately 30,500m2

of hardstanding from the section of the application site overlying the Long Arm groundwater catchment. The initial assessment suggests that the development will result in an approximate 2.8% increase in the area of recharge to the Bagshot Formation within the groundwater catchment of the Long Arm Valley. Whilst there will be a net increase on the application site in permeable area within the Long Arm catchment area, the overall increase in relation to the total Long Arm catchment represents approximately 1.6%, this equates to a maximum increase in recharge of approximately 2.8%.

5.217 Therefore, it is considered that the decrease in the impermeable area that lies within the Long Arm catchment will not result in a significant change in recharge to the underlying aquifer and therefore an increase in water levels within the Chobham Common. This is as a result of only 8% of the catchment area associated with Chobham Common lying within the application site and the small change in flow detectable in the long Arm Valley. The increase in the permeable area that lies within the catchment of the Mvee Stream will not result in a significant decrease in recharge to the underlying aquifer and therefore will not affect water levels within the Mvee Stream.

5.218 The increase in permeable area within the catchment that flows towards the Mvee Stream will result in increased natural infiltration and, combined with increased surface water run-off from internal roadways associated with the operational phase of the proposed development may be contaminated with hydrocarbons, silt and other substances (ie trace metals) and will therefore need to be treated prior to discharge to the surface water receptors.

5.219 The underlying aquifer is considered to be a sensitive receptor since pollutants may enter the aquifer and contaminate water flowing towards the adjacent designated ecological sites. Of particular concern is the potential pathway for rapid contamination of groundwater as a result of the remaining on-site observation boreholes.

5.220 However, as part of the development, all road drainage will be via deep trapped gullies and car parking areas with greater than 30 spaces will discharge through petrol interceptors (or pervious pavements) in order to protect the Mvee Stream and the ditch adjacent to Burma Road. Any drainage trenches passing through areas of possible ground contamination will incorporate specific measures (eg sealed pipework and bedding etc) to prevent potential migration of contaminants within the bedding material. Therefore, the risk of contaminated surface run-off entering surface water features prior to further mitigation measures is considered to be a negative impact but one of minor significance and permanent in nature. The applicant intends to put procedures in place to

ensure that when boreholes retained for post construction monitoring are no longer in use, they will be permanently sealed to ensure that there is no contamination to the underlying aquifer. Providing this and other measures are incorporated to prevent contaminated surface run-off entering the controlled waters are strictly adhered to, it is not considered that any further mitigation measures will be necessary. Such measures can be controlled by condition.

5.221 The Environment Agency raise no objection to the proposed development in terms of water quality, land drainage, water conservation and flood risk subject to conditions.

5.222 Veolia Water Partnership (acting as scientific and technical consultants to Three Valleys Water) confirm that the site is not within any groundwater abstraction catchment or near any public water supplies. There are no objections in terms of an aquifer protection, groundwater or surface water resource protection viewpoint. Some local mains reinforcement work is likely to be necessary. Water byelaws and Building Regulations now require the fitting of water saving fittings in buildings. The applicant is considering recycling rainwater and grey water to reduce demand on the network. Any infrastructure provision required to meet the capacity of the proposed development is required through the Water Industries Act. The Act provides the mechanism for contributions from the developer and necessary rights of entry for Thames Water to procure any necessary new infrastructure. As the necessary provisions are embodied within the Water Industries Act it is not necessary for these possible infrastructure improvements to be covered by a legal agreement or planning condition.

5.223 Thames Water consider that there is insufficient capacity to accept the foul flows from the proposed development into the existing public foul sewerage system without some enhancements to sewers. Surface water flows must not drain to any foul system as this will lead to overloading of the system and possibly flooding and pollution issues. The use of balancing ponds or alternative forms of attenuation tanks to limit discharge of surface water flows from the site would assist. The applicant is considering an on-site package treatment plant to reduce the discharge capacity. Any infrastructure improvements are dealt with under the Water Industries Act as set out above in paragraph 5.222.

5.224 Natural England did initially raise concerns regarding the hydrological impacts on the ecologically designated sites. However, these concerns have been addressed and no objection is raised on these grounds by Natural England.

5.225 On this basis the proposed development is not considered to adversely affect groundwaters or the nature conservation interests of Chobham Common and would provide adequate water supply, sewerage and waste water treatment infrastructure capacity. The risk of pollution and flooding has been minimised.

5.226 Infrastructure

Policy CC5 of the draft South East Plan seeks to ensure that the necessary infrastructure required to serve the new development is available or will be provided in time and states that contributions from development will also be required to help deliver the necessary infrastructure. Among the requirements will be improvements to meet the increase in water demand from the proposed development and the capacity shortfall of the foul sewerage infrastructure. These are set out specifically at paragraphs 5.222 and 5.223.

5.227 It is considered that subject to appropriate conditions and legal agreements the necessary infrastructure for water, flooding and drainage will be provided by the time it is required on a phased implementation programme. The necessary land contamination measures can also be adequately addressed to enable the land to be fit for its intended purpose.

5.228 Improvements to road junctions would assist the effectiveness of the highway network: an enhanced train stopping service at Longcross railway station on Mondays to Saturdays, at least £1M towards improvements at the station, a peak hour shuttle bus service to Woking railway station and £150,000 towards the Runnymede Travel Initiative should assist in reducing car journeys to the site and improving the capacity of the local highway network. The benefits on the transport infrastructure can be secured on legal agreement.

5.229 A financial contribution of £600,000 towards affordable housing in the Borough also counts as an infrastructure benefit. Overall, as a package, the developer will help to deliver the necessary infrastructure required to serve the needs of the proposed development.

5.230 Historic Environment

1) Listed Buildings

There are no statutory listed buildings located within the application site. There is, however, a Grade II listed building, Barrow Hills and terrace, on the southern part of the DERA which lies outside the application site. This listed building is approximately 0.6km to the south of the application site.

5.231 Planning Policy Guidance 15 : ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ (PPG15) provides for the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas and other elements of the historic environment. In terms of the setting of listed buildings, Government guidance at paragraphs 2.16 and 2.17 is to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings. The setting of the listed building should not be interpreted too narrowly. “A proposed high or bulky building might also affect the setting of a listed building some distance away, or alter views of a historic skyline” (paragraph 2.17 of PPG15).

5.232 The applicant has undertaken consultations with English Heritage over the historic significance of the military buildings on the site. Various meetings have taken place and a survey of all the existing buildings undertaken and four buildings were highlighted for detailed scrutiny. They were the blister hangar (building 10), offices and passive air defence shelters (building 42), turret testing tower (building 64) and complete vehicle climatic chamber (building 121). None of these buildings are worthy of a statutory listed building. However, the blister hangar is to be retained for its historic significance. These hangars are very light and can be easily assembled, dismantled and moved and were often used on Second World War airfields such as Biggin Hill. Such buildings are rare in a national context and few are in such a good state of preservation as this building. The applicant intends to relocate Building 10 off site. The structure would be taken apart and rebuilt as is in its new relocation which is most likely to be Brooklands Museum, although it could be relocated to a similar type of location subject to the agreement with the Local Planning Authority. Building 10 will not be retained on site.

5.233 The turret testing tower is being retained albeit for ecological mitigation reasons (see section below). This building was used as a laboratory for the research and evaluation of vehicles. The building displays a number of unusual characteristics including 20 massive sloping sash windows. This feature is unknown in any other military building in the UK. The building is structurally sound.

2) Archaeology

The application site does not lie within a locally designated area of archaeological potential. However, there is some evidence of Bronze Age, Iron Age and post mediaeval finds in the vicinity of the site. A prehistoric earthwork is located approximately 1km to the south of the site and is a Scheduled Monument. The possibility of prehistoric archaeological remains existing on the application site cannot be discounted.

5.234 It is likely that some remains may have been seriously impacted upon by the intense development of the site from the 1940s onwards. However, some buildings have been built on raft foundations, therefore preserving any potential archaeological remains which might lie beneath. The County Archaeologist is satisfied with the additional information that has been submitted with this revised application. He states that “There is much to do still but I am satisfied that in order to determine an outline application, sufficient detail has been submitted”. Conditions are proposed to ensure that a programme of archaeological work is undertaken and protective fencing erected around areas of identified archaeological importance such as building 64.

5.235 Planning Benefits

Government Circular 02/2005: ‘Planning Obligations’ provides guidance on assessing and securing planning obligations. Paragraph B1 states that “the principal objective of the planning system is to deliver sustainable development, through which key Government social, environmental and economic objectives are achieved”.

5.236 In dealing with planning applications, local planning authorities consider each one on its own merits and reach a decision based on whether the application accords with the relevant development plan (draft South East Plan, Surrey Structure Plan and Runnymede Local Plan) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where applications do not meet these requirements they may be refused. However, in some instances it may be possible to make acceptable development proposals which might otherwise be unacceptable through the use of planning conditions or planning obligations.

5.237 The guidance is that planning obligations are only sought where they meet all of the following tests:

(1) relevant to planning

(2) necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms;

(3) directly relates to the proposed development;

(4) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development, and

(5) reasonable in all other respects.

5.238 The applicant is offering the following planning obligations with his revised application:

A financial contribution of £600,000 towards the provision of affordable housing;

New station facilities at Longcross railway station (approximately £1­1.45 million) to include new footbridge, new and modular station building, resurfacing of platforms, upgrading station lighting, two new waiting shelters, upgraded station signage and upgraded CCTV cameras;

To run a peak hour shuttle bus between Woking railway station and the site;

Travel Plan Strategy to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and on-site car parking and promote sustainable working and travel patterns;

A financial contribution of £150,000 towards the Runnymede Travel Initiative (yellow bus service);

Establishment of an ecological buffer zone on the western part of the site (within Surrey Heath) to ensure appropriate habitat for the species of interest is provided and maintained;

Retention, management and maintenance of the four buildings (63, 64, 109 and 110) for either historic significance or ecological mitigation purposes;

Relocation of Building 10 for historical significance.

5.239 All of the above proposed works are deemed to be required to provide the necessary infrastructure provision or to enable the proposed development to meet sustainability objectives in promoting non-car modes of transport to an isolated site, and protecting or improving the natural or built environment. It is considered that all of the proposed planning obligations meet all of the relevant criteria set out above.

5.240 Air Quality

The Government’s policy on air quality within the UK is set out in the Air Quality Strategy (AQS) and is primarily under the jurisdiction of the Council’s Environmental Protection Division, utilising the Environment Act 1995. Part IV of this Act also requires local authorities to periodically review and assess the quality of air within their administrative area. The reviews have to consider the present and future air quality and whether any air quality objectives prescribed in Regulations are being achieved or are likely to be achieved in the future. Where any of the prescribed air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved, the authority concerned must designate that part an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

5.241 For each AQMA the local authority has a duty to draw up an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) setting out the measures the authority intends to introduce to deliver improvements in local air quality in pursuit of the air quality objectives. Local authorities are not statutorily obliged to meet the objectives, but they must show that they are working towards them.

5.242 There are two AQMAs within Runnymede. The first area extends 55 metres east and west of the centre line of the M25 between junctions 11 and 13. The second area extends 70 metres east and west of the centre line of the M25 between junction 11 and the southern borough boundary.

5.243 There is one area in Surrey Heath along the M3 in Camberley. None of these AQMAs are in close proximity to this site. Planning Policy Statement 23 : ‘Planning and Pollution Control’ (PPS23) advises on the policies and practices that should be taken into account by those involved in the planning of any development that has the potential to cause pollution. It specifically advises that:

“the planning system plays a key role in determining the location of development which may give risk to pollution, either directly or indirectly, and in ensuring that other uses and developments are not, as far as possible, affected by major existing or potential sources of pollution”.

5.244 Paragraph 10 of PPS23 adds that “the planning system should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of land and the impact of those uses, rather than the control of processes and emissions themselves. Planning authorities should work on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. They should act to complement but not seek to duplicate it”.

5.245 Policy NRM7 of the draft South East Plan seeks an improvement in air quality. Policy SE1 of the Structure Plan states that development must comply with prevailing standards for the control of emissions to air, water and land.

5.246 The air quality issue is clearly an impact on the environmental considerations which are integral to the EIA and AA considerations and are dealt with in paragraphs 5.5 to 5.49 above and Appendices H, I, J and K.

5.247 The main existing source of road pollution close to the site arises from the M3 motorway. There are no residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest residential properties are in Longcross, some 190 metres to the south, in Knowle Hill and approximately 450 metres to the east. Chobham Common (designated as an SPA/SAC) located to the west is also sensitive to a change in dust deposition rates. It should be noted that it is a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act for “any dust or other effluvia arising from industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance” and “any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance”.

5.248 The demolition, site clearance and construction activities are likely to cause the greatest potential for dust and particle matter generation. The applicant anticipates that the majority of the dust from the site will be deposited within 200 metres. The prevailing wind direction will come from the south to west across the site towards Trumps Green and Virginia Water. Given that the nearest dwelling is some 450 metres away in this prevailing direction, there are unlikely to be any serious adverse long term effects outside the site from the demolition and construction phases.

5.249 Particle matter levels are likely to increase for this period but are still likely to be insignificant. Construction traffic will have an impact on air quality, particularly for those residential properties close to main roads. The properties most likely to be affected are those in Trumps Green Road, Longcross Road and along the A30 London Road. It is anticipated that the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations associated with the demolition and construction phases would be very small and probably indistinguishable, using available monitoring techniques.

5.250 The dust, particle matter and NO2 levels will be monitored throughout the demolition and construction process specifically as part of the conditions relating to the EIA and AA. Other conditions and best practice guidance will be adopted to control these emissions, as far as practicable. Given the sensitivity of this site and its proximity to Chobham Common, the controls are likely to be far more restrictive than on a normal construction site.

5.251 The proposed development is predicted to cause a small increase in dust particle matter and NO2 concentrations. These increases can be reduced by the implementation of mitigation measures set out in the AA section of the report above. The residual effects of the proposed development will range from neutral to insignificant. It is considered that with the necessary controls under Environmental and Planning legislation, there should be no objection in policy terms on air quality, either to local residents or the internationally sensitive designations at Chobham Common.

5.252 Lighting

Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) : ‘Planning and Pollution Control’ requests local authorities to take account of the possible polluting impact of lighting. The Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2005 also gives local authorities powers to deal with nuisance from artificial lighting.

5.253 The issue of lighting both during the demolition/construction phase and for the completed proposed buildings, including floodlighting for car parks and security purposes, has a number of important considerations. The existing and proposed light might affect the wildlife (such as badgers and bats) on the existing site and the adjoining Chobham Common – this issue is addressed in more detail in the EIA and AA considerations and are dealt with in paragraphs 5.5 to 5.49 above and Appendices H, I, J and K. It can also affect the visual impact of the proposed development and potentially be a distraction to traffic on the M3 for about a 100m stretch of the motorway and to train drivers. The applicant has undertaken a lighting survey of the existing buildings and the site. The existing site is lit by a range of lamps mounted on columns and on buildings generally in an ad hoc manner. When fully operational, this site would have caused high levels of luminance, lightspill and sky glow.

5.254 The demolition/construction phase will result in temporary floodlighting, lights on construction cranes/structures and security lighting etc. The applicant plans a number of mitigation measures during this phase by avoiding temporary lighting adjacent to Chobham Common and in the vicinity of recorded badger setts and bat foraging routes and reducing glare by correctly positioning lights and directing them towards the centre of the site.

5.255 For the operational phase, the applicant is proposing an integrated lighting strategy to minimise light loss and be consistent with recommended lighting guidance for a rural location for both buildings, parking areas and street lighting. The applicant is proposing an average illumination of 15 lux for car parking areas by using 6 metre lighting columns with high pressure sodium lamps for the car parking areas. The new roundabout at the entrance to the site off Chobham Lane is likely to require up to 8 to 10 metre high light columns. The implementation of a comprehensive landscaping scheme in combination with a proposed modern lighting scheme, fully considering highway safety and nature conservation interests, would provide a significant improvement on the existing baseline lighting condition on this site.

5.256 The Council’s lighting consultant advises that the control of lighting proposals are good providing that they are fully observed and there will be minimal light intrusion to the surrounding area. The detailed lighting scheme can be controlled by condition (see Conditions 50 and 51).

5.257 Noise and Vibration

The demolition and construction phases of the proposed development will clearly cause noise and disturbance. This potentially has implications for the local residents and the wildlife. The impacts on the environmental issues are dealt with in the EIA and AA considerations and are dealt with in paragraphs 5.5 to 5.49 above and Appendices H, I, J and K.

5.258 This section purely focuses on the impacts of the local residents during the demolition and construction phases. Environmental noise surveys have been undertaken to establish existing background noise levels at the site, adjacent to the site and from existing residential properties in Knowle Hill (east of the site), Longcross Road (south of the site) and Albury Close (south of the site). The dominant sources of noise were the road traffic from the M3 and the trains. Aircraft noise and vehicle movements were also noted and included.

5.259 Predicted noise levels were used for the worst case scenario of five buildings being demolished at the same time. The applicant’s noise report concludes that the noise from the demolition and construction phases would not exceed the background noise level for the residential properties in Knowle Hill or Longcross Road. The properties in Albury Close are likely to experience an increase of one decibel which would be barely perceptible.

5.260 The nearest neighbouring properties are located well away from any demolition or construction works. Given these distances, there are not likely to be any concerns with vibration from excavation, hydraulic breakers or anger piling at the site. There is statutory control for noise and vibrations under the Environmental Protection Act.

5.261 The noise impact from increased road traffic has also been assessed. It is predicted that an increase of one decibel will occur along Kitsmead Lane and Trumps Green Road (between Wellington Avenue and Kitsmead Lane) by 2013. By 2028, when the application site is fully operational, an increase of one decibel is predicted on six roads (Broomhall Lane (A383), A30, Windsor Road (B383), Longcross Road (between Staple Hill Road and Kitsmead Lane) plus the two roads mentioned above. It is considered that there should not be a significant change in the percentage of people affected by noise.

5.262 There is a potential for adverse noise impacts from the operation of plant on the proposed buildings. The applicant has given an undertaking that all plant will be designed individually and collectively such that the rating level of the building services plant is no higher than the measured background noise level. The applicant also intends to use modern quiet plant and machinery for the demolition and construction phases, appropriately locating any noise plant, such as rock crushers, away from noise sensitive receptors etc. These can be controlled by conditions (see Conditions 49, 52 and 53).

5.263 The proposed hours of working during the demolition and construction phases are 7.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. Mondays to Fridays and 7.00 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. This can be controlled by condition (see Condition 45).

5.264 It is considered that the potential noise impacts of the proposed development are not likely to seriously adversely affect the residential properties in the vicinity of the application site.

Public Rights of Way

5.265 No public rights of way exist on the application site. There is one public footpath adjacent to the site which runs along the southern section of Burma Road. The proposal may require the diversion of this public footpath but this is a matter for Surrey Heath Borough Council and Surrey County Council. Burma Road is intended to be used only in the event of an emergency.

5.266 The trail along the southern boundary of the railway line which connects Longcross Station to Chobham Lane is not a public right of way. There are signs along this trail which specifically state that it is not a public right of way.

5.267 There are no designated bridleways within the application site. There is one bridleway which runs along part of Burma Road through Chobham Common. South of the M3 there are numerous bridleways. The applicant is not prepared to allow the trail along the southern side of the railway line to be used as a bridleway as suggested by the objection from Runnymede Riders (see paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3).

5.268 There is currently no public access to the application site. The proposal is for there to be no access points which connect with existing footpaths outside the site boundary in order to prevent increases in recreational pressure on Chobham Common and to prevent access to and through the newly-created protected ecological habitat on the western plateau of the application site. The applicant is therefore not prepared to allow public access to the recreational facilities and footpaths through the site as suggested by the Ramblers Association.

5.269 The internal network of cycle paths, footpaths and jogging routes are for employees only. There will be no access to Chobham Common as required by Natural England.

5.270 The Council’s cycling strategy aims to ‘create a cohesive and extensive network of safer cycle/pedestrian routes across Runnymede and to link with routes in neighbouring Boroughs’. There is one existing cycleway along Kitsmead Lane. The applicant is prepared to consider a cycleway link from Kitsmead Lane at a detailed design stage. This would be a continuation of the on-road route that currently runs along Kitsmead Lane. As with the existing route along Kitsmead Lane, there would be no separate cycle lane arrangements but there would be clear signage.

5.271 The proposed development will include a pedestrian footpath and cycleway from the main entrance to the railway station. The applicant considers that the combination of cyclists using the train will have a positive impact in terms of encouraging the use of more sustainable forms of transport. The CHA is seeking a condition to require at least 725 cycle spaces on the site.

5.272 Energy Efficiency - Built Environment, Design & Sustainable Construction

PPS1 promotes high quality inclusive design and layout of new development and individual buildings in terms of function and impact. If a scheme fails to improve the character and quality of an area it should not be accepted. Local authorities should seek to enhance the environment as part of development proposals.

5.273 Development should seek to minimise the need to consume new resources over the lifetime of the development by making more efficient use or re-use of existing resources rather than making new demands on the environment and seek to promote the use of renewable resources. Local Authorities should promote resource and energy efficient buildings, the use of combined heat and power, small-scale renewable and low carbon energy schemes in developments, the sustainable use of water resources and the use of sustainable drainage systems.

5.274 In December 2007 the Government issued a supplement to PPS1 entitled ‘Planning and Climate Change’ which sets outs how planning should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change and take into account the unavoidable consequences. Planning authorities and developers should engage constructively and imaginably to encourage the delivery of sustainable buildings. Innovation and investment in sustainable buildings should be supported.

5.275 Planning Policy Statement (PPS22) : 'Renewable Energy' aims to promote an increase in the development of renewable energy resources to facilitate the Government’s target to generate 10% of UK electricity from renewable sources by 2010 with the aspiration to double that figure by 2020. The requirement to generate on-site renewable energy is only applied to developments where the installation of renewable energy generation equipment is viable given the type of development proposed, its location and design.

5.276 Policy CC4 of the draft South East Plan states that:

“The construction of all new buildings, and the redevelopment and refurbishment of existing building stock, will be expected to adopt and incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques. This will include:

i) High standards of energy and water efficiency that exceed current standards required by the Building Regulations and reflect best practice;

ii) Designing to increase the use of natural lighting, heat and ventilation and the provision of a proportion of energy demand from renewable sources;

iii) Reduction and increased recycling of construction and demolition waste and procurement of low-impact materials;

iv) Designing for flexible use and adaptation to reflect changing lifestyles and needs and the principle of ‘whole life costing’.

5.277 Saved Policy SE2 of the Structure Plan requires all types of development to incorporate best practice measures in their design, layout and orientation. The use of combined heat and power or similar technology will be encouraged and should be regarded as the norm for all developments in excess of 5000 sq m of floorspace. Commercial development should be designed such that a minimum of 10% of the energy requirement is provided by renewable resources. The Council has its own supplementary Renewable Energy guidance.

5.278 Saved Policy SE4 states that the design, both of buildings themselves and the way they integrate with their surroundings, must be of high quality.

5.279 As this is an outline application the design and layout of the buildings is a reserved matter for consideration at the detailed stage. However, the applicant has stated that:

“The design of the proposed scheme will seek to minimise energy consumption for the purposes of cooling, heating, lighting and other services, as well as to increase the use of energy from renewable sources. To this end the Energy Strategy will inform the detailed design of the buildings. This strategy has been developed in line with the ‘energy hierarchy’ principles set out in Part L2 of the Building Regulations (2006).”

5.280 The key principles on which the Energy Strategy is based are as follows:

o Passive design o Energy efficient building services systems; and o Renewable energy technology o

5.281 Opportunities for minimising energy consumption through the adoption of passive design principles, taking into consideration the building form, orientation and the design of the fabric were considered.

5.282 Efficient building services systems will be identified and provided to minimise the inherent energy requirements of the proposed development.

5.283 Having achieved high levels of energy efficiency through ‘passive’ means and the provision of energy efficient building services systems, low and zero carbon technologies will be proposed to meet a proportion of energy demand. The remaining demand which cannot be met by renewable technologies will be supplied in an efferent manner.

5.284 The applicant is committed to achieving a score of ‘Very Good’ in the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) for offices assessment.

5.285 BREEAM is a design management and audit tool which assesses the environmental performance of individual buildings as opposed to whole developments. BREEAM assesses individual office buildings in terms of:

Management of the construction process (commissioning, on-site pollution, recycling, waste minimisation);

Selection of materials and products;

Site selection;

Indoor comfort;

Energy use, water use;

Transport impacts; and

Ecological enhancement.

5.286 A construction waste management strategy will be incorporated into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) with a view to promoting the minimisation of waste disposed to landfill. This strategy will also be outlined in the Method Statements to be prepared and implemented by the Principal Contractor. The strategy will be based on the principles of sustainable use of resources outlined above as well as the ‘waste hierarchy’ principle which sets out the following priorities for waste management (in order of preference, the first being the preferred option):

Minimisation of use of resources/materials

Re-use of materials

Recycling of materials

Treatment with energy recovery and

Disposal to landfill

5.287 With a view to reducing consumption of drinkable water and energy associated with the transfer, treatment and delivery of potable water and the subsequent treatment and disposal of waste water, water efficient fittings will be specified for toilets and catering facilities.

5.288 Rainwater harvested from roofs will be used to recharge formal water features and ponds which will be connected to the on-site balancing ponds for recirculation if necessary. Sustainable drainage techniques will be employed in the proposed development: car parks, pedestrian and cycle path surfaces will be predominantly permeable, and the balancing ponds will perform passive water treatment functions.

5.289 The applicant has identified an area of the site for plant (existing boiler house) as part of an energy statement. The Structure Plan saved Policy SE2 requires the use of combined heat and power on large commercial sites and the applicant is currently evaluating a combined heat and power solution. Alternative renewable energy options are also being considered. It is considered that these intentions can be adequately controlled by condition (see Condition 55).

5.290 The applicant is seeking with this outline proposal to provide high-quality energy efficient buildings and sustainable forms of construction that could comply with the relevant planning policies. However, this can only be ensured at the detailed design stage and needs to be controlled by condition (see Conditions 54 and 55).

5.291 Nature Conservation

The protection and enhancement of habitats and species (biodiversity) and geological conservation interests has been an important consideration in the processing of this application. The most important sites for biodiversity are those identified through international conventions and European Directives. Chobham Common which adjoins this site is an internationally important site. The detailed impacts on Chobham Common and protected species and habitats have been fully assessed in the EIA/AA considerations and are dealt with in paragraphs 5.5 to 5.49 and Appendices H, I, J and K.

5.292 The main relevant planning policies to consider are:

PPS1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ advises that one of the four aims of sustainable development is the effective protection of the environment. The areas with national and international designations should receive the highest level of protection. The condition of our surroundings has a direct impact on the quality of life and the conservation of the natural environment brings social and economic benefit to local communities. Planning authorities should seek to enhance the environment as part of the development proposal. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable possible mitigation measures should be considered.

PPS9 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ sets out the planning objectives to promote sustainable development by ensuring that biological and geological diversity are conserved and enhanced as an integral part of social, environmental and economic development, to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of wildlife and geology and to contribute to rural renewal and urban renaissance. In taking decisions, local planning authorities should ensure that appropriate weight is attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance, protected species and to biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment. Policies should promote opportunities for the incorporation of beneficial biodiversity features within the design of development.

5.293 The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests. If a development causes significant harm which cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against, or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

5.294 SPAs, SACs and SSSIs are all designated as sites of international importance and will be protected accordingly. Where a proposed development on land within or outside a SSSI is likely to have an adverse effect on an SSSI, planning permission should not normally be granted.

5.295 Many individual wildlife species receive statutory protection under a range of legislative provisions. Planning authorities should refuse permission where harm to the species or their habitats would result, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh the harm.

5.296 Paragraph 13 of PPS9 is particularly relevant to this proposal. It states that:

“The re-use of previously developed land for new development makes a major contribution to sustainable development by reducing the amount of countryside and undeveloped land that needs to be used. However, where such sites have significant biodiversity or geological interest of recognised local importance, local planning authorities, together with developers, should aim to retain this interest or incorporate it into any development of the site.”

5.297 Policy NRM4 of the draft South East Plan states that:

“In the development and implementation of plans and strategies, local authorities and other bodies shall avoid a net loss of biodiversity and actively pursue opportunities to achieve a net gain across the region by:

i) Providing the highest level of protection for nationally and internationally designated sites;

ii) Ensuring damage to country wildlife sites and locally important wildlife and geological sites is avoided wherever possible;

iii) Ensuring that unavoidable damage to the wildlife interest is minimised through mitigation, that any damage is compensated for, and that such measures are monitored;

iv) Ensuring appropriate access to areas of wildlife importance, identifying areas of opportunity for biodiversity improvement and setting targets reflecting those in figure NRM2. Opportunities for biodiversity improvement including large scale habitat restoration, enhancement and recreation in the areas of strategic opportunity for biodiversity improvement should be pursued;

v) Influencing and applying agri-environment schemes, forestry, flood defence, restoration of mineral extraction sites and other land management practices to deliver biodiversity targets;

vi) Maintaining and establishing accessible green networks and open green space in urban areas.”

5.298 The Panel report on the draft South East Plan recommend the deletion of various Thames Basin Heaths SPA policies and recommended a new policy requiring an interim strategic delivery plan to develop a package of avoidance and mitigation measures to facilitate new residential development within the SPA. This is not yet finalised.

5.299 The Panel Report acknowledged the wealth of ecologically important sites in the region and supported the proposed approach of Policy NRM4 in conserving and improving the biodiversity of the region.

5.300 Saved Policies SE7 and SE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan seek to protect, conserve and enhance habitats, wildlife, fauna and flora within Surrey. Saved Policy SE6 refers to the UK and Surrey Biodiversity Action Plans.

5.301 Saved Local Plan Policies NE16, NE17, NE19 and NE20 are also relevant to this proposal. Policies NE16 and NE20 are particularly relevant. Policy NE16 states:

“There will be a strong presumption against any development that may destroy or adversely affect, directly or indirectly, designated or proposed sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves, Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Sites.

With regard to Sites of Special Scientific Interest designated as being of international importance – wetlands of international importance (Ramsar Sites) or Special Protection Area or Special Areas of Conservation – the Council will have regard to the United Kingdom’s international obligations.

Proposals for development of land use which may affect a European site, a proposed European site or a Ramsar site will be subject to the most rigorous examination. Development or land use change not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site and which is likely to have significant effects on the site (either individually or in combination with other plans or projects) will not be permitted unless the authority is satisfied that:

i) There is no alternative solution;

ii) There are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for the development or land use change;

Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat and/or a priority species, development or land use change will not be permitted unless the authority is satisfied that it is necessary for reasons of human health or public safety or for beneficial consequences of primary importance for nature.

Where such development does proceed, the authority will consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to secure all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.”

5.302 Policy NE20 states that:

“A development proposal will only be permitted where it does not cause demonstrable harm to species of animal and plant or its habitat protected by legislation. To avoid harm to the species the Council may consider the use of conditions and planning obligations which seek to:

a) Facilitate the survival of individual members of the species;

b) Reduce disturbance to a minimum;

c) Provide adequate alternative habitats to sustain at least the current levels of populations.”

5.303 The Thames Basin Heaths SPA is of international importance because of its population of three heathland bird species: Dartford Warbler, Nightjar and Woodlark. It was designated an SPA under the Habitat Regulations in accordance with the Birds and Habitats Directives. The primary aim of its designation is to protect and manage the ecological structure and function of the area in order to sustain the levels of bird populations for which it was classified. The adjoining Chobham Common is part of the SPA, it is also an SSSI and part of the Thursley, Ash and Pirbright Special Area of Conservation (SAC). All three of these designations are of international importance and require the highest level of protection to comply with the relevant planning policies and statutory European legislation.

5.304 The applicant has used a range of ecological surveys carried out on the application site and surrounding area since 1991 to establish a comprehensive list of various habitats, flora, fauna and wildlife that exists on the site or which uses the site or where the proposed development may have a direct or indirect effect upon it or its habitat. The table below summarises the most important ecological findings found on the site.

Table 9 Most important ecological findings found on the application site

Specific Ecological Interest Location Comments

Deptford Pink Western boundary spreading east

Classified as vulnerable – protected by W&C Act 1981

Conservation of this plant particularly important

Various Orchids South western part of site

Area to be lost as part of proposed development

Wall Bedstraw Western part of site

Badgers South west and east 3 badger setts found – protected species

Bats No bat roosts Known bat roosts south of M3. Site used for foraging. Proposed to install bat boxes within woodland

Water Voles Central/eastern part Located along brook running across Chieftain Road

Black Redstarts Western part of site Two breeding pairs on site. Buildings retained

Slow Worms Central area Habitat lost as part of proposal

Adders Central area

Grass Snakes Central area

Common Lizard Central area Habitat lost as part of proposal

Great Crested Newts None Found south of M3 but not on application site

5.305 The western edge and eastern corner of the application site will be retained as ecological habitat areas which will have a positive impact on flora and fauna. These sites will be enhanced for wildlife and the western edge habitat will provide an important buffer to the adjacent Chobham Common.

5.306 The retention and future management of important habitats and communities within the application site will be undertaken where possible. Areas around the margins of the application site are of particular importance for noteworthy plants. Where possible the existing road verges bordering the woodland edge and shelter belts around the margins will be retained in situ, or selectively translocated to suitable alternative locations.

5.307 It is proposed that the production of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be the subject of an appropriately worded planning condition and that it can be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of works on the application site (see Condition 49). The CEMP would be approved and adhered to during the construction of the proposed development. The preparation of a CEMP will provide a clear strategy for addressing the following issues:

Details on the phasing and methods to be employed in demolition in the area to become a Protected Ecological Habitat in the Ecological Buffer Zone;

The protection of important ecological areas (such as Chobham Common, the fenced SSSI area and the Brook) such as details of installation or maintenance/retention of appropriate fencing to ensure that there would be no direct impacts on ecologically valuable areas through the development phase;

Future management to maintain the value of important ecological areas;

The protection of important species during demolition and construction works (both in the SSSI and outside it in Rare Plant Areas and along the brook). Most notably, protection of Deptford pink and other notable plants from demolition activities and dust deposition, particularly that associated with demolition in the area to become the Ecological Buffer Zone and the creation of the brownfield habitat here using material sourced from demolition;

The creation and management of parched grassland and brownfield habitat in the Ecological Buffer Zone in the west of the application site for the benefit of rare plants and Black Redstarts;

The design of any translocation exercise for areas of fragmented grassland;

The maintenance of wildlife corridors; and

The routine site practices and emergency procedures during construction and operation.

5.308 A considerable amount of landscaping will be proposed within the application site. The opportunity for landscaping for nature conservation enhancement will be fully realised via a Landscape Strategy submitted for approval pursuant to an appropriately worded planning condition. Habitat in the Ecological Buffer Zone to the west of the development envelope would be manipulated or created to provide early succession and short acid grassland conditions suitable for the rare and notable species present on the application site (for instance Deptford pink and wall bedstraw). The managed brownfield habitat proposed would be suitable for these and other species, and the existing grassland would be enhanced where appropriate. The Ecological Park proposed for the east of the application site offers the opportunity to create a valuable open space for workers on the application site to use as an amenity but also offers the chance to create valuable additional wildlife habitats. The land would be managed to maximise the value of this area and create an area of acid grassland/ heathland complementing that on the common but for the use of those working on the application site. As a general rule, where landscaping is proposed for amenity and to create habitat for wildlife, this would be created using native and appropriate species and using local soils to provide habitat for the acidophile species present, although the use of demolition rubble as a substrate will provide a range of conditions for plants.

5.309 The significant woodland areas and associated rare planting along the woodland edges within the application site will be retained where possible. These areas are predominantly outside the development envelope. The retention of the woodland will benefit the wildlife already present (ie badgers and bats). The woodland to the west of the application site also provides a buffer to Chobham Common. Understorey species, in particular rhododendron, will be controlled to promote a richer ground flora. Woodland management such as thinning and underplanting with appropriate native trees will be carried out to ensure that the character and wildlife value of the woods is retained and enhanced.

5.310 Before development commences on the application site, a management plan for the maintenance and protection of the water vole habitat within the development envelope will be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Council (see Condition 61).

5.311 Measures incorporated within the proposed development to mitigate against habitat loss are detailed within the mitigation of construction impacts. The retained and created habitats in the fenced SSSI area, the Ecological Buffer Zone, the Ecological Park and along the brook should be managed according to a CEMP. The purpose of this plan would be to define management actions to protect and enhance the habitats present and to conserve the populations of protected and notable plants and animals in these zones. In particular the CEMP should define habitat management action required to maintain suitable habitat for:

Deptford pink (including preventing rabbits getting into the SSSI, mowing/vegetation clearance and creation of bare ground suitable for seeding);

The other notable plant species in the Rare Plant Areas;

Acid grassland;

Short patchy areas suitable for Black Redstart foraging; and

Suitable bankside conditions for water voles in the brook.

5.312 Many of the species that will be impacted upon by the construction phase of the proposed development will continue to be impacted by the operation of the proposed development. Details of necessary consideration and mitigation have been fully addressed by the applicant.

5.313 The seven highest priority areas in terms of their botanical interest are to be retained within the ecological buffer zone along the western part of the site and lies outside the proposed development envelope. However, ten areas of high ecological interest would be lost. The proposal would also lose grassland that supports low populations of common lizard and slow worms.

5.314 The proposal would protect the important Deptford pink within the ecological buffer zone. The revised proposal incorporates the retention of buildings 63, 64, 109 and 110 to assist the two breeding pairs of Black Redstarts on the site following discussions with Natural England. The active badger setts and foraging areas would be protected along with the foraging grounds of bats.

5.315 The impacts on the ecological interests on the site during the demolition and construction phases have been studied and considered in detail with the EIA and AA and by the statutory consultees. This has been reported in the EIA/AA considerations and are dealt with in paragraphs 5.5 to 5.49 and Appendices H, I, J and K.

5.316 The proposed development will largely avoid areas considered to be of high ecological value. The existing western and eastern boundaries of the application site are to be retained within the application site boundary and enhanced for wildlife i.e. reptiles, badgers, birds and foraging bats. The western boundary will also provide an important buffer to the adjacent Chobham Common. New waterbodies are to be created and the existing brook will be enhanced for the existing population of water voles. Four buildings will be retained on the application site and enhanced for the breeding pair of Black Redstarts.

5.317 Mitigation measures and good practice guidelines will be put in place for the close working proximity during the construction phase along the surrounding environment. Providing that the above mitigation measures and appropriate landscaping design are implemented, the proposed development will provide additional habitats for the local wildlife within the application site.

5.318 Natural England, RSPB, Surrey Wildlife Trust and the West Surrey Badger Group raise no objection to the revised proposal. Original objections have now been addressed by revisions or by conditions primarily through the applicant’s proposed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and the revised Environmental Statement (ES). The applicant has made a commitment through the proposed CEMP to mitigate for the protected species and habitats on the application site and to provide positive habitat enhancement particularly in relation to species such as water voles, newts and reptiles.

5.319 It is considered that the direct and indirect impact on the internationally sensitive ecological areas and species on the Chobham Common would not be adversely affected by the proposed development. A number of the high value habitats and rare plants present on the site are to be retained and protected. These measures plus the enhanced ecological buffer zone along the western part of the site provides a positive impact which negates the negative implications on developing the central area of the site and loss of some habitats in this area.

5.320 Sustainability

The over-arching principle of the modern planning system is sustainability. This principle has affected every section of the planning considerations report above. This section of the report pulls all these different sections together.

5.321 Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) : ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ states that:

“Sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning. At the heart of sustainable development is the simple idea of ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for future generations.”

The Government set out four aims for sustainable development in its 1999 strategy. These are:

o Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone;

o Effective protection of the environment;

o The prudent use of natural resources;

o The maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment

5.322 These aims should be pursued in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative and productive economy that delivers high levels of employment and a just society that promotes social inclusion, sustainable communities and personal well-being in ways that protect and enhance the physical environment and optimise resource and energy use.

5.323 Planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development by:

Making suitable land available for development in line with economic social and enviornmental objectives to improve people’s quality of life;

Contribution to sustainable economic development;

Protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside and existing communities;

Ensuring high quality development through good and inclusive design and the efficient use of resources; and

Ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe sustainable, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services for all members of the community.

5.324 The general guidance of other relevant Government guidance notes specifically PPS10, PPG13, PPS22, PPS23, PPS24 and PPS25 have been detailed above. There is also a whole raft of other legislation both at an international and national level that drives the sustainable development agenda. These include 1002 Rio Earth Summit, Agenda 21 by United Nations in 1992, Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Community Strategy from the Local Government Act 2000, Energy White Paper, UK Sustainable Development Indicators and Waste Strategy in 2000.

5.325 The regional guidance in the form of the adopted RPG9 encourages a more sustainable pattern of development.

5.326 The key development principle of RPG9 is to ‘build on the growing consensus among key stakeholders in the Region, seeking to redefine the pattern of development in the Region and to ensure its continued environmental, economic and social health’. Other development principles include:

The continued protection and enhancement of the Region’s biodiversity, internationally and nationally important nature conservation areas and enhancement of its landscape and built and historic heritage; and

The pattern of development should be less dispersed with more sustainable patterns of activity, allowing home, work, leisure, green spaces, cultural facilities and community services to be in closer proximity.

5.327 RPG9 also states that better use needs to be made of all available urban land, including previously developed land. It states that transport and land use will need to be more closely integrated, through development plans, local transport plans etc. The guidance states that:

“For the region to function successfully in the future and to create safer and more sustainable places, greater reliance will need to be placed on walking, cycling and public transport, together with a recognition of the role that new technology can play in reducing the need to travel.’ (paragraph 1.13).

5.328 RPG9 recommends that better use should be made of existing employment land. Precedence should be given to the re-use of previously developed land over the release of new land and, wherever possible, the intensification of use on existing sites should be encouraged.

5.329 The emerging South East Plan will replace the RPG9 when adopted. The vision of the draft South East Plan is to promote a sustained improvement of the quality of life in the region, measured by the wellbeing of its citizens, the vitality of its economy, the wealth of its environment and the prudent use of natural resources. Policy EN3 of the draft South East Plan sets out targets and requirements in relation to renewable energy generation.

5.330 The draft South East Plan covers a range of issues related to sustainable development, including sustainable construction. Policy CC4 of the South East Plan establishes that all new buildings, renovations and conversion must “adopt and incorporate sustainable construction standards and techniques” and deliver “high standards of energy and water efficiency that exceed current standards required by the Building Regulations and reflect best practice”.

5.331 The vision for the sustainable development of the region set out in the Integrated Regional Strategy is “Our vision is of a prosperous region delivering a high quality of life and environment to everyone, now and in the future”.

5.332 The Panel report on the draft South East Plan altered the vision of the emerging Plan to read:

“The Plan’s vision for 2026 is for a healthier region for its citizens and of the environment, a more sustainable pattern of development and a dynamic and robust economy, the benefits of which are more widely shared”.

The Panel specifically added a reference to social equality and sustainable development to the originally drafted version.

5.333 The Policy (CC2) on climate change was unanimously welcomed. The Panel also supported the reduction in the region’s CO2 emissions by at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 and by at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2015. These targets were seen as vital in providing direction towards a more sustainable future for the region.

5.334 Only in the London fringe is the focus on providing employment land almost entirely through the more efficient use of existing employment land. The major impact of the Panel’s report on the emerging regional plan was the recommendation for a mixed use housing and employment for the whole of the DERA site (both north and south of the M3).

5.335 The Surrey Structure Plan was adopted in December 2004. It should be noted that the South East Plan will replace the Structure Plan when it is adopted. Relevant saved policies are summarised below.

Policy SE2 : Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation. All types of development should incorporate energy efficiency best practice measures in their design, layout and orientation. The use of combined heat and power or similar technology will be encouraged and will be a pre-requisite for all major developments. Commercial development should be designed such that a minimum of 10% of the energy requirement is provided by renewable resources;

Policy LO7 : Employment Land. Development needs will be met through the re-use of suitably located land already in, or available for, employment use.

Policy SE1 : Natural Resources and Pollution Control: : Development should be located and designed to promote the efficient use of energy and water, and the careful use of natural resources, including land and soils.

Policy SE4 : Design and Quality of Development. The design, both of buildings themselves and the way they integrate with their surroundings, must be of high quality. The layout of new development and the opportunities presented by redevelopment within built-up areas should give emphasis to the needs of pedestrian, cyclists and public transport users thereby enhancing movement choice;

Policy SE6 : Biodiversity. Biodiversity within Surrey will be conserved and enhanced and development will be expected to contribute to actions safeguarding and managing habitats identified as important. Fauna and flora and their management will be encouraged.

Policy SE7 : Nature Conservation. Land or water habitats designated as of importance for nature at an international, national, regional or county level will be conserved and enhanced;

Policy DN2 : Movement Implications of Development. Development will only be permitted where it is, or can be made, compatible with the transport infrastructure in the area. Measures to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport should be incorporated in development proposals;

Policy DN3 : Parking Provisions. Development proposals should comply with the aim of promoting sustainable travel choices by reducing the amount of land used for car parking but increasing cycling parking facilities;

Policy DN4 : Public Transport. Development which results in the use will be supported; and

Policy DN6 : Motorway and Primary Routes Network. Development proposals adjacent to this network will be resisted where the traffic

5.336 ‘The Common Agenda for a Sustainable Surrey’ is a set of guidelines for a more sustainable future for Surrey. SCC formally adopted the Common Agenda in February 2000. The objectives of the Common Agenda are listed below.

Use natural resources wisely

Promote more sustainable transport;

Protect and enhance the environment;

Encourage a successful local economy;

Care for and protect people;

Encourage successful communities; and

Meet people’s differing needs.

5.337 Surrey County Council has recently published a county-wide Community Strategy which sets the vision of Surrey in 2020, which is that of a county of distinctive, confident, caring, creative and safe communities, where individuals and organisations have taken responsibility for resolving the many challenges that the county faces. It also sets out the goal of safeguarding Surrey’s natural and built heritage, the diversity of its landscape, the distinctiveness of its communities and the strength of its economy. The purpose of the strategy is to engage the community in the delivery of actions in line with this vision and goal. The strategy concentrates on six key themes, as follows:

Economic development Housing and associated development; Changing lifestyles; Culture, communities and identity; and The future of public services and Democracy

5.338 The Runnymede Borough Local Plan was adopted in April 2001. The plan includes policies relating to the pace of development, the local economy, transport and the protection of species and sites of national and international conservation importance. The Local Plan seeks to achieve development that is environmentally sustainable by improving the environment, avoiding the wasteful use of land, and seeking the optimum use and re-use of urban land including the redevelopment of major developed sites. The Local Plan focuses on sustainable economic growth but with regard to the need to safeguard the Green Belt and avoid levels of development which could have serious adverse effects on the environment and lead to increased levels of traffic congestion.

5.339 Economic policies within the Plan set out to ensure that the local economy remains viable, operates efficiently and makes a positive contribution to sustainable economic growth, providing a range of employment opportunities. They encourage the redevelopment of outworn industrial and commercial premises to provide modern buildings with adequate parking, vehicular access and landscaping; and aim to generate a more diversified local economy. They also aim to promote increases in employment which do not conflict with the conservation of the environment and quality of life, maintaining the quality and value of the Borough’s natural and built environment.

5.340 Within the transport policies reference is made to traffic calming and improving transport infrastructure and investment and promotion of public transport and alternative modes of transport, eg cycling and walking linked to new developments. The Plan also contains policies relating to the protection of sites of international, national and county level importance and makes reference to seeking to protect and enhance species levels.

5.341 The Runnymede Community Strategy 2002 aims to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of Runnymede. The Community Strategy is a key document that will guide the priorities and policies of Runnymede Borough Council and other service providers over the next 10-15 years. The strategy sets out the main priorities for the future of the Borough and presents an action plan to ensure that they are delivered. Extensive consultations by Runnymede Borough Council have led to the development of five main themes (A Runnymede (1) which is safe and secure; (2) that is healthy and vibrant; (3) which is creative and valued; (4) which is accessible to all; and (5) which has an exciting future which form the long term vision.

5.342 The Council’s own vision in its Strategic Plan (2005-2010) is to “ensure we play an effective role in enhancing the quality of life for all our residents and visitors and provide an attractive environment for those who conduct their business in the Borough”.

5.343 The applicant has completed a full sustainability checklist in accordance with SEEDA revised guidelines. These guidelines are complicated, extensive and have ten themes. For the purposes of this report, the four themes set out in PPS1 seem to be the most appropriate framework to assess the proposed development in sustainability terms and integrate better with the layout of this report. The first aim for sustainable development in PPS1 is social cohesion and inclusion, effectively the creation of socially inclusive communities. It is difficult for a stand-alone commercial business park (Class B1) to provide a socially inclusive community. However, if the recommendation of the Panel report on the draft South East Plan is ultimately accepted, the whole DERA site could become a mixed use and inclusive community which may meet this aim. The applicant is prepared to contribute £600,000 towards the provision of affordable housing in the Borough. This would assist in reducing some social inequalities.

5.344 The development should be accessible to all members of the community in terms of its location and physical access. The modern buildings will all be Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant and therefore accessible to all. However, the redevelopment of this site means that it will remain isolated in transport terms and therefore not accessible to all by foot or bike. The site will require a range of different, permanent jobs and a diverse workforce to operate effectively. It may also provide construction jobs to people in the local community.

5.345 The illustrative drawings for the proposed development indicate an attractive working environment. The applicant is also proposing to support health and well-being of the potential employees by the provision of footpaths, cycle tracks and jogging tracks through the woodland to the east of the site and the provision of on-site leisure and crèche facilities. All these facilities will be restricted solely to employees only given the isolated nature of the site. Otherwise it is likely to attract unsustainable car journeys by the general public.

5.346 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 indicated that it is the duty of a local authority to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area. The proposed installation of CCTV cameras at Longcross station may assist in helping to fulfil this duty. However, further consideration of the potential crime and disorder issues in a more comprehensive strategy is considered to be required. Further consideration to crime and disorder issues is suggested by the use of appropriate conditions (see Conditions 49 and 56).

5.347 The proposed single commercial use scheme does go some way to meeting the Government’s aims on social cohesion and inclusion.

5.348 The second aim of PPS1 is to protect and enhance the environment. The proposed buildings would incorporate modern energy efficiency techniques and achieve a very good BREEAM rating. The design of the proposed buildings and the operation of the whole proposed development would seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to

use renewable energy sources most likely an on site Combined Heat and Power solution. The existing contaminated land will be made fit for purpose and light pollution controlled to protect wildlife and the environment.

5.349 The proposed development would increase the area of natural habitat on the application site through the planting of new trees along boundaries, spine roads and boulevards and in car parks, removing large areas of hardstanding and reducing the overall footprint and spread of buildings on site, thereby producing more areas of vegetation. This would include the creation of an ecological buffer zone abutting Chobham Common. In this buffer zone four existing buildings would be retained for the Black Redstart. The protected species and plants on the site would be protected during demolition, construction and operational phases and their habitats maintained or enhanced.

5.350 The proposal also retains one building for historical purposes. The development site lies within the lowest risk of flooding (Zone 1). The downstream implications of the development have been mitigated against with the use of sustainable drainage systems and balancing ponds.

5.351 The applicant would seek to minimise the amount of waste disposal going to landfill sites during the demolition and construction phases. The intention is also to reduce the consumption of drinkable water and energy associated with the transfer, treatment and delivery of potable water and the disposal of waste water and use of water efficiency fittings. Rainwater would be re-used to recharge formal water features and ponds.

5.352 To address all of these sustainable undertakings, the applicant intends to produce a construction waste management strategy, construction environmental management plan, an Energy Strategy and an ecological management plan. These can be controlled by condition.

5.353 This is an isolated site in transport terms at which the County Highway Authority object to the additional traffic movements over and above the lawful use of the site. Notwithstanding this, the applicant is seeking to enhance the opportunities created by the existing under-utilised railway station at the site and encourage more sustainable modes of transport. The applicant is promoting a travel plan, contributions to the Council’s yellow bus scheme, operating a shuttle bus from Woking railway station and an enhanced train stopping service at an improved railway station on site. Whilst there will be a considerable increase in traffic movements to and from the site from what is currently experienced, the whole package of measures which can be controlled by conditions or legal agreement appear to meet this sustainability aim. The aim of the travel plan will be to reduce the number of single occupancy car trips by 12.2% over 5 years (from 89% to 76.8%) and to charge for 25% of the total parking spaces after 5 years.

5.354 The applicant also intends to use local materials as much as practicable.

The construction of the proposed development would be carried out in a way which minimises the use of resources/materials (re-use of existing materials onsite), minimises the generation of waste and ensures the appropriate handling, storage and disposal of waste. These issues can be controlled by condition.

5.355 It is considered that the third sustainable development aim has been complied with by the proposed development.

5.356 The fourth aim of PPS1 is to provide sustainable economic development. The Government is committed to providing a strong, stable and productive economy that aims to bring jobs and prosperity to all. The Government believes that economic development can deliver environmental and social benefits. Planning authorities must recognise the wider sub regional, regional and national benefits of economic development and consider these alongside any adverse local impacts. All local economies are subject to change. Planning authorities should be sensitive to these changes and the implications for development and growth.

5.357 The national and regional economic benefits are clearly set out in the economy section of this report at paragraphs 5.98 to 5.113 above. However the speculative nature of this outline application with no known occupier(s) makes it almost impossible to assess the possible adverse local impacts or changes to the local economy, local housing stock and supply or health of the local office floorspace.

5.358 The re-use of this existing brownfield employment site for business use seems to be an appropriate use and in line with emerging regional policy for the London fringe area although it is located in an isolated position which is not fully sustainable. Local authorities should actively promote and facilitate good quality development which is sustainable and consistent with their planning policies. This outline proposal does appear to provide a good quality sustainable redevelopment although none of the details to confirm this have yet been provided. This can be controlled by condition and the reserved matters application(s).

5.359 The infrastructure and services are provided to support new and existing economic development and housing. The applicant intends to upgrade key road junctions on the existing highway network so that it can accommodate the capacity of traffic generated by the development and in a safe matter. The non-car mode of transport would be significantly enhanced by the improved train service stopping and the creation of a non-profit making body to increase sustainable transport and reduce the reliance on the motor vehicle. The applicant also believes that the existing water, sewerage and utilities infrastructure can be upgraded to satisfactorily accommodate the level of the proposed development.

5.360 Development plans need to take account of the regional economic strategies of the Regional Development Agencies and local authority community strategies. The proposed development appears to fully comply with the emerging draft South East Plan and the emerging Government guidance on the economy. The applicant’s intention is to provide a high quality business park aimed at international businesses.

The provision of a large amount of new modern office floorspace in an attractive rural location is a major development opportunity in the London Fringe area. The proposal has the strong support of SEERA and complies with both the County and Runnymede’s community strategies as set out above.

5.361 The potential allocation of the whole of the DERA site is a mixed use of housing and office allows opportunities for future investment to deliver economic objectives and to improve the existing infrastructure and services.

5.362 With the exception of the isolated nature of the site and the reliance on the motor vehicle and therefore the significant increase in traffic generation, the proposed development intends to comply with the majority of the Government’s sustainable development objectives (subject to further details, conditions and legal agreements).

6. Conclusion

6.1 This proposal demonstrates the complexity of the modern planning system and the diverse range of planning issues that need to be addressed and fully considered to comply with current environment and planning legislation. The relevant material considerations are constantly changing.

6.2 This development also clearly illustrates the many competing interests. The Region has a powerful and dynamic economy which is of crucial importance to the performance of the national economy. At the same time the region has a wealth of ecologically important sites which are protected by strict European legislation. The environmental interest groups are generally concerned that there is insufficient recognition and protection to the environment while the private development sector is unanimous that the London Fringe sub region is not pulling its weight. All these national, regional and sub regional issues are played out in this application and also at a local and specific site level. This is a large under-utilised former MoD base with a lawful use for a business use adjacent to the internationally important Chobham Common, requiring a high degree of protection given its SPA, SAC and SSSI status and there are also protected species and wildlife on the application site.

6.3 Also at play is the continual transport and sustainability dilemma of how to make public transport more attractive than single occupancy car trips especially to an isolated site such as this one. The development may have many energy efficiency and sustainability credentials but most people will only see the increase in cars on the local roads.

6.4 One of the most difficult balancing exercises to resolve with this outline application has been the applicant’s desire for flexibility (to keep as many options open as possible) and your Officers’ desire for certainty, clarity and control of the potential redevelopment of this site. This has been made more difficult given the speculative nature of the proposal,

the scale of the proposed development, the potential wide-ranging impacts, particularly the unknown impacts on the local housing and office market, the site constraints and emerging planning policies. It is now considered that the latest revisions to the proposal and with appropriate legal agreements and conditions, a fair balance between flexibility and certainty has been achieved.

6.5 This proposal was subject to extensive pre-application discussions which started in January 2004. The original planning application was submitted in May 2005 but substantive revisions to the proposal were not made until January 2007 (some three years after pre-application discussions started). Further revisions were made in November 2007. These revisions include significant reductions to the total proposed floor space from 135,128 sq m to 113,434 sq m, deletion of the eastern, isolated enclave of development to form one central concentration of buildings and creation of ecological buffer zone along the western boundary including retention of buildings and habitats for protection of plants and species (see Appendices E and F).

6.6 The proposed on-site car parking provision has also been gradually reduced from 3865 to 3079 spaces. Significant additional work revisions and delays were required to make the applicant’s Environmental Statement fit for purpose to address all of the direct and indirect impacts on the nature conservation interests. The revised proposal provides a significant reduction in the spread of buildings on this Green Belt site which provide a major improvement to the openness of the Green Belt (see Table 4 at paragraph 5.81). The proposed development would regenerate an existing under-utilised large brownfield site in line with relevant Government guidance and adopted planning policies and fully compliant with the emerging South East Plan in terms of prioritising the redevelopment and maximising the re-use of existing employment sites in the London Fringe area.

6.7 Whilst the proposed highest building would be no higher than the existing tallest building on the site, more of the proposed buildings are likely to be higher and bulkier than the existing buildings. However, they would be positioned further from the site boundaries of the site and more importantly the majority of buildings (except those retained for habitat/ecological reasons) would be removed from the prominent western escarpment. The increased scale and mass of the proposed buildings needs to be offset by the spread and prominence of smaller and generally lower buildings but in close proximity to boundaries, particularly the higher western ground.

6.8 The proposed high quality modern office business park in an attractive rural setting is a major economic benefit to the Borough, the surrounding area and region. This is likely to have significant economic benefits which should assist in driving the region’s economy forward. The economic considerations appear to be gaining increased weight with the emerging South East Plan and the consultation document on PPS4.

Unfortunately there is no information available as to the possible negative impacts on the local economy or on housing provision given the speculative nature of this outline application. Clearly, if one or a number of local multinational companies locate to this site, they could affect the local economy. However, if a new employer from outside the Region occupied the site it would create a different scenario on the local office and housing market. An assessment of these important considerations are not possible with this outline application. The applicant would provide a financial contribution to affordable housing in the Borough.

6.9 The revised proposal seeks to retain and protect most of the existing habitats and wildlife on the site. The most important plants, wildlife and habitats are to be retained and enhanced on the site. All trees outside the development envelope will be retained with the boundary screening enhanced. The scheme includes an ecological buffer zone along the western boundary adjacent to the internationally important Chobham Common. Five outlying buildings are to be retained for either historical or ecological reasons.

6.10 For the purpose of the Environmental Impact Assessment, your Officers have concluded that the revised Environmental Statement is both sound and fit for purpose. In terms of the Habitat Regulations it has been concluded that the proposed development will not result in an adverse affect on the integrity of either the SPA or SAC. Copies of the Appropriate Assessment Reports are attached as Appendices J and K.

6.11 The proposal, given its isolated location, will still predominantly rely on the car as the main means of transport. This is not entirely sustainable and will generate a significant increase in traffic on the local roads. However, the level of traffic generation has to be assessed against the lawful use of the site for 76,885 sq m of offices. The additional 36,549 sq m over and above this lawful level can be technically satisfactorily accommodated on the local highway network in capacity and safety terms. There are improvements required to several key road junctions in the area including the Trumps Green/Wellington Avenue junction which requires to be upgraded to provide traffic lights. There is no objection from the County Highway Authority (CHA) or Highways Agency on capacity or safety grounds but the CHA do object on sustainability terms due to the site’s isolated location. This objection does not appear to give full justification to the uncontrolled and unrestricted way the site could currently operate and continue to operate. The proposed development does allow real and significant improvements to non-car modes of transport such as the upgrading of the Longcross Station and an improved train stopping service, shuttle bus service to Woking railway station and financial penalties for on-site car parking and a long term commitment to reduce on-site car parking provision.

6.12 Overall these improvements on non-car modes of transport and the long term control of traffic generation to and from the site provides a real sustainable way forward in transport terms. It is considered that the CHA’s objection is not a pragmatic or robust argument which can be justified on appeal given the whole package of benefits submitted with

this revised application which provides the most sustainable development reasonably possible on a brownfield and isolated existing employment site.

6.13 Whilst this is an outline proposal, the applicant has committed to providing sustainable buildings which are fully energy efficient and with renewable energy technologies provided on site to reduce carbon emissions. This would comply with the relevant climate change policies.

6.14 It is considered that the revised proposal complies with much of the relevant national, regional and local planning policies and goes as far as reasonably practicable on an isolated brownfield site of being as sustainable as possible. The proposed development could bring significant benefits to the green belt, the environment, the economy, job creation and sustainable development. However, there could also be major disadvantages particularly in terms of traffic generation and possibly negative impacts on the local economy in terms of oversupply of outdated and vacant offices and significant increased demand for local housing. The impact on the local office and housing market cannot be properly assessed with this speculative outline proposal.

6.15 Overall, the revised proposed development with its additional 36,549 sq m of office floorspace (over and above the lawful use of 76,885 sq m) offers far more advantages than disadvantages and does largely comply with the most relevant planning policies. Approval is therefore recommended subject to conditions and the requirements of the legal agreement as set out at paragraph 3.54 above and set out below in the recommendation.

6.16 As the proposed development exceeds 1000 sq m of floor area and has a number of potential impacts on the Green Belt and considerable traffic movements, referral to the Government Office of the South East (GOSE) is required to allow the Secretary of state an opportunity to call in the application. This approach would also be prudent given that the proposed development seeks 48,434 sq m of additional business floor space over and above that recommended by the Panel report for the South East Plan for the mixed use (65,000 sq m of business use and 2,500 dwellings) redevelopment of the whole DERA site.

7. Human Rights

7.1 Consideration has been given to the requirements of Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not considered that the granting of permission would result in a violation of the objector’s or any other person’s rights under the Convention.

Officers’ Recommendation

(1) The application be referred to the Government Office of the South East (GOSE) as an acceptable departure to the Development Plan in accordance with the requirements of Circular 11/2005 ‘The Town and Country Planning (Green Belt) Direction 2005’ and Circular 07/99 ‘The Town and Country (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Directions 1999 and that failing any direction from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and

(2) Subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) to secure:

o A financial contribution of £600,000 towards the provision of affordable housing to be index linked (trigger for payment on occupation of more than first 25,000 sq m of new B1 offices and to be used within 3 years of receipt or to be paid back to the developer);

o New station facilities at Longcross railway station not to exceed £1.45 million, to include new footbridge, provision of appropriate disabled access at the station, new modular station building, resurfacing of platforms, upgrading station lighting, two new waiting shelters, upgraded station signage, upgraded CCTV cameras and improved train service (developer to pay South West trains £45,000 towards the design of the new facilities within 20 working days of outline planning permission. Design of improvements within 3 months by South West Trains and improvement works completed prior to occupation of more than 15,000 sq m of new offices);

o To run a peak hour shuttle bus between Woking railway station and the site (from date of the first occupation of the first new B1 office. The privately-run service will come into operation when occupancy exceeds 25,000 sq m). As an alternative, the developer may commute the shuttle bus requirement by making a financial contribution per annum to the relevant operator to subsidise a new public transport service between Runnymede and Woking station and provide regular and direct connections between the site and Woking);

o To develop and agree with the County Highway Authority a Travel Plan Strategy (to include consideration of a cycle path link to Kitsmead Lane and for increased parking charges by 2% per year in percentage of spaces charged for so that by end of year 5 each occupier will be charged by the TMA for using 25% of its total allocated space, not 15%);

o A financial contribution of £150,000 to be index linked towards the Runnymede Travel Initiative (yellow bus service) (payable upon occupation of the first 25,000 sq m B1 offices);

o Establishment of an ecological buffer zone on the western part of the site (within Surrey Heath) to ensure appropriate habitat for the species of interest is provided and maintained (requires Ecological Buffer Zone Management Plan to be agreed prior to occupation of the first new B1 office. Developer to upkeep and maintain buffer zone which may be sublet to an approved Ecological Managing Agent);

o Retention, management and maintenance of Building Nos. 63, 64, 109 and 110;

o Management and maintenance of Building 10.

(3) THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES in conjunction with the Chairman and Vice Chairman be authorised to make changes and alterations to the proposed conditions listed below following discussions with the applicant and statutory consultees where appropriate and to GRANT permission subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s) and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be obtained from the Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced, and shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To comply with Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

2. (a) Application for approval of the first reserved matters application shall be made to the Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

(b) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of seven years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of three years from the date of approval of the first reserved matters application to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the development parameters, description of development and planning application plans as contained within the revised outline planning application submitted in November 2007.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the revised planning submission.

4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, each application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by the following for the approval of the Local Planning Authority and the development of that reserved matters parcel shall not be commenced until such details have been so approved and shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details approved:

A statement to demonstrate how such details of reserved matters generally address the following:

Building massing

Relationship of the reserved matters parcel with the remainder of the site

Urban form and architectural treatment

Public realm and amenity space

Accessibility for all

Footpaths and cycleway

Car parking and cycle parking including the number of spaces and location

Vehicular access and circulation

Service arrangements

Principles of landscaping both hard and soft

Ecological design principles

Infrastructure including drainage and public utilities

Existing and proposed levels

Security and safety

Principles of energy efficiency

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development which protects the Green Belt, harmonises with its surroundings and is a sustainable development and to comply with saved Policy GB10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) : ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ and Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 : ‘Green Belts’.

5. Subject to approval of all submissions for reserved matters approval pursuant to Conditions 1 to 4 above, the maximum amount of floorspace and development permitted for which planning permission is required shall not exceed 113,434 sq m.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the revised details of the application and to comply with saved Policy GB10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001.

6. No additional floors, including mezzanine floors, shall be erected in the development hereby approved without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To avoid the over-intensification of use of this Green Belt site in an isolated location which has been planned with minimal parking areas and to comply with saved Policy LO4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policies GB10 and LE1 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

7. The maximum built footprint within the building envelope and the parking envelope as a whole and as defined on drawing numbers 13091 TP-03 Rev A and 13091 TP04 Rev A shall not exceed 55,000m2.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the revised details of the application and to comply with saved Policy GB10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

8. The maximum built footprint within each building height zone and parking zone as shown on drawing numbers 13091 TP-03 Rev A and 13091 TP-04 Rev A shall not exceed:

Zone 1 33,645m2

Zone 2 9,664 m2

Zone 3 2,946 m2

Zone 4 14,518 m2

Decked Parking 19,000 m2

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the revised details of the application and to comply with saved Policy GB10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

9. Within each building height zone the maximum height of the building or structure shall not exceed the following heights (expressed as AOD and based on drawing number 13091 TP-08 Rev A and 13091 TP-03 Rev A):

Building Height Zone Maximum Heights

AOD (m) Metres

Zone 1 64.5 17.5

Zone 2 61.5 13.5

Zone 3 57.5 9.5

Zone 4 61.5 13.5

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the revised details of the application and to comply with saved Policy GB10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

10. The total floorspace permitted within the building or parking envelope as defined on drawing numbers 13091 TP-03 Rev A and 13091 TP-04 Rev A shall not exceed the following maxima (expressed as gross external areas (GEA)):

Business (Use Class B1) 90,624m2

Childcare Facilities (Use Class D1) 604m2

Supporting Retail (Use Class A1) 325m2

Leisure (Use Class D2 Excluding Cinemas) 2,323m2

Café/Restaurant (Use Class A3) 558m2

Decked Parking 19,000m2

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the revised details of the application and to comply with saved Policy GB10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001.

11. Subject to the maximum floorspace identified in Condition 10, the maximum floorspace per Use Class within each building height zone as shown on drawing number 13091 TP-03 Rev A shall not exceed the following:

Use Class Gross External Area (m2)

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone4

B1 90,624 29,250 5,150 40,000

D1 - - - 604

A1 325 - - 325

D2 - - - 2,323

A3 558 - - 558

Maxima Per Area

91,507 29,250 5,150 43,810

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the revised details of the application and to comply with saved Policy GB10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

12. The proposed ancillary Class D2 (leisure facilities), Class A1 (retail) and Class A3 (café/restaurant) uses shall only be used by employees on the site and by no other persons.

Reason: To ensure that the vehicular movements to this isolated site are strictly controlled to provide the most sustainable development possible and to protect the vitality and viability of the local centres and to comply with saved Policies LO1, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policies MV3 and MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) : ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’, Planning Policy Statement 6 ‘ Planning for Town Centres’ (PPS6) and Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) : ‘Transport’.

13. The proposed ancillary Class D1 (childcare facilities) use shall only be used by children related to employees on the site and for no other children.

Reason: To ensure that the vehicular movements to this isolated site are strictly controlled to provide the most sustainable development possible and to protect the vitality and viability of the local centres and to comply with saved Policies LO1, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policies MV3 and MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) : ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’, Planning Policy Statement 6 ‘ Planning for Town Centres’ (PPS6) and Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) : ‘Transport’.

14. No development shall start until a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of:

o parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors o loading and unloading of plant and materials o storage of plant and materials o programme of works (including measures for traffic

management) o provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

Reason: The above condition is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, the free flow of traffic nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to comply with saved Policy DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policy MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

15. (a) The means of access to the development shall be from the proposed new roundabout junction on Chobham Lane only;

(b) There shall be no other means of vehicular access from the remainder of Chobham Lane or Burma Road or from the southern part of the site via the internal bridge over the M3 motorway;

(c) The premises, the subject of the application, shall not be occupied until a permanently maintained physical barrier fronting Chobham Lane and Burma Road, as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, has been erected to prevent the formation of unauthorised access to that road;

(d) The existing accesses from the site to Chobham Lane and Burma Road shall be permanently closed and any kerbs, verge, footway, fully reinstated by the applicant, in a manner to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with saved Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policies MV4 and MV9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

16. No part of the development shall be occupied unless and until a programme for the works to the M3 Junction 3 as shown on Figure 22 received by the Highway Agency on 26th November 2007 (or such scheme of works to the same general effect which has first been approved in writing by the Secretary of State for Transport in consultation with the Local Highway Authority and thereafter approved by the Local Planning Authority) has been agreed and such works as necessary relative to any phasing of the development have been completed and opened to traffic.

Reason: To contribute to the mitigation of the impacts of the development on the Strategic Road Network and its users and to comply with Policy T1 of the Regional Transport Strategy, Policy T5 of the draft South East Plan, saved Policies DN2 and DN6 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policy MV3 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

17. No development shall commence until a programme and detailed design of off-site works have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. These off-site highway works are to be carried out in accordance with the agreed phased and linked programme between the completion of the off-site highway works and the occupation of buildings. These works are to comprise:

Improvements to the Chobham Lane/Longcross Road/Chertsey Road/Burma Road roundabout;

Improvements to the Trumps Green Road/Wellington Avenue priority junction; and

Improvements to the A30 London Road/Broomhall Lane/Chobham Road junction in accordance with planning permission number 05/02775 issued by The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policies MV3 and MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

18. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and following approval of reserved matters submissions, no part of any building(s) shall be occupied or used until the vehicle parking and turning/unloading space associated with those buildings has been constructed in accordance with the plans to be submitted and approved as part of any reserved matters applications, including any car parking to be provided in a temporary location due to phasing prior to their permanent position. Details of phased removal of car parking spaces after 5 years of occupation need to be submitted. The vehicle parking shall not be used for any purpose other than parking and the turning/unloading space shall not be used for any other purpose other than turning/unloading. The agreed details shall be fully implemented and in accordance with the agreed timetable.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to avoid adverse impact on the public highway in the interests of highway safety, to reduce on-site car parking provision and to comply with saved Policy DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policy MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

19. (a) No new B1 office development shall be occupied until the required allocated parking spaces for each individual parcel of development has been laid out within the site in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for up to a maximum 3,019 cars/minimum 725 cycles to be parked in secure, dry and convenient locations within the site, and for loading and unloading of service vehicles and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The cycle parking/turning area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated purpose;

(b) No other areas of hardstanding/roads shall be used for the parking of cars.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to avoid adverse impact on the public highway in the interests of highway safety, to reduce on-site car parking provision and to comply with saved Policy DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policy MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

20. The development shall not be occupied until details of the management and use of the proposed parking have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority; this will include:

(a) A hierarchy for priority of use (eg disabled, high occupancy vehicles);

(b) The application of charging to an initial 15% of parking space provision, to be increased by 2% per year to a total of 25% of provision after 5 years of initial occupation by each occupier;

(c) The discrete allocation of specific parking to specific occupiers/buildings.

These details shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority and be included in a Travel Plan and only the approved details shall be implemented.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to comply with saved Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policies MV3 and MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 : ‘Transport’ and Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) : ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’.

21. Before any of the operations which involve the movement of materials in bulk to or from the site are commenced, facilities shall be provided and must be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, in order that the operator can make all reasonable efforts to keep the public highway clean and prevent the creation of a dangerous surface on the public highway. The agreed measures shall thereafter be retained and used whenever the said operations are carried out.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users; to reduce dust emissions to protect Chobham Common SAC and to comply with saved Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, saved Policies MV3 and MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and Condition C22 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation.

22. The means of vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access into the application site shall be completed prior to the occupation of any building within the development envelope as defined by drawing number 13091 TP-02 Rev A and shall be constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure the development provides sustainable travel facilities and in the interests of highway safety and to comply with saved Policies MV4, MV5, MV13 and MV14 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001.

23. Prior to the first occupation of any building within the development envelope as defined by drawing number 13091 TP092 Rev A, an access route suitable for use by vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists will be provided from Chobham Lane to Longcross railway station.

Reason: In order to ensure the development provides sustainable travel facilities and in the interests of highway safety and to comply with saved Policies MV4, MV5, MV13 and MV14 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan 2001.

24. Prior to the commencement of any development, including any demolition works, an emergency vehicular access shall be provided for the use of emergency vehicles only. This access shall be taken from Burma Road and shall be secured in a manner to ensure it shall only be used by emergency vehicles.

Reason: In order to ensure the development provides sustainable travel facilities and in the interests of highway safety, to protect Chobham Common SAC and SPA and to comply with saved Policy MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Condition C17 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation and Condition C4 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

25. A maximum of 3,079 car parking spaces will be provided within the development envelope as defined by drawing number 13091 TP-02 Rev A, excluding any temporary provision made for car parking during the construction of any development permitted.

Reason: To provide adequate on-site car parking provision but not exceed maximum car parking provision in this isolated location and to comply with saved Policy MV9 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

26. The existing security fencing around the application site shall be retained and maintained to an acceptable standard.

Reason: In order to prevent occupiers of the development having direct access to Chobham Common SPA from the development site and to comply with saved Policy NE16 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and Condition C1 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

27. There shall be no access through the western boundary of the development area except for emergency access.

Reason: In order to provide unfettered access for emergency service vehicles and to comply with saved Policies NE16 and MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

28. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the existing and proposed levels of the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to obtain a satisfactory form of development in the interests of the visual amenities of the Green Belt and to comply with saved Policy GB10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

29. No development shall be commenced within a reserved matters parcel until details of the existing and proposed finished floor levels within that parcel have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to obtain a satisfactory form of development in the interests of the visual amenities of the Green Belt and to comply with saved Policy GB10 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

30. For the relevant phase of the development, details of land drainage works together with details of the stage of development at which the works will be brought into use are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of that development. The work shall be constructed and implemented in accordance with those details.

Reason: In order to ensure the provision of land drainage works to adequately serve the proposed development and to comply with saved Policies SV1 and SV2A of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

31. For the relevant phase of development, and if required, details of surface water balancing works together with details of the stage of the development at which the works will be brought into use are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to maintain and not increase surface water flow rates as a consequence of the development and to comply with saved Policies SV1 and SV2A of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

32. For the relevant phase of development, drainage details incorporating sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological context of the development, are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the relevant phase of development is occupied.

Reason: In order to maintain and not increase surface water flow rates as a consequence of the development, prevent an increase in flooding, to improve water quality at a sensitive site and to comply with saved Policies SV1 and SV2A of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

33. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, development shall not be occupied in a reserved matters parcel until the requisite surface water and foul drainage works for that parcel have been carried out in accordance with the details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of foul and surface water drainage works to adequately serve the proposed development and to comply with saved Policies SV1 and SV2A of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

34. No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until:

a) A methodology for contamination investigations and assessments has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to site investigations and assessments having been carried out by appropriately qualified personnel. The investigations and assessments shall be in accordance with British Standard 10175:2001 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice. The laboratories used for analysis of samples shall be registered to the ISO17025:2000 quality standard. The investigations and assessments shall be in accordance with current Government and Environment Agency guidance and shall identify the types, nature and extent of contamination present, risks to receptors and potential for migration within and beyond the site boundary;

b) A remediation scheme to deal with any contaminants identified has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include an implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee the implementation of all remediation. The construction of buildings shall not commence until the investigator has provided a report which shall include confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.

Reason: To ensure that the development is safe and that if any contamination is found the necessary remediation is undertaken and to comply with Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) : ‘Planning and Pollution Control’ and Annex 2 of Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) : ‘Development on Land Affected by Contamination.

35. No soakaways shall be constructed such that they penetrate the water table, and they shall not in any event exceed 3 metres in depth below existing ground level.

Reason: To prevent pollution of ground water and to comply with saved Policies SV1 and SV2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

36. No soakaways or sustainable drainage discharge shall be constructed in contaminated ground.

Reason: To prevent pollution of ground water and to comply with saved Policies SV1 and SV2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

37. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To allow the site to be investigated for archaeological purposes before development commences on the site and to comply with saved Policy BE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

38. No development shall take place until fencing has been erected around areas of identified archaeological importance, in a manner to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and no works shall take place within that fencing without the consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect any archaeological important areas and to comply with saved Policy BE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (PPG15) : ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’.

39. Except where otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all trees shown to be retained on the drawing attached as Figure 12.0/4 ‘Trees to be Retained During Initial Site Clearance’ dated 20.11.06 and paragraphs 12.59 and 12.60 of the amended Environmental Statement – main text received in January 2007 shall be retained.

Reason: To protect the trees to be retained and enhance the appearance of the surrounding area and to comply with saved Policy SE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policies NE14 and NE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

40. No trees to be retained in accordance with Condition 39 above shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed and no works to the trees shall be carried out without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority until the expiration of five years from the date of completion of the development.

Reason: To protect the trees to be maintained and enhance the appearance of the surrounding area and to comply with saved Policy SE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policies NE14 and NE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

41. The existing trees which are to be retained shall be adequately protected from damage during site clearance and works, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any site clearance or works commence; such details to include, inter alia, precise positions of temporary hoardings or fencing around retained trees, siting of drain runs and trenches, arrangements for burning of materials from site clearance, measures to be taken to ensure that retained trees and their roots are not damaged by the removal of adjacent trees, siting of routes to be used by heavy vehicles during site clearance and site works, and changes of ground level around retained trees. Furthermore, no materials or plant shall be stored and buildings erected with the protective fencing without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that existing trees are adequately protected in the interests of the visual amenities of the site and the locality in general and to comply with saved Policy SE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policies NE14 and NE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

42. Prior to the occupation of a reserved matters parcel, there shall be a scheme submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority for landscaping, both hard and soft. All hard and soft landscaping works to include trees shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscape scheme and completed during the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development in the reserved matters parcel. The scheme of landscaping shall include:

o Planting plan o Specification (including cultivation and other operations

associated with plant and grass establishment o Schedules of plants noting species and sizes o Planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where

appropriate o Finished levels o Hard surfacing materials o Means of enclosure o Car parking layouts o Minor structures and existing features to be retained

Reason: To preserve and enhance the character, appearance and visual amenity of the green belt and to comply with saved Policies GB10, NE14 and NE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

43. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development to which it relates, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of their planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure that the trees are replaced to preserve and enhance the character of the locality and to comply with saved Policy SE8 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and saved Policies NE14 and NE15 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

44. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no development within a reserved matters parcel shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of materials and finishes and, where so required by the Local Planning Authority, samples of such materials and finishes related to that reserved matters parcel have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no variations in such materials when approved shall be made without the prior approval, in writing, of the Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the external appearance of the proposed building are satisfactory and harmonises with the surroundings in the interests of visual amenity and to comply with saved Policies GB10 and BE2 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

45. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no work relating to the development hereby approved, including works of demolition or preparation prior to building operations, shall take place outside the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 7.00 am to 4.00pm on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank or National Holidays unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of properties in the vicinity and to protect local wildlife during the demolition and construction phases from noise and disturbance and light spillage and to comply with saved Policy NE16 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

46. Before development commences within the application site, a plan and management strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority identifying:

The continued maintenance and upkeep of the existing security fence;

The location and specification of any additional security fencing required around the perimeter of the site and internal security fencing between the development envelope and the ecological buffer zone;

Any works necessary to prevent public vehicular or pedestrian access into or out of the site via the western boundary of the site (with the exception of emergency access via Burma Road); and

Details of the management regime, to remain in place in perpetuity and be reviewed from time to time as necessary, for the maintenance of the perimeter security fence.

Works and operations shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To prevent public vehicular and pedestrian access into and out of the western boundary of the application site and to comply with saved Policy NE16 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and Condition C2 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

47. Before development commences within the development envelope as defined by drawing number 13091 TP-02 Rev A, a plan and management strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide:

The specification of the secure fence, the location of which is identified on Figure 3.0/5 of the Environmental Statement received in January 2007;

Proposed timescale for installation of the fence in the phasing of the development;

Details of the management regime, to remain in place in perpetuity and be reviewed from time to time as necessary, for the maintenance of the secure fence; and

Arrangements for access into the Ecological Buffer Zone for maintenance, management and emergencies.

Reason: To control public vehicular and pedestrian access into the Ecological Buffer Zone (as identified on drawing number 13091 TP-02 Rev A) and to comply with Policy NE16 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

48. Before the first occupation of a Class B1 (business) unit within the development envelope as defined by drawing number 13091 TP­02 Rev A, a strategy for controlling the movement of vehicles and pedestrians into and out of the development envelope will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in accordance with the commitments indicated on Figure 3.0/5 – Access and Movement Plan of the Environmental Statement received in January 2007 which for the avoidance of doubt include:

Method for the control of the primary access to prevent non­user public parking within the site;

Restrictions on parking at Longcross Station and the mechanism for managing the ‘kiss and ride’ drop-off facility; and

Mechanism for the closure of the footpath (not a public right of way) running along the northern boundary of the application site.

Reason: To satisfy the commitments made within the application documentation which seek to ensure that the use of the application site does not facilitate increased access to Chobham Common by members of the public and to comply with saved Policy NE16 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

49. A Construction and Environmental Management Plan shall be prepared and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works on site. All construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include:

The methods to be used in and to be undertaken to control the emission of dust, noise and vibration and air quality form the construction works;

A scheme for dust deposition monitoring (to fully comply with Conditions C12, C13, C14, C19, C20 and C21 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation;

A soil management strategy to conserve the soil for beneficial re-use within the site;

Measures (including wheel wash facilities) to control the deposit of mud and similar debris on the adjoining public highway;

Areas for the storing of fuels, oils and chemicals;

Site fencing and security measures;

A procedure for submission and resolution of complaints;

Crime and disorder issues;

Details of the temporary car parking, site operative accommodation and location of compounds;

Measures to prevent significant disturbance to wildlife and habitats during the demolition and construction phases;

Burning of materials and refuse on site will be prohibited;

Minimisation of use of resources/materials;

Re-use of materials;

Recycling of materials;

Treatment with energy recovery;

Disposal to landfill;

Noise and vibration implications;

Road traffic routes for construction vehicles and road traffic noise;

Minimisation of noise emissions from the site;

Compliance with noise control procedures in BS5228

Monitor, Control and report processes;

Independent validation procedures and controls (to comply with Conditions C15 and C16 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation

Reason: To ensure that no nuisance or disturbance is caused to the occupiers of neighbouring properties; to protect Chobham Common SPA, SSSI and SAC and to provide a sustainable development and to comply with Policies DN2, SE1, SE2 and SE5 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Policies NE16 and NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) :‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ and Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

50. A lighting strategy shall be prepared and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works on the site. All temporary and permanent lighting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include:

Adherence to current best practice and technology;

Identify agreed lighting specifications;

Positions of lighting installations;

Details of heights, designs and luminosity of all lighting

Light spillage glare and sky glow assessments

Use of automatic timers

Reason: To protect residential properties from light pollution, to protect wildlife and to avoid glare and distraction to road users and to comply with Policies NE16, NE20 and MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) : ‘Planning and Pollution Control’.

51. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no part of any building shall be occupied or used until details of the external lighting to be attached to that building or to be installed within that reserved matters parcel have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall be installed and fitted in accordance with agreed details.

Reason: To protect residential properties from light pollution, to protect wildlife and to avoid glare and distraction to road users and to comply with Policies NE16, NE20 and MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) : ‘Planning and Pollution Control’.

52. Prior to the installation of any fixed plant and equipment associated with air moving equipment, compressors, generators or plant or similar equipment to be installed in connection with the development hereby approved, details, including acoustic specifications, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjoining premises and to comply with saved Policy LE1 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001.

53. Before any demolition works commence on the site, a scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise and vibrations emanating from the site. All noise-related works and operations shall then be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To protect local residents and protected wildlife particularly Annex 1 birds from noise and vibrations from demolition, construction and operational phases connected with the proposed development. and to comply with saved Policy SE1 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, saved Policies NE16, NE20 and BE23 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG24) : ‘Planning and Noise’ and Conditions C8 and C9 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thames Basin Heath Special Protected Area.

54. All buildings within the development envelope as defined by drawing number 13091 TP-02 Rev A shall accord with a BREEAM rating of very good or equivalent (as defined at 2005).

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory form of development fully accords with the approved details to comply with saved Policy SE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) : ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’, Planning Policy Statement (PPS22) : 'Renewable Energy'.

55. Prior to the construction of any building within the development envelope as defined by drawing number 13091 TP-2 Rev A, details of a comprehensive energy strategy for the whole site shall include passive design, energy efficiency, building service systems and chosen renewable energy technologies to be used, including an on-site combined heat and power solution, along with calculations demonstrating that at least 10% of the predicted energy consumption would be met through renewable energy technologies, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained, maintained and operational unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that a minimum of 10% of the energy requirement of the development is produced by on-site renewable energy sources to comply with Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) : ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’, Planning Policy Statement (PPS22) : 'Renewable Energy', saved Policy SE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Policy CC4 of the draft South East Plan.

56. Prior to the construction of any building within the development envelope as defined by drawing number 13091 TPO-2 Rev A, a mobility management plan shall be prepared and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mobility management plan shall include:

Car share incentives Green travel plans Provision of off-site and on-site facilities for cyclists and links

to the existing cycle network Pedestrian links within the site Provision of bus terminus facilities and reliable connection to

nearby transport modes Improvements to Longcross railway station Setting up and long term operation of Transport Management

Association (TMA) Contingency plans if the TMA does not generate sufficient

funds to keep the shuttle bus service between the site and Woking railway station

Reviews and frequencies of the parking charging regime Monitoring the effectiveness of the mobility management plans

and green travel plans Restricting on-site leisure, crèche, retail, café/restaurant

facilities to site employees only Crime and disorder issues There shall be no variations to the agreed mobility

management plans unless prior written agreement is obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development provides sustainable travel opportunities; to protect Chobham Common SPA and to comply with saved Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, saved Policies MV3 and MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 : ‘Transport’ and Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) : ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’, Condition C11 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thames Basin Heath Special Protected Area and Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

57. A Travel Plan shall be prepared and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of each individual building constructed as part of a reserved matters application. The agreed travel plan shall be implemented from the first day the agreed building is occupied and there shall be no variations to the agreed travel plan unless prior written agreement is obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure the development provides sustainable travel opportunities and to comply with saved Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, saved Policies MV3 and MV4 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 : ‘Transport’ and Planning Policy Statement (PPS1) : ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’

58. 18 hectares of land outside the development envelope shall be retained as ecological habitat areas, 8.5 hectares of which shall be protected through restricted access as shown on drawing number 13091 TP02 Rev A. The detailed layout and design of the land area outside the development envelope shall be agreed with the first reserved matters application. The agreed layout and design shall be fully complied with and there shall be no variations to the agreed layout and design of the retained ecological habitat unless prior written agreement is obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enhance the ecological value of the site, to provide long term protection for flora, fauna and wildlife and to comply with saved Policies SE1, SE6, SE7, SE9 and SE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, saved Policies NE15, NE16, NE17, NE18 and NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Planning Policy Statement 9 : ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ and Condition C6 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thames Basin Heath Special Protected Area.

59. An Ecological Management Plan shall be prepared and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any demolition works on the site. This Plan shall set out the management measures for the ecological habitat areas on the site and will include details of protection of flora, fauna and protected wildlife species, retention, protection and long term maintenance of buildings 63, 64, 109 and 110 as shown on drawing no. 13091 TP-02 Rev A, proposed habitat creation and management measures, including for the demolition, construction and operational phases of the development including business unit welcome pack. All agreed works shall be carried out in accordance with agreed timescale and details and thereafter maintained in perpetuity. There shall be no variations to the agreed timescale or details unless prior written agreement is obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enhance the ecological value of the site, to provide long term protection for flora, fauna and wildlife and to comply with saved Policies SE1, SE6, SE7, SE9 and SE10 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, saved Policies NE15, NE16, NE17, NE18 and NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001, Planning Policy Statement 9 : ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’, Condition C6 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thames Basin Heath Special Protected Area, Condition C18 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation and Condition C6 and C7 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

60. Prior to the commencement of any demolition works related to the relevant reserved matters application, a management plan for the existing blister hanger (shown as building no. 10 on drawing no. 13091 TP-02 Rev A) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details in the management plan shall include:

Reocation of the blister hanger

Setting of the building

Long term maintenance plan for the building

Reason: To provide for the long term retention and maintenance of this historic building and to comply with saved Policy SE5 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 and Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (PPG15) : ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’.

61. Before demolition commences on the application site, a management plan for the maintenance and protection of the water vole habitat within the development envelope as defined by drawing no. 13091 TP-02 Rev A will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management plan will include:

o Definition of roles and responsibilities for the protection and management of water voles and their habitats on the site through construction and in the operation of the site;

o Requirements for survey and regular monitoring to determine population status of water voles on the site

o The timescales and seasons in which any works will be undertaken

o A protocol for monitoring of water voles on the site and reviewing the management plan if necessary.

All agreed works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. There shall be no variations to the agreed details unless prior written agreement is obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To promote the long term viability of the water vole population on the site through protection and appropriate management of habitat and to comply with saved Policy NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and Planning Policy Statement 9 : ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’.

62. Before demolition commences on the application site, a management plan for the maintenance and protection of habitats for Black Redstarts, Deptford Pinks, badgers, bats, slow worms, adders, grass snakes, common lizards and any other protected species or plants during demolition, construction and operational phases will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All agreed works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. There shall be no variations to the agreed details unless prior written agreement is obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To promote the long term viability of the protected species on the site through protection and appropriate long term management of habitat and to comply with saved Policy NE20 of the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 and Planning Policy Statement 9 : ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’.

Informatives

1. A The applicant is advised that an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Acts 1980 should be made to cover the following:

(i) alterations to the junction of M3 London to Southampton Motorway with A322 Bagshot Road, generally as shown on Figure 22 received by the Highways Agency on 26.11.07.

(ii) the provision of a new roundabout junction to serve the site on Chobham Lane, generally as shown on Figure 9 of former DERA site Transport Assessment (updated) 15/12/06

(iii) alterations to the existing Chobham Lane/B386 Longcross Road/Chertsey Road/Burma Road roundabout, generally as shown on Figure 20 of former DERA site Transport Assessment (updated) 15/12/06.

(iv) the signalisation of the existing priority T-junction of Trumps Green Road with Wellington Avenue generally as shown on Figure 21 of former DERA site Transport Assessment (updated) 15/12/06.

B The delivery, all at the developer’s expense of the following:

(i) the undertaking to use all reasonable endeavours to provide enhancements to the stopping rail service at Longcross station to provide and maintain for the life of the development a stopping frequency of no fewer than 2 trains per hour in each direction throughout every day excluding Sundays

(ii) a network of pedestrian and cycle routes within the site to link the employment to the on-site facilities and adjoining railway station;

(iii) a commitment to fully fund a review on a regular basis following first occupation of potential development generated off-site parking on highway, commons, or other available spaces, that might take place, and the full funding of remedial Traffic Regulation Orders, or other initiatives, to prevent such parking from continuing if so demonstrated to be required

(iv) a commitment to fund prior to development commencing, the microsimulation of the junction of M3/A322 and A322/New Road, with associated links; to design any necessary improvements to that part of the network arising from the additional development impact; and the full implementation of those improvements

(v) a commitment to fully fund prior to development, a review; design; consultation and the implementation of a traffic calming scheme that might be derived from that process, to discourage development traffic from using Windlesham Village roads as a means of access to the development

(vi) the contribution of a sum not exceeding £100,000 (indexed to September 2007 prices) towards the cost of closing Staple Hill Road in the event that a Road Closure Order is obtained

(vii) the provision and maintenance of unfettered non-site access for all modes to Longcross station

C The submission, agreement, implementation, maintenance, monitoring, review and modification as necessary of a Travel Plan, very generally as set out in the Draft Chertsey Travel Plan Strategy (dated 19th June 2007) to include a parking charge of 15% of the initial provision of 1/30 sq m and the increase by 2% per year in percentage of spaces charged for, so that by the end of year 5 each occupier will be charged by the TMA for using 25% of its total allocated spaces. (Note: This option will provide greater fiscal support for the TMA than would the alternative in subsequent draft strategies.) The travel plan shall be monitored generally as set out in the Strategy and in accordance with the TRICS standard assessment methodology.

D The establishment and maintenance for as long as the development exists, of a Transport Management Association, generally as set out in 19th June 2007 Draft Chertsey Travel Plan Strategy, with the principal aim of implementing and delivering the Travel Plan for the life of the development, and for ensuring a continued revenue source for the Section 106 commitments as they may be required. (Note: Subsequent versions of the “Draft Chertsey Travel Plan Strategy” will not deliver the potentially required funding to ensure the longevity of the wider initiatives.)

2. The applicant is advised that Network Rail have made the following comments which require the applicant to address the following issues:

Demolition

Any demolition or refurbishment works must not be carried out on the development site that may endanger the safe operation of the railway, or the stability of the adjoining Network Rail structures. In particular the demolition of buildings or other structures should be carried out in accordance with an agreed method statement. Care must be taken to ensure that no debris or other materials can fall onto Network Rail’s land. Approval must be obtained from Network Rail’s Outside Parties Engineer.

Plant, Scaffolding and Cranes

Any scaffold which is to be constructed adjacent to the railway must be erected in such a manner that at no time will any poles or cranes over-sail or fall onto the railway. All plant and scaffolding must be positioned that in the event of failure it will not fall on to Network Rail land.

Excavations of Footings

Network Rail will need to be consulted on any alterations to ground levels. It should be noted that Network Rail are concerned about excavations within 10m of the boundary with the operational railway and will need to be assured that the construction of foundations and footings will not impact on the stability of the railway. A full method statement must be supplied and agreed with Network Rail’s Outside Party Engineer before consent can be granted.

Drainage

Additional or increased flows of surface water must not be discharged onto Network Rail land nor into Network Rail’s culverts or drains. In the interests of long term stability of the railway, soakaways should not be constructed within 10m of the boundary with the operational railway.

Fencing

Given the proposed use of the site, a 1.8m high fence should be constructed to avoid trespass and vandalism.

Site Layout

In order to ensure the proposed development can be constructed and maintained without encroachment onto the operational railway line, all buildings and structures should be set back at least 2m from the boundary with the operational railway or at least 5m for overhead power lines.

Landscaping

Details of landscaping along the railway corridor to be submitted to Network Rail, who can provide advice on appropriate notices on Network Rail and their tenants under the Party Wall etc Act 1996. Developers should consult with NRIL at an early stage of the preparation of details of their development on Party Wall matters.

3. The applicant is advised that this permission has been amended since the proposal was originally submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The approved drawing numbers are set out on this decision notice.

4. The applicant is advised that this is a draft decision notice only. The decision notice granting planning permission for this development will be issued upon completion of the legal agreement.

5. The applicant is advised that this permission is subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

6. The applicant is advised that the term “retained tree” in Condition 39 above means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved drawings.

7. Details of the highway requirements necessary for inclusion in any application seeking approval of reserved matters may be obtained from the Transportation Development Control Division of Surrey County Council.

8. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to obstruct the public highway by the erection of scaffolding, hoarding or any other device or apparatus for which a licence must be sought from the Highway Authority Local Transportation Service.

9. The applicant is advised that as part of the detailed design of the highway works required by the above condition(s), the County Highway Authority may require necessary accommodation works to street lights, road signs, road markings, highway drainage, surface covers, street trees, highway verges, highway surfaces, surface edge restraints and any other street furniture/equipment.

10. When a temporary access is approved or an access is to be closed as a condition of planning permission an agreement with, or licence issued by, the Highway Authority Local Transportation Service will require that the redundant dropped kerb be raised and any verge or footway crossing be reinstated to conform with the existing adjoining surfaces at the developers expense. (Note: It is preferable where possible to arrange for the adjacent highway to be included in the area edged red on the application when Circular 11/95 provides that conditions may be suitable to control this).

11. The applicant is advised that this decision relates to the following drawing numbers received on the dates shown :-

Drawing Number: Date Received:

13091 TP 01A Rev A 9.01.07 13091 TP 01B Rev A 9.01.07 13091 TP 02 Rev A 9.01.07 13091 TP 03 Rev A 9.01.07 13091 TP 04 Rev A 9.01.07 13091 TP 05A Rev A 9.01.07 13091 TP 06 Rev A 9.01.07 13091 TP 07 Rev A 9.01.07 13091 TP 08 Rev A 9.01.07 13091 TP 09 Rev A 9.01.07 905 Fig 9 9.01.07 905 Fig 5-19 9.01.07 905 Fig 5-20 9.01.07 Figure 22 26.11.07 – received by

Highways Agency

Planning Application – Description December 06 of Development – Development

Parameters – Planning Application Plans

Environmental Statement – Main Text December 06 Environmental Statement – Figures December 06 Environmental Statement – Appendices December 06

Volume 1 and Volume 2

Framework Document December 06 Information Towards an Appropriate

Assessment Transport Assessment Environmental Statement Supplement (including the formal Regulation 19

response) Non-Technical Summary Framework Document

Letter from Crest Nicholson and Appendices 16.07.06 Letter from Barton Willmore 9.11.07

Any permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out works on the highway. The applicant is advised that a licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway.

12. Please note that the culverting of a watercourse requires the prior written approval of the Agency under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991 or Water Resources Act 1991. The Agency resists culverting on conservation and other grounds, and consent for such works will not normally be granted except for access crossings.

13. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior consent of the Environment Agency is currently required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent onto or into ground and for surface run off into ground water. Such consent may be withheld. If there is existing discharge consent, the applicant should ensure that any increase in volume is permitted under present conditions. Contact the EA Authorisations Officer on 01276 454333 for further details.

14. The development hereby granted consent (subject to referral to GOSE and legal agreement) has been assessed against Development Plan policies including the Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) and the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (SP) and Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration 2001 (LP).

15. In conjunction with proposed Condition 34 (contamination) the applicant is requested to deal with local concerns relating to the previous military testing on the site involving radioactive material.

Consideration has also been given to central government advice in Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs); to Draft Development Plan policies such as the draft South East Plan and the Panel Report and its recommendations to Government and to Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and Interim Advice Notes, as well as other material considerations. A summary of the relevant SP and LP policies and proposals in the development plan, and the reasons for the grant of permission is as follows:

1.

SP

LP

Green Belt

Policy LO1

Policy LO4

Policy GB1

Policy GB10

Reason:

2.

SP

Economy

Policy LO7

LP Policy LE1

New development primarily located within urban area and re-use of previously developed land and buildings

Development on major developed sites in the countryside may be acceptable providing any adverse impacts are mitigated

Strong presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt

Redevelopment allowed on major developed sites providing no adverse impact on openness, no detrimental visual impact or infrastructure problems

The proposed redevelopment of an identified existing major development site is considered to provide significant benefits to the openness of the Green Belt. Given the outline nature of the proposal, no serious visual impact is envisaged from long or middle distance views.

Sustainable economy growth to be met primarily by re-use of suitably located land already in or available for employment use. Unsuitably located employment land shall be re-allocated for alternative uses.

Promote economic growth by intensification of existing employment sites where appropriate providing no adverse environmental or traffic consequences.

Reason: This region is a major player in the national economy and the country’s international competitiveness. The whole site has been identified as of regional significant in the draft South East Plan for a large mixed commercial and housing use scheme. It is a lawful and existing employment site which is under-used. The proposed development would provide opportunities for a modern business park to contribute to the region’s economy subject to environmental and transportation mitigation measures.

3. Affordable Housing

SP Policy DN1 Infrastructure requirements need to be considered with regard to cumulative impact of development.

Policy DN11 Target of 40% of new housing provision to be affordable and to include contributions from commercial developments.

LP Policy HO4 Provide affordable housing in accordance with housing needs survey. Require on-site provision of affordable housing except where agreed financial contribution may be acceptable.

Reason: The influx of new office workers into the Borough is likely to have a knock-on effect to the supply and demand and therefore prices of local housing. The provision of affordable housing is an infrastructure requirement and the applicant has offered to make a financial contribution to assist with such provision in the Borough, to offset some of the likely impact on the local housing market.

4. Transport and impact on Highway Network

SP Policy DN2 Development only permitted where it is or can be made compatible with transport infrastructure. Measures required to encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport and mitigation included where harmful impact.

Policy DN3 Limit car parking and increase cycle parking

Policy DN4 Encourage development which would use public transport

Policy DN5 Network of pedestrian and cycle routes to improve accessibility.

Policy DN6 Proposals adjacent motorways which reduce efficiency and safety of highway network will be resisted.

LP Policy MV3 Where new development would exacerbate problems or make conditions more hazardous, works deemed necessary by highway authority should be funded by developer.

Policy MV4 Access and circulation should be appropriate and not aggravate traffic congestion, accident potential or environmental and amenity considerations.

Policy MV5 Encourages housing to facilitate convenient bus operation and services. Other forms of development contributions would be sought to improve public transport services.

Policy MV7 Improve rail services in the area and to upgrade interchange facilities.

Policy MV9 Parking Standards sets maximum on-site parking standards.

Reason: The proposed development will significantly increase vehicular traffic on local roads. However, when assessed against lawful use of the site and its associated traffic generation, there is no highway capacity or highway safety grounds on which to refuse the application subject to some highway improvements. A range of measures are proposed to increase non-car modes of transport to the isolated site, reducing any adverse impact on the roads. The sustainability of the site would be increased by improvements to Longcross railway station, shuttle bus service to Woking, penalty charging for on-site car parking and ancillary support services for employees only. A contribution is also to be made to the Runnymede Travel Initiative. Despite objections to the isolated nature of the site, it is considered that the sustainability initiatives and control of an existing uncontrolled site in terms of parking and vehicle movements outweigh the harm to the road network.

5. Land Contamination

SP Policy SE1 Development should be directed away from sources of pollution or hazard.

Reason: Desk-top and site investigations have been carried out. Mitigation is proposed to deal with minor contamination found and external consultants have concluded that the site can be developed and occupied safely without significant risk to human or building receptors. A condition is required to ensure that contaminated material is dealt with and made suitable for its intended use.

6. Water, Flooding and Drainage

SP Policy SE1 Development to be located and designed to promote efficient use of energy and water and the careful use of natural resources.

Policy SE3 New development should not lead to an increase in run-off and its regulation will be required.

LP Policy SV1 Manage flood plain and achieve appropriate flood alleviation

Policy SV2 Assess the impact on the flood plain

Policy SV2A Resist development which would adversely affect the quality of surface water or ground water

Reason: The applicant has conducted a hydrogeological assessment and the statutory bodies have been consulted as part of the process. The proposed development is not considered to adversely affect groundwaters or nature conservation interests of Chobham Common and would provide adequate water supply, sewerage and waste water infrastructure capacity. The risk of pollution and flooding has been minimised.

7. Setting of Listed Building

SP Policy SE5 Protect historic buildings.

LP Policy BE10 Protect setting of listed building.

Reason: There are listed buildings on the southern side of the M3 but given the distances involved and screening, there would be no adverse impact on the setting of the listed buildings. The applicant also seeks to retain a historic (but not listed) building on the application site.

8.

SP

Archaeology

Policy SE5

LP Policy BE14

Policy BE16

Policy BE17

Reason:

9.

SP

Air Quality

Policy SE1

Reason:

10.

SP

LP

Trees

Policy SE9

Policy NE12

Policy NE13

Policy NE14

Reasons:

The cultural heritage will be conserved and enhanced and archaeological assessment and evaluation may be required.

Preservation of sites of archaeological interest.

Preservation and recording of archaeological remains.

Chance archaeological finds.

An assessment has been carried out. The County Archaeological Officer recommends permission subject to a condition requiring a written scheme of investigation and programme of archaeological work prior to commencement.

Development must comply with prevailing standards for control of air emissions.

The proposed development is predicted to cause a small but insignificant increase in dust particle matter and nitrogen dioxide concentrations.

Protection of trees

Protection of significant trees, hedgerows and woodlands.

Tree preservation orders.

Retention and protection of trees.

The best and most significant trees are located on the edges of the site, outside the proposed development envelope and are to be retained. This protects the wooded character of the area and helps to screen the proposed buildings.

11. Noise and Vibration

SP Policy SE1 Noise related developments should not be harmful to the environment.

LP Policy BE22 Aircraft noise.

Policy BE23 Traffic noise.

Reasons: It is considered that the potential noise impacts during the demolition, construction and operation phases are not likely to seriously adversely affect local residents or protected wildlife species.

12. Energy Efficiency

SP Policy SE2 Encourages energy efficiency and 10% of energy requirement from renewable sources and use of combined heat and power technology for developments in excess of 500 sq m.

Reason: The applicant proposes that all buildings are constructed to a very good BREEAM standard and an energy statement to include passive design, energy efficiency systems and renewable energy technologies including an on-site combined heat and power technology.

13. Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

SP Policy SE1 Conserve and enhance the natural environment.

Policy SE6 Conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.

Policy SE7 Conservation and enhancement of designated sites.

Policy SE9 Protection and management of trees and woodland.

Policy SE10 Conserve river corridors and waterways

LP Policy NE15 Landscaping scheme

Policy NE16 Sites of international and national nature conservation importance

Policy NE17 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance

Policy NE18 Enhancement of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance

Policy NE20 Species protection

Reason: Chobham Common, an internationally important SPA, SAC and SSSI, adjoins the application site. The direct and indirect impacts have been fully considered and no adverse impact is envisaged subject to appropriate mitigation measures.

14. Sustainability

SP Policy LO1

Policy LO7

Policy SE2

Policy SE5

Policy SE6

Reason:

The protected species and habitats on the site will be retained and enhanced. An ecological buffer zone is to be provided and managed along with retention of some existing buildings to take full account of the relevant nature conservation interests.

Location of development

Employment land

Renewable energy and energy conservation

Protecting the heritage

Biodiversity

This is an isolated site in transport terms but the package of proposed public transport measures ensures that the development is made as sustainable as possible. A modern energy efficiency proposal which re-uses an existing brownfield employment site is environmentally sound and to be welcomed. Whilst the traffic generation is a concern, providing all of the other sustainability indicators come to fruition, would comply with all reasonable demands to be a sustainable development.